Page images
PDF
EPUB

Will:

[ocr errors]

(i.) C. D.-—Construction—Settlement-Bequest on “same” Trusts—Accretion -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 settlement 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 payment 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.

[ocr errors]

(iv.) C. D.-Construction-Gift 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 testator, but died unmarried and intestate. Held, that the word "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 representative 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.

66

(vi.) C. D.-Construction-Tenant 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—Hotchpot 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.

113

INDEX.

AKTIESELSKAB HELIOS V. EKMAN AND
Co. (L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 83; 76
L.T. 537), 110, i.
Alcoy and Gandia Railway and
Harbour Co., Ltd. v. Greenhill
(76 L.T. 542), 22, 22, vii.
Allen v. Sinclair; in re Sinclair
(L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 921; 76 L.T.
452), 90, ii.

Altair, the (L.R. [1897] P. 105;
76 L.T. 263), 109, iii.
Andrews v. Denton (L.R. [1897]
2 Q.B. 37; 76 L.T. 423), 99, vi.
Andrews v. Gas Meter Co., Ltd.
(L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 361; 76 L.T.
132), 94, v.

Appleyard v. Vestry of Lambeth
(76 L.T. 442), 101, iv.
Arter v. The Vestry of Hammersmith
(L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 646; 76 L.T.
390), 101, vi.
Attorney General, e. p.;
Alexander Chaffers (76 L.T. 351),
111, vi.
Attorney-General

in re

V. Dodington
(L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 722; 76 L.T.
557), 107, vi.

Attorney-General for Dominion of
Canada v. A.-G. of Ontario; ditto
of Quebec v. ditto of Ontario
(L.R. [1897] A.C. 199), 22, 58, i.
Attorney-General v. Fairley (L.R.
[1897] 1 Q.B. 698; 76 L.T. 526),
107, iii.
Attorney-General v. The Newcastle
Breweries, Ltd. v. Mayor, &c., of
Tynemouth (76 L.T. 566), 100, iv.
Attorney-General V. Tod-Heatley
and Brownrigg (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch.
560 ; 76 L.T. 174), 102, vi.

BADISCHE ANILIN UND SODA FABRIK V.
HENRY JOHNSON & Co. AND THE
BASLE CHEMICAL WORKS, BIND-
SCHEDLER (76 L.T. 21 and 434),
103, i.

Bald v. Bald; in re Bald (76 L.T.
462), 108, ii.

Baring, the Hon. John, v. Commis-

sioners of Inland Revenue (76 L.T.
563), 107, iv.

Barman and Greenwood, e. p. ; in re

Jubb (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 641;
76 L.T. 329), 91, i.

and

Barry Railway Co. and Lord Wim-
borne and the Vendor
Purchaser Act, 1874, in re (76 L.T.
489), 111, iv.

Bashall v. Bashall (76 L.T. 165),
98, vii.

Battams and Hutchinson, in re (L.R.
[1897] 1 Ch. 699; 76 L.T. 385),
105, v.

Belize Estate and Produce Co. v.
Quilter (L.R. [1897] A.C. 367;
76 L.T. 361), 93, iii.

Bell v. Balls (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 663;
76 L.T. 254), 90, iv.
Beneficed Clerk v. Lee (L.R. [1897]
A.C. 226), 22, 62, v.

Bentinck v. Bentinck; in re Bentinck
(L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 673; 76 L.T.
284), 90, i.

Birrell v. Greenhough; in re Crossley
(L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 928; 76 L.T.
419), 93, ii.

Bishop v. Bishop (and Jenkins v.
Jenkins) (L.R. [1897] P. 138;
76 L.T. 409), 22, 62, ii.; 98, iii.
Blaker v. Seager and Others (76 L.T.
392), 99, iii.

Bloomenthal v. Ford (L.R. [1897]
A.C. 156; 76 L.T. 205), 95, i.
Bonsor v. Bonsor (L.R. [1897] P. 77;
76 L.T. 168), 98, v.

Brewers and Maltsters Association
of Ontario v. Attorney-General for
Ontario (L.R. [1897] A.C. 231;
76 L.T. 61), 22, 57, v.
Broomfield v. Williams (L.R. [1897]
1 Ch. 602; 76 L.T. 243), 96, viii.
Brown v. Stephenson; e.p. Stevenson
(76 L.T. 328), 91, iv.

Cambrian, the (76 L.T. 504), 109, v.
Carney v. Plimmer (L.R. [1897]
1 Q.B. 634; 76 L.T. 374), 98, i.
Carter and Kenderdine's Contract;
in re (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 776; 76
L.T. 476), 111, v.

Chaffers, in re Alexander; e. p.
Attorney-General (76 L.T. 351),
111, vi.

Chastey and Another v. Ackland
(L.R. [1897] A.C. 155; 76 L.T.
430), 97, i.

Christmas v. Jones; in re Jones
(76 L.T. 454), 89, iii.

Clarke v. London and County Bank
(L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 552; 76 L.T.
293), 92, vii.
Coates (J. & P.) v. Commissioners
of Inland Revenue (L.R. [1897]
1 Q.B. 778; 76 L.T. 561), 107, v.
Coke V. French (76 L.T. 163),
103, vi.

Colmer; in re James, Ltd. (76 L.T.
323), 95, v.

Conroy v. Peacock (L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B
6; 76 L.T. 465), 105, vii.

Consort Deep Level Gold Mines,
Ltd., in re; e. p. Stark (L.R.
[1897] 1 Ch. 575; 76 L.T. 300),
95, iv.

Continental Oxygen Co., Ltd., in re;
Elias v. Continental Oxygen Co.,
Ltd. (76 L.T. 229), 95, ii.
Coolgardie Consolidated Gold Mines,
Ltd.; in re (76 L.T. 269), 94, i.
County Council of Worcestershire v.
Assessment Committee of Wor-
cestershire (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B.
480; 76 L.T. 138), 106, v.

Crathie, the (L.R. [1897] P. 178; 76
L.T. 534), 109, vi.

Crayford, Overseers of, and District

Council of, v. D. & C. Rutter (L.R.
[1897] 1 Q.B. 650; 76 L.T. 392),
106, vi.

DE HAYN V. GARLAND; in re DE
LINDEN; in re SPURRIER'S SETTLE-
MENT (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 453; 76
L.T. 180), 100, vi.

De Linden, in re ; in re Spurrier; De
Hayn v. Garland (L.R. [1897] 1
Ch. 453; 76 L.T. 180), 100, vi.
Derbyshire v. Montagu; in re Montagu
(L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 685 and 2 Ch.
8; 76 L.T. 289 and 485), 108, iv.
Devonshire (Duke of) v. Stokes (76
L.T. 424), 102, i.

Dodd v. Churton (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B.
562; 76 L.T. 438), 96, i.
Donnisthorpe's Claim and the Man-
chester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire
Railway (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 671;
76 L.T. 371), 104, vi.

Duff v. Hawker; in re Hawker's
Settled Estates (76 L.T. 286),
108, iii.

Duncan v. Dowding and Others
(L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 575; 76 L.T.
294), 99, vii.

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co., Ltd.
v. New Seddon Pneumatic Tyre
and Self-Closing Tube Co., Ltd.
(76 L.T. 405), 102, vii.

Dunn v. Macdonald (L.R. [1897] 1
Q.B. 555; 76 L.T. 444), 105, ix.
Durrant v. the Branksome Urban
District Council (76 L.T. 486),
106, i.

EARL COWLEY, in re ESTATE DUTY
PAYABLE ON THE DEATH OF THE

SECOND (76 L.T. 567), 107, ii.
Edison General Electric Co. v. West-
minster and Vancouver Tramway
Co. (L.R. [1897] A.C. 193), 22, 58, ii.
Elias v. Continental Oxygen Co.
(L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 511; 76 L.T.
229), 95, ii.

Ellis v. Wright and Others (76 L.T.
522), 92, vi.

Evans, in re; e. p. Davis (76 L.T.
530), 92, ii.

FARRELL V. FARRELL (76 L.T. 167),
98, vi.

Fenner and Lord, in re an Arbitration
between (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 667;
76 L.T. 376), 104, vii.

Finlay v. Darling (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch.
719; 76 L.T. 461), 108, v.
Finlay v. Mexican Investment Cor-
poration (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 517 ;
76 L.T. 257), 99, ii.

Firth v. Staines (L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B.
70; 76 L.T. 496), 101, v.
Floyd v. J. Lyons & Co., Ltd. (L.R.
[1897] 1 Ch. 633; 76 L.T. 251),
99, iv.
Forrest v. Todd (76 L.T. 500),
105, viii.

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

Game v. Young; in re Game (L.R.
[1897] 1 Ch. 881; 76 L.T. 450),
112, vi.
Goldstein v. Vaughan (L.R. [1897]
1 Q.B. 549; 76 L.T. 262), 97, iii.
Goodlock v. Cousins (L.R. [1897]
1 Q.B. 558; 76 L.T. 313), 96, v.
Graham v. Sutton & Co. (L.R.
[1897] 1 Ch. 716; 76 L.T. 369),
105, iii.
Grosvenor and West End Railway
Terminus Hotel Co., Ltd., in re
(76 L.T. 337), 95, vi.

HAMINI AND OTHERS V. TILLEKERATNE
(L.R. [1897] A.C. 277; 76 L.T.
210), 93, vi.
Harris

v. Sleep (76 L.T. 458),

105, vi.
Hawke v. Dunn (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B.
579; 76 L.T. 355), 97, vii.
Hawker's Settled Estates, in re;
Duff v. Hawker (76 L.T. 286),
108, iii.

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

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

Hill (Viscount) v. Bullock (L.R.
[1897] 2 Ch. 55; 76 L.T. 417),
97, iv.
Hodgkins v. Sinclair (76 L.T. 452),
90, ii.
Hood v. Attorney-General; in re
Hunter (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 518;
76 L.T. 386), 112, iii.

Hood - Barrs V. Crossman and
Prichard (L.R.[1897] A.C. 172;
76 L.T. 297), 104, iv.
Hood-Barrs v. Heriot (second appeal)
(L.R. [1897] A.C. 177; 76 L.T.
299), 104, v.

Hopcraft v. Hopcraft (76 L.T. 341),
111, i.

Hornsey District Council v. Smith

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

Huddersfield Corporation v. Ravens-
thorpe Urban District Council
(L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 652; 76 L.T.
377), 100, iii.

Humphreys v. Gadsden; in re Cosier
(L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 325; 76 L.T.
31), 112, vii.

[blocks in formation]

LAMOND V. RICHARD (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B.

541; 76 L.T. 141), 22, 65, ii.; 99, i.
Larocque v. Beauchemin and Others
(L.R. [1897] A.C. 358; 76 L.T.
473), 93, iv.
Lazarus v. Artistic Photographic
Co., Ltd. (76 L.T. 457), 97, ii.
Lewis v. Powell (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch.
678; 76 L.T. 282), 104, iii.
Lilley, Frederick G., in the goods of
(76 L.T. 164), 103, v.

Liverpool General Brokers' Associa-
tion, Ltd., v. Commercial Press
Telegram Bureaux (L.R. [1897]
2 Q.B. 1; 76 L.T. 292), 96, iv.
Lord Advocate v. Robertson (76 L.T.
125), 108, i.

London and County Banking Co. v.
Goddard (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 642;
76 L.T. 277), 102, iii.

M. v. M. (otherwise A.) (76 L.T. 172),
98, viii.

Macmillan v. Australasian Terri-
tories, Ltd., and Others (76 L.T.
182), 103, viii.

Madeley v. Ross, Sleeman & Co.
(L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 505; 76 L.T.
321), 94, ii.

Magnolia Metal Co.'s Trade Marks,
in re (76 L.T. 190), 110, iv.
Manders v. Manders (L.R. [1897]
1 Q.B. 474), 98, iv.

Marlborough (Duke of) v. Queen
Anne's Bounty (Governors of), in
re (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 712; 76 L.T.
388), 108, vi.

Master in Equity of Supreme Court
of Victoria v. Pearson (L.R. [1897]
A.C. 214), 22, 58, iii.

Mayflower, the Log of the (76 L.T.
295), 106, vii.

McCall and Co., Ltd., v. Houlder and
Co. (76 L.T. 469), 109, vii.
McInany v. Hildrith (L.R. [1897]
1 Q.B. 600; 76 L.T. 463), 97, vi.
Meates v. Bishop; in re North (76
L.T. 186), 112, i.

Minna Craig Steamship Co. V.
Chartered Mercantile Bank of
India, London, and China (L.R.
[1897] 1 Q.B. 460; 76 L.T. 310),
22, 44, ii.; 97, v.

Montague, in re; e. p. Ward v.
London and South Western Bank
(76 L.T. 203), 91, ii.

Morter, in re; e. p. Nicholls (76 L.T.
532), 92, iv.

Mountfield v. Ward (76 L.T. 202),
22, 67, i.

NEW MOSS COLLIERY Co. v. MAN-
CHESTER, SHEFFIELD AND LINCOLN-
SHIRE RAILWAY (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch.
725; 76 L.T. 231), 93, i.
New, Prance, and Garrard, Trustee
of, v. Hunting and Others (L.R.
[1897] 1 Q.B. 607; 76 L.T. 196),
90, v.

Nicholson v. Rhodesia Trading Co.,
Ltd. (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 434; 76
L.T 147), 94, vi.

North, in re; Meates v. Bishop (76
L.T. 186), 112, i.

PARKER V. OSBORNE; in re PARKER
(76 L.T. 421), 112, v.
Pearce v. Gardner (L.R. [1897]
1 Q.B. 688; 76 L.T. 441), 96, ii.
Peebles v. Oswaldtwistle Urban
District Council (L.R. [1897]
1 Q.B. 625; 76 L.T. 315),
106, ii.

Phillips, in re; e. p. Thomas and Co.

(76 L.T. 531), 92, iii.

Plant v. Bourne (76 L.T. 349), 111,
iii.

Pomeroy v. Tanner, No. 2, in re (76
L.T. 149), 110, ii.

Pratt v. South Eastern Railway Co.
(L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 718; 76 L.T.
465), 106, iii.

Priestley v. Ellis (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch.

489; 76 L.T. 187), 108, vii.
Pritchett v. Poole (76 L.T. 472), 96, vi.

RAATZ, in re; e. p. CARLHIAN (76 L.T.
330), 105, i.

Raatz, in re; e. p. Raatz (L.R. [1897]
2 Q.B. 80; 76 L.T. 503), 91, viii.
Ratata, the (L.R. [1897] P. 118;
76 L.T. 224), 109, ii.

Reg. v. Charity Commissioners for
England and Wales (76 L.T. 199),
22, 68, ii.

Reg. v. Clerk of Assize of Oxford
Circuit (76 L.T. 260), 22, 62, i.
Reg. v. Commissioners of Lunacy
(L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 630; 76 L.T.
353), 100, v.

Reg. v. Lewisham Union (L.R. [1897]
1 Q.B. 498; 76 L.T. 324), 104, ix.
Reg. v. London County Council
(76 L.T. 472), 101, i.

Reg. v. London (Justices of) (L.R.
[1897] 1 Q.B. 433), 106, iv.
Reg. v. Pelly and Another (L.R.
[1897] 2 Q.B. 33; 76 L.T. 467),
100, i.

Reg. v. Turner (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B.
445; 76 L.T. 556), 96, vii.
Ridgway, e. p.; in re Hawley (76 L.T.
501), 91, vi.

Roberts, in re; Knight v. Roberts
(76 L.T. 479), 89, ii.
Rumney and Smith's

(76 L.T. 343), 111, ii.

Contract

SALISBURY GOLD MINING Co. V.
HATHORN AND OTHERS (L.R. [1897]
A.C. 268; 76 L.T. 212), 93, vii.
Saunders v. Gore; in re Saunders
(L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 888; 76 L.T.
345), 107, vii.

Saunders v. Saunders (L.R. [1897]
P. 89; 76 L.T. 330), 98, ii.
Scowby v. Scowby; in re Scowby
L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 741; 76 L.T. 363),
105, ii.

Seaward v. Paterson (L.R. [1897]
1 Ch. 545; 76 L.T. 215), 95, vii.
Simpson v. Hughes and Armstrong
(76 L.T. 237), 22, 61, iii.; 110, vi.
Slater, in re; e. p. Slater (76 L.T.
529), 92, i.

Small and Others v. United Kingdom

Mutual Insurance Co. (L.R. [1897]
2 Q.B. 42; 76 L.T. 326), 109, iv.
Smith v. Batsford (76 L.T. 179),
110, v.

South African Territories v. Wal-
lington (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 692;
76 L.T. 520), 96, iii.
Southport (Mayor, Aldermen and
Burgesses of) v. Birkdale Urban

District Council (76 L.T. 318),
104, viii.

Sprigg v. Sigcau (L.R. [1897] A.C.
238; 76 L.T. 127), 93, v.
Stileman-Gibbard v. Wilkinson and
Others (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 749 ;
76 L.T. 90), 22, 63, i.

St. Olave's Union v. Canterbury
Union (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 682;
76 L.T. 88 and 517), 103, ii.
Swabey, in re; e. p. Swabey (76 L.T.
534), 92, v.

TADCASTER TOWER BREWERY Co. v.
WILSON (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 705;
76 L.T. 459), 110, iii.
Tate v. Latham & Sons (76 L.T. 336),
101, iii.

Thomas v. Foster; in re Foster

(L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 484; 76 L.T.
228), 107, i.

Thompson v. Redding; in re Redding
(L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 876; 76 L.T.
339), 112, ii.

Toleman, in re; Westwood v. Booker
(L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 866; 76 L.T.
381), 105, iv.

Trevor v. Hutchins (76 L.T. 183),
100, ii.

WALKER

V. WALKER AND LAWSON
(76 L.T. 235), 104, i.

Ward v. London and South Western
Bank; in re Montague (76 L.T.
203), 91, ii.

Welton v. Saffery (L.R. [1897] A.C.
299; 76 L.T. 505), 94, iv.
Western Counties Steam Bakeries
and Milling Co., Ltd., in re; e. p.
Parsons and Robjent (L.R. [1897]
1 Ch. 617; 76 L.T. 239), 22, 60,
vi.; 95, iii.

White v. Southend Hotel Co., Ltd.
(L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 767; 76 L.T.
273), 99, v.

Wiesener v. Rackow (76 L.T. 448),
90, iii.

Wilding v. Sanderson (76 L.T. 346),
102, ii.

Wilkinson and Wife v. Downson
(L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 57; 76 L.T.
493), 100, vii.

Williams v. Goose (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B.
471; 76 L.T. 143), 103, iii.
Williams v. Grant (76 L.T. 150),
101, ii.

Wilmot v. Betterton; in re Wilmot
(76 L.T. 415), 112, iv.
Woodroof, in re; e. p. Woodroof
(76 L.T. 502), 91, vii.
Wragg, E. J., Ltd., in re (L.R. [1897]
1 Ch. 796; 76 L.T. 397), 94, iii.

« PreviousContinue »