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/ssactsengr1010 and id is 1 raw text is: TRINITY TERM, 1.9 GEO. III. C. P.
attending this interpretation have made me alter my first opinion. Special preambles
may, or may not, restrain the generality of the enacting clause, as in the case of Bial
and Bowles (r), before Lord Hardwicke. And, from the circumstances arising in each,
I hold the cases cited from the King's Bench to be well determined. But in the
present case an insuperable difficulty would arise by making it a question upon every
particular insolvent, what is a trade, an occupation, an art, a manufacture, &c., and
how far he is to be classed under any of them. I also think there is great weight in
what has been observed concerning the substitution of these clauses, instead of those
in former Acts. If we narrow these to trade, where is the satisfaction for the creditors
upon persons not in trade, who acquire future effects? Or if that satisfaction be given
by the operation of law, shall all insolvents not in trade be liable to be stripped of
their future clothes and bedding 7 The clause relating to partners and sureties is
clearly general; and as that is a proviso and exception from the body of the clause,
an argument fairly arises from thence, that the clause itself is general.
Gould, J., of the same opinion; and principally because, in all former Acts, the
future effects are specifically made liable, but here that clause is omitted.
Blackstone, J., of the same opinion.-In these temporary Acts, made on the spur
of the occasion, the best interpretation arises from their history. This clause was
introduced as a substitute for the former ; and as the former was general, so ought
this to be construed ; though the reason for the substitution is special. The Legislature
intended a larger and more liberal relief than before for all persons in insolvent circum-
[1312J-stances. The confining these clauses to traders, would make the relief more
narrow, and extend it to fewer persons.
Nares, J.-I am content to acquiesce in the opinion of the rest of the Court,
though the inclination of my opinion is rather otherwise. And had I dissented, I
should have relied on the case of Cann and Boyd, of which I have a manuscript note,
M. 13 Geo. 2, in the King's Bench, cited 1 Wils. 86 ; yet I own the reasons given by
the ret of the Judges are so strong, that I know not how to oppose them.
Like rule as in Hartwell and Vere, only with a deduction of the effects already
taken in execution, and referring, in respect of the fraud, to the issue to be tried in
that cause.
(o) 16 G. 3, c. 38, s. 41. (p) S. 43.
(q) Say. R. 308, but not S. P. (r) 1 Atk. 165, 1 Ves. sen. 348.
BOONE v. EYRE. Non infregit conventionem not an issuable plea to a breach of
covenant, assigned in the negative. If one party covenants to do one thing, the
other party doing another, this is not a condition precedent, but a mutual
covenant; and one cannot be pleaded in bar of the other.
[S. C. 1 H. Bl. 273, n. Discussed, St. Albans v. Shore, 1789, 1 H. Bl. 279; Glazebrook
v. Woodrow, 1799, 8 T. R. 372. Applied, Fothergill v. Walton, 1818, 8 Taunt. 583;
2 Moore, 639 ; Franklin v. Miller, 1836, 4 Ad. & E. 605; Lloyd v. Lloyd, 1837,
2 Myl. & Cr. 204. Not applied, Chanter v. Leese, 1838, 4 Mee. & W. 311. Explained,
Hoare v. Bennie, 1859, 5 H. & N. 29. Referred to, M'Andrew v. Chapple, 1866,
L. R. 1 C. P. 648. Doctrine not applied, Wilson v. Finch-Hatton, 1877, 2 Ex.
D. 345; Bastin v. Bidwell, 1881, 18 Ch. D. 245. Referred to, Inman Steamship
Company v. Bischoff, 1882, 7 App. Cas. 673; Socidtd Gdnerale le Paris v. Milders, 1883,
49 L. T. 59.]
In covenant, the plaintiff declares on a deed of sale, indented by him, made to the
defendant on the 28th of February, 1775, of a plantation in the island of Dominica,
with the negroes, &c. thereto belonging, in consideration of 5001. and an annuity of
1601., payable half yearly in London, for the lives of the plaintiff and his wife, and
the survivor of them : and that the defendant covenanted with the plaintiff, that he,
the said John Boone, well, truly, and faithfully doing, fulfilling, and performing all
and singular the covenants, clauses, recitals, and agreements in the said indenture
contained, the defendant should pay the said annuity. And the plaintiff avers, that
he hath well and truly performed, kept, and fulfilled all the covenants and agreements
on his part, yet, (protesting that the defendant bath not performed any of his
covenants), he further avers, that 4001. of the said annuity, being for two years and a
half, ending the 28th of February, 1779, still remains unpaid; and so the defendant hath
767
2 BLAO1X W. 1312.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr1010&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)