[*112] 1850.-Balguy v. Broadhurst. *THE VICE-CHANCELLOR :-Judges have differed in their opinions as to the general policy of the rule as to privileged communications. Some of them have thought that there ought to be no such rule. Others have been of a contrary opinion, and have said that even truth may be purchased too dearly. The rule, however, is now established and acted on; and, whatever may be thought of it, I am sure that it is most inconvenient to have a rule laid down and the courts struggling to avoid it. Therefore, I shall abide by the rule in all cases to which it really applies. But it would be very dangerous to extend the rule to a case where the court is not told what the documents are; and still more so, where the defendant does not even assert his own opinion that they are confidential communications. Here, he only asserts that he is advised and insists that they are confidential communications: and his counsel have contended that it is sufficient for him to say that they were procured for the purpose of his defence to the suit. But they may have been so procured, and yet not be privileged communications. They may have been procured from the British Museum, or they may be the plaintiff's title-deeds. The defendant does not give any statement which will exclude either of those suppositions. I do not mean to say that he might not have framed his answer so as to protect him; but his answer is not so framed; and, therefore, I shall allow the exceptions. Interpleading Suit.-Supplemental Bill.-Parties.-Pleading. 1850: 11th December. A defendant to an interpleading suit, may, after decree, file a supplemental bill to bring a new party before the court, without making the other parties to the origi nal suit, parties to it, 1850.-Watson v. Young. THE following question arose in this case: whether a defend. ant could file a supplemental bill for the purpose of bringing a new party before the court, without making all the persons who were parties to the original suit, parties to the supplemental bill? The new party was the official assignee of a bankrupt who had been appointed in the place of a deceased official assignee; and the latter had been a defendant to the original bill. Mr. Roll and Mr. Prior contended that all the defendants to the original bill were necessary parties to the supplemental bill. Mr. James Parker and Mr. Dean, contra, said that the suit was an interpleading suit, and that a decree had been made in it; and, therefore, the defendants to it were in the situation of plaintiffs as well as defendants. In the course of the argument, Bignall v. Atkins(a) and Feary v. Stephenson, (b) were referred to. The VICE-CHANCELLOR said that, as a defendant to an interpleading suit stood, after a decree, in the anomalous situation of plaintiff as well as defendant, he might file a supplemental bill for the purpose of bringing a new defendant before the court, without making the other parties to the original suit parties to it, as a plaintiff in an ordinary suit might do. (a) Madd. & Geld. 369. (b) 1 Beav. 42; and 17 Eng. Ch. R. part 1, 43, Am. Ed. *WATSON v. YOUNG.(a) Claim.-Parties.-Residuary Legatee. 1850: 13th December. [*114] Some of the residuary legatees under a will, may file a claim against the executors without making the other residuary legatees parties; but the others ought to be summoned before the Master. (a) Ex relatione. 1850 and 1851.-Simmons v. Rudall. THIS was a claim filed by some of the residuary legatees under a will against the executors. Mr. Greene appeared for the plaintiffs. Mr. Bates, for the executors, submitted that the other residuary legatees ought to have been made defendants. But The VICE-CHANCELLOR held that they were not necessary parties, but that they ought to be summoned to appear before the Master.(a) (a) See the 13th Order of April, 1850. [*115] *SIMMONS v. RUDALL.(a) Heir.-Statute of Limitations. 1850: 3d and 4th December. 1851: 8th February. A testator died in 1821, having devised and bequeathed his real and personal estate to trustees upon certain trusts. In 1826, a bill was filed for the execution of the trusts as to the personal estate. In 1847, a supplemental bill was filed raising questions on the will, as to the real estate, in which the heir, who was then unknown, was interested: and, in 1849, another supplemental bill was filed to bring the heir, who was then ascertained, before the court. Held, that the heir was barred, by lapse of time, from claiming the real estate adversely to the trustees; but that he was not barred from claiming part of the real estate as being, in the events that had happened, undisposed of, and held, by the trustees, in trust for him. (a) Complaints are frequently made in court, of errors in copying briefs and other papers in a cause. In one of the briefs in this cause, the name of Mrs. Rudall, who was a co-defendant with her husband, was stated to be Nathaniel Isabella: and a supplemental bill which was filed for the purpose of bringing the heir of the testator before the court, was stated to have been filed on the 13th of September, 1829, instead of 1849. It will be seen, on perusing the case, that if that bill had been filed in 1829, one of the questions in the case could not have arisen. It is scarcely necessary to observe that errors in copying are as perplexing to reporters as they are to counsel, and as likely to mislead the one as the other. 1850 and 1851.-Simmons v. Rudall. Will.-Construction.-Residuary Devise and Bequest. Testator bequeathed Greenacre to Catherine S. for life, with remainder to her son, John S., in fee; provided that if he should die in his mother's lifetime, then and in such case the testator gave Greenacre, together with all the residue of his real and personal estate, to trustees, in trust for Isabella A. for life, remainder in trust, as to one-fourth, for such persons as she should appoint by will; and upon further trust, to divide, convey, assign and transfer all the rest, residue and remainder of the trust-property, unto and to the use of Maria C., Rose B. and John S. absolutely. John S. survived his mother, and Isabella A. died intestate. Held, that the trustees took the residuary real estate on the testator's death; and that Maria C., Rose B. and John S. were not entitled to the one-fourth of the property which was subjected to Isabella A.'s appointment, but that it was undisposed of Will.-Erasures and Interlineations in a Will. A testator who died in 1821, struck the name of one of the devisees out of his will, and interlined the names of two other persons above the erasure; but those alterations were not noticed in the attestation-clause, nor was there anything to show, or from which it could be inferred that they were made before the will was executed. Held, that they did not affect the devise. THE bill stated that Benjamin Thomas, late of the Haymar ket, in the city of Westminster, signed and published *his last will and testament in writing, and that the [*116] same was in such words and figures, and with such erasures and alterations, and of such date as thereinafter set forth, namely: "London, 24th June, 1813. As to all worldly goods which it hath pleased God to bless me with, I give and dispose thereof as follows: After paying my just debts, funeral expenses, &c., &c., I give and devise unto Catherine Simmons, of Castle street, Leicester Square, all my freehold messuage or tenement and premises, with the appurtenances and land thereunto belonging, at Weston Green, in the parish of Thames Ditton, in the county of Surrey, now in the occupation of Adam Reid, gardener, during the term of her natural life, to and for her sole and separate use and benefit, and not to be subject or liable to the debts, control or interference of any husband with whom she may intermarry, and her receipt and receipts only to be a discharge for the rents and profits of the said premises: and, from and 1850 and 1851.-Simmons v. Rudall. after her decease, I give and devise the same unto her son, John of the same place, A Simmons, to hold to him and his heirs forever. Provided always, and my will and meaning is that, in case the said John Simmons shall happen to depart this life intestate or [*117] *under the age of twenty-one years, without leaving any issue of his body lawfully begotten, before the demise of his said mother, then and in such case I give and devise the said freehold estate, premises and land, together with all the rest, residue and remainder of my real and personal estate and effects of what nature or kind soever, unto John Cowell, of Water Lane, and Thomas Bradley, of Mark Lane, both of the city of London, merchants, and the survivors of them, and the heirs, executors and administrators of such survivor, upon trust that they or the survivors of them, shall and do place the moneys that shall arise from my personal estate and effects, out at interest on public or private securities, and, from time to time, pay, apply and dispose of the yearly interest and produce thereof, together with the yearly rents, issues and profits arising from and out of my real estate, when and as the same shall become due and payable and be received by them or either of them, into the proper hands of Sarah Armstrong, of Winchester Row, Paddington, in the county of Middlesex, widow, for and during the term of her natural life; and, from and after her decease, upon trust to pay and apply the said yearly interest, dividends, increase and produce, rents, issues and profits, into the proper hands of Isabella, daughter of the said Sarah Armstrong, for and during the term of her natural life, for her own sole and separate use and benefit, whose receipt or receipts alone shall be sufficient discharges to the person or persons paying the same, notwithstanding her coverture, to the intent that the same may not be at the disposal of or subject or liable to the control, debts or engagements of any her hus band, but only at her own sole and separate disposal, as if she were sole and unmarried; and, from and immediately after the decease of the survivor of them, the said Sarah Arm[*118] strong and Isabella, *her daughter, upon trust that the said trustees, or the survivor of them, his heirs, executors and administrators, do and shall pay, convey, assign and |