Pleadings, 1784-1785: nos 182-211

London and Middlesex Exchequer Equity Pleadings, 1685-6 and 1784-5. Originally published by London Record Society, London, 2000.

This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.

Citation:

, 'Pleadings, 1784-1785: nos 182-211', in London and Middlesex Exchequer Equity Pleadings, 1685-6 and 1784-5, (London, 2000) pp. 85-94. British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/london-record-soc/vol35/pp85-94 [accessed 21 May 2024].

. "Pleadings, 1784-1785: nos 182-211", in London and Middlesex Exchequer Equity Pleadings, 1685-6 and 1784-5, (London, 2000) 85-94. British History Online, accessed May 21, 2024, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/london-record-soc/vol35/pp85-94.

. "Pleadings, 1784-1785: nos 182-211", London and Middlesex Exchequer Equity Pleadings, 1685-6 and 1784-5, (London, 2000). 85-94. British History Online. Web. 21 May 2024, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/london-record-soc/vol35/pp85-94.

In this section

Pleadings, 1784-1785: nos 182-211

182. Burkitt v Robarts

P: (1) Alexander Sheafe Burkitt gent., St. Mary Abbas, Kensington, Midd. D: (1) John Chapman Robarts, hosier, Newgate St., London. C: (1) J. Bicknell, counsel for p; (2) Thomas Nedham, counsel for d. P seeks inj ag d's suit for payment of a £160 bond. P claims in 1783, he issued d a £160 bond as payment of a debt to d, who agreed to pay off bills & notes which p had endorsed since 1781 for d's benefit. P allegedly since discovered he owes very little to d, who did not pay off the bills & notes, but is instead suing p for the bond. D denies p ever issued bills & notes for his benefit.

1785, Hil E 112/1734 Bill. LMX 4538.
1785, June 15 E 112/1734 Answer. Swearing & filing date.
1785, Trin E 112/1734 Exception. P's exceptions concern bills & notes he allegedly issued for d.
1785, Nov 16 E 112/1734 Amended bill. Further concerns the bills & notes p allegedly issued for d.
1786, May 29 E 112/1734 Further answer (with attachments). Swearing & filing date of d's further answer; 6 schedules attached of accounts between d & p.

183. Burnsall v Williams

P: (1) David Burnsall esq., Lawrence St., Chelsea, Midd, G. Burnsall's executor. D: (1) Robert Williams gent.. C: (1) W. Ainge, counsel for p; (2) J. Bicknell, counsel for d. Add: (1) George Burnsall gent., St. Mary le Bone, Midd, deceased. P, executor of G. Burnsall (deceased), seeks repayment of alleged loans made by the deceased to d. D claims the money was given as a present.

1785, Trin E 112/1700 Bill. LMX 3684.
1786, Jan 20 E 112/1700 Answer. Swearing date, filed 21 January.

184. Butcher v Menham

P: (1) Robert Holt Butcher, clerk, Milbank, Westminster, Midd. D: (1) Thomas Menham, merchant, Newcastle upon Tyne, Northumb; (2) Alexander Fordyce esq., C: (1) J. Bicknall, counsel for p. P seeks inj ag d1's suit in the Court of Durham for payment of a £500 bill of exchange. P claims in 1780 he issued the bill of exchange to d2, who agreed to pay it off by the due date. D2 allegedly deposited the bill with d1, as security for debts for which d1 was suing d2. D2 apparently asserts that p issued him the bill in return for cash. D1 is suing p for the bill.

1784, Mich E 112/1697 Bill. LMX 3586.

185. Butler v Ashton

P: (1) Jane Butler, Countess Dowager of Lanesborough, Ireland; (2) William Gardiner esq., colonel of? regiment, Queen St., Mayfair, Midd. D: (1) William Ashton, shoemaker, Oxford St., Midd; (2) John Richardson, grocer, South Molton St., Midd. C: (1) Thomas Nedham, counsel for ps; (2) Richard Hollist, counsel for d2; (3) J. Bicknell, counsel for d1. Ps seek inj ag ds' suit at KB for payment of a £250 bill of exchange. In 1784 p1 drew the bill upon p2, agreeing to pay it off by the due date. P1 claims she received only £120 for the bill from d2, who promised to advance her the balance later. Now ds are suing ps at KB for the full £250, claiming d2 paid p1 the full value of the bill, & that d1 paid d2 likewise.

1785, Hil E 112/1696 Bill. LMX 3568.
1785, Feb 9 E 112/1696 Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer, filed 10 February.
1785, April 26 E 112/1696 Answer. Swearing date of d2's answer, filed 27 April.

186. Byron v Thompson

P: (1) Rt. Hon. William, Lord Byron. D: (1) Robert Thompson, coach maker, Drury Lane, Midd. C: (1) F. P. Stratford, counsel for p. Add: (1) Robert Ansell, picture dealer, parish of Marylebone, Midd. P seeks inj ag d's suit at KB for payment of a promissory note. In 1779 bespoke & bought a phaeton from d, who agreed to receive payment of £35 & p's vis á vis carriage. P endorsed to d a £50 promissory note issued by R. Ansell in 1779 in return for pictures p sold him. D issued p £15 change & a receipt. D is now suing p at KB, allegedly claiming that R. Ansell went bankrupt in 1780 & could not pay the note. P claims d should have sought payment from Ansell before 1780, & thereafter should have sought payment from p, but instead failed to inform p of the problem until 1784.

1785, Hil E 112/1704 Bill. LMX 3791.

187. Caesar v Charnock

P: (1) Carlos Caesar, grocer, Holborn, London. D: (1) Robert Charnock, merchant, Lewes, Sussex. C: (1) Charles Shuter, counsel for p. P seeks inj ag d's suit at the Surrey Assizes for payment of 2 bills of exchange. P claims in 1784, d sent him 2 parcels of goods & drew 2 bills of exchange for £55 4s 6d & £86 11s upon p in payment. P accepted the bills, but the parcels were lost. P claims the bills should have been cancelled, but d had p arrested & obtained a verdict ag him for the amount of the bills + costs. D allegedly asserts that he drew the bills in return for money he lent p.

1785, Easter E 112/1717 Bill. LMX 4135.

188. Caesar v Hankey

P: (1) Carlos Caesar, grocer, tea dealer, Holborn Bridge, London. D: (1) Thomas Hankey, banker, Fenchurch St., London, partner of other ds; (2) Joseph Chaplin Hankey, banker, Fenchurch St., London, partner of other ds; (3) Stephen Hall, banker, Fenchurch St., London, partner of other ds; (4) Robert Hankey, banker, Fenchurch St., London, partner of other ds. C: (1) H. Scafe, counsel for p. P seeks inj ag ds' suit at KB for payment of p's alleged overdrawing of his account at ds' bank. P claims he lodged money in his account sufficient to cover his cheques, but because his deposits were not actually recorded, he had not been credited with them and subsequently ds had him arrested.

1785, Easter E 112/1708 Bill. LMX 3908; cf. E 112/1705 LMX 3816 Riley v Caesar.

189. Capper v Hickey

P: (1) James Capper esq., Mortimer St., Midd. D: (1) Joseph Hickey, d4's trustee; (2) Joseph Watts, d4's brother & trustee; (3) David Sands, d4's trustee; (4) John Watts, upholsterer, Compton St., Soho, Midd, insolvent, d2's brother. C: (1) J. Campbell, counsel for p; (2) J. Bicknell, counsel for d1 & d4; (3) J. Johnson, counsel for d2. P seeks inj ag d1's suit at KB for a £200 bill of exchange. P claims in 1777 he hired d4 to furnish his house, for which he paid d4. P also allowed d4 to draw bills of exchange upon p, which d4 allegedly agreed to pay off by the due date. In 1778, d4 went insolvent & assigned his estate to ds1-3 in trust for his creditors. D1 then had p arrested in KB for a £200 bill p had issued d4, who had endorsed it to d1. Ds assert p issued d4 the bill as payment for furniture, not as a loan.

1784, Mich E 112/1698 Bill. LMX 3630.
1785, Jan 24 E 112/1698 Answer. Swearing & filing date of d1's answer.
1785, Jan 27 E 112/1698 Answer. Swearing date of d4's answer, filed 28 January.
1785, Feb 4 E 112/1698 Exception. P's exceptions concern d1's acquisition of the bill of exchange.
1785, Feb 8 E 112/1698 Answer. Swearing date of d2's answer, filed 11 February.

190. Carver v Keele

P: (1) Edward Carver esq., Birmingham, Warw. D: (1) Daniel Mayo Keele; (2) Thomas Prichard, Parsonage Farm, Horsham, Sussex; (3) Ralph Jackson, Snow Hill, Midd. C: (1) R. Richards, counsel for p; (2) Maurice Bernard, counsel for d1. Add: (1) Thomas Hayter, merchant, London, prisoner in the Fleet for debt. P seeks inj ag d1's suit at KB for payment of bills of exchange. P claims in 1782 he drew bills of exchange totalling £250 upon T. Hayter, in payment of debts Hayter owed p. P endorsed the bills to d2 to be discounted, but d2 only paid p £60 & endorsed the bills to d3. D1 now sues p, claiming d3 paid him the bills in exchange for goods.

1785, Easter E 112/1699 Bill. LMX 3650; cf. E 112/1699 LMX 3649 Carver v Prichard.
1785, June 6 E 112/1699 Answer. Swearing & filing date of d1's answer; schedule below answer of an account between d1 & d3.
1786, Hil E 112/1699 Replication. P asserts d1's answer is insufficient.
1786, Hil E 112/1699 Rejoinder. D1 maintains his answer is sufficient.

191. Carver v Prichard

P: (1) Edward Carver esq., Birmingham, Warw. D: (1) Thomas Prichard, Parsonage Farm, Horsham, Sussex; (2) James Willis, Threadneedle St., London; (3) John Footman, salt merchant, Pudding Lane, London; (4) Alexander Guest, glazier & huckster, Madeley Wood, Salop; (5) James Gibbons, iron manufacturer, Coalbrook Dale, Salop, partner with ds6-9; (6) William Ferriday, iron manufacturer, Coalbrook Dale, Salop, partner with d5 & ds7-9; (7) William Goodwin, iron manufacturer, Coalbrook Dale, Salop, added when bill was amended, partner with ds5-6 & ds8-9; (8) Thomas Botfield, iron manufacturer, Coalbrook Dale, Salop, partner with ds5-7 & d9; (9) George Turner Watkiss, iron manufacturer, Coalbrook Dale, Salop, renamed from George Farmer Wallis when bill was amended; partner with ds5-8. C: (1) R. Richards, counsel for p; (2) Thomas Plumer, counsel for ds4-8; (3) Thomas Pippard, counsel for ds2-3. Add: (1) Thomas Hayter, merchant, London, prisoner in the Fleet for debt. P seeks inj ag ds' suits at KB for payment of bills of exchange. P claims in 1782 he drew bills of exchange totalling £1000 upon T. Hayter, in payment of debts Hayter owed p. P endorsed the bills to d1 to be discounted, but d1 endorsed the bills away & never paid p. Now ds2-9 are severally suing p at KB for the bills, claiming they have given value for them.

1785, Trin E 112/1699 Bill. LMX 3649, amended 14 June 1785; cf. E 112/1699 LMX 3650 Carver v Keele.
1785, June 15 E 112/1699 Commission. For the answers of ds4-8.
1785, Nov 14 E 112/1699 Answer. Swearing date of the answer of ds2-3, filed 15 November.
1785, Nov 26 E 112/1699 Answer. Swearing date of the answer of ds5-8.
1785, Nov 26 E 112/1699 Answer. Swearing date of d4's answer, filed 28 November.

192. Cecil v Reilly

P: (1) Ann Cecil, Upper Brook St., Grosvenor Sq., Midd, J. Cecil's widow & administratrix. D: (1) Peter Reilly. C: (1) E. King. Add: (1) John Cecil, apothecary, Bond St., Midd, deceased intestate, p's husband; (2) George Reynolds, prisoner in KB; (3) Isaac Narbell; (4) Thomas Massey, Ludlow, Salop; (5) Alexander Wallis, Oxon. P, a widow, seeks inj ag d's suit at KB for alleged debts. P claims in 1778, G. Reynolds persuaded p's husband J. Cecil to become a partner in a business with him & I. Narbell to manufacture Egyptian Bitumen. In 1780, Reynolds, together with d, persuaded T. Massey & A. Wallis to become partners. P claims the partners discovered the business was a scheme for Reynolds & d to extort money. J. Cecil died in 1782, & d has since sued p at KB for debts allegedly owed him by her husband.

1785, Trin E 112/1709 Bill. LMX 3959.

193. Christie v Rich

P: (1) James Christie, auctioneer, Westminster, Midd, A. P. Warren's administrator, p2's partner; (2) James Ansell, auctioneer, Westminster, Midd, p1's partner; (3) Shadrack Venden, A. P. Warren's administrator; (4) David McCullock, A. P. Warren's administrator. D: (1) Peter Rich, J. Warren's executor. Add: (1) Alport Peter Warren esq., Battersea, Surrey, deceased, J. Warren's nephew; (2) John Warren esq., Kensington Gore, Midd, deceased, A. P. Warren's uncle. Ps seek inj ag d's suit at KB for payment of an alleged debt. Ps claim J. Warren died in 1776, leaving his executor d1 under p1's direction to sell his estate & buy securities for his nephew & residual legatee, A. P. Warren. D & A. P. Warren each claimed the other owed them debts. In 1782, A. P. Warren died, leaving p1 & ps3-4 his administrators. D is suing ps at KB for payment of A. P. Warren's alleged debt, & ps claim d has not paid A. P. Warren's legacy from J. Warren.

1785, Trin E 112/1723 Bill. LMX 4276.

194. Clark v Roper

P: (1) Henry Clark, cheesemonger, White Chapel Rd., Midd, S. Clark's son. D: (1) William Roper, pattern maker, White Chapel Rd., Midd, S. Clark's executor. C: (1) John Fonblanque, counsel for p; (2) E. King, counsel for d. Add: (1) Sibella Clark, White Chapel, Midd, deceased, p's mother. P seeks payment of the residual estate of his mother, S. Clark, from d. S. Clark died in 1784, leaving d as her executor & p her son as residual legatee. P claims d has not paid any of the legacies, & that p has had to pay his mother's debts himself. D alleges he cannot fully administer the estate because p witholds part of it, but d claims to be willing to act as this Court directs.

1785, Trin E 112/1716 Bill. LMX 4107.
1785, Nov 24 E 112/1716 Answer (with attachments). Swearing & filing date of d's answer; inventories attached of S. Clark's effects received & sold by d.
1786, Easter E 112/1716 Replication. P asserts d's answer is insufficient.
1786, Easter E 112/1716 Rejoinder. D maintains his answer is sufficient.
1790, July 8 E 112/1716 Answer. D's answer to a supplemental bill (missing) filed by Elizabeth Clark, p's widow & administratrix.

195. Clarke v Laing

P: (1) John Clarke, coal factor, London, p2's partner; (2) Ralph Clarke, coal factor, London, p1's partner. D: (1) Robert Laing, master mariner, Dockwray Square, Northumb. C: (1) E. King, counsel for ps. Add: (1) Nathaniel Green gent., Seething Lane, London, ps' trustee. Ps, for themselves & other part-owners of a ship, the William & Robert, seek discovery of the profits from the ship. In 1782, d, captain & part-owner of the ship, sold a 16th share in the ship & cargo to p1 for £250. In 1783, p1 assigned the share to N. Green in trust for himself & p2. Ps assert d has never paid them any profits, but d allegedly claims the ship's expenses have outweighed its earnings.

1785, Trin E 112/1718 Bill. LMX 4147.

196. Clarke v Simmons

P: (1) John Clarke, coalfactor, London. D: (1) Ann Simmons, Dockwray Sq., nr North Shields, Northumb, E. Simmons's widow. C: (1) Thomas Nedham, counsel for p. Add: (1) Edward Simmons, mariner, North Shields, Northumb, deceased intestate, d's husband. P seeks inj ag d's suit at KB for payment of proceeds from the sale of a ship. D's husband E. Simmons drew bills of exchange upon p to buy the ship. After d's husband died intestate, d gave p power of attorney to sell the ship. Upon the sale, p retained part of the proceeds to cover his original outlay. D denies p paid for original bills of exchange.

1784, Mich E 112/1705 Bill. LMX 3811; schedule of d's account with p below bill.

197. Clarkson v Ford

P: (1) Thomas Clarkson, Edward St., Berkeley Sq., Midd. D: (1) Arthur Ford, J. Ford's father & administrator. C: (1) John Lloyd, counsel for p. Add: (1) Elizabeth Purvis, deceased, otherwise Ford; (2) Joseph Hunt; (3) Sarah Peele, deceased insolvent; (4) Robert Patterson; (5) William Silver, deceased insolvent; (6) James Lowe, J. Ward's executor; (7) Joseph Ward, insolvent; (8) John Ford, deceased, E. Purvis's husband. P, creditor of J. Ward (deceased insolvent in 1779), seeks revival of his supplemental bill filed in 1782 in this Court ag E. Purvis or Ford, J. Hunt, S. Peele, R. Patterson, W. Silver & J. Lowe, seeking repayment of a debt from J. Ward's residual estate decreed in 1771 to be returned to J. Ward by his assignees. The suit abated when E. Purvis died leaving her husband J. Ford, who died leaving d his administrator. S. Peele & W. Silver also died, insolvent. P now seeks revival ag d.

1785, Easter E 112/1706 Bill of revivor. LMX 3830; cf. E 112/1703 LMX 3759 Lowe v Frord.

198. Collet v Green

P: (1) Jonathan Collet, glassman. Cockspur St., Charing Cross, Midd. D: (1) James Green, watchmaker, Fenchurch St., London, J. Brockbank's assignee; (2) Albert Innes, merchant, Crutched Friars, London, J. Brockbank's assignee; (3) Richard Hollier, refiner, Falcon St., London, J. Brockbank's assignee. C: (1) E. King, counsel for p. Add: (1) John Brockbank, merchant, Cowpers Court, Cornhill, London, bankrupt; (2) James Junod, goldsmith & enameller, Frith St. Westminster, Midd. P, by way of supplement to his 1782 bill in this Court seeking payment of a £27 bill of exchange from J. Brockbank, informs that in 1783 J. Brockbank went bankrupt, with ds as his assignees. P claims that in 1781, J. Junod owed p debts, for which he issued p the bill, drawn upon J. Brockbank. J. Brockbank allegedly refused to pay the bill, so p sued him.

1785, Hil E 112/1697 Supplementary bill. LMX 3585.

199. Cruger v Hurst

P: (1) Henry Cruger, merchant, London, and partners. D: (1) John Hurst, hosier, London. C: (1) F. P. Stratford, counsel for p; (2) E. King, counsel for d. Add: (1) Mr Donaldson, merchant, partner to Mr Cox, Philadelphia, N. America; (2) Mr Reid, merchant, partner to Mr Ford, Philadelphia, N. America; (3) Charles Hurst, d's brother. Ps seek relief ag a debt to d, a hosier, whose goods ps sold to Philadelphia merchants in America. Ps claimed d gave credit for 12 months, which d denies. D's brother in America had ps' receipts attached there, allegedly on d's behalf (though defendant does not acknowledge any receipt). Ps seek inj ag d pursuing the debt.

1785, Easter E 112/1701 Bill. LMX 3697.
1785, June 6 E 112/1701 Answer. Filing date.

200. Davies v Austin

P: (1) John Davies esq., parish of Mary le Bone, Midd. D: (1) Sarah Austin, maidservant. C: (1) Robert Ledlie, counsel for p. P seeks inj ag d's suit for payment of arrears of wages. P claims that while d was a maidservant in his house, he advanced to her sums of money, but upon her failure to account for them, he fired her. She then sued him for non-payment of wages.

1784, Mich E 112/1708 Bill. LMX 3910.

201. Davis v Farmer

P: (1) David Davis, jeweller, artificial flower maker, Moorfields, Midd, p2's partner; (2) Joshua Jonas, jeweller, artificial flower maker, late of Moorfields, Midd, allegedly now overseas; p1's partner. D: (1) Cam Farmer, feather and fur manufacturer, Oxford St., Midd. C: (1) J. Pippard, counsel for ps; (2) Arthur Onslow, counsel for d. Ps seeks inj ag d's suit for full payment of debts. D. claims that a settlement for partial repayment agreed between ps and their creditors, including d, fraudulently portrayed ps to be in worse financial difficulties than was the case. D demands full repayment of this and a later debt.

1785, Easter E 112/1700 Bill. LMX 3661.
1785, June 4 E 112/1700 Answer. Swearing date; 2 schedules of accounts included below bill.

202. Deane v Kaye

P: (1) Arthur Deane, hosier, Shoreditch, Midd. D: (1) Joseph Kaye gent., Hanover Square, Midd; (2) Thomas Plumer Byde esq., Ware Park, Heref, bankrupt; (3) Rev. Benjamin Round, clerk, White Horse St., Ratcliff H'way, Midd, d2's assignee; (4) Robert Woodgate esq., Golden Square, Midd, d2's assignee; (5) John Feakins, carpenter, parish of St. Marylebone, Midd; (6) James Bradley, carpenter, parish of St. Marylebone, Midd. C: (1) J. A. Stainsby, counsel for p; (2) W. Scafe, counsel for ds3-4. Add: (1) Peter Calmel esq., parish of St. James, Westminster, Midd; (2) Martha Andrews, Edgeware, Midd. P seeks payment of a £2000 debt, or foreclosure on mortgaged premises. In 1766, ds5-6 leased 13 parcels of ground in the parish of St. Marylebone from P. Calmel. Ds5-6 mortgaged 10 of the parcels of ground to d1, & 3 to M. Andrews. In 1770, M. Andrews transferred her mortgage to d1. In 1777, d1 borrowed £2000 on the security of the mortgages from d2, who then borrowed £2000 on the security of the mortgages from p. D2 did not repay the £2000, so p's interest in the mortgaged premises allegedly became absolute. In 1779 d2 went bankrupt with ds3-4 as his assignees. D1 & ds5-6 allegedly refuse to assign p the premises. Ds3-4 claim to be willing to act as this Court directs, in return for indemnity.

1785, Hil E 112/1707 Bill. LMX 3878.
1785, May 12 E 112/1707 Answer. Swearing & filing date of answer of ds3-4.

203. Douglas v Prescott

P: (1) Peter Douglas esq., ship's captain, East India Co., St. Martin in the Fields, Midd. D: (1) George Prescott, banker, London, defendant with his partners. C: (1) E. King, counsel for p; (2) Robert Steele, counsel for ds. P seeks relief ag d's suit for payment of respondentia bond + full interest for fixed term which p claimed to have sought to pay before due date to avoid full interest, allegedly by prior agreement with d. Refusing partial payment, d had had p arrested for debt. P seeks inj ag d's legal proceedings elsewhere.

1785, Easter E 112/1701 Bill. LMX 3703.
1785, April 23 E 112/1701 Answer. Filing date.

204. Doves v Alsager

P: (1) James Doves, mariner, Chelsea, Midd, bankrupt. D: (1) Richard Alsager, packer, Bearbinder Lane, London, d3's assignee; (2) Silvanus Greville, bankrupt, lives abroad, formerly d3's assignee; (3) Edward Ryan, Swithin's Lane, London, bankrupt, p's creditor. C: (1) J. Pippard, counsel for p. Add: (1) John Kent gent., Maidstone, Kent, deceased, p's assignee; (2) Philip Detillon the elder gent., Maidstone, Kent, deceased, p's assignee. P seeks inj ag ds' suit at KB for payment of a £50 promissory note. P went bankrupt in 1776, was imprisoned in KB, & his assignees, J. Kent & P. Detillon (now both deceased) possessed his estate. In 1778, d3, p's creditor, went bankrupt with ds1-2 as his assignees. In 1779, d2 went bankrupt & absconded abroad. P claims while imprisoned in KB he issued d3 a £50 promissory note, now held by ds1-2, for which d3 never paid him. Ds allegedly now seek payment of the note, contrary to the 1731–2 Act of Parliament stating that notes issued by bankrupts are void.

1784, Mich E 112/1691 Bill. LMX 3482.

205. Edie v Dwyer

P: (1) Arthur Edie, merchant & underwriter, London; (2) Alexander Anderson the younger, merchant & underwriter, London; (3) Thomas Kett, merchant & underwriter, London; (4) Joseph Crump, merchant & underwriter, London; (5) Thomas Hobbs, merchant & underwriter, London. D: (1) Henry Dwyer esq., South Moulton St., Midd. C: (1) J. Bicknell, counsel for ps; (2) Joseph Stacpoole, counsel for d. Add: (1) James Russell, cornet, Lyons, France, deceased, 9th Regiment of Dragoons. Ps seeks inj ag d's suits at KB for payment of an insurance policy. In 1784, J. Russell instructed G. Dwyer by letter to draw up a life insurance policy to cover an alleged £5600 debt Russell owed d. Ps underwrote £200 each of the policy, which included a warranty that Russell was in good health. Russell died, & ps then apparently discovered that he had been in poor health, & was not indebted to d. D has filed several suits at KB ag ps for the policy, claiming Russell owed him a promissory note for £5600 in loans.

1785, Hil E 112/1704 Bill. LMX 3776.
1786, April 6 E 112/1704 Answer. Swearing date.
1786, Mich E 112/1704 Exception. Ps' exceptions to d's answer concern the circumstances under which Russell issued d the promisory note.
1788, Feb 4 E 112/1704 Further answer. Swearing & filing date of d's further answer, claiming Russell issued the note for loans, not gambling debts.
1788, Easter E 112/1704 Replication. Ps assert d's answers are insufficient.
1788, Easter E 112/1704 Rejoinder. D maintains his answers are sufficient.

206. Edwards v Blackburn

P: (1) William Edwards, watchmaker, Cornhill, London. D: (1) William Blackburn, watchmaker, Aldersgate St., London; (2) Edward Johnson, broker, Ludgate Hill, London. C: (1) Maurice Bernard, counsel for p. P seeks inj ag ds' suit at KB for payment of a bill of exchange bearing p's acceptance. P claims he accepted the bill drawn by d1 (p's colleague) on the basis that this was a means to tide d1 over temporarily. However, d1 transferred the bill to d2, who now claims payment from p.

1785, Trin E 112/1708 Bill. LMX 3903.

207. Evans v Haffey

P: (1) Evan Evans, merchant, Leadenhall St., London. D: (1) John Haffey gent., merchant, Wood St., Walthamstow, Essex; (2) Christopher Corrall, laceman, Lombard St., London. C: (1) E. King, counsel for p; (2) J. Pippard, counsel for d1; (3) W. Scafe, counsel for d2. Add: (1) Gilbert Ross, merchant, London, arbitrator between p and d1; (2) John Barns, merchant, London, arbitrator between p and d1. P seeks inj ag ds' suit at KB for payment of bonds and bills of exchange. D1 claims he lent money to p, his partner in a hopselling business, for which p issued a bond. D1 also claims p issued him another bond for a half share of profits. D1 transferred the bonds to d2, who drew bills of exchange on p for interest on the bonds. P refused to accept the bills, and asserts that the arbitrators who refereed the dissolution of the partnership determined that d1 had already received profits sufficient to cancel p's debts to him.

1784, Mich E 112/1705 Bill. LMX 3817.
1784, Dec 11 E 112/1705 Answer. Swearing and filing date of d2's answer.
1785, Jan 22 E 112/1705 Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer, filed 24 January.

208. Eyre v Cooper

P: (1) Charles Eyre esq., King's printer, Clapham, Surrey, J. Eyre's son & executor; (2) William Strahan esq., King's printer, London. D: (1) James Cooper, bookseller, Yarmouth, Norf. C: (1) John Lloyd, counsel for ps. Add: (1) John Eyre gent., King's printer, Putney, Surrey, deceased, p1's father; (2) John Baskett, King's printer, London, bankrupt. Ps, King's printers, seek inj to prevent d from printing certain prayers. In 1731 J. Eyre lent sums amounting to £32,000 to J. Baskett (since bankrupt), in return for an assignment of the office of King's printer. In 1750 J. Eyre died, & p1, his son & executor, assumed the office, selling 1/3 to p2. Ps claim d has lately printed & sold prayers to which ps have exclusive printing rights. D allegedly denies ps' office grants them sole rights to print the prayers.

1784, Mich E 112/1693 Bill. LMX 3510; cf. E 112/1693 LMX 3511 Eyre v Mowbray, & E 112/1693 LMX 3512 Eyre v Gaines.

209. Eyre v Gaines

P: (1) Charles Eyre esq., King's printer, Clapham, Surrey, J. Eyre's son & executor; (2) William Strahan esq., King's printer, London. D: (1) James Gaines, printer, Yarmouth, Norf. C: (1) John Lloyd, counsel for ps. Ps, King's printers, seek inj to prevent d from printing certain prayers. Ps claim d has lately printed & sold prayers to which ps have exclusive printing rights. D allegedly denies that ps' office grants them sole rights to print the prayers.

1784, Mich E 112/1693 Bill. LMX 3512; cf. E 112/1693 LMX 3510 Eyre v Cooper, & E 112/1693 LMX 3511 Eyre v Mowbray.

210. Eyre v Mowbray

P: (1) Charles Eyre esq., King's printer, Clapham, Surrey, J. Eyre's son & executor; (2) William Strahan esq., King's printer, London. D: (1) Walter Mowbray, printer, Portsmouth, Hants. C: (1) John Lloyd, counsel for ps. Ps, King's printers, seek inj to prevent d from printing certain prayers. Ps claim d has lately printed & sold prayers to which ps have exclusive printing rights. D allegedly denies that ps' office grants them sole rights to print the prayers.

1784, Mich E 112/1693 Bill. LMX 3511; cf. E 112/1693 LMX 3510 Eyre v Cooper, & E 112/1693 LMX 3512 Eyre v Gaines.

211. Finch v Greenhill

P: (1) Thomas Finch gent., Harlesdon Green, Wilsdon, Midd, J. Finch the E's son, executor & devisee in trust; (2) Joseph Finch the younger gent., Dollis Hill, Wilsdon, Midd, J. Finch the E's son & devisee in trust. D: (1) James Greenhill gent., solicitor, Lincolns Inn, Midd. C: (1) Thomas Nedham, counsel for p. Add: (1) Joseph Finch the elder gent., Harlesdon Green, Wilsdon, Midd, deceased, ps' father. Ps add a supplement to their bill filed in 1782 ag d in this Court seeking absolute foreclosure of d's mortgaged premises. Ps, devisees in trust of the estate of their father, J. Finch the E (deceased), claimed d had failed to repay several mortgages totalling £560 of his chambers in Lincolns Inn made to ps' father in 1763, 1770 & 1774. By way of supplement, ps add that the chambers have since burnt down, & ps received £500 insurance. D has rebuilt the chambers, & ps now seek payment of the balance of the mortgage arrears.

1785, Hil E 112/1718 Supplementary bill. LMX 4159; schedule below bill of d's mortgage arrears, & insurance ps received.