Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/667

suits, and of all further directions, until after the Master should have made his report, and any of the parties were to be at liberty to apply to the Court as there should be occasion.

Afterwards, the house was sold before the Master to Lord Salisbury, for £9450 and the sale was completed, and the money paid to Mr. Leycester, in part of the principal and interest due to him on his mortgage.

Mr. Leycester having petitioned for a re-hearing, the causes were re-heard on the 23d of June 1784, when it was ordered, that the decree should be varied, by adding the following directions.

And it is ordered, that the Master do tax the said defendant Ralph Leycester his costs at law and it being alledged, that the said defendant Ralph Leycester was put to an expence in putting the said house into repair, and in keeping possession thereof, during the intermediate time between the said Ralph Leycester's obtaining the possession thereof under the ejectment brought by him, and the delivery of the possession thereof to the purchaser; it is further ordered, that the said Master take an account of what the said Ralph Leycester has so expended, and do make him an allowance in respect thereof;

and with this addition it was ordered, that the decree should be affirmed, and by consent it was ordered, that the Master should compute subsequent interest on the balance he should find due to Mr. Leycester, and the Master was to make a separate report of what he should find so due.

The appellants, after an acquiescence of six years, appealed from this decree; insisting, (J. Manfield, G. Hardinge), that no evidence was given in the cause, by which any of the demands stated in the bill were supported against the appellants. And, that if the respondent was entitled to a satisfaction for any of the demands in his bill, the appellants were only liable to make that satisfaction in common with the other subscribers mentioned in the schedule annexed to [404] the appellants answers; and that therefore no decree ought to have been made against the appellants, without those Subscribers being made parties to the bill.

On the other side it was said (T. Erskine, J. Mitford), that the persons to whom the appellants insisted the respondent ought to be compelled to resort for payment of his demands, jointly with the appellants, were Members of a voluntary Society; their numbers and their engagements were unknown to the respondent; and they had subscribed no instrument by which they bound themselves to answer his demands. On the contrary, the appellants, by the two instruments of the 29th of April, and the 1st of May 1775, had pledged themselves to the respondent. By those instruments, they authorised the respondent to take the steps he had taken, and their authority to bind the other Members of the Club was not even suggested in the cause; or rather it appeared from the answers of the appellants, that the Members differed in opinion, and never came to any agreement on the subject; and that therefore, as expressly stated in the answers, "the agreement with the respondent for the conduct and management of the Club, always rested and depended on the proposition of the 29th of April 1775." That the appellants, by the two instruments of the 29th of April, and 1st of May 1775, gave the respondent those orders under which he acted. They took upon themselves to direct his conduct, and he obeyed, without inquiring into their authority, of which he was ignorant; and it now appeared, from their answers, that they had no direct authority from the other Members of the Club for what they did. It could not be disputed, that a person receiving orders, has a demand on those who give the orders, to reimburse him for what he does in obedience to those orders. The respondent received the orders under which he acted from the appellants, and he demanded a reimbursement from them on the foot of the orders so given.

To suggest that the respondent was entitled to a reimbursement, and at the same time, to state that for that purpose he was to make all the Members of the Club parties to his bill, was equivalent to saying, that he had received an injury, which ought to be redressed, but that he should have no remedy. For no diligence could bring to a hearing, a cause, to which all the existing Members of the Club, and all the representatives of deceased Members, were parties. Abatements by death would continually happen, and the questions which would arise, would be in the highest degree intricate. Some of the Members were married women, and others were minors; and it would be extremely difficult to establish a demand in law