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/ssactsengr0844 and id is 1 raw text is: FARQUHARSON V. BALFOUR
to amend had not been obtained within six weeks after the answer of the Defendants
on whose behalf the motion was made, was to be deemed sufficient, it had been
irregularly obtained, and must be treated as a nullity: and he referred to De Geneve
v. Hannam (1 Russ. & Myl. 494), and Gully v. Van Bodicoate (ante, vol. 5, p. 668), as
being precisely in point.
Mr. Blunt, for the informant, said that a Plaintiff might obtain an order to amend
at any time before the expiration of six weeks after the last of the answers was to be
deemed sufficient: that in De Geneve v. Hannam the order to amend was irregularly
obtained, but in this case it was regularly obtained, inasmuch as some of the Defendants
had not put in their answers. He referred to The King of Spain v. [209] Hullett (ante,
vol. 3, p. 338), Davenport v. Manners (ante, vol. 2, p. 514), and Peacock v. Sievier (ante,
vol. 5, p. 553).
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR [Sir L. Shadwell]. Although the 26th Order of 1833
prescribes the time before which a Defendant shall not be at liberty to serve a notice
of motion to dismiss the bill for want of prosecution, yet it puts no limit on the time
within which the Plaintiff might amend his bill; and, therefore, that order is out of
the question.
It seems to me that the restriction imposed by the 13th Order of 1831 is of this
nature, namely, that no order to amend shall be made after answer and before
replication, unless such order be obtained within six weeks after the answer if there
be only one Defendant, or after the last of the answers if there be more than one
Defendant, is to be deemed sufficient; and, therefore, as I understand it, the order
to amend in this case was regularly obtained; and consequently I must refuse the
motion to dismiss.
I collect, from the report of De Geneve v. Hannam, that the only point which I
had to consider when that case came before me was that the Plaintiff had not been
able to get in the answer of some of the Defendants ; and it stood over in order that
an affidavit of that fact might be produced; and no affidavit being produced, the
ground on which the motion to dismiss was resisted failed.
[210] FARQUHARSON V. BALFOUR. Nov. 5, 1836.
West India Estate. Consignee.
A consignee of a West India estate appointed by the Court is not entitled during the
continuance of his office to be paid the balance due to him out of the compensation
money awarded under the Act for the Abolition of Slavery.
The bill was filed to redeem a mortgage of an estate in Tobago in the West Indies,
and for the appointment, in the meantime, of a receiver and manager of the estate, and
a consignee of the produce. Under an order in the cause, made on the 25th of March
1824, ohn Bannatyne was appointed the consignee; and under another order made
on the 7th of April 1827 he was removed, and A. Robertson was appointed in his
place. Some of the Defendants had put in their answers to the bill; but no further
proceedings had taken place in the suit, except that the consignee had annually passed
his accounts before the Master, and a balance (which was continually increasing) was
always foutd in his favour.
Under the Act for the Abolition of Slavery (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 73) certain sums
were awarded as a compensation for the services of the slaves on the estate; and a
claim and counter claim to those sums having been made by the Defendant Ellice and
the consignee respectively, the Commissioners appointed under the Act paid the sums
into Court in trust in the cause.
The consignee then presented a petition, stating that the produce consigned to
him had been totally insufficient for payment of the sums which he had advanced for
supplies to the estate: that during the last nine years he had supplied clothing and
other necessaries for the slaves, and stores and utensils for the cultivation [211] of
the estate and the manufacture of the produce thereof, and that he had paid the
salaries of the manager and the persons employed under him: that without such
8 SIM. 209.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0844&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)