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/ssactsengr0663 and id is 1 raw text is: BARRET V. BECKFORD
For tile doctrine upon this subject [husband's influence upon wife on her selling her
separate estate] agreeably to the principles in this case, which has often been much
noticed, see in Mr. Belt's edition of Mr. Brown's Reports, the important cases of Hulme
v. Tenant. 1 Bro. 16. Fraiser v. Baillie, ibid. 518. Fettiplace v. Georges, 3 Bro. 8.
Pybus v. Smith, ibid. 340, &c. &c., with the Editor's notes upon each of them ; which
refer to most of the subsequent cases. The general substance of the principle thus
settled, is, that property given for the separate use of a married woman, is as disposeable
by her, as property is disposeable which belongs to persons absolutely sui juris. Mr.
Roper's very valuable work on Marital Law, has been published since the first edition
of the present work, which the editor suggests should be consulted upon all cases
bearing on the subject.
His Lordship decreed that the husband should indemnify the plaintiff in respect
of the dower.
T. 519.-BARRET versus BECKFORD, July 24, 1750. (Reg. Lib. 1749, B. fol. 619.)-
The testator was residuary legatee as well as executor of his uncle. B. L.
This is not quite immaterial ; Lord Hardwice mentioning in his judgment, that
he owed every thing to his uncle.
Lee v. D'Aranda, Door v. Geray, and Blandy v. Widmore, cited in the Report,
pp. 519, 520, are in 1 Ves. 255, and 1 P. W. 324.
Upon the several points vide 2 Ves. 37, Mr. Cox's note to Blandy v. Widmore, 1
P. W. 324; the note to Lee v. D'Aranda, antea (2) ; Freemantle v. Bankes, 5 Ves.
79; Twisden v. Twisden, 9 Ves. 413 ; and Garthshore v. Chalie, 10 Ves. 1.
See Flanders v. Clark, 1 Ves. 9, et antea (12); and Butterfield v. Butterfield,.1 Ves.
133, et antea (81).
[220] I. 521.-PIERS versus PIERS, July 23, 1750. (Reg. Lib. 1750, B. fol. 97.)
-The cause came on ultimately for judgment on the 10th of the following December,
when the Court dismissed the supplemental bill, but without costs ; and as to the original
bill, decreed, that certain lands which had been purchased by the father, and conveyed
to his own use, should be settled according to the agreement, and exonerated by him
from some incumbrances. In the father's answer to the supplemental bill, he said,
that the Plaintiff, having declined all offers for an accommodation, and being deter-
mined to prosecute the suit, and put him to expence therein, he insisted he had a right
to pay himself the expences of such suit, out of the estate, of which, by the Plaintiff's
own shewing, he, the Defendant, was tenant for life, sans waste ; and that he could
take down several ornaments he had put up at Bradley House, and leave it in the
same condition he found it ; viz. a farm house ; and that he would go as far as the
law or his right would allow him, in cutting down timber and trees, and breaking
up ground in the settled estate ; which he had accordingly done. Reg. Lib.
These expressions very probably induced Lord Hardwicke not to give 'him the
costs of the supplemental bill.
[221] 1. 522.-CoNYNWHAM versus CONYNGHAM, July 31, 1750. (Reg. Lib. 1749,
A. fol. 635, 637.)-Although formerly several Judges seem to have followed each
other in saying broadly that a devise or settlement of the profits of lands is the same
as a devise of the land, and implies any profits the land will produce by sale, &c.
(vide in Trafford v. Ashton, 1 P. W. 418; 1 Ves. 41 and 171) ; yet Lord Hardwicke
seems to have been fully sensible they had gone too far (see 1 Ves. 41) : and it appears
that Mr. Cox's observation on Tra/jord v. Ashton, 1 P. W. 418, note, is not only a
sound one, but has been adopted in later cases.
The note there intimates, it seems that the natural meaning of the word ' profits
is ' annual profits ' ; and that the cases which have extended it further are exceptions
out of the generalrule, in which the context afforded a different construction.
Vide Ivy v. Gilbert, 2 P. W. 19, &c. &c.
Besides the cases mentioned by Mr. Cox, in confirmation of what he thus states,
the author of these notes would suggest, that even the principal case of Conyngham
v. Conyngham, taken altogether, might also be adduced for the purpose.
However that may be, later decisions have adopted Mr. Cox's position : see most
of them, and the cases forming several of the exceptions in the late case of Allan v.
Backhouse, 2 Ves. and B. 65.
VES. SEN. SUPP. 220.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0663&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)