1843. The HERTFORD v. The precise nature of the certificates and bordereaux did not appear upon the report; but the Master had treated them as negotiable securities which passed by Marquis of delivery. Previous to judgment being delivered, authenticated translations were obtained, from which the Court considered that they "constituted the bearers the persons entitled to receive, at future times, the interest and capital to which the instruments respectively were the evidence of title.” Mr. Kindersley and Mr. Schomberg, in support of the exceptions. The certificates and bordereaux do not pass by the codicil. There are two rules of construction which determine this question. First, where there is a gift of certain enumerated descriptions of personal property, followed by general words, as "all other goods and chattels," the operation of the latter words is limited to things ejusdem generis, as those enumerated, and they will not be extended to the general personal estate. Thus, in Trafford v. Berrige (a), money was held not to pass by the words "all goods, chattels, household stuff, furniture, and other things" in the testator's house; the reason given is this:-" for by the words other things, shall be intended things of the like nature and species with those before mentioned." The general rule was admitted in Hotham v. Sutton. (b) So in Timewell v. Perkins (c) it was held that a devise of plate, jewels, linen, household goods, and coach and horses, will be confined to things of the same nature; and that goldsmiths' notes and bank bills do not pass by those words. (d) 66 These certificates, therefore, not being in the nature of goods, chattels, &c." will not pass under this bequest. (a) 1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 201. (b) 15 Ves. 326. Secondly, (d) See Sutton v. Sharp, 1 Russ. 146. Lord LOWTHER. (c) 2 Atk. 103. 1843. The HERTFORD v. Lord LOWTHER. Secondly, where there is a gift of personal property in a given locality, choses in action, which have no Marquis of locality, will not pass, although the securities may be there situate the only exception is, that of Bank of England notes, which are considered money. In Chapman v. Hart (a) there was a gift of all the testator's "goods and chattels in his house and on board the Warwick" (a man-of-war). Lord Hardwicke said, "Undoubtedly no goods and chattels in the house can pass but such as were properly in possession, not choses in action, except Bank notes, which the Court considers as cash; for these words may certainly extend farther than to bare furniture: and if any ready money in the house (if not an extraordinary sum, and just received) that would pass. In the Countess of Aylesbury's Case (b) I was of opinion, that by devise of all things in a house, money and bank notes passed to the testator's wife, and that the testator meant to consider the notes as cash: but bonds do not pass, not admitting of a locality, except as to the probate of wills," &c. In Green v. Symonds (c) B. bequeathed to C. all his goods, &c. in his study, except his books and writings. He gave to D. all his books at his chambers in the Temple. At the testator's death, there were in his study a considerable sum of ready money, securities for money and plate; but he had removed the books into the country. One of the questions was, whether C. should take the money, securities, &c. which were in the study, or the furniture only. And the Lord Chancellor held, the money and plate to pass, but not the securities for money, as they were choses in action. (a) 1 Ves. sen. 271. Belt's Supplement, 146. And see (b) Amb. 68. (c) 1 Bro. C. C. 129. n. In 1843. The v. Lord LOWTHER. In Moore v. Moore (a) Lord Thurlow held that, under a bequest of "all in Suffolk to R. M.," a bond, which happened to be at the testator's house in Suffolk, did Marquis of HERTFORD not pass. And in Brooke v. Turner (b), under a bequest, of "all the property over which the testatrix had a disposing power in and about her dwelling-house," was held to pass Bank of England notes, but not country bank notes, or promissory notes. A bequest of "all my property, of whatever nature, &c. in Duke Street, except a bond of F. M.," was held not to pass a bond from G. C.; Fleming v. Brook. (c) Mr. G. Turner and Mr. Tripp, contrà. This is purely a question of intention. The words " goods, chattels, &c.," are quite sufficient to carry the property in question, and there is no intention by the specific description of particular property to limit the operation of these general words. The particular enumeration of property was introduced, not for the purpose of diminishing the extent of gift, but from an anxiety that the legatee should take all property whatever at Milan; the words et cetera extend the gift to every species of property at that place. The bequest is not confined to things ejusdem generis. In Kendall v. Kendall (d) it was held, that a bequest of "all monies, goods, chattels, clothing, &c., the testator's property which might remain after paying his funeral charges and debts," will pass the testator's interest in stock and money. And in Arnold v. Arnold (e) a bequest of "my wines and property in England" was held to pass the testator's property in England of every description, (a) 1 B. C. C. 127. (b) 7 Simons, 671. (c) 1 Sch. & Lef. 318. And see Collier v. Squire, 3 Russ. 467. (d) 4 Russ. 360. 1843. The Marquis of HERTFORD บ. Lord LOWTHER. description, including money in the funds and at his bankers, debts, and arrears of pension, and that it was not confined to property ejusdem generis with wines; and in Parker v. Marchant (a) a balance at the bankers was held to pass under the words "ready money." Supposing, however, the operation of the general words to be limited to property ejusdem generis, then these certificates are of the same nature as the "money at the bankers, and stock in the Monte de Milano." Secondly, the certificates, which of themselves give a title to the holder, have a locality; the legatee is entitled to those certificates, and having rightful possession of those documents, she will become entitled to the money payable on them. Here the legatee has a condition imposed on her of paying 3000l., and it does not appear whether the other property given by this codicil will be sufficient for that purpose; this therefore is a strong reason for extending the operation of the words of gift, if that be necessary. (b) Mr. Kindersley in reply. The MASTER of the ROLLS reserved his judgment. Dec. 14. The MASTER of the ROLLS. After the arguments were concluded, I was requested to suspend my judgment, until the parties had obtained authenticated translations of the instruments in question. Such translations have since been supplied to me; the documents appear to me to be evidences of obligations (a) 1 Y&C. (C. C.) 290., and 1 Phillips, 356. (b) See the cases, 2 Jarman on Wills, 171. 1843. The HERTFORD ligations entered into by the governments established in Poland, Austria, and Naples respectively; and they appear to be so expressed, as to constitute the bearers Marquis of the persons entitled to receive, at future times, the interests and the capitals of the title to which the instruments respectively are the evidence. The Master has treated them as negotiable securities which pass by delivery. The question is, whether they pass by the words of the bequest. The Master has considered that they are comprehended within the true meaning of the words "goods and chattels," and that the extensive meaning of these words is not reduced by the effect of the words, "I may die possessed of at Milan or in Lombardy," which follow after the enumeration of many particulars which he has distinctly named. From the words which are used, it appears to me so probable that the testator intended to give this lady all which he had at Milan, that, independently of authority, I should have concurred in the Master's opinion. But in Green v. Symonds (a) Lord King held that a gift of all the testator's goods and moveables whatsoever in his study, except books and writing, did pass money and plate found there, but did not pass securities for money, they being choses in action. In Lady Aylesbury's Case (b), Lord Hardwicke held, that a gift of the testator's house and all that should be in it at his death, though it passed cash and bank notes, did not pass promissory notes and securities, as they were evidence of title to things out of the house, and not to things in it. (a) 1 Bro. C. C. 129. n. (b) Ambler, 68., 11 Ves. 662. In 0. Lord LOWTHER. |