[B] Jointrels and Jointure. 14 Vin. 540. (B) Jointrefs reftrained, or favoured. In what I. Cafes. See Willoughby v. Willoughby, stated in Suppl. tit. Fftate, (B. b. 2), ante. Under the will of his father, was tenant for life of certain A. eftates, with a power to make a jointure, not exceeding 4000l. per annum, without any deduction or abatement for any taxes, charges, or impositions, imposed or to be impofed, parliamentary or otherwife, fubject, nevertheless, to exifting leafes. A., by articles, previous to his marriage with B., covenanted to fettle out of thefe eftates to the yearly value of 3000l., for a jointure, over and above all reprises, pursuant to the aforefaid power. By a fubfequent settlement, reciting the power and the marriage, A appointed lands to B., and covenanted, that they fhould produce 3000l. per annum, clear of all reprises. B. furvived A., and, after his death, entered upon the lands, which fell fhort of producing 3000l. per annum, by a deficiency, communibus annis, of 6ool., the whole of which the claimed to be made up to her; while, on the other hand it was infifted, that taxes and impofitions in the power meant only fixed and permanent taxes, and not the land-tax, which was fluctuating and annual. Lord Hardwicke clearly thought the land-tax within the power; and conceived that the power referred to fuch taxes and charges as were in being at the time of its execution, (i. e. in that court) by the articles; and that the jointrefs fhould, on the one hand, have the benefit, or, on the other, bear the lofs of any fubfequent variation. He reprehended the inaccuracy of the articles, in not purfuing the power; but thought the generic term reprifes was there intended to take in taxes, charges, or impofitions, according to the power to which they referred. And his lordship, after declaring that he confidered this as a cafe of articles unexecuted in part, was of opinion, that B., by virtue of the power, and the articles, was entitled to fuch a jointure out of the truft-eftate, fubject to the power, as, at the time of executing the power, was of the yearly value of 3000l., free from all incumbrances, &c.; and alfo from all parliamentary taxes or impofitions of fuch nature as were in being at the time of executing the power; and particularly the land-tax then in being. Blandford v. Marlborough, 2 Atk. 542.— Tyrconnel v. Ancaster, 2 Vef. 500. S. P. 2. But, 2. But, in Londonary v. Wayne, Lord C. Henley was of opinion, that, where there is a fettlement in jointure, the yearly value of the lands cannot be fixed with justice till the husband's death; fince the wife cannot know the value but by inspection of leafes, or by information, if the eftates are in hand, and the rent often varies, the landlord being frequently obliged to take boons. Amb. 427. See Pinnell v. Hallett, ib. 106. (H) Bar of Dower. In what Cafes Jointure is a 14Vin. 545. Bar. 1.IN Vizard v. Longdale, 5 Geo. 1. Sir F. Jekyll held, that these words in a bond, "to fecure a fum of money for her (the wife's) livelihood and maintenance," were no bar of dower. But Lord C. King was of opinion that they were a bar, as being within. the equity of the ftatute of jointures; and he therefore reversed Sir F. Jekyll's decree. In Tinney v. Tinney, 3 Atk. 8. 2. 7. S. was feifed of copyhold lands belonging to the manor of W., in which there is the following custom, viz. that the first wife of every tenant fhould have her free-bench in all the lands whereof her husband was ever feifed during the coverture; the 2d wife a moiety, and the 3d a third part, fo long as fhe kept her husband above ground. 7. S., in confideration of a marriage and marriage portion, covenants with trustees, that, within two months after the marriage, he would fettle all his lands to the following ufes, viz. as to part of the lands, to the ufes of himself and his wife for their lives, reminder to the first fon, &c. in tail-male; and, as to the other moiety, to the use of himself for life, remainder to his first son, &c. with a provifo, that the lands fo fettled on the wife fhould be in lieu of her customary estate; and one of the points in this case was, whether this jointure, not being made exprefsly in lieu of her dower, but only faid fo in the provifo, and he being an infant at the time of making the articles, and not a party to them, the fhould be excluded from claiming her free-bench; and it was held, that the fhould be obliged to abide by her jointure, and Vizard v. Longdale (tated fupra) was cited; but the Chancellor reverfed the decree, and confined her to her fettlement. Jordan v. Savage, Mich. 6 G. 2. 3 New Abr. 226. 3. By an indenture made previously to the marriage of Sir T. D. with M., afterwards his wife, between the faid Sir T. D. of the first part, the faid M. D. of the fecond part, and A. and B. of the third part, it was, amongst other things, agreed that M., in cafe fhe thould furvive Sir T. D., fhould have a clear annuity of 600l. during her life, for her jointure, and in full fatiffaction and bar of all dower or thirds in all lands, &c. whereof Sir T. D. then was or thereafter fhould be feifed, &c. and Sir T. D. covenanted with A. and B. that his heirs, executors, or adminiflrators fhould pay the fame accordingly. The deed was L 2 executed executed by Sir T. D. and the faid M. D. in the presence of and attefted by J. K., the guardian of M. D.; but M. D., who was entitled to a fortune of about 2000, was then, and at the time of the marriage, an infant under 21. Sir T. D. afterwards died inteftate, being seised in fee of a real cftate of 2600!. per annum. A question arofe, whether M. D., being thus an infant at the time of her marriage, was, by the provifion under this deed, barred of her dower, or not? Lord C. Henley was of opinion that he was not. From this decree there was an appeal to the House of Lords; and on behalf of the appellant it was argued,. that the right of dower did not arife from contract, but was given by the law, and was exactly the fame, whether the wife was of full age or not; and that jointures were given by the ftat. of 27 H. 8. c. 10. 6. (which fee stated in pl. 2. of the fect. to which this is a fupplement,) as a more convenient provifion, in lieu of dower at the common law; and it did not therefore depend upon the confent of the wife, that the jointure fhould take away her right of dower; but, having the jointure, fhe never gained any right of dower; that the words of the statute were general, every woman married," having fuch jointure, thall not claim any dower," and included infants as well as adults; that were it otherwife, it might be to their disadvantage, by preventing their marriages;. that the prefent was a good equitable jointure. The following. question was then put to the judges, viz. "Whether a woman "married under the age of 21 years, having, before fuch mar"riage, a jointure made to her in bar of her dower, is thereby. "bound and barred of dower, within ftat. 27 H. 8. c. 10.?" The judges were divided in their opinion, three fpeaking in the nega tive, and four in the affirmative, whereupon the decree of the court of Chancery was reverfed; and it was declared, that M. D. was barred of her dower by the deed in queftion; and directions were given for fecuring the jointure annuity of 600, with liberty for M. D., after Sir T. D.'s heir at law, who was then an infant, fhould attain 21, to apply to the court of Chancery to have the annuity charged upon his real eftates. Earl of Buckinghamshire v. Drury, 5 Bro. Par. Ca. 570. See Harg, note 6. Co. Litt. 36. b. Cray v. Willis, 9 Vin. 249. 2. 3. pl. 18. Se alfo the following cafes, as to the powers of infants to bind their property by covenant on marriage; Seamer v. Bingham, 3 Atk. 54. Harvey v. Afb ley, ib. 607. Lucy v: Moor, 3 Bro. Par. Ca. 514. Durnford v. Lane, Bro. Ca. Ch. 106. Williams, ib. 152. and Slocombe v. Glubb, 2. ib. 545 4. By indenture made previously to the marriage of A. B. with C D. between M. C. widow, the mother of A. B., and the faid A. B. of the first part, T. W., the father of C. D., of the fecond part, the faid C. D. of the third part, and certain trustees of the fourth and fifth parts, for the confiderations and for effectuating the purpofes therein mentioned, M. C. and A. B. conveyed certain hereditaments to a trustee, to the intent that a recovery might be fuf fered thereof, which recovery, it was declared, fhould enure to the ufe. ure of M. C. for life, remainder to the ufe of 4. B. for life, remainder to trustees during, &c., to pre ferve contingent remainders, remainder, in cafe C. D. thould furvive A. B., to the use of C. D., in cafe the marriage should take effect, for her life, as part of the jointure and provifion agreed to be made and fecured to her upon the treaty of the faid marriage, and in lieu, bar, and recompence of all dower and thirds, &c. which C. D. might otherwise claim in any of the lands, &c. of A. B., 1emainder over. By another indenture, dated about fix we-ks after the first, and alfo previous to the marriage, and made between T. P., the uncle of A. B. of the first part E. P., a trustee, of the fecond part, A. B. of the third part, and C. D. of the fourth part, recited to be made, in order to make fom- further provifion for C. D., in case the marriage fhould take effect; it was covenanted and declared, that a furrender therein stated to have been made by T. P. to E. P. of certain copyhold lands fhould enure, after the marriage, in truft for T. P. for life, remainder in truft for A. B. for life, remainder, in cafe the marriage thould take effect and C. D. should furvive A. B., in trust for C. D. for life, in cafe the thould fo long continue a widow, remainder over. This laft deed, however, was not faid to be in bar of C. D.'s dower, or to be intended as part of her jointure, except by the expreffon "further provifion." C. D., at the time of the marriage which afterwards took effect with affent of T. W. her father, was an infant of about 17, and had a portion of 2000!. A. B. died in the lifetime of C. D. feifed of fome small unfettled freehold estates, and of a copyhold eftate unfettled of about 400l. per annum, to the whole of which, by the custom, the widow of a tenant dying feifed was entitled for life, (as her free bench), and alfo of a perfonal eit ite of about 20,000. The freehold eftate in jointure was about Icol. per annum, but M. C. who had it for her life, was living. The copyhold estate in jointure was about 30l. per annum, and T. C., who had it for his life, was dead. The queftions were, whether C. D., being an infant at her marriage, was barred of her dower and free bench by thefe fettlements, or not; and, if not, whether the should have both jointure and dower, or be put to her el-ction? Sir R. P. Arden at the Rolls, conceived the fettlement made by the second deed to be the other provifion alluded to by the firft. He then proceeded to confider, whether, by virtue of these two deeds, the wife was barred of dower. He was clearly of opinion, from the cafes which he cited, that a contract entered into by an infant, though with the confent of her guardians, did not bind her when the came of age. He conceived that if, in the cafe of Drury v. Drury, or Buckinghamshire v. Drury (already stated) the provifion had not been competent, it would not have bound her; and he even doubted, whether, if a jointure at lato was eory, as if Is. a year or fome fuch thing was fettled upon a woman, it would bind her; though on this he gave no pofitive opinion. He asked whether it was fair to infer that, because that cafe had determined that a good competent provifion, which was equally ben fic at as a L 3 jointure jointure at law, was a good equitable jointure, a court of equity would compel an infant to accept a jointure which was not equi valent. He thought the provifion in the prefent cafe was incompetent and unjust, and therefore was not to be supported by the court. And his Honor decreed, that the widow was not bound by the two fettlements, but thould have her election. Caruthers v. Caruthers. At the Rolls, MS. Rep. [G] Journeys. 14 Vin. (A) Journeys Accounts. I. What it is, and Pro ceedings. 1. THE learning on this fubject is now of little ufe, it being cuftomary to enter a judgment that the writ be quafhed, and then to fue out another. 2. And by ftat. 8 & 9 Will. 3. c. 11. f. 7. the death of one plaintiti or defendant, where there is another furviving, fhall not abate the fuit. The death to be fuggefted on the roll, And by f. 6. death of the party, after interlocutory judgment, shall not abate the fuit. 3. If a plaint be levied in an inferior court within the fix years, and then it is removed into the king's bench by habeas corpus, and the plaintiff declares here de novo, and the defendant pleads the ftatute of limitations, the plaintiff may reply, and fhew the plaintiff in the inferior court, and that will be fufficient to avoid the ftatute. 1 Lord Raym. 553. 2 Stra. 719. 2 Lord Raym. 1427. S. C. 4. If a new action be brought within half a year, after the abatement of the former, it would be fufficient to avoid the ftatute. 2 Cowp. 738, 40. [D] 14 Vin. 566. I Freland. (A) How far bound by English Statutes. 22 GEO. 3. c. 53. was made to repeal the 6 G. 1. by which the dependency of Ireland was afferted and declared. 2. 23 G. 3. c. 28., the ri, ht claimed by the people of Ireland to be bound only by laws enacted by his majefty and the parlia ment |