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/ssactsengr0187 and id is 1 raw text is: APPLEYARD V. BROWN
APPLEYARD, Plaintiff; BROWN, FOSTER, AND OThERS, Deforeiants. Nov. 28, 1813.
Any person may interfere to prevent a fine passing in a manner detrimental to the
interests of the revenue-Any number of persons having separate interests in one
tenement, of whatsoever value, may concur to pass their interests to any number of
purchasers by one fine.-The Court will not usually entertain objections to the
passing of a fine raised by persons claiming an interest in the land (a).
Clayton Serjt. had in Trinity term last obtained a rule nisi, on behalf of the
conusors, for staying a fine in the king's silver office until the Wednesday then next,
by which day the parties ought to restrict it, that an answer might be given to an
objection to the passing of the fine, which was suggested by the officer, namely, that
four conusors and their wives joined in this fine to pass four several pieces of property,
together amounting in value to 14001. : the rule of practice in the office was, that
where several pieces of property together exceeded in value 2001., they should not be
included in one fine. The Court granted a rule nisi, and the matter stood over to this
term, when
Best Serjt. moved that the fine might now pass, which was opposed upon an
affidavit, stating that Thomas [266] Brown and Grace his wife, Henry Foster and
Betty his wife, Thomas Sutcliffe and Eliz. his wife, and John Wheelhouse and Ann
his wife, the conusors, had four separate and distinct interests in the estate intended
to be passed under or by virtue of this fine; and that the values of such respective
estates were, as the deponent had heard and believed, as follows, viz. the estate of
Brown and wife 10051., the same having lately been sold for that sum, and in which
sale the deponent was concerned as attorney; that he was ignorant of the value of
the estate of Foster and wife; that the estate of Sutcliffe and wife was of the value of
3001., and the estate of Wheelhouse 701. ; and that if the fine now in question should
be suffered to pass, the revenue would be injured; and that his being concerned for
Thomas Foster, the purchaser from J. Sutcliffe, when such fine was levied, as also for
R. Sutcliffe, the purchaser from Wheelhouse, was the cause of the deponent's interfer-
ence. The fine prepared was of three messnages, one barn, one garden, five acres of
land, common of pasture, and common of turbary, in Midgeley, as those which the
conusee had of the gift of the four and their wives, and the four conusors and their
wives had warranted, and each of them and his wife severally did warrant against
himself and his heirs.
Best contended that upon this affidavit it appeared that the four conusors bad
undivided interests in one and the same estate, and that although they sold their
interests for separate sums, yet having joint estates in the same land, they must all
join in the fine. Each of the conusors warrants the whole of the premises, which
shows that they have a joint interest, for neither of them would be so foolish as to
warrant the lands conveyed by another to which he was a stranger in title: at the
utmost, the parties have only separate interests in one (267] estate. If an hundred
persons have separate interests in the same estate, they may pass them all in one fine.
The fine, as it stands, will not convey to three several purchasers respectively a title
to three several estates.
Shepherd Serjt. contrh. The affidavit states that Foster purchases of J. Suteliffe,
and that Richard Sutcliffe purchases from Wheelhouse; from whence it is to be
collected, that these are several estates.
Shepherd would have raised another objection, but was stopped by the Court.
MANSFIELD C. J. In what character does any party come to raise a further objec-
tion ' The deponent swears that the care of the king's revenue brings him hither ;
and it is said that any one may come to protect the interests of the revenue; hut we
here have nothing to do with the disputes between vendor and purchaser. Let the
affidavit be shewn at the king's silver-office, and if there be any further objection, the
officers will point it out. As to the principal point, to my surprise I find that four
estates may be united in one fine, if they are of small value, but not otherwise. How-
ever, this affidavit does not say that these are separate tenements which are conveyed,
but only that the parties have separate and distinct interests in the estate, which is
no objection to the fine passing. All we have to do, is to see that the fine is regular in
(a) But see Lambe, Plaintit; Reaston, Deforciant; ante, p. 207,
692
5 TAUNT. 266.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0187&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)