HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0020 and id is 1 raw text is: GOODTITLE V. POPE
GOODTITLE ON THE DEMISE OF TAYSUM against POPE. Saturday, May 6th, 1797.
The Court will not stay the proceedings in an ejeetment brought by a mortgagee
against a mortgagor on the latter paying principal, interest and costs, if the
latter has agreed to convey the equity of redemption to the mortgagee.
A rule had been obtained, calling on the plaintiff to shew cause why the proceedings
in this ejectment, which was brought by the mortgagee against the mortgagor, should
not be stayed on payment of principal, interest and costs.
Abbot, who now shewed cause against the rule, produced an affidavit, in which it
was stated that in 1792 the defendant by an [186] agreement under seal in considera-
tion of a certain sum agreed to convey the premises to the mortgagee absolutely, and
that a sum of money due from the mortgagor to the mortgagee should be deducted
out of the purchase money so to be paid ; and that several applications had been since
made to the mortgagor to complete the purchase, which be had refused.-He then
contended that under the proviso in the stat. 7 Geo. 2, c. 20, s. 3 (a)', the mortgagor
had no right to the benefit of the statute.
Lane, in support of the rule, admitted the agreement made in 1792, but contended
that such an agreement to convey was not within the proviso of the Act.
Lord Kenyon, Ch.J. The mortgagor has now no right to redeem; a Court of
Equity would decree him to complete the agreement made in 1792. This is an
application against the justice of the case; and if we were to listen to it, and strip
the mortgagee of his legal title, it might let in a posterior equitable right to the
prejudice of the mortgagee though he should hereafter obtain a decree for the
performance of his agreement in 1792.
Rule discharged (b).
FARMER against LEGG. Monday, May 8th, 1797. By 31 G. 3, c. 54, s. 7, for
regulating the African slave trade it is necessary that the certificate of the
captain's having served as that Act requires should be attested by the owner or
owners of the ship or ships in which the service was performed. [1 East, 482.]
This was an action on a policy of insurance on the Cadiz Dispatch, an African
ship engaged in the slave trade, at and from London to the coast of Africa, during
her stay there, and from thence to her port of discharge in the West Indies. The
loss happened in consequence of an insurrection of the slaves. The principal question
was whether the ship had been navigated in the manner prescribed by the 31 Geo. 3,
c. 54 (a)2, the 7th sect. of which enacts That it shall not be lawful for any person to
become a master, or take or have the command or charge of any [187] such ship or
vessel at the time he shall clear out from any port of Great Britain for purchasing and
carrying slaves from the coast of Africa, unless such master or person taking or having
the charge or command of any such ship or vessel shall have made oath, and delivered
in to the collector or other chief officer of the Customs, at the port where such ship or
vessel shall clear out, a certificate attested by the respective owner or owners that
he has already served in such capacity during one voyage, or shall have served as
chief mate or surgeon during the whole of two voyages, or either as chief or other
mate during three voyages, in purchasing and carrying slaves from the coast of
Africa ; under pain that such master or other person taking or having the charge or
command of any such ship or vessel, and also the owner or owners who shall hire or
employ such person, shall for every such offence respectively forfeit and pay the sum
(a)1 Which enacts that the Act shall not extend to any case where the persons
against whom the redemption is prayed shall insist either that the party praying a
redemption has not a right to redeem, or that the premises are chargeable with other
sums, &c. nor to any case where the right of redemption in any cause or suit shall
be controverted or questioned by or between different defendants in the same cause
or suit, &c.
(b) But see Skinner v. Stacy, 1 Wils. 80.
(a)2 This was one of the statutes passed on this subject; it has been since con-
tinued down by several Acts from time to time; and the reference is made to it as
being set out at large in Runnington's edition of the statutes; but the Act cited in
Court was the 32 Geo. 3, c. 52.
923
7 T. R. 186.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0020&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)