« AnteriorContinuar »
tisfactory as it is natural; and would proceed to suggest, subject everentered his mind, which was wholly occupied that, at a later period, and when the rule of tracing to in considering & different point.” J. Wi's authority the donee was already established as the true interpret- from the Year Books is of little more weight. The ation of the statute, we may suppose the question as question there was not, any more than in Littleton, to possessio fratris in estates tail to have arisen, and a what share such issue would take in the lands entailed; decision to have been come to consistent with the and Lord Coke writes of this passage in the Year Books, newly admitted principle of devolution on the heir of “There is but the opinion of Newton obiter, by the way," the original dopee.
and repeats that it is contrary to law. We argue that J. W. tells us that the Tenures of Littleton, as ex- an obiter dictum, containing an error on a point to plained by Lord Coke's Commentary, supply us with which Newton's attention was directly called by Yelan authoritative solution of our question as to estates verton's argument, can scarcely be relied on as an autail. Littleton says, “ Also, if lands or tenements be thority for a second point, to which there is no such given to & man in tail, who hath as much land in fee reason to suppose his attention was directed. (Year simple, and hath issue two daughters and die, and his Book, 20 Hen. 6. 14 a). two daughters make partition between them, so as the J. W. next quotes Littleton, sect. 255. The subject land in fee simple is allotted to the younger daughter, considered in this section is, how far an unequal partiin allowance for the lands and tenements in tail allotted tion, made by parceners of fee-simple lands, concludes to the elder daughter, or, if, after such partition made, themselves and their issue. The words “ may occupy the younger daughter alieneth her land in fee simple to in common &c., as if no partition had been made" are another in fee, and hath issue a son or daughter and dies, perfectly general, and would be equally correct, whatthe issue may enter into the lands in tail, and hold and ever shares might be taken in the lands so occupied in occupy them in purparty with the aunt." (Litt., s. common. We cannot see how this section « tends 260). Lord Coke's commentary is as follows: “ Yet strongly in (what J. W. terms) the same direction," or this partition, by matter subsequent, may become void- even how it tends more in one direction than the other; eble (as Littleton here puts the case ); «the eldest co- and we think that he must have been much at a loss for parcener hath, by the partition and the matter subse authorities, before he would have resorted to so imaginquent, barred herself of her right in the fee-simple ary a one as this. lands, insomuch as when the younger sister alieneth We next come to the case of Doe d. Gregory and Geere the fee-simple lands and dieth, and her issue entereth v. Whichelo, (8 T. R. 211). J. W. considers this & into half the lands entailed, yet shall not the eldest sister clear authority on the point under discussion. We subenter into half the lands in fee simple upon the alienee." mit, that it is no such thing. For the case itself, which (Co. Litt. 172. b.)
is lengthy, we must refer to the reports, and will only First, then, as to Littleton's authority. The question here remark, that J. W. takes no notice whatsoever of propounded by Littleton is merely, whether such par- the points really raised. The effect of a fine not contition allotting the land in tail to one coparcener and firmed till after the death of the releasee was considered, the land in fee to the other, who afterwards aliens the and also the effect of possessio fratris under the circumfee-simple land, would or would not be binding on the stances of the case; but it seems never to have occurred issue of the latter. He decides that such partition would to Holroyd, the counsel for the defendant, that the in: not be binding, but that the issue might enter into the heritance might have been repeatedly subdivided by Lands in tail, and hold them in purparty with the aunt. various descents, and that his client might, in conse-,
It is to be remarked, that the words “ hold them in quence, have been entitled to more than the one-third, purparty” would be equally correct, whether the issue to which the plaintiff's lessors did not deny his title. inherited one quarter or one-half of such lands. Lit- | The point under our discussion was not raised in this case, tleton's attention, however, seems to have been entirely and cannot, therefore, be considered settled thereby. directed to the question, whether or no such partition J. W. proceeds to inquire into the course of descent would be binding on the issue; and the secondary ques- of an estate in fee simple according to the old law, in the tion, "What share such issue would inherit,” does not case of F., a purchaser, having died leaving two daughseem to have occurred to him. Littleton, then, is found ters D 1. and D 2., and D 1. dying before seisin leavto be no authority for J. Wi's interpretation. It is true ing issue,-as we suppose neither daughter to have obthat Lord Coke, in his Commentary, writes, “Insomuch tained actual seisin, such issue must claim as heir to F. as when the youngest sister alieneth the fee-simple J. W. admits this, but argues, as he does in the case of lands and dieth, and her issue entereth into half the a descent tail, that the issue would inherit D 2.'s entire lands entailed;" but we must observe, that he, too, is moiety, not one-half of that moiety. He premises, looking entirely to the same question, viz. whether or that, if the heir of a person has been discovered for the Do the partition is voidable by the issue; and we sub-purpose of a descent tail, it is obvious that the same mit that he used the expression “half” without consi- individual would also be heir of the same person for the dering whether, under the rule that the descent must purpose of the descent of an estate in fee simple. He be retraced from the ancestor, the aunt would or would then assumes that he has established his view of the denot become entitled to three-fourths of the entailed volution of an estate in tail, and treats the devolution lands. In fact, that, accurate writer as he is, he used of an estate in fee simple as by consequence estabthe expression loosely; and, as others of our greatest lished also. authorities have at times done, while deciding one point! We deny that he has proved his position as to the in a case, did not perceive another which might also course of a descent tail, and, therefore, need not say have been raised. At all events, it is, we maintain, more as to his inferences therefrom. We must not, false to every principle of true criticism, to wrest however, pass over in silence the passage which he has words so used by Lord Coke into a direct authority on extracted from the Year Books (35 Hen. 6. 23) on this this question.
subject. In our opinion, it is by far the strongest point “ Yet,” says J. W., “this incidental allusion of Lord of his whole case; but we cannot allow that it is sufCoke is as strong, if not stronger than a direct assertionficient authority to trust to, when we find that the by him of the doctrine; for it seems to shew that a passage occurs in the course of a general argument doubt on the subject never entered into his mind.” We, as to joint actions, &c., and that the whole force of too, believe that no doubt on the subject ever entered the illustration is derived from the parties to a joint his mind; but, instead of agreeing to J. W's inference action being entitled, nevertheless, to a special retherefrom, we reply, “Nay, rather it seems to shew, as covery according to their respective interests, and is the whole of the context does, that no thought on the quite independent of the particular fractional relations
which those interests happen to bear to one another. be guided by a different jus representationis to that It is, in fact, a mere obiter dictum, an obiter dictum, which would prevail as to an estate, which might, by too, which does not depend for its point on the special any other circumstances, be cast upon, and traced from proportions supposed; and we think, also, that a little such root. consideration will shew that the two cases, consecu- Nor, in a critical point of view, will the words bear tively proposed in the passage, are somewhat contradic- J. Wi's interpretation. In order to do so, they should tory the one to the other. The second of the two cases have been “ had he never died,” or “had he continued presumes that the surviving coparcener will recover to live.” “In what case," proceeds J. W., “would one-half of the ancestor's land, and, it would seem, da- the deceased daughter have stood had she been living? mages as to that moiety only from the death of the Would she have been heir to one-fourth only, or would ancestor; and her two pieces the other half between she not rather have been heir to the entire one-half? them, and damages as to the moiety from the death of Clearly to the entire one-half, for, had she been living, the deceased coparcener; but the former case does not no descent of her moiety would have taken place," and equally uphold J. W.'s position. The case is that of we add, no tenancy by the curtesy either. In fact, the two coparceners of a reversion expectant on a tenancy rule would have virtually amounted to this: that, if F. for life. Tenant for life commits a first act of waste, died leaving heritable issue, the immediate descent of and then one caparcener dies leaving issue; tenant for Fi's estate should be exempted from the general rules life commits a second act of waste. In a joint action, of descent, and regarded as a survivorship in such issue. the surviving coparcener and the issue recover the land We would propose the following case for J. W.'s wasted jointly, but surviving coparcener recovers treble consideration. Let us suppose F., tenant of an estate in damages for the waste done, as well in her partner's gavelkind, to have two sons, S 1. and S 2.; and let us life as afterwards, while the issue only recovers for da- suppose S 1. to become civilly dead by profession, leaving mage done since the mother's decease. It seems to us, issue; let us now suppose É. to die, it is clear that the that, in both cases, the damages due to deceased co- estate devolves in equal moieties to S 2. and the issue parceners would not be recovered at all, as the repre of S 1.; let us next suppose S 1., by the occurrence of sentatives of the deceased coparcener are in both cases the Reformation, or in any other way, to become civilly presumed only to recover damages from the death of resuscitated; and, lastly, let us suppose the issue of their mother; and that the aunt would recover, ad- S 1. to become extinct, under these circumstances, one mitting J. Wi's view, double damages only in both moiety of F.'s estate must be retraced from him as the cases, and such is the natural interpretation of the words root of descent. Will J. W. argue that such moiety in the second case. We may, however, be mistaken in will be cast entire, jure representationis, on S 1., to the this, and do not lay any stress upon such discrepancy, as exclusion of S 2. the cases at best serve as a mere incidental illustration, From his remarks at the top of p. 75, J. W. does not and are, therefore, of no weight as legal authority. seem to have perceived that the difficulty under dis
J. W 's next argument is founded on another passage cussion might readily have occurred without either sale in Lord Coke's Commentary, (Co. Litt. 164. a.), which of a reversion or attornment, for instance, by F. de is, in reality, perfectly foreign to the question under vising to X. for life, and then dying leaving daughters, discussion. The words are, If a man hath issue two one or more of whom might die during the life tenancy daughters and is disseised, and the daughters have issue severally leaving issue. and die, the issue shall join in a præcipe, because one We have, we allow, been unable to bring cases exright descends from the ancestor, and it maketh no actly in point, or decisive authorities, for our view of difference whether the common ancestor, being out of the ancient law of descent. We think, however, that possession, died before the daughters or after, for that we have shewn that J. W. has been unable to bring in both cases they must make themselves heirs to the forward & single decision in his favour; that the cases grandfather, which was last seised.” And the clear and he refers to contain little more than mere obiter dicta obvious meaning of the passage is simply that it makes on the subject; that the authorities he quotes do not no difference as to the form of action,-not that it makes bear him out in his views; that his arguments fail in no difference as to the interests of the daughters.-whe-establishing his position; that his view is not within ther the common ancestor, being out of possession, died the terms in which the rule as to the descent of a rebefore the daughters or after. "We cannot but think version is uniformly laid down, namely, that the dethis argument of J. W. is forced, -we might add, scent is to the heir of the person last seised; and that forceless.
he is, accordingly, driven to qualify these terms by the “It should be remembered," writes J. W., “that addition of such expressions as “ quoad &c." the rule of representation for which we are contending | Even had we allowed that he was correct as to the is the rule suggested by natural justice," &c. In this course of descent under the old law, such an admission and the following remarks, it seems to us that the (putting the new statute out of the question) would writer entirely misapprehends the true force and scope only amount to this: that the rule, as generally stated, of the jus representationis. The rule, no doubt, is, being contrary to the cases and authorities, could not be “ that the lineal descendants in infinitum of any person considered law; but, in order to make it law, would deceased shall represent their ancestor, that is, shall require some such modification as the “ quoad &c.," stand in the same place as the person himself would suggested by him. The statute, however, entirely have done had he been living." The words have no changes the effect of such an admission; for it contains such qualifications as “ quoad his entire share," which no “ quoad &c.," is express in its enactments, and, J. W. elsewhere introduces; and the rule has nothing therefore, seems to us decisive on the question under to do with any special question like the present, but is discussion. of general application, and must, in all cases where It seems to us, however, that this 2nd section may, land devolves, guide us in distributing the inheritance by making purchase instead of seisin necessary to conamong the representatives of the root of descent. It stitute a “root of descent," work a mischief more geteaches us, in fact, that such an inheritance, in cases neral and important than the one we have been diswhere it is partible, must devolve from some root percussing, although, to the best of our knowledge, it has stirpes, and not per capita. There is nothing in the never before been noticed as one of the possible results terms in which the rule is expressed to say that an of the new law of descent. estate, the descent of which from the root is broken What, we ask, under the new law, are the requisites by the death of the lineal descendant, and which must, necessary to make a tenancy by the curtesy ? Hitherto therefore, confessedly, be retraced from such root, shalíl the requisites have always been held to be four: mar
riage, actual seisin of the wife, issue, and death of the themselves affected with a commendable craving for wife. And herein it is to be remarked, that seisin was equitable control: “Ipsæ etenim leges cupiunt ut jure a requisite, because it was by virtue thereof that the regantur." (Co. Litt., passim). But such measures rewife became & root of descent; without it, therefore, quire to be scanned with critical and jealous care, and her issue could never inherit her estate as her heir, but rhythm and reason alike warn us that the word rewas forced to try back, and make himself heir to the presentationis" can find no place therein. person last seised. Preston (Estate, 513) writes, “ It is It does not help us that the framers of the statute to the estate of the wife, and not to the land of which probably never contemplated the present question, or she is seised, that the issue must be inheritable.” And the effect of illegitimacy, (see Sugd. V. and P. 231, 10th again, (615), “ And the title of the issue must be as ed.), under the regulations they were enacting. The kair of the wife; for, if they are entitled by purchase, mischief has arisen, and the law has taken its course as the first son of the husband or of the wife, or as heir in the one case, (Doe d. Blackburn v. Blackburn, 1 M. of the husband, their birth will not entitle the hus- & Rob. 547, Parke, B.), and so it must in the other. band." Does it not seem necessarily to follow, if they We think that it would have been better, notwithstandare entitled as heir to the grandfather or any more re- ing the rule of possessio fratris, to enact, as the real promote ancestor, their birth will, for like reasons, fail to perty commissioners proposed, “ that estates should entitle the husband? So, too, writes Coke, (p. 296), pass to the heirs of the person who last died entitled, * And, therefore, where Littleton saith, issue by his although he might not have had seisin.". But we must wife, male or female, it is to be understood which, by take the law as we find it; and our province is, to conpossibility, may inherit as heir to her mother of such sider what the true meaning of the act is—what its very
words express. Its framers may not have foreseen posIt is clear, therefore, that, as far as the rationale of sible results, or they may have made use of words this question goes, seisin has become not only unneces- which do not express what they intended should be exsary, but an absolute nullity. It has not, however, pressed; but we must give them credit nevertheless for been simply annulled as a requisite to constitute a root a mastery over their instrument-language; and must of descent for a new requisite, namely, purchase, has collect their intentions from their words, not adapt their been substituted. Would it not, therefore, seem, that, words to their supposed intentions, as gathered from under the new law, purchase must be substituted for extraneous sources; we must, in fact, interpret the exseisin, as a fourth requisite to constitute a tenancy by pressions of the Legislature, and must leave it to the the curtesy? if not, we shall see the anomaly of a wi- Legislature to amend its own mistakes, if such there be. dower claiming by the curtesy an estate, to which his deceased wife's issue cannot possibly inherit, as his deCeased wife's beir, and with respect to which both the Since writing the above remarks, a second article, by widower and the issue stand in precisely the same po- J. W., “ On the Curtesy of the Husband of a Coparsition as they would have done under the old law, had cener,'' has appeared in THE JURIST. We do not unthe wife neglected to obtain actual seisin.
derstand why he should restrict his remarks to the case We may also imagine the additional anomaly of the of the husband of a coparcener; he might have written widower in this case holding, as tenant by the curtesy generally the husband of an heiress. It is most satisduring his life, the whole estate of which his wife was factory to us to find that J. W. 80 far agrees with us as seised, and the issue on his death succeeding, as heir to to allow that “it seems a fair and proper deduction the last purchaser, to an inconsiderable portion of such from the authorities, that, whenever a woman has beestate only; but we are not ignorant that this might come entitled to lands by descent, her husband cannot have happened, as to estates tail, under (what we argue claim his curtesy, because the descent of such lands on to have been the old law. Such a mischief we have her decease is not to be traced from her.” Such are termed more important than the one, which J. W. his own words. contends does not arise under this section of the act; In order to avoid this deduction, J. W. boldly proand we think our position will not be disputed, when poses that the authorities “are erroneous." When we it is remembered that it does not only affect all co- state that Littleton is the person who lays down the rule parceners, as well by common law as special cus- in the express terms “as heir to the wife*;" that the tom, but also all heiresses on whom land devolves in commentary of Lord Coke is as express, and even less fee; and that it is not a question as to the larger or capable of being explained away; that Blackstone, Harsmaller fraction of the inheritance which shall devolve grave, and Preston follow on the same side; the reader on their issue, but whether the person who, under the will scarcely be surprised when he finds us prepared to old law, was entitled as tenant by the curtesy, is not, indulge a sort of legal prejudice, and take our chance by the new, wholly and absolutely deprived of such with them, rather than with J. W. Paine's case liketenancy.
wise seems decisive on this point. (8 Rep. 36, a). We It can scarcely be necessary to remark, that the cannot admit that J. W. is successful in explaining possibility of such doubts as those discussed by J. W., away the express words of Littleton. We also submit and those suggested by ourselves, makes it most de- that it is very unsafe to argue, as he does, from dower sirable that no one on whom land devolves should to curtesy; for we do not even know that the two tedelay doing some act of purchase to break the descent. nures originated at the same period, or with the same * Rules of law," says J. W., in conclusion, “ which race, and although it is true there are strong analogies have their foundation in natural justice, should ever between them, yet there are distinctions quite as strong. be upheld, notwithstanding they may have become ap- We might instance the well-known fact that tenant by plicable to cases not specifically contemplated at the the curtesy held immediately of the lord by a sort of time of their creation. In this remark we entirely continuation of his tenure during his wife's life; whereconcur, but it must be proved that such rules are as a dowager held under the heir, who was liable to the really applicable. We must be most careful not to lord for the services to which the land of which she apply them wrongly, and must remember that the was endowed was subject. Again, actual seisin was remost time-honoured maxims of the common law must not control, but must ever be controlled by the posi- * Although there is a difficulty in the following section, tive and express enactments of our statute book. Lord (Litt., sect. 53), from the use of the expression “as heir to the Coke, it is true, fondly dwells on the “ great equity," husband," yet nothing is clearer, that, in the case therein put as he terms it, “ of the common law," till we find the by Littleton, in illustration of his meaning, the husband would laws starting boldly personified from his pages, and I be the stock of descent.
quired as one of the requisites to constitute a tenant MARTIN CUBITT, High Holborn, Middlesex, builder, by the curtesy; whereas legal seisin was sufficient for dealer and chapman, April 3 and May 7 at 2, Court of the purpose of dower. And here we would remark, Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Johnson; Sols. Messrs. that J. W. lays great stress on the explanation which Smith, Southampton-bdgs, Chancery-lane. — Fiat dated Lord Coke suggests as to this distinction; and does not
March 16. hesitate, with no stronger arguments than this, to pro
GEORGE PRINCE, Romsey, Hampshire, wine merchant, nounce the highest legal authorities in error. We must,
dealer and chapman, April i at half.past 12, and May 6 at
11, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Bell ; Sols. with all due deference, point out to him that Lord Coke
Watson & Co., Falcon-square, London.-Fiat dated March is an authority we are bound to follow when he tells us
21. what the law on any point is; but that when he tells WILLIAM BULL, Leeds, Yorkshire, and Addle-street, Lon. why it is so, or how it became so, he is no longer an au
don, cloth merchant, (trading under the firm of William thority in the same sense, and we are at liberty to ex Bull & Co.), April 4 and 27 at 11, District Court of Bank. ercise our own discretion how far he is to be relied on. 1 ruptcy, Leeds: Off. Ass. Kynaston ; Sols. Lee, Leeds;
J. W. also deduces in this second article some fur Sudlow & Co., Chancery-lane, London.-Fiat dated Feb. 23. ther arguments from his views as to the “jus repre- JAMES RIDING and JAMES FIELDING, Leyland, Lan. sentationis." We must repeat that we think his appli cashire, cotton manufacturers, dealers and chapmen, April cation of this rule mistaken; must observe, in conclu
4 at 11, and April 30 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, sion, that we doubt whether he is not wrong in flattering
Manchester : Off. Ass. Hobson ; Sols. Winder & Co., Bol. himself that he has arrived at the true principles of the
ton; Milne & Co., Temple, London.-Fiat dated March 13.
JOHN GIBSON, Manchester, veterinary surgeon, farrier, old law; and, with more liberality than he manifests
and smith, dealer and chapman, April 6 and May 11 at 12, towards the superfluous “flourish," as he terms it, of
District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester : Off. Ass. Pott; Blackstone, take leave to add, “Floreat J. W., valeat
Sols. Myers & Birkbeck, Manchester ; Williamson & Hill, J. C.C.
Verulam-buildings, Gray's Inn, London.- Fiat dated March 21.
JAMES RIDDALL WOOD, Failsworth, Manchester, var. - London Gazettes.
nish maker and manufacturing chemist, April 6 and 29 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester : Off. Ass.
Pott; Sols. Slater & Heelis, Manchester ; Milne & Co., TUESDAY, MARCH 24.
Temple, London.-Fiat dated March 18.
JOHN TAYLOR, Hereford, grocer, tea dealer, and provision BANKRUPTS.
merchant, dealer and chapman, April 3 and May 5 at 1l, Dis. JAMES GIRO, Moorgate-street, London, merchant, dealer trict Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham : Off. Ass. Valpy; and chapman, April 6 at half past 11, and May 5 at 12, Sol. Greatwood, Birmingham.- Fiat dated March 17.Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Alsager; Sol. MOSES SMITH, Birmingham, iron founder and publican, Peile, Great Winchester-street.-Fiat dated March 21.
April 4 and May 2 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, CHARLES HENRY WATERS, Queen's-row, Pimlico, Mid. | Birmingham: Off. Ass. Whitmore; Sols. Motteram &
dlesex, dealer in paintings and china, dealer and chapman, Knowles, Birmingham; Smith & Co., Bedford-row, Lon. March 31 at half-past I, and May 5 at 11, Court of Bank- don.-Fiat dated March 20. ruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Whitmore; Sol. Burbidge, Hat. PHILIP CRISPIN, Bristol, carpenter and builder, April 3 at ton-garden.Fiat dated March 20.
1, and May 7 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol ; JOSEPH THOMPSON, Norwich, grocer and tea dealer, Off. Ass. Miller ; Sol. Hinton, Bristol.--Fiat dated March
dealer and chapman, April 7 and May 5 at 1, Court of 18.
ruptcy, Liverpool: Off. Ass. Bird; Sols. Cross, Liverpool; WILLIAM MORPHEW, Sevenoaks, Kent, draper and far. Vincent & Sherwood, Temple.Fiat dated March 11.
mer, dealer and chapman, April 1 at half-past 2, and May 7 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London : Off. Ass. Bell;
MEETINGS. Sols. Reed & Langford, Friday-street, Cheapside. - Fiat Hugh Roberts, Hafodlas, Carnarvonshire, dealer and chap. dated March 17.
man, April 7 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool, JOHN PERKINS, North-place, Gray's-inn-lane, Middlesex, ch. ass.-Wm. Humphryes, Haymarket, Middlesex, hotel jeweller, dealer and chapman, March 28 at 2, and May 16 at keeper, April 9 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, last ex. 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Follett; Sol. - Thomas Wilkinson, Quadrant, Regent-street, and BathurstClark, Finsbury-place.- Fiat dated March 20.
street, Sussex-square, Middlesex, ironmonger, April 6 at 2, THOMAS PEIRSON, Warwick-court, Holborn, Middlesex, | Court of Bankruptcy, London, last ex.—T'homas Edwards,
and Pickering, Yorkshire, money scrivener, dealer and chap- Trewyllan-cottage, Llansaintfraid, Montgomeryshire, surgeon, man, April 4 and May 16 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, Lon April 3 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool, last don: Off. Ass. Green ; Sols. Bell & Co., Bow Church-yard, ex.-John Wright, Brinscall-hall, within Wheelton, Lan. Cheapside.—Fiat dated March 18.
cashire, calico printer, April 1 at 12, District Court of BankJOHN BRETT, Luton, Bedfordshire, sheep salesman, dealer rupty, Manchester, last ex.-John Clark, Crescent, Minories, and chapman, April 7 at 2, and May 5 at 1, Court of Bank London, merchant, April 22 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, Lon. ruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Groom ; Sol. Wilkinson, 2, Ni. | don, aud. ac.- David Marks, Houndsditch, London, pen
cholas-lane, Lombard-street, City.-- Fiat dated March 14. manfacturer, April 8 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, RICHARD ELLIS, Richmond-street, Sobo, Middlesex, car. aud. ac.—Lawrence Kennedy, Rochester-terrace, Stoke New
penter and undertaker, April 1 and May 5 at 2, Court of ington, Middlesex, pawnbroker, April 16 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Edwards ; Sols. Carlon & Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-Jos. Henry Nail, John-st., Haynes, Palace-chambers, St. James's-street.-Fiat dated Tottenbam-court-road, Middlesex, builder, April 11 at 11, March 6.
Court of Bankruptcy, London, atd. ac.-William Burrous, ANN ABIGAIL INNELL and ALFRED COOKES, Little Grove-street, Hampstead-road, Middlesex, builder, April 23
Queen-street, Holborn, Middlesex, varnish manufacturers, at I, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-Joseph Johns, dealers and chapmen, April 7 at 2, and May 5 at half-past Grosvenor-street West, Pimlico, Middlesex, cook, April 16 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Groom ; Sol. 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-W. Stockbridge,
Stuart, 6, New Inn, Strand.Fiat dated March 21. High-street, Wandsworth, Surrey, tobacconist, April 16 at I, JAMES RISHTON, Vale Rock-mill, Hoddlesden, Over Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-Fred. J. Ableti
Darwen, Lancashire, cotton spinner and manufacturer, dealer and Wm. H. Ablett, High Holborn, Middlesex, drapers, and chapman, April 3 and 24 at 12, District Court of Bank. April 16 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, avd. ac.-D. ruptcy, Manchester : Off. Ass. Hobson ; Sols. Wortbington Wynne, Colwyn, Carnarvonshire, innkeeper, April 17 at 12, & Co., Manchester ; Fox, Finsbury-circus, London.-- Fiat District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool, and, ac.-Edward dated March 21.
| Brown, Birmingham, merchant, April 17 at 11, District Court
of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, aud. ac.-George Hartshorne, Court of Bankruptcy, London.--Jas. Hunt, Johnson's-court, Oldswinford, Worcestershire, and Whittington, Kinver, Staf. Fleet-street, London, licensed retailer of beer, April 1 at 11, fordshire, and Benedict Neale, Wall-heath, Kingswinford, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-John Wood, Ashton-under Staffordshire, iron manufacturers, April 14 at 11, District Lyne, Lancashire, salesman, April 6 at 12, District Court of Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, aud. ac. and fin. div. Bankruptcy, Manchester.–Fred. C. Hindley, Appletongate, James W. Collyer, Newgate-street, London, victualler, April | Newark-upon-Trent, Nottinghamshire, butcher, April 3 at 11. 3 st 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div. Hen. Le Jeune, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham.- Thomas Jones, St. Alban's, Hertfordshire, maltster, April 16 at 1, Court of Newtown, Montgomeryshire, butcher, April 3 at 11, District Bankruptcy. London, div.-Thos. B. Golborne and Arthur Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool.-Slater Dewhurst, BlackA. Dobbs, Liverpool, wine merchants, April 16 at 12, District burn, Lancashire, journeyman sawyer, April 7 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool, fin. div. sep. est. Arthur Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester.—Isaac Barnes, ManchesA. Dobbs ; at 1, avd. ac. joint est. ; April 17 at 11, div. ter, master tailor, April 4 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, joint est.
Manchester.-Henry Duckworth, Durn, near Littleborough, CERTIFICATES.
Rochdale, Lancashire, woollen carder, April 2 at 12, District D be allowed, unless Cause be sheron to the contrary on or Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester.--Benj. Bensley, Poolholm, before the Day of Meeting.
near Monmouth, Monmouthshire, in no business, April 16 at George Seagrade Neale, Portsea, Hampshire, innkeeper,
II, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol.-Benj. Butter. April 15 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.--Henry M.
| worth, Sutton-in-Ashfield, Nottinghamshire, assistant to a Naylor, Birmingham, haberdasher, April 18 at 11, District
grocer, March 27 at 11, Cutlers'-hall, Sheffield.-T. Wright, Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham.-- James Baines, Man.
Pea-croft, Sheffield, Yorkshire, table knife manufacturer, chester, grocer, April 16 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy,
March 27 at 11, Cutlers'-hall, Sheffield.-Mary Ann Green, Manchester.
widow, Highfield, Sheffield, Yorkshire, no business, March 27 To be allowed by the Court of Review in Bankruptcy, unless
at 11, Cutlers'-hall, Sheffield. Cause be sheron to the contrary on or before April 14.
Saturday, March 21. John Houghton Jones, Manchester, spirit merchant.-B.
The following Assignees have been appointed. Further Par. Purnell, New-street, Turner-street, Stepney, Middlesex, out
ticulars may be learned at the Office, in Portugal-st., Lin. of business.-Charles Bartlett, Southampton, merchant.
coln's-inn-fields, on giving the Number of the Case. Alfred Bunnell, Bridge-house-place, Newington-causeway,
James Woodford, Rose and Crown-yard, King-street, St. Surrey, window blind maker.
James's, Middlesex, carpenter, No. 58,021 T.; John Bennett Scotch SEQUESTRATION.
Milner, assignee.-Fred. Tillett, Harleston, Norfolk, cabinet John M Alaster Houston, Paisley, commission agent.
maker, No. 67,181 C.; Dav. L. Chambers, assignee.
Saturday, March 21. : DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY.
Orders have been made, vesting in the Provisional Assignee Nathaniel James Thomas, Camden-street, Kensington Gravel. the Estates and Effects of the following Persons: pits, Kensington, Surrey, painter
(On their own Petitions). INSOLVENT DEBTORS
Wm. Smith, New Agnes-st., York-road, Lambeth, Surrey, Who here filed their Petitions in the Court of Bankruptcy,
attorney's clerk : in the Debtors Prison for London and Midand have obtained an Interim Order for Protection from
dlesex.-Rich. Thos. Morton, Waterman's Arms, Paris-street,
Lambeth, Surrey, publican : in the Gaol of Surrey.- Solomon Process.
Sequerra, Oliver's-terrace East, Bow-road, Middlesex, out of Robert Bullock, Dover, Kent, tailor, March 30 at half
business : in the Queen's Prison.-Ebenezer Stevens, Slater. past II, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Arthur Bridges, street, Brick-lane, Bethnal-green, Middlesex, out of business : Lambeth-walk, Surrey, cheesemonger, March 30 at 12, Court in the
t 12, Court in the Queen's Prison.—John Wolsey, Oxford-st., Middlesex, of Bankruptcy, London.-Squire Day, Hitchin, Hertford.
house agent: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesbire, grocer, March 30 at half-past 12, Court of Bankruptcy,
Bankruptcy, sex.-Stephen Charlton, Strood, Kent, assistant to a corn London.- Charles Wm. Dexter, Duke-street, West Smith
dealer : in the Gaol of Maidstone.--Jas. Slack, Hulme, Man. field, London, glore maker, March 30 at 11, Court of Bank.
chester, filtering machine maker : in the Gaol of Lancaster.ruptcy, London.- Robert Barker, Clarendon-street, Somers'.
Edw. Bluck, Xarborne, Staffordshire, attorney at law: in the town, Middlesex, licensed victualler, March 30 at 12, Court | Gaol of Warwick.-Austin Laurence, Rempstone, Nottingof Bankruptcy, London. - John Harcus, Chatham, Kent,
bamshire, out of employment: in the Gaol of Nottingham. tailor, March 30 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-John Hendry, Henry's.place, Hoxton Old-town, Middlesex, back
The following Prisoners are ordered to be brought up before and Fat maker, March 30 at half-past 12, Court of Bank.
the Court, in Portugal-st., on Tuesday, April 7, at 9. ruptcy, London.-George Glover, Hemel Hempstead, Hert
Hen. Bennett, Liquorpond-st., Middlesex, out of business. fordshire, plumber, April 3 at half past 12, Court of Bank
1-Wm. Wheatley, Great Portland-st., Oxford-st., Middlesex, ruptcy, London.-James Onion, Ely, Cambridgeshire, gar.
boot and shoe maker.--Thos. Smith, Salisbury-street, Berdener, April 1 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-George
mondsey, Surrey, ship carver.- Samuel Sibery the younger, Edward Sheldon, Cambridge, stationer, April 8 at 11, Court
Shaftesbury-terrace, Pimlico, Middlesex, out of business. of Bankruptcy, London.-James Moon, Arundel.st., Strand,
Jabez Aston, Bath-row, Great Bath-st., Cold Bath-square, Middlesex, surveyor, April 3 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy,
Clerkenwell, Middlesex, out of employ.-Chas. Snuggs, GifLondon.-E. Edie, Market-st., Tottenham-court-road, Mid.
ford-st., Fleming-st., Kingsland-road, Middlesex, auctioneer. dleses, widow, April 8 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.
-Henry Rob. Redwood, Draycott-terrace, Cadogan-terrace, - Mary Bosley, Park-place West, Camden-town, Middlesex,
Upper Sloane-street, Chelsea, Middlesex, shopman to a china servant, April 2 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.--Jas.
dealer.-Wm. L. Sluman, Brecknock-place, Camden-town, Gardner, Oxford, farrier, April 2 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy. Middlesex, out of business.-John Adrian Meyer, Park-road, London James Rodwell, `Watford, Hertfordshire, cabinet | Stockwell, Surrey, commission agent. maker, April 2 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Wm.
INSOLVENT DEBTOR'S DIVIDEND. Donnison, Thornton-st., Bermondsey, Surrey, engraver, April Gordon Urquhart, Brompton, Middlesex, superintendent of I at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London. --John Slater, Alder the naval payments in the Office of the Treasurer of the Navy, manbury, London, warehouseman, April 1 at 12, Court of March 26, Key's, Lower Brook-st., Bond-st.: 58. ltd. in the Bankruptcy, London.-Thomas Francklin, Margate, Kent, pound, (in addition to 98. 3d. by former dividends). baker, April 1 at half-past 10, Court of Bankruptcy, London. -John Parris, Bedford.st., Brandon-st., Walworth, Surrey, general shopkeeper, April 1 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy,
FRIDAY, MARCH 27. London.-James Lorke the elder, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk,
BANKRUPTS. house carpenter, April 1 at balf.past 10, Court of Bank. JOHN CHARLES BARRATT, Strand, Middlesex, carver ruptcy, London.-Maria Theresa D'Asmar, spinster, King- and gilder, and dealer in pictures, April 3 at half-past 12, street, Portman-square, St. Mary-le-bone, Middlesex, April 1 and May 8 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Of. Ass. at half-past 10, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Ch. Clarke, Alsager; Sol. Taylor, Moorgate-street. -- Fiat dated March Paradise-street, Lambeth, Surrey, coal dealer, April 1 at 11,1 24.