d by Microsoft® Cornell University Law Library The Moak Collection PURCHASED FOR The School of Law of Cornell University And Presented February 14, «893 IN nenoRY of JUDGE DOUGLASS BOARDMAN FIRST DEAN OF THE SCHOOL By his Wife and Daugliter A. M. BOARDMAN and ELLEN D. WILLIAMS Digitized by Microsoft® Cornell University Library KD 826.3.T91 1879 3 1924 021 642 107 Digitized by Microsoft® This book was digitized by Microsoft Corporation in cooperation witli Cornell University Libraries, 2007. You may use and print this copy in limited quantity for your personal purposes, but may not distribute or provide access to it (or modified or partial versions of it) for revenue-generating or other commercial purposes. Digitized by Microsoft® The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archiY,e.gr3^dgtai[s^gu31 924021 6421 07 Digitized by Microsoft® A SELECTION LEADING CASES EEAL PEOPEETY, CONYEYANCD^O, C0ttsteti0tt 0f Mxlh mh 9nh : WITH NOTES. OWEN DAYIES J^DOR, OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, ESQ., BARRISTER AT LAW, Author of " Leading Cases in Equity," "Leading Cases an Mereantile and Maritime Law," "The Laic of Charitable I'nists," §c. THIRD EDITION. LONDON: BUTTERWORTHS, 7, FLEET STREET, •jCatn ^u6Us?)cra to tiK CSuttn'a most acclltnt JWafesle. HODGES, FOSTER & CO., GBAITON STREET, DUBLIN. CALCUTTA: THACKEE, SPINK & CO. MELBOURNE: GEORGE ROBERTSON. 1879. Digitized by Microsoft® LONDON : PEINTED BY 0. r. EOWOETH, EEEAM'S BUILDINGS, CBANOEEY LAilE, E.C. Digitized by Microsoft® [DEDICATION TO THE FIRST EDITION.] TO SIE EICHAED BETHELL, M.P., lift Psjfsig's ^alicidax (^mixd, WITH THE GREATEST EESPE.CT NOT ONLY rOE HIS HIGH ATTAINMENTS AS AN ADTOCATE AND LAWYER, BUT ALSO FOR HIS UNCEASING EFFORTS IN THE PROMOTION OP LEGAL EDUCATION AND OF ALL REALLY GREAT AND SYSTEMATIC REFORMS OF OUR LAW, (with permission) dedicated by THE AUTHOE. Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft® ADYEETISEMENT TO THE THIED EDITION. The Notes in this Edition have been carefully revised, and in some cases partially re-written. The addition to the Notes consist of about one hundred and twelve pages. The Index to the Statutes will, it is hoped, make the work more useful. The number of Cases cited has been largely increased — and by means of the Addenda they have been brought down to the 31st of May, 1879. Middle Temple, June, 1879. Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft® ADVEETISEMENT TO THE SECOND EDITION. In this Edition tlie Notes have been carefully revised, and much new matter has been added, whenever the subject appeared to the Author to require further explanation or expansion. The additions made to the Notes consist of about one hundred and seventy pages. The case of Lord Brayhroke v. Inskip, with a Note on the subject of devises of mortgage and trust estates, has been added to this Edition. The number of Cases cited has been largely increased, and the Author has brought them down to the latest period. 16, Old Squahe, Lincoln's Inn, Trinity Vacation, 1863. Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft® PEEFACE TO THE FIEST EDITION. The selection of Leading Cases in Equity having been favourably received in this country, and also in the United States, where it was edited by two distinguished Members of the American Bar,* the present selection of Leading Cases on Real Property, Conveyancing, and the Construe tion of Wills and Deeds, has been made, to which Notes are appended in the same method as that adopted in the Leading Cases in Equity. In so wide a field as that chosen for the subject of this Work, the Author has carefully endeavoured to select all those Cases the knowledge of which is of the greatest importance to the Real Property LaAvyer and Conveyancer; and he ventures to hope that the Notes, as well as the Cases, may be found useful both to the Student and Practitioner. 16, Old Squaee, Lincoln's Inn, January, 1856. * Mr. (now Mr. Justice) Jolm Iniiis Clark Hare and the late Mr. Horace Binney Wallace. Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES REPOETED. PAOE Alexandek v. Alexander {Excessive Execution of Poicers) . 395 Attorney-General v. Sir George Sands [Escheat — Forfeiture) 760 Eoraston's Case {Devise, whether Vested or Contingent) . . 809 Bowles's (Lewis) Case {Estates for Life — their Incidents) . . 37 Bradley t. Peixoto {Condition repugnant to Estate void) . . 968 Braybroke (Lord) ;•. Inskip {Trust and Mortgage Estates — when comprised in a General Devise) ...... 986 Cadell v. Palmer {Executory Devise — Rule against Perpetuities). 424 Clun's Case {Rents — Apportionment) . 284 Corbet's (Sir Miles) Case {Commons) . . . 117 Corbyn v. French {Charities — Mortmain Act, 9 Geo. 2, c. 36) . 519 Doe d. Hiscocks r. Hiscocks {Extrinsic Evidence in construing Wills) 918 Edwards r. Slater {Poicers — different kinds of — their Extinguish- ment and Stispension) ........ 368 Elliot v. Davenport {Lajjse) ..... . 902 Forbes r. Moffatt {Extinguishment — Merger) .... 943 Forth v. Chapman {Failure of Zssue, ichether indefinite or at the death) 682 Fox v. The Bishop of Chester {Adtoiuson — Next Presentation — Simony) .... .... 238 Gardner v. Sheldon {Estates hy Implication) .... 625 Griffiths v. Yere {Trusts for Accumulation) . . . 497 Digitized by Microsoft® xu LIST OF CASES REPORTED. PAOE Hanson v. Graham {Bequest, ichether Vested or Contingent) . 822 Jones v. Westcomb {Executory Devise — Effect of failure of prior Gift upon) 869 Leventhorpe v. AsHBiE {Words conferring an Estate Tail in Real, give an absolute interest in Personal, Estate) . ■ ■ 861 MoRLEY V. Bird {Joint- Tenancy — Tenancy in Common) . ■ 876 Pawlett, Lady v. Pawlett, Lord {Gift of Sum to be raised out of Real Estate, whether Vested or Contingent) .... 816 EiCHARUsoN V. Langridge {Tenancy at Will — From Year to Year) .......■•■■ Eotjse's Case {Tenant at Sufferance) ...••■ Seymor's Case {Estates of Inheritance) ..... Shelley's Case {Rule in Shelley's Case) ..... Stapleton v. Cheales {Bequest, whether Vested or Contingent) . SuRY i>. PiGOT {Easements) Taltarum's Case {Recovery — Entails) Tyrrell's Case ( Use upon a Use) Tyrringham's Case {Commons) YiNER V. Francis {Gifts to Children as a Class) Wild's Case {Rule in Wild's Case — Resolution in Wild's Case) 4 1 706 589 820 154 695 335 120 798 669 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF OASES CITED. A. PAGE Abbey v. Petch 325 Abbot V. Massie 942 Abergavenny (Earl of) v. Brace 756 Abergavenny's (Lord) Case 884, 890 Abington's Case 763, 767 Abrahal v. Bubb 115 Abranas v. Winsbup 722 Abrey v. Newman 898 Absor V. French. 219 Acbison v. Henry 133 Aekerman v. Burrows . . 896, 913 Ackers v. Pbipps 662, 839 Ackland v. Lutley 366 Ackroyd v. Smith 169 V. Smithson 367, 910, 928 Acocks V. Phillips 298 Acton V. Blundell 196 Adams v. Adams . . 358, 359, 406, 410, 416, 602, 662, 664, 665 V. Andrews 171 V. Angell 953, 961, 963, 964 V. Grane 314 V. Jones 939 V. Lambert 541 V. Robarts 851 Adamson v. Gaily 202 Addison v. Busk 655 AddKngton v. Cann 564 Adnam v. Cole 538 V. Sandwich (Earl of) .. 334 Adneyw. Field 113 Adshead v. WiUetts .... 720, 726 Advocate-Gen. of Bengal v. Ranee Surnomoye Dossee . . 787 Agar V. Fairfax 264, 881, 893 Agassiz V. Squire 407 Ainslie v. Harcourt 95, 96 Aistrop V. Aistrop 605 Albany's Case. . 373, 377, 388, 389 Albany v. St. Asaph (Bishop of) 269, 271 PAGE Albemarle (Earl of) v. Rogers 265, 274 Alchin's Trusts, In re 583 Aldaker v: Hunt 217 Aldenburgh v. Peaple 319 Aldred's Case 203 In re 305, 306 Alexahdee v. Alexandbb, . . 395 403, 405, 478, 837 V. Brame 554, 559, 564, 654 ■ V. Mms 384 Aleyn v. BelcMer 412, 423 Alford V. Viekery 11, 29, 32 Allan V. Backhouse 93, 94, 95 V. Gomme 205, 206, 221 Alia way v. Wagstaffe 211 AUen V. AUen 53, 55, 56 V. Bewsey 353 V. CaUow 800, 913 V. DoneUy 133 V. Flicker 325 V. HiU 8 V. "Webster 932 Alleyne v. Alleyne 668 AUgood V. Blake 613 Allin V. Crawshay 645 ALLoway v. AUoway 413, 422, 888, 897 Allwood V. Heywood 88 Alpass V. Watkins 605, 609 Alsop V. BeU 954 Alston V. Atlay 278 V. Grant 218 Alt V. Gregory 898 Altham v. Anglesey 341 Ambrose v. Hodgson 905 Amesbury v. Brown 754 Amherst's Trusts, In re 980 Amherst v. Lytton 836 Amhurst v. DarneUy 836 V. Dawling 267 Digitized by Microsoft® XIV LIST OF CASES CITED. PAQE Amies v. Skillern 883, 889 Ancona v. Waddell 981 Anderson's Case 754 Anderson v. Anderson 613 V. Midland Eail. Co. 14 Andrea v. Ward 654, 655, 692 Andrew's Will, In re 862, 867 Andrew v. Andrew. .466, 646, 753, 837 V. Southouse 726 V. Trinity Hall 567 Ee 855 Andrews v. Dobson 929 V. Ptdiiam 870 V. Hailes 150 V. Paradise 170 V. Partington 524, 802, 805 Anger's (Sir Anthony) Case . . 763 Angerstein v. Hunt 109 Anglesey's (Marq. of) Estates, In re 307 Angus K. Dalton 162, 180, 189,213, 214, 236 Anonymous, 3 Atk. 15 105 Dyer, 99 b 605 • Dyer, 250 b 260 Dyer, 259 a .... 258 Dyer, 303 b 657 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 522 78, 171 2 Freem. 224 416 2 Freem. 278 115 1 GifE. 392 784 Godb. 4 147 Gouldsb. 139 669 Jones, Sir W. 296 218 4 Leon. 2, pi. 2 . . 342 Lofft, 71 380 Mo. 615 379 Mos. 237 112 2 Vent. 363, 365. .834, 894 1 Vern. 233 51 3 WUs. 126 145 "Winob, 3 204 Anstee v. Nelms 934 Antbony v. Eees 356 Appleton V. Eowley . . 61, 62, 905, 908 Ap Eice's Case 107 Arcedeckne v. Kelk 232 Arcber's Case 40, 622, 752 Arcber v. Legg 898 Arden v. "Wilson 149 PAOB Arkwrigbt v. Gell . . 167, 185, 188, 199, 200 Arlett V. EUis 140, 141, 144 Armitage v. Coates 493 V. Williams 803, 805, 807 Armstrong's Case 767 Armstrong v. Armstrong 679, 680, 888, 892, 896 V. Eldridge 898 V. M'Inberbeny .... 27 V. Wolsey 342 Armytage v. Wilkinson 843 Arnold's Estate, Ee. .651, 664, 726, 844 Arnold V. Att.-Gen 573 • V. Blaker 219 V. Chapman. .544, 553, 559, 564, 565 V. Congreve .... 476, 492 V. Holbrook 218, 219 Arnott V. Bleasdale 508 Arrow V. MeUish 898 Arrowsmith's Trusts, Ee .... 997 Arthington v. Chester (Bishop of) 257 V. Coverley 265 V. Fawkes 141 Arthur v. Lamb 899 Arundel's (Lord) Case 3 Arundel v. Steere 135 ArundeU v. Falmouth (Lord) . 147 Aschcroft V. Bourne 34 Ashburner v. Wilson 651 Ashburnham v. Bradshaw. ... 553 Ashford v. Haines 898 Ashley v. Ashley . . 480, 651, 660, 835, 898 Ashmore's Trusts, In re. . 849, 850 Ashmore v. Hardy 323 Ashton V. Jones 545 ■ V. Langdale (Lord) 560,561 V. Wood 1007 Aspden v. Seddon 210, 228 Aspinall v. Bourne 554 V. Duckworth 907, 912, 913 V. Petvin 641, 642 Astley V. Milles 953, 955, 958, 959, 963 Aston V. Aston 115 V. Small man 887 V. Wood 572, 582 Atcheson v. Atcheson 990 Atherton v. Pye 657, 658 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES CITED. XV PAdE Atliol f. Midland Great Wes- tern of Ireland Railway Com- pany 172, 200 Atkins V. Hicoocks 847 Atkinson v. Baker 51 V. Barton 648, 659 V. Holtby 648, 659 V. HutcMnson.. 684, 686, 862 V. King 173 V. Paice 646 V. Turner 845 Attack V. Bramwell 322, 329 Attenborough v. Attenborough 484, 485 Attorney v. Berryman 399 Att.-Gen. v. Andrew. . 9, 525, 531, 616 V. Andrews 553, 567, 577 V. Baocbus 901 V. Barnsley 217 V. Baxter. .537, 541, 573, 577 V. Bayley 650, 654 V. Berwiok-upon-Tweed (Corporation of ) . . 576 V. Beverley (Corpora- tion of) 575 V. Birmingbam (Bo- rougb of) 217 V. Blizard 535 V. Boultbee . . 573, 578 V. Bovill 535, 579 V. Bowyer 567, 1009 V. Bradford Canal (Proprietors of). . 217 V. Brandretb 535 V-. Brazenose College 575 V. Brereton 537 V. Brigbt 617, 867 V. Bristol (Mayor of) 574, 575 584 V. BuUer. . 987, 988,' 989, 991, 992 V. Bunce 584 V. Burdett 577 V. Busbby 539, 578 V. Butler 987 V. Caius College . . 574 V. OaldweU 527, 559 r.CastPlate Glass Co. 934 i).OatberineHaU574, 971 V. Cbester(Bisbopof) 523, 554, 581 PASE Att.-Gen. v. Cbrist's Hospital.. 574 V. Clarke 535, 573 V. Cock 522, 542, 576 V. Comber 536, 537 V. Coopers' Company 574 V. Cordwainers' Com- pany 574, 575 «). Coventry (Mayor of) 573 V. Crispin 803, 851 «. Crofts 790 V. CuUen 588 ■ V. Cuming.. 266, 267, 273 V. Darell 953 V. Davies.. 554, 555, 556, 559, 581 V. Day 632, 547, 548 V. Delaney 543 V. Dougbty 203 V. Downing 577 V. Drapers' Company 574 V. Drummond 583 V. Duplessis 769 V. Exeter (Corpora- tion of) 535 V. Fisbmongers' Com- pany 541,568,574,584 V. Pletcber 896 • V. Ployer 267 V. Forster 265, 266 V. Freeman 573 V. Gasooigne . . 574, 575 V. GUbert 574, 720 t). GiU 469, 862 V. Gladstone 542 V. Glasgow College . 578 V. Gleg 573 V. Glyn 545, 578 • r. Goddard 558 V. Goulding 558, 574, 581 V. GradyU 379 V. Great Eastern Rail- way Company .... 192 D.Greenbill 495, 971 V. Grocers' Company 574 ■ V. Guise 577 ■ — V. Haberdasbers'Com- pany 540, 574 V. Hall 973 V. Hankey 579 r. Harley . .553, 554, 559 V. Heartwell 554 V. HeeUs 538 V. Herrick 573 V. Hickman 542, 573 Digitized by Microsoft® XVI LIST OF CASES CITED. PAGE Att.-Gen. v. Highgate School (Wardens, &c. of ) . 571 V. Hinxman 556,659,581 V. Hird 862 V. Hodgson 554, 555, 656, 668, 872 V. Hotham 535 V. Hughes . . . .537, 577 V. Hull 556 V. Hutcldnson .... 523 V. Hyde 554 V. Ironmongers' Com- pany 637, 578, 681 • V. Jesus College, Cam- bridge 575 V. Jesus College, Ox- ford 574,575 V. Johnson 574 V. Kingston - upon - Thames 217 «;. Kohler 784,785 V. Lawes 542, 578 V. Leoonfield (Lord) . 278 V. Lee 577 V. Leeds (Duke of).. 778 V. Lichfield (Bishop of) 267, 282 V. Llandaff (Bishop of) 578 V. London (Bishop of ) 259 V. London (City of) . 537 V. London (Mayor, &c. of) 678 V. Lonsdale (Earl of) 195, 536 V. Love 583 V. Luton Board of Health 217 V. Mansfield 571 V. Marohant 674 V. Margaret &Eegius Professors in Cambridge . . 536 V. Marlborough (Duke of) 105, 115, 753 V. Mathias .... 137, 188 V. Matthews 635, 573, 685 V. Merchant Venturers' Company 674 V. Meyrick .... 527, 559 V. Mill 666, 568 V. MinshaU 574 V. Moor 645, 566 V. Mountmorri8(Ld.) 662 PAQB Att.-Gen. v. Munby 644, 645, 546, 554, 567 V. Nash 656 ■ • V. Newcombe 266,266,267 V. Northumberland (Duke of).. 536, 579 V. Oakaver 538 V. Oglander 581 V. Oxford (Bishop of) 522, 624, 630, 554, 680 V. Painters' Company 537 • . V. Parker265, 266,537,683 V. Parsons 664, 555, 557, 559 V. Pearson 584 V. Philpott 555 V. Poulden 507, 610, 512 V. Power. . 541, 566, 567 V. Price 536, 573 V. Eance 673 V. Euper 537 V. Eutter 265 V. Eye 677 V. St. Cross (Masters, &c. of) 684 V. St. John'sHospital 580, 584 Att.-Gen. 4). SAirDs(SiEGEOEGE) 760 366, 738, 742, 769 V. Scott . . 263, 266, 267 — V. She£B.eld Gas Con- sumers' Company 216 ■ V. Sidney Sussex Col- lege 536, 684 V. Sitwell 257 V. Skinners' Company 574 V. Smithies .... 574, 683 V. Sparks 574 V. Stepney 637 ■ V. Stewart 566 V. Sturge 586 V. Sutton 648, 663 V. Syderfen 585 V. Tancred 566, 667 V. Thames (Conserva- tors of the Eiver) 195 ■ V. Todd 641, 542 V. Tomkins 653 V. Tomline 150 ■ V. Trinity College, Cambridge .... 575 V. Tyndall 666 V. Vigor. . 993, 994, 1009 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES CITED. SVll PAGE Att. Gen. v. Vint 535 V. Yivian 537 V. Ward 545, 548 V. Wax Chandlers' Co. 574 V. Webster 535 V. Weymontli (Lord) 532, 553, 565 V. Wiitchurch 555, 568 V. Whorwood. . 536, 567 V. Wilkinson . . 535, 573 V. Williams . . 556, 557 V. Wilson 570, 574 V. Winchelsea (Earl of) 559, 574 V. Windsor (Dean and Canons of) 575 V. Worcester (Bishop of) 580 Attree v. Hawe 561 Attwater v. Attwater 641, 642, 972 Aubin V. Daly 69, 294 Audley's Case 342, 344 Audsley v. Horn 677, 680 Aumble V. Jones 469, 719 Austin V. Amhurst 143 Austyn v. Twyne 260 Aveling v. Knipe 885 Avelyn v. Ward 871, 872, 874 Avenell v. Oroker 325 Avern v. Lloyd 480 Avison V Hohnes 979, 982 Awse V. Melhuish 720 Ayle's Trusts, In re 932 Aylwin's Trusts, In re . . 387, 388, 803, 979, 982 Aynesleyj). Glover 185,202,226,235 Aynsley v. Wordsworth 302 Ayray v. Sir E.. Lovelas 254 Ayton V. Ayton 803 B. Babington's Case 763, 769, 770 Back V. Stacey 225 Backhouse v. Bonomi 207 V. Wells 617 Bacon v. Cosby 616 V. Proctor 478 Baddeley v. GingeU. 935 V. LeppingweU .... 721 Badger v. Ford 141, 149 V. Lloyd 466, 468 Badham v. Mee 380, 381 Bagley v. MoUard 928, 932 T.L.C. PAGE B agnail v. London & North Western Eailway Company 211 J3agot V. Bagot 109, 111 V. Legge 687 Bagshaw v. Spencer 365, 356, 842 Bagwell v.. Dry 910 Baile v. Coleman 606 Hniiejv. Appleyard .... 169, 190 V. Lloyd 411, 418 V. Richardson 958, 963 V. Stephens 136 Baihs V. Gale 724, 726 Bain v. Lescher 679, 809, 915 Bainbridget). Ashburton(Lord) 994 V. Cream 835 Bainton v. Bainton 656 Bainton's Case, 344 Baird v. Fortune 175 V. Williamson 198 Baker v. Bayley 54 V. Brent 264 V. Gibson 888 • V. Hanbury 916 V. HoltpzaffeU 332 ■ ■ V. Mounford 280 V. Parsop. 359 ■ ■ V. Eaimond 724 • V. Eogers. .244, 248, 277, 278, 280 V. Sutton 568, 567 — — V. Tucker 470, 651 ■ V. Walker 300 I). WaU 751 V. White . .353, 354, 355, 359, 360 Baldwin v. Baldwin . .98, 655, 567, 670 V. Eogers 476, 801, 804 Ban V. Comberbach 864 V. Cullimore 12, 19 V. Herbert 178 Ballacorkish Silver Lead, &c. Company v. Harrison . . 196, 197 Ballard v. Dyson 206 Balm V. Balm 801 Balston v. Bensted 196 Bamfield r. Popham 648 Bamford v. Chadwick 686 ■;;. Lord 686 Bank's Trust 867 Bankes v. Holme 468, 475 V. Le Despenoer (Baro- ness) 493, 757 Bankhart v. Houghton 171 b Digitized by Microsoft® xvni LIST OF CASES CITED. PAOE Bankhart v. Tennant 172 Bannister v. Hyde 322 Barber, Ex parte 997; V. Barber 915 V. WHteley 217 V. Wood 941 Barclay v. Maskelyne 535 Bardon v. Bardon 849 Barker v. Barker 65 V. Giles 896, 897, 899 V. Greenwood 355 V. Lea 850, 853, 911 and Cooke v. London (The Bishop of) 263 V. Eichardson 181, 182, 185 V. Yenables 1001 Barkley's (Lord) Case 711 Barkworth v. Young 917 Barlow i'. Grant 524 V. Orde 932 V. Ehodes . . 175, 179, 180 V. Salter 686, 688 Barnaby v. Tassell 803 Barnardiston v. Carter 841 Barnes v. Allen 851, 854, 887 V. Bond 101 V. Jennings 872, 875 Barnet v. Barnet 641, 642, 843, 845 Barnett, Ee 584 «;. Blake 793,978,979 V. Tugwell 931 Barnshaw's Trust, In re .... 850 Barret v. Glubb 247, 253, 265, 276, 277 Barrett v. Buck 512 Barrington's Settlement, In re 88 Barriugton D. LiddeU 514, 515, 518 V. Tristram 805 Barron v. Barron 717 V. Constabile 389 Barrow v. Barrow 388 V. Greenough 928 V. Wadkin : . 781, 782 Barry, In re 751 I'. Edgeworth 724 V. Lowry 190 Bartholomew, In re .... 845, 846 Bartleman v. Murohison .... 804 Bartlett v. Downes 183 V. Phillips 107 V. Yinor 248 Barton v. Barton 973 Barton's WiU, In re Trusts of 892 Barwick v. Matthews 148 FAOE Barwicke v. Foster 291, 301 Basset v. Basset .... 65, 261, 301 Bassil V. Lister 509 Bastard v. Proby 601 Basten v. Carew 34 Bateman's Trusts, In re. . 791, 792 Bateman v. Bateman 71 V. Grav 806, 807 V. Hotohkin. . 108, 111, 489, 491, 514 V. Eoach 723 Bates V. Bates 69 Bateson v. Green 139 Batsford v. Kebbel 849 Batteste v. Maunsell 55, 56 Batty 1'. Pay 791 Bawderok v. MackaUer . . 277, 279 Baxendale v. MoMurray. . 216, 236 Baxter r. Brown 561 V. Losh 661 Baxter's Trusts 843 Bayley v. Bradley 11 ■ — V. Snelham 930, 931 V. Pitzmauriee 12 Baylis v. Attorney-General 573, 920 V. Tyssen-Amhurst . ... 131 Beachcroft v. Beachcroft. .920, 931, 938 Beadel v. Perry 225, 227 V. Pitt 299 Beadsworth v. Torkington 131, 143 Beale v. Sanders 25 r. Symonds 777 Beales v. Crisford 678 Bean v. Bloom 134 Beard d. Westcott 409, 441, 445, 449, 456, 459, 460, 490, 494 Beardsley v. Beynon 871 Bearpark r. Hutchinson .... 53 Beasley r. Clarke 188, 189 Beauolerk r. Dormer 683 Beaudely v. Brook 170 Beaufort (Duke of) r. Patrick 171 Beaufoy's Estate, In re 97 Beaulieu (Lord) v. Cardigan (Lord) 804 Beauman v. Kinsella 133 V. Stock 061 Beaumont's Trusts, In re 557, 558 Beaumont v. Pell 919, 924, 934, 941 V. Oliviera 539, 563, 566 V. Salisbury (Marq. of) 51, 301 Beavan v. Delahay 320 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES CITED. XIX PAGE Beaver v. Nowell 661, 752, 865 Bebb V. Penoyre . 726 Beck V. Burn 851 Beckton v. Barton 807 Beokwith's Case 78, 342 Bective (Countess of) v. Hodg- son 473, 507 BedeU'sCase 751 Bedford (Duke of) v. Dawson . 229 Bedinfield v. Canterbury (Arcb- bisbop of) 262, 271 Beecb v. St. Vincent (Lord) . . 515, 517 Beer v. Beer 306 Beeston v. Weate 167, 193, 200, 218 Beggan v. McDonald Add. Begley v. Cook 898 Bell V. Bell 477, 616, 753 V. Cade 492, 849 V. Holtby 757 V. Midland Rail. Co. 171, 224 V. Twentyman 218 ■ V. Wilson 211 Bellassis's Trusts, In re. . 681, 887 Bellis's Trusts, In re 993, 996 Benest v. Pipon 183 Benfieldside Local Board v. Consett Iron Co 210 Bengougb v. Edridge 425, 433, 508 Bennet, Ex parte 982 College V. London (Bp. of) 567 V. Davis 60, 62 Bennett's Trust, Ee 845, 851 Bennett v. Bayes 321 V. Bennett 724, 867 V. CoUey 91, 92 V. Davis 927 V. Hayter 578 V. Honey wood 586 V. Lowe 654 V. Marshall 936, 937 V. Eeeve 129 • V. TankerviUe(Earlof) 606, 610 Bennison K. Cartwrigbt 187 Benson v. Benson 985 V. Chester . . 129, 130, 147 V. Scott 729 Bentinok v. Portland (Duke of) 476 Bentley v. Blizard 931 V. Oldfield 724, 726 Benyon v. Maddison 851 Berkeley v. Swinbiu-ne . . 802, 843 PAGE Bermondsey (Vestry of) v. Brown 233 Bernard, Ex parte . . 403, 415, 423 V. Montague 847 Bernasooni v. Atkinson. . 939, 941 Berrey r. Lindley 24, 29 Berry and Eicbe's Case 371 V. Berry 354, 936 V. Briant 849 • V. Goodman 8 ■ V. White 371, 380 Bertie v. Falkland 927 Best V. Drake 328 Betnam v. Bateston 342 Betty V. Elliott 54 V. Humphreys 55 Bevan v. White 651 Beverley v. Canterbury (The Archbishop of) . . 273 V. Cornwall 273 (Mayor of) v. Att.- Gen 575 Beveston v. Hussey 723 Beviss's Trusts, Ee 914 Bewick v. Whitfield Ill Bibbens v. Potter Add. Bibby v. Thompson 679 Bibin v. Walker 662 Bible V. Hussey 317 Bickett V. Morris 193 Bickford v. Ohalker 844 Bickley v. Bicldey 82, 83, 735 V. Guest 388, 390 Biddle v. Perkins 488 Biddlecombe v. Bond 979 Biddulph V. Lees . . 652, 663, 718 V. St. George's .... 217 Biederman v. Seymour 734 Bifield's Case 616, 753 Bigg V. Bensley 862 BigneU v. Clarke 324 Bignold V. Giles 645, 727, 899 Billing V. East India Company 795 V. Welch 972 BiUson V. Crofts 979 Binckes v. Pash 234 Bindon (Lord) v. Siiffolk (Earl of) 800, 801, 898 Bingham's Case 733 Bingley v. Broadhead 491 Binstead v. Buck 318 Birch, In re 97 ■ V. AVright 16, 18, 20 Bird V. Christopher 388, 389 b2 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES CITED. PAGE Bird V. Higginson 171 V. Hunsdon 643 — — V. Maybury 849 Birds V. Askey 847 Birkett, In re 582 Birley v. Birley 415 Bimiingliain. Canal Co. v. Dud- ley (Earl) .... 211 (Corp. of) V. Allen 207 &c., Gaslight Co., Ex parte, In re Eansliaw . . 326 V. Kirwan 77 Biscoe V. Perkins 602 Bishop V. Bishop 68, 82 r. Bryant 325 Biss r. Smith 686 Blackburn r. Stables .... 615, 624 Blacket v. Lamb 407, 413, 415, 493 Blackett v. Bradley 211 Blaokman, In re 936, 941 Blackwell v. Bull 641, 643 Blagrave v. Blagrave 355, 356, 357 V. Clem 744 Blagrove v. Hancock 476, 477, 837 Blake's Trust, In re 643 Blake v. Barnett 793 • ■ V. Blake 54 V. Luxton 54 V. Peters 742 Blakemore's Settlement, In re 492 Blamford v. Blamford 882 Blaijiire v. Geldart 851 Blanchard v. Bridges 234 Blanckhall ?'. Gibson 54 Bland v. Bland 417 V. Inman 300 V. Williams . . 491, 839, 853 Blandford v. Thackerell. . 446, 527, 559 Blandy v. Widmore 78 Blann v. Bell 562 Blasson v. Blasson 511, 801 Blatchford v. Cole 11 Blayney's Trust, Ee 940 Blease v. Burgh 491, 509, 846 Blewett V. Jenkins 295 V. Tregonning . . 137, 169 Blinston v. "Warburton . . 689, 721 Bliss V. Hall 168, 216 Blitheman v. Blitheman 344 BlodweU. V. Edwards 934 Blood V. Keller 172 Bloomfield v. Johnston 133 Blower's Trusts, In re 938 PAGE Blundell v. Dunn 930 V. Gladstone. .935, 936, 941 V. Stanley 961, 967 Blunden )'. Baugh 18 Bkitohf ord v. Plymouth (Mayor of) 170 Blyth V. Dennett 32 Board v. Board 60 Boddam, Ex parte 982 Boddington v. Abernethy .... 364 V. Robinson .... 346 Boddy V. Dawes 852 Bodens v. Watson 862 Boehm v. Clarke 686 Boileau v. Eutlin 14 Bolger V. Mackell 828, 845 Bolton V. Bolton 722, 723, 725, 846 Bond and Brown's Case .. 818, 819 Bond's Case 818 Bone V. Cook 907, 908 Bonfield v. HasseU 980 Bonomi v. Backhouse 207 Boodle V. CambeU 332 V. CampbeR 300 Boon V. Cornforth 642 Booth V. Alcook 170, 173 *'. Alington 897, 899 V. Booth . . 823, 824, 825, 830, 848, 852 V. Carter 555 V. Lambert 81 V. Lindsey 83 V. Potter 277, 280 V. Vicars 888 Boothby v. Vernon 60 Booton V. Eoohester (Bishop of) 273 Boeaston's Case 809 638, 829, 832, 836, 837, 839, 849 Boreham v. Bignall 476 Boreston r. Adam 736 Boroughes's Case 298 Bortoft V. Wadsworth 802 Borton V. Borton 973 Boson V. Statham 532, 563 Bostock r. Blakeney 87 V. Smith 81 Boswel's Case 259, 270, 271 Boswell r. Dillon 493 Bosworth r. Earrand 744 Boteler v. Alhngton - 265 Botheroyd v. Wooley 303 Bolting V. Martin 26 Botts V. Thompson 140, 143 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES CITEU. XXI PAOE Bougliton r. Boughton 849 V. James . . 409, 492, 495, 606, 805, 845 I'. Midland Great Western Railway Company 211 Boulton V. Beard 854 V. Pilcher 849, 855 V. Eeynolds 321 Bourke v. Bourke 28 Bourne «).Buckton 512,515, 516,518 Bouverie, Ee 742 Bovey v. Smith 422 Bowen v. Barlow 1009 V. Scowcroft 675 Bower v. Hill 223 Bowes, Ex parte 993 Bowles's (Lewis) Case 37 49, 59, 60, 86, 603, 714 V. Bury 37 V. Stewart 88 Box V. Jubb Add. Eoyce v. Hanning 488 Boycott V. Cotton 856 Boyd V. Petrie 384, 385, 390 BoydeHi). GoHghtly 492, 493, 651, 867 V. Walthall 342 Boyle V. Boyle 543 V. Tamlyn 162, 176, 217 Bracebridge v. Cooke 892 Brackenbury v. Gibbons .... 363 Bradbee v. Christ's Hospital. . 217 Bradburn v. Morris . . 205, 206, 222 Bradbury «. Wright 294, 297 Bradford v. Belfield 1005 r. Brownjohn 95 V. Foley 834 Bradley v. Cartwright 622 V. GiU 171 V. Hughes 985 Bradley v. Peixoto 968 716, 970, 971, 972 Bradshaw v. Bradshaw . . 923, 925, 940 V. Eyre 146 V. Melling 617 V. Skilbeek 692 V. Tasker 542 Bradwin v. Harper 919 Braithwaite v. Cooksey 320 Bramley v. Chesterton 34 Brandon v. Aston 803, 980 ' V. Brandon 955 PAGE Brandon v. Robinson. .85, 975, 985 Branstrom v. Willdnson .... 852 Bray v. Bree 486 V. Hammersley 486 Beaybeoke v. Inskip 986 885, 992, 997, 1000, 1004 Braythwayte v. Hitchcock. ... 26 Brediman's Case 730 Bree v. Perfect 854 Breedon v. Tugman 846, 851 Brenan v. Boyne 54 Brett V. Eigden 595, 903, 905 V. Sawbridge 867 Brettell, Ex parte . . 987, 989, 991, 992 Brice v. Smith 719 Bricker v. Whatley 900, 901 Brickhead v. York (Archbishop of) 273 Bridge v. Abbot 907, 913 r. Yates 883, 889 Bridger v. Eamsey 651 Bridges v. Potts 25, 29 V. Stephens 112 Brierley v. Kendall 15 Briggs r. Oxford (Earl of) 113, 116, 488, 489, 491 V. Sharp 262, 275 V. Sowry 317 Bright V. Rowe 911 V. Walker 181, 183, 188, 189 Brigstocke v. Brigstocke .... 84 Bringloe v. Goodson 379 Briscoe v. Drought 195, 199 V. Perkins 354 Bristow V. Boothby. .468, 470, 488 V. Bristow 535 V. Skirrow 265 V. Warde . . 403, 406, 410, 485, 494 British Museum (The Trustees of the) V. White . . 539, 553, 568 Britton v. Twining 862 V. Wade 273 V. Ward 270 Broadbent v. Eamsbotham . . 195 V. Wilkes 137 Broadhurst v. Morris 673, 675, 753 Broadwood's Settled Estates, In re ■ 759 Brock and Harris's Case .... 159 Brocklebankr. Johnson. . 845, 854 Brocklington v. Saunders .... 25 Digitized by Microsoft® xxu LIST OF CASES CITED. PAOE Brodie v. Barry 67 V. Chandos (The Duke of) 523, 354 Bromeliead v. Hunt 661 Bromfeild v. Kirber 132 V. Crowder 838, 839 Bromitt v. Moore 727 Bromley v. Wright 845, 851 Brompton (Inoumbent of). Ex parte 583 Brook V. AjTcher 185 V. Badley 554, 559 V. Brook 728 Brooke, In re 993 V. Pearson 984 V. Eogers 42 V. Turner 494 Brookesbie's Case 248 Brookesby v. Wickham 244 Brookman's Estate, In re ... . 906 Brookman -u. Smith 601, 873 Brooksby v. Watts 276 Broom v. Broom 887 Broughton v. Langley . . 355, 606 : V. EandaU 74 Brouncker v. Bagot 862 Brown's Case 740 (Lady) Case 165, 177, 166, 197 Settlement, In re. .393, 394 Trusts, In re 405, 407, 413, 420, 931 Brown, In re 505 and Sibley's Contract, In re 993, 996 V. Arundell 315 ; V. Best 220 V. Candler 306 V. Cutler 835 V. De Laet 645 V. Glenn 321 V. Hammond 916 V. Jarvis 645, 835, 898 : — V. Metropolitan Coun- ties, &c.. Society . . 20 V. Nisbett 412 V. Oakshot 821 V. Eobins . . 207, 208, 236 ■ ■ V. Selwyn 926 V. Shevill 015 V. Stead 963 V. Whiteway 357 V. Windsor 214 . V. Wooler 856 PAOS Browne v. Amyot 306 V. Browne 94, 841 V. Groombridge 808 V. Hammond .... 799, 835 V. Hope 906 V. Jerves 718 V. Powell 321, 324 V. Eamsden 354 V. Stoughton 488, 506 V. AVarner 21, 23, 30 Browning v. Dann 321, 322 Bruce v. Bainbridge 725 V. Bruce 406 • V. Charlton 845 V. Deer (Presbytery of) 572 V. HeUiweU 152 BrudeneU v. Elwes. . 406, 410, 412 485, 486, 490, 495 Brumfitt V. Eogers 168 Brunsden v. Wookedge 536 Brunton v. Hall 205, 206 Bryan v. Collins 508 V. Mansion 654 V. Twigg 899 r. Whistler 168, 171 Bryant v. Lefever Add. Bryden v. WiUett 653 Buccleuch (Duke of) v. Metro- politan Board of Works 195 V. Wake- field 161, 210 Buchanan v. Andrew 210 V. Harrison 737 Buck d. Whalley v. Nurton . . 935 Buckby v. Coles 178 Buckeridge r. Ingram 68 Buckhurst Peerage .... 339, 345 Buckinghamshire v. Drury . . 76 (Earl of) V. Hobart 953, 958 Buckle r. Bristpwe 582 Buckler v. S,ymons 344 Buckley v. Howell 114 V. Kenyon 295 V. Taylor 319 Buokmere's Case 683 Buckworth r. Thirkell 61, 71, 456 Buffar r. Bradford. . 673, 674, 676, 910 Bulkeley v. Hope 952, 954, 961 Bull V. Comberbach 863 — V. Johns 851 V. Pritchard . , 476, 492, 840, 844 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES CITE P. XXIU PAGE Bullard v. Harrison 168, 218 BuUook V. Dodds . . 787, 792, 793 V. Downes 897 V. Fincli 82 V. Fladgate 422 r. Stones 301, 439 V. Thorne : 379, 388 Bulwer v. Astley 99 V. Bulwer 22, 104 Bunbury v. Doran 728, 934 Bunting v. Marriott. .555, 559, 583 Burden v. BurviUe 660 Burdus V. Dixon 1009 Burges v. Mawbey 98, 754, 906 Burgess v. Wlieate. .772, 774, 775, 778 Burk V. Brown 781 Burke v. Annis 722 Burleigh v. Pearson 417 Burley's Case 615,752 Burley v. Evelyn 470 Burn V. Phelps 32 Burnahy v. Barsby 545 V. Griffin 658 Burnett v. Coby 609 Burney v. Maodonald 782 Burnham's National Schools, In re 586 Burnsall v. Dayy 619 Buron v. Denman 30 BurreU v. Egremont (Lord) . . 953, 956, 958, 959, 960, 962 Burrough v. Taylor 298 Burrowes v. Grading 29 Burt V. HeUyar 888 V. Sturt . .512, 516, 517, 518 Burton v. Brooks 12 V. Hastings 661 V. Powers 722 Burtt's Estate, Ee 1006 Bury V. Pope 181 Busby V. Greenslate 600 Bush V. Trowbridge Water- works Company 212, 229 Busk V. Aldam 421 Bustard's Case 83 Bustard v. Saunders 679, 887 Butcher v. Butcher 403 Bute (Marquis of) v. Harman 492 Butler's "Will, In re 759 Butler V. Baker 69 V. Duckmanton 8, 9 I'. Imperial Gas Co. . . 204 V. Lowe 805, 807 PAGE Butler r. Monnings 331 Butt's Case 101, 313 Butter V. Ommaney 865 Butterfield v. Butterfield . . 650, 862 Buttery v. Eobinson 293, 294 Buxton V. Monkhouse 294 Byam v. Sutton 961, 962 Byng V. Byng 676 Byrt V. Manning 280 C. Cadell v. Palmeb, 424 347, 403, 462, 505 Oaffary v. Caffary 675 Calcraft v. Thompson 202 Caldecott v. Brown 87, 88 Caldwell v. Baylis 110 V. Pellowes 890 Caledonian Railway Company V. Belhaven (Lord) 211 r. Sprot 168, 180, 209,211, 213, 214 Caley's Case 709 Calthorpe r. Gough 874 Calvert v. Armitage 562 V. Kitchin 280 Calvin's Case 780, 781 Cambridge v. Eous 490 (The ChanoeUor of) V. Walgrave 262, 730 Camden (Marquis of) v. Batter- bury 26 Camoys v. Blundell. . 935, 940, 941 Campbell's Case 311 Campbell v. AUgood 115 V. BouskiU 673, 752 V. Campbell.. 305,877,878 V. Harding. .654,693,862 V. Leach 295, 416 r. Eadnor(Lord). 566,567 V. Sandys 54, 55 ■ r. Wilson 181, 183 CanoeUor v. Canceller 615 Candy v. Campbell 654, 693 Canham v. Eisk 170, 174, 230 Cann v. Cann 55 Canning v. Canning 720, 726 Cannon v. ViUars 224 Cantillons, Minors, In re .... 848 Cantley, Ee 996 Cape V. Cape 677 V. Scott 145 Capel V. Buzzard 318 Digitized by Microsoft® SXIV LIST OF CASES CITED. PAGE Capron v. Capron 310 Carbery v. Cox 539, 542, 581 Careless v. Careless. .919, 923, 935, 936, 937 Carey v. Yeo 280 Carlyon v. Lovering. . 188, 189, 197, 211, 216 V. Trusoott 354 Carne v. Long 495, 540 Carpenter, In re 1002 V. Colins 20, 21 V. Dunsmure 51 Carr v. Atkinson 408 ■ V. Erroll (Earl of) 470 V. Lambert 147, 148 ■ • V. Foster 186, 187, 190 Carruthers v. Carrutliers .... 77 Carstairs v. Taylor 198 Carte v. Carte 974 Carter v. Barnardiston 360 V. BentaU 617, 651, 689 V. Bletsoe 856 V. Carter 300, 978 V. Cropley 265 V. Green 558, 564, 566 V. Sebright 96 Cartwrigbt r. Smith 323 V. Vaudrey 928 Carver v. Bowles 407, 413, 492 V. Burgess 800 Cary«. Abbot 541, 543 Casamajor v. Strode 147 Casberd 4). Attorney-General . . 789 Casborne v. Scarf e. ... 61, 64, 365, 744, 991, 992, 1009 Casburne v. Inglis 64 Case V. Drosier 470, 488 Casey's Trusts, In re 982 Casey v. Lalor 726 Castle V. Fox 800 Castledon v. Turner 938 Castlemaine (Lord) v. Craven (Lord) 110 Catesby v. Peterborough (Bp. of) 271 Catley v. Sampson 777 Cator V. Cator 679 V. Lewisham Board of Works 217 Cattley v. Ai-nold 306 Cattlin V. Brown 466, 476 Caulfield v. Maguire 102, 419, 862, 978 Cautley, In re 994 PAGE Cavan (Lady) v. Pulteney 67 Cawood V. Thompson 555 Chadock v. Cowley 718 Chadwick v. Marsden 174, 221 V. Trower 215 Chaffers v. AbeU 845, 846 ChaEenger v. Shepherd . . 723, 725 Challenor's Case 158 Challenor and Moore's Case . . 157 Challoner v. MurhaU 55 Chamberlain, In re 97 . V. Agar 928 Chamberlayne v. Brookett555, 576, 581 V. Chamberlayne 623, 752 Chamberlyne v. Dummer .... 115 Chambers, In re 389 V. Atkins 679 V. Taylor 717 Champion v. Smith 535 Chance v. Chance 851 Chancellor's (Lord) Case .... 261, 262 Chandler v. HoweU 559, 561 V. Thompson . . 201, 234 Chandless v. Price 650, 862 Chandos (Duke of) v. Talbot 856, 859, 953, 955 Chaplin's Trusts, Ee 910 Chaphn v. Chaplin . . 297, 365, 754 Chapman's Case 720 Chapman v. Blissett 473, 803 V. Brown. .493, 555, 559, 565, 581, 582 V. Chapman 908 r. Gatcombe 967 V. Towner 24, 29 Chappell's Trust, Ee 870 Charitable Donations (Commis- sioners of) v. Sullivan 572 V. Walsh. . 542 Charitable Gifts for Prisoners, In re ; Ex parte Governors of Chi-ist's Hospital 587 Charnocke v. Warsley 66 Charter v. Charter . . 937, 939, 940 Chasemore v. Eichards . . 196, 197 Chatfield r. Berchtoldt . . 50, 53, 57 Chatham (Earl of) v. Tothill. . 862 Chatteris v. Young 909 Chauncy's Case 46 Chaunoy v. Graydon 728, 729 Cheeseman ;•. Partridge 576 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES CITED. SXV PAGE Cheesman v. Hardliam . . 129, 133 Chellew v. Martin 834 Cheney's (Lord) Case 936 Cherrington v. Abney 234 Cherry v. Boultbee 380 — V. Mott 562, 581 Chesshyre v. Biss 964 Chester v. Chadwick 409 V. Chester 559, 569 V. WiUan 890 r. Willes 953, 955 Chatham v. Williamson 297 Chevaux v. Aislabie 851 Cheyney's Case 919, 923, 927 Chichester (Lord) v. Hall 333 r. Oxendon 724 Child V. Bailie 436 ■ ■ V. Stenning 230 Chilton V. London (Corp. of) . . 135 Chinnery's Estate, In re ... .Add. Chirton's Case 767, 769 Choach Choon Nioh v. Spottis- ■woode 566 Cholmeley v. Paxton 113 Cholmondely v. Clinton 733 Chowne v. Baylis 793 Christ's College, Cambridge, Case of 536 Christ's Hospital v. Granger. . 495 V. The Gover- nors of, Ee 545 Christie v. Gosling 483 V. Ovington 1011 Chiidleigh's Case 40, 336, 337, 338, 340, 345, 347, 373, 713, 765, 767 Church's (T.) Will, Ee 793 Church Building Society (In- corporated) ?'. Barlow 558 D.Coles 570 Church Estate Charity, Wands- worth, In re 583 Church V. Dalton 12 v. Kemble 493 r. Wyat 751 ChurchiU v. ChurchiU. . . . 407, 414 V. Marks 972, 980 Churchman D.Harvey. . . . 420, 421 Circuitt V. Pery 664 City of London Brewery Co. v. Tennant 201, 202, 225, 226, 227, 228 Clache's Case 638, 658, 659 Clanry, Ee 656, 558 Clancy v. Byrne 176 PA(JE Clarendon (Earl of) v. Barham 952, 961, 963 Clark and Lamb's Case 164 Clark In re 658, 659, 660, 661 — V. Cogge 178, 180 — — ■ V. Gaskarth 314 ■ V. London School Board 229 ■ D. Eoss 858 • V. Taylor 581 Clark's Estate, Ee 468 Trusts, In re. .496, 540, 582 Clarke v. Abbott 1009 V. Blake 801 V. Butler 834 V. Chambers 982 V. Clark 202, 203, 225, 226, 807 • — V. Clemmans .... 905, 912 • — V. Franklin 75, 79 V. Philips 387 V. Phillips 910, 912 V. Tinker 132 Clarkson v. Scarborough .... 302 V. Woodhouse .... 131 Clavering's Case 171 Clavering D. Clavering ., 108, 109 Claxton V. Claxton 193 Clay V. Pennington 865 V. Thacki-ay 187 Clayton r. Blakey 24 V. Corby 136, 137, 190 V. Gregson 934 V. lUingworth 27 V. Nugent (Lord) . . 934, 942 Cleary's Trusts 616, 753, 862 Clegg V. Eishwick 93 Clement v. Scudamore 740 Clephane v. Lord Provost, &c., of Edinburgh 580 Cleee v. Cokbet 117 Clergy Society, In re. .581, 583, 941 (Sons of the). Corpora- tion of, V. Mose 583 Clerk V. Clerk 885 • V. Day 622 Clifford V. Brooke 473 V. Clifford 957, 960 V. Hoare 224 Clifton V. Goodbun 930 Cline's Estate, In re 310 Clobberie's Case 821, 823, 848 Cloberry v. Lampen 821 Clogstoun V. Waloott 418, 421 Closse V. Pomcoyes 246 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES CITED. PAOE Clossey, Eg 58 Clowes V. Huglies 16 V. Stafiorclshire Pot- teries Waterworks Co. 228 Clufi V. CIufE 560 Clun V. Ai-clier 284 Cltin's (William) Case 284 . . 103, 291 Clulow's Estates, In re 306,512,517 Coal Consumers' Association, In re 327 Coape V. Arnold 601, 604 Coates V. Hart 661 Cobb r. Stokes 11 Cock V. Cook 643 Cocker r. Cowper 171 Cockerell v. Cholmeley 113 Cocks V. Manners 539, 540 Cocksbott V. Cookshott 641 Codling r. Jobnson 181 Coe's Trust, Ee 977 Coffin f. Coffin 115 V. Cooper 390, 419 Cogan V. Cogan 347 V. Stephens 565 Coben v. Waley 661 Coke's (Lord) Case 636 Colbron v. Travers 299 Colcbester v. Law 784 V. Eoberts 221, 222 Colclougb V. Cololougb . . 613, 619, 622, 726 ColdweU v. Holme 578, 583 Cole V. Goble 686, 862 r. Levingston 656, 658 V. Scott 800 V. SeweU. .385, 470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 488 Colebeck and Jarrom, In re . . 914 V. Girdlers' Co 217 Colefatt r. Newoomb 259 Colegrave v. Manby 91 Coleman v. Foster 171 Coles r. Witt 616 CoUard v. Eoe 75 Colley's Trusts, Ee 912 Collier v. King 12 r. McBean 358,601,602 r.Walters. . 356,357,358,601 CoUingwood v. Pace. .735, 736, 781 Collins V. Harding 310 V. Johnson 907 V. Plummer 463 CoUinson r. Pater 5C0 PAGE Collison's Case 539 CoUyer v. Burnett 585 Colmore v. Tyndall 361 Colson )'. Colson 614 Colt and Glover r. Coventry (Bisbop of) 82, 201, 269, 271, 272 Coltbirst and Bejusbiii's Case . 811 Coltsmann v. Coltsmann 689, 719, 724, 726 Combe v. Hughes 679 Comber v. Hill 659 Comfort i\ Brown Add. Commissioners of Sewers v. Glasse 132, 137, 141 Commons v. Marshall 416 Comport t: Austen . .476, 492, 842 Compton (Lord) v. Oxenden. . 949, 950, 952, 953 V. Eichards 173 Conduitt V. Soane 804 Conmee v. Taaffe 899 Connolly v. Connolly 890 Connor, In re 931, 934 Consettr. Bell Ill Constable v. Nicholson 137 Conway's (Sir John) Case. . . . 133 Coo V. Cautborn 139 Cook's (Sir Edward) Case 769 Cookr. Cook 157, 887 ■ V. Duckenfield 573 • r. Gerrard 642 V. Guerra 17 r. Jaggard 726 Cooke, Ex parte 984 r. Blake 358,359 V. Bowen 803 V. Bowler 473 V. Bromehill 376 V. Chobnondeley. .101, 274, 275 V. Crawford . .1002, 1003, 1005, 1006, 1008 V. Cunliffe 388 V. Loxley 276 V. Turner 974 V. WhaUey 115 Cookson V. Bingham 724, 889, 899 Cooling and the Great Northern Eailway Company, Ee .... 229 Coombe v. Hughes 513 Cooper K. Cartwright 964 V. Cooper 855 V. Eorbes 801 V. France 732 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES CITED. SXVll PAOE Cooper V. Hubbuck 189, 235 V. Kynock . . 361, COl, 602 ■ V. Macdonald 62 • V. Marsball . .144, 145, 146 V. Pitcher 655 V. Y/yatt 980 Coote V. Bath (Mayor of) 232 V. O'Eeilly 99 Cope V. Henshaw 942 Copiuger v. Creliane .... 573, 585 Cox^ley V. Enriglit 105 Coppin V. Coppin 906 V. Pernyhough 93 Coppinger i\ Gtibbina 109 Corbet's (Sir Miles) Case ... .117 133, 463, 639, 972 Corbet V. Corbet.- 76 Corbett V. HiU 201 CoEDYJSr V. FUEKCH 519 466, 554, 908 Corclall's Case 360 Corker v. Ennys 382 Corlass, In re 801 Cormack r. Copous . .651, 654, 678 Cornish, v. Stubbs 27 CorrLTS-allis's (Lord) Case .... 790 Corri>. Corr 848, 849 Corrigan v. "Woods 14 Cort V. Winder 801, 804 Cosen's Case 648, 649 Costard and Wingfield's Case.. 134 Cotching V. Bassett 172 Cotterell v. Griffiths 225 Cotton V. Cotton 907 Coulson V. Coulson 606 Coulthirst v. Carter 834 Counden and Clerk's Case. . . . 733 f.,Clarke 919, 923 V. Clarke 720, 721 Courtauld V. Legh 186, 202 Courtier v. Oram 492, 493 Cousens v. Eose , 205 Cousins V. Schroder 851 Coutts V. Gorham 173 Coventry v. Coyentry 492, 517, 576, 804 Cowgill V. Oxmantown (Lord) 382 Cowlan V. Slack 130 Cowley (Earl) v. WeUesley . . 108 Cowling V. Higginson 205, 206, 221 Cowper V. Andrews 134 V. Cowper 735 V. Fletcher 297, 890 — V. Mantell 909 PAGE Cowx V. Foster 418, 421, 422 Cox, In re 555, 559 V. Bent 24 V. Bookett 982 D. Cox 422 V. Davie 555, 559 V. Eonblanque 981 r. Matthews 173, 192 ■ t'. Parker 355, 775, 873 ■ r. Quantock 887 Coxhead's Case 754 Cradook v. Cradock 651, 888 V. Owen 775, 784 Crafton v. Erith 538, 556 Cramer r. Mott 314, 322 Cramp v. Playfoot. . 553, 556, 559, 564, 582 Cranley v. Dixon 643 Cranswick r. Pearson 898, 899 Craven r. Brady 408, 980 Crawford v. Trotter 678, 862 Crawley's Case 51, 343 Crawlej' v. Crawley 509, 512 V. Price 25 Cray v. WiUis 878, 879 Creagh v. Blood 42 Creaton v. Creaton. . 354, 355, 357 CressweU <.. Chesljm 910, 914 r. CressweU 554 Crips V. Grysil 997 Crockett v. Crockett 081 Croft V. Evetts 541, 543 Crofton r. Bunbury 900 Crofts V. Haldane 229 V. Middleton 601 Croker v. Brady Add. Crompe c. Barrow 406,411,486,490 Crompton v. Lea 198 Cromwell's (Lord) Case 47 Cromwell (Lord) v. Andrews. . 286 Crook V. HiU 931 V. Whiteley 930 Crooke v. De Vandes..440, 442, 680, 887 Cropton V. Davies 646 Crosier v. Tomkinson 315 Cross V. Hudson 392 • V. Lewis 182 Crossley i'. Lightowler . . 192, 198, 216, 231 Crowder v. Clowes 645, 646 V. Stone . . 689, 911, 926 Crozier v. Crozier . . 404, 405, 408, 421, 422, 600, 622, 698, 721 Digitized by Microsoft® xxvui LIST OF CASES CITED. PAGE Crump V. Wooley 70 d. "Woolley r. Norwood 613, 741 Cruse V. Barley 845 V. Howell 800, 913 Oubitti). Porter 217 Cuckfield Burial Board, In re. 756 Cudlip r. Eundall 12 Cxilcraft V. Thompson 225 Cullen V. Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests 588 Culley V. Doe d. Taylerson . . 63 Culsha V. Cheese 909 Culvert V. Joliffe 317 Cumber v. Chichester (Bishop of) 272, 273 Cumming v. Bedborough .... 299 V. Forrester . . 794, 795 CunlifEe v. Brancker..356, 357, 362 Cunningham v. Moody .... 61, 70 V. Murray 678 Cunninghame v. Anstruther . . 413 V. Thurlow 391 Cunynghame's Settlement, In re 487, 493 Cupit r. Jackson 328 Curling V. Austin 178 V. Shuttleworth 385 Currie v. Pye 559 Curriers' Company v. Corbett 174, 205, 226, 227 Cursham r. Newland 617 Curtis V. Curtis 84 V. Graham 678 V. Hutton.. 529, 553, 566, 568 V. LuMn 465, 506 V. Price . . 361, 602, 603, 604 Cust V. Middleton 274 Cutting V. Derby 11, 29, 298 D. D'Abbadie v. Bizoin 421 Dacke's (Sir J.) Case 791 Da Costa v. De Pas. . 541, 543, 577 Dacre v. Patrickson 784 Daintry v. Daintry 649, 686 Dale's (Utty) Case 50 Dalton V. Whittem 314 Daly V. Aldworth 889, 898 Page Daly V. Beckett 295 DalzeU t'. Welch 617 Dancer v. Hastings 16, 321 Dand v. Kingscoto. . 177, 220, 221 Daniel v. Arkwriglit 412, 413 V. Anderson 175 V. North 181, 182, 185 V. Stepney 313 V. Ubley 971 V. Warren 686 Darby v. Darby 19 V. Harris 314 Darcy (Lord) v. Askwith .... 177 V. Blake 69, 71 Dare v. Heathcote 206 Darley v. Martin 664, 690 Darling v. Clew 190 Darrel v. Molesworth 873 Dashwood r. Peyton .... 641, 665 Davall V. New Eiver Company 775 Davenport's Trust, Ee . . 928, 931 Davenport v. Coltman 642 V. Oldis 660 Davidson v. Chalmers 974 V. Dallas 802 r. Proctor 693, 851 Davie v. Stevens 673, 753 Davies, Ex parte 689 V. Bush 382 V. Pisher 850, 852 V. Fitton 299 — V. Hopkins 554 V. Huguenin 390, 858 — V. Lowndes 737 V. Marshall . .230, 234, 235 r. PoweU 318 V. Sear 171, 178 V. Stephens 182 V. Wescomb 112 V. Williams. .145, 187, 189, 224 Davis V. Barrett 961, 963 V. Bennet 896 V. Bennett 896 V. Dysart (Earl of) 90 V. Elmes 905 V. Gj-de 300 V. Kemp 910 V. Kirk 734 V. Williams 920 Davison v. Gent 28 Davy, Ee 927 Dawes' Trusts, In re 803 V. Hawkins 233 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES CITED. XXIX PAGE Dawkins v. Penrhyn (Lord) . . 972 Dawney v. Dee 168 Dawson v. Bourne 679 V. Killet 858 V. Small 582, 656, 694 Day and Drake's Case 166 Day V. Day 21, 645, 975 ■ V. Spooner 130 V. Trig 919 De Beauvoir v. Owen 333 De G-aroin v. Lawson . , . .541, 543 De Grey v. Eicliardson 64 De NichoUs v. Saunders .... 17 De Serre v. Clarke 382 De Tastet v. Le Tavernier. . . . 979 De Thenimines v. De Bonneval 541, 543, 566 De Witte v. De AVitte 678, 679 Deerhurst (Lord) v. St. Alban's (Duke of) 478 Defflis V. Goldsohmidt 807 Delacherois v. Delaclierois 257, 778 Delmare v. Eobello 928 Delmege v. Mullins 25 Den d. Briddon v. Page .... 651 d. Franklin v. Trout 641 Denby v. Moore Add. Denn d. Brune v. Eawlins. ... 24 d. Gaskin v. Gaskin 720, 725 ■ V. Gaskin 896 • d. Geering«. Sbenton 609, 752 d. Goodwin v. Spray .... 741 V. Mellor 722 d. Moor V. Mellor . . 720, 726 d. Eadolyffe v. Bagshaw . 833 d. Eicbardson v. Hood . . 724 V. Satterthwaite 837 V. Sbenton 686 V. Slater 719, 722 d. Warren v. Fearnside 13, 20 (?. Webb «;. Puokey 606,618 Denne v. Ligbt 178 Dennehy's Estate, In re. . 410, 415 Dennett t). Pass 331 Denning v. Ellerton 403 Dennis v. Prend 492 Dent V. AUoroft 555, 557 V. Auction Mart Co. 202, 203, 205, 225 V. Dent 87 ■ .V. Pepys 926 Denton v. Denton 116 V. Manners (Lord George) 558 PAGE Destouches v. Walker 688 Deux V. JefEreyes 331 Devall V. Dickens 601 Devenish v. Baines 928 Devery v. Grand Canal Co . . 194 Devisme )■. Mello 799, 801 Devonshire (Duke of) v. Caven- dish (Lord G.) 485 ; V. Eglin . 171 Dewell, Ee, Edgar r. Eeynolds 785 Dibble v. Bowater 299 Dick V. Lacy 865 Dicken v. Clarke 834, 916 Dickin v. Hamer 68, 82 Dickinson v. Grand Junction Eailway Co. 196, 197 V. Harbottle 202 V. Mort . . 413, 418, 422 Digges's Case. . 369, 370, 373, 377, 388, 389 Dilley v. Matthews 931 Dillon V. DiUon 418 • V. Preine 336 ■ • V. Parker 77 V. Eeilly 539, 542 Dillwyn v. Llewellyn 718 Dimes V. Grand Junction Eail- way Company 995, 1000 Dimmock's Case 369 Dimond v. Bostook 913 Dinsdale v. lies 18, 19 Dixon's Trusts, In re 615 Dixon V. Harrison 330 -u. Peacock 87, 98 V. Eowan 956 V. SaviUe 71 Dobitofte v. Curteen 296 Dobson V. Dobson 84 V. Jones 14 Dodd t>. Burchell 175 V. Holme 213, 214 ■ V. Wake 492 Dodds V. Dodds 613, 619, 864 V. Thompson 312 Dodgson, In re 847 Dodson V. Hay 61, 491 Doe d. AUen v. Allen 936 d. Allport V. Bacon .... 725 d. Annandale v. Brazier . 642 ■ ■ d. Armstrong v. Wilkin- son 31 • d. Ashby v. Baines .... 727 d. Ashforth v. Bower . . 929 d. Aslin V. Summersett . . 29 Digitized by Microsoft® XXX LIST OF CASES CITED. PAGE Doe d. Atkinson v. Fa-n-cett . . 726 d. Atkinson ;■. Featlier- stone 610 d. Baddelej' v. Massov . . 150 ■ d. Bailey v. Foster . .". .29, 30 d. BarLer v. LuTrrenee . . 297 d. Barnfield r. Wetton . . 687 d. Bastow V. Cox 12, 15, 18, 26 d. Bates v. Clayton .... 725 d. Beaclir. Jersey (Eaii of) 929 • f/. Bean I'. Halley ..648,653 d. Bennett v. Long .... 33 d. Bennett v. Turner . .8, 19 d. Bills V. Hopkinson . . 841 d. BirtwMstle v. Vardill . 736 d. Blackburn;'. Blackburn 732 d. Blako V. Luxton .... 55 d. Blakistoui'.PIaslewood 667 d. Blandfordr.Applin618,619 - - >,27 412 726 353, 355 898 d. Blesard r. Simpson ■ d. Blomfield r. Eyre . ■ d. Booley v. Roberts . . d. Bootk V. Field . , • d. Borwell ?■. Abey ■ d. Bosnall v. Harvey . . 610, 612, 013 ■ d. Bowman r. Le-wis . . 15, 17 d. Bradford r. Watkins . 32 d. Brammall r. Collinge . 260 ■ d. Brodbelt v. Thompson . 723 ■ d. Browne r. Greening . . 929 ■ d. Burden j'.Burville 657, 658 • d. Burdettc.Wrighte564, 722 d. Burrinr. Cliarlton 616, 753 d. Burton v. White . . 719, 725 d. Cadogan v. Ewart 354, 356, 464, 686, 837 d. Calvert v. Frowd 33 d. Candler v. Smith. .610, 618 d. Cannon c. Rucastle 619, 723 d. Cape V. Walker . .648, 688 d. Carlisle (Lord) ('.Wood- man 32 d. C'hevalier v. Huthwaite 940 d. Chichester r.Osenden . 929 d. Chidgey r. Harris. . . . 564 d. Child V. Wright 720 d. Clarke v. Clarke . .722, 725 d. Clements r. Collins . . 935 d. Clift V. Birkhead 656 d. Cock V. Cooper . .619, 689 d. Cololough V. Mullincr . 150 d. C^olo V. Goldsmith 610 d. Collier v. Terry 353 Doe d. d. -d. d. d. -d. d. d. d. d. d. ■ -d. d. ■ -d. PAGE Comberbach r. Peri-j'n 651 Compere r. Hacks .... 361 Cooke V. Danvers .... 936 Cooper r. CoUis.. 618, 619 Cox V. • 31 Crisp r. Barber 10 Crosthwaite r. Dixon . 881 Dacro (Ladj') v. Koper 725 Daveuish v. Moffatt . . 29 David V. Williams. .33,320 Davies v. Thomas. . 16, 19 Davy V. BurnsaU 680 Digby r. Steel 33 Dixie V. Davies. .12, 15, 19, 26 DoUey r. Ward. . 491, 838 Douglas r. Lock. . 170, 295 Driver ?•. Bowling 641, 642 Dunraven v. Williams 150 Durouro v. Jones .... 781 Ednoy V. Benham .... 295 Edney Billet 295 Ellis V. EHis 467 Elton V. Stenlake .... 495 Fisher r. GUes 15 Fonnereau v. Fonne- reau 601 Foster v. Scott 56 Fyldes 717 Gains V. Eouse 936 Gallini v. Gallini 618, 653, 654 Garrod v. Garrod .... 616 G arrod v. Olley 15 Gigg )'. Bradley. . 673, 676 Gilman v. Elvey. . 680, 753 Gill V. Pearson 971 Gillard r. Gillard 351 Goody V. Carter 8, 10, 18, 19 Gord V. Needs . . 920, 923, 936, 937 Gorges V. Webb. . 657, 660 Graham v. Hawkins. . 549 Gray r. Stanion 12 Green v. Baker .... 28, 32 Griffiths !'. Lloyd 332 Grubb r. Grubb 33 Hallen r. Ironmonger 358, 613 Harris v. Taylor .... 652 Harrison v. MurreU . . 10 Harrop v. Green .... 28 Hatch r. Bluck 469 Hayne v. Eedfern 779, 794 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES CITED. XXXI Doe Doe Hayter v. Joinville . . Higgs V. Terry Hiiidmarcli v. Oliver. . HiSCOCKS V. HiSCOCKS PAGE 937 30 19 918 925 30 d. Hobbs V. Cookell . . d. Hollings worth v. Sten- nett 12 d. Holt V. Horrocks .... 63 Howsonv.Waterton 544, 545 Hugbes V. Biicknell . . 29 Hull V. Wood 26 Hunt V. Moore 838 Jacobs V. Phillips . . 17, 20 James v. Hallett. .604, 808 Jearrard r. Bannister 616, 718 52 790 608 687 616 69 688 356 724 29 689, Jeff V. Eobinson . . Jeilereys r. Hicks. . Jesson. V. Wright . . Johnson v. Johnson Jones V. Davies .... Jones V. Jones .... Jones V. Owens . . 686 Keen v. Walbank. . . . Kiniber v. Cafe . . 357 . Kindersley v. Hughes King V. Frost . . 688, 692, 719 Knott V. Lawton .... 724 Lambourn v. Pedgriph 12 Lean v. Lean 724 Le Chevalier v. Huth- waite 920 Leeson v. Sayer 11 Leicester v. JBiggs 352, 555 Lempriere v. Martin. . 56 Lewis V. Lewis 52 Lewis V. Eees 150 Lindsey (Earl of) v. Colyear 751 ■ d. Tjiversage v. Vaughan 651 ■ d. Jjloyd V. Jones 150 ■, fA Lloyd V. Passingham. . 341 d. Lord V. Crago 26 d. Lord V. Macartney . . 32 ■ d. Lowes V. Davidson . . 152 ■ d. Lumley.i'. Scarborough 470 ■ d. Lyde v. Lyde 654, 688 d. Lyster J). Q-oldwin 14, 30, 31 • d. Mann v. Walters .... 31 • d. Martin v. Watts 24 ■,rf. Mathewson v. Wright- man 28 Doe d. d. PAGE Matthews v. Jackson . . 31 Morgan v. Morgan . . 920, 923, 935, 936, 938 Morris v. Underdown . 837 Miiller v. Claridge . . 354 Neville v. Elvers .... 70 Nicholl V. M'Kaeg. . 12, 21 Noble V. Bolton . . 354,355, 356 Oldershaw v. Breach. . 25 Oxenden v. Chichester 920 Parker v. Boulton. . 12, 29 Parsley v. Day 15 Patrick v. Beaufort (Duke of) 8 Payne v. Plyer 724 Pennington v. Taniere 25 PhiUips V. Aldridge . . 537 Phipps V. Mulgrave (Lord) 651 Planner v. Scudamore 839 Player v. Nicholls 356, 358 Pottow V. Priohor .... 724 Preeee v. Howella 545, 548 Preedy v. Helton 929, 935 Price V. Price 18 Prior V. Ongley 24 Rhodes v. Pobinson . . 31 EiddeU r. GwinneU .. 82 Eoake v. Nowell 838 Roberts v. Roberts . . 719 Eobertson v. Gardiner 29 Eobinson i\ Dobell . . 28 Eoby V. Maisey 15 . Eogerst'.Cadwallader 15,17 Rogers v. PuUen 18 Eoylance v. Lightfoot 15 Sams V. Garlick 722 Shelley •i'.Edlin355, 356, 909 Shore 1'. Porter 627 Small t-. Allen 720, 725, 927 Smith V. Galloway . . 929 Smith V. Webber 688 SneU. V. Tom 15 Southouse r. Jenkins 657 Spencer v. Clark. . 727, 749 Stanway v. Eook 12, 18, 20 Stevens v. Scott 355 Stewart r. Sheffield 801,912 Strong r.. Golf 613 Templema,n v. Martin 935 Thomas v. Beynon . . 936 Thomas v. Field 22 Thomas v. Eoberts . . 8 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES CITED. Doe d. ■ d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. ■ d. d. d. d. PAGE Thompson v. Amey . .24, 2.'5 Thompson v. Pitcher 538, 546, 547 Tilt V. Stratton 29 Timmis v. Steele 52 Todd V. Duesbmy 652, 686, 688 Tomes?;. Chamberlaine 1 2, 1 8 Tomkyns v. Willan . . 356, 362 Tooley v. Gunniss .... 651 Tremewen v. Permewan 751 Tucker v. Morse .... 24 TyrreU J). Lyford .... 929 Yessey?;.Wilkinson 666,834 Viner v. Eve 720 Warner v. Browne. . 23, 29 Watson V. Fletcher . . 282 Watt V. Morris 9 WeUard v. Hawthorn 545, 548 Wells V. Scott 872 Westlake v. Westlake 929, 937 Whayman ii. Chaplin 29 Wheedon v. Lea .... 837 Wheeldon < . Paul 298 Whitaker r. Hales . . 29 White V. Simpson .... 360 Wilkinson v. Groodier 15 WiUiams v. Lloyd. . . . 545 Winter v. Perratt .... 470, 473, 478 Woodall V. WoodaU. .614 Woodcock r. Barthrop 354, 359 AUen 722, 941 Applin 863 Bartle 892 Batten 32 Bennett 996 Britain 380 Browne 30 Burnsall 622 Carter 10, 20, 982 Cavendish (Ld. George) 411 Challis 870 Charlton 651 Olaridge 360 Clarke 301, 801 Clayton 722 Coleman 722 CoUis 621 Coltman 78 PAGE Doe V. Cooper 658 V. Copestake 564 V. Crick 29, 32 ■ V. CuUiford 31 V. Cundall 722 V. Dacre 835 V. Davies 12 V. Dorvell 656 V. Dunbar 31 V. Evans 790 V. Field 353 i. Ponnereau 439 V. Glover 973 V. Goddard 56 V. GofE 611, 612, 619 • V. Gower 9 V. Gwillim 725 V. Hardy 927 V. Hawke 982 V. Hilder 233 V. Holmes 721 ■ • V. Homfray 353 V. Hopkinson 654, 841 V. HuU 9 V. Humphreys 33 V. Huthwaite 923, 925 V. Ironmonger .... 354, 602 • • V. Jones 12, 62, 710 V. Kightley 28, 31 11. Laming 864 V. Langton 929 V. Lea 823, 829, 830 V. Lightfoot 14, 996 V. Lucraft 649, 687 V. Luxton 51, 54 V. Lyde 862 V. Martin 70, 717 V. Milborne 393 V. Miller 12 V. Moore 840 V. Morphett 31 V. Needs 941 V. Owens 722 V. Palmer 33 V. Perkins 8 ■ V. Phillips 721, 722 r. Pitcher 564 ■ V. Pritchard 787 V. Eead 30 V. Eichards 722 V. Eidout 27 ('. Eivers 709 V. Eoberts 935 V. Eobinson 56 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES CITED. XXSIU PAaE Doe V. Eoe 11 V. Scudamore 60 V. Selby 651 V. SiQtter 334 V. Simpson 358, 616 V. Snelling 721 V. Thomas 260 V. Tucker 725 V. Turner 10, 13 • V. Wainwright 656 V. Watkins 32 V. Webber 616 V. Weller 70 V. Wetton 655 V. Wliiteliead 708 V. Williams 724 V. Woodhouse 724 V. Woodman 32 V. Wrighte 545 Doidge V. Carpenter 148 Dolan V. Macdermot .... 539, 573 Dolton V. Hewen 721 Dommett v. Bedford 978, 979, 982 Don's Estate, Ee 736 Donaldson v. Donaldson .... 306 Doncaster v. Doncaster 488 DoneUan v. O'Neill. ..... 537, 588 Donistborpe v. Porter 952 Donn V. Penny 692, 865 Doo V. Brabant 873, 874 Doolan u. Smith 664 Doran v. Wiltshire 113 Dorchester (Lord) v. Effingham (Earl of) 493 Dorin v. Dorin 931 Dorhng v. Claydon 735 Dormer's Case 747, 751 Dorsett v. Dorsett 979 Douglas V. Congreve 602, 608, 609, 862, 863 J). Eellows 922,926,935,937 Dover v. Alexander 930 Dowling V. Dowling 655 Downe (Viscount) v. Morris . . 777 Downes v. Craig 278 Downhall v. Oatesby 720 Dowset V. Street 910, 919,934, 936, 937 Dowties's Case 738, 787 Drake v. Drake 926, 937, 942 V. Munday 15 Drakeford r. Drakeford. . 912, 914 V. Wilks 927, 928 T.L.C. PAOE Drakeley's Estate, In Ee 511, 512, 898, 899 Drennan v. Andrew 875 Drew V. KiUick 642 Drewell v. Towler 168 Drewett v. Pollard 517, 518 Drinkwater v. Combe .... 953, 954 Drury r. Drury 76 V. Kent 146 Drybutter r. Bartholomew . . 68 Dubber d. TroUope v. Trollope 615, 752, 864 Duberley v. Page 141 Duck V. Braddyl 314 Dudden v. Glutton Union, Guar- dians of 192, 196 Dudley v. Ward 105 DudleyCanalCo. t'.Grazebrook 211 Duifield V. Duffield 833, 841 Dugdale v. Eobertson 209,. 213 Du Hourmelin v. Sheldon , . 783 Dumball v. Walters 201 Dumoncel v. Dumoncel 782 Duncan, In re ; In re Taylor's Trusts 586 V. Louch 218 Dunoomb v. Duncomb 69 Duncomb's Case 218 Duncombe v. Mayer 88 V. EandaU 220 Dundas V. Wolfe-Murray 422, 852 Dundee (Magistrates of) v. Morris 582 Dungannon (Lord) v. Smith . . 465, 466, 482 Dunk r. Penner 610, 615, 688, 862 Dunn V. Birmingham Canal Co. 211 V. Bownas 556, 559 V. Bryan 108 V. Green 55 Dunne v. Dunne 87, 88 Dunne's Trusts Add. Dunraven (Earl of) v. Llewel- lyn 143 Duplessis V. Attorney-General 781 Duppa V. Mayo 298, 319 DureU. v. Pritchard 203, 227 Durham and Sunderland Eail- way Co. r. Walker 170, 206, 295 Durour v. Motteux 532, 538 Durrant v. Friend 928 Dutton, Ee 496, 540 V. Crowdy 659, 911 c Digitized by Microsoft® SXSIV LIST OF CASES CITED.. PAGE Button V. Engram 374 V. Tayler 178 Dwyers, Minors, In re 76, 77 Dyce V. Hay 206 Dyer v. Dyer . , 367, 642, 886, 928 Dygby's Case 270, 271 Dyke V. Eendall ; . . . 76 r. Walford 784 E. Eadon v. Jeffoook 209 Eagle V. Charing Cross Rail- way Co 229 Eagles V. Le Breton 888, 897 Eagleton r. Gutteridge 322 Eales V. Cardigan (Earl of) . . 899 V. Conn 470 V. Drake 417, 909 ■ V. England 909 Earle v. Wilson 934 Early v. Benboiy 808 V. Middleton 808 East V. Twyford 614, 616 East India Co. v. Vincent .... 171 Eastern Counties Rail-^Yay Com- pany V. TufPnell 1001 Eastman v. Baker 687 Eastwood ?. Avison. .648, 649, 6.51 V. Lockwood 870 V. Vinoke 735 Easum v. Appleford 508 Eaton V. Hewitt 835 ■ V. Swansea Waterworks Company 187, 190 Eccles V. Birkett 849, 854 r. Clieyne 916 Ecclesiastical Commissioners v. Merral 25 Eddel's Trusts 355, 473, 841 Eddowes v. Eddowes 807 Edenborough v. Canterbury (Arcbbisbop of) . . 265, 266, 273 Edgeworth v. Edgeworth. .834, 872 Edgington's Trusts, Ee 978 Edmondson's. Estate, In re . . 47P, 843, 853 Edmunds v. Fessey 930 V. Waug'h. . 662, 845, 942 Edwardes v. Jones '898 Edwards v. AUiston 656 V. Champion. . . . 50, 884, 887, 891 PAGE Edwards v. Exeter (Bishop of) 264 V. Ereeman 344 V. Hall 554, 556, 560 V. Hammond. . . .838, 839 V. Pike 663 V. Saloway 909 Bdwabds v. Slater 368- 348, 376, 386 V. Symons 837 V. Tuck . . 511, 512, 516, 518, 661 Egan V. Morris 616, 655 Egerton v. Jones 468, 687 Egremont (Lord) v. Pulman. . 218 Eisdell V. Hammersley 384 Elborne v. Goode 507, 512, 518 Eldridge v.. Stacey 322 Ellcock V. Mapp 784 Ellicombe r. Gompertz 653 Elliot ;•. Davenport 902 904 V. Merryman 377 V. North-Eastern Eail- way Co 180, 209, 213 EUiotson r. Feetham 216 Elliott r. ElUott 492, 805, 886 V. Fisher 1010 V. Johnson 24, 26 Ellis V. Bridgenorth (Mayor of) 109 V. Ellis 848 V. Houston Add. V. Manchester Carriage Comj>any (Limited) . . 174 .t'. Maxwell 508,509,510,511 V. Selby 540, 582, 617 V. Taylor 324, 326 EUison V. Airey 480, 804 Elmsley v. Young 897 Eltham (Parish) v. Warreyn 538, 574 Elton V. Eason 618, 686 V. Elton 845, 848 Elvis i\ Yoi'k (Archbishop of) 272 ElweU c. Crowther 192 Elwes V. Mawe 35, 105 Elwin r. Elwin 847 Ely (Dean and Chapter of) v. Warren 137 Embrey v. Martin 858 V. Owen 192, 193, 194 Emerton v. Selby 129 Emes V. Hancock 858 Emmot V. Cole 296 Emperor v. Eolfe 858 Digitized by Microsoft® I-IST OF CASES CITED. XXXV PASE English, In re 722 V. Orde 554 Ennor v. Harwell 195 Eno V. Eno 488, 654 Eatwistle v. Davis . .553, 660, 661 V. Markland 847 Erne (Earl of) v. Armstrong. , 30 Espley V. Wilkes 176 EtcLes V. Etches 836,- 978 Ettricke V. Ettrioke 890 Eustace v. Scawen 890 Evans v. Angell 929, 935 V. Brown 778 V. Davies 932 V. EUiot 17 V. Harris 807 r. HeUier . .507, 608, 512, 617, 518 V. Jones . . . 803 ~v. Massey 931, 934 V. Scott 858 V. Stratford 873 d. Brook V. Astley .... 653 Everest v. Gell 686 Evers v. Challis 490, 601, 870 Ewart V. Cochrane . . .' 174 V. Graham 152 Ewen V. Bannerman 681 Ewen's Case 48 Ewington v. Fenn 660, 898 Exall V. Partridge 299 Exel r. Wallace 728 Exeter (Bishop of) r. Marshall 269, 270 Exhall Coal Mining Co., In re . 327 Eyre v. Marsden 509, 611, 512, 516, 618, 911 Eyston v. Symonds 782 Eyton V. Denbigh, &c., Eail- way Company 293, 294 E. Fahy v. O'DonneU 22 Fairchild r. Gayre 258, 269 Fairfax v. Heron 722, 723 Fairley v. Tuck 79 Falkiner r. Hornidge 690 Falkner v. Butler 406 Farewell v. Dickenson 296 Farley r. Bonham 72 Farmer v. Francis 368, 491 Farncombe's Trusts, In re 403, 405 Farrant r. Level 116 PAGE Farrant v. NichoUs 617 Farrelly v. Eobins 12, 14 Farrer v. St. Catherine's Col- lege, Cambridge 662, 940 Farrow v. Rees 963 Farthing r. Allen 654 Faulkner v. Daniel . . 98, 466, 470, 966, 958, 961 v. Elger 266 Faversham (Mayor of ) r. Ryder 657 Fawcett v. Lowther 744 V. Strickland 141 Fay V. Prentice 193, 200 Feakes v. Standley 686, 688 Fearon v. Webb 265 Felan c. Eussell, Ex parte . . 542 FelU'. Biddolph 913 Feltham's Trusts, In re 937 Fenn v. Bittleston 15 Fenton v. Logan 318 r. Wills 917 Fenwick v. Mitforth '. . 733 r. Potts 367 • -r. Eeed 181 Ferrand v. Bradford (Corpora- tion of) 212 r. Wilson 112,488,489, 518 Ferrier r. Jay 418, 421 Festing v. Allen 363, 477, 840, 841, 852, 853 Fetherston v. Fetherston. .608, 609, 614, 619, 752 Fewster r. Turner 175 Field, Ee 997 ■ V. Brown 112 Fiolden v. Ashworth 897 Finch V. Lane 839 V. Squire 659 Finch's (Sir Moylo) Case . .11, 258 Findon v. M'Laren 314 Finlinson v. Porter 218 Finney's Estate, Ee 995 Firth r. Purvis 324 Fish r. Att.-Gen 581 V. Klein 62 Fishar v. Prosser 9 Fisher r. Brierley . . 544, 545, 546, 647, 654, 570 V. Dixon 106 V. Moon 172, 230 V. Prowse 219 V. Webster 664, 679 r. Wigg 761,894 Fisk V. Att.-Gen 682 c 2 Digitized by Microsoft® SSX¥1 LIST OF CASES CITED. PAGE Pitzgerald's Estate, In re ... . 98 Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald .... 057 V. Leslie 753 Fitzhenry )i. Bonner 647 Fitzhugli's- Ca.se 370 Fitzmaurice z'. Miirpliy 100 Fitzroy v. Eiclimond (Duke of) 413, 912 Fitz-WiUiam's Case 370 Flack V. Longmate 72 Flanagan v. leaver 21, 104 Fleming j;. Fleming. .880, 929, 930 V. Smitli 791 Fletolier r. Ashburner 306 — V. Gt. Western Ey. Co. 211 — V. Moore 305 r- n. Eylands 198 ('. Saunders 325 I'. Smitli 198 D. Smiton 724 V. Sondes (Lord) 281 Flight j>. Thomas. . 107, 187, 189, 190 Floyer v. Bankes 488, 489 Foley V. BurneU 502, 975 Folkes r. Western 890 FoUett r. Tyrer 61 Fonereau r. Fonereau . . 647, 723, 823, 827, 849, 802, 871 Footner r. Cooper 725 Foquet r. Moor 28 Forbes r. Ecclesiastical Com- missioners of England .... 142 Forbes v. MorpATi 943 ...... 954, 961 Ford V. Peering 88, 89 V. Eawlins 845, 854 j'.-Tynte- 109, 111, 115 Fordyce r. Bridges 304 V. Ford 862 . — V. Willis 366 Forrest r. Wbiteway . . 648, 657, 887 Forsbrook r. Forsbrook. . 495, 016, 753 Forster, Ex parte 858 — r. Forster. 000 Fort V. Ward 148 FoKTH V. Chapman 082 . .406, 649, 686, 719, 753, 803 Foskew's Case 754 Foster «\ Cautley 660 . V. Cook 871 V. Crabb ■ 88 r. Hayes 651 PAliE Foster r. Eamsay 920 —4). Eomney 651 V. Smitli 101 V. Wybrants 867 Foulger V. Taylor 314, 319 Fourdiin v. Gowdey. . 62, 562, 783 Fowkes V. Joyce 315 Fowle V. Welsh 332 Fowler v. Cohn 421 V. Fowler 582 —v. Lightburne 361 Fowler's Trust, In re 414 Fox V. Amhurst 148, 153 Fox r. Chester (The Bishop of) 238 255, 277 V. Clarke.. 168 V. CoUins 938 r. Dalby 14 V. Fox 849, 850 V. Garrett 800 r. Lowndes 564 V. Mackreth 367 r. Porter 470 Foy V. Foy 555 r. liynde 463, 039 Fraeic r. Glover 719 Francis >•. Doe d. Harvey .... 32 Frank v. Stovin 006, 618, 019 Franklin v. Carter 299 V. Lay 752 Franks v. Price 834 Eraser v. Pigott 930, 931 Frazer v. Pigott 920 Frederick v. Att.-Gen 742 V. Hall 663 Freeland r. Pearson .... 900, 916 Freeman v. Bowen 979 Freemantle v. Freemantle. ... 801 Freke v. Carbury (Lord) .... 508 French v. Cadell 687 r. French 079, 680 Frewen v. Frewen 275 — V. Phillips 185, 186 Frier v. Peacock 573 Frith V. Cameron 87 Frogatt V. Warden 079 Frogmorton v. Holyday 722 V. Wright 725 — ■ — ■ d. Eobinson i\ Wharrey . . .- 605 Fry, Ee 940 V. Capper 487, 493, 418 r. -Noble 75, 79 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES CITED. XXXYll PAOE Fi-y's. (Lady) Case 835 Fuller V. Chamier G03, GIG r. Fuller 905 Fulmerstou r. Steward 250, 257, G38 Fulwood's Case 371 Furneaux !■. Fotherby 323 Furnival v. Grove 24, 28 G. Gabb V. Prendergast 930, 932 Gaflee's Settlement, In re ... . 985 Gage V. Acton 300 Gaitskell's Trusts, Ee 915 Gale V. Abbot 205 V. Bennet 617 V. Burnell 15 V. Gale 891 GaH r. Esdaile 725 Gaily V. Selby 267 Ganimell v. Woods and Forests (Commissioners of) 133 Gann r. Free Fisbers of Wliit- stable ; 133 Gant V. Laurence 897 Garbut v. Hilton 848 Garde r. Garde 717 Garden v. Pulteney 680 Gardiner v. Griffith 267 r. Slater 846 V. Stevens 646, 647 Gardiner's Estate, In re 801, 805, 806 Gardner v. Harding 724 V. London, Cbatham & Dover Bail. Co. . . 561 Gaedjtee v. Sheldok 625 . 753 Garland v. Beverley 939 r. Brown 480 Garmstone v. Gaunt 93 Garner v. Garner 936 r. Hannyngton .... 88, 90 Garnett v. Armstrong 963 Garrard v. Tuck 17 Garratt v. CockereU 693 Garraway's (Alderman) Case . 375 Garriok r. Taylor 886 Garritt v. Sbarp 234 Gartb V. Baldwin 355, 862 w. Cotton 111, 112, 115, 116, 899 V. Meyriok 936 PAGE GaskeU r. H-arman 847 Gaskin r. Eogers 562 Gate ;-. Wiseman 67 Gates V. Jones 541, 577 Gateward's Case 13'l, 137 Gaunt r. Fynney 227 Gauntlett r. Carter 935 Gaved r. Martyn 167, 187, 200 Gawdy V. Canterbury (Arcb- bisbop of) 259, 273 Gawler v. Standerwick 857 Gay V. Gav C39 Gayford v". MofEatt. . 179, 182, 223 r. NidioUs 213 Geddis V. BannEeservoirs (Pro- prietors of) 217 Gee V. Audley 465, 487 V. Liddeil 406, 467 V. Mancbester (Mayor of) 689 Gent V. Harrison Ill, 112 Geobegan v. Fegan 173 George ap Eice's Case 107 Geragbty v. McCann 173 Gerrard v. Butler 407, 493 V. Cooke 170, 218, 220 V. Gerrard 68 Gery r. Eedman 151 Gibbon v. Warner 89G Gibbons v. Maltyard 536, 537 r. Snape 758 Gibbs r. Cruiksbank 16 V. Tait 865 Giblett r. Hobson 554, 555 Gibson, Ee 910 V. Gibson 78 V. Ireson 315 V Montford (Lord) 360 V. Eogers 355 « WeUs 110 Gilbert v. Boorman 805 V. Lewis 974 V. Witty 658 Gilbertson r. Eicliards 343, 492 Gill V. Bagsbaw 942 V. SbeUey 920, 928, 930 GiUam r. Taylor 536 Gillett V. Gane 940 GiUiland r. Crawford 87 Gilman v. Daunt 805 V. Elton 315 Gilmoret'. Severn 805 Gimblett v. Burton. . 801, 805, 806 Ginger d. Wbite r. White. ... 651 V. White 621 Digitized by Microsoft® SSXVUl LIST OF CASES CITED. PASE Girdlestone v. Creed 570 Girdwood v. Belfast "Water Commissioners 212 Gisbourn v. Hurst 31.5 Gittings V. M'Dermott 907 Glanvill v. Glanvill 839, 842 Glass V. Eicliardson 392 Glave V. Hardiag 173 Gleiior"clLy(Lord) i'.Bosville 1 13,366, 483, 493, 623, 624, 661, 683, 868 Gloucester (Mayor of) v. "Wood 572, 578 Glover r. Coleman 186, 187 V. Lane 140 V. Monckton 687 V. North StaffordsMre EaHway Company . . 228 ■ V. Shedd 270 r. Strothoff . 862 Glubb V. Att.-Gen 523, 5.34 Glynn R v. Nicliols 193 Goblet 1-. Beechey 934 Godden v. Crowhurst 977 Godfrey v. Davis 804, 928 and Dixon's Case. . . . 782 GodolpLin v. Abingdon 733 V. Swinburne 828 Going V. Hanlon 728 Goldham r. Edwards 278 Goldney r. Crabb 867 Golds V. Greenfield 906 Goldsmid v. Goldsmid 413 V. Tunbridge Wells Improvement Commissioners 216 Gooch V. Gooob 807 Good r. Bates 751 Goodale i\ Gawthorne. . . . 301, 739 GoodfelloTV r. GoodfeUow .... 668 Goodiar v. Clarke 347 Goodlad r. Burnett 663 Goodland v. Blewitb 300 Goodman v. GoodrigM . . 439, 456 and Gore's Case. ... 204 Goodrigbt d. Docking r. Dun- bam 651 d. Drewry v. Barron 727 d. Hoskins c.Hoskins 646 d. Lisle V. PuUyn . . 609 . d. Lloyd I. Jones . . 651 d. Eevell V. Parker . 837 V. Gator 378 I'. Cordwent 32 . V. Dunham 652 . f. Goodridgo 649 PAGE Goodright v. Jones 835 V. Mead 709 V. PuUyn 615, 751 r. Searle 744 r. Stocker 721 r, "Wright 905 Goodtitle d. Galloway r. Her- bert 13, 20 d. Hay ward r. "Whit- by 359, 837 d. Newman r. New- man 730 d. Eichards v. Ed- monds 720 d. Sweet r. Herring . 613 r. Edmonds 722 V. Maddern 721 V. Newman .... 65, 301 r. Otway 683, 727 V. Pegden 684, 686 r. Southern 920, 935 r. Stokes 894 V. '\^'liitby .... 829, 830 r. Wood . . 446, 450, 455 Goodwin's Trusts, In re .... 933 Goodwin r. Finlayson 911 Goold V. Great Western Deep Coal Company 177 V. league 1001 Gordon v. Adolphus .... 686, 835 V. Atkinson 896 V. Gordon 794, 934 V. Hoffman 663 V. Whieldon 678, 900. r. Woodford 113 Gore (a minor). In re 98 V. Gore 438, 452 V. McDermott 133 Gorges v. Stanfield. 100 Gorham v. Exeter (Bishop of) 269 Goring v. Biokerstaffe . . . . 437, 443 Gorman v. Byrne 341 Gorst ('. Lowndes 508, 510 Gorton r. Palkner 314, 318 Gosling r. Gosling. . 483, 492, 493, 517, 576, 852, 975 Goss V. Nelson 830 r. Tracy 928 Gossago r. Tayler 605 Gosset's Settlement, In re ... . 412 Gotch V. Foster .422, 852 Gott r. Nairne 275 Gough (■. Davios 793 Goulbourn v. Brooks 858 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES CITED. SXSIX PAGE Gould, K.Bradstock 022 Gowan v. Brougliton 917 GoTver r. Gower 961 V. Grosvenor 867 Goymour v. Pigge 651, 652 Grafton (The Duke of) v. Haii- mer 56 Graliam r. Allsopp 300 V. Lee 980 V. Paternoster . . 554, 557, 558 V. Peat 10 V. Wickliam 416 Grand Junction Railway Com- pany !■. Shugar . 197 Grand Union Canal Company V. AsliLy 152 Grange r. Tiving 377 Grant, Ex parte 58 V. Grant 936, 938 V. Gunner 141 V. Winbolt 645 Gravenor v. Hallum .... 538, 565 • — V. Watldns 728 Graves v. DoIidMu 974, 976 • V. Hicks 328 ■ V. Waters 661 r. Weld 103 Gray v. Bond 182, 185 Grayson ? . Atkinson .... 725, 726 Great Southern & Western Eailway Company, In re ; Ex parte Duke of Leinster . . 769 Great Western Eailway Com- pany V. Bennett 211 V. Fletcher 211 V. Smith . . 209 Created v. Greated. .688, 873, 973, 974 Greatrex «'.- Hay ward ... ,198, 199 Greaves v. Simpson 622 Green's Case 259, 262, 270 ■ Estate, Ee 872, 873 ■ ■ Trusts, Ee 915 Green v. Armstead 724 V. Britten 656 ^ V. Gascoyne 507, 511 V. Green 389, 614, 666, 694 V. Harvey 973 r. Howard 636 V. Marsden 726 V. Smith 730 ■ V. Spicer 976 V. Stephens 658, 660 PAGE Greene v. Cole 110 f. Potter 838 r. Ward 655 GreenhiU v. Greenhill 729 Greenslade v. Dare 274 Greonway v. Greeuway . . 656, 086, 690, 694, 752 Greenwich Board of Works v. Maudsley 233 Greenwood v. Evans .... 94, 95, 96 r. London (Bishop of) 276, 277 1'. Eoberts 476 V. Eothwell 622 V. Verdon 654, 689 Greenwood's Will, La re .... 897 Greet v. Greet 491, 852 Gregg V. Coates 110 Gregory's Settlement and Will, Ee 936, 937, 941 Gregory v. Henderson . . . .354, 355 V. Mighell 171 V. Smith 888 Gregson's Trusts, In re . . 937, 942 Greig v. Martin 942 Grendon v. Lincoln (Bishop of) 260, ■271 Gresley r. Mousley Ill Greswold's Case 345 Greswold v. Marsham 964 Gretton v. Hayward 613 Greville v. Browne 993 Grey v. Hesketh 278 V. Mannook 64 V. Pearson 761 Grice V. Shaw 953, 961 Grieve i\ Grieve 674 Grieves v. Case . . 544, 546, 654, 558 Griffith V. Blunt 476, 492, 842 V. Pownall . .476, 484, 488 Grifhths V. Evan 618 r. Gale 910 V. Grieve 469, 719 V Puleston 320 Gbifpiths v. Yeee 497 . .440, 448, 505 Grimman v. Legge 28 Grimmett r. Grim m ett. . . .657, 558 Grimshawe v. Pickup 688 Grimson r. Downing ... .610, 613 Grimstead r. Marlowe 134 Grimwood v. Moss 312 Grisbrook's Case 3 Grogan v. Dopping 418, 488 Digitized by Microsoft® xl LIST OF CASES CITED. PAOE Grove's Trusts, Re 855 Grumble v. Jones 469, 719 Guillamore (Lord) v. O'Grady 927 Gullett V. Lopes 133 Gulliver v. Vaux 972, 973 V. Wiokett. . 438, 450, 870 Gully V. Exeter (Bishop of) . . 263, 722 Gummoe v. Howes 614, 615 Gunter r, Gunter 959 Gurnall r. Wood 438 Gwam V. Roe 341 GwiUim v. Holland 950 Gwynne v. Berry 687, 719 Gwyther v. Allen 518 Gyles V. ColsMl 262 H. Habershon v. Vardon 541 Hackett v. Baiss 225 Hackney Charities, In re .... 586 Haddelsey v. Adams 360, 602, 617, 898, 899 Hadfield's Case 343 Hadwen v. Hadwen 623 Hagarty 1'. Nally 54 Hagger v. Payne 804 Haig V. Homan 963 Hainault Forest Act, 1858, In re 137 Haines v. "Welch 35 Haldane v. Johnson 298 Hale, Ex parte; in re Binns. . 327 r. Hale 476 V. Oldroyd 232 V. Pew 410, 494 Hales V. Eisley 344, 489 Haley v. Bannister. . 508, 510, 512 !); Petit 787 Halford v. DiUon 67 - — ■ V. Stains 512, 515 Hall V. Byron 139, 143, 148 «'. Deering 687 V. Harding 145, 146 V. Hurt 328 V. Leitch 665 ■ !-. Lund 174 ■ V. May 1007 V. Nalder 867 ■ r. Robertson 801 V. Swift 187, 223, 236 i\ Warren 566, 873 PAOB Hall's Estate, In re 84 Halton V. May 975 Ham's Trusts 911, 913, 917 Hamell v. Hunt 894 Hamer v. Knowles 208 r. .Tilsley 87 Hamerton v. Stead 27 Hamilton (Duke of) v. Graham 170 V. Jackson 77 t: West 613, 619 Hammerton's Case 342 Hammond v. Hall 196 Hampshire v. Peirce 919, 924, 941 Hampton v. Hodges 108 Hanbury v. TyreU. . 403, 404, 406 Hancock r. Austm 312, 322 Hand v. HaU 23 V. North 883, 888 Hanks V. Cribbin 182 Hanmer r. Chance 137, 190 Hanna v. BeU 808 Hannaford i\ Hannaford 657, 658, 660 Hannam v. Sims 915 Hanson- v. Gbahah 822 — 832, 846, 848, 849 V. Lake 1001 Harbidge v. Warwick 185, 186, 189 Harbin v. Masterman. . . . 517, 576 Hardcastle r. Dennison 727 • V Hardcastle 849 Harding v. Glyn 366, 666 V. Nott 466, 483 r. Wilson 175, 176 Harding's Estate, In re 189 Hardwicke v. Thurston 909 Hare v. Bicklpy 270 Harman v. Dickenson 640 V. Eorster 953 V. Renew 260 Harnett r. Maitland 22, 110 Harries' Trusts, In re 400 Harrington (Countess of) r. Harrington (Earl of) 483, 484 (Earl of) r. Ram- say 34 Harrington's Case 158 Trusts, Re . . 791, 793 Harris v. Austen 262 r. Barnes 523, 654 r. Davis .. 466, 469, 656, 694, 719, 752, 914 V. Du Pasquier 644 ■ — V. Harris 95, 664 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES CITED. xli PAOE Harris v. Lincoln (Bishop of ) . .685, 920 V. Mott 61 ■ ■ V. PuglL 353 V. Eyding 207, 209 Harrison's Estate, In re. .646, 722, 723, Add. Harrison v. Barton 886 ('. Foreman 896 • r. Great Nortliern liailway Company 218 V. Grimwood 492, 849, 850 V. Harrison 508, 559, 619, 622, 808 V. Hyde 935 V. Naylor 856 r. Round 957 r. Southampton (Mayor of) 568 Harrop's Estate, He 791 Harrop r. Hirst 193 Hart V. Durand 930 ;•. Middlehurst 661 ■ V. Tulk 927 Hart's Trusts, Ee 842, 849 Hartley v. Moxham 322 ■ ■ r. Tribher 932 Harton v. Harton 354, 357 Hartopp and Cock's Case .... 257 Hartshorne v. Nicholson .... 556 Harvey v. Ashley 76 ■ V. Harvey 92, 483, 800 V. Pocock 329 r. Stracey. . 404, 407, 412, 487, 493, 804 ■ V. ToweU 862, 867 V. Walters 167, 236 Harvie r. Eogers 231 Hasluck V. Pedley 309, 310 Hassard r. Oantrell 139, 143 Hassell v. Gowthwaite 51 Hastings' (Kensington) Case . 574 Haswell v. Haswell 387, 978, 981, 982 Hatch v. Hale 321 V. Hatch 274 V. Skelton 959, 961 Hatton V. Pinch 896, 899 Haughton r. Harrison. . . .803, 804 Havergal r. Harrison. . . . 801, 910 Plavergill r. Hare 352 Hawes v. Hawes 896 Hawker v. HaAvker 354, 355 Hawkin's Trusts, In re 556 PAOE Hawkins v. AUen 544, 555 V. Carbines 206, 221 V. Ohappel 262, 275 V. Gathercole 268 . ■ V. Hamerton . . 686, 898 V. Hawkins 99, 784 V. Kelloy 302 V. Luscombe. . . .353, 355 V. Shewin 736 V. Walrond 325 Hay V. Palmer 301 V. Watkins 419 Hayden v. Kirkpatrick 9C6 r. Tiverton (Overseers of) 343 Hayes dem. Foorde r. Foorde 601, 604, 606, 607, 662 r. Bridges 128, 130, 133 V. Hayes 102 Haynsworth r. Pretty 638 Haynsworth's Case 639 Hayter r. Trego 578 r. Tucker 561 Hay ward v. Cannington .... 136 t'. Pile..., 92 Hazard v. Eobinson 177 Head r. Eandall 888 Healey v. Batlej^ (Corp. of) . . 233 Healy r. Healy 937, 938 Heard r. Cuthbert 1001 Heardson?'."Williamson358, 360,362 Hearle v. Greenbank 61, 263- Hearn v. Tomhn 13 Heasman v. Pearse. .307, 470, 889, 891 Heath r. Bucknall 226 V. Chapman 542, 543 V. EUiott 132 V. Heath 439, 450, 452, 802 825, 89G Heather v. Winder. . 619, 686, 867 Hebblethwaite v. Cartwright. . 808 Hedges v. Harpurs 692 Hedgman, In re 557 Hedley r. Fenwick 152, 221- Heelis v. Blain 343 Hele V. Exeter (Bishop of) 269, 27 1 Hellawell r. Eastwood 314 Hellier v. Sillcox 11 • ■ V. Twifodd 109 Hemdon and Crouche's Case. . 158 Henchett v. Kimpson 317 Henchman v.Att. -Gen. 565,774,776 Henderson v. Constable 644 Digitized by Microsoft® xlii LIST OF CASES CITED. PAGE Henderson v. Cross 973 ■ r. Squire 35 Hennessey v. Bray 982 Henning v. Burnet . .205, 206, 221 Hensliaiv r. Atkinson 555 Herbert v. Fream 754 r. Eeid 920 Herbert's Trusts, Ee 930 Hereford v. Adams 579 (Bishop of) r. Adams 535, 574 Herlakenden's Case 43, 47 Heme v. Benbow 110 Heron v. Stokes 676 Herriok v. Franklin 865, 867 Add. Herring v. Brown 387 Hervey r. Hervey 389, 393, 420, 421 V. Smitli 168, 172, 227 Herz V. Union Bank of London 202 Hetherington r. Graham .... 81 Howet V. Ireland 808 Hewitsou r. Todhunter 907 Hewitt V. Dacre (Lord) 404, 412, 417 Hewlins V. Shippam . . . .108, 171 Hext r. Gill 210 Heydon (Sir Cbristoplier's) Case 369 HoyTi'ard v. Cannington .... 136 Heywood v. Heywood .... 508, 734 r. Smith 706 Hickman v. Haslewood 726 1-. IJpsall 116 Hibbert v. Cooke 87 Hide r. Thornborough 213, 215 Higginbotham ;•. Holme. .982, 984 Higginson v. KeUy 984 Higham v. Eabett 206 Hill, Ex parte 982, 984 In re Eoberts. . 326 • i\ Carr 754 V. Chapman 804 r. Cowdery 980 . V. Crook 932, 933 r. Grange 122, 256, 286 V. Jones 557 V. Lo.ndon (Bishop of) . . 274 r. Nalder 888 • V. Pritchard 385 c. Eattey 724 v. Tupper 169, 194 Hilliard r. Fiilford 856 Hills V. Worley 909 Hilton V. Giraud 560 V. GranviUe (Earl) 137, 139, 211 PAaE HUton V. HUton 491 Hinohcliffe r. Kinnoul (Lord) . 178 V. Westwood 907 Hincliman v. Ilea 19 Hinde r. Lyon 430 Hinder v. Streeten 1001 Hindle «. Blades 329 Hinds V. Hinds 379 Hine v. Eeynolds 260 Hinton, Ex parte 984 r. Hinton 730 Hippesley v. Homer 927 Hitchens v. Hitchens 69, 300 Head's Case 709 Hoare r. Dickinson 218 V. Metropolitan Board of Works 152, 168 V. Osborne 537, 538, 910, 915 ■ r. Wilson 144 Hoath V. Hoath 823, 849 Hobbs V. Parsons 493, 849 Hobgen v. Neale 888, 896 Hobson r. Todd 144 Hoby r. Hoby 68, 83, 735 Hockley r. Mawbey 484, 621, 693, 753 Hodder r. Holman 220 Hodge r. Att.-Gen 789, 790 Hodges V. Grant 889 Hodgeson v. Bussey .... 863, 865 Hodgkins r. Thornborough . . 330 Hodgkinson r. Ennor .... 197, 200 V. Quinn 377 Hodgson, Ex parte 982, 984 V. Ambrose 606 V. Clarke 936, 941 V. Hooper 10 r. Merest 617 V. Eawson 728, 858 Hodgson's TrustSj In re. , 889, 896 Hodson V. BaU 480, 723 r. Carter 1001 Hogan V. Hand 19, 20 r. Jackson . . 717, 719, 726 Hogg V. Cook 938 Holcome and Evans's Case . . 161 Holcroft V. Heel 181 Holden's Estate, Ee 759 Holden v. Weekes 106, 107 Holdernesse (Lady) r. Marquis of Carmarthen 69 Holdfast d. Cowper r. Marten 724 Holdsworth r. Davenport .... 561 e-. Goose 384 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES CITED. xliii PAaE Hole V. Estcot 382 Holford V. Hanldnson. 187 Holker v. Porritt 192, 195 noUand v. Cole 978 -!!. Hatton 16 V. Wood 622, 803 Holland's Case 263, 769 HoUier v. Burne 92 Holloway v. Clarkson 601 ■ ■ r. Webber 483 Holixie V. BrunsMU 25 Holmes v. Bellingham 206 V. Cradook 834 V. Custance 929 V. Day 29 V. Godson 973 V. Goring 169, 179, 180 ■ V. Meynel 648, 657, 658 ■ ■ V. Penney 977, 984 V. Prescott 841 V. Seller 170 Holt V. Lindrey 931, 932, 933 V. Winchester (Biskop of) 262 Holt's (Tkomas) Case 262 Homer v. Homer 935 Honnor's Trust, In re 571 Honywood v. Poster 758 j'.Hony^vood 108,111,116 Hood V. Oglander 971 ■ V. Ph"illii3s 959, 961 Hook t'. Hook 741 Hooker v. Hooker 60, 70 Hooley v. Hatton 928 Hooper, Ex parte . . 652, 653, 689 V. Bourne 153 Hope V. Gloucester (Corpora- tion of) 495 V. LiddeU 993 V. Potter 654 Hopeirell n. Ackland 720 Hopkins v. Hopkins .... 473, 494 ■ V. Phillips 555 Hopkinsoixjj.Ellis 561 Horde r. Suffolk (Earl of) .. 586 Horlock V. Smith 87 Horn V. Coleman 897 Hornby, Ee 914 Home V. Barton 658 Horner v. Swann 390 Horseman v. Abbey 804 Horsey (Sir Jerome) v. Hag- berton 146 HorsfaU, Ee 996 Horsley v. Chaloner 802 PAOE Horton v. Hall 328 V. Horton 633, 643 ■ ■ V. Smith 950, 954 Horwood V. Griffith 929 Hoskins v. Featherstone .... 109 V. Eobbins 140 V. Eobins 134, 146 Hoste V. Pratt 524, 805 Hough V. May 300 Hough's Will, Ee 356 Houghton V. Houghton 887 Houston V. Hughes. . 353, 359, 362 Hovenden v. Annesley (Lord) 366 How V. Vigures 1009 Ho-vvard v. Candish 83 V. Cavendish 68 r. Harris 743 V. Howard 910 V. Shaw 13, 14 • r. Wemsley 28 Howarth v. Mills 933 Howe V. Dartmouth (Earl of) 96 V. Howe 56 Howes V. Herring 840 Howlin V. Sheppard 99, 102 Howse J'. Chapman 527, 538 Howton ?'. Prearson 178 Huddleston v. Gouldsbury . . 643 Hudleston v. Whelpdale 93, 95, 96 Hu-dson V. Tabor 217 Hudsons, Ee 861 Hughes I'. Chatham (Overseers of) 14 V. EUis 916, 973, 974 ' V. Hughes 802, 806 V. Sayer 683, 693 V. Wells 778 Hugo V. WiUiams . . 494, 495, 753 Hulkes V. Barrow 91 Hull (Mayor of) v. Homer . . 181 Hull's Estate, Ee 801 Hulme V. Hulme 508 ■ V. Tenant 85, 985 Humberston I'. Humberston 493, 494 Humberstone v. Stanton 873, 874, 908, 915 Humble v. Shore 914 Humphrey v. Tayleur 402, 406, 910 Humphreys v. Harrison 108 V. Howes 873, 915 — V. Humphreys 641, 643 Humphries v. Brogden . . 207, 208 V. Cousins 198 Hungerford v. Hungerford . . 97 Digitized by Microsoft® xliv LIST OF CASES CITED. PAGE Hunt V. AUgood 24, 33 r. Baker 365 V. Burn 710, 711 ■ V. Hort 941 r. Peake . .207, 208, 214, 236 Hunt Foulston r. Furber .... 974 Hunter's Trusts, In re . . 850, 855 Hunter v. Bullock 582 V. Judd 492, 846 Huntley's Case 887 Huntley r. EusseU 109 Hurd r. Lenthall 898 Hurdman r. North-Eastem Eailway Company 198 Hurly r. Hanrahan 13 Hursst V. Hurst 378, 390 Hussey r. Berkeley 404 V. DiUon 404 Hutclieson v. Hammond .... 908 V. Jones 803, 804 Hutohins v. Foy 858 V. Glover 262 r. HutoMns 423 r. Scott 322 Hutcliin.son r. Copestake. .234, 235 r. Stephens . . 652, 722, 723 Hutchinson's Case 248, 277 Hutohon r. Mannington .... 847 Hutton r. Simpson 641 V. Wan-en 109 Hyde i\ Graham 171 r. Hyde 820 Hylton c. Biscoe 344 Hynde r. Ambiye 809 r. Brand 809 Hynde's Case 710 Hynshaw v. Morpeth (Corpora- ' tionof) 536, 574 ILLetson v. Beckwith 724 r. Ibbetson 465, 481 Ibbs r. Eichardson 13 Idle r. Cook . -. 718 Idle's (Walter; Case 46 Illingworth r. Cooke 942 Imperial Gas Co. r. Broadbent 227 Inchiqiiin v. French 909 Incop V. Morchurch 319 Incorporated Church Building Society v. Coles 554 PAGE Incoqoorated Society, &c. (The) V. Eichards 567 Ingilby v. Amcotts 732 Ingram v. Ingram 408, 415 V. Morecraft 218 V. Parker 388 Innes r. Sayer 577 Ion V. Ashton 559 Irby t-. Irby 963 IredeH * . IredeH 806, 807 Ireland r. Eitle 892 Ires r. Dodgson 662 Irish Society r. Crommelin . . 133 Irwin r. Irwin 412 Isaac, Ee 58 V. De Friez 536 V. Gompertz 541 V. Hughes 390 V. Wall 93 Isaacson r. Yan Goor 643 Iseham's Case 158 Isenberg v. East India House Estate Company 227 Ivatt r. Mann 130 Ive V. King 897 Ive's Case 257 Iveson V. Moore 205 Ivic V. Ivie 89 Ivimey v. Stocker 182, 200 Ivy r. Gilbert 93 Izod r. Izod 680 Izon r. Butler 905 V. Gorton 333 J. Jack r. Burnett 575 V. Featherston 473, 608, 619 Jackson v. Calvert 867 r. Cator 171 V. Craig 663 r. Hurlock 505 V. Jackson. . 423, 845, 874, 886, 892, 893 r. Majoribanks. . 492, 837, 839 r. Xewcastle (Duke of) 202 V. Noble . . 412, 624, 662 V. Parker 78 r. Stacey 205 Jacob's Will, In re 492, 852 Jacobs r. Amyatt 619 ■ r. Amyott 863 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES CITED. xlv PAGE Jacombe v. Kniglit 225 James v. Allen 540, 582 V. Dean 20, 27 V. Hayward 223 V. Plant 175, 230 V. Eicliardson 800 V. Shannon 642, 643 V. Smith 404, 931 r. Wynford (Lord) 476, 837 Jarman v. Vye 089 Jarman's Estate, In re 582 Jauncey v. Att.-Gen 562 Jeafferson's Trusts, In re 406, 863, . ■ . 865 Jeal V. Tichener 858 Jebb V. TugwelL 413 Jee V. Audley. . 439, 448, 457, 478 Jeffereys v. Small 886 Jefferies v. Alexander 564 V. Michell 936 Jeffersont). Durham (Bishop of) 114 Jeffery v. JBastard 329 V. De Vitre 679, 680 V. Honywood. . . . 675, 680 Jeffreys v. Conner 97 Jenkins v. Clinton (Lord) .... 616 V. Harvey 180 V. Herries 718 f. Hughes.. 616,618, 718 V. Jenkins 357, 721 -v. Kemis... 386 V. -Kemishe 416 — V-. Keymes 754 Jenner v. Clegg 11 V. Morgan 301 V. Morris 89 Jennings i\ Jennings Add. V. Looks 856 r. Newman 800 Jennor r. Hardy 726 V. Harper 577 Jersey (The Earl and Countess of). V. Deane 388 Jervis v. Bruton 105 V. Wolferstan 906 Jesson V. Wright . . 606, 610, 612, .613, 618, 619, 620, 863, 864 Jesus College (Case of) 536 Jewel's Case 296 Joel V. Mills 978 Johnson d. Earl of Anglesea r. Derby (Earl of) 496 r. Barnes 131, 140, 147 V. Brady 721 PAGE Johnson v. Foulds 844 V. Harrowby (Lord) . . 562 V. Johnson . . 508, 906, 907, 917- V. Jones 300- V. Upham 324, 326 V. Webster 961 V. Woods 562 r. Wyatt 205, 225, 230 Johnson's Trusts, In re 862 Johnston r. Swann. .539, 553, 556, 561 Johnstone v. Baber . .263, 275, 278 r. Hamilton 563, 565, Joliffe V. Twyford 87 JoUiffe V. East 878, 896, 899 JoUy V. Arbuthnot 16, 326 Jones's Wm, Ee 972 Jones d. Perry v. Eoe 728, 729 ■ V. Ashurst 793 v. Badley 564 V. Carter 312 r. Chapman 10 ■ r. Clerk 18, 20 V. CuUimore 688 V. Davies 66 V. Goodchild 775, 784 r. Griffith 103 V. HaU 889 V. HiU 110 V. Jones. . . 79, 92, 94, 95, 96, ..... 145, 858 V. IMackilwain 849, 852 V. Maggs 512, 515, 516 V. Marsh 31 V. Mills 33 r. Morgan. .468, 606, 953, 900 V. Morley 351 V. Morris 300 V. Newman. .919,923,930,937 V. Ogle 310 V. Peacock 585 V. Phipps 31 V. Price 189 V-. EandaU, 645, 899 V. Eichard 140 «'. Eicketts 65 v. Eobin 132, 133 V. Eyan 689 V. Sayand,Sele (Lord) 602, 606 V. Tapling 235 Jones v. .Westcomb 869 r 870, 872, 874 r. WOliams 224, 538 Digitized by Microsoft® xlvi LIST OF CASES CITED. PAGE Jones V. "WiinFOod 380, 381 Jordan and Atwood's Case. . 158,160 V. Adams 613,' 615 r. Portesoue 662 V. Holk]3.ani 835 V. Lowe 617, 866 r. Savage 77 Jorden v. Atwood 178, 180 Jory V. Cox 267 Joule J'. Jackson 315 Joy V. Joy 89 Judd ! . Judd 476, 492 Judge V. Lowe 171 Jul! V. Jacobs 914 K. Kampf V. Jones 407, 413, 493 Kane, Ee 779 ■ r. Cosgrave 585 V. Eeynolds 785 Kavanagli v. Coal Mining Co. 170 r. Morland. .417,619,845 Kay V. Oxley 175 Kearney v. Eyan 27 Kearsley v. Woodcock .... 977, 978 Keating v. Keating 693 Keeck v. Hall 16, 29 V. Sandford 93, 367 Keefe r. Kirby 358 Keen v. Priest 318, 329 Kcene v. Dickson 835 Keiley v. Fowler 409 Keillor's Estate, In re 309 Keily v. Monck 849 Kekewicli r. Marker 113 Kelk V. Pearson. . 173, 202, 225, 226 KeU V. Ckarmer 934 KeHett v. KeUett 407, 907, 915 Kelly V. Hammond 928, 931 V. Patterson 25 V. Webber 104 Kelsack v. Nicholson 90 Kelsey v. Kelsey. 294 Kemp V. Davj'- 858 Kempson v. Bu.tler 214 Kendal r. Micfeild 51 KendaU r. Granger 540, 583 Kenna v. Nugent 35 Kennedy v. Daly 98, 102 r. Sedgwick 653 Kennerley r. Kennerloy .... 403 Kenney v. May 325 PAOE Kenrick r. Beauclerk. . . . 354, 357 Kensey v. Langham. .265, 267, 274 Kensington (Lord) v. Bouverie 100 Kent V. Steward 464 Kenworthy v. Bate 421 ■ V. Ward. .675, 883, 888 Keogh V. Keogb 959, 961 Keppill r. Bailey 169 Ker V. Dungannon (Lord) . .483, 684 Kernagkan. v. M'Nally 71 Kerr's Trusts, In ro 401, 402, 405, 406 Kerr v. Kerr 693 v. Pawson 149 Kershaw v. Kershaw 651 Kerslake v. White 201 Kevern v. Williams .... 491, 803 Kevill V. Davies 300 Kew V, Rouse 897 Key V. Key 618, 648, 653, 725, 834 Kidman v. Kidman 853 Kilderbee v. Ambrose 967 Kilvert's Trusts, In re . . 583, 937 Kil worth v. Mountcashell 99, 102 Kime v. Welfitt 508 Kinch r. Ward 609 King's Leasehold Estates, In re 22, 30 Mortgage, Ee 997 King V. Burchell 618, 863 r. Cotton 450 V. Culleu 804 V. Daccombe 791 V. Denison 992 V. England 326 ■ V. Isaacson 846 r. King 413 V. Melling 388, 606, 616, 622 752 V. Eingstead 641, 642 ■ V. Withers 728, 729, 857, 858 (The) V. Armagh (Arch- bishop of) 273 ■ V. CanterlDury (Archbishop of) 271 V. Hermitage .... 147 V. Holland 762 r. Mashiter 934 V. Norwich (Bishop of 268, 277 V. Oundle (Lord of the Manor of) 364 and Queen r. Por- tington 543 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES CITED. slvii PAGE King V. Stafford (Marquis of) 269, 652 V. Warkwortli 136 V. Willes 790 V. "Winton (Bisliop of) . . 273 Kinajsbury r. Collins 3,3 Kingsford v. Ball 890 iGngsinill r. Millard 150, 151 Kinloch v. Nevile 188 Kino V. Eudldn 225, 226 Kinsella v. Caffrey 655 Kirby v. Powler 450 V. Harding 322 V. Sadgrove 139 Kircudbright v. Kircudbright 280 Kirkbank r. Hudson .... 554, 556 Kirkham v. Smith 953, 957 Kirtland v. Pounsett 13 Kirwan v. Kennedy .... 99, 102 KitcMn r. Calvert. . 246, 279, 280 Knapp V. London Chatham and Dover Railway Co. 229 : V. WiUiams 527, 529, 559 Knapping v. Tomlinson 476 Knight V. Boughton 305 V. Cameron 846 V. ElHs 409, 495, 866, 867 V. Frampton 71 ■ V. Gould 914 r. Knight . . 851, 935, 985 V. Mosely 106, 107 V. Eobinson 997 V. Selby 723 r. Woore 205 KnoUys r. Shepherd 1001 Knox V. Knox 856 Kooystra r. Lucas 175 Krehl V. Burrell 226, Add. Kynnaird r. Leslie .... 736, 786 L. Laceyr. Hill 79, 80 Lachla,n v. Reynolds 465 Lacy V. Anderson 77 Ladd V. London City 574 V. Widdows 259 Lade v. Holford 441, 442, 488, 971 Ladyman v. Grave . . 185, 186, 188 Laing v. Whaley 197 Laird r. Birkenhead Company 171 Lake v. Craddook 886, 891 V. Currie 935 V. Plaxton 140 PAGE Laker v. Hordern 931, 932 Lamb i\ Archer 340 r. Brewster Add. V. Walker 208 Lambert v. McDonnell 28 Lambeth Charities, In re 535, 579 Lampon v. Clowbery 821, 823, 845 Lampet's Case 78, 436, 776 Lamx^hier r. Buck 871, 889 Lampley v. Blower. . 680, 086, 685 Lamplugh v. Lamplugh 3-12 Lancaster r. Eve 168 Lane v. Dixon 168, 314 r. Goudge 849 V. Hone 220 V. Pannell 605 V. Stone 220 Lanesborough (Lady) v. Pox 468 Lanfranchi v. Mackenzie .... 202 Lang V. Pugh 848 Langdale (Lady) v. Briggs . . 90 Langford r. Augur 992 ■ r. Gowland 581 V. Pitt 729 Langham v. Sandford 941 Langham's Trusts, In re .... 500 Will, In the Matter of 5G0 Langley v. Bakhvin .... 648, 653 • r. Hammond 175 Langslow v. Langslow . . 414, 666 Langston v. Blaokmore 412 ^ V. Langston 927 Lansdowne v. Lansdowne .... 116 Lantony's (Prior of) Case .... 160 Lantsbery v. Collier .... 385, 488 Large's Case 972 Larkins v. Larkins 910 Lascelles v. Onslow (Lord) . . 141 Lashbrook v. Cock 896 Lassence v. Tierney 407 Lathan v. Atwood 103 Laverick's Estate, In re 898 Law r. Thompson 847 r. Thorpe 708 Lawrence v. Dodwell 927 V. Jenkins 217 V. Maggs 91 r. Obee 231 Lawson v. Langley 189 Lawton Estates, In re 307 Lawton r. Lawton 105 Layton v. Feild ... 21 f. Hurry 324 Digitized by Microsoft® xlviii LIST OF CASES CITED. PAGE Leach d. Leacli 492, 801, 908 r. Trollope 89 Leadbeater v. Cross 837 Leader v. Homewood 35 Leak v. Coventry (Bishop of) 278 V. Macdowall . . 888, 889, 893 Leake v. Eobinson. . 453, 475, 477, 49.0, 492, 801, 845, 852 Lear v. Leggett 980 Leathes r. Leathes 88, 89 Leathley r. Trench 308 Leceire v. Beaudrey 384 Leconfield (Lord) v. Dixon . . 152 '- V. Lonsdale (Lord) 183 Ledsome v. Hickman 915 Lee's Case 683 Lee V. Busk 655 V. Holding 382 w. Pain 913, 934, 936, 939 V. Smith 29, 319 Leech v. Schweder 169, 170 Leeds (Duke of) v. Amherst (Earl) ..116 ■- V. Munday . . 988 Leeds v. Cheetham 332 Leeming v. Sherratt 654, 854, 855 Lees V. Moslev 617, 6] 9 Leftley v. Mills 298 Legatt V. Sewell 609 Lehain v. Philpott 312, 328 Leicester's (Earl of) Case .... 388 Leicester v. Poxcroft 563 Leigh's Estate, In re 87 Leigh V. Ashburton (Lord) . . 384 ■ V. Byron 930 V. Leigh 913 V. Mosley 889 V. Winter 389 Leighton v. Theed 21 Lempster (Lord) i'. Pomfret (Lord) 89 Lenden v. Blackmore 678 Le Neve v. Le Neve 366 Leniel v. Harslop 146_ Lenox v. Lenox 834 Leonard v. Sussex (Earl of) 607, 624 Lepine v. Bean 931, 933 V. Perard 688 Le Eoy v. Priest 271 Lester v. Garland 984 Lethieulier «i. Tracy 604, 649 Lett V. Eandall 480, 492 Leventhorte v. Ashbie 861 650, 748, 861 PAOE Leving's (Sir W.) Case 312 Le-wen r. Dodd 896 Lewes' Trust, In re ..,.,... 116 Lewes v. Lewes 508 Lewin v. Cox 900 Lewis d. Ormond v. Waters . . 652, 718, 888 V. Allenby 557 V. Preke 422 ■ V. Hopkins 862, 867 V. Lane 304 ■ r. LeweUin 920 V. Matthews 994 V. Puxley 616, 753 V. Pees 301 • V. Smith 332 V. Templer 468 V. Waters 835 Ley V. Peter 12 Liddard v. Liddard 887 Liford's Case 43, 105, 177 Liggins V. Inge 172, 231 Lightburne v. Gill 973 Lightfoot -V: Burstall 914 Liley v. Hey 536, 540 Lilford's Case 257 Lilford (Lord) v. Att.-Gen. . . . 759 Lm r. LiU 642, 645, 804, 898 Limbrey v. Gurr 546 Limerick & Ennis Eailw. Co., In re 759 Lincoln's (Bishop of) Case . . 273 Lincoln (Bp. of) v. WoKerstan 278 (Countess of) r. New- castle (Duke of) 448, 493 Lindsay, Ee 668 V. Wicklow (Earl of). . 309, 956, 957, 960 LindseU v. Thacker 994 Line v. Hall 494 Linehan v. Deeble 185 Lingen, Ee 58 Lingwood V. Gyde 149 ~- V. Stowmarket Co. . . 216 Linley v. Taylor 560 Lisburne (Earl of) r. Davies . . 150 Lisle r. Gray 614 Lister v. Bradley 846, 852 Little V. Wingfleld 133 Littledale v. Thompson Add. Littleton's (Mr.) Case 595 (Sir Thomas) Case 992 littlewood !'. Pattison 97 Livesey v. Livesey 846, 849 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES CITED. xli^ PAGE Llewellyn. «. Rous 305, 306 Lloyd V. Carew 347, 437, 444, 452, 454, 458, 461, 601 V. Davies 321 V. Jackson . . 721, 725, 727 V. Johnes 54 r. Lloyd 71,405,538, 855, 981 r. Powis (Earl) . . 147, 152 Lock r. Be Burgh 305 r. Lock 91 Locke V. Lamb 804, 805, 845, 851 V. Matthews 10, 19 V. Southwood 733 Looker v. Bradley 803 Lookyer v. Savage 978, 984 Loddington i'. Kime 618 Loftus V. Swift 99 Lomas v. "Wright 873 Lomax v. Ripley 564 Lomhe v. Stoughton 507 Londesborough(Lord) I'.Somer- viUe 302 London's (Mayor of) Case. . . . 536 (Bishop of) Case . . 147 London (Bishop of) v. Pfytohe 281 4'. Wolf Cr- etan. . 248 (Mayor of) v. The Pew- terers' Company .... 185 (University of) v. Yar- row 539, 557, 567 London Dock Act, In re .... 545 London & North Western Rail- way Co. V. Ackroj'd 211 V. West 25 Long V. Blackall . . 440, 448, 550, 451, 456, 457, 462, 501 V. Buckeridge 341 r. Laming 613 V. Long 67, 421 V. Myles 730 r. Eankin 383 V. Storie 267 V. Watkinson 907 Longdon v. Simson- ; . . . 506, 509 Longhead v. Phelps 490 Longstaff v. Eennison . . 556, 558 Lord V. Bunn 976, 977, 978 V. Sidney (Commissioners for City of) 192 Loring V. Thomas 808 Loscombet'.Wintringham 538, 578, 583 T.E.C. PAGE Love V. L'Estrange . , 823, 830, 849, 852 : V. Wyndham 437, 683 Loveacres d. Mudge v. Blight 725, 727, 896 Lovell V. Smith 233 Lovell's (Sir Salathiel) Case. . 790 Low r. Burron 54, 600 Lowe V. Carpenter 187, 190 V. Davies 014 Lowndes r. Norton 112 Lowi-y's WiU, In re 1002 Lowther v. Condon 868 Lucan v. CarHne , 847 Lnoas v. Brandreth 888 V. Goldsmid 896 V. Jones 555, 559 V. Lucas . . . , 346 V. Nockells 321 Luckraft v. Pridham 569 Luddington v. Kime 437 Ludlow V. Bunbury 972 Lundy Granite Company, In re; Ex parte Heavan 318, 327 Luneham's Estate, In re .... 971 Lurting v. Conn 109 Lushington v. Boldero 116 Luttrel's Case. .134, 163, 165, 166, 192, 202, 231, 236 Luxford V. Cheeke 835, 836 Lydcott V. Willows 720 Lyddon v. EUison 493 Lyme's Case 890 Lynch v. Nelson 54 Lyon V. Coward 889' V. Pishmongers' Co 195 V. Mitchell 865 V. Weldon 326 Lyons v. East India Company 585 • V. EUiott 315 (Mayor of) r. Adv.-Gen. of Bengal 573 (The Mayor of) v. The East India Company 566 Lysaght v. Edwards . . 1000, 1001 r. Lysaght , . . 95 Lyster r. DoUand 886 — V. Mahony 71 Lytton V. Lytton 468, 687 M. MacAndrew i'. Gallagher .... 55 Ma«aree v.. TaU 724 d Digitized by Microsoft® 1 LIST OF CASES CITED. PA(JE M'Carthy v. M'Carthy 873 M'Clenalian v. Bankheacl . . 63, 54 M'Clintock v. Irvine 54 M'Dermott v. Balfe 53 V. Wallace 645, 898 Macdonald v. Bryce .... 507, 512 r. Walker.. 1006,1007 McDonald r. McDonald. . 407, 563 M'DonneU v. Jebb 887 V. Pope 28 M'Do-^ell V. Bergin 791 McEnally v. Wetherall 689 Macey v. Metropolitan Board of Works 229 MacFadden v. Jenkyns 366 M'Gregor v. M'Gregor . . 883, 889 Machell r. Weeding 617, 648 MacMl V. Clark 709 Maokaller v. Todderick 248 Mackay, Ex parte 983 McKecknie v. Vaughan .... 941 MackeH v. Winter. . 661, 828, 846 McKenna v. Eager 622, 867 Mackenzie v. Bradbury . . 660, 664 V. Gordon 962 i\ Eobinson 267 Mackie v. Scottish. Wido'xs' Society 202 Mackinnon v. Peach 873, 910, 915 V. SeweU 873 Mackintosh v. Townsend .... 567 Mackreth v. Symmons 366 Mackworth v. Hinxman. . 478, 483 M'Lachlan r. Taitt 844 Macleay, In re 971, 972 M'Neale, In ro 54 Macnolty v. Eitzherbert 87 Macpherson v. Stewart 506 Maddison v. Chapman 834, 835, 850 Maddon d. Baker ;•. White . . 29 Maddox v. Staines 438, 654 Maddy v. Hale 92 Maden v. Taylor 657, 723 Magor V. Chadwick 199 Maguire, In re 581, 583 V. Grattoa 225 V. ScuUy 661 Mahaflty v. Eooney 688 Maher v. Maher 845 Mahon's Estate, In re 53 Mahon v. Savage 536 Mahony v. Tynte 971 Mainwaring v. Baxter 463 V. Beevor 805, 807 PASE Mairt'. QuUter 661, 845 Maitland v. Adair 905 V. Chalie 653 Major V. Park Lane Company 215 Makings v. Makings 97, 99 Malcolm r. O'Callaghan 852 V. Martin 898 V. Taylor. . . . 616, 651, 654 Maleomson v. O'Dea 133 Malone v. Harris 171 Man r. Man 910 r. Eicketts 935 Manchester, Sheffield, &c., Eail- ■way Company r. Worksop Board of Health 197, 217 Manchester and Stockport EaiL- ■way Company, Ee 1001 Mandeville v. Lackey .... 614, 617 Manfield v. Dugard 829, 836 Mann t. Burlingham .... 554, 558 )'. Puller 663 c. Lovejoy 24 V. Thompson 693, 805 MannaU v. Eisher 133 Manneton v. Trevilian 129 Manning's (Matthew) Case 430, 437 Manning v. Ajidrews 792 r. Chambers 981 V. Herbert 858 V. Moore 618 V. Phelps 334 ■ ■ • V. Taylor 726 V. Wasdale 169 Mannox v. Greener 726, 728 Mansell v. Grove 686. ManteU v. ManteU 738 Mapleton v. Mapleton. . . . 403, 423 Marohant v. Cragg 901 Markby, In ro 306 Markey v. Cooto 13 Marks v. Marks . . . .438, 444, 452, 454, 458, 729 Marlborough (Duke of) v. Go- dolphin. .51, 439, 463, 906 V. St. John 106, 107, 109 Marlow v. Smith 987, 991, 992 Marryat v. Townly 650, 887, 888, 896 Marsh v. Att.-Gen 554, 560 V. Wells 110 Marshall, Ex parte 994 V. Crowther 98 V. Exeter (Bishop of) 269 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES CITED. li PAGE Marshall v. Grime 009, 018 V. Hill 053, 722 r. Holloway 442, 500, 509 r. Smiih 81 Marshe and Smith's Case .... 258 Martelli v. Holloway 483 Martin d. Tregonwell v. Stra- chan 745, 747 d. Weston r. Mowlin 1010 V. Goble 202, 234 V. Headon . . 203, 227, 235 V. Laverton 994, 995, 1001 V. Long 092 V. M'Causland 053, 725 V. Margham. .500, 578, 980 V. Martin 2C5, 274, 275 V. Smith 22, 24, 25 V. Swannell. . 405, 693, 752 V. Welstead 550 V. Wilson 912 Martineau v. Eogers 843 Martj'n ;•. Lawrence 201 Mason's Will, Ee 917 Mason r. Att.-Gen. of Jamaica 795 V. Bateson 933, 941 V. Clarke 677, 679, 888 V. Hill 192, 193 . V. Newland 324 V. Shrewsbury &c. Rail- way Company 182, 199 Massenburgh v. Ash 437, 450, 452 Massey v. Goyder 215 V. Hudson 693 Massy v. O'DeU 496 Master v. De Croismar 783 V. Hansard 174 Masters v. Farris 329 V. Masters . . 538, 934, 941 Mather v. Scott 565, 570 V. Thomas 997 Mathews r.Keble 507,512,515,517 Mathias v. Mathias 87 V. Mesnard 315 Matthews v. Gardiner 720 V. Maude 663 V. Venables 544 V. Windross . . 720, 721 Matts V. Hawkins 217 Maundrell v. Maundrell 70, 72, 392 Maunsellj-Ex parte 759 Mawby, Ex parte 266 Maxwell v. Maxwell 908 May V. Hook 891 •^ V. Street 773 PA(JE May V. Wood . . 823, 824, 825, 826, 828, 829, 831, 845 Maybank v. Brooks .... 905, 909 Mayn v. Mayn 887, 888 Maynye's Case 80 Meadows v. Parry 871 Meaghan, In re 982, 984 Measure v. Gee 606, 609 Medley v. Horton 963 Medlicot v. Bowes 851 Medway Company v. Eomney (Earl of) 192 Medworth v. Pope 933 Meeds v. Wood 835 Meg-it V. Johnson 784 Meller r. Stanley 862 Mellick V. The President, &c. of the Asylum 538 Melling v. Leak 15, 17, 18, 20 Mellish V. Mellish 616 Mellor V. Spateman 131 V. Watkins 27 Mence v. Bagster 883, 888 Mendham v. Williams 858 Menvil's Case 80, 81 Mercer's Co. v. Att.-Gen - 574 Mercer v. Woodgate 219 Merceron's Trusts, In re .... 654 Merchant Taylors Company v. Att.-Gen 574 Meredith's Trusts, In re 406 Meredith v. Parr 931 Merest v. James 619 MerHn v. Blagrave ■ 476 MerriU v. Eumsey 603 Merritt v. Frame 332 Merry v. Hill 845, 846, 850 Merson v. Blaekmore 722 Messena v. Carr 422 Messenger v. Armstrong .... 11 Mestaer v. GiUespie 928 Metcalfe v. Westaway 220 Metham v. Devonshire (Duke of) 931, 934 Metropolitan Association r. Fetch 224 Metropolitan Board of Works V. McCarthy 195 V. Metropo- politan Railway Company. . 213 Mette's Estate, In re 97 Meure v. Meure 683 Meynell v. Massey 95 Meyrick v. Lawes 58 d 2 Digitized by Microsoft® lii LIST OF CASES OITED. PAGE Meyricke Fund (The), In ro. . 587 Michel's Trust, In re 542, 543 Middleton v. Cater 565, 568 V. Clitherow . . 537, 558 V. Losh 515 V. Messenger 803 r. Spioer. . 554, 505, 784 V. Swain 723, 720 Midgley r. Eichmond 221 Midleind Counties Eailway Company v. Westcomb 1001 Eail. Co. V. Cheokloy . 21 1 Mildmay's (Sir Anthony) Case 60, 463, 639, 745, 746, 970, 972 Miles V. Dyer 509 V. Purber 315 V. Harrison 562 V. Knight 390 0. Murphy 29 Mill v.. Mill 680 ■ V. New Forest (Commis- sioners of) 188 Millard v. Bailey 935 Miller v. Faure 873, 916 V. Green 314 V. Huddleston 101 r., Miller 108, 109 V. Seagrave 615 V. Travers 920, 924, 935, 941 V,. Warren 915 MiUiner r. Eobinson 616 Mills I'. Capel 759 V. Farmer 572 v.. Goff 31 ,v. Seward 613 v.. Trumper 306 Milner v. Milner 663 Milroy v. Milroy 492, 837, 850 Milsington (Lord) o. Mulgravo (Earl of) 91 Milward's Estate, In re 114 Miner v. GHmour 192, 193, 222 Minet v. Morgan 143, 144 MinshuU v. Minshull 609 Minter v. Wraith 490 Mirehouse v. Eennell. 262 Mitchell's Estate, In re ; Mit- chell V. Moberley 661 Mitford V. Eeynolds 538, 539, 566, 582, 585 Mocatta v. Murgatroyd 964 MofPatt V, Burnie .. 645, 801, 900 MoFFATT V. Hammond 943 Mogg V. Hodges 561, 568 PAGE Mogg V. Mogg 477, 807 Moggridge v. Thackwell. .531, 537 572, 573, 577, 585, 795 Mold V. Wheatoroft 171 Mole V. Smith 72 Moliflieaux's (Lord) Case .... 770 MoUett V. Brayne 27 Money's Trust, In ro 92, 97 Monkhouse v. Holme . . 830, 851 Monkton r. Att.-Gen 785 Monmouthshire, Canal Com- pany (The) V. Harford 183, 188 Montague v. Beaulieu 862 Montefiore v. Behrens 985 V. Enthoven 979 Montford v. Cadogan (Lord) 91, 93 Montgomerie v. Woodley .... 491 Montgomery v. Montgomery 606, 613, 619, 622, 726 Monypennyw. Bering 409, 466, 473, 474, 490, 493, 494, 053, 056 V. Monypenny . . 328 Moody V. King 70 Moone r. Heaseman 721, 722, 725 Moor V. Eaisbeqk 1010 Moor's Case 751 Moore's Settlement, Ee 896 Moore v. Cleghorn 723, 898 V. HaU 202 V. Moore 749 V. Barker 601 • ('.Plymouth (Earl of ) 291 V. Eawson 201, 231, 232, 233 i). Webb 189, 197 V. Webster 61 Mordant (Lord) v. Peterbo- rough (Earl of) 379 Moreland v. Eichardson 168, 171 Morewood v. Wilkes 793 Morgan d. Surman v. Surman 422 — Ex parte 1010 r. Britton 883 V. Davies 28 V. Gardiner 858 • r. Gronow 413, 487 V. Morgan 61, 507, 518, 719, 751, 759, 848, 851 V. Morris 572 Moriarty v. Grey 54 r. Martin 352 : V. Moriarty 413 Morice V. Durham (Bishop of) 540, 582, 583 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES CITED,. liii PAGE Morley's .Will, In re . . . ". 994, 995 Morley, In re 102 MoHLEY, v.. Bird 876 605, 910 V. Morley 956, 957 Morris d. Andi-ews v. Le Gay 609 V. Edgington 170, 179, 180 V. Glyn 561 V. Hodges 92 r. Lloyd 721, 722 r. Morris 55, 109, 656, 692, 694 r. "Ward 606 Morrison's Case 63 Morrison v. Chadwick . . 311, 332 Morrougli v. Dufferin (Lord) . 721 Morse v. Martin 486 V. Morse 678 r. Ormonde (Lord) . . 470 Mortimer v. Hartley 751 V. Ireland . . 1004, 1007 V. Watts 91, 94 r. West 494, 928 Mortlock's Trusts, In re . . 972, 973 Mortlook V. Bullen 392, 393 Morton v. Woods 16 Moseley's Trusts, In re 476 Moseley v. Bland 205 Moss r. Gallimore 18, 300 Mostyn v. Brunton 850 — V. Mostyn 926, 941 Mottram, Ee 837 Mounsey v. Ismay 189 Mounson v. 'Redshnw 330 Mower «;. Orr 805, 917 Mowlem, In re 739 Moyle's Estate, In re 674 Moyse v. Gyles 346, 891 Muckleston r. Brown 563 Muggeridge's Trust, Ee. .978, 979, 981 Muggleton v. Barnett 738, 742 MulviUe V. EaUon 233 Mundy v. Howe (Earl) 524 r. Mundy 84 MurcMe v. Black . . 173, 207, 208, 236 Murgatroyd v. Eobinson 189, 197 Murkin v. .PhiUipson 853, 858 Murland i\ Perry Ailil. Murphy, In re. .... 982, 983 • V. Abraham 982 TT- r. JFord 18, 20 Murray v. Addenbroke . , 491, 689 PAGE Mm-ray v. Jones 871, 874 V. Tancred 845 V. Tborniley 343 Murtbwaite v. Jenldnson .... 354 Muschamp r. Bluet 972 Musgrave v. Emmerson 294 r. Eorster 152 V. Inclosure Com- missioners 152 Muskett V. Eaton 84 1 Muspratt r. Gregory 315 Mutton's Case 346 Myers v. Perigal 560 N. Nab V. Nab 366 Nadin, Ex parte 30 Nairn v. Majoribanks 87 Nandick v. Wilkes 661 Nanfan v. Legb 751 Nanson v. Barnes 740 Nargatt v. Nias 329 Nash V. Coates 669 ■ r. Coombes 142, 153 V. Lucas 322 r. Morley 535, 537, 539, 540, 583 V. Nash 609 r. Palmer 332 r. Preston 71 National Guaranteed Manure Co. V. Donald 182, 200, 236 National and Provincial Plate Glass Insurance Company v. Prudential Assurance Com- pany 226, 227, 228, 236 Neale v. Mackenzie 332 Neame v. Moorsom 961 Neatherway v. Pry 403 Neighbour v. Thurlow 655 Nelson's Case 146 Nelson r. Agnew 758 ■ ■ V. CaUow 488 r. Hopkins 935 Neo V. Neo 466, 495, 496 Nepean v. Doe d. Knight .... 9 Nethersole v. School for the In- digent Blind 569 Netterville (Lessee of Lord) v. Marshall 416 Nettleton v. Stephenson. .510, 511 Digitized by Microsoft® liv LIST OF CASES CITED. PAOE Neveill v. Hamerton 141 Nevill V. Nevill 524 New V. Bonaker 585 New Eiver Co. v. Jolmson . . 196 Newbolt V. Bryco 940 Newturgh (Earl of) r. Eyre 871, 916 V. Newburgh (Countess of) 926, 927 Newby v. Harrison 221 Newcomen v. Ooulson 220 Newill V. NewiU 678, 680 Newland v. Att.-Gen 539 V. Shepliard. . . . 647, 723 Newman v. Holdmyfast 730 f. Newman 476, 492 V. Nightingale. .675, 679 Newsom's Trusts Add. Newton's Trusts, In re . . 905, 908 Newton z). Allin 311, 332 V. Harland 11 V. Barnadine. . . . 648, 686 Niblet V. Smith 314 Nichol's Case 595 Nioholas v. Chamberlaine .... 174 NichoU r. Nioholl 494 Nioholls V. Butcher 726 r. Hooper 684, 685 Nichols V. Haviland 909 V. Hawkes 677, 727 V. Marsland 198 ■ V. Nichols 779 Nicholson r. Knapp 274 r. Tanham 32 Nicl'isson v. Coctill 502 NicMin V. "WiUiams 213 NicoUs V. Sheifield 470 Nightingale v. Goulbourn .... 539 V. Lawson 90 Nixon, In re 932 V. Darley 24 V. Freeman 319, 322 Noble's Trusts, In re 937 Noble V. Stow 888 Noden r. Griffits 733 Noel V. Henley (Lord) 379 !'. Jevon 71 r. Ward 89 Norbury (Lord) v. Kitohin 192, 193 r. Meade 231 Norcott's Estate, In re 390 Norfolk's (Duke of) Case 434, 43G, 437, 440, 445, 446, 447, 448, 452, 457, 479 Norman v. Morrell 934 PAGE Norris v. Chambres 787 V. Harrison. . 298, 301, 303 North i'. Cox 140 V. Martin 614 North-Eastern Eailway Com- pany V. Crossland 209 . V. EUiot . . 199, 209, 213, 214 North Yorkshire Iron Com- pany, In re 327 Noi-tham v. Hurley 170, 193, 221, 222, 223 Northen v. Carnegie 61, 53 Northey r. Strange 705 Northumberland (Duke of) v. Houghton 133 Norton v. Frecker 56 — — V. Ladd 725, 726 V. London and North "Western Eailway Company 201 Nottley V. Palmer 78 Nugent V. Nugent .... 664, 665 Nunn's Trusts, In re 940 Nuttall V. Bracewell 192, 195 V. Staunton 320 0. Oakley v. Wood 897 V. Monck 25 Oastler v. Henderson 28 Gates r. Frith 296 V. Jackson 675 d. Hatterley v. Jackson 674, 882, 888 O'Biorne, Ee 693 O'Brien r. Enright 197 Oocleston r. FuUalove . . 933, 934^ Ockleston v. Heap . . 1007, 1008 O'Connor ;-. O'Connor 310 Oddie V. Brown . . 465, 508, 509, 512, 852 O'Donnell r. O'Donnell 929 O'Donohoe v. King 688, 693 O'Fay V. Burke 388 O'Ferrall v. O'Ferrall 90 Ogle V. Oorthorn 678, 679 Ognel's Case 311 O'Hare r. Fahy 130, 135 Oke V. Heath 406, 906, 909 Okeden r. Clifden 941 Gland's Case 22, 104 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES CITED. Iv PAGE Oland r. Bardwick 104 V. Burdwick 22, 104 Olderstaw v. Holt 307 Oldham v. Hubbard 302, 307 V. Litchfield . . 927, 928 V. Oldham 982 — V. Pickering 52 Oliphant v. Hendrie 567 Olivant V. Wright 687 Oliver «'. Eichardson 81 V. White 888 Olney v. Bates 916 Ommaiiney v. Butcher . . 540, 572, 583 O'Neill V. Allen 133 V. Lucas 509, 512 V. Magiiire 133 V. Montgomery 694 Ongley v. Chambers 935 Onley v. Gardiner . . 187, 188, 191 Onslow V. South 845 V. Wallis 775 Oppenheim v. Henry . . 805, 851 Opperman v. Smith 319 Orme's Case 343 Orme, In re 845, 849 Ormerod v. Hardman 393 V. Eiley 875 Ormonde (Marquis of) r. Kyn- nersley 116 Orr-Ewing v. Colqulioun .... 193 Osborn v. BeUman 875 Osman v. Sheafe 346 Ossulston's (Lord) Case .... 751 Otter r. Vaus 965 Ousby V. Harvey 862 Ouseley v. Anstruther 663 OverhiH's Trust, Ee 928, 930, 931 Owen's Trusts, In re 679, 680 Owen, In re Add. V. Barrow 300 V. Bryant 932 V. Davies 194 V. De Beauvoir 333 V. Owen 910 V. Penny 888 Oxford (University of ) r. Chf- ton 752 Packer v. Gibbins 333 V. Scott 476, 477 PAGE Packer v. Welstead. .178, 179, 180 Packington's Case 115 Packman and Moss, In re ... . 993 Page's Case 781 Page V. Hayward ^. . . . 347 V. More 11 V. Page 910, 915 V. Soper 601 r. Way 977 Paget's Case 43 Paget V. Gee 302, 303 Paice V. Canterbury (Arch- bishop of) 553, 573, 585, 719 Pain V. Benson 911 Paine's Case 22, 61, 65, 70 Paine r. Hall 564 V. Eyder 152 V. Stratton 863 V. Wagner 678, 901 Palk r. Skinner 191 Palmer v. Fleshees 173 r. Plessier 173 V. Pletcher 173 V. Holford . . 464, 490, 492 V. Kebblethwaite 193 V. Persse 193 V. Wheeler 403 Palsgrave v. Atkinson ... .417, 488 Pannell r. Mill 170, 295 PapUlon V. Brunton 32 V. Voice . .89, 606, 624, 753 Paradine v. Jane 332 Parfitt V. Hember 494 Paris V. MiUer 724, 726 Parke, Ex parte ; In re Potter 318 Parker's Case 141 Parker (Jane) In the Goods of 917 V. Birks 689, 719 V. Carter 17, 63, 64 V. Clarke 622 V. Gossage 979 V. Hodgson . . 856, 857, 860 V. Mitchell 187, 190 V. Nickson 663, 721 V. Parker 416 • V. Smith 225 V. Sowerby 77, 78, 851, 855 V. Taswell 22 V. Thaoker 469 V. Tootal 648 Parkin v. Knight 752, 837, 865 Parnham's Trusts, In re .... 981 Parr's Trusts, Ee 843 Parr v. Parr 851 Digitized by Microsoft® iVi LIST OF CASES CITED. PAGE Parr r. Swindels 648, 654 Parrott r. Anderson 300 Parry (Ann), In re 779 V. Brown 410 r> Duncan 323 — — ■■ V. Wright 959, 962, 963 Parsons v. Coke .'. 865 V. GingeU 315 ?'.. Justice...... .803, 807, 808 . V. Lanoo... 927 r. Parsons 387, 834, 920,982 Partriohe v. Powlet . . 110, 889, 891 Partridge v. Scott 213 Paterson i\ Eolland 898 Patrick r. Stubbs 140, 141 Pattenden t). Hobson .... 864, 865 Pattison v. Pattison 803 Patten v. Eandall 726 Paul V. ChUdren 931 Paunoefort's -Case 792 Pawlet V. Doggett 692 Pawlett r. Att.-Gen 790,791 Pawlett (Lady) v. Pawlett (Loed) 816 832, 856 Pawsey v-. Edgar 858 Paylor ;•. Pegg 646 Payne, In re 844, 852, 978 . V. Brigbam 178 V. -Sbeddon 187 . V. Webb 896 Peaoby v. Somerset (Duke of) 778 Peacock r. Eastland. .341, 344, 758 t'. Purvis.. 316,317 Pearce v. Carrington 801 V. Davis 300 V. Edmeades 660, 898 V. Loman 857, 860 Peard v. Kekewicb . .466, 485, 720 Pearman i'. Pearman .... 849, 852 Pearsall- v. Simpson 834 Pearse v. Eeeve 437 Pearson v.- Dolman . . 849, 850, 852 ?\ Lane 422 V. Spencer . . 175, 179, 180 r. Stepken 865 Peat V. Chapman 896, 910 r.- PoweU 646, 723 Pedley v.- Dodds 929 Peek's Trusts,. In re 849 Peel's (Sir Eobert) School at Tamworth, In re ; Ex parte Charity Commissioners .... 583 ip'eel,' luthe goods of 929 PAGE Peelr. Oatlow ' 617 Peirce v. Locke 665 Peiton V. Banks 726 Peixoto t'. Bank of England.. 970 Pelham i>., Gregory 867 Pell's Trusts, lie 849 Pells r. Brown . .436, 464, 638, 639 PeUy r. Maddin 342 Pember v. Knighton (Inhabit- ants of) 637 Pembroke's (Earl of) Case ..134 Penne v. Peaoock 380 Pennefather v. Pennefather . . 76 PennoU v. Dysart (Earl of) . . 90 Penney, Ee 195 Pennington v. Brinsop Hall Coal Co 228 -^— V. Buckley ...... 537 Pennook v. Pennock 974 Penny v. Allen 759 — V. Clarke 889 Penrhyn (Lord) !;. Hughes 100, 102 Penruddook's Case 224 Penstred i'. Payer 537 Penticost r. Ley 935 Penwarden v. Ching .... 181, 201 Pepper v. Dixon 78 Peppercorn v. Hofman 324 Perceval v. Perceval 473, 478 Perkins v.. Baynton.. ..877, 878, 887 ^ V. Bradley 792 ^ r. Miokletbwaite .... 911 Perrin v. Blake. .600, 606, 607, 614 Perring r. Trail 569 Perry r. Fitzhowe 145, 224 V. Merritt 973 V. .Shipway 12 ■ V. Woods 896, 898 Pery v. White . .657, 658, 660, 887 Peter v. Daniel 167, 217, 218 Peters v. Masham 416, 417 V. Morehead 417 Petre v. Petre 89 Pettiward r. Presoott 724 Peyton v. Hughes 805 ^ i'. Lambert ..651,688,689 V. London (Mayor of) . 214 Pfleger, In re , 97 Phene's Trusts, In re 116, 896 Phene v. Popplewell 28 Phesant v. Salmon 120 Pheysey v. Vicary . . 167, 175, 179, ■ 180 Phibbs i'. .Cooper . 927 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES CITED. Ivii PAQE Pliilantlirapic . Society (The) v. Kemp 562 Philbriok, Ee 421 Philipps V. AHen 724 V. ChamlDerlaine .... 663 Phillips' Trust 97 Phillips V. Barker 941 V. Baiio-w 112 r— V. Brydon 422 V. Gutteridge 963 V. Henson 316 V. Hudson 143, 144 r- V. James 661 V. Phillips 68, 886, 896, 905 ^^ V. Sargent 97 V. Smith 108 V. Treeby 171, 223 Philpott V St. George's Hos- pital 872 Phipard v. Mansfield . 657, 658, 660 Phipps V. Ackers 839, 840 V. Ennismore (Lord) . . 982 -^ V. Kelynge 507 r— V. Mulgrave (Lord) . . 867 V. Williams 839 Phipson V. Turner 486 Phitton's Case 371, 386 Picken v. Matthews .... 805, Add. Pickering v. Eudd 200 V. Stamford (Lord) 527, 905, 906, 906 ■ ^— V. Vowles 992 Piokersgill v. Grey 53, 56 Piokf ord v. Brown 476, 492 Pickup's Will, Ee 808 Pickwell V. Spencer 721 Pidgeley v. Eawling 108 Pieroy v. Eoberts 976 Pierce v. Win 463 Piers r. Hoe 342 V. Piers 378 ■ V. Tuite 378 V. Winn 969 Pierson v. Garnett 801 V. Vickers 610 Pieschel v. Paris 574 Piggot V. Birtles 318 n- V. Stratton 204 Pigot V. BuUock 108, 111 Pile V. Salter 835 Pilkington v. Bonghey 554, 563, 564 V. Hastings 321 Pimb's Case 788 Pinbury v. Elkin 684, 692 PAQE Pindar v. Ainsley 332 V. Wadsworth 143 Pinhorn v. Souster 15, 18, 20 Pinnington v. Galland . . 177, 178, 179, 180 Pistor V. Cater. 25 Pitt V. Jackson 61 , 409, 4 1 0, 494, 602 .V. Pitt 956, 961 .V. Snowdon 321 Plant r. James 175 Plasterers' Company v. Parish Clerks' Company 186 Plate V. St. John's CoUege . . 536 Piatt V. Powles 58 Playfair v. Cooper 101 Plajrford V. Hoare 358 Playre v. Crouch 730 Playters. v. Abbott 93, 96 Pleasant d. Hayton v. Benson 32 Plenty r. West 354, 356 PleydeU v. Pleydell 683 Plumer v. Brisco 329 Plummer v. Whiteley 305 Plunket V. Holmes 601 Plunkett V. Lewis 89 : V. Eeilly 57 Poad V. Watson 354 Pochin V. Duncombe 152 Pocock V. Att.-Gen 573 V. Lincoln (Bishop of) 274 720, 929 Podger's (Margaret) Case 370, 371 Podmore v. Gunning 928 Polden r. Bastard 175 Pollard's Trusts, Ee 723 Pollen V. Brewer 11, 20 Pollock V. Booth 495 V. Day 567 «■. Pollock 310 Pollok r. Kelly 900 Pomfret v. Eicroft . . 169, 170, 218 Poole's Case 314, 463, Poole V. Bott 843 V. Poole 608 V. Terry 858 Poor V. Mial 665 Poplar V. Blackwall Free School, In re 579 Popplewell V. Hodgkinson . . 212 Porter's Case 536 Trust, Ee 908 Porter v. Bradley 686 V. Fox 476, 492 ^ V. Porter 891 Digitized by Microsoft® Iviii LIST OF CASES CITED. PAOE Portington's Case 78, 463, 972 Portland (Duke of) r. Topham 423 Postman v. Harrell 319 Potter V. Chapman 2C5 V. North 140, 256 V. Potter 730 Potts V. Atherton 849 V. Brittou 982 V. Smith 170 Poulet V. Ponlet 856 Poulson V. "Wellington 662 Powdrell V. Jones 72 Powell V. Att.-Gen. . .536, 537, 573 V. Butler 200 V. Howells 657, 660 r. Merrett 784 ■ ■ r. Milburn . .258, 259, 270 V. Mouchett 927 V. Price 661 V. Thomas 171 Power V. Hajne 975 V. Shell 76 Powerscourt r. Powcrscourt . . 537 Powis V. Capron 488 Powseley v. Blackman 15 Powys V. Blagrave 110 Pratt V. Harvey 555 r. Mathew. .930, 932, 933, 934 Prescott V. Long . . . , / 805 V. Phillips 192 V. Tyler 777 Price r. Gibson 953 r. Hall 478, 839, 841 ■ r. Hathaway . . 544, 547, 548 r. Hunt 687 r. Page . .919, 923, 937, 941 Prichard v. Powell '.132, 133 Pride r. Fooks. .509, 510, 512, 834 Priestley r. Holgate 846 Prison Charities, In re 579 Pritchard v. Arbouin 554, 555, 558, 559 Probert v. Morgan 416 Proby V. Landor 928 Proctor V. Bath and Wells (Bishop of) 441, 453, 478, 490 V. Hodgson 179 Propagation of the Gospel in Poreign Parts (Society for the) t: Att.-Gen 584 Proud r. Bates 170 Prowse V. Abingdon . . . .856, 860 Prudential Assurance Com- pany V. Edmunds 116 PAGE Pruen v. Osborne 617 Pryor v. Pryor 415 Prj'tharch v. Havard 1001 Pullen :v. Middleton 748 Pulsford V. Hunter . .825, 849, 850 Purcell V. Purcell 651, 952, 955, 962 Purser v. Darby 1001, 1002 Pybus 4. Mitford 604, 733 Pye, Ex parte 928 V. Linwood 690 V. Mumford 168, 190 Pyer v. Carter 174, 176, 197 Pym V. Lockyer 980 Pyncent v. Pyncent 89 Pyne v. Dor 112 V. Pranklin 678 Q. Queen (The) v. Bradfield (In- habitants of) 233 U.Bradford Navi- gation Co. . . 217 ■ V. Chorley 232 V. Cluworth (In- habitants of) 178 V. Darlington Local Board of Health 217 )'. Eton College 261 r.Lincoln(Bishop of) 272 V. Metropolitan Bd. of Works 196 j'.Norwich(Bishop of) 273 1'. Wcstbrook . . 295 Quick V. Ludborrow 377 Quicke v. Leach 834 Quin, Ee 972 Quinn v. Butler 564 E. Eabbeth v. Squire 659, 661 Eace r. Ward. . 152, 167, 169, 230, 233 Eachel's Case 870 Eachfield v. Careless 920 Eaokham v. De la Mare, 873, 915 V. Siddall. .355, 356, 363, 993 Eackstraw v. Vile 692 Eadcliffe v. Buckley 926 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES CITED. Ux PAGE Eadoliffe v. Portland (Duke of) 225 Eadford r. Eadford G86, 690 Eadnor v. Vandebendy 366 Eaggett V. Beaty 616 Eaikos V. Townsend 224 Ealeigli's (Sir Walter) Case. . 763, 767, 770, 771 Ealph r. Carrick 507, 512, 643 V. Watson 664 Eameshur Pershad Navain Singh «;. Koonj BehariPattuk^rfrf. Eamsay v. Blair 177, 178 V. Shelmerdine . . 910, 914 Eandall v. Stevens 10 V. Tuckin 724 Eanelagk v. Eanelagh . . 655, 693 Eanking's Settlement Trusts, Ee 897 EatolifEe v. Hampson 406, 488 Eawe V. CkiclLester 93 Eawlinson v. Montague (Du- chess of) . 53 Eawson v. Eicke 29 Eawstron v. Taylor .... 193, 195 Eay V. Pung 70 Eea V. Williams 885 Eead v. Gooding 476, 492 V. Hodgens 542 ■ V. SneU 692, 720, 863 ■ r. Stedman 784 r. Willis 678 Eeade v. Morpeth 733 Eeading (Corporation of) v. Lane 535 Eeay v. Eawlinson 728 Eeech v. Kenningate 928 Eees V. Perrot 32 Eeeve v. Att.-Gen. . . 578, 581, 780 Eeeves v. Brymer 926 ■ V. Creswick 95, 96 Eeg. V. Aire and Calder Navi- gation Company .... 211 V. Eastern Counties Eail- way Company 228 V. Foley (Lord) 258 V. Great Northern Eail- way Company 228 • V. London and Southamp- ton Eailway Company 30 V. St. Mary, Lambeth . . 266 I). Sewell 34 V. TraUl 34 Eegent United Service Stores, In re 318 PAGE Eegnart v. Porter 12 Eehoboth Chapel, In re .... 572 Eeid V. Eeid 407, 411, 415 Eeilly v. Thompson 233 Eemnant v. Hood 858 Een V. Bulkeley 383 Eennell v. Lincoln (Bishop of) 262 Eennington v. Cole 73 Eenshaw v. Bean 234, 235 Eepington v. Tamworth School (Governors of) 258, 259 Eevel V. Watkinson 99 Eex V. Bridger 787, 792 r. Chester (Bishop of) . . 258 r. CoUett 12 ■ V. Cotton 318 V. Hermitage (Inhabitants of) 230 V. Llandaif (Bishop of). . 730 ■ r. Mildmay 790 V. Neville 217 V. Newman 536 !-. Norwich (Bishop of). . 279 r. Osbourne 583 V. Pomfret (Earl of) 295 V. Portington 541, 543 ■ V. Eobinson 980 V. Eochester (Bishop of ) . 257 V. Eosevrell 224 V. St. Austell (Inhabitants of) 295 ■ V. Stafford (Marquis of) . 651 r. Sutton 730, 784 V. Varlo 583 Eeynard v. Spence 74 Eeynaud r. Pourangeavi .... 972 Eeynell v. Eeynell . . 354, 355, 720 Eeynish r. Martin 856 Eeynolds, In re 759 r. Blake 258 r. Whelan 936 V. Wright 57, 776 Eeynoldson v. Blake and the Bishop of London 260 Ehodes r. Muswell Hill Land Company 974 V. Ehodes 617 V. Whitehead 478, 841 Eice's (George ap) Case . . 60, 107 Eice V. McQuade 17 Eich V. WooUey 323 Eichards v. Bergavenny (Lady) 750, 752 r. Fry 189 Digitized by Microsoft® Is. ilST OF CASES CITED. PAGE Eicliartls 1-. Harper 169, 210 V. Eichards 170, 223, 739, 961 -^-r. Eose 213, 214 V. Squibb 130 Eichardson v. Gifford 25 EicHAEDSoN r. Laicgeidge .... 4 ..12,18, 23, 26 V. Moore 98 r- V. Power 844 — V. Eichardson. . . . 896 ^ V. Simpson . .418, 420 ^. V. Watson 920, 934, 938 ^. v.. Yardley 669 Eiclcard r. Eobson 538 Eickards v. Eickards 93 Eicket i!. Metropolitan Eail. Co. 229 Eickett V. Guillemard 911 Eicketts v. Loftus 422 ^ V. Turquand 935 Eickit's Trusts, In re 937 Eider r. Smith 218 V. Wager 903 V. Wood 741 Eidge's Trusts, In re 660 Eidgeway v. Munkittrick .... 617 Eidgway v. Eidgway 852 . ^ V. StaHord (Lord) . . 325 Eidout V. Pain 724 Eigden v. Vallier 879, 885, 887, 894 Eigg r. Lonsdale (Earl) .... 140 Eight d. 'Compton v. Compton 720, 721, 722 d. Cutting r. Darby .... 6 ■ ■ d. Pisher r. Cuthell . .30, 31 d. Lewis r. Beard 12, 20 d. Phillips V. Smith. .354, 606 d. Shortridge v. Creber. . 613 V. Bawden 56 V. Creber 602 V. Day 687 r. Darby 28 r. Hamond 664 r. Sidebotham 720 Eiley r. Garnett. .354, 356, 473, 841 Eimington v. Cannon 619 Eing r. Hardwick . .476, 492, 493 Eingrose r. Bramham . . , .805, 807 Eipley V. Waterworth 51 Eippen v, Priest 997 Eippon V. Norton 977 Eiseley v. Eyle 12, 24, 317 Eishton .v.. Cobb ^ 972 PAGE Eittson V. Stordy 782 Eiviere v. Bower 173 Eoach V. Trood 413, 417, 419 Eobb r. Donan 537 i\ Dorrian 588 Eobbins v. Jones 218 Eoberts i: DisaU 418, 421 r. Dixwell 61, 418, 606 1'. Edwards 908 V. Haines ... .207, 209 D. Karr 176 • V. Macord 202 r. Eose 171,224 ^.v.. Walker 792 Eobertson r. Fraser 896 Eobins v. Eose 981 Eobinson v. Duleep Singh. . . . 141 V. Geldard 562 V. Grey 355, 358, 723 , V. Hardcastle. .411, 485, 489, 494 V. Hicks 607, 617 ^ V. Hofman 320 V. Hunt 654 1). Jago. ., 267 )-. Litton 742 V, London Hospital. .561, 568, 569 v. Palmer , 141 ■ V. Eobinson . . 554, 566-, 607, 616, 617, 753 V. Waddington 326 V. Wray 140, 152 Eobson r. Att.-Gen 785 r. Whittingham. . 203, 225, 226 Eochdale Canal Co. r. King . . 193 ^ — V. Eadcliffe 188 Eochford v. Hackman . . 974, 978, Eocke r. Eocke 975 Eockey v. Huggens 137 980, 982 Eockingham (Lord) v. Peurice 286, 299, 301 Eoddam v.. Morley 958 Eoddy V. Pitzgerald. .608, 613, 693 Eoden v. Eyton 326 Eoe rf. Aistrop 2'. Aistrop. . . . 606 d. Allport r. Bacon .... 724 -d. Bendall v. Summerset 643 .d. Blair i\ Street 18 d. Bowes V. Blackett .... 725 d. Brune v. Prideaux . , 21 d. CaUow r. Bolton 720 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES CITED. Ixi PAGE Eoe rf. Child V. Wright 724 d. Crow V. Baldwere .... 749 d. Dodson v. Grow 617 d. Durant v. Doe 28 d. Fulham v. Wickett . . 870 - — — d. Henderson v. Charnock 28 d. Kirby v. Holmes .... 719 d. Eeade v. Eeade. . 987, 991, 992, 993 d. Eew V. Lucraft 654 d. Sheers r. Jeffery 688 d. Shell f. Pattison 726 d. Thong V. Bedford 607 ■ d. "Wren v. Clayton 660 r. Blackett 719, 723 ■ V. Collis 683 V. Ferrars 9 V. Grew 621 V. Holmes 723 V. Jeffery 448, 467, 468 ■ ■ V. Pogson 422 ■ V. Popham 342 )'. Tranmer 346 r. Wiggi? 32 Eoffey V. Henderson 314 Eogers, Ex parte . . 641, 646, 655 r- V. Birkhead 972 V. Brenton 137 V. Grazebrook 15 V. Holled 268 V. Maule 777 V. Mutfch 805, Add. r. Taylor . . 168, 177, 207, 211, 220 EoUe, V. Whyte 167, 183 Eolt V. Somerville (Lord) 115, 116, Eomilly r. James 649 Eonayne v. Sherrard 27 Eooke V. Eooke. 415, 417 Eooper v. Harrison 257 Eoper 1'. Halifax 385 V. Eoper 673, 753 Eose d. Vere v. Hill 720 V. Groves 195 V. Eeynolds 77 Eoseingrave v. Burke 309 Eosewell v. Pryor 173 Eoss V. Pedden 198 V. Eoss 754, 972 Eosslyn's Trust 506, 509 Eotheram v. Green 147 Eous V. Artois 1 Eottse's Case 1 ■■ 1, 8, 9 PAQB Eouse's Estate 849 Eoutledge v. Don-il 406, 409, 411, 412, 439, 452, 484, 485, 487, 495 Eow, In re 759 Eowbotham v. Dunnett 563 : ■ V. Wilson . . 168, 169, 170, 207, 210, 211, 213 Eowden v. Malster 749, Eowe r. Power 81, 83 Eowland v. Cuthbertson . . 79, 80 ; r. Tawney 476, 492, 842 Eowlatt V. Easton 935 Eoyr. L'Evesq. de Norwich. . 280 Euce V. Steel 494 Euck V. Barwise 883 Eucker v. Scholefield 408 Eudge V. Barker 911 Eudyerd's Estate, Ee 88 Eugby School, Case of 536 Eumball v. Munt 30 Eumsey v. Eawson 129 Euncorn v. Doe d. Cooper 181, 182,, 185- Eundle v. Eundle 56 Euscombe v.. Hare 103 Eussel and Broker's Case .... 134 V. Buchanan 839 Eussell V. Clowes 784 V. Harford 175 V. Kellett 581 V. Long 898, V. Eussell 563 Eutherford v. Maule 784 Eutland's (Countess of) Case . 351 Eyall V. Hannam 935 Eyan v. Cowley 617, 621, 651 v. ShUeock 322 Eye's Settlement 466, 687, 088, 689 Eylands r. Fletcher 196 Eyves v. Eyres 890 S. Sabbarton v. Sabbarton. .458, 686, 867 Sacheverel v. Frogate 300 Sacheverill v. Porter 130, 146 Saddlers' Company's Case. . . . 779 Sadgrove v. Kirby 144, 145 Sadler, In re 794 V. Pratt 405, 418 Saffyn'a Case 372 St. Albans (The Duke of) v. Skipworth 109 Digitized by Microsoft® Ixii LIST OF CASES CITED. PAGE St. Aubin v. St. Autin . . 306, 510 St. David's (Bishop of) v. Lucy 276 St. Mary, Ne^Yingtoll (Vestry of) V. Jacobs 233 St. Nicholas, Deptford (Church- wardens of) V. Sketchley . . 30 St. Pancras Burial Ground, In re 5 7 G St. Paul's (The Dean and Chapter of) Case 402 St. Paul V. Dudley 953, 960 V. Heath _ 518 Salaman v. Glover ' 230 Salisbury v. Petty . . 655, 858, 908 (Bishop of) «). Philips 263, 264 (Marq. of) V. Glad- stone. . 211 V. Salis- bury 137, 138, 139 Salkeld v. Vernon 654, 801 Sallery, Ee 656, 862 Salmon v. Green 803 V. Salmon 477 V. Tidmarsh 678, 846 Salter v. Brunsden 329 ■ V. Butler 51, 297 Salters' Company v. Jay .... 203 Salusbury v. Denton 557 Sambourne v. Barry 647 Sammes's Case 341, 846 Sampson «. Hoddinott .. 183, 192, 193, 197 Samuel v. Samuel 865 Sandell v. Pranklin 26 Sanders' Trusts, In re 654 Sanders r. Ashford 910, 914 V. Ballard 887 V. Cornish 436 i>. Miller 850 Sanderson's Trust, In ro 831, 849, 977 Sandford v. Paikes 935 Sands v. Dixwell 865 Sandwich (Earl of) {■. Great Northern Eailway Company^rW. Sanford r. Irby 355, 468, 687 Sangeson i'. Cruise 98 V. Sealy 98 Sansbury v. Pead 854 Sapsford u..Pletcher 299 Sarel v. Sarel 645, 898 Saumarez v. Saumarez 493 Saunders v. Eppo 301 ■ V, Lowe 6 14 PAGE Saunders r. Mose 221 r. Newman 192, 197, 236 V. Vautier 491, 852, 975 V. Watson 793 Savage r. Eobertson 932 V. Tyers 648 Savery v. Dyer 677 Savile r. Blacket . . 386, 387, 388 Saville's Case 753 Saye'sCase 131 Bayer's Trusts, In re 465, 480 Sayer v. Masterman 606 ■ V. Sayer 577 Scarborough (Earl of) r. Doe d. SaviUe 470 Scarisbrick v. Skelmersdale . . 488, 506 Soatterwood r. Edge .... 438, 871 Scawin v. Watson 493 Scholefield v. Lookwood .... 98 Scholes V. Hargreaves 128, 129, 130 School Board for London c. Paulconer 579 Scott V. Bargeman 661 ('. Cumberland 917 r. Davis 113 V. EorristaU 562 r. Harwood 802 • r. Scarborough (Earl of) 508, 808 V. Scott 673, 677, 1001 Scrape v. Ehodes '. 467, 649 Scrope V. OfEey 386 Seagood and Hone's Case .... 628 Seagrave v. Knight 112 Seale v. Barter 672, 673, 693 V. Seale 862 Sealey v. Stawell 309, 686 Seaman v. Wood 476 Seaward v. Willock 494 Seccombe r. Edwards 686 Segrave r. Barber 13, 20 Selby V. Alston 71 V. Browne 332 1'. Crystal Palace District Gas Company 220 V. Greaves 313 V. Nettlefold 218 V. Eobinson 134 Selsey (Lord) v. Lake (Lord) 952, 959 Selwood V. Mildmay 924 Selwyn v. Selwyn 728, 729 Semayne's Case 45 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES CITED. Ixiii PAGE Senliouse v. Chi-ietian 170, 219, 221 V. Earl 89 _Sergison, Ex parte 988, 992 V. Sealey 751 Sewell V. Crew-Eead .... 654, 655 V. Denny 511 Sewers (Commissioners of) v. Glasse 132, 137, 141 Seymor's (Edwaed) Case .... 706 50, 70, 347, 369, 373, 716, 742, 748 Seymour v. Bennet . . 263, 265, 266 V. Kilbee Add. V. Lucas 981 Seys V. Price 953 Shadbolt v. Thornton 654 Shaftesbury (Earl of) v. Marl- borough (Duke of) . . 93, 94, 95 Shafto V. Johnson 209 Shailard r. Baker 724 Shakespear v. Peppin 141 Shapland v. Smith 354, 602 Shard v. Stone 48 Sharp's Case 311 Sharp V. Cosserat 978, 981 V. St. Sauveur 782 V. Sharp 726 V. Waterhouse 167 Sharpe v. Sharpe 994, 995 Sharshaw v. Gibbs 87, 102 Sha^y, Ex parte 994, 995 V. Barber 18 V. Bran 793 . V. Ford 973 V. Jersey (Earl of) ... .Add. V. MoMahon . . 910, 912, '914 . V. Ehodes 507, 508, 509, 510, 517, 618 V. Thompson 266 . V. Weigh 617, 724 • • r. Woods 271 Sheaf V. Cave 72 Shedden, In re 742 V. Att.-Gon 742 Shee V. Hale 980 Sheffield's (Seignior) Case . . 765 Sheffield v. Orrery (Lord) 438, 450, 685, 836 V. Eatcliff 738 V. Eatcliffe 262 Industrial Society v. Jarvis 168 Sheldon v. Bret .... 247, 249, 253 Shelley's Case 589 pAaE SheUey's Case 366, 467, 600, 601, 604, 609, 614, 615, 616, 618, 621, 623, 624, 718, 727, 751, 753, 862, 864, 865 Shelton v. Watson 624 Shepheard v. Beetham 560 Shepherd v. Ingram 803 Shepherdson v. Dale 889 Sheppard's Trusts, In re .... 872 Sheppard v. Gibbons 896 r. Lessingham . .686, 690 Sherley r. Underhill 260 Sherman v. Collins 858 Shcrrardz!. Harborough(Lord) 265, 274, 275 Sherratt v. Mountford 934, 938, 939 Sherwin v. Kenney . .355, 356, 613 Shipperdson v. Tower 306 Shopland v. Eydler 9 Shoplane v. Eoydler 263 Shore, r. Billingsley 887 V. Shore 101 V. Wilson 920, 934 Short d. GastreU v. Smith 910 Shrewsbury's (Countess of) Case 20 (Earl of) Case.. 161, 164, 371 (Lady) Case . . 22 Shrewsbury School, In re ... . 275 (Countess of) v. Shrewsbury (Earl of ) 956 V. Hornby 542 Shrimpton v. Shrimpton 845, 846, 849 Shuldham v. Smith 834 Shum V. Hobbs 846 Shury V. Piggott 154 Shuttleworth «). Greaves 801, 905, 912 Sibley !'. Cook 916 Sibthorpe v. Moxom 905 V. Moxton 905 Siddons v. Short 212 Sidebotham v. Watson 356 Sidney v. Sidney 67 V. Wilmer 508 Silbersohildt v. Sohiott 997 SiUick V. Booth 911 Silvester d. Law v. Wilson . . 602 V. Jarman 997 V. Wilson 354 Simoy V. Marshall 294 Simmonds v. Cock 837, 839 Digitized by Microsoft® Ixiv LIST OF CASES CITED. PAGE Simmons v. Norton .... 106, 109 V. Eudall C42 V. Simmons 688, 693, 862 V. Pitt 512, 513 Simon V. Barber 583 Simons v. Blake 787 Simper t). Foley 186,231 Simpkin v. Ashurst 8 Simpson v. Ashworth . . 469, 720 V. Bathiirst 384 V. Gutteridge 76 r. Hartopp 316 r. O'Sullivan 98 V. Peach 843 ?■. Simpson 691, 749 Sims V. Thomas 334 V. Quinlan 543, 581 Sing V. Leslie 393, 961 Singleton v. Gilbert 802, 804 V. Singleton 802 Sinnett v. Herbert 556, 557, 563, 570, 581 Sitwell V. Bernard 847 Six Carpenters' Case . . 324, 328 Skerratt v. Oakley 663 Skerry v. Preston 300 Skey r. Barnes 661 Skingley, Ee 110 Sldnner v. Ogle 917 Skull V. Glenister 170, 223 Sladet'. Drake 271 V. Pattison 56 Sladen v. Sladen 741 Slark V. Dakyns 484, 486 Slater v. Dangerfield . . 622, 752 SUngsby v. Barnard 213 Small V. Wing 847 Smallman v. Pollard 317 Smart v. Morton 207, 209 V. Prujean 541 Smartle v. Penhallow 56 V. "VViUiams 9 Smell V. Dee 845 Smethurstu.TomlinandBankes 791 Smith's (Betty) Trusts . . 834, 872 ■ Case 263, 369 Estate, In re . . 993, 994 Will, Ee 849, 854 Smith, Ee 663, 664, 803 V. Adams 72, 74 V. Baynard 131 V. Brownlow (Earl) 140, 143 V. Byrne . ; 22 r. Oamelford 70 PAGE Smith V. Camelford (Lord) 406, 494 V. Charles 931, 933 V. Clay 366 V. Clever 862 V. Coney . . 862, 919, 939, 940 V. Cooke 89 V. Darby 209, 210 V. Death 390, 693 V. Egginton IG V. Fitzgerald 663 • ■ V. Fletcher 198 V. Frederick 953 V. Gt. Western Eail. Co. 209, 211 V. Houblon 391 - — ■ V. Howden 206 V. Howth 171 V. Humble 299 V. Kenrick 198 — V. Lidiard 938 ■ V. Maitland 666 V. Oakes 645 V. Oliver 555, 556, 559, 681, 908 V. Seghill, Overseers of . , 14 V. Shelboun 279 V. Smith . . 77, 227, 357, 476, 723, 856 «j. Spencer 71, 837 V. Thackerah 208 ■ • V. Tyndal 710, 720 V. Warren 404 V. Widlake 24 V. Wilson 934 V. Wright 324 Smyth's Case 160 Smyth, Ex parte . . 286, 287, 302 Smythe v. Power 651 Snape v. Turton 379, 387 Snell V. Clay 66 V. Finch 321 Sneyd v. Sneyd 83, 345 Snow V. Poulden 839 Snowball v. Proctor 677 Snowdon v. Dales 976 Snowe ti. Cuttler 437 Socket V. Wray 970 Solley V. Wood 93, 96 SoUory v. Leaver 293, 294 Solme r. BuUock 135, 146 Solomon r. Vintners' Co. . . 168, 214, 215 Somerset Coal Canal Company v. Harcourt 171 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES CITED. Ixv PAGE Somerville v. Lethbridge. .450, 494 Sonday's Case 463 Sondes' (Lord) WUl, Ee 407 Sons of the Clergy (Corp. of) V. Mose 585 Sorresby v. HoUins 557 Soulsby V. Neving 35 SoLith V. Williams 905 Sontb Eastern Eail-^ay Com- pany, In re 759 South Metropolitan Cemetery Company v. Eden 205, 222 Southampton (Lord) v. Hert- ford (Marquis of) . . 442, 489, 491, 501, 509 Southby V. Stonehouse . . 89, 685 Southcoat V. Manory 352 Southern v. "WollastGn . . 466, 476 Soutbmolton (Mayor of) v. Att.-Gen 575 Southwell V. Wade 780 Sowerby's Trust 906 Sowerby v. Eryer 106, 107 V. Smith 162 Spark V. Purnell 721 Sparks v. Eestal 655 Sparling v. Parker 560, 562, 868 Speaker v. Styant 148 Speakman v. Speaknian 465, 492 Speoot's Case 269 Spence v. Spence 354, 357, 601, 602 Spencer v. Scurr 108, 109 V. Wilson 849, 913 Spenser v. Chase 744 Spicer V. Spioer 721 Spirt andBence's Case 629 Spokes V. Banbury Board of Health 217 Spoor V. Green 207 Spraokling v. Eanier 807, 808 Springett v. Jennings. ....... 563 Spry V. Bromfield 725 Spurgin V. White 14 Spurstowe's Charity, In re . . 572 Spyer v. Hyatt 79 Squire v. Campbell 204 V. Compton 98 V. Ford 964 Stables t). MeUor 131 Stackpole v. Beaumont 856 Stackpoole v. Parkinson .... 31 V. Stackpoole . . 409, 494 Stafiord's (Lord) Case 370 T.L.C. PAOE Stafford (Earl of) v. Buckley 69, 685, 727, 748 (Marquis of) v. Coyney 205 (Mayor and Burgesses of) V. Bolton 264 Staffordshire, &c. Canal Navi- gation, Proprietors of v. Bir- mingham Canal Navigation, Proprietors of 187, 202 Staight V. Burn 226, 235 Stainton v. Woolrych 196 Stamford v. Bruges 131 Stampe v. Burgesse 146 Standen v. Standen 936 Standley's Estate, In re . . 930, 931 Standred v. Shorditch 128 Stane's WUl, Ee 579 Stanford v. Eoberts 88 Stanhope's Trusts, Be 865, 912 Stanhope «). Lincoln (Bishoj) of) 259 Stanhouse v. Gaskell . . . .648, 657 Stanley of Alderney (Lady) v. Shrewsbury (Earl of) 227 Stanley v. Hayes 332 V. Jackman 888 V. Leigh 434, 445, 452, 654 V. Lennard 648,653 V. Stanley 839, 925 V. Wise 804 Stansell «. JoUard 213,215 Stansfield o. Habergham .... 742 Stapilton V. Stapilton 351 Staple V. Heydon 178 Stapleton v. Cheaies 820 823, 824, 832, 844, 845, 848 V. Cheele 820 Starkey and Dryop's Case . . 370 V. Pool 273 Statham v. Bell 871 Staunton v. Peck 658 Stauntons, Minors, In re .... 868 Stead V. Piatt 60 Steadman v. Pulling 61, 62 Steede v. Berrier 920 Steele v. Bosworth 294 Stephen v. Butridge 711 V. Stephen 841 Stephens v. Baily 780 V. Gadsden 407, 493 V. Hide 896, 898 V. Stephens 438, 455, 458 V. WaU 244 e Digitized by Microsoft® Ixvi I,IST OF CASES CITED. PAGE Sterling v. Penlington 63 Sterne v. Wolfe 956 Stevens' Case 786 Wm, In re 993, 996 Stevens v. Austin 130 V. Britridge 605 V. Hale 642, 643 V. Mid-Hants Eail. Co. 966 Stevenson t'. Lambard 310,311,332 r. Liverpool (Jlaj'or of) 358, 359 V. Newnham 323 Steward's Estate, In re 97 Stewart v. Barton 588 V. Donegal (Marquis of) 379,388 V. Garnett 725, 726 V. Green 540 Still V. Hoste 923, 937 Stockdale v. Nicholson 888 Stockport Waterworks Com- pany V. Potter 169, 183, 194, 195, 197, 216 Stoke V. Styles 268 ■ ' V. Sykes 268 Stokes V. Cheek 974 r. Cities Offices Co. . . 225 V. Heron 676 r. Holden 792 Stokoe V. Singers 232 Stone's Estate, In re 387, 388 — Trusts, In re 981 Stone V. Godfrey 64 V. Maule 677 . V. Theed 90, 93 D. Winchester (Bishop of) 282 V. Yeovil (Corp. of) 212 Stoneham v. Lond. Brighton & S. Coast Eail. Co 144 Stonor V. Cui-wen 867 Stone t). Winchester (Bishop of) 268 Storrs V. Benbow 476, 805, 807 Stott V. Stott 221 Stoughton V. Leigh 68, 83, 84 Stourbridge Navigation Com- pany L\ Ward (Earl) 211 Strachan v. Thomas 334 Straohy v. Erancis 106 Stradbroke (Lord) v. Mulcahy. 104 Strafford (Earl of) v. Lady Wentworth 301 Stratford v . Aldborough (Lord) 113 V. Powell 692 Strathmore v. Bowes 115 PAGE Stratton v. Best 346, 882, 885 V. Payne 693 Straus !'. Goldsmid 542 Streatfield v. Streatficld . .407, 623 Stretch V. Watkins 846, 851 Strickland v. Aldridge .063, 027, 928 V. Strickland 734 Stringer's Estate, In re 974 Stringer v. Gardiner 935, 936 V. New 731 Stripping's (Sir George) Case . 108 Strode V. Blackburno 82 r. Falkland (Lady) .. 927 V. EusseU 929, 1009 Strother v. Button 851, 852 Stroud, In re 24 r. Norman 418,419 Stroyan v. Knowles. .207, 208, 236 Strutt V. Braithwaite 054 Stuart V. Castlestuart (Lord) . 418, 419 V. Bruce 879 V. Bruere 847 V. CockereU . .476, 480, 481 Stubbs V. Parsons 299 V. Sargon 662 Stukely V. Butler 970 Stulz's Trusts, In re 982 Sturge r. Dimsdale 502 Sturgis r. Dunn 720 V. Morse 755 Styan, Ex parte 841 Styant v. Staker 148 Sufiield V. Brown 176 Sumner v. Partridge 65 Surplice v. Farnsworth 333 Surrey r. Piggott 154 StJET V. PiGOT 154 138,166 Sussex V. Temple '. . . . 882 Sutcliffe V. Booth 200 Sutton V. Chaplin 303 r. Ennis 305 V. Torre 678 Sutton Coldfield Case 574 Swabey v. Swabey 953 Swaine v. Kennerley . . . .928, 930 Swan V. Holmes 645, 898 Swann r. Falmouth (Earl of) . 322 Swannock v. Lyfford 71 Swansborough i\ Coventry . . 174 Swansea Bank v. Thomas. . . . Add. Swanton v. Eaven 78 Sweeny v. Sweeny 32 Digitized by Microsoft® LTST OF CASES CITED. Ixvii PAOE Sweet V. Meredith 274, 277 Sweetapple r. Bindon ... .01, 624 Sweeting r. Prideaux 653 V. Sweeting- 564 Swindon Wuterworlis Co. ;'. Wilts and Berks Canal Navi- gation Co 194 Swinfen v. Bacon 11, 35 V. Swinfen 952, 953, 960, 961 Swire V. Leach. 315 Sydney v. Vaughan 845 Sykes V. Sykes 470, 488, 914 Sj'mers v. Jobsou 865 Symonds v. Marino Society . . 553 Symons r. Symons 27, 302 SjTnpson V. Hornshy 612 Sjaige's Trust, Eo 686, 689 Synge v. Syage 982 T. Taaffe v. Conmee 658, 660 V. Ferrall 660 Taggart v. Taggart 887 Taite v. Swinstead 394, 488 Talbot V. Jevers. .511, 512, 517, 576 Taltartjm's Case 695 705, 710, 745, 746, 747 Tancred v. Leyland 323 Tanham v. Nicholson 31 Tankerville (Earl of) v. Coke . 389 Tanner, Ex parte 896 Taplin v. Florence 171 Tapling «'. Jonas Jones . .234, 235 Tarbuck v. Tarbuck .052, 873 Tardiff v. Eobinson 92 Target v. Gaunt 684, 685, 693 Tasker v. BuUman 296 Tate V. Clarke 618, 619, 622, 865, 908 Tatham v. Drummond 556 r. Vernon 492,850 Tatton r. Hammersley 175 Tay V. Slaughter 577 Tayler v. AYaters 171 V. Web 663, 721 Tayleur v. Wilding 25 Taylor's Case 70 Taylor d. Atkins v. Horde. . . . 729 V. Biddal . .437. 438, 464, 455, 458 V. Clarke 686 — V. Fleming 885 PAOB Taylor v. Frobisher 490, 843 • V. Haygarth 775, 784 V. Henniker 322 V. Herd 745 ' V. Lambert 848, 859 • V. Linley 560 V. Richardson 941 ■ — V. Shafto 209 ■ — V. Shaw 463 — — V. St. Helen's (Corpo- ration of) 221 V. Taylor 328 V. Whitehead . .. .168, 218 V. Zamira 299 Taylorson v. Peters 320 Teague's Settlement, In re 487, 493 Tee V. Ferris 563, 928 Tempest v. Tempest 562 Templeman v. Warrington . . 661 Templemoyle School, In re . . 581 Tenant v. Goldwin 174, 219 Tench v. Cheese 507 Tennent v. Tennent 493 Tenny d. Gibbs v. Moody 345, 002 ■ ?'. Agar 049,686,719 Tew V. Jones 13 Tewart v. Lawson 515 Thackeray ^^ Wood 170 Thatcher's Trust, Ee 490, 842 Theebridge v. Kilburne 650 Theed v. Debenham 225 Thellusson v. Woodford . .65, 440, 443, 445, 447, 451, 452, 456, 459, 462, 500, 505, 539 Thetford (Maj'-or of) v. Tyler . 24 School Case (The) . . 574 Thicknesse v. Liege 854 Thirtle v. Vaughan 995, 1001 Thomas v. Harries 324 ■ V. Howell 536, 537, 554 V. Kemeys 949, 952, 953, 954 V. Lloyd 404 • ■ V. Packer 24, 25 • V. Sylvester 312 V. Thomas . .167, 197, 230, 484, 485, 919, 924, 942 Thomasin v. Mackworth .... 744 Thomlinson v. Lighten . .388, 416 Thompson's Estate, Ee 751 Trusts, Ee . .647, 653, 792, 853 Thompson v. Corby 535, 537 V. Dow 858 v.. Grant 993 e 2 Digitized by Microsoft® IxYiii LIST OF CASES CITED. PAGE Thompson v. MasMter 315 V. Shakspeare . . 495, 540, 558, 582 V. Thompson . . 27, 300, 328, 638, 660 V. Waterloo 176 v. WMtelook . . 663, 908 Thomson v. Hempenstall .... 941 Thong V. Bedford 607 Thornber v. Wilson . . 637, 553, 564 Thornel v. Lassels 130 Thornton v. Adams 319, 323 V. Bright 421, 487 I'. Howe 537,539 V. Kempson . . . .559, 660 Thorowgood v. Collins 896 Thorp V. Owen 741 Thorpe v. Brmnfitt 169, 170 V. GoodaU 380 V. Thorpe 473, 602 Threr v. Barton 333 Thrupp r. Collett 641 Thruston, Ee 842 V. Anstey 852 Thrustout d. Gower v. Cun- ningham 733 Thruston v. Att.-Gen 774 Thunder v. Belcher 15 d. "Weaver v. Belcher. 9 Thurston, Ee 861 Thwaytes v. Dye 398, 399, 421 Thynn v. Thynn 928 Tibbitst;. Tibbits 971 Tickle V. Brown 187, 188, 189 Tidwell V. Ariel 908 Tiffin V. Longman 897 Tilly V. Colyer 663 Tily V. Smith 847 Timewell r. Perkins 721, 726 Tinclder v. Prentice 287, 298 Tippet V. Eyres 377 Titley v. Wolstenholme 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008 Titterton v. Conyers 229 Tiverton Market Act, In re 657, 884 Tobin V. Stowell 222 Tollemaohef. Coventry (Earl of) 478, 482, 483 V. ToUemaohe . .111, 112 Toller V. Attwood 357, 609 Tomkins v. Tomkins 640 Tomkyns v. Blane 415 Took V. Glascock 709 Tooker v. Annesley Ill, 112 Toovey v. Basset 687, 722 PAftE Toplis V. Baker 905, 907 Torriano v. Young 22 Torrington (Lord) v. Bowman 726 Tothill V. Pitt 862 Totty V. Nesbitt 181 Toulmint). Steere 962, 964, 905, 966 Towers v. Moor 927 Townley v. Bedwell 69, 639 V. Bolton 645, 898 Towns V. Wentworth 651, 663 Townsend v. Carns 537, 539 r. Early 808, 979 V. WUson 1006 Townson v. TickeU 69 Tracey v. Brennan 323 Tracy v. Butcher 845 V. Hereford (Lady). . 99, 103 r. Tracy 115 Traders' North Staffordshire Carrying Co., In re 327, 328 TrafPord v. Boehm 688 Trahern's Case 204 Trappes v. Harter 314 V. Merewith 981 Tregame v. Fletcher 352 TregonweU v. Sydenham 444, 465, 470, 478 Trench v. St. George 93' Trent z\ Hanning 356 V. Hunt 17, 320, 321, 322 Tress v. Savage 29 Trethewy v. Helyar 915, 917 Trevillian v. Andrews 10 Trevor r. Trevor 344, 493, 623, 661, 063, 950, 956 Trewen v. EeKe , 892 Trickey v. Triokey 514 Trimlestown v. D' Alton (Lord) 927 TroUope v. Linton 421 V. Eoutledge 419 Trotter v. Oswald 692 Troward v. CaiUand 261 Trower v. Butts 801 V. Knightley 394 V. Newcome 274 Trulook V. White 145 Trusoott V. Merchant Tailors' Company 203 Trye v. Gloucester (Corporation of) 655 Tucker v. Sanger 412, 416 V. Tucker 415 Tuckerman v. Jeiieries 898 Tuffnell V. Borrell 761 ■ V. Page 724 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES CITEO. Ixix PAGE Tiigwell V. Scott 932 Tulk V. Moxhay 204 Tullett V. Ai-mstrong 86, 985 Tulton V. Darke 298 Tunaley v. Eoche 647 Tunstall v. Braohen 858 — ■ V. Trappes 645 Tupper V. Tiipper 564 Txirner, Ee 356 V. Barnes 16, 20 V. Cameron 314 ^ i\ Crusli Add. V. Doe d. Bennett 19, 20 r. Frampton 693 V. Frederick 661 ■ ■ V. Hodges 778 V. Hudson 800 V. Martin 906 V. Maule 785 V. Mirfield 227 V. Ogden 538 V. Sheffield & Eotheram Eailway Company .... 229 V. Spooner 223 V. WMttaker . . 045, 896, 898 1'. Wright 742 ' and Dennie's Case . . 161 Turney v. Sturges 83 Turnough v. Stock 722 Turvin v. Newcome .... 488, 506 Tutton V. Darke 319 Twohill, In re Add. Twopeny v. Peyton 976 Tyler v. Lake 953, 961 V. Seed 28 Tyrell v. Jenner 282 V. Marsh 382 Tyrone (Earl of) v. Waterford (Marq. of) 653,674,725,862,868 Tykeell's Case 335 298, 336, 340, 351, 364, 365, 602 Tyrrell v. Clark 304, 308 Tybbutgham's Case 120 127, 128, 132, 135, 146, 156, 158, 256 Tyrwhitt v. Tyrwhitt 953, 955, 959 Tyson, Ex parte 788 Tyte V. Willis 469, 718, 719 U. Ulrich V. Litchfield 927 Underhill v. Eoden 673, 835 PAGE Underwood r. Wing 875, 901, 907 United Land Co. v. Great Eastern Eailway Co. 220, 222 Upton V. Ferrers (Lord) 641 ■ V. Wardman 656 Uthwatt V. Bryant " 724, 725 Uttv Dale's Case 60 Uvedall r. Uvedall Ill Uxbridge (Earl of) r. Bayley . 389 V. Valentine v. Penny 135, 136 Valpy V. Manley 300 Van r. Clark 856 Van Breda v. Silberbauer . . 192 Vandergucht r. Blake 654 Vanderplank v. King 409, 465, 494, 658, 659, 660, 661, 896 Vanderzee v. Aclom 906 Vane v. Barnard (Lord) .... 115 V. Dungannon (Lord) . . 415 Varley v. Lee 312 Varlo V. Faden 514, 515 Vanghan d. Atkins r. Atkins. . 729 V. Farrer 532, 647 V. Foakes 663 V. Headfort (Marquis of) 679 Vaux V. Henderson 907, 913 Vavasour, In re 264 Vavisor's Case 362 Vawdry v. Geddes. . 476, 492, 850 852 Ven V. HoweU 66 Venables v. Morris 361 Verner, Ex parte 984 Vernon's Case 75, 76, 83, 927 Vernon v. Vernon 302 Versturme v. Gardiner 393 Verulam v. Bathurst 603, 862 Vezey v. Jamson 540, 683 Vick V. Sueter 722, 725, 834 Vincent v. Ennys 382 V. Godson 328 V. Spicer 113 VlNEE V. Fkancis 798 800, 912 V. Vaughan 108 Vizard's Trusts, In re 382 Vizard v. Longden 77 Vize V. Stoney 661, 848, 849 VoUer V. Carter 60, 616 Digitized by Microsoft® Ixs LIST OF CASES CITED. PAGE w. Wade-Gery r. Handloy. . 507, 508 Wade V. Paget 412 Wadley v. North 845, 849 v. Wadley 93 WaiIle^Yrigllt r. Wainewriglit 645, 640 Wainman v. Field 483, 684 Waite V. Webb 553, 559, 562 Wakefield v. Buocleucli (.Duke of) 212 V. Dyott 842 Wakley r. Proggatt 171 Waloot r. Hall 823 Waldo V. Cayley 586 V. Waldo Ill, 112 Waldi-on v. Boulter 867 Vralgravo v. Tebbs 564 Walker's Case 289 Estate 997 "Walker v. Camden (Marqiiis of) 888 r. Denne 774, 775 V. Giles 12 V. Hammersley 277 r. Main 858, 915 r. Mikie 560, 501 ■ ■ V. Mower 477, 844, 845, 853 • V. Petchell 651 V. Eiehardson 545 f. Shore 803, 804 V. Walker 77 "Wall <■. Bright 997, 999, 1000 r. Wall 67 Wallace v. Anderson 977 V. King 320 Wallaston v. King 415 Waller v. Manchester (Mavor of) ", . 199 Wallis V. Freestone 488 V. Harrison 171 Walmesley v. Cooper 331 V. Foxall 887 Walmsley v. Jowett 382 V. Vaughan 644 Walpole (Lord) v. Cholmon- deley (Earl of) 926 Walrond v. Pollard 262 Walsh r. Gladstone. . 539, 542, 573 585 V. Lincoln (Bishop of) 282 V. Studdert 55, 56 Walsingham's Case 715 PAGE Walter v. Drew 686, 689 V. Gunner 259 Walters v. Pfeil 215 AVandsworth Church Estate Charity, In re 583 Vfarburton r. Earn 383 r. Parke 187, 231 Warbutton v. Warbutton .... 77 Wardr. Bevil 619 v. Burbury 358 ■ V. Everet 885 r. Gray 677, 678 V. Lawton 220 V. Eobins 190 r. Eyan 13 V. Shew 321 V. Tvrrell 423 r. Ward. . 187, 233, 881, 891 Warde v. Eirmin 415 Wardle v. Brocklehurst 174 V/ardroper v. Cutiield 805 Ware r. Cann 971 r. Cumberlege 560 r. Egmont (Lord) 967 V. PoUiill. .442, 488, 953, 954, 9C7 Waring v. Coventry 99, 488 r. Lee 403, 404 Warmstrey r. Tanfield 305 Warren c.'Eudall 89, 110, 566, 872 r. Travers 613, 619 Warrick r. Queen's College,. Oxford 143, 185 ^^^arrington ;■. Warring-ton . . 901 Warier v. Hutchinson 837 Warwick v. Noakes 300 Wastell V. Leslie 99 Wastuoys v. ChappeU 53, 56 Waterer r. Waterer 887 Vv^aterhouse v. Holmes . . 554, 559 Waterlow v. Bacon 171, 230 Watkins v. Cheek 858 v. Eroderick . . 354, 358 Watkins v. Williams 973 Watmough's Trusts, In re . . 555 Watson's Trusts, Ee 759 Watson V. Eoxon . . 657, 658, 660 V. Hayes 849 r. Hinsworth Hospital 971 V. Main 323 V. Pearson 355 r. Spratley 561 V. Watson 84, 803 Digitized by Microsoft® J.IST OF CASES CITED. Ixxi PAOE Watt V. Creyke 417 V. Wood 517 AVatts V. Ball 61, 64, 365 V. Kelson 174, 176, 205 V. Ognell 17 V. Symes 958, 964, 965 Way V. East 547 Weakley v. Eugg 655 Weale v. Lower 754 V. OUive 973 Weatlierall v. ThornburgL. . . 512 Weatlierley v. Eoss 235 Weaver v. Maule 778 Webb V. Bird 189, 204 V. Byng 274, 676, 935 V. Herring. ... 719, 720, 834 V. Paternoster 172, 231 V. Eussell 333 V. Sadler. .408, 412, 420, 422 V. Shaftesbury (Lord) . . 380 V. Webb 88, 510, 512 Webber v. Oorbett 938 V. Stanley 929 Webster, Ex parte 794 Webster's Case 889 Webster v. Boddington 476 v. Parr 654, 655, 693, 862 Weeks v. Heward 192 V. Stacker 141 Welch c. Myers 323 Welcome v. Upton 140 Weld V. Bradbury 802 V. Hornby 220 Wellbeloved'r. Jones 584, 585 Wellcoke and Hammond's Case 638 Weller v. Ker 378 W^ellesley v. Welleslej^ 116 Wellington v. Wellington. ... 687 WeUs's Estate, In re 928 WeUs V. London, Tilbury, &o. Eailway Company 229 V. Malins 493 • V. Ody 225, 229 V. Pearcy 131, 133 V. Watling 144 J). WeUs 936, 938 Wentworth 11. Went worth. .. . 82 V. Wright 261 West, Ex parte 911 West V. Berney 377, 389, 412 V. Errissey 661 ■ V. Pritche 16 ■ V. Hedges 317 V. Knight , 535 PAGE West V. Shuttleworth541,542, 543 V. West 848, 852 West Cumberland Iron and Steel Company v. Kenyon. . 198 Westcott V. CuUiford 666 AVestfaling v. Westfaling .... 275 Western v. Maedermot 204 Westham Charities, In re ... . 583 Westminster Brymbo Coal Company v. Clayton 229 Weston V. Arnold 229, 232 Westwood V. Oowne 320 V. Southey 693, 849 Wetherell v. WethereU. . 477, 853 Whaley v. Laing 200 Whalley, Ex parte 58 Wharton, In re 791 Wharton v. Naylor 317 V. Wharton 754 Wheate v. HaU 393 Wheeler v. Branscombe .... 300 V. Sheer 572 V. Smith 664 • V. Tootel 306 Whicker v. Hume 536, 566 Whiskon v. Cleyton 726, 727 Whistler's Case 256 Whistler v. Webster 415 Whitaore, Ex parte. In the matter of Vallis, an Infant 995 Whitaker v. Porbes 312 V. Wisbey 792 Whitbread v. St. John . . 805, 807 r. Smith 99 White's Trusts, Ee 896 White V. Barber 667, 668 V. Bass 173, 174 V. Bayley 14 V. Baylor 777 V. Briggs 493, 888 V. Chitty 981 V. Coleman 135, 136 V. Coram 724 V. Evans 559 V. Hill 653 V. James 328 V. Leeson 170 V. McCann HO V. Parker 354, 356 V. St. Barbo 412 V. Simpson 296 V. Smale 328 V. White . , 90, 94, 95, 103, 536, 573 Digitized by Microsoft® Ixxii LIST OF CASES CITED. PAGE White & Hindle's Contract, In Ee 601, 602 Wliiteacre d. Boultr. iSymonds 33 Wliiteliead v. Partes 196, 223 V. WMteliead 310 Whitehouse r. Birmingliam Canal Company 211 WMtelock V. Heddon 801 V. Hutchinson .... 129 Whitfied V. Prickett 980 Whitfield V. Bewit Ill V. Pindar 302 AVhiting v. Force 847 r. WelMngs 720 Whitney v. Wilkinson 752 ^Vhitlock's Case 300, 373 Whitlock V. Harding 726 r. Huntwell 884 Whitmarsh v. Eohertson 379, 391 Whitmore r. Humphries .... 150 T. Mason 983, 984 Whitsitt's Estate, In re 53 Whittaker v. Hales 16 Whitter v. Brembridge 839 Whittingham's Case 780 Whorwood v. University Col- lege, Oxford 567 Whyte, In re 100 Wickhamt).Bath(Marq. of) 544, 547 V. Hawker 170, 295 • V. Lee 11 !'. Wickham 113 V. Wing . . 387, 388, 982 Wicks V. Hunt 227 Widlake v. Harding 726 Widmore v. The Governors of QueenAnne'sBounty 521,523 V. Woodroffe 537,557,558 AVigford V. Gill 224 Wigg V. NichoU 562 V. Wigg 909 Wigglesworth v. Dallison . . 35 Wight V. Leigh 653, 654, 725 Wigsell V. Wigsell 953, 954 Wigson V. Garrett 388 Wilcock's Settlement, In re . . 974 Wilcocks r. Wilcocks 78 Wilcox V. Bellairs 613 Wild's Case 669 . — 258, 672, 673, 674, 675, 676, 677, 753 Wild f. Eeynolds 917 Wilde V. Minsterley 207, 213 Wilder's Trusts, Ec . . . . 899, 907 PAGE Wilder V. Speer 324 Wildes V. Davies 512, 510 Wilford's Estate, In re Add. Wilkes's Case 791 Wilkes r. Collin 967 V. Leuson 342 V. Williams .... 646, 647 Wilkins V. Perrat 342 Wilkinson, In re 780 V. Adam . . 920, 928, 930, 931, 933 V. Barber .... 558, 561 V. Calvert 34 r. Candlish 300 V. Chapman . . 724, 725 r. CoUey 11, 30 V. Duncan 476, 485 V. Hall 14 V. Lindgren . . 539, 573 V. Malin 12, 579 V. South . . 450, 451, 692 V. White 780 V. AVilkinson 978, 980, 982 Willes r. Douglas 898 Willet V. Sanclford 553, 564 AViUett V. Earle 300 WiUiams, In re 582, 981 V. Eagnal 210 V. Bolton (Duke of) . 112 V. Browne 660 V. Chitty 77, 873, 874,910 V. Clarke 845, 816 V. Haythorne . . 843, 844 V. Hayward 312 V. Hensman 888, 892, 893 V. Holmes 315 V. James 223 V. Jekyl 888 V. Jersej' (Earl of). . 171 V. Jones . .873, 908, 916 V. Kershaw 540, 562, 582, r. Lewis 509, 862 V. Morland 193 V. Nixon 509 r. Eoberts 319, 323 V. EusseU 844 . V. Stiven 320 V. Tealo . .466, 493, 494 V. Williams 59, 112 Williamson x\ Naylor 905 Willing V. Baine . . 873, 887, 915 Willingale r. Maitland 135 Willion V. Berkeley 779 Willis <•. Brown 538 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF CASES CITED. Ixxiii PAGE Willis V. Hiscox . . 622, 752, 971 V. Lucas 722 V. Plaskett 851 «'. Shorrall 377 t>. WiUis 77 Wills V. Bourne 662 V. Palmer 733 V. Wills 898 Wilmot v. Knowles 352 Wilson V. Bayly 729 V. BeU 892 V. Bennett 1003, 1004, 1006 V. Chesnut 688, 693 V. Dennison .... 206, 267 V. Grreenwoocl 983 V. Hornsby 230 V. Kershaw 263 V. Nightingale 322 V. Piggott 662 V. Squire 583, 929 V. Stanley 189 V. Townend 234, 235 V. Yansittart 678, 679 V. WaddeU 198 V. WHson . . 422, 423, 476, 508, 512 (Lady) v. Willes 136, 108 Wilton V. Dunn 300 AVilts and Berks Canal Co. r. Swindon Waterworks Co. . . 194 Wiltshire v. Sidford 217 Wimbledon and Putney Com- mons Conservators v. Dixon 205, 222 Winchcombe v. PuUeston 245, 248, 279 V. Winchester (Bishop of) 277 Winchester's Case (Marquisof) 768, 769, 790 Windam's Case 754 Windham v. Love 862 Windsor's Case 263, 264 Windsor v. Canterbury (Ai-ch- bishop of) .... 264 (Dean of) v. Webb . . 776 Windus V. Windus 910 Wing V. Angrave 874 Wingfield v. Littleton 344 Winn V. Littleton 993 Winstanley v. Lee 203 Winters. BrockwcU 5, 6, 172, 231 V. Perratt 735 V. Winter 917 PAGE Winterbottom v. Ingham .... 14 Winterton r. Crawford 926 Wiscot's Case 889 Wisden v. Wisden 728, 917 Wither v. Dean and Chapter of Winchester 106 Withers v. Iseham 158 r. Withers 56 Withy f. Mangles 888, 896 Wolf 11. HiU 112, 113 WoUaston v. King 486, 487 WoUen V. Andrewes .... 494, 686 WoUey V. Jenkins 393, 488 Wolverton Mortgaged Estate, In re 937 Wombwell v. Hanrott . . 413, 644 Wood's Estate, In re 92 Settled Estates, In re . . 759 Will, In re 914 Wood V. Baron 673, 675, 753 V. Beard 23 V. Drew 465 ('. Gaynon 110 r. Hewett 168 V. Leadbittcr 171 V. Majoribanks 274 V. Nunn 322 V. Penoyre 847 V. Saunders 221, 437 V. Stourbridge Railway Company 220 V. Sutcliffe ; . . 227 V. Tate 25 ■ -v. Veal 182 V. Waud. . 161, 167, 193, 194, 199, 200 V. White 394, 488 V. Wood 888 Woodbridge Union r. Colncis. 26 Woodgate v. Unwin 883, 888 Woodhouse v. Herrick . .019, 622 V. Meredith 1010 Woodhouselee (Lord) v. Dal- rymple ' 930 Woodley v. Exeter (Bishop of) 261 Woodliff V. Drury • 342 Woodmeeston v. Walker .... 974 Woods V. Townley 800 Woodward r. Dowse 81 Woollen V. Tanner 115 Woohnore v. Burrows 493 Woolridge v. Woolridge. .407, 414 Wooton's Estate, In re 97 Wooton V. StefEenoni 782 Digitized by Microsoft® Isxiv. LIST OF CASES CITED. PAGE Worledg r. Kingswel 148 Worlidge v. Cliurcliill 911 Wortham v. Daore 1001, 1002 AVorthington r. Gimson 175 V. Morgan 962 Worts r. Cubitt 928, 932 Wotton r. Shirt 311 Wrangham's Trust, In re 846, 853 Wright V. Atkyns 720 V. Cadogan. (Lord) .... 657 V. Dayies 278 V. DeTces 017 V. Englefield 657 V. HoKord 657, 660 m Howard 192 ■ V. Norwich (Bishop of) 262 V. Pearson 609 r. Eamscott 318 • V. How 565 r. Smith 35 r. Smithies 545 V. Vernon 751 V. AVilkin 564 r. WiUiams 167, 189, 191, 197, 216 r. Wright 728,752 r. Wyvell 664 Wrighton v. Brown 270 Wrightson V. Macaulay . .473, 735 Wrixon V. Vize 99 Wyatt r. Harrison 213 Wykham v. Wykham 303, 361, 602 WyM r. Lewis 689 Wylde's Estate, In re 900 Wjnnan r. Carter 1009 Wynch, Ex parte 867 Wyndham's Trusts,. In re ... . 654 Wyndham i\ Egremont (Earl of) 950, 954, 956 V. Wyndham 803 Wynn v. Wynn 905 Wynne v. Styan 958 Wyrley Canal Co. v. Bradley .211 Wyse V. Myers 16 Wyth V. Blackmau 617 Wyvill V. Exeter (Bishop of) . 267 Y. Yalden, In re 973 Yardley v. Holland 1002 Yarmouth (Corporation of) r. Simmons Add. Yarnold v. Moorhouse 981 Yarrow r. Knightly Add. Yates V. Eettiplace 828 • V. Jack 201, 202, 203 V. Maddan 677 V. Phettiplace 821 Yeap Cheah Neo r. Ong Cheng Neo 538, 543, 566 Yelland v. Eiclis 379 Yellowly r. Gower 110 Yelvprton v. Yelverton 342 Yeoland v. Fellis 379 Yeoman r. Barstow 246 ;■. Ellison 13 York (Archbishop of) v. Sta- pleton 583 r. Stone 889 Young's Settlement, Ee 975 Young, The goods of, In re . . 543 V. Davies 862, 913 V. Eoberts 385 V. Shaper 202 r. Young 264 Younghusbaudz.Gisbome 976, 977 Zouch d. Forso r. Forsc 56 (Lord) r. Dalbiac 334 V. Willingate 32 r. Woolston 389, 393 Zouche's (Lord) Case 3 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF STATUTES CITED. 9 Hen. III. (Magna Charta). c. 6 340 c. 9 568 20 Hen. III. (Statute of Merton). 0. 1 S4 c. 2 103 c. 4 - 140, 141 32 Hen. III. (Statute of Maiiebridge) 107 0. 15 - 318 0. 21 329 0. 23 43, 46 3 Ed-n'. I. (Statute of Westminster I.). 0. 39 (Prescription) 180 5 Edw. I. (Statute of Gloiicestcr) 107, 109 6 Edw. I. c. 5 (Permissive waste) 109 7 Edw. I. St. 2 (De religiosis) 336, 340 13 Edw. I. 0. 1 (De donis oonditionalibus) - 716, 727, 745, 740,748 0. 2 (Eeplevin) 329 s. 2 740 0. 34 (Dower) 67, 80 0. 46 (Common) 140, 141 18 Edw. I. (Quia Emptoros) 128, 297, 773 17 Edw. II. st. 1, u. 16 (Estreat) 787 st. 2, c. 16 (De prerogativa regis) . 46 25 Edw. III. s. 2 (Britisli subjects) 781 I Eic. II. c. 9 (Maintenance, &o.) 340 5 Eic. II. c. 8 (Ubi ingressus non datur per legem, &o.) 696 15 Eic. 11. 0. 2 (Forcible entry) - 696 c. 5 (Mortmain) - 340 c. 6 (Benefice) 260 4 Hen. IV. c. 7 (Merchant strangers) 340 c. 12 (Execution on Statute Merchant) 260 8 Hon. V. n. 15 (Dower of women aliens) 73 8 Hen. VI. o. 16 (Escbeat) 794 II Hen. VI. c. 3 (Eeal actions) - 340 18 Hen. VI. c. 6 (Crown lands) 794 1 Edw. IV. 0. 14 (Superstitious uses) 543 1 Eic. III. c. 1 (Feoffments to uses) 340 I Hen. VII. 0. 1 (Eeal actions) 340 4 Hen. VII. c. 17 (WardsHp) 340 II Hen. VII. c. 20 (Penal Statutes) - 756 19 Hen. VII. c. 15 (Feoffments to uses) - 340 Digitized by Microsoft® Isxvi LIST OF STATXJTES CITED. 21 Hen. VIII. c. 13 (Clergy) 23 Hen. VIII. c. 10 (Superstitious uses) 26 Hen. VIII. c. 10 (Forfeiture for treason) c. 13 (High, treason) s. 5 27 Hen. VIII. c. 10 (Statute of Uses) 75, 335, 336, 338, s. 1 ss. 6—9 c. 16 (Inrolments) ss. 1, 2, 3 c. 28 (Eeligious houses)- 28 Hen. VIII. c. 11 (Emblements) 31 Hen. VIII. c. 1 (Partition) 0. 13 (Eeligious houses) 32 Hen. VIII. c. 1 (Will) c. 2 (Limitations) c. 5 (Wills) c. 16, s. 13 (Aliens) - 0. 28 (Lease) c. 32 (Eecoveries) c. 37 (Arrears of rent) s. 4 33 Pen. VIII. c. 20 (Crown lands) c. 39 (Monasteries, &o.), s. 75 34 & 35 Hen. VIII. o. 1 (Eeligion) c. (Wills) c. 20 (Crown lands) 37 Hen. VIII. c. 21 (Eeligious houses) 1 Edw. VI. 0. 12 (Dower), s. 17 - - c. 14 (Superstitious uses) 2 & 3 Edw. VI. 0. 8 (Crown lands), s. 8 3 & 4 Edw. VI. 0. 3 (Common) 5 & 6 Edw. VI. c. 11 (Dower; Treason), s. 9 s. 13 0. 12 (Marriage), s. 13 1 Mary, st. 2, o. 5 (Limitation of actions) 1 & 2 Phil. & Mary, o. 12 (Distress) 5 Eliz. c. 4 (Master and servant), s. 3 13 Eliz. 0. 12 (Benefice) ss. 1, 3 . . - s. 8 - u. 20 (Benefice) - 31 Eliz. c. 6 (Corrupt contract) 243, 245, s. 4 - s. 5 - ... ss. 6, 8, 9 . - 0. 7 (Erecting of cottages) PAGE 271, 278 541 709, 789 786 787 339, 340, 341, 352, 353, 364, 464, 769 343 75 349, 569 569, 570 260 103 893 260 - 670 282, 360 352, 464 782 499, 503, 754 893 321 321 765, 769, 786, 789 754 352 352, 464, 670 496, 756 260 - - 80 541 779 140 786 80 786 282 323 7 - - - 270 270 - - 271 - 268 248, 276, 277, 281 - 243 - 243, 276 - 276 - - 129 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF STATUTES CITED. Ixxvii 43 Eliz. c. 4 (Charities) 3 Jac. I. 0. 5 (Benefice) 21 Jac. I. c. 16 (Limitations) 10 Car. st. II. c. 1 (Ir.) (Enrolments, Ireland), s. 17 0. 6 (Ir.) (Limitations) 12 Car. II. c. 24 (Tenure) 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 4 (Act of Uniformity), s. 6 16 & 17 Car. II. c. 8 (Dower), s. 4 - 17 Car. 11. c. 3 (Bonoflce) - - - - c. 7 (Action of replevin) 22 & 23 Car. II. c. 10 (Statute of Distributions) 29 Car. II. c. 3 (Statute of Frauds) ss. 1, 2 - s. 2 s. 3 s. 7 s. 8 s. 12 - 1 Will. & Mary, o! 8 (Indemnity), s. 7 0. 18 (Toleration Act) c. 26 (Benefice) - s. 3 s. 4 - 2 "Will. & Mary, sess. I. c. 3 (Distraint), s. 2 - c. (Distress), s. 2 s. 3 - 8 & 9 WiU. in. 0. 31 (Partition) 11 & 12 WiU. in. 0. 6 (Aliens) 1 Anne, st. 1, c. 7 (Crown lands), s. 5 - 3 & 4 Anne, c. 6 (Perpetuities) c. 18 (Partition), s. 2 4 Anno, c. 16 (Eeooveries), s. 15 4 & 5 Anne, c. 16 (Attornment) 5 Anne, c. 3 (Perpetuities) - c. 4 (Perpetuities) 6 Anne, c. 18 (Order to produce cestui quo vie) 7 Anne, c. 5 (Natural-bom subjects) c. 18 (Advowson) - c. 19 (Trusts and mortgage estate) 8 Anne, c. 14 (Security of rents) - B. 1 s. 2 s. 67 9 Anne, c. 8 (Ir.) (Security of rents), s. 1 10 Anne, c. 5 (Natural-born subjects) - '12 Anne, st. 2, c. 12 (Ecclesiastical patronage) s. 2 c. 14, s. 1 (Benefice) Digitized by Microsoft® PAGE 535, 538 - 264 - 366 - - 569 . 282 68, 86, 352, 716, 772 270 - - 84 . 260 - 330 - - 896 22, 24, 52, 261, 351, 894 22 22 27 - 366 - - 366 52, 53, 56 - 270 322, 351 40; 542 264 264 264 326 325 329 893 783 794 496 893 , 352 , 311 496 496 58 781 282 986 20 317 319 320 317 781 " 244 , 279 279 264 Ixxviii LIST OF STATUTES CITED. PAOE I Geo. I. 0. 13 (Bonofice), s. 2 - - 270 St. 2, u. 10 (Benefice), s. 4 - - - 260 ss. 6,1 - 273 s. 14 - - - - 259 s. 15 - - 259 s. 21 - - - 260 c. 55 (Papists) - 541 9 Geo. I. c. 7 (Poor) - 545 4 Geo. II. 0. 21 (British subject) - - 781 s. 2 - 781 c. 28 (Landlord and tenant) - 34, 294, Add. s. 1 - 34, 35 s. 2 - 298, 312 i:^. 5 - - 293 s. 6 - 333 9 Geo. II. 0. 26 (Benefice) 270 c. 36 (Mortmain) - 495, 519, 521, 526, 532, 535, 542, 543, 544, 546, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 557, 558, 566, 568, 569, 570, 570, 587, 776 s. 1 533, 544, 545, 547, 661, 571 s. 2 533, 572 s. 3 - 533, 572 ss. 4—6 534 s. 5 - 545 II Geo. II. c. 17 (Advowson), s. 5 - - 264 c. 19 (Landlord and tenant) H, 40, 302, 303, 304, 308, 328 s. 1 - 319 s. 7 323 s. 8 318, 324, 325 s. iO - 324, 325 s. 15 - 288, 301, 303 s. 16 34, 312 s. 18 34 s. 23 329 14 Geo. II. c. 20 (Common recoveries) - - 52 s. 9 - o2, 53, 56 17 Goo. II. 0. 29 (Foundling Hospital)- 568 25 Goo. II. c. 39 (British subject) 783 26 Geo. II. 0. 22 (Mortmain), s. 14 561 2D Geo. II. 0. 36 (Common) - 142 31 Geo. II. c. 41 (Inclosure) 142 5 Geo. III. c. 17 (Lease) - 290 6 Goo. III. c. 53 (Treason) 270 12 Geo. III. 0. 07 (Marine Society) 56S 13 Geo. in. c. 21 (British subjects) 781 s- 2 781 c. 81 (Common) - - - 152 15 Goo. III. 0. 32 (Erecting of cottages) - - . 129 17 Geo. III. c. 53 (Benefice), s. 21 - - : . . 142 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF STATUTES CITED. Lsxix PAGE 19 aeo. lil. c. 23 (Bath Infirmarj') - 5G8 22 Geo. ni. c. 83 (Poor relief) - - 142 31 Geo. III. 0. 32 (Superstitious uses), s. 21 541 34 Geo. III. 0. 75 (Crowu lands) - - - 794 38 Geo. III. c. 5 (Land tax), s. 17 - - - 299 39 & 40 Goo. III. c. 88 (Escheat), s. 12 - - 778, 794, AM. c. 93 (Treason) -. 80 c. 98 (Thellusson Act) 433, 449, 497, 498, 500, 505, 509, Add. s. 1 506, 511 s. 3 - - 506 s. 4 506 41 Geo. III. c. 109 (Inclosuio) - - - 151, 152, 153 s. 8 s. 32 s. 44 42 Geo. III. c. 116 (Charitios) s. 50 43 Geo. III. c. 107 (Queen Anne's Bounty) c. 108 (Benefice) 51 Geo. III. c. 105 (Eoyal Naval Asylum) c. 115 (Benefice) s. 2 53 Geo. III. 0. 141 (Inrolmeut) c. 160 (Doctrine of the Trinity) 54 Geo. III. c. 145 (Dower) 0. 161 (Duke of Wellington's Annuity) 55 Geo. III. c. 184 (Presentations) - c. 192 (Will) 56 Geo. III. c. 50 (Landlord and Tenant), ss. 1, 3, 57 Geo. III. 0. 52 (Landlord and Tenant) c. 93 (Distress) 58 Goo. III. 0. 45 (Church building) s. 38 59 Geo. III. c. 12 (Poor law), s. 8 c. 13 (Local; Solway Frith, &c. canal) c. 134 (Church building) 1 Geo. IV. c. 119 (Insolvent debtors) 3 Geo. IV. c. 72 (Chiirch building) c. 92 (Memorial of grant of annuity) 5 Geo. IV. c. 39 (British Museum) 0. 103 (Church building) 6 Geo. IV. 0. 17 (Crown lands)- 7 Geo. IV. c. 57 (Insolvent debtors), s. 1 c. 75 (Memorial of grant of annuity) 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 25 (Eehef of spiritual persons from 23enaltios) c. 72 (Ecclesiastical Commission) 9 Geo. IV. 0. 31 (Offences against the person), s. 2 c. 85 (Charities) - 230 - 151 151 570 570 568 - 569 - 568 142 142 294 542 67, 788 496 201 80, 891 317 34 325 256, , 268 142 545 236, , 237 256; , 268 755 256 294 568 256 794 755 294 281 256 67 , 788 549 Digitized by Microsoft® IxXX LIST OF STATUTES CITED. PAGE 9 Goo. IV. c. 94 (Benefioo) - - 281 s. 1 - 281 ss. 2—6 281 10 Geo. IV. c. 7 (Benefice) 264, 542, 543 s. 16 264 c. 25 (Green-wioh Hospital), s. 37 568 11 Geo. IV. & 1 Will. IV. 0. 46 (Appointments) - - 397 0. 47 (Debts) 742 s. 12 86 0. 65 (Lease) 55 s. 13 55 s. 17 - - 755 s. 28 264 1 & 2 Will. IV. c. 38 (Cliurcli building) 256 c. 42 (Poor), s. 2 142 2 & 3 Will. IV. 0. 45 (Parliamentary registration), s. 26 343 0. 71 (Prescription) 138, 189, : 191, 204, 213, Add. s. 2 - 200, 201 s. 3- 186 s. 7 232 0. 115 (Eoman Catholics) 542 3 & 4 Will. IV. 0. 9 (Seamen's hospital), ss. 1, 2 568 c. 27 (Limitations) 10, 17, 81, 99, 282 , 333, 334, 366, 8S3 s. 1 333, 334 s. 2 81, 333, 334 s. 3 81; , 333, 334, 893, 894 s. 7 20 s. 8 - 35 s. 12 63, 883 s. 23 - 759 ss. 30, 31 282 H. 32 283 s. 33 383 s. 36 114, 282, 312, 881 s. 40 99 s. 41 - 81, 84 0. 71 (Prescription) 180 s. 2 1S2, . 183, 187, 189, 190 s. 3 183 ss. 4—8 - 184 c. 74 (Pines and recoveries) 54, 60, 66, V4, 349, 350, 388, 463, 496, 748, 758, 759, 900, 972 s. 1 392 s. 2 - 392, 756 s. 3 392, 756 s. 5 392 s. 15 - 754, 756 ss. 16, 17- 756 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF STATUTES CITED. Ixxxi PA(JE 3&4WiU.IV.c.74, s. 18 456, 496 ss. 21, 22- 756 S8. 22—32 756 s. 32 757 ss. 32—34 - 756 s. 33 756 s. 35 757 s. 36 757 s. 37 757 ss, 38, 39- 757 s. 40 62, 756, 757 ss. 40, 41 - - 754 s. 41 - 756 ss. 42, 44, 45, 46, 47 757 ss. 48, 49 - 756 ss. 50—54 758 S3. 55—58 755 ss. 55—69 758 ss. 56—73 755 ss. 68—70 78 ss. 70—72 - 758 ss. 71—82 78 s. 72 758 s. 73 756 s. 76 758 B. 77 391 s. 78 391 ss. 79—82 78 c. 87 (Inclosure) 151 c. 104 (Debt) 79, 742, 778, 953 0. 105 (Dower) 68, 72, 79, 745 s. 2 72, 75, 366 s. 3 74 s. 4 69 ss. 4—8 78, 79 s. 9 78, 79 s. 10 78, 79 s. 11 79 s. 13 68 s. 14 69 0. 106 (Inlieritance) 61, 729, 731, 732, 736, 740 s. 1 732 s. 2 63, 729, 732 s. 3 733, 734 s. 6 736 s. 7 736 s. 8 737 s. 9 737f738 T.L.C. / Digitized by Microsoft® Ixxxii LIST OF STATUTES CITED. PAGE 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 106, s. 10 67, 788 s. 11 738 4 WiU. IV. c. 38 (Loc— St. George's Hospital) 568 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 22 (Apportionment) 288, 303, 305, 306, 308 s. 1 - 303 s. 2 304, 307 s. 3 304 c. 23 (Escheat) 778, 788, 791, 794 c. 30 (Common) 152 c. 92 (Eines and recoveries) '48 5 & 6 WiU. IV. 0. 59 (Cruelty to animals), s. 6 324 0. 69 (Poor), s. 4 142 c. 76 (Municipal corporations), s. 139 278 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 7 (Indemnity), s. 1 - 142 c. 71 (Tithes) - 296, 305, 308, 967 s. 80 299 0. 77 (Benefice), s. 26 278 0. 115 (Inolosure) - 152 1 Vict. c. 26 (WUls Act, 1837) 50, 54, 56, 352, 356, 357, 511, 512, 576, 604, 646, 648, 650, 689, 720, 721, 724, 776, 891, 952 s. 3 - - - 80 8. 6 66, 57, 512 s. 7 952 s. 15 913 s. 28 50, 718, 727 s. 29 466, 693 s. 30 360 s. 31 360 s. 34 56, 57 1 & 2 Vict. c. 64 (Tithes) 967 c. 74 (Small tenements) 11, 34 c. 106 (Benefice) - 260 s. 4 268 s. 11 - - 268, 271 c. 107 (Benefice) - 256 0. 110 (Execution) 980 s. 13 - 268 ss. 13—18 754 2 & 3 Vict. c. 49 (Benefice) 256, 260 c. 60 (Debt) 86 c. 62 (Tithes) 967 3 & 4 Vict. c. 31 (Inclosure) 151, 152 c. 60 (Church building) 256 c. 84 (Landlord and tenant) - 34 c. 113 (Advowson) 260 s. 48 - 260 4 & 5 Vict. c. 21 (Conveyance) 350 c. 35 (Copyholds) - 148, 305 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF STATUTES CITED. Ixxxiii 4 & 5 Viot. c. 35, s. 19 - s. 81 c. 38 (School site) s. 16 s. 36 c. 39 (Advowson) 5 & 6 Vict. 0. 35 (Oiaiities), s. 73 soli. A. No, 4, rule 9 c. 82 (Legacy duty, Ir.), s. 38 6 & 7 Vict. 0. 23 (Copyhold) 0. 37 (Benefice) s. 22 0. 54 (Limitation of time), s. 3 0. 58 (Admiralty lands), s. 36 - 7 & 8 Vict. ^. 37 (School site) c. 45 (Nonconformist) 0. 55 (Copyhold) u. 66 (AUens) s. 3 s. 5 ss. 6—12 s. 16 0. 76 (Transfer of property) s. 3 s. 7 s. 8 0. 94 (Mortmain) c. 97 (Charities) s. 15 s. 16- 8 & 9 Vict. 0. 16 (Companies Clauses) c. 18 (Lands Clauses Consolidation) 84, s. 6 s. 7 s. 69 s. 74 - ss. 99—107 s. 102 H. 119 s. 127 c. 20 (Eailway Clauses Consolidation) s. 78 0. 56 (Drainage of lands) c. 70 (Church building) s. 22 c. 43 (Museums of art) c. 106 (Contingent remainders, &o.) f2 PAOB 84, 149 149 142, Add. 549 142 260, 271 299, Add. 299 588 148 256, 569 569 283 141 142, 544, Add. 584 148 63, 783 781 782 783 73, 781 66, 86, 350 881, 894 41 337, 345 256 587, 588 588 568 560 87, 142, 211, 212, 237, 311, Add. 228 86 87, 759 96 144 143 311 153 211 211 86 256 583 568 • 22, 66, 69, 70, 345, 350, 471, 603, 892 Digitized by Microsoft® Ixxxiv LIST OF STATUTES CITED. PAQB 8 & 9 Viot. 0. 106, s. 2 - 23, 350 s. 3 - , 22, 33, 24, 27, 729, 881, 894 s. 4 -41,86,386,388,715 s. 8 - 337, 470 s. 9 - - 333 c. 112 (Terms) 66, 72, 774 c. 118 (Inclosure) 151, 152, Add. 8.52- 150 ss. 147, 150 881 9 & 10 Vict. 0. 59 (Oliurcli) - 543 c. 70 (Inclosure) 151. 152 ss. 9, 10, 11- 881 c. 73 (Benefice), s. 19 - 967 0. 95 (County Courts), ss. 119, 120 329 8. 122 " 11, 34 c. 101 (Drainage of lands, &c.) 86 10 & 11 Vict. c. 11 (Drainage of lands) 86 c. 17 (Waterworks clauses) 212 s. 6 212 c. 83 (Aliens) 783 0. Ill (Inclosure) 151, 152 s. 3 150 ss. 4, 6 881 11 & 12 Vict. c. 36 (Accumulation), s. 41 506 0. 99 (Inclosure) - 151, 152 s. 13 - 881 c. 119 (Drainage of lands) 86 12 & 13 Vict. c. 49 (School site), s. 4 544 0. 83 (Inclosure) - 151, 152 ss. 7, 11 881 c. 92, ss. 5, 6 (Pound, &c.) 324 c. 105 (Renewable leasehold conversion) 55, 56 c. 106 (Bankruptcy) 755 8. 70 980 s. 147 268 13 & 14 Vict. c. 31 (Drainage, &c. of land) 86 c. 60 (Trustee Act, 1850) 778, 788, 1002 s. 29 86 8. 46 788, 789, 791 c. 65 (Museums of art, &c.) 568 c. 94 (Benefice), s. 5 271 c. 97 (Legacy) 350 8. 6 350 c. 98 260, 271 ss. 5, 6 271 s. 11 , 271 14 & 15 Vict. 0. 25 (Landlord and tenant) 27, 35, 105, 308 s. 1 27, 35, 85, 105, 307 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF STATUTES CITED. Ixxxv PAGE 14 & 15 Vict. 0. 25 (Landlord and Tenant), s. 2 317 s. 3 35 c. 53 (Copyholds) 148, 151 c. 97 (Mortmain) 256 ss. 8, 24 569 15 & 16 Vict. c. 3 (Estates of intestates) 784 c. 49 (School site) - 544 c. 51 (Copyholds) 148, 169 s. 27 149 s. 34 84 s. 45 149 s. 48 149 c. 55 (Trustee Extension Act, 1852), s. 8 789 c. 76 (Landlord and Tenant) 11, 312 s. 210 298, 312 c. 79 (Drainage of lands, &c.) 152 ss. 31, 32 881 16 & 17 Vict. c. 51 (Succession duty) 278 s. 21 759 c. 57 (Copyholds) 148 0. 117 (Land tax), s. 2 967 0. 119 (Loo. — Port Carlisle Dock and Eailway Act) 236 c. 137 (Oharitahle trusts), b. 27 571 ss. 29—40 - 586 ss. 54—60 - 586 17 & 18 Vict. c. 32 (Ecclesiastical Commission) 311 c. 60 (Pound, &c.), s. 1 324 c. 90 (Usury) 294 c. 97 (Inclosure) - 142, 152 s. 5 881 c. 112 (Common), s. 1 142 c. 125 (Common Law Proceedure) 114, 328 s. 79 114 18 & 19 Vict. c. 15 (Annuities), ss. 12—14 294 c. 122 (Metropolitan buildings) 215 c. 124 (Charities) 583 s. 35 571 s. 39 586 c. 127 (Union of benefices) 260 19 & 20 Vict. c. 9 (Drainage, &c., of land)- 86 0. 50 (Advowson) 266 c. 55 (Church building) 256 c. 80(Landtax)- . 967 0. 88 (Mortmain) 536 c. 104 (Church building)- 256 c. 108 (County Oom-ts) 329, 330 s. 50 11, 34 ss. 51, 52 - U Digitized by Microsoft® Ixxxvi LIST O'F STATUTES CITED. PAGE 19 & soviet, c. 108, ss. 63—66 (County ConrtR) 329 s. 67 330 s. 71 329 c. 120 85, 114, 755 H. 11 86, 112 s. 23 759 s. 33 754 20 & 21 Vict. c. 31 (Inolosure) 152 ss. 1—11 881 c. 57 (Married women's reversionary interest) 391 0. 77 (Probate Court, &o.) 85 c. 85 (Divorce Court), s. 26 392 21 & 22 Vict. 0. 27, s. 2 (Chancery Amendment) 114, 224, Add. s. 3 114 c. 42 (Prescription) 183 c. 49, s. 4 (Jevrs) 265 0. 53 (Oopyholds) 148, 151, 881 c. 77 (Leases and Sales of Settled Estates) 755 c. 93 (Legitimacy) 742 c. 94 (Charities) 148, 149 s. 10 148 s. 14 149 22 Vict. c. 27 (Eecreation ground) 570 22 & 23 Vict. c. 35 (Law of Property and Trustees' EeKef) 377 s. 10 332 s. 13 114 s. 19 732 s. 20 732 s. 21 364 0. 43 (Inclosure) 152 ss. 1—6 153 ss. 10, 11 887 c. 61 (Legitimacy), s. 7 742 23 & 24 Vict. c. 38 (Administrator), s. 7 344 o. 81 (Copyholds) 148, 151 c. 124 (Episcopal and Capitular Estates) 92 c. 126 (Common Law Procedure) 282 ss. 1—3 312 ss. 22, 23, 24 330 s. 26 82, 282 c. 134 (Roman Catholic Charities) 543 s. 3 549 u. 136 (Charities), s. 11 - 586 c. 142 (Benefice) - 260, 271 0. 145 (Trustees), s. 8 95 c. 152 (Distress for rent, Ireland), s. 51 323 0. 154 (Apportionment) 308 s. 49 98 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF STATUTES CITED. IxXXVli PAOE 24 & 25 Vict. c. 9 (Charities) 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551 s. 1 544, 548 s. 3 545, 549 s. 4 550, 551 0. 134 (Bankruptcy Act, 1861), s, , 192 979 25 & 26 Vict. c. lY (Charities) 545, 546, 548, 551 s. 2 548 s. 3 549 s. 4 550, 551 s. 5 549 c. "73 (Copyholds) 148, , 151 c. 89 (Companies Act, 1862) 318 8. 87 327 s. 163 327 c. 108 (Trustee), ss. 1, 2, 3 114 26 & 27 Vict. c. 106 (Charities) 546 0. 120 (Advowson) 261 c. 125 (Statute Law Eevision) 340 27 & 28 Vict. c. 13 (Charities) 551 s. 1 549 ss. 2, 3 551 s. 4 648 0. 45 (Leases and sales of settled estates) 85^ , 755 c. 112 (Judgments), ss. 1, 2 754 c. 114 (Improvement of land) 86, 87 28 & 29 Vict. 0. 112 (Admiralty), s. 1 141 29 & 30 Vict. c. 57 (Charities) 551 ss. 1, 2, 3, 4 552 s. 13 553 c. 122 (Metropolitan commons) 152 30 & 31 Vict. 0. 54 (Charities, Ireland) 588 s. 19 588 s. 20 588 0. 59 (Statute Law Eevision) 312 C.133 (Charities, &c.), s. 4 570 . s. 5 570 c. 142 (Debt), s. 12 34 s. 13 12, 34 c. 143 (Copyholds) 148 31 & 32 Vict. c. 44 (Charities) 570 s. 3 - - 545 0. 89 (Copyholds) - 148 c. 117 (Benefice) - - 261 32 & 33 Vict. c. 42 (Irish Church) - - 278 c. 46 (Debt) 742 0. 56 (Endowed schools) 587 s. 30 586 ss. 31—52 587 s. 59 587 Digitized by Microsoft® IxxXViii LIST OF STATUTES CITED. 32 & 33 Vict. c. 71 (Bankruptcy), s. 15, subs. 4 268 s. 23 327 s. 25, suts. 4 - 755 s. 34 - 325 s. 35 325 s. 87 327 c. 83 (Bankruptcy and Insolvency) 268, 979 s. 20 755 c. 94 (New parishes) - 256, 260 33 Vict. c. 14 (Naturalization) 63, 73, 338, 781, 782, 783 s. 2 - 63, 268 s. 18- 783 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23 (Forfeiture, &o.) 67, 68, 80, 268, 269 s. 1 -268, 269, 795 ss. 2—4 796 ss. 7, 9 80 ss. 7—10 796 ss. 9 et seqq. 268 ss. 12—17 796 s. 18 268 ss. 18—30 797 c, 34 (Charities) 571 c. 35 (Apportionment) 98, 298, 306, 308, 310 s. 2 308 s. 3 308 s. 4 98, 309 ss. 5—7 309 c. 46 (Irish land) 17 0. 56 (Improvement of land) 86 c. 75 (Elementary education), ss. 19, 20 229 s. 23 678 c. 93 (Married Women's Property), s. 8 60, 61 c. 97 (Stamp Act, 1870) 350 c. 99 (Stamps) 350 c. 102 (Alien) 783 34 Vict. c. 13 (Mortmain), s. 5 570 34 & 35 Vict. c. 43 (Eoolesiastioal dilapidations) 278 c. 57 (Local — Metropohtan Commons) 152 0. 79 (Landlord and tenant), ss. 1, 2, 3 315,316 c. 82 (Church building) 256 c. 84 (Improvement of land), s. 2 87 0. 90 (Benefice) 261 c. 102 (Charities, Ireland), s. 16 588 u. 116 (Statute Law Revision) 142 35 & 36 Vict. c. 24 (Charities) 552 0. 39 (Aliens), s. 1 783, 784 c. 50 (Landlord and Tenant) 294, 316 c. 92 (Constable), s. 13 - 325 36 & 37 Vict. 0. 50 (Church Building) 256, 570 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF STATUTES CITED. IxXXlX PAGE 36 & 37 Vict. 0. 60 (Quare impedit), sot. 2, 3 282 c. 66 (Judicature Act, 1873), s. 21 269 s. 25, subs. 3 116 subs. 5 Add. and 17 subs. 8 -Add. subs. 11 116 c. 86 (Elementary education), s. 13 578 37 & 38 Vict. 0. 33 (Leases and sales of settled estates) 85, 755 c. 37 (Appointment) 397 c. 57 (Limitation of time) - 99, 333, 366, 759 s. 1 81 s. 8 99, 9S8 s. 9 10, 99, 759 c. 78 (Vendor and Purcliaser Act, 1874) 1010, 1011 s. 4 1011 s. 5 885, 1011 s. 6 587, 1011 38 & 39 Vict. c. 77 (Judicature Act, 1875) 82, 327 c. 86 (Master and servant), s. 17 7 c. 87 (Land Titles and Transfer Act, 1875) 1011 s. 48 885, 1011 c. 92 (Agricultural Holdings, England) - 28, 33 s. 51 33, 34 s. 52 33 s. 56 33 s. 57 - - 34 s. 58 34 39 & 40 Vict. c. 18 (Treasury solicitor) - 784 c. 30 (Leases and sales of settled estates) 85, 755 s. 4 86 s. 46 85 s. 48 86 s. 57 85 c. 56 (Common), s. 33 881 c. 63 (Landlord and Tenant, Ireland), s. 4 32 c. 69 (Expiring laws continuance) 148, 151 40 & 41 Vict. 0. 18 (Settled Estates) 85, 112, 114, 755 ss. 13—16 - 114 s. 16 86 ss. 46, 47 754 s. 58 ... 754 c. 33 (Contingent remainders) 70, 337, 345, 363, 474, 605, 803 s. 1 475 T.L.C. Digitized by Microsoft® ( xc ADDENDA ET EEEATA. The Addenda comprehend the cases reported up to the 31st of May, 1879. Page 7, bottom line.— For " 3 Eliz.," read " 5 EHz." Page 15, col. 1, fourteen lines from bottom. — For "Paisley,^' read "Parsley." Page 15, col. 2, eight lines from bottom. — Por " Soe," read "Doe." Page 54, col. 1, nine Unes from the bottom. — After " Betty t. Elliott, lb. 110, n.," add " In Grolcer v. Brady, 4 L. R., I. 61, there was a lease for hves habendum to the lessee, his heirs and assigns. The lease "was conveyed by marriage settlement to trustees, their executors, administrators and assigns, upon trust, after certain life interests, for the children of the marriage, subject to appointment, and in default of appoiatment, for the children absolutely, but without words of limitation. The children died iutestate. It was held, that upon the determination of the life interests the heir-at-law of the children became entitled to the beneficial interest in the lease." Page 58, col. 1, nineteen lines from the bottom. — After "2nd ed.," add "The order, it seems, wiU be made where it appears by the applicant's affidavit that an appU- cation has been made to the person being and claiming title to be in possession in respect of the life estate by the person entitled to the estate in remainder, for the production of the cestui que vie, and the person so in possession and applied to does not respond to the application, the applicant is, under the statute, entitled to an order for production under it. In re Owen, 10 Ch. D. 166." Page 63, col. 1, twenty-one lines from top. — Por " o. 16," read " c. 66." Page 87, col. 1, eight luies from top.— For " 8 Vict.c. 13," read " 8 Vict. c. 18." Page 114, col. 1, twenty-five lines from top. — For " c. 19," read "c. 18." Page 114, col. 2, eight lines from bottom. — ^For " o. 195," read "c. 125." Page 115, col. 1, twenty-seven lines from top. — After " Farrant v. Lovel," put "3 Atk." Page 142, col. 1, ten hnes from top.— For "4 & 5 Vict. c. 58," read "4 & 5 Vict, c. 38." Page 142, col. 1, fourteen lines from top.— For "7 & 8 Vict. o. 38," read "7 & 8 Vict, c. 37." Page 191, col. 1, eighteen lines from the bottom. — After "the right. lb.," add, " Beggan v. M'Bonald, 2 L. P., I. 560." Page 194, col. 2, three lines from the bottom. — After " Emhrey v. Owen, 6 Exch. 371," add "In The Earl of Sandwich v. Great Northern Railway Co., 10 Ch. D. 707, a railway company whose line crossed a stream near one of their statioiLS, took water for supplying their engines, and for the general purposes of the station. On a bill filed by a miUowner lower down the stream, it appeared that the abstraction of water did no damage in wet weather, and never shortened the working of the mill for more than a few minutes a day, it was held that the company, as riparian owners, were entitled to take a reasonable quantity of water for their purposes, and that in this case the quantity taken was reasonable." Page 198, col. 2, twelve lines from the top. — After " Crompton v. Lea, 19 L. E., Eq. 115," add " Or by the act of a stranger over whom the defendant had no control. Box^r. JiM, 4 Ex. D. 76." Page 200, col. 1, twenty-two lines from the bottom. — After " Kodgkinson v. Ennor, 4 Best & S. 229," add " Rameshur Pershad Narain Singh v. Kooni Behari Pattulc, 4 App. Ca. 121." Page 205, col. 1, fifteen lines from the top.— After " 13 C. B., N. S. 841," add "And it has been recently decided that the access of air to the chimneys of a building cannot, as against the occupier of neighbouring land, be claimed either as a natural right of property, or as an easement by prescription from the time of legal memory, or by a lost grant, or under the Prescription Act. 2 & 3 WOl 4, t 71 Bryant v. Lefever, 4 C. P. D. 172." Digitized by Microsoft® ADDENDA ET EEKATA. XOl Page 225, col. 2, eleven lines from top. — Por " Bradel," read "JBeadel." Page 226, col. 2, four Knes from the bottom.— After "Krehl v. Bnrrell, 7 Ch. D. 551," add "afBrmed 11 Ch. D. 146." Page 228, col. 1, twelve lines from the bottom.— After " 5 Ch. D. 769," add " "Where the plaintiff has established his right against the defendant to a perpetual injunc- tion, as, for instance, to prevent his obstructing a right of way, the Court has no power imder Lord Cairns' Act (21 & 22 Vict. o. 27), a. 2, to oblige him against his will to accept damages in lieu of the injunction. Krehl v. Burrell, 11 Ch. D. 146." Page 230, col. 1, three Unas from bottom.— Por "41 Geo. 4," read "41 Geo. 3." Page 230, col. 2, two lines from the top.— After " 3 Ir. R. C. L. 52," add " Under the General Inclosure Act (8 & 9 Vict. c. 118), the words of the 68th section are positive that all roads and ways not set out by the valuer on making his award_ 'shall be for ever stopped up and extinguished.' Turner v. Crush, 4 App. Ca. 221." Page 237, col. 1, eleven lines from top.— Por "c. 22," read "c. 13." Page 237, col. 2. — After last line, add "And a public right of way may be extinguished by statute by necessary implication as well as by express words. Corporation of Yarmouth Y. Simmons, 10 Ch. D. 618." Page 275, col. 1, four lines from top. — For " Cooh," read "Coolce." Page 280, col. 2, nineteen lines from the bottom. — After " Sooth v. Potter, Cro. Jac. 353," add "And in a recent case of contract byT., a clerk in holy orders, to indemnify W., who had claimed the right of presentation to a living, against the costs of a litigation to establish that right, provided "W. in case of success should present T. to the living, is a corrupt agreement, and cannot be enforced ; and, moreover it partakes of the nature of champerty and maintenance. LittledaU v. Thompson, 4 L. P., I. 43." Page 299, col. 2, thirteen hues from the bottom. — After " Cumming v. Bedboroiigh, 15 Mee. & W. 438," add " So it was held that where a tenant had for many years paid the land tax, he could not recover it back from his landlord (Denhy v. Moore, 1 B. c& Aid. 123). It has been recently decided that an agreement, that if the tenant will continue to pay his rent in full, without any deduction iu respect of landlord's property tax paid by him, the landlord will repay to the tenant all sums he has paid or shall pay for the landlord's property tax, is not invalid as being contrary to the provi- sions of 5 & 6 Vict. 0. 35. Lamb v. Brewster, 4 Q. B. D. 220." Page 307, col. 1, twelve lines from top.— Por " c. 24," read " c. 22." Page 309, col. 2, fourteen lines from the bottom. — After " Sealy v. Stawell, 2 Ir. P., Eq. 326," add "And when a term of a liquidating creditor became vested in his trustee, who made an assignment thereof during the current quarter, it was held that the lessor might, under the Apportionment Act, 1870, ia an action brought after the expu-ation of the quarter against the trustee, recover a proportionate part of the quarter's rent up to the time of the assignment over by him. Swansea Bank V. Thomas, 4 Ex. D. 94." Page 313, col. 1, six lines from top.— Eor " 14 C. P.," read " 14 C. B." Page 325, col. 2, six lines from bottom. — Eor "Byrant," read "Bryant." Page 330, col. 1, eighteen Knes from the bottom. — After the words "Land, and Ten. 167, 2nd ed.," add "An injunction to restrain a landlord from exercising the legal right of distress may, under the Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 25, subs. 8, be granted, but only upon such terms and conditions as the court shall think just. See Shaw v. Earl of Jersey, 4 C. P. D. 120 ; ia which case the tenants, having brought an action against their landlord in order to try his right to the rent, an injunction was granted for a fortnight, to be continued only if the rent was paid into court. ' ' Page 333, eight lines from bottom.— Eor " 4 Geo. 2, c. 29," read " 4 Geo. 2, o. 28." Page 361, col. 2, sixteen Knes from top. — After " W-ykham," insert "v. Wykham." Page 377, col. 2, seventeen lines from the bottom. — After " Willis v. Shorral, 1 Atk. 474," add "Dunne's Trusts, 1 L. R., I. 516." Page 449, note {g).—For " 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 60," read " 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 98." Page 478, col. 1, seven lines from bottom. — Eor " Macivorth," read " Mackworth.'" Digitized by Microsoft® XCii ADDENDA ET ERRATA. ,,. >' Page 503, nine lines from top.— For " Tinder," read "Trindcr. Page 517, col. 1, thirteen lines from top.— Por " Short,'' read " Sturt." Page 549, col. 1, seven lines from bottom.— For " 9 Geo. 4," read " 9 Geo. 2." Page 586, ool. 1, twenty-two Unes from top.— For " 17 & 18 Vict.," read " 16 & 17 Vict." Page 588, ool. 2, twelve lines from tlie top.— After "Stewart v. Barton, 6 Ir. E., Eq. 215," add "Marlandy. Perry, 3 L. B., I. 135.'' Page 613, col. 1, nineteen lines from top.— For " Waven," read " Waren." Page 617, col. 2, eleven Unes from the bottom.— After " Jt/wdes v. Modes, 27 Beav. 413," add "In re Sarrison's Estate, 3 L. K., I. 114." Page 647, ool. 1, lines ten and eleven from top.— For "2 Dr.," read " 3 Dr." Page 655, col. 2, twenty lines from the bottom.— After "Webster v. Parr, 26 Beav. 236," add— ' ' Where after gifts of annuities to persons for their respective lives there is a gift over to the survivor in case he should die without issue in the lifetime of the other, there is no gift by implication to the children of the respective annuitants. Sey- mour V. Kilbee, 3 L. E,., I. 33." Page 678, col. 1, twenty-three lines from the top.— After " 12 W. E. 998," add " See and consider Newsom's Trusts, 1 L. E., I. 373." Page 688, col. 1, four lines from the top.— After "5 Ir. Jur. 245," add "In re Chin- nery's Estate, 1 L. E., I. 296." Page 723, col. 2, nineteen lines from the bottom. — After " Maden v. Taylor, 11 W. N. 101," add " Yarroto v. Knightly, 8 Ch. D. 736." Page 755, col. 1, twenty-four Unes from top.— For "3 & 4 Vict.," read "3 & 4 Win. 4." Page 776, col. 1, three lines from bottom.— For " 19 Geo. 2," read " 9 Geo. 2." Page 790, col. 2, five Hues from bottom.— For " 3 Wils.," read " 2 Wils." Page 794, col. 2, seven lines from top.— After " 39 & 40 Geo. 3," add "c. 88." Page 805, col. 1, two lines from the top. — After " Bagger Y. Payne, 23 Beav. 474," add "Picken v. Matthews, 10 Ch. D. 264." Page 805, col. 2, eighteen Unea from the top. — After "Mann v. Thompson, Kay, 638," add "Rogers v. Muteh, 10 Ch. D. 25." Page 865, col. 1, eight lines from the bottom. — After the words " estate for life," add the words, "See Comfort y. Uroivn, 10 Ch. D. 146, explaioing HerricJcY. Franklin." Page 865, col. 2, four Unes from bottom. — For "Butler," read "Butter." Page 892, col. 2. — After last line add, " In a recent case leasehold property was given by will to two sisters as joint tenants, and they eventually agreed to bequeath it in trust for the other for life, and for their nieces after the death of the survivor. One sister having died, the survivor made a will giving the property in a difEerent manner. It was held by Hall, V. C, that the agreement between the sisters, carried out by the making of the wills, severed the joint -tenancy, and that the property must be administered on the footing of a tenancy in common. In re Wilford's Estate, 11 Ch. D. 267." Page 913, c. 2, sixteen lines from bottom. — For "Nowell," read "Howell." Page 928, col. 2, thirteen hues from the bottom. — After " In re Wells' Estate, 6 L. E., Eq. 699," add "Ellis v. Eouston, 10 Ch. D. 236." Page 935, col. 1, five lines from the bottom. — After " BaddeUy v. Qingell, 1 Exoh. 319," add "Jennings v. Jennings, 1 L. E., I. 652." Page 938, col. 2, eleven lines from top. — For "ib.," read "L. E., 6 Ch. App." Page 939, col. 2, twelve lines from the bottom. — After " Garland v. Beverley, 9 Ch. D. 213," add "In re Tivohill, 3 L. E., I. 21." Page 974, col. 1, twenty-two Hnes from the top. — After "In re Wilcocks' Settlement, 1 Ch. D. 229," add " Bibiens v. Potter, 10 Ch. D. 733." Page 1011, col. 2, twelve Hnes from top.— For "o. 17," read "c. 87." Digitized by Microsoft® LEADING CASES EEAL PEOPEETY, CONYEYANCINa, ©ottiSttttction of Wiill^* EOUSE'S CASE(4 Mich. 30 Mis. [Reported Owen, 27.] Tenant at Sufferance.] — Tenant pur autre vie of a manor continues and holds the same after the death of the cestui/ que vie : — JTeld, that as he came in hy right he was, after the death of cestuy que vie, tenant hy sufferance, and not a disseisor. Semble, that any grants made by him are good, inasmuch as he is dominus pro temjwre. IT was moved in tHs case, that if tenant for term d'auter vie does continue and hold in his estate after the death of cestuy que vie, if he he a disseisor, and whether in pleading, the plea ought to be seised and not possessed. Shuttkworth. — ^He was legally in at first, and therefore cannot be a disseisor, 15 Edw. 4, 41. A freehold could not be gained where he came in by the agreement of the party, and 12 Ass. 22. "Where the husband and wife were seised of a freehold, and after were divorced by suit on the woman's part, whereby the woman is to have all the land, yet if the husband continue in possession and dies seised, this descent shall not take away entry, because he was no disseisor. (») See S. C. nom. Rous v. Artois, 2 Leoa. 45 ; Mo. 236. T.L.C. B Digitized by Microsoft® 2 Eouse's Case. Gaudj/. — He is tenant at sufferance and no disseisor ; and there it ■was moved, that if tenant at sufferance, or a disseisor, make copies of copyhold lands, if they be good or voidable : Wilde took here a diversity between a termor that holds over, and a' tenant at sufferance ; for in the case of a tenant at sufferance, there is no freehold taken from the lessor which the continuance of posses- sion doth not take from him, but where the tenant holds over his term there the freehold is disturbed, and therefore there is a disseisin : but at that present if seemed to the judges that there was no diversity. Godfrey, however, in the next term moved, that if tenant for another's life held over his estate he had a fee simple ; and he granted that it was otherwise in some cases, for if he claim to be tenant at the will of the lessor he shall not gain a fee simple. For Littleton, in his chapter of Releases, 108, saith, that tenant at sufferance is where a man in his own wrong doth convey lands and tenements at the will of him that hath the freehold, and such occupier claimeth nothing but at wiU.. But in this case the tenant claims otherwise than at the wiU of the lessor, he does not claim anything at the will of the lessor, as in the case of Littleton, but claims to hold over against the will of the lessor, which is no tenancy at sufferance. And 10 Edw. 4, if a man makes a lease at will, and the lessor dies, and he continues and claims fee, the heir shall have a mortdanoestor. And 18 Edw. 4, 25, if cestuy que use dies, and the tenant continues in, and the tenant is impleaded, the lessor shall not be received, and the reason is because there is no reversion in him, but the tenant hath it. And 22 Edw. 4, 38, by Hussey, Justice, if a termor holds over his term, there an estate in fee is confessed to be in him by matter of law ; but it is a doubt whether he be a disseisor or not, but it seemeth not, for a tres- pass does not lie against him before regress. And in the 7 Hen. 4, 43, if a guardian holds the possession at the full age of the heir, or tenant for years after his term expired, the estate shaU be judged in fee. And in our case he hath not claimed to hold at will, for he hath done contrary, for he hath made copies. By all the Justices. — If tenant at wHl, or for years, or at sufferance, make a lease for years, this is a disseisin, and a tenant at wiU doth thereby gain a freehold, and thereby doth claim a greater estate than he ought, and so it is in this case. Digitized by Microsoft® Eouse's Case. 3 2. Admitting Mm to be tenant at sufferance, the question is if lie may grant copies, and whether they be good ; and it seems he may, for no trespass lies against him, because he is dominus pro tempore ; and it is not like a copy made by an abator or disseisor, for it hath been adjudged that copies made by them are void ; but in this case his act of making copies agrees with the custom, as in Grisbrook's Case. If an administrator sells goods, and pays debts with the money, and after he who is executor proves the will, he shall never avoid this sale, for that it was done according to the will, which the executors were compelled to do. So in the 12 H. 6, if a baily cuts trees and repairs an ancient pale, this is good ; and 6 E.. 2, if he pays quit rents it is good. Coke. — He comes in by right, and therefore is tenant at sufferance, and like this case is Dyer, 35 H. 8, 57, Lord Zoitche's Case, where cestuy que use for life, the remaiader over in taU, made a lease for the term of the life of the lessee, and died, and the lessee continued his estate, the opinions of the justices of both benches were, that he was but tenant at sufferance. Popham. — If a manor be devised, and the devisee enters and makes copies, and then the devise is found to be void, yet the copies of sur- render made by such devisee are good : but contrary where new or voluntary copies are made by him, 7 Eliz. And in the Lord Arundel's Case a feoffment in fee was made of a manor upon condition, the feoffee upon condition grants voluntary copies, those are good. Atkins, on the contrary, made a difference between a tenant at will and a tenant at sufferance, for a tenant at will shall have aid, but so shall not the other, as in 2 H. 4 ; and a release to one is good and to the other not, &c. And when he holds over he doth assume an interest which shall not be thought wrongful, for he is neither abator nor disseisor, and therefore dominus ; and therefore the copies made by him are good, 4 H. 7, 3. Tenant at sufferance may justify for damage feasant. And all the Justices held for the plaintiff, and that he that made the copy was but tenant at sufferance, and not disseisor, and that he had no fee. And the judgment was to be entered, unless the de- fendant showed better matter. b2 Digitized by Microsoft® ( 4 ) RICHARDSON v. LANGRIDGE. Nov. 9, 1811. [Eepoeted 4 Taunt. 128.] Tenant at Will — From Year to Year. J — If cm agreement he made, to let premises so long as both parties like, and reserving a com- piensation, aeeriiing de die in diem, and not referable to a year, or any aliquot part of a year, it does not create a holding from year to year, but a tenancy at toill, strictly so called. And although the tenant has expended money on the improvement of the premises, that does not give him a term to hold until he is in- demnified. If, however, there were a general letting at a yearly rent, though payable half-yearly, or quarterly, and though nothing were said about the dura- tion of the term, it is an implied letting from year to year. TRESPASS for breaking and entering a stable of the plaiatifE, and breaking to pieces the doors and locks, and tearing down, damaging, and destroying the bins, troughs and mangers of the plaintifE, and locking up the stable and expelling the plaintiff from his possession. The defendant pleaded, first, not guilty ; secondly, that E. Crossley, being seised in fee of the premises, by indenture demised to the de- fendant, among other things, the stable, for a term of twenty-one years yet unexpired, by virtue whereof the defendant entered and was possessed, and by reason of such possession justified the acts com- plained of in the declaration. The plaintiff, confessing the seisin of Crossley and the lease to the defendant, repHed that the defendant afterwards and during the said term of twenty-one years, demised to the plaintiff the said stable with the appurtenances, to hold to the plaintiff during a certain term, that is to say, for so long a time as they the plaintiff and the defendant shoidd respectively please, the plaintiff rendering to the defendant a certain compensation between, them in that behalf agreed upon for the same, by virtue of which Digitized by Microsoft® ElCHARDSON V. LaNGEIDGE. ■ 5 demise the plaintiff entered and was possessed, until the defendant afterwards and during the continuance of the said term and interest of the plaintiff therein of his own wrong committed the said several trespasses. The defendant, apprehending that the demise laid ia the plea was descriptive of a holding from year to year, instead of re- joining that he had determined his will, rejoined that he did not demise the said stahle to the plaintiff in manner and form as the plaintiff had alleged, and tendered issue thereon, in which the plaintiff joined. Upon the trial of this cause, at the Maidstone Summer Assizes 1811, before Lord EUenborough, C.J., the evidence was, that the defendant having taken a lease of a close of land, and built a shed therein, in August 1810, let the same by parol to the plaintiff, who was a carrier, upon an agreement made without any reference to time, that the plaintiff should convert it into a stable, and that the defendant should have all the dving made by the plaintiff's horses. The plaintiff, after having for some time occupied it in its original state, laid out about six pounds in putting up a rack and manger and converting the building to a stable. About the end of the following April the defendant requested biTn to leave the premises, and upon his refusing to do it tiU. he could suit himself elsewhere, the defendant, in the plaintiff's absence, and without having given him any written notice to quit, forced open the door, took down the rack and manger and carried it out of the stable, and took and used the manure which had been made upon the premises during the plaintiff's occupation of them, and which was of considerable value. The defendant's counsel contended that the evidence proved a strict tenancy at will (which, though it made good the defendant's case, the plaintiff by his repli- cation himself alleged, and the defendant by his rejoinder denied), and that therefore the defendant was entitled at any time to deter- mine his will, and to enter upon the premises and resume the possession when he pleased, without any notice to quit. The counsel for the plaintiff contended that this must be a yearly holding, or that at all events the defendant, having put the plaintiff into possession and suffered him to contract an expense by erecting a rack and manger, could not countermand the permission at his pleasure ; upon the same principle on which, in the case of Winter v. BroclcwcU, 8 East, 308, it was held, that a licence once executed, if it be to do a thing whereby the party incurs expense, cannot be revoked, unless the Digitized by Microsoft® 6 • ElCHAEDSON V. LaNGRIDGE. grantor tenders to tlie grantee all the expense wMcli he has incurred in executing the licence. Lord EUenhorough, 0. J., thought that the demise, being so long as each party should respectively please, warranted the defendant in putting an end to the holding when he pleased, and in evicting the tenant without any notice ; whereupon the plaintiff, either not adverting to the terms of his issue, or pro- bably fearing that, though he had literally proved his issue and was entitled to a verdict thereon, the defendant would be entitled to judg- ment lion obstante veredicto, submitted to a nonsuit. Best, Serjt., on this day moved for a rule nisi to set aside the nonsuit and have a new trial. He first contended that there was at this day no such estate possible in law as a strict tenancy at will ; where no longer term was defined, aU was tenancy from year to year. At all events, the taking of the dung was equivalent to an accept- ance of rent ; and after an acceptance of rent, a half-year's notice to quit was necessary : Doe d. Shore v. Porter, 3 T. E. 16. Lord Kenyan, C. J., says, " The tenancy from year to year succeeded to the old tenancy at will, which was attended with many inconveniences. And in order to obviate them the Courts very early raised an implied contract for a year, and added that the tenant could not be removed at the end of the year without receiving six months' previous notice." Right A. Cutting v. Barby, 1 T. E. 163, BuUer, J., "The reason is (of the rule of law which construes what was formerly a tenancy at will of lands as a tenancy from year to year), that the agreement is a letting for a year at an annual rent : then if the parties consent to go on after that time, it is a letting from year to year." And again, the moment the year began, the defendant had a right to hold to the end of that year ; therefore there should have been half a year's notice to quit before the end of the term. He also referred to the case of Winter v. Brocktoell, 8 East, 308, and urged that at least the tenant, having erected the rack and manger at a considerable expense, was entitled to a term long enough to indemnify him. 3Iansfield, C. J. — That case has not the slightest resemblance to the present case. You must find some act of parliament, or some decision of the Courts, that two persons cannot agree to make a tenancy at will. But it is a maxim that modus et conventio vincunt Digitized by Microsoft® ElCHARDSON V. L.ANGEIDGE. 7 legem. Have you any case where the Courts have declared that there must be a tenancy from year to year, the parties having expressly agreed that the holding shall be so long as both parties please ? and of that there is evidence here. You say that Lord EUenhoroiigh was of opinion that the evidence did not prove a tenancy for a year : the nonsuit then must have proceeded on the ground that there was such an agreement as the plaintiff has himself stated. Here you speak all along of an indefinite agreement. If there were a general letting at a yearly rent, though payable half-yearly or quarterly, and though nothing were said about the duration of the term, it is an implied letting from year to year. But if two parties agree that the one shall let, and the other shall hold, so long as both parties please, that is a holding at will, and there is nothing to hinder parties from makiug such an agreement. Heath, J. — I am of the same opinion. It is said that an indefinite hiring of a servant is an hiring for a year, but those cases do not apply. That presumption is founded upon the imiversal custom of hiring servants at statute fairs, which is usually for a year («). There is no custom that if a man lets premises to another he shall let them for a year. CJiamhre, J., denied the proposition, that at this day there is no such thing as a tenancy at will ; the taking of the dung by the land- lord gave the tenant no term in the premises. Surely the distinction has been a thousand times taken : a mere general letting is a letting at win ; if the lessor accepts yearly rent, or rent measured by any aliquot part of a year, the Courts have said, that is evidence of a taking for a year. That is the old law, and I know not how it has ever come to be changed. The Courts have a great incHnation to make every tenancy a holding from year to year, if they can find any foundation for it, but in this case there is none such. The Court refused the rule. [a) See 3 Eliz. u. 4, o. 3, repealed by 38 k 39 Vict. c. 86, a. 17. Digitized by Microsoft® Eotjse's Case. There is a difficulty sometimes in determining by what tenancy a per- son holds land, whether as tenant at sufferance, tenant at will, or tenant from year to year ; this principally arises from the tendency in the de- cisions of the Courts to raise by con- struction of law, where possible, an estate byrightrather than by wrong, and an estate of certain duration rather than one dependent on mere accident or caprice. In order to illustrate these re- marks, and to examine the deci- sions of the Courts upon this sub- ject, it is proposed to consider — I. Tenancy at Sufferance ; II. Ten- ancy at Will; and III. Tenancy from Year to Year. I. Tenancy at Sufferance. A tenancy at sufferance has been defined as the lowest estate which can subsist; it arises where a person has held by a lawful title, and con- tinues the possession after his title has determined, without either the agreement or disagreement of the person then entitled to it. Watk. Convey, note by Morley, p. 23. Where, for instance, a tenant pur autre vie continues in possession after the death of the cestui que vie {Allen V. Hill, Cro. EHz. 238; 3 Leon. 153), or a tenant for life, sub- ject to a condition determining his estate, holds over after breach of the condition {Allen v. Hill, Cro. Eliz. 238), or a tenant for years {Butler V. Duchnanton, Cro. Jac. 169; Doe d. Patrick v. Duke of Beaufort, 6 Exch. 498, 503), or his assignee or undertenant (lb.; Sir)ikinY. Ashursf, 4 Tyrw. 781; 1 Cr. M. & E. 26 1 ), holds over after the expiration of the term, or a tenant from year to year holds over after the determination of the tenancy by notice to quit, or by the death of the lessor, who was only tenant for life {Doe d. Thomas v. Roberts, 16 M. & W. 780), or a tenant at will holds over after the determination of the estate by any of the modes hereinafter mentioned (see post, p. 18 ; Doe d. Bennett v. Turner, 7 M. & W. 226; 9 M. & W. 643; Doe d. Goody v. Carter, 9 Q. B. 863); in every such case the person so holding over will be tenant at sufferance. See also Co. Litt. 57b; Vin. Abr. and Com. Dig. title Estate. It seems, however, that the heir of a tenant at sufferance will not succeed his ancestor in the tenancy, because he would not, according to the ordinary definition of the te- nancy laid down in Rouse's Case, have entered by a lawful title. Berry v. Goodman, 2 Leon. 147; Doe V. Perkins, 3 Mau. & Sel. 271. A mortgagor in possession, as will be hereafter seen, is, in many cases, merely a tenant at sufferance to the mortgagee (see post, p. 14 — 17). A tenancy at sufferance arises by implication of law; it cannot origi- nate by contract of the parties (Watk. Conv. 24). InBerryY. Good- man, 2 M. & W. 768, there was an instrument in these terms, — "I hereby certify that I remain in the house belonging to W. G., on suf- ferance only, and agree to give him immediate possession at any time he may require." It was held by the Court of Exchequer not to Digitized by Microsoft® Eotjse's Case. y amount to an agreement for a tenancy so as to require a stamp. In some cases no tenancy will arise, although the person holding over may originally have held by a lawful title. Thus, any person holding over against the Crown is an intruder, and not a tenant at sufferance, inasmuch as no laches can be imputed to the Crown for not entering. Co. Litt. 57 b ; At- tornet/- General v. Andrew, Hard. 25 ; Doe d. Watt v. Morris, 2 Bing. N. C. 196. Again, if a guardian after the full age of the heir continues in possession, he is not tenant at suf- ferance, as he would have been if he had entered under an estate' created by a terre-tenant, but an abator, be- cause his estate was created by act of law. Co. Litt. 57 b. This tenancy cannot be either conveyed, assigned, or demised {Shopland v. Rydler, Cro. Jao. 55 ; and see 3 East, 451), so as to bind any one, except the tenant at suf- ferance himself. And moreover since it arises by construction of law and not by contract, and there is no privity between the landlord and tenant, it has consequently been held that a release from the former will not operate to enlarge the estate of the latter. Co. Litt. 270 b, 271 a; Butler V. Duckmanton, Oro. Jac. 169; Thunder A., Weaver y. Belcher, 3 East, 449. In Eouse's Case (selected as one of the principal cases at the head of this note) it was held that grants of copyholds made by a mere tenant at sufferance were good, and this does not conflict with what has be- fore been laid down, that a tenant at sufferance cannot convey his estate, because the validity of grants of copyholds by a tenant at sufferance depends upon their being merely ministerial acts. 1 Scriv. Cop. 96, 97. This tenancy seems to have ori- ginated in a desire of the judges, by implying it between two parties, to prevent adverse possession from arising, when a particular estate determined without the knowledge of the person entitled in reversion. Thus if a tenant for a term of years held over after the expiration of the term, time would not, under the statute of 21 James 1, c. 16, begin to run from the end of the term, as the person remaining in possession was in effect a tenant, and did not hold by an adverse title ; and under that statute time would only run from the commencement of adverse possession. See Smartle v. Wil- liams, 3 Lev. 387 ; Roe v. Ferrars, 2 Bos. & Pul. 542 ; Doe v. Hidl, 2 Dowl. & Ey. 38 ; sed vide Fishar V. Prosser, Cowp. 218. Now, however, sections 1 and 2 of 3 & 4 WiU. 4, 0. 27, have done away with the doctrine of 7ion ad- verse possession ; and except in cases falling within the fifteenth section (which has now generally ceased to have any operation) the question is, whether twenty years have elapsed since the right accrued, whatever he the nature of the pos- session; per Lord Denman, C. J., in Nepean d. Doe v. Knight, 2 Mees. & W. 911. See also Doe v. Oower, 21 L. J. (Q. B.) 57. Where a tenancy at will is, by the act of the landlord, converted Digitized by Microsoft® 10 Eouse's Case. into a tenancy at sufferance, still the twenty years must be computed from the expiration of the first year after the commencement of the original tenancy at will ; but if a new tenancy at will be created be- tween the parties, then the twenty years will be calculated from the expiration of the first year of such new tenancy. Sug. Prop. Stat. 2nd edit. 57; and see Doe v. Turner, 7 M. &W. 226; 9M. &W. 643; Doe V. Carter, 9 Q. B. 863 ; Hodgson v. Hooper, 3 Ell. & Ell. 149 ; but see and consider Randall v. Stevens, 2 Ell. & Bl. 652 ; Locke v. Matthews, 13 0. B., N. S. 753 ; Doe d. Goody V. Carter, 9 Q. B. 863. The second section of 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, is repealed by sect. 9 of 37 & 38 Vict. c. 57, from the 1st of January, 1879; but an enactment to the same effect is substituted for it, save that twelve years instead of twenty is the period fixed within which land or rent must be re- covered after the right of action accrued. Sect. 1. Remedies of Tenant at Sufferance. A tenant by sufferance in posses- sion can maintain an action of tres- pass against a wrongdoer, as mere possession is sufiicient for that pur- pose. Graham v. Peat, 1 East, 244. It was said by Lord Abinger, C. B., that a tenant at sufferance turned out by his landlord without a demand of possession might main- tain trespass against him. Doe d. Harrison v. Murrell, 8 C. & P. 135. But although in such case the tenant at sufferance might have maintained an action for assault and battery, the better opinion seems to be that he could not main- tain an action quare clausum fregit, because as soon as a person en- titled to the possession (as the landlord was in such a case) entered in the assertion of that possession, or, which was exactly the same thing, any other person entered by command of that lawful owner so entitled to possession, the law im- mediately vested the actual posses- sion in the person who so entered {Jones V. Chapman, 2 Esoh. 803, 816, 821 ; Randall v. Stevens, 2 Ell. & Bl. 641), so that the person formerly tenant at sufferance had no longer that actual possession essential to the maintenance of an action of trespass. Moreover, as a tenant at suf- ferance has no title to the land of which he is possessed, he could not maintain an action of ejectment, — a remedy founded upon title ( Gra- ham V. Peat, 1 East, 246), — against his landlord turning him out with- out demanding possession {Doe d. Harrison v. Murrell, 8 C. & P. 134), or even against a mere stranger and wrongdoer who en- tered without any title whatever. Doe d. Crisp v. Barher, 2 T. E. 749. But the landlord could not without entry maintain an action of tres- pass against the tenant, because he came in by a lawful title. Trevillian v. Andrew, 5 Mod. 384. Remedies against Tenant at Suf- ferance. Formerly the only mode in which the owner of the estate could pro- ceed against a tenant at sufferance, so as to obtain possession thereof, was by entry upon the land and Digitized by Microsoft® Eouse's Case. 11 ouster of tlie tenant, or by eject- ment, in wliicli entry was supposed {Doe d. Leeson v. Sayer, 3 Campb. 8) ; and after actual entry, but not before, the landlord might proceed by an action of trespassfordamages, in ■which the tenant -was bound only to account for the profits of the land so by him detained. 1 Steph. Comm. 294, 7th edit. The landlord might also sue a tenant at sufferance for use and occupation in respect of the period during which he had held after the determination of his former estate {Bayley t. Bradley, 5 0. B. 396, 406 ; Hellier v. Sillcox, 19 L. J., N. S. (Q. B.) 295), but he could not distrain for rent without some evi- dence of a renewal of the former tenancy. Alford v. Vichery, Car. & Marsh. 280 ; Jenner v. Clegg, 1 Mood. & Eob. 213 ; and see Sir Moil Finch's Case, 2 Leon. 143. The landlord, moreover, was en- abled in certain cases to recover double the yearly value of the land. See 4 Q-eo. 2, e. 28, by which every tenant for life or years, or other person claiming under or by collu- sion with such tenant, who should wUfully hold over after determina- tion of the term, and demand made in writing of delivery of possession by the landlord or him in reversion or remainder, was made liable to the payment of double the yearly value of the lands detained. See Swin/en v. Bacon, 6 H. &N. 184, 846; Blatch- ford V. Cole, 5 0. B. (N. S.) 514. It will be observed that this statute only took effect in cases in which the landlord gave notice to quit, and therefore the deficiency was supplied by 11 Geo. 2, c. 19, which extends the provision for double rent, to the holding over, after the tenanfs giving notice to quit (Co. Litt. 57 b ; Harg. note 2). As to these statutes, see Wilkinson V. Colley, 5 Burr. 2694 ; Cutting v. Berby, 2 Black. 1075; Cobb v. StoTies, 8 East, 358 ; Doe v. Roe, 5 Barn. & Aid. 766 ; Messenger v. Armstrong, 1 T. E. 53 ; Doe\. Roe, 7 Barn. & Cress. 2 ; Page v. More, 15 Q. B. 684. And now by 15 & 16 Vict. c. 76, when a tenant for years, under a lease or agreement in writing, holds over after the expiration of his term, or a tenant from year to year, under a lease or agreement in writing, holds over after his tenancy has been determined by a regular notice to quit, if the landlord first makes a demand in writing of possession, and obtains the refusal of his tenant to deliver up pos- session, upon his proceeding in ejectment, the tenant may be com- pelled to find sureties to pay the costs and damages to be recovered in the action before he wUl be per- mitted to defend it. Sect. 213. In recent times, more simimary remedies have been given to land- lords against tenants holding over, under 1 & 2yiot. c. 74, 9 & 10 Vict, c. 95, s. 122, and 19 & 20 Vict. c. 108, ss. 50, 51, 52, which confer jurisdiction upon the County Courts where the value of the premises, or the rent payable in respect thereof, does not exceed 50^. per annum, upon which no fine shall have been paid; see also Wickham v. Lee, 12 Q. B. 521 ; Newton v. Harland, 1 Man. & Gr. 644 ; Pollen v. Brewer, 7 C. B. (N. S.) 371 ; 6 Jur., N. 8. Digitized by Microsoft® 12 ElCHAEDSON V. LaNGKIDGE. 509 ; and as to appeals in such oases, see 30 & 31 Vict. c. 142, s. 13. A tenant at suflEerance is not en- titled to emblements. 7 Mees. & W. 235. H. Tenancy at Will. A tenancy at -will may be defined as an estate in land, determinable at the will either of the landlord or tenant (Co. Litt. 55 a). A tenancy at will may be created, as in the principal case of Eichardson v. Langridge, by express words. Thus in the case put by Littleton "if lands or tenements are let by one man to another, to have and to hold to him at the will of the lessor, by force of which he is in possession," a tenancy at will is created between the parties (Litt. sect. 68) ; for the law will imply the lease to be at the wiU of the lessee, as well as at the will of the lessor. So likewise if the lease be made to have and to hold at the wiU of the lessee, it will also be at the will of the lessor. And it must always be remembered that a lease at will must in law be a lease at the will of both parties. Co. Litt. 55 a. See also Cudlip v. Rundall, 4 Mod. 9 ; Doe d. Bastow V. Cox, 17 L. J. (Q. B.) 3; 11 Q. B. 122 ; Doe d. Dixie v. Davies, 7 Exch. 89 ; Walkers. Giles, 6 C. B. 662; Ley v. Peter, 3 H. & N. 101, 107, 115; Bayley^. Fitzmaurice, 8 EH. & Bl. 679. A reservation of a yearly or quarterly rent is not in- consistent with a tenancy at wUl. Litt. sect. 72 ; Doe v. Davies, 7 Exch. 91; 21 L. J. (Exch.) 60; Doe d. BastoivY. Cox, 11 Q. B. 122; 17 L. J. (Q. B.) 3 ; Walker v. Giles, 6 0. B. 662. Atenanoy at will may also arise by implication (7 M.&W. 235); and if a person be in possession of land, in which he has no freehold estate, nor tenancy for any certain term, and which nevertheless he holds by the consent of the true owner, that per- son is tenant at wUl (2 Smith, L. 0. 76 a). Thus where a person is put into possession of property paying no rent, as in the case of a minister put into possession of a house by trustees of a congregation {Doe V. Jones, 10 B. & Cress. 718; E. V. Collett, Euss. & Ey. C. 0. 498 ; Wilkinson v. Malin, 2 Tyrw. 544; Doe d. Nicholl v. M'Kaeg, 10 B. & C. 721 ; Perry v. Shipway, 1 Gift. 1 ; Collier v. King, 11 C. B. (N. S.) 14 ; sed vide Burton v. Brooks, 11 C. B. 41; Doe d. Hol- lingsivorth v. Stennett, 2 Esp. 716, 717 ; Doe d. Lamhotirn v. Ped- griph, 4 0. & P. 312) ; or a person enters under a contract for a pur- chase {Eight d. Lewis v. Beard, 13 East, 210; Doe d. Parker v. Boul- ton, 6 M. & S. 148, 150; Doe d. Stanway v. Rock, 4 Man. & G. 30 ; Doe d. Gray v. Stanion, 1 M. & W. 695 ; Ball v. Cullimore, 2 Cr., M. & E. 120 ; Farrelly v. Eohins, 3 Ir. E. C. L. 284), or for a lease, al- though he may in the former case have agreed to pay interest {Doe d. Tomes V. Chamherlaine, 5 Mees. & W. 14; Church v. Ddlton, 3 Ir. Com. L. Eep. (N. S.) 4), unless by payment of rent, as we shall here- after see, he may have raised by construction a tenancy from year to year {Eegnart v. Porter, 7 Bing. 451 ; Doe v. Miller, 5 C. & P. 595 ; Eiseley v. Eyle, 11 Mees. & W. 16) ; if a person enters as tenant under a Digitized by Microsoft® ElCHARDSON V. LanGRIDGE. 13 lease wliicli is void (Z>e Medina v. Poison, Holt, N. P. C. 47; Good- title d. Galloway v. Herbert, 4 T. E. 680 ; Denn d. Warren v. Fearn- side, 1 Wils. 1 76 ; Segrave v. Barber, 5 Ir. Com. L. Eep. (N. S.) 67), or a parol agreement for a lease void under tlie Statute of Frauds ( Ward V. Ryan, 10 I. E. C. L. 17, reversing S. a, 9 I. E. 0. L. 61), or if the owner assents to tlie possession of tenant at sufferance {Doe v. Turner, 7 Mees. & W. 235, 646), lie will be a tenant at will. A person, however, entering into premises as a purchaser, may con- tract in certain events to hold them as a tenant for a term. See Yeoman V. Ellison, 2 L. E. , 0. P. 68 1 . There an agreement for the sale of a public house for 1,575?. contained the fol- lowing stipulation:- — " And inas- much as it is intended that E. (the purchaser) shall be let into the im- mediate possession of the heredita- ments hereby agreed to be sold, and for the purpose of securing the due performance of the several agreements herein contained, he the said E. hereby admits himself to be tenant from week to week to S. (the vendor), of the heredita- ments hereby agreed to be sold, at the weekly rent of 80?., payable in advance." The vendor having failed to make a good title : — It was held by the Court of Queen's Bench, (reversing the decision of a county court judge, who thought that the so-called weekly rent was a mere penalty for the due performance of the agreement for sale,) that the relation of landlord and tenant was thereby created between 8. and E., and gave the former a right to distrain for the rent. The decision of a court of equity would doubtless have been in ac- cordance with that of the county court judge. As a vendor who remains in pos- session after a conveyance is not necessarily in possession with the consent of the vendee, he will not be a tenant at wUl. Teiv v. Jones, 13 Mees. & W. 13. Unless there be a contract that a tenant at will is to occupy land rent free {Howard v. Shaw, 8 Mees. & W. 118, 123), he will be compeUed to make compensation in an action for use and occupation (lb. and see Ibhs V. Richardson, 9 A. & E. 849) ; and in the event of his havingunder- let the land, he would be liable to pay what he had received from his tenant {Hurly v. Hanrahan, 1 I. Eep., 0. L. 700); but this will not be the case if the occupation has not been beneficial, nor a fortiori if it have occasioned loss. Hearn v. Tomlin, 1 Peake, N. P. C. 252; Kirtland v. Pounsett, 2 Taunt. 145. It has been recently held, in Ire- land, that when a purchaser has entered into possession of land under a contract of sale which is subsequently rescinded, he is not liable to use and occupation during the period between the entry and rescission {Markey v. Coote, 10 I. E. 0. L. 149). But that if, after rescis- sion, the purchaser remains in pos- session, he is liable in respect of his subsequent occupation, and it is for the jury to say whether it was the creation of a new tenancy at will containing an implied agreement Digitized by Microsoft® 14 ElCHARDSON V. LaNGUIDGE. on tlie part of the purcliaser to pay a fair compensation for his occupa- tion, or whether the former tenancy had simply been determined with- out the creation of any new tenancy, and the purchaser had hecome liable as a trespasser. lb. Where a party who contracts for the purchase of landed property is prevented from completing the pur- chase by the vendor failing to make a good title, he is not liable in re- spect of the time of his holding in the expectation that such title would bemade, and the purchase completed ( Winterhottom v. Ingham, 7 Q. B. 611); but when the contract is at an end, as he still continues tenant at will, he is liable to be sued for compensation. Howard v. Shaw, 8 Mees. & W. 118, 123; Boileau v. Rutlin, 2 Exch. 665, 676. An implied contract, however, by a tenant at will to pay rent for use and occupation may, it seems, be rebutted by evidence. See Corri- gan v. Woods, 1 I. Eep., C. L. 73. Where there is a tenancy at will at a fixed rent, the landlord has a right to distrain. Anderson v. The Midland Railway Company, 30 L. J. (Q. B.) 94. The question is sometimes raised whether an occupier occupies as tenant or servant — a question which has been much discussed in cases which relate to the law of settle- ment, and also in those which relate to the franchise. The result of the eases appears to be that where a person is permitted (allowed, if so minded) to occupy premises by way of reward for his services, or as part payment, his occupation is that of tenant. See Hughes v. Overseers of Chatham, 5 M. & G. 54; Parker's Case, 5 M. & G. 73, 80; Smith v. 2'he Overseers ofSeghill, lOQ. B. 422. But that where his occupation is necessary for the performance of his services, and the occupier is required to reside in the house in order to perform those services, the occupation being strictly auxiliary to the performance of the duties which the occupier has to perform, the occupation is that of a servant. Dolson V. Jones, 5 M. & G. 112; Fox V. Dalhy, 10 L. E., C. P. 285. And an agent or servant who is allowed to occupy a house belong- ing to his principal, for the more convenientperformance of his duties, acquires no estate therein, although he be also allowed to use the house for carrjdng on therein an inde- pendent business of his own. White V. Bayley, 10 C. B. (N. S.) 227; see S. C, in Equity, nom. Spur gin v. White, 2 GifE. 473. Another question also occasionally arises as to what is the interest wloioh at law a mortgagor in pos- session may be considered to hold. It seems that if he be himself in the occupation of the estate, and there be an agreement in the mortgage deed that he is to continue in pos- session until default in payment of the mortgage money at a certain period, he will be tenant for a term by re-demise ( Wilkinson v. Hall, 3 Bing. N. S. 508; Doe d. Lyster v. Goldwin, 2 Q. B. 143); provided the deed be executed by the mortgagee {Boe V. Lightfoot, 8 M. & W. 564); but if the money be not paid at the time fixed, the mortgagor becomes and may be treated as a tenant at Digitized by Microsoft® RiCHAEDSON i\ LaNGEIDGE. 15 sufferance. " Prom the day on ■wliicli the mortgagor fails to re- deem his pledge," observes Best, C. J., "the possession belongs to the mortgagee, and there is no more occasion for his requiring that the estate should be delivered up to him before he brings an ejectment, than for a lessor to demand possession on the determination of a term. The situation of a lessee on the expira- tion of a term, and a mortgagor who has covenanted that the mort- gagee may enter on a certain day, is precisely the same." Doe d. Fisher V. Giles, 5 Bing. 427 ; Doe d. Rohj V. Maisey, 8 B. & C. 767; Doe d. Parsley v. Day, 2 Q. B. 147; Doe d. SnellY. Tom, 4 Q. B. 615. The usual proviso in a mortgage deed for quiet enjoyment until de- fault, or that the mortgagor shall hold possession for a certain time, will amount to a re-demise {Drake v. Munday, Oro. Car. 207; Bac. Abr. Lease, K.; Shep.' Touch. 272), biita mere agreement that the mortgagor is to hold for an uncertain period, dependent upon some future event, such as the giving of notice, will amount to a covenant only and not to a re-demise {Doe d. Paisley v. Day, 2 Q. B. 153, 156; Doe A. Roy- lance V. Lightfoot, 8 M. & W. 564 ; Gale V. Burnell, 7 Q. B. 850); as vrill also mere negative words, that, until default, the mortgagee shaU not intermeddle with the possession {Poivseley v. Blackman, Cro. Jac. 659, and see 8. C. cited 2 Q. B. 154; Doe d. Roylance v. Lightfoot, 8 M. & W. 553 ; Rogers v. Grazebrook, 8 Q. B. 895; Gale v. Burnell, 7 Q. B. 850), and a re-demise untU default on a certain day may be made defeasible by notice at an earlier day. Fenn v. Bittleston, 7 Exch. 152; Brierley v. Kendall, 17 Q. B. 937. Where there is no express or im- plied agreement as to the possession amounting to a re-demise, the mort- gagor wUl be tenant at sufferance. Thunder v. Belcher, 3 East, 451 ; Doe d. Rohy v. Maisey, 8 B. & C. 767; Melling v. Leak, 16 0. B. 667; Doe d. Parsley v. Day, 2 Q. B. 147; Gale V. Burnell, 7 Q. B. 850 ; Ro- gers V. Grazehrook, 8 Q. B. 895. But upon the mortgagee assenting to his possession, he wiU. be tenant at will. "Watk. Convey, by Morley, Coote & Coventry, 14. A distress, however, for arrears of interest " as for rent," in pursu- ance of a power in the mortgage deed {Doe d. Wilkinson v. Goodier, 10 Q,. B. 957, and see Doe d. Garrod V. Olley, 12 Ad. & EU. 481), or the receipt of interest by the mortgagee down to a later time than the day of the demise in the declaration in ejectment {Doe d. Rogers v. Cad- wallader, 2 B. & Ad. 473 ; Doe d. Bowman v. Leivis, 13 M. & W. 241), win not amount to a recognition of the tenancy. A tenancy at will between the mortgagor and mortgagee may also be created by the express terms of the mortgage deed, although rents payable half-yearly be reserved to the mortgagee (i?oed.Z'mev.Z)aui'es, 7 Exch. 89; Doe d. Bastow v. Cox, 11 Q. B. 122 ; Pinhorn v. Souster, 8 Exch. 138); and where the mort- gage deed has not been executed by the mortgagee, by the attorn- ment and occupation of the mort- gagor after the deed has been exe- Digitized by Microsoft® 16 EiicHAKDSON r. Langridge. cuted by Mm. IVesi v. Fritche, 3 Exch. 216; 18 L. J. (Exoh.) 50; Morton v. Woods, 3 L. E. (Q. B.) 658. And -where tlie relation of land- lord and tenant at will is created between mortgagee and mortgagor, tlie latter, after he has attorned, will be estopped from denying the relation of landlord and tenant, and that the legal estate and reversion is in the landlord, and for that reason to dispute the validity of a distress put in by him. See Morton V. Woods, 4 L. E. (Q. B.) 293; West V. Fritche, 3 Exoh. 216; 18 L. J. (Ex.) 50. And as to estoppel, see Jolly v. Arbuthnot, 4 De G. & J. 224; Dancer v. Hastings, 12 B. Moo. 34; 4 Bing. 2. And the payment of interest under a mortgage deed will not convert the possession of the mort- gagor into a tenancy from j^ear to year, requiring six months' notice before the mortgagee could enter into possession. Turner v. Barnes, 2 Best & Sm. 435, 452. The tenancy at will of the mort- gagor may be determined in the ordinary modes by which tenancies at will are determined (lb., and see Doe d. Davies v. Thomas, 6 Exch. 854, post, p. 18); as for instance by the entry of the mortgagee, by his demand of possession, or by an as- signment of the mortgagee's estate either with the concurrence of, or with notice to, the mortgagor. By the death either of the mort- gagor or mortgagee the tenancy at vrill would be determined, and in the latter case a tenancy at suffer- ance ; in the former, on the entry of the heir or devisee of the mortgagor without the consent of the mort- gagee, an adverse possession would commence, until, by payment of in- terest or otherwise, he recognized the title of the mortgagee, where- upon a tenancy at will would arise. Holland v. Hatton, Carth. 414; 10 Vin. Abr. 418, pi. 19. Where there is a stipulation in a deed of mortgage that if the mort- gagor should make default, then, or immediately after such default, he should hold the premises as yearly tenant at a fixed rent, pay- able half-yearly, the mortgagee is not justified, without any notice that he intended to treat him no longer as mortgagor but as tenant, in distraining for a year's rent upon the supposition that a tenancy had been created by the mere default of the mortgagor. See Clowes v. Hughes, 5 L. E., Ex. 160. The mortgagor under an agree- ment that he shall retain possession until default, and that themortgagee shall have interest, has no implied authority to let from year to year; hence a mortgagee may recover in ejectment without giving notice to quit, against a tenant who claims under a lease from the mortgagor, granted after the mortgage without privity of the mortgagee {Keech v. Hall, Douglas, 21 ; Wyse v. Myers, 4 Ir. Com. L. Eep. (N. S.) 101; Gibhs V. Cruilishanli, 8 L. E., 0. P. 454 ; Smith v. Eggington, 9 L. E. (C. P.) 145) ; if, however, he recog- nize the tenants they will become his own, and he cannot treat them as trespassers ( Whittaher v. Hales, 7 Bing. 322; Birch v. Wright, 1 T. E. 378). The mere receipt, how- ever, of interest by the mortgagee, Digitized by Microsoft® ElCHAKDSON 'P. LaNGRIDGE. 17 will not, of itself, amount to a re- cognition of the tenancy [Doe d. Rogers v. Cadivallader, 2 B. & Ad. 473; Doe d. Boivman v. Lewis, 13 Mees. & "W. 241). See, however, the remarks of Lord Denman in Evans v. Elliot, 9 Ad. & EU. 342. Where the mortgaged estate is in the occupation of tenants, and there is no agreement in the mortgage deed by which the mortgagor is empowered to receive the rents until default, there does not appear to be any tenancy between the mortgagor or mortgagee, and the former is merely a receiver without liability to account. "Watk. Convey. 14, note by Morley ; see also Trent v. Hunt, 9 Exch. 24, where it is laid down by Alderson, B., as a general prin- ciple of law, "that if a lessor, having mortgaged his reversion, is permitted by the mortgagee to con- tinue in the receipt of the rent incident to that reversion, he, during suchpermissionisj3?'«s?oe d. Thompson v. Amey, 12 Ad. & EH. 476 ; Mayor of Thetford v. Tyler, 8 Q. B. 95 ; In re Stroud, 8 0. B. 502; Doe d. Prior v. Ongley, 10 C. B. 25 ; Alartin v. Smith, 9 L. E., Ex. 50. The payment, however, of rent in such a case, is only evidence of a tenancy during the period for which it was paid, and if no other tenancy appear, the presumption is that that tenancy was from year to year. Per Lord EUenborough, 0. J., in Roe d. Brune v. Prideaux, 10 East, 187. Where, however, there is a great disproportion between the rent re- served under a void lease, and the real value, the receipt of such rent will not raise a presumption of a tenancy from year to year, though it may be evidence of an intention of a mistaken notion that the land- lord had power to confinn a void lease, and may create a tenancy at wiU. Smith V. Widlake, 3 C. P. D. 10; Roe di.. Brune y. Prideaux, 10 East, 168; Denn d. Brune v. Raw- lins, 10 East, 261. So where a tenant holds over after the expiration of a term, he will, on payment of rent, become a tenant from year to year, subject to the stipulations of the lease, so far as they are applicable to the new relation, while he is tenant from year to year. Thomas v. Pacher, 1 H. & N. 669 ; Furnivall V. Grove, 8 C. B. (N. 8.) 496; Elliott V. Johnson, 2 L. E., Q. B. 124 ; Nixon v. Darley, 2 I. E., C. L. 467. And wherp a lessee, from year to year, holds over after the expira- tion of a lease originally granted on a demise made to himself, com- mencing at a particular period, as, for instance, at Michaelmas, the inference as between him and the lessor who allows him to hold over, and who receives rent as from year to year vidthout any explanation or stipulation (save as to an increase of rent), is that there is a tacit agreement that the lessee should Digitized by Microsoft® ElCHARDSON V. LaNGRIDGE. 25 hold as tenant from year to year according to Ms former holding, that is to say, as from Michaelmas to Michaelmas. Kelly v. Patterson, 9 L. E., C. P. 681, 687. It is clear that a mere advance of rent -will not create a new tenancy. lb., and see Delmege v. Mullins, 9 I. E., C. L. 209. Where a tenancy is determined on the expiration of the current year, by a notice to quit given to a tenant from year to year, a waiver of the notice 'will create a new tenancy, taking effect on the expira- tion of the old one {Tayleur v. Wildin, 3 L. E., Exch. 303). Secus, where the notice to quit was origi- nally ineffectual, even although, it seems, on its withdrawal the tenant agrees to give up part of the demised premises on a reduction of the rent. Holme v. Brunsldll, 3 Q. B. D. 495. Where a demise is determined by the expiration of the landlord's estate, and the tenant continues to hold under the remainderman, pay- ing the same rent, the question whether a term contained in the former tenancy is adopted into the new contract of demise, is a ques- tion of fact. OaliUy v. Monck, 1 L. E., Ex. 159. And if such tenant continues to hold under the remainderman, and nothing passes between them except the payment and receipt of rent, the new landlord is not bound by a stipulation contained in the lease creating the former tenancj^, which is not linown to him in fact, nor is according to the custom of the country. Oakley v. Monck, 1 L. E., Ex. 159; 3 Hurlst. & C. 706; 4 Hurlst. & 0. 251. So, likewise, where a tenant continues to hold after the expira- tion of his landlord's title, a new tenancy from year to year may be presumed, and neither he nor his undertenant can dispute the title of the landlord. London Sf North Western Railway Company v. West, 2 L. E., 0. P. 552. Where a tenant at -^viU, having entered under a void lease or agree- ment for a lease, by payment of rent becomes by implication of law a tenant from year to year, he will be considered as holding as tenant from year to year upon all the terms of the lease or agreement not inconsistent with such tenancy from year to year, such as a power for re-entry on non-payment of rent, or the obligation to repair, the crops to be taken by the tenant, and the like. Richardson v. Gifford, 1 Ad. & EH. 52; Beale v. Sanders, 3 Bing., N. 0. 850; Doe d. Thompson v. Amey, 12 Ad. & EU. 476; Doe d. Oldershaiv v. Breach, 6 Esp. 106 ; Ptstor V. Cater, 9 M. & W. 315 ; Thomas v. Packer, 1 H. & N. 669; Brocklington v. Saimders, 13 W. E. (Q. B.) 46; Bridges v. Potts, 17 C. B., N. 8. 314; Martin v. Smith, 9 L. E., Ex. 50. See also Crawley V. Price, 10 L. E., Q. B. 302. The presumption arising from the payment and acceptance of rent is the same in the case of a corpora- tion as an individual. Doe d. Pen- nington V. Taniere, 12 Q. B. 998; Wood V. Tate, 2 B. & P. (N. E.) 247; Ecclesiastical Commissioners v. Merral, 4 L. E., Es. 162. Digitized by Microsoft® 26 ElCHARDSON V. LaNGRIDGE. Payment of rent must be under- stood to mean a payment with re- ference to a yearly holding ; for in Richardson v. Langridge a party who had paid rent under an agree- ment of this description, but had not paid it with reference to a year, or any aliquot part of a year, was held nevertheless to be a tenant at -will only. Per Parke, B., in Braythivayte v. Hitchcock, 10 Mees. & W. 497 ; Doe d. Hull v. Wood, 14 Mees. & W. 687. See also The Marquis of Camden v. Batterlury, 5 C. B. (N. S.) 808, 820; 7 0. B. (N. S.) 864. Although the payment of rent is evidence of the intention of the parties to create a yearly tenancy, nevertheless where it appears by any instrument to be the express intention of the parties to create an estate at will, the payment of rent, although under the provisions of the same instrument, will not create an estate from year to year. Thus in Doe d. Basto v. Cox, 11 Q. B. 122, where A., under a mortgage deed, agreed to become tenant of B. of the premises demised, "hence- forth at the will and pleasure of B., after the rate of 251. As., pay- able quarterly ; " it was held by the Court of Queen's Bench, refusing a rule for a new trial, that it was a tenancy at will, and that occupation for the two years, and payment of rent under the agreement, did not make B. tenant from year to year. " This Court," said Denman, C. J., " is desirous of presuming a yearly tenancy in all cases where the ex- press language of the parties does not exclude such a presumption. Here, however, the parties dis- tinctly say, that the tenancy shall be at the will and pleasure of the lessors." See also Doe d. Dixie v. Davies, 7 Exch. 89. It is competent moreover to either the receiver or payer of rent to prove the circumstances under which the payments of rent were made, and by such circumstances to repel the legal implication which would result from the receipt of rent unexplained. Doe d. Lord v. Crago, 6 C. B. 90 ; Woodhridge Union V. Colneis, 13 Q. B. 269; The Marquis of Camden v. Batter- hury, 5 C. B. (N. S.) 808, 820 ; 7 C. B. (N. S.) 864. A tenancy from year to year, created by express contract, will, of course, if a time is fixed for its commencement, commence at such time. If no time is fixed, in the absence of anything to lead to a contrary conclusion, the date of the agreement may be presumed to be the commencement of the tenancy (per Archibald, J., in Sandill v. Franldin, 10 L. E. (C. P.) 378); but where it is provided that the first quarterly payment of rent is to be made on one of the usual quar- terly days, such provision is a clear indication of intention, that the parties meant that the tenancy should be considered as commenc- ing from the previous usual quar- terly day. Sandill v. Franklin, 10 L. E., C. P. 377. In the absence of contract, a term from year to year is assign- able {Sotting V. JIartin, 1 Campb. Ca. N. P. 317 ; Elliott v. Johnson, 2 L. E., Q. B. 120), according to Digitized by Microsoft® EicHARDsoN r. Langridge. 27 the third section of the Statute of Frauds, by writing (lb.); and now by deed (8 & 9 Yict. c. 106, s. 3). It has been decided that equity will not enforce an agreement for a tenancy from year to year, on the ground that legal damages are adequate by way of compensation {Clayton v. lUmgivorth, 10 Hare, 451), but the reason why they should be so in the case of tenancy from year to year, and not in the case of an agreement for a longer term, is not very clear or satis- factory. It may be here mentioned that a tenancy may be created determin- able by a week's notice to quit, but a reasonable tim.e must be allowed after the expiration of the notice for the tenant to remove his goods. Cornish v. Stuhhs, 5 L. E., C. P. 334, 337 ; see also Mellor v. WatUns, 9 L. E., Q. B. 400. Determination of a Tenancxj from Year to Year. A tenancy from year to year may be determined — 1. By the deter- mination of the interest of the lessor ; 2. By surrender ; 3. By notice to quit. 1 . It is clear that where the in- terest of a lessor being limited, as that of tenant for life, determines, the tenancy for years thereby also determines {Symons v. Symons, 6 Madd. 207); but under 14 & 15 Vict. c. 25, the tenant at rack rent instead of emblements may hold tiU the end of the current year. Sect. 1 . When, however, the interest of ~ the lessor is sufficient to confer such an estate, a tenancy from year to year will not determine by the death of the tenant, but will vest in his personal representatives {Doe d. Shore v. Porter, 3 T. E. 13; James v. Dean, 11 Ves. 391 ; Thompson v. Thompson, 9 Price, 464), and a person taking posses- sion of the property comprised in the lease may be liable as executor de son tort {Armstrong v. M^Inher- heny, 7 Ir. Com. L. Eep. (N. S.) 296), but has no saleable interest. Kear- ney V. Ryan, 2 L. E., I. 61. 2. A surrender by which the tenancy is determined may be ex- press, in which case, by the 3rd section of the Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 21), it must be in writing {Mollett v. Brayne, 2 Campb. N. P. C. 103; Doe v. Ridout, 5 Taunt. 519; and see Ronayne v. Sherrard, 11 I. E., C. L. 146); and now by deed (8 & 9 Vict, c. 106, s. 3). A surrender by a tenant from year to year to the landlord will not put an end to an undertenancy from year to year created by him- self, and the undertenant is entitled to have the usual notice to quit. Mellor V. Watkins, 9 L. E., Q. B. 400, 405. A surrender may also be by act and operation of law (and this is ex- cepted from the Statute of Frauds) ; as, for instance, where there is a new letting to the tenant incom- patible with the existence of his former tenancy. Thus in the case of Hamerton v. Stead, 3 B. & C. 478, a tenant from year to year en- tered into an agreement, during a current year, for a lease to be granted to him and A. B., and from that time A. B. entered and occupied jointly with him, it was Digitized by Microsoft® 28 ElCHARDSON i\ LaNGKIDCE. held by the Court of King's Bench that by this agreement, and the fomf occupation under it, the former tenancy was determined, although the lease contracted for was never granted. See also Oastler v. Hen- derson, 2 Q. B. D. 575. So the acceptance of the custody of a house as caretaker has been held to be a surrender of a tenancy from year to year therein as being in- consistent therewith. Lambert v. M'Donnell, 15 I. C. L. E. (N. S.) 136. The result is the same where there is a new letting to a third party with the assent of the ori- ginal tenant. M'Donnell v. Pojie, 9 Hare, 705 ; Davison v. Gent, 1 H. & N. 744. An agreement for a new lease, without the creation of a new tenancy, will not operate as a sur- render. Foquet T. Moor, 7 Exch. 870. But where there is an agreement between the landlord and the tenant that the tenancy should cease, and that agreement is acted upon by the tenant giving up and the land- lord taking possession of the pre- mises, it will amount to a surrender by operation of law. Thus where there was a tenancy from year to year determinable on giving a quar- ter's notice, a licence from the lessor to the tenant to quit in the middle of the quarter, acted upon by the tenant quitting and the lessor ac- cepting possession, was held to amount to a surrender by operation of law, and the landlord's right to any rent for the whole or any part of the current quarter was destroyed. Grimman v. Lec/r/c, 8 B. & C. l!24; Furnivall v. Grove, 8 C. B. (N. S.) 496; Phene v. Popplewell, 12 C. B. (N. S.) 334; and see Oastler y. Hen- derson, 2 Q. B. D. 575, 580. An alteration in the landlord's receipts for rent of the names of the occupying tenants does not, unless shown to have been assented to by all the parties interested, afford any evidence from which can be inferred either a change of the tenancy or a transfer of the legal rights. Bourke V. Bourke, 8 I. E., C. L. 221. 3. A tenancy from year to year, not coming within the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act (38 & 39 Vict. c. 92), in the absence of any express stipulation [Doe d. Greeny. Baker, 8 Taunt. 241; Doe d. Rohinsnn V. Dolell, 1 Q. B. 806), or local cus- tom implied as part of the contract {Tyley v. Seed, Skin. 649; Roe d. Henderson v. Charnock, Peake, N. P. 6), may at common law be deter- mined by either party giving to the other a half-year's notice to quit before the end of the current year of the tenancy (13 H. 8, 15 b; Right V. Darhy, 1 T. E. 163), and a cus- tomary half-year is sufficient. Thus a notice on the 28th of September to quit on the 25 th of March or at Lady-day is sufficient. Roe d. Durant v. Doe, 6 Bing. 574; and Doey. Kightley, 7 T. E. 63; Hotuard V. IVemsley, 6 Esp. 53 ; Doe d. Ma- thewson v. Wrightman, 4 Esp. 6 ; Doe d. Harrop v. Green, 4 Esp. 198. And where the commencement of a tenancy was on the 29th of Sep- tember, a notice served on the 26th of March to quit on the 29th of September then next, was held not to be ■\'alid. Morgan v. Davies, 3 0. P. D. 260. Digitized by Microsoft® ElCHAEDSON V. LaNGKIDGE. 29 But the landlord may under an agreement have po'n'er to determine the tenancy by a sis months' notice to expire at any time. Bridges v. Potts, 17 C. B. (N. S.) 314. And an express stipulation that a tenancy from j'ear to 3'ear shall not he determinable at the pleasure of either party giving the regular notice, wiU. be void as being incon- sistent with and repugnant to the nature of such an estate. Doe d. Warner v. Broivne, 8 East, 165 ; Holmes v. Day, 8 I. E., 0. L. 235. A tenancy from year to year, which the law implies after entry under an agreement for a lease or a void lease, can only be determined by the landlord during the term by his giving the usual notice to quit ( Chapman v. Towner, 6 M. & W. 100) ; yet it determines at the end of the term without any notice to quit {Doe d. Tilt v. Stratton, 4 Bing. 446 ; Berrey v. Lindley, 3 M. & Gr. 511), though the agreement under which the tenant entered provides for the extension of the term upon certain conditions. Doe d. Davenish V. Moffatt, 15 G. B. 257; see also Lee V. Smith, 9 Exch. 662; Tress v. Savage, 4 EU. & Bl. 36. Notice may be given by parol, unless by agreement it is required to be in writing {Doe v. Crich, 5 Esp. N. P. 0. 197) ; it is, however, advisable to give it in writing. Not only the original landlord but also any person taking under him who for the time being is legally entitled to the immediate reversion of the hereditaments comprised in the tenancy, as assignee, devisee, heir, executor oradministrator(Cole, Eject. 42), even an infant rever- sioner {Maddon d. Baker v. White, 2 T. R. 159), a mortgagee under a mortgage created subsequently to the tenancy (i??M'roM'csv. Gradin, 1 Dowl. & L. 213, 218; Raivson v. Eiche, 7 Ad. & Ell. 451), may give notice to the tenant to quit ; but a mortgagee under a mortgage created before the tenancy cannot do so {Keech v. Hall, 1 Doug. 21 ; 1 Smith, L. C. 579 (7th ed.) ; Doe d. Parker v. Boidton, 6 M. & S. 148; Miles v. Murphy, 5 I. E., C. L. 382), unless a new tenancy has been created as be- tween the mortgagor and mortgagee. Doe d. Hughes v. Bucknell, 8 C. & P. 566 ; Doe d. Whitaker v. Hales, 7 Bing. 322. A notice to quit by one of several joint tenants on behalf of all, whether authorized by the others or not, will put an end to the tenancy {Doe d. Aslin V. Summersett, 1 Barn. & Ad. 135; Doe d. Kindersley v. Hughes, 7 M. & W. 141 ; Alford v. Vicery, Car. & M. 280) ; a similar notice given by a person authorized by one of the joint tenants will have a like effect {Doe d. Kindersley v. Hughes, 7 M. & W. 141), although given in the names of the joint tenants and others. Doe d. Bailey v. Foster, 3 C. B. 215. Where several joint tenants jointly demise from year to year, such of them as give notice to quit may recover their several shares in ejectment on their several demises. Doe d. Whayman v. Chaplin, 3 Taunt. 119. A notice to quit given by one of several tenants in common may be to quit his undivided share ( Cutting V. Derhy, 2 Wm. Black. 1075; Doe d. Roherton v. Gardiner, 12 C. B. Digitized by Microsoft® 30 ElCHABDSON 1). LaNGEIDGE. 323), unless tliey demise jointly, wlien a notice by one on belialf of himself and the others would, it seems, he good. Cole, Eject. 44. Notice to quit by one of several executors or administrators on be- half of all will be good unless a joint notice be required in the lease. Right d. Fisher v. Cuthell, 5 East, 491. Churchwardens and overseers of a parish may give notice to a tenant to quit land held from the parish upon an implied tenancy from year to year {Doe d. Higgs v. Terry, 4 Ad. &E1L. 274; Doe d. Holhs v. CocMl, 4 Ad. & EU. 478), as also may trus- tees for a parish in whom the legal estate is vested. The Churchwardens of St. Nicholas, Deptford v. Shetchley, 8 Q. B. 394, overruling Mumball v. M^mt, ib. 382. See also Doe d. Bailey v. Foster, 3 C. B. 215. Eailway companies reqiiiring lands have in general powers con- ferred upon them to give the ordi- nary landlord's notice to quit at the end of the current year of the tenancy, in which case the tenant is not entitled to compensation, or they may give six months' notice at any time, in which case the tenant will be entitled to compensation for the value of his unexpu'ed term or interest ; but if a railway company, after giving a tenant notice to quit before the expiration of the current year of his tenancy, afterwards allow him to stay until its determination, the tenant will be in the same situa- tion as if a regular landlord's notice had originally been given to him, and he will not, therefore, be en- titled to compensation. Reg. v. The London and Souiliampton Railway Company, 10 Ad. & Ell. 3. See also Ex parte Nadin, 17 L. J. (Oh.) 421. Although a tenant in possession under an agreement for a term was at law only a tenant from year to year {Doe v. Broivne, 8 East, 165), in Equity he would be considered as tenant for a term of years {Broivne V. Warner, 14 Yes. 156); and if the land were taken by a company under its compulsory powers, he would be entitled to receive as pur- chase-money the full value of the term. In re King'' s Leasehold Es- tates, 16 L. E., Eq. 521 ; see Hodges on Eailways, 241, 6th ed. Notice to quit may be given by an agent, but there is a distinction between a particular and a general agent. Where a notice is given by a particular agent, that is, one hold- ing only a special or limited autho- rity, the agency should appear upon the face of the document itself, and it should be given in the name of the principal or expressly on his behalf. Doe d. Lyster v. Goldwin, 2 Q. B. 143, 146; Buron v. Denman, 2 Exch. 188 ; The Earl of Erne v. Armstrong, 6 I. E., C. L. 279. Where, however, a notice to quit is given by a general agent, it is not necessary to its validity that his agency should appear, and he may give notice in his own name. Thus it has been held that a notice given in his own name by a receiver appointed by the Court of Chancery with a general authority to act was a valid notice to quit ( Wilkinson v. Colley, 5 Burr. 2694; Doe v. Read, 12 East, 57). So where the trustees of a marriage settlement left the entire management and control of the trust estates to the tenant for life, Digitized by Microsoft® ElCHAEDSON V. LaNGRIDGE. 31 it was held by the Court of Queen's Bencli that, being their general agent for such purpose, he had power to give notices to quit, and that they were valid, although given in his own name only. Jones v. Fkipps, 3 L. E., Q. B. 567. And a notice to quit signed by the mortgagor alone has been held sufficient to determine a tenancy created before the mortgage where the tenant knew, previously to the service of the notice, that the mort- gagor had a general authority from the mortgagee to determine tenan- cies (^Stackpoole Y.Parldnson, 8 I.E., 0. L. 561), even although the notice did not purport on the face of it to be on behalf of the mortgagee. lb. Notice to quit by a mere receiver of rents will not be sufficient [Doe d. Mann v. Walters, 10 B. & 0. 626, 633); and where a person is mana- ger of the affairs of a landlord during his absence abroad and re- ceives his rents, he will have no implied authority at law to give notice to quit, but it will be a ques- tion of fact for a jury to determine, whether he had such authority. lb. A notice to quit, however, given by an agent of an agent will not be sufficient without a recognition by the principal. Doe d. Rhodes v. RoUnson, 3 Bing., N. C. 677. An agent for a landlord ought to have authority to give notice at the time when it begins to operate, as it ought to be such that a tenant may safely act on at the time of receiving it. A notice, therefore, by an unauthorized agent cannot be made good by an adoption of it by the principal after the proper time for giving it. Doe d. Mann v. Walters, 10 B. & C. 626; Doe d. Lyster v. Goldivin, 2 Q. B. 143; Doe d. Rhodes v. Rohi7ison, 3 Bing., N. C. 677; Right d. Fisher v, Cuthell, 5 East, 491, 498. The Courts wiU put a liberal con- struction upon notices to quit, and willhold them good notwithstanding there are inaccuracies therein, if they be not such as would be likely to mislead the tenant {Doe d. Arm- strong V. Wilkinson, 12 Ad. & Ell. 743 ; see also Doe v. Kightley, 7 T. E. 63 ; Doe v. Culliford, 4 D. & E. 248 ; Doe d. Cox v. , 4 Esp. 185). But the Court will not, in order to support a notice, put a strained construction on termswhich are clear in themselves. Doe v. Morphett, 7 Q. B. 577; and see and consider Mills v. Gaff, 14 Mees. & W. 72. A notice will be bad if it be merely alternative ; as, for instance, where there is a notice to quit, "or that you agree to pay double rent" (per Lord Mansfield, Dougl. 176); but if there be a notice to quit, "or I shall insist on double rent," it is an unqualified notice, and does not give the tenant an option. Doe d. Mattheios v. Jackson, 1 Doug. 175 ; Doe d. Lyster v. Goldivin, 2 Q. B. 143. Service of a notice need not be personal; it will be sufficient, for instance, if left with and explained to a servant at the residence of the tenant, though not on the demised premises {Jones v. Marsh, 4 T. E. 464; Doe v. Dunbar, M. & Malk. 10) ; even if the evidence show that it did not come into the hands of the tenant ( Tanham v. Nicholson, 5 L. E., Ho. Lds. 5G1 ; affirming Digitized by Microsoft® 32 EicHAKDSON r. Langkidge. S. C, nom. Nicholson v. Tanham, 4 I. E., C. L. 185). Service of a notice will be sufficient if put under the door of a house, if it be shown to have come to the hands of the tenant {Alford v. Vicery, Car. & Marsh. 280), or it maj' be sent through the'post {Papillon v. Brim- ton, 5 Hiirlst. & N. 618). And in the case of a corporation, it may be served on its officers {Doe v. Woodman, 8 East, 228); and ser- vice on one of several joint tenants will be sufficient. Doe v. WatMns, 7 East, 551 ; Doe v. Crick, 5 Esp. 196. Notice to one of two or more joint lessees is sufficient {Doe d. Lord Macartney v. Crick, 5 Esp. 196; Doe d. Bradford v. Watkins, 7 East, 551); and should be given to a cor- poration aggregate when tenant and not to its officers. Doe d. Lord Carlisle v. Woodman, 8 East, 228. Notice to quit should be given by the landlord to his tenant or to his assignee {Pleasant d. Hayton v. Benson, 14 East, 234), and not to a mere undertenant (lb., and see Burn V. Pheljjs, 1 Stark. E. 94), who ought to be served with notice by the tenant after he has himseK received it. Roe v. Wiygs, 2 B. & P., N. E. 330. Notice given to the tenant of a trading concern, as a brewery, will be sufiicient, although subsequently to the creation of the tenancy he may have taken others into partner- ship with him, to whom in common with himself receipts for the rent have been given, inasmuch as that circumstance, in the absence of evi- dence proving a transfer, did not show the legal estate to be in the new partners {Doe d. Green y. Baker, 8 Taunt. 241) ; and the lessor to a companj', although he may after- wards become a member thereof, may give the company notice to quit. Francis v. Doe d. Harvey, 4 M. &W. 331. The service of notice to quit on the person in possession, in the absence of a legal personal repre- sentative of the deceased tenant, is effectual to determine the tenancy, even as against a person subse- quently taking out representation. Pees V. Perrott, 4 0. & P. 230;, Sweeny v. Sweeny, 10 I. E., C. L. 375. In the case of agricultural or pastoral holdings in Ireland, a notice to quit "to the representa- tives" of the deceased tenant, not naming them, is by recent legisla- tion rendered sufiB.cient. 39 & 40 Vict. c. 63, s. 4. The lessor by a distress (which is acquiesced in) for rent which has accrued subsequent to the expiration of the notice to quit, will waive any advantage which he may take on account of such notice {Zoitch v. Willingate, 1 H. Black. 311); but acceptance of {Goodright v. Cord- went, 6 T. E. 219; Doe v. Batten, Cowp. 243), or demand for, such rent is not necessarily a waiver of notice; it is a question of intention which must be left to the ]-a.-sj{Blyth V. Dennett, 13 0. B. 178), and if a distress were not acquiesced in, as if the tenant replevy, it would not be awaiver, inasmuch as there would be no evidence of a new tenancy, lb. 180. A second notice to quit after the expiration of a former one, if it in Digitized by Microsoft® ElCHAKDSON V. LaNGRIDGE. 33 effect recognizes a new tenancy, will be a waiver of the first notice {Doe V. Palmer, 16 East, 53); but not if it be seryed after an ejectment to enforce the former {Doe v. Hum- phreys, 2 East, 237). And it has been held, that if after the expiration of a notice to quit the landlord gives the tenant a fresh notice, that, unless he quit in fourteen days, he wiU be required to pay double value, the second notice is no waiver of the first, its object being merely the re- covery of double value, and a qua- lified condonation of the trespass {Doe d. Dighy v. Steel, 3 Campb. N. P. 0. 115). So likewise a mere permission to stay for a limited time after the expiration of the notice will not be a waiver. WMteacre dem. BouUy. Symonds, 10 East, 13. A disclaimer by a tenant from year to year of the title of his land- lord will operate as a waiver by the tenant of the usual notice to quit {Doe d. Bennett v. Long, 9 0. & P. 773; Doe d. Gnibh v. Gruhh, 10 B. & C. 816), because a notice to quit is only requisite where a tenancy is admitted on both sides, and if a defendant denies the tenancy there can be no necessity to end that which he says has no existence ; per Best, 0. J., in Doe d. Calvert v. Froivd, 4 Bing. 560. But there may be a waiver of the disclaimer, as where the landlord distrains for subsequent rent {Doe d. David Y. Williams, 7 C. & P. 322). As to what amounts to a disclaimer, see Cole on Ejectment, 41; Hum V. Allgood, 10 C. B. (N. S.) 253; Jones V. Mills, 10 0. B. (N. S.) 788. T.L.C. Notice to Quit under the Agricultural Holdings {England) Act. Under the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act (38 & 39 Vict. c. 92), which applies, with some exceptions, to contracts of tenancy beginning after the 14th of February, 1876— the commencement of the act — unless its operation be excluded by the landlord and tenant in writing (sect. 56), a year's notice in the case of a tenancy from year to year, ex- piring with the year of the tenancy, is substituted for the usual half year's notice, except where the tenant is adjudged bankrupt, or has filed a petition for a composi- tion or arrangement with his credi- tors (sect. 51). The notice to be given by the landlord, with a view to certain uses to be made of the land, in the act mentioned, to be stated in the no- tice, may relate to part only of the holding ; and the tenant may, within 28 days of the notice, serve on the landlord a notice in writing to the effect that he accepts the same as a notice to quit the entire holding at the end of the current year of the tenancy (sect. 52). In the case of a contract of tenancy from year to year or at will, current at the commencement of the act, the act will not apply to the contract, if within two months after the com- mencement of the act, the landlord or the tenant gives notice in writing to the other to the effect that he (the person giving the notice) desires I at the existing contract of tenancy between them shall remain unaf- fected by the act ; but such a notice D Digitized by Microsoft® 34 ElCHARDSON C. LaNGEIBGE. is revocable by writing, and in the absence of any such notice, or on revocation of every such notice, the act is applicable to the contract. In every other case of a contract of tenancy current at the commence- ment of the act, the act mU. not apply to the contract (sect. 57). Nothing, moreover, in the act is applicable to a holding that is not either wholly agricultural or wholly pastoral, or in part agricultural and as to the residue pastoral, or that is of less extent than two acres (sect. 58). It has recently been decided that a yearly tenancy which by express agreement of the parties is deter- minable on six months' notice to quit, is not within the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875(38&39 Vict. c. 92), s. 51, which provides that, "where a half year's notice, ex- piring with the year of tenancy, is hy law necessary and sufHcient for determination of a tenancy from year to year, a year's notice so ex- piring shall by virtue of this act be necessary and sufficient for the same." Wilkinson v. Calvert, 3 0. P. D. 360. Remedies against Tenants. If tenants do not give up the premises peaceably, the lessor may sue them either in ejectment or trespass. As to the remedies under the Small Tenements Act (1 & 2 Vict. c. 74), see Addison on Contracts, 601, 7th ed. As to the landlord obtaining pos- session where the tenant has deserted the premises, see 11 Geo. 2, c. 19, s. 16; 57 Geo. 3, c. 52; Ashcroft v. Bourne, 3 Barn. & Ad. 684; Basten V. Carew, 3 B. & 0. 649 ; Reg. v. Traill, 12 Ad. & EU. 761 ; Reg. v. Sewell, 8 Q. B. 161 ; and as to the jurisdiction of the metropolitan police magistrates, see 3 & 4 Vict, c. 84. A tenant holding over, afternotice in writing from his landlord, will, under 4 Geo. 2, c. 28, s. 1, be liable to pay double the yearly value, and under 11 Geo. 2, c. 19, s. 18, when he has given notice himself, he will be liable to douhle the yearly rent. For the statutes and the decisions thereon, see 2 Chitt. Stat. 776—780. Where neither the rent nor the annual value of the premises exceed 50^., without a fine having been paid {Earl of Harrington v. Ramsay, 2 EU. & Bl. 669, on construction of 9& lOViot.c.95, s. 122), the landlord may obtain a warrant of possession in the county court against a tenant neglecting or refusing to deliver up possession (19 & 20 Vict. c. 108, s. 50) ; and the Court will have jurisdiction, even though a bona fide question of title is raised, where neither the annual value of lands nor the rent payable in respect thereof exceed 20^. (30 & 31 Vict, c. 142, ss. 12, 13). See Addison on Contracts, 602, 7th ed. Where a tenant holds over after the expiration of a notice to quit, the landlord is entitled to recover against him the reasonable damages and costs sustained by him in an action at the suit of a party to whom he had contracted to let the premises, but to whom the tenant's wrongful act has prevented him from deliver- ing possession. Bramley v. Ches- terton, 2 C. B. (N. S.) 592. Digitized by Microsoft® EiciiAUDSON v. Langeidge. 35 A tenant, nioreo^'er, under a parol agreement, without any stipulation that he shall deliver up possession of the premises at the end of the term, is nevertheless bound to deliver up complete possession. Therefore, where such a tenant from year to year had underlet part of the premises, and at the determi- nation of both tenancies by notice to quit the undertenant held over against the will of the tenant, it was held that the landlord could recover against the tenant as da- mages the value of the whole pre- mises for the time he was kept out of possession, and also the costs of ejecting the undertenant. Hender- son V. Squire, 4 L. R., Q. B. 170. The act, however, of 4 Geo. 2, c. 28, s. 1, is not applicable if the holding over is not wilful and con- tumacious, but bona fide and by mistake. Wright v. Smith, 5 Esp. 203, 215; Soulshjr. Neving, 9 East, 310,313; Swinfen v. Bacon, 6 Hurlst. & Norm. 184, 846. As tenants from j^ear to year have as certain an estate, while it lasts, in the lands they occupy, as those who hold for a longer term, it follows that they were entitled to emble- ments like tenants for years, where their tenancy was determined by the happening of an uncertain event, over which they had no con- trol {Kingsbury v. Collins, 4 Bing. 207, 12 Moore, 429); but it might be otherwise when they themselves put an end to the tenancy, or where, by means of a notice to quit or other- wise, the period of determination had been ascertained (Woodf . Land. & Ten. 503, 5th ed.). However, now, by 14 & 15 Yict. c. 25, on the determination of a lease or tenancy at rack rent under any landlord entitled for his life, or for any other uncertain interest, instead of emblements, the tenant is to hold until the end of the current year. Where there is a right to emble- ments which, though small, is not frivolous, the case is within the act. See Haines v. Welch, 4 L. E., 0. P. 91, where it was held that the act was applicable to a cottage with about an acre of land, partly culti- vated as a garden and partly sown with corn and potatoes, as being a farm or lands within sect. 3. See also Kenna v. Nugent, 7 I. K., 0. L. 464. It has also been held that under sect. 1 of 14 & 15 Vict. c. 25, there is a right to distrain for the rent due since the death of the tenant for life as well as to recover it by action. Haines v. Welch, 4 L. E., 0. P. 91. As to the tenant's right to the away-going crops by custom, see Wigglesworth v. Dallison, 1 Smith's L. C. 598, 7th ed., and note; Addi- son on Contracts, 603, 7th ed. ; and as to fixtures, see Elwes v. Mawe, 2 Smith's L. C. 162, 7th ed., and note ; Leader v. Homewood, 5 C. B. (K S.) 546. With regard to the period within which the right to make an entry or distress, or to bring an action to recover land or rent as against a tenant from year to year, shaU. be deemed to have first accrued, it has been enacted by 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, D 2 Digitized by Microsoft® 36 EicHARDsoN r. Langeidge. s. 8, "that Tvlieii any person shall be in possession or in receipt of the profits of any land, or in receipt of •any rent, as tenant from year to year or other period, mthout any lease in writing, the right of the person entitled subject thereto, or of the person through whom he claims to make an entry or distress. or to bring an action to recover such land or rent, shall be deemed to have first accrued at the determination of the first of such years or other periods, or at the last time when any rent payable in respect of such tenancy shall have been received (which shall last happen)." See Sugd. Prop. Stat. 59, 2nd edit. Digitized by Microsoft® ( 37 ) LEWIS BOWLES'S CASE (a). Pasch. 13 Jac. \. [Reported 11 Co. 79 b.] Estates for Life — Theie Incidents.] — Covenant to stand seised, in consideration of an intended marriage, to the use of T. and A., Ms intended wife, for their lives, without impeachment of waste ; and after their decease, to the use of the first issue male, and to the heirs male of such issue, lawfully begotten, and so on to the second, third, 8fc., issue male, remainder to the use of the heirs male of T. and A., and for want of such issue, to the use of B. and the heirs male of his body, remainder to the heirs of the body of T. and A. The marriage took place, T. died, leaving issue by A., J., icho afterwards died. Resolved — 1. T. and A. were seised of an estate tail, executed sub modo, viz. until the birth of issue male ; and then by operation of law, the estates arc divided ; viz., T. and A. become tenants for their lives, the remainder to the issue male in tail, the remainder to the heirs male of T. and A. 2. Tenant in tail, after p>ossibility of issue extinct, shall not be punished for ivaste ; shall not be compelled to attorn; shall not have aid; on alienation no consimili casu lies ; after death there can be no intrusion ; such tenant may join in the mise on the mere right ; shall not name herself nor be named tenant for life ; such tenant has but an estate for life, and a feoffment in fee is a forfeiture. An exx-licutge between her and tenant for life is good. 3. The estate of tenant in tail after possibility ought to be a remnant and residue of an estate tail, and cannot be by the limitation of the piarty ; a tenancy in tail after possibility will not merge a prior estate for life. 4. A., although but tenant for life, shall have the privilege of tenant in tail after p)0ssibility , for the inheritance that was once in Iter. 5. If tenant for life or years fells timber, or pulls down the house, the lessor shall have [a) Boides v. Bury, S. C. 1 Roll. Rep. 177. Digitized by Microsoft® yS Leavis Bowles's Case. the timber. If a house falls down- per vim venti, the particular tenants have a speeial prop)erty in the timber to rebuild the house. 6. The 23re-eminen.ce and privilege which the law (jives to houses. 1'. Tenant for life icithotit impeachment of waste has as greed pou-er to do icaste, and convert it, at his own pleasure, as tenant in tail has. The privilege is annexed to the pririf// of estate; if one ivho has a piarticular estate ivithout impeachment of waste changes his estate, he loses his ad- vantage. 8. When timber trees are severed from the inheritance, either by act of the party or of the law, and become chattels, the ivhole property of them is in the tenant for life without impeachment of icaste. LEWIS BOWLES, Esq., brought an action upon the case upon trover against Haseldine Bury the younger (which began in the King's Bench, Ilil. 10 Jacobi Regis, Rot. 1319 {b) ; and declared that he was possessed of thii-ty cart-loads of timber, and lost them, and that they came into the hands of the defendant, and that he, 20 Feb. anno 9 Jac. Eegis, at Norton in the county of Hertford, converted them to his own use ; and, upon not guilty pleaded, the jury gave a special verdict to this effect: — Thomas Bowles, Esq., grandfather of the said Lewis, was seised of the manor of Norton Bury in the said county in fee, and 1 Sept. anno 12, by indenture, betwixt him on the one part and William Hide and Leonard Hide of the other part, in consideration of a marriage to be had betwixt the said Thomas Bowles and Anne, daughter of the said William Hide, &c., covenanted, that after the said marriage had and solem- nized, the said Thomas, his heirs and assigns, would stand seised of the said manor of Norton Bury, to the use of the said Thomas and Anne for the term of their lives ivithout impeachment of icaste ; and after their deceases to the use of their first issue male, and to the heirs male of such issue lawfully begotten, and so over to the second, third and fourth issue male, &c., and for want of such issue, to the use of the heirs male of the body of the said Thomas and Anne lawfully begotten ; and for want of such issue, to the use of Thomas Bowles, son and heir apparent of Thomas Bowles the grandfather, and the heirs male of his body issuing, and for want of such issue, to the use of the heirs of the body of the said Thomas and (b) Eaym. '2iH. Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowles's Case. 39 Anne lawfully issuing. "WTiich marriage was solemnized accordingly, and the said Thomas the grandfather, and Anne, had issue John ; and afterwards the said Thomas the grandfather died without any issue on the body of Anne, but the said John ; after whose death the said Anne entered into the said manor, and was thereof seised, with the said remainder over as aforesaid, and afterwards the said John Bowles died, and afterwards Thomas the son conveyed by fine his remaiader to the use of Lewis Bowles the plaintiff, and Diana, his wife, and the heirs male of his body ; and the said Anne being so seised of the said manor, with the remaiader over as aforesaid, viz. 20 Feb. ann. Reg. Jac. reg. 9, a bam, parcel of the said manor, per vim ventorum et tem^iestaf ^jcenitus siibvers. et ad terratn deject' fait, and that the said thirty cart loads of timber, in the declaration mentioned, were parcel of the said bam, and that the said timber was sound and fit for building, whereof the defendant as servant of the said Anne, and by her command, took the said timber and carried it out of the limits of the said manor to Eadial, in the same county ; and afterwards the said Anne, 24 Feb. anno 9 Jac. Eeg., made her last wiU, and thereof made Eobert Osbome and Leon. Hide, Knts., her executors, and died; after whose death the plaintifE seized the said timber, and afterwards the defendant, by the command of the said executors, converted it to his use, and if upon the whole matter the defendant was guilty or not, the jury prayed the opinion of the Com-t. And in this case two questions were moved : — 1. If upon the whole matter the wife should be tenant ia tail after possibility, or that she should have the privilege of a tenant in tail after possibility, sc. to do waste, &o. 2. Admitting that she should not have the privilege, &o., if the clause of "'without impeachment of waste" shall give her property in the timber so blown down by the vnnd. And in this case eight ^Mints were resolved hy the whole Court : — 1. That, tni issue, Thomas the grandfather and Anne were seised of an estate tail executed sub modo, sc. until the birth of the issue male, and then by the operation of law the estates are divided, so. Thomas and Anne become tenants for their lives, the remainder to the issue male in tail, the reversion to the heirs male of Thomas and Anne, the remainder over as aforesaid ; for the estate for their lives is not absolutely merged, but (exists) with this implied limitation, until Digitized by Microsoft® 40 Lbwis Bowles's Case. they have issue male. Vide Chudleigh's Case, in the First Part of my Eeports, fol. 120; and Archer's Case, fol. 66b(c). 2. That tenant in tail, after possibility, has a greater pre-eminence and privilege in respect of the quality of his estate than tenant for life, but he has not a greater quantity of estate than tenant for life ; in respect of the quality of his estate, it tastes much of the quality of an estate in tail out of which it is derived ; and therefore, 1. (d) She shall not be (e) punished for waste. 2. She (/) shall not be compelled to attorn. 3. She {g) shall not have aid. 4. On (h) her alienation no consimili casu lies. 6. After («') her death no writ of intrusion lies. 6. She {h) may join the mise ia a writ of right in a special manner (Temp. E. 1, " Waste," 125 ; 39 E. 3, 16 a, b ; 31 E. 3, « Aid," 35 ; 43 E. 3, la; 45 E. 3, 22; 46 E. 3, 13a, 27; 11 H. 4, 15a; 7 H. 4, 10b; 2 H. 4, 17b; 42 E. 3, 22; 3 E. 4, 11a; 21 H. 6,56; 10 H. 6, 1 b ; 13 E. 2, Entre Congeahle, 56 ; 28 E. 3, 96 b ; 26 H. 6, "Aid," 77; F. N. B. 203). 7. In (/) an action brought by her she shall not name herself tenant for life. 18 B. 3, 27 a. A woman brought a ciii in vita quod clamat tenere ad vitam, and maiataiaed it in her count by a gift in special tail to her and her husband, and that her husband was dead without issue, and the writ for variance of the title abated. 8. In an action brought against her, she shall not be named tenant for life, sc. quod tenet ad terminimi vitce, Mich. 39 & 40 Eliz. Eot. 3316, in Communi Banco (m), inter Veal et alios qwer' et Head def in quid juris clamat, and the note of the fine supposed that the defendant tenet ad terminum vitw, the defendant demanded oyer of the writ and of the note of the fine, and had it, and pleaded that he was seised in fee absque hoc quod, the day of the note levied tenuit (c) 1 Ves. 177, 526 ; 2 Veru. 545 ; 1 Vent. 2 H. 5, 1 b ; 29 E. 3, 1 1. Attornment was 306,307,345; 2Jones, 2, 77; SKeb. 177, rendered unnecessary by4 &5 Anne, t. 16; 178, 244, 501; Raym. 38, 249. and see 11 Geo. 2, c. 19. {d) Doot. and Stud. Kb. 2, «. 1; Litt. (g) 31 E. 3, "Aid," 35; 8 H. 6, 25 a; s. 34; 12 H. 4, 3b, 4 a; 10 H. 6, lb; 45 10 H. 6, lb; Eitz. "Aid," 67; 7 E. 3, E. 3, 25 a; 11 H. 4, 14 b, 13 a ; 11 H. 6, 7 a, b; Eitz. "Moust. de Faits," 9; 26 lb; 2 Roll. 826, 828; 1 KoU. Rep. 100, H. 6, "Aid," 77; Co. Litt. 27 b; 1 EoU. 179,184; West'sSymb. 180b; 9Co.l39a; 167 ; 39 E. 3, 16 a, b ; 2 H. 4, 17b ; Br. 6 Co. 41a; 2 Inst. 306, 302. "Aid, 37; 11 H. 4, 15 a; 1 EoU. Rep. ie) 4 Co. 63 a; Co. Litt. 27 b ; 1 Roll. 184. Rep. 179; E. N. B. 59 b; 39E. 3, 16a,b. (/i) 1 RoU. Rep. 179 ; Co. Litt. 27 b. (/) Co. Litt. 27b; 1 RoU. Rep. 179; (i) lb. 1 RoU. 296; 39 E. 3, 16 a, b; 11 H. 6, (k) lb. 39 E. 3, 16 b. lb; 43E. 3, la; Br. "Attorn," 10; Br. (/) 1 Roll. Rep. 179; Co. Litt. 27 b; " Quid Juris clamat," 1, 6; 46 E. 3, 13 a; Doct. pi. 241. Fitz. " Quid Juris clamat," 14, 19; 38 ()») 2 RoU. Rep. 179; 46 E. 3, 27a, b; E. 3, 20a, b; 3 E. 4, 11a; 12 E. 4, 3a; Cro. El. 671; Noy, 74. Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowles's Case. 41 2}ro termino vitai, and the jury found that he held as tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct ; and it was adjudged |jro defendente, for tenant in tail, after possibility, shall not be, in judgment of law, included in a writ or fine, &c., within the general allegation of a tenant for life. Yide 19 B. 3, 1 b. But as to the quantity, he has but an estate for life, and therefore, if he makes a feoffment in fee (w), it is a forfeiture of his estate (13 E. 2, Entre Cong. 56 ; 45 E. 3, 22 ; 21 E. 3, 96 b ; 27 Ass. 60 ; F. N. B. 159). So if fee or tail general descends or remains to tenant in tail, after possibility, &c., the fee or estate tail is executed (32 E. 3, " Age," 55 ; 50 E. 3, 4 ; 9 E. 4, 17 b). And by the stat. of W. 2 (o), he in reversion should be received upon his defaiilt (2 E. 2 ; " Resceit," 147; 41E. 3, 12; 20 E. 3, "Eesceit" ; 38E. 3, 33 (jj); vide 28E. 3, 96 b ; 39 E. 3, 16 a, b). And an exchange (g) betwixt tenant for life and tenant in tail, after possibility, is good, for their estates are equal (r) . 3. It was resolved, that the estate of a tenant in tail, after possi- bility, ought to be a remnant and residue of an estate tail, and that by the act of Grod, and not by the limitation of the party (.s) , dispositione legis, and not ex provisione hominis ; and therefore, if a man makes a gift in tail upon condition, that if he does such an act, that he shall have but for life, he is not tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct, for that is ex provisione hominis and not ex dispositione legis ; but it ought to be the remnant and residue of an estate tail, and that by the act of Grod and the law, sc. by the death of one donee without issue, Litt. 6, b ; Doct. and Stud. Hb. 2, cap. 1, fol. 61 ; 2 H. 4, 17b; 26 H. 6, "Aid," 77. If tenants in special tail recover in assise, and afterwards one dies without issue, and afterwards he who smwives (who is tenant in tail after possibility) is re-disseised, he shall have a re-disseisiii, for it is the same freehold he had before, for it is parcel of the estate tail ; and because the wife in the case at bar had the estate for life by limitation of the party, and the estate which she had in the remainder (t), of the («) 10 H. 6, 2b; llH.4, 15a; 43 Ass. E. 4,18a; Br. "Estate,"25; Br. "Tenant 24; Br. "Forfeiture," 88; Br. "Aid," 37; per Curtesy," 4. 1 RoU. Eep. 179 ; 1 Roll. 851 ; 45 E. 3, 25a; (p) 1 RoU. Rep. 179 ; Co. Litt. 28a. Co. Litt. 28a; Br. "Waste," 43; Br. {q) See 3 SaUc. 158. " Entre Congeable," 12; Litt. s. 34; 39 E. (r) Co. Litt. 28 a ; 1 Roll. Rep. 179. 3, 16a; 3 H. 6, 52a; but see now 7 & 8 (s) 1 Roll. Rep. 183; Co. Litt. 28 a. Viot. c. 76, s. 7, and 8 & 9 Vict. o. 106, s. 4. (t) Co. Litt. 154 b. (o) Co. Litt. 28a; 1 Roll. Rep. 179; 9 Digitized by Microsoft® 42 Lewis Bowles's Case. tenancy in tail after possibility, was not a larger estate in quantity, and, therefore, could not merge tlie estate for life, as has been said before, for this cause the wife was not tenant in tail after possi- bility («(). 4. It was resolved, that in this case the wife should have the (x) privilege of a tenant in tail after possibility for the inheritance which was once in her ; for now, when John, the issue male, is dead, the privilege which she had in respect of the inheritance which was in her in remainder shall not be lost. And there is no question but a woman may be tenant in tail after possibility of a remainder, as well as of a possession ; and therefore, if a lease for life is made, the remainder to husband and wife in special tail, and the husband dies ■without issue, now is the wife tenant in tail after possibility of this remainder ; and if the tenant for life surrenders to her, as he may (for the life of him in the remaiuder is higher than the other life), now is she tenant in tail after possibility of possession : and like this case, if the father is enfeoffed to him and his heirs with warranty, and the father enfeoffs the son, &o., and dies, in this case the son, although he has the land by purchase, yet he shall take the benefit of the warranty as heir, for he cannot vouch as assignee, and the warranty betwixt the father and him is lost, as it is adjudged in 43 E. 3, 23 b (y). So here, although the wife cannot claim the estate of tenant in tail after possibility, yet she may claim the privilege and benefit of it. And it was observed, that tenants in special tail at the common law had a limited fee simple, and when their estate was changed by the statute Be donis conditional. yet there was not any change of their interest ia doing of waste : so when by the death of one donee without issue the estate is changed, yet the power to commit waste, and to convert it to his own use, is not altered nor changed for the inheritance which was once in him, vide JUL 2 Jac. Rot. 229 inter (s) Brooke and Rogers, in Communi Banco, if a timber tree becomes arida, sicca, non portans fructus, nee folia in cestate, nee exidens imereinium, yet because it was once an inheritance, &o., no tithes shall be paid for it, for that the quality remaias, although the state of the tree is altered. 6. That if (a) tenant for life, or for years, fells timber, or pulls down (m) See Crcagh v. Blood, 3 J. & L. 133. (z) Moor, 908; 2 Inst. 643; 1 Eoll. Eep. (x) Co. Litt, 28a; 1 EoU. Rep. 178; 3 100; 1 Eoll. 640; Cro. Jac. 100; 11 Co. Prest. Conv. 234. Kep. 48b, 49a; Doct. and Stud. 175b. (y) 2 BoU. 742; 1 Co. 98; 1 RoU. Rep. («) Cro. Car. 242, 274; 2 Roll. 119. 180; Co. Litt. 384 b. Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowles's Case. 43 the houses, the lessor shall have the timber ; aud hecause this point was resolYed in this Court upon a solemn argument in (5) Liford's Case, at Michaelmas Term, which vide before in this hook, I will make the shorter report. 1. It is apparent in reason, that the lessee had them but as things annexed to the soil, and therefore it would be absurd in reason, that when by his act and wrong he severs them from the land, that he should gain a greater property in them than he had by the demise. 2. It (c) is without question (as it is resolved in the said case), that the lessor has the general ownership and right of in- heritance in the houses and timber trees, and the lessee has but a particular interest, and, therefore, be they pulled down or feUed by the lessee or any other, or by wind or tempest blown do-mi, or by any other means disjoined from the inheritance, the lessor shaU have them in respect of his general ownership, and because they were his inherit- ance ; and as to that, the resolutions in Serlalienden^ s Case, in the Fourth Part of my Reports, foHo 63 a, were afErmed for good law [d), and Paget' s Case, in the Fifth Part of my Reports, f oho 76 b, for although he cannot punish them in an action of waste at the common law, because it was his own act, and in his lease he has not made provision by covenant or condition ; yet the inheritance and general ownership remains in the lessor, and the lessee (as hath been said) has but a special interest in the houses and timber trees, so long as they are annexed to the land, and this appears by the statute of (e) Marlebridge, c. 23. Item firmarii vastuni, 8fc., non facient, nisi spe- cialem inde habuerint eonce&sioneni per scriptum concentionis, mentionem faciens quod hoc facere piossimt, whereby it appears, that the lessees for life or years which then were, could not rightfully fell the trees or pidl down the houses, unless the lessor had granted by deed to do it. In which it was also observed, that, at the time of the making of the same act, the said clause of " without impeachment of waste " was in use, which proves that it was to such purpose that the lessee might commit waste and dispose it to his own use, which he could not do without such clause. 3. Every lessee for life and years ought by the law to do fealty upon his oath, and it would be against his oath to waste the houses and timber trees. And, nota, reader, upon this (4) 11 Co. Eep. 48 a. (d) i Co. 62b; Doct. and Stud. Hb. 2, (c) Cro. Car. 243; 11 Co. Kep. 48b; c. 1. Cro. Car. 242; Moor, 19; Palmer, 327; 5 («) 1 KoU. Eep. 182; 2 Inst. 144, 145, Co. 76b; 4 Co. 62, 63; 1 EoU. Eep. 181. 302. Digitized by Microsoft® 44 Lewis Bowles's Case. statute of Marlebridge lies a prohibition of waste against the lessee for life, and lessee for years, to prohibit them, that they shall not do waste before any waste was done, as it was (/) against tenant in dower, and tenant by the courtesy at the common law. Vide Bract. 316, the judgment in waste at the common law. Tenant in dower or by the courtesy have as high an estate as lessee for life, and it appears that it was not lawful for tenant by the courtesy or in dower to do waste, ergo no more for tenant for life : the only difference was, that a prohibition of waste laying against tenant in dower, and by the courtesy, at the common law, and not against the lessees till the said statute of Marlebridge. And to prove what interest the lessee for life has in the trees at the common law, it appears by Bracton (who wrote before the statute of Grlou'), lib. 4, Tract' de Assisa Novse Dis. c. 4, f. 217. Si quis vastitm fecerit, vel dcdructionein in tenemento quod tenet ad vitami suam in eo quod modum excedit, et rationem, cum tanttim con- cedatur ei rationabile estoverium, et non vastum, facit transgressionem, et si talis impediatur, ille tenens assisam non habehit. Intentio enim talis Uherabit a disseisina, quia in eo quod tenens ahutitur male utendo, et debitutn usum in modum dehitimi excedendo, non poterit dicere quod dis~ seisitus est, quia tantum rationahilis usus ei conceditur ; which proves directly, that it was a wrong in the lessee for life to do waste or destruction at the common law. And it was resolved, if a house falls down (g) per vim venti in the time of such lessee for life or for years, or in the time of the tenant in dower, or tenant by the courtesy, &C,., that such particular tenants have a special property in the timber to rebuild the like house as the other was for his habitation : as if they fell a tree for reparation, they have a special property to that purpose in it, and therewith agree (Ji) (44 E. 3, 5 b; 44 E. 3, 44 b; 29 E. 3, 3, and 10 E. 4, 3 a). But the said particular tenants cannot give or sell the tree so felled, for the general property is in the lessor ; and there- fore, Litt., f. 15, holds, that if I bail goods [cattle] to another to manure his land, now he has a special property in them to that pur- pose; and in that case, if he kills them, a general action of trespass Lies against him. See 11 H. 4, 17 a, and 23 b. 6. The pre-eminence and privilege («') which the law gives to houses {/) 2 Roll. 813; Co. Litt. 53b; 2 Inst. Eep. 181; 2 EoU. 656; 5 Co. 13 b; Cro. 145; 4 Co. 62b; 14 H. 8, 6a; 13H. 7, 20b. Car. 274. (g) 1 Co. 63a; Co. Litt. 53a. (i) See 6 Mod. 105, &c., Ibid. A) Cro. Eliz. 784; 11 Co. 47a; 1 EoU. Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowles's Case. 45 wliich are for men's habitation was observed. First, a house ought to have the priority and precedency in a ^yrcecipe quod reddat before land, meadow, pasture, wood, &o., F. N. B. 2, &c., for his house is his castle, et {k) domiis sua est unicuique tutissimum refitgium. 2 (/). The house of a man has privilege to protect him against arrest, by virtue of process of law, at the suit of a subject ; vide Semayne's Case, in the Fifth Part of my Eeports, fo. 91 b. 3. It has privilege against the king's prerogative, for it was resolved by all the judges, Mich, {in) 4 Jac, that those who dig for salt-petre shall not dig in the mansion- house of any subject without his assent, for then he, or his wife or children cannot be in safety in the night, nor his goods in his house preserved from thieves and other misdoers. 4. He who kills a man se defendendo, or a thief who would rob him in the highway, by the common law shall forfeit his goods, but he who kills one that would rob and spoil him in his house shall forfeit nothing (3 E. 3, " Corone," 330; and 26 Ass. 23, &c.). 5. If there be two joint-tenants of a wood, or arable land, the one has no remedy against the other to make inclosure or reparations for safeguard of the wood or corn ; but if there be two joint-tenants of a house, the one shall have a viT?it Be reparatione facienda against the other, and the words of the writ are ad reparationem et sustentationem ejusdem domus tenetur («) (F. N. B. 127 a, b). If a man is in his house, and hears that others wdl come to his house to beat him, he may call together his friends, &c. into his house to aid him in safety of his person (o) ; for, as it has been said, a man's house is his castle and his defence, and where he pro- perly ought to remain : but if a man be threatened if he comes to such a fair or market that he shall be beaten, in that case he cannot make such assembly, but he ought to have remedy by surety of the peace. 21 H. 7, 39 a (jj ). 7. The clause of " without impeachment of waste " gives a power to the lessee, which will produce an interest in him if he executes his power during the privity of his estate, and therefore to examine it in (k) 5 Co. 31b; Co. Litt. 4a; 1 RoU. Ben. 121. Rep. 182; 3 Inst. 162. H 1 Eoll. Eep. 182; 12 Co. 13. (I) 4 Inst. 177; Hob. 62, 263, 264; Cro. («) Co. Litt. 54b; 1 EoU. Eep. 182; 5 Jac. 486, 556; 1 Jonea,429; Cro. Car. 437, Co. 91b. 438; March, 3; 1 Brownl. SO; Yelv. 28, (o) 21 H. 7, 39a; Br. "Eiots," &o. ; 1 29; Cro. Eliz. 908; Moor, 668; 18 E. 2, Ktz. "Trespass," 246; 6 Mod. 210. "Execution,"252, contra; 4 Leon. 41; 13 {p) 1 Eoll. Eep. 182; Moor, 18, 327; E. 4, 9a; 18 E. 4, 4a; Br. "Execution," 2 Inst. 146; Hob. 132, lib. 4, f. 63a; 100; Br. "Trespass," 390; 1 Bulstr. 146; Poph. 193, 194, 195. Digitized by Microsoft® 46 Lewis Bowles's Case. reason. 1. These (q) ■words, absque inqjciltione vasti, are as muok as to say, without any demand for waste, for impetitio is derived from in and peto, and petere is to demand, and pietitio is a demand, and sine impefifione is without any manner of demand or impeachment : then this word demand is of a large extent {>•), for if a man disseises me of my land or takes my goods, if I release to him aU actions, yet I may enter into the land or take my goods, as Litt. holds, f. 115, and theremth agree 19 Ass. 3 ; 19 H. 6, 4 b ; 21 H. 7, 23 b ; 30 E. 3, 19, for by the release of the action the right or interest is not released ; but if in such case I release (.s) all demands, that will bar me, not only of my action but also of my entry and seizure, and of the right of my land, and of the property of my goods : as it was resolved in Chaunm/s Case, 34 H. 8 ; Br. " Eelease," 90 (t) ; 2 H. 7, 6 b ; the king made one sheriff sine computo, thereby he shall have the revenues which belong to his office to collect to his own use. But if the words had been («.) absque impetif vasti per aliquod breve de vasto, then the action only would be discharged, and not the property in the trees, but that the lessor after the fall of them might seize them : and this difference appears in 3 E. 3, 44 a, b, in Walter Idle's Case {x), -where a lease was made " without being impeached or impleaded for waste," upon which it was collected that these words " without being impleaded," without these words " with- out (y) being impeached for waste," were not sufficient to bar the lessor of his property; and that if the lessor had granted that the lessee might do waste, he thereby had power not only to do waste, but also to convert it to his own use ; and that the words of the said act of Marlebridge, and the statute Be (s) prcerogativd Regis, c. 16, do prove, where it is said, that the king shall have annum, diem, et vastum, sc., which is as much as to say, that he shall have the trees, &c. at his own disposition. 2. It was said, that the continual and constant opinion of all ages was, that those words gave (a) power to the lessee to do waste to his own house, and it would be dangerous (?) Latch. 269, 270; Bridg. 102; Dy. 109. ■ " ■ "" (m) Co. Litt. 220a; 2 Inst. 146; 1 Eoll. Eep. 184 ; Cro. Car. 274. {x) 8 Co. 75 b; Poph. 194. 47, pi. lib; 2 Co. 23a, 72a, pi. 135b Cro. Jao. 216; 2 KoU. 835; 2 Inst. 146 9 Co. 9a; 2 KoU. Rep. 325; Hetl. 77, . , __ _^_ Moor, 317. (2/) 1 Roll. Eep. 184; Hob. 132. (r) Litt. f. 116, ss. 496, 497; Co. Litt. (=) 1 EoU. Eep. 182. 386a, b ; 4 Co. 63a; 1 Eoll. Eep. 184. («) Dyer, 184, pi. 63; 1 Roll. Eep. 183; (s) 1 Eoll. Eep. 184; 8 Co. 154a. Co. Litt. 220a; Hob. 132. (( 1 EoU. Eep. 183; Br. "Patent,"45, Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowles's Case. 47 now to recede from it ; and as it is said in 38 E. 3, 1 a, by the judges (so we say in this case), we will not change the law which has been always used; and it is well said in 2 H. 4, 18 b, it is better that there should be a defect than that the law should be changed (b) ; and the opinion of "Wray, Chief Justice, and Manwood, cited in Herhhendenh Case, was not judicial but priiiid facie upon an arbi- trament without any argument, and perhaps upon the sight of (c) 27 H. 6, " Waste," 8 ; and therefore, although the chief justice argued in this case agaiast their opinions, 3'et it was with great reverence to them, saying with Aristotle in the like case, amicus Plato, amicus Socrates, sed magis amica Veritas ; and qui non lihere veritatem prominciat, jjroditor rerifatis est. And the truth of this case appears by Littleton in his chapter on Conditions, fol. 82 {d), where he puts this case, if a feoffment be made upon such condition that the feoffee shall give the land to the feoffor, and to the wife of the feoffor, to have and to hold to them and to the heirs of their two bodies begotten, the remainder to the right heirs of the feoffor; in that case if the husband dies, living the wife, before any estate in tan made to them, then ought the feoffees by the law to make an estate to the wife as near the condition and as near the intent of the condition as he can make it, sc. to lease the land to the wife for term of her life without impeachment of waste, the remainder to the heirs of the body of her husband on her begotten, the remainder to the right heirs of the husband : and the reason why the lease shall be made in this case to the wife without impeachment of waste is, that the estate shall be to the husband and his wife in tail ; and if such estate had been made in the life of the husband, then after the death of the husband she had had an estate in tail, which estate is without impeachment of waste ; and so it is reasonable that a man should make an estate as near the intent of the condition as he can ; which case directly proves that tenant for life without impeachment of waste has as great power to do waste and to convert it at his own pleasm'e as tenant ia tail had. That these words " without impeachment of waste," are sufficient words to give tenant for life such power, ride (e) 2 H. 4, 5 b, and the Lord Cromwen's Case, in the Second Part of (5) 1 RoU. Eep. 183; 4 Co. 63a; Dyer, 1 EoU.Rep.183; Vin.Abr. "Waste," 9a; 148, pi. 63. 2 E. a. ic) Poph. 194. (c) Ktz. "Condition," 5; Br. "Condi- {d) Sect. 352; Co. Litt. 218b, 219a; tion," 33. Digitized by Microsoft® 48 Lewis Bowles's Case. my Reports, f. 81 a, b, 82 a ; and for this clause of " without im- peachment (/) of waste," 3 B. 3, 44; 8 E. 3, 4 a, b, 35 a; 24 E. 3, 32; 43 E. 3, 5a; 5 H. 5, 8; 27 H. 6, "Waste," 8; 4 E. 4, 36a; 20 H. 7, 10 ; 28 H. 8 ; Dyer, 10 ; and so the qucere in the said book of 27 H. 6 well resolved. And see the opinion of Statham in abridging the said book against ii{(]). But the said privilege of "without impeachment of waste " is annexed to the privity of estate, 3 E. 3, 44, by Shard and 8tone : — If one who has a particular estate with- out impeachment of waste changes his estate, he loses his advantage, 6 H. 5, 9 a. If a man makes a lease for years, without impeach- ment of waste, and afterwards he confirms the land to him for his life, now he shall be charged for waste, 28 H. 8 ; Dyer, 10 b (A). If a lease is made to one for the term of another's life, vrithout impeach- ment of waste, the remainder to him for his own life, now he is punishable for waste, for the first estate is gone and drowned ; so of a confirmation. It was adjudged in Uwen's («') Case, Mich. 28 & 29 Eliz., that where tenant in tail, after possibility of issue extinct, granted over his estate, that the grantee was compelled in a quid juris elamat to attorn, for by the assignment such privilege is lost ; and that judgment was affirmed in the King's Bench in a writ of error, and therewith agrees (k) 27 H. 6, " Aid," in Statham ; ride 29 E. 3, 1 b. The heir at common law should have a prohibition of waste against tenant in dower, but if the heir granted over his rever- sion, his grantee should not have a prohibition of waste; for it appears in the Register, 72, that such assignee in an action of waste against tenant in dower shall recite the Statute of Gloucester, ergo he shall not have a prohibition of waste at common law, for then he should not recite the statute, vide F. N. B. 55 c : 14 H. 4, 3 ; 5 H. 5 (7), 17 b. Lastly, it was resolved, that the said woman, by force of the said clause of " without impeachment of waste," had such power and pri- vilege ; that though in the case at bar no waste be done, because the (/) 1 H. 7, 15a; Plowd. 141a; 21 Latch. 269. H. 6, 47a; 28 H. 8; Dyer, 10, pi. 37; 20 (A) Dyer, 10, pi. 37; 5 Co. 13a; 1 H. 7, 4a; 21 H. 7, 24a; Perk, s, 721; 21 Bulst. 136; 8 Co. 76b; 19H. 6, 23a; H. 7, 31a; 2 Co. 23c; 9 Co. 9a; Co. Litt. Poph. 194; Latch. 269. 220a; 3 Bulst. 136; 9 H. 6, 35a; Ktz. (i) 1 EoE. Rep. 179; Co. Litt. 316a; "Waste," 39; Plowd. 135b; 19H. 6, 63b; 28a; 2 Inst. 302. 10 H. 7, 3a; 21 H. 7, 24 a; 16PI. 7, 4b; [k) Co. Litt. 28a; Dyer, 184, pi. 63; 2II0II. Rep. 325; Poph. 193, 194, 195. Moor, 321; Poph. 194; Latch. 262; lEoll. (o) 1 RoU. Rep. 183; Co. Inst. 28a; Rep. 183. Moor, 327; 8 Co. 76 b; Br. "Waste," 71; Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowles's Case. 49 liouse was blown down per tim mnti without her fault, yet she should have the timber which was parcel of the house, and also the timber trees which are blown down with the wind; and when they are severed from the inheritance, either by the act of the party or of the law, and become chattels, the whole property of them is in the tenant for life, by force of the said clause of " without impeachment of waste." And for this cause judgment was given j-jer onines Justi- ciarios una voce, quod querens nihil caperet per hilhtm. Leivis Bowles's Case is usually cited as a Leading Authority when- ever questions arise relative to the estates of persons having freeholds not of inheritance, and in determin- ing what is their power over or their interest in them. See Poph. 193; Co. Litt. 28 a; 15 Ves. 423. Estates of freehold not of inherit- ance, are, Jirst, conventional, that is to say, created by some legal in- strument, as a deed or will; and secondly, such as arise by mere operation of law. Of the first class are tenancies for a man's own life, and pour autre vie, or for another's life. Of the second class — The estate of tenant in tail after possibihty of issue extinct; the estate of tenant by the Curtesy; and Dower. I. Estate for Life. An estate for a person's own life may be either absolute, as upon a conveyance or devise to A. for life ; or its duration may be limited to some uncertain period included in such life ; as, for instance, if an estate be conveyed to a woman as long as she remain single, or during widowhood, or to a man and woman T.L.C. during coverture, or so long as a person dwell in a particular house, or so long as he pay a certain sum, or until he be promoted to a bene- fice, or for any like uncertain time ; in aU these eases an estate for life is conferred, determinable upon the happening of a particular contin- gency. Co. Litt. 42 a. Upon the same principle, if a conveyance be made of a manor to a man until 100^. be paid out of the annual profits, inasmuch as such profits are uncertain, he will have an estate for life determinable upon the levying of lOOZ. On the other hand, if a man grant a rent of 20?. per annum untU 100/. be paid there- out, the grantee wiU only have an estate for the term of five years, for there the time which it wiU take to pay the 100?. is certain, and depends upon no uncertainty. Co. Litt. 42 a. There are, however, some uncer- tain interests of an exceptional character, which are held to be chattels. Thus where lands are devised to executors for payment of debts, until the testator's debts be paid, although it is uncertain when that wiU take place, the executors E Digitized by Microsoft® 50 Lewis Bo\\'r.Es's Case. have only a chattel interest, tlie reason being that if it were held that the executors shoiild have it for their lives, then by their deaths their estate woiild cease; but by holding it to be a chattel, it wiU go to the executors of the executors for payment of the debts. Co. Litt. 42 a. Moreover, although tenants by statute merchant, by statute staple, and by elegit, whose estates are created by divers acts of parlia- ment, have uncertain, interests in lands or tenements, they have but chattel, and not freehold, interests. Co. Litt. 42 a. Where there is no express limi- tation of any estate, either tmder a conveyance at common law or under the Statu.te of Uses, the person to whom the conveyance is made, will take an estate for his own life. Co. Litt. 42 a. So where by wiU a testator gave land to a person withou.t words of limitation, or without words denot- ing an intention of passing the fee, he would take only a life interest. (See note to Edward Seymor's Case, post.) This being found to defeat the intention of persons maldng wUls, it has been enacted by the WiUs Act (1 Vict. c. 26, 8. 28) that a devise to a person without any words of limitation will pass the fee simple or other the whole estate of the testator, unless a contrary intention appear by the will. If a tenant in fee simple, how- ever, make a lease to B., To have and to hold to B. for term of life, without mentioning for whose life, it wUl be deemed for the term of the life of B., upon the ground that the deed ought to be taken most strongly against the lessor, and an estate for a man's own life is higher than that for the life of another (Co. Litt. 42 a). But if a tenant in tail make such lease without expressing for whose life, it will be taken to be for the life of the lessor, for the law wiU not adopt a construction which would work a wrong, where it can adopt another which is consistent with the legal rights of the lessor. Co. Litt. 42 a. II. Estate pour autre Vie. An estate pour atitre vie is the lowest estate of freehold, being not so great as an estate for one's own life. This estate arises, not only where it is originally limited, as, for instance, in a conveyance to A. for the life of B., but also where a tenant for his own life, whether by convention or by operation of law, as tenant by the curtesy or tenant in dower, grants over his or her estate. Co. Litt. 41 b. There may also be an estate for a man's own life, together with an estate pour autre vie, if, for instance, a lease be made to A. to have to him for the term of his own life and the lives of B. and C. (Co. Litt. 41 b ; Utt^j Dale's Case, Cro. EUz. 182). So a devise of a rentcharge, "to be continued and equally divided during their lives and the life of the longest liver, to A., B. and C," has been held to give to each of them an estate for life and pour autre vie. See Chat- field V. Berchtoldt, 1 L. E., Ch. App. 192, reversing S. C, reported 12 L. E., Eq. 464. And an estate limited to trustees Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowlbs's Case. 51 and tlieir heirs to preserve contin- gent remainders, has been construed as an estate pour autre vie to give effect to the general intention of the deed. Beaumont y. The Marquis of Salisbury, 19 Beav. 198. General Occupancy . According to the common law, where an estate was held pour autre vie, as, for instance, by A. for the life of B. (who is termed the cestui qiie vie), and the tenant pour autre vie died in the life of the cestui que vie, inasmuch as the heir could not take the estate without words of inheritance, and the personal representatives could not take it because it was a freehold, the first person who entered might hold as tenant pour autre vie, and he was termed a general occupant (Co. Litt. 41 b). The same result followed where the grantee of the tenant pour autre vie died (Tb. 41 b) ; and any person in possession as a lessee (3 Bac. Ab. 188), or a mere tenant at will in preference to a lessee not in possession {Anon., 1 Vern. 233, cited), would consequently have been general occupant. Against the king there could be no occupant, and therefore no man. could gain the king's land by pri- ority of entry. Co. Litt. 41 b. Special Occupancy. Where, however, an estate pour autre vie was limited to a man and his heirs, his heir took as special occupant and not by descent, and not being liable to his ancestor's debts, he could plead riens per de- scent. Atldnson v. Baker, 4 T. E. 229 ; Doe v. Lui-ton, 6 T. E. 292. If the limitation were to a man, his executors and administrators, notwithstanding the doubts which formerly existed upon the subject, they woidd take as special occu- pants. Duko of Marlborough v. Godolphin, 2 Ves. 61 ; Ripley v. TVaterworth, 7 Ves. 425 ; and see 18 Ves. 273 ; Northen v. Carnegie, 4 Drew. 587—591. And where an estate pour autre vie is limited, either in a deed or a wUl, to aman, his heirs, executors, and administrators, the heir wiU take as special occupant. Atldnson v. Bal:er, 4 T. E. 229. See also Carpenter v. Dunsynure, 3 EH. & Bl. 918. With regard to incorporeal here- ditaments, as rents, of which a man was tenant pour autre vie, although upon his death there could not be a general occupancy, because there could be no entry thereon, there might be special occupancy (Co. Litt. 41 ) . Thus where a rent-charge was limited to a man and his heir pour autre vie, upon his death his heir would take as quasi special occupant {Hassell v. Goivthwaite, Willes, 505 ; Kendall v. Micfeild, 15 Vin. Abr. "Mortgage," 457; Barnard. C. C. 46) ; but it seems formerly to have been considered that his executors or administrators would not take as special occupants, though named ( Craiolefs Case, Cro. Eliz. 721 ; Salter v. Butler, lb. 901 ; Moore, 664; Vaugh. 200; Vin. Abr. "Occupant" (C); 3 Bac. Ab. B. " Estate for Life and Occupancy"). But in Northen v. Carnegie, 4 Drew. 587, Sir E. T. Kindersley, V.-C, observed, that as an executor may be special occupant of a " corporeal hereditament, he shoxild have no Digitized by Microsoft® 62 Lewis Bowles's Case. difficulty in coining to tke conclu- sion that he may also be special occupant of an incorporeal heredi- tament." Great inconvenience being occa- sioned by the scramble for estates which occurred, where no special occupant was named, and it being manifestly unjust that an estate pour autre vie should not be assets for payment of debts, the Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3) enabled the tenant pour autre vie to devise it, and enacted, that if no devise were made, it should be chargeable in the hands of the heir, if it came to him by reason of a special occupancy, as assets by descent, as in case of lands in fee simple ; and in case there should be no special occupant, it should go to the executors or ad- ministrators, and be assets in their hands. As doubts arose to whom the surplus of such estates (when they were not devised) should go, after paying the intestate's debts, it being held, however, that the next of kin were not entitled ( Oldham v. Picker- ing, 2 Salk. 464 ; Carthew, 376), the 14 Geo. 2, c. 20, s. 9, enacted that such estates pour autre vie, in case there were no special occupant thereof, of which no devise had been made by virtue of the 29 Car. 2, c. 3, should be distributed as the personal estate of the tes- tator or intestate. General occupancy, it wiU be ob- served, was abolished by 29 Car. 2, c. 3 ; hence, on the death of a person having an estate pour autre vie, without any words of limitation, the estate would go to his devisee, or, if he died intestate as to it, to his executors or administrators, and be assets in their hands for payment of his debts ; and by 14 Geo. 2, c. 20, the surplus would be distributable amongst his next of kin as person- alty. In the case of Doe d. Leivis V. Leivis, 9 Mees. & W. 662, a per- son possessed of a lease granted to him, his heirs and assigns, for the lives of three persons, devised the premises to his son (who died intes- tate) and his assigns for the residue of the term ; it was held, by the Court of Exchequer, that the pre- mises went to the administratrix of the son, under the 12th section of the Statute of Frauds, and not to his heir. "Here," said Parke, B., in his judgment, "there is no special occupant, the title of the first lessee having been put an end to by the will ; the land has been held under a tenancy pour autre vie to the son and his assigns, and as he died without creating any assigns, the property goes to his personal re- presentative." Sed vide Doe d. JeffY. Rohinson, 8 B. & C. 296; 2 Man. & Ey. 249. In Doe d. Timmis v. Steele, 4 Q. B. 663, a tenant in fee conveyed lands "to Hannah Timmis, her heirs and assigns. To hold to Hannah Timmis and her assigns during the life of G. T.," who was heir at law of Hannah Timmis. It was held by the Court of Queen's Bench, that after the death of Hannah Timmis G. T. was entitled to hold for his life as special occupant. ' ' Under the words ' to Hannah Timmis and her assigns,' there would be," said Den- man, 0. J., " no special occupant, but the estate on the death of Hannah Timmis would be personal Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowles's Case. 53 assets by virtue of the statutes 29 Car. 2, c. 3, s. 12, and 14 Geo. 2, c. 20, s. 9, whereas under the words ' to Hannah Timmis, her heirs and assigns,' there is a special occupant, namely, her heir. The words of the habendum are, therefore, contra- dictory and repugnant to the words in the premises, and must, according to the general rule of construction in such cases, be disregarded." Although we have seen that at common law, if a rent were granted to a man during the life of another, the rent would have determined on the death of the grantee, because there was no one to take under the grant, there being in other words no general occupancy of a rent ; nevertheless it has been held, that by the 12th section of 29 Car. 2, c. 3, when the grantee of a rent- charge poiu- autre vie dies during the life of cestui que vie, it will go to his executors, although executors are not named in the grant. Bear- park V. Hutchinson, 7 Bing. 178 ; Chatfield v. Berchtoldt, 7 L. E., Ch. App. 192, reversing S. C, reported 12 L. E.., Eq. 464 ; see b\so Raivlin- son V. Duchess of Montague, 3 P. Wms. 264, n. (D). "Where there is an agreement to let property to a person on a lease for lives, without saying whether the lease is to be executed to such person, " his heirs and assigns," or to him or " his executors, or ad- ministrators and assigns," upon the death of such person before the execution of a lease, the court will, it seems, treat the case as if a lease had been executed without any words of limitation, and then the statute interferes and says the per- sonal representative must take. M'Dermott v. Bal/e, 2 I. E., Eq. 441. An estate pour autre vie may be limited over by way of remainder ( Wastneys v. Chappell, 3 Bro. P. C. 50, Toml. Ed. ; which though con- tingent wiU not, in the case of copy- holds and leaseholds, require any prior estate to support it {Pickersgill V. Grey, 31 L. J., Ch. 394); and a remainderman (if not barred) will take as special occupant. Allen v. Allen, 2 D. & War. 325. If an estate pour autre vie be limited to a man and the heirs of his body, or words of similar import, it win go to the person who would take an estate tail in the case of freeholds of inheritance, as quasi tenant in tail pour autre vie, and he obtains this estate at once, it not being dependent, as in the case of a fee simple conditional, upon the birth of issue. lb. See also In re Whitsitt's Estate, 1 Ir. Com. L. Eep. (N. S.) 633 ; In re Mahon's Estate, lb. 567; M'Clenahan v. Banhhead, 8 I. E., C. L. 195. Where a tenant pour autre vie of property limited to him, his heirs and assigns, conveys his whole legal interest to trustees, upon trusts which never arise, the beneficial interest will result to him, or on his death to his heirs as special occupants. Northen v. Carnegie, 4 Drew. 587. It may be here mentioned, as being a recognized rule, that de- vises of estates pour autre vie are, as far as possible, to be construed in the same way as devises of the fee. Digitized by Microsoft® 54 Lewis Bowr.Es's Cask. M'Clenahan v. Bcenhhead, 8 I. E., C. L. 215. Wtere lands pur autre vie, be- fore the Wills Act, 1 Yiot. c. 26, came into operation, were devised ■witlLOut vrords of limitation, a life interest only would pass, in tlie same manner as if the devisor had been seised in fee. Hagarty v. Nally, 13 I. E., C. L. 532. It seems that words of inheritance are not required to pass the entire interest in an estate for lives, even in a deed, if by other words the intention to pass the whole estate of the grantor be indicated. Thus in 31' Clintoch v. Irvine, 10 Ir. Ch. Eep. 480, where lands for lives renewable for ever were conveyed for all the estate of the tenant to trustees, their heirs and assigns, for the lives in the lease ; and the deed contained a declaration that the names of the trustees were made use of as trustees for A. B., and that the grants therein con- tained were for his sole use and benefit, and for no other use, in- tent or purpose, it was held by Lord Chancellor Brady, that A. B. took the entire equitable interest in quasi fee. See also and consider Brenan v. Eoync, 15 Ir. Ch. Eep. 189; 16 Ir. Ch. Eep. 114; Betty y. Elliott, lb. 110, n. Power of quasi Tenant in Tail pour autre vie over his Estate. A quasi tenant in tail pour autre vie in possession has complete power over the estate to bar the entail and the remainders over, by any act inter vivos, dealing with the estate precisely as if there had never been any settlement (lb. 327) ; and he can convey his interest by any of the ordinary assurances ; and inas- much as formerly it did not require the solemnity of a fine or recovery {Blalie V. Luxton, Geo. Cooper, 184, 185 ; Loio V. Burrow, 3 P. Wms. 262; MoriartyY. Grey, 12 Ir. Com. L. Eep. (N. S.) 129), so now it does not require a disentailing deed under 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 74. Moreover, it is not requisite that he should declare his intention of barring the quasi entail, as it is sufficient if he do any act which would vest in him a new or dif- ferent estate. Thus, it has been held, that a settlement {Lynch v. Nelson, 5 Ir. E., Eq. 192), a re- newal of a lease for lives by a quasi tenant in tail, gives him a new estate discharged of the former limitations and bars the estate in remainder {Baker v. Bayley, 2 Vern. 225 ; GreyY. Mannock, 2 Eden, 339; In re M'Neale, 7 Ir. Ch. Eep. 388 ; Blanckhall v. Gibson, 2 L. E., I. 49, where the lease was not only renewed, but converted into a fee farm rent), even althoiigh the lease may originally have been vested in trustees who did not join in the surrender of the old lease {Blake Y. Blake, 1 Cox, 266 ; 3 P. Wms. 10, n. ; and see Campbell v. Sandys, 1 S. & L. 295 ; Lloyd v. Johnes, 9 Yes. 63 ; Doe v. Luxton, 6 T. E. 289), or prior incumbrances may have been in existence. Blake V. Luxton, Geo. Coop. 178; 2 Dru. & War. 327, 330. And it seems that where a quasi tenant in tail in possession of a renewable freehold takes a fee Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowles's Case. 55 farm grant, under the "Eenewable Leasehold Conversion Act" (12 & 13 Vict. c. 105), the quasi estate tail and all remainders over will he thereby barred. Morris v. Mor- ris, 6 I. 0. L. E. 73 ; 7 I. C. L. E. (Ex. Ch.) 295. So any act of ownership exercised over the whole estate, as a mort- gage, though it be only for a term of years ( Walsh v. Studdert, 5 I. E., C. L. 478 ; 7 I. E., 0. L. 482), an assignment of a mortgage, if there were an increase of the charge on the lands, or the creation of a new equity of redemption by the quasi tenant in tail, the remainderman wiU be barred (see Allen v. Allen, 2 Dru. & Warr. 331 ; Cann v. Can7i, 1 Vern. 480 ; Dunn v. Green, 3 P. "Wms. 10; Challoner v. Murhall, 2 Ves. jun. 524). Secus if the quasi tenant in tail merely concur in a transfer of the mortgage. Feame's Executory Devises, by Powell, vol. 2, p. 322 ; and see 2 Dru. & Warr. 331. But, although the assignment of a mortgage by a quasi tenant in tail neither creates a new equity of redemption, nor adds anything to the amount secured by the mort- gage, if he confirm the estate already granted in the mortgagee, so that if that had been for any cause de- feasible or imperfect his con- fij-mation and grant would neces- sarily have taken effect out of his estate, and would have been equivalent to a new mortgage by himself, especially if he covenant for a good title, this will be con- sidered as an exercise of his right of ownership suflEicient to put an end to the quafii estate tail. Mac- Andrew V. Gallagher, 8 I. E., Eq. 490, 495, 496. However, a quasi tenant in tail in possession cannot bar the re- mainders over by a mere will {Allen v. Allen, 2 Dru. & Warr. 326); though Lord Kenyon, in Doe d. £la/ce V. Litxton, 6 T. E. 293, thought he might. Campbell v. Sandys, 1 S. & L. 294. The question has been raised whether the renewal of a lease to an infant entitled in quasi taO. will bar the entail. In Betty v. Hum- phreys, 9 I. E., Bq. 332, 349, the Master of the EoUs (Ireland) seems to have thought that if a renewal be granted to a tenant in quasi tail while an infant, the entail will not be barred unless the infant comes of age and adopts the renewal. Chris- tian, L. J., however, in a subsequent case {Batteste v. Maunsell, 10 I. E., Eq. 341), said that he was not pre- pared to accede to that ; and without giving any positive opinion, said that he was rather disposed to think that as the -senewal^a,s primd facie valid, and at the worst only void- able, it merged the old lease and destroyed the limitations, and that nothing less than a disclaimer by the infant after coming of age could have the effect of restoring them. The renewal of a lease by the committee of a lunatic tenant in quasi tail, under 1 WUl. 4, c. 65, e. 13, has been held, in Ireland, not to bar the entail {Batteste v. Maunsell, 10 I. E., Eq. 314), be- cause sect. 15 of that act makes express provision for re-establishing the uses and trusts to which the surrendered lease was subject. lb. 325. Digitized by Microsoft® 56 Lewis Bowles's Case. Wtere, however, tlie lessor of a lease for lives renewable for ever vested in a lunatic as quasi tenant in tail, in pursuance of the Renew- able Leasehold Conversion Act (12 & 13 Yiot. c. 105), made a fee farm grant to the committee of the luna- tic, it was held that the lunatic's estate in quasi entail was barred, as the 17th section of the act substi- tutes the committee for the lunatic, and enables the committee to do every act which such owner, if not under disability, might have done. Batteste v. Maunsell, 10 I. E., Eq. 314, 325. The concurrence, however, of the tenant for life in a conveyance with the quasi tenant in tail in remainder, is necessary in order to bar the subsequent limitations ( Wastneys v. Chappel, 3 Bro. P. 0. 50, Toml. Ed. ; The Duke of Grafton v. Hanmer, 3 P. Wms. 266, n. ; Slade v. Patti- son, 5 L. J., N. 8. 51 ; Edioards v. Champion, 3 De Gex, Mao. & G. 202), though it seems it is not ne- cessary that he should be a convey- ing party {Allen v. Allen, 2 Dru. & Warr. 335) ; so in the converse case, if the quasi tenant in tail con- curs in a conveyance by the tenant for life, the remainderman will be barred. Norton v. Frecher, 1 Atk. 624; West, Eep. t. Hardw. 203. Moreover, by analogy to the rtde in the case of estates of inheritance, although a quasi tenant in tail in remainder without the con- currence of the tenant for life cannot bar a remainderman, he has power to bar himseK and his issue. Allen v. Allen, 2 Dru. & Warr. 337; Walsh v. Sluddert, 5 I. E., C. L. 487 ; 7 I. E., C. L. 482. How far Occupancy applies to Copy- holds. The principle of general occu- pancy at common law was not ap- plicable to copyholds, because, as the freehold is in the lord, there was no estate vacant upon which the first comer could enter without invading the interest of another party. Ven v. Hoioell, 1 Eoll. Abr. 511 (L), pi. 3; Smartle v. Pen- halloiv, 6 Mod. 63; 1 Salk. 188; 2 Ld. Eaym. 994; 3 Salk. 181; Withers v. Withers, Amb. 162; Zouch d. Forse v. Forse, 7 East, 186; Doe v. Rolinson, 2 Man. & Ey. 266, n. ; Doe d. Foster v. Scott, 4 Bam. & Cress. 714; 7 Dowl. & Ey. 190. There may, however, be a special occupancy of copyholds either with {Doe V. Goddard, 1 Barn. & Cress. 522 ; Right v. Bawden, 3 East, 276, 277) or without {Doe d. Lempriere V. Martin, 2 Black. 1148; and see HoweY. Howe, 1 Vem. 415 ; Bundle V. Bundle, 2 Vem. 264) a special custom. See Pickersgill v. Grey, 31 L. J. (Ch.) 394. It will be observed, that by the 6th section of 1 Yict. c. 26, which is hereafter set forth, that where there is no special occupant of copyholds, they will go to the executors or ad- ministrators as personal estate. Law as settled ly 1 Vict. c. 26, ss. 6, 34. The 12th section of 29 Car. 2, c. 3, and the 9th section of 14 Geo. 2, c. 20, were repealed by the 1 Vict. c. 26, which enacts, that if Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowles's Case. 57 no disposition by will shaU be made of any estate pour autre vie of a freehold nature, tbe same shall be chargeable in the hands of the heir, if it shall come to him by reason of special occupancy, as assets by de- scent, as in the case of freehold land in fee simple ; and in case there shaU be no special occupant of any estate pour autre vie, whether free- hold or customary freehold, tenant right, customary or copyhold, or of any other tenure, and whether a corporeal or incorporeal heredita- ment, it shall go to the executor or administrator of the party that had the estate thereof by virtue of the grant ; and if the same shall come to the executor or administrator, either by reason of a special occu- pancy, or by virtue of this act, it shall be assets in his hands, and shall go, and be applied and dis- tributed, in the same manner as the personal estate of the testator or in- testate (s. 6). By the 34th section of the same act, it is provided that the act shall not extend to any estate pour autre vie of any person who shall die before the 1st day of January, 1838. In construing the 6th section of the Wills Act, the words "in case there shall be no special occupant" include both the case where there is no special occupant named in the grant, and also the case where the heir is named as special occupant, but the grantee of the estate or rent-charge pur autre vie dies with- out leaving an heir. See Plunlcet v. Reilly, 2 Ir. Ch. Eep. 585. There a rent-charge was granted to J. Moore and his heirs, charged on land held for lives, with a covenant for perpetual renewal. J. Moore died intestate and without heirs. It was held by the Master of the Eolls for Ireland that his adminis- tratrix was entitled to the rent- charge. And there may be a special oc- cupant of an estate pour autre vie vested in trustees. Thusinthe recent case oi Reynolds Y.Wright, 2 De G., F. & J. 590, Elizabeth 8. was lessee of lands granted to her and her heirs and assigns for the lives of three persons and the life of the survivor. She made a will, leaving this pro- perty to two trustees in trust for J. S. B., his heirs and assigns, and died leaving the trustees and J. S. B. surviving. J. S. B. died intestate and without heirs. It was held by Lord Campbell, L. C, affirming the decision of Sir J. EomUly, M. E., (reported 25 Beav. 100), that the leaseholds pour autre vie passed under the 6th section of the WOs Act to the administrator of J. S. B., and did not belong to the trustees. An estate pour autre vie will be liable to legacy duty, and will not be exempted therefrom by the foreign domicil of the tenant. See Chatfield V. Berchtoldt, 7 L. E., Ch. App. 192. It seems, notwithstanding the le- gislation against general occupancy, it may for a limited period subsist in one case. Suppose a tenant pour autre vie dies intestate ; until admi- nistration is taken out, the estate must go either to the first person who takes possession as general occupant, or to the administrator by relation back from the time of his taking out letters of administra- tion to the death of the tenant pour Digitized by Microsoft® 58 Lewis Bowles's Case. autre vie. Mr. Preston thought that the former hypothesis vas most consistent ■with our system of tenures, which so carefully guards against the abeyance of the freehold. 1 Prest. Convey. 44, 45. Order to produce Cestui que vie. It may be here mentioned that, upon the application of any person having any claim in remainder, re- version or expectancy, the Lord Chancellor or a Vice-Chancellor, by 6 Anne, c. 18, may order the cestui que vie to be produced {Ex- parte Grant, 6 Ves. 512; Ex parte Whalley, 4 Euss. 561 ; Re Isaac, 4 My. & Cr. 11 ; Ee Lingen, 12 Sim. 104 I Re Clossey, 2 S. & Giff. 46) ; but the Master of the EoUs has no jurisdiction {Meyrick v. Lawes, 23 Beav. 449). As to mode of procedure, see Smith's Ch. Prac. 1147, 7th ed. ; 1 Seton, Decrees, 521, 3rd ed. Pemberton on Judg- ments, 622, 2nd ed. III. Estate Tail after Possibility of Issue extinct. A tenancy in tail after possibility of issue extinct is, where lands, having been limited in special tail, and one of these parties from whom the issue is to proceed dies without issue, in that case the survivor becomes thereupon tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct (Litt. s. 32). Thus, if lands are limited to a man and woman and the heirs of their two bodies, or to a man and the heirs of his body be- gotten on the body of his wife, in the former case on the death of either husband or wife, and in the latter case on the death of the wife, without issue, the survivor will be tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct. Litt. ss. 33, 34. Although, upon the death of the survivor, if there be issue living, such survivor would be tenant in taU, nevertheless, on the death of such issue without issue inheritable under the entail, the survivor will becometenant intail after possibility of issue extinct. Litt. s. 32. This estate is so called because it is evident that the tenant can by no possibility have any issue inheritable to the same estate taU. The mere improbability of a man and wife having children where land is settled upon them and the heirs of their two bodies, (as if they live to the age of 100 years and have no issue,) will not change their tenancy in tail to a tenancy in tail after possibility of issue extinct, for the law sees no impossibility of their having children (Co. Litt. 28a). Upon the same principle in Piatt v. Powles, 2 Mau. & Sel. 65, where a testator devised a reversion to his wife for her life, and after her decease to the heirs of her body by him (the tes- tator) lawfully begotten, and for want of such issue remainder over. Although there was no issue of the marriage at the time of the death of the testator, it was held, that the wife was tenant in tail after possi- bility of issue extinct. " There was a possibility," said Dampier, J., during the whole period of gestation, that she might have issue ; and the event cannot vary it. It is the possibility and not the probability to which the law looks, and here the possibility was not at all more remote than that which exists be- Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowles's Case. 59 tween parties of an age past child- bearing." This estate must arise by opera- tion of law, or, as Coke terms it, "by act of God," and that by dying ■without issue, and not by the act or limitation of the parties. Thus, if land be given to a man and to his wife, and to the heirs of their two bodies, and afterwards they are di- vorced causd prcecontr actus, or con- sanguinitatis, or affinitatis, their estate of inheritance is turned to a joint estate for life ; and albeit they had once an inheritance in them, yet as the estate is altered by their own act and not by the act of God, as by the death of either party without issue, they are not tenants in tail after possibility of issue extinct. Co. Litt. 28 a ; 1 Eoll. Abr. 841. A person may be tenant after pos- sibility of a remainder as well as of an estate in possession. Thus, as is laid down in the principal case, "if a lease for life is made, remainder to the husband and wife in special tail, if the husband dies without issue, the wife is tenant in tail after possibility of the remainder ; and if the tenant for life surrenders to her, she becomes tenant in tail after possibility in possession;" ante, p. 42. Lord Eldon remarks, that, "in Lewis Bowleses Case, the limitation was to the husband and wife for their joint lives; and both of them, as the joint estate was so expressed, were unimpeachable of waste ; with remainder to the male issue of the marriage ; under which limitation the issue were purchasers ; and there is a limitation to the heirs of the body of the husband and wife. with remainder over ; and it was held, that until issue born they were tenants in tail in possession, though the limitation to them was expressly for their lives without impeachment of waste, yet they had an estate tail with all its incidents until severance by the birth of issue ; upon which event, having been tenants in tail before, they became tenants for life without impeachment of waste, with remainder to their issue male, &c. Therefore, by virtue not only of those word, 'without impeachment,' &c., but also by virtue of the in- cidents to the estate tail in posses- sion, there being no trustees to pre- serve, &c., they might have barred all the remainders behind, and had all the rights of tenant in tail in possession." Williams v. Williams, 15 Ves. 424. With regard to the quantity of this estate, it is shown in the prin- cipal case from various incidents, that it is the same as that of tenant for life (ante, p. 41); it is also shown that a tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct has certain qualities and privileges annexed to his estate, such as a tenant in tail has, and a tenant for life has not. The prin- cipal and perhaps the only one of any importance at the present day is that he is dispunishable for volun- tary waste, as for cutting timber ; and although there was once a doubt upon the subject (4 Co. 63 a), it seems that he is also entitled to the property of the timber he may have cut {Williams v. Williams, 15 Ves. 419 ; 12 East, 209) ; but he wiU be restrained from committing wilful and malicious waste ; post, p. 115. The privileges of tenant in tail Digitized by Microsoft® 60 Lewis Bowles's Case. after possibility of issue extinct, are in respect of the privity of his estate, and of the inheritance that was once in him ; if, therefore, he convey his estate over to another, such person Tvill be considered as a mere tenant for life. Co. Litt. 28 a ; George ap Rice's Case, 3 Leon. 241. It may be here mentioned that the power of disposition given by the Fines and Eeooveries Act (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 74) does not extend to tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct. lb. s. 18. IV. Curtesy. Of what Property a Man can he Tenant hy the Curtesy. Where a woman is seised of an estate of freehold of inheritance either in fee simple or fee tail, her husband (who by virtue of his mari- tal right at common law, now par- tially affected by sect. 8 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1870 (33 & 34 "Vict. c. 93), see post, p. 61, would be entitled to the estate for her life only) will, upon birth of issue which might by possibility in- herit the estate, be entitled to an estate for his own life, as tenant by the curtesy (Litt. ss. 35, 62); "as high an estate," as is observed in Leims Boivles's Case, " as that of lessee for life." Board v. Board, 9 L.E., Q.B. 48. And curtesy being an inseparable incident annexed by law to the es- tate of inheritance of a woman, it cannot be barred by condition. Sir Anthony Mildmay' s Case, 6 Co. 41 a ; Co. Litt. 224 a ; and see ]'oller v. Carter, 4 Ell. & Bl. 173; and see Bennet v. Davis, 2 P. Wms. 316, post, p. 62. There can be no curtesy of copy- holds, since the tenant has a mere estate at will in them (Gilb. -Ten. 288 ; 4 Eep. 22 a), except by custom, which wiU. be construed strictly. Cro. Eliz. 361 ; 2 Leon. 208. Nor win there be curtesy of a re- version or remainder in fee expect- ant upon an estate of freehold, un- less the particular estate determine during the coverture (Co. Litt. 29 a) ; nor of an estate pour autre vie. Stead V. Piatt, 18 Beav. 50. Where contingent remainders which do not take effect intervene between an estate for life and the reversion in fee in the wife, as the two estates will coalesce, the hus- band will be entitled as tenant by the curtesy ; but if the contingent remainders take effect, the estates will again open to let in the con- tingent remainders, and thus the wife would have a mere life estate, of wliich the husband could not be entitled to curtesy. Thus, in Booth- by V. Vernon, 9 Mod. 147, it is said by the Court, that where an estate for life is limited to a woman, re- mainder to her first and every other son in tail male, remainder to the heirs of her body, remainder to her right heirs ; here it is plain that she is seised of the inheritance ; yet if she hath a son, her husband shall not be tenant by the curtesy, because the contingent estate which is to arise upon her death intervenes between her estate for life and the inheritance. See also Year Book, 1 Edw. 3, pi. 14, 15 ; see also HooTier V. Hooker, Ca. t. Hardw. 13 ; 2 Bar- nard, 200, 232, 379; and see 2 Saund. 382 b, note ; Doe v. Scuda- more, 2 Bos. & P. 294. Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowles's Case. 61 The husband will be entitled as tenant by the curtesy, although an estate tail may have determined by the death of the issue as well as the wife {Fame's Case, 8 Eep. 34; Stead- man V. Pulling, 3 Atk. 423, 427; Co. Litt. 30 a), or although the es- tate in fee simple of the wife, being subject to devise over, may have determined by the happening of the event upon which it was given over, as, for instance, the death of the wife under twenty-one without issue. Buchtoorth v. Thirkell, 3 Bos. & Pul. 652, n. The husband will be tenant by the curtesy when his wife is one of several coparceners or tenants in common ; secus if she be one of several joint tenants. Litt. s. 45 ; 2 EoH. Ab. 90, pi. 50. So likewise of incorporeal here- ditaments of which the wife is seised, as rents, advowsons, commons. Co. Litt. 30 b. The new law of inheritance, 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 106, does not, it seems, prevent a husband from becoming tenant by the curtesy to any estate which his wife has inherited. Wil- liams's Eeal Prop. 204, note (a), and Appendix E, 12th edit. Nor wiU the Married Women's Property Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 93), although it interferes with the old marital right of the husband to the rents of lands which descend to her during her life, affect his right as tenant by the curtesy after her death. See sect. 8, which enacts, that "where any freehold, copy- hold or customary hold property shall descend upon any woman married after the passing of this act as heiress or co-heiress of an intes- tate, the rents and profits of such property shall, subject and without prejudice to the trusts of any settle- ment affecting the same, belong to such woman for her separate iise, and her receipt alone shall be a good discharge for the same." Curtesy of an Equitable Estate. Courts of Equity, acting by ana- logy to Courts of Law, have held that the husband is entitled as tenant by the curtesy when the estate of inheritance of the wife is equitable, as when it is a trust estate of land ( Watts v. Ball, 1 P. Wms. 108), or of money to be laid out in land (^Cunningham, v. Moody, 1 Ves. 174; Sweetapple v. Bindon, 2 Vern. 536 ; Dodson v. Hay, 3 Bro. C. 0. 404), or an equity of redemption ( Cashorne v. Scarf e, 1 Atk. 603 ; 7 Yin. Abr. 156 ; 2 J. & W. 194). And the mere fact that the rents and profits are directed to be paid to the wife, during coverture, to her separate use, will not exclude the husband on her death from the en- joyment of his general right as tenant by the curtesy in the equitable inheritance of his wife. Roberts v. Dixwell, 1 Atk. 607, and see Pitt v. Jackson, 2 Bro. C. C. 51 ; Morgan V. Morgan, 5 Madd. 408 ; Follett v. Tyrer, 14 Sim. 125; Harris v. Mott, 14 Beav. 169; Appleton v. Rowley, 8 L. P., Eq. 139; overruling on this point Hearle v. Greenbank, 3 Atk. 715. The case of Moore v. Webster, 3 L. E., Eq. 267, seems to have been wrongly decided by Sir J. Stuart, V.-C, against the hus- band's right to curtesy as the wife was seised of the whole equitable fee. See the remarks of Sir E. Malins, Y.-C, in Appleton v. Row- Digitized by Microsoft® 62 Lewis Bowles's Case. ley, 8 L. R., Eq. 143, and Cooper v. Macdonald, 7 Ch. D. 297. Wliere a married woman Jbas an equitable fee to lier separate use, she may dispose of it either by deed or will as against both her hus- band's estate by the curtesy and as against the estate of her son as heir. (Cooper V. Macdonald, 7 Oh. D. 288, 296) ; but, in the absence of such disposition, the right of the husband and the heir wUl be un- affected, lb. And where a married woman is equitable tenant in tail to her separate use, the restraint upon anticipation will not prevent her from barring the estate tail, with the concurrence of her husband, under the 40th section of the Fines and Eecoveries Act (3 & 4 WiU. 4, e. 74), and acquiring an equitable fee to her separate use, which she has power to devise so as to defeat her husband's tenancy by the cur- tesy. Cooper V. Macdonald, 7 Ch. D. 288. The husband may in equity be excluded from curtesy by the ex- press terms of the instrument giving an estate to his wife. Thus in the case of Bennet v. Davis, 2 P. Wms. 316, where a man devised lands to his daughter for her separate and peculiar use, exclusive of her hus- band, to hold the same to her and her heirs, and that her husband should not be tenant by the cur- tesy, nor have these lands for his life, in case he survived, but that they should upon the wife's death go to her heirs, it was held by Sir Joseph Jekyll, M. E., that although at law the husband might be tenant by the curtesy, yet he was merely a trustee, and was bound to convoy to a trustee for the separate use of the wife and to her heirs. The husband, however, will not be excluded from his right to cur- tesy unless the intention be clear. Steadman v. Pulling, 3 Atk. 423, 427. When Alien may he Tenant hy the Curtesy. Formerly, if the husband were an alien he would not be entitled as tenant by the curtesy, unless he were either naturalized or made a denizen. If he were naturalized, inasmuch as the effect of naturalization (un- less it was limited in its operation) was retrospective, he would be en- titled by the curtesy, whether issue were born before or after he was naturalized. Fish v. Klein, 2 Mer. 432 ; Fourdrin v. Goxvdey, 3 My. & K. 401. If the husband were made a denizen he would not, it seems, be entitled where the only issue had been born abroad, inasmuch as such issue could not inherit from their mother {Doe v. Jones, 4 T. E. 300) ; but when the issue had been born in this country, even previously to the husband being made a deni- zen, inasmuch as the issue could inherit the lands of the mother, and the personal disability of the husband to hold land ceased on his denization, he was entitled to claim as tenant by the curtesy, not only the lands which the wife acquired subsequently to his becoming a de- nizen, but those of which she was seised before that event. See 1 Bright, Husb. & "Wife, 125. However, it seems now that an alien, married after the passing of the Naturalization Act, 1870 (33 Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowles's Case. 63 & 34 Vict. c. 14), will be tenant by the curtesy, although he may not have been naturalized or made a denizen ; see sect 2, which enacts that "real and personal property of every description may be taken, acquired, held and disposed of by an alien in the same manner and in all respects as by a natural-bora British subject. . . Provided that this section shall not affect any estate or interest in real or personal property to which any person has or may become entitled, either mediately or immediately, in possession or ex- pectancy, in pursuance of any dis- position made before the passing of the act, or in pursuance of any de- volution by law on the death of any person dying before the passing of this act." See also 7 & 8 Vict. c. 16. Legal Marriage requisite. Legal marriage is essential before a man can claim as tenant by the curtesy. Co. Litt. 30 a. Formerly, if a man married and had issue by an idiot, found so after- wards by office, the lands might be seized by the king, for as the title of tenancy by the curtesy and of the king began at one instant, the title of the king was preferred (Co. Litt. 30 b) ; but now, as the marriage would be void ah initio, the title of the husband by curtesy would never arise. Morrison's Case, cited 1 Hag. Consist. Eep. 417. Seisin requisite. There must be an actual seisin, or seisin in deed of the wife, as Coke terms it, where it is attain- able, in order to entitle the husband to be tenant by the curtesy. Thus, if a wife having had issue dies before she made an entry upon her inheritance, the husband, although she was seised in law, will not be tenant by the curtesy (Co. Litt. 29 a; 6 T. E. 680); though if the seisin be but momentary it will be suffi- cient [Parker v. Carter, 4 Hare, 418). So if the wife, after having had seisin, was disseised before marriage, and no entry was made during the coverture, the husband wtII not be entitled as tenant by the curtesy (Perk. s. 458) ; secus if the disseisin took place after marriage. lb. Actual seisin where attainable is not rendered unnecessary by 3 & 4 WiU. 4, c. 106, s. 2. 1 Bright, Husb. &Wife, 117, note. Although formerly the possession of one tenant in common was the possession of all, so as to entitle the husband of another to be tenant by the curtesy (Sterling v. Penlington, 7 Vin. Abr. 150, pi. 11), the law is now altered. 3 & 4 WiU. 4, c. 27, s. 12. See Cidley v. Doe d. Tayler- son, 11 Ad. & Ell. 1008; Doe d. Holt V. Horroclis, 1 Car. & K. 566. Seisin at law will be sufficient, if actual seisin is unattainable. Thus where a man dies seised of an ad- vowson or rent in fee which de- scends to a daughter, a married woman, who hath issue, and dies seised before the rent became due or the church became void, although she had but a seisin in law, her hus- band wiU be tenant by the curtesy, because he could by no industry attain to any other seisin. Et im- potentia exousat legem. Co. Litt. 29 a. According to Perkins the husband Digitized by Microsoft® 64 Lewis Bowles's Case. shall have cui'tesy in an advowson, though he suffers the ordinary to present by a lapse on an avoidance in liis wife's lifetime (Perk. sect. 468), but such a case is not within Lord Coke's reason for allowing curtesy of an advowson without seisin in deed. Co. Litt. 29 a, note 5, Harg. & Butl. ed. It is clear, however, that if an advowson be appendant to a manor, and there have been no entry upon the manor during the coverture, the husband shall not be tenant by curtesy of the advowson, which is merely accessory to the manor of which seisin might have been had. Note to Co. Litt. 29 a ; Hale's M8S. If, however, the inheritance of the wife be subject to a lease for years, actual entry or receipt of the rents is unnecessary to entitle the husband as tenant by the curtesy, inasmuch as the possession of the lessee is the possession of the wife. De Grey v. Richardson, 3 Atk. 469 ; and see Co. Litt. 29 b. Courts of Equity actingby analogy to Courts of Law required an equit- able seisin, such as the receipt of the rents and profits by the husband, in order to entitle him to be tenant by the curtesy of the wife's equit- able estate. Cashome v. Scarfe, 1 Atk. 603; 7 Yin. Abr. 156; De Grey v. Richardson, 3 Atk. 472 ; Casburne v. InffUs, 2 J. & "W. 194 ; 4 Hare, 405. And see JFatis v. Ball, 1 P. "Wms. 108; Stone v. Godfrey, 1 Sm. & Gitf. 690 ; 5 De Qex, Mac. & G. 76. If the coverture begins after an adverse possession has commenced, and terminates during the con- tinuance of such adverse possession. or, if both the trustee and cestui que trust are disseised before the equitable estate of the wife begins, by a party claiming by a title para- mount to the trust who retains pos- session until after the death of the wife, the husband would not acquire any title as tenant by the curtesy. FarJcer v. Carter, 4 Hare, 400, 416. Although the right of the hus- band as tenant by the curtesy of an equitable estate of the wife may be excluded by a possession of the es- tate strictly adverse to the husband and wife, and to all other parties uiterested under a settlement during the whole period of coverture, yet the possession of the estate in con- formity viath the equitable interests of the cestui que trusts, for however short a time during the coverture, and after the interest of the wife has become vested in possession, will support the title of the hus- band as tenant by the curtesy. Parher v. Carter, 4 Hare, 400. So the possession of the cestui que trust under the trusts of a set- tlement is the possession of the trustee, and gives him a seisin of the estate, which is not interrupted by the death of the cestui que trust, but immediately enures for the bene- fit of the person next entitled to the equitable interest, and, notwith- standing the adverse possession of another party soon afterwards com- menced, the Court cannot presume such adverse possession to have commenced so instantaneously on the death of the first cestui que trust, as wholly to exclude the equitable seisin of the parties next entitled to the beneficial interest. lb. Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowles's Case. 65 Birth of inheritable Issue requisite. Tte wife nmst have issue by the husband, such as by possibility may inherit the estate, otherwise the hus- band will not be tenant by the cur- tesy. Thus if an estate be limited to a woman and the heirs male of her body, and she have issue only a daughter, the husband will not be tenant by the curtesy, as there was no issue born who could by possi- bility inherit the estate. So like- wise if the limitation be to her and the heirs female of her body, and she have issue only a son (Co. Litt. 29 b). So if an estate be limited to a woman and the heirs of her body by A., her then husband, and upon the death of A. she marries B., although she has issue by B., yet as such issue could not by any pos- sibility inherit the estate, B. wUl not be tenant by the curtesy (Perk, s. 465 ; 8 Co. 35 b ; Co. Litt. 29 b). Seous, if the wife had been seised in fee of an estate, even if there had been issue by the prior marriage. 2 Bro. Tenant per le Curtesy, 8. Nor wUl the husband be tenant by the curtesy where the issue claim, by purchase and not by descent. Sumner v. Partridge, 2 Atk. 45 ; Barker v. Barker, 2 Sim. 249, 252. The issue must be born during the marriage ; therefore where the child is born after the death of the mother, as is the case when the CEesarean operation has been performed, it is said by Lord Coke that the husband wiU not be tenant by the curtesy, because he cannot allege that he had issue during the marriage {Paine' s Case, 8 Co. 35 a ; Co. Litt. 29 b) ; but at the present day, a chUd T.L.C. en ventre sa mere might now be considered for all purposes as in esse [Thellusson v. Woodford, 4 Ves. 323, 334 ; 1 Bright, Husb. & Wife, 124). "One of the difaoulties, however, stated by Lord Coke, if it can be considered substantial, still exists. The estate, during the short interval after the death of the wife, descends to her next heir, and is not divested ab initio by the subse- quent birth of the child" (1 Eop. Husb. & W. 31 ; Basset v. Bassett, 3 Atk. 207 ; Goodtitle v. Newman, 3 WUs. 516; 4 Yes. 335). But if issue be born either before the wife was seised, and entry is afterwards made, or even if issue have died in the life of the father before descent of the land, he wiU nevertheless be tenant by the curtesy. Co. Litt. 29 b; Perk. s. 473. The issue must be born alive, but it is not essential that the child should be heard to cry out, as that is only one of the proofs that it is born alive, since motion, stirring, and the like, may be sufficient, especially when we consider that a child may be born dumb (Co. Litt. 29 a). As to evidence whether a child is born alive, see Jones v. Ricketts, 10 W. E. (M. E.) 576. There is an exception to the general rule as to the necessity of the birth of issue in order to confer an estate by curtesy in the case of lands of gavelkind tenure; for in that case a husband who outlives his wife, whether he may have had issue by her or not, wlU, as long as he remains unmarried, be entitled for life to a moiety of the estate. Co. Litt. 30 ; Dav. 50 ; 2 Sid. 153 ; Eob. Gavelk. b. 2, c. 1. F Digitized by Microsoft® 66 Lewis Bowles's Case. Death of Wife requisite. Although for some purposes the estate of tenant by the curtesy is inchoate during the life of the wife, it is not complete until her death, (Co. Litt. 30 a) ; hence it has been held that he has not, during the life of his wife, such an estate of freehold in an estate of which she is seised in fee as would merge a term in the estate to which he is entitled in his own right. Jones v. Bavies, 5 H. & N. 825 ; 7 H. & N. 609; 31 L.J. (Exch.) 116. Incidents and Liabilities of Tenancy hy the Curtesy. Tenant by the curtesy is entitled to emblements (post, p. 103), liable for waste (post, p. 107), and he must keep down the interest of incumbrances on the estate. 1 Atk. 606 ; post, p. 97. Previous to 8 & 9 Vict. c. 112, (which determined after the 31st of December, 1845, satisfied terms attendant upon the inheritance,) tenant by the curtesy was entitled to be relieved from a satisfied term of years set up by the heir at law as a bar to his title. Snell v. Clay, 2 Vern. 324. The estate of the husband, as tenant by the curtesy, is only a continuation of that of his wife ; hence if there are coparceners of an advowson, and they cannot agree to present, the law wiU give the presentment to the eldest ; and on her death her husband, who is ten- ant by the curtesy, wUl have this privilege also. Co. Litt. 166 b. How Curtesy may he defeated and harred. The right of the husband to cxu-- tesy AviU be defeated by the birth and entry of a posthumous brother of his wife ; but his right to curtesy wiU be revived upon his re-entry during the marriage, after the death of the brother without issue. 2 Bro. Tenant per le Curtesy, fol. 249 b, pi. 13. The husband's right to curtesy, where the wife's estate is defeasible by condition, may also be defeated by the entry of the donor for con- dition broken (1 Bright, Husb. & "Wife, 152), or by the recovery of the wife's estate in an action against the husband and wife (lb.), iinless the recovery were reversed. Perk. 6. 475. A fine or recovery, in which the husband and wife joined, unless the fine were reversed, as, for instance, in consequence of the wife being under the age of twenty-one ( Char- noclce V. Worsley, Cro. EUz. 129 ; Fitz. N. B. 21 d), would defeat the husband's title to curtesy. The husband might also have defeated his right to curtesy, by a conveyance of his wife's estate by a conveyance having a tortious operation, as a feoffment, fine or recovery (Bright, Husb. & Wife, 154; Co. Litt. 30b; 2 Bro. Tenant per le Curtesy, 6, 7 ; Yin. Abr. 162, pi. 2 ; Hob. 338) ; but now fines and recoveries are abolished (3 & 4 WiU. 4, c. 74), and a feofiment has no longer a tortious effect. 7 & 8 Vict. c. 76, and 8 & 9 Vict. c. 106. The wife, by eloping with an adulterer, forfeits, as we shall here- after see (post, p. 80), her right to dower, but the husband's estate by curtesy wiU not be forfeited by his committing that offence. The reason of the difference is, that the statute of Westminster, cap. 2, Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowles's Case. 67 34 (13 Edw. 1, c. 34), by express •words, under these circumstances, creates a forfeiture of dower; but there is no act inflicting in the other case the forfeiture of a ten- ancy by the curtesy. Sidney v. Sidney, 3 P. Wms. 269, 276. The husband's attainder of trea- son or other capital felony would have disabled him from claiming curtesy (1 Bright, Husb. & "Wife, 156; Co. Litt. 391). As to the effect of a pardon from the crown, see Bright, Husb. & Wife, 156, 157. See, however, now 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23 (4th July, 1870), by which for- feitures for felony and treason have been abolished. The question has been raised, whether a wife can defeat her hus- band's title to curtesy out of an estate, by her election to take other property conferred upon her by a will, in which her own estate has been devised away from her by the testator. It appears, in the case of Cavan v. Pulteney, 2 Ves. jun. 560, to have been assumed by Lord Loughborough that she could do so, but as she elected in that case to retain her own estate to which she was entitled in tail, the question was not actually decided (see S. C, 3 Ves. jun. 384 ; and Long v. Long, 5 Ves. 447). It seems difficult, how- ever, to see upon what principle the wife has any power to elect, so as to bind her husband's legal right to curtesy, or how a Court of Equity can compel him to convey his legal right. See Brodie v. Barry, 2 V. & B. 127 ; Halford v. Dillon, 2 Brod. 6 Bing. 12 ; 1 Eop. Husb. & Wife, 30, note by Jacob ; Wall v. Wall, 15 Sim. 513; 2 L. C. Eq. 406, 5th ed. A husband tenant by the curtesy of an estate tail, which his wife elects to take in opposition to a will under which he also accepts benefits, wiU not be put to his elec- tion. Lady Cavan v. Pulteney, 2 Ves. jun. 544 ; 3 Ves. 384; see also Brodie v. Barry, 2 V. & B. 127. The husband would formerly have been barred of curtesy if Ms wife were attainted of treason before the birth of issue, but not where inherit- able issue had been previously born. Hale'sPl.Cr.359,Curtesy,fol.249b, pi. 3; Bright, Husb. & Wife, 159. If the wife were attainted of felony, the husband, nevertheless, would always have been tenant by curtesy in respect of the issue which he had before the felony, and which by possibility might have inherited (Co. Litt. 40 a) ; but formerly, if the wife had been attainted of felony before the birth of issue, the hus- band, althoTigh afterwards there were issue, would not have been tenant by the curtesy. lb. By 54 Geo. 3, o. 145, no attainder for felony, except for the crimes of high treason, petit treason (since abolished, 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, s. 2), or murder, or of abetting, procuring or committing the same, should extend to the disentitling of any heir, nor to the prejudice of the rights of any person, other than the offender during his natural life only. See also, 3 & 4 WiU. 4, c. 106, s. 10. And it seems that a pardon would not entitle a husband, whose wife was attainted of felony before the birth of issue, to claim curtesy (1 Bright, Husb. & Wife, 160; and see 1 Leon. 3, pi. 7 ; Gate v. Wise- man, Dyer, 140 b), except as to r2 Digitized by Microsoft® 68 Lewis Bowles's Case. lands acquired by tlie wife after pardon (Co. Litt. 392; Perk. s. 387) ; but be would be entitled to curtesy if bar attainder were reversed, or she died before judgment. 4 Bl. Comm. 392; Co. Litt. 390 b; 1 Brigbt, Husb. & Wif e, 161. However, since tbe passing of 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23 (4th July, 1870), forfeitures for treason and felony have been abolished. V. Doiver. Tenancy in dower at common law may now be generally defined as being the estate that a widow (if not barred of such estate) is entitled to have assigned to her for her life in one-third of the hereditaments, which her husband is seised of in fee simple or fee tail, and which her issue, if any, might by possi- bility inherit. Dower is given to a woman for the sustenance of herself and the nurture and education of her chil- dren. Co. Litt. 30 b. The law relating to dower has been very materially altered by the Dower Act (3 & 4 WiU. 4, c. 105), as to women not married on or be- fore the 1st day of January, 1834 ; it will therefore be necessary to state the law, both previous to and after the passing of that act. It may be here mentioned, that dower ad ostium eoclesice, and dower ex assensu patris, which are fully described Co. Litt. 34 a — 37 b, are now abolished, 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 105, s. 13 ; Dower de la pluis heale (Co. Litt. 38 a— 39 b), being merely a consequence of tenure by knights' service, was virtually abolished by the statute 12 Car. 2, c. 24, which converts such tenures into socage. Before examining the requisites to dower we must see out of what kind of property a woman wiU be entitled to dower. Out of what Property and Estate a Woman is entitled to Doiver. A widow will be entitled to dower, not only out of corporeal hereditaments of the husband, such as lands and houses, but also out of shares in public companies, being real estate {Buckeridge v. Ingram, 2 Ves. jun. 651 ; Dryhutter v. Bar- tholomew, 2 P. Wms. 127) ; open mines {Holy v. Hohy, 1 Vern. 218 ; Stoughton v. Leigh, 1 Taunt. 402), the proceeds of timber felled by the heir {Bishop v. Bishop, 10 L. J., Ch. (N. S.) 302; 5 Jur. 931; DicMn V. Hamer, 1 Drew. & Sm. 284), a mansion-house, though in its nature indivisible {Gerrard^. Gerrard, Ld. Eaym. 72 ; 5 Mod. 64) ; and also out of incorporeal hereditaments, such as the profits of stallage, of a fair, of the office of Marshalsea, of keeping a park, of a piscary (Co. Litt. 32 a ; so likewise out of rents (lb.; Perk. s. 347), advowsons ap- pendant or in gross (Co. Litt. 32 a; Howard v. Cavendish, Cro. Jac. 621), or commons (Co. Litt. 32 a), unless they be without stint. Co. Litt. 30 b, 30 a; Perk. s. 341. A widow, however, will not be dowable out of real estate purchased in the name of her husband, with partnership property, for the pur- poses of partnership in trade, inas- much as it is considered in equity, to all intents and purposes, as per- sonal estate, and, therefore, not liable to dower {Phillips v. Phillips, 1 My. & K. 649 ; aS". C. more fully stated, Bisset on Partnership, p. 50, Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowles's Case. 69 ■witli some very able observations, elucidating the law on this subject. And see 1 L. Oas. Eq. 214, 5tli ed.). Nor is a -widow entitled to dower out of a mere annuity not issuing out of land or tenements, altbougb it be made payable to a man and bis heirs, as out of the Post-office revenues {Lady Holdernesse v. Mar- quis of Carmarthen, 1 Bro. 0. 0. 377), or out of a subsisting rent or duty. Earl of Stafford v. Buckley, 2 Ves. 170 ; AuUn v. Baly, 4 Barn. 6 Aid. 59. Tbe quality of the property may be so affected by the election of third parties as to deprive the widow of dower. Thus, if even previous to the Dower Act the husband had before marriage given another per- son the option of purchasing certain land, if the option were exercised the land would thereby be converted into personalty, of which the widow could not claim dower, though other- wise she would be entitled to it. 7 Ves. 436 ; Toivnley v. Bedivell, 14 Ves. 591. Again, in certain cases she must exercise her own option of what she wUl be endowed : if, for instance, her husband has made an exchange of lands, she will not be dowable both of the land given and the land taken by her husband in exchange ; she must elect to be dowable of one of them. Co. Litt. 31 b ; Perk. B. 319. It must be remembered now that the dower of women not married on or before January 1st, 1834, will be defeated by the alienation of her husband. 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 105, ss. 4, 14. The estate of the husband, in order to give his wife a title to dower, must bo the entire inherit- ance, either in fee or in tail. Hence, a woman cannot be dowable of a re- version in fee where a previous life interest is in existence (Co. Litt. 32b; 1 EoU. Abr. 677; Duncomb V. Duncomh, 3 Lev. 437 ; Darcy v. Blale, 2 S. & L. 387), nor where an estate for life or in tail intervenes between the life interest and in- heritance of the husband (Perk. s. 335 ; 1 EoU. Abr. 677, pi. 15 ; Doe d. Jones v. Jones, 1 B. & 0. 244) ; unless those estates terminate during the coverture, either by the death of the tenant for life or the death of the tenant in tail without issue, in which case, as the hus- band would have the whole of the inheritance, dower would attach. Perk. s. 337. If, however, the intervening estate be vested in the wife during coverture, and she disclaim it {But- ler V. Baher, 3 Co. Eep. 27 ; Totvn- son V. Tickell, 3 Barn. & Aid. 31), or if the interposed interest be merely a chattel, as a term of years {Bates V. Bates, Ld. Eaym. 327), or a devise to executors for payment of debts previous to the inheritance to the husband (Co. Litt. 42 a), the widow would be entitled to dower, although in the latter cases she could not claim the enjoyment of it until the expiration of the term or until the debts of the devisor were paid off. Hitchens v. Hitchens, 2 Vern. 403 ; Perk. s. 835. It seems that if the inheritance of the husband were dependent upon a contingent estate taU, if that did not vest, or if previous to 8 & 9 Vict. c. 106, the inheritance had Digitized by Microsoft® 70 Lewis Bowles's Case. descended upon tlie husband tenant for life, and merged therewith so as to destroy a previous contingent re- mainder dependent upon the estate for life {Hooker v. Hooker, Cas. t. Hardw. 13; Crump v. Wooley, 7 Taunt. 362; 2 Barn. K. B. 200, 232, 379), the widow would he en- titled to dower. < Now, however, since 8 & 9 Vict. c. 106, the con- tingent remainders would not be destroyed. And see 40 & 41 Vict. c. 33. If the husband have a general power of appointment previous to his estate of inheritance, his widow will be entitled to dower if the power be not exercised {Cunning- ham V. Moody, 1 Ves. 174; Smith v. Camelford, 2 Ves. jun. 698 ; Doe V. Martin, 4 T. E. 39; Doe v. Weller, 7 T. E. 478 ; Maundrell v. Mawidrell, 10 Ves. 263, 265); but if he divest himself of his inherit- ance by the exercise of the power, even under the old law, his widow's claim to dower will be defeated. Maundrell v. Maundrell, 10 Ves. 265; Ray v. Fung, 5 Madd. 310; 5 Barn. & Aid. 561. In general a widow will be en- titled to dower of a defeasible estate of her husband so long as it exists ; thus, under the old law, and when feoffments had a tortious operation, where a husband tenant for life made a feoffment in fee his widow would, as against the feoffee, bo entitled to dower, because he having taken an estate in fee could not allege that the husband had only a limited interest, although her- right would cease upon the entry of the person entitled in remainder or re- version after the determination of the life interest. Taylor's Case, cited 1 Sir Wm. Jones, 317. So under the old law, where a tenant in tail conveyed his estate by fine to a purchaser in fee, as the fine would bar the issue of the tenant in tail, but not those in re- mainder, the widow of the pur- chaser would be entitled to dower as long as there were issue of the tenant in tail; on failure of issue the remainderman might enter upon the estate and hold it free from her claim of dower. Seymor''s Case, 10 Eep. 95 b, 96; Doe d. Neville V. Rivers, 7 T. E. 278. The widow wUl be entitled to dower, although the estate of her husband determines by escheat for want of heirs (Jenk. 5). Where, however, the estate of the husband is defeated by a paramount title, as if he had been a disseisor, and the disseisee had entered upon him, the widow of the disseisor will be unable to claim dower. Litt. s. 393. "We have before seen that the widow of a tenant in tail will be entitled to dower, although the estate tail end on account of there being no issue ; the reason is, that the estate of dower "is not derived merely out of the estate of the hus- band, but is created by the law, and by privilege and benefit of the law is annexed to the gift to him." Paine' s Case, 8 Co. Eep. 36 a. Hence, if an estate be given to a man in fee, with an executory limi- tation over if he should have no issue, his wife wUl be entitled to dower, notwithstanding he may have died without issue. See Moody V. King, 2 Bing. 447, where Best, 0. J., in giving judgment, Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowles's Case. 71 observed that it had been said at the bar, that if the wido-w in such a case was held entitled to dower you must take it out of the estate of the person who had the executory devise, to whom she was a perfect stranger; that, however, was not so, as dower was part of the estate of the husband, as it was part of tenant in tail's estate, who died without issue, and not that of the remainderman. See also Buckworth V. ThirMl, 3 B. & P. 652, n. (o) ; Smiths. Spencer, 2 Jur. (N. S.) 778. Under the old law the estate of which the husband was seised must have been legal, in order to entitle the wife to dower ; she was not therefore dowable of an equity of redemption of an estate mortgaged in fee {Dixon v. Saville, 1 Bro. 0. C. 326), nor of a trust estate {Darcy v. Blake, 2 S. & L. 387 ; Kernaghan V. M'Nally, 11 Ir. Ch. Eep. 52; 12 Ir. Oh. Eep. 89), where either the mortgage had been made or the trust created before the marriage, except perhaps in cases where the legal estate had been fraudulently conveyed away for the purpose of defeating dower. GUb. Lex Prset. 267 ; see however Sivannock v. Lyf- ford, Co. Litt. 208 a, n. 1. Upon a merger, however, of the legal and equitable estates of in- heritance during the coverture, the wife wUl even under the old law be dowable {Selhy v. Alston, 3 Tes. 339) ; but the union of the legal and equitable estates must be complete {Knight v. Frampton, 4 Beav. 10), and commensurate {Lyster v. Ma- hony, 1 Dru. & Wan-. 236). See however Lloyd v. Lloyd, 4 Dru. & Warr. 354, 370, where Lord St. Leonards (then Lord Chancellor of Ireland) held, that where there was vested in the husband during cover- ture a bare legal fee simple upon which dower would attach at law, and an equitable estate taU., inas- much as the whole legal fee simple would be exhausted to the extent of the equitable estate tail, and as the estate tail if legal would be liable to dower, in such case the widow would be entitled to dower, as a Court of Equity would not prevent her from enforcing her right at law. See also S. C. 2 Conn. & Laws. 592. "Where the husband had a bare legal estate, either as mortgagee in fee, after the estate had become absolute at law (Park, Dow. 100), or as trustee {Noel v. Jevon, Preem. Ch. Eep. 43 ; Nash v. Preston, Cro. Car. 191 ; 1 EoU. Abr. 679, pi. 50), as, for instance, where he had con- tracted to sell the estate before co- verture, in which case he was a trus- tee for the purchaser {Lloyd v. Lloyd, 2 Conn. & Laws. 692 ; 4 Dru. & "Warr. 355); the widow, although she might be entitled at law to dower, would have been restrained from proceeding there by a Court of Equity {Noel v. Jevon, Freem. 43 ; Lloyds. Lloyd, 2 C. & L. 599; 4 Dru. &Warr. 370), unless it appeared that the trust was a mere fraudulent contrivance to defeat the creditors of thehusband, who was the real owner of the estate {Bateman V. Bateman, 2 Vern. 436, Eaithby's Ed.), and if the husband even after marriage entered into a valid con- tract to sell his equitable estate, the wife would not be entitled to dower, merely because subsequently the Digitized by Microsoft® 72 Lewis Bowles's Case. legal estate vested in the husband. 4 Dru. & Warr. 370. Although at the time a widow of a mortgagee in fee makes her claim to dower, in consequence of the lapse of time and other circum- stances there may be no person en- titled to redeem, yet if that state of things did not exist at the time of the husband's death his widow wUl not be entitled to dower. Flack v. Longmate, 8 Beav. 420. We have before seen that a hus- band is entitled to curtesy of his wife's equitable estates ; in order, therefore, to put an end to an anomaly, operating very unfairly towards women, it was enacted by 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 105, "that when a husband shall die beneficially en- titled to any land for an interest which shall not entitle his widow to dower out of the same at law, and such interest, whether wholly equit- able, or partly legal and partly equitable, shall be an estate of in- heritance in possession, or equal to an estate of inheritance in posses- sion (other than an estate in joint tenancy), then his widow shall be entitled in equity to dower out of the same lands." Sect. 2. It has been held that as the Dower Act does not apply to copy- holds, a v(T.dow is not entitled to freebench of an equitable estate in lands of that tenure [Smithy. Adams, 18 Beav. 499 ; 5 De G., Mac. & G. 712 ; Powdrell v. Jones, 2 8m. & Giff. 407) ; but it has been decided that the act aj)plies to gavelkind lands, and consequently that a widow is entitled to dower of an equitable estate therein. Farley v. Bonliam, 2 J. & H. 177. Under the old law, where there was a legal term for years, created before the right to dower attached, the widow could, at law, only ob- tain judgment with a cesset executio during the term {Maundrell v. Maundrell, 7 Ves. 567; 10 Yes. 246). In the case, however, of a satisfied term, a Court of Equity would prevent either the heir or devisee of the husband, or any other volunteer, from setting it up at law (lb.) ; but not a purchaser for valuable consideration, even with notice, of the right to dower [Mole V. Smith, 1 J. & W. 665) ; and upon a sale would even compel him to accept the title and to take an assignment of the term, as a suffi- cient protection against dower (lb.). In a recent case, a husband, mar- ried before the passing of the Dower Act, was seised in fee of real estate, subject to a term of five hundred years, vested in trustees upon trust to secure life annuities, a gross simi of 1,000/., and to pay Mm half the surplus rents. It was held by Sir John Eomilly, M. E., that the widow was entitled to have her dower assigned at once by metes and bounds. "I think," said his Honor, "her right to have dower assigned is incident to the fact that she has a present right to dower, though it is true it cannot be enjoyed during the term." Sheaf v. Cave, 24 Beav. 259. It must be remem- bered that, after the 31st December, 1845, satisfied terms, upon becom- ing attendant on the inheritance, absolutely determine. 8 & 9 Vict, c. 112. We must now consider what are the requisites to dower. Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowles's Case. 73 Legal Marriage requisite. Pirst. There must be a legal mar- riage in order to entitle the wife to dower (Mod. 226; Perk. s. 304); but if it be only voidable, until it have been legally dissolved, her right wiU stiU. remain. Hennington V. Cole, 'Noj's Eep. 29 ; and see Co. Litt. 33 a. Formerly an alien woman, except in the case of the Queen Consort, was not dowable ; but by a special act of parliament not printed, Eot. Pari. 8 Hen. 5, n. 15, all women aliens, who from thenceforth should be married to Englishmen by licence of the King, are enabled to demand their dower after the death of their husbands, to whom they should in time to come be married, in the same manner as Englishwomen. See Co. Litt. 31 b, and Note 187, lb. However, all alien women mar- ried to natural-born subjects became entitled to dower under 7 & 8 Yict. c. 66, which enacts : That any woman married or who should be married to a natural-born subject or person naturalized, should have all the rights and privileges of a natural- born subject (Sect. 16). This act is repealed by 33 Vict. c. 14, by which aliens can take and hold property like natural-born British subj acts. Possibility that Issue of Wife might inherit requisite. Secondly. Although the birth of issue is not requisite in order to give the wife a title to dower, it is essential that the hereditaments of the husband be such as that the issue of the wife, if any, may by possibility inherit. Thus if lands be settled upon a man and the heirs of his body by a woman then his wife, and he die during her lifetime, without issue by her, she will never- theless be entitled to dower, as she might have had issue inheritable to the lands. If, however, in the case put, the wife died first, and the husband married again, the second wife would not be entitled to dower, because her issue could by no possibility inherit (Litt. s. 53). The advanced age of the wife, or the tender age of the husband, at the time of the marriage, will be no objection to the wife's claim of dower, as the law will not presume an impossibility of her having in- heritable issue. Co. Litt. 40 a. Seisin of Hushand under the old Law requisite. Thirdly. Another requisite to dower under the law before the Dower Act (which is inapplicable to women married on or before January 1, 1834) is seisin of the husband before his death ; but, in this respect differing from tenancy by the curtesy, actual seisin is not indispensable. If, for instance, lands and tenements descended to the husband, and he died before entry, although he had only a seisin at law, nevertheless the wife would be entitled to dower: "for,'' ob- served Coke, "it lieth not in the power of the wife to bring it to an actual seisin, as the husband may do of his wife's land, when he is to be tenant by the curtesy, which is worthy the observation." Co. Litt. 31a. Where, however, before the act, the husband had no seisin at law, a mere right of entry (Perk. ss. 368, Digitized by Microsoft® 74 Lewis Bowles's Case. 369), or riglit of action (Perk. ss. 370, 376), -would not give his wido-w a right to dower. Under the Dower Act, "when a husband shall have been entitled to a right of entry or action in any land, and his widow would be en- titled to dower out of the same if he had recovered possession thereof, she shall be entitled to dower out of the same, although her husband shall not have recovered possession thereof ; provided that such dower be sued for or obtained within the period during which such right of entry or action might be enforced." 3 & 4 WiU. 4, c. 105, s. 3. The Dower Act does not apply to freebench. Therefore where a pur- chaser of a copyhold held of a manor, the custom of which entitled widows of the copyholders to free- bench in one moiety of the lands of which their husbands died seised, took a surrender, but died before admittance, it was held that his widow was not entitled to freebench at law or in equity. See Smith v. Adams, 5 De Gex, Mac. & G. 712, reversing the decision of Sir John EomiUy, M. K., reported 18 Beav. 499. The seisin of the husband must, previous to the Dower Act, have been sole; and indeed, subsequently to the act, the wife is only dowable of lands of which her husband was solely entitled. Thus if a husband was one of i^o joint tenants in fee, and he either conveyed away his interest, or died so that it survived to the other, his widow neither be- fore nor after the act would be en- titled to dower (Co. Litt. 30, 31b); of course if the husband were the survivor his wife would be entitled to dower {Broughton v. Randall, Cro. EHz. 503). Where, however, the husband is one of two or more tenants in common, his wife will be entitled to dower, inasmuch as each has a several freehold and inherit- ance descendible to his heir (Co. Litt. 37 b) ; and after a partition a widow will be entitled to dower of the entirety allotted to her hus- band. Reynard v. Spence, 4 Beav. 103. The necessity for a sole seisin of the husband during the old law gave rise to many devices amongst conveyancers, in order to prevent the right to dower attaching upon land purchased by a man, by convejdng it to him and a trustee jointly in various manners, in order to pre- vent the obstacles to alienation which might arise from the wife being unwilling to release her right to dower, and also the expense which was necessarily occasioned by her doing so, by Joining with her husband in a fine or recovery, the only mode by which formerly (be- fore 3 & 4 WiU. 4, c. 74) that ob- ject could be effected. See Hayes's Introd. 259, 260. The usual limitations, however, by which dower was prevented from attaching upon hereditaments, was by their conveyance " to such uses as the owner should appoint, and, in default of appointment, to him for life ; and, on the determi- nation of his estate in his lifetime, to a trustee and his heirs for the life of the owner, in trust for biTn ; and, on the determination of the estate of the trustee, to the owner and his heirs." These were termed common uses to bar dower, and by their means the owner was enabled Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowles's Case. to alien mtliout the assistance of his trustee, for an execution of the power entirely defeated the subse- quent uses, lb. 261,262; see Col- lard V. Roe, 4 De G. & Jones, 525. These limitations would not bar the dower of a widow married after the Dower Act came into operation. See 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 105, s. 2 ; Fry T. Noble, 20 Beav. 598 ; 7 De Gex, Mac. & G. 687 ; Clarke v. Franklin, 4 K. & J. 266. Death of Husband requisite. The last requisite to dower is the decease of the husband (Litt. sect. 36), and it is stated in the old law books, that the wife of a man who is banished by abjuration, or by act of parliament, shall recover her dower, as this is a civil death (Park, Dower, 249) ; but it is laid down by Coke, that, "if the hus- band entered into religion, the wife shaU. not be endowed until he be naturally dead." Co. Litt. 33 b. It seems to have been the old law that, where it could not be made to appear positively that the hus- band was dead, as where he was absent beyond seas, and no intelli- gence of him could be obtained, the wife might recover dower condi- tionally, viz., that if he did return from beyond seas, she should ren- der back her dower to the f eofEee of her husband, without suit, and re- ceive the profits in the meantime with sufficient sureties on her part to do the same, or otherwise the tenant to keep the land. Park, Dower, 247. How Dower barred. Before the Statute of Uses (27 Hen. 8, c. 10), a man could not prevent dower from attaching to a leffal estate of which he was seised ; and the only mode by which he could prevent his wife from claim- ing dower, and one which was very general, was by vesting the legal estate in feoffees, who (if desired so to do) conveyed to the wife an es- tate in lieu of dower, in other words, a jointure. Vernon's Case, 4 Co. Eep. 2. When the Statute of Uses was passed, by which the seisin was transferred to the use, it was thought necessary to prevent widows having dower in addition to their jointures, and also to enable men in future to make valid jointures, so as to prevent dower attaching upon a legal estate. It was, therefore, by sects. 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Statute of Uses in effect enacted, that where a woman had a jointure, she should not be entitled to her dower also ; but if she were evicted of her jointure, her dower should revive ; and that if the join- ture should be made after marriage, she should have her election, when the coverture had ceased, to have either her dower or her jointure, but not both. To constitute a valid legal j ointure within the statute, six things are re- quisite : — First, that the jointure by the first limitation is to take effect for the widow's life in possession of profit presently after the decease of her husband. Secondly, that it be for the term of her own life or a greater estate. Thirdly, it must be made to herself and to no other for her. Pourthly, it must be made in satisfaction of her whole dower, and not of part of her dower. Pifthly, it must either be expressed or Digitized by Microsoft® 76 Lewis Bowles's Case. averred to be in satisfaction of her dower. And sixtlily, it may be made either before or after marriage, but if it be made after marriage she may waive it (Co. Litt. 36 b; and see Vernon's Case, 4 Co. Eep. 2 ; 1 Chitt. Stat. 1085, and cases there cited) ; and a proper jointure before marriage would be binding upon the wife although an infant at the time of the marriage {Drury v. Drury, 2 Eden, 57; 3 Bro. P. C. 492, Toml. ed. ; 4 Bro. C. C. 506, n.) ; and if a jointure be com- petent, it will be good although not in proportion to the value of dower. lb. ; see Wilm. Op. 209 ; Harvey v. Ashley, 3 Atk. 612. Dower, however, may, since as weU. as before the Statute of Uses, be barred by a provision, which would be enforced in equity, and this equitable bar does not proceed upon any analogy to the legal bar, but rests upon the foundation of contract; thus, for instance, where an agreement has been made be- tween husband and wife before marriage, by which another pro- vision was substituted for it, such agreement will be enforced by a Court of Equity, even where the wife was a minor, if the provisions were made with the assent of her father or guardian, whatever may be the nature of the property, and even though the provision in lieu of dower may have failed. Bucking- hamshire V. Drury, 2 Eden, 74 ; Corbet v. Corbet, 1 S. & S. 621 ; Simpson Y. Gutteridge, 1 Mod. 613; In re Dwyers, Minors, 13 Ir. Ch. Eep. 431 ; Pennefather v. Penne- father, 6 Ir. E., Eq. 171. In the well-considered case of Dyke V. Kendall, 2 De G., M. & G. 209, by a settlement made on the marriage of an adult female, it was declared, that in consideration of the intended marriage, and for providing a com- petent jointure and provision of maintenance for " the wife and the issue of the marriage," the father of the husband had paid to him. 3,000^., and that the husband had given a bond for the payment of 2,000Z. six months after the mar- riage, to be settled on trusts for the benefit of himself, his vsdf e, and the issue of the marriage. During the coverture the husband bought certain lands, which he subse- quently sold to a purchaser, from whose devisees the defendant pur- chased with notice of the settle- ment. The husband died without satisfying the bond. On a biU filed by the wife for dower out of the lands so sold, it was held by Lord St. Leonards, C. (overruling Power V. Sheil, 1 Moll. 296), that her right was barred by the settle- ment, and that she had no lien on, or right to resort to, the lands for the satisfaction of the amount due on the bond. "If the present," said his Lordship, " were a jointure operating as a bar under the Statute of Uses, the case would have been governed by the 7th section of that statute, but in equity the bar rests solely on contract, and my opinion is, that in this court, if a woman, being of age, accepts a particular something in satisfaction of dower, she must take it with all its faults, and must look at the contract alone, and cannot, in case of eviction, come against any one in possession of the lands, on which Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowltss's Case. 77 otherwise her dower might have attached; this has nothing to do with the performance of covenants and the like My conclusion is, that the plaintiS has accepted in lieu of dower payment of money at least, and that she is also con- cluded by the acceptance of the bond, and although the bond was not satisfied, that she has no right to resort to the lands of her hus- band bought after and sold during the marriage." See also Williams V. Chitty, 3 Ves. 545 ; Rose v. Reynolds, 1 Swanst. 446, n ; Lacy V. Andersoti, lb. 445, n. ; Vizard V. Longden, 2 Eden, 66 ; Birming- ham V. Kirwan, 2 8. & L. 444, 452 ; Hamilton v. Jackson, 2 J. & L. 295. But it seems that where the woman was a minor, any provision made at the time of her marriage, in order to bar her legal right to dower, must not be merely a precarious and imcertain provision which she may never enjoy. Carruthers v. Carruthers, 4 Bro. C. C. 499, 513 ; Smith V. Smith, 5 Ves. 188. Although a provision in lieu of dower will not at law bar the wife against claiming freebench in copy- holds, as they are not within the Statute of Uses, nevertheless it will operate as a bar in equity. Walker V. Walker, 1 Ves. 64 ; Jordan v. Savage, Bac. Abr. " Dower," G- 5. It seems that the use of the term "jointure," in articles before mar- riage, will be sufficient to show the intention of the parties to the articles, that the provision termed a jointure should be in bar of dower. Iti re Dwyers, Minors, 13 Ir. Ch. Eep. 431, 441. The husband could always bar the wife's right to freebench by a surrender, as she was never entitled to her freebench unless her hus- band died seised of the copyholds {Willis V. Willis, 34 Beav. 340, 344) ; it could also be barred by an intention to that effect expressed in, or properly deducible by implica- tion from, the settlement. lb. "Where, however, in a marriage settlement, " in order to make some provision for" the intended wife in case she should survive, her hus- band settled some of the husband's copyholds after his death on her for life, it was held by Sir John Eomilly, M.E., that she was not thereby barred of her freebench in other copyholds of which the husband died intestate. Willis v. Willis, 34 Beav. 340. Where the husband makes a pro- vision for the wife subsequently to marriage, she will not be bound thereby, although it be expressly in lieu of dower ; but a Court of Equity will not allow her to take both provisions, and will compel her to elect between them. See Mr. Swanston's note to Dillon v. Parker, 1 Swanst. 395. And even if a husband may not have expressly stated that a certain provision was in lieu of dower, nevertheless if it were inconsistent with the assignment of dower by metes and bounds, the Chancery Di- vision will put the widow to her elec- tion. See 1 L. Cas. Eq. 394, 5th ed. See also the recent cases, Parker v. Sowerby, 4 De Gex, Mac. & Gord. 321 (overruling Warbutton v. War- button, 2 Sm. & Giff. 163); Parker Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowles's Case V. Sowerly, 1 Drew. 488 ; Gibson V. Gibson, lb. 43 ; Notiley v. Pal- mer, 2 lb. 93; Pepper V. Dixon, 17 Sim. 200. As to tbe priority of a legacy given to a widow for relinquisb- ment of dower, see 2 L. C. Eq. 286, 5th ed., and cases tbere cited. With regard to women married since the 1st January, 1834, ques- tions of election will less frequently arise, as dower may now be more readily barred by the husband under the Dower Act. See sects. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. And a devise of land by a man married after 3 & 4 Will. 4, 0. 105, came into operation, will, in the absence of a contrary intention declared by the will, de- prive her of dower. See sect. 9 of that act, which enacts, " That where a husband shaR devise any land out of which his widow would be entitled to dower, if the same were not so devised, or any estate or interest therein, to or for the benefit of his widow, such widow shall not be entitled to dower out of or in any land of her said husband, unless a contrary intention shall be de- clared by his will." By the 10th section it is enacted, "that no gift or bequest made by any husband, to or for the benefit of his widow, of or out of his per- sonal estate, or of or out of any of his land not liable to dower, shall defeat or prejudice her right to dower, unless a contrary intention shall appear." As to jointures made in execution of a power, see Sugd. Pow. As to performance of a covenant to settle a jointure, see note to Wilcocks V. Wiloocks, and Blandy V. Widmore, 2 L. Gas. Eq. 392, 5th edit. The right of the widow to dower might, as we have before observed, be barred by several forms of con- veyancing which prevented dower from attaching; but those generally adopted were the uses to bar dower, which have already been mentioned, ante, p. 74. Formerly, where the right of dower had attached to lands, the wife, either by levying a fine alone {Partington' s Case, 10 Co. Eep. 43), or joining with her husband in a fine or recovery, might have passed her interest in them [Lampefs Case, 10 Co. Eep. 49), unless she joined for a limited object merely, as a mortgage (lb. ; Doe v. Coltman, 1 Vern. 294 ; Anon., 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 385 ; Jackson v. Parker, Amb. 687), and it was immaterial whether the declaration of uses were executed before {BeckwitK s Case, 2 Co. Eep. 57) or after (Swanton v. Raven, 3 Atk. 105; Beckivith's Case) the levying of the fine ; provided the declaration was according to the intent with which the fine was levied. And now a woman married on or before the 1st January, 1834, may, by deed acknowledged accord- ing to the provisions of the Fines and Eecoveries Abolition Act (3 & 4 WiU. 4, c. 74, ss. 68—82), bar her right of dower. With regard to any woman mar- ried after the 1st January, 1834, her right to dower is entirely at the mercy of her husband, since by the Dower Act (3 & 4 Will. 4, e. 105) she wiU be entitled to no dower out Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowles's Case. 79 of estates absolutely disposed of ty Mm in his lifetime or by his 'will (s. 4), and priority will be given to partial interests created by any dis- position or -will of the husband, and all debts, incumbrances, contracts and engagements to which his land shall be subject (s. 5); and the husband may bar dower by a de- claration in a deed (which need not be executed by him, Fairley v. Tuck, 3 Jur., N. S. 1089,) (s. 6), or by his will (s. 7), in the latter of which instruments he may render it subject to any conditions, restric- tions or directions (s. 9) ; but no gift or bequest of persona], estate, or of land not liable to dower, will prejudice her right to dower, miless a contrary intention be declared by his will. Sect. 10. However, a covenant or agree- ment on the part of the husband not to bar dower may be enforced in equity. Sect. 11. Upon the construction of 'this act it has been decided that the dower of a woman married after 3 & 4 "Will. 4, c. 105, came into operation, out of an estate made subject to dower by that act, wiU. not be ex- cluded by a declaration against dower contained in a conveyance prior to that act. Fry v. Nolle, 20 Beav. 598 ; S. C, on appeal, 7 De G., Mac. & G. 687 ; Clarke v. Franklin, 4 K. & J. 266. A widow's dower or freebench is not, by Sir John EomiUy's Act (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 104) nor by the Dower Act (3 & 4 WiU. 4, c. 105), rendered liable to the mere debts of her husband. See Spyer v. Hyatt, 20 Beav. 621, where Sir John Eomilly, M. E., observes that "What is claimed by or comes to the widow is no part of what the intestate is seised of at his death. He dies seised of land subject to the ividoiv^s right to doiver, and it is only that which becomes subject to the payment of his debts." A widow, however, has no right, as against the heir at law of her deceased husband, to be indemni- fied against a mortgage created by him. Therefore, where in a ease of that description, the mortgaged property had been sold by order of the Court in a suit for the adminis- tration of an intestate's estate, it was held by Sir W. Page Wood, V.-C, that as between his widow and his heir, the right of the widow to dower was limited to one-third of the income of the clear surplus of the proceeds of the sale, after de- ducting what was due upon the mortgage. Jones v. Jones, 4 K. & J. 361. The better opinion appears to be that a husband may deprive his widow of dower by a mere general disposition of his land by will, under the 4th section of the Dower Act. See Lacey v. Hill, 19 L. E., Eq. 346, 349, overruling the dicta of Lord EomUly, M. E., in Rowland V. Cuthhertson, 8 L. E., Eq. 469, where his lordship was under the impression that the disposition of the husband by his will, in order to defeat the dower of his widow, "must point the land out specifically or designate it in some way." It is clear, moreover, that to bar the widow's right to dower, under the 9th section of the act, a general disposition of his land by will, under which she takes a partial interest. Digitized by Microsoft® 80 Lewis Bowles's Case. will, in the absence of a contrary intention, be sufficient {Itoiuland v. Cuthhertson, 8 L. E., Eq. 466 ; Lacey v. Hill, 19 L. E., Eq. 346), and a general devise by a husband of Ms real estate upon trust to sell, and give his ■widow a part, even in tlie shape of part of the capital, or of any income of the proceeds to be invested, is a gift of "an estate or interest" in the land for the benefit of the widow within the meaning of the 9th section. Lacey v. Hill, 19 L. E., Eq. 346, 350. Moreover, independently of the Dower Act, a husband may by de- vise deprive his widow of freebench in copyholds, for under the old law, if a man surrendered his copyhold estate to the use of his will, and then devised it, the widow did not take freebench, the effect of the surrender being to destroy her title to freebench. Then 55 Geo. 3, c. 192, was passed, which enabled a man to devise copyholds without surrender, and under it the devise took effect as if the testator had surrendered, and therefore the widow did not take freebench. And now, under the 3rd section of the WOls Act (1 Yict. c. 26), the same effect is to be given to a gift of copyholds by will under the new law, as under the law as it stood before the "Wills Act, and conse- quently the widow in such case is not entitled to freebench. Lacey v. Hill, 19 L. E., Eq. 346, 350, 351. The attainder of the husband for treason, unless he died before judg- ment (Co. Litt. 390 b, 391), would have barred the right of his widow to dower (lb. 41 a ; 5 & 6 Edw. 6, c. 11, s, 13; 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 93), both out of lands of which he was seised at the time of the attainder, and out of those which (even before the Dower Act) he had previously aliened, although he might obtain a pardon {Maynye's Case, 1 Leon. 3), unless the attainder were reversed by Parliament or for error (Co. Litt. 392 ; Menvil's Case, 13 Co. Eep. 19). Lands, however, acquired after par- don, would be subject to dower. Perk. s. 387. Since the passing of 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23 (4th July, 1870), forfeitures for treason and felony have been abolished. Even previous to that act the attainder and conviction and outlawry of the husband, for mur- der or felony, would not cause a forfeiture of his widow's dower. 1 Edw. 6, c. 12, s. 17 ; 6 & 6 Edw. 6, c. 11, s. 13; Co. Litt. 392 b. The wife formerly would forfeit her right to dower, if she were at- tainted for treason, murder or felony (Perk. s. 349), unless she obtained a pardon during her husband's life- time, in which case her right would be renewed. Co. Litt. 33 a, n. 8 ; 13 Co. 23. And although forfeiture for trea- son and felony is abolished by 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23, it seems that the interest of a widow as dowress might be vested in administrators for the purposes therein mentioned untn she ceased to be under the operation of the act — ^by death, bankruptcy, completion of term of punishment, or pardon. Sects. 7, 9. If the wife, in consequence of her misconduct, is divorced from her husband d vinculo matrimonii, and not merely d mensd et thoro, or if she elope from her husband and Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowles's Case. 81 stay with tlie adulterer, even though she return to, and cohabit with, her husband in consequence of ecclesi- astical censure, she will lose her dower ; but she will become entitled to it if she be reconciled to him without ecclesiastical coercion (13 Edw. 1, c. 34; Co. Litt. 32 a, 32 b; see Menvil's Case, 13 Co. Eep. 23) ; and the forfeiture will take place although the adultery has been committed by the wife after a sepa- ration by mutual consent {Hether- ington v. Graham, 6 Bing. 135) ; or even after her departure from her husband's house in consequence of his gross misconduct or cruelty. WoodtvardY. Bowse, 10 C. B. (N.S.) 722 ; Bostoch v. Smith, 34 Beav. 57. Although formerly there was neither at law nor in equity any limitation to a claim for arrears of dower ( Oliver v. Richardson, 9 Ves. 222), by 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, such arrears cannot be recovered or ob- tained for a longer period than six years next before the commence- ment of an action or suit. Sect. 41. And an action at law for an as- signment of dower, and a suit in equity for dower, would, under the same act, be barred if proceedings were not taken within twenty- one years (sects. 2 and 3 ; Marshall v. Smith, 5 Giff. 37), and since January 1, 1879, within twelve years after the right accrued. 37 & 38 Vict. c. 57, s. 1. Assignment of and Remedies to re- cover Dower. Although by the death of her husband the title of dower is con- summate, the title of entry does not accrue until the ministerial act of T.L.C. assigning to her a third part in cer- tainty has been performed by some other person. She has no seisin in law, nor can she exercise any act of ownership before assignment. Park, Dower, 247, 283. As it is not certain of what part of the lands a widow wUl be en- dowed, she cannot enter upon them untU they are assigned to her by metes and bounds, and this ought to be done within the quarantine or forty days that the law allows the widow to remain in her husband's house after his death ; and as dower is of common right, it is not neces- sary that the assignment should be made by livery of seisin, or in writing (Co. Litt. 34 b, 35 a; Booth T. Lambert, Sty. 276 ; Roioe v. Rower, 2 Bos. & Pull. N. 0. 34) ; and it must be made by the owner of the freehold (Co. Litt. 34 b), even though an infant (1 EoU. Abr. 681, T. 1), or by one of several joint tenants (Co. Litt. 35 a; Perk. s. 397), even a disseisor (Co. Litt. 35 a ; Perk, s. 394), unless he has obtained the freehold through collusion with the widow. lb. The widow cannot assign dower to herseH, but if she have posses- sion of the lands of which she is dowable as guardian in socage, she wiU. be allowed the third part of the profits upon her account, in allowance of her dower in the mean- time. Perk, s. 45 ; Co. Litt. 38 b, 39 a, b ; Park. Dower, 336. Writs of right of dower, writs of dower unde nihil hahet, and plaints for freebench or dower, have been abolished, and there was substi- tuted, for the old mode of procedure for dower, an action commenced by G Digitized by Microsoft® 82 Lewis Bowles's Case. writ of summons issuing out of the Court of Common Pleas, upon -wliicli ■was indorsed a notice that the plain- tiff intended to declare in dower, or for freebench, as the case might be. 23 & 24 Vict. c. 126, s. 26. And the procedure now is under the Judicature Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 77). After proceedings at law dower was assigned by metes and bounds by the sheriff. 2 Wms. Saimd, 45 a ; 1 Taunt. 412. An assignment of dower of com- mon right will not be binding upon the widow if it be not absolute ; if, for instance, there be an exception of trees growing on the land {Bul- locl V. i-OTcA, 1 EoU. Abr. 682, X 8), or if the estate be not of equal duration to that of dower {Bickley V. BicTdey, Anders. 287 ; Colt v. Coventry, Hob. 153); but a condi- tion in favour of the widow will be good. Wentioorth v. Wentworth, Cro. Eliz. 412. If the land of which the widow is dowable is either improved or deteriorated by the acts of the heir, after the death of the husband, the widow win be entitled to dower ac- cording to the state of the land at the time of the assignment. Thus, it is laid down by Lord Coke, that " if the wife be entitled to have dower of three acres of marsh, every one of the value of twelve pence, and the heir by his industry and charge maketh it good meadow, every acre of the value of ten shillings, the wife shall have her dower according to the improved value, and not ac- cording to the value as it was in her husband's time, for her title is to the quantity of the land, viz., one just third part. And tlio like law it is if the heir improve the value of the land by building ; and on the other side, if the value be impaired in the time of the heir, she shall be endowed according to the value at the time of the assignment, and not according to the value as it was in the time of her husband." Co. Litt. 32 a. In the case of the alienation of land by the husband, if it be im- proved by the alienees building thereon, the widow is entitled to have a third in value of all the lands, estimating the value as at the time of the assignment, and not merely at the time of the death of the hus- band. See Doe d. Riddell v. Givin- nell, 1 Q. B. 692. See also 1 Bright's Husb. & Wife, 385, 386. Where timber is felled by order of the Court, before the assignment of dower, on an estate out of which a widow is dowable, she is entitled during her life to the interest arising from one-third of the fund produced by the sale of the severed timber. See Bishop v. Bishop, 10 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 302. See also Dichin V. Hanier, 1 Drew. & Sm. 284. Suppose the heir before the assign- ment of dower open mines on land of which the widow is dowable, is she dowable of those mines in the same manner as she would have been had they been opened in her husband's lifetime? Upon principle it seems she would be so entitled. In DicMn v. Hamer, 1 Drew. & Sm. 284 (in which case, however, the point was not actually deter- mined), Sir E. T. Kindersley, V.-C, was of opinion, "that the utmost a dowress under such circumstances fould claim wovild be one-third of Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowles's Case. 83 the income of the proceeds arising from the royalties of mines opened by the heir, and not one-third of the corpus." lb. 298. A widow may, if she please, ac- cept an assignment not of common right, as of an undivided third part of lands not distinguished by metes and bounds (Rowe v. Power, 2 Bos. & Pull. 1 ) ; or of so many acres of land (Moore, 59, pi. 167), or of rent issuing out of the land in lieu of dower ( Turney v. Sturges, Dy. 91 b ; Bicldey v. Bickley, Anders. 287), and it will be a good assignment to all intents and purposes. The assignment of lands, or of a rent arising from lands, out of which the widow is not dowable, wUl not bar her right to dower if made only by parol. Co. Litt. 34 b ; Perk, s. 410 ; Vernon's Case, 4 Co. Eep. 1; Turney v. Sturges, Dy. 91 b. Where there is an excess in the assignment of dower, if it were the act of the heir, being of full age at the time, he has no remedy against the dowress for avoiding the conse- quences of that act (Stoughton v. Leigh, 1 Taunt. 412) ; if, however, he were under age at the time ho may have relief by a writ of ad- measurement of dower (Co. Litt. 39 a ; Stoughton v. Leigh, 1 Taunt. 412) ; but not where the excess in value has arisen in consequence of improvements effected by the widow (Fitz. N. B. 149 c) ; but the dis- covery of mines formerly worked, which had been overlooked when the dower was assigned, would be a good ground for the writ. Stough- ton V. Leigh, 1 Taunt. 412. Under this writ of admeasure- ment the sheriff does not make a new assignment, but only restores to the heir what was assigned to the widow over and above that to which she was legally entitled. Fitz. N. B. 148 P. If the excessive assignment were made by the sheriff in execution of a judgment in dower, the heir might sue out a scire facias to obtain an assignment de novo {Howard v. Candish, Pahn. 266; Bro. Abr. "Dower," p. 262, pi. 83; 1 Taunt. 412), or if the lands assigned were not in the judgment, the heir or tenant may proceed by ejectment. Booth V. Lindsey, Eaym. 1293. As to the jurisdiction the Court of Chancery had in such cases, see Hohy v. Holy, 1 Vern. 218 ; SneydY. Sneyd, 1 Atk. 441. If the widow be evicted from her dower lands, she will be entitled to an assignment de novo. Eoll. Abr. 684, C 1 ; Bustard's Case, 4 Co. Eep. 122; Perk. ss. 418, 420. Where the inheritance is divi- sible, as in the case of lands, a woman on becoming entitled to dower, although she cannot enter iipon them, may claim to have one- third assigned to her in severalty by metes and bounds, or one-third of the rents. Where the inherit- ance is not in its nature divisible, dower is assigned to her in the most convenient manner; as, for instance, by the third toll dish of a mill, the third sheaf of tithes (pre- viousto their commutation), thethird part of the profits of stallage, of a fair, of an office, as that of marshal- sea, or of courts, fines and heriots, or by the third presentation of an advowson. Co. Litt. 32 a, 32 b. As to the mode of assigning dower g2 Digitized by Microsoft® 84 Lewis Bowles's Case. of mines, see Stoughton v. Leigh, 1 Taunt. 410. As to the assignment or setting out of dower, see 1 Bright, 362 ; BeU, Husb. & Wife, 279. If the widow was compelled to resort to Courts of justice to en- force her right to dower, she might have proceeded either at law or in equity, and proceedings in the latter Court, as being by far the most convenient, were generally adopted. Curtis V. Curtis, 2 Bro. C. 0. 620 ; Mundy v. Mundy, 2 Ves. jun. 128 ; 1 Bright, 398, 419; BeU, 306. At common law the widow was entitled to dower only from the time it was assigned ; the legislature, however, by the Statute of Merton, 20 Hen. 3, c. 1, and 16 & 17 Car. 2, c. 8, s. 4, gave her arrears of dower in the shape of damages {Dohson v. Dohson, Cas. t. Hardw. 19 ; Watson V. Watson, 10 C. B. 3) ; and in equity she might have had an account of the rents and profits {Curtis V. Curtis, 2 Bro. C. C. 620) from the death of her husband. The arrears, however, of dower can now be recovered for no longer period than six years before the commencement of an action or suit. 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, s. 41. Where land belonging to an in- fant, subject to his mother's right of dower, was taken by a railway company, and the purchase-money, as determined by two valuers, was paid into Court under the Lands Clauses Act (8 Vict. c. 18), it was held that the dowress was entitled to have the value of her right of dower, as determined by the valuers, paid to her out of the fund in Court. In re Hall's Estate, 9 L. E., Eq. 179. As to the effect of the commuta- tion or enfranchisement of copy- holds on curtesy, dower or free- bench, see 4 & 5 Vict. c. 35, s. 79, and 15 & 16 Vict. c. 51, s. 34. Having examined the different kinds of estates for life, we may now proceed to show what is the power which tenants for life have over their estates, and the various incidents thereto. As to Receipt of Rents or Profits hy Tenant for Life. A tenant for life of a settled estate is not only entitled to the ordinary rents thereof, but he takes all casual profits which accrue during the time of his tenancy for life. Thus, the tenant for life of a manor takes the fines arising from copyholds, be- cause they become payable under an obligation arising from the cus- tom. In some manors in the west of England copyholds are granted for lives, and fines paid on substi- tution of fresh lives. These fines are received by the tenant for life. Brigstocke v. Brigstoclie, 8 Ch. D. 363. In most cases fijies are merely a mode of securing rent ; and rents of two kinds, — an annual rent and a rent payable at more distant in- tervals. A certain sum payable at certain intervals is as much rent as if it were an annual sum. It is true that a fine is in the nature of a payment of rent beforehand, but a tenant for Ufe is entitled to rent made payable beforehand as much as to any other rent. lb. Upon the same principle the tenant for life of an estate on which there are open mines receives the Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowles's Case. 85 royalties payable in respect of minerals gotten, though they are really instalments of the purchase- money of part of the inheritance. Ih. Alienation and Forfeiture of Estates for Life. A tenant for life has fuU power to alien the estate, and it cannot be made inalienable {Brandon v. Robinson, 18 Ves. 429), except in the case of property settled to the separate use of a married woman, and then only during her covertu.re, for upon her becoming discovert, the restraint upon alienation is void. See Tidlett v. Armstrong, 4 My. & Or. 405 ; Hulme v. Tenant, 1 L. Cas. Eq. 521, 5th edit. Except under a power or statute a tenant for life can create no in- terest which will endure beyond his own estate. Hence if he make a lease for a term of years it will end upon his death ; but in such case a tenant at rack rent wiU, instead of his claim to emblements, con- tinue to hold until the expiration of the then current year of his tenancy. 14 & 15 Yict. c. 25, s. 1. It is however enacted by the Settled Estates Act, 1877 (40 & 41 Vict. c. 18), repealing and with some amendments re-enacting 19 & 20 Vict. c. 120 ; 21 & 22 Vict. c. 77; 27 & 28 Vict. c. 45; 37 & 38 Vict. c. 33; 39 & 40 Vict. c. 30, that in case of a settlement made after 1st November, 1856 (s. 57), any person entitled to the possession, or to the receipt of the rents and profits of any settled estates, for an estate for any Uf e, or for a term of years determinable "With any life or lives, or for any greater estate, either in his own right or in right of his wife, mayunless the settlement shall contain an express declaration that it shaU. not be lawful for such person to make such demise ; and also for any person entitled to the possession or to the receipt of the rents and profits of any unsettled estates as tenant by the curtesy, or in dower, or in right of a wife who is seised in fee, ivithout any application to the Court, to demise the same or any part thereof, ex- cept the principal mansion-house, and the demesnes thereof, and other lands usually occupied there- with, from time to time, for any term not exceeding twenty-one years so far as relates to estates in England, and thirty-five years so far as relates to estates in Ireland, to take effect in possession, at or within one year next after the making thereof : Provided that every such demise be made by deed, and the best rent that can reasonably be obtained be thereby reserved, without any fine or other benefit in the nature of a fine, which rent shall be incident to the immediate reversion ; and provided that such demise be not made with- out impeachment of waste, and do contain a covenant for payment of the rent, and such other usual and proper covenants as the lessor shall think fit, and also a condition of re-entry on non-payment of A'ent for a period of twenty-eight days after it becomes due, or for some less period to be specified in that behalf ; and provided a counterpart of every deed of lease be executed by the lessee. (Sect. 46.) Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowles's Case. Moreover, tte execution of any lease by the lessor or lessors shall be deemed sufficient evidence that a counterpart of such lease has been duly executed by the lessee as required by the act. (Sect. 48.) As to the power of the court to authorize agricultural or occupation leases, mining leases, leases of water-mills, way-leaves, water - leaves, or other rights or easements, repairing leases and building leases, see lb. sect. 4. Tenants for life being bound, as observed in Lewis Boiules's Case, "to do fealty," even after the abo- lition of tenures, by 12 Car. 2, o. 24, their estates were forfeitable, for causes which had their origin in the existence of feuds. Thus, as under the feudal system, the tenant by renouncing his tenure, as by claiming the reversion him- self, acknowledging it to be in a stranger, or accepting it as a gift of a stranger, incurred a forfeiture of his interest, so a tenant for life, who conveyed the entire ownership of the estate, by means of convey- ances, which formerly had a tortious operation, that is to say, conveyed the whole estate, and not merely the interest of the tenant for life therein, thereby incurred a for- feiture of his life interest. Co. Litt. 251, 252 a. The conveyances which were for- merly tortious, were a feoffment, recovery, or fine (unless there were proper words of restriction). How- ever, fines and recoveries are now abolished, and the tortious opera- tion of a feofi^ment (an instrument seldom used) is taken away (7 & 8 Vict. c. 76; 8 & 9 Vict. e. 106, s. 4), and it is now a mere innocent conveyance, that is to say, it merely passes the interest of the feoffor. Tenants for life may, however, sell and convey the fee of lands required by railway companies under the Lands Clauses Consoli- dation Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 18, s. 7), and may, under the direction of the Chancery Division, convey the whole fee, where other parties cannot do so, either by way of sale or mortgage for payment of a tes- tator's debts (11 Geo. 4 & 1 WiU. 4, c. 47, s. 12 ; 2 & 3 Vict. c. 60 ; and see 13 & 14 Vict. c. 60, s. 29). And jurisdiction is given to the Chancery Division to order the sale of settled estates under the Settled Estates Act, 1877 (40 & 41 Vict, c. 18, s. 16), repealing the act to facilitate Leases and Sales of Settled Estates, 19 & 20 Vict. c. 120, s. 11. The legislature has also enabled tenants for life, by complying with certain regulations, to charge the inheritance with money laid out for draining, and some other per- manent improvements, the principal being paid off by annual instal- ments. See 8 & 9 Vict. c. 56; 9 & 10 Vict. c. 101 ; amended by 10 & 11 Vict. c. 11; 11 & 12 Vict, c. 119; 13 & 14 Vict. c. 31; 19&20 Vict. c. 9; 27 & 28 Vict. c. 114. The legislature has also recently enabled the owners of settled estates in England and Ireland to charge such estates, within certain limits, with the expense of building or enlarging mansions, or convert- ing houses suitable to the estate into mansions, as residences for the owners of the estates. 33 & 34 Vict, c. 56, repealed in pttf-t by 34 & 35 Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowles's Case. 87 Viet. c. 84, s. 2, and to be construed with 27 & 28 Vict. c. 114 (The Im- provement of Land Act, 1864). As to the mode in which the Court has jurisdiction to apply monies paid into Court under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act (8 Vict. c. 13, s. 69), see Morgan and Chute's Chancery Statutes and Orders, pp. 34 — 36, 5th ed., and cases there cited ; Iti re LeigKs Estate, 6 L. E., Ch. App. 887. Except under the provisions of these or similar acts, a tenant for life wiU not have any allowance or compensation made to him for re- pairs or improvements effected upon the property; nor can they ordi- narily be charged on the inheritance {Caldecott v. Brown, 2 Hare, 144 Dixon V. Peacock, 3 Drew. 288, 292 Sharshaw v. Gibhs, Kay, 333 Hamer-v. Tilsley, Johns. 486; Hor- loch V. Smith, 17 Beav. 572; Ma- thias V. Mathias, 3 Sm. & Gr. 552, 656 ; and see Dunne v. Dunne, 3 Sm. & Giff. 22; 7 De G., Mae. & G. 207 ; In re Leigh's Estate, 6 L. E., Ch. App. 887 ; Gilliland v. Craw- ford, 4 I. E., Eq. 40); nor wiU such expenditure be authorized by the Cou.rt of Chancery upon the applica- tion of the tenant for Hfe {Nairn v. Majoribanks, 3 Euss. 582 ; sed vide Macnolty v. Fitzherbert, 27 L. J., Ch. 272; 3 Jur., N. S. 1237). An exception, however, has been made where a tenant for life, under no obligation to do so, has com- pleted a mansion house commenced by the settlor, for then there may be an inquiry whether anything and what has been properly expended, i.e. for the benefit of the inheritance. See Hihbert v. Cooke, 1 S. & St. 552. There a tenant for life of real estates under a will having expended money in finishing a man- sion house which the testator had begun, but left unfinished, and also in repairing the mansion house which had been damaged by dry rot. Sir J. Leach, V. C, in a suit for administering the trusts of the will, directed an inquiry whether it was for the benefit of all parties in- terested that the mansion house should be finished, but refused an inquiry as to the repairs, and said, if it was found for the benefit of all parties interested that the mansion house should have been finished, and there was no personal estate applicable, the expense should be a charge on the real estates. See also DentY. Dent, 30 Beav. 363; Frithy. Cameron, 12 L. E., Eq. 169 ; but see JoUffe v. Twyford, 26 Beav. 227. So an inquiry has been directed as to the expenditure of a tenant for life in working a mine to prevent forfeiture at a time when it was unproductive. Dent v. Dent, 30 Beav. 363. It has been said by Sir James Wigram, V. C, that " the case may be suggested of a devise of lands in strict settlement, and a direction to lay out personal estate to the same uses ; it might be more beneficial to the remainderman that a part of the trust fund should be applied to pre- vent buildings on the settled estate from going to destruction, than that the whole shoidd be laid out in the purchase of other lands." See Cal- decott v. Brown, 2 Hare, 146. In Bostock V. Blakeney, 2 Bro. C. C. 656, Mr. Justice BuUer, sitting for Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowles's Case. the Lord Chaiicellor, directed, at the hearing of a cause, an inquiry what substantial and lasting improve- ments had heen made by the tenant for life of the estate ; but the de- cree was reheard by Lord Thurlow, and reversed on this point. In the case of In re Barrington^ s SeMle- ment, 1 J. & H. 142, upon the authority of the dictum of Sir James Wigram, V. C, in Cal- decott V. Brown, Sir W. Page Wood, V. C, seems to have autho- rized trustees of a settlement having a power of purchasing lands at the request of the tenant for Hfe to lay out part of the fund in repairs and permanent improvements on some property which had been pur- chased under the power. The case, however, of Dunne v. Dunne, 3 Sm. & Giff. 22 ; 7 De G., Mac. & G. 207, does not appear to have been called to his Honor's attention, where the Lords Justices of the Court of Ap- peal refused to authorize money directed to be laid out in the pur- chase of land to be settled to the same uses as a mansion house, to be employed towards improving or re- pairing the mansion house, Lord Justice Knight Bruce observing, that " this must be done, if at all, by an act of parliament." And see In re RudyercPs Trusts, 2 Giif. 394, and cases collected, 1 L. C, Eq. 910, 5th edit. Custody/ of Tide Deeds hy Tenant for Life. As a general rule, a legal tenant for life is entitled as of right to the custody of title deeds relating to the estate {Ford v. Peering, 1 Ves. jun. 72 ; Strode v. Blackhuvne, 3 Ves. 225 ; Botcles v. Stewart, 1 S. & L. 209 ; Allwood v. Heywood, 1 H. & 0. 745 ; Garner v. Hannyngton, 22 Beav. 627 ; Foster y. Crabh, 12 C. B. 136; Leathes v. Leathes, 5 Ch. D. 221) ; except in cases only where he has been guilty of misconduct so that the safety of the deeds has been endangered (per Jessel, M. E., in Leathes v. Leathes, 5 Ch. D. 222 ; and see Stanford Y. Roberts, 6 L. E., Ch. App. 310), or where the rights of others intervene, and it becomes necessary for the Court to take charge of the title deeds, in order to carry out the administration of the property, per Sir G. Jessel, M. E., in Leathes v. Leathes, 5 Ch. D. 222 ; and see Stanford v. Roberts, 6 L. E., Ch. App. 307, where the Court refused to order deeds to be de- livered up by trustees to the legal tenant for life, pending a suit ac- tively prosecuted, where it was more convenient that the deeds shoidd remain with the trustees ; for in such case the custody of the deeds did not depend on the question who had the legal right to them, but on the question what custody was most, convenient for the purposes of the suit. Ordinarily, if deeds have been given up to the Court of Chan- cery, they wiU be delivered, up to the tenant for life {Duncombe v. Mayer, 8 Ves. 320), unless they had been brought in under an order for safe custody ( Webb v. TVebb, I Eden, 8 ; 1 Dick. 298). The mere fact that the tenant for Hfe is living in Australia does not deprive him of his right to have the custody of the title deeds (Leathes v. Leathes, 5 Ch. D. 224). In another case, Lord JusticeKnight Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowles's Case. 89 Bruce, wliere tlie purposes of a suit had been satisfied, agreeing -with Kindersley, V. C, dissentiente Tur- ner, L. J., held that as the tenant for life had taken the deeds -without any necessity on a former occasion out of the jurisdiction, they ought not to be given up to him. Ulti- mately, however, upon the sugges- tion of Turner, L. J., an order was made for the delivery of the deeds to the tenant for life, with the con- sent of the mortgagees, upon his giving security for their safe custody upon the estate, and for their pro- duction at all reasonable times, and for their return into Court if ordered. Jenner v. Morris, 1 L. E., Ch. App. 603. In the case of Warren v. Rudall, 1 J. & H. 13, Wood, V. C, drew a distinction between the case where the relationship of father and son ex- isted between the tenant for life and remainderman, and the case where they were strangers. "With re- spect," said his Honor, "to the title deeds, it is a settled doctrine that thisCoiu't never interferes as to the possession of deeds between a father tenant for life and a son entitled in remainder; but in the case of a stranger tenant for life the Court will interfere ; and this is a particu- larly strong case, because the deeds are in Court, and I am asked to de- liver them out. The reversioner has no connection with the tenant for life ; the deeds must remain in Court." In commenting on this decision. Sir Q-. Jessel, M. E., says that "there is a dictum of Lord Hardwioke in Pyncent v. Pyncent (3 Atk. 571) to the same effect, hut it is quite contrary to the law, for the mere fact of the reversioner being a stranger to the tenant for life has nothing to do with the ques- tion." Leathes v. Leathes, 5 Ch. D. 223. Where, however, deeds were brought into Court by the executor in a creditor's suit, the Court, on payment of the debts, would in that suit only deliver the deeds to the party who had deposited them, even although the tenant for life might by petition apply for their delivery out to himself. Phmhett v. Leivis, 6 Hare, 65. If the tenant for life has parted with the deeds, and the remainder- man is dissatisfied, he has been allowed to come into equity to have them secured (2^o)-f?v.Peenrey, 1 Yes. jun. 72 ; and see Joy v. Joy, 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 284 ; Ivie v. Ivie, 1 Atk. 431; Smith v. Cooke, 3 Atk. 382; Lord Lempster v. Lord Pomfret, 1 Amb. 154); as they would be when a bill had been filed to have a remainder declared good, where it was in dispute {Southby v. Stone- house, 2 Ves. 610 ; Papillon v. Voice, 2 P. Wms. 471). So also in the case of a jointress, provided the party seeking the deeds confirmed her in her jointure. Senhouse v. Earl, 2 Ves. 450; Leach v. Trol- lope, lb. 662 ; Petre v. Petre, 3 Atk. 611. Acontingent remainderman would not, on a biU filed for that purpose, be allowed to obtain inspection of the title deeds in the hands of the tenant for life. Noel v. Ward, 1 Madd. 322. Where, however, the absolute owner of property, who may do what he pleases with his deeds (1 Digitized by Microsoft® 90 Lewis Bowles's Case. Bro. Abr. 327 b, pi. 86; Co. Litt. 232 a ; Kelsach v. Nicholson, Cro. Eliz. 496), delivers them over to the remainderman, the tenant for life will not be able to recover them. 2 Bro. Abr. 84 b, pi. 25. A person entitled to a vested re- mainder, or his assignee, might, if his title were clear, maintain a suit in equity against the tenant for life, for the sole purpose of the pro- duction and inspection of the title deeds and documents relating to the estate in possession of the tenant for life, in order to enable the remainderman or his assignee to deal with his property as he may consider most to his advantage {Davis v. Earl of Dysart, 20 Beav. 405). And if it were suggested that the purpose for which the docu- mentswererequiredwas an improper one, the burden of proof would lie upon the person resisting the pro- duction, lb. Where, however, there was a reasonable cause of litigation, with respect to the interest of the plain- tiff, the Court of Chancery would not order the production of the title deeds (lb.) ; for if it were to do so the Court would incidentally decide in favour of the remainderman's title to the estate, in a suit merely for the production of the title deeds. Pennell v. The Earl of Dysart, 27 Beav. 542. An equitable tenant for life is not entitled to the custody of deeds, as when the legal estate is vested in trustees upon trust to receive the rents and pay them over to the tenant for life. ( Garner v. Hannyng- ton, 22 Beav. 630 ; but see Lady Langdale v. Briggs, 2 Jur., N. S. 982 ; 26L. J., Ch. 27.) And it seems that a tenant for life would not be en- titled to the deeds where a trustee has active duties to perform, al- though the trustee has not such an estate as would of itself entitle him to them, as for instance when he is a termor. If the widow proceeds against the heir-at-law for dower, and he pleads that she detains the title deeds of the estate, unless she in her replica- tion admits the possession of the deeds and offers to bring them into Court, she wiU lose mesne profits, damages and costs, since it was by her own fault, by improperly detain- ing the deeds, that dower was not assigned. Co. Litt. 32 b. And if she deny the fact of detaining any of the deeds, and the issue is found against her, she will lose her dower (Hob. 199) ; but an alienee (Cro. Eliz. 367 ; 9 Eep. 18), and it seems a devisee (Dyer, 230 a.), cannot plead the detention of the deeds as an excuse for not allowing dower to the widow, as this plea lies in privity only, viz. for the heir of the husband. As to Renewals of Leaseholds where there is a Tenant for Life. "Where leaseholds are settled upon a person for life, and there is no direction upon the subject, it is optional with a tenant for life whether he will renew or not [Nightingale v. Lawson, 1 Bro. C. 0. 443 ; Stone v. Theed, 2 Bro. C. 0. 247 ; White v. White, 9 Ves. 554 ; O'Ferrall v. O'Ferrall, Eep. t. Plunk. 79) ; even, it seems, although the property may be in settlement Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowles's Case. 91 and vested in trustees. lb. ; Laio- rence v. Maggs, 1 Eden, 453. Where, however, there is an ex- press direction to trustees or a tenant for life to renew, they must do so [Montford v. Lord Cadogan, 17 Ves. 485; Bennett v. Colley, 5 Sim. 181 ; 2 M. &K. 225) ; so like- wise, where the direction is to he implied from the terms of the in- strument creating the interest by the use of expressions which show that a renewal is contemplated. Loch V. Lock, 2 Vern. 666 ; Hiilkes V. Barroio, Taml. 264. A mere direction that " it should be lawful for trustees from time to time as occasion should require, and as they should think proper, to apply for renewal," gives the trus- tees a discretionary, and not an arbitrary power to renew or not ; and if there be a fair opportunity to renew, the trustees would be compelled to do so. Lord Milsing- ton V. Earl of Mulgrave, 3 Madd. 491 ; 5 Madd. 471 ; see also Mor- timer y. Watts, 14 Beav. 616. A trustee who has neglected to renew, where there was an express trust to do so, will either be com- pelled to renew at his own expense for the benefit of the remainderman {Lord Milsingto7i v. Lord Mulgrave, 3 Madd. 491 ; 5 Madd. 472), or, if the latter has himself obtained a renewal, to repay him the expense thereof {Montford v. Cadogan, 17 Ves. 485 ; 19 Ves. 635 ; 2 Mer. 3), but only the proper amount, if the terms of renewal were unreason- able ( Colegrave v. Manhg, 6 Madd. 72; 2 Euss. 238); the trustee, however, is entitled to be repaid out of the personal estate of the tenant for life (2 Mer. 3 ; 19 Ves. 635), and if there have been suc- cessive tenants for life, their estates must contribute (2 Mer. 3) ; a pur- chaser, however, of the interest of a tenant for life wiU. not be obliged to repay the trustee, unless he had, on the deed of assignment, express notice that the interest he thereby purchased was subject to the trust for renewal. 19 Ves. 641. If a renewal is not effected at a proper time, the Court would im- pose a receiver upon the estate and sequester the rents and profits, so as to form a fund out of which, whenever an opportunity of renewal occurs, a renewal might be had (per Sir L. ShadweU, V. C, 5 Sim. 192) ; but the tenant for life might at any time have the whole of that fund transferred to him upon renewing at his own expense, or without ex- pense, if he could procure a renewal without any. (lb.) "Where, however, a renewal is impracticable, either on account of the absolute refusal to renew, or the refusal to do so save on exorbitant terms, such as the trustees may not be bound to accept {Colegrave v. Manly, 6 Madd. 82, 83), the general impression seems to have been that the tenant for life would not be allowed to retain that which the settlor never intended him to have : and that such sums, therefore, as would have been expended in effect- ing renewals, if practicable, at a reasonable rate, ought to be in- vested, and held upon the same trusts as the lease. Colegrave v. Manly, 6 Madd. 72, 87 ; 2 Euss. Digitized by Microsoft® 92 Lewis Bowles's Case. 238 ; Bennett v. Colley, 5 Sim. 181 ; 2 M. & K. 231 ; Lewin on Trusts, 392, 3rd edit. It seems, however, to be now held that where it is impossible to obtain the renewal of a lease, if there be no predominant trust for renewal, overriding the disposition in favour of the subsequent tenant for life, the latter will be entitled to the sum accumulated by the direc- tion of the settlor for that purpose. See Morres v. Hodges, 27 Beav. 625. There, by a settlement, the trus- tees were to use their utmost en- deavours to renew an ecclesiastical lease upon reasonable terms, and to raise the fines out of the rents, or by mortgage. A renewal became impracticable. It was held by Sir John Eomilly, M. E., with evident reluctance, upon the authority of TardiffY. Robinson, 27 Beav. 629, n. —a decision of Lord Eldon's — that the fund reserved by the trustees out of the rents for the purpose of renewal belonged absolutely to the tenant for life. See also In re Money's Trusts, 2 D. & Sm. 94 ; Richardson^ . Moore, 6 Madd. 83, n., cited. Nor would the Court in such a case, where the trustees have a mere power to renew, allow them to purchase the reversion in lease- holds under the Episcopal and Capitular Estates Act (23 & 24 Vict. c. 124) to the prejudice of the tenant for life. Haytvard v. Pile, 5 L. E., Ch. App. 214 ; Jones v. Jones, 5 Hare, 440, 461, 462. Where, however, it appears to have been the paramount intention of the testator, as indicated by the disposition made by his will, that those entitled in reversion expectant upon the decease of the tenant for Hfe shoTild succeed to the enjoy- ment of substantially the same estate, the tenant for life, upon the renewal becoming impracticable, will only be entitled to the income arising from the sum set apart for renewal, and of the sum produced by the sale of the leaseholds. Maddy v. Hale, 3 Ch. D. 327. And where a similar intention is shown with regard to renewable leaseholds, which are afterwards taken by a railway company imder its compulsory powers, a tenant for life win only be entitled to the in- terest arising from the purchase- money, although the custom to renew may not have ceased untU after the premises were taken by the railway company. In re Wood's Estate, 10 L. E., Eq. 572. Where a trust for renewal of leaseholds is absolute and over- rules the interest of the tenant for life, he is not entitled to object, on the ground of the reduction of his interest, to any arrangement in lieu of renewal, which may be made under the provisions of the Epis- copal and Capitular Estates Act (23 & 24 Viot. c. 124), where renewal ceases to be possible, so long as the best practicable terms are obtained. Hollier V. Burne, 16 L. E., Eq. 163. Where it appears, upon examin- ing the instrument by which lease- holds are settled, that no obligation to renew was intended, the tenant for life may suffer the lease to run out {Harvey v., Harvey, 6 Beav. 134) ; if, however, he chooses to Digitized by Microsoft® Lbwis Bowles's Case. 93 rene-w, he -will be a trustee for all the persons interested under any subsequent limitations. Rawe v. Chichester, Amb. 715 ; Coppin v. Fernyhough, 2 Bro. 0. 0. 291 ; Clegg v. Fishwich, 1 Mac. & Gord. 294 ; Isaac v. Wall, 6 Oh. D. 706, and the note to Keech v. Sandford, 1 L. Cas., Eq. 50, 52, 56, 57, 5th edit., and cases there cited. If the instrument by "which the leaseholds have been settled im- poses the obligation to renew, and points out the mode by -which the expenses of the renewal are to be paid, that mode prescribes tne obli- gations which are intended to be imposed upon the parties claiming under the instrument, and must be followed accordingly {Hudleston v. Whelpdale, 9 Hare, 784 ; Solley v. JFoof/, 29 Beav. 482). Thus where there is a direction to raise the fines out of the annual income, as by the investment of the overplus of the rents [Stone v. Theed, 2 Bro. C. C. 243), or a trust to renew out of " rents, issues and profits " [ShafteshuryY. Duke of Marlborough, 2 My. & K. Ill, 121; Trench v. St. George, 1 Dr. & Wal. 417), the lease must be renewed out of the annual income alone ; sed vide Allan V. Bachhouse, 2 V. & B. 65 ; Ivy V. Gilbert, 2 P. Wms. 13, where some similar words were held to authorize a sale or mortgage. Under a trust to renew leases "out of the rents, issues and profits," followed by a power, in case from any cause the money wanted to pay the fines should not be produced by the ways and means aforesaid, to mortgage, it has been held, that, the rents being sufiicient for that purpose, the fines ought to be paid out of income. Solley v. Wood, 29 Beav. 482. A direction to renew, by and out of the rents and profits or otherivise, has been held to authorize a mort- gage but not a sale, although the mortgagee might afterwards sell ( Garmstone v. Gaunt, 9 Jur. 78) ; and where there was a direction to levy the fines out of the rents and profits, or by mortgage, sale or other disposition of the premises, it was held, that they were to be raised by sale or mortgage {Playters v. Abbott, 2 My. & K. 97, 110). Moreover, a fund for renewal may be provided out of other property. Richards v. Richards, 2 Y. & C. C. 419; Wadley V. Wadley, 2 Col. 11. "Where the fines are to be pro- vided out of the rents and profits, no difiiculty arises in the case of leaseholds for years, when the period of renewal is certain, since the trustees may retain an annual sum out of the rents and profits from the tenant for life, so as to in- sure a due contribution on his part towards the expense of renewal {MontfordY. Cadogan, 19Ves. 633; Earl of Shaftesbury v. Duke of Marlborough, 2 My. & K. 121). There is, however, some difiiculty in the case of leaseholds for lives, the time of renewal being neces- sarily uncertain, and there are no means of ascertaining the propor- tion to be borne by the tenant for life until his death ; the best mode seems to be that of insuring the lives of the cestui que vies for a sum sufiicient to provide for a re- newal on the dropping of any Ufe. See Earl of Shaftesbury v. Duhe of Digitized by Microsoft® 94 Lewis Bowles's Case. Marlborough, 2 My. & K. 124 ; Greenwood v. Evans, 4 Beav. 44 ; Mortimer v. Watts, 14 Beav. 616, 624 ; and see Broivne v. Brotvne, 2 Giff. 304. Although, however, fines are made payable out of the annual rents, it may be a matter of neces- sity to raise them temporarily by a mortgage. Where, for instance, as observed by Sir John Leach, M. E., in the case of leases for lives, the renewal is to take effect imme- diately upon the death of the testa- tor ; the trustees must, in the fijst place, have recourse to a mortgage, since no rents can have accrued ; and Lord Eldon observes, in White V. White (9 Ves. 554), that in such a case there seems to be no other mode of obtaining from the tenant for life his proportion of the ex- penses of renewal according to his enjoyment, than by compelling him to give security to that effect. If such security be not given, the re- mainderman could only resort to the uncertain assets of the tenant for life. JEarl of Shaftesbury v. DuJ;e of Marlborough, 2 My. & K. 121. It seems if there were a direction that the fine should be raised by sale, without more, that the corpus of the estate ought to bear the ex- pense of renewal, and that it was the intention that the entire estate should be settled, subject to the subordinate direction that it was to undergo a perpetual diminution with a view to its being otherwise preserved. Jo7ies v. Jones, 5 Hare, 461. Where there is a direction that the trustees shall raise the fine, either by sale or mortgage, or by the application of rents and profits, or in any other mode which they shall think fit, there the effect as between the parties would be different, according to the mode which the trustees, exercising the power, might adopt. If they raised it out of the annual rents and profits, the manifest effect would be, to throw the charge upon the party in possession, preserving the entire estate. If, on the other hand, they raised it by a sale, then the estate would undergo a diminution of so many acres, the tenant for life losing the rent of the portion sold, and the remainderman losing it in perpetuity. Jones v. Jones, 5 Hare, 461, 464. Where, however, the trustees not acting under the power, the Court of Chancery is called upon to exer- cise a discretion, the effect of which in one way would be to throw a burden upon one party, and if the discretion be exercised another waj'', to throw it upon a different party, and there is no reason fer adopting one mode rather than the other, it seems that the Court would not throw the burden more upon one party than upon the other, but would apportion it between them. Jones V. Jones, 5 Hare, 462, 464, per Wigram, V. C. ; see also Mian V. Backhouse, 2 V. & B. 65 ; Green- wood V. Evans, 4 Beav. 44. When the instrument imposes the obligation to renew, and does not point out the mode in which the expenses of the renewal are to be paid, whether the leaseholds be for years or lives {Jones v. Jones, 5 Hare, 460 : and see White v. White, 9 Yes. 554 ; Allan v. Backhouse,. Digitized by Microsoft® Lewis Bowles's Case. 95 2 v. & B. 65 ; Greenwood v. Evans, 4 Beav. 44), tlie ordinary way of raising tlie money in tlie first place for payment of tlie fines for renewal, is by a mortgage or sale of part of the estate (^Meynell v. Massey, 2 Vern. 1 ; Allan v. Backhouse, 2 V. & B. 75 ; Ea7-l of Shaftesbury v. Duke of Marlborough, 2 My. & K. 121 ; Reeves v. Creswick, 3 Y. & C. 715), and tlie parties themselves must ultimately bear the expense of renewal in proportion to the actual enioyment they have had or may have of the lease, and not an extent of enjoyment to be determined by mere speculation, or by a calcula- tion of probabilities. Jones v. Jones, 5 Hare, 440, 465 ; Hudleston v. Whelpdale, 9 Hare, 775, 786 ; ^msZ!ev.-Ho?'co!