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/ssactsengr0709 and id is 1 raw text is: WRIGHT V. SIMPSON
sidering the grant of the office as really nothing more than a grant of authorities.
The expression is, that the Universities are entrusted with a concurrent authority.
Whether others have more authority must depend upon the effect of the instru-
ments. But if the grant is nothing more than of the King's authority, there is
a necessary exclusion. The officer must of necessity have the duty as well as the
right of exclusion, from the duty of the Crown on behalf of the subject to exclude
others. The effect of that certificate is, that with respect to prior patents to the
King's Patentees, they had the effect of preventing the King from granting con-
currently to the Universities ; which could have no operation, till the prior patents
ceased. If the grant to the Universities had been as universal in point of extent,
instead of being limited, upon the same principle it must have been held, that the
grant to the King's Printer subsequent to that to the University could have had
no effect : but it was held a grant of part of that interest, which had been granted
by the prior grant; and which would take effect, when the prior grants ceased
to have effect ; that it has become split ; this grant being only to print in the Uni-
versities, and sell every where in England : the other, to print every where. They
are consistent in this sense. The two Patents amount to an apportionment into
different proportions of the authority, carrying along with it the duty, and there-
fore in some degree the right to exclude. Mr. Yorke so considers it, and puts it
strongly, as a concurrent right [714] to print, and then it must be to exclude. It
would be extraordinary, if it depends upon the King's Printer, whether the Uni-
versities are to have that, which they had in a manner to his prejudice, without
the least benefit.
Under the circumstances therefore these Plaintiffs have that interest in them,
which entitles them to have this injunction continued to the hearing. The in-
junction relates only to England. I do not apprehend it to mean, that these parties
shall not sell Scotch books in foreign countries.
The Injunction was continued.
(1) A difficulty was suggested by the Lord Chancellor as to the way, in which
the account should be taken, with reference to the King's Printer, upon the supposi-
tion, that the injunction 'is supported by the account: his Lordship expressing
at the same time an opinion against the accuracy of the dicta to that effect. See
6 Vas. 89, 705; 9 Ves. 346.
(2) Bo *Uon v. Bull, 2 H. Black. 463; 3 Ves.. 140. Hornblower v. Boulton.
8 Term Rep. 95. See Harmer v. Blane, 14 Ves. 130. Hill v. Thompson, 3 Mer. 622.
WRsor v. SIMPSON. -March 4th, 5th, and 6th, 1802.
[See Liverpool Marine Credit Company v. Hunter, 1867, L. R. 4 Eq. 68.]
The property of an American loyalist having been confiscated during the American
war, subject to the claims of such of his creditors as were friendly to American
independence, to be made within a limited time, and in fact according to the
evidence farther restrained to the inhabitants of the particular State, a bill to
have bonds delivered up, or to compel the creditor to resort in the first instance
to the fund arising from the confiscation, was dismissed ; on the ground, that it
did not appear, that the creditor had the clear means of making his demand
effectual against that fund : the Lord Chancellor also expressing an opinion in
favour of the right to sue personally even in that case, against the authority of
Wright v. Nutt (3 Bro. C. C. 326 ; 1 Hen. Black. 136).
The object of this bill was the same as in the cause of Wright v. Nutt (3 Bro. C. C.
326 ; 1 H. Black. 136), to compel creditors of the late Sir James Wright, who was
Governor of the Province of Georgia in North America at the commencement of
the American War, to deliver up their securities; or at least in the first instance
to resort to the American Government for satisfaction out of the fund arising from
his confiscated property. The particular circumstances attending this debt were
these.
Sir James Wright executed two bonds, dated the 21st of September 1768, and
the 8th of March 1769, each for £6000 Carolina currency, borrowed from the
1272
6 VES. YUN. 714.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0709&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)