1. LORD ELDON............ .....Lord Chancellor. SIR WILLIAM GRANT........Master of the Rolls. SIR THOMAS PLUMER........Vice-Chancellor. SIR WILLIAM GARROW......Attorney-General. SIR ROBERT DALLAS.. .. ...Solicitor-General. CASES IN CHANCERY, &c. 1812, 53 Geo. 3. A BLYTH v. ELMHIRST. THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS, for THE LORD CHANCELLOR. 1812, Oct. 31. BILL having been filed by the Plaintiffs, as Ven- Reference of dors, against the Defendant, as Purchaser, for a Title before specific Performance, the Defendant by his Answer, ad- Decree only, mitting the Agreement, alledged Laches on the Part of where the Title the Plaintiffs, in not compleating their Contract in due alone is disTime, as a Ground for his not being compelled to per- puted: refused form it. A Motion was made by the Plaintiff, for a Re- therefore, ference to the Master, to look into the Title. where the Pur chaser on other sisted Perform ance. Sir Samuel Romilly, and Mr. Horne, for the Defend- Grounds reant, resisted the Motion, as unusual; where other Matters are in dispute, besides the Validity of the Title. The Defendant insisting by his Answer upon Laches, the Plaintiffs at the Hearing may be entitled to no Decree; and the Reference therefore is premature. Mr. Hart, and Mr. Parker, in support of the Motion, contended, that the Application was sanctioned by recent VOL. I. B Decisions [2] 1812. BLYTH v. ELMHIRST. Nov. 13. Decisions of the Lord Chancellor; and desired Time to produce Cases. The MASTER of the ROLLS. I certainly must have Cases produced; for the Practice, if there be any such Practice, has been very recently introduced. I have always understood, that the only Case, in which the Court would make such an Order, is, where the Title alone is in Dispute (1). The Motion having stood over, that Authorities might be produced, was this Day mentioned before the Lord Chancellor. No Instance was produced: but it was still insisted, that such Orders had been made; and the Reference could do no Mischief. The Lord CHANCELLOR. I do not recollect such an Instance: but I take the Rule to be this. Upon a Bill for the specific Performance of an Agreement, until that Practice, upon which this Application is made, was introduced, the first Issue to be determined was, whether the Agreement is to be performed, or not; and accordingly the Decree is always prefaced by a Declaration, that the Agreement ought to be performed. Where the Defendant by his Answer says, there is no Objection to the Agreement, except what arises from the Circumstance, that the Plaintiff cannot make a Title, the Court has conceived itself to have an Authority in the Answer, equivalent to that Declaration in its own Decree, that the Agreement ought to be performed: a Sort of Confession by the Answer, that it ought to be executed; and therefore upon such an Answer 12 Ves. 17. Fullagar v. Clarke, 18 Ves. 482. (1) Moss v. Matthews, 3 Ves. 279. Wright v. Bond, 11 Ves. 39. Gompertz v. the the Court has gone the Length of directing a Reference to the Master to see, whether a Title can be made: but, if the Answer, upon Reasons solid or frivolous, insists, that the Agreement ought not to be executed, that puts the Plaintiff in this Situation; that he is to look into the Answer; and if he finds nothing in it, that will avail the Defendant to resist the Performance, he either sets down the Cause on Bill and Answer; or, if there is any thing to disprove, takes another Course. Where the Record furnishes that Question, whether the Agreement should be carried into Execution, unless the Objection is removed by Consent, that is the first Question to be decided; and I have no Recollection of breaking in upon that; the Party being unwilling, that it should be broken in upon: and saying, he will have the Cause heard. In all the Orders, made before the Vacation, the Defendant had taken Possessiou. The Motion was refused (1). A WILLIAMS v. BIRD. THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS, for THE LORD CHANCELLOR. LINCOLN'S INN HALL. 1812, Nov. 5. Order under PETITION, presented by Samuel Grimes and Elizabeth his Wife, stated, that by a Deed-Poll, the Statute 36 dated the 25th of November, 1801, the Petitioner Eliza- Geo. 3. c. 90. (1) This Case has been followed by Balmannov. Lumley, post, 224. Paton v. Rogers, post, 351.v. Skelton, post, 516.Gibson'v.Clarke, post, 2 Vol. 103. Biscoe v. upon Proof, that One Trus tee was abroad, an absconding Bankrupt, and not likely to Stock into the return, that the remaining Trustee should transfer |