Pleadings, 1784-1785: nos 212-241

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

'Pleadings, 1784-1785: nos 212-241', in London and Middlesex Exchequer Equity Pleadings, 1685-6 and 1784-5, (London, 2000) pp. 94-106. British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/london-record-soc/vol35/pp94-106 [accessed 12 April 2024]

212. Fitch v Andrews

P: (1) Ann Fitch, Cecil St., The Strand, Midd. D: (1) Richard Andrews the younger, R. Andrews the E's son & administrator. C: (1) Alexander Popham, counsel for p; (2) E. King, counsel for d. Add: (1) Richard Andrews the elder, wine merchant, Wood St., London, deceased intestate, d's father. P seeks payment of a bond. In 1769, p lent £3000 to R. Andrews the E, who issued p a bond for £3000 + interest & a mortgage of premises, the Devil Tavern, as security. Andrews the E died intestate in 1780, leaving d, his son & administrator. P claims d paid her interest on the loan, but none of the principal, so she sued him at KB. D alleges his father's estate is fully administered, & was insufficient to pay his debts.



1785, Trin	E 112/1723	Bill. LMX 4260; amended 19 December 1785 to claim R. Andrews the E's estate was sufficient to pay his debts.
1785, Nov 23	E 112/1723	Answer. Swearing & filing date.
1785, Mich	E 112/1723	Exception. P's exceptions concern the extent of d's father's estate.

213. Flight v Wadham

P: (1) Thomas Flight esq., Hackney, Midd, d's trustee; (2) Banister Flight gent., Queen St., Cheapside, London. D: (1) James Wadham, linen draper, Southwark, Surrey. C: (1) William Waller, counsel for ps; (2) John Fonblanque, counsel for d. Add: (1) Stephen Williams, linen draper, The Poultry, London, arbitrator between p2 & d; (2) William Prescott, linen draper, Bow Church Yard, London, arbitrator between p2 & d; (3) John Withers, linen draper, Cheapside, London, arbitrator between p2 & d; (4) Robert Wylie, merchant, Abchurch Lane, London, d's trustee, aged 45 years, ps' deponent. Ps seek inj ag any suit of d for payment of a £20,000 bond. In 1783, p2 became d's business partner as a scotch factor. A dispute arose, & p2 & d agreed to arbitration of S. Williams, W. Prescott & J. Withers, who dissolved the partnership. In 1784, d went insolvent, claiming he owed no more than £500, & entrusted his estate to pay his creditors to R. Wylie & p1, who issued d a £20,000 bond as security in return. Ps claim d actually owed far more than £500, & that d has directed his creditors to seek payment from p1, & threatens to sue p1 for payment of the £20,000 bond. D alleges ps knew his debts exceeded £500.



1784, Mich	E 112/1718	Bill. LMX 4157; amended 7 June 1785 to add that ps have been compelled to pay some of d's creditors; mistakenly attached to another suit Fielder v Leigh; cf. E 112/1718 LMX 4163 Flight v Wadham.
1785, Feb 19	E 112/1718	Answer. Swearing date of d's answer; schedule below answer of d's accounts.
1786, May 3	E 112/1718	Answer. Swearing date of d's answer to amended bill.
1786, Easter	E 112/1718	Replication. P denies D's answer is sufficient.
1786, Easter	E 112/1718	Rejoinder. D maintains his answer is sufficient.

214. Flight v Wadham

P: (1) Thomas Flight esq., Hackney, Midd, d's trustee; (2) Robert Wylie, merchant, Abchurch Lane, London, d's trustee; (3) Banister Flight gent., Queen St., Cheapside, London. D: (1) James Wadham, linen draper, Southwark, Surrey; (2) James Knight, d1's creditor; (3) John Wheeler, d1's creditor. C: (1) William Waller, counsel for ps. Ps, for themselves & other creditors of d1 except ds2-3, seek inj ag the suit of ds2-3 for payment of dividends from d1's estate. In 1784, d1 (p3's previous business partner) went insolvent & assigned his estate in trust to p1 & R. Wylie to pay his creditors. D1's creditors ds2-3 also signed the indenture of assignation, & issued d1 power of attorney to receive payment of their debts. Ps claim d1 did not transfer leasehold premises in Gracechurch St., London, to them as part of the assignation. Ds2-3 are now suing ps for payment of dividends which ps have witheld from d1. Ds assert the premises are of no value, & earn no income.



1785, Hil	E 112/1718	Bill. LMX 4163; cf. E 112/1718 LMX 4157 Flight v Wadham.
1785, May 9	E 112/1718	Answer. Swearing date of ds' answer, filed 10 May; schedule below answer of accounts of d1's debts & creditors.

215. Fontaine v Smith

P: (1) Elias Benjamin De la Fontaine esq., Bath. D: (1) Walter Smith, linen draper, Oxford St., London, d2's partner, bankrupt; (2) William Turner, linen draper, Oxford St., London, d1's partner, bankrupt; (3) Thomas Wooloton, linen draper, Oxford St., Midd, assignee of ds1-2; (4) Charles Miller, linen draper, King St., Cheapside, London, assignee of ds1-2; (5) William Salte, linen draper, The Poultry, London, assignee of ds1-2. C: (1) E. King, counsel for p; (2) J. Stanley, counsel for ds. Add: (1) John Henry Aickles, Nassau St., Soho, Midd, imprisoned for theft; (2) John Knight. P seeks inj ag ds' suit at KB for payment of a bill of exchange. P claims in 1783 he asked J. H. Aickles to draw a £200 bill of exchange upon him in return for the cash. Aickles never paid p the money, endorsed the bill away, & was imprisoned on a separate charge of theft. Ds 1-2 went bankrupt with ds3-5 as assignees. Ds now sue p, claiming J. Knight bought goods from ds1-2 with the bill.



1785, Trin	E 112/1701	Bill. LMX 3704.
1786, Jan 23	E 112/1701	Answer. Swearing date of answer of ds3-5, filed 9 February.
1786, Jan 24	E 112/1701	Answer. Swearing & filing date of answer of ds1-2; schedule below answer of goods ds1-2 sold J. Knight in return for the bill.

216. Forbes v Mott

P: (1) Alexander Forbes, innholder, Wood St., London; (2) Edward Gilbert, innholder, Staines, Midd; (3) John Boxall, innholder, Farnham, Surrey; (4) John Leaver. D: (1) John Mott, innholder, Aldersgate St., London; (2) Thomas Harris, innholder, Aldersgate St., London; (3) William Hanks, innholder, Brentford, Midd, cf. also E 112/1708 LMX 3911; (4) Joseph White, innholder, Staines, Midd; (5) Peter Harvey, innholder, Bagshot, Surrey; (6) John Stevens, innholder, Farnham, Surrey; (7) James Over, innholder, Alton, Hants; (8) Joseph Hall, innholder, Wickham, Hants; (9) William Crease, innholder, Gosport, Hants. Ps seek enforcement of contract allegedly agreed between ps and ds. Ps, proprietors of the Heavy Coaches to and from London and Gosport, claim they agreed with ds, proprietors of the Light Coaches to and from London and Gosport, to join and share profits. Ds allegedly deny making any such agreement.



1784, Mich	E 112/1705	Bill. LMX 3812; no counsel named; cf. E 112/1907 OXFORDSHIRE 54 Costar v Harder, & E 112/1708 LMX 3911 Grave v Harder.

217. Forth v Cordukes

P: (1) John Forth gent., Holborn, St. Giles in the Fields, Midd. D: (1) Richard Cordukes, clerk, St. Mary Bishop Hill, Yorks, rector. C: (1) Thomas Lowes, counsel for p; (2) E. King, counsel for d. Add: (1) William Forth, brewer, York, Yorks, deceased, p's father, C. Forth's husband; (2) Catherine Forth, York, Yorks, deceased, p's mother, W. Forth's widow. P seeks payment of promissory notes totalling £3000 dating from 1750 which d, rector of St. Mary Bishop Hill, allegedly owed p's mother, C. Forth (deceased in 1775). P claims d promised to pay p's commission to join the army, but that d burnt the notes, & never paid the commission. D asserts that in 1750, p's mother attempted suicide when she heard a false rumour that d was to be married. D claims he issued her a £1000 promissory note, payable upon his marriage, to reassure her he would never marry.



1784, Mich	E 112/1699	Bill. LMX 3651.
1785, April 29	E 112/1699	Commission. For d's answer.
1785, June 11	E 112/1699	Answer. Swearing date, filed 16 June.

218. Foster v Jernegan

P: (1) Michael Foster esq., St. Leonard, Shoreditch, Midd, J. Marson's executor; (2) Angela Marson, St. Leonard, Shoreditch, Midd, J. Marson's executrix. D: (1) Elizabeth Jernegan, T. Jernegan's widow & executrix. C: (1) J. A. Stainsby, counsel for ps. Add: (1) James Marson, watch-case maker, St. Leonard, Shoreditch, Midd, deceased, p2's husband; (2) Thomas Jernegan, carpenter, Winchester St., London, d's husband; (3) William Jones, merchant, London. Ps seek foreclosure or repayment of a mortgage from d. In 1769 T. Jernegan mortgaged his leasehold messuage to W. Jones for £1000. In 1772, T. Jernegan defaulted on the repayments, & W. Jones transferred the mortgage to J. Marson. T. Jernegan died in 1777, leaving the mortgage unpaid & d1 his widow & executrix. J. Marson died, leaving ps as executors. Ps claim J. Marson's interest in the mortgaged premises had become absolute.



1785, Hil	E 112/1696	Bill. LMX 3561.

219. Foxall v Jones

P: (1) Richard Foxall, merchant, London. D: (1) Robert Jones, hatter, London. C: (1) Thomas Lowes, counsel for p. P seeks inj ag d's suit at KB for payment of a £250 promissory note. P claims in 1780 he asked d to account for debts allegedly owed to p. Instead d had p arrested in the Court of Common Pleas claiming p owed d debts. P issued d a £250 promissory note as security for any debts. Now d threatens to proceed to judgement on a verdict he obtained ag p at KB for the note.



1785, Hil	E 112/1697	Bill. LMX 3616; cf. E 112/1724 LMX 4311 Foxall v Jones.
1785, Feb 24	E 112/1697	Answer (with attachments). Swearing date; schedule attached of d's account with p.

220. Foxall v Jones

P: (1) Richard Foxall gent., London. D: (1) Robert Jones, hatter, Birchin Lane, Cornhill, London. C: (1) William Waller, counsel for p; (2) John Lloyd, counsel for d. P seeks discovery of the true account between himself & d. P claims d owed him debts from business dealings, but that in 1781, d had p arrested in the Court of Common Pleas for £170, but the dispute was resolved. In 1782, p was arrested at KB by another party's suit, & d became p's bail in return for security of a £250 promissory note from p. P also claims in 1784 he lent d 2 promissory notes for £23 & £20. D has sued p at KB for the notes. D asserts p still owes him £248 9s 8d.



1785, Trin	E 112/1724	Bill. LMX 4311; cf. E 112/1697 LMX 3616 Foxall v Jones.
1785, Nov 28	E 112/1724	Answer. Swearing date, filed 1 December; schedule below answer of account between d & p.
1786, Trin	E 112/1724	Exception. P's exceptions concern the promisory notes & accounts.
1786, Nov 14	E 112/1724	Further answer. Swearing & filing date of d's further answer.

221. Fraser v Huxham

P: (1) Thomas Fraser, merchant, underwriter, London; (2) George Ernst De Hahn, merchant, underwriter, Middle Moorfields, Midd; (3) Harry Sedgwick, merchant, underwriter, Newman's Court, Cornhill, London; (4) John Meyer, merchant, underwriter, Angel Court, Throgmorton St., London. D: (1) William Huxham, Charles Town, S. Carolina; (2) Humphrey Courtney, Charles Town, S. Carolina; (3) William Eales, Charles Town, S. Carolina; (4) John Hill, insurance broker, London; (5) James Thomas, clerk, d4's employee. C: (1) J. Pippard, counsel for ps; (2) William Cooke, counsel for ds. Ps seek inj ag the suit of ds 1-3 at KB for payment of an insurance policy on the voyage of a ship, the Providence, & its cargo of rice from Charles Town, S. Carolina, to London, which ps underwrote for £100 each. Ps claim the policy is void because d4 & his clerk d5 persuaded them to underwrite it knowing the ship had been lost at sea (its crew & letters were rescued by another ship, the Little Joe). Ds deny ds4-5 knew the ship had been lost before the policy was underwritten.



1785, Easter	E 112/1700	Bill. LMX 3689.
1785, Nov 12	E 112/1700	Answer. Swearing & filing date of answer of ds4-5; schedule below answer of letters & accounts for ship & cargo.
1786, May 1	E 112/1700	Answer. Filing date of answer of ds 1-3, sworn 13 February 1786; schedule below answer of letters & accounts for ship & cargo.

222. Frederick v Alexander

P: (1) Sir Charles Frederick, Hammersmith, Midd, knight of the Bath; (2) Thomas Lenox Frederick esq., Mount St., Berkeley Sq., Midd. D: (1) Thomas Alexander, Tom's Coffee House, Cornhill, London; (2) Peter Mortimer, linen draper, Bond St.; (3) Henry Salomons, notary public, Haymarket; (4) Robert Kennett, upholder, Bond St.; (5) William Facon; (6) Annesley Shee, Great Newport St., Long Acre; (7) George Crossley gent., Adelphi in the Strand. C: (1) Thomas Nedham, counsel for ps; (2) John Lloyd, counsel for d2; (3) W. Ainge, counsel for d1; (4) Thomas Lowes, counsel for d7; (5) James Agar, counsel for d3. Add: (1) Thomas Freeman. Ps seek inj ag any suit of ds seeking payment of bills of exchange. In 1784, p2 drew upon p1 3 bills of exchange amounting to £1612 10s for T. Freeman to get discounted for p2. T. Freeman never paid p2 the money, but endorsed the bills away. Ds1-2 now possess the bills & threaten to sue for payment, claiming all the ds have given value for the bills.



1785, Easter	E 112/1699	Bill. LMX 3648.
1785, June 4	E 112/1699	Answer. Swearing & filing date of d1's answer; 2 schedules included below answer of goods d7 bought from d1 with 2 of the bills of exchange.
1785, June 7	E 112/1699	Answer. Swearing date of d2's answer; schedule below answer of goods d5 bought from d2 with one of the bills.
1785, June 28	E 112/1699	Answer. Swearing date of d3's answer, filed 29 June.
1785, June 28	E 112/1699	Answer. Swearing & filing date of d7's answer.

223. Freeman v Hawkins

P: (1) Robert Freeman, victualler, Brick Lane, Spittalfields, Midd; (2) John Maker the younger, Princes St., Spittalfields, Midd, p1's trustee. D: (1) Samuel Hawkins, trustee of the act of Parliament; (2) Sanney Richard Cousemaker, trustee of the act of Parliament; (3) David Wilmot, trustee of the act of Parliament; (4) James Hatch, trustee of the act of Parliament; (5) Peter Lefevre, trustee of the act of Parliament; (6) James Caney, trustee of the act of Parliament; (7) Daniel Martin, trustee of the act of Parliament; (8) Lawrence Dermott, trustee of the act of Parliament; (9) Charles Beck, trustee of the act of Parliament; (10) James Henley, trustee of the act of Parliament; (11) John Perry, trustee of the act of Parliament; (12) Charles Mills, trustee of the act of Parliament; (13) John Robinson, trustee of the act of Parliament; (14) Isaac Colnett, & other commissioners for executing the act. C: (1) John Fonblanque, counsel for ps. Ps seek payment of £200 purchase money for land from ds. After an act of Parliament of 19GIII for improving the recovery of small debts within Tower Hamlets, d14 & the other commissioners for executing the act agreed in 1779 to purchase land & transfer it to ds1-13 in trust to build a Court House for Tower Hamlets. Ps claim that in 1780 ds agreed with p2 to buy p1's land in Whitechapel for £200, the indentures were drawn up, & ds took possession. Ps claim ds have never paid them the £200.



1785, Trin	E 112/1718	Bill. LMX 4154.

224. French v Mason

P: (1) Andrew French, Batwone, Galway. D: (1) Kender Mason, merchant, London. C: (1) F. P. Stratford, counsel for p; (2) William Walter, counsel for d. P, claiming to be heir by distant descent to estates in Montserrat, seeks discovery from d, current mortgagor, of deeds or other documents which may support his claim.



1785, Easter	E 112/1701	Bill. LMX 3696.
1785, July 27	E 112/1701	Answer. Filing date.

225. French v Thellufson

P: (1) Andrew French, merchant, London; (2) Daniel Hobson, merchant, London; (3) Benjamin Champion, merchant, London; (4) Thomas Roebuck, merchant, London; (5) John Nutt, merchant, London; (6) Joseph Watkins, merchant, London; (7) William Davis, merchant, London; (8) Jacob Wilkinson, merchant, London; (9) Joseph Nutt, merchant, London; (10) John Whitmore, merchant, London. D: (1) Peter Thellufson, merchant, London, partners with ds2-3, d4's agent; (2) John Cossart, merchant, London, partners with d1 & d3, d4's agent; (3) Edward Simeon, merchant, London, partners with ds1-2, d4's agent; (4) Jean Francois Hubert, merchant, Dunkirk, owner of the ship, Prudente; (5) Antoine Francois De Gand, ship's captain. C: (1) E. King, counsel for ps; (2) William Alexander, counsel for ds. Ps seek inj ag ds' suit at c1 for payment of an insurance policy. In 1784 ps became the underwriters for a £2000 insurance policy which d4 had caused ds1-3 to prepare for the ship Prudente & its cargo on a voyage from Dunkirk to Bordeaux, with d5 as captain. Ps claim the ship was unseaworthy and therefore had to be abandoned with its cargo. Ds are suing for the policy, maintaining ps are still liable.



1784, Mich	E 112/1692	Bill. LMX 3507.
1784, Dec 11	E 112/1692	Answer (with attachments). Swearing & filing date of the answer of ds4-5; schedule attached of the accounts in French of ds4-5 concerning the voyage.
1784, Dec 11	E 112/1692	Answer (with attachments). Swearing & filing date of answer of ds1-3; schedule attached of the accounts in French of ds4-5 concerning the voyage.

226. Garrard v Hunt

P: (1) Jacob Garrard gent., London. D: (1) Thomas Hunt, livery stable keeper, Surrey side, Blackfriars Bridge, London: (2) Thomas Jennings. C: (1) Thomas Lowes, counsel for p; (2) E. King, counsel for d2. P seeks inj ag d2's suit at KB for non-payment of promissory note which p issued d1 allegedly on the understanding that d1 would pay it off before the due date. D1 transferred it to d2 as part-payment of a debt, but failed to pay it off on time. D1 is now in KB prison for (another?) debt. P claims ds are colluding to extort money from him.



1785, Easter	E 112 1701	Bill. LMX 3710.
1785, Nov 11	E 112/1701	Answer. Filing date.

227. Garton v Mosely

P: (1) Jonathan Garton esq., Charlotte St., Bloomsbury. Midd. D: (1) Jacobus Mosely, broker, Coventry St., Westminster, Midd; (2) Michael Jacobs, goldsmith, Prescott St.; (3) Robert Albion Cox, goldsmith, d4's partner; (4) William Merle, goldsmith, d3's partner; (5) Henry Solomon, Coventry St., Westminster, Midd; (6) Thomas Thompson, Coventry St., Westminster, Midd; (7) William Monkhouse; (8) Thomas Beckett, attorney at law; (9) Joseph George Brett, Cockspur St., Charing Cross, Midd. C: (1) Thomas Lowes, counsel for p; (2) J. Crode, counsel for ds8-9. P seeks inj ag ds' suits at KB for payment for bills of exchange. In 1784, p borrowed £200 from d1, upon the security of 3 bills of exchange. P could not pay the bills by the due date, so issued d1 further security of a mortgage on his premises in Erith, Kent, for a further loan of £150. D1 allegedly never paid p the further £150. D1 endorsed a bill to d2, who discounted it with ds3-4. D1 transferred another bill to d5, who issued it to d6, who paid it to d8. D1 transferred the third bill to d9. Ds8-9 allege they were paid the bills for goods, and severally sue p for payment.



1785, Easter	E 112/1708	Bill. LMX 3914.
1785, April 25	E 112/1708	Answer. Swearing & filing date of d8's answer.
1785, April 25	E 112/1708	Answer. Swearing & filing date of d9's answer; schedule below answer of accounts between d1 & d9.

228. Gawler v Shoolbred

P: (1) Samuel Gawler, solicitor, Clements Inn, Midd. D: (1) John Shoolbred, Jane Shoolbred's husband; (2) Elizabeth Rudman, J. Rudman's widow & executrix. C: (1) Josiah Brown, counsel for p; (2) E. King, counsel for d2. Add: (1) Francis Hislop, linen draper, Bradford, Wilts, deceased, Jane Shoolbred's father; (2) John Rudman, yeoman, Metsham, Wilts, deceased, d2's husband; (3) James Spragg gent., Melksham, Wilts, now in KB prison, ds' deponent; (4) Jane Shoolbred, d1's wife, F. Hislop's daughter. P seeks payment of a bond. In 1769, F. Hislop issued a £200 bond to J. Rudman, who transferred the bond to J. Spragg, who assigned the bond to p, his creditor. P, on behalf of J. Rudman, sued among others d1 & his wife Jane, F. Hislop's daughter, for the bond in 1777 in the Court of Common Pleas. D1 got an inj in this Court ag J. Rudman. In 1784 J. Rudman died, leaving d2 his widow & executrix. P claims ds now conspire in refusing to pay the bond. D2 denies F. Hislop owed her husband money.



1785, Trin	E 112/1717	Bill. LMX 4118; amended 28 February 1787 to include more details of earlier litigation between p & ds.
1785, Nov 28	E 112/1717	Commission. For d2's answer.
1785, Dec 24	E 112/1717	Answer. Swearing date of d2's answer, filed 11 January 1786.
1786, Easter	E 112/1717	Replication. P asserts d1's answer (missing) & d2's answer are insufficient.
1786, Easter	E 112/1717	Rejoinder. Ds1-2 maintain their answers are sufficient.

229. Gibson v Ward

P: (1) Thomas Gibson, builder, Portland Place, Midd; (2) James Gibson, builder, Portland Place, Midd. D: (1) William Ward gent.. C: (1) R. Richards, counsel for ps. Ps seeks inj ag d's suit at law for payment of arrears of rent. Ps claim in 1779 they agreed to lease d's premises in Weymouth Mews for 99 years at £8 per annum. Ps claim they have been paying rent for the premises, on which they have built a coach house & stables, but that d refuses to execute the lease.



1785, Hil	E 112/1699	Bill. LMX 3654.

230. Gill v Galloway

P: (1) Thomas Gill, merchant, insurer, Dowgate Hill, London. D: (1) John Galloway, Dublin; (2) Alexander Stillas, merchant, Dublin. C: (1) W. Scafe, counsel for p; (2) John Reade, counsel for d2. Add: (1) John Cadenhead, ship's captain. P, insurance underwriter, seeks inj ag ds' suit at KB for payment of insurance for ds' ship, the Success, and cargo which sank in the Delaware river, N. America, on a voyage from Dublin to Philadelphia. P claims the ship was deliberately grounded by the captain J. Cadenhead (whom p alleges was a part owner), and that ds are therefore not entitled to the insurance.



1784, Mich	E 112/1705	Bill. LMX 3815.
1784, Mich	E 112/1705	Commission. For ds' answers.
1784, Dec 7	E 112/1705	Answer. Swearing date of d2's answer.
1785, Jan 26	E 112/1705	Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer in Dublin; filed 4 March 1785. Includes captain's account of voyage.
1785, Trin	E 112/1705	Exception. P's exceptions to d1's answer concern the captain's responsibilities, and whether any cargo was saved.
1785, Trin	E 112/1705	Exception. P's exceptions to d2's answer as those to d1's.

231. Graham v Crooke

P: (1) George Graham, Wapping, Midd. D: (1) Solomon Crooke; (2) George Kirchner. C: (1) Thomas Lowes, counsel for p; (2) F. Walker, counsel for ds. Add: (1) Francis Ewers, carpenter, Princes Square, Midd. P seeks inj ag d2's suit at KB for payment of a promissory note. P claims in 1784 he verbally agreed with d1 to become tenant of a house in Wapping which d1 leased from F. Ewers, & to buy its fixtures from d1. P paid d1 a £30 11s 6d promissory note for the fixtures. When F. Ewers claimed he owned the fixtures, p asked d1 to cancel the note, but d1 had already endorsed it to d2, who got a verdict at KB ag p for payment. D1 asserts the fixtures were his to sell.



1785, Hil	E 112/1718	Bill. LMX 4149.
1785, Feb 1	E 112/1718	Answer. Swearing & filing date of ds' answer; schedule below answer of fixtures.

232. Grant v Aymer

P: (1) James Grant esq., London, previously of Quebec. D: (1) Philip Aymer. C: (1) William Grant, counsel for p. P seeks inj ag d's suit in the Court of Common Pleas. P claims in 1780, while living in Quebec, he hired d as a servant, who mistreated p's family. P claims in 1782 he discharged d from his employ, & struck him with a stick. P claims he paid for the medical treatment of d's injuries & compensation demanded by d, but since p's return to England, d has sued him for assault in the Court of Common Pleas.



1785, Easter	E 112/1724	Bill. LMX 4307.

233. Grant v le Gallais

P: (1) George Grant esq., Bedford Row, Midd. D: (1) Francis le Gallais esq., Kensington Sq., Midd. C: (1) Thomas Evance, counsel for p; (2) Josiah Brown, counsel for d. Add: (1) Thomas Rowntree, money scrivener, Essex St., Midd, bankrupt; (2) James Sutton, silversmith, Cheapside, London, bankrupt. P seeks relief from d's suit at KB for repayment of loan made jointly to p, T. Rowntree and J. Sutton. D raised the money by selling bank annuities, which the partners agreed to buy back for d with interest. P claims he and Sutton repaid some of the debt, but d claims Sutton was repaying a separate debt. As p's partners have since gone bankrupt, d is suing p for the entire balance.



1785, Easter	E 112/1700	Bill. LMX 3688.
1785, July 13	E 112/1700	Answer. Swearing date.

234. Grant v Lunell

P: (1) George Grant esq., Bedford Row, Midd. D: (1) Peter Lunell, banker, Bristol, assignee for d8 & d10; (2) Richard Aldridge, banker, Bristol, assignee for d8 & d10; (3) John Edye, banker, Bristol, assignee for d8 & d10; (4) Edward Wigan, linen draper, Bristol, assignee for d8 & d10; (5) Nathan Mullens, jeweller, Bristol, assignee of d9 & d11; (6) Joseph Walton, oilman, Little Britain, London, assignee of d9 & d11; (7) Francis Broderip, music seller, Cheapside, London, assignee of d9 & d11; (8) Henry Bicknell, banker, Bristol, partners with ds10-11; (9) James Sutton, goldsmith, banker, Cheapside, London, d11's partner; (10) Thomas Gillam, banker, Bristol, partners with d8 & d11; (11) James Bult, goldsmith, banker, Cheapside, London, partners with ds8-10. C: (1) W. Scafe, counsel for p; (2) John Lloyd, counsel for ds1-4, d8 & d10. P seeks inj ag ds' suits for alleged debts. P claims he had dealings with d9 & d11, partners as bankers. In 1784, d11 also became partners with d8 & d10 as bankers. P claims d10 coerced him into issuing a £2736 1s 6d bill of exchange which d10 alleged p owed d9 & d11. D9 & d11 went bankrupt, with ds5-7 as assignees, who are suing p in the Court of Common Pleas for a £95 debt. D8 & d10 have also gone bankrupt, with ds1-4 as assignees, who are suing p at KB for the bill of exchange. P denies owing either debt.



1784, Mich	E 112/1722	Bill. LMX 4253.
1786, July 5	E 112/1722	Commission. For the answer of ds1-4, d8 & d10.
1786, July 22	E 112/1722	Answer (with attachments). Answer of ds1-4, d8 & d10, sworn by d1, ds3-4, d8 & d10 on this date, sworn by d2 on 26 July; schedule of accounts attached.

235. Grant v Sedley

P: (1) Alexander Grant esq., captain in the 13th Regiment of Foot, p3's son; (2) Richard Brook Webber esq.; (3) Anna Maria Grant, Manchester Square, London, p1's mother. D: (1) Davenport Sedley, moneylender, Swithins Lane, London; (2) John Wilson esq., Mile End, Midd; (3) Massey Stackpoole esq., cornet in the Regiment of Horse Guards; (4) Elizabeth Anthony, Mile End, Midd. C: (1) Thomas Nedham, counsel for ps; (2) William Cooke, counsel for d2 & d4; (3) J. Stanley, counsel for d3; (4) Geo Sloper, counsel for d1. Ps seek inj ag ds' suits at KB for payment of securities. Ps claim in 1781 they issued d1 two £150 bonds & a bond for a £60 annuity, in return for a £300 loan. D1 paid ps £20 cash, a horse & £280 in securities, which ps could not get accepted. D1 transferred the annuity to d2, & persuaded ps to execute a warrant of attorney to enter judgement in KB as security for the annuity. D1 transferred the bonds to ds2-4. Ds now sue ps at KB. D1 claims he only agreed to lend ps £150.



1785, Easter	E 112/1708	Bill. LMX 3898.
1785, May 5	E 112/1708	Answer. Swearing date of answer of d2 & d4, filed 6 May.
1785, Nov 10	E 112/1708	Answer. Swearing & filing date of d3's answer.
1785, Mich	E 112/1708	Exception. Ps' exceptions to d3's answer concerns the acquisition of the securities by ds2-4 from d1.
1785, Dec 13	E 112/1708	Amended bill. Bill amended to address issues raised in exceptions.
1786, Feb 13	E 112/1708	Further answer. Swearing & filing date of d3's further answer.
1787, Jan 23	E 112/1708	Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer, filed 23 January.

236. Grave v Harder

P: (1) John Grave gent., innholder, Furnival's Inn, London. D: (1) Thomas Harder, innholder, London; (2) Robert Gray, innholder, London; (3) William Hanks, innholder, Brentford, Midd; (4) William Cox, innholder, Colnbrook, Midd; (5) William Costar, innholder, Oxon; (6) John Shrubb, innholder, Benson, Oxon; (7) Stephen Wentworth, innholder, Kingston Inn, Oxon; (8) Christopher Bolton, innholder, Farringdon, Berks; (9) George Phillips, innholder, Fairford, Glos; (10) William Brewer, innholder, Cirencester, Glos; (11) Thomas Masters, stage master, Cirencester, Glos; (12) Daniel Masters, stage master, Cirencester, Glos. C: (1) Thomas Nedham, counsel for p. P seeks enforcement of contract allegedly agreed between p and ds. P claims the ds, proprietors of the Light and Heavy Stroud Water Tetbury and Cirencester Stage Coaches, contracted to use his inn, the Bell and Crown, Holborn. P accordingly invested in horses and equipment, but the ds allegedly deny they entered into any such contract.



1785, Easter	E 112/1708	Bill. LMX 3911; cf. E 112/1907 OXFORDSHIRE 54 Costar v Harder, & E 112/1705 LMX 3812 Forbes v Mott.

237. Gregory v Bateman

P: (1) Barnard Gregory gent., solicitor, Lyons Inn, Midd; (2) Richard Hankins gent., solicitor, Lyons Inn, Midd; (3) Oliver Edwards gent., solicitor, Lyons Inn, Midd; (4) James Best gent., solicitor, Lyons Inn, Midd; (5) John Richardson gent., solicitor, New Inn Buildings, Wych St., Midd. D: (1) Maurice Bateman; (2) Francis Skyrme, W. Skyrme's father. C: (1) Charles Cotton, counsel for ps. Add: (1) William Skyrme gent., deceased, d2's son. Ps seek inj ag ds' suit at KB. Ps1-4, trustees for the Society of Lyons Inn, claim that in 1776 the Society leased chambers to William Skyrme for his lifetime, who in turn let them to p5. W. Skyrme died in 1780, & his father d2 did not inform ps1-4 of his son's death, but asked p5 to pay the rent directly to d1, not via ps1-4. In 1783, p5 quit the chambers, & ps1-4 found out W. Skyrme was dead, & sought reimbursement from ds of rent since his death. Ds are suing p5 at KB for alleged non-payment of rent.



1784, Mich	E 112/1723	Bill. LMX 4263.

238. Gregory v Dennis

P: (1) Henry Gregory, optician, Leadenhall St., London. D: (1) Thomas Dennis, wine merchant, Love Lane, East Cheap, London, p's brother in law. C: (1) Antony Hart, counsel for p; (2) Charles Shuter, counsel for d. P seeks inj ag any future suit by d for payment of an accountable receipt p issued d. P claims he issued the receipt in return for a promissory note which he subsequently paid off to a third party to whom p had transferred it at a discount. D asserts the receipt was given in exchange for a cash loan, and should be repaid.



1784, Mich	E 112/1705	Bill. LMX 3798.
1784, Nov 15	E 112/1705	Answer. Swearing date.
[1785, undated]	E 112/1705	Exception. P's exception concerns his dealings with d.

239. Groves v Poole

P: (1) John Groves, bricklayer, Milbank, St., Westminster, Midd, trustee of d1's estate. D: (1) Samuel Gower Poole; (2) Edward Scales; (3) Thomas Wilkinson gent., Friday St., London; (4) James Miller, merchant, Watling St., London. C: (1) E. King, counsel for p; (2) Thomas Nedham, counsel for d2; (3) T. Pippard, counsel for d1 & ds3-4. Add: (1) Josiah Dornford, trustee of d1's estate; (2) John Hawkins, trustee of d1's estate; (3) Edward Webster, trustee of d1's estate; (4) David Grant, trustee of d1's estate; (5) Timothy Brown, trustee of d1's estate; (6) John Young, trustee of d1's estate; (7) Thomas Evans, trustee of d1's estate. P. for himself & the other trustees of d1's estate, seeks payment of profits from ds' brewhouse. In 1781, p filed a bill in this Court ag J. Dornford, J. Hawkins, E. Webster, D. Grant, T. Brown, J. Young & T. Evans (appointed trustees with p in 1778 to receive d1's estate & pay his debts), & ds1-2, against the trustees' sale of d1's estate to d2. P claimed the sale was collusive between ds1-2, to the loss of d1's creditors. As supplement, p adds that in 1784, ds1-2 sold d1's brewhouse to ds3-4. P claims ds1-4, as partners, now receive profits from the brewhouse which should be transferred to the trustees, to pay d1's debts. Ds deny the sale was collusive.



1785, Easter	E 112/1706	Supplementary bill. LMX 3831.
1785, Sept 16	E 112/1706	Answer. Swearing date of answer of ds3-4, filed 4 November.
1785, Sept 16	E 112/1706	Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer, filed 4 November.
1785, Sept 19	E 112/1706	Answer. Swearing & filing date of d2's answer.

240. Halliday v Paulhan

P: (1) John Halliday esq., Parliament St., Midd; (2) Matthias Kitchen gent., Mile End, Midd. D: (1) John Lewis Paulhan, broker, Mark Lane, London, employee of ds3-4; (2) John Francis Blache, broker, Mark Lane, London, employee of ds3-4; (3) William McDowall Colhoun, plantation manager, J. Mills' employee; (4) George Daniell, plantation manager, J. Mills' employee. C: (1) G. Daniell the younger, counsel for ps. Add: (1) John Mills, Great St. Helens, London, deceased. Ps, for themselves & the other annuity creditors of the estate of J. Mills (deceased), seek payment of annuities & an inj to prevent ds1-2 from paying sums to ds3-4. In 1774, J. Mills & his managers, ds3-4, granted ps annuities payable from a plantation on the island of Nevis in return for £15,000. In 1781, J. Mills went bankrupt, but ds3-4 have continued to manage the plantation, depositing profits from the sale of sugar with their brokers ds1-2, but neglecting to pay ps' annuities.



1784, Mich	E 112/1691	Bill. LMX 3483.

241. Halliwell v Robinson

P: (1) John Halliwell, currier, St. Martin in the Fields, Midd. D: (1) Samuel Robinson, tire smith; (2) Ann Tookey, H. Tookey's widow & executrix; (3) Matthias Stable, coach maker, Hanover Sq., Midd, partners with d4; (4) John Somerville, coach maker, Hanover Sq., Midd, partners with d3. C: (1) Thomas Nedham, counsel for p. Add: (1) Henry Tookey, tire smith, parish of St. Marylbone, Midd, deceased, d2's husband. P seeks payment of a £67 13s debt from ds. In 1778, ds3-4 owed £101 12s to p, £120 to d1, & £55 to H. Tookey. Ds3-4 were unable to pay, so they assigned their estate to p, d1 & H. Tookey in trust to pay their debts, with d1 as principal trustee. In 1783, H. Tookey died leaving d2 his widow & executrix. P claims he is still owed £67 13s from the estate, whereas ds1-2 have been fully repaid. Ds allegedly deny p is still owed money, or assert the estate is insufficient to pay the debt.



1785, Trin	E 112/1702	Bill. LMX 3733.