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/ssactsengr0658 and id is 1 raw text is: PEARNE V. LISLE
the yearly rent of £100. It was declared upon a petition presented by his assignees,
that the interest and benefit of said bankrupt in the said office of one of the coal meters
of said City, was become vested in the petitioners ; and it was ordered that the assignees
do propose a proper person to the committee for letting the lands of or belonging
to the said City of London, to be admitted to execute the said office, and that so much
of the profits of the said office as remained in the hands of the treasurer to the coal
meters, after deduction of the usual allowance to said bankrupt, for the time he had
or should execute the said office before another person was admitted into the same,
and of all other just allowances should be paid over to the said petitioners.)-See
remarks on the principal case by Sir D. Evans, in his observations on stat. 13 Eliz.
c. 7; and by Mr. Eden, in his Treatise on the Bankrupt Law, page 220.
(2) The petition stated, that the office had been purchased by the bankrupt for
£900, two-thirds of which sum was paid to the then Lord Mayor, and one-third to the
City; that to the office was annexed not only a salary of £60 payable half-yearly,
but also a freedom of the said City every year, worthy £25, besides other considerable
perquisites ; that the place could not be disposed of by sale, without leave of the Court
of Aldermen : the order made upon the petition was as follows :- Upon debate of the
matter and hearing said petition, the order dated 22d day of March 1737, made in
the bankruptcy of Rich. [1reeby, on the petition of Sir Geo. Champion [see below,
note (3)], and several affidavits, I do order that the petitioners, the assignees of the
estate and effects of the said E. Richardson, be at liberty to treat with a proper person,
to whom the said office of Under Marshal may be disposed of upon the most advan-
tageous terms they can get for the same, and that the petitioners may be at liberty
to propose such person to the Court of Lord Mayor and Aldermen for their appro-
'bation, and if the said Court of Lord Mayor and Aldermen shall approve thereof,
[ do order that the said E. Richardson, the bankrupt, do attend the said Court
of Lord Mayor and Aldermen, to the end that such person may be admitted to the
said office, upon such terms as the Court of Lord Mayor and Aldermen shall think
proper. --Richardson having refused to surrender in favor of a Mr. Buck, to whom
the assignees had agreed to dispose of his office, for the sum of £850 ; an order was
obtained on the 7th of October 1749, for his committal to the Fleet prison; on the
2d day of December, the assignees presented a petition, stating that the bankrupt kept
out of the way, and refused to surrender or attend to the duties of the office, and that
the Court of Lord Mayor and Aldermen exacted a punctual attendance, and that
according to the custom and rules of said Court, the person who neglected to attend
might be totally dismissed, and that the said Court refused to admit Mr. Buck without
the bankrupt's surrender, and that in case bankrupt were so dismissed as aforesaid,
the same would be lost to the creditors, whereupon the Lord Chancellor made an order
as follows :- I do recommend to the Court of Lord Mayor and Aldermen to take
into their consideration whether the said E. R. hath not forfeited his office of Under
Marshal, by his non-attendance on the duties thereof, and in such case, I do recom-
mend the said Court of Lord Mayor and Aldermen to remove the said E. Richardson
from his said place of Under Marshal, and to admit the said H. Buck into the said
office in his room.
Case 33.-PERNE against LISLE. October 19, 1749.
Court of Equity will not grant Ne exeat regno for a mere legal demand [for which the
defendant may be held to bail].(1) Will in case of alimony decreed by the Spiritual
Court.(2) Order for Ne exeat regno discharged; the demand being for Negroes in
Antigua, and the defendant is going there, where he will be amenable. (See Robert-
son v. Wilkie, post, 177, and note there.)-2d Seal before Mich. Term. No Entry
in L. R.
Order for Ne exeat regno was made on 18th April 1748, till answer and further
order, and to be marked £500 on affidavit to the following effect : That plaintiff was
entitled to fourteen Negroes at Antigua ; that his agent let them to defendant for
hire, at a yearly rent which amounted to £100 Antigua money ; that the defendant
refuses to pay for two years service, which is of the value of £100 sterling, and [76] also
refuses to deliver the Negroes to plaintiff's agent : that defendant has declared he
AM3. 76.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0658&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)