« AnteriorContinuar »
that “the mayor and aldermen or selectmen times follow radical changes in the law, as in of a place in which pipes or conductors of other matters. The “Woman's Law” legis. such a corporation [i. e., gas-light companies] lation of England (Married Woman's Propare sunk, may regulate, restrict, and control erty Act of 1882) has produced a notable all acts and doings of such corporation which consequence which is illustrated in a recent may in any manner affect the health, safety, decision, that under that act, although by convenience, or property of the inhabitants of it the wife is made a feme sole so far as her such place.” A convenient tribunal is thus property is concerned, the husband may provided with adequate authority to remedy nevertheless be held to his old-time liability all the grievances set forth in the information, for her misuse of her tongue, her pen, or which consist solely in the attempt to open finger nails. and dig up Terrace street. There is no It seems that there was in England an imaverment that any application has been made pression to the contrary. The statute said to the mayor and aldermen, and relief re- that the wife might sue or be sued alone upon fused. The case thus falls directly within the
contract or in tort, and that her husband principle of the decision in Attorney General "need”' not be joined, and people naturally v. Metropolitan R. R.8 In a case which, like imagined that what need not be done must the present, is brought to sustain private in
not be done. The court, however, in the case .terests, there is no occasion for the interfer
cited dispelled the illusion by deciding that ence of this court, at least until it appears
"peed” meant what it said, that the act under that a real and substantial injury exists or is
consideration, was not an act for the emancipathreatened, and that the mayor and alder
tion of husbands, who, so far as torts commitmen have refused relief upon due application
ted by their wives were concerned, were held to them.
strictly to their common law responsibility. The information also prays that proceed- One aggrieved by the tort of a wife has under ings in the nature of a quo warranto shall be the act in question this advantage, he may taken by the court to restrain the defendant sue both, and upon recovering a judgment from further use of its corporate power, and
may have it satisfied out of the separate esfrom usurping public franchises to which it is tate of the wife, under the statute, or of the not entitled. But if the attorney general husband, under the common law, or out of seeks such a remedy, it should be by an in- both, and may exhaust both if necessary to formation ex officio, and not by an informa- satisfy the judgment. tion brought primarily for the protection of private interests.
11 Seroka and Wife v. Kattenberg and Wife, 55 Law In dismissing the bill and sustaining the
Gr. Rep. Q. B. 375. demurrer, the court makes a further observation worthy of notice, that although the defendant failed to insist in the argument upon
CHARITABLE USES. these objections it did not, and could not, thereby waive them, because cases not proper
In Mr. Tilden's will-extracts from which for equitable interference are not usually en
were given in a recent number of the CENTRAL tertained even though parties consent.10
Law Journal,there are certain bequests to charitable uses. While we do not intend to
discuss the validity of these particular beLIABILITY OF A HUSBAND FOR HIS WIFE's
quests, we propose to briefly consider some
of the principles applicable to charitable beTORts.-Unexpected consequences
quests in general.
That the validity of such bequests has 8 Seé, also, Attorney General v. Bay State Brick
been, and still is, a fruitful source of litigaCo., 115 Mass. 431, 438.
9 Com. v. Union Ins. Co., 5 Mass. 230, 232; Rice v. tion, both in England and in this country, is National Bank, 126 Mass. 300.
evidenced by the large number of reported 10 New England etc., Co., & Phillips 141, Mass., 536, 546; 8. C., 6. N. E., Rep., 534; Dunbam v: Presby, 120 Mass. 285, 289.
1 Ante p. 217.
cases; and, that the question is an important and interesting one, is proven by the full consideration which a majority of the cases have received from the courts.
Charitable Use Defined.-A charity is a “gift to any general public use. The familiar definition of a charitable use given by Mr. Binney in the famous Girard case, is, “Whatever is given for the love of God or the love of our neighbor-in the Catholic and universal sense.”
The Statute of Elizabeth.-In Virginia and Maryland, the case of Baptist Association v. Hart, is relied on.
was decided upon the theory that the English law of charitable uses had its origin in Stat. 43, Eliz. ch. 4.
That theory has been held, in a well considered case, to be error.4 In Connecticut, in 1845, the Supreme Court decided that no such reasons as those upon which the Baptist Association case was decided, "exist here where we have by our statute of 1702 virtually re-enacted the Statute of Elizabeth.” 5 And, thirty years later, the court declared that that State had never adopted the Statute of Elizabeth, “but it has a substitute of its own,” viz., the same statute of 1702, which is the statute now in force there. The Statute of Elizabeth is not in force in Maryland,8 nor its principles recognized as part of the common law of that State. It was repealed in Michigan in 1810. The Revised Statutes of 1847 abolished uses and trusts, with the exceptions specified therein. The same requisites are, there, as essential to the validity of trusts for charitable uses as any others. 10 It is not in force in Mississippi." It was repealed in New York in 1788,12 where “The
statute abolishes all uses and trusts,” and does “not include perpetual trusts for charity, or the benefit of classes or corporations ;'
;" 13 and the rule which applies to trusts in general, governs charitable trusts. In North Carolina it was in force till superseded by the Revised Statutes. It is not in force per se in Pennsylvania, but its conservative provisions in force “By common usage and constitutional recognition." 16 If
ever in force in Virginia it was repealed by statute 1792.17 But the general provisions of the statute are in force in Maine, 18 and declared to be a part of the common law of that
In principle and substance it is a part of the law of Massachusetts. 20 So in Vermont. 21 So in New Jersey. 22 It is declared in Ohio that the principles of the statute, as embodied in cases decided in other courts, have ever been regarded with favor.23 In Missouri see Chambers v. St. Louis. 24
Cy Pres Doctrine.—The cy pres doctrine has never been adopted in Alabama.26 Nor in Connecticut. 26 It was repudiated in Georgia prior to Code of 1873.27 Doctrine is not resorted to in Indiana. 28 Nor in Iowa. 29 Nor is it “To its full extent a judicial doctrine, and, so far as ultra-judicial,” not re
2 Perin v. Carey, 24 How. (U. S.) 506; Drury v. Nat. ick, 10 Allen, 169; Piper v. Moulton, 72 Me. 156; Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen, 539.
3 4 Wheat 1; See also Kain v. Gibboney, 101 U. S. 362.
4 Russell v. Allen, 107 U. S. 82 citing; Vidal v. Gir. ard, 2 How. 127; Perin v. Carey, 2 How. U. S. 465; Ould v. Washington Hospital, 95 U. S. 303.
5 Amer. Bible Soc. v. Wetmore, 17 Conn. 189.
8 Dashiell v. Atty. Gen. 5 Harr. & J. 392; Beatty v. Kurz, 2 Pet. 566; Ould v. Washington Hospital etc., 95 U. S. 303.
9 State v. Warren, 28 Md. 353.
10 Meth. Church of Newark v. Clark, 41 Mich. 741; Hathaway v. New Baltimore, 48 id. 254.
11 Rev. Code 1871, $$ 2440, 2441, making gifts by will to such uses void. 12 Bascom v. Albertson, 34 N. Y. 602.
13 Holmes v. Mead, 52 N. Y. 339; Wetmore v. Parker, id. 450; Dutch Church v. Mott, 7 Paige Ch. 77.
14 Beekman v. Bonsor, 23 N. Y. 298. 15 State v. Gerard, 2 Ired. Eq. 210.
16 Zimmerman v. Anders, 6 Watts & Ser. 218; Meth. Church v. Remington, 1 Watts 218; Bethlehem Borough v. Perseverance etc. Co., 81 Pa. St. 445.
17 Gallego's Ex'ers. V. Atty. Gen'l. 3 Leigh. 450, relying upon Baptist Assoc; Seaburn v. Seaburn, 15 Gratt. 426; Wheeler v. Smith, 9 How. (U. S.) 55.
18 Howard v. Amer. Peace Soc. 49 Me. 288; Tappan v. Deblois, 45 id. 122.
19 Drew v. Wakefield, 54 id. 291; Preachers Aid. Soc. v. Rich, 45 id. 552.
20 Old South Society v. Crocker, 119 Mass. 1; Fellows v. Minor, id. 541; Burbank v. Whitney, 24 Pick. 146; Going y. Emory, 16 id. 107; Sanderson v. White, 18 id. 328.
21 McAllister v. McAllister, 46 Vt. 272; Burr v. Smith, 7 id. 241.
22 DeCamp v. Dobbins, 29 N. J. Eq. 43; Hesketh v. Murphy, 35 id. 29; But see Norris v. Thompson's Ex'ers. 19 id. 307.
23 Miller v. Teachont, 24 Ohio St. 533.
24 29 Mo. 543. See Perry on Trusts, 698 and 699 for other States.
25 Carter v. Balfour, 19 Ala. 814; Williams v. Pear-son, 38 id. 299.
26 Adye v. Smith, 44 Conn. 60.
27 Adams v. Bass. 18 Ga. 130; See Code 1882, $$ 1709,. 2468.
28 Grimes v. Harmon, 35 Ind. 198.
cognized in Kentucky 30 Not resorted to in New York.31 It is repudiated in North Carolina.32
Is not in force in Wisconsin.33 Nor in Pennsylvania.34 In Massachusetts, see Jackson v. Phillips.85
Jurisdiction of Courts of Equity.—The tendency of American decisions, is that courts of equity, independently of the Statute of Elizabeth, favor the doctrine of trusts for charitable uses, and have original and plenary jurisdiction over such trusts, and can maintain and enforce them by their own powers. 36
In Maryland, a court of chancery cannot, independently of the State, sustain and enforce a bequest to charitable uses, which would, if not a charity, be void on general principles.
In New York, courts of chancery possess only such powers as were exercised by the English court of chancery, irrespective of the Statute of Elizabeth and cy pres doctrine.3 "Gifts to charitable uses are highly favored in law,and will be most liberally construed.” 39
“Uncertainty, in the sense of the law of charities, is its daily bread. The greatest of all solecisms, in law, morals or religion, is the supposition of a charity to individuals personally known and selected by the giver." **
“If the uncertainty of the persons to be relieved by a charitable fund could be available to destroy it, few charities could be sustained.” 44
Selection. There should be a mode of selection. “Relief must be administered according to the discretion and judgment of those who are to select the necessitous objects for whose benefits the use is created.”:45
“The construction should be such as will preserve, rather than destroy, the gift." #
Descriptive Words — Beneficiaries.—"The beneficiaries in public charities must necessarily be described in general terms." 40
“Charity begins where uncertainty in the beneficiaries begins."' 41
"It is the number and indefiniteness of the object which is the essential element of a charity.”
The court will not suffer the gift “To fail when it can be made certain,” notwithstanding the uncertainty of the object to be benefitted, and although no particular person or persons are named who may demand the execution of the trust. 47
If a “charity does not fix itself on a particular object, but is general and indefinite, and no plan or scheme is prescribed, and no discretion is given in the will to select the beneficiaries, it does not admit of judicial administration.” In addition to a definite class, the "will itself should prescribe some mode of selection, or give some person a discretionary power to select." 48
In Virginia such bequests cannot be sustained when the objects are uncertain or indefinite. 49
Abuse of Trust.-It is no "valid objection to charity that from a possible abuse in its administration, an injury might result to the
30 Curling's Admr's v. Curling's Heirs, 8 Dana. 38; Cromie v. Louisville Orphan House, 3 Bush. 371.
31 Bascom v. Albertson, 34 N. Y. 590; Beekman v. Bonson, 23 N. Y. 298.
32 Bridges v. Pleasants, 4 Ired. Eq. 26; McAuley v. Wilson, 1 Dev. Eq. 276.
33 Heiss' Exe'rs. to Murphy, 40 Wis. 292; S. c. 3, Central Law Jour. 639.
34 Meth, Church v. Remington, 1 Watts 218; Bright Purd. Dig. Charities 18; Pa. Ann. Dig., Charities 2.
35 14 Allen, 539.
36 Board of Comm’rs. v. Rogers, 55 Ind. 297; Williams v. Pearson, 38 Ala. 299; Miller v. Atkinson, 63 N. C. 537; Ould v. Washington Hospital, 95 U. S. 303; Dutch Church v. Mott, 7 Paige Ch. 77; Dodge v. Williams, 46 Wis. 91; Sowers v. Cyrenius, 39 Ohio St. 29; Howard v. Amer. Peace Soc., 49 Me. 289; Tappan v. Deblois, 45 Me. 122.
37 Buchanan J., in Dashiell v. Atty. Gen'l. 5 H. & J. 392; See Barnum v. Mayor etc., of Baltimore 62 Md. 275.
38 Owen y. Missionary Soc. 14 N. Y. 380; Compare, Dutch Church v. Mott, 7 Paige Ch. 77.
39 Coit v. Comstock, 51 Conn. 377; Button v. Amer. ican Tract Soc. 23 Vt. 336; Burr v. Smith's Exe'rs. 7 id. 241.
40 Park C. J. in Coit v. Comstock, 51 Conn. 377.
son v. Starke, 46 Ga. 93; Burr v. Smith, ī Vt. 241;
43 State v. Griffith, 2 Del. Ch. 392.
45 Burr v.Smith,7 Vt.241; Beavan v. Filson, 8 Pa. St. 327.
46 Goodale v. Mooney' 60 N. H. 528; Russell v. Allen, 107 U. S. 82; Bull v. Bull, 8 Conn. 51.
47 McLain v. School Directors, 51 Pa. St. 199, citing several cases; Zeisweiss v. James, 63 id. 468, and cases cited; Perry on Trusts, $ 732.
48 Loomis, J. in Fairfield v. Lawson 50 Conn. 513, 514; relying upon Grimes' Exe'r. v. Harman, 35 Ind. 198; See Beardsley v. Selectmen etc., 53 Conn. 491; White v. Fisk, 22 id. 53; citing, Reformed Dutch Church v. Mott, 7 Paige Ch. 77; Inglis v. Sailor's Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99.
49 Kain v. Gibboney, 101 U. S. 362; Wheeler v. Smith, 9 How. (C'. S.) 55.
, 72 sons.
interest of the society in which it is loca- years, and of irreproachable character," reted."
siding in certain limits.62 For the “education If the power of selection be abused, the of the colored children of the State of InState, by virtue of its visitorial power, will
“To the education of remedy it.51
children of this town.") 64 "To the support Time-Amount.—In New York, Georgia, and management of such worthy, meritorious, Ohio and California, provision is made by charitable and educational and religious instatute, determining, relatively, the amount stitutions” of certain faith.65
"Poor orthat may be devised or bequeathed to char- phans of this county." 66 "Purely and soleity, where the testator leaves husband, wife,
ly for charitable purposes—for the greatest child or parent. The time, prior to death, relief of human suffering, human wants and within which the will or deed must be exe
the good of the greatest number.” 67 For cuted, etc., is also liruited.5
the “benefit of needy single women and Bequests held Valid.—“To the education
widows. “To the "suffering poor of” and tuition of all the pauper and poor chil- A.69 To provide and sustain a home for dren” of a certain “beat” (or county) respectable, destitute, aged, native-born "whose parents are
not able to support American men and women. “For charitthem.” “For the promotion of education
able purposes, masses, &c." 71
To "assist, and science among the Indian and African
relief and benefit poor and necessitous perchildren and youth of the United States of
To the City of St. Louis to "furAmerica.' For a “home for aged, re
nish relief to all poor emigrants and travelers spectable, indigent women, who have been
coming to St. Louis on their way bona fide to residents” of N.55 For the “charitable as
settle in the West.' To the “poor orphans sistence and benefit of indigent, unmarried
of the State of North Carolina,” to be seprotestant females,” &c., residing in B.56
lected by the trustees.74 To be divided by To be “used discretionary by the acting se- the trustees “among such Roman Catholic lectmen” of B, for the special benefit of the charities, institutions, schools, or churches," worthy, deserving, poor, white, American,
in N, as they deemed proper.75 To be “apProtestant, Democratic widows and orphans” plied at discretion to alleviating the wants residing in B, “until all is expended.” 57
and sufferings of the deserving poor of” M.76 “To and for the support, maintenance and For the "advancement and benefit of the education of the poor, white citizens of Kent Christian religion,” to be applied in discrecounty generally.” 58 For the education of tion of the trustees.77 For the “education of the poor children belonging to said county." 59 “Poor of Madison county. For
62 De Bruler v. Ferguson, 54 Ind. 549. the use of the orphan poor and other desti
63 Exparte Lindley Exe'r., 32 id. 367. tute persons of said county.
64 Richmond v. The State, 5 Id. 334. widows” and “women whose husbands have 65 Quinn v, Shields, 62 Iowa, 129, citing numerous left them unprovided for and without any
fib Moore v. Moore. 4 Dana, 357. just cause,” of and over "the age of fifty 67 Everett v. Carr, 59 Me. 334.
Swazey v. Am, Bible Soc. 57 id. 523.
69 Howard v. Am. Peace Soc. 49 id. 288. 50 Chambers v. St. Louis, 29 Mo. 443.
70 Odell v. Odell, 10 Allen, 1. 51 Dodge v. Williams, 46 Wis. 98, citing; Re Taylor 71 Schouler Petitioner, 134 Mass. 426. Orphan Asylum, 36 Wis. 534; Perry on Trusts § 732.
72 Suter v. Hilliard, 132 id. 412; See also, Fellows v. 52 3 Jarman on Wills (Rand. and Tal. notes) 741 and Minor, 119, id. 542; Rotch v. Emerson, 105 id. 431; note; Stimson's Amer. Stat. Law, 349, $ 2618, Pa.; Ap- Bartlett v. King, 12 id. 536; Saltonstall v. Sanders, 11 peal of Carl 106, Pa. St. 635.
Allen, 446; Going v. Emery, 16 Pick. 107; Sobier Exe'r. 53 Williams v. Pearson, 38 Ala. 299.
v. Wardens etc., 12 Met. 250; Brown v. Kelsey, 2 Cush. 34 Treat's Appeal, 30 Conn. 113.
243; Well's Exe'r. v. Doane, 3 Gray, 201; Atty. Gen'l. 55 Coit v. Comstock, 51 Id. 377.
v. Old South Society, 13 Allen, 474. 56 Tappan's Appeal, 52 Conn. 412.
73 Chambers v. St. Louis, 29 Mo. 543. 57 Beardsley v. Selectmen of Bridgeport, 53 id. 489.
74 Miller v. Atkinson, 63 N. C. 537.
75 Power v. Cassidy, 79 N. Y. 602. 58 State v. Griffith, 2 Del. Ch. 392.
76 Goodale v. Union Assoc. etc., 29 N. J. Eq. (2 Stew.) 59 Newson v. Starke, 46 Ga. 88; See also, Jones v.
32; Hesketh v. Murphy, 35 N. J. Eq. (8 Stew.) 23. Habers ham, 107 U. S. 174.
77 Miller v. Teachont, 24 Ohio St. 525; Sowers v. CyrHeuser v. Harris, 42 Ill. 425.
enius, 39 id. 29; Urmey's Exe'rs. v. Wooden, 1 id. 61 Comm’rs of LaGrange v. Rogers, 55 Ind. 297. 160.
scholars of poor people” in a certain district. 78 distributed among such incorporated socieFor the "education of the freedmen of this ties, organized under the laws of the State of nation.79 Bequest of personal estate to cer- New York and Maryland, having lawful autain institutions for the education and tui- thority to receive and hold funds upon pertion of worthy, indigent females." 80
manent trusts for charitable and educational Bequests held Void.—“For any and all uses,” to be selected by the trustee. For benevolent purposes” the trustees “may see the “support of indigent, respectable” fefit." 81 For a "Catholic Reformatory for males and orphans.94 To any other person boys.” To the most deserving poor” of
or persons who may be in distress.” 95
For N.82 For the "education of the freedmen.” 83
such purposes as the trustees “consider as To "such worthy persons and objects” as promising most to benefit the town and trade trustees should deem proper, for “such char- of" A.96 For needy and respectable widows. itable purposes” as trustees should deem -To the Roman Catholic congregation to proper.54 To the Worthodox, Protestant build a chapel in R.—Devise of land to perclergymen of" P, for the "education of col- mit members of the Roman Catholic church, ored children, both male and female, as they or those professing the Roman Catholic reshall deem best. To be distributed by ligion to build a church upon.” “The Rothe trustees to persons, societies or institu- man Catholic orphans of the diocese” of L. 98 tions” in their discretion.' “Solely for
In conclusion we append a list of references benevolent purposes.
For the “establish- to articles, text-books and notes, which treat ment of a school," at M, for the "education of the subject of charitable bequests.99 of children. To benevolent associations Bridgeport, Conn., JOSEPH A. JOYCE. of a city for the “benefit of white and colored children.” 89 To benevolent, religious 93 Pritchard v. Thompson, 95 N. Y. 76; Fontain v. or charitable institutions,” in trustees' discre
Ravenel, 17 How. (U. S.)369.
94 Beekman v. Bonsor, 23 N. Y. 298. To “foreign missions and poor 95 Hill's Exe'rs. v. Bowman, 7 Leigh 657. saints. “For all Christians who acknowl- 96 Wheeler v. Smith, 9 How. (U. S.) 55. edge the divinity of Christ,' &c.92 To be
97 Gallego's Exe'rs. v. Atty. Genl. 3 Leigh 450.
88 Heiss v. Murphy, 40 Wis. 276; $. c. 3 Central Law Jour. 639; commented upon in Dodge v. Williams, 46
Wis. 100, other cases; State v. Prewett, 20 Mo. 165; 78 Clement v. Hyde, 50 Vt. 716.
Barnes v. Barnes, 3 Cranch. C. C. 269. 79 McAllister v. McAllister, 46 Vt. 272; Contra, See
99 Words defined, "Orphan” Soohan v. Philadelphia, Fairfield v. Lawson, 50 Conn. 501, cited post.
33 Pa. St. 9; “Protestant” Hale v. Everett, 53 N. H. 9; 80 Dodge v. Williams, 46 Wis. 70; See Gould Admr. v. The Taylor Orphan Asylum, id. 106.
8. C. 16 Am. Rep. 82; See also Beardsley v. Selectmen
of Bridgeport, 53 Conn. 489; “American” v. “Demo81 Adye v. Smith, 44 Conn. 60. 82 Hughes v. Daly, 49 id. 34.
cratic widows" Beardsley v. Selectmen etc. id; See 83 Fairfield v. Lawson, 50 id. 501; Contra, See Mc
generally on the subject of bequests to charity; 2 WilAllister v. McAllister, 46 Vt. 272.
liams on Exe'rs.(Perkins' Am.Notes) bottom p.p. 1055, 84 Bristol v. Bristol, 53 id. 242.
1057 and 1070 et seq.and notes: 1 Jarman on Wills(Rand 85 Grime's Exe'rs. v. Harmon, 35 Ind. 198; s. c. 9
and Tal. Notes) 379 and note 382 et seq; 2 Comyns Dig. Am. Rep. 690; The following cases were considered
(Rose) 399 Charitable uses; 6 id.450 Uses,N.1 et seq.; 3, and relied on by the court; Downing v. Marshall, 23
Wash.on Real Prop.,(4th ed.)515-521;5 Fields Lawyers N. Y. 366; McCord v. Ochiltree 8 Blackf. 15; Beek
Briefs $ 763;2 Story's E4.Jur.,1136-1194; Bispham's Eq. mann v. Bonsor, 23 N. Y. 298; White v. Fisk, 22 Conn. 116-134; 2 Wait's Act and Def.142-150;Perry on Trusts, 31; Fontain v. Ravenal, 17 How. (L. S.) 368; LePage $$ 687-748 and note History of Charitable Bequests, 17 v. McNamara, 5 Iowa 124; Barker v. Wood, 9 Mass.,
U. S. (4 Wheat) Appendix, note 1; Note to Hespeth v. 419; Gallego's Exe'r. v. Atty. Gen'l. 3 Leigh. 450;
Murphy, 35 N. J. Eq. (8 Stew.) 23-30; Note to BridGreen v. Dennis, 6 Conn. 293; Wheeler v. Smith, 9 ges v. Pleasants, 44 Am. Dec, 98; Note to Dashiell v. How. (U. S.) 55 Tripp v. Frazier, 4 Harr. and J. 446: Atty. Gen’l. 9 Am. Dec., 577, where the subject is disWildermann v. City of Baltimore, 8 Md. 551; Morse v.
cussed under the following heads: Statute of Elizabeth Carpenter, 19 Vt. 613; Presbyterian Church v. White, Regarding uses, What are Charitable Uses, CharitaPhila. Law Reg. 526; Dashiell v. Atty, Genl. 5 Harr. ble Uses in United States, Law of New York, Doctrine and J. 392; Morice v. Bishop of Durham, 9 Ves. 399, 10
as Applied in United States, Certainty in the object, ia. 522.
Statutory Provisions. 86 Nichols v. Allen, 130 Mass. 211. S7 Chamberlain v. Stearns, 111 Mass. 267. de Atty. Genl. v. Soule, 28 Mich. 153.
89 Watson's Socity v. Johnson, 58 Md. 139; Needles v. Martin, 33 id. 609.
90 Norris v. Thompsom's Exe'rs. 19 N. J. Eq. 307.