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/ssactsengr0716 and id is 1 raw text is: SHORTBRIDGE'S CASE
Mr. Piggolt, Mr. Fonblanque, and Mr. Wynne, for the Defendant. Admitting
the general rule, that a purchaser taking possession, must pay interest, there
may be cases of exception; and in Powell v. Martyr (8 Ves. 146), it is laid
down, [27] that there may be a case, in which a purchaser, though he has the
rents and profits, shall not pay interest. In this instance, the Plaintiff not having
completed the title, and delivered the deeds, it will be going farther than any ease
to ingraft interest upon the money ; which is specific sums, to be paid on an event,
depending upon acts, to be done by the vendor, forming a condition precedent to
the payment of the purchase-money. The principle stated in the late case, Dickenson
v. Heron, that the agreement to pay interest is affected by unreasonable delay, applies.
(Sugden's Law of Vendors and Purchasers of Estates, 321, 2d ed. ; 422, 5th ed.)
The delay is to be attributed entirely to the Plaintiff.
The Reply was stopped by the Court.
The Master of the Rolls [Sir W. Grant]. There is no doubt upon this. The
purchaser does not allege, that any circumstance has occurred, entitling him to
relinquish the contract. The only question is, how the contract was to be carried
into execution. What are the legal rights is totally immaterial. At Law the pur-
chaser could not have the right to the estate, nor the vendor to the money, until
the conveyance was executed. But that has nothing to do with the mode, in which
this Court executes the agreement. The purchaser might have said, he would
not have any thing to do with the estate, until he got a conveyance. But that
is not the course he took. He enters into possession : an act, that generally
amounts to a waiver even of objections to title.(1) He proceeds upon the supposi-
tion, that the contract will be executed ; and therefore agrees, that from that day
he will treat it, as if it was executed. The act of taking possession is an implied
agreement to pay interest ; for so absurd an agreement, as that the purchaser
is to receive the rents and profits, to [28] which he has no legal title, and the vendor
is not to have interest, as he has no legal title to the money, can never be implied.
The purchaser does not state any circumstances, any inconvenience, that he has
sustained by not having the conveyance, any applications by him for a conveyance
at an earlier period. He rests upon the agreement, implied from the fact of possession
taken. It would sound very strange, if the purchaser had paid the money, as being
bound to pay it, and the vendor having had the use of it for four or five years, should
then refuse to account for the rents and profits ; which is this case. The only
question is, what is the equitable arrangement between the parties. There is not
a ground for refusing the payment of interest. (Interest at 5 per cent. Burnell v.
Brown, 1 Jac. & Walk. 168.)
The Decree was made with costs.
(1) Fleetwood v. Green, 15 Ves. 594. Margravine of Anspach v. Noel, 1 Madd,
310. Burnell v. Brown, 1 Jac. & Walk. 168.
SHORTBRIDGE'S Case. Feb. 28th, 1806.
Order under circumstances to pay dividends to trustees, or one of them.
Upon a motion for an order to pay the dividends of a trust fund, standing in
the name of the Accountant-General to the trustees, the order prayed was, that
the dividends may be paid to the trustees or one of them.
Mr. Thompson, in support of the Motion, urged the expence and inconvenience
of taking the usual order in this instance: the fund being a very small balance;
and the trustees, five in number, all living in different parts of the country ; and
one in Scotland ; and produced an order in Staples v. Staples (22d January 1802),
to pay to two trustees or one of them.
The Lord Chancellor [Erskine] under these circumstances, made the Order
as it was prayed according to the motion.
12 VES. JUN. 27.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0716&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)