9

705, Ld Ch. Macclesfield said the ct wd remove a child from a fathers
cuutody, where the child had an estate, & the father who was
insolvent, & of an its character would take the profits.

However, is in no doubt competent to the Chancellor by the
law which give him jurisdiction on the subject of divorce, to make
any order which he may deem proper touching the custody of the
Child, whilst it is probable he would feel bound to prove himself in
the exercise of his discretion by the principles also stated.

As to the remaining part of the enquiry, whether the father can
properly demand, supposing the custody of the child to be awarded to him,
that an allowance shall he made out of the trust - estate, for the child's
support; - the doctrine seems to be that where a fund is to be enjoyed by
several persons jointly, as a husband & family, or wife & family, that
none has a right to any separate share, can the creditors of any one subject any
portion thereof. In persuance of this doctrine, I apprehend the por-
tion of the child is not separable from the bulk of the trust-fund with
out [?] consent. The boy is entitled to a maintenance in his mother's
family, but not elsewhere. Scott [?] a Gibbon [?], 5 [?] 90; Roanes
v Archer, 4 Liegh 550, 568: Perkins v. Dickinson [?] 3 Grant. 337: Nickell &al v Handley &als,
10 Grat. 336, 340 &c: Crawford's Ex'or v Patterson, 11 Grat, 370: Johnston v Lanes Trustees, 11 Grat, 552, 570: Arm-
strong's Advr &als v Pitts &als 13 Grat. 241.

5. Supposing an allowance proper to be made to the child, how &
to what extent ought it to be made.

The very fact of the difficulty of assigning a share to the child
upon any reliable principal is an argument against attempting it, at all.
The leading intent is to secure a support to their family. This necessarily
requires unequal expenditures for the different members. He will ob-
viously contemplate that the property shall be kept together during [his?]
life-time, & its products are charged with the unequal & varying amts