HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0127 and id is 1 raw text is: JEPHSON V. RIERA [1835]
Parliament, or the concurrence of his responsible advisers. All alterations that are
now from time to time made in the laws of British Guiana, Trinidad and St.
Lucia, are announced by Orders in Council. If the law of dower was ever intro-
duced into Gibraltar, it would be easy for the appellants to produce precedents of
its application, which they have not done. If, as we contend, this is the first case
in which it was ever claimed, what could be so injurious as a decision in favour of
the respondent, which would shake the titles of all lands that have been purchased
from married men in Gibraltar? As to the national character of the respondent,
even admitting her to have been born [143] a British subject, she lost that character
by remaining with her parents in Minorca, and thus becoming a subject of the
King of Spain.
At the conclusion of the argument, Mr. Bickersteth mentioned the case of
Benatar v. Snith,* in which it [144] was decided by the Privy Council, on the 11th
of June 1812, that houses and lands in Gibraltar, held under [145] a grant con-
firmed by General Bland, were freehold, and therefore descended to the heirs of
* [BENATAR v. SMITH.]
Freehold lands in Gibraltar are not assets for the payment of simple contract
debts.
The following is a short statement of the principal facts of this case, taken
from the printed papers on the appeal:
Elijau Benatar, a Jew merchant at Gibraltar, died in October 1804, intestate,
and owing very large simple contract, but no specialty debts. He left his two
daughters, the appellants, Simha and Sarah Benatar, his heirs-at-law. Letters of
administration of his estate were granted to four of his creditors and his nephew,
Judah Benatar. The administrators sold a real estate belonging to Elijau Benatar
to the respondent, John Smith, and conveyed it to him on the 20th of May 1805;
but Judah Benatar did not execute the conveyance. The appellants, by their
guardian, Judah Benatar, filed a plaint in the Court of Civil Judicature, on the
8th of July 1807, for the recovery of this property, against the respondent, who de-
fended the action. The appellants, to prove a title to the premises, produced a de-
cision of a Court of Inquiry, held on the 22d of August 1749, stating that Mr.
Thomas Tierney appeared and claimed his present dwelling-house on the south side
of the Parade, purchased by him for £1000 sterling of Lieutenant Williams and his
wife, daughter of James Arget, deceased, and repaired by him at great expense
since; and having produced a regular conveyance, it was the opinion of the Court
that he had a just title, subject to a ground-rent of four dollars per month; and
a confirmation of this decision, under the hand and seal of General Bland (see
ante, p. 134). They then produced the books of the collector of revenue, by which
;t appeared that the ground-rent had been paid by a person of the name of Salvador
Causino, in 1758; and a conveyance by bargain and sale, from Moses Causino,
stating himself to be the son of Salvador Causino, to Mr. Vaughan, on the 24th of
September 1788; and another conveyance by bargain and sale, from Mr. Vaughan
to the appellant's father, dated the 18th day of June 1798.
[he Judge and the assistant members of the Court below differed in opinion oil
this case. One of the assistant members held, that nothing appeared to show the
premises to be freehold, and the appellants to have been barred by laches. The
other assistant members held, that as it was doubtful how far the laws of the
mother country extended to Gibraltar, the administrators were, on general prin-
ciples of equity, entitled to sell the property for payment of debts, and that the
appellants were barred by their laches. The Judge. dissented, on the ground that
the land was freehold of inheritance. The majority of the Court being thus against
the appellants' claim, it was dismissed with costs.
The appellants appealed from this decree to the Court of Appeal then existing
at Gibraltar, under the now repealed charter of the 13 Geo. 2: that Court also
dismissed their claim, on the. ground that the property was not freehold of inheri-
tance. From this decree they hppealed to the King in Council.
The reason annexed to the appellants' case was,
Because Elijau Benatar must be considered as seised in fee of the tenement in
603
III KNAPP, 143](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0127&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)