674 INDEX.

JURISDICTION—Continued.
SeeArfEAL, 5.

CoNCnRRBNT JURISDICTION.
GUARDIAN AND WARD.

PRACTICE IN CHANCERY, 28.

LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF, 2.

LANDLORD AND TENANT.

See CONSTITUTION OF STATUTES, 3.
LAPSE OF TIME.

1. A decree or order, after delay or lapse of time cannot be set aside, ex-
cept upon very strong grounds. Barry vs. Barry, 20.

2. The order sought to be set aside, was passed on the 18th of November,
1844, and no objection is made until August, 1846. HELD—That upon
the ground of delay alone, there would be great difficulty in granting re-
lief against the order, even if the merits were with the petitioner, /t.

3. A proceeding against an innocent purchaser, to set aside a patent, forty-
seven years after its date, and forty-five years after the patentee had
sold and conveyed the land to such purchaser, cannot receive the
countenance of a court of equity. Buckingham vs. Dwsey, 31.

4. The statute of limitations does not apply to the wife's remedy by action,
for her dower, though it does not follow, that lapse of time may not
operate as a bar to a bill for an account. KMall vs. Trimble, 144.
LEASES.

1. A lease for ninety-nine years, renewable forever, is a mere chattel in-
terest, and not such an estate in lands, from which dower can be
claimed. Spangler vs. Stonier, 36.

2. Leases containing covenants, on the part of the lessor, to convey the
fee simple to the lessee, when requested so to do, cannot be made to
operate as a conveyance by lease and re-lease at common law. 16.
See DOWER, 1. 3.
LEGACY.

See INTEREST on LEGACY.

WILL AND TESTAMENT, 9.
LIABILITY OF CORPORATIONS ON TRANSFERS OF THEIR STOCK.

1. If there be no fraud or collusion, the bank and not the transferree must
abide the loss, if a loss be sustained by any act of the proper officer
of the bank, in the transfer of its stock, arising either from a miscon-
ception of his duty or a want of judgment. Albtrt and wife vs. iSa»-
ings' Bank, 407.

2. Where the entry on the transfer book, displays the origin, nature, and
character of the trust, and who were the beneficiaries, it was HELD—-
That the bank had notice of the trusts with which the stock was
clothed and would be responsible if it permitted a transfer to be made
by other persons than the trustees, who alone were authorized to
make it. Ib.

3. In such case, if the trustees themselves should offer to transfer, under
circumstances calculated to excite suspicion that they were about to
abuse their trust, the bank would be bound to institute the necessary