Imágenes de páginas

specific and pecuniary legacies, and does not charge the twelve months after the testator's death; and he directs real estate generally, or any part of it, with the pay- that certain other persons shall have legacies twelve ment of debts, and the personal estate not specifically months after his death, and annuities; the annuity to bequeathed is insufficient for the payment of the spe- the daughter is deferred until the death of the mother. cialty dehts; so much of the debts as the personal estate Roebuck v. Habershon, 10 Jur. 279–V. C. B. .. not specifically bequeathed is insufficient to pay, must Necessity for Inrolment. 7-Where a person is seised of not be borne wholly by the specific legatees, but by freehold property in fee simple in possession, or is entithem and the devisees rateably. For, although the per- tled to freehold property under a conveyance to such sonal estate is the primary fund for the payment of the uses as he shall appoint, and, until appointment, to the debts, yet this is only a rule of positive law, and not of use of himself for life, remainder to a trustee for life, in abstract justice; and the effect of pursuing a branch of trust for him, and to bar dower, remainder to his heirs law merely positive to its full extent and conse- and assigns; and he grants an annuity, and the property quences, without exception or mitigation, must be a is of greater annual value than the annuity, beyond any departure from natural equity. And it may be stated other annuity or the interest of any other principal to be a rule of construction, that every will ought to be sum charged thereon; such annuity is within the exread, as in effect embodying a declaration by the tes ceptions in the stat. 53 Geo. 3, c. 141, and does not tator, that the payment of his debts shall be, as far as require inrolment. , Doe d. Butler v. Lord Kensington, possible, so arranged as not to disappoint any of the gifts 15 Law J. 153–Q.B. made by it, unless the instrument discloses a different | Secured both by Rights of Entry and by a Term. 1intention. Tombs v. Roch, 10 Jur. 534-V.C. B. Where an annuity is secured not only by a right of

Priority of Annuities over Legacies. 1- Although a entry and distress, and by a right of entry and perception testator directs his trustees to stand possessed of the of the profits given to the grantee, but also by a term proceeds of the sale of his residuary real and personal limited by the same deed to a trustee for him to raise estate, upon trust, in the first place, to pay a certain arrears by devise, sale, or mortgage; the rights of entry debt, and then upon trust to set apart and invest a will not destroy the term, nor will the term defeat the sufficient sum to answer certain annuities; and, in the right of entry: both kinds of remedies may co-exist. next place, after making such investments, upon trust Doe d. Butler v. Lord Kensington, 15 Law J. 153– to pay the several pecuniary legacies given by his will ; | Q. B. the annuities have no priority over the legacies : for

Whether charged on Rents payable during the Annuithe directions may amount to no more than this: first, tant's Life only, or on the Corpus of the Estate. 7Where “I direct so and so; secondly, I direct so and so; next,

a testator gives freehold and leasehold estates to trusI direct the payment of legacies.” Thwaites v. Fore

tees, upon trust to receive the rents when and as the man, 10 Jur. 483_L. C.

same shall become due and payable, and thereout to See Conversion.

pay his wife an annuity during her life, and, after her

decease, upon trust to convey the estates to the use of ADMISSION

other persons; in such case, the estates not being directed of a Mortgagee's Title. ]-Where a mortgage deed re- to be conveyed subject to the annuity, the annuity is recites that the mortgagor is seised in fee, and another not charged on the rents generally, whether payable in person indorses on it that he, “the purchaser of the the vendor's lifetime or after her decease; and, thereequity of redemption,” has further charged the estate; fore, if the rents received during the widow's lifetime such a memorandum, though, perhaps, not strictly an are insufficient to pay the annuity, it must abate. estoppel, for want of mutuality, is an admission, which | Foster v. Smith, 15 Law J. 183-L. Č. may be used as evidence, that he is in the same position

e same position ConsiderationSeduction and Cohabitation.]–Past seas the mortgagor; that he has no other title than one

eduction and cohabitation are not a good consideration derived from him. And as the mortgagor is estopped

a to support a grant of an annuity. Beaumont v. Recte, from setting up against the mortgagee that the legal

15 Law J. 141-Q. B. title in any part of the premises is in any other person; so, his assignee of the equity of redemption is a pre

Interest to be paid on a Debt not an Annuity. ]—Where vented from setting up this defence. Doe d. Gusford

for a bond is given for a previously existing debt, and the

condition is, that, if the obligor shall pay interest at 51. v. Stone, 10 Jur. 480—C.P.

per cent. on the debt during the joint lives of the cre. AGREEMENT. - See Compromise," " Specific Perform

ditor and his wife, the bond shall be void; but, in case of failure in paying the interest within the times spe

cified, the debt shall become recoverable by the obliges; ALIENATION.

this is not a grant of an annuity, of which a memorial Attempt to restrain Alienation.--Alienation by Insol

is required to be inrolled within the stat. 53 Geo. 3, 6. vency.]Where a testator directs an annuity to be paid

141; for, even if an annuity granted for a bygone con: to a person until he shall attempt to anticipate or in

sideration is within the statute, in the ordinary case of cumber the same, or until any other person may claim

an annuity the money advanced is irrecoverably gone; the same; and, from and after such attempt or claim,

whereas, in the above case, the debt is still to be recothe testator wills that the same be applied for his per

verable if the interest is not paid. Besides, this case is sonal support, clothing, or maintenance, and for no

one of benefit to the party paying the interest; for, by other purpose whatever; the annuity will pass to his

doing so, he is to be excused payment of the principal; assignee, if he takes the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors

whereas the mischief intended to be prevented by the Act. Younghusband v. Gisborne, 10 Jur. 419-L. C.

statute, was the making of improvident bargains by

needy persons. Marriage v. Marriage, 1 M. & Gr. 761. ALTERNATIVE LIMITATION—See Remoteness."

See Alienation," Injunction.”

APPORTIONMENT. Postponed Annuity.- Words annexed to a prior gift Dividends payable to a Person at a given Age not op. cxtending to a subsequent one.]-Where a testator gives portioned.]—Where executors are directed, after a child all his property to a person, he paying to another a cer-attains twenty-one, to apply dividends for his support tain annuity for life, and, at her death, to pay one of until he attains the age of twenty-five, and he attains her sons a certain sum, and another son another sum, twenty-one between the periods of payment of the halland her daughter an annuity for life, and a certain sum yearly dividends, he is entitled to the whole half-yearly


dividend received after the attainment of his majority, Where a testator devises his real and personal estate, and not to an apportioned part only. Campbell v. Camp- upon trust to lay out the personal estate in the purbell, 7 Beav. 482.

chase of real estate, and to pay the rents, interest, and

dividends to his wife for life, and directs, that, in case ASSIGNMENT—See “Statute of Limitations," Vendor and the sister of his wife shall reside with, or dwell in the Purchaser."

house or place of residence of his wife, or become part

of her family, then, for each and every day in which ATTORNEY.

that shall happen, his trustees shall retain, out of the Mortgagee's Attorney's Claim to a Lien on Deeds rents, interest, and dividends payable to his wife, a against the Mortgagor.)–After a re-conveyance by a certain sum, and pay the same to a charitable institumortgagee to the mortgagor, the attorney of the mort- tion; the condition is not illegal, but, being a condition gagee cannot retain the deeds against the mortgagor as subsequent to divest & vested interest, it ought to be a security for the expenses of the transaction due from construed strictly; and, as the direction to retain, so the mortgagee to the attorney. Wakefield v. Newbon, far as it is intended to operate for the benefit of the 6 Adol. & Ell. 276.

charity, is void under the Mortmain Act, it fails alto

gether. Ridgway v. Woodhouse, 7 Beav. 437. AWARD

Whether a Condition annexed to a prior gift extends set aside on the ground of ex parte representations.--Ito a subsequent one. 1—Where a testator, in the event of Principles connected with the Administration of Justice.] la person for whose life he was entitled to an annuity -An award will be set aside, where the judgment of I dying before another person, gives a certain direction the arbitrator has been influenced by representations to his executors, and then adds, in a distinct sentence, made by one of the parties in the absence of the other, that in the opposite event of the death of such other respecting a question affecting the interest of such other person in the lifetime of the former, for whose life the party, even though the interview took place at the re- I testator was entitled to such annuity, he gives such anquest of the arbitrator, and in the presence of an ac- 1 nuity to a certain individual, he paying the premiums countant employed by both parties, and even though I on a policy of insurance effected on the life of the perthe absent party, seeking to set aside the award on that | son for whose life the testator was entitled to such an. ground, has been guilty of a similar impropriety. For it

nuity; and on the death of such last-mentioned peris a plain principle of justice, that a person adjudicating

son (the assured) the testator gives the sum insured a matter in litigation, in whatever form it may be li- l to the same individual to whom the testator gives the tigated, whether in the regularly constituted courts | annuity, that individual will not be entitled to the or in arbitrations, whether before lawyers or mer. I policy-money in the first-mentioned event: for the gift chants,-must never permit one side to use means of of the policy

of of the policy-money was not to take effect on the death influencing his conduct and decisions, which means are of the assured, whensoever it might happen: but the not known to the other side; and one party will not be contingency of the event secondly mentioned extends precluded, by a violation of this rule on his own part, I to the gift of the policy-money as well as to the gift of from complaining of a similar violation of the rule by the annuity. Leckie v. Hogben, 7 Beav. 502. the other side ; because this is not a matter of mere See " Covenant." private consideration between two adverse parties, but a matter concerning the due administration of justice,

CONSTRUCTION. in which all persons who may ever chance to be litigant, in courts of justice or before arbitrators, have the

Scope of a clause empowering the making of Alterastrongest interest in maintaining that the principles of vion

bles of tions in a Charter-party.] - Where a charter-party justice shall be carefully adhered to in every case.

enables the master of the vessel and the agents of the Harvey v. Shelton, 7 Beav. 4, 55.

freighter to make such alterations in the charter-party

as they may mutually think proper, without prejudice CHARITY-See “ Condition,Mortmain,” “ Vendor

to that agreement, the meaning of this clause is not and Purchaser,Case 6.

merely that they may make some small addition to, or

deviation from, the voyage specified, such as that the ship CHARTER-PARTY-See " Construction,Case 1.

may call at intermediate ports; but they are thereby

authorised even to enter into an agreement with other COMPANY—See Railway,Trusts."

persons for an intermediate voyage from the foreign

port and back, prior to the homeward voyage from that COMPROMISE

port contemplated by the charter-party, although to of a Prosecution for cheating at Cards.] - Promis

orde] - Promis the prejudice of the freighter, in consequence of the

exte in delay occasioned thereby. And the freighter is not ensory notes, delivered by one person to another, to induce the latter to forego prosecuting him for cheat

titled to have the freight earned by the owners on the ing at cards, will be decreed to be delivered up, because

intermediate voyage brought into the account. Wigit would be extremely dangerous to allow a party to

gins v. Johnston, 14 Mee. & W. 609. be a judge in his own cause, and to determine in his Whether a Residue passes, and whether in Trust.] own favor what amount of penalty ought to be paid Where a will contains such a passage as this : “ My for a breach of the law committed by another person, house I give to my brother, as residuary legatee of my notwithstanding he may have suffered by it. “Osbal- | remaining property, for the benefit of his children," he diston v. Simpson, 13 Sim. 513.

will take the residue as well as the house, in trust for Invalid Consideration.--Compromise of a Prosecu- |

his children. Inderwick v. Inderwick, 13 Sim. 652. tion. 7-An agreement, founded on the consideration of Of the WordsNearest of Kin.”7-Where a testator. stifling a prosecution for an offence, is void, if the after limiting one-half of his property in trust for his offence is of a public nature; as, where it is not only a daughter and her issue, directs, that, in the event of his case of an assault, but also of riot and obstruction of daughter pre-deceasing his wife, without marrying or A public officer in the execution of his duty. Keir leaving issue, then, during the life of his wife, his v. Leeman, 6 Adol. & EN, 308.

trustees shall accumulate the interest of his residue, so

far as not directed to be paid to her; and that, on the CONDITION.

decease of his wife, the whole residue be divided into Condition subsequent divesting in favor of a Charity two equal parts, one of which shall be divided between -Condition against a Wife's Sister residing with her.] or amongst his nearest of kin, and the other half among the nearest of kin of his wife, who shall have power to his, her, or their shares shall become payable, leaving apportion the division of the said half as she shall issue, then the share or shares of him, her, or them 80 think proper, by any writing to be executed by her in dying shall be paid to his, her, or their respective her lifetime; the testator is held to mean the nearest of issue ; but in case any of the said children shall die bekin at his death, and not at the death of the wife; fore his, her, or their share or shares shall become payand, consequently, if his daughter is his next of kin able, leaving no issue, then the share or shares of him, at the time of his death, and pre-deceases his wife, her, or them so dying shall be paid to the survivors her personal representative will be entitled to the moiety and survivor of them, at sach time or times as his, her, of the property: for the words “ nearest of kin of the or their original share or shares shall become payable testator," in their ordinary legal sense, unexplained and as aforesaid; but in case the tenant for life shall have uncontrolled by any other expressions, mean the no child or children, or, having such, they shall al die nearest of kin at the time of his death. “And in the under age and without issue, then over; the words above case, in which the will is very inaccurately ex-“his, her, or their share or shares shall become pay. pressed, there is not enough that can safely be relied on able" are equivalent to the words “he, she, or they as shewing that the testator does not mean his nearest shall attain twenty-one;" and, consequently, the reof kin at the time of his death. Urquhart v. Urque presentatives of a child of the tenant for life, who dies hart, 13 Sim. 613.

in his father's lifetime without issue, after attaining Whether Instalments" payable for a term constitute twenty-one, will take a share. Jones v. Jones, 13 Sim. * Rent."14Where a person, seised in fee of land and 361. mines under it, executes a deed, purporting thereby to Limitation of Personal Estate to the Testator's owon rell and dispose of, grant and convey, the mines for a right Heirs for ever. ]-Where a testator gives his freelong term of years, subject to the payment of a certain hold, copyhold, and leasehold estates, and “estates in sum of money to him, his executors, administrators, and the funds," to a person and his first and other sons in assigns, by large instalments, by which the whole sum tail, and, in default of such issue, to his own right heirs would be paid in a few years; with powers of entry for ever; and empowers his trustees, with the conand distress reserved to him, his executors, admini- sent of the persons in possession and entitled to the strators, and assigns, for securing payment of such in- profits thereof, to invest the residue and surplus of his stalments; and with a proviso, that, in case of any of personal estate in the purchase of land, to be settled to the instalments being in arrear for a certain time, the the uses declared of the lands and premises previously term shall cease, and the owner of the land, his heirs, devised, the heir-at-law, and not the next of kin of executors, administrators, and assigns, shall not be ac- the testator, is entitled to his personal estate ; for it is countable or compelled to refund or repay any of the obvious that he intends the different kinds of property Instalments paid in part of, or towards the purchase- to go to the same person or persons, especially as he money for the minerals or mines; and the deed con- directs that the real property to be purchased shall be tains a covenant enabling the person in whose favor settled to the uses declared concerning his real estate the above term is created to enter upon the lands at a and premises, which shews that the same set of uses future time, for a term of years, under a certain rent, were intended to apply to all the different kinds of prowhich, with a power of entry and distress for the same, perty, freehold, copybold, leasehold, and funded. De is reserved to the owner of the land, his heirs and as: Beauvoir v. De Beauvoir, 10 Jur. 466-V.C. E. signs; the instalments payable for the mines are not rent, 1 Limitation to the Executors, Administrators, and Asand therefore not incident to the reversion, and do not signo. 7-Under a limitation of a sum of money in the pass under the words, “the reversion, rents, issues, and marriage settlement “ to the executors, administrators, profits,” but are personal debts. Lord Hatherton v. and assigns” of the wife's mother, the executors of the Bradburne, 13 Sim. 699.

mother are entitled to take the money and interest as Bequest of all but Cash or Monies 80 called" to a part of her residuary personal estate. Morris v. Horres, Person“ and his family."7-A bequest of “all but cash, 4 Hare, 699. or monies so called," to a person “and his family," whó! See “ Administration," “ Annuity," “ Heir," " Leare spoken of as living at the date of the will, is a begacios." quest to him and his children then living, as joint fenants, and includes promissory notes, annuities, and

CONTINGENT INTEREST foreign bonds. Beales v. Crisford, 13 Sim. 592. depending on surviving the prior taker. ]—Where a tes.

Of an Inclosure Act, as to a Right of Way to carry tator gives all his real and personal estate to a person Coals, 8c., from Mines. ]-See Midgley v. Richardson, 14 for life, and, after such person's decease, directs his Mee. & W. 595.

executors to sell and convert the same into money, and Whether after-born Children are intended to take to divide and pay the produce to and amongst a class of under a Separation-deed.]-Where, by a deed of separa

children; and, in case of the death of any of them in tion, reciting that the husband and wife intended to

the lifetime of the tenant for life, to pay unto the issue live separate during the remainder of their lives, and of such child or children, his, her, or their parent's containing a covenant by the husband not to visit his / share equally between them; the class to take consists wife, a sum of money is limited, in trust, after their of such children as shall be living at the death of the decease, for all and every the children of the husband tenant for life, and the issue of any who shall die in on the body of the wife lawfully begotten, who, being

the lifetime of the tenant for life leaving issue, such sons, shall live to attain twenty-one, or, being daughters,

issue being alive at the death of the tenant for life, and shall attain that age or be married; and there are the children who die in the lifetime of the tenant for children living at the date of the deed ; a child born after | life, and their issue who die in the lifetime of the tenant 8 subsequent reconciliation is not entitled to a share: 1 for life, are excluded. Beck v. Barn, 7 Beav, 492. for it is obvious, from the whole scope of the deed. I See Vested," "Heir." that the existence of after-born children was not contemplated. Hulme v. Chitty, 10 Jur. 323–M. R.

CONTRIBUTION-Ses " Administration." Meaning of the Word "payable," in a Limitation over. ]-Where a testator bequeaths a sum of money in

CONVERSION. trust for a person for life, and, after his decease, in trust Necessity for converting a Residue. 7- Where a teststo pay it to his children when and as they shall attain tor gives the residue of his property to his wife, after twenty-one; and in case any of them shall die before I payment of debts and legacies, for her use and benefit

during her life, and at her decease to be given to his act of Parliament to take real estate after six months, children equally; and the residue consists of bond debts, notice to the owner, and, after the giving of such notice leasehold property, and shares in public companies, the and payment of the purchase-money into court accordwife is not entitled to enjoy it in specie. Johnson v. ing to the act, he dies, having made his will before such Johnson, 10 Jur. 279V.CB.

notice was given, his residuary legatees, and not his deSo, where a testator gives a residuary estate, in trust visees, will be entitled to the purchase-money. Ex for a person for life, and, after the decease of the tenant parte Hawkins, 13 Sim. 569. for life, as to all the said residuary estate, he bequeaths W ith the approbation of the parties interested.]-An the same to another person; and the residue partly consists of leaseholds which may expire in the life of arises by force of a direction to invest personal estate in

ruly equitable conversion of personal estate into real estate the tenant for life; he is not entitled to enjoy the lease land, notwithstanding such investment is directed to be holds in specie, although the testator may manifest I made with the approbation of the parties interested in great anxiety that the tenant for life shall have the full benefit of the income of the residue; for the words

the investment. Wrightson v. Macaulay, 4 Hare, 487. shew that the remainderman is to take that which is to L _Whether absolute, or dependent on Consent of a prior be enjoyed by the tenant for life: and the leaseholds, iff Taker. ]-Where a testator gives all his real and pernot converted, might expire before the remainder falls

sonal estate to trustees, upon trust to permit his wife to into possession. Chambers v. Chambers, 10 Jur. 326

enjoy the interest, rents, issues, and profits thereof V.C, E.

during her life, or otherwise, with her consent and apAnd where a testator, who has no freehold property,

probation in writing, to sell and dispose of the real and its and profits, dividends and interes personal estate, and invest the proceeds, and pay the of all the residue of his property to his wife for life;

interest to her for life, and, after her decease, to pay apd, after her decease, he bequeaths the whole of such certain legacies

such certain legacies and divide the residue of the monies to residue amongst certain other persons, even though arise wom the sa

even thouch arise from the sale of his real and personal estate bethey be only collateral relations, the widow is not en

tween his nephews and nieces living at the death of his titled to the enjoyment in specie during her life of that wite; the legatees are entitled to their lega

wife; the legatees are entitled to their legacies, and the part of the residue which consists of leaseholds and de- nephews and nieces to the residuary real and personal terminable annuities, but the same ought to be con

estate, whether converted in the widow's lifetime or verted. For, as the mere enumeration of the particu. not. Waddington v. Yates, 15 Law J. 223.V.C. B. lars of a residue does not give a specific character to the



See “ Executors." bequest, so the formal enumeration of particulars of income is nothing more than a gift of the income of the

COPYHOLD. residue, which means income only; a construction Demise contrary to Custom.]-A lease made contrary which is supported by the words of the gift over—“the to the custom of a manor is good against all but the whole of such residue." Besides, the words “rents and lord ; and, even as between the parties to the lease and profits” may refer to real estate which the testator the lord, the demise against custom is only a ground of might purchase after the date of his will, where the forfeiture, which the lord may waive. Doed. Robinson will was made since the new law came into operation. |v. Bousfield, 6 Adol. & Ell. 492. Pickup v. Atkinson, 4 Hare, 624. So, where a testator gives the residue of his monies,

COPYRIGHT. debts, stocks, funds, and securities for money, and all other Infringement thereof by Esctracts. ]-Where an author his personal estate, upon trust to permit his wife to take has imported into his book, verbatim, or with slight althe interest, dividends, and proceeds during her natural terations, the material parts of another work, it is a life, and after her decease to pay and apply the same in piracy for which the court will interfere by injunction, favor of other persons, and the residue of his estate although the author expressly acknowledges the source consists of long annuities, the wife is not entitled to from which those parts are taken, and although his enjoy them in specie, but they ought to be converted' book may not be a complete substitute for the other into money, and this money to be invested in the 31. per work. Bohn v. Bogue, 10 Jur. 420_V.C. E. cents. James v. Gammon, 15 Law J. 217—V.C. B. Necessity for an immediate Investment in Land.]

CORPORATION-See " Vendor and Purchaser,Case 5. Where a testator gives all his real and personal estate

COVENANT. to trustees, upon trust to invest all such monies as shall be uninvested at the time of his decease, and also all the

Whether a Covenant is to be qualified by preceding amonnt of all mortgages, shares, &c., as can be imme- words as a Condition precedent. ] - Where & person diately sold without disadvantage, and otherwise as

covenants, that he, being provided by the covenantee soon as may be, in the purchase of lands, as they shall with certain materials, &c., will complete a work by a judge most advantageous and convenient to the estates

given time, and, after some intermediate clauses, a prohe already possessed, and to receive the interest, rents,

viso is added, that, in case he shall not complete the and profits of his real and personal estate, until converted

ted work by the time specified, he shall pay (as a fine) a into real property, and pay the same to a person for life;

certain sum, not exceeding the sum agreed to be given and, upon her death, he gives all his real and personal es

him for expediting the work, the furnishing him with tate, until converted into real property, to other parties;

the materials is not a condition precedent to the right and the property is not of a perishable or determinable

of the covenantee to be paid the amount to be forfeited nature; there is no intention that the conversion should

if the work is not completed in time. Any other conbe made immediately; for the word “immediately” is

struction would lead to the conclusion, that the nonconnected with the words “ without disadvantage," and

supply of a single article agreed to be provided, howthe words “ as soon as may be" with the words " whenever immaterial, would entitle the contractor to receive they shall judge most advantageous and convenient to the sum agreed to be given him for his despatch, withthe estates I already possess." And, in such case, until | out his using expedition; whereas, by treating the coveinvested in the purchase of land, the tenant for life is

nants as independent, the contractor, if he has really entitled to the enjoyment of the property in specie.

been prevented from completing the work in due time Sparling v. Parkes, 10 Jur. 448—M. R.

| by the neglect of the other party, can obtain full re

dress, by an action, for all damages occasioned by that Notice of an intention to purchase under an Act of neglect. Macintosh v. The Midland Counties Railway Parliament. ]-Where a public body are empowered by l Company, 14 Mee. & W. 548.



Joint, and not several. -A covenant with tenants in Carmarth.-Tbomas o. Frede. Glo'ster-Doed. Dykeo. Duke common, and each and every of them, their and each

Somerset-Parnell v. Smith . and every of their heirs, executors, administrators, and

Same o. Same Devon-Woolmer o. Toby assigns, to repair, is a joint and not a several covenant;

Lincoln-Chapman o. Rawson so that an action on it must be brought by all the


Stafford-Whitmore o. Leak - tenants in common, or the survivors or survivor of

Hereford-Evans o. Horniatt Midd.-Beale o. Mouls & ors, them. Bradburne v. Botfield, 14 Mee. & W. 559.

Glo'ster-Garbett o. Adams Lond.-Nichollsv. Atherstone SecRailway," "Vendor and Purchaser,Case 8.


(To be continued).

Those marked thus * are Special cases—the rest are demarrers.
STANDING FOR JUDGMENT. 1 *Doe d. Hawksworth e.
Nicholls v. Stretton

Court Papers.

Wrightup o. Greenacre

Jacks v. Hill
Gosling ö. Veley & an.

Berkley v. Kemp


Berkley o. Mackey *Scadding v. Lorant

Myers 0. Pickford & ors." TERM, 1846.

*Dale o. Pollard & ors.

Gillgras o. Kay

Bamford u. France
Court of Queen's. Bench.

Tarbottom & an. o. Fleming


Munden o. Duke of Brunswick REMAINING UNDETERMINED AT THE END OF THE Sit. Stephenson v. Newman Doughty o. Bowman & an. TINGS AFTER TRINITY TERM, 1846.

*Flanders v. Bunbury

Upton v. Hemmant

Sharpe v. Bluck STANDING FOR JUDGMENT. | York-Bainbridge o. Bourne

Simmonds & an. o. Leatham

Bryant & an. v. Holmes Willoughby v. Willoughby

Jones & an. o. Smith Wilkinson 0. Hay

Herbert v. Booth & ors. Morris o. Duke of Beaufort Brooks o. Bockett

Newton v. Boodle Same o. Same

*Watling & an. v. Horwood Same v. Same Bainbridge v. Lax

Same v. Rowe and Norman Ewbank v. Wood Belcher o. Gummow

*Cobb v. Allan & an.

Simmonds o. Jervis
Durham-Smith v. Hopper
Rogers v. Brenton

Hutt v. Morrell

Reed o. Same
Doe d. Earl of Egremont v.

Godden o. Watts
Williams o. Chambers

Bush v. Weis

,, Hinde v. Raine
Devon-Mayor of Exeter v.
Blagg v. Gibson & an.

Rumsey o. Mortimer Musgrove v. Emerson

Harvey & an.

Andrewes v. Lord Lyndhurst | Hope v. Harman

Stansfield & an. o. Upton Damerello. Protheroe

Nicoll v. Orgill Dobson v. Blackmore

Spence & an. o. Chodwick

*Doe d. Renow o. Ashley Doe d. Earl of Egremont v. 1

Goddard o. Wray
1 Schank v. Sweetland

Cornwall-Marshall v. Hicks
Som'set-Doed. Earlof Egre-

Bolam v. Shaw
Doe d. Lord Down v. Thomp-

mont v. Williams

FOR MICHAELMAS TERM, 1846. Bristol-Addison v. Gibson son

First Day.

Bushell 7. Boord
Same o. Same

Raworth o. King

Reg. v. The Dean and Chapter
Ford o. Beech
| Midd.-Hunter v. Caldwell
Wilton v. Chambers

of Chester Doe d. Goody o. Carter

» Doe d. Tebbutt & ors.
Same v. Same

Reg. o. The Justices of Ely v. Brent & ors. Same v. Same EASTER TERM, 1845. Lond.—Whyte o. Burnby Same o. Same

Second Day. Chester-Doe d. Reg. v. Abp.

Bond v. Nurse
Bowen v. Minter

Reg. o. Harrison & ors.
of York
Turner v. Ambler Stokoe v. Winship

| Reg. o. Gregory York, Phillips v. Brodley 1 1 Reg. v. Kensington Tried during Easter Term, Tried during Hilary Term, 1845. 1846.

London Gazettes. Midd.—Hopkins o. Richard | Midd.—Lovelock o. Franklyn

EASTER TERM, 1846. TRINITY TERM, 1845. Midd.-Pembertonv. Vaughan

Lond.-Sheringham o. Collins -

Thompson v. Pettitt

Vincent v. Dore HENRY HUGGINS, Oxford, coach maker, Oct. 27 at 2, MICHAELMAS TERM, 1845. Lond.-Curtis v. Pugh

and Dec. 1 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Midd.-Reg. v. Thornton

De Freis v. Littlewood Pennell; Sols. Brunner, Oxford ; Spencer, Verulam-build. » Reg. v. Gompertz

Follett v. M‘Andrew i ngs.-- Fiat dated Oct. 14. Lond.-Murieta v. Oldfield

Tucker o. Clarkson GEORGE WOOLCOTT the younger and EDWARD , Nicoll v. Gillan .

Reg. v. Parker

WOOLCOTT, Doughty-street, Middlesex, builders, dealers Surrey—Doe d. Pennington Kent-Doe d. Jacobs v. Phil. and chapmen, Oct. 26 and Nov. 30 at 11, Court of Bank. 0. Barrello


ruptcy, London : Off. Ass. Graham ; Sol. Letts, Bartlett's Northamp.-Sutton v. Mac Sussex-Standon v. Chrismas buildings, Holborn.--Fiat dated Oct. 12. quire

1 Kine v. Evershed DANIEL BASELEY, Bolingbroke-row, Walworth, Surres, Cardiff—Taylor v. Clay & an. Surrey—Pemberton v. Colls cheesemonger, Oct. 30 at 1, and Nov. 27 at half.past , , Doed.Lord v. Kings. , Samuel v. Green, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Follett; Sol. bury

Durham-Hills v. Mesnard Wellborne, 3, Tooley-street, Southwark.-Fiat dated Oct. Carmarth-Protheroe v.Jones York-Mountain o. Groves 13.

Chambers v. Thomas , Worth v. Gresham WILLIAM MORTON, Cannon-street-road, Commercial

Same v. Same Liverpool-Doe d. Haywood road, Middlesex, draper, dealer and chapman, Oct. 30. at II, » Same o. Same

0. Tinsley

and Dec. 1 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Cardigan-Doe d. Jenkins v. Chester-Johnson v. Oldfield Bell; Sols. Soles & Turner, Aldermanbury.-- Fiat dated Davies

Davis v. Falk

Oct. 13. Brecon- Mayberyo.Mansfield

Doe d. Groves v. WILLIAM ISAAC BARKER, Sunderland, Durham, auc. York-Smith v. Smith


tioneer, stock and share broker, commission agent, dealer , Marshall o. Powell Glamorgan-Doe d. Richards and chapman, Oct. 30 at 11, and Nov. 30 at 1, District Court Spence v. Meynell

v. Evans

of Bankruptcy, Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Off. Ass. Baker; Doe d. Norton v. 1 Doe d. Bennett Sols. Ransom, Sunderland ; Dixon & Co., Boswell-court, Norton

0. Harry

London.-Fiat dated Sept. 28.


« AnteriorContinuar »