Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/327

freighted by appellants or by the Gambia adventurers, he was to seize and carry them to Cape Corso Castle; and that neither the captain, nor any of the officers, or ship's company, were to carry goods or merchandize for trade, but were to bring home all such gold as appellants agent should put on board: And that by these this ship was put into a state of war against all English subjects on the coast of Africa, except appellants and Gambia adventurers, whilst in peace with foreign traders; so that a French merchant was to be treated as a friend, whilst an English merchant was to be treated as an enemy: And that soon after the man of war arrived on that coast, the Ann and her cargo, whereof respondent was the greatest owner, but one Jeffery Nightingale, since deceased, had part with him, was seized by the captain on the coast of Africa, and delivered over to the appellants agents; the prime cost of the ship and cargo in London being 2630l. 12s. and that appellants had made above cent. per cent. of the cargo, and had ever since detained same, and had the benefit thereof in trade above twenty years; and that Dockwra and Nightingale, upon notice that the ship and cargo had been unlawfully seized, [330] complained thereof, and made all fitting applications to obtain restitution from Dickenson, who thereupon absconded, and applied to his said majesty for protection, who in council declared he expected appellants should forthwith indemnify Dickenson from any suits for seizing the ship; and that if they refused, his Majesty would not in future employ any of his ships in their defence: And that Dockwra, in 1695, got Dickenson arrested (Nightingale being then dead) in an action of trover, and brought it to trial before Lord Chief Justice Holt,^[1] and upon full evidence, after a vigorous defence, obtained a verdict for 2630l. 12s. being only the prime cost of the ship and cargo; and having entered up judgment thereon, Dickenson filed his bill as stated by appellants; and that an injunction obtained in that cause after all possible opposition, was at last dissolved; and Dickenson being arrested in an action brought on the judgment, died insolvent, and a prisoner in the Fleet; after which respondents Langdon and his wife, Dickenson's administratrix, having revived the said suit, and the cause was heard 3d November, 1701, and as against the respondent Dockwra the bill was dismissed with costs, but as against the appellants, who, at the hearing, for delay, made default, it was decreed that they should pay (or repay) to Langdon and wife 2630l. 12s. and the costs at law and in Chancery, unless cause upon the return of a Subpœna, with which they were served, and again making default, the decree was, 4th December, 1701, made absolute, and signed and inrolled; yet upon the importunity of appellants, and their offer to give security to perform the decree, the inrollment was so far laid open, as to admit them to a re-hearing; and (after ten several orders about the security, and sundry pretences for putting off the cause) it was re-heard by the Master of the Rolls; who, and after mature deliberation, confirmed the former decree: And that the 2630l. 12s. had since been recovered and paid by Langdon and wife to Dockwra, on his acknowledging satisfaction on the record of the judgment against Dickenson, which decree respondents insisted ought to be affirmed by the Lords, because the equity of the bill as against appellants was, that they had the benefit of all that was seized by Dickenson their servant; and that Nightingale's executor was not a necessary party, be-[331]-cause the property of the ship and cargo was wholly in Dockwra, and so had been determined at law; and that the bill was brought only to be indemnified against the recovery by Dockwra; and that the recovery at law was the measure of the damage, against which appellants ought to indemnify Dickenson, whom appellants had refused to defend; and therefore any omission in his defence was to be charged to appellants; and that the prerogative was in no sort in question; and if any money was answered to the Crown by appellants, which ought not to have been answered, they had their proper remedy, which Captain Dickenson could not have in any manner: And that although the bill was dismissed as against Dockwra, yet there was a good ground for relief against the company, and if Dockwra was willing to stand in their place as to the relief given to Dickenson, by such means the relief became effectual to Dickenson, who thereby was eased from a most adversary suit; and that it was the most effectual course Dockwra could have for what he had recovered; against