The opinions thus given on the points of law entirely coincided with those given by Lord Hardwicke in the English cases already noticed. The judgment was a simple affirmance of the decision which had been pronounced by the Court of Session.

Upon this point (the form of the judgment) it may admit of some doubt, if the views taken by the most eminent person who then presided in the House of Lords, were altogether free from objection. The interlocutors of the Court of Session, on the face of them, appeared to be founded on two legal doctrines, as of equal weight; one, the domicil of Major Bruce in a country subject to the laws of England; the other, the lex loci rei site. It was meant that the judgment of the House of Lords should have affirmed one of these doctrines, and negatived the other; but, by a simple affirmance of the interlocutors, it appeared upon the record as if both members of the decision of the Court of Session had been affirmed. (g) Happily the opinions delivered by the Lord Chancellor were preserved in an authentic shape (h), and were acted on in the other

Of ninety-one continental writers on the subject of the conflict of laws, quoted or referred to by the American jurists, Livermore and Story, a large proportion is not to be found in these libraries; but, except six, I see them all marked in the catalogue of that admirable repertory of books of law, the Library of the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh. Our present object is rather to see what has been done in our own courts, than to weigh the opinions of the continental writers.

The English cases cited were those of Pipon v. Pipon, Thorne v. Watkins, Kilpatrick v. Kilpatrick, noticed above; and the case of Burne v. Cole, to be afterwards noticed.

(g) In Morrison, 4618., when mentioning the affirmance, no notice whatever is taken of the grounds upon which the House of Lords proceeded in this cause. Thus it stood on the face of the reported decisions in Scotland, as an affirmance founded upon both the grounds stated in the judgment of the Court of Session.

(h) The speech of Lord Thurlow is given in a note to the case of

cases which soon after followed this, and which also attracted great attention.

The first of these cases was that of Hog v. Lashley (i), which, for the variety and extent of the points decided in it, and in other cases arising out of it, is the most important which has occurred upon this branch of the law in either country. Roger Hog was a native of Scotland, and went to London at an early period of life, where he settled in business as a merchant and banker. In 1737 he married Rachel Missing, an English lady, in England. Previous to the marriage of the parties, articles were executed, by which, in consideration of the lady's fortune, amounting to 3500l. and upwards, Roger Hog covenanted to lay out a sum of 2500l., part of the said sum of 3500l., or any further sum, if the same should be wanting, in the purchase of messuages, lands, tenements, and hereditaments, of the clear yearly value of 100l., in any county in England, and to settle the same to William Rickman and Thomas Missing, as trustees, for the use of Roger Hog for life; after the determination of that estate, to the trustees to preserve contingent remainders; " and from and after the decease of the said Roger Hog to the use and benefit of the said Rachel Missing his intended wife, for and during the course of her natural life; and from and after the several deceases of the said Roger Hog and Rachel Missing, his intended wife, then to the use and behoof of such child or children of the body of the said Rachel Missing by the said Roger Hog lawfully to be begotten, and for such uses, intents, and purposes only,

Marsh v. Hutchinson, 2 Bos. & Pull. 229. It is given above from the short-hand writer's notes.

(i) Fac. Coll., 7th June, 1791, Morrison, 4619. 7th May, 1792.

House of Lords,

and for such estate or estates, either in fee simple, fee tail general, life, lives, for years, or other estate whatsoever, whether absolute or conditional, and charged with such yearly or other sum or sums of money, annuities, and rent charges, as the said Rachel Missing, the intended wife of the said Roger Hog, during her coverture with the said Roger Hog, and notwithstanding her coverture, whether she be sole or married, by any deed or deeds, writing or writings, under her hand and seal, testified by three or more credible witnesses, or by her last will and testament in writing, so attested as aforesaid, shall from time to time. direct, limit, nominate, and appoint; and in default of such direction, limitation, nomination, or appointment, then to the use and behoof of all and every the children, if more than one, of the body of the said Rachel Missing by the said Roger Hog her intended husband lawfully to be begotten, to be equally divided between them, share and share alike; and for default of such issue to the use and behoof of the heirs and assigns of the said Rachel Missing, the intended wife of the said Roger Hog, for ever."

After the marriage certain premises were bought at Kingston in Surrey, for the purposes specified in the marriage articles, which were conveyed to the trustees of the articles. Of this marriage there were several children; and Mrs. Hog having conveyed the estate at Kingston to her eldest son Thomas, it was sold when he came of age, and the purchase money was received by the father.

In 1752, Mr. Hog, the father, who had acquired a considerable fortune in London, purchased the estate of Newliston in Scotland. From that period he began to reside during part of his time in Scotland. His residences in that country became longer by degrees; and, for a number of years before his death, he was clearly domiciled in Scotland.

In 1760, Mrs. Hog died at her husband's house of New

liston, in Scotland, leaving three sons, Thomas, Roger, and Alexander, and three daughters, Rebecca, Rachel, and Mary. At this period the bulk of Mr. Hog's personal estate was in England, where he continued to carry on business, and had a share in a banking house.

In 1766, Rebecca, the eldest daughter, intermarried with Mr. Thomas Lashley, a native of Barbadoes, and then a student of medicine at Edinburgh. No settlement was made at the time of this marriage; it was an imprudent match; but Mr. Hog signified his consent to give his daughter 2000l., if the father of Mr. Lashley would settle an equal sum upon his son. This proposal did not take effect. Mr. Hog had advanced to Mr. Lashley 7007., and in 1775 he executed a bond of provision for 1300l., as the remainder of a portion of 2000l. intended for Mrs. Lashley, payable to her, and after her death to her children of the marriage, or, in the event of her predecease, to her heirs or assignees, at the first term of Whitsunday or Martinmas after the grantor's death. This bond excludes Mr. Lashley's jus mariti, and is declared to be "in full contentation to the said Rebecca Hog, my daughter, of all portion natural, legitim, bairns' part of gear, or other claim or demand from me, or from my heirs and executors, in and through my decease, or through the death of Mrs. Rachel Missing deceased, my spouse, excepting good will allenarly." At the same time Mr. Hog executed similar bonds of provision for 2000l. each to his two unmarried daughters.

On the subsequent marriages of these two daughters regular settlements were executed, in which they respectively acknowledged the receipt of the provisions settled upon them by their father at the time, which they "accepted in full satisfaction of all they could ask or demand by and through his decease, or the decease of their mother, in name of legitim or otherwise;" and released and discharged

him of all claims and demands in respect of the same accordingly, his own good will only excepted.

It was stated by both parties in this cause, that the two younger sons, Roger and Alexander, when setting out in business, had accepted of certain provisions from their father, and had respectively released him of all claims for legitim or otherwise. This statement was not disputed in

the cause, and it came to be decided without any question as to the rights of these younger brothers; but important questions afterwards arose, in regard to the import of the transactions which had actually taken place between Roger Hog the father and his son Alexander, which formed the subject of discussion in the Court of Session; and an appeal to the House of Lords. (k)

Roger Hog afterwards advanced 300l. further to Mr. and Mrs. Lashley in 1779, and in 1785 granted her an additional bond of provision for 2007.; and he also granted further bonds of provision for 500l. each to his two younger daughters. The bonds of provision granted for Mrs. Lashley's benefit appear to have remained in the hands of the father, but he had distinctly communicated his intentions to her and her husband. In 1770 he directed Mrs. Lashley to draw for 2601., as four years' by gone interest on 1300l., the then remainder of her 2000l.; and to draw annually on his house in London for 651. of interest. This she did regularly down to the month of January before her father's death, her bills expressing that they were "to be placed to account of Roger Hog, Esquire, for one year's interest due to me to the 31st December last."

In 1787 he executed an entail of his estate of Newliston in Scotland, in favour of his eldest son, and a certain

K