held to mean sole seisin." Nor was it necessary that the word "legally" should be expressed, if it could fairly be implied. 2 Saund. 305, a. n. 13. Vynior's Case (a), Marsh v. Bulteel (b). The issue therefore in substance is upon the legality of the requisition; and according to the first point of the argument, it was unauthorized, and illegal.

ALEXANDER, L. C. B. I shall make no observation on the pleadings: on the substantial justice of the case I have a very clear opinion. The original questions in substance were, in the first place, whether a demand of this society's property had been made of the defendant, by the committee for the time being; and if there had, in the next, whether that committee had been legally constituted. But these have been now abandoned, and the question at present is, what right the committee had to make a demand. It is contended that they had no right. However, it appears to me, that according to the clear and unequivocal meaning of the terms of this bond, the committee were entitled to make the requisition which they have made. I do not find any thing in the condition of the bond, which directs the request to be made by a committee according to the rules, orders, and regulations of the society, or the act of parliament. On the contrary, this person was bound by it to obey the commands of the committee for the time being relating to the box, leaving it to them to answer for the consequences, if they were not acting agreeably to the rules, or the statute. I cannot therefore apply the condition as Mr. Alexander does. It states, "that if the defendant, his heirs, &c. did and should, at any time thereafter, when required so to do by a majority of the said society, at one of their annual or quarterly meetings, or by their committee for the time being, well and truly return and deliver unto the com

1824.

WYBERGH

V.

AINLEY.

1824.

WYBERGH

v.

AINLEY.

mittee for the time being of the said society, for the use of the same society, the said society's box, &c." These terms do not authorize the qualification contended for. It is true, that towards the end of the condition there is a distinct provision, by which the obligor promises that he would "render a just and true account according to the rules, orders, and regulations of the said society, and of the said act of parliament;" but I am not aware of any thing which requires me to connect that clause with the demand of this committee: and if I even were to do so, I do not know that it would have any effect favourable to the defendant. It seems to me to be a clear proposition, that he did not comply with the terms of the condition.

GRAHAM, B. To say that the power of the committee to demand the box was limited in such a way as has been contended, would be that sort of qualification of it which would render it extremely difficult ever to make a demand. I think the issue proved.

GARROW, B. concurred.

HULLOCK, B. I think that this rule ought to be discharged. The simple question is, are the issues joined upon the record established by the evidence given on the trial? The first of these is, whether the defendant was requested to deliver up the box, &c. by the committee of the society for the time being. Now a demand was proved at the assizes in every sense of the word. The second is, whether the committee were legally appointed, or not. I had at first supposed that their appointment had taken place at the Triangle, in which event it would be illegal; because the fourth rule, I think, has not yet been altered, in the manner required by the statute. But the evidence is, that they were duly elected by the majority of the members assembled, in their annual meeting at the

defendant's house. The committee then being legally appointed, the question is, whether they had a right to demand the box, &c. It appears to me, that they were authorized in making that requisition. I agree in the construction which the Court has put upon the bond, and I am of opinion, that the issues joined upon the record are sustained by the evidence.

1824.

WYBERGH

v.

AINLEY.

Rule discharged.

THE KING V. MARSH and others.

On a writ of extent for 6891. 1s. 5d.

Exchequer of Pleas, November 29th.

Where an extent in chief

had been issued for the recovery

of a sum of

money, being proceeds of

AN extent, tested the 15th of September, and returnable the 6th of November, 1824, was issued against Messrs. Marsh and Co. late of Berners Street, bankers, on an affidavit of Thomas Shuttleworth, one of the collectors of assessed taxes for the parish of St. Marylebone, London; stating, that the defendants were justly and truly indebted to the King in the sum above mentioned, being his Majesty's monies arising from the duties on houses, windows, lights, and other assessed taxes for the year ending the 5th of April then last past, and for the year ending the 5th of April then next ensuing, respectively, collected and received of and from the several inhabitants of the the hands of

assessed taxes for part of a year, deposited by a collector with a banking house which

had stopped payment, and

such sum was partly composed of ba

lances left in

the collector

upon his several monthly payments to the Receiver General, the Court refused to refer it to the King's Remembrancer to see (in effect) whether the poundage upon all those payments ought not to be deducted from the sum mentioned in the extent, as being the collector's and not the king's money; upon the grounds, 1st. that the application was without precedent: 2d. that the collector's title did not accrue till the completion of his collection, and payment of his entire assessment: 3d. that the same did not come within the jurisdiction of this Court as a debt, or liquidated demand, but was subject to the control of the Lords of the Treasury, who have all the requisite accounts before them, as an equitable claim to be adjusted, or wholly disallowed, according to circumstances: 4th. that it would be impossible for the master, without the accounts, to see whether ultimately the collector would have any claim.

1824.

REX

บ.

MARSH

and others.

said parish by deponent, and by him deposited in the hands of the said defendants for safe custody.

On the 16th of September a commission of bankruptcy was issued against three of the partners, under which they were duly found and declared bankrupts: and on the 29th of October, another commission was issued against the remaining partner, Henry Fauntleroy, pursuant to the statute 3 G. 4. c. 81. under which he was found and declared bankrupt, and the same persons were appointed assignees of both estates.

An affidavit was made by the solicitor to the assignees, stating the deponent's information and belief, that in the ordinary course of the business of the collectors, each collector must have sworn before the commissioners of the district on the 2d day of September to the truth of his account, and have been thereupon ordered to pay in his balance and that it accordingly appeared by the accounts of the said T. Shuttleworth and other collectors, who kept cash at the house of the bankrupts, that large sums of money were drawn out by each of them on the 8th day of that month, being, according to deponent's information and belief, the balances or sums ordered to be paid by the said collectors respectively: and that it appeared to the deponent, upon a careful examination of the accounts of the said T. Shuttleworth with the bankrupts, that the sum of 6897. Is. 5d. sworn by the former to be due to his Majesty at the time of making his affidavit, could not have been so due by the said T. S. And upon this a rule nisi was obtained by Jervis, on behalf of the assignees, for referring it to the King's Remembrancer to enquire, whether all, or what part of that sum, was due from the defendants to his Majesty; the assignees submitting to pay such sum as should be found to be due.

The course of business in relation to the assessed taxes in the parish of St. Marylebone was represented to be as follows. The parish is divided into several districts: as

sessors are appointed for each district, who make the assessments, which are allowed, and signed by the commissioners, and a collector appointed for each by warrant under seal; after which duplicates of the assessments, with the names of the respective collectors, are transmitted to the Receiver General, who charges the collectors in his books with the amounts of their respective assessments.

Under the 3 G. 4. c. 88 (a), the commissioners have keld monthly meetings, at which the collectors have been examined on oath as to the sums collected by them within each month; and the commissioners have usually made an order for payment of such a portion of those sums as they might think expedient, generally leaving a small balance in the hands of the collector. But the sum so left in the preceding month is always carried forward, and forms part of the balance appearing to be due in the succeding month, and is never taken credit for by the collector, till the final close of his accounts for the year with the Receiver General, after Christmas. The sum, for recovery of which the extent had been issued, was the residue remaining after deducting the gross sums paid from the gross sums, received by the collector and the sole question in substance was, whether this sum ought not to have been reduced by the amount of his poundage upon his several payments; the assignees contending that his right thereto accrued immediately as each monthly payment was made; that the retention of the monthly balances was to be taken as an authorized appropriation of the same, in satisfaction of the poundage on each such occasion due; and that the poundage therefore was the collector's own money, and not recoverable by the prerogative process.

Holt shewed cause. The reference is totally uncalled for, and the extent may be supported to the full amount

(a) And see 43 G. 3. c. 99. s. 39.

1824.

REX

V.

MARSH and others.