JUSTICE COURTS-JURISDICTION OF
The Act of 1856, enlarging the jurisdiction of Jus-
tices' Courts to demands not exceeding fifty dollars,
includes demands sued for by attachment, as much as
demands sued for by ordinary process. Barrett et al.,
vs. Black, Cobb & Co.,
See Distribution of Estates, 8.
If a trustee collude with a third person, to defraud his
cestui que trust, the statute of limitations does not be-
gin to run until after the fraud is discovered. Walker
vs. Walker, adm'r,`
See Adm'rs and Ex'ors, 8.
A contract by the Express Company for the transporta-
tion of mailable matter, over the usual mail route be-
tween cities in the United States, unless it be such
matter as is excepted from the prohibitions in the Acts
of Congress, is void, and the Company has no lien
growing out of such contracts. Hill vs. Mitchell,
1. A will directing the executor, after the payment of
the debts of the testator, which were small, and the
estate, independent of the negro property, ample to
discharge them, to remove the testator's slaves to some
free State, to be selected by the executor, and there to
set them free, is not contrary to the laws of this State,
nor within the Acts of 1801 and 1818, prohibiting
manumission in this State, except by the sanction of
the Legislature. BENNING, J. dissenting. Sanders vs.
Ward et al.,
2. F. J. Walker, by the 2d item of his will, directed
his executors to send to the Colony in Liberia, in Afri-
ca, at the expense of his estate, certain slaves therein
named. By the 4th item of the will, the executors
were authorized, without any order from any Court, to
sell at public or private sale, for cash or on credit, in
their discretion, any and all of testator's property, real
and personal, and any or all of his slaves, except those
specially directed to be colonized, in order to carry out
testator's wishes. And by the 5th item of the will, the
entire proceeds of the estate is to be invested in such
manner as the executors may see fit, and transferred to
the American Colonization Society, to be held by them
in trust for the maintenance and support of the seven
slaves specified and their descendants.
Held, That the trust created by this will in favor of the
slaves to be colonized in Africa, was valid; but one
which could not be executed by the American Coloni-
zation Society under their charter.
Walker, ex❜ors,
3. The trust being legal, and the cestui que trusts capa-
ble of taking, the Chancellor will appoint the executors,
or some other fit and proper persons, to carry the trust
into effect. BENNING, J. dissenting. Id.
1. Calvin B. Curchill conveyed by deed to Benjamin E.
Gilstrap and Drury Corker, in trust for his wife, Mary
Churchill, certain slaves, to have and to hold said
slaves, together with all their future increase, unto his
said wife, Mary, her heirs, executors, administrators
and assigns forever; the said Calvin B. Churchill re-
serving to himself the use of the said negroes, during
his natural life, free from charge, let, hire or hindrance;
the said Calvin B. Churchill to work, use, occupy and
enjoy the profits arising from their labor, free from
any accountability whatever; but said negroes and
their increase subject to any disposition the said Mary
Churchill may think proper to make, at or after her
death, either by will, deed, or otherwise.
Held, 1st. That by this deed, the marital rights of the
husband to the property embraced in it were excluded,
except as to the enjoyment of the property during his
life. Beyond this, the dominion over the property by
the husband was extinguished; his power of aliena-
tion was gone; so his power of disposition by will; so
its inheritable quality from him. 2d. The wife dying
first, she had the right to dispose, of her separate pro-
perty in the slaves by will, which was the remainder
after her husband's death. 3d. Had the wife survived
the husband, the trust would, eo instanti, have become
executed by the vesting of the absolute title in her.
Had she died first, without having exercised the power
of appointment, the property would have gone to the
husband, as her heir at law. As it now stands, it vests
in her personal representative. Churchill et al., vs. Cor-
ker, adm'r,
2. There is nothing in the words of this will, which
would prevent the wife from disposing of this property
by will, as she has done. Id.
3. The administrator with the will annexed, and not the
trustees, are the proper parties to institute suit for the
recovery of this property. Id.
1. Constructive notice of an unrecorded marriage settle-
ment is sufficient to bind a bona fide purchaser, a bona
fide creditor, or a bona fide surety, under the Act of
1847 requiring marriage settlements to be recorded.
Cummin vs. Boston & Gunby.
2. Such notice as would excite apprehension in ordina-
ry minds and prompt enquiry, is constructive no-
tice. Id.
3. Marriage settlements, when there is any doubt in re-
gard to their construction, must be expounded so as to
give effect to the intention of the parties, and the word
"issue" is often used as a word of purchase, and must
be frequently so interpreted. Lafitte vs. Lawton.
4. A marriage settlement was entered into between A. B.
L., the husband, and M. E. B., the wife, by which the
wife's property was conveyed to a trustec upon the fol- ·
lowing trust, to-wit: 1st. A. B. L. is to be permitted to
have, receive, take and enjoy the interest and profits
to and for the joint use, benefit and support of the said
A, B. L. and M. E. B., the intended wife, and the issue
of the marriage (if they should be blessed with any,)
during the life of the said A. B. L. 2d. After the death
of the said A. B. L., the trustee to hold in trust for and
to the use, benefit and support of the said M. E. B.
(should she survive him) and the issue of her body by
the said contemplated or any future marriage (if she
should be blessed with any) during the life of the said
M. E. B. 3d. After the disease of the said M. E. B.,
the trustee to hold in trust for and to the use, and sup-
port, and benefit of the issue of the body of the said M.
E. B. by the said contemplated or any future marriage,
if she should be blessed with any. M. E. B. died in the
lifetime of A. B. L. There were issue of the marriage.
Held, That the issue of the marriage took the whole of
the estate subject to the interest of A. B. L. as express-
ed in the settlement. Id.
MARSHALLING SECURITIES, &c.
See Bond for Titles, 1, 2.
1. The purchaser at Sheriff's sale, of property subject to
a mortgage with notice of the mortgage, cannot occupy
a more favorable position in relation to the property
than the mortgagor. Johnson vs. Crawley.
2. When the mortgagor against whom a rule is taken,
to foreclose a mortgage, makes no resistance, it is not
competent for a third person to interpose objections;
neither will the Court itself of its motion do so. Sutton
13. Sutton.
|