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/ssactsengr0885 and id is 1 raw text is: Reports of CASES ADJUDGED in the HIGH COURT
OF CHANCERY before the Right Hon. Sir
JAMES WIGRAM, Knight, Vice-Chancellor. By
THOMAS HARE, of the Inner Temple, Esqr.,
Barrister-at-Law. Vol. II. 1842, 1843-6 & 7 Vict.
1844.
[1] BENTINOK V. WILLINK. April 16, 18, May 9, 1842.
Equity confessed on the answer.
Bill by the owner of an estate in Demerara, against an incumbrancer thereon, to
restrain him from enforcing payment in this country of notes which had been given
for part of the debt, on the ground that the incumbrancer could not deliver up the
grosse copy of the acts of hypothecation, which it was alleged was necessary to a
valid discharge. The common injunction was obtained. The answer admitted
that the incumbrancer had no grosse copy in his possession, and that a second
grosse copy would not be issued by the Court without indemnity; but it did not
state for what purpose or in whose favour the indemnity was required, or that
grosse copies had not been actually taken out in respect of the charges which the
Defendant had upon the estate, or that any inquiries or searches had been made in,
reference to these questions, or that any cancellation or discharge had been entered
in Court in respect of the previous payments on account of the debt. The Plaintiffs
and the Defendant had both acted with regard to the estate, in their previous
dealings concerning it, without requiring the production of the grosses. The
Court dissolved the injunction upon the ineumbrancer giving security to indemnify
the Plaintiffs from any consequences arising from the absence of the grosses.
The Courts of this country will apply the general law of this country (being
abstractedly just, and not exclusively founded upon any peculiar or technical rule)
to questions relating to lands in a colony, where a different system of jurisprudence
prevails, unless it is suggested or shewn that the laws of the colony are different
on the point in question; and therefore the mortgagee of an estate in Demerara
was held not to be bound to produce his securities for inspection before payment.
The Plaintiffs were the owners of certain plantations in the colony of Demerara,
subject to several debts, in the nature of mortgages, inasmuch as they were specific
and redeemable charges upon the estates. These [2] charges were created at different
periods, from 1799 to 1829 ; and all the interest in those to which the question upon
the present motion referred had, by several instruments to which the Plaintiffs and
Defendant were parties, become vested in the Defendant, who had paid off the original
incumbrancers. The debt or charge of the Defendant was reduced by his receipt of
the compensation money paid in respect of the slaves; and in May 1837 an arrange-
ment was entered into between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant by which the amount
remaining due was ascertained, and agreed to be paid in five annual instalments, for
which the Plaintiffs were not to be personally liable; but the securities of the Defen-
dant upon the estates were to subsist until the whole was paid off; yet, if the payment
V.-C. XII.-1 1](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0885&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)