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/ssactsengr0720 and id is 1 raw text is: acquainted with business, likely to qualify him for such an office: a fit person
therefore in that respect. He was recommended to the Master by the trustee, in
whom the testator reposed this peculiar trust; not selected by the Master at his
own discretion, or pointed out to him by accident. His residence at the distance
of 14 miles only is no objection. The person proposed is therefore altogether
unexceptionable. The effect of confirming the Report will not be to deprive the
Plaintiff of those advantages, which his father intended for him ; having the orna-
mental part of the estate under his own care, paying no rent, and with the enjoy-
ment of sporting. There is no ground therefore to interfere with the Master's
discretion in the appointment of a receiver ; which has, I think, been wisely
executed.
The Exception was over-ruled.
(1) 3 Ves. 164. Anon., Wilkins v. Williams, 3 Ves. 515, 588. Thomas v.
Dawkin, 1 Ves. jun. 452. Garland v. Garland, 2 Ves. jun. 137. Wynne v. Lord
Newborough, 15 Ves. 283. Attorney General v. Day, 2 Madd. 246.
[321] TIE SITTINGS AFTER HILARY TERM, 46 GEO. i1. 1806.
WHITE V. HALL. March 24th and 26th, 1806.
Jurisdiction upon a contract concerning an estate in a Colony. But the question
upon the construction of the contract, for a security by way of mortgage, having
been before a Court of competent jurisdiction in the Colony, and a foreclosure
and judicial sale directed, the allegations of fraud merely general, and denied,
an Injunction was refused.
A motion was made for an Injunction under a bill filed on behalf of infants,
entitled to an estate in the Colony of Demerara, which had been brought to a
judicial sale under a judgment, obtained in the Colonial Court by the Defendant,
a creditor. The bill stated a contract, by which the estate was made a security
for the discharge of the debt by instalments ; the last of which was to become due
in November 1806 ; charging, that about March 1804 the Defendant formed a
scheme for obtaining possession, and enforcing a sale ; with the view of becoming
himself the purchaser at an under-value ; and, contrary to the faith of the agree-
ment, instituted process in the Colonial Court, upon a suggestion, that a large sum
was due on account of the instalments ; &c. The Order of the Colonial Court
directed execution and sequestration to issue according to the law of the Colony ;
and that the estate should at [322] the expiration of fifteen months, if not redeemed
by that time, be foreclosed, and put up to sale. The bill prayed a declaration, that
the Defendant was entitled only to have the next proceeds of the annual produce
of the estate, until his debt should be discharged ; but, in case the opinion of the
Court should be, that he was not precluded from demanding immediate pay-
ment, then a redemption, and an injunction. The answer admitted the mortgage,
recorded according to the laws of the Colony.
The Attorney General [Piggott] and Mr. Hart, in support of the motion, cited
Foster v. Vassall (3 Atk. 587), and Lord Cranstown v. Johnston (3 Ves. 170).
The Solicitor General [Romilly] and Mr. Bell, for tIme Defendant. It is not
contended, that this Court has not jurisdiction over contracts relating to possessions
in the Colonies of this country. But the jurisdiction does not hold in this particular
case : a Court of competent jurisdiction having already determined between the
parties. This Court, if it could hold jurisdiction, must have learnt, what is the law
upon this subject in the Colony of Demerara, as a fact; of which no evidence is
given. The case of Lord Cranstown v. Johnston arose in a colony subject to the
English law ; except as it had been altered by Acts of Assembly ; and the same
observation applies to the cases there referred to ; but cannot apply to this case.
Without insisting, however, that this Court cannot hold jurisdiction, merely as
Demerara is a Dutch Colony, your Lordship must be informed, what is the law of
122
12 VES. JUN. 321.
WHITE V. HALL](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0720&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)