Search Books

Reports of cases argued and determined in the High Court of Chancery, from 1757 to 1766; from the original manuscripts of Lord Chancellor Northington

Author Baron Robert Henley Eden Henley
Publisher RareBooksClub.com
📄 Viewing lite version Full site ›
🌎 Shop on Amazon — choose country
25.69 USD
🛒 Buy New on Amazon 🇺🇸 🏷 Buy Used — $29.34

✓ Usually ships in 24 hours

Share:
Book Details
ISBN / ASIN1130486710
ISBN-139781130486711
AvailabilityUsually ships in 24 hours
Sales Rank99,999,999
MarketplaceUnited States 🇺🇸

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1818 Excerpt: ...termined, and no SUppose VIrs, Harding had never executed this conveynew one raised, ir 0.." and yet the lord ance, but had been disseised, and the disseisor had died hfslscheaf'111 o s8ed or made a feoffment and Mrs. Harding had died, as in fact she did, without heirs ex parte paternd. The old use in Mrs. Harding would have been determined, yet the lord would have been no nearer the escheat than if she had left heirs. Shall I be told, here is a new use acquired by the disseisor by operation of law which will bar the escheat? I would answer, and I think with a better grace; here may be a new use acquired by the trustee by operation of law and his own conveyance: he has as much an use as a disseisor. There is no variance made in the use by Mrs. Harding. She has made a tenant to the estate; that tenant, in my opinion, is a bar to the lord's claim. I am therefore also of opinion there is no alteration of this use. The consequence is, that the heir ex parte maternd cannot be entitled to any part of this estate except the mill and closes under the deed of 1713; that as to all the rest, the original bill must be dismissed, and the information on the part of the crown dismissed totally. This important case, which divided the bench, also caused great difference of opinion in the profession. It has been said, indeed, (2 Ves. jun. 174.) that the opinion of Lord Mansfield was not thought law in Westminster Hall. There is, however, among Mr. Coxe's MSS. in Lincoln's Inn Library, an elaborate discussion of the arguments of the three learned judges from the pen of Mr. Fazakerley. That profound lawyer supports, with great ability, the doctrine in favour of the right of the crown. He pursues the line of argument adopted by Lord Mansfield, founding his opinion upon the...