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/ssactsengr0642 and id is 1 raw text is: COKE V. WILCOCKS
reversion, for the possession of the estate tail was not the possession of the reversion
in fee, but only of the tenancy in tail. (Nels. Fol. Rep. in Cane. 216 ; 2 Vcrn. 189;
1 Vern. 132, 60, 144, 84; 2 Chan. Cas. 124, 63, 78; 1 Chan. Cas. 49, 213, 278.)
Wednesday, December the 18th [1728].
PLEAS, AND DEMURRERS.
Case 47.-COKE and WILCOCKS.
At the Chancellor's house, Lord Chancellor.
Notice may be denied either in the plea or answer, where a defendant pleads
himself a purchaser for a valuable consideration.
The defendant pleads that his father purchased the lands in question, for a valuable
consideration, without notice of the plaintiff's title. And it was argued for the plaintiff,
That this plea was not good, because the defendant denies notice in his plea, and not
in his answer, which takes away from the plaintiff the liberty of exception. 2 Chan.
Cas. 161. So, if fraud is charged in the bill, it must be denied in the answer, and not
in the plea. 1 Vern. 185.
Lord Chancellor. Notice may be denied either in the plea or answer; and if the
plaintiff replies to the plea, the defendant must verify it ; or if notice ought to be denied
by the answer, and is not, but in the plea, the consequence will not be, that the plea
is bad, but that the answer is insufficient.
[74] If a plea is to stand for an answer, without liberty to except, the plaintiff may
except to the rest of the answer.
And this was so resolved by the House of Lords, in the case of Packer and Stawel,
1729.
Case 48.-THE SOUTH SEA COMPANY versus BUMPSTEAD. [1728.]
At the Chancellor's house, Lord Chancellor. Eodem die.
Mr. Solicitor General for the defendant. The bill is brought by the South Sea
Company for a discovery, account, and relief, to which purpose it sets forth, that the
South Sea Company in 1723, sent the Royal George to the Spanish West Indies, and
made the defendant Mr. Bumpstead, and three other supercargoes, who entered into
articles with the said Company, that they would sail directly for Carthagena or Porto
-Bello, and not call in at any other place; and covenanted, that if within six months
after the return of the ship, any complaint should be made of them to the Company,
that they had carried on any unlicensed trade contrary' to the articles, and the Com-
pany should file a bill against them, they would appear and put in a full answer, and
not plead or demur; and that they would not suffer any unlicensed goods to be put
on board during their voyage to the Spanish West Indies, nor in their return : And
as the South Sea Company were by the Assiento contract to forfeit their trade if they
exceeded their tonnage, or brought home any specie, not the produce of the negroes,
or any of the King of Spain's subjects, without his licence ; they likewise covenanted
to indemnify the Company from any loss they might suffer by their violation of this
contract. And the bill charges, That in breach of these articles, they in their voyage
touched at St. Christopher's, and staid there twelve days, and took in one hundred
tons of goods, not licensed by the Company ; by which delay the galleons arrived at Porto
Bello before them, whereby they missed the opportunity of their market, and that by
their selling their own cargo first at a great advance, they lowered the price of the
cargo of the Company ; and that they in their return staid seven weeks at the Basti-
mentos, and after at Jamaica, and then put in at Antegoa, and landed their own effects,
and got the ship condemned there, as unable to proceed, and put the effects of the
Company on board the Kingsale man of war, and sent them home. The bill therefore
Frays a discovery of all these transactions, and an account and satisfaction for the un-
licensed goods so put on board, and for 150,000 pieces of eight, the produce of them.
To this bill, the defendant Bumpstead has pleaded, and answered, and has set forth
[75] his conduct during the whole voyage; by which it appears, that the plaintiffs
MOSELY, 74.
279](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0642&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)