AGE. AGE, in law, signifies those particular periods of life which enable persons of both sexes to do certain acts, or which render them amenable to the process of law. Full age in male or female is twenty-one years. 1 Bl. Com. 463. Under twenty-one, males and females are called infants; and possess various privileges, and disabilities, according to their several degrees of age and discretion. See title INFANTS. See also I Bl. Com. 463. 4 Bl. Com. 22. Co. Lit. 78. b. Fonb. on Eq. B. 1. c. 2, s. 4. notes (y) (z) (a) (b). ALIENS. 1. AN alien, in England, is defined to be a person who is born out of the ligeance of the king (1 Bl Com. 366.) In Virginia, the definition of an alien may be formed, by contrasting it with that of a citizen. 2. Citizens are, 1st. All free persons born within the territory of the commonwealth; 2d. Those who have obtained a right to citizenship under the laws of the state; 3d. The children of citizens, wheresoever born (1 Rev. Code 207.) And the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. Const. U. S. art. 4. s. 2. 3. But neither an adopted citizen, nor a person holding any place or pension from a foreign state, is eligible to any office, executive, legislative or judiciary, in Virginia. 1 Rev. Code 207. 4. A citizen of Virginia may expatriate himself, by declaring that he relinquishes the character of a citizen, either by deed executed in presence of three witnesses, and recorded in court, or by open verbal declaration to that effect made in court, and there recorded. Ibid. 5. In the event of a war between the United States and a foreign state, the merchants and people of such state, in this commonwealth at the beginning of the war, shall not be molested on that account, but be warned by proclamation from the governor to depart within forty days; and if that time be not sufficient, as much more may be allowed as will enable them to sell their merchandises, and settle their affairs. But if, before their departure, credible information shall be received of the treatment of our citizens in their state, they may be attached, and treated as the citizens of this commonwealth may be in their country. Ibid. 16. 6. An alien residing in a foreign country, and receiving the protection of the laws, whether his sovereign be in amity with that country or not, owes a temporary local allegiance, and may be punished for treason. (Fost. 185.) So, also, may he be punished for murder, or other capital crimes. Ibid. 188. 7. In making title by descent, it shall be no bar to a party, that any ancestor through whom he derives his descent from the intestate is, ór hath been, an alien. Ibid. 169. 8. Aliens cannot inherit real estate; or take, by descent (Cruise's Dig. Tit. 29. "DESCENT," c. 2. s. 12. Co. Lit. 2. b. Harg. note 1.) Whether they can take by devise, and for whose benefit, has been held to be doubtful. Cruise's Dig Tit. 38. "DEVISE," c. 2. s. 20. 2 Ves. 362. 9. But aliens may purchase real estate, and take, but not hold; for, on office found, the commonwealth shall have it (Co. Lit. 2. a. b.) And so, without office found, if an alien purchase and die, the inheritance shall be cast on the commonwealth (Co. Lit. 2. b. Plowd 229.) Yet aliens may acquire personal estate, or hire a house; may trade freely; may bring actions concerning personal property, and make a will and dispose of their personal estate. 1 Bl. Com. 372. NOTE....How an alien may become a citizen of the United States, see Laws U. S. vol. 6. p. 74. and vol. 7. p. 136. ALIMONY. 1. ALIMONY is a term which signifies that maintenance which is allowed to a wife, in case of separation from her husband (3 Bl. Com. 94) as where he turns her away, or she goes away upon ill usage. 1 Har. Ch. Prac. tit. "FEME COVERTS." Godolph. Rep. Can. 509. 2. Suits for alimony were originally of ecclesiastical cognizance, and the sentence was enforced by spiritual censures (3 Bl. Com. 94. 2 Burn's E. L. 450.) During the civil wars, in England, there being no spiritual court, the court of chancery took jurisdiction Rep. in Ch. 164. 2 Show. 283 and those decrees were held to be included in the act of parliament for confirming judicial proceedings (2 Comy. Dig. by Rose, 354. 1 Rep. in Ch. 186. 223.) In one case, however, alimony was decreed, before the civil wars. See Lasbrook v. Tyler (1 Rep. Ch. 44.) After the civil wars the court of chancery was considered as "invested with the same jurisdiction which the ecclesiastical court had," (1 Ca in Ch. 251) and have exercised it ever since. See 2 Comy. Dig. CHANCERY" (2 D.) 4 Vin. 175. 2 Vern. 493. 671. 752. 2 Atk. 96. 98. 1 Fonb. 104. note (n). See note at the end of title " ALIMONY." 3. And a bill is usually brought by the wife, by her next friend. Preced. in Ch. 496. 2 Fern. 493. 2 Atk. 96. 98. 1 Har. Ch. Pr. title "FEME COVERTS." 4. But alimony will not be decreed, unless there be a separation (1 Ca. in Ch. 251.) Nor can the court decree a perpetual separation, without an agreement to that effect, and then unwillingly. 1 Ves. 17. 3 Atk. 547. 5. And if alimony be decreed, the husband may bring an original bill, and have it set aside, or suspended, on offering to be reconciled (Ca. tem. Finch 153. 3 Atk. 296.) But such offer shall not discharge the arrears. 1 Ca. in Ch. 251. [See post. No. 11.] 6. So, if the husband, by his answer, offers cohabitation, the wife shall not be aided, further than to place her in a situation to pursue her remedy at law, for any separate estate which may have been settled on her. | Vern. 53. 7 Where the wife elopes and lives in adultery, alimony will not be allowed; but the fact must be distinctly put in issue, and plainly proved. Atk. 276, 2 Atk. 97. 8. Regularly the husband is bound to allow alimony, pendente lite. Godolph. Rep. Can. 509. 9. If the wife leave the husband by reason of some default in him, as because of cruelty and the like, he shall be compelled to allow her alimony, although he received no fortune by her; so, on the other hand, if she depart, without his defualt, he is not obliged to allow her alimony, notwithstanding he had a considerable dowry with her. Ibid. 509. 10. And if it be doubtful through whose default it is they live asunder, the law in that case concludes, that the party that was last in fault is not least in fault. And therefore if the wife, who by her own default did voluntarily depart from her husband, shail after repent, and submitting herself to him shall desire reconciliation, and to be admitted to cohabitation with him, he then refusing her shall be obliged to allow her alimony, except in cases of elopement and adultery. Ibid. 309. 11. But if, by reason of the cruelty of the husband, the wife shall blamelessly flee from him, and the husband shall offer sufficient sccurity for his future good behaviour to her, and her safety and peace with him, and the cruelty or ill usage not such, but that by such security the wife's peace and safety may be undoubtedly secured, and she notwithstanding refuse to return, in such case the law will not compel him to allow her alimony. Ibid. 509. See 3 Atk. 296. 4 Bro, Ch. Ca. 339. 2 Ves. jr. 191. 4 Ves, jr. 146. 12. If two persons claim the same woman as a wife by marriage, and one move to have her put in sequestration, she shall be allowed alimony, pendente lite, of that person at whose instance she is sequestered (ibid 510.) But if the contest be only between a man and a woman, touching the validity of a marriage, as whether a marriage or not in such case no alimony is due, till some matrimonial proof appear, or that it doth some way constare de matrimonio; but wherever a marriage appears, there alimony shall be due pendente lite. Ibid. 510. 13. If the husband be in contempt, the court will not admit any plea; in the same manner as if a man be outlawed at common law, he cannot bring any action. Ibid. 512. NOTE....There are so many contradictions and inconsistencies in the dicta of the English law writers relative to the jurisdiction of the court of chancery, in cases of alimony, that it is only by a careful examination of facts and dates that the truth can be ascertained. That the ecclesiastical courts originally, and, for a series of years, exclusively exercised jurisdiction is a fact admitted on all hands. The first case in which the court of chancery decreed alimony was that of Lasbrook v. Tyler, 6 Car. I. (1631) reported in 1 Rep. in Ch. 24. [44] In 1650, after the commencement of the troubles, as they were afterwards called, that is, after the death of Charles I. and the commencement of the commonwealth, the case of Ashton v. Ashton was decided, which was a naked case of alimony; and the sum of 3004. per annum decreed to be paid by the husband (see 1 Rep. in Ch. 87. [164]). The cases of Russel v. Bodvil (1 Rep. in Ch. 99. [186] 12 Car. II. 1660) and of Whorewood v. Whorewood (1 Rep. in Ch. 118. [223] 14 Car. II. 1662. and 1 Ca. in Ch. 250. 27 and 28 Car. II. 1674) were originally decided during the existence of the commonwealth, and alimony decreed, but were brought on again, after the restoration, in different shapes, and for distinct objects. The case of Russel v. Bodvil, was on a motion for process to carry the former decree into effect. The defendant, among other things, insisted there was then no jurisdiction in the court of chancery to enforce orders for alimony; but the chancellor, assisted by the judges on that point, declared that decrees for alimony were confirmed by the act concerning judicial proceedings, and awarded the process accordingly. Whorewood v. Whorewood, as reported in 1 Rep. in Ch. was a bill of review to reverse a decree for alimony pronounced during the troubles, on the ground that those decrees were not confirmed by the act of judicial proceedings. The court referred it to all the judges for their opinions, who certified that such decrees were confirmed, and the bill was dismissed. The same case of Whorewood v. Whorewood, as reported in Ca. in Ch. was an original bill brought by the husband, after the former decree for alimony, and the bill of review dismissed, offering to be reconciled and to cohabit. It was held that the bill was proper; and a decree was made that the alimony should cease, if the wife refused to return. But if the husband did not treat her as a gentleman and a good husband, the court declared the decree should again be reinstated. In 2 Show. 290. [283] 34 and 35 Car. II. (1682) it is said, that "in the late time they sued for alimony in chancery; and the judges were then of opinion, that there being no spiritual court, nor civil law, the chancery had the jurisdiction in those days; but now we have courtschristian, the chancery will allow of demurrers to such bills for alimony." In 1 Ca. in Ch. 250. (1674) it was said, that "in the late times of the great troubles, the commissioners of the great seal, as they were then called, had jurisdiction given them in the case of alimony, between Mr. Whorewood and his wife.” On this dictum, it is presumable, Mr. Fonblanque has founded his argument, in which he attempts to prove that the court of chancery had not concurrent jurisdiction with the ecclesiastical court in cases of alimony; and that it was only by virtue of powers expressly given to the commissioners during the troubles, that they exercised it. See 1 Fonb. B. 1. c. 2. s. 6. note 2 (n) p. 104. Philad. edit. But a recurrence to facts and dates w prove that the court of chancery exercised jurisdiction in cases of alimony, both before and after the troubles; and that during the troubles that court exclusively took cognizance of such cases, from necessity (there being no spiritual court) and by virtue of the general jurisdiction of the court. It must be borne in mind, that the troubles, as they are called in England, commenced with the execution of Charles I. on the 30th of January, 1648-9, and terminated with the restoration of Charles II. on the 29th of May, 1660. In the year 1651, the case of Lasbrook v. Tyler, was decided, in which alimony was allowed," and also the benefit of a bond given before marriage." But for what, or to whom, the bond was given does not appear in the report. This was The case of Ashton v. Ashton, in 1650, next occurred. during the troubles; and the decree was certainly pronounced by virtue of the general powers of the court; there appearing to be no special authority delegated to the commissioners, and the suit being mentioned as one in the ordinary mode of proceeding. The whole case is reported in the following words: "The plaintiff's suit is to be relieved against the defendant, her husband, for alimony, which upon several long hearings and all considerations imaginable taken in this cause, being a case of great consequence and between persons of quality, the defendant refusing to comply with the court's mediation, this court decreed the defendant to pay to the plaintiff 300l. per ann. so long as they lived apart." It is observable that this is the only case decided during the troubles which is reported as of the time, when the original decree was pronounced. The cases of Russel v. Bodvil, and of Whorewood v. Whorewood, came on after the restoration, on distinct and collateral points, and long after the time of pronouncing the original decrees. It is remarkable, too, that in none of the books is the fact mentioned that special powers were given to the commissioners, except in cases in chancery. From which circumstance it may fairly be inferred that the reporter was mistaken. Opposed to the dictum, in cases in chancery, is the testimony of Shower, who states in general terms, that during the troubles the judges were of opinion that the court of chancery had jurisdiction, there being no spiritual court. The other assertion of this reporter, that the court of chancery would allow demurrers to bills for alimony, brought after the restoration, is not warranted by a single case. On the contrary, the cases of Williams v. Callow, in 1717 (2 Vern. 752) and Watkyns v. Watkyns, in 1740 (2 Atk. 98) with many others, decided after the restoration, prove that such bills have been entertained. The doctrine laid down in the text of Treatise of Equity (on which Fonblanque has commented) that the wife may have a separate maintenance from her husband, "by decree, for ill usage or alimony," may be considered as the settled rule of equity. See Funb. B. 1. c. 2. s. 6. p. 94. Philad. edit. At the commencement of the troubles in England, in 1648-9, the lord chancellor, lord keeper, lords commissioners of the great seal, master of the rolls. and other officers of the court of chancery, cer |