the purposes in the 33d article of the Will mentioned; and that out of the fund standing to the general credit of these causes, the further sum of three lacs of rupees ought to be set apart, and the interest thereof paid to the Governor-general in Council, or to such person or persons as the Governor-general in Council, shall nominate and appoint, in order that there may always be allowed and paid the salaries and allowances for supervisors, servants, and other attendants and persons to be employed in and about the tomb, buildings and establishments at Constantia, in the Will mentioned (which the decree then recapitulated) amounting in the whole to the sum, annually, of sicca rupees 12,228; and the Court then proceeded to direct the payment of any sum of money which had been expended in the necessary care and superintendence of the establishment at Constantia, under the directions or authority of the Master or Accountantgeneral of the Court. By the fourteenth article, it was referred to the Master to inquire, what part of the funds in the cause had arisen from the rents, profits, or interest thereon, of the lands or houses situate in Calcutta (with the exception of the house Chaud-PaulGhaut), and also what houses, lands, or other real immoveable property, beyond the boundaries of Calcutta, but within the presidency of Fort William, were in the hands of the testator at the time of his death, and what was the nature of the tenure thereof, and the estate and interest of the testator therein, and what regulations and usages have prevailed, and now prevail, in the said provinces beyond the boundaries of Calcutta, as to the right and power of European aliens to devise or bequeath by will any lands, houses, or other real immoveable property, 1836. MAYOR OF LYONS v. EAST INDIA 1836. MAYOR OF LYONS V. EAST INDIA of which they may be possessed at the time of their death, within the provinces, and all further inquiries as to whether any such immoveable property had been sold, and what part of it the Receiver-general of the Court was in possession of, and the amount of the rents and profits received, and the proceeds of the sales. By the fifteenth article, the Master was directed to inquire, whether the sums paid to the Accountant-general in the case of Uvedale v. Palmer were sufficient to provide for the charitable bequests and purposes for which they were directed to be set apart and paid, or what further sum might be required, to be retained and set apart for that purpose. By the sixteenth article, the Master was directed to inquire, what pensioners of the said testator's were then living; and whether any part of the 3,11,300 sicca rupees, as had been set apart for the payments of such pensions, might be transferred back to the funds standing to the general credit of the cause; and to state some plan by which the payments might be conducted, so as to prevent all frauds, and provide for a gradual transfer back of the whole to the general credit of the causes as the pensioners should die. By the seventeenth article, the Master was directed to inquire, whether the whole 2,00,000 sicca rupees, allowed by the 33d article of the Will, had been applied to that purpose, and what sum would be sufficient to satisfy the bequest of sicca rupees 1,00,000 for the establishment at Lucknow in the 33d article of the Will mentioned, together with the accumulations of interest thereon from the testator's death; and also to inquire whether any sums were due to persons employed about the said establishment. By the eighteenth article, the Master was directed, to inquire and report, what surplus remained out of the funds standing in the general credit of the cause, after making provision for all the payments, reservations and appropriations to separate accounts, and other matters and things, by this decree ordered and directed. The nineteenth article contains the usual directions as to the taking of the accounts, that all parties should be allowed their costs as between attorney and client, and reserved further directions. On the 20th of August 1832 the appellants presented separate petitions to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal from the above decree to His Majesty in Council, which was duly granted, by an order made on the 9th of December 1833; in pursuance of which, two petitions of appeal were lodged against the decree, one by the Mayor of Lyons, and the other by Christophe Martin, Marie Desgranges Martin, Pierre Balloffett and Claudine his wife, and Francois Martin. Pending the proceedings before the Supreme Court, an agreement was entered into at Lyons, between the Baron Rambaud, the then Mayor of the city, acting and stipulating in behalf of the city, of the one part, and the next-of-kin of General Martin of the other, whereby it was agreed, that as well the sums that the city of Lyons, as the next-ofkin of the testator, might be ultimately decreed entitled to, arising from the real or personal estate of the testator, should form one common fund; and that after raising and paying thereout to the Mayor of Lyons the sum therein mentioned, towards defray 1836. MAYOR OF LYONS V. EAST INDIA 1836. MAYOR OF LYONS v. COMPANY. ing the charges of recovering, and remitting from India, the legacies given for the benefit of the city, and already received from India, the common EAST INDIA fund so created should be divided into five parts, whereof four-fifths should be taken by the next-ofkin, to be divided between them according to the respective rights of each, and the remaining onefifth by the city of Lyons; and the parties thereto did agree, that the right in which they contracted, comprised all sums whatever which should constitute the residue of the succession of Major-general Claude Martin, as well any residue less or greater than 100,000l. sterling, and likewise the 100,000l. sterling itself, or the ten lacs of rupees mentioned in the 33d article of the Will, in such manner that the division of the residue should be made in the proportion before mentioned, whether that residue be decreed in the whole or in part to the next-of-kin, or whether in the whole or in part to the city of Lyons, and the establishments in the same class with it, or whether it should be in an equal or unequal portion to the next-of-kin, to the city, and to the other establishments; and it was declared, that the agreement should not be executory until it should have obtained the approbation of the Municipal Council of the city of Lyons, of the Prefect, and the sanction of the King of France; which was afterwards expressed by a royal ordinance of the late King Charles the Tenth. In consequence of the above agreement and ordinance, the appellants presented a petition to His Majesty in Council, praying that the two appeals might be consolidated and heard together, and that one case might be delivered in jointly by the appellants; which, upon the consent of the Attorney-general (who claimed an interest for the Crown), and the counsel for the East India Company, was directed. 1836. MAYOR OF LYONS ข. COMPANY. The appellants submitted by their petition of appeal, that the decree or decretal order of 25th of EAST INDIA July 1831, and the order of the 29th November 1831, confirming the report of the 5th November 1831, and also the decree of the 23d February 1832, were erroneous, and ought to be reversed or altered, for the following amongst other reasons: Because the decree of the Supreme Court of 2d December 1822 having declared that the real estate of the testator, situate in the town of Calcutta, was of the nature of freehold estate, and that the heir-at-law of the testator, according to the law of England, was entitled thereto, and to the rents and profits thereof, (if it should be found that the testator's Will was not duly executed so as to pass real estate, according to the Statute of Frauds,) it was not competent to the Supreme Court to reverse its own decree of 2d December 1822 by another decree of 23d February 1832, and on the suggestion of the Court itself, and not upon any claim or suggestion made by any of the parties to the suits, and to declare, in effect, that the testator being at his death an alien, the real estate in Calcutta had devolved on His Majesty, in virtue of his prerogative royal. Because such declaration is contrary to law; for that the law of alienage, whereby real estate situate in this country, possessed by aliens, becomes forfeited to the Crown, forms no part of the laws of this country adopted in any of our possessions in India. And because the decree of 23d February 1832 ought to have declared that the real estate |