The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-11-01 00:00:00

AItATET I.! 'SAS-WARD.

Thin was a writ of error out a judgment of the Common Pleas on
a demurrer to a declarationk . Tennant,.
Mr. Jsive 31Y, for the plaintiff' krs error, asid, that the only
question here wax, as to the construction to be put on a covenant in
a sale; whether two clauses in this covenant, as he had to contend,
ought to be taken jointly, or whether, as would be argued on the
other side, they could be taken separately, and an action brought on
ore of them without any reference to the other. The plaintiff in
error was the porchaner of two estates in the county of Ensex, called
Vcatbarrow Hall and Ea•twood Farm. The render of these
rowel came to them by virtue of a devise, and they were charged,
with the payment of annuities of 100 L &acerb of his four sisters.
When he sold them to the plaintiff in envy he took covenants to in-
demnify hintself, ntsd also for the payment of the annuities.
There covenants, he said, must be taken jointly ; that is, that the
purchaser, under them, wan not liable to any action under them till
the vender been damnified.

Mr. Cur rTv was about to argue for the other side, when the
Court told hint it was not necriwary.
The Loan CHIEF-JUSTICE—Here are two covenants ; one to
indemnify, the other to do an set by which any damnification may
be prevented, namely, by paying the annuities. It seems to be
perfectly cleat that these covenants are independent, and that the
purehaver or these estates is liable to an action of covenant for the
annuities, though the vender of the estates on which they are
charged has not been damnified. lam or opinion, therefore, that
the judgment of the Court below must be affirmed.
The three ether Judges delivered their opinions seriatim to the
same effect.
Judgment below affirmed.
purct v. SEAMAN.

This was also a writ of error from the Common Pleas. The
plaintiff in the Court below had agreed to purchase. from a third
person, certain freehold houses. The defendant offered him 401.
for kis bargain, which was accepted an action of assumpait was
afterwards brought to recover this 401. and a general verdict found
fur the plaintiff.
.51r. BARSToW now contended for the plaintiff in error, that the
enginel contract was only a c!.ose in action, and, therefore, that it
could not become the subject matter of a bargain and sale. Ile
contended also, that these bargains, according to the statute of
frauds, ought to have been in writing, and signed by the parties ;
that mere was no evidence that this was done ; and, therefore, that
they were not valid under this statute.
Mr. TaLrounD, for the other side, argued that the assignment
of such a bargain was a sufficient consideration to support an ac-
tion of assumpsit and adverted to the case of an equity of redemp-
tion, which had been held to be sufficient, and which he contended
carried the principle quite as tar as the present ease required.
The Cot :air—Undoubtedly by the statute of frauds, these con.
tracts ought to have been in writing ; but it is too late to make
any objection now, as. after verdict, we must presume that they
were in writing, and properly signed. The declaration says,
•• barganed and agreed and after a verdict for the plaintitr. we
must presume a bargain and agreement,' such as to mice an effic.
mai transfer. The asegrirrretrt choie in action la got contrary
to law ; the law ham merely put sortie restraints upon it, and says,
that an action must be brought upon such assignment ►n the name
of the original tessignor. It is every-day practice tor a debtor to
assign away all his property and rights of action for the benefit of
his creditors, and for the assignees to bring actions upon such RS
signments. Fur these reasons, therefore, the Court is of opinion
that the judgment of the Court below must be affirmed.
Several other causes were called on, in most of which Mr. Scar-
lett wan engaged : they were put off by request ; and the Court nil.
jammed at one o'clock, in consequence of no case being ready for
hearing.
Loao Cntsr Jrarrcr remonstrated strongly against the
negligence and non-attendance of Counsel. lie said, that it was the
opinion of the Court, that when full notice had been given what
eases were to be heard, they ought to go on, wheelie? Counsel at-
tended or not ; they should, therefore, the the future, take the
cases as :hey stood on the paper, and decide them as well as they
could.