ACCOUNT-jurisdiction]-The S. Dock Company were liable under Act of Parliament to pay the S. Harbour and Pier Board deficiencies of their income which might occur after the opening of the Docks. Such deficiencies were not claimed for several years:-Held, that the Dock Company had a right to have the accounts taken in equity. The Southampton Dock Co. v. The Southampton Harbour and Pier Board, 82

ACKNOWLEDGMENT-by married woman dispensed with. See Settled Estates Act.

ADEMPTION. See Legacy.

ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE-East and West India Dock stock: bonus income and not capital: tenant for life and remainderman]-Testator bequeathed a sum of East and West India Dock Stock to life tenants and others in succession. Some time after his death, bonuses were declared upon the stock. On the 8th of February, 1865, by an order made in a suit for the administration of the estate, the bonuses were invested in Bank 37. per Cent. Annuities, and the dividends thereon directed to be paid to the tenants for life. On the 12th of January, 1871, that investment order was discharged:Held, that the bonuses were income, and not capital of the estate, and belonged to the life tenants. Dale v. Hayes, 244

creditor: covenant to accept a lease: rent: dilapidations: specialty debt: bond: amount increased upon irregular payments] - E. B., NEW SERIES, 40.-INDEX, Chanc.

the tenant of certain business premises, cove nanted by a deed of arrangement made between himself and the administrator of his deceased partner, in whom the premises were rested, to accept a lease of the premises for a certain term at a rent named in the deed, and it was stipulated that the lease should contain a covenant by E. B. to keep the premises in repair, and other covenants usual in leases of a like nature. E. B. retained possession of the premises till his death, but was never called upon to execute a lease :-Held, that the administrator was entitled to rank as a specialty creditor in respect of his claim for rent and dilapidations in the same manner as if a lease had been executed in pursuance of the deed on the day of the date thereof. Kidd v. Boone; Evans' claim, 531

As part of the same arrangement E. B. gave to the administrator a bond to secure part of a certain sum due from him to the partnership, and thereby bound himself, in case he should not punctually pay the instalments therein mentioned, to pay the remainder of the said sum due. The instalments were not paid regularly: -Held, that the administrator was entitled to claim as a specialty creditor for the whole sum. Ibid.

assets: personalty: exoneration]-Testator made a general and absolute bequest of his personalty, followed by a specific devise of realty for payment of his debts. The realty so specifically devised being insufficient for the payment of debts,-Held, that the residuary real

A

estate must contribute with the personalty. Powell v. Riley, 533

ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE (continued)—failure of private bank: loss of moneys on account current]-An administrator who had deposited trust-moneys in a private bank on a separate account current, using ordinary prudence, was held not to be liable for the loss of the moneys through the failure of the bank, although the moneys had been suffered to remain so deposited for 3 years after the death of the intestate, and for nearly a year and a half after the administrator had carried into chambers, in the suit, his accounts shewing a large balance against himself. In re Marcon's estate; Finch v. Marcon, 537

defendant claiming testator's estate: independent suit]-Testator invested certain moneys in the name of his sister, and made a will giving her an annuity and appointing plaintiffs his residuary legatees. Plaintiffs then obtained the ordinary administration decree against the executors, served it on testator's sister, and moved for an injunction to restrain her from dealing with the fund invested in her name by the testator which she claimed as her own:-Held, that the question between the testator's estate and his sister could not be tried in this way, but required the institution of a distinct suit. Walker v. Selig

mann, 601

-partnership: demurrer: multifariousness: want of parties]-Three only out of four residuary legatees filed a bill to administer their testator's private estate, and for an account of his assets used in partnership with one of the executors, and to enforce a lien in respect of a purchase of a moiety of the partnership premises made by one of the executors under a power in the will, charging wilful default, and praying an injunction and receiver against the partner:-Held, that the bill was not demurrable for either, first, want of parties, or, secondly, multifariousness. Pointon v. Pointon, 609

specialty debt: assignment of reversionary trust funds: covenant for further assurance]On an assignment by way of settlement of a reversionary interest in certain trust funds, the settlor covenanted that he and all persons claiming through him would, upon the request of the trustees of the settlement, do all acts necessary for further assuring the premises to the trustees. The settlor afterwards obtained possession of the settled premises, and died, after applying the same for his own use:-Held, that in the administration of his estate the trustees were entitled to prove for the amount of the settled funds, as for a specialty debt. In re Dickson; Blackburn v. Dickson, 707

bankers of executor: advances on securities: misapplication by executor: notice: proof against

testator's estate]-A testator died indebted on his general account to his bankers, with whom he had deposited as a security title deeds of his estate. His widow and executrix was by his will empowered to charge his real estate in aid of his personal estate. She drew large sums

from the bank on account of the testator's executors, the account being so entitled, and deposited other title deeds of the testator's estate, to secure such advances. Without the knowledge of the bank, she misapplied the advances. In a suit to administer the testator's estate, upon the securities deposited turning out insufficient,Held, that the bank was entitled to prove for the insufficiency against the testator's general estate. Farhall v. Farhall, 728

special case: addition of parties: subsequently born child]-When, after a special case has been set down for hearing, a child is born who is a necessary party to the case, the order for setting down the original case should be discharged, and the child brought before the Court by amendment of the special case. Savage v. Snell, 216

petition: leave to amend]-When upon the hearing of a petition leave is given to amend the petition, any facts, whether occurring before or after the leave given, may be inserted by amendment. Re Westbrook's Trusts, 224

insufficient answer: amendment of interrogatories] After exceptions to an answer for insufficiency had been allowed, and before a sufficient answer had been filed, plaintiff, on an order of course, amended his bill and interrogatories. The interrogatories as amended comprised much of the matter contained in the original interrogatories. On motion by defendant to take the amended interrogatories off the file as irregular,-Held, that since the insufficient answer was technically no answer, and plaintiff at the time of obtaining his order to amend had

a clear right to an answer, the amended interrogatories were not irregular. Newry v. Kilmorey, 371

ANNUITY charged on land: power of distress]The owner of an annuity charged upon land which is sufficient to answer the annuity has a right to distrain for it and no other remedy. Sollory v. Leaver, 398

Perpetual or for life. See Will-Bent v. Cullen.

APPEAL-discretion of judge as to appointment of official liquidator] The appointment of an official liquidator is within the discretion of a judge, and no appeal can be had from his decision unless under very special circumstances. In re The Albert Average Assur. Association, 34 The fact that a judge had laid down as a rule for his own guidance that, cæteris paribus, he will appoint the nominee of the petitioner, is not a ground for an appeal. Ibid.

Duty of Court of Appeal, to state the law. See Specific Performance.

Costs of successful appeal. See CostsDenny v. Hancock, and see Specific Perform

ance.

Raising objections before Court of Appeal. See Contributory—Helbert v. Banner.

APPOINTMENT amongst children: perpetuity: married woman: restraint upon anticipation]By a settlement upon marriage, certain funds were vested in trustees upon trust, after the decease of the husband and wife, for the children of the marriage, as the husband and wife or the survivor of them should appoint. After the death of the wife, the husband made an appointment, subject to his own life interest, in favour of one of the children of the marriage, who was a married woman, and he directed that the same should be held for her separate use without power of anticipation:-Held, that the restraint upon anticipation was void, but that the rest of the appointment was good. Re Cunynghame's Trusts, 247

APPORTIONMENT-dividends and interest]-Funds were settled upon trust to pay yearly a sum not exceeding 5,000/., according to the discretion of the trustees, to A, till he attained the age of thirty, and to accumulate the surplus income; and after A attained thirty, to pay him the income of the whole fund for life:-Held, that the dividends and interest which accrued due after A attained thirty, were apportionable. Donaldson v. Donaldson, 64

See Church Building Act. Partners.

ARBITRATION-award: mistake: costs]-When an arbitrator has executed an instrument as and for his award, he is functus officio and cannot of his own authority remedy any mistake that he may have made in executing it. Mordue v. Palmer, 8

Some words were omitted in the engrossment, which were in the draft of an intended award. The arbitrator executed the erroneous engrossment. After service on one party, the arbitrator discovered the mistake and, before the time for making his award had expired, executed a fresh award-Held (reversing the decision of BACON, V.C.), that the first instrument was the award of the arbitrator, but that it must be referred back to him, to re-consider and re-determine the matter with regard to the mistake made therein. Ibid.

An arbitrator had power in a reference in a suit in Chancery to award costs :-Held (affirming the decision of BACON, V.C.), that he might give costs as between solicitor and client. Ibid.

ATTACHMENT. See Debtors Act, 1869.

ATTORNEY AND SOLICITOR-solicitor's lien]- A solicitor is entitled to a general lien for costs on papers deposited with him by his client for a particular purpose only, unless that general lien is excluded by a special agreement. Colmer v. Ede, 185

See Taxation.

BANKER AND CUSTOMER-liability for custody of documents: consequential damage] - J. deposited for safe custody some certificates of railway shares with his bankers, with whom he had an account, on which they charged a commission. The certificates were placed in a strong box, of which the manager of the bank had uncontrolled care. The manager sold the shares, and forged transfers. J. sued the railway companies and the purchasers, for the purpose of having his name restored, as holder of the shares. He obtained a decree, but without costs, the costs being refused principally upon the ground that the railway companies had sent letters to J., informing him that the transfers had been addressed to him, in accordance with his instructions, to the care of the manager of the bank; to which letters the manager forged answers. J. then claimed against the bankers for the amount of the costs which he had thus incurred-Held, that though the bankers were bailees for reward, and had committed gross negligence in leaving the certificates in the unwatched control of their manager, still the costs in question were not the natural and necessary consequences of their neglect, and therefore could not be charged against them. In re United Service Co., lim. (Johnston's case), 286

BANKRUPTCY-equitable mortgage: concurrent jurisdiction]—To a bill filed by an equitable

mortgagee against the trustee under liquidation of the mortgagor, seeking a sale of the security, the defendant demurred on the ground that the Court of Bankruptcy was the proper tribunal. Demurrer allowed by one of the Vice Chancellors, but overruled on appeal with reluctance. White v. Simmons, 689

BANKRUPTCY (continued). Discharge of Bankruptcy. See Contributory.

BARON AND FEME. See Married Woman.

BENEFIT BUILDING SOCIETY-borrowing powers: creditor's petition to wind up by depositing member-An order to wind up a Benefit Building Society whose rules do not give it express power to borrow, may be obtained on the petition of a person, who, under the rules of the society, has deposited money therein with a view of becoming a shareholder, but before becoming one, has given proper notice to withdraw the money and been unable to obtain it. But such petition must not be a mere creditor's petition, but must express that the petitioner is a creditor in respect of money advanced by him as a member of the society which he has given notice to withdraw. In re the Queen's Benefit Building Society, 381

BILL OF EXCHANGE-forged consideration: acceptance: misrepresentation by indorsee]-S., a cotton broker of New Orleans, was in the habit of sending cotton over to England, and the plaintiff was in the habit of accepting his bills, in consideration of the assignment to him of bills of lading of the cotton. In 1870, in the course of this business, a bank to whom two bills of S. on the plaintiff were endorsed, sent them for the plaintiff's acceptance, and with the bills they sent a memorandum, "The Bank holds bills of lading for 504 bales of cotton." The plaintiff thereupon accepted the bills, and retiring them before they came due received the bills of lading, and went to the captain of the ship on his arrival and presented the bills of lading, which turned out to be forgeries :-Held, that notwithstanding the representation contained in the memorandum sent by the bank, the plaintiff could not call on the bank to repay him the value of the bills. Leather v. Simpson, 177

See Company.

BONUSES-On Stock. See Administration of Estate.

BURIAL GROUND. See Compensation.

CHARGE on reversionary interest: unconscionable bargain]-Although by 17 & 18 Vict. c. 60, the usury laws are repealed, and by 31 & 32 Vict. c. 4, dealings with reversionary interests can no longer be set aside for inadequacy of consideration, the Court has still jurisdiction to protect

bequest in aid of endowing an additional church: mortmain: cyprès: deposit in bank for charitable purposes]-Testatrix bequeathed a legacy in aid of "an endowment" of a church in course of erection at A. at the date of her will. She also bequeathed her residuary estate in aid "of erecting or endowing an additional church" at A. There was no such additional church in course of erection or intended to be erected at the date of the will or at testatrix's death:-Held, that the gift of the particular legacy was good, but the gift of the residue in aid of the additional church failed for want of the existence of any such church as described by the will, and the gift being for a particular object could not be applied cyprès. Sinnett v. Herbert, 509

A sum of money deposited by testatrix in a savings' bank in her own name as a trustee "for charitable purposes," with regard to which no specific trust had been declared, held to be part of testatrix's general estate. Ibid.

devise to corporation: surplus rents: trust or charge]-Testator, in 1570, devised house property to the Merchant Taylors' Company and their successors for ever, to this intent, and upon this condition, that they should yearly, for ever, of and with the rents and profits, provide and give to a specified number of poor persons, certain articles of clothing of a specified value, and