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/ssactsengr0599 and id is 1 raw text is: FREEMAN V. FAIRLIE [1828] I MOORE IND. APP., 306
In Chancery.
FREEMAN v. FAIRLIE [1828].
The tenure of land in Calcutta is of the nature of freehold, and real estate will
not therefore pass by an unattested Will. The Pottah granted by the Collector
is not a muniment of title, but only an evidence of holding, according to a
local and fiscal regulation.
Hannah Haigh, widow, formerly Hannah Oldham, widow, of Calcutta, in the
East Indies, by her Will, bearing date 15th October, 1789, which was executed so
as to pass real estates of inheritance, after giving certain legacies, devised and
bequeathed all her estate to Ann Freeman, Caroline Tranter, afterwards Caroline
Jefcock, William Tranter, Burgess Tranter, Mary Butt, and Sarah Burnett, and
to their respective heirs, Executors, Administrators, and assigns, in equal shares
and proportions, subject to the payment of her debts, legacies, and funeral expenses,
and appointed the Defendant, William Fairlie, then a Banker and Merchant at
Calcutta, her Executor.
The Testatrix died some time in the year 1791, without having altered or revoked
her Will, which was proved in the Supreme Court of Calcutta by the Defendant,
William Fairlie, who entered upon, and took possession of, her real and personal
estate.
At the time of her decease, the Testatrix, besides considerable personal estate,
was in possession of houses in the town of Calcutta, Which were built by, and were
formerly the property of, her deceased husband, Samuel Oldham; the ground whereon
the same were built having been conveyed to him by indenture of lease and release
of 18th and 20th of August, 1780, and 'for which he had obtained, in 1782, from
the Collector's office, a Pottah.
She was also in possession of a plot of ground in Calcutta, which had likewise
belonged to her former husband, Samuel Oldham, and had been originally conveyed
to him by an indenture, or deed poll of the 10th January, 1785, and confirmed
subsequently by indentures of lease and release, and for which he had also obtained
a Pottah from the Collector's office.
[306] Soon after his decease, his widow procured letters of administration of his
estate and effects, to be granted to her, and in virtue thereof took possession of all
his effects, both real and personal, including the house and *piece of land in question,
and, having scheduled them in her accounts, procured three Pottahs to be granted to
her of the whole premises.
The first Pottah so granted to Hannah Oldham was endorsed in English, Pottah
to S. Oldham for Bgs. 2. Sealed the 6th July, 1789. 0. T. H. (L. S.) A Pottah is
hereby granted to Hannah Haigh, Administratrix of Samuel Oldham, deceased, for
2 beegahs of ground in Dhee, Calcutta, which formerly belonged unto Mr. Samuel
Oldham,-rent 6 rupees sicca per annum. In the Cutcherry of the Calcutta divi-
sion, this 29th June, 1789.
No. 21, examined J. W. Edward Colebrooke, Collector.
On the same slip of parchment which contained the above words and figures in
English, was an instrument in the Bengalee language, a translation of which was
in the following words and figures:-
No. Twenty-one.
To the benevolent Sir Bebur Anna Haigh, Attorney to Mr. Samuel Oldham,
the Pottah for land is granted. I grant you this Pottah for two beegahs of land
formerly belonging to Mr. Samuel Oldham, in my Talook Mouza Pehu, Calcutta, for
you to dwell thereon, and you will pay the rent thereof, the annual sum of sicca 6
Salk. 411; Smith v. Brown, ib. 666; Hall v. Campbell, Cowp. 204; Spraggs v.
Stone, cited Doug. 38; Rose v. Vaughan, 4 Burr. 2500; Ex parte Prosser, 2 Bro.
C.C. 325; Evelyn v. Foster, 8 Ves. 96; Ex parte Anderson, 6 Ves. 240; Sheddon v.
Goodrich, 8 Ves. 481 ; Attorney-General v. Stewart, 2 Mer. 143. See also Pike v.
Hoare, Amb. 428, and 2 Eden, 182, note.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0599&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)