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/ssactsengr0729 and id is 1 raw text is: READ V. PHILIPS
READ v. PHILIPS. March 23d, 24th 1810.
Member of Parliament refusing to enter an appearance, the Court appointed a Clerk
in Court to enter an appearance for him under Statute 45 Geo. 111. c. 124, s. 3.
The Bill, filed in May 1809, prayed a foreclosure. The Defendant being a
Member of Parliament, process had issued to a sequestration for want of appearance ;
and a motion was made, that the Defendant may appoint a Clerk in Court ; and cause
an appearance to be entered; and in case he shall not cause an appearance to be
entered before the 9th of May, the Court may appoint a Clerk in Court for him.
The motion was made on notice; and affidavit, that the Defendant has no goods
and chattels, lands or tenements, by which the sequestration can be made available
to enforce his appearance.
Mr. Hall, in support of the Motion. If this application, under circumstances,
not strictly within, but very near, the Act of Parliament (stat. 5 Ceo. II. c. 25),
should [437] not succeed, the effect will be a total failure of justice. The title of the
Act of Parliament is very general ; speaking of persons absconding to avoid process,
or refusing to appear: but the enacting clause is not co-extensive. The first
clause applies distinctly to the case of absconding, to avoid process: but the second
clause is confined to persons, taken upon Habeas Corpus, and refusing to enter an
appearance, &c. The situation of this Defendant has analogy to that of a corpora-
tion ; which is not liable to attachment. Orders have been frequently made before
appearance ; as in the case of injunction, proceeding upon the ground of contempt ;
with some distinction; according to the nature of the injunction ; whether pro-
hibitory or mandatory. Thus, an injunction has been obtained against an infant
Peer for want of appearance ; and a Clerk was assigned to appear and answer for
him.
The Lord Chancellor [Eldon] referred to a late Act of Parliament,(1) as decisive
upon this question, observing, that many provisions of that Act are not generally
known : one, for instance, by which if a Member of Parliament will not pay money
under an Order of the Court, the non-payment is made an act of bankruptcy.
(Sec. 7, repealed by Stat. 6 Geo. IV. c. 16, s. 1, and the case provided for by s. 11, 12.)
(1) Statute 45 Geo. III. c. 124. The third section directs, with regard to a De-
fendant, having privilege of Parliament, that upon the return of process of Sequestra-
tion for not putting in an appearance the Court may appoint a Clerk in Court to
enter an appearance for him.
[438] BECKFORD V. WILDMAN. March 12th, 21st, 27th, 1810.
[See Princess of Wales v. Earl of Liverpool, 1818. 1 Swans. 125 ; Republic of Costa
Rica v. Erlanger, 1874, L. R. 19 Eq. 45.]
The object of the Bill being to set aside Deeds, the Court will not on Motion go
beyond the usual liberty to inspect, &c., and for production at the Hearing, by
an Order to deposit them with the Master for safe custody, without a special
case ; establishing danger, that they may not be produced. Therefore, where
most of the circumstances, relied upon, viz. variations in two Deeds, appeared
upon the Answer, the Order was limited to production at the Hearing.
The object of the Bill in this cause was to set aside two indentures of conveyance
of the Quebec Plantation, in Jamaica, with the negroes, stock, &c., dated in June
1790 and November 1791 ; as obtained by a general Agent and Solicitor by mis-
representation as to the value and influence. The Defendant was his heir at law. A
Motion was made by the Plaintiff, that these instruments, admitted by the answer
to be in the Defendant's possession, may be deposited with the Master for safe
custody ; upon an affidavit, stating generally, that there were material variations
between them.
The Lord Chancellor [Eldon]. Where the object of the suit is to destroy the deed,
the Plaintiff has a right to have it produced, and left in the hands of the Clerk in
Court for the usual purposes of inspection, &c. ; as from the right to have it set
1050
16 YES. JUN. 4t37.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0729&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)