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/ssactsengr0783 and id is 1 raw text is: THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS [Lord Langdale] did not decide the point as to
whether a supplemental bill could be filed in this country to enforce a decree made in
the colonies; but, having commented on the cases of Beckford v. Kemble and Bayley
v. Edwards, and after having read a part of the judgment in the latter case, his Lord-
ship observed, that the judgment in that case did not appear to be correctly reported,
and that, therefore, he must decide this case independent of the authorities cited, and
on its own merits. And his Lordship said, that, as the whole matter was now before
a Court of competent jurisdiction, and was in progress of being decided, the parties
were not competent to prosecute the suit in this country.
Counsel.-Mr. Treslove, Mr. Pemberton, and others.
Cases cited.-Bayley v. Edwards, 3 Swan. 703 ; Beckford v. Kemble, 1 Sim. & S. 7.
(NOTE.-The foregoing is but an imperfect report of this case, but we are unable
to give it more fully without being drawn into the very long and complicated details
of the case, which would extend far beyond our limits. There was another point in
this case arising out of the circumstance of the slaves belonging to the Carrickfoyle
plantation having been removed to the Fernbrook plantation. We subjoin two
passages from the judgment of Lord Camden in Bayley v. Kemble, reported by Mr.
Swanston, and which are applicable to this case.
The Plaintiffs in England attempt to set up the suit here in bar of the jurisdiction
of Jamacia, but the causes for allowing the plea of double suits are in Courts here;
while this is of a second suit in a Court, which is a foreign Court, inasmuch as this
country has no process to enforce its decree in the islands.
In another part- As to the inconvenience, considering the difficulties of
administering justice between parties occasionally living under the separate juris-
dictions, I think the parties ought to be amenable to every Court possible where they
are travelling from country to country, and we must then endeavour to correct the
mischief of these double suits as much as we can, by allowing in each country the
benefit of all the other proceedings in the other part of the king's dominions, and
this should be introduced by supplemental bill, or insisted upon by answer, according
as occasion may require.)
[54] CAVE v. FOULKES. March 28, 1836.
[S. C. 5 L. J. Ch. 206.]
Demurrer to a Bill of Foreclosure. Not offering to redeem first Incumbrancer.
This was a demurrer to a bill filed by a second mortgagee, to have a sale of the
mortgaged estate; and the principal ground of the demurrer was, that the bill did
not offer to redeem the first mortgage.
The Defendant Foulkes had demised a plantation in the West Indies to trustees,
for 1000 years, in trust to secure certain annuities to four sisters.
Afterwards Foulkes conveyed the plantation to Messrs. Protheroes, subject to the
term of 1000 years, in trust, by receipt of the rents and profits, or by sale or mortgage
thereof, to raise money for payment of the sisters, and also for payment of a debt
due to themselves, and subject thereto, in trust for Foulkes in fee. There was no
proviso for redemption.
The Protheroes assigned their debt, and conveyed the legal estate in the planta-
tion to the Plaintiff Cave, subject to the equity of redemption ; the sisters were not
parties to this deed.
Foulkes was in possession.
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS (Lord Langdale] said, that as the Plaintiff did not
offer to redeem, or to pay off the first incumbrance he had not put himself before the
Court in a proper manner to obtain relief, and that therefore the demurrer must be
allowed, with liberty for him to amend his bill.
Counsel.--Mr. Pemberton, Mr. Kindersley, Mr. Teed, and Mr. Booth.
222
CAVE V. FOULKES
DOrNY 54.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0783&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)