SECURITY FOR COSTS.
See Practice, 26.

SEPARATE COMMISSION.
See Bankrupt.
SEPARATE USE.

See Baron and Féme.

SEQUESTRATION.-See Practice, 7. SERVICE.-See Practice, 7, 9, 10. SET OFF.

Equitable set-off upon mutual credit though no mutual debts, upon which a set-off could be maintained at law. James v. Kynnier. Page 108

SETTLEMENT.

1. Settlement reformed in favor of the younger children against the heir of the mother, claiming the reversion, by a letter from her on the marriage of her daughter, stating the intention. Barstow v. Kilvington.

593

2. Settlement after marriage reformed in favour of the issue against the devisee of the husband, claiming under the reversion, by his letter of instructions for drawing the settlement: but this equity did not prevail against creditors. Jenkins v. Quinchant. 596, n. 3. Settlement to such uses as the husband and wife shall jointly appoint, and in default of such appointment, to them for life; and after the decease of the survivor to the use of all or any of the child or children of them in such shares and proportions, and for such estate and estates, term or terms, and payable at such time or times, and in such manner and form, as the husband should by deed or will appoint; and in default thereof to him and his heirs. The event, upon which the last limitation depends, is default of appointment, not of children. Jenkins v. Quinchant. 596, n. See Agreement, 1. Articles. Construction, 2. Con ti igent Interest, 1. Fraudulent Settlement. SHERIFF.-Sec Jurisdiction, 6. SHIP.-See East India Ship. 3R

1. An account of tithes is consequen tial upon the legal right; and therefore if the least doubt is thrown upon it by prima facie evidence, the account cannot be decreed, till the right is established at law. Forcroft v. Parris. Page 221 2. Bill for tithes. Answer admitting the right to one third, and submitting to account, and claiming the other two thirds under a title derived from a grant by Queen Eliza beth; submitting to be examined upon interrogatories, but not setting forth a description of the lands. The Defendants having gone into evidence in support of their claim pressed to have the bill dismissed generally the Plaintiff pressed for a general account. The Master of the Rolls decreed an account as to one third; and as to two thirds, the Plaintiff declining to try the right at law, dismissed the bill. For221 croft v. Parris.

TITLE.

See Purchaser, 3.

See Practice, 29. Purchaser, 3, 4. TRADE.-See Domicil, 5. Partner. TRAVERSE OF INQUISITION. See Lunatic, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7.

TRUST continued.

paid incautiously, though innocently; and therefore he was permitted to try the question at law. Vez v. Emery. Page 149 2. Executors having legacies of 201. a-piece to buy mourning rings and equal specific legacies, were upon the former held trustees of the undisposed of residue for the next of kin. Nisbett v. Murray. ...149 3. (See ante, Vol. III, 696.) The Lord Chancellor upon appeal affirmed the decree upon the points decided at the Rolls; and held farther, that the case was not within the Statute of Frauds the question being, whether a partnership subsisted in the trade of a colliery, a question of fact to be tried by evidence, as upon an issue; the interest in the lease passing as an incident to the trade by

TRUST-continued.

8. Where by neglect the number of trustees in a trust to present to a living was not filled up at the time of an avoidance, the Court would not by injunction prevent the effect of a presentation under the legal title of the heir of the surviving trustee, without a special ground: but the Court will take care as to the future, that the trust shall be properly filled up. Attorney General v. Bishop of Lichfield. Page 825 See Bankrupt, 13. Costs, 1. East India Ship. Executor, 4. Infant Trustee. Mortgage. Party. Power, 11. Practice, 20, 22. Vested Interest, 5.

U.

308

See Limitation of Account.

339

5. There is no rule, that a trustee to sell cannot be purchaser: but, however fair the transaction, it must be subject to an option in the Cestuy que trust, if he comes in a reasonable time to have a re-sale; unless the trustee to prevent that purchases under an application to the Court. Campbell v. Walker. 678 6. One of the trustees under an Act of Parliament being gone abroad, and having released, there being no provision for the change of the trustees, upon a bill it was referred to the Master to appoint a new trustee. Buchanan v. Hamilton. 722 7. Executor and trustee having been guilty of a breach of trust by selling out stock and dealing improperly with the money, the cestuys que trust have an option to have the stock replaced, or the money produced by the sales, with interest at 5 per cent., or more, if more has been made by it, and the costs occasioned by his misconduct. Pocock v. Reddington. 794

USURY.

Post obit bonds, though upon terms of gross inequality, established; such securities not being liable to be impeached on the ground of usury. Wharton v. May.

V.

VACATING JUDGMENT. See Judgment.

VENDOR AND VENDEE. See Agreement.

VESTED INTEREST.

27

1. A clear vested interest not devested: the express contingency, upon which it was to be devested, not having happened. Harrison v. Foreman.

207

2. Legacy in trust for the testator's son for his own use and benefit, provided no misfortune in business shall in the mean time have happened to him, so as to deprive him or his family of the benefit of it; the testator declaring his intention, his son's fortune being amply sufficient, by this fund to form a certain and

:

VESTED INTEREST-continued. permanent provision for him or his family but in case he fail in business at any time before the age of thirty-two, then in trust for the support of him, his wife, and children, as the trustees think proper, so long as he shall labour under the effects of any misfortune in trade: but as soon as he shall be freed and absoutely discharged from the effects of any misfortune or failure in trade, then (but not before) to be paid to him otherwise the interest to be continued to be paid for the support of him, his wife, and children, for his life; and if at his death he shall be under any difficulty from misfortune or failure in business, in trust for his wife, and children, according to his appointment by will; and, if he shall leave no widow or child, according to his disposition. There was a considerable settlement. The son in the twenty-eighth year of his age being discharged under a deed of composition, the legacy was decreed to him; the trustees and his children not opposing it: but the Court observed, that if he should not be discharged, as, in case it should end in bankruptcy, the trustees would not be indemnified. De Mierre v. Turner. Page 306 3. Under a disposition by will to the children of A. and B., payable at twenty-one or marriage, with a limitation over upon failure of issue in the lives of A. and B. it was held, that all the children without restriction were entitled; and an apportionment being directed, and the interest ordered to be paid, to those, who had attained twenty-one, children born afterwards, though entitled to a share of the capital, were not allowed to claim the by-gone interest. Mills v. Norris. 4. Portions by a marriage settlement, to be paid, transferred, or assigned, to the sons at twenty-one, to the daughters at twenty-one or marriage, if after the death of their parents; with survivorship among them, if any should die before the share or shares should become payable, as

385

VESTED INTEREST-continued.

signable, or transferable, and a limitation over, if there should be no child or children living at the death of the survivor of the parents, or, being such, all should die, before the fund should become so as aforesaid payable, assignable, or transferable. Whether a child attaining twentyone takes a vested interest in the life of the parent, quære. Legh v. Haverfield. Page 452 5. (See ante, Vol. IV, 708.) The decree affirmed on a re-hearing. Brown v. Higgs.

See Power, 8. Will.

495

WILL-continued.

favour of the same objects, only restrained to those surviving at the time of distribution, being held to apply only to the capital of the fund appropriated to the annuities. Middleton v. Messenger. Page 136 3. Residuary disposition of all the testator's real and personal estate in Jamaica, in trust to be remitted to England, was held specific, and not to include a debt, originally upon bond and judgment in Jamaica, and afterwards farther secured upon bond and judgment in England, under which it was received, and being considered undisposed of was applied in the first instance to the debts, &c. Nisbett v. Murray. 149 4. Power attempted to be executed by invalid instruments held not executed by the general words of a will containing no reference to it. Mac Leroth v. Bacon.

159

WILL-continued.

10. Construction of several testamentary papers, that some revoked others: probate having been granted of all. Beauchamp v. The Earl of Hardwicke. Page 280 11. The Lord Chancellor of opinion, that it is expedient to apply the provisions of the Statute of Frauds as to devises to wills of personal estate. 286 12. Lands originally held under old mortgages passed by a general devise; though no release of the equity of redemption appeared. The Attorney General v. Bowyer.

362

300 13. As to the difference between debts and legacies in an implied charge on real estate by will, Quære. 14. A claim of double legacies by two instruments, a will and a codicil, repelled by the internal evidence and circumstances. Osborne v. The Duke of Leeds. 369

15. Whether parol evidence of the intention of the testator can be read originally in opposition to a claim of double legacies, Quare. Osborne v. The Duke of Leeds.

369

16. If a testator by will gives 20007. a year by way of jointure to any woman he might marry, and after marriage by codicil gives his wife the same jointure, she cannot claim both.

382

382

17. Double legacies by two instruments upon the intention. 18. Small circumstances will raise an inference against double legacies. 384 19. Testator bequeathed 5000l. in trust for his daughter A. for life, and after her decease for such child or children as she shall leave at her decease in such shares as she should think proper; and in case she shall die, leaving no child, (which was the event) then as to 1000l. for her executors, administrators or assigns; and as to the remaining 4000l. in trust for such person or persons "shall be my heir or heirs at law." The 4000l. vested in A. and the other two daughters of the testator being his co-heiresses at law and next of kin at his death. If that union of characters had not occurred, quare, whether the next of kin could

as