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/ssactsengr0715 and id is 1 raw text is: CHAMBERS V. GOLDWIN
I should have great difficulty; and should reserve the question. The estates
composing Lot 1, are not described ; and that must be made out by other evidence.
Neither is it specified, whose estates at Addington these were. The receipt therefore
upon the face of it does not state the terms ; and there is nothing upon the receipt
necessarily referring to the particular, so as to identify and incorporate it. I doubt
extremely, whether this receipt is sufficient.
That brings it round to the signature by Phillips ; as to which, upon the
whole case taken together, Smith was the agent for the trustees and Mr. Treco-
thick ; and Mr. Trecothick had authority to decide for the trustees, what person's
signature should be equivalent to the signature of Smith; and his agreement
makes Phillips's signature though in this form, equivalent ; and, as to the objec-
tion of law, Lord Hardwicke has already decided, that, where either the party him-
self or a person duly authorised by him ascertains the agreement by a signature,
not in the body of the instrument, which I represent to be doubtful, but in the form
of addition, that signature of that instrument ascertains the agreement sufficiently
within the Statute : though not a signing as an agreement, yet sufficient to identify
the agreement : the instrument itself containing the terms ; and therefore sufficient
within the Statute of Frauds. Unless the objection as to signing can be main-
tained, the rest of the case does not form any reasonable doubt.
Decree an execution of the agreement. But this is by no means a case for
costs.
(1) See Ex parte Hughes, Ex parte Lacey, Lister v. Lister, 6 Ves. 617, 625,
631. Ex parte James, 8 Ves. 337, and the references in the note, 3 Ves. 752.
Parkes v. White, 11 Ves. 209.
(2) 1 Blac. 599; 3 Burr. 1921. See Buckmaster v. Harrop, 7 Ves. 341; 13
Ves. 456. Blagden v. Bradbear, 12 Ves. 466. 13 Ves. 36, Mason v. Armitage.
(3) 1 Bos. & Pul. 306. See Kemeys v. Procter, 3 Ves. & Bea. 58 : a specific per-
formance decreed as to land upon the note of the auctioneer, considered also as the
agent of the purchaser.
[254] CHAMBERS V. GOLDWIN. Aug. 13th, Nov. 13th, 20th, 1802; Jan. 29th, Feb.
5th, 7th, 1803; Jan. 31st, 1804.
[See Leith v. Irvine, 1833, 1 My. & K. 281 ; Eyre v. Hughes, 1876, 2 Ch. D. 161
Mainland v. Upjohn, 1889, 41 Ch. 1). 137 ; Biggs v. Hoddinott, [1898] 2 Ch.
316.1
See 5 Ves. 834.-Upon Appeal the Decree varied, 1st, by confining the liberty
to surcharge and falsify to the accounts of the Defendant himself, the assignee ;
without prejudice to any suit against the representatives of the assignor : 2dly,
by confining the declaration against the right to Commission to the period of
residence in England ; leaving open to investigation before the Master the right
to Commission, while in the West Indies; which point was not made by the
Pleadings. As to opening the accounts, settled with the executors of the original
owner of the estate since his death, the Decree was affirmed.
This cause came before the Lord Chancellor, upon a petition of appeal by the
Defendant from the decree pronounced by Lord Alvanley at the Rolls (5 Ves. 834);
as erroneous in making the Defendant answerable for any part of Foulks's accounts
in declaring, that he and Foulks were not entitled to charge for Commission or
Agency, except what they should appear to have actually paid to other persons;
and in opening the accounts settled with Ratcliffe's executors.
Besides the deeds, which were stated in the pleadings, another deed, of the same
date as that of 1781, was produced at the Rolls ; as found before the hearing. By
that deed it was declared, that notwithstanding the other indenture, of the same
date, Ratcliffe was to have the sole management of the premises and stock com-
prised in the other deed.
Mr. Mansfield, Mr. Piggott, Mr. Richards, Mr. Hart, and Mr. Lyon, in support
of the Appeal. This relief as asked by volunteers under the Will of Ratcliffe. The
decree goes beyond the prayer of the bill ; which is confined to the transactions
600
9 VES. JUN. 254.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0715&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)