"Art. 5. The Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia being, in virtue of a capitulation, placed under the suzerainty of the Sublime Porte, and Russia having guaranteed their prosperity, it is understood that they retain all the privileges and immunities which have been accorded to them, either by capitulations or by treaties concluded between the two Empires, or by Hatti Cherifs issued on different occasions. In consequence, they shall enjoy the free exercise of their worship, perfect security, an independent national administration, and entire freedom of trade." The last is the Treaty of London, made in 1841, between Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, and Russia, in the following terms: "Their Majesties, &c., being persuaded that their union and their agreement offer to Europe the most certain pledge for the preservation of the general peace, the constant object of their solicitude; and their said Majesties being desirous of testifying this agreement by giving to the Sultan a manifest proof of the respect which they entertain for the inviolability of his sovereign rights, as well as of their sincere desire to see consolidated the repose of his Empire: Their said Majesties have resolved to comply with the invitation of His Highness the Sultan, in order to record in common, by a formal act, their unanimous determination to conform to the ancient rule of the Ottoman Empire; according to which, the passage of the Straits of the Dardanelles, and of the Bosphorus, is always to be closed to foreign ships of war, so long as the Porte is at peace. * "Art. 1. His Highness the Sultan, on the one part, declares that he is fully resolved to maintain for the future the principle invariably established as the ancient rule of his Empire, and in virtue of which it has at all times been prohibited for the ships of war of foreign Powers to enter the Straits of the Dardanelles and of the Bosphorus; and that, so long as the Porte is at peace, His Highness will admit no foreign ship of war into the said Straits. "And their Majesties the Queen of the United Kingdom of Hungary and Bohemia, the King of the French, the King of Prussia, and the Emperor of all the Russias, on the other part, engage to respect this determination of the Sultan, and to conform themselves to the principle above declared." There is another State Paper which we notice, because it is connected with the subject under consideration, though it does not, in our opinion, alter the case in its international characteristics. The Paper in question is intituled “An Act between Turkey and Russia ;" and is published among the Parliamentary State Papers for the year 1849, when it was signed by the two Governments. It notices the disturbed condition of the two Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, which had partaken of the general agitation of that period and provides for the introduction of armed forces of both Powers for the purpose of maintaining public tranquillity. But the question of religion is wholly untouched by this document; and the treaties already noticed, contain the whole case, so far as it depends upon documentary provisions. So far as Geography has anything to do with the question, the French Minister has clearly shown, in answer to Count Nesselrode, that the position of the British and French fleets is no infraction of the Treaty of London, and that it cannot afford a pretext for Russia's invasion of the Principalities, as that step took place before the fleets arrived at their position in Besika Bay. Upon these materials, viewed in a non-political light, and as an ordinary matter of controversy, it appears to us that the demands of Russia are altogether without warrant or justification; and that, if persisted in without retractation or modification, the peace of Europe will be in such imminent peril, that all the energies of Government will be for some time exclusively directed to foreign affairs, to the neglect of those many salutary legal reforms for which the country is now panting. Lord Chancellor, and Court of Appeal 1 De Gex, M. & Gord. Parts 2, 3, & 4. in Chancery eal} Master of the Rolls (Sir J. Romilly) V. C. Knight Bruce (now Lord Justice) V.C. Parker Vol. ii., parts 1, 2, 3. 15 Beav. Part 1. 3 De Gex & Sm. Part 4. Vol. iv. part 1. Parts 1, 2, 3. 1. POINTS DETERMINED IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY. 1. Assets - Marshalling for Legatee. 2. Bill of Exchange- Consideration - Fraud. 3. Charity - Vagueness - Mortmain Act not extended to New South Wales. 4. Clubs —Joint Stock Companies Winding-up Acts. 5. Copyholds Infancy of Deputy Steward. 6. Equitable Waste- Produce of. 7. Waste Rector - Right to fell Timber on Glebe - · Injunction. 8. Married Woman-Equity to a Settlement Amount to be settled at Discretion of the Court. 9. Married Woman Equity to a Settlement Wife entitled to Property by Survivorship not bound by proposed Settlement. 10. Married Woman Wife's Equity to a Settlement Property settled under 2007. 11. Trustee, liability of, for Non-investment Investment in different Funds being within scope of Trust. 12. Infant-Ward of Court - Custody of Child taken from Father. 13. Injunction to restrain breach of negative stipulation in 1 In our next Number we shall review the Common Law cases; and having thus brought up our arrears, we hope to go on with a selection from all the Contract. 14. Legal and Equitable Mortgage - Deposit of Deeds - Negligence- Priority Constructive Notice – 15. Merger or Confusion Same Person becoming Owner of Estate, and Charge upon it Keeping Debt alive - Intention. 16. Lunacy-Traverse of Inquisition matter of right. 17. Lunacy - Jurisdiction to give Costs after successful Traverse. 18. Receipt improperly stamped Evidence of an Agreement. 19. Sequestration in Ecclesiastical Court Deed to defeat set aside as fraudulent. 20. Trust, breach of - Release under seal when entitled to. 22. Solicitor- Purchase by when employed to sell. 25. Ship Registry Act, 8 & 9 Vict. c. 89. Executory Contract Specific Performance- Action. - 1. PATERSON V. SCOTT. 1 De Gex, Mac. & Gord. 531. Assets Marshalling for Legatee. In this case a testator devised real estates upon trust for payment of his debts and funeral and testamentary expenses, and subject thereto upon various trusts and bequeathed legacies and annuities. Held by the Lords Justices, upon the authority of Foster v. Cook, 3 Bro. C. C. 347., Norman v. Morrell, 4 Ves. 769., and a dictum of Lord Eldon in Aldrich v. Cooper, 8 Ves. 396., that a legatee of an annuity, the personal estate having been exhausted in payment of debts, was entitled to have the assets marshalled in his favour. The principle of the doctrine of marshalling, upon which this case was decided, is clear; viz., that a person having two funds to resort to shall not, by resorting to that fund in the first instance, disappoint another, who can resort to only one of such funds. In Paterson v. Scott, the creditors had two funds for their payment; viz., the personal estate and the real estate, charged with debts: the legatees had only one fund; viz., the personal estate. According, therefore, to the principle before laid down, if the creditors, having a right to resort to both funds, exhausted that one of them to which alone the legatee could resort, it followed that the legatee could, by marshalling, stand in the place of the creditors, as against the real estate charged with debts, to the extent to which the creditors had exhausted the personal estate. The remarks of Lord Cottenham in Mirehouse v. Scaife, 2 My. & Cr. 695., are hardly consistent with the above decision, and must to a certain extent be considered as overruled. In this rather singular case a bill had been filed by the executors of a captain in the navy, who, when of a great age, accepted a bill of exchange for 2627. 10s., without the presence of a third party, in favour of a dentist; and the latter, by his answer, stated that the consideration for the bill was a verbal agreement, that he, the dentist, would, during the captain's life, attend to his teeth and supply him with new ones as occasion might require. There were other circumstances of a suspicious character in the case. Sir J. L. Knight Bruce, V.C., held that the executors were entitled to have the bill delivered up. "The case," observed his Honour, "has points of resemblance to the remarkable one of Dent v. Bennett (4 My. & Cr. 269.), in which a medical man in the north of Lincolnshire bargained, for a very large sum of money, to attend a person of advanced years. The medical man, in that case, agreed to attend to the entire frame of the patientthe undertaking spread over the whole body, and was not confined to a particular portion of the frame, as was the contract in this particular instance. Some of the circumstances are different; but there are circumstances common to the two; and I am of opinion that, whether we regard or disregard those facts in Dent v. Bennett, which have nothing similar here, it is a precedent (if precedent were wanting) for the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court in the present instance - though I do not ground my decision upon it." 3. WHICKER V. HUME. 1 De Gex, Mac. & Gord. 506, Charity Vagueness — Mortmain Act, 9 Geo. 2. c. 36.-Not extended by 9 Geo. 4. c. 83. to New South Wales. A testator gave and bequeathed his residuary real and personalestate (the former consisting partly of real estate in New South Wales) to trustees upon trust for sale, and to invest the produce, and stand possessed thereof in trust, to appropriate the same in such manner as they should, in their absolute and uncontrolled discretion, think proper and expedient, for the benefit and advancement and propagation of education and learning in every part of the world, as far as circumstances would permit. It was held by the Lords Justices, affirming the decree of the Master of the Rolls, first, that independently of statute 9 Geo. 2. c. 36., was a valid bequest for charitable purposes, the words "for the benefit and advancement and propagation of education and learning" not being too vague for the Court to give effect to, in consequence of the introduction of the words "and learning;" and secondly, that real property in New South Wales was not, by reason it |