Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/260

but not being complied with in that time, the agreement was void; besides which, appellant stated, that there was no consideration or agreement for any allowance In lieu of interest, for non-payment of the money for a year, nor any recompence for the advantage respondent was to have, in being at liberty to call for the stock at any time within the year, though such benefit was worth above 10l. per cent: And that Craggs, by indorsement upon the contract, dated 15th November, 1699, assigned the benefit thereof to respondent, without obliging him to the payment of the 2520l. or any part thereof, and fraudulently procured appellant himself, to be a witness to the assignment: And that, in Michaelmas, 1700, respondent brought his bill in Chancery, to have a performance of this contract in specie; and 31st January last, the cause came to be heard before the Lord Keeper, who decreed appellant to transfer to respondent 6000l. stock, and to allow respondent a dividend of ten per cent. made upon the East India stock since the contract, amounting to 600l. and that respondent should pay appellant the residue of the purchase money, with interest from the 19th July, 1700, which by the order was computed at 2101l. 9s. 6d. and appellant to pay respondent his costs, which decree appellant in-[190]-sisted was unjust, as thereby respondent, without laying out a farthing of money, would get 3000l. and because the contract hereby confirmed, was in the nature only of a stock-jobbing bargain, and contrary to the intent of the statute in that behalf, and would have been within the letter of that statute, were it not for the recital in the contract; that appellant, at the request of Craggs, had advanced the 2520l. which was entirely fictitious, and that by such means the act against stock-jobbing might be entirely eluded; and because the contract was obtained by contrivance and circumvention, without consideration paid by respondent, and whilst he was a referee, and able to do appellant great prejudice, unless he complied with his unfair and unreasonable demand, and therefore ought not to be countenanced in a court of equity; because, if it were fair, respondent might, in Craggs name, sue at law and recover damages, and if not, it ought not to be established in a court of conscience. (J. Hawles. J. Jekyll.)

The respondent's case is wanting; but may be reasonably collected from appellant's observations. Appellant observes, that the. goodness of the decree depended on the nature of the bargain, and the means by which it was obtained; and that all respondent's observations, relative to appellant's solicitor's conduct with the witnesses, was foreign to the case, and no way in issue before the Lords; and that the indiscretion of appellant's solicitor, or his being advised to insist upon a mistaken defence, (if it were so,) ought not to be any argument, wherefrom to form a judgment of the merits of the case: And appellant took notice, that respondent averred in his case, that 1l. 10s. per cent. had been allowed by him above the market price of the stock, in consideration of the forbearance of the purchase-money for a year; but that the contrary had been proved by Craggs, the only person privy to the contract; viz. that the stock was agreed to be transferred at the then market price, 42l. per cent. and that there was no allowance whatever for the year's forbearance; so that the bargain was entirely without consideration: And though respondent, in his case averred that such contracts were the usual methods practised in buying stock for time, or forbearance of payment, yet he did not give any instance where an additional allowance was not made, above the ready money price current; neither did [191] respondent give any answer at all to the artifice whereby lie obtained this bargain: And appellant averred, that upon consideration of all the circumstances, it would appear, that the contract was not an absolute bargain, but a corrupt contract on respondent's part, obtained by undue practices, without any just consideration, and that appellant's being a witness to the assignment, from Craggs to respondent, could not make it a good one.

Die Jovis, 12 Martii 1701. After hearing council upon this appeal, it was adjudged by the Lords, that the same should be dismissed, and the decretal order therein complained of be affirmed. Lords Journ. xvii. p. 69.