Page images
PDF
EPUB

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.

V.

V.

Hayes Common (Conservators of) v. | Lancaster Banking Co., Ltd., in re

Bromley Rural District Board (75 L.T. 647), 59, i.
(L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 321 ; 76 L.T. Lancaster (Commissioners of Part
51), 58, iv.

of) v. Overseers of Barrow-in.
Heimbs v. Newcastle Co-operative Furness (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 166),
Society (76 L.T. 109), 74, vi.

72, i.
Hill, Viscount Hill, Dowager Lane v. Cox (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 415;

Viscountess (L.R. (1897) 1 Q.B. 76 L.T. 135), 70, iv.
483; 76 L.T. 103), 81, iv.

Lawrence v. Adams (75 L.T. 410),
Hill Equitable Reversionary

56, ii.
Interest Society, Ltd.; in re Hill's Lee v. Roundwood Colliery Co., Ltd.;
Settlement Trusts (75 L.T. 477), in re Roundwood Colliery Co., Ltd.
78, i.

(L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 375; 75 L.T.
Hindle v. Birtwistle (L.R. (1897] 508 and 641), 59, ii.

1 Q.B. 192; 76 L.T. i59), 63, vi. List v. Tharp (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch.
Hobson v. Gorringe (L.R. (1897] 260; 76 L.T. 45), 69, iv.

1 Ch. 182 ; 75 L.T. 610), 63, v. London County Council v. Hobbis
Holloway v. Coster (L.R. [1897] (75 L.T. 687), 69, v.

1 Q.B. 346 ; 76 L.T. 57), 82, i. London and Eastern Counties Loan
Hopkinson's Patent, in re (75 L.T. and Discount Co., Ltd., v. Crease
462), 71, i.

(L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 442; 76 L.T.
Hornsey District Council v. Smith

87), 57, ii.
(75 L.T. 684), 75, ii.

London Health Electrical Institute,
Huber, Mary H., in the goods of 175

Ltd., in re (75 L.T. 658 and 76 L.T.
L.T. 453), 55, i.

98), 60, vii.
Humphreys v. Gadsden; in re Cosier London and North Western Railway

(L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 325; 76 L.T. V. Commissioners of Sewers of
31), 78, ii.

Fobbing Levels (75 L.T. 629), 77,

vi.
INCANDESCENT GAS LIGHT CO., LTD. London and North Western Railway

v. New INCANDESCENT (SUNLIGHT v. Llandudno Improvement Com-
PATENT) Gas LIGHTING Co., Ltd. missioners (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 287;
(76 L.T. 47), 70, vi.

75 L.T. 659), 76, v.
International Commercial Co., Ltd.,
in re (75 L.T. 639), 60, i.

MANCHESTER AND MILFORD RAILWAY,
Isaac, in re; Cronbach v. Isaac (L.R. in re_ (L.R. (1897) 1 Ch. 276;

[1897] 1 Ch. 251; 75 L.T. 638), 75 L.T. 416), 75, vi.
74, iv.

Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincoln-

shire Railway V. Guardians of
Janet Court, the (L.R. (1897] P. 59; Doncaster Union (L.R. (1897] 1
76 L.T. 172), 80, i.

Q.B. 117; 75 L.T. 472), 71, v.
Jones v. German (L.R. (1897]

Q.B.

Mannheim, the (L.R. (1897] P. 13;
374; 76 L.T. 136), 22, 45, v. ; 66, ii. 75 L.T. 424), 79, iii.

Mantle v. Jordan (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B.
KENT COUNTY COUNCIL V. LORD GERARD 248 ; 75 L.T. 552), 67, ii.

(L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 351; 76 L.T. Marsh v. Joseph (L.R. (1897] 1 Ch.
8), 22, 44, v. ; 64, vi.

213; 75 L.T. 558), 22, 30, v.;
Killin v. Swatton (76 L.T. 55), 66,

80, iv.
viii.

Martin v. Martin and Co. (L.R. [1897]
Kippins, e. p. (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 1; 1 Q.B. 429; 76 L.T. 44), 74, iii.
75 L.T. 421), 64, v.

Master in Equity v. Pearson and
Kirkham v. Attenborough and Kirk Others (75 L.T. 526), 58, iii.

ham v. Gill (L.R. (1897) 1 Q.B. McGarel (a lunatic), in re (L.R. (1897]
201 ; 75 L.T. 543), 77, iii.

1 Ch. 400; 76 L.T. 70), 80, iii.
McMurdo,

in re;

Penfield
LACAVE AND Co. THE CRÉDIT McMurdo (L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 119 ;

LYONNAIS (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 148; 75 L.T. 576), 72, ii.
75 L.T. 514), 56, vii.

McNab v. Robertson and Others
Lamond v. Richard (75 L.T. 693), (L.R. (1897) A.C. 129; 75 L.T.

666), 66, v.

V.

[ocr errors]

65, ii.

OF

Meyrick v. Hargreaves; in re Meyrick Plymouth, Stonehouse, and Devon-
(L.R. (1897]1

Ch.99; 75 L.T. 621), port Tramway Co. v. The General
76, viii.

Tolls Co., Ltd. (75 L.T. 467),
Middlesex County Council v. Assess-

81, i.
ment Committee of St. George's Pomeroy v. Tanner (L.R. [1897]
Union (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 64; 1 Ch. 284 ; 75 L.T. 625), 80, ii.
75 L.T. 464), 76, ii.

Poole v. Downes (76 L.T. 110), 70, i.
Morris and Others v. Beyes and Potter and Co. v. Burrell and Son

Others (L.R. (1897) 1 Q.B. 449; (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 97; 75 L.T.
76 L.T. 120), 77, iv.

491), 78, iv,
Morriss v. Howden (L.R. [1897)

Princesse Clémentine, the (L.R. (1897]
1 Q.B. 378; 76 L.T. (56), 68, vi. P. 18; 75 L.T. 695), 72, iii.
Mountfield v. Ward (L.R. (1897]
1 Q.B. 326), 67, i.

REG. V. BAGSHAWE AND OTHERS (75
Murray v. Epsom Local Board (L.R. L.T. 513), 76, iii.

(1897] 1 Ch. 35; 75 L.T.579), 67, iii. Reg. v. Charity Commissioners of
Mutual Reserve Fund Life Associa England and Wales (L.R. (1897)

tion v. New York Life Assurance 1 Q.B. 407), 68, ii.
Co.and Harvey (75 L.T.528), 61, iv. Reg. v. Clerk of Assize of Oxford

Circuit (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 370),
NATIONAL BANK WALES, Ltd. 62, i.

(L.R. (1897) 1 Ch. 298; 76 L.T. 1), Reg. v. King (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 214),
22, 42, i.; 60, ii.

22, 43, iv.
Nelson v. Anglo American Land, Reg. v. Lord Leigh; in re, Kinchant

Mortgage, and Agency Co., Ltd. (L.R. (1897) 1 Q.B. 132), 22, 48, vi.
(L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 130; 75 L.T Reg. v. Soden and Overend (L.R.
482), 60, v.

[1897] 1 Q.B. 188; 76 L.T. 161),
Nevill y, Fine Arts and General

64, ii.
Insurance Co. (L.R. (1897]A.C. 68: River Ribble (Joint Commissioners
75 L.T. 606), 66, vii.

of) v. Croston Urban District

Council (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 251),
ODHAMS Bros., LTD. V. BRUNNING

63, ii.
(75 L.T. 602), 22, 22, iv.; 73, iii. Roberts v. Security Co., Ltd. (L.R.
Ogston v. Aberdeen District Tram [1897] 1 Q.B. 111; 75 L.T. 531),
ways Co. (L.R. (1897] A.C. 111;

65, iv.
75 L.T. 633), 70, iii.

Robinson v. The Mayor of Working-
Oporto, the (75 L.T. 599), 79, iv.

ton (75 L.T. 674), 67, iv.
Osborn v. Wood Bros. (L.R. (1897] Robinson, in re; Wright v. Tugwell
1 Q.B. 197; 76 L.T. 60), 65, vi.

(L.R. (1897) 1 Ch. 85; 76 L.T. 95),

82, vi.
PAGE V. RATLIFFE (76 L.T. 63), 70, v. Roundwood Colliery Co., Ltd., in re;
Paige v. Brooks (75 L.T. 455), 83, vii.

Lee v. Roundwood Colliery Co.,
Paliser v. Dale (L.R. (1897) 1 Q.B. Ltd. (L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 375; 75
257; 76 L.T. 14), 64, iii.

L.T. 508 and 641), 59, ii.
Palmer v. Rich (L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. Rowland y, Michell affirming (L.R.
134; 75 L.T. 484}, 65, v.

[1897] 1 Ch. 71; 75 L.T. 498),
Parkdale, the (L.R. (1897] P. 53 ; 75

22, 31, iv. ; 81, ii.
L.T. 597), 79, ii.

Royal Insurance Co. v. Watson (L.R.
Pattle v. Hornibrook (L.R. [1897 [1897] A.C. 1), 22, 52, i.

1 Ch. 25 ; 75 L.T. 475), 61, ii. Rymer v. McIlroy (L.R. (1897) 1 Ch.
Peebles and Others y. The Oswald 528; 76 L.T. 115), 62, iii.

twistle Urban District Council
(L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 384; 75 L.T. St. ASAPH (DEAN AND CHAPTER OF) v,
689), 22, 21, i. ; 75, iii.

OVERSEERS OF PARISH OF LLAN-
Penfield v. McMurdo; in re McMurdo RHAIADR YN MOCHNANT AND THE

(L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 119; 75 L.T. ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE OF LLAN-
576), 72, ii.

FYLLIN ONION (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B.
Petty v. Taylor (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 511 ; 76 L.T. 42), 76, iv.
465; 75 L.T. 545), 61, vi.

St. John's, Hackney (Vestry of) v.
Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. East London Hutton (L.R. (1897) 1 Q.B. 210

Rubber Co. (75 L.T. 488), 71, ii. 75 L.T. 686), 69, i.

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

VALLANCY V. FLETCHER (L.R. (1897]

1 Q.B. 265 ; 76 L.T. 201), 57, iii.
Venner v. McDonell (L.R. (1897]

1 Q.B. 421 ; 76 L.T. 152), 69, ii.
Vestry of St. John's, Hackney v.
Hutton (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 210 ;

75 L.T. 686), 69, i.
Vestry of St. Mary's, Battersea v.

Palmer (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 220),

22, 47, iii.
Victoria Steamboats, Ltd., in re;

Smith v. Wilkinson (L.R. [1897]

i Ch. 158), 22, 41, vi.
Vincent v.' Tomlinson and Eyton

(L.R. (1897] P. 1), 62, iv.

St. Olave's Union v. Canterbury

Union (L.R. (1897) 1 Q.B. 438;

76 L.T. 88), 71, vi.
Salomon v. Salomon and Co., Ltd.,

(L.R. [1897] A.C. 22; 75 L.T.
426), 59, iii.
Sanders V. Jenkins (L.R. (1897]

1 Q.B. 93), 78, v.
Satania, the, Clarke v. Earl of Dun-

raven, 22, 53, ii.
Shields v. Howard (L.R. (1897]

1 Q.B. 84), 69, vi.
Simmons v. Blandy (L.R. (1897]

1 Ch. 19; 75 L.T. 646), 74, v.
Simpson v. Hughes and Armstrong

(75 L.T. 487), 61, iii.
Simpson, in re: in re Wilchurch

(L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 256 ; 76 L.T.

131), 77, viii.
Sloane v. The Britain Steamship

Co., Ltd. (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 185 ;

75 L.T. 542), 73, i.
Smelting Co. of Australia v. Com-
missioners of Inland Revenue
(L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 175 ; 75 L.T.
534), 22, 26, vi. ; 77, i
Smith v. Wilkinson; in re Victoria

Steamboats, Ltd. (L.R. [1897]

1 Ch. 158), 22, 41, vị.
Southcombe v. Guardians of Yeovil

Union (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 343 ;

76 L.T. 58), 82, ii.
Spiller and Baker, and Leetham and

Sons, in re an Arbitration (L.R.

[1897] 1Q.B. 312; 76 L.T 35), 55, iv.
Spratt, in the goods of (L.R. [1897]

P. 28; 75 L.T. 518), 82, vii.
Stephenson, in re; Donaldson v.

Bamber (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 75 ;

75 L.T. 495), 83, i.
Stileman-Gibbard v. Wilkinson and

Others (76 L.T. 90), 63, i.
Stock, in re; e. p. Amos (75 L.T. 422),

56, v.
Streatham and General Estates Co.,

in re (L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 15; 75

L.T. 574), 60, iv.
Sudely (Lord) v. Attorney-General

(L.R. [1897] A.C. 11; 75 L.T.

398), 21, 82, vi. ; 77, ii.
TATE v. LATHAM (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B.

502; 75 L.T. 694), 68, iii.
Thomson v. Burns (16 L.T. 58), 77, v.
Thorpe v. Prestnall (L.R. [1897]

1 Q.B. 159), 66, i.
Tubbs v. Wynne (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B.

74), 82, iv.
Turner, in re; Barker v. Ivimey.

(L.R. [1897] i Ch. 536 ; 76 L.T. 61),
81, v.

WARD, in re; e.p. WARD (L.R. (1897)

1 Q.B. 266 ; 76 L.T. 37), 56, iv.
Weeke's Settlement, in re (L.R.

[1897] 1 Ch.289; 76 L.T.112), 84, ii.
West Derby Union (Guardians of)

v. Metropolitan Life Assurance
Society and West Derby Union v.
Priestman (L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 335;

75 L.T. 412; 76 L.T. 73), 71, iv.
West of England Fire Insurance Co.

Isaacs (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 226 ;
75 L.T. 564), 22, 45, iii. ; 65, iii.
West Hartlepool (the Mayor of) v.

Robinson (75 L.T. 677), 67, v.
Western v. Bailey (L.R. (1897) 1 Q.B.

86; 75 L.T. 470), 61, v.
Western Counties Steam Bakeries

and Milling Co., Ltd. (75 L.T. 648),

60, vi.
Wild v. Southwood (L.R. (1897] 1

Q.B. 317), 22, 38, iii.
Wilmot v. Älton (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B.

17; 75 L.T. 447), 22, 4, i. ; 56, iii.
Winkle v. Bailey (L.R. (1897] 1 Ch.

123; 75 L.T. 577), 68, i.
Wood, in re; e. p. Fanshawe (L.R.

[1897] 1 Q.B. 314), 22, 38, iv.
Wood v. Middleton (L.R. (1897] I

Ch. 151: 75 L.T. 480), 72, iv.
Worthington v. Robinson and Others

(75 L.T. 446), 57, iv.
Wragg, Ltd.; in re E. J. (75 L.T.

652), 58, vi.
Wynne v. Tempest (L.R. (1897] 1

Ch. 110; 75 LT. 624), 73, ii.

« PreviousContinue »