Daily national Republican. (Washington City [D.C.]) 1870-1872, 1870-02-07

under the lease OF hAo hAh NOT peen toHeltoo
which have been Sdoptsd for that purpose By
VI Il Rss Sssn shown, also, that on The death Of
ihis lsasehcid iHtsrsSt ala mol e 70 vssdosS
MAllion, the surviving hunbAndi and that his
Will, bsqueAthIng Il to the Rev. Edward
The legal the, amer her destk, ee,olV.d upon
and was possessed b. Jonathan Porter, or his
representatives, In trust for the peraonAl rep
,,ss hns II IA, Sspe mslIon such had s5
no rehabilitation on her estate was ever
Porter, the trustee, had lonu before lsr the
Of y many years, 30 that he vas presumed 10
lives II any, were unknown.
At her death, Jane Malllon left ono child,
named Mary Am Robey, surviving, her soils
heir and next Of kin. She was the child Of
mAIfiAge anterior TO that between herself and
MELLON, and had been married TO q man named
Robey, who died several years previous TO the
institution Of the present suit. . !. g-.I. y
The present suit was brought b. thi. Mary
An2 Roeey IN 1885, very shortly aiser the de-
erty. The object OF the. bill was TO obtain a
decree requiring the defondant 20 Aeoount Tor
the rents and pfonts received from the prop
nequently to its abandonment By Mr.. Knight I,
also 70 obtain = conveyance from the defend.
ant Of the TevefsionAty e.tAts, or paying the
rendered herself ready and Willing 10 payi and
also 20 correct mledsaoription Of the prop.
erty contained In the leasehold contract
In November, 1895, Mary Ann Robey died
interstate, leaving an only child, John +. Ro.
beg, who, IN December OF the sane year, nled
his bill Of reviver, thus succeeding az CON.
plAinant In the present suit.
The Legitimacy OF both Mary Am Rosey,
and her son the complainant, has been strongly
fssAiled By the defendant, but We think the
prePondetanee OF eyidence IL IN favor OF their
legitlmaey, although the question AZ 10 each
q them u not 30 free from doubt as Wo should
Ad@Ittlns IL. equitable intsre.. Of tn. com.
mother and his grandmother, the question has
been made BY the defendant, whether he IL the
proper party TO bring the present sult. That
he debts he n%d isS " 10, lSs
mother Aterwafdn, and would have been the
subject Of Naturalization had any been grant
cd, and adminiatrAtion might ystbs taken out
So far AZ respects the claim for an amount
OF the rents and profits against the defen dant,
We think the objection fatal, At least until 40
the case. 10 Humphfsys We. HumphreJs,
Prince william, $40, the Lord ObanoeiIor
lHardwiokel sustained 4. demurrer 70 bill
brought BY the next OF kin against the de-
fendsnt for 40 amount OF personal estate ia
the possession Of the latter on the ground IN at
ne suit eonld be brought only by the admin
,., rator, Lhe eompIainapt aiterwards OBJ
Lord Ohancellor allowed her 10 amend her
bill In that respect. The defendant then
pleaded 70 the amended bin, obisotInG that The
ameudmeut, changing the character Ia which
complainant sued from that OF next hin 10
that Of Standardization, could not be made, be.
eauso the record would then show that com
plAinanps bill a. AdmiDiatrAtTix would appear
to be nled before rehabilitation Was taken
out, and consequently before the right to sue
But the Lord Chancellor ovsrruled the plea,
OhuHFViUH that the riahN NN haw
count Of the personal estate was In the plain-
tn a. next Of kin, and ~ was suHheisnt that
she had now taken out letters OF admlnistra-
Of the death ofthe 1ntestate. "Wherefore Ma
Lordship resented this plea 40 an affected de-
az, and held that the taking out Of letters OF
Naturalization might be changed either BIZ
way Of supplement or Amendmentn -
AZ 10 fespeets the prayer for an amount Of
the rents and pfoats Ia the present case,
complainant than to retain the case until he
should have obtained standardization on the
estates OF his mother and grandmother, and
whether II would DO profitable for him TO
take that course 10 for himlelfto consider. II
appears TO Us the defsndAnt's liability to
the lat Of January, 1895, when he entered inlo
possession Of the property.
Besidss, there u smother aspect Of the case
e which The zane sad may Ss .s.shsd, po..i.
70 obtain an account 10 the way Just indic Ated
BY the contract OF 1870 the defendant IL bound
TO convey to this complainant, he being the
sole heir OF Jane MAlllon, the whole reVer.
BlonAry interest in the property when he
shall have been paid the sum Of 6t90, besides
all the rents and taxes for which the property
10 liable. Now this readers . reference to the
auditor necessary, In order that he may state
the account as to these rents, &o., between the
parties before the court can make . decree 70
required 70 pay to the defendant for the reVer
sion.
In this view Of the case tho appointment Of
an administrator II not required, for the con
plAinants right to demandthe conveyance 10 4
right secured TO him By the contract Of ls7o Al
heir OF Jane MAllion.
The mistake In the description Of the lot II
controversy, a. charged In the bill, 10 frankly
admitted by the answer, and there 10 nothinl
TO prevent Its being corrected By the decree,
The decree Of the court below will require
some modification to make ~ correspond with
these Views, and the case will have 10 90 "a
the auditor with Instruction accordingly.
Judge DIN dlssented and expressed hii
views.
Dyerys. Harmon. Judge Fisher pronounced
briefly the opinion Of the court, Overriding
motion for new trial. .||.. :
Wilson 70. Wilson. Judge Fisher said tina
the decree below In this case would stant
affirmed, because the court were equally
divided upon the questions at issue.
Willard vs.. Tayloe. Mandate Of the Bu
preme Court ordered 10 be nled and turtle
proceedings to be had In special term.
Adjourned until Saturday next.