at the age of twenty-one years complete." This receipt

Alexander transmitted to his father.

At the period when he made this payment to Alexander, the father made this entry in his journal: "31st October 1768. Profit and loss 1500l., for so much given him" (Alexander Hog) "as his portion or patrimony from me, and for which I have his discharge in full of all demand in my charter chest. 1500l." On repeated occasions afterwards Alexander expressed his gratitude for what had been thus done for him.

In March 1779, Alexander borrowed from his father a sum of 2000l.; and, in September 1780, a further sum of 2000l. For these two sums Alexander granted bonds to his father in the English form.

Afterwards the father had formed the resolution of discharging these bonds to Alexander, in lieu of a provision of 4000l. which he had intended for him. Accordingly, on the 30th of December 1783, he executed a deed, in which, after reciting the bonds, he proceeded thus: "And now seeing, for the love, favour, and affection I have and bear to my said son, and for several other weighty causes and considerations moving me, I am resolved, in lieu of a provision of 4000l., which I intended to have given the said Alexander Hog, my son, to discharge the foresaid two bonds granted by him to me for the sum of 2000l. sterling each, amounting together to the sum of 4000l. sterling, being equal to the foresaid provisions intended to have been given by me to my said son, and that besides what sum or sums of money I may have already given him, and also besides what provisions I may hereafter think proper to give or bequeath to him, by any deed or deeds to be hereafter granted by me: Therefore wit ye me to have exonered," &c. This deed contained a power to alter, a clause dispensing with the delivery, and a declaration that the money advanced should be in full of all legitim, dead's

part, portion natural, or bairn's part of gear. It never was communicated to Alexander Hog, but remained in Mr. Roger Hog's repositories at the time of his death.

Alexander Hog's bankruptcy occurred after the date of the above deed, and his father proved upon his estate for the two 20007. bonds and interest, and took his first dividend of 4s. in the pound, amounting to 8187. 1s. 4d., upon the debt.

upon

After the father's death, in March 1789, the above-mentioned discharge, having been found in his repositories, was, by the directions of Mr. Thomas Hog, the executor, delivered to Mr. Thwaytes, the acting assignee Alexander's estate, who granted a receipt for it, on a copy of the deed, in the following terms: "London, 30th April 1789. Received by me, assignee under the statute of bankruptcy of Alexander Hog, grocer, of London, from Thomas Hog esq., of Newliston, by the hands of Mr. John Robertson, writer in Edinburgh, a discharge granted by Roger Hog of Newliston, esq., to the said Alexander Hog, of which the three preceding pages is an exact copy." And Alexander Hog made and signed a memorandum at the bottom of the above receipt, in the following terms: "London, 30th April 1789. I approve of the above-mentioned discharge having been delivered to my assignees."

The assignees afterwards proceeded to divide the assets of the bankrupt, without paying or setting apart any dividend corresponding to the debt of 4000l., to which the discharge related.

Soon after the decision in the appeal between Thomas Hog and Mrs. Lashley, Alexander Hog and his assignees brought an action in the Court of Session in Scotland against Thomas Hog, in which they claimed 15,000l., for Alexander's share, as one of the nearest of kin of his mother, of the goods in communion between his father and mother at the time of her death, on 18th February 1760,

and of the estate, heritable and moveable, to which she had right, as the same was intromitted with by her husband; and also the farther sum of 15,000l. for Alexander's share of the personal estate of his father, on the 19th of March 1789, or such other sums, less or more, as should be found to be due to Alexander, for his share of the estate of his father and mother, with interest on each sum from the date on which it should have been paid, till payment.

Mr. Thomas Hog thereupon raised a multiplepoinding in the same court, taking notice of the depending action at the instance of Mrs. Lashley and her husband, and concluding that the several parties claiming should have their preferences adjusted, and that the persons found best entitled should be preferred by decree of the court.

The Lord Ordinary pronounced the interlocutor which is usual in multiplepoindings, finding "the raiser of the multiple-poinding liable in once and single payment," and remitting the multiplepoinding to the previous process, to be discussed therein ob contingentiam. The whole depending actions were then conjoined; and Mrs. Lashley and her husband on the one hand, and Alexander Hog and his assignees on the other, discussed two questions which appeared to be of chief importance between them; 1st, whether Alexander had released the father in his lifetime; 2d, whether the estate of the father had been released by any thing done after the father's death.

In the course of these proceedings Mrs. Lashley, at a hearing of the cause, advanced a new argument, namely, that she had right to the whole legitim by the judgment of the court, affirmed by the House of Lords; that this judgment had proceeded upon the uniform averment made by Thomas Hog that Alexander had renounced; and that Thomas Hog might nevertheless be liable to the assignees of Alexander Hog for such share of the legitim as Alexander might have been entitled to, if he had not renounced.

The Court, after a discussion of these points, decided, "That Mr. Hog, the raiser of the multiplepoinding, was liable only in once and single payment; and that Alexander Hog's claim of legitim was not cut off during the life of his father, nor by what passed after his father's death; and therefore sustained his claim, and remitted to the Lord Ordinary to proceed accordingly, and to do further in the cause as he should see just."

Against this judgment, Mrs. Lashley and her husband brought their appeal, calling as parties only the assignees of Alexander Hog, he having died in the meantime. When the appeal came on to be heard in the House of Lords on the 5th of March 1802, it appeared to their Lordships that Mr. Hog ought to have been made a party, to defend that part of the interlocutor which found him liable in only once and single payment, as to which some doubts were expressed by the Lord Chancellor and Lord Thurlow. Leave was accordingly given to amend the appeal. Mr. Hog was made a party, and gave in a printed case upon his part; this he confined entirely to the question, whether or not he was liable only in once and single payment.

The cause came on to be argued in this amended shape on the 29th of April 1802, and counsel was also heard for Mr. Hog in support of that part of the interlocutor which found him liable in once and single payment.

After the cause had been fully argued, Lord Eldon, Lord Chancellor, on the 24th June 1802, made a speech in the cause, and on his motion the following judgment was pronounced: (0)

(0) Notes of the Lord Chancellor's speech were preserved in this case, which are also given in the Appendix.

From a memorandum made by me at the hearing of this cause, I see the Lord Chancellor said, "I have always considered it a great defect

"Ordered and adjudged, That the interlocutors complained of, in so far as they found that Alexander Hog's claim of legitim was not cut off during the lifetime of his father, should be affirmed; and that the said interlocutors should be reversed in so far as they found that Alexander Hog's claim of legitim was not cut off by what passed after his father's death, and in so far as they sustained the said claim; and it was thereby declared and found, that the assignees of the bankruptcy of the said Alexander Hog were competent to release such claim, and that it appeared by facts proved in this cause that they had released it; and it was further ordered and adjudged, that, as to the rest, the said interlocutors should be affirmed, and the cause be remitted back to the Court of Session to proceed accordingly."

Simultaneously with this cause between the assignees of Alexander Hog and the other parties, the remaining questions in the important cause between Mrs. Lashley and Mr. Hog proceeded in the Court of Session. The following points were still to be discussed and decided between the parties in that cause:-1. In regard to the domicil of Mr. Roger Hog at the dissolution of the marriage by the death of Mrs. Hog in 1760; 2. Admitting that Mr. Hog had at that period a Scotch domicil, whether the rights of Mrs. Hog and her next of kin were to be regulated by the law of Scotland or by the law of England, she being an English woman, and having been married in England; 3. As to the effect of the marriage articles between Mr. and Mrs. Hog, and the provisions thereby covenanted to

in your legal practice that you do not take money into the hands of the court, as we do in this country." Apparently the appointment of an accountant-general, subject to the directions of the Scottish courts, would introduce a great improvement upon this branch of practice. In this way also immediate access might be had by litigants in Scotland to