3. Plaintiff in contempt may compel the production of deeds and documents relating to the matters in issue, and admitted by the answer of the defendant to be in his possession. Plumbe v. Plumbe, 622

4. Where, under an order for the production of documents, part only of a document is left with the defendant's clerk in Court, an order may be made against the defendant for production of the remainder, though he may also be proceeded against for non-performance of the original order. Farrer v. Hutchinson, 692

5. Where the bill alleged that the defendant, a trustee, had purchased an estate with the testator's monies, and the defendant gave no satisfactory answer as to the manner in which he had employed those monies generally, though he denied the allegation in the bill as to this particular purchase, and he referred, by his answer, to a schedule containing a list of the title-deeds, &c., of the estate, as documents in his possession relating to the matters mentioned in the bill, but relied on them as forming his own title only and not that of the defendant, and insisted that he was not bound to produce them:Held, nevertheless, that he was bound to produce those deeds.

Ibid.

6. On a bill for an account, books of account and other documents which are alleged to shew an item or a

PROMOTIONS.

balance in favour of one party, must be produced for the inspection of the other party; for such documents are the common title of both parties. Ibid.

7. Generally, a reference in the answer of the defendant to deeds contained in a schedule, makes them part of his answer, and he is bound to produce them: but where he denies, and it does not appear on the face of the pleadings that the plaintiff has any interest in them, he does not make them part of his answer by merely referring to them, or even by stating them in a schedule. Ibid.

8. Upon a bill filed against the public officer of a Joint Stock Banking Company, by one of the shareholders, charging insolvency in the Company, and praying for a dissolution of the Company and an account, the defendant, in answer to the usual charge as to the possession of papers and documents, stated, that the Company had been dissolved, and that he had no documents, &c., in his possession; but he admitted that some were in the possession of the directors, and others in the possession of the solicitors of the Company, and he enumerated them in the schedule to his answer:-Held, that for the purposes of this suit he still represented the Company, notwithstanding its dissolution, and that he was bound to produce the documents mentioned in the schedule. Hall v. Connell, 707

9. A covenant entered into with a Joint Stock Company by a shareholder, to the effect that the shareholder shall not be at liberty to inspect the books of the Company, is no bar to the production of the books in a suit brought by the shareholder against the Company. Ibid.

PROMOTIONS.

347, 614.

RAILWAY COMPANY.

QUEEN'S REMEMBRANCER.

See PRACTICE, 3, 4.

QUIA TIMET. See HUSBAND AND WIFE.

RAILWAY COMPANY.
See CONSTRUCTION OF ACT.

1. By a Railway Act it was enacted, that in case any question should arise as to the title of the lands to be taken or used for the purposes of the act, the party in possession at the time of the purchase should be deemed to be lawfully entitled, until the contrary should be shewn to the satisfaction of the Court; and it was further enacted, that in case the proprietor, or other party interested in the land and entitled to receive the purchase-money, should be unable to make a good title to the land, it should be lawful for the Company to pay the money into Court to the credit of the party interested, subject to the disposition of the Court; and thereupon the Company's title should be deemed complete. Under this act, the Company having contracted to purchase a piece of land of the party in possession, and having entered into possession uuder the contract, objected to the title, and paid the money into Court to the credit of the party with whom they had so contracted:-Held, that such party, upon his own affidavit of title, was entitled to payment of the money out of Court to his own absolute use. Ex parte Grainge-In the matter of the Great Western Railway Acts,

62

2. Where, under a Railway Act, the Company are liable to the expenses of all purchases to be made by virtue of the Act, this will include the expenses of investing the money in the funds, previously to its being laid out in lands, to be settled to the like uses as the land purchased by the

3. Lessees for a long term of years underleased the property to a tenant, who was afterwards ejected for breach of covenant, and gave up the under-lease, but did not execute any surrender. The property was sold by the lessees to the Eastern Counties Railway Company: -Held, that, under the provisions of that act, the whole interest was vested in the Company, notwithstanding the want of a surrender; and an issue was directed to inquire, whether, at the time when the contract was made with the Company, the underlessee had any interest in the premises; and if so, what was the proportionate value of such interest? Ex parte Issanchaud -In the matter of the Eastern Railway Company,

721

4. Upon the construction of a Railway Act, held, that the costs given by the act in relation to the payment of certain dividends, had reference to the costs of obtaining the order for payment, and not to the costs of the payment itself. Ex parte Athorpe-In the matter of the Hull and Selby Railway Act, 396

TITHES.

The wife afterwards died in the husband's lifetime without issue; and the husband, from the time of her death in April, 1815, till a sale of the estate in November, 1838, remained in uninterrupted possession of the entire property, without making any acknowledgment of the title of any other person: -Held, that this was a case falling within the 15th section of the stat. 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27; and that, notwithstanding the husband's possession of the moiety which descended to the wife might not be adverse, the heir-at-law of the wife not having made his claim within five years after the passing of the act, was barred by the statute. Ex parte Hasell-In the matter of the Manchester Gas Act, 617

4. The 19th section of the stat. 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, which removes disabilities by reason of residence in Ireland, &c., is applicable to cases of residence in Ireland before the passing of the statute, if the controversy has not arisen till after the passing of it, Ibid.

5. A constructive trust may be barred by long acquiescence. Ibid.

SUPPLEMENTAL BILL.
See AMENDED BILL, 3.

PRACTICE, 8, 18, 19.
VENDOR AND PURCHASER, 4.

TACKING.

See MORTGAGOR AND MORTgagee.

TENANT FOR LIFE. See RENEWAL OF LEASE.

TITHES.

See EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES, 1. MODUS.

PRACTICE, 13.

PLEA AND PLEADING, 18.

1. Under the 45th section of the Tithe Commutation Act, the commis

property, it was referred to the Master to consider how the trustee ought to have acted in relation to the trust in March, 1822, the time limited by the act of Parliament for the assent or dissent of trustees; the Court at the same time observing, that the trustee would receive full protection in equity, if it could be shewn that he had acted as a sensible and prudent man, acting for the common benefit of all the cestuis que trust, might fairly have acted. Angell v. Dawson,

308

2. Where a manor is conveyed to trustees, upon trust to divide the profits of it amongst the tenants of the manor, it is the duty of trustees not to let the right of sporting to any of the tenants upon terms advantageous to them as tenants, but to make the best profit they can, by letting the right of sporting to all eligible persons, whether tenants or otherwise, and to divide the profit so made rateably amongst the cestuis que trust. Hutchinson v. Morritt, 547

3. In a suit for the appointment of new trustees, the Court refused to insert a clause in the will, authorizing the new trustees to appoint others in their room. Brown v. Brown, 395

4. Form of decree against a trustee purchasing the trust estate at an alleged undervalue, and making permanent improvements thereon. Williamson v. Seaber,

717

VENDOR AND PURCHASER.

See AGREEMENT.

CONTRACT.

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

TRUST AND TRUSTEE.

1. Purchaser after long possession, and vexatious objections to complete the purchase, held to have waived his right to an investigation of the title, and decreed to perform the agreement specifically, to pay interest at 4l. per

2. Mortgagee of an equitable estate not a necessary party to a bill filed by the mortgagor and his trustee against a purchaser for the specific performance of the agreement to purchase. Ibid.

3. Original vendee of an estate not a necessary party to a bill against his assignee for specific performance of an agreement to purchase. Ibid.

4. Vendor of an estate obtained a decree for specific performance, with a declaration that, if the purchase-money was not paid by a given day, the estate should be sold, the proceeds paid to the vendor, and the purchaser be made personally liable in the event of any deficiency. The Master fixed the day of payment, but the purchaser died. before that day, insolvent, and a creditors' suit was instituted for the administration of his assets. Upon a bill of revivor and supplement filed by the vendor, praying to have the benefit of the creditors' suit as well as his own: -Held, that he was not entitled to prove against the general assets of the testator, and at the same time to reserve his lien on the estate contracted to be sold, in case of a deficiency in the general assets. Rome v. Young, 199

Quære, whether in this case he had any claim on the general assets until after the estate had been sold, and, if he had, whether he was entitled to prove for the whole amount, or only the deficiency, after sale of the secuIbid. rity?

5. A. being entitled, under his marriage settlement, to a life interest in certain freehold estates, with remainder to the use of trustees for a term of 1,000 years, to secure a jointure and portions, with remainder to himself in fee, conveyed part of the lands to B.