With respect to the required opinion, it appears to me to be more desirable that the case should not be taken up by the Crown, not only on account of the frame of the bill, but as it might be deemed an undertaking on the part of the local Government here to indemnify the shareholders, (who have sunk a large sum of money on the lot), and their mortgagee, from any decree which might be made, and inasmuch as I have long since offered to afford the parties any advice they might require of me.
With respect to the merits of the case, it appears to me generally that the case made for the defendants is that Mr Johnston had power to alienate the lot, and that he merely contracted to do so subject to the condition that the Crown should approve of or confirm his act, and the defendants, after alleging that the Crown by public acts and documents refused its sanction to this agreement, further rely on the facts: — that the plaintiff lay by without instituting proceedings until the defendants expended a large sum on this lot; that the mortgage to the plaintiff, (as administrator of Edwards), relies on Mr. Johnston's agreement to let the lot to Edwards, on his temporary possessions, and small outlay thereunder, also on Edwards having attached the original lease and assignment thereof, duly registered, as also the defendant Dudgeon, who states in addition that he is a purchaser for valuable consideration, without notice of the plaintiff's claims.
As the letter of the shareholders...