R. Railroad Company, York and Maryland Line, v. Winans, 17 Howard, 30. ...... v. Thomas, 17 Howard, 3 Silk Hats, Nine Cases of, (United States v.) 17 Howard, 97 Sixty-seven Packages of Dry Goods (United States v.) 17 Howard, 85 Stafford v. New Orleans Canal and Banking Company, 17 Howard, 283. 17 Howard, 275. Union Bank of Louisiana, 16 Howard, 135. State Bank of Ohio v. Knoop, 16 Howard, 369. Steamboat John Jay (Bogart v.) 17 Howard, 399. 350 ..555 U. Udall v. Ohio, Steamship, 17 Howard, 17............. United States (Bruce v.) 17 Howard, 437. (Cervantes v.) 16 Howard, 619. .... v. Nickerson, 17 Howard, 204. ..... v. Nine Cases of Silk Hats, 17 Howard, 97. .390 v. One Package of Merchandise, 17 Howard, 98 .390 v. One Case of Clocks, 17 Howard, 99.. 391. v. Ritchie, 17 Howard, 525... .656 v. Seaman, 17 Howard, 225. ..... .470 v. Sixty-seven Packages of Dry Goods, 17 Howard, 85....... .383 .403 Owings, 17 Howard, 47..... Williams v. Gibbes, 17 Howard, 239. Winans (York and Maryland Line Railroad Company v.) 17 Howard, 30... York and Maryland Line Railroad Company v. Winans, 17 Howard, 30... . 11 20 .350 JOHN H. LEWIS, Appellant, v. SARAH DARLING. 16 H. 1. To a bill to charge a legacy on land of a married woman, she is a necessary party. If this court find a case has merits, but no decree can be made for want of a necessary party, the cause will be remanded to have such party made. Whether a legacy is chargeable on real estate depends on the will of the testator, and if he has blended his realty and personalty into one fund, for this purpose, it is not necessary first to exhaust the personalty before resorting to the realty. Though a court of equity cannot act directly on land not within its jurisdiction, it may compel the holder of the title, who is a party before it, to give effect to a lien. APPEAL from the district court of the United States for the northern district of Alabama. Lewis v. Darling. 16 H. The following is the statement adopted by the court, in their opinion. A bill was filed March 16, 1846, by the appellee against the appellant — alleging, that in the year 1822, one Samuel Betts, a citizen of the State of Connecticut, but transacting business at Havana, in the Island of Cuba, as a partner in the firm of F. M. Arredondo and Son, died at Havana, leaving a will in due form of law, proven [2] and admitted to record in that city, by which he bequeathed to the complainant, Darling, a legacy of $2,500. That Betts left but one child, his daughter Mary, who has since married the defendant Lewis- - and that a tract of several hundred thousand acres of land, in the present State of Florida, was held and owned by the firm, of which Betts was a partner. That by a decree of the proper court of the State of Florida, Lewis, the defendant, has been declared, entitled to 60,000 acres of this land, in right of his wife, the daughter of said Betts, which is worth more than $100,000; that Lewis had also received a deed of conveyance for 15,000 acres of land, valued at $50,000, which was the property of Betts, as a partner of the firm. And, in addition to this, also received large sums of money belonging to Betts's estate. The bill prays, that Exhibit A, (a copy of Betts's will,) and exhibit B, (a copy of the answer of the defendant, Lewis, to a bill filed in the superior court of the district of East Florida, in the now State of Florida, by John Brush "et al." v. Lewis "et al.") be considered parts of the bill. And propounds interrogatories to Lewis. 1. As to whether exhibit A is a correct copy of that which defendant, in the case against him in Florida, had set out in his answer there, as the will of Betts? 2. Whether the original will was in defendant's possession; if not, why, and where it was, and was it admitted to probate in Havana? 3. Whether defendant received any property, lands, or moneys, from the estate of Betts, and if so, whether it was the property of Betts, individually, or as a partner of the firm of Arredondo and Son, and what was its value? 4. Whether exhibit B was a true copy of the answer it purported to be? 5. Whether Joseph Fenwick (who by the will of Betts was appointed executor in the United States) did ever, or did then, reside in Alabama, or where he then resided? 6. What the value of the property was, received by defendant from Betts's estate; when was it received, and what was the rate of interest in Florida and in Cuba? And prays process to procure full answers to the interrogatories, and payment of the legacy, if it appear that the defendant has received from Betts's estate enough to satisfy the complainant. On page 5 of Record, in complainant's exhibit A, will be seen the Lewis v. Darling. 16 H. appointment of Joseph Fenwick as the executor of Betts in the United States, and the legacy bequeathed, as stated in the bill. The residue of the testator's property, after a few minor dispositions, is devised to his only child, the wife of the defendant. Exhibit B, which complainant makes a part of her bill, shows that the large tract of land mentioned in the bill did belong to the firm of Arredondo and Son, of which Betts was a member, and sets out how Lewis, by marriage with the daughter, the [ 3 ] sole heir of Betts, became entitled to a portion of it. Lewis, * in that answer, also states, with regard to the 15,000 acres mentioned in the bill in this case, that, being ignorant of the true rights of his wife, in the year 1831 he agreed with F. M. Arredondo upon the terms of a compromise as to his wife's interest in said lands; by which agreement he and his wife were to receive 15,000 acres, as an undivided portion of the balance of the tract, after certain sales which had been previously made by Arredondo and Son; and, in consideration of which, he and his wife were to relinquish forever, all rights to any further or other portion of said land, by virtue of the interest of Samuel Betts. That a deed was executed by said F. M. Arredondo, conveying to Lewis and wife, 15,000 acres of the land, and signed and delivered to Lewis, but that he and his wife nad refused to execute any deed of release or relinquishment of their interest in said land - alleging as a reason for not doing so, that he ascertained Arredondo had not made full and fair representations of Betts's interest in the land, and had either by mistake, or with fraudulent purpose, made incorrect statements in the recitals of the deed of the sales previously made, and that he (the defendant) had therefore always regarded the said deed of Arredondo to himself and wife as void, and had claimed nothing under it since he ascertained the facts above referred to, and had always refused to carry out the verbal agreement of the compromise; and averring Betts's interest as partner to the extent of one third, in the large tract of land belonging to the firm of Arredondo and Son, he prays a decree for partition of said lands, and that the portion to which he is entitled in right of his wife, when established to the satisfaction of the court, be allotted to him by a decree to that effect. On page 11 of record, is defendant Lewis's first answer to the present bill, in which he totally denies having ever received one cent of value from Betts's estate, either in real, personal, or mixed property. But this answer being objected to as insufficient and evasive, the court below, May 21, 1846, ruled that it was insufficient - but also ruled, that the bill did not allege sufficient matter for equitable relief it not showing that the executor had not paid the legacy, and if it |