rainfall amounted to vis major, and that defendant was not liable in damages.-Nichols v. Marsland, L.R. 2 Ex.D. 1; 25 W.R. 725.

(v.) H. L.-Thames Conservancy Act, 1857, Riparian proprietor.-Held that the exclusive access of plaintiff to particular land on the bank of a river was a private right within s. 179 of 20 and 21 Vict., c. cxlvii, and that the Conservators could be restrained by injunction from granting a license to construct an embankment obstructing such access.-Lyon v. Fishmongers' Co., L.R. 1 App. 662; 36 L.T. 569; 25 W.R. 165.

Will:

(xli.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Annuity.-Testator bequeathed £20,000 to be laid out in purchase of annuity for benefit of A., and if he should alien, then the same should fall into the residue: Held that the restraint on anticipation was void.-Hunt-Furber v. Foulston, L.R. 3 Ch. D. 285; 24 W.R. 756.

(xlii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Annuity.-Testator directed executors to purchase anunity of £100 for benefit of M., and if she should alien, then annuity to fall into residue: Held that the restraint on anticipation was valid, and that M. could not claim the value of the annuity in bulk.- Hatton v. May, L.R. 3 Ch.D. 148; 24 W.R. 751.

(xliii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Annuity-Forfeiture.-A testator bequeathed an annuity and certain gifts for life, or until he should encumber or assign: Held that on the issue of a writ of sequestration against plaintiff the forfeiture clause came into operation and determined interest of plaintiff, who was ordered to pay costs of special case stated in a suit instituted by him against the trustees.-Dixon v. Rowe, 25 L.T. 549.

(xliv.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Annuity-Remoteness.-Testator gave to A. an annuity for her life, and after her death to her children equally during their lives, and after decease of the survivor of them to go to his own nephew and nieces equally; A. died without issue: Held that the nephew and nieces took the capital producing the annuity absolutely as tenants in common.-Evans v. Walker, L.R. 3 Ch.D. 211; 25 W.R. 7.

(xlv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H--Charitable Bequest-Mortmain Act (9 Geo. II., c. 36) s. 3.-Debentures issued by Aberystwith Improvement Commissioners on works, rents, and rates under private Act authorising acquisition of land for construction of waterworks: Held an interest within Mortmain Act.Chandler v. Howell, L.J. 46 Ch. 25; 35 L.T. 592; 25 W.R.

(xlvi.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Charitable Bequest-9 Geo. II., c. 36.-A bequest to charities of debentures of a water-works company in the form provided by Companias Clauses Act, 1845, Sched. C. is not void under the Statute of Mortmain.- Holdsworth v. Davenport, L.J. 46 Ch. 20; 35 L.T. 319; 25 W.R. 20.

(xlvii.) C. A.- Constraction-Charitable Bequest.-Testator directed that his residue should be given by his executors to such charitable institutions as he should by any future codicil give the same, and, in default of any such gift, then to be distributed by his executors at their discretion; he made no subsequent codicil: Held that a trust in favour of charitable institutions to be selected by the executors was created.-Pocock v. AttorneyGeneral, L.R. 3 Ch. D. 342; 35 L.T. 575.

(xlviii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Construction - Charge of Debts and LegaciesMortgage-Legal Estate. -A mortgagee trustee devised and bequeathed residuary estate to his wife, and her heirs, executors, and administrators upon trust to sell, and out of proceeds to pay debts and legacies, and apply residue as directed: there was no devise of trust or mortgaged estates: Held that the legal estate in the mortgaged property did not pass.-Re Smith's Estate, L.R. 4 Ch. D. 70.

(xlix.) Q. B. Div.-Construction-Contingent Remainder.-Where an estate in remainder is limited in contingency on the happening of certain events on

which (the preceding estates having determined) it will fall into possession, it is not a contingent, but a vested remainder dependent on these events. -Leadbeater v. Cross, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 18; L.J. 46 Q.B. 31; 25 W.R. 96. (.) C. A.-Construction-Contingent Remainder.-Devise to use of A. and B, their executors, administrators, and assigns for 120 years, if S. C., wife of J. C., shonld so long live, and subject thereto to the use of J C. for life, with remainder to use of all the children of J. C. and S. C. who should be living at the death of the survivor in fee as tenants in common; J. C. died in the life-time of S. C.: Held that the contingent remainder to the children failed for want of an estate of freehold to support them.-Cunliffe v. Branckner, L.R. 3 Ch.D. 393; 35 L.T. 578. (li.) C. A.--Construction-Counsel's opinion-Mistake in law.-An executor took counsel's advice as to construction of a will: a dissatisfied legatee also took opinion of counsel, which agreed with the former: the executor having distributed the property accordingly, the legatee, two years afterwards, claimed repayment on the ground that the will was wrongly construed: Ild that the suit could not be maintained.-Rogers v. Ingham, .L.R. 3 Ch.D. 351; 35 L.T. 677.

(lii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.—Construction--“ Die without issue."-Bequest to A. for life, with remainder to her children living at her decease, and if she should" die without issue," as she should appoint: A. had one child, who died in her life-time, leaving 5 children: Held that an appointment of the fund by A among the grand-children was good.-Re Merceron's Trusts,

35 L.T. 701.

(liii.) C. J. B.-Construction-Falsa Demonstratio.-Testator bequeathed £2,600 part of debt owing to him by K. & J. to his daughter, wife of B., and £1000 remainder of said debt to his wife for life with remainder over, and all debts owing to him by B. to B. absolutely, and directed his trustees to release B. therefrom; at date of will B. owed to testator separately £50, also £2600 upon joint and several promissory notes of self and partner, K. & J. only owed £1000. B. and partner continued to pay interest on the £2600 till they went into liquidation. Held that B. and partner were effectually released by the will as against the gift to B. 8 wife, and that payment of the interest did not revive the debt.-Ex parte Close, Re Bennett and Glave, L.J. 46 Bpey. 3.

44

(liv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Construction-"Foreign Bonds."-Bequest of the foreign bonds amounting to about £8,009" purchased by testatrix, Held not to pass Colonial bonds forming part of the amount.- Hull v. Hill, L.R. 4 Ch. D. 97; 25 W.R. 223.

(v.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Construction-Gift to Class.-Devise to children of A who should be living at testator's decease, or have died in his lifetime leaving issue living at his death as tenants in common. Held that surviving children took the whole to exclusion of issue of child who died in testator's lifetime, and also of the heir at law.-Coleman v. Jarcom, L.J. 46 Ch. 33; 35 L.T. 614; 25 W.R. 137.

(lvi.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Construction-Gift to Class-Mistake-Evidence.— Where a testator in a bequest to a class describes the class as consisting of a number differing from the number existing at the date of the will, the presumption that he intended to benefit the whole class is liable to be rebutted by evidence.- Newman v. Piercey, L.R. 4 Ch. D. 41; L.J. 46 Ch. 36; 35 L.T. 461; 25 W.R. 37.

(lvii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Construction-Gift to Executors.-Testatrix gave £100 10 "executors or excoutrix" of C., who left two executors and an executrix, who all predeceased testatrix: Held a gift to C.'s personal representatives as part of his estate: a share in the residue having lapsed, Held that costs of an administration suit were payable out of the general residue, not primarily out of the lapsed share.-Trehery v. He'yar,

L.H. 4 Ch. D. 53.

(lviii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Construction-Illegitimate children.-Where the H.L. had decided on the construction of a will, that two illegitimate children of testator's daughter born at the date of the will were sufficiently designated and took under the will: Held that a child then en ventr' sa mere also took, but not a child begotten and born after testator's death.Crook v. Hill, L.R. 3 Ch. D. 773; 24 W.R. 876.

(lix.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Construction-" Legal or next of kin."-Testator bequeathed personalty to his children, the share of his daughters to be "vested in the Bank in their own name, and the interest for life to be received by them,"..." [but to descend to their legal or next of kin." Held that daughters took life interest, and that subject thereto the next of kin, without regard to the Statutes of Distribution, were entitled.— Harris v. Newton, 25 W.R. 228.

(lx.) Ch. Div. V. C. B-Construction —Liability for Calls.-Testator authorised his trustees to invest in shares of any company in Great Britain, and he also declared that "the calls, if any, which at or after my decease may be or become due in respect of any shares for the time being constituting part of my residuary personal estate," should be paid out of income: Held that instalments due on certain railway shares and calls payable in respect of other shares belonging to the testator at his death, were payable out of income, but not calls in respect of shares allotted to and accepted by the trustees after his death.-Bevan v. Waterhouse, L.R. 3 Ch. D. 752.

(lxi.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Construction-Life interest.-Testator bequeathed residue in trust for his children, and directed that the trustees should pay the income of each daughter's share to her for life, with remainder in trust for her children: Held that the children of a daughter who predeceased testator were entitled to their mother's share.-Unsworth v. Speakman, 35 L.T. 731; 25 W.R. 225.

(lxii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Construction-Maintenance.-Testator directed his trustees to raise yearly sums for the maintenance of his sons during infancy, and of his daughters during infancy, or till marriage; and gave to each of his children legacies on attaining majority, or on marriage, respectively: Held that the legacies did not carry interest until the legatees attained majority, or married, respectively. - Re George's Estate, 25 W.R. 182.

(lxiii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Construction-" Other daughters surviving."- Gift in trust for such of testator's daughters as should be living at his death, income of each daughter's share to be paid to her during her life, with remainder to her children, and, in default of issue, to testator's "other daughters or other daughter surviving." Held that the period of survivorship must be death of testator.-Beckwith v. Beckwith, 25 W.R. 6. (lxiv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Construction-Power-Bequest to A. for life and after her death to and amongst testator's other children or their issue "in such parts, shares, and proportions, manner and form" as A should appoint: Held that the power of appointment was exclusive. -Re Veale's Trusts, L.R. 4 Ch.D. 61; 35 L.T. 612; 25 W.R. 122.

(lxv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Construction-Precatory Trust.-Bequest to wife "and for my dear wife to do justice to those relations on my side such as she think worthy of remuneration, but under no restriction to any stated property, but quite at liberty to give and distribute what and to who my dear wife may please." Held not to create a precatory trust. - Re Bond, 25 W.R. 95.

(lxvi.) C. A.-Construction-Shifting clause.-Hell, on the construction of a shifting clause (reversing decision of M.R.), that a younger son could not become the "eldest son" after his father's death, and that consequently the shifting clause never took effect.-Harvey Bathurst v. Stanley, 35 L.T. 709.

(lxvii.) Ch. Div M. R.-Heirlooms.-The Court has no jurisdiction when the testator's debts have been paid to order the sale of heirlooms settled in strict settlement.-D'Eyncourt v. Gregory, L.R. 3 Ch.D. 635; 45 Ch. 741; 25 W.R. 6.

(lxviii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Leaseholds-17 & 18 Vict. c. 113.-Locke King's Act does not apply to leaseholds.-In re Wormsley, 25 W.R. 141. (lxix.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Maintenance-Trustee Act.-Money payable under a will to two infants at 21, with trusts for maintenance, &c., was invested in stock in joint names of the executors and infants; the executors died: Held that the infants were trustees of their respective shares within the Trustee Acts, 1850 and 1852.-Gardner v. Cowles, L.R. 3 Ch. 304; 24 W.R. 343.

(lxx.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Married Woman-Separate Property.-By marriage settlement personalty was settled in default of issue upon trust if the wife should survive her husband for her separate use absolutely, but if she should not survive her husband, for such of her relations as she should by will appoint: she made a will in exercise of the power during coverture, and survived her husband without issue: Held that the will effectually disposed of the property.-Bishop v. Wall, L.R. 3 Ch.D. 194 ; L.J. 45 Ch. 773; 25 W.R. 93.

(lxxi.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Power of Appointment-Residuary Gift.-A fund was settled on children of A. as he should appoint, and in default of appointment equally; A. appointed the fund to trustees, as to £1200 to his child B. for life, and after his death to his children, and in default of children, then that the £1200 should "form part of the residue of the trust estate": the trusts of the residue were for daughters of A. for life, with powers of testamentary appointment: Held that the gift to the children of B. being admittedly excessive, the £1200 was after death of B. effectually appointed by the residuary gift.-Re Meredith's Trusts, L.R. 3 Ch D. 757; 25 W.R. 107.