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/ssactsengr0879 and id is 1 raw text is: any other person. Where the Court has power to vest the property it has power to
appoint a person to convey it.
The lots being nunierous, the parties under disabilities being numerous, two being
married women, and two being infants, it would be a great convenience, and save
expense, if the Court would appoint Mr. Wainwright, the Plaintiff's solicitor, to con-
vey rather than vest the estates in him. Among the possible inconveniences to arise
from vesting the estates in him would be this, that Mr. Wainwright might die before
he had conveyed all the property, and the estates be vested in an infant heir to him.
[480] His Honour said he thought that such an order could be made, and he
would make the order as asked.
The order upon the petition, after setting forth the evidence, proceeded thus
And it appearing by the proceedings in this cause that the Defendant, Daniel
Gill, is seised of one-sixth part of the lands in the said Master's report, dated the
30th day of June 1856, mentioned, being the lands directed to be sold by the said
order, dated the 6th day of July 1852, and that the Defendant, Benjamin Gill, is
seised of one other sixth part of the said lands, and that the Defendant, Sarah
Harrison, and the Defendant, Joseph Harrison, are seised of one other sixth part of
the said lands, and that the Defendant Anne, otherwise Nancy Hampton, and the
Defendant, Joseph Gill Hampton, are seised of one other sixth part of the said land,
and that the Defendant, Mary Weaver, and the Defendant, Phoebe Baker, are seised
of one other sixth part of the said lands, and that the Defendant, Phoebe Whitehouse,
and the Defendant, Sarah Whitehouse, are seised of the remaining sixth part of the
said lands, and the Judge to whose Court this cause is attached being of opinion that
the said Defendants, Daniel Gill, Benjamin Gill, Sarah Harrison, Joseph Harrison,
Anne, otherwise Nancy Hampton, Joseph Gill Hampton, the infant, Mary Weaver,
and Phoebe Baker, the infant, Phoebe Whitehouse and Sarah Whitehouse, are to be
deemed to be so seised, upon a trust within the meaning of the Trustee Act, 1850.
This Court doth order that Henry Money Wainwright, of Dudley, in the county of
Worcester, a gentleman, be appointed to convey the lands comprised in the said
Master's report of the 30th day of June 1856 for the estates of the several Defen-
dants, Daniel Gill, Benjamin Gill, Sarah Harrison, Joseph Harrison, Anne, otherwise
Nancy Hampton, Joseph Gill Hampton, Mary Weaver, Phoebe Baker, the infant,
Phoebe Whitehouse and Sarah Whitehouse.
[481] BROOK V. BROOK. Before Vice-Chancellor Stuart and Mr. Justice Cresswell.
Nov. 20, 21, 24, 25, Dec. 4, 1857 ; 4pril 17, 1858.
[Affirmed, 9 H. L. C. 193; 11 E. R. 703 (with note, to which add In re De Wilton.
[1900], 2 Ch. 488 ; In re Bozzelli [1902], 1 Ch. 753.]
The law of the country in which a marriage is solemnised cannot give validity to a
,marriage prohibited by the laws of the country of the domicile and allegiance of
the contracting parties.
Therefore, a marriage celebrated during a temporary residence in Denmark between
an English widower and the sister of his deceased wife, being null and void by the
stat. 5 & 6 Wm. 4, is not valid, although by the law of Denmark marriages are
permitted between persons so related by affinity.
The principle of lex loci contractas examined as to various qualifications and exceptions.
The question raised in this suit is the validity of a marriage celebrated in 1850,
according to the rites of the Lutheran church, near Altona, in the Duchy of Holstein,
in the kingdom of Denmark, between Mr. William Leigh Brook, since deceased, and
Miss Emily Armitage, the sister of his deceased wife, both British subjects, domiciled
in England.
On the 20th of May 1840, at Huddersfield, Mr. Win. Leigh Brook was married
according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England to Miss Charlotte
746
BROOK V. BROOK
3 SM . & GIFF. 480.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0879&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)