Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/356

several coal mines for ten years, paying 2s. 6d. for every weigh of coals; and that appellant was indebted to him for goods sold, monies received, and upon several other accounts; and that appellant and his brother, being bound for respondent 200l. and 55l. lent by appellant's father, respondent had for the security of these monies confessed a judgment for 500l. to appellant's father and brother: And that appellant, as well by the rent of the lands which he held from the respondent, and By money due for coals, timber, and other goods, and by several sums of money paid to him by respondent and his order, had received more money than would satisfy the judgment, and all monies due to appellant, and that therefore the judgment ought to be discharged; but that appellant had nevertheless extended respondent's lands upon the said judgment, and had also by surprise got a conveyance from him of the royalties of the manors of Gillibyon and Walterstone: And therefore prayed that appellant might account with him, and that the judgment might be set aside, or satisfaction acknowledged, and respondent generally relieved: And that appellant in his answer, submitted to an account, [391] and that witnesses were examined, and the cause heard 30th June, 1703, and it was decreed that both parties should go to an account, and appellant be allowed what he, or his father, or his brother, had paid for the respondent with interest, and respondent allowed what was due to him from time to time, for his rent, and for monies received by appellant for his use, and what was due for coals, timber, and otherwise, and all parties to have just allowances: And that both parties attended the Remembrancer, who, after several delays on appellant's part, reported as stated by appellant, who put in exceptions, and it was re-referred; and on second report 405l. 14s. was reported due to respondent after all just allowances, and this report confirmed without any exception, and appellant decreed to pay said 405l. 14s. and to release the judgment: And that appellant afterwards stood out process of contempt for not performing the decree, till he was arrested upon a commission of rebellion, and thereupon gave security to perform the decree; but, for further delay, brought his bill of review, to which respondent demurred, which upon arguing in Michaelmas Term, 1707, was allowed, and the decree confirmed; and respondent insisted that the decree was just and reasonable, and ought not to be reversed, because the objection made in the appeal, that respondent was allowed a sum of money for goods for which the appellant had paid, and that there was no proof to warrant such a charge, was not one of the errors assigned in the bill of review, and appellant ought not to be permitted to make any objection to the decree which was not assigned for error in the bill of review: And further, because even that objection was a mistake in point of fact, for it appeared by appellant's answer, and by proofs in the cause, that he had those goods, and there was no proof that he paid for them: And further, because the errors assigned by the bill of review, were not objections to the decree, but to the report, that several sums, which appellant pretended ought to have been allowed him, were not allowed; and though there had been any such mistake in the report, yet respondent insisted that could not be assigned for error in a bill of review; because the only way to rectify mistakes in the report, was by taking exceptions thereto, which in this case appellant had done; and that the report had been confirmed, and that after [392] a report was confirmed, no exceptions could be made thereto by bill of review, or otherwise; And further, because every error assigned against a decree by bill of review, ought to appear in the record itself; and it cannot appear to the Court, whether the allowances made by the report were just and reasonable or not, because the proofs in the cause, which are the ground and foundation of such allowances, are not entered upon the record. (James Groves, Con. Phipps.)

Die Jovis, 8 Januarii, 1707. After hearing council on this appeal, it was adjudged by the Lords that the same should be dismissed, and the decrees, reports, orders, and proceedings of the Court of Exchequer complained of affirmed; and that appellant pay respondent 10l. for his costs. Lords Journ. vol. xviii. p. 404. (Vin. iv. 414. pl. 5, 6. 2 Eq. Ab. 175. c. 12.)