(iv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Annuity-Arrears.—Arrears of an annuity whether charged on corpus or income do not carry interest.-Wheatley v. Davis, 35 L.T. 306; 24 W.R. 818.

(v.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Annuity-Dower.-An annuity bequeathed to widow "in satisfaction of dower" is not entitled to priority unless testator leaves land subject to dower.-Roper v. Roper, 35 L.T. 155; 24 WR. 1013.

(vi.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Assets.-Where general personalty is insufficient for payment of debts, pecuniary legacies must be resorted to before residuary realty.-Farquharson v. Floyer, L.R. 3 Ch.D. 109.

(vii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Attesting witness.-Testator devised real estate to A. for life with remainder to her children; her husband attested the will: Held, that the failure of the gift to A. accelerated the gift in remainder. Jull v. Jacobs, 35 L.T. 153; 24 W.R. 947.

(viii) H. L.-Charge of debts.-A devisee of an estate charged with payment of debts who is also an executor, can make a good title to a purchaser or mortgagee who is not bound over to the application of the purchase money.-Corser v. Cartwright, 45 L.J.Ch. 605.

(ix.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Charge of Legacies.-Testatrix directed payment of her debts and legacies by her executors, and, after giving certain legacies and devising certain real estate, gave the residue of her real and personal estate to A. & B. upon trust to sell, and appointed A. & B. executors: Held that the legacies were charged on the real estate.-Greville v. Brown (7 H.L.C. 689, 7 W.R. 673,) followed. Re Brookes Estates Brooke v. Rooke, 35 L.T. 301; 24 W.R. 959.

(x.) P. C.-Charitable Bequest.-Testator left an annual sum to be applied to discharge and relief of poor debtors in prison at Calcutta, and bequeathed the residue of his property to charitable institutions at Calcutta, Lucknow, and Lyons. On the abolition of imprisonment for debt, a scheme was drawn up for devoting the accumulated capital for the benefit of the institutions at Calcutta and Lucknow to the exclusiou of Lyons: Held that the scheme contained a proper cypres application of the fund.-Mayor of Lyons v. Advocate-General of Bengal, L.R. 1, App. 91; 45 L.J. P.C. 17; 34 L.T. 77; 24 W.R. 679.

(xi.) H. L.-Codicil.-Testator devised freeholds upon certain uses, and copyholds and leaseholds upon corresponding trusts; by codicil he altered uses of freeholds, but did not mention copyholds or leaseholds: Held (affirming decision of Wickens, V.C.) that copyholds and leaseholds passed according to trusts of will.-Martineau v. Briggs, 45 L.J. Ch. 674 ; L.T. 33, N.S. 283; 23 W.R.

(xii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Construction-" Appurtenances."-Testator devised and bequeathed an indigo factory in India with the appurtenances; there were certain outstandings consisting of loans to native landowners for purposes of indigo cultivation necessary to the business. Testator was indebted to a Hindoo banker for an advance bearing 12 per cent. interest, which debt was barred by the Indian Statute of Limitations. Held first that the "outstandings" did not pass by the gift of the factory; secondly, that the banker's claim not being barred by the English Statute of Limitations, must be allowed with interest at £4 per cent.-Finch v. Finch, 35 L.T. 236.

(xiii) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Construction-Cumulative gift.-Testator executed his will in duplicate; by each of two different codicils similarly worded, but executed at different times, he gave a legacy of £2,000 to H.; one of the codicils was attached to each copy of the will. Held that evidence was admissible to show that the gift was not intended to be cumulative. Hubbard v. Alexander, 35 L.T. 52; 24 W.R. 1058.

(xiv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Construction- " family.”—In

a will the word "family," unless controlled by the context, only includes children.—Pigg v. Clarke, 24 W.R. 1014.

(xv.) H. L.-Construction-Illegitimate children.-Testator, by his will, gave real and personal estate to his wife for life, and after her death, subject to appointment to her among children to be divided" equally between his children by her "-there were two illegitimate children, but none born after the marriage. Held that subject to life interest of wife, estate was undisposed of.-Dorin v. Dorin, L.Ř. 7; H.L. (E. & I.) 568; 33 L.T. 281; 45 L.J. Ch. 652.

(xvi.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Construction—“ Legal Representatives."—Gift_of income of a fund to A., B., C., & D., for their respective lives, and after their death, of the principal to the legal representatives of A., B., C., and D., to be equally divided among them. Held that the principal went in fourths to the executors and administrators of A., B., C., and D., respectively.-Wing v. Wing, 34 L.T. 941; 24 W.R. 878.

(xvii.) H. L-Construction-" Railway Shares."-A bequest of railway shares will include railway stock.-Morrice v. Aylmer, 45 L.J. Ch. 614; 34 L.T. 218; 24 W.R, 507.

(xviii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Construction—" Real estate."--A, devised all his real estate at E. and W. upon certain trusts, he had real estate and leaseholds at E., and leaseholds only at W.: Held, that all the leaseholds passed by the devise.-Moase v. White, 24 W.R. 1038.

(xix.) C. A.-Construction-" Survivors."-Gift in trust for his three children for life, and on death of any of them without leaving issue, for the benefit of the survivors or survivor for life, and of the survivor's issue; only one of the three who was not the survivor left issue: Held, on construction of the will, that his issue was on death of the last survivor entitled to the whole fund.-Wake v. Varah, L.R. 2 Ch.D. 384; 45 L.J.Ch. 533; 34 L.T. 437; 24 W.R. 621.

(xx.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Construction-Survivor.-Devise to trustees in trust for A., B., C., and D., for life as tenants in common, and on death of any of these for her children, and if any should die without issue, the share or shares of her or them so dying to go to the survivors or survivor in fee. Held, on the construction of the will, that cross-remainders were to be implied, and that "survivor" was not to be read "other."-Maden v. Taylor, 45 L.J. 569

(xxi.) H. L.-Construction-Trust or power for sale.-Testator left property to trustees upon trust, "after death of my wife (or during her life if she and the majority of my children and my trustees shall think it prope and expedient to do so) at the sole discretion of my trustees or trustee to sell, etc.;" the will also provided that in case "it shall be agreed or my trustees shall decide to sell," his sons should have right of pre-emption Held that the will created absolute trust for sale, and the discretion only applied to the time and power of sale.—Minors v. Battison, L.R. 1 App. 428; 35 L.T. 1.

(xxii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Construction-Vesting.-Upon the construction of a will giving testator's general residue to his children and issue, sons, or grandsons' shares to "vest" at 24, and daughters, or granddaughters' shares to be settled as therein mentioned, it was held that the gift to children and issue was a gift to a class, that "vested" must be taken in its proper sense, and that the whole gift was void for remoteness.-Hale V. Hale, 24 W.R. 1065.

(xxiii.) C. A.-Leaseholds-Trust for Renewal.-Leaseholds, the reversion of which became vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, were settled by will subject to a trust for renewal out of the rents and profits, or by mortgage in trust for A. for life, with remainders over: the Commissioners ultimately refused to grant further renewals: Held that the accumulated renewal fund must be treated as capital.—Maddy v. Hale, 35 L.T. 134; 24 W.R. 1005.

с

(xxiv.) Ch. Div M. R. Devise of Trust Estates.

Testator contracted to sell land, but died before completion; by his will he devised all his real estate to H. & M. on trust for sale, and all real estate vested in him as trustee to H.: Held that the legal estate in the land contracted to be sold, passed to H.-Lysaght v. Edwards, L.R. 2. Ch. D. 499; 45 L.J. Ch. 554; 34 L.T. 787; 24 W.R. 778.

(xxv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Election.-J. took certain benefits under will of W., whereby he devised to R. cottages belonging to J., who sold the cottages and died. Held that R. was entitled to compensation out of J.'s estate limited to the benefits received by J. under the will.-Rogers v. Williams, 24 W.R. 1039.

(xxvi.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Executor.-An executor who has not proved but has received assets, and a person who has without authority intermeddledf with testator's assets, may respectively be sued by a creditor in respect o. the assets they have respectively received.-Ambler v. Lindsay, 35 L.T 93; 24 W.R. 982.

(xxvii.) Q. B.Div.-Executory devise.-Devise in 1811 of land to A. and his heirs, and if A. left no issue then to B. and her heirs, and if B. left no issue then to the children of C., to be equally divided among them, share and share alike. A. took the estate and died without issue; then B. took and also died without issue; at B's death one child of C. was living but afterwards died. Held that on death of A., B. took in fee, subject only to life interest of surviving child of C.-Gatenby v. Morgan, 45 L.J. Q.B. 597; 35 L.T. 245.

(xxviii.) C. A.-Executory devise.- Testator devised his real estate to irustees in trust to accumulate surplus rents and profits for twenty-one years, and then in trust for the first and other sons of T. in tail male, remainder for the second and every other younger son of W. in tail male, remainder to the first and every other son of H. in tail male, with remainder over: at the expiration of the twenty-one years, T. was dead without issue, W. and H. were living, each having one son only: Held that from the expiration of the term, until it should be ascertained whether or not a second son of W. should be born, the rents and profits were not disposed of, and went to the heir-at-law.-Wade Gery v. Handley, 45 L.J. Ch. 712; 35 L.T. 85.

(xxix.) C. A.-Gift to class.-Bequest to A. in trust for life and on her death to apply income of fund for maintenance of children of testator then living and issue of children then dead, until youngest child should attain 21, and then in trust for children then living and issue then living of children dying before that period. Held that class must be ascertained at death of A., and that representatives of a child who had died in her lifetime without issue did not take.-Re Deighton's settled estates, L.R. 2, Ch. D. 783; 35 L.T. 81.

(xxx.) C. A.—Gift to Class.—Bequest of fund in trust for M. for life, and afterwards to be equally divided among daughters of S. at 21, or marriage with consent of parents, after death of M., the husband of S. being dead, one of the daughters married while under age with consent of S.: Held that the class must be ascertained so soon as a daughter became absolutely entitled to share, aiso (reversing decision of M. R.) that daughter who married with consent of surviving parent took vested interest in the fund. -Dawson v. Oliver Massey, L.R. 1, Ch. D. 753; 45 L.J. Ch. 519; 45 L.J. Ch. 519; 24 W.R. 993.

(xxxi.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Gift to Class.-Bequest to "each of the three children of my niece:" the niece had then three children born: another wss born six months afterwards, and four months after testatrix's death: Held that the child en ventre sa mere did not take.-Re Emery's Estate. Jones v. Ratcliff, 34 L.T. 846; 24 W.R. 917.

(xxxii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Gift to Class-Construction.-Held upon construction of a will where there was a gift to a class, and the issne of such class, that the gift was substantional not original, and that the issue of a member of the class dead at the date of the will were not entitled to take. -West v. Orr, 35 L.T. 51.

(xxxiii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Heirlooms.-Held, that in a bequest of furniture, etc., in a mansion as heirlooms was included furniture removed from the mansion and stored, and also furniture purchased for the mansion but not placed there at testator's death.-Rawlinson v. Rawlinson, 34 L.T. 848; 24 W.R. 946.

(xxxiv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Heirlooms.-On application of tenant for life, the sale of heirlooms, apart from the land to which they were attached, was ordered for the purpose of paying off mortgages, the court being satisfied that such sale was for the benefit of parties interested, including infant remainder-man.-Fane v. Fane, L.R. 2, Ch.D. 711.

(XXXV.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Incorporation of documents.-Testator by his will referred his trustees for information to a page in his ledger, which was not afterwards admitted to probate, the entries were not in all cases correct: Held that the entries must be regarded as incorporated in, and conclusiv e for the purposes of the will.-Quihampton v. Going, 24 W.R. 917. (xxxvi.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Management Clause.-Trustees having extensive powers of management during minorities of cestuis que trustent deposited title deeds with a bank to secure advances of money to be laid out in buildings under the power. Held that the trustees had no power to make such a mortgage.-Broom v. Sheffield and Rotherham Bank, 24 W.R. 948. (xxxvii.) H.L.-Residue--Executor.-The effeet of 11 Geo. IV. & 1 Will. IV. c. 40, is simply that executors shall not take the residue by implication of law, but does not apply where there is an express gift of residue to an executor. -Williams v. Arkle, 45 L.J. Ch. 590; 33 L.T. 187; 24 W.R. 215.

(xxxviii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Residue-Legal estate.-Held that devise of "all the rest and residue of my unsettled estate" accompanied by charge of debts and legacies thereon passed legal estate in lands of which testator was trustee.Re Brown and Sibley, 35 L.T, 305; 24 W.R. 782. (xxxix.) C. A.-Revocation of devise.-Testator in 1826 devised land to "E. his heirs and assigns," but subsequently struck out the words and wrote E. above the erased words. Held that there was an obliteration of the de

vise or clause within the Statute of Frauds, s. 60, so as to amount to a revocation of the devise in fee and that E. took an estate for life only.Swinton v. Bailey, L.R. 1, Ex. D., 11; 35 L.T. 113; 24 W.R. 561.

(xl.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Satisfaction.-Testator bequeathed to his wife and son £1,500, as to £1,000 upon trust for his daughter E. for life, with remainder to her children, and as to £500 for his daughter A. for life, with remainder to her children: the son survived the widow, and never set apart the fund, but during his life paid to E. & A. the income of their respective shares; by his will he bequeathed £1,000 to E. and £500 to A.: Held that these bequests were not in satisfaction of his debt as trustee.-Fairer v. Park, 35 L.T. 28.