Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/28

especially the same coming to be heard upon cross Bills, and as this Case was circumstanced, after such Delay and such Pleading in the Court of King's Bench: And as to Costs, held no Cause for an Appeal in this Case, nor in Truth was it ever known to be a Cause, if the Merits were against the Party Appellant. And so the Decree was affirmed in the whole.

Money charged in Equity upon the Person who had the Benefit of it.—Appeal to be relieved against a Decree in Chancery made by the Master of the Rolls, Nov. 10. 1696. The Case was thus, That one Paris Slaughter of London, being Guardian to Katharine the Appellant during her Infancy, he placed her with his Kinsman Chambers Slaughter near Worcester, and sometimes boarded her in that Place for her Education; and the Respondent and the said P. S. being Correspondents, Paris Slaughter ordered the Respondent to pay the said Chambers what Sums should be called for upon the Account of Katharine: In pursuance whereof several Sums were paid upon her Account, and the same were allowed again to the Respondent by P. S. The Appellant Katharine having just attained her Age, she came to the Respondent, and desired more Money, as by the Order of P. S. and accordingly two several Sums were paid her, and Receipts taken from her, as by the Order of P. S. The Appellant Katharine did afterwards come to an Account with P. S. which was fairly stated in Writing, and they executed General Releases each to the other: But the said two Sums not being entred in the Books of P. S. were not accounted for by the Appellant Katharine; and the Respondent not having received any Allowance from P. S. in his Life-time, nor having, as he thought, any sufficient Orders to charge the Executor of P. S. with, he prefers his Bill against the Appellants, and by her Answer she own'd the Receipt of the two Sums, but by Order of P. S. and afterwards, upon hearing of the Cause, The Court declared that there appearing no positive Orders from P. S. for these two Sums, the Appellants ought to pay the Principal, Interest and Costs: And a Decree was made accordingly.

Argument for the Appellants.—And now it was argued on the Behalf of the Appellants, That this was not just, because the Respondent never paid any Money to any Body while Katharine boarded with him, or afterwards, but by the Order and upon the Credit of P. S. and charged it to his Account; and the Respondent did not pretend but that all was repaid him, excepting these two Sums; that the Respondent and Katharine had never any Account or Dealings together upon her Credit; and 'tis to be presumed, that the Respondent hath charged these Sums upon the Account of P. S. and not to her Account, because the Receipts are so worded; and that Katharine had released P. S. on their accounting together, and therefore she could not charge the Executor of P. S.

Argument for the Respondent. Decree affirmed.—On the other side it was argued, That here was a Badge of Fraud in the Appellant K. that upon her Account with P. S. no Mention was had of these Sums; that the Debt was originally hers; that she was obliged to pay it, either to Slaughter or to [18] Haynes; that not having paid the same to Slaughter, and Slaughter having released to her, she was discharged from all Demands on that side, and therefore 'twas the more reasonable it should be answered by her to the Respondent; that tho' the Credit might be at first given to Slaughter, yet the Money being paid to her, and not by her paid to Slaughter, Haynes had a fair Claim against her, even to avoid Circuity of Suits; for if this were otherwise, 'twould only turn Haynes upon the Executor of Slaughter, and that Executor upon Katharine the Appellant again in Equity to set aside the Release, and to have an Allowance of these Sums; and that in Justice and Equity the Charge was placed upon the proper party, who at first was the Debtor for what she thus received: And accordingly the Decree was affirmed.