Ss S.W

0G, 107 Am. St. Rep. 368, 3 Ann. Cas. 1005. The rule has prevailed in the Efiglish courts that when the income of a trust estate is given to any person (other than a married woman) for life, the equitable estate for life Is alienable by, and liable in equity to the debts of, the cestui que trust, and that this quality is so inseparable from the estate that no provision, however express, which does not operate as a cesser or limitation over of the estate itself, can protect it from his debts or control: 18 Yes. 429; 6 Sim. 524; 1 Russ. tary funds, are upheld In Scotland; Gray, In the accounts of ah executor and the Restr. on Alienation 168. The English rule inventory of the personal assets, he should has been adopted in several courts of this distinguish between those which are sperate country; Patterson & Co. v. Lawrence, 83 Ga. and those which are desperate: he will be 703, 10 S. E. 355, 7 L. R. A. 143; Pace v. prime facie responsible for the former and Pace, 73 N. C. 119; Heath v. Bishop, 4 Rich. discharged for the latter; 1 Chitty, Pr. 520; Eq. (S. C.) 40, 55 Am. Dec. 654; Dick v. Pitch- 2 Will. Exec. 644; Toller, Exec. 248. See ford, 21 N. C. 4S0. Desperate. In Arkansas; Lindsay v. Harrison, 8 Ark. SPES RECUPERANDI (Lat. the hope of 302; Indiana; Martin v. Davis, 82 Ind. 38; recovery). A term applied to cases of capand New Hampshire; Banfield v. Wiggin, 58 ture of an enemy’s property as a booty or N. H. 155; the question has been raised, but prize, while it remains in a situation in which not decided. Apart from statute, the rule in it it liable to be recaptured. As between the New Jersey is the same as the English rule; belligerent parties, the title to the property See Wells v. Ely, 11 N. J. Eq. 172; Rolles v. taken as a prize passes the moment there is Trust Co., 27 N. J. Eq. 308; Halstead v. no longer any hope of recovery; 2 Burr. 683. Westerveit, 41 'N. J. Eq. 100, 3 Atl. 270. In See Infra Pr^esidia; Postliminy; Booty; Wisconsin, the question is in d Qubt. See Prize. Bridge v. Ward, 35 Wis. 687; Lam her ton v. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE. A portion of Pereles, 87 Wis. 449, 58 N. W. 776, 23 L. R. unappropriated territory over which a state A. 824. In Connecticut, the status of such possessing territory contiguous to it claims trusts is undecided; Leavitt v. Beirne, 21 to ex'ercise such exclusive control, though Conn. 1; Easterly v. Iveney, 36 Conn. 18. not amounting to ownership, as to bar the By statute, in Kentucky, one cannot vest entry of any other power for purposes of property or funds in trustees for the use of colonization. Between 18S0 and 1900 a numanother without subjecting it to the debts ber of treaties were entered into between the of the cestui que trust; Bland’s Adm’r v. European powers defining their respective Bland, 90 Ky. 400, 14 S. W. 423, 9 L. R. A. spheres of influence in Africa. 599, 29 Am. St. Rep. 390; Anderson v. Bris- Also, a portion of the territory of a weak coe, 12 Bush (Ky.) 344. In New York a state over which a stronger state assumes statute excludes from proceedings in equity to exercise a certain measure of control for to reach beneficial interests, all cases of trusts the sake of economic or other advantages. for maintenance and support where the trust An example of an international agreement has proceeded from some person other than providing for such spheres of influence is the debtor, but makes available to the credi- to be found in the treaty between Great Brittor any surplus beyond what may be neces- ain and Russia in 1907 by which Persia was sary for the maintenance and support of the partitioned into three zones, one neutral and beneficiary; Williams v. Thorn, 70 N. Y. 270. the other two British and Russian spheres The subject has been regulated by statute of influence respectively. A. J. I. L. (1912) in New York; as interpreted by the courts, 155. the beneficiary of the trust is entitled to re- SPIGURNEL. The sealer of the royal ceive sufficient income to support him in the writs. manner in which he had been brought up,