other quarters. 1 Bro. Ch. Rep. 152. Williams v. Williams, Eaft. 1782. 12. he court does not ufually make any decree by confent, where infants are concerned, without referring it to a Mafter, to enquire whether it will be for their benefit; but when once. the decree is pronounced, without that previous step, the authority is the fame as if it had been referred to a Master, and he had made a report that it would be for their benefit. So an order for maintenance, though ufually made upon a reference to a Mafter, if made without, would be equally binding. Bro. Ch. Rep. 484. Wall v. Bubby, 1785. 13. A male infant marries an adult female, who by fettlements Covenants, that her eftates fhall be fettled to certain ufes; the infant is bound by the covenant of his wife. 2 Bro. Ch. Rep. 545, Slocombe v. Glubb, 1789. 14. Where there are adult and infant legatees, whose legacies are charged on a real fund, though the adult legatees have a right to have their legacies raifed immediately, either by fale or otherwife, if neceffary, and the heir offers the refidue of the purchasemoney to be laid out, as a fecurity for the legacies given to the infants when due, the court will not deprive them in cafe of deficiency of recourfe to the estate. 3 Bro. Ch. Rep, 19. Dickenfon v. Dickenson, Mich. 1789. 15. Teftator having given legacies to charities, and also a refidue, in Bank flock, and having no Bank frock at his decease, but having 3 per cent, annuities, which would fatisfy the legacies in that shape and leave a refidue, but if fold, would not purchase Bank ftock to fatisfy the legacies in that form; a decree was taken by confent, that the legacies fhould be paid in 3 per cents. according to the fums given. An infant, not oppofing, his legacy was ordered to be paid in the fame manner. 3 Bro. Ch. Rep. 420. Finch v. Inglis, Jan. 1792. 16. Exceptions will not lie to the answer of an infant. 4 Bro. Ch. Rep. 256. Copeland v. Wheeler, March 1793. 17. Twenty years not a bar to a bill of review by an infant or any perfon under the difabilities fpecified in the statutes of limitations. 4 Bro. Ch. Rep. 441. Lytton v. Lytton, 1793. 18. Settlement upon a female infant, if not reasonable, though faid to be in bar of dower, does not bind her; and upon the death of her husband she may elect to take her provifion under the fettlement, or her dower. 4 Bro. Ch. Rep. 500. Caruthers v. Caruthers, Feb. 1793. 19. An infant is liable for neceffaries, but where a stranger advances him money, he will have a little more confideration than a trustee charged with the care of paying an infant a fum of money, when he comes of age, would be allowed. 1 Vef. jun. 249. Davis v. Auften, Nov. 1790. 3 Bro. Ch. Rep. 178. S. C. 20. An infant not bound by his covenant. 1 Vef. jun. 314 Johnfon v. Boyfield, May 1791. I. (0) Equity; where an Infant is Truftee. 1. AN N infant trustee may levy a fine under the 7 Ann. c. 19., empowering infant trustees to convey eftates, and the judges may take it, and it cannot be reverfed but upon inspection, and during his non-age; but there are doubts, whether the judges would permit an infant trustee to fuffer a recovery; however, the court ordered, that all parties fhould concur in all, neceffary acts for the infant's fuffering a common recovery, in order to make fuch conveyance effectual. 3 Atk 164. 3 Atk 164. Ex parte Bowes. July 1744. 2. A petition was preferred, praying that an infant, the heir of a mortgagee in fee, who was likewife a feme covert, might convey by fine under the statute 7 Ann. c. 19. The Master reporting it to be neceffary, ordered accordingly. 3 Atk. 479. Ex parte Mairl, April 1747. See Lord Chief Baron Comyns's Rep. 615. 3. An infant truftce bound to join in a conveyance within tatute 7 Ann. c. 19., but where the infant has an intereft in the eftate, or there is a doubt whether he has or not, it is not within the ftatute, and the court will dot determine it but upon proper fuit. 2 Vef. 559. Hawkins v. Obeen, July 1754. 4. Infant trustee under the ftatute, being tenant in tail of the eftate, ordered to fuffer a recovery, though the Chancellor doubted whether a privy feal would not be neceffary. Amb. 624. Ex parte Smith, June 1764. 5. Infant trustee directed to convey, though the estate was abroad, being fituate in the island of Nevis. 2 Bro. 325. Ex parte Proffer, April 1788. (P) Allowances in refpect of Infants. 1. THE HE court of Chancery will not mortgage a reversion for maintenance, Com, Rep. 494. Pierpoint v. Lord Cheney, Mich. 1718. 2. Legacies given to the younger children, payable at 21, but in the will no notice is taken of maintenance for the younger children in the mean time. They bring their bill to recover inte reft, or some maintenance during infancy. Maintenance allowed. 2 Wms. Rep. 23. Harvey v. Harvey, East. 1722. 9 Viner 416. 3. Where the father is fufficiently competent, the court will give no directions with refpect to an infant's maintenance: whether an infant fhall have an allowance during the lifetime of the father, always depends upon the particular circumstances of the cafe. 1 Atk. 515. Jackfon v. Jackson, Eaft. 1737. 3 Bro. 416. Pulsford v. Hunter, S. P. 4. The court of Chancery, upon ex parte applications, will allow maintenance for an infant, notwithstanding there may be no E 4 caufe 9 Viner 417. caufe depending. 2 Atk. 315. -3 Bro. Ch. Rep. 88. S. P. Ex parte Whitfield, June 1742. 5. A grandfon not intitled to maintenance out of the intereft of a residue given to him by the will of his grandfather at the age of 21. 3 Atk. 58. Butler v. Butler, June 1743. 6. In the cafe of a child, let a teftator give a legacy how he will, either at 21 or marriage, or payable at 21 or marriage, and the child has no other provifion, the court will give intereft by way of maintenance. 3 Atk. 102. Heath v. Perry, July 1744. 7. It is the ufage of the court to refer it to the Mafter to fee if the father be able to maintain his children. Wherever maintenance is allowed, it is always to be paid to the father out of the child's eftate, and the court will not fuffer the father's executors to make deductions for paft maintenance out of a legacy given by the father to his child. 3 Atk. 120. Jefferys v. Jefferys, Trin. 16 G. 2. 8. Upon an application for maintenance for an eldeft fon, the court will make him a liberal allowance to enable him to maintain his brothers and fifters, confidering him in loco parentis. 2 Atk. 447. Laney v. Duke of Athol, 3 Atk. 511. Petre v. Petre, May 1747. S. P. 9. The father of the petitioner by his will appoints his wife guardian of the petitioner, his eldeft fon, and likewife of his fecond fon, till their ages of 21, and allots a maintenance for the second during his infancy, but none for the firft. Petition by the eldest fon to confirm his mother guardian, and for a reference to the Master to confider of a proper allowance for the eldest fon. Where there is a teftamentary guardian the court will not confirm him, or allow maintenance without a bill. 3 Atk. 518. Ex parte Records, June 1747. 10. The general rule is, where legacies are given payable at a certain time, they carry no intereft; but where given by a father to a child, yet the court allows intereft. 3 Atk. 716. Hearle v. Greenbank and others, May 1749. 1 Vef. 308. S. C. 11. Lord Clive provided by his will a maintenance for his fecond fon out of the real eftate; he afterwards gave large legacies to his younger children, with maintenance out of the intereft. Lady Clive filed a bill to have the two allowances for the second fon during his minority. Reference to the Mafter to fee what allowance fhould be made, the remainder to accumulate. 1 Bro. Ch. Rep. 146. Clive v. Walsh, 1782. 12. A fpecial direction to the Mafter in fettling an infant's .allowance to confider the birth of a pofthumous child, refused; only a general reference granted, 1 Bro. Ch. Rep. 179. Burnet v. Burnet, 1782. 13. Mother married to a fecond hufband, not obliged to maintain the children by the first, but shall have an allowance from the intereft of their fortunes. Bro. Ch. Rep. 268. Billing fly v. Critchet, 1783.4 Bro. Ch. Rep. 223. S. P. 7 14. Main 14. Maintenance not allowed, where the parent is of ability, although directed by the will. Where the parent is reported not of ability, the fums allowed fhall be only from the time of the report, not of the decree. 1 Bro. Ch. Rep. 387.. Hughes v. Hughes, 1784. 3 Bro. 60. S. P. 15. Exceptions will not lie to a Master's report of maintenance. 1 Bro. Ch. Rep. 577. Ex parte Nicholis, 1784. 16. Maintenance to a parent for an infant cannot be for time paft: if the circumftances warrant it, the Mafter, may confider it in the rate of the allowance. 2 Bro. Ch. Rep. 231. 1787. (Q) Equity. In what Cafes the Parol shall demur 9Virer 418. in Equity. ILL by a bond creditor against the defendant, a trustee of 1. BILL the eftate of John White, (who had conveyed it to the defendant in truft to fell to pay his debts, and the incumbrances charged upon it, and then for his own right heirs,) to have the eftate fold, the prior incumbrances paid off, and then to be paid his debt. The heir at law, an infant, and a defendant, insisted, that the parol ought to demur; ordered accordingly. Ca. temp. Talb. 199. Scarth v. Cotton, July, 10 G. 2. 2. Infant when of age entitled to put in a new answer. This rule is founded upon the reasoning of all other courts, where the parol is allowed to demur till the infant comes of age. In equity, where the infant has been plaintiff, the court has in fome few inftances given him a day to fhew caufe, after he came of age. 2 Atk. 531. Bennet v. Lee, March 1742. 2 P. Wms. 401. Napier v. Lady Effingham, 2 Atk. 531. note, S. C. 3. James Uveedale willed that, after the death of his wife, his eftates fhould be fold, and the money arifing thereby be divided between Robert Uveedale and five other perfons. The widow having demands upon the eftate, filed her bill to have them paid by fale of the eftate. Robert Uveedale, the heir at law, was an infant. Question, Whether the fale could be directed, as the parol would demur? The court thought, without breaking in upon the rule of the parol demurring, that as there was a trust to be performed, a fale might be decreed; the application of the money being what the court was principally to take care of. 3 Atk. 117. Uveedale v. Uveedale, July 1744. 4. Parol never demurs but where the eftate comes to the heir by defcent. 1 Vez. 28. Beaumont v. Thorp, July 1747. For more of Infants in general, fee Age, Fines, Guardian, Recoveries, and other proper titles. 9Viner 457. (F) In what Cafes the Entry of one shall be for Viner 460. 9 Viner 470. another. ΑΝ I. (G. 2) Entry. Not neceffary in what Cafes. 1. THERE is a great contrariety in the cafes for 200 years back, whether an actual entry is neceffary, in order to maintain an ejectment for a claufe of re-entry for non-payment of rent. But we look upon it as having been fully fettled in 1703 by the opinion of all the judges, upon deliberation and confideration of all the cafes, that actual entry is only neceffary to avoid a fine; and fo the practice has been ever fince. Per Lord Mansfield, C. J. Goodright v. Cater, Dougl. 468. Jenkin v, Pritchard, C. B. Mich. 30 G. 2. S. P. Bull. L. N. P. 103. 2. But it fhould feem that an actual entry is neceffary, in order to prevent the operation of the ftatute of limitations, 21 Jac. 1. c. 16.; and that the confeffion of lease, entry, and oufter, within 20 years, is not fufficient. Bull. L. N. P. 102. Goodright v、 Cater, Dougl. 468. (n. 1.) (a) Vide tit. Error. It was mov- I. ed in Eafter term, that (G. 12) Sur diffeifin. BY Writ and Pleadings (a), Y ftatute 24 G. 2. c. 48. f. 8. it is enacted, that from and after the feaft of St. Michael the Archangel 1752, all and every writs of fummons to warrant upon the appearance of the fummons in tenant to every writ of entry and writ of right of advowson fhall and may be made and abridged to four returns inclufive. the writ of five com mon reco veries might be tested in the laft Mich. term, and made returnable in the prefent Eafter term, instead of the ufual courfe according to the ftatute, that it fhall be tefted the 4th day inclufive from the return of the writ of entry, and be returnable the 4th return after the return of the writ of entry; the confequence of which is, that it must be returnable either in the fame term in which it is tested, or at furtheft in the next term. But the court conceived that they had not power to make fuch a rule, or at leaft as they could not forefee all the confequences, it would be highly imprudent to authorize fuch a proceeding |