Oldalképek
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

and accompanied the grant of the charter of King James, and having read all the documents produced in this cause, to some only of which, though at the expence of so much time, I have but shortly adverted, and having also considered the conduct of the parties under the charter for so long a series of years, I am of opinion that the powers granted to the Society, and the trusts reposed in them, were, in part, of a general and public nature, independent of the private benefit of the companies of London, and were intended by the Crown to benefit Ireland and the city of London, by connecting the city of Londonderry and the town of Coleraine, and a considerable Irish district with the city of London, and to promote the general purposes of the plantation, not only by securing the performance of the conditions imposed on ordinary undertakers, but also by the exercise of powers, and the performance of trusts, not within the scope of those conditions.

The charter of Charles II. expressly recites, that the property not actually divided was retained for the general operation of the plantation; and considering that the powers given to the Irish Society for the general operation of the plantation were of a general and public or political nature, ---- that the property remaining vested in the Society is applicable towards such general operation, and that the companies of London, though interested in any surplus which may remain after the general purposes are answered, are not entitled to control the exercise of the powers which are given for general and public purposes, ** I do not think that this Court has jurisdiction, upon the application of the companies, to determine upon the propriety of the expenditure which has been made. It must not be inferred that I approve of some of the items of expence which were commented upon in hthie argument. I express no opinion upon the subject,

thinking

1838.

thinking that the Society have a discretion, which, though controllable elsewhere, and in another manner, is not to be controlled in this Court upon such a bill as this.

The SKINNERS' Company

v. The Irish Society.

And upon the whole I think that the bill must be dismissed with costs as against the Irish Society, the city of London, and the Attorney-General: without costs as against the other companies, unless it shall appear that any of the companies have opposed the claim of the Plaintiffs.

AN

AN
INDEX

TO

THE PRINCIPAL MATTERS.

ACCOUNT.
1. Difficulty in making a decree

against parties, depending on the
result of accounts, which could
not be satisfactorily taken, in con-
sequence of the loss of the books
of account. Rowley v. Adams.

Page 395
2. A testator gave large legacies out

of his “surplus capital.” By the
decree special accounts and in-
quiries were directed; but the
Master was unable to take the ac-
counts, by reason of the non-
production of the books. He
found, however, on the imperfect
evidence before him, large sums
due to the testator, and large
partnership assets, which however
varied in each of his three reports :
he also found that the executors
might, with due diligence, &c.,
have possessed themselves, out of
the partnership property, of suf.

ficient to pay the two legacies.
The Court, however, was of opi-
nion, that there was no reason for
thinking that the testator's surplus
capital could, if at all, have been
realized without putting an end to
the business, which the executors,
under the circumstances, were
not bound to do; that though the
executors had not fully or pro-
perly performed their duty, still it
was more a matter of conjecture
than of proof what the assets and
liabilities were; that the results
were not accurate or approaching
to accuracy, and that it had not
been satisfactorily made out, either
that there were partnership assets,
out of which the legacies could
have been recovered or secured,
nor that the assets were such as
to make it impracticable for the
executors to obtain payment of
the legacies. The Court, in this

state

state of things, declined to charge
the executors. Rowley v. Adams.

Page 395

against the tenant for life to re-
cover the title deeds, and receive
the rents. Denton v. Denton.

Page 388

See DECREE, 2.

ACQUIESCENCE.
1. A feme covert was entitled to a
· reversionary interest in a sum of
money. vested in her husband and
another as trustees. By deed, ex-
pressed to be made between the
tenant for life of the one part,
and the trustees (including the
husband) of the other part, the
tenant for life, who alone executed
the deed, declared that the trus-
tees should hold the fund on cer-
tain modified trusts, whereby the
wife's reversionary interest was
made subject to her power of ap-
pointment by deed or will. The
wife died, leaving her husband sur-
viving, having appointed the re-
versionary interest away from her
husband. The husband afterwards
died, and the reversionary interest
subsequently came into posses-
sion. The Court considered, that,
under the circumstances, the hus-
band ought to be deemed to have
acquiesced in the arrangement,
and accepted the trusts for the
benefit of the wife's appointees;
and held, that the appointees of
the wife were entitled as against
the representatives of the hus-

band. - Inman v. Whitley. 337
2. Trustees, after acquiescence, re-
ci strained from legal proceedings

112 !

ADMINISTRATION SUIT.
1. A person at his death was member

of a banking company established
under the 7 G. 4. c. 46., and sub-
ject to its liabilities. After the
expiration of three years, a suit
was instituted for the administra-
tion of his estate, and the conmon
decree was made for taking an
account of his debts. Persons
who were creditors of the banking
company at the testator's death
claimed before the Master. Held,
that their claims did not come
within the scope of the decree;
secondly, that their claims were
barred by the lapse of three years;
and, thirdly, that the proper way
of bringing their claims before the
Court was by petition, and not by
exception. Barker v. Butlress.

134
2. A residuary estate was divisible

amongst several persons. An ac-
count was made up, and the adults
received their shares. The infants
filed a bill for an account against
the executors and the other resi-
duary legatees. The latter being
satisfied, deprecated the proceed-
ings. The accounts turned out to
be substantially correct :v Held,
that the costs were payable out of
the Plaintiffs share alone. Mac-
kenzie v. Taylora,"111! loje! 467

ADMISSION

demurrer. The Barnsley Canal
ADMISSION OF ASSETS. Company v. Twibell. - Page 31
Executors having, for about three

See IRREGULARITY.
years, paid interest on the Plain-

AGENT..
tiff's legacies, the Court, at the

See BREACH OF TRUST, 2, 3.
first hearing, directed accounts,

VENDOR AND PURCHASER, 2, 3.
with a view of determining, from
the state of the assets, the lia-

AMENDMENT..
bility of the executors to pay the
legacies. The Court, on further

1. Under the 13th amended Order
directions, refused to hold, that

of 1828, the six weeks after the
by payment of interest the exe-

answer is to be deemed sufficient,
cutors had admitted assets, such

within which a Plaintiff can ob-
a conclusion being wholly at vari-

tain an order to amend, has re-
ance with all that had been pre-

ference to the answer to the
viously done in the suit. Rowley

original and not to an amended
V. Adams.

Page 395

bill. The Guardians of Wimborne
Union v. Masson.

309
2. After a full answer the Plaintiff

amended. The Defendant an-
ADVANCEMENT.

swered the amended bill. Six
Bequest of residue to A. for life, weeks had expired from the time

with power thereout to advance when the first, but not from the
her eldest son, and a gist, after A.'s time when the second answer was
death, of the said residue to A.'s to be deemed sufficient. Held,
children equally. Held, on the that any further application for
context, that the amount ad. leave to amend must be made to
vanced to A.'s eldest son was not the Court, and not to the Master.
to be taken into account in the The Guardians of Wimborne
ultimate division of the remainder Union v. Masson.

309
amongst A.'s children. Upjohn v. See DEMURRER, 1.
Upjohn,

152

MASTER.
MISJOINDER, 2.

PLEADING, 1.. .
AFFIDAVITS.

'ANNUITY, S.
Where a Plaintiff obtains an injunc- 1. Power to appoint an annuity held,
ition on 'affidavits, the Defendant under the circumstances, to au-
elil is not wrong in meeting the case thorize the appointment of the
f" by affidavits on a motion to dis-

principal sum invested in the
solve, although the point might | funds for securing it. Samuda v.
be determined shortly by filing a Lousada, , r ? ,,'' 243
ter

2. A testator

12)

« ElőzőTovább »