Page images

appointed new trustees of the deed. Held, that the appointment was good.-In re Cunningham & Frayling's Contract, 64 L.T.558; 39 W.R. 469. See Trover, p. 143, i.

Unsound Meat :(i.) Q. B. D.-Exposure for Sale-Nuisances Removal Act, 1863, s. 2.—To

support a conviction of being the owner of unsound meat unlawfully deposited for the purpose of sale and intended for the food of man," there must be either a sale or an exposure for sale. Therefore where A., a farmer, sent a carcase, ansound to his knowledge, to X., a sales. man, for sale, and X. did not expose it for sale, but put it aside and called the attention of the inspector of nuisances thereto, held, that A. could not be convicted.-Barlow v. Ferrett, L.R. (1891] 2 Q.B. 107.

Vendor and Purchaser :(ii.) Q. B. D.-LeaseUsual Covenant—"Not to Assign."-A covenant

“not to assign or part with the possession of the premises without the consent of the lessor, such consent not to be unreasonably with beld” is not a “usual" covenant; and the purchaser of a lease under an open contract has the right to refuse completion, and to recover his deposit on finding that the lease contains such a covenant.-Bishop v. Taylor, 64 L.T. 529; 39 W.R. 542.

Voluntary Settlement:(iii) P. C.-Purchase for Value.-A settlement made by a woman, about to

marry, on her illegitimate child by her intended husband, is not good against a subsequent purchaser for value.-De Mestre v. West, L.R. (1891] A.C. 264 ; 64 L.T. 375.

of E.“

Will: (iv.) C. A.-Ademption-Double Portions.- Decision of Ch. D. (see Vol. 16,

p. 105, iii.) reversed.-Lacon v. Lacon, 60 L.J. Ch. 403 ; 64 L.T. 428;

39 W.R. 517. (v.) Ch. D.-Construction-Contingent Remainder-Executory Derise. Devise, subject to a life estate in E., to the use of such child or children

as, either before or after the death of the said E.," should attain the age of twenty-one. Held, to be an executory devise.- Dean v. Dean,

39 W.R. 568. (vi.) Ch. D.-Construction-Gift Over-Remoteness.-Devise and bequest

of all testator's real and personal property on trust for sale. After the death of testator's wife one-fifth part of the trust estates to be on trust for testator's daughter A. B. for life for her separate use, and from and after her death the same part to be on trust for such child or children of A. B. as should live to attain the age of twenty-one, or being a daughter or daughters should attain that age or marry, and also such child or children of any child of A. B. who might die under the age of twenty-one, as should live to attain tbat age, or, being a daughter, should marry, in equal shares per stirpes, and in default or failure of issue of A. B. the same one-fifth part to be in trast for all the testator's other children or their issue in equal shares per stirpes. The testator settled the other four one-fifth shares, and declared that if any of his children should die without leaving issue who should attain a vested interest, then the shares as to which such failure of issue should happen, should be in trust for such of his children as should be living at the time of such failure of issue, and the issue then living of

such of them as should be dead in the same manner as was directed with rospect to their original shares. Testators died in 1857. A. B. died in 1890, without having bad issue. Held, that the gift over on the

death of A. B. was void for remoteness.-Smith v. Bence, 64 L.T. 282. (i.) Ch, D,-ConstructionJoint Tenants- Tenants in Common.–A

testator who died in 1826 devised real estate to trustees on certain trusts during the lives of bis children and the survivor of them, and from and after the decease of the survivor, or daring the life or lives of all or any, with their concurrence, upon trust to sell and hold the proceeds upon trust "for all and erery my said sons and daughters who shall be then living, and the issue of any then dead (such issue standing in loco parentis) share and share alike.” Held, that, as the words of distribution occarred only once, the issue of each child took as joint

tenants inter se,- Bostock v. D'Eyncourt, 39 W.R. 573. (ii.) Ch, D.-Discretionary Trust - Interest of Cestui.que--Trust.-Gift of a

fund, after the determination of a life tenancy therein, on trust to pay or apply all or any part of the income or corpus thereof for the benefit of R., at the discretion of the trustees. R. predeceased the tenant for life. Held, that the discretionary trust did not confer on R. an interest which descended to his legal personal representatives.

Moorson v. Tate, 60 L.J. Ch. 326; 39 W.R. 755. (iii.) Ch. D.--Infants— Maintenance-Contingent Gift-Conveyancing Act,

1881, 8. 43.-A testator directed his trustees to hold the proceeds of sale of an estate on trust to pay annuities, and subject thereto on trust for such children of his son and daughters as should attain twenty-one (the shares of his grandchildren born in his lifetime being settled). Held, that the surplus income of the trust fund belonged to the grand. children who at the time being had attained twenty-one, and that the statutory power of maintenance did not apply.-Burt v. Arnold,

L.R. [1891] 2 Ch. 671; 60 L.J. Ch. 470; 64 L.T. 622. (iv.) Ch. D.-Legacy to Wife-Priority.- A pecuniary legacy to the testator's

wife, to be paid within three calendar months after the testator's decease, to enable her to provide and furnish a suitable house, and to defray any other expenses, held, not to have priority over other legacies.

- Oppenheim v. Schweder, 39 W.R. 588. (v.) Ch. D.-Life Tenancy-Forfeiture-Contingent Remainder-Executory

Devise.- Devise of real estate to A, for life, and after his death to all his children, whether then born or thereafter to be born, who should attain twenty-one. There was a proviso that A.'s interest should determine if the estate should be taken in execution by any process of law for the benefit of any creditor, and that the estate should thenceforth vest in the persons who would be next entitled under the devises thereinbefore contained. A receiver of the rents was appointed. Held, that A.'s life estate had determined. Held, also, that the gift over must be construed as an execatory devise, and not as a contingent remainder, so as to let in all A.'s children, whether born before or after the receivership order.

-Blackman v. Fysh, 64 L.T. 590 ; 39 W.R. 520. (vi.) P. D.-Probate English and Scotch Wills.-A testator made two

separate wills dealing separately with English and Scotch assets. By the Scotch will, the debts were charged exclusively on the Scotch estate. Two of the English executors were trustees of the Scotch will. The Court, being satisfied that no creditor would be prejudiced, made a grant of probate of the English will alone, without requiring the Scotch will be incorporated, upon condition that a certified copy thereof should be filed, and a note made to that effect on the probate.-In the goods of Fraser, L.R. (1891] P. 285.

(i.) P. D.-Probate-Executor Absent-Power of Attorney.-An executor

who was absent from the country, and was expected to be absent for two years, had executed a power of attorney, in general terms, enabling X. to act for him about all his concerns or business of every kind whatsoever, and also to appear for bim in any court of jastice in any action or proceeding to which he might be a party. Held, that adminis. tration with the will annexed might be granted to X. for the use and benefit of the executor.-In the goods of Barker, L.R. (1891] P. 251 ;

39 W.R. 560. (ii.) P. D.-Probate-Mistake--Name of Legatee-- Probate with Blank.--A

testator, in giving directions for his will, directed that £10,000 should be given to each of his daughters G. and F. The name of G. was by inadvertence inserted in both the clauses relating to the gifts to the daughters, and that of F. omitted tire The draft was not read over to the testator, and the error was not brought to his notice. Held, that probate might be granted, omitting the name of G. in the second clause of gift. - In the goods of Sir J. E. Boehm, L.R. (1891] P. 247 ;

39 W.R. 576. (iii.) P. D.-Probate-Two Wills Property in England and Canada.-A

testator, possessed of property in England and Canada, made two wills, each purporting to be independent of the other, and disposing only of the estate situate in the country to which it referred. Held, that probate might be granted of the English will on an affidavit being filed exhibiting a copy of the Canadian will, and a statement that such affidavit had been filed being endorsed on the probate; but that an affidavit must be made that the moveable chattels bequeathed by each will were actually at the time of the testator's death in the country to which the will which disposed of them referred.-In the goods of Seaman,

L.R. (1891] P. 253. (iv.) C. A.-Thellusson Act—" Improvement—Maintenance.-One of the

trasts of a will was to expend part of the income “ in the improvement
of the landed estate, and in maintaining in good habitable repair houses
and tenements on the property." Held, that "the trust for improve-
ment and maintenance contained in the will was valid, notwithstanding
the expiration of twenty-one years from the testator's death, but the
declaration was not to authorise the application of income to purposes
the expense of which ought to be defrayed ont of capital." All
improvements in substance, which could in any fair sense be regarded
as coming under "maintaining in good repair houses and tenements on
the property” are outside the Thellusson Act. Money laid out in
building houses on the land would be within the Act.–Vine v. Raleigh,
L.R. (1891] 2 Ch. 13.
See Power, p. 130, v.

[blocks in formation]

of the cases reported during August, September, and

October, 1890.

Where a case has already been given in the Digest for a preceding
quarter, the additional report is given after the name of the case,
with a reference to the volume of the Digest in which it first
appeared, the thick number being the number of the volume.

Accomac, the, 24, vii.
Anderson v. Hamlin, 11, i.
Antony Gibbs v. Société des Métaux,

8, vi.
Apollinaris Co.'s Trade Marks, re,

26, iii.
Ashwin, e. p. ; re A., 2, iv.
Ashworth v. Roberts, 16, iv.
Assyrian, the, 19, vi.

Bradford Building
Society (L.R. 25 Q.B.D.377; 59 L.J.

Q.B. 360 ; 62 L.T. 857), 15, 122, i.
A.-G. v. Woodall, 20, ix.


Booth v. Ferrett (38 W.R. 718), 15,
110, ii.

v. Ratté (38 W.R. 737), 15,
95, i.
Brinkley v. A.-G. (62 L.T. 911), 15,

120, ii.
Bristol Bread Co. v. Maggs (L.R. 44
Ch. D. 616), 15, 98, vi.

Joint Stock Bank, re (L.R. 44
Ch. 703), 15, 112, ii.

Trams, &c., Co. v. Bristol
(Mayor), 27, iv.
Brown, re (59 L.J. Ch. 530; 63 L.T.

131), 15, 120, v.
Bryant and Barningham, re (59 L.J.

Ch. 636 ; 63 L.T, 20), 15, 142, i.
Buckle v. Fredericks (62 L.T. 881 ;

38 W.R. 742), 15, 115, ii.
Budgett v. Binnington, 25, i.
Building Societies Trust, re (59 L.J.

Ch. 638), 15, 92, i.
Butler v. B., 20, vii.; 12, ii.

[ocr errors]

BACUP (CORPORATION) v. Sm.Th, 13, iii.
Baird v. Wells, 6,

, i.
Bannerman v. Toosey, 17, iv.
Banque d'Hochelaga v. Murray, 6, jii.
Barker v. Fleetwood Improvement

Commissioners, 26, ii.
Bass v. Gregory, 10, ii.

Dartmouth Harbonr
Commissioners (62 L.T. 861), 15,

125, iii.
Bellamy v. Debenham, 27, v.
Berridge v. B. (59 L.J. Ch. 533 ; 63

L.T. 101), 15, 134, iii.
Bethane v. B., 11, v.
Bidwell v. Holden, 19, ix.
Bird v. Davey, 5, iii.
Birkin v. Wing, 8, viii.
Bishop v. Balkis Consolidated Co.

(38 W.R. 750), 15, 137, iv.
Blundell v. B. (38 W.R. 707), 15,

76, v.


OVERSEERS (59 L.J. M.C. 102), 15,

127, i.
Caldwell v. Matthews, 15, vi.
Callaway, goods of (L.R. 15 P.D. 147;

63 L.T. 227), 15, 145, v.
Cape Copper Co. v. Comptoir d’Es.

compte, 19, viii.
Carisbrook, the (62 L.T. 843), 15,

139, iii.
Cashmere, the (62 L.T. 815), 15,

114, iv.

Duncan v. Dixon (38 W.R. 700), 15,

82, ii.


(63 L.T. 147), 15, 135, iv.
Eastern and Midlands Railway, re,

22, i.
Edge's Patent, re, 20, iv.
Eede, re (L.R. 25 Q.B.D. 228; 59 L.J.

Q.B. 376), 15, 128, iv.
Egmont (Lord) Settled Estates, re,

23, iii.
Elder v. Carter (L.R. 25 Q.B.D. 194),

15, 129, ii.
Empire Mining Co., re (L.R. 44

Ch. D. 402; 38 W.R. 747), 15,

112, v.
Endeavour, the, 24, vi.
Eno v. Dunn, 27, i.
Essex (Sheriff), e. p. ; re Levy, 3, viii.
Evans, goods of, 1, ii.

[ocr errors]

Central Bank v. Hawkins, 4, iv.
Châle, e. p.; re Artola Hermanos

(62 L.T. 780), 15, 107, iii.
Charterhouse Governors v. Lamarque

(59 L.J. Q.B. 495; 62 L.T. 907,

38 W.R. 776), 15, 136, vi.
Christ's Hospital, re (38 W.R. 758),

15, 79, i.
Clark v. Sonnenschein, 20, i.
Clegg v. C. (59 L.J. Ch. 520; 62 L.T.
821), 15, 105, ii.

v. Hands (L.R. 44 Ch. D. 503),
15, 82, v.
Cochrane Entwistle (59 L.J.

Q.B. 418; 62 L.T. 852), 15,
108, iv.

v. Moore (59 L.J. Q.B. 377 ;
63 L.T. 153), 15, 118, v.
Cohen v, Mitchell (L.R. 25 Q.B.D. 262;

59 L.J. Q.B. 409; 63 L.T. 206), 15,

107, ji.
Colonial Bank v. Cady, 8, iii.
Colquhoun v. Heddon (59 L.J. Q.B.

465 ; 62 L.T. 853), 15, 136, v.
Coltman v. Chamberlain, 25, iii.
Constable, e. p.; re Barker (L.R. 25
Q.B.D. 285), 15, 106, v.

e. p. ; re Lorrimar, 3, iv.
Cooke v. Smith (L.R. 45 Ch. D. 38;

59 L.J. Ch. 577), 15, 136, iii.
Coriolanus, the (62 L.T. 844), 15,

139, v.
Coupe v. Collyer, 16, i.
Crane v. Lawrence (59 L.J. M.C. 110;

63 L.T. 197), 15, 104, v.
Crawford, goods of 30 vi.

v. May, 10, vi.
Crisp v. Thomas, 14, ii.
Crown Bank, re, 8, v.

(L.R. 44 Ch. D. 634; 63
L.T. 123), 15, 112, iii.
Cumberlege Cumberlege-Ware,

13, v.; 28, vii.

FARRAR V. COOPER (59 L.J. Ch. 506),

15, 71, i.
Farrow's Application, re, 27, ii.
Fenton v. Blythe, 5, i.
Field v. Hopkins, 15, iii.
Filburn v. People's Palace Co., 1, iii.
Finck v. L. & S.W.R. (L.R. 44

Ch. D. 330; 62 L.T. 881), 15, 136, i.
Five Steel Barges, 25, v.
Foley, e. p.; re Spackman (62 L.T.

849), 15, 106, ii.
Forsyth v. F., 11, iv.
Francis v. Bruce (L.R. 44 Ch. D. 627 ;

63 L.T. 49), 15, 134, v.

[ocr errors]

Davies v. ANDRÉ (63 L.T. 151), 15,

88, ii.


Co., le (L.R. 25 Q.B.D. 230; 59 L.J.

Q.B. 460; 62 L.T. 834), 15, 128, vii.
Gebruder Naf v. Ploton (59 L.J.

Q.B. 371), 15, 132, v.
General Gordon, the, 24, iii.
Gibraltar Commissioners v. Orfila, 6, i.
Gifford v. Chard Union, 17, i.
Giles v. Walker, (59, L.J. Q B. 416;
62 L.T. 933; 28 W.R. 782),

15, 126, iii.
Granet de la Rue, goods of, 31, i.
Great Northern Salt Works, re (L.R.

44 Ch. D. 472), 15, 74, ii.
Green and Balfour (Arbitration), i. iv.
Gresham Life Assurance Society v.

Styles, 22, iv.
Griffith v. Pound, 20, ii.

Daw v. London County Council, 14, v.
Decroix v. Meyer, 4, ii.
Delmar, e. p. ; re Herepath, 3, vi.
Denver Breweries Co. re, 20, vïïi.
De Rothschild v. Morrisou (63 L.T.

46), 15, 131, vii.
Devonshire (Duke) v. O'Connor (62

L.T. 917), 15, 80, ii.
Dicks v. Hare (62 L.T. 819), 15,

104, ii.
Dixon v. Wells (L.R. 25 Q.B.D. 249;
59 L.J. M.C. 116; 62 L.T. 812),
15, 115, iii.

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »