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/ssactsengr0077 and id is 1 raw text is: THE QUEEN V. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONERS
time to time be insufficient to pay or satisfy; and that, as between the two Lees,
their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and the plaintiff and A. C. [974]
Hogg, their executors, administrators and assigns, such part of the aforesaid dividends
or income or annual produce as shall from time to time remain after full payment and
satisfaction of the premiums of insurance shall, in the first instance, be applied in
payment of the interest on the 29001. The covenant is made with the plaintiff in
relation to the security of 29001., the sole property of A. C. Hogg ; and it binds the
borrowers to pay, as between themselves on the one hand and the plaintiff and
A. C. Hogg on the other, the deficiency between the income of Bank Stock and the
premiums of the insurance.
The money lent in the case of Anderson v. Martindale (1 East, 497), was the con-
sideration of the covenant to pay an annuity during the life of Elizabeth Wyatt; but
the covenant itself was with the plaintiff's intestate, his executors, administrators and
assigns, and also to and with the said E. Wyatt and her assigns, to pay the plaintiff
the annuity. This language as entirely confines the covenant to the plaintiff, and
makes another separate covenant with E. Wyatt, as any words not directly exclusive
can make it. In Slingsby's case (5 Rep. 18 b.), the covenant was with certain persons
named, and ad et cum quolibet et qualibet eorum. No words can be stronger to
give the plaintiff an option to sue all jointly or each separately. Yet in both the
Court held that, by reason of the joint interest in the subject matter of the suit, as
disclosed in the deed itself, the action must be joint.
We think it would be a waste of time to argue that the words as a distinct
covenant do not furnish any stronger inference of the intention to exclude than
those just cited from those well known cases. If they [975] are still law, the present
case must be decided against the plaintiff. We see no ground whatever for doubting
whether they are.
We must not conclude without observing that the case of Foley v. &4ddenbrooke
(4 Q. B. 197), decided in this Court in Hilary term 1843, but not alluded to in Sorsbie
v. Park (12 M. & W. 147), probably because not then reported, is in exact conformity
with the decision in that case and in this, and contains no doctrine at variance with
Anderson v. Martindale (1 East, 497), and the older authorities.
Rule absolute to enter a nonsuit.
THE QUEEN against THE COMMISSIONERS OF EXCISE. 1845. Although stat. 3 &
4 W. 4, c. 52, s. 40, in general terms authorizes importing into the United
Kingdom any goods of the produce or manufacture of Guernsey, Jersey, &c.,
from the said islands on payment of countervailing duties, such goods are never-
theless subject in this country to the internal regulations and restraints which
may be imposed by the Commissioners of Excise under sect. 52, so far as the
same will apply to imported goods (a). And the Commissioners of Excise having
made an order that manufactured spirits of the Channel Islands of the denomina-
tion of British brandy or British compounds (defined by stat. 6 G. 4, c. 80, s. 101,
and 5 & 6 Vict. c. 25, a. 6) should not be admitted by permit into the stocks of
rectifiers and dealers in the United Kingdom, but that plain spirits, certified to
be the produce and manufacture of those islands, might be so admitted, subject
to all the regulations affecting British plain spirits, and care being taken that,
under this order, no rectified or coloured or compounded spirit should be admitted.
Held, that the commissioners might legally refuse to grant permits for delivery
to a dealer in London of spirits imported from Jersey, on request notes which
did not sufficiently describe the spirits to shew that they were admissible under
the order. Although, on application for a mandamus, it was stated on affidavit
that the spirits were in fact made of materials the growth, produce and inanu-
facture of Jersey and of the United Kingdom ; that the countervailing duty had
been paid ; and that delivery warrants from the proper officer of the Customs had
been lodged at the Permit Office.
[S. C. 14 L. J. Q. B. 179 ; 9 Jur. 618.]
Hill, in last Michaelmas term, obtained a rule nisi for a mandamus calling upon
(a) See stlat. 8 & 9 Viet. c. 84, s. 2, and. 8 & 9 Viet. c. 86, ss. 42, 55.
6 0. B. 974.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0077&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)