## Facts

- Lord Portarlington accepted a £1,000 bill of exchange payable to Aldridge to satisfy gambling losses, an illegal consideration.
- Aldridge endorsed the bill to Brook, a retail wine dealer.
- Brook sought funds and proposed that Soulby (wine merchants) discount the bill.
- Soulby advanced £700; Brook agreed to take £300 in wine and gave Soulby his own acceptance for the cash advanced; only about £38 of wine was delivered.
- The transaction’s structure (cash plus goods; additional security; incomplete delivery) suggested Brook’s financial distress and raised questions about how he obtained the bill.
- Soulby attempted to sue Portarlington on the bill in Ireland.
- A Vice-Chancellor granted an injunction restraining Soulby from prosecuting the Irish action.
- Soulby moved before the Lord Chancellor to dissolve the injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether Chancery, acting in personam, may restrain defendants within its jurisdiction from prosecuting an action in another jurisdiction (Ireland).
2. Whether equity should continue an anti-suit injunction where the instrument sued upon originated in an illegal gambling transaction and the holder took under circumstances requiring inquiry.

## Decision

- The court held it had jurisdiction to enjoin a party within its control from suing in a foreign court when equity so requires.
- The court refused to dissolve the injunction.
- The injunction restraining Soulby from suing in Ireland on the bill was continued.

## Legal Principles

- Equity acts in personam; it may restrain a litigant subject to its jurisdiction from pursuing foreign proceedings without purporting to control the foreign court.
- An anti-suit injunction is proper where foreign litigation would be unconscionable or would defeat equitable rights recognized by the forum.
- A bill of exchange founded on an illegal gambling consideration is subject to equitable restraint against enforcement.
- A purported holder for value may be denied “innocent holder” protection where surrounding circumstances would put prudent merchants on inquiry as to the bill’s origin.

## Conclusion

Chancery maintained an injunction preventing suit in Ireland on a bill given for gambling losses, reaffirming the in personam power to restrain foreign litigation and applying equitable scrutiny to a holder’s claimed bona fides where the transaction’s suspicious features demanded inquiry.


Lord Portarlington v. Soulby, 40 Eng. Rep. 40 (Ch. 1834)