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/ssactsengr0043 and id is 1 raw text is: HORN V. BAKER
is argued that he has adopted so many contracts of hiring to which he was no party,
and which were made without any consideration of his will and consent. But the
adoption of a contract must be the act of a free agent: and at what period of time is
he found by the case to have consented or contracted at all 7 On the contrary it is
stated that when told by Reynolds that he had procured a service for him with Fox,
the pauper made no objection to go, conceiving that he had no discretion on the
subject. Arid again it is stated that the pauper made no agreement -with Fox or
Frost, respecting wages, or the nature and duration of his service with them : nor
was he consulted on the subject by either of the persons to whom he had been allotted ;
but considered himself obliged to accept these services, as being under the control of
others. Then can a person who is considered as a slave, and conceives himself to be
such, be considered as having adopted the acts of his masters? It is against common
sense so to construe his involuntary acquiescence. In the cases alluded to, where the
pauper's misapprehension of the contract of hiring has been held not to vary the legal
effect of it, the pauper meant to exercise a contracting power, though he mistook the
legal effect of the contract which he had made.
The other Judges assented ; and Le Blanc J. added that he hoped the consequence
of this decision would put [215] an end to the improper practice which the directors
of the house of industry had adopted in sending the children out of the house to the
respective parish officers to place out, instead of providing for them in the manner
pointed out by the Act.
Orders confirmed.
ELIZABETH HORN, Executrix of John Horn, against BAKER AND ANOTHER, Assignees
of Win. Horn and Rd. Jackson, Bankrupts. Friday, Jan. 29th, 1808. A., B.,
and C., partners and distillers, occupied certain premises leased to A. and another,
and used in common in the trade the stills, vats, and utensils necessary for
carrying it on, the property of which stills, &c. afterwards appeared to be in A.
On the dissolution of the partnership, which was a lbsing concern, it was agreed
that C. and one J. should carry on the business on the premises; and by deed
between the two last and A. it was covenanted and agreed, that A. should with-
draw from the business, and permit C. and J. to use, occupy, and enjoy the
distill house and premises, paying the reserved rent, &c. and the several stills,
vats, and utensils of trade specified and numbered in a schedule annexed, in
consideration of an annuity to be paid by C. and J. to A. and his wife and the
survivor; with liberty for C. and J. on the decease of A. and his wife to purchase
the distill-house and premises for the remainder of A.'s term, and the stills, vats,
&c. mentioned in the schedule: and C. and J. covenanted to keep the stills, vats,
and utensils in repair, and deliver them up at the time, if not purchased: and
there was a proviso for re-entry if the annuity were two months in arrear.
Under this, C. and J. took possession of the premises, with the stills, vats, and
utensils, and carried on the business as before; and made payments of the
annuity, which afterwards fell in arrear more than two months; but A.'s widow
and executrix who survived him did not enter, but brought an action for the
arrears, which was stopped by the bankruptcy of C. and J. who continued in
possession of the stills, vats, and utensils on the premises. On a question,
whether such stills, vats, and utensils, so continuing in possession of C. and J.
the new partners, and used by them in their trade in the same manner as they
had been by the former partners, of whom A. the owner was one, passed under
the stat. 21 Jac. 1, c. 19, s. 10 & 11, to the assignees of C. and J., as being in
the possession, order, and disposition of the bankrupts at the time of their bank-
ruptey as reputed owners? and nothing appearing to the world to rebut the
presumption of true ownership in the bankrupts arising out of their possession
and reputed ownership, (of which reputed ownership the jury are to judge from
the circumstances;) Held, 1. That the stills which were fixed to the freehold
did not pass to the assignees under the words goods and chattels in the statute.
2. That the vats, &c. which were not so fixed, did pass to the assignees, as being
left by the true owner in the possession, order and disposition (as it appeared
to the eye of the world) of the bankrupts, as reputed owners. 3. That the case
would have admitted of a different consideration if there had been a usage in the
555
9 EAST, 21..](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0043&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)