« PreviousContinue »
character prescribed.—- Wigsell v. Corporation of School for Indigent Blind, 43 L.T. 218.
C. P. DiV.—Genera.l Words—Right of Wa.g——P-rivate RoacL—Misrcp1‘esenfation by Auctioneer.—At the sale of the lease of apublic house the auctioneer, without authority from the vendor, by mistake stated that there was a right of way over a certain private road. The conditions of sale provided that no error or omission in the particulars should annul
the sale or give a right to compensation: Held that no action could be ‘
maintained against the vendor after completion for compensation for the non-existence of the right of way: Held also that general words granting all easements and rights of way did not conclude a right of
way over a private road which was not a way of necessity.—Brett v. Clowser, L.R. 5 C.P.D. 376.
Ch. Div. M. R,-—Insurance by Vendor——F‘ire after Contract and before C0mpletion.—A vendor contracted to sell a house which he had insured against fire. After the contract, but before completion, the house was burnt, and the vendor received the insurance money: Held that the
purchaser was not entitled to the benefit of the insurance.—Rayne1 v. Preston, L.R. 4-3 L.T. 18.
board by a purchaser for the purpose of let ting or selling building land : Held to render him liable to pay interest on the purchase-money.— Ballard v. Shutt, 49 L.J. Ch. 61.8; 4-3 L.T. 173.
C. A_.—Specific Performance~—Misleading Partic-u.lars—Rescission.—Particulars of sale of leaseholds in Liverpool omitted to state that one lot was subject to a ground rent of £45: Held that the purchaser of the lot was entitled to be discharged.—Jones v. Rimmer, L.R. 14, Ch. D. 588; 43 L.T. 111.
Ch. Div. F. J.—Speciflc Performance—Pwrchase-Money Payable by Instalments.—-Disputes which had arisen on an agreement for sale of leaseholds were referred to an arbitrator who directed by his award that the purchase-money should be paid by instalments. The vendor having brought an action for specific performance, the order directed an account of instalments due and the balance of purchase.money owing to be certified, and reserved liberty to apply at chambers fourteen days after certificate for an order for payment of the balance, declared alien on the leaseholds for the balance, and gave liberty to apply in respect of future instalments as they became due.—Nives v. Nines, 42 L.T. 832.
C. A,—-Trust for Sale—Hcir of Su/rviving Tru~stee—-Power to Appoint New Truslee.—The heir of the surviving trustee of a trust for sale, given to trustees and their heirs, has power to sell, though the instrument creating the trust contains a power for the surviving or continuing trustee to appoint new trustees.—Re Morton and Hallett, 4-9 L.J. Ch559 ; 28 W.R. 895.
Voluntary Gift :
Ch. Div. F. J.-—Donatio M01-tie Caus6.—Bill of Ea:change.—A dying man in expectation of death stated his wish to give his wife £500 out of a sum of £2,700 on deposit at abank, and he filled up a check form and withdrawal notice, on the back of the deposit note which he held, for £500 and sent it to the bank but died before the withdrawal was completed. He also gave a bill of exchange, drawn by himself to his own order, but not endorsed, to a friend requesting him to present the bill and give the money to his wife. The friend gave the bill to the wife, who did not present it till after the testator’s death: Held that the £500 did not pass by a dcmat-io mortis causfi, but the bill did pass.-—-Austin v. Mead, 4,-3 L.T. 117; 28 W.R. 891.
manding ofiicer of a volunteer administrative regiment, when assembled for purposes of drill, has no power of dismissing any member of the divisional corps; but the commanding oflicers of the individual corps have power to dismiss members of their respective corps notwithstand
ing the presence of such commanding officer of the battalion.—T0mbs v. Magrath, 4-9 L.J. M.C. 75.
Warranty:_ (i.) C. A.-Sale of Horse—Couditions of Sale.—Plaintilf bought a horse by
public auction warranted to be a good worker, under the condition that horses not answering to warranty must be returned the day after the sale, and should be tried by a person appointed by the auctioneer, whose decision should be final: Held that the plaintiEE’s only remedy was under the condition.—Hinchcll1fe v. Bm-wick, 28 W.R. 94-0.
Q. B. DiV.—Permissive Waste—Liability of Tenant for Life—3 3‘ 4Will. IV., c. 42, s. 2.—A tenant for life of property under a devise to herI she keeping the houses thereon in repair, died leaving the houses out of repair: Held that the immediate reversioner in fee was entitled to recover damages for permissive waste against the estate of the deceased
Ch. Div. V. C. M.—Arlemplion-—Ereculion of Power-.—Testatrix in execution of a general power reserved in a settlement, made an appointment of a specific sum of bank annuities. Subsequently a part of the annuities were, under a power in the settlement, sold, and the proceeds invested in railway stock: Held that there was no ade:nption.— Ra Johnstone's. Settlement, 49 L.J. Ch. 596.
a testator has acquired after the date of his will in place of debentures which he possessed at that date, will not pass under a gift of debentures. —Luard v. Lane, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 856; -13 L.T. 87.
H. L.—Annuity — Deficiency of Income - Arrears out of Corpus.Testator directed his trustee to sell his real and personal estate, and set apart a suflicient portion of the invested proceeds to produce an income of £l.,200, which he bequeathed to his wife for life; the income of the whole estate proved insutlicient to pay the annuity in full: Held that the widow was entitled to have the deficiency paid out of corpus.Carmichael v. Gee, L R. 5 App. 588.
Ch. Div. M. R.—CIu1ritable Bequesl—Money Secured on Police Rates.Moneys secured by bonds of justices assembled either in general or quarter sessions, and charged on the police rates of adivision of a county
are pure personalty.»—Jacks0n v. Gwernors of Queen Anne’s Bounty, 4-3 L.T. 116.
C. A.—Charilnble Bequesl—Pa.rln.w-ship Property—9 Geo. II., c. 36.—The
Ch. Div. V. C. B.—C'odicil—Bequesl to apply according to Direction-
of all her property, sent for B. and told him that she wished to give certain further legacies, of which he made a memorandum, and she then executed a codicil bequeathing to B. all her personalty, such as cash, furniture, &c., to be applied “as I have requested him to do:" Held that all her personalty passed to B. under the codicil, who held it on trust
for the objects specified in the will subject to the alterations contained in her directions to him.—Sidg1-eaves v. Brewer, 49 L.J. Ch. 514-.
Ch. Div. V. C. M.——Construclion—Appoint-men! of Ea:ocut0rs—No Residuary Gifl. —Testatrix after directing her debts and funeral expenses to be paid by her executors, appointed B. and C. executors and gave a number of legacies including one of £1000 to B. and another of £100 to (7.; but there was no gift of residue : Held that the executors took the residue beneficially.—-Roosa r. Chalk, 49 L.J. Ch. 625; 43 L.T. 152; 28 W.R. 975.
Ch. Div. V. C. H.—Conslru.ction—“ Bequeathed."—Testatrix, by will, in 1867I after exercising a power of appointment over certain funds, continued, “ I appoint E. M. my residuary legatee to any property which has been bequeathed to me, and which is not mentioned in this will.” Testatrix's father, by will, in 1873, bequeathed to her certain stock, but he afterwards transferred the stock to the trustees of her marriage settlement during his lifetime: Held that this stock did not pass to E. M.—- Ma/resrraum v. Armstrong, 42 L.T. 823.
Ch. Div. V. C. M.—Conslructi0n—Contingent Rema.inder ofEquilable h‘slate—Remoteness—I\'ame and Arms Clause.-—Devise of freeholds to trustees upon trusts during H.'s life, and after his death to convey to such son of W. as should first attain twenty-five ; with a proviso that if any son of W. who should become entitled should not take the surname and arms of the testator within two years after becoming entitled, the estate and interest of such son should go over. Testator died in 1880. A son of W. attained twenty-five in 1836, and died 1865, without having assumed the testators name and arms. H. died in 1877: Held that the limitation to W.’s. son was a contingent remainder which had vested on his attaining twenty-five; and that the forfeiture clause did not take efleot as the son had not become entitled to possession.—Abbiss v. Bums;/, 43 L.T. 20; 28 W.R. 908.
Particular Res£due.—Testator gave a bust, after the death of his wife, to “ John, now Duke of B.," and certain pictures to the trustees of the National Gallery; and all the' rest of his pictures and other elfects not therein specifically bequeathed to the wife; and all the residue of his money and personal estate and efiects not therein specifically bequeathed to trustees on certain trusts. There was no John, Duke of B. at the time of the will, but F. was then Duke of B.: Held that the bust belonged to F.’s executors. The trustees of the National Gallery declined the bequest to them: Held that the pictures passed to the trustees of the will under the general residuary bequest.——Pa.tching v.
Ch, Div. M. R.—Conslruction—Direction lhal Share of Residue shall sink into Residue.—Testator gave his residuary real and personal estate to executors on trust to sell and divide among all his children in equal shares on their respectively attaining twenty-one, but to stand possessed of the share of his daughter I. on trust for her for life, and after her death for her children, and in default of children upon trust as to one moiety as she should appoint, and that the other moiety should fall into and become part of his residuary personal estate, and be applied according to the trusts of his will. ’l‘estator left seven children, who
all attained twenty-one, and I. died without issue, having appointed half her estate: Held that the other half was divisible equally among the other six children.——Crawshaw v. Crawahaw, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 817; 49 L.J. Ch. 662.
H. L.— C0nstru.cti0n—Estate Tail—RuZe in Wild’s Case.—Testator bya will made before the Wills Act. devised property to A. and his children, in the event of A. dying without children to B. and his children, in the event of B.’s death without children to C. and her children, and if she should have no children she should have the power of bequeathing the property to whom she pleased. ']‘he will also provided that either A., B., or C. on arriving at the possession of the property might dispose of it by will amongst their children in such proportions as they should think proper. A. executed a disentailing deed and died without ever having had children: Held that he took an estate tail.—Cl1])’0rd v. Koe, L.R. 5 App. 447.
Ch. Div. V. C. H.—-C'0nstr1u:tion—-Gift at Twenty.five—Vested or Contingent.—Gift of residue upon trust for testator’s children who being sons should attain twenty-five, or being daughters should attain twenty. one or marry, to be divided on the youngest child attaining twenty-one; with a power to apply the income of the share to which any child should be entitled in expectancy for maintenance. Testator left two children, a son aged 23 and a daughter aged 21 : Held that the interest of the son did not become vested till he attained twenty-five.—Dewar v. Brooke, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 529.
C. A.— Con.structi0n—Gift to Children—Illegit imate Ch.ild.——The reference by a testator to an illegitimate child of A. in a prior part of the will as his grandson the son of A., is not sufficient to rebut the presumption
against such child being included in agift to the children of A. as a class.—z‘lIegs0n v. Hindle, 28 W.R. 866.
C. A.—C0nstruction—Life Estate—-Power to Dispose of Pr0perty———Gift Orer.—Gift of real and personal estate to M. for life to be disposed of as she might think proper for her own use and benefit ; and, in the event of her decease should there be anything remaining of the said property, the same should go to E. and F. : Held that M. took an estate for life only with a power to dispose of the capital during her life, but not by will. —Her1'ing v. Barrow, 49 L.J. Ch. 622; 43 L.T. 85.
C. A.——C0nstruch'on—Power of Appointment—Residua1'y Bequ,esf.—By a voluntary deed testator settled certain property on such trusts as he should by deed or will appoint, and subject thereto on trust for his daughters and their children._ By a will of subsequent date he bequeathed his personal residue on somewhat difierent trusts for his daughters and their issue, and in a codical he referred to the settlement as still subsisting and operative : Held that the residuary bequest was an effectual execution of the power of appointment.-—-illaddick v. Marks, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 422; 49 L.J. Ch. 586; 4-3 L.T. 40.
Inuestment.—Lnnd was settled to the use of such persons as B. should by will appoint, with power to the trustees with B.'s consent to sell and re-invest. The land was sold and the proceeds invested in co..sols. B. by her will gave legacies amounting to £30,000, and bequeathed all the residue of her personalty to two persons. Her own personal estate did not exceed £6,000: Held that the consols passed under the residuary gift.—-Chandler v. Pocock, 43 L.T. 112.
(Xviii-) Ch. Div. F. J.—C'onstruclion—Direction to Settla—Power of Sale.
A direction to settle, contained in a will made in 1810: Held to authorise a power of sale.--- Wise v. Piper, 4-9 L.J. Ch. 611.
(xix.) Ch. Div. V. C. MI.—Crm,slrucIion—PoWer to Sell—Oonsent of Tenant for Life—Infant. —Testator devised estates to trustees on certain trusts giving successive life estates and then an estate tail to N., with a power of sale and enfranchisement with the consent of the person for the time being entitled as beneficial tenant For life; and he directed that no re. purchase or re.investment should be made while there should be any person entitled as beneficial tenant for life or tenant in tail in possession and of the age of twenty-one, without the previous consent of such person. N. was now tenant in tail in possession and an infant: Held that the trustees could during his minority exercise the power of sale and enfranchisernent without consent.—Re Neave, 49 L.J. Ch. 6-12; 48 L.T. 152_; 28 W.R. 976.
(xx.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.—Construction—Rem0teness—E.recut0ry Dovise—Apportionment Act, l870.—Testator gave real estate to trustees in trust for his wife for life, and after her death to be held on trust, it the youngest grandchild of A. and T. who should be then living should be under twenty-one, to maintain him till he attained twenty-one, and from his majority to pay him £200 a-year till be attained twenty-five, and till then or so long as the trust might legally operate to accumulate the surplus rents, and if he attained twenty-five, but not otherwise, to hold the accumulations in trust for him, and subject as aforesaid in trusts for the youngest of the grandsons of A. and '1‘. who should be living at his wife’s death, and should then have attained or should thereafter attain twenty-five, for life, with remainders over: Held that the devise to the youngest grandchild of A. and T., and the remainders were void for remoteness ; and that the widow's executors were entitled to an apportioned part of the rents of the real estate to the day of her death—Patching v. Ba-rnett, 43 L.T. 50; 28 W.R. 886.
(xxi.) H. L.—Oonstructi0n—Remoteness—Gift to Cla.ss.——Testat0r gave a fund on trust for A. for life and after his death for all his children who should attain twenty-one, and the issue of such of them as should die under that age leaving issue, which issue should afterwards attain twenty-one, or die leaving issue, as tenants in common, sm-h issue to take only the share or shares which their parents would have taken if living: Held that the whole gift was void as infringing the rule against perpetuities. ——Pearks v. Moseley, L.R. 5 App. 714.
Held not to include engravings not in testator's dwelling-house.—Turner v. Turner, 28 W.R. 859.
(xxiv.) Ch. Div, V. C. M.—-Equitable Contingent Remaim1er—Fu.ilure of Particular Estate.—A legal estate of freehold created by one deed will
support contingent remainders created by another deed or by will.Astley v. lllicklethwaite, 43 L.T. 58.