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/ssactsengr0636 and id is 1 raw text is: NOEL V. ROBINSON
to be safely kept, being then told they were matters of concern : and there being now
an account directed of the estate of I. S. which was to be equally distributed between
the plaintiff and defendant, the defendant demanded as due from the plaintiff to his
father-in-law for diet, &c., £2300. But upon proof made that the d~fendant had altered
the bundle of papers so sealed up, and displaced them, and that it could not be known
what papers might have been, taken out, and the Master having reported that the
defendant had suppressed the evidences,(1) the court for that reason disallowed the
[453] defendant's whole demand against the plaintiff, though, the defendant swore-he had
produced all the papers, and though the papers produced appeared to be half-yearly
accounts, and related one to the other, and not one missing, but the account was thereby
carried down within a little time before the testator's decease ; and though the Lord
Chancellor declared himself satisfied that all the papers -were produced, yet for the
reason aforesaid wholly disallowed the said demand.
(1) This came on upon exceptions to the Master's report, the Master having reported
that he was satisfied there had been a suppression and embezzlement of some pages or
accounts called Wynne's account (the bundle. of papers before mentioned), either by
the defendant Berisford, or with his privity, and that therefore he had forborne
making the defendant any allowance ordered by the decree; and. by the decree Lord
Chancellor declared the account, called Wynne's account, was through the carelessness
of the defendant embezzled, and therefore in respect thereof the exceptions.were over-
ruled. Reg. Lib. 1686, B. fol. 491. This is all that appears on this point in the Register's
Book. Vide Cowper v. Earl Cowper, 2 P. Wins. 748. The principle of the decree in
the principal case seems to be, that every thing shall be presumed in odium spoliatoris,
vide Childrens v. Saxby, ante, 207. Dalston v. Coatsworth, 1 P. Wins. 731.
Case 426.-NOEL versus ROBINSON.
30 Aprilis [1687]. Lord Chancellor.
Ante, Case 80; Post, Case 436, 453; 2 Ch. Rep. [Cas.] 145; 2 Vent. 358.
By the defendant's counsel it was insisted, that by the custom of the island. of
Barbadoes, a plantation there, though it be a fee-simple estate, is in the first place
liable to the payment of debts (as to the method of making a plantation liable to a debt
Contracted in England, post, 460, S. C.); so that the owner cannot by his will so devise
his plantation, but that the same will be'liable to the payment of his debts : ut these
debts must be either debts contracted on the place, or debts contracted in England
or elsewhere for matters relating to the plantation, &c.
And Mr. Serjeant Maynard's case was cited, who recovered a debt contracted
here against the executor of an owner of a plantation in Barbadoes, and by his advice
an action of trove was brought, and judgment obtained for the fourth part of a negro.(])
But the principal point intended was, whether the defendant Robinson, who was
the executor of Sir Martin Noel, who had devised this plantation to his children, having
made a lease of this plantation reserving the i'ent to himself, but had therein declared
that the same was in trust for the children of Sir Martin Noel, who were the legatees,
was such an assent to a legacy, as should be binding to the executor, so as that he
should not have relief against the same, as to debts by him'afterwards paid.
[454] And it wasinsisted for the defendant, that such an'assent to a legacy is no
ways binding, as to a creditor, the thing itself remaining in specie; but in case the
plantation had been afterwards sold, it' might have been otherwise. And then as it
would not bind the creditors, so it would not in equity be binding to the executor
himself, as to such debts as were by him afterwards paid, for as to those debts lie stood
in the place of the creditors, and had their equity ; and the case of Huttoft Grove versus
Banson and his wife and Thomas Grove (1 Ch. Rep. 148), decreed the fourteenth of
December, 1669, was cited, where one Huttoft by his will devised £5000 to the plaintiff,
and £500 to the plaintiff's sister (who afterwards married Banson) and made defendant
Thomas Giove his executor ; and upon the treaty of that marriage the executor agrees
that there was £500, and interest due for the legacy, and that he would make that
up £1000, and enters into a statute for payment, and also assigns the equity of redemp-
tion of a mortgage- for further security, and dies, having much wasted the testator's'
580
1 VERN.r 453,.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0636&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)