1788-08-18 (static/transcriptions/1788/08/141.jpg)

For a prom: none in this. It is not even stated that they were in the possession of the Salt, but only that they had contracted for it. The Landlord had a right to the possession of the goods, the Complts had not, for the prop cod not [ill] them without delivery.

Mr. A – citing the same case insists that Complts had a lien on the Salt; which is not even alleged in the Bill.

As to the consideration