« PreviousContinue »
in trust for the children, subject to parents' life interest, in equal shares, to vest
SHAREHOLDER. — See COMPANY.
PENALTY; SALVAGE; TENDER,
SLANDER. — See LIBEL.
SPECIALTY DEBT. A. agreed to lease a mine from B. Disputes arose between A. and B. upon the subject of the lease. An action was brought by B. and an injunction applied for by A.; but finally matters were left to arbitration. The arbitrator awarded a sum to B. to be paid by A. A. died. Held, that said sum was awarded as damages and not as rent, and therefore could not be proved as a specialty debt in the administration of A.'s estate. — Talbot v. Earl of Shrewsbury, L. R. 16 Eq. 26.
PENALTY; PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.
SUBPENA. - See DisCOVERY, 2.
SUBROGATION. - See Costs, 1.
TENDER. In a case of salvage the Cinque Port Commissioners awarded £800. The owners appealed, and tendered by act in court £100 and costs. Held, that such tender could be made although no tender had been made before the appeal. – The Annette, L. R. 4 Ad. & Ec. 9. TITLE. — See CHARITY; VENDOR AND PURCHASER, 2.
TORT. - See TROVER.
TROVER. B. held goods under a bill of sale, which was set aside as fraudulent as against the trustee of the seller, who was bankrupt. At the application of the trustee, B., who had sold the goods, was ordered to pay over the proceeds to said trustee. Held, that said trustee had affirmed said sale by B., and therefore could not bring trover against B. for the difference between the value of said goods and the amount of the proceeds of said sale. — Smith v. Baker, L. R. 8 C. P. 350.
TRUST. A testator on his death-bed told F. and her husband that he had left them the bulk of his property, and requested them to pay an annuity to N., which they promised to do. Held, that the bequests to F. and her husband in the testator's will were subject to a trust for the payment of said annuity. — Norris v. Frazer, L. R. 15 Eq. 318. See COMPANY, 2; PRIORITY.
ULTRA VIRES. — See COMPANY, 3.
UNCONSCIONABLE BARGAIN. Actions restrained upon bills obtained for sums advanced with extortionate interest thereon from a minor entitled to a large property in the event of his surviving his father. Discussion of doctrines of equity as to relief of expectant heirs from unconscionable bargains. — Earl of Aylesford v. Morris, L. R. 8 Ch. 484.
UNDUE INFLUENCE. Comments upon the degree of influence exercised by a legatee upon the testator necessary to sustain a plea of undue influence. — Parfitt v. Lawless, L. R. 2 P. & D. 462.
USES, STATUTE OF. The owner of a fee granted to B., C., and D. a perpetual yearly rent charge of £9, “to hold the said rent charge unto A., B., and C., their heirs and assigns, to the use of the said A., B., and C., their heirs and assigns, forever as tepants in common, and in equal shares." Held, that the grant operated as a grant at common law, and not under the Statute of Uses. — Orme's Case, L. R. 8 C. P. 281.
VENDOR AND PURCHASER. 1. E. purchased a lot of land at auction, and agreed to take the timber thereon, which was sold separately, at a price stated by the auctioneer. In stating the price of the wood, the auctioneer accidentally omitted in the valuation a considerable portion of the wood upon said lot. Held, that the sale would not be set aside because of the mistake of the auctioneer. - Griffiths v. Jones, L. R. 15 Eq. 279.
2. Land was sold at auction subject to the conditions that the vendors should, within seven days, deliver an abstract of their title, and that all objections to the title not stated by the purchaser within fourteen days should be considered waived; the purchaser failing to comply with said conditions to forfeit his deposit. W. purchased the estate, and the vendors within seven days delivered an abstract showing no title. The purchaser, after the expiration of fourteen days, objected to the title. It subsequently appeared that the vendors' title was insufficiently set forth in the abstract. Held, that the purchaser was entitled to recover back his deposit, as no complete abstract of title had been delivered, and as said conditions did not apply to the case of the vendors being unable to give a title. — Want v. Stallibrass, L. R. 8 Ex. 175.
VERDICT. - See CRIMINAL LAW, 2.
VESTED INTEREST. A testator gave a legacy to J. to be vested in him on attaining the age of twenty-one years, or if he should die under that age, leaving lawful issue at his death. In case he should die without attaining a vested interest, then over. J. attained twenty-one years, and died in the testator's lifetime, leaving a daughter. Held, that J. died without attaining a vested interest, and that the gift over took effect. — In re Gaitskell's Trust, L. R. 15 Eq. 386.
WILL. 1. The deceased requested two illiterate persons to place their signature upon a paper. No explanation was given of the document, and there was no evidence that the name of the deceased was upon the paper when said witnesses signed it. Held, that the document was not duly executed as a will. — Pearson v. Pearson, L. R. 2 P. & D. 451.
2. A testator made two wills containing inconsistent disposition of his property. The first will only nominated an executor. With consent of all parties, both wills were admitted to probate, and said executor appointed. - In the Goods of Griffith, L. R. 2 P. & D. 457.
3. A witness to a will stated that on entering the room where the testator was, he was desired by D. to witness the testator's will. No other allusion was made to the will, and nothing was said by the testator. Held, that there was no evidence that the testator acknowledged his signature to the will in the presence of the witness. — Morritt v. Douglas, L. R. 3 P. & D. 1.
4. A testator gave instructions to his attorney to prepare his will, with particular directions as to his residuary personal estate. A will was drafted in which the word “real” was inserted in place of a personal” in the residuary clause, by mistake of the attorney, and in that form the will was signed. Held. that the alleged mistake could not be corrected. — Harter v. Harter, L. R. 3 P, & D. 11.
5. A testator made a will and a codicil referring to the will by its date. The name of the executor appointed in the will was written upon an erasure. Held, that the declaration of the testator made before the execution of the codicil that he had appointed said person named in his will his executor was admissible in evidence. — In the Goods of Sykes, L. R. 3 P. & D. 26.
6. A testator executed a will in 1866 and a codicil thereto in 1871. In 1871 he executed a will revoking all other wills and codicils. In 1872 he executed a codicil to the will of 1866, concluding, “I confirm the appointment of my son as executor of my will and codicil.” Held, that the will of 1866 was revived, but not the codicil of 1871. - In the Goods of Reynolds, L. R. 3 P. & D. 35.
7. A testator in a fit of delirium tremens destroyed his will. The pieces
were preserved, and the testator subsequently observed that he must have been insane when he destroyed the will, and that he would make another. Held, that there had been no revocation of the will. — Brunt v. Brunt, L. R. 3 P. & D. 37.
8. A testator born in Ireland, but domiciled in Spain, executed a will in Eng. land, and several codicils in Spain, and a further codicil in England, confirming said will in whatever it did not clash with the codicil, which was to be considered as the testator's last will. Held, that the Spanish codicils were not revoked. — In the Goods of De La Saussaye, L. R. 3 P. & D. 42.
See APPOINTMENT; CHARITY; CLASS; CONDITION; ESTOPPEL; EVIDENCE ; LIMITATION; PROBATE; Trust; INDIRECT INFLUENCE; VESTED INTEREST.
“ Heirs.” — See LEGACY, 1.
“ Insanity.” — See INSANITY.
“ Sickness.” — See INSANITY.
. Writ. The defendants were a Scotch railway company, having no part of their railway in England, but having running powers over an English railway to Carlisle. A writ was served at Carlisle on the defendants' booking clerk, who had no power beyond that of issuing tickets to passengers, and who was the only officer of the defendants in England. Held, that the writ was not served upon the company. - MacKereth v. Glasgow and South-western Railway, L. R. 8 Ex. 149.
SELECTED DIGEST OF STATE REPORTS.
[For the present number of the Digest, selections have been made from the following volumes of State Reports : 41 California ; 45 Georgia; 22 Grattan (Virginia); 36 and 37 Indiana ; 33 Iowa ; 24 Louisiana Annual; 36 Maryland; 107 Massachusetts; 2 Nebraska ; 51 New Hampshire; 50 New York; 68 North Carolina ; 29 and 30 Wisconsin ; also from 15 Wallace (Supreme Court of the United States).]
ABUTTOR. — See Way, 2.
ACCEPTANCE. Defendants drew a bill against a cargo shipped by them, and indorsed and delivered to plaintiffs the bill, and also the bill of lading of the cargo, authorizing them to sell the cargo and apply the proceeds to payment of the bill. The drawee refused to accept the bill without delivery of the bill of lading. Held, that presentment and notice of non-acceptance were excused. — Schuchardt v. Hall, 36 Md. 590. See BILLS AND NOTES, 1.
• ACCOUNT. - See WARRANTY, 1.
ACTION. 1. No action lies for distraining for more rent than is due. — Hamilton v. Windolf, 36 Md. 301.
2. An action lies against one who induces third parties to break their contracts to perform work and labor for the plaintiff, although such parties are not strictly plaintiff's servants. — Walker v. Cronin, 107 Mass. 555.
3. S. ordered quantities of two substances, from their respective manufacturers, to be sent to him by a certain carrier. Both substances were explosive, ordinarily used together, and peculiarly dangerous when so used. The manufacturers, ignorant of each other's action, delivered the respective substances, in apparently harmless packages, to the carrier, who had no notice of the contents of the packages, and transported them together with due care. They exploded, and the carrier and a third person suffered damage. Held, that the manufacturers, but not S., were jointly liable to the carrier and the third person in several actions brought by them. — Boston & Albany R.R. Co. v. Shanly, 107 Mass. 568.
4. Declaration for that defendant, being a school-teacher, was employed to inquire into the qualifications of certain scholars, and truthfully to make report thereof to the school committee; and did examine the plaintiff, who was one of said scholars, and maliciously, deceitfully, and falsely reported that he was not qualified to be retained in the school, whereas in truth he was so qualified; by reason whereof plaintiff was excluded from the school. Held, good on demurrer. Hammond v. Hussey, 51 N. H. 40.