1. In a suit instituted on behalf of an
infant, the Defendant left deeds,
&c. in Court, under the common
order for production. The infant
on attaining majority repudiated
the suit, and was willing that the
Defendant should have the deeds
out, but had not changed his so-
licitor. Held, that the deeds being
left for discovery only, and not for
security, the next friend had no
lien on the deeds for his costs,
and could not resist their being
delivered back to the party who
had produced them. [Dunn v.
Dunn]

17

2. Bill by a purchaser claiming a
lien for the deposit, repudiating
the contract and praying delivery
up of the contract: Held not de-
murrable. Examination of the
question, whether a purchaser has
such a lien. [Wythes v. Lee] 396
3. A. being interested in a moiety of
a cargo, and having entered into a
contract with B. to let him have
half his share, wrote to C. and D.,
the consignees, informing them and
authorizing them to sell the cargo
and carry the proceeds to their se-
parate accounts. The consignees
acted upon this and made ad-
vances to B., and B. also charged
his interest in favour of E. It had
been agreed between A. and B.
that they should pay for the cargo
by two bills, each to be paid by
one of them. B. did not pay his
bill; it did not appear whether A.
had paid it or not. Held, that A.

Testator gave property to trustees
on trust for his son for his life, until
he should become bankrupt or in-
solvent, or should compound with
his creditors, and after any such
events over. There were powers
of leasing during the son's life,
and general powers of sale. Held,
that the limitations over were not
contingent on the happening of
bankruptcy, insolvency, &c., but
took effect on the death of the
son. [Etches v. Etches] . 441

LYING IN PRISON.

A trader was arrested for debt on
the 20th of March, 1849, and taken
to a sponging-house. He was re-
moved to prison on the 21st of
April, and remained there till the
26th of May. No petition of ad-
judication was filed till the 20th
May, 1850. Held, that the act of
bankruptcy by lying in prison was
complete in twenty-one days after
the arrest, and the petition for ad-
judication not being within twelve
months from that date, there was
no act of bankruptcy within twelve
months prior to the date of the
petition, and a purchase from the
bankrupt on the 25th May, 1849,
was accordingly supported. [Wal-
lace v. Blackwell] .
. 538

MANOR, LORD OF.
Bill by lord of a manor against the
tenant, alleging immemorial pay-
ments as rent, or in the nature of
rent, on the death of each tenant
by his successors, in respect of

thirty-eight different estates. The
payments were in lieu of heriots
and reliefs. It appeared by the
evidence that the heriots were
more probably heriot custom, than
heriot service, and that the relief
was by custom, and not by com-
mon right or by reservation. Some
of them had been paid by the ex-
ecutors of the deceased; it was
not shown that the tenant was
in possession of all the lands al-
leged to be liable; and only the
aggregate amount of rent was
known, not the proportion due to
each estate. Held, that under
these circumstances the lord had
no equity against the succes-
sors of the deceased tenant, al-
though it appeared that in conse-
quence of the description and
identity of the lands being lost,
he could not enforce any claim at
law. Commissioners of Enclosure
have no power in exchanging free-
hold lands subject to heriots and
reliefs to make the allotted lands
so subject. [Mayor, &c. of Ba-
singstoke v. Lord Bolton].

50

MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT.
1. Proposals of marriage with an
infant ward of Court were made
six months before her marriage,
not being such as the Court would
approve. The parties waited till
her majority, and, a few days after
it, a settlement was executed, pur-
suant to new proposals made a
very short time before her majo-
rity. The terms of the settlement
appeared to have been pursuant
to the instructions, and, in fact,
the work of the ward's mother,
and were such as the Court would
not have approved. Held, that
the jurisdiction of the Court over
the ward had not ceased, and the
settlement was rectified, so as to

be what the Court, looking at the
position of the parties, would have
made. [Money v. Money]. 256
2. By a marriage settlement, the
husband covenanted to settle all
the estates, &c., of or to which
the wife should at any time be-
come seised, possessed or entitled.
She had at the time of the mar
riage a vested estate in a moiety of
a leasehold house; and a vested in-
terest in certain monies, the amount
of which was not ascertained and
distributed till some years after.
Held, that the settlement contem-
plated future acquired title; that
these were present titles and not
included in the covenant to settle.
[Wilton v. Colvin] . . . 617

MASTER.

Lord Curzon had been a provisional
committee-man in this company,
which was one of the inchoate
railway companies. He had, ast
such committee-man, attended one
meeting and no more; and, in the
state of the decisions then exist-
ing on the liability of provisional
committee-men, as between them
and other shareholders, it was
understood to be the law that no
liability as a contributory existed
unless the party was legally liable
to some creditor of the associa-
tion. And it had been accord-
ingly determined by the then Mas-
ter, in 1852, that Lord Curzon
was only liable as a contributory
in respect of the acts of the com-
mittee on the day on which he
attended it, and he was put on
the list of contributories as a con-
tributory limited to that day. But
it appeared by the notes of the
Master's judgment that he had
expressly reserved liberty to the
official manager to open the ques-
tion further if he should see

grounds for claiming to extend
Lord Curzon's liability. From
that time to the present nothing
had been done in respect of Lord
Curzon's liability. In the mean-
time other persons as liable as
Lord Curzon, who had not been
put upon the list as general con-
tributories, were, it was alleged,
freed at law, under the Statute of
Limitations, from any legal lia-
bility they might have had to cre-
ditors. In this state of things an
application had been made to the
Master on the authority of Spot-
tiswoode's Case in particular, and,
on the tender of further evidence,
for leave to review the decision of
1852 upon the recent decisions
and upon such further evidence.
It appeared that the evidence had
not been looked at by the Master,
but he decided upon the citation
and argument of the case and the
allegation of further evidence, that
there was enough to justify an
order to review. On appeal the
Court confirmed this decision.
[Re London, Birmingham & Bucks
Railway Company]

MISJOINDER.

508

Bill by two of the intended share-
holders of a projected company
on behalf of themselves and all
other depositors, for return of the
deposits paid by the two Plain-
tiffs. The bill alleged gross
fraud in concocting the company
and obtaining the deposits. A
demurrer for want of equity, and
on the ground that no two depo-
sitors could sue together for the
mere return of deposits, was over-
ruled. [Beeching v. Lloyd]. 227

MONEY.

Testator made his will in the follow-
ing words:"I give to my wife

during her natural life the interest
of all sums of money I may die
possessed of, subject to such
agreements, if any, which I may
enter into in my lifetime; and
after her decease I do give all
such interest money unto my dear
Mary Larner, now of, &c. during
the term of her natural life, and
after her decease then I do give
the principal and interest unto my
said daughter's child or children,
equally between them, share and
share alike; and I direct my exe-
cutors to advance and allow any
reasonable sum or sums of money
from time to time for the promo-
tion in life of all or any of the
children of my said daughter by
way of apprenticeship or other-
wise. And in case my said daugh-
ter Mary should die without issue
of her body, unmarried or under
age, then I do give the said money
and interest equally between my
brothers and sisters, and in case
of their deaths to their respective
child or children equally between
them. There was no residuary
gift. At his death he left 4501.
cash, furniture, a leasehold farm,
cattle, &c. and farming stock.
Held, that the language relating to
monies meant money strictly; and
that there was intestacy as to the
residuary property. [Larner v.
Larner].

MORTGAGEE.

704

chapel at Lawkland and his suc-
cessors, ministers of the same
chapel for ever, as an addition to
the stipend at such chapel." He
devised to another, " Thomas Wil-
kinson, minister of the Roman Ca-
tholic chapel at Kendal, and to his
successors, for ever," other estates.
He devised to the officiating mi-
nister of the said Roman Catholic
chapel at Kendal, "for and during
the term of seven years next after
his decease," the rents and profits
of other lands. Held, that these
devises were intended for the be-
nefit of the church, and not of
the individual donees personally,
and were void. [Thornber v.
Wilson]

MOTION.

245

When a person presenting a petition in
a cause, not being a party to it, is
out of the jurisdiction, the respond-
ent may make a substantive mo-
tion for security for costs. [Atkins
v. Cooke].
. 694

MULTIFARIOUSNESS.

A bill was filed by persons claiming
to be insurers in a Loan and De-
posit Association, and one of whom
was the personal representative of
a deceased insurer, at whose death
a sum of money became payable,
against the directors of such asso-
ciation, and who were also the di-
rectors of a co-existent association
or assurance society, the funds of
both being amalgamated for the
purpose of having the affairs of
these associations wound up and
terminated. On motion for re-
ceiver and manager in the interim:
Held, refusing the application,
that a Court of Equity could not
take upon itself the burden of car-
rying on such an association; and
that, as the Plaintiff on the record

had inconsistent and conflicting
interests in the funds of the two
associations, and the original share-
holders were not represented at
all, that the frame of such a suit
did not warrant the Court in
granting a receiver until decree.
[Evans v. Coventry] . . . 75

NOTICE.

A mortgagee of a ship, with notice
of a prior unregistered equitable
mortgage, registers, the prior
equitable mortgagee is postponed
to him. The registry is conclu-
sive as to the ship being in a fit
state to be registered under the
8 & 9 Vict. c. 89, although there
may be evidence to show that the
ship was not completed at the
time of the registry. [Coombes v.
Mansfield]
. . 193

was

OFFICIAL MANAGER.
In this case, which came on upon a
petition to wind up the Royal
British Bank, a company formed
and acting under 7 & 8 Vict. c.
111, the bank had stopped pay-
ment on the 3rd Sept. 1856. On
the 8th, the petition to wind up
presented, and an order
made. On the 27th Mr. Hard-
ing was appointed interim mana-
ger; and, on same 27th, an order
was made that all persons posses-
sing any documents, bills or cash,
&c. belonging to the company,
should deliver them up to him by
the 4th October. On the 13th
October, Harding was regularly
appointed official manager, and on
the 2nd proceedings had been
registered as lis pendens. In the
meantime proceedings in bank-
ruptcy against the bank had been
taken. On the 8th September a
creditor filed an affidavit, and
served a writ of summons upon
the secretary of the bank under

the 7th section of 7 & 8 Vict. c.
111. On the 20th, the company
was duly dissolved under the deeds
of settlement. On the 9th Octo-
ber the company was adjudged
bankrupt, and Mr. Lee was ap-
pointed official assignee; during
the vacation, a limited injunction
against proceeding in the bank-
ruptcy was granted; and notwith-
standing the official assignee inter-
fered with the official manager.
Held, that the bankruptcy of the
company related back to the 8th
September, the day when the sum-
mons was served, and from that
day the assets of the company
vested at law in the official as-
signee; that though the official
assignee was entitled at law to the
property of the company, it was a
contempt in him to disturb the
official manager, who is a receiver
of the Court, that the proceedings
to settle the affairs of the com-
pany might go on concurrently,
the Court of Bankruptcy collect-
ing and distributing the assets of
the company, and the official ma-
nager settling the list of contribu-
tories, and adjusting the rights of
the shareholders inter se. The in-
junction was dissolved, and the
official manager ordered to deli-
ver up books, papers, &c. to the
official assignee. [Aitchison v. Lee,
Re the Royal British Bank]. 637

PARENT AND CHILD.
Father and son tenant for life and in
remainder of considerable family
estates. The son being under the
pressure of great pecuniary diffi-
culties while under age, the father
and son entered into arrangements,
completed shortly after the son's
majority, by which, 1stly, as to
part of the estates, portions of it
were sold to pay certain debts of
the father, and to release the son

from difficulties, and the remainder
resettled, so as to give the son
only a life estate, giving the father
no interest in the estates; 2ndly,
as to other parts, the father gave to
his son an immediate life interest,
and the son in consideration of that
and of the father having expended
a considerable sum in improve-
ments, gave up, as to a consider-
able portion, the inheritance to his
father. Afterwards, during five
years and more, the son dealt with
his interest acquired under the ar-
rangements, by mortgaging them
and selling them on his marriage,
and was on each of these subse-
quent transactions advised by a
separate solicitor, and the deeds
executed distinctly referred to the
alleged consideration of the ex-
penditure by the father for the
conveyance to him of the inheri-
tance in some of the estates. Held,
that the first arrangement of the
sale and resettlement was in the
nature of a family arrangement,
and might have stood irrespective
of the transactions subsequent to
the son's majority; that the second
was not a family arrangement and
could not have stood, but that the
Plaintiff's subsequent dealings with
his interest amounted to a com-
plete confirmation, and the bill was
dismissed with costs. [Dimsdale
v. Dimsdale] . .

PARTIES.

556

A bill alleged, in paragraph 2, that
on the marriage of the Plaintiff
with the daughter of R. C. Young,
no portion was given by Young to
his daughter, but that previously
to, and as an inducement to the
marriage, Young represented to
Plaintiff, and promised and con-
tracted with him, that he, Young,
would at his death leave to his
daughter an equal share with his