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/ssactsengr0622 and id is 1 raw text is: REP. TEMP. FINCH, 123.
It seems reasonable that the Company should put some Restraint upon their
Factors and Servants, otherwise they cannot subsist and carry on their great Trade
to the Indies; and if they could not put an absolute Restraint on them from Trading
in prohibited Goods by enforcing them to such Measures and Payments as the Factors
themselves had agreed to for Trading therein, there could be no other way for the
Company to restrain them, the Consequence whereof in Time might be the Loss of
all the English Trade in India.
And though the Payment of the Sum, for which the Company have declared at
Law, doth amount to £26,000, which is a very great Sum; yet 'tis uncertain how
much thereof the Defendant may pay; and therefore the Court would not relieve him,
but dismissed his Bill.
[123] TERM. SANCT. MICH. 26 CAR. 2, ANNO 1674.
WILLIAM PARKER Gent., Plaintiff; ROWLAND DEE, Defendant. [1674.1
Administration repealed and granted to another, to whom the first Administrator
accounted in the Prerogative Court for the Intestate's Estate; he is thereby dis-
charged from any further Account.
There was a former Decree in this Cause signed and enrolled, but after a Caveat
entered.
The Lord Keeper heard this Cause after a Decree signed and enrolled, because it
appeared that the Plaintiff who obtained it, procured it to be signed and enrolled after
a Caveat entered, as it appeared by a Certificate from one of the Six Clerks.
The Bill was brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant, as Administrator
of Charles Everard, to have Satisfaction of a Debt of £700, the Money being lent
by the Plaintiff to the Intestate Everard in August 1665, together with the Interest
thereof, and to have a Discovery of Everard's Estate, which came to the Hands of the
Defendant.
But it appearing that Everard's Estate would not near satisfy all his Debts ; and
that the Defendant had paid more to his Creditors than he had received, and that
before the first Hearing of this Cause, the Letters of Administration which had been
granted to the Defendant were repealed, and new Letters of Administration granted
to Charles Cornwallis, Esq., to whom the Defendant had accounted in the Prerogative
Court, and had delivered to him all the Books of Accounts, and other Things belonging
to Everard's Estate; therefore he ought to be discharged from all Matters concerning
that Estate, and from all Accounts thereof.
And the Court was of that Opinion, and dismissed the Bill, and ordered that the
Decree already obtained be set aside, and the Enrollment thereof to be vacated.
[124] JOHN RUTLAND, Plaintiff ; Sir EDWARD BRr and others, Defendants. [1674.1
The Defendants plead a former Decree made in this Cause, and confirmed upon an
Appeal, and demur, for that this Bill contains the same Matter as the other.
This was a Plea, and a Demurrer to a Bill now brought by the Plaintiff, to under-
mine and set aside a Decree of this Court, in a Cause wherein the now Defendants
were Plaintiffs against John Evans and others, Defendants, and which was for the
same Matter contained in the Plaintiff's Bill now brought, which Decree was made
by the Master of the Rolls, and. confirmed upon. an Appeal by the Lord Keeper, and
which the Defendants now plead to this new Bill.
And they demur to it, for that of the Plaintiff's own Shewing the s-,lme Matters
were in Issue in the said former Cause, and that they either were, or might have been
examined upon the said original Bill, and that this Proceeding is against the Course
of the Court, and tends not only to make Suits endless, but to introduce Perjury.
The Court allowed this Plea and Demurrer, and dismissed this new Bill absolutely.
PJARKER V). DEE](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0622&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)