Page:The English Reports v4 1901.pdf/1044

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
REPORTS OF CASES heard in the House of Lords upon Appeals or Writs of Error, and decided during the Session 1828. By Richard Bligh, Barrister-at-Law. Vol. II.


IRELAND.

(Court of Chancery.)

Sir GEORGE FITZ-GERALD HILL, Baronet,—Appellant; BENJAMIN BALL,—Respondent.

[Mews' Dig. i. 727. S.C. 1 Dow and Cl. 164.]

Upon a bill by the assignee of a judgment against the conusor, stating an award in which a certain sum was found due upon the judgment, and praying that accounts might be taken against the conusor upon the foot of the award, and the judgment, the Defendant, the conusor, cannot by his answer impeach the award, and raise questions which had been discussed before and decided by the arbitrators, as to the state of accounts between the Defendant as conuses, and the conusor of the judgment.

In 1793, John Claudius Beresford and James Woodmason were bankers and co-partners in Dublin. The Appellant, who had married the sister of J. C. Beresford, kept an account there. Various money transactions had for many years passed between the Appel-[2]-lant and J. C. Beresford, without any settlement having been made. In a letter dated the 22d of December, 1808, J. C. Beresford called upon the Appellant to settle all the accounts between them, and to pass his bond for the balance; and the Appellant shortly afterwards executed his bond to J. C. Beresford, in the penal sum of £31,000, to secure £15,500, being the balance of the account then stated as due.

In 1807 the partnership with Woodmason was dissolved, and John Claudius Beresford, on the 1st of January, 1808, formed a partnership with the Respondent, Benjamin Ball, Matthew James Plunkett, and Philip Doyne, as bankers. On that occasion an arrangement was made, that the notes and engagements of the old firm should be paid by the new firm, and for that purpose the property of the old firm was assigned to trustees. John Claudius Beresford, having been largely indebted to the old firm, he, in part satisfaction of his debt, delivered over to the Respondent, various securities, and amongst others, the bond of the Appellant. The bond was so given in trust for the Respondent and his partners. Judgment was entered up on this bond in Hilary term, 1810. By an indenture of the 24th of March, 1810 duly registered, John Claudius Beresford assigned the judgment for £31,000, to the Respondent.

A memorial of this assignment was, pursuant to the Act 9 Geo. II., enrolled on the 24th day of March, 1810; and the Respondent became, under the provisions of that Act, the legal owner of the judgment, and entitled as such, to issue execution and levy the amount of it in his own name.

By deed dated 27th of December, 1810, the partnership between John Claudius

1030

This article is issued from Wikisource. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.