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/ssactsengr0122 and id is 1 raw text is: WHITE V. PARNTHER [1829]
to the sum of 15 per cent. more, to be paid you at Middleburgh. Looking now at
the appellant's claim, we find no demand made of this kind; he asked for a certain
amount of guilders in Demerara. How could the Court give him 15 per cent. more
than the amount asked for? It is perfectly plain that he made no such demand at
that time as is now made for him,. and these appeals must therefore be dismissed.
Both appeals dismissed with costs, to be taxed by the Master.
The case of Mint Monies in Sir J. Davis's Reports, page 28, would appear to
carry the doctrine that payment should be made in the current money of the
country where the execution is taken out, to a greater extent than the present
decision. After quoting from Budelius de r nummarid, the maxim that Con-
suetudo, et statuta loci, in quem est destinata solutio respicienda sunt, Sir John
proceeds to say, that if upon a judg-[178]-ment in debt given in England, a writ of
execution should be awarded to the Justice or Deputy of Ireland to levy the debt
there (for the form of which he refers to Reg. Brev. Jud. fo. 43, b.*), the sum should
be levied according to the rate of Irish money, and not of English money, and in
such coin as should be current in that kingdom at the time of execution made. If
the same principle prevailed in the law of Holland, even had Demerara remained
under the dominion of that country, and the appellants recovered the amount of
their claim in Middleburgh, they could have only taken out execution in the colony
for the sum they had recovered in the colonial currency. In the countries governed
by the law of England, points of this description can seldom arise, since the decision
in Kearney v. King, 2 Barn and Ald. 302, that upon a declaration in assumpsit on
a bill of exchange for £548 Is. 8d., drawn and accepted at London, to wit at West-
minster, it must have been taken to have been drawn for English money, and that
proof of a bill drawn at Dublin in Ireland for a similar sum in Irish money, did
not support the declaration.
[Mews' Dig. tit. COLONY: II. PARTICULAR COLONIES: 3 British, Guiana, Holland
Currency. On point as to meaning of Holland Currency, see Macrae v.
Goodman, 1846, 5 Moo. P.C. 315. As to currency in British Guiana, see No. 1
of 1839, s. 2 (making dollars and cents moneys of account), and s. 4 (providing
that debts and penalties are to be sued for in these coins), and No. 1 of 1876.
See also No. 8 of 1900.]
[179] ON APPEAL FROM JAMAICA.
WILLIAM WHITE and DANIEL STEPHENSON,-Appellants; JOHN PARNTHER
and ISABELLA PARNT'HER,-Respondents [Dec. 1st, 2d, and 21st, 1829].
A. mortgaged an estate in 1774; he left by his will, in 1775, an annuity to his
widow in lieu of dower. W. the original mortgagee subsequently mortgaged
his interest in this estate to Messrs. R. and Co. In 1786, Messrs. R. and Co.
filed a bill against W. and the real and personal representatives of A. for the
purpose of obtaining a foreclosure. By a decree in this suit in 1791, a
declaration was made that the widow, having relinquished her title to dower,
became a bona fide purchaser of the annuity, and was entitled to be paid
it out of the mortgaged estate. This suit not having been prosecuted, and
the widow having died in 1794, her representatives, in 1822, filed a bill
against the heir of W. and other persons claiming under him, and the heirs
and devisees of A., for the payment of the arrears of the annuity during her
life-time, or that the estate should be sold, and the arrears be paid out of
the proceeds. Held, on appeal, that the annuity, having not been expressly
charged on the real estate of A., was a mere pecuniary legacy, and that the
* This writ appears to have been long disused. See Otway v. Ramsay, in a note
to Harris v. Saunders, 4 Barn. and Cress. 414.
288
I KNAPP, 178](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0122&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)