« PreviousContinue »
(xviii.) C. A.-Use and Occupation-Rent.—Decision of Q. B. Div., Vendor and
Purchaser (xii.), p. 111, affirmed.—Metropolitan Railway Co. v. Defries,
L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 387; 36 L.T. 494. Victoria, Law of:(ii.) P. C.-Rateability-Racecourse.—The Victoria Local Government Act,
1874, exempts from payment of rates land, the property of Her Majesty, used for public parposes : Hold that this exemption did not extend to a land used as a racecourse and demised by the Crown to trustees of a club which had a pecuniary interest in the profits of the land, and the members of which had privileges beyond the public with regard to use
of the land.-Mayor of Essendon v. Blackwood, 36 L.T. 625. Voluntary Gift:(iv.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Donatio Mortis Causâ—Cheque.-A., dnring his
last illness in Italy, gave to his wife a cheque which was discounted by her but not presented in London till after A.'s death: Held that she was entitled to the amount of the cheque out of A.'s estate.-Rolls v. Pearce,
36 L.T. 438. Warranty:(ii.) Q. B. D.-Animals-Sale in Market-Disease.-Sale in market of
animals intended for food implies representation that they are not suffering from disease, and a condition of sale that they are to be taken “with all faults” will not affect such representation. ---Ward v. Hobbs,
L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 331; 46 L.J. Q.B. 473; 36 L.T. 511; 25 W.R. 585. Water:(vi.) C. A.-Breach of Statutory Duty-10 Vict., c. 17, s. 42.-Where plaintiff's
premises were burnt down owing to insufficient pressure in defendants' pipes: Held that only remedy was the penalty imposed by Statute, and that no action would lie. Atkinson v. Newcastle and Gateshead Water.
works Co., 36 L.T. 761; 25 W.R. 794. Will:(xc.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Bequest of Fund to Pay Debts-Retainer.
Testatrix created a fund for payment of testamentary expenses and debts, and bequeathed the surplus to W. No administration action seemed probable : Held that the trustees should retain the surplus for a year from death of testatrix and then pay it over to W.- Re Cope's
Trusts, 36 L.T. 437. (xci.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Charity-Mortmain Act.-Held that the operation
of the Mortmain Act is retrospective so as to abrogate the power of a corporation under a previous Special Act from receiving gifts of real
estate.-Luckraft v. Pridham, 36 L.T. 501 ; 25 W.R. 747. (xcii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Charity-Premium for Lease--An unpaid
premium for a lease is not pure personalty capable of being bequeathed to charity : a bequest of all personal estate which can by law be be.
queathed to charity is specific. --Shepheard v. Beetham, 25 W.R. 764. (xcii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Construction-- Death without Issue.--Devise of
real estate to A. for life, remainder to A's husband for life, remainder to A's children living at death of testatrix, provided that shares of A.'s children dying without iasue should go over to survivors leaving issue : Held that dying without issue meant so dying in lifetime of tenants for
life.-Besant v. Cox, 25 W.R. 789. (xciv.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Construction-Direction to Pay Debts.---Testator
directed payment of his debts, "including a debt of £300” owing to his daughter : only £150 was owing : Held that the danghter was only
entitled to payment of what was actually due.-Wilson v. Morley, 36
L.T. 731; 25 W.R. 690. (xcv.) Ch. Div. M. R.- Construction-Election.-S. having appointed certain
property by deeds not containing powers of revocation, by her will par. ported to revoke the appointments and dispose of the property: Held, on the construction of the will, that certain persons claiming under the will were put to election : the doctrines of election and compensation fully
explained.-Pickersgill v. Rodger, L.R. 5 Ch. D. 163. (xcvi.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Construction-Equitable Estate.—Testator, who
died in 1828, gave real estate to trustees in fee upon trust for the sole benefit of his two daughters, with direction that if either should die and leave no child, part of the estate should be sold and proceeds divided as mentioned; but that if either should have children, her share should go to such children after her death : neither of the daughters had children: Held that they took as joint tenants in fee.-Yarrow v. Knightley, 25
W.R. 687. (xcvii.) H. L.-Construction - Express Trust-Statute of Limitations.-Held,
on the construction of an informally-worded will made in 1807, that an express trust for a legacy was thereby created so as to exclude the Statute of Limitations, but that no proceedings to enforce payment of the legacy having been taken till 1872, the plaintiffs ought not to receive more than six years' interest on the legacy from the filing of the bill.
Thompson v. Eastwood, L.R. 2 App. 215. (xcviii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Construction--"Heirs." —Bequest of personalty
to wife for life, and, after her decease, “to be divided amongst my heirs”: Held that “heirs ” meant next-of-kin exclusive of wife, and that the class was to be ascertained at testator's death.-Re Peppitt's Estate,
Chester v. Phillips, 36 L.T. 500. (xcix.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.--Construction-Implication.--Held, on the con.
struction of a will, that“ descendants ” meant “children," and that tes. tator's wife did not take by implication a life interested in his residuary
estate.-Ralph v. Carrick, 25 W.R. 530. (c.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Construction-Implication.-Gift of residue in
trust for A, till 21 or marriage held not to imply gift of capital on
attaining 21 or marriage.- Re Hedley's Trusts, 25 W.R. 529. (ci.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Construction-Implication.—Testator gave to his
trustees and executors power to manage and sell his real estate, and directed them, under his wife's management, to carry on his farm for the maintenance of his family, and declared that, subject to these pro. visions, his real and personal estate should be held in trust for his children equally : Held that the legal estate in the realty passed to the trustees who on wife's death could sell and convey.-Cooke v. Simpson, 46 L.J.
Ch. 463. (cii.) C. A.-Construction—Inconsistency.—Gift of personal estate to wife
absolutely, subsequent gift in same will of residue of personalty in trust for children: Held that wife took life interest.--- Re Bagshaw's Trusts,
36 L.T. 747 ; 25 W.R. 659. (ciii.) H. L.-Construction --Maintenance-Discretion of Trustees.-A lanatic
was absolutely entitled to certain funds which had been comprised in her marriage settlement: her husband by his will gave another fund to trustees upon trust “in their discretion and of their uncontrollable authority" to apply the income for her maintenance, and subject to such application the fund and income thereof were to fall into the residuo : Held that the discretion of the trustees under the will was absolute.
-Gisborne v. Gisborne, L.R. 2 App. 300; 36 L.T. 564; 25 W.R. 516. (civ.) Ch. Div. V.C. M.-Construction-Next of Kin.—Testator bequeathed
fund to his daughter for life, with remainder to her next of kin according to statute, but in exclusion of any husband : he also bequeathed a fund to his son for life, with remainder to his next of kin according to statute : Held that on death of the son his widow was entitled to share with his
next of kin.--Re Collins' Trusts, 36 L.T. 437. (cv.) Ch. Div. V.C. B.-Constitution.—Next of Kin. Period of Distribution
-Gift of fund equally among testators four daughters and then to their issue, and after death of last surviving daughter, if without issue, then to next of kin under Statute of Distribution : Held that on construction of the will. the next of kin were a class to be ascertained at the death of the surviving daughter, not of the testator.- Mortimore v. Slater, 25
W.R. 646. (cvi.) C. A.-Construction-Power.—Decision of M.R., Will (lxiv.), p. 80,
affirmed.—Re Veales' Trusts, 36 L.P. 364. (cvii.) Ch. Div. V.C. H.-Construction - Precatory Trust. Bequest to tes.
tator's wife “ for her to do justice to her husband's relations,” but under no restriction to any stated property, but to be at liberty to give what and to whom she pleased : Held not to create a trust.--Cole v. Hawes,
46 L.J. Ch. 488, (cviii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Construction-Precatory Trust.--Bequest of residue
in trust for such of nieces A. and B. as should " be living at my death, my desire being that they shall distribute such residue as they think will be most agreeable to my wishes”: Held that A. and B. took benefi.
cially.--Stead v. Mellor, L.R. 5 Ch. D. 225 ; 36 L.T. 498; 25 W.R. 508. (cix.) C. A.-Construction-Residuary Bequest-Ejusdem Generis.—Decision
of V. C. M., Will (lxxxii.), p. 113, affirmed.-King v. George, 36 L.T. 759;
25 W.R. 638. (cx.) C. A.-Construction. --- Residuary Legatee. -- Realty.—Where testator
commenced his will “As to my estate," and after specific devises and bequests appointed A. and B. his “residuary legatees:" Held that realty not specifically disposed of passed to A. & B. by the will.-Hughes
v. Pritchard, 25 W.R. 761. (cxi.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Construction—Specific Legacy-Ademption.-Subse.
quently to date of a will containing a specific legacy, testator invested part of the money comprised in the legacy in the purchase of stock of the B. and E. Railway, he died possessed thereof and of other similar stock : Held on the construction of the will tbat the stock so purchased as aforesaid passed by the bequest. - Morgan v. Thomas, 36 L.T. 689;
25 W.R. 750. (cxii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Construction—Substitution.-Devise to A. for life,
remainder on trust for sale and to hold proceeds for “children of F., or their issue, in equal shares per capita”: there were six children of F.; four died during life of testator, two survived A.: Held that issue of the deceased children of F. alive at testator's death took by substitucion the sbares of their deceased ancestors in equal shares as between them.
selves.—Re Sibley's trusts, L.R. 5 Ch. D. 495; 46 L.J. 387. (cxii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Construction-Technical Words--“ Seised.”—Gift
of real estate, "of which I may die seised:” testatrix, at her death, was entitled as heiress-at-law of R. to certain freeholds, of wbich his widow had taken and retained wrongful possession : Held that the freeholds did not
pass by the will.—Leach v. Jay, 46 L.J. Ch. 499; 25 W.R. 574. (cxiv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Conversion.-Gift of residue in trust for wife
for life and subject thereto to five persons equally : there was a clause authorising trustees to allow monies to remain in present state of invest. ment: Held that the widow was not entitled to enjoyment in specie of long annuities.- Porter v. Baddeley, L.R. 5 Ch. D. 542.
(cxv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.--Conversion.---Testatrix devised her residuary
real estate subject to a term for raising money upon certain trusts : these trusts having failed, Held that the residuary devisee took the
fand as personalty.-Re Newbery's Trusts, 25 W.R. 747. (cxvi.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.--Election.—Testator devised realty on trust for
sale and gave proceeds on his widow's death as to one moiety to his son absolutely, and as to other moiety to him absolutely if he should not have become bankrupt: the realty was not sold: son died in the widow's lifetime, having by his will elected to take the realty unconverted : Held that he
was capable of so electing.-Meek v. Devenish, 25 W.R. 688. (cxvii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Executor, Gift to.--Held that presumption that
legacy to P. named executor, who disclaimed, was given to him as executor was rebutted by its bring payable after death of tenant for life.--Re
Reeve's Trusts, L.R. 4 Ch. D. 841; 46 L.J. Ch. 412; 25 W.R. 628. (cxviii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.--Eepress Trust-Tenant in Tail-Recovery.-
Devise to A. in tail, upon “special trust and confidence" that A., if he should have no issue, would do nothing to defeat subsequent limitations, with remainder over : Held that right to suffer recovery was incident to estate tail and not destroyed by the trust.–Dawkins v. Lord Penrhyn,
36 L.T. 680. (cxix.) Ch. Div. M. R.--Maintenance.-Testator bequeathed a fund to his
infant grandson when he should attain 25 years, and provided that a sum not exceeding £200 a year might be applied for his maintenance : Held that the presumption that the infant was entitled to the interest was rebutted by the sum fixed for maintenance, and that the Court could
not increase the amount to be allowed.-May v. Potter, 25 W.R. 507. (cxx.) C. A.- Misdescriprion.-Devise of six named meadows, to testator's son
for life, remainder as he should appoint: the son by his will appointed "all that part and parts of the property comprised in and devised by the here. inbefore-recited will of my late father as is and are therein described as," &c.: the description omitted two of the meadows: Held that the omitted
meadows passed.--Travers v. Blunilell, 36 L.T. 341. (cxxi.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.--Misdescription.-Devise of freeholds at M.:
testator had no freeholds at M., but had freeholds at R. which M. ad. joined, and in which parish M. was situate: Held that the property at R. descended to the heir-at-law.-Barber v. Wood, L.R. 4 Ch. D. 885 ;
36 L.T. 373. (cxxii.) C. A.-Relense of Debt.-Bequest to member of firm of debts due
from him does not release debts of firm.-Er parte Kirk, Re Bennet 8
Glave, 36 L.T. 431; 25 W.R. 598. (cxxiii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.- Release of Debts.-Bequest of debts “now
owing” does not release from debts incurred subsequently to date of the
will.--- Everett v. Everett, 25 W.R. 765. (cxxiv.) P. D. A. Div.- Revocation.-Deceased executed a will in 1858, dig.
posing of all her property. In 1860 she made another will, beginning, “ This is the last will," etc., varying and repeating certain bequests given in first will, but containing no residuary or revocatory clanses : Held that the first will was revoked.-Dempsey v. Lawson, L.R. 2 P.D. 98 ; 46
L.J. P.D.A. 23; 36 L.T. 515; 25 W.R. 629. (cxxv.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Void Trust.-- Testator gave a sum to trustees on
trust to keep in repair tombstones, and to apply the residue as directed by his will: Held that the trust being void the whole amount must be applied as directed as to the residue.--Re Williams, 25 W.R. 689.
COLLECTIVE TABLE OF CASES Comprised in the four Quarterly Digests for the year 1876-1877.
PAGE Atty..Gen. v. Mayor of Basingstoke 63
v. Mayor of Portsmouth 125
- v. Mutual Tontine, &c., Assoc....
- Sunderland, Corpora. tion of ...
- v. Tomline Attwater, Ev pte., Re Tarner (L.R. | 5 Ch. D. 27) ... ... ... Austin, Ex pte., Re Austin ...
- Re, Ex pte. Yalden (L.R. 4 Ch, D. 129; 46 L.J. Bcy. 59) 51
v. Austin ... ... ...
— v. Angell ...
133 Allason's Trusts, Re
128 Allen, v. Londonderry and Ennis
killen Rail. Co ... ... - - y. New Gas Co. ... ... Alleyne's College, Re ... ... Allgood v. Gibson... Allison v. Bristol Marine Insur
ance Co. ... Altman v. Royal Aquarium Societ Ambler v. Lindsay Amos v. Chadwick Ancona v. Rogers (46 L.J. Ex. 121) Anderson v. Bank of British C lumbia ... ...
- v. Morice - v. Titmas
... 136 Aneroid, The ... Anna, The (46 L.J. P.D.A. Annandale, The ... Arcedecne v. Howard ... Armitage, Ex pte., Re Good (L.R.
5 Ch. D. 46; 46 L.J. Bcy. 65;
36 L.T. 338) ... Arnold, Ex pte., Re Wright - v. Cheqne Bank ... ... - v. City Bank ... Arthur Average Assoc., Re Ashley v. A. (L.R. 5 Ch. D. 75
46 L.J. Ch. 322) ... Ashworth v. Outram
125 Aspden v. Seddon (L.J. 46 Ex. 353)
... ... ... 20, 97 Aspinall’s Case ... Astor, In the goods of ...
30 Atherley v. Harvey ... Atkinson v. Newcastle, &c., Water. works Co. ..
. .. 143 Atty.-Gen. v. Gt. West. Rail. Co. (L.R. 5 Ch. D. 735) ... 32, 107
- v. Lamplough...
BACON v. B.
L.J. Bcg. 55) ... ... ... 85 - - v. Holmes... ... ... 18
-'s Claim, Re ... Baillie's Trusts, Re (L.R. 5 Ch. D. | 785; 46 L.J. Ch. 330) ... ... 101 Baker v. Mayor of Portsmouth ...
-- v. Oakes (L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 171 ; 46 L.J. Q.B. 246 ; 35 L.T. 832) - v. St. Marylebone Vestry Balbirnie Re, Ex pte. B. (25 W.R.
- Jamieson ... Bangham, In the goods of... ... Bank of British N. America v. Strong ... ... ... ...
- Montreal v. Cameron ... Barber v. Wood ... ... ... Baring v. Stanton (35 L.T. 652;
25 W.R. 237) ... ... 29, Barker v. Cox (L.R. 4 Ch. D.
464) ... ... ... ... 77 Barnes v. Edleston ... Barnett, Ex pte., Re Reade Barraud Re, Ex pte. Leman (46
L.J. Bcy. 38) ... ... . Barrett v. Vernon ... 61, 99 Barrow's Application, Re (L.R.
5 Ch. D. 353; 46 L.J. Ch. 450 ;