Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/445

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.


Semen: Coeur at the Unimi $1.::4;. 43, opinion, in oppolition to that of a majority of the attendant rygg. judges ; in other words, whether the judges called by the Lord trrsl Chancellor and Lord High Treafurerwere to be confidered as mere afliftantstothem without voices. The opinion of thejudger being taken on this point, feven againit three held, that the Lord Chancellor and Lord Treafnrer were not concluded by the opinions of the judges, and therefore that the Lord Keeper in the cafe in qneftion, there being then no Lord Treafurer, might give judgment according to his own opinion, Lord Suuerr concurring in this idea, reverfed the udgment of the Court of Exchequer. But the cafe was afterwards carried by error into Parliament, and there the Lords reverfed the judgment of the Exchequer·Chamber, and allirmed that of the Exchequer. However, notwithttanding this final decifion in favour of the Bankers and their creditors, it appears bya fnbfequent ftatuoq that they were to receive only one half of their debts ; the t 2 and I4 IIC g. after appropriating certain [urns out of the he- reditary Excite for public ufes, providing, that in lieu of the ‘ annuities granted to the Bankers and all arrears, the hereditary Excife thould, after the 26th of December 160I, be charged with annual fums equal to an intereft of three per cent, till re-` deemed by payment of one moiety of the principal fums. Har- grnrx'.r cnf gfib: Bankers, t, 2, 3. Upon pending the whole of this cafe, thefe inferences na- turally follow :-— That admitting the authority of that de- cilion in its fullefl: extent, yet it is an authority only in rcfpeét to fuch cafes, where letters patent from the crown have been granted for thc payment of certain fums out of a particular re- venue. ad. That fuch relief was grantablc in the Exchequer, upon no other principle than that that Court had a right to di- rect the itfues of the Exchequer as well after the money was depolited there as while (in the Exchequer language) it was iu tmniru. gd. That fuch an authority could not have been exer- eifed by any other Court in H";/}n:iry?e¤·-Hall, or by any Court that from its particular conftitution had no conrroul over the re- venues of the Kingdom. Lord C. sf. Holt, and Lord Samm- (though they differed in the main point) both agreed in that cafe, that the Court of King’.r bench could not fend a writ to the T reafury. }Lugra·u:’.r aj, 4 5, 89. Confcquently, no fuch remedy could, under any circumliances, I apprehend, be allowed in any of the Amrrican States, in none of which it is prcfumed any Court of Jufiice hath any exprefs authority over the revenues of the State fuch as has been attributed to the Court of Exchequer in Englnnd. · The ohfervations of Lord Svmrrr, concerning the general rc- mcdy hy petition to the King, have been cxtraéied and referred to by fome of the ublelt law charaitcrs fince; particularly by .-· Lor