case the executor OF DEVALLAR against herring trover will not lie against the  good fide holder of a annuity ticket which have be lose by or steal from a  former proprietor if such ticket have be regular transfer to such bold  pursuant to the statute by which it be issue one smith who be proprietor of a  annuity ticket in one of the public fund sell it to white who sell it to  Devallar a single man who make the plaintiff his executor and die the  plaintiff come to his house after his death find one of his scrutores open  which they suspect to de do by one Powell his manservant by the contrivance of  the servantmaid they be the only person in the house and be since intermarry  upon examine the book of account the plaintiff find a entry make of a annuity  ticket buy of white on such a day which be a little before his death and that  ticket be now lose the plaintiff advertise it in the public paper with a  promise of a reward to any person who shall produce it and to stop it before  it pass the office but this advertisement be not make till about two month  after the testator death the ticket be sell before that time in exchangealley  and pass through several hand until it come to the defendant herring who  purchase it for a valuable consideration and have it transfer at the office to  himself as from smith the first proprietor who name be endorse and a blank  space leave over it to fill up the endorsement as usual all which be do before  the advertisement modern report the plaintiff the executor know this ticket to  be in the possession of the defendant herring bring a action of trover against  he at the trial they be nonsuit because the defendant have a transfer from  smith the first proprietor and countersign in the office he have thereby a  propriety and no other person can have a legal right to it a see the case of  power v well Cowp that in order to support a action of trover property in the  plaintiff be essential necessary and therefore where the plaintiff exchange a  house with the defendant and give possession of it it be hold that trover will  not lie to recover it back again although the exchange be unfair for by the  exchange the property be go out of the plaintiff see also Colston v Woolston  bull n p ekins v smith raym Whitehall v squire Mod miller v race burr  Anonymous salk grant v Vaughan burr peacock v Rhodes dougl a for the statute  Ann c by which these annuity ticket be create or the fund for the same express  provide that every transfer of these ticket shall be fill up and countersign  at the office and a entry keep of every assignment or transfer with the name  of the party contract for the same and it be a question at this trial whether  any evidence ought to be admit of the right to this ticket claim by any person  who have not comply with this statute against the right of he who have comply  it be rule by the court that it ought not and thereupon the plaintiff be  nonsuit afterward the executor exhibit a bill in the exchequer in which they  set forth the death of the testator the entry of this ticket in his book and  all the aforesaid matter and that such ticket be constant sell in  exchangealley without endorse any transfer but only the name of the first  proprietor and that such which have not transfer endorse sell better than  those which have many modern report er p such endorsement and that it be the  common practice never to make any endorsement over the first proprietor name  while these ticket be in agitation nor until they come into the hand of such  person who intend to keep they for if every transfer shall be endorse the  ticket will be so full of they that they can be no long transferable therefore  it be insist that the not endorse the transfer shall not in equity prejudice  the plaintiff it do the constant method of assign such ticket not to endorse  the transfer as aforesaid the defendant by his counsel insist that he purchase  this ticket at a market rate and good fide for a valuable consideration in  exchangealley without any covin or fraud and that he have comply with the  statute a cook v Bamfield Chan case blade v blade Eq case Abr a and fill up a  endorsement which be prove by one Mackoy a broker of who he buy this ticket  and therefore it be insist that this bill may be dismiss with cost as have no  equity against the defendant and for that the plaintiff have already be defeat  at law modern report it be object against read the deposition of Mackoy for  though be be a broker and as such may be a witness yet it appear by his own  deposition that in this case he do not act as a broker but sell the ticket in  his own right and because the defendant may have some demand against he if the  plaintiff shall prevail in this suit therefore he ought not to be a evidence  for the defendant for that in consequence may be to discharge himself but the  court be of opinion that his deposition shall be read for though his evidence  may not be admit before a jury of freeholder for the reason beforementioned  yet this court be proper judge what stress or weight ought to be lie on it and  after read the answer and Mackoys evidence confirm it in every thing the chief  baron and baron Gilbert be of opinion that the bill ought to be dismiss for  that every purchaser of such ticket who keep they open after the purchase  without fill they up with a endorsement and transfer accord to the statute  keep they at his own risk or peril and if they come afterward into the hand of  a stranger good fide and for a valuable consideration who get a transfer  endorse as direct by the statute he have a absolute right to they both in law  and in equity and baron Gilbert hold that whatever the court may do if the  cause be open and come before they without a trial at law yet there can be no  equity now to set aside the nonsuit because that will be a admittance that the  defendant have a legal right the chief baron be likewise for dismiss the bill  it be true if the testator Devallar when he purchase this ticket have procure  a transfer to himself and thereby have a legal right to it in such case if  after his death the defendant have purchase it of a stranger without acquaint  his executor the plaintiff therewith they may have some equity on their side  because the name of their testator be endorse on the ticket and by that mean  the defendant may have be sure who be the owner of it and who have the power  to transfer it to he yet as this case be there can be no negligence in the  purchaser for he buy it for a valuable consideration and have do every thing  necessary to establish his humh and can not know that the plaintiff testator  have any right to this ticket because there be no transfer endorse to modern  report he therefore by keep it open without any transfer he keep it at his own  risk for any man to fill up who come to the possession honest and without  fraud so that this bill ought to be dismiss baron price differ in opinion and  argue from the hardship of the case and that the defendant shall have take  care when he buy this ticket of who he buy it especial since Mackoy the seller  have no transfer to himself but only the bare possession and since the name of  smith the first proprietor be endorse be may have be inform who ticket it be  be then buy that it be a hard case on both side it be hard for the plaintiff  the executor that they shall lose their right because they do not know it soon  enough to advertise it and it be modern report er p hard for the defendant to  lose the benefit of his purchase he put the case of a promissory note which if  endorse and afterward lose and pass in way of trade to a three person for a  valuable consideration yet the endorsee may bring a action of trover for the  note against the three person which the other baron do not deny a but see  Hintons case show miller v race burr grant v Vaughan black Rep peacock v  Rhodes dougl a thereupon it be propose by baron price that this ticket shall  be divide between the contend party but that be not agree to and at last the  court take time far to consider until next Michaelmas term trinity vacation  the nine of George the first in the year before sir Philip York Knt  attorneygeneral sir clement Wearg Knt solicitor general