sidered valid' as from its date.
Held, secondly, that whether the
grantor could afterwards defeat
the voluntary grant or not by a
conveyance to a purchaser for
valuable consideration, did not
affect the question. Held, thirdly,
that the bequest was void. Trye
v. Corporation of Gloucester.
Page 173
3. Devise to a corporation "upon
condition" of making certain stated
payments to a school and other
charitable objects, and the "over-
plus," which the testator estimated
at about 60%. a year, should go,
half to the mayor and half towards
repairing highways. Held, upon
the context, that the increased
rents were divisible amongst all
the charitable objects in propor-
The Attorney-General v.
The Corporation of Southmolton.
1. Charitable gift to the use of the
reparation of the church of U.,
and to the use of the reparation
of the bridge of U., and to the
use of other things needful within
the parish of U., at the discretion
of the trustees, to be applied and
distributed for ever. Held, that
the discretion applied to the third
branch only, and that the three
objects took equally. Re Hall's
Charity.
2. Bequest of money which, in the
event of land being given for the 4.
purpose to the corporation of
Gloucester, was to be laid out
upon it for a charity, with a gift
over, if no land were granted
and conveyed for that purpose
within" ten years after the testa-
tor's decease. Land was conveyed
a few days before the expiration
of the ten years, but the deed
was not enrolled until five days
after the expiration. Held, first,
that, although the enrolment and
A gift to trustees to apply, in
such manner as they in their un-
controlled discretion should think
proper, "for the benefit, advance-
ment, and propagation of educa-
tion and learning, in every part of
the world, as far as circumstances
will permit," is a good charitable
bequest. Whicker v. Hume. 509
See MORTMAIN.
SCHOOL.
the twelve months (during which See SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, 1. 3.
it was necessary the grantor should
survive to give the grant validity)
both took place after the ten years;
still that the grant must be con-
CONSTRUCTION.
See ABATEMENT OF LEGAGIES.
ACCRUER.
ANNUITY.
BUILDING SOCIETY.
CASE TO LAW.
CHARITY.
CHILDREN.
COVENANT.
DEED.
ESTATE FOR LIFE.
HUSBAND And Wife.
IMPLICATION.
JOINT TENANTS.
PARTNERSHIP.
PERISHABLE PROPERTY.
PRECATORY WORDS.
See COSTS, 12.
SOLICITOR AND CLIENT, 4.
See COSTS, 5.
TRUSTEE ACT, 1. 3.
1. Trustees had lent money on a
technically insufficient security.
In the Master's office, they en-
tered into evidence to prove its
sufficiency, but failed; and they
afterwards presented a petition
for calling in and investing the
money. This was done, and no
loss occurred. Held, that the
trustees were entitled to their
costs of both proceedings. Royds
v. Royds.
2. Refusal to refer to arbitration in
pursuance of an agreement is not
of itself a sufficient reason for re-
fusing costs to a successful party.
Lees v. Laforest.
250
3. Pending a proceeding in sci.fa.
to repeal a patent, the patentee
disclaimed a part, under the 5 &
6 W. 4. c. 83. The prosecutor still
proceeded, and ultimately failed.
Held, that he ought to pay the
costs subsequent to the disclaimer.
The Queen v. Mill.
312
4. Form of decree in an information
without a relator, where a De-
fendant is liable to pay the costs
of a co-Defendant. The Attorney-
General v. The Corporation of
Chester.
338
5. A. was tenant of a copyhold, in
trust for B. A. died, leaving an
infant heir; B. sold a part of the
property to a Railway Company.
Held, that the Company were not,
under the 82nd section of the
Lands Clauses Consolidation Act,
liable to pay the costs of pro-
ceedings under the Trustee Act,
to obtain a conveyance from the
infant. Re the South Wales Rail-
way Company.
6. Considering the importance of
securing intelligent, competent,
and responsible persons to act as | 12. A sum of money having on tax-
trustees, it is not the practice of
the Court to visit trustees with
costs, except where they act from
interested motives, or intention-
ally and wantonly conduct them-
selves in a vexatious and oppres-
aive manner. Noble v. Meymott.
Page 471
7. When the point in contest was
sufficiently raised by the bill, the
Court gave no costs to a success-
ful Defendant, who brought the
cause to a hearing, instead of de-
murring. Hollingsworth v. Shake-
shaft.
492
8. In a suit against several persons,
A. B. and G, the decree directed
an issue as to G., and reserved the
costs of A. and B., and the "sub-
sequent" costs of all other parties,
and further directions. G. was
successful on the issue. Held,
that he was entitled to all his
costs. Rice v. Gordon.
9. Costs given to heir as between
party and party, although his bill
was dismissed. Whicker v. Hume.
10. In a charity case, the heir,
though unsuccessful, allowed his
costs, but only as between party
and party. Whicker v. Hume. 528
11. Where a mortgagee, instead of
simply filing a bill to enforce his
securities, institutes or adopts a
suit for a general administration,
and the estate proves deficient,
the costs of the suit are to be
paid, in the first instance, out of
the estate. Armstrong v. Storer.
By a marriage settlement, it was ex-
pressed to be agreed between the
parties thereto, and the husband
covenanted, that if any personal
property should during coverture
come to or vest in the wife, or in
him in her right, the same should
be transferred, by all proper par-
ties, upon the trusts of the settle-
ment. The wife became entitled
to a reversionary interest in a
chose in action, which did not fall
into possession until after the
death of the husband. Held, that
the wife was bound to settle it.
Butcher v. Butcher.
222
See SOLICITOR and Client, 1.
DEBENTURES.
See TRANSFER.
1. Where the Court orders payment
out of a particular fund, it is tanta-
mount to a decision, not only that
such fund is liable to make such
payment, but also the interest di-
rected to be computed thereon.
Davis v.
Browne. Page 127
2. By the decree, arrears of main-
tenance were ordered to be paid
out of a fund in Court, consisting
both of corpus and rents of real
estate, and it was referred to the
Master to calculate interest on
the arrears. Upon the matter
coming before the Court upon the
Master's report, Held, that it was
not then competent for the parties
to contend, that the arrears and
interest were not payable out of
the corpus, for the point must be
considered settled by the prior
decree.
Ibid.
3. Rule of practice as to varying
the minutes of decrees. The Re-
gistrar must first complete the
minutes, and any party dissatisfied
may then give notice of motion
specifying the subject of com-
plaint. Prince v. Howard.
1. Principles on which the Court
proceeds in putting a construc-
tion upon inconsistent clauses in
a settlement. Bush v. Watkins.
Page 425
2. By the terms of a marriage
settlement, 1000l., secured by a
policy of insurance on the life of
the intended wife's father, was to
be paid to the intended husband,
provided he had previously ef-
fected an insurance on his own
life for a similar amount; if not,
it was to be paid to the wife. It
then directed that, if the insurance
should not have been effected, or
if the husband and wife should be
both dead when the 1000l. should
be received by the trustees, it
should be paid to the issue of the
marriage. The husband cove-
nanted to effect an insurance
within six months after the de-
cease of the wife's father, to se-
cure the payment of the said sum
of 1000l. at his decease. By a
clause at the end of the settle-
ment, it was directed that in de-
fault of the husband effecting the
insurance, the 1000l. should be
invested and the interest paid to
the husband until he effected it,
and then he was to receive the
principal. The insurance was not
effected within the time men-
tioned. Held, that the husband
might effect the insurance at
any time during his life; that
the trusts in favour of the wife
did not arise till the close of the
life of the survivor of her father
and husband, and that the trusts
in favour of the children did not
arise till after the death of all
X x 4
three
|