Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

apply to whatever property the testator might at any time be possessed of, the document was a valid will within sect. 11 of the Wills Act.—In the goods of James Spratt, L.R. [1897] P. 28; 75 L.T. 518.

C. A.--Construction—Uncertainty.—A will ran: “I give all the residue of my estate unto the children of the deceased son (named Bamber) of my father's sister, share and share alike.” There were three deceased sons of the father's sister, all of that name. Held, reversing decision of Court below, that the gift was void for uncertainty. Hare v. Cartridge (13 Sim. 165) distinguished.--In re Stephenson; Donaldson v. Bamber, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 75; 75 L.T. 495.

C. A.—Construction—Tenant for Life and Remainderman–Trust for
Sale with Power to Postpone—Trustees not Agreed.—Decision of Court
below as to power of remainderman to force trustees to sell (see
Vol. 22, p. 54, iii.) reversed.–In re Lever; Cordwell v. Lever, 76 L.T. 71.

P. D.—Misdescription of Legatees.—A testator left £4,000 to the widow of a nephew for life, and afterwards in trust for her two children, but the Christian names by which these children were described in the will were the names of the children of another nephew to whom he left £2,000, and to whose wife he also left £2,000, both bequests with the like remainder to their two children who were described by the names of the widow's children. A motion, to omit from the probate the Christian names so transposed, was refused on the ground that it was not shewn that the testator did not mean the names to be inserted, and the point was left for a Court of Construction.—In the goods of Alexander Durlacher (deceased), 75 L.T. 664.

C. D.—Executor—Intermeddling Remuneration—Wilful Default.—A solicitor who had been named as an executor, but who had not joined in proving the will and who claimed in all that he did to have acted as the agent of the executor who proved, was held, by having signed with the other executors a letter dealing with a policy on the testator's life, to have intermeddled with the estate and to be precluded from renunciation; but a delay in getting in the policy moneys was held not to warrant an account on the footing of wilful default, though Some loss of interest had occurred.—In re Stevens; Cooke v. Stevens, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 422; 76 L.J. 18.

[ocr errors]

taking the oath by the laws of his place of residence.–In the goods of Caspari, 75 L.J. 663.

P. D.—Will in English Form—Scotch Domicile—Holograph Letter— Probate—Construction.—A domiciled Scotchman before commencing a voyage with his wife, wrote a letter partly repeating and to some extent supplementing the provisions of his will made in English form. He and his wife returned and settled in England, where some years later he died. Held, that the letter was entitled to probate as a testamentary paper with the will; but that the effect should be left to a Court of Construction.—Halford v. Halford (Boyce intervening), L.R. [1897] P. 36; 75 L.T. 520.

P. D.—Duplicate Will—Part Retained by Testator not to be Found– Holograph Copy—Properly Executed Codicil admitted to probate Alone.— In 1891, a testator executed a will in duplicate, one part of which he sent in the next year to a beneficiary, who subsequently tore it up by accident, but pasted together the fragments. No testamentary papers

were found on the decease of the testator in his repositories; but a friend produced a holograph copy of the will, and of a codicil stated to have been executed in 1892, and a later holograph properly executed codicil, described as “a second codicil to my will.” Held, that the will and the first codicil were revoked by the testator, but that the

second codicil was entitled to probate.—Paige v. Brooks, 75 L.T. 455. (i.) C. A.-Duplicate Will--Destruction of One-Evidence.—Hearsay

evidence that a testator had declared that he had, with the intention of revocation, destroyed one part of a will executed in duplicate is not admissible. Sugden v. Lord St. Leonards; Doe d. Shallcross v. Palmer; in the goods of Ripley, applied.—Atkinson v. Morris. L.R.

[1897] P. 40; 75 L.T. 440. (ii.) C. D.-Gift for Life with Power to Dispose amongst a Class-No

Gift Over.-A wife gave by will real property to her husband for life, with “power to dispose of all such property by will amongst our children in accordance with the power granted to him as regards other property which I have under my marriage settlement.” There was no gift over, and the husband died intestate. Held, that the power was a bare power, imposing no trust, and that there was no gift by implication to the children in default of appointment.--In re Weekes's Settlement, L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 289; 76 L.T. 112.

INDE X.

AIREY V. STAPLETON; in re AIREY (L.R.

[1897] 1 Ch. 164; 76 L.T. 151), 63, iii. Armstrong v. Hughes (75 L.T. 487),

61, iii. Atkinson v. Morris (L.R. (1897] P.

40; 75 L.T. 440), 84, i. Attorney-General of Canada v. A.-G.

of Ontario; ditto of Quebec v. A.-G. of Ontario (75 L.T. 522), 58, i. Attorney-General v. Tod-Heatley and Brownrigg (75 L.T. 452),

70, ii. A.-G. v. Lord Wolverton_(L.R.

[1897] 1 Q.B. 231 ; 75 L.T. 569), 76, vi.

Bishop v. Bishop (76 L.T. 28), 62,

ii. Blumberg v. Life Interests and Re.

versionary Securities Corporation, Ltd. (L.R. (1897) 1 Ch. 171;

75 L.T. 627), 66, vi. Bowen v. Phillips (L.R. (1897] 1 Ch.

174; 75 L.T. 628), 63, iv. Bowler v. Barberton Development

Syndicate (L.R. (1897) 1 Q.B. 164;

75 L.T. 620), 68, v. Bradford v. Dawson and Parker

(L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 307 ; 76 L.T. 54), 64, iv. Bradshawe v. Bradshawe (L.R.

[1897] P. 24), 64, vii. Bramble v. Lowe (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B.

283), 82, iii. Brett v. Rogers (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B.

525 ; 76 L.T. 26), 66, iii. Brewers and Maltsters Association of Ontario v. Att.-Gen. for Ontario

(76 L.T. 61), 57, v. Brinsmead, T. E., & Sons, Ltd., in re

(L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 45 and 406; 75 L.T. 585, and 76 L.T. 100), 61, i.

[blocks in formation]

in re;

V.

re

Dixon v. Great Western Railway

(L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 300; 75 L.T.

539), 22, 51, i.; 75, v.
Dombey & Son, Ltd. (in liquidation),

v. Playfair Bros. and Others (L.R.
[1897] 1 Q.B. 368; 75 L.T. 676),

72, vi.
Donaldson Bamber ; in

Stephenson (L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 75;

75 L.T. 495), 83, i.
Douglas v. Pintsch's Patent Light-

ing Co. (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 176),

22, 48, v.
Dumbleton v. Williams, Torrey and

Field, Ltd. (76 L.T. 81), 73, iv.
Dunn v. Macdonald (L.R. (1897)

1 Q.B. 401), 75, i.
Durlacher, A., in the goods of (75

L.T. 664), 83, iii.

56, vi.

EDISON GENERAL ELECTRIC Co. v.

WESTMINSTER AND VANCOUVER
TRAMWAY Co. AND THE BANK OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA (75 L.T. 438),
58, ii.
Eley v. Read (76 L.T. 39), 69, vii.
Engelhardt v. Farrant and Co. and

Lipton (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 240 ;
75 L.T. 617), 68, iv.

Brown v. Maurice; in re Maurice

(75 L.T. 415), 55, ii.
Brunning v. 'Odhams Bros., Ltd.

(75 L.T. 602), 22, 22, iv. ; 73, iii.
Bultfontein Sun Diamond Mine, Ltd.,

e. p. Cox, Hughes and
Norman (75 L.T. 669), 58, v.
CALE V. JAMES (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B.

418; 76 L.T. 119), 65, i.
Cannon Brewery Co. v. Gilbey (75

L.T. 407), 72, v.
Caspari, in the goods of (75 L.T. 663),

83, v.
Chandler v. Bradley (L.R. (1897]

1 Ch. 315; 75 L.T. 581), 77, vii.
Chicago Railway Terminal Elevator

Co. y. Commissioners of Inland

Revenue (75 L.T. 572), 76, vii.
Clarke v. Earl of Dunraven (the

Satanita) (L.R. [1897] A.C. 59),

22, 53, ii.
Clutton & Co. v. Attenborough (L.R.

[1897] A.C. 90 ; 75 L.T. 556),
Collman v. Mills (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B.

396 ; 75 L.T. 590), 69, iii.
Cook v. Andrews (L.R. (1897] 1 Ch.

266 ; 76 L.T. 16), 82, v.
Cookey. Stevens; in re Stevens

(L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 422; 76 L.T.

18), 83, iy.
Cordwell v. Lever; in re Lever (76

L.T. 71), 83, ii.
Cowen v. Town Clerk of Kingston-
on-Hull (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 273 ;

75 L.T. 593), 64, i.
Crocker v. Sturge (L.R. [1897]1 Q.B.

330; 75 L.T. 549), 79, i.
Cronbach v. Isaac; in re Isaac (L.R.

[1897] 1 Ch. 251; 75 L.T. 638),

74, iv.
Cudworth v. Hayward (75 L.T. 456),

74, i.
Currie v. McKnight (L.R. (1897]

A.C. 97; 75 L.T. 457), 79, v.
DALTON V. FITZGERALD (L.R. [1897]

1 Ch. 440 ; 76 L.T. 83), 78, iii.
Darlow v. Bland and Others (L.R.

[1897] 1 Q.B. 125; 75 L.T. 537),
57, i.
De la Rochefoucauld v. Boustead

(L.R. (1897] | Ch. 196 ; 75 L.T.

502), 87, iii.
Didcot, Newbury and Southampton

Railway v. Great Western Railway
and London and South-Western
Railway (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 33;
75 L.T. 401), 76, i.

FAVARD V. FAVARD (75 L.T. 664), 56, i.
Fletcher v. Nokes (L.R. (1897] 1 Ch.

271; 76 L.T. 107), 66, iv.
Fluister v. Fluister and Hutton

(L.R. [1897] P. 22), 74, viii.
Fowle v. Fowle (75 L.T. 514), 55, iii.
Foxwell v. Van Ĝrutten (L.R. [1897]

1 Ch. 64), 22, 49, ii.

GEILIGER V. GIBBS (L.R. (1897] 1 Ch.

479; 76 L.T. 111), 74, vii.
General Insurance Co. of Trieste v.

Cory (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 335),

79, vii.
Gold Reefs of Western Australia,

Ltd. v. Dawson (L.R. [1897]

1 Ch. 115 ; 75 L.T. 575), 73, v.
Goodlock v. Cousins (L.R. ` [1897]

1 Q.B. 348; 76 L.T. 86), 61, vii.
Government Stock Investment Co. v.

The Manila Railway_Co. (L.R.
[1897] A.C. 81; 75 L.T. 553), 21,
6, iii ; 60, iii.

HALFORD V. HALFORD (Bryce inter-

vening) (L.R. (1897). P. 36 ; 75

L.T. 520), 83, vi.
Hanbury, Whitting and Nicholson,

in re (75 L.T. 449), 80, v.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

65, ii.

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »