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/ssactsengr0786 and id is 1 raw text is: FARQUHARSON V. BALFOUR
to be allowed some compensation for the loss of interest; otherwise, she would be a
whole year without income, and the residuary legatee a gainer of 5d. on each rupee.
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR [Sir Lancelot Shadwell] said that he had no jurisdiction
in this case. If interest had been made payable by a bill, then the tenant for life
might have had a claim; but if the bill was for an increased amount of principal as a
compensation for the lost time, it would fall into the residuary estate,
The order was allowed to be taken as prayed, without computation of interest to
the lady.
Counsel.-Mr. Hull, for Mrs. Wegnelin, and Mr. Hayter, for the trustee.
Registrar.-Mr. Fry.
[142] FARQUHARSON V. BALFOUR. Nov. 5, 1836.
[S. C. 8 Sim. 210.]
A continuing Consignee has no Lien on the Corpus of the Estate for the Balance of
his Account.
In this case, the Petitioner was the consignee, appointed by the Court, of certain
West India estates; and, on the accounts being taken, it appeared that there was a
balance due to him, in respect of his consigneeship, of about £300Q. This sum the
consignee desired should be paid out of the compensation money awarded in respect
of the slaves on the estates by the Commissioners under the Compensation Act; and
be accordingly put in a claim before the Commissioners. He did not offer to give up
his consigneeship. There were mortgagees on the estates.
For the Petitioner it was contended, that the Petitioner had a lien not only on
the produce of the estates, but on the corpus of the estates; and that a consignee
stood in a better position than a mortgagee. In support of this argument, the case
of Scott v. Nesbitt was cited. And it was further contended, that, if consignees had
no claims on the corpus, nobody would be a consignee, especially in the disastrous years
of the West Indies, where he had to advance large sums of money; and that, such
was the nature of West India estates, that it was most for the interest of the mort-
gagees of the estates that that rule existed, otherwise the estates could not be
preserved.
For the owners and mortgagees it was contended, that the case of Scott v. Nsbitt
(which had been cited), was a question between tenants in common as to whether one
had a lien on the other; that no case had ever occurred in which the Court had
allowed a continuing consignee to come upon the corpus of the estate.
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR [Sir Lancelot Shadwell] having asked if any case could
be produced in which the Court had directed that the balance due to a consignee
should be paid out of the corpus of the estate, and no other case having been
produced,
His Honour said-It appears to me that no precedent had been produced in
favour of granting such a petition. I can readily understand that such a case might
occur where a final balance was found due, because it may be that he should not be
discharged from the consigneeship without being paid. Persons entitled to West
India estates could not discharge their consignees without paying what was due to
them; and, if the payment could not be had otherwise, why the inheritance must
stand a security to the amount in favour of the consignee displaced. Scott v. Nesbitt
was a case in which a question arose between the owners, tenants in common,
whether one should not, in fact, bear the expenses of both. It was quite obvious
many cases must have existed similar to the present, in which petitions would from
time to time have been presented if the parties thought they would have succeeded.
If such a petition had been presented, there must, of necessity, [143] have been some-
body who could give information respecting it; but there was nobody who recollected
such a case, which was a sufficient reason for supposing that such a case did not exist.
I cannot but think that it would create great inconvenience, where there was a balance
in favour of a consignee, if the Court was to say, the plantation of necessity ought to
be disposed of to pay the balance. It appears to me what was proposed would be
DONNMLY 142.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0786&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)