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/ssactsengr0052 and id is 1 raw text is: ROE V. CHENHALLS
the plaintiff from all debts due from the said partnership, and from all actions, suits,
costs, charges, damages, and expences by reason of the non-payment thereof, and
from all claims and demands whatsoever which might be made on him on account
of the partnership, and from all costs, charges, and expences which might'be incurred
in consequence of such claim or demand, &c. Breach, that the defendant and D. B.
did not, within two years, &e. pay all such debts, &c. nor indemnify the plaintiff, &c. ;
2dly, that upwards of two years from the 23d of July in the indenture mentioned, to
wit, on the 21st of July 1810, a certain valid and sufficient claim and demand to the
amount of 60001. remained due from the partnership, and thereupon one F. B. and
C. B. and J. U. B., being entitled to receive and enforce payment, filed their bill for the
recovery thereof in the Court of Chancery of the island of Grenada against the plaintiff,
one W. P. the defendant, and D. B., which suit was abated by the death of D. B. and
C. B., but was afterwards, by bill of revivor, revived against the plaintiff, W. P., and
the defendant, and such proceeding were had that afterwards it was decreed that
59781. 2s. 7d. currency of Grenada should be paid by the defendants in that suit to
the plaintiffs in that suit, with full costs, as by the said decree, &c. And thereupon
afterwards a writ of sequestration was issued against the plaintiff's real and personal
estate, under which his lands, buildings, slaves, &c. were sequestered until the plaintiff
afterwards was forced and obliged to pay the said debt and costs, &c. Pleas (amongst
others), non damnificatus ; 2dly, that [22] no such claim or demand as alleged in the
2d breach remained due, &c.; 3dly, that F. B., C. B., and J. U. B. had not any such
claim or demand of which they were entitled to receive and enforce payment, &c.
Issue taken on these pleas. At the trial, before Lord Ellenborough C.J., at the
London sittings after last term, the plaintiff proved the indenture, and also an examined
copy of the proceedings in the Court of Grenada, by which it appeared that the decree
passed against the defendant and W. P. in the original suit pro confesso for want of
an answer. The defendant, in maintenance of his pleas, proposed to shew that the
proceedings in the Court of Grenada were erroneous, inasmuch as the account was
incorrectly taken. His Lordship, however, ruled, that the defendant could not go
into that question, inasmuch as the foreign Court being a Court of competent juris-
diction, what was done in it must, for the purpose of this action, be taken to be
rightly done; and the plaintiff had a verdict.
Casberd moved for a new trial, upon the ground that the proceedings in the
foreign Court were not conclusive evidence. He said that where a foreign judgment
is the subject-matter of a suit in this Court, it was but prim& facie evidence, and the
defendant might impeach the justice of it (a).
Lord Ellenborough C.J. Iithought thatI did not sit at Nisi Prius to try a writ of
error in this case upon the proceedings in the Court abroad. The defendant had notice
of the proceedings, and should have [23] appeared and made his defence. The
plaintiff, by this neglect, has been obliged to pay the money in order to avoid a
sequestration.
Bayley J. How is this plaintiff to be called upon to unravel these proceedings 7
As between the parties to the suit the justice of it might be again litigated, but as
against a stranger it cannot. The defendant was a party to the suit, and has con-
curred, by his not appearing to it, in suffering the plaintiff to be damnified.
Per Curiam. Rule refused.
ROE, ON THE DEMISE OF LARKIN, against CHENHALLS AND ANOTHER. Saturday,
April 15th, 1815. A lease for years in consideration of a sum certain, and at a
pepper-corn rent, does not require an ad valorem stamp.
In ejectment for a messuage and land in Kent, tried before Chambre J., at the
last assizes, the question was, whether an indenture of lease, then expired, by which
the premises were demised for three years at a pepper-corn rent, for the consideration
of 3001., was duly stamped, the indenture having only a lease stamp. It was con-
tended for the defendants that as it passed an interest in consideration of a gross sum,
it was a conveyance upon a sale of lands, and ought to have had an ad valorem stamp.
The learned Judge directed a verdict for the plaintiff, giving the defendants liberty
to move for a nonsuit.
(a) See Walker v. Whitler, Dougl, 1, and notes to that case.
4M. & S. 2L ,](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0052&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)