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/ssactsengr0661 and id is 1 raw text is: SEED V. BRADFORD
that the shares so belonging to Hall should be sold, &c., and the money arising, &c.
should be applied in the first place, in payment of what should be so found due to the
Plaintiffs upon the balance of their said accounts, &c. But if the Plaintiffs should be
found to be Debtors to the Defendant, as administrator of Hall, upon the balance of
the said account, &c., then what should be so found due from the Plaintiffs respectively,
should be paid by the Plaintiffs respectively to the Defendant. And in case, in taking
the said account, any allowance should be made to the Plaintiffs for any sum of money
which they were liable to pay to such workmen, &c., and which they should not have
actually paid, then the Plaintiffs were to indemnify the Defendant, as administrator,
&c., and his estate therefrom. Reg. Lib.
I. 501.-SEED versus BRADFORD, July 12, 1750. (Reg. Lib. 1749, B. fol. 399.)-
Wood v. Bryant, there cited, is in 2 Atk. 521.
[210] 1. 503.-PRYSE versus LLOYD, July 13, 1750. (Reg. Lib. 1749, B. fol. 403-
and Reg. Lib. 1750, B. fol. 644.)-It appeared on the Master's special report, that the
witness was not a creditor of the testator at the time of his second examination under
the inquiries directed, as in the report p. 503 ; and it not appearing he was such a
creditor at the time of his attesting the will, the Lord Chance or said he would not
enter into a minute inquiry about that, whether he was or no. Vide 2 Vol. 374.
Since the decision of this case, the stat. 25 Geo. II. ch. 6, has removed all doubts as
to the competency and credit of devisees or legatees who have beneficial interests given
them, being attesting witnesses : and it seems to make a wise regulation as to the case
of creditors. In the former instances, it makes the bequest in their favour utterly
void. In the latter, it declares, that creditors shall be admitted as witnesses to prove
the execution, &c., but provides that in either case the credit of the witnesses, and all the
circumstances, shall be left to the Court and the Jury.
[211] I. 503.-COLE versus GIBSON, July 18, 1750. (Reg. Lib. 1749, A. fol. 631.)-
Vide Scribblehill v. Brett, 4 Bro. P. C. 144, octavo edit. and the note at the head of that
case. Hall v. Potter, Show. P. C. 76. Arundel v. Trevillian, 1 Ch. Rep. 47. See
also 1 Ves. 277, and 2 Ves. 549. It seems that such a demurrer [to a supplemental bill
of review, upon the discovery of new matter, on account of Plaintiff not having obtained
leave of the Court and made the usual deposit] would hold. See Lord Hardwicke's Order,
2 Atk. 139, note. Vide also Gould v. Tancred, ibid. 534. Wortley v. Birkhead, 2 Ves.
571, 576, and 3 Atk. 809. Moore v. Moore, 2 Ves. 597, 598, et postea.
Such leave of the court will not be granted, except upon affidavit that the new
matter could not be produced, or used, at the time when the Decree was made. Mitford
78, et vide Ludlow v. M'Cartney, 2 Bro. P. C. 67, octavo edit.
In the principal case, with reference to all the points, it appears that the trial did
not come on till four years afterwards, viz. on the 23d of July 1754 ; when, on the first
issue, the Jury found that the bond was not executed in consideration of or, &c., but
that it was given to the Defendant for her long and faithful services, and proceeded
from the Plaintiff B.'s wife's affection to her, and no other consideration.
On the second issue, they found that the £1000 was not made payable by the bond,
at or on the marriage of the Plaintiff, but was made payable six months from the date
thereof.
[212] On the third issue, they found that the annuity was not provided for, or
granted to the Defendant in consideration of the bond, or of procuring or assisting the
plaintiff in his marriage, but that it was granted to the Defendant out of real regard
and affection for her, and not from any other motive, or consideration.
The Plaintiff, however, seems to have thought of a new trial ; and it appears from
the Registrar's Book, that he on the 12th of February 1755, applied to the Court,
stating the above circumstances, and alleging that on the very morning of the trial,
and not before, Mr. T. who formerly was his Attorney, and prepared the marriage
articles, but who had never been employed by him since, found a writing,.or agreement,
which the Plaintiff had caused to be drawn up in the country, whereby he proposed
to covenant, that if the marriage should take effect, he would, within six months after
it, pay the Defendant £1000 and secure to her an annuity of £100 for her life, which
paper writing was offered, but through inattention was not read at the trial; and that,
as the Plaintiff apprehended. it manifestly appeared from such paper, that as well the
VES. SEN. SUPP. 210.
503](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0661&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)