other executors, in a suit which was instituted in 1836 by a lady, claiming to be interested in the trust. Gloucester House was purchased by the Duchess, and the arrangements with respect to the purchase were also conducted by Mr. Currey; but in most of these transactions relating to the estate of the Duke, Mr. Currey acted more commonly as a trustee and co-executor with the other gentlemen, rather than as solicitor, and in many of those transactions no solicitor, strictly speaking, was engaged. The sales of the personal estate took place at different times, with the common advice and consent of the executors, Mr. Currey being in most cases the executor who immediately instructed the brokers and others for that purpose. From the time of the conveyance of 1835, the three trustees endeavoured to find a purchaser for the Bagshot estate, which was three times offered for sale by auction, the conditions of sale having been jointly determined upon. A negotiation was opened with the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, the estate having been considered a desirable purchase by them from its great extent, and its situation in the neighbourhood of other estates belonging to the Crown. The commissioners, however, then would not give more than 21,000l., which was refused. It appeared from the evidence in the cause, that there had been a proposal to buy the estate by the Hon. Robert Scarlett; and on the last attempt to sell by auction, which was in June, 1838, it was proposed, that the sale should be advertised as to take place without reserve, if Mr. Scarlett would undertake to give 25,000l., if there were no bidders to that amount.

This Mr. Scarlett refused, on the ground, as it was stated, that he saw no reason why he should be bound to a certain price, and thus placed in a different position from any other bidder. On this refusal, a reserved bidding of 25,000l. was fixed by the trustees. The plaintiff, Mr. Bulteel, was present at the auction, but there was no sale. The following day the plaintiff called on Mr. Currey, and offered 21,500l., which was not accepted, although Mr. Currey rather advised Lord Abinger to concur in accepting it. On the 17th of July, 1838, the plaintiff offered 22,2007. for the estate; and on that offer being communicated to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, they made a conditional offer of 23,000l. On the 19th of July, Mr. Currey received two notes from Mr. Scarlett, offering 22,000%. for the estate, and referring to a communication which he had had with Sir Edmund Currey, in which he understood the latter to give him the refusal of the purchase. A day or two afterwards Mr. Scarlett was informed of the offer made on behalf of the Crown, and he then also made a conditional offer of 23,000l., which was not accepted. Lord Abinger was at this time on the Oxford Circuit, and on the 23rd of July he wrote to Mr. Currey as follows:

"My dear Sir,-Having heard that my son has made some proposal to you and Edmund about the Rapley estate, I write to apprize you that it is exclusively his own affair, and has been his own doing. He will have no assistance from me in the matter, nor shall I take any interest directly or indirectly in it. Indeed I think I ought not to give any opinion on it, and shall decline doing so. I

"ABINGER. "I hope to be in town on the 3rd of August."

This letter was not received by Mr. Currey until the morning of the 25th of July. In the meantime, on the 24th of July, Mr. Bulteel increased the amount of his offer to 25,000l., which was communicated to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, but did not produce any advanced offer from them. Mr. Bulteel being anxious to bring the treaty to a conclusion, a meeting was appointed for the following day, of Sir Edmund Currey, Mr. Benjamin Currey, and Mr. Bulteel. Mr. Scarlett had then left town, and could not on that day be communicated with. Sir Edmund Currey thought he would not be likely to give so much as 25,000l., and Mr. Benjamin Currey, with the concurrence of Sir Edmund Currey, then agreed to sell the estate to Mr. Bulteel for 25,000l., and an appointment was made for the 30th of July, for the purpose of signing the contract. The following day, the 26th of July, Mr. Benjamin Currey wrote to Lord Abinger:

My dear Lord,- After a hard battle, I have at last sold the Bagshot estate to Mr. Bulteel for 25,000. It being absolutely necessary to determine yesterday, I sent to Erlwood for my brother, who came up and agreed, that under the circumstances, we ought to close the bargain, and that we might rest assured of your approbation. As Edmund wrote to you last night, it is unnecessary for me

"Monmouth, July 27, 1838. "Sir, I have received your letter, but having by the same post received communications which lead me to think that a higher price may be obtained for the estate than the sum of 25,000l., I cannot for the present consent to the sale to Mr. Bulteel at that price. I think you should inform Mr. Bulteel of this without delay.

As we sell as trustees, we are bound to get the highest price possible before we sign a contract. I shall be in town towards the end of next week.

"Yours truly, "ABINGER." Mr. Benjamin Currey immediately replied to his Lordship by the following letter:

"28th of July 1838.

"My dear Lord,-I received your letter, which places us in a difficulty. It leaves Mr. Bulteel free, and from what he has stated to me I must conclude any delay would lose him."

He then added his apprehensions that the estate would not again realise so large a price. Lord Abinger, in a letter in reply the

next day, sought to remove that apprehension, and said, "Mr. Bulteel is of course perfectly free." The following day Mr. Currey wrote to Lord Abinger as follows.

"30th July.

"Mr. Bulteel met me this morning, according to his appointment, and as Edmund and my self were completely pledged to the contract made with him, I could not refuse to sign the agree ment, he requiring me to do so in fulfilment of that pledge, but I at the same time told him the contents of your two last letters on the subject. It was impossible for me to act otherwise, after all that has passed between him, Edmund, and myself.

"Yours faithfully,

"B. CURREY." The contract, as intimated in the letter of Mr. Currey, was accordingly signed. The transactions were followed by a very voluminous correspondence; Lord Abinger insisting that as trustee he was bound to accept only the highest price which could be had for the estate. Mr. Bulteel insisting upon his purchase-Mr. Benjamin Currey stating his opinion that Mr. Bulteel was entitled to insist upon it-and Sir Edmund Currey rather concurring with Lord Abinger, that the highest price ought to be obtained. The bill was at length filed by Mr. Bulteel for specific performance of the contract of sale.

Sir T. Wilde, Mr. Coleridge, and Mr. Malins appeared for the plaintiff. There was no ques

tion that where there were several trustees to a sale, the concurrence of all the trustees was necessary to a binding contract. The argu

ments of the counsel for the plaintiff were directed to support the proposition, that Mr. Benjamin Currey was authorised to act as the agent of his co-trustee, Lord Abinger, so that the latter was bound by the agreement. The letter of Lord Abinger, dated the 23rd of July, was relied upon as conferring this authority, and the reserved bidding of 25,000l., formerly determined upon in the sale by auction, was also adverted to as authorising a sale at that price.

Mr. L. Wigram and Mr. Kenyon, for Sir Edmund Currey, said, that it appeared by his answer, and by the letters in evidence, that it was not the fact that he had stated to Mr. Benjamin Currey that he would answer for Lord Abinger's concurrence in the sale; that, on the contrary, he had said that he could answer for no one but himself. They stated that Sir Edmund Currey was willing to concur in whatever was right, and the party in this suit who should prove to be in the wrong, must pay the costs incurred by Sir Edmund Currey.

The Solicitor-General, Mr. Simpkinson, and Mr. Elmsley, appeared for Lord Abinger.

The Solicitor-General said, that the suit had been instituted without any expectation of obtaining a decree for specific performance; that the object had been to force Lord Abinger into performance of the contract by the threat of a suit, and the insinuation of improper motives of partiality towards his son. There was no pretence for considering the letter of the 23rd of July as an authority to sell to Mr. Bulteel. It merely said that, "considering my connexion with the proposed buyer, so far as he is concerned, I shall

take no steps to assist him in the purchase." It was no abdication of his trust. He was bound to require the highest price, and to sell to the highest bidder, whoever that person might be. The contemporary letters showed that Mr. Currey did not consider himself the agent of Lord Abinger, and it was not on that foundation that the suit was originally instituted. The contract was repudiated before it was signed on the 30th of July. Mr. Bulteel took the contract of two trustees, knowing the sale was repudiated by the third, and he must be responsible for the costs of the suit, instituted without any foundation.

To-day (March 23rd), Vicechancellor Sir I. Wigram gave judgment-and after having gone through the evidence at great length recapitulated the facts of the case as follows:-" Now the present circumstances were these:

The sale of the estate had been the business of all the trustees from 1835 until 1838. Their object had been to obtain the best price; they had declined to fix any price. When they had a bidding from one party, they carried it to other bidders, to see whether, by this species of competition, the price could be improved; and this principle was uniformly acted upon, except in this single instance out of which this litigation arose. Nothing but the consent of all the trustees would justify a departure from this mode of dealing. In this state of things Lord Abinger left London for the circuit, and while upon the circuit he learnt that his son was a bidder for the Bagshot estate, and then he wrote the letter of the 23rd July which was as follows:

"My dear Sir,-Having heard that my son has made some proposal to you and Edmund about the Rapley estate, I write to apprize you that it is exclusively his own affair, and has been his own doing. He will have no assistance from me in the matter, nor shall I take any interest directly or indirectly in it. Indeed I think I ought not to give any opinion on it, and shall decline doing so. I presume his object is in a great measure to gratify Edmund, which I hope he may be able to do without any loss to himself.

"Yours truly,

'ABINGER. "I hope to be in town on the 3rd of August."

It was not possible to read that letter in connexion with the circumstances, and to understand it as intended to supersede the arrangement for securing the benefit of competition among private bidders. Whether the letter would have authorised Mr. Currey to sell to Mr. Scarlett, without first giving Lord Abinger the opportunity of putting a veto upon the contract

whether Lord Abinger was right in saying, that the import of the letter with reference to his duty as a trustee left him a veto even upon a contract with Mr. Scarlett-are questions which might admit of argument. But that letter could not be read as giving any authority to sell the estate, even to Mr. Scarlett, except he was the highest bidder, at a price which the other trustees should think sufficient. If that were Lord Abinger's meaning, he left the estate at least the benefit of that protection which competition would insure. If he did not intend so to limit the authority to sell to his son, he must have intended, in favour to his son

alone, to withdraw that protection from the estate which had theretofore been uniformly given. Even with that protection, he (His Honour) inclined strongly to think, that Lord Abinger could not lawfully delegate to his co-trustees an authority to sell the estate to his son, without reserving to himself a veto upon the contract. The letter of the 23rd July could not reasonably be carried beyond this -that if Mr. Scarlett should prove the best bidder for the estate, Lord Abinger would not interfere, or give an opinion whether his bidding should be accepted or not. The letter could not be perverted into an authority to sell to Mr. Scarlett, unless he were the best bidder, nor, as far as language went, could it be construed as an authority to sell to any one, except Mr. Scarlett, upon those terms. Nor could the motive which actuated Lord Abinger in writing that letter apply to any one except his son. It was argued, however, by the plaintiff, that a letter conferring such an authority, not equally applying to other persons, would involve Lord Abinger in the difficulty of having imposed terms upon a sale to others, to which his son was not subjected-a construction incompatible with Lord Abinger's sense of honour. This argument was ingenious rather than sound. The argument, so far as it proceeded upon Lord Abinger's disclaimer of interest, imputed to him motives very different from those by which the court was bound to believe him actuated-namely, motives of duty to his cestui que trusts, and not of interest in favour of his son. And this observation, if well founded, met the whole argument, and if not, the argument was dis. placed by the observation, that the

letter of the 23rd of July put Mr. Scarlett and all other bidders on the same footing, at all events to the extent of allowing no one to be the purchaser unless he were the highest bidder. If there were any difference, it would not arise until, by outbidding all others, he had acquired a right to call for the approbation of the trustees. But that state of things never arose ; in fact, it was the unfortunate omission of Mr. Currey and Sir Edmund to offer the estate to Mr. Scarlett, that had given rise to the present question. It was his genuine opinion, that throughout the whole transaction, Mr. Currey had acted a strictly honest part; but he could not avoid thinking that he had, unconsciously to himself, allowed the impressions made upon his mind in the later stages of the case to influence his opinion of the effect of the former transactions. The bill must be dismissed.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.

DEVIZES.
August 19.

ROOKE V. CONWAY.

Mr. Erle and Mr. Barstow conducted the plaintiff's case, and Mr. Crowder and Mr. Butt that of the defendant.

This was an action to recover compensation in damages for a breach of promise of marriage. The plaintiff was the daughter of a tradesman in Salisbury, and, it would seem, was rather an accomplished individual. She was twentyeight years of age. The defendant was a merchant at Poole, the first cousin of the plaintiff, but sixty-eight summers had passed over his head. He was a widower