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/ssactsengr0702 and id is 1 raw text is: EX PARTE WACKERBATH
A legal title is gained. It is absolutely at law; and it is only by the indulgence
of this Court, limited in point of time, that the redemption is kept open. In this
case there is nothing but possession. These Defendants have no estate, but a mere
possession. As being entitled to the interest of the money they were let into posses-
sion of the rents. The term is not in them. They have no legal title. The term
is in the trustee. Therefore if the Plaintiff chses to prosecute his right, I must hold
him entitled under the circumstances. But I am bound to add in favour of the
Defendants, that the neglect is so strong, that undoubtedly I shall decree no account,
for the purpose of ascertaining, whether the rents are so improved as to have sunk
the principal of the money. The estate was in so many different hands, and there
have been so many changes of title, and fair changes, the parties acting upon the
idea, that they were owners, that I shall decree no account : but I am bound to hold,
that the £1000 is due. I will not even carry it back to the filing of the bill. (As
to the limitation of accounts see Drummond v. The Duke of St. Albans, 5 Ves. 433,
and the note, 439 ; and as to the effect of laches, the note, 2 Ves. jun. 15.)
Declare, that upon payment of the £1000, with interest from the decree, and all
the costs of the cause, the Plaintiffs are to be entitled to be let into possession ; and
that the representative of the surviving trustee shall assign the term to the Plaintiff
the Defendants accounting for the rents only from the decree.
The Lord Chancellor added, that lie was very ready to send it to be tried at law,
if the Counsel for the Defendants thought, the law would give them any greater
advantage : but his Lordship observed, that it could not be sent to law without
saying something about the term.
The Counsel for the Defendants did not desire to go to law.
[574] WACKERBATII, Ex parte. Aug. 11th, 1800.
Acceptor for the honour of the drawer of a bill originally accepted by the bankrupts,
having taken up the bill, ought, if the bankrupts had no effects in their hands, to
resort first to the drawer. Therefore, though his proof was permitted to stand, the
dividend was restrained for an inquiry, whether the bankrupts had effects ; and
if not, whether the person, who so took up the bill, had effects of the drawer at
the time or since.
Keeckhoeffer and Co. of Hamburgh drew three bills for £800, £700, and £600
upon Cox and Heisch of London, payable three months after date ; which were
accepted ; and became due upon the 25th of September 1799. Upon the 13th of
September Cox and Heisch stopped payment, and committed acts of bankruptcy ;
and on the 23d of September a commission issued against them. The bills being
protested by the holders for better security, Christin and Bowen, the correspondents
of tile drawers, accepted the bills for the honour of the drawers ; and when due,
payment being refused upon their being presented at the bankrupts', they were
taken up by Christin and Bowen. The drawers were indebted to the bankrupts
in a large sum, much more than the amount of the bills. Christin and Bowen
were holders of another bill drawn by the bankrupts and accepted by Schult. Upon
the 24th of June 1800, they applied to prove under the commission ; including
£2150 paid on taking up the said bills for the honour of the drawer.
The assignees resisted the claim ; on the ground, that they ought to resort to
the drawers for payment ; especially as the drawers could not themselves have
proved the bills, if in their possession ; and also, that, if the bills had been sent back
to the drawers at the time they were protested for better security, they would have
been immediately taken up by the drawers ; who did not stop payment till time 28th
of September.
The proof being admitted to the full extent of the claim, the petition was pre-
sented by the assignees ; praying, that the sum of £2150 may be expunged ; and
that the proof may stand only for the sum of £662, 9s. 8d.
On a former day it was proposed, that this question should be tried at law : but
the Lord Chancellor said he would consider of it.
Lord Chancellor [Loughborough]. have talked to one or two persons in trade
upon this; who answered, that the persons accepting for the honour of the drawer
have a right to come upon the acceptor. I [5751 put the case that the drawer had
0. Xi.-24*
745
5 YES. JUN¢. 574.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0702&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)