as a consequence, they cannot operate either [250] by non-claim, or as a bar to the issue in tail. (). In the observations already offered on fines, a summary view has been taken of this important learning. The student is recommended to pursue the subject in those books which are written professedly on this assurance, including the chapter on fines in Sheppard's Touchstone. With a view to the immediate business of the practical conveyancer, the following points will be considered: may be levied. 1.-By whom (u) 8. At what time a fine is complete. Secondly, As operating under the statute of proclamations, either as a bar to issue in tail, or by non-claim (c). [251] 9.-The difference between a fine, as Secondly, An estoppel (e). Thirdly, A bar to issue in tail (ƒ). Fourthly, A bar under the statutes of non-claim (g). (h). 11.-By whom the uses of a fine may declared (?). 12.-Of resulting uses (j). 13.—Of deeds leading; and be 14. Of deeds declaring the uses of a fine (k). 1. By whom a Fine may be lerned. With the exception of the king, and corporations aggregate of many, a fine may be levied by all persons either alone or jointly with others; even infants, idiots, and married women, may levy fines. Infants or idiots ought not, however, to be permitted to levy a fine, (with the exception of an infant who is a trustee within the provisions of the 7 Anne, c. 19.-()); but, having levied a fine, it will be good (m): (d) Infra, 298. (e) Infra, 301. (f) Infra, 306, (g) Infra, 309. (h) Infra, 310. (i) Infra, 311. Infra, 316. (k) Infra, Vol. II. (1) Ex parte Mair, 3 Atk. 479. (m) Cavendish v. Worsley, cited 12 Co. 133. with the saving that an infant may, during his minority, reverse a fine levied by him while an infant (n). The trial of infancy must be by inspection of the judges of the court in which the fine is levied; but the[252] court will receive evidence, by examination of witnesses, as the godfather and godmother (0), church books, &c. (p), to assist their judgment. And if the inspection take place during the minority, the reversal founded on that inspection may be subsequent to the period of majority (q): and it may be at the instance of the party himself or his heir; and by the heir, notwithstanding the conusor dies during minority. To secure to the infant the benefit of his non-age, the inspection may be recorded before the fine is engrossed (@). In case an infant becomes adult, or dies before inspection, the heir is without remedy (r). The fine of idiots is also binding on them and their heirs. There are not any legal means of avoiding this fine. Although the conusor in the fine be found to have been an idiot, a nativitate (s), the fine will be deemed good at law. It is immaterial also (n) 17 Ass, 17: 2 Roll. Abr. 15; Anne Hungate's case, 12 Co. 122.. (0) Bro. Ab. Error, pl. 60. (p) 2 R. Abr. 573. Anne Hungate's case, 12 Co. 122. VOL. I. (g) Co. Litt. 131. Kekewich's case. (a) Moore, 173. (r) 2 K. Ab. 15. 12 Co. 122. (s) Mansfield's case, 12 Co. 123. T whether the fine is obtained from an idiot, or from a person under a temporary deprivation of intellect. The law is the same with regard to those who have lost their [ 253 Junderstanding, as to natural idiots who never had any (t). In some cases (u) equity has relieved by decreeing a re-conveyance. In another case it relieved against a fine levied upon a possession obtained under a forged deed (v). And Lord Hardwicke observed though a fine has been levied, yet if it has been under circumstances of fraud, the court ought to prevent the stealing away an estate in this manner (w). Persons who are born deaf, dumb, and blind (a), are in the same predicament with idiots. Persons deprived of only one or two senses, and who could express their meaning by writing, or sigus, have been allowed to be competent to levy fines (y). Nor can duress of imprisonment, or the like, be alleged at law as an answer to the operation of a fine (z). The rule of court (a), which requires an affidavit of one of the commissioners, before [254] whom a fine is acknowledged, that the par (t) 4 Co. 124. (v) Cartwright v. Pultney, 2 Atk. 281. (w) Baker v. Pritchard, alias Hosier, 2 Atk. 387. 53. (x) Co. Litt. 42, b. (z) Chetwynd on Fines, 49. ties are of age, and competent understanding, has given great protection against the frauds formerly practised, in obtaining fines from minors, &c. A fine by a married woman alone, without the concurrence of her husband, ought not to be received, except, perhaps, under peculiar circumstances, as where her husband is banished for life; or as in Moreau's case (b), where the husband had sold, and he covenanted that he and his wife, when of age, should levy a fine. She attained her age of 21; and at first refused to levy the fine. Her husband afterwards went abroad, and then she consented to levy the fine; and her acknowledgment, as a feme sole, was received by the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. This fine was levied without prejudice to the husband's right to avoid the same. short, the court could not by any means preclude his right to question the validity of the fine. All the Chief Justice did, was to enable the wife to bind herself, by receiving the fine from her, as if she had been a feme sole. In So a fine from a married woman alone was allowed to pass, because the husband and wife had conveyed, and the purchase (b) 2 Blackst. Rep. 1205. |