tract to sell a part of the farm. On a bill
filed by him against the purchaser, for a
specific performance, to which the heir of
the deceased partner was a party, it was
held that the survivor was entitled to sell
the property, and performance was decreed
with a direction that the heir should join in
the conveyance.
id.

13. A bond and mortgage were executed by
three persons to C. on a leasehold property,
the principal value of which consisted in a
white lead manufactory, with steam engine,
machinery and other fixtures, with which
those persons conducted business together.
The premises were insured in the names of
two of them, P. and T. The three deposit-

PATENT.

See TRADE MARKS, 11.

PAYMENT.

MORTGAGE, 33 to 35; 39 to 45; 58, 59.
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT, 3 to 9.

PERPETUITIES.

See WILL, 18 to 25.

Held, that this was evidence of a loan of the
bond and mortgage to C.; and the considera-
tion paid to him by D. was sufficient to sup-
port them against the mortgagors.
Held, also from the nature of the property and
the business conducted, and the joint interest
of the mortgagors, that they were to be 2.
deemed partners; and from this, and his
joining in executing the bond and mortgage
and suffering them to remain with C., that
the third partner was bound by P. and T.'s
transfer of the policy and its consequences.
Day v. Perkins,

359

NERSHIP OF.

See WILL, 36 to 42.

PERSONAL SUCCESSION.

It is an universal principle of jurisprudence
at this day, in civilized countries, that the
succession of personal or movable proper-
ty, wherever situated, is governed exclu-
sively by the law of the country where the
decedent was domiciled at the time of his
death. Suarez v. Mayor, &c. of New York,

173

A decree against the primary administrators
of an intestate, in a suit relative to the suc-
cession of movable property, conducted in
due form and between proper parties, at the
place of his domicil in a foreign country; is
conclusive upon a subsidiary administrator
appointed here, in respect of the rights of
the parties which were therein adjudicated.
id.

This was held of a decree in the Superior
Court of Justice for the District of Cartha-
gena in the republic of New Grenada, esta-
blishing the right of a party as next of kin
of an intestate; the question arising in a
suit by such party to recover assets obtain-
ed by an administrator appointed here. id.
The same right also sustained upon proof
of the laws of succession in New Grenada.

id.

purchaser, pendente lite, of the lands mort-
gaged, filed a bill before a vice-chancellor,
praying for an adjudication that the mort-
gage never was a lien, or if it were that it
belonged to such purchaser, and that the
defendant in such suit from whom he
bought, had a claim to the lands prior to
the mortgage.
id.

6. Where the bill states a mortgage, appar-
ently valid for the whole sum expressed in
it, and then avers that it was given for a
smaller sum previously advanced and also
to secure future advances, the defendant
cannot rely upon one of these averments as
an admission in his favor and at the same
time exclude the other. Craig v. Tappin,

7.

78

The complainant was vested with the title
to certain real estate, in trust for the bene-
fit of himself and various other persons own.
ing unequal and distinct, but undivided
shares therein. He was to employ an agent
or substitute to manage and sell the pro-
perty, and he was not required to act him.
self further than to execute conveyances,
and was to be liable only for gross miscon
duct or neglect.

On a bill filed to settle the accounts of the
trustee, sell the property, reimburse his ad-
vances, and wind up the trust, all the other
shareholders were made defendants, toge-
ther with two persons who had successive-
ly been agents or substitutes of the trustee,
and whose accounts had never been adjus
ted. These persons were also original
shareholders, and the bill sought to have
their accounts settled and closed.
A demurrer to the bill for multifariousness
was overruled. Kent v. Lee,

8.

5. Held accordingly, where after a decree of
foreclosure and sale obtained by default in
a mortgage suit before the chancellor; a

105

10. Where the charter of a corporation, per-
mits its creditors to sue the stockholders
"in any court having cognizance thereof,"

the defendant cannot prove those facts, or
insist upon them, although he has inserted
a general allegation that the contract was
usurious. Holford v. Blatchford, 149

26. In setting up a bankrupt discharge as a
defence in an answer, it is not necessary to
use the same precision, and certainty that
is requisite in a plea. McCabe v. Cooney.

314

27. An answer stating that the defendant
made his application, and showing its
terms; that he then resided in the district
where it was made; that he was a bank-
rupt within the act of congress, and was
owing debts which were not contracted as
executor, &c; that upon regular proceed-
ings had in the District Court he was de-
creed a bankrupt and the decree is still in
force; and that upon further regular pro-
ceedings, he was discharged from his debts
by a decree of the court, and received a
certificate; the certificate of discharge being
then set out at length; was held to be suffi-
cient as a pleading, to establish the defence

clarations or certificates of trust to sundry
persons, by which he acknowledged that
each owned an equal share therein, and
agreed to hold the land in trust for them,
and to exercise a power in trust to sell and
dispose thereof for their benefit, and to di-
vide the proceeds amongst them; and if
directed by them, to allot, and divide and
set apart the land to and among such
owners. The validity of the trusts not
being questioned,

Held, that each holder of a certificate had an
interest in the covenant and powers con.
tained in the same. That the powers were
to be exercised by the declarant personally;
and that he could not delegate them, or
substitute other persons to execute them in
his stead. Suarez v. Pumpelly,

2.

336

1. The court of chancery does not decide up.
on the regularity of the proceedings of the
supreme court. Bradford v. Read, 163

2. Where in a judgment creditor's suit, the
defendant put in issue the return of the ex-
ecution issued out of the supreme court
against his property, and the complainant
produced at the hearing an execution with
a proper return indorsed, which had been
filed nunc pro tunc, as of a day prior to the
commencement of the suit, pursuant to a
rule of that court made on a motion with-
out notice after the issue was joined in the
creditor's suit, on the ground that the origi
nal execution had been lost in its transmis

9. A discharge of the debtor, in bankruptcy
or insolvency, from his debts, pending the
suit, does not operate to discharge or impair
the lien acquired by the commencement of
such a suit. The suit may proceed in rem
although the person and the future assets
of the debtor may in the mean time be ex-
onerated.
id.

10. On an order being made for the appoint-
ment of a receiver in a judgment creditor's
suit, and upon the appointment being com-
pleted, the property subject to the order
vests in such receiver in equity, as of the
date of the order, without the execution of
any transfer or assignment.

id.

11. In regard to movable property liable to
execution at law, although it is subject to
the lien of the creditor, it may be seized on
execution by any other creditor, until the
order for a receiver is made, but not after-
wards; such order being equivalent to an
actual levy on the property.
id.

12. An assignee in bankruptcy may avoid an
assignment executed by the bankrupt in
VOL. II.
88

fraud of his creditors, before the passage of
the bankrupt law; but if a judgment credi-
tor files a bill to set aside the assignment,
before the proceedings in bankruptcy are
instituted, and duly prosecutes his suit; he
thereby acquires a lien which cannot be di-
vested or impaired by the assignee in bank-
ruptcy.
id.

13. This was held in a case where the bill
was filed, the subpoena to answer served,
and the order for a receiver made, before
the petition in bankruptcy was presented
to the U. S. District Court; although no
receiver was appointed until after the
debtor was decreed to be a bankrupt. id.

14 The fund in controversy being in the cus-
tody of the officers of the court, it was or-
dered to be paid to the complainant in the
creditor's suit, in preference to the general
assignee in bankruptcy, it appearing that
the former was entitled to it.

id.

19. An order upon a purchaser under a decree
of foreclosure to complete the sale, made
on a specific objection taken to the title;
does not decide a question of title or of par-
ties, which was not made the ground of ob-
jection, or brought to the consideration of
the court. And such order is not a protec-
tion to the purchaser, against persons hav-
ing vested interests in the equity of re-
demption; who ought to have been, but
were not, made parties to the foreclosure.
Williamson v. Field,

533

20. Chancery will not compel a purchaser in
good faith under its decree, to take a de-
fective title, where the defect is brought to