notabilia: testator: point has since arisen in a case (b) before Knight Bruce, V. C., who considered the question so doubtful, that he would not force a title dependent on it upon a purchaser (c). What sort of Having considered the value to which effects must amount things shall be accounted bona in order to be accounted bona notabilia, it remains to inquire, what sort of things shall be said to be so.-Debts owing to Debts owing to the testator, however difficult to be collected, or however desperate, are in the Spiritual Court considered bona notabilia, as well as goods in possession (d): so is even a debt due from the king (against whom no suit can be, but only a petition), if it amount to 51. (e). So in a modern case, where it appeared, that the deceased, in his lifetime, had sold an estate, and had a claim on that account against a purchaser for a sum exceeding 5l., Sir J. Nicholl held this sufficient evidence of bona notabilia, to warrant the Court's compelling a party who held the Will to give it up, although it was objected by him, that the testator had assigned over the estate to trustees for the benefit of his creditors, previous to the sale, and could therefore have no just demand against the purchaser (ƒ). But if the penalty of a bond be but for 51. to secure the payment of a less sum, although the bond be forfeited, yet this will not be taken to be bona notabilia, viz. of 5l. value, although in law the whole penal sum be a duty: and this the Court in which A. had proved (b) Williams v. Bland, 2 Coll. 575. (c) See further, In the goods of Owen, 2 Robert. 561. (d) Swinb. Pt. 6, s. 11, pl. 5. Wentw. Off. Ex. 107, 14th edition. Com. Dig. tit. Administrator (B. 4): So are mortgages for years: 1 Oughton, tit. 6, s. 1, n. a. pl. 2. (e) Wentw. Off. Ex. 107, 108, 14th edition. (f) Coates v. Brown, 1 Add. 345, n. a. As to whether naked trusts create bona notabilia, see Crosley v. Archdeacon of Sudbury, 3 Hagg. 201. In the goods of Wells, 2 Robert. 356. Post, Pt. 1. Bk. v. Ch. III. § VI. was so held before the stat. 4 & 5 Anne, c. 16, s. 13, whereby the penalty is saved, by bringing the principal, interest, and costs into Court (g). A further question respecting debts and choses in action is, in what place or diocese they shall be said to be as bona notabilia. The rule is, that simple contract debts make bona notabilia where the debtor lived, whereas specialty debts constitute bona notabilia at the place where the specialty happened to be at the time of the death of the testator (h). Therefore if the obligee of a bond dwells in one diocese and dies there, and the bond is in another diocese at the time of his death, and is of the value of 51. or upwards, it will be bona notabilia in the diocese where it is, and there must be a prerogative probate or administration (i). But where only simple contract debts, as those on bills of exchange, and the like, are due to the deceased, these are bona notabilia in that diocese where the debtor inhabits at the time of the creditor's death (k). Judgments, statutes, or recognizances, are bona notabilia in the place where they are given or acknowledged (1). An annuity for years out of a parsonage shall be bona notabilia where the parsonage is (m). (g) Wentw. Off. Ex. 107, 108, 14th edit. Godolph. Pt. 1, c. 22, s. 3. (h) France v. Aubery, 2 Cas. temp. Lee, 534. Therefore money due on a policy of insurance under seal is bona notabilia where the policy was, and not where the funds of the company were, at the time of the death: Gurney v. Rawlins, 2 Mees. & W. 87. (i) Byron v. Byron, Cro. Eliz. 472. Loddington v. Draper, 3 Keb. 438, pl. 50. Wentw. Off. Ex. 109, 14th edition. Godolph. Pt. 1, c. 22, s. 3. 1 Saund. 274, note (3), to Rex v. Sutton. (k) 1 Roll. Abr. 909, Exor. H. pl. 4. Dyer, 305, a. in margin. Wentw. Off. Ex. 109, 14th edition. Godolph. Pt. 1, c. 22, s. 3. Lord Northampton v. Lord St. John, 2 Leon. 56. Yeomans v. Bradshaw, (1) Dyer, 305, a. in margin. (m) Dyer, 305, a. in margin. Com. Dig. Administrator, (B. 4.) in what place or diocese debts and choses in action are bona notabilia: an annuity out of a parsonage : leases for years are bona nota A lease for years of the value of 51. will constitute bona bilia where the notabilia (although in the old entries they are called bona mobilia) (n), and it shall be accounted so where the land lies Land charged and not where the lease is (o). But in case land be given to land lies: with debts, &c., not bona notabilia: shares in a canal lying in executors for payment of debts or legacies, this shall not be bona notabilia, though it is equitable assets (p). Where a canal was situate in both provinces, but the office two provinces: for transacting the business of it was in that of Canterbury, the Court held that probate of the Will of a shareholder in the province of Canterbury was sufficient, and that probate in York was unnecessary (q). And it may happen that a mere diocesan probate is sufficient for a Will disposing of shares in a canal, although the canal passes through several dioceses of the same province: Thus an Act for making a navigable canal provided that the shares were to be deemed personal estate, and to be transmissible as such: The canal passed through parishes in the diocese of Worcester, and other parishes in the diocese of Lichfield and Coventry: The transfers of shares in the canal were filed at the public office of the company in the diocese of Lichfield and Coventry, where the dividends were also paid, and books of account in several dio kept: It was held, that for the purposes of probate, the right of a shareholder to a share of the profits, being personal property, might be considered as locally situate in the diocese of Lichfield and Coventry; and that a probate granted by the Consistorial Court of the bishop of that diocese was sufficient (r). ceses of the same province : In Rex v. Capper, 5 Price, 262, 9 Hare, 413. S. C. 1 De G. M. & (n) Dyer, 305, a. in margin. 1 Roll. Abr. 909, Exors. H. pl. 1. Godolph. Pt. 1, c. 22, s. 4. (0) Com. Dig. Administrator, (B. 4). (p) Wentw. Off. Ex. 109, 14th edition. See infra, Pt. IV. Bk. 1. Ch. I. (q) Smith v. Stafford, 2 Wils. Ch. Rep. 166. (r) Ex parte Horne, 7 Barn. & Cress. 632. S. C. nomine Rex v. Worcester Canal, 1 Man. & R. 529. It is ordained by the 92nd canon, that if a man dies on a journey, the goods which he has about him at the time shall not cause his testament or administrator to be liable to the Prerogative Court (8). In a case where a person, whose residence and property were in the diocese of Gloucester, went on temporary business to Bristol, and in the way met with an accident, in consequence of which he was taken to the Bristol Infirmary, and died there, within the diocese of Bristol, a few days after, it was held that probate from the Bishop of Gloucester was regular; and that the case fell within the principle of this canon, which appears to be this, that the goods which a party, who dies in itinere, has with him at the time of his death, are supposed to be, for the purposes of the jurisdiction of the Ordinary, in the place where he is domiciled, notwithstanding his personal absence (t). With regard to wages, &c. due for work in any of the king's docks or yards, by stat. 4 Ann. c. 16, s. 26, after reciting"That great trouble and expense is frequently occasioned to the widows and orphans of persons dying intestate to monies, or wages due for work done in her majesty's yards and docks, by disputes happening about the authority of granting probate of the Wills and letters of administration of the goods and chattels of such persons: "it is enacted, for the preventing of such unnecessary trouble and ex (s) Wentw. Off. Ex. 107, 14th edition. It is said to have been decided in Hilliard v. Cox, 1 Salk. 37, that if a man has two houses in several dioceses, and lives most at one, but sometimes goes to the other, and being there for a day or two, dies leaving no bona notabilia in the first mentioned house, probate shall be granted by the bishop of the diocese in which the testator died; for he was commorant there, and not there as a traveller. See Toller, 52. 4 Burn. Eccl. L. 233, 234, 8th edition. The point above stated may be good law, but (t) Doe v. Ovens, 2 B. & Adol. pense, "That the power of granting probates of the Wills and letters of administration of the goods and chattels of such person and persons respectively is, and is hereby declared to be, in the Ordinary of the diocese, or such other person to whom the ordinary power of probate of Wills, or granting letters of administration, do belong, where such person and persons shall respectively die; and that the salary, wages, or pay, due to such person or persons from the queen's majesty, her heirs, or successors, for work done in any of the yards or docks, shall not be taken or deemed to be bona notabilia, whereby to found the jurisdiction of the Prerogative Court." The probate of The probate of every bishop's testament, or granting of a Will of a bishop must be administration of his goods, although he hath not goods prerogative. but within his own jurisdiction, doth belong to the archbishop (u). Prerogative probate granted where there are not bona notabilia is voidable only and not void : Diocesan pro- There is a most important distinction between a Prerogative and a Diocesan probate, which, generally speaking, makes it safer to obtain probate in the Prerogative Court. If the Metropolitan grants probate or letters of administration in a case where the deceased had not any bona notabilia in divers dioceses, still such probate or letters are not void, but only voidable: But if probate or letters of administration be granted by a bishop or other inferior judge, in a case where the deceased had bona notabilia in divers dioceses in the same province, they are absolutely void (x). (u) 4 Inst. 335. (x) 1 Oughton, tit. 6, s. 1, n. (a), pl. 5, 6. Prince's case, 5 Co. 30, a. Sir I. Needham's case, 8 Co. 135, a. Blackborough v. Davis, 1 P. Wms. 43, 44. Rex v. Loggen, 1 Stra. 75. Swinb. Pt. 6, s. 4, pl. 5. Godolph. Pt. 1, c. 22, s. 4. Touchs. 462. Wentw. p. 110, 14th edition. Lysons v. Barrow, 2 Bing. N. C. 486. In note (3) by Mr. Serjt. Williams to Rex v. Sutton, 1 Saund. 275, it is said that Lord Macclesfield in Comber's case, 1 P. Wms. 767, took a distinction between letters of administration and probate, and held that a probate granted by an inferior judge is not void, till reversed: and Thompson, B., is said to have ruled accordingly in Rex v. Whitaker, Lancaster Summ. Ass. 1810. Stark. on Evid. Appendix to Pt. 4, p. 550.—But on examining Comber's case it does not appear that Lord Macclesfield held any such doctrine, and his Lordship seems rather to distinguish between the |