Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1109

the terms of the last resolutions, instead of those terms on which the subscription was first made. But the appellant's clerk, who made such alphabetical books, transcribing the same from the former alphabet, wherein the name of the respondent was first mistaken and made Edward, carried on the mistake into those books, which was manifestly involuntary, and not with design to defraud the respondent of the £1000 because some of the former alphabets referred to the folio in Mr. Webster's cash book, where Eleanor Curzon stood entered, and admitted to have paid in £1000 for the first payment on the said third subscription; and it no where appeared in any of the appellants books relative to the said subscription, that any money was ever paid to their cashier, by Edward Curzon, on account of such subscription; neither could they discover that there ever was any such person as Edward Curzon in being.

Nevertheless the respondent coming amongst other proprietors of the said subscription to claim her stock, for the £1000 by her paid in, pursuant to the last resolutions; and upon searching the alphabet of the said subscription, finding her name not entered therein, but the name of Edward Curzon instead of Eleanor, and imagining that the original lists of subscribers were either destroyed or not to be found, and that, through the largeness and confusion of such transactions, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the appellants to rectify such mistake, or to prove her a subscriber in any of the said lists, she refused to accept such stock; and some time afterwards brought her action against the appellants, on the plea side in the Court of Exchequer, for the said £1000 as for monies received by the appellants for the use of the respondent, and obtained judgment therein, for recovering the said sum, together with costs of suit.

Thereupon the appellants exhibited their bill in the said court against the respondent, for relief; setting forth their case as above stated, and founding their equity thereupon, and insisting, that the original lists of subscribers names so delivered in were lost, or concealed by Mr. Knight, their late treasurer or cashier, who had withdrawn himself out of the kingdom; and therefore prayed a discovery from the respondent, whether she did not solicit or procure herself to be entered a subscriber to one of those lists, for £1000 in the said third subscription, and in whose list in particular; and whether she was not admitted as such by Mr. Webster, their clerk; and whether she did not pay in the said £1000 to Webster, for the appellant's use, for the first payment as aforesaid; and if she did not claim, or come to claim the said subscription, or the stock arising therefrom pursuant to the said resolutions; and if the appellants did not allow her to be a subscriber, and readily offer to admit her claim thereto; and that she might set forth her reasons, why she refused to accept the same. And the appellants further insisted upon the act of parliament, 7 Geo. I. [503] intitled, An act for making several provisions to restore public credit, which suffers by the frauds and mismanagements of the late Directors of the South-Sea Company and others; whereby it was provided, that upon the appellants making an addition of £33 6s. 8d. per cent. to the stock then allowed, or allowable, for the money paid in on the said third subscription, the same should be in full discharge and satisfaction for the money so paid in; notwithstanding any misnomer, misspelling, or omission of entry, of the money paid for the said subscription. Of which act, the appellants had not any opportunity of taking advantage, on the trial of the respondent's action at law, it not having passed soon enough for that purpose. And therefore the bill further prayed, that the respondent might be decreed, to accept stock in lieu of the said £1000 so paid in as aforesaid, according to the before-mentioned resolutions, and the provision of the said act of parliament.

To this bill the respondent demurred, insisting, that there was no equity therein; and likewise insisting upon the judgment at law, obtained by her against the appellants.

On the 17th of November 1722, this demurrer was argued; when the court thought fit to allow the same, and to dismiss the appellants bill, with costs.

From this order the Company appealed, insisting (W. Peere Williams, T. Bootle), that the same was unjust; inasmuch as they were thereby deprived of the benefit of the respondent's answer, by which it would have appeared, that she was a subscriber in the said third subscription, and paid in the £1000 as the first payment on that account, and no other; and that her name was given in as a subscriber in one