Court Of Chancery, Thursd...
The Times, 1824-07-23T00:00:00

LAW REPORAIt f'..thnei ' norntson, ofaorting celeberiy, ihed obtained -letteif5Cth dengzatiozi from the i3toiv,rirrient of' ral in whih int le died, leaving a will. The defendant laFolnctainawic robate andad mnistratlon frtom tihe ewclehdaticael courts athomte, and the presentb Motio1n was- to restrain hiim from receiving anka distrib,tin rheer sonal assets until te rev stion ite respectin thea t th t with shoald be determined. mg or real s, b the: air. SHADWELL stated the case just before the Cour yeteray.Colonel Thornton had done every thing ian his powertogive hn thecharacter andrights of citize of the French Monarch. lie had bou bt an estgte, and ped acquired the tiule of a French maTquis, andl bad stoDd as a candidawt on the alecton df w menlber to serve in the Chamber of muept hes. There cOuld be no doubt that he was, to aU legpl iutents and Purposes, to be clsidhed a' a French citizen. Hio s wil,however, went tO effct a itribution othis Pesonht property in fvour of his 3egitinate son, to the in. jtry of the plaintif, who was his heir at law-a Mode of tti i wluch was expresly prohibited by the French lawv. By weu iontse ofl Dth be C od sdrds l ntentre; ofo an i serncatvhio 7h eofl the Code apisron, and some othem immediEtelv lilowing. the right LO arents in apportioning their natural chdris waB limtled to pone-thi of whatshare which would have frlle! to thembhad they been legitimate. By previous section it was declaredceithatther crh of the parents, whether peonal or real, should be eq pedtd among the children, without r;egard tp Psriogentture. dded rhe LOrD. CHANCELLORu , at hie rittling of the Court thio morning, observed that the case had been opened arod argued before him as iutbere hadben no i ill2 ; whereas not onsy wea there a will, but Dr. Curting had obtsined letters of admiulstration. How coudd this Court undertake to consider that as no wiIllof which thle Eccle.. siastical Cotrt had allowed the probate? Mr. SHADWELL oaidb, that lie must have expressed himself oh. scurely if he had left an lnopreic oone his Lordship's inid that he wished to hav this case considered as one in which there was'no wiL Hias intention was merely to enfore this conidermtion- that Colonel Thornton being unquestonably a citizen of the Frncnho oloverrumen k, his proerty could only be distributed aco aing to the of the Mr of France. The dispositions in the wil boinclearly against the renour of the French Iwi,i the wil itsee dnot be considered at all in the nature of an instrument which could affect the distribution of ths property. The LoRD CHANCELLOR said, that let the dispositions of the property be what they would in the will, they could not f him lntrfering with the executor, or appointing a receiver over hiEn, unless there were affidavits of his misconduc. A man migeht he executor under a will containing impractica.le or unlwfh ichD . sitions, still it would not disqualify him as executor, unless allega. tions wIere worn of his conduct which weuld induce the Court to interfere. What the Court miheht judge proper tD he done with the eflectt under such h wil, wste anoher dn estion. To bedpsit n however, they had very much mistaken hire it they supposed that he could be baought to desuine upon a mere motion -he mpinortant and dfficult question of which was Colonel Thornton' s dOilicileo France or Engld. Eie would beo ni such thing. Perhaps tuhere was nothing which was so puzzling- as to deterrine in dis. puted caes :where a roan was don miled. The a rcurctahe2yo varied the subject itself. For instance, by a judgment of Lord Eardwicke, it was determiined that a moan goirng to India-in the King's service, and dying there, had his domicile still in the prolvince oF 'ork or Canterbury: it was otherwise, if the h man htad one out in the service of the East India Company. Li short, th istinctions were endless. The SOLICITOR.GENERAL said, that if the plaintiffA woauact with fairn erof which,nat present, there was no reason to dolat, his pealrdi wouled never be troubled with the questin of whether C-olonel Thorn ton died a French marquis, or an English falconer, or country squire. The ofact was, that there would not be aun-t sufficient to liquidate Colonel Thomttnto's debts. for which Dr. Cur- bg, as executor, raust, in the first place, be resyponsible. Mlr. S11ADWE1.L said that there covld he no doubt of Dr. Cur. iung's intentions, because he had expressly averred them in the an. swer to be, to distribtne the estate according to the dispositions of the wcil. The Lord CHAnCELLOR said that teire must be affidavits as to conduct, to induce him to disturb an executor in his office. It Dr. Curling md distributions according to the will, wiich this Court Shouldafterward determaine to be improper, hie would do it at hlis own hazard. Alr. HEALD said that therveas no very pressing occasion to dis. turb Dr. Curling in the office of execuitor. He had no assets in his hands, nor, in facz, was he likely iron to receive any; for the pro- perty wasbhang up in acause inthe French Courts. Dr. Curling had abundance of evidence to show that Colonel Thgrnton had never ef. fectuar abandoned his doniile in England. The SoaD CHANCELLOR said that be rad received-ie supposed for the purpose of giving im information-the account of what tool place in the French Court; but having something else to do, he hid not read one word of it yet. Mr. SHAD WELL said, that the oulaintiflhad obtained a sentence in 'his favour from an inferior tribun&l in France, against -which an ap. peal, was entered in the court of superior jurisdiction. But ihe Judge of the Court of Appeal declared that he would not d.cide un- til the Lord Chancelor of Englrmd had decided upon the qmestion of Colonel Thornton's domicile. The LO RD CHANCELLOR said he felt very much obliged to the French Judge, hut it was a wasteofpo-itenesson him, as he certainlv would not decide on any, such question until it came fauly and reguj. larly before him. As he had said before, they were questions of ex- treme difficulty in ar,y disputed case. He remembered very well in a cae in the House of L4ords, the counsel, of whom he was one, en. deavoured in vain to get thefopinion of Lord Thurlow upan the domicile of a ma wasolfrom mere inclinatioa, without the calls of business, reside six mnonths in Yorkshire, and tix months; in London. Mlr. SHADl WELL said, that was a question which could be decided The Loitn CssANCELLoIt....Then, l4r. Shadweil whenever the question comes before the House of Liords again, I hope you will be there "1to decide it in a moiment." The SOLZCTToR.GENEPJAL said, that by the present law iof Frntce, Englisit creditors, would be entitled in common with French creditors ; and'after isatinfving the debts. there would be nothling left to distribute. The French estate haid already been ronvertg into personalty by order of the French Court. 3tr. SHAD WELL said, that he coDuld of coturse take nothing by, his motion. His client, however, was justified in bringing this mD.. tion, because he had no other iuumediate way to ascertain the niiad of the Court upon the power of the executor under the wll. COURT OF CH4N';RY, THupsDAY. A. -a - , 0TIORNTOX V. r7rT- '