1834. Ex parte SOLARTE and others. In the matter of DYER and another. adverted to, except for the purpose of showing how little reliance is to be placed on this case of ex parte Solarte, thus loosely reported, as an authority, even if it were at variance (which it is not) with the principles on which we conceive the present case must be decided. A distinction has been attempted to be established as to one of the bills for 2937., which was an acceptance of Dyer and Swayne, given to Alzedo in exchange for an acceptance of Alzedo's to the same amount, indorsed by Dyer and Swayne, on which last acceptance Messrs. Grote and Prescott (the holders) have received dividends on all the estates to the amount of 20s. in the pound; and it is contended on the part of the assignees of Dyer and Swayne, that this bill having been proved against their estate, and they having paid dividends to Grote and Prescott on its amount, and as the bill is now in their possession, they are entitled to set it off against the cross bills accepted by Dyer and Swayne, which is one of those now sought to be proved by the assignees of Alzedo. On the principle, however, which we conceive ought to govern the present case, which is to be found in ex parte Clanricarde, Cooke's B. L. 160, S. C. Bayley on Bills, 425, and the cases which have followed that decision, it will not be necessary to make any special order respecting this bill for 2937. The order which we think it right to make is that the assignees of Alzedo be admitted to prove on all the acceptances of Dyer and Swayne in their hands, retaining the dividends until further directions, after it shall have been ascertained what each estate, including that of Knowles and Son, shall have paid on the whole of their mutual liabilities; and, to guard against any objection on the ground of an indefinite suspension of payment, let any party be at liberty to apply whenever it shall be probable that this account may be finally settled. Ex parte DE BEGNIS and others.-In the matter of a LAPORTE, being tenant of the King's Theatre or Italian Opera House in the Haymarket, London, under a lease from the assignees, at a rent of 13,2507, in August 1833, petitioned the Court of Review for reference to Mr. Commissioner Holroyd, whether it would not be beneficial to the estate and the interests of the theatre that an abatement of the rent should be made, which reference was ordered. The commissioner, after examining witnesses, made the following certificate: "I hereby certify, that, in my opinion, it would be beneficial to the estate of the said bankrupt that the rent of the theatre, referred to in the said petition, for the first season and for the residue of the petitioner's lease, should be reduced to the sum of 10,000l. per annum, provided the petitioner can procure good security for the payment of such rent to the assignees. During this inquiry it was stated to me by a solicitor, that a client of his would give 11,000l. per annum for the theatre, with good security for the payment of the rent; but, from the evidence adduced before me with relation to the management of the theatre from the year 1828 to 1833 inclusive, and the receipts and expenditure during that period, it does not appear to me that a higher rent than 10,000l. per annum will afford a fair remunerating profit to a lessee, after paying all expences. Had the rent been 10,000l. per annum in 1828, 1829, 1830, and 1831, the average annual profit to the lessee, after paying all costs, would have been about 2,1007. Dated this 12th day of September 1833. Edward Holroyd." Laporte petitioned to confirm this report. The petition was heard on the 21st of November 1833, the 1834. Ex parte DE BEGNIS and others. In the matter of CHAMBERS. assignees appearing, and not opposing, whereupon the Court made an order in effect confirming the report, and referring to Mr. Gregg, one of the deputy registrars, to settle the terms of the new lease, if the parties differed about the same, with liberty for either party to apply. On the 22d of November, on the application of the present petitioners, the drawing up of this order was suspended. This was a petition praying that the proceedings already had should be rescinded, the certificate declared defective and erroneous, and discharged or rescinded, or that it might be referred back, and that in the mean time the order should not be drawn up. Mr. Temple and Mr. O. Anderdon, for the petition, contended that the order ought to be discharged with costs, having been improperly and collusively obtained. Mr. Swanston and Mr. Montagu, for the assignees of Chambers, said that the amount of rent offered was not the only point for consideration, one very material circumstance being the permanent good or bad effect which the management of the tenant may produce; it being obvious that it might be most injurious to accept a large offer from a man wholly unacquainted with theatrical management, the ultimate effect of which would be the ruin of the concern. If the assignees have misconducted themselves in assenting to the reduction of rent, the proper course is to petition to charge them with what, without their wilful default, they might have received. Mr. Twiss and Mr. Keen, for Laporte the tenant. The CHIEF JUDGE: The order complained of is, as it affects the interests of the applicants, mere waste paper. I made the ori ginal order reluctantly, knowing that, if the assignees were wrong, the report, though confirmed, would be no justification or protection, and that, if right, they might confidently proceed without the order of this Court; but it was urged, that it would at least furnish evidence of their good intentions, and even enable creditors to come forward, if there were any objections; and, finally, the order was made on importunity. The whole amounts to no more than an application to reduce rent made by the tenant, the assignees consenting, and the Court confirming. The only use, therefore, of the order is to prove that the assignees acted openly. The same reasons which would have led me to refuse the order originally now induce me to refuse this application to annul it. At the present moment that order has no effect on the rights of the petitioners to call the assignees to account; but I am apprehensive that if the Court made any order on their petition, they would be so bound thereby as to be deprived of their remedies. The Court might also refuse to interfere on the present occasion, quite independently of the merits, and on the simple ground of this being an application to rescind or vary an order made by persons not bound by it, nor parties to it, and which is yet in minutes. I wish it to be distinctly understood, that the ground of my refusal to accede to the present application is, that by so doing some confirmatory force might, as against the present applicants, be given to an order which ought not to be so confirmed. This petition must be dismissed, but, the Court not being unanimous, without costs. Sir John Cross: I hope that nothing I say will injure the assignees, or tend to impeach the uprightness 1834. Ex parte DE BEGNIS and others. In the matter of CHAMBERS. The Court will not vary the minutes of an order on the application of persons not parties to, or bound by it. 1834. Ex parte DE BEGNIS and others. In the matter of CHAMBERS. of their motives. It has been urged, that we ought to refuse to interfere to discharge the order in question, because, in a case before Lord Eldon, he declined to act on the application of a lessee. I continually hear cases which different Chancellors have refused to hear cited to induce this Court to refuse to interfere on similar occasions; but it by no means follows that because Lord Chancellors sitting in a court over burthened with business readily admit reasons for avoiding to hear causes, that this tribunal, which is not so overloaded, should decline to entertain petitions. It has been said, we need not vary this order, because it is of no validity. I do not wish to hear the orders of any Court treated as nullities. This Court ordered an inquiry, whereupon a report was made and confirmed; and why? for what was all this done? for the benefit of the creditors. But the report is, that De Begnis offers 11,000l. with security; and the reason given for not approving of the offer is, that the lessee could not receive enough profit if he paid 11,000l. If that reason be valid this conclusion must be arrived at, that, if Laporte himself were now to offer to pay 11,000l., the assignees ought to refuse to receive more than 10,000l. When the Court confirmed the order it was done as a matter of course, there being no opposition. It is now, however, opposed, and the question arises, Have the petitioners any locus standi in curia? In my opinion they undoubtedly have; they are the cestuis que trust of the assignees, and state that the certificate, if acted on, will induce results highly injurious to their interests. I therefore regret that I cannot concur in the opinion that they have no such interests as to entitle them to the prayer of their petition. Sir George Rose: This is a very simple case. The assignees have let |