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/ssactsengr0201 and id is 1 raw text is: INGLIS V. DE BARNARD [1841]
to make an Order which went in part, at least, to the administration of Jane White's
(Mrs. Thompson's) estate, to which her husband, the Appellant, had administered.
It is not pretended that any money was advanced by the Respondent, or anything
done towards the Appellant's late wife, by the direction of the Court or under its
authority; she only alleges that she advanced money for her maintenance, and that
of A. White's other children, or rather of her own children, of whom A. White was
the putative father, there being nothing in his Will [424] with respect to their
maintenance. If she had any claim at all, therefore, upon the estate of A. White,
she could not make it available by stopping the annuities of the children under
his Will. But her claim, if any, rather is against the estate of Jane White, and must
be prosecuted in the usual way against the representatives of that estate.
The Order in question is also wrong in referring the whole question to the
Master, in 'truth referring the decision to him of the point, whether the Petitioner
(Respondent) was entitled to any sum at all, or not, in respect of the alleged advances;
and there are other objections to the Order, arising from the merits, as they appear
in the Petition, and on the Appellant's affidavit. Particularly it is to be observed,
that nothing is stated specifically of the fund out of which the Respondent made her
alleged advances, nor is their amount specified, nor is it alleged that she had no
monies belonging to Jane White, out of which the advances might be made. The
Petition ought clearly to have been dismissed with costs, and that must now be the
Order upon the Appeal.
Then with regard to the costs here, could not the Petition have been reheard7
There was no occasion for coming here; he could have moved to discharge the Order.
The Order upon the Petition is dismissed, with costs alone, no costs of Appeal here.
[Mews' Dig. tit. COLONY, II. PARTICULAR COLONIEs, 22. West Indies. See note to
Bertram v. Godfray, 1830, 1 Knapp, at p. 387, on point as to costs.]
[425] BY APPEAL FROM THE ROYAL COURT OF ST. LUCIA.
JOHN BELLINGHAM INGLIS,-Appnellant; CHARLES DE BARNARD and
Others,--Respondents * [June 20, 1841].
Appeal allowed though the security for prosecuting the same had not been
perfected in due time, such omission being occasioned by the suspension and
removal of the Judges in the Colony, and the imperfect constitution of the
Court in consequence thereof [3 Moo. P.C. 427-8].
The third article of the ordinance for regulating the form and manner of regis-
tering deeds and other instruments in St. Lucia, made pursuant to the Order
in Council of the 15th of January 1829, orders that the registry should set
forth the date and nature of the title, or original judgment, etc., by which the
mortgage, lien, or charge was established, together with the date and nature
of all subsequent instruments by which such lien, mortgage, or charge has
passed into the hands of the present creditor, and become a charge of the
actual debtor. The registration of a mortgage and assignment of part of an
estate charged and apportioned by a previous act of liquidation, is not such
a compliance with the terms of the ordinance as to give the party claiming
under it a right to come in, pari passtt, with the parties whose title is regis-
tered under the original act of liquidation [3 Moo. P.C. 435 et seq.].
An ordinance passed in pursuance of an Order in Council, and not altered or
disapproved by Her Majesty in Council, though seemingly more extensive
than contemplated by the Order, is not void for the excess, but will be con-
sidered as duly authorized by the Order, and taken in conjunction, with it [3
Moo. P.C. 438 et seq.].
Present: Lord Brougham, Mr. Justice Erskine, Sir Herbert Jenner, and The
Right Hon. Dr. Lushington.
III MOORE, 424](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0201&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)