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/ssactsengr0916 and id is 1 raw text is: X CLARK & FMNELLY, 470 ROBSON V. A.-G. [1842-43]
whole term; because, although the last half-year's rent was to be paid on the 1st of
August, it was with reference to the period at which the term ended. It was payable
within the term, because it was payable on the 1st of August, a day prior to the ex-
piration of the term. Then was not it a reasonable execution of the power?
A question was put to the counsel at the bar, whethei if the rent had been re-
served on the first day of every year, that would have been a good execution of the
power. That might be very doubtful; because it is quite clear that if such a con-
dition were imposed upon the tenant, he would not give by any means so good a rent
as he would if allowed to occupy for the year, and to cultivate the farm, and to.
receive the profits of the farm six months before any rent was payable; and I do not
know whether that would be at all consistent with the good management of the
estate: I think, on that ground, that to have made the rent payable on the first day
of the year would not have been a reasonable reservation. But when you see that
every half-year's rent was made payable at the expiration of the half-year, until
we come to the last half-year's rent, and that that was reserved payable on the 1st
of August, for the reason that there might be a distress when the crops were on the
ground, so as to enforce the payment, it was clearly for the benefit of the estate; and
whether the tenant for life or the remainder-man might take advantage of it, it
seems to me an entire compliance [470] with the power of leasing contained in the
will. There is no reason to suppose that the testator looked peculiarly to the benefit
either of the tenant for life or of the remainder-man; his anxiety was, that a lease
should be executed which should be consistent with a reasonable management of the
estate, and for the benefit of the person who was in the occupation of the estate,
whoever he might be. There was here just as good a chance that it might be for
the benefit of the remainder-man as for the benefit of the tenant for life. Therefore,
upon reason and upon principle, I have no doubt that the power was well executed.
I am happy to think, that although there was a dictum of Mir. Justice Bayley
referred to, which is not very express or directly in point, and which may be ex-
plained away; yet, on the other hand,-I am sure I speak with the most sincere
respect for Mr. Justice Bayley,-if I am to weigh his authority against that of Mr.
Justice Powell, confirmed by Lord Holt, I must say that his authority does not
amount to an equipoise; and then if we look at principle, I think upon principle it
seems to me, with great respect for the opinion of the dissenting Judges, that this
was clearly a good execution of the power of leasing.
It was then ordered and adjudged by the Lords, etc., that the judgment given in
the Court of Exchequer Chamber, reversing the judgment of the Court of Exchequer,
be reversed: and it was further ordered and adjudged that the original judgment of
the Court of Exchequer be affirmed.
[471] JOHN ROBSON and CATHERINE his Wife, and JOHN AINSLEY and ISA-
BELLA his Wife,-Appelants; HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY-GENERAL,__
Respone@nt [June 27, July 4, 1842; August 18, 1843].
[Mews' Dig. v. 50, 56; vi. 533, 697. S.C. sub nom. Monkton v. A.-G. 2 Russ. and
My. 147.]
Residuary Fun--Righ-t of the Crown-Issue; new Tr'ial-Evidence-Pedigree.
The residuary estate of a testator, who died in 1785, was paid into the Exchequer
in 1794, under a decree in an administration suit, establishing the right of
the Crown thereto, for want of heirs or next of kin of the testator. Parties
claiming title to the fund in both characters in 1825, were permitted to go be-
fore the Master, for the purpose of making out their claim. In support of
their title they produced a narrative in the handwriting of J. T. (found in his
repositories at his death in 1792, not made public in his lifetime), containing
a genealogical account of his family, of which it represented the testator to
have been a member: it purported to be founded chiefly on hearsay. and not](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0916&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)