Cumulative Legacy.

SPECIFIC LEGACY.

WILL.

BREACH OF TRUST.

1. As to the liability of executors
who were directed to buy an
estate within twelve months, which,
though able, they neglected to do,
whereby the trust thereof failed,
quære. Upjohn v. Upjohn. Page 59
2. An agent assisting in a breach of
trust is personally responsible.
The Attorney-General v. The Cor-
poration of Leicester.
176
3. A municipal corporation were
trustees of a charity. They per-
mitted their town clerk to receive
and retain the trust monies, in-
stead of seeing it applied to the
purposes of the trust. Held, that
the corporation and the town
clerk were liable for the breach of
trust.
Ibid.

4. Executors employing an auc-
tioneer, and who became insolvent
and deposit lost, held, under the
circumstances, not personally re-
sponsible. Edmonds v. Peake. 239
5. Where a trustee neglects to invest
on real or government securities
according to the trust, the cestui
que trust has the right of select-
ing whether the trustee shall be
answerable for the money or for
the stock. Ames v. Parkinson.
379

6. An executor and trustee directed
to invest a legacy on mortgage,
may properly appropriate one of
the testator's mortgages in pay-

6. On the application of the Plain-

who was stated to be an infant,
but was in reality of full age. A
decree was made and the accounts
taken on that footing. Held, that
the proceedings were not binding
on him, and the Plaintiffs were
ordered to pay the costs of the
six clerk. Green v. Badley. Green
v. Tompson.
Page 271
7. Costs of setting down a cause on
an objection for want of parties
reserved to the hearing. Green-
wood v. Rothwell.

8.

9.

279

A trustee was declared liable for
a breach of trust, and was ordered
to pay the costs up to the hearing.
He complied with the decree.
Held, that he was entitled to his
costs of the subsequent proceed-
ings for clearing and distributing
the fund. Hewett v. Foster. 348
Costs of an administration suit
directed to be paid rateably out
of the real and personal estate.
Bunnett v. Foster.
540

See ADMINISTRATION SUIT, 2.
IMPERTINENCE, 2.
MISJOINDER, 2.

PLEA.

CREDITOR'S DEED.
See PARTIES, 11.

CREDITOR'S SUIT.

See ADMINISTRATION SUIT, 1.
PRELIMINARY ENQUIRIES, 3.

CROSS BILL.

guardian ad litem for a Defendant,

CUMU-

CUMULATIVE LEGACY.

A testator bequeathed as follows:-
"to M. C. B., besides Austrian
metalliques for 104,000 florins, I
give 5000l." By a subsequent
codicil he bequeathed as fol-
lows :- "Whereas, I have by in-
dorsement on two little parcels,
containing 104 Austrian bonds of
1000 florins each, given them to
M. C. B.; I confirm said dispo-
sition, and add to it 20,000Z.:"
Held, first, that the testator, as to
the Austrian securities, referred to
the same subject-matter; and the
testator, not possessing such se-
curities at his death, that the gift
of them failed; and, secondly,
that the gifts of the two sums of
5000l. and 20,000l. (though both
were connected with the gift of
the same Austrian securities)
were cumulative and not substi-
tutional. Marquis of Hertford v.
Lord Lowther. (Countess Berch-
toldt's Case.)

DECREE.

Page 107

fused to overrule it on that

ground. Dalton v. Hayter.

Page 250

See COSTS, 2.
SUBPOENA, 4.

DEPOSITIONS.

The Plaintiffs and Defendants ap-
plied to the Master for a certifi-
cate for a commission to examine
witnesses abroad, and they pro-
duced to him the proposed inter-
rogatories. He certified in both
cases that a commission was ne-
cessary to examine witnesses
"under the said interrogatories,"
and orders were made "accord-
ingly." The parties afterwards,
by consent, obtained an order for
a single commission, directed to a
sole commissioner. The Plaintiffs
examined on fresh interrogatories.
Held, that under the first orders
the proceeding of the Plaintiffs
was irregular; and, secondly,
that it was equally so under the
consent order. The Court, how-
ever, refused to suppress the de-
positions, but made the Plaintiffs
pay the costs of the application,
and gave leave to the Defendants
to apply to be put on a footing of
equality with the Plaintiffs. Earl
Nelson v. Lord Bridport.

DEVIATION.

See SOLICITOR.

DEVISE.
See WILL.

195

DISCOVERY.

See PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENts, 3,
4. 6, 7. 9.

DISMISSAL.

1. A Defendant filed a plea, but the
Plaintiff neither set it down nor
took any steps for three terms.
The bill was, on motion, dismissed
with costs. Roberts v. Jones.

2.

4.

Page 266
A sole Plaintiff became insolvent.
His assignee filed a supplemental
bill, but before appearance, ob-
tained an order to dismiss the
supplemental bill alone, without
costs. Held, regular. Thompson
v. Thompson.
350
3. Before appearance, a Plaintiff
may dismiss his bill without costs.
Thompson v. Thompson. Ibid.
The replication mentioned in the
111th of the General Orders of
May 1845, means a replication in
the form directed in the 93d of
such Orders, and therefore in a
transition case where a subpoena
to rejoin has been served prior to
those Orders coming into opera-
tion: Held, that publication could
not pass, under the 111th Order,
without rule or order, and that
a special order was necessary.
Wheatley v. Wheatley.

577

5. Upon a motion to dismiss, under
such circumstances, the Court
will (unless good cause be shewn)
order that publication do then
Ibid.

pass.

6. Where, prior to the Orders of