VESTING.

See WILL, 7.

VESTING ORDER.
See INSOLVENT.
JUDGMENT, 1.

VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT.
See SOLICITOR.

VOLUNTARY INSTRUMENT.
Mere declaration of trust by the
owner of property in favour of a
volunteer is altogether inoperative,
and the Court will not interfere in
such a case; aliter where there
has been a change of legal owner-
ship and so a trust constituted.
Letters written by a mortgagee to
the mortgagor and persons in-
terested under him, containing the
expressions "I now give this gift
to become due at my death, un-
connected with my will." "I
hereby request my executors to
cancel the mortgage deed, &c."
"I again direct and promise that
my executors shall comply with
my former request, that is, to
cancel all deeds and papers I may
have chargeable on the R. estate:"
-Held, not to operate either as a
declaration of trust or as a valid
gift. Scales v. Maude. Page 43

See FRAUDULENT DEED.
JUDGMENT, 3.

WARD OF COURT.
See INFANT.

WILL.

1. A testator having in the com-
mencement of his will appointed
his daughter to act in concert with
his son to be guardian and exe-
cutrix added, "I also appoint and
desire in this my last will and
testament that my son to be my
executor and residuary legatee do
jointly with my daughter my exe-
cutrix who is to act independent
of her husband and be guardian to
the children: "-Held, that the
son alone was entitled to the re-
sidue. Langley v. Thomas.

Page 645
2. A testator by his will gave certain
portions of his property to one of
his daughters and her children,
and the residue, which was the
greater portion, to another daugh-
ter and her children. By a codicil
he said, "I cancel that part of my
will settling on my daughters and
their children my property, and my
sons in law H. and 4. may dispose
of the property I leave for the
good of their families:"-Held,
that the sons in law took absolute
interests in the portions given by
the will to their respective wives.
Alexander v. Alexander.

593
3. The will of J. A. contained the
following passage:-"I forgive to
my said nephew, Jacob Appleford,
the debt of 2,000l. which I ad-
vanced to him on loan." The
testator had, on occasion of his
nephew going into partnership,
advanced to him 2,000/. for his
own use, and had also at the same
time lent to the partnership dif

ferent sums, the nephew's pro-
portion of which would have
amounted to about 2,000l.:
Held, that whether the 2,000l.
was to be treated as having been
a gift to the nephew or not, the
testator intended in the above
passage to refer to it, and not to
the proportion of the partnership
debt due from the nephew. Smith
v. Armstrong.
Page 150
4. A testator by his will gave several
pecuniary legacies, including one
to his son E., and devised his
freehold, copyhold and leasehold
estates to his sons T. and A. as
tenants in common; and he ap-
pointed them his residuary lega-
tees and executors. T. died, and
by a codicil the testator appointed
E. executor in the room of T.
and revoked the legacies given to
A. and E. by the will, and he
appointed them "residuary lega-
tees," and he declared that certain
freehold and leasehold property
comprised in his marriage settle-
ment and which he had power to
appoint should go to the "resi-
duary legatees, his sons" A. and
E.-Held, that the moiety of the
real estate devised by the will to
T. had lapsed and descended on
A. as the testator's heir at law,
he
taking also the other moiety as
devisee under the will:-Held,
also, that in this will the appoint-
ment of A. and E. to be "resi-
duary legatees" did not pass to
them the testator's real estate.
Windus v. Windus.
5. A testatrix devised her real es-

549

tates to trustees in trust as to the
rents, issues and profits thereof,
for all and every the children now
or hereafter to be born of my
niece M. C., who shall be living at
my decease, during their lives, in
equal shares, and for the survivors
and survivor of them for life, &c.,
and after the decease of the sur-
vivor"in trust for all the lawful
issue male and female of such of
the children of my neice now or
hereafter to be born, as shall be
living at my decease, in equal
shares and proportions as tenants
in common and not as joint tenants,
and the heirs of the body and re-
spective bodies of all and every
the issue of the said children, and
on the death and failure of heirs
of the body of any one or more of
the issues of the said children,"
&c., in trust for the survivors, &c.
At the testatrix's death her neice
had two daughters, one of whom
was married and had issue five
children :-Held, that the daugh-
ters of the niece took estates for
life only, with remainder to their
issue as purchasers. Parker v.
Clarke.
Page 104
6. Where a bequest is to "cousins'
simpliciter, first cousins only will,
in the absence of any thing to ex-
plain the meaning of the testator,
be entitled. Stoddart v. Nelson.
68

7. A testatrix devised to trustees cer-
tain freehold premises in trust to
receive the rents and after paying
thereout all proper outgoings and
applying thereout, if they thought

fit, towards the maintenance of F.
S., to let the residue accumulate
until F. S. should have attained
twenty-one and then to pay such
accumulations to him, but if he
should die under such age, without
leaving issue living at his decease,
then such accumulations should be
applied for the benefit of the per-
son to whom and in the like man-
ner and form as the premises were
limited, in the like event, and when
F. S. should have attained twenty-
one then the trustees were to stand
seised of the premises in trust for
him in fee, but if he should not
leave any issue living at his de-
cease then the trustees should
stand seised of the premises in
trust for A. S. in fee, and if A. S.
should not leave any issue living
at her decease then over. F. S.
attained twenty-one, and died with-
out ever having had issue :-Held,
on the construction of the will,
that the premises vested in F. S.
in fee on his attaining twenty-one,
subject to be divested in the event
of his dying without issue, which
event having happened, the limi-
tation over in favour of A. S. took
effect. Smith v. Spencer. Page 631

See CHARITY, 3.

WINDING-UP ACTS.
1. By the provisions of a deed con-
stituting a Joint Stock Company
it was declared that the proprietor
of each share should bring in the
sum of 50l. in respect of such
share as and when called upon so
to do in manner thereinafter pro-

vided, and that each of the pro-
prietors should be entitled to the
profits and liable for the losses of
the Company in proportion to his
shares. The executor of a share-
holder who had executed the deed
of settlement being placed on the
list of contributories of the com-
pany which was being wound up
under the Joint Stock Companies
Winding-up Acts:-Held (the Lord
Justices Knight Bruce and Turner
dubitantibus) that a call made by
the Master under those Acts was
not a specialty debt.
Every shareholder as a partner is
liable to every creditor to the full
amount of his demand, and the
sum raised by the Master repre-
sents not any demand of the share-
holders inter se, but the aggregate
demand of all the creditors on the
whole partnership. The solvent
shareholders are bound to make
up this sum not by virtue of
any engagement contained in the
deed, but because by the gene-
ral rules of law every partner is
liable to the whole of the demand
in the partnership. Per the Lord
Chancellor.

Whether the demand for contribution
by a shareholder who has paid more
than his rateable proportion would
be such as to give him under the
clause above referred to a claim
by way of specialty or only as a
simple contract debt-quære. Ro-
binson's Executor's Case. Page 572
2. A. was, in his absence, chosen by
the provisional committee of a pro-
visionally registered railway to be

one of the managing committee, to
whom, by resolutions of the pro-
visional committee then passed,
power was given to allot shares
and to apply the funds of the
Company in payment of expenses.
The scheme having proved abor-
tive, the allottees recovered their de-
posits in actions against A. and other
persons who had been appointed
to be members of the managing
committee. The members of the
managing committee thereupon ap-
pointed a sub-committee, of which
A. was one, to take measures to
protect the members of the com-
mittee. A. was a constant at
tendant at the meetings of the
sub-committee, and took an active
share in providing for some of the
demands on the committee of ma-
nagement and resisting others.
Held, that he thereby sanctioned
and adopted the former proceed-
ings of the managing committee,
in which he had not taken part,
and was liable to contribute in re-
spect of them.

B., who was appointed and acted

as a member of the managing
committee of a provisionally re-
gistered railway company, with

power to contract with engineers
for the requisite surveys, &c. was
one of the members liable in
respect of an order given to the
engineers, who afterwards being
unable to complete the contract
by the required time, offered to
forego it, and to substitute a con-
tract for a part of the line only, on
the terms that the completion of
the latter within the time should
not be required. At a meeting,
at which B. was not present, the
majority of the managing com-
mittee present resolved to accede
to the proposal. B. at a subse-
quent meeting opposed the con-
firmation of the resolution. After-
wards he concurred in resolutions
for providing means of satisfying
the engineer's demand among
others -Held, that the substi-
tuted contract was only a modifi-
cation of the contract, in respect
of which B. was liable, and that
under the circumstances B. was
liable to contribute to the payment
of the engineer's demand. Con-
tribution may be enforceable on
general principles of justice, in-
dependently of contract. Spottis-
woode's case.
Page 345