HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0773 and id is 1 raw text is: LEAF V. COLES
reference to the question of costs only, the suit cannot be said to be justified by that
of London and North-Western Railway Company v. Smith, in which the amount in dispute
was considerable. In such a case as this (as was said by your Lordships when it was
before you upon the motion for an injunction), it was quite clear that infinitely more
-expense and inconvenience would be produced by the interference of the Court than
by its refusal to interfere. Therefore, even if Smith's case were still considered to have
been well decided, it would not justify such a suit as the present.
Mr. R. Palmer and Mr. C. Hall, for the Plaintiffs. The case of the London and
iVorth- Western Railway Company v. Smith (1 Mac. & G 216) was a sufficient authority
-for the [169] institution of this suit. And the cases which have been relied on as
being at variance with that authority were distinguished from it by the learned Judges
'who decided them, and who expressly disclaimed any intention of overruling London and
_Vorth-Western Railway Company v. Smith (1 Mae. & G. 216). That case has now, therefore,
been for the first time overruled, and this circumstance should exempt the Plaintiffs
from payment of costs: Robinson v. Rosher (1 Y. & C. C. C. 7). If the company had
nominated an arbitrator, that step would amount to an admission of the existence of
:some damage. This, indeed, is a stronger case for the interference of the Court than
,Smith's case, on account of the provisions of the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act.
Mr. Terrell, in reply.
TilE LORD JUSTICE LORD CRANWORTH. We think that the order of the Master
.f the Rolls was quite right, except that the Defendant ought to have had the costs
of his motion to dismiss, and with the qualification which I shall mention; for we
think that the bill was filed upon the authority of existing, much-considered decisions,
which were sufficient to warrant the Plaintiffs in filing the bill, and so to entitle them,
ats was held by my learned brother in Robinson v. Rosher (1 Y. & C. C. C. 7), to have
their bill dismissed, without costs. It was argued that this was a special case, and
not within the authority of London and North-Western Railway Company v. Smith (1
Mac. & G. 216), but we look in vain for any valid distinction between them. The
eases are as nearly similar as two such cases can be expected to be. It has been
said that the smallness of demand ought to induce the Court to [170] say that the
bill ought never to have been filed. That, however, is always a difficult question to
,deal with, and it seems that there were many other persons besides the Defendant
who would be affected by the question. We think the case was within the authority
of London and North-Western Railway Company v. Smith, and as the doctrine on which
that case proceeded has been since got rid of, the Defendant is entitled to have the
bill dismissed, but without costs, so far as that case warranted the institution of the
present suit. But there is nothing in that case to lead to the inference that the De-
fendant there would not have had his costs if the case had proceeded, and he had
obtained compensation in the action which the Court there held must be brought.
And in the present case, if the Defendant should establish a right to compensation, he
will be in a different position from that in which he now stands. We propose, there-
fore, to vary the order of the Master of the Rolls, by giving the Defendant the costs
of his motion to dismiss, and to affirm the order in other respects; but to give the
Defendant liberty to apply as to the other costs of the suit, if he shall before the last
,day of Trinity Term next establish his right to compensation.
[171] LEAF v. COLES. (1) And in the Matter of JAMES COLES, a Lunatic; and of
THE ACT 8 & 9 VICT. c. 100. Before the Lord Chancellor Lord Truro.
Dec. 10, 1851.
[S. C. 1 De G. M. & G. 417.]
Decree made for the dissolution of a partnership in consequence of the lunacy of one
of the partners.
The Plaintiffs, William Leaf, William Smith, Michael Brunkston, William Saddler
Leaf, and Charles James Leaf, were partners with the Defendant James Coles as
-merchants. The object of the suit was to obtain a dissolution as against the Defend-
ant James Coles of the partnership then subsisting between him and the Plaintiffs.
The Defendant, who had become lunatic, was found to be such by the report of the
I DE G. M. & G. 169.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0773&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)