1832.

RHODES

v.

BEAUVOIR.

the Appellant, being the highest bidder for certain iron works, &c., was reported the purchaser and the report was confirmed absolutely. Six months after the order of confirmation, a discovery was made by two of the trustees for sale named by the testator, that the Appellant had, before the sale, entered into an agreement with Lewellyn, their co-trustee, who was the acting manager of the iron works, to admit him into partnership of the iron works in case the Appellant should become the purchaser; and, accordingly, after he was declared purchaser, he proposed to give Lewellyn one eighth of the profits of the concern as managing partner; but being afterwards doubtful of his capacity to manage it, or desirous of taking another partner, who paid a bonus or profit to the Appellant of 7000l., he gave 1500l. to Lewellyn to relinquish his claim.

Upon a motion made on behalf of the two trustees, who were Defendants in the suit, and affidavits filed in proof of the facts above stated, the order confirming the purchase was rescinded.

1832.

ENGLAND.

(EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.)

DANIEL GILES, ESQ. late

Sheriff of the County of Plaintiff in Error ;
Herts

In pursuance of a commission and inquisition thereon, finding
G. & P. indebted to the Crown, an extent issued on the 21st
of August, 1816, to the sheriff of, &c. to inquire what debts
G. and P. had in his bailiwick. By an inquisition thereupon,
taken on the same day, it was found that F. and N. were in-
debted to G. and P. in 1480l., for money lent, which debt
the sheriff seized into the king's hands. On the same 21st
day of August, a writ of capias ad satisfaciendum and extent
was issued and delivered to the sheriff, whereby he was di-
rected to inquire what lands, &c., and to appraise, extend,
and seize the lands, goods, and chattels of F. and N. into the
king's hands, until the debt should be satisfied.
Upon an inquisition before the sheriff, on the 21st of October,
1816, and taken under the before-mentioned writ, it was found
that F. and N., on the day of issuing the writ, were possessed
as of their own, &c. of divers goods and chattels within the
bailiwick, which were in the sheriff's custody at the time of is-
suing the writ, by virtue of three writs of fieri facias, for
sums amounting together to 37271., and of an extent, tested
the 22d day of July, 1816, for 30661., and of an extent in aid,
tested the 27th of July, 1816, for 6501. The goods were
thereupon seized by the sheriff into the king's hands, subject
to the prior executions and extents.

Before the issuing of the extent of the 21st of August, three
several writs of fieri facias, at the suit of several creditors,
had issued against F. and N., endorsed respectively for 3517.,
376/., and 30007., under which writs the sheriff, in the month
of July, 1916, had seized and taken in execution the same
goods and chattels as were seized under the extent of August

T

GILES

v. GROVER.

1832.

GILES

v.

GROVER.

1816, of sufficient value to satisfy the several sums indorsed on the three writs of fieri facias.

All the other writs of extent were posterior in date and seizure of goods to the writs of fieri facias.

The goods seized under the extent dated in August 1816, were afterwards sold by the sheriff, and the proceeds not being sufficient to satisfy the writs of fieri facias, the extent dated in July, and also the extent dated in August, the sheriff applied the proceeds of the sale of the goods in part satisfaction of the writs of fieri facias and of the extent of July. These facts being found upon a feigned issue directed by the Court of Exchequer, judgment was given for the Crown, and affirmed upon writ of error; in effect deciding, that where a subject obtains judgment in an action, and thereupon a writ of fieri facias issues, which is delivered to the sheriff, who, in execution thereof, seizes the goods of the Defendant, if, while the goods remain in the hands of the sheriff, and before he has sold them, a writ of extent in aid is issued against the same Defendant, as debtor of a debtor of the Crown, tested after the seizure under the fieri facias, and is delivered to the sheriff, the writ of extent, whether it be in chief or in aid, shall be executed upon the goods seized under the fieri facias.

THIS
case arose upon a special verdict, which
was found upon the trial of a feigned issue di-
rected by the Court of Exchequer in Hilary term

*

*The origin of the feigned issue was as follows. In the year 1817, the Attorney-General filed an information in the Exchequer, against the Plaintiff in error, in the nature of an action for a false return to the writ of extent of the 21st of August. The Plaintiff in error pleaded the general issue; and the jury to try the same, returned a special verdict upon the record, substantially the same as the special verdict set forth in the text. On the 10th of May, 1820, the case was argued upon the direct question raised by the facts, Whether the extent at the suit of the Crown, tested after the subject's judgment, and after the seizure by the sheriff under the writs of fieri facias, was, under the circumstances stated in the special verdict, entitled to such a preference as to defeat all that had

1824, to be tried between the above parties, and originated in certain proceedings upon a writ of extent, then depending in the Court.

The declaration recited in substance, that before and at the time of issuing the extent, tested the 21st of August, 1816, Harry Grover and James Pollard were indebted to the King in the sum of 1480l. 6s.9d., being the king's money, arising from assessed taxes and property tax, collected and received by H. Grover and J. Pollard, as bankers appointed by the receiver-general of taxes for the county of Hertford, as by a commission, &c. appeared: that at the time of issuing the extent, H. Fourdrinier and T. Nicholls were indebted to H. Grover and J. Pollard in the sum of 13631. 5s. 1d. for money lent; which lastmentioned debt had been seized into the king's hands by a certain extent and inquisition previously

been done on the part of the judgment creditor by himself, and the sheriff for the recovery of the debt awarded by the judgment, under the writs of fieri facias, upon which the sheriff had actually received the Defendants' goods.

The Court took time to deliberate for giving their judgment, and afterwards, on the 8th of July, 1820, judgment was given for the Crown. It should be noticed, however, that two only of the Judges of the Exchequer, viz. Baron Graham and Baron Garrow, expressed an opinion in favour of the Crown.Baron Wood differed from these two learned Judges, and expressed a clear opinion in favour of the Plaintiff in error. The Lord Chief Baron Richards gave his judgment only pro formá, for the Crown, that the question might be further discussed, and decided in a court above.

A writ of error was then brought in the Exchequer Chamber, and after two arguments in that court, before the Chief Justices of the Courts of K. B. and C. P., their judgment being, that under the circumstances an information would not lie for a false return, as it was true in fact, though false in law; a feigned issue was recommended, and adopted to try the material point in issue.

1832.

GILES

V.

GROVER.

1832.

GILES

V.

GROVER.

issued. The declaration then recited, that an extent had issued on the 21st day of August, 1816, against H. Fourdrinier and T. Nicholls for the debt, which was duly delivered to the Plaintiff in error, then being sheriff of the county of Hertford, to be by him duly executed; and thereupon a question arose between the Defendants in error and the Plaintiff in error Whether at the time of issuing the last-mentioned extent, there were any goods and chattels of H. Fourdrinier and T. Nicholls, or either of them, which were liable to seizure under the extent, and afterwards to be sold for the purpose of satisfying the said debt of the Crown.

-

The declaration then stated, that the Defendants in error asserted, that there were such goods and chattels; and the Plaintiff in error, that there were not; and that in consideration that the Defendants in error had paid 57. to the Plaintiff' in error, he promised to pay them 107., if at the time of issuing the extent there were any such goods and chattels.

The declaration then averred, that there were such goods and chattels, and stated a breach of the promise.

The Plaintiff in error pleaded to the declaration, that there were not any such goods and chattels; upon which issue was joined. The cause came on for trial at the sittings in Trinity term 1824, when the jury found a special verdict, in which the facts were stated in substance as follows:

That in pursuance of a commission, to inquire whether H. Grover and J. Pollard were indebted to the late king, and an inquisition thereupon finding them to be so indebted in the sum of 14801. 6s. 9d., an extent issued on the 21st day of August, in the year of our Lord 1816, to the sheriff of Middlesex,