subjected to the payment of her debts, for which he alleged he was prosecuted in Chancery, and that by means of the order of reversal the Chancery could not without the direction of the Lords, give any relief to the creditors of Frances out of her own estate, nor could the estate be sold without the Lords further order; and prayed to explain the order of reversal, and to make some order for relief of the creditors of Frances, or to give directions to the Court of Chancery how to proceed therein. (W. Whitlocke.)
[79] Die Mercurii, 19 Aprilis, 1699. Upon hearing council on both sides on this petition, it was ordered and adjudged by the Lords that the same be dismissed.—Lords Journ. Vol. xvi. 442. (Viner v. 93, 342.)
Case 16.—Elizabeth Harvey,—Appellant; Thomas Western,—Respondent [1699].
Appellant stated, that Charles Harvey, her father (who was a freeman of London) and respondent were partners in a great iron trade, wherein their first principal stock was only 6000l. of which one third part being 2000l. was Harvey's, and the other two thirds respondent's, and that by an account stated and sigued between them, 1st March, 1670, it appears that the 6000l. stock had, in seven years trade, encreased to 35,028l. of which 5000l. was then esteemed doubtful debts; so that Charles Harvey's share was then 11,670l. and soon after that account made up, Charles and respondent, by articles, dated 31st July, 1671, entered into a new partnership to continue for ten years longer, to commence from 1st March, 1670; and it was thereby agreed, that the whole balance of the last stated account, together with 7488l. borrowed on their joint credit, in all above 42,500l. should be employed to carry on the succeeding trade, and that an account and dividend of the partable estate should be yearly made; and if either died no advantage of survivorship, but within six weeks a true account should be given, and dividend made between the survivor and the executors of the deceased, and what was not presently divideable to be valued, and as soon as might be converted into money, and divided; and any differences to be ended by arbitrators, indifferently to be chosen: and that, pursuant to these articles, the joint trade was carried on with a stock of 42,500l. and they traded with 11000l. borrowed in Charles Harvey's life-time, from 1st March, 1670, to 28th of October, 1672; when Charles Harvey died, leaving appellant his only child, then about six years old, having made a will, and appointed Elizabeth his wife, (since married to Mr. Chadwicke) sole executrix, [80] and there upon two-thirds of his estate belonged to his widow, and the remaining third to appellant, his only child, by the custom of London; and the whole partnership estate and books, it being possessed by respondent, the widow could not for twelve weeks after testator's death obtain from him any account at all, and that which was at length delivered, 26th January, 1672, was found so intricate, immethodical, erroneous, and unfair, that no certain estimate could be thereby made of the partable estate; and respondent refused to deliver any other, or to produce the books, and threatened to ruin the widow with expensive suits, who found herself under a necessity of accepting what he offered, namely, to refer the matter on the foot of said erroneous account, to two arbitrators, Thomas Bard and John Boun; one of them a country gentleman, wholly unskilled in accounts of that nature; who, 2d June, 1673, (without regard to the balance of the account stated, 1st March, 1870, or taking a true account of the profits from that time to testator's death, or of the true value of the stock then remaining, and outstanding debts, made an award, whereby the widow was to accept of 6000l. in money, and an assignment of 1000l. more from the ordnance office (which, by the respondent's misinformation, she was afterwards prevailed upon to part with to him, for 500l. and thereupon to quit all her interest and demands to the whole estate in partnership; and accordingly she inconsiderately, and by imposition, submitted to the award, and executed a release of all her right to the respondent; but that appellant was then an infant, and had no guardian, or person who took any care of her interest in the partable estate to her father's share, in which she was intitled to one third, and
190
