Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/853

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
DONALDSON v. BECKETT [1774]
II BROWN.

sending the appellants to a trial at law as to the execution of the deed-poll, it seemed to have been understood, that if the [128] deed was duly executed, the appellants were entitled to relief thereon; for otherwise such trial was altogether unnecessary. That though no other consideration but natural love and affection was expressed in the deed-poll, yet there was manifestly another consideration for it, namely, the appellant Robert's abridging himself of the power he had over his own estates, by agreeing to settle them upon his wife for life; with remainder to her son in tail. And though a chose en action is not assignable, yet nothing is more frequent than the establishing such assignments in a Court of Equity; and in that respect, the respondents ought to be considered as trustees for the appellants. That the cross bill ought to have been dismissed with costs, not only because no relief was given thereon, but because the allegations of it appeared, by the verdict, to be false and groundless: it ought also to be discountenanced, on account of the extraordinary and unusual management of the respondents, in examining witnesses with a view to relief upon a bill of discovery only, and in applying for and obtaining leave to amend this bill, as a matter of course, after publication had actually passed.

On the other side it was contended (C. Talbot, N. Fazakerley) to have been Mr. Penne's intention, to reserve to himself a power during his life, of calling in all or any part of the money secured by this bond; and that by the deed he intended only to give the appellant Elizabeth so much of that money, as he should think fit to leave outstanding at the time of his death. That it appeared from the many endeavours which Mr. Penne from time to time made use of to get the appellant Robert arrested on the bond, that he meant to call in all the money thereby secured, and that no part thereof should remain uncalled in at the time of his death, and consequently, that neither of the appellants should have any benefit thereof. And that the artful endeavours of the appellant Robert to prevent being arrested, ought not to turn to his benefit, or to the diminution of Mr. Penne's estate.

After hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the same should be dismissed, and the decree therein complained of, affirmed. (Jour. vol. 23. p. 671.)


[129]BOOKS.

Alexander Donaldson, and Another,—Appellants; Thomas Beckett, and Others,—Respondents [22d February 1774].

[Mew's Dig. iv. 512; Millar v. Taylor, 1769, 4 Burr. 2303; 17 Cobbett Parl. Hist. 954, 1003. Copyright Act, 1842 (5 & 6 Vict. c. 45), s. 3. 15 Geo. III. c. 53.]
[The copy-right of books is only under the statute of 8 Ann, c. 19, whereby the sole right of printing and disposing of copies is vested in the author, or his assigns, for fourteen years from the first publication. But if the author be living at the expiration of that term, then the right returns to him for another term of fourteen years.—But this law does not extend to either of the Universities of Oxford or Cambridge, or to the Colleges of Eton, Westminster, or Winchester, who have a perpetuity in all copies belonging to them.]

James Thomson, esq. deceased, was in his lifetime the author of a tragedy called Sophonisba, and also of a poem intitled Spring.—In January 1729, Andrew Millar, deceased, contracted with Mr. Thomson for the purchase of this tragedy and poem; and by indenture dated the 16th of January 1729, Mr. Thomson, in consideration of £137 10s. paid to him by Millar, did assign to Millar, his executors, administrators, and assigns, the true copies of the said tragedy and poem, and the sole and exclusive

837

This article is issued from Wikisource. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.