Case Submitted by Mr Seurll, 7 February 1888

Case submitted by Mr Seurll

February 7 1888

From the very[?] kind statement signed by Messn. Duncan a Morgan, exhibited to me by Mr Seurll, latin[?] to the case of Beaty's Admd. v Gilson, and assuming that the value of the 80 acres lost from Beaty's [?] by the adverse claim A Holmes' heirs, is fix-ed at 1500, ^ I am of opinion that that farm is to be abated from the 9000, the amount of Beaty's purchase - money, or the day of the purchase, that is 29 July 1869, and not at the date of eviction[?].

I so conclude from the doctrine as stated 2 Min. [?] (650) 727, and the case there int-ed[?], and especially Thompson v Guthrie. 9 Leigh 107, and Hurrean v Thornhill, 2 N. Bl. 1078, and that conclusion in fortified by the justice and [?] of the case.

If Beaty had paid the purchase-money and taken a conveyance with covenant[?] of [?] corresponding to those in the title[?] - there can be no doubt I presume that he or his [?] ,when the eviction which

has taken place in consequence of the Holmes' heir[?], might [?] the due proportion of the purchase-money (of 1500) with intent from the time when Beaty became liable for cents and profit to Holmes' heirs. Their action was begun in 1872, and they were entitled to damages [?] profits for a period not extending 5 years [?], (VC 73. Ch. 131, 830), which would have gone back to 1867, two years before Beaty's purchase.

In this case of an executing contract, when M the purchase-money has not been paid, it season to be only [?] justice to [??] at the very comment[?] of the transaction, the date of Gibson's[?] default to the extent of that default, [?] if Beaty some not [?] for the [?] profits to Holmes' heirs, for they were not profits demand from any this belonging to Gilson[?].