SD696. Messrs. Grignon Quarrells & West to Samuel Moulton-Barrett (uncle)
Published in The Brownings’ Correspondence, 2, 363 (in part).
Kingston
25. April 1829
Dear Sir
Mr Richard Barrett has not replied to our letter by last weeks post, respecting the land adjoining Thatchfield in St Ann, to one undivided moiety whereof you are entitled.
If one Tenant in Common takes the whole profits, & even refuses to pay any part to the other, this is not sufficient (without denying the others title) to constitute an actual ouster or expulsion of the other Tenant; but in such case the party aggrieved can maintain an action of account against the other as Bailiff, for receiving more than comes to his just share in proportion;—neither under such circumstances do we imagine, that when there is a Receivership an attachment in Chancery, would be granted at the instance of one Tenant against the other, who has been in perception of the whole rents & profits of this undivided land: but we rather think he would be left to his remedy as Common Tens. If on the other hand the one Tenant do not suffer the other, (As our Mr Quarrells understood you to mention was the case in the present instance) to enter upon or occupy the land, or claim his title, this would be an ejectment or expulsion, & we conceive an attachment might be obtained against the wrongdoer, but then it must be distinctly proved by oath, that your right to enter upon & occupy the land had been disputed or your title denied. Now in the conversation which Mr Quarrells had with Mr R. Barrett and his Solicitor, they were most particularly cautious, not to deny your title, but contrariwise admitted it, & professed themselves ready at all times, to acknowledge you as in possession jointly with Mr R. Barrett, & that no obstacle or opposition to your entering on the land would be offered. If a contrary course had been pursued, before any application can be made to the Court, we shall require an affidavit or affidāts, setting forth the recovery by your brother & self in the judgment by ejectment against Mr R. Barrett, as of October Grand Court 1819, of an undivided moiety of the land in question—that a Writ of possession was thereunder issued which was duly executed– The Entry made in the Plantation Books on that occasion (a copy of wh. was all shewn us) should be set forth. Mr Bramwell knows all about it. That you continued in possession of your undivided moiety through your Representative in this island, until the appointment of Receiver. When Mr. R. Barrett as such Receiver obtained the sole possession, (Quære. Did Mr Hilton interfere with Retreat & this land or not?)– That you were afterwards appointed Sole Receiver, & then stating the facts as they happened, with regard to your right of entry being disputed &c.–
When Tenants in Common or joint tenants disagree as to the possession of the undivided land—it is usually more for their mutual advantage that there should be a partition, & you might we apprehend have the land divided by an action of partition, or by Deed of partition if the parties can agree– Do you not consider this wd. be advisable?– My letter of the 7 Feby last you were apprized of the necessity of having his affidavit prepared respecting the Pimento picked on the 89 acres during Mr R. Barretts receivership. This Mr Gayleard mentioned he wd require. We send you at foot an Extract from the letter here alluded to.
We remain
&c. &c.
Grignon Quarrells & West.
S. M. Barrett Esq
Publication: None traced.
Source: Copy at Eton College Library.
___________________
