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/ssactsengr0894 and id is 1 raw text is: the real estate should be absolutely converted. The real estate was sold, either
wholly or partly, under the decree in the suit. All the children attained twenty-one,
and one of the daughters and her husband executed a mortgage of her share and
interest in the monies produced from the real and personal estate under both wills,
and covenanted to levy a fine of the share and interest thereby assigned, and the fine
was levied accordingly. The Vice-Chancellor of England held that the fine barred
the wife of all the interest that she could derive, either from the land, or the proceeds
of the sale of it. His Honor referred to the case of Goodrick v. Shotbolt (Prec. Cha.
333), in which perhaps the question did not so distinctly arise as in the case then
before him. There is then the case of Hunter v. Judd, before the same learned Judge,
which was cited from Mr. Shapter's note, and in which it was held that the fine
bound the interest of the wife in the freehold and leasehold estate to which the
married woman was entitled. Next, there occurs the case of Forbes v. Adams (9 Sim.
462), in which the property that passed by the fine was clearly in the shape of money.
It was money which was subject to a direction to be laid out in land, and which
money was the proceeds of a charge created on an estate in Jamaica. The acknow-
ledgment of the mortgage before a magistrate was by the law of that colony analogous
to a fine ; and the Vice-Chancellor of England says that Mrs. Forbes, by her execu-
tion and acknowledgment, gave the same effect to the conveyance as if the estate
had been in this country and she had levied a fine; and he adds, In that case all
pos-[77]-sible interest that she might have previously had, either at law or in equity,
in the estate would have been barred. (9 Sim. 467.)
In the case now before me there is a devise to trustees to sell the real estate of the
testator, and out of the proceeds this lady and the other children of the testator's
nephew are to be paid their respective shares. There is, therefore, a legal and an
equitable interest created, and that equitable interest in the estate is not in the
trustees but in the several persons for whose benefit the sale is to be made. The lady
has an equitable interest in her share, and the case appears to me to fall as distinctly
as it can do within the words of the statute. If that be so, how can I refuse to give
effect to the language of the statute? It is to be regretted that the learned Judge
who decided the case of Hobby v. Allen did not give his reasons for the judgment, as
it would have been satisfactory to have known the exact grounds on which it pro-
ceeded. I do not think there is any substantial distinction on this point between
this case and that of May v. Roper or Forbes v. Adams. My own impression has
always been that a fine bars every possible interest of this kind; and notwithstanding
the great attention due to the opinion of the learned Judge who decided Hobby v.
Allen, which has caused me to hesitate, I think I am bound to hold that the interest
of the married lady in the real estate under the will in this case passed by her deed.
[78] EDELSTEN v. VICK. April 15, 16, 1853.
[S. C. 18 Jur. 7. See Leather Cloth Company v. American Leather Cloth Company, 1865,
35 L. J. Ch. 65; Morgan v. M'A4dam, 1866, 36 L. J. Ch. 229; Cheavin v. Walker,
1877, 5 Ch. D. 864.]
The Plaintiffs, who represented the original patentees of an article, the patent for the
manufacture of which had expired, continued to use labels on their goods, printed
from the original blocks belonging to the patentees, on which labels the goods were
described as patented. The Defendants adopted and issued labels, closely resem-
bling those of the Plaintiffs. And under such circumstances, although the description
of the Plaintiffs' goods on their labels as being patented had ceased to be strictly
true, the Court granted an injunction, restraining the Defendants from using labels
bearing an inscription appearing to designate the goods contained therein as being
manufactured by the Plaintiffs.
The bill was filed by Peter Edelsten and John Alfred Williams against Joseph
Vick and another; and it stated that, in December 1838, and for some time previously,
Daniel Foote Tayler and Henry Shuttleworth carried on business in co-partnership as
1194
EDELSTEN V. VICK
11 HARE, 77.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0894&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)