Page images
PDF
EPUB

Will:(i.) C. D.-Construction-Settlement-Bequest on " sameTrustsAccretion

-Hotchpot.- Where, in a will bequeathing money “ upon and for the same trusts" as those expressed in a marriage settlement, there was no context to shew that, by the use of the word “same," an accretion to the trust fund was intended, it was held, that a hotchpot clause in the settle

ment was not applicable.-In re North; Meates v. Bishop, 76 L.T.186. (ii.) C. D.- Construction-Whether Repairs and Outgoings Chargeable to

Corpus or Income.- Trustees were directed to manage the testator's estate and to apply the income derived from leaseholds for the benefit of a tenant for life. Held, that “income derived” meant after pay. ment by the life tenant of repairs and outgoings accrued since the death of the testator.-In re Redding ; Thompson v. Redding, L.R. (1897]

1 Ch. 876 ; 76 L.T. 339. (iii.) C. D.-Construction-Charitable Purposes.--"Grants for or towards

the purchase of advowsons or presentations” do not fall within charitable purposes. — In re Hunter; Hood v. Attorney - General,

L.R. (1897) 1 Ch. 518; 76 L.T. 386. (iv.) C. D.-ConstructionGist of Realty and Personalty to Spinster and her

Lawful Issue-Rule in Wild's Case--Personal Representative.--A testator gave real and personal property “ for life to my ward E." "and to any lawful issue she may have, such issue taking a vested interest in my said property upon attaining the age of 21 years.” E. survived the

“issue" as used was a word of purchase and not of limitation; and that the heir-at-law of E. took the realty and her personal representa

tive the personalty.--In re Wilmot ; Wilmot v. Betterton, 76 L.T. 415. (v.) C. D.- Construction-Illegitimate Child.-A testator gave a specific

legacy to a person described in the will as “my said wife's nephew
J. W. R." and gave a moiety of residue to “ all and every the nephew
and niece and the nephews and nieces of my said wife. Held, that
J. W. R., although he was illegitimate, was entitled his share in the

residue.-In re Parker ; Parker v. Osborne, L.R. [1897] 76 L.T. 421. (vi.) C. D.- ConstructionTenant for Life and Remainderman-Rule in

Howe v. Dartmouth.-A testator directed that the rents and profits of the residue of his freeholds and leaseholds should be paid to his wife for life, and after her decease he gave and devised the said residue to persons named, subject to payment of certain annuitants to whom he gave a power of distress. Held, that neither the direction as to rents and profits, nor the power of distress shewed any intention of the testator that the leaseholds should be enjoyed in specie, and that therefore the rule in Howe v. Lord Dartmouth (7 Ves. 137) applied.-

In re Game; Game v. Young, L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 881 ; 76 L.T. 450. (vii.) C. A.-Residuary Legatee-Fund to be taken as part of Residue-Hotch

pot Clause.-.Where a will directed that a fund is to be taken by a residuary legatee as part of his share of residue, a hotchpot clause operates as a gift to the legatee of the testator's interest in the fundHumphreys v. Gadsden, L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 325.

INDE X.

AKTIESELSKAB HELIOS v. EKMAN AND | Battams and Hutchinson, in re (L.R.

Co. (L.R. (1897] 2 Q.B. 83 ; 76 | [1897] 1 Ch. 699; 76 L.T. 385), L.T. 537), 110, i.

105, v. Alcoy and Gandia Railway and Belize Estate and Produce Co. v.

Harbour Co., Ltd. v. Greenhill (76 L.T. 542), 22, 22, vii.

76 L.T. 361), 93, iii. Allen v. Sinclair; in re Sinclair Bell v. Balls (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch.663 ;

(L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 921 ; 76 L.T. 76 L.T. 254), 90, iv. 452), 90, ii.

Beneficed Clerk v. Lee (L.R. (1897] Altair, the (L.R. [1897] P. 105 ; A.C. 226), 22, 62, v. 76 L.T. 263), 109, iii.

Bentinck v. Bentinck; in re Bentinck Andrews V. Denton (L.R. (1897] (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 673; 76 L.T. 2 Q.B. 37; 76 L.T. 423), 99, vi.

284), 90, i. Andrews v. Gas Meter Co., Ltd. Birrell v. Greenhough ; in re Crossley

(L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 361; 76 L.T. (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 928; 76 L.T. 132), 94, v.

419), 93, ii. Appleyard v. Vestry of Lambeth Bishop v. Bishop (and Jenkins v. (76 L.T. 442), 101, iv.

Jenkins) (L.R. (1897] P. 138 ; Arter v. The Vestry of Hammersmith 76 L.T. 409), 22, 62, ii. ; 98, iii.

(L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 646 ; 76 L.T. Blaker v. Seager and Others (76 L.T. 390), 101, vi.

392), 99, iii. Attorney - General, e. p.; in re Bloomenthal v. Ford (L.R. [18971

Alexander Chaffers (76 L.T. 351), A.C. 156 ; 76 L.T. 205), 95, i. 111, vi.

Bonsor v. Bonsor (L.R. (1897] P. 77; Attorney - General v. Dodington 76 L.T. 168), 98, v.

(L.R."[1897] 1 Q.B. 722 ; 76 L.T. Brewers and Maltsters Association 557), 107, vi.

of Ontario v. Attorney-General for Attorney-General for Dominion of Ontario (L.R. [1897] A.C. 231;

Canada v. A.-G. of Ontario; ditto 76 L.T. 61), 22, 57, v. of Quebec v. ditto of Ontario Broomfield v. Williams (L.R. (1897)

1 Ch. 602; 76 L.T. 243), 96, viii. Attorney-General v. Fairley (L.R. Brown v. Stephenson ; e.p. Stevenson

(1897) 1 Q.B. 698; 76 L.T. 526), (76 L.T. 328), 91, iv.

107, iii. Attorney-General v. The Newcastle Cambrian, the (76 L.T. 504), 109, v.

Breweries, Ltd. v. Mayor, &c., of Carney v. Plimmer (L.R. (1897]

Tynemouth (76 L.T. 566), 100, iv. 1 Q.B. 634; 76 L.T. 374), 98, i. Attorney-General v. Tod-Heatley Carter and Kenderdine's Contract;

and Brownrigg (L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 1 in re (L.R. (1897) 1 Ch. 776 ; 76 560; 76 L.T. 174), 102, vi.

L.T. 476), 111, v.

Chaffers, in re Alexander; e. p. Badische ANILIN UND Soda FABRIK V. Attorney-General (76 L.T. 351),

HENRY JOHNSON & Co. AND THE 111, vi.
BASLE CHEMICAL WORKS, BIND Chastey and Another v. Ackland
SCHEDLER (76 L.T. 21 and 434), (L.R. (1897] A.C. 155; 76 L.T.

103, i. Bald v. Bald; in re Bald (76 L.T. Christmas v. Jones; in re Jones 462), 108, ii.

(76 L.T. 454), 89, iii. Baring, the Hon. John, v. Commis Clarke v. London and County Bank

sioners of Inland Revenue (76 L.T. (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 552 ; 76 L.T. 563), 107, iv.

293), 92, vii. Barman and Greenwood, e. p. ; in re Coates (J. & P.) v. Commissioners Jubb (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 641;

of Inland Revenue (L.R. (1897) 76 L.T. 329), 91, i.

1 Q.B. 778; 76 L.T. 561), 107, v. Barry Railway Co. and Lord Wim Coke v. French (76 L.T. 163), borne and the Vendor and 103, vi. Purchaser Act, 1874, in re (76 L.T. Colmer; in re James, Ltd. (76 L.T. 489), 111, iv.

323), 95, v. Bashall v. Bashall (76 L.T. 165), Conroy v. Peacock (L.R.(1897]2 Q.B 98, vii.

6; 76 L.T. 465), 105, vii.

Consort Deep Level Gold Mines, | Ellis v. Wright and Others (76 L.T. Ltd., in re ; e. p. Stark (L.R. 522), 92, vi. [1897] 1 Ch. 575; 76 L.T. 300), | Evans, in re; e. p. Davis (76 L.T. 95, iv.

530), 92, ii. Continental Oxygen Co., Ltd., in re;

Elias v. Continental Oxygen Co., FARRELL V. FARRELL (76 L.T. 167), Ltd. (76 L.T. 229), 95, ii.

98, vi. Coolgardie Consolidated Gold Mines, Fenner and Lord, in re an Arbitration

Ltd. ; in re (76 L.T. 269), 94, i. between (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 667 ; County Council of Worcestershire v. 76 L.T. 376), 104, vii.

Assessment Committee of Wor Finlay v. Darling (L.R. (1897) 1 Ch. cestershire (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 719 ; 76 L.T. 461), 108, v. 480; 76 L.T. 138), 106, v.

Finlay v. Mexican Investment Cor. Crathie, the (L.R. (1897] P. 178; 76 poration (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 517; L.T. 534), 109, vi.

76 L.T. 257), 99, ii. Crayford, Overseers of, and District Firth v. Staines (L.R. (1897] 2 Q.B.

Council of, v. D. & C. Rutter (L.R. 70 ; 76 L.T. 496), 101, v. [1897] 1 Q.B. 650 ; 76 L.T. 392), Floyd v. J. Lyons & Co., Ltd. (L.R. 106, vi.

Ti897] 1 Ch. 633; 76 L.T. 251),

99, iv. DE HAYN V. GARLAND; in re DE Forrest v. Todd (76 L.T. 500),

LINDEN; in re SPURRIER'S SETTLE 105, viii.
MENT (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 453 ; 76
L.T. 180), 100, vi.

GALLARD, in re; e. p. GALLARD (L.R. De Linden, in re; in re Spurrier ; De [1897] 2 Q.B. 8; 76 L.T. 327),

Hayn v. Garland (L.R. [1897] 1 91, iii.

Ch. 453; 76 L.T. 180), 100, vi. Game v. Young; in re Game (L.R. Derbyshirev. Montagu ; in re Montagu (1897] 1 Ch. 881; 76 L.T. 450),

(L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 685 and 2 Ch. 112, vi.

8; 76 L.T. 289 and 485), 108, iv. Goldstein v. Vaughan (L.R. (1897] Devonshire (Duke of) v. Stokes (76 1 Q.B. 549; 76 L.T. 262), 97, iii. L.T. 424), 102, i.

Goodlock v. Cousins (L.R. [1897] Dodd v. Churton (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 1 Q.B. 558; 76 L.T. 313), 96, v. 562; 76 L.T. 438), 96, i.

Graham v. Sutton & Co. (L.R. Donnisthorpe's Claim and the Man [1897] 1 Ch. 716; 76 L.T. 369),

chester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire 105, iii. Railway (L.R. (1897) 1 Q.B. 671 ; Grosvenor and West End Railway 76 L.T. 371), 104, vi.

Terminus Hotel Co., Ltd., in re Duff v. Hawker; in re Hawker's (76 L.T. 337), 95, vi.

Settled Estates (76 L.T. 286), 108, iii.

HAMINI AND OTHERS V. TILLEKERATNE Duncan v. Dowding and Others (L.R. [1897] A.C. 277; 76 L.T.

(L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 575; 76 L.T. 210), 93, vi. 294), 99, vii.

Harris v. Sleep (76 L.T. 458), Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co., Ltd. 105, vi.

v. New Seddon Pneumatic Tyre 1. Hawke v. Dunn (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. and Self-Closing Tube Co., Ltd. 579; 76 L.T. 355), 97, vii. (76 L.T. 405), 102, vii.

Hawker's Settled 'Estates, in re; Dunn v. Macdonald (L.R. (18971 1 Duff v. Hawker (76 L.T. 286), Q.B. 555; 76 L.T. 444), 105, ix.

108, iii. Durrant v. the Branksome Urban Hawley, in re; e. p. Ridgway (76

District Council (76 L.T. 486), L.T. 501), 91, vi. 106, i.

Hayward v. Hayward ; in re Hayward

(L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 905; 76 L.T. EARL COWLEY, in re ESTATE DUTY 383), 91, v.

PAYABLE ON THE DEATH OF THE Hill (Viscount) v. Bullock (L.R. SECOND (76 L.T. 567), 107, ii.

[1897] 2 Ch. 55; 76 L.T. 417), Edison General Electric Co. v. West 97, iv. minster and Vancouver Tramway Hodgkins v. Sinclair (76 L.T. 452),

Co.(L.R. 1897) A.C.193), 22,58, ii. 90, ii. Elias v. Continental Oxygen Co. Hood v. Attorney-General; in re

(L.R. (1897) 1 Ch. 511 ; 76 L.T. Hunter (L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 518; 229), 95, ii.

76 L.T. 386), 112, iii.

Hood - Barrs v. Crossman and I Magnolia Metal Co.'s Trade Marks,

Prichard (L.R .[1897] A.C. 172; 1 in re (76 L.T. 190), 110, iv. 76 L.T. 297), 104, iv.

| Manders v. Manders (L.R. (1897] Hood-Barrs v. Heriot (second appeal) 1 Q.B. 474), 98, iv.

(L.R. (1897] A.C. 177; 76 L.T. | Marlborough” (Duke of) v. Queen 299), 104, v.

Anne's Bounty (Governors of), in Hopcraft v. Hopcraft (76 L.T. 341), į re (L.R. [1897) 1 Ch. 712; 76 L.T. 111, i.

388), 108, vi. Hornsey District Council v. Smith. Master in Equity of Supreme Court

(L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 843; 76 L.T., of Victoria v. Pearson (L.R. (1897) 431), 102, v.

A.C. 214), 22, 58, iii. Huddersfield Corporation v. Ravens Mayflower, the Log of the (76 L.T.

thorpe Urban District Council 295), 106, vii. (L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 652; 76 L.T. McCall and Co., Ltd., v. Houlder and 377), 100, iii.

Co. (76 L.T. 469), 109, vii. Humphreys v. Gadsden; in re Cosier | McInany v. Hildrith (L.R. (1897]

(L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 325; 76 L.T. ! 1 Q.B. 600; 76 L.T. 463), 97, vi. 31), 112, vii.

Meates v. Bishop; in re North (76

L.T. 186), 112, i. Jenkins, in the goods of ; JENKINS V. Minna Craig Steamship Co. v. JENKINS (76 L.T. 164), 103, vii.

Chartered Mercantile Bank of Jenks v. Clifden (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. India, London, and China (L.R. 694; 76 L.T. 382), 89, i.

[1897] 1 Q.B. 460; 76 L.T. 310), John O'Scot, the (L.R. (1897] P. 64 ; 22, 44, ii.; 97, v. 76 L.T. 222), 109, i.

Montague, in re; e. p. Ward v. Joseph v. Joseph and Burnhill London and South Western Bank (76 L.T. 236), 104, ii.

(76 L.T. 203), 91, ii. Judkins v. Judkins (76 L.T. 169 and Morter, in re; e. p. Nicholls (76 L.T. 409), 22, 62, ii.

532), 92, iv.

Mountfield v. Ward (76 L.T. 202), KENNEDY V. DE TRAFFORD (L.R.[1897] | 22, 67, i.

A.C. 180 ; 76 L.T. 427), 102, iv. Koosen y. Rose (76 L.T. (145), 103, iv. NEw Moss COLLIERY Co. v. Man

CHESTER, SHEFFIELD AND LINCOLNLamond V. RICHARD (L.R. [1897]1 Q.B. SHIRE RAILWAY (L.R. (1897] 1 Ch.

541 ; 76 L.T. 141), 22, 65, ii. ; 99, i. 725 ; 76 L.T. 231), 93, i. Larocque v. Beauchemin and Others New, Prance, and Garrard, Trustee

(L.R. [1897] A.C. 358; 76 L.T. of, v. Hunting and Others (L.R. 473), 93, iv.

[1897] 1 Q.B. 607; 76 L.T. 196), Lazarus v. Artistic Photographic 90, v.

Co., Ltd. (76 L.T. 457), 97, ii. Nicholson v. Rhodesia Trading Co., Lewis v. Powell (L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. Ltd. (L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 434 ; 76 678; 76 L.T. 282), 104, iii.

L.T 147), 94, vi. Lilley, Frederick G., in the goods of North, in re; Meates v. Bishop (76 (76 L.T. 164), 103, v.

L.T. 186), 112, i. Liverpool General Brokers' Associa

tion, Ltd., v. Commercial Press PARKER V. OSBORNE; in re PARKER Telegram Bureaux (L.R. [1897) (76 L.T. 421), 112, v.

2 Q.B. 1; 76 L.T. 292), 96, iv. Pearce v. Gardner (L.R. [1897] Lord Advocate v. Robertson (76 L.T. 1 Q.B. 688; 76 L.T. 441), 96, ii. 125), 108, i.

Peebles v. Oswaldtwistle Urban London and County Banking Co. v. District Council (L.R. (18971

Goddard (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 642 ; 1 Q.B. 625; 76 L.T. 315), 76 L.T. 277), 102, iii.

106, ii.

Phillips, in re; e. p. Thomas and Co. M. v. M. (otherwise A.) (76 L.T. 172), (76 L.T. 531), 92, iii. 98, viii.

Plant v. Bourne (76 L.T. 349), 111, Macmillan V. Australasian Terri iii.

tories, Ltd., and Others (76 L.T. Pomeroy v. Tanner, No. 2, in re (76 182), 103, viii.

L.T. 149), 110, ii. Madeley v. Ross, Sleeman & Co. Pratt v. South Eastern Railway Co.

(L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 505 ; 76 L.T. (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 718; 76 L.T. 321), 94, ii.

465), 106, iii.

Priestley v. Ellis (L.R. (1897) 1 Ch.1 District Council (76 L.T. 318), 489; 76 L.T. 187), 108, vii.

104, viii. Pritchett v. Poole (76 L.T.472), 96, vi. Sprigg v. Sigcau (L.R. [1897] A.C.

238; 76 L.T. 127), 93, v. Raatz, in re; e. p. CARLHIAN (76 L.T. Stileman-Gibbard v. Wilkinson and 330), 105, i.

Others (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 749; Raatz, in re ; e. p. Raatz (L.R.[1897] 76 L.T. 90), 22, 63, i.

2 Q.B. 80 ; 76 L.T. 503), 91, viii. St. Olave's Union v. Canterbury Ratata, the (L.R. (1897] P. 118; Union (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 682; 76 L.T. 224), 109, ii.

76 L.T. 88 and 517), 103, ii. Reg. v. Charity Commissioners for Swabey, in re ; e. p. Swabey (76 L.T.

England and Wales (76 L.T. 199), 534), 92, v.

22, 68, ii. Reg. 'v. Clerk of Assize of Oxford TaDCASTER TOWER BREWERY Co. v.

Circuit (76 L.T. 260), 22, 62, i. Wilson (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 705 ; Reg. v. Commissioners of Lunacy 76 L.T. 459), 110, iii.

(L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 630 ; 76 L.T. Tate v. Latham & Sons (76 L.T. 336), 353), 100, v.

101, iii. Reg. v. Lewisham Union (L.R. [1897] Thomas V. Foster ; in re Foster

1 Q.B. 498; 76 L.T. 324), 104, ix. (L.R. (1897) 1 Ch. 484 ; 76 L.T. Reg. v. London County Council 228), 107, i. (76 L.T. 472), 101, i.

Thompson v. Redding; in re Redding Reg. y. London (Justices of) (L.R. (L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 876; 76 L.T. (1897) 1 Q.B. 433), 106, iv.'

339), 112, ii. Reg. v. Pelly and Another (L.R. Toleman, in re; Westwood v. Booker

[1897] 2 Q.B. 33; 76 L.T. 467), (L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 866; 76 L.T. 100, i.

381), 105, iv. Reg. v. Turner (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. Trevor v. Hutchins (76 L.T. 183), 445 ; 76 L.T. 556), 96, vii.

100, ii. Ridgway, e.p.; in ré Hawley (76 L.T. 501), 91, vi.

WALKER v. WALKER AND LAWSON Roberts, in re; Knight v. Roberts (76 L.T. 235), 104, i. (76 L.T. 479), 89, ii.

Ward v. London and South Western Rumney and Smith's Contract Bank; in re Montague (76 L.T. (76 L.T. 343), 111, ii.

203), 91, ii.

Welton v. Saffery (L.R. (1897) A.C. SALISBURY GOLD MINING Co. v. 299; 76 L.T. 505), 94, iv.

HATHORN AND OTHERS (L.R. [1897] Western Counties Steam Bakeries A.C. 268; 76 L.T. 212), 93, vii.

and Milling Co., Ltd., in re; e. p. Saunders v. Gore; in re Saunders Parsons and Robjent (L.R. (1897)

(L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 888; 76 L.T. 1 Ch. 617; 76 L.T. 239), 22, 60, 345), 107, vii.

vi. ; 95, iii. Saunders v. Saunders (L.R. [1897] | White v. Southend Hotel Co., Ltd. P. 89; 76 L.T. 330), 98, ii.

(L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 767; 76 L.T. Scowby v. Scowby ; in re Scowby 273), 99, v.

L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 741; 76 L.T. 363), Wiesener v. Rackow (76 L.T. 448), 105, ii.

90, iii. Seaward v. Paterson (L.R. [1897] Wilding v. Sanderson (76 L.T. 346), 1 Ch. 545; 76 L.T. 215), 95, vii.

102, ii. Simpson v. Hughes and Armstrong Wilkinson and Wife v. Downson

(76 L.T. 237), 22, 61, iii. ; 110, vi. (L.R. (1897] 2 Q.B. 57; 76 L.T. Slater, in re; e. p. Slater (76 L.T. 493), 100, vii. 529), 92, i.

Williams v. Goose (L.R.[1897)1 Q.B. Small and Others v. United Kingdom 471; 76 L.T. 143), 103, iii. Mutual Insurance Co. (L.R. [1897] | Williams v. Grant (76 L.T. 150), 2 Q.B. 42; 76 L.T. 326), 109, iv.

101, ii. Smith v. Batsford (76 L.T. 179), Wilmot v. Betterton ; in re Wilmot 110, v.

(76 L.T. 415), 112, iv. South African Territories y. Wal Woodroof, in re; e. p. Woodroof

lington (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 692; (76 L.T. 502), 91, vii. 76 L.T. 520), 96, iii.

Wragg, E.J., Ltd., in re (L.R. (1897] Southport (Mayor, Aldermen and 1 Ch. 796 ; 76 L.T. 397), 94, iii.

Burgesses of) v. Birkdale Urban

« PreviousContinue »