Sayfadaki görseller
[blocks in formation]

Larpent v. Sindry, 292.
Lashley v. Hog, 101. 117. 126.

1161. 208.

303. 414.
Lawson v. Kello, 253. 257.260.
Lawson v. Lawson, 338.
Leith v. Hay, 115.
Lewin v. Lewin, 357.
Lloyd v. T'ench, 336.
Lutwyche v. Lutwyche, 325.

Habergham v. Vincent, 227.
Hall v. Macaulay, 248.
Hancock v. Hancock, 357.
Hans Towns v. Jacobson, 112.
Hatton v. Hatton, 320.
Henderson v. Henderson, 403.
Henderson v. Maclean, 99.
Henderson's Bairns v. Murray,

Henry's Demerara case (see

Odwin v. Forbes).
Hensloe's case, 305.
Harvey v. Desbouverie, 361.
Hog v. Lashley, 101. 117. 126.

161. 208. 236.280. 285.351.

366. 391.
Hog v. Thwaytes and others, 133.

Holmes v. Remsen, 245.
Holstein, Duchesse, case of, 181.
Holt v. Frederick, 327.

Macdonald v. Laing, 151.
Machargs v. Blain, 95. 192.
Maitland v. Hoffman,

238. 246.
Maraver, Donna Maria de Vera,

goods of, 295.
Marsh v. Hutchinson, 120.
Maw v. Harding, 334.
Melvil v. Drummond, 88. -
Millie v. Millie, 366. 453. 456,

Milligan v. Milligan, 270.
Moor v. Barham, 335.
Morison v. Earl of Sutherland,

Morrill o. Dickey, 116.

Morris v. Burroughs, 360.
Morris v. Wright, 100.
Morrison's assignees v. Watt,

238. 246.
Mortimer v. Lorimer, 97. 102:
Munroe v. Douglas, 152. 182.

Murray v. Smith, 219.

Rex v. Raines, 32. 320.
Rich v. Rich, 357.
Rob v. French, 255—260.
Royal Bank of Scotland v. Scott,

Smith, Stein, and Co. 239.
Robertson v. Gilchrist, 272.
Robertson v. Macvean, 220.
Robertson v. Robertson, 219.
Russel v.

Rutter v. Rutter, 356.

Nasmyth v. Hare, 91. 283.
Neale v. Cottingham, 234.
Newland's executors v. Chal.

mers's trustees, 221.
Newsome v. Bowyer, 363.
Norbury v. Richards, 335.
Northey v. Strange, 360.

Odwin v. Forbes, 76. 181. 240.
Ommanney and others v. Bing-

ham (Sir Charles Douglas's

case), 152. 161. 468.
Onslow v. Onslow, 107. 181.

310. 350. 351. 356.
Otto v. Lewis, 115.

Saul v. his Creditors, 147.
Scarth v. Bishop of London, 280.
Shaw v. Lewins, 89.
Sill v. Worswick, 165. 232–235.
Simons v. Milman, 306.
Smith v. Milles, 305.
Snelling's case, 28.
Solomons v. Ross, 234.
Somerville v. Somerville, 46.105.

107./168. 198, 199. 212.
Stein's case, 239.
Steuart v. Macdonald, 272.
Stanley v. Bernes, 277.290.297.

Stanley v. Stanley, 36. 332. 333.
Stapleton v. Sherrard, 341.
Strothers v. Reid, 236.
Suffolk, Duchess of, her case,

332. 380.

Palmer v. Garard, 323.
Parish v. Rhones, 236.
Paterre, Marquis de, case of, 181.
Petit v. Smith, 320.
Pett v. Pett, 32. 334.
Pewtress v. Thorold, 236.
Phillips and another v. Hunter

and others, 235.
Pickering v. Stamford, 47.
Pipon v. Pipon, 103. 108—125.

279. 309, 310.
Pool v. Wishaw, 335.
Potinger v. Wightman, 196.
Potter v. Brown, 237.
Pratt v. Pratt, 325.
Purvis v. Chisholm, 85. 312.

Thomson v. Tabor, 236.
Thorne v. Watkins, 103–112.

114. 116. 125. 309. 310. 404.

Thornbrough v. Baker, 363.
Tiffin v. Tiffin, 363.
Tomkyns v. Ladbroke, 402.
Tourton v. Flower, 305.
Trent and Brown v. Duff, 258.
Trotter v. Trotter, 219.

Vasie v. Glover, 236.
Veitch v. Irving, 267.

Read, Lieut. Col., goods of, 294.
Redshaw v. Brasier, 356.
Rex v. Inhabitants of Barton

Turfe, 199.
Rex v. Inhabitants of Oulton,


Wilkinson v. Atkinson, 338.
Wallace, Robert Alex. Paterson,

case of, 201. 275.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Page 232. line 25., for “ remembrances,” read “ incumbrances."

364. line 1., for “ Sir James Stewart,” read “ Sir John Nisbet."
384. note (o), for “ Ovory,read “ Ivory."

* The case of Doe on the demise of Birtwhistle v. Vardill
(noticed p. 86.) has again attracted the attention, which is due to its
importance, as a question of international law. -- On the 2d of
September, 1835, the House of Lords, on the motion of Lord
Brougham, ordered the cause to be further argued before the
Judges in the next Session.





THERE is no branch of the law of more general interest, than that which relates to the right of Succession in moveable, or personal estate. In modern times, this species of property has attained to a degree of importance which was formerly unknown, by reason of the vast increase of the public securities of the nation, and of its agriculture, commerce, and manufactures.

It is now the general rule, in every part of the realm (a), that the law of that part of the kingdom in which the person dying possessed of personal estate had his residence, or legal domicil, at the time of his death, shall regulate the right of succession to such personal estate. This rule, in regard to the domicil, was not assented to or fixed in Scotland without much inquiry, and many conflicting decisions, in the courts of law of that country.

The other rules of the law of succession in personal

(a) It will be seen in the sequel, that an exception must be made in regard to the succession of a freeman of London, under the custom of

that city.


estate differ widely in the several parts of the kingdom, in England and in Scotland; and there is this peculiarity in regard to this branch of the law, that, by a permanent change of residence, a person may effeet the greatest alterations upon the rights of himself, and of those who are most nearly connected with him. In this respect, the conflicting rules in the law of succession in personal estate are more inconvenient, than those relating to the succession in real estate. While, in regard to the former, the rules of law are subject to the most important alterations as the owner changes his domicil; it has never been matter of dispute that, in regard to the latter, they remain fixed and permanent, and attached to the property.

A very considerable period has elapsed since two distinguished writers on the law of Scotland, Sir John Nisbet of Dirleton and Sir James Stewart, had pointed out what appeared to them to be defects in this branch of the law, and the expediency that then existed of effecting changes upon it in some important particulars. But in after times this expediency of a change ceased to attract the attention which the subject merited. (6)

In England many important alterations have been made upon the law of succession in personal estate in modern times; but in Scotland the law remains now nearly as it has stood from an early period, while the circumstances of the country have changed very materially, augmenting in


(6) Under the title, “ If a mother and her friends may succeed,Sir John Nisbet asks (Direleton's Doubts, p. 129.), “ If in no case cognati

the mother's side can succeed ?” and he answers, “ It is thought “ that they ought to succeed.” .“ But in this our custom is lame, “ and opus est vel constitutione vel decisione.” Sir James Stewart, in his Answers to Dirleton's Doubts (p. 210.), assents to the view taken by Dirleton of the lameness of the custom, and adds, eget constitutione," probably being of opinion that no judicial decision could remedy what he considered to be defective.

« ÖncekiDevam »