sufficient part thereof, be sold accordingly, with the approba-
tion of the said Master, to the best purchaser or purchasers that
can be got for the same, to be allowed of by the said Master,
wherein all proper parties are to join, as the Master shall di-
rect (e); and in order to such sale, let all deeds and writings.
in the custody or power of any of the parties relating to the said
premises be produced before the said Master, and let the money
to arise by the said sale be paid into the Bank, with the privity
of the Accountant-General of this Court, to the credit of this
cause, subject to the further order of this Court; and in case
the money to arise by the said sale shall not be sufficient for
payment of what shall be so found due to the plaintiff as afore-
said, declare that he will be entitled to have the deficiency made
good out of the general assets of the said testator in a due course
of administration; and in the event of such sale as aforesaid, re-
serve the consideration of all further directions, and of the plain-
tiff's subsequent costs of this suit, and the costs of the defendants,
the devisees, until after the said sale; and any of the parties are
to be at liberty to apply to this Court as there shall be occa- served.
sion.

In case of sale
subsequent
the plaintiff's
costs, and the
devisees' costs

of the suit, re

COOKE V. COLLINGRIDGE.

A PETITION was opened to discharge two orders in the cause; when it appeared that one of such orders had been made by the Lord Chancellor and the other by the Master of the Rolls: and thereupon, the petition being remitted to be heard by the Lord Chancellor, it was strongly urged, that the petitioners ought to pay costs, as in the case of a motion having a similar irregular object.

veyance of the legal estate and a foreclosure. In Price v. Carver, 3 Mylne and Craig, 157, foreclosure was ordered in default of redemption. But see the Lord Chancellor's remark (p. 161).

(e) A sale being ordered, and not a foreclosure, no day for showing cause was given to the infant devisees. See 1 William 4, c. 47, sect. 11; Scholefield v. Heafield, 7 Simons, 667, 669; and Price v. Carver, 3 Mylne and Craig, 157, 163.

VICE-CHANCELLOR.-There is no analogy: the insertion of the petition in my paper is the act of the officer, whilst a notice of motion proceeds from the solicitor.

Mr. Cooper for the petitioners. Mr. Knight for the respondents.

V. C. Nov. 10. 1837.

tion of

such possession

was not ac

quired in
that character.

WILLIAM STAGG v. JOHN OWEN and WILLIAM
HOWARD.

Plaintiff not en- IN March, 1837, Joseph Parkes agreed to sell a house to titled to produc- Godfrey Booker for 600l. W. B. Thomas acted as ments admitted solicitor both for the vendor and purchaser. In 1831, the to be in possession of the so- contract being still incomplete, Booker died. The delicitor of the defendants, it fendants and Thomas were his devisees and executors. being suggested Thomas was also dead. The plaintiff, as surviving trustee under a deed executed by Parkes for the benefit of his creditors, instituted this suit for a specific performance of the contract, and a motion was now made for a production of the deeds and documents relating to the property, and the contract described in the schedule to the answer. The answer of the defendants admitted that the deeds and documents were in the possession of a Mr. Gratton, who was their solicitor, but added, that they came into the hands of Gratton "in consequence of his having the management of the affairs of the said W. B. Thomas after his death."

The VICE-CHANCELLOR thought, that whether Thomas was considered as having acquired the deeds and documents as solicitor to Parkes and Booker, or as one of Booker's trustees and executors, yet that possession of Gratton could not strictly be considered as that of the defendants, and refused the motion with costs.

Mr. K. Parker for the plaintiff. Mr. Cooper for the defendants.

H. B. KAMPF and others v. THOMAS JONES, RICH-
ARD PEYTON, JOHN PARKER, FRANCIS BRYANT
ADAMS, and JOHN ORAM and others.

M. R. Nov. 11. 1837.

Costs of trustees rate answers and putting in sepa

THE object of the suit was to execute the trusts of two indentures of 28th December, 1815, and 17th November, 1817, and the will of Mrs. Kampf, which, besides dispos- appearing by ing of her personal estate, exercised powers of appoint- citors. ment conferred by such two indentures.

The defendants Jones and Peyton were trustees under the first-mentioned indenture, and the defendants Parker and Adams, together with the defendant Peyton, were trustees under the second-mentioned indenture. The defendants Jones, Adams, and Oram were executors and trustees under Mrs. Kampf's will, but the latter had not proved.

The defendants Peyton, Parker, and Adams had put in separate answers, and appeared by different solicitors and counsel: and it was now insisted, at the hearing of the cause on further directions, that they should have such costs only as they would have been entitled to had they answered and appeared jointly.

Mr. Cooper, for the defendant Parker (a), submitted that the matter should be sent for the consideration of the Master. Had the same solicitor been concerned the Master would have had authority under the 27th of the General Orders of April, 1828.

different soli

Death of one of

three trustees, no provision having been made for

(a) The defendant Parker had died since the decree which had directed certain accounts and inquiries affecting him and his cotrustees, but in respect of which no relief was upon further directions sought against his estate. No bill of revivor had been his costs. filed, but the plaintiffs consented to his executors now appearing for the purpose of claiming to have his costs of the suit taxed and paid. Consult Lord Redesdale's Treatise, p. 46, 3rd edit.; Johnson v. Peck, 2 Vesey, sen. 465; Hall v. Smith, 1 Brown C. C. 438; Blower v. Morrets, 3 Atkins, 772; Jenour v. Jenour, 10 Vesey, 562, 572.

The MASTER OF THE ROLLS said the question was proper to be adjudicated by the Court. See Nicholson v. Falkiner, 1 Molloy, 555.

It was then contended that, looking at the diversity of characters they filled, the defendants Peyton, Parker, and Adams were justified in separating their defence, and especially as distinct misconduct was imputed to the defendant Parker.

The MASTER OF THE ROLLS, upon those grounds, gave all those defendants their costs as between solicitor and client.

Mr. Kindersley for the plaintiffs. Mr. Spence for the defendant Peyton. Mr. Lloyd for the defendant Adams.

M. R. Nov. 25. 1837.

Confidential

communications

and client not

PRITCHARD and others v. JOHN FOULKES, JOHN
MADDOCK JONES and others.

In this suit, which had for its object the execution of a between solicitor trust-deed for the benefit of the defendant Jones's creditors, a motion was made for the production and inspection of various documents in the possession of the defendant Foulkes, who was the trustee under that deed.

privileged in a cause to carry into effect an indenture for the benefit of the client's creditors, the solicitor having taken upon him

self the office of trustee under

such indenture.

The defendant Foulkes by his answer stated, that he had long been the solicitor of the defendant Jones, and that the said documents in part consisted of letters and papers, many of which were confidential communications that had passed between himself and the defendant Jones as his professional adviser.

The MASTER OF THE ROLLS expressed an opinion that no such letters and papers of dates subsequent to the trustdeed were privileged. After some discussion it was agreed that there should be a production of all the documents, except certain letters and papers, which it was alleged in nowise related to the trust affairs, those letters and papers to be specified by affidavit.

Mr. Dixon for the motion. Mr. Cooper against it.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. LUBBOCK.

(Morden College.)

L. C.

April 21, 22.
Nov. 6.

1837.

Directions in

the will of the

founder, giving

ment and ma

the sole govern

not shut out the

such visitors are

SIR JOHN MORDEN, baronet, made his will dated the 15th October, 1702, which, after giving to his wife, Dame Susan Morden, his mansion-house and lands adjoining, together with an annuity of 6007. for life, and appointing her exe- nagement of a charity to the cutrix, proceeded as follows:-And my further will visitors, does and mind is, and I do hereby give and devise unto Sir jurisdiction of Edmund Harrison, Daniel Morse, and P. Barnardis- this Court when ton, and the survivor of them, his heirs and assigns for also the trustees of the charity ever, all other my real and copyhold estate of inheritance estates. of which I now am or may be seised during my life, and which is not herein before devised or disposed of; subject nevertheless to the payment of the said annuity of 6007. per annum to my said dear wife, Susan Morden, during her life to have and to hold the same unto the said Sir Edmund Harrison, Daniel Morse, and P. Barnardiston, their heirs and assigns, in trust, and for the uses, intents and purposes following; that is to say, I will and order that there be placed in the college now finished by me, and situate in a certain field called Greatstone, in the parish of Charlton, near Blackheath, in Kent, as many poor, honest, sober, and discreet merchants as the clear yearly rent and revenue of my said real or copyhold estate of inheritance will maintain, according to the allotments and provisions hereunder appointed; which said poor merchants I direct may be of the age of fifty years a-piece at the least, and such as have lost their estates by accidents, dangers and perils of the seas, or by any other accidents, ways or means in their honest endeavours to get their living by way of merchandizing. And I do hereby declare my will to be, that each of the said poor merchants be allowed, and accordingly I do give and allow each of them, a pension of 201. a-year to be paid and laid out to and for them in such manner as is hereinafter directed and appointed; and my will is, that there shall be, with and out of their