Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1149

made, whereby it was referred to Mr. Graves, one of the Masters of the court, to certify whether the answer was sufficient or not in the several points excepted unto; and the Master, on the 10th of the said month, made his report, and thereby certified, that he was of opinion the answer was sufficient. Whereupon the appellant took exceptions to the report; and on the 16th of January 1789, the matter of the exceptions came on to be argued before the Lord Chancellor; when his Lordship, considering the allowance of the demurrer, and being of opinion that the exceptions applied to the same matters to which the demurrer related, was pleased to disallow the exceptions, and thereupon the said injunction became of course dissolved.

The appellant conceiving himself aggrieved, as well by the order allowing the demurrer, as also by the order disallowing the exception to the report, appealed from both; insisting (J. Mansfield, P. P. Stratford), that supposing the [562] demurrer assigned by the respondents well founded in point of law, they had, both in substance, and in form of pleading, over-ruled the same by their answer. And as to the order over-ruling the exception to the Master's report, that all the exceptions to the answer, except the 12th, had been over-ruled upon the ground, that the matters to which the same related were covered by the demurrer; and it follows, that in case the order allowing the demurrer should be rescinded, the order over-ruling the exceptions should also be rescinded; and that the matter of the twelfth exception to the answer was not demurred to, nor answered.

On the other side it was contended (H. Patridge, J. Campbell), that the appellant did not shew, by his bill, any title to have the compositions therein mentioned established, or declared to remain undetermined; and that the appellant did not shew, that he had any such interest, in the agreement stated in his bill, as entitled him, by a bill in equity, to call upon the court to interfere with respect to such agreement. That the regulations prayed by the bill, respecting the manner in which the respondents ought to be directed to perform the duties of their office, appeared to concern all the suitors of the Court of Chancery; and the appellant had not, by his bill, shewn any ground whatever for making any decree, or order, concerning the same, upon a bill in equity, at the suit of the appellant. That with respect to any loss, or damage, which the appellant may have suffered from the conduct of the respondents, there was no reason stated in the bill, which could prevent him from proceeding at law against the respondents, in order to recover satisfaction for such damage, in case he should appear to be entitled thereto. That as to the allowances claimed by the appellant from the respondents, as due to him for the reasons mentioned in his bill, he had not shewn any title whatever to such allowances. And that the answer put in by the respondents to those parts of the appellant's bill, to which the respondents demurrer did not extend, was a full and complete answer thereto; and the Master acted properly in over-ruling the exceptions taken by the appellant to the answer; and the order of the Lord Chancellor, over-ruling the exception taken by the appellant to the Master's report, was perfectly just.

After hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the same should be dismissed, and the decree therein complained of, affirmed. (MS. Jour. sub anno 1791. p. 391.)