Page images

bound to answer that part which related to the want of interest. Desborough v. Curlewis, 3 Y. & C. 175. CONSTRUCTION. (Issue—marriage articles.) By marriage articles, a reversionary interest in a fund was agreed to be settled on the husband for life, remainder to the wife for life, and after the death of the survivor on the issue of the marriage living at the death of such survivor, in equal shares if more than one, and if but one, then the whole to such only child, and if there should be no issue of the marriage living at the death of the survivor, then as the husband should appoint. The only child of the marriage died in the father's life-time, leaving a child: Held, that the word issue was to be construed child, and that an appointment made by the father was valid. Swift v. Swift, 8 Sim. 168. DOMICIL. (Scotch heir-administration of assets.) By the Scotch law, if the heir pays movable debts, which his estate is only liable to in aid of the personalty, he is entitled to be exonerated out of the personal estate, and where the Scotch heir of a person domiciled in England had paid such debts, it was held, that he had the same right to be exonerated against the personal estate which was administered in England. (Balfour v. Scott, 6 Bro. P. C. 550; Drummond v. Drummond, Ibid. 601 : Story on the Conflict of Laws, 442.) Earl of Winckelsea v. Garretty, 2 Keen, 293. 2. (Will.) A and his wife, who were British born subjects, but who had been naturalized subjects of Denmark, and for several years previous and up to 1805, been domiciled in the Danish island of St. Croix, in that year came to England, where they continued domiciled till their respective deaths. In 1809, they made a joint will, whereby they bequeathed a sum of money invested in mortgage in St. Croix, and to which they were jointly entitled, in certain shares among their children and grandchildren, and appointed as executors a son and son-in-law, both Danish subjects, and domiciled in St. Croix; and this will was, on the application of the testator and testatrix, confirmed by the king of Denmark in the same year. In 1814, A made

a separate will, expressly revoking all former wills, and bequeathing the money due on mortgage to his wife. She survived him, and in 1822 also made a will disposing of the property: Held, that the legatees under this will, and not those under the joint will, were entitled to the money. The law of domicil as it relates to will is very fully considered in the judgment of the vice-chancellor. Price v. Dewhurst, 8 Sim. 279. 3. (Will—effect on probate.) Where a party domiciled in one country has personal estate in another, though probate of his will in the latter country may be granted for the purpose of getting in his estate, yet such probate must be treated as ancillary to the law of the country of the domicile, and distribution of the estate ought to be directed accordingly. A British subject domiciled in France, made, during a short visit to England, a will inconsistent with French law, which will was admitted to probate in the prerogative court. On a motion being made for an injunction to restrain the executor so appointed from getting in the estate : it was held by lord Eldon, that the court was not at liberty to question the validity of the appointment of executor, but that on a suit properly framed, distribution might be compelled according to the French law. (See remarks of vice-chancellor on this case, in Price v. Dewhurst, 8 Sim. 279.) Thornton v. Curling, (Ex relatione), 8 Sim. 310. EQUITABLE MORTGAGE. (Deposit of deeds for preparing a mortgage.) It was the opinion of the chief baron, that where there is an existing debt, the deposit of deeds for the purpose of preparing a mortgage is in itself an equitable mortgage, but in the case itself, it appeared that the deposit was also made as a present security to prevent immediate proceedings against the depositor. Keys v. Williams, 3 Y. & C. 55. FOREIGN JUDGMENT. (Validity of) Where a foreign judgment is set up in bar to a claim instituted in this country, the manner in which it was obtained, and the formation of the tribunal, are circumstances material to its efficacy. And where the question in the suit was, which of two wills should prevail, and some of the parties interested under the former, who were also executors appointed by it, availed themselves of the laws of the country in which they resided, which was the Danish island of St. Croix, to constitute themselves in their capacity of executors a court for the administration of the testator's property; their proceedings and judgment, setting up the former will, were treated as a nullity. Price v. Dewhurst, 8 Sim. 279. INSOLVENT DEBTOR. (Chose in action, 1st and 2d insolvency.) Where a person has twice taken the benefit of the insolvent debtor's act, and between the two insolvencies has become entitled to a chose in action, (as stock), his interest in it passes to the assignees under the second insolvency, for the reason that the assignees under the first could not have reached it without an application to the court, and non constat that the court would have granted the application. Curtis v. Sheffield, 8 Sim. 176. MISSING WILL. (Nert of kin—recognizances.) Upon the death of a man, a paper writing was found, which he described as a codicil to his will, but no will was found : Held, that the next of kin were not entitled to their distributive share without giving recognizances to refund, in case a will should be forthcoming; but they were allowed, at all events, out of the estate, their costs of proving themselves next of kin before the master. Bakewell v. Tagart, 3 Y. & C. 173. PARTNERSHIP. (Lunacy—jurisdiction.) The court will entertain a bill for the dissolution of a partnership on the ground of lunacy, and will refer it to the master to inquire into the fact. (Sayer v. Bennet, 1 Cox, 107.) Kirby v. Carr, 3 Y. & C. 184. POWER. (Joint power destroyed by bankruptcy of one of the donees.) A and his wife had a joint power of appointment among their children over lands in which A had by the deed creating the power an estate for life, and with an ultimate remainder in fee to himself in default of appointment, and subject also to a contingent remainder limited to the children. A became bankrupt, and afterwards made a joint appointment with his wife. Held, upon the authority of Badham v. Mee, 1 Myl. & Keen, 32, that A's power was destroyed by his bankruptcy,

and that his power being gone, the joint power was also extinct. Hole v. Escott, 2 Keen, 444.

PRINCIPAL AND SURETY. (Time given—substitution of

debt.) A father gave a bond to secure the repayment of a simple contract debt due by his son. Upon the death of the father, the creditor commenced proceedings against his estate for the recovery of the debt, but afterwards stayed those proceedings upon obtaining from the son, who was heir to the father, and the widow, who was his personal representative, a joint bond for the payment of the same debt by instalments: Held, that the estate of the father was discharged, both on the ground of time given to the son, and because the second bond was to be considered as given in substitution for the first. Clarke v. Henty, 3 Y. & C. 187.

RESTRAINT UPON ALIENATION. (Attempt at alienation—

insolvency.) Where a life-interest in a fund was given to a man until he should become bankrupt or insolvent, or a commission of bankrupt should issue against him, or until he should take the benefit of any act for the relief of insolvent debtors, or he should sell, alien, or attempt or agree so to do : Held, that an endeavor by the donee of the fund to raise money by sale or mortgage thereof, which endeavor failed in consequence of the gift over being discovered by the parties applied to, was not such an attempt as gave effect to the limitation over. Held also, that although the fund was given only from the expiration of a previous life, yet that insolvency previous to the vesting in possession might be sufficient, if proved, to give effect to the limitation over, and a reference was directed as to the fact of such insolvency. Jones v. Wyse, 2 Keen, 285.

STATUTE OF DISTRIBUTIONS. (Rights of the crown.)

Where an intestate leaves a widow and no next of kin, one half of the personal estate goes to the crown, the widow taking only the other half. Cave v. Roberts, 8 Sim. 214.

WILL. (Construction, “and” read as “or.”) Where a tes

tatrix excluded from more than a half share in her residuary personal estate, C. S., together with other specified persons, and

such of her nephews as should be under a devise in her said will before contained, entitled to any beneficial share in a certain estate, and C. S., as well as the other specified persons, were at the date of her will so entitled under a description which then applied to them, but which subsequently ceased to apply to C. S.: Held, that for the purpose of letting him in to a full share, “and” might be read as “or.” Stubbs v. Sargon, 2 Keen, 255. 2. (Construction—income of legacy.) Where residuary property was bequeathed to a woman to be paid to her at twenty-five, with a proviso that it should be put in settlement if she married before that time, but there was no gift over in the event of her dying before that time : Held, that upon her attaining twentyone, and being unmarried, she was entitled to the income of the legacy. Grant v. Grant, 3 Y. & C. 171.


Principal cases in 7 Watts (Pennsylvania); 18 Wendell (New York); 2 Shepley (Maine); and 20' Pickering (Massachusetts).

ACKNOWLEDGMENT. (Proof of character of officer.) If the magisterial character of the officer who takes the acknowledgment of a deed be not set out in the body of it, it may be supplied by proof aliunde. A copy of the justice's commission, certified by the recorder of deeds, is competent evidence for that purpose. Bennet v. Paine, 7 Watts, 334.

ACTION. (Debt secured by specialty.) An action of assumpsit will not lie upon an express promise to pay a debt secured by specialty, or other security of a higher nature, although an account be settled between the parties, and a balance struck. But if other matters of account between the parties be blended with

* The 18th and 19th volumes of Pickering's Reports have not yet been published. See Am. Jur. vol. xviii. p. 529.

« PreviousContinue »