« 이전계속 »
Searching at the judges' chambers for plea and}
L. 9. d. Term fee of term of which declaration delivered og 6 Searching for copy writ on appearance 0 1 8
0 1 consent rule Attending to sign consent rule
0 1 8 Copy sent
0 0 6 Drawing and ingrossing writ of possession, on
Oli 6 a single demise Term fee and letters
0 6 6 For defendant. Searching if ejectment moved
0 1 8 Drawing consent rule and copy to sign
0 1 6 Attending to sign same
0 1 The rest as in common cases.
0 1 8 Instructions to counsels in common cases
1 6 Attending him and court
1 8 If one guinea or upwards paid
3 Common affidavits, duty and oath
0 6 1 Entering up judgment on warrant of attorney
2 12 6 (including warrant) Abbreviating affidavits and copy, per folio 0 0 2
for plaintiff. Instructions to sue and filing warrant
0 S 4 Instructions for precipe
0 3 4 Drawing precipe for special original, and copy
0 0 6 for cursitor, per folio Fee on original
0 3 Fee on capais, testatum capias, &c.
0 1 8 Ingrossing capais, &c. per folio
0 0 2 Returning and filing original
0 1 4
On the Disuse of Attornments.
laneous part of your excellent and instructive month
ly publication to insert corrections of legal works, I re, quest the favour of your inserting in the next number a few observations on a passage of Mr. Watkin's Principles of Conveyancing, p. 100.
It is there stated that “ the reasons however for attorna “ment having in a great measure,ceased. From the change “ of manners, and the decline of feudal principles, attorn“ ment is now rendered unnecessary to the completion of “ a grant.” This passage implies that the ground of attornments not being unnecessary is, that the reasons which gave birth to them no longer exist, and that the rule cessante Ratione cessat et ipsa ler is applicable ; but this is certainly incorrect, and I apprehend that when a rule is once established it will continue, though the reasons on which it is founded have ceased. As an illustra, tion of this position, the rules of descent still remain though the reasons of these rules have long since ceased.
The real cause of the disuse of attornments is, that they are expressly made unnecessary by act of Parliament,
On the Practice of conveying to, and to the Use of a Trustce,
to the Use or in Trust for Cestui que Trust. MR. EDITOR, I REQUEST you will do me the favour to insert in
your work a few remarks, relative to & practico of creating trust-estates, which is very prevalent, but, in my opinion, very erroneous,
When it is the intention to give only a trust- ostate, it is very common to convey to the releasee, to the use of the releasee, to the use of or in trust for the person to take the trust. A gentleman wbo has written very ably on that branch of the law, which relates most particularly to conveyancing, is of the opinion which I entertain on the sube ject.* He says, “ If it be the intention to give E. F. and * his heirs a trust, it would be prudent to give the estate to
See I'atkins's Conveyance, p. 75, note.
“ A B. and his beirş, to the use of C. D. and his beirs, “ to the use of or in trust for E. F. and his heirs; for if " the use was given to A. B. it might be open to the " objection that he would be in by the common law, and
so the limitation of the use to hini aod bis heirs, be nugatory, and that, of consequence, the limitation of “ E. F. would in such case be, in fact, the first use, and " executable by tbe statute.” Now, with respect to the above quotation, it appears to me that the assertion that "A.B.wopld be in by the common law,"is in fact begging the question. If A. B. is in by the common law, of.course, the limitation over must be a trust or use executed by the statute, he being seised to the use of E. F. The learned author did not mention the reason on which his opinion was founded. To supply that omission, and to endeavour to shew that A. B. would be in of the common law, and that the practice of conveying to add to the use of the releasee to the use of or io trust for another person, when it is the intent of the parties to give him a trust-estate only, is erroneous, are the objects of this communication.
Many inconveniences were found to exist in the reign of Hen. VIII. from the practice of conveying estates to uses; to apply a remedy, and to restore the old common law, the stat 32 Hen. VIII. was passed. Now, it being the intention of the legislature, in passiog that act, to put atates on the same footing as they were, prior to the introduction of 'uses, it would follow that, where a person was seised to his own use, his estate would not be affected by the statute ; for that was the same as at the common law.. The limitation to his own use made no alteration ; it was giving him a part when he had previously taken the wbale. It be could have taken both a legal and equitable estate under the common law limitation, it would bave been mere uplusage to give him again the equitable estate. It is like giving a power of leasing or joióturing to a person in a conveyance by which be bas previously taken the fee-simple absolute. Then, for what purpose it may probably be asked could, the practice be introduced, of limitting an estate to the use of the releasee? The answer is, to obviate the presumption which might have arisen, ibat the use could result to the releasor. By the letter of the statule, the use is prevented from being executed, when limited to the releasee; for the words are“ when a person, &c. i seised in the use of any other persons, &c.”
80 that the releasee and cestui que use must be differcat persons. The releasee being then in at the common law, and the use limited to him being mere surplusage, except only to obviate the presumption of a resulting use to the grantor, he is seised to the use of the person who it was meant should take a trust .estate, and consequently that person would take a use executed by the statule.
I shall only add that the reader will find much intormation on the subject of this communication in a very valuable edition of Lord Bacon's reading on the statute of uses lately published.
On the New Series of Reports in Chancery,
TO THE EDITOR OF THE LAW JOURNAL.
SIR, I WILL, with your permission, through the medium of
your Journal, put a question to the author of the present Reports in Chancery.
I should be happy to be informed for what reason Mr. Vesey (after having gone through eight volumes, and two of them in octavo size) should choose to stop and call the following, which ought properly to be the ninth, volume, vul. 1, pt. 1, of a new series? He says “it is judged expedient to continue thein in a New Series with a view to the general convenience of the profession."!!!Now so far from its being a convenience, I find it productive of great confusion, there being already Vesey, Senior's Reports in Chancery, as well as his. By making this division, therefore, we must distinguish the first part, I suppose, by calling it " the Old Series of Vesey, Junior." This, besides disjointing the work at an aukward place, makes it particularly inconvenient to the purchasers of the former volumes. He says “the distinction of New Series will, it is presumed, obviale any difficulty of reference.” Now the very words New Series cre. ate all the difficulty; for, on looking at the first part of the seventh volume, as published by Brooke, I find that that is also called a New Series, from the report having been theq first begun to be published in a smaller size, a change which was certainly judicious. Mr. V-y must have been misled by his bookseller, for certainly his own judgment could not thus bave erred.
W King's Bench Walk, Temple, March 18th, 1805.
Heads on the inquiring into the Conduct of ADMIRAL
Byng. For the Defence of Administration. We have been favoured with the following paper by :
gentleman; to whom the profession is indebted in on small degree, for the illustration of some of the most important points in the law of real property, and who in the midst of an extensive practice which would overwhelm a less ardent mind has always found leisure to collect and to communicate a vast store of general knowledge. He probably thought that any authentic paper from the pen of Lord Hardwicke must be valuable to the profession, who must revere his character and admire the extent of his powers; and although this is not exactly of the class of papers which we should generally wish to collect from among the remains of the great lawyers, yet we willingly insert it, in the hope that it may be useful in its way.
The 11th of March, 1756, Vice Admiral Byng received an order froin the lords of the Admiralty, to repair to Portsmouth, and take under his cominand ten ships of the line, and to get them ready for sea with all possible dispatch. Orders bad been before given in the most pressing manner to get those and all our other ships in readiness; and every method was put in practice for procuring seamen to man them. These ships in conjunction with those which were in the Mediterranean under Commodore Edgecombe, were intended to oppose the attempts of the Toulon Fleet, whether destined for America, against Minorcu, or any other place; which was then uncertain, Mr. Byng knew before he went to Portsmouth, that the Toulon feet, according lo the general sun of intelligence, was to consist of twelve ships of the live and five frigates.
Mr. Secretary For, 2016, of March, 1756, which was