Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

whereby the latter was the better able to insure the life of the former. No mention of such an assignment appeared in the memorial: The Court held, that it was the pecuniary consideration only that peed be stated in the memorial, and that there was not any occasion to mention the assignment. Morris v. Jones, 1 Law J. K.B. 245, s. c. 2 B. & C. 282, & c. 3 D. & R. 263.

On the marriage of his daughter, a father agreed to pay 10,000l. for the trusts of the marriage settlement. He died in doubtful circumstances. The husband consented to take from his executors, in lieu of it, the sum of 50001, and an annuity of 125l. for his life: The Court held, that such an annuity was not within 53 Geo. S. c. 141, and that it was not necessary to enrol a memorial of it. Blake v. Attersoll, 2 Law J. K.B. 193, s. c. 2 B. & C. 275, 6. c. 4 D. & R. 549.

The 53 Geo. S. c. 141. s. 2. does not extend to cases of fair and bond fide sale of an interest in land, where the consideration, in whole, or in part, may be an annuity to be paid to the vendor; therefore, where the plaintiff had assigned an interest in coal mines in consideration of an annuity for her life, and for the payment of which a bond was conditioned: Held, that such a bond did not require enrolment under this statue. James v. James, 5 B. Mo. 479, s. c. 2 B. & B. 702.

In debt on bond for the payment of an annuity of 101., granted by a son to his parents, in consideration of their giving up to him the possession of a farm, and the stock thereon, valued at 300L.: Held not to be such an annuity, as to require that the deed should be enrolled under the 53 Geo. 3. c. 141. Tetley v. Tetley, 5 Law J. C.P. 155, s. c. 4 Bing.

215.

An annuity bond, under the 17 Geo. S. c. 26, need not be registered where it is stated to be given in consideration of the natural love and affection which a son bore towards his mother, and for making some provision for her support and maintenance, notwithstanding it was shewn that the mother had sold her trade, and had applied the money arising therefrom, together with whatever money she possessed, to place out her son, for the purpose of establishing him in business: Held, that it could not be considered as a pecuniary consideration. Keats ▼. Hick, 5 B. Mo. 629: affirmed in error, 3 Law J. K.B. 145, s. c. 4 B. & C. 69, s. c. 6 D. & R. 68.

Where the memorial of an annuity deed was enrolled within thirty days after its execution by the grantee, it is sufficient, although the grantor had not toen executed it; and if the witnesses to the deed are actually set out in the memorial, it is unnecessary to shew that the deed was executed by all the parties in their presence. Flight v. Buckeridge, 4 Law J. C.P. 45, s. c. 3 Bing. 215: affirmed in error, & Law J. K.B. 21, s. c. 6 B. & C. 49, s. c. 9 D. & R. 113.

A deed granting an annuity, but not conveying any property to secure it, is properly described in the memoral as a "grant of annuity," although it ontain a relome to the grantor of a former annuity. Crowther w. Wentworth, 5 Law J. K.B. 159, s. c. 6 B. & C. 65.

A seed containing covenants for the payment of a vizulty, and also assigning stock for securing But payment, is sufficiently described in the me

morial as a "grant of annuity." Brown v. Lee, 5 Law J. K.B. 246, s. c. 6 B. & C. 689.

An assignment of 1504, part of the dividends of a sum of stock to which the vendor was entitled for life, with a proviso, that the purchaser should not receive any part of the dividends then growing due, but a proportionable part of the 1501., is a grant of an annuity to that amount, and must be memorialized. Charretie v. Vause, 5 Law J. Chanc. 127, s. c. 1 Sim. 153.

A, by indenture, in consideration of 11,000l., granted to B an annuity for the life of A, charged upon A's estates and redeemable; by another indenture of the same date, A, for nominal consideration, assigned to B policies of insurance on A's life, to the amount of 11,000l., which, having been effected several years previously, were, at the time of such assignment, of considerable pecuniary value, and in the indenture, B covenanted, in case the annuity should be redeemed, to re-assign the policies of insurance to A; the memorial of the annuity deed stated 11,000l. to have been the pecuniary consideration for the annuity, but made no mention of the assignment of policies, nor was there any memorial of that assignment: Held, by the Vice Chancellor, that part of the sum of 11,000l. must be considered as having been paid for the assignment of the policies; that the whole of the 11,000l. was not paid for the annuity; that, therefore, the memorial did not state the pecuniary consideration truly, and, consequently, that the annuity was void. Morris v. Jones, 1 Law J. Chanc. 143.

(C) OF THE CONSIDERATION.

It is the duty of a grantee, in the case of the grant of an annuity, to watch the conduct of his agent during the negotiation. Where, therefore, the agent retained part of the consideration money for a debt due to him from the grantor, as well as for the expenses attending the deeds by which the annuity was secured at the time of the execution,-the Court set aside the annuity on terms, although the grantee was not privy to the transaction. Calton v. Porter, 3 Law J. C.P. 43, s. c. 2 Bing. 570, s. c. 9 B. Mo. 703.

Where the agent retained part of the consideration money, for a debt alleged to be due to himself, the annuity was set aside on the terms of paying back to the grantee the principal, and interest at the rate of 5 per cent. Gorton v. Champneys, and Coventry v. Champneys, 1 Law J. C.P. 109, s. c. 1 Bing. 208, s. c. 8 B. Mo. 302.

So also, at the instance of the surety, the annuity deeds were set aside by reason of a retainer by the grantee's agent of a sum of money, to pay the first year's annuity. Mence v. Hammond, 6 B. Mo. 491.

Where the sum of 910l. was paid to the grantor of an annuity by the agent of the grantee, and immediately returned by the former to the latter, who then handed the latter 14. only, and retained 1651. for his costs in negotiating the transaction, the Court ordered the annuity to be set aside, and the deeds delivered up to be cancelled. Henry v. Taylor, 3 Law. J. Č.P. 225, s. c. 3 Bing. 177.

Where the grantee of an annuity, without participation or knowledge of any intended retainer of part of the consideration money by his attorney, attends himself and pays the whole of the considera

ANNUITY.

tion money to the grantor, he will not be bound by any subsequent improper retainer of part of that money by his attorney.

Butotherwise, if he employ his attorney to pay over the money. Flight v. Greenway, 5 Law J. K.B. 137. The payment of the consideration of an annuity will be presumed after the lapse of twenty years, even though the attesting witness has no distinct recollection whether it was paid in his presence or not, and although there is no receipt indorsed on the deeds. Haslam v. Diggles, 1 C. & P. 398. [Best]

Where an annuity, granted by securities which are void under the Annuity Act, has been paid during the whole specified time, and the contract is therefore performed, no action can be brought to recover back the consideration money. Davis v. Bryan, 5 Law J. K.B. 237, s. c. 6 B. & C. 651.

A grants to his sister an annuity, in consideration of natural love and affection; she may prove that the grant was made also in consideration of her marriage, and she will then be entitled to claim as a specialty creditor of the grantor. Tanner v. Byne, 3 Law J. Chanc. 125, s. c. 1 Sim. 160.

A covenant by the husband to secure to his wife an annuity, during her life, in case she should survive him, is a sufficient consideration to support the grant of an annuity by the wife's father. Ex parte Draycott, 2 G. & J. 283.

(D) OF VACATING.

The words in the 17 Geo. 3. c. 26. s. 4, "it shall and may be lawful for the Court to order and set aside," &c. are not imperative, but give the Court a discretionary power over annuities. Girdlestone v. Allan, 1 Law J. K.B. 18, s. c. 1 B. & C. 61, s. c. 2 D. & R. 150.

The Court will not order an annuity deed and other securities on which it is founded to be delivered up to be cancelled, although void under the statute 17 Geo. 3. c. 26; but will only set aside the warrant of attorney and judgment entered up thereon, although one of the grantors was an infant at the time of the grant, and although there were two grantees, and it appears on the face of the memorial that there was but one only. Storton v. Tomlins, 3 Law J. C.P. 101, s. c. 2 Bing. 475.

An annuity having been set aside, and the Prothonotary directed to ascertain what was due for principal and interest: Held, that the grantee was entitled to his expenses incurred, with reference to the conveyances of the annuity. Williamson v. Goold, 1 Bing. 316, s. c. 7 B. Mo. 579.

An annuity will be set aside, on the terms of paying back to the grantee the principal, and interest at the rate of 5 per cent. where it appears, that the agent of the grantee has kept back part of the consideration money, for a debt alleged to be due from the grantor to himself. Gorton v. Champneys, and Coventry v. Champneys, 1 Law J. C.P. 109, 1 Bing. 287, s. c. 7 B. Mo. 579.

If the agent of the grantees of an annuity retain a considerable portion of the consideration money, not only to defray the expense of preparing the instruments, but sufficient to pay the amount of the first year's annuity; the Court will, at the instance of the surety, set aside the deeds on his undertaking to return the principal with interest. Mence v. Hammond, 6 B. Mo. 491.

19

The lapse of a period of nine years, is not a conclusive objection against the Court entering into the question affecting the validity of an annuity deed, in respect of part of the consideration money having been retained:

Nor is the death of the grantee such a conclusive objection :

Nor that the grantee, who intrusted the money to his attorney to pay over, was ignorant of the fact that the attorney retained, or obtained a return of part of the consideration money.

And accordingly the Court, on the merits, set aside an annuity, although the case presented each of these objections. Cole v. Gardner-Finley v. same, 5 Law J. K.B. 79, s. c. 6 B. & C. 105.

The securities for an annuity were set aside after a lapse of six years, upon the ground of the consideration money not being the property of the party described in the securities, but the property of C, and the name of the person in whose behalf the money was paid, not having been correctly stated in the receipt, C being alive, and having claimed the consideration money, and stated the annuity to be his property. Williams v. Hockin, 8 Taunt.

435.

Where a considerable portion of the consideration money was retained by the agent of the grantee of an annuity, for the expense of deeds, journeys, &c. the Court, notwithstanding the lapse of ten years, set aside the annuity on the terms of an account being taken, and the defendant undertaking to pay what might be due, for principal and legal interest. Williamson v. Goold, 1 Law J. C.P. 78, s. c. 1 Bing. 234, s. c. 7 B. Mo. 579.

S, having occasion to raise 28001. by way of annuity, desired the annuities to be divided into three; the consideration for all three was paid at one time and place to one person, who was agent to all the grantees, and he retained 300l. for the expenses of all three annuities: Held, that all three might be set aside on equitable terms on account of this retainer, although the S001. was retained in a bank note, which formed part of the consideration money of only one of the grantees. Jones v. Silberschilt— Chappell v. same—— -Worsley v. same, 5 Law J. C.P. 24, s. c. 4 Bing. 26.

A party outlawed in the King's Bench, in an action to recover the arrears of an annuity, cannot be heard in the Common Pleas, on a motion to set aside the annuity. Loukes v. Holbeach, 6 Law J. C.P. 37, s. c. 4 Bing. 419, s. c. 1 M. & P. 126.

(E) OF REDEEMING.

The son grants an annuity secured upon a living, of which he is incumbent and his father patron: The annuitant having proceeded to a sequestration of the living, for payment of his arrears, the father assures him, that he will sell the advowson, and redeem the annuity out of the proceeds of the sale; and the annuitant, relying on that assurance, withdraws the sequestration; subsequently, the advowson is sold, and the son vacates the living, so as to defeat the annuitant's security: Held, that the annuitant cannot compel the father to perform his agreement to redeem, inasmuch as that agreement was an agreement without consideration. Simpson v. Hill, 2 Law J. Chanc. 32.

(F) WHEN GRANT OF, VOID OR VOIDABLE.

ANNUITY.

A h by a woman against a defendant with whom she had cohabited, and who was known to her at the time of the cocabitation to be a married man, praying the speciic performance of an agreement to sette az izzuity upon her, which agreement was contained in a letter written by him after their cobatctation was at an end, and payment of the arrears of the annuity, cannot be sustained; bat she and her children may sustain a bill ➡bich alJeges that the defendant had made a provision for her and them, by a deed daly executed and delivered, and which prays for the production of the same.

The person to whom the deed was delivered need not be made a party, the blu containing an allega. tion that the defendant had gotten it back into his possessica. v. Mauley, 1 Law J. Chanc. 18.

Where a testator directed a freebold to be sold, and the produce applied, together with so much of the persoal estate, as should be necessary to secure an annuity of 50 a year for the life of A B, and after the death of A B, the principal to descend to a charity: Held, that the charitable bequest was void as to the proceeds of the real estate, but valid as to the sum acquired from the personal estate to secure the annuity. Waite v. Weeb, 6 Mad. 71.

A grant of an annuity is void, where a material circumstance, known to the grantee, was not communicated to the grantor. Pephen v. Brocke, 6 Law J. Chane. 184.

If the purchase-money of an annuity be stock in the funds, and it is to be redeemed by replacing stock, it will be a question for the jury, under the circumstances of the case, to say, whether it was done with a view of elading the laws against usury. Doe dem. Wilkinson v. Rewings, 1 Law J. K.B. 77.

(G) PAYMENTS IN LIQUIDATION OF.

Where an agent, who had negotiated an annuity between the grantor and grantee, and was appointed receiver of the rents of the estate on which it was charged, advanced money to the grantee in anticipation of the receipt of arrears, receiving from the grantor, on the money thus advanced, the usual and crdinary commission of two and a half per cent on annuity payments; but no assignment of the arrears was taken, nor was any stipulation made for the payment of interest: Held, that such advances must be considered as payments made in liquidation of the arrears of the annuity; and, notwithstanding the estates proved insuficient to pay the annuity, or reimburse the agent the money he had advanced, the grantee could not issue execution for more than was que, after deducting the money received from the

Corral. Goold, 1 Law J. C.P. 46, s. c. 1 Bug 190, & c. 7 B. Mo. 621.

The defendazt, as surety for the grantor of an 211uity, executed a warrant of attorney, to confess judgment as a collateral security for its due and regular payment. The arruity becoming considerally in arrear, the agents who negotiated the business between the grantor and grantee, advanced to the letter a large sum of moner out of their own private funds, in anticipation of the accruing rents, deducting the usual commission charged by them on the receipt and payment of annuities. These advances were made under the supposition, that the securities

to the annuitant would be available in their hands to the extent of the money advanced: Held, that such advances must be considered as payments made on account of the principal, and operate to the extinguishment of the liability of the surety; and that the agents had no equitable title to enforce, in the name of the grantee, the judgment obtained in his name, against the surety for the amount of the money so advanced. Williamson v. Goold, 1 Law J. C.P. 58, s. c. 1 Bing. 171, s. c. 7 B. Mo. 579.

(H) ACTION FOR.

The grantor of an annuity cannot maintain an action of debt, at common law, nor by the 8 Ann. e. 14, to recover the arrears of an annuity for life, issuing out of freehold lands Kelty v. Clubbe, 6 B. Mo. $35, & c. 3 B. & B. 180.

Where a contract recited, that it had been agreed to sell an annuity secured upon property in possession of the granter, but did not contain words of present grant: Held, that an action could not be maintained upon it in a court of law, even though it had been enrolled. In re Locke, 2 D. & R. 603. (1) PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.

The surety, under an annuity deed, may maintain an action against the principal, for the value of an annuity redeemed by him subsequently to the bankruptcy of the principal Watkins v. Flanagan, 1 Bing. 413, s. c. 3 B. & A. 186, &. c. 8 B. Mo. 480, s. c. 13 Price, $4.

A surety under an annuity deed, having redeemed the annuity after the bankruptcy of the grantor, sued the grantor on a bond of indemnity, and obtained judgment for arrears since the bankruptcy, and the price of redemption. The Court of Chancery would not restrain him by injunction, from suing out execution for the arrears: Quere, as to the price of redemption. Watkins v. Flanagan, 6 Mad. 280.

A defendant in execution, as surety for the payment of an annuity, cannot, after he has obtained an order to set it aside, on the condition of entering into an account and paying the balance, and where the principal afterwards succeeded in setting aside the deed itself, be discharged from custody, without previously complying with the condition of the first order obtained by him. Williamson v. Goold, 1 Law J. C.P. 100, s. c. 1 Bing. 274.

A grants an annuity to C, and the indenture by which he grants it contains an assignment of certain property, including, among other things, two ships, to D, as a trustee for C, as a security for the annuity, which is also secured by the joint and several bond of A, and of B, as his surety; C and D not having complied with the formalities required by the Registry Act, A sells the ships, receives the proceeds, and shortly afterwards becomes bankrupt; the remainder of the assigned property turns out not to be a sufficient security, and C calls upon B, the surety, for payment: Held, that so much of the less as was occasioned by the sale of the ships, must be borne by the grantee of the annuity, and not by the surety. Capel v. Butler, 4 Law J. Chanc. 69, &. c. 2 S. & S. 457.

Two persons had by different deeds two annuities granted to them. A third person, for a consideration, covenanted that, if they were not paid their

ANNUITY-APPEAL.

annuities by the grantor, he would pay unto them (naming them both), their executors, or administrators, the said annuities: The Court held, that the representative of one of the annuitants could sue alone on that covenant, without joining the other in the action. Withers v. Bircham, 3 Law J. K.B. 50, s. c. 3 B. & C. 254, s. c. 5 D. & R. 106.

If one of three sureties for the payment of an annuity has paid the arrears thereof, and a second has become insolvent, the third will not, at law, be compelled to make contribution of more than one third of the money so paid.

But the plea of bankruptcy and certificate will be no defence by such third surety against an action for contribution, in respect of money paid on account of the annuity, by a co-surety, subsequent to the bankruptcy.

The assignment of an annuity for a valuable consideration to a person who is no party to the deed by which it is granted, part of the consideration being paid by that party, and part by one of the sureties who has covenanted, and also conveyed stock for the payment of the same,—an agreement being entered into between the assignee and such surety, that the assignee shall retain out of the annual payments, until he has been reimbursed the principal sum advanced by him, and interest thereon, and that afterwards the annuity shall be for the benefit of the surety,-will not operate as an extinguishment of the annuity, nor discharge the other sureties from their liability to make contribution. Brown v. Lee, 5 Law J. K.B. 276, s. c. 6 B. & C. 689.

(K) PROCEEDINGS IN CASES OF BANKRUPTCY.

Where the title deeds of a bankrupt's real estate have been deposited for the security of an annuity, the Court will order the annuity to be discharged, and the arrears to be paid up to the date of the commission. Ex parte Slack, 1 G. & J. 346.

Before suing the surety of the grantor of an annuity, in respect of arrears of the annuity, where the grantor has become bankrupt, the value of the annuity must be ascertained by the commissioners, although the annuity was granted, and the grantor became bankrupt, previously to September 1825. Bell v. Bilton, 6 Law J. C.P. 141, s. c. 4 Bing. 615, s. c. 1 M. & P. 574.

[blocks in formation]

(A) WHEN AND to what Courts it lies.

21

No appeal lies under a statute, unless it be expressly given by the same. Rex v. the Justices of the hundred of Cashiobury, 3 D. & R. 35.

The commissioners, appointed by the 59 Geo. 3. C31, and the Conventions for liquidating the claims of British subjects on the French Government, award a sum of money as a compensation to A, who claims as executor to B, to whom an estate in France, confiscated in 1792, is represented as having belonged; a plaintiff, who never made any claim before the commissioners, files her bill for the moiety of the sum awarded, upon the ground that a moiety of the estate belonged to the wife of B, upon whose death the right descended to her children, and, upon their death, without issue, devolved to the plaintiff: Held, by the Vice Chancellor, that the Court of Chancery had no jurisdiction over the question; and that the award of the commissioners was final, as to both the legal and the equitable rights of any persons claiming an interest in the subjects which had been confiscated, or in the compensation which had been awarded. Hill v. Reardon, 4 Law J. Chanc. 127, s. c. 2 S. & S. 431.

But, on appeal to the Lord Chancellor (Eldon), although, under the circumstances, the Court would not interfere to relieve the plaintiff, it was held, that where a person in whose favour an adjudication has been made by the commissioners or the Privy Council, is affected by a trust or by fraud, the Court has jurisdiction to enforce the trust or relieve against the fraud. And, semble, that these Conventions, and the act for carrying them into effect, do not exclude the jurisdiction of a Court of Equity to examine and enforce equities attaching upon the compensation in the hands of the person, in whose favour the award of the commissioners has been made. Hill v. Reardon, 2 Russ. 608.

No appeal lies to the House of Lords, on an order made by the Court of Exchequer, consequent upon a judgment of the Barons in a matter of extent. Wall v. Attorney General, 11 Price, 643.

From the official of a royal peculiar, the appeal lies direct to the Court of Delegates, and not to the intermediate jurisdiction of the Bishop of the dioMiller v. Bloomfield, 1 Add. 499.

cess.

An appeal from the Dean and Chapter of Exeter, lies to the Court of Arches, and not the Consistory Court of Exeter. Parkham v. Templar, 3 Phil. 323.

An appeal lies from the Special Petty Sessions to the General Quarter Sessions, where the former have dismissed an application under the 3 Geo. 4. c. 33. s. 2, in consequence of a misconception of the law, and not upon the merits of the case. Rex v. Tucker, 3 B. & C. 544, s. c. 5 D. & R. 434.

The Court of King's Bench have not the power of ordering an appeal against an order of removal, to be heard at the sessions of a county next adjoining a city and county of itself, even though all the justices of the latter are interested in the event of the appeal. Rer v. the Justices of Kent, 5 Law J. M.C. 45.

(B) NOTICE OF.

Where notice of appeal against an order of filiation was given in the following form :-"I, A. B. of &c., intend at the next quarter sessions to be

[blocks in formation]

holden, &c. to commence and prosecute an appeal against an order of filiation, made &c., whereby I was adjudged to be the father of a bastard child, born on the body of C R, and chargeable to the parish of S;" it was holden insufficient, as the stat. 9 Geo. 3. c. 68. s. 5, required that the cause and matter of appeal should be specially stated. Rex v. the Justices of Oxfordshire, 1 B. & C. 279, s. c. as Rex v. the Justices of Gloucester, 2 D. & R. 426.

Where a statute gives a right of appeal against acts done in pursuance thereof, to "parties aggrieved," by such acts, the notice of appeal must state that the appellant is a party aggrieved by the act of which he complains. Rex v. the Justices of the West Riding of Yorkshire, 6 Law J. M.C. 59, s. c. 7 B. & C. 678, s. c. 1 M. & R. 547: s. P. Rex v. the Justices of Essex, 5 Law J. M.C. 65, s. c. 5 B. & C. 431, s. c. 7 D. & R. 658.

A notice of appeal against a poor rate, on the ground that the rate does not specify the property in respect of which it is imposed, must state that objection on the face of it. Rex v. Bromyard, 6 Law J. M.C. 100, s. c. 8 B. & C. 24, s. c. 2 M. & R. 280.

Semble, that the notice of appeal against an order of justices upon a surveyor of highways, to pay a composition for statute duty, under 4 Geo. 4. c. 95. s. 87, need not be within ten days of the making of the order, but is in time if it be within six days of the service thereof, upon the party appealing. Rex v. the Justices of Lancashire, 6 Law J. M.C. 119.

Clauses in a local act, providing that persons aggrieved by the commissioners, appointed to carry it into execution, should appeal to the quarter sessions, and that twenty-one days notice should be given before any action or suit was commenced for anything done in pursuance of the act, do not apply to the case of a person claiming as an incumbrancer of the rates, which the act gave authority to assess and levy, and instituting his suit in order to give effect to his incumbrance. Drewry v. Barnes, 3 Russ. 94.

(C) LIMITATION TO.

Where a county rate was made under a local act, 54 Geo. 3. c. 103, giving a certain right of appeal: Held, that nevertheless a party aggrieved had the larger right of appeal given by the 55 Geo. 3. c. 51, which applies to all acts relating to county rates theretofore passed, whether local or general. The King v. the Justices of Buckinghamshire, 5 Law J. M.Č. 93, s.. c. 7 B. & C. 3.

(D) NATURE AND EFFECT OF.

An appeal from the Rolls, or the Vice Chancellor, to the Lord Chancellor, is only a rehearing. Williams v. Goodchild, 2 Russ. 91.

An appeal does not render a sentence a nullity, but only suspends its consequences. Blyth, formerly Soden, v. Blyth, 1.Add. 312.

(E) EVIDENCE.

Semble-Matter not brought before the Court below, being neither stated in the pleadings or otherwise, not having been proved in evidence, will be admitted and acted upon as the ground of decision in cases of appeal to the Lords. Noel v. Noel, (on appeal from Exc.) 12 Price, 213.

(F) IN THE COURT OF ADMIRALTY.

No principle is better established in this Court, than that, where there is an appeal, the property in question cannot be withdrawn but upon security given for the value.

Bail must be given in the case of a real bona fide appeal.

An appeal is not frivolous and insincere, merely because it is afterwards advisedly withdrawn. Woodbridge, 1 Hag. 77.

APPOINTMENT.

[See POWER.]

APPORTIONMENT.

A, being seised in fee of a manor subject to an executory devise over, purchases a farm, consisting partly of copyholds holden of the manor, and partly of freeholds; the copyholds are surrendered to him and his heirs, and the freeholds are conveyed to him and his heirs: under an inclosure act, certain lands are allotted to him and his heirs in respect of the estate thus purchased: afterwards B becomes entitled to the manor under the executory devise: Held, upon a bill filed by B against the devisee of A, that B was entitled to so much of the allotment as was made in respect of the copyholds. King v. Moody, 4 Law J. Chanc. 227, s. c. 2 S. & S. 579.

In a suit for the administration of a testator's assets, after the decree on further directions had sanctioned payments made by the executor in discharge of legacies, and had directed the fund in court to be apportioned among the other legatees, a creditor obtained permission to prove his debt; the Master subsequently reported a debt to be due to him, but, in the meantime, the fund had been apportioned, and part of it had been paid over, while the remainder had been carried to the account of particular legatees: Held, that the creditor was entitled to receive out of the funds of the legatees so remaining in court, not the whole of the debt, but only a part of it, bearing the same proportion to the whole, as the legacies given to those legatees bore to the whole amount of the legacies given by the will. Gillespie v. Alexander, 3 Russ. 130.

APPRAISEMENT.

A written stamped appraisement is not necessary to prove the value of goods, if the broker speaks of it merely from recollection. Stafford v. Clark, 1 C. & P. 25. [Burrough]

APPRENTICE.

[See SETTLEMENT.]

Where a tobacconist took an apprentice, with whom he received a premium, and covenanted to instruct and maintain him-in an action on that covenant the master pleaded, that the apprentice refused to obey his orders, and left his house, saying

« PreviousContinue »