at or near K., and died seised thereof, and that he surrendered the same to the use of himself, the said H. G., for his life, with remainder to the use of the said P. G., brother of said H. G., his heirs and assigns for ever. That P. G. was dead, and that A., wife of W. C., and E., wife of R. O, daughter of P. G., were their next heirs to the said premises.

Date. Surrender by R. O, and E. his wife, of all their undivided moiety of the same premises, to the use of W. C., his heirs and assigns for ever.

Date. Admission of and surrender by W. C. to the use of his will.

Date. Surrender by W. C., and A. his wife, of all their undivided moiety therein, to the use of the said W. C., his heirs and assigns for ever.

Licence to W. C. to demise all his lands in L. for twenty-one years.



I, A. B., of, &c., do hereby undertake to give and Undertaking render unto C. D., of, &c., a just and true account to keep and of, or relating to the business, &c., and other deal- counts to ings and transactions of him, the said C. D., and of principal. all moneys that shall be received by me on account thereof, at all times when the said C. D. shall require the same; and I undertake to provide and keep such and so many books of account as shall, for that purpose, be necessary, wherein shall be fairly stated or written all moneys received and paid, and all goods which shall be bought or received in, or sold or delivered out upon credit, or otherwise, and all other matters, circumstances, and things necessary to manifest the state and condition of the said trade, (business, or concern,) for the inspection of the said C. D., and to pay the balance in my hands or appearing due to the said C. D. when required by him so to do;u and I, the said C. D. do hereby, in consideration thereof, undertake to pay or allow a sa

u Unless it be otherwise stipulated, an agent is bound to account for, and pay over the net proceeds of goods sold by him as soon as he has or might have received them, had he used due diligence ; Vorden v. Parker, 2 East, 710; Hunter v. Welsh, 1 Stark, 224. It may, therefore, be necessary to specify the particular times of accounting, such as quarterly or half-yearly.


lary unto the said A. B., at and after the rate of L.

per annum, so long as I shall continue to employ the said A. B. in manner aforesaid."

The above-named A. B. and C. D. having this day stated, sign- stated the before-mentioned (or annexed) account, do od, and allowby the

hereby reciprocally allow and approve the same, (the parties.* several vouchers in respect thereto being produced

by the said C. D., and compared and carefully examined with the payments mentioned in the statement made by him, are found by the said A. B. to be correct, and are thereupon delivered up to the said A.B.;) and further, the said A. B. and C. D. do hereby also mutually acknowledge that there is not at the present time any other claim or demand what. cver, to their knowledge or belief, subsisting or depending between them. Dated, &c.

Witness. Attorneys, receivers, or other agents who hold money for others, would do well in depositing it with a banker for safe keeping; or, as a means of transfer, to do so to an account distinct from their own, so as to keep it ear-marked, as (supposing that they had exercised such discretion in the selection of the banker, as they would reasonably be expected to have used in their own case) they would thereby be relieved

the sum.

"A memorandum similar to the above, signed by the parties, may answer until a more formal instrument is prepared.

* If the balance be paid, the acknowledgment of its payment must be upon a receipt stamp. If it is in full of all demands, the same must be on a 10s. stamp, however small

If the allowance include a release, the same must be upon a L.1, 15s. stamp. If mutual releases, there are two parts, and consequently several stamps. It is to be observed, that a general receipt, or acquittance in full of all demands, will discharge all debts, except such as are on specialty, as rent, bonds, and other instruments under seal, which can be waived or released only under seal; Noyes 0. Hopgood, Jac. 649; Littler v. Holland, 3 T. R. 540; Kaye v. Waghorn, 1 Taunt. 428.

from responsibility on account of any loss which the failure of the banker might occasion ;" but the deposit should be made in their own name only, so that they might retain the absolute control over it.”

If a party who owes money to another on two different accounts makes a payment generally, the party receiving it may apply it to either, unless it can be collected from the circumstances that the party paying intended at the time of payment to appropriate it to one specifically; therefore, where a debtor gave a warrant of attorney for a certain sum, and was also indebted upon another account, and divers payments were made to the creditor, but not specifically in discharge of the warrant of attorney, the creditor may enforce it, although he had subsequently received a larger sum, it being decided that the creditor might put the sums paid in discharge of which of the two accounts he chose.

Where an agent had delivered an account, by which it appeared that he had received certain payments on account, but which in fact he had not received, he was held to be bound by the account which he had delivered, unless he could show he had given credit by mistake.—Shaw v. Picton, 4 B. and C., 715.

A purchase being set aside for fraud, the purchaser was decreed to pay an occupation-rent, receiving back his purchase-money with interest, there being a considerable excess of rent above the interest; annual receipts directed to be made in the accounts until the excess of the rent should liquidate the principal.-Donovan v. Fricker, Jac., 165.

Rowth v. Howell, 3 Ves. 566; Wren v. Kirton, 11 Ves. 877; Massey v. Banner, 1 Jac. and Walker, 241; Robinson 0. Ward, 2 Car. and Payne, 59; 1 Ryan and M., 274.

* Salway v. Salway, 2 Russ. and M., 215. ' Woolley v. Jennings, 2 Car. and Pay., 144; Shaw v. Picton, 4 B. and C., 715; Pease v. Hirst, 10 B. and C., 122; Devaynes v. Noble, i Mer. 585.

An account between an attorney and client, although long settled and signed, will not be considered conclusive as against the latter, and if any items of charge can be impeached, the account will be so far re-opened by the court on a bill filed for that purpose, that the plaintiff will be allowed to surcharge and falsify.Johnes v. Lloyd, 10 Price, 62; but after an account has been once stated and settled, it would be considered conclusive as between the parties, unless a gross error or mistake could be shown in it.- Truman v. Hurst, 1 T. R. 42.

Large sums in gross charged in such accounts must be supported by detail of items composing them, or they will not be allowed.-10 Price, 82.

[ocr errors]
« ForrigeFortsett »