Form of such order. Affidavits to ground it. Also, form of order under said act for service upon attornies receiv DE SAULCY V. DE SAULCY, DANIEL, and others. MR. COOPER, during the holidays, moved on behalf of the expres The order, which was grounded upon the two affidavits subsequently set out, was as follows:-" Ordered, that service within a month on the defendant De Saulcy, at or in the neighlands here, the bourhood of Rouen, or elsewhere, in France, of a subdefendant being abroad. pœna, to appear and answer within a month from the time of such service, be good service on the said defendant." ing rents of The two affidavits-First affidavit-Charles Druce, the younger, solicitor to the above named plaintiff, maketh oath and saith, that the bill in this cause is filed for the purpose of carrying into effect a decree of the Civil Tribunal of First Instance for the Commercial Circuit of Rouen, in France, pronounced on the 23d day of January last, in a suit wherein the above named plaintiff was complainant, and the above named defendant, Louis Marie Joseph Eugene Caignart de Sauley, was defendant, by which decree the said tribunal did pronounce the said complainant to be separated in property, and authorized her to resume the administration or management thereof, and to enjoy separately and apart her real estates and the whole of her property, and to resume the seisin of the enjoyment of all her rents or annuities payable either by individuals or by the French government, or by foreign governments. And this deponent saith, that the above-named plaintiff by her bill filed in this Honorable Court, prays, amongst other things, that it may be declared by the decree of this Court, that as against the said defendant L. M. J. E. Caignart de Saulcy, she is entitled to several sums of 3 per cent. consolidated and 3 per cent. reduced annuities, standing in the books of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England in her name, by her description of Marie Anne Catherine Elizabeth Worrell, of Rouen, in France, widow; and to several sums of new 3 and 3 per cent. annuities, standing in the name of William Bryant Worrell, deceased, the first husband of the said plaintiff, and a sum of 3 per cent. reduced annuities, standing in the name of the defendant, John Daniel, in the books of the said Governor and Company of the Bank of England, and the dividends respectively due thereon, and her other property and effects for her separate use, and that she is entitled to have the same property secured for such separate use accordingly. And this deponent saith, that by the decree of the said Tribunal at Rouen, the above-named defendant, L. M. J. E. Caignart de Saulcy, is described as residing at No. 20, Rue Beffroy, in Rouen aforesaid, and is stated to have appeared to the said suit on notification served on him at Rouen aforesaid: and it is stated in the said decree, that the said defendant having contracted numerous debts, was prosecuted by his creditors, and even the furniture belonging to the said Mrs. De Saulcy had been seized. And this deponent saith, from the circumstances last mentioned, he is apprehensive that the said defendant, L. M. J. E. C. de Saulcy, may not be found in Rouen, where as this deponent is informed and believes there is a resident British Vice-Consul. And this deponent saith, that it is proposed to effect service of a subpoena against the said defendant, L. M. J. E. C. de Saulcy, to appear and answer the said plaintiff's bill, by sending over a messenger from London to Rouen aforesaid, who may serve or cause the said defendant to be served, if found there, and get such service authenticated by the British Vice-Consul there, or if the said defendant be not found at Rouen, may be enabled to discover him and serve or cause the said subpoena to be served upon him, and get such service authenticated by the British Consul or Vice-Consul, or M. R. July 28, 1838. other authority in the place or neighbourhood where the said defendant may be discovered, so as in either case afterwards to have such service duly authenticated in this Court.-Second affidavit-Charles Druce, the younger, solicitor to the above-named plaintiff, maketh oath and saith, he has been informed and believes that the above-named defendant, Louis Marie Joseph Eugene Caignart de Soulcy, is now living either at Rouen, in France, or in the neighbourhood thereof, or in some place in the kingdom of France. The ensuing order was pronounced by the Master of the Rolls a short time before, under the provisions of the same statute: PHILLIPS V. PHILLIPS. Upon opening of the matter this day unto this Court by the counsel for the plaintiff, it was alleged that the plaintiff has exhibited his bill in this Court concerning certain charges, liens, or incumbrances upon lands situate in England, as by the plaintiff's bill appears. That it appears by the affidavit of the plaintiff, that the defendant, Patrick Phillips, resides at Bath Town, Berkeley Springs, Virginia, in the United States of North America, and that the deponent believes that Thomas Brooksbank and Edward Farn, the attorneys of the said defendant, Patrick Phillips, under a power, and also his solicitors in this country, are in the receipt of the rents and profits of the estates and premises in question in this cause for the said defendant; and that the said deponent has been informed by Mr. Riley, one of the tenants of part of the said premises, that the rent due from him in respect of the said premises, to Lady-day last, was paid by him to the said Messrs. Brooksbank and Farn, for the said defendant, Patrick Phillips. It was therefore prayed, that service of a subpoena for the said defendant, Patrick Phillips, to appear to answer the plaintiff's bill, returnable within three months, on Messrs. Brooksbank and Farn, may be deemed good service on the said defendant, Patrick Phillips. Which, upon hearing the said affidavit read, is ordered accordingly. The reported cases under the above statute and the 2 & 3 William 4, c. 33, which it enlarged, are, M'Master v. Lomax, 2 Mylne & Keen, 32; Cameron v. Cameron, ibid. 289; Parker v. Lloyd, 5 Simons, 508; Hasluck v. Stewart, 6 Simons, 321; Godson v. Cook, 7 Simons, 519. So Harrison v. Hindes, V. C. June, 1836. In M'Master v. Lomax, the order directed the service of a copy of the prayer of the bill in conformity with the 3d section of 2 & 3 William 4: see the note 5 Simons, 510. SANGAR and others v. GARDINER and others. (Two Causes.) V.C. April 24. 1838. the one partner obtains an order in partnership: in the name of a client; the then dissolved, partnership is and the client and the other partner come as co-petitioners to discharge the order, and for other relief: Held, on By a petition presented in these causes to the Lord Two solicitors Chancellor by the above-named plaintiff Sangar, and by Thomas Cooper, a solicitor of the Court, it was stated that on the petition of the petitioner, Benjamin Sangar, an order was made in the above causes, dated the 1st day of June, 1836, whereby it was referred to the Master to tax the plaintiff, Benjamin Sangar, his costs of the application for the said order, and to tax and settle the costs, charges, and expenses of the plaintiffs in and about the prosecution of those causes properly incurred and not paid up to the date of an order of the 6th day of June, 1822, but including the costs of the taxation and settling such costs, charges, and expenses: and it was ordered that certain stocks to the credit of the causes should be sold, and out of the money arising by the sale, it was ordered that the said costs, charges, and expenses should be paid to Mr. Brooks, the petitioner, B. Sangar's solicitor. That the petition on which the said order was pronounced was presented in the name of the petitioner, Benjamin Sangar, by the said Mr. Brooks, acting as his solicitor, it was a mis joinder for such other partner to unite in it. Covenant on dissolution of partnership be tween solicitors, that various debts and costs should only be received by them jointly. In a suit, in which of such covenant costs the subject Further relief but without any direction for the purpose from, and with- are due, a stop order only may out the personal knowledge of, the said petitioner, Benjamin be obtained. Sangar, and that the petitioner, Benjamin Sangar, was not against breach aware until within the last few days that the said Mr. Brooks was going to receive any sum out of Court for costs of the covenant as regards those costs must be sought by bill. in these causes due to the last-named petitioner,—the said petitioner, Benjamin Sangar, being under the mistaken impression that the said Mr. Brooks could not receive any such sums out of Court without the said petitioner first executing a power of attorney to enable him to receive the same, and which power of attorney he had never executed. That the said Master made his report, dated the 24th of July, 1837, whereby he certified that he had taxed such costs, charges, and expenses, including the plaintiff's costs of the application, at sums amounting altogether to 2897. 11s., which was to be raised and paid in such manner as the said order of the 1st day of June, 1836, directed. That the said Mr. Brooks had never acted alone as the solicitor of the petitioner, Benjamin Sangar, in these causes previously to the month of November, 1836, but that during the progress of these causes the said Mr. Brooks had, in conjunction with his partners, acted as the solicitor of the petitioner, Benjamin Sangar, as follows; viz. up to the 14th September, 1825, in conjunction with Mr. Grane; from the 14th September, 1825, to the 24th June, 1832, in conjunction with the said Mr. Grane and the petitioner, Thomas Cooper; and from the 24th June, 1832, to the 10th of November, 1836, in conjunction with the petitioner, Thomas Cooper; and since the 10th November, 1836, the said Mr. Brooks appeared to have acted alone as the solicitor of the petitioner, Benjamin Sangar, though withont any distinct authority from the petitioner, Benjamin Sangar, so to do. That, consequently, the bills of costs of the petitioner, Benjamin Sangar, in respect of these causes, to the month of November, 1836, were bills which had become due not to the said Mr. Brooks individually, but to the said respective firms of Brooks and Grane; Brooks, Grane and Cooper; and Brooks and Cooper; and the said Mr. Brooks individually had no claim against the petitioner, Benjamin Sangar, save for costs incurred since the 10th day of November, 1836, relative to the said order of 1st June, 1836, |