Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/482

under the custom, without express agreement; but it was a particular covenant between the parties, as to certain parts of their estate, and intended to be observed and performed throughout; and therefore, the specific performance of this contract was the appellants' object, but by no means an attempt to introduce foreign laws or customs as binding here, any otherwise than by express and positive agreement.

[132] On the other side it was insisted (R. Acherley), that this marriage-contract extended to no more than the 800 livres; for that there being no special provision made to vary or alter the custom of Paris, the agreement, as to all the residue of the estate beyond the 800 livres, was, in truth, no more than a declaration, that such residue, being the estate in common, should go according to the custom of Paris; which it would have done, if there had been no such agreement; and therefore, the agreement in this respect amounted to nothing. That the custom of Paris could only affect the parties while they lived there; and therefore, upon their removing into England, their estates, as to all such things as were not specially agreed upon, but only left to the custom of Paris, ought to go according to the laws of England. That, by the second agreement in June 1680, the appellants were absolutely barred of all their demands upon the joint or common estate. That it would be strange, if refugees, flying hither from persecution, should bring with them French laws and customs, to be of force against the laws of the country, which affords them protection; and it would be still more strange, if an English court of justice should be obliged to execute such French laws and customs, among so great a body of people as the refugees.

After hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the decree complained of should be reversed; so far, as that the estate in common, after the 800 livres decreed to the appellants were paid, and 300 livres allowed to the respondent Turst, according to the marriage-contract, were deducted, and other just allowances to be retained by himself; the respondent Turst was to account for the residue, and give security to the Court of Chancery, answerable to the value of the moiety thereof; to pay such moiety to the appellants, and other heirs of the respondent's late wife, at the respondent's decease, or within three months after; and it was further ordered, that the Court of Chancery should give directions that the same should be done accordingly. (Jour. vol. 17. p. 345.)

The respondent being principal register of the Consistory Court of the Bishop of Gloucester, on the 7th of July 1690, appointed the appellant Fortune his deputy in that office; and the other appellant became security for Fortune in a bond of £2000 penalty, for his due performance of certain articles, entered into between him and the respondent on that occasion.

By these articles it was agreed, that the said John Fortune, during the time of his continuance in the office under the said John Stanyon, should and might receive and take, to the use of the said John Stanyon, all and singular the fees, benefits, perquisites, profits, and emoluments, in any wise appertaining to the said office: that the said John Stanyon should allow to the said John Fortune, one full fourth part of the profits of the said office, for his pains in executing the same: and, that