COLONIAL DISCUSSION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW In this action, brought in the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, defendant entered a demurrer to a declaration in ejectment. Upon argument of the demurrer on November 27, 1759, defendant insisted that a section of a 1745 provincial act regulating executors and administrators was void in itself as repugnant to the laws of England, or that if not thus void, it did not extend to administrators de bonis non? 20 The section in question recited that it frequently happened in the province that persons obtained letters of administration upon suggestion that they were principal creditors of the intestate. Then when they had received sufficient assets of intestate to satisfy their own debts, they deserted the administration or neglected recovery of the remainder of intestate's credits which ought to have been applied toward satisfaction of the rest of intestate's creditors. To correct this abuse it was enacted that no letters of adminisration should be thereafter granted by the Ordinary to any person or persons as principal creditor or creditors to any intestate, but upon special trust and for the benefit of all the rest of the creditors. All debts of an equal nature should be discharged by such administrator in average and proportion, as far as intestate's assets should extend, and no preference should be given among creditors in equal degree. Every such administrator should be thereupon submitted the matter to the Com- for dissolution. This act met disallowance mittee to the end that if colonial divorce acts, accordingly in September, 1773 (5 APC, Col., especially where no suits were instituted in #265). In the same month a New Hampshire the ecclesiastical courts or verdicts previously act to dissolve the marriage of Greenwood obtained at common law, were either "im- Carpenter met disallowance on the usual proper or unconstitutional," the King might grounds (3 Laws of N.H., 554; 5 APC, Col, give directions to prevent the Pennsylvania p. 580). Further, circular instructions issued acts from becoming intercolonial precedents. on November 24, 1773, forbidding assent to Upon Committee advice, the act was disal- any acts "for the divorce of persons joined lowed by an instrument under the privy seal together in holy marriage" (1 Labaree, Royal dated April 27, 1773 (8 Stat, at Large Pa., Instructions, #239). In June, 1774, a New 597-600). Hampshire act dissolving the marriage of. Later in 1773 the Board of Trade reported Eliphalet Pattee was disallowed, but largely upon a 1772 New Jersey act for dissolving because of inconsistency with the above inthe marriage of David Baxter. Disallowance struction (3 Laws of N.H., 584; 5 APC, Col., was advised, since the act was liable to the #295). same objections made to previous acts for 32 ° MS Journal So. Car. Court Common Pleas, divorce and imposition was insufficient ground 1754-63, 220, 236,