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/ssactsengr0878 and id is 1 raw text is: As to the petition of Mr. Forsyth, proceeding on the authority of the case of
Farquharson v. Balfour (8 Sim. 210), he, as consignee, is not entitled to be paid out
of the corpus of the estate so long as he continues consignee, and I see no ground for
making any distinction between the principal and interest of the compensation money.
Nor can I make at present any order on the petition of the mortgagee, as I cannot,
without the consent of the consignee in the present state of the causes, make any
order for payment out of any fund in the cause to which the consignee, on passing
his final account, may, on the principles which I have stated, claim to be paid.
Mr. Forsyth obtained leave to amend his petition, so as to enable himself, as a
discharged consignee, to be recompensed out of the corpus of the fund in Court.
[578] By his petition thus amended it was prayed that Mr. Forsyth might be
discharged from being consignee, that he might pass his final accounts as such
consignee, and that so much of the residue of the funds in Court, after satisfying
what might be due to Mr. Edward Ellice as the prior consignee, as might be necessary
for that purpose, might be paid to him, Mr. Forsyth, in discharge of the balance to
be found due to him, and for his costs.
The order made on the petition of Mr. Edward Ellice, and on the amended
petition of Mr. Forsyth, was in accordance with the above judgment of the Vice-
Chancellor.
[578] In the Matter of THARP. June 2, 1852.
[See In re Leslie, 1883, 23 Ch. D. 552 ; Falcke v. Scotish Imperial Insurance Company,
1886, 34 Ch. D. 254.]
A consignee of West India estates appointed by the Court' has a right to be
reimbursed his expenditure out of the rents of the English estates of the same
owners, although the consignee is not the receiver of these estates.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR [Lord St. Leonards]. I have already stated that I do
not mean to decide any question in this matter at present, and that it will be
necessary that this matter should be argued with reference to the different questions,
very deliberately, before the Court. In throwing out what my present impression
is, with a view to assist the counsel in the future argument of the case, I will just
point out what presses upon my mind.
The first question is this: It is contended for the merchants, the consignees, that
they have now a charge upon the corpus of the estate, upon the inheritance of the
estate of which the lunatic is only tenant for life, for the whole amount of their claim
of some £200,000 or £300,000. Now I think it is impossible to make out that charge
at present, in the way in which it is endeavoured to be sustained; that I think quite
impossible. But there has been a prevailing impression in the profession that the
consignee's charges upon a West India estate stand upon a different footing to the
common charges in this country. That is undeniable, and the difference between the
estates accounts for it.
In Ireland it is a very common equity to have, as a prior charge to all other
incumbrances, what is called salvage money. Where a leasehold estate, or an estate
held for lives to which half a dozen people are entitled in succession, many of them
being mortgagees, according to certain priorities, the last man of all who is entitled
after everybody, being in possession, redeems, I may say, the estate by paying the
landlord, who otherwise would have recovered the estate and taken it from every-
body ; this payment is what is called [579] salvage money. That is an established
equity, and a very proper equity. He that pays the salvage has a prior incum-
brance to every other charge and interest, because, so far as any interest is left
to anybody beyond the charge, it is acquired by that payment in the shape of
redemption money. Now it must be upon some such principle that this claim is to
be maintained in any way. The claim would seem rather to attach only as regards
the compensation money for the slaves, because, as the estate is represented as of no
533
2 SM. & GIFF. 578.
IN RE THARP](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0878&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)