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/ssactsengr0650 and id is 1 raw text is: WILLIAMSON V. CODRINGTON
and voyage : which is not a sale like a factor of goods for another ; nor such as a factor
is warranted to make; for he should have disposed of them at London, the port to
which the plaintiffs sent; as he did a small part; but it is not proved, that he en-
deavoured to sell the rest there, and could not. Defendant says, it lies on plaintiffs
to prove, that he could dispose of them ; but it is not so. The plaintiffs could only
shew, there was a market for them at London and a price; which has been shewn.
Defendant having refused these goods, and therefore taken them as factor, for his
factor, cannot run a risk therewith : that is not the law of merchants; none of the
witnesses saying so; for in shipping at a new risk, the factor, who is turned into
principal, is not bound to stand to that ; for that is going a great deal farther than what
the defendant complains of the plaintiffs. That he did run a risk, appears from the
defendant's own insisting on insurance for the voyage, and the risk of what might
be the discount on the navy-bills; which might have been run down to one knows
not how much, if any misfortune had happened: and this was at the time of the
rebellion, when the government was in some kind of distress. Notwithstanding
defendant's letter disaffirming the contract, the subsequent acts explain the nature
of the whole transaction and the intent, with which he acted; which speaks more
strongly than witnesses can do ; and this letter plainly shews his inclination and desire
to have the goods at a lower price : and at the time of doing this it remained uncertain,
whether the plaintiffs might not comply with this: in hopes of which he kept it in
suspence all the time : which are not acts of a factor, but a principal. The court then
is to say he meant to take them as his own, notwithstanding what he said: and he
ought to account with the plaintiffs according to the price they paid. Reserve costs
generally till the account is taken. (Reg. Lib. 1749, A. fol. 618.)
WILLIAMSON V. CODRINGTON, July [21st], 1750.
Voluntary provision in trust for natural children, good against the father's representa-
tive. The estate having been sold by him for a valuable consideration, the plaintiffs
were decreed to have satisfaction out of his assets, as there were words in the deed
amounting to a covenant. An account being directed, a deduction was made in
respect of their maintenance. As to voluntary deeds, vide Coleman v. Sarrel, 1 Ves.
jun. 50.
Sir William Codrington in 1715 made settlement of a plantation in America to
have and to hold to trustees to the use of William and John, two Mulatto boys, whom
I had by a negro woman, [512] their heirs and assigns for ever; they paying to another
Mulatto boy, Thomas, son to another negro, £50 annually from the day of my death,
till Thomas arrives at twenty-one, then to pay him £500 : with a clause that he does
oblige himself, his heirs, executors; and administrators ( and assigns. R. L.), to
warrant and for ever defend the said plantation, negroes, cattle, stock, &c.
In 1718 an ejectment is brought against him for the plantation ; which he defends;
but is evicted. He afterward brings an ejeetment himself in his own name : but it is
compounded upon 1000 guineas being paid to him for his title and conveyance of the
estate.
After his death, this bill was brought by William in his own right, and as executor
with another of his brother John, to have an account of the rents of the plantation,
and a satisfaction for that rent received by Sir William in his life ; and for the sum of
money for which he sold and released his right, with interest from the time of receiving
it ; and for the produce of the negroes, horses, cattle, and other stock on the premises
received by him. (Note : The bill also stated, that various negroes and their issue were
removed from this plantation to others by Sir William, where they were afterwards
wholly used and employed for his benefit. An account as to those was prayed together
with the above. For the remainder of the pleadings and decree, see Supplement,
p. 215, &c.)
For plaintiff. First supposing he never intended to deprive the plaintiff of the
benefit of that deed. Though no children are considered as purchasers under the
statute Eliz. in opposition to creditors, yet it is impossible to say, this is not a reasonable
act in him : nor any room to object, that plaintiff is a volunteer ; for so are the
defendants and all claiming under the will. If the thing had not been altered, but a
necessity for the plaintiff's coming into this court for relief, as if the deed was out of
1174
1 VES, SEN. 512.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0650&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)