« AnteriorContinuar »
No. 479_Vol. X. MARCH 14, 1846. Price 1s., with Supplement, 28. ** The following are the Names of the Gentlemen who favour THE JURIST with Reports of Cases argued and
decided in the several Courts of Law and Equity:House of Lords .......
SE. T. Hoop, Esq. of the Inner |Vice-Chancellor Wigram's F. FISHER, Esq. of Lincoln's " nin Temple, Barrister at Law. | Court ..............1 Inn, Barrister at Law.
STENISON EDWARDS, Esq. of the Privy Council .........
SG.J. P.Smith, Esq. of the Inner
Court of Queen's Bench "l Inner Temple, Barrister at Law.
- Temple; and
SA. V. KIRWAN, Esq. of Gray's The Lord Chancellor's E. T. Hoop, Esq. of the Inner
Queen's Bench Bail Court
um Inn, Barrister at Law. Court ..............1 Temple, Barrister at Law. Court of Common Pleas, SG. Y. Robson, Esq. of the Inner
including TD. POWER, Esq. of Lincoln's Master of the Rolls Court
Appeals under Registra- |
Inn, Barrister at Law.
tion of Voters Act.... (Tenison EDWARDS, Esq. of the Vice-Chancellor of Eng.)
SW.M. Best, Esq. of Gray's Inn,
Court of Exchequer ....
Barrister at Law. land's Court ........ CHARLES MARETT, Esq. of the
Ecclesiastical and Admi. SJ. P. DEANE, D.C.L. of Doctors' Inner Temple, Barristers at Law.
ralty Courts ........1 Commons. Vice-Chancellor Knights W.W. COOPER, Esq. of the Inner
W.W. COOPER, Esq. of the Inner Bruce's Court........l Temple, Barrister at Law.
|| Court of Review .....
••• Temple, Barrister at Law.
· LONDON, MARCH 14, 1846.
| debts in full, and in the means of giving relief where
execution may have been had in respect of a debt due The result of some late proceedings at law, has fully from any such company against one or a very few satisfied the public, and those unfortunate grown-up members of such company, and also in the means of children who have for the last year been playing at adjusting the rights of the members of any such comrailway companies, that the creditors of companies that pany amongst themselves, and, finally, winding up have proceeded just far enough to contract debts for the affairs of such company, it is enacted, “ that it shall preliminary expenses, and have then sunk into annihi- be lawful for the Lord Chancellor, with the advice and lation, may fix upon and carry off their man out of a consent of the Master of the Rolls and the Vice-Chanset of provisional committee-men or preliminary di cellors for the time being, or any of them, from time rectors, just as a tiger is said to spring from the jungle to time, and as often as circumstances shall require, to into the midst of a circle, and to mark and carry off his make and prescribe such rules and Orders touching and man; and may obtain payment from their victim alone, concerning the form and mode of proceeding to be had if he has had the incaution to hold himself out at all as and taken in the Court of Chancery for settling and enan active member of the intended company; leaving forcing the contribution to be paid by any member or him to obtain contribution from his fellow committee members for the time being of any such company, or men as best he may.
any former member or members thereof, or any real or To talk of any hope of a person so dealt with prac- personal representative, or other persons liable in that tically obtaining contribution at law would be, of behalf, and the practice to be observed by such court course, out of the question; and those among our in or relating to such proceeding, or any matters inciprofessional readers who have attended to equity prac- dent thereto, and the form and mode of proceeding to tice are well aware, that the difficulties besetting any be had and taken before any one of the Masters of the proceeding in equity for that purpose, under the pre- said court, primarily or by reference from the said sent rules of procedure, even modified and moulded court, in any measure for or relating to contribution, as as they have been to the exigences of the times by shall from time to time seem necessary and proper for some late decisions, are nearly insurmountable. So the advancement of justice in such cases, and for adthat, in most cases, a person placed in the supposed po- justing and determining the rights and equities of the sition, against whoin a debt due from the deceased com- parties concerned, and for suing for and getting in the pany is recovered, has, practically, no remedy. assets and for ascertaining and discharging the liabili
It is singular, that, under these circumstances, it has ties of such companies, and requiring the creditors. been so little noticed by the Profession, that the 7 & 8 thereof to claim their debts; and, finally, winding up Vict. c. 111, s. 22, appears to give to the Lord Chan- the affairs thereof with as little delay, expense, and cellor and the other equity judges, ample powers to uncertainty as possible: Provided always, that such make General Orders for meeting the very case under rules and Orders shall be laid before both Houses of consideration. By that section, reciting that the law Parliament within one month from the making thereis defective in the means of making the members of of, if Parliament be then sitting, or, if Parliament be joint-stock companies contributaries for paying their 'not then sitting, within one month frys a .
mencement of the then next session of Parliament, ON THE CURTESY OF THE HUSBAND OF A and every rule and Order so made shall be binding
COPARCENER. and obligatory, and be of like force and effect as if the provisions contained therein had been expressly en- | The consideration of the subject of descent amongst acted by Parliament.”
coparceners naturally leads to the question of curtesy. Some doubt may exist whether the act gives power to On the decease of a coparcener of an estate in fee make such General Orders in respect of that incomplete simple, is her husband, having had issue by her, enti. species of partnership, composed of persons who meet tled, according to the present law, to an estate for life. together as provisional committee-men, and allottees of by the curtesy of England, in the whole or in any serip, and undertake to contribute capital by subscrip- part of her share ? tion, for the purpose of doing those things that are ne- In order to answer this question satisfactorily, it will cessary to form a complete partnership. We have, in be necessary, first, to examine into the principles of the a former paper in this journal, (Vol. 9, p. 489), laboured ancient law, and then to apply those principles, when to prove that such an association, though not a part ascertained, to the law as at present existing. Unformership so as to constitute persons members of it ipso tunately the authorities whence the principles of the
facto partners in relation to third persons, is yet a li- old law ought to be derived do not appear to be quite smited partnership of the associated inter se. But, sup- consistent with one another; and the consequence is, posing that even, for the purpose of a limited partner- that some uncertainty seems unavoidably to hang over ship inter se, such persons are partners, it would not the question above propounded. Let us, however, follow that they are a "joint-stock company,” which weigh carefully the opposing authorities, and endeavour is the term used by the section above cited of the 7 & 8 to ascertain on which side the scale preponderates. Vict.c. 111. Assuming, however, that such associations Littleton, “not the name of the author only, but of are intended by the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 111, s. 22, that sec- the law itself,” thus defines curtesy: “ Tenant by the tion seems to afford to the Lord Chancellor and the curtesie of England is where a man taketh a wife seised other judges of the courts of equity complete means in fee simple or in fee tail general, or seised as heir in of meeting the difficulty. Of course it cannot be ex- tail especial, and hath issue by the same wife, male or 'pected or desired that any General Orders should be female, born alive, albeit the issue after dieth or liveth,
framed, which should have the effect of diminishing the yet, if the wife dies, the husband shall hold the land yright of a creditor to a full remedy. Persons dealing during his life by the law of England. And he is called
with embryo companies, almost invariably do so on the tenant by the curtesie of England, because this is used "credit of some particular persons whom they find acting in no other realme, but in England only." (Litt., or holding themselves out as members; and it would s. 35). And, in a subsequent section, he adds, Mebe grossly unjust to deprive them of their right to morandum, that, in every case where a man taketh & recover against such persons; but it may admit of wife seised of such an estate of tenements, &c., as the doubt whether there would be any hardship upon issue which he hath by his wife may, by possibility, persons dealing as creditors, with a body of provi- inherit the same tenements of such an estate as the .sional committee-men on behalf of a numerous body wife hath, as heir to the wife; in this case, after the of subscribers, if they were placed by the law in the decease of the wife, he shall have the same tenements position of being subjected to the more dilatory pro- by the curtesie of England, but otherwise not.” (Litt., cess of recovering in equity; not being deprived of their s. 52). “ Memorandum," says Lord Coke, in his Comright to recover absolutely against any particular se- mentary, (Co. Litt. 40. a.), “ this word doth ever be- lected members of the company, if the others do not token some excellent point of learning.” Again, “ A3 · contribute enough; but being compelled in the first heir to the wife. This doth imply a secret of law, for, instance to seek a remedy against all the members of except the wife be actually seised, the heir shall not (as thie company rateably, and, failing in that only, to be hath been said) make himself heir to the wife; and this entitled to recover the balance against the particular per- is the reason, that a man shall not be tenant by the cur, * sons selected as principal defendants. This question, how | tesie of a seisin in law." Here, we find it asserted ever, need not be discussed, as the act gives no power to by Littleton, that the husband shall not be tenant by the court to take away, by General Orders, the right the curtesy, unless he has had issue by his wife capable • of a creditor to proceed at law; but only to give to the of inheriting the land as her heir; and this is explained . selected debtor, after execution shall have been had by Lord Coke to be, such issue as would have traced
against him, the means, which at present he practically their descent from the wife, as the stock of descent, ac'has not, of making those contribute to repay him, who cording to the maxim, “ Seisina facit stipitem.” Unless are justly bound to do so.
an actual seisin had been obtained by the wife, she · It would be a great boon to the commercial classes, if I could not have been the stock of descent; for the dethe learned persons to whom the Legislature has en- scent of a fee simple was traced from the person last trusted the power of making General Orders under the actually seised; “and this is the reason," says Lord Coke, 17 & 8 Vict. c. 111, s. 22, should be induced to think it “that a man shall not be tenant by the curtesy of a mere expedient to act upon even the limited powers given to seisin in law.” The same rule, with the same reason them, and to frame a set of General Orders, with a view for it, will also be found in Paine's case, (8 Rep. 36 a), to enable the members of such joint-stock companies as where it is said, “ And when Littleton saith, as heir to · we have alluded to, against whom judgment and exe- the wife, these words are very material; for that is the · cution have been obtained, effectively to proceed in true reason that a man shall not be tenant by the curequity against their co-members for contribution. tesy of a seisin in law, for, in such case, the issue ought
We trust that some influential members of the Bar to make himself heir to him who was last actually will take an opportunity of bringing under the notice of seised.” The same doctrine again appears in Blackstone, the Lord Chancellor, the expediency of directing his at-|(2 Black. Comm, 128): “ And this seems to be the printention to the exercise of the powers vested in him by cipal reason why the husband cannot be tenant by the the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 111. And, in the meantime, in the curtesy of any lands of which the wife was not actually
hope of rousing the attention of the Profession, and of seised; because, in order to entitle himself to such - those interested in dying or dead railway companies, to estate, he must have begotten issue that may be heir to
this subject, we shall endeavour in our next Number to the wife; but no one, by the standing rule of law, can collect some suggestions upon the principles which, we be heir to the ancestor of any land, whereof the anapprehend, would be found applicable in respect of the cestor was not actually seised; and, therefore, as the clief required. :
-.. husband hath never begotten any issue that can be hell
to those lands, he shall not be tenant of them by the she had a seisin in law; but, if she or her husband had, curtesy. And hence," continues Blackstone, in his during her life, entered, he should have been tenant by usual laudatory strain, “ we may observe, with how the curtesy." (Co.Litt. 29. a.) Now, it is well known much nicety and consideration the old rules of law were that the descent of an estate tail is always traced from framed, and how closely they are connected and inter- the purchaser or original donee in tail. The actual woven together, supporting, illustrating, and demon- seisin which might be obtained by the heir to an estate strating one another.” Here we have, indeed, a formi- tail never made him the stock of descent. The maxim dable array of authorities, all to the point, that, in order i was, “ Possessio fratris de feudo simplici facit sororem to entitle the husband to his curtesy, his wife must esse hæredem.” Where, therefore, a coparcener who have been the stock from whom descent should have had been seised in tail died, leaving issue, such issue been traced to her issue; for the principal and true made themselves heir not to her, but to her ancestor, reason that there could not be any curtesy of a seisin the purchaser or donee; and whether the mother did in law is stated to be, that the issue could not, in such or did not obtain actual seisin was, in this respect, toa case, make himself heir to the wife, because his tally immaterial. When actual seisin was obtained, the descent was then required to be traced from the person issue still made themselves heir to the purchaser only, last actually seised.
and yet the husband was entitled to his curtesy. When Let us, then, endeavour to apply this principle to the actual seisin was not obtained, the issue were heirs to present law. The act for the amendment of the law the purchaser as before ; but the husband lost his curof inheritance (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 106) enacts, (sect. 2), tesy. In the case of an estate tail, therefore, it is quite that, in every case, descent shall be traced from the pur- clear that the question of curtesy or no curtesy dependchaser. On the decease of a coparcener, the descent of ed entirely on the husband's obtaining for his wife an her share is, therefore, to be now traced, not from actual seisin, and had nothing to do with the circumherself, but from her ancestor, the purchaser, from stance of the wife's being, or not being, the stock of dewhom she inherited. With respect to the persons to scent. The reason, therefore, before mentioned, given become entitled, as heir to the purchaser on this de- by Lord Coke and repeated by Blackstone, cannot apply scent, the question arises, which has already been dis- to an estate tail. An actual seisin could not have been cussed, (ante, p. 71), whether the surviving sister required in order to make the wife the stock of descent, equally with the issue of the deceased, or whether such because the descent could not, under any circumissue solely, are now entitled to inherit? And the con- stances, be traced from her, but must have been traced clusion at which we arrived was, that the issue solely from the original donee to the heir of his body per forsucceeded to their mother's share. But, whether this mam doni. be so, or not, nothing is clearer than that, on the de- ! Again, if we look to the law respecting curtesy in inCease of a coparcener, the persons who next inherit corporeal hereditaments, we shall find that the reason take as heir to the purchaser, and not to the coparcener; above given is inapplicable; for the husband, on for, from the purchaser alone can descent be now traced; having issue born, was entitled to his curtesy out of an and the mere circumstance of having obtained an actual advowson and a rent, although no actual seisin had seisin does not now make the parcener the stock of de- been obtained, in the wife's lifetime, by receipt of the seent. How, then, can her husband be entitled to hold rent or presentation to the advowson, (Watk. Descents, her share as tenant by the curtesy? If tenancy by 39, 47, 4th ed.) And yet, in order to make the wife the curtesy was allowed of those lands only of which the stock of descent as to such hereditaments, it was the wife had obtained actual seisin, because it was a necessary that an actual seisin should be obtained by necessary condition of curtesy that the wife should be her. (Watk. Descents, 60, 67, 4th ed.) The husband, the stock of descent, and because an actual seisin alone therefore, was entitled to his curtesy where the descent made the wife the stock of descent, how can the hus to the issue was traced from the ancestor of his wife, as band obtain his curtesy in any case where the stock of well as where traced from the wife herself. In this descent is confessedly not the wife, but the wife's an- case, also, the right to curtesy was, accordingly, indecestor? Amongst all the recent alterations of the law, pendent of the wife's being, or not being, the stock from the doctrine of curtesy has been left untouched; there which the descent was to be traced. seems, therefore, to be no means of determining any We are driven, therefore, to search for another and question respecting it, but by applying the old princi- more satisfactory reason why an actual seisin should ples to the new enactments, by which, indirectly, it have been required to be obtained by the wife, in order may be affected. So far, then, as at present appears, it to entitle her husband to his curtesy out of her lands: seems a fair and proper deduction from the authorities, and such a reason is furnished by Lord Coke himself, and that, whenever a woman has become entitled to lands also by Blackstone. Lord Coke says, (Co. Litt. 31. a.), by descent, her husband cannot claim his curtesy, be- “ Where lands or tenements descend to the husband, cause the descent of such lands, on her decease, is not before entry he hath but a seisin in law, and yet the to be traced from her.
wife shall be endowed, albeit it be not reduced to an But, by carrying our investigations a little further, I actual possession, for it lieth not in the power of the we may be disposed to doubt, if not to deny, that such wife to bring it to an actual seisin, as the husband may is the law; not that the conclusion drawn is unwar-do of his wife's land, when he is to be tenant by curtesy, ranted by the authorities, but the authorities themselves which is worthy the observation." It would seem may, perhaps, be found to be erroneous. Let us now from this, therefore, that the reason why an actual seisin compare the law of curtesy of an estate tail with the was required to entitle the husband to his curtesy was, law of curtesy of an estate in fee simple. In the section that his wife might not suffer by his neglect to take of Littleton which we have already quoted, (sect. 35), possession of her lands; and, in order to induce him to it is laid down, that, if a man taketh a wife seised as do so, the law allowed him curtesy of all lands of which heir in tail especial, and hath issue by her, born alive, an actual seisin had been obtained, but refused him his he shall, on her decease, be tenant by the curtesy. curtesy out of such lands as he had taken no pains to And on this Lord Coke makes, the following commen-obtain possession of. This reason also is adopted by tary:~" And here Littleton intendeth a seisin in Blackstone from Coke: “A seisin in law of the husdeed, if it may be attained unto. As if a man dieth band will be as effectual as a seisin in deed, in order to seised of lands in fee simple or fee tail general, and these render the wife dowable; for it is not in the wife's lands descend to his daughter, and she taketh a husband power to bring the husband's title to an actual seisin, and hath issue, and dyeth before any entry, the husband as it is in the husband's power to do with regard to the shall not be tenant by the curtesy, and yet, in this case, wife's lands: which is one reason why he shall not be ter nant by the curtesy, but of such lands whereof the wife, or taketh a husband seised of such an estate in tenements, he himself in her right, was actually seised in deed.” (2 &c., so &s, by possibility, it may happen that the wife Black. Com. 131). The more we investigate the rules may have issue by her husband, and that the same and principles of the ancient law, the greater will ap- issue may, by possibility, inherit the same tenements pear the probability that this reason was indeed the of such an estate as the husband hath, as heir to the hustrue one." In the troublous times of old, an actual band, of such tenements she shall have her dower, and seisin was not always easily acquired. The doctrine otherwise not.” (Litt., s. 63). Now, nothing is clearer of continual claim shews that peril was not unfre- than that a wife was entitled to dower out of lands of quently incurred in entering on lands for the sake which her husband had only a seisin in law; (Watk. of asserting a title; for, in order to obtain an actual Descents, 32, 42, 4th ed.); and nothing, also, is clearer seisin, any person entitled, if unable to approach the than that a seisin in law only was insufficient to make premises, was bound to come as near as he dare. (Litt., the husband the stock of descent; for, for this purpose, ss. 419, 421). And “it is to be observed,” says Lord an actual seisin was requisite, according to the rule, Coke, “that every doubt or fear is not sufficient, for it “Seisina facit stipitem." In this case, therefore, it is must concern the safety of the person of a man, and obvious that Littleton could not mean to say that the not his houses or goods; for if he fear the burning of his husband must have been made the stock of descent, by houses, or the taking away or spoiling of his goods, this virtue of having obtained an actual seisin; for that is not sufficient.” (Co. Litt. 253. b.) That actual seisin would have been to contradict the plainest rules of law. should be obtained was obviously most desirable, and What, then, was his meaning? The subsequent part of nothing could be more natural or reasonable than that the same section affords an explanation: “ For, if tethe husband should have no curtesy where he had failed nements be given to a man and to the heirs which he to obtain it. Perkins seems to think that this was the shall beget of the body of his wife, in this case the wife reason of the rule; for in his Profitable Book he an- hath nothing in the tenements, and the husband hath swers an objection to it, founded on an extreme case. an estate tail as donee in special tail. Yet, if the hus“But if possession in law of lands or tenements in fee band die without issue, the same wife shall be endowed descend unto a married woman, which lands are in the of the same tenements, because the issue which she, by county of York, and the husband and his wife are possibility, might have had by the same husband, might dwelling in the county of Essex, and the wife dieth have inherited the same tenements. But, if the wife within one day after the descent, so as the husband dieth living her husband, and after the husband takes could not enter during the coverture, for the shortness another wife and dieth, bis second wife shall not be of the time, yet he shall not be tenant by the curtesy, endowed in this case, for the reason aforesaid." This &c.; and yet, according to common pretence, there is example shews what was Littleton's true meaning. He no default in the husband. But it may be said that was not thinking, either in this section or in the one the husband of the woman, before the death of the an- next before it, of the husband or wife being the stock cestor of the woman, might have spoken unto a man of descent, instead of some earlier ancestor. He was dwelling near unto the place where the lands lay, to laying down a general rule, applicable to dower as enter for the woman, as in her right, immediately after well as to curtesy ; namely, that, if the issue that the death of her ancestor,” &c. (Perk. 470). This might have been born in the one case, or that were børn reason for the rule is also quite consistent with the cir- in the other, of the surviving parent, could not, by cumstance that the husband was entitled to his curtesy possibility, inherit the estate of their deceased parent, out of incorporeal hereditaments, notwithstanding his by right of representation of such parent, then the surfailure to obtain an actual seisin. For if the advowson viving parent was not entitled to dower in the one case, were not void, or the rent did not become payable or to curtesy in the other. It is plain, that, in the during the wife's life, it was obviously impossible for example just adduced, the issue of the husband by his the husband to present to the one or receive the other; second marriage could not possibly inherit his estate, and it would have been unreasonable that he should which was given to him and the heirs of his body by suffer for not doing an impossibility, the maxim being, his first wife: the second wife, therefore, was excluded “ Impotentia excusat legem.” This is the reason, in- from dower out of this estate. And, in the parallel case deed, usually given to explain this circumstance; and it of a gift to a woman and the heirs of her body by her will be found both in Lord Coke (Co. Litt. 29. a.) and first husband, it is indisputable, that, for a precisely siBlackstone, (2 Black. Com. 127). This reason, how-milar reason, her second husband could not claim his ever, is plainly at variance with that mentioned in the curtesy on having issue by her; for such issue could former part of this paper, and adduced by them to ex not possibly inherit their mother's estate. All that plain the necessity of an actual seisin, in order to en Littleton then intended to state with respect to curtesy title the husband to his curtesy out of lands in fee was the rule laid down by the Statute de Donis, (13 simple.
Edw, 1, c. 1), which provides, that, where any person There still remains, however, the section of Littleton gives lands to a man and his wife and the heirs of their to which we have before referred, (sect. 62), as an ap bodies, or where any person gives lands in frankmarparent authority on the other side. Littleton expressly | riage, the second husband of any such woman shall not says, that when the issue may, by possibility, inherit have anything in the land so given, after the death of of such an estate as the wife hath, as heir to the wife, the his wife, by the law of England, nor shall the issue of husband shall have his curtesy, but otherwise not; and the second husband and wife succeed in the inheritance. we have seen that, according to Lord Coke's inter- (See Bac. Abr., tit. “Curtesy of England,” (C.), 1). pretation, to inherit as heir to the wife, means, here, to When the two sections of Littleton are read consecuinherit from the wife as the stock of descent. But the tively, without the introduction of Lord Coke's Comlegitimate mode of interpreting an author certainly is mentary, their meaning is apparent; and the intervento attend to the context, and to notice in what sense he ing commentary not only puts the reader on the wrong himself uses the phrase in question on other occasions. clue, but hinders his recovery of the right one, by reIf now we turn to the very next section of Littleton, moving to a distance the explanatory context. we shall find the very same phrase made use of in a If our construction of Littleton be the true one, it manner which clearly shews that Littleton did not throws some light on the question discussed in our last mean, by inheriting as heir to a person, inheriting from paper, on the course of descent amongst coparceners. that person as the stock of descent. For, after having | We there endeavoured to shew that the issue of a cothus laid down the law as to curtesy, Littleton con- parcener always stood in the place of their parent, by tinues: “ And, also, in every case where a woman right of representation, even where descent was traced from some more remote ancestor as the stock. Little- WILLIAM FREDERICK BREWSTER, Trumpington, ton, with this view of the subject in his mind, and Cambridgeshire, out of business, March 17 at half-past 12, never suspecting that any other could be entertained, and April 7 at half-past 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London : might well speak generally of issue inheriting as heir to
Off. Ass. Graham ; Sol. Wilkins, Furnival's-inn.-Fiat their parent, even though the share of the parent might
dated March 5. have descended to the issue as heir to some more remote
JOHN BLUNDELL, Wigan, Lancashire, pawnbroker,
March 23 and April 20 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, ancestor. The authorities adduced in our former paper
Manchester : Of. Ass. Pott; Sols. Barrow, Wigan; Sharp thus tend further to explain the language of Littleton;
& Co., 41, Bedford-row, London.-Fiat dated Feb. 21. whilst the language of Littleton, as above explained, I JOHN RAYNER, Stanningley, near Leeds, Yorkshire, cloth illustrates and confirms the authorities previously ad manufacturer, dealer and chapman, March 23 and April 13 duced.
at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds : Off. Ass. Having, at length, arrived at the true principles of Hope; Sols. Blackburn, Leeds ; Walker, Furnival's-inn, the old law, the application of them to the state of cir- | London.-Fiat dated Feb. 27. cumstances produced by the new law of inheritance will ANTHONY NICHOL, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, ship broker be very easy. A coparcener dies leaving a husband who and coal fitter, March 19 and April 21 at 2, District Court has had issue by her, and leaving one or more sisters of Bankruptcy, Newcastle-upon-Tyne : Off. Ass. Baker ; surviving her. The descent of her share is now traced
Sols. Harle, Newcastle-upon Tyne; Chisholme & Co., 64, from their common parent, the purchaser. But, in
Lincoln's-inn-fields, London.-Fiat dated Feb. 28.
THOMAS HARDING, Lichfield, schoolmaster, bookseller tracing this descent, we have seen, in our former paper,
and stationer, dealer and chapman, March 20 and April 18 that the issue of the deceased coparcener would inherit
at half-past 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham: her entire share by representation of her. And the
Off. Ass. Christie ; Sol. Reece, Birmingham.- Fiat dated condition which will entitle her husband to curtesy out Feb. 28. of her share appears, by our present paper, to be, that CHARLES GOLDSMITH, Bristol, saddler and harness his issue might possibly inherit the estate by right of maker, March 19 and April 23 at 11, District Court of representation of their deceased mother. This condi Bankruptcy, Bristol : Off. Ass. Hutton ; Sols. Nicholls, tion, therefore, is obviously fulfilled, and our conclu- ! Birmingham ; Weeks, Cook's-court, Lincoln's-inn, Lonsion consequently is, that the husband of a deceased co don.-Fiat dated Feb. 25. parcener who has had issue by her is entitled to curtesy
WILLIAM DALE, Liverpool, bricklayer, dealer and chapout of the whole of her share. But, in order to arrive
man, March 20 and April 17 at 11, District Court of Bankat this conclusion, it seems that we must admit, first,
ruptcy, Liverpool: Off. Ass. Turner ; Sols. Jones, Lithat Lord Coke has endeavoured to support the law by
verpool; Vincent & Co., Temple, London.-Fiat dated
March 4. one reason too many; and, secondly, that one laudatory
MEETINGS. flourish of Blackstone has been made without occasion. | John Jas. Clark, Hounslow and Twickenbam-villas, Mid
J. W. dlesex, and Durdham-down, Westbury-upon-Trym, Glouces
tershire, builder, March 17 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, Lon
don, last ex.-Thos. Howell, Dolly's Chop-house, Queen's London Gazettes.
Head-passage, Newgate-street, London, hotel keeper, March
20 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, last ex.-Thos. L. TUESDAY, March 10.
Evill and Thos. Douglass, Vigo-street, Middlesex, cloth ma.
nufacturers, March 31 at half-past 11, Court of Bankruptcy, BANKRUPTS.
London, aud. ac.—Dav. Froeschlen and Simon Price, Dover. WILLIAM HARDING, Edward's-street, Portman-square, street, Piccadilly, Middlesex, tailors, March 31 at 11, Court
James-street, Mancbester-square, Marylebone-lane, and of Bankruptcy, London, avd. ac.- Thomas Flaherty, Bath, Wigmore-street, Middlesex, turner, and rug, brush, and Somersetshire, tailor, April 3 at 11, District Court of basket manufacturer, March 20 at 1, and April 21 at half. Bankruptcy, Bristol, aud. ac.—John Collins, Salford, Lan. past 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London : Off. Ass. Alsager ; cashire, common brewer, April 1 at 12, District Court of
Sol. Mordaunt, Bolton-st., Piccadilly.-Fiat dated March 4. Bankruptcy, Manchester, aud. ac.-Jas. Townsend, Honiton, WILLIAM JAMES HARRIS, High-street, Southwark, and Geo. Brooke, Whimple, Devonshire, bankers, April 1 at
Surrey, tailor and woollen draper, dealer and chapman, | 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Exeter, aud. ac.; April 2 March 21 at 12, and April 18 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, at 1, div.-Fred. Lingard, New Elvet, Durham, teacher of London: Off. Ass. Green ; Sol. Wellborne, 31, Tooley music, April 3 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Newstreet.- Fiat dated March 9.
castle-upon-Tyne, aud. ac.- Anthony Atkinson and Francis JOSEPH SEWELL, Great Dunmow, Essex, grocer, March Atkinson, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, colour manufacturers, April
18 at balf-past 12, and April 23 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, 2 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, London : Off. Ass. Johnson ; Sols. Wade & Pennington, aud. ac.; April 3 at 12, div.-John Kent, Stowmarket, Suf.
Frederick's-place, Old Jewry.- Fiat dated March 7. folk, beer brewer, March 20 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, Lon. SAMUEL PRITCHETT and JOSEPH PECKOVER don, fin. div.-Geo. Graham, Thos. Adams, and Michael B.
ORIDGE, Charlbury, Oxfordshire, glove manufacturers, Macfarlane, Cheapside, London, calico printers, March 20 at drapers, grocers, dealers and chapmen, March 20 at 2, and 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.- John Batchelor, April 18 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Walcot, Bath, Somersetshire, butcher, March 31 at 12, District Green; Sol. Patten, Ely-place, Holborn. -- Fiat dated Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol, div.-Wm. Newton, Bath, March 5.
coal merchant, April 2 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, EDWARD MORGAN, Lisson-street, St. Marylebone, Mid. Bristol, div. deser, coach builder, dealer and chapman, March 20 at 12,
CERTIFICATES. and April 18 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. To be allowed, unless Cause be shewn to the contrary on the Ass. Follett; Sols. Bicknells, Manchester-street, Man.
Day of Meeting. chester-square.- Fiat dated March 6.
John Warren, George-street, Hanover-square, Middlesex, WILLIAM JOHN IDENDEN, Salmon's-lane, Limehouse, surgeon, March 31 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London.
Middlesex, tailor, clothier, and general outfitter, March 17 Edw. Streeter, Bristol, builder, April 3 at 11, District Court at 1, and April 21 at half-past 11, Court of Bankruptcy, of Bankruptcy, Bristol.-Fred. Lingard, New Elvet, Dur. London : 08. Ass. Turquand ; Sol. Tayler, Church-street, ham, teacher of music, April 3 at half-past 11, District Court Spitalfields.-Fiat dated March 7.
of Bankruptcy, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.-Wm. W. Spence, RICHARD FOULKES, Soughton, Northop, Flintshire, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, woollen draper, April 2 at 1, District
cattle salesman, milkman, cowkeeper, dealer and chapman, Court of Bankruptcy, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.-John Denbigh, March 20 and April 14 at 11, District Court of Bank. Bradford, Yorkshire, wool merchant, April 2 at 11, District ruptcy, Liverpool : Of. Ass. Morgan; Sols. Almond, Li. Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds.-John C. Platt, Sheffield and verpool ; Bridger & Blake, London-wall, London.-Fiat Doncaster, Yorkshire, printer, April 3 at 11, District Court dated March 4.
1 of Bankruptcy, Leeds. Thos. Carey W. Pierce and Gilson