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/ssactsengr0808 and id is 1 raw text is: ROBLEY '. BROOKE [18,2]I
made on the hearing of this cause, and in this order ; and the Master is also to enquire,
whether or not the total amount of Daniel Birkett the younger's share, calculated
according to the directions herein contained, at the testator's death, was greater
than the share, calculated at the testator's death, of any other person benefited
by Daniel Birkett's will, or by gifts or conveyances made to such other person, but
in which the testator Daniel Birkett the elder retained an interest. And it is further
declared, [88] that the plaintiff is entitled to a SUM equal to the amount of the greatest
sum taken by any legatee, either under any actual bequest, or under any disposition
herein directed to be considered as a bequest ; and that if Daniel Birkett the younger
has such greater share, the plaintiff's demand is for an equal share to his. And
it is further declared, that the demand of the plaintiff is a debt by specialty, and
as such entitled to priority over both the simple contract debts and the legacies,
whether residuary or otherwise, and that the whole of the property disposed of by
the will under the description of residue is applicable to discharge such debt to the
plaintiff ; and if that fund shall not be sufficient, then that the shares of Daniel
Birkett the younger, and Sarah his wife, are liable for satisfaction of the plaintiff's
claim to abate in proportion to the amount of the benefits taken by them under
the will, or by conveyance, or gifts, in which Daniel Birkett the elder retained any
interest during his life. And it is further declared, that all the clear residue, after
making satisfaction to the plaintiff as herein directed, and after making the cal-
culations and taking accounts as directed, is divisible equally between Daniel Birkett
the younger's personal representatives and the plaintiff. And it is ordered and
adjudged, that so much of the said decree as overrules the exceptions be, and the
same is hereby affirmed ; but if it shall be found that, after making the calculations
directed, any other person takes under the will, or by conveyance or gifts, from
the testator, in which he retained any interest during his life, a larger share than
the plaintiff shall have by the directions herein given, [89] then and in such case
it is ordered, that no distribution is to be made until the further directions of the
Court shall have been obtained. And it is further ordered, that the said cause be
remitted to the said Court of Chancery, to proceed therein as shall be just and con-
sistent with this judgment.
[90] ENGLAND.
COURT OF CHANCERY.
CAROLINE ROBLEY, Widow, WILLIAM BLAKE, and JAMES CUNNINGHAM,-
A4ppellants; CHARLES BROOKE,-Bespondent: WILLIAM BLAKE, and Others,
-Appellants; and the said CHARLES BROOKE,--espondent [18 33].
[Mews' Dig. x. 585 (Robley v. Blake). On point as to property paid for by a firm,
see now Partnership Act, 1890, s. 21. As to proportions of shares, see Copland v.
Toulmin, 1838, 1840, 7 Cl. & F. 349.]
By articles of partnership made, in 1802, between R. and A., it was agreed that
a mercantile house should be established, and carried on for the sale of
West India produce on commission, and the supply of stores to planters,
etc. ; that R. should be interested for profit and loss in three-fourths,
and A. in one-fourth ; and that the partnership should not advance money
on loan to any person without the previous particular consent of all the
partners.
B. was privy to this deed ; and, by other articles of even date, it was agreed
that B. should be a partner in the concern, under R., and should be inter-
ested for one-fourth, to be deducted out of the share of R. ; and it was
provided, in case of the death of A., that his share should be divided so
as to give to R. two-thirds and to B. one-third of the whole business.
By a deed executed in March, 1804, it was agreed that the partnership should
be dissolved as to A., and, in consideration of his retiring, that R. and B.
should pay for his use £2668 and £2500, for which acceptances of the firm
H.L. v. 705 23
VII BLIGH N. S.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0808&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)