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/ssactsengr0782 and id is 1 raw text is: ESDAILE V. KYNASTON
After Mr. Jacob had cited the authorities mentioned below, and made some
observations,
His LORDSHIP, in giving judgment, said-The universal proposition was, that where
a bill had been filed for, a discovery merely, and an answer had been put in, referring
to a document, this document was to be considered as part of the answer; and if this
answer was produced as evidence in a Court of law, a Court, of Equity could [52] not
interfere to compel a Defendant to allow.a part of the answer to be read without
reading the whole. The rule was established at law, that if the answer of a Defendant
in equity was used by a Plaintiff at law, he must read the whole of the answer. His
Lordship said he could not give one party an advantage over the other by permitting
one part of the answer to be read without reading the whole. In none of the cases to
which he had been referred was there an authority which applied to the present case.
The Court had power to compel an answer on a bill of discovery in aid of an
action at law, but after that answer was obtained the Court had no further jurisdiction
respecting any use that might be made of it in a Court of law. The Plaintiff has
got an answer and the document belonging to it, and the Court can do nothing more.
The order for production of the document must be discharged.
Authorities cited by Mr. Jacob.--Willians v. Munnings, Ryan & M. 18; .Taylor v.
Sheppard, 1 Younge & Collyer, 280; Bland v. Wenwright, in Exchequer, not yet
reported; and Rawley v. Perkins.
ROLLS COURT.
[52] ESDAILE v. KYNASTON. March 16, 1836.
[S. C. on appeal, Donnelly, 167.]
Supplemental Bill in England to enforce a Decree in Jamaica.
This was a demurrer, for want of equity (on the grounds of a suit and decree in
Jamaica, and for want of jurisdiction), to a supplemental bill filed by a mortgagee for
an account of what was due in respect of a mortgage sum of £7732, 19s. 2d. and for a
foreclosure.
Two plantations in Jamaica, the property of R. J. L. O'Connor and C. O'Connor,
called Carrickfoyle and Fernbrook, were subject to certain mortgages for securing
£7732, 19s. 2d. and further advances, and to secure £12,000 to R. J. L. O'Connor.
A bill had been filed in Jamaica by the mortgagees for an account against C. O'Connor,
and for enforcing the securities against the Fernbrook plantation, and for foreclosure
and sale thereof.
The plantation was sold under a decree, together with certain slaves which
belonged to the Carrickfoyle plantation, but which had been employed in cultivating
the Fernbrook plantation.
Another bill had been filed in Jamaica by the trustees who held the £12,000 on
the trusts of the marriage settlement of R. J. O'Connor, and others against the
mortgagees.
Two decrees were made in Jamaica.
An appeal was made to His Majesty in Council against those decrees, and they
were partly affirmed and partly varied, and the proceedings in the suit were still
going on.
The present bill had been filed by the assignees of the first mortgagees against
several Defendants having claim, for an account [53] of what was due on the
£7732, 19s. 2d. and £2000 (which were the further advances), and in default of
payment, a foreclosure was prayed.
For the demurrer, it was contended, that a bill could not be filed here to carry a
decree into execution made in a Court of different jurisdiction: that the decree in the
colonies was conclusive; and that there was no authority that a supplemental bill
could be filed here to carry the decree into execution.
It was also said, during the argument, that his Lordship had to decide between
the conflicting cases of Beckford v. Kemble and Bayley v. Edwards.
221
DONNELLY 52.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0782&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)