« ElőzőTovább »
and accompanied the grant of the charter of King James, and having read all the documents produced in this cause, to some only of which, though at the expence of so much time, I have but shortly adverted, and having also considered the conduct of the parties under the charter for so long a series of years, I am of opinion that the powers granted to the Society, and the trusts reposed in them, were, in part, of a general and public nature, independent of the private benefit of the companies of London, and were intended by the Crown to benefit Ireland and the city of London, by connecting the city of Londonderry and the town of Coleraine, and a considerable Irish district with the city of London, and to promote the general purposes of the plantation, not only by securing the performance of the conditions imposed on ordinary undertakers, but also by the exercise of powers, and the performance of trusts, not within the scope of those conditions.
The charter of Charles II. expressly recites, that the property not actually divided was retained for the general operation of the plantation; and considering that the powers given to the Irish Society for the general operation of the plantation were of a general and public or political nature, ---- that the property remaining vested in the Society is applicable towards such general operation, and that the companies of London, though interested in any surplus which may remain after the general purposes are answered, are not entitled to control the exercise of the powers which are given for general and public purposes, ** I do not think that this Court has jurisdiction, upon the application of the companies, to determine upon the propriety of the expenditure which has been made. It must not be inferred that I approve of some of the items of expence which were commented upon in hthie argument. I express no opinion upon the subject,
thinking that the Society have a discretion, which, though controllable elsewhere, and in another manner, is not to be controlled in this Court upon such a bill as this.
The SKINNERS' Company
v. The Irish Society.
And upon the whole I think that the bill must be dismissed with costs as against the Irish Society, the city of London, and the Attorney-General: without costs as against the other companies, unless it shall appear that any of the companies have opposed the claim of the Plaintiffs.
THE PRINCIPAL MATTERS.
against parties, depending on the
of his “surplus capital.” By the
ficient to pay the two legacies.
state of things, declined to charge
against the tenant for life to re-
See DECREE, 2.
band. - Inman v. Whitley. 337
of a banking company established
amongst several persons. An ac-
demurrer. The Barnsley Canal
See BREACH OF TRUST, 2, 3.
VENDOR AND PURCHASER, 2, 3.
1. Under the 13th amended Order
of 1828, the six weeks after the
answer is to be deemed sufficient,
within which a Plaintiff can ob-
tain an order to amend, has re-
ference to the answer to the
original and not to an amended
bill. The Guardians of Wimborne
amended. The Defendant an-
swered the amended bill. Six
with power thereout to advance when the first, but not from the
PLEADING, 1.. .
principal sum invested in the
2. A testator