Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/250

several regiments, applied to respondent, Boddington, and Tracy Pauncefoot, to cloath the four regiments, for the year 1696, and desired they would advance the money, and admit him to be concerned with them in the contracts: And that prices and particulars being agreed on, Moyer brought a contract for appellant's regiment, with and in the name of respondent, Cholmley, under the appellant's hand and [169] seal, together with an assignment of the off-reckonings of his regiment also under appellant's hand and seal, in these words, written under the particulars of the goods:—

And that, upon credit of this contract, and the others, the goods were accordingly delivered, most of them being bought and provided with Boddington's money, and that therefore all the contracts were left with him; and that in some time after, Boddington went to the pay-master's office to receive the money on appellant's assignment, and found appellant had before assigned the off-reckonings for 1696, to one Glover, who had received them accordingly: and that appellant's regiment, for the year 1697, had been cloathed by Pauncefoot and Moyer, who had all that year's off-reckonings paid them, except 430l. 7s. 4d. which has been lately paid to the respondent, Boddington, in part of said contract: And that appellant's regiment had gone over into Ireland, in April, 1698, and was there; so that the assignment became of no benefit to respondent, for that appellant had the same power of his off-reckonings there as in England, and was bound to apply them to the cloathing in arrear, which was not in the power of any person but the colonel to effect: And that Pauncefoot, Moyer and Boddington, had afterwards articled to divide their interest in the cloathing of the four regiments, and appellant's and colonel Brewer's regiments had fallen to respondent, Boddington's share, and respondent, Cholmley's, name was used in trust for him only. And that appellant not paying, and respondent having no possible method to recover but against appellant, he, in Michaelmas Term, 1699, had appellant arrested in an action of debt upon the contract in Cholmley's name, and in that vacation appellant brought a bill in Chancery, which the respondents answered; and appellant afterwards pleaded as shewed by him; and that appellant afterwards, in March, 1699, dismissed his bill in Chancery, and paid costs; and that the cause was afterwards, in Trinity term, 1700, tried upon on issue, joined upon the appellant's plea, by a special jury, and upon full evidence, a verdict found for respondent, Cholmley, agreeable to the opinion of the [170] court, for 2331l. 12s. 6d. after which appellant brought another bill, and respondents put in similar answers as to the former; and witnesses were examined on both sides, and the cause was beard on the 11th and 20th February, 1700, before the Lord Keeper; who declared that the debt demanded by respondent, was just and honest, and that he saw no cause to relieve appellant, save as to the 430l. 4s. 4d. acknowledged to be received, which was ordered to be deducted, and gave respondents no costs in equity: And respondents contended, that as to the pretended evidence of a verbal agreement, qualifying the express contract in writing, as aforesaid, it would be of dangerous consequence to admit of any such against a contract reduced into writing, under hand and seal, which was meant to supercede all discourse, and to prevent perjury in proving such unwritten arguments; and the rather here, because Moyer was the appellant's agent when he made the contract, and brought it ready sealed to respondent: And that he having provided for his own money, and so become unconcerned in the cloathing in question, would swear to defeat the contract, wherein he ought not to be credited; because if the agreement was as alleged, the bringing a positive contract to respondent was a fraud upon respondent; and that such alleged defence was proper only at law, and he had there already solemnly tried it upon an issue of his own choosing: And that a contract was never known to be set aside in a court of equity, unless obtained by fraud, or circumvention, or without consideration, none of which were pretended in this case: And that the prices had been proved reasonable; and that the debt so recovered at law and in equity, was appellant's proper debt, and he was still in possession of his regiment, and had, or ought to have saved out of the off-reckonings to pay the arrear: And that respondents had no remedy save against appellant; and after being kept out of their money above five years, and forced to spend near 300l. to get it, respondent