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/ssactsengr0177 and id is 1 raw text is: ATKINS V. WHEELER
redress by applying to the Great Seal; and if he has neglected the opportunity of
making such application in due time, still he will be in no danger of being hurt, since
the existence of a petitioning cre-[204]-ditor's debt must be proved in every criminal
proceeding against him. It is far more convenient for the whole body of creditors
that the commission should stand ; and I am not aware of any inconvenience which
could arise from supporting it. It is said that the Chancellor acts under a special
authority, which he cannot exceed. Bub the distinction between provisions which are
directory and those which are conditional prevails even in matters relating to inferior
magistrates. But this is the case of the first law officer in the kingdom. Where
certain acts are directed to be done near to any place, the provision is considered as
directory, and the act will not be void though the direction be not strictly complied
with. It does not appear to me that the existence of an affidavit is made a condition
precedent to the validity of the commission, but I think that the commission is good
till superseded by proper authority.
Postea to the Plaintiff.
[205] (IN THE EXCHEQUER-CHAMBER.)
ATKINS AND ANOTHER V. WHEELER AND ANOTHER, in Error. June lth, 1806.
In trover for bills of exchange, the Court of Exchequer-chamber allowed interest from
the date of the final judgment upon all such bills as had been received before the
judgment, and upon all such as had been received afterwards from the time of the
receipt (a)'.
Trover for certain bills of exchange.
Judgment for the Plaintiff below having been affirmed on a writ of error in this
Court,
Richardson moved that it might be referred to the officer to compute the interest
upon the amount of the bills which were the subject of the action, and that it might
be added to the sum recovered below ; he produced an affidavit, stating that the action
was brought for bills amounting to 80001. ; that final judgment below was signed on
the 19th of November 1805, for 80491. 10s., before which time the amount of all the
bills, except three, had been received by the Defendant below, and that the amount of
the remaining three being 16661. 13s. 4d. was received by the Defendant on the 16th
of January; he stated that the reason why the action was commenced in trover was,
that the bills were not all due at the time when the writ was sued out, but that if the
action could have been brought for money had and received, the Plaintiff would have
been entitled to recover interest by way of damages below; that the statutes which
empower the Courts of Error to give damages extend to all personal actions.
3 Hen. 7, c. 10, 19 Hen. 7, c. 20, 3 Ja. 1, c. 8, and 13 Car. st. 2, c. 2; all which are
mentioned and commented upon in Shepherd v. Mackreth, 2 H. Bl. 284; and this
inference drawn from them, that the Court has power in all cases to allow interest;
that in the case of Walker v. Bayley, 2 Bos. & Pull. 219, where the Court refused to
give interest upon an attor-[206}-ney's bill, it was not intended to deny the power of
the Court, though it was not thought proper in the particular case to allow the applica-
tion ; that in Lord Lonsdale v. Littledale, 2 H. B1. 267, interest had been allowed in a
case of tort, and that as the interest in this case greatly exceeded the costs, it was
evident that the writ of error had been brought for the purpose of retaining the money.
The Court thought it reasonable, that interest should be allowed on all the bills
except 16661. 13s. 4d. from the date of the final judgment below, and on that sum
from the 16th of January, and made an order accordingly.
KING v. GLOVER. June 12th, 1806.
An insurance on the commission, privileges, &c. of the Captain of a ship in
the African trade is legal (a)2.
This was an action by the Plaintiff as widow and representative of her husband
(a)' Vide Kingston v. Mackintosh, 1 Campb. 518. Watts v. Toussaint, 5 Taunt. 758.
(a)' Vide Knox v. Wood, 1 Campb. 543. Eyre v. Glover, 16 East, 218.
12 BOS. & PUL. (N. R.) 204.
603](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0177&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)