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/ssactsengr0697 and id is 1 raw text is: EX PARTE GEDGE
for ever. The present Duke of Leeds is absolutely entitled in his own right to the
fee-simple and equity of redemption of the said mortgaged premises, subject to the said
£25,000. The executors of the mortgagee having called for payment, the Duke of
Leeds sold the premises for £39,000 to Thomas Evans and William Strutt in equal
moieties. The mortgagee left his sister, Elizabeth Watham, and his niece, the infant
Georgiana Elizabeth Munday, his coheiresses at law.
The Master farther certified, that he was of opinion, that the legal estate of and in
the said premises passed by the residuary devise in the will of James Mansfield Chadwicke
to his devisee : but in case it did not so pass, but descended as undisposed of, then he
found, that the infant was an infant trustee as to one moiety for the said purchasers
within the intent and meaning of the act.
[349] The purchasers having consulted two conveyancers, who advised, that the legal
estate did not pass by the will of the mortgagee, the petition was presented by the Duke
of Leeds, in order to have the opinion of the Court upon the point.
Mr. Richards, who with the Attorney General was to support the Master's opinion,
cited Ex parte Bowes, stated by Mr. Sanders in a note to Casborne v. Scarfe, 1 Atk. 605,
3d edit.
The Solicitor General and Mr. Roupel were to have argued, that the legal estate in
the mortgaged premises did not pass by the devise : the former was not present : but
Mr. Roupel having mentioned Lord Hardwicke's opinion to that effect in Casborne v.
Scarfe, and the Attorney General admitting, lie could not support the devise, the order
was made ; declaring, that the infant was a trustee and mortgagee within the act ;
and ordering her to convey, so far as any legal estate in the mortgaged premises
descended to her. (1)
(1) See Mr. Butler's note: Co. Lit. 203 b, note 96. This point after much fluctuation,
ExparteSergison, 4 Yes. 147; The Attorney General v. Buller, 5 Ves. 339; ExparteBrettell,
6 Yes. 577 ; 8 Ves. 276, is in Lord Braybroke v. Inskip, 8 Ves. 417, thus settled upon
consideration of all the cases ; that a trust estate will pass by a general devise, unless
the contrary intention can be collected from expressions in the will or purposes or
objects of the testator. Ex parte Morgan, 10 Ves. 101. Wall v. Bright, 1 Jac. & Walk.
494. Thompson v. Grant, 4 Madd. 438. Silvester v. Jarman, 10 Pri. 78.
GEDGE, Ex parte. March 30th, 1797.
Creditor by compromising his debt after having struck a docket forfeits the debt.
The petitioner after having struck a docket compromised his debt by receiving bills
of exchange indorsed to him by the debtor; against whom a commission of bankruptcy
issued about a week afterwards upon the debt of another creditor. Upon the application
of the solicitor for the assignees under that commission the petitioner delivered up the
bills, he had received, and applied to prove his debt under the commission: but the
commissioners refused to admit the proof on the ground, that he had forfeited his
debt under the statute 5 Geo. II. c. 30, § 24 ; upon which this petition was presented.
Mr. Richards, for the petition, said, that this is a penal act; and ought to be con-
strued strictly. The statute speaks of a compromise after a commission issued : in this
instance nothing farther was done than striking a docket.
[350] Mr. Leach, for the assignees, cited Ex parte Thompson (1 Yes. jun. 157).
Lord Chancellor [Loughborough]. I am very glad, there is such a case. It is a
stronger case than the present; because it appears, it was a mistake; and nothing
could have been done upon the docket. All the mischief follows immediately upon
striking the docket. By striking a docket they gain to themselves four days to traffic.
The petition must be dismissed with costs. (This case over-ruled. See the note, 1 Ves.
jun. 158.)
MOORE v. BOOT. April 26th and 27th, 1797.
A party attending an arbitrator under an order of the Court is privileged from arrest.
By a decree made in this cause at the Rolls by consent all matters in dispute were
referred to an arbitrator ; whose award was to be final, provided the same should be
delivered in writing and signed by him on or before the 28th of November 1796 ; and
1047
3 VES. JUN. 349.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0697&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)