« PreviousContinue »
should be no such children, or if they should all die before any of them should attain a vested interest. J. survived the testatrix, neglected to reside on the T. estate for six months, and died leaving a posthumous son, D., who was his only child. Held, that D. was entitled to the residuary personal estate, as by reason of J.'s forfeiture before his birth, he never had been entitled in tail in remainder to the T. estate; and that being an only child he took a vested interest at his birth. — Johnson v. Foulds, Law Rep. 5 Eq. 268.
8. A testator gave his residuary real and personal estate in trust for his " five sons” as tenants in common, and by a codicil revoked and made void the said trust so far as the same related to R., one of said sons, or his right therein, and in lieu thereof gave £15,000 in trust for R., his wife and children; and if R. should have no children, said legacy was to sink into the residue, but so that R. or his representatives should take no share or interest therein. Held, that the testator died intestate as to the trusts of one-fifth share of the residue, and that the £15,000 was not payable out of such share, but was payable before the residue was ascertained. — Sykes v. Sykes, Law Rep. 3 Ch. 301.
See ADEMPTION; ADMINISTRATION ; ADVANCEMENT; CANADA; CONTINGENT REMAINDER; EXONERATION ; ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN; LEGACY; MARSHALLING OF Assets; POWER; SATISFACTION; Trust; UNDUE INFLUENCE; VESTED INTEREST; WITNESS.
1. The claim of a company's lessor was resisted on the ground that the contract was ultra vires, as the premises were larger than the business of the company required, and all but one floor was let by them. There was no question of bona fides, nor was the house taken on a house-letting speculation. A claim for the estimated amount of future rent was allowed to be entered by WOOD, V.C.
A dividend was subsequently declared by the liquidators. Held, by GIFFARD, V.C., that the lessor was not entitled to have any part of the same impounded to secure payment of the future rent. - In re London & Colonial Co., Horsey's Claim, Law Rep. 5 Eq. 561, 562, n. (1).
2. A company was formed to work certain patents. Those who furnished the capital received preference or A. shares, and so soon as they should have received out of the profits a sum equal to their paid up capital, with £7 108. per cent interest, their shares were to be amalgamated with those of the patentees, who received paid up ordinary or B. shares, and all distinction between the shares was to cease. There was no provision for the division of capital. No profits were made, and the company was wound up. Held, that the surplus assets must be distributed among the A. and B. shareholders pro rata, without reference to their rights in respect of dividend. — In re London India Rubber Co., Law Rep. 5 Eq. 519.
See CONTRIBUTORY ; SALE, 2; SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, 1.
WITNESS. Bequest of £200 to B. church, to be disposed of as I. pleases. I.'s wife was one of the witnesses. Held, that as I. was a mere trustee, the attestation of his
SELECTED DIGEST OF STATE REPORTS.
[For the present number of the Digest, selections have been made from the following volumes of State Reports : 49 Barbour (New York); 34 Georgia; 1 C. E. Green (16 N.J. Chancery); 39 Illinois ; 54 Maine ; 24 Maryland; 1 Phillips, Law, 1 Phillips, Equity (North Carolina); 13 Richardson, Equity (South Carolina).]
ACCEPTANCE. — See DEED, 1; FRAUDS, STATUTE OF, 2.
ACCOUNT. — See CONFEDERATE MONEY, 5.
AGENT. — See PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.
AGREEMENT. - See CONTRACT.
ALIMONY. A bill for alimony, independent of statute, will not be entertained, except as incidental to other relief which may give the court jurisdiction. — Anshutz v. Anshutz, 1 C. E. Green, 162.
ARBITRATION. - See AWARD.
ASSUMPSIT. 1. If a debtor, having funds in the hands of his agent, orders him to pay a creditor with them, and he promises to do so, and the creditor accepts and relies
the agent's promise, the debtor's control of the fund is gone. The promise of the agent is an original promise, in consideration of the funds, and not within the Statute of Frauds; and assumpsit for money had and received lies against him. — Goodwin v. Bowden, 54 Me. 424.
2. In assumpsit by the owners of a vessel against the master for earnings, a release by one of the plaintiffs is a bar to the action; and evidence of collusion between the parties to the same is inadmissible to change its effect. — Hall v. Gray, 54 Me. 230.
See CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT.
AWARD. There being no dispute about the facts in a reference to arbitration of "all matters in dispute in relation to a sale of slaves, the arbitrators decided, according to the subsequent testimony of one of them, on the ground of law, that the Emancipation Proclamation of 1862 worked emancipation de jure. The award was set aside for mistake of law, by the Circuit Chancellor. On appeal, held,