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/ssactsengr0361 and id is 1 raw text is: CAMBIASO V. NEGROTTO
accommodate both families. But should [439] the parties in question unfortunately
be on such a footing as to render their common occupancy of one and the same pew
grating to the feelings of both, or either, it may not, perhaps, under the circumstances,
be quite improper that the churchwardens should convert this into two pews. Each
of such pews would be capable of holding five or six persons. Mr. Kelsey might be
seated in the one of these pews, and Mr. Lane in the other. To this it should seem
that there could be no reasonable objection; although of the exact state of the parish
in all its details the Court is not in possession of sufficient information to be enabled
to form a very decided opinion on this part of the case. It can only, therefore, in
conclusion, recommend the churchwardens generally to act impartially in the premises
between. these and all parties; subject to the principles just laid down. In the
performance of this part of their.duty they will be assisted by the advice, though
they are not governed by the authority, of the minister.
CAMBIASO v. NEGROTTO. Prerogative Court, Hilary Term, 1st Session, 1825. -
Qumere whether, even on grants of administration to foreigners of the property
of foreigners generally, the administrator is not compellable to give bond here
in England, with two sureties, British subjects, for the due administration of
the effects.
(On motion.)
In this case administration with the will annexed of a Genoese subject had been
decreed to the committee of a lunatic, the residuary legatee named in the said will
[440] (there being no executor), for his use and benefit. The parties interested in the
effects apparently were all Genoese subjects; all resident at Genoa. A question
however had been mooted whether the committee were not compellable to give bond
with two sureties, British subjects here in England, for the due administration of the
effects, in the usual penalty, namely, in the double amount of the effects to be
administered ; such sureties to justify (this being also, in the particular case, further
requisite). And the Court had expressed itself as strongly inclined to doubt whether
a mere bond given at Genoa, with Genoese sureties (parties wholly out of its reach
and control), would be that sufficient bond, which the ordinary is required to take
on grants of administration, by statute 22 and 23 Car. II. c. 10.
Some arguments had been addressed to the Court by counsel on a preceding
Court-day against the necessity of compelling the administrator to give bond, &c.
here, at least in the present case; which was under special circumstances: (a) as with
reference to which,
The Court now said that it should dispense with sureties being found in this
country in the particular instance: intimating at the same time considerable doubts
whether it ought not to require this in cases of foreign grants generally.
[441] BROODEN v. BROWN. Prerogative Court, Hilary Term, 4th Session, 1825.-
Lucid intervals are much easier to be proved, as they are much more likely to
occur, in cases of delirium than in those of (proper) insanity. And proof of much
less capacity is sufficient to sustain a testamentary paper of an officious
character procured through unsuspected agency than is necessary to sustain a
testamentary paper of an opposite description in those particulars, one or both.
The rule that where capacity is at all doubtful there must be direct proof of
instructions only applies, with any degree of stringency, where the instrument
is inofficious; and obtained through parties whom it purports, materially,
to benefit.
This was a question respecting the legal validity of a testamentary paper, pro-
pounded as the last will and testament of Mary Jones, deceased. It was opposed
as by reason that the deceased was not of testamentary capacity at the time when
the paper was executed. The circumstances of the case are fully stated in the
judgment: in which the Court distinguished cases of delirium from those of (proper)
(a) For instance, the party deceased had died testate: so that the bond was not
exacted by force of 22 and 23 Car. II. c. 10. The party too had been dead upwards
of seventeen years: so that the creditors probably were all satisfied. Lastly, the
committee was the lunatic's eldest son, so appointed by the Courts of Genoa; who
probably had taken bond for the faithful discharge of his duties, &c., &c.
2 ADD. 439.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0361&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)