The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1846-04-05


citizens the heaviest losses upon those able to
ride out the storm.
In Chancery-FIrst Circuit.
Before Assistant Vice Chancellor sandford.
ArRIL 4-Momroe vs.. Douglas The discussion Of this
,weshty, unique and interesting case, was to day
brough to close In exceedingly able and eloquent
argument by MIR. grimm, for complainant
The defences interposed sreIst That by decree Of
the Court Of Sessions at Edinburgh in the year 1914
the defendant declared heir according to the Scot
tish law in right Of primogeniture to the whole real
ssr 70 wncn ns nsr would been s %n
Douglas That Mrs. Monroe party to the proceed
ings which resulted in that decree had due notice Of
by these proceedngs lie in Scotand and redress any,
mist be had, on and by appeal from this decision to
some higher Court in that country The reply to this
was that the time Of tho decree in Edinburgh, Mrs
Monroe an infant and had in fact notice Of what
pear the occasion, her solicitor mandatory had
authority to do from herself or her guardians
That the suit %ss sam s 60. Go M
the last war when there was intercourse wkh this
country. That her uncles James and Samuel Douglas,
whose object to aggrandze their branch OF the IA
mily by consolidating the whole real estate in the PER
Of Of it's members had conrived this for
sell out he interest Of the New York family in the real
estae and being refused by her account Of the
age Of her children they had avaed themselves Of the
arrival Of the defendant George Douglas in Scotland
and his attaining manhood to get him declared heir by
'hese snrrepit,ous measures and hereupon had imme
dstey bought him out. That neither she nor her guar
daLs had been informed of these transactions at Elm
burgh, until years afterwards when the conclusion
Of the war brother George returned home and ap
prsed them what had taken place That Immediately
and SINCE the question had been agitaed to his
right larger share OF their unces property than her
sell That as the sale made by him to their uncles had
been very advantageous she was willing to con
firm it, and look to him as her agent trustee for the
proceeds That the alternative before him either
honestly to admit himself trustee aud account for the
proceeds or to confess himself pavcsps erimnis in the
age. to whom he ought to have acted as ! iaher-had
peen deprived Of her just rights That the decree, or
Judgment OF foreign court is MOI binding but may be
inquired into and reced by another tribunal unless
ali the parties in interest were duly feprese nted,
wherever there has been collision and fraud That the
estate he had thus obtained and the svas to-
and investing them in this country had himself volunar
chssssd the and that e. the subject mat
tent for Courts 10 investigate the aesh The
second ground Of defence TAKEN that complainant BY
her guardians agents. asquiesced In and confirmed the
acts Of homologation 70 This It was answered that the
whole and scope of the Edinburg Decree to
tho of tina estate from any further
participation in the question a. to the relative rights OF
herself and osOshsi That this inquiry being put aside
by which the comparative value OF the real and person
al property to be ascertained all informed ate acts
done by herself by others for her, had been ypothet
cal, and in transitu and had reference solely TO
trey different matters That II not until the year
1892 when their uncle's estate finally wound up
they were in circumstances to come settlement; but
that thereupon when II ascertaned her share Of the
personality much less than what he had rsived
the realty she had called upon him, and offered herself
to bring the whole into account for redvison share and
share alike upon the family principle established by
their father on his deah bed and conn med by their
mother, in her letters guardian. Sd. The lapse OF
time statute Of mitao is the next plea put in by
the dse ndant and to this i was replied that no right
uncies estate when complainant arrived at knowledge
Of their relative positions. and could underssndngly
call upon defendant to do as she would have done by
him. had her share Of the personal property turned
larger than his Of the realand besides that defendant
%ho %sud moi asn
herself not to take advantage Of the statute Of lmita
tons an The last and principal ground contendsd
construction Of Sir William Douglass settlement,
crdng to the Scotch law expounded by the opinions
the whole real estate passrg through bis father in
clusion Of his brother and sisters That the ambiguous
terms heirs" and children" used in the settlement
be construed with reference to scotch Law Of
which gives tue real estate to the eldest
SON. and the personal TO the younger chdrsn with 2
ent that Sir William Douglas in recommending his
brothers to settle what they were 70 receive om him.
together with what they owned themselves, 80 to
continue tho whole lsDg ~ possible In the male line
clearly Indicated Ids viii that their respective shares
in his landed property should vest 10 their eldest
had her brother George settled in Scotland and retained
rsPurchssed the castle the argument In favor Of the
force but in this country, OF which ne IL CITIZEN
has application, upon the principle essssn ,afone
come here and therefore only recomme ndsd
him TO do what ne was aware initiated against our in.
situations that this recomme ndatt0n he's potency,
II covers the personal well the real estate Of
thsr upcle and brother should have taken all and
not only but includes both the real and personal
OF their father well Of their uncle thus
leaving herself her sisters aud her other brother
trely destitute that what we have actually done
selves DO not recommend others TO do for that
her uncle himself had not gwen by his settlement pre-.
ference oil brother another tut had divided his
property among them equally and that by this analogy
the deendlnt at all events not entitled 10 the hole
real estate, but bound 10 DIVIDE ~th his brother
Wiiilsm who Is ss much Of the male line as himssN
that natural the Scotch awy IN constituting the
settlement, should have Q bias IN favor Of the right Of
primog 40 indispensable ss 10 the existence
OF srtocracy, and their very form OF government;
but that here free TO construe the instrument
under which both parties claim, as being, as II 10
in fact, the law OF the case, irrespective Of any
particular code or system of soci.ty, socordipg
10 dictates " common sense and the iules
II logical depreciation That her brother 10 neither
the hsrrs nor the ehdrsn OF his sther but only one II
them. That their father having predecesssi they did
not lake from MN BY inherit nee bat BY purchase from
their uncle whose ntento the rule for intsr
pr ting will That her father died intestas dsclar
Ing laws II this country made the best will for
every one, and mr. mother the letters produ in
evidence, mad Insited, that between brothers and
sktef, eqqaiity was Justice" That ~ pursuing this
claim all shs seeks to be placed the Footing
with her brother, and Ia fag so, she bat sctiug
had ofen svowed Le would proceed TOW her wer.
their situations reversed All she asks H. far hear
ing OF which she had before been prved order that
What she Ieii iousiy believed be the real ntsnon 81
their uncle. the very law OF the may be ulhied
asd th,s Lifelong dispute finally settled.
We propose giving an extended report Of Mr. otmns
gres auo convincing argument la ths csse 90 soon
can 10 prepared iof publication.