Imágenes de páginas


No. 489—Vol. X.
MAY 23, 1846.

PRICE ls. The following are the Names of the Gentlemen who favour The JURIST with Reports of Cases argued and

decided in the several Courts of Law and Equity :House of Lords {E Temple, Barrister of Elav Inner | Vicourhancellor Wigram’s {P.Iens Barrister at era w Lincoln's Privy Council {

Court of Queen's Bench {G.Templem Esqof the Inner Inner Temple, Barristerat Law. The Lord Chancellor's SE. T. HOOD, Esq. of the Inner Queen’s Bench Bail Court{A.Im. Klawan, Esq. of Gray's Court ..... { Temple, Barrister at Law.

Court of Common Pleas, D. POWER, Esq. of Lincoln's

including G. Y. Robson, Esq. of the Inner

Inn; and
Master of the Rolls Court

Temple, Barrister at Law. Appeals under Registra- | W. PATERSON, Esq. of Gray's

tion of Voters Act.. Inn, Barristers at Law.
Tenison EDWARDS, Esq. of the
Vice-Chancellor of Eng- Inner Temple, and

Court of Exchequer { W Barrister Tat Escort of Gray's Inn, land's Court CHARLES MARETT, Esq. of the

Ecclesiastical and Admi. SJ. P. Deane, D.C.L. of Doctors' Inner Temple, Barristers at Law.

ralty Courts

Commons. Vice-Chancellor Knights W. W. COOPER, Esq. of the Inner

Court of Review

W. W. Cooper, Esq. of the Inner Bruce's Court...

{ Temple, Barrister at Law.

Temple, Barrister at Law.

[ocr errors]

LONDON, MAY 23, 1846.

sort was necessary. Things ought not to remain as

they were. It was a reproach to the law of this counWe regret the rejection of the Charitable Trusts try. But it was not in the appointment of a commisBill, which took place in the House of Lords last sion of this sort that a remedy was to be found; it Monday, not on our own account, as we are neither was in the reform of one of the regular tribunals of trustees nor beneficiaries of any public charity, nor a the country. It was allowed on all hands that his retired Calcutta judge, nor a Vice-Chancellor, nor a noble and learned friend (Lord Cottenham) had admi. Serjeant-at-law, nor even a Barrister of twelve years' nistered equity to the great satisfaction of everybody, standing. But we regret its rejection, because it leaves and yet he had declared that the Court of Chancery immense masses of property, that, in our humble opin- was the best tribunal to which application could be ion, ought to be protected and managed, totally with made for the correction of abuses in charities. No out protection, and managed tant bien que mal. doubt, it was an admirable tribunal; there was a care

The objections made to the bill by its noble and ful investigation, a patient hearing, and justice was learned opponents, were of various characters. Lord administered. The only objection was, the expense of Cottenham's principal objections (though he had many litigation. The obvious remedy, then, was to diminish of detail) appears to have been to the creation of an ex- that expense. But charities were only specimens of pensive commission, while, according to him, the Court what might be said of the Court of Chancery with regard of Chancery is in a state of such superabundant to any small sums of money recoverable in equity. If a strength, as to more than suffice for the work intended person had a legacy of 50l., to recover it by bill in equity to be cast upon the Charity Commissioners. His Lord-would lead to a certain loss of a larger sum. The

proper ship meets the objection, that Chancery cannot be re- remedy, then, would be, to allow justice to be cheaply sorted to on account of the expensive character of its administered.” Lord Campbell, therefore, objects to proceedings, by suggesting, that, for the cases intended the Charitable Trusts Bill, not because the Court of to be included within the jurisdiction of the commis- Chancery can do the required work without alteration, sioners, no fees shall be taken in Chancery; but, under but because he thinks the reform ought to proceed in what arrangements of the machinery of Chancery he the direction of reforming the machinery of Chancery would have small charities administered, he does not itself, instead of supplying its admitted defect by the explain.

substitution of an assistant piece of machinery. Another objection is made by another noble and learn- Now, if the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland means ed Lord, which we are very glad to see made, because it say, that an entire revision of the system and macalls the attention of the public to a grievance having a far chinery of Chancery, for all purposes, should be effectmore extensive effect, than that of the non-existence of ed, then, firstly, we should say, that we humbly dissent any practically controlling jurisdiction over the smaller from his Lordship’s view; and, secondly, we can wish charities. The Lord Chancellor, said Lord Campbell, him no pleasanter task for a vacation amusement, than "had confined himself almost entirely to that part of to draw a general Chancery Reform Bill. But, if his the bill which referred to small charities; and here he Lordship merely means, as we conceive he does, that (Lord Campbell) allowed that some measure of this not only for administering charitable trusts, but for Vol. X.


dealing according to the principles of equity, with all Now, what is the reason, in a case of this sort of the trust property of small amount, much public benefit disproportionate expense ? The reason is this. There might result from a simplification of Chancery pro- must be a bill framed in the usual way, setting forth cedure, then we perfectly agree with the noble and all matters necessary to shew, upon the face of it, the learned Lord's conclusion, and cannot too strongly ex- title of the plaintiff and the ground of the conflicting press our desire,—a desire which we are satisfied is in claims. To this all the persons interested must be unison with that of thousands of cestuis que trustent parties, as much as if the property at stake was many and a large portion of the Profession,-that his Lordship, thousands. All the defendants must put in answers or any other learned Lord possessing similar zeal, similar fully answering the bill; all must appear by separate good intentions, and as indomitable a perseverance, must be furnished with full briefs of the pleadings.

counsel at a preliminary hearing, and all the counsel would undertake to prepare a bill for adapting such There must be a decree for inquiries, if there are, as machinery as the Court of Chancery already possesses, there always are in poor cases, any questions as to classes for applying the jurisdiction of equity to adjudicate in of claimants. There must be an inquiry before the all matters of trust property of small amount.

Master, conducted in the usual manner; and, lastly, Let us take an imaginable case of the inapplicability the array of counsel for all the different parties, to

there must be a second hearing, with a repetition of all of the Court of Chancery, and the non-existence of any argue the claims of such parties. other tribunal, and consequently of the denial of jus- Now, all that is really wanted in such a case is

, tice, in matters of private trust property. Suppose a firstly, to ascertain that all the persons who may be testator to bequeath a small personal property, partly interested are before the court; and, secondly, to have consisting of money in the funds and partly of an un

the claims of all those persons properly presented to the finished literary work, among several chlidren, with court; and this might be done by a very simple and

inexpensive process. not very clear directions to one of them, in whom he

The first step might be the presentation of a very has confidence, to complete his work, and some cor- short petition, stating merely the fact that A. had died responding advantages to that one. Suppose some and made his will; accompanied by a copy of the will, of the children daughters, and married: the share of and any other documents on the effect of which a deone of them bequeathed to her for life, in terms which classes of persons claiming; it would state that the opin

cision was desired, and by a schedule of the persons or leave it doubtful whether it is to her separate use ion of the court was desired on the rights of the parties

, or not. As to the other married daughters, let their or that a decree for sale was desired, or it would shew shares be clearly not to their separate use; and, as to all, whatever might be the relief desired. On this petition suppose remainders to children, some of whom are in- (which might be drawn by counsel or not as the parfants. The testator directs a sale of his literary pro- ties should think fit, but which should not require duction in certain events, and, in certain others, a divi- be obtained, referring it to the Master to inquire into

be opened by counsel in court) an order of course might sion of its profits, and appoints executors and trustees. the matter of the petition, and to order accordingly. The husband of one of the daughters whose shares are The Master should then have power to make the nenot given to their separate use becomes insolvent, cessary inquiries, to ascertain that the proper parties and then the married daughters, whose shares are be were before the court; and having them all before him, queathed to their separate use desire to purchase up him, at which each class should be represented. At

to group them in classes, and to direct a hearing before the shares of the others. And, if they do not, no one that hearing the parties should be allowed to attend by will find it worth while to complete the work and counsel, care being taken, by proper rules as to costs, to realise its value; and, quâ assets, it will be lost. Now, limit the expense incurred in retaining counsel. The suppose it, in the first place, not to be clear that the decision of the Master should be final, unless he thought events in which the power of sale arises have taken fit to allow an appeal, which should not, however, place; it is sufficiently manifest that a state of confusion go beyond one Judge of the court; and the Master will exist, in which, to determine how a sale is to be car- to confine it to the points absolutely necessary to

should himself settle a special case for appeal, so as ried into effect, who are sufficient conveying parties, be discussed. The party desiring the appeal should and the like, will offer questions of so puzzling a char- make a deposit, which, in the event of his failing, acter, that the trustees could never be advised to act, nor should go towards paying the costs of the other parties

, the purchaser to purchase, unless the first are prepared If he succeeded, he should have back his deposit, and to run the risk of being called upon to refund at some essential to the working of such a scheme, that the

the fund should pay the costs. It would, of course, be future period the value of the whole, and the second Master's Office should be an open court. to pay their money and get no title. And suppose, in We have no doubt that the ideas above thrown out the second place, the value of the whole matter in ques- will, in many of their parts, appear crude, and in many tion to be 1501. or 2001,

they will be thought hostile to the interests of the ProThe case that we are putting is not a wholly ima- that they are obviously not offered as a complete syna

fession. On the first point, we will merely observe, ginary one, and is but a specimen of thousands more or tem, but merely as the germs of a system. On the less complex that occur yearly, in which property be- second, we would observe, first, that, even if the incomes valueless to families, to whom, small though it terests of the Profession were to be injured by any remay be in amount, it is much by relation to their cir- form that should open the doors of equity to the cumstances. It is needless to say that a suit in Chan- that would be no obstacle to its introduction; and, secery to obtain the direction of the court in such a case, render the jurisdiction

of Chancery practically applie

condly, that a simplification of procedure which should would not merely be a foolish thing; it would be an cable for adjudicating between claimants where the impossible thing; for the fund would not be a sufficient amount of the fund varies from 1001. to 3001., would security for the costs, and a prudent solicitor would not be much more likely to double, than to diminish, the even undertake such a suit.

emoluments of Chancery practitioners.

poor, A REPOSITORY OF POINTS IN EQUITY AND and personal property for her own benefit during CONVEYANCING,

widowhood, although the will contains a direction,

that, in a particular event, (such as that of her giving Designed to combine the Advantages of an Abridgment of; up a farm which the testator occupied), the devisees

and an Index to, the recent Cases, and of an original of his real estate shall pay her a certain annual sum Statement of the Points established thereby.

out of it during widowhood. Cockshott v. Cockshott, (Continued from p. 188).

10 Jur. 41-V. C. B.

See Legacies.
Mortgage of the Wife's Chattels Real.]-Where hus-

INJUNCTION. band and wife assign chattels real, by way of mortgage,

Payment of East India Bonds. ]- The Court of Chanto some shares in which the husband is entitled in right cery has power to restrain the East India Company of his wife, while to others the wife is entitled for her from paying over the principal and interest secured separate use, and the mortgage-deed contains a proviso upon East India bonds to a person who has fraudufor redemption and re-assignment to the husband and lently got possession of the same. Glasse v. Marshall, wife

, or either of them, their, his, or her executors, ad- 15 Law J. 25—V.C. E. ministrators, and assigns, on payment of the mortgage- Injunction Bill by a Lessee of a Bed of Coals against money by the husband and wife, or either of them, another Lessee thereof:]-Where a party claims to be their, his, or her executors or administrators, or any lessee of a bed of coal, but another party also claims to person or persons on their, his, or her behalf; with a be lessee thereof under a prior lease granted by an anpower of sale, and a declaration that the surplus money, cestor of the lessor of the first-mentioned party, and is if any, arising from the sale, shall go to the husband or working such bed of coal accordingly, the Court of wife, their executors, administrators, or assigns, accord-Chancery will not interfere in behalf of the former to ing to their respective interests; and the husband dies restrain the latter from working the coal, especially in the wife's lifetime, without having paid the mort- where the bill for an injunction is not filed till a year gage-money: the mortgage does not amount to a com- after the latter commenced working. Haigh v.Jaggar, plete reduction into possession, but the wife, according to 2 Coll. 231. the plain intention of the deeds, is entitled by survivor

INSURANCE. ship to the equity of redemption. Clark v. Burgh, 2

Insurance on the Life of a married Woman by an AsColl. 221.

signee of her reversionary Interest.]—Where husband Deed of Arrangement, securing to the Wife the Means and wife assign the reversionary interest of the wife in of keeping up an Establishment of her own, in considera- personal property to secure a debt of the husband, and tion of the Abandonment of Proceedings against the Hus- the creditor afterwards insures the life of the wife in a band.] – If a deed of arrangement is executed by hus- sum less than the debt, without the knowledge of the band and wife, by which, in consideration of the discontin- debtor or his wife, and receives that sum on her death uance of a suit instituted by the wife for a divorce for in her husband's lifetime, the husband is not entitled cruelty, and of the waiver by the wife of other intended to have that amount set off against the mortgage debt; proceedings for obtaining a proper provision for herself for, although the creditor had an insurable interest in and her children, and for the prevention of disputes, a the life of the wife, so that the policy was not void leasehold house is assigned to trustees, for the accom- under the stat. 14 Geo. 3, c. 48, for want of such an inmodation of the wife and her children, as their resi- terest, yet his right was only to effect a policy which dence, and by which a large annual sum of money is to should guarantee him against the loss he might have be raised out of the real estates of the husband, and sustained if the wife had survived the husband; and, paid to the wife for her sole and absolute use, indepen- as the risk ceased when she died in the lifetime of her dently of her husband, who has other estates of greater husband, the guarantie then became satisfied. Henson value, and by which it is declared that the wife shall, v. Blackwell, 4 Hare, 434. out of such sum, keep up an establishment in the house so assigned, for the benefit of herself and her children,

LEASE-See“ Power." in such a manner as she shall think fit, and pay certain other expenses of herself and her children; and

LEASEHOLDS FOR LIVES. that, if she shall not require the whole of that sum, the surplus shall be paid to the husband; and that the hus- the possession of a prior Tenant for Life.]—Where

Expenses of renewing a Life which dropped during band shall be at liberty to partake of the benefit of the lands holden under a lease for four lives, renewable establishment so long as he conforms to the spirit and intention of the deed; such deed is not illegal or inef- upon payment of a fine, are devised upon trust for

a person for life, such person filling up the lives as often fectual. It is not contrary to the policy of the law; as any shall fall in; and, subject to such life interest, for it does not even amount to a deed of separation; upon trust to let and set the same; and, after paying and though it considerably alters the original relation the rents and land-tax and keeping full the lives, to between husband and wife, yet that is the case with pay the residue to another person for life; and, after even the ordinary provisions for the separate use of the his decease, to sell the estate, and divide the proceeds wife. Nor is it void for want of a consideration, for among certain other persons; and the first tenant for discontinuance and waiver of proceedings constitute a life dies insolvent, without having filled up a life which sufficient consideration. Jodrell v. Jodrell, 15 Law J. had dropped, and then another life drops, two new lives 17-M. R.

must be substituted; but the second tenant for life is

only bound to pay the expenses of putting in a new life IMPLICATION.

in the room of the life dropped during his possession of Implied Estate during Widowhood in Real and Per- the estate ; and the expenses of putting in a new life in zonal Property.]–Where a testator devises real estate the room of the life which dropped during the possesto his sons, but wills that they be not put in possession sion of the first tenant for life must be borne by the so long as his wife shall remain his widow; and (in corpus of the estate, with interest thereon, at the rate varied but substantially the same terms) wills that of 6l. per cent., from the death of the nominee whose different portions of his personal estate be divided be- life first dropped to the death of the other nominee. tween his children on her death or second marriage; his Wadley v. Wadley, 2 Coll. 11. widow will take an estate by implication in the real See Vendor and Purchaser."


to several persons one aggregate sum of money, and then Whether the word Legacies" includes Annuities.]- directs that the interest shall be paid to them in equal In its usual acceptation, the word “legacy” means shares during their lives, and that the principal shall something distinct and different from an annuity.” | be placed in the funds, in trust for them or the surIt may, indeed, be used in a generic sense, to denote an vivors or survivor of them; and that nothing but their annuity; but it will not be construed to have that receipts shall be a discharge; and that the principal, sense where there is anything which indicates that it after their deaths, shall go in equal parts to the surwas not used in that sense. And hence, where a tes- viving children, as they arrive at the age of twenty-one; tator directs that all legacies which he shall give by his and one of these persons dies without issue; the share of will or any codicil, shall, unless he shall expressly di- that one does not go to the residuary legatee, but the rect the contrary, be paid immediately after his decease survivors take the whole, for their lives, as tenants in out of his personal estate, but, if that shall be insuffi- common; the true meaning of the gift over being, that

, cient, he charges his real estate with the deficiency; after the death of all the legatees, the principal is to go to and then he gives certain annuities, which he charges to the aggregate class of surviving children; and not that, on his real estate; and, by a codicil, he directs certain after their respective deaths, their respective shares are other annuities to be paid out of his personal, or from to go to their respective surviving children. Minton v. the income of his estates: the annuities are not in- Cave, 10 Jur. 86—V.C. E. cluded in the word “legacies;" for, by directing the le- Vested, and not dependent on the Legatees' surviving gacies to be paid immediately after his decease, he shews, their Parent-Implied Gift, as well as a Power.]—Where that, in using the word “ legacies,” he did not mean to a testator gives stock to trustees, upon trust to pay the include annuities. And as, in such case, the word dividends to another person for life, and, after her de“legacies” does not include annuities, and as the tes- cease, to pay both principal and interest to and amongst tator expressly charges the former annuities on his real her children, as she shall by deed or will direct; but, estate, but directs the latter to be paid out of his per- if she shall leave no child living at her decease, or all sonal estate, or from the income of his estates, the latter die before a certain age, then over; and both of them are not deemed to be charged on his real estate. Corno attain that age, but one dies in the lifetime of the field v. Wyndham, 2 Coll. 184.

tenant for life, one-half of the fund will belong to the Specific Legocies-Misdescription of Stock.]-In order surviving child, and the other to the representatives of that legacies of stock should be deemed specific, it is the deceased child, though the power be not exernot necessary that the stock should be correctly de- cised; for, in this case, there is a gift by implication scribed, either in point of amount or as regards the as well as a power; and, although the limitation orer names in which it is described to be standing, where might seem to imply that children who should surthere is no ground for reasonable doubt as to the sub- vive their parent were the only objects of the tesject of such legacies. And a legacy may be specific, tator's bounty, yet that implication is countervailed though it is only of a portion of one aggregate amount by the implication arising from the power to appoint of stock, and is given under a general designation of a by deed as well as by will. Moreover, in the absence certain amount of a certain kind of stock, without re of a perfectly clear expression of such an intention, it ference to the particular aggregate amount of such stock would be irrational to suppose that the testator could belonging to the testator. As, where a testator having intend, that, if the children of the tenant for life, after 25301. 38. 31. per Cents, without referring to that attaining the given age, should die, leaving families

, amount of stock, gives 10001. 31. per Cents to one per- neither of the families should take anything, merely son, and 18001. 31. per Cents to another, these may be because those children did not survive their parent. specific legacies. Warren v. Postlethwaite, 2 Coll. 116. Besides, in the case supposed, the condition on which

Whether double Legacies are bequeathed.]—Where a the property was to go over did not happen. Faulkner testator, after bequeathing a sum of money to each of the v. Lord Wynford, 15 Law J. 8–V.C. W. grandchildren, by name, of one of his brothers, directs his

Necessity for surviving a prior taker.]—Where 8 executors to pay a like sum (naming it) to each child testator gives the dividends of stock to a person for life

, that may be boin to either of the children of either of and, after such person's decease, he gives the principa his brothers lawfully begotten, to be paid to each of to several children, whom he names individually, and them on his or her attaining the age of twenty-one all and every other the child and children of the same years; the grandchildren, who are mentioned by name parents that might be living at the decease of the teas legatees, are not entitled to double legacies. Early | nant for life; the same to be transferred and paid to v. Benbow, 10 Jur. 169—V.C. B.

them respectively, in equal shares, on their respectively Uncertainty.]—Where a legacy was bequeathed to a attaining twenty-one; those whom he names indiviperson, and, in the event of her death without children, dually take absolute vested interests at twenty-one, to her heirs and nearest relations of a certain relative of though they die in the lifetime of the tenant forlife; for, hers (De W.), of the De W. blood, the gift over was held according to the true construction of such a gift, it is a void for uncertainty. Yearwood v. Yearwood, 10 Jur. gift to those whom the testator names individually, 151-M. R.

whether living at the decease of the tenant for life, or Interest on a LegacyMaintenance.]—Where a tes- not, and to all others who might come into existence and tator bequeaths a legacy to his eldest child, to be paid he living at that time. Roberts v. Burder, 2 Coll. 130. on his attaining the age of twenty-one years, and the For, the condition of being alive at that time forms part residue of his estate to his younger children, and then of the description of the after-born children; but it is provides for the maintenance of all the children gene- not even grammatically connected with the children rally, without specifying the fund out of which they are individually named; and it is a kind of condition, to be maintained, and without indicating that the legacy which, so far from being extended to persons to whoin given to the eldest son is to be separated from the rest it does not literally apply, is one the application of of the personal estate until the time of payment ar

which the courts will endeavour to avoid, even where it rives; the eldest son is not entitled to interest on his le- literally does apply. gacy, but, until that period, the whole personal estate Vested Interest in a Legacy, subject to be derested in the remains as one fund, out of which all the children are event of not surviving a Parent.].–Although a court of to be maintained, without reference to their respective equity will lay hold of any passage or expression which fortunes. Donovan v. Needham, 10 Jur. 150—M. R. will assist it in putting such a construction on a will, Survivorship of a Share.]—Where a testator bequeaths I that a limitation in favour of children may not be dependent on their surviving their parents or a prior and the issue of any child who lives till the specified taker, yet, where the language of the will expressly and period and then dies, must be living at the decease of unequivocally makes the interests of the children, or any other child who dies without issue, in order to take even of some of them and not of others, dependent on that a share of the original share of such child so dying contingency, and there is nothing in the will to indi- without issue. Macgregor v. Macgregor, 2 Coll. 192. cate a contrary intention; there, the court must give Period to which the word survivingrefers.]— effect to the intention so expressed, however antece- Where a testator bequeaths to a person a sum of money dently improbable it may be that such was really the “after marriage,” and, in a subsequent part of his will, testator's intention, and whatever hardship may be (whether in language creating a trust, or merely thereby occasioned. Thus, where a testator directs his amounting to a recommendation, is not material), he trustees to set apart, out of his residuary personal es- i expresses a hope or desire, that, if she die without issue, tate and the proceeds of the sale of his real estate, a then, on the decease of her husband and herself, her sufficient sum to produce an annuity for his widow, fortune should revert to her “surviving brothers," and directs that they shall stand possessed of the re- and the brothers survive her, but die in the lifetime of sidue during her lifetime, and of the whole after her her husband; the property will belong to her husband decease, upon trust to pay and divide the same unto absolutely, as her personal representative; because the and equally between and amongst all his children as word “surviving" refers to the brothers surviving both and when they shall severally and respectively attain her and her husband; and because the money is bethe age of twenty-one years, and to their several and queathed to her absolutely in the first instance, and, respective executors, administrators, and assigns; but, the trust (if the subsequent words amounted to a in regard to such of his children who had already at- trust) in derogation of that absolute bequest having tained the age of twenty-one years, he directs that the failed, the bequest stands as if no such trust were sushares of such his children shall be paid to them re- peradded. Eaton v. Barker, 2 Coll. 124. spectively at the expiration of twelve months after the

See Survivorship.decease of his wife; with a limitation over in favour of their issue, in the event of the decease of any or either

LEGAL Estate-See “ Married Women.” of his said children, before he, she, or they, or either of them shall have received or become possessed of their

MAINTENANCE-See Legacy,Case 5. divisional share as aforesaid; and with benefit of survivorship between and among such children, in case of

Apportionment of a Rent-charge.]-Where a testator their not having issue who shall attain twenty-one; gives annuities charged on land for the maintenance of the children who had attained twenty-one at the date of younger children up to the time that the eldest son the will take vested interests, liable to be devested shall attain twenty-one, each of such annuities to be in the event of their decease before the time fixed for paid on the birthdays of the respective children; an the actual payment of their shares; and the children apportioned part of an annuity is due for the interval who had not attained twenty-one 'at the date of the extending from the birthday of a younger child

which will take vested interests on their attaining twenty- next precedes the time of the eldest son's attaining his one not liable to be devested. Rummell v. Gillow, 15 majority, up to that time. Sheppard v. Wilson, 4 Hare,

395. LAF J. 35–V.C.W.

There is another case on the subject of maintenance, Interest on such a Legacy before Devestment. ]--Per- namely, Williams v. Edwards, (2 Coll. 176); but it sons who take vested interests in personal estate liable did not seem necessary to abstract it. to be devested are entitled to the interest which accrues from the period when they take vested interests until

MARRIED WOMEN. the devestment happens. Ib.

Devise in Fee to Separate Use, with Prohibition of Necessity for surviving a prior taker - Lapse_ to selling or incumbering.] - Real estate may be devised Heir of Legacy of Produce of Sale of Real Estate.)-, for the separate use of a married woman, although Where a testator, after directing the conversion of real it be devised to her in fee; and, if a prohibition of estate, gives the proceeds to children of a person (with- selling, charging, mortgaging, or incumbering be anqut naming them) that are living at such person's nexed to such a devise, whether such prohibition is death, “in the following manner;" and then he men- confined to the period of coverture or expressed indetions the shares which some, whom he names, are to finitely, and whether it precedes or follows the words take; the shares in the unconverted real estate of those relating to the separate use, she will be disabled durwho die in their parent's lifetime will not pass to their ing the coverture from making any sale, charge, mortrepresentatives, but, if the will contains no residuary gage, or incumbrance, to take effect against her estate devise, will lapse to the heir-at-law, who will take during the coverture. Baggett v. Meux, 1 Coll. 138, them as personal estate. Hatfield v. Pryme, 2 Coll. 204. affirmed by L. C., 10 Jur. 213. Giving over of accruing sharesNecessity for sur

Limitation to Trustees in Trust fora married woviting in order to take a gift over.]-Where a testator | man, for her Separate Use, giving her the Legal Estate.] – bequeaths personal property upon trust for a family of Where land is limited, by a marriage settlement, to children who shall be living at a particular period for trustees and their heirs, to the use of the intended wife life, and, after the death of any of them, upon trust to until the marriage, and after the solemnization thereof, stand possessed of a proportionate share for the issue of “in trust for” her for life, for her own sole and separaté such child or children so dying, absolutely; but, in case use, independent of her husband, his debts, control, or of such child or children dying without leaving issue, enjoyment; the trustees do not take the legal estate then, as to the proportionate share of the child so dying, during the life of the wife, but the use is executed in her upon trust for the other children then living, and the by the express words of the Statute of Uses, and the issue of such of them as may be then dead; with a limit- subsequent words constitute a condition which is void ation over of "the share, as well original as accruing," at law. Williams v. Waters, 14 Mee. & W. 166. of the last surviving child, in case none of the children shall leave any issue; in such case, the accruing shares

MISTAKE. of the children who live till the specified period, and Substituting a nero Charge, without extinguishing the then die without issue, do not go over to the surviving former one. ]-Where, by a deed of settlement before children with the original shares, but belong to the re-marriage, a charge is created in favour of the father of presentatives of the children so 'dying without issue; I the lady, to the amount of the portion given her by

« AnteriorContinuar »