Testator gave an annuity, payable EXECUTOR, 4. ASSIGNMENT. See VOLUNTARY DEED. ATTACHMENT. half-yearly, to his son for his main-1. A defendant who had been taken tenance and education until he attained 21, and another annuity, payable in like manner, to his daughter, (who was adult) during the son's minority. Held that, as the son was entitled to a proportional part of his annuity, from the last halfyearly day of payment up to his attaining 21, the daughter was entitled to a like proportional part of her annuity. [Weigall v. Brome] 99 See CHARGE ON BENEFICE. CONSTRUCTION, 23–25.-COVENANT, 2. ANSWER. See EXCEPTIONS, 1, 3.-PLEA AND APPLICATION OF PURCHASE- See PURCHASER, 3. 2. 296 on an attachment for want of appearance, was discharged, under 11 Geo. 4 and 1 Will. 4, c. 36, before plaintiff got an appearance entered for her. Held that, though a fresh subpoena might be issued against the defendant, no attachment could be taken out upon it. [Williams v. Townshend] The defendant's time for answering having expired, the plaintiff's clerk in court gave notice, on a Saturday, that he must attach the defendant at the next private seal, which was on Monday following: and, on that day, the plaintiff sealed an attachment. On the same day, the defendant, not knowing that the attachment had been sealed, applied for an order for time, and gave notice, to the plaintiff's clerk in court, that he had done so. The attachment To a bill for a discovery of stock standing in the name of the plaintiff's late father, either alone or jointly, for 20 years before and at his death, and for an inspection of the Bank books containing the entries of such stock, the Bank, in their answer, set forth an account of the stock, but declined to set forth a list of the books containing the entries. Held that they were not exempted from the production of their books, and, therefore, ought to set forth a list of them. [Heslop v. The Bank of England] BANKRUPT. 192 1. C. brought an action against F., in the Lord Mayor's Court, for the recovery of a debt, and issued an attachment against B., who had in his hands funds belonging to F. W. filed a bill against C., B. and F., claiming a lien on the funds, and obtained an injunction, ex parte, to restrain proceedings in the action. Whilst the injunction was in force, F. became bankrupt. Held that though C. might, but for the injunction, have sued out execution long before F. became bankrupt, yet he was not entitled to be paid other wise than rateably with the other creditors. [Ullock v. Barber] - 300 2. A., on behalf of the owner of a ship, entered into a charter-party with B., by which B. agreed to pay to A. on behalf of the owner, a certain sum, for freight of the ship, by two instalments, one to be paid on the sailing of the ship, and the other, on the completion of the voyage. The owner being indebted to C., ordered, in writing, A. to pay to C. all monies he might receive under the charterparty; and, accordingly, A. paid over the first instalment to C. The owner then assigned, by deed, the remainder of the freight to C., who gave notice of the assignment to A., but not to B. The vessel completed her voyage, and afterwards the owner became bankrupt. Held that the remainder of the freight was not in his order and disposition at his bankruptcy. [Gardner v. Lachlan] - 407 3. A. assigned 8007. to trustees in trust, during the life of B. or such part thereof as they should think proper, or at such other times and in such portions as they should judge expedient, to pay the interest to him, or, if they should think fit, to lay it out in procuring for him diet and other necessaries, but so that he should not have any right to the interest other than the trustees, in their uncontrolled discretion, should think proper, and so as no creditor of his should have any claim thereon, nor should the same be subject to his debts, disposition or engagements: and it was declared that, after his death, the 8007., and all savings swered the cross-bill, B. issued an attachment against him, but was unable to serve it, as A. was resident abroad. A. proceeded to examine witnesses in his cause. The court, on the application of B., ordered publication not to pass in A.'s suit, until he should have put in his answer and cleared his contempt in B.'s suit, and the court should order publication to pass. [Palmer v. Leycester] 610 CERTIFICATE. See EXCEPTIONS, 2. CHARGE ON BENEFICE. A vicar, whilst the 13th Eliz. c. 20, against charging benefices, was repealed, charged his living with an annuity, and covenanted, if he should exchange his living, to secure the annuity by charging and demising the new living, and, that in the meantime, it should be charged with the annuity. He afterwards exchanged his living, but did not execute any deed until after the revival of the 13th Eliz. Held that the covenant was a subsisting charge on the new living, and a receiver was appointed to provide for the annuity. [Metcalfe v. The Archbishop of York] CHARITY. 224 A testator devised his real estate, to trustees, in trust to dispose of the rents for the benefit of the poor of the city of R. and the limits and precincts thereof. The trustees having applied the rents for the benefit of the poor of one only of the parishes in the city, an information was filed on behalf of two other parishes, claiming to participate in the charity, and a decree was made in 1680, directing that the rents should, for ever thereafter, be divided amongst the three parishes in certain proportions. In 1808 an information was filed on behalf of a fourth parish, for a similar purpose; and that parish was decreed to be entitled to a share of the rents, in the proportion of its extent and population to the extent and population of the three other parishes; but the proportions, as between those parishes, were not to be altered. An information was afterwards filed on behalf of one of those three parishes, claiming an increased share of the rents, on account of its population having increased more than the population of the other parishes. But the information was dismissed, the decree of 1680 being final. [The Attorney General v. The Mayor of Rochester] COMPENSATION. See INJUNCTION, 2. CONCEALMENT. See FRAUD, 2. CONFIRMATION OF REPORT. See PRACTICE, 3. CONSENT OF CREDITORS. See PLEA AND PLEADING, 2. CONSENT TO MARRIAGE. Testator directed his trustees to pay, to his daughters, their portions, on their marrying with the consent, in writing, of his trustees first had and obtained; and, on their marrying without such consent, that the trustees should stand possessed of their fortunes, in trust for their separate use for life, with remainder to their children. A. proposed to the trustees to marry one of the daughters, who was an infant. The terms, as communicated to her by one of the trustees, were that 5007. should be paid to A. on his marriage, out of her portion, and that the remainder should be invested, in the names of trustees, for her sole use and benefit, the interest to be paid to her only. The daughter accepted the proposals, and asked the consent of the trustees. The same trustee then wrote a letter to the daughter, saying that he and his co-trustee had not then signed the consent, but were ready to do so as soon as requisite and a draft was prepared by which (subject to the payment of the 5007. to the husband) the portion was settled on the intended husband during his solvency, then on the intended wife for her separate use for life, with remainder to the children, with remainder to the survivor of the intended husband and wife. A., having made certain arrangements for the disposal of the 5007., which the trustees disap-4. proved of, the trustee who had written the letter, refused to look at the draft of the settlement, saying he should expect A. to make some other proposals respecting the disposal of the 500 7. Another arrangement was, accordingly, made and communicated to the trustee, but he took no notice of it, and his name was struck out of the settlement; and the marriage (to which his co-trustee had duly consented) was had without further communication with him. Held that the letter was a sufficient consent on his part to the marriage. [Le Jeune v. Budd.] CONSTRUCTION. 441 share in her husband's undisposed of personal estate. [Colleton v. Garth] 19 49 3. The word "representatives" in a 54 6. A testator, after giving specific and 67 |