Ml ST THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES SOOL OF LAW ONS, *DON, W.C. Thomas Snow, Supreme Court ; and Price, net, 25s. cloth. Iff- i, Pledges, and byF. T. MAW, Bar- Tivo Vols. RoyaiSvo. Conveyancing, Conveyancing in Soli- is in Conveyancing. — , LL.D., Barrister- at- .'ticled clerk. One of the \ Principles of Fourth Edition. By Author of "Princrples of 119 & l: The Ann Barriste F. A. SI " A book whie Eobbins' Hypotht risters-a 1897. 1 Greenwoc showing citors' C Ninth 1 Law. 1 " "We should '. most useful prac Pollock's Obligatic Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK. Bart., Barrister-at-Law, Contract," &c. Demy 8ro. 1897. Price 25s. cloth. Odgers' Principles of Pleading, Practice and Procedure in Civil Actions in the High Court of Justice. — Third Edition. By W. BLAKE ODGERS, LL.D., Q.C., Author of " A Digest of the Law of Libel and Slander." Demy Svo. 1897. Price 12s. 6d. cloth. "The student or practitioner who desires instruction and practical g-uidance in our modem system of pleading caumt do better than possess himself of Mr. Odgers' book."— Law Journal. Warburton's Selection of Leading Cases in the Criminal Law.— With Notes. Second Edit. By HENRY WARBURTON, Barrister-at-Law. (Founded on "Shirley's Leading Cases.") Demy Svo. 1897. Price 10s. 6d. cloth.] " The cases have been well selected and arranged We consider that it will amply repay the student or the practitioner to read both the cases and the notes."— Justice oftJt Peace. Marsden's Treatise on the Law of Collisions at Sea. — Fourth Edition. Bv REGINALD O. MARSDEN, Barrister-at-Law. Demy Svo. L897. Pria ZSs.ploth, " ( le a in statement and careful in summarizing the results of decisions." — Solicitors' Journal. Palmer's Company Precedents. — For use in relation to Companies subject to the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1890. P.m. i | . ; i ( im iwxv Forms. Arranged as follows : — Promoters, Prospectus, Agreements, ■ writing. Memoranda and Articles of Association, Private Companies, Employes' Benefits, Resolutions, Notices, Certificates, Powers of Attorney, Debentures and Debenture Stock, Banking and Advance Securities,, Petitions, Writs, Pleadings, Judg- mentsand Orders, Reconstruction, Amalgamation, Special Acts. With Copious Notes and an Appendix ecntainii and Rules. Si.rf/i Edition. By FRANCIS BEAUFORT PALMER, a ted by CHARLES MACNAGHTEN and ARTHUR JOHN CIHTTY, Ranisters-at-Law. Royal Svo. 1895. Price 36*. cloth. RahiII.: Whtding-Up I Pbactice. Arranged as follows: — Compulsory Winding-Up, Voluntary Winding-Up, Winding-Up under Supervision, Arrange- ments and Compromises. With a Chapter on Debentures, and < iopious Notes, and Appendix containing Acts md Rules. Seventh Edit. Rv FRANCIS BEAUFORT PALMER, assisted by PRANK EVANS, Barristers-at-Law. Royal Svo. L897« Prideanx's Precedents in Conveyancing. — With Disserta- ByJOHN WHITCOMBE and 'fwo Vols. Royal 8vo. 1895. tion: on its Law and Practice. Sixteenth Edition. . HORSBRUGH, Barristers-at-Law. [0*. cloth. a .]■■■• prehensive in scope, and. we know of no treatise upon Convey urn ii lu- which i- •" -•-iier.illy useful to the practitioner." — Law Vimi ». •,* A Catalogue of New Law Works post free on application. STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED, 119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON. <^y Chitty's Statutes. New Edition. — The Statutes of Practical Utility, from the Earliest Times to 1894, inclusive. Arranged in Alpha- betical and Chronological Order ; with Notes and Indexes. Fifth Edition. By J. M. LELY, Barrister-at-Law. 13 Vols. Royal Svo. 1S94-5. Price £13 : 13s. cloth. *** Annual Supplements for 1895, cloth, 5*. ; 1896, cloth, lO.s. 1897 {Nearly ready). Rogers on Registration : Parliamentary, Municipal, and Local Government, including the Practice in Registration Appeals, with Appendices of Statutes, Orders in Council, and Forms. Sixteenth Edition. By MAURICE POWELL, Barrister-at-Law. Royal V2mo. 1897- Trice 21s. cloth. " The practitioner will find within these covers everything- which he can be expected to know, well arranged, and carefully stated." — Law '1 imr<. Johnson's Bills of Costs in the High Court of Justice and Court of Appeal, in the House of Lords and the Privy Council ; with the Scales of Costs and Tables of Fees in use in the Houses of Lords and Commons, relative to Private Bills; Election Petitions, Parliamentary aud Municipal. Inquiries and Arbitrations under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, and other Arbitrations ; Proceedings in the Court of the Railway and Canal Commission; in the County Court and the Mayor's Courts. The Scale of Costs and Tables of Fees in use in the Court of Passage, Liverpool ; and Conveyancing Costs. With Orders and Rules as to Costs and Court Fees, and Notes and Decisions relating thereto. By HORACE MAXWELL JOHNSON, Barrister-at-Law. Royal 8 ro. 1897. {MO pages). Price 32*. cloth. Bullen and Leake's Precedents of Pleadings. — With Notes and Rules relating to Pleading. Fifth Edition. Revised and adapted to the Present Practice in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice. By THOMAS J. BULLEN, Barrister-at-Law, CYRIL DODD, Q.C., and C. W. CLIFFORD, Barrister-at-Law. In one volume. Demy Svo. 1897. Price 11. 18s. cloth. Edmunds on Patents. — The Law and Practice of Letters Patent for Inventions. By LEWIS EDMUNDS, Q.C. Second Edition. By T. M. STEVENS, Barrister-at-Law. Royal 8vo. (1,002 pages). 1897. Price 11. 12*. cloth. Gordon's Monopolies hy Patents, and the Statutable Remedies available to the Public. By J. W. GORDON, Barrister-at-Law. Demy Svo 1897. Price 18s. cloth. Bonner's Law of Motor Cars, Hackney and other Car- riages. — An Epitome of the Law, Statutes, and Regulations. By G. A. BONNER, Barrister-at-Law. Demy Svo. 1897. trice Is. Gd. cl"th. "The book is full of useful information." — Low Times, May 29, 1897. Hunt's London Local Government. — The Law relating to the London County Council, the Vestries and District Boards elected under the Metropolis Management Acts, and other Local Authorities. By JOHN HUNT, Barrister-at-Law. Two Vols. Royal Sro. 1897. Ft ice 31. 3s. cloth. Freeth's Acts relating to the new Death Duty, called the Estate Duty. With an Introduction dealing with the other Death Duties, a Digest, copious Notes, and an Appendix, containing the Estate Duty Forms and the Rules regulating Proceedings in England and Ireland in Appeals under the Acts. >S, cond Edition. Thoroughly Revised and Enlarged. By E. FREETH, Deputy- Controller of Legacy and Succession Duties. Demy Svo. 1897. Price lis. Gd. cloth. "The official position of the author renders his opinion on questions of procedure of great vahif." Solicitors' Journal. Macassey and Strahan's Law relating to Civil Engineers, Architects, and Contractors.— With a Chapter on Arbitrations. Second Edition By L. LIVINGSTON MACASSEY and J. A. STRAHAN, Barristers- at-Law. Demu Sro. 1897. Trice 12s. Gd. cloth. Dicey 's Conflict of Laws. — A Digest of the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws. By A. V. DICEY, Q.C, B.C.L. With Notes of American Cases, by Professor Moore. Royal Svo. 1896. Price 30s*. cloth. Shirley's Leading Cases in the Common Law. — A Selec- tion of Leading Cases in the Common Law, with Notes. Fifth Edition By RICHARD WATSON, Barrister-at-Law. Dewy Sro. 189(5. Pnce 16*. cloth. Harris' Hints on Advocacy. —Conduct of Cases Civil and Criminal. Classes of Witnesses and Suggestions for Cross-examining them &c &c By RICHARD HARRIS, one of Her Majesty's Counsel. Eleventh Edition. Royal Ylmo. 1897. Price Is. Gd. cloth. $P " A very complete Manual of the Advocate's art in Trial by Jury."— Solicitors' Journal. <$| "«* A large stock of Second-hand Law Reports and Text-books on Sale. A TREATISE LAW OF MORTGAGES, ETC., ETC. A TEEATISE LAW OF MORTGAGES PLEDGES AND HYPOTHECATIONS. (FOUNDED ON COOTE'S LAW OF MORTGAGES.) BY LEOPOLD GEORGE GORDON BOBBINS, id OF LINCOLN'S INN, BABEISTEE-AT-LAW. ASSISTED BY FEEDEEICK TEENTHAM MAW, of Lincoln's inn, baeeisteb-at-law. VOL. I. LONDON : STEVENS AND SONS, Ltd., 119 & 120, CHANCEEY LANE: SWEET AND MAXWELL, Ltd., 3, CHANCEEY LANE, |£ato publishers. 1897 T 1ST) LONDON : fBJKTBSD BY C. F. ROWORTII, GREAT NEW STREET, FETTER LANE, E.C. PREFACE. The present Work originated in a request made to me by the Publishers that I should prepare a Sixth Edition J Mr. Coote's Treatise on the_ Law of Mortgage. But on considering this ^roposa, it seemed^ o both gj. S^S WhtJ^oI first appeared, and I considerable changes in the law on the subject wh had in the meantime been effected by statutory enact ments and judicial decisions, ^f^^T^Z that an entirely fresh attempt should be made to ate that law. It was, however, decided that the results ol the research and labours of Mr. Coote and his learned Editors should be utilized by full liberty being given to me to incorporate in the present treatise en my own responsibility, such parts of the Work referred to a I 3h think fit, of which liberty I have freely availed m This Treatise is therefore to some extent founded on that of Mr. Coote ; but while I take this opportunity ot Suowledging the great assistancewhicb I tor. ^denved from the information and propositions of law contained "That book, I would observe that I have throughout in that book, 1 would oDserve ^ - — verified and supplemented, and, where necessary, cor- rected or modified them, by the light of recent statute and decisions, and I have added a considerable amount 749555 VI PEEFACE. of fresh matter, particularly with regard to company securities. The scope and method of arrangement of the present Treatise differ entirely from those of Mr. Coote's Work. The subject-matter of this Treatise is confined to mortgages and other securities arising directly out of contracts for securing loans and debts, and excludes from consideration, except incidentally, all charges arising only by operation of law, such as judgments, lis pendens , statutory charges, and liens arising otherwise than by way of contract-security, also charges created by will for securing payment of debts and legacies, and the like. In arranging the subject-matter of this important and complicated branch of the law, I have endeavoured to treat it consecutively from the inception of a mortgage or charge to its final discharge or extinction. This Treatise is divided into nine Parts. The first eight Parts deal successively with mortgages and charges of the nature of a mortgage, and are arranged as follows : — Part I. Of different kinds of mortgages, and of instruments and matters ancillary thereto. Part II. Of the subject-matter of mortgages. Part IH. As to who may he mortgagors and mortgagees, and as to the effect and form of security as affected by the estate, status, and mutual relations of the parties. Part IV. Of void and voidable mortgages. Part V. Of the estate, rights, liabilities, and remedies of the mortgagor and persons claiming under him. Part VI. Of the estate, rights, liabilities, and remedies of the mortgagee and persons claiming under him. Part VII. Of priority of mortgages. Part VIII. Of the discharge of mortgages. In Part IX. is contained a statement of the law as to pledges and hypothecations by way of equitable assign- PREFACE. Vll ment. An Appendix on Stamp Duties will be found at the end of the Work. I have attempted, as far as possible, to confine the several chapters and sections arranged under the above Parts to the matters indicated by their respective titles. All of them are broken up into divisions with appropriate headings printed in distinctive type, such headings being in substance repeated at the top of every alternate page, with a view of facilitating rapidity of reference. In the notes to the text, only one reference is given to each case ; but I have collected in the Table of Cases references to contemporaneous reports. The statutes and decisions cited in the body of the Treatise are noted up to July, 1897 ; later references will be found in the " Addenda," page ccxxv. Considerable time and labour has been expended on the Index ; and it is hoped that it may prove sufficiently copious and satisfactory in arrangement. My most grateful acknowledgments are due to Mr. Frederick Trentham Maw for his help in the looking up and discussing the effect of cases and statutes, for many valuable suggestions, and generally for careful and assiduous assistance throughout the pre- paration of this Work. I also tender my best thanks to Mr. Arthur Turnour Murray, Mr. H. J. Mongan, and Mr. Herbert Broadbent, all of the Equity Bar, for their assistance in the laborious task of preparing this book for the press. L. G. GORDON BOBBINS. 4, Stone Buildings, Lincoln's Inn. September, 1897. CONTENTS. Volume I. Part I. OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF MORTGAGES, AND OF INSTRUMENTS AND MATTERS ANCILLARY THERETO. CHAPTER I. OF MORTGAGES AT COMMON LAW. PAGE i. Vivum vadium . . o ii. Mortuum vadium CHAPTEE II. OF THE NATURE AND INCIDENTS OF A MORTGAGE SECURITY. 1. Definition of Mortgage ii. Assurance of Property by Mortgage iii. Mortgage creates a Charge upon the Mortgaged Property . . iv. Right of Redemption essential to Mortgage V. Mortgage enforceable by Foreclosure vi. Collateral advantage cannot be obtained vii. Distinction between Defeasible or Conditional Purchase and Mortgage 19 6 7 9 li 13 11 CHAP. III. OF A WELSH MORTGAGE. i. Different kinds of "Welsh Mortgages 2 ° ii. Nature and Characteristics of Welsh Mortgage 27 iii. Rights and Liabilities of Parties under Welsh Mortgage . . . . 29 CHAP. IV. OF ANNUITY DEEDS. i. Nature and Incidents of the Security 32 ii. Remedies of Annuitants iii. Registration of Annuities 35 CONTENTS. OF STOCK MORTGAGES CHAPTER V. PAGE 36 CHAPTER VI. OF MORTGAGES UNDER THE LAND TRANSFER ACT, 1875 . . 38 CHAP. VII. OF EQUITABLE MORTGAGES. Section I. OF THE DIFFERENT MODES BY WHICH AN EQUITABLE MORTGAGE MAY BE CREATED 42 Section II. OF A MORTGAGE OF AN EQUITY OF REDEMPTION. i. Nature and Incidents of a Mortgage of an Equity of Redemption ii. Mortgage of Reversion expectant on Mortgage Term Section III. OF AGREEMENTS FOR MORTGAGES. i. As to Specific Performance, &c. of Agreements for Mortgages. ii. As to Agreements operating as Equitable Mortgages Section IV. OF A MORTGAGE BY DEPOSIT OF TITLE DEEDS. i. Nature and Incidents generally of a Mortgage by Deposit ii. Memorandum accompanying Deposit of Deeds iii. Deposit must be by way of Security iv. Whether a Deposit covers further Advauces v. What Deeds, &c. must be deposited vi. What Property is charged by a Deposit of Deeds vii. To whom Deposit should be made viii. General Remarks 43 47 48 50 54 57 58 60 61 63 65 65 CHAPTER VIII. OF INSTRUMENTS COLLATERAL OR ANCILLARY TO MORTGAGES. i. Of Bonds collateral to Mortgages ii. Of Warrants of Attorney 67 68 CHAP. IX. OF SURETYSHIP. Section I. OF THE NATURE OF CONTRACT OF SURETYSHIP. i. Of Sureties in Mortgage Transactions generally ii. The Statute of Frauds 78 80 CONTENTS. XI Section II. OF AVOIDANCE OP CONTRACT OF SURETYSHIP. i. Of Suretyship Contracts void ah initio ii. Of the Discharge of the Surety by subsequent Transactions PAGE 80 82 i. Nature of Liability ii. Extent of Liability Section III. OF THE LIABILITY OF SURETIES. 91 Section IV. OF THE RIGHTS OF A SURETY. i. Eights of Action, &c. ii. Right to Indemnity iii. Right to Contribution from Co-Sureties iv. Right to Proof in Bankruptcy v. Extent of Surety's Rights 93 95 100 102 104 Part II. OF THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF MORTGAGES. CHAPTEE X. OE A MORTGAGE OE FREEHOLDS. Section I. FORMS OF MORTGAGE OF FREEHOLDS FORMERLY IN USE . . 106 Section II. FORM OF MORTGAGE OF FREEHOLDS ACCORDING TO MODERN PRACTICE. i. General Scheme of Arrangement of a Mortgage Deed . . . . 108 ii. The Parties 109 iii. The Recitals 109 iv. The First Testatum — Receipt Clause — Covenants for Payment of Principal and Interest .. .. .. .. . . .. .. 113 v. The Second Testatum — The Conveyance .. .. .. ..116 vi. The Parcels 116 vii. General Words .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 118 viii. "What Fixtures, &c. pass to the Mortgagee . . . . . . . . 120 Xll CONTENTS. ix. Proviso for Redemption . . x. Proviso for Reduction of Interest on Punctual Payment xi. Proviso for Capitalization of Interest xii. Provisions as to the Postponement of Right to call in Principal Instalments xiii. Covenants for Insurance against Fire xiv. Covenants for Title xv. Statutory Form of Mortgage xvi. Assignment of Outstanding Terms xvii. Collateral Securities PAGE 128 129 131 135 137 141 146 147 147 CHAPTEE XI. OF A MORTGAGE OF COPYHOLDS. i. Mortgage by Conditional Surrender ii. Deed of Covenant for or on Surrender iii. Rights, &c. of Unadmitted Mortgagee 148 150 152 CHAPTER XII. OF A MORTGAGE OF LEASEHOLDS. i. Mortgage of Leaseholds by Assignment . . ii. Mortgage of Leaseholds by Demise iii. Effect of Covenant not to Assign or Underlet iv. Renewal of Lease v. Surrender of Lease . . vi. Covenants for Insurance against Fire vii. Statutory Covenants for Title 155 156 163 164 165 166 166 CHAPTER XIII. OF MORTGAGES OF INCORPOREAL HEREDITAMENTS i. Mortgage of Manor ii. Mortgage of Advowson iii. Mortgage of Rectories Impropriate and Tithes iv. Mortgage of Rent- charges 168 168 169 171 l. ii. iii. iv. v. CHAPTER XIV. OF MORTGAGES OF CHATTELS. Section I. OF THE NATURE AND INCIDENTS OF MORTGAGES OF CHATTELS GENERALLY Introductory Remarks Mortgages Fraudulent at Common Law Mortgages Fraudulent under Statute 13 Eliz. c. 5 Mortgages Fraudulent in Bankruptcy — Reputed Ownership Rights of Mortgagor and Mortgagee of Chattels 172 173 175 177 188 CONTENTS. Xlll 1. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii. ix. x. xi. xii. xiii. xiv. xv. xvi. xvii. xviii. xix XX Section II. OF THE BILLS OF SALE ACTS. Introductory Remarks What Instruments are " Bills of Sale " within the Acts . . What Instruments are not " Bills of Sale " within the Acts What Things are ' ' Personal Chattels ' ' within the Acts . . What Things are not " Personal Chattels" within the Acts Exception of Debentures After-acquired Chattels The Schedule or Inventory Apparent Possession Power of Seizure Statement of Consideration Form of Bill of Sale under the Act of 1882 Defeasances, Conditions, and Declarations of Trust Execution and Attestation of Bills of Sale Registration of Bills of Sale— The Affidavit Renewal of Registration The Register Transfers and Assignments of Bills of Sale . Vacation of Bills of Sale . Order and Disposition Clause in Bankruptcy PAGE 189 190 201 203 207 209 210 , 213 , 217 . 220 . 226 . 229 . 238 . 240 . 241 . 249 . 250 . 252 . 253 . 254 CHAPTEE XV. OF MORTGAGES OP SHIPS, FREIGHT, AND CARGO. Section I. MORTGAGES OF SHIPS, AND SHARES THEREIN. i. Registration of British Ships, and of Owners of Ships and Shares ii. Form and Registration of Mortgages of Ships and Shares iii. Rights and Liabilities of Mortgagee in Possession iv. Transfer and Transmission of Mortgages v. Discharge of Mortgage vi. Disabilities vii. Order and Disposition Clause in Bankruptcy . . MORTGAGES OF FREIGHT MORTGAGES OF CARGO Section II. Section III. 255 259 262 268 268 269 269 270 273 CHAPTEE XVI. OF MORTGAGES OF STOCK AND SHARES. Section I. MORTGAGES OF STOCK 275 XIV CONTENTS. Section II. MORTGAGE OF SHAKES IN A COMPANY. PAGE i. Introductory Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276 ii. How Mortgages of Shares are effected . . . . . . . . . . 277 iii. Effect of Deposit of Certificates . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 CHAPTEE XVII. OF MOKTGAGES OF POLICIES OF LIFE ASSURANCE. i. Introductory Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 ii. What Insurable Interest is necessary to support a Policy . . . . 286 iii. Whether the Policy belongs to the Mortgagee or to the Mortgagor's Estate 289 iv. Modes of effecting Mortgages of Policies . . .. .. .. .. 293 v. Other Matters relating to Mortgages of Policies .. .. .. 296 CHAPTEE XVIII. OF MORTGAGES OF PENSIONS, SALARIES, ETC 298 CHAPTEE XIX. OF MORTGAGES OF DEBTS AND LEGACIES. Section I. OF A MORTGAGE OF DEBTS. i. What Debts may be mortgaged . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 ii. Precautions to be observed by Mortgagee of Debts . . . . , . 303 iii. Power of Attorney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 Section II. MORTGAGES OF LEGACIES . . 311 Part III. AS TO WHO MAT BE MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES, AND AS TO THE SECURITY AS AFFECTED BY THE ESTATE, STATUS, AND MUTUAL RELATION OF THE PARTIES. CHAPTEE XX. OF THE POWER TO MORTGAGE PROPERTY, AND HEREIN OF DISABILITIES. Section I. WnO MAY BE MORTGAGORS GENERALLY 314 CONTENTS. XV Section II. MORTGAGES OF PEOPEETY OF MAEEIED WOMEN. PAGE i. Disability of Coverture 315 ii. Mortgages of Real Estate of Married Women 316 iii. Mortgages of Chattels Real of Married Women 321 iv. Mortgages of Choses in Action, &c. of Married Women . . . . 322 v. Wife's Equity to a Settlement 326 vi. Trusts for Separate Use of Married Women 328 vii. Appointments under Powers . . . . . . . . • . • • 332 viii. Mortgages under the Married Women's Property Act, 1870 . . 333 ix. Mortgages under the Married Women's Property Act, 1882 . . 335 x. Restraint on Anticipation . . .. 339 xi. Liability of Married Women under Covenants for payment of Mort- gage Moneys . . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • 343 xii. Liability of Husband for Debts of Wife before Marriage . . . . 350 xiii. Mortgage by Wife to secure Husband's Debts 351 Section III. MOETGAGES OF PEOPEETY OF INFANTS. i. Disability of Infancy . . . . . . • • • • • • • • 353 ii. Power to Mortgage Property of Infants 353 iii. Avoidance of Contracts by Infants to repay Loans 355 Section IV. MOETGAGES OF PEOPEETY OF LUNATICS. i. Jurisdiction to Mortgage Property of Lunatics . . . . . . . . 356 ii. Form, Contents, &c. of Mortgage . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 iii. Other Matters 363 Section V. MOETGAGES OF PEOPEETY OF BANKETJPTS CHAPTER XXI. OF MORTGAGES BY TENANTS IN TAIL. i. Mode of barring Estates Tail in Possession ii. Bar of Reversionary Estates Tail iii. Enlargement of Base Fee iv. Covenants to perfect defective Assurances by Tenants in Tail V. Inrolment of Dispositions 364 366 371 373 376 378 CHAPTEE XXII. OF MORTGAGES BY LIMITED OWNERS UNDER POWERS. Section I. OF MOETGAGES UNDEE EXPEESS POWEES OF MOETGAGING. i. Express Powers of Mortgaging in Settlements and Wills . . . . 380 ii. Exercise of Power after Alienation . , .. .. .. .. .. 381 XVI CONTENTS. Section II. OF MORTGAGES BY LIMITED OWNERS, ETC., UNDER STATUTORY POWERS FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES. PAGE i. Generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3S2 ii. Mortgagee under Inolosnre Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . 383 iii. Mortgages for Redemption of Land Tax; . . . . . . . , , . 3S4 iv. Mortgages for Enfranchisement of Copyholds . . . . - . . . 385 Section III. OF MORTGAGES UNDER THE SETTLED LAND ACTS. i. Power for Tenant for Life to Mortgage Settled Land . . . . . . 388 ii. Definitions for the Purposes of the Acts . . . . . . . . . . 389 iii. Persons having the Towers of a Tenant for Life. . . . . . . . 390 iv. Mortgages of Settled Lands where the Owner is under Disability . . 392 v. Mortgages of Lands Settled on Trust for Sale . . . . . . . . 394 vi. Matters relating to the Exercise of Powers of Mortgaging by Tenant for Life 395 CHAPTEE XXIII. OF MORTGAGES BY EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES. Section I. OF MORTGAGES OF PERSONALTY BY EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. i. Of the Power to Mortgage Personalty of a Deceased Person . . , , 399 ii. Application of Moneys Advanced .. .. .. .. .. ..401 iii. Subject -matter and Form of Mortgage .. .. .. .. .. 405 Section LI. OF MORTGAGES OF REALTY BY EXECUTORS, ETC., FOR FUKPOSES OF ADMINISTRATION. i. Charge of Debts 406 ii. Charge of Legacies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409 iii. Charge of Annuities .. .. .. .. .. .. ..410 iv. Direction to raise Money out of Rents and Profits .. .. .. 414 v. Mortgages of Realty by Executors and Trustees under Lord St. Leonards' Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..416 Section III. OF STATUTORY POWERS OF TRUSTEES TO RAISE MONEY FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES. i. Mortgages of Settled Property . . . . . . . . . . . . 422 ii. Mortgages under the Charitable Trusts Acts . . . . . . . . 423 Section IV. OF MORTGAGES BY TRUSTEES UNDER EXTRESS POWERS. i. Of Powers of Mortgaging in Settlements and "Wills . . . . . . 424 ii. Form of Mortgage by Trustees . . . . . . . . . . . . 428 CONTENTS. XV11 Section V. OF MORTGAGES UNDER TRUST TEEMS FOE PORTIONS AND MAINTENANCE. i. At what Time Portions are Raiseable ii. Methods of Raising Money. . iii. Legacy and Succession Duty . . . . * . . iv. Form of Mortgage for Raising Portions, &c. PAGE 429 432 435 436 CHAPTEE XXIV. MORTGAGES BY ECCLESIASTICAL CORPORATIONS. i. Mortgages by Ecclesiastical Person of Profits of Benefice to Secure his own Debts . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • • • ■ 438 ii. Mortgages by Incumbents of Benefices under Statutory Powers for Building, &c 44 1 CHAPTEE XXV. MORTGAGES BY MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND OTHER LOCAL AUTHORITIES. i. Mortgages by Municipal Corporations ii. Mortgages by Local Authorities under Public Health Acts iii. Mortgages by Commissioners for Public Undertakings iv. Mortgages by Prison Authorities v. Mortgages for Repair of Bridges vi. Mortgages for Purposes of Lunatic Asylums vii. Mortgages by Poor Law Guardians viii. Mortgages under the Burial Acts ix. Mortgages under the Public Libraries Acts x. General Borrowing Powers of County and other Local Councils xi. Borrowing Powers of School Boards 445 447 448 449 449 450 450 452 452 454 455 CHAPTEE XXVI. OF MORTGAGES BY BUILDING AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES. i. As to Unincorporated Building Societies ii. As to Incorporated Building Societies iii. As to Friendly Societies 458 460 463 chap. xxvn. OF MORTGAGES BY COMPANIES. Section I. OF THE BORROWING POWERS OF COMPANIES. i. Of the Powers of Companies to Borrow generally ii. Borrowing Powers of Railway and other Companies Incorporated by Special Acts iii. Borrowing Powers of Joint Stock Companies iv. Whether Securities which are ultra vires will bind Companies. . A'OL. I. R. ?> 464 465 467 472 xviii CONTENTS. Section II. OF THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF SECURITIES GIVEN BY COMPANIES. i. Mortgages, &c, by Companies generally . . ii. Debentures iii. Debenture Stock . . ' . . iv. Bonds . . V. Contracts to Issue and take Debentures, &c. PAGE 476 477 488 489 489 Section III. WHAT SUBJECT-MATTER MAY BE INCLUDED IN SECURITIES GIVEN BY COMPANIES. i. Undertaking, Tolls, Surplus Lands, &c, of Railway and Public Companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490 ii. Undertaking and Property of Joint Stock Company, Floating Security 493 iii. Future Calls = 497 Section IV. REGISTRATION OF SECURITIES OF COMPANIES. i. Securities of Railway and other Public Companies . . . . . . 499 ii. Securities under Mortgage Debenture Acts . . . . . . . . 500 iii. Securities of Joint Stock Companies . . . . . . . . . . 500 CHAPTEE XXVIII. OF MORTGAGES BY PARTNERS. i. Of the Power of a Partner to bind the Firm by borrowing and giving Securities for Loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502 ii. Effect of Change in Firm on Securities on Partnership Property . . 504 iii. Loans to Partnerships on consideration of sharing Profits . . . . 505 iv. Mortgage of Share in Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . 507 CHAPTEE XXIX. OF MORTGAGES TO TRUSTEES. Section I. OF MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS BY TRUSTEES OF SETTLEMENTS AND WILLS. i. Of the Power of Trustees to Invest on Mortgage generally . . . . 509 ii. Statutory Powers of Trustees to Invest on Real Securities . . . . 513 iii. Statutory Powers of Trustees to Invest on Debentures, &c, of Com- panies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515 iv. What kinds of Property form proper Mortgage Investments of Trust Moneys 516 v. Precautions to be observed on advancing Trust Moneys on Mortgage 522 vi. Valuation of the Property. . .. .. .. .. .. .. 525 vii. Investigation of Title to the Property . . . . . . . . 531 viii. General Protection of Trustees . . . . . . . . . . 533 ix. As to the Proper Forms of Mortgages to Trustees and of Transfer thereof 534 CONTENTS. XIX Section II. OF MORTGAGES TO TRUSTEES OF CHARITIES. PAGE i. Of the Power of Charity Trustees to Invest in or hold Real Securities under the Old Law 537 ii. Mortmain, &c, Act, 1891 541 CHAPTER XXX. OF MOETGAGES TO BUILDING AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES. Section I. OF MORTGAGES TO BUILDING SOCIETIES. i. Power of Building Societies to lend on Mortgage .543 ii. On what Securities Advances may be made iii. Accounts and Audits of Mortgage Investments iv. Form of the Security V. Nature and Operation of the Security vi. Arbitration vii. Reconveyance 546 547 549 558 559 566 Section II. OF MORTGAGES TO FRIENDLY SOCIETIES. i. Power of Friendly Societies to lend on Mortgage 563 ii. Reconveyance . . Part IY. OF VOID AND VOIDABLE SECURITIES. CHAPTER XXXI. OF MORTGAGES WHICH ARE VOID AS BEING IN FRAUD OF CREDITORS. Section I. OF FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES UNDER STATUTE 13 ELIZ. C 5. i. Avoidance of Conveyances made in Fraud of Creditors 567 ii. The Intention to defraud Creditors— Retention of Possession of Mort- gaged Property by Mortgagor .. .. .. .. •• ..569 iii. Against what Creditors a Fraudulent Conveyance will be avoided . . 574 Section II. OF THE AVOIDANCE OF MORTGAGES IN BANKRUPTCY. i. Introductory Remarks . . . . . . . . • • • • • • 57o ii. Fraudulent Conveyances are Acts of Bankruptcy . . . . . . 577 iii. Fraudulent Preference . . . . . . • • • • • • • • 584 iv. Fraudulent Preference in Winding-up of Companies 598 62 XX CONTENTS. CHAPTEE XXXII. OF THE AVOIDANCE OF MORTGAGES AS BEING CONVEYANCES IN FRAUD OF PURCHASERS, ETC., UNDER THE STATUTE 27 ELIZ. C. 4. PAGE i. The Statute 27 Eliz. c. 4 600 ii. The Consideration 601 iii. Against what Purchasers, &c., a Fraudulent Conveyance is avoided . . 603 CHAPTEE XXXIII. OF AVOIDANCE OF MORTGAGES AS BEING EXTORTIONATE. i. Of Mortgages hy Persons under undue Influence generally . . . . 606 ii. Mortgages to Solicitors hy their Clients . . . . . . . . . . 609 iii. Dealings with Reversionary Interests .. .. .. .. ..612 CHAPTEE XXXIV. OF MORTGAGES •WHICH ARE VOrD ON GROUNDS OF PUBLIC POLICY. i. Securities for Debts incurred in Gaming and "Wagering .. .. 619 ii. Immoral Securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624 iii. Other Invalid Securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 626 Part Y. OF THE ESTATE, RIGHTS, LIABILITIES, AND REMEDIES OF THE MORTGAGOR AND PERSONS CLAIMING UNDER HIM. CHAPTEE XXXV. OF THE NATURE AND INCIDENTS OF AN EQUITY OF REDEMPTION. i. Equity of Redemption is an Estate . . . . . . . . . . 627 ii. Personal Rights and Privileges of the Mortgagor . . . . . . 628 iii. Right of Mortgagor to bring or defend Actions with regard to Mortgaged Property . . . . . . . . . . . . 629 iv. Sale, Mortgage, &c, of Equity of Redemption . . . . . . 633 v. Entail and Settlement of Equity of Redemption . . . . . . 636 vi. Escheat and Forfeiture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642 vii. Curtesy and Dower. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 645 viii. Devolution, Devise, &c, of Equity of Redemption . . . . . . 646 ix. Liability of Equity of Redemption to Mortgagor's Debts . . . . 647 CONTENTS. XXI CHAPTEE XXXVI. OF THE RELATION OF THE MORTGAGOR TO THE MORTGAGEE. i. Generally ii. When the Mortgagor is Tenant for a Term iii. When the Mortgagor is Tenant at Will. . iv. When the Mortgagor is Tenant at Sufferance . . v. Attornment Clauses vi. Power of Distress vii. Mortgagor in Possession entitled to Rents and Profits viii. Waste by Mortgagor PAGE 654 655 657 662 663 666 667 669 CHAPTEE XXXVII. OF THE RELATIVE RIGHTS OF MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES WITH RESPECT TO LESSEES AND TENANTS OF MORTGAGED LANDS. i. As to Leases, &c, subsisting at the Date of the Mortgage . . . . 671 ii. Leases granted by Mortgagors and Mortgagees jointly. . .. .. 673 iii. Leases, &c., improperly granted by Mortgagor after the Mortgage . . 675 iv. Leases by Mortgagors under Express Powers . . . . . . . . 685 V. Leases by Mortgagors under Statutory Powers . . . . . . . . 685 CHAPTEE XXXVIII. OF REDEMPTION. Section I. OF THE EIGHT TO EEDEEM GENERALLY. i. Who are entitled to Redeem ii. Limitation of Equity of Redemption to New Uses iii. When the Right of Redemption first arises iv. Notice to Redeem v. Tender of Mortgage Moneys 692 699 706 708 710 Section II. OP THE PARTIES TO AN ACTION FOE REDEMPTION . 720 Section III. JURISDICTION IN ACTIONS FOE REDEMPTION. i. General Jurisdiction ii. Jurisdiction to order Sale in lieu of Redemption 725 725 Section IV. PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN AN ACTION FOE REDEMPTION. i. How a Redemption Action must be commenced ii. Pleadings in Action for Redemption iii. Discovery 727 729 732 XXli CONTENTS. Section V. DECREE FOE REDEMPTION. PAGE i. Form of Decree . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • 733 ii. Dismissal of Action for Redemption . . . . . . . . . . 736 iii. Order for Sale in lieu of Redemption . . . . . . . . . . 738 iv. Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • 739 CHAPTEE XXXIX. OF THE STATUTES OF LIMITATION IN BAR OF REDEMPTION. i. Application of the Statutes to Claims for Redemption . . . . . . 740 ii. Bar of Actions for Redemption after twelve years' Possession . . 742 iii. What Acknowledgment is sufficient to keep alive the Right of Redemption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 748 CHAPTEE XL. OUT OF WHAT FUND A MORTGAGE DEBT IS PAYABLE. Section I. PRIMARY LIABILITY OF PERSONALTY UNDER FORMER LAW. i. General Rule as to Mortgages of Realty before Locke King's Act . . 753 ii. Exemption of Personalty by Expressions of Contrary Intention . . 754 iii. Exceptions to the Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 759 iv. Exoneration of Personalty specifically mortgaged out of the general Assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 766 Section II. ALTERATION OF THE LAW BY LOCKE KING'S ACT AND THE AMENDING ACTS. i. Mortgage Debt primarily payable out of mortgaged Lands . . . . 767 ii. Contrary Intention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 771 Section III. OF CONTRIBUTION BETWEEN SEVERAL OWNERS OF THE EQUITY OF REDEMPTION, AND THOSE CLAIMING UNDER THEM . . . . . . 774 CHAPTEE XLI. OF MARSHALLING OF MORTGAGED ASSETS. i. Nature and Effect of the Doctrine of Marshalling as applied to Mortgages . . . . . . . . . , . . , . , . . , 777 ii. In favour of what Persons the right of Marshalling arises . . . . 782 iii. Marshalling not applied to Prejudice of Third Parties 786 iv. Application of the Doctrine to Maritime Securities 789 CONTENTS. XX111 Volume II. Part VI. OF THE ESTATE, RIGHTS, LIABILITIES, AND REMEDIES OF THE MORTGAGEE, AND PERSONS CLAIMING UNDER HIM. CHAPTEE XLII. OF THE NATURE AND INCIDENTS OF THE ESTATE OF THE MORTGAGEE. Section I. EIGHTS INCIDENT TO MORTGAGEE'S ESTATE. i. General Remarks ii. Personal Rights and Privileges of Mortgagee . . iii. Action by Mortgagee for Protection of the Security PAGE 791 792 792 Section II. OF A MORTGAGEE IN POSSESSION. i. Right of Mortgagee to Possession . . ii. Leases by Mortgagee in Possession iii. Effect of entry into Possession iv. Liabilities of Mortgagee in Possession V. "What amounts to taking Possession vi. Delivery of Possession to Mortgagor on Redemption 796 800 800 801 Section III. OF THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF A MORTGAGEE AS TO POSSESSION OF TITLE DEEDS. i. Right of Mortgagee to Deeds generally . . . . . . . . . • 808 ii. What Owners of Land are entitled to Custody of Title Deeds . . 811 iii. Liability of Mortgagee to produce Deeds.. .. .. .. ..814 iv. Loss of Title Deeds 816 Section IV. OF ALIENATION OF THE SECURITY. i. Transfer of Mortgage . ii. Sub-Mortgage . . 819 830 Section V. OF DEVOLUTION AND DEVISE OF LEGAL ESTATE IN MORTGAGED PROPERTY. i. Devolution, &c, of Legal Estate prior to 1874 832 ii. Devolution, &c, of Legal Estate under the Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874 839 iii. Devolution of Legal Estate under Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 840 XXIV CONTENTS. Section VI. OF THE BENEFICIAL INTEREST OF A MORTGAGEE. i. Devolution of Beneficial Interest under Mortgage ii. Bequests of Beneficial Interests in Mortgage iii. Liability of Mortgagee's Interest to Claims of Creditors iv. Devolution, &c. after Union of Interest of Mortgagee with Equity of Redemption PAGE 844 847 851 851 CHAPTEE XLIII. OF THE CONSOLIDATION OP SECURITIES. i. Nature and Operation of the Doctrine of Consolidation generally ii. Against what Persons Mortgages may be Consolidated iii. Restrictions on the Right to Consolidate iv. Loss of the Right to Consolidate v. Effect of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, s. 17 CHAPTEE XLIV. OF THE REMEDIES OF MORTGAGEES FOR ENFORCING SECURITIES GENERALLY. i. All Remedies may be pursued at once ii. When the Mortgagee will be precluded from exercising all his Remedies . . . . . . . . . , iii. Staying Proceedings under Statute 7 Geo. II. c. 20 iv. Remedies of Debenture Holders generally CHAPTEE XLV. OF POWERS OF SALE. 855 858 862 865 865 867 870 873 878 Section I. OF A MORTGAGEE'S EIGHT OF SALE UNDER EXPRESS AND STATUTORY POWERS. i. Of Express Powers of, and Trusts for Sale in Mortgages ii. Of Powers of Sale under Lord Cranworth's Act iii. Of Powers of Sale under the Conveyancing, &c, Act, 18S1 iv. Powers of Sale under the Land Transfer Act, 1875 Section II. OF THE EXERCISE OF POWERS OF SALE BY MORTGAGEES. i. By what Persons Powers of Sale are exerciseable ii. In what Events Powers of Sale become exerciseable — Notice — Pro- tection of Purchasers iii. Conduct of the Sale iv. Sale under Special Conditions v. Interference of Court in Sales by Mortgagees vi. Who may Purchase vii. The Conveyance— Delivery of Title Deeds viii. Receipt for the Purchase Money ix. Application of the Purchase Money 881 882 884 885 886 893 901 902 903 906 907 909 910 CONTENTS. XXV CHAPTEE XLVI. OF THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER. Section I. OF A EECEIVEE APPOINTED BY THE PAETIES. PAGE i. Mode of appointing a Receiver independently of Statute . . . . 916 ii. Appointment of a Receiver under Lord Cranworth's Act . . . . 918 iii. Appointment of a Receiver under the Conveyancing and Law of Pro- perty Act, 1881 919 iv. Powers, Duties, &c, of a Receiver appointed by Deed 922 Section II. OF A EECEIVEE APPOINTED BY THE C0UET. i. Jurisdiction to appoint a Receiver . . . . . . . . . . 924 ii. In what cases and at whose instance a Receiver will he appointed . . 928 iii. Over what Property a Receiver may be appointed . . . . . . 931 iv. Who may be appointed Receiver . . . . . . . . . . . . 939 v. Security to be given by Receiver . . . . . . . . . . . . 942 vi. Possession of Receiver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943 vii. Powers and Duties of Receivers . . . . . . . . . . . . 948 viii. Remuneration and Expenses of Receiver . . . . . . . . 957 ix. Discharge of Receiver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958 CHAPTEE XLVII. OF actions on personal covenants for payment in mortgages. i. Right of Action on Covenant generally 959 ii. Who may Sue on the Covenant . . . ■ . . . . . . • • 959 iii. When and under what Conditions the Right of Action on the Cove- nant arises . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • 961 iv. Bar of Right of Action by Inability to Reconvey 962 V. Upon what Persons the Liability under the Covenant attaches . . 964 CHAPTEE XLVIII. OF THE STATUTES OF LIMITATION IN BAR OF A MORTGAGEE'S RIGHT OF ACTION ON COVENANT OR DEBT. Section I. BAE OF MOETQAQEE'S EIGHT TO EECOVEE THE PEINCIPAL. i. Actions on the Covenant to Recover Principal Moneys charged on Land or Rents . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . 971 ii. Actions on the Covenant to Recover Principal Moneys charged on Personalty . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . 974 iii. Actions of Debt to Recover Principal Moneys . . . . . . . . 974 iv. Time from which the Statutes of Limitation begin to run . . . . 975 V. Part Payment and Acknowledgment in Writing . . . . . . 977 vi. Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . 987 XXVI CONTENTS. Section II. BAR OF MORTGAGEE'S EIGHT TO AEEEAES OF INTEEEST. i. "What Arrears of Interest are recoverable in Actions of Covenant or Debt ii. Acknowledgment iii. Express Trusts iv. Protection of Puisne Incumbrancers v. Disabilities 992 992 993 993 CHAPTEE XLIX. OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE BY ORDER OF THE COURT. Section I. OF THE EIGHT TO F0EECL0SE GENERALLY, AND THE NECESSAEY PARTIES TO AN ACTION FOR FORECLOSURE. i. Who may Foreclose a Mortgage ii. "What Mortgaged Property may be Foreclosed iii. When the Right to Foreclosure arises iv. Parties to an Action for Foreclosure 994 999 1002 1003 Section II. JURISDICTION IN ACTIONS FOR FORECLOSURE. i. General Jurisdiction . . .. .. .. .. .. ii. Jurisdiction to Order Sale instead of Foreclosure . . 1015 1016 Section III. PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS. i. How an Action for Foreclosure must be commenced ii. Pleadings in Action for Foreclosure or Sale iii. Evidence 1018 1021 1022 Section IV. DECEEE NISI FOR FORECLOSUEE i. Form of Decree ii. Order for Taking the Accounts iii. Time allowed for Redemption iv. Payment under Decree Nisi . . v. Order for Sale in lieu of Foreclosure 1024 1026 1027 1034 1035 Section V. FORECLOSURE ABSOLUTE. i. Final Order for Foreclosure . . ii. Order for Delivery of Possession iii. Order for Delivery of Title Deeds iv. Opening the Foreclosure 1041 1045 1046 1047 CONTENTS. XXV11 Section "VI. FORECLOSURE OR SALE IN SPECIAL CASES. i. Foreclosure or Sale against Infants ii. Foreclosure against Married Women iii. Foreclosure or Sale against the Crown PAGE 1052 1056 1057 CHAPTEE L. OF THE STATUTES OF LIMITATION IN BAR OF FORECLOSURE. i. Application of the Statutes to Actions for Foreclosure . . . . 1058 ii. Bar of Action for Foreclosure twelve years after Eight of Action accrued . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059 iii. When the Right of Action first accrues. . iv. Payment of Principal or Interest V. Institution of Action hy Mortgagee vi. What Acknowledgment is sufficient to keep alive Foreclosure vii. Savings in Case of Disabilities . . viii. Fraud ix. Express Trusts x. Extinguishment of Right of Party out of Possession .. 1062 , . .. 1063 . . .. 1064 the Right of .. 1066 , . .. 1068 .. 1071 .. 1072 . . .. 1073 CHAPTEE LI. OF THE REMEDIES OF A MORTGAGEE ON THE BANKRUPTCY OF THE MORTGAGOR. i. General Jurisdiction of the Courts in Bankruptcy ii. Effect of Receiving Order on Rights of Secured Creditors iii. Proof hy Secured Creditors iv. Sale in Bankruptcy 1075 1079 1089 1094 CHAPTEE LII. OF THE REMEDIES OF A MORTGAGEE IN ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE OF A DECEASED MORTGAGOR. i. Creditor's Administration Action in Chancery Division .. .. 1105 ii. Administration of Insolvent Estates in Bankruptcy .. .. .. 1108 iii. Proof by Secured Creditors in Administration .. .. .. ..1110 iv. Costs 1113 CHAPTEE LILT. OF THE REMEDIES OF DEBENTURE-HOLDERS AND MORTGAGEES OF COMPANIES. i. Actions by Debenture-holders, &c, to enforce Securities before Wind- ing-up .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1117 ii. Jurisdiction in the Winding-up of Companies .. .. .. ..1120 iii. Petitions for Winding-up .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1121 XXV111 CONTENTS. iv. Effect of Winding-up Proceedings on Rights of Action of Debenture- holders and Mortgagees of Companies .. .. .. .. ..1125 v. Proof by Secured Creditors in a "Winding-up .. .. .. .. 1128 vi. Schemes of Arrangement .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1132 CHAPTER LIV. OF THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF A MORTGAGEE WITH RESPECT TO TAKING THE ACCOUNTS BETWEEN HIM AND THE MORTGAGOR. Section I. OF ACCOUNTS BETWEEN MOETGAGEES AND MOETGAGOES GENEEALLY. i. Reference of Accounts to Chambers .. .. .. .. ..1137 ii. Set-off 1138 iii. Further Accounts .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1139 iv. Who are bound by the Accounts .. .. .. .. .. .. 1140 V. Opening Accounts .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1141 vi. Surcharge and Falsification of Accounts .. .. .. .. ..1142 vii. Action to Open, &c. Accounts of Costs for which a Mortgage is given to a Solicitor .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1144 Section II. OF ACCOtTNTS OF PEINCIPAL. i. General Right of Mortgagee to Payment of Principal ii. Bonus or Commission for Loan iii. Further Advances iv. Bond Debts v. Simple Contract Debts 1145 1145 1147 1151 1152 Section III. OF ACCOUNTS OF INTEEEST. i. Right of Mortgagee to Interest generally .. .. .. ..1153 ii. Rate of Interest .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1155 iii. Conversion of Interest into Principal .. .. .. .. ..1162 iv. Interest on Arrears of Annuity .. .. .. .. .. ..1167 v. What Arrears of Interest are recoverable on taking Accounts .. 1168 vi. Interest after Judgment .. .. .. .. .. .. ..1172 Section IV. OF ACCOUNTS OF COSTS, CHAEGES, AND EXPENSES. i. Right of Mortgagee to Costs, &c, generally ii. Costs of and incident to Actions for Foreclosure or Redemption iii. Extraordinary Costs, Charges, and Expenses 1174 1185 1191 CONTENTS. XXIX Section V. OF ACCOUNTS AGAINST MORTGAGEES IN POSSESSION. PAGE i. Mode of taking the Accounts generally .. .. .. .. .. 1200 ii. Account of Moneys received by Mortgagee . . . . . . . . 1201 iii. Allowances to Mortgagee for Outgoings . . . . . . . . . . 1203 iv. Of taking Accounts with Rests . . . . . . . . . . . . 1207 Section VI. OF APPEOPEIATION OF PAYMENTS 1212 Part VII. OF PRIORITY OF MORTGAGEES. CHAPTEE LV. OF THE PRIORITY AS BETWEEN THEMSELVES OF SUCCESSIVE MORTGAGEES OF LAND. Section I. OF THE PRIORITY OF A MORTGAGEE HAVING THE LEGAL ESTATE. i. Where Equities are equal Legal Estate prevails . . .. .. ..1214 ii. Equitable Mortgagee with best Right to Legal Estate . . .. ..1217 iii. Judgment Creditor .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1218 Section II. OF TACKING. i. Nature and Extent of the Doctrine of Tacking generally .. ..1219 ii. Rules in Brace v. Duchess of Marlborough .. .. .. .. .. 1221 iii. Tacking against Sureties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1235 Section III. OF PRIORITY AS BETWEEN EQUITABLE MORTGAGEES OF LAND. i. Notice not applicable to Land .. .. .. .. .. .. 1236 ii. Priority of Equitable Mortgages of Land regulated by Order of Date 1237 Section IV. PRIORITY BY REGISTRATION OF MORTGAGES OF LAND. i. The Statutes relating to Registration of Deeds, &c, relating to Land 1240 ii. What Instruments require Registration .. .. .. .. .. 1243 iii. Priority of Deeds, &c, by Date of Registration. . .. .. ., 1246 XXX CONTENTS. CHAPTEE LVL OF PRIORITIES AS BETWEEN THEMSELVES OP SUCCESSIVE MORTGAGEES OF PERSONALTY. Section I. OF PBIOKITY AS BETWEEN MORTGAGEES OF EQUITABLE INTERESTS IN PERSONALTY, OE OF DEBTS AND OTHEE CHOSES IN ACTION. PAGE i. Of Priority by Notice generally . . . . . . . . . . . . 1253 ii. Notice to Trustees of Mortgaged Fund .. .. .. .. ..1260 iii. Notice of Mortgage of Debts and otber Choses in Action . . . . 1265 iv. Notice of Mortgages of Policies of Life Assurances .. .. .. 1267 v. Notice of Mortgages of Shares in Joint Stock Companies . . . . 1269 vi. Notice of Mortgages of Freight and Cargo . . . . . . . . 1272 vii. Application of Doctrine of Tacking to Personalty . . . . . . 1273 Section II. OF PRIORITY OBTAINED IN CERTAIN CASES BY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. i. Notice in lieu of Distringas . . . . . . . . . . . . 1274 ii. Stop Orders on Funds in Court . . . . . . . . . . . . 1276 Section III. PRIORITY BY REGISTRATION. i. Priorities of Bills of Sale of Chattels 1282 ii. Priorities of Mortgages of Ships .. .. .. .. .. .. 1285 CHAPTEE LVII. OF THE PRIORITY OF SECURITIES OF COMPANIES. i. Securities of Railway and other Public Companies . . . . . . 1287 ii. Securities of Joint Stock Companies .. .. .. .. .. 1289 CHAPTEE LVIII. OF MATTERS WHEREBY THE PRIORITY OF A MORTGAGEE MAY BE POSTPONED. Section I. OF LOSS OF PRIORITY BY FRAUD OR LACHES. i. Of Fraud as affecting a Mortgagee's Priority .. .. .. ., 1293 ii. Of Laches as affecting a Mortgagee's Priority .. .. .. .. 1297 Section II. OF L0S8 OF PRIORITY BY NOTICE OF PRIOR INCUMBRANCES OR OTHER EQUITIES. i. Of Notice as affecting a Mortgagee's Priority generally . . . . 1299 ii. As to pleading Purchase for Value without Notice . . . . . . 1303 iii. Actual and Constructive Notice .. .. ., ., .. .. 1305 CONTENTS. xxxl PAGE 1308 1313 1317 1325 1332 iv. Notice of a Deed is Notice of its Contents v. Constructive Notice of Matters affecting the Title vi. Constructive Notice from known Facts vii. Notice through Solicitor or other Agent Section III. OF LOSS OP PEIOEITY BY FAILURE TO OBTAIN OE EETAIN TITLE DEEDS. i Notice from Absence of Title Deeds ii. In what Cases Omission of Mortgagee to obtain or retain Possession of Title Deeds will postpone his Security 1337 CHAPTER LIX. OF PRIORITIES AS BETWEEN MORTGAGES AND JUDGMENTS, CROWN DEBTS, AND OTHER. CHARGES AND LIENS. Section I. JUDGMENTS. i. Judgments as affecting Land generally 1348 ii. Statutory Enactments regulating the Priority of Judgments . . . . 1350 iii. Registration of Judgments in Counties 1356 iv. Charging Orders Section II. CROWN DEBTS. i. Crown Debts as affecting Mortgages of Land 1366 ii. Registration of Crown Debts Section III. STATTJTOBY LAND CHAEGES. i. Generally ii. Charges for Commutation and Redemption of Tithes iii. Charges for Enfranchisement of Copyholds 13 70 iv. Land Improvement and Drainage Charges 1 3 < ° Section IV. LIENS. i. Lien of Vendor for unpaid Purchase-money 1372 ii. Lien of Purchaser on Rescission of Contract 1376 iii". Lien for Expenses of preserving, maintaining, or improving Property 1377 iv. Lien for Breach of Trust 1381 V. Lien arising out of Covenants to settle or charge Land . . . . 1382 vi. Lien of Solicitor 1384 vii Lien of Bankers and Brokers 1389 • 1390 viii. Maritime Liens ix. Lien of Joint Stock Company on Shares 1399 1368 1369 XXX11 CONTENTS. Part VIII, OF THE DISCHARGE OF MORTGAGES. CHAPTER LX. OP THE DISCHAEGE OF THE SECURITY BY RELEASE OF THE DEBT. PAGE i. What is necessary to an effectual Release of a Debt . . . . . . 1401 ii. Acceptance of Part of Debt in satisfaction of the Whole . . . . 1404 CHAPTER LXI. OF THE DISCHARGE OF THE SECURITY BY RELEASE OF THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY. Section I. OF EECONVEYANCES AND DELTVERY OP POSSESSION. i. By what means Mortgaged Property may be Released . . . . 1406 ii. Right of Mortgagor to Reconveyance .. .. .. .. .. 1409 iii. Right of Mortgagor on Redemption to Re-delivery of Deeds . . . . 1411 iv. Right of Mortgagor to require Transfer of Mortgage instead of Re- conveyance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1414 Section II. VESTING OBDERS. i. Lunatic Mortgagees and Trustees .. .. .. .. ..1417 ii. Infant Mortgagees and Trustees . . .. .. .. .. ..1419 iii. Mortgagee or Trustee out of Jurisdiction not to be found or refusing to convey. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1420 iv. Vesting Order on Death of Mortgagee . . . . . . . . . . 1423 v. Vesting Orders in respect of Stock, &c. . . . . . . . . . . 1425 vi. Effect of Vesting Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1426 vii. Jurisdiction and Procedure with regard to Vesting Orders . . . . 1426 viii. Costs 1429 CHAPTER LXII. OF THE DISCHARGE OF THE SECURITY BY MERGER. Section I. MERGES OF SECURITY BY UNION OF THE MORTGAGE ESTATE WITH THE EQUITY OF REDEMPTION. i. General Rule as to Merger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1431 ii. Payment off of Mortgage by Owner of Equity of Redemption . . 1431 iii. Acquisition of Equity of Redemption by Mortgagee . . . . . . 1435 iv. What will exclude Merger generally . . . . . . . . . . 1436 v. What will exclude Merger as against subsequent Incumbrancers . . 1443 CONTENTS. XXX111 Section II. MERGER OF LOWER IN HIGHER SECURITY . , PAGE 1446 Section III. NOVATION. i. Of Novation generally ii. Novation on Change of Partnership Firm iii. Novation on Amalgamation of Companies 1450 1452 1454 Tart IX. OF CONTRACT SECURITIES (OTHER THAN MORTGAGES) FOR DEBTS AND LOANS. CHAPTER LXni. OF PLEDGES. Section I. OF ORDINARY PLEDGES OR PAWNS. i. Nature and Effect of a Pledge or Pawn . . ii. Delivery of Possession iii. Title of Pledgor iv. The Subject-matter of Pledges v. Rights, Remedies, and Liabilities of Pledgee 1458 1461 14(12 1465 1467 Section II. OF PLEDGES UNDER THE PAWNBROKERS ACT. i. General Effect of the Act ii. Redemption of Pawned Goods iii. Sale and Custody of Pawned Goods 1173 1474 1475 Section III. PLEDGES OF GOODS, ETC., BY FACTORS, THE FACTORS ACT, 1889. i. Definition of various Expressions for the purposes of the Act. . ii. Statutory Rights, Powers, and Liabilities of " Mercantile Agents ", iii. Powers, &c, of Factors independently of Statute vol. i. — n. c 1476 1479 1485 XXXIV CONTENTS. CHAPTER LXIV. OF HYPOTHECATION BY "WAY OF EQUITABLE ASSIGNMENT. Section I. OF EQUITABLE ASSIGNMENT OF DEBTS AND FUNDS. PAGE i. Nature and Operation of Equitable Assignments of Debts or Funds . . 1487 ii. "What will amount to an Equitable Assignment of a Debt or Fund . . 1491 iii. Revocation of Assignment .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1493 iv. The Rule in Exp. Waring 1493 Section II. EQUITABLE ASSIGNMENTS OF CARGO. i. Appropriation of Bills of Lading to accepted Bills of Exchange . . 1494 ii. Appropriation of Bills of Lading to Bills of Exchange before Accept- ance 1497 CHAPTER LXV. OF MARITIME HYPOTHECATIONS. Section I. OF BOTTOMRY BONDS. i. Nature, Operation, and Form of Bottomry Bonds ii. Subject-matter of Bottomry Bonds iii. Charge on Ship, &c, created by Bottomry Bonds iv. Who may give a Bottomry Bond v. Who may take a Bottomry Bond vi. Maritime Risk and Interest, &c. . . vii. Necessity essential to Validity of Bottomry Bond viii. Priority of Bottomry Bonds ix. Discharge of Bottomry Bonds x. Enforcement of Bottomry Bonds 1500 1501 1502 1504 1507 1507 1509 1510 1512 1512 Section II. OF RESPONDENTIA 1513 Appendix. Stamp Duties . . 1515 INDEX. 1543 TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Aaltje Willemina, L. R. 1 A. & E. 107 1396 Abbott v. Burbage, 2 Bing. N. C. 444 ; 2 Scott, G56 581 v. Hicks, 5 Bing. N. C. 579 103 r. Stratten, 3 J. & L. 603 ; 9 Ir. Eq. R. 233 52, 949, 1348 Abell v. Daniell, Moo. & M. 370 586 Aberanian Ironworks Co. v. Wickens, L. R. 4 Ch. A. 101 ; 20 L. T. N.S. 29; 17 W. R. 211 1376 Aberdeen v. Chitty, 3 Y. & C. Ex. 379 ; 8 L. J. Ex. N. S. 30 928 — v . Newland, 4 Sim. 281 441 Abington v. Green, 14 W. R. 852 1023 Abney v. Wordsworth, 9 Sim. 317, n 1047 Abraham, Exp., Re Johnstone, 50 L. T. 184 ; 1 Mor 32 233 Absolom v. Gething, 32 Beav. 322 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 1263 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 7S6 ; 8 L. T. N. S. 132 ; 11 W. R. 332 565 Acatos v. Burns, 3 Ex. D. 282 ; 47 L. J. Ex. 566 ; 26 W. R. 624 . . 273, 274, 1514 Ackroyd, Exp., 3 De G. E. & J. 726 1499 v. Mitchell, 3 L. T. N. S. 236 121, 128 Acland v. Gravener, 31 Beav. 482 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 474 925 Acraman V. Bates, 6 Jur. N. S. 294 ; 2 E. & E. 456 ; 29 L. J. Q. B. 78 ; 1 L. T. 322 ; 274 v . Herniman, 16 Q. B. 998; 15 Jur. 1008; 20 L. J. Q. B. 355 74 Acton, Exp., Re Walker, 4 L. T. N. S. 261 125, 165 v. Peirce (or Acton), 2 Vern. 480 ; Prec. Ch. 257 697 v. White, 1 S. & St. 429 ; 24 R. R. 203 329 Adames v. Hallett, L. R. 6 Eq. 468 575 Adams' Trusts, Re, W. N. (1887) 175 ; 57 L. T. 337 ; 35 W. R. 770 .... 1428 Policy Trusts, Re, 23 Ch. D. 525 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 642 ; 48 L. T. 727 ; 31 W. R. 810 335 Adams v. Angell, 5 Ch. D. 634 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 352 ; 36 L. T. N. S. 334 . . 1439 v. Claxton, 6 Ves. 226 ; 5 R. R. 263 65, 572, 1152, 1153, 1467 v. Gould, 2 Dick. 443 1055 r. Graham, 33 L. J. Q. B. 71 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 356 ; 9L.T. 606 ; 12 W. R. 282 248 v. Paynter, 1 Coll. 553 ; 14 L. J. N. S. Ch. 53 ; 8 Jur. 1063. .1007, 1013 ■ v. Scott, 7 W. R. 213 905, 906 r. Sworder, 2 De G. J. & S. 44 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 689 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 567 ; 8 L. T. N. S. 143 ; 11 W. R. 560 1201 v. Tapling, 4 Mod. 88 1405 and Kensington Vestry, Re, 27 Ch. D. 394 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 87 ; 51 L. T. 382 ; 32 W. R. 883 852 Adamson, Exp., Re ColUe, 8 Ch. D. 107 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 106 ; 38 L. T. N. S. 920 ; 20 W. R. 892 1089 Addecott r. Addecott, 29 Beav. 460 411 Addis r. Campbell, 4 Beav. 401 ; 10 L. J. N. S. 284 616, 617 Addison v. Cox, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 76 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 291 ; 28 L. T. N. S. 45 ; 21 W. R. 180 1187, 1260 Adkins v. Farrington, 5 H. & N. 586 ; 29 L. J. Ex. 345 101 v. Graves, 3 L. J. Ch. 62 1052 c2 XXXVI TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Admor.-Gen. of Jamaica v. Lascelles, (1894) A. 0. 135 ; 63 L. J. P. C. 70 ; 70 L. T. 179 ; 42 W. R. 416 ; 1 Mans. 163 579, 594, 596 Adsetts v. Hives, 33 Beav. 52 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 1063 ; 11 W. It. 1092 ; 9 L. T. N. S. 110 1295 Afina van Linge, Swab. 514 1396 Agar v. Athenteum Life Ass. Soc, 3 C. B. N. S. 725 ; 27 L. J. C. P. 95 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 211 475, 476 Aggas v. Pickerell, 3 Atk. 224 1058 Agra Bank, Exp., Re Barber & Co., L. It. 9 Eq. 725 ; 37 L. J. Bky. 39 . . 91 . Exp., Be Worcester, L. R. 3 Ch. A. 555 ; 37 L. J. Bky. 23 ; 18 L. T. N. S. 866 ; 16 TV. R. 879 1257, 1272 — — v. Barry, L. R. 7 H. L. 135 1248, 1249, 1326, 1334 Agra & Masterman's Bank, Re, Exp. Asiatic Banking Corp., L. R. 2 Ch. A. 391 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 222 ; 16 L. T. N. S. 162 ; 15 TV. R. 414 484, 485 Aguilar v. Aguilar, 5 Madd. 414 352 Aina, 18 Jur. 681 1512 Ainslie v. Harcourt, 28 Beav. 313 427 Ainsworth, Exp., 2 Deac. 563 ; 3 M. & A. 451 1098 Akerblom v. Price, 7 Q. B. 129; 50 L. J. Q. B. 629 ; 44 L. T. 837 ; 29 TV. R. 797 ; 4 Asp. 441 1394 Alabama, &c. Rail. Co., Re, (1891) 1 Ch. 213 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 221 ; 64 L. T. 127 ; 7 T. L. R. 171 1134 Alchin v. Hopkins, 1 Bing. N. C. 99 439 Alchorne v. Gomme, 2 Bing. 54 682 Alcmbrook v. Hall, 2 Wils. 309 620 Alcock, Re, Prescott v. Phipps, 23 Ch. D. 372 ; 49 L. T. 240 710 ■ v. Sparhawk, 2 Vern. 228 409 Aldborough, Lord v. Trye, 7 CI. & F. 436 ; West, 221 615, 821 Alden v. Foster, 5 Beav. 592 ; 7 Jur. 8 1033, 1044, 1049, 1140 Alderson, Exp., 1 Madd. 53 1492 ■ v. Elgey, 26 Ch. D. 567 ; 50 L. T. 505 ; 32 W. R. 632 1415 v. Temple, 4 Burr. 2239 578, 586 v. White, 2 De G. & J. 97 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 125. .21, 22, 23, 30, 744, 996 Aldred v. Constable, 4 Q. B. 674 ; 7 Jur. 509 ; 12 L. J. Q. B. 253 587 Aldrich v. Cooper, 8 Ves. 382 ; 7 R. R. 86 777 Aldridge v. Forbes, 4 Jur. 20 ; 9 L. J. N. S. Ch. 37 783 v. Westbrook, 5 Beav. 188 1114, 1431 Aldworth v. Robinson, 2 Beav. 287 864 Alexander, 1 Dods. 278 ; 6 Jur. 241 1396, 1501 ■ Exp., 2 Gl. & J. 275 1104 ■ v. Crosby, LI. & G. 145 112 v. , 1 J. & L. 666 ; 6 Ir. Eq. Rep. 513 892, 1349 v. Mills, L. R. 6 Ch. A. 124 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 73 ; 24 L. T. N. S. 206; 19 W. R. 310 381, 382 v. Simms, 5 De G. M. & G. 57 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 721 264, 266, 273 v. , 20 Beav. 123 1181 ■ v. Wellington, Duke of, 2 R. & My. 35 300 Alexandria Water Co. v. Musgrave, 11 Q. B. D. 174 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 349 ; 49 L. T. 287 ; 32 W. R. 146 488 Alina, 5 Ex. D. 227; 40 L. J. Ad. 40; 42 L. T. 517; 29 TV. R. 94.. 1396, 1501 Aline, 1 W. Rob. Ill 1391, 1508, 1512 Alison, Exp., L. R. 15 Eq. 394 ; 28 L. T. N. S. 263 ; 21 W. R. 399 .... 1160 , Re, Johnson v. Mounsey, 11 Ch. D. 284 ; 27 W. R. 537 ; 40 L. T. 234 549, 882, 887, 901, 914, 1074 Allam, Exp., Re Munday, 14 Q. B. D. 43 ; 33 W. R. 231 222, 228, 238 Allan v. Backhouse, Jac. 631 ; 23 R. R. 167 414, 427, 432, 433 Allcard, Exp., Fonb. Bkv. 217 1357 v. Walker, (1896) 2 Ch. 369 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 660 ; 74 L. T. 487 ; 44 W. R. 66 311 Allcock r. Moorhouse, 9 Q. B. D. 366 ; 47 L. T. 404 ; 30 W. R. 871 672 Allen, Exp., Re Middleton, L. R. 11 Eq. 209; 40 L. J. Bky. 171 ; 19 TV. R. 274 1283 Re, L. B. s Ch. A. 117. n 435 — v. Aldridge, 6 Jur. 1 s: J , 11 35 v. Anthony, 1 Mer. 282 1318, 1319 TABLE OF CASES. XXX Vll PAQK Allen v. Bonnett, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 577 ; 18 W. R. 874 570, 576, 579, 594 v. De Lisle, 3 Jur. N. S. 928 ; 5 W. R. 158 96, 08 ■ v. Edwards, 42 L. J. Ch. 455 ; 21 W. R. 471 1044 v. Garbutt, 6 Q. B. D. 165 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 141 ; 29 W. R. 289 ; 4 Asp. 520 1396, 1509 v. Knight, 11 Jur. 527 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 370 1217, 1302, 1337, 1343 v. Papworth, 1 Ves. Sen. 164 1141 V. Seckhain, 11 Ch. D. 790; 48 L. J. Ch. 611 ; 41 L. T. 2G0 ; 28 W. R. 26 1318 c. Southampton, Lord (Banfather's Case), 16 Ch. D. 178 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 218; 43 L. T. 687; 29 W. R. 231 820 v. Thompson, 1 H. & N. 15 ; 25 L. J. Ex. 249 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 451 . . 246, 248 v. Woods, 68 L. T. 143 629 Allenby v. Dalton, 5 L. J. K. B. 312 10, 21 Alletson v. Chichester, L. R. 10 C. P. 319 ; 44 L. J. C. P. 153 ; 32 L. T. N. S. 151 ; 23 W. R. 393 1257, 1272 Allfrey v. Allfrey, 1 Mac. & G. 87 ; 13 Jur. 269 1142 Allgood v. Merrybent and Darlington Rail. Co., 33 Ch. D. 571 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 743 ; 35 W. R. 180 1374 Allhusen v. Whittell, L. R. 4 Eq. 295 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 929 ; 16 L. T. N. S. 695 637 Alliance Bank v. Broom, 2 Dr. & Sm. 289 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 1121 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 256 48 of Simla v. Carey, 5 C. P. D. 429 ; 49 L. J. C. P. 781 ; 29 W. R. 306 973 Allison, Re, Fonb. Bky. 26 1086 Allnutt, Re, Pott v. Brassey, 22 Ch. D. 275 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 299 ; 48 L. T. 155 ; 31 W. R. 469 331 Allsopp v. Day, 7 H. & N. 457 ; 31 L. J. Ex. 105 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 41 ; 5 L. T. 320 ; 10 W. R. 135 194 Allwood v. Heywood, 1 H. & C. 745 ; 32 L. J. Ex. 153 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 108 ; 7 L. T. 640; 11 W. R. 291 811 Alsager, Exp., 2 M. D. & De G. 328 862 Alsop v. Bell, 24 Beav. 451 1442 Alston, Exp., Re Holland, L. R. 4 Ch. A. 168 ; 19 L. T. N. S. 542 ; 17 W. R. 266 1481 v. Attlay, 7 A. &E. 289 169 ■ v. Parker, 5 L. J. N. S. Ch. 3 1114, 1181 Alton v. Harrison, L. R. 4 Ch. A. 622 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 669 ; 21 L. T. N. S. 282 ; 17 W. R. 1034 174, 573 Alven v. Bond, Fl. & K. ] 96 956 Amand v. Jersey, Lady, 1 Comyn's Rep. 255 574 Ames, Re, Ames v. Ames, (1893) 2 Ch. 479 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 685 ; 68 L. T. 787 ; 41 W. R. 505 395 v. Birkenhead Dock, &c. Co., 20 Beav. 332 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 529 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 540 494, 496, 936, 943, 947 v. Higdon, 69 L. T. 292 900 v. Hiil, 2 B. & P. 150 1521 v. Mannering, 26 Beav. 583 978 ■ v. Parkinson, 7 Beav. 359 512, 513, 530 Amesbury v. Brown, 1 Ves. Sen. 477 640, 641, 642 Amhurst v. Dawling, 2 Vern. 401 169, 628 Amicable Soc. v. Bolland, 4 Bligh, N. S. 194 ; 2 Dow & C. 1 285 Amis v. Lloyd, 3 V. & B. 560 876 Ancaster v. Mayer, 1 Bro. C. C. 454 10 Anchor Ass. Co., Re, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 632 ; 18 W. R. 1183 1455 Ancona?;. Rogers, 1 Ex. D. 285; 46 L. J. Ex. 121 ; 35 L. T. 115; 24 W. R. 1000 218, 220 Andalina, 12 P. D. 1 ; 56 L. T. 171 ; 35 W. R. 336 ; 6 Asp. 62 .... 1392, 1393 Anderson, Exp., 3 De G. & S. 600 1102 v. Anderson, 33 Beav. 223 411 v. Butler's Wharf Co., 48 L. J. Ch. 824 677, 678 ■ v. Edie, Park, Insce. 640 288 v. Fitzgerald, 4 H. L. 484 ; 17 Jur. 995 286 XXXV111 TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Anderson v. Midland Rail. Co., 3 E. & E. 614 ; 30 L. J. Q. B. 94 665 v. Pignet, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 187 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 310 ; 27 L. T. N. S. 740 : 21 W. R. 150 *. . . 1444 v. Radcliffe, E. B. & E. 816 610 v. Stather, 2 CoU. 209 ; 4 Jur. 806 ; 14 L. J. N. S. Ch. 377 ... . 1011 ■ , Tritton & Co. v. Ocean Steamship Co., 10 A. C. 107 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 192 ; 52 L. T. 441 ; 33 W. R. 433 ; 5 Asp. 202 1393 Andrew v. Wrigley, 4 Bro. C. C. 125 399, 400, 402, 405, 1300 Andrews, Exp., 1 Madd. 573 ; 2 Rose, 410 ; 16 R. R. 263 288, 292 v. Berry, 3 Anst. 634 624 v. Bousfield, 10 Beav. 511 1263 v. City Permanent Building Soc, 44 L. T. 641 550 Aneroid, 2 P. D. 89 ; 47 L. J. Ad. 15 ; 36 L. T. 448 1391, 1397 Angell v. Bryan, 2 J. & L. 763 1348 v. Smith, 9 Ves. 335 ; 7 R. R. 214 799, 948 Angerstein v. Clark, 2 Dick. 738 101 Anglesey, Marquis of, Re, Paget v. Anglesey, L. R. 17 Eq. 283 1154 Anglo-Danubian, . Bowes, 13 Pri. 353; M'Cl. 149; 2< R. R. 719 ; 28 ».R ^^ 685 ' ' ' Q ofv v . Bowes, 3 Anst. 752 ; 4 R. R. 855 »«" Archer v. Harrison, 7 De G. M. & G. 404 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 194 661 v. Hudson, 7 Beav. 551 iSs'i i ?l ». Snatt. 2Stra. 1107 •• 8 ' ' "?i Arden Exp 14 Q. B. D. 121 ; 51 L T. 712 ; 33 W. B. 460 . . . 1089 ^ Zta.% Ch. D . ,0, ; 54 L. J. Ch. 055 ; 52 L. £ ... ^33 W. ^ 1»» E WT6. l jSv2sl t.-n.-s: v« ;«'*: b. "* 707 • Ariadne, 1 W.' Rob." 411; 1 N. of C. 494 • • ■ ■ • JM >l Arkwright, Exp., 3 M. D. & De G. 129 61, 1267, 1269 Arlington, Lord, p. Meyricke, 2 Wms. Saund. 813 . .... . . . . ...... . . . . »* Armstrong v. Armstrong, 21 Beav. 78 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 859 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 659 ; 3 W. R. 563 12»5 . „ L. R. 18 Eq. 541 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 719 . . . .428, 431, 608 ••', Burnet, 20 Beav. 424 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 765 766 965 Cahill, L. R. 6 Ir. 440 , t-.Storer, 14 Beav. 535 .......1118, 1114 Armytage, Re, Exp. Moore's, &c. Banking Co., 14 Ch. D. 379 ; 40 L. J. Bky 60 ; 42 L. T. 443 ; 28 W. B. 924 122 Arnell v. Bean, 8 Bing. 87 • • • • • • • • y • •,••••*•• V "m '-£' a. Arnold, Exp., Re Wright, 3 Ch. D. 70 ; 45 L. J. Bky. 130 ; 3o L. T. N. S. 21; 24W.R.977 J°J v. Bainbridge, 2 De G. F. & G. 92 869 v Garner ,2 Ph. 231; 16 L. J. Ch. 329 "W^Va I'. Woodhams, L R. 16 Eq. 29 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 578 ; 28 L. T. N. S. 351 ; 21 W. R. 694 6 ™ Amot v. Biscoe, 1 Ves. Sen. 94 :;"m"v" "^' irrowsmith, Exp., 8 Ch. D. 96 ; 47 L. J. Bky. 46 ; 38 L. T. N. B. 547 ; 26 W. R. 600 • • • • •••••• • • • V • V w '•p' Arrowsmith's Trusts, Re, 27 L. J. Ch. 704 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 1123 ; ^B ^ Arthur v. Barlow,' 6 M.' & W. "l38 '.'. '.'.'.'.. .' lb05 Arthy v. Stamford Bank, W. N. (1886) 63 • .. . . ■ • • • 9d8 Artistic Colour Printing Co., Re, 14 Ch. D. 502; 49 L. J. Ch. 526; 42 L. T. 803 ; 48 W. R. 943 ll f Arundell, Lady v. Phipps, 10 Ves. 139 J'g Ascough v. Johnson, 2 Vern. 66 •••■•••■• b ~" Ashbury Rail. Carriage Co. v. Riche, L. R. 7 H. L. 693 ; 44 iL. J Ex 185; 33 L. T. N. S. 451 465, 467, 468 4 Ashby v. Ashby, 1 Coll. 553 *"* *V _,,. Day, 54L. T. 40S; 34W.B. 312,C. A 92 Ashenhurst v. James, 3 Atk. 270 . . . • • • • • • • biJ Ashley, Exp., 3D. & C. 510; 1 M. & A. 82; 3 L. J. N. S. Bky. 9 1101 - v. Killick, 5 M. & W. 509 & 9J Ashlin v. Langton, 4 Moo. & Sc. 719 • • ■ •••••• '? __-".Lee,44L.J. Ch. 376; 32 L. T. N. S. 348 ; 23 W. B. 458 ... . . 98o Ashton v. Blackshaw, L. R. 9 Eq. 510 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 205 ; 21 L T 197; 18 W. R. 307 180 > 184 > 202 ' %l v. Corrigan, L. R. 13 Eq. 76 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 96 .48, 53 v. Dalton, 2 Coll. 565 ; 10 Jur. 451 61, 63, 1161 v . Langdale, Lord, 4 De G. & Sm. 402 ; 15 Jur. 868 540 v. Wood, 3 Sm. & G. 436 ™> Ashwell's Trusts, Re, John. 112 • • • ■ • J ' J Ashwellv. Staunton, 30 Beav. 52 ll0 <> ^™ Ash win v. Burton, 9 Jur. N. S. 319 ; 11 W R. 103 . . . . . ... ....... 1300 Ashw^rth r .Lord,36 > Ch.D. xl TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Ashworth v. Mounsey, 9 Exch. 175 903 , v . Munn, 15 Ch. D. 363 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 107 ; 43 L. T. 553 ; 28 W. R. 965 539 v. Outram, 5 Ch. D. 923 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 687 ; 37 L. T. N. S. 85 ; 25 W. R. 896 328, 334 Asiatic Banking Corp., Re, L. R. 4 Ch. A. 252 ; 19 L. T. N. S. 805 ; 17 W. R. 359 276 Askew v. Lewis, 10 Q. B. D. 477 ; 48 L. T. 534 ; 31 W. R. 567 250, 251 Astbury, Exp., Re Richards, L. R. 4 Ch. A. 620 ; 30 L. J. Bky. 9 ; 20 L. T. 997 ; 17 W. R. 997 122, 123 Astley v. Micklethwait, 15 Ch. D. 59 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 672 ; 43 L. T. 58 ; 28 W. R. 811 637 v. Milles, 1 Sim. 341 1433, 1437, 1439 v. Tankerville, 3 Bro. C. C. 545 351 Aston v. Gwinnell, 3 Y. & J. 136 300 v. Heron, 2 My. & K. 391 943 v. Pye, 5 Ves. 350 ; 5 R. R. 66 1404 Atchison v. Le Mann, 23 L. T. 302 329 Athenaeum Life Ass. Soc, Re, 4 K. & J. 549 .469, 475 v. Pooley, 3 De G. & J. 294 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 129 . 474 Atherley v. Burnett (or Barnett), W. N. (1885) 70; 52 L. T. 736; 33 W. R. 779 1224, 1343 Atherton, Re, W. N. (1891) 85 391 Atkins, Exp., 2 T. & C. Ex. 536 52, 53 Re, W. N. (1882) 38 565 v. Tredgold, 2 B. & C. 23 ; 3 D. & R. 200 ; 1 L. J. K. B. 228 ; 26 R. R. 254 980 v. TJton, Ld. Raym. 36 ; Comb. 318 145 Atkinson's Trusts, Re, 2 De G-. M. & G-. 140 1255, 1256 Atkinson, Re, Atkinson v. Bruce, 31 Ch. D. 577; 55 L. J. Ch. 49; 54 L. T. 403 ; 34 W. R. 445 390 v. Atkinson, 1 Ba. & Be. 238 ; 12 R. R. 20 67 v. Cotesworth, 3 B. & C. 647 ; 5 D. & R. 552 ; 1 C. & P. 339 ; 3 L. J. K. B. 104; 27 R. R. 450 1393 ■ v. Denby, 7 H. & N. 934 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 1012 592 v. Jones, 2 A. & E. 439 76 r. Maling, 2 T. R. 462 ; 1 R. R. 524 1461, 1466 v. Smith, 3DeG. & J. 186; 4 Jur. N. S. 1160 704 Atlantic, &c. Co. v. Huth, 16 Ch. D. 474 ; 44 L. T. 67 ; 29 W. R. 387 . . 273 Atlas, 2 Hagg\ 48 1500, 1501, 1502, 1507 Attenborough v. Commrs. of Inl. Rev., 11 Exch. 461 ; 25 L. J. Ex. 22 . . 1521 v. London, ] 7 Jur. 416 1474 v. Thompson, 2 H. & N. 559 ; 27 L. J. Ex. 23 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 1307 247 and London v. St. Katherine Dock Co., 3 C. P. D. 450 ; 47 L. J. C. P. 763 ; 38 L. T. 404 ; 26 W. R. 583 ... . 1334, 1338, 1342, 1350 Attcrbury v. Wallis, 8 De G. M. & G. 454 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 117 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 792 ; 3 C. P. D. 450 870, 1330, 1332, 1342 Att.-Gen. v. Backhouse, 17 Ves. 283 1312, 1315, 1326 r. Birmingham, Corporation of, 15 Ch. D. 422 ; 43 L. T. 77 ; 29 W. R. 127 1044 r. Bowyer, 5 Ves. 303 ; 4 R. R. 132 848, 854 v. Brunning, 8 H. L. C. 243 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 1083 ; 30 L. J. Ex. 379 ; 8 W. R. 362 652 v. Carrington, Lord, 6 Beav. 460 1173 v. Cox, 3 H. L. C. 240 47, 166 ■ v. Crofts, 4 Bro. P. C. 136 643 v. Day, 2 Madd. 246 940 v. 1 Ves. Sen. 218 368 v. Gee, 2 V. & B. 208 910 v. Gilpin, L. R. 6 Ex. 193; 40 L. J. Ex. 134; 19 W. R. 1027.. 1530 v. Great Eastern Rail. Co., 5 App. Cas. 473 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 545 ; 42 L. T. 810 ; 28 W. R. 769 468 TABLE OF CASES. xll PAGE Att.-G-en. 9. Hall, 16 Beav. 388 . . . . . . ■ • • • • • • • • • ■ • • • • • • • • • 1309 v. Hardy, 1 Sim. N. S. 338 ; 20 L. J. N. S. Ch. 4o0 ; 15 Jur. 441 538 v. Hollingworth, 2 H. & N. 416 36 v. Jackson, 1 Cr. & J. 101 • • **» 9. Leeds, Duke of , 2 My. & K. 343 148 642 v. Marrett, 10 Ir. Eq. R. 167 • • 16 Q j± v. Meyrick, 2 Ves. Sen. 44 539 '.°^ r. Nethereote, 11 Sim. 529 "J« v. Parjreter, 6 Beav. 150 ; 13 L. J. N. S. Ch. 81 1312 ,. Phillips, 22 Beav. 220 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 289 ]*f v. Pickard, 3 M. & W. 571 124 ° v. Poulden, 3 Ha. 555 ; 8 Jur. 611 • • 411 v. Sands. Hard. 488 Gi3 > °48 v. Scott, Cas. t. Talbot, 138 °4S v. Stephens, 1 K. & J. 724 1320 v. Trueman, 11 M. & W. 694 "aV-t" 848 954 v. Vigor, 8 Ves. 276 834 > 848 ' ™ 4 v. Whorwood, 1 Ves. Sen. 441 }■*** v Wilkins, 17 Beav. 285 ; 17 Jur. 885 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 830 1303 Attree v. Hawe, 9 Ch. D. 337 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 863 ; 38 L. T. N. S. 733 ; 26 W R 871 489 > 515 ' 54 ° Attwater, Exp., 5 Ch. D. 27 ; 25 W. R. 206 254 Attwood, Exp., 2 M. & A. 24 • • • • ]™ b v. Anon., 5 Russ. 149 1412, 1444 v. Taylor, 1 Man. & Gr. 279 115, 129, 961, 1159 Audsley v. Horn, 26 Beav. 195 •••• ^ Augusta, lDods. 283 • "™ , i"^ 1S °' ] noA Augustinus •. Nerinckx, 16 Ch. D. 13 ; 43 L. T. 458 ; 29 W- R. 225 1024 Austerberry v. Oldham, Corp. of, 29 Ch. D. 750 ; 53 L. T. 543 ; 33 W. R. QQ7 1311 Austin v. Croo'me', Car." & M* 653 • • • • • • • ^, 811 Australasian Steam Navigation Co. v. Morse, L. R. 4 P. O. 222 ; 27 L,. , l . 257 • 20 W. R. 728 ; 8 Moo. P. C. N. S. 482 273, 1505 Australian Steam Clipper Co., Re, 4 K. & J. 733 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 1224 ; 27 L T Ch 7'?9 • • • • • • Averall v. Wade, Ll7& G.'t.'Sug. 252 .787 Avison v. Holmes, 1 J. & H. 530 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 564 /0, 80I Awdley v. Awdley, 2 Vern. 193 • • • ■ • • • 8o4 Axford (or Oxford) .. Reid, 22 Q. B. D. 548 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 230 ; 60 L T. 726; 37 W. R. 291; 5 T. L. R. 213 1278, 1360 Ayerst v. Jenkins, L. R. 16 Eq. 275 °0o Ayles v. Cox, 17 Beav. 584 l *f* Aylesbury and Lord Iveagh, Re, (1893) 2 Ch. 345 ... . . . .... .... . . . . o89 Avlesforcl, Earl of, •. Morris, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 484 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 546 ; 28 L T. N. S. 541 ; 21 W. R. 424 132, 613, 614, 615, 616, 1156, 1193 Aylet 'v. Dodd, 2 Atk. 239 68 Aylett v. Ashston, 1 My. & Cr. 105 *4& Ayling v. Whicher, 6 A. & E. 259 ■ • JJJ Aylward v. Kearney, 2 Ba. & Be. 463 G0 J' 6 n °,l J. v . Lewis, "(1891) 2 Ch. 81 ; 64 L. T. 250 ; 39 W. R. 552 ... . 1009, 1043 Aylwin v. Witty, 30 L. J. Ch. 860 I 380 Babcock v. Lawson, 5 Q. B. D. 284 ; 49 L. J. Q. B. 408 ; 42 L. T. 289 ; • 28 W. R. 591 ]y'i Baber 9. Harris, 9 A. & E. 532 1443 Bacchus v. Gilbee, 3 De G. J. & S. 577 849 Bach 9. Meats, 5 M. & S. 200 ; 17 R. R. 310 223 Backhouse v. Charlton, 8 Ch. D. 444 ; 26 W. R. 504 ... ..... 995 Bacon, Exp., 2 D. & C. 181 1095, 1096, 1100 v. Bacon, Tothill, 133 .•■••• 1308 Badelev 9. Consolidated Bank, 38 Ch. D. 238 ; 55 L. T. 635 ; 35 W. R. j 06 5( J6, 1080 Badger, Exp.] 4 Ves.'i65 ' '.'.'.'.' " 1° 9( > xlii TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Badger v. Shaw, 29 L. J. Q. B. 73 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 377 ; 1 L. T. 323 ; 9 W. R. 210 254 Badham v. Odell, 4 Bro. P. C. 349 1141 Baggett v. Meux, 1 Phill. 627 ; 1 Coll. 138 ; 10 Jur. 213 ; 17 L. T. 741 . . 329 Baghott v. Norman, 41 L. T. 787 199 Baglehole, Exp., 1 Rose, 432 1095, 109G Bagnall v. Carlton, 6 Ch. D. 130 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 51 ; 36 L. T. N. S. 730 ; 26 W. R. 71 127S, 1360 *\Villar,12Ch. D. 812; 48 L. J. Ch. 695; 28 W. R. 242 ..208, 663, 670 Bagnalstown and Wexford Rail. Co., Re, Ir. R. 1 Eq. 275 490 Ir. R. 4 Eq. 505 468 Bagot v. Bagot, 34 Beav. 134; 10 Jur. N. S. 1169 761 v. Oughton, 1 P. Wms. 347 352, 353 Bagshaw, Exp., Re Ker, 13 Ch. D. 304 ; 41 L. T. 743 ; 28 W. R. 403 . . 1089 Bagshawe v. Goward, Cro. Jac. 147 ; Noy, 119 1468 Bahia and San Francisco Rail. Co., Re, L. R. 3 Q. B. 584 ; 37 L. J. Q. B. 176 ; 18 L. T. 467 ; 16 W. R. 862 485, 1271 Baile v. Baile, L. R. 13 Eq. 497 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 300 ; 26 L. T. N. S. 283 ; 20 W. R. 534 1387, 1389 Bailes v. Sunderland Equitable Industrial Soc, W. N. (1886) 191; 55 L. T. 808 553 Bailey, Exp., Re Barrell, 3 De G. M. & Q. 534 ; 2 L. J. Bky. 45 582, 584 Re, Bailey v. Bailey, 12 Ch. D. 268 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 628 ; 41 L. T. 157 ; 27 W. R. 909 408, 409, 410 v. Abraham, 14 L. T. 219 428 V. Barnes, (1894) 1 Ch. 25 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 73 ; 69 L. T. 542 ; 42 W. R. 66 899, 900, 1306, 1314 v. BirchaU, 2 H. & M. 371 1387 v. Culverwell, 8 B. & Cr. 448 1493 v. Edwards, 4 B. & S. 761 86 v. Ekins, 7 Ves. 319 653 v. Fermor, 9 Pri. 262 ; 23 R. R. 666 1334, 1342 ■ v. Lloyd, 5 Russ. 344 Ill, 112 v. Owen, 9 W. R. 128 1065 v. Richardson, 9 Ha. 734 1319, 1431, 1436 v. Wilkins, 2 J. & L. 630 825 Baillie v. McKewan, 35 Beav. 177 1302, 1337 Baiubridge, Re, Exp. Fletcher, 8 Ch. D. 218 ; 47 L. J. Bky. 70 ; 38 L. T. 229 ; 26 W. R. 439 508, 1269 Re, Reeves f. Bainbridge, W. N. (1889) 228 1271 v. Ashburton, Lord, 2 Y. & C. Ex. 347 ' 833, 834 „. Smith, 41 Ch. D. 462 ; 60 L. T. 879 ; 37 W. R. 594 ; 5 T. L. R. 375 1271 Bainbrigge v. Blair, 4 L. J. N. S. Ch. 207 925 p. j 3 Beav. 421 ; 10 L. J. N. S. Ch. 193 958 v. Browne, 18 Ch. D. 188 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 522 ; 44 L. T. 705 ; 29 W. R. 782 608, 609, 1315 Baine, Exp., 1 M. D. & De G. 492 ; 10 L. J'. Bky. N. S. 16 ; 5 Jur. 105. . 969 Baines v. Dixon, 1 Ves. Sen. 41 414 v. Swainson, 4 B. & S. 270 ; 32 L. J. Q. B. 521 ; 8 L. T. 536 ; 11 W. R. 945 1477, 14S0 v. Wright, 16 Q. B. D. 330 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 99 ; 54 L. T. 724 ; 34 W. R. 211 1082 Baird's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 725 ; 18 W. R. 1094 ; 23 L. T. N. S. 424 . . 502 Baird v. East Riding Club, &c. Co., W. N. (1891) 144 1026 Baker's Case, I Dr. & Sm. 55 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 240 473 Baker, Re, Nichols v. Baker, 44 Ch. D. 262 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 601 ; 62 L. T. 817; 38W.R.417; 6 T. L. R. 237 1110 v. Ambrose, (189G) 2 Q. B. 372 ; 65 L. J. Q. B. 589 ; 12 T. L. R. 603 245 v. Baker, 6 H. L. C. 622 411 v. Bent, 1 R. & My. 224 613, 614, 615 v. Bradley, 7 De G. M. & G. 597 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 98 . . . . 339, 607, 608, 609 v. Dewey, 1 B. & Cr. 704 ; 1 L. J. K. B. 193 114 V. Grav, 1 Ch. D. 491 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 165 ; 33 L. T. N. S. 721 ; 24 W. R. 171 860 TABLE OF CASES. xliii TAGE Baker v. Harris, 16 Ves. 397 1149, 1150 v. Kallett, 3 Rep. in Ch. 23 822 , v Tynte, 2 E. & E. 897 ; 29 L. J. Q. B. 233 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 1192 1281,1282,1363 v . Wind, 1 Ves. Sen. 160 106, 1180, 1182 Balbimie, Re, Exp. Jameson, 3 Ch. D. 488 ; 35 L. T. N. S. 533 1088 Baldock, Exp., 2 D. & C. 60 1101 Baldwin, Re, 2 De G. & J. 230 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 522 186 v. Baldwin, 4 Ir. Ch. R. 505 ; S. C, 6 Ir. Ch. R. 156 638 v.Lewis, 4 L. J. N. S. Ch. 113 1209 Balfe v. Balfe, 1 Ir. Ch. R. 365 954 v. Lord, 2 Dr. & War. 480 ; 1 Con. & L. 519 ; 4 Ir. Eq. R. 648 . . 13, 30, 997, 999, 1014 Balfour v. Cooper, 23 Ch. D. 472 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 495 ; 48 L. T. 323 ; 31 W. R. 569 414, 428, 433 Balkis Co. v. Tomkinson, (1893) A. C. 396 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 134 ; 69 L. T. 598 ; 42 W. R. 204 ; 9 T. L. R. 597 485 Ball v. Dunsterville, 4 T. R. 313 ; 2 R. R. 394 503 v. Harris, 4 My. & Cr. 264 407, 418, 420, 425 v. Riversdale, Beat. 550 1246 Balls v. Margrave, 3 Beav. 448 ; 4 Beav. 119 814 Bamfield v. Vaughan, Rep. t. Finch, 104 1008 Bamford v. Baron, 2 T. R. 594, n. ; 1 R. R. 551, n 176 v. lies, 3 Exch. 380 92 Bamundoss v. Omeish, 6 Moo. I. A. 289 1213 Banbury's Case, Lord, Freem. Ch. 8 1314 Banbury v. White, 2 H. & C. 300 ; 32 L. J. Ex. 258 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 913 ; 8L. T. 508; 11 W. R. 785 218,242,246 Banco de Lima v. Anglo-Peruvian Bank, 8 Ch. D. 160 ; 38 L. T. N. S. 130 . .1306, 1497, 1498 Bandon, Earl of, v. Becher, 3 CI. & F. 479 747 Banfather's Case, 16 Ch. D. 187 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 218 ; 43 L. T. 687 ; 29 W. R. 231 820 Bangor Castle, 74 L. T. 768 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 156 1392 Bank of Africa v. Salisbury Gold Mining Co., (1892) A. C. 281 ; 61 L. J. P. C. 34 ; 66 L. T. 237 ; 41 W. R. 47 ; 8 T. L. R. 322 1399 . of Australia v. Breillat, 6 Moo. P. C. 152 ; 12 Jur. 189 468 . v. Flower, &c. Co., L. R. 1 P. C. 27 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 345 ; 35 L. J. P. C. 13 ; 14 W. R. 467 ; 14 L. T. N. S. 144 1084 . of Ireland v. Beresford, 6 Dow, 238 ; 19 R. R. 50 83 v. Evans' Charities, Trustees of, 5 H. L. C. 389 1297 . v. Perry, L. R. 7 Ex. 14 ; 41 L. J. Ex. 9 ; 25 L. T. 845 ; 20 W. R. 300 1499 of New South Wales v. O'Connor, 14 App. Cas. 273 ; 58 L. J. P. C. 82; 60 L. T. 467; 38 W. R. 465; 7 T. L. R. 342 811, 1154 of Scotland v. Christie, 8 CI. & F. 214 100, 504, 1212 of South Australia v. Abrahams, L. R. 6 P. C. 265 ; 44 L. J. P. C. 76 ; 32 L. T. N. S. 277 ; 23 W. R. 668 497 Bankes v. Le Despencer, 1 1 Sim. 527 372 v. Small, 36 C. D. 716 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 832 ; 57 L. T. 292 ; 35 W. R. 765 144, 145, 372, 376, 377 Bankhead's Trusts, Re, 2 K. & J. 560 184 Banks, Re, 15 Jur. 657 66 2 Re, Dawes v. Banks, 45 W. R. 206 1114 Re, Dawes v. Sladen, 75 L. T. 387 1114 v. Sutton, 2 P. Wms. 700 645 v. Whittall, 1 De G. & S. 541 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 352 . . 53, 1185, 1410, 1438 v . , 1 De G. & S. 536 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 14, 352 53 Banner, Exp., 2 Ch. D. 278 ; 45 L. J. Bky. 73 ; 34 L. T. N. S. 199 ; 24 W. R. 476 1497, 1498 v. Berridge, 18 Ch. D. 254 ; 50 L. J. 630 ; 44 L. T. 680 ; 29 W. R. 844 911 v. Johnston, L. R. 5 H. L. 157; 40 L. J. Ch. 730; 24 L. T. N. S. 542 1494 Bansha Woollen Mills Co., Re, 21 L. R. Ir. 181 230, 1289 xliv TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Barbara, 4 C. Rob. 1 1504 Barber's Trusts, Re, L. R. 10 Eq. 554 1094 Barber, Re, Dardier v. Chapman, 11 Ch. D. 442 ; 27 W. R. 813 ; 40 L. T. 649 323 Re, 48 L. T. 303 1422 ■ r. Brown, 3 Jur. N. S. 18 1309 v. Butcher, 8 Q. B. 863 ; 15 L. J. Q. B. 289 ; 10 Jur. 814 961 v. Jeckells, W. N. (1893) 91 950, 1048, 1051 v. Meyerstein, L. R. 4 H. L. 317 ; 39 L. J. C. P. 187 ; 22 L. T. 808 : 18 W. R. 1041 1461, 1464, 1496 Barclay, Exp., 5 De G. M. & G. 403 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 1145 66, 121, 124, 1102 Exp., L. R. 9 Ch. A. 576 ; 43 L. J. Bky. 137 ; 22 W. R. 608 ; 30 L. T. N. S. 479 120 Bardwell v. Lydall, 7 Bing. 489 102 Bargen, Re, Exp. Hasluck, (1894) 1 Q. B. 444 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 209 ; 69 L. T. 763 215, 233 Barham v. Clarendon, Earl of, 10 Ha. 126 ; 17 Jur. 336 764 v. Thanet, Earl of, 3 M. & K. 607 761, 827 Baring, Re, Jeune v. Baring, (1893) 1 Ch. 61 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 50 ; 67 L. T. 702 ; 41 W. R. 87 ; 9 T. L. R. 7 423 v. Currie, 2 B. & Aid. 137 ; 20 R. R. 383 1482 Barjeau v. Walmsley, Stra. 1248 620 Barker's Claim, (1894) 3 Ch. 290 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 741 ; 71 L. T. 146 ; 43 W. R. 20 975, 977 Barker, Re, 17 Ch. D. 241 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 334 ; 44 L. T. 33 ; 29 W. R. 873 361 Re, 6 Sim. 476 1384 v. Burney, 1 Beav. 492 1429 ■ v. Devonshire, Duke of, 3 Mer. 310 408 v. May, 9 B. & Cr. 489 653 v. Parker, 1 T. R. 287 ; 1 R. R. 201 100 Barkley v. Reay, Lord, 2 Ha. 306 930 Barling v. Bishopp, 29 Beav. 417 574 Barlow v. Gains, 8 Beav. 329 927 v. 23 Beav. 244 1184 v. Rhodes, 1 Cr. & M. 439 119 Barnard, Exp., 3 D. & C. 291 1100 ■ v. Norton, 10 L. T. N. S. 183 1034 v. Pillsworth, 6 C. B. 698, n 1529 v. Young, 17 Ves. 47 132 Barnardiston, Sir John v. Lingood, 2 Atk. 133 613 Barne, Re, Lee v. Barne, 62 L. T. 922 1116 Barned's Banking Co., Re, Exp. Joint Stock Discount Co., L. R. 10 Ch. A. 198 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 494 ; 31 L. T. N. S. 862 ; 23 W. R. 281 1494 Barnes, Exp., Re Medley, 3 M. & A. 497 ; 3 Deac. 223 ; 7 L. J. N. S. Bky. 37 ; 2 Jur. 329 1096, 1103 v. Bond, 32 Beav. 653 637 v. Dixon, 1 Ves. sen. 42 414 v. Fox, Seton (4th ed.), 1082 1025 v. London, Edinburgh, &c. Co., (1892) 1 Q. B. 864 ; 8 T. L. R. 143 287 v. Pendrey, 7 Dowl. 747 73 v. Piukney, 36 L. J. Ch. 815 185 r. Racster, 1 T. & C. C. C. 401 ; 6 Jur. 595 ; 1 1 L. J. N. S. Ch. 228 1114, 1175 v. Robinson, 9 Jur. N. S. 245 326 Barnesley v. Powell, Amb. 102 1386 Barnett, Exp., 1 De G. 194 1269 Exp., Re Tamplin, W. N. (1890) 48 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 191 ; 62 L. T. 261 ; 38 W. R. 351 ; 7 Mor. 70 ; 6 T. L. R. 106 216 v. Brandao, 6 Man. & Gr. 658 1389, 1390 v. Sheffield, 1 De G. M. & G. 371 ; 16 Jur. 942 1382 • r. Weston, 12 Ves. 130 ; 8 R. R. 319 1217, 1232, 1337 Barnhart v. Greenshiclds, 9 Moo. P. C. 18 21, 1258, 1320 Barr's Trusts, Re, 4 K. & J. 219 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 1013 1255 TABLE OF CASES. xlv PAGE Barr v. Harding, W. N. (1887) 251 ; 58 L. T. 74 ; 36 W. R. 216 . . . .926, 1021 v. Kingsford, 56 L. T. 861 • • 26 ° Barrack v. McCulloeh, 3 K. & J. 110 ; 3 Jur. N. S. ISO 330 569 Barrell v. Sabine, 1 Vern. 268 ; 3 Salk. 241 lb, /i Barrett, Exp., 34 L. J. Bky. 41 ; 13 W. R. 559 .•••••.;•• •••• •••• •••• " Re (or Bairatt), Whitaker v. Barrett, 43 Ch. D. i0; 59 L. J. Ch. 218; 38 W. R. 59 401 „. Birmingham, 4 Ir. Eq. R. 537 • • • • • • • • »«» v Hartley, L. R. 2 Eq. 789 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 426 132, 1146, 1193 v. Wells, Pree. Ch. 131 1«J Wyatt, 30 Beav. 443 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 652 Ill — V. Barrington's Settlement, Re, U.&H. 142 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 1079 3,8 Barron v. Lanoefield, 17 Beav. 208 ... ••••••• 1191 Barrow's Case, L. R. 3 Ch. A. 784 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 15 ; 19 L. T. N. S. 271 ; 1 n xy t> "llfin * 1174 Barrow, Exp.', Re Andrews,' 18 ' Ch. D. '464 '; 50 L. J. Ch. 821 ; 45 L. T iq7 o» l, uJ I Barrow, '18 Beav. 529 326 Bell, 2 Jur. N. S. 159 186 v. Griffith, 11 Jur. N. S. 6 ; 13 W. R. 41 403 „. Isaacs, (1891) 1 Q. B. 417 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 179 ; 64 L. T. 686 ; 39 W. R. 338 ; 7 T. L. R. 175 i'-^'L'- *,, v. Smith, 33 W. R. 743 ; W.N. (1885)136; 62 L. T. 798 1042 v. White, 2 J. & H. 580 •••••• • • • • 901 Barry, Exp., Re Eox, L. R. 17 Eq. 113 ; 43 L. J. Bky. 18 ; 22 W. R. 205; 29 L. T. N. S. 620 1269 v. Harding, 1 J. & L. 475 849 v. Marriott, 2 De G. & Sm. 491 509 Barrymore v. EUis, 8 Sim. 1 - 3 ' 10 Barter, Exp., 26 Ch. D. 510 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 802 ; 32 W. R. 809 666 Bartle v. Wilkin, 8 Sim. 238 1004 > 1186 Bartlett, Re, Newman v. Hook, 16 Ch. D. 561 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 205 ; 44 L. T. 17 ; 29 W. R. 279 1039 v. Bartlett, 1 De G. & J. 143 125o v. Dimond, 14 M. & W. 49 924 „. Franklin, 36 L. J. Ch. 671 ; 15 W. R. 1077 ; 17 L. T. N. S. 100 1154 - v. Rees, L. R. 12 Eq. 395 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 599 ; 25 L. T. N. S. 373 ; 19 W. R. 1046 1027 -v. West Metropolitan Tramways Co. (No. 1), (1893) 3 Ch. 437; 63 L. J. Ch. 208 ; 69 L. T. 560 935 (No. 2), (1894) 2 Ch. 286 63 L. J. Ch. 519 ; 70 L. T. 491 ; 42 W. R. 500 ; 1 Mans. 272 1037 Barton v. Bank of New South Wales, 15 App. Cas. 379 17,23 v. Clubb, Dick. 516 16J „ Gainer, 3 H. & N. 387 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 715 ; 27 L. J. Ex. 390. .. . 56 v. Hassard, 3 Dr. & War. 461 825 v . London and North Western Rail. Co., 24 Q. B. D. 77; 59 L. J. Q B 33- 62 L. T. 164; 38 W. R. 197; 6 T. L. R. 70 1271 . v Van Heythusen, 11 Ha. 126 ; 18 Jur. 344 574, 575, 603, 604 v Williams, 3 Bing. 139 ; 10 Moo. 506 ; 5 B. & Aid. 395 ; 24 R. R. 448 1465 Barton-on-Humber, &c. Water Co., Re, 42 Ch. D. 585 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 613 ; 61 L. T. 803; 38 W. R. 8 103 '> 1122 Barwell v. Barwell, 34 Beav. 371 *»5 v. Parker, 2 Ves. Sen. 364 1174 Barwick v. English Joint Stock Bank, L. R. 2 Ex. 259 ; 36 L. J. Ex. 147 ; 16 L. T. 461 ; 15 W. R. 877 46 7 r. Reade, 1 H. Bl. 627 ; 2 R. R. 808 299 Bashford v. Cann, 33 Beav. 109 ; 11 W. R. 1039 289 Basil v. Acheson, 4 Bro. P. C. 503 ; 15 Vin. Ab. 474 1153 Baskett v. Skeel, 11 W. R. 1019 36, 60, 816, 81,, 1098 Baspool p. Long, Cro. Eliz. 879 ; 1 Roll. Abr. 568 ; 1 Show. 30, 83 150 xlvi TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Bassford v. Blakesley, 6 Beav. 131 815 Bastard v. Clarke, 7 Ves. 489 876 v. Hawes, 2 E. & B. 287 101 Batchellor v. Lawrence, 9 C. B. N. S. 543 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 1306 ; 8 W. R. 373 96 Batchelor, Re, Sloper v. Oliver, L. R. 16 Eq. 481 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 101 ; 21 W. R. 901 324 v. Middleton, 6 Ha. 75 804, 1185, 1186 Bate, Exp., 1 M. & Chit. 58 1101 Bateman v. BatemaD, 1 Atk. 421 426 v. Davis, 3 Madd. 98 511 v. Phillips, 15 East, 272 ; 4 Taunt. 157 80 Bates v. Bonnor, 7 Sim. 427 1101 v. Brothers, 2 Sm. & G. 509 ; 17 Jur. 1174 1217 v. Dandy, 2 Atk. 207 ; 3 Russ. 72 64, 846 v. Hillcoat, 16 Beav. 139 1028, 1029 v. Johnson, John. 304 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 842 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 509 . . 1223, 1300 v. Beaufort, Duke of, 8 Jur. N. S. 270 123 r. Kesterton, (1896) 1 Ch. 159 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 108 ; 73 L. T. 656 ; 44 W. R. 150 341, 393 Bateson r. Gosling, L. R. 7 C. P. 9 ; 41 L. J. C. P. 53 ; 25 L. T. 560 ; 20 W. R. 98 85, 91 Bath, Exp., Re Phillips, 22 Ch. D. 450 ; 48 L. T. 293 ; 31 W. R. 281 . . 553, 1090 and Mountagu's Case, 3 Ch. Ca. 105 112 Earl of, v. Bradford, Earl of, 2 Ves. Sen. 586 425, 968, 1174 Bathe v. Bank of England, 4 K. & J. 564 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 505 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 630 331 Batson, Exp., 3 Bro. C. C. 362 1461 v. Spearman, 9 A. & E. 298 90 Batten, Promt & Scott v. Dartmouth Harbour Commissioners, 45 Ch. D. 612 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 700 ; 62 L. T. 861 ; 38 W. R. 603 1197 r. Wedgewood Coal and Iron Co., 28 Ch. D. 317 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 686 ; 52 L. T. 212 ; 33 W. R. 303 958, 1188 Battersbee v. Farrington, 1 Swanst. 106 ; 1 Wils. 88 ; 18 R. R. 32 571 Battison r. Hobson, (1896) 2 Ch. 403 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 695 ; 74 L. T. 689 ; 44 W. R. 615 1244, 1247 Batty v. Chester, 5 Beav. 103 624 v. Marriot, 5 C. B. 818 ; 17 L. J. C. P. 215 623 Baud v. Fardell, 7 De G. M. & G. 633 511 Bawden, Re, National Prov. Bank of England v. Cresswell, (1894) 1 Ch. 693 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 412 ; 70 L. T. 526 ; 42 W. R. 235 410 Bawtree v. Watson, 3 My. & K. 339 616 Baxendale v. Bennett, 3 Q. B. D. 525 ; 47 L. J. C. P. 624 ; 26 W. R. 899 1297 Baxter v. Manning, 1 Vern. 244 1151 r. Portsmouth, Earl of, 5 B. & Cr. 170 1023 v. Pritchard, 1 A. & E. 456 593, 594 Bayley v. G. W. Rail. Co., 26 Ch. D. 444 ; 51 L. T. 337 118 v. Went, W. N. (1889) 197 ; 51 L. T. 764 923 Baylis v. Usher, 4 Moo. & P. 791 1402 Bayly, Exp., Re Hart, 15 Ch. D. 223 ; 43 L. T. 181 ; 29 W. R. 28 1078 v. Robson, Prec. Ch. 89 1152 v. Wilkins, 3 J. & L. 630 1446 Bayly's Estate, Re, 12 Ir. Ch. 315 1385 Baynard v. Woolley, 20 Beav. 583 49, 50, 53, 65 Beadel v. Pitt, 13 W. R. 287 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 152 ; 11 L. T. N. S. 592. . . . 1157 Beadon v. Parrott, L. R. 6 Q. B. 718 ; 40 L. J. M. C. 200 ; 19 W. R. 1 1 1 1 207 Bi ale V. Svmonds, 16 Beav. 406 644 Bi .i - K. tennant, 29 L. J. Q. B. 188 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 628 ; 1 L. T. 295 . . 248 Beall v. Smith, L. R. 9 Ch. A. 85 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 245 ; 29 L. T. 625 ; 22 W. R. 121 393 Beardmore v. Gregory, 2 H. & M. 491 1107 Beascy v. Windham, 6 Q. B. 166 173 Beaton v. Boulton, W. N. (1891) 30 1048 TABLE OF CASES. xlvii PAGE Beaumont v. Reeve, 10 Jur. 284 ; 8 Q. B. 483 ; 15 L. J. Q. B. 141 625 Beaumont's Mortgage Trusts, Re, L. R. 12 Eq. 86 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 400 ; 19 W. R. 767 • • • • • • 902 Beavan v. Beavan, 24 Ch. D. 649, n. ; 52 L. J. Ch. 961, n. ; 49 L. I. 263, n 849 . v. Oxford, Lord, 6 De G. M. & G. 492 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 121 .. . .604, 1282, 1348, 1349, 1350, 1364, 1488 Beazley v. Soares, 22 Ch. D. 660 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 201 ; 31 W. R. 887 669 Becheiwaise v. Lewis, L. R. 7 O. P. 372 ; 41 L. J. C. P. 161 ; 26 L. T. N. S. 848 ; 20 W. R. 726 94, 1138 Beck v. Pierce, 23 Q. B. D. 316 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 516 ; 61 L. T. 448 ; 38 W. R. 29 ; 5 T. L. R. 672 347, 350 v. Walsh, 1 Wils. 276 374 Beckett v. Bradley, 7 My. & Cr. 994 HO r Cordley, 1 Bro. C. C. 353 52,53,1238,1315,1338 v. Tower Assets Co., (1891) 1 Q, B. 638 ; 60 L. J. Q, B. 493 ; 64 L T. 497 ; 39 W. R. 438 ; 7 T. L. R. 400 197, 198 Beckford v. Kemble, 1 S. & St. 7 ; 1 L. J. Ch. 5 ; 24 R. R. 143 871, 1016 Beckley v. Newland, 2 P. Wins. 181 311 Beddington v. Atlee, 35 Ch. D. 317 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 655 ; 56 L. T. 514 ; 35 W. R. 799 119 Beddoe, Re, Downes v. Cottam, (1893) 1 Ch. 547 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 233 ; 68 L. T. 595 ; 41 W. R. 177 1177 Bedford v. Backhouse, Kelynge, 5 ; 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 615. . 1221, 1230, 1247, 1248, 1252 r. Deakin, 2 B. & Aid. 210 ; 2 Stark. 178 84,1453 v. Leigh, 2 Dick. 107 H°7 Bedinjrfield & Herring's Contract, Re, (1893) 2 Ch. 332 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 430 ; 68 L. T. 634 ; 41 W. R. 413 ; 9 T. L. R. 354 381, 382 Beeman, Re, Fowler v. James, (1896) 1 Ch. 4S ; 65 L. J. Ch. 190 ; 73 L. T. 555 ; 44 W. R. 247 H° 6 Beevor v. Luck, L. R. 4 Eq. 537 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 865 ; 15 W. R. 1221 . .864, 1029 Beioley v. Carter, L. R. 4 Ch. 230 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 381 ; 20 L. T. N. S. 381 ; 17 W. R. 130 1305 Belcher, Ex parte, 2 D. & C. 587 1099 v. Bellamy, 2 Exch. 303 ; 17 L. J. Ex. 219 1489 v. Capper, 4 Man. & Gr. 502 ; 5 Scott, N. R. 257 ; 11 L. J. C. P. 274 271, 1398, 1496 r. Jones,' 2M.& W. 258 582, 586 v. Oldfield, 6 Bing. N. C. 102 • 175. 1495 V. Prittie, 10 Bing. 408 586 v. Sambourne, 6 Q. B. 414 ; 8 Jur. 858 592 v. Sikes, 6 B. & Cr. 234 1518 v. Vardon, 2 Coll. 162 ; 14 L. J. N. S. 427 ; 9 Jur. 546 616 v . Williams, 45 Ch. D. 510 ; 63 L. T. 673 ; 39 W. R. 266 636 Belchier v. Butler, 1 Ed. 522 1222 v. Renforth, 5 Bro. P. C. 292 1223 Belding v. Read, 1 1 Jur. N. S. 547 ; 3 H. & C. 955 ; 34 L. J. Ex. 212 ; 13 L.T. 66; 13 W. R. 800 211, 213, 302, 799, 962 Beldon v. Campbell, 6 Ex. 886 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 342 1505, 1506 Belfast Banking Co. v. Stanley, 15 W. R. 689 ; I. R. 1 C. L. 693 89 Bell, Exp., 1 De G. 577; 17 L. J. Bky. 9; 11 Jur. 986 184, 186, 1489 Re, Carter v. Studden, W. N. (1886) 46 ; 54 L. T. 370 ; 34 W. R. 363 1282, 1364 Re, Jeffery v. Sayles, (1896) 1 Ch. 1 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 188 ; 73 L. T. 391 ; 44 W. R. 99 . . . 313, 1409 v. Ahearne, 12 Ir. Eq. R. 578 293 v. Bank of London, 3 H. & N. 730; 28 L. J. Ex. 116 260, 270 v. Banks, 4 Man. & Gr. 258 84, 1446, 1448 „. Blyth, L. R. 4 Ch. A. 136 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 178; 19 L. T. 662; 17 W. R. 194 268, 1286 v Carter, 17 Beav. 11 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 933 ; 17 Jur. 478 . .13, 21, 708, 709, 1107 v. Holtby, L. R. 15 Eq. 178 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 266 ; 21 W. R. 321 ; 28 L. T. N. S. 9 372 xlvili TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Bell v. London and North Western Rail. Co., 15 Beav. 548 1491 v. London and South "Western Bank, W. N. (1874) 10 549 r. Simpson, 2 H. & N. 410 588, 594 v. Sunderland, &c. Soc, 24 Ch. D. 618 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 509 ; 45 L. T. 509 1444 v. Taylor, 8 Sim. 216 64, 1414 Bell's Estate, Re, L. R. 9 Eq. 172 ; 18 W. R. 369 ; 21 L. T. N. S. 781 . . 955 ■ Trustees v. Coalbridge Co., 14 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 246 1399 Bellamy, Re, 25 Ch. D. 620 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 174 ; 49 L. T. 708 ; 32 W. R. 358 321 v. Brickenden, 2 J. & H. 137 138, 1162, 1197, 1198, 1199 ■ v. Cockle, 18 Jur. 465 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 456 1038 v. Sabine, 1 De G. & J. 566 631, 1322 Bellis's Trusts, Re, 5 Ch. D. 504 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 353 ; 36 L. T. 644 ; 35 W. R. 456 410, 836 Benares, 7 N. of C. 54, Supp. ii 1 395 Benbow v. Davies, 11 Beav. 369 1189 v. Townsend, 1 My. & K. 506 845 Bench v. Biles, 4 Madd. 188 ; 20 R. R. 292 409 Benham v. Keane, 1 J. & H. 697 , 1357 v. Keane, 3 De G. F. & J. 318 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 604 ... . 1229, 1247, 1348, 1349, 1351, 1353, 1355, 1357 Bennet v. Davis, 2 P. Wms. 316 328 Bennett, Exp., 2 Atk. 528 1082 v. Burton, 12 A. & E. 657 ; 4 P. & D. 313 ; 4 Jur. 1085 295 v. Colley, 2 My. & K. 225 747 v. Cooper, 9 Beav. 252 ; 15 L. J. N. S. Ch. 315 ; 10 Jur. 507 .... 52, 311, 1411 v. Edwards, 2 Vern. 392 , 1052 v. Harfoot, 19 W. R. 428 ; 24 L. T. N. S. 86 1052 v. Ingoldsby, Finch, 962 146 v. Lee, 2 Atk. 531 1053 v. Robins, 3 C. & P. 379 950 v. Wyndham, 23 Beav. 521 415, 428 Bensley v. Burdon, 8 L. J. O. S. Ch. 85; 2 S. & St. 519; 25 R. R. 258 146, 654 Benson v. Chapman, 2 H. L. C. 696 ; 13 Jur. 969 ; 8 C. B. 950 1398, 1505 v. Duncan, 3 Ex. 344 ; 18 L. J. Ex. 169 ; 14 Jur. 218 . . 1502, 1503, 1506 v , gcott, 4 Mod. 251 ; S. C, 12 Mod. 49 ; 1 Salk. 185 150, 152, 153 Bentham v. Haincourt, Prec. Ch. 30 802, 913 v. Wiltshire, 4 Madd. 44 ; 20 R. R. 271 418 Bentiuck r. London Joint Stock Bank, (1893) 2 Ch. 120 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 358 ; 68 L. T. 315; 42 W. R. 140; 9 T. L. R. 262.. 281, 484, 879, 1465 v. Willink, 2 Ha. 1 815, 817, 871 Bentley, Exp., 2 M. D. & De G. 591 ; 6 Jur. 719 120, 125 v. Bates, 4 T. & C. Ex. 182 ; 4 Jur. 552 508, 926 Benwell, Exp., 14 Q. B. D. 301 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 53 ; 51 L. T. 677 ; 33 W. R. 242 300 Tower, 72 L. T. 664 ; 8 Asp. M. L. C. 13 260, 1147 Benyonf. Fitch, 35 Beav. 570 614, 616 Berdoe v. Dawson, 34 Beav. 603 609 Beresford v. Browning, 1 Ch. D. 30 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 36 ; 24 W. R. 120 ; 33 L. T. N. S. 524 964 Berkeley, Exp., 2 M. & A. 54 1101 v. Hardy, 5 B. & C. 355 892 . v . King's Coll., Cambridge, 10 Beav. 602 300 Berkley v. Howell, 29 Beav. 546 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 524 902 Bernard v. Norton, 10 L. T. N. S. 183 1043 Berney v. Sewell, 1 J. & W. 647 ; 21 R. R. 265 797, 803, 925, 929, 930 Berridge, Exp., Re Loosemore, 3 M. D. & De G. 464 857 v. Berridge, 44 Ch. D. 168; 59 L. J. Ch. 533 ; 63 L. T. 101 ; 38 W. R. 599 101 l:. rrie >. Howitt, L. R. 9 Eq. 1 ; 39 L.J. Ch. 119; 21 L. T. N. S. 414 .. 1387 !',. rriDgton v. Evans, 1 Y. & C, Ex.434 1065, 1066 TABLE OF CASES. xlix TAGE Berrisford v. Mil ward, 2 Atk. 49 ; Barn. Ch. R. 101 1294 Berry v. Askham, 2 Vern. 26 433 v. Gibbons, L. R. 8 Oh. A. 747 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 89 ; 21 W. R. 754 ; 29 L. T. 88 400, 401, 1323 v. Hebblethwaite, 4 K. & J. 80 1115 v. Keen, 51 L. J. Ch. 912 928 Bertie v. Abingdon, Lord, 3 Mer. 560 ; 17 R. R. 125. . . .641, 667, 955, 956, 958 Bertlin v. Gordon, W. N. (1886) 31 1028 Bertrand v. Davies, 31 Beav. 436 ; 9 Jur. 1ST. S. 34 939 Berwick-on-Tweed, Mayor of, v. Murray, 7 De G. M. & G. 497 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 1 1320 Bessemer Steel Co., Re, 1 Ch. D. 25 ; 33 L. T. N. S. 631 1135 Bessey v. Windham, 6 Q. B. 166 ; 14 L. J. Q. B. 7 574 Best v. Applegate, 37 Ch. D. 43 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 506 ; 57 L. T. 599 ; 36 W. R. 397 1018, 1045 Bestall v. Bunbury, 13 Ir. Ch. 318 330 Bestwick, Re, Exp. Bestwick, 2 Ch. D. 485 1085, 1088 Bethell v. Abraham, L. R. 17 Eq. 24 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 180; 29 L. T. N. S. 715 ; 22 W. R. 179 510, 520 Betton's Trusts, Re, L. R. 12 Eq. 553 318 Bettyes v. Maynard, 49 L. T. 389 ; 31 W. R. 461 903 Beulah Park Estate, Re, Sargood's Claim, L. R. 15 Eq. 43 473 Bevan, Exp., 9 Ves. 222 1163 Exp., 10 Ves. 107 1084 v. Nunn, 9 Bing. 107 586 Beynon v. Cook, L. R. 10 Ch. A. 389 ; 32 L. T. N. S. 353 ; 10 L. R. Ch. 389 613, 614, 615, 618, 1147, 1156 v. Godden, 3 Ex. D. 263 ; 48 L. J. Ex. 80 ; 39 L. T. 82 ; 26 W. R. 672 265 Bianchi v. Offord, 17 Q. B. D. 484 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 486 222, 234, 236 Bickerton v. Walker, 31 Ch. D. 151 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 227 ; 53 L. T. 731 ; 34 W. R. 141 113, 1346 Bickham v. Cross, 2 Ves. Sen. 471 1162 Bidder v. Bridges, 37 Ch. D. 406 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 300 ; 58 L. T. 656 1405 Biddlecombe v. Bond, 4 A. & E. 332 71 Biddulph, Exp., 3 De G. & S. 587 1083, 1084 , v. Billiter Street Offices Co., W. N. (1895) 98 ; 72 L. T. 834 . . 1028 v. Goold, 11 W. R. 882, Q. B 569 v. St. John, 2Sch. & L. 521 716, 1247, 1251, 1315 Biggerstaff v. Rowatt's Wharf, Ltd., (1896) 2 Ch. 93 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 536 ; 74 L. T. 473 ; 44 W. R. 536 475 Biggs v. Andrews, 5 Sim. 424 911 v. Evans (1894) 1 Q. B. 88 ; 69 L. T. 723 1480 Bignold, Exp., 2 M. & A. 16 136, 669 2 M. & A. 214 ; 4 D. & C. 259 ; 4 L. J. N. S. Bky. 58 . . 1103 . . 3 Deac. 151 ; 3 M. & A. 477 ; 7 L. J. Bky. 35 1096 . 1 Deac. 515 ; 3 M. & A. 706 1090, 1098 2G1. &G. 273; 2D. & C. 398 ; 1 L. J. N. S. Bky. 100.... 1104 Bilborough v. Holmes, 5 Ch. D. 255 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 446 ; 35 L. T. N. S. 75 ; 25 W. R. 297 1453 Bill v. Cureton, 2 My. & K. 503 601, 605 Bills v. Smith, 34 L. J. Q. B. 68 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 155 ; 6 B. & S. 314 . .586, 588 Bingham v. King, 14 W. R. 414 1030, 1040, 1113 Binney v. Ince Hall Coal Co., 35 L. J. Ch. 363 ; 14 L. T. N. S. 392 .... 277 Binnington v. Harwood, T. & R. 477; 24 R. R. 106 1021, 1184, 1211 „. Wallis, 4 B. & Aid. 650 625 Birch's Case, Gilb. Eq. Rep. 186 1050 Birch, Exp., 3 Sw. 98 356 Re, 17 Beav. 358 512 . -v. Birch, 8 P. D. 163; 52 L. J. P. 86 ; 32 W. R. 96 299, 932 v. Ellames, 2 Anst. 428 ; 3 R. R. 601 57, 1293, 1333 v. Sherratt, L. R. 2 Ch. 644 ; 17 L. T. N. S. 153 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 925 ; 16W.R.30 412 VOL. I. — R. d 1 TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Birch v. Wright, 1 T. R. 378 ; 1 R. R. 223 G58, 672, 681 Birchall v. Pugin, L. R. 10 C. P. 399 ; 44 L. J. C. P. 278 ; 32 L. T. 495 ; 23 W. R. 923 1387, 1388 Bircham, Re, (1895) 2 Ch. 786 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 768 ; 73 L. T. 129 ; 43 W. R. 673 . . . 478, 480 v. Tucker, 8 Sc. 669 75 Bird v. Bass, 6 Man. & Gr. 143 593, 1259, 1325 ■ v. Davey, (1891) 1 Q. B. 29 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 8 ; 63 L. T. 741 ; 39 W. R. 40 ; 7 T. L. R. 5 , 229, 240 ■ r. Gandy, 7 Vic Abr. 45, pi. 20 ; 2 Eq. Cas. Ab. 251, n 1049 p. Lake, 1 H. & M. Ill 112 ■ v. Pegrum, 13 C. B. 639 ; 17 Jur. 577 330 v. Wenn, 33 Ch. D. 215 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 722 ; 54 L. T. 933 ; 34 W. R. 652 860, 866, 1183 Birds v.. Askey, 24 Beav. 618 1381 Birkbeck Freehold Land Soc, Re, 24 Ch. D. 119; 52 L.J. Ch. 777 ; 49 L. T. 265; 31 W. R. 716 1533 Birkmyr v. Darnell, Salk. 27 ; 1 Sm. L. C 90 Birleyr. Gladstone, 3 M. & S. 205 ; 15 R. R. 465 1398, 1399 Birmingham, &c. Co. v. Carter, 20 W. R. 354 1280 Corp. r. Baker, 17 Ch. D. 782 448 Gas Light & Coke Co., Exp., Re Adams, L. R. 11 Eq. 204 ; 40 L. J. Bky. 1 ; 24 L. T. ST. S. 42 ; 19 W. R. 123 1085 & Lichfield Rail. Co., Re, 18 Ch. D. 155 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 594 ; 45 L. T. 164 ; 29 W. R. 908 934 Birt, Re, 15 L. T. N. S. 368, Bky 182 Re, Birt v. Burt, 22 Ch. D. 604 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 397 ; 48 L. T. 67 ; 21 W. R. 334 949 Bisco v. Banbury, Earl of, 1 Ch. Ca. 287 1310, 1312 Biscoe v. Kennedy, 1 Bro. C. C. 17, n 350 Bisdee, Exp., 1 M. D. & De G. 333 63, 168 Bishop, Exp., Re Fox, Walker & Co., 15 Ch. D. 400 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 18 ; 43 L. T. 165 ; 29 W. R. 144 94, 104 -v. Beale, 1 T. L. R. 140 221, 233 v. Church, 2 Ves. Sen. 371 1154 ■ v. Consolidated Credit Corp., L. T. J. (1886) 426 ; 5 T. L. R. 278 . 228 v. Hatch, 4 Jur. 318 ; 7 D. P. C. 763 441 . v. - — — 16 Jur. 1044 1172 v. Ware, 3 Camp. 360 ; 14 R. R. 755 1399 Bissell v. Jones, L. R. 4 Q. B. 49 ; 38 L. J. Q. B. 2 ; 19 L. T. N. S. 262 ; 17 W. R. 49; 9B. & S. 884 592 Bissett v. Jones, 32 Ch. D. 635 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 648 ; 54 L. T. 608 ; 34 W. R. 591 1019, 1020, 1026 Bissill v. Bradford and District Tramways Co. (No. 1), W. N. (1891) 51 . . 937 v. (No. 2), W. N. (1893) 44; 9 T. L. R. 337 1389 Bittlestone v. Cooke, 6 E. & B. 296 594 Black v. Williams, (1895) 1 Ch. 408 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 137 ; 43 W. R. 346 ; 2 Mans. 86 1285 Blackborn v. Edgley, 1 P. Wins. 600 607 Blackborough v. Ravenhill, 16 Jur. 1085 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 108 927 Blackburn, Exp., Re Cheesebrough, L. R. 12 Eq. 358 ; 40 L. J. Bky. 79 ; 25 L. T. N. S. 76 ; 19 W. R. 973 588 Exp., Re Holmes, W. N. (1884) 131 593 v. Caine, 22 Beav. 614 1043 „. Gregson, 1 Bio. C. C. 424 1372 v. Warwick, 2 Y. & C. Ex. 92 ; 6 L. J. N. S. Ex. 17 .... 132, 1165 &c. Building Soc, Re, 24 Ch. D. 421 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 894 ; 32 W. R. 159 557 Blackburne v. Godrick, 9 Dowl. 337 71 Blackfordt\Davis,L.R.4Ch.A.304; 20 L.T.N. S. 199; 17 W.R. 336. . 1023, 1191 Blackie v. Clark, 15 Bear. 595 607, 609 Blacklock v. Barnes, Sel. Ca. in Ch. o'd 1 202 TABLE OF CASES. li PAGE Blackmore v. Yates, L. R. 2 Ex. 225 ; 36 L. J. Ex. 121 ; 15 W. R. 750. . 493 Blackwell v. England, 8 E. & B. 541 ; 27 L. J. Q. B. 124 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 1302 247 v. Symes, Arab. 685 1233 Blackwood v. London Chartered Bank of Australia, L. R. 5 P. C. 92 ; 43 L. J. P. C. 25 ; 22 W. R. 419 ; 30 L. T. N. S. 45 1217 Blades v. Blades, 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. 358 1247 Blagrave v. Routh, 3 Jur. N. S. 399; 8 De G. M. & Q. 620. .610, 611, 1143, 1144 Blaiberg v. Beckett, 18 Q. B. D. 96 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 35 ; 55 L. T. 876 ; 35 W. R. 34 237 v. Parke, 10 Q. B. D. 90 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 110 ; 48 L. T. 311 ; 31 W. R. 246 245, 250 v. Parsons, 17 Q. B. D. 336 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 408 ; 34 W. R. 717. 237 Blain, Exp., Re Sawers, 12 Ch. D. 522 ; 41 L. T. 46 ; 28 W. R. 334 .... 578 Blair v. Nugent, 3 J. & L. 677 983, 986, 1067 v. Ormond, 1 De G-. & S. 428 1113 v. , 1 Dr. &S. 428 1105 v. , 14 Q. B. 732 ; 14 Jur. 191 ; 19 L. J. Q. B. 228 1521 Blake's Case, 6 Rep. 44 1402 Blake v. Blake, 19 L. R. Ir. 261 604 v. Foster, 2 Ba. & Be. 387 646 ■ v. Gale, 32 Ch. D. 571 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 559 ; 55 L. T. 234 ; 34 W. R. 555 796 v. Harvey, 29 Ch. D. 827 ; 53 L. T. 541 ; 36 W. R. 602 1026 v. Izard, 16 W. R. 108 199 v. Marnell, 2 Ba. & Be. 35 ; 12 R. R. 68 427 ■ • v. Summersby, W. N. (1889) 39 1043 v. White, 1 Y. & C. Ex. 420 83 Blakely Ordnance Co., Re, L. R. 3 Ch. A. 159 ; L. R. 2 Eq. 244 ; 25 W. R. Ill ; 35 L. T. N. S. 617 . .484, 485, 486, 87S, 879, 1131, 1282, 1364 Blakeney v. Dufaur, 15 Beav. 40 940 Blaker v. Herts, &c. Waterworks Co., 41 Ch. D. 399 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 497 ; 60 L. T. 776 ; 37 W. R. 601 ; 5 T. L. R. 421. . . .491, 493, 515, 888, 890, 934, 935, 1001, 1037, 1117 Blakesley, Re, 32 Bear. 379 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 1265 ; 8 L. T. N. S. 343 ; 11 W. R. 656 49 Blaksley's Trusts, Re, 23 Ch. D. 549 ; 48 L. T. 776 1275 Blanchard v. Cawthorne, 4 Sim. 572 931 Blanche, 58 L. T. 592 264 ■ 6 Asp. N. S. 272 267 Bland, Exp., 6 De G. M. & G. 757 580, 583 v. Davison, 21 Beav. 312 1065 Blandy v. Herbert, 9 B. & Cr. 396 1518 v. Kimber, 24 Beav. 148 332 Blankensteinv.Robertson,24Q.B.D.543;59L.J.Q.B.3l5;6lL.T.732..232,233 Blatch v. Wilder, 1 Atk. 420 419 Blatchford v. Woolley, 2 Dr. & Sm. 204 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 568 329 Blennerhasset v. Day, 2 Ba. & Be. 104 807, 1300 Blest v. Brown, 4 De G. F. & J. 367 ; 10 W. R. 569 82, 94 Blew v. Wyatt, 5 C. & P. 397 1452 Blewitt v. Thomas, 2 Ves. Jun. 669 1671 Bligh v. Brewer, 3 Dowl. 266 73 Bloomar, Re, 2 De G. F. & J. 154 360 Bloomer v. Union Coal and Iron Co., L. R. 16 Eq. 383 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 96 ; 29 L. T. N. S. 130; 21 W. R. 821 494 Blount v. Bestland, 5 Ves. 515 323 v. Harris, 4 Q. B. D. 603 ; 48 L. J. Q. B. 159 ; 39 L. T. 465 ; 27 W. R. 202 248 v. Hipkins, 7 Sim. 43 766 Bloxam v. Metropolitan Rail. Co., L. R. 3 Ch. A. 337 ; 16 W. R. 490 ; 18 L. T. N. S. 41 488 Bloxham, Re, 6 Ves. 449 ; 5 R. R. 358 1082 Bloye's Trusts, Re, 1 Mac. & G. 488 906 Blumberg v. Life Interests, fcc. Corp., (1897) 1 Ch. 171 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 127 ; 75 L. T. 627 ; 45 W. R. 246 716 BlundeU v. Stanley, 3 De G. & S. 433 ; 13 Jur. 998 1439 Blunden v. Desart, 6 H. L. C. 597 . . , 1231 (12 Hi TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Elunden v. Desart, 2 Dr. & War. 405 ; 2 Con. & L. Ill ; 5 Ir. Eq. R. 251 . . 1384 Blunt, Re, 10 W. R. 379 1277 . v. Clitherow, 6 Ves. 799 954 Blyth v. Carpenter, L. R. 2 Eq. 501 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 898 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 823; 15 L. T.N. S. 154; 15 W. R. 3 37 v. Fladg-ate, (1891) 1 Ch. 337 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 66 ; 63 L. T. 546 ; 39 W. R. 422 ; 7 T. L. R. 29 519, 530, 532 Boaler v. Mayor, 11 Jur. N. S. 565 1448 Boards, Re, Knight v. Knight, (1895) 1 Ch. 499 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 305 ; 72 L. T. 220 ; 43 W. R. 472 410 Boddam v. Ryley, 2 Bro. C. C. 2 1164 Boddington, 2 Hagg. 422 1508 Boden v. Hensby, (1892) 1 Ch. 101 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 174 ; 65 L. T. 744 ; 40 W. R. 205 1385 Boden's Trust, Re, 1 De G. M. & G-. 57 : 16 Jur. 279 1424 Bodenham v. Purchas, 2 B. & Aid. 39 ; 20 R. R. 342 100, 1212 Bodger v. Bodger, 11 W. R. 160 928 Bodman, Re, Bodman v. Bodraan, (1891) 3 Ch. 135 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 31 ; 65 L. T. 522 ; 40 W. R. 60 850 Bolckow v. Heme Bay Pier Co., El. & Bl. 75 ; 22 L. J. Q. B. 33 ; 17 Jur. 260 937 Bold Buccleugh, 7 Moo. P. C. 267 ; 3 W. Rob. 229 ; 7 N. of C. 243 ; 14 Jur. 138 ; 19 L. T. 235 1390, 1395 Bolden v. Nicholay, 3 Jur. N. S. 884 343 Boldincr i. Lane, 1 De G. J. & S. 122 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 219 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 506 983, 984, 992 Bolingbroke v. Hinde, 25 Ch. D. 795 ; 53 L. T. 704 ; 32 W.R. 427. .1137, 1191 Bolland, Exp.,41 L. J. Bky. 60; 20 W. R. 862 583 Re Cherry, L. R. 7 Ch. A. 24 ; 25 L. T. N. S. 646 588 Re Gallehouse, 24 L. T. 335 .., 181 Re Gibson, 8 Ch. D. 230 ; 38 L. T. 326 ; 26 W. R. 481 . . 589 Re Roper, 21 Ch. D. 543 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 113 ; 47 L. T. 488 ; 31 W. R. 402 228 ■ v. Bygrave, Ry. & M. 271 1389 Boiling v. Hobday, 31 W. R. 9 1074 Bolton v. Buckenham, (1891) 1 Q. B. 278 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 261 ; 64 L. T. 278 ; 39 W. R. 293 83, 84 v. Ferro, 14 Ch. D. 171 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 569 ; 42 L. T. 529 ; 28 W. R. 578 1085 v. London School Board, 7 Ch. D. 766 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 461 ; 26 W. R. 549 110 . v. Salmon, (1892) 2 Ch. 48 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 239 ; 64 L. T. 222 ; 39 W. R. 589 84, 88 Bombonus, Exp. , 8 Ves. 540 1463 Bompas v. King, 33 Ch. D. 279 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 202 ; 55 L. T. 190 1205 Bonafous v. Rybot, 3 Burr. 1375 129 Bonancino, Re, Exp. Discount Banking Co., 1 Man. 59 1091 Bonaparte, 3 W. Rob. 298 ; 8 Moo. P. C. 459 ; 14 Jur. 606, Adm. . . 1501, 1502, 1505 Bond r. Hopkins, 1 Sch. & L. 413,434 68 v. Kent, 2 Vern. 281 ; 1 Eonbl. Eq. 153 1374, 1375 Boney v. Charter, W. N. (1887) 52 549 Bonham v. Newcomb, 1 Vern. 231 19 Bonithon v. Hockmore, 1 Vern. 316 1204 Bonney v. Ridgard, 1 Cox, 145 401, 402 Bonser v. Cox, 6 Beav. 110 ; 8 Jur. 387; 13 L. J. Ch. 260 84 Booth and Kettlewell's Contract, Re, W. N. (1892) 156; 62 L. J. Ch. 40 ; 67 L. T. 450 1006 Booth's Settlement Trusts, Re, 21 L. T. O. S. 239 ; 1 W. R. 444 1259 Booth, Exp., 2 D. & C. 59 1098 v. Alcock, L.R. 8 Ch. A. 663 ; 29 L. T. N. S. 231 ; 21 W. R. 743. . 119 v. Alington, 3 Jur. N. S. 49 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 138 130 v. Booth, 2 Atk. 343 868, 872 . r. Coulton, 16 W. R. 683 927 . p. Creswicke, Cr. & Ph. 361 1032 r. , 8 Sim. 352 1015,1180 r. , 8 Jur. 323 ; 13 L. J. Ch. 217 1022 TABLE OF CASES. liii PAGE Booth r. Leycester, 3 My. & Cr. 459 HOG, 1167, 1172 V. Parker, 3 M. & W. 54 71 v. Rich, 1 Vern. 295 ; 15 Vin. Abr. 476 1052, 1055 v. Turle, L. R. 16 Eq. 182 ; 21 W. R. 721 24 Boothby v. Boothby, 1 Mac. & G. 604 615 Bootle v. Blundell, 1 Mer. 232 ; 19 Ves. 494 ; G. Coop. 136 ; 15 R. R. 93 . 414 Bord v. Tollemache, 1 N. R. 177 ; 7 L. T. N. S. 526 931 Borough of Hackney Newsparoer Co., Re, 3 Ch. D. 669 501 Borries v. Imperial OttomairBank, L. R. 9 C. P. 38; 43 L. J. C. P. 3 ; 29 L. T. N. S. 689 ; 22 W. R. 92 1486 Borrodaile, Exp., 2 M. & A. 398 57 • v. Hunter, 5 Man. & Gr. 639 ; 5 Scott, N. R. 418 ; 12 L. J. C. P. 225 ; 7 Jur. 443 285 Borrows v. Ellison, L. R. 6 Ex. 128 ; 40 L. J. Ex. 131 1069 Bosanquet v. Dashwood, cas. t. Talb. 38 622 Bostock v. Blakeney, 2 Bro. C. C. 653 1378 v. Floyer, L. R. 1 Eq. 26 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 23; 13 L. T. 489; 14 W. R. 120 525 Bosvil v. Brander, 1 P. Wins. 459 846 Boswell r. Coaks, 23 Ch. D. 302 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 465 ; 48 L. T. 929 ; 39 W. R. 540 612 v. Tucker, 1 Beav. 493 1181 Bothomley v. Fairfax, 2 Vern. 750 ; 1 P. Wms. 334 , 793 Bott v. Smith, 21 Beav. 511 573, 576 Bottom Gate Industrial Soc, Re, 40 W. R. 139 ; 65 L. T. 712 459 Boughton, Re, Boughton v. Boughton, 23 Ch. D. 169 ; 48 L. T. 413 ; 31 W. R. 517 1385 Boultbee v. Stubbs, 18 Ves. 20 ; 11 R. R. 141 35, 91, 93 Boulter, Re, Exp. National Prov. Bank of England, 4 Ch. D. 241 ; 46 L. J. Bky. 11; 35 L. T. N. S. 673 ; 25 W. R. 100 53, 57 Boulton. Exp., 1 DeG. & J. 163; 3 Jur. N. S. 425 1270, 1271 Bourne v. Bourne, 2 Ha. 35 ; 6 Jur. 775 911 v. Wall, 64 L. T. 530 ; 39 W. R. 510 ; 7 T. L. R. 428 237 Boursot v. Savage, L. R. 2 Eq. 134; 35 L. J. Ch. 627 ; 14 L. T. N. S. 299 1331 Bourton t" William's," L.' R. 5 Ch." Ap.' 655 ; *39 L.' J. Ch. '800 ;' 'l9 W.R. 1089 323, 877 Bousfield v. Hodges, 33 Beav. 90 901 Bovey v. Skipwith, 1 Ch. Ca. 201 859, 1224 Bovill, Exp., 2 M. & A. 282, n 1144 v. Endle, (1896) 1 Ch. 648; 65 L. J. Ch. 542 ; 44 W. R. 523 1154 Bowden, Exp., Re Brettell, 1 D. & C. 135 ; 1 L. J. N. S. Bky. 37 . . 1082, 1083 Bowen v. Ashley, 1 B. & P. N. R. 274 1534 ■ v. Barlow, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 171 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 82 ; 27 L. T. N. S. 733 ; 21 W. R. 149 848 ■ r. Brecon Rail. Co., L. R. 3 Eq. 541 ; 15 W. R. 482. .488, 878, 935, 937, 1118 ■ v. Edwards, 1 Rep. in Ch. 221 15, 16 Bowes, Re, Strathmore, Earl of v. Vane, 33 Ch. D. 586 ; 55 L. T. 260 ; 35 W. R. 166 1390 v. Heaps, 3 V. & B. 117 ; 13 R. R. 162 616 v. Hope, &c. Soc, 11 H. L. C. 389 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 574 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 643 1123 Bowker v. Bull, 1 Sim. N. S. 29 ; 15 Jur. 4 ; 20 L. J. N. S. Ch. 47. . . .98, 863, 864, 1235 Bowles v. Perring, 5 Moo. 290 ; 2 Br. & B. 457 1101 Bown, Re, O'Halloran v. King, 27 Ch. D. 411 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 881 ; 50 L. T. 796 ; 33 W. R. 58 340 Bowra v. Wright, 4 De G. & S. 265 1056 Bowyer v. Woodman, L. R. 3 Eq. 313 317, 991 Boycot v. Cotton, 1 Atk. 556 427 Boyd's Settled Estates, Re, 14 Ch. D. 626 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 808 ; 43 L. T. 348 519 Boyd v. Barker, 4 Drew. 582 442 v. Buckle, 10 Sim. 595 413 v. Craster, 12 W. R. 787 ; 10 L. T. N. S. 480 1294 v. Mangles, 3 Ex. 387 ; IS L. J. Ex. 273 1489 Hv TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Boyd v. Pawle, 14 W. B. 1009 ; 14 L. T. 753 378 . v. Petrie, L. B. 7 Ch. A. 385 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 378 ; 25 L. T. N. S. 460 ; 20 W. B. 513 113, 827, 887 v. Shorrock, L. B. 5 En. 72 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 144 ; 17 L. T. N. S. 197 . . 122, 123 Boydell v. Manby, 9 Ha. App. liii 1025 . v. McMichael, 1 C. M. & B. 177 178 Boyle, Exp., 3 De G. M. & G. 515 ; 22 L. J. Bky. 78 ; 17 Jur. 979 1150 v. Bettwys Llantwit Colliery Co., 2 Ch. D. 726 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 748 ; 34 L. T. 844 941 Boys v. Ford, 4 Madd. 40 875 Bozon v. Bolland, 4 My. & Cr. 354 ; 9 L. J. N. S. Ch. 123 ; 4 Jur. 763 . . 1385 v. Williams, 3 Y. & J. 150 56, 59, 1333 Brace v. Duchess of Marlborough, 2 P. Wms. 491 ; Mos. 50. .43, 44, 1149, 1221, 1224, 1228, 1230, 1235 Bradbury v. Wild, (1893) 1 Ch. 377 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 503 ; 68 L. T. 50 ; 41 W. B. 361 556 Braddick v. Smith, 2 M. & Sc. 131 ; 9 Bing. 84 870 Bradford Banking Co. v. Briggs, Son & Co., 12 App. Cas. 29 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 364 ; 56 L. T. 62 ; 35 W. B. 521 1271, 1399 v. Belfield, 2 Sim. 264 890 v. Nettleship, 10 W. B. 264 1035 Bradley v. Borlase, 7 W. B, 125 1189, 1190 v. Copley, 1 C. B. 685 ; 9 Jur. 599 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 222 . . . .174, 188, 656, 794 . v. Heath, 3 Sim. 543 1213 . v. Biches, 9 Ch. D. 189 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 811 ; 38 L. T. 810 ; 26 W. W. 910 1239, 1326, 1344, 1362 Bradshaw v. Outram, 13 Ves. 234 ; 9 B. B. 183 1008 Bradwell v. Catchpole, 3 Swanst. 79, n. ; 19 B. B. 180 803, 819, 1300 Brain v. Brain, 6 Madd. 221 646 r. Thomas, W. N. (1881) 53 805 Braithwaite v. Britain, 1 Keen, 206 421 Bramwell v. Eglington, 5 B. & S. 39 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 702 ; 38 L. J. Q. B. 130 ; 10 L. T. 735 ; 14 W. B. 739 188, 656, 799 Brancker v. Molyneux, 3 Man. & Gr. 84 267 Brand, Be, 1 My. & K. 150 362 Brandao v. Barnett, 2 Sc. N. E. 96 1389, 1390, 1486 Brandling v. Ord, 1 Atk. 571 « 1300 Brandon v. Brandon, 5 Madd. 473 951 , v. , 3 De G. & J. 524 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 256 ; 10 W. B. 287 98, 795, 805 Brantom v. Griffits, 2 C. P. D. 212 ; 46 L. J. C. P. 408; 36 L. T. 4 ; 29 W. B. 313 204 Brasier v. Hudson, 9 Sim. 1 294, 534, 845 Brassington r. Llewellyn, 27 L. J. Ex. 297 1074 Brathwaite v. Brathwaite, 1 Ver. 335 , 824 Bray v. Stevens, 12 Ch. D. 162 « 410 Braybroke, Lord v. Inskip, 8 Ves. 417 ; 7 B. B. 106 833, 834 . v. Meredith, 13 Sim. 271 ; 7 Jur. 144 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 289 . 1524 Brearcliffe v. Dorrington, 4 Dr. & S. 122 423, 1279 v.- , 14 Jur. 1101 ; 19 L. J. N. S. Ch. 331 1282,1364 Brecon, Mayor of v. Seymour, 26 Beav. 548 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 1069 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 606 865, 1150 Breechloading Armoury Co., Be, L. B. 5 Eq. 284 1272 Brcerton v. Jones, 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. 326, pi. 11 1234 Brend v. Brend, 1 Vern. 213 ; 1 Bl. 115 ; 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. 62, pi. 6 703 Brennan v. Kennay, 2 Ir. Ch. B. 583 951 . v. Morriscy, 26 L. B. Ir. 618 932 Brentford and Islcworth Tramways Co., Be, 26 Ch. D. 527 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 624 : 50 L. T. 580 ; 32 W. R. 895 1122 Brentwood Brick and Coal Co., Bo, 4 Ch. D. 502 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 554 ; 36 L. T. N. S. 343; 25 W. R. 481 1375 Brcreton v. Edwards, 21 Q. B. D. 488 1357, 1361, 1362, 1363 Breslauer v. Brown, 3 App. Cas. 672 ; 47 L. J. C. P. 729 1082 TABLE OF CASES. lv PAGE Brett, Exp., Be Howe, L. R. 6 Ch. A. 83S ; 40 L. J. Bky. 54 ; 19 W. R. 1101; 25 L. T.N. S. 252 10 ' 9 > 10 >2 Brettel v. Williams, 4 Exch. 630 • • • • • • • • 503 Brettle, Re, Brettle v. Burdett, 2 De G. J. & S., 244 339, 402, 1451 Brewer v. Square, (1892) 2 Ch. Ill ; 61 L. J. Ch. 510 ; 66 L. T. 486 ; 40 -ry -o o-g 1036, 103b Brewin v. Austin, 2 Keen,' 211* '.'.'.'. .' - f 034, 1162, 1163 ■ v. Briscoe, 5 Jur. N. S. 1206 ; 28 L. J. Q. B. 329; 7 W. R. 584 ; 2 El. &E1. 216. 1263 v. Short,' 1 Jur. N. S. 798; 24 L. J. Q. B. 297; 5 E. & Bl. 2 r>7 220, 1325 Brewster's' Assignees', Re', 4 De '(J! M. '& G. 866 ; 22 L. J. Bky. 62 180 Briant v. Lightfoot, 1 Jur. 20 l } hl Brice v. Bannister, 3 Q. B. D. 569 * 10 v. Williams, Wallis, 325 }°\j- Bridge v. Beadon, L. R. 3 Eq. 664 ; 15 W. R. 527 1259 Bridgman v. Dove, 3 Atk. 201 •• • • • • • • • 409 Bridger, Re, Brompton Hosp. v. Lewis, (1894) 1 Ch. 297 ; 63 L. J. Oh. 186 ; 70 L. T. 204 ; 42 W. R. 179 54X Bridges v. Longman, 24 Beav. 27 • 4 -^ Bridgewater v. De Winton, 33 L. J. Ch. 238 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 1270 79, 732 Bridgman v. Dove, 40 W. R. 253 409 > 9( ^ ■ v. Gill, 24 Beav. 306 5 i° Brierley v. Kendall, 17 Q. B. 937 ; 21 L. J. Q. B. 161 ; 16 Jur. 449 . .174, 185, 656, 1469 Brierly v. Ward, 15 Jur. 277 ; 20 L. J. N. S. Ch. 46 1124 Briggs v. Boss, L. R. 3 Q. B. 26S ; 37 L. J. Q. B. 101 ; 17 L. T. 599 ; 16 W. R. 480 248 v. Chamberlain, 11 Hare, 69 ; 18 Jur. 56 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 635 oil v. Jones, L. R. 10 Eq. 92 ; 20 L. T. N. S. 212 1294, 1341 v. Merchant Traders' Assoc, 13 Q. B. 109 ; 18 L. J. Q. B. 178 ; 13 Jur. 787 l il\ ■ v. Pike, 61 L. J. Q. B. 418 ; 66 L. T. 637 235 . . v. Sharp, L. R. 20 Eq. 317 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 510 ; 23 W. R. 806 ; 33 L. T. N. S. 154 J19 v. Wilson, 5 De C. M. & C. 20 9 «5 Bright's Settlement, Re, 13 Ch. D. 413 ; 42 L. T.«,308 ; 28 W. R. 551 . . 1255, 1265 Bright, Exp., Re Smith, 10 Ch. D. 566; 48 L. J. Bky. 81 ; 27 W.R, 3S5 ; on T rn (\±() ,,»••••• 181, 183 . v . Campbell, 41 Ch. D*. '388 ;' 60 L.' T.'731 ; 37 W. R. 745 ... . 130, 1157 -^ V. , 54 L. J. Ch. 1077 !202 . v. Cowper, 1 Brownl. 21 • • 271 . v. Larcher, 3 De G. & J. 148 t^'All Brightens, Exp., 1 Swanst. 3 ; Buck, 48 66, 1102, 11/7 Brighton Hotel Co., Re, L. R. 6 Eq. 339 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 915 ; 18 L. T. N. S. 741 11LJ: Brighty v. Norton, 3 B. & S. 305 ; 32 L. J. Q. B. 38 ; 9 Jur. N. 8.495; 7 L. T. 422 ; 11 W. R. 167 799, 904, 962 Brind v. Hampshire, OI. & W. 364 1493 Brine v. Hartpole, 15 Vin. Abr. 467, pi. 15 ; 5 Bro. C. C. 197 808 Brinsley v. Lynton & Lynmouth Hotel Co., W. N. (1895) 53 ; 2 Mans 244 Briscoe v. King, Cro. Jac. 281 1119 68 Bristed v. Wilkins, 3 Ha. 239 12 83, 1284 Bristoe v. Knipe, Yelv. 206 • ■;• • ■ ■ •• ,68 Bristol, Lord v. Hungerford, 2 Vern. 525 ; 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. 142, pi. 5. .1223, 1238 , , and Clifton, &o. Soc. v. Harbour, cited Wurtzburg on Building Societies, 122 554 . and West of England Bank v. Midland Rail. Co., (1891) 2 Q. B. 653 ; 65 L. T. 234 ; 40 W. R. 148 ; 7 T. L. R. 451 1467 Bristow v. Warner, 10 Ir. Eq. R. 246 n 4° Bristowe v. Needham, 2 Ph. 190 953 British Alliance Co., Re, W. N. (1887) 261 1124 . Empire Ass. Co. v. Sugden, 47 L. J. Ch. 691 1001, 1046 lvi TABLE OF CASES. PAGE British India, &c. Co. v. Commrs. Inland Revenue, 7 Q. B. D. 165 477, 478 Linen Co. v. South American and Mexican Co., (1894) 1 Ch. 108. . 921, 941, 942 . Museum v. White, 2 S. & St. 594 ; 4 L. J. Ch. 206 ; 25 R. R. 270 538 Mutual Investment Co. v. Smart, 10 Ch. A. 567 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 695; 32 L. T. N. S. 849 ; 23 W. R. 800 64, 967, 969, 1382 Brittain v. Brown, 24 L. T. 504 1263 Britten r. Wait, 3 B. & Ad. 915 441 Broad, Exp., 13 Q. B. D. 742 1498 v. Selfe, 11 W. R. 1036; 9 Jur. N. S. 885 132, 1146,1179, 1193 v. Wickham, 4 Sim. 511 947 Broadbent, Exp., 1 M. & A. 635; 4D.&C.3; 3 L. J. N. S. Bky. 95. .62, 1000, 1096 v. Barlow, 3 De G. F. & J. 570 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 479 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 569 ; 4 L. T. N. S. 193 1305, 1313, 1334 „, Thornton, 4 De G. & S. 65 1094 Broadhurst v. Balguy, 1 T. & C. C. C. 16 525 Broadway v. Morecraft, Mos. 248 131 Broadwood, Exp., 1 M. D. & De G. 631 120 Broadwood's Settled Estates, Re, 1 Ch. D. 438 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 168 ; 24 W. R. 108 371 Brocklehurst v. Jessop, 7 Sim. 438 975, 980, 1037, 1105, 1107 v. Railway Printing Co., W. N. (1884) 70 ; 28 W. R. 358 . . 209 Brocklesby v. Temperance Permanent Building Soc, (1895) A. C. 173 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 433 ; 72 L. T. 477 ; 43 W. R. 606 1295, 1341 Broderick, Exp., Re Beetham, 18 Q. B. D. 766, C. A. ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 635; 35 W. R. 613 48, 59 Brodrick v. Scale, L. R. 6 C. P. 98 ; 4 L. J. C. P. 130 ; 23 L. T. 864 ; 19 W. R. 386 245, 248 Brogden, Be, Billing v. Brogden, 38 Ch. D. 546 ; 59 L. T. 650 ; 37 W. R. 84 996 Bromage, Exp., De G. 375 ; 10 Jur. 974 1099 Brome v. Berkley, 2 P. Wms. 484 429 Bromitt v. Moor, 9 Ha. 374 1007 Bromley v. Goodere, 1 Atk. 80 67 v. Holland. 5 Ves. 620, n. ; 7 Ves. 3 ; G. Coop. 9 ; 6 R. R. 58. . 824 v. Kelly, 39 L. J. Ch. 274 525 v. Smith, 26 Beav. 644 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 833 613, 616, 617 v. Wright, 7 Ha. 334 410 Brook, Re, 46 L. J. Ch. 865 839 v. Badlev, L. R. 3 Ch. A. 672 539, 540 v. Enderby, 2 Br. & B. 70 ; 4 Moo. 501 ; 22 R. R. 653 1212 Brooke, Re, Brooke r. Brooke, (1894) 1 Ch. 43 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 159 ; 70 L. T. 71 ; 42 W. R. 186 418 (1894) 2 Ch. 600 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 21 ; 71 L. T. 398 206 v. Rooke, 3 Ch. D. 630 ; 35 L. T. N. S. 301 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 730; 24 W. R. 959 410 v. Garrod, 3 K. & J. 608 ; 2 De G. & J. 62 20 v. Haymes, L. R. 6 Eq. 25 110 v. Hickes, 12 W. R. 703 327 ■ v. Stone, 34 L. J. Ch. 251 ; 12 L. T. N. S. 114 ; 13 W. R. 401 1198 Brooker v. Harrison, 6 L. R. Ir. 332 203 Brookfield v. Bradley, Jac. 632 1056 Brooking v. Skewis, W. N. (1887) 250; 58 L. T. 73; 36 W. R. 215 .. 1019, 1021 Brooks, Exp., Re Fowler, 23 Ch. D. 261; 48 L. T. 453; 31 W. R. 833 181, 183 r. Brooks, 25 Beav. 342 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 472 330 ■ v. Greathcd, 1 J. & W. 178 947, 948 Brooksbank v. Higginbottom, 31 Beav. 35 1114 V. Smith, 2 Y. & C. Ex. 58 1072 Broomfield v. Southern Insurance Co., L. R. 5 Ex. 192 ; 39 L. J. Ex. 186 ; 22 L. T. 371; 18 W. R. 810 1512 Brotherton v. llatt, 2 Vern. 574 , , 1325 TABLE OF CASES. lvii PAGE Brouard v. Dumaresque, 3 Moo. P. C. 457 , 267, 901 Broughton v. Davies, 1 Pri. 216 1367 v . Key, W. N. (1882) 3 1188 Browell v. Pledge, W. N. (1888) 166 1043 Brown, Exp., ID. & C. 34 1100, 1101 Re Reed, 9 Ch. D. 389 ; 48 L. J. Bky. 10 ; 39 L. T. 338 ; 27 W. R. 219 120, 219 ■ v. Bamford, 9 M. & W. 42 ; 1 Ph. 626 340, 1278, 1361 ■ v. Barkham, 1 P. "Wins. 652 131, 1163, 1164 v. Bateman, L. R. 2 C. P. 272 ; 36 L. J. C. P. 134 ; 15 L. T. N. S. 658 ; 15 W. R. 359 199, 212 v. Cole, 14 Sim. 427 ; 9 Jur. 290 ; 14 L. J. N. S. Ch. 167 136 ■ ■ v. De Tastet, Jac. 284 ; 23 R. R. 59 508 ■ r. Freeman, 4 De G. & S. 444 , 287, 289, 290 ■ v. Heathcote, 1 Atk. 160 1495 v. Kempton, 19 L. J. C. P. 169 '. '. 586 ■ v. Kidger, 3 H. & N". 853 502 v. Metropolitan, &c. Insurance Soc, 1 E. & E. 832 ; 5 Jur. N S 1028; 28 L. J. Q. B. 136 661, 666 v. Price, 4 Jur. N. S. 882 295, 296, 1199 v. Rose, 6 Taunt. 124 440 ■ v. Sewell, 11 Ha. 49 ; 17 Jur. 708 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 1063 ...'.'. 817 ■ r. Stead, 5 Sim. 535 ; 2 L. J. N. S. Ch/45 1436, 1443 v. Stedman, 44 W. R. 458 1338 ■ v. Storey, 1 Man. & G. 117 680, 682 v. Tanner, L. R. 3 Ch. A. 597 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 923 ; 18 L. T. 624 ; 16 W. R. 882 271, 272, 1311 v. Thorpe, 1 1 L. J. Ch. 78 1294 Shipley & Co. v. Commrs. of Inl. Rev., (1895) 2 Q. B. 598; 64 L. J. M. C. 241 ; 73 L. T. 377 1525 v. Kough, 29 Ch. D. 848 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 1024 ; 52 L. T. 878 ; 34 W. R. 2 1498, 1499 Brown and Sibley's Contract, Re, 3 Ch. D. 156 S35 Brown's Estate, Re, Brown v. Brown, (1893) 2 Ch. 300 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 695*; 69 L. T. 62 ; 41 W. R. 440 89, 962, 977, 1063 Trusts, Re, L. R. 5 Eq. 88 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 171 1256 Browne, Re, Exp. Sterling, 19 L. R. Ir. 423 1141 v. Burton, 17 L. J. Q. B. 47 72, 77 v. Cavendish, 1 J. & L. 606 1349 v. Fryer, 46 L. T. 636 , . 302 v. Lee, 6 B. & Cr. 689 100 V. Lockhart, 10 Sim. 420 ; 9 L. J. N. S. Ch. 167 ; 4 Jur. 167.' .' 815, 1004, 1185 v. London Necropolis, &c. Co., 6 "W. R. 188 870 v. Savage, 4 Drew. 639 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 1020 1257, 1260, 1261, 1262 and Wingrove, Re, Exp. Ador, (1891) 2 Q. B. 574; 61 L. J. Q. B. 15 ; 65 L. T. 485 ; 40 W. R. 71 ; 7 T. L. R. 747 1093 Brownlie v. Russell, 8 App. Cas. 235; 48 L. T. 881 556, 557 Browrigg v. Rae, 5 Exch. 489 1463 Bruce, Exp., 9 Dow. P. C. 840 320 Exp. , 1 Rose, 374 60 v. Garden, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 32 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 334 ; 18 W. R. 384 . . 288, 291, 292, 293 v. Wait, 3 M. & W. 15 1495 Bruere v. "Wharton, 7 Sim. 483 1034, 1162 Brunton's Claim, L. R. 19 Eq. 302 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 450 ; 31 L. T. N. S. 747 ; 23 W. R. 286 474 Brunton v. Dullens, 1 F. & F. 450 80 v. Electrical Engineering Co., (1892) 1 Ch. 434 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 256*; 65 L. T. 745 ; 8 T. L. R. 158 494, 495, 1385, 1387 v. Neale, 9 Jur. 338 1306, 1318 v. , 14 L. J. N. S. Ch. 8 1349 Brutton v. Burton, 1 Chit. R. 707 503 Bryan, Re, Godfrey v. Bryan, 14 Ch. D. 516; 49 L. J. Ch. 501 ; 28W. R. 761 327 v. Cormick, 1 Cox, 422 930, 947 lviii TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Bryan v. Cowdall, 21 W. R. 693 1074 Bryans v. Nix, i M. & W. 775 273, 1495, 1496 Bryant v. Blackwell, 15 Beav. 44 1115 . v. Bull, L. R. 10 Ch. A. 153 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 325 ; 27 W. R. 246 ; 39 L. T. 470 932 , Eowis and Bryant v. La Banque clu Beuple, (1893) A. C. 170 ; 62 L. J. B. C. 68 ; 68 L. T. 546 ; 41 W. R. 600 ; 9 T. L. B. 322 1497 Bryon v. Met. Saloon Co., 3 De G. & J. 123 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 1262 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 685 468, 470, 473, 476, 477 Bryson v. Wylie, 1 B. & B. 83, n. ; 9 East, 240 178 Bubb v. Yelverton, L. B. 9 Eq. 471 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 428 ; 22 L. T. N. S. 258 ; 18 W. R. 512 624 Buchanan v. Greenway, 12 Beav. 355 1044, 1049, 1140 Buck r. Robson, 3 Q. B. D. 686 ; 39 L. T. 325 ; 26 W. R. 804 310, 1525 Buckingham, Duke of v. Gayer, 1 Vern. 257 807 Buckinghamshire, Earl of v. Hobart, 3 Swanst. 186 ; 19 R. R. 197 . .1433, 1441 Buckland v. Bocknell, 13 Sim. 502 1375 Buckle v. Mitchell, 18 Ves. 100 ; 11 R. R. 155 601 Bucknel v. Royston, Brec. Ch. 285 174 . r. Vicary, 64 L. T. 701 1146,1147 Budge v. Gummow, L. B. 7 Ch. 719 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 42 ; 27 L. T. N. S. 666 ; 20 W. R. 1022 519, 526, 527, 529 Bugden v. Bignold, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 377 1321 Bugg, Exp., 2 Dr. & S. 452 1271 Bul'fin v. Dunne, 11 Ir. Ch. R. 198 61 Bulkcleyr. Hope, 1 K. & J. 482; 1 Jur. N. S. 864 355, 1431, 1437 Bull, Be, Catty v. Bull, 49 L. T. 592 ; 31 W. R. 854 773 ■ v. Hutchens, 32 Beav. 615 1323 Bullen Smith, Re, Beriiers v. Bullen Smith, 57 L. T. 924 1021 BuUer v. Plunkett, U. & H. 441 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 873 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 641 ; 9 W. R. 190 1260, 1491 Bulley v. Bullev, 8 Ch. D. 479 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 841 ; 38 L. T. N. S. 401 ; 26 W. R. 638" 1387 Bidlmore r. Willyams, 32 Beav. 574 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 461 624 Bullock v. Thorne, 1 Moo. 615 381 Bullpin v. Clarke, 17 Ves. 365 343 Bulstrode v. Bradley, 3 Atk. 582 807 Bulteel, Exp., 2 Cox, 243 ; 2 R. R. 39 60 Bulwer v. Astley, 1 Bh. 422 22, 32, 33, 640 v. Bulwer, 2 B. & Aid. 470 677 Bunbury v. Winter, 1 J. & W. 255 ; 21 R. R. 159 1193 Bunning v. Bunning, 1 L. J. Ch. 56 19 Bunting v. Marriott 19 Beav. 163 539 Burbridge v. Cotton, 5 De G. & Sm. 117 548 Burchnall, Re, Walker v. Burchnall, W. N. (1893) 171 944 Burden v. Kennedy, 3 Atk. 738 648 , v. Oldaker, 1 Coll. 105 ; 8 Jur. 418 ; 13 L. J. N. S. Ch. 240 1186, 1197 Burdctt, Re, Exp. Byrne, 20 Q. B. D. 310 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. 263 ; 58 L. T. 708 ; 36 W. R. 345 207, 230 Burgaine v. Spurring, Cro. Car. 283 152, 1406 Burgess r. Mawbey, 1 T. & R. 167; 24 R. R. 9 641 v. Moxon, 2 Jur. N. S. 1059 55, 59 . v. Wheate, 1 Ed. 177 ; 1 W. Bl. 123 644, 1366, 1376 Burgh v. Francis, 3 Swanst. 536, n. ; 19 R. R. 275 1349 v. Langton, 5 Bro. P. C. 213 ; 15 Vin. Abr. 470, pi. 2 ; 2 Eq. Cas. Ab. 609 1047, 1049 Burghardt, Re, Exp. Trevor, 1 Ch. D. 297 ; 45 L. J. Bky. 27 ; 24 W. R. 301 ; ^3 L. T. 756 962 Burgoyne v. Hatton, Barn. Ch. R. 237 1309 Burke v. Rogereon, 12 Jur. N. S. 635: 14 L. T. N. S. 780 81 Burlace v. Cooke, Frcem. Ch. 24 1303 Burlinson v. Hall, 12 Q. B. D. 347 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 222 ; 50 L. T. 723 ; 32 W. B. 492 306, 309 Burme.ster, Re, 9 Ir. Ch. 41 1272 . v. Moxon, 35 Beav. 310 1038 TABLE OF CASES. lix PAGE Bum v. Burn, 3 Ves. 582 , 50, 503 v. Carvalho, 4 My. & Cr. 690 1263, 1487, 1489 Bumaby's Settled Estates, Re, 42 Ch. D. 621 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 664 ; 61 L. T. 22 812 Burnand v. Rodocanachi, 7 App. Cas. 333 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 548 ; 47 L. T. 277 ; 31 W. R. 65 289 Burnell v. Martin, Doug. 417 , 867 Burnet v. Kinnaston, 2 Vern. 401 846 Burnham v. Bennett, 2 Coll. 254 323 Burns v. Irving, 3 Ch. D. 291 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 423 ; 25 W. R. 66 ; 34 L. T. N. S. 754 1278, 1360 Burr, Re, Exp. Clarke, W. N. (1892) 138 ; 67 L. T. 465; 41 W. R. 116 : 8 T. L. R. 777 .' 1085 Burrel's Case, 6 Rep. 72 601, 604 Burrell, Exp., 3 M. & A. 440 1103 Exp., Re Robinson, 1 Ch. D. 537; 45 L. J. Bky. 68; 34 L. T. N. S. 198 ; 24 W. R. 353 592 • Re, L. R. 9 Eq. 443 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 544 ; 22 L. T. N. S. 263 652 ■ Re, Burrell v. Smith, L. R. 7 Eq. 399 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 382 ; 17 W. R. 516 831, 964 v. Egremont, Earl of, 7 Beav. 205 981, 1064, 1433, 1434 Burridge, Exp., 1 Deac. 142 1272 v. Rowe, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 183 50, 1377, 1380, 1382 Burrough v. Cranston, 2 Ir. Eq. R. 203 707 Burroughs v. McCreight, 1 J. & L. 290 1066 Bun-owes v. Gore, 6 H. L. C. 907 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 1245 747, 981 ■ v. Lock, 10 Ves. 470 ; 8 R. R. 33, 856 47, 1257 v. Molloy, 2 J. & L. 521 ; 8 Ir. Eq. R. 482. .135, 137, 928, 962, 1002, 1196 Burrows v. Gradin, 12 L. J. Q. B. 333 ; 1 Dowl. & L. 313 672 v. Walls, 5 De G. M. & G. 253 914 BurryPort, &c., Valley Rail. Co., Re, W. N. (1885) 119; 54 L. J. Ch. 710 ; 52 L. T. 842 ; 33 W. R. 741 1289 Bursill v. Tanner, 13 Q. B. D. 691 ; 50 L. T. 589 ; 82 W. R. 827 345 Burt, Exp., 1 M. D. & De G. 191 1099 v. British Nation Life Ass. Co., 4 De G. & J. 158 1119 v. Bull, (1895) 1 Q. B. 276 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 232 ; 71 L. T. 810 ; 43 W. R. 180 ; 2 Mans. 94 956 v. Gray, (1891) 2 Q. B. 98 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 664 ; 65 L. T. 229 ; 39 W. R. 429 * 160 v. Truman, 6 Jur. N. S. 721 427 Burting v. Stonard, 2 P. Wins. 150 399 Burton, Exp., Re Tunstall, 13 Ch. D. 102 ; 41 L. T. 571 ; 28 W. R. 268 . . 583, 590 ■ v. Barclay, 7 Bing. 745 155 ■ v. Gray, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 932 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 229 57, 58, 92 • v. Slattery, 5 Bro. P. C. 233 129, 131 Burtt, Re, 1 Drew. 319 890 Bury v. Bury, cit. Sugd. V. & P. 14th ed. 756 1327 Busby v. Seymour, 1 J. & L. 527 1062 Busfield, Re, Wbaley v. Busfield, 32 Ch. D. 123 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 467 ; 54 L. T. 220 ; 34 W. R. 372 1021, 1428 Bush v. Allen, 5 Mod. 63 328 Bushellt;. Bushell, 1 Sch. & L. 90 ; 9 R. R. 21 1221, 1247, 1249, 1251, 1252 Bushnan v. Morgan, 5 Sim. 635 816, 1160 Busk v. Fearon, 4 East, 319 , 1514 Butchart v. Dresser, 4 De G. M. & G. 542 1463 Butcher v. Harrison, 4 B. & Ad. 129 575 v. Stapely, 1 Vern. 363 1305 ■ v. Stead, L. R. 7 H. L. 839 ; 44 L. J. Bky. 129 ; 33 L. T. N. S. 541 ; 24 W. R. 463 585, 586 Butler v. Bernard, Freem. Ch. R. 389 ; 1 Ch. Ca. 124 699 v. Bulkeney, 1 Bing. 233 75 ■ v. Butler, 5 Ves. 534 964 • v. Butler, 14 Ch. D. 329 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 742 ; 42 L. T. 728 ; 28 W. R. 825 1141 lx TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Butler v. Cumpston, L. R. 7 Eq. 16 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 35 ; 17 W. R. 24 .... 344 ■ v. Duncomb, 1 P. Wms. 448 ; 2 Vern. 760 ; 10 Mod. 432 429 v. Waterhouse, 2 Show. 46 602 Butler's Trust, Be, Ir. Rep. 3 Eq. 138 325 Butterfield v. Heath, 15 Beav. 408 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 270 604 Butters, Exp., Re Harrison, 14 Ch. D. 265 ; 43 L. T. 2 ; 2S W. R. 876. . 1078 Butterworth, Re, 4 D. & C. 143 178 Button v. O'Neil, 4 C. P. D. 354 ; 48 L. J. C. P. 368 ; 40 L. T. 799 ; 27 W. R. 592 246 Buxton, Exp., 1 Gl. & J. 355 1100 ■ Exp., Re Miiller, 15 Ch. D. 289 ; 43 L. T. 183 ; 29 W. R. 28 . . 160 ■ v. Monkhouse, G-. Coop. 41 870 v. Snee, 1 Ves. Sen. 154 1391 Byam v. Sutton, 19 Beav. 556 ; 18 Jur. 847 1445 Byng's Settled Estates, Re, (1892) 2 Ch. 219 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 511 ; 66 L. T. 754 ; 40 W. R. 457 389 Byrom v. Brandreth, L. R. 16 Eq. 475 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 824 ; 21 W. R. 942 847 Byron's Settlement, Re, Williams v. Mitchell, (1891) 3 Ch. 474 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 807; 65 L. T. 218; 40 W. R. 11 370,700 Caddick v. Cook, 32 Beav. 70 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 454 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 769 ; 7 L. T. N. S. 844; 11 W. R. 395 1003 Cadiz Waterworks Co. v. Barnett, L. R. 19 Eq. 182 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 529 ; 31 L. T. N. S. 640 ; 23 W. R. 208 1 124 Cadle v. Moody, 7 Jur. N. S. 1249 676 Cadman r. Cadman, 33 Ch. D. 397 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 833 ; 55 L. T. 569 ; 35 W. R. 1 435 Cadogan v. Essex, 2 Drew. 227 520 • v. Kennett, Cowp. 432 177, 180, 573 Cafe v. Bent, 3 Ha. 24 401 Cahen, Exp., 10 Ch. D. 183 ; 39 L. T. 645 ; 27 W. R. 387 363 Caillard v. Caillard, 25 Beav. 512 927 Caine, Re, 10 Q. B. D. 284 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 354 ; 48 L. T. 357 ; 31 W. R. 428 319, 320 Cairncross v. Bradley, 2 Dr. & Wal. 482 1148 Caldecott v. Brown, 2 Ha. 144 r 1378 Caldicott, Exp., 25 Ch. D. 716; 53 L. J. Ch. 618; 50 L. T. 651; 32 W. R. 396 1082 Caldwell v. Dawson, 5 Exch. 1 ; 14 Jur. 316 1518 v. Ellison, 9 L. T. N. S. 751 ; 12 W. R. 299 929 ■ r. Matthews, W. N. (1890) 84 ; 62 L. T. 799 818 Caledonia, Swab. 17 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 48 1392 Caledonian Rail. Co. v. Carmichael, L. R. 2 H. L. Sc. 56 , 1155 Calisher v. Forbes, L. R. 7 Ch. A. 109 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 56 ; 25 L. T. N. S. 772 ; 20 W. R. 853 1253, 1260, 1274 Callow v. Callow, 42 Ch. D. 550 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 698 ; 38 W. R. 104 ; 5 T. L. R. 705 849 Calthorpe, Exp., 1 Cox, 182 511 Calvert, Exp., Re Messenger, 3 Ch. D. 317 ; 45 L. J. Bky. 134 ; 34 L. T. N. S. 120 1114 ■ v. Armitage, 1 H. & M. 446 ; 8 L. T. N. S. 269 540 v. Gordon, 3 Man. & Ry. 124, 128 92 v. Thomas, 19 Q. B. D. 204 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 470 ; 57 L. T. 441 ; 35 W. R. 616 237 Cambrian Mining Co., Re, Exp. Fell, W. N. (1881) 125 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 836 ; 45 L. T. 208 ; 29 W. R. 881 904, 1127 Rail. Scheme, Re, L. R. 3 Ch. A. 278 1133 Camden, Marquis v. Murray, 10 Ch. D. 161 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 282 ; 43 L. T. 661 ; 29 W. R. 190 425 Cameron, Re, Nixon v. Cameron, 26 Ch. D. 19; 53 L. J. Ch. 1139; 32 W. R. 834 410 Cammell v. Sewall, 3 H. & IS. 617 274 TABLE OF CASES. lxi PAGE Campbell's Case, 4 Ch. D. 470; 35 L. T. N. S. 900 ; 25 W. R. 299 . . . .470, 472 Campbell v. Bainbridge, 14 Beav. 222 112 v. Holyland, 7 Ch. D. 166 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 145 ; 38 L. T. N. S. 128 ; 26 W. R. 160 1015, 1049, 1050 v. Hooper, 3 Sm. & G. 153 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 670 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 644 . . 1023 ■ v. Lloyd's Bank, 58 L. J. Ch. 424 931, 937, 938 r. Moxhay, 18 Jur. 641 1034, 1035 v. Rothwell, 38 L. T. N. S. 33 97 Campion v. Colvin, 3 Bing. N. C. 17 ; 3 Scott, 338 ; 5 L. J. C. P. 17 . . . . 1398 Cane*. Allen, 2 Dow, 289 611 Canhamv. Fisk, 2 Cr. & J. 126 117 Cann v. Taylor, 1 F. & F. 651 978 v. Wilson, 39 Ch. D. 39 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 1034 ; 59 L. T. 723 ; 37 W. R. 23 528 Cannan v. Denew, 10 Bing. 292 593 Canning v. Hicks, 2 Ch. Ca. 187 844 . , Viscount v. Raper, 1 E. & B. 164 ; 22 L. J. Q. B. 87 ; 17 Jur. 390 1515 Cannock v. Jauncey, 1 Drew. 497 ; 1 W. R. 378 1294 Cant, Exp., 10 Ves. 554 1186 Capel v. Butler, 2 S. & St. 457 86 Capper v. Dando, 2 A. & E. 458 71 ■ r— r. Spottiswoode, Taml. 21 1375 v. Terrington, 1 Coll. 103; 13L. J. Ch. 239; 8 Jur. 140. .1004, 1182, 1412 Carbery, Lord v. Preston, 13 Ir. Eq. R. 455 1064 Card v. Jaffray, 2 Sch. & L. 374 24 Carew, Re, 16 W. R. 1077 1236 Re, 8 Beav. 150 610, 1126 . v. Arundell, 8 Jur. N. S. 71 ; 5 L. T. N. S. 498 48, 51 v. Cooper, 4 Giff. 619 ; 12 W. R. 198 299 v . Johnston, 2 Sch. & L. 301 940 Carew's Estate, Re, 31 Beav. 39 1272 Carey v. Doyne, 5 Ir. Ch. R. 104 1160, 1161 Cargill v. Bower, 10 Ch. D. 502 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 649 ; 38 L. T. N. S. 779 ; 26 W. R. 716 471 Cargo ex Argos, L. R. 5 P. C. 165 ; 28 L. T. 745 ; 21 W. R. 707 273 ex Galam, 2 Moo. P. C. 216 1514 ex Sultan, Swab. 504 1514 Carlill v. Carbolic, &c. Co., (1893) 1 Q. B. 256 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 257 ; 67 L. T. 837 ; 41 W. R. 210 ; 9 T. L. R. 124 485 Carlisle Banking Co. v. Thompson, 28 Ch. D. 398 ; 53 L. T. 1 15 562 Carlisle, Mayor of, v. Blamire, 8 East, 487 155 Carlyon v. Truscott, L. R. 20 Eq. 348; 44 L. J. Ch. 186; 32 L. T. N. S. 50 425 Carmarthen, &c. Coal Co., Re, 45 L. J. Ch. 200 ; 24 W. R. 109 1130 Carmichael v. Gee, 5 App. Cas. 588 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 829 ; 43 L. T. 227 ; 29 W. R. 293 413 Came, Exp., L. R. 3 Ch. A. 463 104 v. Brice, 7 M. & W. 183 330 Carnelly, Exp., Re Lancashire Cotton Spinning Co., 35 Ch. D. 656; 56 L. J. Ch. 761 ; 57 L. T. 511 ; 36 W. R. 305 1126 Carney v. Plimmer, (1897) 1 Q. B. 634 ; 76 L. T. 374 ; 66 L. J. Q. B. 415 ; 45 W. R. 385 622 Carnforth Co., Exp., 4 Ch. D. 108 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 115 490 Carpenter v. Buller, 8 M. & W. 209 110, 111 ■ v. Carpenter, 1 Vern. 440 50 v. Deen, 23 Q. B. D. 566 ; 61 L. T. 860 ; 5 T. L. R. 647 . . 214, 232, 239 v. Heriott, 1 Ed. 338 607 - v. Parker, 3 C. B. N. S. 206 ; 27 L. J. C. P. 78 679, 681 Carr, Exp., Re Hofman, 11 Ch. D. 62 ; 48 L. J. Bky. 69 ; 40 L. T. 299 ; 27 W. R. 435 1090 v. Acraman, 11 Exch. 566 ; 25 L. J. Ex. 90 211, 212 v. Allatt, 27 L. J. Ex. 385; 6 N. R. 301 199, 211, 212, 217 r. Brown, 12 Moo. 62 89 v. Burdiss, 1 C. M. & R. 443 ; 5 Tyrw. 136 581 v. , 1 C. M. & R. 782 ; 5 Tyrw. 309 177, 569 v. Henderson, 11 Beav. 415 ; 18 L. J. N. S. Ch. 39 1114 lxii TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Can- v. Hinchcliffe, 4 B. & Cr. 547 ; 7 D. & It. 42 1486 . v. London and North Western Rail. Co., L. R. 10 C. P. 307 ; 44 L. J. C. P. 509 ; 31 L. T. 785 ; 23 W. R. 747 485 Carrick v. Wigan Tramways Co., W. N. (1893) 98 1188 Carritt v. Real and Personal Advance Co., 42 Ch. D. 263 , 58 L. J. Ch. 688 ; 61 L. T. 163 ; 37 W. R. 677 ; 5 T. L. R. 559 1295, 1344 Carruthers, Exp., 3 De G. & S. 570 ; 13 Jur. 276 1498 Carter, Exp., 2 Arab. 733 859 12 Ch. L\ 908 ; 41 L. T. 37 ; 27 W. R. 943 , 226 . — v. Barnardiston, 1 P. ¥ms. 506 774 . v. Beard, 10 Sim. 7 361 . v. Carter, 3 K. & J. 617 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 63 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 75 . . 110, 1217, 1293, 1301, 1341 -, (1896) lCh. 62; 65 L. J. Ch. 86; 73 L. T. 437; 44W.R. 73 320 v.James, W. N. (1881) 27; 29 W. R. 437 1210 v. Palmer, 1 Dr. & War. 722 1023 v. , 8 CI. &F. 657; 11 Bli. N. S. 397 22,824,825, 1160 . v. Sanders, 2 Drew. 248 402 v. Wake, 4 Ch. D. 605; 46 L. J. Ch. 841.. 6, 14, 282, 995, 1459, 1460, 1465, 1470, 1471 v. Williams, L. R. 9 Eq. 678; 39 L. J. Ch. 560; 23 L. T. N. S. 183; 18 W. R. 593 1311 Cartwright v. Regan, (1895) 1 Q. B. 900; 64 L. J. Q. B. 507; 43 W. R. 600 238 Carvick v. Blagrave, 1 Br. & B. 531 ; 4 Moo. 303 ; 21 R. R. 710 684 Carvill v. Carvill, 2 Rep. in Ch. 301 418 Cary v. Hills, L. R. 15 Eq. 79 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 100 ; 28 L. T. N. S. 6 ; 21 'W. R. 166 1107 Casamajor v. Strode, 1 S. & St. 381 952 Casberd v. Ward, 6 Pri. 411 ; Dan. 238 1005, 1057, 1366 Cashorne v. Scarfe, 1 Atk. 602 627, 645, 833, 847 Case v. James, 3 De G. F. & J. 256 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 869 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 749 ; 4 L. T. N. S. 664 ; 9 W. R. 771 1302 Cash*. Belcher, 1 Ha. 310 1011, 1181, 1188 Cason v. Round, Prec. Ch. 226 1224 Cass, Exp., Re Dunkley, 45 L. T. 560 1088 Cassidy v. Cassidy, 24 L. R. Ir. 577 29 Casson v. Churchley, 53 L. J. Q. B. 335 ; 50 L. T. 568 241 Castel and Latta v. Trechman, 1 C. & E. 276 271 Castle v. Downton, 5 C. P. D. 56 ; 49 L. J. C. P. 6 ; 41 L. T. 528 ; 28 W. R. 257 249 Castrique v. Imrie, L. R. 4 H. L. 414 ; 39 L. J. C. P. 350 ; 23 L. T. N. S. 48 ; 19 W. R. 1 1502 Cater, Re, 25 Beav. 366 914 Cathcart, L. R. 1 A. & E. 314 257, 263, 267 Catholic, &c. Publishing Co., Re, 2 De G. J. & S. 116 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 325 . . 1124 Catley v. Sampson, 33 Beav. 551 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 96 ; 12 W. R. 927 698 Cator. Irving, 5 De G. & S. 210 ; 16 Jur. 161 271, 1273 Cator v. Charlton, 2 Ves. Jun. 376 859 v. Cooley, 1 Cox, 182 1221, 1247, 1252 v. Pembroke, Earl of, 1 Bro. C. C. 301 1376 Cattlin v. Kernot, 3 C. B. N. S. 796 868 Catton v. Banks, (1893) 2 Ch. 221 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 600 ; 68 L. T. 245 ; 41 W. R. 429 636 Caulfield v. Maguire, 2 J. & L. 141 104, 637, 638 Cavander v. Bnlteel, L. R. 9 Ch. A. 79 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 370 ; 29 L. T. N. S. 710; 22 W. R. 177 508, 1319, 1341 Cave v. Cave, 15 Ch. D. 639 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 505 ; 32 L. T. 730 ; 28 W. R. 793 1240, 1329, 1330 v. Cork, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 130 1004, 1009 r. Foulks, 5 L. J. Ch. 206 1028, 1030 ■ v. Roberts, 8 Sim. 214 644 Cavendish v. Cavendish, 30 Ch. D. 227 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 144 ; 53 L. T. 652. . 517 Cawthorne, Re, 12 Beav. 56 ; 18 L. J. Ch. 116 1236 v. Holben, 1 B. & P. N. R. 279 1520 Cazenove v. British Equitable, &c. Co., 29 L. J. C. P. 160 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 826 ; 8 W. R. 243 286 TABLE OF CASES. lxiii PAGE Cella, 13 P. D. 82 ; 57 L. J. P. 55 ; 59 L. T. 125 ; 36 W. R. 510 1390 Celtic King, (1894) P. 175 ; 63 L. J. P. 37 ; 70 L. T. 562 264, 267 Central Bank of London v. Hawkins, 60 L. T. 901 ; 60 T. L. R. 181 . .230, 247 Cercle Restaurant Co. v. Lavery, 18 Ch. D. 557 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 837 ; 30 W. R. 283 1124 Chadwick v. Heatley, 2 Coll. 137 914 ■ v. Holt, 8 De G. M. & G. 584 ; 4 W. R. 791 1111 v. Turner, L. R. 1 Ch. A. 310 ; 34 Beav. 634 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 333. 1245 Chalk v. Raine,' 7 Ha. 393 ; 13 Jur. 981 1022 Challie v. Gwynne, Kay, App. xlvi 878 Challinor, Exp., Re Rogers, 16 Ch. D. 260 ; 44 L. T. 122 ; 29 W. R. 205 „ 227, 228 Challis v. Casborn, Prec. Ch. 407 ; Gilb. 96 1151 Chalmers, Exp., L. R. 8 Ch. A. 289 ; 42 L. J. Bky. 37 ; 28 L. T. 325 ; 21 W. R. 349 490 Charuberlayn's Case, 1 Leon. 220 1468 Chambers v. Goldwin, 9 Ves. 254 ; 7 R. R. 181 . . 131, 132, 303, 803, 806, 819, 916, 1141, 1166, 1192, 1193, 1204 v. Manchester, &c. Co., 5 B. & S. 588 ; 33 L. J. Q. B. 268 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 700 465, 467, 489 ■ v. Waters, 3 Sim. 42 ; 11 CI. & E. 684 . , , 17 Champagne, Re, Exp. Kemp, W. N. (1893) 153 ; 69 L. T. 763 1016, 1076 Champion, Exp., 3 Bro. C. C. 436 1165 , Re, Dudley v. Champion, W. N. (1892) 125, 170 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 60 ; 67 L. T. 694 1299 Champneys v. Buchan, 4 Drew. 104 170 Chandler v. Howell, 4 Ch. D. 651 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 25 ; 35 L. T. N. S. 592 ; 25 W. R. 55 539 Chandos, Duke of v. Talbot, 2 P. Wins. 604 1432, 1437 • Marquis of v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, 6 Exch. 479 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 269 1515 Change, Swab. 240 1508 Chapleo v. Brunswick Permanent Bg. Soc, 6 Q. B. D. 696 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 372 ; 44 L. T. 449 ; 29 W. R. 529 90, 459, 460, 467, 471, 475 Chaplin, Exp., Re Sinclair, 26 Ch. D. 319; 53 L. J. Ch. 732; 51 L. T. 345 596 v. Chaplin, 3 P. Wins. 235 641 v. Young, 33 Beav. 330 805 v. , 6 L. T. N". S. 97 932, 937 Chapman, Exp., Re Davey, 45 L. T. 268 ; W. N. (1881) 109 249 , Re, Cocks v. Chapman, (1896) 1 Ch. 323 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 170 ; 73 L. T. 658; 44 W. R. 311 529 v. Beecham, 3 Q. B. 723 667 . v. Chapman, 13 Beav. 308 ; 15 Jur. 265 ; 20 L. J. N. S. Ch. 465 59 v. Emery, Cowp. 278 601, 603 v. Esgar, 1 Sm. & G. 575 ; 13 Jur. 341 970 v. Knight, 5 C. P. D. 308 ; 49 L. J. C. P. 425 ; 42 L. T. 538 ; 28 W. R. 204 215, 253 v. Lane, 11 A. & E. 980 620 v. Tanner, 1 Vern. 266 807, 1372 Charing Cross, &c. Bank, Exp., Re Parker, 16 Ch. D. 35 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 157 ; 44 L. T. 113 ; 29 W. R. 204 226 Charitable Donations (Commrs.) v. St. Lawrence, 3 J. & L. 561 413 Charles v. Jones, 33 Ch. D. 80; 56 L. J. Ch. 161; 55 L. T. 331; 35 W. R. 88 1177 v. (No. 2), 35 Ch. D. 544 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 745 ; 56 L. T. 818 ; 35 W. R. 645 913 Charlesworth v. Ellis, 7 Q. B. 678 75 -v. Mills, (1892) A. C. 231 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 830 ; 66 L. T. 690 ; 41 W. R. 129 , 194, 196, 201, 1462 Charlton v. Charlton (No. 2), W. N. (1883) 141 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 791 ; 49 L. T. 267 ; 32 W. R. 90 1386 Charter v. Trevelyan, 1 1 CI. & F. 714 611 Chartered Bank of India v. Henderson, L. R. 5 P. C. 501 ; 30 L. T. N. S. 578 1499 Chase v. Box, Freem. Ch. 261 < 1213 lxiV TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Chase v. Westmore, 5 M. & S. 180 ; 2 Marsh. 346 ; 17 R. R. 301 1385 Chasteauneuf v. Capeyron, 7 App. Cas. 127 ; 51 L. J. P. C. 37 ; 46 L. T. 65 259, 269 Chater v. Maclean, 1 Jur. N. S. 175 953 Chatterton v. Watney, 17 Ch. D. 259 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 535 ; 44 L. T. 391 ; 29 W. R. 573 1352 Cheesman v. Exall, 6 Exch. 341 1463, 1469 Cheetham v. Ward, 1 B. & P. 633 ; 4 R. R. 741 85 Cheney v. Courtois, 32 L. J. N. S. C. P. 116 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 1057 245 Chennell, Re, Jones r. Chennell, 8 Ch. D. 492 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 80 ; 38 L. T. 494 ; 26 W. R. 595 520 Cheslyn v. Dolby, 2 Y. & C. Ex. 170 610, 987, 1144 Chesshyre v. Biss, 2 Griff. 287 1444 Chester v. Chester, L. R. 12 Eq. 444 ; 19 W. R. 946 538 v. Willes, Amb. 246 1440 Chesterfield' s (Earl of) Trusts, 24Ch.D. 643; 52 L. J.Ch.958; 49L.T.261.. 530 Chesterfield, Earl of v. Cromwell, Lady, 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. 286, pi. i. . .1163, 1165 Lord v. Janssen, 2 Ves. Sen. 125 ; 1 Atk. 301 613, 616 Cheston v. Wells, (1893) 2 Ch. 151 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 468; 68 L. T. 197; 41 W. R. 374 950, 1033 Chesworth v. Hunt, 5 C. P. D. 266 ; 49 L. J. C. P. 507 ; 42 L. T. 774 ; 28 W. R. 815 857 Chichester v. Donegal, Marquis of, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 497 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 694 ; 22 L. T. N. S. 458 : 18 W. R. 531 815 Chidell v. Galsworthy, 6 C. B. N. S. 471 217 Chidley, Re, 1 Ch. D. 177 ; 45 L. J. Bky. 49 ; 33 L. T. N. S. 553 ; 24 W. R. 182 1080 Child v. Child, 20 Beav. 50 511 v. Thorley, 16 Ch. D. 151 ; 29 W. R. 417 405 Childers v. Eardley, 28 Beav. 648 112 Chilton v. Carrington, 1 Jur. N. S. 89 1152 Chinery v. Viall, 5 H. & N. 288 1469 Chinnery v. Davidson, 2 Br. & B. 379 266 v. Evans, 1 H. Bl. 117, n 266 v. , 11 H. L. C. 115 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 855 ; 11 L. T. 68 ; 13 W. R. 20 944, 978, 979, 984, 993 Chinnock r. Sainsbury, 6 Jur. N. S. 1318 ; 9 W. R. 7 ; 3 L. T. N. S. 258 . . 48 Chipp v. Harris, 5 M. & W. 430 75, 76, 77 Chippendale, Exp., 2 M. & A. 299 61 Chissum v. Dewes, 5 Russ. 29 63, 118, 1114 Cholmelev v. Paxton, 3 Bing. 207 ; 5 Bing. 48 ; 11 Moo. 17 ; 4 L. J. C. P. 101 f 28 R. R. 619 902 Cholmley v. Oxford, Countess of, 2 Atk. 267 736 Cholmondeley v. Clinton, 2 Mer. 171 662, 797, 1009, 1011 Chorley, Exp., L. R. 11 Eq. 157 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 153 ; 19 W. R. 430 474 Chorlton v. Dickie, 13 Ch. D. 160; 49 L. J. Ch. 40; 41 L. T. 467; 28 W. R. 228 1026 Chowne v. Baylis, 31 Beav. 351 ; 8 Jur. N". S. 1028 1491 Christchurch, Dean of v. Duke of Buckingham, 17 C. B. N. S. 413 ; 33 L. J. C. P. 322 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 749 ; 10 L. T. 575 ; 12 W. R. 986 672 Christian v. Field, 2 Ha. 177 ; 5 Jur. 1130 ; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 97 . . 1377, 1384 Christie v. Commrs. of Inl. Rev., L. R. 2 Ex. 46 ; 36 L. J. Ex. 11 ; 15 L. T. 282 ; 15 W. R. 258 ; 4 H. & C. 664 1518 ■ v. Lewis, 2 Br. & B. 410 ; 5 Moo. 1011 1398 ' v. Ovington, 1 Ch. D. 279 ; 24 W. R. 204 840 v. Taunton, Delmard, Lane & Co., (1893) 2 Ch. 175 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 385; 68 L. T. 638 ; 41 W. R. 475 1139 Christmas, Re, Martin r. Lacon, 33 Ch. D. 332 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 878 ; 55 L. T. 197; 34 W. R, 8 518, 540 Christophers v. Sparke, 2 J. & W. 223 1008, 1058 Christy v. Courtenay, 26 Beav. 140 652, 653 • v. Van Tramp, W. N. (1886) 111 1038 Chubb v. Stretch, L. P. 9 Eq. 555 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 329 ; 29 L. T. 86 ; 18 W. P. 4S3 350 Chuck, Exp., 13 Jur. 531 120 v. Freen, 1 Moo. & M. 259 .. , 504 TABLE OF CASES. lxV PAGE Church v. Sage, 41 W. R. 175 ; 67 L. T. 800 ; 9 T. L. R. 119 199 v . Brown, 15 Ves. 258, 265 ; 10 R. R. 74 163 Churchill v. Bank of England, 11 M. & W. 325 1283 v. Grove, 1 Ch* Ca. 35 1217, 1222,1225 Churchman v. Harvey, Amh. 335 429, 431 Citizens' Bank of Louisiana v. First Nat. Bank of New Orleans, L. R. 6 H. L. 352 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 269 ; 22 W. R. 194 1491, 1492, 1498 City and County Bank, Re, L. R. 10 Ch. A. 470 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 716 ; 33 L. T. N. S. 344 ; 23 W. R. 936 H22 City Bank Case, 3 De G. F. & J. 629 58, 504 City Bank v. Sovereign Assn., W. N. (1884) 61 ; 60 L. T. 565 ; 32 W. R. 658 286 City Discount Co. v. McLean, L. R. 9 C. P. 692 ; 43 L. J. C. P. 344 ; 30 L T 883 1212 City of Mecca,' 6 P.' D." 106 ; 50 L." J." P.' D. & A. 53 ; 44 L. T. 750 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 412 1391 Clack v. Holland, 19 Beav. 277 1377, 1380, 1382 Clacton-on-Sea Hotel Co. v. Aberdeen, W. N. (1888) 54 1311 Clancarty v. Latouche, 1 Ba. & Be. 420 1163, 1 16o Clare v. Wood, 4 Ha. 81 8o1 Clare Hall v. Harding, 6 Ha. 273 1310 Clarendon, Lord v. Barham, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 688 ; 6 Jur. 962 668, 1445 Clark's Trusts, Re, 22 L. J. Ch. 230 911 Clark v. Browne, 2 Sm. & O. 524 8o0 v. Crownshaw, 3 B. & Ad. 804 1-8 v. Hoskins, 37 L. J. Ch. 561 1296 v. , 15 W. R. 1161 46 v. Wilmot, 1 Ph. 276 H 90 Clarke, Exp., 1 M. D. & De G. 622 1081 Re, Coombe v. Carter, 36 Ch. D. 348 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 981 ; 57 L. T. 823; 36 W. R. 293 311, 312 v. Abbott, 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 606 ; Barn. Ch. R. 457 848 v , Abingdon (Lord), 17 Ves. 106; 11 R. R. 31 67, 1155 v . Birley, 41 Ch. D. 422 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 616; 60 L. T. 948 ; 37 W. R. 746 83 v. Chamberlin, 16 Ch. D. 176 ; 27 W. R. 419 372 v. Green, 2 H. & M. 474 325, 326 . v. Henty, 3 Y. & C. Ex. 187 79 . v. Jones, 3 Dowl. P. C. 277 153 1 t>. Palmer, 21 Ch. D. 124; 51 L. J. Ch. 634 ; 48 L. T. 857. .1332, 1339, ' 1340 v. Roche, 3 Q. B. D. 170 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 147 ; 37 L. T. 633 ; 26 W. R. 112 • • • • • 1532 v. Royal Panopticon, The, 4 Drew. 26 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 178 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 207 42 , 8 v . Royle, 3 Sim. 502 13 '5 v. Seton, 6 Ves. 411 67 ■ v. Spence, 4 A. & E. 448 I 82 v. Thornton, 35 Ch. D. 307 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 302 ; 56 L. T. 294 ; 35 W. R. 303 389, 391 v. Tipping, 9 Beav. 284 m2 v. Toleman, 42 L. J. Ch. 23 ; 27 L. T. N. S. 599 1189 v. Willott, L. R. 7 Ex. 313 ; 41 L. J. Ex. 197 ; 21 W. R. 73. .604, 60o ■ v. Wilmot, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 53 1°23 v. Wilson, 3 M. & W. 208 83 Clarkson v. Henderson, 14 Ch. D. 348 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 289; 43 L. T. 29; 28 W. R. 907 I* 3 ' 5o l Clater, Exp., Re Wilkinson, 48 L. T. 648 ^80, 583 Clavering v. Westley, 3 P. Wms. 402 i5 5 Clay and Tetley, Re, 16 Ch. D. 3 ; 43 L. T. 402 ; 29 W. R. 5 419 r. Willis, 1 B. & Cr. 372 652, 6o3 Claydon v. Finch, L. R. 15 Eq. 266 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 416 ; 28 L. T. 101 ... . 339 Clayton v. Gosling, 5 B. & C. 360 1° 92 Cleary v. M' Andrew, 2 Moo. P. C.N. S. 216; 10 Jiir. N. S. 477. ... 1394, 1511 Clegg *>. Clegg, 17L.R. Ir. 118 1106 v. Fishwick, 1 Mac. & G. 294 VOL. I. — R. e lxvi TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Clements v. Matthews, 11 Q. B. D. 808; 52 L. J. Q. B. 772. .205, 213, 217, 223 v. Welles, 35 Beav. 513 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 991 1315 Clench v. Witherley, Finch, 376 24 Clerkson v. Bowyer, 2 Vern. 66 852, 998 Cleveland, Re, Duke of, Hay v. Wolmer, (1895) 2 Ch. 5-12 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 29; 73L.T.315 1161 Clewson (or Clemson) v. Townsend, 1 C. & E. 418 221, 233 Cliff v. Wadsworth, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 598 ; 7 Jur. 1108 1175, 1 179 Clifford v. Arundell, 1 De G. F. & J. 307 ; 15 Jur. 1043 410, 411 ■ v. Clifford, 9 Ha. 675 1439 ■ v. Lewis, 6 Madd. 33 ; 22 R. R. 228 407 Clift v. Schwabe, 3 C. B. 437, 481, n 285 Climie v. Wood, L. R. 4 Ex. 328 ; 38 L. J. Ex. 223 ; 20 L. T. 1012 . .121, 122 Climpson v. Coles, 23 Q. B. D. 465 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 346 ; 61 L. T. 116; 38 W. R. 110 185, 199, 206 Clinton v. Bernard, Dru. 287 ; 6 Ir. Eq. R. 355 1055, 1056 v. Hooper, 1 Ves. Jun. 173; 3 Bro. C. C. 201 ; 1 R. R. 102. .. .351, 352 v. Seymour, Lord, 4 Ves. 440 431 Clive v. Carew, 1 J. & H. 199 340 Close, Exp., Re Hall, 14 Q. B. D. 386 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 43 ; 51 L. T. 795 ; 33 W. R. 228 202, 203 ■ v. Close, 4 De G. M. & G. 176 95 ■ v. Phipps, 7 Man. & Gr. 586 ; 8 Sc. N. R. 381 905 Clough, Re, 31 Ch. D. 324 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 77; 53 L. T. 716 ; 34 W. R. 96 503 v. Dixon, 10 Sim. 564 1009 Clouten, Exp., 3 M. D. & De G. 187 ; 7 Jur. 135 1098 Clover v. Adams, 6 Q. B. D. 622 1388 v. Wilts, &c. Building Society, W. N. (1884) 110 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 622 ; 50 L. T. 382 ; 32 W. R. 895 1138 Clowes v. Waters, 16 Jur. 632 67 Cluff v. Cluff, 2 Ch. D. 222; 24 W. R. 632 539 Clyne Tin Plate Co., Re, 47 L. T. 439 1120 Coal Consumers' Assoc, Re, 14 Ch. D. 625 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 501 1181 Coates v. Coates, 33 Beav. 249 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 532 97 ■ v. Perry, 3 Br. & B. 48 ; 6 Moo. 188 1520 Cobbett v. Brock, 20 Beav. 524 609 v. Wheeler, 7 W. R. 140 492 Cobbold v. Pryke, 4 Ex. D. 315 ; 49 L. J. Ex. 8 ; 28 W. R. 259 1105 Coburn v. Collins, 35 Ch. D. 373 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 504 ; 56 L. T. 431 ; 35 W. R. 610 1373 Cochran's Estate, Re, L. R. 5 Eq. 209 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 293 ; 17 L. T. N. S. 487 ; 16 W. R. 324 96 Cochrane, Exp., Re Mead, L. R, 20 Eq. 282; 44 L. J. Bky. 87; 23 W. R, 726 947 , Exp., Ro Sendall, 26 W. R. 818 ; 38 L. T. 820 234 v. Dixon, 3 T. L. R. 717 228 v. Entwistle, 25 Q. B. D. 116 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 418 ; 62 L. T. 852 ; 38 W. R. 587 ; 6 T. L. R. 314 213, 230 v. Rymill, 40 L. T. 744 ; 27 W. R. 776 1284 Cock, Re, Exp. Shilson, 20 Q. B. D. 343 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. 169 ; 58 L. T. 586 ; 36 W. R. 187 162 Cockburn v. Ankett, 3 W. R. 641 1055 ■ v. Caine, 22 Beav. 614 1043 ■ v. Edwards, 18 Ch. D. 449 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 46 ; 45 L. T. 500 ; 30 W. R. 446 130, 611, 612, 894, 980, 1063, 1157 ■ v. Raphael, 2 S. & St. 453 ; 25 R. R. 244 943 • v. Thompson, 16 Ves. 321 101 Cockell v. Bacon, 16 Beav. 158 867, 868, 905 v. Taylor, 15 Beav. 103; 21 L. J. Ch. 545 832, 1178, 1180 Cocker's Case, 3 Ch. D. 1 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 822 ; 35 L. T. 290 1456 Cocker v. Bevis, 1 Ch. Ca. 61 ; 15 Vin. Abr. 476, pi. 2 1032, 1047 v. Quayle, 1 R. & My. 535 511 Cocking v. Piatt, 1 Ves. 401 607 Cocks v. Edwards, 2 Dowl. N. S. 55 76 v. Gray, 1 Giff. 77 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 1115 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 607 795 v. Stanley, 4 Jur. N. S. 942 1182 TABLE OF CASES. lxvii PAGE Cockshott, Ee, 3 Bro. C. C. 502 583 v. Bennett, 2 T. R. 763 ; 1E.E. 617 91, 592 Codrington v. Foley, Lord, 6 Ves. 363 ; 5 R. R. 332 429, 431 v. Johnstone, 1 Beav. 520 668, 949 v. Parker, 16 Ves. 469 930 Coggs v. Bernard, Ld. Raym. 909 ; 3 Salk. 268 ; Holt, 528 ; 1 Sm. L. C. 199 265, 1458, 1460, 1407, 1468 Cognac, 2 Hagg. 377 1508, 1514 Cohen, Exp., Re Sparke, L. R. 7 Ch. A. 20 ; 41 L. J. Bky. 17 ; 25 L. T. N. S. 473; 20 W. R. 69 242, 590, 1078 ■ v. Higgins, S T. L. R. 8 227 v. Mitchell, 25 Q. B. D. 262 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 409 ; 63 L. T. 206 ; 38 W. R. 551 ; 7 Mor. 207 187, 364 Colbron v. Travers, 12 C. B. N. S. 181 1157 Colby v. Gibson, 3 Smith, 516 ; 8 R. R. 738 868 Cole v. Coles, 6 Ha. 517 1297 v. Davies, Ld. Raym. 724 174 v. Eley, (1894) 2 Q. B. 350; 63 L. J. Q. B. 682; 70 L. T. 892; 42 W. R. 561 1387 v. Gibbons, 3 P. Wms. 289 617 v. Gibson, 1 Ves. Sen. 506 1382 v. Kernot, L. R. 7 Q. B. 534, n. ; 41 L. J. Q. B. 221 ; 26 L. T. 693.. 211, 212, 1079 ■ v. Miles, 10 Ha. 179 400 v. Muddle, 10 Ha. 186 ; 16 Jur. 853 1382 v. North Western Bank, L. R. 10 C. P. 354 ; 44 L. J. C. P. 233 ; 32 L. T. 733 1464, 1476, 1477 v. Stutely, 6 Jur. 314 1433 Colebourne v. Colebourne, 1 Ch. D. 690 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 749 ; 24 W. R. 235 926 Colebrook v. Layton, 4 B. & Ad. 579 441 Colegrave v. Dias Santos, 2 B. & Cr. 77 120, 126 Coleman, Exp., 4 Deac. 242 1098 v. Llewellin, 34 Ch. D. 143 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 1 ; 55 L. T. 647 ; 35 W. R. 82 950, 1033 v. Mellersh, 2 Mac. & G. 309 1142, 1143 ■ v. Overseers of Birmingham, 6 Q. B. D. 615 ; 50 L. J. M. C. 92 ; 44 L. T. 578 ; 29 W. R. 715 335 V. Sherwin, 1 Salk. 137 674 v. Winch, 1 P. Wins. 775; Prec. Ch. 511 1151, 1152, 1153 Colemere, Re, L. R. 1 Ch. A. 128 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 38 ; 35 L. J. Bky. 8 ; 13 L. T. N. S. 621 578, 594, 595 Coles v. Forrest, 10 Beav. 552 1180, 1182, 1186 v. Haden, Barnes, 44 71 v. Pack, L. R. 5 C. P. 65 ; 39 L. J. C. P. 63 ; 18 W. R. 292 88 ■ v. Trecothick, 9 Ves. 234 ; 1 Smith, 233 ; 7 R. R. 167 983 Collen v. Wright, 8 E. & B. 301 460 Collet v. De Gols, Cas. t. Talb. (Williams) 65 1232, 1324 v. Ncwnham, 1 Drew. 447 1 161 Collett v. Dickenson, 11 Ch. D. 687 ; 40 L. T. 394 ; S. C. 4 Ex. D. 285 . . 345 ■ v. Munden, cit. 2 Ves. Jun. 376 859 Collingham v. Sloper, (1893) 2 Ch. 96 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 416 ; 69 L. T. 39 ; 41 W. R. 550 480, 490 Collingwood, Re, 6 W. R. 536 1422 v. Russell, 10 Jur. N. S. 1063 403, 969 Collins, Exp., Re Lees, L. R. 10 Ch. A. 367 ; 44 L. J. Bky. 78 ; 32 L. T. 106 ; 23 W. R. 862 239 Re Yarrow, 59 L. J. Q. B. 18 ; 38 W. R. 175 ; 61 L. T. 642 198 v. Archer, 1 R. & My. 292 1303 v. Burton, 4 De G. & J. 612 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 952 574 v. Lamport, 4 De G. J. & S. 500 ; 5 N. R. 177 264 v. , 34 L. J. Ch. 196 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 1 ; 11 L. T. 497 ; 13 W. R. 283 267 ■ v. Reece, 1 Coll. 678 1094 v. Shirley, R. & My. 638 1004, 1180, 1181 Collinson v. Jeffery, (1896) 1 Ch. 644 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 375 ; 74 L. T. 78 ; 44 W. R. 311 736 e2 lxviii TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Collinson v. Lister, 7 De G. M. & G. 634 ; S. C. 20 Beav. 355 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 835 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 762 402, 404, 529 v. Pater, 2 R. & My. 344 539 Collis r. Robins, 1 De G. & S. 131 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 251 ; 11 Jur. 362 754, 755 v. Stack, 1 H. & N. 605 1068 v. Tuson, 46 L. T. 387 227 Collyer v. Fallon, 1 T. & R. 459 ; 3 L. J. Ch. 23 299, 1489, 1491 v. Isaacs, 19 Ch. D. 342 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 14 ; 45 L. T. 567 ; 30 W. R. 70 211, 212 Colman v. St. Albans, Duke of, 3 Ves. 25 667, 677 Colmer v. Ede, 40 L. J. Ch. 185 ; 19 W. R. 318 ; 23 L. T. N. S. 884 1414 Colonial Bank v. Cadv and Williams, 15 App. Cas. 267 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 131 ; 63 L. T. 27 ; 39 W. R. 17 ; 6 T. L. R. 329. .279, 281, 282, 484 v. Whinney, 11 App. Cas. 426; 56 L. J. Ch. 43; 55 L. T. 362 ; 34 W. R. 705 277, 279, 283, 1270 Colonial Trusts Corp., Re, Exp. Bradshaw, 15 Ch. D. 465 493, 494, 498 Colson v. Williams, W. N. (1889) 33 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 539 ; 61 L. T. 71 .... 901 Coltman, Re, 19 Ch. D. 64 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 3 ; 45 L. T. 392 ; 30 W. R. 342 565 v. Chamberlain, 25 Q. B. D. 328 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 563 ; 39 W. R. 12 202, 259, 261 Colvill, Exp., Mont. 110 305, 1263 Colyer v. Clay, 7 Beav. 188 1167 v. Colyer, 10 W. R. 748 1114 v. , 3 De G. J. & S. 676 ; 11 W. R. 1051 ; 9 L. T. N. S. 214 830 Collyer r. Finch, 5 H. L. C. 905 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 25 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 65. .419, 1001, 1343 Combe, Exp., 9 Ves. 117 65, 572 Combe's Case, 9 Rep. 75 892 Coming, Exp., 9 Ves. 115; 7 R. R. 149 57, 65 Commercial Bank of India, &c, 16 W. R. 958 ; 18 L. T. 668 1457 Commercial Bank of London, Re, 9 L. T. N. S. 782 1039 Commissioners of Charitable Donations v. St. Lawrence, 3 J. & L. 561 . . 413 Commissioners of Public Works v. Harby, 23 Beav. 508 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 478 . . 1255, 1261, 1263, 1294 Commissioners of Sewers v. Gellatly, 3 Ch. D. 610 ; 24 W. R. 1059 1119 Compton, Lord v. Oxenden, 2 Ves. Jun. 261 ; 4 Bro. C. C. 306 1431, 1433, 1436, 1442 Comyns v . Comyns, Ir. R. 5 Eq. 583 1192 Conelly v. Steer, 7 Q. B. D. 520 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 326 ; 45 L. T. 402 ; 29 W. R. 529 1282 Congreve v. Evetts, 10 Exch. 298 ; 23 L. J. Ex. 273 ; 18 Jur. 655 ... .211, 212 Conlan's Estate, Re, 29 L. R. Ir. 199 972 Connell, Exp., Re Clarke, 3 Mont. & Ayr. 581 ; 3 Deac. 201 1083 ■ Re, 2 Jur. N. S. 390 1281,1363 ■ v. Hardie, 3 Y. & C. Ex. 582 1037, 1177 Conning, Exp., Re Steele, L. R. 16 Eq. 414 ; 42 L. J. Bky. 74 ; 21 W. R. 784 199, 203, 220 Conquest's Case, 1 Ch. D. 334 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 336 ; 33 L. T. N. S. 762 ... . 1456 Conron v. Conron, 7 H. L. C. 168 410 Consolidated Co. v. Curtis, (1892) 1 Q. B. 495 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 325 ; 40 W. R. 426 1284 Consolidated Credit Corporation v. Gosney, 6 Q. B. D. 24 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 61; 54 L. T. 21; 34 W. R. 106 222, 235 Consolidated Investment Co. v. Dodd, 9 W. R. 12 1022 v. Riley, 1 Giff . 371 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 123 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 1283 43, 1264 Constable v. Howick, 5 Jur. N. S. 331 ; 7 W. R. 100 1033, 1044, 1048, 1140 Constantia, 2 W. Rob. 487 1394 Continental Oxvgen Co., Re, 66 L. J. Ch. 273 ; (1897) 1 Ch. 511 ; 76 L. T. 229 ; 45 W. R. 313 1001 Conway v. Conway, 3 Bro. C. C. 267 429 ■ v. Nail, 1 C. B. 643 593, 1325 ■ r. Shrimpton, 5 Bro. P. C. 187 ; 2 Eq. Cas. Ab. 738 1165 Conybeare v. New Brunswick Co., 6 Jur. N. S. 164 1318 TABLE OF CASES. lxix PAGE Cood v. Pollard, 9 Pri. 544 ; 10 Pri. 109 ; 23 R. R. 712 1375 Cook v. Addison, L. R. 7 Eq. 466 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 322 ; 20 L. T. N. S. 212; 17 W. R. 480 524 v. Black, 1 Ha. 390 285, 286, 1253 v. Bramwell, W. N. (1890) 72 1295, 1342 v. Caldicott, M. & N. 522 594 v. Dawson, 29 Beav. 126 408, 428 ■ v. Field, 15 Q. B. 460; 14 Jur. 951 311 v. Fowler, L. R. 7 H. L. 27 ; 43 L. J. 855 70, 898, 1158, 1449 v. Gregson, 3 Drew. 547 ; 20 Jur. 510 652, 653 v. Guerra, L. R. 7 C. P. 132 ; 41 L. J. C. P. 89 ; 26 L. T. N. S. 97 ; 20 W. R. 367 678 V. Hart, L. R. 12 Eq. 459 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 143 ; 24 L. T. 779 ; 19 W. R. 947 1040 v. Lister, 13 C. B. N. S. 543 95 v. Taylor, 3 T. L. R. 800 232 ■ v. Thomas, 24 W. R. 427 797 ■ v. Walker, 3 W. R. 357 , 174 v. 25 L. T. 51 184 Cook's Mortgage, Re, (1895) 1 Ch. 700 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 624 ; 72 L. T. 388 ; 43 W. R. 461 1425 Cooke v. Brown, 4 Y. & C. 227 ; 9 L. J. N. S. Ex. 41 1181 ■ v. Crawford, 13 Sim. 91 ; 6 Jur. 723 890 v. Field, 19 L. J. Q. B. 441 ; Bunyon, Ass. 16 288 v. Fuller, 26 Beav. 99 331 v. Haddon, 3 F. & F. 229 1468 v. Parsons, Prec. Ch. 184 ; 2 Vern. 429 ; Eq. Ca. Abr. 280 415, 1055 ■ v. Saltau, 2 S. & St. 154 ; 2 L. J. Ch. 30 1411 v. Wilton, 29 Beav. 100; 7 Jur. N. S. 280 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 467 ; 9 W. R. 230 1148, 1217, 1218, 1221 v. Yates, 4 Bing. 90 117 Cooke's Contract, Re, 4 Ch. D. 454 889 Cookson v. Cookson, 8 Sim. 529 15 ■ v. Lee, 23 L. J. Ch. 473 509, 1299 v. Swire, 9 App. Cas. 653 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 249 ; 52 L. T. 30 ; 33 W. R. 181 250 Coombe, Exp., 4 Madd. 249 ; 20 R. R. 294 56, 1148 Exp., 17 Ves. 369 ; 1 Rose, 268 57 v. Stewart, 13 Beav. Ill 1034 Coombe's Trusts, Re, 1 Giff. 91 1265 Coombs v. Beaumont, 5 B. & Ad. 72 ; 2 N. & M. 235 122, 178, 182 Coope v. Cresswell, L. R. 2 Ch. A. 112 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 114 ; 15 W. R. 242 ; 15 L. T.N. S. 427 969, 970, 979 v. 12 W. R. 299 933 Cooper, Exp., 1 M. D. & De G. 358 180 Exp., Re Baum, 10 Ch. D. 313 ; 48 L. J. Bky. 40 ; 39 L. T. 521 ; 27 W. R. 298 580, 582, 596 ■ ■ Exp., Re Zucco, L. R. 10 Ch. A. 510 ; 44 L. J. Bky. 121 ; 33 L. T. N. S. 3 ; 23 W. R. 782 584 Re, Cooper v. Vesey, 20 Ch. D. 611 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 862 ; 47 L. T. 89 ; 30 W. R. 648 1007, 1251, 1297, 1304 V. Cartwright, Johns. 697 1436 v. Davis, 32 W. R. 329 249 v. Emery, 1 Ph. 388 1316 v. Fynmore, 3 Russ, 60 1263 v. Grant, 12 C. B. 154 73 v. Green, 7 M. & W. 633 1401 , v. Griffin, (1892) 1 Q. B. 740 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 563 ; 66 L. T. 660 ; 40 W. R. 420 ; 8 T. L. R. 404 1282, 1364 v. Ibberson, 29 W. R. 566 ; 44 L. T. 309 247 v. Jenkins, 32 Beav. 337 98 v. Laroche, 17 Ch. D. 368 ; 43 L. T. 794 ; 29 W. R. 43S 340 r. Macdonald, 7 Ch. D. 288 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 373 ; 38 L. T. N. S. 191; 26 W. R. 377 330, 368 lxx TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Cooper v. Metropolitan Board of Works, 25 Ch. D. 472 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 109 ; 50 L. T. 602 ; 32 W. B. 709 118 ■ v. Beilly, 1 B. & My. 560 932 ■ v. Twynam, T. & B. 426 102 . v . Wiilomatt, 1 C. B. 672 ; 14 L. J. C. F. 219 ; 9 Jur. 598 188 r. Zeffert, 32 W. B. 402 243, 245 Cooper's Contract, Be, 4 Ch. D. 802 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 133 ; 35 L. T. N. S. 890 ; 25 W. B. 301 890 Coote v. Jecks, L. B. 13 Eq. 597 ; 41 L. J. 599 203 v. Mammon, 5 Bro. B. C. 355 1327 Cope, Be, 16 Ch. D. 49 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 313 ; 43 L. T. 566 ; 29 W. B. 98. . 401, 1009 v. Cope, 2 Salk. 449 10 v. Bowlands, 2 M. & W. 149 1474 Copis v. Middleton, T. & B. 224 ; 2 Madd. 410 ; 17 B. B. 226 95, 97, 98 Copland v. Bartlett, 6 C. B. 18 628 Coplestone, Exp., 4 Deac. 54 103 v. Boxwell, 1 Ch. Cas. 1 21 Coppin v. Coppin, 2 P. Wms. 291 113, 1372 ■ v. Fernyhough, 2 Bro. C. C. 291 1308, 1309, 1312 Coppock v. Bower, 4 M. & W. 361 1532 Coppring v. Cooke, 1 Vern. 270 802 Corbett v. Maidwell, 1 Salk. 158 ; 3 Bep. in Ch. 101 429 ■ v. Plowden, 25 Ch. D. 678 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 109 ; 50 L. T. 740 ; 32 W. B. 667 679 ■ v. Bowe, 25 W. B. 59 243 Corder v. Morgan, 18 Ves. 344 892 Cork, Exp., 11 W. B. 1015 499 ■ and Toughal Bail. Co., Be, L. B. 4 Ch. A. 748 ; 18 W. B. 26 .... 467, 472, 489 ■ Earl of v. Bussell, L. B. 13 Eq. 210 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 226 ; 26 L. T. N. S. 230 1013, 1188 Corlett v. Badcliffe, 14 Moo. P. C. 121 573 Cormack r. Beisly, 3 De G. & J. 157 1389 Cornish v. Clark, L. B. 14 Eq. 184 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 14 573 ■ v. Searell, 8 B. & Cr. 471 1521 Cornwall Minerals Bail. Co., Be, W. N. (1882) 132 ; 48 L. T. 41 935 (1897) 2Ch. 74; 66 L. J. Ch. 561 991 Corsellis v. Patman, L. R. 4 Eq. 156 ; 16 L. T. N. S. 446 ; 15 W. B. 828 1038, 1199 Corser, Exp., 11 Jur. 212 300 ■ v. Cartwright, L. B. 7 H. L. 736 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 605 408, 409, 420, 421 Cort v. Sagar, 3 H. & N. 370 ; 27 L. J. Ex. 378 123 Cory v. Eyre, 1 De G. J. & S. 149 1238, 1302 Bros. & Co. v. Mecca, Owners of S.S., (1897) A. C. 286 Addenda Cosser v. Collinge, 3 My. & K. 283 1312 Costello v. O'Borke, Ir. B. 3 Eq. 172 512 Costigan v. Hastier, 2 Sch. & Lef . 160 676, 678 Cotham v. West, 1 Beav. 380 1208 Cothay v. Sydenham, 2 Bro. C. C. 391 1255, 1316, 1488 Cottam v. Eastern Counties Bail. Co., 1 J. & H. 243 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 1367 1341 Cotter v. Bank of England, 3 M. & Sc. 180 ; 2 Dow. P. C. 728 870 Cotterel v. Hampson, 2 Vern. 5 382 Cotterell v. Purchase, Cas. t. Talb. (Wms.) 61 16, 20, 106 V. Stratton, L. B. 8 Ch. A. 295; 42 L. J. Ch. 417 ....550, 905, 1177, 1183, 1184 Cottingham v. Shrewsbury, Earl of, 3 Ha. 627 ; 15 L. J. Ch. 441 1140 Cottle v. Warrington, 5 B. & Ad. 447 ; 2 N. & M. 227 76, 441 Cotton, Exp., 2 M. D. & De G. 725 121 Exp., 11 Q. B. D. 301 ; 49 L. T. 52 ; 32 W. B. 58 221, 224 ■ v. Cotton, 3 Y. & C. Ex. 149, n 431 ■ v.- —, 6 Beav. 90 813,1277 V. lies. 1 Vern. 271 845 v. Penrose, 18 L. J. N. S. Ch. 128 ; 13 Jur. 761 1115 TABLE OF CASES. lxxi PAGE Cottrell v. Finney, L. R. 9 Ch. A. 541 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 562 ; 30 L. T. N. S. 733 82G, 1165, 1166 Couldery v. Bar-tram, 19 Ch. D. 394; 51 L.J. Ch. 265; 45 L. T. 689; 30 W. R. 141 1083, 1089 Counsell v. London & Westminster Loan & Discount Co., 19 Q. B. D. 512 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 622 ; 36 W. R. 53 239 County of Gloucester Bank v. Rudry, &c. Colly. Co., (1895) 1 Ch. 629; 64 L. J. Ch. 451 ; 72 L. T. 375 ; 43 W. R. 486 ; 2 Mans. 223 475, 929, 937 Courand v. Hanmer, 9 Beav. 2 957 Court v. Roharts, 6 CI. & F. 65 913 Courtenay v. Wright. 2 Giff. 337 292 Courtney v. Ferrers, 1 Sim. 137 293 v. Taylor, 6 Man. & Gr. 851 ; 7 So. N. R. 740 10 Cousens r. Harris, 12 Q. B. 726 ; 17 L. J. Q. B. 273 ; 12 Jur. 835 385 Cousins, Re, 31 Ch. D. 671 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 662 ; 54 L. T. 376 ; 34 W. R. 393 1328 Coventry r. Gladstone, L. R. 4 Eq. 493 ; 6 Eq. 44 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 30 ; 16 W. R. 304 , 1497 Cowdry, Exp. , 2 Gl. & J. 272 1099 ■ r. Day, 5 Jur. N. S. 1200 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 39 1184 ■ v. , 1 Giff. 316; 5 Jur. N. S. 1119 137, 611, 1185 Cowell, Exp., 17 L, J. Bky. 16; 12 Jur. 411 178, 120 ■ v. Edwards, 2 B. & P. 268 100 ■ ■ v. Simpson, 16 Ves. 279 1372 Cowley v. Tyler, W. N. (1884) 77 ; 76 L. T. N. S. 371 ; 28 S. J. 375 .... 223 Cowper v. Green, 7 M. & W. 633 91 r. Smith, 4 M. & W. 519 92 Cox, Exp., Dublin Drapery Co., Re, 13 L. R. Ir. 174 496 Exp., Re Reed, 1 Ch. D. 302 ; 33 L. T. 757 ; 24 W. R. 302 . . 180, 202, 586 , Creditors of Sir Charles, Re, 3 P. Wms. 342 653 v. Bennett, (1891) 1 Ch. 617; 60 L. J. Ch. 651 ; 64 L. T. 380; 39 W. R. 401 ; 7 T. L. R. 316 346 v. Bishop, 8 De G. M. & G. 315 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 499 156 v. Cannon, 4 Bing. N. C. 453 77 v. Champneys, Jac. 576 ; 23 R. R. 145 1193 v. Coffin, 9 Mod. 120 , 1409 v. Hickman, 8 H. L. C. 312 502 ■ r. Watson, 7 Ch. D. 196 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 263 1034, 1043 Crackelt v. Bethune, 1 J. & W. 587 512 Cracknell v. Janson, 11 Ch. D. 1 ; 40 L. T. 640 ; 27 W. R. 851 . .572, 601, 856, 857, 1085 Cradock v . Rogers, 53 L. J. Ch. 968 ; 51 L. T. 191 ; W.K (1885) 134 ....611, 612 ■ v. Scottish Prov. Inst., W. N. (1894) 8S ; 70 L. T. 718 52 Cragg v. Alexander, W. N. (1867) 305 ; 16 W. R. 961 903 v. Taylor, L. R. 1 Ex. 148; 2 Ex. 131; 36 L. J. Ex. 63.; 15 L. T. 584 1282, 1363 Craggs r. Grey, 35 Beav. 166 50 Cragoe v. Jones, L. R. 8 Ex. 81 ; 42 L. J. Ex. 68 ; 28 L. T. 36 ; 21 W. R. 408 91 Crane v. Drake, 2 Vern. 616 402, 403 Cranstown, Lord v. Johnston, 5 Ves. 277 ; 3 R. R. 80 1179 Craven Bank v. Hartley, W. N. (1886) 189 1018, 1045, 1046 Crawcour, Exp., Re Robertson, 9 Ch. D. 419 ; 47 L. J. Bky. 94 ; 39 L. T. 2 ; 26 W. R. 733 197, 198 r. Salter, 18 Ch. D. 30 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 495 ; 45 L. T. 02 ; 30 W. R. 21 181 Crawley v. Fuller, W. N. (1890) 35 1034, 1043 Crawley's, Lord, Case, Freem. Ch. 8 1314 Crawshay v. Eades, 1 B. & Cr. 181 ; 2 Dow. & R. 288 ; 1 L. J. K. B. 90 ; 25 R. R. 348 1376, 1461 Craythorne v. Swinburne, 14 Ves. 160 ; 9 R. R. 264 79, 97, 101, 102 Creaton v. Creaton, 2 Sm. & G. 286 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 1223 418 Credit Co. v. Pott, 6 Q. B. D. 295 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 106 ; 44 L. T. 506 ; 29 W. R. 326 228 lxxii TABLE OF CASES. PAGE CrecTland v. Potter, L. R. 18 Eq. 350; L. R. 10 Ch. A. 8 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 169 ; 31 L. T. 522 ; 23 W. R. 36 1178, 1244, 1246 Cremetti v. Crom, 4 Q. B. D. 225 ; 48 L. J. Q. B. 337 ; 27 W. R. 411 .... 224 Creuze v. Hunter, 2 Ves. Jun. 157 ; 2 Cox, 242 ; Jac. 250, n.;2E. R. 38 . .1162, 1167, 1174 Crew v. Cummings, 21 Q. B. D. 420 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. 641 ; 59 L. T. 886 ; 36 W. R. 908 251 Crewe, Lord v. Edleston, 1 DeG. & J. 93; 3 Jur. N. S. 1061 931 Cripps v. Jee, 4 Bro. C. C. 471 24 v. Wood, 51 L. J. Ch.584 1018, 1029, 1036 Crips v. Grysil, Cro. Car. 37 836 Crisp v. Heath, 7 Vin. Abr. 52 1014 Crispin, Exp., L. R. 8 Ch. A. 374 ; 42 L. J. Bky. 65 ; 28 L. T. 483 ; 21 W. R. 491 578 Croft r. Graham, 2 De G. J. & S. 155 132, 617, 1156, 1193 v. Lumley, 5 E. & B. 684 ; 6 H. L. 672 70 ■ r. Powell, Com. Rep. 609 169 Crofton v. Ornisby, 2 Sch. & L. 583 ; 9 R. R. 107 1319 Crofts v. Middleton, 2K.&J. 194 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 1133 317, 654 Croly v. Weld, 3 De G. M. & G. 993 411 Crompton v. Huber, 1 Jur. N. S. 465 825 Crosby v. Church, 3 Beav. 489 329, 344 v. Crouch, 11 East, 256 586 Cross, Re, 4 De G. & S. 364, n 593 v. Fisher, 65 L. T. 114 460, 402 v. Kennington, 9 Beav. 150 410 r. Sprigg, 2 Mac. & G. 113 1402 Crosse r. Beckingfield, 12 Sim. 578 1167 v. General Reversionary, &c. Co., 3 De G. M. & G. 698 1409 Crossfield, Exp., 3 Ir. Eq. R. 67 65 Crosskill v. Bower, 32 Beav. 86; 9 Jur. N. S. 267; 32 L.J. 540; 11 W. R. 411 ; 8 L. T. N. S. 135 1165 Crossley, Exp., 3 Bro. C. C. 237 1082 v. City of Glasgow Life Ass. Co., 4 Ch. D. 421 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 65 ; 36 L. T. N. S. 285 ; 25 W. R. 264 1268 v. Dobson, 2 De G. & S. 486 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 480 964 v. Elworthy, L. R. 12 Eq. 158 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 480 ; 24 L. T. N. S. 607 ; 19 W. R. 842 571, 574 Crouch v. Credit Foncier of England, L. R. 8 Q. B. 374 ; 42 L. J. Q. B. 183 ; 29 L. T. N. S. 259 ; 21 W. R. 946 482, 483, 484, 486, 878 Crow v. Robinson, L. R. 3 C. P. 264 1364 • v. Wood, 13 Beav. 271 931 Crowdy, Re, Burgess v. Crowdy, 46 L. T. 71 52 Crowe v. Price, 22 Q. B. D. 429 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 215 ; 60 L. T. 915 ; 37 W. R. 424 299 Crowe's Mortgage, Re, L. R. 13 Eq. 26 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 32 1422, 1423, 1428 Crowfoot v. Gurney, 2 Moo. & Sc. 473 1489, 1525 v. London Dock Co., 2 Cr. & M. 637 1472 Crowle v. Russell, 4 C. P. D. 186 ; 48 L. J. C. P. 76 ; 39 L. T. 320 ; 27 W. R. 84 869 Croxon v. Lever, 12 W. R. 237 ; 3 N. R. 238 1052 Croydon Commercial Gas Co. v. Dickinson, 2 C. P. D. 46 ; 46 L. J. C. P. 157 ; 36 L. T. 135 ; 26 W. R. 157 84 Crozier v. Dowsett, 31 Ch. D. 67 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 210 ; 53 L. T. 592 ; 34 W. R. 267 1015 Cruikshank v. Duffin, L. R. 13 Eq. 555 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 317 ; 26 L. T. N. S. 121 ; 20 W. R. 324 405, 428 Cruse v. No well, 2 Jur. N. S. 536 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 709 831, 888 Crusoe v. Bugby, 2 W. Bl. 766 ; 3 Wils. 234 163 Cuddon, Exp., 3 M. D. & De G. 302 1099 Cullerne v. London, &c. Building Soc, 25 Q. B. D. 485 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 525 ; 63 L. T. 51 1 ; 39 W. R. 88 ; 6 T. L. R. 449 545 Cullinfjworth v. Loyd, 2 Beav. 385 592 Cullwick v. Swindell. L. R. 3 Eq. 249 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 173 121, 178 Cumberland Union Banking Co. v. Maryport Iron Co., (1892) 1 Ch. 92, 415; 61 L. J. Ch. 227; 66 L. T. 108; 40 W. R. 280 127, 1036, 1039 TABLE OF CASES. lxxiii PAGE Cumberlege v. Lawson, 1 C. B. N. S. 709 504 dimming v. Prescott, 2 Y. & C. Ex. 488 276, 628, 1263, 1493 Cummins v. Fletcher, 14 Ch. D. 699 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 563 ; 42 L. T. 859 ; 28 W. R. 772 855, 856, 864 Cunliffe, Brooks & Co. v. Blackburn, &c. Building Soc, 9 App. Cas. 857 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 376 ; 52 L. T. 225 ; 33 W. R. 309 462, 464, 1212 Cunningham & Co., Re, Attenborough's Case, 28 Ch. D. 682 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 448; 52 L. T. 214 ; 33 W. R. 387 202, 231 and Frayling, Re, (1891) 2 Ch. 567 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 591 ; 64 L. T. 558 ; 39 W. R. 469 840 Cupit v. Jackson, 13 Pri. 721 ; M'Cl. 504 ; 28 R. R. 735 .. 411, 928, 1017, 1401 Curling v. Shuttleworth, 6 Bing. 121 827, 887 v. Townsend, Marquis of, 19 Ves. 628 613, 617 Currie v. Nind, 1 My. & Cr. 17 601 Curtin v. Darcy, 2 J. & L. 718 929 Curtis v. Auber, 1 J. & W. 526 271 . v. Fullbrook, 8 Ha. 25, 278 ; 13 Jur. 1044 418 v. Holcombe, 6 L. J. N. S. Ch. 156 72 v. Rush, 2 V. & B. 416 1451 v. Sheffield, 20 Ch. D. 398 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 535 ; 46 L. T. 80 1065 Curwyn v. Milner, 3 P. Wms. 292, n 617 Cutbill v. Kingdom, 1 Exch. 494 ; 17 L. J. Ex. 177 544 Cutfield v. Richards, 26 Beav. 241 909, 1040 Cuthbert v. Cole, 1 C. B. 278 70 Cuthbertson v. Irving, 4 H. & N. 742 684 Cutler v. Southern, 1 Wms. Saund. 115 89 Cuxon v. Chadley, 3 B. & Cr. 591 ; 5 Dow. & Ry. 417 ; 3 L. J. K. B. 63 ; 1 C. & P. 485 ; 27 R. R. 423 1489 Daglish, Exp., Re Wilde, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 1080 ; 42 L. J. Bky. 102 ; 29 L. T. N. S. 168 ; 21 W. R. 893 204 Daines v. Heath, 3 C. B. 938 1516 Daking v. Whimper, 26 Beav. 568 605 Dalby v. India, &c, Ass. Co., 18 Jur. 1024 ; 24 L. J. C. P. 2 ; 15 C. B. 365 289 Dale v. Smithwick, 2 Vem. 151 53 Dalmer v. Dashwood, 2 Cox, 378 930 Dalton v. Hayter, 7 Beav. 313 729 . v. Lambert, 15 L. J. N. S. Ch. 208 1190 . v. Whittem, 3 Q. B. 961 ; 6 Jur. 1063 124 v. Wilson, Seton, 4th ed. 1151, 1152 1031 Daly v. French, 6 Bro. P. C. by Toml. 55 431 . v. Kelly, 4 Dow, 435; 16 R. R. 95 632, 1014 Darner v. Portarlington, Lord, 15 Sim. 380 815 . v , 2 Ph. 30; 10 Jur. 673 875,1106 Danby v. Coutts & Co., 29 Ch. D. 500 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 577 ; 52 L. T. 401 ; 33 W. R. 559 112 Dance v. Girdler, 1 B. & P. N. R. 34 ; 8 R. R. 748 100 Dancer v. Hastings, 4 Bing. 2 ; 12 Moo. 34 951 Dane v. Mortgage Insce. Corp., (1894) 1 Q. B. 54 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 144 ; 70 L. T. 83 ; 42 W. R. 227 H35 Dangerfield v. Thomas, 9 A. & E. 292 ; 1 P. & D. 287 90 Daniel, Re, 25 L. T. 188 254 v. SHpwith, 2 Bro. C. C. 155 1008, 1017, 1107 Daniell v. Sinclair, 6 App. Cas. 181 ; 50 L. J. P. C. 50 ; 44 L. T. 257 ; 29 W. R. 569 1142, 1144, 1162, 1164 Daniels v. Davison, 16 Ves. 249 ; 17 Ves. 433 ; 10 R. R. 171 . . 1306, 1318, 1319 Danks, Exp., 2 De G. M. & G. 936 ; 22 L. J. Bky. 73 715 Dann (or Thorpe), Exp., Re Parker, 17 Ch. D. 26 ; 44 L. T. 760 ; 29 W. R. 771 583, 595, 596 Dante,' 2 W. Rob. 427 ; 4 N. of C. 408 1508 Darbon v. Rickards, 14 Sim. 537 ; 9 Jur. 364 ; 14 L.J. N. S. Ch. 314. .411, 412. 432 lxxiv TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Darby v. Hams, 1 G. & D. 234 ; 5 Jur. 988 124 ■ v. Smith, 8 T. R. 82 180 . p . Wilkins, 2 Stra. 957 68 D'Arcy v. Blake, 2 Sch. & L. 391 645 . v. Chambers, 1 Sch. & L. 468 1357 Darcy v. Hall, 1 Vern. 49 823, 1445 Darke v. Williamson, 25 Beav. 622 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 1009 1379 Darkin v. Darkin, 17 Beav. 578 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 890 330 Darlington v. Hamilton Kay, 550 1315 Darlow v. Bland, (1897) 1 Q. B. 125 ; 66 L. J. Q. B. 157 ; 75 L. T. 537 ; 45 TV. R. 177 227 ■ v. Cooper, 34 Beav. 281 871, 1155 Darrell v. Tibbits, 5 Q. B. D. 560 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 33 ; 42 L. T. 797 ; 29 TV. R. 66 14 1 Darvill v. Terry, 6 H. & N. 807 ; 30 L. J. Ex. 355 242, 570, 576 Dashwood v. Bithazay, Mos. 196 1037 . p. Blithway, 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. 317 872, 1049 Daubigny v. Duval, 5 T. R. 604 1476 Daubuz v. Lavington, 13 Q. B. D. 347 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 283 ; 51 L. T. 206 ; 32 TV. R. 772 665 Dauglish v. Tennent, L. R. 2 Q. B. 49 ; 36 L. J. Q. B. 10 ; 15 TV. R. 196 ; 8 B. & S. 1 592 Daun v. City of London Brewery Co., L. R. 8 Eq. 155 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 454 ; 20 L. T. N. S. 601 ; 17 TV. R. 663 1155, 1231 Davenport, Exp., 1 M. D. & De G. 313 1084 . Re, Turner v. King, (1895) 1 Ch. 361 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 252 ; 71 L. T. 875 ; 43 TV. R. 217 333,336 ■ v. James, 7 Ha. 249 ; 12 Jur. 827 996, 1185 . v . King, 49 L. T. 92 ; 31 TV. R. 911 636 . v . Moss, 14 TV. R. 453 ; 14 L. T. N. S. 133 949 v. Stafford, 14 Beav. 319 512 r , Whitmore, 2 Mv. & Cr. 177 271 Davey v. Durrant, 1 De G. & J. 535 509 . v. Miller, 1 Sm. & G. App. 19 1423 ■ v. Prendergrass, 5 B. & Aid. 187 ; 2 Chit. 336 ; 6 Madd. 124 83 David, Re, Buckley v. Royal National Lifeboat Inst., 43 Ch. D. 27 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 87 ; 62 L. T. 141 ; 38 TV. R. 162 ; 6 T. L. R. 42 . .518, 540 . Lloyd & Co., Re, 6 Ch. D. 339 ; 25 TV. R. 872 ; 37 L. T. 83 .... 1002, 1126, 1127 ■ v. Ellice, 5 B. & C. 196 1453 . p. Sabin, (1893) 1 Ch. 523; 62 L. J. Ch. 347 ; 68 L. T. 237 ; 41 TV. R. 398 ; 9 T. L. R. 240 144 Davidson v. Carlton Bank, (1893) 1 Q. B. 82 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. Ill ; 67 L. T. 641; 41 TV. R. 132; 9 T. L. R. 20 215, 232, 243 v. McGregor, 8 M. & TV. 755 92 . v. Rowlandson, 3 Jur. N. S. 791 588 Davie v. John, McCl. 575 952 Davies, Exp., 3 D. & C. 504 1039 . Exp., Re Sadler, 19 Ch. D. 86 ; 45 L. T. 632 ; 30 TV. R. 237 ... . 1076 . r. Acocks, 2 C. M. & R. 461 586 v. Ashford, 15 Sim. 42 754 . ». Beversham, 3 Rep. in Ch. 2 647 . v. Bolton & Co., (1894) 3 Ch. 678 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 743 ; 71 L. T. 336; 43 TV. R. 171; 1 Mans. 445 475 . v. Bush. Yo. 351 1386 v. Cooper, 5 My. & Cr. 270 614, 615 v. Davies, 6 Jur. N. S. 1320 636 . v. 4 Beav. 54 1313 ■ v. Fitton, 2 Dr. & War. 225 1157 . v. Heath, 3 C. B. 938 ; 16 L. J. C. P. 117 967 . v. Humphreys, 6 M. & TV. 153 94, 95, 100 v. Jenkins, 6 Ch. D. 728 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 761 ; 26 W. R. 260 345 . v. Jones, 10 TV. R. 779; 7 L. T. 130 219 r. London, &c, Marine Insce. Co., 8 Ch. D. 469, C. A. ; 47 L. J. Ch. 511 ; 38 L. T. 478; 26 W. R. 794 81 . v. Loinides, 2 Scott, 103; 1 Bing. N. C. 618 230 TABLE OF CASES. lxXV PAGE Davies v. Penton, 6 B. & Or. 223 68 v. Bees, 17 Q. B. D. 408 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 363 ; 54 L. T. 813 ; 34 W. R. 573 229 v. Sear, L. B. 7 Eq. 427 ; 38 L. J. Oh. 545 ; 17 W. R. 390 ; 20 L. T. N. S. 56 1318 V. Thomas, 2 Y. & C. Ex. 234 1309, 1312, 1373 v. Treharris Brewery Co., W. N. (1884) p. 198 343 v. Vale of Evesham Preserves, 73 L. T. 150 ; 43 W. R. 646 934 . v. Vernon, 6 Q. B. 443; 8 Jur. 871 809, 1414 ■ v. Wattier, 1 S. & St. 463 413 V. "Westcomb, 2 Sim. 425 432 v. Wright, 32 Ch. D. 220 738, 1038, 1039 Davis & Co., Re, Exp. Rawlings, 22 Q. B. D. 193 ; 37 W. R. 203 ; 5 T. L. R. 119 197, 19S ■ Exp., 22 Q. B. 193 197, 198, 208, 1080 Exp., Re Hagley, 3 D. & C. 504 ; 1 M. & A. 89 882, 1099, 1100 . v. Ashwyn, 47 L. J. Ch. 70 1036 . v. Barrett, 14 Beav. 542 825, 1440, 1445 v. Battine, 2E.& My. 76 868 v. Bowsher, 5 T. R. 488 1389 v. Burton, 11 Q. B. D. 537 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. 636 ; 32 W. R. 423 .. 135, 221, 232, 233 v. Chanter, 2 Ph. 545 1009 ■ v. Combermere, 15 Sim. 394 1194 v. Davis, (1894) 1 Ch. 393 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 219 ; 70 L. T. 265 ; 42 W. R. 312 506 v. , W. N. (1876) 242 768 v. Dendy, 3 Madd. 170; 18 R. R. 209 918, 1204 v. Dowding, 2 Keen, 247; 7 L. J. N. S. Ch. 169 1055, 1107 v. Dysart, 20 Beav. 405 813 ■ v. Eyton, 7 Bing. 154 677 v. Gardener, 2 P. Wins. 190 785 . v. Goodman, 5 C. P. D. 128 ; 49 L. J. C. P. 344 ; 42 L. T. 288 ; 28 W. R. 559 240 . v. Marlborough, Duke of, 1 Swanst. 74 299 v. , 2 Swanst. 139 ; 2 Wils. Ch. R. 130. .609, 612, 613, 931, 932, 946 ■ v. May, 19 Ves. 382 ; G. Coop. 240 1209 v. Parry, 1 Giff. 174 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 759 1023, 1145 . v. 4 Jur. N. S. 431 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 294 ; 6 W. R. 174 815 v. Snell, 4 De G. F. & J. 468 695 . v. Strathmore, 16 Ves. 419 1225 . r. Thomas, 1 R. & My. 506 20, 22 ■ v. Tollemache, 2 Jur. N. S. 1181 145, 377 v. Trevanion, 2 D. & L. 743 75, 76 , v . Usher, 12 Q. B. D. 490 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 422 ; 51 L. T. 297 ; 32 W. R. 832 231 v. Whitmore, 28 Beav. 617 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 880 ; 8 W. R. 590 1004, 1027, 1189, 1190 Davison v. Franklin, 1 B. & Ad. 142 620' v. Robinson, 3 Jur. N. S. 791 586 Davy v. Barker, 2 Atk. 2 808 v. Durrant, 1 De G. & J. 535 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 830 903 v. Price, W. N. (1883) 226 ; 16 L. J. N. S. 700 ; 76 L. T. N. S. 130 ; 28 S. J. 153 949 Daw r. Terrell, 33 Beav. 218 58 Dawes, Exp., Re Moon, 17 Q. B. D. 275 ; 55 L. T. 114 ; 34 W. R. 752. . 112 v. Tredwell, 18 Ch. D. 358; 45 L. T. 118; 29 W. R. 793 112, 331 . v. Scott, 5 Russ. 42 755 Dawkins v. Lord Penrhyn, 4 App. Cas. 51 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 304 ; 39 L. T. 583 ; 27 W. R. 173 3.67, 731, 1074 Dawson v. Bank of Whitehaven, 6 Ch. D. 218 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 884 ; 26 W. R. 34 ; 37 L. T. N. S. 64 698, 703, 1236 ■ v. Dawson, 8 Sim. 346 15 v. Johnson, 1 F. & F. 656 667 IxXVl TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Dawson v. Medhurst, 14 L. T. N. S. 622 1528 v. Robins, 2 C. P. D. 37 ; 46 L. J. C. P. 62 ; 25 L. T. 599 ; 25 W. R. 212 1017 Day, Exp., 7 Ves. 301 1090 v. Croft, 2 Beav. 488 957 v. Day, 31 Beav. 270 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 1166 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 806 ; 7 L. T. N. S. 122; 10 W. R. 728 707, 710, 1108 v. , 1 Dr. & Sm. 261 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 365 766 v. , 1 De G. & J. 144 1279 v. Gudgen, 2 Ch. D. 209 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 263 ; 24 W. R. 425 .. . .1188, 1190 v. Pargrave, 2 Man. & Sel. 395 323 ■ v. Sykes, Walker & Co., 55 L. T. 763 ; W. N. (1886) 209 938 v. Woolwich Equitable Bdg. Soc, 40 Ch. D. 491 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 280 ; 60 L. T. 752 ; 37 W. R. 461 114 Day's Trusts, Re, 49 L. T. 499 1277 Dayrell v. Hoare, 12 A. & E. 356 902 Deacon v. Arden, 50 L. T. 584 934 v. Smith, 3 Atk. 323 51 Dean and Chapter of Norwich Case, 3 Co. Rep. 75 b; Com. Dig., Eccl. Persons, C. 4 , 439 v. Allaley, 3 Esp. 11 125 ■ v. James, 4 B. & Ad. 547 ; 1 N. & M. 303 717 v. M'Ghie, 12 Moo. 185 266 Dearden, Re, 3 My. & K. 508 1424 Re, 5 Ex. 740 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 80 230 Deare v. Patrickson, 1 Dr. & S. 182 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 846 ; 8 W. R. 597, 647 . . 770 Dearie v. Hall, 3 Russ. 1 ; 27 R. R. 1 1253, 1254, 1262, 1263, 1271, 1489 Dearman v. Wyche, 9 Sim. 570 1059 Dearsly v. Middleweek, IS Ch. D. 236 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 777 ; 45 L. T. 404 ; 30 W. R. 45 1141 De Beauvoir v. Owen, 5 Exch. 166 ; 19 L. J. Ex. 177 714, 993 De Bouchout v. Goldsmid, 5 Ves. 211- 1476 De Burgh Lawson v. De Burgh Lawson, 41 Ch. D. 568 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 561 ; 37 W. R. 797 40S De Caux v. Skipper, 31 Ch. D. 635 ; 54 L. T. 481 ; 34 W. R. 402 1187 De Comas v. Prost, 3 Moo. P. C. N. S. 158 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 417 1485 Deeks v. Stanhope, 1 Jur. N. S. 413 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 580 ; 3 W. R. 390 ; 3 L. R. Eq. 740 , 1065 • v. Strutt, 5 T. R. 690 312 Deever v. Maudesley, 8 Jur. 547 , 956 Deffell r. White, L. R. 2 C. P. 144 ; 36 L. J. C. P. 25 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 902 ; 15 L. T. 211 ; 15 W. R. 68 278, 476 Defries, Exp., Re Myres, 35 L. T. 392 578 ■ v. Creed, 11 Jur. 1ST. S. 360 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 607 ; 12 L. T. N. S. 262 ; 13 W. R. 632 649, 942 De Grelle, Houdret & Co. v. Bull, 1 Mans. 118 956 De Greuchy v. Wills, 4 C. P. D. 362 ; 48 L. J. C. P. 726 ; 41 L. T. 345 ; 28 W. R. 169 350 Deguilder v. Depeister, 1 Vern. 263 1508 De Hoghton v. Money, L. R. 2 Ch. A. 164 ; 15 W. R. 214 ; 15 L. T. N. S. 403 605 Delabere v. Norwood, 3 Swanst. 144, n 1014, 1181 De la Borde v. Othon, W. N. (1874) 219 945 Delaney v. Fox, 2 C. B. N. S. 774 672 De la Touche v. Lord Lucan, 7 CI. & F. 772 1093 Delhasse, Exp., Re Megevand, 7 Ch. D. 511 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 65 ; 38 L. T. 106; 26 W. R. 338 487, 506 Delia Cainea v. Hayward, McClel. & Y. 272 940 De Lusi's Trusts, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 232 31!) Demainbray v. Metcalfe, 2 Vern. 691 ; Prec. Ch. 421, Fonbl. Eq. vol. 2, 6th edit. 271 ; 1 Eq. Cas. Ab. 324 1152, 1467, 1471 De Mauncvillu v. Crompton, 1 V. & B. 354 ; 12 R, R. 233 511 De Mattes v. Gibson, 1 J. & II. 83 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 282 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 145 . . 265 TABLE OF CASES. lxXVli PAGE De Nicholls v. Saunders, L. R. 5 C. P. 593 ; 39 L. J. C. P. 297 ; 22 L. T. 661; 18 W. R. 1106 678 Dening v. Ware, 22 Beav. 184 575 Denison v. Holiday, 28 L. J. Ex. 25 112 v. Mair, 14 East, 622 1159 Denn v. Mellor, 5 T. R. 558 ; 6 T. R. 175 ; 3 Anst. 781 ; 1 Bos. & P. 558 ; 7 Br. P. C. 607 418 Dennis v. Addy, (1894) 1 Ir. R. 511 1387 Dent v. Bennett, 4 My. & Cr. 262 607 v. Dent, 30 Beav. 363 1378 v. , L. R. 1 P. & D. 366 ; 36 L. J. P. D. & A. 61 ; 15 L. T. 635 ; 15 W. R. 591 299 Denton v. Donner, 23 Beav. 285 22 Denyssen v. Bothey, 8 W. R. 710 425 De Pass v. Bell, 9 W. R. 704 1499 D'Epineuil, Re, Tadman v. D'Epineuil, 20 Ch. D. 758 ; 47 L. T. 157 ; 30 W. R. 702 213, 302, 1112 Depree v. Bedborough, 10 W. R. 875 412 Derby, Earl of v. Taylor, 1 East, 502 ; 6 R. R. 337 163 Municipal Estates, Re, 3 Ch. D. 289 ; 24 W. R. 729 447 Dering v. Winchelsea, Earl of, 1 Cox, 322 ; 2 B. & P. 270 ; 1 Wb. & T. L. C. Eq. 114 ; 1 R. R. 41 100, 101 De Rochefort v. Dawes, L. R. 1 2 Eq. 502 ; 40 L. J. Cb. 625 ; 25 L. T. 456 . . 770 De Ros, Re, Hardwick v. Wilmot, 31 Cb. D. 81 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 73 ; 53 L. T. 524 ; 34 W. R. 36 112 Derry v. Peek, 14 App. Cas. 337 ; 58 L. J. Cb. 864 ; 61 L. T. 265 ; 38 W. R. 33 ; 5 T. L. R. 625 1257 Desborough v. Harris, 5 De G. M. & G-. 439 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 986 294, 650 De Sorbein v. Bland, 2 De G. & J. 158 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 959 1348 De Teissier's Settled Estates, (1893) 1 Ch. 153 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 552 ; 68 L. T. 275 ; 41 W. R. 184 ; 9 T. L. R. 62 354 Detillin v. Gale, 7 Ves. 583; 6 R. R. 192 1143, 1144, 1175, 1178, 1184 Devaynes v. Noble (Clayton's Case), 1 Mer. 585 1212 Dever, Exp., Re Suse, 13 Q. B. D. 766; 51 L. T. 437; 33 W. R. 290 1498 Devon and Somerset Rail. Co., L. R. 6 Eq. 615 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 914 ; 18 L. T.N. S. 631; 17 W. R. 133 1133 Devonshire's Case, 1 1 Rep. 92 648 Dewar, Re, Dewar v. Brooker, 54 L. J. Ch. 830 525 Dewdney, 4 D. & C. 181 ; 2 M. & A. 72 1098 Dewey v. Baynton, 6 East, 27 ; 8 R. R. 475 176 Dewhurst v. Clarkson, 3 E. & B. 194 556 De Winton v. Mayor of Brecon, 26 Beav. 533 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 882 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 600 491, 935, 936, 938, 1289 Dibb v. Walker, (1893) 2 Ch. 429 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 536 ; 68 L. T. 610; 41 W. R. 427 978 Dibbs v. Goren, 11 Beav. 483 1382 Dickenson v. Harrison, 4 Pri. 282 ; 18 R. R. 711 115, 961 ■ v. Teasdale, 1 De G. J. & S. 57 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 236 979, 984 Dickers. Angerstein, 3 Ch. D. 600 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 754 ; 24 W. R. 844 899 Dickin v. Dickin, 30 W. R. 887 634 Dickinson v. Burrell, 35 Beav. 257 ; 1 Eq. 337 604 ■ ■ v. Marrow, 14 M. & W. 713 1489, 1493 v. Shee, 4 Esp. 68 718 v. Smith, 4 Madd. 177 948 v. Valpy, 10 B. & Cr. 128 503 Dicks v. Lambert, 4 Ves. 730 847, 849 Dickson v. Cass, 1 B. & Ad. 343 1515 v. Clarke, 5 C. B. 365 ; 16 L. J. C. P. 237 717 v. Swansea Vale, &c. Rail. Co., L. R. 4 Q. B. 44 ; 38 L. J. Q. B. 17 ; 19 L. T. 346 ; 17 W. R. 51 489 Dickson-Poynter v. Cook, W. N. (1881) 126 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 753 ; 45 L. T. 403; 30 W. R. 7 1371 Digby, Earl, Exp., Jac. 235 764, 766 , 1 J. & W. 640 361 v. Craggs, Amb. 612 ; 2 Ed. 200 820, 1163, 1164 Dighton v. Withers, 31 Beav. 423 1114 lxxviii TABLE OF CASES, PAGE Dikes, Exp., 8 Ves. 79 356 Dilkes v. Broadmead, 2 De G. F. & J. 566 399, 970 Dillon r. Arkins, 17 L. R. Ir. 636 850 ■ v. Ashwin, 10 Jur. N. S. 119 1190 . r , Coppin, 4 My. & Cr. 662 572 v. Cruise, 3 Ir. Eq. 70 409 Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal Co., 9 Q. B. 490 ; 3 H. L. C. 794 839 Dimmock, Re, Dimmock v. Dimmock, 52 L. T. 494 426 Dimson's, &c. Co., Be, L. R. 19 Eq. 202 ; 23 W. R. 435 1126 Dingwall, Exp., 6 L. T. N. S. 915 '. 66, 1102 Dinn v. Grant, 5 De G. & S. 451 1376 Diplock v. Hammond, 2 Sm. & G. 141 ; 5 De G. M. & G. 320 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 550 1525 Directors of Shropshire Union, &c. Co. v. Reg., L. R. 7 H. L. 496 ; 23 W. R. 709 ; 32 L. T. N. S. 283 1329 Ditton, Exp., Re Woods, 1 Ch. D. 557 ; 45 L. J. Bky. 87 ; 24 W. R. 289 ; 34 L. T. N. S. 100 1076, 1078 Dix;on, Exp., Re Henley, 4 Ch. D. 133 ; 46 L. J. Bky. 29 ; 35 L. T. N. S. 644 ; 25 W. R. 105 1486 , Re, Dixon v. Smith, 35 Ch. D. 4 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 773 ; 57 L. T. 94 ; 35 W. R. 742 337 ■ v. Baldwin, 5 East, 175 ; 7 R. R. 681 589 v. Gayfere, 17 Beav. 421 979 • v. Holroyd, 7 E. & B. 703 973 v. Muckleston, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 155 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 210 ; 21 W. R. 178 ; 27 L. T. N. S. 804 59, 1334, 1343 ■ v. Parker, 2 Ves. Sen. 225 24 • v. Peacock, 2 Drew. 288 637, 1378 ■ v. Saville, 1 Bro. C. C. 326 645 . v. Smith, 1 Swanst. 457 948 ■ V. Stansfield, 10 C. B. 398 1482 ■ v. Wisrram, 2 Cr. & J. 613 875 v. Wrench, L. R. 4 Ex. 154 ; 38 L. J. Ex. 113 ; 20 L. T. 492 ; 17 W. R. 591 1282, 1363 Dobbins' Settlement, Re, 56 L. J. Q. B. 295 ; 57 L. T. 277 251 Dobinson v. Hawks, 16 Sim. 407 554 Doble v. Manley, 28 Ch. D. 664 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 664 ; 52 L. T. 246 ; 33 W. R. 409 1027, 1028 Dobree v. Nicholson, W. N. (1870) 151 ; 22 L. T. N. S. 774 ; 18 W. R. 965 1011 Dobson, Exp., 6 Jur. 917 ; 2 M. D. & De G. 685 279 v. Laud, 4 De G. & S. 575 ; 14 Jur. 288 ; 19 L. J. N. S. Ch. 484. . 662, 823, 1158, 1198, 1210, 1212, 1412 r. Lee, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 714 1022 . v. Lyall, 2 Ph. 323, n 1603 Docksey r. Else, W. N. (1891) 65 ; 64 L. T. 256 1042 Dodd v. Lydall, 1 Ha. 333 1027, 1138 Doddington v. Hallett, 1 Ves. Sen. 497 1377 Dodds v. Hills, 2 H. & M. 424 1313 Doe v. Adams, 2 C. & J. 232 ; 2 Tyr. 289 675 v. Allsop, 5 B. & Aid. 142 1246, 1247 . v. Ball, 11 M. & W. 531 571, 575 v. Barber, 2 T. R. 749 ; 1 R. R. 611 440 ■ v. Barnard, 13 Q. B. 952 ; 11 Jur. N. S. pt. 2, 151 745 v. Barton, 11 A. & E. 307; 3 P. & D. 194. .656, 659, 680, 682, 683, 684, 685 v. Bennett, 6 Exch. 892 836 v. Bird, 5 B. & Ad. 695 837 ■ v. Booth, 2 B. & P. 219 ; 5 R. R. 575 491, 492 v. Bottriell, 5 B. & Ad. 131 601 ■ v. Boulter, 6 A. & E. 675 680 ■ r. Bragg, 8 A. & E. 620 ; 3 N. & P. 644 1516 ■ v. Brooks, 3 A. & E. 513 110, 1527 v. Brown, 6 Dowl. 471 ; 2 Jur. 841 875 v. Bucknell, 8 C. & P. 566 679 r. ( ladwallader, 2 B. & Ad. 473 661, 679 ■ v. Carter, 8 T. R. 57 ; 4 R. R. 586 69, 70 . o. , 9 Q. B. 863 662 TABLE OF CASES. lxxix PAGK Doe v. Clifton, 4 A. & E. 813 ; G N. & M. 857 654, 875 v. Cox, 11 Q. B. 122 ; 11 Jur. 991 ; 17 L. J. Q. B. 3 661 v. Davies, 7 Exch. 89 ; 16 Jur. 44 661, 676 v. Day, 2 Q. B. 147 ; 2 G. & D. 757 ; 6 Jur. 913 655, 656, G57 v. Edmunds, 6 M. & W. 295 1068 v. Edwards, 5 A. & E. 95 1521 v. -, 5 B. & Ad. 1065 ; 3 N. & M. 193 682, 685 ■ v. Errington, 6 Bing. N. C. 79 110 v. Ewart, 7 A. & E. 636, 668 418 v. Eyre, 5 C. B. 713 332 v. , 17 Q. B. 366 ; 15 Jur. 1031 1068 v. Fallows, 2 Cr. & J. 483 ; 2 Tyrw. 460 402, 403, 575 v. Frankia, 11 A. & E. 792 ; 3 P. & D. 565 1521 v. Gibbons, 7 C. & P. 161 152 ■ v. Giles, 5 Bing. 421 ; 2 Moo. & P. 749 656, 659, 663, 697 v. Glover, 15 Q. B. 103 548 ■ v. Goldwin, 2 Q. B. 143 657 • v. Goodier, 10 Q. B. 957 ; 16 L. J. N. S. Q. B. 435 .... 660, 661, 667, 681 v. Govier, 5 L. T. 37 1536 v. Gully, 9 B. & Cr. 344 440 v. Gutteridge, 11 Q. B. 409 ; 12 Jur. 51 1535 v. Guy, 3 East, 120 ; 4 Esp. 154 ; 6 P. P. 563 312 r. Hales, 7 Bing. 322 ; 5 Moo. & P. 132 662, 679, 681 v. Hawke, 2 East, 481 70 ■ v. Hawkins, 2 Q. B. 212 538 v. Hogg, 4 D. & R. 226 ; 2 L. J. K. B. 121 ; 1 C. & P. 160 ; Ry. & Moo. 36 ; 27 P. R. 512 163 v. Home, 3 Q. B. 757 ; 7 Jur. 38 ; 12 L. J. N. S. Q. B. 72. .110, 492, 493, 654 ■ v. Hughes, 11 Jur. 698 679 v. James, 16 East, 212 572, 605 v. Jesson, 6 East, 80 ; 2 Sm. 236 ; 8 R. R. 408 1069 v. Jones, 10 B. & Cr. 468 70 v. , 4 T. R. 300 ; 2 R. R. 390 1069 v. , 13 Jur. N. S. 824 147 v. Kensington, Lord, 8 Q. B. 429 33, 656 v. Knight, 5 B. & Cr. 671 572 v. Laming, Ry. & M. 36 ; 27 R. R. 512 163 . v. Larder, 3 Bing. IST. C. 92 1516 v . Lawrence, 4 Taunt. 23 675 • v. Lediard, 4 B. & Ad. 137 492 v. Lewis, 13 M. & W. 241 ; 13 L. J. Exch. 200 1526 v. , 11 C. B. 1035 ; 15 Jur. 512 ; 20 L. J. C. P. 177. .321, 322, 604 • v. Lightfoot, 8 M. & W. 553 144, 655, 834, 835, 1063 v. Lloyd, 5 Bing. N. C. 742 110 ■ v. Lord, 7 A. & E. 610 „ 797 v. Louch, 6 D. & L. 270 ; 14 Jur. 853 ; 18 L. J. Q. B. 378 877 v. Ludlam, 7 Bing. 275 837 v. Maisey, 8 B. & Cr. 767 ; 3 Man. & Ry. 109 . . 655, 658, 662, 663, 676, 797 v. Manning, 9 East, 59 ; 9 R. R. 503 601 „. Maple, 6 L. J. N. S. C. P. 271 1516, 1527 v. Martyr, 1 B. & P. N. R. 332 604 . v. Mayo, 7 L. J. K. B. 84 656 ■ v. Mears, Cowp. 129 440 v. Meyrick, 2 Cr. & J. 223 112 v. Moise, 8 B. & C. 767 800 v. Morgan, 7 T. R. 103 150 v. Musgrave, 1 Man. & Gr. 631 439 ■ v. Olley, 12 A. & E. 481 662, 666, 681, 797 v. Ongley, 20 L. J. C. P. 26 685 V. Penfold, 3 Q. B. 757 492 v. Pott, 2 Doug. 709 168, 792 ■ v. Powell, 5 B. & C. 308 ; 2 Y. & J. 372 163 v. Price, 16 M. & W. 603 147 v. Pullen, 3 Sc. 271 758 v. Pyke, 5 M. & S. 146 , 166 1XXX TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Doe v. Ramsden, 4 B. & Ad. 608 440 ■ v. Reed, 5 B. & Aid. 238 1411 v. Reid, 12 East, 61 951 - — r. Roberts, 2 B. & Aid. 367 ; 20 R. R. 477 110 v. Roe, 1 M. & W. 207 814, 875 „. , 6 Bing. 447 1196 v. Rolfe, 8 A. & E. 650 601 v. Rons, 17 Jut. 502, Q. B 492 . v. Rowe, 4 Bing. N. C. 737 603, 604 v. Rushen, 16 Jur. 359 604 v. St. Helens Rail. Co., 2 Q. B. 364 491, 492, 539 v. Shelton, 3 A. & E. 265 110 r. Smith, 8 A. & E. 255 ; 2 Jur. 854 1521 v. Snaith, 8 Bing. 146 ; 1 Moo. & Sc. 230 1516 v. Somerville, 6 B. & C. 126 440 . v. Steel, 1 Dowl. 359 875 v. Stone, 3 C. B. 176; 15 L. J. C. P. 234 Ill, 654 v . Sumner, 14 M. & W. 39 1073, 1074 v. Thompson, 9 Q. B. 1037 680, 685 v. Tofield, 11 East, 246; 10 R. R. 496 647, 837 v. Tom, 4 Q. B. 615 666, 797, 1526 v. Vernon, 7 East, 8 ; 3 Sm. 6 647 v. Vickers, 4 A. & E. 782 654 v. Warner, 2 C. & K. 1014 1517 v. Webber, 1 A. & E. 733 605 , v . , 3 Bing. N. C. 922 ; 5 Sc. 189 683 v. Wichelo, 8 T. R. 214 374 . v. Williams, 5 A. & E. 297 659, 660, 972, 1062 v. Wroot, 5 East, 132 149, 647 v. Yates, 5 B. & Al. 544 230 Doherty v. Allman, 3 App. Cas. 709 1311 Dolcini v. Dolcini, (1895) 1 Q. B. 898 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 427 ; 43 W. R. 542 230 Dolling v. White, 22 L. J. Q. B. 327 72 Dolman v. Nokes, 22 Beav. 402 904 . v. Smith, Prec. Ch. 456 754, 756, 758 Dolphin v. Aylward, L. R. 4 H. L. 486 ; 19 W. R. 49 ; 23 L. T. 636. . 604, 780, 787, 1434 Dolton v. Hewen, 6 Madd. 9 409 Domett v. Beckford, 5 B. & Ad. 521 ; 3 L. J. K. B. 10 270 Dominion of Canada, &c. Co., Re, 55 L. T. 347 480 Domville v. Berrington, 2 T. & C. Ex. 723 ; 7 L. J. N. S. Ex. 58 1039 Donald v. Suckling, L. R. 1 Q. B. 585 ; 35 L. J. Q. B. 232 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 795 ; 14 L. T. 772 ; 15 W. R. 13 ; 7 B. & S. 783. .1461, 1467, 1468, 1469, 1470 Donaldson v. Donaldson, Kay, 711 1487 Doncaster Permanent Building Soc, Re, L. R. 3 Eq. 158 ; 15 W. R. 102 ; 15 L. T. N. S. 270 557 Donisthorpe v. Porter, Amb. 600 760 Donne v. Hart, 2 R. & My. 360 321 Donovan, Exp., 2 Gl. & J. 141 , 1092 . v. Ericker, Jao. 168 1209 Doody, Re, Fisher v. Doody, (1893) 1 Ch. 129 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 14 ; 68 L. T. 128; 41 W. R. 49; 9 T. L. R. 77 1194 Dorman, Exp., Re Lake,'L. R. 8 Ch. A. 51 ; 42 L. J. Bky. 20 ; 21 W. R. 94; 27 L. T. N. S. 528 179 Dormay v. Borradaile, 5 C. B. 380 ; 11 Jur. 231 ; S.C. 10 Beav. 335 294, 408 Doubitofte v. Curteene, Cro. Jac. 452 685 Douglas, Exp., 3D. & C. 310 1403 v. Culverwell, 4 De G. F. & J. 20 ; L. T. N. S. 272 ; 10 W. R, 327 21, 22, 732, 1160, 1180, 1209 r. Ewing, 6 Ir. Com. L. R. 395 1480 . v. Patrick, 3 T. R. G83 ; 1 R. R. 793 715 v. Russell, 4 Sim. 535 271, 1266 . „. Ward, 1 Ch. Cas. 79 603 Dover and Deal Rail. Co., Re, 17 Sim. 11 1127 TABLE OF CASES. lxXXl PAGE Dowdeswell v. Dowdeswell, 9 Ch. D. 294 1009, 1107 Dowle v. Neale, 10 W. R. 627 876 v. Saunders, 2 H. & M. 242 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 901 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 87 ; 10 L. T. N. S. 840 ; 12 W. R. 1074 65, 1340 Dowling v. Ford, 11 M. & W. 329 978, 980, 1411 v. Hudson, 14 Beav. 423 927 „. Stuart, ReMacdonald, W. N. (1885) 98 214, 696 Downe, Viscount v. Morris, 3 Ha. 404 ; 13 L. J. N. S. Ch. 337 ; 8 Jur. 486 642, 64.5, 096 Downes, Exp., 18 Ves. 290 ; 1 Rose, 96 1085 p. Garbett, 2 Dowl. N. S. 939 ; 7 Jur. 800 ; 12 L. J. Q. B. 269 75 „. Grazebrook, 3 Mer. 200 ; 17 R. R. 62 906, 1 100 Downs v. Salmon, 20 Q. B. D. 775 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. 454 ; 59 L. T. 374 ; 36 W. R. 810 230, 247 Dowse, L. R. 3 A. & E. 135 ; 39 L. J. Ad. 40 ; 22 L. T. 627 ; 18 W. R. 1008 1395 Dowse's Case, Re European Assce. Soc., 3 Ch. D. 384 ; 35 L. T. N. S. 653 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 402 1450 Dowthorpe, 2 W. Rob. Adm. 73 ; 2 N. of C. 264 1391 Doyle v. Kaufman, 3 Q. B. D. 340 1065 Drasre v. Hartopp, 28 Ch. D. 414 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 434 ; 51 L. T. 902 ; 33 W. R. 410 1007 Drake, Exp., 1 M. D. & De G. 539 163, 1095, 1096 v. Mitchell, 3 East, 251 ; 7 R. R. 449 1448 v. Whitmore, 5 De G. & S. 619 426, 428 Draper v. Borlace, 2 Vern. 370 1296 r. Clarendon, Earl, 2 Vern. 518 1012 Dresser v. Hoare, 7 H. L. C. 290 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 371 1499 Drew v. Lockett, 32 Beav. 499 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 786 98, 1236, 1299 r. Norbury, Earl of, 3 J. & L. 267 1014, 1323 v. O'Hara, 2 Ba. & Be. 562, n 1016 v. Power, 1 Sch. & L. 192 1141 v. Willis, (1891) 1 Q. B. 450 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 264 ; 64 L. T. 760 ; 39 W. R. 310 ; 7 T. L. R. 312 1280, 1362 Drew & Co. v. Josolyne, 18 Q. B. D. 590 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 490 ; 57 L. T. 5 ; 35 W. R. 570 1381 Drewin v. Short, 1 Jur. N. S. 798, Q. B 186 Drewry v. Barnes, 3 Russ. 94 ; 27 R. R. 20 447, S79 Drinkwater v. Coombe, 2 S. & St. 340 384, 1432, 1435 v. Goodwin, 1 Cowp. 251 1483 Driscoll, Re, Ir. Rep. 1 Eq. 285 1310 Driver v. Broad, (1893) 1 Q. B. 744 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 12 ; 69 L. T. 169 ; 41 W. R. 483 ; 9 T. L. R. 410 496 v. Ferrand, 1 R. & My. 681 755, 756 v. Thompson, 4 Taunt. 294 ; 13 R. R. 592 332 Drosier v. Brereton, 15 Beav. 222 523 Drought v. Jones, 2 Ir. Eq. R. 303 993 v. Redford, 1 Moll. 572 1003 Drummond v. St. Albans, Duke of, 5 Ves. 433 300, 677 and Davies' Contract, Re, (1891) 1 Ch. 524 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 258 ; 64 L. T. 246 ; 39 W. R. 445 ; 7 T. L. R. 272 337, 368 Drury v. Hooke, 1 Vern. 411 626 Dryden v. Frost, 3 My. & Cr. 670 ; 2 Jur. 1030 ; 8 L. J. ST. S. Ch. 235. .1175, 1195, 1326, 1333, 1374 v. Hope, 9 W. R. 18, Ex. ; 3 L. T. 280 248 Drysdale v. Piggott, 8 De G. M. & G. 546 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 1078 . . . .288, 292, 294 Duberly v. Day, 16 Beav. 33 ; 16 Jur. 581 ; 5 H. L. C. 388 321 Dublin Corp. v. Judge, 11 L. R. Ir. 9 1067 Duchess of Kingstone's Case, 2 Sm. L. C. 9th ed Ill Duck v. Braddyll, 13 Pri. 455 1531 Duckworth v. Ewart, 10 Jur. N. S. 214 49 v. Trafford, 18 Ves. 283 92S XOh. I. — R. / Ixxxii TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Dudson's Contract, Re, 8 Ch. D. 628 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 632 ; 39 L. T. N. S. 182 ; 27 W. R, 179 371 Dufaurt*. Professional Life Assn., 25 Beav. 599; 4 Jur. N. S. 841.. 285, 286,1487 Duff v. Valentine, W. N. (1883) 225 ; 16 L. J. N. S. 701 ; 76 L. T. N. S. 130 ; 28 S. J. 153 221, 222, 235 Duffield v. Scott, 3 T. R. 374 95 Dugdale v. Dugdale, L. R. 14 Eq. 234 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 565 ; 27 L. T. N. S. 705 786 y . Vize, 5 Ir. L. R. 568 987 Duke of Bedford, 2 Hasrg. 294 1504, 1507, 1509 Montrose, 4 T\ R. 248 99 Duly v. Nalder, 11 Jur. N. S. 921 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 52 ; 14 W. R. 45 646 Duncan r. Cannan, 18 Beav. 128 326 v. Cashin, L. R. 10 C. P. 554 ; 44 L. J. C. P. 396 ; 32 L. T. 497 ; 23 W. R. 561 181, 328, 330 v. Chamherlayne, 11 Sim. 123 1269 v. Manchester Water Works, 8 Pri. 697 867 Duncan, Fox & Co. v. North & South Wales Bank, 6 App. Cas. 1 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 355; 43 L. T. 706; 29 W. R. 763 97 Duncomb v. Reeve, Cro. Eliz. 783 1468 Duncombe v. Brighton Club, &c, L. R. 10 Q. B. 371 ; 44 L. J. Q. B. 216; 32 L. T. 863 ; 23 W. R. 795 1160 v. Davis, 1 Ha. 184 784 ■ r. Greenacre, 2 De G-. F. & J. 509 326, 327 v. Hansley, 3 P. Wins. 333 1008 v. Nelson, 9 Beav. 211 361 Dundas v. Dutens, 1 Ves. Jun. 196 ; 2 Cos, 240 ; 1 R. R. 112 568 Dundee, 1 Haq-g 109 260 Dundonald, Earl v. Masterman, L. R. 7 Eq. 504 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 350 ; 17 W. R. 548 ; 20 L. T. N. S. 271 1143 Dnnlop, Re, Dunlop v. Dunlop, 21 Ch. D. 583 ; 48 L. T. 89 ; 31 W. R. 211 277, 775, 787, 789 Dunn v. Massey, 6 A. & E. 479 695 v. Norwood, 14 C. B. N. S. 574 1486 Dunne, Assignees of v. Hibernian Joint Stock Co., Ir. R. 2 Eq. 82 1261 Dunsany, Lord v. Latouche, 1 Sch. & L. 137 1220, 1250, 1251 Dunstan v. Patterson, 1 1 Jur. 96 611 v. ■ ■ 2 Ph. 341 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 404. .869, 1027, 1175, 1185, 1415 D mister v. Glengall, Lord, 3 Ir. Ch. Rep. 47 1282 Dmit v. Dunt, 9 Beav. 146 1176 Dunvegan Castle, 3 Hagg. 331 1509 Durand's Trusts, Re, 8 W. R. 33 1263 Duranty v. Hart, Hamburg, 2 Moo. P. C. N. S. 289 ; Br. & L. 253 ; 11 L.J. Ad. 116; 10 Jur. N. S. 601 ; 10 L. T. 206 ; 12 W. R. 628 ; 2 N. R. 136 ; 1 Asp. 327 1501, 1502, 1506, 1514 Durham County, &c. Building Soc, Re, L. R. 12 Eq. 516 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 124 ; 25 L. T. N. S. 83 460 v. Crackles, 8 Jur. N. S. 1174 317 Durrant v. Blurton, 9 Dowl. 1015 73 & Stoner, Re, 18 Ch. D. 106 ; 45 L. T. 303 ; 30 W. R. 37 317 Duvall v. Terrey, Show. P. C. 15 68 Du Vigier v. Lee, 2 Ha. 326 ; 12 L. J. N. S. Ch. 345 ; 7 Jur. 299 989, 1025 1059, 1151, 1170 Dwyer v. Edie, 2 Park, 914 288 Dyer v. Bowley, 2 Bing. 94 ; 9 Moo. 196 682 v. Craven, Lord, 2 Dick. 662 169 Dyke v. Sweeting, Willes, 5S5 895 Dymond v. Croft, 3 Ch. D. 512 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 604 ; 34 L. T. 786 ; 24 W. R. 842 1019, 1020 Dvnevor, \-. ( ',,.,!;<■, IH'h.l). 605; IS L.J. Ch. 31 4 ; 27 W. R, 070.. 1134, 1136 Dvu , \V. N. (1887) 35 1026 ke, Re, (1896) 2 Ch. 720 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 791 ; 74 L. T. 759 ; ! 5 W. R. 28 410 r. Hornby, 7 Dc G. M. & G. 1 695 ■ v. Moiris, 1 Ha. 413 ; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 241 ; 6 Jur. 297. . . .997, 1003, 1017, 1037, 1049 TABLE OF CASES. lxXXlii PAGE Eades v. Harris, 1 T. & C. C. C. 233 631, 1014 EafflesfieLdw. Londonderry, Marquis of, 4 Ch. D. 693 ; 25 W. R. 190 ; 35 L T.N. S. 303 ; affirmed in D. P. 26 W. 11. 540 ; 3S L. T. N. S. 303 . . 471 Eardley v. Knight, 41 Ch. D. 537 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 622 ; 60 L. T. 780 ; 37 W. R. 704 • ! ]97 Earle v. Bellinghara, 24 Beav. 415 410, 4 1 1 Earley v. Rathbone, W. N. (1888) 61 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 652 ; 58 L. T. 516 . . 118 East India Co. v. Atkyns, Comyns, 349 12 . p. Boddam, 9 Ves. 464; 7 R. R. 275 810, 817 , p. Donald, 9 "Ves. 275 1305 East of England Bank Co., Re, L. R. 4 Ch. A. 14, 18 ; 17 W. R. IS ; 19 L. T. N. S. 299 • 1160 East Union, &c. Co. v. Hart, 8 Exch. 116 930 Eastern Counties Rail. Co. v. Hawkes, 5 H. L. C. 331 533 Easton v. London, 33 L. J. Exch. 34 ; 12 W. R. 53 813 v . London Joint Stock Bank, 34 Ch. D. 95 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 569 ; 55 L. T. 678 ; 35 W. R. 220 - 483 Eccles v. Thawill, Free. Ch. 18 ; Anon., 2 Vern. 177 1153 Eckstein v. Reynolds, 7 A. & E. 80 719 Eddleston v. Collins, 3 De G. M. & G. 1 ; 17 Jur. 331 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 480. . 150, (00 Ede v. Knowles, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 172 57, 58, 60, 575, 603 Eden v. Smyth, 5 Ves. 341 ; 5 R. R. 60 1403 Edge v. Duke, 18 L. J. Ch. 183 • 297 v. Worthington, 1 Cox, 211 ; 1 R. R. 20 56 Edgell v. Wilson, W. N. (1893) 145 944 Echnngton v. Fitzmaurice, W. N. (1884) 121 ; 32 W. R. 848 47 Edmond, Lush. 211 ; 30 L. J. Ad. 128 1506, 1509, 1510 Edmonds, Exp., 4 De G. F. & J. 488 13(9 v. Blaina Furnaces Co., 36 Ch. D. 215 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 815 ; 57 L. T. 139; 35 W. R. 798 209, 477 Edmunds v. Best, 7 L. T. N. S. 279 183 . v. Povey, 1 Vern. 187 1215, 1220, 1225 v. Wallingford, 14 Q. B. D. 811 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 305 ; 52 L. T. 720 ; 33 W. R. 647 ; 1 C. & E. 334 223 v Waugh, L. R. 1 Eq. 418; 35 L. J. Ch. 234 911, 1169, 1170 Edward Oliver, L. R. 1 A. & E. 379 ; 36 L. J. Ad. 13 ; 16 L. T. 575 ; 2 M. L. C. 507 • 789, 1511 Edwards, Re, 11 Ir. Ch. R. 367 lo i 16 , , Re, 1 Deac. 611 61 v. Brown, 2 Coll. 100 ; 9 Jur. 421 615, 616, 618 Vm Burt, 2 De G. M. & G. 65 009, 615 , v. Cnnliffe, 1 Madd. 287 1024, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1163 v . Edwards, 2 Ch. D. 291 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 391 ; 34 L. T. N. S. 472 ; 24 W. R. 713 200, 649,942, 947 v . Freeman, 2 P. Wms. 438 765 v. Glyn, 2 E. & E. 29 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 1397 586 v. Harbin, 2 T. R. 587 ; 1 R. R. 548 176, 572 v . Jones, 1 Coll. 247 ; 13 L. J. Ch. 371 ; 8 Jur. 416 675 „. Marcus, (1894) 1 Q. B. 587 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 363 ; 70 L. T. 182; 1 Mans. 70 , • • • • • 2o8 ■ v. Marston, (1891) 1 Q. B. 225 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 222 ; 64 L. T. 97 ; 39 W. R. 165 ; 7 T. L. R. 127 233, 234 v. Martin, 25 L. J. Ch. 284 137, 1022 v . L. R. 1 Eq. 121 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 186 ; 14 W. R. 25 ; 13 L. T. N. S. 236 1' 257 > l' 267 p. Scott, 1 Man. & Gr. 962 ; 2 Scott, N. R. 266 ; 4 Jur. 1062. . . .181, 187, 1305 . v. Standard Rolling Stock Syndicate, (1893) 1 Ch. 574 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 605 ; 68 L. T. 194, 633 ; 41 W. R. 343. . . .493, 937, 938, 1118 v. Warden, 1 App. Cas. 305 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 713 ; 35 L. T. 174 . . 1 v. Warwick, Countess of, 2 P. Wms. 171 H53 Edwin, Br. & L. 281 ; 33 L. J. Ad. 197 ; 10 L. T. 058 ; 12 W. R. 992 ; o n/r t. n Qft ,... r 1392 ;*2i /2 2 M. L. C. 36... Eeuron, 2 C. Rob. 1 l 'l° r \ Effingham v. Napier, 5 Bro. P. C. 22 ; 2 P. Wms. 664, n 62 1XXX1V TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Egbert v. Butter, 21 Beav. 560 1382 Eggington, Exp., Mont. 72 1085 Egremont, Earl v. Hamilton, 1 Ba. & Be. 516 1065 Eidsforth v. Armstead, 2 K. & J. 333 418 Eisdell v. Hammersley, 31 Beav. 255 381 Eland v. Eland, 4 My. & Cr. 420 ; 8 L. J. N. S. Cli. 289 ; 3 Jur. 474 . .402, 422, 1310 Elder v. Beaumont, 4 Jur. N. S. 23 1048 v. Maclean, 3 Jur. N. S. 284 ; 5 W. R. 477 1261, 1278, 1281 Elephanta, 15 Jur. 1185 ; 18 L. T. 248 1507, 1512 Eley v. Read, 76 L. T. 39 912 Elgar, Exp., 2 Gl. & J. 1 1092 Elias v. Griffith, 8 Ch. D. 521 ; 26 W. R. 869 ; 38 L. T. N. S. 871 1205 v. Snowdon Slate Quarries Co., 4 App. Cas. 454 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 811 ; 41 L. T. 289; 28 "W. R. 54 117 Elin, 8 P. D. 129 ; 52 L. J. P. D. 55 ; 5 Asp. 120 1395 Eliza, 3 Hagg. 87 1511 Elkington v. Holland, 9 M. & W. 659 73 Ella A. Clark, Br. & L. 32 ; 8 L. T. 119 ; 9 Jur. 312 1397 Ellenor v. Ugle, W. N. (1895) 161 950, 1048 Ellerby's Claim, Re Consolidated Land Co., 20 "W. R. 855 490 Elliot v. Dans, 2 B. & P. 338 ; 5 R. R. 616 504 Elliott v. Bishop, 10 Exch. 496 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 962 ?. . . 121, 124 v. Cordell, 5 Madd. 149 ; 21 R. R. 287 327 v. Dearslev, 16 Ch. D. 327 ; 44 L. T. 198 ; 29 TV. R. 494 410, 772 v. Edwards, 3 B. & P. 183 1373 v. Fisher, 12 Sim. 505 426 v. Freeman, 7 L. T. N. S. 715 243 v. Hancock, 2 Vern. 143 410 v. Merriman, Barnard. 78 401, 404, 405 v. Montgomery, Ir. 7 Eq. 214 407 Ellis, Exp., Jac. 234 511 , Exp., 2 Ch. D. 797; 45 L. J. Bky. 159; 34 L. T. N. S. 705. .580, 594, 595 v. Deane, Beat. 5 1009 v. Emmanuel, 1 Ex. D. 157 ; 46 L. J. Ex. 25 ; 34 L. T. 553 ; 24 W. R. 832 93, 103 ■ v. Griffiths, 7 Beav. 83 1033, 1044, 1049, 1140 v. Guavas, 2 Ch. Ca. 50 852 v. Silber, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 83 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 666 ; 28 L. T. N. S. 156 ; 21 W. R. 346 1077 v. Wilmot, L. R. 10 Ex. 10 ; 44 L. J. Exch. 10 ; 23 W. R. 214 ; 31 L. T. N. S. 574 91 v. Wright, 76 L. T. 522 322 Ellis' Trusts, L. R. 17 Eq. 409 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 444 ; 22 W. R. 448 339 Ellison v. Eiwin, 13 Sim. 309 322 r. Wright, 3 Russ. 458 ; 27 R. R. 108 1186, 1195 Elmer, Exp., 13 W. R. 476 182 v. Creasy, L. R. 9 Ch. A. 69 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 807 ; 29 L. T. 632 ; 21 W. R. 821 730, 1201 Elsey v. Cox, 26 Beav. 95 576 v. Lutyens, 8 Ha. 159 1248 Elston v. Wood, 3 My. & K. 678 153 Elton v. Curteis, 19 Ch. D. 49 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 60 ; 45 L. T. 435 ; 30 W. R. 316 1029, 1C30, 1163 v. Elton, 27 Beav. 632 813 Elve v. Boyton, (1891) 1 Ch. 501 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 383; 64 L. T. 482 515 Elvy r. Norwood, 5 De G. & S. 240 ; 16 Jur. 493 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 716. .. . 1151, 1170 Elwcll v. Quash, 1 Stra. 20 72 Elwes v. Maw, 3 East, 38 ; 6 R. R. 523 127 Ely, Dean of v. Bliss, 2 De G. M. & G. 459 171 v. Cash, 15 M. & W. 617 170 Emancipation, 1 W. Rob. 124 1501, 150S Emanuel College v. Evans, 1 INp. in ( 'h. 10 12 Emanuel v. Bridger, L. R. 9 (,>. B. 286; 30 L. T. N. S. 194; 43 L. J. Q. B. 96 ; 22 \V. R. 401 219 TABLE OF CASES. lxxXV PAGE Emden v. Carte, 19 Cii. D. 311; 45 L. T. 328; 30 W. R. 17; 51 L.J. Ch. 371 1388 Emerson, Exp., Re Hawkins, 20 W. R. 110 197 Emery, Exp., 2 Ves. Sen. 674 1482 ■ , Re, Exp. Official Receiver, 21 Q. B. D. 405 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. G29 ; 37 W. R. 21 250 Emery's Trusts, 32 W. R. 357 331 Ernes v. Widowson, 4 Car. & P. 151 84, 1448 Emly v. Lye, 15 East, 7 ; 13 R. R. 347 503 Emmerton, Exp., 3 D. & C. 654 66 Emmet v. Tottenham, 10 Jur. N. S. 1090 ; 12 L. T. 838 613, 616, 722 Emmott v. Marchant (or Halkett v. Emmott), 3 Q. B. D. 555 ; 38 L. T. 508 244 Empire Mining Co., Re, 44 Ch. D. 402 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 345 ; 62 L. T. 493 ; 38 W. R. 747 1134 Empress Engineering Co., Re, 16 Ch. D. 125 ; 43 L. T. 742 ; 29 W. R. 342 486 Empringham v. Short, 3 Ha. 461 570, 948 Empson's Case, L. R. 9 Eq. 597 ; 22 L. T. N. S. 855; 18 W. R. 565. .110, 556 Empusa, 5 P. D. 6 ; 48 L. J. Ad. 36 ; 41 L. T. 383 ; 38 W. R. 263 1500, 1504, 1512 Emuss v. Smith, 2 De G. & S. 736 775 Engel v. South Met. Brewing, &c. Co. (No. 2), (1892) 1 Ch. 442 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 369 ; 66 L. T. 155 ; 40 W. R. 282 ; 8 T. L. R. 267 496, 1127 Engelback v. Nixon, L. R. 10 C. P. 645 ; 33 L. T. N. S. 831 ; 44 L. J. C. P. 396 187, 330 England v. Codrington, 1 Ed. 169 23, 1182 ■ r. Downs, 6 Beav. 269 ; 6 Jur. 1075 180 v. Marsden, L. R. 1 C. P. 529 ; 35 L. J. C. P. 259 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 706 ; 14 L. T. 405 ; 14 W. R. 650 223 ■ v. Tredegar, Lord, L. R. 1 Eq. 344 ; 35 Beav. 256 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 380 816 English v. Barlow, 48 L. T. 188 1012 English Channel Steamship Co. v. Rolt, 17 Ch. D. 715 ; 44 L. T. 135 . .468, 470, 1289 & American Bank, Exp., L. R. 4 Ch. 49 ; 19 L. T. N. S. 302 ... . 10S4 & Scottish Mercantile Investment Trust v. Brunton, (1S92) 2 Q. B. 700, C. A. ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 136 ; 67 L. T. 406 ; 41 W. R. 133 ; 8 T. L. R. 772 495, 1311, 1316, 1318, 1335 & Scottish, &c. Trust v. Flatau, 36 W. R. 238 94 Ennis, Re, Coles v. Peyton, (1893) 3 Ch. 23S ; 62 L. J. Ch. 991 87 Eno v. Tatham, 3 D. J. & S. 443 : 9 Jur. N. S. 481 ; 1 N. R. 529 . . . .769, 772 Ensworth v. Griffith, 15 Vin. Ab. 468, pi. 8 ; 2 Eq. Cas. Ab. 595, pi. 6 ; 5 Bro. P. C. 184 16 Enthoven v. Hoyle, 13 C. B. 373 ; 21 L. J. C. P. 100 477, 488 Enys v. Donnithorne, 2 Burr. 1190 964 Eqiutable Life Assurance Co. v. Fuller, 7 Jur. N. S. 307 1187 Ernest v. Nicholls, 6 H. L. C. 401 475 Errington, Re, Exp. Mason, (1894) 1 Q. B. 11 ; 69 L. T. 766 964 ■ v. Howard, Amb. 485 440 Esdaile v. Oxenham, 3 B. & Cr. 225 ; 5 Dow. & Ry. 49 ; 27 R. R. 331 . . 1372, 1376 Espey v. Lake, 10 Ha. 260 007, 609 Espin v. Pemberton, 3 De G. & J. 547 ; 5 Jur.N. S. 157 ; 2SL. J. Ch. 311. .1326, 1329, 1334, 1336 Essex v. Baugh, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 620 ; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 374 ; 6 Jur. 1030. . 1242, 1248 Estwick v. Caillaud, 5 T. R. 424 567 Etty v. Bridges, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 486, 494 1256, 1276 Eugenie, L. R. 4 A. & E. 123 ; 29 L. T. 314 ; 21 W. R. 957 ; 2 Asp. 134 . . 789, 1511 Europa, 2 Moo. P. C. N. S. 1 ; Br. & L. 89 ; 32 L. J. Ad. 18S ; 9 Jur. N. S. 690; 8 L. T. 368 1390, 1395 European Bank, Re, Agra Bank Claim, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 41 1389 • , Exp. Oriental Commercial Bank, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 358; 39 L. J. Ch. 588 ; 22 L. T. N. S. 422 ; 18 W. R. 474 1329, 1331 European, &c. Rail. Co., Re, 4 Ch. D. 33 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 57 ; 35 L. T. 583 ; 25 W. R. 92 1172, 1117 lxXXvi TABLE OF CASES. PAGE European Mail, &c. Co., Re, 4 K. & J. 676 265 5 Jur. N. S. Q. B. 310 188 Eustace v. Keightley, 4 Bro. P. C. 588 50 Evans, Exp., Be Edwards, 39 L. T. 364 595, 596 Re Watkins, 13 Ch. D. 252 ; 49 L. J. Bky. 7 ; 41 L. T. 565; 28 W. R. 127 649, 931, 942 . v. Bicknell, 6 Ves. Sen. 174 ; 5 R. R. 245 47, 812, 1216, 1296, 1305, 1334, 1337 v. Bremridge, 8 De G. M. & G. 100 87 ■ v. Brown, 5 Beav. 114 645 ■ v. Carrington, 30 L. J. Ch. 370 624 v. Cockeram, 1 Coll. 428 755 ■ r. Coventry, 5 De G. M. & G. 917 928 ■ v. Drummond, 4 Esp. 89 1452 — ■ v. Elliott, 9 A. & E. 342 ; 1 P. & D. 264 076, 679, 680, 081 ■ v. Hallam, L. R. 6 Q. B. 713 ; 40 L. J. Q. B. 229 ; 24 L. T. 939 ; 18W.R.1158 1325 ■ v. Jones, 3 H. & C. 423; 11 Jur. N. S. 784; 11 L. T. 636 567 ■ v. , 5 M. & W. 295 961, 966 . v. , Kay, 29 378, 794 ■ v. Judkins, 4 Camp. 56 717 . v. Mathias, 7 E. & B. 602 951 v. Nichol, 3 Man. & Gr. 614 1495 ■ v. Taylor, Sau. & Sc. 681 951 ■ v. Truman, 2 B. & Ad. 886 ; 1 Moo. & R. 10 1481 ■ v. Walshe, 2 Sck. & L. 519 ; 12 R. R. 88, n 165 v. Wright, 2 H. & N. 527 223 Eveleigh v. Purssford, 3 Moo. & R. 539 567 Evelyn, Re, Exp. General Public Works, &c. Co., (1894) 2 Q. B. 302 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 658; 70 L. T. 692; 42 W. R. 512; 1 Mans. 195.. 365 v. Evelyn, 2 P. Wins. 659 427, 431, 433, 760, 764 v. Lewis, 3 Ha. 472 947, 953 v. Templar, 2 Bro. C. C. 148 605 Evens' Claim, &c, L. R. 16 Eq. 354 ; 29 L. T. N. S. 22 1455 Everard v. Kendall, L. R. 5 C. P. 428 ; 29 L. J. C. P. 234 ; 22 L. T. 408 ; 18 W. R. 892 1396 v. Poppleton, 5 Q. B. 181 73 Everingham v. Co-operative Pure Family Beer Co., W. N. (1880) 99 .... 1128 Everitt v. Automatic Weighing Machine Co., (1892) 3 Ch. 506 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 241 ; 67 L. T. 349 1400, 1415, 1416 Ewart v. Latta, 4 Macq. H. L. 983 96 Ewbank v. Nutting, 7 C. B. 777 274, 1506 Ewer v. Corbet, 2 P. Wins. 148 399 Ewin v. Lancaster, 6 B. & S. 571 86 Ewinj? v. Orr-Ewing, 9 App. Cas. 40 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 435 ; 50 L. T. 401 ; 32 W. R. 573 479 Exall v. Partridge, 8 T. R. 308 ; 3 Esp. 8 ; 4 R. R. 656 91 Exchange and Hop Warehouses, Ltd. v. Association of Land Financiers, 34 Ch. D. 195 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 4 ; 35 W. R. 120 1026 Exhall, &c. Co., Re, 35 Beav. 449 1379 , 4 De G. J. & S. 377 ; 12 W. R. 727 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 576 ; 4 N. R. 127 1125 Exton v. Greaves, 1 Vera. 138 1207 v. Scott, 6 Sim. 31 572 Eyre v. Bartrop, 3 Madd. 221 ; 18 R. R. 216 88 - r. Burmester, 10 H. L. C. 90 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 1019 ; 6 L. T. N. S. 838. . 1297, 1331, 1411 v. Cox, 24 W. R. 317 1106 v. Dolphin, 2 Ba. & Be. 290 ; 12 R. R. 94 1252, 1309 v. Hanson, 2 Beav. 478 ; 9 L. J. N". S. Ch. 302 1032, 1033 r. Hughes, 2 Ch. D. 148 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 395 ; 34 L. T. N. S. 211 ; 24 W. R. 597 802, 1143, 1145, 1192, 1193, 1204, 1207 v. McDowell, 9H. L. 619 50, 52, 1282, 1348, 1361, 1488 v. Sadlier, 15 Ir. Ch. R. 1 1375 v. Walsh, 10 Ir. ('. L. 346 106S v. Woodhnc, Cro. Eliz. 278 ; 1 And. 227 643 TABLE OF CASES. lxXXVli PAGE Eyre v. Wynn-Mackenzie, (189-1) 1 Oh. 218 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 239 ; G9 L. T. 823; 42 W. R. 220.... 1112, 1146, 1194, 119o Eyton" Re, Barlett v. Charles, 45 Ch. D. 458 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 733 ; 63 L. T. 336 ; 39 W. E. 135 1 28 1 v. Knight, 2 Jui-. 8 1°° Fagg' v. James, 8 L. T. N. S. 5 134 ° Falff's Case, 1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 354, pi. 1 ; 1 Ch. Cas. 81 1293 FahiV Ayers, 2 S. & St. 533 ; 4 L. J. Ch. 166 ; 25 R. R. 264 144 Faircloth v. Gurney, 9 Bing. 622 .440, 441 Fairolough v. Marshall, 4 Ex. D. 37 ; 39 L. T. N. S. 389 ; 48 L. J. Ex. 146 ; 27 "W. R. 145 , 630 > £73 Fairfax v. Montague, cited 2 Ves. Jun. 84 749 Fairfield Shipbuilding, &c. Co. v. London & East Coast Express Steam- ship Co., W. N. (1895) 64 932, 937 Fairholm v. Kennedy, 24 L. R. Ir. 498 4S3 Fan-port, 8 P. D. 48; 52 L. J. P. D. 21; 5 Asp. 62 1395,1397 1 ! 10 P. D. 13 ; 54 L. J. P. 3 ; 52 L. T. 62 ; 33 W. R. 418 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 348 26 _ 6 Fairtitle v. Gilbert, 2 T. R. 169 ; I R. R. 455 491, 492, 493, 6o4 Faith v. East India Co., 4 B. & Al. 630 1399 Faithful, 31 L. J. P. D. & A. 81 • 1510 Faithfull v. Ewen, 7 Ch. D. 495 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 457 ; 23 W. R. 2/0 ; 37 L. T. N. S. 805 1324, 1388 r Woodley, 43 Ch. D. 287 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 304 ; 61 L. T. 308 ; 38W.R. 326.. 1019,1021 Falcke v. Scottish, &c. Insce. Co., 34 Ch. D. 234; 56 L. J. Ch. 707; 56 L. T. 220 ; 35 W. R. 143 955, 1380, 1393 Falkner v. Equitable, &c. Co., 4 Drew. 352 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 1214; 28 L. J. Ch. 132 902 Fall v. Elkins, 9 W. R. 861 92o Family Endowment Soc, Re, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 118 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 306 ; 29 L. T. N. S. 775 1'155, 1457 Fanchon, 5 P. D. 173 ; 50 L. J. Ad. 4 ; 42 L. T. 483 ; 29 W. R. 339 ... . 264 Fancourt v. Thorn, 9 Q. B. 312 ; 15 L. J. Q. B. 344 ; 10 Jur. 639 1521 Farebrother v. Wodehouse, 23 Beav. 18 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 1178 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 81 940 862,1235 Farhall v. Farhali," L. R. V Ch.'l23 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 146 ; 25 L. T. N. S. 685 ; 20 W. R. 157 402 > 403 Farlev Exp., 1 M. D. & De G. 683 ; 5 Jur. 512; 10 L. J. N. S. Bky. *' 55 60, 63 v. Briant" *5 N. & M.'42 - . .'.'; = . . . 968 v. Turner, 3 Jur. N. S. 532 1498 Farmer v. Curtis, 2 Sim. 466 694, 723, 1005, 1007 v. Giles, 5H. &N. 753 557, 558 . v. Smith, 4 H. & N. 196 562 Farquhar v. Morris, 7 T. R. 124 ; 4 Taunt. 876 1160 v. Young, W. N. (1886) 40 1044 Farquharson v. Floyer, 3 Ch. D. 109 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 750 ; 35 L. T. N. S. 355 , (86 Farr v. Newman, 4 T.'r.'642 10 - Farran v. Beresford, 10 CI. & F. 319 1066 Farrand v. Yorkshire Banking Co., 40 Ch. D. 182 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 238 ; 60 L. T. 669 ; 37 W. R. 318" 1345 Farrant v. Lovel, 3 Atk. 723 669 Farrar v. Barraclough, 2 Sm. & G. 231 o24 . v Farrars, Limited, 40 Ch. D. 395 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 185 ; 60 L. T. 121 ; 37 W. R. 196; 5 T. L. R. 164 901, 906 Farrell v. Gleeson, 11 CI. & F. 702 1066 Farrer v. Lacy, Hartland & Co., 31 Ch. D. 42; 55 L. J. Ch. 149 ; 53 L.T. 515; 34 W. R. 22 911, 1019, 1020 Farrow v. Rees, 4 Beav. 18 ; 4 Jur. 1028 .... 1309, 1338, 1431, 1437, 1439, 1443 Faulkner v. Bolton, 7 Sim. 319 ; 4 L. J. N. S. Ch. 81 734, 735, 736 lxXXVlii TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Faulkner v. Daniel, 3 Ha. 220 . . . .805, 958, 1008, 1009, 1160, 1193, 1433, 1442 Fausset v. Carpenter, 2 Dow & CI. 232 747 Favell v. Wright, 64 L. T. 85 832 Fawcet v. Fothergill, Dick. 19 696 Fawcet v. Lowther, 2 Ves. Sen. 300 148, 644, 646, 647, 698, 1407 Fawell v. Heelis, Amb. 724 ; 1 Bro. C. C. 442, n. ; 2 Dick. 435 1374 Fearnley v. Wright, 6 Bing. N. C. 446 593 Fearnside v. Derham, 13 L. J. Ch. 354 •. 120 v. Flint, 22 Ch. D. 579 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 479; 48 L. T. 154; 31 W. R. 318 973 Feast v. Robinson & Fisher, W. N. (1894) 14 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 321 ; 70 L. T. 168 248 Featherstone v. Fenwick, 1 Bro. C. C. 270, n 56,57 Fector v. Philpott, 12 Pri. 197 ; 26 R. R. 650 1366 Fee v. Cobine, 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 406 20 Feilden v. Slater, L. R. 7 Eq. 523 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 379 ; 17 W. R. 485 ; 20 L. T. N. S. 485 1308 Feistel V.King's Coll., Cambridge, 10 Beav. 491 300, 933, 1278 Fell v. Brown, 2 Bro. C. C. 276 694, 723, 1005 Fellows v. Clay, 3 G. & D. 406 ; 4 Q. B. 313 170 Feltham v. Clark, 1 De G. & S. 307 1014, 1273 Felton v. Ash, Barnes, 177 875 Fendall v. May, 2 M. & S. 76 ; 14 R. R. 593 71 Fenn v. Bittlestone, 7 Exch. 752 ; 21 L. J. Ex. 41 656 Fentiman v. Fentiman, 13 Sim. 171 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 436 413, 435 Fenton v. Blackwood, L. R. 5 P. C. 167 ; 22 W. R. 562 1196 ■ v. Blythe, 25 Q. B. D. 417 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 589 ; 63 L. T. 453 ; 39 W. R, 79 216, 250 v. Philpot, 12 Pri. 197 618 Fenwick v. Potts, 8 De G. M. & G. 506 51, 52 v. Reed, 1 Mer. 114 28, 29, 744 Fereyes v. Robertson, Bunb. 302 754 Fergus' Exors. v. Gore, 1 Sch. & L. 107 1197 Ferguson v. FyfEe, 8 CI. & F. 140 , . . . 1 165 v. Norman, 5 Bing. N. C. 76 1474 Fergusson v. Gibson, L. R. 14 Eq. 379 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 640 96 Fermor's Case, 3 Rep. 77 ; Sid. 470 654 Feronia, L. R. 2 A. & E. 65 ; 33 L. J. Ad. 60 ; 13 L. T. 619 ; 16 W. R. 585 ; 3 M. L. C. 54 1392 Ferrand v. Clay, 1 Jur. 265 906 Ferrars v. Cherry, 2 Vera. 384 1300, 1313 Ferris v. Mullins, 2 Sm. & G. 378 ; 18 Jur. N. S. 718 62, 65, 1098 Fetherstone v. Mitchell, 9 Ir. Eq. Rep. 480 13S0 Fewings, Exp., Re Sneyd, 25 Ch. D. 338 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 545 ; 50 L. T. 109 ; 32 AY. R. 352 1175 Field v. Cook, 23 Beav. 600 1094 v. Hopkins, 44 Ch. D. 524 ; 62 L. T. 774 132, 1194 v. Megaw, L. R. 4 C. P. 660 1492 ■ v. Peckett, 29 Beav. 568 409 v. Sowle, 4Russ. 112 343, 348 Financial Corporation, Re, Holmes' Case, L. R. 2 Ch. A. 714 467 Finch v. Brook, 1 Bing. N. C. 353 ; 2 Scott, 511 715 v. Brown, 3 Beav. 70 1209, 1210 r. Hattersley, 3 Russ. 345, n. ; 27 R. R. 88 408 v. Newnham, 2 Vern. 216 698 ■ v. Shaw, 5 H. L. C. 995 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 25 ' 785, 1033, 1342, 1433 v. Squire, 10 Ves. 41 539 v. Wiuchelsea, Earl of, 1 P. Wms. 278 1349 Finlay v. Mexican Investment Corp., (1897) 1 Q. B. 517 ; 66 L. J. Q. B. 151 ; 76 L. T. 257 480 Finley. Re, Exp. Clothworkers' Co., 21 Q. B. D. 475; 57 L. J. Q. B. 626 ; 37 W. R. 6 161 Finney v. Hinde, 4 Q. B. D. 102 ; 48 L. J. Q. B. 275 ; 40 L. T. 193 ; 27 W. R. 113 1279,1361 Firbank's Executors v. Humphreys, 18 Q. B. D. 54 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 57 : 5GL. T. 30; 35 W. R. 92 460, 467, 171 TABLE OF CASES. lxxxix PAGE Firth v. Slingsby, 58 L. T. 483 744 Fish v. Kempton, 7 C. B. 687 I486 Fisher, Exp., 2 Gl. & J. 102 1102 Exp., Re Ash, L. R. 7 Ch. A. 644 590, 694, 595 Exp., Re Barker, 3 Madd. 150 1090 ■ v. Bridges, 3 E. & B. 642 622 v. Calvert, W. N. (1879) 7 310, 1525 ■ r. Dixon, 12 CI. ft F. 312 123, 124 v. Dudding, 3 Man. ft Gr. 238 76 r. Fisher, 2 Keen, 610 776 V. Miller, 1 Biug. 150 ; 7 Moo. 527 ; 25 R. R. 607 1493 t,. Taylor, 2 Ha. 218 503 ■ ■ v. Touchett, 1 Ed. 163, n 1232 Fishwick v. Lowe, 1 Cox, 411 1006, 1011 Fitch v. Jones, 5 E. ft B. 238 622 v. Rochfort, 13 Jur. 351 1474 Fitzgerald v. Burk, 2 Atk. 397 1259 . v. Fauconberg, Fitz. 207 701, 1303, 1328 ■ v. Fitzgerald, 5 Ir. Eq. R. 525 958 j,. , 6 Ir. Ch. R. 145 517 . v. Rainsford, 1 Ba. ft Be. 37, n 164 Fitzgerald's Trustees v. Mellersh, (1892) 1 Ch. 385 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 231 ; 66 L. T. 178; 40 W. R. 251 ; 8 T. L. R. 237 709, 962 Fitzpatrick, Re, 19 L. R. Ir. 206 249 Fitzwilliam, Earl v. Price, 4 Jur. N. S. 889 296, 1199 Five Steel Barges, 15 P. D. 142 ; 59 L. J. Ad. 77 ; 63 L. T. 499 ; 39 W. R. 127 1392, 1393 Flack v. Downing Coll., Cambridge, 13 C. B. 945 150 v. Long-mate, 8 Beav. 420 S52 Flarty v. Odium, 3 T. R. 681 ; 1 R. R. 791 299 Fleck, Re, Colston v. Roberts, 37 Ch. D. 677 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 943 ; 58 L. T. 624 ; 36 W. R. 663 773 Fleetwood's Case, 8 Rep. 171 a 1216 Fleming »>. Self, 3 De G. M. & G. 997 548, 551, 558 Fleming's Case, L. R. 6 Ch. A. 393 ; 19 W. R. 663 1455 Flemming v. Page, Finch, 320 1322 Fletcher, Exp., 1 D. & C. 318 1096 . ,Exp., Mont. 454 1182 . ,Exp., Re Bainbridge, 8 Ch. D. 218 ; 47 L. J. Bky. 70 ; 38 L. T. 229 ; 26 W. R. 439 208 , Exp., Re Hart, 9 Ch.D. 381; 39 L. T. 187; 26 W. R. 843.. 1076, 107S , 10 Ch. D. 010 ; 27 W. R. 622 1076 . , Exp., Re Henley, 5 Ch. D. 809 218 ■ v. Dodd, 1 Ves. Jun. 85 955 ■ v. Fletcher, 4 Ha. 67 530 v. Gibbon, 23 Beav. 212 447 . v . Heath, 7 B. & Or. 517 1482 v. Manning, 12 M. & W. 571 183 v. Marillier, 9 A. ft E. 457 223 Flight v. Barton, 3 My. & K. 282 1312 - v. Bentley, 7 Sim. 149 ; Woodf. L. & T. 12th ed 155, 072 . v. Camac, 25 L. J. N. S. Ch. 654 ; 4 W. R. 654 677 v. Salter, 1 B. & Ad. 673 440 Flindtw. Waters, 15 East, 260; 13 R. R. 457 288 Flinn v. Pountain, W. N. (18S9) 32 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 389 ; 60 L. T. 484 ; 37 W. R. 443 1350, 1377 Flint v. Howard, (1893) 2 Ch. 54 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 804 ; 68 L. T. 390 . . . .783, 787 Flood v. Patterson, 29 Beav. 294 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 324 9S1 Florence v. Jennings, 3 Jur. N. S. 772 ; 2 C. B. N. S. 454 ; 26 L. J. C. P. 274 1172, 1449 Florence Land, &c. Co., Re, 10 Ch. D. 530 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 137 ; 39 L. T. 589; 37 W. R. 236 489, 494, 498 Flory v. Denny, 7 Exch. 581 193 Flower, Exp., 4 D. & C. 449 14S9 v. Marten, 2 My. & Cr. 459 1403 ■ v. Sadler, 10 Q. B. D. 572 77, 626 XC TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Floyd v. Aldridge, 5 East, 137 647 v. Mansel, Gilb. Bep. in Eq. 185 , 740 Floyer v, Bankes, 11 W. B. 630 1157 , v. , L. E. 8 Eq. 115 1378 Lavington, 1 P. Wms. 268 11, 12, 20, 22, 33 Sherard, Amb. 118 23, 32 Flyn, Exp., 1 Atk. 185 1461 Flynn v. Pountain, W. N. (1890) 32 1342 Foakes v. Beer, 9 App. Cas. 605 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 130 ; 51 L. T. 833 ; 33 W. E. 233 1405 Focus v. Salisbury, Hard. 402 654 Follit v. Eddystone Granite Quarries, (1892) 3 Cb. 75; 61 L. J. Cb. 567 ; 40 W. E. 667 ; 8 T. L. E, 535 480, 1290 Forbes v. Jackson, 19 Cb. D. 615 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 691 ; 30 W. E. 652 ; 48 L. T. 722 97,103, 1236 . v. Moffat, 18 Ves. 384 ; 11 E. E. 222 1431, 1442, 1445 v. Peacock, 11 Sim. 152; 12 Sim. 528 408, 421 v. Eichardson, 11 Ha. 354 410 v. Eoss, 2 Bro. C. C. 430 521 Ford, Exp., 3 M. D. & De G. 457 1102 , Exp., EeCbappell, 16 Q. B. D. 305; 55 L. J. Q. B. 406 1086 . v. Cbesterfield, Earl of, 16 Beav. 516 ; 22 L. J. Cb. 630 1188 : v. , 19 Beav. 428 1145, 1405 r. , 21 Beav. 426 1116, 1197 v. Dornford, 10 Jur. 285, Q. B 597 v. Heely, 3 Jur. N. S. 1116 899 r . Noll, 12 L. J. C. P. 2 717 r. Olden, L. E. 3 Eq. 461 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 651 ; 15 L. T. N. S. 558 . . 17 v. Eackbam, 17 Beav. 485 ; 23 L. J. Cb. 481 667, 923 v. Tennant, 3 De G. F. & J. 695 630 r. Wastell, 2 Pb. 591 ; 12 Jur. 404 ; 17 L. J. N. S. 368 1032, 1042, 1047, 1050 v. Wbite, 16 Beav. 120 1189, 1231, 1247, 1249, 1257, 1303 Forder, Exp., W.N. (1881) 117, C. A 1100 Fordham v. Wallis, 10 Ha. 217 ; 17 Jur. 228 980, 982, 984, 1061 Forrest v. Elwes, 2 Mer. 69 939, 1193 v. Prescott, L. E. 10 Eq. 545 ; 10 W. E. 1065 754 v. Shore, 32 W. E. 356 , 1033 Forrester v. Lee, Ambl. 172 786 ■ v. Leigh, Ambl. 171 762 Forster v. Patterson, 17 Ch. D. 132 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 603 ; 44 L. T. 465 ; 29 W. E. 463 747 v. Thompson, 4 Dr. & War. 303 752 Forsyth v. Bristowe, 8 Exch. 716 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 255 978, 985, 1068 Fortescue v. Barnett, 3 My. & K. 43 176, 1267 Forth v. Norfolk, Duke of, 4 Madd. 505 1349 Foster, Ee, 6 Jur. N. S. 687 609 . , Ee, Lloyd v. Carr, 45 Ch. D. 629 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 175 ; 63 L. T. 443 ; 39AV. E. 31 530 v. Bates, 12 M. & W. 233 893 . r. Blackstone, 1 My. & K. 297 > 1256, 1264, 1349 , v. Blake, 4 Bli. 140 ; 5 Sim. 191 746 v. Cockerell, 3 CI. & F. 456 ; 9 Bli. N. S. 333 1263, 1264 v. Colby, 28 L. J. N. S. Ex. 481 ; 3 H. & N. 705 1399 . v. Crabb, 12 C. B. 136 ; 16 Jur. 836 812 v. Eddy, 18 L. J. Ch. 151 ; 13 Jur. 761 1040, 1055 v. Handley, 1 Sim. N. S. 200 ; 15 Jur. 73 652 v. Hargreaves, 1 Keen, 281 1150 v. Harvey, 4 De G. J. & S. 59 ; 9 L. T. N. S. 404 ; 12 W. E. 92. . 1036 , v , Hoe-gart, 15 Q. B. 155 ; 19 L. J. Q. B. 340 ; 14 Jur. 757 900 ■ r. Marchant, 1 Vera. 262 356 . r. Parker, 8 Ch. D. 147 1052, 1419, 1422 v. Pearson, 1 C. M. & E, 849 1465 . v. Roberts, 29 Beav. 467 609, 613, 615 v. Smith, 1 Ph. 629 ; 15 L. J. Ch. 183 411, 432 Foster and Lister, Ee, 6 Ch. D. 89 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 480 ; 36 L. T. N. S. 582 ; 25 W. E. 553 601 TABLE OF CASES. XC1 PAGE Fothergill V. Fothergill, 2 Freem. 256 ; 1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 221 50 v. Keiidrick, 2 Vern. 234 793 Foulger v. Taylor, 5 H. & N. 202 246 Foulkes, Ee, Foulkes v. Hughes, 69 L. T. 183 356 Fountaine v. Caine, 1 F. Wins. 504 1053, 1055 ■ v. Carmarthen, &c. Ry. Co., L. R. 5 Eq. 316 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 429 ; 16 W. R. 476 466, 467, 469, 473, 475, 489, 937, 1291 Fourth City, &c. Soc. v. Williams, 14 Ch. D. 146 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 245 ; 42 L. T. 615; 28 W. R. 572 563, 1407 Fowke v. Draycott, 29 Ch. D. 996 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 977 ; 52 L. T. 890 ; 33 W. R. 701 320 Fowler v. Broad's Patent Night Light Co., (1893) 1 Ch. 724 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 373 ; 68 L. T. 576 ; 41 W. R. 247 498 v. Churchill, 11 M. & W. 57 ..1279, 1281, 1282, 1283, 1361, 1362, 1364 v. Foster, 5 H. & C. 99 202 . v. Fowler, 4 De G. & J. 250 1155, 1174 ■ ■ v. Reynal, 3 Mac. & a. 500 512, 523, 535 v. Scott, W. N. (1871) 248 ; 25 L. T. N. S. 784 ; 20 W. R. 199 . . 1412 Fox, Re, 33 Ch. D. 37 ; 55 L. T. 39 ; 35 W. R. 81 , 362 . v. Buckley, 3 Ch. D. 508 ; 25 W. R. 508 1382 v. Chester, Bishop of, 1 Dowl. N. S. 416 ; 3 Bli. N. S. 123 169 r. Crane, 2 Vern. 305, 306 368 v. Dolby, W. N. (1883) 29 513 • v. Hawks, 13 Ch. D. 822 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 579 ; 42 L. T. 622 ; 28 W. R. 656 328 . v. Lownds, L. R. 19 Eq. 453 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 474 ; 23 W. R. 404 .... 539 v. Martin, W. N. (1895) 36 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 473 279 Fox and Jacobs, Re, (1894) 1 Q. B. 43S ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 191 ; 69 L. T. 657 ; 42 W. R. 351 1091 Foxcroft v. Devonshire, 2 Burr. 938 1232 Foxley, Exp., Re Nurse, L. R. 3 Ch. A. 515 ; 16 W. R. 831 ; 18 L. T. N. S. 862 578, 580 Foxon r. Gascoigne, L. R. 9 Ch. A. 654 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 729 ; 22 W. R. 939 ; 31 L. T. N. S. 289 1387 Frail v. Ellis, 16 Beav. 351 716, 995 France v. Clark, 26 Ch. D. 257 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 585 ; 50 L. T. 1 ; 32 W. R. 466 279, 281, 1470 ■ v. Cowper, W. N. (1871) 76 878 Francis, Exp., 1 D. & C. 174 1095 ■ v. Francis, 5 De G. M. & G. 108 521, 1414 v. Grover, 5 Ha. 39 991 . v. Harrison, 43 Ch. D. 183 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 248 ; 61 L. T. 667 ; 38 W. R. 329 1007 Frank v. Bollans, L. R. 3 Ch. A. 717 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 664 ; 16 W. R. 1158 ; 18 L. T. N. S. 623 317 . v. Cooper, 4 Ves. 763 639 v. Mainwaring, 2 Beav. 115 368 Franke, Re, Drake v. Franke, W. N. (1888) 69 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 437 ; 58 L. T. 305 926 Franklin, Exp., 1 De G. & Sm. 531 509 v. Hosier, 4 B. & Ad. 341 1381 V. Howes, 2 L. T. N. S. 348 ; 19 W. R. 581 1339 . v. Neate, 13 M. & W. 481 1469, 1470, 1521 Frankbnski v. Ball, 33 Beav. 560 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 606 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 153 ; 10 L. T. N. S. 446 ; 12 W. R. 845 800 Franklyn v. Fern, Barnard. 30 24, 630, 695, 696 Franklyn's Mortgages, Re, W. N. (1888) 217 1420 Eraser v. Cooper, Hall & Co., 21 Ch. D. 718 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 575 ; 46 L. T. 371; 30 W. R. 654 1118 v. Jordan, 8 E. & B. 312 84 v. Murdoch, 6 App. Cas. 855 ; 45 L. T. 417 ; 30 W. R. 162 512 v. Pendlebury, 10 W. R. 104, C. P 718 . v. Swansea Canal Navigation Co., 1 A. & E. 354 183 Fray v. Drew, 1 1 Jur. N. S. 130 ; 13 W. R. 357 , 60S Frazer v. Cuthhertson, 6 Q. B. 93 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 277 ; 29 W. R. 396 1504 XC11 TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Frazer v. Jones, 17 L. J. N. S. Ch. 353; 12 Jur. 443. . . .1016, 1239, 1240, 1334, 1342 Frederick v. Aynscombe, 2 Eq. Cas. Ab. 594 22 Free, Ex parte, 2 Gl. & J. 250 1084 v. Hinde, 2 Sim. 7 617, 928 Freeman v. Appleyard, 32 L. J. Exch. 175 ; 1 N. R. 30 ; 7 L. T. 282 1478 v. Barnes, 1 Vent. 55 ; 1 Lev. 270 G54 r. Butler, 33 Beav. 289 814 ■ v. Edwards, 17 L. J. Exch. 258 660, 667 v. Ellis, 1 H. & M. 758 363 v. Pope, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 538 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 689 ; 21 L. T. N. S. 816 569, 570, 571, 574 v. Read, 11 W. R. 802 896 ■ v. Simpson, 6 Sim. 75 434 v. Whitbread, L. R. 1 Eq. 266 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 137 ; 13 L. T. N. S. 550; 14 W. R. 188 512 Freemoult v. Dedire, 1 P. Wms. 429 50, 1383 Freen, Ex parte, 2 Gl. & J. 246 504 Freer v. Hesse, 4 De G. M. & G. 503 1300, 1350 Freme v. Brade, 2 De G. & J. 582 ; 14 Jur. N. S. 746 289, 290 French, Ex parte, 7 Sim. 510 510, 515 v. Baron, 2 Atk. 120 , 1192, 1204 ■ r. Bombernard, 60 L. T. 49 ; 5 T. L. R. 55 198 ■ r. Chichester, 2 Vern. 568 , 754 v. Hope, 56 L. J. Ch. 363 ; 56 L. T. 57 1294 — ■ v. Municipal, &c. Soc, W. N. (1884) 105 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 753 ; 50 L. T. 567 558 Frere v. Moore, 8 Pri. 475 1038, 1218 Freshfield's Trusts, Re, 11 Ch. D. 198 ; 40 L. T. 57 ; 27 W. R. 375 1257 Freshney v. Carrick, 1 H. & N. 653 185 Frewen v. Law Life Ass. Soc, (1896) 2 Ch. 511 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 787; 75 L. T. 17; 44 W. R. 682 640 Friend v. Harrison, 2 C. & P. 584 624 Fripp v. Chard Rail. Co., 11 Ha. 24 ; 17 Jur. 887. .879, 925, 929, 935, 936, 937, 940 Frisby, Re, Allison v. Frisby, 43 Ch. D. 106 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 94 ; 61 L. T. 632 ; 38 W. R. 65 ; 6 T. L. R. 40 978 Frith v. Cook, W. N. (1885) 129 ; 52 L. T. 798 ; 33 W. R. 688 1042 v. Forbes, 4 De G. F. & J. 409 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 1115 ; 7 L. T. 261 ; 11 W. R. 4 1493, 1499 v. Rotherham, 15 M. & W. 39 ; 10 Jur. 208; 15 L. J. Ex. 133. . 1515, 1517 Fritz v. Hobson, 14 Ch. D. 542; 49 L. J. Ch. 321 ; 42 L. T. 225 ; 28 W. R. 459 49 Frosel v. Welsh, Cro. Jac. 403 646 Fry v. Capper, Kay, 163 340 V. Lane, 40 Ch. D. 312 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 113 ; 60 L. T. 12 ; 37 W. R. 135; 5 T. L. R. 45 613, 616, 617 r. Porter, 1 Mod. 311 1305 v. Tapson, 28 Ch. D. 268 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 224 ; 51 L. T. 326 ; 33 W. R. 113 526, 527 Fuentes v. Montis, L. R. 4 C. P. 93 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 95 ; 19 L. T. 364 ; 17 W. R. 208, Exch 1485 Fuggle v. Bland, 11 Q. B. D. 711 927, 940 Fuller, Ej: parte, Re Long, 16 Ch. D. 617 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 448 ; 44 L. T. 63 ; 2 9 W. R. 448 1414 r. Bennett, 2 Ha. 402 1326, 1328 v. Earlc, 7 Exch. 796 1281, 1363 v. Knight, 6 Beav. 209 520 Fulthorpe v. Foster, 1 Vern. 477 30 Furber, Ex parte, Re King, 17 Ch. D. 191 ; 44 L. T. 319 ; 29 W. R. 524. . 1158 RePellew, 6 Ch. D. 181; 36 L. T. N. S. 668 212 v. Cobb, is Q. B. D. 494; 56 L. J. Q. B. 273; 56 L. T. 689; 35 W. R. 398 222, 224, 235, 23G, 237 v. Furber, 30 Beav. 523 1189 Furness v. < laterimm Kail. Co., 27 Beav. 614 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 1213.. 491, 196, 935, 1001 TABLE OF CASES. XC111 PAGE Furness Rail. Co. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, 33 L. J. Ex. 173 ; 10 Jur. 1133 ; 10 L. T. 161 ; 13 W. R. 10 1529 Furnivall v. Hudson, (1893) 1 Ch. 335; 62 L. J. Ch. 178; 68 L. T. 378; 41 "W. R. 358 240, 241 Fursdon v. Clegg, 10 M. & W. 572 1067 Fury v. Smith, 1 Hud. & B. 735 1245 Fyler v. Fyler, 3 Beav. 550 533 Gabriel v. Sturgis, 5 Ha. 97 ; 10 Jur. 215 1 190 Gaetano and Maria, 7 P. D. 137 1502 Gaffee, Re, 1 Mac. & G. 541 329 Gage v. Stafford, Lord, 1 Ves. Sen. 545 869 Gainsford v. Dunn, L. R. 17 Eq. 405 ; 30 L. T. 283 ; 22 W. R. 499 410 Gait v. Osbaldeston, 1 Russ. 158 1303 Gaitskell, Re, 40 Ch. D. 416 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 262 394 Galam, Cargo ex, 2 Moo. P. C. N. S. 216 ; 33 L. J. Ad. 97 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 477 ; 9 L. T. 550 ; 12 W. R. 495 1514 Galbraith v. Cooper, 8 H. L. C. 315 165 Gale, Re, Blake v. Gale, 22 Ch. D. 820 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 694 ; 48 L. T. 101 ; 31 W. R. 538 1107 v. Burnell, 7 Q. B. 850 ; 14 L. J. Q. B. 340 ; 10 Jur. 198 174, 212, 657 ■ v. Capern, 1 A. & E. 102 985 v. Laurie, 5 B. & Cr. 156, 162 260 v. Lewis, 16 L. J. Q. B. 119; 11 Jur. 780 1257 v. Williamson, 8 M. & W. 405 570 Gall v. Fenwick, 43 L. J. Ch. 178 ; 22 W. R. 211 ; 29 L. T. N. S. 822 . . 773 Galland, Re, W. N. (1880) 96 1282 Re, 31 Ch. JJ. 296 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 478 ; 53 L. T. 921 ; 34 W. R. 158 1385 Galliers v. Moss, 9 B. & C. 282 836 Gaily v. Selby, Stra. 403 169, 628 Galton v. Hancock, 2 Atk. 435 6, 9, 753 Games, Exp., Re Bamford, 12 Ch. D. 314 ; 40 L. T. 789 ; 27 W. R. 744 . . 572, 573 Gammon v. Stone, 1 Ves. Sen. 339 95, 1179 Gandyv. Gandy, 30 Ch. D. 57; 54 L. J. Ch. 1154; 53 L. T. 306; 33 W. R. 803 486 Gapp v. Bond, 19 Q. B. D. 200 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 438 ; 57 L. T. 437 ; 35 W. R. 683 202 Garden v. Ingram, 23 L. J. Ch. 478 , 141 Gardiner v . Griffith, 2 P. Wms. 403 169, 999, 1017 Gardner v. Cazenove, 26 L. J. Ex. 17 ; 1 H. & M. 423 271 v . Hatton, 6 Sim. 93 , 850 v. Lachlan, 4 My. & Cr. 129 ; 2 Jur. 1056 271, 1266, 1273 v. London, C. & D. Rail. Co., L. R. 2 Ch. A. 201 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 323 ; 15 W. R. 324 ; 15 L. T. N. S. 552 . .478, 490, 491, 515, 539, 935, 1001 ■ v. Marshall, 14 Sim. 475 327 v. Townsend, Geo. Coop. 301 51 v. Walsh, 5 E. & B. 83 82 Gardnor v. Shaw, 19 W. R. 753 ; 24 L. T. N. S. 319 243 Garforth v. Bradley, 2 Ves. Sen. 675 « 711, 718 Garland, Exp., 10 Ves. 110 ; 1 Sm. 220 ; 2 R. R. 778 1379 v. Carlisle, 5 CI. & F. 354 1159 Garlick v. Jackson, 4 Beav. 154 1033, 1048, 1 140 Garrastone v. Gaunt, 9 Jur. 78 ; 1 Coll. 577 427 Garner v. Hannyngton, 22 Beav. 627 811 Garnet v. Bradley, 3 App. Gas. 944 ; 48 L. J. Ex. 186 ; 39 L. T. 261 ; 26 W. R. 698 438 Garnett v. Armstrong, 4 Dr. & War. 182 1438, 1444 Garnham v. Skipper, 55 L. J. Ch. 263 ; 53 L. T. 940 ; 31 W. R. 135 1218, 1315, 1337, 1347 Garrard v. Dinorben, Lord, 5 Ha. 213 1 174 v. Frankel, 30 Beav. 445 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 985 1299 XC1V TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Garrett v. Evers, Moseley, 364 852, 854 ■ v. Middlesex Justices, 12 Q. B. D. 620; 53 L. J. M. C. 81 ; 32 W. R. 646 118, 794 Garry v. Sharratt, 10 B. & Or. 716 590, 1103 Garth v. Howard, 5 C. & P. 346 1462 v. Ward, 2 Atk. 175 736, 1014, 1322, 1323 Gartside v. Silkstone & Dodsworth, &c. Co., 21 Ch. D. 762; 51 L. J. Ch. 828 ; 57 L. T. 76 ; 31 W. R. 36 1289, 1292 GaskeU, Ee, W. N. (1881) 130 297 v. Durdin, 2 Ba. & Be. 167 631 r. Gosling, (1896) 1 Q. B. 669 ; 65 L. J. Q. B. 435 ; 74 L. T. 674.. 918 Gaskell's Trusts, Re, 1 1 Jur. N. S. 780 ; 12 L. T. N. S. 763 339 Gaskin v. Rogers, L. R. 2 Eq. 284 ; 14 W. R. 707 410, 540 Gaslight Improvement Co. v. Terrell, L. R. 10 Eq. 168 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 725 ; 23 L. T. N. S. 386 , 599 Gaston v. Frankum, 16 Jur. 507 344 Gaters v. Madeley, 6 M. & W. 423 323 Gathercole v. Smith (No. 1), 17 Ch. D. 1 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 71 ; 44 L. T. 439 ; 29 W. R. 431 300 Gatti v. Webster, 12 Ch. D. 771 ; 41 L. T. 18 ; 27 W. R. 935 1138 Gaunt v. Taylor, 3 My. & K. 302 1172 v. Wainman, 3 Bing. N. C. 69 110 Gauntlet, 3 W. Rob. 82 ; 6 N. of C. 370 1510, 1513 Gaussen v. Morton, 10 B. & Cr. 731 52, 70 Gawthorpe v. Gawthorpe, W. N. (1878) 91 925 Gay v. Cox, 1 Ridg. P. C. 153 1167 ■ v. Hall, 5 D. & L. 422 ; 18 L. J. Q. B. 12 ; 13 Jur. 124 73, 74 Geaves, Exp., 8 De G. M. & G. 291 184, 520 Gedge v. Matson, 25 Beav. 310 , 1008 Gee, Re, Exp. Official Receiver, 24 Q. B. D. 65 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 16 ; 61 L. T. 645 ; 38 W. R. 143 ; 6 M. B. C. 267 162 v. Bell, 35 Ch. D. 160 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 718 ; 56 L. T. 305 ; 35 W. R. 805 926, 1020, 1021 ■ v. Lane, 15 East, 592 ; 13 R. R. 534 71 v. Pack, 33 L. J. Q. B. 49 ; 9 L. T. 290 102 • r. Smart, 8 E. & B. 313 ; 26 L. J. Q. B. 305 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 1056 1435 Geldard v. Hornby, 1 Ha. 251 1032, 1033, 1162 Geller, Exp., 2 Madd. 262 1101 General Auction, Estate, &c. Co. v. Smith, (1891) 3 Ch. 432 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 723 ; 65 L. T. 188 ; 40 W. R. 106 ; 7 T. L. R. 636 468 General Cemetery Co., Re, 6 E. & B. 415 ; 25 L. J. Q. B. 342 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 972 278 General Credit and Discount Co., Exp., Re Hamilton & Co., 39 L. T. 658 ; 27 W. R, 827 1126 General Credit and Discount Co. v. Glegg, 22 Ch. D. 549 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 297; 48 L. T. 182; 31 W. R. 421 137, 281, 1000, 1027, 1146, 1471 General Co. for Promotion of Land Credit, Re, L. R. 5 H. L. 176 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 655 ; 24 L. T. N. S. 641 278, 1123 General Exchange Bank, Re, 12 Jur. N. S. 465 ; 14 L. T. 582 ; 14 W. R. 826 1124 , Re Lewis, L. R. 6 Ch. A. 818 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 429 ; 24 L. T. 787 ; 19 W. R. 791 1399 General Finance, &c. Co. v. Liberator, &c. Society, 10 Ch. D. 15 ; 27 W. R. 210 ; 39 L. T. 600 Ill, 654 General Furnishing, &c. Co. v. Venn, 2 H. & C. 153 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 550. . 202 General Horticultural Co., Re, 53 L. T. 699 , 501 General Prov. Ass. Co., Re, L. R, 14 Eq. 507; 38 L. J. Ch. 320; 17 W. R. 514 469, 476 General Service Co-operative Stores (No. 1), (1891) 1 Ch. 496 ; GO L. J. Ch. 586 ; 64 L. T. 272 ; 7 T. L. R. 230 1128 General South American Co., Re, 2 Ch. D. 337 ; 24 W. R. 891 ; 34 L. T. N. S. 706 476, 501 General Steam, &c. Co. v. Rolt, 6 Jur. N. S. 801 83 Gent, Re, Gent-Davis v. Harris, 40 Ch. D. 190; 58 L. J. Ch. 162; 60 L. T. 355 ; 37 W. P. 151 ; 5 T. L. R, 89 955 TABLE OF CASES. XCV PAGE George v. Milbanke, 9 Ves. 190 ; 7 R. R. 157 821 Georgier v. Mieville, 3 B. & Cr. 45 ; 4 Dow. & Ry. 641 ; 2 L. J. K. B. 206 ; 27 R. R. 290 1465 German Date Co., Re, 20 Ch. D. 109 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 564 ; 40 L. T. 327 ; 30 W. R. 717 467 German Mining Co., Re, 4 De G. M. & G. 19 ; 18 Jur. 710 172 Gerrard v. Dawes, 18 W. R. 32 ; 21 L. T. N. S. 322 1386 V. Gerrard, 2 Vera. 458 416 v. O'Reilly, 3 Dr. & War. 414 617 Gerty v. Mann, 29 L. R. Ir. 7 = 1385 Gething v. Keighley, 9 Ch. D. 547 11 12 Giacommetti v. Prodgers, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 338 ; 28 L. T. N. S. 432 ; 21 W. R. 375 327 Gibbins v. Eyden, L. R. 7 Eg.. 371 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 377 ; 20 L. T. N. S. 516 ; 17 W. R. 481 773 v . Howell, 3 Madd. 469 951 Gibbon v. Gibbon, 13 C. B. 205; 17 Jur. 417 850 Gibbons v. Braddall, 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 682, D 1373, 1374 v. Hooper, 2 B. & Ad. 734 441 . v. Snape, 1 De G. J. & S. 621 378 Gibbs v. Charleton, 26 L. J. Ex. 32 1 1506 . ■ v. Cruikshank, L. R. 8 C. P. 454 ; 42 L. J. C. P. 273 ; 28 L. T. 735 ; 21 W. R. 734 676 v. Daniel, 4 Giff. 1 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 936 611 v. Guild, 9 Q. B. D. 59 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 313 ; 46 L. T. 248 ; 30 W. R. 591 711, 1072 . v. Haydon, 30 W. R. 726 ; 47 L. T. 184 635 ■ v. Ou»-ier, 12 Ves. 413 ; 8 R. R. 318 782 v. Sidney, W. N. (1883) 148; 49 L. T. 132 12.31 Gibbs' and West's Cases, L. R. 10 Eg.. 312 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 667 ; 18 W. R. 970 ; 23 L. T. N. S. 350 468, 469, 197 Gibson v. Boutts, 3 Scott, 229 587 v. Dickie, 3 M. & S. 463 ; 16 R. R. 333 625 v. East India Co., 5 Bing. N. C. 262 ; 7 Scott, 73 299 . v. Hewett, 9 Beav. 293 814 . ■ v. Ingo, 6 Ha. 112 271, 272, 1309, 1310, 1393 v. Jeyes, 6 Ves. 266 ; 5 R. R. 295 611 . v. Muskett, 4 Man. & Gr. 169 587 ■ v. Nicol, 9 Beav. 403 ; 10 Jur. 419 ; 15 L. J. N. S. Ch. 195 1190 v. Rogers, Ambl. 93 414 v. Seagrim, 20 Beav. 614 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 782 780 v. Way, Re Currey, 32 Ch. D. 361 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 906 ; 54 L. T. 665 ; 34 W. R. 541 340 GifTard v. Hort, 1 Sch. & L. 40S 1011 Gifford, Exp., 6 Ves. 805 ; 6 R. R. 53 87, 91, 100 Gilbert v. Deneley, 3 Scott, N. R. 364 957 v. Dyneley, 3 Man. & Gr. 12 924 v. Golding, 2 Anst. 442 11S4 v. Guignon, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 16 ; 21 "W. R. 281 1497 v. Wetherell, 2 S. & St. 254 ; 25 W. R. 203 , 1403 Gilbertson v. Gilbertson, 34 Beav. 357 ; 13 W. R. 765 755 Gilchrist, Exp., Re Armstrong, 17 Q. B. D. 521 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 57S ; 55 L. T. 538 ; 3 Mor. 193 333 Giles, Ellen, Re, W. N. (1894) 73 ; 70 L. T. 757 319 , Re, Real and Personal Advance Co. v. Michell, 43 Ch. D. 491 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 226 ; 62 L. T. 375 ; 3S W. R. 273 1021 . r. Grover, 1 CI. & F. 72 ; 6 Bli. N. S. 292 1366 v. Nuthall, W. N. (1885) 51 912 Gilkison v. Middleton, 2 C. B. N. S. 134 ; 26 L. J. N. S. C. P. 209 1399 Gill, Exp., 1 Bing. N. R. 168 320 V. Continental Union Gas Co., L. R. 7 Ex. 332 ; 41 L. J. Ex. 176 ; 27 L. T. 428 ; 21 W. R. Ill 12S2, 1364 v . Downing, L. R. 17 Eq. 316 ; 30 L. T. N. S. 157 ; 22 W. R. 360. . 1199, 1380 v. Eyton, 7 Beav. 155 ,, 814 XCV1 TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Gill v. Newton, 12 Jur. N. S. 220 ; 14 W. R. 490 ; 14 L. T. N. S. 240 . . 892 Gillett v. Abbott, 7 A. & E. 783 ; 3 N. & P. 24 ; 2 Jur. 300 110 Gillibrand v. Goold, 5 Sim. 149 432 Gilliland v. Crawford, 4 Ir. R. Eq. 35 1378 Gilly v. Burley, 22 Beav. 619 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 897 293 Gilmore, Exp., 3 C. B. 967 320 Gilpin v. Clutterbuck, 13 L. T. 71, 139, 159 620, 622 Gilroy v. Bowey, 59 L. T. 223 222, 237 ■ v. Stephens (or Stevens), 51 L. J. Cb. 834 ; 46 L. T. 761 ; 30 W. R. 745 1161 Girling r. Lee, 1 Vern. 63 50, 653 r. Lowtber, 2 Bep. in Ch. 136 604 Gist, Re, 5 Cb. D. 881 ; 26 TV. R. 22 362 Gittins r. Steele, 1 Swanst. 24 ; 18 R. R. 7 758 Gladstone v. Padwick, L. R. 7 Ex. 211 ; 40 L. J. Ex. 154 ; 25 L. T. 96 ; 19 W. R. 1064 570 Gladwyn v. Hitcbman, 2 Vern. 135 1002 Glabolm v. Rowntree, 6 A. & E. 710 290, 653 Glamorganshire, 13 App. Cas. 454 ; 59 L. T. 572 ; 6 Asp. 344 1495 Glanvill, Re, Ellis v. Jobnson, 31 Cb. D. 532 ; 55 L. J. Cb. 325 ; 53 L. T. 752 ; 54 L. T. 411 ; 34 W. R. 309 340 Glascott v. Lang, 2 Ph. 310 1505 Glasscott v. Day, 5 Esp. 48 ; 8 R. R. 828 715, 717 Glazebrook v. Gilliat, 9 Beav. 611 1277 Gleaves v. Paine, 1 De G. J. & S. 87 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 1S2 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 366 318, 326, 1056 Gledhill r. Hunter, 14 Ch. D. 492 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 333 ; 42 L. T. 392 ; 28 W. R. 530 1061 Gledstanes v. Allen, 12 C. B. 202 1398 Glegg v. Glea-g, 4 Bro. P. C. 614 ; 2 Eq. Cas. Ab. 27 51 Gloucester Banking Co. v. Phillips, 32 W. R. 522 335 Glover v. Giles, 18 Ch. D. 173 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 568 ; 45 L. T. 344 ; 29 TV. R. 603 460 v. Halkett, 2 H. & N. 489 80 v. Hall, 2 Ph. 484 815 Glyn, Exp., 6 Jur. 839 1325 , Re Medley, 1 M. D. & De G. 29 63, 112 v. Bank of England, 2 Ves. Sen. 38 985 v. Hertel, 8 Taunt. 208 92 r. Hood, 1 De G. E. & J. 334 305, 508 Glyn, Mills & Co. v. East and West India Dock Co., 7 App. Cas. 591 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 146 ; 47 L. T. 309 ; 31 TV. R. 206 1496 Glynn v. Locke, 3 Dr. & War. 11 294 Gobe v. Carbsle, cited 2 Vern. 67 1004 Gobind r. Bengal, Admor. Gen. of, 15 Moo. P. C. 230 ; 9 Moo. I. A. 140 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 543 1480 Goddard v. Complin, 1 Ch. Ca. 1 19 1148 v. Ingram, 3 G. & D. 46 ; 6 Jur. 1060 980 v. Lethbridge, 16 Beav. 529 36 , v . Whyte, 2 Giff . 449 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 1364 97 Godfrey, Re, Godfrey v. Faulkner, 23 Ch. D. 483 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 820 ; 48 L. T. 853 ; 32 W. R. 23 526 v. Chad-well, 2 Vern. 601 1012 v. Poole, 13 App. Cas. 497 ; 57 L. J. P. C. 78 ; 58 L. T. 685 ; 37 W. R. 357 569 v. Tucker, 33 Beav. 280 1231 r. Watson, 3 Atk. 517 ..68, 164, 794, 804, 820, 1196, 1197, 1204, 1207 Godley's Estate, Re, (1896) 1 Ir. 45 1433 Godsall v. Boldero, 9 East, 72 100, 289 Godwin r. Francis, L. R. 5 C. P. 295 ; 39 L. J. C. P. 121 ; 22 L. T. 338. . 460 Gold Hill Mines Co., Re, 23 Ch. D. 210 ; 49 L. T. 66; 31 W. R. 853 1124 Goldsmid v. Stonehewer, 9 Ha. App. xxxviii ; 17 Jur. 199 1006, 1112 Goldsmith v. Russell, 5 De G. M. & G. 547; 1 Jur. N. S. 985 ..575, 1282, 1363 Goldstrom v. Tallerman, 18 Q. B. D. 1 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 22 ; 55 L. T. 866 ; 35 W. R. 68 234, 235 Goller, Re, 1 Rose, 297 1463 TABLE OF CASES. XCV11 PAGE Goman v. Salisbury, 1 Vorn. 240 1401 Gomez, Exp., Re Tglesias, L. R. 10 Ch. A. 639, 647 ; 32 L. T. N. S. 677 ; 23 W. R. 780 1498 Gomley v. Wood, 3 J. & L. 636 1143 Gomme v. West, 2 Dick. 472 948 Gooch v. Haworth, 3 Beav. 428 947 Good, Exp., Re Armitage, 5 Ch. A. 46 ; 46 L. J. Bky. 65 ; 36 L. T. N. S. 338 ; 25 W. R. 422 86 , Re Lee, 14 Ch. D. 82 ; 49 L. J. Bky. 49 ; 42 L. T. 450 ; 28 W. R. 553 1089 ■ v. Elliott, 3 T. R. 693 ; 1 R. R. 803 287 Goodall v. Rivers, Mosely, 395 416, 429 r. Skerratt, 3 Drew. 216 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 57 1069 Goodburn v. Marley, 2 Stra. 1 159 623 Goodchild v. Dougal, 3 Ch. D. 650 ; 24 W. R. 960 319 Goode v. Burton, 1 Exch. 189 ; 16 L. J. Ex. 309 ; 11 Jur. 851 56, 1372 v. Job, 28 L. J. Q. B. 1 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 145 1067 v. Waters, 20 L. J. N. S. Ch. 72 171 Gooden v. Coles, 59 L. T. 309 ; 36 W. R. 828 1010 Goodenough, Re, Marland v. Williams, (1895) 2 Ch. 537 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 71 ; 73 L. T. 152 ; 44 W. R. 44 849, 1161 Goodland v. Blewith, 1 Camp. 477 ; 10 R. R. 731 713 Goodman, Exp., 3 Madd. 373 1082 v. Grierson, 2 Ba. & Be. 278 ; 12 R. R. 82 13, 21, 692, 996 . v , Kine, 8 Beav. 379 669 Goodricke v. Taylor, 2 De G. J. & S. 135 ; 10 Jur. 414 580, 582, 583 Goodright v. Cator, Doug. 477 382 ■ v. Moore, Barnes, 176 875 v. Moses, 2 W. Bl. 1021 603 Goodtitlev. Bailey, Cowp. 601 Ill, 654, 737 ■ v. Bishop, 1 Y. & J. 344 877 v. Lonsdown, 3 Anstr. 937 877 v , Milburn, 3 M. & W. 853 636 v. Morgan, 1 T. R. 755 654, 1215, 1337 v. Notftle, 1 1 J. B. Moo. 491 876 r. Pope, 7 T. R. 186 876 Goodwin v. Gray, 22 W. R. 312 103 v. Lee, 1 K. & J. 377 757 v. Robarts, 1 App. Cas. 476; 45 L. J. Ex. 748; 35 L. T. 179; 24 W. R. 987 482, 483, 485, 1465 v . Waghorn, 4 L. J. N. S. Ch. 172 62 Gordillo v. Weguelin, 5 Ch. D. 287, 303 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 691 ; 25 W. R. 620 ; 36 L. T. N. S. 206 487, 898, 1158 Gordon, Re, Exp. Official Receiver. 61 L. T. 299 208, 1 104 v. Dunstone, 5 Moo. P. C. 393 729 ■ v. Ellis, 7 Man. & Gr. 607 1463 ■ v. Gordon, 3 Swanst. 470 ; 1 Wils. Ch. R. 155 644 • v. Graham, 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 598 ; 7 Vin. Abr. 52, pi. 3 1231 • v. Horsfall, 5 Moo. P. C. 393 1016 ■ v. James, 30 Ch. D. 249; 53 L. T. 641 ; 3 W, R. 217 113, 1294 ■ v. Selby, 11 Bl. N. S. 351 24 Gore v. Gardiner, 3 Moo. P. C. 79 ; 3 Hagg. 404 1503, 1506, 1509, 1510 v. Stackpole, 1 Dow. P. C. 18 747, 1006, 1010, 1049, 1324 Goreley, Exp., 4 De G. J. & S. 477 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 1085 140, 119S Goring v. Earrell, Beat. 472 787 Gorman v. Byrne, 8 Ir. C. L. Rep. 394 30 Gosfabrick, 14 Jur. N. S. 742 1396 Goslings. Carter, 1 Coll. 644 418, 419 v. Gaskell, W. N. (1897) 78 Addenda Goss v. Neale, 5 J. B. Moo. 19 567 v. Nugent, Lord, 5 B. & Ad. 65 1401 Gossip v. Wright, 9 Jur. N. S. 592 ; 1 1 W. R. 632 16, 20 Gothenberg Commercial Co., Re, 29 W. R. 358 1498 Gottlieb v. Cranch, 4 De G. M. & G. 440 ; 17 Jur. 704 ; 1 Eq. R. 341 ... . 289 Gough v. Andrews, 1 Coll. 59 431 v. Bult, 10 Sim. 45 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 486 992 v. Davies, 4 Pri. 200 ; 18 R. R. 697 1452 VOL. I. R. (J XCV111 TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Gough v. Everard, 2 H. & C. 1 195, 219 v. Offley, 3 De G. & S. 653 ; 17 Jur. 61 814 v. Wood, (1894) 1 Q. B. 713 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 564 ; 70 L. T. 297 ; 42 W. R. 469 127 Gould, Exp., Re Walker, 13 Q. B. D. 454 ; 51 L. T. 368 158 ■ v. Dummett, L. R. 2 Eq. 609 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 614 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 794 ; 14 W. R. 1008 ; 14 L. T. 881 569, 573 v. Robertson, 4 De G. & S. 509 1093 ■ v. Tancred, 2 Atk. 533 1209 Gouldsworth v. Knights, 11 M. & W. 337 ; 12 L. J. Ex. 282 680, 683 Government Stock Investment, &c. Co. v. Manila Rail. Co., (1897) A. C. 81 ; 75 L. T. 553 ; 45 W. R. 353 495 Gowan v. Wright, IS Q. B. D. 201 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 131 ; 35 W. R. 297. . 75 Gower v. Gower, 1 Cox, 53 1437 Gowing v. Mowbray, 9 Jur. N. S. 844 ; 11 W. R. 851 ; 8 L. T. 531 1190 Gotland v. De Earia, 17 Ves. 20 ; 11 R. R. 9 616, 617 Goymour v. Pigge, 8 Jur. 526 729 Grace v. Mountmorris, Lord, 2 Dr. & War. 432 1008 Graham, Re, 13 W. R. 762 394 Re, Graham v. Noakes, (1895) 1 Ch. 66 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 98 ; 71 L. T. 623 ; 43 W. R. 103 954 • v. Chapman, 12 C. B. 85 580 v. Connell, 1 L. M. & P. 438 ; 19 L. J. Ex. 361 1281, 1363 v. Dyster, 6 M. & S. 1 1476 v. Eurber, 14 C. B. 410 ; 23 L. J. C. P. 51 ; 2 C. & P. 452 ; 18 Jur. 226 186, 574 i: McCulloch, L. R. 20 Eq. 397 ; 32 L. T. 748 ; 23 W. R. 786 . . 180 v. Webb, 3 F. & E. 239 186 Grahame v . Grahame, 19 L. R. Ir. 249 80 Grainge v. Warner, 6 W. R. 219 ; 12 L. T. N. S. 564 1280 Grane v. Mitchell, 10 Sim. 484 ; 9 L. J. N. S. Ch. 171 877 Grannell v. Monck, 24 L. R. Ir. 24 1 234 Grant v. Grant, 3 Russ. 607 ; 3 Sim. 340 ; 27 R. R. 135 68 ■ ■ v. Mills, 2 V. & B. 309 ; 13 R. R. 101 1374 v. Shaw, L. R. 7 Q. B. 700 ; 41 L. J. Q. B. 305 ; 27 L. T. 602 246, 249 ■ v. Vaughan, 3 Burr. 1516 1471 Grantham v. Hawley, Hob. 132 217 Grantley v. Garthwaite, 6 Madd. 96 152, 285 Gratitudina, 3 C. Rob. Adm. 240 273 Gratrix v. Chambers, 7 Jur. N. S. 960 412 Graves v. Hicks, 11 Sim. 536 763, 765, 1017 v. Wright, 1 Dr. & War. 193 1012 Gray v. Adamson, 35 Beav. 383 1189 v. Bell, 30 W. R. 606 ; 46 L. T. 521 1052, 1054 ■ v. Carr, L. R. 6 Q. B. 522 ; 49 L. J. Q. B. 257 ; 25 L. T. 215 ; 19 W. R. 1173 ; 1 Asp. 115 , 1399 v. Dowman, 27 L. J. Ch. 702 ; 6 W. R. 571 1056 v. Jones, 14 C. B. N. S. 743 248 v. Limerick, Earls of, 2 De G. & S. 370 112 ■ ■ v. Matthias, 5 Ves. 286 ; 5 R. R. 48 624 v . Seckham, L. R. 7 Ch. A. 680 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 127 ; 20 W. R. 920 ; 27 L. T. N. S. 290 102, 103 v. Stone and Fimnell, 69 L. T. 282 ; W. N. (1893) 133 ; 9 T. L. R. 583 1282, 1364 Great Britain Mutual Soc, Re, 16 Ch. D. 246 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 10 ; 43 L. T. 684 ; 29 W. R. 202 1125 ■ Eastern Steamship Co., Re, Williams' Claim, 53 L. T. 594 ; 5 Asp. 511 1392 Northern Rail. Co. and Sanderson, Re, 25 Ch. D. 788 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 445; 50 L. T. 87; 32 W. R. 519 635 • v. Coal Co-operative Soc, (1896) 1 Ch. 187 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 214 ; 73 L. T. 443 ; 44 W. R. 252 ; 2 Mans. 621 ; 12 T. L. R. 30 172, 192, 209 ■ v. Tahourdin, 13 Q. B. D. 320 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 69 ; 50 L. T. 186 ; 32 W. R. 559 924 TABLE OF CASES. XC1X PAGE Great Western (Forest of Dean) Coal Co., Ke, 21 Ch. D. 769 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 743; 46 L. T. 875 ; 30 W. R. 855 1124 Greatley v. Noble, 3 Madd. 79 343 Greaves, Exp., De G. 119 1086 , Re, Bray v. Tofield, 18 Ch. D. 551 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 817 ; 45 L. T. 464 ; 30 W. R. 55 741 . v. Mattison, Sir T. Jones, 201 416, 429 ■ ■ v. Tofield, 14 Ch. D. 563; 50 L. J. Ch. 118; 43 L. T. 100; 28 W. R. 840 J} v. Wilson, 25 Beav. 434 8o1 Green, Re, Green v. Green, 26 Ch. D. 16 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 54 ; 50 L. T. 513 ; 32 W. R. 373 138 7 p. Attenborough, 3 H. & C. 4G8 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 14 ; 13 W. R 185 214 v. Belchier, 1 Atk. 505 414, 431, 433 v. Biggs, W. N. (1885) 128 ; 52 L. T. 680 103o v. Briggs, 6 Ha. 395 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 323 ; 12 Jur. 326 266, 1398 v. , 6 Ha. 632 1182 . v. Farmer, 4 Burr. 2214 14G ' . • v. Green, 2 Sim. 430 9 ^° ■ v. Lowes, 3 Bro. C. C. 217 9 <° v. Marsh, (1892) 2 Q. B. 330 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 442 ; 66 L. T. 480 ; 40 W. R. 449 ; 8 T. L. R. 498 664 . v. Nicholls, 4L. J. Ch. 118 782 v. Paterson, 32 Ch. D. 95 ; 54 L. T. 738 ; 34 W. R. 728. . . .320, 369, 3/8 . v. Sevin, 13 Ch. D. 589 ; 41 L. T. 724 1304 v. Wynn, L. R. 4 Ch. A. 204 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 220 ; 20 L. T. N. S. 131 ; 17 W. R. 385 85, 696, 1440 Greenaway v. Hart, 14 C. B. 340 G85 Greener. Foster, 22 Ch. D. 566; 52 L. J. Ch. 470; 48 L. T. 411; 31 W. R. 285 1010, 1047, 1189, 1190 v. Greene, 4 Madd. 148 ; 20 R. R. 284 755, 757 Greener, Exp., 46 L. J. Bky. 76 ; 36 L. T. 781 59o Greenfield r. Edwards, 2 De G. J. & S. 582 428 Greenham v. Child, 24 Q. B. D. 29 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 27 ; 61 L. T. 563 ; 38 W. R. 94 24 ' Greenhill v. North British, &c. Tnsce. Co., (1893) 3 Ch. 474 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 918 ; 69 L. T. 526 ; 42 W. R. 91 • • 332 Greening v. Beckford, 5 Sim. 195 1276, 12*8 . v. Clark, 4 B. & Cr. 316 183 Greenlaw v. King, 3 Beav. 49 441 Greenough v. Littler, 15 Ch. D. 93 ; 42 L. T. 144 ; 28 W. R. 318 . . 1019, 1036, ° 1047 Greenslade v. Dare, 20 Beav. 284 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 294 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 490 . . 113, 1315 Greenway v. Bromfield, 9 Ha. 201 116S Greenwood, Exp., 1 D. & C. 542 1°" , , Exp., 6 L. T. N. S. 558 182 v. Algeciras Rail. Co., (1894) 2 Ch. 205 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 670 ; 71 L. T. 133 ; 1 Mans. 455 1290 v . Churchill, 6 Beav. 314 ; 12 L. J. N. S. Ch. 400 ; 9 Jur. 196 , / 1239, 1309 0. Eothweli,' '7' Beav! 279 ; "l3 L." J.N. S. Ch. 226. . . .699, 723, 732, 814 v . Sutcliffe, (1892) 1 Ch. 1 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 59 ; 65 L.T. 797 ; 40 W. R. 214 718 . r. Taylor, 1 R. & My. 185 7(7, 1107 „, , 14 Sim. 505 I 66 Greer v. Young, 24 Ch. D. 545; 52 L. J. Ch. 915; 49 L. T. 224; 31 W. R. 930 138 6, 1388 Gregg v. Arnott. LI. & G. temp. Sugd. 246 18, 806, 1444 —v. Slater, 22 Beav. 314; 2 Jur. N. S. 216; 25 L. J. Ch. 440 ..1179, 1192 Gregory v. Molesworth, 3 Atk. 625 737 . v. Pilkington, 8 De G. M. & G. 616 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 177 130 Gregson, Re, Christison v. Bolam, 36 Ch. D. 223 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 221 ; 57 L. T. 250 ; 35 W. R. 803 865 fir a C TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Gregson v. Hindley, 10 Jur. 383 982 Grenfell v. Dean, &c. of Windsor, 2 Beav. 544 438, 439 v. Girdlestone, 2 T. & C. Ex. 662 986 Gresley v. Adderley, 1 Swanst. 573 ; 18 R. R. 146 667, 668, 677, 949 v. Mousley, 4 De G. & J. 96 611 Greswold v. Marsham, 2 Ch. Ca. 170 1012, 1443, 1444 Greville v. Browne, 7 H. L. C. 689 410 v. Chapman, 8 Jur. 190 623 . • v. Fleming, 2 J. & L. 335 929 Grey v. Ellison, 1 GifL 438 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 511 296, 1199 Grey's Settlement, Be, Acason v. Greenwood, 34 Ch. D. 712 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 511; 56 L. T. 350; 35 W. R. 560 340 Grice v. Shaw, 10 Ha. 176 1445 Grieveson v. Kirsopp, 5 Beav. 283 53, 117 Griffin v. Clowes, 20 Beav. 61 822 • v. De Veuille, 3 P. Wms. 131, n 607 v. Union Deposit Bank, 3 T. L. R. 608 229 Griffith, Exp., Re Wilcoxon, 23 Ch. D. 69 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 717; 48 L. T. 450 ; 31 W. R. 878 585 v. Griffith, 2 Ves. 400 958 r. Hodges, 1 C. & P. 419 717 v. Pound, 45 Ch. D. 553; 59 L. J. Ch. 522 865, 1013, 1120 Griffith's Case, L. R. 6 Ch. A. 374 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 464 ; 24 L. T. N. S. 455 ; 19 W. R. 491 1455 Griffiths v. Porter, 25 Beav. 236 528 Grigg v. National Guardian Ass. Co., (1891) 3 Ch. 206 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 11 ; 64 L. T. 787 ; 39 W. R. 684 203, 1462 v. Sturgis, 5 Ha. 93 ; 10 Jur. 133 1188 Grimsby v. Webster, 8 W. R. 725 1195, 1280 Grimstone, Exp., Amb. 706 697, 1442 Grindell v. Brendon, 6 C. B. N. S. 698 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 1420 189, 252 Gripper v. Bristow. 6 M. & W. 807 75, 77 Grissell r. Money, 38 L. J. Ch. 312 1018, 1037 Grissell's Case, 3 Ch. D. 411 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 752; 14 L. T. 843 496, 955 Grogan v. Cooke, 2 Ba. & Be. 230 581 Groom v. Booth, 1 Drew. 548 520 v. Cheesewright, (1895) 1 Ch. 730 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 406 ; 72 L. T. 555 ; 43 W. R. 475 1389 Grosvenor v. Green, 5 Jur. N. S. 117 1312, 1315 Grotet--. Bing, 20 L. T. 124; 1 W. R. 80; 9 Ha. App. 1 927 Groves v. Lane, 16 Jur. 1061 1107 Grugeon v. Gerrard, 4 Y. & C. Ex. 119 43, 572, 719, 862, 869, 870, 1003 Gruggen v. Cochrane, 5 N. R. 457 1174 Guardian Perm. Ben. Building Soc, Re, Hawkins' Case, 23 Ch. D. 440, 452 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 857 ; 48 L. T. 134 ; 32 W. R. 73 463 Guardian Perm. Ben. Building Soc, Scott's Case, 23 Ch. D. 453 557 Gubbins v. Creed, 2 Sch. & Lef. 214 ; 9 R. R. 71 17, 1202 Guepratte v. Young, 4 De G. & S. 217 326 Guest v. Harrison, 8 H. L. C. 4S1 606 Guiness v. Land Corp. of Ireland, 22 Ch. D. 349 470 Gummer v. Adams, 13 L. J. Ex. 40 1402 Gunn v. Bolckow, Vaughan & Co., L. R. 10 Ch. A. 491 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 731 ; 32 L. T. N. S. 781 1374, 1462, 1478 v. Roberts, L. R. 9 C. P. 331 ; 43 L. J. C. P. 233 ; 30 L. T. 424 ; 22 W. R. 652 ; 2 Asp. 250 1510 Gunter r. Gunter, 23 Beav. 571 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 1013 1437 Gurden v. Badcock, 6 Beav. 157 955 Gurney r. Behrend, 3 E. & B. 629 ; 23 L. J. Q. B. 265 ; 18 Jur. 856 .... 1497 v. Jackson, 1 Sm. & G. App. 26 ; 17 Jur. 204 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 417 ; 1 AY. R. 91 1034, 1188 ■ v. Seppings, 2 Ph. 40 ; 15 L. J. N. S. Ch. 385 ; 1 Coop. 12 . .303, 831, 869 Gustaf, Lush. 500 1392, 1394 31 L. J. P. D. & A. 207, 660 1397 Guthrie v. Walrond, 22 Ch. D. 573 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 165 ; 47 L. T. 614 ; 31 W. R. 285 639 TABLE OF CASES. CI PAGE Gutteridge v. Fletcher, 13 W. R. 540 ; 12 L. T. N. S. 226 890 892 Gwillim v. Holland, 18 Ves. 393 ••• •• 14i0 Gwyn v. Neath Canal Co., L. R. 3 Ex. 209; 37 L. J. Ex. 122 ; 18 L. T. 688 ; 16 W. R. 1209 u _\ Gwynne, Exp., 12 Ves. 383 - • • •; • 13 '6 v. Edwards, 2 Russ. 289 '77, n 9, ,83 . r. Heaton, 1 Bro. C. C. 8 613 Gyett v. Williams, 2 J. & H. 429 .••••• 410 Gyhon, Re, Allen r. Taylor, 29 Ch. D. 834 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 945 ; 53 L. J\ 539; 33 W. R. 620 H? 8 Gyles v. Hall, 2 P. Wins. 378 < 14, llo4 H., Re, H. v. H., 1 Ch. D. 276 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 749 ; 24 W. R. 317 927 Habershon v. Gill, W. N. (1875) 231 925 Habershon's Case, L. R. 5 Eq. 286 • • • • • •••••■■ • ••■ 6JJ Hack v. London, &c. Building Soc., 23 Ch. D. 103 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 541 ; 48 L. T. 247 ; 31 W. R. 292 558 Hacket v. Wakefield, Hard. 172 1222, 122o Hadden, Best & Co. v. Oppeuheim, 60 L. J. Q. B. 962 211, 132 Haddonr. Fladgate, 27 L. J. P. D. & A. 21 .. .. •;• 330 Hadley and Son v. Beedom, (1895) 1 Q. B. 646 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 240 ; <2 L. T. 493 ; 53 W. R. 218 ; 2 Mans. 47 202 Hasygett v. Giles, 2 Roll. Abr. Graunts (p. 2), 491 112 Hague v. Dandeson, 2 Exch. 741 l *"i Haig v. Homan, 4 Bli. N. S. 38 1*5 Haigh, Exp., 11 Ves. 403 ; 8 R. R. 189 °6 Re, 2 C. B. N. S. 192 ; 26 L. J. C. P. 209 319 v. Frost, 7 Dowl. 743 73 v. Grattan, 1 Beav. 210 ; 8 L. J. Ch. 249 . ... . . . . . . 9o3 v. Kaye, L. R. 7 Ch. A. 469 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 567 ; 26 L. T. N. S. 675 ; 20 W. R. 597 , ^ 4 Haille v. Smith, 1 B. & P. 563 119* Haines, Exp., 4 Dea. 20 ; M. & Ch. 32 1099 Hale v. Allnutt, 28 L. J. C. P. 267 583 v. Dale, 8 Dowl. 599 .^. . . . . . i3 v. Metropolitan Saloon Omnibus Co., 4 Drew. 492 ; 28 L. J . On. <77 ; 7W R 316 195,569,573,093 Hales v. Cox, 32 Beav. 118 ; 9 Jut. N. S. 1305 ; 8 L. T. N. S. 134 ; 11 W. R. 331 < 81 > ,b t 9. Freeman, 1 Br. & B. 391 ^ v. Hales, 1 Rep. in Ch. 105 1058 v. Stevenson, 9 Jur. N. S. 301 98 " Haley v. Hammersley, 3 De G. F. & J. 587 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 765. . . . 122, 123, 125 Halford, Re, 1 Jur. 524 • • ^ v . Kymer, 10 B. & C. 724 , 28 <, 288 Halifax, Marquis of v. Higgens, 2 Vern. 134 ... ■ . • • • • • • • 1 * 1 - Joint Stock Banking Co. v. Gledhill, (1891) 1 Ch. 31 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 181 ; 63 L. T. 623 ; 39 W. R. 104 5/4 , &c. Union Banking Co. v. Radcliffe, Limd., W. N. (1895) 63 . . 1001 Halkes v. Barrow, Taml. 264 • • • • \H .. Day, 10 Sim. 41 1 2 ?N '."' ' Halkett, Exp., 19 Ves. 474 ; 2 Rose, 229 ; 3 V. & B. 135 1501 Hall, Exp., Jac. 161 \'4"m" B \k"lU rll Exp. Re Cooper, 19 Ch. D. 580 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 556 ; 46 L. T. 549 582 589 ' Exp.. Re Whitting, 10 Ch. D. 615 ; 48 L. J. Bky. 79 ; 40 L. T. 1/9.. 1148 , , Re, Exu. Close, 14 Q. B. D. 386 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 43 ; 51 L. T. 795 ; 33 W. R. 228 191 . 9. Andrews, 20 W. R. 799 ; 27 L. T. 195 . .._.... 402 . r Bromley, 35 Ch. D. 042 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 722 ; 56 L. T. 683 ; 35 W. R 659 S4 ' 2 v. Carter, 2 Aft.'sfifi ^ 416, 427, 430, 431 . „. Comfort, 18 Q. B. D. 11 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 185 ; 55 L. T. 550 ; 35 W. R. 48 66,> Cll TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Hall v. Day, 5 L. T. N. S. 398 218 - — - v. Dencli, 1 Vern. 392 646 v. Doe, 5 B. & Al. 687 654 v. Franck, 11 Beav. 519 845 v. Hall, 47 L. J. Oh. 680 649 v. Heward, 32 Ch. D. 430 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 604 ; 54 L. T. 810 ; 34 W. P. 571 693, 723, 803, 820, 1416 ■ v. Hurt, 2 J. & H. 76 1017 ■ v. Laver, 1 Ha. 571 1385, 1386 ■ v. May, 3 K. & J. 585 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 907 890 v. Potter, 3 P. Wins. 392, n 626 ■ v. Smith, 14 Ves. 426 ; 9 R. P. 313 1306 v. , W.N. (1887) 170 226, 254 v. Waterhouse, 11 Jur. N. S. 361 329 v. West End Advance Co., 1 C. & E. 161 1347 Hallas v. Pobinson, 15 Q. B. D. 288 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 364 ; 33 W. P. 426 212, 1284 Hall Dare v. Hall Dare, 31 Ch. D. 251 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 154 ; 54 L. T. 120 ; 34 W. P. 82 1148 Hallen v. Punder, 1 C. M. & P. 276 124 Hallett v. Furze, 31 Ch. D. 312 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 226 ; 54 L. T. 12 ; 34 W. P. 225 737 v. Middleton, 1 Russ. 243 144 Halliday, Exp., L. P. 8 Ch. A. 283 ; 28 L. T. 324 ; 21 W. P. 348 589 v. Holg-ate, L. P. 3 Ex. 299 ; 37 L. J. Ex. 174 1469, 1470 Hallifax, Exp., Pe Ridge, 2 M. D. & De G-. 544 56, 1082, 1325 Halliley v. Kirtland, 2 Ch. Rep. 360 1151 Hailing, Exp., Re Haydon, 7 Ch. D. 157 ; 37 L. T. N. S. 809 ; 47 L. J. Bky. 25 224 Halliwell r. Counsell, 38 L. T. 176 90 v. Tanner, 1 P. & My. 633 775 Haly v. Barry, L. P. 3 Ch. A. 452 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 723 ; 16 W. P. 654 ; 18 L. T. N. S. 491 1276, 1348, 1361, 1364 Hamer v. Tilsley, John. 363 1378 Hamcrton v. Rogers, 1 Ves. 513 1152 Hamilton's Windsor Ironworks Co., Re, 12 Ch. D. 707 ; 27 W. P. 445 468, 469 Hamilton, Re, 9 Ir. Ch. Rep. 512 1243 , Pe, 31 Ch. D. 291 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 282 ; 53 L. T. 840 : 34 W. P. 203 435 . v. Baker, The Sara, 14 App. Cas. 209 ; 58 L. J. Ad. 57 1396 ■ v. Bell, 10 Exch. 545 ; 18 Jur. 1109 184, 187 v. Chaine, 7 Q. B. D. 319; 50 L. J. Q. B. 456 ; 44 L. T. 764 ; 29 W. R. 676 227 ■ v. Denny, 1 Ba. & Be. 199 ; 12 R. R. 14 1380 v. Lloyd, 2 Ves. Jun. 416 850 ■ v. Royse, 2 Sch. & L. 315 787, 1306, 1308, 1309 v. Watson, 12 CI. & F. 109 82 v. Worley, 2 Ves. Jun. 62 ; 4 Bro. C. C. 199 761 Hamlet v. King, 3 CI. & F. 218 614 Hamlyn v. Betteley, 5 C. P. D. 327 ; 49 L. J. C. P. 465 ; 28 W. R. 956 ; 42 L. T. 373 227, 228 • ■ v. Lee, 1 Dick. 94 948 Hammersley v. Knowlys, 2 Esp. 666 ; 5 R. R. 764 1213 Hammond, Exp., Buck, 464 1100 v. Anderson, 1 B. & P. N. P. 69 ; 2 Camp. 243 ; 8 P. R. 763 1461 v. Hammond, 19 Beav. 29 112 v. Hocking, 12 Q. B. D. 291 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 205 ; 50 L. T. 267 222, 235 Hampden r. Buckinghamshire, Earl of, (1893) 2 Ch. 531 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 643; 68 L. T. 695; 41 W. R. 516 395 Hampshire Land Co., Re, Exp. Portsea Island Building Soc, (1896) 2 Ch. 743; 65 L. J. Ch. 860; 75 L. T. 181; 45 W. R. 136; 3 Mans. 269 ; 12 T. L. R. 517 1331 TABLE OF CASES. Clll PAGE Hampshire v. Bradley, 2 Coll. 34 909 Hampton v. Hodges, 8 Ves. 105 "69 v . Spencer, 2 Vern. 288 : 19 . 2i Hams, Re, 10 Ir. Ch. R. 100 • • 249 Hananv. Power, 8 L. R. Ir. 505 980, 98/ Hanbury v. Kirkbrand, 3 Sim. 2G5 525 . v. Lichfield, 2 My. & K. 629 1312, 1321 Hanbury's Trusts, Re, W. N. (1883) 111 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 687; 31 W. R. ■-gj. 516 Hanby v. Roberts, Arab. 127 "N5 Hancock, Re, Hancock v. Berry, W.N. (1888) 138; 57 L. J. Oh. <93; 59 L. T. 197 ; 36 W. R. 710 310, 829, 1402 Hancock v. Att.-Gen., 12 W. R. 569 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 557 645, 10o7 v . Demeric-Lablache, 3 C. P. D. 197 ; 47 L. J. C. P. 514 ; 38 L. T. 753 ; 26 W. R. 402 345 v. Hancock, 38 Ch. D. 78 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 396 ; 58 L. T. 906 ; 36 W. R. 417 342 . . v. , Seton, 577, 689 10oG Hancox v. Abbey, 11 Ves. 179 ; 8 R. R. 124 7-j6 Handcock v. Shaen, Colles, P. C. 122 1010 Handford v. Storie, 2 S. & St. 196 1106 Hankey, Exp., 1 Mont. & McA. 247 • • 672 . v. Martin, 49 L. T. 560 366, 376 v. Vernon, 2 Cox, 10 50, 57 Hannah v. Hodgson, 30 Beav. 19 • • 1315 Hansard v. Hardy, 18 Ves. 460 736, /48 Hansen v. Miller, 14 Sim. 22 323, 348 Hanson v. Derby, 2 Vern. 392 8 °1 ,. Keating, 4 Ha. 1 322, 326 v. Preston, 3 Y. & C. 229 1 (| U v. Reece, 3 Jur. N. S. 1204 138o Harberton, Lord v. Bennett, Beat. 386 86 Harbroe v. Coombs, 43 L. J. Ch. 336 354 Harcourt v. Knowel, 2 Vern. 159 1293 v. Morgan, 2 Keen, 274 85 ° Hardaker v. Moorbouse, 26 Ch. D. 417 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 713 ; 50 L. T. 554 ; 32 W. R. 638 38' 2 Harden v. Forsyth, 1 Q. B. 177 '} Hardey v. Felton, 14 L. J. Q. B. 346 911 Harding-, Exp., Re Fairbrother, L. R. 15 Eq. 223 ; 42 L. J. Bky. 30 . . 184, 254 Exp., 12 Ch. D. 557 ; 4S L. J. Bky. 115 ; 41 L. T. 517 ; 2S W. ■p i gg _ _ > _ , , 964 v . Crethorn," V Esp. 56 1315 V. Davis, 2 C. & P. 77 "15 v , Grady, 1 Dr. & War. 430 407 v Harding, L. R. 13 Eq. 493 ; 20 L. T. N. S. 656 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 523 769 . v . Tingey, 10 Jur. N. S. 872 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 13 ; 10 L. T. N. S. 328 ; 12 W. R. 684 707, 729 Hardingham v. Nicholls, 3 Atk. 304 l - a •> Hardman v. Johnson, 3 Mer. 347 16 ' 5 Hardwick v. Mynd, 1 Anst. Ill ; 3 R. R. 562 1451 Hardy, Exp., 2 D. & C. 393 •• i2 99 Re, Hardy v. Farmer, (1896) 1 Ch. 904 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 461 ; 74 L. T. 403 ; 44 W. R. 503 ; 3 Mans. 150 1077 v. Fothergill, 13 App. Cas. 351 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 44 ; 59 L. T. 27" 37 W. R. 177 103 v. Reeves, 4 Ves. 466 749, 804 Hare v. Bickley, Plowd. 526 439 v. Horton, 5 B. & Ad. 715 120, 125 Harewood v. Child, Forr. 204 <° 6 Harford v. Lloyd, 20 Beav. 310 1381 Harareaves, Re, Dicks v. Hare, 44 Ch. D. 236 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 375 ; 02 L. T. 819 ; 6 T. L. R. 264 H06 v . Rothwell, 1 Keen, 159 1328 CIV TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Harkness and AUsopp's Contract, Re, (1896) 2 Ch. 358 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 726 ; 74 L. T. 652 ; 44 W. R. 683 337 Harlock v. Ashberry, 19 Ch. D. 539 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 394 ; 46 L. T. 356 ; 30 W. R. 327 978, 980, 1060, 1063 Harman v. Fisher, Cowp. 117 589 Vm Forster, 1 Dr. & Wal. 637 1434 v , Kingston, 3 Camp. 153 ; 13 R. R. 775 288 v. Richards, 10 Ha. 81 339 Harman and Rickmans worth Rail. Co., Re, 24 Ch. D. 720 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 808 ; 31 W. R. 857 ; 49 L. T. 130 536, 1313 Harmer v. Bell, 7 Moo. P. C. 267 1390 ■ v. Harris, 1 Russ. 155 ; 25 R. R. 20 1382 r. Priestley, 16 Beav. 569 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 1041 719 Harmood v. Oglander, 8 Ves. 107 646 Harnett v. McDougall, 8 Beav. 187 339 Harper v. Aplin, 54 L. T. 383 669 • v. Faulder, 4 Madd. 129 1308, 1341, 1345 . v. Godsell, L. R. 5 Q. B. 422 ; 39 L. J. Q. B. 185 ; 18 W. R. 954. . 1460 ■ r. Haves, 2 GifE. 210 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 643 903 v. Munday, 7 De G. M. & G. 369 415 Harphara v. Shacklock, 19 Ch. D. 207 ; 45 L. T. 569 ; 30 W. R. 49 1301 Harrington v. Long, 2 My. & K. 592 795 v. Price, 3 B. & Ad. 170 56, 809 Harris, Exp., Re Lewis, 2 Ch. D. 243 ; 45 L. J. Bky. 71 ; 34 L. T. 261 . . 952 , Exp.. Re Pulling, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 48 ; 42 L. J. Bky. 9. .186, 218, 220, 242 ■ , Re, Shelf. Lun. 276 362 v. Amery, L. R. 1 C. P. 148 ; 35 L. J. C. P. 89 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 165 ; 13 L. T. 504 ; 14 W. R. 199 184 v. Birch, 9 M. & TV. 591 ; 1 Dowl. N. S. 899 1521 ■ v. Harford, TV. N. (1888) 190 341 v. Harris, 3 Atk. 722 1163 ■ v. Horwell, Gilb. 11 16 v. Ingledew, 3 P. TVms. 91 407 v. Poyner, 1 Drew. 174 ; 16 Jur. 880 1378 . v. Rickett, 4 H. & N. 1 ; 28 L. J. Ex. 197 200, 594 r. Truman, 9 Q. B. D. 264 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 338 ; 46 L. T. 844 ; 30 TV. R. 533 182 r. TVanklin, 5 TV. R. 51 581 v. TVatkins, Kav, 43S 408, 409 Harris' Settled Estates', Re, 28 Ch. D. 171 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 208 ; 51 L. T. 855 ; 33 TV. R. 393 329, 336 Harrison, Exp., Re Betts, 18 Ch. D. 127 ; 50 L. J. Bky. 382 ; 45 L. T. 290 666 , Exp., Re Jordan, 13 Q. B. D. 228 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 554 ; 50 L. T. 594 ; 33 TV. R. 153 1038 ( Ee, 10 Beav. 57 ; 16 L. J. N. S. Ch 1176 v. Andrews, 13 Sim. 595 322, 846 v. Blackburn, 17 C. B. N. S. 678 214 v . Boydell, 6 Sim. 211 955 . v. Cornwall, 50 L. T. 452 ; 32 TV. R. 748 1388 v , Duignan, 2 Dr. & War. 295 979, 989 v. Forth, Prec. Ch. 51 ; 1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 331 1300 v. Harrison, 1 R, & My. 71 538 v. Hart, Comyn, 393 ; 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. 6 276, 1000, 1471 . v. Hollins, 1 S. &St. 471 740, 746 „, Jackson, 7 T. R. 210 ; 4 R. R. 422 502, 503, 504 v. Kennedy, 10 Ha. App. 51 1056 t,. Mexican Rail. Co., L. R. 19 Eq. 358 470 „. Owen, 1 Atk. 519 1402, 1406, 1411 v. Pennell, 4 Jur. N. S. 682 1013 ■ v. Southcote, 2 Ves. Sen. 389 1372 v . Thexton, 4 Jur. N. S. 550 513, 529 v. Wiltshire, 2 Jur. 679 1143 Harrison's Settlement, Re, TV. N. (1883) 31 536 Harrop v. Howard, 3 Ha. 624 339 TABLE OF CASES. CV PAGE Hanyman v. Collins, 18 Beav. 11 ; 18 Jur. 501 800, 1182 Hart, Exp., 2 D. & L. 778 ; 9 Jur. 402 598 v. Eastern Union Rail. Co., 7 Ex. 246 ; 8 Ex. 116 ; 14 Jur. 89 ; 21 L. J. Ex. 97 ; 19 L. T. 314 10, 491 v. Hart, 1 Ha. 1 816, 817 V. Hawthorn, 42 L. T. 79 713 v. Stevens, 6 Q. B. 937 323 v. Tulk, 6 Ha. 61 1 927 Harter v. Colman, 19 Ch. D. 630; 51 L. J. Ch. 481; 46 L. T. 154; 31 W. R. 484 860, 861 Hartford v. Mattinly, 2 Chit. R. 1 17 72 Hartland v. Murrell, 27 Beav. 204 408 Hartley, Exp., 2 M. & A. 496 ; 1 Drew. 288 776, 785 v. Burton, L. R. 3 Ch. A. 365 ; 16 W. R. 876 1410 v. Hurle, 5 Ves. 540 756 v. Russell, 2 S. & St. 244 ; 3 L. J. Ch. 146 ; 25 R. R. 196 633 Hartop v. Hoare, 3 Atk. 44 1463, 1471 Hartopp v. Huskisson, 55 L. T. 773 1296 Hartpole v. Walsh, 5 Bro. P. C. 267 27, 30 Hartshorn v. Slodden, 2 B. & P. 584 586 Hartshorne v. Watson, 4 Bing. N. C. 178 973 Hartwell v. Chitters, Amb. 308 653 Harty v. Davis, 13 L. R. Ir. 23 982 Harvey, Exp., 1 M. & Chit. 261 ; 3 Dea. 547 1099, 1449 Re, Harvey r. Hobday, (1896) 1 Ch. 137; 65 L. J. Ch. 370; 73 L. T. 613 ; 44 W. R. 242 1433 • r. Ashley, 2 Sch. & L. 328 1313 ■ v. Harvey, Str. 1141 124 V. Municipal Permanent Investment Building - Soc., 26 Ch.D. 273; 53 L. J. Ch. 1126; 51 L. T. 408; 32 W. R. 557 553, 562 v. Tebbutt, 1 J. & W. 197; 21 R. R. 145 1049, 1178, 1182 Harvey's Estate, Re, Godfrey v. Harben, 13 Ch. D. 216 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 3 ; 28 W. R. 73 349 Harwood v. Bartlett, 6 Bins?. N. C. 61 593 v. Fisher, 1 Y. & C. Ex. 110 323 v. Tooke, 2 Sim. 192 311 Haselfoot's Estate, Re, L. R. 13 Eq. 327; 41 L. J. Ch. 286; 24 L. T. N. S. 146 1153 Haselinton r. Gill, 3 T. R. 620, n. ; 1 R. R. 783 180, 330 Haslewood v. Consolidated Credit Co., 25 Q. B. D. 555 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 12; 63 L. T. 71 ; 39 W. R. 54 ; 6 T. L. R. 315 234 v. Pope, 3 P. Wms. 325 754, 758, 785 Hassell v. Long, 2 M. & S. 362 93 Hassells v. Simpson, 1 Doug. 88, n 581 Hastelow v. Jackson, 8 B. & C. 225 622 Hastings, Exp., 14 Ves. 182 ; 9 R. R. 272 360 , Re, Hallett v. Hastings, 35 Ch. D. 105 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 631 ; 57 L. T. 126 ; 35 W. R. 58 742 , Lord v. Astley, 30 Beav. 260 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 225 700 , Marquis of v. Beavan, 4 De G. F. & J. 316; 5 L. T. N. S. 734 ; 10 W. R. 206 1280, 1361,1 362 , v. Thorley, 8 C. & P. 573 719 ~ v. Pearson, (1893) 1 Q. B. 62 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 75 ; 9 T. L. R. 18 ; 67 L. T. 553; 41 W. R. 127 1477 Haswell v. Haswell, 2 De G. F. & J. 456 381 Hatch v. Hatch, 9 Ves. 292 ; 7 R. R. 195 608 v. Searles, 2 Sm. & G. 147 1115, 1431, 1437, 1438 v. Skelton, 20 Beav. 453 755 Hatchell v. Cremorne, LI. & G. temp. Plunkett, 246 1296 v. Eggleso, 1 Ir. Ch. R. 215 '. 321, 327 Hattersley, Exp., Re Blanshard, 8 Ch. D. 601 ; 47 L. J. Bkv. 113; 38 L. T. N. S. 619 ; 26 W. R. 636 181 Hatton v. English, 7 E. & B. 94 245, 246 v. Haywood, L. R. 9 Ch. A. 229 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 372 ; 30 L. T. 279 ; 22 W. R. 356 696 CV1 TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Hauxwell, Exp., Re Henmiingway, 23 Ch. D. 626 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 737 ; 48 L. T. 742 ; 31 W. R. 71 1 199, 200, 243, 590, 596 Hawes, Re, Burchell v. Hawes, 62 L. J. Ch. 463 ; 67 L. T. 756 ; 41 W. R. 173 982 Hawker, Exp., Re Keely, L. R. 7 Ch. A. 214; 41 L. J. Bky. 34; 26 L. T. 54 i 299, 583 v. Hallewell, 2 Sm. & G. 194 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 537 621 Hawkes v. Eastern Counties Rail. Co., 5 H. L. C. 331 464 v. Holland, W. N. (1881) 128 944 ■ v. Hubback, L. R. 11 Eq. 5 ; 19 W. R. 117 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 49 ; 23 L. T. N. S. 642 329 Hawkesley v. Gowan, 12 W. R. 1100 1277 Hawkings v. Billhead, Cro. Car. 404 1061 Hawkins v. Colthurst, 12 W. R. 325 295 v. Gathercole, 6 De G. M. & G. 1 438 v. , 1 Drew. 12 947 v. Ramsbottom, 1 Pri. 138 881, 894 v. Taylor, 2 Vern. 29 1223 ■ • v. Woodgate, 7 Beav. 565 ; 8 Jur. 743 292 Hawkshaw v. Parkins, 2 Swanst. 543 ; 19 R. R. 125 504 Hawley v. Cutts, 2 Freem. 23 850 Hawtayne r. Bourne, 7 M. & W. 595 503 Hawthorn v. Newcastle, &c. Rail. Co., 3 Q. B. 734 ; 2 Rail. Cas. 288 183 Hay v. Swedish and Norwegian Rail. Co., W. N. (1889) 96 ; 5 T. L. R. 460 480, 1290 Haycock's Policy, Re, 1 Ch. D. 611 311, 1268, 1269 Hayden v. Kirkpatrick, 34 Beav. 645 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 836 1444 Haydon v. Brown, W. N. (1888) 149 ; 59 L. T. 810 196 ■ v. Williams, 7 Bing. 163 1067 ■ v. Wood, 8 Ha. 279 418 Hayes v. Hayes, 1 Ch. Ca. 223 637, 638, 735 Haygarth v. Wearing, L. R. 12 Eq. 320 ; 20 W. R. 11 613 Hayman, Exp., 8 Ch. D. 12 ; 38 L. T. N. S. 238 ; 26 W. R. 597 ; 47 L. J. Bky. 54 180 v. Flewker, 13 C. B. N. S. 519 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 895 1477 Haymer v. Haymer, 2 Vent. 343 699 Haynes, Re, Kemp v. Haynes, 37 Ch. D. 306 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 519 ; 58 L. T. 14 ; 36 W. R. 321 391, 395 v . Cooper, 33 Beav. 431 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 303 1281, 1388 v. Forshaw, 11 Ha. 95 ; 17 Jur. 930 402, 785, 969 „. Haynes, 3 De G. M. & G. 590 412 v. , 3 Jur. N. S. 504 872, 1113 Hayward, Exp., Re Plant, W. N. (1881) 115 ; 45 L. T. 126 947 ■ v. Kersey, 14 W. R. 999 ; 14 L. T. N. S. 879 1178 Haywood v. Bibby, 11 M. & W. 812 ; 1 D. & L. 290 ; 12 L. J. Ex. 404 . . 1520 v. Brunswick Building Soc, 21 Q. B. D. 403 1311 Hazle's Settled Estates, Re, 29 Ch. D. 78 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 628 ; 52 L. T. 947; 33 W. R. 759 391 Head, Re, 12 C. B. N. S. 215 120 -, Head v. Head, (1893) 3 Ch. 426 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 35 ; 42 W. R. 55 . . 1453 (No. 2), (1894) 2 Ch. 236; 63 L. J. Ch. 549; 70 L. T. 608 ; 42 W. R. 419 1453 v. Egerton, 3 P. Wms. 279 56, 1334, 1337, 1339 Head's Trustees and Macdonald, Re, 45 Ch. D. 310 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 604 ; 63 L. T. 21 ; 38 W. R. 657 407 Headen v. Bosher, M'Cl. & T. 89 615 Heald v. Hay, 3 Giff. 467 ; 8 Jur. 379 299 Heales v. McMurray, 23 Beav. 401 681 Heams v. Bance, 3 Atk. 630 1152 Hearle v. Botelers, Gary, 25 1374 v. Greenbank, 3 Atk. 695 393 Heart of Oak, 1 W. Rob. 201 \ 1508, 1510 Heath v. Brindley, 2 A. & E. 365 71 v. Chadwick, 2 Ph. 649 695 v. Crealock, L. R. 10 Ch. A. 22 ; 29 L. T. N. S. 763 ; 23 W. R. 95 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 157 ... .47, 111, 145, 654, 1010, 1023, 1036, 1046, 1301 v. Key, 1 Y. & J. 434 83, 84 TABLE OF CASES. CV11 PAGE Heaths Pugh, 6 Q. B. D. 340 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 473 ; 44 L. T. 327 ; 29 W. R. 904 628, 10G0, 10G4 v. Weston, 3 De G. M. & G. 601 410 Heathcoat, Ex parte, Fonbl. Bky. R. 42 42, 49, 120 Heathcote, Ex parte, 2 M. D. & De G. 711 ; 6 Jur. 1001 5;, 63 Heather v. O'Neil, 2 De G. & J. 399 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 957 700, 704 Heathome v. Darling, 1 Moo. P. C. 5 1 334 Heatley v. Thomas, 15 Ves. 596 ; 10 R. R. 122 348 Hebblethwaite v. Cartwright, Forr. 30 416, 429, 430, 431 Hebden v. West, 3 B. & S. 579 287, 289 Hebe, 2 W. Rob. 412 ; 10 Jur. 231 ; 4 N. of C. 368 1397 Heckles v. Heckles, W. 1ST. (1892) 188 635 Hedderly, Ex parte, Re Hicklin, 2 M. D. & De G. 587 1082, 1088 Hedgeley, Re, Small v. Hedgeley, 34 Ch. D. 379 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 360 ; 56 L. T. 19 ; 35 W. R. 472 347, 969, 1360 v. Holt, 4 Car. & P. 104 356 Hedges v. Everard, 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. 18 1383 v. Hedges, 5 Dr. & Sin. 389 760 Heffield v. Meadows, L. R. 4 C. P. 595 ; 26 L. T. 746 88 Heinrich, L. R. 3 A. & E. 505; 41 L. J. Ad. 68; 26 L. T. 372; 20 W. R. 759 1388 Heir of Cannon v. Pack, 6 Vin. Abr. 222, pi. vi. ; 2 Eq. Cas. Ab. 226, pi. vi 1150 Hele v. Bexley, Lord, 17 Beav. 14 1447 v. 20 Beav. 127 667, 677 Helena Sophia, 3 W. Rob. 265 1396 Heligoland, Swab. 491 1391 Hellawell v. Eastwood, 6 Exch. 295 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 154 ; 9 Exch. 313. . 120, 121, 123, 124 Helmore v. Smith (No. 2), 35 Ch. D. 449 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 145 ; 56 L. T. 72; 35 W. R. 157 947 Hemp v. Garland, 4 Q. B. 519 ; 12 L. J. Q. B. 134 ; 7 Jur. 302 ; 3 G. & D. 402 976 Hempstead v. Hempstead, 4 Beav. 423 1 108 Henderson v. Astwood, (1894) A. C. 150 906, 907, 1206 ■ v. Lloyd, 3 F. & F. 7 569 & Co. v. Comptoir d'Escompte de Paris, L. R. 5 P. C. 253 ; 42 L. J. P. C. 60 ; 22 L. T. 192 ; 21 W. R. 873 . . . 1499 Henley v. Stone, 3 Beav. 355 723 Henn v. Hanson, 1 Sid. 141 112 Hennessy, Re, 2 Dr. & War. 555 1263, 1272 v. Bray, 33 Beav. 96 1312 Henry v. Ryan, 1 Knapp, 388 1187 Henry Pound, Son and Hutchins, Re, 42 Ch. D. 402 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 792 ; 62 L. T. 137; 38 W. R. 18; 5 T. L. R. 720. .921, 928, 929, 942, 1002, 1122, 1127 Henshall v. Matthew, 7 Bing. 337 71 Hensman v. Fryer, L. R. 3 Ch. A. 420 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 97 ; 17 L. T. N. S. 394 786 Henson v. Blackwell, 4 Ha. 434 ; 9 Jur. 390 99, 288 Henton v. Paddison, 68 L. T. 405 ; 9 T. L. R. 333 978 Henvell v. Whitaker, 3 Russ. 343 408 Henwood v. Oliver, 1 Q. B. 409 719 Hepworth v. Heslop, 3 Ha. 485 ; 9 Jur. 796 1114 ■ v. Hill, 30 Beav. 476 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 960 759, 768 Herapath and Delmar, Re, 7 Mor. 1 29 103 Herbert, Ex parte, 13 Ves. 183 1232 ■ v. Greene, 3 Ir. Eq. R. 273 928 v. Rae, 13 Ir. Ch. R. 25 952 v. Salisbury, &o. Rail. Co., L. R. 2 Eq. 221 ; 14 W. R. 706 131 v. Webster, 15 Ch. D. 610 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 620 340 Herbert's Case, 3 P. Wms. 116 1322 Hercules Ins. Co., Re, Brunton's Claim, L. R. 19 Eq. 302 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 450 ; 23 W. R. 286 ; 31 L. T. 747 474, 481 Hercy v. Ferrers, 4 Beav. 97 ; 10 L. J. Ch. 273 814 Herman v. Dunbar, 23 Beav. 312 , 958 Cviii TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Herman Loog, Re (No. 1), 36 Ch. D. 502 ; 58 L. T. 47 ; 35 W. R. 687 . . 1128 Hermann v. Hodges, L. R. 16 Eq. 18 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 192 ; 21 W. R. 571. .48, 53 Hernaman, Ex parte, 17 L. J. Bky. 17 1446 Heme Bay Waterworks Co., Re, 10 Ch. D. 42 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 69 ; 27 W. R. 36 ; 39 L. T. 324 491, 1122 Hero, 2 Dods. 144 1507 Herring v. Clark, L. R. 4 Ch. A. 167 739 Hervey v. Audland, 14 Sim. 531 968 v. Liddiard, 1 Stark. 123 181 v. Smith, 22 Beav. 299 1306, 1318 Heseltine v. Simmons, (1892) 2 Q. B. 547 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 5 ; 67 L. T. 611 ; 41 "W. R. 67 ; 8 T. L. R, 768 231, 239 Heslop, Ex parte, 1 De G. M. & G. 477 1259 21 L. J. Notes, p. 29 842 Hesse v. Bryant, 2 Jur. N. S. 922 892 v. Stevenson, 3 B. & P. 578 1321 Hestia, (1895) P. 193 ; 64 L. J. P. 82 ; 72 L. T. 364 ; 43 W. R. 669 1394 Hetherino-ton v. Groome, 13 Q. B. D. 789; 53 L. J. Q. B. 576; 51 L. T. 412 ; 33 W. R. 103 221, 233, 237, 247 Hetling and Merton's Contract, (1893) 3 Ch. 269 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 783 ; 68 L. T. 749; 69 L. T. 266; 42 W. R. 19; 9 T. L. R. 553 114, 115 Hewer v. Cox, 3 E. & E. 428 ; 16 Jur. N. S. 1339 ; 30 L. J. Q. B. 73 . . 247, 248 Hewett v. Barr, (1891) 1 Q. B. 98 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 268 ; 39 W. R. 294 . . 1065 _ „. Murray, 54 L. J. Ch. 572 ; 53 L. T. 3S0 942 Hewison v. Guthrie, 2 Bing. N. C. 755 1389 v. Negus. 22 L. J. Ch. 655 ; 17 Jur. 567 601 Hewitt, Re, 27 L. J. Ch. 302 1424 v. Loosemore, 9 Ha. 449 ; 15 Jur. 1197 ; 21 L. J. N. S. Ch. 69. .1305, 1334, 1336 v. M'Cartney, 13 Ves. 560 876 v. Nanson, 28 L. J. Ch. 49 ; 7 W. R. 5 1038 Hewson v. Hewson, 4 Ves. 1057 1137 Heycock v. Heycock, 1 Vern. 256 433 Heyman v. Dubois, L. R. 13 Eq. 158 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 224 ; 25 L. T. N. S. 558 104, 780, 782, 784, 788 Heyter v. Jones, 3 Rep. in Ch. 106 ; 1 Eq. Ca. Ahr. 357 429 Hiatt v. Hillman, 19 W. R. 694 ; 25 L. T. N. S. 55 908 Hibbert v. Barton, 10 M. & W. 678 73 r. Cooke, 1 S. & St. 552 ; 24 R. R. 225 1378 Hibbs v. Ross, L. R. 1 Q. B. 534 ; 35 L. J. Q. B. 193 266 Hibernian Bank v. Gilbert, 23 L. R. Ir. 321 1148 Hichens v. Kelly, 2 Sm. & G. 264 629, 1004 Hick v. Lockwood, W. N. (1883) 43 927 Hickes». Cooke, 4 Dow, 24, 25 17, 18 Hickley v. Greenwood, 59 L. T. 137 247 v. , 25 Q. B. D. 277; 59 L. J. Q. B. 413; 63 L. T. 288 ; 38 W. R. 686 214 Hickling v. Boyer, 3 Mac. & G. 635 ; 16 Jur. 137 759 Hickman v. Machin, 4 H. & N. 716 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 576 682 v. Upsall, 2 Giff. 124 412, 413 Hicks r. Gardner, 1 Jur. 541 136 v . Hicks. 3 Atk. 273 955 v. Powell, L. R. 4 Ch. A. 741 1242 Hickson v. Collis, 1 J. & L. 94 1350 v. Darlow, 23 Ch. D. 690 ; 48 L. T. 449 ; 31 W. R. 417. .224, 225, 905 Hidden, Exp., 3 L. T. N. S. 380 1498 Hiddingh v. Denyssen, 12 App. Cas. 624 996 Hiernr. Mill, 13 Ves. 114; 9 R. R. 149 57, 590, 1306, 1333 Higg's Mortgage, Re, Goddard v. Higg, W. N. (1894) 73 1046 Hig^-inbottom v. Higginbottom, 2 Dowl. 126 72 Higgins, Exp., 3 De G. & J. 33 ; 27 L. J. Bky. 27 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 595. . . . 1172 v. Frankis, 15 L. J. N. S. Ch. 329 ; 10 Jur. 328 863, 864 v. - . L5Jur.277 1189 ■ v. Pitt, 4 Exch. 312 592 . r. Shaw, 2 Dr. & War. 356 632, 969, 1015, 1064, 1323 . v. York Buildings Co. , 2 Atk. 106 677 TABLE OF CASES. C1X PAGK Higgons v. Burton, 2G L. J. Ex. 342 1462 Higgs v. Northern Assam Tea Co., L. R. 4 Ex. 387 486 ■ v. Scott, 7 C. B. 63 671 Hilbers v. Parkinson, 25 Ch. D. 200 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 194 ; 49 L. T. 502 ; 32 W. R. 315 331 Hiklesheim, Re, (1893) 2 Q. B. 357 ; 69 L. T. 550 ; 42 W. R. 138 ; 10 Moo. P. C. 238 ; 9 T. L. R. 634 507 Hiles v. Moore, 17 L. J. Ch. 385 ; 15 Beav. 175 930, 1143 Hill, Exp., Re Bird, 23 Ch. D. 695; 52 L. J. Ch. 903; 23 W. R. 177; 49 L. T. 278 589 ■ , Exp., Re Lane, 17 Q. B. D. 74 232 , Re, Exp. Official Receiver, 2 Mans. 208 229, 232 , Re, 1 Ch. D. 503, n 182 v. Adams, 2 Atk. 39 820 V. Bickersdike, 2 Fonb. Eq. 149 1259 r. Browne, Dru. 426 ; 6 Ir. Eq. R. 403 824 , Viscount v. Bullock, (1897) 2 Ch. 55, affd. in C. A., W. N. (1897) 80. .Add. v. Cooper, (1893) 2 Q. B. 85 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 423 ; 69 L. T. 216; 41 W. R. 500 ; 9 T. L. R. 457 332, 932 v. Edmonds, 5 De G. & S. 603 ; 16 Jur. 1113 321, 322, 327, 1010 v. Exeter, Bishop of, 2 Taunt. 69 ; 1 1 R. R. 527 603 v. Hibbit, 18 L. T. N. S. 553 945 v. Kirkwood, 28 W. R. 358 ; 42 L. T. 105 224, 240, 241, 905 v. Manchester, &c. Waterworks Co., 2 B. & Ad. 344 110 v. Maurice, 1 De G. & S. 214 354 ■ v. Paul, 8 CI. & F. 295 299 v. Price, Dick. 344 , 152 v. Rimmel, 8 Sim. 632 927 . v. Rowlands, W. N. (1897) 68, 73 Addenda v. Salford AVaterworks, 2 B. & Ad. 544 ; 2 M. & N. 573 1288 v. Sidebottom, 47 L. T. 224 1020 v. Simpson, 7 Ves. 152 ; 6 R. R. 105 402, 403, 405 v. South Staffordshire Rail. Co., L. R. 18 Eq. 154 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 566 1160 r. Spencer, Ambl. 641 , 625 v. Stowell, 2 L. R. Ir. 302 979, 983 Hill's Trust, Re, 16 Ch. D. 173 ; 43 L. T. 623 ; 29 W. R. 211 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 134 540 Hilliard v. Gamble, Taml. 375 616 v. Moriarty, (1S94) 1 Ir. R. 316 1114 Hill Pottery, Re, L. R. 1 Eq. 649 ; 15 W. R. 97 1 128 Hills v. Reeves, 31 W. R. 209 952 Hilton v. Tucker, 39 Ch. D. 669 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 973 ; 59 L. T. 172 ; 36 W. R. 567 196, 1461, 1462 Hind v. Poole, 1 K. & J. 383 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 371 534, 845 Hinde, Exp., Amb. 706, n 1112 Hindle v. Taylor, 5 De G. M. & G. 577 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 1029 410 Hine, Exp., 3 De G. & J. 464 65 v. Dodd, 2 Atk. 275 1247, 1248 Hinton v. Hinton, 2 Ves. Sen. 631 368 Hiorns v. Holton, 16 Beav. 259; 10 Jur. 1077 1036, 1188, 1294 Hipkin v. Wilson, 3 De G. & Sm. 738 ; 14 Jur. 1126 ; 19 L. J. N. S. Ch. 305 699, 701 Hipkins v. Amery, 2 Giff. 292 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 1047 ; 8 W. R. 360 . .1334, 1336, 1347, 1355 Hippesley v. Spencer, 5 Madd. 422 669 Hirst, Exp., Re Wherley, 11 Ch. D. 278 1077 v. Hannah, 17 Q. B. 383 73 Hirst's Mortgage, Re, 45 Ch. D. 263 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 4S ; 63 L. T. 444 ; 38 W. R. 685 902 Hirtzel, Exp., 2 De G. & J. 404 1296 Hitchcock v. Carew, Kay, App. xiv 1023 • v. Humfrey, 5 M. & G. 539 89 Hitchman v. Stewart, 3 Drew. 271 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 839 104 v. Walton, 4 M. & W. 409 120, 128, 658, 659, 670 Hoar v. Loe, W. N. (1884) 241 727 Hoare, Re, Hoare v. Owen, (1892) 3 Ch. 94 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 541 ; 67 L. T. 45; 41 W. R. 103 944 CX TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Hoare v. Osborne, 33 L. J. Ch. 586 , 349 v. Parker, 2 T. R. 376 1465 Hoare's Case, 30 Beav. 225 473 Hobart v. Abbot, 2 P. Wins. 643 720, 999, 1007 Hobbs, Re, Hobbs v. Wade, 36 Ch. D. 553 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 184 ; 58 L. T. 9 ; 36 W. R. 445 1069 v. Norton, 1 Vera. 136 1294 v. Wayet, 36 Ch. D. 256 ; 57 L. T. 225 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 819 ; 36 W. R. 73 1275 Hobday v. Peters, 28 Beav. 603 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 7S0 349, 824 Hobhouse v. Hollcombe, 2 De G. & Sm. 208 946 Hobson, Re, Walker v. Appach, 55 L. J. Ch. 422 ; W. N. (1885) 184 ; 53 L. T. 627; 32 W. R. 70 849 . v. Bass, L. R. 6 Ch. A. 792 ; 19 W. R. 992 102, 103 v. Bell, 2 Beav. 17 900, 902 v. Corringe, (1897) 1 Ch. 182 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 114 ; 75 L. T. 610 ; 45 W. R. 356 122 , v. Shearwood, 8 Beav. 487 1386 ■ ■ v. Sherwood, 19 Beav. 575 , 950 ■ v. Staneer, 9 Mod. SO 629 v. Trevor, 2 P. Wins. 19L 311 Hockey v. Evans, 18 Q. B. D. 390; 56 L. J. Q. B. 253; 56 L. T. 179 ; 35 W. R. 265 224 Hocking v. Acraman, 12 M. & W. 170 1325 ■ r. Smith, 13 App. Cas. 582 561 Hockley v. Bantock, 1 Russ. 141 60 Hodge v. Att.-Gen., 3 Y. & C. Ex. 342; 8 L. J. N. S. Ex. 28 644,1057 v. Lewin, 1 Beav. 431 412 Hodges v. Croydon Canal Co., 3 Beav. 86 10, 718, 975, 991, 1179 • v. Hodges, 20 Ch. D. 749 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 549 ; 46 L. T. 366 ; 20 W. R. 483 341, 349 Hodges' Case, 26 L. J. Bky. 77 1161 Hod^kin, Exp., Re Softley, L. R. 20 Eq. 746; S. C. (sub nom. Exp. Winter), 44 L. J. Bky. 107 ; 33 L. T. 62 202, 261, 589, 590, 591, 862 Hodgkinson v. Cooper, 9 Beav. 304 1316 Hodgson v. Anderson, 3 B. & Cr. 842 70 v. Dean, 2 S. & St. 221 1249 . v. Gascoigne, 5 B. & Aid. 88 ; 24 R. R. 295 1104 . v. Hodgson, 2 Keen, 704 1162, 1197 . v. Shaw, 3 My. & K. 183 95, 97, 98 . v. Williamson, 15 Ch. D. 87 ; 42 L. T. 676 ; 28 W. R. 944 .. . .344, 350 Hodgson's Case, 1 G. & J. 12 52, 882, 1096, 1100 Hodle v. Healey, 1 V. & B. 536 ; 6 Madd. 181 ; 22 R. R. 270 . . . .23, 740, 748 Hodson and Howes' Contract, Re, 35 Ch. D. 668 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 755 ; 56 L. T. 837 ; 35 W. R. 553 909 . r.TeaCo.,14Ch.D. 859; 49 L. J. Ch. 234; 28 W. R. 458. .487, 494, 1002 Hoey v. Green, W. N. (1884) 236 519, 526 Hoghton v. Hoghton, 15 Beav. 278 607, 1432 Holbird v. Anderson, 5 T. R. 235 567 Holborrow v. Lloyd, 5 Jur. N. S. 114, pt. 2 49 v , Wilkins, 1 B. & C. 10 ; 2 D. & Ry. 59 ; 1 L. J. K. B. 11 ; 25 R. R. 285 89 Holden v. Hearn, 1 Beav. 456 60 . v. Kynaston, 2 Beav. 204 1106 Holderness v. Lamport, 29 Beav. 129 258 . v. Rankin, 2 De G. F. & J. 258 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 929 183, 270 Holdemesse, Countess of v. Carmarthen, Marquis of, 1 Bro. C. C. 377. . . . 842 Holdfast v. Clapham, 1 T. R. 600 152 Holdsworth v. Davenport, 3 Ch. D. 185 ; 25 W. R. 20 ; 35 L. T. N. S. 319 ; 46 L. J. N. S. 20 540 i: Goose, 29 Beav. Ill 381 Hole v. Harrison, 1 Ch. Ca. 246 ; cas. temp. Finch, 15 101 Holford v. Hatch, 1 Doug. 183 163 . v. Holford, 1 Ch. Ca. 217 603 V. Yate, 1 K. & J. 677 1033, 1034 Holgate v. Jennings, 24 Beav. 623 518 V. Shutt(No. 2), 28 Ch. D. Ill ; 54 L. J. Ch. 436 ; 51 L. T. 673 . 1142 TABLE OF CASES. CXI PAGE Holgate v. Slight, 21 L. J. Q. B. 71 241 Holl v. Hadley, 2 A. & E. 758 89 Holland v. Clarke, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 1-51 986, 992 ■ v. Hodgson, L. R. 7 C. P. 328; 47 L. J. C. P. 146 ; 26 L. T. 709 ; 20 W. R. 990 120, 122, 123 v. Holland, 1 Dru. 391 1143 . v. Smith, 6 Esp. 11 ; 9 R. R. 801 292 Holies, Lady v. Wyse, 2 Vern. 289 129 Holliday v. Overton, 14 Beav. 467 1 12 Hollier v. Eyre, 9 CI. & F. 57 8i Hollingshead v. Webster, 37 Ch. D. 651 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 400 ; 58 L. T. 758 ; 36 W. R. 660 978 Hollingsworth v. White, 6 L. T. N. S. 604, Q. B. ; 10 W. R. 619. .218, 242,243 Hollington v. Dear, W. N. (1895) 35 343 Hollis v. Bulpett, 13 W. R. 492 729 v. Claridge, 4 Taunt. 807 1385, 1414 Holman v. Loynes, 4 De G. M. & G. 270 ; 18 Jur. 843 611 Holme v. Brunskill, 3 Q. B. D. 495 ; 47 L. J. Q. B. 610 ; 38 L. T. 838 . . 82 v . Hammond, L. R. 7 Ex. 218 ; 41 L. J. Ex. 157 ; 20 W. R. 747 . 502 v. Williams, 8 Sim. 557 40 ' Holmes, Exp., M. & C. 301 102, 103 . Re, 29 Ch. D. 786 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 33 1256, 1278, 1281, 1299 . , Re, Holmes v. Holmes (No. 2), W. N. (1890) 169 ; 63 L. T. 477 ; 6 T. L. R. 485 540 . v . Bell, 2 Beav. 298 ; 9 L. J. N. S. Ch. 217 925 v . , 3 Man. & Gr. 213 ; 3 Sc. N. S. 479 1447, 1448 v. Dring, 2 Cox, 1 520 v. Mathews, 9 Moo. P. C. 413 ; 3 Eq. Rep. 450 21, 22 v. Millage (or Mittage), (1893) 1 Q. B. 551 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 380 ; 68 L. T. 205; 41 W. R. 354 ; 9 T. L. R. 331 933 v. Mitchell, 7 C B. N. S. 361 ; 28 L. J. C. P. 301 80 v. Moore, 2 Moll. 328 522 r. Penney, 3 K. & J. 90 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 80 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 179; 5 W. R. 132 573, 574 v. Powell, 8 De G. M. & G. 572 1319 v . Turner, 7 Ha. 367, n 856, 1000, 1046 Holroyd v. Marshall, 10 H. L. C. 191 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 193 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 213; 7L. T. 172; 11 W. R. 171 211,212, 217,479, 1079 Holt v. Beagle, 55 L. T. 592 9o8 ,.. Dewell, 4 Ha. 446 1260, 1263, 1264, 1268,1323 v . Everall, 2 Ch. D. 266; 34 L. T. N. S. 599 ; 24 W. R. 471 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 433 334, 335 v. Holt, 1 Ch. Ca. 190 164 , v. Kershaw, 5 D. & L. 419 73 , v . Mill, 2 Vern. 279 ; 1 Eq. Cas. Ab. 323 1220 Holthausen, Exp., Re Seheibler, L. R, 9 Ch. A. 722 ; 31 L. T. N. S. 13 , 62,479 Homan,Exp7, ReBroadbent," L.R. 12 Eq. 598 ; 19 W. R. 1078 184 v. Anderson, 1 Ir. Ch. R. 106 982 Homfrey v. Gery, 7 C. B. 567 989 Honeycombe v. Waldron, 2 Stra. 1064 1246 Honeywood v. Foster, 30 Beav. 1 378 Honner v. Morton, 3 Russ. 65 ; 27 R. R. 15 322, 846 Hood, Re, Exp. Burgess, 42 W. R. 23 ; 9 T. L. R. 541 196 . v. Easton, 2 Giff. 692 ; 2 Jur. 729 120.) , v Hood, 30 L. J. Ch. 610 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 664 ; 5 W. R. 747 768 v. Phillips, 3 Beav. 513 1431. 1433, 1436, 1439 Hood-Barrs v. Cathcart, (1894) 2 Q. B. 559 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 798 ; 70 L. T. 865 ; 42 W. R. 628 339, 313 . v. Heriot, (1896) A. C. 174 ; 65 L. J. Q. B. 352 ; 74 L. T. 353 ; 44 W. R. 481 339, 1360 Hoole v. Smith, 17 Ch. D. 434 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 576 ; 45 L. T. 38 ; 29 W. R. G01 894, 897 Hooman, Exp., Re Vining, L. R. 10 Eq. 63 ; 39 L. J. Bky. 4 ; 22 L. T. N S. 179; 18 W.R.450 180,219,248,802 Hooper, Exp., 19 Ves. 477 ; 1 Mer. 7 ; 2 Rose, 328 49, 50, 61, 1152 CX11 TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Hooper v. Chambers, W. N. (1890) 29 1342 v. Cooke, 2 Jur. N. S. 257 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 467 1207 ■ ■ v. Eyles, 2 Vern. 479 1377, 1379 V. Gumm, L. R. 2 Ch. A. 282 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 282 ; 15 W. R. 464 ; 16 L. T. N. S. 107 255, 1285, 1293 v. Parmenter, 10 W. R. 648 246 v. Ramsbottom, 6 Taunt. 12 56, 809 , 4 Camp. 121 1463, 1465 Western Counties, &c. Tel. Co., W. N. (1892) 148 ; 68 L. T. 78; 41 W. R. 84; 9T. L. R. 17 471 Hopcraft, Exp., Re Flavell, 14 W. R. 168 198 Hope v. Croydon and Norwood Tramways Co., 34 Ch. D. 730 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 760 ; 56 L. T. 822 ; 35 W. R. 594 879 v. Hayley, 5 E. & B. 830 211, 212 v. Hope, (1892) 2 Ch. 336; 61 L. J. Ch. 441 ; 66 L. T. 522; 40 W. It. 522 ; 8 T. L. R. 504 336 v. Liddell, 21 Beav. 183 1310 . ■ v. Meek, 10 Exch. 829 ; 25 L. J. Ex. 11 1325 Hopewell v. Barnes, 1 Ch. D. 630 1284 Hopgood v. Ernest, 3 De G. J. & S. 116 ; 13 W. R. 1004 1340 . • v. Parkin, L. R. 11 Eq. 74 527, 533 Hopkins, Re, Williams r. Hopkins (No. 1), 18 Ch. D. 370 ; 45 L. T. 117 ; 29 W. R. 767 1112, 1129, 1130 v. Abbott, L. R. 19 Eq. 222 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 316 ; 31 L. T. N. S. 820 ; 23 W. R. 227 849 v . Gowan, 1 Moll. 561 1382 v. Hopkins, 1 Atk. 490 1006, 1011 v. Worcester, &c. Canal Proprietors, L. R, 6 Eq. 437 . .487, 928, 935 Hopkinson v. Lusk, 12 W. R. 392 112 . v. Rolt, 9 H. L. C. 514 1231, 1236, 1399 Hopper v. Conyers, L. R. 2 Eq. 549 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 328 ; 14 W. R. 628. . 1381 Horlock v. Priestley, 2 Sim. 75 152, 1236, 1297, 1321 ■ • v. Smith, 2 My. & Cr. 495 610, 1143, 1176 . v. , 1 Coll. 287 1191, 1209, 1210, 1212 Horn f. Baker, 9 East, 215; 9 R. R. 541 178, 181, 187 v. Horn, 2 S. & St. 448 421 Hornby, Exp., Buck, 351 1085 v. Matcham, 16 Sim. 325 ; 17 L. J. N. S. Ch. 471 ; 12 Jur. 825. . 817 Home, Exp., 1 Madd. 622 1101 v. Anglo- Australian, &c. Co., 7 Jur. N. S. 673 285 v. Hughes, 6 Q. B. D. 676 ; 47 L. T. 678 ; 29 W. R. 576 252 • v. Pountain, 23 Q. B. D. 264 ; 61 L. T. 510 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 413 ; 38 W. R. 240 360 and Hellard, Re, 29 Ch. D. 736 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 919 ; 53 L. T. 562. .493, 495 Home's Settled Estate, Re, 39 Ch. D. 89 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 790 ; 59 L. T. 580 ; 37 W. R. 69 391 Homsby v. Lee, 2 Madd. 16 322 --r. Miller, 1E.&E.192; 28 L. J.Q.B. 99; 5 Jur. N. S. 938. .181,184,185 Horrocks v. Ledsam, 2 Coll. 208 1007, 1190 Horsfall, Re, M'Clel. & T. 292 834 v. Key, 2 Exch. 778 194 Horsley v. Cox, L. R. 4 Ch. A. 92 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 285 ; 20 L. T. N. S. 128 ; 17 W. R. 596 1284 ■ v. Style, 69 L. T. 222 203 Horton v. Hall, L. R. 17 Eq. 437 ; 22 W. R. 391 1017 ■ v. Smith, 4 K. & J. 624 1432 Hort's Case, 1 Ch. D. 307 ; 33 L. T. N. S. 766 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 321 145S Hosken v. Simcock, 11 Jur. N. S. 477 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 435 ; 13 W. R. 487 ; 12 L. T. N. S. 262 719, 1185 Hoskin, Re, 5 Ch. D. 229 ; 35 L. T. N. S. 935 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 274 914 Hosking v. Smith, 13 App. Cas. 582 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 367 ; 59 L. T. 565 ; 37 W. R. 257 1218 Hotohkvs, Re, Freke v. Calmady, 32 Ch. D. 408 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 516 ; 5', L. T. 110 ; 34 W. R. 569 f40 Houghton, Exp., 17 Ves. 253 288 ■ v. Houghton, 15 Beav. 278 1411 • ■ v. Sevenoaks Estate Co., W. N. (1884) 243 ; 33 W. R. 311 . . 1206 TABLE OF CASES. Cxiii PAGE Houlditch v. Donegal, Lord, 8 Bli. N. S. 343 '. 939 v. Wallace, 5 CI. & F. 629 1323 Hovenden v. Annesley, Lord, 2 Soli. & L. 636 ; 9R.K. 119 740, 1053, 1059 How v. Kirclmer, 1 1 Moo. P. C. 21 1399 v. Vigures, 1 Rep. in Ch. 32 ; 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. 318 1004, 1016, 1180 Howard, Re, 21 L. J. Ch. 437 1423 v. Bank of England, L. R. 19 Eq. 295; 44 L. J. Ch. 329 ; 31 L. T. N. S. 871 ; 23 W. R. 303 334 v. Chaffers, 2 Dr. & Sm. 236; 9 Jur. N. S. 767 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 686 ; 9 L. T. N. S. 243 ; 11 W. R. 1057 1313 v. Harris, 1 Vern. 33, 190 ; 2 Ch. Cas. 147 ; 2 Vent. 363 ; 2 Freem. 86 12, 21, 134, 694, 699 v. Patent Ivory Co., 38 Ch. D. 156 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 878 ; 58 L. T. 395 ; 36 W R. 801 468, 472, 477, 497, 498, 1289 v. Shrewsbury, Lord, L. R. 17 Eq. 391 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 498 ; 29 L. T.N. S. 867; 22 W. R. 290 Ill, 112 Howard and Mason v. Sadler, (1893) 1 Q. B. 1 ; 68 L. T. 120 ; 41 W. R. 126 1282, 1364 Howard's Estate, Re, 29 L. R. Ir. 266 1444 Howarth, Re, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 415 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 316 ; 21 W. R. 449 ; 28 L. T. N. S. 54 435 - — ■ v. Rothwell, 30 Beav. 516 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 60 413 Howcutt v. Bonser, 3 Exch. R. 491 ; 18 L. J. Ex. 262 985 Howden v. Haigh, 3 P. & D. 661 592 Howe v. Dartmouth, Lord, 7 Ves. 150 512 v. Hunt, 31 Beav. 420 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 834 678 Howell v. Price, Pr. Ch. 423 ; 1 P. Wms. 291 ; Gilb. Eq. R. 106. .27, 744, 753, 754 Howells v. Wilson, 34 L. J. Ch. 593 729, 730 Howes v. Wadhani, Ridg. Ca. t. Hard. 201 1005, 1007 Howorth v. Deem, 1 Ed. 351 1305, 1315 Howse v. Chapman, 4 Ves. 542 ; 4 R. R. 292 539 Hubbard, Exp., Re Hardwick, 17 Q. B. D. 690 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 490 ; 35 W. R. 2 192, 194, 196, 200, 202 v. Bagshaw, 4 Sim. 326 122, 178 Hubbuck v. Helms, W. N. (1887) 45 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 536 ; 56 L. T. 232 ; 35 W. R. 574 1118 Huckle v. Wilson, 26 W. R. 98 55S Huddersfield Banking Co. v. Lister, (1895) 2 Ch. 273 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 523 ; 72 L. T. 703 ; 43 W. R. 567 127 Hudleston v. Gouldsbury, 10 Beav. 547 849 Hudson v. Carmichael, Kay, 613 351 v. Malcolm, 10 W. R. 720 1111 Huggins, Exp., 21 Ch. D. 85; 51 L. J. Ch. 935; 47 L. T. 559; 30 W. R. 878 300, 932 v , Burchell, 60 L. T. 32 1299 Huo-gons v. Tweed, 10 Ch. D. 359 ; 27 W. R. 495 ; 40 L. T. 284 1119 Hughes, Re, W. N. (1884) 53 842 v . Coles, 27 Ch. D. 231 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 1047 ; 51 L. T. 226; 33 W. R. 27 1073 . v. Cook, 34 Beav. 407 630, 729 • v. Howard, 25 Beav. 575 157, 165 v. Hughes, 3 Bro. C. C. 87 ; 1 Ves. Jun. 161 917, 950, 951 . v. Kearney, 1 Sch. & L. 136 ; 9 R. R. 30 1374 . v. Kelly, 3 Dr. & War. 482; 5 Ir. Eq. R. 286 989, 1168, 1190 V. Little, 18 Q. B. D. 32 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 96 ; 55 L. T. 476 ; 35 W. R. 336 227, 229, 232, 234 „. "Wells, 9 Ha. 749 ; 16 Jur. 927 645 v. Williams, 3 Mac. & G. 683; 16 Jur. 415 780, 781, 782, 781 v . , 12 Ves. 493 805, 1204 v. Wynne, 1 My. & K. 20 67, 1155 Hughes' Settlement, Re, 2 H. & M. 695 1422 _ Trusts, Re, 2 H. & M. 89 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 901 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 725 ; 12 W. R. 1025 1264 Hugill v. Wilkinson, 38 Ch. D. 480 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 1019 ; 58 L. T. 880; 36 W. R. 633 1063 VOL. I. — R. h CX1V TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Huguenin v. Basely, 14 Ves. 273 ; 9 B. B. 148 607 Hulett's Case, 2 J. & H. 306 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 357 474 Hulkesr. Day, 10 Sim. 41 1277, 1361, 1364 Hull v. Sharbrook, Cro. Jac. 36 153 Hull, Barnsley, &c. Bail, and Dock Co., Be, 40 Ch. D. 119 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 205 ; 59 L. T. 877 ; 37 W. B. 145 ; 5 T. L. B. 84 488, 1288 . ■ Co., Be, 57 L. T. 82 934 Hull Central Drapery, Be, 15 Ch. D. 326 ; 43 L. T. 679 ; 29 W. B. 164 1127 Bope Co. v. Adams, 65 L. J. Q. B. 114 ; 73 L. T. 446 ; 44 W. B. 108 259 an d Selby Bail. Co. r. North Eastern Bail. Co., 5 De G. M. & G. 872 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 109 1160 Hulme v. Cole, 2 Sim. 12 85 v. Drachenfels, &c. Mining Syndicate, 2 Manson, 146 497 v. Tennant, 1 Bro. C. C. 16 343, 344, 348 Hulton v. Sandys, To. 602 1263 Humber Ironworks Co., Be, 16 W. B. 474 498 Humberstouo v. Chase, 2 Y. & C. Ex. 209 1258 Humble v. Humble, 24 Beav. 535 1061, 1064, 1168 Hume, Be, Forbes v. Hume (1895) 1 Ch. 422 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 267 ; 72 L. T. 68 ; 43 W. B. 291 542 v. Bundell, 2 S. & St. 174 ; 23 B. B. 232 431 Humphrey v. Arabin, LI. & G. t. Plunk. 318 289 . . v. Richards, 2 Jur. N. S. 432 330 Humphreys v. Harrison, 1 J. & W. 581 669 Hungerford v. Becher, 5 Ir. Ch. 417 654 v. Clay, 9 Mod. 1 800 v. Earle, 2 Vern. 261 574 v. Hxmgerford, Gilb. Bep. Eq. 59 1160 Hunsden v. Cheyney, 2 Vern. 150 1294 Hunt, Exp., 1 M. D. & De G. 139 ; 4 Jur. 342 63 Exp., Be Cann, 13 Q. B. D. 36 227 ■ v. Elmes, 2 De G. F. & J. 578 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 200 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 255 ; 3 L. T. N. S. 796 1010, 1334 • v. Fownes, 9 Ves. 70 1187 v. Gateler, Poph. 5 374 v. Mortimer, 10 B. & C. 44 589 v. Priest, 2 Dick. 540 948 • v. White, 27 L. J. Ch. 326 112 v. Worsfold, (1896) 2 Ch. 224 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 548 ; 74 L. T. 456 ; 44 W. B. 461 728 Hunter, Exp., 6 Ves. 94 1091 v. Atkins, 3 My. & K. 113 608 v. Daniel, 4 Ha. 420 794 v. Langford, 2 Moll. 272 48, 49 ■ v. Macklew, 5 Ha. 238 723 v. Myatt, 28 Ch. D. 181 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 615; 52 L. T. 509 ; 33 W. B. 411 1025 V. Nockolds, 1 Mac. & G. 640 ; 1 H. & Tw. 644 . .973, 989, 990, 1168, 1170 ■ ■ v. Parker, 7 M. & W. 322 72 . v. Walters, L. B. 7 Ch. A. 59 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 175 ; 25 L. T. N. S. 765 ; 20 W. B. 218 1240, 1294, 1296, 1301 Huntington, Earl of v. Greenville, 1 Vern. 49 1217, 1225, 1226 v. Huntington, 2 Vern. 437 ; 2 Bro. P. C. 1 351, 703 ' Huntley, Lush. 24 1508 Hurford v. Pile, Cro. Jac. 483 1402 Hurley's Estate, Be, (1894) 1 Ir. B. 488 53 Hurst, Be, Hurst v. Hurst, L. B. 29 Ir. 219 354 v. Beach, 5 Madd. 351 1340 v. Hurst, 16 Beav. 372 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 538 1036, 1215, 1302, 1314 Husband v. Davis, 10 C. B. 645 712, 845 Husoni>. Hewson, 4 Ves. 105 877, 1137 TABLE OF CASES. CXV PAGE Hussey v. Christie, 9 East, 426 ; 13 Ves. 594 ; 9 R. R. 5S5 1391, 1397 Hutchinson, Re, Exp. Hutchinson, 16 Q. B. D. 515 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 582 ; 54 L. T. 302 ; 34 W. R. 475 1283 ■ v. Kay, 23 Beav. 413 123 v. Massareene, Lord, 2 Ba. & Be. 49 924 v. Wilson, 4 Bro. C. C. 488 296 Hutton v. Bragg, 7 Taunt. 14 1398 • v. Brown, W. N. (1881) 116 ; 45 L. T. 343 ; 29 W. R. 928 708, 895 v. Cruttwell, 1 E. & B. 15 ; 22 L. J. Q. B. 78 212, 593, 595 ■ v. Mayne, 3 J. & L. 586 1052, 1056 v. Seeley, 4 Jur. N. S. 450 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 263 1018 Huxham v. Smith, 2 Camp. 21 715 Hyatt, Re, Bowles v. Hyatt, 38 Ch. D. 609 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 777 ; 59 L. T. 297 1107 Hyde v. Dallaway, 2 Ha. 528 745 v. Hyde, 13 P. D. 166 ; 57 L. J. P. 89 ; 59 L. T. 529 ; 36 W. R. 708 339 v. Price, 8 Sim. 578 1167 ■ v. "Warden, 1 Ex. D. 309 927 v. , 3 Ex. D. 72 ; 47 L. J. Ex. 121 ; 37 L. T. 567 . . . .222, 1312 v. White, 5 Sim. 524 311 Hylton v. Hylton, 2 Ves. 547 607, 608 Hynea r. Reddington, 10 Ir. Ch. 206 969, 1310 Hyslop, Re, Hyslop v. Chamberlain, (1894) 3 Ch. 582 ; 71 L. T. 373 ; 43 W. R. 6 1404 I «,. K , W. N. (1884) 63 ; 19 L. J. N. S. 172 ; 76 L. T. N. S. 336 ; 28 S J 340 9^9 Ibbetson," Ex parte, 'Re Moore',' 8 Ch! B. hid; 39 L. T." 1 '; ' 26* W R.*843 .' ! 1267 v. Ibbetson, 12 Sim. 206 764 Ibbotson v. Rhodes, 2 Vern. 554 1294, 1302 Ida, 18 Jur. 752 1512 Ilchester, Lord v. Lord Carnarvon, 1 Beav. 209 764 Illidge, Re, Davidson v. Illidge, 27 Ch. D. 478 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 991 ; 51 L. T. 523; 33 W. R. 18 1110 lllsley v. Randall, W. N. (1884) 1231 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 1161 ; 50 L. T. 717 ; 33 W. R. 13 412 Imbert Terry v. Carver, 34 Ch. D. 506 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 716 ; 56 L. T. 91 ; 35 W. R. 328 1020 Immocolata Concezione, 9 P. D. 37 ; 53 L. J. Ad. 19 ; 50 L. T. 539 ; 32 W. R. 705 ; 5 Asp. 208 1175 Imperial Guardian, &c. Soc, L. R. 9 Eq. 447 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 147 1124 Land Co. of Marseilles, Ex parte Larking, 4 Ch. D. 566 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 235 825 Mercantile, &c. Assoc, v. London, C. and D. Rail. Co., 15 W. R. 1187 466 Mercantile, &c. Assoc, v. Newry, &c. Rail. Co., 2 Ir. Eq. R. 524. .489, 936 Salt, &c. Co., Re, 2 W. R. 122 1379 Silver Quarries Co., Re, 16 W. R. 1220 1125 Iuchiquin, Lord v. French, Arab. 33 ; 1 Cox, 8 ; 6 Wils. 83 . .754, 755, 756, 758 Incorporated Soc. v. Richards, 1 Dr. & War. 258 729, 1058, 1209 Iud, Coope & Co. v. Emmerson, 12 App. Cas. 300 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 989 ; 56 L. T. 778 ; 36 W. R. 243 1304 India, 9 Jur. N. S. 417 ; 32 L. J. Ad. 185 1396, 1397 India and London Life Ass. Co., L. R. 7 Ch. A. 651 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 601 ; 27 L. T. 191 ; 20 W. R. 790 1456, 1457 Indomitable, Swab. 446 1507 Industrial and General Trust v. South American and Mexican Co., (1894) 1 Ch. 108 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 169 ; 69 L. T. 693 ; 42 W.R. 181 ; 1 Mans. 92 911 Ingelby v. Smith, 10 Biug. 84 112 Wham, Re, Jones v. Ingham, (1893) 1 Ch. 352 ; 02 L. J. Ch. 100 ; 68 L. T. 152 ; 41 W. R. 235 1304, 1344 ■ v. Sutherland, 63 L. T. 614 1048 h 2 CX VI TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Ingle v. Partridge, 34 Beav. 411 525 Ingleby and Norwich Union Co., Re, 13 L. R. Ir. 326 843 Ingleman v. Worthington, 25 L. J. Ch. 46 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 1062 412, 413 Ingoldby v. Riley, 28 L. T. 55 553 Ingram v. Pelham, Amb. 153 1306, 1308 Inman v. Parsons, 4 Madd. 271 1023 v. Wearing, 3 De G. & Sm. 729 729, 1014 Innes v. Jackson, 16 Ves. 367; 10 R. R. 190 700, 701, 704 Innisfallen, L. R. 1 A. & E. 72 ; 35 L. J. Ad. 110 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 653. .257, 260, 264 Inns of Court Hotel Co., Re, L. R. 6 Eq. 82 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 692 . .468, 476, 477, 598 Insole, Re, 35 Beav. 92 ; L. R. 1 Eq. 470 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 177 331 Instone v. Elmslie, 54 L. T. 730 ; 34 W. R. 592 1019 International Contract Co., Re, Hankey's Case, 41 L. J. Ch. 385 ; 26 L. T. 358 ; 20 "W. R. 506 1135 . Life Ass. Co., Re, L. R. 10 Eq. 312 ; 18 W. R. 970 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 667 ; 23 L. T. 350 473 . Pulp Co., 3 Ch. D. 594 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 446 ; 35 L. T. 229 ; 24 W. R. 535 1128 Ion v. Ashton, 28 Beav. 372 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 879 539, 754, 755 Irby v. Irby, 25 Beav. 632 1436 Ireland v. Eade, 7 Beav. 55 945, 953 Bank of v. Beresford, 6 Dow, 238 83 Ireson v. Denn, 2 Cox, 425 ; 2 R. R. 97 722, 856, 859 Irish, Re, Irish v. Irish, 40 Ch. D. 49 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 279 ; 60 L. T. 224 ; 37 W. R. 231 ; 5 T. L. R. 39 956 Land Commission v. Grant, 10 App. Cas. 14; 52 L. T. 228; 33 TV. R. 357 ; 13 L. R. Ir. 478 744 ■ North Western Rail. Co., Re, 2 Ir. Eq. R. 425 1133 Irnham, Lord v. Child, 1 Bro. C. C. 92 ; Dick. 554 24 Irvin v. Ironmonger, 2 R. & My. 531 774 Irvine v. Union Bank of Australia, 2 App. Cas. 366 ; 46 L. J. P. C. 87 ; 37 L. T. 176 ; 25 W. R. 682 472, 1291 Isaack v. Clark, 2 Bulstr. 306 1460 Isaacs, Re, Jacob v. Isaacs, 30 Ch. D. 418 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 1136 ; 53 L. T. 478 ; 33 W. R. 845 1070 v. Worstencroft, 67 L. T. 351 ; 8 T. L. R. 627 1238 Isaacson, Re, Exp. Mason, (1895) 1 Q. B. 333 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 191 ; 71 L. T. 812 ; 43 W. R. 278 ; 2 Mans. 11 198 v. Harwood, L. R. 3 Ch. A. 225 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 209 10 Isherwood, Exp., Re Knight, 22 Ch. D. 384 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 370 ; 48 L. T. 398 ; 31 W. R. 442 666 Ismoord v. Claypool, 1 Rep. in Ch. 139 1032 Iven v. Elwes, 3 Drew. 25 10 Ivy v. Gilbert, 2 P. Wms. 12 ; Prec. Ch. 583 431, 432, 433, 795 Izard, Exp., Re Chappie, 23 Ch. D. 409 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 802 ; 49 L. T. 230 ; 32 W. R. 218 226, 254 , Exp., Re Cook, L. R. 9 Ch. A. 271 ; 43 L. J. Bky. 31 ; 30 L. T. 7 ; 22 W. R. 342 590 J. H. Evans & Co., Re, W. N. (1892) 126 1123 Jack v . Armstrong, 1 Huds. & Bro. 727 1246 v. M'Intyre, 12 CI. & F. 151 116 Jacklin v. Wilkins, 6 Beav. 608 927 Jackson, Exp., Re Bowes, 14 Ch. D. 725 ; 43 L. T. 272 ; 29 W. R. 253. . 666 , Exp., 1 Ves. Jun. 132 1452 , Re, Exp. Hall, 4 Ch. D. 682 ; 46 L. J. Bky. 39 ; 35 L. T. 947 . . 242, 590 ■ , Re, Jackson v. Talbot, 21 Ch. D. 786 354 , Re, Smith v. Sibthorpe, 34 Ch. D. 732 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 593 ; 56 L. T. 562 ; 35 W. R. 646 535 v. Bowley, 1 Car. & M. 97 571 v. Brettall, Seton, 1084 1025 v, Butler, 2 Atk. 306 64 TABLE OF CASES. CXV11 PARE Jackson v. Forster, 1 E. & E. 463 ; 29 L. J. Q. B. 8 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 1247 . . 286 v. Hobhouse, 2 Mer. 483 ; 16 R. R. 200 340 v. Irvine, 2 Camp. 48 181 v. Jacob, 3 Bing. N. C. 869 ; 5 Scott, 79 715 v . Langford, 2 Ves. Sen. 662 "21 v. Magee, 3 A. & E. 57 102 v. North Eastern Rail. Co., 7 Oh. D. 573 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 303 ; 26 W. R. 513 ; 37 L. T. N. S. 664 10 Ogg, Johns. 327 962 r. Rainford Coll. Co., (1896) 2 Ch. 340 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 757 ; 44 W. R. 554 498 ». Rowe, 2 8. &St. 472; 4 L. J. Ch. 119; 25 R. R. 250 1314 v. Smith, W. N. (1884) 171 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 972 ; 51 L. T. 72 1388 v. Woolley, 8 E. & B. 778 981 and Oakshott, Re, 14 Ch. D. 851 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 523 ; 41 L. T. 719 ; 28 W. R. 794 47, 634 Jacob, 4 W. Rob. 245 15 °1 Jacobs, Exp., Re Jacobs, L. R. 10 Ch. A. 211 ; 44 L. J. Bky. 34 ; 31 L. T. 745 85, 91 v. Richards, 5 De G. M. & G. 55 ; 18 Jur. 527 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 557 . . 1022, 1023 Jacques v. Chambers, 16 L. J. Ch. 243 ; 11 Jur. 495 767 v. Harrison, 12 Q. B. D. 165 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 137 ; 50 L. T, 246 ; 32 W. R. 470 156 Jacubs v. Rylance, L. R. 17 Eq. 341 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 280 1382 Jakeman v. Cook, 4 Ex. D. 26 ; 48 L. J. Ex. 165 ; 27 W. R. 171 597 Jakeman's Trusts, Re, 23 Ch. D. 344 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 363 317, 324 Jamaica, Admor.-Gen. of v. Lascelles, (1894) A. C. 135 ; 63 L. J. P. C. 70 ; 70 L. T. 179 ; 42 W. R. 416 ; 1 Mans. 163 579, 594 James, Re, 5 Exch. 310 23 ° Re, 12 Q. B. D. 332 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 575 ; 50 L. T. 471 363 v. Biou, 3 Swanst. 234 ; 19 R. R. 200 692, 711 v. Boythorpe Coll. Co., W. N. (1890) 28 ; 2 Meg. 55 1289, 1291 v. Bright, 5 Bing. 533 983 ■ v. Bydder, 4 Beav. 600 ; 5 Jur. 1076 59 v. Ellis, 19 W. R. 319 733, 1000 ■ v. Hales, 2 Vern. 268 736 v. Harding, 24 L. J. Ch. 749 694 v. Hoskins, 1 Tidd Pr. 593 624 v Isaacs 12 C B 791 9 ^ v. James' L. R. 16 Eq." 153*;' 42 L. J. Ch. 386 ; 21 W. R. 522. .995, 1114 v. Kerr, 40 Ch. D. 449 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 355 ; 60 L. T. 212 ; 37 W. R. 279; 5T. L. R. 174 132, 610, 617, 1146, 1193 . v. Morgan, 1 Lev. Ill 6 13 . v . Rice, 5 De G. M. & G. 461 ; IS Jur. 818 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 819 ... . 56 v . Rumsey, 11 Ch. D. 398 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 345 ; 27 W. R. 617 818 p . Whitbread, 11 C. B. 406 I 461 James' Settled Estates, Re, 32 W. R. 898 391 Jameson v. Stein, 21 Beav. 5 1 43 3, 143/ Jane, 1 Dods. 461 J? 01 Janet Wilson, Swab. 261 "11 Janson v. Rany, 2 Atk. 140 130a Japp v. Campbell, 57 L. J. Q. B. 79 266 Jardine, Exp., Re McManus, L. R. 10 Ch. A. 322 ; 44 L. J. Bky. 58 ; 31 L. T. N. S. 802 ; 23 W. R. 736 214 v. Loathley, 3 B. & S. 700 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 1035 260 Jarman v. Wolloton, 3 T. R. 618 180 Jarvis v. Jarvis, W. N. (1893) 138 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 10 ; 69 L. T. 412 ; 1 Mans. 199 200, 206 Jason v. Eyre, 2 Ch. Ca. 33 ,7V' Jav, Exp., Re Blenkhorn, L. R. 9 Ch. A. 697 ; 43 L. J. Bky. 122 ; 31 L. T. N. S. 260 ; 22 W. R. 907 219 Exp., Re Harrison, 14 Ch. D. 19 ; 42 L. T. 600 ; 28 W. R. 449 .... 591 v . Robinson, 25 Q. B. D. 467 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 367 ; 63 L. T. 174 ; 38 W. R. 550 ; 6 T. L. R. 340 342, 347 Jayne v. Hughes, 10 Exch. R. 430 ; 24 L. J. N. S. Ex. 115 106/ Jayson v. Rush, 1 Salk. 209 G °7 CXV111 TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Jefferys v. Dickson, L. R. 1 Ch. A. 183 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 281 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 376 ; 14 L. T. 208 ; 14 W. R. 322 729, 916 . v. Smith, 3 Russ. 1 58 ; 27 R. R. 49 507 p. ., 1 J. & W. 298 ; 21 R. R. 175 931 Jeffries v. Alexander, 8 H. L. C. 594 - 539 Jeffryes v. Agra and Masterman's Bank, L. R. 2 Eq. 694 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 686 ; 14 W. R. 889 1266 . v. Reynolds, 52 L. J. Q. B. 55 1280, 1362 Jenkinv. Row, 5 De G. & Sm. 107 6, 13, 997, 1019 Jenkins v. Briant, 6 Sim. 603 968 v. , 7 Sim. 171 955 -, 16 Sim. 272 1167 v. Jones, 2 Giff. 99 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 391 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 493 ; 8 W. R. 270 719, 904, 1179 v. , 2 Jur. N. S. 99 905 v. Keymis, I Ch. Ca. 103 ; 1 Lev. 150 ; Hard. 395 602 v. Ridgway, 68 L. T. 671 ; 41 W. R. 585 1018, 1046 Jenkinson, Re, Exp. Nottingham Bank, 15 Q. B. D. 441 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 601 ; 2 Mor. 131 184, 1266 v . Brandley Mining Co., 19 Q. B. D. 568 ; 35 TV. R. 834 209 p. Harcourt, Kay, 688 764 Jenkyn v. Vaughan, 3 Drew. 419 574 Jenkyns v. Usborne, 7 Man. & Gr. 678 ; 8 Sc. N. R. 505 1477 Jenner v. Jenner, L. R. 1 Eq. 361 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 138 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 329 ; 14 W. R. 305 112 v . Morris, L. R. 1 Ch. A. 663 813 v. Tracy, 3 P. Wms. 287 747 Jenner Fust v. Needham, 32 Ch. D. 582 ; 55 L. J." Ch. 629 ; 55 L. T. 37 ; 34 W. R. 709 932, 950, 1033, 1048 Jenney v. Andrews. 6 Madd. 264 ; 23 R. R. 216 348 Jennings, Exp., 2 Swanst. 360 1098 , Re, S Ir. Ch. Rep. 421 1244 v. Blincorne, 2 Vern. 609 146 . v . Bond, 2 J. & L. 720 1323 p. Johnson, L. R. 8 C. P. 425 1144 v , Jordan, 6 App. Cas. 698 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 129 ; 45 L. T. 593 ; 30 W. R. 369 721, 722, 856, 858, 859, 860, 861, 863, 1220 . v . Looks, 2 P. Wms. 276 641 . v . Major, 8 C. & P. 61 717 . p. Moore, 2 Vern. 609 793, 1300 p. Ward, 2 Vern. 520 15 Jenny, 2 W. Rob. 5 , 1509 ■ v. Bell, 2 Ch. D. 547 1077 Jerrard v. Saunders, 2 Ves. Jun. 434 1240 Jervis v. Lawrence, 22 Ch. D. 202 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 242 ; 47 L. T. 428 ; 31 W. R. 267 540 Jervoise, Re, 12 Beav. 209 1281 Jesse v. Lloyd, W. N". (1883) 88 ; 48 L. T. 656 529 Jessopp v. Lutwyche, 10 Exch. 614 622 Jeyes v. Booth, 1 Bos. & P. 97 ; 4 R. R. 771 77 Jezeph v. Ingram, 1 Moo. 189 1284 Joachim v. M'Douall, 9 Sim. 314, n 1051 Job v. Job, 6 Ch. D. 562 ; 26 W. R. 206 815, 1201 Joel v. Dicker, 5 D. & L. 1 ; 16 L. J. Q. B. 359 73, 77 John v. Jenkins, 1 Cr. & M. 227 224 John Brown & Co. v. Keeble, W. N. (1879) 173 1124 John Welsted & Co. v. Swansea Bank, 5 T. L. R. 332 209 Johnes v. Claughton, Jac. 573 948 Johns v. Symons, 2 Q. B. 425 1505 Johnson, Exp., 1 Moll. 128 511 ■ , Exp., 3 De G. M. & G. 218 103, 104 , Exp., Re Chapman, 26 Ch. D. 338 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 763 ; 50 L. T. 214 ; 32 W. R. 693 228, 235, 594 ■ , Re, Shearman v. Robinson, 15 Ch. D. 553 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 745 ; 43 L. T. 372 ; 29 W. R. 168 1379 v. Bourne, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 268 1205, 1213 TABLE OF CASES. CX1X PAGE Johnson v. Brazier, 1 A. & E. 624 ; 3 N. & M. 563 441 v. Credit Lyoimais, 3 C. P. D. 32 ; 47 L. J. C. P. 241 ; 37 L. T. 657 ; 26 W. R. 195 1477 ■ v. Diprose, (1S93) 1 Q,. B. 512 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 291 ; 68 L. T. 485 ; 41 W. R. 371 ; 9 T. L. R. 266 226 , „. Evans (No. 1), 60 L. T. 29 728, 1021, 1179 r. (No. 2), W. N. (1889) 95 ; 61 L. T. 18 708 v. Fesemeyer, 3 De G. & J. 13 583, 586, 587, 1144 v. Gallagher, 3 De G. F. & J. 494 344, 346 ■ v. Houldsworth, 1 Sim. N. S. 106 ; 20 L. J. N. S. Ch. 63 ; 15 Jur. 31 1012, 1013, 1357 v. Jones, 9 A. & E. 809 ; 1 P. & D. 651 ; 7 Jur. pt. 2, 145 . .680, 681, 682 v. Milksopp, 2 Vern. 112 753 v. Nott, 1 Vern. 271 613 v. Osenton, L. R. 4 Ex. 108 ; 38 L. J. Ex. 76 ; 19 L. T. 793 ; 17 W. R. 675 202 ■ v. Robarts, L. R. 10 Ch. A. 505 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 678 ; 33 L. T. 138 149S v. Royal Mail Co., L. R. 3 C. P. 38 ; 37 L. J. C. P. 33 ; 17 L. T. 445 266 ■ v. Shippen, 2 Lord Raym. 982 ; 1 Salk. 35 1501, 1509 v. St. Peters, Hereford, 4 A. & E. 520 672 v. Thomas, 11 Beav. 501 724 v. Webster, 4 De G. M. & G. 474 1439, 1446 v. Williamshurst, 1 L. J. Ch. 112 1178 ■ and Greenwood, Exp., 45 Ch. D. 463 ; 59 L. J.fCh. 823 462 and Tustin, Re, 30 Ch. D. 42 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 889 ; 53 L. T. 281 ; 33 W. R. 737 110 Johnston's Claim, L. R. 6 Ch. A. 212 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 286 ; 19 W. R. 457 ; 24 L. T. N. S. 115 1297 Johnstone v. Cox, 19 Ch. D. 17 ; 45 L. T. 457 ; 30 W. R. 114 1253, 1260 V. Stear, 15 C. B. N. S. 336 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 99 1469, 1470 Joint Stock Discount Co., Re, SicheU's Case, L. R. 3 Ch. A. 119 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 373 ; 17 L. T. N. S. 363 ; 16 W. R. 292 276 Jolland v. Stainbridge, 3 Ves. 478 ; 4 R. R. 64 1247, 1258 Jolly v. Arbuthnot, 4 De G. & J. 224 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 689 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 547 656, 923 Jonathan Goodhue, Swab. 524 1502, 1504, 1506, 1511 Jones, Exp., 4 D. & C. 750 ; 4 L. J. N. S. Bky. 59 48, 52 . , 3 M. & A. 152 1097 . , Re Jones, L. R. 10 Ch. A. 665 ; 44 L. J. Bky. 124 ; 33 L. T. 116 ; 23 W. R. 886 1080 Jones Brothers, Re, 46 L. J. P. D. & A. 75 ; 37 L. T. N. S. 164 1173 Jones, Re, 8 Beav. 479 , 1176 , Re, 2 Ch. D. 70 1430 . , Re, Calver v. Laxton, 31 Ch. D. 440 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 350 ; 53 L. T. 855 ; 34 W. R. 249 949 ■ , Re, Dalton v. Brookfield, W. N. (1889) 170 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 31 ; 38 W. R. 90; OIL. T. 661 418, 426 , Re, Farrington v. Forrester, (1893) 2 Ch. 461 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 996 ; 69 L. T. 45 144, 780 v. Arthur, 8 D. P. C. 442 ; 4 Jur. 859 715 v. Binns, 33 Beav. 362; 10 Jur. N. S. 119 1011 . v. Broadhurst, 9 C. B. 173 95 . ■ v. Consolidated Investment Co., 26 Beav. 256 285, 2S6 v. Creswicke, 9 Sim. 304 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 216 ; 9 L. J. N. S. Ch. 113 735, 1032, 1162 v. Croucher, 1 S. & St. 315 601 v. Davids, 4 Russ. 277 95 v. Davies, 8 Ch. D. 205 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 654 ; 26 W. R. 554 ; 38 L. T. N. S. 710 702, 1040 v. Dwyer, 1 Rose, 339 , 182 v. Farrell, 1 De G. & J. 208 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 751 1488 v. Foxall, 15 Beav. 392 512 CXX TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Jones v. Frost, L. R. 7 Ch. A. 773 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 47 ; 27 L. T. 465 ; 20 W. R. 1025 1388 v. Gibbon, 9 Ves. 407 ; 7 R. R. 247 304, 819, 820, 826, 831, 1237, 1253, 1267 v. Gordon, 2 App. Cas. 616 ; 47 L. J. Bky. 1 ; 37 L. T. 477 1305 v. Greatwood, Seton, 5tb edit. 1703 48 , v. Green, L. R. 5 Eq. 555 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 603 ; 16 W. R. 603 357 v. Griffith, 2 Coll. 207 734, 862 . v. - , 14 Sim. 262 ; 8 Jur. 733 1022 v. Harber, L. R. 6 Q. B. 77 ; 40 L. J. Q. B. 59 ; 24 L. T. 806. . 576, 579, 590 v. Harding, 24 L. J. Ch. 749 1182 v. Harris, L. R. 7 Q. B. 157 ; 41 L. J. Q. B. 6 ; 25 L. T. 702 ; 20 W. R. 143 246 v. Harris, W. N. (1887) 10 ; 56 L. T. 702 1022, 1035 v. Jones, 8 Sim. 633 ; 2 Jur. 589 ; 7 L. J. N. S. Ch. 164 . . 43, 1236, 1237, 1263 — v. , 5 Ha. 440 . 427, 1380 -, Kay, App. vi 733 r. Kearney, 1 Dr. & War. 134 146, 1299 v. Kenrick, 5 Bro. P. C. 244 ; 2 Eq. Cas. Ab. 602, pi. 31 ; 15 Vin. 470, pi. 18 1050 v. Lewis, 2 Ves. Sen. 240 818 v. Marshall, 24 Q. B. D. 269 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 123 ; 61 L. T. 721 ; 38 W. R. 269 ; 6 T. L. R. 108 1475 ■ v. Matthie, 16 L. J. N. S. Ch. 405 ; 11 Jur. 504 904 v. Maund, 3 T. & C. Ex. 347 1212 v. Meredith, Bunb. 346 698 v. Moffett, 3 J. & L. 636 1143 v. Morgan, 1 Bro. C. C. 206 1431, 1432, 1433, 1436, 1440 v. Owen, 18 L. J. Q. B. 8 ; 13 Jur. 261 662 v. Peppercome, John. 430 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 158 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 140 . . 1389 ■ v. Phelps, 20 W. R. 92 597 v. Phipps, L. R. 3 Q. B. 567 ; 9 B. & S. 761 ; 36 L. J. Q. B. 173 ; 18L.T.655; 16 W. R. 1018 951 • v. Powles, 3 M. & K. 581 1297, 1299 ■ v. Price, 1 1 Sim. 557 425, 889 v. Rhind, 17 W. R. 1091 1190, 1340 v. Ricketts, 31 Beav. 130 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 1198 615 v. Roberts, 9 Beav. 419 1144 ■ v. Sawkins, 17 L. J. C. P. 92 1405 v. Smith, 2 Ves. Jun. 372 856, 863, 1008, 1151, 1152, 1235, 1459 v. ,1 Ph. 244; 1 Ha. 43 ; 12 L. J. N. S. Ch. 381 ; 7 Jur. 431. .535, 917, 1307, 1316, 1318, 1334, 1335 v. Stohwasser, 16 Ch. D. 577 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 625 ; 44 L. T. 333 ; 29 W. R. 497 404 v. Swansea, &c. Co., 50 L. J. Q. B. 428 ; 44 L. T. 106 ; 29 W. R. 382 1002, 1127 ■ v. Thomas, 3 P. Wms. 343 1224 v. Tinney, Kay, App. xlv 878 v. Tower Furnishing Co., 61 L. T. 84 196, 198 v. Tripp, Jac. 322 1143 v. Williams, 24 Beav. 47 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 1066 61, 63, 1310, 1316, 1333, 1334 v. Winwood, 3 M. & W. 655 ; 10 Sim. 150 381 Jones's Mortgage, Re, W. N. (1888) 217 ; 59 L. T. 859 1420 , 22 W. R. 537 142S Settled Estates, Re, 26 Ch. D. 736 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 807 ; 50 L. T. 466 ; 32 W. R. 735 390 Jordan, Exp., 13 Q. B. D. 228 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 554; 50 L. T. 594; 33 W. R. 153 1099 ■ , Re, Kino v. Pickard, W. N. (1886) 6 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 330 ; 54 L. T. 127 ; 34 W. R. 270 341 ■ , Re, Exp. Harrison, 13 Q. B. D. 228; 33 L. J. Q. B. 544; 50 L. T. 594 ; 1 Mor. 41 1101 v. Chowns, 8 Dowl. 709 877 TABLE OF CASES. CXX1 PAGE Jordan v. Farr, 2 A. & E. 437 71 . v. Jones, 2 Ph. 170; 16 L. J. Ch. 93 816, 1056, 1423 Jorden v. Money, 5 H. L. C. 185 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 865 Addenda Jortin v. South Eastern Rail. Co., 6 H. L. C. 425 ; 4 Jnr. N. S. 467. .492, 987, 1206 Jory v. Cox, Prec. Ch. 71 129 > 169 > G - 8 Joseph v. Lyons, 15 Q. B. D. 280 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 1 ; 51 L. T. 740 ; 33 W.R.145 212,709,1281 v. Webb, 1 C. & E. 262 1404, 1477 Joshua Stubbs, Re, (1891) 1 Ch. 475 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 190 ; 64 L. T. 306 ; 39 W. R. 617 : 7 T. L. R. 220 941, 1126, 1127 Joumenjoy Coondoo v. Watson, 9 App. Cas. 561 ; 53 L. J. P. C. 80 ; 50 L. T. 411 1462 Joy v. Birch, 4 CI. ft Fin. 58 ; 10 Bli. N. S. 201 20 v. Campbell, 1 Sch. & Lef. 328 184 Joyce v. De Moleyns, 3 Dr. & War. 698 1190 __ „. , 2 J. & L. 374 ; 8 Ir. Eq. R. 215 1303 V. Joyce, 10 Ir. Eq. R. 128 1013 v. WiUiamson, 3 Doug-. 164 1512 Joynes v. Statham, 3 Atk. 387 24 Juddv. Green, 33 L. T. N. S. 597 821 v. Ollard, 5 Jur. N. S. 755 1023, 1143, 1144 Julindham, 1 Spinks, 71 1393 Kahen, Exp., Re Hewer, 21 Ch. D. 871 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 904 ; 46 L. T. 856 ; 30 W. R. 954 244, 246, 254 Karet v. Kosher Meat Assoc., 2 Q. B. D. 361 ; 46 L. J. Q. B. 548 ; 36 L. T. 694 ; 25 W. R. 691 253 Karnak, L. R. 2 P. C. 505 ; 6 Moo. P. C. N. S. 136 ; 38 L. J. Ad. 57 ; 21 L. T. 159 ; 17 W. R. 1028 ; 3 M. L. C. 276 1503, 1506 Kavanagh v. Working Men's Benefit Building Soc, (1896) 1 Ir. R. 56 1204 Kay v. Johnstone, 21 Beav. 536 1377 v. Smith, 7 H. L. C. 750 ; 21 Beav. 522 607, 609 Kaye v. Fosbroke, 8 Sim. 2S 695 Keane, Re, Lumley v. Desborough, L. R. 12 Eq. 115 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 617 ; 24 L. T.N. S. 780; 19 W. R. 1025 1196,1387,1388 Kearseley v. Cole, 16 M. & W. 128; 16 L. J. Ex. 115 86, 91, 92 Kearsley v. Philips, 11 Q. B. D. 621 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 581 ; 49 L. T. 435 ; 31 W. R. 909 663 Keate v. Phillips, 18 Ch. D. 560; 50 L. J. Ch. 664; 44 L. T. 731 ; 29 W. R. 710 6o4 > 1331 Keays v. Lane, 3 Ir. R. Eq. 1 521 Kebell v. Philpot, 7 L. J. N. S. Ch. 237 ; 2 Jur. 739 59, 60 Keech v. Hall, Doug. 21 676, 679, 694, 796, 800 v. Sandford, Sel. Ca. in Ch. 61 ; 1 Wh. & Tud. L. C. in Eq. 53 . . 164 Keeler, Re, 32 L. J. Ch. 101 ; 11 W. R. 62 . . . . 1422 Keene V. Biscoe, 8 Ch. D. 201; 47 L. J. Ch. 644; 38 L. T. 286; 26 W. E." 552, , . ' 136, 137, 1003 Keightley^ Exp.,' sHe G." ft Sm.' 583' ' 1096 Keily, Re, 9 Ir. Ch. R. 87 775 Keith v. Burrows, 1 C. P. D. 722 1285 v. , 2 App. Cas. 636 2G 3, 266 r. Butcher, 25 Ch! D. 750 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 640 ; 50 L. T. 203 ; 32 W. R. 378 V 1013, 1044 v. Day, 39 Ch. D. 452 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 118 ; 60 L. T. 126 ; 37 W. R. 242 1018, 1046 Kelday, Re,' Exp.' Meston,' W. N.' (1888) 94 ; 36 W. R. 585. .867, 869, 872, 1038 Kellock's Case, Exp. Burned' s Banking Co., L. R. 3 Ch. A. 769 ; 16 W. R. 919 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 415 1129 Kelly v. Hutton, L. R. 3 Ch. A. 703 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 917 508 J v 17 W. R. 425 ; 20 L. T. N. S. 201 932 v Kellond, 20 Q. B. D. 569 ; 13 App. Cas. 506 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. 330 ; 58 L. T. 263; 36 W. R. 363 213, 229 v. Munster and Leinster Bank, 29 L. R. Ir. 19 1345 CXX11 TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Kelsall, Exp., De G. 113 1273 v. Bennett, 1 Atk. 522 1313 v. Kelsall, 2 My. & K. 409 1053 Kelsey v. Kelsey, L. R. 17 Eq. 495 ; 22 W. R. 433 ; 30 L. T. N. S. 82 . . 870 Kelson v. Kelson, 10 Ha. 385 ; 17 Jur. 129 602 Kemmis v. Stepney, 2 Moll. 85 1451 Kemp, Exp., Re Fastnedge, L. R. 9 Ch. A. 383 ; 43 L. J. Bky. 50 ; 30 W L. T. 109 1266 . v. Balls, 10 Exch. 606 95 . v . Ealk, 7 App. Cas. 573 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 173 ; 47 L. T. 457 ; 31 W. R. 128 1461 . v. Goldberg, 36 Ch. D. 505 ; 56 L. T. 736 ; 36 W. R. 278 1024 v . Lester, (1896) 2 Q. B. 162 ; 65 L. J. Q. B. 532 ; 74 L. T. 268 ; 44 W. R. 453 666 . v. Matthew, 8 Sc. 399 75 . v . Westbrook, 1 Ves. Sen. 278 ; Belt's Supp. 141 1017, 1460, 1470 Wright, (1895) 1 Ch. 121 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 59 ; 71 L. T. 650 ; 43 W. R. 213 557 Kempe v. Gibbons, 9 Q. B. 609 ; 16 L. J. Q. B. 120 985 v. Jones, W. N. (1884) 214 SS0, 1117 Kempson v. Ashbee, L. R. 10 Ch. A. 15 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 195 ; 23 W. R. 38 ; 31 L.T.N. S. 525 618 Kendall, Exp., 17 Ves. 514 ; 11 R. R. 122 94 . v. Beckett, 2 R. & My. 88 618 . v. Hamilton, 4 App. Cas. 504; 48 L. J. C. P. 705 ; 41 L. T. 418 964, 965, 966 „. Hulls, 11 Jur. 864 1047 Kenebel v. Scrafton, 8 Ves. 30 149 . v . ,13 Ves. 370 1113 Kennard v. Eutvoye, 2 GifE. 81 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 312 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 553 46 Kennedy v. Daly, 1 Sch. & L. 355 50 - v . De Trafford, (1897) A. C. 180; 66 L. J. Ch. 413; 76 L. T. 427 901, 903, 907 v. Green, 6 Sim. 6 815 . v . , 3 My. &K. 699 113, 1315, 1329, 1330 Kenny v. Lynch, 2 J. & L. 319 32 Kensington, Exp., 2 M. & A. 300 1090 1 . Exp., 2 V. & B. 79 ; Cowp. 96 ; 13 R. R. 32 .... 55, 56, 57, 58, 60 , Lord, Re, Bacon v. Ford, 29 Ch. D. 527 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 1085 ; 53 L. T. 19 ; 33 W. R. 689 1351 v. Bouverie, 7 H. L. C. 557 ; 16 Beav. 194 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 105 638, 720, 864 v. ■ , 7DeG. M. & G. 134; 1 Jur.N.S. 581. .801, 1201, 1433 Kent 9. Astley, L. R. 5 Q. B. 19 ; 10 B. & S. 802 ; 39 L. J. Q. B. 3 ; 21 L. t. 425 ; 18 W. R. 185 207 r. Tapley, 11 Jur. 940 ' 850 Kent Benefit Building Soc, Re, 1 Dr. & Sm. 417 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 1045 .... 460 Kenworthy v. Bate, 6 Ves. 773 ; 6 R. R. 46 427 Keogh's Estate, Re, (1895) 1 Ir. R. 201 1322 Ker v. Ker, 4 Ir. Eq. R. 15 784 v. Mitchell, 2 Chit. 487 89 Kerakorse v. Brooks, 8 Moo. I. A. 339 187 Kern v Deslandes, 8 Jur. N. S. 194; 10 C. B. 205; 30 L. J. C. P. 297; 1 M. L. C. 156 1398 Keroula, 11 P. D. 92 ; 55 L. J. P. 45 ; 55 L. T. 61 ; 35 W. R. 60 257 Kerr's Policy, Re, L. R. 8 Eq. 331 1160, 1161 Kerrick v. Saffery, 7 Sim. 317 ; 4 L. J. N. S. 162 997, 1001, 1019 Kerrison v. Cole, 8 East, 231 1474 . v. Dorrien, 9 Bing. 76 603 Kershaw, Re, Drake v. Kershaw, 37 Ch. D. 674 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 599 ; 58 L. T. 512 ; 36 W. R. 413 768 . p. Kalow, 1 Jur. N. S. 974 902 Kerswell 9. Bishop, 2 Cr. & J. 529 266 Kestrel, L. R. 1 A. & E. 78 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 713 1175 TABLE OF CASES. CXX111 PAGE Kettlewell v. Watson, 21 Ch. D. 685 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 281 ; 46 L. T. 83 ; 30 W. R. 402 1300, 1326 t,, f 26 Ch. D. 501 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 717 ; 51 L. T. 135 ; 32 W. R. 865 1334, 1373 Key, Exp., 1 Madd. 428 1102 Keyes v. Elkin, 5 B. & S. 240 85 Keynsham Co., Re, 33 Beav. 123 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 855 ; 8 L. T. N. S. 687 ; 11 W. R. 936 1127 Keys v. Keys, 1 Beav. 336 939 v. Williams, 3 T. & C. 55 ; 7 L. J. N. S. Ex. 59 ; 2 Jur. 611 60 Kibble, Exp., L. R. 10 Ch. A. 373 ; 44 L. J. Bky. 63 ; 32 L. T. 138 .... 356 . v. Fairthorne, (1895) 1 Ch. 219 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 184 ; 71 L. T. 755 ; 43 W. R. 327 1073 Kidd v. Boone, L. R. 12 Eq. 89 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 531 ; 24 L. T. N. S. 356 10 v. Rawlinson, 2 B. & P. 59 ; 3 Esp. 52 ; 5 R. R. 540 177, 1284 Kidney v. Coussmaker, 12 Ves. 148 574 Kidson v. Turner, 27 L. J. Ex. 492 598 Kightley v. Kightley, 2 Ves. Jun. 328 ; 2 R. R. 224 409 Kilmurry v. Geery, 2 Salk. 538 427 Kilvington v. Gardiner, cited 1 Vern. 192 12 Kinderley v. Jervis, 22 Beav. 1 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 602 420, 969, 970, 1348 King, Exp., 1 Atk. 300 859 . , Exp., 1 M. D. & De G 119 , Exp., Re King, 2 Ch. D. 256 ; 45 L. J. Bky. 109 ; 34 L. T. 466 ; 24 W. R. 559 200, 579, 594 , Exp., Re Palethorpe, L. R. 20 Eq. 273 ; 44 L. J. Bky. 92 ; 32 L. T. N. S. 505 ; 23 W. R. 681 1089 V. Bromley, 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 595 19 v. Cole, 15 Q. B. 628 90 . v. Denison, 1 V. & B. ; 12 R. R. 227 756 v. Dilliston, 1 Salk. 386 ; Carth. 41 ; Prec. in Ch. 573 150 v. Drummond, Cro. Jac. 513 643 . v. Greenhill, 6 Man. & Gr. 59 ; 6 Sc. N. R. 869 88, 1159 v. Hamlet, 3 CI. & F. 218 617 v. Heenan, 3 De G. M. & G. 890 898, 923 v. Hoare, 13 M. & W. 494 966 v. Hough, W. N. (1895) 60 1043 v. King, 3 P. Wms. 358 10, 13, 27, 29, 754 v. Lamb, 13 Pri. 649 1216 ■ ■ v. Leach, 2 Ha. 57 1027, 1423 v. Lucas, 23 Ch. D. 712 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 64 ; 49 L. T. 216 ; 31 W. R. 904 330 v. Marshall, 33 Beav. 565 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 921 497, 498 . v. Martin, 2 Ves. Jun. 641 1011 v. Midland Rail. Co., 17 W. R. 113 118 . v. Mullins, 1 Drew. 308 914 . v. Sims, 5 Taunt. 427 145 v. Smith, 1 Coll. 555 723 v. ■ , 2 Ha. 239; 7 Jur. 694 669, 1105, 1186 . ■ v. , 6 Ha. 473 1430 v. - -, Wightw. 34 1443 . v . Voss, 13 Ch. D. 504 ; 42 L. T. 78 ; 28 W. R. 565 334 King's Cross Industrial Dwellings Co., Re, L. R. 11 Eq. 149 ; 19 W. R. 225 ; 23 L. T. 585 1124, 1125 Mortgage, Re, 5 De G. & S. 644 836 Kingsford v. Merry, 1 H. & N. 503 ; 26 L. J. Ex. 83 1464 . v. Poile, 8 W. R. 110 1043 v . Svvinford, 4 Drew. 705 872 Kingsman v. Kingsman, 6 Q. B. D. 122 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 81 ; 44 L. T. 124 ; 29 W. R. 207 331 Kingston, Exp., L. R. 6 Ch. A. 632 ; 40 L. J. Bky. 91 ; 25 L. T. 250 1390 . p. Cowbridge Rail. Co., 44 L. J. Ch. 152 936 Kingston's Case, Duchess of, 2 Sm. L. C. 9th ed Ill CXX1V TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Kinnaird v. Trollope, 39 Ch. D. 636 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 905 ; 59 L. T. 433 ; 37 W. R. 234 693, 962, 963, 964, 1410, 1416 v (No. 2), 42 Ch. D. 610 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 556 ; 60 L. T. 892 ; 5 T. L. R. 513 1182 v. Yorke, 60 L. T. 380 1042 Kinnoul, Earl of v. Money, 3 Bro. C. C. 212 ; 3 Swanst. 202, n. ; cit. 1 Ves. Jim. 186 351,352, 697, 699, 1037 Kino v. Rudkin, 6 Ch. D. 160; 46 L. J. Ch. 807 631, 632 Kinsman v. Kinsman, 1 R. & My. 622 ; 9 L. J. Ch. 276 ; Taml. 399 1322, 1323 r. Rouse, 17 Ch. D. 104 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 486 ; 44 L. T. 597 ; 29 W. R. 627 745, 747, 1070 Kipp v. Wiggett, 10 C. B. 354 110 Kirby v. Mash, 3 T. & C. Ex. 295 530 v. Potter, 4 Ves. 748 ; 4 R. R. 342 275 Kirchner v. Venus, 12 Moo. P. C. 361 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 395 ; 7 W. R. 455 1399 Kirk, Exp., 1 Atk. 108 1498 v. Houston, 5 Ir. Eq. R. 498 950 Kirkham v. Smith, 1 Ves. Sen. 257 ; Amb. 518 637, 1183, 1432 Kirkley v. Hodgson, 1 B. & Cr. 588 181 Kirkpatrick v. Tattersall, 13 M. & W. 770 ' 597 Kirkpatrick's Trusts, Re, 15 Jur. 941 510, 515 Kirkwood v. Thompson, 2 De G. J. & S. 613 ; 12 L. T. N. S. Ill ; 13 W. R. 1052 ; 2 H. & M. 392 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 385 S82, 901, 906 Kirlew v. Butts, 2 B. & Ad. 736, n 441 Kirton v. Braithwaite, 1 M. & N. 310 713 Kii-wan v. Cullen, 4 Ir. Ch. R. 322 607 v. Kirwan, 2 Cr. & M. 617 1452 Kitchen v. Irving, 8 E. & B. 789 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 118 1286 Kit Hill Tunnel Co., Re, Exp. Williams, 16 Ch. D. 590; 50 L. J. Ch. 303; 44 L. T. 336; 29 W. R. 419 1085, 1130 Kite and Queinton's Case, 4 Rep. 25 a 153, 842 Kitson v. Julian, 4 E. & B. 854 92 Kittier v. Raynes, 1 Cox, 105 103 Kleinwort v. Cassa Marittima, 2 App. Cas. 156 ; 36 L. T. 118 ; 25 W. R. 608 1506 Kuapman, Re, 18 Ch. D. 300 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 629 ; 45 L. T. 102 1382 Knapp v. Burnaby, 30 L. J. Ch. 844 1169 Knebell v. White, 2 Y. & C. Ex. 15 1203 Knight, Re, 46 L. T. 539 666 . v. Bampfield, 1 Vern. 179 1141 v. Bowyer, 2 De G. & J. 421; 23 Beav. 609; 4 Jur. N. S. 569.. 1312, 1320 v. , 4 De G. & J. 619 1172 v. Davis, 3 My. & K. 358 766 . v. Eergusson, 5 M. & W. 389 586 r. Frampton, 4 Beav. 10 1437 . v. Knight, 2 P. Wms. 331 1008 . v. , 11 Jur. N. S. 617 704 v. , 1 L. J. N. S. 125 809 v. Lee, (1893) 1 Q. B. 41 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 28 ; 67 L. T 688 ; 41 W. R. 125; 9 T. L. R. 23 621 . v. Maclean, 3 Bro. C. C. 498 67 . v. Majoribanks, 2 Mac. & G. 10 17 . v. Plymouth, Lord, 3 Atk. 480 ; 1 Dick. 120 924, 956 v. Robinson, 2 K. & J. 503 836 v. Waterford, Marquis of, 15 M. & W. 419 170 Knightley, Exp., Re Moulson, 51 L. J. Ch. 823 247 Knollys v. Shepherd, 1 J. & W. 499 838, 848 Knott, Exp., 11 Ves. 609 ; 8 R. R. 254 .. ..1149, 1150, 1215, 1217, 1218, 1223, 1229, 1232, 1301, 1324 Knowles v. Dibbs, W. N. (1889) 53 ; 60 L. T. 291 ; 37 W. R. 378 1025 r. Horsfall, 5 B. & Aid. 134 181 . r. Spence, Moseley, 225 74U, 1205 Knowles' Settled Estates, Re, 27 Ch. D. 707 ; 51 L. T. 655 389 Knox v. Gyc, L. R. 5 H. L. C.)0 ; 12 L. J. Ch. 234 742 TABLE OF CASES. CXXV PAGE Knox v. Mackinnon, 13 App. Cas. 753 nil V. Simmonds, 4 Bro. C. C. 433 713 v. Turner, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 515 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 750 ; 23 L. T. N. S. 227 33, 289 Knox's Trusts, Re, (1895) 2 Ch. 483 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 860 ; 72 L. T. 761 . . 1430 Kong Magnus, (1891) P. 223 ; 65 L. T. 231 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 583 1395 Kooystra v. Lucas, 5 B. & Ad. 830 119 Kraus v. Arnold, 7 Moo. 59 715 Kuckein v. Wilson, 4 B. & Aid. 443 1476 Kullberg, Re, 12 W. R. 137, Bky 183 Labouchere v. Whamoliffe, 13 Ch. D. 346 ; 28 W. R. 367 ; 41 L. T. 638. . 1135 Lacam v. Mertins, 1 Ves. Sen. 312 351, 353 Lacey and Son, Re, 25 Ch. D. 301 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 237 ; 49 L. T. 1755 ; 32 W. R. 233 , 1143 v. Ingle, 2 Ph. 413 1223, 1309 r. Waghorne, 59 L. T. 208 1409 ■ v. Willancl, W. N. (1876) 24 311 Laekington v. Elliott, 8 Sc. N. R. 275 ; 7 Man. & Gr. 538 1325 Lacon v. Allen, 3 Drew. 579 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 18 61 v. Liffen, 32 L. J. Ch. 315; 9 Jur. N. S. 477; 7 L. T. 774; 11 W. R. 474 270, 580 v. Mertins, 3 Atk. 4 ; 1 Wilson, 34 164, 1096, 1097, 1376, 1380 v. Tyrell, W. N. (1887) 71; 56 L. T. 483 1018, 1033, 1045 La Constancia, 2 W. Rob. 404 ; 10 Jur. 845 ; 4 N. of C. 285 1502 Ladbroke v. Lee, 4 De G. & S. 106 260, 1334 Ladd, Ex parte, 3 D. & C. 647 1378 Lady Durham, 3 Hagg. 196 1391 Laing v. Reader, 1 C. & P. 257 717 v. Reed, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 4 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 1 460 Lainson v. Lainson, 18 Beav. 7 1 167, 1168 Lake v. Brutton, 8 De G. M. & G. 440 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 839 97, 98 v. Thomas, 3 Ves. 17 749 Lake's Trusts, Re, 63 L. T. 416 1063 Lamb, Ex parte, 14 W. R. 112, Bky 186 , Re Southam, 19 Ch. D. 169 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 207 ; 45 L. T. 639 ; 30 W. R. 126 962 v. Attenborough, 1 B. & S. 831 ; 31 L. J. Q. B. 41 1464 v. Bruce, 45 L. J. Q. B. 538 ; 35 L. T. 425 ; 24 W. R. 645. .243, 245, 247 Lambe v. Reaston, 5 Taunt. 207 116 Lambert v. Lambert, L. R. 16 Eq. 320 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 106 ; 21 W. R. 748. 637 v. Roa-ers, 2 Mer. 489 ; 16 R. R. 204 814 v. Turner, 8 Jur. N. S. 1223 411 Lambert's Estate, Re, 13 L. R. Ir. 234 1346, 1347 , Stanton v. Lambert, 39 Ch. D. 626; 57 L. J. Ch. 927 ; 59 L. T. 429 847 Lambton, Ex parte, 3 Ch. D. 36 118 Laming & Co. v. Seator, 16 C. of S. Cas. (Sc.) 828, 4th Ser 264 Lampon v. Corke, 5 B. & Aid. 606 1372 Lancaster, Ex parte, 4 De G. & S. 524 289 , Re Marsden, 25 Ch. D. 311 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 1123 ; 50 L. T. 223 585 v. Eve, 5 C. B. N. S. 717 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 683 122 v. Evors, 10 Beav. 154; 16 L. J. Ch. 8 ; 1 Ph. 349 98,105,351, 352, 641, 824 Banking Co. v. Cooper, 9 Ch. D. 594 ; 27 W. R. 164 1048 Canal Co., Ex parte, 1 D. & C. 411 1270 Lance v. Aqrlionby, 27 Beav. 65 755 Land Credit Co. of Ireland, Re, Weikersheim's Case, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 831 . .276, ' 277 Mortgage Bank of Florida, Re, W. N. (1896) 48 ; 3 Mans. 164 . . . 1136 Securities Co., Re (No. 2), 44 W. R. 611 1130 Lander v. Weston, 3 Drew. 389 51 7 Landon v. Morris, 5 Sim. 247 632 CXXV1 TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Landowner.?, &c. Drainage Co. v. Ashford, 16 Ch. D. 411 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 276 ; 44 L. T. 20 466, 473, 499, 1206, 1288 Lands Improvement Co. v. Richmond, 17 C. B. 145 1371 Lane, Ex parte, De G. 300 504 , Re, Ex parte Gaze, 23 Q. B. D. 74 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 373 ; 61 L. T. 54 ; 6 Mor. 143 985 , Re, Luard v. Lane, 14 Ch. D. 856 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 768 ; 43 L. T. 87 ; 28 W. R. 764 850 v. Chapman, 11 A. & E. 966 620, 623 v. Copsay, (1891) 3 Ch. 411; 61 L. J. Ch. 55; 65 L. T. 375; 40 W. R. 87 948, 956 v. Debenham, 1 1 Ha. 188 889 r. Dighton, Amb. 409 1381,1383 ■ v. Husband, 14 Sim. 656 1093 • v. Jackson, 20 Beav. 535 1249 r. Sterne, 3 Giff. 629 947 v. Tyler, 56 L. J. Q. B. 461 225 Langdale, Lady v. Briggs, 8 De G. M. & G. 391 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 982 . . 755, 764, 812 Langden v. Stokes, Cro. Car. 383 1402 Langford v. Auger, 4 Ha. 313 833, 834 r. Barnard, Tothill, 134, temp. Eliz 12 Langham's Trusts, Re, 10 Ha. 446 539, 540 Langhorne v. Harland, 4 W. R. 96 1349 Langley v. Oxford, Earl of, Amb. 17 399 Mills, &c. Co., Re, L. R. 12 Eq. 26 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 313 ; 24 L. T. N. S. 382 ; 19 W. R. 674 1123 Langridge r. Payne, 2 J. & H. 423 ; 10 W. R. 726; 7 L. T. N. S. 23. .136, 1003 Langstaffe v. Fenwick, 10 Ves. 405 ; 8 R. R. 8 1143, 1145, 1204 Langston, Ex parte, 17 Ves. 230 ; 11 R. R. 66 56, 60 v. Ollivant, G. Coop. 33 ; 14 R. R. 213 522 Langton v. Horton, 5 Beav. 9 ; 6 Jur. 357, 594 ; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 233 . . 22, 267, 273 . P . i Ha. 549 ; 6 Jur. 910 ; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 299 . .212, 260, 271, 273, 1238, 1273, 1348 v. Langton, 7 De G. M. & G. 30 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 1078 ; 24 L. J. Ch.625 794, 799, 1036, 1108, 1114, 1196, 1197 Waite, L. R. 4 Ch. A. 402 ; 20 L. T. N. S. 337 ; 17 W. R. 475 276 Lanoy v. Athol, Duke of, 2 Atk. 444 763, 765, 780, 782, 784 Lansdowne v. Lansdowne, 2 Bli. 60 ; 21 R. R. 43 714, 716 Lant v. Crispe, 5 Bro. P. C. 200 ; 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 599 1050 Larchin v. North Western Deposit Bank, L. R. 10 Ex. 64 ; 44 L. J. Ex. 71 ; 33 L. T. 124 ; 23 W. R. 325 248 Larios v. Gurety, L. R. 5 P. C. 346 48 Lashmar, Re, Moody v. Penfold, (1891) 1 Ch. 258 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 143 ; 64 L. T. 333 644 Lastett v. Cliff e, 5 Jur. 403 876 Latch v. Wedlake, 1 1 A. & E. 959 504 Latham v. Chartered Bank of India, L. R. 17 Eq. 205 ; 43 L. J. Bky. 612 ; 29 L. T. N. S. 795 86 Lathom v. Greenwich Ferry Co., 72 L. T. 790 ; 2 Mans. 408 1290 Latimer v. Batson, 4 B. & Cr. 652 177 Latouche v. Dunsany, Lord, 1 Sch. & L. 152 1232, 1251, 1357 Latter v. Dash wood, 6 Sim. 462 ; 3 L. J. N. S. Ch. 149 1209 Laurel, Br. & L. 191 ; 33 L. J. Ad. 17 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 346 ; 9 L. T. 457 ;" 13 W. R. 352 1508 Laurie v. Scholefield, L. R. 4 C. P. 622 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 290 88 Lawr. Glenn, L. R. 2 Ch. A. 634 131,916, 923, 1157 ■ v. Law, 3 P. Wms. 391 626 v. London Indisputable Policy Co., 1 K. & J. 223 289 v. Philby, 56 L. T. 230 ; 35 W. R. 401 1021 v. (No. 2), 56 L. T. 522 ; 35 W. R. 450 1021 ■ v. Warren, Dru. 31 289 Lawender v. Blakstone, 2 Lev. 146 916 Lawless v. Mansfield, 1 Dr. & War. 557 ; 4 Ir. Eq. R. 113. .136, 707, 1023, 1142, 1143 Lawley v. Hooper, 3 Atk. 278 10, 22, 27, 32 Lawranco v. Boston, 7 Exch. 28 1197 TABLE OF CASES. CXXV11 PAGR Lawrance v. Galsworthy, 3 Jur. N. S. 1049 787, 849 ■ v. Norreys, Lord, 15 App. Cas. 213 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 681 ; 62 L. T. 706 ; 38 W. R. 753 ; 6 T. L. R. 285 1072 Lawrence v. Beverley, 3 P. Wms. 217 844 ■ ■ v. Clements, 31 L. T. 670 561 ■ ■ v. Walmesley, 31 L. J. C. P. 143 83 Lawrie v. Lees, 7 App. Cas. 19 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 209 ; 46 L. T. 210 ; 30 W. R. 185 363 Laws v. Smith, Rio Tinto, 9 App. Cas. 356 ; 53 L. J. P. C. 54 ; 50 L. T. 461 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 224 1395 Lawson v. Hudson, 1 Bro. C. C. 58 ; 3 Bro. C. C. 424 701 V. Wright, 1 Cox, 275 101, 104 Lawton v. Lawton, 3 Atk. 13 126 r. Salmon, 1 H. Bl. 259, n 125 Layard v. Maud, L. R. 4 Eq. 397 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 669 ; 16 L. T. N. S. 618 ; 15 W. R. 897 1340, 1345 Layer v. Nelson, 1 Vern. 456 101 Lazarus v. Andrade, 5 C. P. D. 320 ; 49 L. J. C. P. 847 ; 43 L. T. 30 ; 29 W. R. 15 213, 217 Lea v. Hinton, 5 De G. M. & G. 823 ; 24 L. T. 101 288 Lea's Trusts, Re, 6 W. R. 482 1424 Leadbitter, Re, 10 Ch. D. 388; 48 L. J. Ch. 242; 39 L. T. 525 695, 1011 Leahy v. Dancer, 3 Moll. 108 1005 Leake v. Beckett, 1 T. & J. 339 669 v. Young, 5 E. & B. 955 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 516 ; 25 L. J. Q. B. 266 . . 580, 581 Learoyd v. Whiteley, 12 App. Cas. 727 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 390 ; 58 L. T. 93 ; 36 W. R. 721 511, 519, 525, 526, 529, 532 Leask, Re, Richardson v. Leask, W. 1ST. (1891) 159 ; 65 L. T. 199 1107 Leatham v. Amor, 47 L. J. Q. B. 581 . .' 213, 217 Leather v. Simpson, L. R. 11 Eq. 398 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 177 ; 19 W. R. 431 . . 1499 Leatherdale v. Sweepstone, 3 C. & P. 342 , 715 Leathes, Exp., 3 D. & C. 112 57, 63, 1098 ■ v. Leathes, 5 Ch. D. 221 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 562 ; 36 L. T. N. S. 646 ; 25 W. R. 492 64, 813 Le Bas v. Grant, W. N. (1895) 28 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 368 1046 Lechmere v. Brotheridge, 32 Beav. 353 , . . . . 330 v. Charlton, 15 Ves. 193 763, 764 v. Clamp, 30 Beav. 218 ; 31 Beav. 578 ; 9 Jur. N". S. 482 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 651 ; 11 W. R. 83 ; 7 L. T. N. S. 411 . . 1034, 1053, 1422 v. Lechmere, 3 P. Wms. 211 ; Ca. t. Talb. 80 1383 Lechmere Charlton's Case, 2 My. & Or. 316 940 Ledbrook v. Passman, W. N. (1888) 156 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 855 ; 59 L. T. 306 1300 Ledgard v. Thompson, 11 M. & W. 40 73 Ledger v. Groom, Seton, 1080 1190 Lee v. Barnes, 17 Q. B. D. 77 ; 34 W. R. 640 239 v. Clutton, 46 L. J. Ch. 48 ; 35 L. T. 84 ; 24 W. R. 942 1285 v. Dunsford, 54 L. J. Ch. 108 ; 51 L. T. 590 1025 v. Howlett, 2K. & J. 531 43, 1236, 1264 v. Hutchinson, 8 C. B. 18 628 r. Lockhart, 10 Beav. 320 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 519 1187 r. Risdon, 7 Taunt. 189 124 v. Rook, Moseley, 318 93, 351 v. Turner, 20 Q. B. D. 773 ; 59 L. T. 320 249 ■ v. Vernon, 5 Bro. P. C. 10 164 ■ v. Youth?, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 532 510 Leedham v. Chawner, 4 K. & J. 458 1379 Leeds v. Cheetham, 1 Sim. 146 141 (Duke of) v. Munday, 3 Ves. 348 834 Leeming, Re, 3 De G. F. & J. 43 ; 3 L. T. 686 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 115 . .361, 1442 Lees, Exp., 2 D. & C. 542 1099 v. Fisher, 22 Ch. D. 283 ; 31 W. R. 94 1025 v. Whiteley, L. R. 2 Eq. 143 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 412 ; 14 W. R. 534 ; 14 L. T. N. S. 472 139, 141 Leese v. Martin, L. R. 17 Eq. 224 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 193 ; 29 L. T. 742 ; 22 W. R. 230 1389 CXXV111 TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Legard v. Hodges, 1 Ves. Jim. 477 ; 2 R. R. 146 50 Legg v. Evans, 6 M. & TV. 36 ; 8 Dowl. 177 1473 v. Matthieson, 2 GifE. 71 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 1010 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 385. .491, 937, 1120 Leggott v. Barrett, 15 Ch. D. 306 ; 28 W. R. 962 Ill v . Western, 12 Q. B. D. 2S7 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 316 ; 32 TV. R. 460. 1284 Le Grange v. Hamilton, 2 H. Bl. 144 132 Le Grice v. Finch, 3 Mer. 50 ; 17 R. R. 10 850 Le Gros v. Cockerell, 5 Sim. 384 854 Lehain v. Philpott, L. R. 10 Ex. 242 ; 44 L. J. Ex. 225 ; 33 L. T. 98 ; 23 TV. R. 876 183 Leigh v. Burnett (or Burnell), 29 Ch. D. 231 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 757 ; 52 L. T. 458 ; 33 TV. R. 578 165 v . Dickeson, 15 Q. B. D. 60 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 18 ; 52 L. T. 790 ; 33 TV. R. 538 1377 v. Leigh, 15 Ves. 100 ; 10 R. R. 31 230 v. 15 Sim. 135 784 v. 56 L. J. Ch. 125 ; 35 TV. R. 121 ; 55 L. T. 634 519 ■ v. Lloyd, 2 De G. J. & S. 330 54, 1308 . v. 35 Beav. 455 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 646 ; 12 L. T. N. S. 813 ; 13 TV. R. 1054 887, 1023, 1333 Leith v. Irvine, 1 My. & K. 277 132, 1193 Leitrim, Lord v. Enery, 6 Ir. Eq. R. 357 1442 Le Lievre and Dennes v. Gould, (1893) 1 Q. B. 491 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 353 ; 68 L. T. 626; 41 TV. R. 468; 9 T. L. R. 19, 243 .528, 569 Leman v. Newnham, 1 Ves. Sen. 51 760, 1058 Lempriere v. Pasley, 2 T. R. 485 175 Le Neve v. Le Neve, 3 Atk. 646 1247, 1248, 1325, 1353 Lenzberg's Policy, Re, 7 Ch. D. 650 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 178 ; 26 TV. R. 258 . . 592 Leonard v. Baker, 1 M. & S. 251 176, 177 Leonino v. Leonino, 10 Ch. D. 460 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 217 ; 27 TV. R. 388 ; 40 L. T. 359 770, 772 Leslie, Exp., 3 L. J. N. S. Bky. 4 1377 , Re, Leslie v. French, 23 Ch. D. 552 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 762 ; 48 L. T. 564 ; 31 TV. R. 561 297, 1380 ■ v. Baillie, 2 T. & C. C. C. 91 1255 v. Guthrie, 1 Bing. N. C. 697 ; 1 Scott, 683 271 v. Leslie, LI. & G. t. Sugd. 1 1160 Lespinasse r. Bell, 2 J. & TV. 436 939 L'Estrange v. L'Estrange, 13 Beav. 281 ; 15 Jur. 114 1491 Letts v. Hutchins, L. R. 13 Eq. 176 709 Leuchan v. McCabe, 2 Ir. Ch. R. 342 1248, 1326 Levi and Debenture Corp., Re, 42 TV. R. 533 1423 Levinsont'. Syer, 15 Jur. 1011 ; 21 L. J. Q. B. 16 73 Levy v. Abercorris Co., 37 Ch. D. 260 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 202 ; 58 L. T. 218 ; 36 W. R. 411 209, 477, 478 v. Polack, 52 L. T. 531 ; TV. N. (1885) 76 232 Lewer, Re, 4 Ch. D. 101; affd. 5 Ch. D. 61; 25 TV. R. 364; 37 L. T. N. S. 42 1257 Lewin v. Jones, 53 L. J. Ch. 1011; 51 L.T. 59 1189 v. Okeley, 2 Atk. 50 653 • v. Wilson, 11 App. Cas. 639; 55 L. J. P. C. 75; 55 L.T. 410.. 978, 1064 Lewis, Exp., 1 Gl. & J. 355 1100 , Exp., 31 L. J. Bky. 11 580 , Exp., Re Henderson, L. R. 6 Ch. A. 626 ; 19 W. R. 835 219 ■ , Re, 1 Mac. & G. 23 ; 1 H. & Tw. 123 1429 ■ , Re, Exp. Munro, 1 Q. B. D. 724 ; 45 L. J. Q. B. 816 ; 35 L. T. 857 ; 24 W. R. 1017 1144 v. Aberdare and Plymouth Co. W. N. (1884) 116 ; 53 L.J. Ch. 741 ; 50 L.T. 451 1027 v. Duncombe, 20 Beav. 398 374 , j,. . 29 Beav. 175 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 695 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 867 ; 9 W. R. 446 ; 3 L. T. N. S. 867 1171 v. Freke, 2 Ves. Jun. 507 ; 2 R. R. 301 427 . v. Hillman, 3 H. L. 0. 607 610 v. John, 9 Sim. 366 ; 7 L. J. N. S. Ch. 242 55, 1177 TABLE OF CASES. CXX1X PAGE Lewis v. Jones, 4 B. & Cr. 506 ; 6 Dow. & R. 567 ; 3 L. J. K. B. 270 . .79, 91 v. Kensington, Lord, 15 L. J. C. P. 100 73 v. Lewis, L. R. 13 Eq. 220 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 195 ; 25 L. T. 555 ; 20 W. R. Ml 767, 768, 773, 1383 v. Maddocks, 17 Ves. 48 ; 7 R. R. 10 1381 . v. Matthews, L. R. 2 Eq. 181 ; 14 W. R. 682 834 v. Nangle, Amb. 150 ; 1 Cox, 240 ; 2 P. Wms. 664, n. . . 352, 353, 699, 760 v. 2 Ves. Sen. 430 ; 1 Cox, 240 1005 v. Poole, 3 Giff. 636 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 536 1056 v. Rees, 3 K. & J. 132 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 12 604 v. Tankerville, Lord, 1 M. & W. 109 719 ■ v. Webber, W. N. (1876) 187 719 v. Zouche, Lord, 2 Sim. 388 953 Lewthwaite v. Clarkson, 2 Y. & C. Ex. 372 ; 1 Jur. 793 ; 7 L. J. Ex. N. S. 19 64 Ley v. Peter, 3 H. & N. 101 ; 27 L. J. Ex. 239 1067 Lichfield, Earl v. Bond, 6 Beav. 88 624 Lickbarrow v. Mason, 2 T. R. 63 ; 4 Bro. P. C. 57 ; 1 Bli. 357 ; 6 East, 20, n. ; 1 R. R. 425 S22, 1459, 1470 Lidderdale v. Montrose, Duke of, 4 T. R. 248 ; 2 R. R. 375 299 Life Association of England, Re, 10 Jur. N. S. 762 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 64 ; 10 L. T. 833 ; 13 W. R. 1069 1127 Life Association of Scotland v. Siddal, 3 De G. F. & J. 271 317 Lightbone v. Wedesh, 1 Eq. Ab. 24, pi. 7 625 Lightbown v. McMyn, 33 Ch. D. 575 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 845 ; 35 W. R. 179. . 96 Lilford, Lord v. Powys-Keck, L. R. 1 Eq. 347 ; 35 Beav. 77 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 302 786 Lilly v. Hewitt, 11 Pri. 494 S9 Limerick, Earl of, Re, 7 Ir. Jur. N. S. 65 248 Lincoln Wagon Co. v. Mumford, 41 L. T. 655 219 Lincoln r. Wright, 4 De G-. & J. 16 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 1142 16, 24 Linda Flor, 4 Jur. N. S. 172 ; Swab. 309 ; 6 W. R. 197 ; 30 L. T. 234 . . 1391 Lindo v. Lindo, 1 Beav. 496 112 Lindon v. Sharp, 6 Man. & Gr. 898 ; 7 Scott, N. R. 730 ; 13 L. J. C. P. 67 580 Lindsay v. Gibbs, 22 Beav. 522 ; 2 Jur. 1039 271 Lindsell v. Thacker, 12 Sim. 182 833 Linfoot v. Pockett, (1895) 2 Ch. 835 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 752 ; 73 L. T. 197 ; 44 W. R. 66 ; 2 Mans. 482 233 Lingard v. Derby, Earl of, 1 Bro. C. C. 311 414 v. Messiter, 1 B. & Cr. 308 : 178, 1S3 Lingham v. Biggs, 1 B. & P. 82 178 Lintott, Exp., Re Overend, Gurney & Co., L. R. 4 Eq. 184 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 510; 15 W. R. 617; 16 L. T. N. S. 228 1174 Lippard v. Ricketts, L. R. 14 Eq. 291; 4 L. J. Ch. 595; 20 W. R. 898 1100, 1197 Lipscomb v. Lipscomb, L. R. 7 Ex. 502 ; 19 L. T. N. S. 342 770 Liquidation Estates Purchase Co. v. Willoughby, (1896) 1 Ch. 726; 65 L. J. Ch. 486 ; 74 L. T. 228 ; 44 W. R. 612 1445 Lister v. Baxter, 2 Stra. 695 1509 v. Henry Lister & Son, W. N. (1893) 33; 62 L. J. Ch. 568 ; 68 L. T. 826 ; 41 W. R. 330 ; 9 T. L. R. 296 1291 . v. Payn, 11 Sim. 348 260, 1397 v. Tidd, L. R. 4 Eq. 462 1281 v. Turner, 5 Ha. 281 ; 15 L. J. Ch. N. S. 336 ; 10 Jur. 751. .575, 603, 885, 1018, 1027 Litchfield r. Ready, 5 Exeh. 939 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 21 678 Little, Re, L. R. 7 Eq. 323 1428 . , Harrison v. Harrison, 40 Ch. D. 418 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 233 ; 00 L. T. 246 ; 37 W. R. 289 ; 5 T. L. R. 236 341 Little's Will, Re, Re Harrison, 36 Ch. D. 701 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 872 ; 57 L. T. 583 341 Littledale, Exp., 6 De G. M. & G. 714 628 Littleton's Case, 2 Vent. 351 833, 8 14 Liverpool, (1893) P. 154 ; 68 L. T. 719 1394 Liverpool Marine, &c. Co. v. Wilson, L. R. 7 Ch. A. 507 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 423; 20 W. R. 436 ; 26 L. T. N. S. 346 272, 1274 VOL. I. — R. i CXXX TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Livesey v. Harding, 1 Beav. 343 815, 1108 , v. ,23 Beav. 141 1279 Living, Exp., Be Tombs, 2 M. & A. 223 668, 796, 1103 Llewellin, Re, (1891) 3 Ch. 145 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 732 ; 65 L. T. 249 ; 39 W. R. 713 ; 7 T. L. R. 742 1413, 1414 Llofft v. Dennis, 1 E. & E. 474 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 727 141 Lloyd, Exp., 1 Gl. & J. 389 , .... 60, 504 ■ , Exp., 3 D. & C. 765 120 ■ , Exp. , Re Ireland, 3 Dea. 305 ; 3 M. & A. 605 100, 1097 ■ , Re, Allen v. Lloyd, 12 Ch. D. 447 940, 958 ■ v. Attwood, 3 De G. & J. 612, 614 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 1323 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 97 60, 65, 601, 603, 1231, 1296, 1301, 1333 • v. Banks, L. R. 3 Ch. A. 488 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 881 ; 16 W. R. 988. .1256, 1257 ■ v. Cheetham, 3 Giff. 171 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 1272 299 v. Douglas, 4 Y. & C. 448 ; 10 L. J. Ex. N. S. 34 1031 v. Freshfield, 2 C. & F. 325 503 v. Guibert, L. R. 1 Q. B. 115 ; 35 L. J. Q. B. 74 ; 13 L. T. 602 ; 12 TV. R. 953 ; 2 H. L. C. 283 1501 • v. Hatchett, 2 Anst. 525 ; 5 Bac. Ab. 158 67, 1155 ■ v. Johnes, 9 Ves. 37 ; 7 R. R. 147 1010 ■ v. Jones, 12 Sim. 491 1212 ■ v. Lander, 5 Madd. 282 . . , 1007, 1011 • v. Lloyd, 4 Dr. & War. 354 374, 654 - v. Mansell, 2 P. TVms. 73 1049 Mason, 4 Ha. 132 , 868, 1386 Solicitors, &c. Life Ass. Co., 29 L. T. 102 330 Thursby, 2 Cru. Dig. 124 765 TVbittey, 17 Jur. 754 1035 Lloyd's r. Harper, 16 Ch. D. 290 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 140 ; 43 L. T. 481 ; 29 TV. R. 452 88, 90, 92 Lloyd's Banking Co. v. Bullock, (1896) 2 Ch. 192 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 680 ; 74 L. T. 687 ; 12 T. L. R. 435 ; 44 TV. R. 633 . . 1373 v. Jones, 29 Ch. D. 221 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 931 ; 52 L. T. 469 ; 33 TV. R. 781 1336 ■ r. Ogle, 1 Ex. D. 262 ; 45 L. J. Ex. 606 ; 34 L. T. 584 ; 24 TV. R. 678 90 Loader v. Hiscock, 1 F. & E. 132 1259 Lochiel, 2 TV. Rob. 34 ; 7 Jur. 265 ; 2 N. of C. 177 1505, 1506 Lock v. Foote, 5 Sim. 618 646 v. Lomas, 12 Jur. 162 1189, 1190 Lockhart v. Hardy, 9 Beav. 349 ; 10 Jur. 532 ; 15 L. J. Ch. 347. .754, 757, 850, 867, 868, 872, 963, 1003, 1113 v. , 10 Beav. 292 1155 v. Reilly, 1 De G. & J. 476 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 54 96, 523, 524, 532 Locking v. Parker, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 30 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 257 ; 27 L. T. N". S. 635 ; 21 TV. R. 113 549, 744, 882, 901, 911, 1448 Lockwood v. Ewer, 2 Atk. 303 ; 9 Mod. 275 276, 1017, 1460, 1470 . v. Salter, 5 B. & Ad. 303 350 Lockyer v. Jones, 2 Cr. & J. 16, n. ; Peake, 180, n 716 Loder, Re, TV. N. (1886) 166 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 230 ; 55 L. T. 582 ; 35 TV. R. 58 781 Lodge v. Dicas, 3 B. & Aid. 611 1453 v. Lyseley, 4 Sim. 70 1349 Loeschman v. Machin, 2 Stark. 311 188 Loftusr. Swift, 2 Sch. & L. 642 637,802, 1183 Lomas v. Wright, 2 My. & K. 769 784 Lomax v. Bird, 1 Vern. 182 692, 71 1 v. Buxton, L. R. 6 C. P. 107 ; 40 L. J. C. P. 150 ; 24 L. T. 137. . 211, 579, 594 v. Hide, 2 Vern. 185 1012, 1175, 1187 v. Lomax, 12 Beav. 285 ; 13 Jur. 1064 756 Londesborough, Lord v. Mowatt, 18 Jur. 1094 1160 ■ v. Somerville, 19 Beav. 295 ,...44, 512 London v. Morris, 5 Sim. 247 1015 TABLE OF CASES. CXXX1 PAGE London and County Bank, Eo, Exp. Trickett, &c, L. R. 16 Eq. 301 ; 42 L. J. Bky. 1 12 ; 29 L. T. N. S. 73 586 ■ v. Dover, 11 Ch. D. 204 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 336 ; 27 W. R. 349 1036 v. Goddard, (1897) 1 Ch. 642 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 261 ; 76 L. T. 277 ; 45 W. R. 310 537, 1218 v. Lewis, 21 Ch. D. 490 42, 669, 1019 ■ v. Ratcliffe, 6 App. Cas. 722; 51 L. J. Ch. 28; 45 L. T. 322 ; 30 W. R. 109 1231 London and Eastern Counties Loan, &c. Co. v. Creasey, (1897) 1 Q. B. 70S ; 66 L. J. Q. B. 503 ; 76 L. T. 612 ; 45 W. R. 497 217 London and Lancashire Paper Mills Co., Re, 58L.T. 798 ; W.N. (1888)30. . 207 London and Provincial Bank v. Bogle, 7 Ch. D. 773 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 301 ; 37 L. T. 780 ; 26 W. R. 573 350, 1278, 1360 London and South Western Bank, Re, W. N. (1874) 10 549 v. Eacey, 19 W. R. 676 ; 24 L. T. N. S. 176 927 London and South Western Rail. Co. v. Gonim, 20 Ch. D. 562; 51 L. J. Ch. 530; 46 L. T. 449; 30 W. R. 620 1319 London and Suburban Bank, Re, 25 L. T. N. S. 23 ; 19 W. R. 950 1128 London and Westminster Loan Co. v. Chace, 12 C. B. N. S. 730 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 412 ; 31 L. J. C. P. 314 246 London Chartered Bank of Australia, Re, (1893) 3 Ch. 540 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 841 ; 69 L. T. 593 ; 42 W. R. 14; 9 T. L. R. 596 1134, 1135 v. Lempriere, L. R. 4 P. C. 572; 9 Moo. P. C. C. N. S. 462 ; 42 L. J. P. C. 49; 29 L. T. 186; 21 W. R. 513 348, 349 v. White, 4 App. Cas. 413 ; 48 L. J. P. C. 75 1165, 1211, 1389 London Discount Co. v. Drake, 6 C. B. N. S. 798 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 1407 ; 28 L. J. C. P. 297 120, 121 London Financial Co. v. Wrexham, &c. Co., L. R. 18 Eq. 560 ; 30 L. T. N. S. 491 1135 London Joint Stock Bank v. Simmons, (1892) A. C. 201 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 723 ; 66 L. T. 625 ; 4 L W. R. 108 ; 8 T. L. R. 478 279, 4s4, 879, 1465 London Permanent, &c. Soc. Re, 17 W. R. 513 ; 21 L. T. 8 1122 London Provident Building Soc. v. Morgan, (1893) 2 Q. B. 266 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 544 ; 69 L. T. 595 ; 42 W. R. 157 ; 9 T. L. R. 576 557, 558 London Suburban Bank, Re, L. R. 6 Ch. A. 641 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 774 ; 19 W. R. 763 1123 London, Windsor and Greenwich Hotels Co., Re, Quartermain's Case, (1892) 1 Ch. 639 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 273 ; 66 L. T. 19 ; 40 W. R. 298 ; 8 T. L. R. 204 1092, 1112, 1131 Long v. Clopton, 1 Vern. 464 823 v. Jeffkins, 35 Beav. 7 614 ■ v. Long, 5 Ves. 445 ; 5 R. R. 101 426 v. Storie, 3 De G. & S. 308 ; 13 Jur. 227 441, 999, 1017 v. , 23 L. J. Ch. 200 1029 „. f 9 Ha. 542; 16 Jur. 349: 21 L. J. Ch. N. S. 521 ....1184, 1188 Long Wellesley's Case, 2 R. & My. 639 910 Longbottomr. Berry, L. R. 5 Q. B. 123; 39 L. J. Q. B. 37 ; 22 L. T. 385 ; 10 B. & S. 852 120, 122, 123, 124, 206 Longendale Cotton Spinning Co., Re, 8 Ch. D. 150 ; 38 L. T. N. S. 776 ; 26 W. R. 491 904, 1002, 1127 Longmate v. Ledger, 2 Giff. 157 606 Longstaff v. Meagoe, 2 A. & E. 167 120, 128 Longuet v. Scawen, 1 Ves. Sen. 401 23, 27, 30, 32, 33, 754, 994 Lonsdale, Lord v. Church, 2 T. R. 388 ; 1 R. R. 501 68 Looker v. Wrigley, 9 Q. B. D. 397 462 Loosemore v. Knapman, Kay, 123 764 v. Radford, 9 M. & W. 657 94 Lord v. Colvin, 2 Dr. & Sm. 82 1266, 1387 Lord Cochrane, 2 Moo. P. C. 320 ; 2 W. Rob. 320 ; 3 N. of C. 172. .1502, 1514 Louisa Bertha, 14 Jur. 1006 1391 CXXX11 TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Loveday v. Chapman, 32 L. T. N. S. 689 1029 Lovejoy v. Mulkern, 46 L. J. Ch. G30 ; 37 L. T. 78 552 Lovell v. Newton, 4 C. P. D. 7 : 39 L. T. 609 ; 27 W. R. 366 334 Lovell's Case, 1 Salt. 85 ; 1 E. & D. 210 643 Lovering, Exp., Re Jones, L. R. 9 Ch. A. 621 ; 43 L. J. Bky. 116 ; 22 W. R. 853 ; 30 L. T. N. S. 622 178, 183 , , — Murrell, 24 Ch. D. 31 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 951 ; 49 L. T. 242 ; 32 W. R. 217 184 Low v. Bouverie, (1891) 3 Ch. 82 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 594 ; 65 L. T. 533 ; 40 W. R. 50 ; 7 T. L. R. 582 1256, 1257, 1261 Lowe v. Morgan, 1 Bro. C. C. 368 1006 Lowe's Settlement, Re, 30 Beav. 95 992 Lowenthal, Exp., L. R. 9 Ch. A. 324 ; 43 L. J. Bky. 132 ; 22 W. R. 459 ; 30 L. T. N. S. 282 246 Lowes v. Maughan and Fearon, 1 C. & E. 340 84 Lows v. Telford, 1 App. Cas. 414 797 Lowther v. Carlton, 2 Atk. 138 1300 Lowthian v. Hasel, 3 Bro. C. C. 162 1151, 1234 Lixbbock, Exp., 4 De C. J. & S. 516; 9 Jur. N. S. 845 ; 32 L. J. Bky. 58 1090, 1092 Lucas, Exp., 3 De G. & J. 113 274, 1273 v. Commerford, 3 Bro. C. C. 166 ; 1 Ves. Jun. 235 ; 8 Sim. 499 . . 155 ■ v. Dennison, 13 Sim. 5S4 571 ■ v. Dicker, 5 C. P. D. 150 ; 50 L. J. C. P. 190 ; 43 L. T. 429 1325 ■ v. Dorrien, 7 Taunt. 278 ; 1 Moo. 29 ; 18 R. R. 480 59, 1390 v. Harris, 18 Q. B. D. 127 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 15 ; 55 L. T. 658 ; 35 W. R. 112 299, 927, 932 r. Peacock, 9 Beav. 177 1277, 1385 v. Seale, 2 Atk. 56 1017 Luccraft v. Hite, 2 Ha. 14, note 817 Lucena v. Crauford, 2 B. & P. N. R. 324 ; 1 Taunt. 325 ; 6 R. R. 623 . . 288 Luckes, Exp., 26 L. T. N. S. 113 580 Luckin r. Hamlyn, 18 W. R. 43 ; 21 L. T. N. S. 366 249 Luckraft v. Pridham, 6 Ch. D. 205 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 744 ; 26 W. R. 33 ; 37 L. T. N. S. 204 538 Lucy v. Gardener, Bunb. 137 765 Luddy's Trustee v. Peard, 33 Ch. D. 500 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 884 ; 55 L. T. 137 612 Ludgater v. Channell, 15 Sim 479 ; 3 Mac. & G. 175 955 Ludlow v. Grayall, 11 Pri. 58 ; 25 R. R. 703 1378 Luke v. South Kensington Hotel Co., 11 Ch. D. 121 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 361 ; 40 L. T. 63S ; 27 W. R. 417 995, 1006, 1120 Lumley v. Simmonds, 34 Ch. D. 698 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 329 ; 56 L. T. 134 ; 35 W. R. 422 233, 234, 237 Lunn v. Thornton, 1 C. B. 379 ; 10 Jur. 198 211, 212 Lupton v. White, 15 Ves. 432 ; 10 R. R. 94 524 Lush v. Wilkinson, 5 Ves. 387 571 Lushington v. Price, 9 Sim. 651 ; 8 L. J. Ch. N. S. 254 877 Luski\ Sebright, W. N. (1894) 134; 71 L. T. 59 1048, 1051 Lusty, Exp., 60 L. T. 160 ; 37 W. R. 304 120, 206 Lutkins v. Leigh, Forrester, 54 753 Lutton v. Rodd, 2 Ch. Cas. 206 1154 Luttrel's Case, 4 Rep. 87 b 117 Lutwyche v. Att.-Gen., 2 Atk. 223 1013 Lyall v. Hicks, 27 Beav. 616 1510 Lyddon v. Lyddon, 14 Ves. 558 434 v. Moss, 4 De G. & J. 104 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 637 611, 617, 1144 Lyde v. Barnard, 1 M. & W. 101 1257 v. Mynn, 1 My. & K. 683 ; 4 Sim. 505 50, 51, 311 Lyell v. Kennedy, 14 App. Cas. 437 1073 Lyle v. Richards, L. R. 1 H. L. 222 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 947 ; 35 L. J. Q. B. 214; 15 L. T. N. S. 1 117 Lymberg v. Helsham, 1 Ir. Ch. A. 633 931 Lynch, Exp., 2 Ch. D. 227 ; 45 L. J. Bky. 48 ; 34 L. T. 34 356 Lynde v. Waithman, (1895) 2 Q. B. ISO ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 762 ; 72 L. T. 857 922, 1020 TABLE OF CASES. CXXX111 PAGE Lyne v. Willis, 3 P. Wms. 352 1053 Lyon v. Holt, 5 M. & W. 250 83 v. Home, L. R. 6 Eq. 655 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 674 ; 18 L. T. N. S. 451 ; 16 W. R. 824 607 v. Morris, 19 Q. B. D. 139 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 378 ; 57 L. T. 324 ; 35 W. R. 707 237 v. "Weldon, 2 Bing. 384 ; 9 Moo. 62 179 Lyons, Asp. N. S. 199 ; 57 L. T. 818 266, 1391 v. Tucker, 7 Q. B. D. 523 ; 45 L. T. 403 1283 Lysaght v. Edwards, 2 Ch. D. 499 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 554 ; 24 W. R. 778 ; 34 L. T. N. S. 787 838 v. Westmacott, 33 Beav. 417 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 1142 1031 Lyster v. Burroughs, 1 Dr. & War. 149 50 — v. Dolland, 7 Ves. Jun. 431 ; 3 Bro. C. C. 480 648 Maber v. Massias, 2 W. Bl. 1072 1498 Maberly, Re, Maberly v. Maberly, 33 Ch. D. 455 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 54 ; 55 L. T. 164 ; 34 W. R. 771 516 McArthur v. Seaforth, 2 Taunt. 257 ; 11 R. R. 559 37 Macarthy v. Llandaff, Lord, 1 Ba. & Be. 375 1163, 1165, 1166 Macaulay v. Philips, 4 Ves. 15 327 McBain, App., Wallace, Resp., W. N. (1881) 127 ; 45 L. T. 261 ; 30 W. R. 65 270 McBean r. Deane, 30 Ch. D. 520 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 19 ; 53 L. T. 701 ; 33 W. R. 924 300 Maccabe v. Hussey, 2 Dow & C. 440 607 M'Carogher v. Whieldon, 34 Beav. 107 890 McCarthy v. Goold, 1 Ba. & Be. 387 299 Macclesfield, Earl of v. Davies, 3 V. & B. 16 1468 v. Fitton, 1 Vern. 168 ; 1 Ch. Ca. 68. .803, 819, 1005, 1166 M'Combie v. Davies, 7 East, 5 1404, 1476 M'Cormick v. Parry, 7 Exc. 355 ; 21 L. J. Exch. 143 476 M'Creight r. Foster, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 604 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 792 ; 18 W. R. 905 ; 25 L. T. N. S. 224 1098 M'Culloch v. Gregory, 3 K. & J. 12 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 1134 969 Macdona v. Swiney, 8 Ir. C. L. R. 73 177 Macdonald, Exp., Re Beverid°-e, 24 L. T. 475 107S , Re, Dowlins? v. Stewart, W. N. (1885) 98 123 . v. Irvine, 8 Ch. D. 101 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 494 ; 38 L. T. 155 ; 26 W. R. 381 850 v. Walker, 14 Beav. 556 S90 Vt Whitfield, 8 App. Cas. 733 ; 52 L. J. P. C. 70 ; 49 L. T. 446 79 M'Donnell v. Walshe, 2 Dr. & War. 252 1201 v.White, 11 H. L. C. 570 949 McDonough v. Shewbridge, 2 Ba. & Be. 555 1016 Macdougall v. Jersey, &c. Co., 2 H. & M. 528 469 Mace v. Cadell, Cowp. 232 183 McEntire v. Crossley, (1895) A. C. 457 ; 64 L. J. P. C. 129 ; 72 L. T. 731 ; 2 Mans. 334 197 McEwen v. Crombie, 25 Ch. D. 175; 53 L. J. Ch. 24 ; 49 L. T. 499 ; 32 W. R. 115 1382 v. London, Bombay, &c. Bank, 15 L. T. 495 1 126 v. West London Wharves Co., L. R. 6 Ch. A. 655 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 471 ; 19 W. R. 837 : 25 L. T. N. S. 145 278 Macey «-. Gilbert, W.N. (1888) 111; 57 L. J. Q. B. 461 233, 237 Macfarlane v. Lister, 37 Ch. D. 88 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 92 ; 58 L. T. 201 1387 McGregor, Exp., 4 De G. & S. 603 1099, 1100 McHattie, Exp., Re Wood, 10 Ch. D. 398; 48 L. J. Bky. 26 ; 39 L. T. 373 ; 27 W. R. 327 247, 248 Machell v. Clarke, 2 Ld. Raym. 778 366 McHenry, Re, McDermot v. Boyd, Booker's Claim, (1891) 3 Ch. 290 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 741 ; 71 L. T. 146 ; 43 W. R. 20 987 MacHenry v. Davies, L. R. 6 Eq. 462 ; L. R. 10 Eq. 88 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 866 ; 22 L. T. 643; 18 W. R. 855 344, 345 CXXX1V TABLE OF CASES. TAGE Macintyre v. Connell, 1 Sim. 1ST. S. 225 ; 15 Jur. 529 1281, 1363 Mackv. Postle, (1894) 2Ch.D. 449; 63 L. J. Ch. 593; 71 L. T. 153 ..1278, 1280 Mackay, Exp., 1 M. D. & De G. 550 1237 , Exp., Re Jeavons, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 643 ; 42 L. J. Bky. 68 199 . *. Commercial Bank of New Brunswick, L. R. 5 P. C. 394 ; 43 L. J. P. C. 31 ; 30 L. T. N. S. 180 ; 22 W. R. 473 467 v. Merritt, 34 W. R. 433 233 Mackenzie's Trusts, Re, 23 Ch. D. 750 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 726 ; 48 L. T. 936 ; 31 W. R. 948 516 Mackenzie, Exp., Re Bent, 42 L. J. Bk. 25 ; 28 L. T. N. S. 486 246 v. Gordon, 6 CI. & E. 8S3 1443 Vm Mackenzie, 64 L. T. 706 1388 _ v , Robinson, 3 Atk. 559 169, 628, 999, 1017 McKewan v. Sanderson, L. R. 20 Eq. 65 ; 27 L. T. N. S. 157 ; 32 L. T. N. S. 385 ; 23 W. R 607 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 447 592 Mackie v. Mackie, 5 Ha. 70 ; 9 Jur. 793 414 MoKinnell v. Robinson, 3 M. & W. 434 619 McKinney's Estate, Re, L. R. Ir. Eq. 445 1243 Mackintosh v. Barber, 1 Bing\ 50 408 v. Great Western Rail. Co., 4 GifT. 683 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 680 . . 1160 Mackreth?'. Symmons, 15 Ves. 329; 10 R. R. 85.. 1224, 1237, 1372, 1373, 1374, 1376 Mackworth v. Marshall, 3 Sim. 368 1011 v. Thomas, 5 Ves. 329 67 M'Lae v. Sutherland, 3 E. & B. 1 471 McLarty v. Middleton, 9 W. R. 861 1499 McLean, Exp., 24 L. T. N. S. 144 186 r. Dawson, 27 Beav. 369 1009 „. Fleming, L. R. 2 H. L. Sc. 128; 25 L. T. 317; 1 Asp. 160 .. 1399 McLean's Trusts, L. R. 19 Eq. 275 ; 31 L. T. N. S. 632 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 145 ; 23 W. R. 206 ... 301 Macleod v. Annesley, 16 Beav. 600 525, 526, 632, 1015 v. Buchanan, 4 De G. J. & S. 265 1280 v. Drummond, 17 Ves. 152; 11 R. R. 41 399, 401, 402, 405 v. Jones, W. N. (1884) 53 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 534 ; 50 L. T. 358 ; 32 W. R. 660 22, 1160 v'. , 24 Ch. D. 289 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 145 ; 49 L. T. 321 ; 32 W. R. 43 905 McMahon, Re, 55 L. T. 763 58 . . v . North Kent Ironworks Co., (1891) 2 Ch. 148 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 372 ; 64 L. T. 317 ; 39 W. R. 349 ; 7 T. L. R. 303 1118 Macnolty v. Fitzherbert, 3 Jur. N. S. 1237 1378 M 'Queen v. Farquhar, 11 Ves. 467 ; 8 R. R. 212 1300, 1315 Macrae v. Ellerton, 4 Jur. N. S. 967 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 277 1114 Macreth v. Walmesley, 51 L. T. 19 ; 32 W. R. 819 82 Maddock v. Rumball, 8 East, 304 37 Maddocks v. Wren, 2 Rep. in Ch. 109 802, 803 Madeley v. Ross & Co., (1897) 1 Ch. 505; 66 L. J. Ch. 233; 76 L. T. 321.. 1001 Madell v. Thomas, (1891) 1 Q. B. 230 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 227 ; 64 L. T. 9 ; 39 W. R. 280 ; 7 T. L. R. 170 197 Madox v. Jackson, 3 Atk. 406 101 Magdalena, &c. Steamship Co., Re, Johns. 690 471, 472, 473, 476 Magee v. Hastings, 28 L. R. Ir. 288 1065 Magnay v. Edwards, 13 C. B. 479 ; 17 Jur. 839 674 Magnus v. Queensland Bank, 37 Ch. D. 466 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 902 ; 58 L. T. 248 ; 36 W. R. 577 912 Mahon v. Dawson, 2 Dr. & War. 286 1056 Mahony v. East Holyford Mining Co., L. R. 7 H. L. 869 ; 33 L. T. N. S. 338 ; 9 Ir. R. C. L. 306 475 Mainland v. Upjohn, 41 Ch. D. 126 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 361 ; 60 L. T. 614 ; 37 W. R. 411 132, 133, 1146, 1193 Mainwaring's Settlement, Re, L. R. 2 Eq. 487 ; 14 AV. R. 887 331 Maitl.md v. Irving, 15 Sim. 437 82, 607, 608, 609 Major v. Lnnsley, 2 R. & My. 355 330 v. Ward, 5 Ha. 598 004, 894, 896 Makin v. Hughes, Seton, 5th ed., 1094 48 TABLE OF CASES. CXXXV Makings v. Makings, 1 De G. F. & J. 355 637 Making, Exp., 2 M. D. & De G. 508 1382 v. Perry Ibbotson, (1891) 1 Ch. 133 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 164: 63 L. T. 515 ; 39 W. R. 73 937, 938 Malcolm v. Charlesworth, 1 Keen, 63 1237, 1244 ■ v. O'Callaghan, 3 My. & Cr. 52 , , . , 952, 957 ■ v. Scott, 6 Ha. 570 ', , . '1493 Malins v. Greenway, 7 Ha. 391 ..'......".' !..'...!! ', 1379 Mallack v. Galton, 3 P. Wms. 352 .1052, 1053, 1056 Mallalieu v. Hodgson, 16 Q. B. 711 ; 15 Jur. N. S. 817 592 Mallet v. Bateman, L. R. 1 C. P. 163 ; 35 L. J. C. P. 40 ; 12 Jur. N. S 122 ; 13 L. T. 410 ; 14 W. R. 225 ; 2 H. & R. 109 79 Malone v. Geraghty, 1 H. L. C. 81 870 Malpas v. Ackland, 3 Russ. 273 \" 1312 Maltby's Case, 1 Dow, 294 81 Man's Case, Freem. Ch. 206 !....!...!.. 22 Manchester and Liverpool District Banking Co., Ex parte, Re Littler', L. R. 18 Eq. 249; 43 L. J. Bkv. 73; 30 L. T. 339; 22 W. R. 567 ." 1083, 1088, 1097 and Milford Rail. Co., Re, Ex parte Cambrian Rail. Co., 14 Ch. D. 645; 49 L. J. Ch. 365 ; 42 L. T. 714 934, 937, 1133 and London Life, &c. Assoc, L. R. 9 Eq. 643 ; 23 L. T. N. S. 332 ; 18 W. R. 1185 1457 Bank, Ex parte, Re Mellor, 12 Ch. D. 917 ; 48 L. J. Bky. 94 ; 40 L. T. 723 180 ■ v. Parkinson, W. N. (1889) 27 ; 60 L. T. 258 1018, 1045 ■ Sheffield and Lincolnshire Rail. Co. v. North Central Wagon Co., 13 App. Cas. 554; 58 L. J. Ch. 219; 59 L. T. 730; 37 W. R. 305 19^ 195 Mangles v. Dixon, 3 H. L. C. 702 822,1166 Manifold v. Morris, 5 Bing. N. C. 420 118 Manlove v. Bale, 2 Vern. 84 164, 820, 1196, 1197, 1380 Manners v. Furze, 1 1 Beav. 30 943 v. Mew, 29 Ch. D. 725 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 909 ; 53 L. T. 84 . . . . 1304, 1343 Manning v. Burgess, 1 Ch. Ca. 29 11 54. v. Lunn, 2 C. & K. 13 718 ■ v. Phelps, 24 L. J. Ex. 62 989 Manningford v. Toleman, 1 Coll. 670 ; 9 Jur. 438 ; 14 L. J. N. S. Ch. 160. . 123S, 130'' 1383 Mannox v. Greener, L. R. 14 Eq. 456 ; 27 L. T. N. S. 408 .' 409 Manser v. Dix, 8 De G. M. & G. 703 903 Mansfield, Earl v. Blackburn, 6 Bing. N. C. 426 125 ■ v. Hamilton, 2 Sch. & L. 28 951 v. Ogle, 4DeG. & J. 38 1111 Mant v. Leith, 15 Beav. 524 ; 16 Jur. 302 515, 1381 Manton v. Moore, 7 T. R. 67 176 • v. Roe, 14 Sim. 353 1106 Mara v. Manning, 2 J. & L. 31 1 330 March v. Lee, Fonb. Eq. vol. 2, 5th ed. p. 302 1222, 1223 Marcon v. Bloxam, 11 Exch. 586 860 Marder v. Lee, 3 Burr. 1469 72 Margetson and Jones, Re, (1897) 2 Ch. 314 Addenda Margrave v. Le Hooke, 2 Vern. 207 858 Marianna, 6 C. Rob. 24 1512 Marine Mansions Co., Re, L. R: 4 Eq. 601 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 115 494, 490, 1122 Marjoribanks v. Hovenden, Dru. 11 1248 Markwick v. Hardingham, 15 Ch. D. 339 ; 43 L. T. 647 ; 29 W. R. 361. . 650, 748, 750, 751 Marlborough, Duke of, Re, Davis v. Whitehead, (1894) 2 Ch. 133 ; 03 L. J. Ch. 471 ; 70 L. T. 314; 42 W. R. 456 25 Marlow v. Orgill, 8 Jur. N. S. 829 570 v. Smith, 2 P. Wms. 198 833 Marples v. Hartley, 3 E. & E. 010 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 446 ; 30 L. J. Q,. B. 92 . . 218 Marriage, Neave & Co., Re, (1896) 2 Ch. 663 ; 60 J. P. 805 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 839; 75 L. T. 169; 12 T. L. R. 603; 45 W. R. 42 956 v. Royal Exchange Assurance Co., 18 L. J. Ch. 216 188 CXXXV1 TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Marriott v. Anchor Reversionary Co., 3 De G. F. & J. 177 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 173 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 571 ; 4 L. T. N. S. 590 265, 804, 905 . v. Kirkham, 3 Giff. 536 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 79 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 312 ; 6 L. T. N. S. 17 ; 10 W. R. 240 1036 Marrow, Re, Cr. & Ph. 146 1429 Marryat v. Marryat, 28 Beav. 224 10 Marsack v. Reeves, 6 Madd. 108 613, 1182 Marsden, Re, Eowden v. Leyland, 26 Ch. D. 783 ; 51 L. T. 417 ; 33 W. R. 28 , 1107 ■ v. Goole, 2 C. & K. 133 719 v. Meadows, 7 Q. B. D. SO ; 45 L. T. 301 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 536 ; 29 W. R. 816 194, 195, 196 Marseilles Extension Rail. Co., Re, Ex parte Credit Foncier, &c., L. R. 7 Ch. A. 161 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 345 ; 25 L. T. N. S. 858 ; 20 W. R. 254 . . 473, 1331 Marsh, Ex parte, 2 Rose, 239 60 v. Granville, Earl, 24 Ch. D. 11 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 81 ; 48 L. T. 947 ; 31 W. R. 845 1317 ■ r. Lee, 1 Ch. Cas. 162 ; 2 Ventr. 337 1217, 1224 v. Marsh, 2 Jur. N. S. 348 410 ■ v. Peacocke, 9 Jur. N. S. 780 1260 Marshall, Ex parte, 9 Sim. 555 834 v. Cave, 3 L. J. Ch. 57 804 v. Gingell, 21 Ch. D. 790 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 818 ; 47 L. T. 159 ; 31 W. R. 63 418 v. Glamorgan Iron Co., L. R. 7 Eq. 129 ; 19 L. T. N. S. 632 ; 17 W. R. 435 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 69 1002 • v. Lamb, 6 Q. B. 115 ; 7 Jur. 850 586 ■ v. McAravev, 3 Dr. & War. 232 .' . 1107 ■ v. Shrewsbury, L. R. 10 Ch. A. 250 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 302 ; 32 L. T. 418 ; 23 W. R. 803 736 ■ v. South Staffordshire Tramways Co., (1895) 2 Ch. 36 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 481 ; 72 L. T. 542 ; 43 W. R. 469 ; 2 Mans. 292 . .888, 934, 935, 1001, 1118 Marshfield, Re, Marshfield v. Hutchings, 34 Ch. D. 721 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 599 ; 56 L. T. 694; 35 W. R. 491 911, 1169 Marson v. Cox, 14 Ch. D. 140 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 245 ; 42 L. T. 615 ; 28 W. R. 572 561 Marston v. Downes, 1 A. & E. 31 , 733 Martin, Ex parte, 4 D. & C. 457 ; 2 M. & A. 243 1098 ■ , Re, 5 Bing. 160 1192 v. Brecknell, 3 M. & S. 39 103 v. Cotter, 3 J. & L. 497 1312 v. Laverton, L. R. 9 Eq. 563 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 166 ; 18 W. R. 561 ; 22 L. T. N. S. 700 835 ■ r. Martin, 3 B. & Ad. 934 77 V. Mitchell, 2 J. & W. 423 ; 22 R. R. 184 700, 704 v. Mowlin, 2 Burr. 977 848 ■ r. Reid, 11 C. B. N. S. 730; 31 L. J. C. P. 126; 5 L. T. 727 1461, 1470, 1472 • v. Roe, 7 E. & B. 248 ; 5 W. R. 263 122 ■ ■ v. Seamore, 1 Ch. Cas. 170 603, 604 r. Sedgwick, 9 Beav. 333 ; 10 Jur. 463 1263,1269 v. West of England, &c. Co., 4 Jur. N. S. 158 290 v. Williams, Th. & N. 817 ; 26 L. J. Ex. 117 672 Martindale v. Booth, 3 B. & Ad. 498 174, 176, 177, 572 v. Smith, 1 Q. B. 389 718 Martinez v. Cooper, 2 Russ. 198 1338, 1343 Martini v. Coles, 1 M. & S. 140 1466, 1476 Martinson v. Clowes, 52 L. T. 706 ; 33 W. R. 555 ; W. N. (1885) 41 906 Marwick v. Thurlow, (1895) 1 Ch. 776 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 555 ; 72 L. T. 463 ; 43 W. R. 493; 2 Mans. 310 1025, 1119 Mary Ann, 10 Jur. 253 ; 4 N. of C. 376 1501, 1502 , L. R. 1 A. & E. 8 ; 36 L. J. Ad. 6 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 31 ; 13 L. T. 384; 14 W. It. 136 1392, 1501, 1511 TABLE OF CASES. CXXXV11 PAGE Maryport Hematite Iron and Steel Co., (1892) 1 Ch. 415 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 227; 66 L. T. 108; 40 W. R. 280 127 Masfen v. Touchet, 2 W. Bl. 706 68 Maskell and Goldfinch's Contract, Re, (1895) 2 Ch. 525 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 678 ; 72 L. T. 836 ; 43 W. R. 620 353 ■ v. Farrington, 3 De G. J. & S. 398 409, 410 Mason, Re, Mason v. Robinson, 8 Ch. D. 411 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 060 ; 26 W. R. 734 412 v. Bogg, 2 My. & Cr. 443 1111 ■ v. Broadbent, 33 Beav. 296 911, 1170 v. Kiddle, 5 M. & W. 513 73, 77 v. Morley, 34 Beav. 475 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 459 : 34 L. J. Ch. 422 ; 13 W. R. 669 ; 12 L. T. N. S. 414 ' 62 v. Rhodes, 53 L. T. 322 1340 v. Westoby, 32 Ch. D. 206 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 507 ; 54 L. T. 526 ; 34 W. R. 498 929 ■ v. Wood, 1 C. P. D. 63 ; 45 L. J. C. P. 76; 33 L. T. 571 ; 24 W. R. 41 189, 244 Mason's Orphanage and London and N. W. Rail. Co., Re, (1896) 1 Ch. 596; 65 L. J. Ch. 439; 74 L. T. 161; 44 W. R. 339; 12 T. L. R. 236 424 Will, Re, 34 Beav. 494 847, 849 Massey, Ex parte, 39 L. J. Ch. 635 , 149S v. Johnson, 1 Exch. 241 ; 17 L. J. Ex. 183 17 ■ v. Sladen, L. R. 4 Ex. 13 ; 38 L. J. Ex. 34 895, 896, 904 Massingberd, Re, Clarke v. Trelawney, 63 L. T. 296 511, 512, 523 Massy v. Batwell, 4 Dr. & War. 68 632, 1015 Master v. De Croismar, 1 1 Beav. 184 996 Masterman, Exp., 4 D. & C. 751 1270 Masters v. Masters, 1 P. Wms. 421 , 785 Mather v. Fraser, 2 K. & J. 536 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 900 120, 123, 125, 126 v. Lay, 2 J. & H. 374 , 187 Mathews v. Feaver, 1 Cox, 278 568 v. Saurin, 31 L. R. Ir. 181 93 Mathias v. Mathias, 4 Jur. N. S. 780 1378 Mathison v. Clark, 25 L. J. Ch. 29 914 v . Clarke, 3 Drew. 3 ; 18 Jur. 1020 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 202 ; 3 W. R. 2 ; 3 Eq. Rep. 127 1193 Matson v. Dennis, 10 Jur. N. S. 460; 4 De G. J. & S. 345 712, 845, 1034 v. Swift, 5 Jur. 645 710 Matterson v. Elderfield, L. R. 4 Ch. A. 208 ; 17 W. R. 422 ; 20 L. T. 503 553 Mattheson v. Hardwicke, 2 P. Wms. 665, n 761 Matthew's Estate, Re, Matthews v. Matthews, W. N. (1876) 176 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 711 ; 34 L. T. N. S. 718 1106 Matthews, Re, 16 Beav. 245 230 v. Antrobus, 49 L. J. Ch. 80 875 v. Buchanan, 5 T. L. R. 373 248 ■ v. Cartwright, 2 Atk. 347 50 v. Gabb, 15 Sim. 51 1279 v. L , 1 Madd. 558 625 v. Wallwyn, 4 Ves. 118 303, 819, 829, 830, 1144, 1166 Matthie v. Edwards, 2 Coll. 465 1175, 1182 Maud v. Trimingham, L. R. 7 Eq. 201 1498 Maugham v. Ridley, 8 L. T. N. S. 309 1098 Maughan v. Sharpe, 10 Jur. N. S. 989 ; 17 C. B. N. S. 483 ; 34 L. J. C. P. 19 ; 10 L. T. 870 ; 12.W. R. 1057 231, 904, 1461 Maundrell v. Maundrell, 10 Ves. 246 1216, 1218, 1224, 1300 Mavor v. Croome, 1 Bing. 261 589 Maxfield v. Burton, L. R. 17 Eq. 15 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 46 ; 29 L. T. 571 ; 22 W. R. 148 1218, 1299, 1301, 1327, 1333, 1337 Maxima, 39 L. T. 112 265 Maxwell v. Maxwell, L. R. 4 H. L. 506 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 698 ; 23 L. T. N. S. 325 ; 19 W. R. 15 772 (Sir G.) v. Montacute, Lady, Prec. Ch. 526 23, 24 v. Wettenhall, 2 P. Wms. 26 1174 CXXXV111 TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Maxwell v. Wightwick, L. R. 3 Eq. 210 ; 15 W. R. 304 1188, 1189, 1190 May, Re, Fonbl. Bky. R. 243 1098 r . Bennett, 1 Russ. 370; 25 R. R. 72 411 . v. Chapman, 16 M. & W. 361 1305 v. Harvey, 13 East, 197 ; 12 R. R. 322 1460 Maycl v. Field, 3 Ch. D. 587 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 699; 24 W. R. 660; 34 L. T. N. S. 614 348 Mayer v. Mindlevich, 59 L. T. 400 227 v . Murray, 8 Ch. D. 424 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 605 ; 26 W. R. 690 . .796, 1201 Mayhew v. Crickett, 2 Swanst. 191 ; 1 Wils. Ch. R. 424 ; 19 R. R. 29 . . 86, 96, 97 Mayou, Exp., 13 W. R. 629 581 Mead v. Hyde, 2 Vern. 120 757 v. Orrery, Lord, 3 Atk. 239 400, 631 Meaden v. Sealey, 6 Ha. 620 ; 18 L. J. N. S. Ch. 168 927, 954 Mears v. Best, 10 Ha. li 1035 Medhurst v. Golder, 16 L. T. N. S. 50 725, 1016 Medland, Re, Eland v. Medland, 41 Ch. D. 476 ; 60 L. T. 781 ; 5 T. L. R. 354 529 Medley v. Horton, 14 Sim. 222 ; 8 Jur. 853, 949 339, 1431, 1437 Medlicott v. O'Donel, 1 Ba. & Be. 156 618 Mee v. Barren, 15 L. T. N. S. 320 214 Meek r. Baylis, 31 L. J. Ch. 448 1244 . v. Chamberlain, 8 Q. B. D. 31 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 99 ; 46 L. T. 344 ; 30 W. R. 228 703 Meggison v. Foster, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 336 ; 7 Jur. 946 ; 12 L. J. N. S. Ch. 415 591 Meg-gott v. Mills, 1 Ld. Raym. 286 174 Meggy v. Imperial Discount Co., 3 Q. B. D. 711 ; 47 L. J. Q. B. 119 ; 38 L. T. 309; 26 W. R. 342 183, 187 Megrath v. Gray, L. R. 9 C. P. 216 ; 43 L. J. C. P. 63 ; 30 L. T. 16 . . . . 91 Melbourne Banking Corp. v. Brougham, 4 App. Cas. 156 650 , v. , 7 App. Cas. 307 ; 51 L. J. P. C. 65 ; 46 L. T. 603 ; 30 W. R. 925 17 v. Cottrell, 29 L. T. 293 49 Mellard v. Gray, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 199 1023 Mellersh v. Brown, 45 Ch. D. 225 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 43 ; 63 L. T. 189 ; 38 W. R. 732 974, 1158, 1170, 1172 Mellish v. Biookes, 3 Beav. 22 492, 937, 991 . v. Vallins, 2 J. & H. 194 769 Mcllor v. Lees, 2 Atk. 494 12, 13, 15, 20, 22 v. Porter, 25 Ch. D. 158 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 178 ; 50 L. T. 49 ; 32 W. R. 271 1054 9m Woods, 1 Keen, 16 ; 5 L. J. N. S. Ch. 109 1027 Mellor's Policy Trusts, Re, 7 Ch. D. 200 334 Melly, Re, W. N. (1883) 121 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 248 ; 49 L. T. 249 ; 31 W. R. 898 361 Melville v. Stringer, 13 Q. B. D. 392; 53 L. J. Q. B. 482; 50 L. T. 774; 32 W. R. 890 214, 231, 245 Menetone v. Gibbons, 3 T. R. 267 1500 Menzies v. Lightfoot, L. R. 11 Eq. 439 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 561 ; 24 L. T. N. S. 695 ; 19 W. R. 578 1152 Mercantile Bank of Sydney v. Taylor, (1893) A. C. 317; 9 T. L. R. 463 87 Mercantile Investment, &c. Trust Co. v. International Co. of Mexico, (1893) 1 Ch. 484, n 480 Mercantile Investment, &c. Trust Co. v. River Plate, &c. Trust Co., (1892) 2 Ch. 203 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 473 ; 66 L. T. 711 939 Mercantile Investment, &c. Trust Co. v. River Plate, &c. Trust Co., (1894) 1 Ch. 578 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 366; 70 L. T. 131 ; 42 W. R. 365.. 480, 489 Mercer, Exp., Re Wise, 17 0, B. D. 290 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 558 ; 54 L. T. 720 t 569 v. Peterson, L. R. 3 Ex. 104 ; 37 L. J. Ex. 54 ; 18 L. T. 30 ; 16 W. R. 486 200, 570, 579, 582, 590 and Moore, Re (or Beardsworth and Moore), 14 Ch. D. 287 ; 49 L.J. Ch. 201 ; 42 L. T. 311; 28 W. R. 485 651, 1011 TABLE OF CASES. CXXX1X PAGE Merchant Banking Co. v. Hough, W. N. (1874) 230 1124 of London v. London and Hanseatic Bank, W. N. (1886) 5 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 479 1037 v. Phoenix Bessemer Steel Co., 5 Ch. D. 205 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 418 ; 36 L. T. 395 ; 25 W. R. 457 1478 Merchants' Bank v. Maud, 18 W. R. 312 1111 Merest v. Murray, 14 L. T. N. S. 321 905 Merriman r. Bonnor, 10 Jur. N. S. 534 ; 10 L. T. N. S. 88 ; 12 W. R. 461 1186, 1191, 1195 v. Ward, U. & H. 371 1212 Mersey Rail. Co., Re, 37 Ch. D. 010 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 283 ; 58 L. T. 745 ; 36 W. R. 372 934 ■ , Re, (1895) 2 Ch. 287 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 623 ; 72 L. T. 735 488, 1288 — Steel and Iron Co. v. Naylor, Benzon & Co., 9 Q. B. D. 648 1129 — v. , 9 App. Cas. 434 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 576 ; 47 L. T. 369 1131 Mertins v. Jolliffe, Arabl. 313 1300, 1306, 1316 Mestaer v. Gillespie, 1 1 Ves. 621 53, 271 Metcalf v. Bruin, 12 East, 400 ; 2 Camp. 422 100 . v. Campion, 1 Moll. 238 805 . Vm Hutchinson, 1 Ch. D. 591 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 210 414, 415, 433 . v. Pulvertoft, 1 V. & B. 180 ; 2 V. & B. 100 ; 13 R. R. 63 . .631, 1014 v. York, Archbp. of, 1 My. & Or. 547 ; 6 L. J. N. S. Ch. 65 . .50, 440 Metcalfe v. Boote, 8 D. & R. 46 72 Metropolitan Bank v. Heiron, 5 Ex. D. 319; 43 L. T. 696; 29 W. R. 370 1072 v. Offord, L. R. 10 Eq. 39S ; 39 L.J. Ch. 820; 22 L. T. N. S. 699 1011 . Counties Soc. v. Brown, 26 Beav. 454 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 378 122 v. , 1 E. & E. 832 ; 28 L. J. Ex. 40 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 1028 672 28 Beav. 454; 5 Jur. N. S. 378.. 122, 123 Metters v. Brown, 33 L. J. Ch. 1 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 97 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 958 L. T. N. S. 567; 11 W. R. 744 895, 896 Meux, Ex parte, 1 Gl. & J. 116 1343 ■ v. Bell, 1 Ha. 73 ; 6 Jur. 123 ; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 77 1257, 1260 . v. Howell, 4 East, 13 570 v. Jacobs, L. R. 7 H. L. 481 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 481 ; 23 W. R. 526 ; 32 L. T. N. S. 171 120, 121, 178, 191, 204, 206 v. Smith, 11 Sim. 410 50, 56, 1374 Meyerstein v. Barber, L. R. 2 C. P. 38 1461, 1472 Meyrick's Trusts, Re, 9 Ha. 116 ; 15 Jur. 505 1424 Michael v. Eripp, L. R. 7 Eq. 95 ; 17 W. R. 23 ; 19 L. T. N. S. 257 .... 269 Michell v. Michell, 4 Beav. 549 429, 430, 431 . v. , 5 Mad. 69 ; 21 R. R. 280 755, 757 Wilton, L. R. 20 Eq. 269; 44 L. J. Ch. 490 ; 23 W. R. 789. . . .411, 413 Michell' s Trusts, Re, 9 Ch. D. 5 Ill Michelmore v. Mudge, 2 Giff. 183 322 Middlecombe v. Marlow, 2 Atk. 220 571 Middleditch v. Ellis, 17 L. J. Ex. 365 1446 Middlcsboro' Firebrick Co., Re, W. N. (18S5) 7 ; 52 L. T. 98 ; 33 W. R. 339 1 128 Middleton v. Magnay, 2 H. & M. 233 1376 ■ v. Middleton, 15 Beav. 450 774 ■ v. Pollock, Exp. Elliott, 2 Ch. D. 104 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 293 567 . , v . , Exp. Wetberall, 4 Ch. D. 49 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 39 ; 38 L. T. 608 ; 25 W. R. 94 52 Midland Banking Co. v. Chambers, L. R. 4 Ch. A. 398 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 478 ; 17 W. R. 598 ; 20 L. T. 346 103 , , Coal, &c. Co., Re, 42 W. R. 622 1134 . Waggon Co. v. Potteries, &c, Rail. Co., 6 Q. B. D. 36 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 6 ; 43 L. T. 511 ; 29 W. R. 78 934 Midleton v. Eliot, 15 Sim. 531 ; 11 Jur. 742 711, 817, 818 Milan Tramways Co., Re, Exp. Theys, 25 Ch. D. 587 ; 50 L. T. 545 ; 32 W. R. 001 1129, 1138 CXI TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Milbank v. Vane, (1893) 3 Ch. 79 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 629 ; 68 L. T. 735 ; 9 T. L. B. 362 367 Mildmay v. Methuen, 3 Drew. 91 1160 Mildred v. Austin, L. E. 8 Eq. 220 ; 17 W. E. 638 ; 20 L. T. N. S. 939 . . 1013 Miles v. Durnford, 2 De G. M. & G. 641 403 v. Langley, 1 E. & My. 39 1319 ■ v. Eowland, W. N. (1881) 26 412 r. Tobin, 16 W. E. 465 1306, 1318 Miles' Will, Ee, 27 Beav. 579 514 Milford Haven Bail., &c. Co. v. Mowatt, &c, 28 Ch. D. 402 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 567 ; 33 W. E. 597 634 Mill v. Hill, 3 H. L. C. 829 1378 Mill's Trusts, Ee, 37 Ch. D. 312 842 Millard v. Harvey, 34 Beav. 237 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 1167 1378 Miller, Exp., 3 De G. & S. 553 ; 18 L. J. Bky. 9 1096 . v. Collins, 1 Ch. 573 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 353 ; 74 L. T. 122 ; 44 W. E. 466 ; 12 T. L. E. 228 317 v. Cook, L. E. 10 Eq. 641 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 11 ; 22 L. T. 740 ; 18 W. E. 1061 614, 615, 894, 1156 ■ v. Huddlestone, 3 Mac. & G. 513 410 • v. Eace, 1 Burr. 452 1471 v. Eeames, 1 Eoll. Abr. 375 625 Miller's Case, 3 Ch. D. 391 1456 Millet «. Davey, 31 Beav. 470; 9 Jur. N. S. 92; 32 L. J. Ch. 122; 7 L. T. N. S. 551 ; 11 W. E. 176 1205 Milliken v. Kidd, 4 Dr. & War. 274 ; 2 Con. & L. 442 285 Mills, Exp., Ee Tew, L. E. 8 Ch. A. 569 ; 28 L. T. 606 ; 21 W. E. 557. . 506, 507 ■ , Ee, Exp. Official Eeceiver, W. N. (1888) 24 ; 58 L. T. 871 ; 5 Mor. 55 589 v. Banks, 3 B. Wms. 1 415, 425 ■ v. Borthwick, 11 Jur. N. S. 558 747 v. Capel, L. E. 20 Eq. 692 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 674 374 v. Druitt, 20 Beav. 632 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 816 412 v. Eowkes, 5 Bing. N. C. 455 1212, 1213 v _ Fox, 37 Ch. D. 153 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 56 ; 57 L. T. 792 ; 36 W. E. 219 376 v. Fry, G. Coop. 107 953 v. Jennings, 13 Ch. D. 629 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 209 ; 42 L. T. 169 ; 28 W. E. 549 722, 856, 858, 1120 ■ v. Oddy, 6 C. & B. 728 814 Milltown v. French, 4 CI. & Fin. 276 434 Miln v. Walton, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 357 ; 7 Jur. 892 1449, 1489 Milner, Exp., 15 Q. B. D. 605 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 425; 53 L. T. 652; 2 Mor. 190 592 Milner's Settlement, Ee, (1891) 3 Ch. 547 ; 65 L. T. 310 ; 40 W. E. 76 . . 341 Milnes v. Slater, 8 Ves. 306 757 Milton, Lord v. Edgworth, 5 Bro. B. C. 313 130 Miltown v. Trimbleston, 1 Fl. & K. 328 1430 Minchin's Estate, Ee, 2 W. E. 179 1424 Miner v. Baldwin, 1 Sm. & G. 522 412 Minet, Exp., 14 Ves. 190 95 Minister v. Brice, 1 F. & F. 686 218, 219 Minott>. Eaton, 4 L. J. O. S. Ch. 134 , 1023 Minshall v. Lloyd, 2 M. & W. 450 128, 170 Minter v. Carr, (1894) 3 Ch. 498 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 705 ; 71 L. T. 526 860 Minton, Exp., 1 M. & A. 440 ; 3 D. & C. 688 593 v. Ivirwood, L. E. 1 Eq. 449 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 86 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 393 ; 14 W. E. 274 ; 13 L. T. N. S. 751 647 Mirams, Ee, (1891) 1 Q, B. 594 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 397 ; 39 W. E. 464 ; 64 L. T. 117 ; 7 T. L. E. 309 300, 932 Mirehousc v. Bunnell, 1 M. & Sc. 683 169 Misa v. Carrie, 1 App. Cas. 554; 45 L. J. Q. B. 852; 35 L. T. 114; 2 1 W. E. 1049 1389 Mitchell, Ee, 17 Ch. D. 515, C. A 511 Ee, Wavell v. Mitchell, W. N. (1892) 11 ; 65 L. T. 851 1006 TABLE OF CASES. Cxll PAGE Mitchell v. De Vesey, 67 L. T. 53 1279, 1361 ■ v. Ede, 11 A. &E. 888; 3 P. & D. 513; 9 L. J. Q. B. 187 ....1495 v. Homfray, 8 Q. B. D. 587 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 460 ; 45 L. T. 694 ; 29 W. R. 558 608 v. King, 6 C. & P. 237 717 v. Scaife, 4 Camp. 298 ; 16 R. R. 795 1398 Mitcheson v. Oliver, 1 Jur. N. S. 900 ; 25 L. J. Q. B. 39 ; 5 E. & B. 419. . 1509 Mitford v. Fcatherstonehaugh, 2 Ves. Sen. 445 131 ■ v. Mitford, 9 Ves. 87 846, 1313 Mocatta v. Murgatroyd, 1 P. Wms. 393 1315, 1444 Motfett v. Bates, 3 Sin. & G. 490 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 200 766 Mogg v. Baker, 4 M. & W. 348 586 v. Hodges, 2 Ves. Sen. 52 538 Mold v. Wheatcroft, 27 Beav. 510 872 Molesworth v. Robbins, 2 J. & L. 358 1384, 1414 Moller v. Young, 5 E. & B. 7, 755 271 Molony v. Kennedy, 10 Sin. 254 330 Molyneux's Estate, Re, 6 Ir. R. Eq. 411 329 Mondey v. Mondey, 1 V. & B. 223 1052, 1107 Monetary Advance Co. v. Cater, 20 Q. B. D. 785 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. 463 ; 49 L. T. 311 239 Monk v. Whittenbury, 2 B. & Ad. 484 1477 Monkhouse v. Bedford, Corp. of, 17 Ves. 380 57, 1033, 1163 Monro, Exp., Buck, 300 1263, 1266 Montagu, Exp., Re O'Brien, 1 Ch. D. 554 ; 34 L. T. N. S. 197 ; 24 W. R. 309 186, 194, 199 Montagu's Settlement, Re, Derbishire v. Montagu, 45 W. R. 380. See Addenda 354 Montague v. Ratcliffe, 2 Fonb. Eq. 438 820 Monteiiore v. Behrens, L. R. 1 Eq. 171 1283 v. Brown, 7 H. L. C. 241 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 1210 1318 Montesquieu v. Sandys, 1 8 Ves. 313 607 Montgomerie v. Bath, 3 Ves. 560 1006 Montgomery, Re, 1 Moll. 419 952 v. Calland, 14 Sim. 79 ; 8 Jur. 436 1179, 1184, 1209, 1212 • v. Donohoe, 6 Ir. Ch. R. 168 1220 v. Southwell, 2 Con. & L. 263 993 Moodie v. Bannister, 4 Drew. 433 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 881 985 Moody v. Lewin, Cro. Eliz. 127 ; sub nom. Lewin and Moody's Case, 3 Leon. 135 110 v. Matthews, 7 Ves. 174 165 Moore, Exp., 2 M. D. & De G. 616 180 , W. N. (1881) 151 1100 , Re, Official Receiver, 4 Mans. 51 233 v. Anglo-Italian Bank, 10 Ch. D. 530 ; 40 L. T. 620 ; 27 W. R. 652 495, 871, 1081, 1086, 1122, 1128, 1131 ■ v. Bennett, 2 Ch. Ca. 246 1308 v. Culverhouse, 27 Beav. 639 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 115 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 419. . 1244 v. Greg, 2 De O. & S. 304 ; 2 Ph. 717 ; 12 Jur. 952 156 v. Horsfield, W. N. (1882) 43 1034, 1043 v. Jarvis, 2 Coll. 60 1238 v. Macnamara, 2 Ba. & Be. 186 1322 ■ v. Magrath, 1 Cowp. 9 112 ■ v. Mayhow, 1 Ch. Cas. 34 1259 v. Moore, 1 Coll. 54 ; 8 Jur. 139 339, 345 v. , 1 De G. J. & S. 602 769 v. , 29 Beav. 496 850 v. , 60 L. T. 626 ; 37 W. R. 414 1433 v. Morton, W. N. (1886) 196 1007, 1014 v. Painter, 6 Jur. 903 804, 1207 r. Pechell, 22 Beav. 172 962 v. Perry, 1 Jur. N. S. 126 995 v. Ramsden, 7 A. & E. 898 440 ■ v. Rowe, Seton, 1759 736 r. Shelley, 8 App. Cas. 28$ ; 52 L. J. C. P. 35 ; 48 L. T. 918. .797, 799, 800, 905, 962 Cxlii TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Moore v. Woolsey, 4 E. & B. 254 285 • and Bobinson's Banking Co., Exp., Be Armytage, 14 Ch. D. 379 ; 49 L. J. Bky. ; 42 L. T. 443; 28 W. B. 924 122, 206 Moorehouse v. Wolfe, 46 L. T. 374 606 Moores r. Choat, 8 Sim. 50S 156 Moreau v. Bolley, 1 De G. & S. 143 322 Morecock v. Dickens, Amb. 678 1247, 1251 Moreland v. Richardson, 24 Beav. 33 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 1188 872, 1318 Mores v. Conliam, Owen, 123 1468 Morewood v. South Yorkshire Bail., &c. Co., 3 H. & N. 798 248 Morgan, Exp., 1 M. D. & De G. 116 1097 , Exp., 10 Ves. 101 832 , Exp., Be Simpson, 2 Ch. D. 72 ; 45 L. J. Bky. 36 ; 24 W. B. 414 ; 34 L. T. N. S. 329 110 . , Re, 24 Ch. D. 114; 48 L. T. 964; 31 W. R. 948 390 ■ , Re, Billgrem v. Fillgrem, 18 Ch. D. 93 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 834 ; 45 L. T. 183 402, 405, 1238, 1302, 1321 ■ v. Castlegate Steamship Co., (1893) A. C. 38 ; 62 L. J. F. C. 17; 68 L. T. 99 ; 41 W. R. 349 ; 9 T. L. R. 139 1398 . v. Greatrex, W. N. (1884) 2; 19 L. J. N. S. 6 ; 76 L. T. N. S. 167; 28 S.J. 181 1047 v. Higgins, 1 Giff. 270; 5 Jur. N. S. 236 1023, 1143 v. Horseman, 3 Taunt. 241 ; 1 Rose, 354 586 v. Jones, 8 Exc. 620 487, 1158 v. Lewes, 4 Dow, 29 610 . v. Mather, 2 Ves. Jun. 15 ; 2 R. R. 163 1165 . v. Minett, 6 Ch. D. 638 ; 36 L. T. N. S. 948 ; 25 W. R. 744 612 v. Morgan, L. R. 10 Eq. 99 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 493 ; 22 L. T. 595 ; 18 W. R. 744 373 v. Bebrar, 4 Scott, 230 ; 3 Bing. N. C. 457 287 . v. Pike, 14 C. B. 472 ; 27 L. J. C. P. 64 1517 . r. Sandys, Seton, 442 1032 . v. Swansea Urban Sanitary Authority, 9 Ch. D. 582 840 . 0. Thomas, 6 Ch. D. 176 ; 25 W. R. 750 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 775 ; 37 L. T. N. S. 689 850 Morison v. Morison, 4 My. & Cr. 216 939 Morland v. Cook, L. R. 6 Eq. 252 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 825 ; 16 W. R. 777 ; 18 L. T. N. S. 496 1318 r. Isaac, 20 Beav. 389 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 989 288, 289, 292 Morley, Be, Morley v. Haig, (1895) 2 Ch. 738 ; 64 L J. Ch. 727 ; 73 L. T. 151 ; 44 W. B. 140 639 . v. Bird, 3 Ves. 631 ; 4 R. R. 106 845 v. Bridges, 2 Coll. 621; 11 Jur. 706 1176, 1179 . r. Cook, 2 Ha. 106 1314 . ■ v. Elways, 1 Ch. Ca. 107 749, 1047 v. Morley, 5 De G. M. & G. 610 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 1097 967,969,1434 . v . , 25 Beav. 253 999,1006 Mornington v. Keane, 2 De G. & J. 292 51, 1383 Morony v. O'Dea, 1 Ba. & Be. 109 17, 26, 50, 1178, 1201 Morrett*. Paske, 2 Atk. 53 823, 824, 1151, 1152, 1226, 1231, 1232, 1234 v. Western, 2 Vern. 663 1012 Morris, Exp., Be Tyrie, 14 L. T. N. S. 606 ; 14 W. R. 741 1085 v. Delobbel-Flippo, (1892) 2 Ch. 352 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 518 ; 66 L. T. 320 ; 40 W. R. 492 200, 202, 213 . v. Edgington, 3 Taunt. 24 119 . v. Islip, 20 Beav. 654 1211 v. , 23 Beav. 244 1179 ■ v. Livie, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 380 1382 „. Manesty, 7 Q. B. 674 ; 14 L. J. Q. B. 285 ; 9 Jur. 1034. .1279, 1281, 1282, 1361, 1362, 1363 v. Bobinson, 3 B. & C. 196 ; 5 D. & R. 35 1506 . r. Wilford, 2 Show. 47 112 Morrison, Exp., Re Westray, 42 L. T. 158 ; 28 W. R. 524 218 r. Glover, 4 Ex.. 430 ; 19 L. J. Ex. 20 ; 14 L. T. 204 544, 558 r. Parsons, 2 Taunt. 407 271 _ v . Skerne Ironworks Co., 60 L. T. 588 942, 943 TABLE OF CASES. Cxliii TAOE Morrow v. Bush, 1 Cox, 185 754 Mors-le-Blanch v. Wilson, L. R. 8 C. P. 227 ; 42 L. J. C. P. 70 ; 28 L. T. 214 1399 Morse v. Faulkner, 1 Aust. 11 793 v. Tucker, 5 Ha. 88 1174 Morshead's Settled Estates, Re, W. N. (1S93) 180 374, 391 Morten v. Marshall, 9 Jur. N. S. 651 90 Mortgage Insce. Corp., Re, W. N. (1896) 4 1136 r. Pound, 65 L. J. Q. B. 129 83 Mortimer v. Capper, 1 Bro. C. C. 156 613 „. McCallan, 7 M. & W. 20 37 Mortimore v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, 2 H. & C. 838 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 868 ; 33 L. J. Ex. 263 ; 10 L. T. N. S. 654 . .1528, 1529 v . Mortimore, 4 De G. & J. 472 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 558 515 Mortlock, Exp., W. N. (1881) 161 219 Morton v. Woods, L. R. 4 Q. B. 294 ; 38 L. J. Q. B. 81 ; 17 W. R. 414 . . 661 and Hellett, Re, 15 Ch. D. 145 890 Moseley v. Baker, 3 De G. M. & G. 1032, n. ; 1 H. & Tw. 301 ; 18 L. J. N. S. Ch. 457 ; 13 Jur. 817 550 . v. Motteux, 10 M. & W. 533 110 Moss, Exp., 3DeG. & S. 599 ; 13 Jur. 866 277, 282, 1102 , Exp., Re Toward, 14 Q. B. D. 310 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 126 ; 52 L. T. 188 302 , , Re, Levy v. Sewell, 31 Ch. D. 90 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 87 ; 54 L. T. 49 ; 34 W. R. 59 708 v. Gallimore, 1 Doug. 279 658, 672, 796 Mostyn v. Lancaster, 23 Ch. D. 583 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 848 ; 48 L. T. 715 ; 31 W. R. 686 380 Motion v. Mooien, L. R. 14 Eq. 202 ; 43 L. J. Bky. 506 ; 29 L. T. 757. . 695, J 1011 Motteux v. St. Aubyn, 2 W. Bl. 1133 72 Mountford v. Scott, T. & R. 274 60 „. , 3 Madd. 34 1328 Mountfort, Exp., 14 Ves. 606 ; 9 R. R. 359 56, 60, 66, 1079, 109S 1 Exp., 15 Ves. 445 925, 926 Mouys v. Leake, 8 T. R. 411 440, 1474 Mowatt v. Castle Steel and Ironworks Co., 34 Ch. D. 58 ; 5o L. T. 64o. . 474, 478 Mower's Trusts. Re, L. R. 8 Eq. 110 ; 20 L. T. N. S. 838 787, 788 Moxon v Berkeley Building Society, 59 L. J. Ch. 524 ; 62 L. T. 250 .... 788 . v. Sheppard, 24 Q. B. D. 627 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 286 ; 62 L. T. 726 ; 38 W. R. 704 138 7 Moye v. Sparrow, 18 W. R. 400 ; 22 L. T. 154 ; W. N. (1870) 33 460 Muggeridge, Re, Johns. 625 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 192 71 Murr v. Crawford, L. R. 2 Sc. App. 456 86 v. Jolly, 26 Beav. 143 13/o Mulhallon v. Marum, 3 Dr. & War. 317 1205, 1378 Mulkern v. Lord, 4 App. Cas. 182 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 745 ; 40 L. T. 594 ; 26 W. R. 319 5i3 > 5o8 Mullet v. Green, 8 O. & P. 382 181 Mulville v. Munster and Leinster Bank, 27 L. R. Ir. 379 1464 Mumford v. Collier, 25 Q. B. D. 279 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 552 ; 38 W. R. 716 . . 665 . v. Stohwasser, L. R. 18 Eq. 556 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 694 ; 30 L. T. N. S. 859 ; 22 W. R. 33 1237. 1302, 1312 Mundy's Settled Estates, Re, (1891) 1 Ch. 399 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 273 ; 63 L. T. 311 ; 64 L. T. 29 ; 39 W. R. 209 389 Municipal Permanent, &c. Building Society v. Kent, 9 App. Cas. 260 ; o3 Xj. J • ^c» -D • _■'■', oil W • R. 681 558 v. Smith, 22 Q. B. D. 70 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 61 ; 37 W. R. 42 ; 5 T. L. It. 17 688 Munster and Leinster Bank v. France, 24 L. R. Ir. 82 84 Munt r. Glynes, 41 L. J. Ch. 639 ; 20 W. R. 323 331 Mure, Exp., 2 Cox, 63 303, 304 Murphy, Re, 4 Man. & Gr. 635 319, 394 v . Meade, 1 Jo. 620 120o Cxliv TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Murphy v. Taylor, 1 Ir. Ch. 92 20 Murray v. Barlee, 2 My. & K. 220 343 ■ v. McKenzie, L. R. 10 C. P. 625 ; 44 L. J. C. P. 313 ; 32 L. T. 777 ; 23 W. P. 595 248 ■ v. Parker, 19 Beav. 305 385 v. Pinkett, 12 CI. & F. 764 589 v. Scott, 9 App. Cas. 519 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 745 ; 51 L. T. 462; 33 W. R. 173 458, 459, 557 Murtagh v. Tisdall, 1 Flan. & Kel. 20 1247 Musgrove v. Sandeman, 48 L. T. 215 341 Musket v. Cliffe, 2 De G. & Sm. 243 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 269 765 v. Rogers, 5 Bing. N. C. 728 ; 8 Scott, 51 89 Musurus Bev v. Godban, (1894) 2 Q. B. 352 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 621 ; 71 L. T. 51; 42 W. R. 545 975, 988 Mutlow v. Bigg, L. R. 18 Eq. 248 (reversed on other points, 1 Ch. D. 385) 992 v. Mutlow, 4 De G. & J. 539 652 Mutter v. Chauvel, 1 Mer. 493 169 Mutton, Exp., Re Cole, L. R. 14 Eq. 178 ; 41 L. J. Bky. 57 ; 20 W. R. 882 ; 26 L. T. N. S. 916 219 Mutual Aid Perm. Building Society, Re, 30 Ch. D. 434 ; 55 L. J. Ch. Ill ; 53 L. T. 802 ; 34 W. R. 143 438 Mutual Life Assurance Society v. Langley, 32 Ch. D. 460 ; 54 L. T. 326 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 996 ; 32 W. R. 792 1027, 1028, 1256, 1278, 1279 Mutual Loan Fund Assoc, v. Sudlow, 5 C. B. N. S. 449 86 Myers v. Elliott, 16 Q. B. D. 526 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 233 ; 54 L. T. 555 ; 34 W. R. 338 135, 233 v. Perigal, 2 De G. M. & G. 599 ; 17 Jur. 145 540 v. Sari, 3 E. & E. 306 198 v. United Guarantee, &c. Co., 7 De G. M. & G. 112 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 833 1491 Nagle v. Baylor, 3 Dr. & War. 60 1321 Nahmaschinen Fabrik Gesellschaft v. Pickford & Co., W. N. (1888) 140 . . 1462 Nail v. Punter, 5 Sim. 555 348 Nairn v. Majoribanks, 3 Russ. 582 1378 v. Prowse, 6 Ves. 752 ; 6 R. R. 37 1374, 1375 Nangle v. Fingal, Lord, 1 Hog. 142 952 Nanny v. Edwards, 4 Russ. 124 ; 6 L. J. Ch. 20 ; 28 R. R. 24 1032 Napier v. Effingham, 2 P. Wins. 401 737, 1053 Napper v. Allington, Lord, 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. 166 146 Nash, Re, 16 Ch. D. 503 ; 44 L. T. 40 ; 29 W. R. 294 1419 v. Nash, 2 Madd. 133 323 v. Preston, Cro. Car. 190 642 Natal Investment Co., Re, Financial Corp. Claim, L. R. 3 Ch. A. 355 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 362 ; 18 L. T„ 171 ; 16 W. R. 637 474, 485, 486, 879 Re, Nevill's Case, L. R. 6 Ch. A. 43 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 1 ; 23 L. T. 577 ; 19 W. R. 36 85 Natal Land, &c. Co. v. Good, L. R. 2 P. C. 121 ; 5 Moo. P. C. N. S. 132. . 1258 National Bank, Exp., Re General Provident Ass. Co., L. R. 14 Eq. 507 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 823 ; 27 L. T. 433 ; 30 W. R. 939 469, 476 . Bank of Australasia v. United Hand-in-Hand Co., 4 App. Cas. 391 729, 803, 902, 905, 906, 1205, 1209 Bolivian Navig. Co. v. Wilson, 5 App. Cas. 176 ; 43 L. T. 60 . . 490 Deposit Bank, Exp., Re Wills, 26 W. R. 624 249 Guardian Assurance Co., Exp., Re Francis, 10 Ch. D. 408; 27 W. R. 498 ; 40 L. T. 237 187 Insurance Co., Re, 4 De G. F. & J. 78 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 951 1318 Mercantile Bank, Exp., Re Haynes, 15 Ch. D. 42 ; 49 L. J. Bky. 62 ; 43 L. T. 36 ; 28 W. R. 848. .226, 228, 240, 249 Exp., Re Phillips, 16 Ch. D. 104; 50 L. J. Ch. 231 ; 44 L. T. 265 ; 29 W. R. 277. .205, 1103 ■ v. Hampson, 5 Q. B. D. 177 ; 49 L. J. Q. B. 480 ; 28 W. R. 424 .... , 670, 1284 TABLE OF CASES. Cxlv TAGE National Permanent Mutual Benefit Buikling Soc. v. Raper, (1802) 1 Ch. 54 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 73 ; 05 L. T. 668 ; 4 W. R. 73. . 1033, 1042, 1044, 1048 Provincial Bank v. Harle, 6 Q. B. D. 626 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 437 ; 44 L. T. 585 ; 29 W. R. 564 306 Provincial Bank v. Jackson, 33 Ch. D. 1 : 55 L. T. 458; 34 W. R. 597 1345 Provincial Bank of England v. Games, 31 Ch. D. 582 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 576; 54 L. T. 690; 34 W. R. 600 911, 1175, 1191, 1195 Provincial, &c. Society, L. R. 9 Eq. 306 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 250 ; 22 L. T. N. S. 465 ; 18 W. R. 398 1456 Navulshaw v. Brownrigg, 2 De G. M. & G. 441 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 57 ; 10 Jur. 979 1481 Nayler v. Wetherell, 4 Sim. 114 51 Naylor & Spendla's Contract, Re, 34 Ch. D. 217 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 453 ; 56 L. T. 132 ; 35 W. R. 219 390 Neal, Exp., In re Batey, 14 Ch. D. 579 ; 43 L. T. 264 ; 28 W. R. 875 . . 297 v. Att-Gen., Mos. 246 1163 v. Barrett, W. N. (1887) 88 1009 v. Morris, Beat. 597 20 Neame v. Moorsom, L. R. 3 Eq. 91 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 274 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 913 ; 15 W. R. 51 - Ill, 385, 1439 Neate v. Latimer, 4 CI. & F. 570 ; 2 Y. & C. Ex. 257 ; 11 Bli. N. S. 112 . . 815 Neath Building Soc. v. Luce, 43 Ch. D. 158 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 5 ; 61 L. T. 611 ; 38 W. R. 122; 6 T. L. R. 13 162 Neave v. Douglas, 26 L. J. Ch. 756 957 Needham v. Johnson, 15 W. R. 346 214 v. Smith, 4 Russ. 318 ; 6 L. J. Ch. 107 ; 28 R. R. 107 51 Needier v. Deeble, 1 Ch. Ca. 299 1013, 1140 Neesom v. Clarkson, 2 Ha. 163 ; 4 Ha. 97 ; 9 Jur. 82 806, 1207, 1209, 1378 Neeves v. Burrage, 14 Q. B. 504 -Jul Nelson, Exp., Re Hockaday, W. N. (1887) 7 ; 35 W. R. 264 ; 55 L. T. 819 228 1 Hag. 169 ; 6 C. Rob. 227 1501, 1503, 1507, 1509 v. Agnew, I. R. 6 Eq. 232 368 ■ v. Auglo -American Land Mortgage Co., (1897) 1 Ch. 130 ; 75 L. T. 482; 66 L. J. Ch. 112; 45 W. R. 171 501 v. Booth, 3 Jur. 950 349, 824 v. 3 De G. & J. 119 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 28 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 782 . .1209 v . 5 W. R. 722 1144 -v. London Assurance Co., 2 S. & St. 292 1139, 1261 Page, L. R. 7 Eq. 25 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 138 771, 772 Nelthorpe v. Holgate, 1 Coll. 203 131!) Neptune, 3 Hagg. 129 ; 3 Knapp, 94 1381, 1391, 1395 Nesbitt v. Tredenniek, 1 Ba. & Be. 29 ; 12 R. R. 1 164 Nether Stowey Vicarage, Re, L. R. 17 Eq. 156 ; 29 L. T. N. S. 604 ; 22 W. R. 108 385 Nethersole v. Indigent Blind School, L. R. 11 Eq. 1 ; 19 W. R. 174; 40 L. J. Ch. 26 ; 23 L. T. N. S. 723 538 Nettleship, Exp., 2 M. D. & De G. 124 ; 10 L. J. N. S. Bky. 67 ; 5 Jur. 733 60, 504 Neve v. Pennell, 2 H. & M. 170; 33 L. J. Ch. 19 ....857, S59, 862, 1244, 1216 Nevill, Re, Robinson v. Nevill, W. N. (1890) 125 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 511 ; 62 L. T. 864 769, 772 v. Snelling, 15 Ch. D. 679 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 777 : 43 L. T. 244 ; 29 W. R. 375 609, 612, 615, 617, 1156 New Clydach & Iron Co., Re, L. R. 6 Eq. 514 493 New Hamburg, &c. Co., Re, W. N. (1875) 239 ; 20 S. J. 121 ... . 311 New Land Development Assoc, and Gray, Re, (1892) 2 Ch. 138 ; 61 L. J. 495 ; 66 L. T. 694 ; 40 W. R. 551 364 New York Exchange, Re, 39 Ch. D. 415 ; 58 L. T. 915 1123, 1124 New Zealand Banking Co., Re, 39 L. J. Ch. 128 1127 New Zealand, &c. Land Co. v. AVatson, 7 Q. B. D. 374 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 433 ; 44 L. T. 675 ; 29 W. R. 694 1480 Newbery, Exp., 10 L. T. N. S. 661 123 Newberrv v. Colvin, 7 Bing. 190 ; 4 M. & P. 876 ; 1 C. & J. 192 ; 1 Tyrw. 55 ; S. C. in D. P. sub nom. Colvin v, Newberry, 1 CI. & F. 283 .... 1398 VOL. I. — R. h Cxlvi TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Newbould v. Smith, 33 Ch. D. 127 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 788; 55 L. T. 194 ; 34 W. R. 690 979 Newbury v. Marten, 15 Jur. 166 1052, 1054, 1056 Newby v. Cooper, Finch, 379 1152 Newcomb v. Bonham, 1 Vern. 7 12, 19, 707 Newcombe v. Newcombe, Drew. 358 ; 3 Ir. Eq. R. 414 362 Newell v. Radford, L. R. 3 C. P. 52 ; 37 L. J. C. P. 1 ; 17 L. T. 118 ; 16 W. R. 97 88 Newen, Re, Newen v. Barnes, (1894) 2 Ch. 297; 63 L. J. Ch. 763; 70 L. T. 653 ; 43 W. R. 58 ; 58 J. P. 767 812 Newenham v. Pemberton, 17 L. J. Ch. 99 317, 327 Newitt, Exp., Re Garrud, 16 Ch. D. 522 ; 44 L. T. 5 ; 29 W. R. 344 ... . 183, 185, 199 Newland v. Watkin, 9 Bing. 113 ; 1 L. J. N. S. C. P. 177 .440, 441 Newlands v. Paynter, 4 My. & Cr. 408 330, 1349 Newling v. Abbot, Vin. Abr. Account (D. A.) 8, p. 125 ; 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 596 1379 Newlove v. Shrewsbury, 21 Q. B. D. 41 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. 476 ; 36 W. R. 835 195 Newman v. Aiding, 3 Atk. 579 1167 ■ v. Baker, Finch, 38 804 v. Cardinal, 2 F. & F. 840 204 v. Franco, 2 Anst. 519 , , . 623 v. Mdls, 1 Hog. 291 951 ■ r. Newman, 28 Ch. D. 674 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 598 ; 52 L. T. 422 ; 33 W. R. 505 1217, 1268 ■ v. Payne, 4 Bro. C. C. 350 ; 2 Ves. Jun. 199 610, 612 ■ v. Selfe, 33 Beav. 522 1036 v. Wilson, 31 Beav. 34 327, 769 Newmarch, Re, Newmarch v. Storr, 9 Ch. D. 12 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 28 ; 39 L. T. 146 ; 27 W. R. 104 770, 772, 773 Newnham v. Stevenson, 20 L. J. C. P. Ill 77 Newport's Case, Cas. t. Holt, 477 ; Skin. 423 821 Newry Rail. Co. v. Moss, 14 Beav. 64 ; 15 Jur. 437 156, 276, 277 Newsham v. Cray, 2 Atk. 287 736 Newsom v. Thornton, 6 East, 17 1466, 1476 Newstead v. Searles, 1 Atk. 265 1326 Newton v. Aldous, Seton (5th ed.), 1695 1025 v. Anglo -Australian Investment Co., (1895) A. C. 244 ; 64 L. J. P. C. 57 ; 72 L. T. 305 ; 43 W. R. 401 ; 2 Manson, 246 ... . 497 v. Askew, 11 Beav. 446 , 1280, 1362 r. Beck, 3 H. & N. 228 ; 27 L. J. N. S. Ex. 272 , 811 v. Chorlton, 10 Ha. 646 ; 2 Drew. 333 94, 97 ■ v. Conyngham, Lord, 17 L. J. C. P. 28S 1173 . v. Egmont, Earl of, 4 Sim. 574 1008, 1120 r. Grand Junction Rail. Co., 16 M. & W. 142; 16 L. J. Ex. 276. .76, 1172 ■ v. Newton, L. R. 6 Eq. 135 (reversed on another point, L. R. 4 Ch. A. 143) ; 37 L. J. Ch. 705 1238 Newton's Trusts, Re, 23 Ch. D. 181 317 Nicholls, Exp., Re Jones, 22 Ch. D. 782 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 635 ; 48 L. T. 492 ; 31 W. R. 661 302, 1080 ■ v. Howe, 2 Vern. 389 1216, 1217 v. Maynard, 3 Atk. 519 129 ■ v. Rosewarne, 6 C. B. N. S. 480 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 1266 1281, 1363 Nichols v. Nichols, Plow. 477 . . . . 1472 v. Short, 15 Vin. Abr. tit. "Mortgage," 478 730 Nicholson v. Cooper, 3 H. & N. 384 ; 27 L. J. Ex. 393 248 v. Drmy Building Estate Co., 7 Ch. D. 48 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 192 ; 37 L. T. 459 ; 26 W. R. 76 331 ■ v. Hooper, 4 My. & Cr. 179 731, 1470 ■ v. Revill, 4 A. & E. 675 85, 87, 91 ■ ^— v. Tutin, 3 K. & J. 159 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 235 1192 Nieolai Heinrich, 17 Jur. 329 1391 NicoH v. Fenning, 19 Ch. D. 258 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 166 ; 45 L. T. 738 ; 30 W. R. 95 13H Niell V. Morley, 9 Ves. 478 1024 TABLE OF CASES. Cxlvii PAGE Niemann v. Niemann, 43 Ch. D. 198 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 220 ; 62 L. T. 339 ; 38 W. R. 258 958 Niger Merchants' Co. v. Capper, 18 Ch. D. 557, n. ; 25 W. R. 365 1124 Nightingale v. Lawson, 7 Ves. 174 165 Nind v. Nineteenth Century Building Society, (1894) 2 Q. B. 226; 62 L. J. Q. B. 636; 70 L. T. 831 ; 42 W. R. 4S12 ; 58 T. R. 732.... 158, 160 Niobe, 13 P. D. 55 ; 57 L. J. Ad. 33 ; 59 L. T. 257 ; 36 W. 31. 812 ; Asp. 300 1396 Nisbet v. Smith, 2 Bro. C. C. 579 83, 93 Nixon v. Robinson, 2 J. & L. 14 1309 Noakes' Case, 4 Rep. 80 674 Nobbs v. Law Reversionary Interest Soc, (1896) 2 Ch. 830 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 906 ; 75 L. T. 309 655 Noble v. Ward, L. R. 2 Ex. 135 ; 36 L. J. Ex. 91 ; 15 W. R. 520 1401 Noel v. Bewley, 3 Sim. 116 146, 633 v. Henley, Lord, M'Cl. & Y. 302 ; 7 Pri. 241 ; Dan. 211 (reversed on other points snb nam. Noel v. Noel, infra) 382, 758, 760 ■ v. Noel, 12 Pri. 213 ; Dan. 322 ; 26 R. R. 660 757, 764 v. Rochfort, 4 CI. & F. 158 716 V. Ward, 1 Madd. 322 ; 16 R. R. 229 813 Nokes v. Fish, 3 Drew. 735 157 Norbury v. Norbury, 4 Madd. 191 509, 510 Norcutt v. Dodd, Cr. & Ph. 100 ; 10 L. J. N. S. Ch. 296 568, 571 Norfolk Rail. Co. v. Macnamara, 3 Exch. 628 1447, 1448 Norman v. Beaumont, W. N. (1893) 45 1038 Norris,Exp., Re Sadler, 17 Q. B. D. 728; 55 L. J. Q. B. 422; 35 W. R. 19. 1089 • , Re, W. N. (1883) 65 635 v. Aylett, 2 Camp. 329 84 v. Caledonian Insurance Co., L. R. 8 Eq. 127 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 721 ; 17 W. R. 954; 20 L. T. N. S. 939 297, 1380 v. Dudley Stuart, Lord, 16 Beav. 359 1323 v. Le Neve, 3 Atk. 26 1327 v. Wilkinson, 12 Ves. 192 56, 60 v. Wright, 14 Beav. 291 510, 511, 512, 515, 522, 526, 527 Norrish v. Marshall, 5 Madd. 475 304, 820, 1255, 1488 North v. Gurney, 1 J. & H. 509 1399 v. Wakefield, 13 Q. B. 536; 18 L.J. Q. B. 214 85, 91 British Insee. Co. v. Hallett, 7 Jur. N. S. 1263 1257, 1267, 1272 v. Lloyd, 10 Exch. 523 ; 24 L. J. Ex. 14 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 45 82 Carolina Estate Co., Re, W. N. (1889) 53 ; 5 T. L. R. 328 1128 ■ Central Wagon Co. v. Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Rail. Co., 35 Ch. D. 191 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 609 ; 56 L. T. 755 ; 35 W. R. 443 193, 195 London Land Co. v. Jacques, W. N. (1883) 187 ; 49 L. T. 659; 32 W. R. 283 156 Star, Lush. 45 ; 29 L. J. Ad. 73 1394, 1506 ■ ■ Western Bank, Exp., Re Slee, L. R. 15 Eq. 09 ; 42 L. J. Bky. 6 ; 27 L. T. 161 ; 21 W. R. 69 220 v. Poynter, (1895) A. C. 56 ; 64 L. J. P. C. 27 ; 72 L. T. 93 1472 Northcotev. Henrich Bjorn, Owners of, 11 A. C. 270 ; 54 L. J. Ad. 33 ; 52 L. T. 560 ; 33 W. R. 719 ; 5 Asp. 391 1396 Northern Assam Tea Co., Re, L. R. 10 Eq. 458 ; 23 L. T. 639 474, 481 ■ Assurance Co. v. Harrison, W. N. (1889) 74 1017 ■ Counties of England, &c. Co. v. Whipp, 26 Ch. D. 482 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 629 ; 51 L. T. 800 ; 32 W. R. 626 1338, 1344 Norton, Exp., Re Golden, L. R. 16 Eq. 397 ; 21 W. R. 402 582, 588 v. Cooper, 5 De G. M. & G. 728; 25 L. J. Ch. 121.... 1183, 1184, 1204 ■ v. Ellam, 2 M. & W. 461 962, 977 v. Florence, &c. Co., 7 Ch. D. 332 ; 38 L. T. N. S. 377 ; 26 W. R. 123 489, 1128 v. Gover, W. N. (1877) 200 926 ■ r. Relly, 2 Ed. 286 607 v. Turvil, 2 P. Wms. 144 349 Norway, 3 Moo. P. C. N. S. 215 715 cxlviii TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Norwich Case, Dean and Chapter of, 3 Hep. 73b 439 Tarn Co., Re, 22 Beav. 143 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 940 472 Nostra Senora del Carmine, 1 Spink, 303 ; 18 Jur. 730 1503 Notara v. Henderson, L. R. 7 Q. B. 225 ; 41 L. J. Q. B. 158 ; 26 L. T. 442 ; 20 W. R. 442 273, 274 Notlev v . Palmer, 11 Jur. N. S. 968 435 Nott v. Hill, 2 Ch. Ca. 121 615 Nottage v. Prince, 2 Giff. 246 607 Nowell, Re, 9 Jur. N. S. 788 1280, 1361 Nov v. Ellis, 2 Ch. Ca. 220 844 Noyes v. Patterson, (1894) 3 Ch. 267 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 748 ; 71 L. T. 228 . . 1317 v. Pollock, 30 Ch. D. 336; 55 L.J. Ch. 54; 53 L. T. 30; 33 W. R. 787 1145, 1201 v , 32 Ch. D. 53 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 513 ; 54 L. T. 473 ; 34 W. R. 383 806 Noys v. Mordaunt, 2 Vern. 581 ; Gilb.Rep. in Ch. 2 ; Prec. in Ch. 265 . . 844 Nugent and Riley's Contract, Re, 49 L. T. 132 ; W. N. (1883) 147 691 v. Gifford, 1 Atk. 463 ; 399, 402, 405 Nunn, Exp., 1 Deac. 393 1096 v . AVilsmore, 8 T. R. 528 ; 5 R. R. 434 567 Nuovra Loanese, 17 Jur. 263 1505, 1514 Nurse, Re, Exp. Eoxley, L. R. 3 Ch. A. 515 ; 16 W. R. 831 ; 18 L. T. N. S. 832 578, 580 Nymph, Swab. 86 1390, 1391 Oades v. Woodward, 2 Ld. Raym. 150 ; 1 Salk. 87 70 Oak Pits Colliery Co., Re Eyton's Claim, 21 Ch. D. 322; 51 L. J. Ch. 768 ; 47 L. T. 7 ; 30 W. R. 759 1126 Oakelev v. Pasheller, 4 CI. & Fin. 207 ; 10 Bli. N. S. 548 79, 83 Oakes.Exp., 2 M. D. & De G. 234 ; 10 L. J. N. S. Bky. 6 ; 5 Jur. 757. . 58 Obee r. Bishop, 1 De G. F. & J. 137 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 132 992 O'Brien, Re, 10 Ir. Com. Law Rep. App. xxxiii 242 v. Lewis, 4 Giff. 396 1386 v. Mahon, 2 Dr. & War. 306 1201 O'Byrne's Estate, Re, 15 L. R. Ir. 373 1247 Ocean, 2 W. Rob. Adni. 368 ; 9 Jur. 381 1396 2 W. Rob. Adm. 429 1503 Ocean Queen, 2 W. Rob. Adm. 457 1396 Oceanic Steam, &c. Co. v. Sutherberry, 16 Ch. D. 236 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 308; 43 L. T. 143 ; 29 W. R. 113 405 Ockenden, Exp., 1 Atk. 236 1459, 1467 Ockleston v. Heap, 1 De G. & S. 640 890 O'Connell v. Cummins, 2 Ir. Eq. R. 251 27 v. O'Callaghan, 15 Ir. Ch. R. 31 806 Odell, Exp., Re Walden, 10 Ch. D. 76 ; 48 L. J. Bky. 1 ; 27 W. R. 274 ; 39 L. T. 333 195, 198, 252 O'Donohoe's Estate, Re, Ir. R. 10 Eq. 221 553 O'Dowel v. Browne, 1 Ba. & Be. 262 ; 12 R. R. 31 1167 O'Dwyer, Re, 19 L. R. Ir. 19 230 Offen v. Harman, 29 L. J. Ch. 307 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 487 892 Official Manager of the Athenaeum Life Ass. Soc. v. Pooley, 3 De G. & J. 294 474 Receiver, Exp., Re Morritt, 18 Q. B. D. 222 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 139 ; 56L.T. 42; 33 W. R. 277 221,236,237 Ogden v. Battams, 1 Jur. N. S. 791 20, 996, 1145, 1193 Ogg v. Shuter, L. R. 10 C. P. 159 ; 44 L. J. C. P. 161 ; 32 L. T. 114 ; 23 W. R. 319 (reversed on other points, 1 C. P. D. 47) ; 45 L. J. C. P. 44 ; 33 L. T. 492 ; 24 W. R. 100 586 Ogilvie v. Jeaffreson, 2 Giff. 353 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 970 821, 1336 Ogle, Exp., Re Pilling, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 711 ; 42 L. J. Bky. 99; 21 W. R. 938 1082 v. Knipe. L. R. 8 Eq. 434 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 692 ; 20 L. T. N. S. 867 ; 17 W. R. 1090 836, 849 . . r. Storey, 4 B. & Ad. 735 ; 1 N. & M. 474 ; 2 L. J. N. S. K. B. 810. 1413 TABLE OF CASES. Cxlix PAGE O'Gorman, Re, 25 L. R. Ir. 93 1422 Ohrley v. Jenkins, 1 De G. & S. 543 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 22 1188, 1190 Okeclen v. Okeden, 1 Atk. 552 433 Okell v. Eaton, 31 L. T. N. S. 330 502 O'Kelly v. Culverhouse, W. N. (1887) 3G 926, 1021 Olathe Silver Mining Co., Re, 27 Ch. D. 278 ; 33 W. R. 12 . .486, 879, 1123, 1124 Oldaker v. Petford, 2 L. J. Ch. 47 1054 Oldham v. Stringer, W. N. (1884) 235 ; 51 L. T. 895 ; 33 W. R. 251 . . 1018 Oldrey v. Union Works, Limited, W. N. (1895) 77 ; 72 L. T. 627 . . 1001, 1021 Olive, Re, Olive v. Westerman, 34 Ch. D. 70 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 75 ; 55 L. T. 83 519, 526, 527, 529 Oliver, Exp., 4 De G. & J. 354 592 v. Lowther, 28 W. R. 381 932 v. Oliver, L. R. 11 Eq. 506 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 189 ; 24 L. T. 350 ; 19 W. R. 432 850 v. Woodroffe, 4 M. & W. 650 ; 7 Dowl. 166 72, 73, 74, 77 Olivier, Lush. 484 ; 31 L. J. Ad. 137 ; 6 L. T. 259 ; 1 M. L. C. 214 .... 1505 Olliver v. Iving, 8 De G. M. & G. 110 173, 574 Ommaney, Exp., 10 Sim. 298 1186, 1430 O'Neal v. Mead, 1 P. Wms. 693 785 O'Neill v. City Finance Co., 17 Q. B. D. 234 ; 55 L. T. 408 ; 34 W. R. 505 225 Only v. Walker, 3 Atk. 407 1305 Onslow, Re, Plowden v. Gayford, 39 Ch. D. 622 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 340 ; 59 L. T. 308 ; 36 W. R. 883 336 v. Currie, 2 Madd. 330 155 Onslow's Trusts, Re, L. R. 20 Eq. 677 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 628 1283 Onward, L. R. 4 A. & E. 38 ; 42 L. J. Ad. 61 ; 28 L. T. 204 ; 21 W. R. 601; 1 Asp. 540 1514 Onward Building Society v. Smithson, (1893) 1 Ch. 1 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 138 ; 68 L. T. 125 ; 48 W. R. 53 Ill Opera Limited, Re, (1891), 3 Ch. 260; 60 L. J. Ch. 839; 65 L. T. 271 ; 39 W. R. 705 ; 8 T. L. R. 655 209, 496 Orhy v. Trigg, 9 Mod. 2 ; 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 599 15 Orchis, 15 P. D. 38 ; 59 L. J. P. 31 ; 62 L. T. 407 ; 38 W. R. 472. . . .223, 267 Ord, Exp. W. N. (1881) 30 226 v. Noel, 5 Madd. 438 ; 21 R. R. 328 882 v. Smith, Sel. Ca. in Ch. 9 ; 3 Eq. Cas. Ab. 600 747, 749, 1071 v. White, 2 Beav. 357 1488 Orde v. Heming, 1 Vera. 418 29, 744 O'Reilly v. Fetherstone, 4 Bli. N. S. 161 165 Orelia, 3 Hagg. 75 1504 Orford, Earl of v. Lord Albemarle, 17 L. J. Ch. 396 425 Orienta, Elliot v. The Orienta (owners), (1895) P. 49 ; 64 L. J. P. 32 ; 71 L. T. 711 1397 Oriental, 7 Moo. P. C. 398 ; 3 W. Rob. 243 ; 14 Jur. 366 1505, 1507 Banking Co. v. Coleman, 3 Giff . 11 580 ■ Fin. Corp. v. Overend, Gumey & Co., L. R. 7 Ch. A. 142 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 332 ; 25 L. T. 813 ; 20 W. R. 253 83, 1448 Orm v. Fisher, 5 T. L. R. 504 239 Orme v. Wright, 3 Jur. 19 906, 909 v. Young, 4 Camp. 336 1528 Ormiston, Exp., 24 L. T. N. S. 197 1076 Ormsby, Re, 1 Ba. & Be. 189 ; 12 R. R. 13 957 O'Rorke v. Bolingbroke, 2 App. Cas. 814 ; 26 W. R. 239 . .608, 614, 616, 1156 Orr v. Dickenson, John. 1 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 672 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 516 258 v. Newton, 2 Cox, 274 512, 530 Orrett, Exp., 3 M. & A. 153 57 Ortigosa v. Brown, 47 L. J. Ch. 168 f 1300 Osborn v. Lea, 9 Mod. 96 1296 Osborn's Mortgage Trusts, Re, L. R. 12 Eq. 392 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 706 ; 25 L. T. N. S. 151 1422 Osborne, Exp., Re Goldsmith, L. R. 10 Ch. A. 41 ; 44 L.J. Bky. 1 ; 31 L. T. 366 ; 23 W. R. 49 553 ■ toRowlett, 13 Ch. D. 774; 49 L. J. Ch. 310 890 cl TABLE OF CASES. PAGE O'Shea's Settlement, Re, Courage v. O'Shea, (1895) 1 Ch. 325 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 263; 71 L. T. 827 ; 43 W. R. 232.. 1283 Osmanli, 3 W. Rob. 198 ; 14 Jur. 93 ; N. of C. 322 1500, 1501, 1506 Oswald v. Thompson, 2 Exch. 215 574 Otter v. Lord Vaux, 6 De G. M. & G. 638 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 169 907, 1444 Otway-Cave v. Otway, L. R. 2 Eq. 725 432 Overend, Gurney & Co. v. Oriental, &c. Co., L. R. 7 H. L. 348 ; 31 L. T. N. S. "322 79, 84 Owen, Re, (1894) 3 Ch. 220 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 749 ; 74 L. T. 181 ; 43 W. R. 55 6, 13 v. Homan, 4 H. L. C. 997 ; 17 Jur. 861 82,85,943 v. , 3 Mac. &G.407; 15 Jur. 339; 20 L. J. N. S.Ch. 314. .477, 1448 v. Knight, 5 Sc. 307 1341 v. Nickson, 7 Jur. N. S. 497 815 v. Owen, 3H. & C. 88 147 v. Richmond, W. N. (1885) 29 1161 v. Roberts, 57 L. T. 81 459 v. Williams, Amb. 734 164 Owen and Co. v. Cronk, (1895) 1 Q. B. 265 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 288 ; 2 Man. 115 479, 922, 924 Owens v. Dickenson, Cr. & Ph. 53 343 Oxenham v. Ellis, 18 Beav. 593 1140, 1201, 1204 v. Esdaile, 2 Y. & J. 493 1376 Oxford, Earl of v. Lady Rodney, 14 Ves. 417 762, 763 and Canterbury Hall Co., Re, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 433 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 775 ; 22 L. T. N. S. 226 ; 18 W. R. 793 1132 Oxwith v. Plummer, 2 Vern. 636 149, 542, 793, 1320 Pacific, Br. & L. 243; 33 L. J. Ad. 120; 10 Jur. N. S. 1110; 10 L. T. 541 ; 2 M. L. C. 21 , 1391, 1395, 1397 Packer v. Wyndham, Prec. Ch. 412 846 Packman and Moss, Re, 1 Ch. D. 214 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 54 ; 24 W. R. 170 ; 34 L. T. N. S. 110 834 Paddon v. Bartlett, 2 A. & E. 9 ; 2 N. & M. 1 1516 v. Richardson, 7 De G. M. & G. 563 521 Padwick v. Stanley, 9 Ha. 627 89, 93 Page, Re, Jones v. Morgan, (1893) 1 Ch. 304 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 592 ; 41 W. R. 357 914 Re (No. 2), 32 Beav. 485 561 v. Adam, 4 Beav. 269 , 409, 422 v. Broom, 4 Cl. & E. 437 ; 4 Russ. 224 ; 2 R. & M. 214 131, 1167 V. Cooper, 16 Beav. 396 425, 870 ■ v. International Agency, &c. Trust, W. N. (1893) 32 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 610 ; 68 L. T. 435 497 ■ v. Lin wood, 4 Cl. & F. 399 1 167, 1210 v. Newman, 9 B. & Cr. 378 1159 Paget v. Ede, L. R. 18 Eq. 118 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 571 ; 22 W. R. 625 ; 30 L. T. N. S. 228 1001 v. Foley, 3 Sc. 120 ; 2 Bing. N. C. 679 171, 989 Paget's Settled Estates, Re, 30 Ch. D. 161 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 42 ; 53 L. T. 90; 33 W. R. 898 395 Paine, Ex parte, 3 De G. J. & S. 458 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 751 1056 v. Edwards, 8 Jur. N. S. 1201 876 v. Matthews, 53 L. T. 872 202 Paley v. Field, 12 Ves. 435 ; 8 R. R. 349 102 Palk v. Lord Clinton, 12 Ves. 48 ; 8 R. R. 283 426, 693, 723, 724, 870, 1008 Palliser v. Gurney, 19 Q. B. D. 519 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 546 ; 35 "W. R. 760 ; 51 J. P. 520 346 ■ r. Dale, (1897) 1 Q. B. 257; 66 L. J. Q. B. 236; 76 L. T. 14; 45 W. R. 291 566 Palmer, Ex parte, Re Matthews, W. N. (1 882) 130 586 ■ v. Bate, 2 Br. & B. 673 ; 6 Moo. 28 ; 23 R. R. 535 299, 932 v. Carlisle, Earl of, 1 S. & St. 423 995, 1003 ■ v. Ekins, 2 Ld. Raym. 1553 Ill TABLE OF CASES. cli PAGE Palmer v. Graves, 1 Keen, 545 409 . v. Hendrie, 27 Beav. 319 872, 963, 1003, 1049 . v.Jackson, 5 Bro. P. C. 281 749, 750 . v . Locke, 18 Cb. D. 381 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 124 ; 45 L. T. 229 ; 30 W. R. 419 1255, 1265, 1280, 1324 v. Wheeler, 2 Ba. & Be. 18 ; 12 R. R. 60 127 . p. Wright, 10 Beav. 234 932 Palmer's Shipbuilding Co. v. Chaytor, L. R. 4 Q. B. 209 ; 19 L. T. 638 ; 17 W. R. 401 ; 10 B. & S. 177 207 Palmes v. Danby, Prec. Ch. 137 69 ' > 698 Panama, L. R. 3 C. P. 199 ; 30 L. J. Ad. 37 ; 23 L. T. 12 ; 18 W. R. 101 1 ; 6 Moo. P. C.N. S. 484 1505 &c. Co., Re, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 318 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 482 ; 18W.R.441; 22 L T N S 424 477, 490, 494,496,878, 879, 1130 Pannell, Ex parte, Re England, 6 Ch. D. 335 ; 37 L. T. N. S. 450. . . .999, 1078 v. Hurley, 2 Coll. 241 1011 Paragon Co., Re, 8 Jur. N. S. 11 1279, 1360 Pardoe r. Price, 16 M. & W. 451 ; 16 L. J. Ex. 192 466, 924 Pares, Re, 2 Ch. D. 61 ; 24 W. R. 619 108, 363 Pargeter v. Harris, 7 Q. B. 708 ; 10 Jur. 260 660, 683, 684 Paris, (1896) P. 77 ; 65 L. J. P. 42 ; 73 L. T. 736 1388 Parish v. Poole, 53 L. T. 35 48, 1492 Parker, Re, M. & Bli. 394 • • 1099 , - Morgan v. Hill, (1894) 3 Ch. 400 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 6 ; 71 L. T. 557; 43 W. R. 1 103 , Wignall v. Park, (1891) 1 Ch. 682 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 195 ; 7 T. L. R. 200 ; 64 L. T. 257 ; 39 W. R. 346 515, 540 • v. Alcock, Yo. 361 ( >'-4 v. Blythmore, 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 79, pi. 1 I 303 v . Brooke, 9 Ves. 583 ; 7 R. R. 299 1309 . v . Butcher, L. R. 3 Eq. 762 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 552 552, 553, 1196 V. Calcraft, 6 Madd. 11 798, 803 . ■ v. Carter, 4 Ha. 409 604 v . Clarke, 30 Beav. 54 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 1267 ; 9 W. R. 877 821 ■ v. Dunn, 8 Beav. 497 945, 9o3 . v. Fearnley, 2 S. & St. 592 410 . v. Fuller, 1 R. & My. 656 1014 v. Harvey, 4 Bro. P. C. 604 51 v. Hills, 7 Jur. N. S. 833 700 v. Housefield, 2 M. & K. 419 1027 v. Lechmere, 12 Ch. D. 256 ; 28 W. R. 48 323 v. Pocock, 30 L. T. N. S. 458 950 . v. Watkins, 2 John. 133 1114, H96 Parkes v. Bott, 9 Sim. 388 293 v. White, 11 Ves. 209 3 ' 29 Parkhurst v. Smith, Willes, 327 1, ] 2 Parkington v. Barrow, Prec. Ch. 216 '30 Parkinson, Re, 13 L. T. N. S. 26 52 . v. Chambers, 1 K. & J. 72 • • • • < 33 v. Hanbury, L. R. 2 H. L. 1 ; 1 Dr. & Sm. 143 ; 2 De G. J. & g 152 806,895,899,906,1145 v. Wainwrightj wVnV (1895')' 63 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 493 ; 72 L. T. 485; 43 W. R. 420 l° 2o > n . 19 Parmeter v. Todhunter, 1 Camp. 541 1509, lolO Parnell v. Tyler, 2 L. J. N. S. Ch. 195 9 06 Parr, Exp., 4 D. & C. 426 504 , Exp., 18 Ves. 55; 1 Rose, 76 ; 11 R. R. 149 1082 v. Applebee, 7 Do G. M. & G. 585 1274 v. Lovegrove, 4 Drew. 170 1 3 17 Parrott, Re, Exp. Whittaker, 63 L. T. 777 103 Parry v. Great Ship Co., 4 B. & S. 556 8/1, 140o v . Wright, 5 Russ. 142 ; 1 L. J. Ch. 101 ; 24 R. R. 191 1436, 144L5 Parsons, Exp., Re Townsend, 16 Q. B. D. 532; 55 L. J. Q. B. 137; 53 L. T. 897 ; 34 W. R. 329 202, 229 . , Re, Exp. Furber, (1893) 2 Q. B. 122; 62 L. J. Q. B. 365; 68 L. T. 767, 777 ; 41 W. R. 468 ; 9 T. L. R. 285, 375 251 clii TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Parsons, Ee, Stockley v. Parsons, 45 Ch. D. 51 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 666 ; 62 L. T. 929 ; 38 W. R. 712 337 v. Brand, 25 Q. B. D. 110 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 189 ; 62 L. T. 479 ; 38 W. R. 388 ; 6 T. L. R. 226 240 v. G-roome, 4 Beav. 521 1277 v. Hind, 14 W. R. 860 123 v. Middleton, 6 Ha. 261 1524, 1525 ■ v. Spooner, 5 Ha. Ill 610 Parteriche v. Powlet, 2 Atk. 384 351 Partington, Re, Partington v. Allen, 57 L. T. 654 527 — v. Woodcock, 5 N. & M. 672 679, 680 Partridge v. Bank of England, 9 Q. B. 396 1490 v. Bere, 5 B. & Aid. 604 658, 659, 1104 Pasley v. Freeman, 3 T. R. 51 1294 Patch v. "Ward, 4 G-iff. 96 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 373 ; 11 W. R. 135 ; L. R. 3 Ch. A. 203 ; 16 W. R. 441 ; 18 L. T. N. S. 134 . .631, 1015, 1050, 1051 v. Wild, 30 Beav. 99 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 1181 ; 5 L. T. N. S. 14 ; 9 W. R. 844 1210 Patching v. Bull, 30 W. R. 244 634 Patent File Co., Re, Exp. Birmingham Banking Co., L. R. 6 Ch. A. 83 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 190 467, 469, 599 Patent Paper Manufacturing Co., Re, Addison's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. 294 ; 22 L. T. 692 ; 18 W. R. 365 276 Paterson v. Powell, 9 Bing. 320 287 v. Scott, 1 De G. M. & G. 531 ; 16 Jur. 89S 786 v. Task, 2 Stra. 1178 1476 Patey v. Flint, 48 L. J. Ch. 696 1024, 1042 Patman r. Harland, 17 Ch. D. 353 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 642 ; 44 L. T. 729 ; 29 W. R. 709 1311, 1316 Patten v. Bond, 37 W. R. 373; 60 L. T. 583 1445, 1451 Patton v. Randall, 1 J. & W. 189 ; 17 Jur. Pt. 2, p. 260 418 Paul v. Birch, 2 Atk. 621 1398, 1482 ■ v. Jones, 1 T. R. 599 103 ■ r. Paul, 20 Ch. D. 742 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 839 ; 47 L. T. 210 ; 30 W. R. 801 348 Pawlett, Exp., 1 Ph. 570 510, 515 v. Att.-Gen., 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. 315; Hardr. 465 642, 1013 Paxton, Re, Exp. Pope, 60 L. T. 428 224 Payler v. Homers'ham, 4 M. & S. 432 112 Payne, Exp., Re Coton, 56 L. T. 571 ; 35 W. R. 476 ; 4 Mor. 90 224, 234 ■ , Exp., Re Cross, 11 Ch. D. 539 ; 27 W. R. 808 ; 40 L. T. 563 204, 242, 580 ■ v. Cales, 38 L. T. 355 1283 v. Compton, 2 Y. & C. Ex. 457 1010, 1303, 1338 v. Fern, 6 Q. B. D. 620 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 446 ; 29 W. R. 441 . . 188, 225 Paynter v. Carew, Kay, App. xxxvi ; 18 Jur. 417 875, 878 Peace v. Brookes, (1895) 2 Q. B. 451 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 747 ; 72 L. T. 798 ; 2 Mans. 491 235 v. Haines, 11 Ha. 151 ; 17 Jur. 1091 1402 Peace & Waller, Re, 24 Ch. D. 405 ; 49 L. T. 637 ; 31 W. R. 899 .... 345, 932 Peacock, Exp. , 2 Gl. & J. 27 1082 v. Burt, 4 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 33 1223, 1224, 1237, 1300 v. Dickerson, 2 C. & P. 50, n 717 v. Eastland, L. R. 10 Eq. 17 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 534 ; 22 L. T. N. S. 706 ; 18 W. R. 856 368 v. Evans, 16 Ves. 512 ; 10 R. R. 218 609 v. Monk, 2 Ves. Sen. 191 332 Peake, Exp., 1 Madd. 346 ; 16 R. R. 233 1374 , Exp., Re Brodie, L. R. 2 Ch. A. 453 ; 15 W. R. 702 ; 16 L. T. N. S. 511 1086 v. Gibbon, 2 R. & My. 354 1011, 1181 Peakman v. Harrison, L. R. 14 Eq. 484 597 Pearce v. Morris, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 227 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 342 ; 21 L. T. N. S. 190 ; 19 W. R. 196 13, 693, 694, 695, 997, 1410 ■ r. Newlyn, 3 Madd. 186 1321 V. Watkins, 5 De G. & S. 317 1180 TABLE OF CASES. cliii PAGE Pearl v. Deacon, 1 De G. & J. 461 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 761 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 1187. . 87 Pears v. Laing, L. R. 12 Eq. 41 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 225 ; 24 L. T. 19 ; 19 W. R. 653 978 v. Weightman, 2 Jur. N. S. 586 1431, 1437 Pearsall v. Summersett, 4 Taunt. 593 92, 112 Pearse, Exp., 1 Buck, 525 ; 2 D. & C. 464 61, 62, 588 v. Hewitt, 7 Sim. 471 630 Pearson, Re, 51 L. T. 692 526 r. Amicable Assurance Office, 27 Beav. 229 294 v. Benson, 28 Beav. 598 610, 1 144 v. Helliwell, L. R. 18 Eq. 411 ; 22 W. R. 839 ; 31 L. T. N. S. 159 413, 414 Pease v. Fletcher, 1 Ch. D. 273 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 265 ; 33 L. T. 644; 24 W. It. 158 925 v. Hirst, 10 B. & C. 122 100 v. Jackson, L. R. 3 Ch. A. 576 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 725 ; 17 W. R. 1 . . 561, 1218, 1301 v. "Wells, 8 Dowl. 626 73 Peckham v. Taylor, 31 Beav. 254 194 Pedder, Exp., 3 D. & C. 622 ; 1 M. & A. 327 1095, 1101 Peek v. Gurney, L. R. 6 H. L. 377 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 19 ; 22 W. R. 29 742 v. Larsen, L. R. 12 Eq. 378 ; 10 L. J. Ch. 763; 25 L. T. 580 ; 19 W. R. 1045 1398 v. Trinsmaran Coll. Co., 2 Ch. D. 115 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 281 ; 24 W. R. 361 931, 936, 937 Peel, Exp., 6 Ves. 604 1452 Peers v. Baldwin, 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 611 68, 1155 ■ v. Ceeley, 15 Beav. 209 , 119G ■ ■ v. Sneyd, 17 Beav. 151 1167 Pegg v. Wisden, 16 Beav. 239 20 Pegge v. Neath District Tramways Co., (1895) 2 Ch. 508; 64 L. J. Ch. 737 ; 73 L. T. 25 ; 44 W. R. 72 ; 2 Mans. 474 935 Pelham v. Duchess of Newcastle, 3 Swanst. 290, n 948 Pell v. De Winton, 2 De G. & J. 19 36, 525, 712 v. Stephens, 2 My. & K. 334 869 Pellas v. Neptune Marine Insurance Co., 4 C. P. D. 139 ; 48 L. J. C P 370 ; 40 L. T. 428 ; 27 W. R. 679 305 Pelly v. Bascombe, 4 Giff . 79 ; 13 W. R. 306 1069 r. Wathen, 7 Ha. 351 ; 1 De G. M. & G. 16 ; 16 Jur. 47 8, 57, 1032, 1196, 1205, 1384, 1414 Pemberton v. Oakes, 4 Russ. 154 100, 1212 ■ v. Topham, 1 Beav. 316 1106 Pembrooke v. Friend, 1 J. & H. 132 768, 772 Pendlebury v. Walker, 4 Y. & C. Ex. 424 '.'. 102 Pendleton v. Rooth, 1 De G. F. & J. 81 ' 750 Penfold, Exp., 4 De G. & S. 282 1092, 1103, 1130 Penn v. Baltimore, 1 Ves. Sen. 444 479, 1001 Pennell, Exp., 2 M. D. & De G. 273 1449 v. Attenborough, 4 Q. B. 868 1474 ■ v. Dawson, 18 C. B. 355 569, 581, 583, 594 v. Dysart, 25 Beav. 452 813 ■ v. Fox, 1 F. & F. 617 182 v. Reynolds, 11 C. B. N. S. 709 581, 583, 594 ■ ■ v. Stephens, 7 C. B. 987 1326 Penner v. Jemmett, Fonb. Eq. Vol. I. (5th ed.) p. 166 ; 2 Bro. C. C. 650, n 1334, 1337 Penny v. Allen, 7 De G. M. & G. 426 373 v. Foy, 8 B. & C. 11 94 v. Todd, W. N. (1878) 71 ; 26 W. R. 502 955 ■ v. Watts, 1 Mac. & G. 150 1310, 1314 v. ,2 Ph. 149 1107 Penrhyn, Lord v. Hughes, 5 Ves. 106 640, 612, 795, 994, 1160, 1201 Pentland v. Stokes, 2 Ba. & Be. 75 1221, 1247, 1249, 1251, 1252 Penton v. Robart, 2 East, 90 125 Pcnwarden v. Roberts, 9 Q. B. D. 137 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 312 ; 46 L. T. 161 ; 30 AV. R. 427 , 241 cliv TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Peppin v. Cooper, 2 B. & A. 431 92 Percival v. Dunn, 29 Ch. D. 128 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 570 ; 52 L. T. 320 . .1491, 1492 Perfect v. Lane, 3 De G-. P. & J. 369 616 Perkin v. Stafford, 10 Sim. 562 1004 Perkins v. Bradley, 1 Ha. 233 1182 ■ v. Cooke, 2 J. & H. 393 ; 8 Jur. N". S. 1150 412 v. Deptford Pier Co., 13 Sirn. 277 466, 491, 492, 493 ■ v. Prichard, 7 Jur. 29 492 ■ v. Walker, 1 Vern. 97 646, 701 Perks v. Mylrea, W. N. (1884) 64 ; 19 L. T. N. S. 172 345, 932 Perkvns v. Baynton, 2 P. Wins. 664, n 761 Perla, Swab. 353 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 741 1396 Perpetual Investment Building Society v. Gillespie, W. N. (1882) 4 1182 Perry, Exp., 3 M. D. & De G. 252 56 ■ v. Barker, 8 Ves. 527 ; 9 R. R. 171 . . . . 872 , v . , 13 Ves. 198; 2 Fonb. 277 963, 1016, 1049 r. Holl, 2 De G. F. & J. 38 1326, 1329 ■ v. Keane, 6 L. J. N. S. Ch. 67 995 ■ v. Marston, 2 Bro. C. C. 397 16, 748 v. Meadowcroft, 4 Beav. 197 ; 10 Beav. 141 ; 12 L. J. N. S. Ch. 104 20, 25, 692, 996 v. Oriental Hotels Co., L. R. 5 Ch. A. 420 ; 23 L. T. 525 ; 18 W. R. 779 941, 1002 v. Walker, 24 L. J. Ch. 319 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 746 ; 3 Eq. R. 720 804 0. . f i Y. & C. C. C. 672 ; 6 Jur. 846 870 Perry-Herrick v. Attwood, 2 De G. & J. 21 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 101 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 121 572, 602, 1308, 1334, 1341 Peruvian Railways Co. v. Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Co., L. R. 2 Ch. A. 617 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 864 ; 15 W. R. 1002 468 Petch v. Tutin, 15 M. & W. 110 208 Peter v. Nicolls, L. R. 1 1 Eq. 391 ; 24 L. T. 381 ; 19 W. R. 618 605 v. Rich, 1 Rep. in Ch. 34, 151 101 v. Russell, 2 Vern. 726 1294, 1337, 1341 Peters v. Lewes and East Grinstead Rail. Co., 18 Ch. D. 429 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 839 ; 45 L. T. 234 ; 29 W. R. 875 329, 528 Peto v. Hammond, 29 Beav. 91 1010 v. ■ , 30 Beav. 495; 8 Jur. N. S. 550; 31 L. J. Ch. 354.. 1309, 1339 Petre v. Duncombe, 2 Lown. Max. & Poll. Pr. C. 107 104 v. , 7 Ha. 24 377, 378, 794 Petrie v. Petrie, 1 Drew. 397 1072 Pettat v. Ellis, 9 Ves. 563 1154 Petty v. Cooke, L. R. 6 Q. B. 790 ; 40 L. J. Q. B. 281 ; 25 L. T. 90 ; 19 W. R. 1112 85 v. Styward, 1 Rep. in Ch. 31 ; 1 Eq. Ca. 290, pi. 1 845 Peyton v. Ayliffe, 2 Vern. 312 643 Peyton's Settlement Trusts, Re, L. R. 7 Eq. 463 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 477 ; 20 L. T. N. S. 728 517 Pharmaceutical Society v. London and Provincial Supply Association, 5 App. Cas. 857 ; 49 L. J. Q. B. 736 ; 43 L. T. 389 ; 28 W. R. 957. . 554 Phayre v. Peree, 3 Dow, 116; 15 R. R. 28 1381 Pheasant v. Benson, 14 East, 234 166 Phelps, Stokes & Co. v. Comber, 29 Ch. D. 813 : 54 L. J. Ch. 1017; 52 L. T. 873 ; 33 W. R. 829 1498 Phener. Gillan, 5 Ha. 1 157, 631, 794, 1196, 1197 Philby v. Hazle, 29 L. J. C. P. 370 1144 Phillipo v. Munnings, 2 My. & Cr. 309 512, 992 Phillips' Insurance, Re, 23 Ch. D. 235 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 441 ; 48 L. T. 81 ; 31 W. R. 511 301 , Exp., 19 Ves. 118 ; 12 R. R. 151 355, 360, 510, 1442 . , Exp., Re Harvey, 36 W. R. 567 592 . , Re, L. R. 4 Ch. A. 629 ; 17 W. R, 904 1429 . v. Burt, 2 F. & F. 862 246 v. Davies, 7 Jur. 52 1181, 1189 v. Dickson, 8 C. B. N. S. 391 ; 29 L. J. C. P. 223 95, 96 TABLE OF CASES. civ PAGE Phillips v. Eastwood, LI. & G. t. Sug. 270 849 v. Evans, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 647 815 ■ v. Fordyce, 2 Chit. 676 90 ■ ■ v. Gibbs, 16 M. & W. 208 73 v. Gutteridge, 4 De G. & J. 531 1036, 1436, 1441 ■ v. ■ , 3 De G. J. & S. 332 ; 32 L. J. N. S. 1 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 1196; 11 W. R. 12 411 ■ v. Hele, 1 Rep. in Ch. 190 646, 698 ■ v. Inland Revenue, Comnirs. of, L. R. 2 Ex. 399 ; 36 L. J. Ex. 199 ; 16 L. T. 839 1518 v. Parker, Taml. 1 36 757 ■ v. Phillips, 1 M. & K. 649 647 v. , 8 Beav. 193 411,432 ■ v. , 2 Bro. C. C. 273 757 v. , 4 De G. F. & J. 208 1240,1303,1305 ■ v. Redhill, 2 Vera. 160 1314, 1315 ■ v. Robinson, 4 Bing. 106 ; 5 L. J. C. P. Ill ; 12 Moo. 308 809 — v. Rodie, 15 East, 547 1399 Vaughan, 1 Vera. 336 822, 823 Phillipson v. Gatty, 7 Ha. 516 512, 520 Philps v. Hornstedt, 1 Ex. D. 62 ; 21 W. R. 174 580, 582 Phipps v. Bath and Wells, Bishop of, 2 Dick. 608 930 ■ v. Lovegrove, L. R. 16 Eq. 80 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 892 ; 21 W. R. 590 ; 28 L. T. N. S. 584 1237, 1261, 1272 Phoenix Bessemer Steel Co., Re, 44 L. J. Ch. 683; 32 L. T. N. S. 854. .470, 497 , Exp. Carnforth Co., 4 Ch. D. 108 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 115 ; 35 L. T. N. S. 776 ; 25 W. R. 187 490 Picard v. Hine, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 274 ; 18 W. R. 178 344 ■ -v. Mitchell, 14 Beav. 103 412 Pickard, Re, Elmsley v. Mitchell, (1894) 3 Ch. 704 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 92 ; 71 L. T. 558 540 v. Anderson, L. R. 13 Eq. 608 ; 26 L. T. N. S. 725 520 v. Bretz, 5 H. & N. 9 245, 246 V. Marriage, 1 Ex. D. 364 ; 45 L. J. Ex. 594 ; 35 L. T. 343 ; 24 W. R. 886 219, 248 v. Sears, 6 A. & E. 469 1293 Picker v. London and County Banking Co., 18 Q. B. D. 515; 56 L. J. Q. B. 299 ; 35 W. R. 469 484 Pickering v. Busk, 15 East, 38 ; 13 R. R. 364 1466, 1471 v. Ilfracombe Rail. Co., L. R. 3 C. P. 235 ; 37 L. J. C. P. 118 ; 16 L. T. 650 ; 16 W. R. 458 498, 1282, 1364, 1487 ■ ■ v. Vowles, 1 Bro. C. C. 197 164 Pickstock v. Lyster, 3 M. & S. 371 ; 16 R. R. 300 570 Pidcock v. Bishop (nom. Doe v. Young), 3 B. & C. 605 ; 5 Dow. & Ry. 505; 3L. J. K. B. 121; 1 C. & P. 160; Ry. & M. 36 81 Piddock v. Brown, 3 P. Wins. 289 1023 Pierce v. Derry, 3 G. & D. 477 ; 4 Q. B. 635 ; 12 L. J. Q. B. 277 75 Pierpoint v. Cheyney, Lord, 1 F. Wins. 488 434 ' v. Gower, 4 Man. & Gr. 795 1516 Piers, Re, 14 Ir. Ch. R. 452 379 Pierse v. Waring, 1 P. 1ms. 120, n 607 Pierson v. Knutsford Est. Co., 32 W. R. 451 1388 Pieve Superiore, L. R. 5 P. C. 482 ; 43 L. J. Ad. 20 ; 30 L. T. 887 ; 22 W. R. 777 1397 Pigeon, Exp., 2 D. & C. 118 66 Piggot, Re, 3 Mac. & G. 268 1276 ■ v. Jefferson, 12 Sim. 26 988 ■ ■ v. Killick, 4 Dowl. 287 , , , 72 Pigot v. Cubley, 10 Jur. N. S. 318 '. .' ,1017 1470 v. Pigot, L. R. 4 Eq. 549; 37 L. J. Ch. 116; 16 L. T. 766 ' 705 Pike v. Fitzgibbon, 17 Ch. D. 454 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 394 ; 44 L. T. 562 ; 29 W. R. 551 344 ; 345 ? ?AG v. Stephens, 12 Q. B. 465 1327 Pilcher v. Rawlins, L. R. 7 Ch. A. 259 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 485 ; 25 L. T. 921 ■ 20 W. R. 281 1217, 1301 clvi TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Pile v. Pile, 3 Ch. D. 36 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 481 ; 35 L. T. 18 ; 24 W. R. 1003. . 63, 499, 792 PilMngtoii v. Baker, &c. (No. 2), W. N. (1877) 210 ; 24 W. R. 234. . . .552, 957, 1196 . „. Shatter, 2 Vern. 374 155 Pilling' s Trusts, Re, 26 Ch. D. 432 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 1052 ; 32 W. R. 853 . . 843 Pim v. Grazebrook, 2 C. B. 429 675 Pimm v. Insall, 1 Mac. & G. 449 ; 14 Jur. 357 420, 970 Pinchard v. Fellows, L. R. 17 Eq. 421 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 227 ; 29 L. T. 882; 22 W. R. 612 1040, 1114 Pinede's Settlement, Re, 12 Ch. D. 667 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 741 ; 41 L. T. 579 ; 28 W. R. 178 349 Pinhorn v. Souster, 8 Exch. 763 661, 662, 665 Pinkerton v. Easton, L. R. 16 Eq. 490 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 878 ; 29 L. T. 364 ; 21 W. R. 943 1387 Pinkett v. Wright, 12 CI. & F. 704 1377 Pinnell's Case, 5 Rep. 117 1405 Pinnock v. Bailey, 23 Ch. D. 497 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 880 ; 48 L. T. 811 ; 31 W. R. 912 1279 Piper v. Piper, 1 J. & H. 91 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 1026 768, 771 Pitcher v. Rigby, 9 Pri. 79 609, 1 143 v. Roberts, 2 Dowl. N. S. 394 1173 Pitt v. Cholmondley, 2 Ves. Sen. 565 1144 — v. Dacre, Lord, 3 Ch. D. 295 ; 24 W. R. 943 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 796 991 — v. Jackson, 2 Bro. C. C. 51 51 — v. Pelham, 1 Ch. Ca. 176; 1 Lev. 304 418 — v. Pitt, T. & R. 180 ; 24 R. R. 15 353, 697, 1433 — v. , 22 Beav. 294 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 1010 1437,1439 — v. Snowden, 3 Atk. 750 917, 944,951 — v. Williams, 5 A. & E. 885 110 Place v. Fagg, 4 Man. & Ry. 277 123 Planet Benefit Society, Re, L. R. 14 Eq. 441 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 738 ; 27 L. T. 538; 20 W. R. 935 1122 Plant v. Taylor, 7 H. & N. 211 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 140 147 Plasket v. Beeby, 4 East, 485 1053 Plas-yn-Mhowys Coal Co., L. R. 4 Eq. 689 1128 Piatt v. Bromage, 24 L. J. Ex. 63 212 . v. Mendel, 27 Ch. D. 246 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 1145; 51 L. T. 424; 32 W. R. 918 1027, 1028 ■ v. Sprigg, 2 Vera. 304 1011 Playfair v. Cooper, 17 Beav. 187 412, 638 Playford v. Playford, 4 Ha. 546 699 Playters v. Abbott, 2 My. & K. 97 416, 427 Pleasant v. Benson, 14 East, 234 166 Pledge v. Buss, John. 663 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 695 86, 97 ■ r. Carr, (1895) 1 Ch. 51 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 651 ; 70 L. T. 586 ; 43 W. R. 50 858, 860, 861 ■ v. White, (1896) A. C. 187 ; 74 L. T. 323 ; 44 W. R. 589 861 Plenderleith, Re, (1893) 3 Ch. 332 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 993 ; 69 L. T. 325 360 Plomley v. Felton, 14 App. Cas. 61 ; 58 L. J. P. C. 50 ; 60 L. T. 193. .370, 706 Plucknet v. Kirk, 1 Vern. 411 652 Plumb v. Fluitt, 2 Anst. 432 ; Fonb. Eq., Vol. I. (5th ed.), p. 167, n 1305, 1334 1337 Plumer v. Gregory, L. R. 18 Eq. 621 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 616 ; 31 L. T. N. S. SO 503 Plunket v. Penson, 2 Atk. 290 648, 652 Pockley v. Pockley, 1 Vern. 36 753 Pocock v. Fry, 8 Dowl. 126 72 v. Lee, 2 Vern. 604 351 ■ v. Pickering, 18 Q. B. 789 73 v. Redino-ton, 5 Ves. 794 512, 520, 521 Pocock's Claim, "Re Romford Canal Co., 24 Ch. D. 85 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 729 ; 49 L. T. 118 474 Pocock and Prankerd's Contract, Re, (1896) 1 Ch. 302 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 211 ; 73 L. T. 706; 44 W. R. 247 , 391, 393 Polak v. Everett, 1 Q. B. D. 669; 46 L. J. Q. B. 218; 35 L. T. 350; 24 W. R. 089 82 TABLE OF CASES. clvii PAGE Pole v. Leask, 9 Jur. N. S. 829 ; 28 Beav. 562 502, 983 Polglass v. Oliver, 2 Cr. & J. 15 ; 2 Tyr. 50 715, 716 Pollard, Exp., 1 M. D. &DeG. 270; 4 Jur. 1018 1090, 1092, 1103 , Exp., Re Courtney, 4 Deac. 27 ; Mont. & Cli. 239 479 Pollexfen v. Moore, 3 Atk. 272 1372 Pomfret, Earl of v. Lord Windsor, 2 Ves. Sen. 472. .431, 654, 1217, 1218, 1303, 1321 Ponsford v. Hankey, 2 Gift 3 . 604 ; 9 W. R. 353 ; 7 Jur. 938 20 Pontet v. Basingstoke Canal Co., 4 Sc. 182 ; 3 Bing. N. C. 433 466, 491, Pontida, 9 P. D. 177 ; 53 L. J. P. 78 ; 51 L. T. 268 ; 33 W. R. 38 .... 1509 Poole, Exp., 17 L. J. Bky. 12 1383 v. Adams, 33 L. J. Ch. 639 ; 10 L. T. N. S. 287 ; 12 W. R. 683 ; 4N.R.9 139, 141 v. Warren, 8 A. & E. 582 ; 3 Nev. & P. 698 923 Poole, Mayor of v. Whitt, 15 M. & W. 571 ; 16 L. J. Ex. 299 . . 660, 680, 683, 685 Poole's Case, 1 Salk. 368 125 ■ Estate, Re, Thompson v. Bennett, 6 Ch. D. 739 ; 37 L. T. N. S. 119; 46 L. J. Ch. 803 ; 25 W. R. 862 334 Pooley v. Bosanqiiet, 7 Ch. D. 54 1 ; 26 W. R. 587 1324 v. Driver, 5 Ch. D. 458 ; 36 L. T. N. S. 79 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 466 ; 25 W. R. 162 502, 505, 506 v, Goodwin, 4 A. & E. 94 302, 1493, 1520 Hall Colliery Co., Re, 18 W. R. 201 ; 21 L. T. 690 ....468, 1289, 1379 Pooley's Trustee v. Whetham, 33 Ch. D. Ill ; 55 L. J. Ch. 898 ; 55 L. T. 333; 34 W. R. 689 612, 894 Pope, Re, 17 Q. B. D. 743 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 522 ; 55 L. T. 269 ; 34 W. R. 693 928, 1351 r. Biggs, 9 B. & Cr. 245 ; 4 Man. & R. 198 678, 681, 685, 796, 1103 v. Nickerson, 3 Storey, 465 1502 v. Onslow, 2 Vern. 286 858 v. Roots, 1 Bro. P. C. 370 613 Popham v. Baldwin, 2 Jones, Ir. Exch. 320 1248 Popple v. Prideaux, 3 My. & K. 707 1320 v. Sylvester, 22 Ch. D. 98 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 54 ; 47 L. T. 329; 31 W. R. 116 1119 Popplewell, Exp., Re Storey, 21 Ch. D. 73 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 39 ; 47 L. T. 274 ; 31 W. R. 35 228, 239, 247 Portalis v. Tetley, L. R. 5 Eq. 140 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 139 ; 17 L. T. 344 ; 16 W. R. 503 1478, 1479 Portarlington (Earl of) v. Darner, 4 De G. J. & S. 161 409 Porter v. Hubbart, 3 Atk. 271 ; 2 Rep. in Ch. 78 819, 1 166 Portmore (Lord) v. Morris, 2 Bro. C. C. 218 24 (Earl of) v. Taylor, 4 Sim. 182 612 Portsea Island Building Soc. v. Barclay, (1895) 2 Ch. 298 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 579; 72 L. T. 744 459, 546, 1240 Portsmouth (Earl of) v. Effingham (Lord), 1 Ves. Sen. 435 1316 ■ Tramways Co., Re, (1892) 2 Ch. 362 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 462 ; 66 L. T. 671 ; 40 W. R. 553 ; 8 T. L. R. 516 1122 Postlethwaite v. Blythe, 2 Swanst. 256 808 v. Lewthwaite, 2 J. & H. 237 165 Pothonier v. Dawson, Holt, N. P. 385 1470 Pott, Exp., 7 Jur. 159 61 v. Todhunter, 2 Coll. 76 602 Potter v. Commrs. of Inland Revenue, 10 Exch. 147 1518 v. Nicholson, 8 M. & W. 294 73 Potteries, &c. Rail. Co., Re, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 67 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 273 ; 22 L. T. 53 937, 1133 r. Minor, L. R. 6 Ch. A. 621 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 685 ; 25 L. T..522; 19 W. R. 883 937, 1133 Potts v. Curtis, Yo. 543 615 v. Leighton, 15 Ves. 273 953, 955, 957 ■ v. Warwick and Birmingham Canal Co., Kay, 146 935, 936 937 Poulett, Earl v. Hill, Viscount, (1893) 1 Ch. 277 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 466 ; 68 L. T. 476 ; 41 W. R. 503 922, 1020 Powell, Exp., 6 Jur. N. S. 490 , , 62 clviii TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Powell, Exp., De G. 435 1097 ■ , Exp., Re Matthews, 1 Ch. D. 501 ; 45 L. J. Bky. 100; 34 L. T. 224 ; 24 W. B. 378 181, 182 . , Be, 4 K. & J. 338 ; 6 W. B. 136 1423, 1429 v. Aiken, 4 K. & J. 343 1205 v. Glover, 3 P. Wms. 251, n 824 v , London and Provincial Bank, (1893) 2 Ch. 555 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 795 ; 69 L. T. 421 ; 41 W. B. 545 ; 9 T. L. B. 446 279 . r. Merrett, 1 Sm. & G. 381 644 v. Morgan, 2 Vern. 290 1440 v. Riley, L. R. 12 Eq. 175 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 533 ; 19 W. R. 869 .... 756 v. Roberts, L. R. 9 Eq. 169 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 44 ; 21 L. T. 401 ; 18 W. R. 84 725, 727, 1182 '- v. Trotter, 1 Dr. & S. 388 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 206 1178, 1206 Powell's Trusts, Re, 10 Ha. 134 1167 Power v. Power, 8 Ir. Ch. R. 340 771 v. • , 9 Ir. Ch. R. 178 646 Power and Carton's Contract, Re, 25 L. R. Ir. 459 1049 Powers, Re, Lindsell v. Phillips, 30 Ch. D. 291 972, 978, 1105 Powis v. Corbet, 3 Atk. 556 1152, 1234 Powles v. Hargreaves, 3 De G. M. & G. 43 ; 17 Jur. 1083 1494 Powlett, Earl v. Hood, 35 Beav. 234 850 Pownal v. Ferrand, 6 B. & C. 439 95 Powney v. Blomberg, 14 Sim. 179 ; 13 L. J. Ch. 450 715 Powseley v. Blackman, Cro. Jac. 659 655, 657, 663 Praed v. Gardiner, 2 Cox, 86 ; 2 B. B. 8 98 ■ v. Hull, 1 S. & St. 331 875 Prance v. Sympson, Kay, 678 751 Pratt, Exp., Be Field, 63 L. T. 289 ; 6 T. L. R. 286 216 v , Hawkins, 15 M. & W. 399 1065 v. Vizard, 5 B. & Ad. 808 ; 2 N. & M. 455 1414 Prebble v. Boghurst, 1 Swanst. 321 ; 1 Wils. 161 51 Prees v. Coke, L. B. 6 Ch. A. 645 1032, 1043, 1044, 1048, 1140 Prendergast v. Devey, 6 Madd. 124 85 Prentice v. London, L. B. 10 C. B. 679 ; 44 L. J. C. P. 353 ; 33 L. T. 251 . . 559 Prescott v. Tyler, 1 Jur. 470 ; S. C, 2 Jur. 870 1057 Preston v. Eastwood, 7 T. B. 95 1531 v. Great Yarmouth, Corporation of, L. B. 7 Ch. A. 655 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 760 ; 27 L. T. 87 ; 20 W. B. 875 447 v. Lamont, 1 Ex. D. 361 ; 45 L. J. Ex. 797 ; 35 L. T. 341 ; 24 W. B. 928 219 v. Neele, 12 Ch. D. 760 ; 40 L. T. 303 ; 27 W. B. 642 22, 33, 289 v . Preston, 2 Jur. N. S. 240 409 v. Tubbin, 1 Vern. 286 1322 V. Wilson, 5 Ha. 185 695 Price, Exp., Buck, 221 ; 3 Madd. 132 1102 , Exp., 2 M. D. & De G. 518 ; 11 L. J. N. S. Bky. 27 ; 6 Jur. 327 . . 120, 121 . , Exp., Be Lankester, L. B. 10 Ch. A. 648 ; 33 L. T. 113 ; 23 W. B. 844 297 . , Be, 13 C. B. N. S. 286 320 . v. Barker, 4 E. & B. 760 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 775, Q. B 85, 86 . v. Berrington, 3 Mac. & G. 486 1025, 1 182 v. Blakemore, 6 Beav. 507 1381, 1383 . v. Carter, 7 Q. B. 838 77 . v. Carver, 3 My. & Cr. 157 1052, 1053, 1055 . v. Copner, 1 S. & St. 347 ; 1 L. J. Ch. 178 740, 746, 748, 749 v. Dewhurst, 8 Sim. 617 1418 v. Edmunds, 10 B. & C. 578 84, 85 • v. Fastnedge, Amb. 685 1152, 1232 . v. Great Western By., 16 M. & W. 244 ; 16 L. J. Ex. 87 487, 1158 . r. Groom, 17 L. J. Ex. 346 181, 187 ■ v. Lovett, 20 L. J. Ch. 270; 15 Jur. 786 299, 1491 . v. M'Beth, 10 Jur. N. S. 579 1184 . v. Moulton, 10 C. B. 561 477 v. Perrie, 2 Freem. 258 12, 15 TABLE OF CASES. cllX PAGE Prices. Price, 15 L. J. Ch. 13 25, 818, 1162, 1175, 118'? v. , 35 Ch. D. 297 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 530 ; 56 L. T. 842 ; 35 W. R. 386 631 ■ v. Williams, G. Coop. 31 930 ■ and Brown's Case, 3 De G. & S. 147 .' ,' -j 7 7 Prichard v. Wilson, 10 Jur. N. S. 330 899 Priddy v. Rose, 3 Mer. 86 ; 17 R. !«'. 24 50 1382 Pride, Re, Shackell v. Colnett, (1891) 2 Ch. 135 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 9 ; 64 L. T 768 ; 39 W. R. 471 1440 v. Bubb, L. R. 7 Ch. A. 64 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 105 ; 25 L. T. 890; 20 W. R. 220 317, 329 Pride of Wales (Owners, &c, of), Re, 15 W. R. 381 1272 Priest v. Parrot, 2 Ves. Sen. 160 ' ' 625 Priestley v. Hopwood, 12 W. R. 1031 552, 561 Priestly v. Pratt, L. R. 2 Ex. 101 ; 36 L. J. Ex. 89 ; 16 L. T. 64 ; 15 W. R. 639 182, 187 Primrose v. Bromley, 1 Atk. 88 , 101 964 Prince Regent, 2 W. Rob. 83 1502 Prince of Saxe Coburg, 3 Moo. P. C. 1 ; 3 Hag. 387 1507, 1510 Prince of Wales Ass. Co. v. Harding, 4 Jur. N. S. 851 473 &c, Co., Exp., Re Athenaeum Ass. Soc, 1 E. B. & E. 183 476 Princess Charlotte, 33 L. J. N. S. Ad. 188 1396 Princess of Reuss v. Bos, L. R. 5 H. L. 176; 40 L. J. Ch. 665; 24 L. T. 641 1123 Pring v. Clarkson, 1 B. & C. 14 84 Prior v. Bagster, W. N. (1887) 194 ; 57 L. T. 760 , , 957 v. Penpraze, 4 Pri. 99 1349 Priscilla, Lush. 1 ; 1 L. T. 272 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 1421 789 1511 Pritchard, Exp., Fonb. Bky. 238 ' 186 Pritt v. Clay, 6 Beav. 503 1112 Probert v. Knouth, 2 Esp. 472, n 356 v. Morgan, 1 Atk. 440 , , , 51 Procter v. Cooper, Prec. Ch. 116 1163 v. , 1 Jur. N. S. 149 1300 ■ ■ v. Cowper, 2 Vern. 377 719, 1 139 Proctor v. Cooper, 2 Drew. 1 1249 ■ v. Oates, 2 Atk. 140 736, 747, 749 Professional, &o. Building Society, Re, L. R. 6 Ch. A. 856 ; - ?5 L T 397; 19 W. R. 1153 '1122 Profit v. Wye Valley Rail Co., 64 L. T. 669 1287 Prole v. Soady, L. R. 3 Ch. A. 220 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 240 ; 16 W. R. 445 . .' 320, 323, S47 Tropert, Re, 22 L. J. Ch. 948 ; 1 W. R. 237 156, 1422 Prosser v. Rice, 28 Beav. 74 1301 Protector Endowment Loan and Annuity Co. v. Grice, 5 Q. B D 592 ■ 49 L. J. Q. B. 812 ' 554 Prout v. Cock, (1896) 2 Ch. 808 ; 75 L. T. 409 ; 45 W. R. 157 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 24 699 Provident Clerks' Mutual Life Assurance Association v. Law Life Assurance Society, W. N. (1897) 73 t,hh nda Provident Clerks' Mutual Life Assurance Association i\ Lewis, W. N. (1892) 164 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 89 ; 67 L. T. 644 1036 Provident Permanent Building Soc. v. Greenhill, 9 Ch. D. 122 ; 38 L. T. N. S. 140 549, 552, 1196 Piyce, Re, 4 Ch. D. 685 I 266 v. Bury, 2 Drew. 41 ; L. R. 16 Eq. 153, n. ; 18 Jur. 967; 23 L. J. Ch. 676 51, 57, 152, 995, 1025 Pryor v. Swayne, 2 D. & L. 37 7:; Prytherch, Re, Prythcivh v. Williams, 42 Ch. D. 590 ; 38 W. R. 61 . .807, 925, 928, 929, 940,' 1416 Pudsey's Case, 2 Leon. 110 1446 Pugh, Re, 3 Dc G. M. & G. 416 .....'.!! 359 v. Heath, 7 App. Cas. 235 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 367 ; 46 L. T. 321 ;*30 W. R. 553 1060 ■ v. Jenkins, 1 Q. B. 631 ; 5 Jur. 1082 623 Pulbrook v. Ashby, 56 L. J. Q. B. 376 ; 35 W. R. 779 ...,[ [ 198 • v. Richmond, &c. Co., 9 Ch. D. 610 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 65 ; 27 W R. 377 628, 1271 Clx TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Pulteney v. Keymer, 3 Esp. 182 1482 . r . Warren, 6 Ves. 73 ; 5 R. R. 226 68 Pumfrey, Re, 22 Ch. D. 255 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 228 ; 48 L. T. 516 ; 31 W. R. 195 1379, 1381 Punchard v. Tomkins, W. N. (1882) 160 ; 31 W. R. 286 1251 Punnett, Exp., Re Kitchin, 16 Ch. D. 226 118, 121, 663, 665, 666 Piircell v. Blennerhassett, 3 J. & L. 24 752 Purdew v. Jackson, 1 Russ. 1 ; 4 L. J. Ch. 1 ; 25 R. R. 1 321, 322, 846 Purdie v. Millet, Taml. 28 17 Purefov v. Purefoy, 1 Vern. 29 858 Putnam v. Bates, 3 Russ. 188 982 Pye v . Daubuz, 3 Bro. C. C. 595 145 Pyke, Exp., 8 Ch. D. 754 ; 47 L. J. Bky. 100 ; 26 W. R. 806 ; 38 L. T. N". S. 923 620 Pyle v. Partridge, 15 M. & W. 20 ; 15 L. J. Ex. 129 1521 Pyle Works, Re, 44 Ch. D. 534 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 489 ; 62 L. T. 887 ; 88 W. R. 674; 2 Meg. 83; 6 T. L. R. 268 497, 498 . (No. 2), Re, (1891) 1 Ch. 173; 60 L. J. Ch. 114; 63 L. T. 628 ; 39 W. R. 235 ; 6 T. L. R. 268 497 Pym r. Bowerman, 3 Swanst. 241, n. ; 10 R. R. 201 698 Pyncent v. Pyncent, 3 Atk. 571 64 Quain v. Harvey, 5 L. R. Ir. 622 , 409 Quarman v. Williams, 5 Beav. 133 1277 Quarrell v. Beckford, 1 Madd. 278 ; 16 R. R. 214 10, 808, 913, 918, 1161, 1162, 1184, 1207, 1211, 1212 r. , 13 Ves. 377 930 Quartermaine's Case, Re London, Windsor and Greenwich Hotels Co., (1892) 1 Ch. 639 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 273 ; 66 L. T. 19 ; 40 W. R. 298 ; 8 T. L. R. 204 1080, 1092, 1112, 1131 Queen, The. See Rex or Reg. Queensland, &o. Agency, Re, 58 L. T. 878 1128 Queensland Land and Coal Co., Re, (1894) 3 Ch. 181 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 810 ; 71 L. T. 115; 42 W. R. 600; 1 Mans. 355 ., 487 Quennell v. Turner, 13 Beav. 240 ; 15 Jur. 547 754 Quickstep, 15 P. D. 196 ; 59 L. J. Ad. 65 1395 Quieroz v. Trueman, 3 B. & Cr. 342 1466, 1476 Quin v. King, 1 M. & W. 42 1527 Quincy, Exp., 1 Atk. 477 178 Quinlan's Trusts, Re, 9 Ir. Ch. R. 306 1424 Quinn, Exp. , Re Nicholson, W. N. (1883) 222 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 302 ; 49 L. T. 811; 32 W. R. 296 1414 Raby r. Ridehalgh, 7 De G. M. & G. 104 ; 3 Eq. Rep. 901 ; 3 W. R. 344 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 363 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 58 509 Rackstraw's Trusts, 33 W. R. 599 : W. N. (1885) 73 843 Radcliff v. Salmon, 4 De G. & S. 526 1028, 1030 Radcliffe, Re, 22 Beav. 201 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 387 829 , Radcliffe v. Bewes, (1891) 2 Ch. 662 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 436 ; 64 L. T. 386 ; 39 W. R. 457 (reversed on other points, (1892) 1 Ch. 227 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 186; 66 L. T. 363; 40 W. R. 323) 333 Rae v. Joyce, 29 L. R. Ir. 500 613 v. Meek, 14 App. Cas. 558 511, 519, 528 Raffety v. King, 1 Keen, 601 735, 745, 746, 747 Railton v. Matthews, 10 CI. & F. 934 81 Railway Sleepers Supply Co., Re, 29 Ch. D. 204 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 720 ; 52 L. T. 731 ; 33 W. R. 595 896 Raincock v. Simpson, Dick. 120 950 Raisby, 10 P. D. 114; 53 L. T. 56 ; 54 L. J. Ad. 65 ; 33 W. R. 938 ; 5 Asp. 473 1393 Rakcstiaw v. Brewer, 2 P. Wms. 511 ; Sel. Ca. in Ch. 56 ; Mos. 189; 15 Vin. Abr. tit. " Mortgages," 476 164, 745, 749, 1000 Raleigh v. Atkinson. 6 M. & W. 670 1485 TABLE OF CASES. clxi ■r» „ .- PAGE Ramsay v. Margrett, (1894) 2 Q. B. IS ; G3 L. J. Q. B. 413 ; 70 L. T. 788 ; 1 .Vans. 1 Si 19> 5 Ramsbottom, Ex parte, 2 M. & A. 7'.) ." .' ."."."." . . . . . .* . . . . . . . . 1092, 1103 t'. Freeman, 4 Beav. 14-3 927 v. Wallia, 5 L. J. N. S. Ch. 92 ...136,1662, 1416 Ramsden v. Langley, 2 Vern. 536 737 v. Lupton, L. R. 9 Q. B. 17 ; 43 L. J. Q. B. 17 / 29 L.T.olo': 22 W. R. 129 242 v. Smith, 2 Drew. 298 112 Rancliffe, Lord v. Parkyns, 6 Dowl. 216 ; 19 R. R. 3G '..'.'.'783, 1315 Rand v. Cartwright, 1 Ch. Ca. 59 '.'. , . ,' 69 1 Randall v. Russell, 3 Mer. 190; 17 R. R. 56 ....!! 165 Randfield v. Randfield, 1 Dr. & S. 310 ........'. 947 Ranelaugh v. 1 [ayes, 1 Vern. 189 93 Rank, n v. Alfaro, 5 Ch. D. 786 ; 36 L. T. N." S. '529 ;' 46 L. J. Ch! 832 .'. H99 Raphael v. Boehm, 11 Ves. 92 ; 8 R. R. 95 1209 Rashdall v. Ford, L. R. 2 Eq. 750; 35 L. J. Ch. 769 ; 14 W. R. 950 . '. ., 471 Ratcliffe v. Barnard, L. R. 6 Ch. A. 652; 40 L. J. Ch. 777; 19 W. R. 764.. 1334, 1343, 1 160 v. Davis, Cro. Jac. 241 ; 1 Bidstr. 30 ; Yeld. 178 1467, 1469, 1 170 Ravald v. Rassell, Yo. 9 735 745 Ravenhill v. Dansey, 2 P. Wnis. 179 .....' 434 Ravenshaw v. Hollier, 7 Sim. 3 50 1 383 Rawbone's Trusts, Re, 26 L. J. Ch. 588 '.'.'.'. . .' 187 Rawden v. Shadwell, Amb. 269 619, 622 62 t Rawe v. Chichester, Amb. 715 164 Rawes v. Rawes, 7 Sim. 764 946 Raworth v. Parker, 2 K. & J. 163 1094 Rawson v. Eicke, 7 A. & E. 451 672 Rawstone v. Parr, 3 Russ. 539 88 Rayne v. Baker, 1 Giff. 241 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 366 ..........!!!!! 1377 Rayner v. Harford, 4 Jur. N. S. 703 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 708 488 v. Preston, 18 Ch. D. 1; 50 L. J. Ch. 472: 44 L. T. 7S7 ; 29 TV. R. 546 139, 141 Rayson v. Adcock, 9 Jur. N. S. 800 1 5> 683 Read r. Goldring, 2 M. & Sc. 86 ' 711 v. Joannon, 25 Q. B. D. 300 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 544 ; 63* L. T.*387": 38 W. R. 734; 6 T. L. R. 407 209 Readdy v. Prendergast, 56 L. T. 790 , . , 612 Reader, Exp., Re "Wrigley, L. R. 20 Eq. 763 ; 44 L. J. Bky. 139:" 32 L.T.N. S. 36 582,589 Real and Personal Advance Co. v. Clears, 20 Q. B. D. 304 ; 57 L J Q B 164 ; 58 L. T. 610 ; 36 TV. R. 256 222, 236 Reardon v. Swabey, 4 East, 18S , , . '] 5 ■> \ Rebecca, C. Rob. 102 1500 Reddington v. Reddington, 1 Ba. & Be. 131 ; 12 R. R. 5 ' .' .' .'.'.'.' ...... '. .' 704 Rede v. Fair, 6 M. & S. 121 89 Redgrave v. Lea, L. R. 9 Q. B. 363 ; 43 L. J. M. C. 105 ; 30 L."t.*519 : 22 W. R. 857 7 Redman v. Rymers, 65 L. T. 270 ; 7 T. L. R. 425 Redmayne v. Foster, L. R. 2 Eq. 467 ; 35 Beav. 529 995, 1000, loll) Reece v. Taylor, 5 Dc G. & S. 480 1280, 1362 Rcece's Estate, L. R. 2 Eq. 609 71 ];< >d, Exp., Re Tweddcll, L. R. 14 Eq. 586; 26 L. T. 558; 20 TV. R. 622 v. Blades, 5 Taunt. 212 569, 573 r. Freer, 13 L. J. Ch. 317 L197, | r. Kill. mn Co-operative Soc., L. R. 10 Q. B. 264 707, 961 ■ r. Norris, 2 r\h-. & Cr. 361 UK, 177 r. White, 6 Esp. 122 1432 r. Williams, 6 Taunt. 257 ; 14 R. R. 748 1 p. TVilmot, 3 Moo. & P. 553 171, 1534 i...;."> Beeks v. Postlethwaite, < !. < loop. 161 7 is, 752 Reesf. Berrington, 2 Ves. Jan. 540 ; 3 R. R. 3 v. Keith, 11 Sim. 388 1056 r. Metropolitan Board of Works, 14 Ch. D. 372 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 620: 42 L. T. 685 ; 28 W. R. 014 1191 VOL. I. — K. / clxii TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Rees v. Parkinson, 2 Anst. 497 ; 3 R. R. 618 867 Reese River Mining Co. v. Atwell, L. R. 7 Eq. 347 ; 20 L. T. 163 ; 17 W. R. 601 575, 576, 1118 Reeve v. Att.-Gen., 2 Atk. 223 1056 v. Hicks, 2 S. & St. 403 704, 745 ■ v. Whitmore, 33 L. J. Ch. 63 ; 4 De G. J. &S. 1; 12 W. R. 113.. 199, 212 Reeves, Re, 24 W. R. 848 319 ■ v. Baker, 18 Beav. 372 ; 18 Jur. 588 895 ■ v. Barlow, 12 Q. B. D. 436; 53 L. J. Q. B. 192; 50 L. T. 782;- 32 W. R. 672 199, 200, 202, 211, 213, 254 v. Brymer, 6 Ves. 516 1401 ■ ■ v. Butcher, (1891) 2 Q. B. 509 ; 60 L. J. Q.-B. 619 ; 65 L. T. 329 ; 39 W. R. 626 976 ■ ■ v. Capper, 5 Bing. 1ST. C. 136 193, 1459, 1464, 1472 ■ v. Cox, 13 Ir. Eq. R. 247 948 • v. Glastonbury Canal Co., 14 Sim. 351 877 • v. White, 16 Jur. 637 558 Regent's Canal Ironworks Co., Re, 3 Ch. D. 43; 45 L. J. Ch. 620; 34 W. R. 687; 35 L. T. N. S. 288 470 Reid, Exp., 17 L. J. Bky. 19 ; 1 De G. 600 ; 12 Jur. 533 63 , Exp., 1 M. & M'A. 14 66 ■ , Exp., 1 D. & C. 250 118 , Exp., Re Buckland, 12 Jur. 533 ; 17 L. J. N. S. Bky. 19 1347 v. Eaii-banks, 1 C. L. R. 787 261 Remer v. Stokes, 4 W. R. 730 995 Remnant v. Hood, 27 Beav. 613 487 Renvoize v. Cooper, 1 S. & St. 364 1032 Reresby v. Newland, 2 P. Wins. 94 430 Reuss, Princess of v. Bos, L. R. 5 H. L. 176 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 655 ; 24 L. T. N. S. 641 278, 1123 Revel v. Watkinson, 1 Ves. Sen. 93 639 Reversionary Interest Soc, Re (No. 1), (1892) 1 Ch. 615 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 379 ; 66 L. T. 460 ; 40 W. R. 389 468 Rex or Reg. v. Bates, 3 Pri. 341 539 v. Bloomsbury County Court and Cattle, 24 Q. B. D. 309 ; 62 L. T. 286 ; 38 W. R. 320 725 ■ ■ v. Catherington (Inh. of), 3 T. R. 771 628, 629 v. Central Cemetery Co., 6 E. & B. 415 499 r. Chambers, 4 Y. & C. Ex. 54 1177 V. Christian, L. R. 2 C. C. R. 94 ; 43 L. J. M. 0. 1 ; 29 L. T. 654 ; 23 W. R. 132 ; 12 Cox C. C. 502 1486 v. Coleshill (Overseers of), 34 L. J. Q. B. 96 452 ■ v. Coombes, 1 Pri. 207 648, 709 v. Cooper, L. R. 2 C. C. R. 123 ; 43 L. J. M. C. 89 ; 30 L. T. 306 ; 22 W. R. 555 ; 12 Cox C. C. 600 1486 ■ v. De La Motte, Forr. 162 ; 5 R. R. 714 648 . «,. 2 H & N. 589 1041 ■ v. Lee (Inh. of), L. R. 1 Q. B. 241 ; 35 L. J. M. C. 105 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 225 ; 13 L. T. 704 ; 14 W. R. 311 122 ■ v. Lincolnshire County Court and Dixon, 20 Q. B. D. 167 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. 136 ; 58 L. T. 54 ; 36 W. R. 174 933 ■ v. Lords Commrs., &c, 15 Jur. 767 1154 v. Meeking, 11 Cox, 270 1284 v. Mildmay, 5 B. & Ad. 254 149, 647 v. Northwingfield, 1 B. & Ad. 912 624 ■ v. Preston (Inh. of), 5 B. & Ad. 1029 ; 3 N. & N. 31 1533 ■ v. Reed, 5 Q. B. D. 483 ; 49 L. J. Q. B. 600 ; 42 L. T. 835 ; 28 W. R. 787 457 ■ v. Ritson, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 200 ; 39 L. J. M. C. 10 ; 21 L. T. 437; 18 W. R. 73; 11 Cox C. C. 352 1251 ■ v. Robinson, 1 H. & N. 274 98 v. Sadlers' Co., 10 H. L. C. 404 ; 32 L. J. Q. B. 337 571 ■ v. St. Michael's (Inh. of), 2 Doug. 630 629 ■ v. Salter, 1 H. & N. 274 98 • v. Sampson, 52 L. T. 772 1284 • v. Tatlock, 2 Q. B. D. 157 ; 46 L. J. M. C. 7 ; 35 L. T. 520 ; 13 Cox C. C. 328 I486 TABLE OF CASES. clxiii PAGE Rex or Reg. v. Trafford, 4 E. & B. 122 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 252 558 Reynal, Exp., 2 M. D. & De G. 443 121 Reynard v. Robinson, 9 Bing. 717 °°° Reynolds, Exp., 4 D. & C. 278 • °6 _ „. Bowley, L. R. 2 Q. B. 474; 36 L. J. Q. B. 247 1/9, 219 r. Meyrick, 1 Ed. 48 431 v. Wheeler, 10 0. B. N. S. 661 79 Reynoldson v. Perkins, Arab. 564 1006, 1010, 1042 Rhadraanthe, 1 Dods. 201 L"'"iJ lo11 Rhodes v. Bate, L. R. 1 Ch. A. 252 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 267 ; 13 L. T. 778 ; 14 W. R. 292 6( ,v ; v. Buckland, 16 Beav. 212 723. 905, 1416 v . Dawson, 16 Q. B. D. 553 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 134 ; 34 W. It. 241.. 1097 r. Mostvn, Lord, 17 Jur. 1007 ^ v. Rudse, 1 Sim. 79 " ;J0 > ' »° Rhydydefed Coll. Co., Re, 3 De G. & J. 80 1124 Riccard v. Prichard, 1 K. & J. 277 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 750 1493 Rice v. Gordon, 11 Beav. 265 403, b l 6 . ■ v. Linstead, 7 Dowl. 153 ••;• ™ v. Rice, 2 Drew. 73 1238, 1345, 1346 1373 Richards & Co., Re, 11 Ch. D. 676; 48 L. J. Ch. 555; 40 L. T. 315; 27 W. R. 530 113* . , Exp., Re Lewis, U. & W. 264 ; 21 R. R. 384 1429, 1430 Ee, Humber v. Richards, 45 Ch. D. 589 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 728 ; 63 L. T. 451 ; 39 W. R. 186 1237, 1296 v. Barton, 1 Esp. 268 47 v. Borrott, 3 Esp. 102 6 j ,. Cooper, 5 Beav. 304 •••• JJ* . v. Gledstanes, 31 L. J. Ch. 142 .1263, 1267 v Kidderminster, Overseers of, (1896) 2 Ch. 212 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 502 • 74 L. T. 483 ; 12 T. L. R. 340 ; 44 W. R. 505 . . . .496, 806 , v. Macclesfield, 10 L. J. Ch. 329 1517 v. Morgan, 4 Y. & C. App. 570 ; Coll. 227 ■ • • • 804 v. Plattel, Or. & Ph. 79 1333 > I 384 . v . Syms, 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 617 ; Barnard. Ch. 90 19 Richardson, Exp., 14 Ves. 186 ■ • • . . . • • ■ • • • • • • • • • • • 584 Re L. R. 12 Eq. 398 ; 13 Eq. 142 ; 19 W. R. 1048 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 616; 25 L.T.N. S. 12 41 Re, Shillitoe v. Hobson, 30 Ch. D. 396 ; bo L. J. Ch. 741 ; 53 L. T. 746 ; 34 W. R. 286 3 10, 829 v Harris, 22 Q. B. D. 268 ; 37 W. R. 426 ; 5 T. L. R. 178 . . 228 v. Horton, 7 Beav. 112 420, 575, 969, 970 v. Jackson, 3 M. & W. 298 717 v. Jenkins, 1 Drew. 477 ^7 . v. Smallwood, Jac. 552 5/4 v. Williamson, L. R. 6 Q. B. 276 ; 40 L. J. Q. B. 145 4o9 460, 467 v . Youncre. L. R. 6 Ch. A. 478 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 338 ; 25 L. T. N. S. 230; 19 W. R. 612 L'i4'Vkko" l2 Riche v. Ashbury Railway Carriage Co., L. R. 9 Ex. 224 ; 7 H. L. 653. . 46 1 Riches v. Evans, 9 C. & P. 640 • • • • ■ ■ • • • ■ \'J ' blZ Richmond v. White, 12 Ch. D. 361 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 798 ; 41 L. T. 5,0 ; U W. R. 878 I ' ;! Rickard v. Barrett, 3 K. & J. 289 . .■•.•••• ■ • •••••• ■ ■ • •'■■" I™. Rickards v. Gledstanes, 3 Giff. 298 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 4oo ; 31 L. J. Ch. 142. . 1326 Rickettsia. Bennett, 4 C. B. 686 ;••••••;:■•:: 5U,J 1 „. Lewis, 20 Ch. D. 745 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 837 ; 46 L. T. 368 ; 30 W. R. 609 402 404 v. Ricketts, W. N. (1891) 29 ; 64 L. T. 263 1045 RiddeU r. Riddell, 7 Sim. 529 • • •• J" Rider v. Jones, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 329 U < •'» 1JJ* v. Wager, 2 P. Wms. 335 ••_•_• I™ Rido-way v. Roberts, 4 Ha. 106 • 13 'J. lo01 Ridfer, Re, Ridler v. Ridler, 22 Ch. D. 74 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 343 ; 48 L. T. 396; 31 W. R. 93 5 '° 12 Clxiv TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Ridout v. Plymouth, Earl of, 2 Atk. 105 415, 426 v. 1 Dick. 68 943 Riga, L. R. 3 A. & E. 516 ; 41 L. J. Ad. 39 ; 26 L. T. 202 ; 20 W. R. 927 1396 Rigge v. Bowater, 3 Bro. C. C. 365 956 Right d. Jeffreys v. Bucknell, 2 B. & Ad. 278 Ill, 654, 1337 Rigley v. Daykin, 2 Y. & J. 83 50 Riley v. Croydon, 2 Dr. & S. 293 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 1251 699 Rimini v. Van Praagh, L. R. 8 Q. B. 1 ; 42 L. J. Q. B. 1 ; 27 L. T. 540 ; 21 W. R. 107 .- 597 Ringer v. Cann, 3 M. & "W. 343 112 Rio Tinto, Laws v. Smith, 9 App. Cas. 356 ; 53 L. J. P. C. 54 ; 50 L. T. 461 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 224 1395 Rising v. Dolphin, 8 Dowl. P. C. 309 73 Rivers, Earl v. Derby, Earl of, 2 Vern. 72 433 Roberts, Re, Evans v. Roberts, 36 Ch. D. 196 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 952 ; 57 L. T. 79 ; 35 W. R. 684 194 , Re, Goodchap v. Roberts, 14 Ch. D. 49 ; 42 L. T. 666 ; 28 W. R. 870 898, 1158, 1449 ■ v. Ball, 7 E. & B. 323 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 662 870 «,. 24 L. J. Ch. 471 .., .' 913 v. Croft, 2 De G. & J. 1 ; 24 Beav. 223 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 1069 61, 62, 1334, 1342, 1346, 1347, 1353 v. Dixwell, 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 668 427 ■ v. Edwards, 33 Beav. 259 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 1219 293 ■ v. Hughes, L. R. 6 Eq. 20 1189 v. Kuffin, 2 Atk. 112 1142 ■ v. Lloyd, 2 Beav. 376 1487 v. Roberts, 13 Q. B. D. 794 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 313 ; 32 W. R. 605 ; 50 L. T. 351 214, 227, 228, 231, 232 v. Williams, 4 Ha. 129 1179 v. Wyatt, 2 Taunt. 268 ; 11 R. R. 56 1472 Robertson, Re, Exp. Crawcour, 9 Ch. D. 419 ; 47 L. J. Bky. 94 ; 39 L. T. 2 ; 26 W. R. 733 198 v. Lockie, 15 L. J. Ch. 379 895 v. Norris, 4 Jur. N. S. 433 904 v. 1 Giff. 428 1193 Robey & Co.'s Ironworks v. Oilier, L. R. 7 Ch. A. 695 ; 20 W. R. 956 ; 27 L. T. N. S. 362 1492, 1498 Robinson, Exp., 1 D. & C. 119 58, 63, 66, 1098 , Exp., Mont. &M. 251 1100, 1102 , Exp., 32 L. T. 230 1322, 1325 , Re, 5 Jur. N. S. 1020 1385 v. Briggs, 1 Sm. & G. 188 1297, 1314, 1315, 1326 r. L. R. 6 Ex. 1 ; 40 L. J. Ex. 17 ; 23 L. T. 395 218 v. Collingwood, 17 C. B. N. S. 777 ; 34 L. J. C. P. 18 230 v. Cooke, 6 Taunt. 336 ; 16 R. R. 624 717 . v. Cox, 9 Mod. 263 624 . ». Cumming, 2 Atk. 409 1167 ■ ■ v. Davison, 1 Bro. C. C. 63 1223 v. Geldart, 3 Mac. & G. 725 540 ■ v. Hedger, 17 Sim. 183 ; 13 Jur. 846 1349 v. London Hospital, 10 Ha. 19 538, 540 v. Lowater, 5 De G. M. & G. 272 418 . v. Macdonnell, 5 M. & S. 228 ; 2 B. & Aid. 134 . .173, 271, 574, 1526, 1531 v. Montgomery Brewery Co., (1896) 2 Ch. 841 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 915 ; 3 Manson 279 1132 . „. Nesbitt, L. R. 3 C. P. 264 ; 37 L. J. C. P. 124 ; 17 L. T. 653 ; 16 W. R. 543 1487 v. Ommaney, 23 Ch. D. 285 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 440 ; 49 L. T. 19 ; 31 W. R. 525 702 v. Robinson, 1 De G. M. & G. 247 ; 16 Jur. 256 509, 518, 523, 530 ■ v. Tonge, 1 P. Wms. 680 777, 778 v. Trevor, 12 Q. B. D. 423 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 85 ; 50 L. T. 190 ; 32 W. R. 394 561, 1218 TABLE OF CASES. clxv PAGE Robinson v. Wilkinson, 3 Pri. 538 ; 18 R. R. G59 1451 v. Wilson, 2 Madd. 434 95 v. Woodward, 4 De G. & S. 562 1357 Robson, Re, Emley v. Davidson, 19 Ch. D. 15G ; 51 L. J. Ch. 337 ; 45 L. T. 418 ; 30 W. R. 257 539 v. Homer, W. N. (1893) 100 92G, 1021 ■ ■ v. Kemp, 4 Esp. 236 1482 v. Smith, (1895) 2 Ch. 118 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 457 ; 72 L. T. 559 ; 43 W. R. 632; 2 Mans. 422 494 Roch v. Callen, 6 Ha. 531 992 Rochard v. Fulton, 1 J. & L. 413 1238 Roche v. Roche, 29 L. R. Ir. 339 1389 Rochfort v. Battersby, 2 H. L. C. 408 ; 14 Jur. 229 695, 1011 Rockley v. Wilkinson, Sir T. Jones, 100 643 Roddain v. Morley, 1 De G. & J. 1 972, 978 Roddy, Re, 11 Ir. Ch. R. 369 788 v. Williams, 3 J. & L. 1 136, 137, 525, 1309 Rodhouse v. Mold, 35 L. J. Ch. 67 .' 773 Rodick v. Gandell, 1 De G. M. & G. 763 1487, 1488, 1493 Roe v. Bradshaw, L. R. 1 Ex. 106 246 v. Soley, 2 W. Bl. 726 861, 875 v. Wardle, 3 T. & C. Ex. 70 877 Roffey v. Bent, L. R. 2 Eq. 759 1365 Rogers, Exp., Re Gregory, 3 M. D. & De G. 297 ; 7 Jur. 406 1102 , Exp., Re Selby, 8 D. M. & G. 271 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 480 ; 25 L. J Bky. 41 51,53, 1261 v. Challis, 27 Beav. 175; 6 Jur. N. S. 134; 29 L. J. Ch. 240.. 48, 49, 200 v. Grazebrook, 12 Sim. 557; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 329 ; 6 Jur. 495. . 140 v. 8 Q. B. 895 656,657 v. Holloway, 5 Man. & Gr. 292 1362 v. Humphreys, 4 A. & E. 299 671,672,676,680 v. Kennay, 1 1 Jur. 14 ; 15 L. J. Q. B. 381 ; 9 Q. B. 592 212, 1473 v. Maule, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 4 642, 643, 644, 645, 1108 v. Mutton. 31 L. J. Ex. 275 904 v. Payne, 1 Wils. 376 1401 Rogers' Trust, Re, 1 Dr. & S. 338 ; 30 L. J. N. S. Ch. 153 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 1363 1153 Roife, Exp., 2 Ba. 421 ; 3 L. & A. 306 1084 v. Chester, 29 Beav. 610 1153, 1234 r. Perrv, 3 De G. J. & S. 481 771 Rolland v. Hart, L. R. 6 Ch. A. 678 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 701 ; 25 L. T. 191 ; 19 W. R. 962 1246, 1248, 1326, 1328, 1329, 1330 Rollason, Re, 34 Ch. D. 495 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 768 ; 56 L. T. 303 ; 35 W. R. 607 1473 Rolleston v. Cope, L. R. 6 C. P. 292 ; 40 L. J. C. P. 160 ; 24 L. T. 390 ; 19 W. R. 927 628 v. Morton, 1 Dr. & War. 171 721 Rolph, Exp., Re Spindler, 19 Ch. D. 98 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 88 ; 45 L. T. 482 ; 30 W. R. 52 227 Rolt v. White, 3 De G. J. & S. 360 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 343 47 Romford Canal Co., Re, 24 Ch. D. 85; 52 L. J. Ch. 729 ; 49 L. T. 118. . 474 Rooke v. Kensington, Lord, 2 K. & J. 753 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 755 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 795 Ill Rooper v. Harrison, 2 K. & J. 100 43, 1223, 1236, 1238, 1239 Roper v. Rice, 28 Beav. 68 561 Rorke v. Errington, 7 H. L. C. 617 116 Roscarrick v. Barton, 1 Ch. Ca. 217 ; 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. 317, pi. 4. .627, 1006, 1010, 1011 Rose v. Page, 2 Sim. 472 ; 29 R. R. 142 1014 v. Watson, 10 H. L. C. 672 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 297 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 385 . . 1376 Rosenberg v. Northumberland Building Soc, 22 Q. B. D. 373 ; 60 L. T. 558 ; 37 W. R. 368 ; 5 T. L. R. 265 550, 555, 556 Rosewarne v. Billing-, 15 C. B. N. S. 316 622 Ross v. Army and Navy Hotel Co., 34 Ch. D. 43 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 697 ; 55 L. T. 472 ; 34 W. R. 40 209, 469 dxvi TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Rossi' Buxton, 42 Ch.D. 190; 5SL. J. Ch. 442; 60 L.T. 630; 38 W.R.71. . 1387 Improvement Commrs. v. Usborne, W. N. (1890) 92 1033, 1044 Rossiter, Re, Rossiter v. Rossiter, 13 Ch. D. 355 ; 49 L. J. Oh. 46 ; 42 L. T. 353 ; 28 W. R. 238 "72 Rothwell v. Humphries, 1 Esp. 406 502 v. Timbrell, 1 Dow. N. S. 778 1326 Round v. Bell, 30 Beav. 121 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 1183 989 Roundell v. Breary, 2 Vern. 482 ; 2 De G. & J. 319, n 51 Roundwood Coll. Co., Re, Lee v. Roundwood Coll. Co., (1897) 1 Ch. 373 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 186 ; 75 L. T. 641 ; 45 W. R. 329 495 Rouse v. Bradford Banking Co., (1894) 2 Ch. 32, C. A., aff. (1894) A. C. 586 79, 1451 Routledge v. Ramsay, 8 A. & E. 221 1068 Row v. Dawson, 1 Ves. Sen. 331 1489, 1491 Rowe v. Wood, 2 J. & W. 558 930 Rowell v. Whalley, 1 Rep. in Ch. 1 16 699, 700, 735,736 Rowena, 3 Asp. N. C. 506 ; 36 L. T. 366 ; 26 W. R. 82 1513 Rowland r. Sturges, 2 Ha. 520 1022 . v. Witherden, 3 Mac. & G. 568 512, 525 Rowley, Re, 1 De G. J. & S. 417 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 158 ; 1 L. R. 251 1429 . v. Adams, 14 Beav. 130 ; 15 Jur. 1002 892 Rowntree v. Jacob, 2 Taunt. 141 1372 Rowsell v. Morris, L. R. 17 Eq. 20 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 97 1107 Rowson v. Harrison, 31 Beav. 207 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 875 769, 773 Roy, Exp., Re Sillence, 7 Ch. D. 70 ; 47 L. J. Bky. 36 ; 26 W. R. 82 ; 37 L. T. N. S. 508 181, 183 Royal Arch, Swab. 269 1391, 1501, 1503, 1504, 1507, et seq. . Bank of Australasia, Re, 25 L. J. Ch. 649 1281, 1363 British Bank v. Turquand, 6 E. & B. 327 475, 476 Liver Friendly Soc, Re, L. R. 5 Ex. 78 ; 39 L. J. Ex. 37 ; 21 L. T. 721 ; 18 "W. R. 349 1530 Stuart, 2 Spinks, 258 1507 Royds v. Royds, 14 Beav. 54 518, 526 Rudge v. Richens, L. R. 8 C. P. 358 ; 42 L. J. C. P. 127 ; 28 L. T. 537 . . 868, 963 Rufford v. Bishop, 5 Russ. 346 122, 175, 178, 181, 1165 Rule v. Jewell, 18 Ch. D. 660 ; 29 W. R. 755 742 Rummens v. Hare, 1 Ex. D. 169 ; 46 L. J. Ex. 30 ; 34 L. T. 407 ; 24 W. R. 385 56 Rumney and Smith, Re, 66 L. J. Ch. 482 ; 76 L. T. 343 . .549, and see Addenda Runcorn v. Nicholson, 5 L. J. N. S. Ch. 203 1005 Ruscombe v. Hare, 2 Bli. N. S. 192 ; 6 Dow, 1 641, 642, 703, 705 Rusden v. Pope, L. R. 3 Ex. 269 ; 37 L. J. Ex. 137 ; 18 L. T. 651 ; 16 W. R. 1122 272 RusLbrook v. Lawrence, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 3 ; 18 W. R. 101 ; 21 L. T. N. S. 477 16, 633 Ruahbrooke v. Hood, 5 C. B. 131 ; 11 Jur. 932 1515 Ruahforfch, Exp., 10 Ves. 409 102 • v. Hadfield, 7 East, 224 1467 Rushworth's Case, Freem. Ch. 13 .* 164 Russell, Exp., Re Butterworth, 19 Ch. D. 588; 51 L. J. Ch. 521 ; 46 L. T. 113; 30 W. R. 584 575 , Re, Exp. Guest, "W. N. (1888) 198 ; 37 W. R. 21 75 v. E. Anglian Rail. Co., 3 Mac. & G. 101 ; 14 Jur. 1033. .489, 943, 947, 948 v. Hammond, 1 Atk. 15 571 v. Plaice, 18 Beav. 21 ; 18 Jur. 254 405, 428 issell, 1 Bro. C. C. 269 56, 59 ll'a Estate, Re, 12 Jur. N. S. 224 1428 ■ Policy Trusts, Re, L. R. 15 Eq. 26 ; 27 L. T. N. S. 706 1255 Purchase Moneys, Re, L. R. 12 Eq. 78 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 673 ; 19 W. R. 706; 23 L. T. N. S. 839 1247, 1249 I ' per, Cowp. 629, 632 578,588 R ' . Daniel, 30 W. R. 801 118,801 B 1 . 1 V, . S,n. 349; 1 Atk. 1C5 ..178, 188, 305, 1254, 1262, 1266, 1337, 1465, 1472 Ryder v. Townscnd, Lord, 7 D. & Ry. 119 717 TABLE OF CASES. clxvii PAGE S.'s Settlement, Re, "W. N. (1893) 127 341 Sabin v. Heape, 27 Beav. 553 421 Sacker, Exp., 22 Q. B. D. 179; 58 L. J. Q. B. 4 ; 60 L. T. 344 ; 37 W. It. 204 ; 5 T. L. R. 1 12 952 v. Ohidley, 1 1 Jur. N. S. 654 183 Sackett v. Bassett, 4 Madcl. 58 1168 Sackville v. Smyth, L. R. 17 Eq. 153 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 494 ; 22 W. R. 179 772, 773 Sadler v. Bush, 2 Vern. 30 1225 v. Worley, (1894) 2 Ch. 170 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 551 ; 70 L. T. 494 ; 42 W. R. 476 14, 281, 497, 1001 Saffery, Exp., Re Brenner, 16 Ch. D. 668, C. A. ; 44 L. T. 324 ; 29 W. R. 749 _ 220 , Exp., ReCooke," Tomkins 'r.'SafferyVi'AppVCaV. 2V3 ; ' Vch/D. 555 ; 35 L. T. N. S. 715 589 Saffron Walden, &c. Building Society v. Rayner, 14 Ch. D. 406, C. A. ; 49 L. J. Ch. 465 ; 43 L. T. 3 ; 28 W. R. 681 1258, 1263, 132S Sagitary v. Hyde, 1 Vem. 455 779 Salacia, Lush. 545 ; 32 L. J. Ad. 41 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 27 . .1391, 1392, 1504, 1511 Salaman v. Donovan, 10 Ir. Com. L. R. App. xiii 1283 Salisbury, Bishop of v. Wolferston, 3 Bun. 1504 169 Salkeld v. Johnston, 2 C. B. 749 ; 18 L. J. Ex. 89 ; 14 Jur. Pt. I. 1 .... 170 Salmon, Re, Priest v. Uppleby, 42 Ch. D. 351 ; 38 W. R. 150 ; 5 T. L. R. 538 519, 526, 530, 531 v. Dean, 3 Mac. & G. 344 ; 15 Jur. 641 671, 682, 826 v. 14 Jur. 235 681 v. Mathews, 8 M. & W. 827 685 Salomon v. Salomon & Co., (1897) A. C. 22 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 35 ; 75 L. T. 426 ; 45 W. R. 193 ; 4 Mans. 89 1291 Saloway v. Strawbridge, 7 De G. M. & G. 594 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 1194 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 121 891 Salt v. Cooper, 16 Ch. D. 544 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 529 ; 43 L. T. 682 ; 29 W. R. 553 648, 926 V. Edgar, W. N. (1886) 47 : 54 L. T. 374 1018, 1045 ■ v. Marq. Northampton, (1892) A. C. 1 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 49 ; 65 L. T. 765 ; 40 W. R. 529 ; 8 T. L. R. 104 15, 135, 288, 292 Salter v. Bradshaw, 26 Beav. 161 613, 618 Salting, Exp., Re Stratton, 25 Ch. D. 148, C. A. ; 53 L. J. Ch. 415 ; 49 L. T. 694 ; 32 W. R. 450 104, 1481 Saltingstone's Case, cit. 2 Bulstr. 236 569 Saltmarshe v. Hewett, 1 A. & E. 812 440 Salvin v. Weston, 35 L. J. Ch. 552 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 700 ; 14 W. R. 757. . . . 411 Salway v. Salway, 2 R. & My. 215 924, 956 Sambroke v. Hanbury, Seton (4th ed.), 1149 1031 Sampson v. Pattison, 1 Ha. 533 6,13, 997 ■ v. Scottish Union Ins. Co., 1 H. & M. 618 140 Samuel v. Howarth, 3 Mer. 272 ; 17 R. R. 81 82, 84 v. Jones, 7 L. T. N. S. 760 264, 266 Samwell v. Wake, 1 Bro. C. C. 144 ; Dick. 597 754 Sanders, Exp., 3 L. J. N. S. Bky. 92 60 . v. Davis, 15 Q. B. D. 218 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 576 ; 33 W. R. 655 . . 126 . v. Kentish, 8 T. R. 162 36 v. Maclean, 11 Q. B. D. 327 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 481 ; 49 L. T. 462 ; 31 W. R. 698 1496 v. Richards, 2 Coll. 568 428, 630 v. Sanders, 19 Ch. D. 373 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 276 ; 45 L. T. 171 ; 29 W. R. 413 1067 v. Vanzeller, 4 Q. B. 277; 12 L. J. Ex. 497 ; 3 G. & D. 580. ... 271 Sanderson, Re, 7 Ch. D. 177 ; 38 L. T. N. S. 379 ; 26 W. R. 309 739 . v. Marr, 1 H. Bl. 75 72 . r. Westley, 8 Dowl. 412 73, 77 Sandon v. Hooper, 6 Beav. 246 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 120 794, 1143, 1196, 1205, 1206 Sands to Thompson, 22 Ch. D. 614 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 406 ; 48 L. T. 210 ; 31 W. R. 397 662, 874, 1074 Sandys v. Sandys, 1 P. Wms. 707 416, 429 clxviii table of cases. PAGE Sanger v. Sanger, L. R. 11 Eq. 470 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 372 ; 24 L. T. 649 ; 19 V R 79* 350, 1278, 1360 Sangster v. Cochrane, 28 Ch. D. 298 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 301 ; 51 L. T. 889 ; 33 W. R. 221 561 Sanjyuinetti r. Stuckey's Bank, (1896) 1 Ch. 502 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 340 ; 74 L. T. 269 ; 44 AY. R, 308 1022, 1038, 1138 Sankev Brook Coal Co.. Re (No. 1), L. R. 9 Eq. 721 ; 10 Eq. 381 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 223 ; 22 L. T. 62 ; 18 AY. R. 427 498 Sansora v. Sansom, 4 P. D. 69 ; 48 L. J. P. 25 ; 39 L. T. 642 ; 27 AY. R. 692 300 Sansum v. Dewar, 3 Russ. 91 323 Sargant v. Read, 1 Ch. D. 600 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 206 938 Sargent r. Roberts, 17 L. J. Ch. 117 755, 756, 758 Sail, Re, Exp. AYilliams, (1892) 2 Q. B. 591 ; 67 L. T. 597 215 Sarshaw v. Gibbs, Kay, 333 ; 18 Jur. 330 1378 Satchwell v. Clarke, 66 L. T. 641 959 Saul v. Pattinson, 55 L. J. Ch. 831 1036 Saunders v. Dehew, 2 A^ern. 271 1022, 1301 v. Dunman, 7 Ch. D. 284 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 338 ; 38 L. T. N. S. 416 ; 26 AV. R. 397 297, 1380 ■ v. Graham, Gow, 111 717 v. Hawkins, 8 Vin. Abr. 156 ; 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 771 698 v. Leslie, 2 Ba. & Be. 509 ; 12 R. R. 114 1372, 1375, 1451 v. Merry weather, 3 H. & C. 902 ; 35 L. J. Ex. 115 ; 13 AY. R. 814 675, 684 r. Milsome, L. R. 2 Eq. 573 ; 14 L. T. N. S. 788 ; 15 AY. R. 2 10, 1446 v. Wakefield, 4 B. & Al. 595 ; 23 R. R. 409 80 Savery v. King, 5 H. L. C. 627 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 503 609, 614, 616 Saville v. Campion, 2 B. & Al. 503 ; 21 R. R. 376 1398 Savin, Re, L. R. 7 Ch. A. 760 ; 20 AY. R. 1027 ; 27 L. T. N. S. 466 1112 Sawyer v. Goodwin, 1 Ch. D. 351, C. A. ; 45 L. J. Ch. 289 ; 24 AY. R. 493 ; 34 L. T. N. S. 635 99 r. Sawyer, AV. N. (1883) 212 1141 Saxby, Re, Saxby v. Kiddell, AV. N. (1890) 171 849 Saxton v. Davis, 18 Ves. 72 695 Say, Exp., Mont. 364 1100 Sayers v. AVhitfield, 1 Knapp, 133 1193, 1381 Sayle v. Freeland, 2 A T ent. 350 1054 Scarfe v. Jardine, 7 App. Cas. 345 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 612 ; 47 L. T. 258 ; 30 AV. R. 839 1453 v. Morgan, 4 M. & AV. 270 1385 Scarles v. Sadgrovc, 5 E. & B. 639 717 Scarlett v. Hanson, 12 Q. B. D. 213, C. A. ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 62; 50 L. T. 7.". : 32 W. R. 310 ; 1 C. & E. 53 650 Scarth, Exp., 1 M. D. & De G. 240 121 Schlenker v. Moxey, 1 C. & P. 178 814 Schmitz, Exp.. Re Cohen, 12 Q. B. D. 509 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 1168 ; 50 L. T. 717; 32 W. R. 812 224 Schneider v. Bott, 8 Q. B. D. 701 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 525 ; 45 L. T. 371 ; 30 W. R. 420 1141 Schofield, Exp., I.'- I inl,. 12 Ch. D. 337; 48 L. J. Bky. 122; 27 AV. R. 925 ; 40 L. T. 823 1082, 1089 v. Schofield, Seton. Form. 4th ed. 1334 816 v. Solomon, 52 L. T. 679 1323 Scholefield v. Heafield, 7 Sim. 667; 8 Sim. 470; 7 L.J. Ch. 4.. 1008, 1009, 1052, 1053, 1055 ■ v. Ingram, C. P. Coop. 477 1211 v. Lockwood, 11 \V. R. 555 ; 32 Beav. 439 352, 1198, 1199, 1209, 1434 r. 4 De G. J. & S. 22 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 1258 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 106 638, 640, 764, 766 >. Redfern, 2 Dr. & 8. 173 512 Scholeef. Brook, \V. N. (1891) 101; 63 L. T. 837; 64 L. T. 674; 7 T.L. E. 214 528 TABLE OF CASES. clxix PAGE Scholey v. Peck, (1893) 1 Ch. 709 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 658 ; 68 L. T. 118 ; 45 W. R. 508 1386, 1387 Scholfield v. Spooner, 26 Ch. D. 94 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 777 ; 51 L. T. 138 ; 32 W. R. 910 331 Schooler. Sail, 1 Sch. & L. 176 108, 818, 867, 963 Schotsmans v. Lancashire, &c. Rail. Co., L. R. 2 Ch. A. 332 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 361 ; 16 L. T. 189 ; 15 W. R. 537 1495 Schroeder v. Central Bank, 24 W. R. 710 ; 34 L. T. N. S. 735 310 ■ v. Clough, 46 L. J. C. P. 365 1173 Schweitzer v. Mayhew, 31 Beav. 37 13, 997 Scio, L. R. 1 A. & E. 353 ; 16 L. T. 642 ; 2 M. L. C. 527 1391 Scobie v. Collins, (1895) 1 Q. B. 375 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 10 ; 71 L. T. 775 661, 663, 665 Scoleyr. Peck, (1893) 1 Ch. 709; 62 L. J. Ch. 658 ; 68 L. T. 118; 41 W. R. 508 1387 Scotland, Life Assoc, of v. Siddall, 3 De G. & J. 271 667 Scott, Exp., 3 M. & A. 592 1103 , Re, Padwick v. Scott, 2 Ch. D. 736 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 350 ; 24 W. R. 723 1141 v. Beecher, 5 Madd. 96 764 v. Brest, 2 T. R. 238 1192 v . Colbourn, 26 Beav. 276 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 183 468 v. Franklin, 1 Esp. 66 ; 15 East, 428 1389 v. Hastings, Lord, 4 K. & J. 633 1279, 1282, 1348, 1361, 1364, 1488 v. Nesbitt, 14 Ves. 438 ; 9 R. R. 318 1381 v. Nicoll, 3 Russ. 476 998 v. Nixon, 2 Dr. & War. 388 1066 v. Platel, 2 Ph. 229 910 v. Porcher, 3 Mer. 652 ; 17 R. R. 161 1493 v. Robarts, 4 W. R. 499 1057 v. Scott, Amb. 383 786 v. Spashett, 3 Mac. & G-. 599 327 v. Streatham and General Estates Co., W. N. (1891) 153 1009 v. Tyler, 2 Dick. 712 ; 2 Bro. C. C. 432 400—403, 405 v. Uxbridge and Rickmansworth Rail. Co., L. R. 1 C. P. 596 ; 35 L J. C. P. 293 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 602 ; 14 W. R. 893 718 Scott and Alvarez's Contract, Re, (1895) 1 Ch. 596 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 376 ; 72 L. T. 455 403 Scott's Estate, Re, 14 Ir. Ch. R. 63 787 Scottish Amicable Society v. Fuller, Ir. R. 2 Eq. 53 ; 16 W. R. 274 1268 Scottish Widows' Fund v. Craig, 20 Ch. D. 208 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 363 ; 30 W. R. 463 1017 Scrafton v. Quincey, 2 Ves. Sen. 413 1246 Scudamore, Exp., 3 Ves. 85 589 Seabourne v. Powell, 2 Vern. 11 146, 793 Seager v. Aston, 3 Jur. N. S. 481 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 809 978, 980 Seagrams Tuck, 18 Ch. D. 296; 50 L. J. Ch. 572; 44 L. T. 800; 29 W. R. 784 956 Seagrave v. Pope, 1 De G. M. & G. 783 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 258 551 Seal v. Claridge, 7 Q. B. D. 516 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 316 ; 29 W. R. 598 ; 44 L. T. 501 219 Seaman, Re, (1896) 1 Q. B. 412; 65 L. J. Q. B. 348; 74 L. T. 159; 44 W. R. 496 ; 3 Mans. 19 , 241 Searle v. Barriugton, Lord, 2 Stra. 826 ; 3 Bro. P. C. 593 985 v. Choate, 25 Ch. D. 723 ; 50 L. T. 470 ; 32 W. R. 397 947 v. Colt, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 36 1299, 1443 Seaton v. Twyford, L. R. 11 Eq. 591 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 122 ; 23 L. T. 648 ; 19 W. R. 200 54, 135, 1096 Secretary of State for India v. British Empire Mutual Life Ass. Co., 67 L. T. 434 32 Securities, &c. Investment Co. v. Brighton Alhambra, W. N. (1893) 15; 62 L. J. Ch. 566 ; 68 L. T. 249 880, 955, 1290 Seear v. Cohen, 45 L. J. Q. B. 589 626 v. Lawson, 15 Ch. D. 426 ; 49 L. J. Bky. 69 ; 42 L. T. 893 ; 28 W. R. 929 633 dxX TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Seed v. Bradley, (1894) 1 Q. B. 319 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 387 ; 70 L. T. 214 ; 42 W. R. 257 ; 1 Man.s. 157 224, 235 Se°Tave's Trusts, 17 L. R. Ir. 373 341 Selby, Re, 8 De G. M. & G. 271 1261 V. Cooling, 23 Beav. 418 428 r Pomfrct, 3 De G. F. & J. 595 ; 1 J. & H. 336 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 835 ; 9 W. R. 583 856, 862, 1227 Selfe p. Madox, 1 Vern. 459 1322 Seli«*man v. Prince & Co., (1895) 2 Ch. 617 j 64 L. J. Ch. 745 ; 73 L. T. 124; 44 W. R. 6; 2 Mans. 586 473, 1291 Scllick v. Smith, 11 Moo. 459 629 . v . Trevor, 11 M. & W. 722 1317 Selmer's Case, Gilb. Eq. Rep. 200 847 Selsey, Lord v. Lake, Lord, 1 Beav. 146 1431, 1437, 1439 Selwyn v. Brown, 3 Bro. P. C. 386 1404 v. Garfit, 38 Ch. D. 273 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 609 ; 59 L. T. 233 ; 36 W. R. 513 ~. 899 Semeuza v. Brinsley, 18 C. B. N. S. 472 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 409 I486 Senhouser. Earl, 2 Ves. Sen. 450 814, 1027, 1042, 1313 v. Mawson, 52 L. T. 745 1110 Sentancer. Porter, 7 Ha. 426; 18 L. J. Ch. 448 711, 1179, 1180 Sergison, Exp., 4 Ves. 147 833, 834 v. Sealev, 2 Atk. 416 641 Serle v. St. Eloy, 2 P. "Wins. 3S6 757 Serrao v. Noel, 15 Q. B. D. 549 867 Seton v. Slade, 7 Ves. 265 ; 6 R. R. 124 12, 129 Severance r. Civil Service Association, 48 L. T. 485 346 Sevier v. Greenway, 19 Ves. 413 20 Sevvaji v. Chinna, 10 Moo. LA. 151 745 Sewell r. Bishopp, 62 L. J. Ch. 985 ; 69 L. T. 6S 428 . v. Burdick, 10 App. Cas. 74 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 156 ; 52 L. T. 445 ; 33 W. R. 461 ; 5 Asp. 376 1466, 1467, 1495 Seys v. Price, 9 Mod. 217 ; 1 Barn. 117 ; cited 1 Russ. 197 355, 510 Shacleton v. Shacleton, 2 S. & St. 242 1086 Shaftesbury v. Marlborough, 2 My. & K. Ill . . .' 432 , Earl of v. Russell, 1 B. & C. 666 177, 178 Shafto v. Shafto, 2 P. Wms. 664, n. ; 1 Cox, 207 760 18 v. Richardson, 1 My. & K. 500 653 Shakeshaft, Exp., 3 Bro. C. C. 197 512 Shakespear, Re, Deakin v. Lakin, 30 Ch. D. 169 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 44 ; 53 L. T. 145; 33 W. R. 144 346 ShaUcross v. Finden, 3 Ves. 737 407, 756 Sharp, Re, Rickett v. Sharp, 45 Ch. D. 286 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 38 ; 62 L. T. 777 515 . v. Carter, 3 P. Wms. 379 947 v. McHenery, 55 L. T. 747 1077 v. (No. 2), 38 Ch. D. 427 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 961 ; 57 L. T. 606 239, 244, 249 Sharpe, Re, Masonic, &c. Ass. Co. v. Sharpe, (1892) 1 Ch. 154 (C. A.) ; 61 L.J. Ch. 193; 65 L. T. 806; 40 W. R. 241; 8 T. L. R. 194 741 v. Birnh, 8Q.B.D. Ill ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 64 ; 45 L. T. 760 ; 30 W. K. 428; 46 J. B. 246 241 v. Foy, L. R. 4 Ch. A. 35; 19 L. T. N. S. 541 ; 17 W. R. 65. . . .1217, 1296, 1313, 1331 . v. Gamon, 2 Vern. 32 1012 . v. Gibbs, 16 C. B. N. S. 521 1448 . r. Scarborough, Bar] of, I V< b. .VIS 652, 695 v. Sharpe, 17 L. T. N. S. Ch. 384 ; 12 Jur. 598 833,834 v. Thomas, 6 Bing. 416 ; 4 Moo. & P. 87 77 She ams, 32 Beav. 212 43,1308,1309 , .,. 11 v. Blake, 2 Eq. Ca. Ahr. 603 708, 1151, 1152 1 ■ Gibbs, Kay, 333 639 Shattook v. Shattock, 2 Eq. 182; 35 L. J. Ch. 509 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 405 ; 14 W. R. 600 348, 349 Shaw, Exp., 8 Sim. L69 834 v. Boner, I Keen, 559 ; 5 L. J. N. S. Ch. 301 407, 418 TABLE OF CASES. clxXl PAGE Shaw v. Bunny, 2 De G. J. & S. 468 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 257 ; llJur. N. S. 99; 13 W. B. 374; 11 L. T. N. S. 645 823,906 v. Foster, L. B. 5 H. L. 321 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 49 ; 20 W. B. 907 ; 27 L. T. N. S. 281 57, 1098 v. Gait, 16 Ir. Com. L. R. 357 502 ■ • v. Holland, 10 Jur. 103 37 v. Hudson, 48 L. J. Ch. 689 1276 v. Jeffiy, 13 Moo. B. C. 432 21 v. Johnson, 1 Dr. & S. 412 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 1005 147, 989, 1168 v. Neale, H. L. C. 581 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 655 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 114 .... 1231, 1232, 1297, 1350, 1386 v. Bicton, 4B. & Cr. 715 1213 v. Bort Bhilip, &c. Co., 13 Q. B. D. 103 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 369 ; 50 L. T. 685 ; 32 W. R. 771 474 v. Britchard, 10 B. & Cr. 241 440 ■ v. Bhodes, 2 Buss. 539 953, 956 Shearman v. British Empire Ins. Co., L. R. 14 Eq. 4 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 466; 26 L. T. 570 ; 20 W. B. 620 297, 1380 Shears v. Jacob, L. R. 1 C. B. 513 ; 35 L. J. C. B. 241 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 785 ; 14L.T.286; 14 W. B. 609 ; 1 H. & R. 492 231,248,476 v. Rogers, 3 B. & Ad. 362 571, 573 Shee v. French, 3 Drew. 716 652 Sheehy v. Lord Muskerry, 1 H. L. C. 576 ; LI. & Gt. Sud. 185 380 Sheen, Exp., Be Winstanley, 1 Ch. D. 560 ; 45 L. J. Bky. 89 ; 34 L. T. N. S. 48 ; 24 W. R. 685 580, 595 Sheeriff v. Glenton, 28 L. T. 65 554 Sheerman v. Thompson, 11 A. & E. 1027 598 Sheffield v. Buckingham, Duchess of, "West, t. Hard. 682 1056 v. Eden, 10 Ch. D. 291 ; 27 W. B. 477 : 40 L. T. 283 1414 , Earl of v. London Joint Stock Bank, 13 App. Cas. 333 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 986 ; 58 L. T. 735 ; 37 W. B. 33 279, 483, 1466 . ■ Union Bk. Co., Exp., 13 L. T. N. S. 477 57, 64 Sheffield and South Yorks. Bermanent Building Society v. Aizlewood, 44 Ch. D. 412 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 34 546 Sheffield and South Yorks., &c. Building Society v. Harrison, 15 Q. B. D. 358 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 15 ; 51 L. T. 649 ; 33 W. R. 144 123, 124, 206 Sheil, Exp., Re Lonergan, 4 Ch. D. 789 ; 36 L. T. N. S. 270; 25 W. R. 420 ; 46 L. J. Bky. 62 1080 Sheldon v. Cox, 2 Eden, 228 1325, 1326 Shellard, Exp., Adams and Kirby, In re, L. R. 17 Eq. 109; 43 L. J. Bky. 3 ; 22 W. R. 152 ; 29 L. T. 621 310 Shelly v. Nash, 3 Madd. 232 615 Shelmardine v. Harrop, 6 Madd. 39 818 Shenstone & Co. v. Hilton, (1894) 2 Q. B. 452 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 584 ; 71 L. T. 337 1488 Shepard v. Jones, 21 Ch. D. 469 ; 47 L. T. 604 ; 31 "W. R. 308 1203, 1206 Shephard v. Beane, 2 Ch. D. 223 ; 24 W. R. 363 1141 v. Elliot, 4 Madd. 254 ; 20 R. R. 296 1208 Shepheard v. Beetham, 6 Ch. D. 597 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 763 ; 36 L. T. 909 ; 25 W. R. 764 539 Shepherd, Exp., Re Blumer, 1 Bh. 56; 2 M. D. & De G. 204 ; 11 L. J. N. S. Ch. 25 1082, 1084 v. Gwinnet, 3 Swanst. 151 696, 1438 v. Harrison, L. R. 5 H. L. 116 ; 40 L. J. Q. B. 148 ; 24 L. T. 857 ; 20 W. R. 1 1497 v . Johnson, 2 East, 211 36, 37 v. Bulbrook, 59 L. T. 288, C. A 195 v. Titley, 2 Atk. 348 60, 869, 1221, 1231 Sheppard, Exp., 4 L. T. N. S. 108 181 . v. Oxenford, 1 K. & J. 500 939 v. Sheppard, 32 Beav. 194 411 . v. Union Bank of London, 7 H. & N. 661 14S0, 1483 Vm 8 Jur. N. S. 265 1481 . v. Wilson, 4 Ha. 392 432 Sherborne v. Tollemache, 13 C. B. N. S. 742 70, 871 Sherbro', 52 L. J. B. D. & A. 28 1175, 1381 Clxxii TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Sheridan v. McCartney, 11 Ir. Com. L. R. 506 219 Sheriff v. Spark, West, 130 1041 Sherman, Exp., Buck, 462 1095, 1096 - v. Cox, 3 Rep. in Ch. 84 1012, 1140 Sherrington, Exp., 1 M. D. & De G. 195 1102 v. Yates, 12 M. & W. 855 323 Sherry, Re. London and County, &c. Co. v. Terry, 25 Ch. D. 692 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 404 ; 50 L. T. 227 ; 32 W. R. 394 1212 Shewellr. Jones, 2 S. & St. 170 948 Shillito v. Theed, 7 Binar. 405 623 Shine. Re, (1892) 1 Q. B. 522 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 253 ; 66 L. T. 146 ; 40 W. R. 386 ; 8 T. L. R. 279 300 Ship Warre, Re, 8 Pri. 269, n 271 Shiphard v. Lutwidge, 8 Ves. 26 653 Shipley, Exp., 5 Bing. N. R. 226 320 v. Kymer, 1 M. & S. 484 1466 Shirley v. Ferrers, 1 Bro. C. C. 41 1 174 v. Martin, 3 P. Wms. 74, n 626 v. Watts, 3 Atk. 200 695 Shirt v. Westby, 16 Ves. 393 ; 10 R. R. 210 1174 Shore r. Shore, 2 Ph. 378 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 59 1451 v. 4 Drew, 501 ; 8 L. J. Ch. 940 637 Shortrede v. Cheek, 1 A. & E. 57 80 Shotbolt v. Biscow, 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 173 870 Shrewsbury, Countess of v. Shrewsbury, Earl of, 1 Ves. Jun. 227 ; 3 Bro. C. C. 120 433, 1432, 1434 Shropshire Union, kc. Co. v. The Queen, L. R. 7 H. L. 496 ; 45 L. J. Q. B. 31 ; 32 L. T. 283 ; 23 W. R. 709 1238, 1302, 1320 Shrubsole v. Sussams, 16 C. B. N. S. 452 183, 594 Shuttleworth v. Hernaman, 1 De G. & J. 322 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 1313 178 v. Laycock, 1 Vern. 245 858 v. Lowther, 7 Ves. 586 1179 Sibbering v. Earl of Balcarras, 3 De G. & S. 735 617 Sibley t'.Higgs, 15Q.B. D. 619; 54 L. J.Q.B.525; 33 W. R. 728. .221,233,237 . v. Perry, 7 Ves. 522 410 Sibree v. Tripp, 15 M. & W. 23 1405 Sibson r. Fletcher, 1 Rep. in Ch. 59 1058 Bichel v. Raphael, 10 Jur. N. S. 1165 1488 Sichell <■. Mosenthal, 30 Beav. 371 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 275 48 Sicklcmore v. Thistleton, 6 M. & S. 9 90 Siddall r. Rancliffe, 1 Cr. & M. 487 1446 Siebert v. Spooner. 1 M. & W. 718 580 Siffken v. Davis, Kay, App. xxi 1055 Sigourney o. Llovd, 8 B. & Cr. 622 ; 5 Bing. 525 ; 3 T. & T. 220 1465, 1486 Silberechillt v. Schiott, 3 V. & B. 49 836, 854, 1050 Silcock v. Roynon, 2 T. & C. C. C. 376 1190 Silias, Exp., Buck, 349 66 Silk v. Eyre, Ir. R. 9 Eq. 393 96 v. Prime, 1 Bro. C. C. 138 653 Silver v. Barnes, 6 Bing. N. C. 180 548 v. Norwich, Bishop of, 3 Swanst. 114, n 931 Bflveeter, Re, Midland Rail. Co. v. Silvester, (1895) 1 Ch. 573 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 390 ; 72 L. T. 283 ; 43 W. R. 443 92 t\ Jarman, 10 Pri. 78 834 Simmons v. Blandv, (1897) 1 Ch. 19; 66 L. J. Ch. 83; 75 L. T. 646; 45 W. 11. 290 1048, 1051 v. Edwards, 16 M. & W. 838 180 r. Bughes, 34 S. J. 659 215 r. lVttit, s Jur. 209 1348 . Shirley, G Ch. D. 173 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 875 ; 37 L. T. N. S. 121 ; 26 W. !; . 25 802 Bimondfl r. Hodgson, 3 B. & Ad. 50 ; 1L.J. K. B. 51 1507 r. Lawud, Cro. KHz. 239 149 Simons p. McAdam, L. R. 6 Eq. 324 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 751 ; 16 W. R. 963 .. 1015 v. Ifjlman, 2 Sim. 241 1107 TABLE OF CASES. clxxiii PAGE Simpson v. Bathurst, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 193 ; 18 W. R. 772 ; 22 L. T. N. S. 29 381 . • v. Charing Cross Bank, 34 W. R. 56S 239 v. Molson's Bank, (1895) A. C. 270 ; 64 L. J. P. C. 51 1270 v. Morley, 2 K. & J. 71 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 1158 1350 . v. O'Sullivan, 7 CI. & F. 550 1160, 1215 v. Ottawa Rail. Co., 10 L. J. P. C. 108 936 v. Scottish Union, 1 H. & M. 618; 9 Jur. N. S. 711 140 Sims r. Helling, 21 L. J. Ch. 76 165 v. Thomas, 12 A. & E. 536 568, 989 v. Trollope, (1897) 1 Q. B. 24 ; 66 L. J. Q. B. 11 ; 75 L. T. 351 ; 45 W. R. 97 ' 238 Simson v. Ingham, 2 B. & Cr. 65 1212, 1213 Simson's Trusts, Re, 1 J. & H. 89 513 Sinclair v. Great Eastern Rail. Co., L. R. 5 C. P. 391 ; 39 L. J. C. P. 224 1172 V. Jackson, 17 Beav. 405 989, 1001, 1168 ■ v. James, (1894) 3 Ch. 554 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 873 ; 71 L. T. 483 .... 635 Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Clark, 5 Ex. D. 37 ; 49 L. J. Ex. 224 ; 41 L. T. 591 ; 28 W. R. 170 ; 44 J. P. 59 1475 Singleton, Re, Exp. Tritton, 61 L. T. 301 ; 5 T. L. R. 689 208 v. Butler, 2 B. & P. 283 ; 3 Esp. 215 ; 5 R. R. 593 586 v. Cox, 4 Ha. 326 1011 v. Hopkins, 1 Jur. N. S. 1 199 360 Sinnett v. Herbert, Sheriff of Middlesex, L. R. 12 Eq. 206 ; reversed on other points L. R. 7 Ch. A. 232 755 Sir Henrv Webb, 13 Jur. 639 1506 Skarf v. Soulby, 1 Mac. & G-. 364 671 Skeffington v. Whitehurst, 9 CI. & F. 219 699 v. 3Y. &C. Ex. 1 723 Skelton v. Flanagan, Ir. R. 1 Eq. 362 427 Skeyv. Bennet, 2 T. & C. C. C. 405 1105 Skinner, Exp., 1 M. & A. 81 1100 v. Stacey, 1 Wils. K. B. 80 877 v. Todd, W. N. (1881) 166 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 198 ; 46 L. T. 131 ; 30 W. R. 267 344 Skinners' Co. v. Irish Soc, 1 My. & Cr. 164 929 Skipp v. Harwood, 3 Atk. 564 947 v. Wyatt, 1 Cox, 353 1005, 1180 Slack, Exp., 1 Gl. & J. 346 1102 Sladden v. Serjeant, 1 F. & F. 322 212, 214, 215, 246 Slade v. Rigg, 3 Ha. 35 13, 276, 294,995, 1000, 1007, 1014, 1017 Slater v. Darlaston Steel Co., W. N. (1877) 139 1134, 1136 v. Lawson, 1 B. & Ad. 306 980 Slater's Trusts, Re, 11 Ch. D. 227 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 473 ; 27 W. R. 448 ; 40 L. J. 184 616, 991, 1169, 1171 Sleet, Re, Exp. Sleet, (1894) 2 Q. B. 797 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 750 ; 71 L. T. 381; 1 Mans. 394 1109 Slim v. Croucher, 1 De G. F. & J. 518 47, 1257 Sloane's Estate, Re, (1895) 1 Ir. R. 146 1339 Sloman v. Kelly, 4 Y. & C. 169 ; 3 Y. & C. 673 619 Smale v. Burr, L. R. 8 C. P. 64 ; 42 L. J. C. P. 20 ; 27 L. T. 555 ; 21 W. R. 193 242 Small v. Attwood, Yo. 507 1376 v. Moates, 9 Bing. 574 ; 2 M. & Sc. 674 1398 v. National Provincial Bank of England, (1894) 1 Ch. 686 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 270 ; 70 L. T. 492 ; 42 W. R. 378 206 v. Smith, 10 App. Cas. 119 458 v. Wing, 5 Bro. P. C. 66 415 Smalley v. Hardinge, 7 Q. B. D. 524, C. A 161 Smart v. Hunt, 4 Ves. 478, n 748 v. Saundars, 3 C. B. 380 ; 17 L. J. C. P. 258 1485 Smartle v. Williams, I Salk. 245 663 Smeatham v. Bray, 15 Jur. 1051 856 Smeeton v. Collier, 5 D. & L. 184 ; 17 L. J. Ex. 57 ; 1 Ex. 457 874, 876 Smethnrst». Hastings, 30 Ch. D.490; 52 L. T. 567; 33 W. R. 406. .519, 523, 525 v. Longworth, 2 Keen, 603 407 Clxxiv TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Smith, Exp., 3 M. & A. 63 ; 2 Dea. 236 1206 , Exp., 3 M. & A. 693 ; 1 Dea. 493 1266 , Exp., 1 M. D. &DeG. 165 1102 , Exp., 2 M. D. & De G. 587 ; 11 L. J. N. S. Bky. 16 ; 6 Jur. 610. .57, 60, 830 , Exp., 3 M. D. & De G. 680 1103 , Exp., 1 D. & C. 441 1098 , Exp., 2 D. & C. 60 1099, 1498 , Exp., 5 Ves. 556 356 , Exp., 2 D. & L. 271 826 , Exp., In re Bank of Hindustan, China, and Japan, L. R. 3 Ch. A. 125 1384 , Re, Exp. Hepburn, 25 Q. B. D. 536 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 554 ; 63 L. T. 626 ; 38 W. R. 744 ; 6 T. L. R. 347 162 , Re, Exp. Logan, 72 L. T. 362 ; 43 W. R. 413 ; 2 Mans. 70 1088 , Re, Exp. Tarbuck, 72 L. T. 59 ; 43 W. R. 206 231 , Re, Hannington v. True, 33 Ch. D. 195 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 914 ; 55 L. T. 549 ; 35 W. R. 103 773 v. Avkwell, 3 Atk. 566 626 r. Baker, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 223 793 v. Bank of New South Wales, L. R. 4 P. C. 194 ; 41 L. J. Adm. 49 ; 27 L. T. 46 ; 20 W. R. 557 ; 8 Moore P. C. C. N. S. 443 1507 r. Bank of Scotland, 1 Dow, 272 81 v. Barnes, L. R. 1 Eq. 65 733 v. Battens, 1 Moo. & R. 841 985 v. Bkknell, cit. 3 V. & B. 51 817, 818, 1005 • r. Bond, 11 M. & W. 558 619 v. Bromly, 2 Doug. 697, note (f) 6 592 ■ v. Brown, 48 L. J. Ch. 694 223 v. Bruning, 2 Vern. 392 626 v. Cannan, 2 E. & B. 35 ; 22 L. J. Q. B. 290 581, 583, 584 v . Cheese, 1 C. P. D. 60 ; 45 L. J. C. P. 156 ; 33 L. T. 670 ; 24 W. R. 368 248 v. Chichester, 2 Dr. & War. 393 ..56, 809, 1004, 1013, 1072, 1305, 1384, 1414 v. Clay, 3 Bro. C. C. 639, n 1058 v. C'oplestone, 11 Beav. 482 1161 ■ v. Cowell, 6 Q. B. D. 75 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 38 ; 43 L. T. 528 ; 29 W. R. 227 649, 925, 931 r. Cuff, 6 M. & S. 160 592 v. Dale, 18 Ch. D. 516 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 352 ; 44 L. T. 460 ; 29 W. R. 330. 1382 v. Davies, 28 Ch. D. 650 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 278 ; 52 L. T. 19 ; 33 W. R. 211 1022, 1026 r. Durrant, 1 De G. & J. 535 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 830 901 ■ r. Effintrham, Earl of, 7 Beav. 357 953 ■ v. Eggington, L. R. 9 C. P. 145 ; 43 L. J. C. P. 140 ; 30 L. T. 521 . . 679 v. English and Scottish Mercantile Investment Co., W. N. (1896) 86 1290 v. Etches, 12 W. R. 368 1012 v. Evans, 28 Beav. 59 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 389 1372 V. 30 Beav. 445 1295 v . Amb. 633 429 v. Frederick, 1 Russ. 208 1432, 1437 v. Garland, 2 Mer. 123 605 v. Gould, 4 Moo. P. C. 21 1501, 1506, 1509, 1510 v. Green, 1 Coll. 555 695, 1175, 1179, 1415 r. Gye, 2 M. D. & De G. 314 58 . Bibbard, 2 Dick. 730 1372 v. Hill, 9 Ch.D. 143; 47 L. J. Ch. 788; 33L.T. 638; 30 W. R. 316.. 1168, 1172 r. Low, 1 Atk. 490 1306 Maolnre, 32 W. R. 459 122, 123 v. Moreton, 37 L. J. Ch. 6 772 r. Morgan, 5 C. P. D. 337 ; 49 L. J. C. P. 410 1112 v. Nesbitt, 2 C. B. 286 1159 V. Olding, 2:. Ch. D. 462 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 251 ; 50 L. T. 357 ; 32 W. R. I 1027, 1028 v. Osborne, 6 H. L. C. 375; 3 Jur. N. S. 118; 6 W. R. 21 793 TABLE OF CASES. clxxV PAGE Smith v. Osborne, 1 F. & F. 267 1325 v. Parks, 16 Beav. 115 508 • v. Pavier, 18th July, 1852 813 v. Pearman, TV. N. (1888) 131 ; 58 L. T. 720 ; 30 W. R. 68 1048 v. Phillips, 1 Keen, 694 1131, 1437, 1438, 1443 ■ v. Pierce, Carth. 101 654 v. Pilgrim, 2 Oh. D. 127, C. A. ; 34 L. T. N. S. 408 582,589 v. Pilkington, 1 De G. F. & J. 120 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 227 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 58 551, 1183 r. Plummer, 1 B. & Aid. 575; 19 R. R. 391 1391, 1393 v. Pocklington, 7 Sc. 69 674, 675 v. Robinson, 1 Sra. & G. 140 1035, 1036 v. 13 Ch. D. 148 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 20 ; 41 L. T. 405 ; 28 W. R. 37 46, 1317 v. Smith, 9 Beav. 80 344 . v . Stra. 255 1461 v. 3 Giff. 263 769 v. Coop. 141 1181 v. 1 Y. & C. Ex. 338 50, 1382 v. 10 Ha. App. LXXI 929 ■ v. 2 Cr. & M. 231 1256, 1260 v. (1891) 3 Ch. 550 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 694 ; 65 L. T. 334 ; 40 W. R. 32 708 v, Stoneham, TV. N. (1886) 178 527 v. Timms, 1 H. & C. 849 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 1285 ; 32 L. J. Ex. 215 ; 7 L. T. N. S. 859 ; 11 TV. R. 381 580—583 ■ v. Topping, 5 B. & Ad. 674 184, 186 ■ v. Valence, 1 Rep. in Ch. 90 737 v. Wall, 18 L. T. N. S. 182 220 • v. Youde, 2 Y. & J. 376 1365 , Knight & Co., Re, L. R. 4 Ch. A. 421 ; 17 TV. R. 510 ; 20 L. T. N. S. 206 1452, 1457 Smith's Case, Re Norwich, &c. Society, 1 Ch. D. 481 ; 24 TV. R. 103 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 143 555, 556 Estate, Re, 4 Ch. D. 70 834 ■ Mortgage, Re, 7 Jur. N. S. 903 94 Smithett v. Hesketh, 44 Ch. D. 161 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 567 ; 62 L. T. 802 ; 38 TV. R. 698 699, 1027, 1028, 1416 Smithson v. Thompson, 1 Atk. 520 1233 Smithwick v. Smithwick, 12 Ir. Ch. 181 317 Smyth v. Foley, 3 Y. & C. Ex. 142 430, 431 Smythe v. Griffin, 13 Sim. 245 624 Snagge v. Frizell, 3 J. & L. 383 1183 Snare v. Baker, 13 Jur. 203 1035 Sneath t>. Valley Gold, Limited, (1893) lCh.477; 68L.T.602; 9T.L.R. 137 480 Snell v. Finch, 13 C. B. N. S. 657 672 Sneyd, Re, 25 Ch. D. 338 ; 31 TV. R. 675 1449 Snowball, Exp., Re Douglas, L. R. 7 Ch. A. 534 ; 41 L. J. Bky. 49 ; 20 TV. R. 786; 26 L. T. N. S. 894 584, 1318, 1325 Snowdon, Exp., Re Snowdon, 17 Ch. D. 44 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 540 ; 44 L. T. 830 ; 29 TV. R. 654 87, 100 Soames v. Robinson, 1 My. & K. 500 , 653 Soar v. Dalby, 15 Beav. 156 802 Soares v. Rahn, 3 Moo. P. C. 1 1500, 1505, 1509, 1510 Sobers. Kemp, 6 Ha. 155 863, 1031, 1170, 1239 Societe Generalo de Paris v. Tramways Union Co., 14 Q. B. D. 424 ; 17 Jur. N. S. 563 1271, 1275 r. Walker, 11 App. Cas. 20; 55 L. J. Q. B. 169; 54 L. T. 389; 34 W. R. 662 278, 1271 Solicitors' & General Life Soc. v. Lamb, 2 De G. J. & S. 251 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 739 ; 1 H. & M. 716 286, 786 Solley v. Gower, 2 Vern. 61 652 v. Wood, 29 Beav. 482 427 Sollory v. Leaver, L. R. 9 Eq. 22 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 72 ; 18 W. R. 59 ; 21 L. T. N. S. 453 870 Solly v. Forbes, 2 Br. & B. 38 112, 1440 Clxxvi TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Solomon, Exp., 1 Gl. & J. 25 1085 & Meagher's Contract, Re, 40 Ch. D. 508 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 339 ; 60 L. T. 487; 37 W. R. 331 54,884,888,908,919 v. Solomon, 13 Sim. 517 ; 7 Jur. 806 632, 721, 1015 r. 33 L. J. Ch. 473 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 331 768 Somerset, Ee, Somerset v. Earl Poulett, TV. N. (1893) 66, 160; 63 L. J. Ch. 41; 42 W. R. 145; 10 T. L. R. 46 528 v. Cox, 33 Beav. 634 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 354 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 490. .1260, 1261 „. Land Securities Co., (1894) 3 Ch. 464 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 880; 71 L. T. 512 ; 43 "W. R. 132 500 v. ■ W. X. (1897) 29 500 Somes v. British Empire Shipping Co., 8 H. L. C. 338 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 761.. 1467 Sophia Cook, 4 P. D. 30 ; 49 L. J. Ad. 16 1509 Sorensen v. Reg., 1 1 Moo. P. C. 1 19 1512 Sorrell v. Carpenter, 2 P. Wins. 482 1322 South, Exp., Re Row, 3 Swanst. 392 ; 19 R. R. 227 1489, 1492 v. Bloxam, 2 H. & M. 457 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 319 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 369. . 97, 104, 779, 788, 1196 ■ African Territories v. Wallington, (1897) 1 Q. B. 692 ; 66 L. J. Q. B. 551 ; 76 L. T. 520; 45 W. R. 467 490 Durham Brewery Co., Re, 31 Ch. D. 261 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 179 ; 53 L. T. 928 ; 34 W. R. 126 470 Eastern of Portugal Rail. Co., Re, 17 W. R. 982 1128 Essex Gaslight Co., 2 J. & H. 306 476 Sea Co. v. Duncomb, 2 Stra. 919 1470 • Western District Bank v. Turner, 31 W. R. 1 13 1037 Loan, etc. Co. v. Robertson, 8 Q. B. D. 17 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 79 ; 46 L. T. 427 ; 30 W. R. 102 70, 1283 ■ Yorkshire, &c. Co. v. Great Northern Rail. Co., 9 Exch. 55 472 Southam, Exp., L. R. 17 Eq. 578 ; 43 L. J. Bky. 39 ; 22 W. R. 456 ; 30 L. T. N. S. 132 239 Southampton's Estate, Re Lord, Allen v. Lord Southampton, &c, 16 Ch. D. 178 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 218 ; 43 L. T. 687 ; 29 W. R. 231 . . . .304, 1346 Southampton, &c. Boat Co. v. Pinnock, 12 W. R. 330 472 Southcoat r. Manorv, Cro. Eliz. 744 703 Southcote's Case, 4 Rep. 83 b 1468 Southern Rail. Co, Re, 17 L. R. Ir. 121 958 Southport West Lanes. Banking Co. v. Thompson, 37 Ch. D. 64 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 114; 58 L. T. 143; 36 W. R. 113 121 South waite v. Ripon, 8 L. J. N. S. Ch. 139 914 Soutten v. Soutten, 1 D. & Rv. 521 103 Sovereign Life Ass. Co. r. Dodd, (1892) 2 Q. B. 573 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 19 ; 67 L. T. 396; 41 W. R, 4; 8 T. L. R. 684 1139 Sowden v. Sowden, 1 Bro. C. C. 582 ; 1 Cox, 165 1383 Spackman v. Evans, L. R. 3 H. L. 171 ; 19 L. T. N. S. 151 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 752 472 r. Foster, 31 W. R. 548 65 . r. Miller, 12 C. B. N. S. 659 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 50 184, 185 r. Timbrell, 8 Sim. 253 399, 420, 969, 970 Spaight v. Cowne, 1 H. & M. 359 1326 Spalding v. Ruding, 6 Beav. 376 1376 r. Thompson, 26 Beav. 637 857, 1 152 Sparke v. Montriou, 1 Y. & C. Ex. 103 732, 814 Sparkes v. Bell, 8 B. & Cr. 1 350 ■ v. Smith, 2 Vern. 276 155 Sparks, Re, 6 Ch. D. 361 ; 37 L. T. N. S. 301 ; 25 W. R. 869 1429 Sparrow, Exp., 2 De G. M. & G. 907 189, 584, 594 , Re, 20 Ch. D. 320 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 497 ; 46 L. T. 789 ; 30 W. R. 373 362 v. Cooper, 1 T. Jones, 72 1247 r. Farmer, 26 Beav. 511 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 530 551, 562 v. Hardcastle, 3 Atk. 798 646 Speight v. Gaunt, 22 Ch. D. 761 532 ■ r. 9 App. Cas. 1 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 419 ; 32 W. R. 435 ; 50 L. T. 330 511, . r 25 Speldt v. Lechmere, 13 Ves. 588 271 TABLE OF CASES. clxxvii PAGE Spence v. Spence, 12 C. B. N. S. 199 ; 10 W. R. 605 418 Spencer, Exp., 1 Deac. 468 1270 ■ ■ v. Boyes, 4 Ves. 370 1054 v. Clarke, 9 Ch. D. 137 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 692 ; 27 W. R. 133.. 1256, 1268, 1333, 1336, 1337, 1340, 1343 ■ • v. Pearson, 24 Beav. 266 1232, 1300 v. Topham, 2 Jur. N. S. 865 1326 Spencer's Case, 5 Rep. 16a ; 1 Sm. L. C. 60 1198 , Be Medical, &c. Soc, L. R. 6 Ch. A. 362 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 455 ; 24 L. T. N. S. 455 ; 19 W. R. 191 1455 Spensley's Estate, Re, L. R. 15 Eq. 16 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 21 ; 21 W. R. 95 . . 1114 Spicer v. Spicer, 24 Beav. 365; 3 Jur. N. S. 1161 330 Spiller v. Spiller, 3 Swanst. 556 ; 19 R. R. 276 1019 Spirett v. Willows, 3 De G. J. & S. 293 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 870 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 365; 12 L. T.N. S. 614; 13 W. R. 329 570,571,574,581 Sponge Spong, 3 Bli. N. S. 84 ; 1 Dow. N. S. 305 410, 785 v. Tucker, 1 Y. & J. 206 71 Spooner v. Payne, 1 De G. M. & G. 383 ; 16 Jur. 367 299, 300 v. Sandilands, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 390 52, 70 Sporle v. Whayman, 20 Beav. 607 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 784 57, 840 Spottiswoode, Eonbl. Bky. R. 20 1084 . v . Stockdale, G. Coop. 102 ; 14 R. R. 221 1094 Spradbery's Mortgage, Re, 14 Ch. D. 514 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 623 ; 43 L. T. 82 ; 28 W. R. 822 839 Sprague, Exp., 4 De G. M. & G. 896 180 Springett v. Dashwood, 2 Giff. 521 914 Sproule v. Prior, 8 Sim. 189 786 Sprunt v. Pugh, 7 Ch. D. 567 ; 26 W. R. 473 955 Spurgeon v. Collier, 1 Ed. 55 12, 747, 1071 Squier v. Mayer, Freem. Ch. 249 124 Squire v. Ford, 9 Ha. 47 I* 40 * I 444 v. Huetson, 1 Q. B. 308 1473 v. Pardoe, 66 L. T. 243 ; 40 W. R. 100 1180, 1182, 1183 v , Whitton, 1 H. L. C. 333 486 Squires, Re, 17 C. B. 176 320 St. Albyn v. Harding, 27 Beav. 11 609, 613 St. Cuthbert Lead Smelting Co., Re, 35 Beav. 384 1126 "W. N. (1866) 91 1002 St. George's Estate, Re, 19 L. R. Ir. 566 958 St. John v. Boughton, 9 Sim. 219 , 983 r. Wareham, 3 Swanst. 631 20 St. John's Coll., &c. Exp., 22 Ch. D. 93 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 268 ; 31 W. R. 55 511 St. Lawrence, 5 P. D. 250 ; 49 L. J. Adm. 82 1394 Stables, Re, 4 De G. J. & S. 257 359 Stack v. Moyse, 12 Ir. Ch. R. 246 50 Stackhouse v. Jersey, Countess of, 1 J. & H. 721 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 359 ; 4L T. N. S. 204; 9 W. R. 453 64, 1238, 1240 Stackpole v. Earle, 2 Wils. K. B. 133 298, 626 Stafford, Earl of v. Buckley, 2 Ves. Sen. 170 842 v. Selby, 3 Vern. 589, Eq. Cas. Abr. 320, pi. 5 45 Stainbank v. Feuning, 11 C. B. 51 ; 15 Jur. 1082 ; 20 L. J. C. P. 226. . . . 1391, 1502, 1505, 1507 v. Shepard, 13 C. B. 418 ; 17 Jur. 1088 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 341 . . 1501, 1502, 1503, 1507 Staines v. Rudlin, 9 Ha. App. liii 1035 Stains v. Banks, 9 Jur. N. S. 1049 1204 Stamers v. Preston, 9 Ir. Com. L. R. 351 561 Stamford, Earl of v. Dunbar, 13 M. & W. 822 170 Stamford &c. Banking Co. v. Ball, 4 De G. F. & G. 310 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 4->0- 31 L.J. Ch. 143; 10 W. R. 196 82, 276, 998, 1000 Stamford's Settled Estates, Re Lord, 43 Ch. D. 84 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 849 ; Gl L. T. 504 ; 38 W. R. 317 389 . 56 L. T. 484 391 Stamp, Exp., De G. 345 363 Stamper v. Pickering, 9 Sim. 176 412 VOL. I. — R. m clxXVlii TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Standard Manufacturing Co., Re, (1891) 1 Ch. 627 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 292 ; 64 L. T. 487 ; 39 W. R. 369 ; 7 T. L. R. 282 209, 496 Standen v. Bullock, Moo. 605 ; Bridgn. 23 601 Stanford, Exp., Re Barber, 17 Q. B. D. 259, C. A ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 339; 54 L. T. 894 ; 34 W. R. 507 229, 231, 232, 235 . v. Roberts, L. R. 6 Ch. A. 307 ; 19 W. R. 552 812 Stanhope v. Manners, 8 Ed. 199 130, 131 V. Stanhope, 11 P. D. 103 ; 55 L. J. P. 36 ; 54 L. T. 906 ; 34 W. R. 446 347 v. Thacker, Prec. Ch. 435 433 v. Verney, Earl, 2 Ed. 81 1217, 1339, 1372 Staniforth v. Staniforth, 2 Vern. 460 429 Stanley v. Bond, 8 Beav. 50 1279, 1361 v. Grundy, 22 Ch. D. 478 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 248 ; 48 L. T. 606 ; 31 W. R. 315 663, 807 v. Stanley, 1 Atk. 549 431 v. 7 Ch. D. 589 ; 26 W. R. 310 ; 37 L. T. N. S. 777 340 Stanley's Case, 4 De G. J. & S. 407 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 713 497 Stanley's Trusts, Re, W. N. (1893) 30 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 469 ; 68 L. T. 197 ; 41 W. R. 343 1428 Stausfeld v. Cubitt, 2 De G. & J. 222 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 495 242, 254 Stansfield v. Hallam, 5 Jur. N. S. 1334 ; 29 L.J. Ch. 173 ; 1 L.T.N. S. 179. .318, 704 v. Hobson, 3 De G. M. & G. 620 ; 16 Bear. 236 750, 751 Stanton v. Hall, 2 R. & My. 175 327 Stapilton v. Stapilton, 1 Atk. 8 374, 376 Staples v. Purser, 2 Dowl. 764 ; 3 Moo. & Sc. 800 72 Stapleton v. Colvile, Forrester, 202 .' 754, 757 v. Haymen, 2 H. & C. 918 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 497 ; 33 L. J. Ex. 170; 9 L. T. 655 ; 12 W. R. 317 258, 259, 269, 1284 Stead v. Banks, 5 De G. & S. 560 ; 16 Jur. 945 1028, 1029 Stead's Mortgaged Estates, Re, 2 Ch. D. 713 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 634 ; 24 W. R. 698 ; 35 L. T. N. S. 465 1169 Steadman v. Hockley, 15 M. & W. 553 1385 Stedman r. Webb, 4 My. & Cr. 346 1385 Steedman v. Poole, 6 Ha. 193 ; 16 L. J. N. S. Ch. 348 329, 1309 Steeds v. Steeds, 22 Q. B. D. 537 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 302 ; 60 L. T. 318 ; 37 W. R. 378 534, 712,845 Steel v. Brown, 1 Taunt. 381 173, 574 V. Dixon, 17 Ch. D. 825 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 591 ; 45 L. T. 142 ; 29 W. R. 735 101 Steele v. Maunder, 1 Coll. 535 1011 r. Stuart, L. R. 2 Eq. 84 1267, 1499 Steers v. Rogers, (1893) A. C. 232 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 671 ; 68 L. T. 726 633, 807 glitz v. Eggington. Holt, 141 504 Stein v. Stein, 1 6 W. R. 69 1336 Stelf ox v. SugdeD , Johns. 234 411 Stephens, Exp., 2 M. & A. 335 1101 v. Broomfield, Great Pacific, L. R. 2 P. C. 511 ; 38 L. J. P. D. & A. 45; 21 L. T. 38; 17 W. R. 933; 6 Moo. P. C.N. S. 151. . 1504 v. Green, (1895) 2 Ch. 148 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 546 ; 72 L. T. 574 ; 43 W. R. 465 1260, 1262, 1264, 1265, 1278 v. Olive, 2 Bro. C. C. 90 ; Bull. N. P. 257 571 ■ v. Venables, 31 Beav. 124 1257, 1263 ■ v. Wettings, 4 L. J. N. S. Ch. 281 1210 Btephi Dson, Exp., 12 Jur. 6; 17 L. J. Bky. 5 ; De G. 586 212, 223, 780 v. Hay-ward, Prec. Ch. 310 1229 v. Heathcote, cit. 1 Bro. C. C. 458 756, 757 V. Royce, 5 Ir. Ch. R. 101 1258 Sterling, Exp., Be Browne, 19 L. R. Ir. 132 1141 ■• Reg., 1896) 1 Q. B. 211 ; 65 L. J. Q. B. 240; 73 L. T. 752; 44 W. I; 302 282, 484 dale v. Hankinson, 1 Sim. 393 1065 . I De G. J. & S. 695 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 682 ; 11 W. R. 791 . . 137 Exp., 4 D. & O. 117 1255 , Exp.,L.R.20 Eq.786; ltL.J. Bk\-. 136;' 33 L. T. N. S. 135. .242, 590 r. Austen, 3 E. & K. 685 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 873 ; 30 L. J. Q. B. 212. . 890 TABLE OF CASES. clxxix PAGE Stevens v. Biller, 25 Ch. D. 31 ; 53 L. J. Cli. 249 ; 50 L. T. 36 ; 32 W. R. 419 1476, 1483 v. Dethick, 3 Atk. 39 429, 430 v. Marston, W. N. (1890) 193 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 192 ; 64 L. T. 274 ; 39 W. R. 129 ; 7 T. L. R. 65 198, 220, 667 v. Mid-Hants Rail. Co., L. R. 8 Ch. A. 1064 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 694 ; 29 L. T. 318 ; 21 W. R. 858 1133, 1444 v. Robertson, 37 L. J. Ch. 499 511 v. Stevens, 2 Coll. 20 1338, 1340 ■ v. Williams, 1 Sim. N. S. 545 1049 Stevens' Will, Re, L. R. 6 Eq. 597 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 537 834, 835, 836 Stevenson v. Blakelock, 1 M. & S. 535 ; 14 R. R. 525 1384 Steward, Exp., 3 M. D. & De G. 265 1489 v. Lombe, 1 Br. & B. 506 ; 4 Moo. 281 122,174,175 Stewart, Exp., Re Shelley, 4 De G. J. & S. 543 ; 34 L. J. Bky. 6 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 25 277, 283 v. Dunn, 12 M. & W. 664 1272 ■ v. Marquis of Donegal, 2 J. & Lat. 636 382 v . Noble, Vera. & Scriv. 528 1174 Stickney v. Sewell, 1 My. & Cr. 8 518, 521, 525, 526 Stiffe v. Everitt, 1 My. & Cr. 37 ; 5 L. J. N. S. Ch. 138 323, 846 Stile v. Finch, Cro. Car. 381 1061 Stileman v. Ashdown, 2 Atk. 481 574 Stiles v. Guy, 4 Y. & C. Ex. 571 849 Stilwell v. Wilkins, Jac. 280 ; 613 Stirling v. Forrester, 3 Bli. 575 100 Stocks v. Dobson, 4 De G. M. & G. 11 ; 17 Jur. 539 1255, 1267, 1488 v. 5 De G. & S. 160 1256 Stockton Iron Furnace Co., Re, 10 Ch. D. 335 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 417 ; 40 L. T. 19 ; 27 W. R. 433 183, 663, 666 Malleable Iron Co., 2 Ch. D. 101 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 168 1266 Stogdon v. Lee, (1891) 1 Q. B. 661 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 669 ; 64 L. T. 494 ; 39 W. R 467 339, 346 Stokes, Exp., De G. 618 101 v. Clendon, 3 Swanst. 150, n. ; 19 R. R. 188 1008, 1010 v. Russell, 3 T. R. 678 ; 1 H. Bl. 563 ; 1 R. R. 732 . . . , 674 v. Stokes, W. N. (1886) 184 , 809 • v. Verrier, 3 Swanst. 634 21 Stokoe v. Cowan, 29 Beav. 637 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 901 ; 4 L. T. N. S. 695 ; 9 W. R. 801 569, 572 Vm Robson, 3 V. & B. 51 , 817, 818 Stone, Exp., 9 Dow. P. C. 843 320 , Re, 33 Ch. D. 541 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 795 ; 55 L. T. 256 ; 35 W. R. 54 507 • v. Compton, 5 Bing. N. S. 142 81 . v. Evans, Woodf. L. & T., 12th ed., p. 244 155 . v. Lickorish, (1891) 2 Ch. 363 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 289 ; 63 L. T. 79 ; 39 W. R. 331 1194 v. Lidderdale, 2 Anstr. 533 291 v. Parker, 1 Dr. & S. 212 769 v. Thomas, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 219 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 168 ; 18 W. R. 385 ; 22 L. T. N. S. 359 1077 Stone's Will, Re, W. N. (1893) 50 ; 9 T. L. R. 346 1255 Stouehewer v. Thompson, 2 Atk. 440 695 Stonehouse v. Gent, 2 Q. B. 431, n 1505 Stonor's Trusts, Re, 24 Ch. D. 195 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 776 ; 48 L. T. 963 ; 32 W. R. 413 342 Stopford v. Fitzgerald, 16 L. J. Q. B. 310 75 Storer v. Hunter, 3 B. & Cr. 368 181 Storie's Trust, Re, 1 Giff. 94 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 1 153 292 Storry v. Walsh, 18 Beav. 559 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 338 ; 18 Jur. 503 422, 9 6 Storton v. Tomlins, 10 Moo. 172 ; 2 Bing. 475 72 Story v. Tonge, 7 Beav. 91 322 v. Windsor, Lord, 2 Atk. 630 1259 Stott v. Milne, 25 Ch. D. 710 ; 50 L. T. 742 1379 «>2 clxXX TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Stow v. Davenport, 5 B. & Ad. 539 435 Strachan v. Barton, 11 Exch. 650 586 . v. Thomas, 12 A. & E. 556 989 . v . Universal Stock Exchange, (1895) 2 Q. B. 329, C. A. ; 64 L. J. Q B. 723 ; 73 L. T. 6 ; 43 W. R. 611 623 Strand Music Hall, Be, 3 De G. J. & S. 147 ; 13 L. T. N. S. 177 ; 14 y? r 6 53, 469, 472, 476, 487, 489 Strange r.FookV, 4 Giff. 408 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 943 ; 11 W. R. 983 86 v. Lee, 3 East, 484 100 Strangways, Re, Hickley v. Strangways, 34 Ch. D. 423 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 195 ; 65L.T. 714; 35 W. R. 83 390,391 Strapp v. Bull, Sons & Co., (1895) 2 Ch. 1 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 58; 72 L. T. 514; 43 W. R. 641 938, 939, 1290 Straton v. Rastall, 2 T. R. 366 86 Streatham and General Estates Co., Re, (1897) 1 Ch. 15; 66 L. J. Ch. 57; 45 W. R. 105 ; 75 L. T. 574 498 Stretton v. Ashmall, 3 Drew. 9 518, 525, 526 Stribblehill r. Brett, 2 Vern. 445 626 Strickland v. Strickland, 10 Sim. 374 785 r. Symons, 26 Ch. D. 245 ; 22 Ch. D. 666 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 582 ; 51 L. T. 406 ; 32 W. R. 889 1379 Stringer, Exp., 9 Q. B. D. 436 277 Strode v. Parker, 2 Vern. 316 129 v. Russell, 2 Vern. 621 ; 3 Ch. Rep. 169 ; 2 Vent. 851 ; 3 P. Wms. 61 847 Strong v. Bird. L. R. 18 Eq. 315 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 814 ; 30 L. T. 745 ; 22 W. R. 788 1404 . v. Carlyle Press (No. 1), (1893) 1 Ch. 268 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 396 ; 41 W. R. 404 ; 9 T. L. R. 135. . . . 937, 941, 1126, 1127 v. (No. 2), W. N. (1893) 51 1022 v. Foster, 17 C. B. 219 83 v. Harvey, 3 Bing. 304 717 v. Strong, 18 Beav. 408 573, 574, 576 Stronge v. Hawkes, 4 De G. & J. 632 ; 4 De G. M. & G. 186. . . .775, 782, 787, 1294, 1364 Stroud v. Willis, Cro. Eliz. 362 110 Stroughill v. Anstey, 1 De G. M. & G. 635 ; 16 Jur. 675 425, 428, 969 . — v. Buck, 14 Q. B. 781 ; 19 L. J. Q. B. 209 ; 14 Jur. 741 110 Stunt, Re, 4 De G. & J. 319 1429 v. Cockerell, L. R. 8 Eq. 607 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 127 1255, 1280 r. Lord Kirkwall, 3 Madd. 387 343 t\ Stuart, 3 Beav. 430 510, 514, 515, 517 v. Worrall, 1 Bro. C. C. 581 736 Stuart's Case, 2 Sch. & Lef. 381 ; 3 Ves. 576 52 Stubbins, Exp., Re Wilkinson, 17 Ch. D. 58, C. A. ; 50 L. J. Ch. 547 ; 44 L. T. 877 ; 29 W. R. 653 589, 594, 595 Si uckville v. Dolben, Sel. Ca. in Ch. 10 ; 15 Vin. Abr. 476, 2 pi. 1 1050 Stump r. Gabey, 2 De G. M. & G. 623 617 Sturch v. Young, 5 Beav. 557; 12 L. J. Ch. 56 925, 929 Sturgeon v. Wingfield, 15 M. & W. 224 654, 684 Sturgis v. Champneys, 3 My. & Cr. 102 322 v. 5 My. & Cr. 197 326, 327 r. Corp, 13 Ves. 190 330 >■. Morse, 24 Beav. 561 1072 Sty. lu, Re, 1 I'h. 105; 2M. D. & De G. 219 1259 Style . M n: in, I ( h. Ca. 150 1014 Styles v. Gay, 1 Man. ft Or. 423 520 Snarl . Toulmin, 2 Pow. Mtg. (6th ed.) 1049 ; 1 L. J. Ch. 12 51 Suckling > . Coney, Nov. 14 715 Sudbury and Poynton Estates, Be, Vernon v. Vernon, (1893) 3 Ch. 74 ; 62 I J.< h 539; 68 L. T. 707; 41 W. R. 585 396 Suffield v. Suffield, 3 Mer. 699 1383 Suffolk, Karl of v. Cox, 15 W. R. 732 1260 Sultan. Cargo Ex, Sunk 504 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 1069 1514 Summi re, Re, Boswell o. Gurney, 13 Ch. D. 136; 27 W. R. 865 1112 Sumner p. Powell, 2 Mer. 30, 36 ; T. & R. 423 ; 16 R. R. 136 88, 964 TABLE OF CASES. clxXXl PAGE Sumpter v. Cooper, 2 B. & Ad. 223 590, 1103, 1243 Sumsionv. Cruttwell, 31 W. R. 399 »*J Sutcliffe v. James, 27 W. R. 750 • • • • • 10 - 1 Sutherland, Duchess of v. Duke of Sutherland, (1893) 3 Ch. 1G9 ; 62 L. J . Ch. 946 ; 69 L. T. 186 ; 42 W. R. 12 ; 9 T. L. R. 530 688 Sutton, Re, 11 Q. B. D. 377 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 752 ; 49 L. T. 436 610 — v. Bath, 1 F. &F. 152, 214 3H. &N. 382; 27 L. J. Ex. 388 246, 248, 252 v. Hawkins, 8 C. & P. 573 < *■} v. Rawlings, 18 L. J. Ex. 249 ; 3 Ex. Ch. 407 8<6 v. Smith, cit. 10 Jur. N. S. 557, n • • • }»ol „. Stone, 2 Atk. 101 152, 378, 995, 1006, 1010 v.Sutton, 22 Ch. D. 511; 52 L.J. Ch. 333; 48 L. T. 95; 31 W.R.369 10,973,1058 v. W. N. (1883) 88 • • • •• • • • 991 „. Wilders, L. R. 12 Eq. 373 ; 19 W. R. 1021 ; 25 L. T. N. S. 092 """ Sutton's Hospital Case," 10 Rep. 1 • • • • ■ • • ■ * 6 f Swabey v. Swabey, 15 Sim. 106 1431, 1433, 1437, 1441 Swabyi-. Dickon, 5 Sim. 629 9o<3 > 9 " Swaffield v. Nelson, W. N. (1876) 255 • • ?" Swain v. Wall, 1 Rep. in Ch 101 » "{* Swainson v. Swainson, 6 De G. M. & G. 648 /»» Swainston v. Clay, 3 De G. & S. 558 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 388 . . 270 , r . - 4 Giff. 187 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 401 ; 11 W. R. 811 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 503 l8 l Swallow v. Swallow, 1 Beav. 432, n • 41* Swan, Re, Ir. R. 4 Eq. 209 96 > ™ 4 v. Philhps, 8 A. & E. 457 • ■ • }%tl t-. Swan, 8 Pri. 518 ; 22 R. R. 770 635,1377,13/8 Swann, Exp., 7 C. B. N. S. 400 •••• ]f] Swayne v. Swayne, 11 Beav. 483 u <*>> l f L Sweet v. Combley, 25 Ch. D. 463, n 1»28 . v. Southcote, 2 Bro. C. C. 66 ; Dick. 670 1300 Sweetland v. Smith, 1 Cr. & M. 585 *•> Sweny v. Smith, L. R. 7 Eq. 324 • • • • • < 18 Swift v. Pannell, 24 Ch. D. 210 ; 48 L. T. 351 ; 31 W. R. 543 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 341 226 > \f. Swilchenbart, Exp., 3 M. D. & De G. 671 • ■ • • • • ■ • • • • • • 59 ° Swinbanks, Exp., Re Shanks, 11 Ch. D. 525 ; 48 L. J. Bky. 120 ; 27 W. R. 893; 40 L. T. 825 •••• }° A ]° Swinfen v. Swinfen, 29 Beav. 199 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 89 H35, 144o Swire v. Cookson, 49 L. T. 736, C. A • • • • 2 ^ v. Leach, 18 C. B. N. S. 479; 11 Jur. N. S. 179 1467,1473 Swynfenf. Scawen, 1 Ves. Sen. 99 .W 1 —, 1 , Syer v. Gladstone, 30 Ch. D. 614 b ± > < <« Syers v. Syers, 1 App. Cas. 174 ; 35 L. T. 101 ; 24 W. R. 970 o06 Sykes, Exp., 13 Jur. 486 10J6 > )\°f _ v. Giles, 5 M. & W. 615 • • • • • • •• • • • • • U $ Q Q Sykes' Case, L. R. 13 Eq. 255 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 251 ; 26 L. T. N. S. 92 . . . . 599 Symmes v. Symonds, 4 Bro. P. C. 328 . •••;••••• - • ■ ■ • l - 6ii Symmons, Exp., Re Jordan, 14 Ch. D. 693; 42 L. T. 106 ; 28 W. R. QAO #.... loUj OJl Symons v. James,' 2 Y.'& C. C.' C.'^oi ' '.'.'.'.... 755, 774, 776, 785 T.,Re, 15 Ch. D. 78 ••■ J12 Taaffe, Re, 14 Ir. Ch. R. 347 ;•••••■•••••• 13G> ^ Tabor v. Grover, 2 Vern. 367 ; 1 Eq. Ca. Abr 328 pi. 5 . . . ... . . ... 852 Tabram v. Freeman, 4 B. & Ad. 887, n. ; 2 Dowl. P. C. 3/5 ; 2 C. & M. 451; 4Tyrw. 180 JJ Tagart, Exp., De G. 531 ............. . . . . ........... i-u Tahiti Cotton Co., Re, Exp. Sargent, L. R. 17 Eq. 2/3 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 425 ; 22 W. R. 815 277 ' 2bl Clxxxii TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Tailbv v Off. Receiver, 13 App. Cas. 523 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 75 ; 60 L. T. 162 ; 37 W. B. 513 213, 271, 302 Tait, Exn., Be Tait & Co., L. B. 13 Eq. 311 ; 41 L. J. Bky. 32; 20 W. B. 318 1076 v. Lathbury, L. B. 1 Eq. 174 ; 35 Beav. 112 ; 14 W. B. 16 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 991 996 v. Northwick, 4 Ves. 816 754, 756 Talbot, Be, King v. Chick, 39 Ch. D. 567 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 70 ; 60 L. T. 45 ; 37 W. B. 233 868, 1112 r. Braddyl, 1 Vera. 395 21, 26, 27 v. 2 Vern. 183 707 , p. Frere, 9 Ch. D. 568; 27 W. B. 148 1152, 1153 v. Hodson, 7 Taunt. 251 ; 5 Marat. 527 68 . v. Kemshed, 4 K. & J. 93 1188, 1190 . v. Badnor, Earl of, 3 My. & K. 254 639 v. Shrewsbury, Gilb. Eq. B. 89 ; Prec. .Ch. 294 415 ■ r. Stainforth, U. & H. 484 614 v. Tipper, Skin. 427 380 Tamplin v. Miller, W. N. (1882) 44 ; 30 W. B. 422 341 Tancred v. Delagoa Bay Co., 23 Q. B. D. 239 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 459 ; 61 L. T. 229 ; 38 W. B. 15 ; 5 T. L. B. 587 307, 309 Taner v. I vie, 2 Ves. Sen. 466 402 Tanfield v. Irvine, 2 Buss. 149 926, 930 Tankerville v. Eawcett, 1 Cox, 237 ; 2 Bro. C. C. 57 761 Tanner v. Byne, 1 Sim. 160 ; 5 L. J. Ch. 125 9 v. Heard, 23 Beav. 555 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 427 912, 1178 Tanqueray-Willaume and Landau, Be, 20 Ch. D. 4C5 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 434 ; 46 L. T. 542 ; 30 W. B. 801 408, 422 Tapfield v. Hillman, 6 Man. & Gr. 245; 12 L. J. C. P. 311 ; 7 Jur. 771. .174, 212 Tapply v. Sheather, 8 Jur. N. S. 1163 ; 11 W. B. 12 ; 7 L. T. N. S. 298.. 20 Tarback v. Marbury, 2 Vern. 510 574, 602 Tarbottom v. Earle, 11 W. B. 680 411 Tarleton v. Hornby, 1 Y. & C. Ex. 172 695 Tarn v. Turner, 39 Ch. D. 456 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 1085 ; 59 L. T. 742 ; 37 W. B. 276 628, 679, 694 Tartar, 1 Hagg. 1 1501, 1503 Tasburgh v. Echlin, 2 Bro. P. C. 265 16 Tasker v. Attenborough, W. N. (1881) 111 1474 v. Small, 6 Sim. 625 426 v. , 3 My. & Cr. 63 630,694,729,1409 Tasmania, 13 P. D. 110 ; 57 L. J. Ad. 49 ; 59 L. T. 263 ; 6 Asp. 305 1395 Tassel v. Smith, 2 De G. & J. 713 860, 864 Taster v. Marriott, Amb. 668 164 Tatam (or Tatham) v. Beeve, (1893) 1 Q. B. 44 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 30 ; 67 L. T. 683 ; 41 W. B. 174 ; 9 T. L. B. 39 621 • v. Williams, 3 Ha. 347 1065 Tate, Exp., 35 L. T. 351 588 V. Austin, 1 P. Wms. 264 351 r. Wellings, 3 T. B. 537 37 Tatham, Exp., 1 M. & A. 335 1101 v. Parker, 1 Jur. N. S. 992 668 v. 1 Sm. & G. 506 ; 17 Jur. 929 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 903 948 Taunton p. Morris, 11 Ch. D. 779; 48 L. J. Ch. 408; 27 W. B. 718 .... 326 r. Sheriff of Warwickshire, (1895) 2 Ch. 319 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 497 ; 72 L. T. 712 496 rner, Exp., 7 De G. M. & G. 027 368 I !o., 3 Ch. D. 629 727 , Re, 3 Mao. & C. 127 360 1 ■ reai Indian Peninsular Bail. Co., 2 De G. & J. 559 .......... 1271 1 lor, Exp., 7 C. B. 1 320 , Exp., ReGoldsmid, 18 Q. B. D. 295 ; 56 L. ' J. Q. B. 196 : 3fi W. I;, lis 389 • ' '■■]• • ! 13 Q. B D. 128 1088 ■ '•' ■ 31 W. l:. 596 : W. N. (1883) 95 394 , Re, Btilemanand Underwood, asm) 1 Ch.590: 60 L. J. Ch. 525; 71 L. R. 202; 64L.T. 605; 39 W. B. 417 1389 TABLE OF CASES. clxXXlii PAGE Taylor v. Baker, Dan. 82 ; 5 Pri. 306 1178, 1224, 1310, 1334 v. Bank of New South Wales, 11 App. Cas. 590 ; 55 L. J. P. C. 47 ; 55 L. T. 444 87 V. Coates, 3 Ha. 263 877, 1052 ■ ■ v. Coenen, 1 Ch. D. 641 ; 34 L. T. N. S. 18 571 v. Debar, 1 Ch. Ca. 274 ; S. C, 2 Ch. Ca. 212 793 v. Eckersley, 2 Ch. D. 302 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 527 ; 34 L. T. 637 ; 24 W. E. 450 927, 940, 942 V. 5 Ch. D. 740; 36 L. T. N. S. 442; 25 W. E. 527.. 183, 220, 944 v. Emerson, 4 Dr. & "War. 117 ; 2 Con. & L. 558 ; 6 Ir. Eq. B. 224 . .13, 22, 997 v. Hawkins, 8 Ves. 209 ; 7 B. B. 27 400, 402 v. Haygarth, 14 Sim. 8 644 v. Lake, 8 Mod. 226 1532 v. Manners, L. R. 1 Ch. A. 48 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 128 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 986 ; 14 W. B. 154 ; 13 L. T. N. S. 388 1403 v. M'Keand, 5 C. P. D. 358 ; 49 L. J. C. P. 563 ; 42 L. T. 833 ; 28 W. E. 628 670, 1284 v. Meads, 4 De G-. J. & S. 597 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 166 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 803 329 v. Mostyn, 25 Ch. D. 48 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 89 ; 49 L. T. 483 ; 32 W. E. 256 1026, 1200, 1204, 1205 v. 33 Ch. D. 226 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 893 ; 55 L. T. 651 1205 v. Neate, 39 Ch. D. 538 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 1044 ; 37 W. E. 190 938 v. Needham, 2 Taunt. 278 ; 11 E. E. 572 Ill ■ v. Nicholls, 6 M. & W. 91 ; 8 D. P. C. 242 71, 76, 77 ■ v. Phillips, 2 Ves. Sen. 23 1052 v. Eussell, (1892) A. C. 244 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 657 ; 66 L. T. 545 ; 41 W. E. 43; 8T. L. E. 463 1217, 1222, 1338 v. Soper, W. N. (1890) 121 ; 62 L. T. 828 , 944 v. Sparrow, 4 Giff. 706; 9 Jur. N. S. 1226; 9 L. T. N. S. 438 ..64, 813 v. Stibbert, 2 Ves. Jur. 437 ; 2 E. E. 278 1306, 1312, 1318 v. Taylor, 1 Ch. Ca. 212 , 145 v. 8 Ha. 120 1167 ■ v. 6 Sim. 246 409 v. L. E. 17 Eq. 324 « 411 • v. Turnbull, 4 H. & N. 495 ; 32 L. T. Ex. 153, O. S 1281, 1363 v. Waters, 1 My. & Cr. 266 ; 5 L. J. N. S. Ch. 210 1041 v. Wheeler, 2 Salk. 449 53 v. Zaniira, 6 Taunt. 524 ; 2 Marsh, 220 ; 16 E. E. 668 682 Teague's Settlement, Ee, L. E. 10 Eq. 564 ; 22 L. T. 742 340 Teape's Trusts, Ee, L. E. 16 Eq. 442; 28 L. T. 799; 21 W. E. 780; 43 L. J. Ch. 87 835 Teasdale v. Braithwaite, 5 Ch. D. 630 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 725 ; 25 W. E. 546 ; 36 L. T. 601 , 601 Tebb v. Hodge, L. E. 5 C. P. 73 ; 39 L. J. C. P. 56 50, 52, 56, 120 Teed v. Carruthers, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 31 ; 5 Ha. 96 716, 1003, 1188, 1405 Teevan v. Smith, 20 Ch. D. 724 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 621 ; 47 L. T. 208 ; 30 W. E. 716 , 1416 Teign Valley Bail. Co., Ee, W. N. (1881) 172 1135 Tempest, Exp., Ee Craven, L. E. 6 Ch. A. 70 ; 19 W. E. 137 ; 40 L. J. Bky. 22 588, 591 v. Lord Camoys (No. 2), 21 Ch. D. 571 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 785 ; 48 L. T. 13 ; 31 W. E. 326 425 v. Orde, 2 Mer. 56 954 v. Tempest, 8 De G. M. & G-. 359 540 Temple, Exp., 1 Gl. & J. 216 1103, 1104 Templer's Trust, Ee, 4 W. E. 494 1 122 Teimon v. Sweeny, 1 J. & L. 710 1252 Tennant v. Howatson, 13 App. Cas. 489; 57 L. J. P. C. 110 ; 58 L. T. 640. . 203 v. Trenchard, L. E. 4 Ch. A. 537; 38 L. J. Ch. 169 ....606, 906, 995 996 Tennant's Estate, Ee, 25 L. E. Ir. 522 '341 Tennyson, Exp., Mont. & Bl. 67 1263 Terry", Ee, 11 W. E. 113 , 182 clxXXlV TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Teulon v. Curtis, Yo. 619 ; 2 L. J. N. S. Exch. Eq. 17 28, 30 Tew v. Winterton, Earl of, 3 Bro. C. C. 489 51, 67 Ten-art v. Lawson, L. R. 18 Eq. 490 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 673 ; 22 W. R. 822 . . 958 Texas Land and Cattle Co. v. Commrs. of Inl. Rev., 16 C. S. Cas. 69 ; 26 S. C. L. R. 49 1522, 1525 Thackeray v. Wood, 6 N. R. 305 ; 6 B. & S. 766 ; 34 L. J. Q, B. 226 ; 13 W. R. 996 143 Thames, 63 L. T. 353 596 Thames Plate Glass Co. v. Land and Sea Tel. Co., L. R. 6 Ch. A. 643: 19 W. R. 764; 25 L. T. N. S. 236 1126 Thayer v. Lister, 30 L. J. Ch. 427 ; 4 L. T. 50 1499 Thellusson v. Woodford, 13 Ves. 209 ; 4 Madd. 420 ; 1 Dow, 249 ; 9 R. R. 175; 14 R. R. 62 931 Thieknesse v. Bromilow, 2 Cr. & J. 425 502 Thirtle v. Vaughan, 2 W. R. 632 ; 24 L. T. 5 835 Thomas v. Brigstocke, 4 Russ. 64 ; 28 R. R. 4 667, 668, 799 v. Courtnay, 1 B. & Aid. 1 92 v. Cross, 2 Dr. & Sm. 423 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 384 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 580 ; 13 W. R. 647 ; 12 L. T. N. S. 293 1278, 1279 v. 10 Jur. N. S. 1163 610 v . Evans, 10 East, 101 ; 10 R. R. 229 715 v. Kelly, 13 App. Cas. 506 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. 330 ; 58 L. T. 263 ; 36 W. R. 363 211, 221, 229, 232, 238 v. Kemeys, 2 Vern. 348 1433, 1442 v. Lloyd, 3 Jul-. N. S. 288 609, 611 v. Pladwell, 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 599, pi. 25 ; 7 Vin. Abr. 54 1368 v. Searles, (1891) 2 Q. B. 408 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 722 ; 65 L. T. 39 ; 39 W. R. 692 ; 7 T. L. R. 606 216, 228, 239, 1283 v. Terry, Gilb. Eq. Rep. 110 10 v. Thomas, 22 Beav. 341 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 391 1153, 1170, 1234 v. 2 K. & J. 79 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 1160 352 Thomas Littleton's Case, 2 Vent. 351 844 Thomlinson v. Smith, Finch, 378 400 Thompson, Exp., W. N. (1884) 28 319, 324, 341 , Re, 1 Fonbl. Rep. in Bky. 29 1099 , Re, Bedford v. Teal, 45 Ch. D. 161 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 689 ; 63 L. T. 471 ; 39 W. R. 50 ; 6 T. L. R. 394 540 ■ v. Baskervill, 3 Rep. in Ch. 215 723 • r. Bowyer, 9 Jur. N. S. S63 752 v . Cartwrisfht. 33 Beav. 178 1329 v. Clark, fN. R. 19; 11 W. R. 23; 7 L. T. 269 53 v. Clerk, 1 M. L. C. 256 1285 v. Cohen, L. R.7Q.B. 527; 41 L. J. Q. B. 421 ; 26 L. T. 693. .51, 211 v. Drew, 20 Beav. 49 1161 v. Finch, 8 De G. M. & G. 560 ; 22 Beav. 316 525 v. Freeman, 1 T. R. 155 586 v. Grant, 4 Madd. 438 ; 20 R. R. 318 835, 852, 854 *'• Hudson, L. R. 2 Ch. A. 255, reversed on other points, L. R. 4H.L.1 428 v. L. R. 10 Eq. 497 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 28 ; 23 L. T. N. S. 278; 18 W. R. 1081 1200 v. L. R. 4 H. L. 1 1145,1405 v. Kempson, Kay, 592 540 v. Kendal, 9 Sim. 397 1181,1189 v. Lack, 3 C. B. 540 ; 16 L. J. C. P. 75 85 v. Langridge, 1 Exch. 351 ; 5 D. & L. 213 ; 17 L. J. Ex. 4 ... . 75 f. Perceval, 5 B. ,^ Ad. 525 1452, 1453 ■ r. lVttitt, 10 Q. B. 101 ; 16 L. J. Q. B. 163 ; 11 Jur. 748 . . 122, 128 v. Plan, t Building Soo., L. R. 15 Eq. 333; 42 L. J. Ch. 364 ; 21 W. I.'. 171; 28 L.T.N. S. 649 558 r. Royal Exchange Assce. Co., 1 M. & S. 31 1512 r. Simpson, 1 Dr. & War. 486 1252, 1313 p. Speirs, 13 8im 469 1269 p. Todd, 15 Ir. Ch. R. 337 ........"!!..!.'!!!...'...!.. 426 '• ''""'kins, 2 Dr. ,V Sm. s ; s J ur . fcf. S. lsj 1261, 1269, 1279 V. Webster, 1 Drew, 632 ,->69 TABLE OF CASES. clxXXV PAGE Thompson and Holt, Re, 41 Ch. D. 492 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 651 ; 62 L. T. 651 ; 38 W. It. 524 900 Thomson v. Barrett, 1 L. T. N. S. Q. B. 268 195 v . Clydesdale Bank, (1893) A. C. 282 ; 62 L. J. P. C. 91 ; 69 L. T. 156 1466 . v . Eastwood, 2 App. Cas. 215 992 v. Simpson, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 659 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 857 ; 18 W. R. 1090 1492 , „. Weems, 9 App. Cas. 671 ; 11 C. of S. Cass. (H. L.) 48 286 Thorn v. City Rice Mills, 40 Ch. D. 357 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 297 ; 60 L. T. 359; 37 W. R. 398 ; 5 T. L. R. 172 714 V. Croft, L. R. 3 Eq. 193 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 68 1530 — v. Nine Reefs, 67 L. T. 93 936, 1118 Thornber v. Wilson, 28 L. J. Ch. 145 413 Thomborough v. Baker, 3 Swanst. 628 ; 1 Ch. Cas. 283 21, 23, 844 Thome r. Cann, (1895) A. C. 11; 64 L. J. Ch. 1 ; 71 L. T. 852. .964, 1436, 1438, 1440, 1444 v. Heard and Marsh, (1895) A. C. 495 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 652 ; 73 L. T. 291 ; 44 W. R. 155 914, 983, 1072, 1237 v . Newman, Finch, 38 1378 v. Thorne, 1 Vern. 141 701 v . (1893) 3 Ch. 196 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 38 ; 69 L. T. 378 ; 42 W. R. 382 406, 552 Thorneycroft v. Crockett, 2 H. L. C. 239 ; 16 Sim. 445 ; 12 Jur. 1081 . .734, 864, 1204, 1206, 1207, 1212 ThornhilU-. Evans, 2 Atk. 330 1164, 1180 v. Glover, 3 Dr. & War. 195 747 v. Manning, 1 Sim. N. S. 451 1050 Thornton v. Adams, 5 M. & S. 38 223 v. Bright, 2 My. & Cr. 230 340 v. Court, 3 De G. M. & G. 293 ; 17 Jur. 151 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 361 . . 1162 . v. Finch, 4 Giff. 515 648 ' v. France, (1897) 2 Q. B. 143 Addenda v. Maynard, 10 East, 700 1486 McKewan, 1 H. & M. 525 103 Thorpe, Exp., 3 M. & A. 441; 3 Deac. 85 66, 1102, 1103 v. Burgess, 8 Dowl. P. C. 603 719 . v , Coleman, 1 C. B. 990 619 r. Gartside, 2 Y. & C. Ex. 730 1027 v. Holdsworth, L. R. 7Eq. 139; 17 W. R. 394; 38 L.J. Ch. 194. .61, 1238 t,. Thorpe, 1 Ld. Raym. 235 112 Three Towns Banking Co. v. Maddever, W. N. (1883) 105 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 733; 31 W. R. 720 573 Threlfall, Re, 16 Ch. D. 274 665 v. Wilson, 8 P. D. 18 ; 48 L. T. 23S ; 31 W. R. 508 346 Threllfall, Exp., Re Williamson, 35 L. T. 675 595 Throssel v. Marsh, 53 L. T. 321 248, 249 Thmxton v. Att.-Gen., 1 Vera. 340 645 Thunder v. Belcher, 3 East, 449 663, 676 Thurlow v. Mackeson, L. R. 4 Q. B. 97 ; 38 L. J. Q. B. 57 ; 19 L. T. 448 ; 17 W. R. 280 509, 903 Thwaites v. McDonough, 2 Ir. Eq. R. 97 674, 1064 Thynne r. Sari, (1891) 2 Ch. 79 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 590 ; 64 L. T. 781 ... . 945, 1046 Tibbits v. George, 5 A. & E. 107 1257, 1492 Tichener, Re, 35 Beav. 317 1257 Tidd v. Lister, 3 De G. M. & G. 857 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 249 . . . .326, 327, 351, 777, 780, 782 Tidswell v. Ankerstein, Peake, N. P. Cas. 151 288 Tierney, Exp., 1 Mont. 78 1089, 1102 , Re, 9 Ir. Rep. Eq. 1 552 Tilbury Portland Cement Co., Re, W. N. (1893) 141 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 814; 69 L. T. 495 470 Tildasley v. Stevenson, 10 Bing. 545 ; 4 M. & Sc. 442 966 Tiley v. Courtier, 2 Cr. & J. 16, n 716 Tillett v. Nixon, 25 Ch. D. 238 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 199 ; 49 L. T. 593 ; 32 W. R. 226 921, 925, 929 clxXXVi TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Tillot, Re, Lee v. Wilson, (1892) 1 Ch. 86 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 38 ; 65 L. T. 781 ; 40 W. R. 204 914> 1279, 1361 Tilson v. Lawder, 2 Dr. & War. 285 1056 Times Life Ass., &c. Co., Re, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 381 ; 18 W. R. 559 ; 23 L. T. N. S. 181 1455, 1456 Timson v. Ramsbottom, 2 Keen, 35 1256, 1261 Tink v. Rundle, 10 Beav. 318 947 Tippett and Newbould's Contract, Re, 37 Ch. D. 444 ; 58 L. T. 754 ; 36 W. R. 597 340, 341 Tipping v. Power, 1 Ha. 410 1105, 1114, 1188 . r. Tipping, 1 P. Wms. 729 780 Tipton Green Co. p. Tipton Moat Co., 7 Ch. D. 192 ; 26 W. R. 348 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 152 1191, 1205 Titley r. Davies, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 393, 399, n 858, 859, 863 ■ v. Wolstenholme, 7 Beav. 425 890 Tobago, C. Rob. 218 1512 T. .ft v. Stevenson, 1 De G. M. & G. 28 983 Toivo, 1 Spink, 185 1509, 1510 Ti iker v. Toker, 31 Beav. 629 608 Toller r. Carteret, 2 Vern. 494 1001 Tomkins v. Coldhurst, 1 Ch. D. 626 ; 33 L. T. N. S. 591 ; 24 W. R. 267. . 786 v. Saffery, 3 App. Cas. 213 ; 47 L. J. Bky. 11 ; 37 L. T. N. S. 758 ; 26 W. R. 62 5S2 Tomlin v. Luce, 43 Ch. D. 191 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 164 ; 62 L. T. IS ; 38 W. R. 323 ; 6 T. L. R. 103 905 Tomlinson r. Consolidated Credit Corporation, 24 Q. B. D. 135 ; 62 L. T. 162 ; 38 W. R. 118 ; 6 T. L. R. 54 223, 225 Tommey v. White, 3 H. L. C. 49 895 Tompsett v. Wickens, 3 Sm. & G. 171 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 10 1041 Tompson v. Leith, 4 Jur. N. S. 1091 1164 Toms v. Wilson, 4 B. & S. 442; 11 W. R. 117; 33 L. J. Q. B. 33. .799, 904, 962 Tomson v. Judge, 3 Drew. 306 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 583 611 Toogood, Re, 56 L. T. 703 1277 , Re, W. N. (1889) 73 ; 61 L. T. 19 862 Tooke v. Ely, Bishop of, 5 Bro. P. C. 181 1050 v. Hartley, 2 Bro. C. C. 125 ; 2 Dick. 785 872, 963, 1049, 1471 i\ Hastings, 2 Vern. 97 51 Tooms v. Chandler, 2 Lev. 116 ; 3 Keb. 387 68 Tophani, Exp., 1 Madd. 38 1101 , Exp., Re Walker, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 614 ; 42 L. J. Bky. 57 ; 21 W. i;. 655; 23 L. T. N. S. 716 589 v. Booth, 35 Ch. D. 607 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 812 ; 57 L. T. 170 ; 35 W. R. 715 981 . v. Greenside Glazed Firebrick Co., 37 Ch. D. 281 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 583 ; 58 L. T. 274 ; 36 W. R. 464 207, 209 T..pl. T v. Corsbie, 20 Q. B. D. 350 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. 271 ; 58 L. T. 342 ; W. R. 352 235 Torrance v. Bolton, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 112 ; 21 W. R. 134 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 177 ; 27 L. T. 738 1376 Torre v. Browne, 5 II. L. C. 555 1167 v. North British Building Soc, 11 App. Cas. 489 557 Tottenham v. Emmet, 11 L. T. N. S. 404 ; 14 W. R. 3 ; S. C, 12 L. T. N. S. 838 609, 614 v. Green, 32 L. J. Ch. 201 : 1 N. R. 466 609,617 . r. Swansea Zinc Ore Co., W.N. (1884)54; 53 L. J. Ch. 776.. 941 v. W N. (1885) 69 122 Tonlmin . Price, 6 Ves. 235 625 v. Stccre, 3 Mer. 210 1326, 1444 Tourli . Rand, 2 Biro. C. C, 650 374, 1334, 1337 Tourvilli 3 I'. AV r ms. 307 1259 'I i Martinnant, 2 T. E. 100 95 T..a , Lord, 18 Ves. 132 ; 11 E. R. 169 754,756 i. (1891) 2 Q. B. 484 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 36 ; 65 L. T. 10W.E.37 680 Townend v. Toki >. I.. R. 1 Ch. A. 446; 12 Jur. N. S. 477; 35 L. J. Ch. 008; 11 W. I;. 806: 14 L. T. N. S. 531 605 TABLE OF CASES. clxXXVll PAGE Townend v. Townend, 1 Giff . 201 520 Townsend, Re, 2 Ph. 348 1429 v. Westacott, 2 Beav. 340 571 r. Wilson, 1 B. & Aid. 60S 889 Townshend, Re, 2 De G-. J. & S. 519 358 ■ v. Mostyn, 26 Beav. 72 755, 757, 761 . v . Windham, 2 Ves. Sen. 1 571 Toynbee v. Brown, 18 L. J. Ex. 99 170 Tracey v. Hereford, 2 Bro. C. C. 128 639 . v. Lawrence, 2 Drew. 403 ; 18 Jur. 500 895 Trafford a. Ashton, 1 P. Wins. 416 433 Traheme v. Sadlier, 5 Bro. P. C. 179 155 Trappes v. Harter, 2 Cr. & M. 153 120, 125, 178 Travel's Case, 3 Atk. 74 332 Travis v. Milne, 9 Ha. 141 1266 Tredball v. Medlicott, 36 W. R. 886 530 Tredway r. Eotherley, 2 Vera. 367 150 Trego r. Hunt, (1896) A. C. 7 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 1 ; 73 L. T. 514 ; 12 T. L. R. 80 ; 44 W. R. 225 118 Tregonning v. Attenboroug'h, 7 Bing. 97 1474 Tremont, 1 W. Rob. 163 1513 Tremville v. Christie, 69 L. T. 338 1477 Trenery, Exp., 1 C. B. N. S. 187 320 Trent v. Hunt, 9 Exch. 14 656, 671, 672, 681, 917, 923 Trent and Humber, &c. Co., L. R. 8 Eq. 94 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 485 ; 17 W. R. 1079 ; 20 L. T. N. S. 301 1126 Trestrail v. Mason, 7 Ch. D. 655 ; 26 W. R. 260 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 249 770 Treswaller v. Keyne, Cro. Jac. 620 1402 Trethowan, Re, Exp. Tweedy, 5 Ch. D. 559 ; 46 L. J. Bky. 43 ; 36 L. T. N. S. 70 ; 25 W. R. 399 179 Treuttel v. Barandon, 8 Taunt. 100 ; 1 Moo. 543 ; 19 R. R. 472 1465, 1486 Trevor, Exp., Re Burghardt, 1 Ch. D. 297 ; 45 L. J. Bky. 27 ; 24 W. R. 301; 33 L. T. 356 584, 591, 799, 962 i v. Trevor, 2 My. & K. 675 1434 • v. Whitworth, 12 App. Cas. 409 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 28 ; 57 L. T. 457 ; 36 W. R. 145 467 Trew, Exp., 3 Madd. 372 66, 1102, 1177 Tribourg v. Pomfret, Lord, cited Arab. 733 856, 859 Trident, 1 W. Rob. Adm. 29 789, 1509 Trimleston, Lord v. Hamill, 1 Ba. & Be. 377. .801, 805, 806, 1201, 1202, 1206, 1211 Trimmer v. Bayne, 9 Ves. 209 ; 6 R. R. 173 777 779 v. Danby, 23 L. J. Q. B. 979 1154 v. 25 L. J. Ch. 424 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 367 56 Trinder v. Raynor, 56 L. J. 422 244 Trinidad Asphalte Co. v. Coryat, (1896) A. C. 587; 65 L. J. P. C. 100; 75 L. T. 108 1247, 1299, 1310 Tripp v. Stanley, 17 L. J. Q. B. 19 75 Tronson v. Dent, 8 Moo. P. C. 419 273 Trott's Estate, Re, Seton, 1205 1112 Troubadour, L. R. 1 A. & E. 302 ; 16 L. T. 156 1397 Troughton v. Binkes, 6 Yes. 573 ; 5 R. R. 401 696, 699, 1119 ■ v. Troughton, 1 Ves. Sen. 87 1 152 Troup's Case, 29 Beav. 553 472 Trousdale v. Shephard, 14 Ir. Com. L. R. 370 249 Trowell v. Shenton, 8 Ch. D. 318 ; 26 W. R. 837 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 738 ; 38 L. T. 369 601, 603, 604 Trulock v. Robey, 12 Sim. 402 ; 15 Sim. 265 751, 803, 9S3 Trumau v. Redgrave, 18 Ch. D. 547 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 830 ; 45 L. T. 605 ; 30 W. R. 421 267, 929,932, 937, 944 Trumper v. Trumper, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 870 ; 21 W. R. 692 ; 29 L. T. N. S. 86 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 641 165, 787 Trye v. Aldborough, Earl of, 1 Ir. Ch. R. 666 1014 Tuck v. Southern Counties Deposit Bank, 42 Ch. D. 471 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 699 ; 61 L. T. 348 ; 37 W. R. 769 ; 5 T. L. R. 719 216, 1283 Tucker, Re, Tucker v. Tucker, (1893) 2 Ch. 323 411 , v. (No. 2), (1894) 3 Ch. 429 522, 981, 1452 Clxxxvill TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Tucker v. Laing, 2 K. & J. 749 83 r. Wilson, 1 P. Wms. 261 ; 5 Bro. P. C. 193 276, 1017, 1470 Tuer v. Turner, 20 Beav. 560 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 663 317 Tufnell, Exp., 4 D. & C. 29 ; 1 Mont. & A. 620 830 v. Borrell, L. R. 20 Eq. 194 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 756 ; 23 W. R. 717 . . 371 v. Nichols, W. N. (1887) 52 ; 56 L. T. 152 1027 Tubman V. Hopkins, 4 Man. & Gr. 401 330 Tulk v. Moxay, 2 Ph. 774 1311 Tullr. Owen, 4 Y. & C. Ex. 192; 9 L. J.N. S. Ex. 33 23, 25 Tullett v. Armstrong, 4 My. & Cr. 377, affirming 1 Beav. 1 329 . Vm 4 Beav. 319 329 Tunis Rail. Co., Re, 10 Ch. D. 270, n. ; 31 L. T. 264 1136 Tunstall v. Boothby, 10 Sim. 542 300 v. Trappes, 3 Sim. 286 695,1248,1326,1357 Turgot, 11 P. D. 21; 54 L. T. 276; 34 W. R. 552; 5 Asp. 248 1396 Turkington v. Kearnan, LI. & G. t. Sug. 35 799 Turnbull v. Great Eastern, &c. Navigation Co., 1 C. & E. 595 271 Turner, Exp., 3 Ves. 243 ; 3 R. R. 90 102 , Exp., 9 Mod. 418 1096 , Re, 3 C. B. 166 319, 394 , Re, Barker v. Ivimey, (1897) 1 Ch. 536; 66 L.J. Ch. 282; 76 L. T. 116 ; 45 W. R. 495 533 , Re, Exp. West Riding, &c. Co., 19 Ch. D. 105 ; 45 L. T. 546 ; 30 W. R. 239 1084 v. Barnes, 2 B. & S. 435 661, 665 . v. Cameron, L. R. 5 Q. B. 306 ; 39 L. J. Q. B. 125 ; 22 L. T. 525 ; 18 W. R. 544 ; 10 B. & S. 931 122 r. Cameron's Coalbrook Steam Co., 5 Exch. 932 678 v. Collins, L. R. 7 Ch. A. 329 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 558 ; 20 W. R. 305 ; 25 L. T. 779 607, 617 v. Crane, 1 Vern. 170 853 r . Culpan, 58 L. T. 340 ; 36 W. R. 278 222, 235 . v. Davies, 2 Esp. 478 100 v. Dickinson, 3 CI. & F. 594 117 v. Hancock, 20 Ch. D. 303 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 517 ; 46 L. T. 750 ; 30 W. R. 480 1176 p. Hardcastle, 11 C. B. N. S. 683 1325 v. King, (1895) 1 Ch. 361 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 252 ; 71 L. T. 875 ; 43 W. R. 217 336 . v. Letts, 20 Beav. 185 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 486 1414 v . Marriott, L. R. 3 Eq. 744 ; 15 L. T. N. S. 607; 15 W. R. 420. . 1376 p. Meymott, 7 Moo. 574 ; 1 M. & Ry. 221, n. ; 1 Bing. 156 ; 1 L. J. C. P. 13; 25 R. R. 612 657 v. Richardson, 7 East, 340 ; 3 Smith, 330 155 v. Richmond, 2 Vera. 81 1223, 1238 v. Thomas, L. R. 6 C. P. 610 ; 24 L. T. N. S. 879 ; 40 L. J. C. P. 271 1482, 1486 v. Turner, 30 Beav. 414 401 v. 1 J. & W. 46 1162 ,.. Vaughan, 2 Wils. K. B. 339 625 Turner's Case, 2 Vent. 348 844 Estate, Re, Turner v. Spencer, 43 W. R. 153 976, 1003 Turney, Exp., 3 M. D. & De G. 576 1083 Turquand, Exp., Re Fothergill, 3 Ch. D. 445 ; 45 L. J. Bky. 153 103 , Exp., Re Parker, 14 Q. B. D. 636 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 942 ; 53 L. T. 579 ; 33 W. R. 437 181, 252 v. Fearon, 4 Q. B. D. 280 ; 48 L. J. Q. B. 341 ; 40 L. T. 191 ; 27 W. R. 396 310 Turvill, Exp., 3 D. & C. 346 1100 Tuton v. Banoner, :: H. & N. 280; l Jur. N. S. 365 248 Tweedale, Re, Exp. Tweedale, (1892) 2 O. B. 216; 01 L. J. Q. B. 505; 66 I. T. 233 : 8 T. L. R. 327 589 p. Tweedale, 23 Beav. 311 857, 858, 860, 1326 Twisleton v. Griffith, l 1'. Wms. :;n> 617 Two Ellens, I-. B. t 1'. ('. 161 ; 11 L. J. Ad. 33; 8 Moo. P. C. N. S. 398; 26 L. T. 1 ; JO W. II. 592 ; 1 Asp. 208 1396, 1397 TABLE OF CASES. clxxxix PAGE Twopenny v. Young, 3 B. & C. 208 84, 1448, 1449 Twynam v. Hudson, 2 Jur. N". S. 476 ; 4 De G. F. & J. 462 52 v. Porter, L. R. 11 Eq. 181 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 30 1387 Twyne's Case, Rep. 80 176 Tylden v. Hyde, 2 S. & St. 238 408 Tylee v. Tylee, 17 Beav. 583 943 v. Webb, 6 Beav. 552 1012, 1321 Tyler v. Thomas, 25 Beav. 47 1322 v. Yates, L. R. 11 Eq. 265 609, 614, 617 V. L. R. 6 Ch. A. 665 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 768 ; 25 L. T. 284 ; 19 W. R. 909 615, 1156 Tyndale v. Warre, 1 Jac. 212 652 Tyrrell v. Mead, 3 Burr. 1705 366 Tyrwhitt v. Tyrwhitt, 32 Beav. 244 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 364 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 552.. 1437 Tyson v. Cox, T. & R. 395 ; 24 R. R. 79 98, 692 Udall v. Walton, 14 M. & W. 254 1325 Underbank Spinning, &c. Co., Re, 31 Ch. D. 226 ; 55 L. J. 255 ; 53 L. T. 957 ; 39 W. R. 181 501 Underhay v. Read, 20 Q. B. D. 209; 57 L. J. Q. B. 129; 58 L. T. 457 ; 36 W. R. 298 682 Underwood, Re, 3 K. & J. 745 911, 1422 v. Courtown, Lord, 2 Sch. & L. 41 1221, 1247, 1249 et seq. v. Staney, 1 Ch. Ca. 78 625 v. Underwood, (1894) P. 204 ; 63 L. J. P. 109 ; 70 L. T. 390 ; 42 W. R. 372 1405 Unglass v. Tuff, 9 W. R. 729 509 Union Bank of London v. Ingram, 16 Ch. D. 53 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 74 ; 43 L. T. 659 ; 29 W. R. 209 130 v. 20 Ch. D. 463 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 508 ; 46 L. T. 507 ; 30 W. R. 375 726, 1035 v. Kent, 39 Ch. D. 238 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 1022 ; 59 L. T. 714 ; 37 W. R. 364 1338 v. Lenanton, 3 C. P. D. 243 ; 47 L. C. J. P. 409 ; 38 L. T. 698 202, 261 ■ v. Munster, 37 Ch. D. 51 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 124 ; 57 L. T. 877 ; 36 W. R. 72 1039 Union Bank of Manchester, Exp., Re Jackson, L. R. 12 Eq. 354 ; 40 L. J. Bky. 57 ; 19 W. R. 872 ; 24 L. T. N. S. 951 184 of Scotland v. Nat. Bank of Scotland, 12 App. Cas. 53 ; 56 L. T. 208 ; 14 C. of S. Cas. (H. L.) 1 1231 United EngUsh, &c. Co., L. R. 5 Eq. 300 1125 Forty Pound Loan Club v. Bexton, (1891) 1 Q. B. 28, n 197 Telephone, &c. Co. v. Tasker, 59 L. T. 852 630 Unity Bank v. King, 25 Beav. 72 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 585 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 470 . . 1206 Universal Bank, Re, 14 L. T. 691 ; 14 W. R. 906 1124 Unsworth's Trusts, 2 Dr. & Sm. 337 22 Upperton v. Harrison, 7 Sim. 444 1175 Uppington v. Bullen, 2 Dr. & War. 184 1005 v. Tarrant, 12 Ir. Ch. R. 262 991 Upton v. Bassett, Cro. Eliz. 444 603 v. Vanner, 1 Dr. & Sm. 594 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 405 1294 Uruguay Central, &c. Rail. Co., Re, 11 Ch. D. 372 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 450 ; 27 W. R. 571 486, 879, 1123 Usborne v. Usborne, 1 Dick. 75 669 Usher v. Martin, 24 Q. B. D. 272 216 Utopia, (1893) A. C. 492 ; 62 L. J. P. C. 118 ; 9 T. L. R, 542 (P. C.).. . . 1395 Vacher v. Cocks, 1 B. & Ad. 152 586 Vallance, Exp., 2 Deac. 354 1270 . , Re, Vallance v. Blagden, 26 Ch. D. 353 ; 50 L. T. 474 ; 32 W. R. 918 625 Valpy & Chaplin, Exp., L. R. 7 Ch. A. 289 ; 20 W. R. 347 ; 26 L. T. N. S. 228 501 CXC TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Van v. Barnett, 19 Ves. 102 911 Van Casteel P. Booker, 2 Exch. 691 ; 18 L. J. Ex. 9 586, 587 Vandeleur v. Vandeleur, 3 CI. & F. 82 ; 9 Bli. 157 764 Vandeririste, Exp., Re Roche, 25 L. R. Ir. 284 145 V Lerlinden, Exp., Re Pogose, 20 Ch. D. 2S9 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 760 ; 47 L. T. 138 ; 30 W. R. 930 1081 Vanderzee v. Willis, 3 Bro. C. C. 21 1390 Van Gelder, Apsimon & Co. v. Sowerby Bridge, &c. Soc, 44 Ch. D. 374 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 583 ; 63 L. T. 132 ; 6 T. L. R. 338 630 Vane v. Rigden, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 663; 39 L. J. Ch. 797; 10 W. R. 1092 400, 405 v. Vane, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 383 ; 21 W. R. 252 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 299 ; 28 L. T. N. S. 320 1072, 1305, 1326 Varden v. Luckpathy, 9 Moo. I. A. 303 62 Vardon's Trusts, Re, 31 Ch. D. 275 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 259 ; 53 L. T. 895 ; 34 W. R. 185 338 Varnash, Exp., 1 M. D. & De G. 514 1102 Varney r. Hickman, 5 C. B. 271 ; 17 L. J. C. P. 102 622 Vaughan v. Atkins, 5 Burr. 2785 153 _ r. Buck, 13 Sim. 404 326 v. Lloyd, cit, 7 Ves. 489 875 v. Vanderstegen, Annesley's Case, 2 Drew. 409 829 v. — 2 Drew. 188 340,349,1447 p. Walker, 8 Ir. Ch. R. 458 350 v. Wood, 1 My. & K. 403 37 Vaughton p. Noble, 30 Beav. 39 606 Vaux, Exp., Re Conston or Couston, L. R. 9 Ch. A. 602 ; 43 L. J. Bky. 113; 22 W. R. 811; 30 L. T. N. S. 739 182 Vavasour, Re, 3 Mac. & G. 275 360 Venable p. Foyle, 1 Ch. Ca. 3 803 ' Venables v. Baring Brothers, (1892) 3 Ch. 527 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 609 ; 67 L. T. 110 ; 40 W. R. 699 484 Venn and Furze's Contract, Re, (1894) 2 Ch. 101 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 303 ; 70 L. T. 312; 42 W. R. 440 408, 422 Verity v. Wylde, 4 Drew. 427 1385, 1386 Verner p. Winstanley, 2 Sch. & L. 393 22 Vernon, Ewens & Co., Re, 33 Ch. D. 402 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 12 ; 55 L. T. 416 ; 35 W. R. 225 1295, 1296, 1344 v. Bethell, 2 Ed. 110 23, 749 , p. Cooke, 49 L. J. C. P. 767 241 ■ r. Croft, 36 W. R. 778 1277 . v. Manners, Earl, 31 Beav. 623 767 v. Vawdrey, 2 Atk. 119 1142 Vertue p. East Anglian Rail. Co., 5 Ex. 280 ; 9 L. J. Ex. 235 , 501 Vibart v. Vibart, L. R. 6 Eq. 251 ; 16 W. R. 997 632 Vibilia, 1 W. Rob. 1 1509 Vickers p. Cowell, 1 Beav. 529 712, 845, 1003, 1006 v. Hertz, L. R. 2 Sc. App. 113 1480 v. Oliver, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 211 1062 Vickery p. Evans, 33 Beav. 376 ; 3 N. R. 286 517, 524 iria, 37 L. J. Ad. 12 1396 Permanent, &c. Society, Hill's Case, L. R. 9 Eq. 605 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 628 ; 22 L. T. 777 ; 18 W. R. 967 460 Steamboats Co., Re, Smith v. Wilkinson, (1897) 1 Ch. 158 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 21 ; 76 L. T. 374 ; 46 W. R, 135 937, 938 Vigrass v. Binfield, 3 Bfadd. 62 520 Villera v. Beaumont, 1 Vera. 100 608 Vinoe, Re, (1892) 2 Q. B. 478 507 ! . Beverlye, Noy, 82 625 r. Willington, 1 Long. & Town. 456 987 Vint p. Padget, 2 De G. & J. 611 858, 860, 861 Voisey, Exp., Re Knight, 21 On. D. 442 ; 47 L. T. 362 ; 31W.R. 19 666 Voriey p. < looke, 1 GHfl. 230; 4 Jur. N. S. 3 694 n [tot Works, Ele, W. X. (1888) 37 207, 1373 Vyvyan p. Vyvyan, 1 De G. F. & J. 183 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 3 ; 5 L. T. N. S. 729 TABLE OF CASES. CXC1 PAGE Wace, Exp., 2 M. D. & De G. 730 1097 Waddell r. Toleman, 9 Ch. D. 212 ; 38 L. T. N. S. 910 ; 26 W. R. 802 . . 999, 1077 "Waddilove v. Barnett, 2 Bing. N. S. 538 680, 682, 685 v. Taylor, 6 Ha. 307 1195, 1280 Wade v. Coope, 2 Sim. 155 ; 29 R. R.*70 97, 697 v. Ward, 4 Drew. 602 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 833 1114, 1177, 1430 . v. Wilson, 22 Ch. D. 235 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 399 ; 47 L. T. 696 ; 31 W. R. 237 1035, 1036, 1037 Wade and Thomas, Re, 17 Ch. D. 348 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 601 ; 44 L. T. 599 ; 29 W. R. 625 1187, 1411 Wade's Case, 5 Rep. 115 .. 715 Wadsworth, Re, Rhodes v. Sugden (No. 2), W. N. (1886) 171 ; 55 L. T. 596 ; 35 W. R. 75 1389 Wagstaff v. Anderson, 5 C. P. D. 171 ; 49 L. J. C. P. 485 ; 42 L. T. 720 ; 28 W. R. 856 ; 4 Asp. 290 1506 Wain v. Warlters, 5 East, 10 ; 1 Smith, 299 ; 7 R. R. 645 80 Wainman v. Bowker, 8 Beav. 363 1197 Wainwright, Re, 1 Ph. 258 372 . Re, 19 Ch. D. 140; 51 L. J. Ch. 67; 45 L. T. 562; 30 W. R. 125 1100 , v . Bland, 1 Moo. & R. 481 287 . . ». Hardisty, 2 Beav. 363 53, 332 v . Sewell, 11 W. R. 560 1106 Waise v. Whitfield, 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 374 ; 8 Vin. Abr. 437 757 Waite v. Bingley, 21 Ch. D. 674 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 651 ; 30 W. R. 698 635 Wake, Exp., 2 Deac. 352 1096, 1098 v. Wake, 17 Jur. 545 ; 1 W. R. 283 1420 Wakefield v. Brown, 9 Q. B. 209 674 . v. Newton, 8 Jur. 735 ; 18 Pt. 2, 170 1197, 1413 Wakerell v. Delight, 9 Ves. 36 ; G. Coop. 27 878, 1032 Walcott v. Lyons, 54 L. T. 786 527 Waldo v. Caley, 16 Ves. 206 1324 Waldron v. Sloper, 1 Drew. 193 1346 Waldy v. Gray, L. R. 20 Eq. 238 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 394 ; 32 L. T. 531 ; 23 W. R. 676 1010, 1037, 1329 Wale v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, 4 Ex. D. 270 ; 48 L. J. Ex. 574; 41 L. T. 433; 27 W. R. 916 252, 1526 Walhampton's Estate, Re, 26 Ch. D. 391 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 1000 ; 51 L. T. 2S0; 32 W. R. 874 864, 913 Walker, Exp., 18 Jur. 885 471 , Re, Meredith v. Walker, 28 L. T. 517 1388 , Re, Sheffield Banking Co. v. Clayton, (1892) 1 Ch. 621 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 234 ; 66 L. T. 315 ; 40 W. R. 327 ; 8 T. L. R. 224. . . . 98 , Re, Walker v. Walker, 59 L. J. Ch. 386 ; 62 L. T. 449 524, 527 v. Bell, 2Madd. 21; 17 R. R. 174 948 ■ v. Birch, 6 T. R. 258 1467 v. Bradford Old Bank, 12 Q. B. D. 511 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 2S0 ; 32 W. R. 644 310 . v. British Guarantee Assoc, 18 Q. B. 277 ; 21 L. J. Q. B. 257 . . 90 v. Clay, 49 L. J. C. P. 560 ; 42 L. T. 369 670, 1284 ■ v. Flamstead, 2 Kenyon, Pt. 2, 57, Ch 1323 v. Gardner, 4 B. & Ad. 371 77 v. Giles, 6 C. B. 662 ; 13 Jur. 588 ; 8 L. J. C. P. 323. .661, 1529, 1535 . v. Hardwick, 1 My. & K. 396 754, 757 . v. Jackson, 2 Atk. 625 754, 756, 757 v. Jones, L. R. 1 P. C. 50 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 381 ; 35 L. J. P. C. 30 ; 14 L. T. N. S. 686 ; 14 W. R. 484 963, 1049 0. Milne, 11 Beav. 507 540 v. Mottram, 19 Ch. D. 355 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 10S ; 45 L. T. 659 ; 30 W. R. 165 118 v. Perkins, 1 W. Bl. 517; 3 Bur. 156S 624 v. Pink, 1 Cox, 5 , 756 . r. Preswick, 2 Ves. Sen. 622 1373 v. Rostron, 9 M. & W. 11 1489, 1490, 1493, 1525 CXC11 TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Walker v. Smalhvood, Amb. 677 631, 1322 ». Taylor, 8 Jur. N. S. 681 421 r. 4L. T. N. S. 845 1465 „. Walker, 2 Atk. 99 24 Walker's Estate, Re, 21 L. J. Ch. 674 836 Mortgage, Re, 3 Ch. D. 209 1422 Wall v. Bright, U. & W. 494 ; 21 R. R. 219 838 v. Cockerell, 10 H. L. C. 229 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 447 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 276 ; 11 W. R. 442; 8 L. T. N. S. 1 65 v. Wall, 15 Sim. 513 322 Wallace v. Donegal, 1 Dr. & War. 461 1248 v , Fielden, 3 W. Rob. 243; 7 Moo. P. C. 398.. 1505, 1506, 1507, 1509, 1510 „. Universal Automatic Machines Co., (1894) 2 Ch. 547 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 598; 60 L. T. 852; 1 Mans. 315 487, 495, 1002, 1130 Waller v. Hanger, 3 Bulstr. 17 1463, 1472 Walley v. Robinson, W. N. (1884) 144 401 p . Walley, 1 Vern. 484 1303 Wallingford v. Mutual, &c. Soc, 5 App. Cas. 685 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 49 ; 43 L. T. 258; 29 W. R. 81 129, 551, 1122 Wallington v. Cook, 47 L. J. Ch. 508 1158 . r. Willes, 10 Jur. N. S. C. P. 906 1155 Wallis, Re, Exp. Lickorish, 25 Q. B. D. 176 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 500 ; 62 L. T. 674 ; 38 W. R. 482 ; 7 M. B. C. 148 ; 6 T. L. R. 291 .... 1194 , Re, Exp. Sullv, 14 Q. B. D. 950 ; 52 L. T. 625 ; 33 W. R. 733 . . 184 v. Bastard, 4 De G. M. & G. 251 ; 17 Jur. 1107 1158 v. Smith, W. N. (1882) 77 247 v. 21 Ch. D. 243 1377 v . Woodyear, 2 Jur. N. S. 179 778, 1342 Walhvyn v. Lee, 9 Ves. 24 ; 7 R. R. 142 64, 1303 Walmesley v. Booth, Barn. Ch. R. 475 ; 2 Atk. 27 129, 610, 611 r. Butterworth, 4 L. J. N. S. Ch. 253 381, 382 Walmsley v. Child, 1 Ves. Sen. 344 816 r. Milne, 7 C.B.N. S. 115; 6 Jur. N. S. 125 ; 8 W. R. 138. .120, 121, 122, 126, 178 Walrond v. Goldmann, 16 Q. B. D. 121 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 323 ; 53 L. T. 963 ; 34 W. R. 272 216 Walsh v. Trevanion, 15 Q. B. 751 ; 19 L. J. Q. B. 458 112 • r. Trevannion. 16 Sim. 180 ; 12 Jur. 344 1056 . v. WaBon, 22 W. R. 676 1277 v. Whitcomb, 2 Esp. 505 52, 70 Walter v. Smith, 5 B. & Aid. 439 1470 v. Stanton, 10 W. R. 570 : 1114 Walters v. Northern Coal Mining Co., 5 De G. M. & G. 629 156 v. Webb, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 531 ; 18 W. R. 587 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 677. . 744 Waltham v. Crafts, 6 Exch. 1 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 257 439 Walton, Exp., Re Levy, 17 Ch. D. 716 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 657 ; 45 L. T. 1 ; 30 W. R. 395 161 v. Chandler, 1 C. B. 306 73 V. Johnstone, 15 Sim. 352 952 V. Maskcll, 13 M. & W. 452 89 W.mkford V. Wankford, I Salk. 301 401, 843 Warburton r. Edge, 9 Sim. 508 1323, 1384 v. Farn, L6 Sim. 625 381 r. Hill, Kay, -170 1250, 1276, 1278, 1279, 1348 v. Loveland, 6 Bli. N. S. 1 1241, 1246, 1252, 1297 v. Sandys, 1 1 Sim. cm 889 v. Warburton, 2 Vern. 420 433 Ward, Exp., Re Conston, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 144; 42 L. J. Bky. 17; 21 W. R. 115; 27 L. T. N. S. 502 186, 220 r. Andland, 8 Beav. 201 828 v. Beck, 13 C. B. N. S. 668 ; 32 L. J. C. P. 113 257 >■. I'.- -tli. I.. II. M Kq. 195; 41 L. J. Ch. 729; 27 L. T. N. S. 364; 20 W. R. 880 570 r. Cartter, L. R. 1 Eq. 29; 25 Beav. 171 711, 745, 806 TABLE OF CASES. CXClll PAGE "Ward r. Devon, cited 11 Sim. 160 408 v. Duncombe, (1893) A. C. 369 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 881 ; 09 L. T. 121 ; 42 W. R. 59 1253, 1255, 1256, 1260, 1261, 1262, 1488 v. Forrest, 10 Beav. 552 999, 1117 v. Grey, 26 Beav. 485 410 v. Lloyd, 6 Man. & Gr. 787 ; 7 Sc. N. R. 499 626 v. Mackinlay, 2 De G. J. & S. 358 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 1063 1038 ■ v. Royal Exchange Shipping Co., 58 L. T. 174; 6 Asp. M. C. 239.. 495 ■ ■ v. Sharp, W. N. (1884) 5 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 313 ; 50 L. T. 557 ; 32 W. B. 584 611, 1143 v. Shaw, 9 Bing. 008 923 v. Swift, 6 Ha. 312 952 ■ v. Ward, 14 Ch. D. 506 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 409 ; 42 L. T. 523 ; 28 W. B. 943 326, 327 v. Wolverhampton Waterworks Co., L. B. 13 Eq. 243 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 308 20 v. Yates, 1 Dr. & S. 80 1187 Warde v. Dickson, 5 Jur. N. S. 698 1315 . v. Warde, 16 Beav. 103 51 Warden v. Ashburner, 2 De G. & S. 366 1154 Wardle v. Oakley, 36 Beav. 27 59 Ware v. Egmont, Lord, 4 De G. M. & G. 473 1306 v. Gardner, L. B. 7 Eq. 317 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 348 571,574 v. Bolhill, 11 Ves. 278 642, 1432 Wareham v. Brown, 2 Vern. 153 426 Waring, Exp., 19 Ves. 345 ; 2 Gl. & J. 404 ; 2 Eose, 182 ; 13 B. B. 217. .98, 1493, 1494 v. Coventry, 2 My. & K. 406 638 v. Ward, 5 Ves. 670 ; 5 B. B. 130 758, 760, 762, 763 Warner, Exp., 19 Ves. 202 ; 12 B. B. 169 55 v. Jacob, 20 Ch. D. 220 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 642 ; 46 L. T. 656 ; 30 W. R. 721 662, 882, 901, 903, 904, 911 Warrant Finance Co.'s Case, Re Joint Stock, &c. Co., L. R. 10 Eq. 4 . . . . 1130 Warren v. Davies, 2 Mv. & K. 49 409 v. Howe, 2 B. & Cr. 281 1518 v. Budall, 1 J. & H. 1 64, S13 Warren's Settlement, W. N. (1883) 125 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 928 ; 49 L. T. 696. . 341 Warrick v. Warrick, 3 Atk. 294 1327 Warrington v. Furbor, 8 East, 242 89, 95 Washington Diamond Mining Co., Be, (1893) 3 Ch. 95 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 895 ; 69 L. T. 27 ; 41 W. B. 681 439 Wason v. Wareing, 15 Beav. 151 1336 Wasse v. Heslington, 3 My. & K. 495 408 Wastell v. Leslie, 13 L. J. Ch. 205 637 Wataga, Swab. 165 1396 Waterfalls Penistone, 6 E. & B. 870; 3 Jur. N. S. 17.. 120, 121, 124, 126,204 Waterhouse v. Holmes, 2 Sim. 162 539 Waters, Exp., Be Hoyle, L. B. 8 Ch. A. 562 ; 21 W. B. 554 ; 28 L. T. N.S.757.. 297 v. Groom, 11 CI. & F. 684 16 ■ v. Mynn, 14 Jur. 341 20, 21, 721 ■ v. Taylor, 15 Ves. 10 954 v. 2 My. & Cr. 520 610 Watkins, Exp., 2 M. & A. 348 1270, 1272 , Exp., Be Causton, L. B. 8 Ch. A. 520 182, 187 v. Birch, 4 Taunt. 823 176, 177 ■ • v. Evans, 18 Q. B. D. 386 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 200 ; 56 L. T. 177 ; 33 W. R. 313 221, 222, 234, 235, 236 v. Watkins, (1896) P. 222 ; 65 L. J. (P. D. & A.) 25 ; 74 L.T. 636 ; 12 T. L. R. 456 ; 44 W. R. 627 301 Watkinson v. Bamardiston, 2 P. Wms. 367 ; 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 512 1391 Watkyns v. Ashwicke, Cro. Eliz. 132 711 Watson, Exp., 19 Ves. 459 100 , Exp., 21 Q. B. D. 301 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. 609 ; 59 L. T. 401 ; 36 W. B. 829 459,475 , Re, 19 Ch. D. 384 ; 45 L. T. 513 ; 30 W. R. 554 1419 VOL. I. — R. n CXC1V TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Watson, Re, 53 L. J. Ch. 305 ; 32 W. R. 477 1386 , Re, Exp. Official Receiver, 25 Q. B. D. 27 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 391 ; G3 L.T. 209; 38 W. R. 567 ; 7 M. B. C. 155; 6 T. L. R. 332.. 197 r. Allcock, 4 De G. M. & G. 242 ; 17 Jur. 568 86 . • v. Bennett, 12 W. R. 1008 , 592 v. Birch, 15 Sim. 523 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 188 1065, 1066 . ■ v. Brickwood, 9 Ves. 447 754, 756 r. Cave (No. 1), 17 Ch. D. 19 ; 44 L. T. 40; 29 W. R. 433.. 1118, 1119 v. Eales, 23 Beav. 294 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 53 276 . ■ v. Marston, 4 De G. M. & G. 230 676, 1049 . ■ r. Parker, 10 Jur. N. S. 577 601 . v. Peache, 1 Bing. N. C. 327 181, 187 v. Pearson, 18 L. J. Exch. 46 889 r. Row, L. R. 18 Eq. 680; 22 W. R. 793 1382 v. Sadleir, 1 Moll. 585 51 ■ v. Strickland, 19 Q. B. D. 391 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 594 ; 35 W. R. 769 237, 239 . v. Waltham, 2 A. & E. 485 797 r. Wellington, Duke of, 1 R. & My. 602 1491, 1492 V. Woodman, L. R, 20 Eq. 721 ; 24 W. R. 47 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 57 . 981 Watts, Exp., 3 De G. J. & S. 394 270 Re, Cornford v. Elliot, 29 Ch. D. 947 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 308 ; 53 L. T. 426 ; 33 W. R. 885 539, 540 Re, Smith v. Watts, 22 Ch. D. 1 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 209 ; 48 L. T. 167 ; 31 W. R. 262 1115, 1150, 1183, 1187 v . Christie, 18 L. J. Ch. 173 1390 v. Jeffereyes, 3 Mac. & G. 372 ; 15 Jur. 783 1284 v. Porter, 3 E. & B. 743 ; 23 L. J. Q. B. 345 1364, 1487 v. Shuttleworth, 7. H. & N. 353 86 v. Symes, 1 De G. M. & G. 240; 16 Jur. 114. .856, 857, 1025, 1170, 1438, 1441 ■ v. Thomas, 2 P. Wms. 365 697 Waugh, Re, Exp. Dickin, 4 Ch. D. 524 ; 46 L. J. Bky. 26 ; 25 W. R. 258 ; 35 L. T. N. S. 769 199, 254 ■ v. Land, G. Coop. 130 693 v. Waddell, 16 Beav. 521 610 V. Wren, 9 Jur. N. S. 365 ; 11 W. R. 244 98 Wavell v. Mitchell, W. N. (1891) 86 ; 64 L. T. 560 1004 Way v. Basset, 5 Ha. 55 984 Way's Trusts, Re, 2 De G. J. & S. 365 1487 Wayne v. Hanham, 9 Ha. 62 ; 15 Jur. 506 276, 294, 995, 1000, 1017 v. Lewis, 25 L. T. 264 129 v. 1 Drew. 4S7 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 1051 1035 Weardale Coal and Iron Co. v. Hodson, (1894) 1 Q. B. 598 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 391 ; 70 L. T. 632 ; 42 W. R. 424 ; 1 Mans. 396 224, 234 Wearing v. Ellis, 6 De G. M. & G. 596 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 1149 695 Weaver, Re, Eigge v. Weaver, 29 Ch. D. 236 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 749 ; 52 L. T. 512; 33W.R.874 1110 V. Kingiake, 9 L. J. Ch. 20 151 v. Manic, 2 R. & My. 97 642 v. Stokes, 1 M. & W. 203 ; 4 Dowl. 724 ; 1 Tyr. & G. 512 72 Wearing v. Count, 6 Sim. 439 .. , 1008, 1181 Webb, Exp., 2 Gl. & J. 29 1102 , Re, Lambert v. Still, (1894) 1 Ch. 73 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 80 ; 69 L. T. 533 '. 1 142 v. Austin, 8 Sc. N. R. 419 ; 7 Man. & G. 701 684 v. Commissioners of Heme Bay, L. R. 5 Q. B. 642 ; 39 L. J. Q. B. 221 ; 22 L. T. 745 ; 19 W. ». 241 474, 485 f. Hewitt, 3 K. & J. 438 85, 86 ■ v. Jonas, 39 Ch. D. G60 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 671 ; 58 L. T. 882 ; 36 W. R. CC6 522, 523 v. Ledsam, 1 K. & J. 385 522 v. Rorke, 1 Sch. & L. 661 ; 9 R. R. 122 17,1200,1202,1207 v. Russell, 3 T. R. 393 ; 1 R. R. 725 673 . v. SI,,-,.], .I, ire Rail. Co., (1893) 3 Ch. 307 ; 03 L. J. Ch. 80 ; 69 L. T. I' I.K.607 470 r. Smith, 30 Ch. D. 192 788 TABLE OF CASES. CXCV PAGE Webb v. Stenton, 11 Q. B. D. 518 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 584 ; 49 L. T. 432 .... 932 Webber, Exp., 18 Q. B. D. Ill ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 209 ; 55 L. T. 81C ; 35 W. R. 308 , 299 ■ v. Hunt, 1 Madd. 13 1209 Webster, Exp., Re Morris, 22 Cb. D. 136 ; 52 L. J. Cb. 375 ; 48 L. T. 295; 31 W. R. Ill 250, 251 r. British Empire, &c. Assce. Co., 15 Cb. D. 169 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 769; 43 L. T. 229 ; 28 W. R. 818 284 v. Cook, L. R. 2 Ch. A. 542 ; 13 W. R. 1001 . . 614, 1146, 1156, 1199, 1405 ■ v. Patteson, W. N. (18S2) 10 1199 ■ v. 25 Cb. D. 626 ; 53 L. J. 621 ; 50 L. T. 252 ; 32 W. R. 581 911, 1014, 1030, 1033, 1043, 1048, 1140 ■ • v. Power, L. R. 2 P. C. 69 ; 37 L. J. C. P. 9 ; 5 Moo. P. C. N. S. 92 1467 v. Seekamp, 4 B. & Aid. 352 1396 r. Soutbey, 31 Cb. D. 9 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 785 ; 56 L. T. 879 ; 35 W. R. 622 538 V. Taylor, 18 Jur. 869 945 „. Webster, 31 Beav. 393 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 1047 1260, 1491 Wedderburn v. Wedderburn, 4 My. & Cr. 41 , 1142 Wedge v. Newlin, 9 B. & Ad. 831 584 Wedgwood Coal Co., Re, 6 Ch. D. 627 ; 37 L. T. N. S. 309 1134 Weeks v. Propert, L. R. 8 C. P. 427 ; 42 L. J. C. P. 129 ; 21 W. R. 676. .467, 471 r. Stourton, 11 Jur. N. S. 278 1406, 1412 Wegg-Prosser v. Evans, (1895) 1 Q. B. 108 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 1 ; 72 L. T. 8 ; 43 W. R. 66 965, 966 Weigall v. Brome, 6 Sim. 99 837 Weir, Re, HolHngworth v. Willing, 58 L. T. 792 1245 Weise v. Wardle, L. R. 19 Eq. 171 ; 23 W. R. 208 1012 Wekett v. Raby, 2 Bro. P. C. 386 1403 Welby v. Still, W. N. (1893) 91 1194 Welch v. National Cycle Co., W. N. (1886) 97 1029 ■ v. National Cycle Works, W. N. (1886) 196 ; 55 L. T. 673 ; 35 W. R. 196 1033 Welchman v. Coventry Union Bk., 8 W. R. 729 64 Weld, Re, 20 Ch. D. 451 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 913 ; 46 L. T. 397 ; 30 W. R. 385 . . 301, 362 v. Tew, Beat. 266 362 Weldon v. Neal, W. N. (1884) 153 ; 51 L. J. 289 ; 32 W. R. 828 1070 ■ v. Winslow, 13 Q. B. D. 784 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 528 ; 51 L. J. 643 ; 33 W. R. 219 1070 Welford v. Beezely, 1 Ves. Sen. 6 1315 Welles v. Middleton, 1 Cox, 112 611 Wellesley v. Mornington, 11 W. R. 17 1276 ■ v. Wellesley, 4 My. & Cr. 561 51, 1383 Wells, Re, Moloney v. Brooke, W. N. (1890) 104 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 810 ; 63 L. T. 531 ; 39 W. R. 39; 6 T. L. R. 312 958 v. Foster. 8 M. & W. 149 299, 932 v. Gibbs, 22 Beav. 204 1361 v. Kilpin, L. R. 18 Eq. 298 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 184 ; 22 W. R. 675. .696, 931, 947 v. Malbon, 31 Beav. 48 320 Welsted & Co. v. Swansea Bank, 5 T. L. R. 332 209 Wenham, Re, Hunt v. Wenham, (1892) 2 Oh. 59 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 565 ; 67 L. T. 648; 40 W. R. 636 975 Wenlock (Baroness) v. River Dee Co. (No. 1), 19 Q. B. D. 155 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 589 ; 57 L. T. 320 ; 35 W. R. 822 459 Wenlock (Baroness) v. River Dee Co., 38 Ch. D. 534 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 946 ; 59 L. T. 485 464 Wenlock (Baroness) v. River Dee Co., 10 App. Cas. 354 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 577 ; 53 L. T. 62 464, 468, 474 Wenman v. Lyon, (1891) 2 Q. B. 192 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 663 ; 05 L. T. 136 ; 39 W. R. 519 ; 7 T. L. R. 558 202 Wensley, Exp., 1 De G. J. & S. 273 581, 582 n 2 CXCvi TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Wenvinck's Case, 15 S. J. 767 I 454 Went v. Berney, 1 R. & My. 431 382 V. Fritche, 3 Exch. 216; 18 L. J. Ex. 50 661, 665 v. Jones, 1 Sim. N. S. 205; 20 L. J. Ch. N. S. 362 1178, 1182, 1185 , r. Eeid, 2 Ha. 249 1314, 1316, 1335, 1380 ■ v. Skip, 1 Ves. Sen. 243 184, 1461, 1462 v. Stewart, 14 M. & W. 47 828 West Cumberland Iron and Steel Co., Re, (1893) 1 Ch. 713 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 367 ; 68 L. T. 751 ; 41 W. R. 265 1128 West Ham Union v. Ovens, L. R. 8 Ex. 37 ; 42 L. J. M. C. 29 ; 27 L. T. 616 ; 21 W. R. 143 849 West Hartlepool Co., Re, L. R. 10 Ch. A. 618 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 668 ; 23 W. R. 938 ; 33 L. T. N. S. 149 1123 West Lancashire Rail. Co., Re, W. N. (1890) 165 ; 63 L. T. 56 ; 6 T. L. R. 425 I 947 West London, &c. Building Soc, (1894) 2 Ch. 352 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 506 ; 70 L. T. 796; 42 W. R. 535 557 West London, Sec. Building Soc. v. Reliance Permanent Building Society, 29 Ch. D. 954; 54 L. J. Ch. 1081; 53 L. T. 442; 33 W. R. 916.. 913, 1416 West London Commercial Bank v. Kitson, 13 Q. B. D. 360 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 345 ; 50 L. T. 656 ; 32 W. R. 757 471 West of England Bank, Re, Exp. Booker, 14 Ch. D. 317 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 400 ; 42 L. T. 619 ; 28 W. R. 809 , 472 West of England Bank. Re, Exp. Swansea Friendly Soc, 11 Ch. D. 768 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 577 ; 37 W. R. 596 565 West of England Bank v. Batchelor, W. N. (1882) 11 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 199 ; 46 L. T. 132 ; 30 W. R. 364 13S5 West of England, &c. Bank v. Murch, 23 Ch. D. 138 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 784 ; 48 L. T. 417 ; 31 W. R. 467 419, 421 v. Nicholls, 6 Ch. D. 613 732 West Riding Union Banking Co., Exp., Re Turner, 19 Ch. D. 105 ; 45 L. T. 546 ; 30 W. R. 239 1082, 1084 Westbourne, 14 P. D. 132; 58 L. J. Ad. 78 ; 61 L. T. 156 ; 38 W. R. 56 1394 Grove Drapery Co., Re, 5 Ch. D. 248 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 525; 36 L. T. N. S. 439 ; 25 W. R. 509 1131 Westbrooke v. Blythe, 3 E. & B. 737 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 85 1357 Westbury v. Clapp, 12 W. R. 511 667, 570 &o. v. Meredith, 30 Ch. D. 387 ; 52 L. T. 839 1015 Westerdell r. Dale, 7 T. R. 312 155 W( st( in and Brazilian Telegraph Co. r. Bibby, 42 L. T. 821 1126 Western Bank of Scotland v. Addie, L. R. 1 H. L. Sc. 145 467 Wt stern of Canada Oil Co., Re, L. R. 17 Eq. 1 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 184 1123, 1135 Western Wagon, &c. Co. v. West, (1892) 1 Ch. 271 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 244 ; 66 L. T. 402 ; 40 W. R. 182; 8 T. L. R. 112 490 W( sthead v. Riley, 25 Ch. D. 413 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 1153 ; 49 L. T. 776 ; 32 W. R. 273 649, 931 Weston v. Barton, 4 Taunt. 681 ; 13 R. R. 726 100 ■ v. Davidson, W. N. (1882) 2S 1035 ■ v. Levy, W. N. (1887) 76 926, 1021 Westover v. Chapman, 1 Coll. 177 521 Wi stamp v. (it. Yarmouth, &o. Co., 43 Ch. D. 241 ; 59 L. J. Ch. Ill ; 61 L. T. 714 ; 38 W. R. 505 ; 6 T. L. R. 84 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 443 1394 Westzinthus, Re, 5 B. & Ad. 817 783, 1466 Wethered v. Cox, W. N. (1888) 165 1021 v. Wethered, 2 Sim. 183 ; 29 R. R. 77 51, 311 WethereU, Exp., 11 Ves. 398 61 r. Collins, 3 Madd. 255 ; 18 R. R. 229 1004, 1186 Whale v. Booth, 4 T. R. 625, n. ; 2 R. R. 483, n 399, 402 Whaley v. Norton, 1 Vern. is 1 625 Wharton . May, 6 Ves. 27 613 v. Walker, 1 B. & (Jr. 163 . .' .' 1489 Whatton r. Cradock, 1 Keen, 267 ; 6 L. J. Ch. N. S. 178. .430, 1034, 1162, 1163 Wheatley r. Baetow, 7 Dc O. M. & G. 261 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 222 .... : ... 99, 1281 TABLE OF CASES. . CXCV11 PAGE Wheatley v. Silkstone Coal Co., 29 Ch. D. 715 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 778 ; 52 L. T. 798 ; 33 W. R. 797 495 Wheaton v. Graham, 24 Beav. 483 a ... 1 182, 1 185 Wheeler, Re, 1 De G-. M. & G-. 434 1429, 1430 • v. Branscombe, 5 Q. B. 375 680, 682 ■ v. Claydon, 16 Beav. 169 409 • ■ v. Gill, L. R. 19 Eq. 316 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 181 ; 23 W. R. 227 ; 31 L. T. N. S. 641 1174 v. Montefiore, 2 Q. B. 133 ; 1 G. & D. 493 ; 6 Jur. 299. . 188, 656, 657, 794 Wheelwright v. Walker (No. 1), 23 Ch. D. 752 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 274 ; 48 L. T. 70 ; 31 W. R. 353 389 Whethara v. Davey, 30 Ch. D. 574 ; 53 L. T. 501 ; 33 W. R. 925 508 Whichals v. Short, 2 Eq. Ca. Ahr. 608 ; 15 Vin. Abr. 478 730 Whistler, Re, 35 Ch. D. 561 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 827 ; 57 L. T. 77 ; 35 W. R. 662 422 Whitaker, Re, Christian v. Whitaker, 34 Ch. D. 227 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 251 ; 56 L. T. 254 ; 35 W. R. 217 342 v. Harrold, 11 Q. B. 147; 17L.J. Q. B. 343 674 Whitbread, Exp., 19 Ves. 211 55, 56, 60, 65, 66 , Exp., 2 M. D. & De G. 415 1450 v. Jordan, 1 Y. & C. Ex. 303 ; 4 L. J. N. S. Exch. Eq. 38. .55, 1321, 1333, 1335,1336, 1337 ■ — v. Lyall, 8 De G. M. & G. 383 ; 2 Jur. ST. S. 671 . . 1014, 1030, 1043 v. Smith, 3 De G. M. & G. 727 701, 704 White r. British Empire, &c. Assurance Co., L. R. 7 Eq. 394 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 53 ; 17 W. R. 26 ; 19 L. T. N. S. 306 286, 786 v. Carmarthen, &c. Railway Co., 1 H. & M. 786 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 100 489 v. City of London Brewery Co., 42 Ch. D. 237 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 855 ; 38 W. R. 82; 5 T. L. R. 553 802, 1155, 1202, 1203 • v. Ewer, 2 Ventr. 340 21, 740 v. Gudgeon, 30 Beav. 545 1115 v. Hillacre, 3 Y. & C. Ex. 597 860, 980 v. Hussey, Prec. Ch. 13 103 ■ v . James, 26 Beav. 191 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 1214 928, 1017 ■ v. Morris, 11 C. B. 1015; 16 Jur. C. P. 500 173, 188, 574, 656 v. Peterborough, Bishop of, 3 Swanst. 109 ; Jac. 402 1114 ■ v. Pigeon, Tothill, tit. 102, p. 135 749 v . Sealey, Doug. 49 67 v. Simmons, ~L. R. 6 Ch. A. 555 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 689 ; 19 W. R. 939 . . 999, 1076, 1077, 1078 ■ v. Smale, 22 Beav. 72 925, 928 ■ v. Wakefield, 7 Sim. 401 1319, 1375 ■ v. White, 9 Ves. 554 ; 4 R. R. 161 637 v. Wilson, 1 Drew. 304 892 White and Rubery, Re, (1894) 2 Q. B. 923 ; 71 L. T. 614 ; 1 Mans. 378. . 253 White's Mortgage, Re, 29 W. R. 820 839 Whiteacre, Exp., Rolls, 22 July, 1807 ; 1 Sanders, Uses and Trusts, 359, n. 836 Whitehaven Joint Stock Banking Co. v. Reed, 54 L. T. 360 467, 471 Whitehead v. Lynes, 34 Beav. 161 ; 12 L. T. N. S. 332 955 Whitely, Re, Whitely v. Learoyd, 33 Ch. D. 347; 55 L. J. Ch. 864; 55 L. T. 564; 34 W. R. 450 511, 518, 532 Whitfield, Exp., 2 Atk. 315 926 v. Brand, 16 M. & W. 282 182, 183, 187 ■ v. Fausset, 1 Ves. Sen. 387 816 r. Parfitt, 4 De G. & S. 240 ; 15 Jur. 852 24, 1182, 1184 v. Prickett, 13 Sim. 259 1284 v. Roberts, 5 Jur. N. S. 113 1035, 1038 v. 7 Jur. N. S. 1268 ; 9 W. R. 844 1034 Whiting v. Burke, L. R. 6 Ch. A. 342 87, 100 v. White, 2 Cox, 290 ; G. Coop. 1 740, 748, 749, 752 to Loomes, 17 Ch. D. 10; 50 L. J. Ch. 463; 44 L. T. 721; 29 W. R. 4 35 1533 Whitla v. Halliday, 4 Dr. & War. 267 1005 Whitley v. Challis, (1892) 1 Ch. 64; 61 L. J. Ch. 307; 65 L. T. 838; 40 W. R. 291 54, 118, 938 v. Lowe, 2 De G. & J. 704 979 CXCV111 TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Whitmarsh v. Robertson, 1 T. & C. C. C. 715 323 Whitmore v. Claridge, 31 L. J. Q. B. HI 595 r. Dowling, 2 F. & F. 134 594 . v. Empson, 23 Beav. 313 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 230 178 v. Farley, W. N. (1881) 8 ; 45 L. T. 99 ; 29 W. R. 825 626 Whitney v. Smith, L. R. 4 Ch. A. 513 ; 17 W. R. 579 ; 20 L. T. N. S. 468 525 Whittaker, Re, 21 Ch. D. 657 334 Whittingham's Trusts, 10 Jur. N. S. 818 ; 12 W. E. 775 ; 10 L. T. N. S. 308 331 Whittingstall v. King, W. N. (1882) 83 ; 46 L. T. 520 1258 Whittle v. Henning, IS L. J. Ch. 51 322 Whitton r. Peacock, 2 Bing. N. C. 411 110, 684 Whitwell !>. Thompson, 1 Esp. 68 593 Whitworth v. Davis, 1 V. & B. 545 1011 , „. Gaugain, 3 Ha. 416 ; Cr. & Ph. 325 ; 10 Jur. 531 ... . 1219, 1229, 1238, 1348 . v. Rhodes, 20 L. J. Ch. 105 905, 1028, 1030 r . Whyddon, 2 Mac. & G. 55 928 Whotton r. Cradock, 1 Keen, 268 430 Whyman v. Gath, 1 C. L. E. 482 1023 Wi.'kenden v. Eayson, 6 De G. M. & G. 210 ; 4 W. E. 443 1038, 1108 Wickena v. Townshend, 1 R. & My. 361 949, 953 Wickhain v. New Brunswick, &c. Co., L. E. 1 P. C. 64 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 34 ; 35 L. J. P. C. 6; 14 W. R. 251; 14 L. T. 1ST. S. 311. .491,497,935 „. Nicholson, 19 Beav. 38 1036 Wicks, Exp., Ee Wicks, 17 Ch. D. 70; 50 L. J. Ch. 620 ; 44 L. T. 836; 29 W. E. 525 299 . v. Scrivens, 1 J. & H. 215, 218 13, 693, 699, 997 v. Shanks, 67 L. T. 609 1361 Widdoweon v. Duck, 2 Mer. 494 510 Widgery v. Tepper, Hall v. Tepper, 6 Ch. D. 364 ; 37 L. T. 297; 25 W. E. 872 1111, 1278, 1360 Wigg v. Nicoll, L. E. 14 Eq. 92 ; 20 W. E. 738 ; 26 L. T. N. S. 953 ... . 540 v. Wi°rg, 1 Atk. 384 1259 Wigham v. Measor, 5 W. E. 394 1035 Wight's Mortgage Trusts, Re, L. R. 16 Eq. 41 ; 21 W. R. 667 ; 28 L. T. N. S. 491 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 66 1244, 1246 Wiglesworth v. Wiglesworth, 16 Beav. 269 512, 845 Wigram v. Buckley, (1894) 3 Ch. 483 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 689 ; 71 L. T. 287 ; 13 W. I.'. 117 631, 1298, 1323 WigaeU v. Wigsell, 2 S. & St. 364 ; 4 L. J. Ch. 84 ; 25 R. R. 224 1432 Wilbraham v. Livcsey, 18 Beav. 206 1312 Wilcox r. Wilcox, 2 Vern. 558 1383 Wild v. Lockhart, 10 Beav. 320 1114 Wilde v. Clarkson, 6 T. R. 303 ; 3 R. R. 178 67, 68 v. Radford, 9 Jur. N. S. 1110 1389 Wildgoose v. Way land, Goulds. 147 1258 Wilding v. Sanderson, W. N. (1897) 78 Addenda Wildrnan, Exp., 1 Atk. 109 1082 r. Wildrnan, 9 Ves. 174 275 Wil.lv v. Mid-Hants R,ail. Co., 16 W. R. 409 936, 1120 Wiley v. Crawford, 1 B. & S. 253 ; 30 L. J. Q. B. 319, 831 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 943; 1 L. T. 653; '.) W. R. 741 258 Wilkes . Bodington, 2 Vern. 599 1217, 1218, 1324 v. Collin, L. R. 8 Eq. 338 ; 17 W. R. 878 1437 ■ v. Saunion, 7 Ch. D. 183; 47 L. J. Ch. 150 266, 268, 1191 v. Steward, Coop. 6 620 Wilktna . Carmichael, Doug. 101 1391 V. Sibley, 1 Cifl. l 12 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 888 1276, 1382, 1444 Will..; -, I. -.p., 3 Do G. & S. 633 412 Exp., Re Berry, 22 Ch. D. 788 ; 31 W. R. 649 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 657; 48 L. T. 495 596 Ro, 10 Ch. A. 73 ; 4! L. J. Ch. 328 ; 23 W. R, 51 1276 ■ . Beale, l L. J. Ch. 89 1056 v. Charlesworth, 2 Beav. 17" 1034 !•. 10 Beav. 324; 16 L. J. Ch. 387 322,326 33, 238 264, TABLE OF CASES. CXC1X PAGE 951 Wilkinson v. Colley, 5 Burr. 2694 "J£ Q 849 r. Duncan, 23 Beav. 469 ........••■ •••• 50 r. Grant, 18 C. B. 319 ; 25 L. J. 0. P. 233 . . . . ■ • v. Hall, 3 Bing. N. 0. 508 ; 4 Sc. 301 655, 600, ^ -_ v . Merryland, Cro. Car. 447 82 5 - v. Slee, 12 W. B. 848 1213 , ,_ Vm Sterne, 9 Mod. 427 ...... • . • •; ■ • • • • ' 876 . „. Traxton, Selw. N. P. (13th ed.) 626 - - ^ . v Wilson, 8 Moo. P. C. 459 . • • • • • • ■ ■ • ■ • • • • • • ■ • ■ ' CJ02 WilMnson's Mortgage Estates, Be L. E 13 Eq. 634 ; 41 L.J. Ch. 392.. 902 Wilks v. Heeley, 1 C. & M. 249 ; 3 Tyr. 291 • • 1383 . v. Wilks, 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 218, , pi. <$.... 300 Willcock r. Terrell, 3 Ex. D. 323 ; 39 . L. T. 84 ^ Willes v. GreenhiU, 4 De G. E. & J. Ui _ < 15 Willett v. Winnell, 1 Vern. 488 . : _ _ l500 William, Swab. 346 ; 31 L. T. 34o ••••••••• .'.'l'lOO, 1199 Williams, Exp., 1 Bv& 0. 489 ; 1 Mont 514 ..„ . „ . „. .»•- ■ , Exp., Be Thompson, 7 Ch. D .13b , 37 L. 1. JN. B. W. R. 274; 47L.J. Bky. 26 ' g . , Re, 5 De G. & S. 515 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 437 3 , Q ' S' ExJ: Peate,*^ Ch! D. 66. Williams), 9 Q.B. D. 3d? , OX u. . .. &?tf&&tfJ&™*Ti™X# Si 1QQ . - Q - 1221,1231,1235,1236 , _ „. 13Sim.597 ..609,1143 v. Piggott, Jac. 598 , . . . . » . ^- • -^ • • • > — ■£ • 3g _ _ g6 303> 304? . v. Price, 1 fe. & bt. o»l , A -Li- o. ^ii. i«" i - 7Q( . 12Q1 981 t>. Smith, 4 H & N. 559 ,'/.'. 803, 7*10, 80*3, *8 19, 1249 . . v. Sorrell, 4 Ves. 389 ' 822 823 . v. Springfield, 1 Vern. 476 . . . •••••• • • ■ • ■ ' ; ■ • ' 'j" m "rVq'.' 98 „ . r .Stemr5Q.B.D.409; 49L.J.Q.B.663, 42L.T.719,^ igg W. R. 901 "] 1277 . r. Symonds, 9 Beav. 523 ....... . • • • • • • • • 1381 . v . Thomas, 2 Dr. & S. 29 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 250 • • • «g ' I, Thorp, 2 Sim. 257 ; 29 B. E. 96 j0 °' l f 6 ZZZI I] Walker, 9 Q. B. D. 576; 31 W. B. 120 318 - v. Wentworth 5 Beav. 325 • • • ""{£q 1331 v. Williams, l7_Ch^D : 437; HE. 1. bli » 3gl 9W.B. mm cc TABLE OF CASES, PAGE Williams v. Wilson, 5 W. R. 267 1154 Williams' Estate, Re, 5 De G. & S. 515 10o6 Trusts, Re, 36 Ch. D. 231 ; 56 L. J. Oh. 1088 ; 56 L. T. 8S4 ; 36 W. R. 100 843 and Duchess of Newcastle's Contract, Re, (1897) 2 Ch. 144 . .Addenda Williamson. Exp., Re National Permanent Benefit Building Society, L. R. , ^ ChA>309 . 22L . T . N . S . 284; 18W. R. 388 459 v Barbour, 9 Ch. D. 529 ; 37 L. T. 698 1141, 1142 v. Burrage, 56 L. T. 702 1045 v. Goold, 1 Bing. 171 99 v . Gordon, 19 Ves. 114 ; 12 R. R. 149 1052, 1053 Willie v. Lugg, 2 Ed. 7S 859 .^3 Willink v. Bentinck, 1 C. P. Coop. t. Cottenham, 288 1016 Willis, Re, Exp. Kennedy, 21 Q. B. D. 384 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. 634 ; 35 W. R. 793 66 4 r. Brown, 10 Sim. 127 12 41 r. Howe, Earl, (1893) 2 Ch. D. 545 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 690 ; 69 L.T. 358 ; 41 W. R. 433 ; 9 T. L. R. 415 1072 v. Levett, 1 De G. & S. 392 869 v . Palmer, 7 C B. N. S. 340 1530 v . 6 Jur. N. S. 732 271 Willmott v. London Celluloid Co., W. N. (18S5) 29 ; 52 L. T. 642 941 v 34 Ch. D. 147; 56 L. J. Ch. 89; 55 L. T. 696; 35 W. R. 145 494, 598 Willoughby v. Backhouse, 3 B. & Cr. 821 1402 r. Middleton, 2 J. & H. 334 112 v. Willoughby, 1 T. R. 763 ; 1 R. R. 397 . .1216, 1217, 1299, 1306 Willoughby Osborne v. Holyoake, 22 Ch. D. 238 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 331 ; 48 L. T. 152; 31 W. R. 236 349 Wills, Exp., 1 Ves. Jun. 162 ; 2 Cox, 233 53 . , Re, 8 Beav. 416 H76 v. Luff, 38 Ch. D. 197 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 563 ; 36 W. R. 571 1044 Wilmer v. Curry, 2 De G. & S. 347 964 Wilmott v. Pike, 5 Ha. 14 43, 911, 1217, 1267 Wilson, Exp., 2 V. & B. 252 ; 1 Rose, 444 ; 13 R, R, 75 658, 667, 1103 , Exp.,M. &Chit, 110 1101 , Exp.,ReButterworth, 4 D. & C. 143 178 , Re, Pennington v. Payne, 34 W. R. 512 ; 54 L. T. 600 420 , r. Balfour, 2 Camp. 579 05, 572 r. Bennett, 5 De G. & S. 475 ; 16 Jur. 966 890 v. Church, 9 Ch. D. 552; 39 L. T. 413; 26 W. R. 735 1118 r. 13 Ch. D. 1 , 490 v , Cluer, 4 Beav. 214 1175, 1179 v. 3 Beav. 136 ; 9 L. J. N. S. Ch. 333 1209, 1210 p . Cutting, 4 Moo. & Sc. 268 100 r. Darlington, 2 P. Wins. 664, n. ; 1 Cox, 72 765 v. Dunsauy, Lady, 18 Beav. 293 ; 18 Jur. 762 . .868, 1016, 1019, 1041, 1111 r . Greenwood, 1 Swanst. 471 ; 1 Wils. Ch. R, 223 ; IS R. R, 118. . 940 r. Halliley, 1 R. & My. 590 414, 416, 432, 433 v. Harman, 2 Ves. Sen. 672 961 p. Hart, 2 H. & M. 551; 11 Jur. N. S. 735 1316 v. Kimbly, 7 East, 128 968 „. Kirkwood, W. N. (1883) 40 ; 48 L. T. 821 232 . r. Lloyd, L. R. 16 Eq. 60 91 V. 21 W. R. 507 94 ■ r. Metcalfe, 1 Russ. 530 ; 3 Madd. 45 ; 18 R. R. 193 . .808, 1183, 1184, 1211 ■ v. Miles Platting Building Soc, 22 Q. B. D. 381 n 555, 556 r. Moore, 1 My. & K. 337 402 v. Natal Investment Co., 36 L. J. Ch. 312 1126 v. Poe, 1 Hogg, 322 940 p. Queen's Club, (1891) 3 Ch. 522; 60 L.J. Oh. 698; 65 L.T. 42; 40 W. R. 170 687, 689 V. Ray, 2 P. & D. 253 592 v. Round, 4 Giff. 116 1387 TABLE OF OASES. CC1 PAGE Wilson v. Short, 6 Ha. 366 794 „. Tooker, 5 Bro. P. C. 193 1471 r. Whateley, 7 Jur. N. S. 90S 125 „. Wilson, 2 Keen, 249 928 t\ , L. R. 14 Eq. 32 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 423 ; 20 W. R. 436 ; 20 L. T. N. S. 346 272 Wilson's Case, L. R. 12 Eq. 516 ; 25 L. T. N. S. 383 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 124 . . 461 Wilton v. Dunn, 17 Q. B. 294 ; 15 Jur. 1104 682 v. Jones, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 244 1009 Wiltshire v. Rabbits, 14 Sim. 76 43, 1237 Wimbledon Local Board v. Underwood, (1892) 1 Q. B. 836 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 484 ; 67 L. T. 55 ; 40 W. R. 640 224 Winchilsea, Earl of v. Norcliffe, 1 Vern. 430 22 r. Garrety, 1 Beav. 223 1261, 1277 v. Wentworth, 1 Vern. 402 22 Winchilsea' s Policy Trusts, Earl of, Re, 39 Ch. D. 168 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 20; 59 L. T. 167 ; 37 W. R. 77 1379, 1380 Winchester, Bishop of, v. Beavor, 3 Ves. 315 1014, 1 052, 1053 v. Paine, 11 Ves. 194 ; 8 R. R. 131 . .631, 730, 736, 1014, 1322 Winder, Exp., 1 Ch. D. 290 595 Windham v. Giubilei, W. N. (1871) 119 ; 24 L. T. N. S. 653 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 505 931, 946 v. Jennings, 2 Rep. in Ch. 24 1151 Wing v. Harvey, 5 De G. M. & G. 265 ; 18 Jur. 394 297 Wingfield, Exp., Re Florence, 10 Ch.D. 591; 27W.R.346; 40L.T. 15. .181, 182 Winn v. Ingilby, 5 B. & Aid. C25 124 Winter (or Hodgkin), Exp., Re Softley, L. R. 20 Eq. 746 ; 33 L. T. N. S. 62 ; 24 W. R. 68 ; 44 L. J. Bky. 107 202, 261 , Re, L. R. 15 Eq. 156 ; 21 W. R. 320 ; 27 L. T. N. S. 842 1407 v. Anson, Lord, 3 Russ. 488 ; 27 R. R. 117 . . 55, 113, 1328, 1372, 1374, 1375 Winthrop v. Murray, 8 Ha. 214 ; 14 Jur. 303 871 Wise, Re, 5 De G. & S. 415 1428, 1429 ■ ■ r. Beresford, 3 Dr. & War. 276 ; 2 Con. & L. 282 440 r. Charlton, 4 A. & E. 786 1526 v . Wise, 2 J. & L. 403 1256 Wiseman v. Beake, 2 Vern. 121 613 v. Westland, 1 Y. & J. 117 ....108, 809, 1046, 1247, 1249, 1303, 1339 Wishallf. Short, 3 Bro. P. C. 558; 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 177; 7 Vin. Abr. 398. .. . 1050 Withall v. Nixon, 28 Ch. D. 413 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 616 ; 33 W. R. 565 1046 Witham v. Lynch, 1 Exch. 391 ; 17 L. J. Ex. 13 1363 Witherby v. Rackham, W. N. (1891) 57 ; 39 W. R. 363 325 Withers v. Kennedy, 2 My. & K. 607 407 Withes v. Casson, Hob. 128 110 Withington v. Tate, L. R. 4 Ch. A. 288 ; 17 W. R. 559 ; 20 L. T. N. S. 637 712, 820, 999 Withrington v. Bankes, Sel. Ca. in Ch. 31 804 Witt v. Banner, 20 Q. B. D. 114 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. 141 ; 36 W. R. 115 ; 58 L. T. 34 214 Witts v. Young, W. N. (1870) 172 1038 Woffington v. Sparks, 2 Ves. Sen. 569 95 Wolmershausen v. Gullick, (1893) 2 Ch. 514 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 773 ; 68 L. T. 753 ; 9 T. L. R. 437 100, 104, 105 Wolstenholm v. Sheffield Union Banking Co., 54 L. T. 746 1390 Wolston v. Aston, Hard. 511 19 Wolverhampton Bank v. Marston, 7 H. & N. 148 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 1040. .399, 570 . &c. Co. v. George, 24 Ch. D. 707 1052 Wonham v. Machin, L. R. 10 Eq. 447 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 789 ; 18 W. R. 1098 ; 23 L. T. N. S. 479 1040, 1116 Wontner v. Wright, 2 Sim. 543; 29 R. R. 166 817, 1113, 1175, 1181 Wood, Exp., 3 M. D. & De G. 315 1267, 1269 Exp., Re Wright, 10 Ch. D. 554 ; 27 W. R. 401 ; 39 L. T. 646 . . 1084 Re, L. R. 7 Ch. A. 302 578, 579, 580, 5S4 Re, Exp. Woolfe, (1894) 1 Q. B. 605 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 352 ; 70 L. T. 282; 1 Mans. 87 221, 222 CCli TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Wood v. Barker, L. R. 1 Eq. 139 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 276; 14 W. R. 47 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 905 ; 13 L. T. N. S. 318 592 r. Dixie, 7 Q. B. 892 570, 593 r. Downes, 18 Ves. 120; llR. R. 100 610 r. Heath, 1 Chit. 708, n 72 v. Hitching, 2 Beav. 289 949 „. Jones, 61 L. T. 551 528 v. Nosworthy, cited 2 Vein. 193 852 v. Rowcliffe, 6 Ha. 183 1478 v. ,6Exch.407 , 214 v. Surr, 19 Beav. 551 632, 694, 737, 1012, 1015 v. Vincent, 4 Beav. 419 1277 . „. Westall, To. 305 1106 . v . Wheater, 22 Ch. D. 281 ; 47 L. T. 440 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 144 ; 31 W. R. 117 1045 „. Williams, 4 Madd. 186 ; 20 R. R. 291 . .629, 996, 99S, 1004, 1006, 1119 v. Wood, 7 Beav. 183 , 705 r. , L. R. 10 Eq. 220 332 Woodall v. Smith, 1 Camp. 332 176 Woodburn v. Grant, 22 Beav. 483 53, 276, 1258 Woodcock, Re, 1 O. B. 437 320 v. Mavne, cited 12 Ves. 59 723 Woodford v. Brooking, L. R. 17 Eq. 425 ; 22 W. R. 683 1035 Woodgate v. Godfrey, 5 Ex. D. 24 193, 195 Woodhead, Re, Cadman v. Carr, W. N. (1884) 174 852 Woodhouse v. Meredith, 1 Mer. 450 ; 15 R. R. 145 848 v. Murray, L. R. 2 Q. B. 638 ; 36 L. J. Q. B. 289 ; 16 L. T. 559; 15 W. R. 1109; 8 B. & S. 464 578, 580 Woodman r. Higgins, 14 Jur. 846 711, 817, 818 Woods v. Huntingford, 3 Ves. 128 762, 763 v. Hyde, 10 W. R. 339 895 v. Russeil, 5 B. & Aid. 942 182, 261 v. Sowerby, 14 W. R. 9 1106 Woodward v. Haddon, 4 Sim. 606 1008, 1181 W lvatt v. Grcsley, 8 Sim. 180,' 50, 1382 Woof v. Barron, W. N. (1873) 71 1018 Wookey v. Pole, 4 B. & Aid. 1 1463, 1465, 1471, 1486 Wooldridge v. Norris, L. R. 6 Eq. 410 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 640 ; 19 L. T. N. S. Ill 93, 1106 Woolf v. Vanderzee, 20 L. T. N. S. 353 ; 17 W. R. 547 905 Woolley v. Colman, 21 Ch. D. 169 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 854 ; 46 L. T. 737 ; 30 W. R. 769 726, 738, 1035, 1038, 1039 ■ v. Drag, 2 Anst. 551 164, 1161, 1196, 1197 v. Jennings, 5 B. & Cr. 105 , 70 Woolstencrofl v. Woolstencroft, 2 Do G. E. & J. 317 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 22 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 1170 768, 772 Worcester Corn Exchange Co., Re, 3 Do G. M. & G. 180 503, 1266 Wormald v. Maitland, 35 L. J. Ch. 69 ; 13 W. R. 832 1248, 1339 Wormaley's Estate, Re, Hill v. Wormsley, 4 Ch. D. 665 ; 6N.R.218; 46 L. J. Ch. 102 ; 25 W. R. 141 768 ley V. De Mattos, 1 Burr. 467 582 Woraley*. Scarborough, Lord, 3 Atk. 392 631, 1322, 1323, 1324 Worthington t>. Morgan, 16 Sim. .017; 18 L. J. Ch. 233. .1319, 1336, 1372, 1373, 1411 Wortley v. Birkhead, 2 V( s. Sen. 574 1214, 1220, 1223 , l DeG. J. &S. 356 1427 v. Denham, 2 Y. & C. Ex. 117; 6 L. J. N. S. Ex. 38.. . .610, 804, 805, 1143, 1202 Wragge's Case, L. B. 5 Eq. 284 1267 Wreford, Exp., 24 L. T. N. B. 638 589 Wren . Kirton, 11 Ves. 377 ; S K. J,'. 171 924 Wr. Qch v. Lord, 3 Binpr. N. C. G72 ; 4 Sc. 381 1522 p. Wynne, 1 7 \Y. R. 198 1277 Wright, Exp., 19 Vee. 256 , 57, 59, 60 3 M. 6; A. 49 1101 TABLE OF CASES. CC111 PAGE Wright, Re, Exp. Arnold, 3 Ch. D. 70 ; 45 L. J. Bky. 130 ; 24 W. R. 977 ; 35 L. T. N. S. 21 186 v. Cadogan, 2 Ed. 239 332 _ v . Callender, 2 De G-. M. & G-. 652 ; 10 Jur. 647 411,412,413 v. Dorchester, Lord, 1 Russ. 9, n 1263 . p. Horton, 12 App. Cas. 371 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 873 ; 56 L. T. 782 ; 36 W. R. 17 501 „. J 0n es, C. P. Coop. 493 1185 v. Kirby, 23 Beav. 463 1197 , Vm Larmath, W. N. (1869) 36 1115 v. Monarch Investment Soc, 5 Ch. D. 726 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 649 558 v. Morley, 1 1 Ves. 12 ; 8 R. R. 69 327 v. Pitt, L. R. 12 Eq. 408 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 558 ; 25 L. T. N. S. 13 ; 20 W. R. 27 156 . „. Reed, 3 T. R. 554 716 v . Rose, 2 S. & St. 323 ; 25 R. R. 209 911 „. Russel, 3 Wils. K. B. 530 ; 2 W. Bl. 934 100 r . Simpson, 6 Ves. 734 84, 89, 93 r. Stanfield, 27 Beav. 8 1244 v. Vanderplank, 2 Jur. N. S. 599 616 Wright's Trustees and Marshall, Re, 28 Ch. D. 93 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 60 ; 51 L. T. 781 ; 33 W. R. 304 389 Wrightson v. Hudson, 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 609, pi. 7 1247, 1248 Wrigley v. Sykes, 21 Beav. 337 409, 421 Wrixon v. Vize, 2 Dr. & War. 192 ; 1 Con. & L. 298 ; 4 Ir. Eq. R. 463 . . 637, 979 „. 3 Dr. & War. 104 1059, 1062, 1064 Wrottesley v. Adams, Plow. 191 116 Wroughton v. Colquhoun, 1 De G. & S. 36 413 v. Turtle, 11 M. & W. 561; 1 D. & L. 473; 13 L. J. Ex. 57. . 1197, 1516 Wrout v. Dawes, 25 Beav. 369 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 397 1372 Wulff v. Jay, L. R. 7 Q. B. 756 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 322 ; 27 L. T. US ; 20 W. R. 1030 86 Wyatt v. Barwell, 19 Ves. 435 : 13 R. R. 236 1246, 1247, 1248 v. Sharratt, 3 Beav. 498 523 Wvchv. Meal, 3 P. Wins. 311, n 1012 Wylde v. Radford, 9 Jur. N. S. 1169 ; 12 W. R. 38 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 51 ; 9 L. J. N. S. 471 58, 63 Wyllie v. Pollen, 3 De G. J. & S. 596 ; 32 L. J. Ch. (N. S.) 782 ; 11 W. R. 1081 1306, 1326, 1328 Wyly, Exp.VVe'rn. & Scr'iv. 518 1086 Wyman v. Knight, 39 Ch. D. 165 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 886 ; 59 L. T. 161 ; 37 W. R. 76 649, 947 Wyndham v. Egremont, Earl of, Amb. 753 1434, 1437 v . Richardson, 2 Ch. Ca. 213 1217 Wynn v . Littleton, 2 Ch. Ca. 51 844 Wynn Hall Coal Co. Exp., North & South Wales Bank, Re, L. R. 10 Eq. 515 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 695 ; 18 W. R. 1128 ; 23 L. T. N. S. 348 476 Wynne v. Callander, 1 Russ. 293 622, 624 v , Griffith, 1 Russ. 283 1317 . v . Newborough, Lord, 1 Ves. Jun. 164 ; 3 Bro. C. C. 87 951, 952 v. 15 Ves. 284 940 v. Styan, 2 Ph. 306 693, 1009, 1064 Wynter v. Bold, 1 S. & St. 507 130, 432 Wythe v. Henniker, 2 My. & K. 635 757, 785 Wythes, Re, West v. Wythes, (1893) 2 Ch. 369 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 663-; 68 L. T. 520 ; 41 W. R. 375 ; 9 T. L. R. 327 812 V. Labouchere, 3 De G. & J. 593 82 v , Lee, 3 Drew. 396 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 7, 130 1376 Yardley v. Holland, L. R. 20 Eq. 428 ; 33 L. T. N. S. 301 854 Yates, Re, Batcheldor v. Yates, 38 Ch. D. 112 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 697 ; 59 L. T. 47 ; 38 W. R. 563 206, 902 Cciv TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Yates v. Ashcroft, 31 W. R. 156 ; 47 L. T. 337 245 r. Aston, 3 G. & D. 351; 7 Jur. 83; 4 Q. B. 182 10,754,1448 v. Bell, 3 B. & Ad. 645 1490 v. Hambly, 2 Atk. 237 27, 720, 1006, 1010, 1013 v. , 2 Atk. 360 744 . r. Plumbe, 2 Sm. & G. 174 815, 1412 v. Railston, 8 Taunt. 293 ; 2 Moo. 294 ; 19 R. R. 524 1398 Yea v. Field, 2 T. R. 708 ; 1 R. R. 603 810 Yellowly v. Gower, 11 Exch. 274 685, 687 Yem v. Edwards, 1 De. G. & J. 598 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 647 165 Yeomans v. Haynes, 24 Beav. 127 1115 . ■ v. Williams, L. R. 1 Eq. 184 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 283 1403, 1404 Yerbury's Estate, Re, Ker v. Dent, 62 L. T. 55 540 York, Re, Atkinson v. Powell, 36 Ch. D. 233 1110 York Union Banking Co. v. Artley, 11 Ch. D. 205; 27 W. R. 704 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 552 ; 56 L. T. 704 ; 35 W. R. 609 995, 1018 Yorke, Exp., 3 M. D. & De G. 329 1101 Yorkshire Banking Co. r. Mullan, 35 Ch. D. 125 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 562 ; 56 L. T. 399 ; 35 W. R. 593 944 Yorkshire Wagon Co. v. Maclure, 21 Ch. D. 309 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 857 ; 47 L. T. 290 ; 30 W. R. 761 91, 473 Youde v. Jones, 13 M. & W. 534 ; 9 Jur. 910 646 Young, Exp., DeG. 146 1100 , Exp., 4 Deac. 185 112 . , Exp., 2 V. & B. 242 ; 13 R. R. 73 1377 , Exp., Re Kitchin, 17 Ch. D. 668 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 824 ; 45 L. T. 90 90, 966 v. Billiter, 30 L. J. Q. B. 153 76 v. English, 7 Beav. 10 1213 v. Fletcher, 3 H. & C. 732 ; 34 L. J. Ex. 154 ; 11 Jur. 449 581, 582, 583 v. Guy, 8 Beav. 147 822 v. Higgon, 6 M. & W. 49 896 r. Lambert, L. R. 3 P. C. 142 ; 18 W. R. 197 1461 r. Moore, 2 Wils. K. B. 67 619 r. Peachey, 2 Atk. 257 24 r. Roberts, 15 Beav. 558 826, 887 ' . v. Smith, L. R. 1 Eq. 180 112 r. Taylor, 8 Taunt. 315 ; 2 Moo. 326 103 p. Wallingford, 52 L. J. Ch. 590 ; 48 L. T. 756 ; 31 W. R. 858 111,112 _«,. Ward, 8 Exch. 221 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 27 581, 583 p . Waterpark, Lord, 13 Sim. 199 428 p. Whitchurch, &c. Banking Co., 37 L. J. Ch. 186 ; 17 L. T. N. S. 406 1412 v. Young, 26 Beav. 522 ; 9 Jur. 522 754, 755 v. L. R. 3 Eq. 801 1232, 1297, 1299 Y( range v. Cock, r, 32 W. R. 359 1053 ^'nun-husband v. Gisborne, 1 Dc G. & S. 209 1300 Youn-rmann v. Briesemann, W. N. (1892) 162 ; 67 L. T. 642; 41 W. R. 1 is 1461 Youngs, Re, Doggett r. Revett, 30 Ch. D. 421 ; 33 W. R. 880 1107 Ysabel, 1 Dods. 273 1501, 1505, 1509 Zodiac, 1 Hagg. 320 1391, 1508, 1509, 1510 ( ccv ) TABLE OF STATUTES. N.B. — The statutes and sections which are marked with an asterisk are repealed or spent. The figures printed in dark type denote the pages at which the sections or sub-sections referred to are set out verbatim. 1284... 13 Ed. 1, c. 1 (Statute de Bonis), 627. c. IS (Judgments), 69. 1289... 18 Ed. 1, c. 1 (Quia Emptores), 315. 1429... 8 Hen. 6, c. 7 (Parliamentary Elections), 628. 1493... 11 Hen. 7, c. 20 (Tenants in Tail ex pruvisione viri), 367. 1540... 32 Hen. 8, c. 34 (Conditions of Ee-entry), 673, 684. 1541... 33 Hen. 8, c. 39 (Crown Debts), 1366. 1551... 5 & 6 Ed. 6, c. 16 (Sales of Public Offices void), 29S. 1570... 13 Eliz. c. 4 (Crown Debts), 1367. 1571... 13 Eliz. c. 5 (Fraudulent Conveyances), 173, 175 — 177, 567 et seq. s. 1 (Avoidance of Conveyances), 568. s. 5 (Conveyances made bond fide), 568. c. 20 (Charges on Benefices), 438. 1584... 27 Eliz. c. 4 (Fraudulent Conveyances), 322, 572, 600—605. 1586... 29 Eliz. c. 5 (Perpetuation of Acts), 567. 1600. *43 Eliz. c. 4 (Charitable Gifts), 1300. 1622... 21 Jac. 1, c. 16 (Limitation of Time), 740, 741, 742, 974, 98S, 1058 et seq., 1070, 1471. *c. 19 (Bankruptcy), 1149. 1627 .*3 Car. 1, c. 4 (Continuance of Acts), 438. 1658... 10 & 11 Car. 2, c. 3 (Benefices, Ireland), 440. 1660... 12 Car. 2, c. 24 (Abolition of Feudal Tenures), 315. 1662... 13 & 14 Car. 2, c. 4 (Benefice), 439. 1663. ..15 Car. 2, c. 17 (Bedford Level), 1241. 1676... 29 Car. 2, c. 3 (Statute of Frauds)— s. 2 (Leases for less than Three Years), 951. s. 4 (Memorandum in Writing necessary), 48, 54, 80, 496. s. 10 (Trust Estates), 651. s. 14 (Judgments), 1353. 1690... 3 & 4 Wm. & M. c. 14 (Fraudulent Devises), 967, 1151. 1691. ..4 & 5 Wm. & M. c. 16 (Mortgages), 45, 731. 1703 .*2 & 3 Anne, c. 4 (Yorkshire Begistry), 1241. 1704... 3 & 4 Anne, c. 9 (Bills of Exchange), 305. 1705... 4 & 5 Anne, c. 3, s. 19 (Limitation of Time — Disabilities), 988, c. 16 (Bail Bonds — Attornment), 68, 305, 671. 1706... 5 Anne, c. 4 (Duke of Marlborough's Annuity), 299. 1706. *5 & 6 Anne, c. 18 (Yorkshire Begistry), 1356. 1707... 6 Anne, c. 2 (Irish Begistry), 1221, 1241, 1243, 1245, 1249, 1252. c. 25 (Attestation of Memorial — Ireland), 1243. *c. 35 (Yorkshire Eegistry), 1241, 1356. Ccvi TABLE OF STATUTES. 1708 .*7 Anne, c. 19 (Mortgage Estates), 1430. c. 20 (Middlesex Registry), 1045, 1240, 1243, 1245, 1356, 1368. s. 17 (Entry of Satisfaction), 1409. *c. 25 (Perpetuation of Acts), 305. 1710.*9 Anno, c. 14 (Gaming), 619, 624. 1728 .2 Geo. 2, c. 19 (Goods Fraudulently Removed), 223. 1730.. .4 Geo. 2, c. 28 (Distress), 870, 922, 951. 1733. ..7 Geo. 2, c. 8 (Stock- jobbing Act), 36. c. 20 (Mortgage— Staying Proceedings), 305, 861, 873, 1032, 1052, 1137. 1734.*8 Geo. 2, c. 6 (Yorkshire Registry), 441, 1241, 1356. 1734 .*9 Geo. 2, c. 36 (Mortmain), 517, 537, 538. 1737. ..11 Geo. 2, c. 19, s. 23 (Replevin Bonds), 305. 1739 .*13 Geo. 2, c. 19 (Gaming), 623. 1744... 18 Geo. 2, c. 34 (Gaming), 623. 1773.. .14 Geo. 3, c. 48, ss. 1, 2, 3 (Policy of Life Assurance), 287, 288. c. 78, s. 83 (Fire Insurance), 140, 1198. 1776. ..17 Geo. 3, c. 53 (Benefice — Mortmain), 441, 442. 17S0...21 Geo. 3, c. 66 (Benefice), 441, 442. 1784... 25 Geo. 3, c. 35 (Crown Debts— Execution), 648, 709. 1797. ..38 Geo. 3, c. 60 (Land Tax), 355, 440, 847. 1798/39 Geo. 3, c. 6 (Land Tax Redemption), 440. 1800.. .41 Geo. 3, c. 109 (Commons, Enclosure), 383. 1801 .*42 Geo. 3, c. 116 (Land Tax Redemption), 3S4, 385. 1802 .*43 Geo. 3, c. 75 (Lunacy), 356. *c. 84 (Benefice), 438, 440. 1804.. .45 Geo. 3, c. 28 (Legacy Duties), 435. 1806... 47 Geo. 3, Sess. 2, c. 25 (Sales of Pensions), 298. 1808... 49 Geo. 3, c. 126 (Sales, &c. of Offices), 298. 1810... 51 Geo. 3, c. 64 (East India Bonds), 1490. 1812... 53 Geo. 3, c. 127, s. 5 (Arrears of Tithes), 171. c. 141 (Annuities), 35. 1813... 54 Geo. 3, c. 145 (Forfeiture), 643. 1813... 55 Geo. 3, c. 184 (Stamp Duties), 1520, 1524. c. 192 (Copyholds), 149, 647, 836. 1816.*57 Geo. 3, c. 34 (Public Works Loans), 448. *c. 99 (Sales of Ecclesiastical Emoluments, &c), 300, 43S, 440. 1822. ..3 Geo. 4, c. 39 (Cognovit), 74, 76. *c. 126 (Turnpikes), 492. 1823 .*4 Geo. 4, c. 83 (Factor), 1476. *c. 95 (Turnpikes), 492. 1824 5 Geo. 4, c. 12 (Prisons), 449. 1825 .*0 Geo. 4, c. 16 (Bankruptcy), 597, 695. c. 94 (Factor), 1476, 1480. 1826 .*7 Geo. 4, c. 24 (Turnpikes), 492. c. 46 (Bank), 1363. 1828.. .9 Goo. 4, c. 11 (Statute of Frauds Amendment Act), 752, 974, 979. *c. 77 (Turnpikes), 492. I .*10 Geo. 4, c. oG (Friendly Societies), 543, 548, 558, 563, 1529. JggJ J 1 Will. 4, c. 47 (Debts Recovery), 67, 406, 407, 908, 1053, 1055, 1056. *c. 60 (Trustees), 846, 1050, 1418, 1430. *c. 65 (Lunacy), 356. 1832 i - * 3 WilL 4 ' Cl 10 ° ( Mo(lu ses, &c), 170. 1832 i 18g3 3 & 1 Will. 4, c. 27 (Statute of Limitations), 740—752, 1058 et seq. . I Definitions), 743. . 2 \< tioD i for I.Vcovery of Land or Rent), 1058 et seq. s. 3 (Accruer of Bight of Action, &c), 1062. . 7 (Tenancies at Will), 662. TABLE OF STATUTES. CCV11 jggg j 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, s. 14 (Acknowledgment), 1066 et seq. •a. 16 (Disabilities), 987, 1068, 1070. *s. 17 (Utmost Allowance for Disability), 1071. s. 18 (Successive Disabilities), 1071. s. 21 (Mortgage by Tenant in Tail), 108. s. 24 (Suits in Equity), 1059. s. 25 (Express Trusts), 744, 1072, 1171. s. 26 (Fraud), 747, 1072. s. 28 (Extinguishment of Eight to Eedeem), 27, 28, 741, 750, 752. s. 30 (Title to Advowson), 1316. s. 34 (Extinguishment of Eight of Action), 1073, 1074. s. 40 (Money Charged on Lands or Legacies), 944, 971, 982, 9S7, 1434. s. 42 (Arrears of Bent and Interest), 171, 975, 988 et seq., 1168 etseq. c. 42 (Administration of Estates) — s. 3 (Actions of Covenant or Debt), 911, 972 et seq. s. 4 (Preservation of Eights during Disabilities), 987. s. 5 (Acknowledgment), 972, 1067. ss. 28, 29 (Allowance of Interest), 1159, 1168. c. 74 (Fines and Eecoveries Act) — ■ s. 1 (Definitions), 316, 367. s. 2 (Fines and Eecoveries abolished), 366, 705. s. 15 (Power to Bar Entails), 366, 376, 637. s. 16 (Tenants in Tail ex provisione viri), 366. s. 18 (Eeversion in Crown), 367. s. 20 (Dispositions by Expectant Heirs), 367. s. 21 (Estate created* by way of Mortgage), 108, 369. ss. 22, 23 (Protection of Settlement), 371. ss. 26, 27 (Lessees, Doweresses, &c), 372. s. 32 (Power to appoint Protector), 372. s. 33 (Protector Lunatic, &c), 373. s. 34 (Base Fee), 373. s. 35 (Consent to enlargement of Base Fees), 373. s. 38 (Confirmation of voidable Acts), 373, 683. s. 39 (Enlargement of Base Fees), 373. s. 40 (Mode of Disposition), 367, 368, 987. s. 41 (Inrolment of Assurances), 378. ss. 42, 43, 44 (Consent of Protector), 372. s. 46 (Inrolment of Consent), 378. s. 47 (Limit of Equitable Jurisdiction), 376. s. 50 (Copyholds), 370, 373, 637. _ ss. 51, 52 (Consent of Protector in case of Copyholds), 373, 379. s. 54 (Inrolment not necessary as to Copyholds), 378. ss. 60, 61 (Bankrupt Tenant in Tail), 374. s. 62 (Defective Assurance by Tenant in Tail), 374, 375. s. 71 (Entailed Money), 370. s. 74 (Eelation back of Inrolled Deeds), 379. s. 77 (Dispositions by Married Women), 316, 317, 332. s. 79 (Acknowledgments by Married Women), 318. s. 84 (Memorandum of Acknowledgment), 318. s. 91 (Dispensation with Husband's Concurrence), 318, 319. *c. 76 (Municipal Corporations Act, 1835), 445. *C. 80 (Turnpikes), 492. c. 98 (Bank of England), 716. c. 104 (Debt), 64, 406, 419, 645, 652, 703, 754, 968, 970, 1151 et seq. CCVlii TABLE OF STATUTES. 1833 1 3 & 4 Wm ' 4 ' C> 105 ( D ° Wer )' 645, 7 ° 3, c. 106 (Inheritance), 646. J^ 33 j 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 22 (Apportionment), 1154. *c. 23 (Escheat of Trust Property), 149, 642. *c. 29 (Investment for Infants), 510, 514. *c. 40 (Friendly Societies), 543, 563. c. 76 (Poor Law), 450, 628. c. 92 (Fines and Eecoveries, Ireland), 366. \**f J 5 & 6 WiU. 4, c. 41 (Gaming), 619, 622, 624. *c. 76 (Municipal Corporations), 445, 446. 1835 ) *6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 32 (Building Societies), 458, 460, 543, 548, 552, 558, 559, 1836 562, 628, 1218, 1529. c. 71 (Tithes), 170, 1369. c. 104 (Municipal Corporations), 445. 1837. .7 & 8 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 26 (Wills Act)— s. 3 (General Enabling Clause), 627, 646, 837, S47. s. 4 (Payment of Stamp Duties, &c), 837. s. 24 (Will Speaks from Death), 853. s. 26 (Eesiduary Devise includes Lapsed and Void Devises), 837, 838. c. 28 (Limitation of Time), 980, 1060, 1063. *c. 78 (Municipal Corporations), 445. 1838 1 & 2 Vict. c. 23 (Benefices), 441, 442, 443. *c. 106 (Benefices), 438, 443. c. 110 (Judgments) — *s. 9 (Warrant of Attorney), 72. s. 11 (Execution of Lands), 569, 647, 649, 1225, 1227, 1234. s. 12 (Execution of Choses in Action), 569. s. 13 (Charge on Land, &c), 647, 649, 650, S51, 1149, 1219, 1229, 1364. s. 14 (Charging Orders on Shares, &c), 299, 1358, 1363, 1365. s. 15 (Discharge of Order), 299, 1358, 1360, 1362. s. 17 (Interest after Judgment), 1172, 1174. s. 18 (Order for Payment), 1045, 1386. s. 19 (PiCgistration of Judgments), 1350, 1351. 183P...2 & 3 Vict. c. 11 (Judgments), 736, 1149, 1322. s. 4 (Re-registration of Judgments), 1350. s. 7 (Memorandum of Lis Pendens), 631, 632, 736, 1322. 88. 8, 9, (Crown Debts), 1367. s. 11 (Discharge of Mortgages, &c), 1367. c. 60 (Mortgages to Pay Debts), 354, 407, 1056. c. 62 (Tithes), 170, 1369. 1840... 3 & 4 Vict. c. 5 (Horse-racing), 623. c. 15 (Tithes), 1369. c. 65 (Admiralty Court), 1395. c. 82, s. 1 (Charging Orders on Shares, &c), 1359. s. 2 (Notice of Judgments, &c), 1324. c. 105 (Debtors, Ireland), 75, 972, 1358. c. 113 [Ecclesiastical Commissioners), 443. lsn .*i & 5 Vict. c. 35 (Copyholds), 154. v. 19 (County Bridges), 449. v. 59 Turnpikes), 492. 5 Vict. c. 5 (Courl of Chancery), 1274. 1842 6 & 6 Yi. t. c. 18 I' ■ Law), 450. c. 26 Benefice), 443, 444. c. 35 1 acome Tax), 1156. TABLE OF STATUTES. CC1X 1842 ,*5 & 6 Vict. c. 39 (Factors), 1476, 1478. c. 54 (Tithes), 1369. c. 98 (Prisons), 449. *c. 116 (Insolvent Debtors), 695. 1843... 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18 (Parliamentary Voters Eegistration), 628, 792. c. 66 (Cognovit), 74, 75. c. 73 (Solicitors' Costs), 610, 1176. 1844... 7 & 8 Vict. c. 85 (Eailway Eegulations), 465. c. 90 (Judgments, Ireland), 1322, 1357, 1368. c. 101 (Poor Law), 451. 1845... 8 & 9 Vict. c. 16 (Companies Clauses Act, 1845), 278, 453, 497, 540. s. 20 (Trusts affecting Shares), 1270. ss. 38 — 55 (Eegulations as to Mortgages), 465, 466, 499, 1288. s. 47 (Eailway Mortgages, &c), 305. c. 18 (Lands Clauses Act), 447, 490, 511, 707, 1169, 1407. c. 20 (Eailway Clauses Consolidation Act), 491. c. 37 (Bankers, Ireland), 716. c. 38 (Bank Notes, Scotland), 716. c. 42 (Canals), 465. c. 56 (Drainage Charges), 1207, 1370, 1371. c. 106 (Eeal Property Law Amendment), 161, 627, 684. c. 109 (Gaming), 620 et seq. s. 17 (Punishment of Fraud), 621. s. 18 (Avoidance of Contracts, &c), 620, 622, 623. c. 112 (Satisfied Terms), 1216, 1238. c. 118 (Inclosure), 383. *c. 126 (Lunacy), 450. 1846... 9 & 10 Vict. c. 73 (Tithes), 170, 1369. *c. 84 (Lunacy), 450. # c. 95 (County Courts), 662. c. 101 (Drainage Charges), 1207. 1847... 10 & 11 Vict. c. 11 (Drainage Charges), 147, 1207. c. 16 (Commissioners' Clauses), 448, 452, 456. *c. 43 (Lunacy), 450. c. 94 (Canals) 465. c. 104 (Tithes), 1369. \lf 8 j *11 & 12 Vict. c. 39 (Prisons), 449. *c. 63 (Public Health), 453. c. 87 (Debts), 406, 1056. c. 99 (Inclosures), 384. c. 120 (Land Transfer, Ireland), 1322, 1368. 1849 .*12 & 13 Vict. cc. 46, 87 (Turnpikes), 492. c. 105 (Statutory Grants — Ireland), 518. *c. 106 (Bankruptcy), 597, 695, 1265. 1850 .*13 & 14 Vict. c. 21 (Computation of Time), 895. c. 29 ( Judgments, Ireland), 1322, 1357. c. 31 (Drainage, Ireland), 1371. c. 43 (Court of Chancery of Lancaster), 1322. *c. 60 (Trustees), 149, 156, 642, 651, 738, 1054, 1417 et seq. c. 98 (Pluralities), 439. c. 101 (Poor Law), 450, 451. 1851... 14 & 15 Vict. c. 53 (Tithes), 1369. c. 99 (Evidence), 252. c. 105 (Poor Law), 451. 1852. *15 & 16 Vict. c. 51 (Copyholds), 523. *o. 54 (County Courts), 1350. *c. 55 (Trustees), 156, 73S, 1420, 1421, 1428. c. 76 (Common Law Procedure), 873. c. 80 (Court of Chancery), 951, 1039. VOL. I. — R. CCX TABLE OF STATUTES. 1852... 15 & 15 Vict. c. So (Burial Boards), 452. c. 86 (Court of Chancery Procedure), 726, 1016, 1017, 1036, 1209. 1853... 16 & 17 Vict. c. 29 (Stamp Duties), 1426. c. 34 (Income Tax), 1156. c. 51 (Succession Duty), 435. *c. 59 (Transfers of Bonds), 1526. *c. 70 (Lunacy Regulation Act), 356. *c. 97 (Lunatic Asylums), 450. c. 113 (Common Law Procedure, Ireland), 974. c. 137 (Charitable Trusts), 423, 424. 1854. *17 & 18 Vict. c. 36 (Bills of Sale), 189, 204, 230, 242, 254. c. 87 (Burial), 452. c. 90 (Repeal of Usury Laws), 30, 35, 36, 56, 132, 1156. *c. 104 (Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854), 255, 1285, 1391. c. 113 (Locke King's Act Exoneration), 753, 767 et se%. c. 120 (Merchant Shipping Acts Repeal Act), 255. c. 125 (Common Law Procedure Act, 1854), 79. 1855... 18 & 19 Vict. c. 15 (Annuities, Judgments), 35, 1324, 1350, 1369. s. 3 {Lis pendens), 1322. s. 5 (Notice of Judgments, &c), 1324, 1353. s. 11 (Interests in Land excepted from Elegit), 851. ss. 12, 14 (Registration of Annuities), 35. *c. 63 (Friendly Societies), 563, 1530. *c. 70 (Public Libraries), 452. c. Ill (BiUs of Lading), 305, 1466, 1495. c. 124 (Charitable Trusts), 424. c. 128 (Burial), 452. 1856.. .19 & 20 Vict, c. 9 (Drainage), 1371. c. 97 (Mercantile Law Amendment) — s. 3 (Consideration of Guarantee), 80. s. 5 (Rights of Surety to Securities), 96, 103. s. 8 (Definition of Home Port), 1510. s. 10 (Absence beyond Seas), 9S8, 1070. s. 13 (Acknowledgment by Agent), 752. s. 14 (Co-contractors, &c. Limitation), 980. 1857... 20 & 21 Vict. c. 31 (Commons), 384. c. 57 (Malms' Act), 301, 322, 327, 332. s. 1 (Dispositions by Married Women), 323, 324, 325. s. 2 (Acknowledgments), 324. ss. 3, 4 (Savings and Exceptions), 324. c. 81, ss. 19, 20 (Burials, Borrowing Powers), 452. c. 85 (Divorce), 320, 331. i s -,- \ '<•• 94 (Enfranchisement of Copyholds), 385. ° .; 21 & 22 Vict. c. 44 (Colleges), -111. ; >. 9 I fCopyhoid Act, 1858), 385, 523. *c. 98 (Local Government), 453. c. 108 (Matrimonial Causes), 331. 1859... 22 & 23 Vict. c. 35 (Law of Property Amendment)— B. 13 (Sale of Timber apart from Land), 902. es. 14 — 18 (Mortgages by Executors and Trustees), 416, 417 et seq. s. 21 (Assignment of Personal Property), 829. s. 22 (Registry of Crown Debts), 1367, 1368. s. 23 (Receipts of Executors, &c), 294, 417, 427, 712, 910. 8. 21 (( 'oncealment of Incumbrances), 46. s. 32 [investments), 513. I860 23 & ill Vict. c. 16 (Municipal Corporations), 445. c. 28 (Stock-jobbing), 024. c. 38 (Judgments— Writs of Execution), 648. s. 1 (Charge on Lands), 1351. s. 3 (Registration of Writ of Execution), 1110, 1351. TABLE OF STATUTES. CCX1 1860... 23 & 24 Vict. c. 38, s. 8 (Mortgagees Protected), 4G. c. 59 (Colleges), 444. c. 93 (Tithes), 1369. c. 127 (Solicitors), 1324, 1384, 1386. c. 136 (Charitable Trusts), 424. c. 142 (Union of Benefices Act, 1860), 300, 439. *c. 145 (Lord Cranworth's Act), 422, 714, 882 et seq., 886, 908. s. 9 (Mortgages for Exchange, &c), 422. s. 11 (Powers of Mortgagees), 138, 883, 891, 901, 918. s. 12 (Mortgagees' Eeceipts), 883, 910. s. 13 (Notice before Sale), 883, 894, 899. s. 14 (Application of Purchase Moneys), 883, 911. s. 15 (Conveyance on Sale), 883, 907, 908. s. 16 (Title Deeds), 883, 907. ss. 17—23 (Receivers), 918, 919. s. 24 (Charges by way of Mortgage), 883. ss. 29, 34 (Power to give Eeceipts), 294. 1861... 24 & 25 Vict. c. 10 (Admiralty Jurisdiction), 263, 1392, 1396. *c. 50 (Railway Debentures), 1526. *c. 134 (Bankruptcy), 597. 1862. *25 & 26 Vict. c. 53 (Land Registry Act, 1862), 41, 62, 1522. *c. 86 (Lunacy), 356. c. 89 (Companies) — ss. 12, 14, 15 (Borrowing Powers), 467, 471. s. 30 (Notices of Trusts affecting Shares), 1270. s. 43 (Register of Mortgages), 500. ss. 50, 51 (Special Resolutions), 470. s. 79 (Petition for Winding-up), 1121. s. 85 (Injunctions to stay Proceedings), 1125. s. 87 (Stay of Proceedings), 1125. s. 159 (Compromise with Creditors), 1133, 1135. s. 163 (Avoidance of Distress, &c), 1125. s. 164 (Fraudulent Preference), 598, 1131, 1139, 1291. s. 199 (Winding-up of Unregistered Company), 1121. s. 201 (Stay of Proceedings), 1125. *c. 108 (Confirmation of Sales), 902. 1863... 26 & 27 Vict. c. 118 (Companies Clauses), 488, 1288. 1864... 27 & 28 Vict. c. 18 (Revenue), 1156. c. 112 (Judgments), 648 et seq., 695, 851, 1013, 1219, 1351 et seq. c. 114 (Improvement of Land), 515, 523, 1371. 1865. ..28 & 29 Vict. c. 69 (Benefices), 442. c. 73, ss. 4, 5 (Sales, &c. of Naval Pensions, &c), 298. c. 78 (Mortgage Debentures), 477, 499, 500, 516, 925, 937. *c. 86 (Bovill's Act), 505. c. 88 (Record of Title, Ireland), 1408. c. 90 (Fire Insurance), 140. c. 104 (Crown Suits), 648, 1368. c. 126 (Prisons), 449. 1866.* 29 & 30 Vict. c. 96 (Bills of Sale), 189. c. 108 (Debenture Stock), 488, 499. c. 113 (Poor Law), 450. c. 118, s. 3 (Industrial Schools), 457. 1867... 30 & 31 Vict. c. 6 (Metropolitan Poor), 451. c. 47 (Lis pendens), 1324. c. 48 (Sale of Land by Auction), 1039. c. 69 (Mortgage — Exoneration), 753, 769 et seq. c. 106 (Poor Law), 450. c. 127 (Railway Companies), 925 et seq. s. 4 (Railway Plant, Execution), 933. ss. 6 — 17 (Schemes of Arrangement), 1132. s. 23 (Priority of Mortgages), 1287. o2 CCXii TABLE OF STATUTES. 1867. ..30 & 31 Vict. c. 127, ss. 24, To (Debenture Stock), 488. s. 26 (Borrowing Powers), 467. c. 131 (Companies), 278. c. 144 (Insurance), 294, 305, 1265 et seq. s. 3 (Notice of Assignment), 1267, 1268. 1868... 31 & 32 Yict. c. 4 (Sales of Reversions), 615. c. 40 (Sale in lieu of Partition), 636. c. 62 (Statutory Grants— Ireland), 518. c. 86 (Marine Insurance), 305. c. 118 (Colleges), 444. c. 122 (Poor Law), 450. 1869... 32 & 33 Vict, c. 45 (Poor-law Unions Loans), 450. c. 46 (Administration of Estates), 406, 1110, 1153, 1234. c. 48 (Debenture Stock), 467, 488. c. 62 (Debtors)— s. 5 (Imprisonment for Debt), 868. ss. 24, 25 (Wan-ant of Attorney), 72, 73. ss. 26 — 28 (Firing of Judgments), 74. c. 63 (Metropolitan Poor), 451. *c. 71 (Bankruptcy), 177, 584 et seq., 650, 1011, 1097, 1150, 1232, 1259, 1265. c. 102 (Metropolitan Poor), 451. c. 110 (Charitable Trusts), 424. 1870... 33 & 34 Vict. c. 10 (Coinage), 716. c. 20 (Company— Mortgage Debentures), 477,499,500,925,937. c. 23 (Forfeiture for Treason, &c), 643, 696, 722, 1009, 1057, 1423. c. 28 (Solicitors' Eemuneration), 610, 1144. c. 29 (Mortgage Debentures), 477. c. 34 (Charity), 537, 542. c. 35 (Apportionment), 677, 1154. c. 56 (Limited Owners' Eesidences), 1371. c. 75 (Elementary Education), 455, 457. c. 78 (Tramways), 1001, 1037. *c. 93 (Married Women's Property), 72, 325, 333—335, 350, 1360. *c. 99 (Inland Kevenue Acts Repeal), 1526, 1540. c. 104 (Companies — Arrangements) — e. 2 (Compromise with Creditors), 1133, 1135. 1871 .Ml & 35 Vict. c. 11 (Poor Law), 450. c. 43 (Ecclesiastical Dilapidations), 443. c. 44 (Benefice — Resignation), 300. *c. 71 (Public Libraries), 453. c. 72 (Judgments, Ireland), 1368. 1872.. .35 & 36 Vict. c. 2 (Poor Law), 450, 451. c. 41, s. 7 (Life Assurance, Novation), 1455. c. 44 (Chancery Funds), 1359. c. 58 (Bankruptcy, Ireland), 986. c. 93 (Pawnbrokers), 1473. ss. 16 — 18 (Period of Redemption), 1475. s. 19 (Sale of Pledges), 1475. s. 24 (Special Contracts), 1473, 1474. ss. 25, 26 (Redemption of Pledges), 1474. ss. 27, 28 (Liabilities of Pawnbroker), 1475. c. 96 (Ecclesiastical Dilapidations), 443. 36 & 37 Vict. c. 66 (Judicature),— s. 5 (Restraining Actions in Chancery), 1513. s. 1(> (Palatine Courts Jurisdiction), 319. s. 24 (Jurisdiction of High Court), 49, 163, 868, 965, 1111, 1215, 1303, 1304. s. 25 (4) (Merger), 1431. TABLE OF STATUTES. CCX111 1873... 36 & 37 Vict. c. 66 (Judicature)— s. 25 (5) (Suits by Mortgagors), 629, 673. (6) (Eight to Sue), 305, 306, 82G, 960, 1489, 1500. (8) (Injunction— Eeceiver), 629, 925. (11) (Conflict between Law and Equity), 79, 98, 212, 330, 792, 845, 965, 1227, 1372, 1491. s. 34, sub-s. 3 (Business of Chancery Division), 94, 319, 725, 1015, 1105. s. 39 (Powers of Judges), 874. s. 49 (Appeal as to Costs), 1176. c. 86 (Elementary Education), 456, 457. s. 10 (Borrowing Powers), 456. 1874. ..37 & 38 Vict. c. 42 (Building Societies), 459—463, 543—563. s. 5 (Terminating and Permanent Societies), 544. s. 7 (Repeals), 458, 460, 543, 544. *s. 8 (Societies under Repealed Act to continue), 459. s. 9 (Incorporation of Societies), 460. s. 10 (Liability of Borrowing Members), 558. s. 13 (Power to Lend on Mortgage), 544, 546, 548. s. 15 (Borrowing Powers), 461, 462, 463. s. 16 (Rules), 461, 545, 552. s. 19 (Fomi of Mortgage), 463, 549. ss. 27, 28 (Vesting of Property), 549, 563. s. 30 (Advanced Members), 554. s. 32 (Dissolution), 557. s. 34 (Arbitration), 558. s. 40 (Audits, &c), 546. s. 41 (Stamp Duties of Mortgages), 1530. s. 42 (Statutory Receipt), 560, 562, 563, 1407. s. 43 (Liability of Directors), 461. *c. 50 (Married Women), 72, 350. c. 57 (Real Property Limitation) — s. 1 (Actions for Recovery of Land or Rent), 1059, 1061, 1073, 1317. s. 3 (Disabilities), 1068. s. 4 (Absence beyond Seas), 1069. s. 5 (Allowance of Thirty Years in case of Disability), 1071. s. 6 (Enlargement of Base Eee), 373. s. 7 (Mortgagors barred after Twelve Tears), 27, 28, 741, 742, 743. s. 8 (Money charged on Land), 971, 987 et seq. a. 9 (Repeals), 741, 1059, 1060, 1061, 1066, 1068, 1071. s. 10 (Express Trusts), 993, 1073, 1171. c. 62 (Infants' Relief), 355. c. 78 (Vendors and Purchasers) — s. 1 (Root of Title), 1316, 1317. s. 2 (Rights, &c. of Vendors and Purchasers), 1311. s. 4 (Conveyance of Mortgage Estate), 108, 832, 839 etseq., 998, 1421. *s. 5 (Bare Trustee), 839. *s. 7 (Tacking), 1220. s. 8 (Wills in Middlesex and Yorkshire), 1245. c. 96 (Statute Law Revision), 438. 1875... 38 & 39 Vict. c. 9 (Building Societies), 459, 460, 544. *c. 31 (Railway Companies), 933. c. 55 (PubHc Health), 224, 447, 448, 453—155. c. 60 (Friendly Societies), 463, 563 et seq., 1407. s. 18 (Loans), 564. c. 77 (Judicature Act, 1875), 406, 1111 et seq. a. 7 (Jurisdiction in Lunacy), 357. ccx iv TABLE OF STATUTES. 1875.. .38 & 39 Yict. c. 77, s. 10 (Insolvent Estates), 498, 1111, 1128 et seq. c. 83 (Local Loans), 448, 454, 516. c. S7 (Land Transfer), 38, 41, 62, 549. s. 2 (Application of the Act), 1407. s. 22 (Creation of Charges), 38. ss. 23, 24 (Covenants implied in Charges), 38. s. 25 (Entry by Mortgagee), 39, 798. s. 26 (Foreclosure by Mortgagee), 39, 549, 995. s. 27 (Mortgagee's Power of Sale), 39, 549, 885, 886. s. 28 (Discharge of Eegistered Charges), 39, 1242, 1407 s. 40 (Transfer of Charges on Register), 39. ss. 42, 43 (Transmission on Death, Bankruptcy, &c), 39. s. 45 (Effect of Marriage of Mortgagee), 39, 40. s. 46 (Title of Fiduciary Mortgagee), 40. s. 47 (Evidence of Transmission of Charge), 40. s. 48 (Devolution of Mortgaged Estates), 839, 840. s. 49 (Effect of Unregistered Dispositions), 40. b. 68 (Trustees and Mortgagees), 886. ss. 78, 79 (Loss and Renewal of Certificate), 40. s. 80 (Certificate to be Evidence), 40. s. 81 (Deposit of Certificate), 62. s. 83 (Registration), 40, 41. s. 98 (Fraudulent Dispositions), 41. s. 127 (Exemption from Local Registration), 1242. s. 129 (Tacking), 1220. c. 89 (Public Works Loans), 448, 457. 1876... 39 & 40 Yict. c. 18 (Administration of Estates), 644. c. 79 (Elementary Education), 457. 1877... 40 & 41 Vict. c. 21 (Prisons), 449. c. 34 (Mortgage — Exoneration), 753, 754, 766, 769 et seq. *c. 39 (Factors), 1476, 1485. c. 63 (Building Societies), 460, 544, 549. 1878... 41 & 42 Yict. c. 16 (Factories and Workshops), 207. c. 31 (Bills of Sale), 128, 172, 189 et seq. s. 4 (Definition of " Bill of Sale "), 178, 190, 201, 203, 217, 261, 273, 667. s. 5 (Trade Machinery), 205, 206. s. 6 (Powers of Distress), 201, 664, 667. s. 7 (Fixtures and Crops separately assigned), 205, 206. s. 8 (Avoidance of Bills of Sale), 226, 1282. s. 9 (Successive Bills of Sale), 242. s. 10, sub-s. (1) (Attestation), 240. sub-s. (2) (Registration), 243. sub-s. (3J (Defeasance, &c), 238. sub-s. (4) (Priorities), 1282. s. 11 (Renewal of Registration), 249. s. 12 (Form of Register), 250. s. 13 (The Registrar), 244. b. 14 (Rectification of Register), 251. s. 15 (Entry of Satisfaction), 253. s. 16 (Office Copies), 251. s. 17 (Affidavits), 244. 8. 20 (Order and Disposition), 254. c. 42 (Tithes), 170. c. 77 (Highways), 449. 1879... 42 & 43 Yict. c. 48, s. 3 (Elementary Education — Borrowing Powers), 457. c. 54 (Poor Law), 450, 451. c. 18 [Lis pendens), 1322, 1350, 1353. 1880.. 43 & 4-1 Yict. c. 5 (Bridges), 449. c. 18 [Merchant Shipping), 255. c. 46 (Colleges), 444. TABLE OF STATUTES. CCXV 1881... 44 & 45 Yict. c. 25 (Queen Anne's Bounty), 443. c. 41 (Conveyancing and Law of Property) — s. 2 (Definitions), 31, 37, 110, 143, 151, G34, 81G, 819, 887, 888. s. 4 (Completion of Contracts after Death), 843, 844. s. 5 (Sale free from Incumbrances), 633, 808, 909, 914, 1038. s. 6 (General Words), 111, 119, 120. s. 7 (Covenants for Title), 116, 141—143, 167, 1410. s. 9 (Acknowledgment, &c. as to Deeds), 815, 1412. s. 10 (Benefit of Lessee's Covenants), 689. s. 14 (Forfeiture of Lease), 157, 158. s. 15 (Transfer of Mortgage inlieu of Beconveyance), 1400, 1415, 1416. s. 16 (Mortgagor's right to inspect Deeds), 815. s. 17 (Consolidation of Mortgages), 722, 865, 875. s. 18, sub-ss. 1, 3—17 (Leases by Mortgagors), 675, 686, 687 et seq. sub-s. 2 (Leases by Mortgagees), 688, 800. s. 19, sub-s. 1 (i) (Mortgagees' Power of Sale), 121, 151, 236,436,524,884,893,901,903,1117. (ii) (Mortgagees' Power of Insurance), 138, 1198. (iii) (Power to appoint Beceiver), 919, 921. (iv) (Power to fell Timber), 805. sub-s. 2 (Variation, &c. of Statutory Power), 884. sub-s. 3 (Contrary Intention), 884. sub-s. 4 (Sect. 19 not retrospective), 884. s. 20 (Exercise of Power of Sale), 894. s. 21, sub-s. 1 (Conveyance), 908, 909. sub-s. 2 (Protection of Purchasers), 899. sub-s. 3 (Application of Purchase Moneys), 912. sub-s. 4 (By whom Power exerciseable), 831, 891. sub-s. 5 (Bight of Foreclosure not affected), 885, 995. sub-s. 6 (Liability for Loss by Sale), 901. sub-s. 7 (Title Deeds), 908, 909. s. 22, sub-s. 1 (Mortgagees' Beceipts for Purchase Moneys), 910. sub-s. 2 (Morgagees' Beceipts for other Moneys), 294, 915. s. 23 (Insurance by Mortgagee), 138, 139, 166. s. 24 (Appointment, fee. of Beceiver), 919, 920. s. 25 (Sale in Foreclosure or Bedemption Action), 280, 725, 726, 727, 1017, 1055. s. 26 (Form of Statutory Mortgage), 146. s. 27 (Form of Statutory Transfer of Mortgage), 828. s. 28 (Implied Covenants in Statutory Mortgage), 146, 147, 829. s. 29 (Beconveyance), 1410. s. 30 (Devolution of Mortgage Estates), 108, 720, 841, 842, 843, 960, 998, 1005, 1069, 1186, 1421, 1424. *s. 34 (Vesting Declaration), 536. *s. 36 (Trustees' Beceipts), 114, 402, 712. s. 39 (Bestraint on Anticipation), 341. s. 44 (Bent-charges), 34, 35, 171, 1370. s. 50 (Conveyance to Assignor and another jointly), 829. s. 52 (Belease of Powers), 333. ss. 54—56 (Beceipts), 114, 712, 713, 822, 1315. s. 58 (Benefit of Covenants), 959. s. 59 (Burden of Covenants), 969. CCXY i TABLE OF STATUTES. 1881... 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41, s. 60 (Covenants with several jointly), 960 s. 61 (Advance on Joint Account), 534, 712, 84b, 889. s. 63 (Provision for passing all the Estate, &c), 111, 120. s. 65 (Enlargement of Long Terms), 107. s. 69 (Application by Summons), 634. s. 71 (Repeals), 883,919. s. 73 (Repeals— Ireland), 840, 1220. c. 44 (Solicitors' Remuneration), 610, 1144. c. 58, s. 141 (Sales, &c. of Military Pensions), 298. 1882 .*45 & 46 Vict. c. 38 (Settled Lands)— s. 2 (Definitions), 389, 390, 397. s. 5 (Transfer of Incumbrances), 388. s. 18 (Power to raise Money on Mortgage), 114, 3/4, 380, 388, 397, 423, 1216. s. 20 (Conveyances), 1216. s. 21 (Investment of Capital Moneys), 516. s. 22 (Payment of Moneys), 397. s. 24 (Settlement of Lands Purchased, &c), 389. s. 40 (Receipt of Trustees), 115, 398. s. 45 (Notices to Trustees), 397. s. 50 (Powers of Leasing), 688. s. 52 (Forfeiture), 395. s. 53 (Exercise of Powers), 395. s. 54 (Protection of Mortgagees, &c), 398. s. 56 (Saving of other Powers), 395, 396. s. 57 (Additional Powers), 396. s. 58 (Persons having Powers of Tenant for Life), 390, 391 s. 59 (Infants), 392, 423. s. 60 (Infants), 423. s. 61 (Married Woman), 340, 392. s. 62 (Lunatics), 393. 8. 63 (Trust for Sale), 394. e. 64 (Repeals), 422, 883. c. 39 (Conveyancing) — s. 3 (Restrictions on Constructive Notices), 1306, 1307, 1314, 1325, 1328. s. 6 (Disclaimer of Power), 333. s. 7 (Married Women), 318. e. 8 (Powers of Attorney), 39, 71, 305, 960. s. 12 (Reconveyance of Mortgage), 1415. c. 43 (Bills of Sale), 128, 135, 172, 189 et seq., 496, 888, 1532. s. 3 (Definition of " Bill of Sale"), 190, 191. s. 4 (Schedule to Bill of Sale), 210, 664. s. 5 (After- acquired Chattels), 210 et seq., 1283. s. 6 (Growing Crops and Fixtures), 216. s. 7 (Power to Seize), 220 et seq., 1000. s. 8 (Registration— Consideration), 226, 241, 1283. s. 9 (Statutory Form of Bill of Sale), 229 et seq. s. 10 (Attestation), 241. s. 12 (Bill of Sale under 307. void), 228. s. 13 (Removal and Salo), 225. s. 15 (Repeal of Part of Act of 1878), 226. 8. 17 (Exception of Debentures), 209, 1000. e. 18 (Extent of Act), 190. c. 50 (Municipal Corporations), 445 — 447. s. 106 (Borrowing Powers), 446. c. 58 (Metropolitan Poor), 451. c. 61 (Bills of Exchange), 482, 1498. c. 75 (Married Women's Property), 40, 72, 316, 335, 339, 359„ 988, 1056. TABLE OF STATUTES. CCXV11 1882... 45 & 46 Vict. c. 75, s. 1 (1) (Holding of Property), 335, 368, 1012. (2), (3), (4) (Contracts), 345, 846. (5) (Bankruptcy), 349. s. 2 (Women Married after the Act), 336, 811, 846, 1445. s. 4 (Execution of Powers), 349. s. 5 (Property acquired after the Act), 336, 368, 811, 846, 1445. s. 6 (Stocks, Shares, &c), 337. s. 7 (Transfer of Stock, &c. to a Married Woman), 337. s. 10 (Fraudulent Investments), 338. s. 11 (Policies of Life Assurance), 287, 288. s. 12 (Remedies), 346. s. 13 (Antenuptial Debts), 347. s. 14 (Liability of Husband for Wife's Debts), 350. s. 18 (Married Woman Executrix or Trustee), 339. s. 19 (Saving as to Settlements), 341, 1360. s. 22 (Repeals), 1360. s. 23 (Legal Representatives of Married Women), 347. 1883... 46 & 47 Vict. c. 29 (Paymaster-General), 1359. c. 52 (Bankruptcy), 173, 576, 1228. s. 4 (Acts of Bankruptcy), 363, 577, 582, 1325. s. 5 (Jurisdiction to make Receiving Order), 1079. s. 6 (Creditor's Petition), 578, 952. sub-s. (2) (Estimate of Security), 1086, 1131. s. 9 (Effect of Receiving Order), 1079, 1112, 1150. s. 10 (Stay of Proceedings), 1076. s. 11 (Service of Order), 1077. s. 19 (Compositions), 1094. s. 20, sub-s. 1 (Vesting of Property in Trustee), 851. s. 25 (Arrest of Debtor), 591. s. 30 (Order of Discharge), 91, 295, 597. s. 37 (Proof of Debts), 103, 297, 1092. s. 38 (Set-off), 1138. s. 40, sub-s. (4) (Payment pari passu), 1089, 1234. sub-s. (5) (Subsequent Interest), 1091. s. 43 (Commencement of Bankruptcy), 179, 577. s. 44 (Property Divisible), 851. sub-s. (hi) (Reputed Ownership), 177, 269, 1259, 1266, 1267, 1269. s. 45 (Rights of Execution Creditor), 1365. s. 48 (Fraudulent Preference), 578, 581, 585, 587, 598. s. 49 (Protected Transactions), 585, 593, 1232,1259,1365. s. 50 (Duties of Trustee), 364, 375. s. 53 (Appropriation of Salary), 299. s. 54 (Vesting of Property), 364, 1011. s. 55 (Disclaimer of Onerous Property), 160, 650, 651, 1081. s. 56 (Bankrupt's Estate Tail), 374, 375. s. 57 (Power of Trustee to Mortgage), 364. ss. 92 — 94 (Jurisdiction in Bankruptcy), 1075. s. 100 (Powers of County Court), 1075. s. 102 (Powers of Bankruptcy Courts), 1075. s. 125 (1) (Administration of Insolvent Estates), 1108 1109, 1113. (4) (Transfer of Administration Action), 1109 1110. (5), (6) (Effect of Administration Order), 1113. s. 144 (Exemptions from Stamp Duty), 1530. s. 168 (Definitions), 178, 593, 1079. Sched. 2, r. 10 (Right of Mortgagee to Vote), 1087. ccxvm 1883. ..46 & 47 Vict. c. 1884. ..47 & 48 Vict. c. c. TABLE OF STATUTES. 52, Sched. 2, rr. 11— 17 (Exiles as to Estimates), 1086,1087. r. 20 (Eate of Interest Payable out of Sur- plus), 1091. 61 (Agricultural Holdings), 127, 1204. 18 (Settled Land)— e. 5 (Notice to Trustees), 397. s. G (Consents of Tenant for Life), 380, 394. s. 7 (Trusts for Sale), 394. s. 8 (Curtesy), 391. c. 41, s. 2 (Building Societies, Disputes), 460, 544, 559. c. 51 (Prisons), 449. c. 54 (Yorkshire Eegistries), 1241 et seq. s. 3 (Definitions), 1244, 1356. s. 4 (Eegistration of Deeds, &c), 1241, 1408. s. 6 (Attestation of Memorial), 1243, 1356. s. 7 (Memorandum of Deposit), 1244, 1408. s. 11 (Eegistration of "Wills), 1245. s. 14 (Deeds Eegistered same Day), 1220, 1241, 1244, 1247, 1251, 1252. s. 15 (Notice of Eegistration), 1249. s. 16 (Abolition of Tacking), 1221. s. 18 (Exception of Copyholds, &c), 1223, 1408. s. 25 (Avoidance of Fraudulent Eegistration), 1251. s. 31 (Establishment of Eegistries), 1242. c. 60 (Metropolitan Asylum Board), 451. c. 71 (Intestates), 644. 1885. ..48 & 49 Vict. c. 26 (Yorkshire Registry), 1241, 1249, 1368, 1408. 1886... 49 & 50 Vict. c. 34 (Queen Anne's Bounty), 443. 1887... 50 & 51 Vict. c. 8 (Queen Anne's Bounty), 443. *c. 22 (Public Libraries), 453. c. 57 (Deeds of Arrangement), 202. *c. 73 (Copyholds), 386, 720, 840, 842. 1888... 51 & 52 Vict. c. 41 (Local Government), 449, 450. s. 69 (Borrowing Powers), 454. c. 42 (Mortmain and Charitable Trusts), 517, 537—540, 541. c. 43 (County Courts), 662, 725, 900, 1015. 8. 67 (Jurisdiction), 1105. ss. 75, 84 (District), 1016. c. 51 (Land Charges, &c), 1352 et seq. s. 4 (Definitions), 1353, 1369. s. 5 (Register of Writs, &c, affecting Land), 1352. s. 6 (Protection of Purchasers), 1352. s. 10 (Bcgistry of Land Charges), 1354. s. 12 (Protection of Purchasers), 1369. c. 59 (Trustees)— *s. 2 (Eeceipt by Solicitor), 115. *s. 3 (Acceptance of Title), 531. *s. 4 (Proportion of Loan), 526.' *s. 5 (Liability for Investments), 530. e. 8 (Limitation of Time), 741. *s. 9 (Powers of Investment), 519. *s. 11 (Power for Trustees to raise Money), 423. Inn!) ..52 & 53 Vict. c. 8 (Customs and Inland Eevenue), 1517. c. 30 ( Board of Agriculture), 383. c. 32 (Trust Investment Act), 513, 515. c. 45 (Factors), 1476 et seq. s. 1 (Definitions), 1476, 1477. s. 2 (Pledges by Factors), 1478. 1479, 1485. 8. 3 (Pledge of Documents of Title), 1482. s. 4 (Plodgo for antecedent Debt), 1482. s. 5 (Consideration for Pledge), 1483. TABLE OF STATUTES. CCX1X 1889... 52 & 53 Vict. c. 45, 8. 6 (Agreements through Clerks, &c.), 1483. ss. 10, 11, 12 (Effect of Pledge of Documents), 1483, 1484. c. 56, s. 2 (Poor Law Borrowing Powers), 451, 452. c. 63 (Interpretation Act), 895, 897, 1427. 1890... 53 & 54 Vict. c. 5 (Lunacy)— s. 3 (Commencement of Act), 1417. s. 109 (Costs), 360. s. 117 (Power to raise Money), 357. s. 123 (1) (Interest in Property), 361. s. 124 (Orders), 362. s. 135 (Vesting Orders), 1417, 1418. ss. 136, 137 (Vesting Orders as to Stock, &c), 1418. s. 274 (Borrowing Powers), 450. s. 342 (Kepoals), 1417. c. 27 (Colonial Courts of Admiralty), 1396. c. 29 (Inheritance — Administration), 644. c. 39, s. 2 (Partnership— Share of Profits), 505. 8. 3 (Partnership— Share of Profits), 506. s. 17 (3) (Partnership, Change in Firm), 1452. s. 31 (Assignee of Share in Partnership), 508. c. 44, s. 5 (Judicature, Costs), 1176. c. 53 (Bills of Sale), 190, 209. c. 62 (Company — Memorandum of Association), 468. c. 63 (Company— Winding-up), 1120, 1121. c. 69 (Settled Land)— s. 2 (S. L. Acts to be construed together), 389. s. 11 (Power to raise Money on Mortgage), 114, 374, 380, 388, 397, 423, 425, 437, 1216. s. 15 (Improvements of Settled Lands), 397. s. 16 (Trustees of Settlement), 397. c. 71 (Bankruptcy) — s. 3 (Compositions), 91, 222, 591, 1080, 1093, 1094, 1097. s. 13 (Vesting Orders), 161, 162. s. 21 (Administration of Insolvent Estates), 1109, 1110. 8. 23 (Kate of Interest), 1091, 1113. s. 31 (Arrears of Interest), 1091. 1891... 54 & 55 Vict. c. 35 (Bills of Sale), 190, 210. c. 39 (Stamp Duties), 1515 et seq. s. 4 (Charge of separate Duties), 1534. s. 6 (Calculation of ad valorem Duty), 1517, 1518. s. 14 (Admissibility of Unstamped Documents in Evi- dence), 1531. s. 15 (Penalties on Stamping after Execution), 1532, 1533. s. 23 (Mortgages of Stock), 1522. s. 41 (Bills of Sale), 1532. s. 57 (Conveyance in Consideration of Debt), 1528. b. 62 (Appointment of New Trustee), 1527. s. 72 (Duplicates and Counterparts), 1535. s. 82 (Marketable Securities, &c), 1523. s. 83 (Penalties for issuing Unstamped Foreign Secu- rities), 1523. s. 84 (Foreign, &c. Securities), 1523. s. 85 (Adhesive Stamps), 1523. s. 86 (1) (Definition of Mortgage), 1515, 1518. (2) (Equitable Mortgages), 1522. s. 87 (Directions as to Duty in certain cases), 1519, 1524, 1525, 1528. s. 88 (Security for further Advance), 1516, 1517. s. 89 (Mortgages of Building Societies), 1530. CCXX TABLE OF STATUTES. 1891 54 & 55 Vict. c. 39, s. 118 (Policies of Assurance), 1534. s. 119 (Crown), 1531. s. 122 (Definitions), 1524. 1st Sched (Table of Duties), 1536 et seq. c. 64 (Registry— Middlesex), 1240, 1242, 1243, 1356. s. 5 (Entry of Payment of Charge), 1409. c. 66 (Eegistration of Title— Ireland), 1242. s. 42 (Discharge of Eegistered Charges), 1407. c. 73 (Mortmain and Charitable Uses) — ss. 3, 4 (Definitions), 541. c. 76 (Public Health, London), 448. 1892... 55 & 56 Yict. c. 4, s. 5 (Betting, &c. — Avoidance of Infants' Contracts), 355 c. 9 (Gaming), 621. c. 13 (Conveyancing), 158, 159. s. 2 (1) (Costs on Forfeiture of Lease), 159. (2) (Forfeiture of Lease on Bankruptcy), 158. s. 4 (Protection of Under-Lessee), 159. c. 53 (Public Libraries), 453, 454. 1893 56 & 57 Yict. c. 21 (Voluntary Conveyances), 322, 602, 603, 1317. c. 41 (Stamp Act, 1893), 252. c. 42 (Education of Blind and Deaf Children), 457. c. 53 (Trustees) — s. 1 (Power to Invest), 513, 514, 515. 6. 5 (Enlargement of Express Powers of Investment, 519. s. 8 (1) (Proportion of Loan), 526. (2) (Lessor's Title), 533. (3) Acceptance of Defective Title), 531. s. 9 (Liability for Investments), 531. s. 12 (Vesting Declaration), 536. s. 17 (Receipt by Solicitor), 115, 713. s. 19 (Raising Money for Renewal of Leaseholds), 423. s. 20 (Receipts of Trustees), 114, 402, 420, 421, 427, 534. s. 22 (Powers of several Trustees), 889. s. 26 (Vesting Orders as to Land), 149, 156, 1419, 1420, 1421, 1422, 1423. s. 27 (Orders as to Contingent rights of unborn Persons), 1420. s. 28 (Vesting Order in case of Infant Mortgagee), 1420. s. 29 (Vesting Order where Heir, &c, missing), 1054, 1056, 1423, 1424. s. 30 (Vesting Order on Sale, &c), 738, 909. s. 31 (Vesting Order, Specific Performance, &c.), 156. s. 32 (Effect of Vesting Order), 1426. s. 33 (Power to appoint Person to Convey), 1426. s. 34 (Effect of Vesting Order of Copyholds), 1426. s. 35 (Vesting Orders of Stock and Shares, &c), 1419, 1425. s. 36 (Persons entitled to apply for Orders), 1427. 8. 38 (Power to charge Costs on Trust Estate), 1430. 8. 40 (Orders to be Evidence), 902, 1428. s. 41 (Application of Vesting Orders beyond Seas), 1427. s. 44 (Power to sanction Sale of Land or Minerals sepa- rately), 902. s. 46 (Jurisdiction of Palatine and County Courts), 1427. s. 50 (Definitions), 513. s. 51 (Repeals), 423, 536, 902. c. 63 (Married Women's Property) — s. 1 (Contracts), 346, 1360. s. 2 (Costs), 342. e. 4 (Repeal of s. 1 (3) and (4) of Act of 1882), 346. TABLE OF STATUTES. CCXX1 1893 ..56 & 57 Vict. c. 71, s. 25 (Sale of Goods, Possession after Sale), 1284, 1463, 1483. c. 73 (Local Government), 452, 454, 455. 1894. ..57 & 58 Vict. c. 10 (Trustees), 529, 738. 902. c. 30 (Legacy and Estate Duty) — s. 8 (Liability of Trustees to Pay Duty), 435. s. 9 (Mortgages by Executors or Trustees to Pay Duty), 423, 435. c. 46 (Copyholds), 18, 153, 154. And see infra. ss. 8, 15 (Compensation for Enfranchisement), 1370. s. 27 (Priority of Enfranchisement, Kent-charges), 1370. ss. 28—31 (Apportionment of Eent-charges, &c), 1370. s. 36 (Charge for Enfranchisement Money), 386. s. 37 (Charge for Lord's Expenses), 387. s. 38 (Charge where Tenant's Title bad), 387. s. 39 (Charge for Money paid by Mortgagee), 387. s. 88 (Devolution of Mortgage Estates), 720, 842, 998, 1005, 1069). c. 47 (Building Societies), 460, 461, 544. s. 2 (Accounts), 547. s. 10 (Liability of Borrowing Members), 558. s. 12 (Prohibition of Ballot), 545. s. 14 (Limits of Borrowing Powers), 462. s. 28 (Pules), 545. c. 60 (Merchant Shipping), 255 et seq. s. 1 (Definition of "British Ship"), 256. s. 2 (Division of Ship into Shares), 256. s. 5 (Register), 256. ss. 9, 10 (Entries in Register Book), 256. ss. 14—23 (Certificates of Registry), 257. s. 24 (Transfer of Ship or Share), 258. ss. 25, 26 (Declaration and Register of Transfer), 258. s. 27 (Transmission of Property in Ships, &c), 259. s. 31 (Mortgage of Ship or Share), 259. s. 32 (Discharge of Mortgage), 268, 1408. s. 33 (Priority of Mortgages), 1285. s. 34 (Mortgagee not treated as Owner), 263. s. 35 (Power of Sale), 263. s. 36 (Mortgage not effected by Bankruptcy), 269. s. 37 (Transfer of Mortgage), 268. s. 38 (Transmission of Mortgagee's Interest), 268. ss. 39—42 (Certificates of Mortgage), 261. s. 43 (Rules as to Certificates of Mortgage), 262. s. 55 (Disabilities), 269. s. 56 (Notice of Trusts), 257. s. 57 (Equities), 257. s. 65 (Forms of Documents), 260. s. 156 (Remedies of Seamen), 1393. s. 167 (Remedies of Master for Disbursements), 1391, 1397. s. 591 (Pilotage Fees), 1394. s. 742 (Home Port), 1510. 1895... 58 & 59 Vict. c. 16 (Finance), 1524. c. 25 (Mortgage, Solicitor), 18, 610, 1144. s. 2 (Charges by Mortgagee-Solicitor), 1194. s. 3 (Recovery of Costs), 1194. s. 4 (Definition of Mortgage), 1195. 1S96...59 & 60 Vict. c. 35, s. 3 (Judicial Trustee, Breach of Trust), 533. c. 45 (Stannaries Court, Abolition), 1121. ( ccxxii ) TABLE OF KULES OF THE SUPREME COURT. N.B. — The fig-vires printed in dark type denote the pages at which the rules referred to are cited verbatim. Order III. (Indorsement of claim) — r. 6 (special indorsement), 665, 666, 797, 921, 959, 1019. YIII. (Kenewal of writ) — r. 1 (original writ in force for twelve months), 1065. XI. (Service out of jurisdiction), 988. XIII. (Default of appearance) — r. 3 (liquidated demand indorsed), 1019. XIY. (Leave to sign judgment, &c.) — r. 1 (judgment on writ specially indorsed), 665, 666, 921, 959, 1019, 1020. XY. (Application for account) — r. 1 (order for account), 734, 1019, 1026, 1138. r. 2 (application, how made), 1026. XXI. (Parties)— r. 6 (joinder of persons severally or jointly and severally liable), 966. r. 8 (trustees, executors. &c, may sue and be sued as representing estate), 721, 1006, 1119. r. 9 (numerous persons), 1013, 1118, 1119. r. 11 (misjoinder and non-joinder), 965, 1013. ,, (consent of plaintiff or next friend), 630. r. 46 (where no legal personal rei^resentativo, Court may appoint or dispense with), 1043. r. 55 (defendant claiming against co-defendant), 95, 1141. XYII. (Chango of parties by death, &c.) — r. 1 faction not abated where cause of action continues), 632, 1322. r. 2 (in case of marriage, &c, husband, &c. may be ordered to be made a party or servod with notice), 347. r. 3 (in caso of assignment, &c, pendente lite, action may be con- tinued), 632. r. 4 (order to cany on proceedings), 632, 1015. XYIII. (Joinder of causes of action) — r. 2 (recovery of land), 727, 1018. r. 1 (husband and wife), 347. TABLE OF RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT. CCXX111 Order XIX. (Pleading generally) — r. 3 (set-off and counterclaim), 730. r. 15 (grounds of defence, &c. to be raised), 56, 730, 731, 1022, 1061, 1305. r. 19 (negative pregnant), 1305. r. 23 (notice), 1305. r. 27 (striking out pleadings), 630. XX. (Statement of Claim)— r. 4 (claim beyond indorsement), 1020. r. 6 (relief to be specifically stated), 49, 729. XXV. (Proceedings in lieu of demurrer), 731, 1304. XXVII. (Default of Pleading)— r. 15 (setting aside judgment by default), 156. XXXII. (Admissions), 1023. XXXIII. (Issues, inquiries and accounts) — r. 2 (inquiries and accounts, when directed), 1138, 1209. r. 5 (surcharge), 1143. r. 8 (just allowances), 266, 1191. XLI. (Entry of judgment) — r. 5 (judgment to state time within which act to be done), 955. XLII. (Execution)— r. 5 (enforcement of judgment for delivery of land), 1045. r. 7 (enforcement of judgment to do or abstain from act), 955. r. 17 (time to sue out execution on judgment), 224. r. 24 (orders enforceable like judgments), 224. XLIII. (Writs oifi.fa., elegit and sequestration) — r. 6 (sequestration), 649. XL VI. (Charging orders, distringas, stop orders) — r. 1 (application for and effect of charging order), 1358. r. 2 (writ of distringas not to issue), 1274. r. 3 (meaning of " company" and "stock"), 1274, 1362. r. 4 (filing and service of affidavit and notice as to stock), 1274. r. 8 (effect of service of affidavit and filed notice), 1275. r. 9 (withdrawal or discharge of notice), 1275. r. 10 (effect of request for transfer of stock), 1275. r. 11 (amendment of description of stock), 1275. r. 12 (costs occasioned by stop orders), 1280. r. 13 (service of application for stop order), 1276. XL VII. (Writ of possession) — r. 1 (writ of possession for recovery of land), 797, 945. r. 2 (proof of service of judgment, and default), 945. XLVIII. (Writ of delivery), 946. L. (Interlocutory orders) — r. 6 (application under Judicature Act, 1873, s._25 (8) ), 927. r. 8 (order for recovery of specific property subject to hen), 1047. r. 16 (receivers — security by and allowance to), 942, 957. r. 17 (adjournment into Chambers to give security), 943. r. 18 (passing accounts and paying balances), 955. r. 19 (form of accounts), 955. r. 20 (leaving account with affidavit), 955. r. 21 (consequences of default by receiver), 955. CCXXiv TABLE OF RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT. Order LI. (Sales by Court)— r. 1 (power of Court to order sale), 1108. r. 1a (mode of carrying out sale, &c.), 1039. r. 1b (power to make order for sale in debenture-holders' action at any time), 1120. LIV. (Applications and proceedings at Chambers) — r. 12 (jurisdiction of masters to be same as of a judge at Chambers), 1361. LIYb. (Proceedings under the Trustee Act, 1893) — r. 1 (Chancery Division), 1427. r. 2 (petitions), 1427. LY. (Chambers in the Chancery Division) — r. 2 (business to be disposed of in Chambers), 739, 951. r. 3 (originating summonses relating to express trusts, &c), 401, 529. r. 4 (order for administration of estate of deceased, &c), 401, 1105. r. 5a (originating summons for foreclosure, &c), 728, 926, 1020. r. 5b (persons to be served with summons for foreclosure, &c), 728, 1107. r. 13a (application by summons under Trustee Act, 1893), 1428. r. 62 (computation of interest on debts bearing interest), 1168, 1173. r. 63 (allowance of interest on debts not carrying interest), 1167, 1168, 1173. LV11. (Interpleader) — r. 12 (order for sale of goods seized in execution), 650. LX. (Officers)— r. 4 (recognizances in Chancery Division), 943, 958. LXI. (Central Office)— r. 14 (enrolment of recognizance), 943. r. 26 (memorandum of satisfaction of bill of sale), 253. r. 27 (order for memorandum of satisfaction), 253. LXIV. (Time)— r. 13 (length of notico after delay of one year), 1043. LXY. (Costs)— r. 1 (costs to be in the discretion of the Court), 1176, 1177. LXXI. (Interpretation) — r. 1 (interpretation of terms — " receiver," &c), 939. ( ccxxv ) ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA. Pp. 38—41. The sections of the Land Transfer Act, 1875, set out in these pages, must now be read in connection with Parts II. and III. of the Land Transfer Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 65), which conies into opera- tion on the 1st January, 1898, so far as relates to such county, or part of a county, as may be prescribed by Order in Council. P. 123, note (e). Add .-—Viscount Hill v. Bullock, (1897) 2 Ch. 55; affirmed W. N. (1897) 80, 0. A. P. 311, note (a). For " 52 & 53 Vict. c. 32 " read " 56 & 57 Vict. c. 53." Pp. 416 et seq. The decisions as to implied authority of executors, &c. to mortgage realty by virtue of charges of debts, or other expressions in a will, and also the provisions of Lord St. Leonards' Act, enabling them to mortgage realty for payment of debts and legacies, appear to be rendered obsolete by virtue of the 2nd section of the Land Transfer Act, 1897, so far as regards cases falling within that Act. Pp. 441 et seq. As to charges by incumbents of benefices on lands of which they are the registered proprietors, see sect. 12 of the Land Transfer Act, 1897. P. 463. As to charges by registered proprietors of land in favour of building societies, see sect. 9 (2) of the Land Transfer Act, 1897. P. 549, note (v). The decision in Be Bunney and Smith has been affirmed ; see "W. N. (1897) 66, C. A. ; but the decision appears to have turned entirely on the construction of the deed, and not to have determined the validity of the transfer. Pp. 627 et seq. By virtue of Part I. of the Land Transfer Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 65), ss. 1 — 5, real estate of a person dying on or after the 1st January, 1898, will devolve to and become vested in his personal repre- sentatives for purposes of administration as if it were a chattel real, but so that, after the expiration of one year from the death, the person entitled to the beneficial interest in the estate may require the repre- sentatives to convey the land to him. Pp. 740 et seq. As to the bar of the right of redemption of a registered pro- prietor of land as against the proprietor of a registered charge thereon, see sect. 12 of the Land Transfer Act, 1S97 ; see also sect. 95 of the Land Transfer Act, 1875. VOL. I. — R. p CCXXV1 ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA. P. 909. Add, at end of s. vii. : — When a mortgage comprises land and a policy of life assurance, the mortgagee selling under his power is not entitled to retain the mortgage deed by virtue of sect. 2 of the Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 78), which only applies to land ; but he must deliver the deed up to the purchaser : Be Williams and Duchess of Newcastle's Gontract, (1897) 2 Ch. 144. P. 918, note (h). The decision of the majority of the Court of Appeal in Gaskell v. Gosling has been reversed by the House of Lords, approving the judgment of Eigby, L. J. : Gosling v. Gaskell, W. N. (1897) 78. Pp. 967 et seq. The effect of sect. 2 of the Land Transfer Act, 1897, appears to be to render in great measure obsolete, in cases falling within that Act, the enactments of the Statutes of Fraudulent Devises and the decisions thereon. P. 1027, Line 2. Add : — After the Master has made his certificate finding the amount due for principal and interest up to the date of the certificate, together with interest for six months from the date of the certificate, being the time fixed for redemption, the mortgagor can only redeem in accordance with the certificate : Hill v. Rowlands, W. N. (1897) 73, C. A. P. 1038, note (<). For " XLI." read " LI." Pp. 1058 et seq. As to the bar of the right of foreclosure of a proprietor of a registered charge, see sect. 12 of the Land Transfer Act, 1897 ; see also sect. 95 of the Land Transfer Act, 1875. P. 1063, note {y). For " c. 12 " read " c. 57." P. 1064. Add, at end of s. iv. : — A purchaser of land subject to a mortgage, which has been in possession of a person claiming adversely to the mort- gagor for more than twelve years, is not " a person claiming under the mortgagee" within the meaning of the Statutes of Limitation, so as to give him a right to bring an action to recover possession of the land at any time within twelve years after payment of any part of the principal moneys or interest secured by the mortgage : Thornton v. France, (1897) 2 Q. B. 143, C. A. P. 1141, note (p). Add :— Wilding v. Sanderson, W. N. (1897) 39; affirmed ibid. 78, C. A. P. 1168, line 10. For " r. 64 " read "r. 63." P. 1213, note (g). Add :— Cory Bros. & Co. v. Oivners of SS. Mecca, (1897) A. C. 286. P. 1276, lines 11, 12. For "charging order" read "charge"; and as to priorities of charging orders, see post, p. 1362. P. 1304, line 1. For " 1883" read " 1873." P. 1371, lin" 21. Add : — Where a testator devised freeholds to trustees for a term ot 2,000 years upon trust by mortgage to raise money in aid of his ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA. CCXXV11 personal estate for payment of his debts, and, subject thereto, devised the lands in strict settlement ; the tenant for life created a rentcharge under the Limited Owners' Eesidences Act, 1870, charged on the settled lands ; and, afterwards, the trustees of the term mortgaged part of the lands for the purposes of their trust ; it was held that, at the date of the creation of the rentcharge, the term of 2,000 years was "an incumbrance affecting the land charged " within the meaning of sect. 9 of the Act, and that the mortgages created under the term were entitled to rank m priority over the rentcharge : Provident Clerks' Mutual Life Assurance Assoc, v. Law Life Assurance Soc, W. N. (1897) 73. P. 1389. Add, at end of s. vi. :— Parties to an action knowing of the lien of a solicitor will not be allowed to effect a compromise with the intention of stopping the taxation and defeating the lien : Re Margetson and Jones, (1897) 2 Ch. 314. P. 1402, note (i). After "Peace v. Haines," add: "Jordan v. Money, 5 H. L. C. 185." Pp. 1419 et sea. The effect of sect. 1 of the Land Transfer Act, 1897, appears to be to do away with the necessity generally of obtaining vesting orders, in cases falHng within the Act, where the heir of the mortgagor is an infant, or out of the jurisdiction, &c, as the legal estate in the mortgaged lands will vest in the personal representatives of the deceased mortgagor, who will be able, and no doubt compellable, to convey it to the mortgagee entitled thereto. A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF MORTGAGES. Part I. OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF MORTGAGES, AND OF INSTRUMENTS AND MATTERS ANCILLARY THERETO. CHAPTER I. OF MORTGAGES AT COMMON LAW («). i. — Vivum vadium. — The common law recognised two kinds of Distinction tit -, 7 . j , 7 - mi between vi rum landed security, viz., vivum radium and mortuum radium, ike mi % um an( i vivum vadium and also the mortuum vadium (according to Grlan- mortuum ville), as at first known, were determinable or base fees, with a right of reverter in the feoffor and his heirs, on the payment of a given sum. The mortuum vadium, or mortgage ultimately known at the common law, was an absolute fee, with a condition annexed, making void the feoffment on payment of a given sum, which the common law allowed, if reserved to the feoffor or his heirs. The difference between the estates was striking. In the first instance the creditor took an estate, which, as soon as his debt was satisfied, ipso facto ceased, and the feoffor might re-enter and maintain ejectment ; in the latter instance the feoffee took the whole estate, subject to be defeated, but which, on the non-fulfilment of a certain engagement, became his own by an indefeasible title. In the first case the defeasibility was an inherent quality of the estate ; in the other case the deter- mination was collateral to it. (a) Taken from Coote on Mortgages (4th ed.), Vol. I. Chap. II. VOL. I. — R. B MORTGAGES AT COMMON LAW. chapter i. The vivum radium consisted of a feoffment to the creditor and Nature and his heirs, until out of the rents and profits he had satisfied wdium. VUl0n himself his debt; the creditor took actual possession of the estate, and received the rents, and applied them from time to time in liquidation of the debt. When it was satisfied, the debtor might, as before observed, re-enter and maintain eject- ment ; and it is said to have been called vivum vadium because neither debt nor estate was lost. Analogy This mode of security was probably never general ; it is ill ci.nV rommon adapted to the purpose of a security, the object of which is the law mort- repayment of the loan in one entire sum at a given time, and "Welsh mort- not a repayment by small instalments, which in fact is eating gzge- ou t the debt piecemeal ; and it seems now to have entirely ceased. A security in land, bearing a remote resemblance to the vivum radium, may be considered as subsisting under the appellation of Welsh mortgage ; but there is this distinction between the securities, viz., that in the vivum vadium the rents were applied in satisfaction of the principal, and in Welsh mortgages they are received in satisfaction of the interest, while the principal remains undiminished. In one respect they agree — the estate is never forfeited. The Welsh mortgage seems in fact more closely to resemble the ancient mortuum radium (b). al form Jj, — Mortuum vadium. — The mortuum radium, or mortgage, is vadium. mentioned by Littleton, Coke, and others, as so called because on breach of condition the estate was rendered indefeasible in the mortgagee, and absolutely lost to the mortgagor. In this light it is placed by Lord Coke, in contradistinction to the vivum radium, and such seems to be the opinion generally adopted. But Grlanville gives a different meaning to the origin of the term. He says, " Mortuum vadium dicitur illud cujus fruetus vel redditus interim percepti in nullo se acquierant ; " and applies it to the before-mentioned species of usury at com- mon law, viz., a froffment to the creditor and his heirs, to be held by him until his debtor paid him a given sum, and until which he received the rents without account, so that the estate was unprofitable or dead to the mortgagor in the meantime ; and the exposition given by Glanville seems the more sound, as it was rendered at a very early period of our history, while as yet the fetters on alienation were unremoved. We may there- {!>) Sec post, p. 20. MOKTUUM VADIUM. d fore consider the vivum vadium to have implied a security, by chapter '• which the rents of land were from time to time applied in reduction of the principal of the debt ; and the mortuwm vadium to have originally implied a security, by which, until payment of a given sum, the rents of land were ad interim lost to the owner, and received by the creditor and unaccounted for, so that the debt remained undiminished, which was at common law, as before remarked, in the event of the creditor dying possessed of the pledge, punishable as usury ; and it must be observed, there was the like advantage, in one respect, to the debtor in this form of mortgage, as in the vivum vadium, viz., that the estate was never lost. There is no trace of the period when this mode of mortgage Modern form fell into disuse. In its stead arose the mortuum vadium, or Z a ^^ mm mortgage, afterwards so well known at common law, and thus described by Littleton (c) : " Item ; if a feoffment be made upon such condition, that if the feoffor pay to the feoffee at a certain day, &c, forty pounds of money, that then the feoffor may re-enter, &c. In this case the feoffee is called tenant in mort- gage, which is as much as to say in French, come mortgage, and in Latin, mortuum radium. And it seemeth that the cause why it is called mortgage is, for that it is doubtful whether the feoff: or will pay, at the day limited, such sum or not ; and if he doth not pay, then the land, which is put in pledge upon con- dition for the payment of the money, is taken from him for ever, and so dead to him upon condition, &c. ; and if he doth pay the money, then the pledge is dead as to the tenant, &c." It is somewhat singular that Littleton should not refer to the Estate on con- explanation of the term as rendered by Glanville ; and we may conclude that the original mortuum radium had by this time totally fallen into disuse and become obsolete. The mortgage described by Littleton was strictly an estate upon condition, that is, a feoffment of the land was made to the creditor, with a condition in the deed of feoffment, or in a deed of defeasance executed at the same time (for the common law does not allow a feoffment to be defeasanced by matter subsequent), by which it was provided, that on payment by the mortgagor or feoffor of a given sum at a time and place certain, it should be lawful for him to re-enter. Immediately on the livery made, the mort- gagee or feoffee became the legal owner of the land, and in him (c) Sect. 332. b2 MORTGAGES AT COMMON LAW. Enforcement of conditions at common law. Forfeiture on default of mortgagor. the legal estate instantly vested, subject to the condition (d). If the condition was performed, the feoffor re-entered and was in of his old estate, paramount to all the charges and incum- brances of the feoffee, whether in the Per or in the Post (e), or in other words, above all persons, whether claiming through the feoffee, as heir, widow, or purchaser, or paramount, or colla- terally, to the feoffee, as the lord by escheat and the husband by curtesy. If the condition was broken, the feoffee's estate was absolute and his estate was indefeasible, and all the legal consequences followed as though he had been absolute owner from the time of the feoffment. But until breach of condition, possession was not in general given, which was a further dis- tinction between this mode of mortgage and the vivum radium and old mortuum vadium. In order to protect the mortgagor from the eviction of the mortgagee, to which he was become liable, a proviso was inserted, declaring that, until breach of condition, the mortgagor might hold the estate ; and on the other hand, the mortgagor engaged that in such event he would do all lawful acts for further assurance. Although the common law did not favour conditions, but required strict performance of them (/), yet it was in certain cases satisfied with the performance of the intent of the con- dition (g), though not performed in words; and although a difference was taken (//) between conditions to preserve and conditions to destroy an estate, the former being allowed to be performed as near the condition as could be, and the latter being strictissimi juris, jet conditions in mortgages, the per- formance of which, in fact, destroyed the estate of the mort- gagee, were favoured in the eye of the law, and rather considered as belonging to the class of conditions for preserving estates. Thus mortgages stood at common law, and it is difficult to conceive, if the Courts of law had been so inclined (which it does not seem they were), on what principle they could have proceeded in giving the debtor relief. The forfeiture was com- plete ; the mortgagee, by the default of the mortgagor, had (d) In 5 Bae. Abr., Mortgage, it is Btated thai "the mortgagor before forfeiture, and whilal it remains un- : whether he will perforin the condition al the time limited or not, hath the legal estate in him." This is a mistake; the legal estate instantly vests in the mortgagee, subject to be defeated on performance of the condi- tion by the mortgagor. (e) Co. Lit. 239, a. (/) Ibid. 205, a. (fl) Shep.Touchst.byPrest. 139, 143. (/<) Co. Lit. 206, a. MORTUUM VADIUM. O become the absolute owner of the estate; it could not he divested chapter i. from him without a reconveyance, and there remained no remedy short of an actual legislative enactment, without disturbing the settled land-marks of property («*). A jurisdiction was, however, arising, under which the harshness Equitable of the common law might be softened without an actual inter- Jum ference with its principles, and a system established at once consistent with the security of the creditor, and a due regard for the interests of the debtor. It may under this head be lastly remarked, that at the present Reconveyance day, if the condition, instead of determining the estate of the mor tgage in mortgagee, be, that on payment, &c, the feoffee, &c. shall ordinary reconvey or re-assign the estate, there, notwithstanding the performance of the condition by payment within the appointed time, an actual reconveyance or re-assignment will be necessary. (i) Notwithstanding the rigour with opposed to the better feelings of the which the common law punished the people, and that a considerable degree breach of the condition, yet it is clear of obloquy attended those who took from the concurrent testimony of all advantage of it. Thus in Beaumont our old dramatic writers, the chron- and Fletcher : iclers of their times, that the law was Ala the. — Thou hast undone a faithful gentleman, By taking forfeit of his land. Algripe. — I do confess. I will henceforth practise repentance. I will restore all mortgages, forswear abominable usury. The Night Walker, or Little Thief. ( 6 ) CHAPTER II. OF THE NATURE AND INCIDENTS OF A MORTGAGE SECURITY. Term " mort- prapre" de- fined. Charges by operation of law ) See Sampson v. Fattison, 1 Ha. 533, 535 ; Jenkin v. Row, 5 De G. & S. 107 ; Me Given, (1894) 3 Ch. 220. DEFINITION OF " MORTGAGE." Mortgages are also distinguished by the above definition from CHAPTER 71. powers of distress or entry given to secure the performance or Securities for observance of obligations other than the repayment of a debt or . dni [ b. se r- loan, such as the execution of works, or the payment of rents, ^ ce a ^ ns or the keeping of conditions and covenants in leases, &c. The term " mortgage " has frequently been defined as a Distinction pledge (r) , and it is apparently derived from the Latin words gage an ^ " mortuum vadium" or dead pledge. But, even as regards pledge. real estate, and such personalty as is capable of complete transfer without actual or constructive delivery, it seems neces- sary, to the completeness of the definition, to indicate that the so-called pledge must be made by means of a legal or equit- able conveyance or assurance of the property. And, as regards personal chattels, the use of the word " pledge " seems to overlook important distinctions between a mortgage where the title passes to the mortgagee by virtue of a bill of sale, though without delivery, and a pledge (strictly so called) where a qualified property passes by actual or constructive delivery of the chattels (d). The repayment of a debt or loan may be secured by hypothe- Hypothcca- cation, or equitable assignment of choses in action or goods to gushed from which the debtor or borrower is entitled, but which are owing mortgage and ' . pledge. by or in the hands of third persons. Such hypothecation amounts to an appropriation of the specific fund or chattels, and may be effected either by agreement between the parties, or by an order on the holder of the fund or chattels (e). An hypothecation differs from a mortgage in that there is no actual or executory conveyance or assurance of the property appro- priated for payment of the debt or loan, and from a pledge in that there is no actual or constructive delivery of the property. ii. — Assurance of Property by Mortgage. — The transfer of Difference property by way of mortgage is, according to English common la e w w an ^ j£ e law, to be regarded less as akin to the Eoman pignus or hypo- common law ,, i 3-x- / j>\ t> of England as theca than as a conveyance on common law condition {/). 15y to mortgages. the civil law, the debt secured was regarded as the principal, (e) See Co. Lit. 205, a ; Com. Dig. Chap. LXIII. pp. 1458 et seq. tit. Mortgage, A. ; Dav. Conv. 3rd ed. (e) See post, Chap. LXIV. pp. 1487 vol. ii. p. 2. See also Galton\. Hancock, et seq. 2 Atk. 435 (/) See Butler's note, Co. Lit. (d) See further as to the distinction 205, a. between mortgagee and pledges, post, NATURE, ETC. OF MORTGAGES GENERALLY. CHAPIER It. Legal and equitable morterao:e. Equitable charge. Agreement t<> give legal marl gage enforceable in equity. and the security was merely an incident. When the debt was discharged, the security was extinguished, and, in case of default, until sentence was pronounced giving possession to the creditor, the ownership of the debtor was not displaced (g). But, accord- ing to the common law of England, immediately upon the execution of a mortgage, the property vests in the mortgagee, subject to a condition for redemption and defeasance on pay- ment of principal and interest on a specified day (//). If the money is paid on that day, the condition is performed, and the mortgagor is entitled, like any other grantor of an estate con- ditioned upon his performance thereof, to re-enter and hold the property as of his former estate. If, however, the money is not paid on the very day, then, at law, the property becomes vested in the mortgagee absolutely, and discharged from the condition. The strictness of the legal conception of a mort- gage has been, as will be seen hereafter (/), materially modified by the doctrine of redemption introduced by the Court of Chancery. A mortgage may be effected by means of a legal or an equit- able assurance. By a legal mortgage, the legal estate in the pro- perty is conveyed to the mortgagee, subject to the mortgagor's right to redeem at law, on the day specified, and, in equity, at any time until foreclosure or sale. An equitable mortgage does not pass the legal estate to the creditor, but operates by way of equitable or executory assignment or transfer. Such charges are usually effected either by mortgages in the ordinary form of property already in mortgage, or by in- struments charging without expressly purporting to convey property, or by express or implied agreements to give a legal mortgage. As will be seen hereafter, an instrument charging without expressly conveying property may give to the creditor a right to call for a legal mortgage (/.•). Equity will specifically enforce the performance of an agree- ment to give a legal mortgage as a security for a subsisting debt or an actual advance, and until such mortgage is given, will treat the agreement as an executory assurance, equivalent to an actual assurance so far as the equitable rights and remedies of the parties are concerned (/). ((j) Bao. Al>r. tit. Mortgage, A. In modern times a proviso for reconveyance has been substituted for the old condition of defeasance. See post, p. 128. (i) See post, p. 11. (k) Post, pp. 48 et seq. (I) Post, p. 48. CHARGE OF PROPERTY BY MORTGAGE. 9 The agreement for an assurance by way of mortgage may be chapter n. in express terms, evidenced by deed or other writing ; or it may Agreement , . • p •!. ui i. for mortgage be raised by implication, as in the case ot an equitable mort- i mp ii e a. gage by mere deposit of deeds without any agreement in writing (ui). It may be laid down as a general proposition, with fewexcep- Whatpro- „ , i i perty may be tions, that every species of property, real or personal, corporeal m01 tgaged. or incorporeal, moveable or immoveable, in possession, remainder, expectancy, or even in action, may be the subject of mortgage. Manors, lands and tenements, freehold, copyhold, and leasehold ; remainders or reversions, rents, franchises, advowsons, rectories impropriate, tithes, bills of lading, ships, freightage, articles of merchandise, bills of exchange, debts, government annuities, title deeds, and even possibilities, may, according to their several natures, be conveyed, transferred, delivered, or assigned, by way of mortgage security. iii. — Mortgage creates a Charge on the Mortgaged Property. — The effect of a mortgage is to charge the moneys secured upon the mortgaged property and to make it answerable for the repayment of such moneys. It is, indeed, usual to insert in mortgage deeds covenants by Covenant for the mortgagor to repay the principal sum secured on a specified ment" ? 3 day, and to pay interest thereon in the meanwhile, and also thereafter, until the principal is repaid. The effect of these covenants is to create a personal contract between the mortgagor and mortgagee for payment of the money, and to render the mortgagee to whom they are given a specialty creditor, but such covenants are not a necessary part of the mortgage security. Notwithstanding a judicial dictum to the contrary (n), it is clear that a mortgage does not of itself imply a debt by specialty. A mortgage, if secured by covenant or bond (o), is a debt of Mortgage ii ii l n 'j debt, when specialty, although the money so secured be not actually paid a specialty ; to the mortgagor, but consist of a sum which the mortgagor has previously covenanted to pay to the mortgagees as trustees of a voluntary settlement, and which sum such trustees have agreed to lend him on that security (p). (m) Carter v. Wake, 4 Ch. D. 606. (o) Bonds were formerly often taken And see post, Chap. VII. pp. 54 et seq. as a collateral security for the repay - (n) See Galton v. Hancock, 2 Atk. ment of mortgage moneys, but the 435_ practice has become obsolete. (p) Tanner v. Byne, 1 Sim. 160. 10 NATURE, ETC. OF MORTGAGES GENERALLY. CHAPTER II. — when simple con- tract. "When a cove- nant for per- sonal payment will be im- plied. Admission of debt. Recital of debt. No covenant in Welsh mortgages, &c. If a mortgage does not contain any covenant for payment, nor is accompanied by a collateral bond, the debt is a simple con- tract debt. In such a case, the fact of the advance being made at the request of the mortgagor, raises a contract by parol, which is not merged in the mortgage as a security of a higher nature, and the mortgage will be considered as a collateral security, and therefore, before the Judicature Act, an action of debt or of assumpsit lay (q). So in equity, " Every mortgage implies a loan ; every loan a debt ; and though there were no covenant or bond, the personal estate of the borrower must remain liable to pay off the mortgage " (/•). A provision in a mortgage deed, that the money is to be repaid on a certain day, imports a covenant for repayment on that day (s). If a debtor for a collateral purpose executes a deed by which he admits the debt, even though he conveys property to a trustee upon trust to sell and pay the debt out of the proceeds, that will not raise an implied covenant to pay, where the acknowledg- ment appears to have been made solely for a collateral purpose ; though, as a general rule, such a covenant will be implied from an unequivocal acknowledgment in a deed of such a liability (/) . A deed reciting a simple contract debt, and agreeing to execute a further security with all incidental covenants, con- stitutes a specialty (it) ; a mere recital of a debt will not be sufficient (x). A covenant for payment is not usually inserted in a "Welsh mortgage ; nor is such a covenant inserted in a mortgage of copyholds by actual surrender, though the mortgagor is usually required to execute a collateral deed containing such a cove- nant, and also any other covenants necessary for maintaining the security, or otherwise incident to the terms of the contract (//). (q) Yates v. Aston, 3 G. & D. 351 ; Allenby v. Dalton, 5 L. J. K. B. 312 ; Hodges v. Croydon Canal Co., 3 Beav. 86. (r) Per Lord Talbot in King v. 3 I'. Wins. 358. And see Cope v. Cope, 2 Salk. 449 ; Thomas v. Terry, Gilb. Eq. Rep. 110; Ancaster v. Mayer, 1 Bro. C. 0. 454, 464 ; (Juan-ell v. Beck/ord, 1 Madd. 27s. Hart v. "Eastern Union Mail. Co., 7 Exch.246; 8 Exoh. 116. See button v. Sutton, 22 Ch. D. 511, 516, 0. A. (t) Courtney v. Taylor, 6 Man. & Gr. 85 1 . See Marryat v. Marryat, 28 Beav. 22 4 ; Isaacson v. Harwood, L. R. 3 Ch. A. 225 ; Kidd v. Boone, L. R. 12 Eq. 89. See as to the effect of such an ac- knowledgment on the Statute of Limi- tations, post, pp. 977 et seq. {a) Saunders v. Milsome, L. R. 2 Eq. 573. (x) Jackson v. North Eastern Rail. Co., 7 Ch. D. 573. See lien v. Elwes, 3 Drew. 25. (y) See Lawley v. Hooper, 3 Atk. 278, at p. 280. And see post, p. 150. PROPERTY CHARGED BY MORTGAGE. Personal liability, express or implied, is not, however, neces- 11 CHAPTER II. sarily incident to a mortgage. A charge by way of mortgage Exclusion upon property may be so framed as to exclude all personal liabnityfor liability of the mortgagor. A mortgage of a term for the mortgage purpose of raising money for portions usually imposes no personal liability upon the borrowing trustees of the term ; and, though a covenant by the tenant for life to keep down the interest is usually inserted in the mortgage deed, such a cove- nant is collateral and merely ancillary to, but not an essential part of the mortgage security (s). The absence of a covenant for payment in no way affects the mortgagor's right of redemp- tion^). iv. — Right of Redemption essential to Mortgage. — The right Principles of • • i- i • t i •! c l civilian of redemption is an essential and inseparable attribute or a mort- followed in gage security. It has been already said, that, by the civil ec L mt Y- law, the debtor might redeem the estate on payment of his debt at any time before sentence passed. It is evident how opposed to this is the doctrine of forfeiture at common law. The absolute forfeiture of the estate, whatever might be its value, on breach of the condition, was, in the eye of equity, an injustice and hardship, although perfectly accordant with the system on which the mortgage itself was grounded. The Courts of Equity, founded on the principles of the civil law, gradually succeeded, by an introduction of those principles, in moderating the severity with which the common law followed the breach of the condition. Though they could not alter the legal effect of the forfeiture at Rule in equity common law, they operated on the conscience of the mortgagee, redemption. and, acting in personam and not in rem, they declared it unrea- sonable that he should retain for his own benefit what was intended as a mere security; and they adjudged that the breach of the condition was in the nature of a penalty, which ought to be relieved against, and that the mortgagor had an equity to redeem on payment of principal, interest and costs, notwith- standing the forfeiture at law. Against the introduction of this novelty, the judges of common Conflict law strenuously opposed themselves ; and though ultimately o^ts a oi defeated by the increasing power of equity, they nevertheless in common law their own Courts still adhered to the rigid doctrine of forfeiture, (a) See Floyer v. Lavington, 1 P. 496. Wms. 268 ; Mellor v. Zees, 2 Atk. 494, (a) See infra, pp. 12, 13. 12 NATURE, ETC. OF MORTGAGES GENERALLY. CHAPTER II. No restric- tions on right to redeem allowed. Agreements fettering redemption void. Restriction within limited time. Restriction of right to redeem to particular class of persons. Covenant for repayment docs not affect right to redeem. and consequently the law of mortgage fell almost entirely within the jurisdiction of equity, with the result that, as the Courts of Equity became established in power, the doctrine of the equity of redemption became fully recognized (b). It was a necessary corollary to the establishment of this doctrine to lay down the rule that the debtor could not, even by the most solemn engagements entered into at the time of the loan, pre- clude himself from the right to redeem, as is expressed in the well-known maxim, " Once a mortgage always a mortgage." It is therefore a well-established rule that equity will control even an express agreement of the parties, and will let a man loose from his agreement, and, even against his agreement, admit him to redeem a mortgage (c) ; and that whatever clause or covenant there may be in a convej^ance, yet if upon the whole it appear to have been the intention of the parties that such con- veyance shall only be a mortgage, or pass an estate redeemable, a Court of Equity will always construe it so, and reject any stipulation seeking to negative or fetter the right of redemp- tion (rf). So, it was held that no condition could be valid which pur- ported to restrict the right of redemption within a limited period, as the life of the mortgagor (e). Nor did the attempt better succeed to confine the right of redemption to a particular heir or class of heirs. Thus, where a mortgage deed contained a proviso for redemption by the mortgagor or the heirs male of his body, and a covenant by the mortgagor that no one but himself or the heirs of his body should be admitted to redeem, the jointress was allowed to redeem, though circumstances were adduced to explain and support the proviso and covenant (/). It is cleor, notwithstanding a dictum to the contrary in the case last referred to, that the absence of a covenant for repay- ment of the money, or of a collateral bond, cannot affect the right to redeem ; for though these are collateral securities (as (b) See Longford v. Barnard, Tothill, 134, temp. Eliz. ; Emanuel College v. Evans, 1 Rep. in Ch. 10, temp. Car. I. (c) Howard v. Harris, 1 Vern. 192 ; and Bee East India Company v. Atkyns, Comyns, 349, where arguendo it is said, equity will relieve, even if the mortga- gor take his oath not to redeem. (d) 5 Bac. Ahr. 5 ; Seton v. Slade, 7 Ves. 265, 273. (e) Newcomb v. Bonham, 1 Vern. 7 ; reversed on special grounds. See post, p. 19 ; Kihington v. Gardiner, cited 1 Vern. 192. And see Spurgeon v. Collier, 1 Ed. 55 ; Jason v. Eyre, 2 Ch. Ca. 33 ; Price v. Perrie, 2 Freem. 258 ; Goodman v. Grierson, 2 Ba. & Be. 278. (/) Howard v. Harris, 1 Vern. 33, 190. See Floycr v. Lavington, 1 P. Wins. 271 ; Melhr v. Lees, 2 Atk. 494, 496. RIGHT OF FORECLOSURE. 13 has been seen) creating a personal obligation on tbe mortgagor, chapter n. yet independently of them every loan implies a debt, and the right to redeem proceeds on the principle that a creditor shall not obtain advantage by his security beyond his principal, interest and costs. The bond or covenant may tend to explain a trans- action and show the intention of the parties in a doubtful case to create a mortgage ; it may be good matter of evidence ; but neither of them is a necessary ingredient in the creation of a mortgage ; for, to apply the remedy, equity only requires to be satisfied that the conveyance was originally intended as a secu- rity for the payment of a sum of money, whatever form the security may take (g). V. — Mortgage enforceable by Foreclosure. — In strictness, where Right of fore- there is no right of foreclosure, there is no mortgage. Where, essentLP upon a deed of grant of lands subject to a limited power of element of a redemption, the question was, whether the deed was to be con- ° ° strued as a mortgage, or as a conditional sale (h), the rule was thus expressed by Lord Manners — " The fair criterion, by which the Court is to decide whether this deed be a mortgage or not, I apprehend to be this, are the remedies mutual and reciprocal ? Has the defendant all the remedies a mortgagee is entitled to P"(»). So, where an estate was conveyed to a person in trust that the Securities not same should stand charged with a principal sum and interest, ri^htVnL-e- with a power of sale, it was held that this was not a mortgage closure - entitling the grantee to foreclosure (/). So, a trust to pay out of rents and profits is not strictly a mortgage, as there is no right of foreclosure (k) ; nor, for the same reason, is an equitable charge created by will upon a reversionary interest in land (/). But the Court will presume an instrument intended as a secu- rity to be an ordinary mortgage entitling the mortgagee to foreclose, unless the terms exclude such construction (m) . (g) See King v. King, 3 P. Wins. Pell v. Carter, 17 Beav. 11. Such. 360 ; Mellor v. Lees, 2 Atk. 494, 495. incumbrances, however, have other in- (A) As to the difference between cidents of a mortgage, as, for instance, conditional sales and mortgages, see the right of redemption : Schweitzer post, p. 19. v. Mayhem, 31 Beav. 37; Wicks v. (i) Goodman v. Grierson, 2 Ba. & Be. Scrivens, 1 J. & H. 215, 218 ; Pearce 274, at p. 279. v. Morris, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 230. And, (j) Sampson v. Pattison, 1 Ha. 533. accordingly, they are sometimes, in See Jenkin v. Row, 5 De Gr. & Sm. 107 ; a popular sense, included by convey- Schweitzer v. May hew, 31 Beav. 37. ancers under the term " mortgagees." (k) Taylor v. Emerson, 4 Dr. & War. (I) Re Owen, (1894) 3 Ch. 220. 117. See Slade v. Rigg, 3 Ha. 35; \m) Balfe v. Lord, 2 Dr. &War. 480. 14 NATURE, ETC. OF MORTGAGES GENERALLY. CHAPTER II. Mortgage of uncalled capital of company. Principle of the rules. I i :,igCO entitli il unly to principal, interest, and costs. In a recent case (n), where foreclosure was claimed in respect of a mortgage of uncalled capital of a company, the claim was allowed, although it had never previously been made in respect of property of the kind in question, apparently upon the ground that every mortgage imports a right of foreclosure, irrespective of the nature of the property comprised in the security. That foreclosure is essential to a legal mortgage is evident, if the strict terms of the mortgage contract and the grounds on which equity interferes to mitigate the strictness of that contract are considered. By such a mortgage the property is conveyed to the mortgagee subject to a condition for redemption or recon- veyance if the money is paid on a specified day ; on default in payment, the conveyance becomes at law, and according to the strict terms of the contract, absolute, and, but for the inter- ference of equity, would operate as a foreclosure. In order to moderate the severity and consequent hardship incident to a strict enforcement of the contract, equity has interfered to pre- vent it from having its full effect, and when the ground of interference is gone by the non-payment of the debt, equity simply removes the stop it has itself put on, or, in other words, decrees foreclosure (o). And the same principle has been applied by the Courts of Equity with respect to equitable mortgages. The result appears to be that the mortgagee is entitled to foreclosure (subject to the jurisdiction to order a sale in lieu of foreclosure (p) ) in all cases where, but for the interference of equity, foreclosure would, in effect, have followed ex contractu ; so that foreclosure is a necessary incident of every transaction which the Court treats as a mortgage (q). vi. — Collateral Advantage cannot be obtained. — It is a well- established rule in equity that a mortgagee will not be allowed, as such, to avail himself of the necessities of his debtor so as to obtain a collateral or additional advantage beyond the payment of principal, interest, and costs. The principle underlying the decisions is that a creditor shall not be allowed to have interest for his money and an advantage besides for the loan of it, so as to " clog the redemption." The rule, as stated by Lord Hard- wicke, is that, if any fetter is laid upon redeeming the niort- (») Sadlerv.TTorley, (1894) 2 Ch. 170. (o) See per Jesa 1. .M.I.'., in Carter v. I ' li. I), at p. GOG. This jurisdiction will bo con- sidered later. See post, Chap. XLIX., p. 1016. (q) The exception in the case of a Welsh mortgage, -which depends on the different nature of the contract, will be considered hereafter. See post, p. 27. RESTRICTION OF REDEMPTION ILLEGAL. 15 gaged estate by some original agreement, either in the mortgage CHAPTEE "' deed or a separate deed, it will not avail, where it is done with a design to wrest the estate out of the hands of the mort- gagor (V). Accordingly, equity will not allow the mortgagee to enter Agreement in into a contract with the mortgagor, at the time of the loan, for ^cifa^of 01 the absolute purchase of the lands for a specific sum, in case equity of of default made in payment of the mortgage-money at the appointed time, justly considering that it would throw open a wide door to oppression, and enable the creditor to drive an inequitable and hard bargain with the debtor, who is rarely prepared to discharge his debt at the specific time (s). Thus, wdiere 16,000/. was lent on mortgage, and, by a separate Agreement deed, the mortgagor covenanted that he would, on being required ior absolute 00 > o 1 conveyance of so to do, convey to the mortgagee ground rents of the value of ground rents. 16,000/., being part of the mortgaged estate, at twenty years' purchase ; on a bill for redemption, the mortgagee insisted on the agreement, but redemption was decreed on payment of principal, interest, and costs, without regard to the covenant, which was set aside as unconscionable (/). So, where an insurance society advanced a sum of 10,000/. Agreement on a reversionary interest of the mortgagor contingent on his %** P ollc 7 surviving his father, and by a separate instrument the mort- loan shall be gagor agreed that a policy of life assurance which was effected mortffaeee as part of the loan transaction should in certain events belong absolutely to the trustees of the society, it was held that, in accordance with the equitable doctrine against fettering the right of redemption, the mortgagor was, notwithstanding the agreement, entitled to the policy moneys after payment of the moneys secured by the mortgage (a). But care must be taken to distinguish between the last- -Right of mentioned rule and a case with which it may be confounded, pre-emption, viz., an agreement by the mortgagor, in case of sale, to give the mortgagee a preference of pre-emption, which, if claimed within a reasonable time, will be enforced (.r). And although at first view this may seem to be within the objection raised by equity, viz., that of giving the creditor a collateral advan- (r) Mellor v. Lees, 2 Atk. 494, 495. (u) Salt v. Marquess of Northampton, (*) Price v. Ferric, 2 Ereem. 258; (1892) A. C. 1. Seejwo.s^, p. 292. Willettv. WmneU, 1 Vera. 488; Bowen [x] Urbij v. Trigg, 9 Mod. 2; Be v. Edwards, 1 Rep. in Ch. 221; Be Edwards, 11 Ir. Ch. R. 367. Sie Edwards, 11 Ir. Ch. R. 367. Dawson v. Dawson, 8 Sim. 346; Cook* (t) Jennings v. Ward, 2 Vera. 520. son v. Cookson, 8 Sim. 629. 16 NATURE, ETC. OF MORTGAGES GENERALLY. chapter n. Whether limit of time for riji lyment makes any cli ttcrence. Subsequent agreement for purchase of equity of redi mption valid. lunment of agreement. [uacy. tage over and above his principal and interest, yet on closer inspection it will be found clear of the rule. The option of sale is still left with the mortgagor ; he may redeem or sell, nor is he tied down to price ; all that is stipulated for is, that if he thinks fit to sell, he shall give the mortgagee the refusal (//). Eights of pre-emption, however, are construed strictly (z). Some writers (a) have also considered the general rule, that the mortgagee shall not be allowed to enter into a contract with the mortgagor, at the time of the loan, for the absolute purchase of the land for a specific sum in case of default in payment of the mortgage-money at the appointed time, not to apply in case the payment of the money advanced and interest be limited to a particular period ; and for this doctrine the case of Tasburgh v. Echlin (b) is advanced as an authority. But this case was determined on circumstances so special that it is scarcely an authority for any subsequent case, and is hardly applicable to the matter in question (c). The rule will not be extended so as to forbid agreement for the purchase of the equity of redemption, entered into bond fide and subsequently to a mortgage which was made and concluded without reference to any such agreement, though followed by a subsequent agreement between the parties, that the mortgagor might have the estate on payment of principal, interest, and costs (d) ; nor will the rule apply to the case of a release of the equity of redemption, with a collateral agreement to reconvey on repayment of the purchase-money (e). An agreement for the release of the equity of redemption to the mortgagee not acted on for many years was, under the circumstances, treated as abandoned (/). And in one case, where the mortgagee took a conveyance of the equity of redemption, but allowed the mortgagor to continue in posses- sion for a considerable period, it was held that the mortgagor might redeem (g). Mere inadequacy of price is no ground for setting aside a (»/) Boicen v. Edwards, 1 Rep. in Ch. 221. (z) See cases cited supra, p. 15, n. (x), and B< Edwards, 11 It. Eq. It. 367. (a) 1 Pow. Mortgage, 7th ed. 626. Bro. P. C. 265. (c) But see Pow. Mortgage, Itli i 1. Ca. i. Tall.. (Williams 61 . See Waters \ . ' 11 CI. & P. 684. (c) Ellsworth v. Griffith, 15 Vin. Ab. 468, pi. 8 ; Gossip v. Wright, 9 Jur. N. S. 592 ; Lincoln v. Wright, 4 De G. & .1. 1G. See aW> Perry v. Marston, 2 Bro. C. C. 397 ; Barrell v. Sabine, 1 Vern. 268. (/') Rushbrook v. Lawrence, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 3. (g) Karris v. Hortcell, Gilb. Eq. Rep. 11. RESTRICTION OF REDEMPTION ILLEGAL. 17 purchase of the equity of redemption made by the mortgagee chapteb n. in consideration of the mortgage debt, since where no money is of price advanced at the time of the agreement, no advantage could be taken of the debtor's distress (h). So where the transaction was fair, though the full value was not given, the agreement was enforced (*"). It may be here incidentally remarked that, if the executor of Executor of „ „ j, -, mortgagee ot a mortgagee of a term of years purchases the equity of redemp- term pur- tion in fee for a small sum in his own name and for his own chasm & fee- benefit, he will be considered a trustee for the benefit of his testator's estate (/.•). A sale or release to a mortgagee of the equity of redemption Effect of will be supported, imless there is fraud or pressure (/). The onus of proving fraud or misrepresentation rests on the party seeking to impeach the deed (m). The right to set the release aside may be purchased from the mortgagor or his assignee (■;/?). Upon the principle that a mortgagee shall not be allowed any Lease by advantage collateral to his mortgage, equity will not permit a mortfafee. ° mortgagee to accept a lease from the mortgagor by which he would obtain a benefit beyond the payment of principal, inte- rest, and costs, to which he is entitled by virtue of his mort- gage. Where there are circumstances of oppression and fraud, such a lease would, of coiu-se, be set aside (n) ; and it would seem that such a lease for a long term of years (as 999 years), at a rent no higher than would be reserved on a common occupation lease if the rent were a fair rent, would be set aside even with- out circumstances of oppression or fraud, on the principle that the parties were not on equal terms, and that such a lease was in effect a departing with the inheritance (o) ; in fact, any lease from a mortgagor to a mortgagee will be looked at with sus- picion, especially if the latter obtains any advantage beyond his interest (p). A lease, however, for twenty-one years, at a fair occupation rent, was supported (q) ; and a lease will not be (h) Purdie v. Millet, Taml. 28. Cas. 379, P. C. (i) Chambers v. Waters, 11 CI. & F. (in) Melbourne Banking Co., Limited 684. v. Brougham, 7 App. Cas. 307. (k) Fosbrooke v. Balguy, 1 My. & K. («) Gubbins v. Creed, 2 Sch. & L. 226. 214. (I) Fordv. Olden, L.R. 3 Eq. 461. See (o) Webb v. Rorke, 2 Sch. & L. 661. Knight v. Majoribanks, 2 Mac. & G-. 10; (p) Hkkes v. Cooke, 4 Dow. 24, 25. Purdie v. Millet, Taml. 28. And see [q) Moroni/ v. CDca, 1 Ba. & Be. Masseyx. Johnson, 1 Excli. 241; Barton 109. V. Bank of New South Wales, 15 App. VOL. I. — K. C 18 NATURE, ETC. OF MORTGAGES GENERALLY. CHAPTER II. Restrictions on mortgagee to prevent clogging equity of redemption. Exception to general rules of equity in cases of family arrange- ments. set aside because the value lias changed in the lapse of years (q). Where a mortgagee took a lease from the mortgagor subsequent to a puisne mortgage, he was treated as mortgagee in possession, but no objection was raised to the lease (;•). Leases in nature of a "Welsh mortgage stand on a different footing ($) . The Courts, fearful of opening a door to fraud and usury, have imposed numerous other restrictions on the mortgagee so as to prevent him from clogging the equity of redemption, as, for instance, that he shall not be permitted, as a general rule, to make any charge by way of bonus or commission in con- sideration of the advance (f) ; nor to stipulate for interest at an increased rate on default (w), or for compound interest (%) ; nor to make any charge for his personal trouble (//) ; nor appoint himself the receiver, even under an express agreement for that purpose with the mortgagor (z) ; for he is entitled to no benefit beyond his principal, interest, and costs, besides that such an agreement might subject the mortgagor to imposition, and, under the old law, have tended to usury. So, also, until the recent Act (a), a solicitor-mortgagee was not generally allowed to charge profit costs (b) . The preceding authorities show with what jealousy equity has looked on every attempt made to counteract .or oppose its interference in behalf of the mortgagor ; but its object being to protect him at a time when his necessities may have placed him at the mercy of the mortgagee, cessante causa cessat etiam lex ; and therefore the general rules of equity before stated will admit of a very considerable exception in cases in which there is evidence of intention in the nature of the transaction, that provision was intended to be made by the mortgagor for some branch of his family, or that the mortgage was intended by him in the nature of a family settlement. Thus, where the right to redeem was confined to the mortgagor during his life only, but there was an express covenant that the mortgagor might redeem at any time during his life, so that the mort- gagee could not have compelled the mortgagor to redeem, and it was proved that the mortgagor had a kindness for the mort- [q) Hiches v. Cooke, 4 Dow. 24, 25. (r) Oregg v. Arnott. LI. & G. t. Su« 24G. (*) See post, p. 26. (t) See pott, p. 111'). («) See pott, ]>. 129. (x) See post, pp. 131 et seq. \y) See post, p. 1203. (z) See post, p. 1192. (a) 58 & 59 Vict. c. 25. (*) See post, p. 1194. DEFEASIBLE AND CONDITIONAL PURCHASES. 19 gagee, his near relative, and intended him to have the land, chapter h. and that the restriction of redemption was inserted only for a particular reason, it was held by Lord Keeper North (<"), re- versing the decision of Lord Nottingham, C. (d), that redemp- tion after the death of the mortgagor must be refused. The like doctrine governed a case (c) in which a man, by settlement on his marriage, reserved to himself the option of paying a sum of money, or letting the settlement stand (/). In Jason v. Eyre (g) redemption was decreed, although it might have been fairly regarded as coining within the same exception, on the ground of the transaction being intended by way of settlement or family provision. In this case parol evidence was offered and read on both sides, which the Court took no notice of, but rejected. It will be observed that, in Neiccomb v. Bonham (/?), the ultimate decision was expressly founded on parol evidence of the mortgagor's intention, and at the present day such evi- dence would be clearly admissible (»"). yj\\, — Distinction between Defeasible or Conditional Purchase What are and Mortgage. — With reference to the rule already con- purchases, sidered (/>•), that a mortgagee will not be allowed to obtain for himself an advantage collateral to his security, mortgages must be distinguished from contracts for purchase, subject to a right for the vendor to repurchase within a limited time, or subject to a condition avoiding the conveyance if the vendor pays a specified sum at a fixed date. In such instances the vendors will be strictly kept to their contracts, which are regarded as defeasible or conditional purchases, creating only a right of repurchase in accordance with the condition, and not as imposing such a right of redemption as in the case of a mortgage (/). So, where a certain sum had been lent without security, and Agreement an agreement was entered into that if the money so lent, together default of with certain further advances, were not repaid by a specified repayment of day, the lease of a farm should be assigned to the lender with- out any further consideration ; it was held that the relation of (c) Bonham v. Newcomb, 1 Vern. (g) 2 Ch. Ca. 33. 231. \h) 1 Vern. 7. (d) Newcomb v. Bonham, 1 Vern. 7. (») Richards v. Syms, 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. (e) King v. Bromley, 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 617. See infra, p. 23. 595. (£) Ante, p. 14. (/) And see Wolston v. Aston, Hard. \l) Bunning v. Banning, 1 L. J. Ch. 511 ; Hampton v. Spencer, 2 Vern. 288. 56. c2 20 NATURE, ETC. OF MORTGAGES GENERALLY. CHAPTER II. Absolute con- veyance •with subsequent agreement for repurchase. Agreement for convey- ance to third person de- feasible on payment by purchaser. Conditions strictly enforced. Time for re- purchase of essence of contract. Exception ■where amount not settled. Transaction must be pur- chase or mort- gage as regards both vendor and purchaser, and not that of mortgagor and mort- gagee, was constituted by the agreement (m) . So, also, where an equity of redemption was absolutely con- veyed, and subsequently it was agreed between the parties that, if the vendor should desire it, he might have the estate back on payment of the purchase-money with interest and costs, the transaction was held to be a sale and not a mortgage (it). Where the purchase-money of an estate was paid by a third person on behalf of the purchaser, and a further sum also advanced, and it was agreed that the estate should be conveyed to such third person, and that, if the purchaser repaid the sums with interest by a future day, then the agreement was to be void, and if not, then the sale was thereby confirmed absolutely to the other party ; it was held that the agreement constituted a conditional purchase (o). The right of repurchase is a privilege, and is only to be exer- cised upon a strict performance of the terms ( p) , unless the terms are waived (q) ; otherwise the grantee's estate will become abso- lute (r). In Davis v. Thomas (s), the mortgagor released to the mort- gagee his equity of redemption, and the mortgagee granted him a lease for ninety- nine years determinable on lives at a rent, with a proviso that, if he paid the rent regularly, he might redeem within five years, and in default the agreement was to be void ; it was held that the privilege of redemption was lost on non-payment of the rent at the periods fixed for that purpose. But, where a time is fixed for the repurchase, and the terms depend on the result of au account which has not been rendered by the other party, a reconveyance will be decreed (/). It is not always easy to discriminate between a mortgage and a purchase qualified by a power to repurchase (u). In deter- mining questions of this nature, it must be borne in mind that parties. (»() Tapply v. Sheather, 8 Jur. N. S. 1163. ( 'ottet , // v. Purchase, Cas. t. Talb. (Williams) 61. See Neal v. Morris, Best, 597 ; Brooke v. Garrod, 2 De G. & J. 62 ; Ward v. Wolverhampton Waterworks Co., L. R. 13 Eq. 243. (o) Perry v. Mcddowcroft, 4 Beav. 197, affirmed, 10 Beav. 141. \p v. Wright, 9 Jur. N. S. v v. Birch, i CI. & F. 58. (?) ?egg v. Wisden, 16 Beav. 239. (>■) Floyer v. Zavington, 1 P. Wins. 268 ; Mellor v. Lees, 2 Atk. 494. (*•) 1 R. & My. 506. And see Joy v. Birch, 10 Bli. N. S. 241 ; Williams v. Owen, 5 My. & Cr. 303 ; St. John v. Wareham, cited 3 Swanst. 631. (/) Fonsford v. llankey, 9 W. R. 353. (t() Sevier v. Greenivay, 19 Ves. 413; Fee v. Cobine, 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 406; Waters v. Mynn, 14 Jur. 341 ; Murphy v. 'Taylor, 1 Ir. Ch. 92 ; Of/den v. Battams, 1 Jur. N. S. 791. DEFEASIBLE AND CONDITIONAL PURCHASES. 21 a mortgage cannot be a mortgage on one side only ; it must be chapter h. mutual (a?) ; that is, if it be a mortgage with one party, it must be a mortgage with both. But the rule only requires that it shall not be competent to one party alone to consider it a mort- gage. In other respects the rights of the parties may be dif- ferent, for it happens not unfrequently, that one party may not be able to foreclose at a time when the other may redeem (//) . So, in Williams v. Owen (z), it was held that if the parties Agreement . . , . -i 1 , 1 j j. j? for repurchase intended an absolute sale, a contemporaneous agreement tor a nofc a * ted on< repurchase not acted upon will not of itself entitle the vendor to redeem. The Lord Chancellor seemed to attach some weight to Goodman v. Grierson (a), in which Lord Manners held, that the fair criterion to ascertain whether a transaction be a mortgage or not is, whether the remedies are mutual and reciprocal (/>). The rule is that prima facie an absolute conveyance, containing nothing to show the relation of debtor and creditor, does not cease to be an absolute conveyance and become a mortgage merely because the vendor stipulates that he shall have a right to repurchase. In every case the question is what, upon a fair construction, is the meaning of the instruments (c), and the absolute conveyance will be turned into a mortgage if the real intention was that the estate should be held as a security for the money (d). The deed may be absolute in form but still a mort- gage (e), and the absence of a proviso for redemption will not prevent its being a mortgage (/). The payment of interest will be evidence that the transaction Payment of was intended to be a mortgage (g). The fact that the purchase-money is not near the value of the Undervalue, property may be taken into consideration as tending to show that the transaction was a mortgage (/>■) . The payment by the grantor of the expenses of the convey- Payment of L J J ° . . expenses by ance will raise a prima facie, but not a conclusive, presumption grantor. upon this question (/). (x) Howard v. Harris, 1 Vern. 192. (c) Alderson v. White, 2 De G. & J. See Coplestone v. Boxwell, 1 Ch. Ca. 1 ; 97, 105 ; Shaw v. Jeffry, 13 Moo. P. C. White v. Ewer, 2 Vent. 340 ; Stokes v. 432. Terrier, 3 Swanst. 634 ; Goodman v. (d) Sour/las v. Culverwett, 4 De G-. F. Grierson, 2 Ba. & Be. 274. As to Welsh & J. 20. mortgages, see post, p. 27. (e) Bamhart v. Greenshields, 9 Moo. (y) See Talbot v. Braddgl, 1 Vern. 395. P. C. 18 ; Holmes v. Mathews, 9 Moo. (s) 5 My. & Cr. 306. See Barrellv. P. C. 413. Sabine, 1 Vern. 268 ; Waters v. Mynn, (/) Bell v. Carter, 17 Beav. 11. 14 Jur. 341. (g) Allenby v. Button, 5L. J. K.B.312. (a) 2 Ba. & Be. 274. (h) Thomborough v. Baker, 3 Swanst. (b) Goodman v. Grierson, 2 Ba. & Be. 628, 631. 274, cited in Williams v. Owen, 5 My. (i) Alderson v. While, 2 De G. & J. & Cr. 306. 97. See Langton v. Horton, 5 Beav. 9. 22 NATURE, ETC. OF MORTGAGES GENERALLY. CHAPTER II. Notice of intention to repurchase. Conditional settlement. Absolute conveyance fraudulently obtained. Presumption of sale. No covenant for payment. Length of possession by grantee. A similar inference will be raised where the conveyance stipulates that the grantor shall give notice of any intention to repurchase on repayment of the purchase-money and interest due, together with an additional half-year's interest, so as to allow ample time for re-investment (/.'). Similarly, a conditional settlement has been held to be a secu- rity for money ; as a settlement that, upon payment of a sum of money in a certain event, the prior limitation should cease and the lands go to the heirs and assigns of the settlor ; upon the happening of the event, it was held only to be a security for the money, and to be redeemable after the time limited, and that not merely by the heir or executor, but also by a creditor (/). An absolute conveyance, obtained under circumstances of surprise and oppression from a person intending only to borrow, was treated as a mortgage (m). So an absolute conveyance by a client to his solicitor of a reversionary interest was reduced to a mortgage, it not being proved that the nature of the transaction was fully explained to the client, or that full value was given (;/). Where an absolute interest is turned into a security and the money is to be repaid, the Court in its discretion will allow five per cent, interest (o). Conversely, the fact that the grantee took possession immediately after the execution of the conveyance raises a presumption that the transaction was a sale (p). In several cases (q), the absence of a covenant to pay was deemed explanatory of the intention ; so a trust deed for cre- ditors was held, by reason of its containing no such covenant, not to be a mortgage entitling the creditors to foreclosure (r). AY here the circumstances of a case are such as not to render it certain whether the original intention of the parties was to effect a mortgage or a conditional sale, the lapse of a consider- able time during which the grantee has been in possession, as (k) Lawleij v. Hooper, 3 Atk. 278 ; Bultcer v. Astley, 1 Ph. 4'2'2 ; Verner v. WinstanUy, 2 Sch. & L. 393; Preston v. Neele, 12 Ch. D. 767. (/) Frederick v. Aynscombe, 2 Eq. ('a. Abr. 594, note at B., 1 Atk. 392. And see Sir Thomas Marts' case, cited Freem. <'h. 206; Earl Winchelsea v. Wenticorth, 1 Win. 102 ; Earl WvneheUea v. Xor- cliffe, 1 Vern. 430. (m) Douglas v. Culverivell, 4 Do G. F. & J. 20. («) Benton v. Donner, 23 Beav. 285 . (o) Re Vnsworth'' s Trusts, 2 Dr. & Sm. 337 ; Doughs v. Culverivell, sup. ; Carter v. Palmer, 8 CI. & F. 657 ; Macleod v. Jones, W. N. (1884) p. 53. ( p) Williams v. Owen, 5 My & Cr. 303. (?) Mellor v. Lees, 2 Atk. 494. Floycr v. Lavington, 1 P. Wms. 268. See Bavis v. Thomas, 1 R. & My. 506. (r) Taylor v. Emerson, 4 Dr. & W. 117 ; Holmes v. Mathews, 9 Mo. P. C. 413. DEFEASIBLE AND CONDITIONAL PURCHASES. 23 ostensible owner of the estate, will lead the Court to treat the chapteb h. transaction as a sale (s) . The principles on which the Court acts in cases of conditional Principles on purchase is thus laid down by Lord Hardwicke (t) : — " There is act sux SU ch indeed a distinction in the nature of the transaction between a cases stated. power of redeeming and of repurchasing, obtained by usage, which governs the sense of words. But it is well known that the Court leans extremely against contracts of this kind, where the liberty of repurchasing is made at the same time concomi- tant with the grant, as it must be considered in this case, being part of the same transaction ; the Court going very unwillingly into that distinction, and endeavouring, if possible, to hold them to be cases of redemption. Although it is a different thing where the contract for liberty to repurchase is after a man has been for some time in possession of an estate and acting as owner under a purchase." An important consequence results from this distinction between Devolution of , t t .,i o T • purchase- a mortgage and a purchase with a proviso tor repurchase, viz., mc . nev on that in the latter case, if the party to whom the conveyance is repurchase, first made dies seised, and after his death the option is declared by the other party to take the estate, the purchase-money belongs to the heir, and not, as it would if it had been a mortgage, to the executor. Thus, upon an election to repurchase, the money was decreed to the heir in preference to the executors, on the ground that it was not the case of a mortgage, but a mere colla- teral agreement to repurchase («). It may be observed that, in cases of conditional sale or settle- No mutuality ment, there is no mutuality in point of remedy between the case f de- parties, inasmuch as though the vendor has the option of redeem- feasible P ur - . . . . •■ . , chase. ing by repaying the purchase-money and interest within the specified period, the purchaser has no right to compel such repayment, and therefore there can be no foreclosure. Equity will admit parol evidence to show that a conveyance, Parol evidence which is absolute in its terms, was intended by way of security oi transac- only (x). A case decided by Lord Chancellor Nottingham is tion - one of frequent reference (//) . A man agreed to lend money on (s) lull v. Owen, 4 Y. & C. Ex. 192 ; [x) England v. Codrington, 1 Ed. 169; Alderson v. White, 2 De Gr. & J. 97. Vernon v. Bethell, 2 Ed. 110 ; Reeks v. (t) In Longuet v. Scawen, 1 Ves. Sen. Postlethwaite, Gr. Coop. 161 ; Hodle v. 401, at p. 404. See Ftoyer v. Sherard, Mealey, 1 V. & B. 540 ; Barton v. Bank Amb. 18. of New South Wales, 15 App. Cas. 379. (u) Thornborough v. Baker, 3 Swanst. (g) Sir G. Maxwell v. Lady Monta- 628, 631. 24 NATURE, ETC. OF MORTGAGES GENERALLY. chaptee n. mortgage, and it was proposed, as was formerly practised, that the mortgagor should execute an absolute conveyance, and that there should at the same time be a deed of defeasance from the mortgagee. The mortgagor executed the conveyance, and then the mortgagee refused to execute the defeasance. Lord Nottingham (after the Statute of Frauds) admitted parol evi- dence to show the agreement, and decreed against the mort- gagee. So, where (s) an absolute conveyance is made for a certain sum of money, and the person to whom it is made, instead of entering and receiving the profits, demands interest for his money, and has it paid him, this will be admitted to explain the nature of the conveyance ; and if the conveyance be abso- lute, and a suit be brought to redeem, and the defendant swear it was an absolute purchase, nevertheless parol evidence will be admissible to show the contrary (a) . And an indorsement on the deed of conveyance, signed by the mortgagor only, is evi- dence to show the intent (b) ; as is also a note in writing signed by the parties (c) ; but in an instance where an absolute con- veyance for 80/. was made, and on bill filed to redeem, the defendant by his answer insisted that it was intended to be an absolute conveyance, without proviso and condition for redemption, but admitted that it was in trust after payment of the 80/. and interest for the plaintiff's wife and children, though no such trust was declared by writing ; the plaintiff insisted that, as the defendant had confessed he was not to have the estate absolutely and had not proved the trust, he, the plaintiff, was entitled to redeem. The Court, however, decreed the trust for the benefit of the plaintiff's wife and children ((/). In a case where husband and wife had made an absolute conveyance of the wife's real estate by way of sale with fine, and from subsequent deeds between the same parties, an in- ference might have been drawn that the original deeds were i ute, Free. Ch. 526. See also Walker v. lord Irnham v. Child, 1 Bro. C. C. 92 ; Walker, 2 Atk. 99 ; Young v. Peachey, 2 Cripps v. Jce, 4 Bro. C. C. 471 ; but see Atk. 254,257 ; Jouncsv. Statham, 3 Atk. Lord Port more v. Morris, 2 Bro.C. C. 218. 388 ; Dixon v. Parker, 2 Ves. Sen. 225 ; (a) Franckh/n v. Fern, Barn. Ch. R. In v. Wright, 4 De G. & J. 16; 30; Whitfield v. Tarfitt, 4 De G. & S. Gordon v. Selby, 11 Bli. N. S. 351; 240. Haigh v. Kaye, L. R. 7 Ch. A. 469; (/>) Francklyny. Fern, sup. Booth v. Turk, L. R. 16 Eq. 182. \c) Clench v. Witherley, Finch, 376. (?) Maxwell v. Montacute, Prec. Ch. (d) Hampton v. Spencer, 2 Vern. 288. 526 ; Card v. J affray, 2 Sch. & L. 374 ; DEFEASIBLE AND CONDITIONAL PURCHASES. 25 intended by way of mortgage, and there was a direct recital chapter n. of the fact in one of the deeds produced from the possession of the party claiming as purchaser; still, as there was no other direct evidence, and that deed was not signed by such party, and a great lapse of time had intervened, and the witnesses were all dead, the Court refused to interfere on behalf of the heir of the wife, who claimed to redeem, alleging that the effect of the deed had been only to pass an absolute estate during the life of the husband (c). In the case of a conveyance, which was absolute on the face of it, but of which the consideration was in fact a sum paid to the grantor's creditors, on a bill filed for a reconveyance, the grantee claimed the benefit of the securities as mortgagee ; the Court held that the grantee had mixed up the character of trustee, mortgagee and agent, and decreed an account, without allowing interest on either side,, and, although a small balance was found due to him, yet, on further directions, the Court refused to allow him interest on it, and decreed a reconveyance and payment of the balance then become due from him, and, he having lost some of his vouchers, refused him the costs of taking the account (/). It may be remarked, that • the circumstance of an agree- ment to reconvey, although entered into at the time of convey- ance, is not sufficient to convert the transaction into a mortgage if there be evidence to rebut the presumption (g). Upon the principle that the Statute of Frauds will not be Parol evidence allowed to cover fraud, parol evidence will be admissible to admissible as show that an equity of redemption reserved by the deed to one person really belongs to another, if the Court is persuaded that it is not honest for the party relying upon the statute to keep the property. So, where a wife, by a deed in form absolute, assigned to her husband a leasehold house belonging to her, which he mortgaged for payment of his own debts ; the wife joined with the husband in covenanting to pay the mortgage debt, but the equity of redemption was reserved to the husband alone. Parol evidence was admitted to show that the wife had assigned the house only to enable him to mortgage it in his own name, and that it was part of the arrangement between them that he should re-assign the equity of redemption to her (h). {e) Tull\. Owen, 4 Y. & C. Ex. 192. 306 ; Terry v. Meddowcroft, 4 Beav. (/) Price v. Price, 15 L. J. Ch. 13. 197. {g) Barrett v. Sabine, 1 Vera. 268; (h) Re Duke of Marlborough, Davis v. Williams v. Owen, 5 My. & Cr. Whitehead, (1894) 2 Ch. 133. ( 26 ) CHAPTER III. OF A WELSH MORTGAGE. i. — Different Kinds of Welsh Mortgages. — A Welsh mortgage in its original and strict form closely resembles the mortuum vadium described by Grlanville (a), being a conveyance of an estate redeemable at any time on payment of the principal without interest : the rents and profits of the estate until such redemption being taken without account by the mortgagee in lieu of interest (b). Another kind of Welsh mortgage, or security in the nature of a Welsh mortgage, rather resembling the ancient vivum vadium, is where an estate is assured to the mortgagee in fee or for a long term of years until out of the rents and profits he shall have received the amount of principal and interest. A third variation of this form of security is, where an estate is demised to the mortgagee for a short term of years, to the intent that he may take the rents and profits during the term in lieu and full satisfaction of principal and interest, with a proviso for redemption at any time during the term on payment of principal and interest then due. On the expiration of the term the property will revert to the mortgagor discharged from the debt. Although a lease granted in consideration of a loan of money is impeachable, yet it has been held that a lease granted as a security for a loan at a fair rent to be retained in payment of the debt is valid, and the Court will not enter into an inquiry as to the value of the rent after long acquiescence on the part of the debtor ; and such a lease is in the nature of a Welsh mortgage (c). But in the case here referred to a renewed lease, granted before the expiration of the old lease, (a) Lib. 10, cap. 6. (c) Moroni/ v. O'Dea, 1 Ba. & Be. \b) See Talbot v. Braddyl, 1 Vem. 109. 394. NATURE, ETC. OF WELSH MORTGAGES. 27 at the old rent, to secure the balance then due and a further chapter m - loan, and which was, on the face of it, at an undervalue, was set aside as fraudulent, and the mortgagee made to account from that time for the full value of the premises ; and, as being guilty of a fraud, was refused costs. ii, — Nature and Characteristics of Welsh Mortgages. — These various forms of security have certain incidents in common. The mortgagee has no power to compel redemption, nor any right to foreclosure, though the mortgagor may redeem at any time (d). No covenant for payment of the debt is usually inserted in the mortgage deed (e), and, in the absence of such a covenant, whether a contract for payment of the money is to be implied so as to enable the mortgagee to sue for the debt would seem to depend on the form of the security taken in the particular case (,/'). The presence of a covenant to pay the principal and interest on demand is not such a limitation of the time as to lead to forfeiture, and so let in foreclosure (g). The position of a mortgagee, to whom an estate is conveyed Relation of until he shall have received principal and interest out of the m ort^a°or rents and profits, was compared by Lord Hardwicke (/>) to a under Welsh • • morts'ci^c. tenancy by elegit, so that as soon as the principal and interest were satisfied the estate ceased and the mortgagor might main- tain ejectment, unless the mortgagee had remained in possession twenty years (now twelve years (/)) after the debt was satisfied, at which time the Statute of Limitations would have begun to run ; which circumstance would also bar the mortgagor of any equity of redemption (/.•). And his Lordship said that the mortgagor had the same right as the conusor under the elegit had, to come into a Court of Equity for an account of the rents and profits ; nor would the Court relieve the mortgagee from his own contract and agreement of being subject to a perpetual account (/>) . In Ilartpole v. Walsh (I), a bill to redeem a mortgage in the nature of a Welsh mortgage was dismissed in the Irish Chancery, (d) Talbot v. Braddyl, 1 Vern. 394 ; mins, 2 Ir. Eq. R. 261. Howell v. Price, Pr. Ch. 423. See (h) Yates v. Hambly, 2 Atk. 362. Longuet v. Scawen, 1 Ves. S. 402. (i) 37 & 38 Vict. 'c. 57, s. 7, post (e) Lawley v. Hooper, 3 Atk. 280; p. 742. King v. King, 3 P. Wms. 361. (k) And see 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27, (/) Infra, -p. 29. S. 28. \ff) Curtis v. Holcombe, 6 L. J. N. S. {I) 5 Bro. P. C. 267. Ch. 156. And see O'Connell v. Cum- 28 WELSH MORTGAGES. chapter m. an( j on appeal to the House of Lords the judgment was affirmed ; but in that particular case a second mortgage had been made to the same party, by which the mortgagor had agreed to repay the whole debt at any time after eighteen months' notice, and it was admitted that the notice had long since been given ; which reduced it to the case of a common mortgage. But in a later case, Lord Lyndhurst considered the decision in the last-men- tioned case to have been made on the ground of the impossibility of taking the long and complicated accounts after the lapse of ninety years, and that the redemption suit had not been pro- secuted with reasonable dispatch (>n). In that case a reversion in fee, expectant on a life estate, had been demised for a term of 500 years, with a proviso for redemption on payment of the mortgage debt, but without any definite time fixed for payment, and the mortgagor covenanted to pay the mortgage debt on demand, and that until payment the mortgagee might enter and enjoy the premises. Lord Lyndhurst held this to be in the nature of a Welsh mortgage, and dismissed a bill filed for foreclosure (»/). Time no bar In a case where the transaction appeared to be in the nature to redemption. of & Welgh mortgage? Lo rd Eldon observed that time would be no bar to redemption, unless it were proved that the party had held over for the space of twenty years (now twelve years) after the debt was fully paid and satisfied ; that if it was not a case in which length of time alone would operate as a bar to redemp- tion, the question still remained whether there were not circum- stances to raise the presumption of a release from the long possession of the mortgagee. The question was submitted to a jury, who found a verdict for the mortgagor, which was sustained (w). Although by s. 28 of 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27, as subsequently noticed (o), the right of redemption by a mortgagor was lost at the end of twenty years (now reduced to twelve) (p) next after the mortgagee takes possession, unless there has been some inter- mediate acknowledgment of right, yet it is conceived that this enactment cannot apply to the case of Welsh mortgages (in which the original stipulation is, that the mortgagee shall hold and receive the rents until his debt is satisfied) unless twenty (now twelve) years shall have elapsed from the period when, by (m) Teulon v. Curtis, Yo. 619. (o) See post, pp. 740 et seq. (») Fenvnek v. Reed, 1 Mer. 114. \p) 37 & 38 Vict. c. 57, s. 7. RIGHTS, ETC. OF PARTIES. 29 the receipt of the rents, the mortgage debt and interest might CHAPTEB m - have been paid (q) . In one case time was held to be no bar to redemption, although upwards of sixty years had elapsed since the mortgagee took possession (r). iii. — Rights and Liabilities of Parties under Welsh Mortgages. How far the — With regard to the personal liability of the mortgagor to personally 1S repay the amount advanced, the effect would appear to be liable for different according to the form of the security adopted. In the case of a Welsh mortgage proper, it is conceived that an action of debt for the principal would lie as in the case of an ordinary mortgage (s) ; though not apparently in respect of interest, the receipt of the rents and profits being, by the terms of the con- tract, in lieu and satisfaction of interest. In a case (t) of an ordinary mortgage, without any covenant to pay the debt, Lord Chancellor Talbot was of opinion that every mortgage implies a loan, and that every loan implies a debt, and that though there were no covenant or bond, yet the personal estate of the borrower remained liable to pay off the mortgage, and his lordship said that this was so in the case of Welsh mortgages, where no day certain is appointed for payment, but the matter is left at large. Where the security is in the nature of a Welsh mortgage in the form whereby the rents and profits are to be taken by the mortgagee until all that is due to him for principal and interest is satisfied, all personal liability of the borrower appears to be necessarily excluded by the nature of the agreement between the parties. And where it was agreed in writing that, in consideration of an advance, the borrower should let certain land to the lender for six years, the borrower to get back his lands on repayment of the advance, but there was no express agreement by the borrower to repay the money lent, it was held that there was no personal liability on the borrower to do so, and that an action of debt brought by the representatives of the lender after the expiration of the term could not be sustained (m). A further point arises in respect of the mortgagee's liability Mortgagee's liability to account. (q) Fenwick v. Seed, 1 Mer. 114. (t) King v. King, 3 P. Wms. 361. (r) OrdcY. Heming, 1 Vern. 418. (w) Cassidg v. Cassidy, 24 L. R. Ir. (*) See ante, p. 10. 577. 30 WELSH MORTGAGES. CHAPTER III. "Where rents are taken in lieu of interest. Where rents taken are to he applied in reduction of principal. Determina- tion of mort- gage for term. Trustees may effect Welsh mortgage. to account. This, again, would seem to depend upon the precise nature of the security in question. Where the mortgage is a Welsh mortgage properly so called, i. c, where by the terms of the mortgage contract it is agreed that the mortgagee shall take the rents and profits of the land in lieu of interest until the mortgagor thinks fit to redeem, it appears unreasonable to suppose that the Court would direct an account, and by so doing relieve the mortgagor of a bargain in its terms determinable at his own instance. It is true that in some cases (x), where the accrual of rents and profits was equivalent to the payment of an excessive rate of interest, the Court has directed an account to be taken, and upon this it has been assumed that the Court would be willing to do so in every instance at the present day ; it is to be observed, however, that the decisions referred to were all of them previous in date to the repeal of the usury laws (//) , and it may be doubted whether they would now carry the weight attributed to them. Where, however the mortgage is of a kind requiring the mortgagee to apply the rents and profits in reduction of the principal sum advanced and interest, whether it be of the fee or for a term of years, it would seem that a direction that an account be taken would be incident to an action for redemption by the mortgagor, just as in the case of an action against a mortgagee in possession under an ordinary mortgage (z). Although in the case of a Welsh mortgage of the fee or for a long term of years, the security will invariably be terminated by redemption on the part of the mortgagor, a Welsh mortgage for a short term of years may determine by effluxion of time, in which case the liability of the mortgagee to account would apparently depend upon the intention of the parties as expressed or to be inferred from the terms of the contract. It has been decided in an Irish case that a trustee empowered to raise money by mortgage may effect a Welsh mortgage (a) ; such mortgages appear, however, to have been formerly very common in Ireland (b) . {x) Fulthorpe v. Foster, 1 Vera. 477. See Ahkrson v. White, 2 De G. & J. 97; L<, ><"' v. Scawen, 1 Vcs. Sen. 403; Balfe v. Lord, 2 Dr. & War. 480. (y) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 90. (z) See Teuton v. Curtis, To. 619. (a) Gorman v. Byrne, 8 Ir. Com. L. 394. (b) See JIartpole v. Walsh, 5 Bro. P. C. 267, at p. 275. RIGHTS, ETC. OF PARTIES. 31 CHAPTER III. The continuing right of redemption incident to a Welsh mortgage would apparently be sufficient to prevent the power of Whether sale given to mortgagees by sect. 19, sub-sect. (1) of the Con- powers of sale veyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, from applying to ^If/ such a security. Having regard to the fact that the defini- gages, tion of "mortgage" in sect. 2 of that Act includes a " charge," it would seem that such powers and provisions of the Act relating to mortgages as are not inconsistent with the nature of Welsh mortgages will be applicable thereto. ( 32 ) CHAPTER IY. OF ANNUITY DEEDS. Grants of repurchase- able annuities by way of security. Presumption in equity of right to redeem. Notice of intention to repurchase. i i mal covenant for payment. i. — Nature and Incidents of the Security. — A form of security for repayment of money advanced, which was formerly exten- sively used and is still adopted hy some insurance societies, is that of a grant not of the estate itself, but of an annuity or rentcharge arising thereout, with a power of repurchasing the same on payment of a specified sum. The Courts of Equity were formerly strongly inclined to regard grants of annuities, where the power of repurchasing is given at the same time with the grant and as part of the same transaction, as being contracts not for absolute sale, but for securing a loan, and have therefore, as far as possible, dis- regarded any conditions as to time or mode of repayment, and treated the grants as liable to redemption in like manner as mortgages (a). A ground for this construction arises, when the deed contains a stipulation for notice to be given of the grantor's intention to repurchase, and for repayment of the original purchase-money, with all arrears of the annuity, and a half-year's payment in addition, so as to allow ample time to find out another hand to take the money, and to secure the interest in the meantime (b). The fact of there being an immediate remedy by covenant or otherwise against the person of the grantor, while there is no present remedy against the property (as in the ordinary power of distress and entry after default in payment for twenty-eight days), leads to an inference that the estate is only meant as a security (c). But, on the other hand, the express exemption of the grantor from all personal liability (which renders the case very similar to a Welsh mortgage) does not affect the right of (a) Longuet v. .Sen inn, 1 Ves. Sen. 404 ; Floyer v. Sherdrd, Amb. 18. See i State for India v. British I < Mm, ,,il Life Ass. Co., 67 L. T. 434, C. A. (b) Verner v. Win&tanley, 2 Sch. & L. 293 ; Laivley v. Hooper, 3 Atk. 278. (c) Bulwer v. Astley, 1 Ph. 422 ; Kenney v. Lynch, 2 J. & L. 330. REMEDIES OF ANNUITANTS. 'S3 redemption (d) ; though in some cases the absence of a covenant CHAPTER IV - for payment has led the Court to treat the transaction as an absolute sale of the annuity, subject to a power of repurchase, the conditions of which must be strictly observed (e). In Bulwer v. Astley (/), all the above circumstances occurred in favour of the right of redemption ; and it may be observed that in all the above cases the right of repurchase was not limited to any particular time. In cases of this nature, the heir of the grantee, where the annuity is limited to the heirs, is a trustee for the executor (g) . At the present time, it would seem that the Court will not Evidence of treat a grant of an annuity with power to repurchase as a mere transaction, redeemable security for a debt or loan without clear proof that such was the nature of the transaction (//). Redeemable annuities are now seldom given except by tenants Form of for life, in which cases the form of the annuity deed usually to se cure consists of the grant of an annuity for a life or lives, or for a advances. term of years determinable upon a life or lives with a covenant by the grantor to pay the annuity. ii. — Remedies of Annuitants. — Formerly an annuity deed Powers of usually contained express powers of distress and entry upon the lands charged with the annuity, and a demise of the land to trustees for a term of years upon trusts to secure the annuity. When an annuity is secured in the usual way by a power of entry in the annuitant and a trust term in the trustee, the power of entry is not inconsistent, even at law, with the term, and if the grantor, under the provisions of the annuity deed, becomes tenant to the trustee of the term at a rent, the annuitant can, upon default made in payment of the annuity for the period specified, bring an action against the grantor under the power of entry ; but ejectment will not lie by the trustee of the term, without notice to quit first given to the grantor. It would seem that the power of entry would not be exerciseable after a mortgage made by the trustee under the trusts of the term (/). (d) Longuet v. Scaivcn, 1 Ves. Sen. (g) Longuet v. Scawen, 1 Ves. Sen. 404 ; but see Williams v. Owen, 5 404. My. & Or. 303. (/<) See Knox v. Turner, L. R. 5 Ch. (e) Mellor v. Lees, 2 Atk. 494; A. 515 ; Preston v. Neele, 12 Ch. D. 760. Floyer v. Lavington, 1 P. Wms. 268. (i) Doe v. Lord Kensington, 8 Q. B. (/) 1 Ph. 422. 429. VOL. I. R. D 34 ANNUITY DEEDS. CHAPTEE IV. Remedies for recovery of annual sums charged on land. Now, however, by the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (£), it is enacted as follows : — ■ S. 44. — (1.) "Where a person is entitled to receive out of any land, or out of the income of any land, any annual sum, payable half- yearly, or otherwise, whether charged on the land or on the income of the land, and whether by way of rentcharge or otherwise, not being rent incident to a reversion, then, subject and without pre- judice to all estates, interests, and rights having priority to the annual sum, the person entitled to receive the same shall have such remedies for recovering and compelling payment of the same as are described in this section, as far as those remedies might have been conferred by the instrument under which the annual sum arises, but not further. (2.) If at any time the annual sum or any part thereof is unpaid for twentj -one days next after the time appointed for any payment in respect thereof, the person entitled to receive the annual sum may enter into and distrain on the land charged or any part thereof, and dispose according to law of any distress found, to the intent that thereby or otherwise the annual sum and all arrears thereof, and all costs and expenses occasioned by non-payment thereof, may be fully paid. (3.) If at any time the annual sum or any part thereof is unpaid for forty days next after the time appointed for any payment in respect thereof, then, although no legal demand has been made for paj^ment thereof, the person entitled to receive the annual sum may enter into possession of and hold the land charged or any part thereof, and take the income thereof, until thereby or otherwise the annual sum and all arrears thereof due at the time of his entry, or afterwards becoming due during his continuance in possession, and all costs and expenses occasioned by non-payment of the annual sum, are fully paid ; and such possession when taken shall be without impeachment of waste. (4.) In the like case the person entitled to the annual charge, whether taking possession or not, may also by deed demise the land charged, or any part thereof, to a trustee for a term of years, with or without impeachment of waste, on trust, by mortgage, or sale, or demise for all or any part of the term, of the land charged, or of any part thereof, or by receipt of the income thereof, or by all or any of those means, or by any other reasonable means, to raise and pay the annual sum and all arrears thereof due or to become due, and all costs and expenses occasioned by non-payment of the annual sum, or incurred in compelling or obtaining payment thereof, or otherwise relating thereto, including the costs of the preparation and execution of the deed of demise, and the costs of the execution of the trusts of that deed ; and the surplus, if any, of the money raised, or of the income received, under the trusts of that deed shall be paid to the person for the time being entitled to the land therein comprised in reversion immediately expectant on the term thereby created. (5.) This section applies only if and as far as a contrary intention (/■) 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41. REGISTRATION OF ANNUITIES. 35 is not expressed in the instrument under which the annual sum chapter rv. arises, and shall have effect subject to the terms of that instrument and to the provisions therein contained. (6.) This section applies only where that instrument comes into operation after the commencement of this Act. (7.) This section does not extend to Ireland. iii. — Registration of Annuities. — The Annuity Act (I), which Grant of required the enrolment of grants of annuities or rentcharges un i essre . for life or lives, or term of years, or greater estate determin- P? 8t ^ re ff?£j able on lives, was founded on the principle that life annuities, as offering the means of evading the laws against usury, required to be watched with peculiar jealousy. When the usury laws were repealed (by 17 & 18 Yict. c. 90) the Annuity Act shared the same fate ; but by 18 & 19 Vict. c. 15, s. 12 (1855), after the passing of the Act, unless a memorandum is registered at the Common Pleas (now at the Central Office (m) ) in the name of the grantor any annuity or rentcharge, granted after the passing of the Act (otherwise than by marriage settlement) for one or more life or lives, or for any term of years, or greater estate determinable on one or more life or lives, shall not affect any lands, tenements, or hereditaments as to purchasers, mort- gagees, or creditors, unless or until a memorandum or minute containing the name, place of abode, and title, trade or pro- fession of the person whose estate is intended to be affected thereby, and the date of the instrument by which the annuity is granted, and the annual sum or sums to be paid, be left at the Central Office for registration according to the Act. By s. 14 it is provided that the Act shall not extend to require the registry of annuities or rentcharges given by will. It was held, on the construction of the last-mentioned Act, Effect of omission to that want of registration does not make a grant of an annuity register, void as against a subsequent purchaser or incumbrancer who had notice of it, or as against the trustee in bankruptcy of the grantor (i/). (0 53 Geo. III. c. 141. («) Greaves v. TofieU, 14 Ch.D. 563, (m) 42 & 43 Vict. c. 78, ss. 4, 5. C. A. D2 ( 36 ) CHAPTER V. OF STOCK MORTGAGES. What are stock mort- gages. Whether trustees may- lend on stock mortgage. Loans of stock lawful. Stock in the public funds may be the subject of loan. Mort- gages so framed as to secure the replacement of stock lent are usually known as stock mortgages. During the war in the early part of the century, when the price of stock was so low as to yield more than 5 per cent, interest on the money invested, stock mortgages were frequent, and almost superseded money mortgages ; since the repeal of the usury laws (a) they have nearly disappeared. One case in which they are sometimes employed is that of trustees who have no power to lend on mortgage, but are desirous to accommodate cestuis que trust with a loan of money, and to secure the re-purchase of the exact sum of stock sold instead of the repayment of the sum of money advanced. Such a loan, being a transaction by which a less perfect security is substituted for a more perfect one, is not a proper investment of trust funds, unless expressly authorized by the instrument creating the trust (b). A loan of stock was lawful, notwithstanding the Stock Jobbing Act (c) . The parties may agree that a sum of money equal to the dividends shall be paid in the meantime, although the dividends shall exceed 5 per cent, on the money produced by the sale of the stock ; for the lender takes the hazard of the rise and fall of the market price, and if an action is brought on a bond given as a security for the transfer of stock, in esti- mating the measure of damages, the lender will be entitled to recover the highest value of the stock on the day of trial ( to regis- tration. enactment, of course, does not apply when the married woman is entitled to the charge for her separate use in equity, or as her separate property by statute (d). iS. 46. "Any person registered in the place of a deceased or bankrupt proprietor shall hold the charge in respect of which he is registered upon the trusts and for the purposes to which the same is applicable by law, and subject to any unregistered estates, rights, interests, or equities, subject to which the deceased or bankrupt proprietor held the same ; but, save as aforesaid, he shall, in all respects, and, in particular, as respects any registered dealings with such land or charge, be in the same position as if he had taken such land or charge under a transfer, for a valuable consideration." S. 47. " The fact of any person having become entitled to any land or charge in consequence of the death or bankruptcy of any registered proprietor, or of the marriage of any female proprietor, shall be proved in the prescribed manner " (e). S. 49. " The registered proprietor alone shall be entitled to transfer or charge registered land by a registered disposition ; but, subject to the maintenance of the estate and right of such proprietor, any person, whether the registered proprietor or not of any regis- tered land, having a sufficient estate or interest in such land, may create estates, rights, interests, and equities in the same manner as he might do if the land were not registered ; and any person entitled to or interested in any unregistered estates, rights, interests, or equities in registered land may protect the same from being impaired by any act of the registered proprietor by entering on the register such notices, cautions, inhibitions, or other restrictions as are in this Act in that behalf mentioned. ' ' The registered proprietor alone shall be entitled to transfer a registered charge by a registered disposition ; but, subject to the maintenance of the right of such proprietor, unregistered interests in a registered charge may be created in the same manner and with the same incidents, so far as the difference of the subject-matter admits, in and with which unregistered estates and interests may be created in registered land." By ss. 78 and 79, if any certificate of charge is lost, mislaid, or destroyed, the registrar, upon being satisfied of the fact, may grant a new certificate of charge in the place of the former one, and, upon the delivery up to him of a certificate of charge, may grant a new one in its place. By s. 80, any certificate of charge shall be prima facie evidence of the several matters therein contained {/)■ S. 83. " The following enactments shall be made with respect to registration of title : — (1.) There shall not be entered on the register or be receivable by the registrar, any notice of any trust, implied, express, or constructive ; and (2.) No person shall be registered as proprietor of any undivided share in any land or charge, and a number of persons exceeding the prescribed number (y) shall not be registered (d) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 75. (e) The proof is to be to the satis- faction of the registrar : Rule 25. (/) See Rule 35. (g) The prescribed number is now four persons : rule 37. LAND TRANSFER ACT, 1875. 41 as proprietors of the same charge, and if the numher of chapter vi. persons showing title exceeds such prescribed number, such of them, not exceeding the prescribed number, as may be agreed upon, or as the registrar may in case of difference decide, shall be registered as proprietors ; and (3.) Upon the occasion of the registry of two or more persons as proprietors of the same land or of the same charge, an entry may, with their consent, be made on the register, to the effect that, when the number of such proprietors is reduced below a certain specified number, no registered disposition of such charge shall be made, except under the order of the Court." S. 98. "Subject to the provisions in this Act contained with respect Fraudulent to registered dispositions for valuable consideration, any disposition dispositions, of land or of a charge on land, which if unregistered would be fraudulent and void, shall, notwithstanding registration, be fraudu- lent and void in like manner." Under the Land Kegistry Act, 1862 (/*), which, as regards Right of registration of mortgages, &c, is virtually superseded by the f rom fi rst Act of 1875, it was held that a purchaser of property registered mor te a gee to with an indefeasible title from a first registered mortgagee is entitled under the Act to be registered with an indefeasible title, the right of the subsequent registered mortgagees of the original mortgagor being only against the surplus purchase- money (i). The provisions of the Land Transfer Act, 1875, have not, as yet, had any great practical effect; and titles registered under this Act, and conveyances, by way of mortgage or other- wise, of land thus registered are not often met with in practice. Bills to amend and extend the provisions of this Act, whereby it is proposed to render compulsory the registration of titles and conveyances, have been of late years repeatedly introduced into Parliament, but, so far, without passing into law. (h) 25 & 26 Vict. c. 53. (i) Re Richardson, L. R. 12 Eq. 398 ; 13 Eq. 142. ( 42 ) CHAPTER VII. OF EQUITABLE MORTGAGES. Mortgage of equity of redemption. Agreement for morto-ag-e. Deposit of deeds. Further advances. L' gal estate outstanding. Section I. Of the different Modes by which an Equitable Mortgage may be created. An equitable mortgage to secure a past debt or a present advance may be made : — (1.) By a formal mortgage of tbe equity of redemption in property, when the legal estate is vested in a prior mortgagee. (2.) By an agreement or any charge or other writing, how- ever informal, which indicates with sufficient certainty the intention to create a mortgage security, provided that in the case of land such agreement or charge is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Statute of Frauds. (3.) By a deposit with the creditor of deeds, copies of court rolls, or other documents of title, either with or with- out a memorandum of charge, by way of security for payment of the debt or loan. An equitable mortgage may be given to secure a present loan and future advances (a) . An equitable mortgagee may obtain ex parte an injunction restraining the mortgagor from parting with the legal estate, if not already outstanding (b). (a) Ex parte Heafhcote, 1 Fonbl. (/>) London and County Bank v. Lewis, N. R. 42. 21 Ch. D. 490. GENERALLY. 43 CHAPTER TO. Section II. Of a Mortgage of an Equity of Redemption. i, — Natures and Incidents of Mortgage of Equity of Redemp- Nature of tion. — An equity of redemption is, as will be seen hereafter (c), redemption. an estate or interest of which the mortgagor, until decree of foreclosure, is possessed of his ancient and original right, and accordingly may be the subject of mortgage toties quo ties. Where successive mortgages are made of an equity of redemp- First mort- tion, subject to a prior legal mortgage, the first mortgagee, on ofns\rustee beins' paid off, becomes a trustee of the legal estate for any ° f le ? al estate -I ■ t ii • • • for subse- subsequent incumbrancers according to their priorities, and is quent incum- accordingly bound to convey the estate to the second mortgagee, brancers - who has the best right to call for it : he must not convey the estate to a subsequent mortgagee so as to alter the priorities of successive equitable incumbrancers (d) . A second mortgagee may, upon the first mortgagee being paid Action to off by the mortgagor, bring an action to obtain a conveyance or ^g^ceof " assignment of the legal estate, although an actual tender has le g al estate, been made to him by the mortgagor of the money due on the second mortgage, and even although a decree for redemption has been obtained, until the time fixed by the decree for redemp- tion has arrived, though such a course will probably fix him with costs, if the mortgagee has had his proper notice of six months before tender made (e). A loan on the security of a mortgage of an equity of redemp- Disadvan- tion is attended with certain serious risks and disadvantages. morteajrea As between mere equitable incumbrancers, it is a maxim in of equity of equity — qui prior est tempore, potior est jure (f). On this prin- ciple each mortgagee of the equity of redemption has preference according to his priority in time (g). But there is another important principle that must be borne Liability to be in mind, viz., that where equities are equal, the law must pre- ^^^^^° vail (A) . The consequence is, that a mortgagee of the equity of incumbrancer redemption may be postponed to a subsequent mortgagee, who, the legal estate. (c) See post, p. 627. and see Wiltshire v. Babbits, 14 Sim. (d) Sharpies v. Adams, 32 Beav. 212. 76 ; Hooper v. Harrison, 2 K. & J. (e) Grugcon v. Gerrard, 4 Y. & C. 100 ; Lee v. Jloivktt, 2 K. & J. 531 ; Ex. 119. Consolidated, §c. Co. v. Itilcy, 1 Giff. (/) Brace x. Duchess of Marlborough, 371. 2 P. Wms. 491; Wilmott v. Pike, 5 (g) See post, pp. 1236 et seq. Ha. 14 ; Jones v. Jones, 8 Sim. 633 ; \h) Francis's 14th Maxim. 44 MOETGAGE OF AN EQUITY OF REDEMPTION. CHAPTER Til. Liability to be ousted by tackin°\ Liability to let in dower. No remedy at law for enforcing 1 charge. Liability to foreclosure by legal mortgagee. having advanced his money without notice, afterwards (although then with notice) obtains possession of the legal estate. lTrom this results a disadvantage and even danger in taking a mort- gage of an equity of redemption, against which it is difficult to guard. Another disadvantage attending a mortgage of an equity of redemption is, that the first mortgagee may, previously to the second mortgage, or even subsequently to it if without notice, make further advances to the mortgagor, all of which (as also judgment or statute debts) (/), he will, as hereafter explained (/.), be entitled to tack to his original mortgage in preference to the subsequent mortgagee. To guard against this mischief, it is incumbent on a person lending money on an equity of redemp- tion, first to make inquiry of the prior mortgagee into the amount of his demand and inspect the title deeds in his posses- sion, and, secondly, to give him express notice of the proposed mortgage. And it will be advisable, if practicable, i. e., if the first mortgagee will permit, to put notice of the second mortgage on the principal title deed, such as the conveyance to the mort- gagor or the like, or on the first mortgage deed ; for otherwise the mortgagor might redeem the first mortgage, and convey the legal estate to a stranger without notice, who would thus gain a preference to the prior equitable mortgagee. Another disadvantage attending a mortgage of an equity of redemption is, that if the mortgagor shall afterwards redeem and take a conveyance to himself, he will, it may be thought, let in his widow's right to dower, in preference to the equitable mort- gagee. A further disadvantage is, that the mortgagee has not the legal remedy, so far as respects the estate, for enforcing pay- ment of principal or interest, by bringing an action against the mortgagor or bis tenant for recovery of possession of the mortgaged property, now substituted for the old action of ejectment, but is driven to seek relief in equity. Again, inasmuch as a second mortgagee is subject to fore- closure equally with the mortgagor at the hands of the first mortgagee, a mortgagee of an equity of redemption may find himself obliged, in order to preserve his security, to redeem the first mortgagee, and so be compelled to advance a larger sum (i) Brace v. Duchess of Marlborough, 2 P. Wins. 491. (k) See post, pp. 1219 et seq. GENERALLY. 45 than he had originally contemplated, or perhaps than he may chapter to. then be prepared to lend. Or, upon proceeding to foreclose, the first mortgagee may Liability to , . . . , ,. , . , . .,i consolidation possibly be in a position to consolidate his mortgage with by legal mortgages upon other property of the mortgagor (/), in which mortgagee, case the mortgagee of the equity of redemption will have to provide for a still greater outlay in order to preserve his security, and will also be exposed to the risk of losing his security entirely, should such other property of the mortgagor prove to be an inadequate security for the mortgages made upon it. A further disadvantage is that a mortgagee of an equity of No right i to redemption is not entitled to the title deeds to the property mortgaged, which follow the legal estate into the hands of the first mortgagee. On this account, in the absence of the pre- caution above suggested, a mortgagee of an equity of redemption is constantly subjected to the risk of being postponed to a stranger obtaining the legal estate from the first mortgagee without such notice of that charge as would be imputed to a person taking such conveyance without requiring the title deeds to be handed over, or their absence accounted for (m). Another disadvantage, against which no prudence can guard, Fraudulent is, that the mortgagor may secretly have executed prior mort- of p ri ' or in _ gages of the equity. For so gross a fraud the legislature has cumbrance. enacted that his right of redemption shall be utterly lost. By the statute 4 & 5 Will. III. c. 16, it is, in effect, enacted that if any person shall mortgage any lands, and again mortgage the same lands or any part thereof to another mortgagee, and shall not discover the first mortgage to the second mortgagee, he shall have no equity of redemption against the second mortgagee, who may hold the mortgaged lands free from such equity, as if he had acquired them by absolute purchase. It will be seen that the language of the statute is confined to a second mortgage of the same lands, and that the legislature does not appear to have contemplated that other estates might be also comprised in the second mortgage. To such cases it has been held, in Stafford v. Selby (n), that the statute, being penal, does not apply, unless the property joined with the equity of redemp- tion is so inconsiderable that its introduction into the mortgage (/) See post, Chap. XLIII. p. 855, (m) See post, pp. 1310 et scq. as to consolidation. (») 3 Vern. 589. 46 MORTGAGE OF AN EQUITY OF REDEMPTION. CHAPTER VII. Liability of mortgagor or his solicitor to criminal proceedings. was palpably fraudulent, and for the mere purpose of affording a pretext for the evasion of the statute. The same case also determined that, to comply with the directions of the statute, the mortgagor must give the second mortgagee notice in writing under his hand of all the prior incumbrances ; and that an assignee of the second mortgage, as well as a subsequent mortgagee redeeming the second mortgage, has the benefit of the statute ; but that to entitle a second mortgagee to the advantage of the statute, he must come into Court with clean hands and free from fraud. The statute does not give a right to the second mortgagee to come actively into Court to enforce the forfeiture ; and in order to bring the Act into operation, both the first and second mort- gages must be, in the strictest sense, mortgages reserving a right of redemption (o). The forfeiture will not arise so long as there is a legal right to redeem, but only after the stipulated time for redemption has passed, and therefore the equity of redemption alone remains (/;). By a more recent statute (g), it is enacted that any seller or mortgagor, or the solicitor or agent of such, who conceals any settlement, deed, will, or other instrument material to the title, or any incumbrance, from the purchaser or mortgagee, or who falsifies any pedigree on which the title does or may depend in order to induce him to accept the title, with intent to defraud, is guilty of misdemeanour, and also liable to an action for damages at the suit of the purchaser or mortgagee ; but no prosecution is to be commenced without the sanction of the Attorney-General, or, if that office be vacant, of the Solicitor- General. This section, it is conceived, can only apply to the fraudulent concealment of an existing incumbrance, nor will the vendor's solicitor be criminally responsible if he suppress a mere equitable charge, which has been satisfied, or which no longer affects the title (r). Where there is a condition of sale that no title to the property sold shall be shown before a certain date, semble, that the above Acts do not apply to the omission of an incumbrance prior to that date («)-. But there is no fraudulent concealment of a claim (o) Kennard v. Futvoye, 2 Giff. 81. See Clark v. Hoskins, 15 W. R. 11G1. \p) Dav. Conv. (4th ed.) Vol. II. pt. ii. p. 5. (q) 22 & 23 Vict. c. 35, s. 24, as amended by 23 & 24 Vict. c. 38, s. 8. (>■) Dart & Barb. V. & P. (6th ed.) Vol. I., p. 344. (s) Smith v. Robinson, 13 Ch. D. 148. GENERALLY. 47 equity. when the person is under no obligation to disclose it, as a witness chapter vh. under examination (/). Independently of statutory enactment, a mortgagor or his Liability in solicitor, who fraudulently conceals an incumbrance on the property which is known to him, is liable in equity to a subse- quent mortgagee or purchaser (it). Where the existence of a legal mortgage was concealed by the mortgagor from a purchaser for value, it was held that the mortgagee was entitled to a decree of foreclosure against the purchaser, and that the latter could not avail himself of a reconveyance to the mortgagor, which, having been obtained by fraud, was declared null and void {%). Where an incumbrance has been omitted from an abstract by the vendor, though through ignorance, he must pay it off, and cannot rescind the contract under the clause enabling the vendor to rescind if he declines to comply with any requisi- tion (y). On the same principle, false or incorrect representations as to incumbrances must be made good, even where the representation is made by a stranger without any intention of fraud (s), as where the representative of a mortgagor asserted that part of the mortgage had been transferred to other property (a). term. ii, — Mortgage of Reversion expectant on Mortgage Term. — Disadvaa- A legal reversion expectant on a mortgage term must not be m ort°-a°-e of confounded with an equity of redemption. A mortgage in fee, reversion 1 J y . expectant on therefore, after a mortgage for a term of years, will, of course, mortgage take precedence of mere equitable incumbrances upon the term. But even to a mortgage of such a nature, without some degree of precaution, a degree of hazard attaches, for the first mortgagee may continue to make advances to the mortgagor after the date of the mortgage in fee, either on his original security, or on judgment or statute security ; all of which he will be entitled to tack, unless he had notice of the second mortgage ; and even a subsequent mortgagee of the mere equity of redemption might obtain an advantage over the mortgagee of the legal reversion It) Bolt v. White, 3DeG. J. &S. 360. (.v) Heath v. Crealock, L. R. 10 Ch. (m) Arnot v. Biscoe, 1 Ves. Sen. 94 ; A. 22. Evans v. Bicknell, 6 Ves. 174 ; Burrowes [y) lie Jackson and Oahshott, 14 Ch. V. Loch, 10 Ves. 470; Richards v. Barton, D. 851. 1 Esp. 268. See Edgington v. Fitz- (z) Slim v. Croucher, 1 De G. F. & maurice, 39 Ch. D. 459, C. A. (liability J. 518. of directors of joint stock company). (a) Att.-Gcn. v. Cox, 3 H. L. C. 240. 4S AGREEMENT FOE MORTGAGE. cnAPTEE vrr. "by procuring an assignment of the first mortgage, to which he might tack his equitable charge if he had not notice of the intervening mortgage at the time of advancing his money. To guard against the first of these dangers, it is proper for the mortgagee of the legal reversion to make the like inquiries of the mortgagee of the term, and to give him the like notice, as above mentioned, in the case of a mortgage of the equity of redemption. And against the second danger, the notice to the first mortgagee might be of service (b). Agreement to borrow or lend not specifically enforceable. Specific per- formance of agreement to secure past debts. Section III. Of Agreements for Mortgages. i. — As to Specific Performance, &c. of Agreements for Mort- gages. — Specific performance will not be enforced of a mere agreement either to borrow (c) or to lend (d) on mortgage so long as it remains executory, without any performance of the terms of the agreement by either the lender or the borrower. But the Court will specifically enforce an agreement to give security for a past debt in consideration of forbearance (e), or for money actually advanced before or at the time of the agree- ment (/), unless the borrower is prepared to pay off the money. Such an agreement, however, if it relates to land, is within the Statute of Frauds, and, except in the case of a deposit of deeds (r/), must be evidenced by a sufficient memorandum in writing to satisfy the Act (//). But if the agreement is to give security on personalt} r , it is not within the Statute (//) ; and an oral agreement on such security would, apparently, be capable of being enforced, if for an antecedent debt, or if followed by an actual advance on the faith of the agreement by the mortgagee. (b) Coote on Mortgages (5th ed.), Vol. I. pp. 411, 412. (c) Rogers v. Challis, 27 Beav. 175; Chinnock v. Savnsbtvry, 6 Jur. N. S. 1318. (d) Sichel v. Mosenthal, 30 Beav. 371 ; Larios v. Gurety, L. R. 5 P. C. 346. See Hunter v. Longford, 2 Moll. 272. (e) Allia Bank v. Broom, 2 Dr. & Sin. 289; Carevo v. drundell, 8 Jur. ><". s. 71 ; Hermann v. Hodges, L. R. 16 Eq. 18; Jones v. Greatwood and Makin v. Hughes, Seton on Decrees (5th ed.), p. 1694. (/) Exp. Jones, 4 D. & C. 750 ; Ashton v. Corrigan, L. R. 13 Eq. 76 ; Hermann v. Hodges, L. R. 16 Eq. 18. And see Parish v. Poole, 53 L. T. 35. (g) See post, pp. 54 et seq. (A) 29 Car. II. c. 3, s. 4. See Exp. Broderiek, Re Beetham, 18 Q. B. D. 766, C. A. ; and per Romilly, M.R., in Rogers v. Challis, 27 Beav. at p. 178. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, ETC. 49 So, specific performance was decreed of an agreement to give chaptee yii. a mortgage to secure money to be lent, where part had been already advanced (/.') . Where an equitable charge has been created by agreement in Extension of writing for a mortgage, or by deposit of deeds or otherwise, to f utU r e secure an existing debt, the charge may, by verbal agreement, advances, be held by the mortgagee as a security for further advances (/) . But a verbal agreement that a simple contract debt shall be Tacking, tacked to a subsisting legal mortgage of land is void under the Statute of Frauds (in). Damages may be recovered for a breach of an agreement to Damages for lend on mortgage in respect of the expenses actually incurred a ^.gg m g nt f or of the abortive loan, but not, apparently, extending to conse- loan, quential injury (n). In equity, damages could not have been recovered for the breach of such an agreement, under 21 & 22 Vict. c. 27, inas- much as the plaintiff would have had no case for specific per- formance at the time of issuing his writ (o) ; but under the Judicature Act, 1873 (p), an action can now be brought in the alternative, either for specific performance or damages (q) ; and the plaintiff will be entitled to damages, even though there may have been no such performance as to render the agreement enforceable (r). An agreement is often made by the borrower to pay the Costs of •pi i -vi abortive lenders, if the loan goes off, reasonable costs, which will not transaction. include banker's commission or costs of remittance ; nor, appa- rently, the costs of realizing securities for the purpose of making the advance, unless such matters are expressly provided for (s). Nor will such an agreement entitle the intending mortgagee to interest or compensation for money lying idle pending the com- pletion of the mortgage (/). In the absence of contract, the proposed lender has no claim Preliminary against the borrower for the preliminary expenses (it). It is clear that the solicitor of the lender has no such claim against (A) Hunter v. Lord Langford, 2 Moll. (> party to be charged therewith, or some other person thereunto chapter vtt. by him lawfully authorized." As a general rule, therefore, an agreement to give a mortgage Agreement on lands, tenements, or hereditaments of any tenure, or on any o-nand^nust interest in or concerning them, to secure a debt or advance, must be m writing-, be in writing and signed by the intending mortgagor or his agent. But to this rule there is an important exception. A deposit Exception as of title deeds by the owner of freeholds or leaseholds with his bVdepo^ifof creditor for the purpose of securing either a debt antecedently deeds, due, or a sum of money advanced at the time of the deposit, operates as an equitable mortgage or charge, by virtue of which the depositee acquires, not merely the right of holding the deeds until the debt is paid, but also an equitable interest in the land itself. A mere delivery of the deeds will have this operation without any express agreement, whether in writing or oral, as to the conditions or purpose of the delivery, as the Court would infer the intent and agreement to create a security from the relation of debtor and creditor subsisting between the parties, unless the contrary were shown ; and the delivery would be sufficient part performance of such agreement to take the case out of the statute (t). A deposit of copies of court rolls will have the same effect in As to copy- the case of copyholds (u). l0 s ' Where, therefore, a sale or mortgage of copyholds is contem- plated, the intending purchaser or mortgagee should not be satisfied with searching the court rolls for incumbrances ; he ought to require the vendor or mortgagor to produce an abstract of his title, and the copy of his admission to the copyhold tene- ment (x). Previously to the establishment of the doctrine of equitable Establish - mortgage by deposit of title deeds, it was held that the mere ^Lft on e possession of the title deeds of an estate gave the holder no interest in the estate itself, except collaterally, as in the instance put by Lord Eldon (//) ; that is, if the owner of the lands could not part with the estate without the deeds, he should not have them without paying the debt due from him to the holder, so (t) Burgess v. Moxon, 2 Jur. N. S. Jordan, 1 Y. & C. Ex. 303. 1059 ; and other cases cited inf. (x) Whitbread v. Jordan, supra. (w) Exp. Warner, 19 Ves. 202; Lewis (g) Exp. Whitbread, 19Ves. 211. v. John, 9 Sim. 366 ; Winter v. Lord And see Exp. Kensington, 2 V. & B. 83. Anson, 3 Russ. 488, 493 ; Whitbread v. 56 MORTGAGE BY DEPOSIT. CHAPTER VII. Verbal agree- ment -without deposit. that the possession of the deeds gave no direct interest in the estate, but gave to the creditor an interest arising out of the power of embarrassing the property in the sale (z). And it was considered that to give the creditor a charge on the land without an agreement in writing would be in direct contravention to the Statute of Frauds. The first decision in favour of the doctrine of equitable mort- gage by deposit of title deeds was made by Lord Thurlow, C, in Russell v. Russell (a), and was followed by him in other cases (b) . These decisions are the foundation of the doctrine, which, however much it has excited the disapprobation of succeeding judges (c), has now become firmly established. A verbal agreement for a deposit, not accompanied by an actual deposit, is void under the Statute of Frauds (d). But the deposit will create an equitable mortgage for the debt then due, although there be not one word spoken at the time (e) . If there is a parol agreement to give security for a debt, and title deeds are subsequently delivered to the creditor, this will be a sufficient part performance of the agreement to take the case out of the Statute of Frauds, and the security will relate back to the time of the agreement (,/'). Where a deposit had been made to secure an usurious loan before 17 & 18 Vict. c. 90, a verbal agreement, subsequent to the statute, for a legal mortgage for the same loan, was held valid without a return and fresh deposit (g) . (:) See Head v. Egerlon, 3 P. Wins. 279. As a general rule the title deeds follow the legal estate (see Smith v. Chichester, 2 Dr. & War. 393) ; and the owner of such estate may maintain trover for them as against a depositor [Harrington v. Price, 3 B. & Ad. 170 Hooper v. Ramsbotlom, 6 Taunt. 12 see Goode v. Burton, 1 Exch. 189) but a tenant in fee simple may give or grant away the deeds of his land, and the heir would have no remedy : Shep. Touch st. by Preston, 241. Similarly, an obligation or policy of insurance may be given away without an assign- ment, and trover would not lie for the document by the owner of the money secured. See Barton v. Gainer, 3 H. & N. 387 ; Rummens v. Hare, 1 Ex. D. 169 ; Trimmer v. Banby, 25 L. J. Ch. 42 1. If, after such a gift, a legal mortgage or assignment were made of the land or debt, the mortgagee or assignee would have a difnculty in recovering the documents of title. (a) 1 Bro. C. C. 269. (b) Feathcrstone v. Fen trick ; Harford v. Carpenter, 1 Bro. C. C. 270, note. (c) Ex, j. Haiffh, 11 Ves. 4 03; Norris v. Wilkinson, 12 Ves. 192 ; Exp. Whit- bread, 19 Ves. 211; Exp. Hooper, 1 Mer. 7. (d) Exp. Hooper, sup.; Exp. Coombe, 4 Madd. 249. See Meax v. Smith, 11 Sim. 410 ; Tebb v. Hodge, L. R. 5 C. P. 73 ; Exp. Ferry, 3 M. D. & De G. 252 ; Exp. Halhfax, 2 M. D. & De G. 544. A party intending to rely on the Statute of Frauds must plead the same. See Ord. XIX. r. 15. (e) Exp. Mountfort, 14 Ves. 606 ; Exp. Langston, 17 Ves. 230; Exp. Kensington, 2 V. & B. 79, 83 ; Bozon v. Williams, 3 Y. & J. 152. (/') Edge v. Worthington, 1 Cox, 211. (g) James v. Rice, 5 De G. M. & G. 461. MEMORANDUM ACCOMPANYING DEPOSIT OF DEEDS. 57 CHAPTER VII. Where there is a memorandum of agreement for a security by deposit of deeds, the security will be upheld so as to Written charge the property, though no deeds have actually been ^thout deposited (//), or even though some of them may not have been deposit, executed (/). Where a deposit of deeds by way of security is accompanied Deposit en- # ••! . it i "i • titles lender by an agreement m writing to execute a legal mortgage, it is t0 legal clear that such agreement will be specifically enforced (/«•). But mortgage, where there is no such agreement, and even where no memo- randum of charge whatever accompanies the deposit, it has been held that the mere deposit entitled the holder to have a legal mortgage, such being presumed to have been the intention of the parties (I). But where a deposit is made as an indemnity to a surety, he except in case .01 surety. is not entitled to a legal mortgage, only to a memorandum stating the purpose of the deposit (m) . ii, — Memorandum accompanying Deposit of Deeds. — Where a Parol evidence . , .. n . -, i -. not admissible deposit of title deeds is accompanied by a memorandum m t0 control writing, the nature and amount of charge, and the conditions of ^™ s n ^ me * f the contract intended to be created by the deposit, must be deposit, ascertained solely by reference to the written document (n). And extrinsic evidence is not admissible to raise an inference contrary to the express language of the document stating the terms on which the deposit was made (o) . But parol evidence may be admitted to explain ambiguities in a memorandum of deposit (p). Where there was an unstamped agreement between the parties, which was inadmissible as evidence, Lord Eldon allowed other parol evidence to be adduced to establish the equitable mortgage () Ede v. Know/ex, 2 Y. & C. C. C. Coming, 9 Ves. 115 ; Monk house v. 172 ; Be Boulter, Exp. National Pro- Corporation of Bedford, 17 Ves. 380; vineial Bank of England, 4 Ch. D. 241. Exp. Wright, 19 Ves. 255; Pryce v. (?) Hiem v. Hill, 13 Ves. 114. Bury, 2 Drew. 41. 58 MORTGAGE BY DEPOSIT. chapter vn. The charge is restricted to the special purpose iu the memo- Deposit for ranclum accompanying the deposit, and the conditions therein special must be complied with (r). purpose. L v ' , . Where a partner in a firm deposited with a bank certain share- certificates to secure a private debt, and the shares became the property of the firm, it was held that the bank was not entitled to retain the certificates as security for a debt due from the firm («). Enlargement When the deposit is made for a particular purpose, that pur- of purpose. ^ose may be enlarged by a subsequent agreement, either in writing, or proved by parol evidence, without an actual re- delivery ; as when deeds are deposited to secure advances by a banking firm, the deposit may be extended by agreement to secure advances made by the bank after a change of partners (t) . There is a constructive redeposit with each successive firm (u) . But there is no presumption of such agreement (t) . Intent to give iii. — Deposit must be by way of Security. — The deposit must essential to be ma( l e with the view and intent of an immediate security and charge by no t diverso intuitu. So where a debtor whose deeds relating to certain freehold property were in the possession of his bankers as security for a debt due to them, gave to them an unsigned order to deliver over the deeds, so soon as their lien should have been satisfied, to another creditor, and at the same time handed to the creditor two leases of other property, it was held that there was one entire agreement for a deposit of all the deeds (subject, as to those relating to the freehold, to the bankers' lien) by way of security for the debt due to the other creditor, and that there had been such part performance of that agreement as to take the case out of the Statute of Frauds and create a valid equitable mortgage on the freeholds (■>•). But where a debtor gave a verbal promise to a bank that he would, when required, give security for a debt, and the title deeds of certain property in which he was beneficially interested subse- quently came into the possession of the manager of the bank, who was also beneficially interested in the property, for purposes (/•) Wnlde v. Had ford, 9 Jur. N. S. Edc v. Knoivles, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 172. IK.!); Exp. Robinson, 1 D. & C. 119; (k) Exp. < hikes, 2 M. D. & De G. But ton v. Gray, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 932. 234 ; Smith v. Gye, 2 M. D. & De G. («) City Bank Case, 3 De G. F. & J. 314. 629. (x) Daiv v. Ten-all, 33 Beav. 218. ' Exp. Kensington, 2 Ves. & B. 79 ; See Re McMahon, 5.5 L. T. 763. deposit INTENT TO CHARGE. 59 relating to payment of succession duty ; the debtor verbally chaptek vn. assented to the retention of the deeds by the bank as security for their claim ; it was held that, the deeds having come into the possession of the bank for another purpose, there had been no such part performance of the promise to give security as to exclude the ojDeration of the statute, and to create an equitable charge in favour of the bank (//). So, where a person applied to his bankers for a loan on the security of the deposit of a lease, which they declined, but he left it with them without stating for what purpose the lease was so left, it was held that this gave the bankers no lien in respect of an outstanding debt due by the owner of the lease to the bankers (z). As between a debtor and his creditor, however, the mere fact Presumption of possession of deeds by the latter generally raises a presump- the\ands of tion that they were deposited with him as security for the debt ; a creditor are and the burden of proof lies upon the debtor to rebut the pre- security, sumption (c/). This presumption, however, will not apply to a case where a legal mortgagee is found to be in possession of title deeds relating to property of the debtor other than that ex- pressly comprised in the mortgage deed (b). But as against third persons, a mere deposit of deeds without a memorandum in writing will create an equitable mortgage only where the possession of the title deeds can be accounted for m no other manner ; as where the holder of the deeds was a stranger to the title and the lands (c). Where the origin of the possession of title deeds by a bond creditor was not explained, it was held that there was no such deposit as to create an equit- able charge on the lands as against persons interested therein under the will of the testator (d). Where the deposit is made for securing a sum to the trustees of a voluntary settlement, the intention must be clearly shown (e) . The proof of the relation of the debt to the deposit must be Evidence, supported by proper evidence at the hearing (/) ; for if the evi- («/) Exp. Broderick, Re Beetham, 18 (d) Chapman v. Chapman, 13 Beav. Q. B. D. 7GG, C. A. 308. See Dixonv. Muckleston, L. R. 8 (2) Lucas v. Dorrie/t, 7 Taunt. 27S. Ch. A. 155, 162. (a) Russell v. Russell, 1 Bro. C. C. (e) James v. Bydder, 4 Beav. GOO. 269; Burgess v. Moxon, 2 Jur. N. S. (/') Chapman v. Chapman, sup.; 1059. See Exp. Wright, 19 Ves. 258. Kebell v. Bhilpot, 7 L. J. N. S. Ch. (A) Wardle v. Oakley, 36 Beav. 27. 237. (c) Bozon v. Williams, 3 Y. & J. 152. 60 MORTGAGE BY DEPOSIT. CHAPTER VTI. Deposit with creditor's solicitor. case of Deposit with debtor's solicitor. dence is not sufficient, there will be no inquiry (g). In loss of the deeds verbal evidence is sufficient (//). "Where there is an agreement to give a mortgage, accompanied by the delivery of the deeds to the creditor's solicitor for the purpose of preparing a legal mortgage, the intent to create an immediate security will be presumed, and the delivery will consti- tute a present equitable mortgage by deposit of deeds though the agreement is not in writing (/). It has been held that such a delivery must be clearly shown to be made with the intention of immediately securing an existing debt or a present advance, and not merely for the purpose of having a legal mortgage prepared to secure such debt or advance ; but the decisions referred to (/<■) are contrary to the current of authority, and may apparently be regarded as obsolete. A deposit of deeds with the debtor's own solicitor, to be held by him until a mortgage is executed, and then to be handed over to the creditor, creates an equitable charge, and constitutes the solicitor a trustee for the creditor (/). Whether deposit covers further advances. iv. — Whether a Deposit covers further Advances. — If it appears that a deposit of deeds is made for the purpose of gaining credit, it will not cover moneys previously advanced and then due (m), unless an intention to cover them appears from the circum- stances (h). But the deposit may be a security as well for debts actually due as also for future advances, if such intention is made out by oath uncontradicted, or other sufficient evidence (o) ; and gene- rally, a verbal agreement for a subsequent advance on a deposit of deeds already made for the purpose of securing an existing debt, is sufficient to constitute an equitable mortgage as to the subsequent advance (]>). (ff) Kcbcllv. Philpot, 7 L. J. N. S. Ch. 237. See Holden v. Ream, 1 Beav. 456. (A) Baskett v. Skeel, 11 W. R. 1019. (i) Exp. Bruce, 1 Rose, 1)74; Exp. Wright, 19 Ves. 258 ; Keys v. Williams, 3 Y. & C. Ex. 55. See Hockley v. Bantock, 1 Etuss. 111. (/•) Norrtiv. Wilkinson, 12 Ves. 192 ; Exp. Bulteel, 2 Cox, 243. (/) Lloyd v. At/uood, 3 De G. & J. 614. (in) Mounlfort v. Scott, T. & R. 274. (w) Exp. Furl,,,, 1 M. D. & De G-. 683 ; Exp. Smith, 2 M. D. & De G. 314. (o) Exp. Mountfort, 14 Ves. 606 ; Exp. Langston, 17 Ves. 230. And see F.xp. Hooper, 19 Ves. 477 ; Shepherd v. Titley, 2 Atk. 348. (p) Exp. Kensington, 2 V. & B. 97 ; Exp. Whithread, i9 Ves. 209; Exp. Lloyd. 1 Gl. & J. 389 ; Exp. NettUship, 2 M. D. & De G. 124 ; Ede v. Kiioules, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 178; Exp. Sanders, 3 L. J. N. S. Bky. 92 : Exp. Marsh, 2 Rose, 239; Exp. Smith. 2 M. D. & Dc G. 314, 318. OF WHAT DEEDS. 61 Where a mortgage by deposit was made to secure the debtor's chapter yii. account until such account should not exceed 100/., and the debtor died indebted to the mortgagee beyond that sum, it was held that the deposit was a security for the whole sum, and not merely for the excess above the 100/. (q). The deposit of deeds with the creditor's solicitor for the pur- pose of preparing a legal mortgage to secure an antecedent debt and future advances, though unaccompanied by any written agreement, will cover future advances (>•). V. — What Deeds, &c. must be deposited. — In order to constitute Deposit may the equitable mortgage by deposit, there need not be a delivery deeds. 1 ^ of all the title deeds (s). In Exp. Wetherell (/), the question was, what was the effect of the delivery of the title deeds to one moiety only of the estate, the title deeds of the other moiety being retained by the debtor and passing into the possession of his assignees, the mortgagees having understood that the deeds delivered to them related to the entirety. Lord Eldon, C, thought that, under the circumstances of that case, there was sufficient evidence in writing (and on this he grounded his decision) that there should be a mortgage of the entirety, and, consequently, he did not determine, to use his own words, " whether that would not be taken to be a sufficient deposit, which could be taken, upon looking at the instruments, to amount to evidence that the estate was meant to be a security." The equitable mortgagee by deposit of part of the deeds was held entitled to a charge on the property where the rest of the deeds remained in the possession of depositor's solicitors (n) ; and the deposit was supported, though the absent deed was the conveyance (x), and where evidence in writing existed that the security was intended upon the whole (//). The deposit by a landlord of a lease to a creditor as a security, was held equivalent to an equitable mortgage of the fee (z) ; and if part of the title deeds be deposited with one creditor and part with (o) Ashton v. Dalton, 2 Coll. .565. (u) Exp. Chippendale, 2 M. & A. (V) Bulfin v. Dunne, ]1 Ir. Ch. R. 299. See Ashton v. Dalton, 2 Coll. 198. 565. (*) Exp. Pearse, 1 Buck. 525 ; Exp. (x) Roberts v. Croft, 2 De G. & J. 1. Arkwriyht, 3 M. D. & De G-. 129. See See Thorp v. Holdaworth, L. R. 7 Eq. Lncon v. Allen, 3 Drew. 579 ; Jones v. 147 ; Exp. Edwards, 1 Deac. 611. Williams, 24 Beav. 47. \y) Exp. Rott, 7 Jur. 159. (t) 11 Ves. 398. (z) Richards v. Borrett, 3 Esp. 102. 62 MORTGAGE BY DEPOSIT. CHAPTER VII. Deposit of receipt for purchase - money. Deposit of copies. Removal of deposited deeds. Memorandum incorrectly referring to deeds. Deposit of land certifi- cate under Land Regis- try Act, 1862; — under Land Transfer Act, 1875. Conflict of laws. another, each dejDOsitee may have a good security («), unless there be evidence of a contrary intention (b). An equitable mortgage may be created by the deposit of a receipt for purchase-money, containing the terms of the agree- ment for sale, if there be no title deeds or conveyance in the depositor's possession (c). But a deposit of an attested copy of a deed is not sufficient to create a valid equitable charge ((/). Where a debtor deposited title deeds as security, but after- wards fraudulently removed some of them, and the deeds removed could not be identified, it was held that the creditor had a lien on all title deeds belonging to the debtor (e). If the memorandum accompanying a deposit of deeds refers to deeds not deposited, and other deeds are deposited, the security will attach to the deeds actually deposited (,/'). If the memorandum specifies only some of the deeds which are actually deposited, the security will attach to all the deeds deposited (g). An equitable mortgage of land, the title to which is registered under the Land Registry Act, 1862 (ft), cannot be created by a deposit of title deeds ; but a deposit of the land certificate has the same effect, for the purpose of creating a lien upon the estate and interest of the depositor, as a deposit of the title deeds would have had before the passing of the Act. Under the Land Transfer Act, 1875 (i), subject to any registered estates, charges, or rights, the deposit of the land certificate in the case of freehold land, and of the office copy of the registered lease in the case of leasehold land, shall, for the purpose of creating a lien on the land to which such certificate or lease relates, be deemed equivalent to a deposit of the title deeds of the land. When the lex loci rei sitae does not forbid, and the parties do not contract with reference to any other particular law, and the general law of the place is English, an equitable lien will be created upon land by a deposit of title deeds (/.). (a) Roberts v. Croft, 24 Beav. 223, affirm* ,1 2lv(). & J. 1. (A) Exp. Pearse, 1 Buck. 525. (c) Goodwin v. Waghorn, 4 L. J. N. S. ( h. 172. (d) Exp. Broadbent, 1 M. & A\ 635. (e) Mason v. Morley, 34 Beav. 475. (/) Exp. Powell, 6 Jur. 490. {(/) Ferris v. Muffins, 2 Sm. & G. 378. (//) 25 & 26 Vict. c. 53, ss. 63, 73. (i) 38 & 39 Vict. c. 87, s. 81. (/,) Varden v. Ltuhpathy, 9 Mo. I. A. 303. See Exp. Holthausen, £e Scheibler, L. R. 9 Ch. A. 722. WHAT PROPERTY CHARGED. 63 vi. — What Property is charged by a Deposit of Deeds. — A chaiteb ™- deposit of title deeds creates an equitable mortgage on all the All property- property comprised in them, and all the interest of the mort- a""j^'s' c gagor therein, unless the contrary intention be clearly shown (/). charged by An inference of intention may be drawn that part only of the „ . , ' „ J # x ^ JiiVidcnce or property comprised in the deposited deeds should be subject to contrary the security (m), as where the memorandum specified that part m en on " only ; but other written evidence may be looked at to show the measure of the security (n) . Property not included in the documents deposited will not be included against strangers, merely from a false statement of the mortgagor that it was included (o). The deposit will affect only the beneficial interest of the Accretions. debtor, but will include accretions to, or substitutions for, the property affected (p). If the title deeds of the house engaged in trade are deposited Goodwill, to secure a debt, and the premises are sold together with the goodwill of the business, the equitable mortgagee will be entitled to the whole of the purchase-money (■) And see post, p. 165. & De G. 29 ; Exp. Hunt, 1 M. D. & (s) Exp. Reid, 17 L. J. Bky. 19. De G. 139. (0 Williams v. Mcdlicott, 6 Pri. 49.5. 64 MORTGAGE BY DEPOSIT. CHAPTEE VII. Tenant for life. Husband and wife. Heir or devisee. Executor. Person having no interest. Trustee. Fraudulent deposit of deeds. A legal tenant for life of freeholds is entitled to the custody of the title deeds, and the Court will not interfere as between him and the remainderman, except where there is danger to the safety of the deeds if left in the hands of the tenant for life, or where the Court requires the deeds for the purpose of carrying out trusts relating to the property (11). In consequence of this custody, the tenant for life is enabled to mortgage the land or deposit the title deeds as apparent owner of the fee, and the bond fide mortgagee has such defence as a plea of purchase for value without notice is capable of affording (.r). A deposit by husband and wife of the title deeds of the wife was held not to operate as an appointment by the wife under a settlement (//). But where a man deposited his wife's mortgage (over which he had, jure mariti, a power of disposition) to secure a debt of his own, the security was upheld, as against the wife surviving, as an alienation pro tanto (z). A deposit with memorandum of charge by an heir or devisee is an alienation pro tan to, which will, to the extent of the moneys secured, defeat the rights of the creditors of the ancestor or testator against the mortgaged property, as assets under the statute 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 104 (a). An executor may deposit without his co-executor joining to raise money for the purpose of administration (b). If a person has no interest in deeds deposited with him, he cannot, of course, confer any interest in the property comprised therein by delivering them to a third party by way of security or otherwise (c). Where a trustee deposits the trust deeds, upon which the trust is apparent, with his bankers, the trust is prior to the lien (d) : but the cestuis que trust are preferred, even if there is no notice (•). On a review of the decided cases establishing this mode of mortgage security, it is perhaps to be regretted that the old law was not adhered to, and the principle on which the Statute of Frauds was founded more respected. For although equity, by declaring the deposit itself to be evidence of an agreement executed, has contrived to evade the strict and literal wording of the statute, yet it is manifest that the door has been in some degree open to fraud and perjury; nor does a creditor seem to deserve much favour who will not be at the trouble of a few lines in writing (s) if he is desirous to have a charge on his debtor's estate. If the debtor denies that the deposit was intended to cover future advances, as in Exp. Mount fort (t), or if he insist that the deeds were not delivered by way of deposit, but with a different intent, resort must, in many cases, be had to parol evidence; and, as remarked by Lord Eldon (t), "the mischief of all these cases is, that the Court is deciding upon parol evidence with regard to an interest in land within the Statute of Frauds." The preceding remarks strongly demonstrate the inexpediency of taking a security by deposit, unless accompanied by a memoran- dum stating the nature and terms of the mortgage contract, as likely to lead to dispute and litigation. This species of security ought never to be accepted, except, perhaps, in the case of small temporary loans. One advantage attending the taking of a memorandum in writing is that in case the mortgagor becomes bankrupt, and the depositee applies to the Court for an order for sale, he is allowed his costs out of the estate, but not if he has a deposit of deeds without any writing signed by the mortgagor (u). {>■) See Chap. UVIII., post, -pp. 1340 119; Exp. Thorpe, 3 M. & A. 441; et seq. Exp. Barclay, 5 De G. M. & G. 403 ; (a) Exp. Whitbread, 19 Ves. 209. Exp. Dingwall, 6 L. T. N. S. 915. See (0 Exp. Mountfort, 14 Ves. 606. Exp. Pigeon, 2 D. & C. 118 ; Exp. («) Exp. Brightens, 1 Swanst. 3 ; Emmerton, 3 D. & C. 654 ; Exp. Eeij- Exp. Silias, Buck. 349 ; Exp. Trew, 3 nolds, 4 D. & C. 278. See also Exp. Madd. 372 ; Exp. Robinson, 1 D. & C. lleid, 1 M. & McA. 14. { 67 CHAPTER VIII. OF INSTRUMENTS COLLATERAL OR ANCILLARY TO MORTGAGES. i, — Of Bonds collateral to Mortgages. — It was formerly a Bonds col- usual practice to require borrowers to give bonds as collateral ^orta-a^es securities for the payment of the principal and interest contem- now unusual, poraneously secured by mortgage. But since the passing of the statute 1 Will. IV. c. 47, whereby actions on covenants may be maintained against devisees of the covenantor, collateral bonds add little or nothing to the security derived from the covenants for payment usually inserted in the mortgage. For this reason such bonds have very generally fallen into disuse as merely causing unnecessary expense. Inasmuch, however, as bonds given by way of collateral security for the payment of mortgage-moneys are still occasion- ally met with in practice, it may be useful to state briefly some of the points which have been decided in regard to such instru- ments. Although it is a general rule, both at law and in equity, that Interest be- a bond debt shall not carry interest beyond the penalty (a), yon pen y ' yet the rule will not apply where the repayment of a principal sum, with all interest that may accrue due thereon, is secured by a mortgage and also by a bond for the same sum, as the mortgagee's right to recover all interest due is not to be prejudiced by the bond (b) ; and this principle will apply even although the mortgage is given by a surety and subsequent to the bond, unless the mortgage is made a security only for the bond debt and the interest to become due on the bond (c). The rule that interest on a bond debt is not allowed beyond the penalty of the bond prevails in the administration of assets, except under special circumstances (d). (a) Bromley v. Ooodere, 1 Atk. 80 ; (b) Clarke v. Lord Abingdon, 17 Ves. White v. Seal//, Doug. 49 ; Tew v. Lord 106. Winterton, 3 Bro. C. C. 489 ; Knight v. (c) See Hughes v. Wynne, 1 My. & K. Maclean, 3 Bro. C. C. 496, 498 ; Mack- 20. And see Lloyd v. Halchett, 2 Anst. worthy. Thomas, 5 Ves. 329 ; Clarkey. 525. And see Clowes v. Waters, 16 Seton, 6 Ves. 411 ; Wilde v. Clarkson, Jur. 632. 6 T. R. 303. (d) Atkinson v. Atkinson, 1 Ba. &Be. f2 68 COLLATERAL INSTRUMENTS. CHAPTEE Vin. Forfeiture by non-payment of mortgage debt. Relief from forfeiture in equity. Non-payment of instalment. It is said that interest will be allowed beyond the penalty where a mortgagee has added a bond debt to his mortgage (e), on the principle that a mortgagor seeking the aid of equity to enforce his right of redemption, must do complete equity by payment of all interest due though in excess of the penalty of the bond (/). It was held in an early case, that a bond by a mortgagor for performance of the covenants and conditions in the mortgage deed would be forfeited by a breach of the proviso in the deed for the payment of the money (g). The penalty of a bond for payment of money is generally double the amount of the principal sum to be thereby secured. If the money be not paid at the time limited in the condition, the bond becomes forfeited, or absolute at law. On the forfei- ture of a bond the whole penalty was formerly recoverable at law (A), but the Courts of Equity interfered and would not permit a man to take more than in conscience he ought to take, namely, his principal, interest and costs (i). Wherever the pay- ment of a smaller sum is secured by a larger, the Court will treat the larger sum as a penalty, and not as liquidated damages, and will relieve accordingly (/,;). Where a bond is given to secure a principal sum by instal- ments, and default is made in payment of any one of the instal- ments at the time appointed, as the condition is broken, the obligee may bring an action, and obtain judgment for the whole penalty ; though the Court would prevent his taking execution for more than is due (/). Warrants of attorney formerly taken as securities collateral to mortgages. ii. — Of Warrants of Attorney. — Warrants of attorney to con- fess judgment sometimes accompanied mortgages by way of collateral security, so as to enable the mortgagee to enter up judgment and issue execution. It was never the practice, 238 ; Small v. Terrey, Show. P. C. 15 ; Grant v. Grant, 3 Russ. 607. And see the same principle in Bond v. Hopkins, 1 Sch. & L. 413, 434 ; Fulteney v. Warren, 6 Ves. 73—79. (e) Peers v. Baldwin, 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 611. As to adding bond debts by mortgagee on tacking accounts, see post, pp. 1151, 1152. (/) See Godfrey v. Watson, 3 Atk. 517 (tacking judgment). But see contra, Powell on Mortgages (6th ed.), 355. (g) looms v. Chandler, 2 Lev. 116; contra, Briscoe v. King, Cro. Jau. 281 ; nom. Bristoe v. Knipe, Telv. 206. (h) But see 4 & 5 Anne, c. 1G, ss. 12, 13. (i) Lord Lonsdale v. Church, 2 T. R. 388 ; Wilde v. Clarkson, 6 T. R. 303. (/,-) Aglet v. Dodd, 2 Atk. 239; Davies v. Benton, 6 B. & Cr. 223. (/) Darby v. Wilkins, 2 Stra. 957; Mas/en v. Touchet, 2 "W. Bl. 706 ; Talbot v. Hodson, 7 Taunt. 251. WARRANTS OF ATTORNEY. 60 except in particular cases, and as a matter of special contract, chapter vni. to take a warrant of attorney to enter up judgment against a mortgagor. Warrants of attorney were considered particularly appro- priate in cases of annuities, as not only affording the grantee a speedy and effectual means of compelling payment by enter- ing up and confessing judgment and taking out execution for the arrears, but also as giving to the grantor, or any person claiming under him, a right at any time to apply to the original jurisdiction of the Court to vacate the warrant of attorney or set aside the judgment, instead of having recourse to the more cir- cuitous mode of proceeding provided by the Annuity Act (m). The simplification of procedure in actions for debt generally Warrants of has caused warrants of attorney by way of collateral security to unusual in° W mortgages to be rarely met with in modern practice. mortgage A i p 11 j p • , ii-T c transactions. A warrant oi attorney to confess judgment, like a power of Wnen a distress for securing the interest on a mortgage, is more effectual warrant of when the mortgagor himself is in occupation than when the be advisaWef property is held by a tenant, as, in the latter case, the only effect of the mortgagee proceeding under the warrant would be to enable him to get into possession of the rents, which he might do by a mere notice to the tenant (n) . It may be, however, that the restrictions on powers of distress and at- tornment imposed by the Bills of Sale Acts (o) may have the effect of bringing warrants of attorney again into use where the mortgagor is himself in occupation (p). Inasmuch as the statute 13 Edw. I. c. 18, whereby the remedy Nature and by writ of elegit was provided for creditors, extended to the case effect °* f of a debt acknowledged in the king's court, a mode of security attorney. was suggested, which gave the creditor an immediate hold upon the land, and at the same time saved him the expense of actual process to obtain judgment. This was by warrant of attorney, authorizing certain attorneys to appear for the debtor and con- fess the debt in a Court of record, whereupon judgment might be forthwith entered up, and a writ of execution instanter sued out. Between a judgment so obtained and a judgment obtained in an actual action, Lord Kenyon, in Doc v. Carter (q), said he (m) Barton, Conv. vol. vi. p. 16, n. (p) Key & Elphinstone, Conv («) Byth. & Jarm. Conv. (4th ed.), (oth ed.), vol. ii. p. 51. vol. iii. p. 986. (q) 8 T. R. 61. (o) See post, p. 664. 70 COLLATERAL INSTRUMENTS. CHAPTER Till. Effect of defeasance. Continuing security. Warrant of attorney not a breach of covenant not to assign lease. "Warrant of attorney whether coun- terinandable. saw no difference (r), since the object of the former was merely to shorten the process and to lessen the expense of the pro- ceeding. The defeasance of a warrant of attorney that on non-payment at a certain day execution may issue, is not a contract, but merely a description of the object of the security, and of the means by which, in case of default, the creditor may enforce payment (s). The proper mode of recovering debts so secured is by entering up judgment in pursuance thereof, and not by action on an implied contract to pay the debt (7). Where a defeasance to a warrant of attorney provides that in default of the payment of an annuity secured thereby, the grantee may sue out execution or executions thereon, this will warrant successive executions (u). A warrant of attorney, with a defeasance stating it to be given as a security for a sum named, and interest thereon, will be construed as a continuing security, and not merely for money then due, in the absence of anything on the face of the warrant or defeasance to show such an intention (#). Where there is a covenant against assignment in a lease, or any estate is to be forfeited upon any alienation or charge, a warrant of attorney is not a breach of forfeiture, although the lease or other interest is taken in execution under it (//) ; and that although, by the defeasance, it was intended that the judg- ment to be entered up under it was to be registered, and so become an equitable charge (z) ; unless it be given for the express purpose of enabling the lease or other interest to be taken in execution (a). The same principle is acted on in determining whether a warrant of attorney is void, as being a charge on a benefice (b). A warrant of attorney to enter up judgment, or to sell lands, by way of a security for a debt, being an authority coupled with an interest, is not countermandable (c). And the warrant, in (r) Doe v. Jones, 10 B. & Cr. 468. (*) Cook v. Fowler, L. R. 7 H. L. 35. (t) Sherborn v. Tollemache, 13 C. B. ST. S. 742. (m) Cuthbcrt v. Cole, 1 C. B. 278. (x) Woolley v. Jennings, 5 B. & Cr. 165. (y) Doe d. Mitchinson v. Carter, 8 T. R. 57 ; Avison v. Holmes, 1 J. & H. 530 ; Doe d. Norfolk {Duke of) v. Wawke, 2 East, 481. See South Western I, mm, Qc. Co. v. Robertson, 8 Q. B. D. 17. w 672. Croft < T. Lumley, 6 H. L. C. Doe d. Mitchinson v. Ci irter > 8 T. R. 300. (*) Post, p. 440. W Oaths v. Woodward, 2Ld. Raym. 150; 1 Salk. 87 ; Walsh v. Whitcombe, 2 Esp. 565 ; Gausson v. Morton, 10 B. & Cr. 731. And see Hodgson v. Ander- son, 3 B. & Cr. 842, 851 ; Spooner v. Sandilands, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 390. WARRANTS OF ATTORNEY. 71 the case of a mortgage transaction, being for valuable conside- chapter yiii. ration, the power to enter up judgment conferred by the instru- ment may now be expressed to be irrevocable, so as not to be revoked by, or prejudicially affected by, or by notice of any- thing done by the donor of the power, or his marriage, death, lunacy, unsoundness of mind, or bankruptcy (V). The death of the plaintiff is not a countermand of the warrant Death of if the instrument authorizes his executors to enter up judg- ment (c). The death of the defendant (unless the power is expressed to Death of be irrevocable) is a countermand, and an agreement that judg- ment may be entered up notwithstanding his death was held to be void (/). But it is sufficient to show that the defendant was living within a reasonable time previously to the applica- tion (g). So, upon a warrant of attorney given by two, judgment can- not be entered up against the survivor (h). But seem, where one of two joint plaintiffs dies, for then the survivor may enter up judgment (/). And the Court will not enter up judgment nunc pro tunc as of a term prior to the death of an insolvent upon a warrant of attorney given by such insolvent before his discharge, although the assets do not fall in until after his death (k). It is not an objection to signing judgment on a warrant Insanity of of attorney that the defendant has, since the execution, become insane (/). But the Court will not allow judgment to be entered up against a party who, having given a warrant of attorney to confess judgment for securing the payment of a sum, or the transfer of stock, on demand, has become insane (in). A warrant of attorney given to secure a debt, with an agree- Meaning of ment that judgment should not be entered up till the debtor mso venc y- should become bankrupt or insolvent, means a general inability to pay debts (n). It seems rather a nice question, whether a creditor is warranted Costs, in signing a judgment on a warrant of attorney or cognovit (d) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 39, s. 8. (h) Gee v. Lane, 15 East, 592. (e) Coles v. Haden, Barnes, 44 ; Hen- (i) Feudal! v. May, 2 M. & S. 76 ; shall v. Matthew, 7 Bing-. 337 ; Black- Spony v. Tucker, 1 Y. & J. 206. burne v. Godrick, 9 Dowl. 337 ; Harden (k) Harden v. Forsyth, 1 Q. B. 177. v. Forsyth, 1 Q. B. 177. \l) Figyott v. Kittick, 4 Dowl. 287. (/) Heath v. Brindley, 2 A. & E. (m) Capper v. Dando, 2 A. & E. 458. 365. (») Biddkcombe v. Bond, 4 A. & E. (g) Jordan v. Fan; 2 A. & E. 437. 332 ; Re Muggeridgc, Johns. 625. 72 COLLATERAL INSTRUMENTS. CHAPIEE VIII. Who may give a warrant of attorney. Time from ■which a -war- rant speaks. Formalities of execution. given to secure a debt and costs, without first taxing those costs (o) . A warrant of attorney cannot be given by an infant (p) ; and if he give a joint warrant of attorney, the judgment will be set aside as to him (q) ; nor can it be given by a partner, to bind his co-partners (;•) ; nor by an executor, to bind his co-execu- tors (s). Before the late Married Women's Property Acts, if a feme sole signed a warrant of attorney, the Court or a judge, after her marriage, allowed judgment to be entered up against the husband and wife (f). The judgment upon such warrant of attorney would, in regard to the liability of the husband, be subject to the late Acts (u). If a warrant of attorney is given to a feme sole, her subsequent marriage is not a revocation of it ; and judgment will not be entered up in the name of the husband and wife (x) ; as where a warrant of attorney was given by "W. to D. and S., and "W. and S. afterwards inter- married (y). A warrant of attorney speaks from the time of its execution, and not from the day of its date, and therefore such an instru- ment, dated the 24th of February, 1847, but executed the 20th of March following, defeasanced on payment of the debt on the 20th of March then next, was held to be a security for payment on the 20th of March, 1848 (*). By the Debtors Act, 1869 (ft), it is provided that no warrant of attorney to confess judgment in any personal action, or cognovit actionem given by any person, shall be of any force, unless there shall be present some attorney of one of the superior Courts on behalf of such person, expressly named by him, and (o) Booth v. Lady Hyde Parker, 3 M. & W. 54. (p) Saunderson v. Marr, 1 H. Bl. 75 ; Wood v. STeath, 1 Chit. G-. P. 708, n. ; Oliver v. Woodroffe, 4 M. & W. 650; Storton v. Tomlins, 10 Moore, 172; Weaver v. Stokes, 1 M. & W. 203. (q) Ashlin v. Lang ton, 4 Mo. & Sc. 719 ; Motteux v. St. Aubyn, 2 TV. Bl. 1133. (r) Brutton v. Burton, 1 Chit. G. P. 707 ; Hunter v. Parker, 7 M. & TV. 322. (.9) ElweU v. Quash, 1 Str. 20. (0 Staples v. Purser, 2 Dowl. 764 ; Pocock v. Fry, 8 Dowl. 126 ; Anon., 1 Show. 89; Hartford v. Mattingly, 2 Chit. G. P. 117 ; Higginbottom v. Hig- ginhottom, 8 Dowl. 126. (u) 33 & 34 Vict. c. 93, s. 12 ; 37 6 38 Vict. c. 50; 45 & 46 Vict, c. 75. (x) Anon., 1 Salk. 117. See Dolling v. White, 22 L. J. Q. B. 327. (y) Murder v. Lee, 3 Burr. 1469 ; Metcalfe v.Boote, 8 D.& Ry. 46 ; Anon., 7 Mod. 53. (;) Browne v. Burton, 17 L. J. Q. B. 47. (a) 32 & 33 Vict. c. 62, s. 24, re- enacting 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 9. WARRANTS OF ATTORNEY. < » attending at his request to inform him of the nature and effect chapter vm. of such warrant or cognovit before the same is executed, which attorney shall subscribe his name as a witness to the due execu- tion thereof, and thereby declare himself to be the attorney for the person executing, and state that he subscribes as such attorney. " Solicitor " is now substituted for " attorney" (b). A warrant of attorney, to confess iudgrment or cognovit actionem, Warrant of n • -i i n i i i t vi attorney not not executed m manner aforesaid, shall not be rendered valid formally by proof that the person executing the same did in fact under- executed void, stand the nature and effect thereof, or was fully informed of the same (r). The attestation, though not necessarily in the words of the statute, must show, by necessary implication, that the statutory requirements have been fulfilled (d). The solicitor for the plaintiff cannot act for the defendant (e) ; nor the London agent of, nor a solicitor acting as the clerk of, the plaintiff's solicitor (/) ; nor can the same solicitor act for both parties (■). The Acts apply to warrants of attorney, whether executed in this, or in a foreign, country (s) ; and it seems that, if judgment be signed on a warrant of attorney which is not made in com- pliance with the statutes, the defect cannot be waived (t) ; and the statutes do not apply where the defendant is himself an attorney («). By another Act (x), an additional book or index is directed to index of be provided, in which only the names, additions, and descriptions Som^ 3 of of the respective defendants, or persons giving the warrants or cognovits, are entered, and which may be searched on payment of the additional fee mentioned in the Act. Warrants of attorney to confess judgments in Ireland are sub- Ireland, jected to nearly the same regulations (//). The judgment must be signed in the way authorized by the Signing of warrant. It is always final, and signed in like manner as a J ud e ment - final judgment by confession or default in an adverse suit (z). Judgment on a cognovit, though given before appearance, may be signed after more than the lapse of a year without a declara- tion, and without motion or order of a judge (a). Nor does it apply when there is an agreement to dispense with these forms (b). And it seems that, under a warrant of attorney to confess judg- ment, judgment may be signed and execution issued without an appearance being entered on the part of the defendant, or, at most, such an omission is a mere irregularity, which may be waived by laches (e). So, signing judgment on a warrant of attorney for a sum larger than that mentioned in the warrant, is a mere irregularity, which may be waived in like manner (d). Final judgment is not signed on the officer of the Court making Final the postea, but on his completing the taxation of costs (e). judgment. (>•) Gowcm v. Wright, 18 Q. B. D. Tucker, 8 Sc. 669 ; Kemp v. Matthew, 201, C. A. See Re Russell, Exp. Guest, 8 Sc. 399; Charlcsworth v Ellis 7 W. N. (1888) 198, C. A. Q. B. 678. (s) Davis v. Trecanion, 2 D. & L. (a) Thompson v. Langridge, 1 Exch 743. 351. (t) Gripper v. Bristow, 6 M. & W. (b) See Tripp v. Stanley, 17 L J 807. Q. B. 19. (u) Dowries v. Garbett, 2 Dowl. N. S. (c) Charlcsworth v. Ellis 7 Q B 939 ; Chipp v. Harris, 5 M. & W. 430. 678 ; Bircham v. Tucker, 8 Sc. 669'. (•*") 6 & 7 Vict. c. 66. (d) Stopford v. Fitzgerald, 16 L. J. (y) 3 & 4 Vict. c. 105, as. 12—18, Q. B. 310. inclusive. («) Butler v. Bulkeney, 1 Bing. 233 ; («) Tidd, 9th ed. p. 556 ; Bircham v. Pierce v. Berry, 4 Q. B. 635. But aee 76 COLLATERAL INSTRUMENTS. chapter viii. Execution on warrants of attorney is the same as in ordinary Execution. cases (,/). Memorandum Power is given to any of the judges of the Court, in which of satisfaction. ,1 , P ,, .... . , the warrant of attorney or cognovit is given, to order a memo- randum of satisfaction to be written upon such warrant, cognovit, or copy thereof, respectively as aforesaid, if it shall appear that the debt, for which the warrant or cognovit was given, has been satisfied or discharged (g). Where a judgment was entered up on a warrant of attorney for 1,800/. to secure an annuity, and the judgment creditor received more than the 1,800/., the Court ordered satisfaction to be entered up as of the date on which a later judgment was entered up, and directed sums, received by the first judgment creditor since that time, to be paid to the second judgment creditor, but not any of the sums received prior to the signing of the second judgment (Z»). Warrant of If a warrant of attorney to confess judgment is given by way secure interest of collateral security, defeasanced on payment of the interest, onl 3"* after the rate and at the time and in manner recited in a mort- gage deed of even date, and the interest is paid up to the day fixed for payment in the mortgage deed, though the principal be still unpaid, the Court will order satisfaction to be entered on the judgment. But the application will be refused if, from the introduction of other words into the defeasance, there is the least doubt if the security of the judgment is to be so limited (/). Setting aside Application to set aside a warrant of attorney collateral to a mortgage can only be made by the party himself, or by his attorney duly authorized by him for that purpose (/.•). But it may be made, though defendant has become bankrupt since his execution of the warrant (/). The provision is for the benefit of the defendant only, and, therefore, a third party who may be prejudiced by a judgment against the debtor cannot raise an objection on the ground of want of proper attestation (»i). Fisher v. Budding, 3 Man. & Gr. 238 ; (i) Atkinson v. Jones, 2 A. & E. 439. and Newton v. Grand Junction Rail. And see King v. Greenhill, 6 Man. & Co., 16 M. & W. 142. And see Archb. Gr. 59. (14th ed.) 1323, and cases. (k) Lewis v. Lord Tankvrville, 11 M. (/) Archb. (14th ed.) 1323. See as & W. 109. to bankruptcy, Young v. Bi/liter, 30 (/) Taylor v. Nicholls, G M. & "W. L. J. Q. B. 153. 91 ; Davis v. Trcranion, 2 D. & L. 743 ; (g) 3 Geo. IV. c. 39, s. 8. Cocks v. Edwards, 2 Dowl. N. S. 55. (h) Cottle v. Warrington, 5 B. & Ad. (*») CJiipp v. Harris, 5 M. & W. 447. 430. WARRANTS OF ATTORNEY. 77 A party who introduces an unqualified person, as qualified to chapter viir. attest, cannot afterwards move to set the warrant of attorney aside on that account (»). But such warrant may be set aside if the person unqualified is introduced by the opposite party, and acquiesced in by the debtor (o). Nor can a surety recover from the creditor what he has been Surety, obliged to pay by way of contribution to his co-surety, who has paid the full sum secured by the warrant, if the warrant be good against the latter (p). The Courts will, under their general jurisdiction, set aside a warrant of attorney to enter up judgment, and the proceedings under it, wherever they appear to have been obtained by fraud or for an illegal consideration (q). Thus, an agreement by a bankrupt with one of his creditors to omit the debt in his schedule, and that the cognovit held by the creditor should be suspended and revived after the debtor's discharge, is fraudu- lent and void, and the Court will set aside judgment entered up, and execution issued, on such cognovit, after the dis- charge (r). And this relief will be given, even on behalf of persons not parties to the warrant, if the execution under it operates as a fraud upon them (s). But a warrant of attorney given to secure a sum embezzled will not be set aside, unless it distinctly appears that there was an agreement, either express or necessarily implied, that the plaintiff would abstain from prosecuting for the felony in consideration of the security (t). So, a warrant of attorney, given by a lessee in order to elude a covenant not to assign, was held void (u). So, if given by way of fraudulent preference, it comes within the Bankrupt Acts (.r). But such a warrant of attorney cannot be set aside upon affidavits (//). As to what amounts to an attorney, (p) Price v. Carlo; sup. expressly named by the defendant, (q) Ward v. Lloyd, 6 Man. & Gr. and acting on his behalf, see Chipp v. 787 ; see Archb. (14th ed.) 1311, and Harris, 5 M. & W. 430 ; Mason v. cases therein enumerated. Kiddle, 5 M. & W. 513 ; Oliver v. (r) Tabram v. Freeman, i B. & Ad. Woodrofe, 4 M. & W. 650 ; Gripper v. 887. Bristow, 6 M. & W. 807 ; Sanderson v. Is) Martin v. Martin, 3 B. & Ad. 934. West ley, 8Dowl. 412 ; Taylor \ Nicholh, \t) Ward v. Lloyd, 6 Man. & Gr. 787 ; 6 M. & W. 91 ; Joel v. Dicker, 5 Dowl. Flower v. Sadler, 10 Q. B. D. 572. 6 L. 1 ; Walker v. Gardner, 4 B. & Ad. (m) Doe d. Mitchinson v. Carter, 8 371 ; Cox v. Cannon, 4 Bing\ N. C. 453, T. R. 300. case before the Act. (a) Sharpe v. Thomas, 6 Bing. 416; (n) Cox v. Cannon, sup. ; Jeyes v. Newnham v. Stevenson, 20 L. J. C. P. Booth, 1 Bos. & P. 97 ; Price v. Carter, 111. See post, p. 584. 7 Q. B. 838. (y) Browne v. Burton, 17 L. J. Q. B. (o) Walker v. Gardner, sup. 49. ( rs ) CHAPTEE IX. OF SURETYSHIP. Section I. Of the Nature of Contract of Suretyship. As to requir- ing sureties to join in mortgage securities Proviso that surety shall he liable to mortgagee as principal. i. — Of Sureties in Mortgage Transactions generally. — "Where property is mortgaged which is not immediately realizable by the mortgagee in case of default, or which does not of itself yield an immediate income to meet the payment of interest (as, for instance, in the cases of mortgages of policies of life assurance and of reversionary interests) , third persons are frequently made parties to the mortgage deed for the purpose of guaranteeing the payment of principal and interest, or of interest alone, and the performance of covenants on the part of the mortgagor necessary for the maintenance of the security. In order .to obviate the risk which the mortgagee runs in such cases of losing his remedies against the surety by reason of subsequent transactions between himself and the mortgagor, who is the principal debtor, it is the usual practice that the surety should enter, jointly and severally with the mortgagor, into all the covenants and stipulations, the performance and observance of which the surety is intended to guarantee, and that a proviso should be inserted in the mortgage deed that, although, as between the mortgagor and the surety, the latter is only a surety, yet that, as between himself and the mortgagee, he shall be deemed a principal debtor, and shall not be released by any subsequent trans- action between the mortgagor and mortgagee which would otherwise have that effect (a). The effect of such a proviso is (a) See Dav. Conv. (4th ed.), vol. ii. pt. ii. p. 603 ; Key & Elph. Conv., (5th ed.), vol. ii. pp. 36, 37, 113 ; Byth. & Jarra.Conv. (4th ed.), vol.iii.p. 1088. EVIDENCE. 79 materially to vary, and, indeed, to a great extent, to exclude, chapteb ix. the operation of the rules of law which, in the absence of express contract, regulate the relations of principal and surety, as between them and the creditor. A proviso to the above effect is inserted in all well- drawn mortgages to which sureties are parties ; but cases not unfre- quentty occur in practice where it appears from the terms of the instrument, or from the circumstances of the case, that one or more of the parties to a mortgage, to a mortgage deed or equit- able charge, are merely sureties for the payment of the debt by the principal debtor or debtors. A full and general con- sideration of the law of principal and surety would be foreign to the scope of the present treatise, but it is proposed in the following pages to consider this subject so far as relates to the liabilities, rights and remedies of sureties in mortgage transactions. Before the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854 (b), if itfarolevi- ' . dence as to appeared by the instrument itself that a person was thereby suretyship, jointly and severally bound with the principal debtor for pay- ment of the debt, parol evidence was inadmissible to prove that he was only a surety (e). But in equity, in such a case, the fact was always provable by parol evidence (d). So, where in a suit to redeem, the mortgagors alleged that they were sureties only, the mortgagees were compelled to discover their dealings with the alleged principals (e) . Where two persons are originally co-debtors, they may, by Co-debtors . , , . may become subsequent arrangement between themselves, without the con- principal and currence or consent of the creditor, make one of them primarily *j|j,^; ^t liable for the debt and the other a surety only ; and, if notice arrangement. of such arrangement is given to the creditor he will be bound thereby so as to render him liable to the risk of losing his remedies against the surety by subsequent dealings with the person who has become the sole principal debtor, as by giving time to him (/). (b) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125. (e) Bridgwater v. De Winton, 33 (e) Lewis v. Jones, 4 B. & C. 506. L. J. 238. (d) Craythorne v. Swinburne, 14 Ves. (/) House v. Bradford Banking Co., 160, 170 ; Clarke v. Renty, 3 Y. & (1894) 2 Ch. 32, C. A. ; affirmed in C (Ex.) 187. See Reynolds v. D. P. on other grounds, (1894) A. C. Wheeler, 10 C. B. (N. S.) 561 ; Mac- 586. See Uakeley v. Tasheller, 4 CI. & donald v. Whitfield, 8 App. Cas. 733. F. 207 ; Overend,Gwney^Co.sr. Oriental See now the Jud. Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Financial Co., L. R. 7 H. L. at p. 360. Vict. c. 66), s. 25 (11). 80 CONTRACT OF SURETYSHIP. CHAPTER EK. No action on guaranty unless in writing 1 . Written guarantee shall not be invalid by reason that the consideration does not appeal in writing 1 or by necessary inferencefrom a written document. Parol evi- dence of con- sideration, &c. ii. — Statute of Frauds. — The Statute of Frauds (g) enacts that : — " No action shall he Drought whereby to charge .... the defendant upon any special promise to answer for the deht, default, or miscarriage of another person .... unless the agreement upon which such action shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, shall be in writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorized." Formerly, if such an undertaking was made by writing not under seal, the consideration must have appeared on the face of the writing (Ji) ; but now by sect. 3 of the Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1856 (t), it is enacted as follows : — " No special promise to be made by any person after the passing of this Act, to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another person, being in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some other person by him thereunto lawfully authorized, shall be deemed invalid to support an action, suit, or other proceeding to charge the person by whom such promise shall have been made, by reason only that the consideration for such promise does not appear in writing or by necessary inference from a written document." Although parol evidence is admissible to supply the considera- tion for a guaranty, it cannot be admitted to explain the promise, which must still be in writing (/<•). And if the consi- deration does not appear on the face of the -guaranty, it must be clearly proved by parol evidence (/). If the guaranty is given by a separate instrument, parol evidence is admissible to identify the security in respect of which the promise is made (m) or the amount of the debt intended to be guaranteed (;?), or whether it was intended to be a continuing guaranty to cover further advances (o). Section II. Avoidance of Contract of Suretyship. Contract of suretyship requires i. — Of Suretyship Contracts void ab initio. — The contract of suretyship requires that all parties to it should mutually exer- (ff) 29 Car. II. c. 3, s. 4. See Mallet v. Bateman, L. R. 1 C. P. 163, Ex. Ch. (fi) Wain v. Warlters, 5 East, 10; Saunders v. Wakefield, 4 B. & Al. 595. (i) 19 & 20 Vict. c. 97. (*) Holmes v. Mitchell, 7 C. B. N. S. 361. (/) Glover v. Hallcctt, 2 H. & N. 489. \m) Shortrede v. Check, 1 A. & E. 57. (u) Bateman v. Phillips, 15 East, 272. See Brunton v. Dullens, 1 F. & F. 450. (o) Grahame v. Grahame, 19 L. E. Ir. 249. avoid CONTRACTS VOID AB INITIO. 81 cise the utmost good faith (p). The contract will be void in chapter rx. its inception, unless the fullest information is afforded to the ntm^ood~ surety as to all material facts affecting his obligations and S^aiS^ 8 " liabilities, and unless the instrument strictly and literally em- " *"" bodies the terms on which he agreed to assume such obligations and liabilities. ^ So, also, a contract of suretyship, though origi- nally valid, will be avoided by any subsequent transaction between the creditor and the principal debtor which may affect the remedies or liabilities of the surety. Thus, the contract will be void ab initio if, with the knowledge Contract or assent of the creditor, any material part of the transaction JSS&lh. between the creditor and the debtor is misrepresented to the representa- surety, and the misrepresentation be such that, but for the same ti ° n * having taken place, either the suretyship would not have been entered into at all, or, being entered into, the surety's liability might be thereby increased (q). So, if a private bargain is entered into between the creditor Concealment and principal debtor which may have the effect of varying the f^m™ 1 responsibility or position of the surety, the withholding the know- contract ledge of that bargain from the surety will vitiate the contract of suretyship. So, where the bargain was that the vendee of goods should pay beyond the market price of goods supplied to him 10s. per ton, which was to be applied in payment of an old debt due to the vendor, and the payment for the goods was guaranteed by a third person as follows :— " I will guarantee you in the payment of 200/., value to be delivered to T. in Lightmoore pig iron," but the bargain was not communicated to the surety, it was held, that the concealment was a fraud on the surety, and rendered the guaranty void (r). In order, however, to vitiate the contract, the concealment Fact con- must be of a fact which materially varies the position of the ^ materia? surety from that which he might naturally expect to hold. So, where a surety guaranteed a cash account opened by the prin- cipal debtor to the amount of 750/., and the money was applied in discharge of a debt of that amount owing by the principal debtor to the same creditor, of the existence of which debt the surety was not informed, it was held that the creditor was (p) JDavics v. London and Provincial Dow. 272 ; Bailton v. Matthews, 10 CI. Marine Insurance Co., 8 Ch. D. 469, & F. 934 ; Burke v. Rocicrson, 14 L. T. °- A - a N. S. 780. ('/) See Stone v. Comton, 5 Bing. N. S. (>•) Bidcoek v. Bishop, 3 B. & Cr. COS. 142, 157 ; Smith v. Bank of Scotland, 1 See Sfalth/s case, cited 1 Dow, 294. VOL. I. R. ~ 82 AVOIDANCE OF CONTEACT. CHAPTER IX. Creditor, •when bound to make in- quiries as to fraud. Application of the rule to mortgages of life policies. under no obligation to disclose the purpose for which, the money- was intended to be applied, and that the concealment of the existing debt did not avoid the contract of suretyship (s). So, where a person procured an advance of 500/., for the repayment of which two other persons became sureties, and, in pursuance of a previous agreement, the borrower handed over 125/. out of the 500/. as a loan to one of the sureties without the knowledge of the other surety, it was held that there was no such concealment of a material fact as to pre- judicially affect the position of the latter (/). A creditor is not, as a general rule, bound to inquire into the circumstances under which a person becomes surety to him for a debt, unless the circumstances are of such a nature as that they ought to raise a reasonable ground of suspicion in his mind that the surety has been induced to assume his obligations by fraud on the part of the debtor ; under such circumstances the creditor is bound to make inquiries (u). The rule that the fullest disclosure must be made to the surety would seem to be applicable with the utmost strictness when a third party concurs in a mortgage of a policy of life assurance for the purpose of guaranteeing the payment of the mortgage moneys, and the punctual payment of the premiums ; for in such cases the creditor and the assured have full knowledge of all circumstances affecting the health of the assured, and other matters with regard to which the surety cannot readily obtain information (x). Alteration of conditions of contract. ii. — Of the Discharge of the Surety by Subsequent Trans- actions. — The contract of suretyship is construed in the strictest manner, so that the surety will only be bound according to the strict letter of his engagement (?/). If it is in any way altered without his consent, even for his benefit or innocently, he is entitled to be discharged (s) . He is discharged by an arrange- (s) Hamilton v. Watson, 12 CI. & F. 109. {t) Machreih v. Walmesley, 51 L. T. 19. (u) Oivcn v. Homan, 4 H. L. C. 997. See Maitland v. Irving, 15 Sim. 437. {x) See North British Insurance Co. v. Lhyd, 10 Exch. 523; Wythes v. Labouchere, 3 De 6. & J. 593. (y) Stamford, §c. Bky. Co. v. Ball, 4 De G. F. & J. 310; Blest v. Brown, 4 De G. F. & J. 3G7, 376. (~) Blest v. Brown, sup. ; Samuel v. Hoivarth, 3Mer. 272; Gardner v. Walsh, 5 E. & B. 83 ; Polak v. Everett, 1 Q. B. D. 0G9 ; Holme v. Brunskill, 3 Q. B. D. 495. DISCHARGE OF SURETY. 83 ment between the mortgagee and the mortgagor affecting a chapter ix. fund which the surety had a right to rely on {a) . Any depar- ture from the conditions will discharge him, even though he is not thereby prejudiced (b) . An absolute release of the principal debtor of course dis- Absolute charges the surety by extinguishing the debt ; and in such principal a case the creditor cannot reserve any rights against the surety, discharges as the debt is gone, so that no rights of action with regard to it can remain. Although, of course, payment off of the debt by the principal Effect of pay- discharges the surety from all obligations in respect of it, yet a ^bs e q Ue ntiy payment which is subsequently set aside for fraudulent prefe- set aside, rence is not a satisfaction of the debt as to discharge the surety (c) . If the creditor enters into a binding contract with the principal Effect of debtor to give him further time to pay, without the concurrence ^"prmcipal of the surety, the surety is discharged, because the creditor has debtor. put it out of his own power to enforce immediate payment, which the surety would have a right to require him to do (d). A parol agreement for good consideration to give time to the Parol agree- principal debtor, being enforceable in equity, will discharge the ™^ # ° glve surety, although the principal is bound by deed (c). A parol agreement to alter the contract, between the creditors and principal debtor, was no answer at law to an action on a bond against a surety, but a Court of Equity would, in such case, have interfered (/). There must, however, be a clear and binding contract with Agreement the principal debtor to give time in order to discharge the ^j^ e surety (g). An agreement without consideration is not bind- binding. ing, and will not discharge the surety (//) . So, also, mero for- bearance from suing the principal debtor, without a positive (a) Gen. Steam, §c. Co. v. Bolt, 6 Jur. 142; Bolton v. Buckenham, (1891) 1 N. S. 801. See Mortgage Insurance Q. B. 278, C. A. Corp. v. Pound, 65 L. J. Q. B. 129. (e) Blake v. White, 1 Y. & C. Ex. {!>) Lawrence v. Walmsleg, 31 L. J. 420 ; Nisbet v. Smith, 2 Bro. C. C. C. P. 143. 579. (c) Betty v. Cooke, L. R. 6 Q. B. (/) See Bavcy v. Brcndergrass, 5 B. 790. & Aid. 187, and .cases in note to Heath (d) Bank of Ireland v. Bcrcsford, 6 v. Keg, 1 Y. &. J. 434. Dow, 238; Oakeley v. Bashellcr, 4 CI. (y) Heath v. Key, supra; Clarke v. & F. 207. See Nisbet v. Smith, 2 Birley, 41 Ch. D. 422. Bro. C. C. 579; Bees v. Berrington, 2 (//) Blake v. White, 1 Y. & C. Ex. Ves. jun. 540; Strong v. Foster, 17 420; v. Wilson, 3 M. & W. C. B. 219; Oriental Financial Corp. v. 208; Lgon v. Holt, 5 M. & W. 250 ; Overend, Gumey § Co., L. R. 7 Ch. A. Backer v. Laing, 2 K. & J. 749. g2 84 AVOIDANCE OF CONTRACT. CHAPTEE IX. Conditional agreement to give time. Alteration of period of redemption of mortgage. Additional security for debt. Release of principal from liability under covenant. Exception to rule where remedies of surety are not affected. and binding contract to that effect between him and the creditor, will not discharge the surety (t). A conditional agreement does not discharge the surety where the agreement does not become binding, from the condition not being performed (k) . "Where a consolidated mortgage contains a covenant by the principal debtor to pay the mortgage debt at a later date than that fixed by the deed to which the surety was a party, this necessarily suspends the remedy against the principal debtor, and consequently amounts to a giving of time which will discharge the surety (/). The giving of additional security by the principal debtor to the creditor is not necessarily of itself a giving of time to the principal (in) . But the taking in lieu of an equitable mortgage by deposit of a legal mortgage for a larger amount, with a covenant for payment of the principal at a later date, was held to amount to a giving of time to the principal debtor so as to discharge a surety who had guaranteed the repayment of the original loan (n). "Where a surety guaranteed the payment of premiums of a mortgaged policy, the release by the mortgagee of the mortgagor from personal liability under his covenants to pay the premiums, was held to discharge the surety (o) . The surety will not be discharged by a contract with a stranger to give time to the principal debtor, nor by the taking a further security from the principal, provided the creditor's remedy under the existing security be not thereby suspended (p) . Nor is the surety in a simple contract security discharged by the principal debtor giving a specialty, by way of f urther security, to the creditor, though the creditor agree to give the debtor time on the specialty (q). (i) Samuel v. Sou-art It, 3 Mer. 278 ; Wright v. Simpson, 6 Ves. 734; Bell v. Banks, 3 Man. & Gr. 258 ; Bonser v. Cox, 13 L. J. Ch. 261 ; Seath v. Key, 1 Y. & J. 431 ; Sollier v. Eyre, 9 CI. &F. 57. (k) Price v. Edmonds, 10 B. & C. 578. (I) Bolton v. Buckenham, (1891) 1 Q. B. 278, C. A. ; Bolton v. Salmon, (1892) 2 Ch. 18. (»i) Ovcrend, Gurncy §• Co. v. Oriental Financial Corp., L. R. 7 H. L. 348. («) Munstcr and Leinstcr Bank v. , 24 L. R. Ir. 82, C. A. (o) Lowes v. Maughan and Fearen, 1 C. & E. 340. (p) Fraser v. Jordan, 8 E. & B. 312. See Xorris v. Aylctt, 2 Camp. 329 ; Twopenny v. Young, 3 B. & C. 208 ; Fines v. Widdowson, 4 Car. & P. 151 ; Croydon Commercial Gas Co. v. Dickinson, 2 C. P. D. 46. So also the acceptance of a new bill as a collateral security does not discharge the drawer : Bring v. Clarkson, 1 B. & C. 14 ; Bed- ford v. Beakin, 2 B. & Aid. 210. {q) Twopenny v. Young, 3 B. & C. 208 ; Bell v. Banks, 3 Man. & Gr. 258. DISCHARGE OF SURETY. 85 The rule as to the effect of giving time has been held to be chapter ix. inapplicable to cases where the agreement between the principal ~ debtor and the creditor does not in substance, though it may in appearance, amount to giving time (r). On giving time to the principal debtors, or other indulgence Exception not amounting to an absolute release or obliteration of the TgStlurety debt, the creditor may reserve all his rights against the are reserved, surety (s) ; and it is immaterial whether the surety is informed of the arrangement (t). If time is given to the principal debtor with a reservation of the right to go against the surety, the latter is not discharged (w). Sir W. Page-Wood, V.-C, thus states the principle upon which this exception to the general rule is founded: — "When the right is reserved the principal debtor cannot say it is inconsistent with giving him time that the creditor should be at liberty to proceed against the sureties, and that they should turn round upon the principal debtor, notwithstanding the time so given him ; for he was a party to the agreement by which that right was reserved to the creditor, and the question whether or not the surety is informed of the arrangement is wholly im- material " (.r) . So, though a simple release of the principal debtor discharges Effect of the surety, because otherwise the surety could sue the principal pfildpaf debtor notwithstanding the release, and so render it futile, yet, w . hcre rc . me " where the bargain is that the creditor is to retain his remedy raretj^are against the surety, there is no fraud on the principal debtor, and reserved - the Court will give effect to the intention of the parties by con- struing the release as a covenant not to sue the debtor (y). Where the deed containing the reservation of rights against the surety amounts not to an absolute release, but only to a covenant not to sue the principal, the surety is not discharged, for the surety may still pay the creditor and sue the principal (s). So, also, if the creditor releases or discharges one surety, the Release of others will be discharged (a), unless the release can be construed Sarl^iL (*•) Eulme v. Coles, 2 Sim. 12 ; Price (z) Greenv. Wynn, L. R. 4 Ch. A. v. Edmonds, 10 B. & Cr. 578. And see 204 ; Thompson v. Lack, 3 C. B. 540 ; Prendergast v. Levey, 6 Madd. 124. Bateson v. Gosling, L. R. 7 C. P. 9 ; (*) Owen v. Soman, 4 H. L. C. 997, Price v. Barker, 4 E. & B. 760 ; North 1037 ; Webb v. Sewitt, 3 K. & J. 438. v. Wakefield, 13 Q. B. 536 ; Keyet v. (t) Webb v. Hewitt, sup. Elkin, 5 B. & S. 240, 253. {it) Boullbeev. Stubbs, 18 Ves. 20. («) Chcetham v. Ward, 1 B. & P. (x) Webb v. Newitt, 3 K. & J. 442. 633 ; Nicholson v. 'Bevill, 4 A. & E. {y) Be Natal Investment Co., L. R. 6 675 ; Exp. Jacobs, Be Jacobs, L. R. 10 Ch. A. 43, at p. 47. Ch. A. 211. 86 AVOIDANCE OF CONTEACT. CHAPTER IS. Satisfaction of debt. Loss of security. Assignment of judgment by debtor as collateral security. Discharge of surety by other acts or omissions of creditor. as merely a covenant not to sue, and rights against the other sureties are reserved (b). Where an agreement is a satisfaction of the debt, although not a release at law, a reservation of the right against the surety vdll be bad as inconsistent with the security (c) . If by the neglect of the mortgagee the benefit of all or some of the securities is lost, the surety is pro tanto discharged (d). If a debtor assigns a debt, due to himself under a judgment, to his creditor, by way of collateral security, and such debt after- wards becomes irrecoverable, it seems that the loss will not fall upon the creditor merely because he gave time to the debtor under the judgment (e) ; though if he takes out execution, and so assumes, as it were, the control of the judgment, and then is guilty of neglect in levying, he becomes answerable for the loss(/). The surety may be discharged by the creditor's wasteful application of the principal's estate {g) ; by his neglect to file a warrant of attorney whereby he is prevented from entering up judgment and issuing execution (h) ; or by omission to register a bill of sale («) ; or an assignment of a ship (/.•) ; or by neglecting to insure according to contract (I) ; or by neglecting to realize a collateral security (m) ; or by not presenting a bill of exchange for payment at maturity (n) ; or by not giving notice of a mortgage of the debtor's life interest to the trustees of the settlement (o) ; or by the creditor taking a surrender from his debtor of a lease for the performance of the covenants in which the surety had given security (p) ; or by a release of the mortgage to the mortgagor's trustees in bankruptcy in consideration of a conveyance of the equity of redemption, instead of proving in the bankruptcy (q) . (J) Price v. Barker, 4 E. & B. 777 ; Bailey v. Edwards, 4B.&S. 761. See Exp. Good, Be Armitage, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 46, C. A. (c) Webb v. Hewitt, 3 K. & J. 438 ; ley v. Cole, 16 M. & W. 128. See Muw v. Crawford, L. R. 2 H. L. Sc. 456. {d) Cupel v. Butler, 2 S. & St. 457 ; ge v. Books, 4 Giff. 408 ; Wulfy. Jay, L. R. 7 Q. B. 756. (e) Williams v. Price, 1 S. & St. 587. (/) Williams v. Price, sup.; Mayhew v. Crockett, 2 Sw. 191. (g) Mutual Boan Fund Assoc, v. Sad- 0. B. N. S. 449. (/») Watson v. Allcock, 4 De G. M. & G. 242. (i) Wulfr. Jay, L. R. 7 Q. B. 756. (/„-) Cupel v. Butler, 2 S. & St. 457. See Straton v. Bast all, 2 T. R. 366. (/) Watts v. Shuttleworth, 7 H. & N. 353. (m) Mutual Boan Assoc, v. Sudlou; sup. (>i) Bathamv. Chartered Bank of India, L. R. 17 Eq. 205. (o) Strange v. Books, 4 Giff. 408. (/>) Jjord Karberto» v. Bennett, Beat. 386. And see Eivin v. Lancaster, 6 B. &S. 571. (q) Blcdge v. Buss, John. 663. DISCHARGE OF SURETY. 87 A mortgagee must not by his own act, or by consenting to chapteb is. acts of the mortgagor, render unavailable any part of the security to the benefit of which a surety is entitled. So, a mortgagee cannot apply the security in satisfaction of Security can- any other debt than that for which the surety is liable ; as where fo r t a 1 ^ t n ) cr ied a landlord, holding a mortgage of the furniture of his tenant debt. for a debt for which the surety was liable, distrained on the furniture for rent (>•). In such a case the surety will be discharged pro tanto (r). But where a mortgage deed provided that the mortgagor, Sale of stock who was a farmer, should continue in possession and manage- ^th^nsenT ment of the mortgaged property till default, and the mortgagor, ? f mortgagee with the consent of the mortgagee, sold certain live stock business. included in the security, it was held that the liability of sureties for payment of the mortgage moneys was not affected thereby, though the purchaser had failed to pay the price, so that the value of the security was diminished, as it must have been within the contemplation of all parties that the mortgagor, while in possession, should have power to deal with the live stock in the usual conduct of the farm business (s). Mere passive acquiescence by the creditor in acts of the Acquiescence principal debtor which are contrary to the strict conditions of vr^rfni* m the security, or otherwise improper, is not sufficient of itself to acts - discharge the surety (t). If one of several co-sureties or joint debtors be absolutely Release of a released, all the others are discharged (u) , and parol evidence co " sure F* is not admissible of an alleged agreement to reserve the right against the rest (.r) . If the creditor releases one co-surety, such release not amount- ing to an extinguishment of the debt, he may still claim a proportion of the debt against the other (y). If, however, the sureties are several, not joint, a release of one surety is only a discharge of the co-surety where the right of contribution has been taken away or in juriously affected (s) . (r) Pearl v. Deacon, 1 De G. & J. Nicholson v. Bevill, 4 A. & E. 675. 461. (x) Evans v. Brcmridge, 8 De G. M. (s) Taylor v. Bank of New South & G. 100. Wales, 11 App. Cas. 596, P. C. (y) Exp. Gifford, 6 Ves. 805; Whiting (t) Mayor, $c. of Durham v. Fowler, v. Burke, L. R. 6 Ch. A. 342 ; Exp. 22 Q. B.'D. 394 ; Mayor, %e. of King- Snowdon, 17 Ch. D. 44, C. A.; Re Ennis, ston-upon-Bull v. Earding, (1892) 2 Q. Coles v. Peyton, (1893) 3 Ch. 238, C. A. B. 494, C. A. (;) Mercantile Bank of Sydney v. («) T. B. 21 Edw. IV. 81, B. pi. 33; Taylor, (1893) A. C. 317, P. C. 88 LIABILITY OF SURETIES. CHAPTER IX. Extent of discharge of surety by giving time, &c. Where a person joined in the grant of an annuity as a surety for the payment of the same quarterly, it was held that the giving time to the principal grantor discharged the surety from liability in respect not only of future payments, but also of past arrears of the annuity (a) . The giving time to the principal debtor will not only dis- charge the surety from all personal liability, but will also release any property which the surety has included in his contract as security for the debt (b). Section III. Liabilities and rig'hts of surety regu- lated by in- strument of guaranty. Creditor has immediate rii?ht of action Of the Liability of Sureties. i, — Nature of Liability. — Inasmuch as the guaranty must be in writing, which cannot, generally speaking, be explained or varied by parol evidence (e), it follows that the liabilities and rights of the surety are regulated by the express or implied terms of the instrument of suretyship. "When the obligation exists only by virtue of the covenant, its extent can be measured only by the words in which it is conceived (d ) . So, where the principal and the surety are bound jointly, but it is alleged that the intention was that they should be bound jointly and severally, the Court will not alter the instrument on conjec- ture (e). Where, however, a guaranty is not explicit in its terms, it must, like every other contract, be construed reason- ably with regard to the surrounding circumstances of the case (/). A covenant by a surety to pay interest on the mortgage money " during the continuance of the security " was held to render him liable to pay the interest after default of the principal in payment of the mortgage money on the day fixed, so long as any principal money remained unpaid (g) . In the absence of stipulation to the contrary, so soon as the principal has made default in payment of the debt for which (a) Eyre v. Bartrop, 3 Madd. 221. (b) Bolton v. Salmon, (1892) 2 Ch. 48. (c) Ante, p. 80. (d) Sumner v. Towcll, 2 Mer. 30, 3G. .. Parr, 3 Russ. 539, ing decision of M. II., 8. C, 121. (/) Lloyd's v. Harper, 16 Ch. D. 290, 303. And sec Newell v. Radford, L. R. 3 C. P. 52 ; Ilcffteld v. Meadows, L. R. 4 C. P. 595 ; Laurie v. Scholeficld, L. R. 4 C. P. 622 ; Coles v. Pack, L. R. 5 C. P. 65. {y) King v. Grcenhill, 6 Man. & Gr. 59. NATURE OF LIABILITY. 89 the surety is responsible, the creditor has an immediate right chapter ix. of action against the surety, without first suing the principal (//) . against surety Where, however, a guaranty was expressly given on condition SSS? ° f that no application should be made to the surety for payment, but on failure of the " utmost efforts and legal proceedings " of the creditors to obtain payment from the principal, it was held that the creditors, not having shown that they had used their utmost efforts against the principal, could not maintain their action against the surety («), So, also, in the absence of stipulation, a creditor need not Creditor need first resort to securities given to him by the principal debtor reaibJsecu- before suing the surety (k). And even where the guaranty rities - contained a stipulation that the creditor should not sue the surety until he had availed himself of all bond fide securities held by him of the principal debtor, and it was shown that there were no securities of any material value, it was held that the surety could not set up the stipulation as a defence to the action, though the creditor had not attempted to realize any of the securities, nor first sued the principal (/). It has been repeatedly held that the creditor need not even Demand on make any demand upon the principal debtor before suing the debtor not surety (m), unless by the terms of the contract the debt is made payable only on demand. But, where a mortgage contained a joint and several covenant by a person and his father, who joined as surety, for payment of the mortgage moneys " on demand," it was held that the right of action against the surety did not accrue until demand was first made (n) . In this case it is to be observed that it appeared by the terms of the mortgage deed the father was a surety only, and not, as between himself and the mortgagee, a principal debtor. So, also, generally, the creditor need not make any demand Creditor need for payment on the surety himself (o), or even inform the J^noticeto surety of default having been made by the principal (p), But surety of L v ' default of principal. (A) Wright v. Simpson, 6 Ves. 714, v. Hewitt, 11 Pri. 494 ; Walton v. at pp. 732, 733. See Fadwick v. Stan- Maskall, 13 M. & W. 452 ; Belfast ley, 9 Ha. 627. Banking Co. v. Stanley, 15 W. R. GS9. (i) Holly. Hadley, 2 A. & E. 758. {n) fie Brown's Estate, Brown v. (k) Wright v. Simpson, sup. ; Wilks Brown, (1893) 2 Ch. 300. v. Hecley, 1 C. & M. 249. (o) Hitchcock v. Humfrey, 5 Man. & (I) Musket v. Rogers, 5 Bing. N. C. Gr. 539. 728. (p) Cutler v. Southern, 1 Wins. (m) Warrington v. Furbor, 8 East, Saund. 115; Kcr v. Mitchell, 2 Chit. 242 ; Holborow v. Wilkins, 1 B. & C. Gr. P. 487. See Carr v. Brown, 12 10 ; Rede v. Fair, 6 M. & S. 121 ; Lilly Moo. 62. 90 LIABILITY OF SURETIES. CHAPTER IX. Exception ■where stipula^ tion to the contrary- expressed, — or implied. No privity of contract between principal and surety. Surety not liable till default of principal. Wben surety may be bound, though prin- cipal is not bound. the omission to give notice might possibly affect the question of costs ; and a surety whose principal has not admitted the debt, and who has received no particulars of demand, will be allowed to defend an action on a specially-indorsed writ without paying money into Court or giving security (q). The terms of the contract of suretyship may, however, ex- pressly stipulate that demand of payment or notice of default shall be made upon or given to the surety, in which case the right of action against him will not arise until the condition has been complied with (■>•) . So, also, there may be a necessary implication from the terms of the contract that notice should be given to the surety before suing him ; so, where the guaranty is only to take effect upon the happening of a specified event, that the creditor cannot com- mence his action against the surety without informing him that the event has happened (s) . Generally speaking, there is no privity of contract between the surety and the principal debtor (t) ; consequently no act of the principal can enlarge the guaranty, and no admission or acknowledgment by him can fix the surety with an amount other than that which was really due and which alone the surety was liable to pay (w). It is, of course, of the essence of a guaranty that there should be a principal primarily liable for the payment of the debt (#), and that the principal should have made default before the surety can be sued (y). But it does not follow that if the principal debtor is not bound, as where the borrowing the money was ultra vires, the surety will be freed from liability. So, where a company having no power to borrow money entered into a contract with another company for the sale of certain rolling stock, and for the re- hiring of the same by the former company, and three of the directors of the vendor company guaranteed the payment of the (q) Lloyd's Banking Co. v. Ogle, 1 Ex. D. 262. (r) Sicklcmore v. Thistlcton, 6 M. & S. 9 ; liaison v. Spearman, 9 A. & E. 298 ; Phillips v. Fordycc, 2 Chit. 676. See Payne v. Lees, 3 D. & By. 664. (») Morten v. Marshall, 9 Jur. N. S. 651. (t) Bangerfield v. Thomas, 9 A. & E. 292. (m) Exp. Young, lie Kiichm, 17 Ch.D. 66S, C. K.,per James, L. J., at p. 671. (*) Birkmyr v. Darnell, Salk. 27; and see notes to 8. C, in 1 Sm. L. C. (10th ed.) 287; Chaplco v. Brunswick Permanent Building Hoc, 6 Q. B. D. 696. (>/) Walker v.British Guarantee Assoc., 18 Q. B. D. 277. See King v. Cole, 15 Q. B. 628 ; Lloyd's v. Harper, 16 Ch. D. 290, C. A. ; see also Halliwell v. Counsell, 38 L. T. 176. EXTENT OF LIABILITY. 91 rent, Kay, J., held that (1) the transaction was a loan on mort- chapter is. gage, and (2) that the guaranty was valid and binding on the sureties (s). ii, — Extent of Liability. — The liability of the surety to the Liability of creditor may continue after the liability of the principal debtor contiL™ a"fter has ceased. It is provided by the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (a), d J£j3*JJ£f that an order discharging a bankrupt shall not release any person bankruptcy. who was surety or in the nature of surety for the bankrupt. So it has been repeatedly held, that if the principal debtor is Effect of discharged by resolution of the creditors under a composition, pj^oipal ° the surety remains liable (&). And by the Bankruptcy Act, under a com- 1890 (c), it is enacted that — " The acceptance by a creditor of a composition or scheme shall not release any person who, under the principal Act and this Act, would not bo released by an order of discharge if the person had been adjudged bankrupt." In general, the composition deed extinguishes the debt, and Effect of ex- with it all collateral securities in the hands of the creditor, of g^ t ^ whether given at the time of or antecedent to the composition (d) . composition „ f,j_ • i • • i 1 L 0Jl securities But how far it is competent for a creditor to retain his right to given by securities given by a surety does not seem in all cases clear. If suret y- such a reservation be contained in the composition deed (e), then, whether the surety be a party to such deed or not, the remedy against the surety is kept alive, and he has his remedy over against the debtor (/) ; nor does the assent of the surety to the composition deed containing such a reservation of remedies put the surety in the same situation as if he had applied to a Court of Equity to sue in the place of the creditor, and had been per- mitted to use his name upon payment of the debt into Court (in which case it is said he would not have been allowed afterwards to recover over the residue against the principal) ; to effect this there must be a stipulation that the surety shall stand in the (z) Yorkshire Wagon Co. v. Maclure, (d) Coclcshott v. Bennett, 2 T. R. 763 ; 19 Cb. D. 478; reversed on point (1) Cowper v. Green, 7 M. & W. 633; by C. A. 21 Cb. D. 309. Lewis v. Jones, 4 B. & Cr. 506 ; Gragoe (a) 46 & 47 Vict. c. 52, s. 30, v. Jones, L. R. 8 Ex. 81. Bub-s. (4). (e) See Bobs. Bky. (7tb ed.) 302. {b) Me Jacobs, L. R. 10 Cb. A. 211 ; (/) Exp. Gifford, 6 Ves. 805 ; Boult- Ellis v. Wilmot, L. R. 10 Ex. 10 ; bee v. Stubbs, 18 Ves. 20 ; Kearsley v. Megrath v. Gray, L. R. 9 C. B. 216, Cole, 16 M. & W. 128; North v. disapproving of Wilson v. Lloyd, L. R. Wakefield, 18 L. J. Q. B. 214 ; Bateson 16 Eq. 60. And see Cragoe v. Jones, v. Gosling, L. R. 7 C. B. 13; Nicholson L. R. 8 Ex. 81 ; Exp. Agra Bank, Be v. Bevill, 4 A. & E. 683 ; Brice v. Barber $ Co., L. R. 9 Eq. 725. Barker, 1 Jur. N. S. 775. (c) 53&54Vict.c.71,s.3,sub-s. (19). 92 LIABILITY OF SURETIES. CHAPTER IX. Liability of surety's estate continues after his death. Limitation of liability by express stipulation. Effect of recitals. creditor's place (g) ; but if the other creditors are not parties to such agreement for a reservation of remedies against the surety, the agreement seems to be invalid as a fraud upon them, unless the surety thereby deprives himself of any remedy over against the principal debtor (//) ; and even then the case seems not quite free from doubt, when the effect of the composition is to ex- tinguish the debt (/). In cases of this nature it is incumbent upon the surety, when sued by the creditor, to prove want of knowledge, on the part of the other creditors, of the agreement for the reservation of remedies against the surety (k) . In the absence of stipulation to the contrary, a guaranty, the consideration for which is given once for all, cannot be determined by the surety, and does not cease at his death ; but it would seem that if the guaranty is for a present loan and future advances, the surety, or his representatives after his death, may, by notice, determine the liability in respect of advances made after the notice has been given (/). It is, of course, competent for the surety to stipulate in the instrument of guaranty that on notice he shall be discharged from all future liability (m). In the case of a guaranty of several sureties, which is joint only, the death of one guarantor puts an end to the guaranty, unless the survivors expressly or by implication from conduct agree that it shall continue (n). The parties to a contract of suretyship may limit the liability of the surety as to duration of time, or as to amount, or other matters, or may make the liability depend on conditions pre- cedent, the fulfilment of which will be necessary to give rise to the liability (o) . In order to ascertain the intention of the parties the instru- ment of guaranty must be considered as a whole ; and for this purpose the operation of the instrument may be controlled by the recitals (p). (ff) Eearsley v. Cole, 16 M. & W. 128. And see note to Lewis v. Jones, 16 L. J. 115, supposed to have been ■written by Holroyd, J., 4 B. & Cr. 506, 515, or by Cress-well, J., L. R. 7 C. F. 14. (A) Note to Lewis v. Jones, sup. ; Davidson v. M'Greyor, 8 M. & "VV. 755. But see TJiomas v. Conrtnay, 1 B. & Aid. 1 ; Cowper v. Smith, 4 M. & W. 519. (i) See Lewis v. Jones, sup. (/•) Davidson v. M^Greqor, sup. (1) Lloyd's v. Harper, 16 Ch. D. 290, C. A. See lie Silvester, Midland Hail. Co. v. Silvester, (1895) 1 Ch. 573. (m) Calvert v. Gordon, 3 Man. & Ry. 124, 128. 00 Ashby v. Day, 54 L. T. 408, C. A. (o) Burton v. Gray, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 932. (p) Glyn v. Hcrtel, 8 Taunt. 208; Pearsall v. Somerset, 4 Taunt. 593. Sec also Lord Arlington v. MeyricJce, 2 Wms. Saund. 813 ; Bamford v. lies, 3 Exch. 380 ; Teppin v. Cooper, 2 B. & Aid. 431 ; Eitson v. Julian, 4 E. & B. 854; RIGHT OF ACTION. 93 A guaranty of the whole debt, with a limit on the surety's ohapteb ix. liability in point of amount, is to be distinguished from a Suretyship guaranty of part only of the debt (g). llhSntf Where one of several partners gives the collateral security of limited to a his own separate real estate for future advances, to be made to the firm, to a certain amount, the collateral security will deter- mine on the death of any one of the partners as to any advances not then made, unless the guaranty be clearly intended to be a continuing one (r) ; so a surety for a customer with a bank, who has there a running account, is discharged by any change in the banking firm, as to any sums not actually due at the time of such change (.s-). This does not apply to changes in the members of a company (t). A security may expressly (w), or by implication from the cir- cumstances (x), extend to advances and transactions made or entered into after a change in the firm {y). And a security given to or by a banking company may be shown to be intended to be a continuing security notwithstanding a change in the firm (z) . Section IV. Of the Eights of a Surety. i. — Rights of Action, &c. — Before the surety has paid or has 'Right of been called upon to pay anything under his guaranty, he is P ei principal " entitled, so soon as the principal debtor has made default, at all to P a F debt - events if the creditor refuses to exercise his right to sue the principal debtor (a), to obtain relief in equity by compelling the principal debtor to pay off the debt and so discharge his lia- bility (b) . " Although the surety is not troubled or molested Hassell v. Long, 2 M. & S. 362 ; cases Exp. Kensington, 2 V. & B. 79 ; Exp. of guarantees on appointments to Watson, 19 Ves. 459. offices. (t) Metcalf v. Bruin, 12 East, 400, (q) Ellis v. Emmanuel, 1 Ex. D. 157. doubting Weston v. Barton, 4 Taunt. (V) Bank of Scotland v. Christie, 8 CI. 681. & F. 214. (it) Strange v. Lee, sup. (s) Pemberton v. Oakes, 4 Russ. 154 ; m Metcalf v. Bruin, sup. Wright v. Russell, 3 Wils. K. B. 530 ; (y) Exp. Lloyd, 3 Dea. 305. Barker v. rarker, 1 T. R. 287 ; Myers (z) reuse v. Hirst, 10 B. & C. 122. v. Edge, 7 T. R. 254 ; Bodenham v. (a) Padwick v. Stanley, 9 Ha. 627. Purchas, 2 B. & Aid. 39 ; Dance v. (b) Antrobus v. Davidson, 3 Mer. 569, Girdler, 1 B. & P. 1ST. R. 34; Exp. 579; Lee v. Rook, Mos. 317; Nisbet Marsh, 2 Rose, 239 ; Eyton v. Knight, v. Smith, 2 Bro. C. C. 579, 582; Wool- 2 Jur. 8 ; Strange v. Lee, 3 East, 481 ; dridge v. Norris, L. R. 6 Eq. 410. 94 RIGHTS OF SURETY. CHAPTER ES. Right Of surety to com- pel creditor to sue principal. Other rights of surety who has not paid anything. Right to damages for principal's default. Rights of surety -when called on to pay. Right to set off debt due from creditor to principal. Right to sign judgment against principal. for the debt, yet at any time after the money becomes payable on the original bond, this Court will decree the principal to dis- charge the debt, it being unreasonable that a man should always have such a cloud hanging over him "(c). In a recent Irish case (d), it has been held that, to support such an action, it is not necessary that the creditor should have refused to sue the prin- cipal debtor. It would seem that the surety may also, before he has been called upon to pay anything under his guaranty, upon default of the principal debtor, bring an action against the creditor to compel him to enforce his remedies against the principal debtor (e) . Though the surety has not himself paid anything, if the debt has been satisfied aliunde in equity, he may, since the Judicature Act, 1873 (/), rely on such satisfaction as a defence to any action which might, but for that Act, have been brought against him in respect of his continuing obligation at law. He may also obtain a declaration discharging him from liability, where deal- ings between the creditor and the principal debtor have operated as a release {g) ; and, in a case of this nature, the Court ordered the instrument under which the surety's liability arose to be set aside and cancelled (Ji) . If the principal debtor gives to the surety a counter-bond or covenant to pay the amount due to the creditor on a specified day, and makes default, the surety can bring his action for damages on the bond or covenant (/) . If a surety is called upon to pay a debt under his guaranty, he is entitled to compel the creditor having another fund which the surety, if he pays the debt, cannot make available, to resort to that fund in the first instance (Ji) . A surety who is being sued by the creditor may set off a debt due by the creditor to the principal debtor arising out of the transaction on which the liability arises (/). A surety having from his principal a special promise to in- demnify him against " any risk, damage, or costs which might (c) Banelaugh v. Hayes, 1 Vern. 189, per Ld. North, K. (d) Mathews v. Saurin, 31 L. R. Ir. 181. (c) Wright v. Simpson, 6 Ves. 714, 733 ; Jlouilbce v. Stubbs, 18 Ves. 20. (/) 36 & 37 Vict. c. G6, s. 34, BUD-8. 5. {g) Wilson v. Lloyd, 21 W. R. 507. See Exp. Bishop, Me Fox, Walker § Co., 15 Ch. D. 400, C. A. (//) Blest v. Broun, 4 De G. F. & J. 367. (i) 1\ my v. Fo>/, 8 B. & C. 11 ; loose- more x. Radford, *9 M. & TV. 657. (/,•) Exp. Kendall, 17 Ves. 514. (!) Bcchenaise v. Lewis, L. R. 7 C. P. 372. INDEMNITY. 95 arise to him as surety" is entitled, on being sued by the chatteeix. creditor, to sign judgment against the principal under E. S. C, Ord. XVI. r. 55, before he has actually paid anything in dis- charge of the liability (m). So soon as the appointed time of payment arrives, but not Right of before, the surety may, without the assent of, or notice to, oef y b J opay the principal debtor, voluntarily pay off the debt ; and if he voluntarily, does so, he will acquire the same rights and remedies as against ££ ti™ e " the principal debtor, the creditor and his co-sureties, if any, u P° n - respectively, as if he had made the payment on the demand of the creditor («). After the surety has actually made any payment on account Rights of of the debt guaranteed by him, he may at once sue the prin- suret F after i j i l v „ , i payment to cipal debtor for repayment of the amount so paid. "Where recover from one person is surety for another, and compellable to pay the P™ 10 ^ 81 - whole debt, and he is called upon to pay, it is money paid to the use of the principal debtor, and may be recovered in an action against him for money paid, even though the surety did not pay the debt by the desire of the principal " (o). The right of the surety to sue the principal to recover money paid by him arises as soon as he has paid anything on account of the debt (p). In order, however, to entitle the surety to recover from the Guaranty principal, the guaranty must have been given at the request of JSJJ^rf the principal (q). principal. It is not necessary, however, that there should be any con- Consideration sideration moving from the principal debtor to the surety in SoSiSy? order to render the contract of suretyship valid, so as to entitle the surety to his remedies against the principal (■>•). ii. — Eight to Indemnity.— In the absence of any express Implied con- contract to the contrary, a principal is liable, upon an implied indemnity promise, to indemnify his surety from any loss that he may o£ surety, sustain in that character (s). This liability will continue not- withstanding the acceptance by the creditor of a composition (m) English and Scottish Mercantile 153, at p. 167. Investment Trust v. Flatau, 36 W. R. (q) Jones v. Broadhurst, 9 C. B. 173, 238. 193 ct scq. ; James v. Isaacs, 12 C. B (m) Bavics v. Humphreys, 6M.&W. 791 ; Coo/c v. lister, 13 C. B. N. S. 543 153; Newton v. Chorlton, 10 Ha. 646, 594; Kemp v. Balls, 10 Exch 607 6 62. M Exp. Mind, 14 Ves. 190. (o) Per 1,3.. Kenyon, C. J., in Ex all (s) Toussaint v. Martinnant, 2 T R v. Partridge, 8 T. R. 308, 310. See 100 ; Pownalt v. Ferrand, 6 B & C Warrington v. Furbor, 8 East, 242. 439. See Bufficld v. Scott, 3 T. R. 374* {p) Bavies v. Humphreys, 6 M. & W. 96 RIGHTS OF SURETY. CHAPTER IX. Formerly surety had no right to transfer of specialties, &c. A surety who discharges the liability shall he entitled to an assignment of all securi- ties held by the creditor, and to stand in the place of the creditor, and use his name if neces- sary, in order to obtain in- demnification. Limitation of amount re- coverable from any co- surety, &c. Assignment of securities not necessary. Act applies to co-debtors. from the principal, if by the composition deed the creditor reserves his rights against the surety (t). A surety paying off a debt formerly became a simple contract creditor only of the principal debtor for the amount so paid, and was not entitled to the benefit of any personal obligation of the nature of a specialty existing between the principal and the credi- tor by virtue of any covenant or otherwise (u). So, although the surety might recover of the principal the sum he was obliged to pay, yet he could not require the assignment of a bond for that purpose (%). But now, by the Mercantile Law Amend- ment Act, 1856 (y), it is enacted as follows : — "Every person who, being surety for the debt or duty of another, or being liable with another for any debt or duty, shall pay such debt or perform such duty, shall be entitled (s) to have assigned to him, or to a trustee for him, every judgment, specialty, or other security which shall be held by the creditor in respect of such debt or duty, whether such judgment, specialty, or other security shall or shall not be deemed at law to have been satisfied by the pay- ment of the debt or performance of the duty, and such person shall be entitled to stand in the place of the creditor, and to use all remedies, and, if need be, upon a proper indemnity, to use the name of the creditor in any action or other proceeding at law or in equity, in order to obtain from the principal debtor or any co-surety, co-contractor, or co-debtor, as the case may be, indem- nification for the advances made and loss sustained by the person who shall have so paid such debt or performed such duty, and such payment or performance so made by such surety shall not be pleadable in bar of any such action or other proceeding by him : Provided always, that no co-surety, co-contractor, or co-debtor shall be entitled to recover from any other co-surety, co-contractor, or co-debtor by the means aforesaid, more than the just proportion to which, as between those parties themselves, such last-mentioned persons shall be justly liable." The right of a surety who has paid off the principal's debt to stand in the place of the creditor is not affected by the fact that the surety has not actually obtained an assignment of the securities for the debt (a) . This statute applies to a co-debtor as well as to a surety, and gives a right to an assignment of a judgment against the (0 Close v. Close, 4 De G. M. & G. 176. (w) Copis v. Middlelon, T. & R. 224. See Robinson v. Wilson, 2 Madd. 434; Jones v. Davids, 4 Russ. 277 ; Hodgson v. Shaw, 3 My. & K. 183. (x) Gammon v. Stone, 1 Ves. Sen. 339 ; Woffington v. Sparks, 2 Ves. Sen. 569. (g) 19 & 20 Vict. c. 97, s. 5. (z) See FhilHpa v. Dickson, 8 C. B. N. S. 391. (a) Lightbown v. M'Myn, 33 Ch. D. 575. INDEMNITY. 97 debtors, although by discharge of the debt the judgment is chapteb ix. satisfied (b). Although under this provision a surety who discharges a men spe- specialty debt becomes a specialty creditor of the principal s Ure tyi 8 debtor, a specialty debt is not created by reason of the enforce- created, ment by the surety of his right to indemnity against a specialty debt, for which he is liable, but which he has not discharged (c). This Act applies to a contract made before the Act if the Act is breach takes place and the payment is made after the Act (d). The Court has no power under sect. 5 to enforce the remedy As to . co-sureties. of one co-surety against the other (e). Independently of the statute, a surety who pays off the Right of mortgage debt, or any part thereof, being the whole remaining ftuf securities due(Y), is entitled to the benefit of every security which the held by the • i i creditor. mortgagee has against the principal debtor (g), whether the surety was or was not aware of the existence of the secu- rities (h), and even though the securities are taken by the creditor after the contract of suretyship was entered into (/). The rule is thus laid down by Lord Brougham, 0. (&), adopting the language of Sir J. Romilly arguendo in an earlier case (I) : "A surety will be entitled to every remedy which the creditor has against the principal debtor to enforce every security and all means of payment ; to stand in the place of the creditor, not only through the medium of contract, but even by means of securities entered into without the knowledge of the surety ; having a right to have those securities transferred to him, though there was no stipulation for that, and to avail himself of all those remedies against the debtor." Thus, for example, if a bond is given by principal and surety, and at the same time a mortgage is executed by the principal debtor to the creditor without the knowledge of the surety for (b) Batchellor v. Lawrence, 9 C. B. Allen v. Be Lisle, 3 Jur. N. S. 928 ; N. S. 543. See Re Swan, Ir. R. 4 Goddard v. Whi/te, 2 Giff. 449. Eq. 209 ; Silk v. Eyre, Ir. R. 9 Eq. (h) May hew v. Crickctt, 2 Swanst. 393. 191 ; Lake v. Brutton, 8 De G. M. & (c) Fergusson v. Gibson, L. R. 14 Eq. G. 440 ; Duncan v. North and South 379. Western Lank, 6 App. Cas. 1. (d) Lockhart v. Reilly, I De G. & J. (?) Forbes v. Jackson, 19 Ch. D. 615. 476 ; Re Cochran's Estate, L. R. 5 Eq. See Plcdgew. Buss, Johns. 663 ; Lake v. 209. Brutton, sup. {e) Phillips v. Dickson, 8 C. B. N. S. (k) Hodgson v. Shaw, 3 My. & K. 391 ; 29 L. J. C. P. 223. 183, at p. 191. (/) Ewart v. Latta, 4 Macq. H. L. (I) Craythorne v. Swinburne, 14 Ves. 983. at p. 162. (g) Mayhewv. Crickett, 2Swar.st. 191 ; VOL. I. R. H 98 EIGHTS OF SUEETY. CHAPTER LX. Exception where part only of debt is guaranteed. Eight only arises where the debt is wholly paid off. Effect where principal gives further security. Where a prior debt exists. Surety for Crown debtor. Indemnity on other property. securing the debt, the surety paying off the bond debt will be entitled to stand in the place of the creditor in respect of the mortgage (m). So, if there be but one specialty, viz., the mortgage, the surety being bound as such by simple contract only (»). The above doctrine does not, however, apply where the surety guarantees one part of the debt, and the security is given for another part (o), but it applies when the security is given sub- sequently though by an independent transaction (/>). A surety will not be entitled as against the creditor to the benefit of the security unless he has paid the whole debt, or so much thereof as for the time being remains unpaid. So, where a security was given for a floating balance of 2,000/., and when the debt reached 4,600/. a surety for 2,000/. paid a sum of 3,000/. in discharge of his guarantee, but the security was not given up, the creditor was entitled to hold the security for the balance (q). The right of the surety to the principal security is not affected by a further mortgage by the mortgagor to a person who had notice of the first mortgage, though the subsequent mortgagee has got in the legal estate (;■). Where the mortgagor has given a collateral security for the original debt and borrows a further sum, which is guaranteed by the surety, the latter is entitled to the surplus value of the securities after payment of the original debt towards payment of that for which he is surety (s) . A surety for a Crown debtor may obtain an order to stand in the place of the Crown and to have the benefit of an extent (/), which will give him priority over subsequent mortgagees and execution creditors of the principal (u) . If the surety take from his principal by way of indemnity a (m) Copis v. Middleton, T. & E. 231. (u) Hodgson v. Shaw, 3 My. & K. 195. (o) Wade v. Coope, 2 Sim. 155 ; South v. Bloxam, 2 H. & M. 457. (p) Pledge v. Buss, John. 663; over- ruling Newton v. Chorlton, 10 Ha. 646. And sec Lake v. Brutton, 8 De G. M. & G. 440 ; Coahs v. Coates, 33 Beav. 249; Goddard v. Whyte, 2 Gift'. 449; ( 'ampbell v. Rothwell, 38 L. T. N. S. 33. [7) Waugh v. Wren, 9 Jur. N. S. 365; 11 W. E. 244. (>•) Drew v. Lockelt, 32 Beav. 499. And see Bowker v. Bull, 1 Sim. N. S. 29; Lancaster v. Evors, 10 Beav. 154. See further as to tacking against sureties, piost, p. 1235. (.*) Pracd v. Gardiner, 2 Cox, 86 ; Copis v. Middleton, T. & E. 224 ; Hodg- son v. Shaw, 3 My. & K. 183, 195. But see Allen v. Be Lisle, 5 W. E. 158. (t) Reg. v. Salter, Beg. v. Robinson, 1 H. & N. 274, 275, n. (tt) See post, p. 1306. INDEMNITY. 99 security upon other property, he loses his right to the principal chapter ix. security (#), unless he did so in ignorance of the principal secu- rity, which was available for his indemnity (y) . When the principal debtor has deposited the title deeds of an Securities i i t, s. o iven fry estate with, and conveyed the estate to, the surety, by way oi principal to indemnity, against his liability under a joint bond, although the surety. surety or his executors be induced, by a false representation of the debtor, to deliver up the title deeds, that will not give the debtor a right to call for a reconveyance until the indemnity is fully carried out (s) . A creditor is not entitled to the benefit of securities given by the principal debtor to a surety by way of indemnity (a). If money be paid by a surety in discharge of a security, which Jjjjj^J afterwards proves to be sufficient, the surety is entitled to be against puisne reimbursed before subsequent incumbrancers of the mortgaged Sincere. property (b). The surety for a debt has also an equitable right to the preser- ^jgjrt °* vation of the security by reason of his liability to pay the debt ; preservation but as the wasting of the security by the default of the creditor of secunfc y- causes the release pro tanto of the surety, it is unnecessary for the latter to take active steps to maintain his rights (c). Upon an assignment by the mortgagee the obligation of preserving the securities for the surety attaches upon the assignee (d). Where the surety pays off the debt of the mortgagor and Right of i .., oo ji i surety to set becomes entitled to all the securities, he may set on the amount g debt due paid against a debt due by himself to the owner of the equity of j^^^ redemption (e) ; and if such owner is a joint stock company, he may set it off against calls as if he had been mortgagee when they fell due (e) ; and this he may do in bankruptcy, notwith- standing the principle which prevents a debt assigned after the bankruptcy from being set off against a debt to the bankrupt's estate. A surety will have the benefit of voluntary payments made, ^"Jf^ 11 " in respect of a charge on the estates by the agent of the debtor, benefit of voluntary payments. (x) Cooper v. Jenkins, 32 Beav. 337. {b) Sawyer v. Goodwin, 1 Ch. D. 351, (y) Lake v. Brutton, 8 De G. M. & C. A. G. 440 ; Brandon v. Brandon, 3 De G. (c) Fisher, Mortgages (4th ed.), 295 ; & J. 524. Coote, Mortgages (5th ed.), 1225. (z) Tyson v. Cox, T. & R. 395. [d) Wheatky v. Bastow, 7 De G. M. (a) Exp. Waring, 19 Ves. 345; Re & G. 261. Walker, Sheffield Banking Co. v. Clayton, [e) Exp. Barrett, 34 L. J. Bky. 41. (1892) 1 Ch. 621. H2 100 RIGHTS OF SURETY. chapter iz. i n expectation of rents coming into his hands, though such fund fails ; and neither the creditor nor the agent will be allowed to enforce against the surety the securities given by him to the cre- ditor to the extent of the sums so paid (/) ; and similarly, in the well-known case of Godmll v. Boldero, the insurance office was allowed the benefit of the payment, made by the public, of the debt insured against (g) . But if the insurers pay the sum insured in their own wrong (that is, either when the creditor has no insurable interest in the life insured, or the contingency, which was insurable, has failed in coming to pass), the debtor cannot have the benefit of such payment in reduction of his debt (A). Payment of iii, — Right to Contribution from Co-sureties. — If one of several co-surety? 6 co-sureties pays off the debt, he may recover against any one of the others his proportion of the money so paid (/). So, if one surety pays more than his proportion, he will be entitled to a contribution for a proportion of the excess (/<•) . But a surety, who has not been called upon to pay, and has not paid more than his share, cannot claim contribution from his co- sureties, although they have paid nothing, as there is no legally ascertained debt (/). If, however, the creditor has actually obtained judgment against one of several co-sureties for the full amount of the debt guaranteed, such surety, though he has actually paid nothing, may enforce his right to contribution against his co-sureties (w). Formerly, at law, only the aliquot part of the money could be recovered from each surety, though one or more of the sureties were insolvent (») ; but, according to the present practice of the Courts, following the principles for- merly adopted in equity, the insolvent co-sureties are struck out and the rest are made to contribute equally (o) . If one co-surety, (/) Williamson v. Goold, 1 Bing. 171. 2 B. & P. 270; Turner v. Davies, 2 (ff) 9 East, 71. Esp. 478 ; Browne v. Lee, 6 B. & C. (h) Henson v. Blaclcxvell, 4 Ha. 434. 689 ; Wilson v. Cutting, 4 Moo. & Sc. \i) Cowell v. Edwards, 2 B. & P. 2G8 ; 268 ; Stirling v. Forrester, 3 Bligh, Deering v. The Earl of Winchelsea, 2 575. B. k P. 270. And see notes to S. C. (o) See Peter v. Rich, 1 Rep. in Ch. in 1 Wh. & Tud. L. C. 114. 34 ; also cited 1 Rep. inCh. 151 ; Hole (k) Ex parte Gifford, 6 Ves. 808. v. Harrison, 1 Ch. Ca. 246; Cas. (/) Davies v. Humfreys, 6 M. & W. t. Finch, 15; Swain v. Wall, 1 Rep. 153; Exp. Snowdon, 17 Ch. D. 44, in Ch. 149; Layer v. Nelson, 1 Vera. C. A. 456 ; Madox v. Jackson, 3 Atk. 406 ; (m) Wobnershausen v. Gullick, (1893) Angersteinv. Clark, 2Dick. 738; Latvson 2 Ch. 514. v. Wright, 1 Cox, 275; Cockbum v. (») Cowell v. Edwards, 2 B. & P. 268. Thompson, 16 Ves. 321. See Deering v. The Earl of Winchelsea, CONTRIBUTION. 101 however, becomes bankrupt, a surety who has paid more than chapter is. his aliquot proportion, having regard to the original number of sureties, may prove for contribution against the bankrupt surety's estate (p), or if proof has already been made by the creditor, such surety may stand in the creditor's place (q) . If one of several co-sureties, who are jointly and severally liable, dies during the continuance of the guaranty, contribution may be enforced against his representatives (>•). The doctrine of contribution amongst sureties is not founded Foundation upon contract, but on general principles of justice requiring contribution, equality of burden and benefit. Therefore, it makes no difference whether the sureties are bound jointly and severally, or jointly only, or severally only ; nor will it make any difference if they are bound by different instruments but for the same debt, even though one person becomes surety by a separate instrument without the knowledge of another surety (s). There is, however, this distinction, that where sureties enter into separate bonds, the penalties of those distinct bonds will ascertain the proportion in which they are to contribute ; but, if they join in one bond, then they must contribute equally (t). Any security obtained by one of several co-sureties from the Right of co- principal debtor must generally be brought into hotchpot, and securities will enure for the common benefit of all the co-sureties, even brought into though the giving of such security may have been the condition on which the person taking it consented to become the surety, and though the other co-sureties may have been ignorant that the security had been given (w). A surety cannot have contribution from his co-sureties unless he brings in whatever he has received from the principal debtor; e.g., policy moneys under an insurance on the debtor's life (a). Although the right of contribution among sureties is not founded on contract, but on general principles, yet the right (p) Adk'rns v. Farrington, 5 H. & N. (t) Leering v. The Earl of Winchel- 586 ; 29 L. J. Ex. 345. sea, 1 Cox, 322. (q) Exp. Stokes, Be G. 618. («) Steel v. Dixon, 17 Ch. D. 825. (»•) Primrose v. Bromley, 1 Atk. 88 ; See also Re Arcedeckne, Atkins v. Bastard v. Hawes, 2 E. & B. 287. Arcedeckne, 24 Ch. D. 709 ; Berridge v. (s) Eeeringv. The Earl of Winchelsea , Berridge, 44 Ch. D. 168. 1 Cox, 322 ; Craythome v. Swinburne, (x) Me Arcedeckne, Atkins v. Arce- 14Ves. 160, 165. 1*69; Whiting v. Burke, deckne, sup. L. R. 6 Ch. A. 342. 102 EIGHTS OF SUEETY. CHAPTER rX. may be qualified by contract (y), or may thereby be altogether excluded, so as to render a surety not liable to contribute in any degree (s) . So, a contract limiting or negativing liability to contribute may be implied from the circumstances of the transaction. Thus, where sureties were bound by different instruments for distinct portions of a debt due from the same principal, it was held that the suretyship of each was a separate and distinct transaction, and that consequently there was no right of contribution between them (a). There is also a distinction between cases where several persons are strictly co-sureties, and where one person is only a surety for the principal and the other surety ; thus, where a person gave a separate bond as a supplemental security for the payment of a debt in default of its being paid by the principal or his surety under a former bond, it was held that he was not liable to contribution in favour of the original surety, the latter being, as to the subsequent surety, a principal (b). Eights of surety on principal's bankruptcy. iv. — Right to Proof in Bankruptcy. — If the principal debtor becomes bankrupt, the surety may compel the creditor to prove against the estate for the amount due (c). On the bankruptcy of the principal, the surety, if he has paid the whole amount of the debt, may prove for the whole so paid ; but if a surety for the whole debt pays only a part, he has no equity to stand in the place of the creditor for such part (d). If, however, a person guarantees a limited portion of a debt, and pays the whole of that portion, he has, in respect of it, all the rights of a creditor (e). There is no provision in the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (/), expressly entitling a surety, who has paid after the commence- ment of the principal's bankruptcy, to prove ; nor do the rules framed under that Act contain any provision on this point. (y) Swain v. Watt, 1 Eep. in Ch. 149. (z) Fendlebury v. Walker, 4 Y. & C. Ex. 424 ; Craythorne v. Swinburne, 14 Ves. 165. la) Coope v. Ttoynam, T. & E. 426. (b) Craythorne v. Swinburne, 14 Ves. 160, 171. (c) Exp. llushforth, 10 Ves. 409. See Exp. Turner. 8 Ves. 243; Foley v. Field, 12 Ves. 435 ; Jackson v. Ma gee, 3 A. & E. 57. (d) Exp. Rushforth, sup., at p. 420. \e) llobson v. Bass, L. E. 6 Ch. A. 792, at p. 794. See also Exp. Holmes, My. & Cr. 301 ; Faley v. Field, sup.; Bardwell v. Lydall, 7 Bing-. 489 ; Gee v. Fack, 33 L. J. Q. B. 49 ; Gray v. Seckham, L. E. 7 Ch. A. 680. (/) 46 & 47 Vict. c. 52. PROOF IN BANKRUPTCY. 1°' 3 The decisions under the various enactments would seem to chapter xx. exclude the surety's right of proof under such circumstances {g). If, however, a surety pays a creditor who has already tendered a proof, he is entitled to stand in such creditor's place as to securities, dividends past and future, and all other rights (//). Where the principal is deceased or become bankrupt, and the mortgagee has proved the debt, the surety who has paid the debt is entitled to all the dividends, though he did not set off the dividends in the action against him by the creditor («'), and for a proportionate share of the dividend if he is only surety for a part of one debt (A - ) . It would seem that, having regard to the comprehensive terms of sect. 37 of the Act of 1883, whereby all debts and liabilities, present or future, certain or contingent, are made provable in bankruptcy, a surety whose liability has arisen on default of the principal may prove against the principal's estate, although the surety has not actually paid the debt (I). But perhaps this point cannot be regarded as settled (m) . Where one of several co-sureties has paid off the debt, he is entitled, notwithstanding sect. 5 of the Mercantile Law Amend- ment Act, 1856 (n), to the benefit of the creditor's proof against another co-surety for the full amount of the debt, and not merely for the proportion which, as between the sureties, he is liable to pay (o) . As a general rule, a surety will not be entitled to receive any dividends out of a bankrupt principal's estate until the creditor has received 20s. in the pound (p). Where the principal and surety both become bankrupt, and Principal and the creditor has been paid in full by dividends from both estates, bankrupt. the trustee of the surety's estate is entitled to prove against the (•). "Where one of several co-sureties becomes bankrupt, his liability to contribution, though unascertained at the time of the bankruptcy proceedings, is a debt provable in the bank- ruptcy (s). Sureties who, after payment of the debt, have received a dividend on a proof against the joint estate of a banking firm in which their principal was a partner, cannot prove against the principal's separate estate until they have applied to ex- punge the joint proof (t). The surety is entitled, as against the trustee in the principal's bankruptcy, to marshal securities so as to obtain repayment of moneys advanced to the principal on mortgage and guaranteed by the surety (u). Surety can only charge principal with amount actually paid. Eight of Burety to interest. V. — Extent of Surety's Rights. — Where a surety discharges an obligation at a less sum than its full amount, he cannot, as against his principal, make himself a creditor for the full amount, but can only claim, as against his principal, what he has actually paid in discharge of the obligation (or) . As against the principal debtor and his co-sureties, a surety is entitled to interest on sums paid by him (//) ; but as against the estate of the deceased principal he is not so entitled ; though where a fund assigned as a further security had made interest, he was allowed interest out of that interest (z). Interest may be recovered by a surety on the amount paid by (q) Exp. Johnson, 3 De G. M. & G. 318. (>•) Bid. la) Wohnershausen v. Gullick, (1893) 2 Oh. 514. (0 Exp. Came, L.R. 3 Ch. A. 463. (m) Bey man v. Dubois, L. E. 13 Eq. 158. See South v. Bloxam, 2 H. & M. 457 ; Exp. Salting. Re Stralton, 25 Ch. D. 148, C. A. (x) Feed v. Norm, 2 My. & Cr. 361, 375. (g) Laivson v. Wright, 1 Cox, 275 ; Hitchman v. Stewart, 3 Drew. 271 ; Set. Dec. pp. 1181, 1182, 4th ed. ; Be Swan, Ir. E, 4 Eq. 209 ; Fetre v. Bun- combe, 2 Lown. Max. & Poll. Pr. C. 107 ; Exp. Bishop, lie Fox, Walker § Co., 15 Ch. D. 400, C. A. (z) Gaulfield v. Maguire, 2 J. & L. 164. EXTENT OF RIGHTS. 105 him for the mortgagor, his principal, through the medium of chapter ix. the mortgage security. It seems, however, that if the charge or mortgage paid off by the surety or his estate is not kept alive, interest will not be allowed the surety on the sums so paid, though a fund which has arisen from the sale of the mortgaged estate of the principal debtor be in Court (a) . The surety's right of action against the principal debtor may be barred by the Statute of Limitations. Time begins to run against a surety suing his co-surety for contribution as soon as his liability has actually been established, not from the time when the debt became payable {b) . a) Lancaster v. Evors, 10 Beav. 266. (b) Wolmershausen v. Gullick, (1893) 2 Ch. 514. ( 106 ) Part II. OF THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF MORTGAGES. Conveyance with defeas- ance. Demise and sub-demise. CHAPTER X. OF A MORTGAGE OF FREEHOLDS. Section I. Forms of Mortgages of Freeholds formerly in use. In early times, the form of a mortgage of freeholds was simple. It consisted of a feoffment, with a condition contained in the same deed, or sometimes in a separate deed of defeasance (exe- cuted at the same time), to be void on payment of a given sum, at a given time. On performance of the condition, the mort- gagor was restored to his old estate, paramount to all the charges and incumbrances of the feoffee («). The objections to a mortgage by way of absolute conveyance, with the clause of redemption in a separate deed of defeasance, were that the defeasance might be lost, and then an absolute conveyance would be set up ; or that the estate might be con- veyed to a bona fide purchaser without notice, in which case the right to redeem would be wholly defeated, and the mortgagor be left to his remedy against the mortgagee for the fraud. In consequence of the discouragement it received (b) , this mode of mortgage has become almost obsolete. In some instances the mortgage was effected by a demise and sub-demise ; that is, the mortgagor demised the lands to the mortgagee for a long term of years at a peppercorn rent, and then the mortgagee re-demised them at a pecuniary rent, which covered the interest of the money lent, and there was a condition in the original demise that, on payment of the mortgage debt (a) See ante, p. 4. t. Talb. (Williams) 61 ; Balcerv. Wind, \b) See Cotterell v. Purchase, Cas. 1 Ves. Son. 160. OLD FORMS OF MORTGAGES. 107 and interest by a given day, the original term should be at an CHAPTEE x - end, upon which the derivative term would also cease. This mode of mortgage is also nearly obsolete ; but if an estate be in hand, and there is a wish to obtain a power of distress for pay- ment of the interest of the mortgage debt, an underlease might still be resorted to. It would, however, it is apprehended, require the duty to be paid as on a bond fide lease. In some cases the lands were conveyed to a trustee in fee, Conveyance with a proviso authorizing him to distrain on the lands in the m rus ' mortgagor's possession, in case the interest shall be in arrear for a given time, with a further declaration appointing the trustee receiver during the time the lands shall be in lease. Or sometimes the mortgagor gave a power of attorney to Warrant of confess judgment in ejectment in case the interest shall be in a orne y- arrear, with a covenant to appoint such person a receiver as the mortgagee shall name, in case the lands shall be let. Mortgages of freeholds were formerly often, and are still Mortgage of occasionally, effected by demise for a long term of years, a t e r]n f ° r attended with a condition in the same deed, that, if the prin- years. cipal and interest be paid within a given time, the lands shall be reconveyed ; or that the deeds of mortgage shall be void, or that the term shall cease and determine. If the mortgage be by term of years, a covenant is usually Form of inserted on the part of the mortgagor, that, after default made, a term.° he or his heirs will, at his own cost, do all lawful acts for con- firming the term, or, if required, for conveying the reversion in fee to such persons as the mortgagee, his executors, adminis- trators, or assigns shall direct ; for otherwise, the mortgagee would, on foreclosure, obtain a chattel interest only, and not the fee. But if the term, having no rent incident to the reversion, was originally of not less than 300 years, of which not less than 200 years are unexpired, a mortgagee, having by foreclosure extinguished the right of redemption affecting the term in favour of the mortgagor, may, in the absence of such a cove- nant, by deed, enlarge the term, and so acquire the land in fee simple (c). A benefit which formerly resulted from the mortgage being, in the first instance, for a term of years, and not in fee, was that the security and debt devolved together ; but, if the (c) 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41, s. 65. 108 MORTGAGE OF FREEHOLDS. CHAPTEE X. Mortgages for terms now unusual. mortgage was in fee, the land descended to the heir as a trustee for the executor, and the debt vested in the executor, which, in case of the infancy or absence of the heir, created incon- venience (d). This inconvenience was remedied by a late Act (e), which enabled the personal representative of a mortgagee, on being paid, to reconvey the legal fee. This enactment has been repealed by the Conveyancing Act, 1881 (/). In cases of deaths after the commencement of the last-mentioned Act, by s. 30 of that Act, an estate or interest of inheritance, or limited to the heir as special occupant, in any hereditaments vested in a sole mortgagee, devolves on his personal represen- tative. A disadvantage of a mortgage for a term is, that the mort- gagee, unless by special stipulation, is not entitled to the custody of the title deeds (g) . In modern practice, mortgages for a term are almost universally abandoned, except where it is desired to raise money on the security of an estate tail without barring the entail further than is necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the security (A), as in the case of a lunatic tenant in tail (i) ; and also except in the case of trustees of settlements, in whom long terms of years are vested in trust to raise money for portions and other purposes. Form of mortgage in fee. Section II. Form of Mortgage of Freeholds according to Modern Practice. i. — General Scheme of Arrangement of a Mortgage Deed. — In modern practice, mortgages of freeholds are usually made either in fee or for such other freehold interest as the mortgagor has in the lands. A legal mortgage of freehold land in fee simple may be regarded as furnishing the normal type of a mortgage security. It is therefore proposed in this place to consider in detail the form and contents of such a mortgage, and to point out later, as (d) See per Lord Redesdalc in Schoolc and Wife v. Sail, 1 Sch. & L. 176. (e) 37 & 38 Vict. c. 78, s. 4. (/) 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41. (ff) Wiseman v. Westland, 1 T. & J. 117. (//) See Fines and Recoveries Act (3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 74), s. 21. (i) Re Pares, 2 Ch. D. 61, C. A. PARTIES, RECITALS, ETC. 109 occasion shall arise, such variations as are necessary or convenient chapter x. in making mortgages of different kinds of property other than freeholds. The present practice with regard to the arrangements of clauses Arrangement in mortgage deeds is usually as follows : — After the names and mortgage descriptions of the parties and the recitals, if any, follows the deed- first witnessing part, containing a covenant for the payment of the principal debt and interest (j) . This is succeeded by one or more further witnessing parts conveying the property by way of mortgage, subject to a proviso for redemption. Then follow any special clauses relating to the payment of the principal or interest. Next come special clauses relating to the subject- matter of the mortgage, such as restrictions on the mortgagor's power of leasing, and covenants by him for the maintenance or insurance of the mortgaged property. These may be followed by clauses modifying or extending the statutory powers of sale (k) and other clauses giving special remedies to the mortgagee. Till recently, covenants for title were generally inserted at the end of mortgages, but these are now usually dispensed with in reliance upon the statutory covenants implied by the mortgagor being expressed to convey as " beneficial owner " or as "trustee," as the case may be. ii. — The Parties. — All persons who are intended to convey or Who should to take anything under the mortgage deed, or to enter into e pai ies ' stipulations in the deed, must be made parties. These parties will usually be the mortgagor of the one part, and the mort- gagee of the other part. But sometimes the concurrence of other parties will be necessary for purposes of suretyship, or of signifying consent to the mortgage, or acknowledging receipt of the mortgage moneys, or for other purposes. iii. — The Recitals. — Eecitals are frequently unnecessary in a When recitals mortgage deed, and may accordingly be dispensed with. They are, however, sometimes necessary or convenient for the purpose of explaining the nature and incidents of the subject-matter of the security, or other matter affecting the form and contents of the deed. A recital of the mortgagor's seisin in fee, free from incumbrances, may be of use so as to render the deed, on the (./) See ante, p. 9. to mortgagees by statute, see post, (k) As to the powers of sale given Vol. II. pp. 882 et srq. 110 MORTGAGE OF FREEHOLDS. CHAPTEE X. Estoppel by recital. Inaccurate recitals. expiration of twenty years from its execution, a satisfactory root of title (/) . But if earlier deeds are recited as proving the mort- gagor's title, it must be "borne in mind that such recitals prove only so much of the earlier deeds as are actually stated in the recital (m). Eecitals will bind only those who are parties to the deed and persons claiming under them, and will not affect the rights of third parties (»)• And a fraudulent misstatement in the deed, though it will bind the mortgagor himself (o), may be held not to bind a party claiming through him who would be aggrieved by the fraud (p). A party to a deed of conveyance is not estopped by recitals contained in other deeds through which the title to the property is derived (q) . Where a recital contains a misstatement which was owing to a mistake of both parties to the deed, no estoppel arises {>•). A recital will not be available by way of estoppel in any action or proceeding except such as are directly concerned with the deed containing the recital (s) . Nor will estoppel be worked by a recital containing statements extraneous to the actual con- tract (t) . Though recitals are, as a general rule, regarded as binding on all parties to the deed, they may be construed as amounting to an admission by one party only, so as to estop him, but not the other party («). Inaccuracies in the recitals will not vitiate the deed (a?), but they may influence the construction (y). A recital though inaccurate may bind the mortgagor and those subsequently (/) Bolton v. London School Board, 7 Ch. D. 766. But see lie Johnson and Tustin, 30 Ch. D. 42. [m) Gillett v. Abbott, 7 A. & E. 783. («) StroughillY. Buck, 14 Q. B. 781. See Beckett v. Bradley, 7 My. & Cr. 994 ; Whitton v. Peacock, 2 Biug. N. C. 411 ; Gaunt v. Wainman, 3 Bing. N. C. 69 ; Doc d. Marehant v. Errington, 6 Bing. N. C. 79 ; Pitt v. Williams, 5 A. & E. 885. See as to trustees for public purposes, Fairtitle d. Mytton v. Gilbert, 2 T. B. 169 ; Doe d. Levy v. Home, 7 Jur. 38. (o) Doe d. Roberts v. Roberts, 2 B. & Aid. 367. (p) I)oe&. Williams v. Lloyd, 5 Bing. N. C. 71 2. (q) l)oe d. Shellon v. Shelton, 3 A. & K. 265. (>•) Re Carter's Trusts, L. B. 3 Eq. 495 ; Brooke v. Haymes, L. R. 6 Eq. 25 ; Lmpson's Case, L. B. 9 Eq. 597 ; Exp. Morgan, Re Simpson, 2 Ch. D. 72. (s) Stroud v. Willis, Cro. El. 362 ; Carpenter v. Bullet; 8 M. & W. 209 ; Sill v. Manchester, §c. Waterworks Co., 2 B. & Ad. 344 ; Carter v. Carter, 3 K. & J. 617. (t) Kipp v. Wiygett, 10 C. B. 354 ; Gillett v. Abbott, 7 A. & E. 783. (u) Doe d. Rogers v. Brooks, 3 A. & E. 513. (x) Moody v. Lcwin, Cro. El. 127 ; S. C. sub nom. Leicen and Moody's Case, 3 Leon. 135 ; Withes v. Casson, Hob. 128. {y) 3fosleyv. Mottcux, 10 M. & W. 533. PARTIES, RECITALS, ETC. Ill claiming under him by way of estoppel. So, if a mortgage deed chapter x. contains a positive statement of a matter of title, or of any other matter material to the transaction, such statement will bind the estate in the hands of the mortgagor or persons claiming through him (s) . But, in order to have this effect, the statement must be positive and distinct (a) . So a statement that the grantor is well entitled in fee, at law or in equity (b), or that the mortgagor is seised or otherwise well entitled (c), is not sufficient to bind the subsequently-acquired legal estate in the hands of the mort- gagor or a puisne mortgagee, or a purchaser of the equity of redemption. Although clear words of conveyance cannot be controlled by How far re- words of recital, it has been held that the estate clause and operative pSt general words are not to be regarded as clear words of convey- of the deed. ance which cannot be so controlled (d) . It is conceived that the same rule must be deemed to apply to all matters imported as incident to a conveyance of land by virtue of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, ss. 6 and 63 (e). On the other hand, if there is any doubt about the construe- Equivocal tion of the governing words of a document, the recitals may be Xr^may be looked at in order to determine what is the true construction (/) ; explained by but in considering the effect of recitals in controlling the opera- tive part of a deed, the rule appears to be that the whole deed must be regarded, and the intention of the parties must be gathered from it, and that the recitals or the words of the operative part will take effect according as the one or the other exhibits a more clear indication of the intention (g) . Where recitals specified as the subject-matter of the deed certain estates which were comprised in two recited instruments, (z) Goodtitle v. Bailey, Cowp. 601 ; C. A. Taylor v. Needham, 2 Taunt. 278 ; Doe (c) Heath v. Crealock, L. R. 10 Ch. v. Stone, 3 C. B. 176 ; Carpenter v. A. 22. Sullen, 8 M. & W. 212 ; Gwin v. Neath (d) Rooke v. Lord Kensington, 2 K. & Canal Co., L. R. 3 Ex. 209. See fur- J. 753 ; Francis v. Minton, L. R. 2 C. P. ther, as to estoppels by deed, notes to 543 ; Neame v. Moorsom, L. R. 3 Eq. Duchess of Kingston's Case, in 2 Sin. L. 91, at p. 97 ; Howard v. Lord Shrews- C 9th ed.; Elphinstone's Interpretation bury, L. R. 17 Eq. 391. But see of Deeds, pp. 140 et seq. ; Byth. & Young v. Wallingford, 52 L. J. Ch. Jarm. Conv., vol. v. pp. 132 et seq. 590. (4th ed.). (e) See post, pp. 118 et seq. (a) Palmer v. Ekins, 2 Ld. Raym. (/) Per Brett, L. J., in Leggott v. 1550, 1553. Barrett, 15 Ch. D. 306, at p. 31 1, C. A. (b) Bight d. Jeffreys v. Bucknell, 2 B. (g) See Barrett v. Wyatt, 30 Beav. & Ad. 278 ; General Finance, §c. Co. v. 443. See also Bailey v. Lloyd, 5 Russ. Liberator Permanent Benefit Building 344 ; Re MicheWs Trusts, 9 Ch. D. 9, Society, 10 Ch. D. 15 ; Onward Building C. A. Society v. Smithson, (1893) 1 Ch. 1, 112 MOETGAGE OF FREEHOLDS. CHAPTER X. Clear opera- tive words not controlled. but the words in the operative part were sufficiently wide to embrace another estate not included in either of those instru- ments, it was held that this last-mentioned estate did not pass (//). Care should be taken in framing the recitals to avoid any repugnancy or inconsistency between them and the operative parts of the deed. It is a general and well-settled rule that a recital does not control the operative part of a deed where the operative part is clear (/). "Where the recitals in a mortgage deed to secure a partnership debt referred only to certain joint property of the partners, but by the operative part of the deed conveyed that property and " all other hereditaments of them or either of them situate else- where in the town of M.," it was held that certain separate estate of one of the partners situate in that town was included in the mortgage (/«•). Similarly, recitals will not control the exercise of rights or powers expressly conferred as incident to the conveyance of the mortgage property. So, where a transfer of a mortgage recited that the mortgage contained a power of sale, and that such power was not intended to be exercised, but by the first operative part of the deed the mortgage debt was assigned, together with Cases of operative words re- stricted by recital. * Cases where operative words not restricted. (h) Jenner v. Jenner, L. R. 1 Eq. 361 ; and compare Young v. Walling- ford, 52 L. J. Ch. 590 ; and Alexander v. Crosbie, LI. & G. t. Sugd. 145. In addition to the cases above re- ferred to, the following cases may be referred to as affording examples of words of conveyance controlled by recitals : Haggetl v. Giles, 2 Roll. Abr. Graunts (P. 2), 491, 45 ; Henn x. Han- son, 1 Sid. 141 ; Thorpe v. Thorpe, 1 Ld. Raym. 235; Morris v. Wilford, 2 Show. 47 ; Moore v. Magrath, 1 Cowp. 9 ; Tarkhurst v. Smith, Willes, 327 ; Tearsall v. Somerset, 4 Taunt. 593 ; Fcnilcr v. Homer sham, 4 M. & S. 432 ; Ringer v. Cann, 3 M. & W. 343 ; Solly v. Forbes, 2 Br. & B. 38 ; Lvndo v. Lindo, 1 Beav. 496 ; Doe d. Meyrick v. Meyrick, 2 Cr. & J. 223 ; Cholmondeley v. Clinton, 2 J. & W. 1 ; Walsh v. Treranion, 15 Q. B. 733 ; Hunt v. White, 27 L. J. Ch. 326; Denison v. Holiday, 28 L. J. Ex. 25 ; Hopkinson v. Lusk, 12 W. R. 392; Gray v. Earl of Limerick, 2 De G. & Sm. 370; Childen v. Eardley, 28 Beav. 648; Danby v. Couttt <$ Co., 29 Ch. D. 500; Re Be Ros, Hardicick v. Wilmot, 31 Ch. D. 81 ; Ex parte Dawes, 17 Q. B. D. 275. * Instances in which the operative part being sufficiently clear the recital has not been allowed to have the effect of controlling, may be found in the following authorities : Ingelbyv. Smith, 10 Bing. 84 ; Bird v. Lake, 1 H. & M. Ill ; Wil/oughby v. Middleton, 2 J. & H. 344 ; Ramsden v. Smith, 2 Drew. 298 ; Hammond v. Hammond, 19 Beav. 29 ; Campbell v. Bainbridge, 14 Beav. 222 ; Young v. Smith, L. R. 1 Eq. 180; Dawes v. Tredwell, 18 Ch. D. 354. (i) BerJessel, M.R.,in Dawes v. Tred- well, 18 Ch. D. 358, C. A. See also Bath and Mountagu's Case, 3 Ch. Ca. 105; Bailey v. Lloyd, 5 Russ. 344; Walsh v. Trevanion, 15 Q. B. 751 ; 19 L. J. Q. B. 458 ; Holliday v. Overton, 14 Beav. 4G7 ; Young v. Smith, L. R. 1 Eq. 183 ; Howard v. Earl of Shrews- bury, L. R. 17 Eq. 394. (/•) Exp. Young, 4 Deac. 185. See also Exp. Glyn, \ M. D. & De G. 29. COVENANTS FOR PAYMENT. 113 all powers and remedies, &c, it was held that the power of sale chapter x. in the mortgage was exerciseable, notwithstanding the recital (I). iv. — The first Testatum — Receipt Clauses, Covenants for Pay- Covenants mentof Principal and Interest.— After the recitals, if any, follows S^ggJ the first witnessing part, which, according to the usual practice, and interest, is to the following effect, viz. : — That in consideration of the sum advanced by the mortgagee or mortgagees, the receipt of which is acknowledged, the mortgagor covenants with him or them for payment of the principal on a fixed day (usually six months after the date of the mortgage), with interest in the meantime ; and further, that if the mortgage moneys shall not be paid on that day, the mortgagee will pay interest at the same rate on the principal moneys for the time being unpaid until payment thereof. Where trust money is lent on mortgage it is the usual prac- Advance by tice that the mortgage deed should not disclose the existence of trustees - the trust, but should merely state that the advance is made out of moneys belonging to the trustees (naming them) on a joint account (m) . Formerly, it was usual that the receipt by the mortgagor of Effect of the money should be acknowledged by a clause in the operative recei P t clause - part of the deed, and also by a memorandum of receipt indorsed on the receipt and signed by the mortgagor. The absence of such a memorandum has been held to raise suspicion, so as to put a purchaser on inquiry as to whether any and what money had actually passed (n). And a transferee of a mortgage who had no notice that the mortgagor had not received the full amount of the advance was held to be entitled to rely on the acknowledgment in the body of the deed, and on the receipt indorsed thereon, which were for the full amount, and that the accounts must be taken on the footing that such amount had actually been advanced (o). Neither a receipt clause in the body of a deed, nor an indorsed Receipt not memorandum of receipt, was, however, conclusive in equity so as equity! 1 ™ m to exclude evidence that the money was in fact not received (p). (I) Boyd v. Pelrie, L. R. 7 Ch. A. (o) BicJcerton v. Walker, 31 Ch. D. 385. 151. See also Gordon v. James, 30 Ch. (m) See as to this, jWWi 1 , Chap. XXIX. D. 249. pp. 533 et seq. (p) Coppin v. Coppin, 2 P. Wms. (») Kennedy v. Green, 3 My. & K. 291 ; Winter v. Lord Anson, 3 Russ. 699. See also Greenslade v. Bare, 30 488. Beav. 284. VOL. I. It. I 114 MORTGAGE OF FREEHOLDS. CHAPTER X. Receipt in. deed suffi- cient. Receipt in deed or in- dorsed evi- dence for subsequent purchaser. Receipt in deed or indorsed authority for payment to solicitor. So also it may be shown that part of the money was re- turned (q) . "With regard to deeds executed after the 31st December, 1881, the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, enacts as follows : — 54. — (1.) A receipt for consideration money or securities in the body of a deed shall be a sufficient discharge for the same to the person paying or delivering the same, without any further receipt for the same being indorsed on the deed. (2.) This section applies only to deeds executed after the com- mencement of this Act. 55. — (1.) A receipt for consideration money or other consideration in the body of a deed or indorsed thereon shall, in favour of a sub- sequent purchaser, not having notice that the money or other consideration thereby acknowledged to be received was not in fact paid or given, wholly or in part, be sufficient evidence of the payment or giving of the whole amount thereof. (2.) This section applies only to deeds executed after the com- mencement of the Act. 56. — (1.) Where a solicitor produces a deed, having in the body thereof or indorsed thereon a receipt for consideration money or other consideration, the deed being executed, or the indorsed receipt being signed, by the person entitled to give a receipt for that con- sideration, the deed shall be a sufficient authority to the person liable to pay or give the same for his paying or giving the same to the solicitor, without the solicitor producing any separate or other direction or authority in that behalf from the person who executed or signed the deed or receipt (r). This section applies only in cases where consideration is to be paid or given after the commencement of this Act. Receipt by By the Trustee Act, 1893 (s), the receipt in writing of trustees for moneys payable to them under any trust or power is a sufficient discharge for same, and exonerates the person so paying from seeing to the application thereof (s). Receipt Where a tenant for life borrows money for enfranchisement, is advanced Lto or ^ or equality of exchange or partition under the Settled Land tenant for hfe Act, 1882 (t), or for the purpose of discharging an incumbrance Acts. on the settled land under the Settled Land Act, 1890 (it), the money raised is capital money arising under the Acts; and, accordingly, the money, unless paid into Court, should be paid (?) Baker v. Dewey, 1 B. & C. 704. (/•) The solicitor who produces the deed must be acting for the person who Las signed the receipt, and bo specially authorized to receive the money, and he must actually produce the deed: Bay v. Woolwich Equitable Building Society, 40 Ch. D. 491 ; Re Helling and Mcvtotf & Contract, (1893) 3 Ch. 269, C. A. (s) 56 & 57 Vict. c. 53, s. 20, re- enacting the similar provision in the repealed 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41, s. 36. (/) Ibid. s. 18. (w) 53 & 54 Vict. c. 69, s. 11. COVENANTS FOR PAYMENT. 115 to the trustees of the settlement, whose receipt in writing will chapteb x. be a sufficient discharge to the mortgagee so paying the money (a?) . By the Trustee Act, 1893 (//), a trustee may appoint a solicitor Power of to be his agent to receive and give a discharge for any money a ^horize° receivable by the trustee under the trust, by permitting the receipt of solicitor to have the custody of and produce a deed containing solicitor. any such receipt as is referred to in s. 56 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (s), and a trustee shall not be chargeable for breach of trust by reason only of his having made, or concurred in making, such appointment ; and the producing of any such deed by the solicitor is to have the same validity under the said section as if the person appointing a solicitor had not been a trustee. This section applies only where the money is received after the 24th of December, 1888. It has been seen that the covenants for payment of principal Covenants and interest on the day fixed is of the nature of a collateral of^l^'wi security, and not an essential part of the mortgage security (a) . and interest. Such covenants are, indeed, sometimes omitted ; but if it is intended that the mortgagor should not be personally liable for payment of the mortgage moneys, a proviso expressly including such liability should be inserted in the deed. Where a covenant stipulates for payment of principal and interest on a fixed day, they are distinct debts, and may be sued for separately. Where the recitals in a mortgage contained an agreement for interest, but there was no provision as to payment of interest in the other parts of the deed, interest was nevertheless recoverable (b). It is usual and prudent to have a distinct and separate covenant for payment of interest, if the principal is not paid on the day appointed, so as to prevent any doubt as to the power of the mortgagee to sue for the interest apart from the principal ; though it would appear that such separate covenant is not absolutely necessary for this purpose (c). The operation of (x) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 38, s. 40. (z) Supra. («/)_56 & 57 Vict. c. 53, s. 17, re- fa) See ante, p. 1. enacting the similar pro vision contained (b) Dickenson v. Harrison, 4 Pri. 2S2. in the repealed Trustee Act, 1888 (51 & (c) Dickenson v. Harrison, 4 Pri. 282 ; 52 Vict. c. 59), s. 2. See Re Hetling Alticood v. Taylor, 1 Man. & G. 279 and Merton's Contract, (1893) 3 Ch. 307. 269, C. A. I 2 116 MORTGAGE OF FREEHOLDS. chapter x. these covenants, and the remedies of mortgagees thereunder, will be considered in a later part of this treatise (d) . Form of V. — The Second Testatum. — The Conveyance. — Next after the kmoriw covenants for payment of principal and interest will come a deeds. further witnessing part, whereby the property intended to be mortgaged is conveyed to the mortgagee subject to a proviso for redemption. If several kinds of property are included in the same mortgage deed, as freeholds, copyholds, and leaseholds, or a life interest in real or personal estate, and a policy of assurance on the life of the mortgagor, it will be generally advisable to convey each kind of property by a separate witnessing part, employing in each case the appropriate word of conveyance, such as "grant," "covenant to surrender," or "assign," accord- ing as the property is freehold, copyhold, or personalty (in- cluding leaseholds) ; the use of such technical words, however, is not essential, and, by the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (e), the word " convey," will effect a valid and sufficient assurance by way of mortgage of any property. "aTb'n'fi 6 ' 1 "^ e mor tg a gor, if beneficially entitled to the property, should owner," &c. be made to convey " as beneficial owner," so as to import the full statutory covenants for title ; or, if he is a trustee raising money for portions or other purposes of his trust, he should be made to convey " as trustee," so as to import the statutory covenant that he has not incumbered (/). Description yj. — The Parcels. — Immediately after the operative words property. ° and the mention of the grantee, follows the description of the property intended to be conveyed ; this description is technically called " the parcels." The parcels should be fully and particularly described either in the witnessing part of the deed, or by reference to a descrip- tion given in a schedule in order to identify the property ; the situation, boundaries, occupation, dimensions, and distinctive name, if any, should be fully and accurately set forth. In respect to all these matters, it is important to avoid mistakes (g) . Care should also be taken to define clearly the nature and extent of the estate or interest intended to be conveyed. Where (d) Fast, Chap. XLVII. pp. 959 ct {g) Lamle v. Reaston, 5 Taunt. 207 ; seq. Wrotteslctj v. Adams, Plow. 191. See (t) 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41, s. 2 (v). Rorke v. Errington, 7 H. L. C. 617 ; \f) Ibid. s. 7. See post, pp. 141 ct Jack v. M'Intgrc, 12 01. & F. 151 ; seq. Francis r. Eayward, 22 Ch. D. 181. PARCELS. 117 a tenant for life of an entire estate and a remainderman, who was chapter x. supposed to be entitled to a moiety subject to the life interest, joined in mortgaging the undivided moiety of the estate, and, in fact, the share of the remainderman was only a fifth, it was held that only one-fifth of the interest of the tenant for life passed, though the mortgage was intended to secure a debt due from both the mortgagors (//). The mode of describing the parcels according to the nature of the property and the legal significance of the terms used in describing property, will be found discussed in other works (t). The question of "parcel or no parcel" is for the jury, but "Parcel or no the judge is bound to explain to the jury, for their guidance, parce ' what is the true construction of any documents necessary for the decision of this question (j). A mortgage of land, unless the contrary appears, will compre- What passes hend not only the ground or soil, but also water covering its oHand. 1 g ° surface, mines and minerals thereunder, timber and trees growing thereon, and houses and buildings standing ^>r sub- sequently erected upon it (k) . If mines and minerals are not intended to be included in a mortgage because the mortgagor is not the owner thereof, or for any other reason, they should be expressly excepted from the conveyance. A mine or quarry opened by the mortgagor subsequently to the mortgage will enure for the benefit of the mortgagee (/). Where lands or buildings used for the purpose of a trade Trade or or business are conveyed, by way of mortgage, without any ductedon * 1 " express mention of the trade or business in the description mortgaged of the parcels, the question whether such trade or business is included in the security will depend on whether its nature is such that a grant of the right to carry it on is necessarily involved in a conveyance of the land or buildings, so that the parties to the conveyance must have intended the right to pass. So a mortgage of land, mines, beds and seams of coal, and other Mines, the premises comprised in a lease referred to, but making no men- tion of the business or goodwill of the colliery, was held to include the colliery business, and the right to work the mines (m). (h) Gricvcson v. Rirsopp, 5 Beav. (k) Co. Lit. 4 a ; Cooke v. Yates, 4 283. Bing-. 90 ; Ewer v. Haydon, Cro. Eliz. (i) Dart & Barber, Vendors & Pur- 476; LuttrcV s Case, 4 Rep. 87b; Canham chasers, Vol. I. pp. 602 et seq. ; Dav. v. Fish, 2 Cr. & J. 126. Conv. Vol. I.pt. i. pp. 82 et seq. J Byth. (I) Elias v. Snowdon Slate Quarries & Jarm. Conv. (4th ed.), Vol. V. Co., 4 App. Cas. 454. pp. 164 et seq. (m) County of Gloucester Bank v. (j) Turnery. Dickenson, 3 CI. &F. 594 ; Ruddcy, Merthyr, $c. Colliery Co., (1895) Lyle v. Richards, L. R. 1 H. L. 222, 1 Ch. 629, C. A. 118 MORTGAGE OF FREEHOLDS. CHAPTER X. Hotel. Goodwill. Public-Louse licence. General words. Effect of ge- neral words. On the other hand, where an hotel keeper, in 1888, having an agreement for a lease of land on which he was about to build, mortgaged " the said building agreement, and all the premises comprised therein, and the hotel and buildings to be hereafter erected as aforesaid, and the lease so to be granted as aforesaid," it was held that the security did not comprise the business (»). Upon a mortgage of a business, the goodwill is included in the security (o) ; but it would seem that if the business were to be sold under an order of the Court (p), or under the mortgagee's power of sale (q), the mortgagor would not be prevented from setting up a similar business (r). The goodwill, however, of trade premises does not pass to a mortgagee where it depends on the personal skill of the owner (s). The mortgage of a public-house and the goodwill carries with it the right to the licence (t) . But the mortgagee is not entitled to the produce of the sale of a new spirit licence obtained by the mortgagor after the former licence which was included in the mortgage has been forfeited ; especially if the mortgagee has pre- viously sold the premises under the power of sale in the deed (it). vii. — General "Words. — After the description of the parcels it was the invariable practice to add a clause, commonly called the " general words," by which the grantor purported to include in his grant all those parts, or subsidiary members, of the property which were not usually described with minute accuracy in the parcels, and also all easements, rights and liberties, which belonged to him at the date of the grant, as appurtenant to the property granted. General words have in many cases been held to pass what without them might not pass by the deed, that is to say, the clause has been held to operate to grant more than the law would otherwise give (,r) . Nothing, however, will pass by the general words which would not pass by the grant unless it is intended in the strict meaning of the terms used (//) . («) Whitley v. Challis, (1892) 1 Ch. 64, 0. A. (o) Chissum v. Doves, 5 Russ. 29; King v. Midland It. Co., 17 W. R. 113 ; 3 Ch. D. 36, C. A. ; JSzp- Funnett, 16 Ch. D. 226, C. A. (p) Sec post, pp. 1035 et seq. (7 See post, pp. 886 et seq. (;•) Walker v. Mottram, 19 Ch. D. 355, C. A. See Trego v. Hunt, (1896) A. C. 7. (■<) Cooper v. Metropolitan Board of Works, 25 Ch. D. 472, C. A. (J) Butter v. Daniel, 30 W. R. 801, C. A. ; Garrett v. //. of Middlesex, 12 Q. B. D. 620. (i<) Manifold v. Morris, 5 Bing. N. C. 420 ; Exp. Reid, 1 D. & C. 250. (x) Bailey v. Great Western Rail. Co., 26 Ch. D. at p. 111. (//) Barlow v. Rhodes, 1 Cr. & M. 439 ; Morris v. Edgington, 3 Taunt. 2 1 ; Kooystra v. Lucas, 5 B. <5c Ad. 830 GENERAL WORDS. 119 General words will pass only that which the grantee had to chatter x. give at the date of the grant, and will not extend to anything he may subsequently acquire (s) . In other words, this clause will work no estoppel. The practice of inserting general words in purchase deeds and General words mortgages is now generally rendered unnecessary by the 6th sec- omYttedT J tion of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (a), by which it is enacted as follows : — . 6. — (I.) A conveyance of land shall be deemed to include and General words shall by virtue of this Act operate to convey, with the land, all in convey - buildings, erections, fixtures, commons, hedges, ditches, fences, ^uUdino-s ^r ' ways, waters, watercourses, liberties, privileges, easements, rights, manor .° : and advantages whatsoever, appertaining or reputed to appertain to the land, or any part thereof, or at the time of conveyance demised, occupied, or enjoyed with, or reputed or known as part or parcel of or appurtenant to the land or any part thereof. (2.) A conveyance of land, having houses or other buildings thereon, shall be deemed to include and shall by virtue of this Act operate to convey, with the land, houses, or other buildings, all outhouses, erections, fixtures, cellars, areas, courts, courtyards, cis- terns, sewers, gutters, drains, ways, passages, lights, watercourses, liberties, privileges, easements, rights, and advantages whatsoever, appertaining or reputed to appertain to the land, houses, or other buildings conveyed, or any of them, or any part thereof, or at the time of conveyance demised, occupied, or enjoyed with, or reputed or known as part or parcel of or appurtenant to, the land, houses, or other buildings conveyed, or any of them, or any part thereof. (3.) A conveyance of a manor shall be deemed to include and shall by virtue of this Act operate to convey, with the manor, all pastures, feedings, wastes, warrens, commons, mines, minerals, quarries, furzes, trees, woods, underwoods, coppices, and the ground and soil thereof, fishings, fisheries, fowlings, courts leet, courts baron, and other courts, view of frankpledge and all that to view of frankpledge doth belong, mills, mulctures, customs, tolls, duties, reliefs, heriots, fines, sums of money, amerciaments, waifs, estrays, chief-rents, quit-rents, rentscharge, rents seek, rents of assize, fee farm rents, services, royalties, jurisdictions, franchises, liberties, privileges, easements, profits, advantages, rights, emoluments, and hereditaments whatsoever, to the manor appertaining or reputed to appertain, or at the time of conveyance demised, occupied, or enjoyed with the same, or reputed or known as part, parcel, or member thereof. (4.) This section applies only if and as far as a contrary intention is not expressed in the conveyance, and shall have effect subject to the terms of the conveyance and to the provisions therein contained. (5.) This section shall not be construed as giving to any person a better title to any property, right, or thing in this section men- tioned than the title which the conveyance gives to him to the land or manor expressed to be conveyed, or as conveying to him any (z) Booth v. Alcoch, L. R. 8 Ch. A. D. 317. 663. See Beddington v. Atlce, 35 Ch. («-) 4-1 & 15 Vict. c. -11. 120 MORTGAGE OF FREEHOLDS. CHAPTER X. property, right, or thing in this section mentioned, further or ~ otherwise than as the same could have been conveyed to him by the conveying parties. (6.) This section applies only to conveyances made after the commencement of this Act. Estate clause. By sect. 63 of the same Act, a conveyance made after the commencement of the Act passes all the estate, &c, of the con- veying party in the property conveyed, where a contrary inten- tion is not expressed. The insertion of an " estate clause " in a mortgage is thus rendered superfluous and unnecessary. Generally all fixtures at- tached to soil pass to mort- gagee. Sale of fix- tures under power. viii. — What Fixtures, &c. pass to the Mortgagee. — Fixtures annexed to the freehold will pass to the mortgagee without being named, unless excluded expressly, or by inference (b) ; and in some cases chattels have been held so to pass, although fixed slightly, and for mere convenience (c). There is no difference in this respect between a mortgage in fee and a mortgage of leaseholds (d), or whether the security be a memorandum of deposit of title deeds of freeholds (e), or other equitable mortgage (,/'), or a deposit of a lease (g), and whether the fixtures are trade fixtures or not (/»), or tenant's fixtures (i) ; and the mortgage was held to attach to the' produce of the fixtures after the lease had expired (/«•). Under a power in a mortgage to sell the land, either together or in parcels, fixtures cannot be sold separately (/) ; and the same rule would apply to a sale by a mortgagee under the (b) Hare v. Eorton, 5 B. & Ad. 715 ; Longstaff v. Meagoe, 2 A. & E. 1G7 ; Eitehman v. Walton, A M. & "W. 416; Waterfall v. Penistone, G E. & B. S7G ; Matht r v. Frost r, 2 K. & J. 536 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 900 ; Holland v. Hodgson, L. R. 7 C. P. 328. And see Colegravi v. // io Santos, 2 B. & Cr. 77. (c) Ibid. ; and Exp. Barclay, 5 De G. M. & G. 413. Not agreeing with the dicta in Trappes v. Earter, 2 Cr. & M. 177, and Eellawell v. Eastwood, 6 Exch. 313. (d) Meux v. Jacobs, L. R. 7 IT. L. 481 ; Mather v. Eraser, 2 K. & J. 536; taffy. Meagve, 2 A. & E. 1G7. Exp. Price, 2 M. D. & De G. 51 s ; Exp. Tagart, De G. 531 ; Long. . L. R. 5 Q. B. 123 : I , //■■ thcoat, Fonb. Bky. 208. (/) Exp. Edwards, Fonb. Bky. 42 ; Fonb. Bky. 208 ; Tcbb v.yW/-,L.R.5C.P.;:;:' Exp. Cowetl, 12 Jur. Ill ; 17 L. J. Bky. N. S. 16; Evans, 23 Beav. 239. (g) Meux v. Jacobs, L. R. 7 H. L. 481 ; Exp. Broad wood, 1 M. D. & De G. 631 ; Exp. King, 1 M. D. & De G. 1 19 ; Williams v. Evans, sup. See Exp. Lusty, GO L. T. 160 ; 37 W. R. 304. (//) Bone/bottom v. Bern/, L. R. 5 Q. B. 123 ; Exp. Barclay, 5 De G. M. &c G. 413 ; Mather v. Eraser, 2 K. & J. 536; Walmsley v. Milne, 7 C. B. N. S. 115; RcHead, 12W. R. 215. But see infra. (i) Exp. Loyd, 3 D. & C. 765; Exp. Bentley, 2 M.'D. & De G. 591 ; Exp. Broadwood, sup. ; Exp. King, 1 M. D. & De G. 119 ; Exp. Tagart, De G. 531 ; Exp. < ■merit, 12 Jur. 411 ; Exp. fluid;, L3 Jur. 531 ; Williams v. Evans, sup. ,• Fearenside v. Derham, 13 L. J. Ch. 354 ; London Discount Co. v. Brake, 6 C. B. N. S. 798. (/.•) Fearenside v. Derham, sup. (I) Exp. Barclay, L. R. 9 Ch. A. 57G, explained Exp. Brown, 9 Ch. D. 390, C. A. FIXTURES, 121 CHAPTER X. statutory power (m). If a special power is inserted in a mort- gage for the mortgagee to remove and sell tlie fixtures apart from the land, the instrument will fall within the mischief of the Bills of Sale Acts (it). In the case of a mortgage of leaseholds the tenant's fixtures, Tenant's fixtures which as against the freehold reversioner the lessees would be entitled to remove, will pass to the mortgagee (o). When the mortgage is by way of sub-demise, the mortgagee has no right to remove such fixtures, unless an intention to that effect appears by the deed, nor can the mortgagor remove them during the mortgage term, but he still retains the right to remove them which he may exercise so soon as the mortgage is satisfied (p) ; but where the mortgagor surrendered the term and took a new lease from his landlord, it was held that the mortgagee was entitled to enter and sever the fixtures, as it was not competent for the mortgagor to defeat the security by a subsequent sur- render of the term (q) . As a general rule, fixtures attached to the premises subse- Fixtures quently to the mortgage are included in the mortgage, whether mor t^aW. it be in fee (r), or of leaseholds (s) ; and whether by deed or mere deposit of title deeds (s), or in an equitable mortgage (t); and whether of freeholds (r) or leaseholds (u) ; and whether tenant's fixtures or not (x) ; and where the fixtures are put up by the mortgagor and his partner (y) ; and although the mortgagor is tenant to the mortgagee under an attornment clause (2). The word " fixtures," though used by some legal writers to Definition of express different meanings, may be here defined as meaning chattels which were originally moveable, but which having been annexed to the soil have ceased to be removeable therefrom, and have become part of the freehold ; by the expression "annexed" (m) 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41, s. 19. sistent with Hellawell v. Eastwood, 6 (ii) See post, p. 204. Excli. 313 ; and Waterfall v. Fcnistone, (o) Exp. Barclay, 5 De G. M. & G. 6 E. & B. 876. 413 ; Mcnx v. Jacobs, L. R. 7 H. L. 481 ; (s) Meux v. Jacobs, sup.; Elliott v. Southport § West Lanes. Banking Co. v. Bishop, 10 Exch. 49. Thompson, 37 Ch. D. 64, C. A. (t) Exp. Cotton, 2 M. D. & De G. (p) Southport § West Lanes. Banking 725 ; Exp. Regnal, 2 M. D. & De G. Co. v. Thompson, sup. 443 ; Exp. Price, 2 M. D. & De G. 518. (q) London Sf Westminster Loan and (u) Meux v. Jacobs, sup. Discount Co. x. Brake, 5 Jur. N. S. (x) Exp. Jlegnal, sup. ; McCluney v. 1-107. Lemon, Hayes, 154 ; Ackroyd v. Mitchell, (>■) CullwicJev. Swindell, L.R. 3Eq. 3 L. T. N. S. 236. But see post, p. 126. 249 ; Climie v. Wood, L. R. 3 Ex. (y) Exp. Cotton, 2 M. D. & De G. 257 ; L. R. 4 Ex. 328 ; Meux v. Jacobs, 725 ; Exp. Scarih, 1 M.D. & De G. 240 ; L. R. 7 H. L. 481 ; Walmsleyv. Milne, Culwick v. Swindell, L. R. 3 Eq. 249. 7 0. B. N. S. 115 ; which are not con- (s) Exp.Tunnett, 16Ch.D. 226, C. A, : fixtures." 122 MORTGAGE OF FEEEHOLDS. chaptee s. is meant that a thing, which otherwise would be moveable, is either actually fixed in or fastened to the ground or is essentially part of or connected with something which is so fixed or fastened. The question as to what chattels are fixtures and what are re- moveable is not always easy to determine, and has been the subject of numerous reported decisions. What chattels Generally speaking, subject to exceptions hereafter to be Lathe term, noticed (a), it maybe laid down that anything is a fixture which is itself imbedded in the soil, or is so attached thereto or to any building or permanent erection thereon by cement, nails or other fastening, as not to be removeable without force (b) . So it has been said that, in the absence of contrary intention, expressed or to be implied, whatever is substantially part of a house, so that it could not be taken away without depriving the house of what was intended to be used with the building, should be considered as fixtures (c). The following chattels, when imbedded in, or attached to, the soil, or essentially forming part of, or connected with, chattels so imbedded or attached, have been held to be fixtures : — Steam engines and hammers (d), boilers (c), furnaces and cutters (/), coke oven, still, malt-mill, sleepers and rails of railways (g), tramway and steam crane (A), looms fixed by nails to plugs sunk into the floor (/), silk spinning machines resting by their own weight only on the ground, but attached by moveable bolts to iron rods fixed to mill-beams overhead (k), retorts, purifiers, and boilers in gasworks (/), engines and machinery, attached to a building by bolts and screws and removeable without injury (m) t piles before a wharf in the river Thames (;/■), a wind-mill (o) , cornices [a) See infra, p. 125. As to what Zinc Ore Co., TV. N. (1S85) 69 ; 52 articles are fixtures and what are re- L. T. 738. moveable, and the extent and qualifica- (g) Turner v. Cameron, L. R. 5 Q. B. tions of the right to removal generally, 306. see Amos & Ferard on Fixtures. (/*) Exp. Moore § Robinson's Bunking (b) Exp. Moore and Robinson's Bank- Co., 14 Ch. D. 379. ing Co., Re Armytage, 11 Ch. D. 379, (i) Boyd v. Shorroeh, L. R. 5 Eq. at p. 386. And see Rufford v. Bishop, 72 ; Holland v. Hodgson, L. R. 7 C. P. 5 Russ. 346. 328. (r) Per Pearson, J., in Smith v. (k) Haley v. Hammersley,Z'Do G. F. Maclure, 32 TV. R. 459. & J. 587. {d) Metropolitan Counties Sue. y. (I) Reg. v. Inhabitants of Parish of Brown, 26 Beav. 454 ; Walmsley v. Lee, L. R. 1 Q. B. 241. 'in', 7 C. B. N. S. 115 ; Exp. Astbunj, (m) Longbottom v. Bury, L. R. 5 Q. L.R.4 Ch.A.630; Coombs v. Beaumont, B. 123. See Climie v. Wood, L. R. 5 B. & Ad. 72; Thompton v. Tettitt, 4 Ex. 328; Hobson v. Gorringe, (1897) 10 Q. B. 101. 1 Ch. 182, C. A. See further, as to (e) Ibid.; Uubbard v. Bags haw, 4 trade machinery, post, p. 205. Sim. 326. («) Lancaster v. Eve, 5 C. B. N. S. (/) Metropolitan Counties Soc. v. 717 ; Martin v. Roe, 7 E. & B. 218. Brown, sup. ; Tottenham v. Swansea (o) Steward v. Lombc, 1 Br. & B. 506. FIXTUEES. 123 and poles, and pier glasses in frames (p). Moveable parts of chapter x. fixed machinery are fixtures, c. g., locks and keys of a house, millstones (q), anvil used with fixed steam hammer (>•), driving- belts for working machinery (s), and gear necessary for working .fixed looms (/). The following are moveables : — What chattels Carpets attached with nails («) ; looms (.?•), and weighing included, machines (y) deposited in holes or sockets ; iron plates (s) ; hydraulic press not necessary for factory (a) ; mules used for spinning cotton, though fixed by screws (b) ; hangings and valances apart from cornices, and mantel-boards (c). And articles are moveables, although partly imbedded in the soil, when they have not been so placed with the intention to annex them thereto, as plates, sleepers, or rails which have accidentally penetrated the ground (d) ; so also chattels resting by their own weight only on foundations sunk into the ground (e). So also tools and implements used in connection with machinery Tools and are not fixtures (/), nor are cooking utensils used in a restau- utensi]s - rant(#). Fixtures attached to the land, or to the building which stands Fixtures upon it, by the freeholder, according to the well-known maxim, temporary^ quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit, accordingly pass to the heir, purpose, and not to the executor, whether the owner acquired the land or building by descent or purchase, and whether he annexed them for a permanent purpose or for the better enjoyment of the land, or whether they are trade fixtures, or the fittings up of collieries, or the like, or not (h) . In some cases a distinction has been made where articles have been annexed to the soil for (p) Smith v. Maclure, 32 W. E. 459. 630. (<7) Places. Fagg, 4 Man. & Ey. 277 ; (z) Metropolitan Counties Soc.v. Brown, Mather v. Fraser, 2 K. & J. 559 ; sup. And see Exp. Astburi/, sup. Fisher v. Dixon, 12 01. & F. 312 ; Cort (a) Parsons v. Hind, 14 W. E. 860. v. Sugar, 3 H. & N. 370; Exp.Astbury, (b) HeUawell v. Eastwood, sup. But L. E. 4 Ch. A. 630. see Longbottom v. Berry, L. E. 5 Q. B. (?•) Metropolitan Counties Soc. Y.Brown, 137, 138. 26 Beav. 454 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 378. (c) Smith v. Maclure, 32 W. E. 459. (s) Sheffield, $c. Building Soc. v. (d) Bates v. Duke of Beaufort, 8 Jur. Harrison, 15 Q. B. D. 35S, C. A. N. S. 270. (t) Cort v. Sugar, 3 H. & N. 370. (e) Mather v. Fraser, 2 K. & J. 559 ; (u) HeUawell v. Eastwood, 6 Excli. Exp. Ncwbery, 10 L. T. N. S. 661 ; 295. Bates v. Duke of Beaufort, sup. (x) Hutchinson v. Kay, 23 Beav. 413 ; If) Haley v. Hammer sley, 3 De G. F. Boyd v. Shorrock, L. E. 5 Eq. 72 ; & J. 522. Holland v. Hodgson, L. E. 7 C. P. 328 ; (g) Re Macdonald, W. N. (1885) 98. Cort v. Sagar, sup. (h) Fisher v. Dixon, 12 CI. & F. 312 ; (y) Exp. Astbury, L. E. 4 Ch. A. Mather v. Fraser, 2 K. & J. 549. 124 MORTGAGE OF FREEHOLDS. CHAPTER X. Execution on fixtures. Distress on fixtures. Exclusion of mortgagee's right to fixtures by stipulation. temporary convenience (b), or for ornament (c) ; but it would appear that the articles to which the executors were held to be entitled in these cases were only slightly attached to the free- hold, and were hardly fixtures in the strict sense of the word. If the corpus of machinery belongs to the heir, all that belongs to such machinery, whether capable of being detached or not, passes to him (d). Fixtures annexed to the freehold are, as a general rule, not subject to be taken as goods and chattels under an execution (•) Exp. Bentley, 2 M. D. & De G. In) Mather v. Eraser, 2 K. & J. 559. 591. (o) Haley v. Hammerslcy, 3 Be G-. F. (s) 2 Cr. & M. 153. & J. 592; Exp. Acton, 4 L. T. N. S. (t) See, e.g., Poole's Case, 1 Salk. 261. See Wilson v. Whateley, 7 Jur. 368 ; Lawton v. Salmon, 1 H. Bl. N. S. 908. 259, n. ; Earl of Mansfield v. Black- (p) See Dav. Conv. Vol. II. pt. i. burn, 6 Biug. N. C. 426; Dean v. 185, 186; Byth. & Jarm. Conv. (4th Allaley, 3 Esp. 11 ; Teuton v. Rob'art, ed.) Vol. V. p. 196. 2 East, 90 ; Trappes v. Harter, 2 Cr. & (?) See post, p. 206. M. 153. 126 MORTGAGE OF FREEHOLDS. chapter s. the heirs and executors of deceased freeholders, and, generally, the principles of the decisions in the last-mentioned class of cases seem to apply to conflicting claims between mortgagors and mortgagees of land (u) . So a cider mill let into the ground, and a fire engine set up for the benefit of a colliery, have been held to pass to the executor (x). And, in one case, a very slight indication of intention appears to have been seized upon in order to exclude from the security trade machinery placed upon the land by the mortgagor after the date of the deed (y) . But in a later case, in which it was held that fixtures annexed to the mortgaged freehold subsequently to the mortgage for the convenience and better enjoyment of the estate, passed to the mortgagee, it was laid down that the rules as to the right of a tenant to remove trade fixtures set up by him during the term, have no applica- tion to cases between mortgagor and mortgagee (s) . The protection accorded to trade fixtures as between landlord and tenant will, however, apply so as to prevent such fixtures placed upon the mortgaged land by a tenant of the mortgagor from passing to the mortgagee. If the fixtures are on the land at the time of the mortgage, it is clear that the mortgagor cannot pass to the mortgagee any greater right to them as against the tenant than he had himself. And where a mort- gagor in possession let the mortgaged house to a tenant, who brought into it certain trade fixtures, and the mortgagee subse- quently entered into possession, it was held that the fixtures did not belong to the mortgagee, but remained the property of the tenant (a) . Moreover, so long as a mortgagor who is engaged in trade or business remains in possession, he must be deemed to be autho- rized by the mortgagee to enter into any contracts which are necessary or convenient for carrying on such trade or business in its ordinary course ; and the mortgagee will be bound by such contract, though involving the right of a third person to remove chattels which would otherwise pass as fixtures to the mortgagee. So, where mortgagors in possession of a colliery which they (u) See Colcgrave v. Dios Santos, 2 B. (z) WalmiUy v. Milne, 7 C. B. N. S. & Or. 7G. 115. See Mather v. Eraser, 2 K. & J. (x) Lawton V. Lawton, 3 Atk. 13. 536. (>j) V'clerfaUv. PmUtone, GE. & B. {a) Sanders v. Davis, 15 Q. B. D. 870. 218. FIXTURES. 127 had mortgaged put up certain machinery under a hire and chapter x. purchase agreement, it was held that the vendors were entitled to remove such machinery (b). So, also, where a lessee of a nursery garden mortgaged the same, and afterwards, while in possession of the mortgaged premises, obtained from a firm of engineers, under a hire and purchase- agreement, a boiler and hot water pipes and fittings for the purpose of his trade which were fixed in the brick-work of a hot-house, part of the mortgaged premises, it was held that the mortgagee, having allowed the mortgagor to remain in posses- sion, must be taken to have acquiesced in his making agreements for fixing and removing fixtures for the purposes of his trade, and that he could not claim the boiler, pipes, and fittings as against the firm who had removed them on default in payment of an instalment of the purchase-money (c). But the protection afforded to trade fixtures, as between the mortgagee and the mortgagor and persons claiming under him, rests entirely on the presumption that the mortgagee must be taken to have assented to the removal of the fixtures by the mortgagor as being necessary for the conduct of his trade or business in its ordinary course ; and accordingly no protection will be afforded to the mortgagor if he removes such fixtures not in the ordinary course of his trade or business, but for the purpose of preventing the mortgagee from claiming them (d) . The protection accorded to trade fixtures as between landlord Agricultural and tenant has been held not to apply to buildings and fixtures fixtures - erected or annexed for agricultural purposes (e). The effect of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (/), is that the tenant of an agricultural or pastoral holding (including in that expression a market garden) may, with the consent of his landlord, execute upon the land any of the improvements men- tioned in Part I. of the schedule to the Act, which include buildings and other works, some of which may be regarded as fixtures ; and that the tenant, on the expiration of his tenancy, is entitled to claim compensation from his landlord notwith- standing any agreement to the contrary. It would seem clear that where agricultural or pastoral land (b) Cumberland Union Banking Co. v. (d) Rudder sfield Banking Co. v. Lister, Mart/port Hematite Iron and Steel Co., (1895) 2 Ch. 273, C. A. (1892) 1 Ch. 415. See Hobson v. Gor- (e) Shoes v. Mawe, 3 East, 38 ; see ringe, (1897) 1 Ch. 182, C. A. notes to S. C. in 2 Srn. L. C. (10th (c) Gough v. Wood, (1894) 1 Q. B. ed.) pp. 183 ct scq. 713, C. A. (/) 46 & 47 Vict. c. 61. 128 MORTGAGE OF FREEHOLDS. CHAPTEBX. Removal of fixtures. Assignment of fixtures apart from land. is mortgaged, (i) the mortgagor, so long as lie remains in posses- sion, will be entitled, in the absence of any stipulation to the contrary, to lease or let the land subject to what the law has pronounced to be the ordinary incidents of tenancy, including the tenant's right to compensation ; and (ii) that such improve- ments will pass to the mortgagee by virtue of his mortgage, but subject to his liability, on taking possession, to pay such com- pensation as the mortgagor would have been liable to pay. A mortgagee, whether his security be in fee or for a term, may restrain the removal of valuable fixtures (g) . Though the mortgagee takes possession of the premises forcibly, and therefore illegally, trover for the fixtures will not He (h). Where a mortgagor-lessee becomes bankrupt and his trustee removes the fixtures, the mortgagee may sue the trustee for such removal, notwithstanding a covenant by the lessee to deliver up at the expiration of the term all fixtures belonging or to belong to the premises (/). And if the trustees in bank- ruptcy of a mortgagor who has mortgaged the lease of a house and the fixtures, sell the fixtures separately, they will be answer- able for the sum which the fixtures would have fetched if sold with the house (k) . Fixtures are not chattels personal within the reputed owner- ship clause of the Bankruptcy Act (/). As fixtures are part of the soil itself no presumption of ownership arises with regard to them. Fixtures, when assigned or charged separately from the land, are within the Bills of Sale Acts (m), and accordingly no mort- gage thereof will be valid unless in conformity with the statu- table form and duly registered. But fixtures (except trade machinery as defined by the Bills of Sale Act, 1878), when as- signed together with a freehold or leasehold interest in any land or building to which they are affixed, are not within the Acts («). Usual form of proviso. ix. — Proviso for Redemption. — In mortgages of freeholds, and also generally in mortgages of leaseholds, the old form of proviso (g) Acknyd v. Mitchell, 3 L. T. N. S. 236. (/<) Longstaffe v. Meagoe, 2 A. & E. 167 ; Mimhall v. Lloyd, 2 M. & W. 450. (i) lltichmanv. Walton, 1 M. &W. 409. (k) Thompsonx. Pdtitt, 10 Q. B. 101. U) See post, p. 178. (in) 41 & 42 Vict. c. 31 ; 45 & 46 Vict. c. 43. («) See post, p. 206. EEDUCTION OF INTEREST. 129 for redemption and for avoidance of the mortgage or cesser of chapter x . the term upon such redemption, has been superseded by a form which is in effect a proviso for reconveyance, if the mortgagor should pay the principal debt and interest at the specified time, usually six months after the date of the mortgage. If money is to be lent on mortgage in distinct sums by Contributory different mortgagees, or sets of mortgagees, who are to be paid mor ° affe- pari passu, the object may be effected by conveying the land to all the mortgagees, with a proviso for redemption on payment of the mortgage debts and interest to the several lenders, the mortgagor covenanting separately with the different mortgagees for pay ment of their respective debts and interest ; but it is usual to make the mortgage to trustees for the entire sum, the interest of the several lenders being ascertained either by a separate deed or on the face of the mortgage (o) . X. — Proviso for Reduction of Interest on Punctual Payment. — Legality and A clause is not infrequently inserted in mortgage deeds pro- G f such ° viding for the reduction of the rate of interest on punctual provisoes- payment, and such a provision may be of service in causing the interest to be regularly and punctually paid (p). The legality of such a clause may be regarded as established (q) ; but an agreement that the rate of interest shall be raised if interest at the normal rate be not punctually paid, is regarded, in equity, as being of the nature of a penalty, and to be relieved against even in case of gross default (;•). If any condition as to time or otherwise is attached to a Condition proviso for reduction of interest, such condition, unless waived, obs«-\^d. Ut Y must be strictly performed (s) . But a single default in punctual payment of interest will not Effect of utterly defeat an agreement for the reduction of interest, unless smg e e au t# (o) See Davidson's Conveyancing tion of harshness. (4th ed.), Vol. IE, p. ii. p. 385 ; (q) Jory v. Cox, Prec. Ch. 160 ; Bythewood and Jarman's Conveyanc- Nicholls v. Maynard, 3 Atk. 519; ing (4th ed.), Vol. III., p 1055, n. Wayne v. Lewis, 25 L. T. 264. See (p) It may be suggested that it will Seton v. Slade, 7 Ves. 293 ; Wallnigford generally be advisable that the differ- v. Mutual, §c. Sue, 5 App. Cas. 685, ence between the rates of interest 702. should be great enough to offer a (;•) Lady Holies v. TTyse, 2 Vern. 289 ; material inducement to the mortgagor Strode v. Parker, 2 Vern. 316 ; Jory v. to pay punctually, but not so great as Cox, sup. ; Nicholls v. Maynard, sup. ; to render the mortgagee liable to ap- Walmeslcy v. Booth, Barn. Ch. R. 475 ; peals ad misericord-iain asking him, not- Burton v. Slattery, 5 Bro. P. C. 233. withstanding default, to accept interest (s) Bonafom v. Rybot, 3 Burr. 1375. at the lower rate, which it might be See Attwood v. Taylor, 1 Man. & (jr. difficult to resist without the imputa- 279. VOL. I. — R. K 130 MORTGAGE OF FREEHOLDS. CHAPTER X. Waiver of condition by trustee. Parol agreement. Presumption of agreement. Mortgagee in possession entitled to interest at the higher rate. Covenant for payment of inti rest at in- creased rate. this intention clearly appears from the language of the clause. Thus in Stanhope v. Manners (t), in which the agreement was " as often as " the interest should be paid half-yearly on the days appointed, or within three months nest after, so much should be deducted as would make the interest three and a half per cent. The first half-year's interest was not paid within the- time. The tender of the second half-year's interest (at three and a half per cent.) was made within the limited period, but was refused on the ground that the default made in the first half-year de- feasanced and annihilated the agreement. Lord Nottingham thought otherwise, and said that words could not be stronger to express the intent of the parties, that in every instance where the three and a half per cent, was tendered in time, it should be accepted, and decreed accordingly. A trustee is justified in accepting interest at the lower rate, after the higher rate fixed by the mortgage has become payable by the strict terms of the contract (u) . A parol agreement for the reduction of interest secured by a mortgage deed is binding («). An agreement for the reduction of interest on punctual pay- ment was not presumed, where interest had in fact been for many years received at a lower rate than that reserved by the mortgage deed, against a subsequent tenant for life of the interest, who was not shown to have agreed to take less than interest at the reserved rate (i/). A mortgagee in possession through the default of the mort- gagor is entitled to the higher rate (z). So also, where the mortgagee has entered into possession by arrangement with the mortgagor, though no interest was in arrear at the time of taking possession (a). But where mortgagees assented to an order for payment out of a fund in Court, and, owing to delay in the completion of the order, the interest was not paid within the time limited for pay- ment at the reduced rate, it was held that the mortgagees must nevertheless accept interest at the reduced rate (/>) . An exception to the rule that the rate of interest shall not be raised if not punctually paid has been said in an old case to (i) 2 Ed. 199. («) Booth v. Alington, 3 Jur. N. S. 49. (x) Lord Milton v. Edgworth, 5 Pro. P. C. 313. (.»/) Gregory v. Tilkington, 8 De G. M. & G. 616. (z) Union Bank of London v. Ingram, 16 Ch. D. 53; Cockburn v. Edwards, 18 Ch. D. 449. (a) Bright v. Campbell, 41 Ch. D. 388. (b) Be Moss, Levy v. Sewill, 31 Ch. D. 90. CAPITALIZATION OF INTEREST. 131 exist, where there is a direct covenant for payment of the in- chapter x. creased rate in that event (c). But this decision may be regarded as overruled by the subsequent authorities (d). It would seem, however, that an exception to the rule must be Subsequent made in case the increased rate of interest does not constitute consideration part of the original mortgage contract, but is the result of ° f forbear- subsequent and independent agreement in consideration of, and compensation for, forbearance on the part of the mortgagee ; in which case, if the compensation be reasonable, the Court will not interfere (e) . In a modern case (/), such a stipulation was enforced as against a second mortgagee until notice -that his interest was in arrear. And payment has been enforced of interest at an increased rate on purchase-money on default of payment of the money on a specified day (g) . xi. — Proviso for Capitalization of Interest. — It was formerly Former rule considered in equity that, as a general rule, provisoes in mort- m e(im y ' gage deeds or collateral agreements, entered into at the time of the loan, for converting interest into principal from time to time as it should become due, were oppressive and unjust, and tended to usury, and, consequently, could not be supported (//). As was remarked by Lord Eldon (/), " There is nothing unfair, or perhaps illegal, in taking a covenant originally, that, if interest is not paid at the end of the year, it shall be converted into principal ; but this Court will not permit that, as tending to usury, though it is not usury." At the present day it seems to be a very generally received As to validity opinion that, in the absence of fraud or oppression, stipu- "isoesatthe lations entered into at the time of the loan for payment of present day. compound interest woidd be valid, on the ground that the rule against compound interest depended wholly on its being regarded as contravening the policy, if not the letter, of the (e) Marquis of Halifax v. Higgens, (/) Law v. Glenn, L. R. 2 Cb. A. 2 Vem. 134. It is stated in Free. Cb. 634. tbat tbe agreement was in a separate (g) Herbert v. Salisbury, §c. Rail. deed: seealsolo Vin. Abr.453 ; Powell Co., L. R. 2 Eq. 221. on Mortgages, 963 ; but it is submitted (A) IS road wag v. Moreeraft, Mosely, that this circumstance could make no 248 ; Mitford v. Featherstonehaugh, 2 difference, as the two deeds must be Ves. S. 445 ; Sir Thomas Meer's Case, considered as forming one transac- cited in Cas. t. Talb. (Williams) 40 ; tion. Lord Ossulston v. Lord Yarmouth, 2 (d) Barton v. Slattery, 5 Bro. P. C. Salk. 449 ; Chambers v. Goldv:in, 9 Ves. 233. See also Stanhope v. Manners, 254. And see Fage v. Broom, 4 CI. & 2 Ed. 199, n. F. 437. (e) Brown v. Barkam, 1 P. Wins. (I) Chambers v. Gohhc'ui, 9 Ves. 254, 652. Sec Burton v. Slattery, sap. at p. 271. k2 132 MORTGAGE OF FREEHOLDS. CHAPTER X. Effect of repeal of the usury laws. usury laws, and that accordingly the repeal of the usury laws in 1854 (/*•) has virtually abrogated the rule (/). The cases cited by text- writers in support of this view do not appear to be absolutely conclusive, and it seems open to question whether a covenant in a mortgage deed, not being a mortgage of a reversionary interest, that interest in arrear should be capi- talized by periodical rests, and thenceforth bear interest, might not even now, except under special circumstances, be rejected as being in itself oppressive and in the nature of a penalty, thereby giving a collateral advantage to the mortgagee and clogging the equity of redemption. There is no reported decision which exju-essly bears on this point. But it has been incidentally stated by several learned judges (»i), that the rule of equity against allowing a mortgagee any collateral advantage beyond his principal, interest, and costs, is unimpaired by the repeal of the usury laws. So in a recent case (n), Sir E. Kay, L. J., in the course of his judgment, said that, before the repeal of the usury laws, it was well settled that collateral advantages could not be insisted on by a mort- gagee ; so that (amongst other things) a stipulation capitalizing interest, turning it into principal, and charging interest upon it, however formally expressed, was not allowed to prevail ; and he pointed out that these rules of equity were forced on the mort- gagee in exercise of the " paternal jurisdiction " of the Court, thus altering the contract between the mortgagor and mortgagee by disallowing those advantages for which the mortgagee had stipulated. His Lordship then cited and commented as follows on the judgment of Lord Eldon in Chambers v. Gohhcin (o) above referred to : " Lord Eldon there, although no doubt one objection he makes to these exactions was that they tend to usury, still does not rest his objection entirely upon that ground. He says, besides, that they are oppressive, and are exactions that a mortgagee is not allowed to make. It is a very interesting (k) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 90. (I) See Dav. Conv. Vol. II. pt. ii. pp. 360, n. ; Coote on Mortgages (5th ed.), Vol. II., p. 945; Seton, 1609. (*») Broad v. Selfe, 9 Jur. N. S. 885 ; Barrett v. Martlet/, L. R. 2 Eq. 789, 795 ; James v. Kerr, 40 Ch. D. 449, 460; Fields. Hopkins, 44 Ch. D. 524, 530. See Croft v. Graham, 2 De G. J. & S. 155, 161 ; Earl of Aylesfordv . Morris, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 484. («) Mainland v. Upjohn, 41 Ch. D. 126, 136, 138. (o) 9 Ves. 254, 271. See also Sir Thomas Mcer's Case, cit. in Cas. t. Talb. (Williams) 40 ; Le Grange v. Hamilton, 2 H. Bl. 144 ; Barnard v. Young, 17 Ves. 47; Leith v. Irvine, 1 My. & K. 284 ; Blackburn v. War- wick, 2 Y. & C. Ex. 92. CAPITALIZATION OF INTEREST. 133 question indeed, and one which I certainly do not consider is chapter x. at present finally settled, how far the abolition of the laws against usury has affected this jurisdiction, or the extent to which the Court will exercise its jurisdiction, as between mort- gagor and mortgagee." It seems indeed somewhat difficult to distinguish upon prin- ciple provisions that, if any interest shall fall into arrear, it shall forthwith be capitalized and thenceforth bear interest, from covenants by the mortgagor to pay interest at a higher rate, if not paid within a specified time after it has accrued due ; which latter covenants have, as has been seen (p), been invariably regarded as imposing a penalty on the mortgagor, which will be relieved against as clogging the equity of redemption. In one case, which has been much relied upon as affirming Clarksm v. the general validity of covenants for compound interest, certain persons, entitled to interests in funds in Court subject to a prior life interest, executed a mortgage of such reversionary interests, which contained a covenant, expressed in general terms, to the effect that all interest which should accrue due during the con- tinuance of the security, in case the same should not be paid within twenty-one days from the same becoming due, should be capitalized and bear interest, and also a proviso that the mort- gagee should forbear payment of any principal or interest until the expiration of three years from the date of the mortgage ; the reversion having fallen into possession, upon petition an inquiry was directed to ascertain the amount due on the mort- gage, and on the question being adjourned into Court it was held that the covenant for compound interest was good (q). This decision does not appear altogether satisfactory or Remarks on conclusive. Something may possibly have turned in that case upon the fact that it was a mortgage of a reversion (r) ; but it is to be remarked that the covenant did not limit the capitalization of interest to the period of three years or to the continuance of the prior particular estate ; also that the learned Vice-Chancellor who decided the case did not give any grounds for his decision, so that it does not seem quite clear how far the principle of the decision extends. It will be observed that, in this case, the mort- gagors obtained an important advantage by the provision that the mortgagee should not be entitled to call for payment of prin- (p) Ante, p. 129. (r) Per Kay, J., in Mainland v. Up- (q) Clarksonv. Henderson, Id Ch. D. John, 41 Ch. D. 126, at p. 143. And 348. see inf. 134 MORTGAGE OF FREEHOLDS. CHAPTER X. Distinction where capi- talization is limited in point of time and in con- sideration of forbearance. Mortgages of reversions. cipal or interest for three years, during which time his remedies as mortgagee were suspended ; and it seems fair and reasonable that, in such a case, the mortgagee should be allowed to stipulate for payment of interest which he is precluded from enjoying or rendering productive as it accrues due. But his Honour went further than this, and apparently allowed capitalization of interest up to the falling in of the reversion, thus giving to the mortgagee an advantage which was more than correlative to the restriction imposed upon him. The terms of the mortgage deed extended to the capitalization of all arrears of interest whenever accruing due during the continuance of the security, but it does not appear from the report whether any interest had fallen into arrear since the falling in of the reversion. It is obvious that there is an important distinction between allowing a mortgagee to capitalize interest during a term certain or determinable upon the happening of a certain event in con- sideration of his forbearance to require payment during that term, and allowing him to clog the equity of redemption without any corresponding advantage to the mortgagor by imposing upon the latter what, as is submitted, is in effect a penalty by way of compound interest, whenever interest may fall into arrear during the continuance of the security. And there appears to be no reported case which clearly affirms the validity of a stipulation to the latter effect. Mortgages of reversionary interests often contain covenants for capitalization of interest during the prior life interest, or for payment on the determination of such interest of an aggregate sum calculated on the footing of capitalization of interest, and its addition to the principal originally advanced, and also covenants for payment of simple interest thereafter, at a specified rate on the aggregate sum, with a corresponding proviso that the mortgagee shall not require payment of prin- cipal or interest pending the falling in of the reversion. Even before the repeal of the usury laws an exception to the general rule against compound interest appears to have been allowed in favour of mortgages of reversions. So in an old case it was held that a reservation of interest on interest in the mortgage deed during the prior life estate was not contrary to the usury laws, and ought to be supported in equity, as otherwise the mortgagee might be a great loser (s). And arrangements of (s) Hoivardr. Harris, 1 Vern. 190, 194. POSTPONEMENT OF PAYMENT. 135 this nature have "been allowed to pass without question when chapter x. instruments embodying them have been brought before the Court (t). "Where a mortgage of a reversionary interest contained a Proof in covenant for capitalization of interest during the life of the fo^cStlllzed tenant for life, and the mortgagor became bankrupt before the interest. reversion fell in, it was held that the mortgagee was not entitled to prove in the bankruptcy for so much of the aggregate sum as represented capitalized interest accrued due after the adjudica- tion («). A covenant or provision for the capitalization of interest will Avoidance of render void a bill of sale of chattels as being not in accordance with the form prescribed by the Bills of Sale Act, 1882 (cc). xii. — Provisions as to Postponement of Right to call in Prin- Covenant, &c. cipal — Instalments. — Mortgage deeds sometimes contain a cove- principal, nant or proviso that the mortgagee will not call in the mortgage money before a fixed date, or before the happening of a specified event, as for instance, the death of a named person. Where a covenant to this effect is inserted in a mortgage deed, the forbearance is, according to the usual practice, made conditional upon the regular and punctual payment of the interest, unless capitalized, and upon the performance and observance by the mortgagor of the covenants and obligations on his part contained in or implied by the mortgage. The security in these cases is usually so framed as to make Form of the whole debt payable at an appointed, and not distant, date, subcase" with a proviso explaining the real intent of the parties for payment by instalments, or at a distant day if the payment is punctual (//) . An unqualified agreement that the mortgagee will not call Effect of in the debt during the life of the mortgagor is binding, though prov the interest falls in arrear (z) ; but in settling such an agree- ment, the Court will insert a condition that the interest shall have been punctually paid, and, if leasehold, that the covenants have been performed (a) . A proviso that the principal shall not be called in for a certain Proviso postponing (*) lie Fane, Exp. Hope, W. N. (1 888) D. 526, C. A. And see post, p. 232. redem P tiou - 231 ; Salt v. Marquis of Northampton, (>/) Dav. Conv. Vol. II. pt. ii.p. 49 • (1892) A. C. 1. Byth. & Jarm. (4th ed. by Bobbins) (u) Me Fane, Exp. Hope, sap. Vol. III. pp. 997, 1006. (x) Davis v. Burton, 11 Q. B. D. (z) Burrowes v. Molloif, 2 J. &L. 521. 537, C. A. ; Myers v. Elliott, 16 Q. B. (a) Seatonv.Tu-i/ford]'L.'R.WEq.F,91. 136 MORTGAGE OF FREEHOLDS. Condition strictly enforced. Giving time after default no waiver. Sale in bank- ruptcy before period for payment. period, or shall be payable by instalments, is generally accom- panied by a corresponding covenant by the mortgagor that he will not compel receipt of the principal before the expiration of the period or the date when the last instalment becomes payable, and such a covenant is binding on the mortgagor (b). But even in the absence of such a covenant by the mortgagor, the Court will not allow him to redeem before the day appointed for payment of the money has arrived (c) : provided that the period fixed for calling in the money is not so excessive as to render the correlative postponement of the mortgagor's right to redeem oppressive to him, as where the principal was made repayable in twenty years (d). Where a second mortgage contains a covenant not to call in the principal for a fixed period, the second mortgagee will be precluded, until the expiration of that period, from redeeming the first mortgage and getting in the legal estate (e). There is no equitable relief under a proviso not to call in a mortgage debt on punctual payment of interest, if such payment falls into arrear even for a few days only (/). If, after default, interest is tendered and accepted, the mortgagee does not thereby waive his right to call in the principal (g) . The case of Langridge v. Payne (h) has been erroneously supposed (/) to lay down a rule that if a mortgagee, on default in payment of interest, demands and receives payment of the interest due together with his costs, this will amount to a waiver of his right to call in the principal before the fixed time ; but the judgment in that case, as reported, lays down no rule of the kind, but was clearly a mere determination of the balance of convenience until the hearing of the action brought by the mortgagee for possession of the mortgaged property (/.•) . If the mortgagor becomes bankrupt, the mortgagee may obtain an order for sale, though the period for calling in the principal has not arrived, under a stipulation of this nature (/). (b) Re Hone, Ir. R. 8 Eq. 65. (r) Brown v. Cole, 14 Sim. 427. (,/j Cowdry v. Day, 1 Gifl. 316; 29 L. J. Ch. 39. (e) Ramsbottom v. Wallace, 5 L. J. N. S. Ch. 92 ; Lawless v. Mansfield, 1 Dr. & War. 557. (/) Hicks v. Gardner, 1 Jur. 541. See Roddy v. Williams, 3 J. &L. 1. (g) Kccne v. Biscoe, 8 Ch. D. 201. See Williams v. Sterne, 5 Q. B. D. 409, C. A. (h) 2 J. & H. 423. (i) Coote on Mortgages (5th ed.), Vol. I. p. 246. (/>) See Re Taafe, 14 Ir. Ch. R. 347; Keene v. Biscoe, 8 Ch. >D. at p. 203. (I) Exp. Bignold, 3 Deac. 151. PAYMENT 15 Y INSTALMENTS. 137 Usually, where the principal is made repayable by instal- chapter x. nients, the forbearance of the right to call in the whole of the Proviso for principal is made conditional on the regular and punctual prf u ™p^iby payment of the instalments by means of a proviso that, in instalments, default of regular payment, the creditor should be at liberty to sue at once for his whole debt (m). "Where mines form the subject of a mortgage, it would seem Mines, to be a proper arrangement that the money should be made repayable by instalments ; the mortgagor will thus have the advantage of paying off the debt gradually out of the profits of the mines, while the mortgagee will be protected against the exhaustion of the security without a corresponding reduction of the debt (n). Where a creditor gave time for payment of an existing debt upon security being given for payment thereof by instalments, on the failure in payment of any one of which the whole debt was to become payable, the condition was strictly enforced (o). If, after default in payment of an instalment, the mortgagee Acceptance of accepts payment thereof, this is not a waiver or the breach (p) a f ter default. so as to disentitle the mortgagee from calling in the whole principal. A stipulation may be inserted in the mortgage deed that a Proviso for commission or bonus shall be paid in default of punctual default, payment of any instalment (q). xiii. — Covenants for Insurance against Fire. — Till recently, Former where the nature of the mortgaged property was such as to f suca require insurance against fire to protect the security from risk covenants - of loss, it was the usual practice to insert in the mortgage deed not only covenants by the mortgagor for that purpose, but also a clause empowering the mortgagee to insure in case of default by the mortgagor, and to charge the latter and the mortgaged property with the premiums and interest. This clause was formerly important, as, if the mortgage contained no stipulation (>») Dav. Conv. (4th ed.) Vol. II. L. 1 ; Edwards v. Martin, 25 L. J. pt. ii. p. 49 ; Byth. & Jarm. Conv. (4th Ch. 284 ; Burrows t. Molloy, 2 J. & ed.) Vol. III. p. 1171. L. 521. (») Dav. Conv. (4th ed.) Vol. II. {p) Keener. Biscoe, 8 Ch. D. 201. pt. ii. p. 433. See Coivdry v. Bay, 1 Giff. 316. (o) Sterne v. Beck, 1 De G. J. & S. (?) General Credit, §c. Co. v. Glegg, 595. See Roddy v. Williams, 3 J. & 22 Ch. D. 549. 138 MORTGAGE OF FREEHOLDS. CHAPTER X. Lord Cran- worth's Act. Conv. Act, 1881. Power to in- sure incident to estate or interest of mortgagee. Amount and application of insurance money. to that effect, the mortgagee, whether in possession or not, would not have been entitled to any allowance in respect of payments made by him for insuring the property against fire (r) . And even where there was a covenant by the mortgagor to insure, but no express power for the mortgagee to insure on the mortgagor's default, it was held that the mortgagee could not be allowed to take the premiums paid by him against a second mortgagee (s). And this rule still applies to all mortgage deeds executed before the 28th of August, 1860, and to all charges whenever made, if not made by deed. Lord Cranworth's Act (t) , which came into operation on that date, gave to mortgagees whose charges were secured by deed a statutory power to insure the mortgaged property, and to add any premiums paid by them to the principal moneys secured, as if such power had been in terms conferred by the person creating the charge. But this enactment is now repealed, except as to instruments executed before the 1st of January, 1882, by the Act next referred to. By the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 («), it is enacted that — Sect. 19 (1.) A mortgagee, where the mortgage is made by deed, shall, by virtue of the Act, have the following power, to the like extent as if it had been in terms conferred by the mortgage deed, but not further, namely : — (ii.) A power, at any time after the date of the mortgage deed, to insure and keep insured against loss or damage by fire any building, or any effects or property of an insurable nature, whether affixed to the freehold or not, being or forming part of the mortgaged property, and the premiums paid for any such insurance shall be a charge on the mort- gaged property, in addition to the mortgage money, and with the same priority, and with interest at the same rate, as the mortgage money. And by the same Act, it is enacted as follows : — Sect. 23 (1.) The amount of an insurance effected by a mortgagee against loss or damage by fire under the power in that behalf con- ferred by the Act shall not exceed the amount specified in the mort- gage deed, or, if no amount is therein specified, then shall not exceed two third parts of the amount that would be required, in case of total destruction, to restore the property insured. (2.) An insurance shall not, under the power conferred by the (r) Dobson v. Zand, 8 Hare, 21 G; Bellamy v. Brickenden, 2 J. & H. 137. (*) Brook v. Stone, 13 W. R. 401. (t) 23 & 24 Vict. c. 145, s. (w) 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41. 11. FIRE INSURANCE. 139 Act, be effected by a mortgagee in any of (lie following cases chapter x. (namely) : (i.) Where there is a declaration in the mortgage deed that no insurance is required : (ii.) Where an insurance is kept up by or on behalf of the mortgagor in accordance with the mortgage deed : (iii.) Where the mortgage deed contains no stipulation respecting insurance, and an insurance is kept up by or on behalf of the mortgagor, to the amount in which the mortgagee is by the Act authorized to insure. (3.) All money received on an insurance effected under the mort- gage deed or under the Act shall, if the mortgagee so requires, be applied by the mortgagor in making good the loss or damage in respect of which the money is received. (4.) Without prejudice to any obligation to the contrary imposed by law, or by special contract, a mortgagee may require that all money received on an insurance be applied in or towards discharge of the money due under his mortgage. The statutory provisions above set out may be varied or altogether excluded by the mortgage deed; and they do not apply to mortgage deeds executed before the 1st of January, 1882 (as). It is to be observed that this Act does not imply any covenant These enact- by the mortgagor to insure or to produce the policy and receipts n^^port for premiums. Covenants of this nature should therefore still covenant by be inserted in mortgage deeds, otherwise the mortgagee may to insure, have difficulty in ascertaining whether the default in effecting and maintaining an insurance has occurred, which alone gives rise to the mortgagee's statutory power of insuring the pro- perty. In the absence of a stipulation in the mortgage deed that the Application of policy moneys receivable in respect of an insurance kept up by recetvable^y 8 the mortgagor shall be applied in making good the loss or mortgagor. damage, it was held that the mortgagee could not require the moneys to be so applied, though the mortgage deed contained a covenant by the mortgagor to insure (?/). Under the Act such a covenant would be sufficient to entitle the mortgagee to require the moneys to be so applied, but in absence of the covenant he would have no such right, as the insurance in respect of which the moneys would be received would not have been effected either under the mortgage deed or under the Act. (x) See s. 19, sub-ss. (2), (3), and (4), 143 ; Bayner v. Preston, 18 Ch. D. 1, set out post, p. 884. C. A. See also Poole v. Adams, 33 (y) Lees v. Whiteley, L. R. 2 Eq. L. J. Ch. 639. 140 MORTGAGE OF FREEHOLDS. chapter x. "With regard to s. 23, sub-s. (4) of trie Act, it must be borne in mind that by the statute 14 Greo. III. c. 78, s. 83 (per- petuated by the statutes 7 & 8 Vict. c. 84, 18 & 19 Vict. c. 122, and 28 & 29 Vict. c. 90), directors of insurance companies are in certain cases authorized and required, upon the request of any person interested in any buildings burnt down or damaged by fire, to apply the insurance moneys in restoring the buildings (2) . Covenant It is further to be observed that by s. 19, sub-s. (1) (ii), of the premiums. Act of 1881, premiums paid by a mortgagee in respect of an insurance effected by him under the statutory power are only made a charge upon the mortgaged property, and not a debt for which the mortgagor is personally liable. It is therefore ad- visable that the mortgage deed should contain an express cove- nant by the mortgagor for repayment of such premiums. Joint insur- If the mortgagor and mortgagee effect a joint insurance on ffa^o^and 01 '*" the mortgaged estate, the mortgagee paying the premiums, and, mortgagee. the premises being destroyed by fire, the mortgagor's assignees procure payment from the company, they will be ordered to pay the insurance money into Court, though they have already paid it to the account in bankruptcy, there being no right in one of the parties, in respect of a joint security, to apply the produce, irrespective of the claims of the other party (a). "Where an insurance of the mortgaged premises had been effected in the joint names of the mortgagor and mortgagee, the Court, upon the receipt of the insurance money by the assignees in bankruptcy of the mortgagor, ordered payment of the money into Court until the rights of the parties thereto could be ascertained {b). A policy of insurance against fire, being a strictly personal contract for the indemnity of the assured, is not assignable without the consent of the insurance office, which is usually procured either by an indorsement on the policy, or an entry in the books of the office (c). The question whether such assign- ment vested the right of action at law r in the assignee has become of no moment since the Judicature Acts. In the case of a mort- gage of property insured under an existing policy, the benefit of the policy would, even without express stipulation, pass to the (z) Exp. Goreley, 4 Do G. J. & S. (b) Sogers v. Grazebrook, 12 Sim. 657. 477; Sampson v. Scottish Union I>is. (c) Dowdw. on Ins. 408; Dav. Conv. Co., 1 H. & M. 618. Vol. II. pt. ii. p. 54. (a) Rogers v. Grazebrook, 12 Sim. 557. COVENANTS FOR TITLE. 141 mortgagee with the property insured (d). A different principle chapter x. applies when the policy is subsequent to the mortgage, and there is no covenant by the mortgagor that the policy moneys shall be applied in payment of the mortgage (e). The mort- gagor has no equity to be repaid out of the produce of the policy money expended by him about the rebuilding of the pro- perty, the expenditure being voluntary (d). A fire insurance being only an indemnity, if the insured receives compensation from other sources, the insurer is entitled to recover it (/). On the analogy of the cases which decide that a policy against fire by a vendor is, in the absence of contract, avoided after sale for want of interest (g) , and that a tenant is not entitled to the landlord's insurance effected after the lease (/>),it would seem that, as between mortgagor and mortgagee, neither of them would be entitled to the benefit of an insurance effected by the other sub- sequently to the mortgage, in the absence of stipulation to the contrary (i). xiv. — Covenants for Title. — Mortgage deeds formerly, accord- Covenants for i iPi-ii *^ e implied nig to the usual practice, contained express covenants tor title by by virtue of the mortgagor. Such covenants were in their general character statute - similar to those inserted in purchase deeds, differing only in their greater comprehensiveness. The insertion of such cove- nants is now rendered generally unnecessary by virtue of the provisions of sect. 7 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (/<•";, which enacts that there shall be implied — (1.) (C.) In a conveyance by way of mortgage, the following On mortgage covenant by a person who conveys and is expressed to convey as by beneficial beneficial owner (namely) : — owner. That the person who so conveys has, with the concurrence of every other person, if any, conveying by his direction, full power to convey the subject-matter expressed to be conveyed by him, subject as, if so expressed, and in the manner in which it is expressed to be conveyed ; and also that, if default is made in payment of the money intended to be secured by the convey- ance, or any interest thereon, or any part of that money or interest, contrary to any provision in the conveyance, it shall (d) Garden v. Ingram, 23 L. J. Ch. 5 Ch. D. 569. 478. {ff) Poole v. Adams, 33 L. J. Ch. 639. (e) Zees v. Whiteley, L. R. 2 Eq. \h) Leeds v. Cheetham, 1 Sim. 146; 143. See also Rayner v. Preston, 18 Llofft v. Dennis, 1 E. & E. 474 Ch. D. 1, C. A. (case of vendor and (i) Dav. Conv. Vol. II. pt. ii. p. 56. purchaser). (k) 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41. As to cove- (/) Parrell v. Tibbits, 5 Q. B. D. nants for title implied by virtue of the 560, following North British, §c. In- statute in mortgages of leaseholds, see surance Co. v. London, §c. Insurance Co., post, p. 167. 142 MOETGAGE OF FEEEHOLDS. CHAPTER X. On convey- ance by trustee or mortorao;ee. On convey- ance by direc- tion of bene- ficial owner. be lawful for the person to whom the conveyance is expressed to he made, and the persons deriving title under him, to enter into and upon, or receive, and thenceforth quietly hold, occupy, and enjoy or take and have, the subject-matter expressed to be conveyed, or any part thereof, without any lawful interruption or disturbance by the person who so conveys, or any person con- veying by his direction, or any other person not being a person claiming in respect of an estate or interest subject whereto the conveyance is expressly made ; and that, freed and discharged from, or otherwise by the person who so conveys sufficiently indemnified against, all estates, incumbrances, claims, and demands whatever, other than those subject whereto the con- veyance is expressly made ; and further, that the person who so conveys, and every person conveying by his direction, and every person deriving title under any of them, and every other person having or rightfully claiming any estate or interest in the subject-matter of conveyance, or any part thereof, other than an estate or interest subject whereto the conveyance is expressly made, will from time to time and at all times, on the request of any person to whom the conveyance is expressed to be made, or of any person deriving title under him, but, as long as any right of redemption exists under the conveyance, at the cost of the person so conveying, or of those deriving title under him, and afterwards at the cost of the person making the request, execute and do all such lawful assurances and things for further or more perfectly assuring the subject- matter of conveyance, and every part thereof, to the person to whom the conveyance is made, and to those deriving title under him, subject as is so expressed and in the manner in which the conveyance is expressed to be made, as by him or them, or any of them, shall be reasonably required. (F.) In any conveyance, a covenant against incumbrances, in the terms set forth in the section, is deemed to be included by every person who conveys and is expressed to convey as trustee or mort- gagee, or as personal representative of a deceased person, or as committee of a lunatic so found by inquisition, or under an order of the Court, which covenant shall be deemed to extend to every such person's own acts only (namely) : That the person so conveying has not executed or done, or know- ingly suffered, or been party or privy to, any deed or thing, whereby or by means whereof the subject-matter of the con- veyance, or any part thereof, is or may be impeached, charged, affected, or incumbered in title, estate or otherwise, or whereby or by means whereof the person who so conveys is in anywise hindered from conveying the subject-matter of the conveyance, or any part thereof, in the manner in which it is expressed to be conveyed. (2.) "Where in a conveyance it is expressed that by direction of a person expressed to direct as beneficial owner another person convoys, then, within this section, the person giving the direction, whether ho conveys and is exj>ressed to convey as beneficial owner or not, shall be deemed to convey and to be expressed to convey as beneficial owner the subject-matter so conveyed by his direction ; and a covenant on his part shall bo implied accordingly. COVENANTS FOE TITLE. 143 (3.) Where a wife conveys and is expressed to convey as bene- chapter x. ficial owner, and the husband also conveys and is expressed to 0n convey _ convey as beneficial owner, then, within this section, the wife shall ance by be deemed to convey and to be expressed to convey by direction of husband and the husband as beneficial owner ; and, in addition to the covenant "^e- implied on the part of the wife, there shall also be implied, first, a covenant on the part of the husband as the person giving that direction, and secondly, a covenant on the part of the husband in the same terms as the covenant implied on the part of the wife. (4.) Where in a conveyance a person conveying is not expressed to convey as beneficial owner, or as settlor, or as trustee, or as mortgagee, or as personal representative of a deceased person, or as committee of a lunatic so found by inquisition, or under an order of the Court, or by direction of a person as beneficial owner, no covenant on the part of the person conveying shall be, by virtue of this section, implied in the conveyance. (5.) In this section a conveyance includes a deed conferring the right to admittance to copyhold or customary land, but does not include a demise by way of lease at a rent, or any customary assurance, other than a deed, conferring the right to admittance to copyhold or customary land. (6.) The benefit of a covenant implied as aforesaid shall be annexed and incident to, and shall go with, the estate or interest of the implied covenantee, and shall be capable of being enforced by every person in whom that estate or interest is, for the whole or any part thereof, from time to time vested. (7.) A covenant implied as aforesaid may be varied or extended Variation by deed, and, as so varied or extended, shall, as far as may be, OI statutory operate in the like manner, and with all the like incidents, effects, covenants - and consequences, as if such variations or extensions were directed in this section to be implied (7). (8.) This section applies only to conveyances made after the commencement of this Act. The statutory covenants are, by the appropriate words, im- Effect of this ported into and implied in any " conveyance " by way of enactmen • mortgage (m) ; the term " mortgage " includes " any charge on any property for securing money or money's worth," but the covenants will not be implied unless the charge is by way of conveyance or assurance. These covenants are entered into with the mortgagee, his heirs Covenants for and assigns, and run with the land (it). The covenant for right the land, to convey is obviously of very little use during the continuance of the mortgage ; as the mortgagee, by bringing an action on it, could only recover his mortgage money, and that he could (I) See Williams v. Hathaway, 6 Ch. («) As to the operation oi' covenants D. 544. for title absolute or unqualified, see (m) 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41, s. 2 (vi). Thackeray v. Wood, 6 N. R. 305. See See Ibid. s. 7, sub-s. (G). also Sug. V. & P. 600—609. 144 MORTGAGE OF FREEHOLDS. CHAPTEE X. Covenant for quiet enjoy- ment. Covenant for further assurance. Whether subsequent covenant for production of deeds may be required. Implied indemnity against in- cumbrances. more easily obtain by suing on the covenant for the payment of the money. But this covenant, as also the other covenants for title, become valuable after a foreclosure or sale, as they then stand in lieu of the common covenants for title contained in purchase deeds, and are, indeed, the more valuable on account of their being absolute, instead of qualified (o) . The covenant for quiet enjoyment is made to commence, in point of operation, after default in payment of the mortgage money on the day appointed in the proviso for redemption ; but this form of covenant does not (in the absence of a proviso for quiet enjoyment until default amounting to a demise) postpone the mortgagee's right of entry, or disable him from bringing ejectment at once (p). It scarcely need be noticed that the mortgagor cannot, under his covenant for further assurance, on default in payment, be called upon to release his equity of redemption, and that he can, under such covenant, be required to confirm the mortgage only(g). The covenant for further assurance will not, apparently, entitle the mortgagee to require the mortgagor to enter into a covenant for production of the title deeds to the mortgaged property, if not handed over to the mortgagee on completion of the mortgage, or in lieu thereof, to give to the mortgagee the statutory acknowledgment of his right to the production of the deeds, and undertaking for safe custody thereof (r) ; to entitle him to do so would be to allow him to obtain protection on evidence which he might and ought to have obtained at the time of the mortgage (s). Where a person sold part of property comprised in a mort- gage, and the conveyance to the purchaser did not mention the mortgage, but contained a covenant for further assurance, it was held that, the conveyance being for value, the covenant imported an indemnity against incumbrances, and that the unsold part of the property must bear the mortgage debt (/). (o) See also, as to the effect of the statutory covenants for title implied by conveying ''as beneficial owner," David v. Sabin, (1893) 1 Ch. 523, 532, C A.. (p) Doe v. Light fool, 8 M. & W. 553. (?) fiankes v. Small, 36 Ch. D. 716, C. A. (r) Fain v. Agrcs, 2 S. & St. 533. The marginal note to the report of that case is obviously inaccurate ; production was ordered, apparently, on the ground of an equity indepen- dent of any covenant for further assurance. (s) See Hallett v. Middleton, 1 Russ. 243. (/) He Jones, Farringion v. Forrester, (1893) 2 Ch. 461, 474. COVENANTS FOR TITLE. 145 As trustee-mortgagors do not convey as "beneficial owners" chapteb x. but " as trustees," so as only to give by implication the statutory covenant that they have not incumbered, a person taking a mortgage from trustees cannot claim the benefit of a covenant for further assurance; but, inasmuch as the mortgagee will become a person beneficially interested under the settlement or will, he will, as such, have a right to production of the title deeds relating to the mortgaged property, independently of any covenant. It has been suggested that the covenant for further assurance should extend to confirm a foreclosure or a sale, at the expense of the person requiring it (u). This covenant appears to operate only to secure to the cove- Whether co- nantee the precise estate or interest purported to be conveyed to beTeqSred 11 him by the deed in which the covenant is contained (a?). So, where to , perfect a a tenant in tail, conveying as absolute owner, purports to convey assurance^ the fee simple, but really conveys only a base fee, the covenant may be extended so as to bind the grantor to execute a deed to completely bar the estate tail, and in such a case the covenant will be enforced (//) ; but if the fact that the grantor is only tenant in tail appears on the face of the deed, and there is nothing to show that it was the intention of the parties that the base fee created by the deed should be enlarged, it seems very doubtful whether the grantor could be required, under a cove- nant for further assurance in the usual form contained in a mortgage deed, to execute a deed converting the base fee into a fee simple (s). But if the original contract between the parties shows that such was the intention, the grantor will be compelled under his covenant for further assurance to pass to the grantee any estate or interest which the former may acquire in the property con- veyed subsequently to the conveyance, even though he acquire it by purchase (a) . So where a mortgagor conveyed a contin- gent remainder in fee and covenanted for further assurance, and the remainder was afterwards destroyed by the tenant of the prior estate, the mortgagor was held liable in equity to perfect («) Dav. Cony. (4th ed.), Vol. II. {z) Davis v. Tollemache, 2 Jur. N. S. pt. ii. p. 111. 1181. {x) Atkins v. Uton, 1 Lcl. Raym.36; (a) Taylor y. Debar, 1 Ch. Ca. 212. see Exp. Vandcrkiste, Ee Eoche, 25 See also Pye v. Dalebury, 3 Bro. C. 0. L. R. Ir. 284, C. A. 695 ; King v. Sims, 5 Taunt. 427 ; [y) Bankes v. Small, 36 Ch. D. 716, Smith v. Baker, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 223 ; C A. Heath v. Crutivell, L. R. 10 Ch. A. 31. VOL. I. R. l 146 MORTGAGE OF FEEEHOLDS. CHAPTEB s - the security out of a new interest in the same property which he took under the will of that tenant (b) . It would seem, however, that in this case the enforcement of the equitable right of the mortgagee to have the security perfected might have been upheld on the ground of estoppel, independently of any cove- nant for assurance (c). The fact that the grantee has a title by estoppel is no defence to an action for specific performance of a covenant for further assurance (d) . If a conveyance has been destroyed or lost, it would seem that under the covenant for further assurance the covenantor may bo required to execute a duplicate thereof (e) . XV. — Statutory Form of Mortgage. — The Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (/), s. 26, enacts that — (1.) A mortgage of freehold or leasehold land may be made by a deed expressed to be made by way of statutory mortgage, being in the form given in Part I. of the Third Schedule to this Act, with such variations and additions, if any, as circumstances may require, and the provisions of this section shall apply thereto. (2.) There shall be deemed to be included, and there shall by virtue of the Act be implied, in the mortgage deed — First, a covenant with the mortgagee by the person expressed therein to convey as mortgagor to the effect following (namely) : That the mortgagor will, on the stated day, pay to the mort- gagee the stated mortgage money, with interest thereon in the meantime, at the stated rate, and will thereafter, if and as long as the mortgage money or any part thereof remains unpaid, pay to the mortgagee interest thereon, or on the unpaid part thereof, at the stated rate, by equal half-yearly payments, the first thereof to be made at the end of six calendar months from the day stated for pay- ment of the mortgage money. Secondly, a proviso to the effect following (namely) : That if the mortgagor, on the stated day, pays to the mort- gagee the stated mortgage money, with interest thereon in the meantime, at the stated rate, the mortgagee at any time thereafter, at the request and cost of the mortgagor, shall reconvey the mortgaged property to the mortgagor, or as he shall direct. By sect. 28 of the same Act it is enacted that — In a deed of statutory mortgage, or of statutory transfer of mort- gage, where more persons than one are expressed to convey as (b) Mel v. Bewley, 3 Sim. 116. [e) Bennett v. Ingoldsbi/, Finch, 962. (c) See Seabourne v. Powell, 2 Vera. See Napper v. Lord Allington, 1 Eq. 11 ; Jennings v. Blincomc, 2 Vera. 609; Ca. Ab. 166. Jonear. Kearney, 1 Dr. & War. 131, 151. (/) 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41. (d) Bcmley v. Bur don t 8 L. J. Ch. 85. STATUTORY MORTGAGES. mortgagors, or to join as covenantors, the implied covenant on their part shall be deemed to be a joint and several covenant by them ; and where there are more mortgagees or more transferees than one, the implied covenant with them shall be deemed to be a covenant with them jointly, unless the amount secured is expressed to be secured to them in shares or distinct sums, in which latter case the implied covenant with them shall be deemed to be a covenant with each severally in respect of the share or distinct sum secured to him. xvi. — Assignment of outstanding Terms. — It was a common practice to keep on foot long terms of years, after the original purposes of their creation had been satisfied, and on every mort- gage of the inheritance to assign them to a trustee for the mortgagee's protection (g). The assignment of satisfied terms, however, is now rendered impracticable by 8 & 9 Yict. c. 112, which has consequently deprived the mortgagee of a valuable means of protection against incumbrances (h) . The mortgagee, however, should not dispense with the assignment of a term on the occasion of a mortgage, unless he has the surest ground for concluding that the term is satisfied within the meaning of the Act prior to his mortgage (/). The Act only extends to free- holds, and such customary lands as will pass by deed, or deed and admittance, and not by surrender (k) ; it consequently does not affect a term created by sub-demise. xvii. — Collateral Securities. — Collateral securities may pro- perly be prepared by separate deeds, in order to avoid mixing up in one deed the title to separate properties. The title to the freehold is kept distinct from the dealings connected with the subject-matter of the collateral security. Discrimination, how- ever, is required to determine when separate deeds should be taken (I). The inclusion in the same mortgage of several estates, the ownership of which may subsequently be severed, is often productive of inconvenience. (ff) Shaw v. Johnson, 1 Dr. & S. (i) Doe v. Price, 16 M. & W. 603 ; 412 ; Plant v. Taylor, 7 H. & N. 211 ; Doc v. Jones, 13 Jur. 824. Owen v. Owen, 3 H. & C. 88. See (/<••) See s. 3. Sug. R. P. St. 282; note, ed. 2. (l) Dav. Conv. (4th ed.), Vol. II. {h) Sug. R. P. Stat. 277, ed. 2 ; pt. ii. 532. Shaw v. Johnson, sup. l2 147 ( 148 ) CHAPTEE XI. OF A MORTGAGE OF COPYHOLDS. Conditional surrender. Separate deed of defeasance. i. — Mortgage by Conditional Surrender. — Mortgages of copy- holds, on account of the peculiar nature of the tenure, retain in general their primitive form. They usually consist of a condi- tional surrender by the mortgagor to the mortgagee and his heirs. The surrender may be made in the manor court, but is now frequently made out of court (a) to the steward or his deputy, unless the custom of the manor requires it to be made before the tenants. By the condition, the surrender is made void on payment by the mortgagor, &c, of principal and interest to the mortgagee, &c, on a given day ; the condition is entered on the rolls, and immediately follows the surrender. The condition may, however, be contained in a separate deed of defeasance, of even date with the surrender ; but, as remarked by Mr. Watkins (b), this mode should never be resorted to when it can be avoided ; for the defeasance may be lost, and then, as the surrender is absolute on the rolls, the proof of the condition may be difficult ; and besides, the title to the lands should always appear on the records of the manor ; and, therefore, even if a separate deed of defeasance be executed, it should be always entered on the rolls. Another important reason against having an absolute sur- render with a separate deed of defeasance formerly existed, viz., that if the mortgagee died without an heir, the lord of the manor might have entered for the escheat, inasmuch as he had no notice of the condition on his court rolls (c) . But if the lord had (a) If the surrender was made out of court, it was sometimes permitted to be vacated for want of a proper pre- sentment, and a new surrender was taken. See Fawcet v. LowtAer, 2 Ves. sen. 304. But now presentment by the homage is not essential to the validity of an admission. See 4 & 5 Vict. c. 35, s. 90. (/>) 1 Watk. Cop. 11G. (c) Att.-Gen. v. Luke of Leeds, 2 My. & K. 343. CONDITIONAL SURRENDER. 149 CHAPTER XI. notice of the condition for redemption, or of any trusts, although only referred to as subsisting in a separate deed, he was bound ; and if the trusts were by way of mortgage security, the mortgagor was entitled to re-admittance on payment of the debt (d). The legal rights of the lord claiming by way of escheat, in Jsch eat and 00 itij.1. iorleiture. default of heirs or forfeiture, are, however, now placed under the control of the Chancery Division, for the benefit of the parties beneficially entitled (c) ; so that there is little or no risk of either mortgagor or mortgagee being prejudiced by the escheat or forfeiture of the other's tenancy. The money ought not to be advanced till the surrender is Necessity of stir render. actually made, for a second mortgagee without notice may take a surrender and be admitted, and thus, having the legal estate, gain priority (/). On performance of the condition by payment of the money on the day appointed, the surrender is at an end, and the land reverts to the surrenderor, as of his former estate, without any re-admission or fine (g) ; but if the day of payment is past, the surrenderor, having only an equity of redemption, must apparently, in strictness, pay a fine and be re-admitted (A). "Whether the money is paid at the day or not, if the surrenderee has not been admitted, it is considered sufficient in practice to enter satisfaction on the rolls on payment of the mortgage debt, without requiring the mortgagor to be re-admitted (/). As well in the case of a conditional as of an absolute surrender, Mortgagor the surrenderor remains tenant to the lord until the admission of admission of the surrenderee (k), and as well for the purposes of forfeiture and mortgagee, escheat, as for other purposes (/) ; so much so, that prior to 55 Geo. III. c. 192, the mortgagor could not, after the conditional surrender and before the admission of the surrenderee, devise the copyholds without a previous surrender to the use of his will (m). It is not usual for a mortgagee to be admitted, for if he is Mortgagee 1 , p , 1 not usually admitted and the condition is broken by the non-payment ot the admitted. (d) Weaver v. Maule, 2 R. & My. 97. (A) Gilb. Ten. 276. (e) See 56 & 57 Vict. c. 53, s. 26 ; (i) 1 Scriv. Cop. (4th ed.) 194 ; and 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 23, and 13 & 14 (5th ed.) 129. Vict. c. 60, ss. 15, 46, both of which (*) 1 Scriv. Cop. (6th ed.) 91 enactments are now repealed. (0 Bex v. Mxldmay, 5 B. & Ad. (/) Oxwick v. Plumcr, Bac. Abr. 254. ,»,,.,-„•« Mortgage, E (7th ed.), Vol. v. p. 664. (m) Doe v. Wroot, 5 East, 132 ; Eene- (g) Simonds v. Lawnd, Cro. Eliz. bel v. Scrafton, 8 Ves. 30. See also 239 1 Gilb. Us., 3rd ed. p. 73, n. 150 MORTGAGE OF COPYHOLDS. CHAPTER XI. Whether lord can compel admittance of mortgagee. Conditional surrender to uses as mortgagee appoints. money, his estate is absolute, and he becomes liable to the pay- ment of rents and heriots and to the performance of the services, which is frequently undesirable ; and when the mortgage is paid off, a re-admission and fresh fees and fine will be necessary, and the mortgagor will thereupon gain a new estate, and the descent be altered ; so that if the lands had originally descended to him ex parte mafernd, they will afterwards descend as if he had taken by purchase (;?). Unless there is a special custom in the manor, by which the lord may compel a surrenderee to come in and be admitted, he cannot, it seems, compel the mortgagee to be admitted, even after condition broken (o) ; but if there is such a custom in the manor, it seems he may compel him, and the Court will not give relief (p). The practice of framing conditional surrenders to such uses as the mortgagee should appoint in order to save the expense of a double admittance cannot successfully be resorted to ; as the lord is not bound to enrol such surrender, since it tends to interfere with the fruits of tenure (q) . But if the lord accept the sur- render, he cannot afterwards refuse to act on it (■;•) . Deed of covenants to accompany surrender. ii, — Deed of Covenants for or on Surrender. — In effecting a mortgage of copyholds it is necessary that there should be a deed, in addition to the surrender, for the purpose of containing covenants by the mortgagor for payment of principal and inte- rest and for title, and other covenants and provisions which may be necessary for carrying out the terms of the contract, and for the purpose of conferring on the mortgagor a power of sale on default, which cannot be contained in, or implied by, the surrender itself. This deed may be executed either previously to, contempo- raneously with, or after the surrender. According to the more usual and better practice, the deed is executed previously to the surrender, and is in the form of a covenant to surrender the lands, containing also the ancillary covenants and provisions. Even when the deed of covenants precedes the surrender, tho («) Benson v. Scott, 4 Mod. 251 ; Doe v. Morgan, 7 T. R. 103. (o) Basspool v. Long, Cro. Eliz. 879 ; King v. Dilliston, 1 Salk. 386. (p) Tredicay v. Fotherlcy, 2 Vern. 3G7. See Scriv. Cop. (6th ed.) 118, 119. (q) Flack v. Downing Coll., 13 C. B. 945. (>•) Eddlestone v. Collins, 3 De G. M. &G. 1. DEED OF COVENANT FOR OR ON SURRENDER. 151 deed and surrender are considered to be parts of one and the cnAPTER XI - same transaction (s) . So, where a surrender was made referring to a previous deed, which stated on the face of it that the sur- render was made as a security for money, it was held that the deed and surrender must be taken together as forming a mort- gage, and that upon the death of the surrenderee the lord must admit his heirs on payment of the customary fine (t) . A receipt clause should be inserted in the body of the deed of covenants, or indorsed thereon. It is not usual, in mortgages of copyholds, to provide by Payment of special covenants for the payment by the mortgagor of all fines, fiocs aucl costs, and expenses attendant on admittance, and other incidents of copyhold property ; the matter is left to the general rule of law, and undoubtedly the mortgagor would not be permitted to redeem until after repayment to the mortgagee with interest of any such sum as the latter might have been compelled to expend. The case differs considerably from that of leaseholds, where renewal is optional; but it is sometimes thought advisable to arm the mortgagee with a covenant for payment of the sums he might be compelled, or might find it desirable, to expend by reason of the copyhold tenure. If the copyholds be held for lives, the mortgage (u) should contain the usual provisions for renewal and payment of the fines. A covenant to surrender copyholds by way of mortgage is Covenants a "conveyance," and an equitable charge is a "mortgage" ortlte - within the meaning of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (x) ; and it is clear that a covenant to surrender copy- holds creates a valid equitable charge thereon. If, therefore, a mortgagor covenants " as beneficial owner " to surrender, it seems clear that the mortgagee will thereby obtain the benefit of the implied statutory covenants for right to convey, quiet enjoyment, free from incumbrances, and further assurance, and also of the implied statutory powers of sale and other powers of a mortgagee under the Act. The powers of sale, &c, given by sects. 19 — 24 of the Act Power apply only when the mortgage is by deed, and are, therefore, of sale - not implied by virtue of a conditional surrender not made in pursuance of an antecedent deed of covenant. In such a case a (s) Riddellv. Riddell, 7 Sim. 529. («) Dav. Conv. (4th ed.), Vol. II. (t) Weaver v. King lake, 9 L. J. Ch. pt. ii. p. 588. 20. {x) 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41, s. 2 (5). 152 MORTGAGE OF COPYHOLDS. CHAPTER XI. Insurance of lives. proviso expressly charging the property should be inserted in the deed of covenants accompanying the surrender, so as to confer such powers on the mortgagee, or the deed should, according to the former practice, contain full powers of sale, &c, with the ancillary clauses (//). In mortgages of copyholds for lives, it is usual to insure the lives of the cestuis que vie for further security, and in such case the deed will contain covenants for keeping up the policies. But where money is raised by the Court upon such property, the persons entitled cannot be compelled to insure (s). iii. — Rights, &c. of unadmitted Mortgagee. — Until after the mortgagee has been admitted, the mortgagor may, in the mean- time, make a second surrender, which will be good if the first surrender is not perfected by admittance (a). But although the first surrender is not inrolled, the second mortgagee, though without notice of the former, does not, by the inrolment of his surrender, acquire priority (b), unless by the custom of the manor there was a limited time for presenting surrenders made out of Court; and the same applies to an immediate purchaser (/) Having regard to the doubt raised by an eminent conveyancer (see Wolst. & Brint. Conv. p. 68), as to whether a deed of covenant to sur- render by way of mortgage will import the statutory powers, it will be prudent, in settling such a deed, to insert a charging clause as suggested in Byth. 6: Jarm. Conv. (4th ed.), Vol. iii. p. 977. (s) Grantlc;/ v. Garth ivaite, 6 Madd. 96. (a) Burgaine v. Spurting, Cro. Car. 283. (b) Horlock v. Priestley, 2 Sim. 75. \c) Doe v. Gibbons, 7 Car. & P. 161. (d) Iiayson v. Aclcock, 9 Jur. N. S. 800, C. P. (c) Holdfast v. Clapham, 1 T. R. 600 ; Rex v. Mildmay, 5 B. & Ad. 254 ; Ben- son v. Scott, 4 Mod. 251 ; Doe v. Gibbons, 7 Car. & P. 161. (/) Sutton v. Stone, 2 Atk. 101. (g) Pryce v. Bury, 2 Drew. 41. \h) Hill v. Price, Dick. 344. RIGHTS OF MORTGAGEE. 153 If a surrenderee to him and his heirs dies before admittance, chapter xi. his heir may be admitted (/). If the mortgagor dies before the admittance of the mortgagee Death of and a heriot is paid, and the mortgagee afterwards dies, and ^fo r f a Ja. r his heir claims to be admitted, Mr. Watkins (k) makes a query, mittance of whether, inasmuch as the admittance of the surrenderee or his heir always relates to the time of the surrender so as to avoid all intermediate rights and interests contrary to the surrender, such as the freebench of the surrenderor's widow, and the like (I), or even an intermediate purchase, a heriot will not on such admittance become due, as if the surrenderee had died seised; and, if so, whether the lord ought not to return the first heriot. Arguing from principle, it would seem that such would be the law ; for, after the admittance of the heir of the surrenderee, it would be difficult to contend that, fidione juris, the surrenderee died seised, so as to avoid the widow's free- bench, &c, but not so as to give the lord a right to his heriot, and the law would scarcely permit the lord to hold both. But the case has not been decided. After the conditional surrenderee has been admitted, he Release of becomes tenant to the lord, and the surrenderor may, before con 10n " condition broken, release to him the benefit of the condition (m), and, after condition broken, he may release to him the equity of redemption ; and no fine will in either case be necessary, for the mortgagee is already in possession, and on his admittance a fine has been already paid (;?). Where a surrender and admittance of a purchaser has been Fraudulent entered on the court rolls in such a manner as would be a asidehi^ Se fraud upon an intended mortgagee, who had advanced his favour of money upon the security of the property, the Court will, upon the consent of the lord being given, or his being a party to the suit, order the entry to be reformed (o) . By the Copyhold Act, 1894 (p), a surrenderee by way of mort- Right of gage under a surrender entered on the court rolls, in possession, ^p^fo^ 6 ^ or in receipt of the rents and profits of land, is to be deemed a obtain enfran- tenant within the meaning of that Act, and entitled to obtain or join in obtaining and effecting enfranchisement. Any money (i) Via. Abr. tit. " Copyholds," 98. (m) Hull v. Sharbrook, Cro. Jan. 36 ; (k) 2 Watk. Cop. 4th ed. p. Ill, n. Kite and Queinton's Case, 4 Rep. 25. (I) Benson v. Scott, 4 Mod. 251 ; (n) Kile and Queinton's Case, sup. S. C, 12 Mod. 49 ; Vaughan v. Atkins, (o) Elston v. Wood, 3 My. & K. 678. 5 Burr. 2785. \p) bl & 58 Vict. c. 46, ss. 1, 39, 94. 154 MORTGAGE OF COPYHOLDS. CHAPTER XI. Effect of enfranchise- ment. Mortgage of equity of redemption. paid by him for that purpose is to be added to the amount due to him as mortgagee ; and the land is not to be redeemable without payment of such money with interest thereon. By sect. 20 of the same Act(q), a mortgage of copyholds becomes, on enfranchisement, a mortgage of the freehold, but subject to any charges under the Act for consideration money, interest, and expenses of enfranchisement (r) . An equity of redemption in copyholds, being an equitable estate only, may be effectually mortgaged by deed, without surrender. (q) Re-enacting in effect the corre- sponding provision of the repealed Copyhold Act, 1841 (4 & 5 Vict, c. 35), s. 81. (r) See as to enfranchisements, post, p. 385. ( 155 ) CHAPTER XII. OF A MOKTGAGE OF LEASEHOLDS. j f — Mortgage of Leaseholds by Assignment. — A mortgage of Liability of 11 • ir>ji ii i • i mortgagee by leaseholds may be by assignment ot the whole unexpired residue assignment. of the term. It has long been settled, and it is now clear, both on principle and sound authority, that if a mortgagee accepts an assignment of all the remaining interest in the term, he will be liable to the payment of the rent, and performance of the covenants in the original lease, so long as he shall be the legal owner thereof, although he shall not take actual possession of the premises (a). The Court will not, on the one hand (b), assist the lessor in an action brought by him against the mortgagee for a discovery of the deed of assignment to him and for a specific performance of the covenants, but will leave the lessor to his remedy ; so neither will it, on the other hand (c), after the lessor has obtained judgment against the mortgagee for the arrears of rent, give the mortgagee relief, although he has never been in possession. In case of mortgage by assignment, the liability of the mort- ^ e s ^ e J a ^ f ee , s gagee on the covenants ceases on transfer or sale and assign- liability on l / j\ transfer of ment {((). mortgage. It was formerly supposed that a depositary of a lease was Depositee liable for the rent and covenants in a suit by the lessor (e). But J^jje wi™* it is now clear that a depositary of a lease is not answerable covenants. for the rent and covenants of the lease, and the landlord cannot compel him to take, or the mortgagor to execute, an assignment, (a) Westerdell v. Bale, 7 T. R. 312 ; Eaig v. Soman, 4 Bli. N. S. 38. Stone v. Evans, Woodf. L. & T. 12th (b) Sparkes v. Smith, 2 Vera. 276. ed. p. 244 ; Turner v. Richardson, 7 (c) Tilhington v. Shallcr, 2 Vern. East, 340, n. ; Mayor of Carlisle v. 374. Blamire, 8 East, 487 ; Traheme v. {d) Onslow v. Carrie, 2 Madd. 330. Sadlier, 5 Bro. P. C. 179 ; Williams v. (e) Clavering v. Westley, 3 P. Wins. Bosanquet, 1 Br. & B. 238 ; 3 Moo. 402 ; Lucas v. Comerford, 3 Bro. C. C. 500 ; Burton v. Barclay, 7 Bing. 745 ; 166 ; Flight v. Bentley, 7 Sim. 149. 156 MORTGAGE OF LEASEHOLDS. CHAPTER XII. Forfeiture by mortgagor. even if tHe depositary has been in possession and paid rent (s). In such a case, though not liable for the rent and covenants under the lease, he would apparently be liable in respect of his tenancy. Where judgment by default has been taken against a mort- gagor-lessee for forfeiture, the equitable depositee of the lease can set aside the judgment under Ord. XXVII. r. 15, and defend in the name of the lessee, indemnifying him (a) . Form of mortgage by demise. Effect of declaration of trust of reversion. ii, — Mortgage of Leaseholds by Demise. — It has been gene- rally recommended that a mortgage of leaseholds should be by way of underlease, in order to avoid rendering the mortgagee liable for the rents and covenants of the original lease. In framing such mortgages, the practice is to demise the property to the mortgagee at a peppercorn rent, reserving the last day, or the last few days of the original term, and to make the mort- gagor covenant to pay the rent and perform the covenants in the original lease. It is also usual to insert in such mortgages a declaration by the mortgagor that he will stand possessed of the nominal reversion in trust for a purchaser on any sale by the mortgagees under his power, or else in trust for the mort- gagee himself. The form of declaration more frequently adopted in practice has been that of a declaration of trust in favour of a purchaser ; but it may be regarded as settled that a declaration of trust in favour of the mortgagee himself will not render him liable to the lessor for the rent and covenants of the lease (b) ; nor entitle the lessor to require him to take an assignment of the lease (<■). It has been held that a mere covenant for the assignment of the nominal reversion upon a sale, in such manner as the pur- chaser should require, would not render the mortgagor trustee for a purchaser, so as to enable the latter to obtain an order under the Trustee Acts (d) vesting in him the outstanding reversion (e). It is, however, conceived, upon the analogy of (z) Moores t. CJwat, 8 Sim. 508; Moore v. Greg, 2 De G. & Sm. 304 ; 2 Ph. 717 ; Walters v. The Northern Coal Mining Co., 5 De G. M. & G. 629 ; Cox v. Bishop, 8 De G. M. & G. 815. See X< wry Rail. Co. v. Moss, 14 Beav. 64 ; Wright v. Pitt, L. R. 12 Eq. 408. {a) Jacques v. Harrison, 12 Q. B. D. 165, C. A. See North London Land Co. v. Jacques, W. N. (1883) 187. (b) Walters v. Northern Mining Co., 5 De G. M. & G. 629. (c) Moore v. Greg, 2 De G. & S. 304. (d) 13 & 14 Vict. c. 60, s. 30, and 15 & 16 Vict. c. 55, s. 2 (both repealed). And see now 56 & 57 Vict. c. 53, ss. 26, 31. (e) Re Propert, 22 L. J. Ch. 948. And see Re Carpenter, Kay, 418, 420. MORTGAGE BY DEMISE. 157 the rule with respect to declarations of trust of copyholds cove- chapter xn. nanted to be surrendered (/), that a declaration in either of the forms above referred to would entitle a purchaser or the mort- gagee himself (as the case may be) to a vesting order, if the mortgagor should refuse or fail to assign the reversion. It also seems clear that the mortgagor, after a sale, will Indemnity be entitled, on the ordinary footing of a trustee, to claim an aEov? 11 * indemnity from the purchaser in respect of the rents and cove- nants. nants (g). A mortgage security by way of underlease is, however, affected Forfeiture by the possibility of a breach of covenant by the mortgagor, ° ease ' whereby the lease may become liable to forfeiture, and, in such case, independently of the statutory enactments hereafter referred to, the mortgagee has no remedy against the lessor (h). The effect of recent legislation and decisions has been to alter materially the incidents formerly considered to attach to mort- gages by demise, as regards the risk of forfeiture of the original term. In the first place, the right of a lessor to enforce forfeiture Conv. Act, has been to a great extent restricted. By the Conveyancing ' s- 14 * and Law of Property Act, 1881 (/), s. 14, it is enacted as follows : — (1.) A right of re-entry or forfeiture under any proviso or stipu- Restrictions lation in a lease, for a breach of any covenant or condition in the on and relief lease, shall not be enforceable, by action or otherwise, unless and against for- until the lessor serves on the lessee a notice specifying the parti- feiture of cular breach complained of and, if the breach is capable of remedy, requiring the lessee to remedy the breach, and, in any case, requir- ing the lessee to make compensation in money for the breach, and the lessee fails, within a reasonable time thereafter, to remedy the breach, if it is capable of remedy, and to make reasonable compen- sation in money, to the satisfaction of the lessor, for the breach. By sub-sect. (2), where a lessor is proceeding, by action or otherwise, to enforce such a right of re-entry or forfeiture, the lessee may apply to the Court for relief ; and the Court may grant or refuse such relief on such terms as it may think fit. And by sub-sect. (3), for the purposes of this section a lease includes an original or derivative underlease, and a lessee in- cludes an original or derivative underlessee. It has been decided that the effect of the last sub-section is Effect of this merely to make the provisions of the section applicable as between (/) lie Collingwood, 6 W. R. 530. (A) Kokes v. Fish, 3 Drew. 735 ; Iff) Phene v. Gillam, 5 Ha. 1, 9. Hughes v. Howard, 25 Beav. 575. (i) 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41, s. 14. 158 MORTGAGE OF LEASEHOLDS. CHAPTEE XII. Conv. Act, 1892, s. 2. Forfeiture in case of bankruptcy or execution. a derivative lessor and his lessee, and not to create new statutory rights between an original lessor and a derivative lessee claim- ing under his lessee, between whom no privity of contract exists (J). This section does not extend to covenants and conditions against assigning, underletting, &c. (/<•) ; and the Court cannot, under the Act, relieve against forfeiture for breach of such covenants (/). Nor does the section extend, in the case of mining leases, to covenants and conditions to allow the lessor to inspect books, workings, &c. (k). The section does not affect the law relating to re-entry or forfeiture or relief in case of non-payment of rent. Leases are sometimes made determinable by re-entry on bank- ruptcy of the lessee (m). Under the Act of 1881, s. 14 thereof is limited, by sub-sect. (6) thereof, s.o as not to extend to a con- dition for forfeiture on the bankruptcy of the lessee, or on the taking in execution of the lessee's interest. But by the Convey- ancing and Law of Property Act, 1892 (;?), s. 2, it is enacted as follows : — Sub-sect. (2). — Sub-sect. 6 of sect. 14 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, is to apply to a condition for forfeiture on bankruptcy of the lessee, or on taking in execution of the lessee's interest only after the expiration of one year from the date of the bankruptcy or taking in execution, and provided the lessee's interest be not sold -within such one year, but in case the lessee's interest be sold -within such one year, sub-sect. 6 shall cease to be applicable thereto. Sub-sect. (3). — Sub-sect. 2 of this section is not to apply to any lease of : — (a) Agricultural or pastoral land ; (b) Mines or minerals ; (c) A house used or intended to be used as a public-house or beershop ; (d) A house let as a dwelling-house, with the use of any furni- ture, books, works of art, or other chattels not being in the nature of fixtures ; (e) Any property with respect to which the personal qualifications of the tenant are of importance for the preservation of the value or character of the property, or on the ground of neighbourhood to the lessor, or to any person holding under him. (j) Kind v. Nineteenth Century Build- ing Society, (1894) 2 Q. B. at p. 232, C. A. (/>) 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41, s. 14, sub-s. G. (I) Barrow v. Isaacs, (1891) 1 Q. B. 417, 430. (m) See as to this, Exp. Gould, lie Walker, 13 Q. B. D. 454. («) 55 & 56 Vict. c. 13. MORTGAGE BY DEMISE. 159 The effect of this enactment seems to be that if the lessee chaptek hi. of proj)erty falling thereunder, subject to a mortgage by sub- demise, becomes liable to forfeiture by bankruptcy, such forfei- ture will be suspended for a period of one year from the date of the bankruptcy, during which period the lease will remain subsisting so as to support the security ; and if the trustee sells the beneficial interest in the lease, the assignee will, of course, take subject to the mortgage, so that there will be no further risk of the mortgagee losing his security by forfeiture of the lease by reason of that particular bankruptcy. Moreover, where a lessor is proceeding to enforce forfeiture, Conv. Act, the mortgagee by sub-demise may avail himself of sect. 4 of the 1892 ' s ' 4< Conveyancing Act, 1892, to adopt the position of assignee of the lease. This section enacts as follows : — " Where a lessor is proceeding by action or otherwise to enforce Power of a right of re-entry or forfeiture under any covenant, proviso, or Court to pro- stipulation in a lease, the Court may, on application by any person ^ ect un0 - er " i/'^j-A v v J. iPSSOBS Oil clainiiug as under-lessee any estate or interest in the property com- forfeiture prised in the lease, or any part thereof, either in the lessor's action f superior (if any) or in any action brought by such person for that purpose, leases, make an order vesting for the whole term of the lease or any less term the property comprised in the lease, or any part thereof, in any person entitled as under-lessee to any estate or interest in such property upon such conditions as to execution of any deed or other document, payment of rent, costs, expenses, damages, compensa- tion, giving security, or otherwise, as the Court in the circumstances of each case shall think fit, but in no case shall any such under- lessee be entitled to require a lease to be granted to him for any longer term than he had under his original sub-lease." The terms " lease " and " underlease," as used in sect. 14 of Definition of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, and in the "^erllase" Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1892, are defined by for purposes sect. 5 of the latter Act to include respectively an agreement for enactments. a lease where the lessee has become entitled to have his lease granted, and an agreement for an underlease where the under- lessee has become entitled to have his underlease granted, and by the same section it is provided that the term " underlessee " occurring in the Act of 1892 is to include any person deriving title under or from an underlessee. By sect. 2, sub-sect. (1), of the Conveyancing and Law of Conv. Act, Property Act, 1892, it is enacted that :— 1892 ' s ' 2> "A lessor shall be entitled to recover as a debt due to him from Costs of a lessee, and in addition to damages (if any), all reasonable costs waiver and and expenses properly incurred by the lessor in the employment forfeiture in 160 MORTGAGE OF LEASEHOLDS. chaptee xrr. bankruptcy and execution. Effect of this enactment. Effect of disclaimer of lease in bankruptcy. Leave to disclaim mortgaged lease. of a solicitor and surveyor or valuer, or otherwise in reference to any breach giving rise to a right of re-entry or forfeiture which, at the request of the lessee, is waived by the lessor by writing under his hand, or from which the lessee is relieved under the provisions of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, or of this Act." It has been decided that the expression " lessee," as used in this sub-section, and in sect. 14 of the Act of 1881 (o), does not include an underlessee of the whole of the premises comprised in the head-lease (p), and, d fortiori, the expression does not include an underlessee of a part only of the premises comprised therein (q) . The result is that the superior lessor cannot recover from a mortgagee, by underlease of the whole or of part of the premises comprised in the lease, the expenses mentioned in the sub-section above set out. Whether or not there be a clause in the head-lease providing for forfeiture on bankruptcy, and, independently of the conse- quences to the mortgagee of a breach of covenant by the mort- gagor, which have been considered above, a mortgage security by way of underlease is further affected by the possibility of the bankruptcy of the mortgagor supervening during the continu- ance of the security, and of the exercise thereupon by the trustee in bankruptcy of the powers of disclaimer conferred upon him by the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (r). Under sect. 55 (3) of this Act, if the bankrupt has created any mortgage or charge on the property, the leave of the Court must be obtained for a disclaimer ; and, in such a case, a dis- claimer without leave will be void (s). It seems, however, that, in the case of an equitable mortgage, the disclaimer will be restricted to the equity of redemption. So, it was held that a trustee of a lessee bankrupt will not be allowed to disclaim so as to prejudice the depositee of a lease, but if he assign the lease to the depositee, the latter must covenant to indemnify him from liability under the lease (t) . In a later case (it), where the property had been sub-demised by way of mortgage, it was distinctly laid down that the power of the Court to give leave to disclaim was to be exercised with a view to the administration of the bankrupt's estate for the benefit of all persons interested in that administration, without taking (o) 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41. (p) Nind v. Nineteenth Century Build- ing Society, (1894) 2 Q. B. 226, C. A. (q) Burt v. Gray, (1891) 2 Q. B. 98. (r) 46 & 47 Vict. c. 52, 8. 55. (*) B. R. 1890, r. 69. (/) Exp. Buxton, He Milller, 15 Ch. D. 289, C. A. («) Exp. East and West India Bock Co., Me Clarke, 17 Ch. D. 759, C. A. MORTGAGE BY DEMISE. 1G1 into account collateral considerations as to the injury which chapter xn. might be occasioned to third parties by the disclaimer. But the position of the mortgagee in that case was not affected by the decision ; for, if a mortgagee claims under a legal underlease, the disclaimer of the lease by the trustee will not avoid the mortgage or affect the rights and remedies of the mortgagee as against the property {%). If, however, the mortgagee is in pos- session, the lessor will be entitled to distrain on the property if the mortgagee fails to pay the rent reserved by the original lease, or to re-enter on such default or for breach of the cove- nants contained in that lease (i/). By sub-sect. (6) of sect. 55 of the last-mentioned Act, the Power of Court is empowered, after a disclaimer has been made, and upon i ease j n mort . the application of persons claiming an interest in the disclaimed & a & ee b y x x x ° m underlease property, to make an order vesting the property in any person or to deprive entitled thereto, or to whom it may seem just that the same g^^ty 18 should be delivered by way of compensation, on such terms as the Court thinks just, subject to the following proviso, viz., " That where the property disclaimed is of a leasehold nature, the Court shall not make a vesting order in favour of any person claiming under the bankrupt, whether as underlessee or as mortgagee by demise, except upon the terms of making such person subject to the same liabilities and obligations as the bank- rupt was subject to under the lease in respect of the property at the date when the bankruptcy petition was tiled, and any mort- gagee or underlessee declining to accept a vesting order upon such terms shall be excluded from all interest in and security upon the property." In ReFinley, Ex parte Clothworkers' Company (z), a doubt was Whether raised by Lord Justice Linclley whether, upon the true construe- Jenderf tion of this proviso, a mortgagee by sub-demise, who has obtained mortgagee _ a vesting order pursuant to this section, is liable to the covenants ginal lessee or and obligations of the original lease only as an assignee of the lease, or to the same extent as if he were the original lessee. The Act of 1883 is now supplemented by sect. 13 of the Bank- ruptcy Act, 1890 (a), which enacts as follows : — "The Court may, if it thinks fit, modify the terms prescribed by the proviso in sub-section 6 of the same section, so as to make the (x) Smelleij v. Hardlnge, 7 Q. B. D. 74G, C. A. 524, C. A. See8 & 9 Vict. c. 106, s. 9. (z) 21 Q. B. D. 47">, at p. 487, C. A. {>/) Exp. Walton, Re Levy, 17 Ch. D. \a) 53 & -31 Vict. c. 71. VOL. I. R. M as assignee. 162 MOETGAGE OF LEASEHOLDS. CHAPTER XII. person in whose favour the vesting order may be made subject only to the same liabilities and obligations as if the lease had been assigned to him at the date when the bankruptcy petition was filed, and (if the case so requires) as if the lease had comprised only the property conrprised in the vesting order." Assignment of underlease to trustee. Lessor may apply for vest- ing order. No disclaimer where the mortgage is by assign- ment. Comparative advantages of mortgages by assignment and under- lease. The result appears to be that, where the mortgagor is the original grantee of the lease, in order to obtain a vesting order rendering the mortgagee liable only to the covenants and obli- gations of the lease as assignee, the mortgagee must claim that the usual vesting order may be modified in accordance with the provision of the Act of 1890, but that, where the mortgagee fails to put forward any such claim, or the Court for any reason refuses to make the order as asked, the usual vesting order will be made, and the mortgagee will become liable to the covenants and obligations as original lessee. The liabilities and obligations referred to cannot be escaped by an assignment of the underlease to a trustee for the mort- gagee before leave to disclaim is applied for by the trustee in bankruptcy (b). It is now decided that the lessor is a " person claiming an interest in the disclaimed property," so as to be entitled to apply for an order vesting the lease in the sub-lessee or for delivery of the property if the sub-lessee refuses to take a vesting order (c) . The trustee in bankruptcy of an assignor by way of mortgage of leaseholds cannot disclaim the burden of the lessee's cove- nants, inasmuch as the mortgagee is the owner of the land so burdened, and the trustee's equity of redemption is a mere equitable right to which the covenants do not attach until reconveyance (d) . The result of the foregoing observations seems to be that the form of the mortgage should still be in some degree determined by the amount of the rent and nature of the covenants to which the leaseholds are subject. If the rent be trifling, and the cove- nants not of a kind likely to be burdensome, the mortgage should be made by assignment, because it is expedient that the mort- gagee should have the whole legal interest, rather than a mere derivative estate. It is expedient both for the purpose of a sale, and because it precludes the mortgagor from forfeiting, or doing {'>) lie Smith, Exp. Hepburn, 25 Q. B. 21 Q. B. D. 475. D. 536, C. A. (d) lie Gee, Exp. (c) lie Cock, Exp. Shilson, 20 Q. B. D. Q. B. D. 65. 343 ; Re Einloj, Exp. Clothworliers' Co., Official Receiver, 24 COVENANT NOT TO ASSIGN OR UNDERLET. 163 other mischief with, the nominal reversion which is left in him chapter xh. by an underlease. If, however, the rent he large, or the cove- nants burdensome, for which the mortgagee as assignee will be liable (e), it is submitted that the mortgage should still be made by underlease. A mortgage by demise still confers on the mort- gagee the advantage of not being rendered immediately subject, as in the case of a mortgage by assignment, to the liabilities and obligations of a lessee (/), and in the event of the mort- gagor's bankruptcy, the effect of the statutory enactments above referred to is to give to the mortgagee by demise the option of accepting these liabilities and obligations of an assignee, or (if he prefers to do so) of abandoning his security and relying on the covenant for payment and proof in the bankruptcy for the debt. iii. — Effect of Covenant not to Assign or Underlet. — Where a Effect of cove- lease contains a covenant not to assign or sublet without licence, Sgnmentf no mortgage, either by assignment or demise, will be valid unless &c - the licence is obtained. But a covenant not to assign will not extend to subletting, and vice versa (g) . Formerly, in order that an assignment should create a forfei- ture, the instrument must have been valid and effectual at law (h). So where a lease contained a covenant on the part of the lessee not to let or otherwise part with "the said messuage or this present indenture of lease," it was held that an equitable mortgage by deposit of the lease was not a breach of the cove- nant (/) ; and upon a petition in bankruptcy by the equitable mortgagee by deposit (unaccompanied by any written memo- randum) of a lease granted to the bankrupt, his executors, administrators, and permissive assigns, the usual order for sale was made (/.•). And the same rule would apparently have applied to any merely equitable security for money advanced where the mortgagee obtained no legal title. But it remains to be seen whether this rule must not now be regarded as altered by the operation of sect. 24 of the Judicature Act, 1873 (I), which, by causing equity to prevail in all Divisions (e) See ante, p. 1.55. 308. (/) Solford v. Batch, 1 Doug. 183 ; (i) Doe v. Hogg, 4 D. & R. 226 ; Doe Earl of Derby v. Taylor, 1 East, 502. v. Laming, Ry. & M. 3G. {ff) Crusoe v. Bugby, 2 W. Bl. 7GG. (£•) Exp. Drake, 1 M. D. & De Gr. bee Church v. Brown, 15 Ves. 258, 265. 439. (A) Doe d. Lloyd v. Powell, 5 B. & C. (I) 36 & 37 Vict. c. 66. M 2 164 MORTGAGE OF LEASEHOLDS. chapter xii. f ^ e High. Court of Justice, would, as it is conceived, render the executory assurance effected by an equitable mortgage a breach of the covenant. Kenewal by mortgraffee. iv. — Renewal of Lease. — It is decided that if the mortgagee of a leasehold estate obtain a renewal of the lease, although there subsisted only a tenant right, the renewed lease will be held subject to the like equity as subsisted in the old lease, and will be redeemable accordingly (m) ; the mortgagee, however, is not bound to renew, and in case he does, will be entitled to his costs in effecting the renewal, with interest (n) at the rate reserved on the original principal (o) . The above rule, however, as against the mortgagee, only applies when the mortgagee obtains a renewal behind the back, or by some contrivance in fraud, of those who were interested in the old lease, and where there is either a remnant of the old lease, or a tenant right of renewal on which the old lease could be engrafted. And, therefore, in a case where, after a mortgage of a lease, the landlord recovered in ejectment for non-payment of rent, and the nine months allowed by the Irish statute to redeem had elapsed without redemption either by mortgagor or mort- gagee, and the mortgagee gave notice to the mortgagor that he should not redeem, and acted without fraud, a new lease, granted by the lessor to the mortgagee at the expiration of the nine months, was held to belong to him absolutely, although the agreement had been entered into during the nine months (p) . When a renewable lease is made the subject of mortgage, a covenant should be introduced on the part of the mortgagor for concurring at his own expense in all lawful acts for obtaining a renewal, for otherwise the mortgagee cannot compel him to do so (q). And there should be added an agreement that, if he refuses, it shall be lawful for the mortgagee to renew and to charge the estate with the costs and interest; for though the (m) Eushwortli's case, Freem. Ch. 13 ; Rakestraw v. Brewer, 2 P. "Wms. 511. The rule laid down in the text applies generally to renewals of leases by trustees, executors, tenants for life, and other persons in a fiduciary posi- tion. See Holt v. Holt, 1 Ch. Ca. 190 ; Keech v. Sandford, Scl. Ca. in Ch. Gl ; 1 Wh. & Tud. L. C. in Eq. 53 ; Zee v. Vernon, 5 Bro. P. C. 10. And see Fitz- gerald v. Eainsford, 1 Ba. & Be. 37, a. ; Taster v. Marriott, Amb. 668 ; Iiawe v. Chichester, Amb. 715 ; Owen v. Williams, Amb. 734 ; Pickering v. Vowles, 1 Bro. C. C. 197. (m) Lacon v. Mert'ms, 3 Atk. 4 ; God- frey v. Watson, 3 Atk. 518 ; Manlove v. Bale, 2 Vern. 84. (o) Woolley v. Drag, 2 Anstr. 551. (p) Nesbitt v. Trcdennick, 1 Ba. & Be. 29, see at p. 47. (7) Lacon v. Mertins } sup.; Manlove v. Bale, 2 Vem. 84. RENEWAL OF LEASE. 165 mortgagee has, independently of any special agreement, a right chapter xn. to renew, in which case the estate will be redeemable only on payment of the costs and interest, yet he cannot bring an action to compel the mortgagor to renew, nor to recover expenses of a renewal made by himself without an express agreement to that effect. When freeholds are mortgaged with leaseholds, the provision charging the costs of renewal and interest on the whole of the mortgaged property should be inserted, and would be useful in preventing questions as to priority with subsequent incumbrancers (r). Where an action was brought by the transferee of a mortgage Necessary to compel the renewal of a lease for lives, it was held that the action for executors of the mortgagor were necessary parties because his renewal, estate was liable to the costs of renewal (s) . A release bv the mortgagee of the right of renewal will not Release of . . . right to be binding on the mortgagor or his representative claiming a renew, right to redeem (t) . Where a tenant for life of renewable leaseholds mortgages his life estate, the liability to renew will follow the mortgagee in respect of the rents received by him; though, if the mort- gagee's security is set aside, and he be obliged to refund the rents to the trustee in bankruptcy of the tenant for life, he will not be personally liable for any past default in not renewing, but the fine must be paid out of the refunded rents («). If, on the other hand, the mortgagor renew, although not in Renewal by .-ii i i ji i -n i mortgagor. accordance with the covenant to renew, the new lease will be held to be a graft on the old one, and subject in equity to the same mortgage as affected the old lease (r). And such equity will defeat any lien of the mortgagor's solicitor for his costs [x) . Where the mortgagor renders the renewal of the lease im- Purchase of possible by himself purchasing the reversion in fee, and so gagor. 11101 " merging the lease, the estate so acquired is subject in equity to the mortgage (p). A mortgagee of leaseholds for lives subject to renewal should Notice to (»•) Dav. Conv. 4th ed. Vol. II. v. Howard, 25 Beav. 575. pt. ii. p. 64. {%) Smith v. Chichester, 2 Dr. & \s) Gteg&vh v. Bindley, 7 Jur. 248. War. 393. (t) O'Reilly v. Fetherstone, 4 Bli. N. (>/) Trtonper v. Trumpcr, L. R. 8 Ch. g \Q)\. A. 870. And see Evans v. Walshc, 2 (w) Halhes v. Barrow, Taml. 264. Sch. & L. 519; 12 R. R. 88, n. ; (v) Moody v. Matthews, 7 Ves. 174 ; Randall v. Russell, 3 Mer. 190 ; and Nightingale v. Lawson, cited there ; Hardman v. Johnson, 3 Mer. 347 ; Sims v. Helling, 21 L. J. Ch. 76 ; Tern Postlethwaite v. Lvwthwaite, 2 J. & H. v. Edwards. 1 De G. & J. 598 ; Hughes 237 ; Leigh v. Burnett, 29 Ch. D. 231, 166 MORTGAGE OF LEASEHOLDS. chapter xii. giye notice of the mortgage to the lessor, otherwise the lease may he forfeited by non-payment of fines by the mortgagor, and the mortgagee would have no remedy (z) . Effect of new lease on cove- nant to pay. Effect of surrender. V. — Surrender of Lease. — If a lessee mortgages his lease with a covenant for payment of the debt, and then both parties join in surrendering the lease for the purpose of having a new lease granted, and it is agreed that it shall be assigned to the mort- gagee, and that the arrangement shall not prejudice any other security, of the mortgagee, the covenant in the original mortgage deed is not extinguished by the surrender of the lease (a) ; and it is conceived that the result would be the same without such agreement, inasmuch as the covenant to pay is, as has been seen (b) , not an essential part of the mortgage so as to stand or fall with it, but is an independent collateral security. A surrender by a mortgagor-lessee will not destroy charges previously created by the surrenderor (c) . The estate surren- dered has, in consideration of law, a continuance to protect such charges (d). vi. — Covenants for Insurance against Fire. — In framing cove- nants relating to insurance of leasehold property, care must be taken that the stipulations are not repugnant to any covenants for insurance which are contained in the original lease. As, for instance, if the covenant in the lease be for the lessee to insure in the name of the lessor, it must not be stipulated that the mortgage insurance shall be in the name of the mortgagee ; for if it were so, the mortgagor would be obliged to keep up two insurances instead of one. It is not right, however, for the mortgagee to rely on the covenant in the original lease ; he should insist on having a covenant for insurance on which he can himself sue (e). The statutory powers of mortgagees to insure the mortgaged property and to charge the same with the cost of insurance have been already set out and considered (/). It is obvious that where, under the covenants or provisions of a lease, a sufficient insurance is kept up, either by a lessee-mortgagor, or, as is (z) See Galbraith v. Cooper, 8 H. L. C. 315. (a) Greenwood v. Taylor, 14 Sim. 505 ; -S'. ('., sub nom. Att.-Gen. v. Cox, 3 H. L. C. 272. (J) Ante, p. 9. (e) Pheasant v. Benson, 14 East, 231, 238 ; Doe v. Tyke, 5 M. & S. 146. \d) Co. Lit. 338 b ; Clements v. Matthews, 11 Q. B. D. 808, 815. (e) Dav. Conv. Vol. II. pt. ii. p. 121. (/) Ante, pp. 137 et seq. COVENANTS FOR TITLE. 167 CHAPTER XII. usual, by the lessor charging the lessee with the premiums, the statutory powers do not arise (g). vii. — Statutory Covenants for Title. — Under the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (/>), in a conveyance by way of mortgage of leaseholds, there are deemed to be included cove- nants for the validity of the lease, and payment of the rent, and performance of the covenants therein. The form of the covenants is set forth in the section, which only applies to mortgages made after the commencement of the Act, as follows : — That the lease or grant creating the term or estate for which the Validity- land is held is, at the time of the conveyance, a good, valid, and of lease - effectual lease or grant of the land conveyed, and is in full force, unforfeited, and unsurrendered, and in nowise become void or void- able, and that all the rents reserved by, and all the covenants, conditions, and agreements contained in, the lease or grant, and on the part of the lessee or grantee and the persons deriving title under him to be paid, observed and performed, have been paid, observed and performed up to the time of conveyance; and also that the person so conveying, or the persons deriving title under him, will at all times as long as any money remains on the security of the conveyance, pay, observe, and perform, or cause to be paid, observed, and performed, all the rents reserved by, and all the covenants, conditions, and agreements contained in, the lease or grant, and on the part of the lessee or grantee and the persons deriving title under him to be paid, observed, and performed, and will keep the person to whom the conveyance is made, and those deriving title under him, indemnified against all actions, pro- ceedings, costs, charges, damages, claims and demands, if any, to be incurred or sustained by him or them by reason of the non- payment of such rent, or the non-observance or non-performance of such covenants, conditions, and agreements, or any of them. {ff) 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41, s. 23 (iii). (A) 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41, s. 7 (1, d). ( 168 ) CHAPTER XIII. OF MOETGAGES OF INCOEPOEEAL HEEEDITAMENTS. What passes by the word "manor." Mortgagor may hold courts. Purchase of copyholds by lord after mortgage of manor. i, — Mortgage of Manor. — The word "manor" has a wide signi- fication, including (i) the demesne lands of which the lord is seised within the manor ; (ii) the freehold of all lands held by copyholders within the manor ; (iii) waste lands ; (iv) all heriots, fines, rents, suits, and services ; (v) courts baron, courts leet, and other franchises (a) . Customary freeholds held of a manor are not parcel of a manor, though the rents and services issuing out of such lands will pass by grant of a manor. An advowson appendant to a manor will pass by conveyance of the manor (b) . The mortgagor of a manor, while in possession, may, it seems, hold courts (c). A mortgage of a manor will carry with it copyholds of that manor subsequently purchased by and surrendered to the lord (d) ; and the mortgagee is entitled to all accretions of the property (e) . A receiver may be appointed of a manor (/) . Re of morteracror ii, — Mortgage of Advowson. — An advowson is not an eligible security for money advanced, as it yields no profits out of which the interest can be kept down, and the policy of the law has imposed serious restrictions on the rights and remedies of a mortgagee of this kind of property. Though the legal right to present to the benefice, whether (") Cru. Dig. tit. xxxii. ch. 21. p. Touchst. by Preston, 92. iv. < lop. (5th i'il.) 91, note. {<() Doe v. 1'ott, 2 Doug. 709. See Scriv. Cop. (4th ed.) 43 ; (5th ed.) 6. {e) Exp. Bisdee, 1 M. D. & De G. 333. (/) See post, p. 931. RECTORIES IMPROPRIATE AND TITHES. 169 appendant or in gross, is vested in the mortgagee (g), he can chatter xih. make no profit thereby, so as to renew or lessen the debt, not to nominate only because such a transaction would be void on the ground of ^vacancy, simony, but also because, until foreclosure or sale, the mort- gagee is but in the nature of a trustee for the mortgagor, who has a right to nominate, and may, in equity, compel the mort- gagee to present the person so nominated (h), notwithstanding •an express agreement to the contrary (i). If the mortgagee presents, and his clerk is inducted, the mortgagor may bring his action to compel resignation, but the action must be brought within six months from the death of the last incumbent, or it will be dismissed (k) . It is obvious, therefore, that an advowson can only be made Power of sale available as a security by means of a power of sale, which, abl/durine" however, even if made under the direction of the Court, cannot vacancy. be exercised during a vacancy so as to confer the right to present from that turn, contrary to the law of simony (/). But the power may be exercised if the benefice is not actually vacant, though a vacancy is known to be pending. So, where an advowson was sold after the incumbent had accepted another living, it was held that the original benefice, being voidable only, and not actually void, the next presentation was not dissociated from the advowson (m) ; and it has been held that the knowledge on the part of the purchaser of an advow- son that the incumbent is on the point of death does not make the sale simoniacal (;?). It may be well to insert in a mortgage of an advowson a declaration that the statutory power of sale shall be exerciseable provided the incumbency shall then be full, and not other- wise. iii. — Mortgage of Rectories Impropriate and Tithes. — Rectories impropriate and tithes or tithe rentcharge in lay hands may be mortgaged in like manner as any other kind of real estate. Incumbrancers of tithes are not affected by statutory merger Merger of of the tithes so as to give the incumbrancers of the lands in ilth - es - {(/) Dyer v. Lord Craven, 2 Dick. 404 ; Muttin v. Chancel, 1 Mer. 493. 662 ; Croft v. Powell, Com. Rep. G09. (I) Bishop of Salisbury v. Wolferston, (Ji) Jon/ v. Cox, Pree. Ch. 71 ; Am- 3 Burr. 1504 ; Mirehouse v. licnncll, 1 hurst v. Dawling, 2 Vern. 401. Moo. & Sc. 683. (i) Mackenzie v. Robinson, 3 Atk. (m) Alston v. Attlay, 7 A. & E. 289. 559. See Gaily v. Selby, Stra. 403. (n) Barton v. Glubb, Dick. 516 ; Fox (7c) Gardiner v. Griffith, 2 P. Wins. v. Bishop of Chester, 1 Dow & C. 416. 170 CHAPTEE XIII. MORTGAGE OF INCORPOREAL HEREDITAMENTS. which the tithes are merged any priority over the holders of incumbrances affecting the tithes before the merger (o). Statutes of Tn e law relating to rectories impropriate and tithes has received great emendations by Acts of Parliament passed for limiting the periods for making claim to such species of pro- perty ; prior to such statutes, the rule prevailed, nullum tempm occurrit eccksice, so that it was, in all cases of claim to impro- priate tithes, necessary to show by what means the tithes came into lay hands ; and, in cases of claim of exemption from tithes, to show the origin of such claim (p). But it is not now necessary to show the legal origin of the claim (q) . The mere non-payment, for the prescribed period, where done adversely and of right, establishes a new ground of exemp- tion (r). But the non-payment must be a total non-payment of tithes of every kind (s), and the consent or agreement in writing- capable of defeating the evidence arising from the non-payment of tithe, or payment of modus, must cover the whole or some part of the period set up by the tithe-payer (t). And in a case in the Exchequer, the Court held that the claim of a modus from time immemorial might be pleaded notwith- standing the statute, and be supported by the same evidence that would have been sufficient before the statute, though not extending over so long a period as that named in the statute (u). It has been likewise held that the same Act does not apply where the title to the tithes is in dispute, and not the liability to pay them (.r). In like manner, 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27 only applies as between adverse parties claiming an estate in the tithes (not being tithes due to a spiritual or eleemosynary corporation sole), and does not bar the tithe owner from recovering tithes as chattels from the occupier, although none have been set out for the space of twenty years (y). The Act 2 & 3 Will. IY. c. 100, is unaffected by the provi- sions of 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27 ; the interpretation clause of the (o) 2 & 3 Vict. c. 62, s. 1 ; 9 & 10 M Felloivs v. Clay, 3 G. & D. 406. Vict. c. 73, s. 19. (*) Salkeldx. Johnston, 2 C. B. 749. (p) See 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 100, as (t) Toynbee v. Brown, 18 L. J. Ex. to moduses and compositions real : 6 99. & 7 Will. IV. c. 71, as to impropriato (u) Earl of Stamford v. Dunbar, 13 tithes ; and 41 & 42 Vict. c. 42, as to M. & W. 822. computation of tithes. ($) Knight v. Marquis of Waterford, (g) SalkeldY. Johnston, 14 Jur.Pt.I.l. 15 M. & W. 419. And see Champncysv. Buchan, 4 Drew. (y) Bean of Ely v. Cash, 15 M. & W. 10J. 617. EENTCHAEGE. 17 L latter Act, although, enacting that the word " land " shall, in chapter xm. its meaning, extend to tithes, has reference to an estate in tithes, and not to tithes as a chattel ; and sect. 2, therefore, does not embrace the case of a render of tithes as a chattel by the person bound to pay to the tithe owner (s). Actions for tithes must be brought within sis years from the time when such tithes became due (a), and the defendant may avail himself of the Act without pleading it (&). iv.— Mortgage of Rentcharges.— A mortgage may be made Form of of a subsisting rentcharge, or of a rentcharge created at the morfc ° a o e - time and for the purposes of the security. In the former case the form of the mortgage will not materially differ from that of a mortgage of land, and the same form may be adopted in the case of a newly- created rentcharge, but in such cases the form of the security is more commonly that of an absolute grant of the rentcharge with power of repurchase (c). The statute 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27, sect. 42, provides that no Arrears of arrears of rent are to be recovered after more than sis years rentchar s e - from the time at which they become due, or an acknowledg- ment in writing is given by the debtor. This provision was apparently intended to apply exclusively to rentcharges, and not to other rents (d). By the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 («), Statutory s. 44, the insertion in grants of rentcharges of powers of dis- remedics - •tress and entry, and of limitations of terms to trustees to secure rentcharges, are rendered unnecessary. When the mortgage is of a subsisting rentcharge, it will be well for the mortgagee to take a power of attorney from the mortgagor, so as to enable him to enforce these rights and remedies against the land out of which the rentcharge issues. (z) Dean of My v. Bliss, 2 De G. M. pp. 32 et seq. & ft 4 , 5 . 9 - TTT lo „ K (<*) Paget v. Foley, 3 Sc. 120. (a) 53 Geo. III. c. 127, s. 5. ( e ) 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41. See these (6) Goocle v. Waters, 20 L. J. Ch. 72. provisions set out in full, ante, p. 34. (c) See as to annuity deeds, ante, ( 172 ) CHAPTER XIV. OF MORTGAGES OF CHATTELS. Meaning of "chattels." Securities on chattels. Section I. Of the Nature and Incidents of Mortgages of Chattels generally. i. — Introductory Remarks. — In its widest sense, the expression "chattels" means all personal property, including leasehold and like interests in land which are known as chattels real, and debts and other choses in action, as well as goods capable of being transferred by actual delivery, which are often distin- guished by the title " chattels personal." In a more usual and restricted sense the expression " chattels " is used to denote only the latter kind of personal property, and it is in this sense that the word is used in this present Chapter. Chattels may be made the subject of a security for a loan or debt, either by mortgage or by pledge. A mortgage of chattels, like a mortgage of land, passes the property therein to the mort- gagee, subject to redemption. The goods may, like any other mortgaged property, be retained, as is usually the case, by the mortgagor, in which case, as will be seen hereafter, the validity of the mortgage will depend on its conformity with the require- ments of the Bills of Sale Acts, 1878 and 1882 (a). Indepen- dently of those Acts, or of the inferences to be drawn there- from (b), a mortgage of chattels might have been made by assignment contemporaneous with or subsequent to delivery of the goods to the mortgagee (c). But it is somewhat doubtful how far, having regard to the provisions of those Acts, such transactions can be validly effected at the present day ((/). (a) 41 & 12 Vict. c. 31 ; 45 & 4G Vict. c. 13; the provisions of these Acta are considi red j < -', pp. l (b) See Great Northern Rail. Co. v. Coal Co-operative Soc., (1896) 1 Ch. 187. (r) The delivery may bo actual or constructive. Sec post, p. 1461. (d) See this question discussed post, p. 192. FRAUD AT COMMON LAW. 173 The question as to the validity of a mortgage of chattels, chapteb acv. where possession of the goods is retained by the mortgagor, has Mortga _ n • t , ,, , , ., ,., chattels where generally arisen between the mortgagee and some other creditor p OS8e ssion is of the mortgagor who has obtained possession of the goods by stained by execution or otherwise subsequently to the mortgage, or between ga.gov. the mortgagee and the general creditors of the mortgagor, he having become bankrupt. These cases, though frequently con- founded, require a distinct consideration ; for it frequently happens, as will presently be seen, that mortgages which might be supported against execution creditors, notwithstanding the non-delivery of possession, are void under the enactments of the bankruptcy law (e). The question, as it regards the mortgagee and any other Fraudulent individual creditor or creditors, turns partly upon the principles f chattels. of the common law, and partly on the well-known statute 13 Eliz. c. 5. The question, as between the mortgagee and the trustee in bankruptcy of the mortgagor, acting on behalf of the creditors generally, is regulated by the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (/), which will be hereafter considered. ii. — Mortgages fraudulent at Common Law. — At common law, Fraud or independently of any statute, a security to a creditor will be void if fraudulent, or made upon a secret trust for the debtor. The retention of possession by the mortgagor after assignment Retention of is material as raising a prima facie presumption that the trans- n^rtgagor. y action is tainted with fraud. Immediate transmutation of pos- session is, however, at the present day, seldom contemplated by the parties to a mortgage transaction, but the mortgagor is usually allowed to retain possession of the goods until default in payment of the mortgage moneys, or until breach of some stipu- lation contained in the deed. It is unnecessary that the assignment of the chattels should Effect as be- be followed by possession, in order to make it valid against the tTdeed^&e. 68 assignor himself, or against his creditors, who are cognisant of and take part in the arrangement under which it is made, or which proceeded upon the assumption of its validity, or against strangers (g) . The presumption arising from retention of the goods may Effect as against (e) Byth. &Jarm. (4th ed.), Vol. III. (g) Steel v. Brown, 1 Taunt. 381; p. 765. Robinson v. M'Donnell, 2 B. & Aid. 134 ; (/) 46 & 47 Vict. c. 52. See post, Beasey v. Windham, G Q. 13. 166; White pp. Ill vt seq. v. Morris, 11 C. B. 1015. Sec also OUiver v. King, 8 De Gh M. & G. 110. 174 MORTGAGES OF CHATTELS. CHATTER XTV. creditors generally. Clause for possession till default. Possession consistent with deed, where no such clause. be rebutted, and the security may be supported as against cre- ditors who have not assented to the transaction, by showing that the retention of possession by the mortgagor is consistent with the nature of the transaction. Such evidence may be sup- plied either by the express terms of the mortgage deed, or by parol evidence proving that the assignment, though in terms absolute, was really a mortgage (It). So where a mortgage of chattels contained a clause that the mortgagor should keep possession until default in payment, or until sequestration, his. possession did not show fraud, and unless fraud be proved, the mortgagee's title prevailed against an execution creditor (/). Nor is the mortgagee bound to take pos- session on the first or a subsequent default made in payment of the debt or an instalment of the debt (/<•) . The effect of such a clause is to operate as a redemise by the mortgagee, who cannot sue for the chattels until default has been made, or the expiration of the time for payment ; and the mort- gagor may maintain an action if his possession is interfered with in the interval. But the mortgagor is only entitled to the use of the chattels ; if he or his trustee in bankruptcy sell them dming the term, it will be a disclaimer of the tenancy, and the mortgagee or his assignees can sue for the conversion (/). The proviso for the mortgagor to retain possession until default is not inconsistent with a proviso for taking possession on the happening of a certain event (m). Even when the mortgage does not contain the clause for pos- session by the mortgagor until default, the mortgage will be supported, if the possession is consistent with the requirements and probabilities of the case (>i) ; as where it was necessary for the mortgagor, who was an hotel-keeper, that he should remain in possession (o). So also a security may be supported where, from the very nature of the transaction, a delivery could not be contemplated. (h) Cole v. Davies, 1 Ld. Raym. 724. See Meggott v. Mills, 1 Ld. Raym. 28G. It must, of course, be borne in mind that all mortgages of chattels must now conform to the requirements of the Bills of Sale Acts ; see post, pp. 189 et scq. (i) Mart'indale v. Booth, 3B. & Ad. 498 ; McccIy. Wihnot, 5 Moo. & P. 553 ; Minshall v. Lloyd, 2 M. & W. 450 ; Bradlt y v. Copley, 1 C. B. 685 ; Gale v. Bmnell, 7 Q. B. 850; Tapfield v. Uillman, G Man. & Gr. 245 ; Alton v. Harrison, L. R. 4 Ch. A. 622. (/.-) Martindale v. Booth, sup.; Tap- Jicld v. Ilillman, sup. (1) Fenn v. Bittlcstone, 7 Exch. 152 ; Brierley v. Kendall, 17 Q. B. 937. (m) Re Francis, 10 Ch. D. 40S, C. A. («) Steward v. Lombe, 1 Br. & B. 506 ; 4 Moo. 2S1 ; Cook v. Walker, 3 W. R. 357. (o) Cook v. Walker, sup. 13 eliz. c. 5. 175 Thus (p) where a supercargo of a ship bound to the East Indies chapter xiy. shipped goods, and made a hill of sale of them and of then- profits to one Eoyston, by way of mortgage ; the voyage was made, and the supercargo sold the goods, and bought others, and made several barters and exchanges, and afterwards died at sea ; in a cpiestion between the mortgagee and a judgment cre- ditor, the assignment was held valid, for though sold to Eoyston, they were intrusted to the supercargo to negotiate and sell them for Eoyston's advantage, and the possession was not for the purpose of giving him a false credit. So in the case of land being mortgaged with a mill standing on it, not affixed to the freehold, in which instance the possession of the mill by the mortgagor, although a mere chattel, was held to be consistent with the deed (q). The result of all the cases seems to be, that possession of goods and chattels after an assignment of them does not of itself at common law constitute fraud as against creditors, but is only prima facie evidence of it, capable, like any other evidence of a similar kind, of being rebutted or explained. iii. — Mortgages fraudulent under Stat. 13 Eliz. c. 5. — A mort- gage of chattels, though complying in all respects with the requirements of the Bills of Sale Acts, may be liable to be set aside as fraudulent against creditors under the statute 13 Eliz. c. 5. By that statute (which will be more fully considered hereafter Conveyances with reference to its bearing upon the avoidance of securities C r e ^ U r °\d generally as against creditors on the ground of fraud (■>•)) it is, amongst other things, provided that every conveyance of goods and chattels made to the end, purport, and intent to delay, hinder, or defraud creditors, shall be void as against persons who may be defrauded and their representatives. But the Act is not to extend to any such conveyance made upon good consideration and bond fide to a person not having at the time of such conveyance notice of any fraud. Soon after the passing of this statute, the question how far How far re- the retention of possession by a grantor of chattels was to be tent . 10n of P os - session raises (p) Buchiel v. Eoyston, Prec. Ch. (q) Steward v. Lombe, 1 Br. & B. 285. And see Lempriire v. Pasley, 2 506 ; Iiufford v. Bishop, 5 Buss. 346, T. B. 485 ; Belcher v. Olclfield, 6 Bing. 354. N. C. 102. (>•) See post, pp. 507 ct seq. 176 MORTGAGES OF CHATTELS. chapter xiv. deemed to raise an inference of fraudulent intent to defraud presumption creditors came before the Courts for decision, and the principles within the governing the application of the statute underwent much dis- statute. cussion in Tim/ne's Case(s). In that case it was decided that the retention of the possession by the grantor of chattels personal, after assignment, is prima facie proof of fraud. But it is now settled that the mere circumstance of possession of chattels amounts to no more than prima facie evidence of pro- perty in the person in possession (t) . Distinction There is a clear distinction between absolute and conditional and mortgage transfers in regard to the question of their being accompanied as regards j™ i mme diate possession ; for, whereas the retention of posses- retention oi y x , . L possession. sion by a vendor is generally considered as indicative of fraud, because it is at variance with the sale, such act is generally consistent with a mortgage so far as the statute is concerned, inasmuch as it is usually intended that the mortgagor is to retain the possession and enjoyment of the chattels until default in payment. Although, therefore, retention of possession is a very material circumstance where the conveyance is absolute, yet, where the transaction is a mortgage, the absence of change of possession is, generally speaking, evidence of fraud only if the possession is inconsistent with the mortgage deed. In Edwards v. Harben (a), Buller, J., expressly recognized the distinction between absolute and conditional alienations, or, as his lordship expressed it, " between deeds or bills of sale which are to take place immediately, and those which are to take place at some future time ; for, in the latter case, the possession con- tinuing in the vendor till that future time, or till that condition is performed, is consistent with the deed." The same learned judge, in his well-known treatise on the law of Nm Prius, lays it down " that the donor's continuing in possession is not in all cases a mark of fraud, as where a donee lends his donor money to buy goods, and at the same time takes a bill of sale of them for securing the money "(.?')■ The principle in question, too, is corroborated by those in which goods and chattels had been protected against the execution creditor of a person on whom they have been settled for life, and in whose possession they (s) 3R.ep.80; see notes to S.C., 1 Sm. lindah v. Booth, 3 B. & Ad. 498. L. C. 1. yards v. Earlen, (t) Lady Arundellv. Phipps, 10 Yes. 2 T. R. 687 : B ' T. R. 139. 694, n. ; Manton v. Moore, 7 T. R. 67 ; (") 2 D. & E. 587. Smith, 1 Camp. 332 ; Mar- (.<) Buller, N. V. 2GS. REPUTED OWNERSHIP IN BANKRUPTCY. 177 were, on the ground that the enjoyment was consistent with the chaeteextv. deed (//). In connection with the question as to the avoidance of a mort- Effect of Bills gage of chattels on the ground of mere inconsistency of the rega^rfteu- mortgagor's possession with the terms of the deed, it must be tionof pos- borne in mind that no mortgage can now be made of chattels ses810n " so as to be valid as against execution creditors, except in con- formity with the statutable form (z), which clearly, having regard to the provisions of the Bills of Sale Acts, contemplates the reten- tion of the chattels by the mortgagor until default. Moreover, in the case of absolute assignments of chattels, the Notoriety by notoriety of the sale was always regarded as an important re s istration - element in rebutting the presumption arising from the retention of possession (a). This notoriety is now necessarily incident to all assignments of chattels, whether absolute or by way of mort- gage, where the assignor retains possession, by virtue of the requirements of the Bills of Sale Acts rendering it essential to the validity of such instruments as against creditors that they should be duly registered so as to insure publicity (b). So far as the statute of Eliz. concerns mortgages, the validity of the transaction will depend upon whether the whole circum- stances of the case are such as to induce a jury to hold that the presumption of fraud, prima facie to be inferred from the retention of possession by the grantor, is rebutted (c). iv.— Mortgages fraudulent in Bankruptcy — Reputed Owner- Reputed ship.— The law of reputed ownership has considerable effect ownershi P- upon mortgages of chattels. Prior to the Bankruptcy Act, 1869 (d), the doctrine of reputed ownership applied to all bankrupts, and to all choses in action. The law was by that Act confined to traders, and, so far as relates to things in action, to trade debts. By the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (e), it is enacted that— Sect. 44 (iii.) The property of a bankrupt divisible amongst Goods in order and disposi- (y) Cadogan v. Kenned, Cowp. 432 ; v. Baler, 1 M. & S. 251 ; Eidd v. Earl of Shaftesbury v. Russell, 1 B. & Rawlinson, 2 B. & P. 59 ; Macdona v. C. G6G. See also Reed v. Wilmott, Swiney, 8 Ir. C. L. 73. 5 M. & P. 553; Martindale v. Booth, (b) See post, pp. 189 et seq. 3 B. & Ad. 498 ; Riches v. Evans, 9 (e) Latimer v. Batson, 4 B. & C. C. & P. 640 ; Can- v. Burdiss, 1 C. M. 652 ; Leonard v. Baker, 1 M. & S. 251 ; 6 ^- I 82 - Watkins v. Birch, 4 Taunt. 823 : Dewey (z) See post, pp. 229 et seq. v. Baynton, 6 East, 27 ; Fortiscue v. (a) Latimer v. Batson, 4 B. & C. 652. Burnett, 3 My. & K. 43. See Watkins v. Birch, 4 Taunt. 823 ; (d) 32 & 33 Vict. c. 71. Jezeph v. Ingram, 8 Taunt. 838; Leonard (e) 46 & 47 Vict. c. 52. VOL. I. R. N 178 MOETGAGE OF CHATTELS. CHAETEE XIV. tion of bank- rupt divisible among creditors. Meaning of ' ' goods ' ' for purposes of the Bank- ruptcy Acts. Fixtures. Trade utensils. his creditors shall comprise the following particulars (amongst others) : — All goods, being at the commencement of the bankruptcy in the possession, order, or disposition of the bankrupt, in his trade or business, by the consent and permission of the true owner, under such circumstances that he is the reputed owner thereof, provided that things in action, other than debts due or growing due to him in the course of his trade or business, shall not be deemed goods and chattels within the meaning of this section. The word " goods," which is here substituted for the expres- sion " goods and chattels," in the Act of 1869, is defined as including all chattels personal (/). The expression " personal chattels " is defined by the Bills of Sale Act, 1878 (g), to include certain specified kinds of personal property, and, amongst others, fixtures if separately assigned ; but that definition is only for the purposes of the Bills of Sale Acts (h) . Fixtures annexed to the freehold are not within the reputed ownership clause of the Bankruptcy Act, though re- moveable by the tenant (/), and even trade fixtures, though annexed to the freehold since the date of a mortgage of land, will pass to the mortgagee, not to the trustee in bankruptcy (/>•). Possession of fixtures does not raise an inference of owner- ship (/), and they are consequently not within the clause, though assigned by a separate deed (m). But chattels which have been at one time annexed to the freehold, but which have been sub- sequently severed therefrom, cease upon such severance to be fixtures, and come within the clause (n) . Chattels settled to devolve with land as heirlooms have been held not to be within the clause (o) . Utensils of trade or other moveables mortgaged by a bank- rupt are in general within the clause (p). (/) 46 & 47 Vict. c. 52, s. 168. (. ,., . ,-1 contract. within the order and disposition clause, tor until seizure tne landlord is not the true owner (q) . The following- cases have been held not to fall within the Other cases . . , ,, . of possession. clause : — goods in possession of a receiver appointed at the in- stance of a creditor (r) ; goods distrained for rent, but not sold (s) ; goods in the possession of a factor or agent (/), if the relation is notorious (t*). So, the clause does not apply when the goods are in the possession of the true owner, subject to a lien by agreement (x) ; nor when the possession, as of a lessee, is with the consent of the mortgagor, who is permitted by the true owner (the mortgagee) to retain possession (y) ; nor when the person in whose possession the chattels were by the consent of the true owner pledges them, 'and they are in the possession of the pawnee at the time of the pawner's bankruptcy (z). Where the mortgage was taken in the name of a trustee whose name was over the stores, and the bankrupt served behind the bar, there was no reputed ownership (a). And pictures lent to an artist for exhibition in a public gallery are Holderness v. Rankin, 2 De G-. F. & J. L. R. 10 Ex. 242 ; Sucker v. Chidley, 258; Swainston v. Clay, 4 Giff. 187; 11 Jur. N. S. 654. varied, 3 De G. J. & S. 558. (0 Ryall v. Roivles, 1 Ves. Sen. 349 ; (o) Fletcher v. Manning, 12 M. & W. 1 Atk. 165; Mace v. Cad-ell, Cowp. 232; 571. And cf. Exp. Foss, Re Baldwin, Whitfield v. Brand, 16 M. & W. 282. 2 De G. & J. 230 ; and Exp. Edey, Re And see Exp. Bright, 10 Ch. D. 566, Cuthbertson, L. R. 19 Eq. 264. See also C. A.; Re Kullberg, 12 W. R. 137. Meggy v. Imperial Discount Co., 3 But see Exp. Roy, 7 Ch. D. 70. Q. B. D. at p. 714. («) Re Fawcus, 3 Ch. D. 795. (p) Linyard v. Messiter, 1 B. & Cr. \.r) Hawthorn v. Newcastle Rail. Co., 308 ; Exp. Loveriny, Re Jones, L. R. 9 3 Q,. B. 734. Ch. A. 621 ; Exp. Brooks, Re Fowles, (y) Eraser v. Swansea Canal Naviya- 23 Ch. D. 261, C. A. tion Co., 1 A. & E. 354. (?) Exp. Newitt, 16 Ch. D. 522, (z) Greening v. Clark, 4 B. & Cr. C. A. 316. (r) Taylor v. Eckersley, 5 Ch. D. 740. (a) Edmunds v. Best, 7 L. T. N. S. (s) Re Stockton Iron Furnace Co., 10 279. See Shrubsole v. Sussams, 16 Ch. D. 335, C. A. ; Lehain v. Fhilpott, C. B. N. S. 452. 184 MORTGAGE OF CHATTELS. CHAPTER XTV. Possession in ' ' trade or business." Possession by " consent of true owner." Meaning of "trueowner. not in the order and disposition of the artist on his bank- ruptcy (b). In order that goods may fall within the reputed ownership clause they must be in the possession, &c. of the bankrupt in his trade or business. The expression " business " has a more extensive signification than " trade," and will include farming, banking, and other occupations which are not strictly trades (c). The business must, in order to be within the section, be carried on with a view to profit (d). Articles not in their nature necessarily connected with the particular business of the trader require clear evidence to prove the reputed ownership (e). In order that goods not belonging to a bankrupt should pass to his trustee, they must have been at the commencement of the bankruptcy in the possession, &c. of the bankrupt by consent of the true owner. These words are not mere formal words (/), but mean that there must have been either actual consent, or acquiescence amounting thereto, whether intentional or arising from some impropriety or laches on the part of the true owner (g). The interest of the true owner may be legal or equitable. So where a mortgagor is, by the mortgage deed, entitled to remain in possession till demand, he is in possession with the consent of the true owner, the mortgagee (h). In some cases, it seems to have been considered that where the mortgagee has covenanted to allow the mortgagor to remain in possession, the section does not apply, but these decisions cannot now be relied on («'). It is true, that where there is a mortgage of chattels, with a proviso for quiet enjoyment by the mortgagor till default, or where the mortgagor takes, under the mortgage deed, an interest in the chattels, determinable upon his default in payment or by notice from the mortgagee, the mortgagor is, in a sense, the true (b) Re Cook, Exp. Dudgeon, W. N. (1884) 124. (c) Harris v. Amery, L. R. 1 C. P. 148, at p. 154. See Re Jenkinson, 15 Q. B. D. 441. (d) Re Wallis, Exp. Sully, 14 Q. B. D. 951. (e) Exp. Zovcring, Re Murrell, 24 Ch. D. 21, C. A. (/) West v. Skip, 1 Ves. Sen. 243; Smith v. Topping, 5 B. & Ad. 674, 678. iff) J°y v - Campbell, 1 Sch. & L. 328 ; Hamilton v. Bell, 10 Exch. 545, 549, 552 ; Exp. Geaves, 8 De G. M. & G. 291 ; Re Bankhead's Tr., 2K.&J. 560 ; Exp. Bell, 17 L. J. Bky. 9. (//■) Freshney y. Carrick, 1 H. & N. 653 ; Re Atkinson, Fonb. Bky. 271 ; Cook v. Walker, 25 L. T. 51 ; Hornsby v. Miller, 1 E. & E. 192 ; Spackman v. Miller, 12C.B.N.S.659; Exp. Harding, L. R. 15 Eq. 223 ; Exp. Union Bk. of Manchester, Re Jackson,!,. R. 12 Eq. 354. (i) Ashton v. Blackshaw, L. R. 9 Eq. 510 ; Exp. Homan, L. R. 12 Eq. 598. See Exp. Harding, L. R. 15 Eq. 223. EEPUTED OWNERSHIP IN BANKRUPTCY. 185 owner, and the mortgagee cannot, until the term or interest of chapteexiv. the mortgagor is determined, bring trover (/.•) ; and if the mort- gagee seizes the chattels without due notice of payment, the mortgagor can bring trespass against him (I). But under a proviso or term of this kind, the mortgagor has been held not to be the " true owner " within the reputed ownership clause, on the ground that such interest of the bankrupt was really illusory, and substantially, if not technically, permissive ; that the law will not allow a mortgagor of chattels to stay in possession and so evade the rule ; and that where the mortgagee can enter into possession by giving a short notice, or (as it was put by Mr. Justice Willes) where the mortgagee consents to put himself in a posi- tion in which he has no immediate right to the possession of the goods, they are, in reality, in the possession of the mortgagor with the consent of the true owner (>n). So far as his general creditors are concerned, the mortgagor in such a case has the reputation of absolute ownership, though, as between himself and the mortgagee, he has a real, though limited, interest. Of course where the mortgagor has not even such interest, but merely a licence to use the chattels mortgaged, the reputed ownership clause clearly applies (//). WheD the mortgagee contracted to sell at the date of the bankruptcy, the possession of the mortgagor brought the case within the clause (o). Materials which an owner of land may seize under a builder's contract are not in the order and disposition of the builder with the consent of the true owner, for, until seizure, the land- owner is not the true owner of the goods, and, independently of the Bills of Sale Acts, the right of the trustee in the builder's bankruptcy would be subject to the right to seize under the building agreement (p). But such a power, unless carefully framed, may bring the contract within the mischief of those Acts (q) . There must be consent of the creditor ; and therefore where Consent of A. gave B., his creditor, a delivery order for goods lying at a trueowner - railway station, and B., on presenting his order within a reason- (k) Fenn v. Bittlestone, 7 Exch. 152. 192. (I) Brier ley v. Kendall, 17 Q. B. (o) Barnes v. Pinkney, 36 L. J. Ch. 937. 815. (m) Spackman v. Miller, 12 C. B. fp) Exp. Newitt, Be Garrud, 16 Ch N. S. 659. D. 522, C. A. («) Freshney v. Carrick, 1 H. & N. (q) Climpson v. Coles, 23 Q. B. D. 653 ; Hornsby v. Miller, 1 E. & E. 465, post, p. 199. 186 MORTGAGE OF CHATTELS. CHAPTER XIV. "Withdrawal of consent. Entry of creditorbefore bankruptcy of debtor. able time, found that the goods had been removed in the mean- time to A.'s manufactory, and A. shortly afterwards became bankrupt, it was held that B. had a valid lien (r). If the consent is withdrawn before the bankruptcy, although possession is not actually taken, the clause does not apply. Instructions to take possession of the whole, followed by actual possession of part, is a sufficient withdrawal of consent (s), and also sending a broker to take possession, although he could not get into the house (t) ; and where a demand of possession is made by the creditor to the person in possession of the goods without notice of an act of bankruptcy, the clause does not apply (it) ; after such demand the possession cannot be without the consent of the true owner (it). Where there was an equitable assignment of goods without possession, the intention beirjg that the debtor should sell the goods for the creditor, a formal demand of the goods by the creditor, after the filing of a petition for liquidation, but before any meeting, took the case out of the statute (.r) . Entry and sale before the bankruptcy take the case out of the statute (//) ; and possession takeD of stock in business is sufficient to carry furniture in the house (z). Where possession is taken between the presentation of a liqui- dation petition and the order, the goods are protected (a). Attempts by the creditor to obtain possession before the bank- ruptcy, the creditor being excluded, are sufficient (b) ; but an intention not acted on will not do (c). Where the assignee put a man in possession, but the assignor continued to live on the premises, there was not sufficient possession (d). The sheriff's wrongful possession is still the possession of the mortgagor (e) ; secus, if the goods are rightfully in hands of the sheriff (/). The true owner taking back the goods without notice of an act of bankruptcy takes the case out of the statute (g). (>•) Exp. Bell, 17 L. J. Bky. 9. (s) Re Eslick, 4 Ch. D. 496. (I) Exp. Harris, Re Pulling, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 48. (it) Smith v. Topping, 5 B. & Ad. 674; Exp. Ward, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 148 ; Exp. Pritchard, Eonb. Bky. 238. (.') Exp. Montagu, 1 Ch. D. 554, C. A. (y) Graham v. Webb, 3 F. & E. 239. (a) Re Eslick, 4 Ch. D. 496. (a) Re Wright, Exp. Arnold, 3 Ch. D. 70, C. A. (b) Exp. Harris, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 48. (c) Ereicin v. Short, 1 Jur. N. S. 798, Q. B. (d) Exp. Hooman, L. R. 10 Eq. G3 ; Exp. McLean, 24 L. T. N. S. 144. (e) Exp. Edey, L. R. 19 Eq. 264. (/) Re Baldwin, 2 De G. & J. 230 ; But see Exp. Lamb, 14 W. R. 112, Bky. And Barrow v. Bell, 2 Jur. N. S. 159. (g) Graham v. Furber, 14 C. B. 134. REPUTED OWNERSHIP IN BANKRUPTCY. 187 And an injunction can be obtained by the true owner (/)). chapter xiv. In order to exclude the operation of the reputed ownership clause, it is sufficient if a mortgagee takes real possession of the mortgaged goods with the intention of asserting his rights, even though such possession is friendly and without depriving the mortgagor of the user of the goods (»). The last condition necessary under the section to cause goods Meaning of not belonging to a bankrupt to pass to his trustee is, that they " re P ut ®. d ,, should be in the possession, &c. of the bankrupt " under such circumstances that he is the reputed owner thereof." Whether there is a reputed ownership with the consent of the true owner, such as to bring goods within the section, is a matter of fact to be determined on the evidence in the particular case (/>•). Upon the same principle of reputed ownership, where an undis- charged bankrupt is allowed by his trustee to trade, the assets, upon a second bankruptcy, belong* to the assignees under the latter (/). There must, however, be knowledge and consent on the part of the trustee (m) ; mere laches, not amounting to fraud, will not do. It is no part of the duty of the trustee or creditors to look after the debtor (w) . Securities given to the subsequent creditors of such bankrupt with or without notice of the bankruptcy are binding upon the trustee (o). The doctrine of reputed ownership has here been considered only with reference to its bearing on the operation and efficacy of mortgages or bills of sale of chattels ; the subject will be found more fully discussed in several treatises on bankruptcy law. The question as to the efficacy of a duly made and registered Validity of bill of sale given by way of security as against the trustee in JS^f* 16 BS bankruptcy of the grantor will be considered in a subsequent trustee, section of this Chapter (p). (h) Mather v. Lay, 2 J. & H. 374. (I) Troughton v. Gitley, Amb. 630 ; (i) Exp. National Guardian Assur- Exp. Ford, 1 Ch. D. 521, C. A. ; Kera- ance Co., Be Francis, 10 Ch. D. 408, koose v. Brooks, 8 Mo. I. A. 339 ; Engel- C. A. back v. Nixon, L. R. 10 C. P. 645 ; (k) Horn v. Baker, 9 East, 215; Meg -g>/ v. Imperial Discount Co., 3 Q. B. 2 Sm. L. C. 255 (9th ed.) ; Price v. D. 711. Groom, 17 L. J. Ex. 346 ; Edwards v. (?n) Be Clarke, Ex parte Bcardmore, Scott, 1 Man. & Gr. 962 ; Hamilton v. (1894) 2 Q. B. 393. Bell, 10 Exch. 545 ; Watson v. Peache, (n) Exp. Ford, sup., qualifying Be 1 Bing. N. C. 327 ; Whitfield v. Brand, Bawbonc's Trusts, 26 L. J. Ch. 588. 16 M. & "W. 252; Priestley v. Pratt, (o) Be Cazneau's Legacy, 2 K. & J. L. R. 2 Ex. 101 ; Be Rawbone's Trusts, 249 ; Cohen v. Mitchell, ~25 Q. B D 26 L. J. Ch. 588 ; Ex parte Watkins, 262, C. A. Be Couston, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 520. (p) Post, pp. 189 et seq. 188 MORTGAGE OF CHATTELS. CHAPTER XIV. Insurance. Trover for mortgaged chattels. Right to possession. V. — Rights of Mortgagor and Mortgagee of Chattels. — Inde- pendently of the Bills of Sale Acts, the following points have been decided as to the rights of parties under mortgages of goods and chattels : — A mortgagee of chattels personal, which have been insured by the mortgagor and been destroyed by fire, cannot, on action brought to restrain the payment of the insurance moneys to the mortgagor, &c, obtain an order for payment of money into Court, without serving the trustees in bankruptcy of the mort- gagor with notice (q). Where goods and chattels are assigned by way of mortgage, the mortgagor having the right to possession of the mortgaged chattels can alone maintain trover for the goods until default, when the estate of the mortgagee, being freed from the con- dition, becomes absolute, so that he can maintain trover for the goods (r). If the goods are in the meanwhile taken by a third person, as an execution creditor, the mortgagee is then unable to require possession (s). The right of the mortgagee to possession is not affected by his having received a bill of exchange on account of the debt, and indorsed it over for value (t). But if the mortgagor in possession under the proviso until default sells the goods, this act determines his possession, and the mortgagee can recover at once against the purchaser (u). Where the mortgagor had, before the mortgage, bailed the goods, the mortgagee can recover them from the bailee (r). The effect of these statutes is, that although a mortgage of chattels personal made bond fide and for a valuable consideration, but the possession of which is retained by the assignor, will be valid against creditors at common law, and under 13 Eliz. c. 5, if it can be shown that the possession is consistent with the nature of the transaction, so that the presumption of fraud raised by the possession is rebutted, yet it may be void under the statutes of bankruptcy, as against the trustees of a bankrupt, (q) Marriage v. Royal Exchange As- surance Co., 18 L. J. Ch. 216. Nota, the mortgagee was also equitable mortgagee of leasehold premises on which the chattels were. (>•) Bradley v. Copley, 1 C. B. 685. (*) Wheeler v. Montefiore, 2 Q. B. 133. See White v. Morris, 11 C. B. 1015. (t) Bramwell v. Eglinton, 5 B. & S. 39. (it) Loeschman v. Machin, 2 Stark. 311 ; Cooper v. WUlomatt, 1 C. B. 672 ; Payne v. Pern, 6 Q. B. D. 620. (v) European, §c. Co. v. lloifal Mail, i-c. Co., 8 Jur. N. S. 136, Q. B. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 189 who continues the reputed owner, unless it can be shown that chatter xrv. possession has been given as far as circumstances would permit. Section II. Of the Bills of Sale Acts. i. — Introductory remarks. — Mortgage deeds of chattels are Policy of the now generally governed by the Bills of Sale Acts, 1878 (ic) ^ of Sale and 1882 (#). The objects of these Acts have been (1) to protect creditors, to give them a true idea of their debtor's position, and to prevent clandestine transactions by which the grantor is allowed to retain the possession of property which the grantee may at any moment withdraw from the claims of creditors, and dispose of as he thinks fit (y) ; and (2) to protect persons whose necessities compel them to give- bills of sale on their goods as security for debts or advances, from being induced or compelled by their creditors to enter into stipulations of the effect of which such debtors may be ignorant, or which, if knowingly entered into, might place a helpless grantor at the mercy of a rapacious grantee. How far the latter object of the Legislature is sound in policy, or has hitherto been satisfac- torily effectuated, it would not be pertinent to the scope of this treatise to discuss, but it may, perhaps, be permissible to remark that one undeniable result of the Acts has been to produce a vast amount of expensive litigation, and of decisions not always easily reconcilable on any consistent ground of principle or with each other (s). In 1854, for the better protection of purchasers and mort- Bills of Sale gagees, the Bills of Sale Act of that year (a) was passed, which tn&ittt by sect. 1 thereof provided that every bill of sale of personal chattels, whether absolute or conditional, should be void as against assignees, creditors, &c, of the grantor, unless the same or a copy thereof should be filed within twenty-one days in manner therein prescribed ; the bill was to be accompanied by an affidavit which was to be filed simultaneously with the bill (a). This Act was amended by the Bills of Sale Act, 1866 (b). (w) 41 & 42 Vict. c. 31. (*) See Exp. Collins, Re Yarrow, 38 (z) 45 & 4G Vict. c. 43. W. R. 175. (*/) See Reed on the Bills of Sale (a) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 36. See Grindell Acts (9th ed.), p. 30 ; Lyon & Red- v. Brendon, 6 C. B. N. S. 698; Mason man, Law of Bills of Sale, 1, 2. See v. Wood, 1 C. P. D. 67. also Exp. Sparrow, 2 De G. M. & G. 907. (b) 29 & 30 Vict. c. 96. 190 BILLS OF SALE ACTS. CHAPTEE XIV. Bills of Sale Act, 1878. Bills of Sale Act, 1882. Bills of Sale Acts, 1890 and 1891. Application of Acts. Both these Acts were repealed (except as regards existing bills of sale) by the Bills of Sale Act, 1878 (c), which was made applicable to every bill of sale executed on and after the 1st of January, 1879. The language of the Act of 1878 is, in many respects, iden- tical with the repealed Act of 1854 ; and accordingly the cases decided under the earlier Act are, for the most part, applicable under the Act of 1878. Attention will be called to the material alterations effected by the Act of 1878 as its provisions come under notice. In 1882, the Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment Act 1882 (c/),"was passed, and is to be construed as one with the Act of 1878, but does not apply to any bill of sale duly re- gistered before the commencement of the Act of 1882, so long as the registration thereof is not avoided by non-renewal or otherwise. This Act (which is here cited as the Bills of Sale, Act, 1882, or as the Act of 1882) applies only to bills of sale given by way of security for payment of money (e). Two further amending Acts have been since passed, namely, the Bills of Sale Act, 1890 (/), which excepts letters of hypo- thecation of imported goods from the operation of s. 9 of the Act of 1882; and the Bills of Sale Act, 1891 (g), which alto- gether exempts from the operation of the Acts of 1878 and 1882 certain securities on imported goods. The English Acts do not apply to Ireland or Scotland (h). Interpreta- tion of term "bill of sale." ii, — What Instruments are The expression " bill of sale ' Act of 1878 :— 1 Bills of Sale" within the Acts. — is thus denned in sect. 4 of the "The expression 'bill of sale ' shall include bills of sale, assign- ments, transfers, declarations of trust -without transfer, inventories of goods with receipt thereto attached, or receipts for purchase- moneys of goods, and other assurances of personal chattels, and also powers of attorney, authorities, or licences to take possession of personal chattels as security for any debt, and also any agree- ment, whether intended or not to be followed by the execution of any other instrument, by which a right in equity to any personal chattels, or to any charge or security thereon, shall be con- ferred." (c) 41 & 42 Vict. c. 31, s. 23. (d) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 43. (e) Ibid. s. 3. (/) 53 & 54 Vict. c. 53. {ff) 54 & 55 Vict. c. 35. (/<•) Act of 1878, s. 24 ; Act of 1882, s. 18. The Irish Acts are 42 & 43 Vict. c. 50, and 40 Vict. c. 7. WHAT IS A BILL OF SALE. 191 By sect. 3 of the Act of 1882, the expression " bill of sale " CHAPTERXIY - lias the same meaning as in the Act of 1878, except as to bills of sale, or other documents mentioned in sect. 4 thereof, given otherwise than by way of security for the payment of money to which the Act of 1882 does not apply. This definition is only for the purposes of the Bills of Sale Acts (/) ; and, so far as relates to all absolute bills of sale, and also to bills of sale by way of securit}' for money, made or given before the commencement of the Act of 1882 (k), the definition must be read in connection with sect. 3 of the Act of 1878, which provides that such Act shall apply to all bills of sale " whereby the holder or grantee has power, either with or with- out notice, and either immediately or at any future time, to seize or take possession of any personal chattels comprised in or made subject to such bill of sale " (/). The effect of this enact- ment would appear to be to exclude any mortgages of chattels, made or given before the commencement of the Act of 1882, and now subsisting by virtue of renewals [in), where possession of the goods is delivered prior to or contemporaneously with the execution of the mortgage deed, from the operation of the Act of 1878, by which alone such bills are regulated. But as regards instruments falling within the definition of sect. 4 of the Act of 1878, and made or given by way of security for money on or after the 1st November, 1882, a question arises which, though perhaps not likely to be of frequent occurrence, is nevertheless of some importance, namely, whether delivery of the goods anterior to, or contemporaneous with, the execution of the instrument, will exclude the operation of the Acts. It has repeatedly been held (w) that where goods are pledged or deposited by way of security for money, an instrument in writing accompanying the pledge or deposit and merely regu- lating the rights of parties with regard to the possession of the goods, but neither giving any authority to take such possession, nor transferring any property therein, are not within the mis- chief of either the Act of 1878 or the Act of 1882. But there appears to be no reported decision on the point whether a mort- gage of chattels already delivered purporting to transfer the (i) See Meux v. Jacobs, L. R. 7 H. L. (I) See He Sail, Exp. Close, 14 Q. B. 471. D. 386, 392. (k) 1st November, 1882. (m) See post, p. 249. («) Sec inf. p. 202. 192 BILLS OF SALE ACTS. chaptebxiv. property therein, and so to convert what otherwise might be merely a pledge or deposit into a legal mortgage conferring a right to foreclosure, falls within the operation of the Acts so as to require to be registered, and to be void unless made in con- formity with the statutable form prescribed by the Act of 1882, which is obviously not applicable to transactions of this nature. In one of the cases (o) above referred to, in which it was decided that a memorandum accompanying a pledge was not within the Act of 1882, Sir C. Bowen, L.J., said he considered it clear that a document of this kind, which is not intended to transfer the property in goods, or to give any right to possession of them, is not within either of the Bills of Sale Acts, and is not struck at by either of them ; and he pointed out, with reference to the question then before the Court, it was not necessary to determine what was the bearing of sect. 3 of the Act of 1878 or sect. 4 of the same Act, and that if it were, he could wish to take further time for consideration (p). But Sir E. Fry, L.J., in the same case, said that it appeared to him that the effect of sect. 9 of the Act of 1882 is to make void every document which is included in sect. 4 of the Act of 1878 which does not in sub- stance comply with the statutory form ; and he stated his then present impression to be that sect. 4 is not modified by sect. 3 (q) . In a recent case (r), Sir E.. Yaughan Williams, J., in deciding a question as to the validity, as against the liquidator of certain debentures issued by a friendly society, gave a brief statement of the history of the Bills of Sale Acts, in the course of which his lordship observed : — " The Bills of Sale Act, 1878, Amend- ment Act, 1882, has a very much wider scope than either of the previous Acts. It is intended not only for the prevention of frauds upon creditors, but also for the protection of debtors and those who are in need against those who are apt to take advan- tage of their necessities to prey upon them, and to defraud them ; and this being so, it is a natural consequence that one should find that the Act of 1882 applies not only — as the Acts of 1854 and 1878 did — to a case where the grantor remained in possession of the property notwithstanding the bill of sale, but also in the case of bills of sale, grants, or charges, which are (o) Exp. Hubbard, He Hardwicke, 17 {r) Great Northern Rail. Co. v. Coal Q. B. D. 690, C. A. Co-operative Soc., (1896) 1 Ch. 187 at (p) Ibid, at p. 699. pp. 192, 193. {q) Ibid, at p. 701. WHAT IS A BILL OF SALE. l$& given either absolutely (s) or as security for debts or advances, chapteb xiy. and to cases where the grantee may be in actual possession." The question under consideration accordingly depends upon whether sect. 3 of the Act of 1878, which admittedly limits and controls the definition given by sect. 4 in cases falling only within that Act, also limits and controls such definition in cases falling under the Act of 1882. On this point, though there is no express decision, it is apparently to be inferred from the dicta above referred to, that, if the question were to come before the Courts, it would be so decided as to declare that any mort- gage made after, or contemporaneously with, delivery of the chattels comprised therein, would be void as regards such chat- tels, as being incapable of being made according to the statutable form. Mortgages of, or charges on chattels may, however, be effected Parol mort- without deed or other writing, and the conditions under which chattels, the goods are delivered or retained may be proved by parol evidence (7). A mortgage of chattels unaccompanied by any writing, but completed by actual delivery, will not be affected by the Bills of Sale Acts («), but will be valid not only as against execution creditors, but also as against the trustee in bankruptcy of the mortgagor, unless the latter has, previously to the delivery, committed an act of bankruptcy upon which subsequent proceedings in bankruptcy are founded. The Acts relate only to documents, and not to transactions which may be effected without any writing (x). And, accord- ingly, a parol charge, without delivery of possession to the lender, would be valid at common law, if made in good faith, but the retention of possession by the borrower would be a strong presumption of an attempt to defraud creditors, and the goods would, of course, be in the order and disposition of the borrower so as to pass to his trustee in bankruptcy. The meaning of the several expressions used in the above Meaning of definition of a bill of sale will be now considered. usedlnThe A " bill of sale," for the purposes of these Acts, has been definition. defined as an instrument "on which the title of the transferee " BlUo sa e - (s) Bills of sale given absolutely are (a) Woodgate v. Godfrey, 5 Ex. D. expressly excluded from the operation 24, 0. A. of the Act of 1882. See sect. 3 of that (x) Woodgate v. Godfrey, sup. See Act, ante, p. 191. North Central Wagon Co. v. Manchester, {t) Lit. s. 365 ; Beeves v. Capper, 5 Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Mail. Co., 35 Bing. N. C. 136 ; Florg v. Benny ) 7 Ch. D. at p. 203, affirmed, 13 App. Exch. 581. Cas. 554. VOL. I. — R. O 194 BILLS OF SALE ACTS. CHAPTER XIV. "Assign- ments and transfers." " Declara- tions of trust." "Receipt" and " inven- tory." depends, either as an actual transfer of the property, or an agreement to transfer, or as a muniment or document of title taken at the time as a record of the transaction " (y). The words " assignment " and " transfer " seem equally to mean a document, which, though not in form a bill of sale, assumes to transfer the property in goods in the same way in which a bill of sale would do so (z). These expressions do not include assignments and transfers of existing bills of sale (a). Declarations of trusts of chattels may be made by parol (b), but if the terms of the trust are reduced to writing without delivery of the goods, the instrument will be a bill of sale within the meaning of the Acts ; and, therefore, if the trusts are by way of security for money, the instrument will be void as being incapable of being framed in accordance with the statu- table form prescribed by the Act of 1882 (c) ; unless the docu- ment is not intended to operate, and does not operate, imtil the goods are actually delivered (<7). Where a letter purporting to transfer coals on a debtor's wharf, and undertaking to hand over the proceeds thereof to the creditor, was duly registered as a bill of sale under the Act of 1854, it was held that this was a valid declaration of trusts of the proceeds within the meaning of that Act, and that the title of the creditor on taking possession of the goods prevailed against the trustee in the debtor's liquidation (e). So also a hypothecation note, given on an advance by bankers, undertaking to hold goods for the bankers and to hand to them, out of the proceeds thereof, the amount of the loan, was held to be a declaration of trust without transfer, and, consequently, a bill of sale within the meaning of the same Act (/) . Under the Act of 1854, it was held that the bill of sale, whatever its form, must be an instrument by which a title to the goods is acquired; the term, therefore, did not include a receipt for purchase-money, though it referred to an inventory of the goods (g). (>/) Marsden v. Meadows, 7 Q. B. D. 80, C. A. See Uorsfall v. Key, 2 Exch. R. 778; Manchester, Sheffield, and Lin- colnshire Sail. Co. v. North Central Wagon Co., 13 App. Oas. 554. {z) Per Lord Esher, M. R., in Exp. Hubbard, He Hardwivk, 17 Q. B. D. 690, C. A. See lie Roberts, Ecuns v. Boh its, 36 Ch. D. 196 (entry in auc- tioneer's book). [a) Seo Act of 1878, s. 10 (3). {b) Pechham v. Taylor, 31 Beav. 254. (c) See sect. 9 of that Act and schedule. (d) Charlesworth v. Mills, (1892) A. C. 231. (e) Exp. Montagu, Me CBrxen, 1 Ch. D. 554, C. A. (/) Beg. v. Toumshend, 15 Cox, C. C. 466. ((/) Allsopp v. Day, 7 H. & N. 457 ; Thomson v. Barrett, 1 L. T. N. S. 268 ; WHAT IS A BILL OF SALE. 195 As regards absolute assignments, the rule lias been laid down chapter xrv. that, under the Act of 1878, if a document is intended by the parties to it to be a part of the bargain to pass the property in the goods, then, even if the document be only a simple receipt for the purchase-money, it will be a bill of sale ; but not so if the bargain is complete without the document so that the pio- perty passes independently of it (//), or, in other words, the document, in order to fall within the mischief of the Acts, must amount to an assurance of personal chattels at law or in equity (/). The earlier decisions referred to were held not to be applicable where the transaction Vas really a security (/»•) ; and, if it appear that this is the true nature of the transaction, it is clear that, under the present Acts, an inventory or receipt given in connec- tion therewith is a document by virtue of which alone the property in the goods passes to the mortgagee, and is, conse- quently, a " bill of sale " within the definition, and being a bill of sale by way of security, it will be void as not being in accordance with the statutable form. If an inventory and receipt for the money are given by separate documents operating independently, the inventory will not be a bill of sale, there being no inventory with receipt attached within the meaning of sect. 4 of the Act of 1878 (/). But, of course, such independent receipt, if the mortgagee's title to the property depends thereon, will be a bill of sale, and void accordingly. Where goods were actually delivered as security for an advance, together with a receipt for the sum advanced signed by the borrower, it was held that the receipt, not being an assur- ance, was not a bill of sale(m). A receipt with an inventory given by a sheriff's officer was held not to be a bill of sale under this section, though the pur- Hale v. Metropolitan Saloon, $e. Co., 28 affirmed in D. P. 13 App. Cas. ,554. L. J. Ch. 777 ; Gough v. Everard, 2 H. (k) Exp. Odell, Re Walden, 10 Ch. D. & C. 1 ; Woodgate v. Godfrey, 4 Ex. D. 76, C. A. 59, 5 Ex. D. 24. {!) Per Lord Herschcll in Manchestt r, \h) Ramsay v. Margrctt, (1894) 2 Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Rail. Co. v. Q. B. 18, 23, C. A. North Central Waggon Co., 13 App. (i) Marsden v. Meadows, 7 Q. B. D. Cas. at p. 561. 80, C. A. See North Central Wagon (m) JS'ewlovey. Shrewsbury, 21 Q. B. Co. v. Manchester, Sheffield, and Lin- D. 41, C A. See, Shepherd v. Fulbrook, colnshire Rail. Co., 35 Ch. D. 191, 59 L. T. 288, C. A. o2 196 BILLS OF SALE ACTS. CHAPTEE STV. "Other assurances chaser allows the debtor to remain in possession («). But the question must be determined on the facts of each case (o) . The words, " other assurances of personal chattels," occur in the Act of 1854 as well as in the Act of 1878, and are doubtless intended to include all documents of a like nature with, but not strictly falling within the description of the several instruments mentioned before ; but the words seem also to emphasize the rule that all documents, whatever their form, which pass* the title to goods by way of assurance, are bills of sale within the meaning of the Acts (p) . If, however, the actual possession of chattels is delivered at the time of the advance, so that the legal possession passes immediately to the grantor, a contemporaneous agreement in writing, merely regulating the rights of parties in regard to the transaction, is not an assurance, nor in any other respect a bill of sale within the meaning of the Acts, and does not require registration (q) . Questions arose under the Act of 1854 as to whether agree- ments to execute future bills of sale came under the category of " other assurances " as being equitable assignments of goods ; but such agreements are now expressly included in the definition of a bill of sale by the concluding words of sect. 4 of the Act of 1878(r). An agreement providing for the payment of the purchase- money of a business, with interest at a future time, and de- claring that, until payment, the vendors should have a lien on the business and effects sold, was held to be an " assurance " within the meaning of the Bills of Sale Acts (s). So, also, a memorandum of sale of goods entered in an auctioneer's book by his clerk, and signed by the auctioneer on behalf of the purchaser, but otherwise not complying with the requirements of sect. 17 of the Statute of Frauds (/), was held to be an assur- ance of chattels, and consequently void as a bill of sale(«). Hiring agreements are not bills of sale within the meaning of the Acts of 1878 and 1882, so as to require registration as bills (n) Marsden v. Meadows, 7 Q. B. D. 80, C. A. ; see Haydon v. Brown, W. N. (1888) 149, 0. A. ; Jones v. Tower \hmg Co. 61 L. T. 84. (6) Me Hood, Exp. Blandford, 42 W. E. 23, C. A. (p) See ante, p. 190. [q) Charlesworth v. Mills, (1892) A. C. 231. See Exp. Hubbard, Jie Hardwicke, 17 Q. B. D. 690, C. A. ; Hilton v. Tucker, 39 Ch. D. 669; Grigg v. National Guardian Assurance Co., (1891) 3 Ch. 206. (>•) Ante, p. 190. (s) Coburn v. Collins, 35 Ch. D. 373. (t) 29 Car. II. c. 3. (it) Evans v. Roberts, 36 Ch. D. 196. WHAT IS A BILL OF SALE. of sale, provided that they are properly framed, so that no right of property at law or in equity passes to the hirer until payment of the last instalment, even though the effect of such an in- strument may, to some extent, give the owner of the goods a security for the regular payment of instalments by the hirer (x) ; but if it appear from the terms and substance of the instru- ment, taken as a whole, that it was the real intention and main purpose of the parties immediately to pass the property in the goods to the hirer, and to create a security on the goods for payment of the price by instalments covering interest, under the colourable pretence of a hiring agreement, then the instrument will be vitiated as a hiring agreement, and will come within the mischief of the Bills of Sale Acts (y) . It has been held in several cases that the Court might in such cases disregard the form and terms of the instrument, and look to the circumstances of the particular transaction as a whole as tending to show that the real intention of the parties was to give to the vendor a security or lien for the purchase-money (~). It would seem, however, that these decisions are not to be relied upon in any case where the instrument is precise in its terms and clearly defines the rights and obligations of the parties as on the footing of a hiring agreement. In a recent case, before the House of Lords, where it was argued that the circumstances of the transaction showed it to be not one of hiring, but of sale and mortgage by the purchaser, Lord Herschell, after conceding that the agreement must be regarded as a whole, and that its sub- stance must be looked at, laid down the rule that " there is no such thing as looking at the substance apart from looking at the language which the parties have used " (a). The question, therefore, is one of construction of the particular instrument in each case. It would seem, however, that if the terms of an instrument purporting to be a hiring agreement are equivocal, the Court is at liberty to look at the surrounding circumstances of the particular case, so as to arrive at a true construction of the instrument and to ascertain the real intention of the parties. So it is conceived that, notwithstanding the (.r) Exp. Crawcour, Re Robertson, 9 (z) Re Watson, Exp. Official Receiver, Ch. D. 419, C. A. ; Exp. Emerson, Re 25 Q. B. D. 27, C. A.; Madell v. Hawkins, 20 W. R. 110. See Re Davis Thomas, supra ; Beckett v. Tower Assets § Co., Exp. Rowlings, 22 Q. B. D. 193 ; Co., (1891) 1 Q. B. 638, C. A. McEntire v. Crossley Brothers, (1895) (a) Mc Entire v. Crossley Brothers, A. C. 457. (1895) A. C. 457, at p. 463. See {y) Madell v. Thomas, (1891) 1 Q. B. United Forty Found loan Club v. Bex;- 230, C. A. ton, (1891) 1 Q. B. 28, n. 197 CHATTER XIV. 198 BILLS OF SALE ACTS. CHAPTER XIV. Inventory ac- companying hiring agree- ment. Severability of subject- matter. Powers of attorney. Licences to seize. recent decision of the House of Lords above referred to, the Court may, in accordance with the general rule as to the ad- missibility of parol evidence to explain a written contract (b), take into account the fact that the vendor has parted with the possession of his goods in the usual course of his particular trade, under what is known as the hire and purchase system (c) ; but if a private person, or a trader not in the ordinary course of his business, purports to sell the goods to another person and retains possession thereof, under an agreement whereby the purchaser purports to hire them to the vendor, the transaction is obviously open to suspicion, and, unless the terms of the instrument clearly show a contrary intention, the presumption will arise that its intention and effect is to create a security for a loan under the pretence of a hiring agreement, so as to render the instrument void under the Bills of Sale Act, 1882 (d), but the presumption may be rebutted (e). An inventory and receipt given together with a hiring agree- ment for the purpose of securing the money payable under the agreement is apparently within the mischief of the Acts (/). Where the owner of a piano assigned by way of security for a loan the piano itself, and also the benefit of an agreement for hire and purchase of the same, it was held that the assignment was severable, and that though the deed was not in the statutory form nor registered it was valid as an assignment of the rights under the agreement (•) See ante, p. 50. (s) Jarvis v. Jarvis, W. N. (1893) 138. (t) Exp. Hauxwell, He Hemingway, 23 Ch. D. 626, C. A. («) Rogers v. Challis, 27 Beav. 175. See ante, p. 48. (v) Harris v. Rickett, 4 H. & N. 1. See Mercer v. Peterson, L. R. 3 Ex. 104 ; Exp. King, Re King, 2 Ch. D. 256, C. A. (x) Edwards v. Edwards, 2 Ch. D. 291. {y) Reeves v. Barlow, 12 Q. B. D. 436; Exp. Hubbard, Re Hardwick, 17 Q. B. D. 690, C. A. ; Morris v. De- hbbcl-FUpo, (1892) 2 Ch. 352. WHAT IS NOT A BILL OF SALE. 201 So, where an owner of goods which had been seized under a chapter xrv. fi.fa., agreed verbally with the auctioneer that, in consideration of his paying out the sheriff, the auctioneer should hold the goods and sell them, and pay the surplus of the proceeds to the owner; the sheriff was paid out and the man in possession remained in possession on behalf of the auctioneer in accordance with the terms of the agreement, which were then reduced to writing ; it was held that, inasmuch as the agreement was not intended to operate, and did not operate, till the possession had passed from the sheriff to the auctioneer, and as the agreement did not constitute the title of the latter, the document was not a bill of sale within the meaning of the Acts (s). By sect. 6 of the Act of 1878, it is enacted as follows : — "Every attornment, instrument or agreement not being a mining Certain lease, whereby a power of distress is given or agreed to be given instruments by any person to any other person by way of security for any j)re- giving sent, future or contingent debt or advance, and whereby any rent P?^ ers of is reserved or made payable as a mode of providing for the payment subfectto of interest on such debt or advance, or otherwise for the purpose of this Act. such security only, shall be deemed to be a bill of sale, within the meaning of the Act, of any personal chattels which may be seized or taken under such power of distress. Provided that nothing in that section shall extend to any mortgage of any estate or interest in any land, tenement or hereditament which the mortgagee, being in possession, shall have demised to the mortgagor as his tenant, at a fair and reasonable rent." The effect of this section in invalidating clauses of attornment Attornment by the mortgagor to the mortgagee, and powers of distress in dause ' mortgages of land, will be considered in a subsequent chapter [a). iii. — What Instruments are not " Bills of Sale" within the Exclusion of Acts.— By sect. 4 of the Act of 1878 (which in this respect is SSate" identical with sect. 7 of the Act of 1854), it is enacted that the from "ter- expression "bill of sale" shall not include the following docu- Socm"5naf ments : — sale -" "Assignments for the benefit of the creditors of the person making or giving the same, marriage settlements, transfers or assignments of any ship or vessel or any share thereof, transfers of goods in the ordinary course of business of any trade or calling, bills of sale of goods in foreign parts or at sea, bills of lading, India warrants, warehouse-keepers' certificates, warrants or orders for the delivery of goods, or any other documents used in the ordi- nary course of business, as proof of the possession or control of goods, or authorizing, or purporting to authorize, either by indorse- (2) Charlesworth v. Mills, (1892) (a) Post, Chap. XXXVI., p. 663 A. C. 231. 202 BILLS OF SALE ACTS. chapter xiv. ment or delivery, the possessor of such document to transfer or receive goods thereby represented." Assignments for creditors. Marriage settlements. Transfers or assignments of ships. Transfers in the ordinary course of Laziness. Assignments for the benefit of creditors must, in order to fall within the exception, be for the benefit of all the creditors, though it need not be executed by all (Ji) . An assignment for the benefit of all creditors who shall elect to execute the same is an assignment for the benefit of all (c). And a proviso that no creditor shall benefit who shall not assent to the deed within a fixed time will not prevent the deed from falling within the exception (d). By the Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1887 (V), deeds of arrange- ment, as defined by that Act, for the benefit of creditors gene- rally must be registered at the time and in manner thereby prescribed, or will be void. The exception in favour of " marriage settlements " extends to agreements for settlements made in contemplation of marriage, though informal and not under seal (/) ; but not post-nuptial settlements, unless made pursuant to such agreements (g). This exception extends to transfers, &c. of ships and vessels, of river barges, and all vessels beyond mere boats (h) ; of ships or vessels, though unfinished (i) ; of foreign ships (k) ; and of all articles and materials on board at the time of the mortgage, or brought on board subsequently in substitution therefor, which are necessary for the prosecution of the voyage (/). The Bills of Sale Acts do not apply to letters of hypothecation accompanying deposits of goods by merchants or factors, or to pawn-tickets, or to any case where the object and effect of the transaction are not to confer any right in equity, but only to regulate the legal right to possession of the grantee (m). But it seems that a pledge by a trader of stock in trade, which (b) General Furnishing, §c. Co. v. Venn, 2 H. & C. 153; Johnson v. Osenton, L. R. 4 Ex. 108. See Exp. Parsons, He Toicnsend, 16 Q. B. D. 532, C. A. (c) Taine v. Matthews, 53 L. T. 872. (d) Hadley % Son v. Becdom, (1895) 1 Q. B. 646. (e) 50 & 51 Vict. c. 57. (/) Wenman v. Lyon, (1891) 2 Q. B. 192, C. A. (g) Fowler v. Foster, 5 H. & C. 99 ; Ashton v. Blackshaw, L. R. 9 Eq. 518. See Exp. Cox, Re Reed, 1 Ch. D. 302. (h) Gapp v. Bond, 19 Q. B. D. 200, C. A. (i) Exp. Hodgkin (or Winter), Re Softley, L. R. 20 Eq. 746. (k) Union Bank v. Lenanton, 3 C. P. D. 243, C. A. (/) Coltman v. Chamberlain, 25 Q. B. D. 328. (m) Exp. Close, Re Hall, 14 Q. B. D. 386. See Reeves v. Barlow, 12 Q. B. D. 436, C. A. ; Exp. Parsons, Re Town- send, 16 Q. B. D. 532 ; Exp. Hubbard, Re Hardwiclc, 17 Q. B. D. 690, 695, 700, C. A. ; Re Cunningham $■ Co., At- tenborouqh' 's Case, 28 Ch. D. 682 ; Mor- ris v. Belobbcl-Flipo, (1892) 2 Ch. 352. PERSONAL CHATTELS. 203 lie lias bought and not paid for, is not a transfer in the ordinary cnArrEit xiv. course of business within the exception («). An undertaking by merchants to hold goods at the disposal of brokers who had supplied goods on credit, and when required to execute a formal transfer, was held to require registration as a bill of sale (o) . The exception of bills of sale of goods in foreign parts extends Bills of sale to bills of sale of goods in Ireland or Scotland (p). But a bill, aWL* registered in England, of goods, some of which were in Ireland, was held to protect the goods against an execution levied in Ire- land by a creditor who had obtained an English judgment (q). Where a borrower gave a promissory note for the loan, and Delivery at the same time signed and gave to the lender a memorandum order " agreeing to pay interest on the amount advanced, and also gave an order to a warehouseman to deliver to the lender certain warehoused furniture and effects of the borrower, it was held that the delivery order was not a bill of sale (>•). An action for damages will not lie by reason of the registra- Wrongful tion, without malice, of a document which was not, in fact, a re §' istration - bill of sale requiring registration (.s) . iv. — What Things are " Personal Chattels" within the Acts. — Sect. 4 of the Act of 1878 enacts as follows : — The expression " personal chattels" shall mean goods, furniture, Definition of and other articles capable of complete transfer by delivery, and tlie terra (when separately assigned or charged) fixtures and growing crops, '! p ^ s ? n ^ but shall not include chattel interests in real estate, nor fixtures chattels - (except trade machinery, as hereinafter defined), when assigned together with a freehold or leasehold interest in any land or build- ing to which they are affixed, nor growing crops when assigned together with any interest in the land on which they grow, nor shares or interests in the stock, funds, or securities of any govern- ment, or in the capital or property of incorporated or joint stock companies, nor choses in action, nor any stock or produce upon any farm or lands which by virtue of any covenant or agreement or of the custom of the country ought not to be removed from any farm where the same are at the time of making or giving of such bill of sale. («) Exp. Close, Ho Ball, 14 Q. B. D. 597. at p. 394. (g) Erooker v. Harrison, 6 L. R. Ir. (0) Exp. Conning, Re Steele, L. R. 332. 16 Eq. 414. See Tennantx. Uowatson, (r) Grigg v. National Guardian As- 13 App. Cas. 489. sitranee Co., (1891) 3 Ch. 206. {lj) Coote v. Jecks, L. R,. 13 Eq. (s) Horslcy v. Style, 69 L. T. 222. 204 BILLS OF SALE ACTS. CHAPTEE XIV. Extent of definition. Goods, &c. passing by delivery. Fixtures and growing crops. Fixtures. Growing crops. The expression " personal chattels " has the same meaning in the Act of 1882 as in the principal Act (t). " Goods, furniture, fixtures, and other articles capable of complete transfer by delivery " were included in the definition of personal chattels given by the Act of 1854, and it was held that this definition of personal chattels is only for the purposes of the Bills of Sale Acts, and not for all purposes («•). The law as to fixtures and growing crops is altered by sect. 4 of the Act of 1878 ; in other respects the language of sect. 17 of 1854 is unaltered, and the decisions under that Act appear to be still applicable. It has been seen that the expression " chattels personal " may have an extended meaning so as to include all personal property other than chattels real (cc) ; but for the purposes of the Bills of Sale Acts only such goods, &c, are deemed to be "personal chattels" as are capable of complete transfer by delivery. The legal meaning of the expression " delivery" has been considered elsewhere («/). The definition " personal chattels " for the purposes of the Acts also includes fixtures or growing crops when separately assigned or charged. Under the Act of 1854, it was held that the word " fixtures," no less than the immediately following words," and other articles," was controlled or qualified by the succeeding words, " capable of complete transfer by delivery " (z) ; and that " fixtures " meant things which, in contemplation of law, have a separate existence as fixtures, as distinct from their connection with and adhesion to the freehold (a) ; but the Act of 1878 apparently includes all fixtures, if separately assigned or charged, whether capable of delivery or not at the time of the execution of a bill of sale thereof so as to require registration of such bill of sale. Growing crops were not included in the definition of "personal chattels" given by the Act of 1854; and accordingly it was held that an assignment of growing crops did not require registration under that Act (b) ; but now though, if assigned together with the land, they are not within the Acts of 1878 or 1882, yet, as (t) See sect. 3 of the Act of 1882. (n) Meux v. Jacobs, L. It. 7 H. L. 481. (x) See ante, p. 172. (y) See post, p. 1461. (z) Waterfall v. Tenistone, 3 Jur. N. S. 17 ; 6 E. & B. 876. (a) Exp. Daglish, L. It. 8 Ch. A. 1080, 1081. (b) Brantom v. Griffits, 2 C. P. D. 212, C. A. See Newman v. Cardinal, 2 F. & F. 840 ; Exp. Payne, lie Cross, 11 Ch. D. 539, C. A. PERSONAL CHATTELS, 305 goon as severed from the land, they become personal chattels, chapter xrv. and an assignment thereof will be a bill of sale, and require registration, whether or not the same instrument also contains an assurance of an interest in the land (c) . If growing crops not severed are assigned separately from the land on which they are growing, they are personal chattels within the meaning of sect. 4 of the Act of 1878, and a bill of sale thereof must be registered accordingly (d), though, as will be seen presently (e), such a bill of sale need not comply with the formalities pre- scribed by the Act of 1882. The Act of 1878 also contains the following enactment : — Sect. 7. No fixtures or growing crops shall be deemed, under Fixtures or this Act, to be separately assigned or charged by reason only that growing they are assigned by separate words, or that power is given to crops not to sever them from the land or building to which they are affixed, separa teiy or from the land on which they grow, without otherwise taking assigned possession of or dealing with such land or building, or land, if by when the the same instrument any freehold or leasehold interest in the land land passes or building to which such fixtures are affixed, or in the land on j^rum^ 6 which such crops grow, is also conveyed or assigned to the same person or persons. The same rule of construction shall be applied to all deeds or instruments, including fixtures or growing crops, executed before the commencement of this Act, and then subsisting and in force, in all questions arising under any bankruptcy, liquidation, assign- ment for the benefit of creditors, or execution of any process of any Court, which shall take place or be issued after the commence- ment of this Act. The expression " personal chattels," for the purposes of the Trade Bills of Sale Acts, also includes trade machinery, as to which macnmei 7' the Act of 1878 contains the following provisions : — Sect. 5. From and after the commencement of the Act, trade Application machinery shall, for the purposes of the Act, be deemed to be 0I Ac * to personal chattels, and any mode of disposition of trade machinery trade _ by the owner thereof, which would be a bill of sale as to any other ^' personal chattels, shall be deemed to be a bill of sale within the meaning of the Act. For the purposes of the Act — " Trade machinery " means the machinery used in or attached to any factory or workshop ; 1st. Exclusive of the fixed motive powers, such as the water wheels and steam engines, and the steam boilers, donkey engines, and other fixed appur- tenances of the said motive powers ; and (c) Exp. National Mercantile Bank, (d) Clements v. Matthews, 11 Q. B. Re Phillips, 16 Ch. D. 104, C. A. D. 808, C. A. (e) See post, p. 1461. 206 BILLS OF SALE ACTS. CHAPTER XIV. 2nd. Exclusive of the fixed power machinery, such as the shafts, wheels, drums, and their fixed appurten- ances, which transmit the action of the motive powers to the other machinery, fixed and loose ; and 3rd. Exclusive of the pipes for steam, gas, and water, in the factory or workshop. The machinery or effects excluded by the section from the definition of trade machinery shall not be deemed to be personal chattels within the meaning of the Act. "Factory or workshop" means any premises on which any manual labour is exercised by way of trade, or -for purposes of gain, in or incidental to the following purposes or any of them ; that is to say, (a) In or incidental to the making any article or part of an article ; or (b) In or incidental to the altering, repairing, ornament- ing, finishing, of any article ; or (c) In or incidental to the adapting for sale any article. Extent of cL-fiuition. The definition of "trade machinery" given in this section is apparently only for the purposes of the Bills of Sale Acts, not for all purposes (/) . A mortgage of land, whether legal (g) or equitable (A) , will pass, without necessity for registration as a bill of sale, to the mortgagee, the fixtures on the land and, as such, all trade machinery which is affixed or annexed to the land. And the rule applies equally where the conveyance expressly mentions such machinery, either by reference to a schedule or otherwise (/). But sect. 7 of the Act of 1878 does not apply to trade ma- chinery ; and, accordingly, if the mortgagee desires that his power of sale shall enable him to seize and sell the fixed trade machinery apart from the land, he must take a bill of sale of the machinery (/.'). And the same rule will apply if, on the construction of the mortgage deed, it appears that the mortgagee has impliedly such a power (/). A written agreement for securing unpaid purchase-money, ( f) See Meux v. Jacobs, L. R. 7 ILL. 481. ( g) Be Yates , Batcheldor v. Yates, 38 Gh. D. 112, C. A. See Exp. Moore ami Robinson's Banking Co., Be Army- tage, 14 Ch. D. 379 ; Longbottom v. Barry, L. R. 5 Q. B. 123; Sheffield and South Yorks, <$-c, Building Society v. EafHsoil, 15 Q. B. D. 358. (h) Exp. Lusty, Be Lusty, 60 L. T. 160. (i) Be Brooke, Brooke v. Brooke (No. 2), (1894) 2 Ch. 600. See, further, as to fixtures generally, including trade machinery, ante, p. 120. (k) Be Yates, Batcheldor v. Yates, 38 Ch. D. 112, C. A. See Climpson v. Coles, 23 Q. B. D. 465 ; Jam* v. Jar- vis, W. N. (1893) 138. (I) Small v. National Provincial Bank of England, (1894) 1 Ch. 686. PERSONAL CHATTELS. 207 whereby it was provided that, in certain events, the vendors chapter xiv. should have power to enter on the land sold, and take possession thereof and of everything placed thereon, and " which should not require registration within the Bills of Sale Act, 1878," was held not to include trade machinery within the meaning of the Act, but to be valid in other respects without registration (m). A vendor's lien, being given by law, will extend to trade Vendor's lien, machinery affixed to land; there is nothing which can be registered (n). The exception from the definition of trade machinery applies ^j^f d to the excepted articles, though they are not actually affixed to from the the land with which they are assigned ; and the effect of the definition, exception is to exclude the excepted articles from the definition of "trade machinery" for all purposes, so that an assignment of such articles does not require registration under the Act of 1878, and, if by way of security for money, need not be in compliance with the requirements of the Act of 1882 (o). A deed, though void as a bill of sale as comprising trade machinery within the definition, may be valid as to articles comprised therein and excluded from the definition (p). The Factory and Workshop Act, 1878 (q), gives a definition, J^SpF for the purposes of that Act, of factory and workshop. See cases thereon (>•). V.— What Things are not Personal Chattels within the Acts.— JJjjFJJ and Fixtures and growing crops assigned together with the land are crops assigned excepted from the operation of the Bills of Sale Acts. It has been seen that a mortgage of freeholds or copyholds will pass without mention all fixtures properly so called, that is to say, all articles which are affixed or attached to the soil, except such articles as by custom or judicial decision have come to be regarded as tenant's fixtures, and removeable by a tenant or his assigns during or on the expiration of his tenancy, and further, that a mortgage of leaseholds will pass not only the lessee's interest in the land and in the landlord's fixtures as part (m) Be London § Lancashire Paper B. D. 310, C. A. Mills Co., W. N. (1S88) 36. (q) 41 & 42 Vict c. 16, B. 93 In) He Vulcan Ironworks Co., W. N. {r). Palmer's Shipbuilding Co. v. H888) 37 Chcujtor, L. R. 4 Q. B. 209 ; Kent v. (o) Topham v. Greenside Glazed Fire- Astley, L. R. 5 Q. B. 19 ; Beadon v. brick Co., 37 Ch. D. 281. Parrott, L. R. 6 Q. B. 718 ; Redgrave (p) Be Burdelt, Exp. Byrne, 20 Q. v. Lea, L. R. 9 Q. B. 363. 208 BILLS OF SALE ACTS. CHAPTER XIV. Stock and shares. Choses in action. Book debts. Share in partnership. Bights to chattels. thereof, but also, without speoial mention, all tenant's fixtures belonging to the mortgagor, and removeable by him as against his landlord (s) ; but by sect. 7 of the Act of 1878 (t) an assign- ment of fixtures (other than trade machinery) together with the land, will not require registration by reason only of its specifi- cally mentioning the fixtures assigned. Similarly, an assurance of land will pass the crops growing thereon, and also future crops as they arrive at maturity (u). So a mortgage by a tenant of all his tenant-right and interest yet to come has been held to pass the future crops (x). Sect. 4 of the Act of 1878 also excepts from the definition of personal chattels, for the purposes of the Bills of Sale Acts, shares and interests in Grovernment stocks, &c, and in the oapital or property of companies which do not seem to require any detailed consideration ; also choses in action (y) . The exception of choses in action covers book debts accruing in the ordinary course of trade, a mortgage or charge of which, therefore, need not be according to the statutable form, and will not require registration under the Act (z) . If it is intended that stock in trade and book debts should be assigned as a security for the same loan, it will generally be advisable that the two different kinds of property should be assigned by separate instruments (a) . A share in a partnership is a chose in action within the ex- ception of sect. 4 ; so that a mortgage of such a share, though expressly including plant, stock in trade, and effects, is not within the Bills of Sale Acts, and does not require registra- tion (b) ; such a mortgage only entitles the mortgagee to an account of the profits and property of the partnership, and does not entitle him to seize any specific effects as representing the share of the mortgagor (c) . An assignment of rights under an agreement for hire and purchase of furniture is not within the Acts(r/). Nor is an assignment of a reversionary interest in chattels bequeathed by wih». (s) See ante, p. 121. (I) See ante, p. 205. (m) Bagnall v. Villar, 12 Ch. D. 812 ; Re Gordon, 61 L. T. 299. (z) Fetch v. Tutin, 15 M. & W. 110. (y) See ante, p. 201. (z) See further as to mortgages of debts, post, p. 302. (a) Sec post, p. 230. (b) Exp. Fletcher, Ec Bainbridgc, 8 Ch. D. 218. (c) See post, p. 507. (d) Re F)avis, Exp. Rawlbigs, 22 Q. B. D. 193, C. A. (e) Re Singleton, Exp. Tritton, 61 L. T. 301. PERSONAL CHATTELS. 209 vi— Exception of Debentures.— By sect. 17 of the Act of 1882, chapter xiv. it is enacted that — "Nothing in this Act shall apply to any debentures issued by Debentures any mortgage, loan, or other incorporated company, and secured to Q ™^ ^ upon the capital, stock, or goods, chattels and effects of such n0 ° pp J ' company." The effect of the exclusion of debentures from the operation Effect of this ,. „ enactment. of the Act of 1882 is to exempt them also from the operation ot the Act of 1878, and accordingly from any necessity that they should be registered as bills of sale (/) . A debenture, within the meaning of this section, may consist 7?|£f u ^» of a single document charging property with payments of sums advanced by several lenders (#), but the document must create or acknowledge a specific debt(/>). Where debentures were not charged upon any property of the Whether company, but were secured by an assignment of property which trust dfed was not duly registered as a bill of sale, it was held that the must be j a . /.\ -r» i • i j registered. debenture was not within the exception (t). but in a later case it was intimated that a covering trust deed is not within the Acts, and it was held that, even if the covering deed be void for want of registration, the debentures may be so framed as of themselves to create, by virtue of sect. 17, a valid equitable charge in favour of the debenture holders without registration (/.) . The words, " or other incorporated company," are not limited What com- .,, , t • panies are to companies ejusdem generis with mortgage or loan companies, £ ithin but include any company for the registration of the mortgages sect. 17. of which provision is made by the Companies Clauses Act, 1845, or the Companies Act, 1862 (/). But companies, in the case of which no statutory provision has been made for the registration of their mortgages, are not exempted by sect. 17 from the necessity that their debentures or mortgages should be registered, and should in other respects comply with the requirements of the Bills of Sale Acts (»»). By sect. 1 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1890(h), letters of hypo- gj^J" 1 of (/) Read v. Joannon, 25 Q. B. D. Co., W. N. (1884) 70 ; Jenkinson v. 300 See Re Asphaltic Wood Pavement Brandley Mining Co., 19 Q. B. D. 568. Co ' W N (1883 152; John Welsted (A) Ross v. Army and Navy Hotel & Co. v." Swansea Bank, 5 T. L. It. 332. Co., 34 Ch. D. 43, O. A (a) Edmonds v. Blaina Furnaces Co., {I) Re Standard Manufacturing Co., 36 Ch D 215. See Levy v. Abber- Exp. Lowe, (1891) 1 Ch. 627, C. A.; see corris Slate, ^. Co., 37 Ch. D. 260. Me Opera, Ld., (1891) 3 Ch. 260. (h) Topham v. Greenside Glazed Fire- {m) Great Northern Rail. Co. v. Coal brick Co., 37 Ch. D. 281. Co-operative Society, (1896) 1 Ch. 187. (i) Brocklehurst v. Railway Printing («) 53 & 54 Vict. c. 53. VOL. I. — R. P 210 BILLS OF SALE ACTS. oHAPTEBxiv. thecation of imported goods were exempted from the provisions hypothecation of sect. 9 of the Act of 1882, which requires bills of sale to be in o-oodTfrom accordance with the statutable form in the schedule to that Act, 45 & 46 Vlct - but in other respects the documents so exempted were left within the operation of the Bills of Sale Acts. Exemption of But by the Bills of Sale Act, 1891 (o), it is enacted that sect. 1 imported ' 0I " ^ ne Act 0I " 1890 shall be read as follows : — 41 & 42 Vict. "An instrument charging or creating any security on, or de- c. 31, and daring trusts of imported goods given or executed at any time 45 & 46 Vict, prior to their deposit in a warehouse, factory, or store, or to their c- 43- being reshipped for export, or delivered to a purchaser, not being the person giving or executing such instrument, shall be deemed a bill of sale within the meaning of the Bills of Sale Acts, 1878 and 1882." vii. — After -acquired Chattels. — By the Act of 1882, it is enacted as follows : — Bill of sale to Sect. 4. " Every bill of sale shall have annexed thereto or written have schedule thereon a schedule of the personal chattels comprised in the bill of of property, sale, and such bill of sale, save as hereinafter mentioned (p), shall have effect only in respect of the chattels specifically described in the said schedule ; and shall be void, except as against the grantor, in respect of any personal chattels not so specifically described." Bill of sale Sect. 5. "Save as hereinafter mentioned, a bill of sale shall be not to affect void, except as against the grantor, in respect of any personal TOpert^ chattels specifically described in the schedule thereto, of which the grantor was not the true owner, at the time of the execution of the bill of sale." Exceptions. But sect. 6 thereof excepts out of these sections growing- crops separately assigned or charged, and fixtures, plant or trade machinery substituted for fixtures, plant, or trade machinery specifically described in the schedule (q). General effect The effect of these sections (except as regards the articles enactments excluded by sect. 6) is to render nugatory, except as against the grantor, any attempt to assign or charge, by a bill of sale given by way of security for payment of money, any after-acquired chattels of the grantor, whether specifically described or not. And, by the operation of sect. 9 of the same Act, such a bill of sale, purporting to assign after- acquired chattels by a general description, is absolutely void, even as against the grantor (ft) 54 & 55 Vict. c. 35. the exception of the things mentioned (p) The words, " save as hereinafter in sect. 6. mentioned," apparently refer to the (q) See this section set out post, exception as regards the grantor in the p. '216. last clause of this section, as well as to AFTER-ACQUIRED CHATTELS. 211 himself, as not being in accordance with the statutable form (>•). chapter xrv. The result is that the law relating to assignments by way of mortgage of after-acquired chattels (with certain exceptions), is virtually abrogated so far as regards instruments made on or after the 1st of November, 1882. Inasmuch, however, as the inclusion in a bill of sale of after- Inclusion of acquired property is nowhere expressly forbidden by the Act property in of 1878 or the Act of 1882, questions may, possibly, still arise bills of sale under bills of sale made previously to that date, and kept alive November, by re-registration, or may arise as between grantor and grantee 1882- under the Act of 1882, and, accordingly, the former law as to assignments of after-acquired chattels will be here very briefly noticed. As a general rule, an assignment would not at common law After- have passed chattels not in existence, or not in the ownership of chattels not the grantor, at the time of the assignment, unless the grantor generally did some act after he acquired the property in furtherance common law. of the original disposition and amounting to a ratification thereof (s), or, unless the mortgage was so framed as to give to the mortgagee licence or a power of seizing future chattels of the grantor as they should be acquired by him and brought upon the premises, and such licence is acted upon (t). But in equity, where the assignment included future chattels, Seem, in or if there was a covenant that all future chattels should be included in the security, the interest in such future chattels passed, and attached without possession as soon as the chattels were brought on the premises (u). Where a bill of sale included future chattels brought on the premises, and the mortgagor became bankrupt and was dis- charged, it was held that the security did not include chattels brought on the premises after the discharge, for that the assign- ment of those chattels amounted only to a contract to assign from which he was released by the discharge (x). A power to seize after-acquired goods might be inserted in a Power to seize utter" (r) Thomas v. Kelly, 13 App. Cas. Hope v. HayUy, 5 E. & B. 830; Carr 500 ; Hadden, Best $• Co. v. Oppenheim, v. Acraman, 11 Exch. 566 ; Lomax v. 60 L. T. 962. Buxton, L. R. 6 C. P. 107 ; Belding v. (*) Bac. Max., r. 14; Perk. Profit, Seed, 3 H. & C. 955. See Reeves v. Bk. tit. " Grant," pi. 65. Barlow, 12 Q. B. D. 436, C. A. (t) Per Tindal, J., in Lunn v. Thorn- {x) Collyer v. Isaacs, 19 Ch. D. 342, ton, 1 C. B. 379. See Carr v. Allott, C. A. See Thompson v. Cohen, L. R. 27 L. J. Ex. 385. 7 Q. B. 527 ; Cole v. Eemot, L. R. 7 (u) Holroyd v. Marshall, 10 H. L. C. Q. B. 534, n. 191 ; Congreve v. Evetts, 10 Exch. 298 ; p2 212 BILLS OF SALE ACTS. CHAPTER XIV. acquired ohattels. Effect of Judicature Act. Intention to include after- acquired chattels must be clear. After- acquired mortgage deed, and would operate by way of licence, which, being for valuable consideration, would be irrevocable (y) . Such a power followed by actual seizure, vested the property, at law, in the grantee (z) ; and a power to seize would, without actual seizure, create a good equitable charge upon after- acquired chattels, which would have priority over execution creditors (a). If the licence were not so framed as to operate in equity as a present assignment, and if the grantor were to become bankrupt before seizure, the title of his trustee in bankruptcy would prevail (b) ; but a power to seize future chattels would not of itself make a bill of sale fraudulent and an act of bankruptcy (c) . The effect of the Judicature Act, 1873 (d), is not to abolish the distinction between legal and equitable interests, but merely to enable all branches of the High Court to administer both legal and equitable principles ; and, accordingly, notwithstanding this Act, an assignment of after-acquired chattels still passes only an equitable interest to the assignee, and if, after the chattels have come into existence and before the mortgagee has taken possession of them, another person, without notice of the mortgage, acquires the legal title to the chattels, his title will prevail, both at law and in equity, against that of the mort- gagee (e). The intention to include after-acquired property must be clear, and will not be inferred from doubtful expressions (/) . And, accordingly, a bill of sale of the furniture and effects in a certain house, or of bricks, &c, upon certain building land, will not pass after-acquired chattels, though there is a power to enter and seize all goods which may be upon the premises (g). After some conflict of opinion, it is now settled that an (y) Limn v. Thornton, 1 C. B. 385. But see Carr v. Acraman, 11 Exch. 566. (z) Congreve v. Evetts, 10 Exch. 298 ; Hope v. Bayley, 5 E. & B. 830. See Cole v. Eernot, L. R. 7 Q. B. 534, n. ; Morris v. Delobbcl-Fhpo, (1892) 2 Ch. 352. (a) Langton v. Horton, 1 Ha. 549 ; Ifolroyd v. Marshall, 10 H. L. C. 191. (b) Carr v. Acraman, 11 Exch. 566. See, also, Reeve v. Whitmore, 4 De G. J. & S. 1 ; Carr v. Allatt, 27 L. J. Ex. 385 ; Brown v. Bateman, L. R. 2 C. P. 272. (c) Eutton t. Cruttwell, 1 E. & B. 15. (d) 36 & 37 Vict. c. 66, s. 25, sub-s. 11. (e) Joseph v. Lyons, 15 Q. B. D. 280, C. A. ; Hallas v. Robinson, 15 Q. B. D. 288, C. A. ( /') Tapfield v. Hillman, 6 Man. & Gr. 245. (g) Ibid.; Reeves v. Whitmore, 4 De G. J. & S. 1 ; Exp. Stephenson, De G. 586. See also Sladden v. Sergeant, 1 E. & E. 322 ; Limn v. Thornton, 1 C. B. 379 ; Gale v. Burnett, 7 Q. B. 850 ; Rogers v. Kennay, 11 Jur. 14 ; Piatt v. Bromage, 24 L. J. Exch. 63 ; Collyer v. Isaacs, 19 Ch. D. 342. THE SCHEDULE OR INVENTORY. 213 assignment in a bill of sale not falling within the Act of 1882, chapter xiv. expressly including after-acquired chattels, will be valid and chattels must dp n,soprtj3.iii — effectual if the chattels can be ascertained at the time when the a bi e . security is enforced, though they may not be capable of ascer- tainment at the time when the security is given (//). An assignment may, however, be so vague and uncertain that the Court will be unable to give it any effect (i). The bill of sale of future chattels is generally made with reference to some specific place, and where it extended to chattels in a house, or elsewhere, it was held not to be effectual (/») . viii. — The Schedule or Inventory. — As regards bills of sale by The schedule . ., „ , . p, ,i or inventory. way of security for money, made or given on or alter tne 1st November, 1882, sect. 4 of the Act of that year requires every such bill of sale to have a schedule of the personal chattels comprised therein. This enactment deals with the material precision of the description as distinguished from the form thereof, which is dealt with by sect. 9 of the same Act. Thus, a bill of sale which in the schedule thereto annexed specifically describes the chattels personal assigned with sufficient precision to satisfy the require- ments of sect. 4, but also includes in such schedule realty or chattels real, will be absolutely void as departing from the statutable form prescribed by sect. 9 (/). On the other hand, if a bill of sale in the form given by the Act is followed by an inventory which describes chattels, but as to some of them con- tains no specific description, such bill of sale, being in accord- ance with the form, could not be avoided by sect. 9, but being imperfect under sect. 4, it would be avoided as to the chattels imperfectly described against everyone but the grantor (>u). Formerly a schedule or inventory annexed or referred to in a Whether deed was not deemed to be part of the deed, and would not have en i aro . e been altered to enlarge the operation of the deed by making it operation of include things not covered by the general description of the par- cels. So where a mortgage of chattels referred to an inventory for more particular enumeration, stock-in-trade included in the (A) Tailby v. Official Receiver, 13App. J. Q. B. 581; Clements v. Matthews, Cas. 523. "See Lazarus v. Andrade, 5 11 Q. B. D. 808, 812 ; Reeves v. Barlow, C. P. D. 318. 12 Q. B. D. 437. (i) Re LfEpxncuil, Tadman v. D'Hpi- {I) Cochrane v. Entwistle, 25 Q. B. D. nenil, 20 Ch. D. 758. 116, C. A. {k) Belding v. Read, 34 L. J. Exch. (m) Per Fry, L. J., in Kelly $ Co. v. 212. See Lazarus v. Andrade, 5 C. P. Kellond, 20 Q. B. D. 569, C. A. at D. 320, and Leatham v. Amor, 47 L. p. 574. 214 BILLS OF SALE ACTS. CIIAri EE XIV. inventory, but not mentioned in the deed, was held not to pass by it (;<■). It would seem, however, that the effect of the re- quirement of sect. 4, that every bill of sale shall have annexed thereto, or written thereon, a schedule or inventory, is to make such schedule or inventory a necessary part of the deed, and that every article specifically mentioned in such schedule or in- ventory will be included in the security (o). Schedule may Qn the other hand, even under the former Bills of Sale Acts, tion of deed, it was repeatedly held that if a bill of sale contained in its operative part a general description of the parcels, referring to a schedule for more particular description, only such articles as were specifically described in the schedule would pass by the deed (p). This rule is expressly enacted, except as against the grantor, by sect. 4 of the Act of 1882. Goods Groods bought before, but not received by the grantor till execution. after the execution of a bill of sale, pass if sufficiently described in the schedule (q). What The description of the mortgaged chattels in the schedule to schedulers m ^ ne kill of sale must be sufficiently precise to render the chattels sufficient. capable of identification. The chattels must be as specifically described as is usual in such inventories as are usually made for business purposes with regard to the particular subject- matter (r). So the following description in the schedule to a bill of sale given by a picture dealer — " at 47, M Street, 450 oil paintings in gilt frames, 300 oil paintings unframed, 50 water-colours in gilt frames, 20 water-colours unframed, and 20 gilt frames " — was held to be an insufficient description within the requirements of sect. 4, it not being shown that the things described were all the things in the grantor's shop (s). Still less is a mere general description sufficient, such as " all household furniture and effects," or the like, at a certain place (/). But if it appears that articles described by way of enumeration in the schedule are the only articles upon the pre- mises answering the description, it would seem that the descrip- tion will be sufficient («). So the following description in a (n) Exp. Jardine, Re McManus, L. R. Sladden v. Sergeant, 1 F. & F. 322. 10 Ch. A. 322. (r) Per Lord Esher, M. R., in Witt (o) See Melville v. Stringer, 12 Q. B. v. Banner, 20 Q. B. D. 114, C. A. at D. 132. p. 118. (p) Wood v. Rowcliffe, 6 Exch. 407; («) Witt v. Banner, sup. See, also, Mee v. Barren, 15 L. T. N. S. 320 ; Carpenter v. Been, 23 Q. B. D. 566. Harrison v. Blackburn, 17 C. B. N. S. (if) Roberts v. Roberts, 13 Q. B. D. 678 ; Bowling v. Stuard, W. N. (1885) 794. 98. (m) Hickley v. Greenwood, 25 Q. B. (?) Sutton v. Bath, 1 F. & F. 152 ; D. 277. owner. 215 MEANING OF TRUE OWNER. schedule was held to he sufficient-" the whole o£ the chattels ^^ and things at present at W- - Vicarage, and consis tog, »*r alia of . . ■ study 1,800 volumes of books as per catalogue "-the articles not being individually described and the catalogue not being annexed to the schedule (*). A mere clerical error in description, not calculated to deceive ^ will not avoid a bill of sale on the ground of misdescnption of d«o,, pt .on. ""tf [he Act of 1882 avoids, except as against the grantor, «.^ a bill of sale of chattels of which the grantor was not the true ^^ owner " at the time of executing the bill of sale (»). _ chattels. The " true owner '* of personal chattels within the meaning ot Mcaning ot S el -XZ the person who is the legal owner thereof at the - time of the execution of the bill of sale, whether he is also the beneficial owner or only trustee for another («). A registered bill of sale by the equitable owner of goods winch were in the possession of his trustee for sale, was held to be '°So ( also, where a bill of sale was given to secure an advance, and subsequently the grantor became bankrupt and the grantee, m ignorance of the bankruptcy, took a second bill of ale in sub- stitution for the first, it was held that, inasmuch as the grantor at that time had no interest or power over the goods, the second bill was utterly nugatory, and left the first bill nn- affected (c)» .. £ i-n d Goods bought before, but received after, execution of a bill of sale, would be iu the true ownership of the grantor, and have been held to pass if mentioned in the schedule (rf). Although sect. 5 seems to have been primarily aimed at assign- ments by debtors of future plant and stock in trade, the enact- ment clearly applies also to other matters. Thus, where chattels were assigned by way of absolute gift by a deed which, though unregistered, was not absolutely void, and the grantor subsequently executed another bill of sa e , to secure an advance which was registered ; it was held that, at the time of the execution of the subsequent bill, the grantor was not M Davidson v. Carlton Bank, (1893) (*) Chapman v. Knight, 5 C. P. D. 1 Q. B. 82, 0. A. \ Re B Exp , Eashic k, (1891) (y) Simmons v. Hughes, 34 b. J. boy. V) ^ J (z) Ante, p. 210. «*i ^ ' Bat] j. F . & F. 152 ; (.) Re Sari, Exp. U Uluuns, (1892) 2 ^ ^ ^^ lV . &¥. 322. Q. B. 591. 216 BILLS OF SALE ACTS. CHAPTER XTV. the true owner of the goods, and, consequently, the bill was void except as against the grantor (c). But a person who has given a bill of sale by way of security for an advance still has the equity of redemption of the goods, and remains the " true owner " thereof, so as to enable him to give a subsequent bill for the same goods (/). On avoidance of a bill of sale for want of renewal, the grantor will thereupon become the true owner of the goods, so as to be able to give a fresh bill of sale thereon (g). Joint owners. A joint owner of goods is a "true owner thereof "to the extent of his interest (7/). So, also, a partner in respect of the property of a firm (/). A bill of sale was held to be valid which was given by a wife, without the concurrence of her husband, of goods which were in the house in which they both resided together, and which by ante-nuptial agreement belonged to the wife for her separate use (k). By sect. 6 of the Act of 1882, it is enacted as follows : — Husband and wife. Exception as to growing crops and substituted fixtures. Nothing contained in the foregoing sections of this Act shall render a bill of sale void in respect of any of the following things ; (that is to say) — (1.) Any growing crops separately assigned or charged, where such crops were actually growing at the time when the bill of sale was executed. (2.) Any fixtures separately assigned or charged, and any plant, or trade machinery where such fixtures, plant, or trade machinery are used in, attached to, or brought upon any land, farm, factory, workshop, shop, house, warehouse, or other place in substitution for any of the like fixtures, plant or trade machinery specifically described in the schedule to such bill of sale. Effect of this enactment. The effect of this enactment is that bills of sale of growing crops though assigned separately from the land, and of substi- tuted fixtures and trade machinery, are excepted out of the operation of the Act of 1882, so that such bills need not be in strict conformity with the statutable form prescribed by sect. 19 of that Act, and will, if duly registered, be valid as against not (e) Tuck v. Southern Counties Deposit Bank, 42 Ch. D. 471, C. A. (/) Thomas v. Searles, (1891) 2 Q. B. 408, C. A. See Usher v. Martin, 24 Q. B. D. 272. {g) Teuton v. Bbjthe, 25 Q. B. D. 417. (h) Exp. Pratt, Re Field, 63 L. T. 289. (i) Exp. Barnett, Be Tamplin, W. N. (1890) 48. (k) Wahondy. Goldman, 16 Q. B. D. 121. GROWING CROPS, ETC. 2 ^ only the grantor but all other persons, though such property is CHAFTEBXIV - not specifically described in a schedule as required by sect. 4, and though the grantor is not the true owner thereof at the time of the execution of the bill of sale as required by sect, 5. It would seem, however, that in order that crops may pass, Growing • n • crops. there must be already the foundation oi an interest in trie grantor (/). Thus, before the Bills of Sale Acts, it was held that the future fruits of an estate might be granted by a person having an interest in the land(m); and that the next year's wool of sheep belonging to the grantor was capable of being assigned (w). If, however, there was a foundation of interest, it was not necessary that a grantor should actually be in possession of the property from which the produce assigned was to issue. So a security was held to extend to growing crops on a farm not then occupied by the grantor (o), and to goods in a house after- wards built (p). After a bill of sale of growing crops by a tenant, the landlord Right to and tenant agreed to a surrender of the tenancy ; the legal title f^after in the growing crops vested in the landlord, which the grantee gender by under the bill of sale had no equity to displace, and the value of the crops being less than the cost of reaping and the rent due at the time of the surrender, under no view could the bill of sale holder claim anything (q). Before the present Bills of Sale Acts it was held that ma- Machinery, chinery, substituted for machinery specifically assigned by way of mortgage, might be effectually included in the security (r). Horses of a cab proprietor are not " plant " within the Plant. meaning of sect, 6 (2) of the Act of 1882 (s). ix, — Apparent Possession. — Section 4 of the Act of 1878 further enacts as follows : — " Personal chattels shall be deemed to be in the 'apparent posses- What is sion ' of the person making or giving the bill of sale, so long as apparent they remain in or upon any house, mill, warehouse, building, works, possession, yard, land, or other premises occupied by him, or as they shall _ be used and enjoyed by him in any place whatsoever, notwithstanding that formal possession thereof may have been taken by or given to any other person." (I) Bac. Max. Rule 14. D. 808, C. A. (m) Grantham y. LLawley, Hob. 132. (r) Holroyd v. Marshall, 10 H. L. In) Perkins, PI. 90. 191 ! Lcatham v. Amor, 47 L. J. Q. B. (o) CarrY.Alla'tt,'2lL. J. Exch. 385. 581 ; Lazarus v. Andrade, 5 O.P.D. 320. lv) Chidell v. Galsworthy, 6 C. B. (a) London and Eastern Counties Loan, N _ w s _ 47L §c. Co. v. Creasey, (1897) 1 Q. B. 768, \q) Clements v. Matthews, 11 Q. B. C. A. 218 BILLS OF SALE ACTS. CHAPTER XIV. This question not material as to bills of sale by way of security. Avoidance of unregistered bills of sale. Possession by grantee within seven Joint posses- sion of hus- band and wife. This section is identical with sect. 7 of the Act of 1854, and the decisions as to apparent possession under the earlier Act appear to be still applicable. Inasmuch, however, as, by virtue of sect. 5 of the Act of 1882 (.$), the validity of bills of sale given after the 1st November, 1882, by way of security, depends not upon apparent possession, but upon true ownership at the time of giving the bill, it is obvious that, except as regards bills so given before that date and subsequently renewed, and as regards absolute bills of sale (the consideration of which is not material to the present purpose) , the doctrine of apparent posses- sion is of no practical importance. The decisions on aj)parent possession will, therefore, be here very briefly noticed. Before the Act of 1882 came into operation, all bills of sale, whether given absolutely or by way of security, were required by sect. 8 of the Act of 1878 (t) to be registered within the time and in the manner prescribed ; or, otherwise, such bills of sale were to be deemed to be fraudulent and void as against trustees and execution creditors of the persons whose goods were com- prised in such bills of sale so far as regards chattels which, at the time of such person's bankruptcy or liquidation or process executed, and after seven days after the making of the bill of sale, were in the possession or the apparent possession of the person making the bill of sale. If, after any bill of sale, possession is taken by the grantee within the time prescribed by the Act, and retained, the case does not fall within the Act, and no registration is necessary, as there is not " apparent possession " within that time (u). The occupation of the grantor must be an actual de facto occupation ; his being a tenant of the premises, but residing elsewhere, is not sufficient (x) ; and wrongful possession takes the case out of the statute (y). The possession of the bailee of the grantor is the possession of the grantor (z). Where furniture was assigned by a husband for valid con- sideration to a trustee for his wife's separate use, and the furni- ture remained in the joint possession of the husband and wife, (s) See ante, p. 210. (t) This section is repealed by sect. 15 of the Act of 1882, but so as not to affect the validity of anything pre- viously done. (u) Harpies v. Hartley, 3 E. & E. 610 ; Hall v. Lay, 5 L. T. N. S. 398 ; Hollingsworth v. White, 6 L. T. N. S. 604, Q. B. ; Exp. Harris, sup. ; Ban- bury v. White, 2 H. & C. 300 ; Minister v. Price, 1 E. & F. 686. (x) Robinson v. Briggs, L. R. 6 Exc. 1. See Exp. Morrison, Re Wes- tray, 42 L. T. 158. (y) Exp. Fletcher, 5 Ch. D. 809, C.A. (s) Ancona v. Rogers, 1 Ex. D. 285. APPARENT POSSESSION. 219 the assignment was held to fall within the Act, the joint posses- chapter sty. sion not being sufficient to prevent its operation (a). Where joint owners of chattels mortgage them by an un- Joint owners, registered bill of sale, and one becomes bankrupt, his moiety of the chattels at the date of the bill of sale alone passes to the trustee (b), though he had subsequently purchased the other moiety (b). Where a purchaser of growing crops had taken charge and Growing employed labourers of his own to tend and cultivate them, the crops- land remaining in the possession of the vendor, it was held that enough had been done to take the goods out of the apparent possession of the vendor (c) . Where the grantor was manager of the business and used the Grantor furniture comprised in the bill of sale as part of his salary, the mana g' er - goods were held to be in his apparent possession {(I). If a pur- chaser lets the chattels to the vendor without change of possession, the case falls within the Acts. When the debtor and his family were allowed the use of the Man in goods, they were held to be in his apparent possession (e), although P° sse8S10n - a man was formally in possession for the grantee (/). It was otherwise where the goods were under the control of the man in possession, who was there to see that the use was in accordance with the rights of the bill of sale holders (g) . To satisfy the Bills of Sale Acts, the possession must be apparent as well as real (g) ; but under the order and disposition clause in bankruptcy, a real possession, even though it be friendly, is sufficient (h) ; and where some part of the grantor's family only was left in possession, the delivery was held complete (/). By packing up to send away, the grantee takes possession other acts of within the Act (k). An advertisement for sale by the grantee ^^f • » ' . possession. in possession, though in the house of the grantor, was sufficient possession in the former (/) ; but a placard for sale, not specifying for whom, amounted to nothing (i). {a) Ashton v. Blackshaiv, L. R. 9 (*) Exp. Jay, L. R. 9 Ch. A. 697. Eq. 510. See Minister v. Price, 1 F. (/) Exp. l£ooman,L. R. 10 Eq. 63; & F. 686 ; Reynolds v. Bowley, L. R. Exp. Lewis, L. R. 6 Ch. A. 626 ; 2 Q. B. 474. ' Exp. Mutton, L. R. 14 Eq. 178 ; Seal lb) Exp. Brown, Re Reed, 9 Ch. D. v. Claridge, 7 Q. B. D. 516, C. A. ; 389, C. A. Exp. Mortloch, W. N. (1881) 161. (c) Gough v. Everard, 2 H. & C. 1 ; (g) Re Francis, 10 Ch. D. 408, 414, doubting Sheridan v. McCartney, 11 C. A. Ir. Com. L. R. 506. (h) Re Francis, 10 Ch. D. 408, C. A. (d) Pickard v. Marriage, 1 Ex. D. \i) Davics v. Jones, 10 W. R. 779. 364 ; Preston v. Lamont, 1 Ex D. 361 ; (k) Exp. Jay, L. R. 9 Ch. A. 697. Lincoln Wagon Co. v. Mumford, 41 L. T. (I) Emanuel v. Bridget- , L. R. 9 Q. B. 655. 286. 220 BILLS OF SALE ACTS. CHAPTER XTV. Demand insufficient. Possession of sheriff. Actual possession must be taken by the grantee ; a demand, accompanied by a threat to take the goods by force, will not be sufficient (m), the effect of such demand is different under the reputed ownership clause in bankruptcy, for after demand the goods cannot be said to be in the possession of the debtor with the consent of the true owner (the creditor) (n). Where a bill of sale holder put a man in possession of the grantor's premises and advertised his goods for sale, but allowed the grantor to remain in the house, it was held that this amounted to taking actual possession of the goods (o). Possession of the sheriff under an execution by the grantee or a third person at the time of filing the petition for bankruptcy, takes the case out of the statute (p) , although the name of the grantor, with that of another person, is on the door of the work- shop (p). So, also, it would seem, possession by a receiver (q). Where the holder of an unregistered bill of sale seized the goods comprised therein, and afterwards sold them bond fide to the son of the grantor, in whose home the grantor lived, it was held that the bill of sale, being satisfied and gone, the Bill of Sale Act did not apply, and that the goods were not in the apparent possession of the grantor so as to render them liable to seizure by an execution creditor if). X. — Power of Seizure. enacted as follows : — -By sect. 7 of the Act of 1882, it is Bill of sale " Personal chattels assigned under a bill of sale shall not be liable ■with power to ^ ^g se i ze( J or taken possession of by the grantee for any other K£K* ^ the following causes :- events to be 00 If the grantor shall make default in payment of the sum or void. sums of money thereby secured at the time therein pro- vided for payment, or in the performance of any covenant or agreement contained in the bill of sale, and necessary for maintaining the security ; (2.) If the grantor shall become a bankrupt, or suffer the said goods, or any of them, to be distrained for rent, rates, or taxes ; (3.) If the grantor shall fraudulently either remove or suffer the said goods, or any of them, to be removed from the premises ; (4.) If the grantor shall not, without reasonable excuse, upon [m) Ancona v. Rogers, 1 Ex. D. 285. See Exp. Conning, L. R. 16 Eq. 414. (n) Brewin v. Short, 1 Jur. N. S. 798 ; Exp. North- Western Bank, L. R. 15 Eq. 69 ; Exp. Harris, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 48 ; Exp. Ward, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 1 14. (o) Smith v. Wall, 18 L. T. N. S. 182. (p) Exp. Safety, 16 Ch. D. 668, C. A. (q) Taylor v. Eckersleij, 5 Ch. D. 740. (>•) Swire v. Cookson, 49 L. T. 736, C. A. POWER OF SEIZURE. 221 demand in writing by the grantee, produce to him his last chapter xiy. receipts for rent, rates, and taxes ; (5.) If execution shall have been levied against the goods of the grantor under any judgment at law ; Provided that the grantor may, within five days from the seizure or taking possession of any chattels on account of any of the above- mentioned causes, apply to the High Court, or to a judge thereof in chambers, and such Court or judge, if satisfied that, by payment of money or otherwise, the said cause of seizure no longer exists, may restrain the grantee from removing or selling the said chattels, or may make such other order as may seem just." This section incorporates into every bill of sale an implied Effect of this flfotion power of seizure in any of the events mentioned (s). But an express power to seize the chattels may be inserted in a bill of sale, provided such power does not purport to be exerciseable in any event not specified in the section (/) , and if the bill contains a proviso that there shall be no seizure for any cause other than those mentioned in the section (u). Sect. 7 applies to goods seized after the commencement of the Act under a bill of sale registered before the Act (.r) . If the bill expressly or impliedly provides for the seizure of the goods for any cause other than those specified in sect. 7, the bill will be void (y) ; and in that case the proviso will not save the bill (*). The default in payment giving rise to the power of seizure (l) Default in must be default " in payment at the time provided " by the bill paym of sale. A power to seize in default of payment on demand (a), or within a specified time after demand (b), will avoid the bill. Default in payment of capitalized interest cannot be made enforceable by seizure (V). The power will be exerciseable on default in payment of any one instalment, though the bill contain no express provision to that effect (d). It would seem that the power of seizure, being by sect. 7 Default in t «ii TPij- p £ i_ performance made exerciseable on default m performance ot a covenant £ f covenants (s) Watkins v. Evans, 18 Q. B. D. (a) Hethcrington v. Groome, 13 Q. B. 386, C.'A. D. 7S9, C. A. (t) Exp. Official Receiver, Be Morritt, (b) Bishop v. Beale, 1 T. L. R. HO ; 18 Q. B. D. 222, C. A. Clemson v. Toivnsend, 1 C. & E. 418. (it) Buff v. Valentine, W. N. (1883) See Sibley v. Siggs, 15 Q. B. D. 619 ; 225. See Thomas v. Kelly, 13 App. and see further on this point, post, Cas. at p. 619. p. 237. (x) Exp. Cotton, 11 Q. B. D. 301. (c) Davis v. Burton, 11 Q. B. D. 537, (i). If the grantor becomes bankrupt after seizure, the trustee in bankruptcy can only redeem by paying the whole amount owing on the bill of sale (o). A landlord's right to distrain is paramount to a bill of sale. But some things are not distrainable at common law, viz., fixtures, things delivered to a person to be carried or worked in the way of his trade or business, cocks or sheaves of corn, things in actual use, and things in the custody of the law ; also, pro- (e) BTi/de v. Warden, 3 Ex. D. 72. (/) Turner v. Culpan, 58 L. T. 340 ; W. N. (1S88) 225. {g) Hammond v. Socking, 12 Q. B. D. 291 ; Duffy. Valentine, W. N. (1888) 225 ; Watkins v. Evans, 18 Q. B. D. 386, C. A. (A) Consolidated Credit Corporation v. Gosncy, 16 Q. B. D. 24 ; Furber v. Cobb, 18 Q. B. D. 494, C. A. (/) See post, p. 234. (/) Furber v. Cobb, sup. at pp. 505, 506. (k) Bianchi v. Offord, 17 Q. B. D. 484 ; Real and Personal Advance Co. v. Clears, 20 Q. B. D. 304, C. A. (I) Exp. Allam, Re Munday, 14 Q. B. D. 43. (•>») 53 & 54 Vict. c. 71, s. 3 (16), (17). (») Gilroy v. Bowey, 59 L. T. 223. (o) Re Wood, Exp. Woolfe, (1894) 1 Q. B. 605. POWER OF SEIZURE. 223 vided there is sufficient distress besides, beasts of the plough and chapter xrv. instruments of husbandry, and the instruments of a man's trade or profession (p). By sect. 13 of the Act of 1882, chattels seized are to remain on the premises, and not to be removed or sold until after the expiration of five clear days from the day of seizure. During this period such of the chattels as are distrainable will continue liable to distraint. But the holder of a bill of sale may, with the consent of the grantor, remove the chattels either before seizure (q), or within the five days thereafter (>■) ; and thereupon the chattels will become the property of the holder so as to exclude the operation of the statute 2 Greo. II. c. 19, by which landlords are empowered to follow goods fraudulently removed, or recover double value ; nor will the landlord have any right of action in respect of such removal. It seems that a landlord who has distrained is not bound to hand over any surplus chattels, or proceeds of sale thereof, to the holder of a bill of sale of which he has received notice after distraint («) . Where a grantee of a bill of sale, at the request of the grantor, paid out the landlord, who had distrained, and the grantor failed to repay to the grantee the amount so paid, the grantee was allowed to seize and sell the chattels comprised in the bill of sale (7). As a general rule, a grantee who has paid out a distraining landlord is entitled to be reimbursed by the grantor the money so paid (it). If a landlord distrains chattels, part of which are and part are not comprised in a bill of sale, the holder may require the goods not so comprised to be first applied in payment of the rent (./•). A bill of sale holder who delays taking possession of chattels till after expiration of the lease of the premises in which the chattels are, may be treated as a trespasser, and restrained from holding or selling the chattels (//) . By sect. 14 of the Act of 1882, a bill of sale within that Act Distress for taxes or rates (p) See Byth. & Jarm Conv. vol. 3, (t) Cowley v. Tyler, W. N. (1884) 77. pp. 170 et seq. (4tked.). See also Lyon (u) Edmunds v. Wallmgford, 14 Q. & Redman, Law of Bdls of Sale, 140. B. D. 811, C. A., questioning England (q) Thornton v. Adams, 5 M. & S. v. Marsden, L. R. 1 C. P. 529 ; The 38 ; Bach v. Meats, 5 M. & S. 200 ; Orchis, 15 P. D. 38, C. A. Fletcher v. Marillier, 9 A. & E. 457. (x) Exp. Stephenson, De G-. 586. (>•) Tomlinson v. Consolidated Credit (y) Smith v. Brown, 48 L. J. Ch. Corporation, 24 Q. B. D. 135, C. A. 694. See also Clements v. Matthews (s) Evans v. Wright, 2 H. & N. 527. 11 Q. B. D. 808, C. A., ante, p. 213. ' 224 BILLS OF SALE ACTS. chapter xiv. i s no protection against distress under a warrant for taxes or rates. Where a local authority took proceedings for the recovery of rates levied under the Public Health Act, 1875 (z), in the County Court under sect. 261 of that Act, instead of by distress warrant under sect. 256, it was held that sect. 14 did not apply, and that the grantee of a bill of sale on the goods was protected (a). (3) Fraudu- The question whether a removal is fraudulent or not is a lent removal. question of tact (6). It would seem that, if a bill of sale comprises articles likely to be destroyed or injured by removal, an unqualified covenant not to remove the chattels without the consent of the grantee may be deemed a covenant " necessary for the maintenance of the security " within clause (1) of this section, so as, on breach thereof, to give the grantee a right to seize the chattels (c). Groods can only be seized under a bill of sale on the ground of failure to produce receipts, if such failure is without reasonable excuse (d). (4) Non- Where rent has been due only a few days, and the landlord receipte^or nas n0 ^ 7 e ^ required payment, this is a reasonable excuse for rent, &c. non-production of the last receipt (e). (5) Execution. Where a judgment debtor after seizure under an execution of goods claimed by the holder of a bill of sale, and after an inter- pleader order had been made, filed a liquidation petition, it was held that the trustee in the liquidation was entitled to the goods subject to the claim of the bill of sale holder (/). But where an interpleader order is made, a claimant under a bill of sale is not entitled to demand from the sheriff any sum not included in the particulars of claim (g) . As to the meaning of the word " judgment," see the cases cited below (h) . Proviso as to The powers of the Court under this proviso are discretionary (/), ^ranteeTrom but w ^ n0 ^ g enera Hy be exercised except on the grantor seizing goods, bringing into Court the amount claimed by the grantee (/»■) ; (z) 38 & 39 Vict. c. 55. (/) Exp. Hailing, Re Haydon, 7 Ch. [a) Wimbledon Local Board x. Under- D. 157, C. A. dencood, (1892) 1 Q. B. 836. (-7) Hoekey v. Evans, 18 Q. B. D. lb) John v. Jenkins, 1 Cr. & M. 227. 390, C. A. Ic) Furbcr v. Cobb, 18 Q. B. D. at (A) Judicature Act, 1873 (37 & 38 pp. 503, 504; Seed v. Bradley, (1894) Vict. c. 66), s. 100; E. S. C. 1883, 1 Q. B. 319, C. A. ; Exp. Payne, Re Ord. XLIL, rr. 17, 24. But see Gre- Coton, 56 L. T. 571 ; Re Paxton, Exp. metli v. Crom, 4 Q. B. D. 225 ; Exp. Pope, 60 L. T. 428. Schmitz, Re Cohen, 12 Q. B. D. 509. (d) Weardale Coal and Iron Co. v. (i) Exp. Cotton, 11 Q. B. D. 301; Eodson, (1894) 1 Q. B. 598, C. A. Hickson v. Barlow, 23 Ch. D. 690. (e) Exp. Co-ton, 11 Q. B. D. 301. (k) Hill v. Kirkwood, 42 L. T. 105. POWER OF SEIZURE. 225 unless, in the opinion of the Court, the grantee is acting tm- ctiaptebxiv. reasonably (I) . So it would seem that, if the seizure is on the ground of fraudulent removal of the goods, they must he replaced on the premises, so that the cause of seizure may no longer exist, before the grantor can seek relief (/). The application for an injunction should be by summons, supported by an affidavit of the facts ; but the Court will not grant even an interim injunction unless the facts raise a prima facie inference that the cause of seizure no longer exists (m) ; and an interim injunction will only be granted until a day fixed (m). By sect. 13 of the Act of 1882 it is enacted, that — "All personal chattels seized, or of which possession has been "When taken after the commencement of this Act, under or by virtue of chattels may any bill of sale (whether registered before or after the commence- ^ goi^° VeC ment of this Act), shall remain on the premises where they were so seized or so taken possession of, and shall not be removed or sold until after the expiration of five clear days from the day they were so seized or taken possession of." Where the holder of a bill of sale seized the chattels and, Removal to with the consent of the grantor, removed them within five days distress, after seizure with a view to preventing the landlord distraining upon them, it was held that the landlord had no cause of action under this section for the removal of the goods, and that, inas- much as the goods were the property of the holder of the bill of sale and not of the grantor, an action for double value under 11 Geo. II. c. 17, s. 3, would not lie for a removal (»). Where a horse and cab, which were comprised in a bill of Goods seized sale, were seized by a grantee in a public street and taken by highway. him to his own yard where he kept them for five days, it was held that the grantee had reasonably complied with the require- ments of this section, and that the grantor could not recover damages for wrongful seizure (o) . After the expiration of the five days the grantor cannot main- Rights of tain trespass for removal of the goods, for he has no longer the removal. 1 present possession, actual or constructive, nor any legal right to (I) Eickson v. Barlow, 23 Q. B. D. Corp., 24 Q. B. D. 13.5, C. A. See G90. Lane v. Tyler, 56 L. J. Q. B. 461. (m) Payne v. Fern, 6 Q. B. ~D. 620. (o) O'Neill v. City Finance Co., 17 (w) Tomlinson v. Consolidated Credit Q. B. D. 234. VOL. I. — R. Q 226 BILLS OF SALE ACTS. CHAPTER XIV. possession ; but, until the goods are actually sold, he still has an equitable right to redeem them, and may claim damages for any injury done to the goods in removing them (p). 41 & 42 Vict. c. 31, s. 8. Repeal. 45 & 46 Vict. c. 43, s. 8. Distinction between effects of these enact- ments. Misstatement of considera- tion. xi. — Statement of Consideration. — By sect. 8 of the Act of 1878, it was provided that every bill of sale should set forth the consideration for which such bill of sale was given, otherwise such bill of sale, as against trustees or assignees in bankruptcy or liquidation, or under any creditor's trust deed, and as against execution creditors, should be deemed fraudulent and void. This section was repealed by sect. 15 of the Act of 1882, so far as relates to bills of sale given by way of security executed since the commencement of the repealing Act, but not so as to affect the validity of anything done or suffered before that date (q) . By sect. 8 of the Act of 1882, it is provided that every bill of sale " shall truly set forth the consideration for which it was given ; otherwise such bill of sale shall be void in respect of the personal chattels comprised therein." The effect of the two enactments is different. Under the former Act, the effect was to avoid a bill of sale which untruly stated the consideration only as against the persons specified in sect. 8 of that Act, but to leave it valid and binding as between grantor and grantee ; but under the present enactment such a bill is absolutely void even as between parties themselves in respect of the personal chattels comprised therein. Under sect. 8 of the Act of 1878, it has been repeatedly held that, if the consideration be not truly stated, the bill of sale, however honest, will be void(r). The deed was held void in the following cases : — Where the consideration was stated to be 120/., when really 30/. was for interest and expenses, though the attestation clause was followed by a receipt which stated the consideration cor- rectly. Something was kept back for interest which could not be due, and the receipt was not part of the deed (s) : Where 700/. was the consideration stated, but 71 10s. was (p) Johnson v. Eiprose, (1893) 1 Q. B. 512, C.A. (q) 1st November, 1882. As to the extent of the repeal, see Swift v. Pmnell, 21 Ch. D. 210; Hull v. Smith, W. N. (18S7) 170; Exp. Izard, lie Chappie, 23 Ch. D. 409, C. A. (r) Exp. Carter, 12 Ch. D. 90S; Exp. Kat. Merc. Bank, Ee Haynes, 15 Ch. D. 42, C. A. ; Exp. Orel, W. N. (1881) 30, C. A. (s) Exp. Charing Cross Bank, Re Parker, 1G Ch. D. ^5, C. A. STATEMENT OF CONSIDERATION. 227 retained for commission on the loan and expenses, and not cnAFTEK XIY - stated (/) : Where part of the consideration was money to Tbe paid at a future day to the landlord for rent not due at the date of the deed, but not stated («) : Where the alleged consideration was " 312/. now owing," but in fact 126/., part of that amount, represented the liability of the grantee in respect of certain current bills accepted by him for the accommodation of the grantor, which were, in fact, after- wards paid by the grantee pursuant to arrangement (w) : Where the consideration money was stated to be "now paid," but part of the advance consisted of bills of exchange payable twelve months after date (x) ; so also where part was retained by the grantee to meet running acceptances and to defray certain agreed expenses (//) . On the other hand, it is sufficient if the consideration is What state- honestly and substantially stated, so as to show the true nature j^^t, of the transaction (s) . A mere clerical error or slight inaccuracy in the statement will not avoid a bill of sale which is in other respects in con- formity with the Acts (a), if it sufficiently appears from the deed what the consideration really was (b) . A statement that the consideration was "32/. or thereabouts," was held to be sufficient (c) . The consideration may be stated to be partly made up of the charges of the grantee's solicitor for preparing the bill (d). A solicitor acting for both grantor and grantee may, with the consent of the grantor, retain part of the consideration for costs of and incident to the transaction without that fact being mentioned in the bill (e). So, the grantor may hand back to the grantee part of the (l) Hamilton v. Chaine, 7 Q. B. T>. 268, C. A. 319, C. A. See Exp. Firth, Re Cow- (z) Roberts v. Roberts, 13 Q. B. D. bum, 19 Ch. D. 419, C. A. ; Exp. 791, C. A. GhaUinor, Re Rogers, 1G Ch. D. 2G0, (a) Exp. Winter, Re FuthcrgiU, 44 C. A. L. T. 323 ; 29 W. R. 575, C. A. («) Exp. Rolph, Re Spindler, 19 Ch. (b) Roberts v. Roberts, supra ; GoUis D. 98, C. A. v. Tuson, 46 L. T. 387. (w) Mayer v. Mindlcvich, 59 L. T. (c) Hughes v. Little, 18 Q. B. D. 32, 400. See Barlow v. Bland, (1897) 1 C. A. Q. B. 125. (d) Cohen v. Higrjins, 8 T. L. R. 8. (.*') Re Moore, Exp. Off. Rec., 4 [e) Exp. Sunt, Re Cann, 13 Q. B. D. Mans. 51. 36. See ILamhjn v. Betteley, 5 C. P. iff) Richardson v. Harris, 22 Q. B. D. D. 327. q2 228 BILLS OF SALE ACTS. CHAPTEE XIV. Meaning of " considera- tion." Bill of sale under SOI. to be void. consideration in respect of a debt then due or to accrue due (/) . But not so if the grantor hands back money under pressure (g). A collateral agreement for the application of the money need not be stated, nor are recitals of the object and motive required (It). The word " consideration " means that which is in law the consideration for the giving of the instrument, not the sum secured by it (-*'). The consideration was held to be truly stated to be money lent, though it was a balance due on a statement of account (/»•). So, where the consideration was stated to be 400/. paid, although 200/. of it had been paid a few days before (/). So, where a bill of sale purported to be given in considera- tion of " 1,500/. now paid," but in fact the amount had been previously advanced and paid to the grantor on the security of a bill which was discovered, before registration, not to be in conformity with the Bills of Sale Acts, and which was accord- ingly cancelled, the consideration for the bill was held to be truly stated (m). An agreement not to register, whereby the bonus was in- creased, is no part of the consideration, nor is it a condition or defeasance (n). In a bill of sale given by a purchaser to a vendor to secure the balance of purchase-money, the statement of the considera- tion as cash paid was held sufficient (o) . A bill of sale stated the consideration to be in order to induce the grantee not to institute proceedings against him. No proceedings had been threatened ; the consideration was held to be sufficiently stated (p). So, where the consideration was stated to be in part a covenant by the grantees, and no such covenant was contained in the bill of sale (q). By sect. 12 of the Act of 1882, " every bill of sale made or given in consideration of any sum under 30/. shall be void." (/) Richardson v. Harris, 22 Q. B. T). 268, C. A. ; Cochrane v. Dixon, 3 T. L. R. 717. (ff) Bishop v. Consolidated Credit Cor- poration, L. T. J. (1886), p. 426. (h) Exp. National Mercantile Bank, lie Haynes, 15 Ch. D. 42, C. A. See Hamlyn v. Betteley, 5 C. P. D. 327 ; Thomas v. Scarles, (1891) 2 Q. B. 408, C. A. (i) Exp. Challinor, Be Boners, 16 Ch. D. 260, C. A. (/«) Credit Co. v. Bott, 6 Q. B. D. 295, C. A. (I) Exp. Johnson, Be Chapman, 26 Ch. D. 338. (m) Exp. Allam, Be Munday, 14 Q. B. D. 43. See Exp. Nelson, Be Kochaday, W. N. (1887) 7, C. A. (n) Exp. Bopplewell, Be Storey, 21 Ch. D. 73, C. A. (o) Exp. Bolland, Be Boper, 21 Ch. D. 543, C. A. (p) Be Fothergill, 29 W. R. 575, C. A. (?) Boberts v. Boberts, 13 Q. B. D. 794, C. A. STATUTORY FORM. 229 xii.— Form of Bill of Sale under the Act of 1882.— By sect. 9 ciurrEBsiv. of this Act it is enacted that — "A bill of sale made or given byway of security for the pay- Form of bill ment of money by the grantor thereof shall be void unless made of sal °- in accordance with the form in the schedule to this Act annexed." Although this section does not make imperative a literal con- Bills of sale formity with the statutable form, it enacts not only what a bill a nce with of sale must contain, but also what it must not contain, and ^m^voided renders void any bill which departs from the form in any material and substantial particular (r). The result is, that all bills of sale given as security for money are prohibited to which the statutable form is inappropriate (s). And, accordingly, licences to seize goods, inventions, receipts, powers of attorney, and other instruments falling within the definition of a " bill of sale" given by sect. 4 of the Act of 1878 (/), but incapable from their nature of being framed so as to be " in accordance with" the statutable form, are no longer available as securities for money (u) . If a bill of sale is not in accordance with the statutable form, the defect cannot be remedied by statements in the affidavit filed on the registration, or by other evidence (a?) . It makes no difference whether the money sought to be Bill of sale by- secured is payable by the grantor in respect of a loan or of indemnity to any other transaction ; as, for instance, where a bill of sale is suxet J- given to secure any moneys which the grantee may be called on to pay in respect of a guarantee given at the request of the grantor (//). A bill of sale which does not conform to the requirements of Ext . ont of ... ., . ,, .,,., avoidance. this section is void as against all persons, including the grantor himself (z). It is also void and altogether inoperative, not merely as regards the personal chattels comprised therein, but as to every part thereof, so that a covenant contained in it for payment of principal and interest thereon intended to be secured upon the chattels is also rendered void (a). (r) Thomas v. Kelly, 13 App. Cas. at p. 31. C. A. 506. See also Exp. Stanford, Re Bar- (y) Hughes v. Little, 18 Q. B. D. 32, ber, 17 Q. B. D. 259, C. A. ; Kelly v. C. A. ; Re Hill, Exp. Of. Rec, 2 Mans. Kellond, 20 Q. B. D. 569, C. A. ' 208. (s) Thomas v. Kelly, sup. at p. 511, (z) Thomas v. Kelly, 13 App. Cas. at per Lord Halsbuiy, C. p. 511,. (t) See ante, p. 201. (a) Daries v. Bees, 17 Q. B. D. 408, (a) Exp. Parsons, Re Toicnsend, 16 C. A., at p. 412, per Bowen, L. J. Q. B. D. 532, C. A. See Griffin v. Union Deposit Rank, 3 (.<•) Bird v. Dairy, (1891) 1 Q. B. 29, T. L. R. 608. 230 BILLS OF SALE ACTS. CHAPTER XIV. Severance of security. Effect of inclusion in same mort- gage of personal chattels and other pro- perty. Description of parties. Misdescrip- tion of grantor's name. Trustee for grantee company. A single deed may contain distinct and severable contracts or obligations ; if so, it may be valid as a security so far as relates to land or other property not being " personal chattels " within the meaning of the Bills of Sale Acts, though non-conformity with the statutable form will render it void so far as regards any part of the instrument which appears as an integral part of a bill of sale in the schedule form (b). "Whether the inclusion in a single deed of such other property with personal chattels will of itself constitute a departure from the statutable form, so as to avoid the security as to the personal chattels, does not appear to have been expressly decided. It is conceived that such would be the result, even if the assignments of the several kinds of property be kept separate and distinct, on the ground that such inclusion would tend to render the deed less simple and intelligible, and to materially alter the legal effect of the instrument. It has been held that if per- sonal chattels and other property are comprised in a single assignment, and scheduled together, that of itself constitutes a departure from the statutable form of a bill of sale, which will vitiate the instrument as regards the personal chattels (c) . The form requires the names and addresses of the grantor and grantee respectively to be stated, but does not require the parties to be otherwise particularly described. Ambiguity of description of the grantee, if capable of ascertainment without the aid of extrinsic evidence, will not avoid a bill of sale (d). Indeed, in one case it was held that a bill of sale was valid where the grantor's christian name was misstated in a bill of sale which was executed by him under such false name for the purpose of concealing the fact that he had given a bill of sale (c) . It was held, under the Bills of Sale Act, 1854, that a bill of sale might be taken in the name of a trustee for the person who actually advanced the money, though the trust did not appear on the face of the instrument (/). (A) Re Burdett, Exp. Byrne, 20 Q. B. D. 310, C. A. See also Re O'Dwyer, 19 L. R. Ir. 19 ; Stevens v. Marston, 39 W. R. 129, C. A. ; Re Banska, §c. Co., 21 L. R. Ir. 181. (c) Cochrane v. Entwi&le, 25 Q. B. D. 116, C. A. (ii) Simmons v. Woodward, (1892) A. C. 100 ; Bolcini v. Bolcini, £1895) 1 Q. B. 898. (e) Bonnes v. Salmon, 20 Q. B. D. 775. See Exp. M'Eattie, Re Wood, 10 Ck. D. 398, C. A. ; Central Bank of London v. Hawkins, 60 L. T. 901. And see post, p. 247. A deed will not, generally, he invalidated by reason of its being executed by a party under an assumed name, no fraud being in- tended. See Leigh v. Leigh, 15 Ves. 100 ; 10 R. R. 31 ; Buries v. Lowndes, 2 Sc. 103 ; Boe v. Yates, 5 B. & Al. 544 ; Re Matthews, 16 Beav. 245 ; Re James, 5 Exch. 310; Lie Bear den, 5 Exch. 740. (/) Robinson v. Collingivood, 17 C. B. N. S. 777. STATUTOEY FOEM. 231 A bill of sale may be given or taken in the incorporated chapter xiv. name of a company (//). Though the payment of a single debt may apparently be Several secured to several persons jointly by a bill of sale (A), yet an attempt to secure several distinct sums payable to separate creditors by one bill of sale will invalidate the instrument (/). The statutable form does not contain any recitals or expressly Recitals, permit their insertion in a bill of sale. But recitals may be in- serted, if necessary, to explain the nature of the transaction or the intention of the parties (k). Undue prolixity of recitals may of itself vitiate a bill of sale for securing payment of money, as involving a departure from the " simplicity " of the statutable form (/). Sect. 9 of the Act of 1882 deals only with the form of the Oonsidera- instrument, and though the statutable form prescribes that the consideration shall be stated, an untrue statement thereof does not constitute a deviation from the form, so as wholly to invali- date the instrument on that ground ; it will, however, be void " in respect of the personal chattels comprised therein " by virtue of sect. 8 of the same Act (m) . By sect. 12 of the same Act, every bill of sale made or given in consideration of any sum under 30/. shall be void (»). The introduction into the assignment of the words " as bene- Assignment. ficial owner " will avoid a bill of sale, as being an attempt to incorporate, by virtue of sect. 7, para, (c), of the Conveyancing, &c. Act, 1881, the covenant for immediate possession by the grantee on default and quiet enjoyment thereafter contained in that section, and thereby to alter the legal rights of the parties from the rights which the form gives, having regard to the pro- visions of sect. 13 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1882 (o). The statutable form requires a present assignment of specific Description chattels to be described in the schedule annexed to the bill of assigned, sale, and to be registered therewith (j)). (g) Re Cunningham § Co., Attcn- (I) Exp. Stanford, Re Barber, 17 Q. borough's Case, 28 Ch. D. 682. See B. D. 259, C. A., at p. 274, per Fry, Shears v. Jacob, L. E. 1 C. P. 513. L. J. (h) Maughan v. Sharpe, 17 C. B. (m) Jlescltine v. Simmons, (1892) 2 N. S. 443. Q. B. 547, C. A. See sect. 8 of the (i) Melville v. Stringer, 13 Q. B. D. Act of 1882, ante, p. 226. 392, C. A. But see He Smith, Exp. (n) See Bavis v. Usher, 12 Q. B. D. Tarbuck, 72 L. T. 59. 490. (k) Roberts v. Roberts, 13 Q. B. D. (o) Exp. Stanford, Re Barber, supra. 794, C. A.; Exp. Stanford, Re Barber, (p) Sect. 10, sub-s. 2, of Act of 1878, 17 Q. B. D. at pp. 269, 270, per post, p. 243. Bowen, L. J. 232 I JILLS OF SALE ACTS. CHAPTER XIV. Statement of sum secured. Interest. Specific description means description with such particularity as is used in a business inventory of chattels (q) . If the specific description of the chattels contained in such schedule is sufficient for identification of the chattels, reference in the schedule to an unregistered catalogue will not restrict the description so as to avoid the hill (r). The omission to state in the schedule the place where the chattels are located has been held not to vitiate the bill (s) . An attempt to include in the assignment after-acquired chat- tels, additional to (t), or substitutional for(^), specific chattels assigned, will vitiate the bill. The question as to including in the assignment other pro- perty not being " personal chattels " has been already noticed (a). The insertion of the words " by way of security " amongst the operative words of assignment is apparently not essen- tialQ/). The principal amount secured must be stated as a definite sum to be payable at a definite time, and consequently a bill of sale cannot be made to cover further advances of an uncertain amount which may or may not be made (~) . So a bill of sale cannot be given by way of indemnity against liability on a guarantee under which no sum may ever become payable, or if the amount payable and the time at which the liability will commence and require to be satisfied are uncertain (a). The rate of interest may be such as agreed upon between the parties, however high, and even unreasonable (b) ; but it must be rateable, and calculated up to the time when the principal is to be called in (c). And, consequently, an attempt to make a bill of sale secure capitalized interest will vitiate the bill (d). The rate of interest chargeable on the loan must be speci- fied (■) . The principal, with rateable interest, may be made payable in a single sum on a fixed date instead of by instalments, with (y) or without (z) a proviso that, if the grantor should not break any of the covenants nor become bankrupt, and should pay the principal and interest by equal monthly instalments on specified days, the grantee should accept payment by such instalments. So, the principal may be made payable by specified instal- ments together with rateable interest on the instalments for the time being remaining unpaid (a) . The statutable form permits the insertion of terms " as to insurance, payment of rent, or otherwise, which the parties may agree to for the maintenance or defeasance of the security." Such terms must be such as are necessary for the purposes referred to, in order to be enforceable by seizure of the goods under sect. 7 of the Act of 1882. Agreement between the parties will not make a stipulation " necessary " if it is not so (/>). (q) Granncll v. MoneJe, 24 L. R. Ir. 241 ; Bianchi v. Offord, 17 Q. B. D. 484, at p. 487, per Bowen, L. J. (>•) Hughes v. Little, 18 Q. B. D. 32, C.A. (s) Exp. Cochrane, Re Sendall, 26 TV. R. 818 ; Lumley v. Simmons, 34 Ch. D. 698, C. A. (t) Edwards v. Marston, (1891) 1 Q. B. D. 225, C. A. («) Golclstrom v. Tallerman, IS Q. B. D. 1, C. A. ; Be Cleaver, Exp. Baio- Ungs, 18 Q. B. D. 489, C. A. (x) JVcardale Coal and Iron Co. v. Sodson, (1894) 1 Q. B. 598, C. A. (>/) Watkins v. Evans, 18 Q. B. D. 386, C. A. [z) Exp. Payne, Be Cooke, 56 L. T. 571 ; 35 TV. R. 476. See Be Cleaver, Exp. Bandings, 18 Q. B. D. 489, C. A. (a) Haslewood v. Consolidated Credit Co., 25 Q. B. D. 555, C. A. {b) Furber v. Cobb, 18 Q. B. D. 494, C.A. STATUTORY FOEM. 235 Covenants for payment of insurance premiums and production chapter xiv. to the grantee of receipts for the same, are covenants " necessary Insurance, for the maintenance of the security" and valid (c). And it may be stipulated that, on the grantor's default, the grantee may insure, and that premiums paid by him with interest shall be repayable on demand, and until repaid shall be a charge on the property (cl). Where a bill of sale, given to secure money advanced by several creditors of a trader, contained stipulations that he should not during the continuance of the security obtain credit above a specified amount from any persons, except those creditors, without their consent, and that he would give them the greater part of his business, and keep proper books of account, and permit the grantees or their agent to inspect them : it was held, that the insertion of these stipulations avoided the bill of sale as not in accordance with the statutable form (e) . A covenant to pay rent, rates, taxes, &c., and to produce Rent, taxes, receipts, is good(/). And it maybe stipulated that, on the grantor's default, the grantee may make such payments to be repayable to him with interest on demand, and to be a charge on the property until repaid (g) . Bills of sale have been upheld containing agreements to re- Repairs, &c. place, or keep in repair, chattels which should become worn out, destroyed, injured, or deteriorated (//) ; and that, on the grantor's default so to do, the grantee might replace or repair the chattels, and that moneys expended by him for such purposes should be repayable to him on demand with interest, and be a charge on the property till repaid (?). Such stipulations as above referred to for securing to the grantee the repayment of moneys expended by him, though they may be inserted by agreement between the parties, are not " necessary for the maintenance of the security " within the meaning of sect. 7 of the Act of 1882 ; they are accordingly enforceable by action on the covenant, and will have their effect when a foreclosure or redemption comes to be worked out ; but (c) Duff v. Valentine, W. N. (1883) (/) Turner v. Culpan, 58 L. T. 225 ; Hammond v. Hocking, 12 Q. B. D. 340. 291 ; Watkins v. Evans, IS Q. B. D. (g) Goldstrom v. Tallerman, 18 Q. B. 386, C. A. D. 1, C. A. (d) Exp. Stanford, Be Barber, 17 (It) Consolidated Credit Corporation v. Q. B. D. 259, C. A. ; Briggs v. Bike, Gosney, 16 Q. B. D. 24 ; Furber v. Cobb, 61 L. J. Q. B. 418. 18 Q. B. D. 494, C. A. ; Seed v. Bradley, (e) Teace v. Brookes, (1895) 2 Q. B. (1894) 1 Q. B. 319, C. A. 451. (i) Topley v. Crosbie, 20 Q. B. D. 350. 236 BILLS OF SALE ACTS. CHAPTER XIV. Covenants for title. Powers of seizure and sale. any attempt to extend to a breach of such stipulations the power of seizure given by that section will be fatal to a bill of sale (/.). An unqualified covenant not to remove the chattels from the premises without the consent of the grantee is good (/) . And it would seem that such a covenant, as well as a covenant to pro- duce receipts for rent, taxes, &c, are to be deemed covenants necessary for the maintenance of the security, so that a breach of such covenants will render the chattels assigned liable to seizure under sect. 7 of the Act of 1882 (m). It has been seen that the grantor must not be made to convey " as beneficial owner," thereby attempting to import into a bill of sale the full statutory covenants for title, including the covenant for immediate possession by the grantee on default, and quiet enjoyment thereafter (n). But it has been held that an express covenant for further assurance at the cost of the grantor, in the usual form, binding the grantor and all persons claiming through or under him, was a covenant " for the maintenance of the security," and consequently free from objection (o). The events, upon the happening of which the chattels assigned by a bill of sale are liable to be seized or taken possession of by the grantee, have been already considered (p) . Upon the happening of any of these events, and after reason- able notice to the grantor, the grantee of a valid bill of sale may, though the bill contains no express power of seizure or sale, seize and take possession of the chattels, and after the expiration of five clear days thereafter remove and sell them, subject to the grantor's right to redeem them at anytime before actual sale (q) . It seems to be settled, after some difference of judicial opinion (q), that the statutory powers of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, ss. 19 — 21, as to powers of sale, are not incorporated into the statutable form of a bill of sale given by the Bills of Sale Act, 1882 (r). There is no objection to the insertion in a bill of sale of an (k) Bianehi v. Offord, 17 Q. B. D. 484, Bowen, L. J. ; Real and Personal Advance Co. v. Clears, 20 Q. B. D. 304, C. A. {I) See ante, p. 224. (m) Furber v. Cobb, 18 Q. B. D. 494, C. A., at pp. 505, 506. (m) See ante, p. 220. (o) lie Cleaver, Exp. Rairfings, IS Q. B. D. 489, C. A. (j>) Sect. 7 of the Act of 1882, ante, p. 220. (q) Exp. Official Receiver, Re Morritt, 18 Q. B. D. 222, O. A. ; Watkim v. Evans, 18 Q. B. D. 386, C. A. (>•) Calvert v. Thomas, 19 Q. B. ~D. 204, C. A. STATUTORY FORM. 237 express power to seize and sell the assigned chattels, provided chapter xiv. that the terms of the power are not calculated to mislead the grantor or to alter the legal rights of the parties (s) . An express power may be given to the grantee to " sell the goods hy private treaty or public auction on or off the pre- mises"^). A power to sell on default in payment " on demand " (u), or within a specified time after demand (v) , is bad. The following provisions contained in express powers of seizure and sale have been held to vitiate bills of sale : — That the power should be exerciseable " if the mortgagor should take the benefit of any Bankruptcy Act," as conferring a power to seize in the event of the mortgagor effecting a com- position under the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (x). That the grantee might have the goods valued, and purchase them at such valuation (y). That the purchaser should not be bound to see or inquire whether any default had occurred in payment of the sums secured (z). That after payment of the sums secured, the bill of sale and other documents relating to the loan should remain in the custody and be the property of the grantee (a). That the grantee may retain out of the proceeds of sale his commission as auctioneer, as though he were selling on behalf of the grantor (b) ; or " the expenses attending such sale, or otherwise incurred in relation to the security " (c) ; or all ex- penses to which the grantor "might be put "(d). But the power may provide that the grantee may retain the costs of entry, of discharging distresses, executions, or incumbrances, of seizure, keeping possession, removal, warehousing, and sale (e) . Power to seize forcibly will not avoid a bill of sale (/). The omission from a bill of sale of any reference to the pro- ^ ro . v i so viso given in the statutable form that the goods shall not be of seizure. (s) Exp. Official Receiver, Re Morritt, (a) Watson v. Strickland, 19 Q. B. D. 18 Q. B. D. 222, C. A. ; Briggs v. Pike, 391, C. A. 61 L. J. Q. B. 418 ; 66 L. T. 637. (b) Furber v. Cobb, 18 Q. B. D. 494, (t) Bourne v. Wall, 64 L. T. 530. 0. A. (u) Bethcrington v. Groome, 13 Q. B. (c) Calvert v. Thomas, 19 Q. B. D. D. 789, C. A. 204, C. A. (v) Sibley v. Biggs, 15 Q. B. D. 619. (d) Macey v. Gilbert, W. N. (1888) (x) Gilroy v. Boivey, 59 L. T. 223. 111. (y) Lyon v. Morris, 19 Q. B. D. 139, (e) Exp. Official Receiver, Re Morritt, C. A. 18 Q. B. D. 222, C. A.; Burnley v. (e) Blaiberg v. Beckett, 18 Q. B. D. Simmons, 34 Ch. D. 69S, C. A. 96, C. A., following Blaiberg v. Par- ( /') Ibid. sons, 17 Q. B. D. 336. 238 BILLS OF SALE ACTS. CHAPTER XIV. Attestation clause. Defeasance, condition or declaration of trust to be deemed part of bill of sale. Meaning of " defea- sance." liable to seizure for any cause other than those specified in sect. 7 of the Act of 1882, would apparently vitiate the bill (g). But the statutable proviso need not be inserted in so many words, if the effect of the words used is substantially the same (A) . The insertion of the proviso will not render a bill of sale valid, if the bill contains other provisions which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Bills of Sale Acts (/). A bill of sale will be void as not in accordance with the statut- able form, if it does not state not only the name and address, but also the correct description of the occupation or style of the attesting witness (J). xiii. — Defeasances, Conditions, and Declarations of Trust. — Sect. 10, sub-s. (3), of the Act of 1878, enacts as follows :— "If the bill of sale is made or given subject to any defeasance or condition, or declaration of trust not contained in the body thereof, such defeasance, condition, or declaration shall be deemed to be part of the bill, and shall be written on the same paper or parchment therewith before the registration, and shall be truly set forth in the copy filed under this Act therewith and as part thereof, otherwise the registration shall be void." A defeasance is a collateral deed made at the same time as the grant, containing certain conditions, upon the performance of which the estate created by such grant may be defeated. It differs from a condition in this respect, that a condition is in- serted in the deed by which the estate is created. A defeasance is a separate deed executed at the same time (k). Where a bill of sale and a mortgage of certain reversionary interests were given on the same day to secure the same debt, and by the bill of sale simple interest was made payable by instalments, but by the mortgage compound interest was made payable by instalments on the same day as those mentioned in the bill of sale, it was held, that the condition in the mortgage operated as a defeasance of the bill of sale within sub-s. (3) of sect. 10, and that the registration of the bill was consequently void (/). So the giving of a bill of exchange, promissory note, or other (g) Thomas v. Kelly, 13 App. Cas. 506, at p. 519, ^crLord Macnagbten. (h) Exp. Allam, Jle Munday, 14 Q. B. D. 43 ; Cartwright v. Began, (1S95) 1 Q. B. 900. (i) Re Williams, Exp. Pearce, 25 Cb. D. 656. See Earr v. Kingsford, 56 L. T. 861. U) Simsv. Trollopc, (1897) 1 Q. B. 24, C. A. As to description, seejjost, p. 248. (/.•) Cruise, Digest, tit. sxxii. c. vii. s. 25. (/) Edivardsv. Marcus, (1894) 1 Q. B. 587. See Ellis v. Wright, 76 L. T. 522. 239 DEFEASANCE OR CONDITION. 'TEE XIV. instrument Toy way of collateral security for a debt secured by a bill of sale, will operate as a defeasance and vitiate the regis- tration if such collateral instrument is in any respect incon- sistent with the provisions of the Bills of Sale Acts, or with the terms of the particular bill, or in any way tends to alter the rights of the parties {m). m But a promissory note so given is not of itself avoided (n). Similarly, all the covenants and conditions of the contract Condon, must be set out in the bill of sale itself or on the same paper as the bill, and not incorporated by reference to another instrument specifically (o), or to other instruments generally (p). Nor will the omission of such reference save from avoidance a bill, thou-h framed in strict accordance with the statutable form, it the evidence shows that the bill is dependent for its real effect on some other instrument ( Re L ^ L " ^ l ° % B r\ 5 -ni °" A - ; ° rm "' (utneslkne v. Simmons, (1892) 2 5 T. L. R. o04. ^' ,._ p . (,,) Monetary Advance Co. v. Cater, Q'JI^^A ^ 21 9ft O TS. D. /bo. ™^ ■U „„ /-. a &^3fc2£UE* tt &»'^" »• - 20 5' ?;.?" KL. 17Q.B. D. 77. Ch. D. 73, C. A. *\)htp v. M'Senry, 38 Oh. D. *Jj>'*£*" Y ' »*> * 3 Q " B " D ' (r) Thomas v. Searles, (1891) 2 Q. B. 240 BILLS OF SALE ACTS. CHAPTER XIV. Execution by attorney. Bill of sale must be duly attested. Meaning of "duly attested." Attestation by sobcitor. trust must be one in favour of either the grantor or the grantee (a). xiv. — Execution and Attestation of Bills of Sale. — A bill of sale may be executed under a power of attorney, and the grantee is not necessarily excluded from being the grantor's attorney for that purpose (b). By sect. 8 of the Act of 1878 (c), it was provided that every bill of sale should be duly attested, otherwise such bill of sale, as against all trustees in bankruptcy, &c, shoidd be deemed fraudulent and void. By sect. 8 of the Act of 1882, it is provided that every bill of sale coming within that Act shall be duly attested ; " other- wise such bill of sale shall be void in respect of the personal chattels comprised therein." " Duly attested " means attested in accordance with the provi- sions of the Act and with the statutable form of a bill of sale (d). The form in the schedule to the Act of 1882 requires the address and description of the witness attesting the execution of a bill of sale by the grantor to be given. But where a bill of sale had two separate clauses attesting the execution of the in- strument by different grantors, and the same name appeared in both cases as that of the attesting witness thereto respectively, in one case giving, and in the other omitting to give, the address and description of the attesting witness, it was held that the Court might infer from a comparison of the hand- writing that the same person attested both clauses, and further, that the omission to repeat the address and description was not such a departure from the statutable form as to avoid the bill of sale (e) . By sect. 10 (1) of the Act of 1878, it was provided that the execution of every bill of sale should be attested by a solicitor of the Supreme Court, and the attestation should state that before the execution of the bill of sale the effect thereof had been explained to the grantor by the attesting solicitor. But a bill of sale under the Act, although not so explained and attested, is not void as between the grantor and grantee (/). («) Robinson v. Collingwood, 10 Jur. N. S. 10S0. (J) Fumivall v. Hudson, (1893) 1 Ch. 335. (c) Tbis section is repealed, as to bills of sale by way of security made after tbe commencement of tbe Act of 1882 ; see ante, p. 226. (d) Parsons v. Brand, 25 Q. B. D. 110, C. A. (e) Bird v. Davei/, (1891) 1 Q. B. 29 c. A. (/)' Bavisv. Goodman, 5 C. P. D. 128, C. A. ; Exp. National Mercantile Bank, Be Haynes, 15 Ch. D. 42 ; Kill v. Kirhwood, 28 W. R. 358, C. A. REGISTRATION. 241 Attestation by the solicitor of the grantee is sufficient (g). The chapter xiy. affidavit must prove the attestation by the solicitor (A). The attesting solicitor may be a managing clerk not prac- tising on his own account (*'), and it would seem that he need not hold a certificate entitling him to practise (k). It has been held that the grantee of a bill of sale, although a solicitor, cannot be the attesting witness under sect. 10 of the Act of 1878 (/) ; and this rule has been incorporated in sect. 10 of the Act of 1882. By the section last referred to, the above enactment as to Repeal of attestation by a solicitor, and explanation to the grantee, has enac t me nt. been repealed ; and attestation by any credible witness, not being a party to the bill of sale, will suffice, so far as regards bills of sale given by way of security on or after the 1st November, 1882 (m). A bill of sale was held to be duly executed where the sign a- Position of ture and seal of the grantor were placed at the end of a schedule ° annexed to the bill (»). A bill of sale may be executed by attorney, and the grantee Execution by is not precluded from being such attorney (o) . XV. — Registration of Bills of Sale — The Affidavit. — By Every bill of sect. 8 of the Act of 1878, it was provided that every bill of registered. ° sale should be registered under that Act within seven days after the making or giving thereof, otherwise such bill of sale, as against all trustees or assignees, &c, should be deemed fraudu- lent and void. This section is repealed by sect. 15 of the Act of 1882, but not so as to affect the validity of anything done or suffered under the former before the commencement of the later Act (p). By sect. 8 of the Act of 1882, it is enacted as follows : — "Every bill of sale shall be registered under the principal Act within seven clear days after the execution thereof (or if it is executed in any place out of England, then within seven clear days after the time in which it would in the ordinary course of post (g) Penivardenv. Roberts, 9 Q. B. D. 1882 is confined to bills given by way of 137. See Vernon v. Cooke, 49 L. J. security. See sect. 3 of that Act, ante, C. P. 767. p. 191. See also Casson v. Churchley, (A) Sharpe v. Birch, 8 Q. B. D. 111. 53 L. J. Q. B. 335. (i) Mill v. Kirkwood, 28 "W. R. 358, (n) Melville v. Stringer, 12 Q. B. D. C. A. 132. (/t) Eolgate v. Slight, 21 L. J. Q. B. (o) Furnival v. Hudson. (1893) 1 Ch. 74. 335. (I) Seal v. Claridge, 7 Q. B. D. 516, (p) See, as to the extent of the re- C. A. peal, ante, p. 226. (m) The operation of the Act of VOL. I. — K, R 242 BILLS OF SALE ACTS. CHAPTER XIV. Successive bills of sale. arrive in England if posted immediately after the execution thereof) ; otherwise such bill of sale shall be void in respect of the personal chattels comprised therein." The " seven clear days " within "which the bill is required to be registered are to be reckoned exclusively of the day of execution. If the seventh day falls on a Sunday, or on a holi- day, when the registrar's office is not open, the registration will be valid if effected on the next following day on which the offices are open (o). An imperfect registration does not place the assignee in a worse position than if there were none {p). The registration on the day of the execution is complete, though the consideration was not paid nor the deed attested till after the day of the actual execution (q) . Under the Act of 1854, there were conflicting decisions in regard to successive bills of sale, made to avoid registration. The result would seem to be that such transactions, not being forbidden by the Legislature, were to be deemed valid as against an execution creditor (;•) ; but in bankruptcy the successive un- registered bills of sale were not regarded with favour, and the last bill, being for a past debt, was generally treated as void (s). A remedy is effected by sect. 9 of the Act of 1878, by which it is enacted as follows : — " Where a subsequent bill of sale is executed within or on the expiration of seven days after the execution of a prior unregistered bill of sale, and comprises all or any part of the personal chattels comprised in such prior bill of sale, then, if such subsequent bill of sale is given as a security for the same debt as is secured by the prior bill of sale, or for any part of such debt, it shall, to the extent to which it is a security for the same debt or part thereof, and so far as respects the personal chattels or part thereof comprised in the prior bill, be absolutely void, unless it is proved to the satisfac- tion of the Court having cognizance of the case that the subsequent bill of sale was bond fide given for the purpose of correcting some material error in the prior bill of sale, and not for the purpose of evading the Act." Correction of If a mistake is made in the first registry, the bill of sale can mistake. be re-registered (/). Avoidance of certain suc- cessive bills of sale. (o) Act of 1878, s. 22. (p) Banbury v. White, 2 H. & C. 300. (?) Darvill v. Terry, 6H.&N. 807. (r) Sollingworth v. White, 10 W. B. 619. Q. B. ; Smale v. Burr, L. B. 8 C. P. 64 ; Bamsdcn v. Lupton, L. B. 9 Q. B. 17, Ex. Ch. See Exp. Harris, L. B. 8 Ch. A. 48. (s) Stansfield v. Cubit t, 2 De G. & J. 222, 228 ; Exp. Cohen, Be Sparke, L. B. 7 Ch. A. 20 ; Exp. Stevens, L. R. 20 Eq. 786. But see Be Jackson, 4 Ch. D. 682; Exp. Furber, 6 Ch. D. 181. And see Exp. Fayne, 11 Ch. D. 539, C. A. if) Be O'Brien, 10 Ir. Com. Law App. xxxiii. REGISTRATION. 243 A registered bill of sale, bond fide founded on a parol agree- chaptebxiv. ment for a bill of sale, is not a subsequent bill of sale within this section (w). The giving of a bill of sale for the purpose of confirming an earlier one supposed to be defective does not cancel the first bill if valid (a?) . By sect. 21 of the Act of 1878, power is given to make and ^^ eg alter rules for the purposes of the Bills of Sale Acts, and rules have been made accordingly (y). By sect. 10, sub-s. (2), of the Act of 1878, after making pro- vision as to the execution and attestation of a bill of sale, it is enacted as follows : — " Such bill, with every schedule or inventory thereto annexed or Mode of therein referred to, and also a true copy of such bill and of every such re f 1 lst ^" t f D0 . schedule and inventory, and of every attestation of the execution of ^' ls of gale ° such bill of sale, together with an affidavit of the time of such bill of sale being made or given, and of its due execution and attesta- tion, and a description of the residence and occupation of the person making or giving the same (or in case the same is made or given by any person under or in the execution of any process, then a de- scription of the residence and occupation of the person against whom such process issued), and of every attesting witness to such bill of sale, shall be presented to and the said copy and affidavit shall be filed with the registrar within seven clear days after the making or giving of such bill of sale, in like manner as a warrant of attorney in any personal action given by a trader is now by law required to be filed." By the same section it is provided that bills of sale shall rank Priorities of in priority, inter se, according to the date of registration ; the question of such priority will be discussed in a later chapter (z). Where the schedule to a bill of sale described goods by num- The schedule, bers as per catalogue, it was held that the catalogue being referred to not in the bill itself, but only in the schedule, which was treated as distinct from the bill, did not require registra- tion (a) . A true copy is not invalidated for clerical errors, such as the What is a mis-spelling of a name (b), or obvious misstatement as to the date (c), or as to the amount of consideration (d), or as to the place of residence of a party (e), or the omission of a few words (u) Exp. Eauxwell, 23 Ch. D. 626, (b) Gardner v. Shaw, 19 TV. R. 753 ; 637, C. A. Corbett v. Howe, 25 W. R. 59. (z) Cooper v. Zeffert, 32 TV. R. 402, (c) Lamb v. Bruce, 45 L. J. Q. B. C A 538. See Soiling sworth v. White, 10 '(v) See R. S. C. LXb, and LXI. TV. R. 619. (z) Post, Chap. LVI. sect. hi. (d) Elliott v. Freeman, 7 L. T.N. S. pp. 1290 et seq. 715. («) Davidson v. Carlton Bank, (1893) (e) Exp. McKattie, Re Wood, 10 Ch. 1 Q. B. 82, C. A. D. 398, C. A. k2 244 BILLS OF SALE ACTS. CHAPTER XTP. Copy of bill of sale to be filed. The registrar. Local regis- tration of contents of bill of sale. Affidavits. which occur in the original document (/), or if blanks are left which do not occur in the original (g), provided such errors or omissions are not calculated to mislead. Sect. 10 does not require that the bills of sale and the sche- dule or inventory should themselves be filed, but only a copy thereof, together with the affidavit, though the originals of all the documents must be presented to the registrar. Under the Act of 1854, which allowed either originals or copies to be filed, it was held that the registration of a copy of a schedule, together with the original bill, was permissible where the original schedule had been disannexed from the bill and lost (h). A certificate of the filing of the bill of sale is no proof that a valid affidavit had been filed (i) ; nor are the contents of a bill of sale proved by the certificate of the Court (k) . By sect. 13 of the Act of 1878, it is enacted that — The masters of the Supreme Court of Judicature attached to the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, or such other officers as may for the time being be assigned for this purpose under the provisions of the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts, 1873 and 1875, are to be the registrars for the purposes of that Act, and any one of the said masters may perform all or any of the duties of the registrar. The duties of the registering officer are ministerial only, and it is not within his province to inquire whether the bill of sale and affidavit comply with the provisions of the Act (/). By sect. 11 of the Act of 1882, it is provided that in case of the residence of the grantor or the situation of the goods enumerated in the bill of sale being outside the London Bank- ruptcy district, the registrar under the Act of 1878 must transmit to the local registry, within three days, an abstract of the contents thereof to be filed, kept, and indexed therein, in which searches may be made (m). By sect. 17 of the Act of 1878, it is enacted that — Every affidavit required by or for the purposes of the Act may be sworn before a master of any Division of the High Court of Justice, or before any commissioner empowered to take affidavits in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Whoever wilfully makes or uses any false affidavit for the pur- (/) Exp. Kahen, Re Heiver, 21 Ch. D. 871, C. A. (a) Sharp v. McEenry (No. 2), 38 Ch. D. 427. (h) Green v. Attenborough, 3 H. & C. 468. (i) Mason v. Wood, 1 C. P. X>. 63. (k) Emmott v. Marchant, 3 Q. B. D. 555. (I) Needham v. Johnson, 15 W. It. 346. («) See R. S. C, Ord. LXb. And see Trinder v. Raynor, 56 L. J. Q. B. 422. THE AFFIDAVIT. 245 poses of the Act shall be deemed guilty of wilful and corrupt chapter xrv. perjury. An affidavit of due execution, and consequently the registra- Affidavit of tion of a bill of sale will be void, if sworn before a commissioner executlon - of oaths who has acted in the matter as solicitor for the grantee (n). A reference by the grantor to an affidavit, as sworn before a commissioner of a wrong Court, the commissioner being also a commissioner of the right Court, did not invalidate the affi- davit (0). The affidavit to be filed on registration must state the true Statement of date on which the bill of sale was executed ; but a statement execution, that the bill of sale was executed on the day on which it is dated is sufficient (p). The affidavit must also state that the bill was duly executed Statement of j 11 1 j due execution and attested. andattesta- The decisions as to the sufficiency of the affidavit of due attes- tion - tation for the most part relate to attestation by a solicitor and Sufficiency of . . . attestation. explanation of the effect of the bill, which are no longer required in the case of bills of sale given by way of security (q) . It would seem that in the case of any attesting witness, no less than in the case of a solicitor, it is not necessary to say in so many words that the witness attested, if the fact may be gathered upon reading the whole affidavit (>•). It is sufficient if the description of the grantor is in the intro- Description ductory part of the affidavit (s). A description in the bill of sale is not enough ; there must be the description in the affidavit filed with it (t) . If there is no description in the affidavit («), or if the description therein is untruly stated (a?), the defect cannot be supplied by reference to the bill of sale. But if the description in the affidavit is am- biguous, it is sufficient if the copy of the bill of sale annexed to the affidavit gives the requisite information with reasonable certainty, so as to identify the grantor (y). («) Baker v. Ambrose, (1896) 2 Q. 402. B. 372. (s) Blaiberg v. Parke, 10 Q. B. D. 90. (0) Cheney v. Courtois, 32 L. J. N. S. (t) Eatton v. English, 7 E. & B. 94. C. P. 116. \u) Pickard v. Bretz, 5 H. & N. 9. (p) lamb v. Bruce, 45 L. J. Q. B. (x) Brodrick v. Scale, L. R. 6 C. P. 538. 98. (q) See ante, p. 241. («/) Jones v. Harris, L. R. 7 Q. B. (r) Yates v. Ashcroft, 31 W. R. 157; Exp. Mackenzie, Re Bent, 42 L. J. 156. See Cooper v. Zeffert, 32 W. R. Bk. 25. 246 BILLS OF SALE ACTS. CHAPTER XTV. Sufficiency of description. Description where several grantors. An affidavit, which in effect verified the correctness of the de- scriptions and residences of the parties as contained in the bill of sale, was held to he sufficient (a) . Where the description of the residence and occupation was contained in the bill of sale, but the occupation was not described in the affidavit, the Act was not complied with (b), though the grantor was referred to in the affidavit as the said C. B. (c). The sufficiency of the description is a question for the judge, and not for the jury (d). The burden of proof is on the person seeking to impugn the description (e). A description by a deponent to the best of his belief is suffi- cient (/). A description of the deponent in the affidavit itself is sufficient (g) . The description must be of the residence and occupation at the time of swearing the affidavit, and not of executing the bill of sale (h). But this did not apply when, after execution, the grantor left his residence for America (/). If there are two grantors, the affidavit must describe the resi- dence and occupation of both. So, where a bill of sale was executed by two grantors, of whom one was in possession of the goods at the time of their seizure under a ft. fa., an affidavit describing the residence and occupation of that grantor only was held to be insufficient (/.•). But in a case where a bill of sale and the affidavit filed on its registration described the grantors (who were father and son) by their true addresses, and added that they were manufacturers carrying on business together under a specified firm ; and it appeared that they had, in fact, formerly carried on the business of manufacturers in partnership, but, at the time when the bill of sale was executed, the partnership had been dissolved, and the business was being carried on by the father alone, the son being in his employment as a clerk ; the property comprised in the deed in fact belonged to the father alone, though both (a) Foulger v. Taylor, 5 H. & N. 202. See Banbury v. White, 9 Jur. N. S. 913. (b) Batton v. English, 7 E. & B. 94. \c) Pickard v. Bretz, 5 H. & N. 9. (d) Phillips v. Burt, 2 F. & F. 862. (e) Sutton v. Bath, 3 H. & N. 382 ; Grant v. Shaw, L. R. 7 Q. B. 700. (/) Hoe v. Bradshaiv, L. R. 1 Ex. 106. {g) Allen v. Thompson, 1 H. & N. 15; Sladden v. Sargeant, 1 F. & F. 322 ; Exp. Lowenthal, L. R. 9 Ch. A. 329. (h) Button v. O'Neill, 4 C. P. D. 354, disapproving of London and West- minster Loan Co. v. Chace, 12 C. B. N. S. 730. (i) Exp. Kahen, Be Hewer, 21 Ch. D. 871. (k) Kooper v. Parmenter, 10 "W. R. 648. THE AFFIDAVIT. 247 father and son joined in the assignment; the father alone chapter xiv. filed a liquidation petition : it was held that there was no misdescription of the grantors such as to affect the validity of the registration, first, because the son not being a bankrupt, any misdescription of him was immaterial ; secondly, because as to the father, the statement that he was carrying on business with the son was mere surplusage, and was not misleading (/). The Bills of Sale Act, 1854, did not require the name of the Name of grantor to be stated ; neither do the Acts of 1878 and 1882 (m) ; §' rantor - and accordingly, where in an affidavit, as well as in the bill itself, the christian name of the grantor was wilfully misstated, for the purpose of concealing the fact that he had given a bill of sale, it was held that, it not being alleged that the execution creditor was misled by the description, the registration was not thereby rendered invalid (n). In both the cases last cited the Court laid stress on the fact that it was the christian name, and not the surname, which was misstated, and pointed out that a person searching the register would look to the surname, not to the christian name. But in a later case a bill of sale given in an assumed name, by which alone the grantor was known in the locality where she resided, was held to be duly executed and registered (o). Both in the case of the grantor and of the attesting witness, the requirement as to residence is complied with by reference to the place of business or employment, though he sleep else- where (p). If he has two residences, it has been held in one case that they must both be stated (q) ; but it seems to be now settled that it is sufficient to state the principal place of resi- dence or business (r) . A witness, if a clerk or otherwise employed by another person, may describe himself as such, and give as his address his em- ployer's place of business, provided that he is habitually to be found at that address, so that persons interested in the goods can be sure the inquiries addressed there will reach him (s). {I) Exp. Foppleivell, Re Storey, 21 fe) WaWsv. Smith,W.T$. (1882) 77. Ch. D. 73, C. A. (V) Exp. Knightley, Re Moulson, 51 (m) Exp. McHattie, Re Wood, 10 L. J. Ch. 823 ; Cooper v. Ibberson, 29 Ch. D. 398, C. A. W. R. 566 ; Grecnham v. Child, 24 (n) Eownsv. Salmon, 20 Q. B.D. 775. Q. B. D. 29. See Sewer v. Cox, 3 E. (o) Central Rank of London v. Saw- &E. 428. kins, 60 L. T. 901. (s) Simmons v. Woodward, (1892) (p) Blackwell v. England, 8 E. & B. A. C. 100 ; Sickley v. Greenwood, 59 541 ; Attenborough v. Thompson, 2 H. L. T. 137. See Lamb v. Bruce, 24 W. & N. 559. B. 645. 248 BILLS OF SALE ACTS. CHAPTER XIV. Mistake in description. Description of attesting witness. Description of "witness as " gentle- man." Descriptions held to be insufficient. An erroneous addition (s) or omission (t) in the statement of the residence, if not calculated to mislead, will not vitiate the affidavit. A mistake in the number of the street has been held to be fatal («). A statement that the attesting witness was " residing at Acton, in the city of London," was held not to vitiate the affidavit, though Acton is in Middlesex (x). The affidavit must contain the description of every attesting witness (y). No statement of the occupation of a trading company is necessary, nor of its directors, who sign the bill of sale as such for the purpose of authenticating the seal, and accordingly are not considered to be attesting witnesses within the Act (a). A peer is sufficiently described by his title (a) . The description " gentleman," which means a person without an occupation (b), was held to be improperly applied to a clerk in a government office (c) ; to a solicitor (d) ; to an attorney's clerk (e) ; to a person who had been an attorney, but was acting as clerk to another attorney (/) ; to a traveller for a house of business (/) ; in fact, to anyone who has an employment (g) ; but it is sufficient if the witness has no employment, or no regular employment (A), or if he is only a dormant partner in a firm (i). The following descriptions were held not sufficient : — "accountant," by a clerk in an accountant's office (k) ; "esquire," when the grantor was manager of a theatre (I) ; " as of the City of Cork, law clerk," as not giving sufficient facility for (s) Sewer v. Cox, 3 E. & E. 428 ; Exp. McHattie, 10 Ch. D. 390, C. A. [t) Throssell v. Marsh, 53 L. T. 321. (w) Murray v. McKenzie, L. R. 10 C. P. 625. (x) Blount v. Harris, 4 Q. B. D. 603. (y) Pickard v. Marriage, 1 Ex. D. 364 ; Nicholson v. Cooper, 3 H. & N. 384. (z) Shears v. Jacob, L. R. 1 C. P. 513 ; Befell v. White, L. R. 2 C. P. 144. (a) Re Earl of Limerick, 7 Ir. Jur. N. S. 65. (b) Gray v. Jones, 14 C. B. N. S. 743. (c) Allen v. Thompson, 1 H. & N. 15 ; Brodrick v. Scale, L. R. 6 C. P. {d) Tuton v. Sanoner, 3 H. & N. 280. (e) Dryden v. Hope, 9 W. R. 18. (/) Matthews v. Buchanan, 5 T. L. R. 373. (ff) Beales v. Tennant, 29 L. J. Q. B. 188 ; Adams v. Graham, 33 L. J. Q. B. 71. (h) Morcwood v. 8. Yorkshire Bail. $c. Co., 3 H. & N. 798; Sutton v. Bath, 3 H. & N. 382 ; Smith v. Cheese, 1 C. P. D. 60. (i) Feast v. Robinson and Fisher, W. N. (1894) 14. (k) Larchin v. North- Western Deposit Bank, L. R. 10 Ex. 64, not extending Briggs v. Boss, L. R. 3 Q. B. 268. (I) Exp. Hooman, L. R. 10 Eq. 63. RENEWAL OF REGISTRATION. 249 finding the witness if required (m) ; " until lately a commercial chapter xiv. traveller," when he was a commercial traveller (n) ; " tutor," when he was a schoolmaster (0). "Where the grantor of a bill of sale in the affidavit filed under sect. 10 described himself as carrying on business as a wine merchant, he being in fact only a paid manager, the misdescrip- tion was held fatal (p). The following descriptions were held sufficient : " now in no Descriptions occupation," of a person formerly in the militia (q) ; " govern- jj^fejj® ment clerk," being a clerk in the Admiralty (r) ; " widow," where the witness was widow and executrix of her husband, a farmer, winding up the business through a bailiff (s) ; " wife of" A. B., where the witness was a lessee of a public-house, in which her husband carried on business under a licence taken out in his name (t). If the grantor or witness exercises more than one occupation, it would seem to be sufficient if the principal occupation is stated in the affidavit (u). A future occupation which is merely in prospect, and has not actually commenced (x), or an occupation which has ceased (y), need not be described. But the ordinary occupation of a person should be stated, though he is out of employment at the time of making the affidavit (2) . xvi. — Renewal of Registration. — By sect. 11 of the Act of 1878, it is enacted as follows : — " The registration of a bill of sale, whether executed before or after Renewal of the commencement of this Act, must be renewed once at least every registration, five years, and, if a period of five years elapses from the registra- tion or renewed registration of a bill of sale without a renewal or further renewal (as the case may be), the registration shall become void. " The renewal of a registration shall be effected by filing with the registrar an affidavit stating the date of the bill of sale, and of the last registration thereof, and the names, residences, and occupations (m) Re Hams, 10 Ir. Ch. R. 100. («) Throssellv. Marsh, 53 L. T. 321 ; (n) Castle v. Downton, 5 C. P. D. 56. Exp. National Deposit Bank, Re Wills, (0) Lee v. Turner, 20 Q. B. D. 373. 26 W. R. 624. The rule appears to ( p) Cooper v. Davis, 32 W. R. 329, be different in Ireland. See Re Fitz- C. A. patrich, 19 L. R. Ir. 206. (q) Trousdale v. Shephard, 14 Ir. C. (x) Exp. Chapman, Re Davey, 45 L. R. 370. L. T. 268. (»•) Grant v. Shaw, L. R. 7 Q. B. 700. (y) Exp. National Mercantile Bank, (s) Luckin v. Hamlyn, 18 W. R. 43 ; 15 Ch. D. 42, C. A. Exp. Chapman, W. N. (1881) 109, (2) Sharp v. McHenry (No. 2), 38 C. A. Ch. D. 427. (0 Usher v. Martin, 61 L. T. 778. 250 BILLS OF SALE ACTS. CHAPTER XIV. Effect of omission to re-reaister. of the parties thereto as stated therein, and that the bill of sale is still a subsisting security. "Every such affidavit may be in the form set forth in the schedule (A.) to this Act annexed. " A renewal of registration shall not become necessary by reason only of a transfer or assignment of a bill of sale." A bill of sale, the registration of which has become void for want of renewal, cannot be renewed under sect. 14 of this Act, which empowers the Court to rectify the register on being satisfied that an omission to register, or a defect in the regis- tration, was accidental or due to inadvertence, or under sect. 23, which prescribes the mode of renewing registration of bills made under the former Acts (a) . The Act of 1882 (b) does not apply to any bill of sale regis- tered before its commencement unless avoided by non-renewal or otherwise ; and if the registration of a bill of sale becomes void by omission to renew, the bill will still be good as between grantor and grantee (c). But a bill of sale registered since the commencement of this Act (d) will be void for all purposes unless duly re-registered (e). The affidavit. The affidavit must state the name and residence stated in the bill of sale, although they be erroneous (/). It is sufficient if the residence of the witness is stated in the introductory part of the affidavit, although it is not in the body (g) . xvii. — The Register. — By sect. 12 of the Act of 1878, it is enacted as follows : — Form of " The registrar shall keep a booh (in the Act called ' the register ') register. -f or ^he purposes of the Act, and shall, upon the filing of any bill of sale or copy under the Act, enter therein in the form set forth in the second schedule (B.) to the Act annexed, or in any other pre- scribed form, the name, residence, and occupation of the person by whom the bill was made or given (or in case the same was made or given by any person under or in the execution of process, then the name, residence, and occupation of the person against whom such process was issued), and also the name of the person or persons to whom or in whose favour the bill was given, and the other particu- lars shown in the said schedule or to be prescribed under the Act, and shall number all such bills registered in each year consecutively, according to the respective dates of their registration. (a) Askew v. Lewis, 10 Q. B. D. 477; Re Emery, Exp. Off. Rec, 21 Q. B. D. 405, 0. A. (b) See sect. 3 of that Act. (c) Cookson v. Swire. 9 App. Cas. 653. (el) 31st October, 1882. (e) Fenton v. Blythe, 25 Q. B. D. 417. (/) Exp. Webster, Re Morris, 22 Ch. D. 136. (g) Blaiberg v. Parke, 10 Q. B. D. 90. THE REGISTER. 251 "Upon the registration of any affidavit of renewal the like entry chapter xiv. shall be made, with the addition of the date and number of the last previous entry relating to the same bill, and the bill of sale or copy originally filed shall be thereupon marked with the number affixed to such affidavit of renewal. ' ' The registrar shall also keep an index of the names of the grantors of registered bills of sale with reference to entries in the register of the bills of sale given by each such grantor." By sect. 14 of the same Act it is enacted, that — "Any judge of the High Court of Justice, on being satisfied that Rectification the omission to register a bill of sale or an affidavit of renewal of register, thereof within the time prescribed by this Act, or the omission or misstatment of the name, residence, or occupation of any person, was accidental or due to inadvertence, may, in his discretion, order such omission or misstatement to be rectified by the insertion in the register of the true name, residence, or occupation, or by extending the time for such registration on such terms and conditions (if any) as to security, notice by advertisement or otherwise, or as to any other matter, as he thinks fit to direct." The Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction under this section (//). The jurisdiction of a judge, under this section, as to rectifica- tion is limited to the register, and does not enable him to rectify mistakes in the affidavit («). Possibly, however, an extension of time for registration might be granted under this section so as to enable a fresh affidavit to be filed (J). The jurisdiction will not be exercised after third parties have acquired rights ; and the time of registration or re-registration cannot be extended, so as to defeat the right of an execution creditor (A-) or of a trustee in bankruptcy (7). The section is not retrospective (m) . By sect. 16 it is enacted as follows : — " Any person shall be entitled to have an office copy or extract of Office copies. any registered bill of sale, and affidavit of execution filed there- with, or copy thereof, and of any affidavit filed therewith, if any, or registered affidavit of renewal, upon paying for the same at the like rate as for office copies of judgments of the High Court of Justice; and any copy of a registered bill of sale, and affidavit purporting to be an office copy thereof, shall in all Courts and before all arbitra- tors or other persons, be admitted as primd facie evidence thereof, and of the fact and date of registration as shown thereon." (h) Exp. Webster, Be Morris, 48 L. (k) Crew v. Gumming s, supra. T. 295. (I) He Parsons, Exp. Furber, (1893) (i) Crew v. Cummings, 21 Q. B. D. 2 Q. B. 122, C. A. 420, C. A. (m) Asheio v. Lewis, 10 Q. B. D. 477 ; (j) Re Dobbins' Settlement, 56 L. J. Re Emery, Exp. Off. Rec., 21 Q. B. D. Q. B. 295. 405, 0. A. 252 BILLS OF SALE ACTS. CHAPTER XIV. Fees. By sect. 16 of the Act of 1882 (repealing in part sect. 16 of the Act of 1878), any person may search the registry on pay- ment of one shilling or other prescribed fee, and inspect and make extracts from registered bills of sale ; which extracts are limited to the date of execution, and other prescribed particulars. The office copy of the registry was held valid evidence under 14 & 15 Yict. c. 99, s. 14 (n). The book kept under the Act is within 13 & 14 Yict. c. 99, s. 44, and a certified copy of it is admissible in evidence, and as the bill of sale and affidavit must be filed simultaneously, the date of the affidavit can be inferred from the date of filing the bill (o). A copy of a bill of sale is not to be filed in any Court, unless the original, duly stamped, is produced to the proper officer (_p). As to fees, see sects. 18 and 19 of the Act of 1878. xviii. — Transfers and Assignments of Bills of Sale. — Sect. 10 of the Act of 1878 further enacts that — Transfers, &c. need not be registered. registered. A transfer or assignment of a registered bill of sale need not be Transfer and further char °re. Sub- mortgage by deposit of bill of sale. Registration of transfer will not validate unregistered bill of sale. If, upon a transfer, a further sum is advanced, the deed is an effectual security for the amount owing in respect of the original advance without registration (q) ; but it would seem doubtful whether the deed, unless registered, would be a valid security for the further sum (r) . A memorandum by way of sub-mortgage given by the holder of a registered bill of sale, accompanied by a deposit of the bill, is within the protection of this section, and does not require registration, though the transferee subsequently acquires the equity of redemption under the bill of sale (s) . The grantee of a bill of sale cannot by assignment pass to the assignee a better title than he has himself (t) ; and, accordingly, where a grantee under an unregistered bill of sale assigned the goods comprised therein by a bill of sale duly registered, it was (n) Sutton v. Bath, 3 H. & N. 382 ; Grindall v. Brendon, 6 C. B. N. S. 698. (o) Grindall v. Brendon, sup. (p) Stamp Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 41), s. 41. (q) Home v. Hughes, 6 Q. B. D. 676, C. A. (»•) Ibid., at p. 683. See Wale v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, 4 Ex. D. 270. (s) Exp. Turquand, Me Parker, 14 Q. B. D. 636, C. A. (t) Exp. Odell, Re Walden, 39 L. T. 333, this point is not referred to in 8. C., 10 Ch. D. 76. VACATION OF BILLS OF SALE. 253 held that the want of registration of the original bill vitiated chaptkbxiv. the title of the assignee («). Though the assignment need not he registered, the assignee Assignee must re-register the original bill of sale every five years (). Agister. xix.— Vacation of Bills of Sale.— A bill of sale is vacated without re-assignment by a memorandum of satisfaction in the prescribed manner. By sect. 15 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1878, it is enacted that : — " Subiect to and in accordance with any rules to be made under Entry of and for the purposes of this Act, the registrar may order a memo- satisfaction, randum of satisfaction to be written upon any registered copy oia hill of sale upon the prescribed evidence being given that the debt, if any, for which such bill of sale was made or given has been satisfied or discharged." By the Eules of the Supreme Court, 0. LXI. (#) , it is provided as follows : — E 26 "A memorandum of satisfaction maybe ordered to be Memorandum written upon a registered copy of a bill of sale on a consent to the of ******* satisfaction, signed by the person entitled to the benefit ot the bill ^ of sale, and verified by affidavit, being produced to the registrar, and filed in the Central Office." E 27 " Where the consent in the last preceding rule mentioned Order for cannot be obtained, the registrar may, on application by summons, — d™ and on hearing the person entitled to the benefit of the bill of sale, ^ atlbtac or on affidavit of service of the summons on that person, and m either case on proof to the satisfaction of the registrar that the debt (if any) for which the bill of sale was made has been satisfied or discharged, order a memorandum of satisfaction to be written upon a registered copy thereof." The repealed Act of 1854 required the consent to be signed Ojgjj*^ in the presence and to be verified by the affidavit of a solicitor ; and though these requirements are not expressly contained in the present Act, it was, till recently, the practice generally to require the consent to be so verified. But in a recent case it has been held that the affidavit verifying the signature and consent of the person entitled to the benefit of a bill of sale to the entry of satisfaction of the bill of sale need not be made by a solicitor (s) . (tfl Chapman v. Knight, 5 0. P. D. (y) A form of summons and am- oQg davit is given. (*) Karety. Kosher Meat Association, (a) Re White and Bubery, (1894) 2 2 Q. B. D. 361. Q« B - 923 - 254 BILLS OF SALE ACTS. CHAPTER XIV. Act of 1878, s. 20. Order and disposition. Repeal of sect. 20. XX. — Order and Disposition Clause in Bankruptcy. — The registration of an absolute bill of sale of itself gives tlie noto- riety which excludes the application of the doctrine of reputed ownership, for it was thus enacted by sect. 20 of the Act of 1878 :— Chattels comprised in a bill of sale which has been and continues to be duly registered under the Act shall not be deemed to be in the possession, order, or disposition of the grantor of the bill of sale within the meaning of the B. A. 1869 (a). This section has been repealed, only in respect of bills of sale given by way of security (b). The effect of the repeal, as regards such bills, is to restore the rule under the Act of 1854, under which it was held that registration did not exclude the doctrine of reputed ownership (c). But notwithstanding the repeal of sect. 20, the effect of sect. 3 of the Act of 1882 is that chattels comprised in a bill of sale registered under the Act of 1878, before the coming into opera- tion of the Act of 1882, are not, so long as the registration is subsisting, within the " order and disposition " clause, even when an act of bankruptcy is committed by the grantor after the coming into operation of the Act of 1882 (d). During the seven days between the making and the registra- tion of a bill of sale, the order and disposition clause does not apply (e). The clause in the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, protecting convey- ances or assignments by bankrupts for valuable consideration, if made before the date of the receiving order in good faith and without notice, has no operation as regards a transaction void under the Bills of Sale Acts (/). («i) 32 & 33 Vict. c. 71. \b) Act of 1882, ss. 3, 15. See Swift v. Fannd!, 24 Ch. D. 210 ; Beeves v. Barlow, 12 Q. B. D. 436, C. A. ; Sail v. Smith, W. N. (1887) 170, C. A. (c) Stansfeld v. Cubitt, 2 De G-. & J. 222 ; Badger v. Shaw, 29 L. J. Q. B. 73 ; Be Daniel, 25 L. T. 188 ; Exp. Sarding, Be Fairbrother, L. E,. 15 Eq. 223. {d) Exp. Izard, Be Chappie, 23 Ch. D. 409, C. A. (e) Exp. Eahen, Be Sewer, 21 Ch. D. 871. (/) Exp. Attwater, 5 Ch. D. 27, C. A. See Be Waitgh, 4 Ch. D. 524. ( 255 ) CHAPTER XY. OF MORTGAGES OF SHIPS, FREIGHT AND CARGO. Section I. Mortgages of Ships and Shares therein. i. — Registration of British Ships and of Owners of Ships and Ship not a Shares. — A ship is not like an ordinary chattel ; it does not passive- by pass by delivery, nor does the possession of it prove the title to delivery, it. There is no market overt for ships (a) . Mortgages of British ships have long been the subject of Statute law as statutory regulations, which were so strict in regard to defects f ^° PS gages in the assurance as almost to oust the jurisdiction of equity : but all former statutes were repealed by the Merchant Shipping Repeal Act, 1854 (b). And in the same year the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (c), was passed, which, with the amending Acts (d), has been repealed by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (c), which has consolidated the previous law on the subject. Mortgages of British ships are now exclusively regulated by Merchant the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (e). This Act substantially Sf ing Act ' re-enacts the provisions relating to or affecting mortgages of ships and shares contained in the former Acts, and accordingly the decisions on those Acts appear for the most part to be in force in determining the construction of the present Act and the rights of parties thereunder. A British ship within the meaning of the Act is a ship the Meaning of owners of which comply with the qualifications as to birth, J^m' n naturalization, or denization mentioned in the Act, but not British-born persons bearing allegiance to a foreign State ; also bodies corporate established under and subject to the laws of, (a) Hooper v. Gunn, L. R. 2 Ch. A. {c) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104. 290. (d) 43 & 44 Vict. c. 18. {b) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 120. {e) 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60. 256 MORTGAGE OF SHIP. CHAPTER XV. Registration of British Division of ship into sixty-four shares. Register book. Entry of particulars in register book. Notice of and having their principal place of business in, some part of her Majesty's dominions (/). Every British ship must be registered, and will not be recog- nized as a British ship until registered, in manner prescribed by the Act (g). In contemplation of the Act a ship is divided into sixty-four shares, and any one or more shares, but not a fractional part of a share, may be the subject of mortgage under the Act (h). The Act of 1894 enacts as follows : — Sect. 5. "Every registrar of British ships shall keep a book to be called the register book, and entries in that book shall be made in accordance with the following provisions : — (1.) The property in a ship shall be divided into sixty-four shares. (2.) Subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to joint owners or owners by transmission, not more than sixty- four individuals shall be entitled to be registered at the same time as owners of any one ship ; but this rule shall not affect the beneficial title of any number of persons or of any company represented by or claiming under or through any registered owner or joint owner. (3.) A person shall not be entitled to be registered as owner of a fractional part of a share in a ship ; but any number of persons, not exceeding five, may be registered as joint owners of a ship, or of any share or shares therein. (4.) Joint owners shall be considered as constituting one person only as regards the persons entitled to be registered, and shall not be entitled to dispose in severalty of any interest in a ship, or in any share therein, in respect of which they are registered. (5.) A corporation may be registered as owner by its corporate name." The Act of 1894, after providing for declarations as to owner- ship by individual owners and corporate bodies (?'), and as to the evidence to be produced on the registry of a ship (k), proceeds, bys. 11, to prescribe that the registrar shall enter in the register book particulars as to (1) the name and port of the ship ; (2) details as to her tonnage, build, and description ; (3) par- ticulars of origin ; (4) names and descriptions of her registered owner or owners, and if there is more than one owner, the pro- portions in which they are interested. By sects. 56 and 57 of the same Act it is enacted as follows: — Sect. 56. "No notice of any trust, express, implied, or constructive, (/) 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. iff) Ibid. s. 2. (A) Ibid. ss. 5, 31. (i) Sect. 9. (A) Sect. 10. REGISTRATION OF SHIP AND OWNER. 257 shall be entered in the register book or be receivable by the chapter xv. registrar, and subject to any rights and powers appearing by the " " register book to be vested in any other person, the registered owner rece i vec i. of a ship or of a share therein shall have power absolutely to dis- pose in manner in this Act provided of the ship or share, and to give effectual receipts for any money paid or advanced by way of consideration." Sect. 57. " The expression beneficial interest, whenever used in Equities not this part of this Act, includes interests arising under contract and excluded by other equitable interests, and the intention of this Act is, that with- c ' out prejudice to the provisions of this Act for preventing notice of trusts from being entered in the register book, or received by the registrar, and without prejudice to the powers of disposition and of giving receipts conferred by this Act on registered owners and mortgagees, and without prejudice to the provisions of this Act relating to the exclusion of unqualified persons from the ownership of British ships, interests arising under contract or other equitable interests, may be enforced by or against owners and mortgagees of ships in respect of their interest therein, in the same manner as in respect of any other personal property." Accordingly, where a transfer of a ship was executed in the Evidence of form prescribed by s. 55 of the repealed Act of 1854, so as to be e( l ulties - absolute in its terms, it was held that the owners were not precluded from showing that the transfer was intended to be as a security only (/). Similarly, where a mortgage of a ship was made in the form prescribed by s. 66, and transferred according to the form pre- scribed by s. 73, it was held that the Court was at liberty, by virtue of the section above set out, in estimating the rights of the transferee of the mortgage, to consider not only the registered documents, but all the transactions relating to the loan (m) . Sects. 14 to 23 of the Act of 1894 contain provisions as to Certificates certificates of registry on which all changes of ownership must ° s iy ' be indorsed ; and, by s. 15, it is enacted that, "The certificate Custody of of registry shall be used only for the lawful navigation of the ship, and shall not be subject to detention by reason of any title, lien, charge, or interest whatever, had or claimed by any owner, mortgagee, or other person to, on, or in the ship " ; and the refusal to deliver it on demand to the person entitled to it for the purpose of navigation, officers of customs, or other person legally entitled to require it, is punishable by penalty. It is, therefore, illegal to pledge the certificate, and the person Certificate entitled to it for the purpose of navigation, though himself pledged {l) Ward v. Seek, 13 C. B. N. S. 668; also Keroula, 11 P. D. 92, lnnhf alien, L. R. 1 A. & E. 72. See (*») Cathcart, L. R. 1 A. & E. 314. VOL. I. — R. S 258 MORTGAGE OF SHIP. CHAPTER XV. the pledger, may maintain an action («), after demand for its delivery, and may recover damages for the wrongful detainer, in addition to his right to proceed for the penalty. The Act of 1894 contains the following provisions as to transfers and transmission of ships and shares therein : — Transfer of ships or shares. Sect. 24. — "(1.) A registered ship or a share therein (when dis- posed of to persons qualified to own a British ship) shall be transferred by bill of sale. " (2.) The bill of sale shall contain such description of the ship as is contained in the surveyor's certificate, or some other description sufficient to identify the ship to the satisfaction of the registrar, and shall be according to the form marked A. in the first part of the First Schedule to this Act, or as near thereto as circumstances permit, and shall be executed by the transferor in the presence of, and be attested by, a witness or witnesses." Declaration of transfer. Register of transfer. Validity of transfer in bankruptcy. Improper transfer. Distinction between legal and equitable interests. By s. 25, it is provided that a transferee shall not be regis- tered until he, or, in the case of a corporation, the proper officer, has made a declaration stating his qualification, or that of the corporation, to be registered as owner ; and that no unqualified, person or body of persons is entitled as owners to any legal or beneficial interest in the ship or any share therein. By s. 26, upon production to the registrar of the transfer and prescribed declaration, he is to enter in the register book the name of the transferee, and to indorse on the transfer the fact of such entry, with the date and hour thereof. Transfers are to be registered in the order of their production to the registrar. The mere transfer of a ship under s. 24 gives the transferee a good title against the trustee in bankruptcy of the transferor, although, until registration, he could not transfer it to a purchaser under s. 26 (o). A registration founded on a sale by an attorney in excess of his power was held to give no title, even at law, to the person thereby registered as ow r ner (p) ; and a re-transfer was directed to be executed by a person who had been registered as owner under a mistake as to title (q). In the transfer of a British ship, there is a clear distinction between the legal estate and mere beneficial interests therein. (n) Wiley v. Crawford, 1 B. & S. 253, 265. (o) Stapkton v. Say mem, 2 H. & C. 918. (p) Orry. Dickenson, John. 1. (t ° (r) Chasteameuf v. Capeyron, 7 App. (s) Siapleton v. Haymcn, 2 H. & C. Cas. 127. 918. s2 260 MORTGAGE OF SHIP. CHAPTER XV. Forms of documents, and instruc- tions as to registry. Discrepancy between mortgage and register. Unregistered mortgage. Collateral agreement. Eight of insurer. Deposit of policy. Exception of the adventure which were on board at the date of the mort- gage, and articles brought on board subsequently to the mortgage in substitution for the same (w). A fortiori, if the mortgage is expressed to be of a ship " with the appurtenances," the term " appurtenances " will pass to the mortgagee anything which is on board for the accomplishment of the voyage and of the adventure (x). So a chronometer was held to pass to the mortgagee as an " appurtenance " of the ship(//). But cargo will not pass as an " appurtenance " (s). By s. 65 of the Act, mortgages not in the prescribed form are not to be registered, except by direction of the Commis- sioners of Customs ; but the Commissioners may from time to time, with the consent of the Board of Trade, alter the forms, upon giving public notice of such alterations. A slight difference between the mortgage and the register in the name of the ship is of no consequence, if there is no doubt as to the identity ; as where the mortgage was of the " City of Bruxelles," registered as the " City of Brussels " (a). A mortgage is binding between the mortgagee and mort- gagor, though the requisites of the registry are not complied with (J). Mortgages in the prescribed form may properly be supple- mented by unregistered collateral agreements (c). The right of an insurer of ships who is, but does not appear on the register as, the mortgagee to the proceeds of the policies is not affected by the Acts (d). A security by way of deposit of a policy on a ship at sea, which is afterwards injured and condemned, may give the depositee authority to sue on the policy, but it passes no property in the ship, and does not authorize the depositee to give notice of abandonment as for a total loss (e). Mortgages of British ships and shares therein are excepted (u) Coltman v. Chamberlain, 25 Q. B. D. 328 ; Hull Rope Co. v. Adams, 65 L. J. Q. B. 114. (x) Dundee, 1 Hagg. 109 ; S.C., sub nom. Gale v. Laurie, 5 B. & Cr. 162. (y) Langton v. Morton, 1 Ha. 549. (z) Post, p. 273. (a) Bell v. Bank of London, 3 H. & N. 730. (b) Lister v. Payn, 11 Sim. 348. (c) Benwell Tower, 72 L. T. 664. See also Lnnisfallen, L. R. 1 A. & E. 72 ; Cathcart, L. R. 1 A. & E. 314. (d) Ladbroke v. Lee, 4 De G. & S. 106. (e) Jardine v. Leathley, 3 B. & S. 700. FORM AND REGISTRATION OF MORTGAGE. 261 from the operation of the Bills of Sale Acts (/), and accordingly chapter xv. do not require to be made according to the form prescribed by mortgages of the Bills of Sale Act, 1882, nor to be registered under those Bills 8 of Sale Acts(g). And such mortgages will be within the exception, Acts. though not made according to the form prescribed by, nor registered under, the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (h). All articles and materials passing by a mortgage of a ship by Fittings, &c. the word " appurtenances " are protected by the exception, so as to exempt the security by which they pass from the necessity of registration under the Bills of Sale Acts (i). A mortgage may be given without such registration on an Unfinished unfinished ship in course of building which will effectually pass s lp * not only the ship itself but all things prepared for, though not actually attached to the ship (/.•). And a valid charge may similarly be given on a builder's interest in an unfinished ship by deposit of the builder's certificate (/). If a registered owner is desirous of mortgaging at any place Certificates of out of the country in which the port of registry is situate, the registrar may enable him to do so by granting a " certificate of mortgage " giving him a power to mortgage (m). Previously to the grant of a certificate, entries must be made in the register book of the names of the persons by whom the power is to be exercised and the maximum amount of the charge to be created, and the place where, and the limit of time within which, the power is to be exercised (»). A certificate is not to be granted so as to authorize a mortgage within the United Kingdom if the port of registry is within the United Kingdom or in any British possession in which the port of registry is situate, or at or within the area of any port of registry established by Order in Council, or by any person not named by the certificate (o) . Certificates of mortgage must contain a statement of the particulars directed to be entered in the register book, and an enumeration of any registered mortgages or certificates of mortgage or sale affecting the ship or shares in respect of which the certificate is given (_/;). ( f) 41 & 42 Vict. c. 31, s. 4 ; 45 & {k) Reid v. Fairbanks, 1 C. L. R. 787 ; 46 Vict. c. 43. ' Woods v. Russell, 5 B. & Aid. 942. (ff) See ante, pp. 201, 202. IJ) Exp. Sodg kin (or Winter), Re Soft- (A) Union Bank of London v. Lenan- ley, L. R. 20 Eq. 746. ton, 3 C. P. D. 243. (w) Sect. 39. (i) Coltman v. Chamberlain, 25 Q. B. (n) Sect. 40. D. 328, 331. See ante, p. 259. (o) Sect. 41. (p) Sect. 42. 262 MORTGAGE OF SHIP. chapter xv. Sect. 43. The following rules shall be observed as to certificates of certificates of (*•) ^ ne P ower shall be exercised in conformity with the directions mortgagee. contained in the certificate. (2.) Every mortgage made thereunder shall be registered by the indorsement of a record thereof on the certificate by a registrar or British consular officer. (3.) A mortgage made in good faith thereunder shall not be impeached by reason of the person by whom the power was given dying before the making of the mortgage. (4.) Whenever the certificate contains a specification of the place at which, and a limit of time not exceeding twelve months within which the power is to be exercised, a mortgage made in good faith to a mortgagee without notice, shall not be impeached by reason of the bankruptcy of the person by whom the power was given. (5.) Every mortgage which is so registered as aforesaid on the certificate, shall have priority over all mortgages of the same ship or share created subsequently to the date of the entry of the certificate in the register book ; and if there are more mortgages than one so registered, the respective mortgagees claiming thereunder shall, notwithstanding any express, implied, or constructive notice, be entitled, one before the other, according to the date at which each mortgage is registered on the certificate, and not according to the date of the mortgage. (6.) Subject to the foregoing rules, every mortgagee whose mort- gage is registered on the certificate shall have the same rights and powers, and be subject to the same liabilities, as he would have had and been subject to if his mortgage had been registered in the register book instead of on the certificate. (7.) The discharge of any mortgage so registered on the certifi- cate may be indorsed on the certificate by any registrar or British consular officer, upon the production of such evi- dence as is by this Act required to be produced to the registrar on the entry of the discharge of a mortgage in the register book ; and on that indorsement being made, the interest, if any, which passed to the mortgagee shall vest in the same person or persons in whom it would (having regard to intervening acts and circumstances, if any), have vested if the mortgage had not been made. (8.) On the delivery of any certificate of mortgage to the registrar by whom it was granted, he shall, after recording in the register book, in such manner as to preserve its priority, any unsatisfied mortgage registered thereon, cancel the certificate and enter the fact of the cancellation in the register book ; and every certificate so cancelled shall be void to all intents. Mortgagor in iii. — Rights and Liabilities of Mortgagee in Possession.— So possession. . ° ° long as the mortgagee of a ship does not take possession, the mortgagor, as the registered owner subject to the mortgage, MORTGAGEE IN POSSESSION. 263 retains all the rights and powers of ownership, and his contracts chapter xy. with regard to the ship will be valid and effectual, and bind the mortgagee, provided that his dealings do not materially impair the mortgagee's security. Sect. 34. "Except as far as may be necessary for making a mort- Mortgagee gaged ship or share available as a security for the mortgage debt, the not treate( l mortgagee shall not, by reason of the mortgage, be deemed the owner of a ship or share, nor shall the mortgagor be deemed to have ceased to be owner thereof." Sect. 35. " Every registered mortgagee shall have power absolutely Mortgagee to to dispose of the ship or share in respect of which he is registered, have power and to give effectual receipts for the purchase-money ; but where ° fca e " there are more persons than one registered as mortgagees of the same ship or share, a subsequent mortgagee shall not, except under the order of a Court of competent jurisdiction, sell the ship or share without the concurrence of every prior mortgagee." The Admiralty Division of the High Court of Judicature has Jurisdiction • -, . , . ,. . . „ , -ii of Admiralty jurisdiction over any claims m respect of any mortgage duly Division. " registered according to the provisions of the Act, whether the ship or the proceeds thereof be under the arrest of the Court or not, and will enforce equities between owners and mortgagees of ships (p). The position of a mortgagor in possession is thus stated by Rights of Lord Cairns, C, in the leading case of KvitJi v. Burrows (q) : possession to " The mortgagee of a ship does not, ordinarily speaking, obtain user of ship any transfer by w r ay of contract or assignment of the freight, nor does the mortgagor of a ship undertake to employ the ship in any particular way, or, indeed, to employ the ship so as to earn freight at all. The mortgagor of a ship may allow the ship to lie tranquil in dock, or he may employ it in any part of the world not earning freight, but for the purpose of bringing home goods of his own or for his own benefit. Those goods which are brought home for him he may sell at their full market price when they arrive in this country, thereby, of course, bringing into his own pocket not merely the original value of the goods, but also the portion of remuneration which represents the value of the carriage of those goods from abroad. Or, again, he may, in making, through his master, a contract for freight at a foreign port, attach to the carriage of the goods a rate of freight, which may either be nominal or may be very far under the ordinary rate of freight of the market. All those acts (p) Admiralty Court Jurisdiction Cathcart, L. R. 1 A. & E. 314. Act, 1861 (24 Vict. c. 10, s. 11); (q) 2 App. Cas. 636, at p. 645. 264 MOETGAGE OF SHIP. CHAPTEE XV. Mortgagor may bind mortgagee by charterparty or by lien for repairs. Cesser of rights of mortgagor in possession on default. Matters affecting mortgagee not in posses- sion. Rights of mortgagee of shares in ship on taking possession. would be the ordinary incidents of the ownership of the mort- gagor, who remains the dominus of the ship with regard to everything connected with its employment, until the moment arrives when the mortgagee takes possession. If the mortgagee is dissatisfied with the amount of authority which the mortgagor possesses by law, it is for him to put an end to the opportunity of exercising that authority by taking the control of the ship out of the hands of the mortgagor." So, where a mortgagor had made a charterparty, which was not shown to be in any way prejudicial to the security, the mortgagees were bound by it (>•). And a mortgagee permitting the mortgagor to retain possession and to use the ship, is bound by the lien for repairs of a shipwright to whom it was delivered by the mortgagor for that purpose (s). But if a mortgagor does any act or is guilty of any default which prejudices or injures the security of the mortgagee, sect. 34 ceases to have any binding effect against the mortgagee, subject, as it would seem, to any subsisting contracts entered into by the mortgagor while in possession, of which the mort- gagee has notice, or which are consistent with the ordinary use of the ship (t). And, in order to obtain the benefit of such contracts, the mortgagee must give notice to the other con- tracting party (u). So, where an owner had agreed with his mortgagee to insure the ship and subsequently chartered her, the mortgagee was entitled to prevent her from sailing unin- sured (x). A mortgagee not in possession cannot be compelled to join in a charterparty {>/}. He cannot maintain an action of re- straint (z) ; nor can he recover passage-money received by the mortgagor before taking possession (a). A mortgagee of shares in a ship, on taking possession, is only entitled to his mortgagor's part of the profit-freight after contributing proportionately with the other co-owners to the expenses of the outfit and of the voyage (b). He is not entitled himself to interfere with the control of the ship ; he cannot after (r) Fanchon, 5 P. D. 173. See also Collins v. Lamport, 4 De G. J. & S. 500, 505 ; Blanche, 58 L. T. 592. (a) Williams v. Allsup, 10 C. B. N. S. 417 ; Collins v. Lamport, sup. (0 Celtic King, (1894) P. 175, at p. 187. And see post, p. 267. (u) Collins v. Lamport, sup. (.»•) Laming $ Co. v. Seator, 16 C. of S. Ca. (Sc.) 828, 4th Ser. {ij) Samuel v. Jones, 7 L. T. N. S. 760. (z) Innisfallen, L. R. 1 A. & E. 72. (a) Willis v. Palmer, 6 Jur. N. S. 732. (b) Alexander v. Sims, 5 De G. M. & G. 80. MORTGAGEE IN POSSESSION. 265 the making of the charterparty arrest the ship, or demand chapter xv. bail in action on his mortgage, provided the performance of the charterparty is not prejudicial to his security (c) ; and, as regards the future control of the ship, it seems that he can only take possession by giving notice of his mortgage to the ship's husband (d), and claiming thereby a proportionate part of the profit-freight (e). Where the mortgagor of shares is also the ship's husband, if the mortgagee joins with the owners of the other shares in the appointment of a new ship's husband before the completion of a voyage, the mortgagor loses all right, as ship's husband, to receive the freight, but he will have a lien on the freight for advances repaid by him on account of the ship previous to his removal (/). The provisions in the statute (g) that persons beneficially Exemption of interested in ships and shares therein shall, as well as the f^om^nT registered owner, be subject to pecuniary penalties imposed tie s. upon owners, excepts persons who are beneficially interested by way of mortgage. The duty of a mortgagee who has taken possession of a ship Duty of is to sell as soon as conveniently may be, but he is justified in mort £ a .& ee ln employing the ship for a reasonable time to avoid selling. So where a mortgagee, instead of selling the ship, employed it in hazardous and speculative adventures, and made great losses, he was charged with the value of the ship and fittings at the time he ought to have sold it (h). What is said by Holt, C. J., in Coggs v. Bernard, against the Liability for use of any chattel bailed by way of necessity, which might be m J UI 7 toslli P- injured during the use made of it, cannot apply to the mortgage of a ship (*). (r) Maxima, 39 L. T. 112. owner, ship's husband or othermanager (d) The "ship's husband" is an for the time being, must be registered agent specially appointed by the owner at the port of registry of the ship. or co-owners of a ship to superintend See Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, the equipment, repairs, management s. 59. and other concerns of the ship. Where (e) Maxima, 39 L. T. 112. there are several owners, one of them (/) Beynon v. Goddcn, 3 Ex. D. 263, is generally appointed managing owner C. A. or ship's husband. A ship's husband (g) Sect. 58. has the authority of the owners to (A) Marriott v. Anchor Reversionary procure a charterparty and generally Society, 3 De G. F. & J. 117; Be to make contracts for their benefit ; but Mattos v. Gibson, 1 J. & H. 83. And he cannot cancel a charterparty. see European, §c. Co. v. Royal Mail, Thomas v. Lewis, 4 Ex. D. 23. The $c. Co., 4 K. & J. 676. name and address of the managing (i) Ld. Raym. 909, 916. 266 MORTGAGE OF SHIP. CHAPTER XV. Liability of mortgagee for repairs. Costs of taking possession. Right to freight. What acts amount to taking possession. So long as the mortgagor, being in possession, continues, by virtue of sect. 34, to be the owner of the ship, the mortgagee incurs no liability as to repairs or necessaries by reason of his legal title, nor is his security postponed to or affected by a claim in respect of necessaries, unless the payment for them is made with the sanction of the Court (/>■) ; but if the mortgagee enters into possession, he will be liable for repairs and necessaries ordered by his authority, and his legal title and actual posses- sion, in that case, render the captain his agent for the purpose of implying such authority (/). If a mortgagee pays necessary expenses in order to obtain possession of the ship, he is entitled to recover the money from the mortgagor or other person liable to pay such expenses (w). In an action to redeem the mortgage of a ship, the expenses of taking and holding possession of the ship are properly charge- able as "just allowances" under Ord. XXXIII. r. 8, without any direction in the decree for the purpose (n). A mortgagee who takes possession of a ship during a voyage becomes entitled to receive the unpaid freight earned in that voyage (6) ; but the earnings of a ship in the hands of a mort- gagee are liable for the expenses of the voyage (p). It was formerly considered that the mortgagee could not recover freight already earned previous to his taking posses- sion (q) ; but the rule now appears to be settled that the mortgagee on taking possession is entitled to all freight then unpaid, whether previously earned or not. A mortgagee in possession of a ship will not be charged with wilful default for not concurring in a hazardous charterparty (;•). If the circumstances are such as to prevent a mortgagee from taking immediate possession, it seems that notice to the parties interested, followed by taking actual possession at the earliest opportunity, will be equivalent to possession as from the date of the notice. (k) Lyons, 57 L. T. 818. (/) Bibbs v. Ross, L. R. 1 Q. B. 534, and cases there cited ; Rusden v. Pope, L. R. 3 Ex. 269, at p. 272 ; Orchis, 15 P. D. 38, C. A. (m) Johnson v. Royal Mail Co., L. R. 3 C. P. 38 ; Orchis, 15 P. D. 38, C. A. («) TTllkes v. Saunion, 7 Ch. D. 188. (o) Kersivell v. Bishop, 2 Cr. & J. 529; Bean v. M'Ghie, 12 Moo. 185; Chinnery v. Davidson, 2 Br. & B. 379 ; Keith v. Burrows, 2 App. Cas. 636; Japp v. Campbell, 57 L. J. Q. B. 79. (p) Green v. Biggs, 6 Ha. 395 ; Alexander v. Sims, 5 De G. M. & G. 57. (q) Chinnery v. Evans, 1 H. Bl. 117, n. (r) Samuel v. Jones, 7 L. T. N S. 760. MORTGAGEE IN POSSESSION. 267 So, where the mortgagee of a ship which was proceeding on a chapter xv. voyage gave notice to the mortgagor and the charterer claiming the freight, and took actual possession of the ship on its arrival at the port of destination, he was held to be entitled to the freight earned during the voyage (s). A mortgagee of a ship on taking possession is not entitled to Right of seize cargo on board belonging to the mortgagor, unless such p OSSe s S iou to cargo is included in the security ; and cargo will not be included car S°- by words of general import, such as " appurtenances" (t). A mortgagee who has taken possession obtains control of the Control of ship, and if the master by order of the mortgagor interferes with such control he will be guilty of misconduct, and no compensa- tion for dismissal can be awarded to him as against the mort- gagee^). If a mortgagee of a ship is unable to arrest or otherwise Receiver, obtain possession of the ship, he may, apparently, like any other mortgagee (x), obtain the appoiotment of a receiver. The statutory power of the mortgagee to arrest and sell the When mort- ship arises upon any default of the mortgagor in payment of f sale arises, principal or interest (//), or upon any act or default of the mort- gagor imperilling or impairing their security (z), or upon any breach by the mortgagor of the express terms of the mortgage contract. And the mortgagee must be careful to see that his exercise of the power of sale is justified by some such act or default (a), and that it is carried out in accordance with the terms of the statutory power or any stipulation modifying the same (b), otherwise he may be liable in damages. The mortgagee will be entitled to sell the ship free from any How far he contracts entered into by the mortgagor which were subsisting fr^mmort- 6 at the time of the mortgage, but of which the mortgagee had & a ? or ' a con- no notice, or subsequent contracts which are so inconsistent with the ordinary use of the ship that the mortgagee could not be deemed to have authorized them by leaving the mortgagor in possession, or which are of such a nature as to impair the security (c). It has been seen that a mortgagee will be bound (s) Rusden v. Pope, L. R. 3 Ex. 269. (z) Collins v. Lamport, 34 L. J. Ch. it) Langton v. Horton, 5 Beav. 9. See 196 ; Cathcart, sup. See also Blanche, Branckerv. Molyneux, 3 Man. & Gr. 84. 6 Asp. N. S. 272. (u) Fairport,'\0 P. D. 13. (a) Cathcart, L. R. 1 A. & E. 314. (x) Truman v. Redgrave, 18 Ch. D. (b) Brouard v. Dumaresque. 3 Moo. 547. P. C. 457. (y) Wilkes v. Saunion, 7 Ch. D. 188. (c) Celtic King, (1894) P. 175. ee Cathcart, L. R. 1 A. & E. 314, 327. ■26S MORTGAGE OF SHIP. CHAPTER XV. Costs of sale. by contracts entered into by the mortgagor in possession subse- quently to the mortgage which are reasonable and proper for the ordinary employment or maintenance of the ship (d). Where a mortgagee seizes and proceeds to sell a ship under a power, he is entitled to charge the mortgagor with the costs of and incident to the sale (•). vii. — Order and Disposition in Bankruptcy. — If the mortgage of a ship, or any share therein, is duly registered according to the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (I), the rights of the mort- gagee will not be subject to the order and disposition clause of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (m). By sect. 36 of the Act of 1894, it is enacted as follows : — "A registered mortgagee of a ship or share shall not be affected Mortgage not by any act of bankruptcy committed by the mortgagor after the affected by date of the record of the mortgage, notwithstanding that the mort- bankru P tc 7- (;/) The Rose, L. R. 4 A. & E. 6 ; 918. Chasteanneuf v. Capeyron, 7 App. Gas. (k) Michael v. Tripp, L. R. 7 Eq. 127, J. C. 95. (/*) Chasteauneuf v. Capeyron, sup. (I) 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60. (i) Stapleton v. Say men, 2 H. & C. \m) 46 & 47 Vict. c. 52, s. 44 (iii). 270 MOETGAGE OF F11EIGHT. CHAPTER XV. Deposit of registered mortgages. Unfinished ship. gagor, at the commencement of his bankruptcy, had the ship or share in his possession, order, or disposition, or was reputed owner thereof, and the mortgage shall be preferred to any right, claim, or interest therein of the other creditors of the bankrupt, or any trustee or assignee on their behalf." Where the registered mortgages of vessels were deposited by the mortgagees with their bankers, they were held not to be in the order and disposition of the mortgagees, for an assignment of a mortgage of a ship can only be made by indorsement on the instrument of mortgage (n). As a general rule, an unfinished ship in the builder's yard is not within the clause (o). A mortgage of an unfinished ship registered after the com- pletion and registration of the ship was held to prevail against the trustee in bankruptcy of the owner of the ship (j)). Meaning of term. " freight. Meaning of term ' ' charter- party." How freight is fixed. Section II. Mortgages of Freight. Freight is the sum paid by a merchant or other person chartering a ship or part of a ship, or sending goods in a general ship for the use of such ship or part, or the conveyance of such goods during a specified voyage or for a specified time (q). A charterparfcy is an agreement in writing by which a ship- owner agrees to let a ship or part of a ship for the carriage of goods on a specified voyage, or for a sj)ecified time, for a sum of money agreed to be paid for their carriage (>•). If there is no charterparty, the freight is usually fixed by the bill of lading, but if no freight is expressly agreed upon, the fact that the goods were laden on a ship to be conveyed will raise an implication in law of a contract by the ow r ner of the goods to pay for the carriage, the liability being controlled by the special custom of the trade (s). (m) Lctcon v. Liffen, 32 L. J. Ch. 315. (o) Bolderness v. Rankin, 2 De G. F. & J. 258 ; Exp. Watts, 3 De G. J. & S. 394 ; Swainston v. Clay, 4 Giff. 187, varied on appeal, 3 De G. J. & S. 558 ; McBain, app., Wallace, resp., W. N. (1881) 127, H. L. (p) Bell v. Bank of London, 3 H. & N. 730. (q) Wharton's Law Lex. (6th ed.) 409. (r) Ibid. 171. (s) Domett v. Beckford, 5 B. & Ad. 521. MORTGAGE OF FREIGHT. 271 Freight is not earned until the cargo is ready to be delivered chapter xv. to the consignee at the appointed place (t), in the absence of When freight express stipulation to the contrary (u). It has been seen that a mortgage of a ship does not pass the Separate right to the freight to the mortgagee until he takes possession. of h ffeJ"h£ The freight, if in a charterparty, may be assigned independently of the ship, and will not be within the Registry Acts ; and the Courts will grant an injunction to prevent payment to the mortgagor (.r) . And though the ship and freight were included in one contract, it might have been good as to the freight, though bad as to the ship (//). The future earnings can be assigned, and will be good against Assignment the trustee in bankruptcy, at least if the earnings are due before f^-i^ 16 the bankruptcy (z) . . A general assignment of all the future earnings of a ship, which might for ever separate the ship and freight, though for security of a debt, was held to be bad in Robinson v. Macdonnell (a). But in Douglas v. Russell (b), Lord Brougham, 0. ., held otherwise ; in that case, however, the ship had been previously assigned to the same parties (c). An assignment of a ship, with all its future freight, earnings, and cargo, by way of security, is clearly valid (//) ; and d fortiori the assignment of a ship and the freight to be earned during a particular voyage (e). The right to the freight is incidental to the ownership, and Relative can be originally dealt with only by the owner of the ship (/) ; respective and a mortgage of freight by the owner will bind a subsequent mortgagees mortgagee of the ship who has notice of the prior charge ; but freight.' where the owner of a ship assigned the freight not yet earned, and three days afterwards, with the knowledge of the assignee, mortgaged the ship to the defendants, who registered their mort- (t) Cato v. Irving, 5 De G. & S. 210 ; 17 ; Belcher v. Capper, 4 Man. & Gr. Brown v. Tanner, L. R. 3 Ch. A. 597. 502. See also Tailbij v. Official Receiver, See Bright v. C'owper, 1 Brownl. 21 ; 13 App. Cas. 523, 543. Moller v. Young, 5 E. & B. 7, 755 ; (a) 5 M. & S. 228 ; Speldt v. Lech- Sanders v. Vanzeller, 4 Q. B. 277, 291 ; mere, 13 Ves. 588. Castel and Latta v. Trechman, 1 C. k (b) 3 My. & K. 488. But see lie E. 276. See Turnbull v. Great Eastern Ship Warre, 8 Pri. 269, n. and Peninsular Navigation Co., 1 C. & (c) See Douglas v. Russell, 4 Sim. E. 595. 535, where the facts are stated. (m) As to the right to freight of the (d) Curtis v. Auber, 1 J. & W. 526 ; mortgagee of a ship, see ante, p. 266. Gibson v. Ingo, 6 Ha. 112 ; Lindsay v. (.c) Mestaer v. Gillespie, 11 Ves. 637 ; Gibbs, 22 Beav. 522. Gardner v. Lachlan, 4 My. & Cr. 129. (c) Langton v. Horton, 1 Ha. 549. (y) Mestaer v. Gillespie, sup. ; Daven- (/) Morrison v. Parsons, 2 Taunt. port v. Whitmorc, 2 My. & Cr. 177. 407 ; Lindsag v. Gibbs, sup. ; Willis v. (z) Leslie v. Guthrie, 1 Bing. N. C. Palmer, 6 Jur. N. S. 732. 697 ; Gardner v. Cazenove, 26 L. J. Ex. 272 MORTGAGE OF FREIGHT. CHAPTER XV. Notice of prior charge including freight. Priorities as between mortgagee of ship and of freight. Notice to be given to mortgagee of ship. gage, the assignee having neglected to give notice of his claim upon the freight to the mortgagees, it was held that the assignee was not entitled to set up any right to such freight in opposition to the rights of the mortgagees (g). Where ship-brokers made advances for a ship's use, thereby obtaining a lien on the freight, with notice of a mortgage of the ship by an indorsement on the certificate of registry, and such mortgage was, in fact, a mortgage not only of the ship, but also of the freight, it was held that their lien must be postponed to the claim of the mortgagee to the freight, though he did not take possession of the ship till the completion of the voyage (//). The first registered mortgagee of a ship by taking possession obtains a legal right to receive all freight not completely earned, in priority to a mortgagee of freight, of which he has no notice at the time (/) ; and he may tack to the amount due on his mort- gage the amount of any subsequent charge which he may have acquired on the freight in priority to any mesne charge on the freight specifically of which he had no notice ; and it makes no difference that the mesne incumbrancer was the first to give to the charterer notice of his charge on the freight (k). But a mortgagee of freight will not be postponed to a subsequent second mortgagee of the ship, inasmuch as the interests of both are equitable, and must generally rank in priority of date (/). A mortgagee of freight, as he cannot complete his title by taking possession, should give notice of his charge to the registered mortgagee of the ship, and any other incumbrancer of whom he has notice, as well as to the charterer. (g) Wilson v. Wilson, L. R. 14 Eq. 32 ; Rusden v. Pope, L. R. 3 Ex. 272. (h) Gibson v. Inyo, 6 Ha. 112. (i) Brown v. Tanner, L. R. 3 Ch. A. 597. (k) Liverpool Marine Credit Co. Wilson, L. R. 7 Ch. A. 507. (/) Ibid, at p. 511. -♦ MORTGAGE OF CARGO. 273 OHAPTEE XV. Section III. Mortgages of Cargo. A mortgage of a ship, either simpliciter or " with the appur- Mortgagee of tenanees," will not pass to the mortgagee the cargo, unless entitled to expressly included in the security (m). Even in the case of a cargo, whaling ship, when the cargo constitutes the whole earnings of the ship, an assignment of the ship " with its appurtenances " will not pass to the mortgagee, as of the nature of freight incident to the employment of the ship, the cargo of oil gained during the adventure (n). In the absence of any special agreement to the contrary, the Mortgage of cargo belongs to the mortgagor, who may assign it independently require re°-is- of the ship, and such assignment will not require registration tration. either under the Merchant Shipping Act (o), or under the Bills of Sale Acts (p). An assignment may be made of a future cargo, which will be Mortgage of valid, and such title will not be affected by a subsequent execution by a judgment creditor, at all events if due diligence is used to complete the title by notice (q). The master is intrusted with the cargo for the sole purpose of Master's taking reasonable care of it and conveying it to its destination, cargo, and is bound to make every possible exertion to accomplish that purpose (r). A duty is cast on him, in many cases of accident and emergency, to act for the safety of the cargo in such manner as may be best under the circumstances in which it may be placed, and, as a correlative right, he is entitled to charge its owner with the expenses properly incurred in so doing («). He has no power to sell or mortgage the cargo or any part thereof except under the pressure of severe consummate distress (t) either of the ship, as when the master has no other means of procuring supplies or repairs, or of the cargo, as where it lies perishing at some intermediate port. It is not sufficient to prove that the master was doing the best for all concerned (11) . Though (m) Alexander v. Simms, 5 De G. M. (s) Tronson v. Bent, 8 Moo. P. C. 419 ; & G. 57. Notara v. Henderson, sup. ; Australasian («) Lnngton v. Horlon, 5 Beav. 9. Navigation Co. v. Morse, L. R. 4 P. C. (o) Ibid. 222 ; Cargo ex Argos, L. R. 5 P. C. 165. (p) 41 & 42 Vict. c. 31, s. 4. (t) Gratitudine, 3 C. Rob. Adm. 240. (q) Langton v. Morton, 1 Ha. 549. (it) Tronson v. Dent, 8 Moo. P. C. See Bryans v. Nix, 4 M. & W. 775. 419 ; Acatos v. Bums, 3 Ex. D. 282 ; (r) Notara v. Henderson, L. R. 7 Atlantic, $c. Co. v. Huth, 16 Ch. D. Q. B. 225. 481, 0. A. VOL. I. R. x 274 MORTGAGE OF CARGO. CHAPTER XV. Notice to master. Bottomry bonds and respondentia. the ship is a wreck, and the cargo on the wreck, still he has no power to sell the cargo if he can store it (.r). A mortgagee of cargo should, immediately upon the execution of the mortgage, give notice thereof to the master of the ship. Where mortgagees of cargo did not send notice of their mort- gage till two months after the date of the deed, so that such notice was not received by the master till after the mortgagor had become bankrupt, and it appeared that there were means of earlier communication, it was held that the cargo was in the reputed ownership of the mortgagor at the commencement of the bankruptcy (//). Hypothecations of cargo, otherwise than by way of mortgage, will be considered in a subsequent chapter (s) . (x) Cammett v. Sewall, 3 H. & N. 617 ; Ewbank v. Nutting, 7 C. B. 777 ; Nbtara v. Henderson, L. E. 7 Q. B. 227 ; Acatos v. Burns, 3 Ex. D. 290 ; Atlantic, §c. Co. v. Ruth, 16 Ch. D. 481.C. A. [y] Exp. Lucas, Re Gwire, 3 De G. & J. 113. See Acraman v. Bates, 6 Jur. N. S. 294. See further, as to reputed ownership, ante, pp. 177 et seq. (c) Post, Chap. LXIV. sect, ii, pp. 1494 et seq. ( 275 ) CHAPTER XVI. OF MORTGAGES OF STOCK AND SHARES. Section 1. Mortgages of Stock. Sir William Grant, when M. R., justly remarked that public Stocks are stocks or funds are, in f act, perpetual annuities granted for ever, anT^fitics. redeemable by the public ; that they are a mere right, and the circumstance that government is the debtor makes no difference ; and that they constitute a mere demand of dividends as they become due, having no resemblance to a chattel moveable or coin- money capable of possession and manual apprehension. He determined that if stock be transferred into the name of a married woman, and her husband die in her lifetime, without having accepted the stock in the bank books, or otherwise reduced it into possession, the stock will survive to the wife, although the husband and wife should in his lifetime have signed partial transfers of the stock (a) . In another case (b) the M. R. remarked, there was a very untechnical expression used with regard to stock ; there is literally no such thing as one hundred pounds stock : knowing, however, that in common parlance people, speaking of stock, will so express themselves, the Court will apply it. Stock in the public funds is transferable by the stockholder How stock is in person, or under the authority of a letter of attorney, accord- rans erre ' ing to the form prescribed by the Bank of England. Express powers were not formerly necessary in mortgages of Power of sale, stock, or in the instruments of defeasance executed by the transferee ; nor need a mortgagee of stock now rely on his statutory power in order to realize his security by sale. (a) Wildman v. Wildman, 9 Ves. (b) Kirby v. Potter, 4 Ves. 748, 751. 174. t2 276 MORTGAGE OF SHAEES. CHAPTEE XVI. Misdescrip- tion. If stock is itself made the security for money, and the day appointed for payment is passed, the mortgagee may at once proceed to sell the stock, and repay himself principal and interest, without any authority from the mortgagor, and with- out commencing an action of foreclosure (c). The rule is founded on considerations of mercantile usage and convenience. But the mortgagee will be decreed to account for the surplus (d) . He may, however, foreclose if he prefer it, and that, too, although an express power of sale is given him by the mortgage deed, and whether his interest be legal or equitable (r) ; and the mortgagee of a reversionary interest in stock may have foreclosure if he desire that remedy (/). Where reversionary stock was described as 3,000/. when really 5,000/., only 3,000/. passed (g). Mortgagee whether liable for unpaid calls. When mort- gagee is liable as a con- tributory. Section II. Mortgage of Shares in a Company. i, — Introductory Remarks. — Where, by the rules of a company, shares are not to be transferred until all arrears of calls are paid, it would seem that a mortgagee by transfer cannot be recognized as transferee until payment of all arrears ; but if the company recognize him as such, they cannot call upon him to pay the arrears {//). Where shares in a joint stock company are transferred as security for a debt, the transferee is in the position of legal owner of the shares, and becomes liable as a member to be placed on the list of contributories on the winding-up of the company (/). But an equitable mortgagee, in whose name the shares have not been registered, is not a contributory, nor will the register be rectified by the insertion of his name (Jc) ; but if (c) Tucker v. Wilson, 1 P. Wms. 261 ; Lockvcood v. Ewer, 2 Atk. 303. (d) Harrison v. Hart, Comyns, 393 ; Langton v. Waite, L. R. 4 Ch. A. 402. (e) Slade v. Rigg, 3 Ha. 35. (/) Slade v. Rigg, sap. ; Wayne v. Haitliam, 9 Ha. 62 ; Stamford, §c. Banking Co. v. Ball, 4 De G. F. & J. 310. {g) Woodburn v. Grant, 22 Beav. 483. (h) Watson v. Hales, 23 Beav. 294. (i) Re Land Credit Co. of Ireland, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 831. See Re Asiatic Banking Corporation, L. R. 4 Ch. A. 252 ; Re Patent Paper Manufacturing Co., L. R. 5 Ch. A. 294. (k) Newry Rail. Co. v. Moss, 14 Beav. 64 ; Re Joint Stock Discount Co., L. R. 3 Ch. A. 119. 977 FORM, ETC. OF MORTGAGE. * l ' shares which have been deposited with creditors are exchanged chapter xyi. by them for shares in their own names, they are liable as contributories, though known to the company as holding the shares on security only (I). Where shares may be forfeited if debts due by the holder are not paid, or where the holder cannot transfer the shares until the debts are paid, the debts are not charged on the shares (m). Where the holder cannot transfer shares until debts due to the company are paid, any debt will prevent the transfer, although it has nothing to do with the shares (n). ii.— How Mortgages of Shares are effected.— Mortgages of fully paid up shares in joint stock companies are usually effected by a transfer of the shares to the mortgagee duly registered, accompanied by a deed of defeasance. If, however, the shares are not fully paid up it will generally be more prudent for the mortgagee not to take a complete registered transfer to himself, and so incur the liabilities of a shareholder (o). In such a case the mortgagee should require the certificates to be delivered to him, and also take a transfer to himself executed only by the mortgagor, which the mortgagee can at any time render com- plete by executing it himself and registering it. A valid security may be made by a deposit of the certificates Deposit of of shares ; and such security will apparently operate as a mort- C( gage by deposit of documents of title and not as a pledge of the shares (p). Although the company are not bound to see to the execution Notice to of trusts, still it is important that notice should be given to the l^^ln company of any charge upon shares, in order that the mort- shares, gagee, by giving such notice, may protect himself against any lien claimed by the company in respect of the mortgaged shares (q). A transfer of shares must be in the form prescribed by the ^ f ° r f of statute or by the regulations of the company ; and the company shares. (I) Price and Brown's Case, 3 De G. (p) Exp. Moss, 3 De G. & S. 599 ; & g 147 Exp. Stewart, Re Shelley, 4 De G. J. & (in) Re Bunlop, 21 Ch. D. 583, C. A. S. 543 ; Binney v. Ince Hall Coal Co., (n) Exp Stringer, 9 Q. B. D. 436, 35 L. J. Ch. 363 ; Re Tahiti Cotton C A. Co., Exp. Sargent, L. R. 17 Eq. 273 ; ' (o) Newry Rail Co. v. Moss, 14 Beav. Colonial Bank v. Whinney, 11 App. 64 ; Re Land Credit Co. of Ireland, Cas. 426. See infra, p. 279. L. R. 8 Ch. A. 831. (?) See post, p. 1271. 278 MORTGAGE OF SHARES. CHAPTER XVI. Transfer by- delivery. Transfers in blank. Transfers under seal. may refuse to register transfers not according to the prescribed form(r). Unless required by the regulations, a transfer of shares in a company governed by the Companies Act, 1862, need not be under seal (s) . By the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, transfers of shares and stock of companies incorporated for carrying on undertakings of a public nature are required to be by deed (t) . The Companies Act, 1867 (if), empowers companies to issue, with respect to fully paid up shares and stock, share warrants to bearer transferable by delivery, the effect of which warrants is to entitle the bearer to the shares or stock specified therein, and the shares or stock may be transferred by delivery of the warrants. Except under the provisions of this Act, there appears to be no power to issue shares transferable by delivery (#). If the shares are not fully paid up, and consequently the transfer is not registered, it has been a frequent practice for the mortgagee to take either a transfer in blank, or a mere deposit of the shares, together with a power of attorney to execute a transfer in the name of the mortgagor ; the mortgagee's name would thus not appear on the register, and he would be enabled to transfer the shares directly to a purchaser. This practice is, however, attended by certain inconveniences and risks. Where, however, by the regulations of a company, transfers of shares must be by deed, the blanks in a transfer cannot be filled up so as to entitle the transferee or his assignee to be registered as holder, unless the transfer is re-executed and re-delivered by the transferor (//). So, where the certificate of trust stock, together with a deed of transfer, were given by a trustee to his bankers to secure his own overdraft ; the deed was signed, sealed, and delivered by the trustee, but the name of the transferee was left in blank ; the bankers subsequently filled in their own names as transferees and, holding the certificates, were registered as owners ; it was held that the transfer, not having been executed to the bankers (»•) Re General Cemetery Co., 6 E. & B. 415. (s) Me Tahiti Cotton Co., Exp. Sargent, L. R. 17 Eq. 273. See also sects. 14, 15 of the Companies Clauses Act, 1845, as to the transfer of shares in companies governed by the Act. (0 8 & 9 Vict. c. 16, s. 14. {it) 30 & 31 Vict. c. 131, 88. 27, 28. (x) See Re General Co. for Promotion of Land Credit, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 363, affirmed in D. P., sub nom. Princess of Reuss v. Bos, L. R. 5 H. L. 176 ; McEwen v. West London Wharves Co., L. R. 6 Ch. A. 655. {y) Societe Generate de Paris v. Walker, 11 App. Cas. 20. DEPOSIT OF CERTIFICATES. 279 as transferees, did not pass to them the legal estate in the chapter xvi. shares, and accordingly that the prior equity of the cestuis que trusts prevailed (2). Where transfers may be by writing not under seal, the taking Transfers^not of transfers in blank is attended with serious risks to all parties concerned. The transfers may come, by being stolen or other- wise, into the hands of a stranger, who may fill in the blanks in his own name, and sign the transfers, and dispose of them to a bond fide purchaser without notice, in which case either the mortgagee or the company must bear the loss, according to the circumstances of the particular case. On the other hand, the mortgagor runs the risk of improper dealing with the transfer by the mortgagee. The person who has signed a negotiable instrument in blank, or with blank spaces, is estopped from disputing any alteration made in the document after it has left his hands, by filling up blanks or otherwise, in a way not ex facie fraudulent, as against a bond fide holder without notice (a), unless the circumstances of the case are such as to put such holder on inquiry at the time he took the transfer (b). These principles appear to apply not only to negotiable instruments, but to all cases where the person taking property can show that the true owner has so acted as to mislead him into the belief that the person dealing with the property had authority to do so (c). Notice of a mortgage of shares by assignment in blank is binding on a company (d). iii. —Effect of Deposit of Certificates. — The question has some- Whether a times arisen whether a delivery of certificates of shares by way certificates of security operates as a pledge of the shares or as an equitable ° f ^JJ 8 b mortgage by deposit of the documents of title to the shares. way of pledge The distinction was formerly of considerable importance in view ^ ^^ le of the difference between the remedies incident to the two kinds of contract; for, as will be seen hereafter, the remedy of a pledgee is to sell the property, but the proper remedy of an equitable mortgagee was foreclosure. No doubt the practical (z) Foivcll v. London and Provincial Stock Bank, 13 App. Cas. 333 ; Colonial Bank, (1893) 2 Ch. 555, C. A. Bank v. Cady and Williams, 15 App. (a) France v. Clark, 26 Ch. D. 257, Cas. 267. atp 262. See London Joint Stock Bank {c) Colonial Bank v. Whmunj, 15 v. Simmons, (1892) A. C. 201 . at p. 21 5 ; App. Cas. at p. 285 ; London Joint Stock Fox v. Martin, W. N. (1895) 36. Bank v. Simmons, (1892) A. C. 201. {b) Earl of Sheffield v. London $ Joint {d) Exp. Dobson, 6 Jur. 917. 2S0 MOETGAGE OF SHARES. CHAPTER XVI. Whether shares can be pledged. importance of this question is, in the generality of cases, con- siderably reduced, by reason of the jurisdiction of the Court to order a sale in lieu of foreclosure which will be exercised, almost as a matter of course, at the instance of the mortgagor (c). The remedy of the depositee of share certificates is thus, generally speaking, by sale, whether he be regarded as pledgee or mort- gagee ; and even if he were deemed to be pledgee, though a right of immediate sale on default (/) is incident to the con- tract of pledge, a depositee of shares cannot carry out the sale without the aid of the Court unless the deposit is accompanied by a transfer of the shares. Cases may, however, arise in practice where, by reason of depreciation in the value of shares, it would be manifestly to the advantage of the depositee that he should be treated as mort- gagee, for, in such a case, an order for sale would be to the detriment of the mortgagor, and the mortgagee might desire to obtain an order for foreclosure, which would prevent the mortgagor from claiming to redeem the shares when they should rise in value. The question will therefore be here briefly considered. In considering what things may be the subject of pledge, Mr. Justice Story says (g) that, at common law, choses in action, debts, and shares in companies may be pledged, but points out (/*■) that, by the Roman law, such property being incapable of any delivery, is not, strictly speaking, the subject of pledge. It seems, however, difficult to accept the alleged rule of common law laid down by the learned author without some reserve as regards shares in companies ; for symbolical delivery, it is sub- mitted, is, at common law, only effectual where, from force of circumstances, it has become impossible or inconvenient to deliver what otherwise admits of actual delivery, and not where the thing itself is inherently incapable of delivery (/). In the first place, it has been repeatedly held that where there is a deposit of certificates of shares by way of security, accom- panied by the execution by the borrower of a complete legal transfer of the shares or of a transfer in blank which the lender can complete by filling in the name of the transferee, the trans- action is to be regarded ^as a mortgage entitling the depositee (e) 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41, s. 25, con- sidered post, p. 1017. (/) Post, p. 1470. (ff) Story, Bailments, s. 290. (h) Ibid., s. 290 a. \i) Ryall v. Rollc, 166. 1 Atk. 164, at DEPOSIT OF CERTIFICATES. 281 of the certificates on default to foreclose the shares, or to an chapter xyi. order for sale in lieu of foreclosure. In Re Tahiti Company, Ex parte Sargent (k), certificates of Deposit of CGrtiriCtifcps shares and blank transfers thereof were deposited by way of by way of security for a loan, and were afterwards again deposited to securi ty _ secure a debt of a greater amount than the original loan. It by transfer. was held by Jessel, M. E., on the ground that every mortgagee has a right to re-borrow and to transfer his security, that the original borrower could not redeem the shares without paying to the sub-depositee the whole amount of the debt due to him from the original lender. Had the learned judge considered the deposits to have been strictly by way of pledge instead of by way of equitable mortgage by deposit, it seems that the case must have been decided differently. In the later case of France v. Clark (/), in which certificates of shares and blank transfers were deposited and redeposited as in the last case, it was held by Fry, J., that the original borrower was entitled to redeem on payment of the advance made to him, on the ground that the authority of a pledgee to sub-pledge is limited by the terms of the pledge under which he has possession. The Court of Appeal, however, though they arrived at the same conclusion, preferred to base their decision upon the ground that the form of the assignment in blank was of itself sufficient notice of a prior title, even if the original lender was regarded " in the light of an equitable mortgagee, which he certainly was" (m). Where railway shares were transferred, together with the certificates, to secure an advance, it was held that the lender was not in the position of a mere pledgee, but was entitled to foreclosure (n). Holders of debentures comprising uncalled capital were in a recent case held similarly entitled (o). It may be observed that, in several recent cases (p), deposits of certificates and blank transfers of shares, though admittedly not negotiable (•) Colonial Bank v. Cadi/ and Wil- liams, 15 App. Cas. 267, at p. 285. (s) See as to this rule, as applied to pledges of goods, post, pp. 1462 et seq. {t) Carter v. Wake, 4 Ch. D. 605. As to what are marketable securities, see Stem v. Reg., (1896) 1 Q. B. 211, and cases there cited. {a) Exp. Moss, 3 De G. & S. 599. 283 DEPOSIT OF CERTIFICATES. the directors became bankrupt, the transaction was treated as ohajtebxyi. one of equitable mortgage, and accordingly decided in favour of the bank as against the bankrupt's assignees, on the ground that the company had constructive notice of the deposit (*). In one case, where share certificates were deposited with a bank as security, accompanied with a blank transfer, which was inoperative as a transfer, and where, the borrower having become bankrupt, it was held that the shares were not m his order and disposition as reputed owner, the transaction was, throughout the judgments of the learned lords who decided the case, referred to as a pledge; but the use of the words "equitable title of the pledgee" and other expressions, seem to indicate that the terms « pledge " and " pledgee " were not used in a strictly technical sense, and that, if any necessity had arisen ior taking into account the distinction between a pledge and a mortgage, the transaction would have been treated as one of equitable mortgage by deposit (y). (•) Exp. Stewart, Re Shelley, 4 De (y) Colonial Bank v. Whinney, 11 G.J. &S. 543. App. Cas. 426. 284 ) CHAPTER XVII. OF MORTGAGES OF POLICIES OF LIFE ASSURANCE. Mortgages of policies coupled with life interests in realty or personalty. Company not chargeable ■with interest on policy moneys. i. — Introductory Remarks. — Mortgages of policies of life assur- ance are generally given as collateral securities, and, as such, are of great value when coupled with a life interest in real or personal property, so as to provide a fund for payment of interest and premiums. But, unless accompanied by a security upon property yielding an immediate income adequate to such payments, a mortgage of a policy is obviously a precarious and ineligible security, inasmuch as it requires periodical payments for its maintenance which must be made by the mortgagee if the mortgagor fails to do so ; also, it yields no income, and in the first instance it is of little value for purposes of sale, though its value increases in proportion as it has been long effected, espe- cially if, by the terms of the policy, the insured becomes in course of time entitled to accretions of bonus, or reduction of premiums. A further disadvantage attending mortgages of policies is that, upon the death of the assured, the assurance company may be justified in refusing to pay over the policy moneys to the mortgagee till satisfied on points which may arise ; in which case the company is not chargeable with interest on the policy moneys, unless they have been guilty of default or undue delay. Where a policy of life assurance was deposited by way of equitable mortgage, and, on the death of the assured, the mort- gagee did not take out administration, but an order was made dispensing with the legal personal representative of the assured, and directing payment of the policy moneys, which were insuf- ficient to satisfy the amount due under the mortgage, to the mortgagor, it was held that interest on the policy moneys did not begin to run until the order for payment was made (a) . (a) Webster v. British Empire Mutual Life Assurance Co., 15 Ch. D. 169, C. A. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 285 Where a mortgage is effected by a tenant for life, or on an chapter xvii. estate depending upon lives, it is usual to insure the lives of the Court cannot cestuis que vie as a further security ; but in the absence of any in^rance. such stipulation the Court cannot compel the mortgagor to insure the lives (b). Where a mortgagee of leaseholds for lives insures one of the insurance of v j.1 -it j. i v j ■ l i lives on -which lives, the insurance moneys will not be applied m part redemp- leases depend, tion, but may be held as compensation for the loss to his security by the dropping of the life (c) . Policies are, however, often mortgaged by themselves. A Mortgages of v •; i • i i i ii it policies alone. policy is a security which can be given by those who have no other to give, by men in business, who can afford to pay interest and premiums for the use of capital, or by persons who, like beneficed clergymen and officers on half-pay, are in receipt of an assured income during their lives, which they cannot legally pledge to an incumbrancer (cl). When policies are mortgaged alone, the concurrence of sureties in the transaction is often required for the purpose of guaranteeing the payment of the interest and premiums, and, sometimes, of the principal. Securities of this kind are affected by the death of the assured by the hands of justice (e), or by suicide when sane (/), Where the policy is to be void if the assured " died by his Policy invali- own hands," all acts of voluntary self-destruction are included, 1^^ of the and the clause is not limited to acts of felonious suicide (g). assured. A policy may contain a stipulation that it shall be valid to Stipulations the extent of the interest of any bond fide assignee, notwith- X i on TMe° standing that the assured should commit suicide (//). And where assignee. a policy containing a stipulation to this effect was mortgaged with other property for a sum exceeding the amount of the policy, and the assured committed suicide (during a fit of tem- porary insanity), it was held that the payment of the sum assured to the mortgagee did not give the insurance company (b) Grantley v. Garthwaite, 6 Madd. §c. Co., 7 Jur. N. S. 673 ; Borrodailo v. 96. Hunter, 5 Man. & Gr. 639 ; Clift v. (c) Milliken v. Kidd, 4 Dr. & War. Schwabe, 3 C. B. 437, 481, n. ; Dufmr 274. v. Professional Life Ass., 25 Beav. (d) Dav. Conv. vol. ii. pt. 2, p. 122. .599. (e) Amicable Soc. v. Bolland, 4 Bli. (g) Borrodaile v. Hunter, 5 Man. & N. S. 194. Gr. 639 ; Clift v. Schwabe, 3 C. B. (/) Moore v. Woolsey, 4 E. & B. 437, 481, n. 251. But it would seem that suicide (h) Moore v. Woolsey, 4 E. & B. 254 ; by an insane person would, in the Cook v. Black, 1 Ha. 390 ; Dufaur v. absence of express stipulation to the Professional Life Ass. Co., sup.; Jones contrary, invalidate a policy on his v. Consolidated Lnvestment Co., 26 Beav. life. See Home v. Any/o- Australian, 256. 286 MOETGAGE OF POLICY. CHAPTER XVII. Who is an assignee. Protection of interests of third party. Effect of mis- representa- tion. any equity against either the property comprised in the mort- gage or the estate of the assured, neither the doctrine of mar- shalling nor that of principal and surety being applicable to such a case (*). A deposit and agreement to assign, or a mere letter charging the policy with a floating balance, is a sufficient assignment within this clause ; and notice need not be given to the office (k) . Where the terms of the condition were, that a third party should, notwithstanding that the assured might commit suicide, be indemnified out of the sum assured to the extent of his interest, an inquiry was directed whether he had any securities for his debt other than the policy in order to ascertain such interest (/). A stipulation to take effect in case of the suicide of the assured, " if any third party have acquired a bond fide interest by assignment or by legal or equitable lien for a valuable consideration, or as security for money," does not apply in favour of the trustee in bankruptcy of the assured (m) . Where an insurance company advanced money on the security of a policy effected in their office, and containing such a stipu- lation, the company was held to be a " third party " within the meaning of the stipulation ; the condition being intended for the benefit of the assured in order to render the policy an avail- able security (>i). The validity of a security on a policy of assurance may be affected by misrepresentations of the assured as to health or age at the time when the policy is effected, even although the fact may be immaterial (o). It is of great importance, therefore, that the mortgagee of a policy of assurance should ascertain that no misrepresentation or suppression of facts was used in effecting the policy, and also, if the policy is not in the name of the cestui que vie, that the assured had an insurable interest at the date of the policy. As to interest requisite to ii. — What Insurable Interest is necessary to support a Policy. — (i) Solicitors and General Life Assur- ance Society v. Lamb, 2 De Gr. J. & S. 251 ; City Bank v. Sovereign Ass., W. N. (1884) 61. (A.) Cook v. Black, 1 Ha. 390 ; Lufaur v. Professional Life Ass. Co., 25 Beav. 599 ; Jones v. Consolidated Investment Co., 26 Beav. 256. (1) Cook v. Black, 1 Ha. 390. (m) Jackson v. Forster, 1 E. &E. 463. (n) White v. The British Empire Mutual Life Assurance Co., L. R. 7 Eq. 396. (o) Anderson v. Fitzgerald, 4 H. L. C. 484 ; Casenove v. British Equitable Insurance Co., 29 L. J. C. P. 160 ; Thomson v. Weems, 9 App. Cas. 671. INSURABLE INTEREST. 287 The statute 14 Geo. III. c. 48, prohibits insurances to be made chapter xvn. by persons having no interest in the event insured ; by that Act s "^P or ^ f a life it is enacted as follows : — assurance. Sect. 1. "That no insurance shall be made by any person or No insurance persons, bodies politic or corporate, on the life or lives of any ^^ &c e , person or persons, or any other event or events (p) whatsoever, perS o ns wherein the person or persons for whose use, benefit, or on whose having no account such policy or policies shall be made, shall have no interest, interest, as by way of gaming or wagering ; and that every insurance made contrary to the true intent and meaning hereof shall be null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever." Sect. 2. "That it shall not be lawful to make any policy or ^° ] P° e 1 j cies policies on the life or lives of any person or persons, or other event ^.j^^ or events, without inserting in such policy or policies the person's i nger ting the or persons' name interested therein, or for whose use or benefit, or names of on whose account, such policy is so made or underwrote." persons in- Sect. 3. "That, in all cases where the insured hath interest in terested. such life or lives, event or events, no greater sum shall be recovered ^° w b m "^ or received from the insurer or insurers than the amount or value ^ered * of the interest of the insured in such life or lives, or other event or w here the events." insured has interest in lives. Sect. 4 provides that the Act shall not extend to insurances Extent of bond fide made on ships, goods, or merchandizes (q) . It is a question whether this Act applies to benefit insurance Benefit societies formed under the Friendly Societies Acts (r) . societies. The interest necessary to support a policy must be a pecuniary interest must interest^). be pecuniary. Of course, a person effecting an assurance on his own life has Insurance of m • • ,.,., ,-■ <.. /,v person's own an interest sufficient to give validity to the policy (/). life. It has been held that a wife has an insurable interest in the insurance of life of her husband («). And by the Married Women's Pro- band by or perty Act, 1882 {x), it is provided that a married woman may for benefit effect a policy upon her own life or the life of her husband for her separate use, and the same and all benefit thereof shall enure accordingly ; and a husband may effect a policy on his own life expressed to be for the benefit of his wife, and, in the absence (p) See, as to what transactions are 724 ; FZebden v. West, 3 B. & S. 579 ; within the statute, Roebuck v. Homer- Barnes v. London, Edinburgh and Glut- ton, Cowp. 737 ; Good v. Elliott, 3 T. gow Life Assurance Co., (1892) 1 Q. B. R. 693 ; Faterson v. Powell, 9 Bing. 864. 320 ; Morgan v. Febrar, 4 Sc. 230. (t) Waimvright v. Bland, 1 Moo. & (q) See as to such policies, 28 Geo. R. 481. III. c. 56. ( u ) Reid v. Royal Exchange Assur- er) Brown v. Freeman, 4 De G. & S. ance Co., Peake's Add. Cas. 70. 444. (x) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 75, s. 11. See (*) Ealford x. Kymer, 10 B. & Cr. post, p. 338. 288 MORTGAGE OF POLICY. CHAPTER XVII. Insurance of life of wife for benefit of husband. Insurance of life of parent for benefit of child. Expectancy. Insurable interest of trustee. Insurable interest of creditor in life of debtor. Insurable interest of surety in life of prin- cipal. Extent of of fraud, the policy will create a trust for her so as not to form part of his estate or be liable for his debts. It has been, however, held that a husband has not an insurable interest in the life of his wife (u), and there is no statutory pro- vision enabling a husband to insure her life for his own benefit ; but by the Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (a?), she may effect a policy on her own life expressed to be for the benefit of her husband, in like manner as a husband may for the benefit of his wife. A parent has not an insurable interest in the life of a child (//) ; nor apparently has a child an insurable interest, within the statute of Geo. III., in the life of its parent ; but by the Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (#), a father or mother may effect a policy on his or her own life for the benefit of a child or children. The mere expectancy of an heir or next of kin does not give an insurable interest (z). An interest as trustee has been held to be sufficient to support the validity of a policy (a). It is settled that a creditor has an insurable interest in the life of his debtor to the extent of the debt, as the prospect of his obtaining payment is considered to be diminished by the debtor's death, and the circumstance that the creditor has also a real or other security for the same debt does not affect the rule (b). It makes no difference that the debtor is an infant, as the plea of infancy cannot be set up by third persons (c) ; but the debtor must not be an alien enemy (d). No insurance must be made by way of gaming or wagering, and a policy effected to secure a debt won at play is void (e) . A surety has an insurable interest in the life of the principal debtor (/). By sect. 3 of the Act of Geo. III., the amount recoverable by (u) Beid v. Royal Exchange Assurance Co., Peake's Add. Gas. 70. (#) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 75, s. 11. See post, p. 338. (g) Halford v. Kytner, 10 B. & Cr. 724 ; Henson v. Blacl well, 4 Ha. 434. (z) Lucena v. Crawford, 2 B. & P. N. R. 324. But see Cooke v. Field, 19 L. J. Q. B. 441 ; Bunyon, Ass. 16. (a) Tidswell v. Ankerstein, Peake, N. P. Cas. 151. See Exp. Houghton, 17 Ves. 253; Exp. Andrews, 1 Madd. 573. (b) Anderson y. Edie, 2 Park, Ins. 640; Norland v. Isaac, 20 Beav. 389; Drysdale v. Pigott, 8 De G. M. & G. 546 ; Bruce v. Garden, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 32 ; Salt v. Marquess of Northampton, (1892) A. C. 1. (c) Du-yer v. Edie, 2 Park, Ins. 914. (d) Flindtv. Waters, 15 East, 260; Sarman v. Kingston, 3 Camp. 153. (e) Dwger v. Edie, 2 Park, Ins. 914. {f) Lea v. Hinton, 5 De G. M. & G. 823. TO WHOM POLICY BELONGS. 289 the insured is made commensurate with his interest in his life. "iapter XYI1 - And accordingly, where a person having an insurable interest jJJJJJj? 6 in the life of another, insured the life to the full extent of the insurable interest, and payment of that policy had been made, it was held that he could not enforce payment of another policy effected by him on the same life (g). It was formerly thought that the claim of a creditor was Continuing 1/0 . . . , interest not limited not only by the extent of his interest existing at the necessary. time of his effecting the policy, but also by the extent of his interest at the time of making the claim to the policy moneys (//). But this construction of sect. 3 is overruled (/), and it is now settled that a policy of life assurance is not a contract of indemnity, but a contract for payment at a future time of a fixed sum, calculated with reference to the premiums payable, in order to purchase the postponed sum (k). ii^ — Whether the Policy belongs to the Mortgagee or to the Whether, after . discharge of Mortgagor's Estate. — Where a creditor effects in ins own name mortgage, tho an assurance on the life of his debtor, the question may arise ^J creditor (unless precluded by the terms of the contract) whether the or the debtor, policy belongs to the creditor absolutely, or is redeemable by the representatives of the debtor. In the absence of contract, express or implied, to the contrary, General mica a policy effected on the life of another belongs to the person who insures life of effects it (/). debtor - And this rule has been held to apply where the grantee of an annuity so insured tho life of the grantor (hi). Where the grantee of an annuity, at his own expense, assured the life of the grantor, and undertook, when the annuity was redeemed, to assign the policy to the grantor, it was held that, upon the death of the grantor without redeeming the annuity, the policy belonged to the grantee (it). Where a loan was agreed to, one term of which was, that the debtor's life was to be insured in his own name, but the loan (#) Rebdenv. West, 3 B. & S. 579. man, 4 De G. & S. 414 ; Exp. Lun- (h) Goodsallv. Boklcro, 9 East, 71. caster, 4 De G. & S. 524 ; Gottlieb v. (i) Law v. London Indisputable Life Crunch, 4 De G. M. & G. 110; Fremc Folicy Co., 1 K. & J. 223, at p. 228. v. Brade, 2 De G. & J. 582. (k) Balby v. India and London Lift (m) Lawv. Warren, J)ru. 31; Knox Assurance Co., 18 Jur. 1024; Jlobson v. Turner, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 515; Fret* v. McCreight, 25Be&v. 272; Burnandv. ton v. Neele, 12 Ch. D. 760. Sec Eodocanuchi, 7 App. Cas. 333, at p. 340. Morland v. Taqa \ 20 Beav. 389. (/) Humphrey v. Arabin, LI. & G. [n) Bashfordv. C»>n,, 33 Beav. 109. temp. Pluukct, 318; Brown v. Free VOL. I. — K. U 290 MORTGAGE OF POLICY. CHAPTER XVII. Application of the rule between mortgagee and repre- sentatives of mortg'ag'or. Insurance of debtor's life where no agreement to insure. went off, a policy, having by mistake been effected in the name of the intended creditor, was held to belong to the debtor (o). Where a jDerson, with whom a policy of assurance is deposited by way of security, is appointed executor of the mortgagor, and he is obliged to give a receipt as executor, that will not render the whole sum, but only the surplus after retaining the amount of the mortgage debt, assets in his hands (p). It would seem to be the result of the cases that if an insurance company pays to a creditor the full amOunt of the moneys assured by a policy effected on the life of the debtor, and such moneys exceed the amount of the original insurable interest, or the amount owing in respect of the debt at the time of the death, the question whether the representatives of the debtor will be entitled to the balance will depend upon whether, by the express or implied terms of the contract, the policy was effected for the creditor's protection only, and for his benefit, or as a security for the debt. So, where a creditor, to the knowledge of, but not in pursuance of any agreement with his debtor, insured the debtor's life to an amount calculated with reference not only to the amount of the debt, but also to the premiums to become payable to keep up the policy, so as, in effect, to recoup the creditor the premiums from time to time paid by him, it was held that, no contract to insure being proved, the creditor was entitled to the full benefit of the policy as against the debtor's estate ; it was further said that, even if, as alleged by the debtor's representatives, the transaction was tainted by fraud in respect of the policy, so as to give the creditor no insurable interest therein, though the office would not have been liable to pay, and might possibly be entitled to recover the money paid to the creditor, the estate of the debtor had no right thereto (q) . Similarly, where a debtor at the request of his creditor, but not in pursuance of any agreement forming part of the mort- gage contract, insured his life for an amount not exceeding the debt, and nominated the creditor as the person to receive the amount ; the debt was reduced during the debtor's life, and, on his death, the creditor received the full amount : a claim by the debtor's administrator to recover the balance from the creditor was dismissed with costs (/') . (o) Martin v. West of England, &c. (g) Freme v. tirade, 2 De G. & J. Co., 4 Jui-. N. S. 158. 582. (p) Glaholm v. Houmlree, 6 A. & E. (>•) Brown v. Freeman, 4 De G. & 710. S.444. TO WHOM POLICY BELONGS. 291 Again, where a creditor effected in his own name a policy on chapteb xyii.- the life of a debtor, and the premiums were charged to the debtor's account in the books of the creditor, but the fact was not communicated to the debtor, it was held that, there being no evidence of a contract for effecting the policy or payment of premiums, the creditor was entitled to retain the moneys re- ceived by him under the policy, and was not liable to account for them or the premiums to the debtor's representatives (s). But if it appears by the terms of the contract, or upon a Iftheinsur- . . p ii i l' n i ii ance forms general view of all the circumstances oi the transaction, tnat tlie part of the policy was effected for the purpose of securing an advance or ™^*j>° the debt, the policy will be redeemable by the debtor or his repre- policy belonga sentatives upon payment to the creditor of what appears to be ° ago l™ ov ' due to him for principal, interest, premiums paid by him, and estate. costs, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in the instrument creating the security. Usually, in the case of a secured debt, the intention is that the premiums shall be paid by the debtor, and that the policy shall eventually belong to him, and the security is framed accordingly (() . The heir of entail of certain real estates in Scotland executed Right to a bond and disposition in the Scotch form, whereby, in con- depends on sideration of an advance of 10,000/. made to him by the trustees JjJJgjJ of an insurance society, he bound himself to pay that sum on a specified date with interest, and also to pay premiums payable on a policy of assurance which had been effected by the trustees in the society on his life against that of his father for 34,500/.; he thereby also assigned his reversionary interest in the real estates as security for the loan, reserving power of redemption. By a memorandum of even date with the bond, it was (among other things) agreed that the interest and premiums should be allowed to accumulate at compound interest for five years certain, and that, in the event of the debtor paying the whole amount due before his father's death, the trustees should assign the policy to the debtor, but that, in the event of the debtor not having paid the whole amount due before his father's death, the policy should belong absolutely to the trustees, without pre- judice to the rights of the trustees under the bond, but that, if the debtor should predecease his father without having paid all (s) Bruce v. Garden, L. R. 5 Ch. (t) Dav. Conv., vol. ii. pt. ii. p. 130. A. 32. u2 292 MORTGAGE OF POLICY. chapter xvh. m oneys due, the trustees should impute to the debt all moneys they might receive under the policy. The debtor died in his father's lifetime without having paid anything. It was held by Lord Selborne, Lord Bramwell, and Lord Morris (diss. Lord Hannen), that upon the construction of the documents the transaction amounted to a mortgage of the policy, and ac- cordingly that, on the principle " once a mortgage always a mortgage" {it), the clause purporting to render the policy irre- deemable could not be supported (.r) . In the case referred to (t/), Lord Selborne thus stated the law on this question : — " I am not prepared to hold that if it were made out that the policy was effected for the creditor's benefit, subject only to an option for the debtor to acquire a right to it by making a payment, which he never made, the obligation of paying the premium, which the debtor certainly undertook, would have made it the property of the debtor, contrary to the contract. I see no principle on which I ought so to hold, since the repeal of the usury laws, and in the absence of any obliga- tion or proof of fraud, oppression, or other unfair dealing. . . . But the authorities (s) certainly establish that the prima facie effect of an agreement between debtor and creditor, in a trans- action such as the present, that the creditor shall effect a policy, and that the debtor shall pay the premiums, is to vest the equit- able property in the policy, subject to the creditor's security, in the debtor, the principle being that what the debtor pays, or agrees to pay for, is {prima facie, at all events,) his, subject to the security for the purpose of which it was brought into exist- ence." General result If, then, an insurance is effected by a creditor on the life of his debtor, under a contract whereby it is agreed that the debtor shall pay the premiums (a), or be charged with them in ac- count (b) , or if an inference otherwise arises that the insurance was intended as a security (c), the policy or the balance of the (u) See as to this rule, ante, p. 12. (b) Morlandv. Isaac, 20 Beav. 389; (x) Salt y. Marquess of Northampton, Holland v. Smith, sup.; Drysdale v. (1892) A. C. 1. Pigrjott, 8 De G. M. & G. 546. (y) Ibid, at pp. 15, 16. (c) Williams v. Athyns, 2 J. & L. (z) Holland v. Smith, 6 Esp. 11; 603; and Hawkins v. Woodgate, 7 Drysdale v. Tigyott, 8 De G. M. & G. Beav. 565 (both cases of annuities) ; 546 ; Morland v. Isaac, 20 Beav. 389 ; Exp. Andrews, 1 Madd. 573 ; lea v. Bruce v. Garden, L. E. 5 Ch. A. 532. Hinton, 5 De G. M. & G. 823 ; Cour- (a) Holland v. Smith, 6 Esp. 11 ; Re tenayx. Wright, 2 Gift. 337. Stone's Trusts, 1 Giff. 94. of decided cases. 203 FORM OF MORTGAGE. insurance moneys will be the property of the debtor after pay- ohaptkb^vi, ment of the debt, and the result is the same if the insurance be on the life of a surety, instead of on the life of the principal (d). But the Court requires distinct evidence that the creditor has *™g£* agreed to effect a policy, and that the debtor has agreed to pay debt^ to pay the premiums, and in that case the policy will be held in trust jJ^X for the debtor (e). iv.-Modes of effecting Mortgages of Policies.— Where policies Different are effected for the purpose of security for a loan or a subsisting effecting debt, they may be effected either by the debtor in his own g*J£ « name, and assigned by him by way of mortgage, or by the security, creditor in his name, in which case no assignment will be neces- sary. The latter course has the further advantage of removing certain risks, such as avoidance of the policy by suicide of the assured. But though, if this course is adopted, an assignment is not required, a deed will be necessary for the purpose of con- taining covenants by the debtor for payment of the money advanced and interest thereon, and to keep up the policy. It is usual to provide expressly that, on discharge of the debt, the policy shall be redeemable ; but, as has been seen, if it appears by the transaction that the policy was effected by the creditor by way of security, and the debtor is made liable to pay the premiums, the policy will be redeemable without any proviso to that effect, or notwithstanding a proviso to the contrary (/). A mortgage of a life policy is generally framed according to l™f geoi the ordinary form of a mortgage by assignment of the policy, policies, but will contain, after a declaration of trust of the policy moneys, or, if this is omitted in reliance on the statute, after the proviso for redemption, covenants to keep up the policy and subsidiary clauses. _ If a policy of assurance is assigned, "together with the sum Bonuses, assured," it has been held that future bonuses will pass by the assignment (cj) . But it is well to avoid all question by expressly including bonuses in the assignment (//). Formerly the assignment included a power of attorney to P^of^ receive the insurance money, which was held to be valid, though deceive policy it could not come into operation until the death of the prin- moneys. W Bell v. A hm 12 I, Ec, R ^"J* J.*^ *~ ™ * JJk v. Garten, L. R 5 On. ^ «£ *£%«£%'»'' (/) See supra. 294 MORTGAGE OF POLICY. CHAPTER XVII. Proviso for redemption. Power to give receipts. Declaration of trust of policy moneys. Covenants for keeping up insurance. cipal(i'). But the insertion of such a power is now rendered unnecessary by the Policies of Assurance Act, 18G7 (/,•), which enables the assignee of a policy to sue for and recover the moneys in his own name, without the concurrence or receipt of the representatives of the mortgagor. A mortgage of a policy should be framed with a view to the contingency of foreclosure, for which purpose there should be the ordinary proviso for redemption (/) . An express power to give receipts was once material (m), but is now of no moment, having regard to the extensive powers of giving receipts now conferred on mortgagees and trustees (>t). According to the former practice in framing mortgages of policies, a declaration of trust of moneys received in respect of the policy was inserted, but this is now rendered unnecessary by the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (o), s. 22, which, after making the receipt of a mortgagee a sufficient dis- charge for moneys arising under his mortgage, provides that the money received under a mortgage (after payment of costs of recovering and receiving the same) is to be applicable in the same manner as the proceeds of sale under the statutory power given to mortgagees by sect. 19 of the same Act. The mortgage must contain a covenant to keep up, and, if required, to restore the policy. The covenant to keep up the insurance should be in terms negative, i.e., that the mortgagor will not do any act by which the policy may be avoided, and not merely affirmative that he will do all acts requisite for keeping up the policy, otherwise the avoidance of the policy by the suicide of the assured will not be a breach of the cove- nant (p). "Where a policy was assigned with a covenant to do no act by which the policy might be avoided, and the cove- nantor avoided it by going beyond the limits of Europe without the required licence, the Court directed that the measure of damages should be the market value of the policy at the time (i) Pearson v. Amicable Assurance Office, 27 Beav. 229. (k) 30 & 31 Vict. c. 144. (I) See Slade v. Rigg, 3 Ha. 35 ; Wayne v. Hanham, 9 Ha. 62 ; and per Turner, L. J., in Drysdalc v. Piggott, 8 De G. M. & G. 552. {in) Brasier v. Hudson, 9 Sim. 1 ; Desborongh v. Harris, 5 De G. M. & G. 439 : Glyn v. Locke, 3 Dr. & War. 11. («) Lord St. Leonards' Act (22 & 23 Vict. c. 35), s. 23 ; and Lord Cranworth's Act (23 & 24 Vict. c. 145), ss. 29, 34 ; and now the Convey- ancing and Law of Property Act, 1SS1 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 22. (o) 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41. (p) Piormay v. Borradaile, 5 C. B. 380 ; 8. C, 10 Beav. 335. See Dav. Conv. vol. ii., pt. 2, 134. FOEM OF MOETGAGE. 295 of the breach of covenant, considering as a fact that the clef en- chapter xvh. dant had covenanted to pay, and would pay, the premiums (q) . Where the mortgagor merely covenants to keep up the policy, or in default that the mortgagee may pay the premiums and add the amount to his debt, the damages for breach of such covenant are nominal ; the remedy is to add the premiums to the debt ; but where the covenant is to repay the premiums, the amount paid is the measure of the damages (r). "Where a mortgagor insured his life as an additional security and covenanted to pay the premiums, and that in default of his so doing the mortgagee might pay them and recover the amount, the mortgagor was not protected, by his discharge under the Insolvent Debtors Act, from an action of covenant by the mortgagee for premiums becoming due after his discharge, and paid by the mortgagee (s) ; but this is altered by the present Bankruptcy Act (t). The statutory power of sale is usually relied upon in mort- Power of gages of policies, as in the case of other mortgages at the present time ; but it is advisable to insert in the deed an express proviso that the power may be exercised by way of surrender to the office granting the policy. Policies of assurance are often effected for securing loans Where mort - made by insurance societies on life interests, and on contingent f^owT^ reversionary interests. The loan is usually expressed to be insurer, made by persons who are in fact the trustees of the society, but are not stated to be such, and the covenants by the mort- gagor to pay principal and interest and to keep up the policy are made with the trustees. Where a policy is effected by way of security in the office of the society in which the loan is made, the usual and proper course is for the mortgagor to effect the insurance in his own name, and to assign the policy to the mortgagees by way of mortgage, for if the insurance is effected in the name of the trustees they may not be able to charge the premiums if the mortgagor should fail to pay them. Where, in consideration of a loan by an insurance society, the borrower covenanted with the trustees of the society that if they should pay any additional rate of insurance by reason of (q) Hawkins v. Coulthurst, 12 TV. E. 882—889. 825. See 2 Dav. Conv. vol. ii., pt. 2, (s) Bennett v. Burton, 12 A. & E. p. 134. 657. (r) Brown v. Price, 4 Jur. N. S. (t) 46 & 47 Vict. c. 52, s. 30 (2). 296 MORTGAGE OF POLICY. CHAPTER XVII, his going beyond seas he would pay to the trustees all such sums as should he advanced by them or their cestuis que trust for such additional premiums ; no policy was, in fact, effected, except that the company, immediately after the loan was made, became their own insurers by effecting a policy in a branch of their own office ; and on the borrower going abroad additional premiums were charged against him in respect of the policy : it was held that the policy effected, being merely an agreement that the society should pay to itself certain sums, was an empty formality on which nobody could sue, and that no additional premiums could be charged against the borrower, none having in fact been paid. It was, however, pointed out by Stuart, V.-C, in the case referred to, that the covenant might have been framed so as to entitle the trustees to retain and be paid a certain annual sum by way of indemnity in case the borrower should go abroad (u). But where, upon a mortgage of a life interest, the trustees of an insurance society, as further security for the loan, effected a policy on the mortgagor's life in the office of the society, and by the mortgage deed, which recited that the policy had been so effected, the mortgagor covenanted that if he should fail to pay the premiums it should be lawful for the trustees to pay them ; the mortgagor, after paying the premiums for several years, ceased to do so, and the society debited his account in their books with the annual amounts, and added them to the mortgage debt ; it was held by Stuart, Y.-C, that, the policy having been recited in the mortgage deed, and proved to have been in existence at the time of the loan, he could not deal with the case upon the footing that no policy of assurance had in fact been effected, and accordingly he held that the society was entitled to be allowed the sums with which they had debited the mortgagor (x) . Forfeiture of policy. V. — Other Matters relating to Mortgages of Policies. — Where money advanced by an insurance company is secured by a policy of assurance effected at that office by the borrower, and by a bond with sureties for securing the principal money and interest, and premiums, if the policy becomes forfeited by non-payment (m) Grey v. Ellison, 1 Giff. 438. See also Hutchinson v. Wilson, 4 Ero. C. C. 488. (.'•) Earl Fitzwilliam v. Price, 4 Jur. N. S £89. See Brown v. Price, 4 Jur. N. S. 882. FORM OF MORTGAGE. 297 of the premiums, a Court of equity will not, it seems, upon chapter xyii. the death of the assured, deprive the company of the benefit of the forfeiture, though at the time of the death of the assured actions had been brought by the company against the sureties for the premiums ; and the company will be at liberty to pro- secute an action for principal and interest against the same parties (y). Of course, a company may, by the acts of its directors or Waiver of agents, waive a forfeiture incurred by failure to observe the conditions of the policy (z). Where a policy holder borrows money on his policy from the Set-off on insurance society, which is wound up, and a value is set upon the f insurance policy, the official liquidator of the society cannot set off the societv " debt against such value ; nor, if the policy holder becomes bank- rupt, can his trustee set off the value against the debt (a). A covenant by the mortgagor to pay future premiums is now Proof in proveable in bankruptcy, the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, an up cy ' 1883 (/;), as to proof of future liabilities being of the most general character, so as to cover every species of contingency (c) . Where a mortgagor of a policy of assurance became bankrupt, Lien for pre- but continued to pay the premiums, it was held that his estate by l ™nkrupt. had a lien on the policy moneys with interest at 4 per cent, (d) ; and the administrator of a mortgagor not bankrupt was held entitled to a similar lien (e) ; but a stranger paying the pre- miums has no lien, except under special circumstances (/) . Where, on the bankruptcy of the assured, a policy held by a Substituted creditor becomes forfeited by non-payment of the premium, a new po lcy ' policy subsequently taken out by the creditor for his own pro- tection does not belong to the trustee (g). The question as to the necessity of giving notice to the office Notice of in which a policy is effected of any assignment thereof, so as to ofpolicies 1 S ' entitle the assignee to receive the policy moneys and to obtain priority over other assignees, will be considered later (//) . (g) Edge v. Duke, 18 L. J. Ch. 183. (d) Shearman v. British Empire, §c. (z) Wing v. Harvey, 5 De G. M. & Co., L. R. 14 Eq. 4. But qu. see G. 265. Saunders v. Dunman, 7 Ch. D. 825, (a) Exp. Price, lie Lanlccster, L. R. 829. 10 Ch. A. 648. (e) Norris v. Caledonian Insurance (b) 46 & 47 Vict. c. 52, s. 37. Co., L. R. 8 Eq. 127, sed qu. (c) See Exp. Neal, 14 Ch. D. 579, (/) Re Leslie, Leslie v. French, 23 at p. 583, C. A. See also Exp. Waters, Ch. D. 552. Re Hoyle, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 562, at p. {g) Re Gaskell, "W. N. (1881) 130. 568. " (h) See post, Chap. LVI. p. 1267. ( 298 ) CHAPTER XVIII. OF MORTGAGES OF PENSIONS, SALARIES, ETC. Emoluments of judicial offices. Pay of officers of the Crown. Naval and military pensions. teamen s wages. The sale of public offices is malum in se, independently of the statute law (a) . But by a statute of Edw. YI. all assurances of any office concerning the administration or execution of jus- tice, or any service of trust, or the receipt, control, or payment of the king's revenues or customs, or the custody of fortresses, or the clerkship in any Court of record where justice is to be administered, were declared to be void, as against the person making the assurance, with an exception in favour of offices of inheritance, and of the keeping of parks or forests (b). This Act (preserving the exceptions) was afterwards ex- tended (c) to Scotland and Ireland, and to all offices in the gift of the Crown, civil, naval, and military commissions and em- ployments under the control of the different officers of state. Another statute (<7) declares to be void all assignments of and charges on, and agreements to assign or charge any deferred pay or military reward, pension, allowance, or relief payable to any officer or soldier of her Majesty's forces, or any widow, child, or other relative of any such officer or soldier, or any person in respect of any military service. And it is provided by statute? that all assignments, sales or contracts relating to naval pen- sions, half -pay or allowances, by officers, seamen, or marines, or their widows, or other persons entitled to an allowance from the compassionate fund or to marine half -pay, are void (e). Bills of sale, contracts, and assignments of any pay, wages, or allowances of money of any kind, due, or to grow due, to any seaman in the service of the Crown, are also void (/). («) Staclqjole v. Hark, 2 Wils. K. B. 133 (b) 5 & 6 Edw. VI. c. 16. (c) 49 Geo. III. c. 126. {d) 44&45Vict. c. 58, s. 141, by which Act the similar provisions of the 47 Geo. III. sess. 2, c. 25, s. 2, are re- pealed. (e) 28 & 29 Vict. c. 73, s. 4. (/) Ibid. s.J5. See as to seamen in the Merchant* Service, 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 163. MORTGAGE OF PENSION, SALARY, ETC. 2 " The following are not assignable :- ammmxvm. Pensions granted for supporting the grantee in the perform- O^er ^ nofc ance of future services, such as the pension granted by 5 Anne, askable. c. 4, for the more honourable support of the dignities of the Duke of Marlborough (g) and his posterity, payable out of the revenue of the Post Office ; the salaries of the judges given for the support of the dignity of their office {h) ; the salary of a clerk of the peace (•) ; and, in fact, the emoluments of any public office (k) ; annuities pro consilio impendendo (I) ; full pay and half -pay of an officer (m) ; a retiring pension of a military officer of the East India Company, which has been held not to pass to the assignees in bankruptcy, on the ground of being a voluntary payment («) . Pensions for military service, being rendered inalienable by the recent statutes, cannot be taken in execution under 1 & 2 Yict. c. 110, ss. 14, 15, nor can a receiver of any such a pension be appointed, even though the grantee is not liable to be called into service again (o). The difference in this respect between half -pay and pensions, drawn in several decisions before the Acts (p), has ceased to be regarded. This immunity does not, however, extend to money paid in respect of commutation of retired pay (q). There is a power vested in a trustee in bankruptcy to reach the pay or salary of a military, naval, or civil officer, or a portion thereof, with the consent of the chief officer of the department (r) ; and half -pay, pensions, or com- pensation of officers may be ordered by the Court to be paid to the trustee in bankruptcy (s) . The commission of an officer cannot be mortgaged or pledged (t). A voluntary allowance is not a salary or pension within the Act («). (ff) Davis v. Duke of Marlborough, 214. 1 Swanst. 74. (o) Lucas v. Harris, 18 Q. B. D. (h) lb. arguendo. 127, C. A. See JSirchv. Birch, 8 P. D. (i) Palmer v. Bate, 2 Br. & B. 673. 163, a case under the Indian Pensions (k) Hill v. Paul, 8 CI. & P. 295. Act, 1871. ,,.— „,„ (V 1 By. 2, a. n. (j>) Wells v. Foster. 8 M. & W. 149 ; (m) Barwiek v. Reade, 1 H. Bl. 627 ; Spooner v. Payne, 1 De G. M. & G. Flarty v. Odium, 3 T. R. 681; Ar- 383; Carew v. Cooper, 4 Gift. 619; 12 buckle v. Coivtan, 3 B. & P. 328 ; lid- W. R. 198 ; Healdv. Hay, 3 Giff. 467 ; derdale v. Duke of Montrose, 4 T. R. Dent v. Dent, L. R. 1 P. & D. 366 ; 248 • Stone v. Lidderdale, 2 Anst. 533 ; Willcock v. Terrell, 3 Ex. D. 323. McCarthy v. Goold, 1 Ba. & Be. 387 ; (?) Crowe v. Price, 22 Q. B. D. 429, Price v. Lovett, 20 L. J. Ch. 270 (in- C. A. eluding a pension for wounds) ; Lloyd (»•) B. A. 1883, s. 53, sub-s. 1. v. Chectham, 3 Giff. 171 ; Willcock v. Is) Ibid, sub-s. 2. Terrell, 3 Ex. D. 326. W Collxjer v. Fallon, 1 T. & R. 459. (n) Gibson v. Fast India Co., 7 So. («) Exp. Wicks, 17Ch.D. 70, C. A. ; 73. SeeFzp. Hawker, L.R. 7 Ch. A. Exp. Webber, 18 Q. B. D. 111. See 300 MORTGAGE OF PENSION, SALARY, ETC. •; CHAPTER XVIII. Pensions assignable. Ecclesiastical profits and pensions. Alimony. The following are assignable : — Compensation to a custom-house officer for the loss of office (though revocable at the pleasure of the government) (,r) ; pen- sion to commissioner of bankrupts (y) ; moneys payable to the representatives of an Indian judge, if he should die in, and after sis months' possession of, office (z) ; prize money and the captors' inchoate or possible interest in it before grant by the Crown (a) ; a pension granted to a County Court judge for past services (l>), or to a judge of a Crown colony (c) ; and, generally, civil service pensions (d) . The profits of certain hereditary or freehold offices (most of which are now abolished) are assignable (c) . So also the salaries of mere secretaries or clerks receivable during the pleasure of their superiors, are not " offices " within the statute of Edw. VI. (/). Since the 57 Geo. III. c. 99, church livings, a canonry, or other ecclesiastical office, cannot be assigned (g). Nor can pen- sions to incumbents on resignation of their benefices (h) be transferred either at law or in equity, or be subject to a set- off (/). But annuities by way of compensation to retiring in- cumbents under the Union of Benefices Act, 1860(A), may be validly assigned (/). A receiver has been appointed of the profits of a college fellowship, on the ground that no question of public policy could interfere with the validity of an assignment thereof (m). A mortgage of the salary of a workhouse chaplain, which was paid out of local poor rates, was held to be valid (n). Alimony has been held not to be assignable (o) ; and the same rule applies to permanent maintenance after divorce (p) . Exp. Benwell, 14 Q. B. D. 301, C. A. ; Re shine, (1S92) 1 Q. B. 522, C. A. (x) Twn&tall v. Boothby, 10 Sim. 542 ; Exp. C'orser, 11 Jur. 212. (y) Spooner v. Payne, 1 De G. M. & G. 383. (z) Arbuthnot v. Norton, 5 Moo. P. C. 219. (a) Alexander v. Puke of Wellington, 2R. &My. 35. (b) Willcock v. Terrell, 3 Ex. D. 323. (c) Exp. Euggins, 21 Ch. D. 85, C. A. (d) Sansom v. Sansom, 4 P. D. 69 ; Exp. Hug gins, supra. (e) Drwmmond v. Puke of St. Albans, 5 Ves. 433. (/) Aston v. Gwinnell, 3 Y. & J. 136. (g) Post, p. 440. (A) 34 & 35 Vict. c. 44, s. 10. (i) Gathercole v. Smith, 17 Ch. D. 1, C. A. (/.:) 23 & 24 Vict. c. 142. (!) McBean v. Beane, 30 Ch. D. 520. (m) Feistel v. King's Coll. Cambridge, 10 Beav. 491. But see Berkeley v. King's Coll. Cambridge, 10 Beav. 602. (n) Be Mirams, (1891) 1 Q. B. 594. (o) Be Bobinson, W. N. (1884) 169, C. A. (p) Wathins v. Watkins, (1896) P. 222, C. A. MOETGAGE OF PENSION, SALARY, ETC. 301 The allowance made in lunacy to a committee, though made chapter xvm. indirectly for his benefit and without liability to account, is Allowance to nevertheless an allowance made to a person in a fiduciary position i una tic. for a particular purpose, and may be revoked at any time so far as not actually paid ; no valid mortgage can accordingly be made of the allowance or of any arrears of it (q) . A mortgage by a member of the Customs Annuity and Customs Benevolent Fund of two-thirds of his portion payable at his Fund, death, was held to be valid where the mortgagees had been admitted as nominees by the directors (V) ; but the member has only a power of appointment over the sum insured, and no right of property in it ; if no nominee is admitted, the sum must go according to the rules (*) . (q) Me Weld, 20 Ch.D. 451, C. A. (*) ReFhiltipt Insurances, 23 Ch. D. (>•) Re Maclean's 'Trusts, L. R. 19 235, C. A. Eg.. 275. ( 302 ) CHAPTER XIX. OF MORTGAGES OF DEBTS AND LEGACIES. Section 1. Of a Mortgage of Debts. Debts may be i. — What Debts may be Mortgaged. — All debts, secured and ° g * unsecured, may form the subject of mortgages. Unsecured debts can rarely afford a satisfactory security ; but it not un- frequently happens that a mortgage is itself transferred by way of security by the mortgagee, thus giving rise to what is called a sub-mortgage (a) . Future debts. A debtor may assign future accruing payments to be made to him under an engagement with a third person (b). But a mort- gage of the future gross receipts of a business is not good against the title of the trustee in bankruptcy by relation (c) . A bill of sale of all goods which should be brought upon the premises or should be in any other place in the debtor's posses- sion, does not include the book debts (d) . A mortgage of all present and future personalty was held invalid as to the future property (e). This was founded on Belding v. Read (/) . But the authority of these cases is much shaken by the decision of the House of Lords in Tailby v. Official Receiver (g) , where their lordships, while declining to adjudicate upon the question, which was not before them, of a charge including all the property whatever of the person giving it, held that an assignment by way of security for a loan of all the book debts due and owing, or which might during the (a) See as to sub -mortgages, post, (d) Browne v. Fryer, 46 L. T. 636, Chap. XLII. p. 830. C. A. (b) Toolcy v. Goodivin, 4 A. & E. 94. (e) RelP Epmeuil, Tadmore v. -D' Epin- See Exp. Moss, Me Toward, 14 Q. B. D. cull, 20 Ch. D. 758. 310, C. A. (/) 11 Jur. N. S. 547. (c) Exp. Nicholls, 22 Cb. D. 782, {i) . Lord Thurlow, in Ex parte Mure (o), stated the doctrine so strongly as to render it extremely dangerous for a person to take even a mortgage debt as security without an indemnity clause of the nature above suggested. His lordship said, in the course of his judgment : — " I think it very difficult to conceive a case where there has been anything like forbearance to the debtor without the concurrence of the assignor without involving the assignee in the consequences of such conduct." Sir John Leach, V.-C, in the later case of Williams v. Price (p), inti- mated a doubt whether the principle laid clown in Ex parte Mure could be adopted without qualification, and pointed out that the giving of time might be a provident act and afford the best chance of recovering the debt ; but his honour held, that if a debt becomes irrecoverable by the wilful default or neglect of the assignee, he must bear the loss. An indemnity clause should never be omitted when a debt is assigned by way of sub-mortgage or other security to trus- tees. Sometimes it may be convenient in the assignment of a debt by w r ay of mortgage to give the mortgagee a power to com- pound or accept any composition or security for the payment. Such a power, however, should be given with caution, and perhaps can scarcely ever be reasonably required, unless it is likely that the mortgagor's absence beyond seas, or other special circumstances, will be likely to prevent him from concurring in such an arrangement. 3rdly. The mortgagee should, immediately upon completion of the mortgage, give to the debtor notice of the assignment. Independently of the provisions of the Judicature Act, 1873, the observance of this precaution will protect the mortgagee from the risk of the debtor paying the debt wholly or in part to the mortgagor, which the debtor would of course be justified in doing if he had no notice of the assignment (q) ; and also from the risk of the mortgagor mortgaging or selling the debt to some other person, not having notice of the previous assign- («) 2 Dav. Conv. (4th ed.) vol. ii. pt. 2, p. 140. (o) 2 Cox, 63, at p. 76. \p) 1 S. & St. 5S1. (q) Jones v. Gibbon, 9 Ves. 410. See Norrish v. Marshall, 5 Madd. 47") ; Williams v. Sorrcll, 4 Ves. 389 ; Re Lord Southampton'' s Estate, Allen v. Lord Southampton, 16 Ch. D. 178, 187. POWER OF ATTORNEY. 305 ment, who, by first giving notice to the debtor, might gain CHAPTEBXIX - priority over the original mortgagee (r). If a bond is the subject of assignment, not only should the instrument itself be given up to the assignee, so as to prevent the original obligee from dealing with the bond debt, but notice of such assignment should be given to the debtor, to prevent his payment of the bond debt to the obligee, which, in default of such notice, would be valid and discharge the security (s). The equitable assignee of a debt is not subject to the same rules as the holder of a bill of exchange or promissory note so as to make it obligatory upon him to give notice to the assignor of non-payment by the debtor, though he would be chargeable with any loss arising from his wilful default in not getting in the debt at the proper time (t) . iii, — Power of Attorney. — Before the Judicature Act, 1873 (u), Right to sue the right of suing at law for a debt could not, as a general rule, transferable^ have been transferred. The exceptions were : negotiable securi- ties, as bills of exchange and promissory notes (a?) , bail bonds (y) , replevin bonds (s) , railway mortgages and bonds (a) , life poli- cies (b) , marine policies (c) (under which the assignee can sue in his own name, but the underwriter may set off any debt due to him by the assured (d) ), bills of lading under the Bills of Lading Act if indorsed (e) . It has till recently been the usual practice to effect mortgages Power of of legal debts (/. e., of debts conferring a right of action at law) sue^™ 67 by means of an assignment with a power of attorney enabling an assignee to use the name of the assignor, so as to avail him- self, for his own benefit, of the assignor's right of action. The power, being a power given for valuable consideration, may, if inserted, be expressly made irrevocable (/). By the Judicature Act, 1873 (#), it is enacted as follows : — " Any absolute assignment, by writing under the hand of the Absolute assignment (r) See further as to notice as affect- (z) 11 Geo. 2, c. 19, s. 23. ing priorities of incumbrances on choses (a) 8 & 9 Vict. c. 16, s. 47. in action, post, pp. 1265 et seq. [b) 30 & 31 Vict. c. 144 ; see ante, (s) Eyall v. Bowles, 1 Ves. Sen. 367. p, 294. See Williams v. Thorp, 2 Sim. 257 ; (c) 31 & 32 Vict. c. 86. Exp. Colvill, Mont. 110. (d) Fellas v. Neptune Marine Insur- (t) Ghjn v. Hood, 1 De G. F. & J. ance Co., 4 C. P. D. 139. 334. (r) 18 & 19 Vict. c. 111. (u) 36 & 37 Vict. c. 66,s.25, sub-s. (6). (/) See Conveyancing Act, 1882 (.r) 3 & 4 Anne, c. 9 ; 7 Anne, c. 25, (45 & 46 Vict. c. 39), s. 8. s. 3. (y) 36 & 37 Vict. c. 66, s. 25, sub-s. (6). (y) 4 Anne, c. 16, s. 20. VOL. I. R. X 306 MOETGAGE OF DEBTS. CHAPTER XIX. of debts, &c. confers right to sue. assignor (not purporting to "be by way of charge only), of any debt or other legal chose in action, of which express notice in writing shall have been given to the debtor, trustee, or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to receive or claim such debt or chose in action, shall be, and be deemed to have been, effectual ^in law (subject to all equities which would have been entitled to priority over the right of the assignee if the Act had not passed), to pass and transfer the legal right to such debt or chose in action from the date of such notice, and all legal and other remedies for the same, and the power to give a good discharge for the same without the concurrence of the assignor. "Provided always, that if the debtor, trustee, or other person liable in respect of such debt or chose in action, shall have had notice that such assignment is disputed by the assignor or any one claiming under him, or of any other opposing or conflicting claims to such debt or chose in action, he shall be entitled, if he think fit, to call ujion the several persons making claim thereto to interplead con- cerning the same, or he may, if he think fit, pay the same into the High Court of Justice under, and in conformity with, the provisions of the Acts for the relief of trustees." Whether a - mortgage of a debt is an " absolute assignment. ' Sub-mort- gage held not to be an ' ' absolute assignment." Assignment of debts on trust to receive and repay loan, It will be observed that the above enactment applies only to absolute assignments not purporting to be by way of charge only ; and the question whether a mortgage of a debt is an abso- lute assignment within the meaning of the Act has given rise to some conflict of judicial opinion. In National Provincial Bank v. Hark (/i), a mortgage debt and the securities for the same were assigned by way of sub- mortgage by a deed which contained a proviso for redemption in the usual form, but no pow T er of attorney; the sub-mort- gagee gave notice of the assignment to the original mortgagor. Pollock, B., held that this was not " an absolute assignment," but an assignment purporting, on the face of it, to be by way of charge only within the meaning of the Act, and he accordingly upheld an objection by the original mortgagor that the sub- mortgagees had no right of action. His Lordship further in- timated that a case might arise necessitating a decision as to the meaning of the words " purporting to be by way of charge only," whether they mean an assignment which expresses on the face of it to be, or one which, coupled with all the surround- ing circumstances, shows that it is, " by way of charge only." In Burlinson v. Hall (/), the precise question suggested by Pollock, B., arose. In that case, certain debts were assigned by deed without any proviso for redemption, but upon trust that (A) 6 Q. B. D. 626. (0 12 Q. B. D. 347. 307 POWER OF ATTORNEY. the assignee should receive the debts, and out of them pay him- ^^ self the sum due to him from the assignor, and pay the surplus *^*£ to the assignor The deed contained a power of attorney assignment." enabling the assignee to sue in the name of the assignor, but the assignee brought the action in his own name only. It was urged on behalf of the debtor that this was in effect an assign- ment by way of mortgage or charge only, and that as, after payment of the debt due to the assignor, the surplus would belong to him, the assignment could not be regarded as absolute. It was held by Day and A. L. Smith, JJ. (by the latter with some hesitation), that this was an absolute assignment -within the Act, so as to give the assignee a right to sue m his own name; not absolute, indeed, as a sale, but absolute as contra- distinguished from conditional-an assignment giving a title there and then; and, moreover, that the deed did not purport to be a charge at all. . „ , • • t i ^ «, So far, it is submitted that (but for the decision referred to Suited below) there would not seem to be any direct or irreconcileable betwmi conflict of decision; the instruments in the two cases differed ^aW materially in form and in legal effect, though, for all material purposes, they were equally to be regarded in equity as mort- gages, by being, on the face of them, subject to liability to account as between the assignor and assignee, and to redemp- tion In the former case, the assignment, at the time it was made, gave even at law only a title liable to be put an end to by reconveyance on payment at the stated time by the assignor. In the latter case, the assignment was in terms clearly absolute at law, though redeemable in equity by virtue of the nature of the trusts attached to the assignment; and it is perhaps not quite easy to see how such an assignment could be regarded as absolute and not by way of charge consistently with the rule laid down in a later part of the section that -where there is any variance between the rules of equity and the rules of law with reference to the same matter, the rules of equity shall F Bul 1 a Afferent view from that here suggested was taken in Mortgage^ Tancred v. Delagoa Bay Co. (I) by Denman and Charles, J J., ^ f orm who were of opinion that the two decisions above referred to }^°™ were inconsistent and not reconcileable, and that the later case assignment." (*) Sect. 25 (2). (0 23Q.B.D.239. x 2 308 MORTGAGE OF DEBTS. CHAPTEE XIX. Observations on this decision. was right, and ought to be followed in preference to the former. In the case now under consideration, a mortgage of debts due to the mortgagor, made in the ordinary form, with proviso for redemption and reconveyance upon repayment to the mortgagee, was held to be an absolute assignment not purporting to be by way of charge only within the meaning of the Act. Denman, J., said, that the document in this case did not purport to be by way of charge only, either expressly or by necessary inference from its provisions, and that the proviso for redemption did not prevent it from being absolute or make it purport to be by way of charge only. He drew a distinction between the docu- ment in this case and a document given " by way of charge," which he denned as, not one which transfers the property with a condition for reconveyance, but one which only gives a right to payment out of a particular fund or particular property without transferring that fund or property. His lordship thus appears to have limited the statutory exception to hypothe- cations operating by way of equitable assignment. Of course, an assignment by way of mortgage, with a proviso not for avoidance on payment as formerly, but redemption in the modern form, does, strictly speaking, convey the legal title to the property out and out, so as to render a re-assignment necessary in order to revest the legal interest in the original assignor. But it is perhaps somewhat difficult to understand how an assignment which, at the time of making it, is expressly subject to a proviso contingently entitling the assignor to call at law for a reconveyance, or which is impliedly redeemable by virtue of the trusts therein expressed, can be regarded as an absolute conveyance, and not to "purport" to be by way of charge. " Purport " would, according to the ordinary and natural acceptation of the term, seem to mean the intention and effect of an instrument to be gathered from its express terms, or necessary implication from its contents viewed as a whole. Even if the instrument contains a proviso, framed according to the modern form, for reconveyance, the assignment would not pass an absolute title in the sense of an unqualified title. In equity, it is submitted that an assignment expressly made subject to redemption on the face of it, " purports to be by way of charge only," and it may further be suggested that, even if there are no such words and no proviso for redemption, according to well- settled rules, the assignment, if made for the purposes of the POWER OF ATTORNEY. 309 security, would be regarded and treated as such, and not as an chapteb XIX - absolute assignment (m) . It may be observed that this is not a question of mere legal technicalities which, no doubt, it was one of the objects of this section to do away with. There is a very material distinction between assignments where the assignor parts with the whole of his interest out and out, retaining no right to account or to redeem the property, and so ceases personally to have any concern as to the recovery of the debt, and assignments which are expressly or impliedly subject to account as between assignee and assignor, and redeemable, and where, accordingly, the assignor retains a material interest in the property, in which case it is perhaps not so readily to be presumed that the legis- lature intended that the assignee should be entitled to sue for the debt without the concurrence of the assignor, unless ex- pressly authorized to do so by the terms of the instrument of assignment. Although, therefore, the decision in Tancred v. Belagoa Bay Co. may perhaps be regarded as having the merits of breadth of view, and practical convenience (at all events, from the point of view of a mortgagee), it would seem hardly safe to assume that this decision, and possibly also the decision in Burlimon v. Hall, may not be hereafter reconsidered, with different results. In the present state of the law on the subject, it may be sug- gested that it will be prudent for mortgagees of debts to insert powers of attorney in their mortgage deeds, and to sue in the names of their assignors pursuant to such powers. On the assumption, however, that the law is settled by these Effect of two decisions, so as to enable mortgagees of debts to sue in their AcCi873, s. own name upon giving the statutory notice of the assignment 25. to the debtor, the following remarks upon sect. 25 of the Judi- cature Act, 1873, may be useful : — 1. The section only applies to legal choses in action (»). 2. Assignments of equitable choses in action, whether absolute or by way of mortgage, are unaffected by this section of the Act, and can be sued for in all Courts, the assignor and assignee both being before the Court. 3. An assignee for value of legal choses in action not assign- able at law, whether by way of charge or not, without writing (m) See ante, p. 25. («) See a definition thereof, 1 ' Spence'sEq. Jur. 852. 310 MOETGAGE OF DEBTS. chapter xix. or no tice to the debtor, could, before the Judicature Act, have sued iu equity. There is nothing to prevent such assignee now suing in any Court in the same way as he could, before the Act, have sued in a Court of equity. 4. The assignor of an equitable, or of a legal, chose in action, where the Act is not complied with, cannot be joined as co- plaintiff in an action without his consent or communication with him, and all terms necessary for his protection from liability being offered to him (6). 5. Under this section the property in the debt and legal chose in action, and the right to sue, vest in the assignee alone, subject to the equities, if any, in the section mentioned, which may be proved by parol or verbal evidence. 6. Before the Judicature Act, a verbal assignment of a legal chose in action was valid in equity (p), and it would seem that such an assignment, if for valuable consideration, will now be valid in all the Divisions of the High Court, though not falling within the section. In Be Richardson (q), it was stated, arguendo, that Kay, J., in the Court below, had expressed the opinion that the effect of the Act was to prevent any interest in a chose in action from passing without an assignment in writing. But his lordship's judgment is not reported, and this point was not dealt with by the Court of Appeal, who affirmed the judgment against the validity of the alleged parol assignment in that case on the ground that it was without consideration. 7. Legal choses in action, which were, previous to the Act, assignable at law by the modes indicated by their special enact- ments (/•), would, it is apprehended, not fall within the section. 8. A cheque is not an assignment under the section (s) ; but an order to pay a sum out of a debt is an absolute assignment under this section (t) ; also a debt to become due under a building contract (w) ; and the assignment is valid against advances subsequently made to the assignor to enable him to complete his contract (u) ; and payment to the original creditor after notice is bad (u) . (o) Turquand v. Fearon, 4 Q. B. D. (t) Brice v. Bannister, 3 Q. B. D. 280. 569 ; Buck v. Bobson, 3 Q. B. D. 686 ; (p) See post, p. 1492. overruling Exp. Shellard, L. It. 17 \q) 30 Ch. D. 396, 397, C. A. See Eq. 109. See Fisher v. Calvert, "W. also Be Hancock, Hancock v. Berrci/, N. (1879) 7. W. N. (1888) 138. («) Brice v. Bannister, sup. ; Walker (>■) See ante, p. 305. v. Bradford Old Bank, 12 Q. B. D. (a) Schroeder v. Central Bank, 24 W. 511. R. 710. CHATTEE XIX. MORTGAGE OF LEGACY. 9. Interpleader will be refused if there has been no written notice of the assignment (as) ; but it appears that interpleader may be resorted to without waiting for an action to be com- menced (y) . 10. Claims in respect of policy moneys assigned in terms of the Act, though not within the Trustee Act, 1893 (s), are within this section (a). Section II. Mortgages of Legacies. Legacies and shares of residue are sometimes the subject of mortgage. A voluntary assignment of all future expectancies would no Future doubt be invalid as depriving the assignor of all means of le s acies - living, and it is not clear that an assignment for valuable consideration, as by way of mortgage, of all future property, from whatever source derived, might not be inoperative on the same ground. But such an assignment would be good if it only purports to include property derived from a specified source. So, where, for the purpose of securing a debt, a person executed a deed poll, reciting that he had expectations from relations and friends who might probably bequeath to him legacies or sums of money, and giving his creditor a power of attorney to sue for and receive all legacies or bequests which had already been or might thereafter be given or bequeathed to him by any person whomsoever, it was held that the deed poll created a valid equitable charge operating on future legacies so long as the debt existed (b) . In cases not falling within the Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (c), a married woman cannot dispose of a mere expectancy, either under the Fines and Eecoveries Act as regards realty (d), or under Malins' Act (V) as regards per- sonalty (/). (x) Be New Hamburg, §c. Co., W.N. Harwood v. Tooke, 2 Sim. 192; Hyde (1875) 239. v. White, 5 Sim. 524 ; Cook v. Field, 15 {y) Lacey v. Wxeland, W. N. (1876) Q. B. 460 ; Be Clarice, Coombe v. Carter, 24. 36 Ch. D. 348. (z) 52 & 53 Vict. c. 32. (c) Post, p. 335. [a) He Haycock's Policy, 1 Ch. D. 611. (d) Post, p. 316. (b) Bennett v. Cooper, 9 Beav. 252 ; \e) Post, p. 323. Beckley v. Newland, 2 P. Wms. 181 ; (/) Allcard v. Walker, (1896) 2 Ch. Hobson v. Trevor, 2 P. Wms. 191; 369. Wethered v. Wethered, 2 Sim. 183 ; 311 312 MORTGAGE OF LEGACY. CHAPTER XIX. Assent of executor to legacy. Notice of assignment. General and specific legacies. So a covenant to charge any property which the debtor may become possessed of at his sister's death, was held to be binding, notwithstanding his bankruptcy (g) . Where a mortgagor by deed assigned to the mortgagee certain present property, and also " all moneys of or to which he then was or might during the security become entitled, under any settlement, will, or other document, either in his own right or as the devisee, legatee, or next of kin of any person," and also all real or personal property " of, in, or to which he was, or during the security, should become beneficially seised, possessed, entitled, or interested, for any vested, contingent, or any possible estate or interest," the Court refused to give any decision as to whether the general assignment of all property was not void as being too general, but held that in any case the assignment was severable, and that the assignment operated as a valid charge of a share of residuary personalty to which the mortgagor became entitled under the will of a testator who died subsequently to the mortgage (/i). Inasmuch as the law vests all the property of a testator in his executor for the purpose of enabling him to perform his duty of paying the testator's debts, and generally of administering his estate, the assent of the executor is necessary to entitle a legatee to take possession of his legacy, whether general or specific (i). It is therefore material for an intending mortgagee of a legacy to ascertain that the executor's assent thereto has been obtained. The mortgagee should also, immediately on completion, give notice of the assignment to the executor, so as to prevent him from paying the legacy to the mortgagor, and also so as to ensure priority over any subsequent incumbrancers. This question will be more fully considered in a later chapter (/>•) . A general legacy, though assented to, is an equitable chose in action, for which no action, either of debt or of account generally, lay at common law (/). But a specific legacy, after assent, vests at law in the legatee. So it was held that a legatee of leaseholds could bring ejectment for them against the executor who had assented to the bequest (in) ; and that a legatee of a specific chattel could maintain trover after assent (n). (ff) Lyde v. Mynn, 1 My. & K. 683. (A) lie Clarke, Coombe v. Carter, 36 Ch. D. 348, C. A. (i) "Williams on Executors (9th ed.), vol. ii. p. 1225. (/,) Post, Chap. LVI. pp. 1253 et scq. (I) Co. Lit. 89 b ; Peeks v. Struit, 5 T. R. 690. (m) Doe v. Guy, 3 East, 120. (n) Williams v. Lee, 3 Atk. 223. MORTGAGE OF LEGACY. 313 In regard to the power of attorney, the assignment of a chapteb xk. legal debt differs from that of a merely equitable chose in action, Power of such as an interest in a general legacy or a trust fund, in assigning which a power of attorney is useless, and ought not to be, though it sometimes is, inserted (o) . Where a person entitled under a will to a share of a fund in the hands of trustees s abject to a prior life estate assigned it by way of mortgage, with power for the mortgagee to sue and give receipts in the name of the mortgagor, or otherwise, the trustees of the will, who had notice of subsequent incumbrances on the share, were held not to be bound to pay to the mortgagee the whole amount of the share, but only what was due on his mort- gage, according to the settled practice of the Court where a mortgaged fund is in Court (p). (o) Dav. Conv. vol. ii. pt. 2, p. 572. (p) lie Bell, Jcffcry v. Sat/Us, (1896) 1 Ch. 1, C. A. ( 314 ) Part III. AS TO WHO MAY BE MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES, AND AS TO THE SECURITY AS AFFECTED BY THE ESTATE, STATUS, AND MUTUAL RELATION OE THE PARTIES. CHAPTER XX. OF THE POWER TO MORTGAGE PROPERTY, AND HEREIN OF DISABILITIES. Foundation of right to mortgage. Feudal re- strictions on alienation of land. Section I. Who may be Mortgagors generally. The right of mortgage or conditional sale is obviously dependent on the right of free alienation of property. As regards real estate, burdensome restrictions on alienation, whether by way of sale or mortgage, appear to have been intro- duced upon the Conquest of England by the Normans. In the twentieth year of William's reign, and on the completion of Domesday-book, he summoned a meeting of all the principal landholders in London and Salisbury, accepted from them a surrender of their lands, and re-granted them on performance of homage and the oath of fealty. The mesne lords, on their sub- infeudations, also demanded homage and fealty, and it was held that the bond of allegiance was mutual, each being bound to defend and protect the other. From this flowed the doctrine that the tenant could not transfer his feud without his lord's consent, nor the lord his seignory without his tenant's consent, although the tenants (even of the Crown it should seem) might grant subinfeudations {i.e. to hold of themselves) without licence. It was further held, that the tenant could not subject his lands DISABILITY OF COVEKTURE. 315 to his debts by execution of law, for, if lie could, lie might have chapter xx. effected that circuitously which he could not by direct means have accomplished. Nor, if the lands came to him by descent, could he alien them without the consent of the next collateral heir (a) . By these restraints on alienation, mortgages of land must have been nearly extinguished (b). The improving spirit of the age struggled hard against the Statute Quia fetters on alienation, and at length the statute of Quia Emptores Em P torcs - Terrarum (•) . An order under this section does not deprive the husband of his common law rights to the rents and profits of the land during the coverture (s) . The proviso at the end of sect. 77 of the Fines and Recoveries Act renders the formalities prescribed by the Act unnecessary in the case of copyholds where, prior to the Act, the wife, with her husband's concurrence, could have effectually passed the lands by surrender (t) . As will be seen later, a wife can by deed, without either (A) 20 & 21 Vict. c. 85. (i) Prole v. Soady, L. R. 3 Ch. A. 220. See Wells v. Malbon, 31 Beav. 48. (Jc) 20 & 21 Vict. c. 85, ss. 25, 26. (I) Exp. Gill, 1 Bing. N. R. 168 ; Exp. Shirley, 5 Bing. N. R. 226 ; Exp. Stone, 9 Dowl. P. C. 843; Anon., 2 Jur. 945. (m) Exp. Gihnorc, 3 C. B. 967 ; Exp. Toy for, 7 C. B. 1. (n) Re Squires, 17 C. B. 176. (o) Be Woodcock, 1 C. B. 437; Re Cainc, 10 Q. B. D. 284. (p) Exp. Trenery, 1 C. B. N. S. 187. \q) Re Williams, 2 Sc. N. R. 120; Exp. Bruce, 9 Dowl. P. C. 840. {>•) Re Price, 13 C. B. N. S. 286. (*■) Fowke v. Draycott, 29 Ch. D. 996. (/■) See as to the effect of this pro- viso, Green v. Patcrson, 32 Ch. D. 95, C. A., and Carter x. Carter, (1896) 1 Ch. 62 (cases of settlements). MOETGAGES OF CHATTELS REAL. 321 acknowledgment or her husband's concurrence, bind in equity chapter xx. real estate limited to her separate use (w). Acknowledgment of mortgage and other deeds is abolished as to women married after the 1st January, 1883 ; and in the case of all women married before that date, as to all property the title to which accrues after that date (x). iii. — Mortgages of Chattels Real of Married Women. — A Right of husband is possessed of his wife's chattels real in her right, w if e ' s chattels and is entitled to the rents and profits thereof during the cover- real - ture, and he can dispose of such property by deed or otherwise. He can, accordingly, without her concurrence, during the cover- ture, mortgage or charge inter vivos at his pleasure the wife's chattels real, whether her interest be legal or equitable, and so as to bind her absolutely. But they are not the absolute pro- perty of the husband ; he cannot dispose of them by his will ; and if he dies during the coverture, having made no disposition inter vivos, they will revert to the wife surviving (y) . On the death of the wife in the husband's lifetime, he will become entitled to her chattels real, whether settled to her separate use or not (s). The husband's power of disposition during the coverture Extent of the extends to all his wife's chattels real, whether the interest ri & ht - therein be in possession or in reversion, vested or contingent, and the wife surviving will be bound by such disposition, though the husband dies before the reversion falls into pos- session or the contingeucy is determined (a), provided the interest is such as may possibly vest in the wife in possession during the coverture, but not otherwise (b). Where a wife's interest in a term of years is reversionary at the time of her death, it is not necessary for her surviving husband to take out letters of administration to her in order to complete his title to the property (c). Where, however, the legal estate of chattels real is in a trustee Wife's equity for the wife, the mortgage, or other disposition thereof, by the f chattels 811 real. (u) Post, p. 328. Hill v. Edmonds, 5 De G. & S. 603 ; (x) Post, pp. 335 et seq. Hatchell v. Eggleso, 1 Ir. Ch. R. 215 ; (V) Co. Lit. 46 b, 351a; Bac. Abr. I)oe v. Lewis, 11 C. B. 1035. tit. Baron and Feme (C) 2. (b) Puberty v. Pay, 16 Beav. 33, (z) Wms.onExors.,9thed.,p.605, n. appealed to D. P. but appeal not [a) Ponne v. Hart, 2 R. & My. prosecuted, 5 H. L. C. 388. 360 ; Pur dew v. Jackson, 1 Russ. 1 ; (c) Re Bellamy, 25 Ch. D. 620. VOL. I. It. Y 322 OF MOETGAGOES — MAERIED WOMEN. CHAPTER XX. Wife's equity of redemp- tion. Voluntary conveyance- of leaseholds by husband overrides mortgage by wife sur- liusband will be subject to the equity to a settlement of tlie wife (<7). The concurrence of a wife in a mortgage by her husband of such leaseholds will not bar her equity to a settlement (d). It is a consequence of the right and interest which a wife retains in her chattels real, notwithstanding coverture, that a partial disposition by the husband only operates pro tanto to defeat such right and interest ; and, accordingly, a mortgage by a husband and wife of the wife's leaseholds was held not to bar her right to redeem during the husband's lifetime (p). So complete, however, is the effect of an absolute disposition by a husband of his wife's legal term in diverting the wife's rights, that such a disposition, even if made before the 29th of June, 1893 (/), though made without valuable consideration, would not be revoked, by virtue of the statute 27 Eliz. c. 4, by a subsequent mortgage made by the wife after the death of the husband, but the mortgage would confer no estate to the mort- gagee 0). Eight of husband to ■wife's chases in action. iv. — Mortgages of Choses in Action and Reversionary Interests of Married Women. — Much discussion formerly arose on the sub- ject of assignments by husband and wife of choses in act ion belong- ing to the wife. The law was settled before Malins' Act (h), and, in all cases not within that Act, is still settled, that an assignment by the husband, or by him and his wife jointly, of choses in action of the latter, in possession, expectancy, or contingency, will not be binding on the wife, in case the husband die in her lifetime, and before the fund has been actually reduced into posses- sion (/) ; nor will the consent of the wife be taken in Court, if the chose in action be not an immediate present right (/.•) ; and husband and wife cannot effectually dispose of a life interest of the wife in a fund not settled to her separate use, beyond the (d) Hansen v. Keating, 4 Ha. 1. See Slurgis v. Champneys, 5 My. & Cr. 102 ; and see post, pp. 326, 327. {e) mil v. Edmonds, 5 De G. & S. 603. (/) 56 & 57 Vict. c. 21. {g) Doe d. Richards v. Lewis, 11 C. B. 1035. (h) 20 & 21 Vict. c. 57. (i) LTonner v. Morton, 3 Euss. 65 ; Hornsby v. Lee, 2 Madd. 16 ; Moreau V. Toilet/, 1 De G. & S. 143 ; Turdew v. Jackson, 1 Euss. 1 ; Ellison v. Eluin, 13 Sim. 309 ; Harrison v. Andrews, 13 Sim. 595 ; Ashby v. Ashby, 1 Coll. 553; Wilkinson v. Charlesworth, 10 Beav. 324 ; Michel- more v. Mudge, 2 Giff. 183. (k) Story v. Tonge, 7 Beav. 91 ; Whittle v. Henning, 18 L. J. Ch. 51; 12 Jur. 1079; 2 Ph. 731. And see Williams v. Mayne, Ir. E. 1 Eq. 519, disapproving of Wall v. Wall, 15 Sim. 513. MORTGAGES OF CHOSES IN ACTION. 323 duration of the coverture (/). And if the wife is entitled to CHAfTEEXX - stock in possession under a will, and the executors, by direction of the husband, transfer it to trustees to the separate use of the wife, and the husband afterwards becomes bankrupt, such transfer will not, in favour of the assignees, be held a reduction into possession by the husband (m). The rule has been held not to apply to a fund belonging to a married woman standing in the name of the Accountant- General of the Court of Chancery, which, it has been said, may be pledged by the husband alone (n). But this, as observed by Mr. Spence, is not consistent with later authorities (o) . The wife is entitled by survivorship against the mortgagee, although the agreement for a loan was made before marriage, and although the mortgagee has obtained an order for payment out of the funds in Court between the order nisi and order absolute for dissolution of the marriage (p). A mortgage by a husband of a chose in action belonging to Wife's equity ., , o i to settlement his wife is not only liable to be defeated in the event ot ner in choscs in survivorship, but is also subject to her equity to a settle- actwn - ment (q). By the statute, commonly called " Malins' Act," power has JJ£™££ been given to married women and their husbands to deal with interest in their future and reversionary interests in personal estate. By personalty. that statute (r) it is enacted that — After the 31st of December, 1857, it shall be lawful for every ^™ed married woman by deed to dispose of every future or reversionary dispoge of interest, whether vested or contingent, of such married woman, or reversionary her husband in her right, in any personal estate whatsoever, to interests in which she shall be entitled under any instrument made after the personal 31st of December, 1857 (except such a settlement as thereafter J^SJSwera mentioned), and also to release or extinguish any power which may over 8uch be vested in, or limited or reserved to, her in regard to any such estate, and personal estate, as fully and effectually as she could do as if she also their (I) Stlffe v. Everitt, 1 My. & Cr. 37. Bay v. Pargravc, 3 M. & S. 395 ; And see Whitmarsh v. Robertson, 1 Y. Hansen v. Miller, 14 Sim 22 ; bher- & C C. C 715. rington v. Yates, 12 M. & W. 8oo ; (m) Rxiland v. Smith, 1 My. & Cr. Bourston v. Williams, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 63. As to what amounts to a reduc- 655 ; Re Barber, Dardier v. Chapman, tion into possession of a chose in action, 11 Ch. D. 442 ; Parker v. Lechmere, see Blunt v. Butland, 5 Ves. 515 ; 12 Ch. D. 256. Nash v. Nash, 2 Madd. 133 ; Gaters v. (w) Sansum v. Bewar, 3 Kuss. 91. Madeley, 6 M. & W. 423 ; Hart v. (o) 2 Spence, Eq. Jur 480. Stevens, 6 Q. B. 937; Haruood v. (p) Prole v.Soady, L.R. oC n.A .220. Fisher, 1 Y. & C. Ex. 110; Burnham (q) SeeReidv. Re id, 31 On. U. 4U2, v. Bennett, 2 Coll. 254 ; Rees v. Keith, C. A. at p. 407 V- 11 Sim. 388, though queere that case; (r) 20 & 21 Vict. c. 57, s. 1. Richards v. Richards, 2 B. & Ad. 447 ; Y2 324 OF MORTGAGORS — MARRIED WOMEN. .CHAPTER XX. right to a settlement out of such estate in pos- session. were a feme sole, and also to release and extinguish her right or equity to a settlement out of any personal estate, to which she, or her husband in her right, may be entitled in possession, under any such instrument as aforesaid ; save and except that no such disposi- tion, release, or extinguishment shall be valid, unless the husband concur in the deed by which the same shall be effected, nor unless the deed be acknowledged by her as thereinafter directed. Provided always that nothing in the Act contained shall extend to any reversionary interest, to which she shall become entitled by virtue of any deed, will, or instrument, by which she shall be restrained from alienating or affecting the same. Deeds to he acknow- ledged. The powers of disposition given by this Act not to interfere with any other powers. Act not to extend to settlements on marriage. By sect. 2, every deed under the Act must be acknowledged in manner required by 3 & 4 Wm. IY. c. 74, as modified by the Conveyancing Act, 1882 (s), for disposing of interests in land in England or Wales, or by 4 & 5 Wm. IV. c. 92, as to Ireland ; and the provisions of the Acts of Wm. IV. for dispensing with the concurrence of husbands, are applicable to dispositions of interests in personal estate under this Act (t). Sect. 3. The powers of disposition given to a married woman by this Act, shall not interfere with any power which, independently of this Act, may be vested in, or limited, or reserved to her, so as to prevent her from exercising such power in any case, except so far as by any disposition made by her under this Act, she may be prevented from doing so in consequence of such power having been suspended or extinguished by such disposition. Sect. 4. The powers of disposition hereby given to a married woman shall not enable her to dispose of any interest in personal estate settled upon her by any settlement, or agreement for a settlement, made on the occasion of her marriage. Effect of disposition. What pro- perty passes by the dis- position. A disposition under this Act is that of the married woman, not of her husband, and accordingly the concurrence of the husband does not let in any claims against him. So, where a rever- sionary legacy was given to a married woman, whose husband was indebted to the testator, a deed, duly acknowledged under the Act, deprived the executors of any right of retainer of the debt («). A married woman can, under this statute, dispose only of property coming to her under an " instrument," and therefore not of a reversionary interest derived under an intestacy. The instrument must not have been made on or before the 31st of 28. (s) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 39. (t) See Exp. Thompson, W. N. (1884) (u) Me Batchelor, Sloper v. Oliver, L. R. 16 Eq. 481. See Me JaJce?nan's Trusts, 23 Ch. D. 344. MORTGAGES OF CHOSES IN ACTION. 325 December, 1857 ; so, where a married woman claimed under an chapter xx. appointment executed since the Act came into operation, in exercise of a power created before the Act, it was held that the instrument under which she was entitled, was the instrument creating the power, not the instrument executing it (%) . And where a reversionary interest in personalty was given to a mar- ried woman by will made before the commencement of the Act, and an additional legacy was given to her by a codicil made after that date, it was held that the " instrument " under which she took the reversionary interest was the will (//). The words " any personal estate whatsoever," in sect. 1 of the Policy of Act, include a legal chose in action, such as a policy of life assurance - assurance effected in a married woman's own name, and are not to be confined to equitable choses in action, such as a legacy or other money or securities held in trust for her (z). The statutory power of disposition given by this Act applies Choses in only to future and reversionary interests in personalty, and does possession. not enable a married woman absolutely to dispose of a chose in action to which she is entitled in possession, but the Act seems indirectly to enable a husband and wife together to deal with such property, by empowering her to release her equity to a settlement out of it, so as to entitle the husband to reduce it into possession by requiring it to be transferred to him, thus excluding the wife's claim by survivorship (a). The observance of the formalities prescribed by this Act is by u^rpowers^ sect. 3 rendered unnecessary in the case of a disposition by a aiKl separate married woman in exercise of a power conferred on her by a settlement or will, or by a statute ; and is manifestly unneces- sary in the case of dispositions of property which is made the separate property of a married woman by statute (/>), nor does the Act apparently apply to future and reversionary interests in personalty which, if in possession, could be assignable by her without the husband's concurrence. An agreement in contemplation of marriage dealing with a Exception of . . . ... . ,. . . la settlements. reversionary interest, is witnm the proviso in sect. 4 ; a con- tingent interest under the agreement was held not to be a {x) Re Butler's Trust, Ir. Rep. 3 Eq. 363. 138. See Clarke v. Green, 2 H. & M. (a) See Lewin on Trusts (8th ed.) ? 474. p. 23. (y) Re Elcom, Layborn v. Grovcr (It) See 33 & 34 Vict. c. 93, and Wright, (1894) 1 Ch. 303, C. A. 45 & 46 Vict. c. 75, post, pp. 333 and (z) Witherby v. Rackham, 39 W. R. 335, 326 OF MORTGAGORS MARRIED WOMEN. chapter xx. resulting trust, but to be an interest which accrued under the settlement (c). Where a married woman is domiciled abroad, the efficacy of a disposition of her interest in personal property depends on the law of her domicile (d). Foreign domicile. Statement of the doctrine. V. — Wife's Equity to a Settlement. — The husband's power to mortgage his wife's property and his interest therein is, as a general rule, subject to her equity to a settlement. The rule is thus stated by a learned writer : — " Wherever the husband is obliged to seek the aid of equity in order to get the benefit of his wife's property, the assistance of the Court is withheld until a provision for the wife is secured, if she requires it " (e). And the rule, of course, applies equally to assignees of the husband, who cannot stand in a better position than their assignor. This rule, however, will not apply where the husband or his assignees can render the property available without resorting to the aid of equity (/). With regard to this equity, the following propositions may be here stated : — 1. As against a general assignee it attaches on the wife's equitable life interest, in real and personal estate (g), to the same extent as on her capital (/?), but no settlement will be made of it, if the husband is living with and maintaining his wife out of it though he may be in embarrassed circumstances (*'). 2. It attaches on a legacy charged on land (/>■). 3. It attaches on an equitable interest in leaseholds (/). 4. The equity of a married woman attaches whether the joroperty vests in her before or after marriage (m) ; and it is enforceable as soon as the property of which she claims the equity is actually in possession, although not actually distribut- able (n) . (c) Clarice v. Green, 2 H. & M. 474. (d) Guepratte v. Young, 4 De G. & S. 217; Duncan v. Caiman, IS Beav. 128. (e) Macqueen, Husband and Wife, 2nd ed. p. 71, cited with approval by Jessel, M. R., in Ward v. Ward, 14 Ch. D. 506, at p. 508. And see Lady fflibank v. Montolieu, 5 Ves. 737 ; S.C., 1 White & Tudor L. C. (6th ed.) 486. (/) Glcaves v. Paine, 1 De G. J. & S. 87, at p. 94. (g) Sturgis v. Champneys, 5 My. & Cr. 197 ; Tidd v. Lister, 3 De G. M. & G. 857 ; Wilkinson v. Charlesworth, 10 Beav. 326 ; Barnes v. Robinson, 9 Jur. N. S. 245. (/<) Taunton v. Morris, 11 Ch. D. 779, C. A. See Vaughan v. Luck, 13 Sim. 404. (i) Vaughan v. Buck, sup. (k) Buncombe v. Greenacre, 2 De G. F. & J. 509. (I) Hanson v. Keating, 4 Ha. 1. (m) Barroiv v. Borrow, 18 Beav. 529. (») Re Rubinson's Settled Estate, 12 Ch. D. 188. EQUITY TO SETTLEMENT. 5. The wife may herself obtain this equity in a suit by her . against her husband, or his assignees, and not merely when defendant (o). 6. The equity for a settlement is effectual against a mort- gagee, as well as against the trustee in bankruptcy of the husband (p). 7. The equity does not attach where she is seised of the inheritance (q). 8. But where the wife has a legal, and not an equitable, estate, an outstanding term gives her the same privilege, as to this right to a settlement, as if her estate were equitable (r). 9. Where a husband mortgages leaseholds which he possesses in right of his wife, and the mortgagee, having the legal interest, brings an action to foreclose, the wife has no equity to a settlement (s). 10. The equity does not attach against the assignee for value of her equitable life interest in real or personal estate, whether it be immediate or reversionary, where, at the time of the assignment, the husband was willing and able to maintain her ; and her equity cannot be revived by the husband's subsequent refusal or neglect to do so (7). 11. Nor upon past income, over which the husband's mort- gage will prevail (it). 12. Nor upon the property specifically excepted out of the settlement (.r). 13. Nor upon property for the recovery of which the husband alone has a right to sue (//). 14. Nor upon property in which the husband and wife have an interest as joint tenants (z). 15. The wife is empowered, under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 57, to release her equity to a settlement out of such personal estate as falls within the Act, in manner therein mentioned (a). (o) Lady Elilank v. Montolieu, 5 Ves. 603 ; Hatchell v. Egyleso, 1 Ir. Ch. R. 737 ; Sturffis v. Champneys, 5 My. & 21-5. Cr. 197; Gardner v. Marshall, 14 Sim. (t) Wright v. Morley, 11 Ves. 12; 475 ; Buncombe v. Greenacre, sup. ; Elliott v. Cordell, 5 Madd. 149 ; Stan- Giacommetti v. Prodyers, L. R. S Ch. A. ton v. Hall, 2 R. & My. 175 ; Tidd v. 338 ; Ruffles v. Alston, L. R. 19 Eq. 539. Lister, 3 De G-. M. & G. 857. (p) Macaulay v. Philips, 4 Ves. 15 ; (u) Newman v. Wilson, 31 Beav. 34 ; Scott v. Spashelt, 3 Mac. & G. 599, at Me Carr's Trusts, L. R. 12 Eq. 609. p. 603. (■*) Brooke v. Riches, 12 W. R. 703. (q) See cases cited, ante, p. 317, (y) Ibid. note (p); see also Ward v. Ward, 14 Ch. (z) Ward v. Ward, 14 Ch. D. 506 ; D. 506 ; Re Bryan, 14 Ch. D. 516. Re Bryan, Godfrey v. Bryan, 14 Ch. D. (»•) Newenham v. Pemberton, 17 L. J. 516. Ch. 99. (ft) Ante, p. 323. (s) Sill v. Edmonds, 5 De G. & S. 327 CHAPTER XX. 328 OF MORTGAGORS — MARRIED WOMEN. CHAPTER XX. Power of married woman to dispose of property limited to her separate use. Nature of trusts for separate use. What words will create a separate use. Mode of creatiDg a separate use. Separate use generally attaches on any coverture. vi. — Trusts for separate Use of Married Women. — Indepen- dently of the statutory enactments which have been considered whereby the difficulties which the common law imposed upon dispositions by married women were in some measure removed, those difficulties were got over in two ways : — (1) By the crea- tion of a separate estate for her independent of the control and liabilities of her husband ; (2) by appointments under powers. Trusts for the separate use of married women were recognized in early times by the Court of Chancery (b), and apparently also, to some extent, by the Courts of Common Law (c) . The effect of such trusts is not only to secure to a wife the enjoy- ment of the property so settled free from the control of her husband, and without being liable to his debts and engagements, but also to enable her (unless restrained from anticipation) effectually to dispose of her interest therein without any neces- sity for his concurrence. Questions have frequently arisen as to what words are suf- ficient to create a trust for the separate use of a married woman. The word " separate " is the proper technical term for excluding the marital right ; but it is sufficient if an intention to give pro- perty to the separate use of a married woman is clearly indi- cated by the instrument creating the trust (d). The proper mode of creating a separate use in favour of a married woman is to vest the property in trustees upon a trust for that purpose, but if the property is not so vested, the trust will not be allowed to fail for want of a trustee, but the property will vest in the husband during the continuance of the cover- ture as trustee for the separate use of his wife (e) . It is now settled, that where property is limited to the sepa- rate use of a woman, whether married or unmarried, the separate use takes effect so long, and as often, as she is in the state of marriage ; and therefore, during such time, she may charge and incumber it at her pleasure ; and if a clause against anticipation is added, that equally operates whenever she is not sole, so as to give her the present enjoyment of an inalienable estate, inde- {b) Pre. Ch. 26, 44. (c) Bush v. Allen, 5 Mod. 63. See Duncan v. Gashin, L. R. 10 C. P. 554. (d) As to what expressions are stiffi- cient to create a separate use, see the note to Jarman on Wills, 5th ed. p. 880. See also Vaizey on Settlements, vol i. pp. 753 et seq. ; Lewin on Trusts (8th ed.), pp. 755 et seq. ; Godefroi on Trusts (2nd ed.), pp. 552 et seq. (e) Bennet v. Davis, 2 P. Wms. 316 ; Rich v. Cockell, 9 Ves. 369, 375 ; Ash- worth v. Outram, 5 Ch. D. 923, 941, C. A. ; Fox v. Eaivks, 13 Ch. D. 822. SEPARATE USE. 329 pendent of her husband ; but in either case she has full power chapter xx. of disposition whilst she is single (/). Where an estate for separate use or separate use with restric- tion against anticipation is given generally, subsequent words which appear to point to a present or future coverture only, are treated as superfluous, and the separate use applies to all cover- tures (g). Where an estate for life (h) or in fee (i) is limited to a married Effect of trust woman for her separate use, she has a complete right of disposi- use- tion thereof, by deed or will; and, accordingly, she can alienate that estate, independently of the Fines and Kecoveries Act (/.•), without the concurrence of her husband, and without any acknowledgment. An instrument disposing of a wife's separate estate, real or personal, and executed by her, effectu- ally conveys her equitable interest, and operates as a direction to the trustees to convey or hold the estate according to the new trust which is created by such direction, and the trustees are bound to convey accordingly (/) ; and when the trust thus created is clothed by the trustees with the legal estate, the alienation is complete both at law and in equity (»/). If the legal estate is vested in the wife, it can only be effectually con- veyed by the wife with her husband's concurrence by deed acknowledged. The Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (m), does not alter the powers of a married woman over her separate estate, not being her separate property, by virtue of the Act(o). A married woman may create a valid charge upon her sepa- rate property without expressly charging it in terms (p), but the mere fact of her being a party to a deed by which her hus- band alone assigns property limited to her separate use, but without any disposition by her, or any recital or covenant on her part indicating an intention to charge her interest will not bind such interest (q). (/) Tullclt v. Armstrong, 4 My. & v. Bubb, L. R. 7 Ch. A. 64. Cr. 377. (k) 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 74, ante, (g) Steedman v. Toole, 6 Ha. 193 ; p. 316. Re Gaffee, 1 Mac. & G-. 541 ; Hawkes (/) See Peters v. Lewes % East Grin- v. Hubback, L. R. 11 Eq. 5 ; Re Moly- stead Rail. Co., 18 Ch. D. 429, C. A. neux's Estate, Ir. R. 6 Eq. 411. (m) See per Lord Westbury in Tay- (A) Parkes v. White, 11 Ves. 209 ; lor v. Meads, 4 De G. J. & S. 597, at Acton v. White, 1 S. & St. 429 ; Glyn p. 684. v. Baxter, 1 Y. & J. 329. («) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 75, post, p. 335. (i) Taylor v. Meads, 4 De G. J. & (o) See Re Harris' Settled Estates, 28 S. 597 ; Atchison v. Le Mann, 23 Ch. D. 171. L. T. 302, L. JJ. ; Hall v. Waterhouse, (p) See Crosby v. Church, 3 Beav. 11 jur. N. S. 361 ; Blatchford v. 489. Woolley, 2 Dr. & S. 204, 206 ; Pride (?) Tullett v. Armstrong, 4 My. & 330 OF MORTGAGOES — MARRIED WOMEN. CHAPTER XX. Reversionary- interests. Savings by married Ear of estate tail. Covenant to settle after- A married woman, unless restrained from anticipation, can generally dispose of a reversionary interest settled to her sepa- rate use in realty (r), or personalty (.s) ; but it seems doubtful •whether she can do so if the reversionary interest is contin- gent (/), or an interest which cannot by any possibility arise during the coverture (u). So, also, the trust for separate use may be so framed as not to attach to the interest of a married woman till the happening of a future event, in which case she cannot dispose of such interest until the event happen (#) . Savings, during coverture, from separate estate, and invest- ments thereof in stock or furniture, are separate estate (i/), although the stock were purchased by the husband (z) , but not savings during discoverture (a). Shares in a company pur- chased by a wife out of savings, are separate estate, and the husband is not a contributory (b) . Since the Judicature Act (c), the decisions at common law, in respect of savings, and property purchased with them (d), will no longer apply. The rule in equity must be followed, as it was before the Act upon an interpleader rule (e). Where an estate tail is limited to the separate use of a married woman, she may bar the entail, and dispose of the estate, free from any curtesy of her husband, but his consent is required by the Fines and Recoveries Act (/) , under which alone she can bar the entail, and is necessary, notwithstanding that the estate is limited to her separate use ; and even if there is a clause against anticipation covering the entail, she may still bar the entail, although she cannot dispose of the estate, or its income (g). Separate property of a married woman has been held not to be subject to a covenant by the husband alone for the settle- Cr. 377. See also Callow v. Howie, 1 De G. & S. 531. (r) Major v. Lansley, 2 R. & My. 355. (*) Sturgisx. Corp, 13 Ves. 190. (t) Mara v. Manning, 2 J. & L. 311 ; Lechmere v. Brotheridge, 32 Beav. 353. (a) Bestall v. Buribury, 13 Ir. Ch. 318, 549. (x) King v. Lucas, 23 Ch. D. 712, C. A. (y) Keiclands v. Paynter, 4 My. & Cr. 408 ; Brooks v. Brooks, 25 Beav. 342 ; Molony v. Kennedy, 10 Sim. 254, 255 ; Eaddon v. Fladyate, 27 L. J. P. D. & A. 21; Barrack v. McCullock, 3 K. & J. 110; Darkin v. DarMn, 17 Beav. 578 ; Humphrey v. Richards, 2 Jur. N. S. 432 ; Haselinton v. Gill, 3 T. R. 620, n. (;) Lloyd v. Solicitors, §c. Life Assur- ance, 29 L. T. 102. (a) Spicer v. Spicer, 24 Beav. 365. (b) Be Fire Lnsurance Corp., W. N. (1883) 94. (c) 36 & 37 Vict. c. 66, s. 25, sub- s. 11. (d) Came v. Br ice, 7 M. & W. 183 ; Tugman v. Hopkins, 4 Man. &: Gr. 401 ; Messenger v. Clark, 5 Excb. 388 ; Bird v. Pegrum, 13 C. B. 639. (e) Duncan v. Cashin, L. R. 10 C. P. 554 ; Engelback v. Nixon, L. R. 10 C. P. 645. {f) 3 & 4 "Will. IV. c. 74. See post, p. 368. iff) Cooper v. Macdonald, 7 Ch. D. 288, C. A. SEPAEATE USE. 331 ment of the wife's future property (//), nor is an estate tail(/) ; chapter xx. but if a covenant to settle after-acquired property is entered into acquired both by the intending husband and the intending wife, it will P ro P er ?• bind her so as to compel her to settle it (k) ; and a declaration in a will that the property shall not be settled is disregarded (/). By the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 (m), in case of judicial separation or desertion, all property which the wife may acquire Effect of or which may come to or devolve upon the wife belongs to her, ^tio^ &c Pa " as a feme sole (n), although there is a clause against anticipa- tion (o) ; and although the property, which had been vested before, had not been reduced into possession until after the desertion (p), and the property of which she has so become possessed as a, feme sole becomes, on resumption of cohabitation, her separate property (q). In case of desertion, and an order for protection of the earnings and property of the wife, her property, in remainder or reversion, at the date of the desertion, or decree for judicial separation, is included therein (/•). The wife is entitled to re- versionary personalty, which she and her husband had mort- gaged, as soon as it falls into possession (s). Under a protection order, property of which the wife is trustee is not included (t). Nor does the statute apply so as to include property to which a married woman had become entitled previously to the separa- tion or desertion. Thus, where a married woman, entitled to an equitable life interest in realty for her separate use without power of anticipation, was deserted by her husband and obtained a protection order ; she subsequently mortgaged her life interest; it was held that as regarded the property in question, not being property acquired by her or which had come to or devolved upon her after the desertion, the restraint on anticipation pre- vailed notwithstanding the order («■). (h) Dawes v. Tredwell, 18 Ch. D. (o) Cooke v. Fuller, 26 Beav. 99 ; 358, C. A. See lie Mainwaring 1 s Munt v. Glynes, 41 L. J. Ch. 639. Settlement, L. R. 2 Eq. 487. ( p) Be Coward and Adams 1 Purchase, (») Hilbers v. Parkinson, 25 Ch.D. 200. L. R. 20 Eq. 179 ; Nicholson v. Drury (k) Be Allnutt, Pott v. Brassci/, 22 Building Estate Co., 7 Ch. D. 48. Ch. D. 275 : Be Currey, Gibson v. Way, [q) lie Emery's Trusts, 32 W. R. 357. 36 Ch. D. 391. (V) 21 & 22 Vict. c. 10S, s. 8. (I) ScholfieldY. Spooner, 26 Ch. D. 94. (s) Be Insole, L. R. 1 Eq. 470. See (m) 20 & 21 Vict. c. 85, s. 25. Whittingham , s Trusts, 10 Jur. N. S. (w) Be Ford, 32 Beav. 621 ; Bathe v. 818; Be Coward and Adams'' Purchase, Bank of England, 4 K. & J. 564 ; sup. Whittinghani' s Trusts, 10 Jur. N. S. (t) Kingsmanv.Kingsman,6 Q. B. D. 818 ; Insole's Trust, L. R. 1 Eq. 470 ; 122, C. A. Johnson v. Zander, L. R. 7 Eq. 228, («) Hill v. Cooper, (1893) 2 Q. B. M. R. 85, C. A. 332 OF MORTGAGORS — MARRIED WOMEN. CHAPTER XX. Man ied woman may- exercise power of ap- pointment over realty by deed ack- nowledged. Copyholds. Legal estate. Misrepresen- tation as to power. Appoint- ments of personalty. Payment of interest on void mort- gage. Release of powers by married woman as regards land. vii. — Appointments under Powers. — A married woman can, independently of any statutory enactments, exercise a power of appointment whether relating to land or simply collateral (//) ; her husband's concurrence is not necessary for this purpose (~), unless required by the terms of the power (a) ; and inasmuch as sect. 78 of the Fines and Recoveries Act (b) expressly provides that the powers of disposition given to married women by that Act shall not interfere with any other powers which they had before the Act, it is obvious that the instrument whereby the power is exercised does not recjuire acknowledgment. This rule applies to copyholds as well as freeholds (c ) . The exercise by a married woman of a power of appointment over land in favour of a mortgagee or purchaser will pass the legal estate unless outstanding (d). Where a married woman joined her husband in a mortgage of an estate by deed, which represented her to have a power of appointing the fee, though, in fact, the estate was settled to her separate use for life with remainder to the husband for life with remainder over, it was held that the mortgagee was not debarred from enforcing his security against her life estate (e). A married woman may also exercise a power of appointment over personalty whether in possession or reversionary (/), and an appointment of a future or reversionary interest will not require acknowledgment under Malins' Act (//) . Where a mortgage is void by reason of the defective exercise of a power by a married woman, payment by her of interest for many years will not render the mortgage binding on her (/<). A married woman might formerly have extinguished a power affecting land by fine or recovery (i) ; and by sect. 77 of the Fines and Recoveries Act (,/) a married woman is empowered to release, surrender, or extinguish any power which may be vested in, limited, or reserved to her in regard to lands of any tenure, or any money subject to be invested in the purchase of lands, (?/) Lady Travel's Case, cit. 3 Atk. 711 ; Peacock v. Monk, 2 Ves. Sen. 191. See Sug. Powers, 8th ed. p. 153. [z) Doe d. Blomfeld v. Eyre, 5 C. B. 713. [ft) Antrim v. Buckingham, 1 Ch. Ca. 17. [b) 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 74. ic) Driver v. Thompson, 4 Taunt. 294. [d) Wright v. Lord Cadogan, 2 Ed. 239, 252. See Field v. Moore, 7 De G. M. & G. 691, 703. [e) Waimvright v. Hardisty, 2 Beav. 319. (/) See Wood v. Wood, L. R. 10 Eq. 220 ; Greenhill v. North British and Mercantile Insurance Co., (1893) 3 Ch. 474. [g) 20 & 21 Vict. c. 27, s. 3, ante, p. 324. [h) Blandy v. Ki»tber, 24 Beav. 148. (i) Sug. Powers, 8th ed. p. 92. [j) 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 74. MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT, 1870. 333 provided her husband concur in the deed and that the deed be chapter xx. duly acknowledged. By sect. 1 (/»•) of Malins' Act, a married woman is empowered Release of in like manner to release or extinguish any power over a future peraonally. or reversionary interest in personalty, unless she is restrained - from alienating the same. By sect. 52 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, Whether 1881 (/), a person to whom a power, created either before or after ^ e ac k I10 w- the Act, whether coupled with an interest or not, is given, may Jedged. by deed release or contract not to exercise the power. But this section has been said to be merely declaratory (m), and though a married woman is no doubt a "person," yet it would seem hardly safe to assume that she could release her power over land or reversionary personalty except with her husband's concurrence and by deed acknowledged (ii). Sect. 6 of the Conveyancing Act, 1882 (o), enables a person to whom a power, created before the Act, is given, whether coupled with an interest or not, by deed to disclaim such power, and the above remarks seem also to apply to this enactment. The Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (p), does not seem to affect the question whether a release or disclaimer by a married woman under these sections must be by deed acknow- ledged, as, though it enables a married woman freely to dispose of property, it nowhere expressly enables her to release or dis- claim a power as if she were a feme sole (q). viii. — Mortgages under the Married Women's Property Act 1870.— Under the Married Women's Property Act, 1870 (/•), the power of a married woman to mortgage, or otherwise dispose of, property was extended. By it the following property, ac- quired by a woman after the Act, whenever married, was declared to be her separate property, viz. : — 1. Earnings in her separate trade or employment (s. 1). (k) See section set out, ante, p. 323. King, (1895) 1 Ch. 3G1 ; and as to the (I) 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41. distinction between "property" and (m) Per North in Re Radcliffe, Rad- "power," see Exp. Gilchrist, Re Arm- cliffe v. Bewes, (1891) 2 Ch. 662, at strong, 17 Q. B. D. 521, C. A.; Re p. 670. Roper, Roper v. Doncaster, 39 Ch. D. (») See Wolst. Conv. and S. L. Acts 482. (7th ed.), p. 108 ; Mr. Farwell thinks (r) 33 & 34 Vict. c. 93. This Act is differently, see Powers (2nd ed.), p. 1 17. repealed (except as to acts done, rights (o) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 39. acquired, or liabilities incurred) by the {p) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 75, post, p. 335. Married Women's Property Act, 1882, (q) See Re Davenport, Turner v. post, pp. 335 et seq. 331 OF MORTGAGORS MARRIED WOMEN. chaptee xx. 2. Deposits in savings banks in her name, except investments made with the money of her husband, without his con- sent (s. 2). 3. Subject to a similar exception (s. 3). 4. Shares or stock in joint stock companies or societies, sub- ject to a similar exception (ss. 4 and 5). 5. Policies of insurance effected by her on her life, or that of her husband, expressed to be for her separate use, or effected by her husband for her separate use (s) (s. 10). But creditors' rights were preserved, in case of fraud (ss. 6 and 10). And in the case of a woman married after the passing of the Act : — 6. Personal property, to which she became entitled as next of kin of an estate, without restriction as to amount (t) (s.7). 7. Any sum of money, not exceeding 200/., to which she became entitled under any deed or will (s. 7). 8. Rents and profits of real estate descending on her as heiress (s. 8). But subject, in all these cases, to any settlement affecting the same. It followed that a married woman could dispose of any chose in action, or reversionary interest, devolving upon her, as next of kin. A business carried on by a married woman after her marriage, in the same way as before, was held to be her separate property under the Act (u). The separate estate of a married woman in earnings under the Act, became, upon her death, equitable assets, and divisible amongst her creditors, pari passu ; so that her executor had no right to retain in full his own debt thereout (x) . Stocks and funds must have been transferred into her name, in manner directed by sect. 3 (y), though her husband had deserted her (y) . A policy of insurance, effected in the name of a married woman (s) See Holt v. Ever all, 2 Ch. D. 266, D. 7. See Be Wkitaker, 21 Ch. D. C. A. ; Mellor's Policy Trust, 6 Ch. D. 657. 127 ; S. C. 7 Ch. D. 200. (.r) Me Poole's Estate, Thompson v. (0 King v. Toss, 13 Ch. D. 504. Bennett, 6 Ch. D. 739. (u) Ashivorth v. Outram, 5 Ch. D. (y) Howard v. Bank of England, 923, C. A. ; Lovell v. Newton, 4 C. P. L.R. 19 Eq. 295. MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT, 1882. 335 to her separate use, by her husband, although in embarrassed chaptebxx. circumstances, belongs to her (z) ; and when effected for the benefit of the wife and children belongs to her for her life with remainder to her children (a). In an action to charge the wages and earnings of the wife, under the late Acts, the husband was a necessary party defend- ant (b). Under the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, a married woman may be sued alone, although in respect of a contract made before the Act came into operation (c). A woman whose husband is alive is liable to the extent of her separate estate to support her children, without prejudice to the liability of her husband, the same as a widow is liable (d) ; but she was not so liable in respect of her grandchildren until the Act of 1882, s. 21 of which expressly extends the liability to include them. i x# — Mortgages under the Married Women's Property Act, 1882.— Since the 1st January, 1883, the Married Women's Pro- perty Act, 1882 (e), has introduced important changes in the law in regard to the power of a married woman to dispose of her property (/) by way of mortgage, or otherwise ; the effect of the Act in this respect is to introduce, instead of the old separate use in equity, a statutory separate property at law, as to which the married woman has all the powers of a feme sole. By sect. 1 (1) thereof it is enacted as follows : — A married woman shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Married Act, be capable of acquiring, holding and disposing, by will or ^°^ t ° f be otherwise, of any real or personal property as her separate property fading pro- in the same manner as if she were a, feme sole without the interven- pert y as a tion of any trustee. feme sole. This enactment is to be construed along with sects. 2 and 5 of the Act (stated below), and does not give to a married woman power to dispose of property not falling within the two latter !z) Holt v. Everall, 2 Ch. D. GG. (c) Gloucestershire Banking Co. v. (a) Re Adams' Policij Trust, 23 Ch. Phillips, 32 W. R. 522. D. 525, Chitty, J., not following (d) 33 & 34 Vict. c. 93, s. 14 ; Cole- Mellor's Policy Trust, 6 Ch. D. 127 ; man, app. Overseers of Birmingham, 7 Ch. D. 200, V.-C. Malins. reap. 6 Q. B. D. 615. (b) Hancocks v. Bemeric-Lablache, 3 (e) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 75. C. P. D. 197. See also 37 & 38 Vict. (/) " Property" in this Act in- c. 50 s. 1. eludes a thing in action. See s. 24. 336 OF MORTGAGORS MARRIED WOMEN. chaptee xx. sections ; her power of disposing of such property is still regu- lated by the old law (g). The main object of this sub-section is "to introduce an entirely new right in married women to relieve them from the necessity of having a trustee, and to say that they shall, as provided in the subsequent part of the Act, have power to acquire, hold, and deal with real and personal property without the intervention of a trustee " (//) . Under a marriage settlement made in 1878, a widow was entitled for her life to the income of a fund, with power to appoint the property by deed or will while discovert, and in default the corpus was held in trust for her absolutely; she married again after the commencement of the Act ; it was held that, inasmuch as, before her second marriage, she would have been entitled to have the corpus of the fund transferred to her absolutely, her interest therein became upon her second marriage her "separate property" by virtue of the Act, so that she was notwithstanding her marriage entitled to an absolute transfer of the fund without releasing her power (/) . Sect. 2. Every woman, who marries after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to have and to hold as her separate pro- perty, and to dispose of in manner aforesaid all real and personal property which shall belong to her at the time of marriage, or shall be acquired by or devolve upon her after marriage, including any wao-es, earnings, money, and property gained or acquired by her in any employment, trade, or occupation in which she is engaged, or which she carries on separately from her husband, or by the exer- cise of any literary, artistic, or scientific skill. Sect. 5. Every woman married before the commencement of this Act shall be entitled to have and to hold and to dispose of in manner aforesaid as her separate property all real and personal property, her title to which, whether vested or contingent, and whether in possession, reversion, or remainder, shall accrue after the commencement of this Act, including any wages, earnings, money and property so gained or acquired by her as aforesaid. From these enactments it is manifest that all women married after the 1st of January, 1883, have over all their property the same disposing powers, both at law and in equity, as femes sole. For the conveyance of real property, to which a married woman is beneficially entitled under the statute, neither the concurrence of Property of a woman married after the Act to be held by her as a feme sole. Property acquired after the Act by a ■woman married before the Act to be held by her as a feme sole. (g) lie Otmo, Mansfield v. Man 43 Ch. D. 12, C. "A. See also Re Karris' Settled Estates, 28 Ch. D. 171. (h) Per Cotton, L. J., ibid, at p. 16. See Mope v. Hope, (1892) 2 Ch. 336, 341. (?) He Onslow, Ploicden x. Gay ford, 39 Ch. D. 622. See Re Davenport, Turnery. King, (1895) 1 Ch. 361. 1882. 337 the husband nor acknowledgment under the Fines and Recoveries chapteb xx. Act, nor separate examination in Court, will he required (k) . So it was held that a married woman married since 1882 might enlarge a base fee created by her before her marriage without the concurrence of her husband or acknowledgment (/) . Similarly, the protection of Malins' Act (m) over reversionary interests in personalty is dispensed with, and such, unless protected by settle- ment, may be aliened at the married woman's sole discretion without deed acknowledged or separate examination. Women married before the 1st of January. 1883, may similarly and without restriction deal with all property their title to which accrues after that date. The title to a reversionary interest, whether vested or contingent, is deemed to " accrue" when such title was first acquired, not when it falls into possession (») ; but a mere " spcs successions " is not a title to property (o). It follows that the doctrine of an equity to a settlement, for the future, only applies in the case of property vested but not in possession of women married before the commencement of the Act. But the Act does not empower a woman, though married Married since the 1st January, 1883, who is a trustee for sale of land, trustee. to convey to a purchaser, except by deed acknowledged, and with the concurrence of her husband (_/;). By sect. 6, the principle of the Act is applied to all deposits As t0 stock, in post office and other savings banks, annuities, and sums form- a married ing part of the public or other stocks and funds, and all shares, ^.^j^ 18 stocks, debentures, debenture stocks, or other interest of or in any corporation or company, which, on the 1st of January, 1883, were standing in the name of a married woman so as to render such deposits, &c, presumably her separate property, unless the contrary is shown ; sect. 7 has similar application to the like investments allotted or transferred to a married woman after that date. Sect. 8 extends the provisions of the two preceding sections to investments standing in the joint names of a married woman and any person or persons other than her husband ; and by sect. 9, any such investments as aforesaid are transferable by Ik) Middell v. Errington, 26 Ch. D. C. A. ; Re Dixon, Dixon v. Smith, 35 220. Ch. D. 4, C. A. (/) lie Drummond and Davie's Con- (o) Re Parsons, Stockley t. Parsons, tract, (1891) 1 Ch. 524. 45 Ch. D. 51. (m) 20 & 21 Vict. c. 57. (p) Re Harkness and Alhopp's Con- (m) Peid y. Peid, 31 Ch. D. 402, tract, (1896) 2 Ch. 358. See s. 18, inf. VOL. I. — R. Z 338 OF MORTGAGORS — MARRIED WOMEN. CHAPTER XX. Fraudulent investments "with money of husband. Moneys pay- able under policy of assurance not to form part of estate of the insured. tHe married woman alone, or by her jointly with such other person or persons as aforesaid, as the case may be, without the concurrence of her husband. These sections extend the Act of 1870 by including shares, &c, in which liability to further payment is incident; by not re- stricting the powers to sums not less than 20/., and by extending the powers of investment to deposits in any banks (not savings banks only), annuities granted by any person (not government annuities only), and to shares, &c, in any corporation or public body, municipal or otherwise. By sect. 10 it is further enacted that — -- If any investment in any such deposit or annuity as aforesaid, or in any of the public stocks or funds, or in any other stocks or funds transferable as aforesaid, or in any share, stock, debenture, or debenture stock of any corporation, company, or public bod}*, municipal, commercial, or otherwise, or in any share, debenture, benefit, right, or claim whatsoever in, to, or upon the funds of any industrial, provident, friendly, benefit, building, or loan society, shall have been made by a married woman by means of moneys of her husband, without his consent, the Court may, upon an applica- tion under sect. 17 of this Act(j»), order such investment, and the dividends thereof, or any part thereof, to be transferred and paid respectively to the husband ; and nothing in this Act contained shall give validity as against creditors of the husband to any gift, by a husband to his wife, of any jiroperty, which, after such gift, shall continue to be in the order and disposition or reputed owner- ship of the husband, or to any deposit or other investment of moneys of the husband made by or in the name of his wife in fraud of his creditors ; but any moneys so deposited or invested may be followed as if this Act had not passed." By sect. 11, it is provided that a married woman may effect a policy upon her own life or the life of her husband for her separate use, and the same and all benefit thereof shall enure accordingly ; and this section further enacts that — A policy of insurance effected by a married man or woman on his or her own life, and expressed upon the face of it to be for the benefit of the other of them with or without the children, or any of them, shall create a trust in favour of the objects therein named, and the moneys payable under any such policy shall not, so long as any object of the trust remains unperformed, form part of the estate of the insured, or be subject to his or her debts ; provided, that if it shall be proved that the policy was effected or the pre- miums paid with intent to defraud the creditors of the insured, they shall be entitled to receive, out of the moneys payable under the policy, a sum equal to the premiums so paid. (p) I.e., summary application. RESTRAINT ON ANTICIPATION. 339 Sect. 18. "A married woman who is an executrix or administratrix chaptee xx. alone or jointly with any other person or persons of the estate of jj arr j ecl any deceased person, or a trustee alone or jointly as aforesaid of woman as an property subject to any trust, may sue or be sued, and may transfer executrix or or join in transferring any such annuity or deposit as aforesaid, or trustee. any sum. forming part of the public stocks or funds, or of any other stocks or funds transferable as aforesaid, or any share, stock, debenture, debenture stock, or other benefit, right, claim, or other interest of or in any such corporation, company, public body, or society in that character, without her husband, as if she were a feme sole." As to mortgages of settled lands of which a married woman Settled Laud . -r ActS. is tenant for life, see Chapter XXII. (q). X. — Restraint on Anticipation. — A restraint on alienation or No restraint ..... „ . . , . , • • <• on anticipa- anticipation 01 income given to a married woman is inoperative, tion wnere n0 unless the income is given to her for her separate use or is her separate use. separate property by statute, and a gift to her separate use will not he implied from the mere fact that this is restrained from anticipation (r). The clause against anticipation prevents any mortgage or Effect of charge by a married woman (s) ; but arrears, after they have fallen due, may, notwithstanding the clause against anticipation, be assigned or charged by her (t) , and have been held to be liable under a sequestration for costs directed to be paid by her (u), and it is now settled that such arrears are available in execu- tion upon a judgment against the married woman, whether accrued due before or after the date of the judgment (x). A Court of equity will give effect during coverture to a clause To what pro- in restraint of alienation annexed to a gift to a married woman attaches. 1UU for her separate use, whether the subject of the gift be real or personal estate, and whether it be in fee or absolute, or only for life (//). With regard to personal estate, it was formerly con- sidered that a clause restraining anticipation on an absolute gift (q) Post, p. 392. Re Brettle, Brcttlc v. Burdctt, 2 De G. (r) Baqgett v. Meux, 1 Ph. 627 ; J. & S. 79. Stogdon v. Zee, (1891) 1 Q. B. 661. As (w) Claydon v. Finch, L. R. 15 Eq. to what expressions will amount to a 266 ; Hyde v. Hyde, 15 P. D. 166, restriction on anticipation, see Harnett C. A. v. M'Hougall, 8 Beav. 187 ; Moore v. (x) Hood-Barm v. Heriot, (1896) Moore, 1 Coll. 54 ; Medley v. Horton, A. C. 174, reversing the decision of 14 Sim. 222 ; Harrop v. Howard, 3 Ha. C. A., (1895) 2 Q. B. 212, and over- 624 ; Baker v. Bradley, 7 De Gr. M. & ruling on this point Hood- Bans v. G. 597. Cathcart, (1894) 2 Q. B. 559, C. A. (*) Be Yardon's Trusts, 31 Ch. D. (>/) Baggett v. Meux, 1 Ph. 627 ; Re 275, at p. 280. GaskelVs Trusts, 11 Jur. N. S. 780; \t) Harman v. Richards, 10 Ha. SI ; Re Ellis' Trust*, L. R. 17 Eq. 409. 7.2 340 OF MORTGAGORS — MARRIED WOMEN. CHAPTEK XX. Fraud. Power of appointment. Rule against perpetuities. Exercise of powers under Settled Land Acts. of a fund, not producing income, is ineffectual to prevent the married woman from dealing with it ; but it appears to be now settled that there is no distinction between alienation and antici- pation, and that the restraining clause is effectual whether the fund produces income or not, as it is the duty of the trustees or the Court to invest it (2). "Where a fund, subject to a particular estate, is given abso- lutely to a married woman with a restraint on anticipation, the restraint will not, unless such intention appears, be confined to the continuance of that particular estate (a). The clause against anticipation is such a protection against the acts of the wife that its effect is not nullified even by her fraud (b). Where a limited power of appointment is given to a married woman, and a clause against anticipation is attached to the power, and, in default of appointment, the estate is limited to her separate use generally, she may dispose of the estate without regard to the power (c) . Where the clause against anticipation is obnoxious to the rule against perpetuities (d), the limitation to the separate use is good, and the clause against anticipation is void ; and the mar- ried woman can mortgage or otherwise deal with the property as if no such clause existed (e) . Where the limitation is to a class of daughters, some of whom are in existence at the date of the settlement or the death of the testator, the clause is valid as to them, though void as to those unborn (,/'). The restraint does not prevent the exercise of the powers conferred by the Settled Land Act, 1882, upon a tenant for life who is a married woman (g) . But a restraint on anticipation attached to an estate in fee simple does not constitute a married woman a tenant for life within the meaning of the Act, or (z) Be Sown, O'Haloran v. King, 27 Ch. D. 411 ; Be Grey's Settlement, Aca- son v. Greenwood, 34 Ch. D. 712, C. A. See Gibson v. Way, 32 Ch. D. 361. (a) lie Tippett's and Newbould's Con- tract, 37 Ch. D. 444, C. A. {b) Jackson v. Hobhousc, 2 Mer. 483 ; Clive v. Carew, 1 J. & H. 199 ; Arnold v. Wood/urns, L. R. 16 Eq. 29 ; Stanley v. Stanley, 7 Ch. D. 589. See Be Ula„- vill, Ellis v. Johnson, 31 Ch. D. 532, at p. 537. (c) Barrymore v. Ellis, 8 Sim. 1 ; Brown v. Bam ford, 1 Ph. 62G ; Yaughan v. Yanderstcgen, 2 Drew. 188. (d) See as to this, Be Bidley, Back- tony. Hay, 11 Ch. D. 645. («) Fry v. Capper, Kay, 163; Be league's Settlement, L. R. 10 Eq. 564 ; Be Cunningham' s Settlement, L. R. 11 Eq. 324 ; Be Bidley, Buck-ton v. Hay, 11 Ch. D. 645. And see Thornton v. Bright, 2 My. & Cr. 230 ; BeErringlon, Bawtree v. Errington, W. N. (1887) 23. (/) Herbert v. Webster, 15 Ch. D. 610; Cooper v. Laroche, 17 Ch. D. 368. (g) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 38, s. 61 (6). 341 RESTRAINT ON ANTICIPATION. °* x enable her to exercise the statutory powers of a tenant for cil vfteexx. life (A). By the Conveyancing Act, 1881, the Court is empowered, Removal of with the consent of the married woman, to bind her interest by way of mortgage, or otherwise, notwithstanding a clause against anticipation (*), if it is clearly for her benefit (/>), as where she is harassed by debts (/), and living separate from her husband (ra). Restraint on anticipation was removed so as to enable the income of a fund to which a wife was entitled for life to be applied in keeping down interest on a mortgage effected jointly by her and her husband, and in paying premiums on policies on his life forming part of the security, on the mortgagees under- taking to reduce the rate of interest, and not to call in the prin- cipal without the leave of the Court (n). But the Act does not enable the Court to remove the restraint for the purpose of paying debts which are those of the husband alone (a) . See, gene- rally, as to the considerations which may influence the Court m the exercise of its power to remove the restraint, the cases cited in the note (j)). The consent of the woman should generally be obtained by separate examination (q) . The Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (r), makesno gjg^* alteration in the law as to the validity and effect of restraints Married on anticipation. A married woman now, as before the Act, can Pr °™ty S Act, only dispose of, or contract in relation to, her separate property 1882. which she is not restrained from anticipating. By sect, 19 of that Act, it is enacted that :— " Nothino- in this Act contained shall interfere with or affect any Savin- of settlement or agreement for a settlement made or to be made, gjgj^ whether before or after marriage, respecting the property oi any andthepower married woman, or shall interfere with or render inoperative any to make restriction against anticipation at present attached or to be here- future settle- (A) Bates v. Kesterton, (1896) 1 Ch. (*) Re S.'s Settlement, W. N. (1893) 15 (i) 44 & 45 Vict, c. 41, s. 39. jfi) * Jordan, W. K (1886) C, W) Tamplin v. Miller, W.N. (1882) Re Currey W. N (188/) 28 Re 44; Warren's Settlement, W. N. Segrave's Trusts 17LR.Ir._ 373,-8* (1883^ 1^5 C. A.; Re Little's Will, Tippett and Newbould s Contract, 37 Ch. 8l fi T) 701 C A D. 444, C. A. ; Re Little, 40 Ch D. (hHodJesl'. Hates, 20 Ch. D. 749, 418, C. A. ; * Tennanfs Estate, 26 L. Fry J.; ReC's Settlement, 56 L. T. B. Lr. 522. „ np , . 7 , g . 2 9 \j' {<[) Hodges v. Hodges, 20 Ch. D. 749, tin) Exp. Thompson, W. N. (1884) Musgrave v. Sandeman 48 L T 215 2 „ v ; / See Harris v. Harjord, W. JN. (1888) (n) Re Miner's Settlement, (1891) 3 190. ™> j. .» (r) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 7o. 342 OF MOKTGAGORS MARRIED WOMEN. chapter xx. after attached to the enjoyment of any property or income by a ~ woman under any settlement, agreement for a settlement, will, or other instrument ; but no restriction against anticipation contained in any settlement or agreement for a settlement of a woman's own property to be made or entered into by herself shall have any validity against debts contracted by her before marriage, and no settlement or agreement for a settlement shall have any greater force or validity against creditors of such woman than a like settle- ment or agreement for a settlement made or entered into by a man would have against his creditors." Costs may be ordered to be paid out of property sub- ject to restraiut on anticipation. Where by an existing settlement all future property of the wife to a specified amount (except interest settled to her separate use) was included, and after the Act of 1882 the wife became entitled to an absolute interest above the specified amount, which she claimed to be paid to her on her separate receipt under sect. 5, it was held that by sect. 19 the settlement was exempted from sect. 5, and the absolute interest was subject to the settle- ment (s). "Where a judgment had been recovered against a married woman who subsequently obtained a dissolution of her marriage and married again, and on such second marriage settled her property to her separate use without power of anticipation, it was held that, the debt having been contracted before the second marriage within sect. 19, the restraint on anticipation was void as against it (7). By the Married Women's Property Act, 1893 («), s. 2, it is enacted that : — "In any action or proceeding now or hereafter to be instituted by a woman, or by a next friend on her behalf, the Court before which such action or proceeding is pending shall have jurisdiction, by judgment or order from time to time, to order payment of the costs of the opposite party out of property which is subject to a restraint on anticipation, and may enforce such payment by the appointment of a receiver and a sale of the property or otherwise, as may be just." It is conceived that the words " or otherwise " empower the Court in a proper case to direct the costs to be raised by mort- gage of property which a married woman is restrained from anticipating. It is to be observed that this section does not give (s) Re Stonor's Trusts, 24 Ch. D. 195 ; Re Whitaker, Christian v. Whi- taker, 34 Cb. D 227 ; Hancock v. Han- cock, 38 Cb. D. 78. (0 Jay v. Robinson, 25 Q. B. D. 467, C. A. (w) 56 & 57 Vict. c. 63. INABILITY UNDEE COVENANTS, ETC. 343 the Court jurisdiction to order the costs of an action or proceeding chapter xx. instituted against a married woman to be raised and paid not- withstanding the restraint (x). xi. — Liability of Married Women under Covenants for Payment Contracts of Mortgage Moneys. — The former doctrine, as to the liability of ^ me n under the separate estate of a married woman to her engagements, was, tne olli law - that she must show an intention, either express or by implication, to create a charge ; and for this purpose a bond, or promissory note, or other general security in writing, was considered neces- sary ; such writing could have no operation, except as against her separate estate (//). So in Murray v. Barlee (~), it was held that a written retainer by a married woman of her solicitor, or a written acknowledgment or adoption of his professional conduct, or instructions in writing to proceed, were sufficient to create an implied promise to pay all proper expenses incurred on her behalf, and thereby to charge her separate estate, although, in that case, there was a written promise to pay. But, according to more recent cases, such property is liable to her general engagements, though no written instrument is executed ; not by way of execution of any power, as was once held (a), but upon the ground that, having a power to deal with the property, she has the other powers incident to property in general, viz., the power of contracting debts to be paid out of it, and, inas- much as her creditors had not the means at law of compelling payment of those debts, a Court of equity took upon itself to give effect to them, not as personal liabilities, but by laying hold of the separate estate as the only means by which they might be satisfied (b) . Thus, independently of the statutory enactments to be presently considered, the separate estates of married women are bound by their debts, obligations, and engagements, contracted with refer- ence to and upon faith or reference to those estates ; and a married woman may render her separate property liable to a charge without having in the transaction made any direct charge on, or made any reference to, the property settled to her separate {%) Mood-Barrs v. Gathcart, (1894) 3 Bullpin v. Clarice, 17 Ves. 365. Ch. 376, C. A. ; Moiling ton v. Dear, (z) 3 My. & K. 209, 225. See B olden W. N. (1895) 35. For form of v. Nicholay, 3 Jur. N. S. 884. order, see Davies v. Treharris Brewery (a) Field v. Sowle, 4 Buss. 112. Co., W. N. (1884) 198. (b) See Owens v. Dickenson, Cr. & (y) Mulme v. Tenant, 1 Bro. C. C. Ph. 53, 54: ; Murray v. Barlee, 2 My. 16 ; Stuart v. Lord Kirkwall, 3 Madd. & K. 220. 387 ; Greatley v. Noble, 3 Madd. 79 ; 314 OF MORTGAGORS — MARRIED WOMEN. CHAPTER XX. Operation of covenant for payment by married Charging devise. use (c). The Court will readily assume, in the absence of con- trary intention, that the contract was entered into upon the faith of the separate estate, so as to create a valid charge thereon. Thus, the separate estate and savings therefrom, and invest- ments from savings, are bound by her contract in taking shares in a company (d) ; and are liable for the rent of a house occupied by her, when living separate from her husband («) MacHenry v. Davies, L. R. 10 (r) Collett v. Dickenson, 11 Ch. D. Eq. 88, 94 ; Morrell v. Cowan, 6 Ch. 687 ; 8. C, 4 Ex. D. 285 ; Re Peace, D. 166, 172. 24 Ch. D. 405, C. A. («) Moore v. Moore, 1 Coll. 54. As (s) Robinson v. Pickering, 16 Ch. D. to orders for payment of costs notwith- 660, C. A. standing the restraint, see ante, p. 342. (t) Infra. (o) Re Peace, 24 Ch. D. 405, C. A. (tt) Collett v. Dickenson, sup.; Hancock (p) Davies v. Jenkins, 6 Ch. D. 728 ; v. Demeric-Lablache, 3 C. P. D. 197. Collett v. Dickenson, 11 Ch. D. 687; {x) Pike v. Fitzgibbon, 17 Ch. D. 8. C, 4 Ex. D. 285. 454, C. A. ; Perks v. Mylrea, W. N. (?) BursillM. Tanner, \Z Q.B. D. 691. (1884) 64. 346 OF MORTGAGORS — MARRIED WOMEN. chapter xs. in any such action or proceeding shall be payable out of her sepa- rate property, and not otherwise. " (3) Every contract entered into by a married woman shall be deemed to be a contract entered into by her with respect to and to bind her separate property, unless the contrary be shown. " (4) Every contract entered into by a married woman with respect to and to bind her separate property, shall bind not only the separate property which she is possessed of or entitled to at the date of the contract, but also all separate property which she may thereafter acquire " (y). Remedies of married "woman for protection and security of separate property. Repeal of s. 1 (3) and (4) of Act of 1882. Effect of contracts by married "women. By sect. 12, every woman, whether married before or after the Act, is to have in her ow^n name against all persons whom- soever, including her husband, the same civil remedies for the protection and security of her own separate property as if such property belonged to her as a feme sole. Thus leave of the Court is no longer necessary to enable her to sue without a next friend or without giving security for costs (s), and it makes no difference whether or not the cause of action arose before the Act (a). It was held that, under sub-sects. (3) and (4), in order to render a married woman capable of binding herself by contract in respect of her separate property, it must be shown, as before the Act (b), that she had some separate property at the time when the contract was made (c) . These sub-sections are now repealed by the Married Women's Property Act, 1893 (d), which came into operation on the 5th December, 1893, by sect. 1 of which it is enacted as follows : — "Every contract hereafter entered into by a married woman otherwise than as an agent, (a) shall be deemed to be a contract entered into by her with respect to and to bind her separate property, whether she is or is not in fact possessed of or entitled to any separate property at the time when she enters into such a contract ; (b) shall bind all separate property which she may at that time or thereafter be possessed of or entitled to ; and (c) shall also be enforceable by process of law against all pro- perty which she may thereafter while discovert be pos- sessed of or entitled to ; Provided that nothing in this section contained shall render avail- (?/) This renders obsolete the rule laid down in Pike v. Fitzgibbon, 17 Ch. D. 454, C. A. See Cox v. Bennett, (1891) 1 Ch. 617, 622. (z) Threlfallv. Wilson, 8 P. D. 18. (a) Severance v. Civil /Service Asso- ciation, 48 L. T. 485. (b) Johnson v. Gallagher, 3 De G. F. & J. 494 ; Pike v. Fitzgibbon, 17 Ch. D. 454, C. A. (c) Re Shakespear, Deakin v. Lakin, 30 Ch. D. 169 ; Palliser v. Gurney, 19 Q. B. D. 519 ; Stogdon v. lee, (1891) 1 Q. B. 661. (d) 56 & 57 Vict. c. 63, s. 4. LIABILITY UNDER COVENANTS, ETC. 347 able to satisfy any liability or obligation arising out of such con- chaptee xx. tract any separate property which, at that time or thereafter she is restrained from anticipating." As under sect. 1 (2) of the Married "Women's Property Act, Joinder of inm • i i -i-fi ^ 7 husband in 1882, a married woman may be sued as it she were a feme sole, ac ti n against it will be no longer necessary, as hitherto (e), to join the wife generally husband as defendant, unless the plaintiff seeks to establish his claim either wholly or in part against both of them (/) , and in case of such unnecessary joinder, the plaintiff will be liable to pay the husband's costs (/) . By Ord. XYII. r. 2, it is provided that, in the case of the Court may ii ii r< . • j order husband marriage of any party to a cause or matter, the Court or judge to be made a may, if it be deemed necessary for the complete settlement of all P art 7- the questions involved, order that the husband be made a party, or be served with notice, on such terms as the Court or judge shall think just (g). By Ord. XVIII. r. 4, claims by and against a husband and Joinder of wife may be joined with claims by or against either of them separately. By sect. 18 of the Act of 1882, a married woman who is an exe- Married cutrix or administratrix, alone or jointly with any other person woman as an •> <; * ■>■ executrix or or persons, of the estate of any deceased person, or a trustee alone trustee. or jointly, as aforesaid, of property subject to any trust, may sue or be sued without her husband as if she were a feme sole. Sect. 23 enacts that : — " For the purposes of this Act the legal personal representative of Legal repre- any married woman shall, in respect of her separate estate, have senta .tive of the same rights and liabilities and. be subject to the same jurisdic- woma ^ tion as she would be if she were living." By sect. 13 of the Act it is enacted as follows : — " A woman after her marriage shall continue to be liable in Wife's ante- respect and to the extent of her separate property for all debts con- nuptial debts tracted, and all contracts entered into or wrongs committed by her and liabilities, before her marriage (A), including any sum for which she may be liable as a contributory, either before or after she has been placed on the list of contributories, under and by virtue of the Acts relat- (e) Hancocks v. Demeric-Lablache, 3 D. 103. C. P. D. 197- (/*) As to what ante-nuptial debts (/) Sect. 15. As to the meaning of are within this and the following " joint judgment " in this section, see sections, see Re Hedgeley, Small v. Beck v. Pierce, 23 Q. B. D. 316, 321, Hedgelei/, 34 Ch. D. 379 ; Beck v. C. A. Pierce, 23 Q. B. D. 316, C. A. ; Jay v. (ff) See Stanhope v. Stanhope, IIP. Robinson, 25 Q. B. D. 467, C. A. 348 OF 110KTGAGOKS — MARRIED WOMEN. chaptee xx. ing to joint stock companies ; and she may be sued for any such ' ■ debt and for any liability in damages or otherwise under any such contract, or in respect of any such wrong ; and all sums recovered against her in respect thereof, or for any costs relating thereto, shall be payable out of her separate property ; and, as between her and her husband, unless there be any contract between them to the con- trary, her separate property sball be deemed to be primarily liable for all such debts, contracts, or wrongs, and for all damages or costs recovered in respect thereof : Provided always, that nothing in this Act shall operate to increase or diminish the liability of any woman married before the commencement of this Act for any such debt, contract, or wrong, as aforesaid, except as to any separate property to which she may become entitled by virtue of this Act, and to which she would not have been entitled for her separate use under the Acts hereby repealed, or otherwise, if this Act had not passed." General power of ap- pointment. Power exer- ciseable by will. With respect to separate use to which a general power is added, if property is settled upon a married woman, for her separate use for her life, with power to dispose of it by deed or will, and in default over to a stranger, the Court has never gone further than to affect the limited interest during her lifetime (/) ; but after her death, the corpus is subject, as separate property", to her general engagements, whether the power be exercised or not (/»■) : a fortiori, where, in default of appointment, the limi- tation is to her executors and administrators (/), in which case, the property would be, to all intents and purposes, separate pro- perty in her lifetime (in). Where the power is exerciseable by will only, and there is a limitation in default of appointment, and the power is not exer- cised, of course the general engagements of the married woman cannot prevail against the parties entitled in default of appoint- ment (w). But if the power is exercised, but not for creditors, the better opinion would seem to be, that the appointed pro- perty becomes assets for the payment of the married woman's engagements, to the same extent as the assets of any other person not under the disability of coverture would, under the circum- stances, be bound (o) . Where a married woman with a general (i) Hulme v. Tennant, 1 Bro. C. C. 15 ; Field v. Soivle, 4 Russ. 112. (k) Heatley v. Thomas, 15 Ves. 596 ; Robinson v. Dwgate, 2 Vern. 181 ; Mai/d v. Field, 3 Ch. D. 587. But see Huns, n v. Miller, 14 Sim. 27. (I) London Chartered Bank of Aus- tralia v. Lempriere, L. R. 4 P. C. 572 ; dissenting from Shattock v. Shattock, 2 Eq. 182. (m) London Chartered Bank of Aus- tralia v. Lempriere, sup. («) See Paul v. Paul, 20 Ch. D. 742, C. A. (o) JS"ail v. Punter, 5 Sim. 555, 562 ; Williams v. Lomas, 16 Beav. 1. See as to the general liability, Jenney v. Andrews, 6 Madd. 264. LIABILITY UNDER COVENANTS, ETC. U * J power exerciseable by will appoints, and the appointee dies in chapteb xx. her lifetime, whether a gift over in default of appointment takes effect or not depends on her intention to make the property her own, as, for instance, by a charge of debts (p). It has been contended that the exercise by a married woman of a power of appointment by will does not make the property applicable to the payment of her engagements, as charges on her separate estate (q) ; but the decision in Vaughan v. Vanderstegen (q), that the fraud of the married woman created such an equitable demand as to be enforceable against the appointed property in preference to voluntary appointees, would seem to create such a technical distinction from other debts and the general engage- ments of the married woman as ought to be disregarded (r). The law is settled now against the view of Sir R. Kindersley, Y.-C. (•). The Married Women's Property, Act, 1882, enacts — Sect. 4. "The execution of a general power by will by a married Execution of woman shall have the effect of making the property appointed general liable for her debts and other liabilities in the same manner as her P owers - separate estate is made liable under this Act" (t). The liability will attach though she had no separate estate at the time when she contracted the debts (u). The husband, paying off a debt charged on the separate estate, stands in place of the mortgagee, as against the estate of the wife (.r). A married woman was not liable to the bankrupt law, even though she had separate estate and had contracted engagements after her marriage. But the law in this respect is now altered as regards married women carrying on trades separately from their husbands (//). Debts payable out of funds held in trust for separate use are not barred by the Statute of Limitations (s). {p) See De Lusts Trusts, 3 L. R. Harben, 13 Ch. D. 216 ; Hodges v. Ir. 232 ; Pinhole's Settlement, 12 Ch. Hodges, 20 Ch. D. 749. D. 667, 672, Jessel, M. R., disap- (t) This section applies only to con- proving Hoare v. Osborne, 33 L. J. Ch. tracts made after the commencement of 586 ; Willoughby Osborne v. Holyoahe, the Act : Re Roper, Roper v. Doncaster, 22 Ch. D. 238. 39 Ch. D. 482. (q) Vaughan v. Vanderstegen, 2 Drew. («) Re Ann, Wilson v. Ann, (1894) 165, 184, 191 ; Hobday v. Peters, 28 1 Ch. 549 ; and as to contracts made Beav. 603 ; Shattock v. Shattock, L. R. after 5th December, 1893, see ante, 2 Eq. 182. p. 346. (r) London Chartered Bank of Aus- (x) Nelson v. Booth, 3 Jur. 1ST. S. 951. tralia v. Lemprihe, L. R. 4 P. C. 572, \y) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 75, s. 1 (5). See 596 ; see Farwell, Pow. (2nd ed.) 262. Re Gardiner, 20 Q. B. D. 249. (*) Re Harvey's Estate, Godfrey v. (z) Norton v. Turvil, 2 P. "Wins. 144 ; 350 OF MORTGAGORS MARRIED WOMEN. CHAPTER XX. Liability of husband under former law. Husband to be liable for his wife's debts con- tracted before marriage to a certain extent. xii. — Liability of Husband for Debts of Wife before Marriage. — Until the Acts next mentioned came into operation, a hus- band was liable for the debts of his wife incurred before marriage ; and the separate estate of a married woman was only liable to her debts before marriage upon the bankruptcy of her husband (a) ; and it was liable, although the property was settled to her separate use without power of anticipation (b) ; but by the Married Women's Property Act of 1870 (•) Aguilar v. Aquilar, 5 Mad. 414. Earl of Kinnoul v. Money, 3 Swanst. (*) Thomas v. Thomas, 2 K. & J. 79. 208. \t) Scholefield v. Lochwood, 4 De G. (jr) Lewis v. Wangle, sup. J. & S. 22. \y) Clinton v. Hooper, 1 Ves. Jun. 173. MORTGAGES OF PROPERTY OF INFANTS. 353 The claim of the wife will not he waived hy her covenant chapter xs. after her husband's death that the estate shall stand charged with the original debt, and also with a further sum advanced to her (s). The husband will have a right to be indemnified out of the estate of the wife, if on a transfer of a mortgage charged on the wife's estate he enter into a covenant, or give bond for its pay- ment (a) ; and if the husband reduces the amount and dies, his estate will be entitled to stand in the place of the mortgagee to the amount of principal paid by him (b), but not of interest (c) ; and if, at the time of mortgaging the wife's estate, the husband make a provision out of his own estate for his wife's benefit, he may, under the circumstances, be considered as a purchaser of the money raised by the mortgage (d). Section III. Mortgages of Property of Infants. i,— Disability of Infancy.— An infant, being generally inca- Disability of pable of binding himself by contract, cannot of himself enter mfanc 7- into a contract of mortgage, or create a valid security on his property for mortgage moneys. Although an infant may by the custom of gavelkind convey Custom of by feoffment with livery of seisin, yet this must be taken strictly, s and extends only to sales for valuable consideration ; the liberty of selling was allowed for the convenience of commerce, which in the case of small divided shares was absolutely necessary (e) ; and accordingly it is clear that the custom does not enable an infant to create or concur in a mortgage of gavelkind lands. ii Power to Mortgage Property of Infants. — Where a suit is Mortgage of « ..n i-i 1. £ j \,i. £ infants' lands instituted in any Court of equity for the payment oi debts ot for payme nt a deceased person to which his heir or devisee is liable, and such ° f eb a t n s TOStor ' 8 (z) Lacam v. Mertins, 1 Ves. Sen. 312. {d) Lewis v. Wangle, Amb. 150 (a) Bagotv. Oughton, 1 P. Wins. 347. (*) Sandys' Cons. Kane. 169 ; Bac. (b) Pitt v. Pitt, T. & R. 180, entered Abr. vol. iv. 7th ed. p. 49 ; Me Mash U in register book as Pitt v. Reid. and Goldfinch' 's Contract, (1895) 2 Ch. (cflluscombe v. Hare, 2 Bli. N. S. 525, 528. 192. VOL. I. — R. A A 354 OF MORTGAGORS — INFANTS. CHAPTEE XX. Devolution of surplus moneys. Power of Court to direct conveyance of infants' lands. Mortgage of infant's pro- perty for repairs. Mortgage to raise money for fines. Redemption of land tax. heir or devisee is an infant, the Court may direct a mortgage as well as a sale of the estates of such infant heir or devisee. And where any hereditaments are devised in settlement by a person whose estate is liable to the payment of his debts, so as to vest in any person for life or other limited interest, with remainder over, the Court may authorize such sales and mortgages to be made in cases where such tenant for life or other person having a limited interest is an infant. The surplus of money arising from such sale or mortgage is to descend in the same manner as the estates so sold or mortgaged would have done if no such sale or mortgage had been made. The Court may direct, and, if necessary, compel such infant to convey the estates to the mortgagee in such manner as the Court thinks proper and directs, and the infant must convey accordingly, and the conveyance is to be valid and effectual to all intents and purposes as if the infant had been of full age at the time of executing the same (/) . The Court has no power, under the enactments above referred to, in an administration action, in which a certain sum is decreed to be raised out of the testator's real estate for payment of debts, to add to the sum required for that purpose a further sum for repairs of the property, although without such repairs the money could not be raised, and a mortgage would be much more beneficial to the infant heir or devisee than a sale (g) . The Court, however, has jurisdiction, upon the principle of salvage, to order a mortgage of the lands to which an infant is entitled in possession for repairs ; but the jurisdiction is jea- lously exercised, and only to the extent of such repairs as may be certified to be absolutely necessary (//) . And the jurisdiction does not extend so as to enable the Court to charge the interest of an infant tenant for life in remainder (7) . The Court has, apparently, no jurisdiction to order a fine pay- able for admittance to copyholds of a customary heir, who is an infant, to be raised by mortgage of the copyholds (J) . Where the guardian of an infant tenant in tail redeems the land tax, the sum paid is a charge on the inheritance (/>•), (/) See stats. 11 Geo. IV. & 1 Will. IV. c. 47 ; 2 & 3 Vict. c. 60. ( g) Bill v. Maurice, 1 De G. & S. 214. (A) Re Jackson, Jackson v. Talbot, 21 Ch. D. 786. See Re Burst, Burst v. Burst, 29 L. R. Ir,. 219 ; Re Montagu's Settlement, Darbishire v. Montagu, 45 TV R. 380. (i) Re Be Teissier's Settled Estates, Be Teissier v. Be Teissier, (1893) 1 Ch. 153. (j) Barbroe v. Combs, 43 L. J. Ch. 336. (k) Ware v. Folhill, 5 De G. & S. 455. AVOIDANCE OF CONTRACTS. although no declaration has been made according to the stat. 38 chapter xx. Geo. III. c. 60(/). The guardian of an infant, who is the registered owner of a Mortgage of ship, has no power under the Merchant Shipping Act (in) to sell ll or mortgage the ship on behalf of the infant («). As to mortgages of lands of infants under the Settled Land Settled Land Acts Acts, see Chap. XXII (o). As to mortgages and charges for maintenance of infants, see Maintenance. Chap. XXIII (p). If the personal estate of an infant be applied in paying off a Mortgage mortgage debt secured on his real estate, the debt will be kept of infant's alive as personal estate (q) . personalty. iii. — Avoidance of Contracts by Infants to repay Loans.— By ^J^f^ 7 the Infants' Belief Act, 1874 (r), all contracts, whether by repayment of specialty or by simple contract, entered into by infants for the repayment of money lent or to be lent (other than contracts for necessaries) are absolutely void, and no action can be brought or ratification be made of an infant's contract to pay any debt contracted during infancy. The Betting and Loans (Infants) Act, 1892 (s), provides Penalty on - t> i ' l t • ' •!_• ia l inciting that persons sending to infants circulars, and inciting tnem to infants to borrow money, are to be guilty of misdemeanour. And by boriw - sect. 5 of the same Act it is enacted as follows : — " If any infant, who has contracted a loan which is void in law, Avoiding agrees after he comes of age to pay any money which in whole or ^^iit of in part represents or is agreed to be paid in respect of any such i oan advanced loan, and is not a new advance, such agreement, and any instru- during nient, negotiable or other, given in pursuance of or for carrying infancy, into effect such agreement, or otherwise in relation to the payment of money representing or in respect of such loan, shall, so far as it relates to money which represents or is payable in respect of such loan, and is not a new advance, be void absolutely as against all persons whomsoever. "For the purposes of this section any interest, commission, or other payment in respect of such loan shall be deemed to bo a part of such loan." The effect of the above enactments seems to be that an infant Effect of this cannot during infancy mortgage or charge, or agree to mortgage or charge, his property to secure a loan, nor will any such mort- 11) Ibid. ; BulMetj v. Hope, 1 K. & (p) Tost, p. 429. J. 482. (q) Seys v. Price, 9 Mod. 217, 221 ; (m) 57 & 58 "Vict. c. 60. Exp. Phillips, 19 Ves. 122. \n) Michael v. Fripp, L. E. 7 Eq. 95. (r) 37 & 33 Vict. c. 62, s. 2. (o) Post, p. 392. (*) 55 & 56 Vict. c. 4. A A 2 356 OF MORTGAGORS LUNATICS. CHAPTER XX. Fresh mort- gage on attaining full aare. Jurisdiction to order mortgage of lunatic's pro- perty under 43 Geo. III. Lunacy Regulation Act, 1853.] gage, charge, or agreement to secure a loan made to him during infancy be valid, unless the loan was for the purpose of paying for necessaries, but that a debt for necessaries or a loan made to him during infancy for the purpose of paying for necessaries will be a sufficient consideration to support a mortgage or charge of his property made on attaining full age (/) . But where an infant gave a mortgage which was reconveyed to him on his coming of age, and a fresh mortgage was exe- cuted by him of the same property to secure a larger amount, it was held that this was not a mere ratification, but that the mortgage was a valid security for the whole amount (u). An infant cannot be adjudicated a bankrupt (v). Section IV. Mortgages of Property or Lunatics. i, — Jurisdiction to Mortgage Property of Lunatics. — Inde- pendently of statutory enactment, neither the committee of a lunatic nor any other person has power to mortgage or charge the lunatic's property ; but such property may now be mort- gaged or charged with the sanction of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Keeper, or the Lords Commissioners for the Custody of the Great Seal, entrusted by the Sovereign's sign manual with the care of the persons and estates of lunatics (x) . By the statute 43 Geo. III. c. 75, such Chancellor, Keej)er, and Com- missioners were empowered to direct the freehold and leasehold estates of lunatics so found by inquisition to be charged by way of mortgage or otherwise for payment of the lunatic's debts or the performance of their contracts or engagements, and the costs of such incumbrance ; and to direct committees on behalf of the lunatics to convey such property, and procure admittances to and make surrenders of copyholds, and do other necessary acts to effectuate such mortgages or charges. This statute was repealed, but its provisions were adopted and amended by the stat. 1 Will. IV. c. 65, which was, in its turn, repealed by the Lunacy Eegulation Act, 1853 (y). This Act (t) See, as to loans of money for necessaries, Com. Dig. tit. Enfant (c), 2 ; Probert v. Knout h, 2 Esp. 472, n. ; Hedgeley v. Holt, 4 C. & P. 104; Martin v. Gale, 4 Ch. D. 428. (i<) Re Foulkes, Foulkes v. Hughes, 69 L. T. 183. 0') Exp. Kibble, L. R. 10 Ch. A. 373 ; Exp. Jones, 18 Ch. D. 109, C. A., overruling Exp. Lynch, 2 Ch. D. 227. (*) Foster v. Marchant, 1 Vern. 262. See Exp. Smith, 5 Ves. 556 ; Exp. Bikes, 8 Ves. 79 ; Re Halforde, 1 Jur. 524 ; Exp. Birch, 3 Swanst. 98. {y) 16 & 17 Vict. c. 70, ss. 116— 139, amended 25 & 26 Vict. c. 86, ss. 13, 16 ; see Lunacy Regulation (Ireland) Act, 1871, s. 63 ; and see Lun. Ord. 96, 10 Feb. 1883. JURISDICTION. 357 provided that the Lord Chancellor might order that any estate chapter xx. or interest of a lunatic in land or stock either in possession, re- version, remainder, contingency, or expectancy, should be sold, or charged and encumbered by way of mortgage, for raising money for the payment of his debts or engagements, the discharge of incumbrances on his estate, and the costs of the commission of lunacy, and the costs of such disposition ; the moneys so raised to be applied accordingly in such manner as the Lord Chancellor shall direct ; and the Lord Chancellor might direct the committee to execute all necessary conveyances, &c, in the place of the lunatic. The surplus of the moneys so raised by mortgage or charge of land (z) , was to be of the same nature and character as the estate from which it has been raised, and the Lord Chancellor was empowered to give orders for the due application of such moneys. This jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor was extended to the Lords Justices of Appeal, and other judges entrusted with the care and commitment of the persons and estates of lunatics («). The Act of 1853, and its amending Acts, have been repealed Lunacy Act, by the Lunacy Act, 1890 (b), by sect. 117 of which it is enacted ' s ' as follows : — "(1) The judge may order that any property of the lunatic, Power to •whether present or future, be sold, charged, mortgaged, dealt with, raise money or disposed of as the nudge thinks most expedient for the purpose for certam of raising or securing, or repaying with or without interest, money l l which is to be or which has been applied to all or any of the pur- poses following : — " (a) Payment of the lunatic's debts or engagements. " (b) Discharge of any incumbrance on his property. " (c) Payment of any debt or expenditure incurred for the lunatic's maintenance or otherwise for his benefit. " (d) Payment of or provision for the expenses of his future maintenance. " (2) In case of a charge or mortgage being made under this Act for the expenses of future maintenance, the judge may direct the same to be payable, either contingently if the interest charged is a contingent or future one, or upon the happening of the event if the interest is depending on an event which must happen, and either in a gross sum or in annual or other periodical sums, and at such times and in such manner as he thinks expedient." The alterations in the law as regards mortgages and charges Present state of the law. (z) As to the restriction of this pro- in Re Freer, 22 Ch. D. at p. 627. vision to mortgages, &c. of land, see (a) Judicature Act, 1875 (38 & 39 per Giffard, V.-C, in Jones v. Green, Vict. c. 77), s. 7. L. R. 5 Eq. 555, and per Chitty, J., (b) 53 Vict. c. 5. 358 OF MORTGAGORS — LUNATICS. CHAPTER XX. Exeri ise of jurisdiction. t of jurisdi Purposes for which juris- diction may be exercised. Procedure. of the property of lunatics introduced by the present Act, and the rules made thereunder, seem to be as follows : — 1. The jurisdiction to direct such mortgages and charges to be made is exerciseable by " the judge," that is to say, the Lord Chancellor for the time being, entrusted by the Sign Manual with the care and commitment of the custody of the persons and estates of lunatics, acting alone or jointly with any one or more of such judges of the Supreme Court as may for the time being be so entrusted, or by any one or more of such judges (c). 2. The jurisdiction extends so as to authorize mortgages, &c. of any property of a lunatic, that is to say, real or personal property, whether in possession, reversion, remainder, contin- gency, or expectancy, and any estate or interest, and any undi- vided share therein (d). 3. A mortgage or charge may be ordered not only, as formerly, for payment of the lunatic's debts or engagements, or of any incumbrance on his property, but for his past or future maintenance, or otherwise for his benefit. 4. Applications under sect. 117 may be made with regard to the property not only of lunatics so found by inquisition, but also of persons not so found, including persons who, through mental infirmity arising from disease or age, are incapable of managing their own affairs (/) See sect. 116 (2). (A) Rules in Lunacy, 1892, r. 19. (i) lie Fox, 33 Ch. D. 37. \k) Rule 48, and Form 8 in Sched. to Rules of 1892. (I) Rules 49 and 50, and Form 9 in Sched. JUEISDICTION. 359 the evidence, of the propriety of the application, he certifies to chapter xx. the judge accordingly ; and on confirmation of the certificate, the master settles and approves a proper mortgage, and the committee, or other authorized person, upon payment to him, or as may he directed, of the amount to he raised, shall, in the name and on hehalf of the lunatic, execute the mortgage when so selected and approved, and do all such other acts as are necessary to effectuate the same, and shall, out of the income of the estate of the lunatic or person of unsound mind, pay and keep down the interest on the mortgage (m). In other respects, it would appear that the former law and practice with regard to mortgages and charges of lunatics' estates are unaltered, and that the decisions under the earlier statutes are still in force. Independently of the Married Women's Property Act, Order where 1882 («), the realty or reversionary personalty of a lunatic ^^ ua married woman, not heing property settled to her separate use, woman, cannot he effectually conveyed to a mortgagee hy her committee, inasmuch as such a conveyance requires to he acknowledged hy her personally (0). But though the Lunacy Act contains no machinery hy means of which a conveyance of the legal estate of a married woman of unsound mind in freehold property can he obtained, the judge has power to make an order binding her beneficial interest in such property, and that of her heir after her death (p). An order directing a mortgage or charge on the property of Benefit of a lunatic will not be made unless it is shown to be just and considered 1 * reasonable, and for the lunatic's benefit. Thus the Lord Chan- cellor refused the application of a lunatic's father, tenant for life of large landed estates, for an order charging the estate of the lunatic tenant in tail in remainder with a sum found by the master to be proper for the lunatic's maintenance, there being no special circumstances nor any evidence that the state of the applicant's family was such as to make the charge just and reasonable (?). If they all die, the office will revert to the first owner of a prior life estate (»). In case of the lunacy of a protector, the Lord Chancellor, or other the person or persons entrusted with the care of lunatics (o) , and in cases of treason or felony, or in cases of infancy, or if it be uncertain whether the protector be living or dead, the Court of Chancery is to be the protector (p). A protector cannot be controlled in the exercise of his discre- tion as to giving or withholding his consent (q) . It would seem that a contract under seal by a protector to give his consent would be a sufficient consent under the Act, or might be specifi- cally enforced (;•). A consent once given is irrevocable (s). The consent may be given by the disentailing assurance itself, or by a distinct deed to be executed either on or at any time before the day on which the assurance is made, otherwise the consent will be void (t). And the consent, if given by a distinct deed, is to be considered absolute and unqualified, unless expressly confined by the protector to a particular disentailing assurance (it). In the case of a legal entail of copyholds, if the consent of the protector is given by deed, the deed must be executed by the protector either at or before the time of making the surrender, and produced to the lord of the manor or steward, otherwise the (A) 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 74, s. 26. (i) Ibid., s. 27. (k) Ibid., s. 31. (I) Ibid., s. 32. \m) Bell v. Holtby, L. R. 15 Eq. 178. («) Clarke v. Chamberlin, 16 Ch. D. 176. (o) 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 74, s. 33. {p) See ibid., and Be Wainwright, 1 Phil. 258. (q) See Bankes v. Le Bespencer, 11 Sim. 527. (?) Bankes v. Small, 36 Ch. D. 716, at p. 7), or, during the protectorship, with the protector's consent (r) ; and where the base fee becomes —by union united with the immediate remainder or reversion in fee in the W1 . ? e " . mainder in same lands, the base fee instead of being merged into the greater fee ; estate will, ipso facto, become enlarged (d). By sect. 6 of the Eeal Property Limitation Act, 1S74 (e), — byposses- where a tenant in tail has created a base fee, and any person by virtue of such assurance enters into and continues in possession or receipt of the rents and profits of the land, the remainders will be effectually barred at the end of twelve years from the time when the tenant in tail or his issue could, without the consent of any pro- tector, have barred the remainders under the stat. 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 74. Where a conveyance to a purchaser comprised a base fee, and also a prior life estate, it was held that, until the deter- mination of the life estate, time did not begin to run in favour of the purchaser's possession under the conveyance, so as to bar the remainders over (/). And where, for want of the consent of the protector, the dis- , —b y sal( ; in ■"■ bankruptcy. (x) Ibid., s. 52. (d) Ibid., s. 39. {i,) Ibid., s. 51. (e) 37 & 38 Viet. c. 57. See Perry v. (a) See ibid., s. 50. Alkn, 7 L>e G-. M. & G. 426 ; Morgan (a) Ibid., s. 34. v. Morgan, L. R. 10 Eq. 99. (b) Ibid., s. 38. (/) Mills v. Capel, L. R. 20 Eq. \c) Ibid., ss. 35, 38, 692. 374 OF MOETGAGOES — TENANTS IN TAIL. CHAPTER XXI. Conveyance of fee under Settled Land Acts. Security let in by subsequent fine or re- covery. Voidable estates con- firmed by subsequent disposition. Defective assurance by bankrupt tenant in tail, position by the trustee in bankruptcy under this Act has only the effect of creating a base fee, or the base fee only of the bankrupt is sold under the Bankruptcy Act, such base fee is made ipso facto to enlarge into a fee simple upon there ceasing to be a protector ( g) . A tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct, and a person entitled to a base fee, can exercise the statutory powers of a tenant for life so as to convey the fee simple of the lands by way of mortgage, for any purpose authorized by the Settled Land Acts (//). If, prior to 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 74, a tenant in tail, whether in possession or reversion, made a mortgage security without fine or recovery, and afterwards levied a fine or suffered a common recovery, he let in the assurance, even against a purchaser or mortgagee without notice (/). Where judgment had been obtained and execution had been issued against a tenant in tail in possession, so as in effect, by virtue of the statute 1 & 2 Yict. c. 110 s. 13, to give to the creditor a charge similar to a mortgage of the base fee, the debtor was ordered, in a suit to realize the charge, to execute a disentailing deed, so as to wholly bar the entail and give full effect to the charge created by the judgment (,/). In respect of estates voidable through the defective assurance of a tenant in tail, sect. 38 of that Act has mainly followed the common law, by enacting that a voidable estate, created in favour of a purchaser (or mortgagee) for a valuable considera- tion, shall (so far as a subsequent assurance by the tenant in tail can operate under the provisions of the Act) be confirmed by such assurance. But the statute has altered the common law, by introducing an exception in favour of a purchaser for valu- able consideration not having express notice of the first assur- ance, and consequently such purchaser, although he may have notice by implication of the defective assurance, yet, if he has not express notice, will not be bound by it. By sect. 62 of the Act it is enacted, that a voidable estate created by a tenant in tail (which term includes the person (ff) Sects. 60, 61. By the B. A. 1883, s. 56 (5), the provisions of the 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 74, on this subject are extended to proceedings in bankruptcy under that Act. (A) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 38, s. 18 ; 53 & 54 Vict. c. 69, s. 11. And see He Mor- xh end's Settled Estates, W. N. (1893) 180. See post, p. 391. (i) Hunt v. Gateler, Boph. 5, 6 ; Stapilton v. Stapilton, 1 Atk. 8 ; Tourle v. Rand, 2 Bro. C. C. 650; Doe v. Wichelo, 8 T. R. 214; Lloyd v. Lloyd, 4 Dr. & War. 354 ; Beck v. Walsh, 1 Wils. 276. (J) Zeivisv. Dioicombe, 20 Beav. 398. ENLARGEMENT OF BASE TEE. 375 entitled to a base fee, and who would have been actual tenant chaptee xxi. in tail if the base fee had not been created), becoming bankrupt, in favour of a purchaser for a valuable consideration, shall be confirmed by the disposition of the trustee in bankruptcy (so far as the assurance can operate under the provisions of the Act), unless such disposition shall be made to a purchaser for a valu- able consideration without express notice. And by the Act the trustee is directed to convey to purchasers the estates of bankrupt tenants in tail (/>•), and the trustee is authorized ad interim to receive rents and enforce covenants (/). And the like effect is given to the disposition by the trustee Death of after the bankrupt's decease, as if he had been alive in the several cases mentioned in the clause, which seem to include all cases except the following : where at the time of the bankrupt's decease there is no protector ; or where at the time of disposition there is issue who would be inheritable under the entail, and there is at the same time either no protector, or a protector con- senting or not consenting ; or where the bankrupt was tenant in tail entitled to a base fee, and there is at the time of disposition issue who would be inheritable under the entail, and a non-con- senting protector (m). In the last case the base fee would vest in the trustee by force of his appointment, under the Bank- ruptcy Act, 1883, ss. 20 and 21, as it formerly passed under the general bargain and sale. The bargain and sale of commissioners is now dispensed with Powers of as to copj^holds, a power of appointment of copyholds being vested in the trustees of the bankrupt's estate (n), and as to estates tail, the trustee in bankruptcy has the same powers as the tenant in tail (o). The sects. 56 to 73, both inclusive, of 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 74, are still in force, and were incorporated into the Bankruptcy Acts, 1849 and 1869, and are incorporated into the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, which gives to the trustee in bankruptcy power to deal with any property to which the bankrupt is beneficially entitled as tenant in tail, in the same manner as the bankrupt might have dealt with it. And it enacts that the sections above referred to shall extend and apply to proceedings in bankruptcy, under the Act of 1883, as if those sections were then re-enacted and made applicable in terms to such proceedings (o). (k) 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 74, ss. 56— (m) Ibid., s. 65. 59. (») B. A. 1883, s. 50 (4). (Z) Ibid., e. 67. (o) Ibid.,e. 56 (5). 376 OF MORTGAGORS— TENANTS IN TAIL. CHAPTER XXI. Effect of con- firmation of defective assurance. In the case of a defective mortgage in 1841 by a tenant in tail in remainder, who, after his bankruptcy and the death of the tenant for life, barred the entail, the confirmation by the commissioners in bankruptcy vested the fee simple in the mortgagee (p). Issue not bound. Courts of equity ex- cluded from giving any effect to dis- positions by- tenants in tail, or con- sents of pro- tectors of settlements, which in Courts of law would not be effectual. iv. — Covenants to perfect defective Assurances by Tenants in Tail. — It was decided under the old law that if the tenant in tail died before he had performed the necessary acts for barring the entail, the issue claiming per for mam doni would not be bound to perfect the title of the purchaser or mortgagee (q). It has been seen that the Fines and Eecoveries Act (r) draws a distinction between dispositions by tenants in tail resting in contract, which are not to be of any force under the Act, and interests actually created under the Act. And by sect. 47 of the Act it is enacted that — "In cases of dispositions of lands under this Act by tenants in tail thereof, and also in cases of consents by protectors of settle- ments to dispositions of lands under this Act by tenants in tail thereof, the jurisdiction of Courts of equity shall be altogether excluded, either on the behalf of a person claiming for a valuable or meritorious consideration, or not, in regard to the specific perform- ance of contracts, and the supplying of defects in the execution either of the powers of disposition given by this Act to tenants in tail, or of the powers of consent given by this Act to protectors of settlement, and the supplying under any circumstances of the want of execution of such powers of disposition and consent respectively, and in regard to giving effect in any manner to any act or deed by a tenant in tail or protector of a settlement which in a Court of law would not be an effectual disposition or consent under this Act ; and that no disposition of lands under this Act by a tenant in tail thereof in equity, and no consent by a protector of a settlement to a disposition of lands under this Act by a tenant in tail thereof in equity, shall be of any force unless such disposition or consent would, in case of an estate tail at law, be an effectual disposition or consent under this Act in a Court of law." Power of The effect of the 47th section is, that the Court cannot compel decree specific t he issue in tail or the remainderman to carry out a contract by performance a tenant in tail to execute a disentailing: assurance, or to remedy or covenant to . execute dis- any defects m such an assurance («) . entailing deed. But there is nothing in (p) Hankey v. Martin, 49 L. T. 560. (q) Stapilton v. Stapilton, 1 Atk. 8. See also Lit. ss. 46, 59.5, 712. And Bee cases cited ante, p. 368, note (?»). (r) 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 74, s. 15, ante, p. 366. (s) Bankes v. Small, 36 Ch. D. 716, C. A. See Mills v. Fox, 37 Ch. D. 162. COVENANT TO PERFECT ASSURANCE. '>' ' the Act to affect contracts as such, and accordingly, though a chapter xxi. covenant for further assurance generally, or even a covenant to execute a disentailing assurance, will not operate to bind the issue in tail or the remainderman under the Act, yet, as against the tenant in tail himself, non-fulfilment of the covenant may support an action for damages, or for specific per- formance (f). In such cases the question is whether, upon the construction Effect of of the covenant, it was the intention of the parties, expressly or furtheTasbm- by necessary implication, to bind the tenant in tail to do all in ance. his power to give to his mortgagee an effectual charge on the fee simple. In Davis v. Tollemache (u) , the covenant was for further assurance generally in the usual form, and the Court refused, in a suit for specific performance, to compel the tenant in tail, who had become bankrupt, to exercise the power of disposition reserved to him by sect. 64 of the Act by enlarging the estate conveyed by the mortgage. In this case the mort- gage was not inrolled, but this point does not appear material, as the covenant, qua contract, did not depend for its meaning or effect upon the provisions of the Act. In a recent case, however (cr), where a tenant in tail in Express cove - remainder barred his estate tail without the consent of the pro- execute dis- tector, and conveyed the base fee so created to a purchaser, covenanting not only for further assurance generally, but also to execute every such disentailing or other assurance as should be reasonably required, the vendor was directed, by way of specific performance of that covenant, to execute a disentailing deed so as to enlarge into a fee simple the base fee which was already vested in the purchaser. It was argued that a covenant for further assurance is only a covenant to further and better assure such estate as is conveyed by the deed which contains the covenant ; but Cotton, L. J., said that, whether that is so or not, under ordinary circumstances, may be a question, but that here there was an express contract to execute every such disentailing deed as might be necessary in order to vest the premises, i. e., the property conveyed, in the purchaser, his heirs and assigns. "Where the Court has power to compel the mortgagor tenant in tail to perfect the title, it will not point out what title the (t) Bankes v. Small, 36 Ch. D. 716. («) 2 Jur. N. S. 1181. See Petre v. Buncombe, 7 Ha. 24. (x) Bankes v. Small, sup. entailing assurance. 378 OF MORTGAGORS TENANTS IN TAIL. CHAPTER XXI. Rectification of deed. Nature of interest mis- understood. mortgagor shall make ; it will decree him to make such title to the mortgagee as he is capable of doing (//). Sect. 47 of the Act does not preclude the Court from rectify- ing the deed of disposition itself, on the ground of mistake or fraud, if it is shown that the instrument as executed and in- rolled does not carry out the intention of the parties (s). Similarly, where a disentailing disposition, duly executed and inrolled, sufficiently expressed the intention to convey the fee simple in the entailed property, and clearly passed the in- terest of all conveying parties, the security was upheld, though the nature of the interests of the conveying parties were mis- understood by them and misrecited in the deed (a). To an action for specific performance of a covenant by a tenant in tail in remainder to disentail the estate after the death of the tenant for life, judgment creditors of the tenant in tail, whose debts have been made charges on his estate under the stat. 1 & 2 Yict. c. 110, are not necessary parties (b). Of consent of protector. Dispensation with inrol- ment as to copyholds. V. — Inrolment of Dispositions. — The Act further renders inoperative every assurance of freeholds effected under the Act (except certain leases), though otherwise effectual for disposing of the estate, unless it is inrolled in Chancery (now the Enrolment Department of the Central Office) within six months from the date of execution (c) . Every consent of a protector to a disentailing assurance, if given by a distinct deed, is void unless such deed is inrolled in like manner, either at or before the time when the assurance is inrolled (d). In the case of copyholds, where a disposition by a tenant in tail is effected by surrender or by deed, the surrender, or the memorandum thereof, or a copy thereof, or the deed of disposi- tion, or the deed, if any, by which the protector shall consent, requires no inrolment otherwise than by entry on the court rolls (e). A disentailing assurance by a tenant in tail of copy- holds, if not entered on the court rolls of the manor within six months after execution, is void (/) . An indorsement by the steward that the deed was produced to him is not a sufficient (y) Sutton v. Stone, 2 Atk. 100. (2) Hall-Dare v. Hall-Dare, 31 Ch. D. 251, C. A. (a) Evans v. Jones, Kay, 29. (b) Petre v. Duncmnbe, 7 Ha. 24. (c) 3 L J -,-iii t •■ l parted with ment, will not, as a rule, be destroyed by the alienation or cliarg- his i nte rest. ing by him of his life interest under the settlement. And it makes no difference whether the alienation of the life interest is by the act of the tenant for life or by operation of law, but in such case the power cannot be exercised except with the consent of the trustee in bankruptcy (/). If, however, it clearly appears from the language of the deed whereby the power is created that it is intended to be exercise- able by the tenant for life only so long as he retains possession of his life interest, or, a fortiori, if the power contains an express statement to that effect, a charge or alienation by him of his interest under the settlement will destroy the power (k). In Long v. Rankin (I), where the question was, whether a power of leasing in the tenant for life was destroyed by his charging his life interest to secure an annuity, the above propo- sition was recognized, on the ground that " he who gives the power may give it with what qualifications he pleases." Where the question is, whether a power to sell or mortgage or to consent to or direct a sale or mortgage is destroyed or not by an alienation by the tenant for life of his life interest, the fact that in such alienation the power was expressly reserved is wholly immaterial (m) . Where the tenant for life has parted with his life interest, it Whether con- , . ■. , p i • currence of does not appear to be necessary, in a subsequent exercise ot Jus a i ienee i s power by the tenant for life, that the concurrence of the alienee necessary. (/) Simpson v. Bathurst, L. R. 5 (i) Re Cooper, Cooper v. Slight, 27 Ch A. 193. Ch. D. 565 ; Re Bedinqfield and Her- (ff) Jones' v. Wintvood, 3 M. & W. ring's Contract, (1893) 2 Ch. 332. 653; S. C, 10 Sim. 150. (k) Hasicell v. Haswell, 2 De G. F (A) Holdsworth v. Goose, 29 Beav. ill Eisdell v. Hammersky, 31 Beav. 255 Walwesley v. Butteruorth, 4 L. J. N. S Ch. 253; Warburton v. Farn, 16 Sim 625 ; Alexander v. Mills, L. R. 6 Ch & J. 456 ; Bullock v. Thome, 1 Moo. 615. And see Alexander v. Mills, sup., at p. 133. (/) Sug. Powers, 8th ed. 58, and App. at p. 895. A, 124. {>») Alexander v. Mills, sup 382 OF MORTGAGORS — TENANTS FOR LIFE. chapter xxii. of the life interest should he obtained, provided the rights of the alienee are not prejudiced (»). But, upon the principle that a man may not derogate from his own grant, an exercise of a power by a tenant for life, who has parted with or charged his life interest, will he valid only so far as it does not prejudicially affect the estate of the alienee (o). If the exercise of the power would interfere with the rights of the alienee of the life interest, the power is not extinguished, but merely suspended, and may be exercised with the consent and concurrence of the alienee, who may re-convey to the tenant for life or join in the conveyance to the subsequent purchaser or mortgagee (p). Statutory- powers of morto-ao-e Liability of mortgagees to see to ap- plication of moneys ad- vanced. Section II. Of Mortgages by Limited Owners, etc. under Statutory Powers for Special Purposes. i. — Generally. — Numerous statutes, of which the principal are briefly noticed in the following pages, have been from time to time passed conferring powers of mortgaging settled property on limited owners, and on behalf of persons under disability for specified purposes ; these statutes generally contain particular forms of mortgage enforced or recommended by authority of Parliament ; but if a statutory mortgage is contemplated, reference must be made to the particular Act in question for the requisite information (y). Questions on the liability of a purchaser or mortgagee under an Act of Parliament to see to the application of his money do not often arise, as a proper clause of indemnity is always inserted in well-drawn Acts. But, in the absence of any such clause, it seems that a purchaser or mortgagee will be bound to see that the money he advances is applied for the purposes of the Act, notwithstanding that he pays it into the hand appointed by the Act to receive it (r). (n) Hardakerv. Moorhouse, 26 Ch. D. 417, at pp. 422, 424. (o) West v. Berne?/, 1 R. & My. 431 ; Noel v. Lord Henley, M'Cl. & Y. 302 ; Stewart v. Marquis of Donegal, 2 J. & Lat. 636 ; Goodright v. Cator, Doug. 477 ; Alexander v. Mills, L. R. 6 Ch. A. 124. (p) Wahnesley v. Buttcrworth, 4 L. J. N. S. 253 ; Alexander v. Mills, L. R. 6 Ch. A. 124; Be Bedingfield and Herring's Contract, (1893) 2 Ch. 332. (q) As to land charges under various statutes made other-wise than by way of mortgage, see post, pp. 1378 et seq. (»•) Cotterell v. Hampson, 2 Vern. 5. MORTGAGES UNDER INCLOSURE ACTS. 383 ii,— Mortgages under Inclosure Acts. — By the General chapteb xxn. Inclosure Act(.s), husbands, guardians, trustees, committees, Guardians, _ nil T(? II till IS 101 or attorneys of any owners of allotments and exchanged lands, life> & c . may being under coverture, minors, lunatics, beyond the seas, or jjjjj^jjjjj 1 " under any other disability, and any of such owners, being expenses. tenants in tail, or for life or lives, or years determinable on a life or lives, or any other contingency, or otherwise interested, as therein mentioned (except rectors or vicars), may charge such allotments or exchanged lands with such sums, not exceed- ing 5/. per acre, as the Inclosure Commissioners (/) shall, by their award, adjudge necessary to defray their shares of the charges and expenses incident to the obtaining any Inclosure Act and carrying the same into execution, and of charging the lands, and may mortgage or otherwise subject the lands to be charged to the person advancing the money for any term of years ; or in case any person in possession, liable to a share of the expenses, shall choose to advance the money, then the com- missioners may, by deed attested by two witnesses, mortgage or otherwise subject the lands to such person paying the same for any term of years for the payment of such sum, with interest to commence on the termination of his right in the premises ; and such deed is to contain a covenant to pay and keep down the interest, so that no person shall be liable to pay arrears of interest other than for six calendar months preceding the time when his title to possession shall have commenced. These provisions are in substance re-enacted and extended by Power to sect. 133 of the General Inclosure Act, 1845 («), which provides Xtaients. that tenants for life or in tail, or for any other estate of free- hold or inheritance, and their husbands, guardians, &c, in case of disability or incapacity, and trustees, or feoffees for charitable, parochial, or other uses, or the majority of them, with the consent of the Commissioners (t), and incumbents, with the consent in writing of the bishop of the diocese, and the patron of the benefice, may charge their allotments with any money not exceeding 51. per acre towards their respective proportions of the inclosure expenses, and for securing the repayment of such money, with interest, may mortgage or demise their allotments ; provided every such mortgage or demise, by or on behalf of a (s) 41 Geo. III. c 109, s. 30. Simi- general Inclosure Act. lar powers of mortgaging were com- (t) Now the Board of Agriculture, monly inserted in the particular In- See 52 & 53 Vict. c. 30. closure Acts passed previously to the (w) 8 & 9 Vict. c. 118. 384 OF MOETGAGORS — TENANTS FOE LIFE. CHAPTER XXII. Money raised for expenses to be paid to commis- sioners. Compensation for equality on partition. Concurrence of commis- sioners. Advance by tenant for life for expenses. person entitled for life, shall contain a covenant to keep down the interest during his life, so that no subsequent owner shall be liable to more than six months' arrears accrued previous to the time when his title shall accrue or commence ; and, in the case of a benefice, the incumbent is to keep down the interest, and also to repay, in reduction of the principal, one thirtieth part of the money every year, until the whole be repaid ; and every such mortgage is to be valid in law for the purposes of the Act, and every such mortgagee and his assigns is to have the like remedies in case of non-payment as are usual in the case of mortgages of a like nature. By the statute 11 & 12 Vict. c. 99, s. 8, it is provided that on mortgage of allotments the money shall be paid to and applied by the commissioners, and their receipt shall be a sufficient discharge for the money. By the statute 20 & 21 Vict. c. 31, ss. 7, 8, on an exchange or partition, the disproportion in value of allotments may be compensated by a rentcharge, provided the deficiency in value does not exceed one-eighth of the actual value of the land. The concurrence of the commissioners in a mortgage by a tenant for life or in tail is not required by the Act. It is sufficient that they have certified the amount to be raised ; but in order to obtain from them a recognition of the fact of their having given their certificate, it is desirable that they should join in the mortgage. If a tenant for life advances money for expenses under an Inclosure Act, and dies without having taken a mortgage on the estate, his executors will be entitled to have the charge raised (cc). Mortgage, &c. iii, — Mortgages for Redemption of Land Tax. — The Land Tax redemption. ° Redemption Act (//) provides that, for the purpose of redeeming land tax on lands belonging to individuals, the persons in possession, but not having the absolute estate, and persons beneficially entitled to the rents and profits (except tenants at rack rent and Crown tenants), may sell part of such lands or may mortgage the same, or grant any rentcharge to the amount of the land tax : sect. 51. Tenants in tail in England may convey by deed enrolled : sect. 52. And committees, (x) Drinkivater v. Cuombc, 2 S. & St. 340. (y) 42 Geo. III. c. 116, s. 51. MORTGAGES UNDER COPYHOLD ACTS. 385 guardians, executors, and administrators or trustees may sell or chapter xxii. mortgage on behalf of persons under disability : sect. 53. Such _ sales or mortgages of estates in England are to be made under the authority of two of the commissioners for the time being acting in the execution of the Act, to whom one month's previous notice of the intended sale or mortgage must be given, with a schedule stating the interest of the party desirous of selling or mortgaging, the name of the remainderman, and the particulars of incumbrances affecting the property : sects. 54, 55. Trior mortgages are not to be affected by mortgages under this Act, except as to interest ; and they are to be entitled according to their priorities to advance the money required for the re- demption of the land tax in preference to all others : sect. 114. All mortgages under this Act are to be enrolled within six months if the consideration exceeds 200/. : sect. 19. Proof of the execution of the mortgage deed by the commissioners is to be sufficient evidence that all requirements of the Act were duly complied with : sect. 120. Where the tenant for life has redeemed the land tax, the Redemption remainderman can compel his representatives to receive the con- ky" e tenant for sideration money and clear the estate (s) . Where leaseholds are settled after redemption of the land Leaseholds, tax, the charge of the land tax does not pass, but remains in the settlor (a). Where a lessee agreed to pay the land tax, and it had been Redemption redeemed by the landlord, the lessee was still liable to pay the by landlord - amount (b) . The surplus sale moneys of land sold for redemption of land Surplus sale tax may be applied in discharge of incumbrances ( Km # Y - (b) See' He Jtherton, W. N. (1891) Haynes, 37 Ch. D. 306. 85. 392 OF MORTGAGORS TENANTS FOR LIFE. chapter xxii. the persons aforesaid, and to the instrument under which his estate or interest arises, and to the land therein comprised. "(3.) In any such case any reference in this Act to death as regards a tenant for life shall, where necessary, be deemed to refer to the determination by death or otherwise of such estate or interest as last aforesaid." Infant. Married "woman. i v# — Mortgages of Settled Lands where the Owner is under Disability. — An infant absolutely entitled to land is to be deemed tenant for life thereof (//) ; and where a tenant for life is an infant, the statutory powers may be exercised on his behalf by the trustees of the settlement, and, if there are none, by a person appointed by the Court for that purpose (/) . With regard to married women who are limited owners of settled lands, sect. 61 of the Act of 1882 enacts as follows : — " (1.) The foregoing provisions of this Act do not apply in the case of a married woman. " (2.) Where a married woman who, if she had not been a married woman, would have been a tenant for life, or would have had the powers of a tenant for life under the foregoing provisions of this Act, is entitled for her separate use, or is entitled under any statute, passed or to be passed, for her separate property, or as a, feme sole, then she, without her husband, shall have the powers of a tenant for life under this Act. " (3.) Where she is entitled otherwise than as aforesaid, then she and her husband together shall have the powers of a tenant for life under this Act. " (4.) The provisions of this Act referring to a tenant for life and a settlement and settled land shall extend to the married woman without her husband, or to her and her husband together, as the case may require, and to the instrument under which her estate or interest arises, and to the land therein comprised. " (5.) The married woman may execute, make and do all deeds, instruments and things necessary or proper for giving effect to the provisions of this section. " (6.) A restraint on anticipation in the settlement shall not prevent the exercise by her of any power under this Act." Married Women's Pro- perty Act, 1882. Infant married woman. This enactment is materially affected by, and should be read in connection with, the provisions of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (/r), which was passed later in the same session. If a married woman is an infant, this disability will prevent her [from exercising the statutory powers under this section ; {h) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 38, s. 59. (i) Ibid., s. 60. See as to consent on behalf of infant, He Duke of New- castle, 24 Ch. D. 129. ' w (Jc) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 75. MORTGAGES UNDER SETTLED LAND ACTS. 393 such powers will, however, be exerciseable on her behalf under chapter xsn . sects. 59 and 60 of the Act (/). Inasmuch as a conveyance by a married woman under this Whether con- section is made not by way of disposition under the Fines and requires ac- Recoveries Act (m), but in exercise of a statutory power, it is knowledg- conceived that the deed will not require acknowledgment, whether the power is exercised by herself alone, or by her and her husband together, and without regard to the date of her marriage. Where real estate stood limited to trustees upon trust for Restraint on . , ciTppi l -iii. anticipation. a married woman ior her lite tor her separate use without power of anticipation, and after her death to the use of such persons as she should by will appoint, and in default of such appoint- ment to the use of herself in fee, it was held that if she had not been a married woman she would have had the powers of a tenant for life under sect. 58, sub-sect. (1) (ix), and accordingly that she could make a title as such to a purchaser («) . But if a restraint on anticipation is annexed to an estate in fee simple of a married woman, who is of full age, there is no settlement, and she has not the powers of a tenant for life under the Act (o). With regard to lunatics who are limited owners of settled Lunatics, lands, sect. 62 of the Act of 1882 enacts that — "Where a tenant for life, or a person having the powers of a Tenant for tenant for life under this Act, is a lunatic, so found by inquisition, life . lunatic, the committee of his estate may, in his name and on his behalf, under an order of the Lord Chancellor, or other person intrusted by virtue of the Queen's sign manual with the care and commitment of the custody of the persons and estates of lunatics, exercise the powers of a tenant for life under this Act ; and the order may be made on the petition of any person interested in the settled land, or of the committee of the estate." It has been held that where an infant is of unsound mind the case falls within the ordinary jurisdiction of the Court Qj). By the Fines and Recoveries Act (3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 74), s. 91, it was provided that the Court of Common Pleas, in the case of a husband being a lunatic (whether so found by inquisition or (l) Hcarle v. Greenbank, 3 Atk. 695. (o) Bates v. Kesterton, (1896) 1 Ch. See Sug. Powers, 177. 159. (m) 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 74, ante, (p) Re Arrowsmith, 4 Jur. N. S. p. 316. 1122; Beall v. Smith, L. R. 9 Ch. (n) Re Pocock and Prankerd' 's Contract, A. 85 ; Re Edwards, 10 Ch. D. 605. (1896) 1 Ch. 302. 394 OF MORTGAGORS — TENANTS FOR LIFE. chaptee xxu. not) may dispense with his concurrence in any case in which his concurrence is required by that Act, or otherwise (•) ; and it seems very doubtful whether a general direction that legacies shall be paid, or a direction to the executors to pay them, coupled with a devise of realty to them, would charge the legacies on the real estate generally, or on the real estate so devised to them, either bene- ficially or in trust for other persons. The affirmative has been held in two cases (*), but has been dissented from in another (0) Warren v. Davis, 2 My. & K. 49. Wrigley v. Sykes, 21 Beav. 337. See Marshall v. Gingell, 21 Ch.D. 790. (o) Maskell v. Farrington, 3 De G. (Ji) Harris v. Watkins, Kay, 438. J. & S. 338 ; Earl of Portarlington v. (i) Be Bailey, Bailey v. Bailey, 12 Darner, 4 De G. J. & S. 161 ; Hannox Ch D. 268. v - Greener, L. R. 14 Eq. 456. ("*) Dillon v. Cruise, 3 Ir. Eq. R. 70, {p) Wheeler v. Claydon, 16 Beav. 169; 79 • Bridgman v. Dove, 3 Atk. 201 ; Quain v. Survey, 5 L. R. Ir. 622. Do'llon v. Hewen, 6 Madd. 9 ; Page v. (?) Bench v. Biles, 4 Madd. 188. See Adam, 4 Beav. 269 ; Zockhartv. Hardy, Bright v. Lurcher, 3 De G. & J. 148 ; 9 Beav 379. Field v. Beckett, 29 Beav. 568. (1) Will. Real Assets, pp. 44—48. (r) Kightley v. Kightley, 2 Ves. Jun. 328. {m) Palmer v. Graves, 1 Keen, 545 ; orser v. Gartwright, L. R. 7 H. L. 731. (») Taylor v. Taylor, 6 Sim. 246 ; Jones v. Williams, 1 Coll. 156. See Corser v. Gartwright, L. R. 7 H. L. 731. (s) Alcock v. Sparhawk, 2 Vera. 228 ; (») Taylor v. Taylor, 6 Sim. 246 ; Preston v. Preston, 2 Jur. N. S. 240. 410 OF MORTGAGORS — EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES. CHAP. XXIII. Direction to pay legacies. Extent of charge of legacies. case (r) ; the other cases usually cited in support of the pro- position appear to have been cases where the direction to pay legacies was followed by a gift of the residue of real and per- sonal estate. Where a testator directs his executors to pay his debts, or the payment of his debts and legacies (s), or of legacies only (t), or if he merely gives legacies (u), and also devises and bequeaths the residue of his real and personal estate together, the result is to charge the debts or legacies upon the real estate, unless a contrary intention is indicated, as by an express direc- tion that the payment shall be out of personal estate (.r). But this rule will not apply where the realty and personalty are separately devised and bequeathed (//) . A general charge of legacies on real estate will not charge realty specifically devised (z), unless the charge extends also to the payment of debts (a). Annuities, whether charged on corpus. Cases where the annuity was not charged on corjncs. iii, — Charge of Annuities. — An annuity is a legacy (b) ; so, if legacies and annuities are given by a will, which contains a charge of debts and legacies on real estate, the annuities are charged on the real estate (c) . "Whether an annuity is charged on the corjms, so as to be raiseable by sale or mortgage thereof, or only on the rents and profits, does not depend upon any abstract rule of law, but upon the intention to be gathered from the instrument (d). There is no charge on the corjms where an annuity is directed to be paid out of rents and profits, or out of interest without more (e), nor if it is to be paid out of the annual rents and profits (,/') ; {>■) Parker v. Feamley, 2 S. & St. 592. See also Be Cameron, Kixon v. Cameron, 26 Ch. D. 19. (s) Greville v. Browne, 7 H. L. C. 6S9 ; Wheeler v. Howell, 3 K. & J. 19S ; Gaimford v. Dunn, L. R. 17 Eq. 405 ; Be Brooke, Brooke v. Booke, 3 Ch. D. 630 ; Be Bailey, Ballet/ v. Bailey, 12 Ch. D. 268, 274 ; Elliott v. Dearslo/, 16 Ch. D. 327, C. A. ; Be Bawden, National Provincial Bank of England v. Cresswell, (1894) 1 Ch. 693, 700; Be Boards, Knight v. Knight, (1895) 1 Ch. 499. (t) Cross v. Kennington, 9 Beav. 150. (u) Elliot v. Hancock, 2 Vern. 143 ; Greville v. Broivne, supra; Be Bellis , s Trusts, 5 Ch. D. 504; Be Dyson and Fou-ke, (1896) 2 Ch. 720. (;>;) See Gyett v. Williams, 2 J. & H. 429. (y) Bray v. Stephens, 12 Ch. D. 162. (z) Spong v. Spong, 3 Bli. N. S. 34 ; Conron v. Conron, L. R. 7 H. L. 168. (a) Mas/cell v. Farrington, 3 De G. J. & S 338 {b) Sibley v. Perry, 7 Ves. 522; Bromley v. Wright, 7 Ha. 334; Ward v. Grey, 26 Beav. 485 ; Gaskin x r Rogers, L. R. 2 Eq. 284. (r) Heath v. Weston, 3 De G. M. & G. 601. (d) Clifford v. Arundell, 1 De G. F. & J. 307, 311. (<•) Earle v. Bellingham, 24 Beav. 445 ; Clifford v. Arundell, sup. ; Miller v. Huddlestone, 3 Mac. & G. 513; Hindle v. Taylor, 5 De G. M. & G. 577. (/) Forbes v. Richardson, 11 Ha. 354 ; Marsh v. Marsh, 2 Jur. N.-S. 348. CHARGE OF ANNUITIES. 411 but the deficiency of one year was made good out of the rents chap. xxra. of subsequent years (g) ; nor is the corpus charged when the annuity is to be paid out of the rents and profits only during the life of the annuitant (h) : nor where, after a direction to pay an annuity out of the rents, the surplus of the rents is disposed of (/') ; nor where it is to be paid out of the rents and profits, or " other moneys held upon the trust," the words " other moneys," meaning moneys " ejusdem generis " (k). A distinction is made where the question is raised, not between Question an annuitant and the residuary legatee, but between a tenant tenimTf or life for life and remainderman (/), in which latter case the property and remain- is intended to be kept intact during the life of the annuitant to go to the remainderman (m) . When an annuity is given by will out of land, by way of legal rent-charge, with powers of distress and entry, and the estate is devised in settlement, the deficiency of the annual rents to answer the annuity will not, at least in the lifetime of the annuitant, be made good by a sale or mortgage of the estate, unless the Court finds it necessary to make a decree for the sale or mortgage for some other purpose, as for payment of debts (n). But secus where the annuitant is dead, and the estate is unsettled (o) . A power to recover annuities when in arrear by " distress and sale," as rents are recovered by law, is insufficient to charge the corpus (p). If trustees are directed to lay out sufficient money to produce an annuity, and the funds set apart fail, the deficiency will not be raised out of the capital (q), unless, upon the construction of (g) Ibid. : Anderson v. Anderson, 33 (o) Cupit v. Jackson, 13 Pri. 721 ; Beav. 223. McCl. 504. (h) Foster v. Smith, 1 Ph. 629 ; (p) Addeeott v. Addeeott, 29 Beav. Earle v. Bellingham, 24 Beav. 445. See 460; Lambert v. Turner, 8 Jur. N. S. Phillips v. Gutteridge, 3 De G. J. & 1223; Taylor v. Taylor, It. R. 17 Eq. Sm. 332. 324. It is to be observed that in the (i) Stelfox v. Sugden, Johns. 234 ; last-cited case the lands were devised Clifford v. Arundell, 1 De G. F. & J. subject to and charged with the an- 307 ; Darbon v. Richards, 14 Sim. 537 ; nuities, a point which does not appear Sheppard v. Sheppard, 32 Beav. 194. to have been taken into account by Ik) Clifford v. Arundell, sup. Hall, V.-C., and which renders the (1) Cro.'y v. Weld, 3 De G. M. & G. decision somewhat unsatisfactory. See 993 ; Baker v. Baker, 6 H. L. C. 622 ; the observations thereon of North, J., Wright v. Callcndar, 2 De G. M. & G. in Re Tucker, Tucker v. Tucker, (1893) 652. 2 Ch. 323 ; and see inf., p. 412. (;w) Salvin v. Weston, 35 L. J. 552, (?) Baker v. Baker, 6 H. L. C. 622, Ch. ; Att.-Gcn. v. Poulden, 3 Ha. 555. questioning May v. Bennett, 1 Russ. (») Graves v. Hicks, 11 Sim. 551; 370; Michell v. Wilton, L. R. 20 Eq. Fhilipps v. Philipps, 8 Beav. 193. 269 ; Tarbottom v. Earle, 11 W. R. 680. 412 OF MORTGAGORS— EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES. CHAT. XXIII. Cases where the annuity was charged on corpus. Subject to an annuity. "When fund set apart the will, the intention appears to be that the capital is to be the fund liable to pay the annuity (r). Where lands were devised to trustees in trust to receive the rents from time to time, and ihcreout to pay an annuity to A. for life, and immediately after his decease to convey to other persons in fee ; it was held that, upon the death of the annuit- ant, a new trust arose, and, accordingly, the arrears did not form a charge upon the rents and profits accruing after his death (s) . The corpus is charged where the terms are "to levy and raise " the annuity out of the rents and profits (t), and also where, in addition to the direction to pay the annuity out of rents and profits, the estates are " devised subject to," or " charged with," or " after full payment and satisfaction of," or " on trust to pay thereout " (u). Where an estate was devised in fee, " subject to an annuity," and the estate was sold for payment of debts, the annuitant was allowed to have recourse to the surplus capital, the income being insufficient (.r) , and a prospective order has been made for the sale from time to time of so much of the corpus as would, together with the income, be necessary for raising the amount of the annuity (//) . Where trustees were directed to take an annuity out of the real estate, and, without prejudice to the annuity and the powers of enforcing the same, to stand possessed of the real estate for others, this was held to be a charge on the fee (s) . Where a fund is directed to be set apart for payment of the annuity, and the income of the whole estate is insufficient to pay it, and the terms are such as to indicate an intention to charge the corpus, the arrears are made good out of corpus (a) ; (»•) Mills v. Drewitt, 20 Beav. 632. \s) Foster v. Smith, 1 Ph. 629 ; Darbon v. Richards, 14 Sim. 537. (t) Play fair v. Cooper, 17 Beav. 187. (w) Hayncs v. Haynes, 3 De G. M. & G. 590 ; Gratrix v. Chambers, 7 Jur. N. S. 960 ; Hickman v. Upsall, 2 Giff. 124; Birch v. Sherratt, L. R. 2 Ch. 644 ; Re Mason, Mason v. Robinson, 8 Ch. D. 411 ; Re Livesey, Baron v. Aspden, TV. N. (1883) 127. (x) Stamper v. Pickering, 9 Sim. 176 ; Exp. Wilkinson, 3 De G. & Sm. 633 ; Birch v. Sherratt, sup. ; Miner v. Baldwin, 1 Sm. & G. 522 ; Picard v. Mitchell, 14 Beav. 103. (y) Hodge v. Lewin, 1 Beav. 431 ; Swallow v. Swallow, ibid. 432, note. (z) Miles v. Rowland, TV. N. (1881) 26. (a) Wright v. Callendar, 2 De G. M. & G. 652 ; Ingleman v. Worthington, 25 L. J. Ch. 46 ; Perkins v. Cooke, 2 J. & H. 393 ; Re Mason, Mason v. Robinson, 8 Ch. D. 411 ; Illsley v. Randall, TV. N. (1884) 123. A mortgage by an executor to secure arrears of an annuity belongs to the annuitant. See Depree v. Bedborough, 10 TV. R. 875. CHARGE OF ANNUITIES. 41( CHAP. XXIII. but in such a case, too much weight must not be attached to the words "subject thereto" (b). Similarly, where a fund is set apart by the Court to meet an annuity, and the fund is deficient (c) . If a fund is directed to be set apart for an annuity, and there is a gift of the entire residue and the part thereof so set apart, the corpus is charged (d). But if the annuity is given generally, a residuary gift fol- lowing of " all the remaining interests of my moneys " has been held not to prevent the annuity being charged on the corpus (e). So, an intention expressed in the will of making up the failure of another fund, on which the annuity was charged, has been held to have the effect of charging the corpus, though the annuity was given only out of the dividends with a limitation over (/). So where annuities were charged by the will upon the capital as well as the interest of the moneys to be produced by the sale and conversion of the leasehold and personal estate, and the trustees were directed, if occasion should require, to provide for payment of the annuities out of the rents, issues, and profits of the real estate in aid of the personalty, the annui- ties being in arrear, it was held, that the arrears were to be raised by sale or mortgage out of the real estate (g) . Where the annuity was directed to be secured out of the leasehold, it was held to be a charge on the corpus (h), and when the terms used amount to a charge on the fund, the corjnts can be resorted to (/). "Where the deficiency is to be made good out of corpus, the How the annuitant is not entitled to have the gross value paid out of anmmtymade capital on the principle of Wroughton v. Colquhoun (k), but is effectual, entitled to have the accruing payments of the annuity made good, if necessary, out of the corpus, as in Wright v. Callendar (/). If the annuity is charged on the residue, and an insufficient fund is set apart, the deficiency is still a charge on the rest of the residue (m). Where annuities are expressly charged on (b) Michellx. Wilton, L. R. 20 Eq. (/) Boyd v. Buckle, 10 Sim. 595. 269. See Thornber v. Wilson, 28 L. J. (g) Fentiman v. Fentiman, 13 Sim. Ch. 145; Ingleman v. Worthington, 171 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 436. 25 L. J. Ch. 46; Be Mason, 8 Ch. D. {h) Howarth v. Rothwcll,30Be&v. 516. 411. (i) Hickman v. Upsall, 2 Giff. 124 ; (c) Commissioners of Charitable Dona- Pearson v. Helliivell, L. R. 18 Eq. 411. tions v. St. Lawrence, 3 J. & L. 561. (/.•) 1 De G. & S. 357. (d) Carmichael v. Gee, 5 App. Cas. {I) 2 De G. M. & G. 652. 588. (m) Bright v. Larcher, 3 De G. & J. (e) Wroughton v. Colquhoun, 1 De G. 148 ; Daviesv. Wattier, 1 S. & St. 463; & S. 36. Illsley v. Randall, W. N. (1884) 123. 414 OF MOETGAGOES — EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES. chap. xxni. corpus, a provision for abatement in case the rents are insuffi- cient to pay the annuities in full does not exonerate the corpus {n) : . Whether an annuity is charged on a life estate, or only on the income of the tenant for life as and when actually received, depends on the context of the will (o). General rule. Charge primd facie created by direction to pay debts out of rents, &c. Effect of creating a trust to raise money. Where charge is on settled lands. iv. — Direction to raise Money out of Rents and Profits. — Lord Hardwicke, in Green v. Bekkier(p), said that "in general, where money is directed to be raised by rents and profits, unless there are other words to restrain the meaning, and to confine it to the receipt of the rents and profits as they accrue, the Court, in order to obtain the end which the party intended by raising the money, has, by a liberal construction of these words, taken them to amount to a direction to sell." A direction in a will to pay debts or legacies out of rents and profits prima facie creates a charge on the corpus authorizing money to be raised for payment of the debts by sale or mortgage (g). "Where a trust is created for the purpose of raising money out of rents and profits, if the trusts of the will require that a gross sum should at once be raised, the money will be raiseable out of the corpus of the estate itself by sale or mortgage (r). In JBaincs v. Dixon (s), estates were devised to trustees and their heirs upon trust for payment of the testator's funeral expenses, debts, and legacies, as far as his personal estate should be deficient, and for raising maintenance, &c, for his children ; and to convey to his eldest son, at twenty- three ; and he directed the legacies to be paid after his debts were satisfied, as the rents should advance the same. Lord Hardwicke, on appeal, directed the debts to be raised by sale, and the legacies to be paid out of the annual profits. Where a charge is on a settled estate, the Court, in deter- mining whether the charge will be raised by sale or mortgage, will give greater weight to the wishes of the persons whose (n) Pearson v. Hclliivell, L. R. 18 591 Eq. 411. (o) Maclcie v. Maclcie, 5 Ha. 70. (p) 1 Atk. 506. See also Gibson v. Rogers, Amb. 93 ; Barnes v. Dixon, 1 Ves. Sen. 42 ; Lingard v. Earl of Derby, 1 Bro. C. C. 311 ; Allan v. Backhouse, Jac. 631. (?) Metcalfe v. Hutchinson, 1 Ch. D. {>■) Bootle v. Blundell, 1 Mer. 232 ; Wilson v. Halliley, 1 R. & My. 590 ; Lord Londesborough v. Somervillc, 19 Beav. 295 ; Metcalfe v. Hutchinson, 1 Ch. D. 521 ; Balfour v. Cooper, 23 Ch. D. 472. (s) 1 Ves. Sen. 41. See Lingard v. Earl of Derby, 1 Bro. C. C. 311. DIRECTION TO EAISE OUT OF RENTS. 415 interests in the estate are immediate than to the wishes of the chap. xxin. persons whose interests are more remote (t). In Cooke v. Parsons (u) , Lord Nottingham thought that a Cases where direction in a will for payment of debts out of the " rents " ^t apply!** (without saying " profits ") was not sufficient whereon to ground a sale. And where a trust was created for payment of debts " by perception of rents and profits, or by leasing, or by mort- gaging " to raise sufficient money for the payment of debts, it was held not to authorize a sale ; if there had been a trust of the rents and profits, the term might have been sold (,r) . It may, apparently, be inferred that if " mortgaging " had not been expressly authorized, the words " perception of the rents and profits " would not have been held to authorize a mortgage. So, where money is to be raised " by and out of the rents and profits and by leasing for three lives or twenty-one years," or " out of the rents and profits or by sale of a moiety of the land," or "by rents and other ways and means, except a sale," or generally, where an authority is superadded less extensive than that of selling or mortgaging, the literal meaning of the words will be followed (//) . Again, it was held that a sale was not authorized where a testator, having given the rents of certain lands to his executors in trust therewith to raise and pay his debts, devised all his lands, subject to an annuity, to his sons, directing that they should not enter on the rents until all the debts should be paid (s) . Though the Court will generally, in favour of creditors, Distinction consider a devise in trust for payment of debts out of rents and ^Sderman profits to be equivalent to a devise of the estate itself, so as to « tenant for authorize a sale or mortgage thereof, where the remainderman is tenant in fee or in tail, and therefore liable to pay the debts, yet the case is different where the remainderman is tenant for life only ; for then the question arises whether he is to pay the interest of the charge only, or whether he shall also pay the capital. This is strictly a question of intention to be collected from the language of the will with reference to the provisions (t) Metcalfe v. Hutchinson, 1 Ch. D. (y) Ivy v. Gilbert, 2 P. Wins. 13 ; 591. Mills v. Banks, 3 P. Wins. 1 ; Hall v. (u) Prec. Ch. 184. And see Sir John Carter, 2 Atk. 358 ; Bennett v. Wyncl- Talbot v. Duke of Shrewsbury, G-ilb. ham, 23 Beav. 521. Rep. Eq. 89. (z) Small v. Wing, 5 Pro. P. C. G6. {x) Eidout v. Earl of Plymouth, 2 And see Harper v. Munclay, 7 De G Atk. 10.3. M. & O. 3G9. 416 OF MORTGAGOKS — EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES. CHAP. XXIII. contained in it (a). When the direction is alternative, as to raise money by sale or mortgage, or by perception of rents and profits, the meaning of the more general words will not be restricted (b). Lord St. Leo- nards' Act. Devisee in trust may raise money by sale, not- withstanding want of ex- press power in the will. Powers given by last sec- tion extended to survivor's devisees, &c. Executors to have power of raising money, &c. where there is no sufficient devise. V. — Mortgages of Realty by Executors and Trustees under Lord St. Leonards' Act. — By the Law of Property Amendment Act, 1859 (c), commonly known as Lord St. Leonards' Act, which was passed on the 13th of August, 1859, it is enacted as follows : — Sect. 14. " Where, by any will which shall come into operation after the passing of this Act, the testator shall have charged his real estate, or any specific portion thereof, with the payment of his debts, or with the payment of any legacy or other specific sum of money ; and shall have devised the estate so charged to any trustee or trustees for the whole of his estate or interest therein, and shall not have made any express provision for the raising of such debt, legacy, or sum of money out of such estate, it shall be lawful for the said devisee or devisees in trust, notwithstanding any trusts actually declared by the testator, to raise such debts, legacy, or money as aforesaid, by a sale and absolute disposition by public auction, or private contract, of the said hereditaments or any part thereof, or by a mortgage of the same, or partly in one mode and partly in the other, and any deed or deeds of mortgage so executed may reserve such rate of interest, and fix such period or periods of repayment, as the person or persons executing the same shall think proper." Sect. 15. " The powers conferred by the last section shall extend to all and every person or persons in whom the estate devised shall, for the time being, be vested by survivorship, descent, or devise, or to any person or persons, who may be appointed under any power in the will or by the Court of Chancery (d) to succeed to the trustee- ship vested in such devisee or devisees in trust as aforesaid." Sect. 16. "If any testator, who shall have created such a charge as is described in the fourteenth section, shall not have devised the hereditaments charged as aforesaid, in such terms as that his whole estate and interest therein shall become vested in any trustee or trustees, the executor or executors for the time being named in such will (if any) shall have the same or the like power of raising the said monej-s, as is hereinbefore vested in the devisee or devisees in trust of the said hereditaments ; and such power shall from time to time devolve to and become vested in the person or persons (if any) in whom the executorship shall, for the time being, be vested ; but (a) Seneage v. Lord Andover, 3 Y. & J. 260. See also Wilson v. HalUly, 1 R. & Mv. 590; Planters v. Abbot, 2 My. & K". 97. (b) Greaves v. Mattison, Sir T. Jones, 201 ; Gerrardr. Gerrard, 2 Vem. 458; Sandys v. Sandys, 1 P. Wms. 707 ; Goodall v. Rivers, Mosley, 395 ; Heb- blethwaite v. Cartwright, Forr. 30 ; Mall v. Carter, 2 Atk. 355. (c) 22 & 23 Vict. c. 35. (d) Now the Chancery Division of the High Court. i 417 LORD ST. LEONARDS' ACT. any sale or mortgage under this Act shall operate only on the estate ^hap^xii^ and interest, whether legal or equitable, of the_ testator, and shall not render it unnecessary to get in any outstanding subsisting legal eSt Sect'l7. "Purchasers or mortgagees shall not be bound to inquire J^ 8 ^ whether the powers conferred by ss. 14, 15, and 16 ot tms ivct, or to inquire as either of them, shall have been duly and correctly exercised by tJie to power8 . person or persons acting in virtue thereof . " 1 Sect. 18 P « The provisions contained in ss. 14, 15, and 16 shal not Sects, u 15 in any way prejudice or affect any sale or mortgage already made or ^ ^^ hereafter to be made, under or in pursuance of any will coming into sales> &c ; nor operation before the passing of this Act ; but the validity of any to extend to such sale or mortgage shall be ascertained and determined m all devises m fee respects as if this Act had not passed ; and the said several sections or m tad. shall not extend to a devise to any person or persons in fee or in tail or for the testator's whole estate and interest charged with debts, or legacies; nor shall they affect the power of any such devisee or devisees to sell or mortgage, as he or they may by law "lect 23. "The land fide payment to, and the receipt of any person Beodjpbte to whom any purchase or mortgage money shall be payable upon ^ &(j> to any express or implied trust, shaU effectually discharge the person relieve from paying the same from seeing to the application, or being answer- obligation able for the misapplication thereof, unless the contrary ^ shall he to -to the expressly declared by the instrument creating the trust or security. gP^ The effect of the statute may be shortly stated thus :- _ EJeotaf the 1. If a testator charges his real estate with debts, and devises all his estate therein to trustees, the trustees can give a title and receipt for the purchase-money (e). 2. The power extends to the trustees for the time being, however appointed (/). 3. If a testator charges his real estate with debts, and does not devise all his estate therein to trustees, the executor can, except in cases falling within s. 18, give such title and receipt 0). 4. A mortgagee advancing money to an executor or trustee, where the will contains a charge of debts, &c, on realty, is not, as a general rule, bound to see to the application of the money advanced (A). " Under the old law, prior to Lord St. Leonards' Act, in order men execu- to enable the executors of a will to raise money by sale or movtgage mortgage of their testator's realty, it must have been given to ]£j£££ them, either expressly or by necessary implication, by being made to pass through their hands in the execution of their (e) Sect. 14. (f) g°°J- "■ (/) Sect. 15. W Sect - 23 - E E VOL. I. R- 418 OF MORTGAGORS — EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES. chap. xxm. office, by an express or implied charge for payment of debts or legacies (/). The fact of there being a charge of debts on real estate devised to trustees did not enlarge their estate into a fee simple, so as to enable them to sell (k). But where the trustees were also executors, they were held to have the legal estate in fee, with power to sell for payment of debts (I). It is also clear that a charge of debts enabled the trustees and the executor together to sell or mortgage (m). And these cases were considered to involve the decision that it was the executor who was to sell, and not the devisee (»). "Where there was a charge of debts on real estate, which was devised to one for life, with contingent remainders over, a power of sale in the executor was implied (o) . The whole doctrine was founded upon the principle of carrying out most conveniently the intention of the testator. A charge of debts implies a power of sale or mortgage in someone, and the donee of the power is to be ascertained from the whole will (p). Effect of Lord Where there is a charge of debts or legacies express or implied, AcWhei^' OJ sects - 14 and 15 of Lord St - Leonards' Act, if the will devises there is a the testator's realty to trustees, then, in the absence of contrary trustees. intention expressed by the will, the trustees for the time being of the will have power to sell or mortgage the realty for payment of debts or legacies. Where, upon the construction of a will, it seemed doubtful whether the testator intended to vest his realty in his trustees, or to make them mere releases to the use of the beneficiaries, it was held that a direction to pay debts was sufficient to show that the intention was to devise the realty to the trustees in fee in trust for the beneficiaries (q). Where the widow of a deceased partner, who was sole trustee and executrix of his will, concurred with the surviving partner (i) Beutham v. Wiltshire, 4 Madd. (m) S?iaw v. Sorrer, 1 Keen, 559 ; 44. See Curtis v. Fullbrook, 8 Ha. 25, Ball v. Harris, 8 Sim. 485 ; 4 My. & 278 ; Hai/don v. Wood, 8 Ha. 279. See Cr. 264. See Re Jones, Button v. Pitt v. Felham, 1 Ch. Ca. 176; Patton Brookficld, W. N. (1889) 176. v. Randall, 1 J. & W. 189 ; Carvill v. (n) Gosling v. Carter, 1 Coll. 644, Carvill, 2 Rep. in Ch. 301. 649, 652. (h) KenricIcY. BordBeauclerk,3B. & (o) Robinson v. Bowater, 5 De G. P. 175 ; Boe v. Ewart, 7 A. & E. 636, M. & G. 272. 668 ; Dean v. Mcllor, 5 T. R. 55S. (p) Eidsforth v. Armstead, 2 K. & J. (I) Creaton v. Creaton, 3 Sm. & G. 333. 286 ; Spence v. Spence, 12 C. B. N. S. (q) Re Brooke, Brooke v. Brooke, 199 ; Marshall v. Gingell, 21 Ch. D. (1894) 1 Ch. 43. See also Hawkins on 790. Wills, 151, 152. LORD ST. LEONARDS' ACT. 419 in selling real estate forming part of the partnership property, chap. xxm. it was held that, as executrix, she had power to sell and give an effectual receipt for the purchase-money, and as trustee, to convey the legal estate (r) . "Where the real estate is not devised in trust, sect. 16, by Effect where giving to the executors the same power of raising money as is, ^ '^ s t ^° g ^ e " by sects. 14, 15, given to devisees in trust, appears clearly to empower the executors raising money to convey to a mortgagee the legal estate in the mortgaged lands. Prior to the statute, some doubts were expressed on this point (s), but the better opinion would seem to be that, under a general charge of debts, the executors had such a power (/). Independently of the statute, an administrator with the will Whether . , Tii • t i jn administrator annexed was never deemed to have an implied power to sell or ma y mor t- mortgage the testator's realty by virtue of a charge of debts ; 8' a s° land - and the expression in sect. 16, " persons in whom the executor- ship is for the time being vested," has been held not to include an administrator («) . Where real estate is devised, charged with debts, to a person Effect of who is not a trustee or executor, the effect of sect. 18 of the Act chafed with' is to prevent the statutory power of the executor to dispose of debts to and convey the property from extending to such a case, and to executor or leave the question as to the power of the devisee to sell or trustee - mortgage free from debts and legacies to be determined by the law as it exists irrespective of the statute. This question does not appear free from doubt. "Where there is a devise of the legal estate to a particular person, and the estate is charged with the payment of debts and legacies, it is clear that the money cannot be raised except through the instrumentality of the devisee who is the only person who can make a legal title {x). It has also been held that, though the statute 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 104, makes real estate " assets to be administered in Courts of Equity " for payment of debts of the deceased, the statute does not make the debts, before decree of administration, such a charge on the land as to render a bona fide purchaser or mort- gagee from the devisee liable to see to the application of the (;■) West of England, §c. Banlc v. 20 Eq. 317, 320. Murch, 23 Ch. D. 138. (u) Re Clay and Tctley, 16 Ch. D. 3, (s) See Gosling v. Carter, 1 Coll. 614; C. A. See also Sug. Powers, 111; Blalch v. Wilder, 1 Atk. 420. Earwell, Powers, 88, 96 ; and Shep. (t) Collyer v. Finch, 7 H. L. C. 905, Touchst. by Preston, 417 a, note (p). at p. 922. See Briggs v. Sharp, L. R. (<) Collyer v. Finch, 5 H. L. C. 90-5. E E 2 420 OF MORTGAGORS — EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES. CHAP. XXIII. Exception of devises in fee or in tail. Receipt of executor or trustee for moneys advanced. Power of money (y). And in Corscr v. Cartwright (s) the Court of Appeal laid it clown as a general rule that the effect of a devise of real estate charged with debts or legacies is altogether to supersede any implied power which such a charge would otherwise give to the executors to sell or mortgage the real estate ; but, on appeal to the House of Lords (a), all the learned lords pointed out that, in the case before them, the devisee was also an exe- cutor of the will, and, though the decision of the Court of Appeal was affirmed on that ground, Lord Cairns, C, expressly disclaimed giving any opinion as to the case of a person who is not an executor being devisee of an estate charged with payment of debts. It is, therefore, apprehended that an intending mortgagee dealing with a devisee of real estate charged with debts or legacies, should either require the concurrence of the executor or should be careful to ascertain that the money is required for payment of the debts or legacies, and that it is applied for that purpose. If it is alleged that all debts and legacies have been paid, the mortgagee, before treating the borrower as an ordinary devisee, should satisfy himself that this is the case by such evi- dence as the case admits of (b) . The exception laid dowu in the concluding clause of sect. 18 does not apply where an estate is devised by way of settlement charged with debts or legacies, so that there is no individual or individuals who are able to make a good title to a mortgagee ; in such a case, the executors have power to make a valid mort- gage under sect. 16 of the Act (c). The provision of sect. 23 of Lord St. Leonards' Act that a receipt of trustees or executors shall relieve purchasers and mortgagees from the obligation to see to the application of moneys paid, is still in force, but has been virtually superseded by sect. 20 of the Trustee Act, 1893 (d), which enacts as follows : — " (1.) The receipt in writing of any trustee for any money, secu- (y) Kinderley v. Jervis, 22 Beav. i. See Spackman v. Timbrell, 8 Sim. 260 Ball v. Harris, 2 My. & Cr. .264, 268 Richardson v. Horton, 7 Beav. 112 Pimm v. Insall, 1 Mac. & G. 449. (a) L. R. 8 Ch. App. 971. {a) S. C, 7 H. L. 731, 737. (b) It must be borne in mind that tbere can be no specific enforcement of an agreement to advance money, so that an intending mortgagee, unlike a purchaser, may make any requisi- tions be thinks fit, and is not bound to complete the transaction unless such requisitions are answered to his entire satisfaction. (c) Re Wilson, Pennington v. Payne, 34 W. R. 512. {d) 56 & 57 Vict. c. 53, s. 20. LORD ST. LEONARDS' ACT. 421 rities, or oilier personal property or effects payable, transferable, chap. xxra. or deliverable to him nnder any trust or power, shall be a suffi- , , , cient discharge for the same, and shall effectually exonerate the ^yg reC eipts. person paying, transferring, or delivering the same from seeing to the application or being answerable for any loss or misapplication thereof. " (2.) This section applies to trusts created either before or after the commencement of this Act." It has been seen that fraud or collusion on the part of the Fraud or mortgagee, or the fact that he has actual or constructive notice of any impropriety attending the transaction, will deprive him of the statutory protection against liability to see to the applica- tion of the money advanced. On this principle, if an estate is devised subject to debts and legacies, a mortgagee advancing money to the devisee, although also the executor, is liable to the charge if the circumstances of the case afford intrinsic evidence, or it otherwise appear, that the mortgage money is not to be applied in payment of debts and legacies, but for the private purposes of the mortgagor (r) . It was held, under the former law, that if estates were devised Specific sums charged with specific sums to the executors for payment of debts, a mortgagee was bound to see to the application of the mortgage money, notwithstanding releases had been executed to the devisees by the executors, but which did not show the charges to have been raised or paid (/). But the statutory power of trustees or executors now extends to sums payable to them, so as to exonerate the person paying the money from the liability. In several cases decided before the Act (g), it was held that Whether the implied power to sell by virtue of a charge of debts, ex- bound to in- onerated a purchaser or mortgagee from inquiry as to whether ^ n ^ e whether the debts had been paid notwithstanding a very considerable paid, lapse of time since the testator's death. It was, however, laid down by the Court of Appeal that after a lapse of twenty years, which is sufficient to bar mortgage debts and all other specialty debts, there is a presumption that the debts are paid ; so that, after the twenty years have elapsed, a purchaser or mortgagee is bound to inquire whether the debts are paid ; or, otherwise, (e) Walker v. Taylor, 8 Jur. N. S. 206. See Horn v. Horn, 2 S. & St. 448. 681, H. L. ; Corser v. Cartwright, (g) Forbes v. Peacock, 12 Sim. 528 L. R. 7 H. L. 726 ; West of England (25 years) ; Sabine v. Heape, 27 Beav. Bank v. Murch, 23 Ch. D. 138. ' 553 (27 years) ; Wrigley v. Sykes, 21 (/) Braithwaite v. Britain, 1 Kee. Beav. 337 (33 years). 422 OF MORTGAGORS — EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES. chap. xxin. Distinction in regard to leaseholds. Charge of debts and legacies. he will be liable if the money is applied improperly for other purposes ; but within that period he is not bound or entitled so to inquire (//). The rule, however, applies only to sales of realty, the right of an executor to dispose of which depends solely on a power implied by a charge of debts, &c, and does not apply to lease- holds which are vested in the executor in his character as such, giving him complete power to deal. An executor dealing with leaseholds or other personalty of his testator must, therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, be presumed to have acted in the discharge of his duties as executor, and a purchaser or mortgagee is not bound or entitled, notwithstanding any lapse of time, to inquire whether the debts, &c, have been paid (/). It is settled that a general charge of debts and legacies, including annuities, on real estate, renders a purchaser or mort- gagee from the devisee-executor safe from seeing to the applica- tion of the purchase or mortgage money so long as any part of the trust is unperformed, although the purchaser or mortgagee is aware that all the debts have been paid ; the rule depending on the state of things at the testator's death, and being unaffected by a subsequent change of circumstances (j ) . Power to raise money for exchange, &c. Section III. Of Statutory Powers of Trustees to raise Money for Special Purposes. i, — Mortgages of Settled Property. — By sect. 9 of Lord Cranworth's Act (/»•), trustees of settled lands were empowered to raise money for equality of exchange, and for renewals of leases for lives or for years, by mortgage of the hereditaments received in exchange or contained in the renewed lease (as the case might be), or of any hereditaments subject to the subsisting uses or trusts of the settlement, and to convey the hereditaments to be comprised in the security accordingly. This enactment is now repealed by the Settled Land Act, 1882 (/), with a saving of rights accrued, or obligations incurred, and the validity and operation of instruments previously made. (/;) Re Tanqueray-Willaume and Lan- dau, 20 Ch. D. 465, 480, C. A. (i) Re Whistler, 35 Ch. D. 561. See Be Venn and Furze's Contract, (1894) 2 Ch. 101. U) Eland v. Eland, 4 My. & Cr. 420 ; Tage v. Adam, 4 Beav. 269 ; Storey v. Walsh, 18 Beav. 559. (k) 23 & 24 Vict. c. 145, s. 9. (I) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 38, s. 64, and Sched. STATUTOEY POWERS OF MORTGAGING. 423 The repealed enactment, therefore, applies only to exchanges chap. nm. and renewals made between the 28th August, 1860, and the 31st December, 1882. Powers of raising money for equality of exchange and other purposes are now given to tenants for life and other limited owners of settled lands, and to the trustees of the settlement, where the owners are infants, by the Settled Land Acts, 1882 and 1890 (m). As regards the renewal of leases, there was no statutory power Renewal of to raise money for that purpose from the year 1882 until the leases - 24th December, 1888, when the Trustee Act, 1888 («.), came into operation. By sect. 11 of that Act, which applied to trusts created as well before as after the passing thereof, the provisions of the repealed enactment contained in Lord Cranworth's Act are virtually re-enacted. Sect. 11 of the Trustee Act, 1888, has been in its turn repealed by the Trustee Act, 1893 (o), but re-enacted in similar terms. It is to be observed that neither the repealed section nor the enactment now in force contains any power for the trustees raising money for renewals to convey or assure the hereditaments intended to be comprised in the security, so that it would seem that the only security they can give is by way of equitable charge upon the lands (/>). The effect of the above statutory enactments is merely to facilitate the renewal of leases of lands comprised in settlements, and not to alter any rule of law as between tenant for life and remainderman, with respect to the ultimate incidence of the expenses of renewal (q) . By the statute 57 & 58 Yict. c. 30, sect. 9, sub-sect. (5), Payment of executors and trustees, being accountable for estate duty, may es a e u Y' for the purpose of paying the duty, or recouping themselves the amount of duty already paid by them, raise the amount of such duty and any interest and incidental expenses by sale or mort- gage of the property to which the duty has attached. ii. — Mortgages under the Charitable Trusts Acts. — The The Charit- 16 & 17 Yict. c. 137, constituting the Charity Commission, Act, 1853. 8 (>») Ibid., ss. 18, 58, 59, 60; 53 & 54 (p) Be Baring, Jeune v. Baring, Vict. c. 69, s. 11. (1893) 1 Ch. 61. In) 51 & 52 Vict. c. 59. (•), a majority of the trustees are empowered to execute all assurances, &c., requisite for carry- ing any mortgage into effect, on behalf of themselves and of their co-trustees, and also of the official trustee, in cases where his concurrence would otherwise be required (rr). Section IV. Of Mortgages by Trustees under Express Powers. i. — Of Powers of Mortgaging in Settlements and Wills.- When express powers are required. Express powers authorizing trustees to raise money for purposes connected with their trusts were formerly often inserted in settlements and wills, and are required at the present day if it (q) See Be Mason's Orphanage, (1S96) 1 Ch. 596, C. A. (>•) 32 & 33 Vict. c. 110. A majority of two-thirds of the trustees was for- merly necessary. See 23 & 24 Vict. c. 136, s. 16 (repealed). (rr) As to when the concurrence of the official trustee is required, see 16 & 17 Vict. c. 137, ss. 47—50 ; and 18 & 19 Vict. c. 124, s. 30. MORTGAGES UNDER EXPRESS POWERS. 425 is desired that money should be raised for purposes other than ohap. xxiii. those of enfranchisement, exchange, or partition, or of discharge of incumbrances affecting settled lands («), or of renewal of leases (/). Where trustees have a discretionary power to sell or mortgage Discretion of settled property, the Court will not enforce the exercise of the power, however beneficial its exercise may be (it) . If there be a devise in trust, by mortgage or sale, to raise money for payment of debts, the trustees may proceed to raise the money without the sanction of a decree ; for decrees do not give rights, but are only executions of the trust or power already subsisting (.>•) . If the power to mortgago is for payment of debts on a deficiency of personalty, there can be no mortgage after a decree proving that all debts are paid (//) . A power or trust to raise money by mortgage may be created What will by informal words (z) . Estates are sometimes vested in trustees p 0wer f upon trust or with power to sell, without any express power mortgaging, to mortgage. It has been held that mortgage is pro tanto a sale, and that therefore a trust or power for sale will, generally speaking, include a mortgage (a) ; but the authority to mortgage must depgnd upon the nature of the trust. If the object of the trust is for a definite purpose, such as to raise a certain sum of money for debts, portions, and the like, without an ulterior intention of effecting an entire conversion into personalty by an absolute sale, there seems no objection to the money being in every case, where practicable, raised by mortgage. Questions of this sort must depend on the peculiar circumstances of the trust, and the intention of the parties as shown on the instrument. A mortgage, however, would not be authorized under a trust Contrary for conversion out and out (V) ; or where an intention appears inteatl0ri - that a complete conversion by sale should be effected (c) . (s) As to the statutory powers of {y) Carlyon v. Truscott, L. R. 20 Eq. limited owners to raise money for en- 348. franchisement, &c., see 45 & 46 Vict. (z) Denyssen v. Hotkey, 8 W. R. 710. c. 38, s. 18 ; and 53 & 54 Vict. c. 69, (a) Mills v. Banks, 3 P. Wms. 9 ; s. 11, ante, p. 385. Earl of Orforcl v. Lord Albemarle, 17 (t) Supra, p. 423. L. J. Ch. 396. See Ball v. Harris, (a) Camdenv. Murray, 16 Ch. D. 161 ; 4 My. & Cr. 276. Tonpest v. Lord Camoys, 21 Ch. D. 571, (b) Stronghill v. Anstey, 1 De G. M. C. A. & G. 635 ; Page v. Cooper, 16 Beav. (x) Earl of Bath v. Earl of Bradford, 396. 2 Ves. Sen. 586. And see Jones v. (c) Holdenby v. Spoforth, 1 Beav. Price, 11 Sim. 557. 390. 426 OF MORTGAGORS — TRUSTEES. CHAP. XXIII. "Whether power to mortgage authorizes a sale. Power to " raise " money. Power to charge. General power of appoint- ment. Where land is directed to be sold by trustees, they have only a power, but no estate (d). A power given by will to the executors and trustees thereof to wind up the testator's affairs, &c, and in so doing to make any " sales or other arrangements " as they should think fit, was held to empower the trustees to raise money by mortgage of the testator's real estate (e). Where a testator devised and bequeathed all his property to trustees and directed them to carry on his business, and em- powered them to increase or abridge the business and the capital thereof, it was held that, inasmuch as the trustees had power to sell the realty and use the proceeds so as to increase the business, they had power to mortgage the realty for that purpose (/). Conversely, a sale is not, generally speaking, authorized by a power to raise money by mortgage {g). But where a tenant for life under a settlement had a general power to charge the estate to any amount, and by his will he directed the estate to be sold, a sale was decreed pursuant to this direction (//) . And a power to raise money " by mortgage or otherwise " will autho- rize a sale (/) . It is doubtful whether, under a trust to raise money by sale or mortgage, trustees £an make a sale after having raised the money required by mortgage ; at all events, the mortgagee cannot compel the trustees to sell (j). A power to "raise" a sum of money has been held to autho- rize a sale, and could apparently enable the donee of the power also to mortgage (k) . A general power to charge will authorize an appointment of the fee to secure the money raised (/) ; but it would seem that a particular power of charging does not enable the donee of the power to appoint the fee by way of mortgage, but only enables him to create an equitable charge (m). Conversely, a power to appoint the fee will authorize a charge which the Court will, as a general rule, carry into effect by a (d) Elliott v. Fisher, 12 Sim. 505 ; Thompson v. Todd, 15 Ir. Ch. R. 337. {() Re Jones, Button v. Frookjield, W. N. (1889) 176. (/) Re Dimmock, Fimmockv. Fimmock, 52 L. T. 494. See Redman v. Rymers, 65 L. T. 270. (c/) Ridout v. Earl of Plymouth, 2 Atk. 104. (h) Long v. Long, 5 Ves. 445. (i) TascJcer v. Small, 6 Sim. 625, affd. on other points, 3 My. & Cr. 63. (J) Fall; v. Lord Clinton, 12 Ves. 56. (k) Wareham v. Frown, 2 Vern. 153 ; Fateman v. Fatcman, 1 Atk. 421. (/) Long v. Long, 5 Ves. 445 ; Fate- man v. Fateman, sup. ; Fralcc v. Whit- more, 5 De G. & S. 619. (»i) Jenkins v. Key mis, 1 Ch. Ca. 103. MORTGAGES UNDER EXPRESS POWERS. 427 sale («). In such a case, the Court may authorize an appoint- chap, xxiii . ment to trustees in trust for sale (o). In one case, a power to charge with a sum of money was held to authorize the grant of a rent-charge, until the principal and interest were paid {p) ; but the case was a very special one. Upon the general principle elsewhere referred to (a) , that a Fines for re- ,. * , B . X 1 W> newal.when direction to raise money out 01 rents and profits tor a purpose raisoable out which requires a gross sum to be raised at once, will charge the of rents > &c# corpus of the estate, fines for the renewal of leases for lives and upon taking admittance to copyholds, may be raised (•>•) out of the estate itself, although the rents and profits be the only specified fund. Where there is a power to raise fines out of annual rents and pronts, with power to mortgage in case the necessary sums shall not be provided in that manner, the fines will be payable out of the income if it be sufficient (s). But where the power is simply to raise the fines out of the rents or by mortgage, if the trustees refuse to exercise their discretion as to the mode of raising the money, the Court, in pursuance of its general principles, will so raise it as to throw the burden upon the parties in proportion to their interests in the property charged ; although it seems the trustees, in the exercise of their power, might have made a different disposition (f). It has been seen that the receipt of trustees for moneys Trustees advanced to them will generally exonerate the mortgagee from eceip 9 ' seeing to the application of the money (w) ; but fraud or collusion on his part, enabling the trustees to apply the money to their own purposes, will vitiate the mortgage (rr). A power to charge an estate with a specific sum of money Interest. without mentioning interest, includes a power to charge with interest (y) ; and the interest may be at any rate fixed by the donee of the power, who is not limited to the rate of interest allowed by the Court (s) . But this rule does not apply where the trustees have not a discretionary power to charge, but an (n) Roberts v. Dixall, 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. (t) Jones v. Jones, 5 Ha. 440 ; Ainslic 668. And see Palmer v. Wheeler, 2 Ba. y.Harcourt, 28 Beav. 313. & Be. 18 ; Skclton v. Flanagan, Ir. R. 1 (u) 22 & 23 Vict. c. 35, s. 23 ; 56 & Eq. 362. 57 Vict. c. 53, s. 20, ante, p. 401. (o) Kcnworthy v. Bate, 6 Ves. 793. (.t) Burt v. Truman, 6 Jur. N. S. 721. \p) Blake v. Marnell, 2 Ba. & Be. 35. \y) Eilmurry v. Geery, 2 Salk. 538 ; (q) Ante, p. 414. Boycot v. Cotton, 1 Atk. 556 ; Evelyn v. (V) Allan v. Backhouse, 2 V. & B. Evelyn, 2 P. "Wms. 659 ; Hall v. Carter, 65 ; Playlers v. Abbott, 2 My. & K. 97 ; 3 Atk. 359 ; Lewis v. Freke, 2 Ves. jun. Garmstone v. Gaunt, 9 Jur. 78. 507, (s) Solley v. Wood, 29 Beav. 482. (z) Lewis v. Freke, sup. 428 OF MORTGAGORS — TRUSTEES. CHAP. XXIII. Costs. Covenant to pay. Power of sale. imperative trust to raise a sum of money for specific purposes ; in such a case, the interest must not exceed the rate of 4 per cent., or, in the case of Irish estates, of 5 per cent. (/>). Where trustees have power to raise a sum of money, they have power also to raise the costs of the mortgage (q) . Where real estate subject to several incumbrances was con- veyed to trustees in trust to raise 75,000/. to pay off the incum- brances prior to a mortgage to A., who paid off and took transfers of the prior incumbrances; the trustees then, by a deed to which the mortgagor was a party, purported to assign to A. the 75,000/. raiseable under the trust deed, and to convey to him the property by way of mortgage to secure 75,000/. and interest ; it was held that this was not a mortgage under the trust, and that, as against mesne incumbrancers, A. could only stand as a transferee of the incumbrances transferred to the extent of the security thereby created (>•) . ii, — Form of Mortgage by Trustees. — A covenant to pay in a mortgage by trustees is unusual (s) ; and where a covenant was entered into by a trustee-mortgagor, an action on such covenant was, under circumstances of fraud, restrained (/). It may now be considered settled that a power to trustees or others to mortgage authorizes a mortgage with power of sale (»), in opposition to former authorities (z). It is safer, however, that trustees to whom power to mortgage is given, should be authorized in terms to give a power of sale (>/). Where money is directed by the Court to be raised by mort- gage, a power of sale has been sometimes inserted (c), and sometimes refused (a) . The plan has sometimes been to give a power of sale with a proviso that it shall not be exercised during the infancy or other disability of the persons entitled subject to the mortgage, without the leave of the Court (b). (p) Balfour v. Cooper, 23 Ch. D. 473, C. A., distinguishing' Young v. Lord Waterparh, 13 Sim. 199. (q) Armstrong v. Armstrong, L. R. 18 Eq. 541. See Scivell v. Bishopp, 62 L. J. Ch. 985, C. A. (r) Thompson v. Hudson, L. R. 2 Ch. A. 255, reversed on other grounds, L. R. 4 H. L. 2. (s) See Stronghill v. Anstey, 1 De G-. M. &G. 635, at p. 642. (t) Greenfield v. Edwards, 2 De G-. J. & S. 582. (u) Bailey v. Abraham, 14 L. T. 219, Q. B. ; Bridges v. Longman, 24 Beav. 27 ; Cook v. Dawson, 29 Beav. 128 ; lie Chaumer's Will, L. R. S Eq. 569. See Bennett v. Wyndham, 4 De G. F. & J. 259 ; Bussettv. L'laice, 18 Beav. 21 ; Cruikshanh v. Duffin, L. R. 13 Eq. 555. (.>•) Clarice v. The Royal Panopticon, 4 Drew. 26 ; Sanders v. Richards, 2 CoU. 568. (y) Dav. Con. (4th ed.) vol. ii. pt. 2, p. 85. (z) Selby v. Cooling, 23 Beav. 418. (a) Drake v. Whiimore, 19 L. T. 243. (b) 2 Dav. Conv. 3rd ed. p. 635; 4th ed. p. 86. 429 MORTGAGES TO RAISE PORTIONS, ETC. CHAP. XXIII. Section V. Of Mortgages under Trust Terms for Portions and Maintenance. i.-At what Time Portions are raiseable.-In modem settle- ^J^, ments and wills where portions are intended to be provided, the by mortgage, trustees are usually empowered, after the deaths of the tenants &c - for life, or in their lifetime if they shall direct, to raise any part of the portions for the advancement of the children, and, after the deaths of the tenants for life and until the portions are pay- able, to raise certain sums for maintenance, not exceeding the amount of interest on the principal of the portion, with a proviso that the trustees shall not mortgage or sell until some one of the portions becomes payable. The general rule is, that when portions are by will or settle- General rule, mcnt vested, and directed to be paid at a given time, and raised by sale or mortgage of a term, they shall be raiseable at such time out of the term, though reversionary, unless an intention is shown on the will or settlement that the payment shall be postponed until the term comes into possession (c). The portions are thus raiseable in the parents' lifetime, though the term is not to com- mence till after their death, or their death without issue male (as the case may be). If all the contingencies have happened, the portions must be raised, notwithstanding the injury to the remainderman by the sale or mortgage of the term (d) ; secus, if all the contingencies have not happened ( Rail r. Carter, 2 Atk. 355 ; 448 ; Churchman v. Harvey Amb. 33o. aSh t Evans, Amb. 633 ; Gmwwy y. (?) Brome v. Jtarftft* 2 P. Wms. Conwau 3 Bro. C. C. 267, explained in 484 ; Stevens v. IJethik, 3 Atk. 39. Z7iZ'ton v. Lord Foley, 6 Ves. 363, at (*) Brome v. Berkeley, sup. 430 OF MORTGAGORS — TRUSTEES. chap. xxin. tenanoe does not prevent the operation of the rule in the face of a clear and express declaration (/) . A contrary intention has also been considered to be shown by an option to the trustees to raise the portions either out of the rents and profits, or by sale or mortgage of the term ; but the better opinion is, that the exercise of the option by the trustees shall not be allowed to prejudice the right to the immediate raising of the portions (,/) . The circumstance also of the settle- ment providing that the children should out of the premises receive a yearly sum for maintenance, and that the residue of the rents should in the meantime, until the portions became payable, be received by the persons entitled to the reversion immediately expectant on the term, has been thought a sufficient indication of the intention to take the case out of the general rule (/.•). So, where there was a proviso in the settlement, making the portion contingent during the father's lifetime, and the father had a power of revocation (/) . If a parent, who is tenant for life, with remainder to trustees, of a term for raising portions, has a power of appointing the portions, they cannot be raised in the parent's lifetime (m). Inconveni- The inconveniences urged as arising from the rule, were these : if the portions were ordered to be raised by sale of the rever- sionary term, the interests of the remainderman or reversioner might, in case the property was not of great value, be totally sacrificed to the raising of the portions ; and even if the property was considerable, still the injury done to the estate might be very serious. If the portions were ordered to be raised by mortgage of the reversionary term, then the estate of the tenant for life must be encroached upon to satisfy the accruing interest of the mortgage, contrary to the intent, and in many cases, the express wording, of the settlement, or the only alternative was that the interest should run in arrear ; and as in such latter case the mortgagee might, under the old practice (n), have brought his action, and, by procuring rests to be taken, might have con- verted interest into principal, it was clear that, if the tenant for life lived many years, the interest might have doubled or even trebled the principal, and by such means have proved the total ruin of the estate. (i) Lyon v. Chandos, 3 Atk. 416. see Michcll v. Michell, 4 Beav. 495. (j) Hebblethtvaite v. Cartivright, Forr. (I) Reresby v. Newland, 2 P. Wms. 94. 30 ; Hall v. Carter, 2 Atk. 355. \m) Wyntcr v. Bold, 1 S. & St. 507. (k) Stevens v. DethicJc, 3 Atk. 39; (n) See Whotton v. Cradock, 1 Keen, Smyth v. Foley, 3 Y. & C. Ex. 142. But at p. 268. ences from rule. MORTGAGES TO RAISE PORTIONS, ETC. 431 These inconveniences so weighed with some judges, that chap. xxih. trifling circumstances have been seized hold of in order to escape from its operation (o) . This view was, however, disapproved of by Lord Eldon {p), who said, " The rule upon the whole depends upon this, whether it was the intention of the parties to the instrument, attending to the whole of it, that the portion should or should not be raised in this manner. Taking it prima facie to be the intention ujdou the general rule, if there is nothing more than a limitation to the parent for life with a term to raise portions at the age of twenty-one or marriage, and the interests are vested, and the contingencies have happened at which the portions are to be paid, the interest is payable and the portions must be raised in the only manner in which they can be raised, that is, by mort- gage or sale of the reversionary term" (q). The rule laid down by Lord Eldon has since been followed in Smyth v. Foley (r), and is thoroughly established. Under a trust for raising portions and maintenance, the Court Maintenance will not direct maintenance to be raised on the portion of a °^^^ n child of a first marriage during the life of a second wife, marriage, although she takes no estate, if the words of the trust are clearly opposed to it (s) . Portions carry interest, though not mentioned, as from the Interest. time when they ought to be raised and paid (t), but not before that time (u). Accordingly, if a portion is directed to be raised out of rents and profits, and no time is appointed for raising the portion, only the bare sum required, without interest, must be raised, and any mortgage of the trust term for the purpose of raising the mortgage will be void {x). Trustees empowered to raise money for portions have an Costs. implied power to raise the incidental costs of a mortgage (y). As to raising all the portions as soon as one becomes payable, (0) Stanley v. Stanley, 1 Atk. 549; Windsor, 2 Ves. Sen. 472, at p. 487; Clinton v. Lord Seymour, 4 Ves. 440. Daly v. French, 6 B. P. C. by Toml. 55 ; ( p) Codrington v. Lord Foley, 6 Ves. Codrington v. Lord Foley, 6 Ves. 364. 363. See Hall v. Carter, 2 Atk. 355, at (ej) Hebblethwaitev. Cartwright, Por. p. 358. 30. (w) Churchman v. Harvey, Amb. 335, (r) 3 T. & C Ex. 142. And see Cotton at p. 342 ; Reynolds v. Heyrick, 1 Ed. v. Cotton, 3 Y. & C. Ex. 149, n. ; and 48. Goaghv. Andrews, 1 Coll. 59. (%) Ivy v. Gilbert, 2 P. Wms. 13. (.s) Hume v. Bundell, 2 S, & St. 174. See Green v. Belchier, 1 Atk. 505. But quccre, the construction of the trust. (y) Michcll v. Michcll, 4 Beav. 495; (t) Evelyn v. Evelyn, 2 P. Wins. 659, Armstrong v. Armstrong, L. R. 18 Eq. at p. 669; Earl of Pomfret v. Lord 541. 432 - OF MORTGAGORS — TRUSTEES. chap. xxm. see Gittibrand v. Goold (z). In the exercise of a discretion on this point, the trustees should consider, on the one hand, how far the loss by infant portionists of the security of the term until their portions are raised is an objection to raising the entire sum at once (a) ; and, on the other hand, that the raising of each portion as it becomes payable by a separate mortgage may cause considerable expense to the estate (b). ii, — Methods of raising Money. — If a settlement or will con- tains a charge of portions, without specifying in what manner the money required is to be raised, a mortgage may be made for that purpose under the direction of the Court, as in the case of any other charge (c) ; but where the trusts of the term pre- scribe a particular method for raising the portions, this implies a negative that they shall not be raised in any other way (d) . Modern settlements usually contain an express direction that the portions may be raised by (among other means) mortgage of all or any of the settled lands and hereditaments for the whole or any part of the term. In the absence of such direction, the power of the trustees of the term to raise money for portions by means of a mortgage is a question of intention to be collected from the context of the settlement or will (e) . The general question as to whether and under what circum- stances a direction to raise money out of rents and profits will authorize a mortgage out of the corpus of the estate has been already considered (/). This question is now reverted to with special reference to its application to raising money for portions. It would seem that, according to the more modern decisions, the natural or ordinary meaning of raising a portion by rents and profits, is by the yearly profits (g), and the cases which have extended it further are exceptions out of the general rule, in which the context has afforded a different construction (A). (z) 5 Sim. 155. (e) See Wilson v. Salliley, 1 R. & (a) Wynter v. Bold, 1 S. & St. 510 ; My. 590, at p. 599. Sheppard v. Wilson, 4 Ha. 392, at (/) Ante, p. 41 4. p. 394. {ff) Ivy v. Gilbert, 2 P. Wms. 13 ; (b) Otway-Carc v. Otway, L. R. 2 Phillips v. Phillips, 8 Beav. 193; Foster Eq. 725. See Gillibrand v. Goold, 5 v. Smith, 1 Ph. 629 : Shaftesbury v. Sim. 149. Marlborough, 2 My. & K. ill ; Durban (c) See Dav. Conv. 3rd ed. vol. iii. v. Bickards, 14 Sim. 537. p. 447. (h) 2 P. Wms. 19 ; Allan v. Pack- id) Ivy v. Gilbert, 2 P. "Wms. 12, at house, 2 V. & B. 65 ; Garmistone v. p. 19. See Davics v. Wesemnb, 2 Sim. Gaunt, 9 Jur. 78. 425. MORTGAGES TO RAISE PORTIONS, ETC. 433 Thus, where a time certain is prefixed for the payment of chap. xxin. portions, and it is evident that the annual profits will not raise the money within that time, the Court has directed a mort- gage (/) . So, also, in a case where the trust of a term was out of the rents and profits to raise 8,000/. for daughters' portions, to be paid to them "as soon as conveniently could he," two points were made : — first, whether the 8,000/. could be raised by sale or mortgage, and secondly, whether it should carry interest, and from what time ; and it was considered, that as the daughters were of age at the time of the father's death, it would be conve- nient to raise the portions forthwith ; and it was decreed, that the portions should be raised by sale or mortgage, and that the 8,000/. should carry interest from the death of their father (/«•). The principle applies where the sum is immediately raiseable — a gross sum that must be raised (/) . But equity would not raise the portions by mortgage, if the children were of tender years at the death of the father (w) ; and in such case the portions would have become due when the rents would have raised them, and would have carried no interest ; as soon as the portions could have been raised by the rents, the land would have borne its burden and have been discharged (»). If the trust be to raise portions out of rents and profits, no time being appointed for payment, and the child dies under twenty-one, and unmarried before it is raised, the portion will, in such case, be raised out of the annual rents, for the Court will not, it seems, direct a mortgage (o). Where an annual sum is directed to be raised for maintenance, Trust to raise and there is an existing life estate, and it is not clearly expressed f ™ that the maintenance is not to commence until after the deter- tenance. mination of that estate, the question of intention arises as in the case of the portion itself. If it is ascertained to be the intention that the maintenance shall commence notwithstanding the life estate, but the payment of it is clearly confined to be (i) Backhouse v. Middleton, 1 Ch. Ca. 416. And see Stanhope v. Thacker, 173 ; Eeycock v. Hey cock, 1 Vern. 256 ; Prec. Ch. 435. Berry v.Askham, 2 Vern. 26; Warburton (I) Metcalfe v. Hutchinson, 1 Ch. D. v. Warburton, 2 Vern. 420 ; Okeden v. 598. And see Balfour v. Cooper, 23 Okeden, 1 Atk. 552 ; Green v. Belchier, Ch. D. 472, C. A. 1 Atk. 505 ; Shrewsbury v. Shrewsbury, (m) Evelyn v. Evelyn, 2 P. Wms. 1 Ves. J. 234. And see 2 Ves. J. 659. 481, n. ; and Allan v. Backhouse, 3 V. (») Ivy v. Gilbert, 2 P. Wms. 12. & B. 65 ; Wilson v. Hallilcy, 1 R. & (o) Earl Rivers v. Earl of Derby, My. 590. 2 Vern. 72. See Evelyn v. Evelyn, 2 (/-•) Trafford v. Ashton, 1 P. Wms. P. Wms. at p. 672. VOL. I. — R. F F annual sum main- 434 OF MORTGAGORS — TRUSTEES. chap. xxin. out of annual profits, it must from necessity either encroach on the life estate, or run in arrear ; the former can never bo con- sidered the intention, as the term is reversionary to the estate : the maintenance must therefore run in arrear, and when the trust term falls into possession, all the arrears must be paid (]>). If the trusts for raising the portion and maintenance are extended to sale or mortgage, it was for some time considered doubtful whether the Court would raise the maintenance by way of mortgage ; for it is manifest there is some difficulty in accom- plishing it, inasmuch as the maintenance is a running sum becoming due quarterly or half-yearly; and in Fierpoint v. Lord Cheyney (y), Lord Chancellor Parker said that he had not been enabled to find a single precedent for mortgaging a rever- sion for maintenance ; but in the subsequent case of MavenhillY. Dansey (p), Lord Chancellor Macclesfield considered it clear, that when the child had no other maintenance, it had been decreed to be raised by mortgage of the reversionary interest of the term ; and (■;•), where the term was not reversionary, but the trust was to raise the portion on the death of the jointress, who had a rent-charge, the Master of the Rolls gave maintenance during the life of the widow, and seemed to be inclined to think, that even if the trust had been reversionary, maintenance might, if necessary, have been raised by sale or mortgage (>•). The same principle was followed by the House of Lords in Milltown v. French (s), and by the Yice-Chancellor of England, in Freeman v. Simpson (/), where interest was given on legacies, which were charged, after the death of the testator's wife, upon real estate in aid of the personalty, from the time the legacies became due out of the personal estate, as general pecuniary legacies. In one case (u) , an estate was limited to the use of the Duke of Newcastle for life, with the remainder to trustees for 1000 years, with remainder to the Earl of Lincoln for life, and the trusts of the term were, to raise a portion for an only daughter of the earl, and maintenance was to be paid, after the death of the earl, out of the rents and profits, and the surplus of the rents and profits to be paid to the person for the time being entitled to the reversion or remainder expectant on the deter- (p) Ravenhill v. Bansey, 2 P. Wms. (s) 4 CI. & Fin. 276. 179. \t) 6 Sim. 75. (?) 1 P. "Wms. 488. (w) Lady Clinton v. Lord Robert Sey- (r) Lyddon v. Lyddon, 14 Ves. 55S, mom; 4 Ves. 440. at p. 566. MORTGAGES TO EAISE PORTIONS, ETC. *°° mination of the term. It was held that as the maintenance was chap, xxiii. to be raised out of the annual profits, and not by sale or mort- gage, which could not be during the life of the duke, for the duke was not a person entitled to the reversion or remainder expectant upon the determination of the term, the daughter was not entitled to interest until the death of the duke. Where an infant entitled in possession to real estate had no other means of maintenance than the rents, which were insuffi- cient, an order was made that an allowance for his past main- tenance should be charged upon, or raised out of, the corpus of the estate (.r). But in two recent cases this decision was dis- approved of, and the Court refused to make orders for mainten- ance out of corpus, where infants were entitled in remainder (y). iii —Legacy and Succession Duty.— In raising portions by ^ega^a^d mortgage, the trustees should take care that the legacy and estate n portions, duty either be paid by the portionist, or deducted in ascertaining the amount secured by the mortgage, as the trustees are liable for the duty (2), as well as the devisees of the estate subject to the portions whether in fee or for life (a). But the trustee or devisee paying the legacy duty can recover it from the por- tionist (b), unless the portions were devised clear of all deduc- tions (c). And trustees may raise the amount of estate duty payable or paid by them in respect of portions by sale or mort- gage of the term ( is void(o) ; but not so, if made in the intermediate period between the passing of 43 Geo. III. c. 84, and 57 Geo. III. c. 99 (p) ; and where a term to secure an annuity was created in the living prior to the latter statute, but assigned subsequent/// to it, to secure a sum advanced to redeem the annuity, or to secure a fresh annuity granted in consideration of such sum (q) , such assignment was held valid ; and such term may be assigned as a security for a much larger annuity or sum (>■) ; and if in a deed of charge made in the intermediate period, there is a covenant to charge any living subsequently acquired, and an exchange is made prior to the revival of 13 Eliz. c. 20, the charge on the newly-acquired living will be valid, although the new grant is dated subsequently to the statute 57 Geo. III. c. 99 (s). The Irish Act, 10 & 11 Car. I. c. 3, does not render invalid a charge on a benefice during the life of the grantor, but only prevents it from binding his successor (t) . Though the charge is void, collateral securities — e.g., cove- nants, bonds, and warrants of attorney — to secure the debt, are valid, as the transaction is not malum in se (u). Charge pa- A charge on a church living which cannot, since 57 Geo. III. c. 99, be created per directum, cannot be created per indirectum. And therefore a warrant of attorney reciting the annuity deed, and that the warrant is executed to the intent that a seques- tration may be obtained by the annuitant and continued during the continuance of the annuity for better securing the same, is void, as showing an intent indirectly to create a charge on the living (%). (») Kilderbee v. Ambrose, 10 Exch. (t) Wise v. Beresford, 3 Dr. & "War. 454. See 38 Geo. III. c. 60, s. 37 ; 39 276. Geo. III. c. 6, s. 5. (u) Mouys v. Leake, 8 T. R. 411 ; (o) Shaw v. Pritchard, 10 B. & Cr. Doe v. 3Iears, Co^vp. 129 ; Erringtonx. 241. Howard, Amb. 485. And see Doe v. (p) Doex. Somerville, 6 B. & Cr. 126. Barber, 2 T. R. 749 ; Brown v. Rose, 6 (?) Doe x. Gaily, 9 B. & Cr. 344 ; Doe Taunt. 124 ; Arbuckle x. Coivtan, 3 B. v. Bamsden, 4 B. & Ad. 608. & P. 321 ; Faircloth x. Gurney, 9 Bing. (r) Doe v. Ramsden, sup. ; Moore v. 622. Bamsden, 7 A. & E. 898. (a;) Flight v. Salter, 1 B. & Ad. 673; (s) Metcalfe v. Archbishop of York, Newlandv. Watkin,9Bmg. 113; Salt- 1 My. & Cr. 547. marshe v. Heicett, 1 A. & E. 812. MORTGAGES UNDER STATUTORY POWERS. 411 An agreement for giving priority to any particular judgment, chap. xxiv. in execution against a benefice, is void (y) . But if nothing appears on the instrument necessarily leading to the conclusion that such was the intent, the warrant of attorney will be valid, although the consequence may be that the profits of the living will probably be taken in execution (s) . In three cases of annuity, the Courts have confined the seques- Warrant of tration to the arrears due, but have upheld the warrant of orne y- attorney and judgment (a). It was decided that a judgment entered up on a warrant of attorney for securing an annuity charged on a living in the North Riding of Yorkshire (supposing the same to be in other respects maintainable), need not be registered under 8 Geo. II. c. 6, by reason that though it may be enforced by sequestration, yet the benefice is not affected by the judgment (b). If the intention to affect the benefice does not appear on the Parol face of any of the securities, mere parol evidence of the intention is not admissible to impeach them (c). The result of the authorities has been stated by a learned Result of ,T P11 • ? il • i i authorities. author, as follows: a warrant of attorney, given by a clergyman, will be valid, although its immediate object and consequence is a sequestration of his benefice ; but the intention to affect the living directly or indirectly must not appear on the face of the warrant, nor, as it is conceived, on any collateral instru- ment (d). ii. — Mortgages by Incumbents of Benefices under Statutory Powers of Powers for Building, &c— The incumbent of a benefice is em- tomStgage powered (c), with the consent of the ordinary and patron thereof, generally, to borrow and take up at interest a sum of money exceeding one year's, but not exceeding three years', net income of his benefice for the purpose of building, repairing, or purchasing a house and other necessary buildings, or a proper site for such (y) Long v. Storie, 3 De G. & S. 308. & Ad. 915. (:) Gibbons v. Hooper, 2 B. & Ad. (b) Cottle v. Warrington, 5 B. & Ad. 734. And see Newlancl v. Watkin, 9 447. Bing. 113; Faircloth v. Gurney, 9 (c) Colebrook v. Layton, 4 B. & Ad. Bing. 622 ; Aberdeen v. Neivland, 4 579 ; Bishop v. Hatch, 4 Jur. 318 ; Sim. 281. See Kirleiv v. Butts, 2 B. Johnson v. Brazier, 1 A. & E. 624. & Ad. 736, n. ; Colebrook v. Layton, (d) Dav. Conv., Vol. II. pt. ii., p 4 B. &Ad. 579. 26. (a) Kirlew v. Butts, sup. ; Moore v. (e) 17 Geo. III. c. 53 ; 21 Geo. III. Ramsden, 3B. & Ad. 917, n., and 8. C. c. 66 ; 1 & 2 Vict. c. 23. These Acts 4 B. & Ad. 608 ; Britten v. Wait, 3 B. are commonly called "Gilbert Acts," 442 OF MORTGAGORS — ECCLESIASTICAL CORPORATIONS. CHIP. XCl/ Additions to parsonage. Who may- advance money. Form of statutory mortsra^e. Meaning of " benefice." Successors bound. house and other necessary buildings, to be used as the parsonage or glebe house and offices for his benefice, such house, if pur- chased, to be at a distance of not more than one mile from the church ; and as a security for the money so to be borrowed, to mortgage the glebe, tithes, rentcharges, rents and other profits and emoluments of his benefice for the term of thirty-five years, the principal so borrowed being repayable by thirty annual instalments, with interest to accrue due thereon and in the same manner ; and, subject to the like consents and provisions, an incumbent is empowered (/) to borrow any sum of money not being less than one hundred pounds, and not exceeding three years' net income of his benefice, for the purpose of purchasing any lands or hereditaments, not exceeding twelve acres, con- tiguous to or desirable to be used or occupied with the parsonage house or glebe belonging to such benefice, or for the purpose of building any offices, stables or outbuildings, or fences necessary for the occupation or protection of such parsonage, or for the purpose of restoring the fabric of the chancel of the church of such benefice (when the incumbent is liable to repair the same), or of expenditure upon farm buildings upon lands appertaining to such benefice. Money employed in adding additional rooms to a parsonage house may be charged on the living under 17 Geo. III. c. 53 (g). The incumbent may advance his own money (g). But the money may not be advanced by a person whose duty it is to see that the provisions of the Act are properly carried out for the benefit of the living (//). The mortgage and other necessary deeds must be in the forms prescribed by statute (/) ; and the mortgage-money must be paid to the person authorized to receive the same by the ordinary, patron and incumbent (/.•) . " Benefice " is to be construed to comprise " all rectories with cure of souls, vicarages, perpetual curacies, and chapelries, the incumbents of which respectively in right thereof shall be corporations sole" (/). A mortgage made by an incumbent in manner above men- tioned is binding upon his successors in office (tit) . (/) 28 & 29 Vict. c. 69, s. 1. Iff) Boyd v. Barker, 4 Drew. 582. (/() Greenlaw v. King, 3 Beav. 49. \i) 17 Geo. III. o. 53, Sched. ; 21 Geo. III. c. 66, Sched. (/>-) 17 Geo. III. c. 53, s. 4. (?) 1 & 2 Vict. c. 23, s. 16. \m) 17 Geo. III. c. 53, Sched. Geo. III. c. 66, Sched. 21 MORTGAGES UNDER STATUTORY POWERS. 443 The Act 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, s. 62, authorizes the bishop, on chap, xxiv. the avoidance of a benefice not having a fit house of residence, charge for to raise money for building a residence by mortgage of the {J-jfij 06 glebe, tithes, rents, and profits, and prescribes a form of mort- gage given in the schedule to the Act. And by sect. 70 of the same Act, the bishop is empowered to raise money by such mortgage for the purchase of a suitable residence elsewhere than on the glebe without any limit as to distance from the church. By the statute 5 & 6 Vict. c. 26, s. 13, where a benefice has Mortgage of been augmented under the statute 3 & 4 Vict. c. 113, the powers sequestration. of incumbents to raise money by mortgage for purchasing, building, or improving their houses of residence are not to be exercised without the consent of the Ecclesiastical Commis- sioners signified under their common seal. Under the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Act, 1871 (n), as Powers of in! Aipji mi ' r \ J!T_ incumbent to amended by an Act oi the following year (o), powers ot bor- mor t ga geto rowing on mortgage from the Grovernors of the Bounty of Governors of ° ° ° • i p i Queen Anne s Queen Anne are conferred upon an incumbent for the purpose Bounty. of meeting expenses of repairs for which he is liable. These restricted powers are exerciseable by the incumbent concurrently with the above-mentioned general powers. The form of mort- gage under these Acts, and the conditions and provisions under which such mortgages may be effected, are prescribed by the sections in the note hereto (p). A mortgage made by an incum- bent to the Grovernors of Queen Anne's Bounty may be subse- quently modified by the Grovernors by extending the time for repayment to them of the mortgage-money (q). By the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act, 1840 (r), it is Mortgages enacted that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners may " authorize canons of anv dean or canon of anv cathedral church to raise moneys on then deaneries J J . . . or canonries. his deanery or canonry, for the purpose of building, enlarging, or otherwise improving the residence house thereof, on such terms and conditions as the said Commissioners with the con- currence of the bishop and the chapter shall approve." And it is also provided that all the provisions of "an Act to amend the law for providing fit houses for the beneficed clergy " (s) shall («) 3-1 & 35 Vict. c. 43. (?) 44 & 45 Vict. c. 25 ; 49 & 50 (o) 35 & 36 Vict. c. 96. Vict. c. 34 ; 50 & 51 Vict. c. 8. (p) 34 & 35 Vict. c. 43, ss. 17, 38, (■>•) 3 & 4 Vict. c. 113, s. 59. 62, 64, and 73 ; 35 & 36 Vict. c. 96, (a) 1 & 2 Vict. c. 23, sup. ss. 1, 2, and 3. 444 OF MORTGAGORS' — ECCLESIASTICAL CORPORATIONS. chap. xxiv. be applied, mutatis mutandis, to all such cases in which any dean or canon shall be so authorized to raise moneys on his deanery or canonry for such purpose. It is further provided by the Ecclesiastical Houses of Resi- dence Act, 1842 (/), that sect. 59 of the Ecclesiastical Commis- sioners Act, 1840, " shall be extended so as to make lawful the raising of moneys, in the manner and with the authority therein provided, by any dean and chapter, dean or canon, for any purpose of this Act." Mortgages by By the Universities and College Estates Act («), powers of and'colle^es. mortgaging their estates are given to the Universities and Colleges of Oxford, Cambridge, Dublin, "Winchester and Eton Colleges, with the consent of the Copyhold Commissioners. By the Universities and Colleges Estates Acts Extension, 1860 (.r), further powers are conferred; and as to Winchester and Eton Colleges, see 31 & 32 Yict. c. 118, ss. 24, 25, and 28. And see 43 & 44 Vict. c. 46. (t) 5 & 6 Vict. c. 26, s. 5. (.r) 23 & 24 Vict. c. 59. (w) 21 & 22 Vict. c. 44. ( 445 ) CHAPTER XXV. OF MORTGAGES BY MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND OTHER LOCAL AUTHORITIES. i.-Mortgages by Municipal Corporations.-By the common Statutory^ law, a body corporate may deal with, its property, by way onboirowing of mortgage or otherwise, as freely as an individual. But P°J e r r 8 at ° ion9< restrictions upon the borrowing powers of municipal corpora- tions have been from time to time imposed by the legisla- ture, as regards particular corporations, by various special Acts, and, generally, by the public Acts hereafter mentioned. By the Municipal Corporations Act, 1835 {a), the councils of Repealed bodies corporate elected under the Act were restrained from mortgage and alienation of the lands, tenements, or heredita- ments of the corporation, except with the consent of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, and after such notice as is required by the Act. By 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 104, s. 1, and 7 Will. IV. & 1 Vict. c. 78, s. 28, the councils of corporate bodies were authorized to give new securities for old debts. ' And by the Municipal Corporations Mortgages Act, 1860 (b), in any case where Commissioners of the Treasury approve of any mortgage of any hereditaments of the body corporate of any borough to which the Act applies, they may, as a condition of their approval, require that the money borrowed on the secu- rity of such mortgage shall be repaid, with all interest thereon, in thirty years, or any less period, and either by instalments or by means of a sinking fund, or both, as the Commissioners may think fit. The Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 (c), repeals the three Stat. « & 46 first-mentioned Acts generally, and the Municipal Corporations (a) 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 76, s. 94. («) 45 & 4G Vict. c. 50, s. 5. (b) 23 Vict. c. 16, 8. 1. 446 OF MORTGAGORS — PUBLIC AUTHORITIES. Restricted powers of borrowing under this Act. Application of the Act. Power to borrow with approval of Treasury. Power to mortgage cor- porate land. Repayment of loans. Mortgages Act, 18G0, as to the cities and towns to which the repealing Act applies. Sect. 108 of the repealing Act re-imposes upon the councils of those bodies corporate to which it applies a restraint upon mortgaging corporate land without the approval of the Treasury, unless authorized so to do by Act of Parliament, The repealing Act applies " to every city and town to which the Municipal Corporations Act, 1835, applies at the commence- ment of this Act, and to any town, district, or place whereof the inhabitants are incorporated after the commencement of this Act, and whereto the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Acts are under this Act extended by charter, but to no other place" (<*). The cities and towns in respect to which special provisions as to borrowing were contained in the Municipal Corporations Act, 1835, are those " bodies corporate " mentioned in the schedules A. and B. to that Act () ; in the city of London in the Commissioners of Sewers (q) ; and, in rural parishes which have adopted the Burial Acts, in the parish council (;•). With regard to such mortgages, it is enacted by the Burial Act, 1857 (s), as follows : — Sect. 19. "The clauses of the Commissioners Clauses Act, 1847(2), with respect to mortgages to be executed by the Com- missioners, shall be incorporated with this Act, and shall apply to mortgages and other securities to be executed by burial boards ; and for the purposes of this Act the expression ' the Commis- sioners,' where used in the said clauses, shall mean the burial board acting in the execution of the said clauses and the Acts hereinbefore recited or this Act. Sect. 20. "Provided always, that for the purposes of providing a sinking fund for paying off the principal money borrowed on mortgages granted under any of the said Acts or this Act, the burial board shall, once in every year, set aside, out of the moneys charged by such mortgages, such sum as they think proper, being a sum equal to or exceeding one-fiftieth part of the principal money so borrowed." Where two districts are divided for the purposes of relief of the poor, but form one ecclesiastical parish, the burial board of the whole parish may give a mortgage of the future rates of both districts, the repayment of the money being apportionable between the two districts in proportion to the value of the property in each part as rated for the relief of the poor («). Powers of ix, — Mortgages under the Public Libraries Acts. — By the town councils, -n iv t m " t , 1f) rc/ \ . ., &c to borrow -Public -Libraries Act, I8oo («?), power was given to town councils Power of burial board of parish consisting of several poor law districts. (o) 15 & 16 Vict. c. 85, s. 11 ; 18 & 19 Vict. c. 128, s. 12. (p) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 87, s. 2. (?) 15 & 16 Vict. c. 85, s. 43. {>■) 56 & 57 Vict. c. 73, s. 7, post, p. 455. (*) 20 & 21 Vict. c. 81. (t) 10 Vict. c. 16. See ante, p. 448. (u) Meg. v. Coleshill (Overseers of), 34 L. J. Q. B. 96. (0 18 & 19 Vict. c. 70. PUBLIC LIBRARIES. 453 and boards of commissioners, trustees, and other persons acting chap, xxt. in the execution of Improvement Acts, to borrow on the security on mortgage of mortgages and bonds of borough funds, moneys required for f un( j s roug erecting, establishing, and maintaining public libraries; and the provisions of the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (.r), with respect to the borrowing of money on mortgage or bond were, so far as applicable, incorporated in this Act. By the Public Libraries Act, 1855, Amendment Act, 1871 (//), Power of every local board under the Public Health Act, 1848 (z), and to borrow on the Local Government Act, 1858(a), is empowered to adopt mortgages of and carry into effect the principal Act, and for that purpose to borrow upon mortgage of the general district rate or any sepa- rate rate to be levied under the principal Act in conformity with the borrowing provisions of the Local Government Act, 1858 (a). By the Public Libraries Act Amendment Act, 1887 (/>), the Extension of power to erect, establish, and maintain a library given by the powers to Act of 1855 is extended to all "library authorities" as defined "library jiu tli ontiGs by the amending Act, i. e., the council, commissioners, board, or other persons or authority carrying into execution the Public Libraries Acts. And by sect. 7 of the amending Act, it is pro- vided that sects. 233, 234, and 236 to 239, inclusive, of the Public Health Act, 1875 (c), shall apply with necessary modifi- cations to all money borrowed by any library authority, as if such authority were an urban sanitary authority ; and the same section repeals so much of sect. 17 of the Act of 1855 as relates to the incorporation of the borrowing provisions of the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, except as to money previously borrowed. By the Public Libraries Act, 1892 (d), the foregoing Acts, and other Acts relating to public libraries, are repealed as from the commencement of this Act. For the purposes of this Act, every urban district and every parish not being within an urban district in England and "Wales is a library district (e), and may adopt the provisions of the Act (/). The library authority being, in an urban district, the urban authority, and, in a parish, the Commissioners appointed and incorporated under the Act, are to carry the Act into operation (g). "Every (x) 8 Vict. c. 16. See post, p. 465. (c) 38 & 39 Vict. c. 55. \y) 34 & 35 Vict. c. 71. (rf) 55 & 56 Vict. c. 53. (z) 11 & 12 Vict. c. 63. \e) Hid., s. 1. («) 21 & 22 Vict. c. 98. (/) Ibid., s. 2. (b) 50 & 51 Vict. c. 22. (g) Ibid., s. 4. 454 OF MORTGAGORS — PUBLIC AUTHORITIES. chap. xxv. library authority, with the sanction of the Local Government Board, and in the case of a library authority, being Commis- sioners appointed by a parish, with the sanction also of the vestry of such parish, may borrow money for the purposes of this Act on the security of any fund or rate applicable for those purposes"; and the above-mentioned sections of the Public Health Act, 1875 (//), are incorporated, with necessary modi- fications, so as to apply to all money borrowed for the pur- poses of this Act as if the library authority were an urban authority (/). Where the Public Library Act, 1892, has been " adopted " by a rural parish, the library authority is the parish council (j). x. — General Borrowing Powers of County and other Local Councils. — By sect, G9 of the Local Government (England and Wales) Act, 1888 (/«•), county councils are empowered, with the consent of the Local Government Board, to borrow on the security of the county fund, and of any revenues for the con- solidation of county debts, the purchase of lands and buildings, the execution of permanent works, the promotion of emigration and colonization, or the paying off of existing loans. And by the same section it is enacted as follows : — " (5.) A loan under this section shall be repaid within such period, not exceeding thirty years, as the county council, with the consent of the Local Government Board, determine in each case. " (6.) The county council shall pay off every loan either by equal yearly or half yearly instalments of principal, or of principal and interest combined, or by means of a sinking fund set apari, invested, and applied in accordance with the Local Loans Act, 1875 (I), and the Acts amending the same. " (8.) Where the county council are authorized to borrow any money on loan they may raise such money either as one loan or several loans, and either by stock issued under this Act, or by debentures or annuity certificates under the Local Loans Act, 1875 (7), and the Acts amending the same, or, if special reasons exist for so borrowing, by mortgage, in accordance with sections two hundred and thirty six and two hundred and thirty-seven of the Public Health Act, 1875 (m). " (9.) Provided that where a county council have borrowed by means of stock they shall not borrow by way of mortgage except for a period not exceeding five years. " (10.) Where the county council borrow by debentures such debentures may be for any amount not less than five pounds." (A) 38 & 39 Vict. c. 55. (/,:) 51 & 52 Vict. c. 41. (i) 55 & 56 Vict. c. 53, s. 19. (/) 3S & 39 Vict. c. 83. U) 5G & 57 Vict. c. 73, s. 7, infra, (m) 38 & 39 Vict. c. 55. p. 455. COUNTY AND LOCAL COUNCILS. 455 By sect. 12 of the Local Government Act, 1894 («), a chap. xxv. county council may, if necessary, without the sanction of the Local Government Board, and irrespectively of any limit of borrowing, raise money, to lend to a parish council, by loan, subject to the like conditions and in the like manner as any other loan for the execution of their duties, and subject to any further conditions which the Local Government Board may, by general or special order, impose. By sect. 7 of the Local Government Act, 1894 (n), the parish Borrowing meeting of a rural parish may adopt any of the several Acts p°^ s mentioned in that section, and' in the Act referred to as the councils. " adoptive Acts " ; and by sect. 12 of the same Act, parish councils are empowered, with the consent of the county council and the Local Government Board, to borrow money for the following purposes, viz. : " (a) for purchasing any land, or building any buildings, which the council are authorized to purchase or build ; and (b) for any purpose for which the council are authorized to borrow under any of the adoptive Acts ; and (c) for any permanent work or other thing which the council are authorized to execute or do, and the cost of which ought, in the opinion of the county council and the Local Government Board, to be spread over a term of years." The money is to be borrowed " in like manner and subject to the like conditions as a local authority may borrow for defraying expenses incurred in the execution of the Public Health Acts, and sections 233, 234, and 236 to 239 of the Public Health Act, 1875 (o), shall apply accordingly, except that the money shall be borrowed on the security of the poor rate and of the whole or part of the revenues of the parish council, and except that as respects the limit of the sum to be borrowed, one half of the assessable value shall be substituted for the assessable value for two years." A charge for the purpose of any of the adoptive Acts is to be ultimately upon the rate applicable to the purposes of that Act. xi. — Borrowing Powers of School Boards. — School boards, constituted by the Elementary Education Act, 1870 (p), were empowered by sect. 57 of that Act to borrow money for certain purposes. That section was repealed by sect. 10 of the Elemen- ts 56 & 57 Vict. c. 73. (p) 33 & 34 Vict. c. 75. (o) 38 & 39 Vict. c. 55. 450 OF MORTGAGORS — PUBLIC AUTHORITIKS. chap. xxv. tary Education Act, 1873 (q), which conferred upon school boards a similar but slightly varied power of borrowing for the particular purposes, and in the manner mentioned in the repeal- ing section, which is as follows : — Amendment of 33 & 31 Vict. c. 75, s. 57, as to loans. Sect. 10. " Where a school board have incurred or require to incur any expense, either — (a) in providing or enlarging a schoolhouse ; or (b) in paying off any debt charged on a schoolhouse provided by them, or on any land acquired by them by gift, transfer, purchase, or otherwise for the purposes of this Act ; or (c) in any works of improving or fitting up a schoolhouse which, in the opinion of the Education Department, ought by reason of the permanent character of such works to be spread over a term of years, they may, with the consent of the Education Department, spread the payment over such number of years, not exceeding fifty, as may be sanctioned by the Education Department, and may, with the like consent, for that purpose borrow money on security of the school fund and local rate, and may charge that fund and the local rate with the payment of the principal and interest due in respect of the loan. They may, if they so agree with the mortgagee, pay the amount borrowed with the interest by equal annual instalments not exceeding fift} r , and if they do not so agree they shall annually set aside one fiftieth of the sum borrowed as a sinking fund : Provided that no such consent of the Education Department shall be granted unless proof be given to their satisfaction that the additional school accommodation which it is proposed to supply is required in order to provide for the educational wants of the district. "For the purpose of such borrowing the clauses of the Com- missioners Clauses Act, 1847 (?•), with respect to the mortgages to be executed by the Commissioners, shall be incorporated with this Act ; and in the construction of those clauses for the purpose of this Act, this Act shall be deemed to be the special Act, and the school board which is borrowing shall be deemed to be the Commis- Loans by Public Works Commis- sioners. Temporary loan for cur- rent expenses. By the same section the Public Loans Commissioners are empowered, on the recommendation of the Education Depart- ment, to lend money to school boards on the security of the school fund and local rates. A school board has no power to borrow money and to charge the ratepayers with interest which the board has paid under the contract of loan, for purposes or in manner other than as prescribed by the Act, as, for instance, where a board contracted a temporary loan to meet current expenses, which the school (?) 36 & 37 Vict. c. (r) 10 & 11 Vict. c. 16. SCHOOL BOARDS. 457 fund was not sufficient to pay, until they could obtain money out chap. xxv. of the rates (s). The provisions of the above section are, by the Elementary Power to Education Act, 1876 (t), rendered applicable to the establishing, t^buUd^&c. building and maintaining by school boards of certified day m £ u ^' ial industrial schools thereby established, and certified industrial schools established by the Industrial Schools Act, 1866 (u), with the exception that " one of her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State " is to be substituted for " education department " throughout the section. It is also enacted that " such establish- ment and building shall be deemed to be a work for which a school board is authorized to borrow within the meaning of the first schedule to the Public Works Loans Act, 1875 " (x). Further powers of borrowing are conferred upon school boards by sect. 3 of the Elementary Education (Industrial Schools) Act, 1879 (i/), which enacts as follows: — "Where a school board resolve to contribute any sum of money Power of towards, or to undertake the cost of the alteration, enlargement, or school board rebuilding, but not of the furnishing, of an industrial school, or the *°^^ ^ r establishment or building, but not of the furnishing of a school towar( j a Q r intended to be an industrial school, or the purchase of land undertaking required either for the use of an existing industrial school, or for cost of enlarg- the site of a school intended to be an industrial school, such school i n 8"> &c : & n board, with the consent of one of her Majesty's Principal Secretaries "j^™* of Stato, shall have the same power of spreading the payment of the sums so contributed, or of the cost of such undertaking, over a number of years, and of borrowing money for that purpose, as they have in the case where they resolve to establish an industrial school; and the provisions of the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 and 1873 (z), and the Elementary Education Act, 1876(a), and the Public Works Loans Act, 1875 (b), shall apply accordingly. " For the purposes of this Act, an industrial school means a certified industrial school and a certified day industrial school." By sect. 5 of the Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Power to Children) Act, 1893 (c), school boards and other "school autho- education of rities," as defined by the Act, are invested with similar powers b |^ d r gJJ d deaf of borrowing to those conferred on school boards by the Elementary Education Acts (d), subject to a discretionary power in the Education Department to consent to the exercise thereof. (s) Reg. v. Reed, 5 Q. B. T>. 483, (z) 33 & 34 Vict. c. 75 ; 36 & 37 C. A. Vict. c. 86. (t) 39 & 40 Vict. c. 79, s. 15. (a) 39 & 40 Vict. c. 79. (w) 29 & 30 Vict. c. 118. {b) 38 & 39 Vict. c. 89. \x) 38 & 39 Vict. c. 89. (c) 56 & 57 Vict. c. 42. (y) 42 & 43 Vict. c. 48. («*) Vide sup. ( 458 ) CHAPTER XXVI. OF MORTGAGES BY BUILDING AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES. Unincorpo- rated societies still governed by the Act of 1836. Borrowing powers of an unincorpo- rated society. Loans from strangers. Provision that loan shall be a first charge. Members not personally liable for money borrowed. i, — As to Unincorporated Building Societies. — Benefit building societies were, prior to 1874, governed by the Benefit Building Societies Act, 1836 (a). Societies formed under that Act were not corporate bodies, but acted and held their property through the medium of directors and trustees. This Act was repealed by the Building Societies Act, 1874 (b), except as regards societies then subsisting until incorporated. Many societies, formed under the repealed Act, still exist ; and some of these, not having obtained certificates of incorporation under the later Act, are still regulated by the provisions of the repealed Act. The Act of 1836 contained no provisions authorizing the directors of building societies to borrow money; and accord- ingly the power of an unincorporated society to borrow depends on its rules. Unless the rules otherwise provide, the directors may borrow from persons who are not members of the society ; such persons are creditors entitled, on the winding up of the society, to be paid in priority to the members of all classes, including those who have previously given notice of withdrawal (c). Where the rule under which a loan is contracted provides that the money borrowed shall be a first charge on the funds and property of the society generally, the lenders will not be allowed to take special securities on particular property (d). Directors borrowing money for a society cannot pledge the individual credit of members ; any rule purporting to empower them so to do would be so far ultra vires, as being inconsistent with the nature of a building society under the Act (e) . (a) 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 32. See^osif, p. 513. (A) 37 & 38 Vict. c. 42, s. 7. See post, p. 544. (c) Murray v. Scott, 9 App. Cas. 519 ; Re Mutual Aid Permanent Building Soc., 30 Ch. D. 434. (d) Murray v. Scott, sup. See Small v. Smith, 10 App. Cas. 119. (e) Murray v. Scott, 9 App. Cas. at p. 533. See He Mutual Aid Permanent BitUding Soc, sup. 459 UNINCORPORATED BUILDING SOCIETIES. The rules of an unincorporated building society may authorize _chap ; _xxvi 1 the directors to borrow money for the purposes of the society WWru^ without imposing any limit as to the amount to be so borrowed; * ower to and loans contracted under such rules are valid (/) . borrow - If the rules give to the directors of an unincorporated society ™fg**£ a power to borrow, limited as to amount, the society will not be poorer to liable for any loan in excess of the prescribed limit (g). So, also, if the rules authorize the directors to raise money for certain specified purposes only, a loan for other purposes will create no liability against the society (//). A person lending money to the society is affected with notice of the limitation of borrowing powers imposed by the rules (i). An unincorporated society has no power to borrow money Whe^rulc^ unless authorized by its rules, either expressly or by necessary t ° borlw . implication, by reason of such borrowing being properly incident to the course and conduct of the business for its proper purposes, as indicated by the rules (A). It must be borne in mind that from the 2nd November, 1874, to the 22nd April, 1875, unincorporated societies certified under the repealed Act, 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 32, were deemed to be societies under the Act of 1874 (/), and accordingly had power to borrow within the limits prescribed by the later Act, though no express borrowing powers were given by the rules. Where a society has no power to borrow at the time of the Wmg loan, any security given for the money borrowed after borrowing quired after powers have been obtained will be void (m). Where officers of a society borrow without authority, they Subrogation. may be entitled to the benefit of the equitable doctrine of sub- rogation, that is to say, that if they make payments for purposes of the society out of the borrowed moneys, they may stand in the place of the persons to whom the payments were made, and to claim against the society for the amounts so paid (n). m Murray Y.Scott, 9 App. Cas.519. Williamson, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 309; s tifc£f£Tp Bum " 9 ?3ft i: £T£ ■ »i»; (*) IW e'au, L. R. 12 Eq. 516; E, Shfdi Pmmnml Building Soc., (*) Ounlife, Brooks $ Co. v. Black- W. R. 139. so??, L. R. 6 Q. B. 276; Be National Co., 19 Q. B. 1). loo, U. A. Permanent Benefit Building Soc., Exp. 460 OF MORTGAGORS — BUILDING AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES. CHAP. XXVI. Liability of directors for unauthorized borrowing. Directors borrowing money without authority have in several cases been held personally liable for the amount borrowed even in the absence of any fraud on their part (o). Repeal of former Acts, how far. Incorporation of societies. Power to borrow. ii, — As to Incorporated Building Societies. — By the Building Societies Act, 1874 (p), the statute 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 32, is repealed, but this repeal is not to affect any subsisting society certified under the repealed Act, until such society shall have obtained a certificate of incorporation under the Act of 1874 (q), and is not to affect its past operation, or the force or operation, validity, or invalidity of anything done or suffered, or any bond or security given, or any right, title, obligation or liability accrued, or any proceedings taken, thereunder, or under the rules of any society which has been certified thereunder. Every society subsisting at the date of the commencement of the Act of 1874 (>•), or thereafter established, upon receiving a certificate of incorporation under the Act, is to become a body corporate by its registered name, having perpetual succession, until terminated or dissolved as provided in the Act, with a common seal (s). The Court has no power to declare the incorporation of a society void (t) . Incorporated building societies, whether originally formed under the Act of 1836 or since the Act of 1874 came into operation, are governed by the Act of 1874, as amended by the Acts of 1875 0), 1877 (.r), 1884 (y), and 1894 (*), and by the regulations issued by the Secretary of State under sect. 44 of the Act of 1874. An incorporated benefit building society has no power to borrow money, except so far as authorized by statute and by its rules (a) ; (o) Collen v. Wright, 8 E. & B. 301 ; Godwin v. Francis, L. R. 5 C. P. 295 ; Richardson v. Williamson, L. R. 6 Q. B. 276; C'hapleo v. Brunswick Building Soc, 6 Q. B. D. 696, C. A. ; Cross v. Fisher, 65 L. T. 114 ; Firbank's Fxors. v. Humphreys, 18 Q. B. D. 54. {p) 37 & 38 Vict. c. 42, s. 7. (q) See 38 & 39 Vict. c. 9, s. 2. (»•) The 2nd November, 1874. . See ibid. (s) 37 & 38 Vict. c. 9, s. 9. The form of a certificate of incorporation is given in the Schedule to the Building Socie- ties Act, 1877 (40 & 41 Vict. c. 63). 59 {t) Glover v. Giles, W. N. (1881) (u) 38 & 39 Vict. c. 9. (x) 40 & 41 Vict. c. 63. lv) 47 & 48 Vict. c. 41. (z) 57 & 58 Vict, c. 47. (a) Be Kent Benefit Building Soc., 1 Dr. & S. 417 ; Be National Permanent, $c. Society, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 309 ; Laing v. Beed, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 4 ; Moye v. Sparrow, 18 W. R. 400 ; Be Victoria Permanent, §c. Society, Piilfs Case, L. R. 9 Eq. 605; Durham Co., §c. Building Soc, L. R. 12 Eq. 516. INCORPORATED BUILDING SOCIETIES. 461 but deeds, deposited as securities by such a society, will not be chap. xxvi. ordered to be delivered up (b). The power of incorporated societies to borrow money is regu- statutory lated by the 15th section of the Act of 1874, which contains the powers'of following provisions : — incorporated societies. " With respect to the borrowing of money by societies under this Act, the following provisions shall have effect : "(1.) Any society under this Act may receive deposits or loans at interest within the limits in this section provided from the members or other persons, or from corporate bodies, joint stock companies, or from any terminating building society, to be applied to the purposes of the society : "(2.) In a permanent society the total amount so received on deposit or loan, and not repaid by the society shall not at any time exceed two-thirds of the amount for the time being secured to the society by mortgages from its members : " (3.) In a terminating society, the total amount so received and not repaid, may either be a sum not exceeding such two-thirds as aforesaid, or a sum not exceeding twelve months' subscriptions on the shares for the time being in force : " (4.) Any deposits with or loans to a society under this Act, made before the commencement of this Act in accordance with its certified rules, are thereby declared to be valid and binding on the society ; but no further deposits or loans are to be received by such society except within the limits provided by this section : " (5.) Every deposit book or acknowledgment, or security of any kind given for a deposit or loan by a society, shall have printed or written therein or thereon the whole of the 14th and 15th sections of the present Act " (;) Looker v. Wrigley, 9 Q. B. D. 397 ; Cunliffe, Brooks § Co. v. Blackburn Building Soc., 9 App. Cas. 857. (0 57 & 58 Vict. c. 47. AS TO FRIENDLY SOCIETIES. 463 on properties in the possession of the society at the passing of this chap. xxvi. Act, shall not come into operation nntil the expiration of three years from the passing of this Act." It is to be observed that neither the Act of 1836 nor the Act Securities of 1874 expressly empowered building societies to mortgage pieties. g their property as a security for deposits or loans, but the refer- ence to " securities " in sect. 15 appears impliedly to give this power, and the existence of the power is, in practice, assumed without question (m) . Securities given by a building society may be enforced against Enforcement the society, although sects. 14 and 15 are not indorsed thereon, the enactment in sect. 15 directing this to be done being only directory (n). Sub-sect. (5) of sect. 15 of the Act of 1874 is directory only, and an omission to comply with its requirements will not vitiate a security given by a building society for a loan (o) . iii. — As to Friendly Societies. — By the Friendly Societies Act, Power to hold 1875 (p), a friendly society, or any branch of such society, may, mor tgage. if the rules thereof so provide (and with a limitation as to benevolent societies), hold, purchase, or take on lease, any land in the names of its trustees for the time being, in every county where it has an office, and may mortgage the same, and no mortgagee shall be bound to inquire as to the authority for any mortgage by the trustees, and the receipt of the trustees shall be a discharge for all moneys arising from or in connection with such mortgage. (m) See also sect. 19 of the Act of D. 440, C. A. 1874. (o) Ibid, at p. 452. (n) He Guardian Permanent Benefit y>) 38 & 39 Vict. c. 60, s. 16. Building Soc., Hawkins' Case, 23 Ch. ( 464 ) CHAPTEE XXVII. OF MORTGAGES BY COMPANIES. Distinction between companies incorporated by charter and by sta- tute. Charter companies. Statutory companies. Section I. Of the Borrowing Powers of Companies. *■ j t — of the Power of Companies to borrow generally. — With regard to the powers of companies to borrow money on mort- gage, a distinction must be drawn between companies which are incorporated by charter, and companies which are created by statute (a). Companies incorporated by charter, being corporations at common law, may, by instruments under their common seal, except so far as prohibited or controlled by their charter of incorporation, dispose of their property, by way of mortgage or otherwise, as freely and fully as individuals (b). But statutory companies, whether created by private Acts or under the general Companies Acts are not common law cor- porations, and, accordingly, derive their powers of mortgaging or otherwise dealing with their property from their instruments of incorporation. Companies of the former class, therefore, have no powers beyond such as are expressly or by necessary implication conferred by the special Acts to which they owe their existence (c) . But if no express borrowing powers are given by the particular Act such powers may be implied, if the raising of money by loan is necessary for the furtherance of the objects of the company as defined by that Act (d). (a) See Buckley on Companies, 6th ed. p. 15. (b) Sutton'' s Hospital Case, 10 Rep. 1 ; Riche v. Ashbury Railway Carriage Co., L. R. 9 Ex. 224, 263. (c) Lady Wenlock v. River Bee Co., 38 Ch. D. 534, C. A. (d) Per Lord Cranworth in BTawkes v. Eastern Counties Rail. Co., 5 H. L. C. 331 ; per Lord Selborne in Blackburn Building Society v. Cunliffe, Brooks $• Co., 22 Ch. D. 61, at p. 70, C. A. And see per Lord Blackburn in Lady Wen- lock v. River Bee Co., 10 App. Cas. 354, at p. 360. RAILWAY AND OTHER PUBLIC COMPANIES. 465 An ordinary joint stock company has no powers except such chap, xxvii. as are expressly or by implication conferred by its memorandum Joint stock „. . ,. . . companies, oi association () ; but the power of issuing debentures at a discount may be negatived or restricted by the articles of association or otherwise. Debentures may be deposited by a company by way of mort- gage to secure a loan of an amount less than the par value thereof with power for the depositor to sell them ; the depositor or his assignee will be entitled on a winding up to prove for the (p) Ashbury Bail. Co. v. Biche, L. R. 7 H. L. 653. (q) Guineas v. Zand Corp. of Ireland, 22 Ch. D. 349, 377, 381, C. A. (»•) Harrison v. Mexican Bail. Co., L. R. 19 Eq. 358 ; Be Phoenix Bessemer Co., 44 L.J. Ch. 63S ; London Financial Assoc, v. Kelk, 26 Ch. D. 107, 133 ; Be South Durham Brewery Co., 31 Ch. D. 261, C. A. ; Be Tilbury Portland Cement Co., W. N. (1893) 141. (*) 25 & 26 Vict. c. 89. See Bn/on v. Metropolitan Saloon, §e. Co., 3 De G. & J. 123. (t) Jackson v. Bainford Coal Co., (1896) 2 Ch. 340. (u) English Channel Steamship Co. v. Bolt, 17 Ch. D. 715. (v) Be Anglo- Danubian, §c. Co., L. R. 20 Eq. 339 ; Be Begent's Canal Iron- works Co., 3 Ch. D. 43, C. A. ; Camp- bell's Case, 4 Ch. D. 470. See also Webb v. Shropshire Bail. Co., (1893) 3 Ch. 307, C. A. BOKKOWING POWERS OF JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. 471 full amount secured pari passu with the other debenture chap, xxyh. holders (x). A company cannot issue fully paid bonus shares as an inducement to take up debentures, and the allottees will be liable to the full nominal value of the shares (//) . Where debentures were made redeemable at a premium if the company should be reconstructed, but otherwise at par, it was held that the condition must be strictly construed, and that on the amalgamation of the borrowing company with another company the debentures were redeemable at par (z). If borrowing: powers have been exceeded, and the transaction Liability of , , directors tor is void as against the company, the directors will be personally excessive 1,*„VI~ r~\ exercise if liable W- . powers. If directors borrow money expressly to " replace loans falling due," and they have at the time exhausted their powers, they are liable as for a breach of warranty (b) ; and so where a com- pany has no power to accept bills, and the directors accept " on behalf of the company," they are personally liable (c) ; and if directors hold out an agent as authorized to borrow, they are personally liable (<7) ; but an incorrect statement of a matter of law would not render the directors liable (V). If directors sign a document borrowing money for the com- ^ aro1 e , vl - . . • ., i-i • dence, how pany, parol evidence is admissible to explain the ambiguity, faradmis- whether their signature made them personally liable (/). e " The power of borrowing money on behalf of a company is, Borrowing- t i i • -i-iji i- _o • powers exer- accordmg to the usual practice, vested by the articles o± associa- ciseable by tion in the directors (g) . And by Article 55 of Table A. Actors. appended to the Companies Act, 1862 (//), which is applicable to all companies limited by shares formed under the Companies Acts, except so far as excluded or modified by articles of association (/), a general authority is given to the directors to (x) Re Regent's Canal Ironworks Co., Kitson, 13 Q. B. D. 360, C. A. 3 Ch. D. 43, C. A. (d) Chapleo v. Brunswick, §c. Co., (y) Re Railways Time Tables Co., Exp. 6 Q. B. D. 696, C. A. Welton, (1895) 1 Ch. 255, C. A. (e) Rashdall v. Ford, L. R. 2 Eq. (z) Hooper v. Western Counties, %c. 750 ; Eaqlesfield v. Marquis of London' Telephone Co., W. N. (1892) 148. deny, 4 Ch. D. 693 ; affirmed in H. L. (a) Firbank's Executors v. Humphreys, 26 W. R. 540. See CargiU v. Bower, 18 Q. B. D. 54, C. A. See West London 10 Ch. D. 516. Commercial Bank v. Eitson, 13 Q. B. D. (/) McCottin v. Gilpin, 6 Q. B. D. 360, C. A. 516. (b) Weeks v. Propert, L. R. 8 C. P. {g) See Exp. Walker, 18 Jur. 885 ; 427; Whitehaven Joint Stock Banking M'Laev. Sutherland, 3 E. & B. 1. Co. v. Reed, 54 L. T. 360, C. A. (h) 25 & 26 Vict. c. 89. (c) West London Commercial Bankx. (i) Ibid., 88. 14, 15. 472 OF MORTGAGORS COMPANIES. CHAP. XXVII. Mortgage by directors to one of them- selves. Con current powers of company and directors. Ratification of ultra vires loan. Loan before formation of company. exercise the borrowing powers of the company, except so far as otherwise directed by statute or by the regulations of the com- pany (/,•). ^ There is no objection to a director advancing his own money to his company, and taking from it debentures or other security for the loan ; and if debentures are issued at a discount to the public, a director may take them at such discount value (I). If a company has, by its memorandum of association, or by reason of the exigencies of its business, a power to borrow, which is by the articles exerciseable by an extraordinary general meeting, such power will not be restrained by a clause in the articles giving to the directors power to borrow only to a limited amount (m). If in such a case the directors exceed their authority, the company may, by ratifying the transaction, render it valid (n). So, also, though acts done before the formation of a company cannot be, strictly speaking, ratified — for ratification implies an existing relation of principal and agent, and where there is no principal, there can be no agent — yet a company may, after its formation, adopt such acts so as to bind itself. Thus a company may be bound by debentures issued by it pursuant to an arrangement made on its behalf before its formation (0). Ultra vires transactions not generally binding-. Ultra vires loans, when valid to extent of advances. iv. — Whether Securities which are ultra vires will bind Com- panies. — Generally a corporation created for particular purposes is not bound at law by a deed under the corporate seal, where, by the express provision of, or necessary implication from, the statute which creates the corporation, the deed is ultra vires (p). But though a company may have no power to borrow money, and the securities may be consequently void, yet if the moneys advanced have been properly applied for the benefit of the company, the holders of the securities, whether directors or others, can recover such advances with interest (q) . The prin- (k) See Spackman v. Evans, L. R. 3 H. L. 171, 244 ; He West of England Bank, Exp. Booker, 14 Ch. D. 317, C. A. (/) Campbell's Case, 4 Ch. D. 470. See Southampton, §c. Boat Co. v. Pin- nock, 12 W. R. 330. (m) Me Strand Music Hall Co., 3 De G. J. &S. 147. {>/) Irvine v. Union Bank of Australia, 2 App. Cas. 366 ; Grant v. United King- dom Switchback Co., 40 Ch. D. 135, C. A. (o) Howard v. Patent Ivory Manu- facturing Co., 38 Ch. D. 156. (p) South Yorkshire, <$;c. Co. v. Great Northern Bail. Co., 9 Exch. 55. (q) Be Magdalena, §c. Steam Co., John. 690; Be Cork § YoughalBail. Co., L. R. 4 Ch. A. 748 ; Be German Mining Co., 4 De G. & M. & G. 19 ; Be Norwich Yarn Co., 22 Beav. 143 ; Troup's Case, ULTRA VIRES SECURITIES. 473 ciple of these cases is this : if the money is advanced for payment chap, xxvii. of debts recoverable, the persons advancing the money stand in the place of creditors ; but the cases are not to be ex- tended (r). Where a company having no borrowing powers raised money Sale and by sale of rolling stock to a waggon company, at the same time r omn^-^tock. making a contract with the waggon company for the hire of the rolling stock at a rent which would repay the amount of the purchase-money with interest in five years, and for its re- purchase at the expiration of that period at a nominal price, the transaction was upheld as bond fide, and, therefore, valid (s). If directors issue debentures for their own benefit, not for Debentures that of the company, they will be liable to return any benefits directors. received by them (7). Where directors having power to raise money issued deben- Debentures tures in satisfaction of certain debts of the vendor of the busi- ^^ ofdebts" ness which the company was formed to take over under an taken over agreement by the company to indemnify the vendor against such debts, amongst which was a debt due to the managing director of the company ; it was held that under the circum- stances the debentures were issued for the benefit of the com- pany, and were accordingly valid (u). Where sums have been voted to promoters and directors, who take out the sums in debentures, the sums, being misappropria- tions, must be repaid, and the debentures will remain valid in the hands of holders without notice of the fraud (#). The company are estopped from disputing irregular deben- Estoppel, tures if they are valid on their face and assignable (t/), especially if the company have registered or accepted notice of the assign- ment thereof, or paid interest thereon (z) , or have dealt with the assignee, or by asking for time (a) . Where debentures have been issued irregularly, the company are estopped from setting 29 Beav. 553 ; Snare's Case, 30 Beav. (t) London Trust Co. v. Mackenzie, 225; Baker's Case, 1 Dr. & S. 55; He W. N. (1893) 9. Beulah Park Estate, L. R. 15 Eq. 43 ; (w) Seligman v. Prince § Co., (1895) International Life Ass. Co., L. R. 10 2 Ch. 617, C. A. Eq. 312. And see Prince of Wales Ass. (x) Re Anglo-French Co-operative Soc, Co. v. Harding, 4 Jur. N. S. 851. 21 Ch. D. 492, C. A. (r) Re National Permanent, §c. Soc., (i/) Webb v. Commissioners of Heme L. R. 5 Ch. A. 309, 313. See Re Bag, L. R. 5 Q. B. 642. Lough Neagh Ship Co., Exp. Workman, (z) Brunton's Claim, L. R. 19 Eq. (1895) 1 Ir. R. 533. 302 ; Re Northern Assam Tea Co., (s) Yorkshire, %e. Waggon Co. v. L. R. 10 Eq. 458; Exp. Chorleg, L. R. Maclure, 21 Ch. D. 309, C. A. 11 Eq. 157. (a) Hulett's Case, 2 J. & H. 306. 474 OF M ORTG AGORS COM PAN I ES . CHAP. XXVII. Fraud of director. Whether lender must require evi- dence as to propriety of loan. Rule where borrowing powers are limited as to amount. up the irregularity against holders for value without notice who have had them registered (d) , and also against equitable trans- ferees who had no reason to suspect any irregularity, but only to the extent of their bond fide advances (e) . In one case, where debentures had been issued through the fraud of the managing director, and repudiated by the company as soon as the fraud was discovered, it was held that the com- pany were entitled to repudiate the debentures, on the ground that the debentures in question were choses in action not assign- able at law, so that the assignee could not stand in any better position than the original holder, and must take subject to the equities which affected the assignor (/) ; but the correctness of this decision has been questioned as regards the application to that case of the general rule on which it purported to be grounded (//) . The holders of valid debentures of a company are not estopped from disputing the validity of other debentures which have been improperly or irregularly issued (//). Where a company or its directors have power to borrow in manner provided by its articles, the lender may assume that all such preliminary acts as the passing of resolutions, &c, have been done as the deed of settlement or articles require ; but where the statutory authority provides specially what shall be evidence of the performance of the preliminary acts, the lender must see that they are properly done (/). This rule, however, does not apply where the power of the company itself, as distinguished from that of its directors, is limited in point of amount ; in such a case, the lender is not entitled to assume that the prescribed amount is not being exceeded (k) ; and if the company subsequently acquires further borrowing powers, it cannot by exercise of those powers, secure (d) Romford Canal Co., Carew's Claim, 24 Ch. D. 85. (e) Pocock's Claim, 24 Ch. D. 85. See also Shaw v. Port Philip, §c. Co., 13 Q. B. D. 103 (forged share certifi- cate) . if) Official Manager of the Athenaeum Life Ass. Soc. v. Pooley, 3 De G. & J. 294. See alsoifc Natal Investment Co., L. R. 3 Ch. A. 355. (g) Re Hercules Ins. Co., £ run ton's Claim, L. R. 19 Eq. 302, at p. 312, per Malms, V.-C. (h) Mowatt v. Castle Steel and Iron - works Co., 34 Ch. D. 58, C. A. (i) Royal British Bank v. Turquand, 6 E. & B. 327 ; Agar v. Athenaeum Life Ass. Soc, 3 C. B. N. S. 725 ; Re Athenaeum Life Ass. Soc, 4 K. & J. 549 ; Fountaine x . Carmarthen Rail. Co., L. R. 5 Eq. 316 ; Denies v. Bolton | Co., (1894) 3 Ch. 678. (/.-) Chapleo v. Brunswick Building Soc, 6 Q. B. D. 696, C. A.; Lady Wenlock v. River Bee Co., 10 App. Cas. 354. ULTRA VIRES SECURITIES. 475 the previous advance, which was never a debt binding on the chap, xxvii. company (/). The rule here referred to is thus explained by Lord Hather- Statement of ley : — " Every joint stock company has its memorandum and articles of association. Those articles of association are open to all who are minded to have any dealings with the company, and those who so deal with them must be affected with notice of all that is contained in those documents. After that, the company entering upon its business and dealing with persons external to it, is supposed on its part to have all those powers and authorities which, by its articles of association, it appears to possess ; and all that the directors do with reference to what I may call the indoor management of their own concern, is a thing known to them and them only ; subject to this observa- tion, that no person dealing with them has a right to suppose that anything has been or can be done that is not permitted by the articles of association" (>;/). Irregular securities, or securities for an illegal purpose, issued Bond fide by a company to strangers without notice, may be enforced by value may them ()>). So, where a company incorporated by special Act ^^f was empowered to borrow on mortgage such sums as might securities, be from time to time authorized by a general meeting, not exceeding a specified amount, and issued debentures to an extent not exceeding that limit, but without the sanction of a general meeting, it was held that the proviso requiring such sanction was merely directory, and not one which it was obligatory on the debenture holders, in order to support their security, to show had been performed by the company (0). So, where the directors of a company had power under the Quorum of articles to fix a quorum, and by resolution fixed three as a du ' ectors - quorum, and, at a meeting of the directors at which only two were present, the seal of the company was affixed to a mortgage, it was held that as between the company and the mortgagees who had no notice of the irregularity, the execution of the deed was valid (p). (I) See Exp. Watson, 21 Q. B. T>. marthen Rail. Co., L. R. 5 Eq. 316, 301. 322; Be Marseilles Extension Rail. Co., (m) Mahonyv. East Holy ford Mining L. R. 7 Ch. A. 161. Co. , L. R. 7 H. L. 869, at p. 893. See (0) Landowners, §c. Co. v. Ashford, Ernest v. Nicholls, 6 H. L. C. 401 ; 16 Ch. D. 412. Royal British Bank v. Turqucmd, 6 E. (p) County of Gloucester Bank v. & B. 327 ; Biggerstaff v. Rowatt's Rudry, Merthyr, 4-0. Coll. Co., (1895) 1 Wharf, Limtd., (1896) 2 Ch. 93, C. A. Ch. 629, C. A. See Denies v. Bolton («) Bryon v. Metropolitan Saloon Co., $ Co., (1894) 3 Ch. 678. 3 Be G-. & J. 123 ; Fountaine v. Car- 476 OF MORTGAGORS COMPANIES. CHAP. XXVII. Informal and incomplete charges sup- ported in equity. In some instances, where resolutions of a company or of its directors have authorized a loan, but no formal or complete mortgage has been made, the Courts have held that the effect of the resolutions was to create valid equitable charges (o). But where there are no minutes authorizing the loan (/;), or where the holder has notice of the irregularity (q) , or where the resolu- tion purporting to create the charge has not been communicated to the creditor (r), no charge is created. Where the form given by the Act was not followed, the mortgage was notwithstanding valid against a creditor («) ; and where certain formalities were required by the articles, a deposit of title deeds and a memorandum signed by the manager, though with authority, were held invalid ; but the deeds were not ordered to be delivered up (t) . And so the power, though informally exercised, has been held sufficient ; as where directors being empowered to raise money by debentures, gave them to a contractor for the cost of work done, instead of issuing them to him for money and then handing him back the amount (it). Companies' securities. Section II. Of the different Kinds of Securities given by Companies. i. — Mortgages, &c. by Companies generally. — The securities given by companies are mortgages, debentures, debenture stock, and bonds, the form, validity, and effect of which instruments depend upon and vary according to the powers under which they are issued, and the property, if any, included in each instrument (x) . (o) Re Strand Music Ball Co., 3 De G. J. & S. 147; Re General South American Co., 2 Ch. D. 337, C. A. ; Prince of Wales, §c Co. v. Athenaeum Ass. Soc, 1 E. B. & E. 183; Royal British Bank v. Turquand, 5 E. & B. 428, affirmed 6 E. & B. 327; Agar v. Athenaeum Life Ass. Soc, 3 C. B. N. S. 725. (p) Re General Provident, §c. Co., 17 W. R. 514. (q) Re Hagdalena, §c. Co., John. 690. (r) Re Wynn Hall Coal Co., L. R. 10 Eq. 515. (s) M'Cormicky. Parry, 7 Exch. 355. (t) Re General Provident, §c. Soc, 17 W. R. 514. See Exp. National Bank, L. R. 14 Eq. 507. (m) South Essex Gaslight Co., 2 J. & H. 306 ; Re Inns of Court, §c. Co., L. R. 6 Eq. 82. Shears v. Jacob, L. R. 1 C. P. 513; approved, Befell v. White, L. R. 2 C. P. 144. (x) Bryon v. Metropolitan Saloon, §c. Co., 3 De G. & J. 123. DEBENTURES. 477 A mortgage by a company does not differ, in point of form, chap, xxvti. from one given by an individual, except that if it is given to Form of mort- secure outstanding or future bills of exchange or promissory |^ J com " notes at maturity the covenant for payment of principal and interest should be omitted, so as to prevent the merger of the simple contract debts in a specialty security for the same debt (y) . ii. — Debentures. — Generally speaking, a joint stock company, Power of having under its memorandum of association express or implied °° s m P ^J^ea.- power to borrow on mortgage, may by its articles or by special tares, resolution empower itself to issue debentures to secure moneys advanced for the purposes of the undertaking, and authorize its directors to issue the same (s) . By the Mortgage Debenture Act, 1865 (a), and the Mortgage Statutory Debenture Amendment Act, 1870 (b), companies which by their joaTcom- constitution are limited to the objects of advancing money on paries. the securities upon land and other property in the Acts specified, or of borrowing money on transferable mortgage debentures on any such securities as aforesaid, are empowered to issue mort- gage debentures in the form, and founded upon such securities, and to be registered as in the Acts mentioned (c) . No precise legal definition of the expression " debenture " Meaning of has been given by any statute or reported judicial decision, tur™" " ea " "It is not either in law or in commerce a strictly technical term, or what is called a term of art"(rf). The expression occurs in several statutes, and has given rise to decisions as to its meaning for the purposes of the particular Act. Thus, it has been held that an instrument, though not purporting to be a debenture, may be a " debenture " for the purposes of the Bills of Sale Act, 1882, so as not to require registration (e) ; and it would seem that, generally speaking, an instrument creating a charge on the property of a company may be treated as a debenture, though not expressly purporting to be such (/). (y) See Key & Elph. Conv. Prec., (a) 28 & 29 Vict. c. 78, s. 3. 5th ed. vol. ii. pp. 158, 162 ; Byth. & (b) 33 & 34 Vict. c. 20, s. 4. Jarm. Conv. 4th ed. vol. iii. p. 1117. See (c) Post, p. 500. Dav. Conv. vol. ii. pt. ii. p. 608, n. See (d) Per Chitty, J., in Levy v. Aber- as to merger, Price v. Ifolton, 10 C. B. corns Co., 37 Ch. D. 260, at p. 264. 561 ; Owen v. Homan, 3 Mac. & G-. 407. See British India, §-c. Co. v. Commis- (z) Bryon v. Metropolitan Saloon, §c. . sioners of Inland Revenue, 7 Q,. B. D. Co., 3 De G. & J. 123; Be Inns of 165, 172; Edmonds v. Blaina Furnaces, Court Hotel Co., L. P. 6 Eq. 82 ; Be 36 Ch. D. 215, 219. Panama, §-c. Co., L. R. 5 Ch. A. 322 ; [e) Levy v. Abercorris Co., sup. Howard v. Patent Ivory Co., 38 Ch. D. (/) See Enthoven v. Hoyle, 21 L. J. 156. 478 ( >F MORTGAGORS — COMPANIES. CHAP. XXVII. Debenture need not be under seal. Single deben- ture. Meaning of "issue." Mortgage debentures and simple debentures. How charge created. Trust deeds to secure debentures. Debentures Conversely, it was held that an instrument purporting to be a debenture was chargeable as such with stamp duty, though it was in effect a mere promissory note, which is not ordinarily regarded as a debenture (//). Debentures are usually given under seal, but this is not essential to their validity, if the articles empower the directors to issue debentures under hand only signed by some of their number (h). Debentures are usually issued in a series, entitling each holder to rank pari passu with other holders forming part of the same series ; but a debenture may be a single instrument (/). Debentures are " issued " when they are delivered, so as to give the holder the right to deal with them (/.•) . Debentures are of two kinds, namely, mortgage debentures, which are charges of some kind on property, and debentures, which are mere bonds either simply amounting to an acknow- ledgment of indebtedness, or coupled with an undertaking to pay the principal and interest thereon till payment (/). The charge on property by which a mortgage debenture is secured may be created by a separate covering deed of trust, or by the debenture itself, or partly by a trust deed and partly by debentures. Debenture trust deeds are executed where it is desired that the legal estate in the property charged shall pass to trustees so as to ensure the priority of the security, and so as to enable them to protect the interests of the debenture holders, and in case of de- fault to enter and sell, &c, without any application to the Court. Trust deeds are usually considered advisable in the case of charges upon ships, letters patent, and where debenture holders are to have the option of exchanging debentures to bearer for registered debentures and vice versa. The practice of issuing debentures covered by a trust deed is more common than formerly, as it is found that debentures so secured are attrac- tive to investors. Trust deeds are also often thought advisable to secure deben- C. P. 100 ; Gardner v. L. C. § D. Rail, Co., L. P. 2 Ch. A. 201. (g) British India, §c. Co. v. Commis- sioners of Inland Revenue, 7 Q. B. D. 165. (h) Ibid. (i) Levy v. Ahercorris Co., 37 Ch. D. 260 ; Robson v. Smith, (1895) 2 Ch. 118. (k) Mou-att v. Castle Steel, §c. Co., 34 Ch. D. 58, 62, C. A. See Re Bir- cham, (1895) 2 Ch. 786, C. A. (I) See per Lindley, J., in British India, §c. Co. v. Commissioners of In- land Revenue, 7 Q. B. D. 165, at p. 172. DEBENTUEES. 479 tures issued by companies carrying on business abroad, and chap. xxvn. intended to be charged on land in a foreign country. Trusts charged on declared by such deeds will be enforced by the English Courts forei ° a land - against the trustees and the company (m), according to the well-settled rule that equity, as it acts primarily in personam, and not merely in rem, may enforce, as between persons re- siding within the jurisdiction, trusts affecting land situate out of the jurisdiction (»). It must, however, be borne in mind that trusts are not recognized by the laws of many foreign countries, and accordingly the difficulties may arise and expense be incurred incident to the devolution of the property comprised in the security ; and, moreover, if debentures are charged on land in a foreign country otherwise than in accordance with the laws of that country, although the Court here will as far as possible enforce the contract according to English law, and without regard to the law of the foreign country (o), yet the omission of formalities required by the law of that country for the validity of the charge may nullify, wholly or in part, the practical effect of the decision of an English Court. A trust deed to secure debentures is usually framed in the Form of trust form of a conveyance or assignment to trustees for the deben- ture holders of the property intended to be comprised in the security upon trust to permit the company to carry on its business until default, and thereupon to enter aud sell, &c. ; and it frequently contains power for the trustees, on default and until sale, to carry on the business for the benefit of the shareholders (p). A trust deed to secure debentures may contain a proviso Powers of that the trustees shall have the statutory powers of sale and sa e ' appointing a receiver, &c, in like manner as if they were mort- gages, and such powers will be exerciseable accordingly (q). Where the payment of debentures is secured by a covering Power for trust deed, a general condition in the deed that a resolution bindaii^ie - carried by a majority at a meeting shall bind all the debenture Venture holders is valid so as to enable a meeting by the specified (m) See Holroyd v. Marshall, 10 H. (o) Exp. Pollard, 4 Deac. 27 ; Exp. L. C. 191. Holthaussen, Re Scheibler, L. R. 9 Ch. (n) Perm v. Baltimore, 1 Ves.Sen.444. A. 722. See S. C, and notes thereto in Tudor, (p) For forms of trust deeds, see L. C. Eq. 1047. See also Ewing v. Palmer's Company Precedents, 6th ed. Orr-Ewing, 9 App. Cas. 40; Mercantile, pt. 1, pp. 702 et seq. &c. Co. v. River Plate, $c. Co., (1892) 2 (?) See Owen $ Co. v. Cronk, (189.5) Ch. 303. 1 Q- B. 265, C. A. 480 OF MORTGAGORS — COMPANIES. CHAP, xsvir. Extent of power of majority. Operation of trust deed where no debentures issued. Debentures by covenant with named jterson. majority to assent to any modification consistent with the pro- visions of the deed. So, where the trust deed provided that a meeting of the dehenture holders should have power, hy resolu- tion passed by a certain majority, " to sanction any modification or compromise of the rights of the debenture holders against the company or against its property," so as to bind all debenture holders, whether present or not, it was held that a resolution duly passed and carried by the requisite majority sanctioning a loan to the company, and resolving that such loan should take priority over the existing debentures, was a resolution for a " modification " of the rights of the debenture holders within the meaning of the trust deed, and therefore valid and binding on a dissentient minority (;■). But the power of a majority to bind the minority of the debenture holders must be clearly expressed, and its limits defined in detail ; for the assent of the majority will not be binding except in strict accordance with the terms of the power (s) ; nor will it bind the minority to anything incon- sistent with the provisions of the deed (t), or if the objects of the trust have failed (it). Where a trust deed is executed to cover debentures intended to be issued, the issue of debentures is an absolute condition precedent to the deed becoming a security. Until they have been issued its only operation is by way of conveyance to the trustees of the legal estate in trust for the company (x). Formerly debentures were generally framed so as to contain a covenant by the company with the person to whom each deben- ture was issued to pay to him, his executors, administrators or assigns, the principal and interest thereby secured ; but this form was found to cause serious inconvenience. A debenture being a chose in action the right to sue upon the covenant was only assignable in accordance with the rules governing the assign- ment of choses in action in equity, thereby necessitating an investigation of the assignor's title and other precautions and (r) Follit v. Eddy stone Granite Quar- ries, (1892) 3 Ch. 75. See He Dominion of Canada, §c. Co., 55 L. T. 347 ; Sneath v. Valley Gold, Limited, (1893) 1 Ch. 477 ; Mercantile Investment, §c. Trust Co. v. River Plate Trust, $c. Co., (1894) 1 Ch. 578 ; Finlay v. Mexican Invest- ment Corp., (1897) 1 Q. B. 517. (s) Mercantile Investment Trust Co. v. International Co. of Mexico, (1893) 1 Ch. 484, C. A. (t) Say v. Swedish and Norwegian Rail. Co., W. N. (1S89) 96, C. A. (u) Collinyham, v. Sloper, (1893) 2 Ch. 96 ; this decision was appealed from, but a compromise was sanc- tioned by C. A. See S.C., (1894) 3 Ch. 716. (.r) Re Bircham, (1895) 2 Ch. 786, C. A. DEBENTURES. 481 formalities, which often occasioned considerable trouble and chap. xxvn. expense. The person entitled to such equities may release them, either Release of expressly, or by implication arising from his course of conduct ; and, accordingly, where a holder of certain debentures, who held shares in the company which were not fully paid up, transferred his debentures, and the transferees were registered as the pro- prietors of the debentures, and received certificates to that effect from the company, it was held that the company had, by their conduct, released their lien for unpaid calls against the trans- ferees (//). So, the acceptance of notice of an assignment of a bond, given at the office, was held to preclude the company from setting up against the assignee equities between them and the original obligor though the assignment was never registered (s) . The forms of debentures now commonly used are registered Modem forma . , i i i , i i °f debentures. debentures and debentures to bearer. A registered debenture contains a promise by the company to Registered pay the named person to whom it is issued, " or other the regis- tered holder," the principal and interest secured, and also, if such is the intention, a charge upon property of the company intended to be comprised therein. The register of holders being evidence of title, this form offers Advantages the advantages of enabling the debenture to be dealt with, both j n this form- as between the original holder and the transferee, and also as between the registered holder for the time being and the com- pany, without the necessity for investigation of title and of rendering the debenture transferable free from equities affecting the original holder. Registered debentures are sometimes framed so as to render Registered the principal payable only to the registered holder for the time tlth capons, being, but the interest payable to the bearer of coupons attached to the debenture. This is often found convenient and acceptable to trustees and others, who may be unable or unwilling to run the risk of lending money on securities by which the principal is made payable to bearer. Debentures are now frequently issued payable to bearer, J^^res to either simply or so as to be capable of subsequent registration at any time, with the object of making them, as far as possible, freely transferable by delivery as negotiable instruments, with- (>/) Re Northern Assam Tea Co., L. R. (2) Re Hercules Insurance Co., Brun- 10 Eq. 458. ton's Claim, L. R. 19 Eq. 302. VOL. I. R. I I 482 OF MORTGAGORS COMPANIES. CHAP. XXVII. Negotiability of debentures to bearer. Crouch v. Credit Fancier of England. Goodwin v. Robarts. out any necessity for a written assignment, and so as to enable the bond fide holder for value, for the time being, to sue the company in his own name, and to confer upon him a good title free from intervening equities. How far debentures to bearer are to be deemed to be nego- tiable instruments, so as to confer on a person taking them in good faith and for value a good title, though he takes from one who has no title, appears to be a question not free from doubt. As regards debentures issued since the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (a), such instruments, though under seal, may, if so framed as to fall within the definition of a "promissory note" in sect. 83 of that Act, operate as such, and be negotiable accord- ingly (b). But many debentures are so framed as not to fall within that definition, and it is with regard to these that the difficulty arises. The question depends mainly upon whether there is such an established usage to treat debentures to bearer as negotiable as to render them, like instruments which are negotiable by the law merchant, an exception to the general rule of law and equity, that no person can acquire a good title either to a chose in action or any other property from one whose title is defective. The only reported case amounting to an actual decision on the point is that of Crouch v. Credit Fonder of England (c), in which the negotiability of debentures to bearer, not being promissory notes, was negatived, on the ground that, such instruments being of only recent introduction, the custom could not be part of the law merchant, of which the Court is bound to take notice. The authority of this case is considered (d) to have been shaken by the decision of the Court of Exchequer Chamber in Goodwin v. Robarts (e), in which case it was held that scrip issued in England by the agent of a foreign government, entitling the bearer to delivery of formal bonds of the government, were negotiable instruments passing by delivery to a bond fide holder without notice. Sir A. Cockburn, C. J., in delivering the judgment of the Court, gave a full and exhaustive examination of the origin and history of negotiable instruments, and ob- served : " We think the judgment in Crouch v. Credit Fonder may well be supported on the ground that, in that case, there (a) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 61. See s. 90 (2). (b) He Imperial Land Co. of Marseilles, L. R. 11 Eq. 478. (c) L. R. 8 Q. B. 374. (d) See Palmer, Comp. Prec. 620 ; Cbadwyck Healey on Companies, 174. ( ltjded in Securities given BY ( fOMPANIES. i. — Undertaking, Tolls, Surplus Lands, &c. of Railway and Public Companies. — With regard to the subject-matter which may be included in securities given by companies, a distinction is to be drawn between companies having, to a greater or less degree, a monopoly in providing public traffic, or carrying out other objects in which the community is interested, and com- panies formed for purposes of private adventure and profit (k). On grounds of public policy, the permanent way of a railway company cannot be mortgaged, or sold, or dealt with in any way (/). The question as to what is included in mortgages of the " undertaking " of railway and other companies has frequently come before the Courts for decision. In the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, s. 2 (/»), the "undertaking" means "the under- (f) Western Wagon Co. v. West, (1892) 1 Ch. 271. (ff) South African Territories v. Wal- Ungton, (1897) 1 Q. B. 692, C. A. (A) BeEllerb)/. 20 W. R. 855. (i) Exp. Chalmers, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 289; He Bhcenix Bessemer Steel Co., Exp. Carnforth Co., 4 Ch. D. 108, C. A. 0) See Wilson v. Church. 13 Ch. D. 1, C. A. ; National Bolivian Navig. Co. v. Wilson, 5 App. Cas. 176 ; Collingham v. Sloper, (1893) 2 Ch. 96, reversed on other grounds, (1894) 3 Ch. 716, 0. A. (k) As to the obligations and re- strictions on railway companies having reference to the interests of the public, see Great Northern Hail. Co. v. Eastern Counties Rail. Co., 9 Ha. 306, 310. (I) Be Panama, S;c. Bogal Mail Co., L. R. 5 Ch. A. 318, 321 ; Gard London, Chatham and Borer Bail. Co., L. R. 2 Ch. A. 201 ; Bagnahtown Bail. Co., Ir. R. 1 Eq. 275. (>») 8 & 9 Vict. c. 18. MORTGAGE OF RAILWAY UNDERTAKING, ETC. 491 taking or works, of whatever nature, which should by the special _ CIIAF - XXYI1 ', Act be authorized to be executed " ; in the Eailway Clauses Consolidated Act, s. 2 (»), it signifies, " the railway and works." A mortgage of the "undertaking" of a railway company passes Mortgaged the rails, stations, and other buildings and works (o) ; but does of ra iiway not include the soil of the railway (p), or surplus lands, or company, the proceeds of sale thereof (q), or tlie rolling and other stock or property of the company as carriers (/•)• But a specific charge may be made of surplus lands (s). It JJ^f^KL can, however, be made only subject to the right of pre-emption in the adjacent owners (t). The word « undertaking," in the case of a railway company ™**™*> or other company of a public nature, means the undertaking as &0 . a going concern, and, accordingly, the mortgagee cannot inter- fere with the management of the undertaking (it) ; and the holder of mortgage debentures secured on the undertaking is not entitled to foreclosure or sale (x). When, under the powers of their Act, a railway company mortgages "the undertaking, and the rates, tolls, and all other sums arising by virtue of the Act," no interest in the land passes on which an ejectment can be maintained (//). And in a similar case of a mortgage by a canal company of their "undertaking, rates, and duties," until the principal sum should be paid by them with interest, Tindal, C. J., held that the terms of the contract were satisfied by giving the lenders a security on the undertaking, without allowing them to sue the corporation (a) . The expression " tolls and other sums of money" means sums ejmdem generis as tolls (a). i ,\ R A- Q Vint r 20 (x) Furness v. Caterham Rail. Co., 25 i 9 Sl, 2 Giff. 71. BeU. 614; 8 C 27 Beav 358; Re SeVlHriion v. New Brunswick Rail. Heme Bay Waterworks Co 10 Ch D. Co L R 1 P C 64 42 ; Blaker v. Herts and Essex Water- (p) 'Doe d. Myatt v. St. Helen's Rail. works Co., 40 Ch. D. 399 C \) Gardnerr. London, Chatham and Q. B. 364 See WieMam v New T)oVer Rail Co , L. R. 2 Ch. A. 201. Brunswick, $c. Rail. Co., L. R. 1 B. U ^ r Hat y'Fast Union Sail. Co., 8 64, 78 ,ReBa { g a UtownRai I Co Exp ,-, [ i i , fi Smith, Ir. R. 1 Eq. 275 ; Fatrtitle v. Gil- v ' coo Bing. JN. O. 4) Perkins v. Deptford Pier Co., 13 465 (charge on real and personal estate Sim. 277. of the company). (it) _Blackmorev.Yates,~L.R,.2~Ex.22r>. {q) Re Home and Hellard, 29 Ch. D. (0) Ibid., at p. 227. See Blaker v. 736 ; Edwards v. Standard Rolling Stock Herts and Essex Watenvorks Co., 40 Syndicate, (1893) 1 Ch. 574. Ch. D. 399. (>') Re Panama, §c. Royal Mail, §c. (p) Re Neiv Clydaeh, %c. Iron Co., Co., L. R. 5 Ch. A. 318. 494 OF MORTGAGORS — COMPANIES. CHAP. XXVII. Floating security. When a float- ing security becomes specific. articles creating the power to borrow (s). Future book debts may be charged and have been held to be included in a mort- gage of the " property " of a company (t). The effect of a mortgage or debenture charging the " under- taking and property" (u) or the " estate property and effects " (.r) of a company, will apparently, as a general rule, be construed as indicating an intention to create a floating security on all pro- perty of the company as a going concern, so as to leave the company free to dispose of its property, by sale or otherwise, in the ordinary course of its business under the management of its directors (y). So a company, which had issued mortgage debentures charged on its present and future property by way of floating security, was held to be entitled to apply moneys re- ceived from a fire insurance company, while the company was still a going concern, in payment of simple contract debts incurred in the course of its business, and that the payment could not be disturbed by the debenture holders on the ground of fraudulent preference (z). The holder of a charge comprising by way of floating security the general assets of a company, so long as the company is a going concern, cannot by notice to a debtor to the company, require the particular debt to be paid to him in satisfaction of his charge (a). But a floating security, though merely general in its incep- tion, will become specific upon the appointment of a receiver (b) ; or upon the winding up of the company (c), upon the happening of either of which events, the charge created by the debentures or trust deed will attach to all the property belonging to the company at that time, so as to give the debenture holders a (s) Re Florence Land, $c. Co., 10 Ch. D, 530, C. A. (t) Bloomer v. Union Coal and Iron Co., L. R. 16 Eq. 383. (u) Me Marine Mansions Co., L. R. 4 Eq. 601. See He Panama, $• - xxvn. incumbrancers, creditors, or purchasers (d) . But a floating security, created by debentures, will not be rendered specific by mere default on the part of the company in payment of principal or interest or other default under the debentures, or the covering trust deed, in the absence of express stipulation, until the debenture holders take some steps to enforce their security, and to prevent the company from con- tinuing to carry on its business (e). A person who purchased land from a company which had issued debentures expressed to operate as a floating security until default in payment of principal and interest, was held to be entitled to reasonable evidence that there had been no default in payment of principal or interest of the debentures (/). Where debentures by way of floating security fix a time for Effect of payment of the principal moneys secured, the winding up of the wm ° up ' company before that time renders the money immediately pay- able, and entitles the debenture holders at once to realize their security for the full amount of principal, interest, and costs (g) . Inasmuch as debentures which are given by way of floating Company security do not become specific until the appointment of a j^ro^rt"* 11 receiver, or on the company being wound up, but in the mean- after issuing , • i ,-i . .. , debentures by time so long as the company is a going concern it may, not- way f float- withstanding the debentures, deal with its property in the ing security, ordinary course of its business (//). Accordingly, a company may, after issuing such debentures, give a mortgage of a specific asset to secure an advance necessary for carrying on its business, which will rank in priority over the debentures (i), even though the debentures are expressed to be a first charge on the under- taking and present and future property of the company (_/). The lien of a solicitor of a company on the title deeds in his pos- Solicitor's session will prevail over a floating security created by debentures (k) . So also a distress levied before a floating security has become specific will prevail over the holders of the debentures (/). (d) See as to priorities of securities change Shipping Co., 58 L. T. 174. of companies, post, pp. 1295 et seq. (j) Wheatlcgv. Silkstone Coal Co., 29 (e) Government Stock Investment, §c. Cb. D. 715. As to constructive notice Co. v. MmilaJRail. Co., (1897) A. C. 81. that such debentures are thereby ex- (/) Re Home andHellard ,'29 Ch.D.736. pressed to be a first charge, see English (g) Wallace v. Universal Automatic and Scottish Mercantile Investment Trust Co., (1894) 2 Ch. 547, C. A. v. Brunton, (1892) 2 Q. B. 700, C. A. (/<) Supra, p. 494. (k) Brunton v. Electrical Engineering (i) Moor v. Anglo-Italian Batik, 10 Corp., (1892) 1 Ch. 434. Ch. D. 681, C. A. ; Re Hamilton's (I) Be Roundwood Coll. Co., Lee- v. Windsor Ironworks Co., Exp. Pitman, Round/wood Coll. Co.. (1897) 1 Ch. 373 12 Ch. D. 707 ; Ward v. Royal Ex- C. A. lien. 49G OF MORTGAGORS — COMPANIES. CHAP. XXVII. Charge of land of com- pany. Charge of chattels. After- acquired stock in trade. Custody of books, &c. Debentures, which are originally, or which have become charges upon the specific property of the company, are prior to all subsequent incumbrances, judgments, and general creditors, so far as relates to the property specifically charged by the debentures (m) . And if the property is sold by order of the Court, or by the sheriff, unless the proceeds of sale have been actually received by him, the debenture holders will have priority against the proceeds of sale(w), although the debts were incurred in carrying on the business (o) . Where debentures are charged on the property of a company including land, though by way of floating security, a contract for sale of such debentures is a contract for an interest in land within sect, 4 of the Statute of Frauds (p). A debenture which comprised the chattels of the company must have been registered under the former Bills of Sale Acts, as against execution creditors ; but registration was not necessary against a liquidator under a winding up (q) ; nor is it under the Bills of Sale Act of 1882 (r). A trust deed charging the assets of a company to cover de- bentures, if duly registered under the Companies Act, 1862 (s), is not a bill of sale within sect. 14 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1882 (f). It was held in an Irish case that a mortgage of the present and future stock in trade, plant, property and effects of a com- pany, will create a valid charge as against the general creditors on all after-acquired stock in trade and property (it) ; but this question may perhaps be regarded as still open to doubt (v). A mortgage of the whole of the property of a company does not give the right of custody of the company's books and docu- ments to the receiver of the debenture holders as against the liquidator, except as regards such documents as are necessary to support the debenture holders' title (x). (m) Ames v. Birkenhead Docks Trus- tees, 20 Beav. 332 ; Fun/ess v. Cater- ham, §c. Co., 27 Beav. 358 ; Be Marine Mansions, §c. Co., L. R. 4 Eq. 601 ; Be Standard Manufacturing Co., (1891) 1 Ch. 627 ; Be Opera limited, (1891) 3 Ch. 260, C. A. (n) Be Panama, §c. Boyal Mail Co., L. R. 5 Ch. App. 318 ; Taunton v. Sheriff of Warwickshire, (1895) 2 Ch. 319, C. A. See Morrison v. Skeme Iron- works Co., 6 L. T. 588. (o) GrisselVs Case, 3 Ch. D. 411, C. A. {p) 29 Car. II. c. 3. See Driver v. Broad, (1893) 1 Q. B. 744, C. A. (q) Be Marine Mansions Co., L. R. 4 Eq. 601. (>•) See ante, p. 209. (s) See infra, p. 500. (t) Richards v. Kidderminster {Over- seers of), (1896) 2 Ch. 212. (a) Exp. Cox, Be Dublin Drapery Co., 13 L. R. Ir. 174. (») See Florence Land, §c. Co., 10 Ch. D. 530, C. A. As to future calls, see post, p. 498. (x)' Enqel v. South Metropolitan Brew- ing, §c. Co. (No. 2), (1892) 1 Ch. 442. MORTGAGE OF FUTURE CALLS. 497 iii. — Future Calls. — Mortgages of future calls are expressly chap, xxvh. provided for in the statutory form of mortgage appended to the Mortgage of Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (//), for the use of companies constituted under special Acts. The remedy of foreclosure is applicable to the uncalled capital Foreclosure. of a joint stock company (z). A mortgage or debenture given by a joint stock company Memorandum cannot effectually charge the proceeds of a future call, unless ^^e/to 6 the memorandum gives power to charge them either expressly charge future or by implication from the terms of the power (a). But there is nothing in the Companies Act, 1862 (b), or in any of the amending Acts, which prohibits a company from mortgaging its future or unpaid capital ; and accordingly, if the memo- randum expressly or impliedly gives power to mortgage such capital, and if the articles of association impose no restrictions on the exercise of such power, a mortgage of such capital is valid so as to give priority over creditors in a winding up (c). Thus, where the memorandum of association of a company specified one of the objects of the company as being " to receive money, or loans, on deposit or otherwise, and upon any security of the company, or upon the security of any property of the company," it was held that these words authorized a charge on uncalled capital (d). But a power to mortgage the "property of the company," without more words, will not authorize a mortgage of unpaid capital, a resolution of the directors making a call being a condition precedent to the proprietary right of the company in such capital (?). In the absence of an express power to mortgage calls, arrears of calls may be mortgaged (o) , and calls already made, though not yet payable (p). If a company mortgage a call, and, before it is received, make another call, it cannot prejudice the mort- gagees by getting in the second call at the expense of the first (q) . The power of directors to make calls ipso facto comes to an end on the winding up of the company (r) . Debentures charging the undertaking and property, present and future, of the com- pany, including uncalled capital, will include all capital got in before liquidation, but not calls got in during liquidation (s). Arrears of calls. (h) Page v. International Agency, §c. Trust, W. N. (1893) 32. (i) Hoivard v. Patent Ivory Co., 38 Ch. D. 156. (k) Jackson v. Bainford Colliery Co., (1896) 2 Ch. 340. {I) Re Florence land, §c. Co., 10 Ch. D. 530, C. A. (m) Be Pyle Works, 44 Ch. D. 534, C. A. (n) Per Cotton, L. J., ibid, at p. 574. (o) Re Sankey Brook Coal Co., L. R. 9 Eq. 721 ; 10 Eq. 381 ; Gibbs 7 Case, L. R. 10 Eq. 312. (p) Pickering v. Ilfracombe Bail. Co., L. R. 3 C. P. 235. (q) Humber Ironworks Co., 16 "W. R. 474, 667. (»•) Fowler v. Broad's Patent Night light Co., (1893) 1 Ch. 724 ; Be Streat- ham and General Estates Co., (1897) 1 Ch. 15. (s) Be Streatham and General Estates Co., (1897) 1 Ch. 15. REGISTRATION OF SECURITIES OF COMPANIES. 499 CHAP. XXVII. Section IV. Registration of Securities of Companies. i. — Securities of Railway and other Public Companies. — By Register to be sect. 45 of the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (s) kept> (which, as has been seen, applies to railway companies and other companies constituted under special Acts), a register of mortgages and bonds is required to be kept by the secretary with the particulars therein specified, and to be open to inspection by all persons interested. By sect. 41 of this Act, mortgages and bonds are to be by Statutory deed, under the common seal of the company, duly stamped, gage. and wherein the consideration shall be duly stated, and may be in the forms in the schedule to the Act or to the like effect. The statement of the consideration will be sufficient if it is Considera- apparent on the face of the deed, though not expressly stated in terms (t) . By the Railway Companies Securities Act, 1866 (u), pro- Accounts of ■■(. -,. .in iii -iip loan capital, visions are made for making accounts oi the loan capital oi & c . of railway companies, and for the registration and inspection thereof, and com P ailies - for depositing statements before issuing any debenture stock, and for the declaration to be indorsed on mortgages and- bonds, and for specifying in their accounts the particulars of their loan capital, and any new borrowing powers conferred on them. ii. — Securities under Mortgage Debenture Acts. — A company about to issue mortgage debentures under the Mortgage Deben- ture Acts (x) must produce and deposit for registration the securities upon which such debentures are to be founded at the Office of the Land Registry in a register established for that purpose (//), and the aggregate principal sum secured by all such mortgage debentures must never at any time exceed the total amount of the securities of the company so registered, nor ten times the amount for the time being uncalled of its subscribed share capital (s) . New mortgage debentures may (s) 8 & 9 Vict. c. 16. (a;) 28 & 29 Vict. c. 78 ; 33 & 34 (t) Landowners, §c. Co. v. Ashford, Vict. c. 20. See ante, p. 477. 16 Ch. D. 412. ' (y) 28 & 29 Vict. c. 78, ss. 6, 7, 9. (m) 29 & 30 Vict. c. 108. (z) Ibid. s. 11. KK 2 500 OF MORTGAGORS — COMPANIES. CHAP. XX VII. Deposit of securities with registrar. Register of mortgages, &c. to be kept. Omission to register. be issued by a company in lieu of those from time to time paid off, provided that neither of the limits above mentioned are at any time exceeded (d). Holders of mortgage debentures issued under this Act are to be entitled pan passu to the benefit of the registered securities upon which such debentures are founded (e). The company is also to keep a register of secu- rities (/). Registered securities are charged with the payment of the debentures and interest thereon, and are not applicable for any other purpose until discharged from registration (g). All mortgage debentures issued by a company under these Acts are to be registered at the Office of the Land Registry, and indorsed with a memorandum of such registration, without which indorsement no mortgage debenture is to be a charge under the Acts on the registered securities of the company (/>). The Court has no power to order securities deposited with the registrar to be delivered up to a receiver appointed in a debenture-holder's action, or to a liquidator in the winding up of the company (/'). iii, — Securities of Joint Stock Companies. — By sect. 43 of the Companies Act, 1862 (,/), every limited company under the Act must keep a register of all mortgages and charges specifically affecting the property of the company, with such particulars as in the Act specified, under a penalty not exceed- ing 50/., upon every director, manager, and other officer of the company party or privy to the omission to register ; and such register is to be open to inspection by any creditor or member of the company. This right of inspection includes a right to take copies of the register (/»•), but is determined by an order to wind up the company (A7.-) . This section applies only to mortgages and charges effected by the company itself, not to pre-existing incumbrances subject to which the company acquired the property (/). This section is merely directory, and the validity of a mort- gage is not affected by the omission to register it (m) ; if an {d) 28 & 29 Vict. c. 78, s. 13. (e) Ibid. s. 15. (/) Ibid. s. 27. Q) 33 & 34 Vict. c. 20, s. 7. (A) 28 & 29 Vict. c. 78, ss. 32, 33. (i) Somerset v. Zand Securities Co., (1894) 3 Ch. 464, C. A. U) 25 & 26 Vict. c. 89. (k) Nelson v. Anglo-American Land Mortgage Co., (1897) 1 Ch. 130. (kk) Somerset v. lands Securities Co., W. N. (1897) 29. (/) lie General Horticultural Co., 53 L. T. 699. See He Underbank Spinning, $c. Co., 31 Ch. D. 226. (m) Exp. Valpy and Chaplin, L. R. 7 Ch. A. 289; Wright v. Morton, 12 App. Cas. 371. REGISTRATION OF SECURITIES OF COMPANIES. unregistered mortgage has been realized, the amount cannot be ohap. xxyii. directed to be refunded (■«). In numerous earlier cases it was laid down that an officer of the company who took a mortgage from the company, and omitted to register it, could not avail himself of his security, and questions frequently arose as to who were to be deemed officers of the company for this purpose, and as to how far the supposed rule applied to officers who were not themselves guilty of neglect, or to transferees from officers of the com- pany (o). The general rule so laid down has been finally pronounced to be erroneous, and all questions as to its application have been set at rest by the decision of the House of Lords in Wright v. Sort on {p). In that case debentures were issued to a director of the company, but were not registered. On the winding-up of the company, the validity of the debentures was contested by unsecured creditors, and also by debenture-holders, who did not appear to have inquired as to the charges on the company s property, or as to registration. It was held that the debentures were not invalidated as against the director by the omission to register. . . Mortgagees do not lose their priority by the omission of the officers to register, and it does not make any difference m this respect whether the mortgagee is or is not an officer of the 30 TrZfers of mortgages and debentures are to be registered in *g£££ the manner prescribed by the Act (r). The transferee must sue on the debentures in his own name (s). („) Ee Borou^ of Hackney Mm- (p) « ^f« American Co., paper Co., 3 On. U. do J. wy n . (o) See these cases collected in Coote 2 Ch. D. 337, C. A. ? seq. ( 502 ) CHAPTER XXVIII. OF MORTGAGES BY PARTNERS. General rule i. — Of the Power of a Partner to bind the Firm by borrowing S^rtne? to 7 and giving Securities for Loans.— The existence of a partner- bind firm. ship implies such a relation between the partners as that each of them is a principal, and each of them an agent for the other (a). And, accordingly, as a general rule, every partner who does any act necessary for, or usually done in, carrying on business of the kind carried on by the firm of which he is a member, thereby binds his partners to the same extent as if he were their agent duly appointed for that purpose, unless the partner so acting has, in fact, no authority to act for the firm in some particular manner, and the person with whom he is dealing knows that he has no such authority (/»). Power to The power of a partner to borrow money on behalf of the money. & Tm res ^ s on this principle of partnership agency, by which every member of a firm has, as regards third parties, an implied authority to do all such acts as are necessary for carrying on the business of the firm in the ordinary manner, so as to relieve the person dealing with him from the duty of making further inquiries (c). This power is not, however, incidental to every business; whether and to what extent it exists depends upon the nature of the particular business. It may, however, be laid down as a general rule that one partner has an implied power to borrow on behalf of the firm to pay existing debts of the firm incurred in the business (d). («) Per O'Brien, J., in Shaw v. Gait, 1 C. P. 86 ; Molhvo v. Court of Wards, 16 Ir. Com. L.R.357. See Cox v. Hick- L. R. 4 P. 0. 419. man, 8 H. L. C. at p. 312 ; Pole v. (c) Okell v. Eaton, 31 L. T. N. S. Leash, 9 Jur. N. S. 829 ; Holme v. 330. See Harrison v. Jackson, 7 T. R. Hammond, L. R. 7 Ex. 218, 230; 210; Rothwell v. Humphries, 1 Esp. Pooley v. Driver, 5 Ch. D. 458. 406 ; Thicknesse v. Bromilow, 2 Cr. & {b) BainVs Case, L. R. 5 Ch. A. J. 425. at p. 733. See Bullen v. Sharp, L. R. (d) Brown v. Kidgcr, 3 H. & N. 853. POWER OF PARTNER TO BIND FIRM. 503 But one partner has no authority to bind his co-partners by chap, xzyih. borrowing money otherwise than in the ordinary course of busi- Partner o t - / \ n i i/i i • en cannot bind ness tor business purposes (e) . ho, where the business oi a farm firm limited is such as, according to the custom of the particular trade, to be b 7 ? C0 P e of ° . business. usually conducted on ready-money principles, the firm will not be liable to repay moneys borrowed by one of the partners, unless it can be shown that he had express authority to bind the firm by borrowing money (/). If the lender has knowledge or notice that a partner borrowing money has no authority to do so, the firm will not be bound (g). Where a partner borrows money on his separate credit, the Partner other members of the firm will not be bound to repay the J°™™ g ta loan merely because it is proved, as a fact, that the money was credit, applied for the purposes of the partnership (h). Where a partner has express or implied authority to borrow Power of money on behalf of the firm, it follows that he has power to ^ve^Tcurity give security on the property of the firm for advances. Accord- on partner- ip li j. S ^ 11 P p r °p er ty mgly, as will be seen hereafter, a partner has a power to by pledge or pledge partnership chattels as security for a loan (*'). And it ^^ le would seem that a partner may create a valid equitable charge by deposit of deeds relating to real estate of the partnership (k). It is, however, a well-settled rule that one partner cannot Partner bind the firm by deed unless expressly authorized so to do (/). firmbySd. In one case, indeed, a bill of sale executed by one partner on behalf of himself and another was held to be binding on both : but in that case it was shown that the partner who executed the deed did so in the name and in the presence of his co-partner, and it was held that the other partner must have treated the deed as his own, though he did not actually seal and deliver it (m). So, it was held that a warrant of attorney under seal, executed by one partner alone with the verbal consent of the other, bound the firm (u). It may be observed that, if a partner executes a deed on Deed, when behalf of himself and his co-partners, the deed will bind him, executing 1 partners. (e) Plumer v. Gregory, L. R. 18 Eq. (h) Emly v. Lye, 15 East, 7 ; Lloyd 621. See Dickinson v. Valpy, 10 B. & v. Freshfidd, 2 C. & P. 325. Cr. 128 ; Ricketts v. Bennett, 4 C. B. (i) Post, Chap. LXIII. 686 ; Brettel v. Williams, 4 Exch. (k) Lindley on Partnership, 152. 630. See Be Clough, 31 Ch. D. 324. (/) Eaivtayne v. Bourne, 7 M. & "W. (0 Harrison v. Jackson, 7 T. R. 207 ; 595. Steiglitz v. Eggington, Holt, 141. (ff) Fisher v. Taylor, 2 Ha. 218 ; Re (m) Ball v. Bunsterville, 4 T. R. 313. Worcester Corn Exchange Co., 3 De Or. See Burn v. Bum, 3 Ves. 578. M. & G. 180. («) Bruttonv. Burton, 1 Chit. G-. P.707. 504 OF MORTGAGORS PARTNERS. chap, xxvin. though it will not bind the firm (o). But if he executes the deed, not on behalf of his co-partners, but merely as one of the members of the firm, and with the expectation that his co- partners will execute it, he will not be bound unless the others execute (p). It follows, from the general rule that express authority is necessary to enable a partner to bind the firm by deed, that a legal mortgage of property of the partnership cannot, in the absence of such authority, be made without the concurrence of all the partners (q). Any such authority must itself be under seal (r), and the fact that the partnership articles are under seal does not, of itself, confer such authority (a). Legal mort gage must be by all partners. Advances made after change in firm. Extension of charge by agreement. Extension of legal mortsrasre. Deposit to secure private debt of partner. ii. — Effect of Change in Firm on Securities on Partnership Pro- perty, — A mortgage or charge upon partnership property given to secure a present loan and present advances will not, as a general rule, cover advances made after a change in the firm by which the security is given (t). But the original security may be made available to cover such advances by subsequent agreement between the lender and the members of the firm as newly constituted. So, an equitable mortgage by deposit of deeds may be extended by parol agree- ment so as to cover further advances after a change in the firm (it). A legal mortgage cannot, of course, be extended so as to operate as such for securing further advances after a change in the firm, unless the agreement to that effect is made under seal (.(■). But it may be extended by writing not under seal so as to be available as an equitable security for such advances (//). Where a partner deposited with the bankers of the firm, who were also his private bankers, certificates of railway shares belonging to the firm as security for his own debt, it was held that the deposit did not cover advances made by the bank to the firm (z). (o) Elliot v. Davis, 2 B. & P. 338 ; Hawkshaw v. Parkins, 2 Swanst. 543 ; Cumber lege v. Lawson, 1 C. B. N. S. 709; Latch v. Wedlake, 11 A. & E. 959. (p) See Antram v. Chace, 15 East, 209. (q) Lindley on Partnership, 152. (r) Steiglitz x. Eggington, Holt, 141. (s) Harrison v. Jackson, 7 T. R. 207. [t) Bank of Scotland v. Christie, 8 CI. & F. 214. See Exp. Kensington, 2 V. & B. 3. (u) Exp. Lloyd, 1 Gl. & J. 389. See Exp. Lane, De G. 300 ; Exp. Nettle- 2 M. D. & De G. 124. (x) See Exp. Hooper, 2 Rose, 328. \y) Exp. Parr, 4 D. & C. 426. (z) City Bank Case, 3 De G. F. & J. 629. See Exp. From, 2 Gl. & J. 246 ; Chuck v. Preen, 1 Moo. & M. 259. LOAN ON TERMS OF SHARING PROFITS. ill .—Loans to Partnerships in consideration of sharing Profits, chap, xxvrn . —Advances to partnerships are sometimes made upon the terms ^nityof^ that the lender, instead of receiving a fixed rate of interest on former law the money advanced, shall be entitled to a share in the profits, ^^nev- or to interest at a rate varying with the amount of the profits. Formerly, such an arrangement exposed the lender to the risk of being held to be a partner in the borrowing firm, and liable, by reason of his sharing in the profits, to bear the losses of the firm. In order to amend the law in this respect, the Act, commonly Sharing^ called Bovill's Act (V), was passed in 1865. This Act has been longer of repealed, but is virtually re-enacted by the Partnership Act, ™*£l&? 1890 (b), which enacts as follows : — Sect. 2 (3). "The receipt by a person of the share of the profits Rule* jte of the business is prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the £££££ business, but the receipt of such a share or of a payment contingent partnership . on or varying with the profits of a business, does not of itself make him a partner in the business, and in particular— (a) The receipt by the person of a debt or other liquidated amount by instalments or otherwise out of the accruing profits of the business does not of itself make him a partner in the business, or make him liable as such, (d) The advance of money by way of loan to a person engaged or about to engage in any business on a contract with that person that the lender shall receive a rate of interest varying with the profits, or shall receive a share ot the profits arising from carrying on the business, does not o± itself make the lender a partner with the person or persons carrying on the business or liable as such. Provided that -the contract is in writing and signed by all parties thereto." The rule that the contract must be in writing and signed by Con Win the parties was the same under Bovill's Act (c). It is to be observed that sect. 2 of the Act merely provides Howto the that the fact that a loan made at interest varying with the protection profits shall not "of itself" render the lender a partner, and extends, does not exempt the lender from liability as such if the effect of the transaction is in other respects such as to render him a dormant partner. So, it has been repeatedly held under Bovill's Act, that, where it appears upon the whole agreement that the person advancing the money really does so as a partner, and not by way of loan, he will not be protected from being liable (a) 28 & 29 Vict. c. 86. W See Pooley v. Driver, 5 Ch. D. {b) 53 & 54 Vict. c. 39. 458. 506 OF MORTGAGORS — PARTNERS. chap. xxvm. as a partner merely because the agreement contains a declara- tion that the money is advanced by way of loan under the Act, and that the alleged lender shall not be liable as a partner (d) . Syers x. Syers. Where an agreement for a loan was executed in the following terms, " In consideration of the sum of 250/. this day paid to me, I hereby undertake to execute a deed of co-partnership to you for one-eighth share in the profits of the Oxford Music Hall and Tavern to be drawn up under the Limited Partnership Act, commonly called an ' Act to amend the Law of Partnership,' ' : it was held that the agreement constituted a partnership at will, with an implied stipulation that, as between the parties them- selves, the person taking the one-eighth share of the profits should be indemnified against loss (e) . Badeley v. On the other hand, where a person advanced money to a Bank! " e railway contractor, and the parties executed a deed whereby the contractor assigned to the lender all his machinery, plant, &c, as security for the loan, and agreed that the lender should receive a fixed rate of interest on the money advanced, and also a share on the profits, it was held, on the construction of the deed, and of correspondence that passed between the parties, that there was no evidence of a partnership so as to render the lender liable for the debts of the contractor (/). By the Act of 1890, it is further enacted as follows : — Postponement Sect. 3. "In the event of any person to whom money has been of rights of advanced by way of loan upon such a contract as is mentioned in the person lend- l as t foregoing section, or of any buyer of a goodwill in consideration ing or selling £ a ^^q f t h e profits of the business, being adjudged a bankrupt, tion°of share entering into an arrangement to pay his creditors less than twenty of profits shillings in the pound, or dying in insolvent circumstances, the in case of lender of the loan shall not be entitled to recover anything in insolvency. respect of his loan, and the seller of the goodwill shall not be entitled to recover anything in respect of the share of profits con- tracted for, until the claims of the other creditors of the borrower or buyer for valuable consideration in money or money's worth have been satisfied." Effect of this It will be observed that the above section affects only the enactment. r jg n t f the lender to prove in bankruptcy or under a composi- tion, and does not expressly, or as it would seem impliedly, deprive a secured creditor of the benefit of his security. So where a loan was made to a trader at a rate of interest varying (d) Exp. Mills, Re Tew, L. R. 8 Ch. (e) Syers v. Syers, 1 App. Cas. 174. A. 569 ; Fooleyv. Driver, 3 Ch. D. 458 ; (/) Badeley v. Consolidated Bank, 38 Exp. Delhasse, Be Megevand, 7 Ch. D. Ch. I). 238, C. A. See Davis v. Davis, 611, C. A. (1894) 1 Ch. 393. MORTGAGE OF SHAEE IN PARTNERSHIP. 507 with the profits of his business, upon the security of a mortgage chap, xxyih. of the business premises and of the goodwill of the business, the trader having become bankrupt, it was held that the rights of the mortgagee under his mortgage were in no way affected by sect. 5 of BovilPs Act. A person advancing money in consideration of a share of profits cannot prove in competition with any creditor of the trader or firm to whom the money is advanced, whether their claims arose before the agreement for the loan, or after it has been terminated, and other security has been given for the advances made under it (g). "Where a person so advancing money also makes other advances to the same trader or firm at a fixed rate of interest, he may prove for the latter pari passu with the other creditors (7i). But if a person lends money on the terms of sharing profits, and afterwards, in lieu thereof, agrees to take a fixed rate of interest, he comes within sect. 3 of the Act, and cannot prove in com- petition with the other creditors («). If an agreement for a loan shows an intention that the rate of interest shall in some manner vary with the profits, but is expressed in such vague and uncertain terms that it is im- possible to say in what mode such rate of interest is to be ascertained, the agreement will be void for uncertainty, and the lender will be entitled to prove pan passu with the other creditors as for money lent (7c) . iv. — Mortgage of Share in Partnership. — It is one of the Mortgagee of fundamental principles of partnership law that no person may become a be introduced as a partner without the consent of all existing partner, partners (I). A partner cannot, therefore, by assigning his share, impose the assignee on the firm as a partner against the will of the other members (m). But there is nothing to prevent a partner from assigning or Nature of charging his share without the consent of his co-partners ; and ^^f e even before the Partnership Act, 1890, it was held that the assignee or incumbrancer of a share was entitled to payment {ff) Exp. Taylor, Re Grayson, 12 Ch. lie) Re Vince, (1892) 2 Q. B. 478. ' D. 366. See Re Hildesheim, (1893) 2 {I) Lindley on Partnership, 366. Q. B. 357, C. A. And see Partnership Act, 1890, s. 24, (h) Exp. Mills, Re Tew, L. R. 8 Ch. sub-s. 7. A. 569. («) Jefferys v. Smith, 3 Russ. 158. (i) Re Stone, 33 Ch. D. 541. 508 OF MORTGAGORS — PARTNERS. chap. xxvm. of what, upon the accounts being taken, appear to be due to the partner in respect of his share (n) ; and it would seem that the mortgagee of a share in a partnership could require from the other partners an account of the mortgagor's interest in the partnership (o). The rights of the assignee of the share in a partnership are now regulated by the Acts of 1890 (p), which enacts as follows : — Rights of of share in partnership. Sect. 31. "(1.) An assignment by any partner of his share in the partnership, either absolute or by way of mortgage or redeemable charge, does not, as against the other partners, entitle the assignee, during the continuance of the partnership, to interfere in the management or administration of the partnership business or affairs, or to require any accounts of the partnership transactions, or to inspect the partnership books, but entitles the assignee only to receive the share of profits to which the assigning partner would otherwise be entitled, and the assignee must accept the account of profits agreed to by the partners. " (2.) In case of a dissolution of the partnership, whether as respects all the partners or as respects the assigning partner, the assignee is entitled to receive the share of the partnership assets to which the assigning partner is entitled as between himself and the other partners, and, for the purpose of ascertaining that share, to an account as from the date of the dissolution." It will be observed that by sub-s. (1), the right of the assignee to compel the other partners to account is expressly negatived. Registration Upon the principle that the only right of the mortgagee of a Sale Acts not share in a partnership is to receive the share of profits of the necessary. assignor, it has been held that a mortgage of such a share does not require registration as a bill of sale by reason of its in- cluding the mortgagor's share in the goods and chattels of the partnership (q). (n) Bentley v. Bates, 4 T. & C. 182 ; Glynn v. Hood, 1 De G. F. & J. 334 ; Smith v. Parks, 16 Beav. 115 ; Kelly v. Sutton, L. R. 3 Ch. A. 703 ; Cavander v. Bulteel, L. R. 9 Ch. A. 79. (o) Whetham v. Bavey, 30 Ch. D. 574. But see contra, Brown v. Be Tastet, Jac. 284. (p) 53 & 54 Vict. c. 39. (q) Be Bainbridge, Exp. Fletcher, 8 Ch. D. 218. ( 509 ) CHAPTER XXIX. OF MORTGAGES TO TRUSTEES. Section I. Of Mortgage Investments by Trustees of Settlements and Wills. i, — Of the Power of Trustees to Invest on Mortgage generally. — Court did Formerly, where trustees had no express power under the ^notion 6 * 7 instrument creating the trust to invest on mortgage, the Court mortgage generally restricted them to investments in Consols, and did not trust moneys. sanction or countenance an investment of trust moneys on real security, except under special circumstances (a). But, in later times, this rule was to some extent relaxed (b) ; Relaxation and mortgage investments of trust moneys are, under certain e " conditions, now authorized by the statutory enactments to be presently considered. So, formerly, it was considered that, on a sale by trustees, Leaving part they were not justified in leaving part of the purchase-money m0 ney C on Se " on mortgage of the land sold (c). But now that trustees are mortgage, authorized to invest on good and sufficient real security, there cannot be any objection to their so doing. Where trustee-mortgagees sold under a power of sale contained in their mortgage, and allowed part of the purchase-money to remain on a mortgage of the same property given by the purchaser, it was held that the power of sale was duly exercised (d). Trustees, though expressly empowered by the terms of their When trustees trust to invest on good and sufficient security at interest, must sanction at (a) Norbury v. Norbury, 4 Madd. (b) See Ungless v. Tuff, 9 W. R. 191 ; Ex parte Franklin, 1 De G. & S. 729. 531 ; Barry v. Marriott, 2 De G. & S. (c) Davey v. Durrant, 1 De G. & J. 491 ; Robinson v. Robinson, I DeG. M. 535. & G. 247 ; Raby v. Ridehalgh, 7 DeG. (d) Thurlow v. Hackeson, L. R. 4 M. & G. 104. Q. B. 97. See Cookson v. Lee, 23 L. J. Ch. 473. 510 OF MORTGAGEES TRUSTEES OF SETTLEMENTS, ETC. CHAP. XXEX. Court to mortgage investments. Liability of trustees for loss. Discretion of trustees. Mortgage investments of moneys of iufants. Moneys of lunatics. not lend trust moneys on mortgage after a decree for account without the sanction of the Court (d). Where an action is brought for the administration of a trust estate, if the trustees have invested on mortgage contrary to the trust, or in disobedience of an order to the contrary, the executors or trustees will be responsible for the loss ; but otherwise the mortgage will be a fund in their hands, which they will be ordered to pay into Court (c) . The Court will not interfere with the discretion of trustees as to the choice of investments, unless it is shown that that dis- cretion is being exercised in an improper manner, or upon unreasonable grounds (/). With respect to infants, they are, of course, incapable of lending money on mortgage ; nor has the guardian or trustee, nor even the Court, any power to change the nature of the infant's estate. If an infant lias money outstanding, although the Court will not interfere with the discretion of the trustees in investing such moneys on real security or otherwise, provided the investment is in accordance with statutory provision or the terms of the trust, and mother respects proper, yet it will not itself authorize the investment of money of infants in real security, except under special circumstances (g) . An inquiry, however, may be directed whether it will be for the benefit of an infant that uninvested moneys belonging to him should be laid out in the purchase of any existing charge on his own real estate (//) ; but, in such case, the charge is kept alive for the benefit of his personal estate, in case he should die under twenty-one (/). Nor will the Court, under the powers of 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 29, direct an investment of money, in which an infant is interested, in fresh real securities, without a reference to ascertain that the transaction is for the benefit of the infant (/»•). The committee of a lunatic will not, in general, be allowed to invest the property of a lunatic on real security, except in very peculiar cases ; as where the lunatic has an interest in the estate, or the investment is in some other manner connected with his (d) Widdowson v. Duck; 2 Mer. 494. See Bethell v. Abraham, L. R. 17 Eq. 24. (e) JTiddouscn v. Duck, 2 Mer. 294. (/) Lee v. Young, 2 T. & C. C. C. 532. {g) Norbury\. Norbury, 4 Madd. 191; Bate v. Hooper, 5 De G. M. & G. 338. (h) Macpherson on Infants, 278. (i) Sei/s v. Price, 9 Mod. 217, 221 ; Exp. Phillips, 19 Yes. 122. (k) £:>p. French, 7 Sim. 510 ; Stuart v. Stuart, 3 Beav. 430 ; Exp. Paulett, 1 Ph. 570 ; Me KirkpatricV & Trusts, 15 Jur. 941 ; Norris v. Wright, 14 Beav. 291. This rule is, however, now applied less strictly. See Ungltss v. Tuff, 9 W. R. 729. POWER TO INVEST ON MOETGAGE. 511 immediate interests. Money belonging to the lunatic has been chap, xxix. ordered to be lent on mortgage, for the accommodation of his family, on the condition of its being the first incumbrance on the estate (/). The same rule is generally applied as regards trust funds Fund in subject to the control of the Court (m). Money paid in under the Lands Clauses Act (u) is cash under the control of the Court (o). In the exercise of his discretionary power of investment, a Trustees must trustee is bound not only to employ the same degree of diligence diligence. 1 * that a man of ordinary prudence would exercise in the manage- ment of his own private affairs, but he must also avoid all invest- ments attended with hazard (/>). The rule is thus laid down by Lindley, L. J. (q) : " The duty of a trustee is not to take such care only as a prudent man would take if he had only himself to consider ; the duty rather is to take such care as an ordinary prudent man would take if he were minded to make an investment for the benefit of other people for whom he felt morally bound to provide." Any consent to investment required by the instrument Consents must creating the trust must bo obtained in strict accordance with the strict ^(TV* 1 terms of the instrument. So if a written consent is required, ance with i i -f i -i m • ' i \ Tn • i • terms of trust. parol consent will not be sufficient (>•). 11 a previous consent is required, a subsequent consent would not protect the trustees (s) . And generally a subsequent consent is ineffectual (t) , unless the person whose consent is required shows his acquiescence by some act, as by receiving dividends arising from the new investment, without objection (w). The consent must not be prospective, but must be given in respect of a particular investment (x). If consent is required to the calling in of trust funds, the Dispensing trustee will not be liable if the funds are lost before the consent Wlth consent - is given (y). But the Court will protect the remainderman by (/) Exp. Callhorpc, 1 Cox, 182 ; Exp. Rae v. Meek, 14 App. Cas. 558. Ellis, Jac. 234; Exp. Johnson, 1 Moll. (?) Re Whiteley, Whiteley v. Learoyd, 128. As to transfer of debentures of 33 Ch. D. 347, at p. 355 ; affirmed in a lunatic, see Jie Mitchell, 17 Ch. D. D.P. sub nom. Learoyd v. Whiteley, sup. 515, C. A. ; and see 53 & 54 Vict. c. 5, (r) Cocker v. Quayle, 1 R. & My. 8 . 136. 535 ; Norris v. Wright, 14 Beav. 291. (m) See Baud v. Fardell, 7 De G. M. (s) Stevens v. Robertson, 37 L. J. Ch. & G. 633. 499. («) 8 & 9 Vict. c. 18. {t) Bateman v. Davis, 3 Madd. 98. (o) Re St. John Baptist Coll., 22 Ch. (u) Stevens v. Robertson, sup.; Re D. 93, C. A. Massingberd, Clarke v. Trelaivney, 63 ( p) Per Lord "Watson, in Learoyd v. L. T. 296. Whiteley, 12 App. Cas. 727, at p. 733. (x) Child v. Child, 20 Beav. 50. See Speight v. Gaunt, 9 App. Cas. 1 ; (//) De Manneville v. Crompton, 1 V. Knox v. Mackinnon, 13 App. Cas. 753 ; & B. 354. 512 OF MORTGAGEES TRUSTEES OF SETTLEMENTS, ETC. CHAP. XXIX. Sale of stock for re-invest- ment on mortpras'e. No appor- tionment of proceeds to income. Liability for improper sale and. re-invest- ment. Replacement of stock. Repayment of proceeds of sale. Retaining existing securities. dispensing with consent if the funds are in danger (z). So, also, where the person whose consent is required was a lunatic (a). Consent will be presumed after a considerable lapse of time (b). Where trustees have an express or statutory power to vary investments, they are justified in selling out stock, or realizing any existing security or other investment of the trust funds, and in investing the proceeds on mortgage ; and it would seem clear that if the sale is made bon&jide, the trustees will not be liable if the fine realized is less than that for which the stock or other investment was originally bought (c) . The trustees should time the change of investment so that the interest on the mortgage shall begin to run as soon as possible after the receipt of a dividend on the stock sold ; other- wise, the tenant for life will not be entitled to apportionment to income of any part of the proceeds of sale (d), except under very special circumstances (c). If trustees sell out stock for the purpose of investing the proceeds of sale on improper security, the impropriety of the investment will vitiate the sale, so that the trustees will be liable, at the option of the beneficiary, either to replace the stock, or to repay the proceeds of sale (,/'). If the stock is replaced, the intermediate dividends must be accounted for and paid (g) . If the proceeds of sale are repaid, interest from the time of sale till repayment will be chargeable against the trustees at the rate of five per cent, per annum (//). An executor or trustee is not called upon to realize money outstanding on good mortgage security (/). And, if directed to invest a legacy on real security, he may appropriate a subsisting mortgage of the testator (k) . But in either case he must satisfy himself as to the sufficiency of the security ; if it should appear (z) Costello v. O'Rorke, Ir. R. 3 Eq. '172. (a) EeJ , 15 Ch. D. 78. (b) Ee Birch, 17 Beav. 358. (c) See Lewin on Trusts, 353. (d) Scholefield x. Eedfern, 2 Dr. & Sm. 173 ; Freeman v. Whitlread, L. R. 1 Eq. 266. (e) Lord Londesborough v. Somerville, 19 Beav. 295. (f) Rostock v. Blakeney, 2 B. C. C. 653; Exp. Shakeshaft, 3 B. C. C. 197; Phillipson v. Gatty, 7 Ha. 516 ; Korris v. Wright, 14 Beav. 304 ; Phillipo v. Munnings, 2 My. & Cr. 309 ; WigUs- xvorth v. Wiglestcorth . 16 Beav. 269; Fowler v. Regnal, 3 Mac. & G. 500 ; Rowland v. Wither den, 3 Mac. & G. 565 ; Re Massingberd's Settlement, 63 L. T.296. (g) Davenport v. Stafford, 14 Beav. 319, 335. (h) Focock v. Redington, 5 Ves. 794 ; Mosley v. Ward, 11 Ves. 581 ; Crackelt v. Bethtme, 1 J. & W. 587 ; Jones v. Foxall, 15 Beav. 392. (i) Orr v. Newton, 2 Cox, 274. See Howe v. Lord Dartmouth, 7 Ves. 150. (k) Ames v. Parkinson, 7 Beav. 359. See Fraser v. Murdoch, 6 App. Cas. 855. 613 CHAP. XXIX. STATUTORY POWERS OF INVESTMENT. to be inadequate, he should require the mortgage to be paid off even though the person whose consent is required to changes of investment refuses such consent (/). The Court has a discretion to allow even unauthorized in- vestments to be retained if for the benefit of infants, but special circumstances must be shown (hi). ii t Statutory Powers of Trustees to invest on Real Securities, statutory —By the Law of Property Amendment Act, 1859 (»), trustees, f n °™on executors, and administrators, unless expressly forbidden by the mortgage. terms of the trust, were empowered to invest on real securities in any part of the United Kingdom. This enactment was repealed, but virtually re-enacted, by the Trust Investment Act, 1889 (o), which applied to trusts created before as well as to trusts created after the passing of the Act. This Act was, in its turn, repealed (except as to sects. 1 and 7, which are immaterial to the present purpose) by the Trustee Act, 189:5 ( P ). By sect. 1 of the last-mentioned Act, a trustee may, unless Trustee Act, forbidden by the instrument creating the trust, invest any trust funds in his hands, whether at the time in a state of investment or not, in (amongst other investments) real or heritable securities in Great Britain or Ireland, and may also from time to time vary such investments. This power applies as well to trusts created before as to trusts created after the passing of this Act (q), and is in addition to the powers, if any, contained in the instrument creating the trust (r) ; but the power can only be exercised by the trustees subject to any consent required by the instrument creating the trust (s) . By sect. 50, the expressions " trust " and " trustee " are thus leaning of ^ defined for the purposes of this Act : — "trustee." " The expression ' trust' does not include the duties incident to an estate conveyed by way of mortgage ; but, with this exception, the expressions ' trust ' and ' trustee ' include implied and construc- tive trusts, and cases where the trustee has a beneficial interest in the trust property, and the duties incident to the oflice of personal representative of a deceased person." (I) Harrison v. Thcxton, 4 Jur. N. S. (o) 52 & 53 Vict. c. 32. 550. See Ames v. Farkimon, sup. {p) 56 & 57 Vict c. 53 (m) Fox v. Dolby, W. N. (1883) (q) 22nd September, 1893. y ' (r) See sect. 4 of the Act. " 0) 22 & 23 Vict. c. 35, s. 32. See («) See sect. 3 of the Act. Ee Simson's Trusts, 1 J. & H. 89. VOL. I. R. L L 514 OF MORTGAGEES — TRUSTEES OF SETTLEMENTS, ETC. CHAr. XXIX. Statutory power to invest trust moneys on real securities, Investments on heritable securities iu Scotland. Investment on mortgage of land in Ireland. Sect. 1 of the Act of 1898 also empowers trustees to invest in any of the securities for the time being authorized for the investment of cash under the control or subject to the order of the High Court. But, so far as mortgage investments are concerned, the rule of Court at present in force is more restricted than the statutory power, the former authorizing only invest- ments on mortgage of freehold and copyhold estates respectively in England and Wales. The expression " heritable " seems to authorize trustees of English and Irish trust instruments to invest on the security of heritable property in Scotland, which includes not only what in England would be deemed to be real property, but also lease- holds, unless heirs are expressly excluded by the terms of the lease from taking (/). But such investments of trust funds are not generally to be recommended having regard to the con- sideration that the law as to land and the practice of conveyancing materially differ in the two countries ( The statutory power of investment extends to loans on the security of real securities in Ireland unless forbidden by tin- trust instrument. But securities of this nature are not authorized by the present rules as regards the investment of cash under control of the Court. The law of Ireland relating to land, although originally the same as that of England, has been modified by various statutory enactments, the effects of which, as regards land tenure, are not generally understood by Englishmen. Moreover, the enactments referred to have not, so far, achieved any marked success in improving the material, social, or political state of Ireland, so as to render it prudent for English trustees to invest capital there (%). Accordingly the investment of English trust funds on the security of Irish land is not generally to be recommended. By the statute 4 & 5 "Will. IY. c. 29 (y), when trust money was liable to be invested in real securities in Ireland, power was given to trustees to invest in real securities in Ireland unless such investment was expressly forbidden ; but, where persons (t) Paterson's Compendium, sect. 715. (m) See Me Miles' Will, 27 Beav. 579. (.?■) See the observations of Bacon, V.-C., in Be Maberly, Maberly v. Maberly, 33 Ch. D. at p. 458. And see Stuart v. Stuart, 3 Beav. 430. (y) This statute was virtually super- seded by the statutory power to invest real securities in any part of the United Kingdom given by the Law of Pro- perty Amendment Act, 1859, and is now repealed by the Trust Investment Act, 1889, sect. 8, and Schedule. INVESTMENT ON DEBENTURES, ETC. 515 under disability were interested, the sanction of the English chap, xxix. Court of Chancery was required to the investment. Orders under this Act were made by Sir L. Shad well, V.-C. (s), and by Lord Lyndhurst, C. (a) ; but other judges showed a marked reluctance to allow English trust funds to be invested on the security of Irish land (b) . In one case, where an order was made under the Act, the trustees were strictly held responsible for loss occasioned by insufficiency of the value of the mortgaged pro- perty (c). By the Improvement of Land Act, 1864 (d), trustees, &c, Improvement directed or empowered to invest on real securities, may lend c ar £ e3, money on charges created under the Act or mortgages thereof. But the Act, which came into operation on the 29th July, 1864, is apparently not retrospective so as to allow of the investment in such securities of trust moneys settled by instruments made before that date. iii. — Statutory Powers of Trustees to invest on Debentures, &c. Debentures, of Companies. — Mortgages, debentures, and debenture stock of railway companies, water companies, and other public companies are not, generally speaking, " real securities," inasmuch as the holder has no right to the soil of the lands acquired by the company (e). By sect. 1 of the Trustee Act, 1893 (re-enacting the repealed Trustee Act, provisions of the Trust Investment Act, 1889 (/) ), the following °' s * limited power is given to trustees to invest in securities such as are above referred to : — u A trustee may, unless expressly forbidden by the instrument (if any) creating the trust, invest any trust funds in his hands, whether at the time in a state of investment or not, in manner following, that is to say : — (g) In the debenture or rentcharge, or guaranteed or preference stock of any railway company in Great Britain or Ireland incorporated by special Act of Parliament {g), and having during each of the ten years last past before the date of (z) Exp. French, 7 Sim. 510. Attree v. Hawe, 9 Ch. D. 337; Blakcr [a] Exp. Pawlet, 1 Ph. 570. v. Serfs § Essex Waterworks, 41 Ch. (b) Stuart v. Stuart, 3 Beav. 430 ; D. 399 ; He Parker, Wig nail v. Park, He Kirkpatrick's Trust, 15 Jur. 942. (1891) 1 Ch. 682; and see Re Sharp, (c) Nbrris v. Wright, 14 Beav. 291. Rickett v. Sharp, 45 Ch. D. 286 (public {d) 27 & 28 Vict. c. 114, s. 60. company) ; Eire v. Boyton, (1891) 1 Ch. \c) Mant v. Leith, 15 Beav. 524; 501, C. A. (company incorporated by. Mortimorc v. Mortimore, 4 De G-. & J. Act of Parliament). 472 ; Gardner v. London, Chatham and (/) 52 & 53 Vict. c. 32. Dover Rail. Co., L. K. 2 Ch. A. 201 ; (g) See Elve v. Boyton, supra. LL2 51G OF MORTGAGEES — TRUSTEES OF SETTLEMENTS, ETC. CHAP. XXIX. Debenture stock. Investment on debentures, &c., of capital moneys arising under Settled Land Acts. Debentures of local authorities. Costs of in- vestment. Mortgage Debenture Act, 1865. investment paid a dividend at the rate of not less than three per centum per annum on its ordinary stock : (i) In the debenture stock of any railway company in India, the interest on which is paid or guaranteed by the Secretary of State in Council of India : (1) In the debenture or guaranteed or preference stock of any company in Great Britain or Ireland, established for the supply of water for profit, and incorporated by special Act of Parliament or by Eoyal Charter, and having during each of the ten years last past before the date of investment paid a dividend of not less than five pounds per centum on its ordinary stock." Where trustees are empowered to invest on mortgages or debentures of railways or other companies, they may invest in debenture stock (//). By sect. 21 of the Settled Land Act, 1882 (/), capital money arising under the Act may be invested " on the security of the bonds, mortgages, or debentures, or in the purchase of the debenture stock of any railway company in Great Britain or Ireland incorporated by special Act of Parliament, and having for ten years next before the date of investment paid a dividend on its ordinary stock or shares, with power to vary the invest- ment into or for any other such securities." This enactment does not authorize investment, under the powers of sect. 27 of the Local Loans Act, 1875 (./), in deben- tures or debenture stock issued by a local authority under that Act (/.•). The costs of investment are payable out of the capital and not by the tenant for life (/). The Mortgage Debenture Act, 18G5 (in), empowers trustees having a power to invest trust moneys in or upon the security of shares, stock, mortgages, bonds, or debentures of companies incorporated by or acting under the authority of an Act of Parliament, to invest such moneys on the security of mortgage debentures issued under and in accordance wdth the provisions of that Act. Interests of iv, — What kinds of Property form proper Mortgage Investments fidarfes^ust of Trust Moneys.— Trustees, when investing on mortgage secu- be considered, rity, as w T hen making any other investment, must not only (h) He Mackenzie's Trusts, 23 Ch. D. 750. (t) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 38. (V) 38 & 39 Vict. c. 83. (k) Me Maberly, Maberly v. Maberly, 3S Ch. D. 455. (I) Re Mackenzie's Trusts, 23 Ch. D. 750; MeEanbun/s Trusts, W.N. (1883) 116. (»0 28 & 29 Vict. c. 78, s. 40. ON WHAT PROPERTY TRUST FUNDS MAY BE ADVANCED. 517 invest in strict accordance with the terms of their power, but chap, xsix. must hold an even hand between the tenant for life and the remainderman. Applications are frequently made to trustees to change investments, so as to secure a higher rate of interest for the tenant for life ; but if they improperly accede to such requests, by investing on a security which, from its speculative character or otherwise, is likely to cause loss to the remainder- man, and such loss actually occurs, they will be liable for the consequences, even though the security taken may literally fall within the range of investments permitted by the instrument creating the trust or by statutory enactment (n). On the other hand, trustees ought not unduly to favour the remainderman at the expense of the tenant for life. They are bound to preserve the money for those entitled to the corpus in remainder, but they are bound to invest it in such a way as will produce a reasonable income for those enjoying the income for the present (o). A power to invest on the security of freehold hereditaments ^°^f.® n ° t f s will authorize a loan on a mortgage of freehold ground rents ; and in such a case the Court does not look only at the rents, but also at the buildings which are liable for the payment of them (p). Of course a power to invest on real securities does not justify Ltfe estate a loan on the security of a life estate in freeholds coupled with a policy of assurance on the life of the borrower (q) ; for the policy which is the main security for the repayment of the principal advanced is merely personal security, depending not only on the regular payment of the premiums, but on the solvency of the society by which the policy is issued. The question whether turnpike bonds, debenture bonds issued T o u ™ s pi ^ e c _ under special Acts of canal companies, harbour boards and the like, are " real securities " has been raised in numerous cases, and particularly with reference to the provisions of the Mort- main Act (r), and the Mortmain and Charitable Trusts Act, 1888 (s), which prohibited devises for charitable purposes of "lands, tenements, or other hereditaments, corporeal or in- corporeal, whatsoever." The result appears to be that in each (») Gochburn v. Peel, 3 De G.F. & J. 3 N. R. 286. See Re Peyton's Settle- 170. See Raby v. Ridehalgh, 7 De G. M. ment Trusts, L. R. 7 Eq. 4G3. &G. 104,109; Stuart v. Stuart, 3 Beav. (?) lander v. Weston, 3 Drew. 389; 430. Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 6 Ir. Ch. R f (o) Per Cotton, L. J., in Whiteley v. 145. Zearoyd, 347, at p. 350. (r) 9 Geo. II. c. 26. (p) Vickery v. Evans, 33 Beav. 376 ; (*) 51 & 52 Vict. c. 42. 518 OF MORTGAGEES TRUSTEES OF SETTLEMENTS, ETC. cir.vr. xxix. Renewable leaseholds for lives. Trade premises. case the terms of the special Act authorizing the issue of the securities, and the wording of the particular instrument creating the security, must be looked at to see whether anything in the nature of land is included in the bond, or only the tolls, rents, and profits, as distinguished from, and independent of, the land (t). A power to invest trust moneys on " real securities in Ire- land " has been held to authorize a loan on the security of leaseholds for lives perpetually renewable at a head-rent, tins being a common tenure of land in Ireland (ti). It is to be observed, however, that the power in that case also expressly authorized investment on leasehold securities. Such tenure is now convertible by statutory grant into an estate in fee simple at a fee farm rent (a?) . A power to invest on real securities does not authorize a mortgage on freehold land the value of which depends on fluctuations of trade or business (//) . In Re WhUch;/, Whiteley v. Learoyd (z), the question was raised whether an investment of trust money on a mortgage of a freehold brickfield was within such a power. Sir N. Lindley, L. J., said (a) that such a mortgage would bo a real security within the power if the value of the land, apart from the particular trade carried on upon it, was sufficient to secure the sum advanced, but that a security of so hazardous a nature, though in one sense and to some extent a real security, was not a proper security for trust money ; it was not, in truth, a real security for any sum beyond the value of the land. And Sir II. Cotton, L. J., expressed his opinion (I>) that the mortgage of the land was undoubtedly a real security, and did not become less so because trade buildings and machinery were upon it, but his Lordship pointed out that, in this case, the security depended for its value on the particular trade carried on there, and on the value of the buildings and machinery which could only be used for that particular business, and which was not reasonably available for other purposes. The Court of (t) See Robinson v. Robinson, 1 De G. M. & G. 247 ; Holy ate v. Jennings, 24 Beav. 623 ; Cavendish v. Cavendish, 30 Ch. D. 227 ; Re Christmas, Martin v. Lacon, 33 Ch. D. 332 (where the prin- cipal cases are reviewed) ; Re David, Buckley v. Royal National Lifeboat Institution, 43 Ch. D. 27. (u) Macleod v, Annesley. 16 Beav. 600. (x) See 12 & 13 Vict. c. 105, and 31 & 32 Vict. c. 62. (y) Stickney v. Sewell, 1 My. & Cr. 8. See Stretton v. Ashmall, 3 Drew. 9 ; Royds v. Royds, 14 Beav. 54. (s) 33 Ch. D. 347. (a) Ibid., at p. 356. (b) Ibid., at pp. 351, 352. ON WHAT PROPERTY TRUST FUNDS MAY BE ADVANCED. 519 Appeal held that the trustees were liable to make good the loss chap. xxix. to the estate caused by failure of the security, and this decision was affirmed by the House of Lords (c) . So, also, caution should be exercised in lending trust money Public -house. on mortgage of a public-house, especially if recently opened, where the value of the security depends on the renewal of the licence (d). Trustees should not, as a general rule, lend on the security of Unlet houses. unlet houses, especially if the mortgagor is a builder (e) . But in a Scotch case it was said that the mere fact that buildings comprised in a mortgage were unfinished would not be material if due security was taken for their completion (/). So, also, cottage property let at weekly rents is not a proper Cottage security for trust moneys (g). Copyholds are a real security, and accordingly an investment Copyholds. upon a mortgage of copyholds is within a power to invest on real securities. Before the passing of the Trustee Act, 1888(A), trustees Long lease- authorized by statute or by the terms of the trust instru- ment to invest on real securities, were not justified in making an advance on the security of a long term of years, such secu- rities not answering to the description of "real securities" (/). But by sect. 9 of that Act, such investments were authorized Trustee Act, subject to the limitations therein mentioned. This section is now repealed, but re-enacted in identical terms by sect. 6 of the Trustee Act, 1893 (j), which enacts as follows : — "A trustee having power to invest in real securities, unless Enlargement expressly forbidden by the instrument creating the trust, may of express invest and shall be deemed to have always had power to invest — jn^stment (a) On mortgage of property held for an unexpired term of not less than two hundred years, and not subject to a reserva- tion of rent greater than a shilling a year, or to any right of redemption, or to any condition for re-entry, except for non-payment of rent ; and (b) On any charge, or upon mortgage of any charge, made under the Improvement of Land Act, 1864." (c) Sub nom. Learoyd v. Whiteley, 12 Meek, 14 App. Cas. 558, at p. 571. App. Cas. 727. (g) fie Olive, Olive v. Westerman, 24 (tl) Budge v. Gummow, L. R. 7 Ch. A. Ch. D. 70, 75. See fie Salmon, Priest 719. v. Uppleby, 42 Ch. D. 351. \e) Hoeyv. Green, W. N. (1884) 236. (h) 51 & 52 Vict. c. 59. See Smethurst v. Heatings, 30 Ch. D. (i) fie Boyd's Settled Estates, 14 Ch. 490; Blyth v. Fladgate, (1891) 1 Ch. D. 626. See Leigh v. Leigh, 56 L. J. 337. Ch. 125. (/) Per Lord Herschell in fiae v. {j) 56 & 5 ? Vict " c - 53 - 520 OF MORTGAGEES TRUSTEES OF SETTLEMENTS. ET< . CHAP. XXIX. Leaseholds for short terms. Personal security. Meaning" of " personal security." It may be laid down as a general rule that an investment of trust moneys on a mortgage of leaseholds held for a short term and incum bered with onerous covenants and clauses of forfeiture is, in the absence of express direction in the trust instrument, improper (/»•). There is the further objection to investments on such security that the lessee cannot generally procure produc- tion of his lessor's title (/). It is a breach of trust to lend trust money on personal security, unless such a mode of investment is clearly authorized by the terms of the trust instrument (hi). Even an apparently absolute discretion in the trustees will not justify an investment on such security. So a power to place out at interest " as the trustees should see occasion," was held not to authorize a loan on personal security (n). A discretionary power of investment can only be exercised subject to the control of the Court, where the trust is being administered by the Court (o). Where trustees of a settlement authorizing only investments in government or real securities, advanced part of the trust funds to a banking firm on a mortgage of bonds in which the bankers were obligees, the trustees were held liable for the loss caused by failure of the security (j>). A power to lend on " personal security " may mean either on the security of personal property, or on the security of the borrower's personal undertaking. Where trustees of a marriage settlement, having a power to invest on " real or personal " security, allowed trust money, which had been advanced prior to the marriage, to remain outstanding on the note of hand of the husband, the Court allowed the investment to be continued until further order, on the husband executing to the trustees a bond for the amount of the loan (q). So where the words of a power in a will were " heritable or personal " security, and it appeared that the testator had been used in his lifetime to lend money without security to one of (k) Townendv. Townend, 1 Giff . 201, 211 ; Cadogan v. Essex, 2 Drew. 227 ; Fuller v. Knight, 6 Beav. 209 ; Re Chennell, Jones v. Chennell, 8 Ch. D. 492. (/) Post, p. 533. (m) Holmes v. Dring, 2 Cox, 1 ; Wilkes v. Steward, G. Coop. 6 ; Vigross v. Binfield, 3 Madd. 62 ; Fhillipson v. Gatty, 7 Ha. 516 ; Groom v. Booth, 1 Drew. 548 ; Styles v. Gay, 1 Man. & Gr. 423. (n) Focock v. Redington, 5 Ves. 794. (o) Bethell v. Abraham, L. R. 17 Eq. 24. {p) Exp. Geaves, 8 De G. M. & G. 291. (q) Pickardv. Anderson, L. R. 13 Eq. 608. ^01 ON WHAT MQPEOT TRUST FUNDS MAY BE ADVANCED. fte persons whom he appointed a trustee of Ins ,U. Lord I _c*^_ Thurlow allowed trust money to remam in the ban* , of he trustee at interest, without requiring a mortgage to he taken ( ). But as a genial rule, it is a hreaeh of trust for trustees who £-*,-■ are ^powefed to lend on personal security to end to , one* > themselves on his bond or personal undertalung ; such useeunty depends solely on the solveney of the borrower, with respert to 2 2 the settlor must be taken to rely upon the united vigil nee f ,11 tl,e trustees M Nor will snob a power authorize a loan °ol W moneys^ a tenant for life, whose eonsent is reared t0 "Swer expressly anthori.es a loan to a trustee on personal security, the co-trustee will not be bable for loss of the ITey adLeed", in the absence of proof of nnscondnct on his part contributing to the loss (^ loan Lo "NTo reported case seems to go so tar as u> ueci co-tmstee W trustees to one of themselves, if otherwise proper a u k. time ^ of taking the security, as regards the nature and value of the mo ITZei property/and in all other respects, and in the absence Tsubs^nent misconduct or want of care on the part of : the tastees constitutes such a breach of trust as wdl of ttse f render the other trustees liable for loss to the trust fund through Sure of the security and insolvency of the debtor. But it is v *l,t n loan to a co-trustee is objectionable and improper, Obvious ha oan tto aco ^ ^ ^ ^ ^.^ SS ?£SS as to the expediency of the proposed 3 ,»d such a loan places the borrowing rustee in a pos ion in which his interest is liable to conflict with his duty and tends to put difficulties in the way of the proper exercise by the o*er trusses of their rights and remedies as mortgagees lr ve, it may happen that, by the death or tin , re taement jof The otle trustees, the borrowing trustee may be left in he . f t „w„nter of mortgagor and sole mortgagee. The SStSi^SS *£■*-* * ta with the utmost jealousy (a?). t> 9 "Rro C C 430. years) ; Westover v. Chapman, 1 Coll. (>■) Forbes v. Ross, 2 Bro.O. o. «u. j , v. Walker, 5 Russ 7. 177- ^ R g E Y (where a mortgage was taken of pro £ ^ perty of inadequate value) , ^'™J e (jc) PocoC/ fc v. Reddington, o Ves. at >r«««*, 5 De l>. M. & G. 108 (where u trustees advanced money to a co P trustee on mortgages of terms or 522 OF MORTGAGEES — TRUSTEES OF SETTLEMENTS, ETC. CHAP. XXIX. Accommoda- tion loan. Loan to firm. Rule where trust is ad- ministered liy Court. Mortgages of undivided shares and reversions. Disadvan- tages of such securities. A power to lend on personal security will not extend to an accommodation loan (//). "Where a testator by his will authorizes his trustees to lend a sum of money on personal security, to a particular firm, it is a breach of trust to continue the loan after a change takes place in the members of the firm (z). Where a trust instrument authorizes investments on personal security, and the trust is being administered by the Court, it would seem that, though existing investments on such security may be allowed to remain, future investments will be confined to such stocks, funds, and securities as are authorized for invest- ment of cash under the control of the Court There seems to be no rule against lending trust money on the security of an undivided share or of a reversionary interest : but in the latter case, care should be taken to ascertain the present value of the reversion, and not to lend more than the proper proportion of such value. It is obvious that a power of sale is essential as a means of rendering such securities available. Lending on the security of an undivided share is open to the objection that it may lead to dilliculties arising from the complication of the rights and interests of other persons with those of the lender. And with regard to a reversion, it must be borne in mind that such an interest does not, till it falls into possession, yield any income, so that the mortgagee must in the interim rely entirely on the mortgagor's covenant for payment of his interest. Trustees v. — Precautions to be observed on Advancing Trust Moneys on legal estate^ 6 Mortgage. — Trustees lending on mortgage should be careful to in mortgaged acquire the legal estate in the mortgaged property (b). They are not justified in allowing trust funds to be secured upon an equitable deposit of deeds with or without an undertaking to execute a legal mortgage (c). Copyholds to If an advance is made on the security of copyholds, trustees dered. n " should not be content with a mere covenant to surrender, but should see that a surrender is actually made, thus entitling them (y) Zangstonv. Ollivant, G. Coop. 33. (z) Re Tucker, Tucker v. Tucker (No. 2), (1894) 3 Ch. 429, C. A. («) Holmes v. Moore, 2 Moll. 328. (b) Nbrria v. Wright, 14 Beav. 308. See Webb v. Jonas, 39 Ch. D. 660. (c) Webb v. Ledsam, 1 K. & J. 385 ; Swaffield v. Nehon, TV. N. (1876) 265, DUTIES OF TRUSTEES IN LENDING ON MORTGAGE. to be admitted whenever admittance may seem necessary or jhap. ^ expedient (d). Investment upon a second mortgage is a breach of trnst (*), |W^ not only because the legal estate is not acquired, but also because the trustees will not be entitled to the title deeds and will be exposed to the risk of foreclosure or of a forced sale by the first mortgagee to redeem whom no funds may be available. Second mortgagees are also exposed to the risk of tacking (,/'). , , ,. , _, . By the Improvement of Land Act, 1864 (g), it is enacted that Trusty ^ a rentcharge created under that Act is not to preclude trustees mortgage of money with power to invest the same on mortgage, from imI ? rovemeilt investing 'on the security of land so charged, unless the termsof charges, the trust or power expressly prohibit an investment on security subject to any prior charge. Charges under the Copyhold Acts (A) having priority over -£ p <*£|? existing incumbrances do not render it necessary for trustees to hold Act8 . call in moneys already invested or previously charged. A sub-mortgage is apparently a proper security for trust Sub-mort- moneys, provided the trustees obtain the legal estate and are put into a position to exercise the powers arising under the original mortgage ; they thus get the benefit of two several covenants for payment of the money (/). Trustees are not justified, unless expressly authorized by the J^W trust investment, in lending on a contributory mortgage, by taking a mortgage either in the names of themselves and other joint mortgagees, or in the name of a common trustee on behalf of all the mortgagees : both courses would result in the legal estate being vested not in the trustees alone, but either in them jointly with others or in a stranger, as the case might be; and might seriously hamper them in dealing with the security by sale or otherwise for the benefit of their cestuis que trust; and the latter course would violate the rule that trusts must not be delegated (A). H See Wy«U v. «~* 3 Beav. jj) » t « ™* -^ ft & ,, 2 , ,..,., v. R T «l, 3 Mae. & G .500; 490 ieot. ii. pp, 12.19 et aeq. L - i - ^ yo - 524 OF MORTGAGEES — TRUSTEES OF SETTLEMENTS, ETC. chap. xxix. Blending: appropriated .security with other trust funds. Mixing - trust funds. Proviso that principal shall not he called in for a speci- fied time. Power of sale. Stock mortgage. Where trustees Lave appropriated a specific security to answer a trust legacy, they are not justified in realizing that security and blending the proceeds with other trust funds by investing them on mortgages to answer the legacy and also the interests of other cestuis que trust (/). If a trustee mixes up trust funds with his own money so that the two cannot be accurately distinguished, he will be charged with the whole, except what he can prove to be his own (m). In the case of a sale by trustees where, as is often advisable, part of the purchase-money is allowed to remain on mortgage, the trustees should be careful to take a legal mortgage for the money remaining unpaid ; but they must not, unless expressly authorized so to do, bind themselves not to call in the mortgage before a specified time, for if the particular interest should determine before the period expires, the remainderman, if abso- lutely entitled, may call upon the trustee at once to pay over the principal (n). Trustees should not, as a rule, lend on mortgage without acquiring a power of sale in case of default. Such powers were, till recently, inserted generally in mortgages, and are now im- pliedly imported into every mortgage deed unless expressly excluded (o) . Powers of sale, however, were not usually inserted in, and might now have to be excluded from, mortgages of long terms of years created by settlement or will for the purpose of raising portions, &c, which, in other respects, offer peculiar advantages for investment of trust moneys as usually offering ample security in point of value and as not being likely to be paid off(j9). It has been held that it is not necessarily a breach of trust for a trustee to take a mortgage without a power of sale {g) ; and this decision might possibly be followed in the case of a mortgage of a portions term, though the statu- tory power of sale was excluded. A loan of the proceeds on mortgage, with a covenant by the mortgagor to replace a specified amount of stock instead of (0 Re Walker, Walker v. Walker, 59 L. J. Ch. 306. (m) Lupton v. White, 15 Ves. 432 ; Cook v. Addison, L. R. 7 Eq. 466. (■») Vickery v. Evans, 33 Beav. 376. See also Mant v. Leith, 15 Beav. 524, 527. (o) 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41, s. 19. (p) Vaizey on Settlements, p. 455. (q) Farrarv. Barraclough, 2 Sm. & G. 231 ; hut see Lockhart v. Reilly, 1 De G. & J. 464. VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY. 525 repaying the cash advanced, is not a proper form of investment chap. xxix. of trust moneys (>•) . Trustees lending on mortgage should not part with the money Completion without being satisfied that the security has been executed and beforTthJ delivered over by the mortgagor. If trustees, instead of seeing money is paid, themselves to the investment and the completion of the security, delegate that duty to their solicitor or agent, who misapplies the money, they will be liable to make good the loss to the trust estate (s). Trustees investing in debentures or debenture stock of muni- Toss of cipal corporations bought on the Stock Exchange may pay the throu^hfrTud money to the broker before receipt of the debentures or stock, of broker - and are not liable if he absconds with the money ; but ap- parently the trustees would be liable, if they so parted with the money, knowing that the contract for a loan is to be made directly with the corporation (/). On completion of the security, trustees should be careful to Titl e deeds see that not only the mortgage deed, but all the documents of ver! title relating to the mortgaged property, are handed over to them (u). vi. — Valuation of the Property. — Trustees, when investing on Inquiry into mortgage security, must be careful to exercise proper discretion 7^! ue aud and caution in the choice of a particular security by satisfying themselves as to the sufficiency of the property in point of value, and by strictly investigating the title of the intending mort- gagor. The burden of proof that the security is good lies upon the trustee (r) ; and he should therefore be careful to preserve evidence of the propriety of the transaction. According to what was long the general understanding of the The "two- legal profession and the practice of the Court, " a trustee was ^tovalie" held not to be justified in advancing money on property of permanent value (as freehold agricultural land) to the extent of two-thirds of the value of the property (//), but not more than (r) Whitney v. Smith, L. R. 4 Ch. A. Thompson v. Finch, 8 De G. M. & G. 513. See Pell v. De Winton, 2 De 560 ; Re Dewar, Dewar v. Brooker, 54 G. & J. 18 ; Bromley v. Kelly, 39 L. J. L. J. Ch. 830. Ch. 274. (x) Stickney v. Sewell, 1 My. & Cr. 8, («) Rowland v. Witherden, 3 Mac. & 13 ; Stretton v. Ashmall, 3 Drew. 12. G. 568 ; Hanbury v. Kirkbrand, 3 Sim. (y) Sticknty v. Sewell, sup. ; Maeleod 265. See Broadhurst v. Balguy, 1 Y. v. Annesley, 16 Beav. 600 ; Ingle v. C. C. C. 16 ; Bontock v. Floyer, L. R. Partridge (No. 2), 34 Beav. 411; Roddy 1 Eq. 26. v. Williams, 3 J. & L. 16 ; Smethurstv. (t) Speight v. Gaunt, 9 App. Cas. 1. Hastings, 30 Ch. D. 490, 498 ; learoydv. (it) Rowland v. Witherden, supra; Whiteley, 12 App. Cas. 727, 733. 526 OF MORTGAGEES TRUSTEES OF SETTLEMENTS, ETC. CHAP. XXIX. Statutory- proportion of value. Loans and investments by trustees not charge- able as breaches of trust. Effect of enactment. Qualification of valuer. half of the value if the property consisted of houses or build- ings (z) ; and much less if of buildings depending for their value on the trade carried on there (a). The " two-thirds rule," however, was not enforced with exact strictness (b) : in applying the rule, the circumstances of the particular case might be taken into consideration (c) ; but a trustee who disregards the rule takes upon himself great risk ((/). The Trustee Act, 1888 (e), sect. 4, relieved trustees from liability in respect of the proportion borne by the amount of the loan to the value of the property, provided they acted upon the report and under the advice of a surveyor or valuer, as pre- scribed by the Act, and that the amount of the loan did not exceed two thirds of the value of the property as stated in the report, whether the property was agricultural, or house, or other property on which the trustee might lawfully lend. This enactment is repealed, but virtually re-enacted by the Trustee Act, 1893 (/), which enacts as follows : — Sect. 8. — " (1.) A trustee lending money on the security of any property on which he can lawfully lend shall not be chargeable with breach of trust by reason only of the proportion borne by the amount of the loan to the value of the property at the time when the loan was made, provided that it appears to the Court that in making the loan the trustee was acting upon a report as to the value of the property made by a person whom he reasonably believed to be an able practical surveyor or valuer instructed and employed independently of any owner of the property, whether such Burveyor or valuer carried on business in the locality where the property is situate or elsewhere, and that the amount of the loan does not exceed two equal third parts of the value of the property as stated iu the report, and that the loan was made under the advice of the surveyor or valuer expressed in the report." The requirements of this enactment, so as to entitle trustees to the protection thereby offered, seem to be as follows : — First, trustees intending to lend money on mortgage must (z) Mrrisv. Wright, 14 Beav. 291 ; Slrelton v. Ashmall, 3 Drew. 9 ; Mac- leod v. Annesley, 16 Beav. 600 ; Budge v. Gummow, L. R. 7 Ch. A. 719; Hoey v. Green, W. N. (1884) 236 ; Fry v. Tapson, 28 Ch. D. 268. {a) Stickney v. Sewell, 1 My. & Cr. 8 ; Stratton v. Ashmall, supra ; Boyds v. lioyds, 14 Beav. 54 ; Budge v. Gummow, sup. ; Learoyd v. WhiteUy, 12 App. Cas. at p. 733. (/>) Re Godfrey, Godfrey v. Faulkner, 23 Ch. D. 483. ' (c) Be 01 ne, Olive v. Westerman, 34 Ch. D. at p. 73. See Be Pearson, 51 L. T. 692. {d) Be Salmon, Priest v. Uppleby, 42 Ch. D. 351, at pp. 369, 370. (e) 51 & 52 Vict. c. 59. The Act applied as well to trusts created by instrument executed before as to trusts created after the passing of the Act. See sect. 12. (/) 56 & 57 Vict. c. 53. This enact- ment is retrospective, except v here an action or proceeding- was rending on the 24th of December, 1888. See sect. 8 (4). VALUATION OF THE PEOPERTY. 527 cause a report as to the value of the property to be made by a chap. xxix. person whom they reasonably believe to be an able practical surveyor or valuer. The Act of 1888 abrogated the former rule that the person employed as a valuer was one having local knowledge of the district where the property forming the proposed security was situated (g) ; and the rule is now no longer in force under the present Act. Secondly, the person appointed by the trustees to value the Choice of property must be appointed on their behalf, and must be one va uer ' whom they personally have reason to believe to be an able practical surveyor or valuer (//). The trustees should not leave the choice of the valuer to their solicitor, for it is no part of a solicitor's business to recommend a valuer (/). Thirdly, trustees cannot safely, under any circumstances, lend Valuer must on a valuation made for the mortgagor (/«•) ; or employ a valuer denTof 1 * 11 " who is in the employment of, or recommended by, the intending mortgagor. mortgagor (I) . The trustees should not do anything which might cause the valuer to be influenced by the mortgagor, as by introducing the valuer to the mortgagor for the purpose of negotiating as to remuneration (m). The valuer's fee should be paid in the first instance by the trustees, and should be repaid to them by the mortgagor. The amount of the fee should not be made to depend upon the completion of the mortgage (it). Fourthly, the valuer must be " instructed " by the trustees, Valuer must and they should accordingly inform the valuer that they are f purpose for lending trust moneys, and that they do not desire to lend more ^hicb report than the proper proportion of the actual value of the property, and they should ask for a valuation which will enable them to judge whether they are justified in lending the amount they propose to lend (o). A valuation made for another purpose, especially if comprising other property, would be clearly insuffi- cient to protect the trustees ( p) . The Act requires that, in order that the trustees may obtain the statutory protection, the advance shall be made " under the advice of the surveyor or (g) See as to this rule, Budge v. (m) Re Partington, Partington v. Gummow, L. R. 7 Ch. A. 719 ; Fry v. Alien, 57 L. T. 654. Tapson, 28 Ch. D. 268. (n) Smith v. Stoneham, W. N. (1886) (A) Re Walker, Walker v. Walker 178. (No. 1), 59 L. J. Ch. 386. (o) Re Olive, Olive v. Westerman, (i) Fry v. Tapson, supra. 34 Ch. D. 70, at p. 73. (/„•) Walcott v. Lyons, 54 L; T. 786. (p) Re Walker, Walker v. Walker (I) Norris v. Wright, 14 Beav. 307 ; 62 L. T. 449. JSopguod v. Parkin, L. B,. 11 Eq. 74. 528 OF MORTGAGEES — TRUSTEES OF SETTLEMENTS, ETC. CHAP. XXIX. Advice of valuer as to amount to be advanced. Liability of valuer for misleading report. Neglect of solicitor to procure proper valuation. Trustee must not be valuer. Depreciation in value of mortgaged property. valuer expressed in the report " ; it is obvious that the Burvej i r or valuer cannot properly be asked to give such advice, unless lie is informed of the fact that it is proposed to make the advance out of trust moneys; it is therefore advisable, though not expressly required by the Act, that a statement thai the surveyor or valuer was informed of this fact should appear on the face of the report. Fifthly, the distinction Eormerly made as to what was a proper advance, according as the property was agricultural land, house property, or otherwise, is now done away with, and a uni- form proportion of advance to value is laid down which must not be exceeded in any case. The report should therefore state the estimated value of the property forming the prop, »sed security, and should expressly advise as to the amount which may be safely advanced upon the security, such amount not to exceed in any case two thirds of the value of the property as stated in the report. Where trustees obtained a report stating the esti- mated value of the property, but advising that the trustees might lend a larger proportion than two thirds of the value, it was held that the trustees, who made a larger advance accord- ingly, were not protected by this Act ( •), but not otherwise (»), he will be held liable for reckless statements inducing a loan on a security which proves deficient. A client lending on mortgage by the advice of his solicitor, has a right of action against him for neglecting to procure an independent valuation (7) ; but in the case of a trust investment this is the right only of the trustees, not of the beueficiaries (it). Trustees must not appoint one of themselves to make a valua- tion of a proposed mortgage security (.<). All the trustees must satisfy themselves as to the sufficiency of the security (//) . Where trustees, acting upon the advice of competent persons, and in the bond fide exercise of their discretion as prudent men of (q) lie Somerset, Somerset v. Earl Poulett, W. N. (1893) 66, 160, C. A. (r) Cann v. Wihon, 39 Ch. D. 39 ; Scholes v. Brook, W. N. (1891) 101. (s) Le Lievre and Dennes v. Gould, (1893) 1 Q. B. 491. (0 Wood v. Jones, 61 L. T. 551. (m) Bae v. Meek, 14 App. Cas. 558. (.r) Peters v. Leers and East Grinstead Rail. Co., 18 Ch. D. 429. at p. 439 (a case of a sale under the Lands Clauses Act). {y) Griffiths v. Porter, 25 Beav. 236. VALUATION OF PROPERTY. 529 business, advance trust money on the security of property, the chap. xxix. cases seem to show that they will not be held liable for subse- quent depreciation of the value of the property (»). And now, by the Trustee Act, 1893, Amendment Act, 1894 (a), " A trustee shall not be liable for breach of trust by reason only of his con- tinuing to hold an investment which has ceased to be an invest- ment authorized by the instrument of trust or by the general law." But this enactment is not retrospective (b). When property, on the security of which trust money has Duty of been advanced, falls in value, so that the mortgage debt comes tru j* ees in to exceed two-thirds of the actual value of the property, it is not absolutely their duty at once to call in the mortgage; they should, as a general rule, require the mortgagor to reduce tho amount due upon the mortgage, or to give additional security for tho total sum advanced ; and they may insist on calling in so much of the debt as is not covered by the security, though the tenant for life refuses the consent to change of investments required by the instrument creating the trust (c). But they have a discretion in the matter which they must exercise as prudent practical men with due regard to all the circumstances of the case, such as the solvency of the mortgagor, and the risk of the property being thrown on the hands of the trustees ; in such a case the trustees may, by summons under Ord. LV. rule 3 (g), without asking for administration, obtain the direc- tions of the Court as to what they ought to do as to calling in the mortgage (if). It would seem that where trust money has been invested on Advances for mortgage of property, which becomes depreciated in value, the ^ a . iD *?nance trustees are justified in their discretion in making such further security, advances out of the trust funds as may be necessary for main- taining or improving the mortgaged property, so as to secure the total amount advanced, and that they will not be liable if the result should disappoint their expectations ; but the burden of proof lies on the trustees to show that they exercised due caution and judgment (e). Trustees are not justified in calling in money invested on Trustees («) Zcaroydv. Whxtelnj, 12 App. Cas. 550. See Thornton v. Hawley, 10 Ves should not 727. See Badge v. Gummow, L. R. 7 129, 137. Ch. A. 719; lie Olive, Olive v. Wester- (d) lie Medland, Eland v. Medland man, 34 Ch. D. 70. 41 Ch. D. 476. ' (a) 57 Vict. c. 10, s. 4. (e) Collinson v. Lister, 20 Beav. 356, (b) lie Chapman, Codes v. Chapman, affirmed on other points, 7 Do Gr. M. & (1896) 1 Ch. 323, reversed on other Gr. 634. See Vysev. Foster L R 7H L points, (1896) 2 Ch. 763, C. A. 318; Jessev.Lloyd,W.N. (1883) 88.' (c) Harrison v. Thoxton, 4 Jur. N. S. VOL. I.— R. M M 530 OF MORTGAGEES— TRUSTEES OF SETTLEMENTS, ETC. CHAP. XXIX. call in good mortgage. Right of trustees to indemnity. Apportion- ment of deficient fund from sale under a mortgage. Extent of the statutory protection. Liability for loss by reason of improper investments. good and sufficient mortgage security, unless there are reasonable grounds for apprehending that it will fall in value, or unless the money is required for the purposes of the trust, or unless the calling in of the mortgage is for the benefit of all persons interested (/). A trustee is bound to call in money outstanding on personal security when called upon to do so by his ccstuis que trust, with- out requiring any indemnity from them (g). Generally, how- ever, trustees are not bound to tako proceedings at their own expense, and without an indemnity from their cestuk que trust, to recover trust property (//). In such a case, if the trustees refuse to sue, the ccstuis que trust may obtain leave to sue in the names of the trustees (/). Where a tenant for life and remaindermen are entitled to an outstanding mortgage debt and arrears of interest, and the secu- rity realizes less than sufficient to pay the principal and interest in full, the amount, when received, must be apportioned (/.•). It is to be observed that the protection afforded by the Act of 1893 (like the repealed Act of 1888) does not absolutely free from liability trustees from lending money upon the security of property, provided they comply with the statutory requirements, but only enacts that they shall not be " chargeable with a breach of trust by reason only of the proportion borne by the amount of the loan to the value of such property at the time the loan was made." The statute will not protect trustees from liability if the security is " one of a class which is attended with hazard " (/). The protection of the statute, provided its require- ments are complied with, would appear to be complete ; but the security must be, in other respects, one upon which trustees would have been justified in advancing money according to the principles of law hitherto recognized. "With regard to the liability of a trustee who advances more than the proper proportion, having regard to the value of the property, the Trustee Act, 1893, s. 9 (re-enacting sect. 5 of the repealed Act of 1888), enacts as follows : — " (1 .) Where a trustee improperly advances trust money on a mort- (/) Have v. Lord Dartmouth, 7 Ves. 150 ; Orr v. Newton, 2 Cox, 277; Ames v. Parkinson, 7 Beav. 379, 383 ; Robin- son v. Robinson, 1 De G. M. & G. 247, 263. iff) Kirby v. Mash, 3 T. & C. Ex. 295. ih) Annesley v. Simeon, 4 Madd. 390 ; Tredball v. Medlicott, 36 W. R. 886. (i) Fletcher v. Fletcher, 4 Ha. 67. (k) Wilkinson v. Duncan, 23 Beav. 469 ; Earl of Chesterfield' 1 s Trusts, 24 Ch. D. 643 ; Re Foster, Floyd v. Carr, 45 Ch. D. 629. (I) Per Stirling, J., in Blyth v. Flad- gate, (1891) 1 Ch. 337, at p. 354. See Re Salmon, Priest v. Uppleby, 42 Ch. D. 351. INVESTIGATION OF TITLE. 531 CHAr. XXIX. gage security, which would, at the time of the investment, be a proper investment in all respects for a smaller sum than is actually advanced ~ thereon, the security shall be deemed an authorized investment for the smaller sum, and the trustee shall only be liable to make good the sum advanced in excess thereof with interest. " (2.) This section applies to investments made as well before as after the commencement of this Act, except where an action or other proceeding was pending with reference thereto, on the 24th dav of December, 1888." A trustee will not be protected by this section from liability for breach of trust, unless the investment was proper in all respects, except as regards value, at the time when the money was advanced (m), A retiring trustee does not, by transferring to new trustees a Liability of mortgage on which he has lent a larger sum than was justifiable, retiriu g- free himself from liability to be sued by the cestui que trust for trustee ' any loss arising on a sale by the new trustees under their power as mortgagees, if fairly conducted ; for the sale is under the power which the retiring trustee himself has given to the new trustees, by transferring the mortgage to them (>/). vii— Investigation of Title to the Property.— The Trustee Title. Act, 1893, s. 8 (3), re-enacting the provisions of the Trustee Act, 1888, s. 3 (3), which are repeated for the purpose of con- solidation, enacts as follows : — " A trustee shall not be chargeable with breach of trust only upon Acceptance of the ground that in effecting the purchase of or in lending money short title, upon the security of any property, he has accepted a shorter title than the title which a purchaser is, in the absence of a special con- tract, entitled to require, if, in the opinion of the Court, the title accepted be such as a person acting with prudence and caution would have accepted." Formerly, trustees lending on mortgage could not with safety dispense with requiring a title going back less than forty years (o). Even now they may only accept a shorter title if they act with due prudence and caution, a matter which depends on the circumstances of each particular case. It is conceived that they should not accept a title commencing at a recent date, unless the property belongs to, or has lately been acquired from, persons of assured position. («) He Walker, Walker v. Walker, Ch. D. 351, 371, 0. A. 59 L. J. Ch. 3S6. (o) Exp. Governors of Christ's Hospital, ■ (n) He Salmon, Priest v. Uppleby, 42 2 H. & M. 1G6. M M 2 532 OF MORTGAGEES TRUSTEES OF SETTLEMENTS, ETC. CHAP. XXIX. Investigation of title. Duty of solicitor to trustees. Employment of solicitor who acts for mortgagor. In every case the title should be carefully investigated, other- wise the trustees will be responsible if, through a defect in title, the security fails wholly or in part (p). The investigation of title is, however, within the ordinary scope of a solicitor's business, and it would seem clear that if a trustee acting bond Jide under his solicitor's advice accepts a defective title, he will bo protected (q). It is clearly necessary and proper for trustees, when proposing to invest trust money on mortgage security, for the protection both of themselves and their beneficiaries, to consult a solicitor with regard to the sufficiency in value and soundness of title of the property intended to be comprised in the security. The rule is thus stated by Stirling, J. (/•):— "A trustee cannot delegate the execution of the trust. All that he is entitled to do is to avail himself of the services of others wherever such employment is according to the usual course of business (s). It is, therefore, the duty of a solicitor not so much himself to form or express an opinion on the value "of the property offered to a trustee as security for an advance (though the law does not prevent him from so doing if he thinks fit), as to see that the trustee has before him the proper materials for forming a judg- ment of his own. He ought, therefore, to see not only that the trustee has before him proper valuations of the property, but that he is made acquainted with any facts known to the solicitor, and not appearing by the valuations, which may affect the value of the property, and that his attention is directed to any rules laid down by the Courts for the guidance of trustees with refer- ence to such matters." In investing trust moneys on mortgage, it is not unusual for trustees to employ the solicitor who acts for the mortgagor. This practice is, however, open to objection, both because of the inconvenience which may arise from the doctrine of implied notice, and because there is, in such a case, a conflict of duties on the part of the solicitor that he cannot adequately represent the interests of both lender and borrower (t) . A solicitor who acts for both parties must not disclose to the proposed mortgagee any defect which he may find in the borrower's title (u), though (p) Lockhart v. Beitty, 1 De G. & J. 464. (q) See per Lindley, L. J., in Speight v. Gaunt, 22 Ch. D. at p. 761 ; and per Cotton, L. J. , in Re Whiteley, White- Icy v. Learoyd, 33 Ch. D. at p. 350. (r) Blyth v. Fladgate, (1891) 1 Ch. 337, at p. 360. (s) See learoyd v. Whiteley, 12 App. Cas. at p. 734. (t) Lewin on Trusts (9th ed.), 373, citing Waring v. Waring, 3 Ir. Ch. R. 331, 336. (u) Taylor v. Blacklow, 3 Bing. N. C. 235. INVESTIGATION OF TITLE. 533 no doubt he would be justified, and indeed bound, to advise the CHAP - XXIX - mortgagee not to make the advance. It has been said that to ~ employ the mortgagor's solicitor, though not absolutely amount- ing to a breach of trust, requires the trustee who does so to take additional precautions ; and, in the case referred to, the trustee was held liable for the fraud of the solicitor (r). Trustees will be held liable for loss to the estate if they waive Waiving any material defect in the mortgagor's title (V). defect in title- If a further advance is made upon the security of property Fresh inves- comprised in the security for the original loan, the subsequent f^™ on title should be produced and investigated, so as to ascertain that advance, there have been no intermediate dealings with the property, which might rank in priority to the further advance on the ground of implied notice (x) . By sect. 8 (2) of the Trustee Act, 1893, re-enacting sect. (2) Lessor's title, of the Trustee Act, 1888 (which is repealed), it is enacted : — "A trustee lending money on the security of any leasehold pro- perty shall not be chargeable with breach of trust only upon the ground that in making such loan he dispensed wholly or partly with the production or investigation of the lessor's title." Before the passing of the Act of 1888, trustees lending on leasehold security were bound to see that they acquired a market- able title, and accordingly could not waive their right to pro- duction of the lessor's title. Even now it would not be prudent for trustees to lend money on the security of a recently-granted lease, unless the title to the freehold is well known, or unless the title thereto is produced. viii.— General Protection of Trustees. — The Judicial Trustees Jurisdiction Act, 1896 (//), after giving power to the Court to appoint a cLSo?" 1 judicial trustee, enacts as follows : — breach of Sect. 3. "(1) If it appears to the Court that a trustee, whether appointed under this Act or not, is or may be personally liable for any breach of trust, whether the transaction alleged to be a breach of trust occurred before or after the passing of this Act, but has acted honestly and reasonably, and ought fairly to be excused for the breach of trust, and for omitting to obtain the directions of the Court in the matter in which he committed such breach, then the Court may relieve the trustee, either wholly or partly, from personal liability for the same. " (2) This section shall come into operation at the passing 1 of this Act." (v) Sutton v. Wilders, L. R. 12 Eq. (.r) Hopgoodv. Parkin, L. R. 11 Eq. 373, at p. 377. See Fyler v. Fyler, 3 74. Beav. 550. (y) 59 & 60 Vict. c. 35. See Re (w) Eastern Counties Rail. Co. v. Turner, Barker v, Ivimcy, (1897) 1 Ch. ffawkes, 5 H. L. C. 331, 363, 536. 534 OF MORTGAGEES TRUSTEES OF SETTLEMENTS, ETC. crrAP. xxix. Notice of trust to be avoided. Joint mort- gages to trustees. Effect of advance on joint account. ix. — As to the proper Forms of Mortgages to Trustees and of Trans- fers thereof. — If a mortgagor paid off a mortgage debt, having notice that it was trust money, it was a settled rule of equity that he was bound in equity to see to its application, unless he was expressly or impliedly exempted from that obligation ; but inas- much as all trustees have now a statutory power to give receipts for funds belonging to them as such, so as to exonerate the person paying the same from seeing to the application thereof (z), the obligation referred to cannot now arise. Even so, however, a difficulty still occurs from the necessity of producing the settlement or will creating the trust to prove the fact, and of engrafting the proof on the title, to satisfy an assignee of the mortgage, as well as future purchasers. To obviate this latter inconvenience, the better practice is for the mortgagor to execute a mortgage to the executors, or trustees, without putting notice of the trust on the mortgage, and then for the executors or trustees to execute a separate declaration of their trust. To meet the former, it is advisable not to give the mortgagor notice of the fact of the money being in trust. But there is a further rule in equity, viz., that if two or more persons advance their own moneys on mortgage, whether in equal proportions or not, and the mortgage is limited to them so as to create a joint tenancy at law, nevertheless, in equity, they shall be considered as tenants in common, and there shall be no survivorship between them. The consequence is, that if a mortgage is made to two or more persons without notice of the trust on the face of the deed, so that they appear to have made advances of their proper moneys, and if one of them die before the mortgage money is paid off, the concurrence of the executor or administrator of the deceased mortgagee becomes necessary in the discharge. The contrary was held in one case (a), but it cannot be supported (b). This inconvenience has given rise to the practice of expressly stating that the money advanced belongs to the persons advancing it (naming them, but not describing them as trustees) " on a joint account " (c). By the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (d), the effect of an advance on joint account is stated in sect. 61. Sub-sect. (1.) "Where in a mortgage, or an obligation for pay- ment of money, or a transfer of a mortgage or of such an obliga- (z) 56 & 57 Vict. c. 53, s. 20; see ante, p. 420. (a) Brasier v. Hudson, 9 Sim. 1. \b) Vickers v. Cowell. 1 Beav. 529. See Steeds v. Steeds, 22 Q. B. ~D. 537, 541. (c) See Hind v. Poole, 1 K. & J. 383. \d) 44 &45 Vict. c. 41. FORMS OF MORTGAGES, ETC. 535 tion, the sum, or any part of the sum, advanced or owing is chap. xxix. expressed to be advanced by or owing to more persons than one out of money, or as money, belonging to them on a joint account, or a mortgage, or such an obligation, or such a transfer is made to more persons than one, jointly, and not in shares, the mortgage money, or other money, or money's worth for the time being due to those persons on the mortgage or obligation, shall be deemed to be and remain money or money's worth belonging to those persons on a joint account, as between them and the mortgagor or obligor ; and the receipt in writing of the survivors or last survivor of them, or of the personal representatives of the last survivor, shall be a complete discharge for all money or money's worth for the time being due notwithstanding any notice to the payer of a severance of the joint account." The joint receipt clause formerly in use was binding on the Joint receipt mortgagees, although they did not execute the mortgage deed ; and the same rule would clearly apply to a statutory declaration as to joint account. This section applies only if and as far as a contrary intention Application , , . ,, , i t i • i j> j of the section. is not expressed m the mortgage, or obligation, or transfer, and shall have effect subject to the terms of the mortgage, or obliga- tion, or transfer, and to the provisions therein contained, and applies only to a mortgage, or obligation, or transfer made after the commencement of the Act (e). The question whether several mortgagees are to take as joint Contrary . , , , . . p • , , . -, . intention. tenants or as tenants in common is one ot intention, and, not- withstanding the insertion of a joint account clause, evidence is admissible to show that the mortgagees are entitled to the mortgage money as tenants in common (/). Although the adoption of the course above recommended Transfer of obviates all inconvenience on payment off of the mortgage debt, change 'of or on transfer of the security before any change of trustees trustees - occurs, a difficulty must necessarily arise when the mortgage has to be transferred on an appointment of new trustees. The deed of transfer should be separate from, but executed contem- poraneously with, the deed aj^pointing the new trustee (r/). Yarious expedients have been used to avoid disclosing the trust by the deed of transfer so as to put notice of the trust on the title. Some conveyancers introduce a declaration that the mortgagees are trustees, and have no beneficial interest, con- ceiving that this affirmation, which refers to no specific trust, would not render it incumbent on any person paying off the (e) See sect. 61, sub-sects. (2), (3). (g) See Fowler v. Reynal, 3 Mac, & (/) Re Jackson, Smith v. Sibthorpe, G. 500, 507. 34 Ch. D. 732. 536 OF MORTGAGEES TRUSTEES OF SETTLEMENTS, ETC. CHAP. XXIX. Vesting de- claration on appointment of new trustee. Exception as to transfers of mortgages of land, shares, stock, &c. Mortgage by deposit of deeds. mortgage, to inquire into the nature of the trust (//) ; bat having regard to the doctrine of constructive notice, it would clearly be unsafe to rely upon this expedient in practice (/). Others recite that the amount of the loan has been paid by the continuing and new trustees to the old trustees, a course open to the objection that the recital is at variance with fact. Others recite that the new and continuing trustees have become entitled to the amount of the loan and the securities for the same, and have required the transfer of the mortgage accordingly. But the fact that no consideration is mentioned for the transfer, is such as to create suspicion, and it is not clear that a subsequent purchaser would not be entitled to inquire how it was that the transferees became entitled to the mortgage moneys. The best method is to recite in the transfer that the old trustees are trustees of the moneys for the continuing and new trustees, to whom the moneys belong on a joint account, and who are desirous of having the securities for the same vested in them. This method is recommended by Mr. Lewin (see Lewin on Trusts, 9th ed., p. 367), and has been judicially approved by Pearson, J., as affording a protection to purchasers against any trusts affecting the property (/r). By the 34th section of the Conveyancing and Law of Pro- perty Act, 1881 (/), it was provided that, on the appointment of a new trustee of a settlement or will made by deed after the 31st of December, 1881, the trust property, with certain excep- tions, might be effectually vested in the new and continuing trustees by means of a vesting declaration. This section was repealed by the Trustee Act, 1893 (w), but re-enacted by sect. 12 of .that Act. But this enactment does not extend to land conveyed by way of mortgage for securing money subject to the trust, nor to any share, stock, annuity, or property transferable only in the books of a company or body, or in manner directed by or under Act of Parliament. A transfer of a legal mortgage of land must, therefore, still be effected by way of conveyance of the land to the trans- feree. And in the case of shares, stock, &c, the transfer must be according to the mode prescribed by the Companies Acts or other statute applicable to the particular case. Where, however, the mortgaged land was not conveyed {h) See Byth. & Jarm. Conv. (3rd ed.) vol. vi. p. 381. (i) See Jones v. Smith, 1 Ph. 244 ; Bridgman v. Gill, 24 Beav. 306. (k) Re Harman and TJxbridge Rail, Co., 24 Ch. D. at p. 726. (I) 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41. lm) 56 & 57 Vict. c. 53, s. 51. POWER TO INVEST ON AND HOLD MORTGAGES. 537 originally, a vesting declaration will be sufficient to pass the chap. xxix. estate therein. So, where a memorandum accompanying a deposit of deeds by way of mortgage contained a declaration by the mortgagor of trust of the legal estate ; and the mort- gagee appointed new trustees ; it was held that a vesting declaration by the mortgagee in the deed of appointment operated under sect. 12 of the Act of 1893, to vest the legal estate in the trustees (mm). Where a conveyance of mortgaged land is not obtainable Vesting on an appointment of a new trustee, a vesting order may generally be obtained which will have the same effect as if all proper conveyances of the land had been executed by all neces- sary parties (n). Where mortgages are taken by trustees, succession duty will Succession not be payable on the death of one trustee ; such accruer by survivorship will not be deemed a succession, mortgages being personal estate, and not within sect. 42 (d). Section II. Of Mortgages to Trustees of Charities. i, — Of the Power of Charity Trustees to invest in or hold Real Old Mortmain Securities under the Old Law. — By sect. 1 of the Mortmain Act, c ' 9 Geo. II. c. 36, s. 1 (o), all grants, transfers, and conveyances of lands or hereditaments, corporeal or incorporeal,' and all charges or incumbrances thereon, in trust or for the benefit of any charitable use, were rendered void unless made in accordance with certain prescribed formalities and conditions, and unless the deed was made to take effect in possession and without any condition for the benefit of the grantor. The effect of this enactment was to render it incompetent for any corporation or trustees to invest charitable funds under their control on mort- gage of lands except under the special provisions of some Act of Parliament or under licence from the Crown. An exception from the operation of this enactment was by Exception this Act made in favour of the Universities of Oxford and ^^^^ Cambridge and the colleges therein, and also the Colleges of &c. Eton, Winchester and Westminster (p) ; and the exception (mm) London and County Banking Co. (o) Repealed and virtually re-enacted v. Goddard, W. N. (1897) 18. by the statute 51 & 52 Vict. c. 42. (m) 56 & 57 Vict. c. 53, ss. 26 to 40. (p) 9 Geo. II. c. 36, e. 4 ; 51 & 52 Sea Re Harrison's Settlement, W. N. Vict. c. 42, s. 7, (1883) 31, 538 OF MORTGAGEES CTTARTTY TRUSTEES. CHAP. XXtX. Power for charity trus- tees to invest on mortgage. Mortmain, &c, Act, 1888. Licence in mortmain. Testamen- tary gifts of mortgages. has been extended "by subsequent statutes in favour of other institutions (q). By 33 & 34 Vict. c. 34, s. 1, all corporations and trustees in the United Kingdom, holding moneys in trust for any public or charitable purposes, may invest such moneys on any real security (which includes legal and equitable mortgages and charges upon lands or hereditaments of any tenure, or upon any estate or interest therein, or any charge or incumbrance thereon), authorized by or consistent with the trusts on which such moneys are held, without being deemed thereby to have ac- quired or become possessed of land within the meaning of the Mortmain Laws, or of any prohibition or restraint against the holding of land in any charter or Act of Parliament ; and no contract for or conveyance of any interest in land, made bond fide for the purpose only of such security, shall be deemed void by reason of non-compliance with 9 Geo. II. c. 36. Even before the passing of this Act, it was held that a pro- viso for redemption was not " a condition for the benefit of the grantor " within the Mortmain Acts (>•). Where the trust deeds of certain Methodist chapels contained powers of raising money for purposes of the trusts by mortgage, it was held that any of the trustees of the chapels might advance money on such mortgages and might exercise all the rights and remedies of mortgagees as against the trust estates (s). The statute 9 Geo. II. c. 36 is now repealed by the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1888 (t), which, however, imposes on dispositions of interests in land for the benefit of charities restrictions similar to those imposed by the repealed Act. A licence in mortmain or an Act of Parliament dispensing with such licence, though it enables a charity to take and hold land, does not enable a donor to give property to the charity which he could not otherwise give (it). As regards testamentary dispositions in favour of charity, the effect of the statutory restrictions is that mortgages on land or any interest therein could not, prior to the 5th August, 1891, be made the subject of a bequest to charities or placed in mortmain. (q) Doe v. Hawkins, 2 Q. B. 212. (r) See these statutes collected, Byth. & Jarm. Conv. (4th ed.) vol. iv. p. 23, notes. (s) Att.-Gen. v. Hardy, 1 Sim. N. S. 338. (*) 51 & 52 Vict. c. 42. (w) Mogg v. Hodges, 2 Ves. Sen. 52. See British Museum v. White, 2 S. & St. 594 ; Robinson v. London Hospital, 10 Ha. 19, 24; Nethersole v. Indigent Blind School, L. B. 11 Eq. 1; Chester v. Chester, L. B. 12 Eq. 444 ; Lucraft v. Pridham, 6 Ch. D. 205 ; Webster v. Sou they, 31 Ch. D. 9, 22. POWER TO INVEST ON AND HOLD MORTGAGES. 539 All mortgages, including arrears of interest thereon, were chap. xxix. within the mischief of the Mortmain Acts (r) ; also money " secured by judgment (to), and money bequeathed to pay off an equitable charge on land (a?), and money arising from the sale of partnership real estate (y) ; if not an interest in land, it is a direct charge thereon (//). So the lien of a vendor for his purchase-money (a), a bond with a deposit of title deeds (a), and a premium on a lease unpaid, is a lien on the leasehold, and within the Mortmain Acts (b) : in fact any device by which land may be reached is void ; thus a covenant that executors should pay a sum of money for charities, is within the Acts so far as relates to chattels real (c). But where a person entitled to a sum under a covenant by her husband, declared by deed charitable trusts of the money, the trust was held valid, although the money could only be paid by calling in a mortgage of realty (d). Many securities, not strictly mortgages of land, were issued Charges on under statutory powers by companies and corporations possessed toUs ' & °' of land, by which the undertaking and the rates and tolls thereof were charged, and it was contended that they constituted such an interest in land as to bring them within the Mortmain Acts. It had been held that shares in such a company or corporation did not fall within the statute, on the ground that the holder had no direct right to any part of the rates or tolls, only a share in the profits (c). Instead of applying the same broad principle to the bonds Debentures. and debentures of such companies and corporations, the Courts drew nice distinctions from the form of the securities, and attempted to reconcile the conflicting cases. It was thus doubt- ful how far mortgages, or debentures, or debenture stock, or assignments of tolls, or rates of railways, or other companies, were within the Acts. In some cases they had been held to be (r) Att.-Gen. v. Meyriclc, 2 Ves. Sen. (a) See note (r), ante, p. 358 44 ; Jeffries v. Alexander, 8 H. L. C. (b) Shepheard v. Beet ham 6 Ch D 594. See Fox v. Loivnds, L. R. 19 Eq. 597. 45 ?- . „ „. „ ( c ) Jeffries v. Alexander, 8 H. L C (w) Collmson v. Pater, 2 R. & My. 594. 3^4. (d) He liobson, Emley v. Davidson 19 (x) TFaterhousev. Holmes, 2 Sim. 162. Ch. D. 156, C. A. ; He Watts Corn ford (y) Brook v. Badlei/, L. R. 3 Ch. v. Elliott, 29 Ch. D. 947, C. A A. 672; Ashworth v. Munn, 15 Ch. D. (e) Myers v. Perigal 2 De*G M & 363, 370, C. A. G. 599; Be Zawham's Trusts 10 Ha (z) Harrison v. Harrison, 1 R. & My. 446. ',*"■*«. 71. 540 OF MORTGAGEES — CHARITY TRUSTEES. CHAP. XXIX. Marshalling in favour of charity. withiu it, and void (/). In others they had been held not to lie void(^). A solution was found in the case of Gardner v. London, Chatham and Dover Railway Co.(h), by which it was decided that a mortgage debenture made by a railway company in the form given in Schedule C. of the Companies Clauses Consolida- tion Act, 1845 (/), does not give the debenture holder a specific charge upon the surplus lands of the company, or the proceeds of the sale of them, so as to entitle him to an order for a receiver of the sale moneys or interim rents. The conclusion from this case was, that the mortgagee has only a right to take the tolls, and has not an interest which is within the Mortmain Act (li) . This view has been adopted in subsequent cases, and the question is now set at rest. The principle is, that the holder of such securities has no interest in the land, but only a right, by receivership or otherwise, to the net earnings (/) . If, on the other hand, the debenture assigns or charges the land itself, or tolls or rates charged thereon or some specific portion thereof, the security will confer an interest in land within the Mortmain Acts so as to avoid a charitable bequest of such a debenture (tn). A charge on police rates is not an interest in land, because, by the statute 7 & 8 Vict. c. 33, the justices have no longer any power to levy a rate, but receive the money from the overseers of the poor, who raise it by rate or otherwise (n). Marshalling is not allowed in favour of charitable bequests, where there is pure and impure personalty, so as to throw the debts, costs of suit and legacies upon the impure personalty, unless an intention so to marshal the assets can be gathered from the will (o) ; and where a charitable bequest so partially (/) Sex v. Bales, 3 Pri. 341 ; Finch v. Squire, 10 Ves. 41 ; Hoivse v. Chap- man, 4 Ves. 542 ; Knapp v. Williams, 4 Ves. 430, n. ; Thompson v. Kempson, Kay, 592 ; Chandler v. Howell, 4 Ch. D. 651 ; Langhatn s Trusts, sup. ; Ashton v. Lord Langdale, 4 De G. & Sm. 402 ; Ion v. Ashton, 28 Beav. 372; Jeffries v. Alexander, 8 H. L. C. 594 ; Clnffv. Cluff, 2 Ch. D. 222. (g) Walker v. Milne, 11 Beav. 507; Hunting v. Marriott, 19 Beav. 163 ; Doe v. St. Selen's Rail. Co., 2 Q. B. 364; Myers v. Perigal, 16 Sim. 533; Holdsuorth v. Davenport, 3 Ch. D. 185 ; MitehelVs Estate, 6 Beav. 655. (h) 2 Ch. 201. (i) 8 & 9 Vict. c. 16. (k) Holdsicorth v. Davenport, 3 Ch. P. 651. (I) Attree v. Hawe, 9 Ch. D. 337, C. A. ; Re Christmas, Martin v. Lacon, 33 Ch. D. 332, C. A. ; Re Thompson, Bedford v. Teal, 45 Ch. D> 161, C. A. ; Re Parker, Wignall v. Park, (1891) 1 Ch. 682 ; Re Yerbun/s Estate, Ker v. Dent, 62 L. T. 55 ; Re Pickard, Elmsley v. Mitchell, (1894) 3 Ch. 704, C. A. (m) Re David, Buckley v. Royal National Lifeboat Institution, 43 Ch. D. 27 ; Re Holmes, Holmes v. Holmes, W. N. (1890) 169. (n) Re Harris, 15 Ch. D. 561. And see Thompson v. Kempson, Kay, 592 ; Jervis v. Lawrence, 22 Ch. D. 202. (o) Robinson v. Gcldard, 3 Mac. & G. 725 ; Tempest v. Tempest, 8 De G. M. & G. 359 ; Gaskin v. Rogers, L. R. 2 Eq. 284, 288 ; Beaumont v. Oliveira, L. R. 4 Ch. A. 369 ; Wigg v. Nicol, h. R. 14 Eq. 92, M. R. MORTMAIN, ETC. ACT, 1891. 541 fails, the proportion must be ascertained by the value of the chap. xxix. pure and impure personalty at the death of the testator (p). Where a legacy to a charity is payable out of real and per- Apportion - sonal property, an apportionment must be made, and the legacy ment - will be void^ro tanto (q). But where a bequest to a charity is made of a legacy, or mortgage, charged on real and personal estate, there is no apportionment, and it is wholly bad (r) . ii. — Mortmain, &c, Act, 1891. — The above remarks apply Alteration of only to wills of testators dying before the 5th August, 1891. testementaiy As regards wills made by persons dying on or after that gifts of land and interests date («), the law with regard to testamentary gifts for charitable therein, purposes has been materially altered by the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1891 (t). This Act enacts as follows : — Sect. 3. "'Land 'in the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, Meaning of 1888, and in this Act, shall include tenements and hereditaments, "land." corporeal or incorporeal, of any tenure, but not money secured on land or other personal estate arising from or connected with land ; and the definition of land contained in the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1888, is hereby repealed." Sect. 4. "In this Act the word ' assurance ' shall have the same Meaning of meaning as in the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1888." "assurance." By the last-mentioned Act the expression " assurance," for the purposes of that Act, includes not only assurances by deed or other instrument operating inter vivos, but also devises, bequests, and other assurances by will or codicil (u). The effect, therefore, of the exclusion from the above defini- Effect of tion of " land," for the purposes of both Acts, of money secured on land or other personal estate arising from or connected with land, renders impure personalty (other than leaseholds) capable of being freely and effectually given by will to charity. Thus, charitable bequests of money secured on mortgage of land, whether in fee or for years, or by deposit of title deeds, and of arrears of interest on any such mortgage, and of money charged by way of mortgage, or sums invested on any such mortgage, also charitable bequests of money secured by judgments charg- ing land, or by vendor's lien — all of which gifts were formerly void — are now rendered valid as regards wills of testators dying (p) Calvert v. Armitage, 1 H. & M. Ch. D. 947, C. A. 446, correcting Robinson v. London (s) Re Bridger, Brompton Hospital v. Hospital, 10 Ha. 19, 29. Lewis, (1894) 1 Ch. 297, C. A. (q) Hill's Trust, 16 Ch. D. 173. (t) 54 & 55 Vict. c. 73. \r) Brook v. Badley, L. R. 3 Ch. A. (w) 61 & 52 Vict. c. 42, s. 10. 672 ; Re Watts, Cornford v. Elliott, 29 definitions. 542 OF MORTGAGEES — CHARITY TRUSTEES. CHAP. XXIX. Testamen- tary gift of mortgage valid. Testamen- tary gifts of debentures valid. Marshalling not now necessary. Gift of mortgage inter vivos for charity. after the passing of the Act. So, also, a charitable gift may now be made by will of or out of the proceeds of land devised on trust for sale. And the fact that a sum of money bequeathed to charity is to be raised by sale of lands which have not been sold at the testator's death will not avoid the gift. As regards the benefit of the security, when money secured by mortgage is given by will to charity, the position would now seem to be as follows : — The legal estate in the mortgaged land, that is to say, the land itself at law, subject to the equitable right of redemption subsisting in the mortgagor, will imme- diately on the death of the testator vest in his "personal representatives," notwithstanding any expressions in the will purporting to devise such legal estate directly to the charity or to trustees for its benefit. But by the statute 33 & 34 Viet. c. 34, s. 1 (a>), corporations and trustees holding money in trust for any public or charitable purpose are empowered to invest the same in real securities without being deemed thereby to have acquired or become possessed of land in mortmain. It would therefore seem that the executors may make a transfer of the mortgage security to the charitable legatee, and that the latter may accept such transfer, and continue to hold the security in accordance with the provisions of the last-mentioned Act ; and, further, that such a transfer will not require to be made with any of the formalities required by the Act of 1888 in the case of conveyances of land. The recent enactment removes all doubt as to the validity of testamentary gifts to charitable uses of bonds and debentures secured by public bodies on rates or tolls, notwithstanding that such instruments amount to specific assignments of interests in land. It is obvious that the result of these changes in the law is to do away with the necessity of inserting in wills containing charitable gifts any direction for the marshalling of the testa- tor's property for the purposes of such gifts. And, where a charitable legacy is given free of duty, the duty may now be paid out of impure personalty. It is to be observed that the operation of the Act of 1891 is confined to testamentary dispositions, and that a gift inter vivos of money secured on mortgage of land or of other impure per- sonalty to or for the benefit of charity, must still be made in accordance with sect. 4 of the Act of 1888 {y). (.r) See ante, p. 537. [y) lie Hume, Forbes v. Hume, (1895) 1 Ch. 422, C. A. ( 543 ) CHAPTER XXX. OF MORTGAGES TO BUILDING AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES. Section I. Of Mortgages to Building Societies. i. — Power of Building Societies to lend on Mortgage. — The Benefit As to unincor- Building Societies Act, 1836 (a), whereby societies of this nature F^odeS" were governed prior to the 2nd November, 1874, incorporated the Friendly Societies Acts then in force (b), so far as they were applicable ; and this included the framing, certifying, and enrolling of rules (c). By the stat. 10 Geo. IV. e. 56, s. 21, all property (including Property securities for money) of friendly societies was vested in trustees, 7 est ® d m J ' J ' trustees. and, upon their death or removal, vested in the new trustees without assignment on conveyance. This provision is still in force as regards building societies which have not a certificate of incorporation under the Building Societies Act, 1874 (d). By the 6 & 7 Will. IY. c. 32, benefit building societies were Power to lend enabled to raise by the subscriptions of their members, by shares on ^° v ~ g ? g 7 e not exceeding the value of 150/. for each share, such subscrip- Will. IV. tions not to exceed in the whole 20s. per month for each share, c ' 2 * a stock or fund for the purpose of enabling each member to receive out of the funds the amount or value of his or her share or shares, to erect or purchase dwelling-houses, or other real or leasehold estate, to be secured by way of mortgage to such society, until the amount or value of the shares advanced should have been fully repaid to such society with interest, and all fines or other payments in respect thereof ; and no member was to receive from the funds any interest or dividend by way of annual or other periodical profit upon any shares, until the («)- 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 32. (c) See Mulkern v. Lord, 4 App. Cas. (J) 10 Geo. IV. c. 56 ; 4 & 5 Will. 182. IV. c. 40. The statutes are now re- {d) 37 & 38 Vict. c. 42, s. 7. See pealed. See post, p. 563. ante, p. 460. 544 OF MOKTGAGEES BUILDING SOCIETIES. chap. xxx. amount or value of his or her share should have been realized, except on the withdrawal of such member according to the Form of rules of such society ; and the form of mortgage or other mor gages. i ns trument was to be specified in a schedule to the rules of such society. Loans to There is nothing in this Act to prevent a society of this strangers. description from lending money on mortgage as well to its members as to strangers, without regard to the purpose for which it might be applied (e) . Shares not to No share must exceed 150/. in value, but any member may exceed 150/. g^g^]^ f or an( j hold m0 re shares than one, though the value of such shares exceeds in the whole the value of 150.s\ (/). Astoincorpo- By the Building Societies Act, 1874 (g), the Act of 1836 is socie i ties Uldinff repealed, but so as not to affect any then subsisting society certified under the repealed Act, until such society has been incorporated under the later Act. All incorporated building- societies, whether originally formed under the repealed Act or under the Act of 1874, are governed by the latter Act, as amended by subsequent Acts (h) , and by regulations issued under sect. 44 of the Act of 1874. By sect. 13 of the Act of 1874, it is enacted as follows : — Power to lend "Any number of persons may establish a society under this Act, on mortgage either terminating or permanent, for the purpose of raising by the under Act of subscriptions of the members, a stock or fund for making advances to members out of the funds of the society, upon security of freehold, copyhold, or leasehold estate, by way of mortgage ; and any society under this Act shall, 60 far as is necessary for the said purpose, have power to hold land with the right of foreclosure, and may from time to time raise funds by the issue of shares of one or more denomina- tions, either paid up in full, or to be paid by periodical or other subscriptions, and with or without accumulating interest, and may repay such funds when no longer required for the purposes of the society. Provided always, that any land to which any such society may become absolutely entitled by foreclosure, or by surrender or other extinguishment of the right of redemption shall, as soon afterwards as may be conveniently practicable, be sold or converted into money." Terminating By sect. 5 of the Act, a terminating society in this Act means nent P sSies. a soc i e ty which, by its rules, is to terminate at a fixed date, or when a result specified in its rules is attained; a permanent {e) Cutbill v. Kingdom, 1 Exch. 494. (g) 37 & 38 Vict. c. 42, s. 7. (/) Morrison v. Glover, 4 Exch. 430, (h) 38 & 39 Vict. c. 9 ; 40 & 41 Vict, where Parke, B., admitted the incor- c. 63; 47 & 48 Vict. c. 41 ; 57 & 58 rectness of his dictum to the contrary Vict. c. 47. in Cutbill v. Kingdom, sup. POWEK TO INVEST ON MORTGAGE. 545 XXX. society means a society which has not, by ifs rules, any such chap. fixed date or specified result at which it shall terminate. The Act of 1836 does not notice the distinction between these two classes of societies, but many of the societies formed under that Act were terminating societies. By sect. 16 of the Act of 1874, the rules of every society What the thereunder shall contain among other particulars rules . are to " (4.) The terms upon which shares maybe withdrawn, and upon which mortgages may be redeemed. "(8.) Provision for an annual or more frequent audit of the accounts, and inspection by the auditors of the mortgages and other securities belonging to the society ; and "(11.) Provision for the custody of the mortgage deeds and other securities belonging to the society." Clause (4) of sect. 16 of the Act of 1874 is repealed by the Building Societies Act, 1894 (t), and it is thereby enacted that the rules of every society established or substituting a new set of rules for its existing rules after the passing of this Act, shall set forth (among other particulars) — "(e) The manner in which advances are to be made and repaid, the deductions, if any, for premiums, and the conditions upon which a borrower can redeem the amount due from him before the expira- tion of the period for which the advance was made, with tables, where applicable in the opinion of the registrar, showing the' amount due from the borrower after each stipulated payment." By sect. 12 of the Act of 1894, balloting for advances is Prohibition prohibited in the case of any society established after the passing- oi , ballot for oi the Act; and existing societies, whose rules provide that advances may be ballotted for, may, notwithstanding anything in their rules, by a bare majority of members voting personally or by voting papers at a meeting called for the purpose, resolve to discontinue the practice. ii— On what Securities Advances may be made.— Building Societies can societies, as well under the repealed Act as under the present \Ziof 7 ° n Acts, can only advance money on the security of landed leasehold property, freehold, copyhold or leasehold. An advance to a 8ecurities - member on the security of his shares is invalid, and renders the directors making the advance liable for breach of trust (k). In (») 57 & 58 Vict. c. 47, s. 28, and the Act. 2nd Sched This Act came into opera- (/„-) Cultemey. London, &e. Permanent tion on the 1st ot January, 1895, except Benefit Building Soc, 25 Q. B. D. 485 as otherwise expressed. See sect. 30 of VOL. I. R N N 540 OF MORTGAGEES BUILDING SOCIETIES. CHAI\ XXX. Advance on second mortgage prohibited. lending on the security of real or leasehold property, however, directors of building societies have a larger discretion than ordinary trustees, and are accordingly not under an obligation to avoid investments of a speculative or hazardous character ; they may take collateral security for their loan on unauthorized property, as interests on personalty, but, if they do so, the propriety of the transaction must be tested independently of the collateral security (/). By sect. 13 of the Act of 1894, building societies are pro- hibited from lending money on the security of a second mortgage, and directors who have authorized such an advance are made jointly and severally liable for any loss occasioned thereby to the society. Where a society was prohibited by its rules from lending on a second mortgage, and, being in want of money, induced a third person to lend to a mortgagor a sum of money, which was applied in reducing his mortgage debt, and, in order to secure this loan, the society postponed their first charge to the lender's security, it was held that the transaction was ultra vires and void (m). Societies to make annual audits and statements of funds to members. iii. — Accounts and Audits of Mortgage Investments. — The 40th section of the Act of 1874 provides that building societies shall make audits and annual accounts of (amongst other matters) their assets, including " the balance due or outstanding on their mortgage securities (not including prospective interest) , and the amount invested in the funds or other securities ; and every such account and statement shall be attested by the auditors to whom the mortgage deeds and other securities belonging to the society shall be produced, and such account or statement shall be countersigned by the secretary or other officer ; and every member, depositor, and creditor for loans shall be entitled to receive from the society a copy of such account and statement, and a copy thereof shall be sent to the registrar within fourteen days after the annual or other general meeting at which it is presented, and another copy thereof shall be suspended in a conspicuous place in every office of the society under this Act." (/) Sheffield iS,- South Torks. Permanent Building Soc. v. Aizleivood, 44 Ch. D. 412. (m) Port sea Island Building Soc. v. Barclay, (1895) 2 Ch. 298, C. A. ACCOUNTS, ETC. OF MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS. 547 By sect. 2 of the Act of 1894 it is enacted (sub-sect. (1)), that chap, xxx. every such account and statement shall be made up to the end Form of an- of the official year of the society to which it relates, and shall Estate™* be in the prescribed form ; and the same sub-section further ment. enacts as follows : — "Provided that every such account and statement shall set forth :— (a) With respect to mortgages to the society upon each of which the present debt does not exceed five thousand pounds (not being mortgages where the repayments are upwards of twelve months in arrear, or where the property has for upwards of twelve months been in possession of the society), the number of all such mortgages, and the aggregate amount owing thereon at the date of the account or statement, such information being given sepa- rately in respect of each of the four following classes : — (i.) Where the debt does not exceed five hundred pounds ; (ii.) Where the debt exceeds five hundred pounds, and does not exceed one thousand pounds ; (iii.) Where the debt exceeds one thousand pounds, and does not exceed three thousand pounds ; (iv.) Where the debt exceeds three thousand pounds, and does not exceed five thousand pounds ; and (b) With respect to any other mortgage to the society, the parti- culars shown by the appropriate tabular form in the First Schedule to this Act. " (2.) Every auditor, in attesting any such annual account or statement, shall either certify that it is correct, duly vouched, and in accordance with law, or specially report to the society in what respect he finds it incorrect, unvouched, and not in accordance with law, and shall also certify that he has at that audit actually inspected the mortgage deeds and other securities belonging to the society, and shall state the number of properties with respect to which deeds have been produced to and actually inspected by him. " (3.) A copy of every such annual account and statement shall be sent to the registrar within fourteen days after the annual or other general meeting at which it is presented, or within three months after the expiration of the official year of the society, which- ever period expires first. "(4.) For the purposes of this section the expression 'official year ' shall mean, in the case of any society established after the passing of this Act, the year ending with the thirty-first day of December, and, in the case of any society established before the passing of this Act, the year ending with the time up to which its annual account and statement is made at the passing of this Act. " (5.) This section shall not come into operation until the expira- tion of twelve months after the passing of this Act." iv. — Form of the Security. — Benefit building societies gene- Constitution rally consist of two classes of members, investing or unadvanced o^bmidin ^ members, and borrowing or advanced members. The purpose societies. nn2 5^8 OF MORTGAGEES — BUILDING SOCIETIES. CHAP. XXX. Form of mortffaafe. To whom the mortgage should be made. of such a society, whether terminating or permanent, is to pro- mote the acquisition by its members of small freehold, copyhold, or leasehold prop< rties for the erection of dwelling-houses thereon by raising, by means of small subscriptions, a fund divided into shares, out of which the society makes advances to members requiring such to the amount or value of their shares in the society, the advance being secured by mortgage to the society until the amount or value of the advanced members' shares, with interest and other payments, is fully paid (it). The inducement to investing members is the expectation of receiving a high return by way of interest on the amount contributed by them (o) — a consideration which was formerly of greater weight than now, inasmuch as loans by such societies to their members were not within the usury laws (/;). The form of mortgage will depend upon the constitution and rules of the society. In the case of a terminating society an advanced member receives in anticipation, subject to discount, an amount equal to the amount that the investing members will receive on the division of the assets at the termination of the society ; the mortgage is, therefore, framed so as to secure not only the repayment of the sum advanced with interest, but the due payment by the advanced member of his subscription and other contributions, until payment of a sum equal to the full amount to which an investing member would be entitled in respect of his share, and also of a further periodical sum called " re- demption money," but which is really interest. Mortgages to permanent societies are generally framed so as simply to secure the repayment of the amount advanced, with interest, by equal instalments spread over a fixed period (•) 10 Geo. IV. c. 56, s. 21, ante, p. 543. (a) See Walker v. Giles, 6 C. B. 6C2. NATURE AND OPERATION OF MORTGAGE. 549 By the Act of 187-1 it is enacted : — chap. xxx. Sect. 19. " Any society under the Act, in a schedule to its rules, ^ of may describe the_ forms of conveyance, mortgage, transfer, agree- mortgage, ment, bond, security for deposit, or loan or other instrument neces- &c. sary for carrying its purposes into execution." Sect. 27. "All rights of action and other rights, and all estates Property to and interests in real and personal estate whatsoever [now (/)] vest on in- belonging to or held in trust for any society certified under the corporation, said repealed Act(?<) shall, on the incorporation of the society under this Act, vest in the society without any conveyance or assignment whatsoever, save and except in the case of stocks and securities in the public funds of Great Britain and Ireland, and estates in copyhold or customary hereditaments the title to which cannot be transferred without admittance." Sect. 28. "Where any society under this Act is entitled in equity i n case of to any hereditaments of copyhold or customary tenure by way of copyholds, mortgage, the lord of the manor of which the same are held shall from time to time, if required by the society, admit such persons, not more than three, as the society appoints, to be trustees on its behalf as tenants in respect of such hereditaments on payment of the usual fines, fees, and other dues payable on the admission of a single tenant, or may admit the society as tenant in respect of the same on payment of such special fine, or compensation in lieu of fine, and fees as may be agreed upon." V. — Nature and Operation of the Security. — Mortgages to Ordinary law building societies are governed by the ordinary law of mort- ° f "J2, fcgage gage, except so far as such law is necessarily modified by the special nature of the security, or by statutory enactment. But it is not clear whether a building society may transfer its securities like any ordinary mortgagee (r). The form of the foreclosure decree in the case of a mortgage Foreclosure, to a building society is similar to that in ordinary mortgages (w). Where, however, the mortgage is in the form of a trust for Tmstfor sale to secure the repayment of the loan, the proper remedy sale ' will be an order for sale and not foreclosure (x). As to foreclosure or sale where the security is by a charge Registered registered under the Land Transfer Act, 1875, see the pro- mort ^ a ^ e - visions of that Act (y). A building society is entitled as of right, like any ordinary Costs. (t) This section is to be read as if London and South Western Bank, "W. N. the word "now " were omitted there- (1874) 10 ; for a form of foreclosure from : see 40 & 41 Vict. c. 63, s. 3. order as to accounts, see Boney v (w) I.e., the statute 6 & 7 Will. IV. Charter, W. N. (1887) 52. c. 32 : see ante, p. 544. {%) Kirkwoodv. Thompson, 2 H. & M. (v) Compare Ulster Building Soc. v. 392,402. See Locking v. Parker, L. R. Glenton, 21 L. R. Ir. I2i, and Be Bum- 8 Ch. A. 30; Be Alison, Johnson v. nag and Smith, 66 L. J. Ch. 482. Mounsey, 11 Ch. D. 284. (w) Provident Permanent Building Soc. (y) 38 & 39 Vict. c. 87, ss. 26, 27, v. Greenhill, 9 Ch. D. 122 ; Bell v. See ante, p. 39. 550 OF MORTGAGEES — UUILDING SOCIETIES. CHAP. XXX. Terms of redemption. Right to redeem of member of terminating .society. mortgngee, to its costs in an action for foreclosure or redemp- tion in the absence of vexatious or oppressive conduct on its part (2). It is, however, obvious that tho position of a mortgagor to a building society is by no means the same as that of an ordinary mortgagor, and that his rights must be more or less affected by the contract of membership, as well as by the contract of mort- gage (a). The terms on which an advanced member of a building- society is entitled to redeem his mortgage will depend as well on the rules of the particular society as on the provisions con- tained in the mortgage deed (b). If the terms of the mortgage deed vary from the rules of tho society, and the mortgagor claiming to redeem does not seek to have the deed reformed, he is bound by its terms (c). In the case of a permanent society, if the rules are unambigu- ous, there is no great difficulty in estimating how much the mort- gagor ought to pay to entitle him to redeem. But questions have not unfrequently arisen as to the proper terms of redemp- tion in the case of terminating societies, owing to the difficulty of calculating the probable duration of the society. Where a mortgage had been duly executed by a member (who had become tho purchaser of twelve and a half shares) of the property that he purchased with the sum advanced by the society for that purpose, a question arose whether the mortgagor had a right to have the accounts taken on the common principle of debiting him with the principal sum advanced and interest, and crediting him with the amount of his monthly subscriptions and payments, or on the principle of treating him as a share- holder, who had received the value of his shares in advance, and who was bound to continue his monthly payments during the continuance of the society ; and the Court, on the construction of the mortgage deed, held the latter principle to be the correct one, and directed the master to find the amount of the future pay- ments, upon a calculation of the probable duration of the society, though the rules of the society were ambiguous on the point (. 373, at p. 380. (b) Andrews v. City Permanent Build- ing Soc, 44 L. T. 641. (c) Mosley v. Baker, 3 De G. M. & G. 1032, n. (d) Mosley v. Baker, sup. NATURE AND OPERATION OF MORTGAGE. 551 same ground of construction, held bound to pay the full amount chap. xxx. of all future payments which might become due during the probable duration of the society, in order to redeem (e) . The agreement in the rules for acceleration of all such future pay- ments, if any instalment is not punctually paid, has nothing in common with a penalty (/). In a suit for redemption by a member, a decree was made directing calculation of the longest possible duration of the society at the date of the notice of redemption, having regard to the net assets of the society, and to the monthly subscriptions and redemption money still continuing payable, and to the number of 100/. shares to be provided for, and charging the plaintiff as a present debt with all subscriptions and redemp- tion money which would become payable by him assuming the society to endure for the whole of the calculated period, and crediting him with the amount of bonus payable at the date of the notice to withdrawing members (g). In such a case, the mortgagor is entitled to credit for redemption moneys paid in by him (//). No allowance will be made to the mortgagor in respect of profits, where the redemption takes place at a period at which a withdrawing member could have obtained by the rules no right to profits ; but profits will be allowed if by the rules the ad- vanced members are entitled on redemption to the same profits as withdrawing members (/), although the amount was a greater sum than the society's funds could bear (/). An advanced member was held to be entitled to redeem on payment of his subscriptions to the end of the year, estimated as the probable duration of the society, although he continued liable to pay subscriptions until 120/. a share had been realized for every member, and the society was not allowed to retain the deeds as a security for such subscriptions (k). Where an executor of a will obtained a loan from a building society of which he was a member, for the purposes of the administration of his testator's estate, on a mortgage of a house belonging to that estate, and the deed contained a covenant by the executor to pay principal and interest, and all subscriptions, (e) SeagraveY. Pope, 1 De G. M. & G. (h) Smith y. Pilklngton, 1 De G. F. 783. & J. 120. (/) See Wallingforcl v. Mutual Soc., (i) Fleming v. Self, sup. ; Archer v. 5 App. Cas. 685. Harrison, 7 De G. M. & G. 404. (g) Fleming v. Self, 3 De G. M. & G. (k) Sparrow v. Farmer, 26 Beav. 511 ; 997. Handley v. Farmer, 29 Beav. 362, 552 OF MORTGAGEES BUILDING SOCIETIES. CHAP. XXX. Fines. Interest on fines. fines, &c, and a proviso that the mortgage should not be redeemable except, on redemption of all other mortgages made by him to the society, it was held that, as against the estate, no liability in respect of the shares could be enforced, and that the consolidation clause was void, but that the mortgage was good to the extent of the money actually advanced, and reasonable interest (/). Where, by the rules, the manager had power to determine the amount payable on redemption, on payment of which the shares in respect of which the security was made should be extinguished, and the society, by resolution, fixed that amount at 60/. 10sr. per share, it was held that a mortgagor who had by the deed covenanted to pay all subscriptions, &c, which should become due by virtue of the rules of the society, and had paid the amount fixed by the resolution, and had obtained a statutory receipt, was released from all liability to the society (w). The Act of 1836 (n) empowers unincorporated societies to impose and inflict such reasonable fines, &c, upon members who offend against the rules ; and the Act of 1874 (o) provides that the rules shall set forth (among other particulars) the fines to be imposed on members of the society. Fines are frequently made payable on default in payment by advanced members of instal- ments of their loans, but such fines must be reasonable, other- wise they will not be enforced (p). Rules of a society imposing fines in case of repayments by borrowing members being in arrear, will not (when admitting a different construction) be construed so as to authorize fines cumulative in arithmetical progression (q) . In taking the accounts in an action for redemption or fore- closure, fines secured by the mortgage may be treated as prin- cipal, and so carry interest, if the terms of the security so provide (/•). But such fines are of the nature of interest for non-payment of instalments of the loan, and accordingly, if neither the mortgage deed nor the rules of the society provide {I) Thome v. Thome, (1893) 3 Ch. 196. [in) Priestley v. Hopwood, 12 W. R. 1031. (») 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 32, s. 1. (o) 37 & 38 Vict. c. 42, s. 16. (p) Lovejoy v. Mulkern, 46 L. J. Ch. 630. See also Parker v. Butcher, L. R. 3 Eq. 762 ; Pilkington v. Baker (No. 2), W. N. (1877) 210. (q) lie Tiemey, Ir. Rep. 9 Eq. 1. (r) Provident Permanent Building Soc. v. Greenhill, 9 Ch. D. 122. See Clarkson v. Henderson, 14 Ch. D. 348. NATURE AND OPERATION OF MORTGAGE. 553 for payment of interest on fines, sucli interest cannot be allowed, chap. xxx. as to do so would be to give compound interest, which is con- trary to the rules of equity in the absence of express agree- ment (s). Where, according to the rules, premiums payable in advance Premiums, might be added to the mortgage, and, by the terms of the mort- gage deed, annual premiums of a specified amount per share were to be paid, it was held that the premiums were to be treated as capital, and that interest was properly chargeable thereon without allowing any rebate for payment of premiums contracted to be paid (/). A premium is not in the nature of interest, and, accordingly, Proof in a building society may prove in bankruptcy for future premiums, ankru P tc y- notwithstanding the rule that there can be no proof for interest after the date of the bankruptcy (u). Where the mortgage deed provided that, on default and sale, Right to the trustees might retain out of the sale moneys all fines, sub- scriptions, and payments thereafter to become due during the period stipulated, as then immediately due, they were not entitled to retain interest after repayment of the principal, because interest is only due in respect of forbearance {x). Where the rules authorize the allowance of a discount upon Discount, subscriptions upon redemption by a member before the time, such discount is not allowed on a compulsory sale (t/). Where a mortgage was made to a building society to secure Mortgage the repayment of the principal by instalments and interest and su bscri prions "all subscriptions and other moneys becoming due," and the and "other mortgagor assigned the equity of redemption, and afterwards embezzled moneys of the society received by him as secretary, it was held that the words " other moneys " in the mortgage deed must be read as ejusdem generis with the foregoing words, and as limited to sums due in respect of the mortgage, but not so as to render the assignee liable, in order to redeem the mortgage, to pay the amount due from the mortgagor as secretary which arose out of a different contract (z). (s) Parker v. Butcher, L. R. 3 Eq. (x) Exp. Osborne, He Goldsmith, L. R. 762 ; Ingoldby v. Riley, 28 L. T. 55. 10 Ch. A. 41. (t) Harvey v. Municipal Permanent (y) Matterson v. Elderfield, L. R. 4 Investment Building Soc., 26 Ch. D. Ch. A. 208. See Re O 1 Bono hoe'' s 273. Estate, Ir.R. 10 Eq. 221. (u) Exp. Bath, Re Phillips, 22 Ch. D. (z) Bailes v. Sunderland Equitable 450. As to this rule in bankruptcy, Industrial Soc, W. N. (1886) 191. see post, p. 1091. 554 OF MORTGAGEES — BUILDING SOI II". 1 CHAP. XXX. Mortgage by joint stock company. Provision for immediate payment of future instalments on default. Continuance of subscrip- tions after It has been held that a company cannot hold shares in an unincorporated building society, and, accordingly, that if a company gives a mortgage in the ordinary form to such a society, they are entitled to redeem on the footing of an ordinary mortgage (a). But this decision turned entirely on the language of the Act of 1830 (A) ; and the question whether a joint stock company can become a member of a society incor- porated under the Act of 1874 has not yet been decided. Sir J. Chitty, J., has expressed his opinion, though in a case where the point did not require decision, that a company, authorized by its memorandum of association to acquire shares in other companies, might become a member of an incorporated building society (c) . Where a mortgage deed contained a provision that, on default in payment of instalments, the mortgaged property might be sold, and that on any sale all the future instalments should be immediately payable and retainable out of the proceeds of sale, subject to such discount as the directors might think fit to allow, with a covenant by the mortgagor to pay tho instalments, it was held that the provision amounted to a personal covenant by the mortgagor that, on default in payment of the instalments, he would pay the whole sum remaining due, subject to the allowed discount (d). Such a provision is not of the nature of a penalty (<-■ the covenant in terms contemplated only that the time and manner of payment might be from time to time varied, and did not refer to additional sums which might be prescribed by the rules for the time being ; and further, that the application of the altered rules was qualified by making them applicable only " so far as the rules of law and equity would permit." His lord- ship said that if the decision of Sir C. Hall, Y.-C, in that case meant that, generally, rules made after the date of a security would not apply, he should differ from that view. The case oi Rosenberg v. Northumberland Building Society (//) was very similar to the case of Wilson v. Miles Platting Building Society, and the Court of Appeal considered themselves bound by and followed the decision in that case. In Bradbury v. Wild (i), Kekewich, J., applied the principle of the decisions in the last two cases in a case where the mortgage did not refer to the rules " for the time being." The registrar's certificate is conclusive as to the validity of the proceedings of the society in the matter of altering the rules (j). Where the surveyor of a building society purchased land from the society, and executed a mortgage in ignorance of a recital therein that he was a member of the society, he was held not to be a contributory on the winding up of the society (k). Under the winding up of a building society, where there are no creditors other than members, an advanced member can pay up his loan and be discharged as a contributory (/) . Where all outside debts have been paid, and a mortgagor, being an advanced shareholder, is under the rules of redemption (gi) 1 Ch. D. 481. (A) 22 Q. B. D. 373. (i) (1893) 1 Ch. 377. If) Dewhurst v. Clarkson, 3 E. & B. 194 ; Rosenberg v. Northumberland Build- ing Soc, sup. (k) Empsoifs Case, L. R. 9 Eq. 597. (I) Brounlie v. Russell, 8 App. Cas. 235. NATURE AND OPERATION OF MORTGAGE. 557 to cease to be a member of the society, he is not liable to con- chap. xxx. tribute to a call on winding-up of the society for the purpose of satisfying- the claims of the unadvanced shareholders (m), but he is liable on his covenant to pay subscriptions, though he cease to be a member before they fall due (n). Where, however, claims of outside creditors remain unsatisfied, an advanced member, having a right to redeem on payment of all subscriptions, fines, and other sums payable under the rules, is not, by such payment, relieved from his liability to contribute to the payment of the outside debts on the winding-up of the society, but must contribute pari passu with the unadvanced members (o). Upon the winding up of a benefit building society, the rules of the society still continue in force (p). Paid-up shares at interest, with the right to withdraw the money in preference to the ordinary unadvanced members, are legal ; they are not loans by the society, but like preference shares, and the holders will be entitled, in the winding up of the society, to be paid in preference to other unadvanced members (. 423 ; Sangsterv. Cochrane, 28 Ch. D. (No. 2), 32 Beav. 485 ; Mar son v. Cox, 2 ( j8. 14 Ch. D. 140 ; Robinson v. Trevor, 12 (h) 13 App. Cas. 582. Q. B. D. 423, C. A. VOL. I. — R. O 5G2 OF MORTGAGEES — MTILIUXC SnclKJ l!>. cnAP. xxx. Effect of statutory receipt as to vacating the debt. Reconveyance by deed, — by un- incorporated society, respect of the money paid to the society, but also in respect of the advance made to the mortgagor. It is to be observed, however, that sect. 5 of the Act of L836 provides that the effect of the receipt shall be to vacate the " mortgage or further charge," but that by sect. 42 of the Act of 1874 the effect of a receipt under that Act is to vacate the "mortgage or further charge or debt" And, accordingly, in two cases arising under the earlier Act, it was held that a cove- nant in a mortgage given by an advanced member to pay sub- scriptions until every member should have realized a specified sum per share, was not put an end to by the indorsement on the mortgage of a statutory receipt (/). But, in a later case, where the society was incorporated under the Act of 1874, and an advanced member had mortgaged property to secure a loan and all further payments due from him to the society, it was held by the Court of Appeal that the indorsement of a statutory receipt, though given under a mistake, put an end to the cove- nant in the mortgage, not only as to the principal and interest, but also as to all payments in respect of shares, and precluded the society from saying that there was any debt due from the mortgagor (j). There is a further difference in the language of the two statutes in that the Act of 1836 merely authorizes the giving of a receipt, the effect of which is to vacate the charge and vest the estate in the person entitled to the equity of redemption without necessity for a reconveyance ; but the Act of 1874 empowers a society to indorse on or annex to the mortgage either a reconveyance or a receipt which is to operate to vacate the charge or debt, and vest the estate " without any reconvey- ance or surrender." And it further provides for the entry on court rolls, and the giving of certificates of satisfaction in the case of mortgages of copyholds. The trustees of an unincorporated society may still reconvey mortgaged property by deed instead of giving a statutory receipt ; but, if so, apparently, the reconveyance will operate under the ordinary law as would any other reconveyance, and the rights of parties will be regulated accordingly (k). (i) Farmer v. Smith, 4 H. &N. 196 ; Sparrow v. Farmer, 26 Beav. 511. ( /) Harvey v. Municipal Building Soc., 26 Oh. D. 273. (k) Carlisle "Banking Co. v. Thompson, 28 Ch. D. 398 (a case under the Friendly Societies Act, 1875). POWER TO LEND ON MORTGAGE. 563 So, also, if the trustees of an unincorporated society have been chap. xxx. admitted to copyholds, it seems that a re-surrender will be necessary (/). If, however, an incorporated society executes a reconveyance — by incorpo- instead of giving a statutory receipt, sect. 42 of the Act of 1874 ra e 80Ciefcy- requires the reconveyance to be made " to the owner of the equity of redemption, or to such persons and to such uses as he shall direct," and the effect will be to vest the estate in such person or persons, and in him or them only; the statutory reconveyance and the statutory receipt are alternative modes of attaining the same object, viz., the vesting of the legal estate in the same person, that is, the owner for the time being of the equity of redemption (m) . If a mortgage made to the trustees of an unincorporated —by society- society which is subsequently incorporated, is paid off after poraticm? 1 " incorporation, then, inasmuch as by sect. 27 of the Act of 1874 the property vested in the society on incorporation without transfer by the trustees, the indorsed receipt or reconveyance given by the society will effectually vacate the mortgage and vest the legal estate by virtue and in accordance with the statute (n). Section II. Of Mortgages to Friendly Societies. i. — Power of Friendly Societies to lend on Mortgage. — The Repeal of Friendly Societies Acts of Greo. IV. and "Will. IV. (o), referred rmei to in the early part of this Chapter, were repealed by the Friendly Societies Act, 1855 (p) ; and that Act was, in its turn, repealed by the Friendly Societies Act, 1875 (q), whereby all the enactments then in force relating to such societies were repealed, and the law on the subject was consolidated and amended. (I) See Barry on Building Societies, and see Fourth City Mutual Benefit p. 115. Society v. Williams, supra, at p. 143. {m) Per Jessel, M. R., in Fourth City (u) 10 Geo. IV. c. 56 ; 4 & 5 Will. Mutual Benefit Building Society y. IV. c. 40. Williams, 14 Ch. D. 140, at p. 146. (;>) 18 & 10 Vict. c. 63. (w) See s. 27, set out ante, p. 549 ; \q) 38 & 39 Vict. c. 60. oo2 5b\L OF MORTGAGEES FRIENDLY SOCIETIES. CHAP. XXX. The Friendly Societies Act, is 75. Vesting- of property of society. Devolution on death, &c. of trustee. Admittance to copyholds. Power of trustees to invest on mortg-aare. The powers of friendly societies to lend money on mortgage is now governed by the provisions of the Act of 1875. All property of a society is vested in its trustees for the time being ; and the property of a branch is vested in the trustees of that branch, or in the trustees of the society if the rules of the society so provide (/■). Upon the death, resignation, or removal of a trustee, the property vests in the surviving trustees either solely or together with any surviving or continuing trustees, and, until appoint- ment of succeeding trustees, in such surviving or continuing trustees only, or in the executors or administrators of the last surviving or continuing trustee as personal estate (whether the same be real or personal) without conveyance and assignment, except as regards stock and securities in the public funds (s). In legal proceedings the property is to be stated to be the property of the trustees by name as trustees for the society or branch, without further description (t). Where a society is entitled in equity to any copyholds or customary lands absolutely or by way of mortgage, the lord is from time to time to admit the trustees (not to exceed three) of the society as tenants on payment of the fines and dues payable on admission of a single tenant (u). The trustees, with the consent of the committee of manage- ment or of a majority of the members of a society present and entitled to vote at a general meeting, may from time to time invest the funds of such society or any part thereof to any amount (among other investments) upon any security expressly directed by the rules of the society, not being personal security, except as provided by the Act with respect to loans {as). With respect to loans it is enacted (y) that : — Loans to members. Loans may be made out of separate loan fund. " (1.) Not more than one half of the amount of an assurance on the life of a member of at least one full year's standing may be advanced to him, on the written security of himself and two satis- factory sureties for repayment ; and the amount advanced, with all interest thereon, may be deducted from the sum assured, without prejudice, in the meantime, to the operation of such security. " (2.) A society may, out of any separate loan fund to be formed by contributions or deposits of its members, make loans to its members on their personal security, with or without sureties, as (r) 38 & 39 Vict. c. 60, s. 16 (3). (s) Ibid., s. 16 (4). [t) Ibid., s. 16 (5). (u) Ibid., s. 16 (6). (x) Ibid., s. 16 (1). (y) Ibid., s. 18. POWER TO LEND ON MORTGAGE. 565 may be provided by the rules, subject to the following restric- cnAP - xxx - tions : — (a) No loan can at any time be made out of moneys contributed for the other purposes of the society ; (b) No member shall be capable of holding- any interest in the loan fund exceeding two hundred pounds ; (c) No society shall make any loan to a member on personal security beyond the amount fixed by the rules, or shall make any loan which, together with any moneys for the time being owing by a member to the society, shall exceed fifty pounds ; (d) No society shall hold at any one time on deposit from its members any moneys beyond the amount fixed by the rules, which shall not exceed two thirds of the total sums for the time being owing to the society by the members who have borrowed from the loan fund." Loans by trustees of a friendly society on personal security Loans on not authorized by the Act, though amounting to a breach of unau *orized ... ° ° security. trust on the part of the trustees, so as to render them liable for any loss, are not illegal so as to preclude the trustees from recovering the money lent (z). Upon the death, bankruptcy, or insolvency (including liqui- dation by arrangement in England, cessio bonorum in Scotland, and petition for arrangement in Ireland) of any officer of a friendly society having in his possession by virtue of his office any money or property belonging to the society, or if any execution, attachment or other process be issued, or action or diligence raised against such officer, or against his property, his heirs, executors, or administrators, or trustee in bankruptcy, or insolvency, including an assignee in Ireland, and a judicial factor in Scotland, or the sheriff or other person executing such process, or the party using such action or diligence respectively, shall upon demand in writing of the trustees of the society or any two of them, or any person authorized by the society or by the committee of management of the same, to make such demand, pay such money, and deliver over such property to the trustees of the society in preference to any other debts or claims against the estate of such officer (a) . The institution of a suit is sufficient demand in writing, and the neglect of the trustees of the society to audit the accounts of the defaulting officer will not deprive the society of the statutory right of priority (/;). (z) lie Coltman, W. N. (1881) 136, (b) Absolomv. Gething, 32 Beav. 322, C A. under the corresponding provisions of (a) 38 & 39 Vict. c. 60, s. 15 (7). the repealed stat. 18 & 19 Vict. c. 63 See Re Atkins, W. N. (1882) 38. s. 23. m OF MORTGAGEES FRIENDLY SOCIETIES. CTIAr. XXX. Settlement of disputes. An incorporated banking company cannot be an " officer " of a friendly society within the meaning of the above enactment, and an order cannot, accordingly, be made thereunder for pay- ment to the trustees of the society of moneys in the possession of such a company as treasurer of the society (/•). Disputes between a member, or a person claiming through a member, and the society or its officers, are to be settled conclu- sively in manner directed by the rules of the society (d) . Discharge of mortgages by receipt indorsed or annexed. Registration, &c. of receipt. ii, — Reconveyance. — A receipt under the hands of the trustees, countersigned by the secretary in the form in the third schedule to the Act, or in any other form specified in the society's rules, for all moneys secured to the society by any mortgage or other assurance, such receipt being indorsed upon or annexed to the mortgage or assurance, vacates the same, and vests the property in the person entitled to the equity of redemption without re- conveyance or re-surrender (e). If the mortgage or assurance have been registered under any Act for the registration or record of deeds or titles, or is of copyhold or customary land and entered on any court rolls, the registrar under such Act, or steward of the manor, or keeper of the register shall, on production of such receipt, verified by oath of any person, enter satisfaction on the register or on the court rolls, respectively, of such mortgage, or of the charge made by such assurance, and shall grant a certificate either upon such mortgage or assurance, or separately, to the like effect, which certificate shall be received in evidence in all Courts and pro- ceedings without further proof (,/'). (c) Ee West of England and South Wales District Hank, Exp. Swansea Friendly Sac., 11 Ch. D. 768, C. A. (d) 38 & 39 Vict. c. 60, s. 22. See as to the extent of this enactment, E'ulliser v. Bale, (1897) 1 Q. B. 257, and cases there cited. (e) 38 & 39 Vict. c. 60, s. 16 (7), not applying to Scotland or Jersey. (/) Ibid., s. 16 (8). A fee of two shillings and sixpence is payable for the entry and certificate by means of stamps in Scotland. ( 567 ) Part IY. OF VOID AND VOIDABLE SECURITIES. CHAPTER XXXI. OF MORTGAGES WHICH ARE VOID AS BEING IN FRAUD OF CREDITORS. Section I. Of Fraudulent Conveyances under Stat. 13 Eliz. c. 5. i. — Avoidance of Conveyances made in Fraud of Creditors. — At Preference at common law a debtor may prefer any creditor, or any set of comm011 law - creditors (a), and that although he is insolvent (b), and though such preference would be void under the Bankruptcy Acts. Even a declaration of trust by the debtor of property for his creditor, though uncommunicated to him, is valid, notwithstand- ing the debtor knew he was insolvent (c). And a warrant of attorney given voluntarily, although to the prejudice of other judgment creditors, is not unlawful or fraudulent (d). But various enactments have from time to time been passed by the legislature for rendering void dispositions of property made with intent to defeat the claims of creditors. By the stat. 13 Eliz. c. 5 (made perpetual by the stat. Stat. 13 Eliz. 29 Eliz. c. 5), after a preamble stating the purpose of the Act c ' to be the avoiding of feigned, covinous and fraudulent feoffments and other conveyances, " to the end, purpose and intent, to delay, (a) Holbird v. Anderson, 5 T. R. 235 ; (b) Main v. Wilsmore, 8 T. R. 528 ; JSsttoick v. Caillaud, 5 T. R. 424 ; Goss Evans v. Jones, 3 H. & C. 423 ; Middle- v. Male, 5 Moo. 19 ; Eveleigh v. Purss- ton v. Pollock, Exp. Elliott, 2 Ch. D. 104. ford, 2 Moo. & R. 539 ; West bury v. (c) Middleton V. Pollock, Exp. Elliott, Clapp, 12 W. R. 511. sup. (d) Holbird v. Anderson, 5 T. R. 235. 568 MORTGAGES IN FRAUD OF CREDITORS— 13 ELIZ. C. 5. chap. xxxi. hinder or defraud creditors of their just and lawful actions/' &o., enacts as follows : — Fraudulent Sect. 1. " All and every feoffment, gift, grant, alienation, bargain, conveyances and conveyance of lands, tenements, hereditaments, goods and declared void chattels, or of any of them, or of any Lease, rent, common or other creditors' 1<3 P ron ^ or charge out of the same lands, tenements, hereditaments, goods, and chattels, or any of them, by writing or otherwise; and all and every bond, suit, judgment and execution, at any time had or made to or for any intent or purpose before declared and expressed, shall be deemed and taken (only as against such person or persons, his or their heirs, successors, executors, administrators, and assigns, and every of them, whose actions, suits, debts, accounts, damages, penalties, forfeitures, heriots, mortuaries, and reliefs, by such guileful, covinous or fraudulent devices and practices as is aforesaid, are, shall, or might be in any ways disturbed, hindered, delayed, or defrauded) to be clearly and utterly void, frustrate, and of none effect." Proviso for Sect. 5. "Provided always, that this Act shall not extend to any conveyances estate or interest in lands, goods, or chattels, had, made, conveyed, mar e bona fide or assure( j w hj c h estate or interest shall be upon good consideration, and on ^oocl r o j consideration. ano - bond Jide lawfully conveyed or assured to any person or persons, not having at the time of such conveyance or assurance any manner of notice or knowledge of such covin, fraud, or collusion as afore- said." Effect of this The effect of this enactment is to render void as against the creditors generally of the mortgagor all mortgages which are made with intent to defeat their claims ; and also to render void as against creditors of the settlor, except so far as protected by sect. 5, mortgages of interests derived under settlements which are fraudulent and void under the Act (e). What pro- This statute only applies to such things as may be taken in the^tetute^ 11 execution > and > therefore, previous to 1 & 2 Yict. c. 110, the assignment of a bond w 7 as not within the statute (/) ; nor an assignment of stock (g) ; nor of any chose in action (h) ; nor were copyholds, it seems, within the Act (/). unless by tenure or special custom they were subject to debts (/). But it seems that such property might have been affected by that Act, taken in connection with the Insolvent Debtors Act, in the event of a subsequent insolvency (/>), or taken in con- nection with the subsequent death of the debtor, when the creditors might reach all the personal property (//.) ; and now (e) For an able discussion of the (g) Dundas v. Dutens, 1 Ves. Jun. avoidance of settlements as fraudulent 196. under this Act, reference may be made (h) Noreuit v. Dodd, Cr. & Ph. 100; to Vaizey on Settlements^ vol. ii. 10 L. J. N. S. Ch. 296. pp. 1526 et seq. (i) Mathews v. leaver, 1 Cox, 278. (/) Sims v. Thomas, 12 A. & E. 536. CONTINUANCE IN POSSESSION — INTENT TO DEFRAUD. 5G9 cash, bank notes, and stock, and other choses in action (/.•), which chap. xxxi. may be taken in execution, fall within the Act of Eliz. (/), as also a policy of insurance (m), and copyholds, which are now subject to execution (//). ii. — The Intention to Defraud Creditors. — Retention of Pos- R etent ; on session of Mortgaged Property by Mortgagor. — The question of chattels by how far the retention of possession by a mortgagor of chattels raises an inference of intent to defraud creditors has been already considered (o). It is well settled that a mortgage of lands of any tenure Retention cannot be impeached merely on the ground of the mortgagor f land by"* retaining the possession and enjoyment thereof (p). mortgagor. Some conflict of judicial opinion appears to have arisen as Whether the to whether an intent to defeat, hinder or delay creditors j^nt^o de- must be inferred as a matter of law, where it appears, as fraud within a matter of fact, that the effect or result of the assign- one of law or ment in question is to defeat, hinder or delay creditors ; fact * and high authority may be adduced (q) in support of an affirmative answer to this question ; but the preponderance of authority is clearly in favour of the principle, that the language of the Act being that the conveyance of property is void as against creditors only, if it is made with intent to defeat, hinder or delay creditors, the Court is to decide in each particular case whether, on all the circumstances, it can come to the conclusion that the intention of the assignor, in making the assignment, was to defeat, hinder or delay his creditors (>•). According to this principle, the question whether or not a particular deed was executed with the intent to defeat creditors, will be a question of fact for the jury (s). Actual intention to defeat or delay creditors need not be proved if the circumstances are such that the assurance would (k) See 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 12. 632 ; Exp. Mercer, Re Wise, 17 Q. B. (/) Barrack v. McCulloeh, 3 K. & J. D. 290, C. A. ; Godfrey v. Poole, 13 110. App. Cas. 497, at p. 503. See Le (;«) Stokoe v. Cowan, 29 Beav. 637. Lievre and Dennes v. Gould, (1893) 1 (») 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 11. Q. B. 491, at p. 500, C. A. (o) See ante, pp. 172 et seq. (.*) Henderson v. Lloyd, 3 F. & F. 7 ; (p) Saltingstonc's Case, cit. 2 Bulstr. Carry. Burdiss, 1 C. M. & R. 782 ; Reed 236 ; Lambert's Case, Shep. Touchst. by v. Bladt-s, 5Taunt. 212 ; Lindonv. Sharp, Preston, 267. 6 Man. & Gr. 898 ; Tennell v. Dawson, (q) See cases cited arg. in Freeman 18 C. B. 355 ; Biddulph v Goold, 11 Vi Pope, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 538. W. E,. 882 ; Bale v. Metropolitan (r) Thompson v. Webster, 4 Drew. Saloon Omnibus Co., 4 Drew. 492. MORTGAGES IN FKAUD OF CREDITORS — 13 ELIZ. C. 5. CHAP. XXXI. Transaction must be made in good faith. Assignment to defeat a particular creditor. Circumstance from which intent to de- fraud may be inferred. necessarily have that effect (t) ; but the mere fact that it has in the result prevented an antecedent creditor from being paid, is not of itself sufficient to invalidate the assurance (u). On this statute Lord Ellenborough has remarked (.*•), that it is not every feoffment, judgment, &c, which will have the effect of delaying or hindering creditors of their debts, &c., that is, therefore, fraudulent within the statute ; for such is the effect pro tanto of every assignment that can bo made by one who has creditors. Every assignment of a man's property, however honest and good the consideration, must diminish the fund out of which satisfaction is to be made to his creditors. But the feoffment, judgment, &c, must be devised of malice, fraud, and the like, to bring it within the statute (i/) ; and if the considera- tion is bond fide, the intent to defeat other creditors is not a fraud, independently of the Bankrupt and Insolvent Acts ; as where a debtor mortgaged all his property to secure some creditors to the exclusion of the rest, the deed was held not to fall within the statute (s), though it contained a proviso that the debtor should remain in possession for six months (a). Similarly, a sale of goods, if bond fide, is not invalidated by knowledge that an execution is intended (b). So an assignment by an insolvent debtor of all his property for his creditors, in order to defeat a particular creditor's execu- tion, is not within the statute (c) ; but persons claiming under a writ of sequestration issued by the Court have priority over a mortgagee who takes his security with a knowledge that it was made to avoid the effect of the sequestration (d). The intent to defraud may be inferred from various circum- stances, and it may be useful in this place to refer briefly to the cases which indicate what circumstances may be taken into consideration in determining this question so far as such cases bear upon mortgages. (t) Freeman v. Pope, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 538, 545; Re Midler, 22 Ch. D. 74, C. A. {/() Freeman v. Tope, sup. ; qualify- ing Spirett v. Willows, 3 De G. J. &S. 293. (x) Meux v. Sou-ell, 4 East, 13. (y) See Gale v. Williamson, 8 M. & W. 405. (z) Alton v. Harrison, L. R. 4 Ch. A. 622 ; Gladstone v. Fadwick, L. R. 6 Ex. 211 ; Allen v. Bonnett, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 581. (a) Alton v. Harrison, sup. (i) Hale\. Metropolitan Saloon Omni' bus Co., 4 Drew. 492 ; Westbury v. Clapp, 12 W. R. 511 ; Wood v. Dixie, 7 Q. B. 892. (c) Fickstock v. Lijster, 3 M. & S. 371 ; Wolverhampton, §c. Co. v. Mars- ton, 7 H. & N. 148 ; Fiarvill v. Terry, 6 H. & N. 807 ; Marloiv v. Org ill, 8 Jur. N. S. 829. (d) Ward v. Tooth, L. R. 14 Eq. 195. See Fmpringham v. Short, 3 Ha. 461. INTENT TO DEFRAUD. 571 An element which may be taken into consideration as leading chap. xsxi. to an inference of fraudulent intent to defeat or delay creditors, What insol- is, if the debtor is at the time, or by such conveyance becomes, ? eu J? * t T t in insolvent circumstances, in which case it falls within the Act (e) ; but the mere owing some debts is not sufficient (/). It is not, however, necessary to prove a state of actual in- solvency ((j). If, after deducting the property which is the subject of an assurance, sufficient available assets are not left for the payment of the grantor's debts, then that is an element from which the law may infer an intent to defeat creditors (h) ; but although a grantor is in embarrassed circumstances, yet, if the property not included in the assurance is ample to pay his debts, the assurance will be good, even if some of the debts remain unpaid (*), The question is whether the grantor was in a position that would justify him in putting a considerable part of his property into a particular assurance (k). So, on a conveyance of either land or goods before the insol- Retention vency of the grantor, the retention of the title deeds may be ° deeds - submitted to the jury as evidence of fraud (/). If there is an actual intent to defeat creditors, it is immaterial Act may whether the grantor was or was not solvent at the date of the cantor is" 18 * settlement (m) ; or whether he was or was not indebted at the solvent. time ; as if, being a trader, he settled all his present and future property (n) ; and that notwithstanding the assurance was of a very trifling amount considering the extent of his business (o) . A mortgage executed by the mortgagor when solvent in Mortgage not favour of a creditor, without his knowledge and without any to^rt"^^ communication with him, is valid (p), although the. mortgagor kept it in his own possession up to the time of his death ; unless (e) Shears v. fingers, 3 B. & Ad. 362. v. Olive, 2 Bro. C. C. 90 ; Battersbee v. See Lush v. Wilkinson, 5 Ves. 387 ; Farrington, 1 Swanst. 106 ; Russell v. Kidney v. Coussmaker, 12 Ves. 148; Hammond, 1 Atk. 15; Middlecombe v. Norcutt v. Dodd, Cr. & Ph. 100. Marlow, 2 Atk. 220 ; Lord Toivnsend (/) Skarf v. Soulby, 1 Mac. & G. v. Windham, 2 Ves. Sen. 1. 364. (k) Crossley v. Elworthy, L. R. 12 (g) Townsend v. Westacott, 2 Beav. Eq. 158. 340. (1) Doe v. Ball, 11 M. & W. 531. (h) Freeman v. Pope, L. R. 5 Ch. A. (m) Spirett v. Willows, 3 De G. J. & 538, 545 ; Taylor v. Coencn, 1 Ch. D. S. 293. 641 ; Spirett v. Willows, 3 De G. J. & (n) lb. ; Ware v. Gardner, L. R. 7 S. 293; Jackson v. Bowley, 1 Car. & M. Eq. 317; Taylor v. Coenen, 1 Ch. D 97. And see Bex v. Sadlers'' Co., 10 641. H. L. C. 404. (o) Taylor v. Coenen, sup. (i) Kent v. Riley, L. R. 14 Eq. 190. (p) 1 Shep. Touohst. by Preston, See Holcroft' s Case, Dy. 294 b ; Stephens 57 ; 4 Cru. Dig. 29, ed. 4. 572 MORTGAGES IN FRAUD OF CREDITORS — 13 ELIZ. ('. 5. CHAP. XXXI. How far cases referred to relating to settlements bear on mortgages. Assignment by debtor in extremis. Adequacy of consideration. it was delivered as an escrow, or fraud is proved (y). So a delivery of the mortgage deed by the mortgagor to his own solicitor, who retained it till the mortgagor's bankruptcy, was held a valid delivery to the mortgagees (r). But a voluntary mortgage, not communicated to the creditor, and kept to be made use of if convenient, was held fraudulent under the statute 27 Eliz. c. 4 (s). The cases referred to in this section are, for the most part, cases in which questions have arisen as to setting aside voluntary settlements for want of consideration and other circumstances indicating an intent to defraud creditors within the meaning of the statute ; but the principles underlying the decisions seem to apply to cases of mortgages. It must, however, be borne in mind that, in the case of a mortgage, an equity of redemption of more or less value is left in the mortgagor and is available after payment of what is due to the mortgagee for principal, interest, and costs, for the pur- pose of satisfying the claims of creditors. Where an insolvent debtor, shortly before his death, pur- ported to assign absolutely certain policies of insurance on his own life of considerable amount to a particular creditor in con- sideration of the release of a debt due to him, the assignment, though held to be voluntary and void under the statute as an absolute assignment, was ordered to stand as a security for the debt due at the time of the assignment (t) . The adequacy of consideration is another important, though not conclusive, element in determining the bona fides of a tran- saction (ii). It has been held that a past debt is an adequate consideration for a mortgage within the statute (x) ; a fortiori, if the consideration is not only an antecedent debt, but also a substantial advance made at the time when the mortgage is given (//). And a bill of sale to secure an existing debt and future advances will not be void under the statute if made in good faith (s) . (q) Doc v. Knight, 5 B. & Cr. 671 ; Extun v. Scott, 6 Sim. 31. See Billon v. Coppin, 4 My. & Cr. 662. (r) Grugeon v. Gerrard, 4 Y. & C. Ex. 119. (s) Cracknall v. Janson, 11 Ch. D. 1, C. A. See Perry Serrick v. Attwood, 2 De G. & J. 21 ; see also Wilson v. Balfour, 2 Camp. 579 ; Exp. Combe, 9 Ves. 117; Adams v. Ciaxton, 6 Ves. 226. (t) Stokoe v. Coioan, 29 Beav. 637. (u) See Doe v. James, 16 East, 212. (x) Edwards v. Sorbin, 2 T. R. 587 ; 1 R. R. 548. (/,) Marlindale v. Booth, 3 B. & Ad. 498; Riches v. Evans, 9 C. & P. 64 0. (z) Exp. Games, Re Bam/ord, 12 Ch. D. 314, C. A, INTENT TO DEFRAUD. 573 But, though a mortgage is given in consideration of a sum chap. xxxi. actually advanced, the deed will be liable to be set aside if, by its form or effect, it shows that its intention is to protect the goods from claims of other creditors and retain the benefit and enjoyment of them to the grantor (a). It makes no difference whether the deed deals with the whole or only a part of the grantor's property, or even if it extends to after -acquired property ; if the deed is bond fide, that is, if it is not a mere cloak for retaining a benefit to the grantor, it is a good deed under the statute of Elizabeth (b). But a deed, though made for valuable and adequate considera- Consideration tion, may yet be void under the statute if an actual and express if^au^exista intent to defeat creditors is proved (c) . The statute also avoids mortgages of interests derived under Voluntary settlements or other instruments which are themselves fraudulent settlements - and void under the statute, as against the creditors of the settlor or grantor. As regards voluntary settlements, it was said by Taunton, J., in Shears v. Rogers : " It is established by a long train of decisions that a voluntary assignment made without valuable consideration, so as to defeat the rights of creditors, is fraudulent within the meaning of the statute" (d). And, of course, if the settlement or other conveyance under which the mortgagee claims is void, his security will be void also. But the question as to the avoidance of voluntary settlements, &c, is one of the mortgagor's title, and beyond the scope of the present treatise. The effect of sect. 5 of the statute is to except from the operation of the Act in favour of a purchaser for value without notice, any interest, whether legal or equitable, derived under a settlement, which that statute would make void against creditors, as to other persons claiming under it. So, where by a settle- ment, which was fraudulent against creditors under the statute, a reversionary life interest was reserved to the settlor, who charged such interest by way of equitable mortgage to a person (a) Reed v. Blades, 5 Taunt. 212 ; (c) Per Lord Mansfield in Cadogan v. Latimer v. JBatson, 4 B. & C. 652 ; Kennett, Covvp. 432 ; Strong v. Strong, Graham v. Furber, 14 C. B. 410 ; Hale 18 Beav. 408; Holmes v. Penney, 3 K. v. Metropolitan Saloon Omnibus Co., 4 & J. 90 ; Pott v. Smith, 21 Beav. 511, Drew. 492; Pott v. Smith, 21 Beav. affirmed, p. 517; Corlett v. Radeliffe, 511. 14 Moo. P. C. 121 ; Cornish v. Clark, {!>) Alton v. Harrison, L. R. 4 Ch. L.R. 14 Eq. 184 ; Three Towns Ranking A. 622; Exp. Games, Re Pamford, 12 Co. v. Maddever, W. N. (1883) 104. Ch. D. 314, C. A. {d) 3 B. & Ad. 370. 574 MORTGAGES IN FRAUD OF CREDITORS 13 ELIZ. C. 5. CHAP. XXXI. who advanced his money without notice that the settlement was fraudulent, it was held that the mortgage was protected by sect. 5, and was accordingly good as against the creditors of the settlor (e). Validity of fraudulent conveyances as against assignor. Subsequent creditors. xii. — Against what Creditors a Fraudulent Conveyance will be Avoided. — The statute renders void conveyances made with intent to defraud creditors only as against persons whose actions, &o., may be defrauded or hindered, and the representa- tives of such persons. An assurance, though fraudulent under the statute, will therefore be valid as against the assignor himself, and as against strangers other than creditors; it will also bo valid as against creditors who are cognisant of and take part in the arrangement under which the assignment is made (/). It has been held at law that an assurance cannot be void against a person who only became a creditor after its date {(j). But in equity an assurance is void if made with a view to defeat future debts (h) ; and when an assurance is once avoided under this statute, subsequent creditors may be let in together with antecedent creditors (7) ; and a subsequent creditor may himself bring an action to avoid the assurance, if any antecedent debt remains due (/.•) . An assurance may be made under such cir- cumstances as to be void against subsequent creditors, although all the antecedent creditors are paid off (/) ; as where it is made to defeat a plaintiff in an action (m) ; or where the grantor immediately afterwards realizes all the rest of his property and denudes himself of everything («) ; or where he makes the assurance on the eve of entering into an hazardous trade, in (e) Halifax Joint Stock Banking Co. v. Gledhill, (1891) 1 Ch. 31. (/") Steel v. Broun, 1 Taunt. 381 ; Robinson v. McDonnell, 2 B. & Aid. 134; Bessey v. "Windham, 6 Q. B. 166; White v. Morris, 11 C. B. 1015 ; Olliver V. King, 8 De G. M. & G. 110. (g) Oswald v. Thompson, 2 Exch. 215. But see Graham v. Furbcr, 1-1 C. B. 410, per Williams, J. (h) Stileman v. Ashdown, 2 Atk. 481 ; Tarback v. Marburg, 2 Vern. 510 ; St. Amand v. Lady Jersey, 1 Comyns, 255 ; Mungerford v. Earle, 2 Vern. 261 ; Ware v. Gardner, L. R. 7 Eq. 317. (i) Barton v. Vanheythusen, 11 Ha. 126, 133 ; Strong v. Strong, 18 Beav. 408. (/.) Jenkynv. Vaughan, 3 Drew. 419; Freeman v. Pope, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 54 5 ; Grossley v. El/worthy, L. R. 12 Eq. 167. (I) Richardson v. Small/wood, Jac. 552 ; Holmes v. Penney, 3 K. & J. 90, 99. \m) Barling v. Bishopp, 29 Beav. 417 ; Kidney v. Coussmaker, 12 Ves. 148. («) Spirett v. Willows, 3 De G. J. & S. 293, 302 ; Freeman v. Pope, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 538. EXTENT OF AVOIDANCE. 575 which case the onus would fall on hiro. to show that he was in a chap. xxxi. position to niake it (o) . A creditor under a voluntary post obit bond is as much entitled to the benefit of this statute as any other creditor (p). It is not necessary for a creditor to have a lien or charge on the property the subject of the settlement to entitle him to a decree to set it aside (q). Where the settlor has subsequently mortgaged all his personal estate, the chattels which are the subject of the fraudulent settlement do not, upon its being declared void, vest in the mortgagee (r). lie has only the right of a general creditor, and must take independent proceedings to have execution of the property (s). The statute applies where the debts were contracted not by Debt of the party making the conveyance, but by the ancestor from testator ° r whom he derived the estate (/) ; and a fraudulent conveyance may be made by an executor as well as by an heir (u). An action by a creditor to sot aside a settlement under this Action to set statute is not affected by the insolvency of the settlor subsequent veyance! 1 " to the commencement of the action (so). If the settlor has become bankrupt, the trustees in bankruptcy are the proper persons to bring the action (//). The trustees in bankruptcy are " parties grieved" within the statute (z). Any particular creditor, including a mortgagee, whether legal Who may- or equitable, may take proceedings to set aside a voluntary ° settlement (a) ; but it does not appear to be free from doubt whether a creditor, even if he is a mortgagee, can after the bankruptcy of the debtor maintain an action to set aside a conveyance made by the debtor prior to the bankruptcy, on the ground that such conveyance is fraudulent within the statute, or whether the right of such action in such a case is in the trustee in the bankruptcy only (b). (o) Machay v. Douglas, 14 Eq. 106 ; (t) Apharry v. Bodingham, Cro. Exp. Russell, 19 Ch. D. 588, C. A. Eliz. 350 ; Gooch's Case, 5 Rep. 60. (p) Adames v. Hallett, L. R. 6 Eq. See Richardson x. Morion, 7 Beav. 468 ; Doling v. Ware, 22 Beav. 184. 112. (rj) Reese River Silver Mining Co. v. (u) Doc v. Fallows, 2 Cr. & J. 4S1 ; Atinll, 7 Eq. 347 ; Goldsmith v. Bus- 2 Tyrw. 460. sell, 5 De G-. M. & G. 547. But see (x) Goldsmith v. Russell, 5 De G-. Lister v. Turner, 5 Ha. 281; Collins M. & G. 547. v. Burton, 4 De G. & J. 612. (//) Collins v. Burton, 4 De G. & J. ()■) Barton v. Vanheythuscn, 11 Ha. 612; Goldsmith v. Russell, sup. 126. (z) Butcher v. Harrison, 4 B. & Ad. («) Reese River Silver Mining Co. 129; Doe v. Ball, 11 M. & W. 531. v. Atwell, sup. ; Bister v. Turner, (a) Ede v. Knowles, 2 Y. & C. C. C. sup. 172. (A) Lister v. Turner, 5 Ha. 281. 576 MORTGAGES IN FRAUD OF CREDITORS — 13 ELIZ. C. 5. CHAP. XXXI. Form of decree. Costs. The form of the decree is that the deed be declared void against the creditors, and that the defendants join in all necessary acts for raising the money for the creditors (c) ; and the decree must be on behalf of all the creditors (d) . In one case (e) Lord Cran worth gave the trustees and infant cestui* que trust their costs ; but this case has not been followed, and the utmost that can be done is to make the decree without costs (/), and if they appeal and fail they will be fixed with costs (g). Section II. Fraudulent conveyances are acts of bankruptcy. Conveyance unimpeach- able in bank- ruptcy after three months. Of the Avoidance of Mortgages in Bankruptcy. i. — Introductory Remarks. — A conveyance by way of mortgage which is " fraudulent " within the meaning of the statute 13 Eliz. c. 5, is also void under the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (//), and such conveyance will be liable to be set aside accordingly in favour of the general creditors of the mortgagor if any pro- ceedings in bankruptcy should be founded upon such act or any other act of bankruptcy committed either before or after the conveyance within the limit of time to be presently stated. But a conveyance may be good as against an execution creditor under the statute of Elizabeth, but may, nevertheless, be bad as against the trustee in bankruptcy of the mortgagor. If a deed executed by a debtor is liable to be set aside on the ground that it is within the mischief of the bankrupt law, it will apparently become valid and unimpeachable as against the trustee in bankruptcy after the lapse of three months from its execution, if during that period no proceedings in bankruptcy are taken against the debtor (/), independently of the question whether or not it may be void as against an execution creditor {c) Bott v. Smith, 21 Beav. 511 ; affirmed, L. J. p. 517. See Darvitt v. Terry, 6 H. & N. 807. (d) Strong v. Strong, 18 Beav. 408; Reese River, §c. Co. v. At well, L. R. 7 Eq. 347. (e) Goldsmith v. Russell, 5 De G. M. & G. 547. (/) Elsey v. Cox, 26 Beav. 95. (?) Exp. Russell, 19 Ch. D. 588, C. A. (h) 46 & 47 Vict. c. 52. (i) Ibid. ss. 6, 48. The period was formerly twelve months prior to adjudi- cation. See Allen v. Bonnelt, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 577- See also Mercer v. Peterson, L. R. 2 Ex. 304 ; S. C, 3 ibid. 104 ; Jones v. Harber, L. R. 6 Q. B. 77. ACTS OF BANKRUPTCY. 577 under the statute of Elizabeth, or generally as fraudulent against chap. xxxi. creditors. It has been seen that a conveyance by way of mortgage of a Mortgage of person's whole property, or of the whole with a merely colour- property™ '' able exception, and a fortiori such a conveyance of part only of his property to secure an existing debt, is not necessarily void under the statute of Elizabeth (j) ; but any such conveyance, if " fraudulent," or amounting to " fraudulent preference " within the meaning of the bankruptcy law, is an act of bankruptcy and liable to be avoided accordingly. ii, — Fraudulent Conveyances are Acts of Bankruptcy. — The Bankruptcy enactments governing the question how far mortgage securities c ' given by a debtor are voidable in the event of the subsequent bankruptcy of the mortgagor by his trustee, are the following sections or parts of sections of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (k). Sect. 4. "A debtor commits an act of bankruptcy in each of the Acts of following cases :— bankruptcy. (a) If in England or elsewhere he makes a conveyance or assign- ment of his property to a trustee or trustees for the benefit of his creditors generally ; (b) If in England or elsewhere he makes a fraudulent conveyance, gift, delivery, or transfer of his property, or of any part thereof ; (c) If in England or elsewhere he makes any conveyance or transfer of his property or any part thereof, or creates any charge thereon, which would under this or any other Act be void as a fraudulent preference if he were adjudged bankrupt." Sect. 6. "A creditor shall not be entitled to present a bankruptcy Conditions on petition against a debtor unless : which creditor (b) The act of bankruptcy on which the petition is grounded has ma ^ P etltlon - occurred within three months before the presentation of the petition." Sect. 43. " The bankruptcy of a debtor, whether the same takes Relation back place on the debtor's own petition or upon that of a creditor or of trustee's creditors, shall be deemed to have relation back to, and to commence * e " at, the time of the act of bankruptcy being committed on which a receiving order is made against him, or, if the bankrupt is proved to have committed more acts of bankruptcy than one, to have relation back to, and to commence at, the time of the first of the acts of bankruptcy proved to have been committed by the bankrupt within three months next preceding the date of the presentation of the bankruptcy petition ; but no bankruptcy petition, receiving order, or adjudication shall be rendered invalid by reason of any act of bankruptcy anterior to the debt of the petitioning creditor." (j) See ante, p. 573. (A) iG & 47 Vict. c. 52. VOL. I. K. P P 578 MORTGAGES IN FRAUD OF CREDITORS — 13 ELIZ. C. 5. CHAP. XXXI. Conveyance not avoided unless frau- dulent by English law. Fraudulent conveyance is an act of bankruptcy, and void. Fraudulent conveyance not avoided if made three months before petition. It will be observed that sect. 4 renders void the conveyances and assignments specified in clauses (a), (b), and (c) if made by a debtor " in England or elsewhere." Such instruments will, therefore, amount to acts of bankruptcy if made anywhere abroad by a person subject to English law (/). But a conveyance of property situate abroad out of the jurisdiction of the English Courts cannot defeat or delay creditors so as to constitute an act of bankruptcy ; and a conveyance of property in England by a domiciled foreigner in his own country which can operate only according to the law of that country, is not within the section. " The section clearly means, and has always been interpreted as meaning, fraudulent by the law of England, and, therefore, cannot properly apply to a conveyance which is executed in and is to operate according to the law of a foreign country" (»i). Sect. 4, though it makes " fraudulent conveyances " available acts of bankruptcy, does not, nor does any other section of the Act, expressly render such conveyances void as against the trustee, as is the case with regard to conveyances amounting to " fraudulent preferences " within the meaning of sect. 48. But the result of the decisions is such as to make it clear that, if a conveyance by a debtor is a " fraudulent conveyance "so as to constitute an act of bankruptcy, it will be invalid as against the trustee, unless saved by lapse of time (n) . Further, the Act nowhere expressly says that a " fraudulent conveyance," to be impeachable as being an act of bankruptcy, must have been made within three months before presentation of a petition on which the debtor is adjudicated bankrupt, as is pro- vided by sect. 48 with regard to "fraudulent preferences." But, having regard to the language of sects. 6, 43, as to the time after an act of bankruptcy within which a petition may be presented, and as to the relation back of the trustee's title to such act, it seems a necessary inference that a conveyance made before the commission of such act will be unimpeachable as against the trustee ; and the question has been so determined by judicial decision. So, where a debtor assigned all his estate and effects by way of security for a sum then due, and a small (l) Exp. Blain, Be Sawers, 12 Ch. D. at p. 532. (m) Exp. Crispin, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 374. See Exp. Defries, Re Myers, 35 L. T. 392. («) Bust v. Cooper, Cowp. 632 ; Alderson v. Temple, 4 Burr. 2239 ; IVoodliousc v. Murray, L. R. 2 Q. B. 638; Be Colemere, L. R. 1 Ch. A. 128, at p. 134; Be Nurse, Exp. Foxley, L. R. 3 Ch. A. 515, 519 ; Be Wood, L. R. 7 Ch. A. 302. ACTS OF BANKRUPTCY. 579 further advance, and became bankrupt seventeen months after- chap. xxxi. wards, it was held, independently of the question as to whether the assignment was saved by the present advance (o), that the lapse of time which had occurred since the assignment rendered the deed valid as against the trustee in bankruptcy, though it might otherwise have been impeachable by him ( p) . So a bill of sale was upheld, though a liquidation supervened within the statutory period, where such bill was given in substitution for a previous bill of sale (q) . In the Bankruptcy Acts prior to 1869, a conveyance must, so Question as to be available as an act of bankruptcy, and impeachable ^Lance is° n " accordingly, have been made by a debtor fraudulently " with fraudulent in intent to defeat or delay his creditors " ; but in the Act of that ne of la-wf * year these words were omitted from the definition of a " fraudu- lent conveyance," and the omission has been continued in the present Act. The effect of the omission, however, has not been to change the rule formerly prevailing in bankruptcy, that the question whether a conveyance was fraudulent against creditors was one of law, not of fact ; the words were omitted as super- fluous and misleading, inasmuch as the Court or a jury were by that rule sometimes compelled to find fraudulent intent, where, in fact, there was no such intent (>•). In determining the conclusion of law whether a mortgage Circumstances security given by a person who afterwards becomes bankrupt is °Le^ust be impeachable as a " fraudulent conveyance," the facts of the considered, particular case must be examined. " In each case, looking at all the circumstances, you have to answer these questions : Does the assignment include all the property, or is there a substantial exception ? Is it wholly to secure a pre-existing debt ? And, if there is a further advance, is it a substantial one, or only one intended to give colour to a security which is in reality made only for the purpose of securing a pre-existing debt ? These are questions of fact, and the answers to be given depend on the circumstances" (s). A mortgage of the whole of the debtor's property, or of Mortgage of whole of (o) See as to this, infra. (>•) Re Wood, L. R. 7 Ch. A. 302, at (p) Allen v. Bonnctt, L. R. 5 Ch. A. p. 307. 577. See also Mercer v. Peterson, L. R. (s) Exp. King, Re King, 2 Ch. D. 2 Ex. 304 ; Jones v. Harber, L. R. 6 256, at p. 262. See Admor.- •Gen. of Q. B. 77. Jamaica v. Lascelles, (1894) A. C. 135, in) Lomax v. Burton, L. R. 6 C. P. at p. 139. 107. P p2 580 MORTGAGES IN FRA1 D "I I REDITOBfl 13 ill/. I OH \r. xxxi. debtor' pert; to Becure existing debl is void. Motives of parties i. rial. Notice of .act of bank- ruptcy. Consideration of forbear- ance. Indemnity to surety. Mortga -■< ■ of part of property for subsisting debt valid. the whole with a colourable • a, whether far the benefil of a particular creditor or creditors to the exclusion of others (t), or for the benefil <>f his ored seoure an existing deW or debts, is an ad of bankruptcy, and \-niil accordingly as against the tru Suoh a mortgage in favour of a particular creditor oi creditors is void, though no fraudulent motive on the pari of .- » t i \ of the parties is proved, as the fraudulent intent will be imputed to the mortgagee from the ne< — arj and obvious result of ill*.' transaction being to defeal or delay other creditors (a?) ; and it makes uo difference in this respect whether the mortgagor is a trader or non-trader The knowledge by the creditor that the assignment comprises all the debtor's property affects him with notioeof the a bankruptcy, though the assignment <1" not purport to convey all liis effects (s). A mortgage of substantially the whole of a debtor's pro] oure an existing debi will not 1"- Baved by reason i being given in consideration of forbearai in under an execution or under a pro ions bill An assignment "I' a man's whole property b i Id it' by way "t indemnity or a- a surety, where the debtor's estate n- equivalent (6) ; but the giving of further time i<> the debtor may be a sufficient fresh consideration t" rend r tin- oonveyanoe valid A bond fide mortgage bya debtor of part only of his prop rty, given to secure a subsisting debt, \Bprimdfacu not a fraudulent (0 Re Wood, I.. I: 7 I : \ , 1 ( h. I' 6 'v. spoon* >■, i M. & W. 718; / . /■ /. ii De G. M. & <;. 761 ; Smith v. / mm, ] II. & 0. 849; / v. lift , 32 I.. J. Ch. . & Wilkinson, -IS L. T. . . M '>■">/, L. R. li,>. 1'.. .7 . Re -A -././. i, L. R. 3 Ch. A. 515. (;/) Bankruptcy Act, 1883, B. 4 (a), (x) E.rp. Ellis, •_> Ch. D. 7 7. C. A. See Young v. Fletcher, 3 II. & I post, p. 5S2 (which was a case of a mortgage of part only of the debtor's property to secure an existing debt, but it appeared that the mort was aware that the result would be to delay creditors). (y) h- II . I. I: 7 < ' . A , s i r v 8. 118, L JJ. . / . // . I. I; 7 Ch. A. •J it. (;) Lindon v. s Ifaa A I hr. 895; I De G. M L. -t. Bky. 11 | . Co. \ . I nan, 3 Giff. 11; Oraham \. Chapman, 12 <'. B. B5. (a) U v. Murray, L. I.'. I Q. B. " i, 10 . 313 . -.11 Ch. D. 539. (b) J. v. ) . . ."• E. A: B. eh v. Taylor, •-» De G. J. & B. 135; Wbodhouet v. Murray, L. R. 2 Q.B. 27. (c) Philjn v. Kornstedt, 1 Ex. D. 62, C. A. : Exp. Sheen, 1 Ch. D. 561. ACTS OF BANKRUPTCY. 581 conveyance liable to be set aside in the event of the mortgagor's chap. xxxi. subsequent bankruptcy ((f)- But the mere fact that the property included in a mortgage is Exception only a part, and not the whole with a merely colourable exception, gag0 ma a e of the mortgagor's property, will not be conclusive as to the bona ^ e f d r ^ s of fides of the transaction. The difference in this respect between a mortgage of substantially the whole of a debtor's property anil a mortgage of a portion of the property, appears to be that in the former rase the bunion of proving bona fides lies on the debtor ; in the latter case the burden is shifted to the bankruptcy tin-' In order to impugn a mortgage of a part only of a debtor's property, i\ would seem that it must be shown that a deed is fraudulent and void under some other statute, as, e.g., the statute L3 Eliz. o. 5, or as a fraudulent preference under the bankruptcy law. or by reason of circumstances attending the transaction, leading the < lourt or a jury to find, as a fact, that the intent and object of the deed was to defeat or delay creditors Mortgages of part only, not being MilMantially the whole, of a debtor's property, if liable to beset aside as fraudulent con- veyances, will for the most part, but not invariably, be found to be also void a- fraudulent preferences within sect, -is of the Bankruptcy A.ot, L883. tg :-•• by a trader of loss than a moiety of the whole of his property was upheld, no actual fraud being proved, although lb'' • Heel of enforcing the security would have been top his business (. XXXI. Effect of pressure by creditor. Colourable exceptions. other creditor?, and the remainder was of merely nominal value; moreover, it appeared that the mortgagee was well aware that the necessary result of enforcing the security would be to stop the business and bo delay the creditors (A). Pressure by a creditor maybe material as tending to Bhow that the debtor's intention in mortgaging pari of his property was to escape from the pressure ami not to defraud his i i tors (i). But no amount of pressure will save the deed if fraudulent intent is proved in the ease of a partial dis] tion (/•)• The same rule will apply with greater foroe where tho dis- position includes substantially the whole of the debtor's pro- perty. So where a trader under pressure, on the part of certain creditors, mortgaged substantially the whole of his property secure debts owing to them, and it appeared that the effect of the mortgage would be to stop his trade, it was held that the mortgage was void as against the assignees in the debtor's bankruptcy as a fraudulent conveyance, inasmuch as the in- tention to defeat or delay the creditors must be imputed to tho bankrupt, although the deed must be taken to have been the unwilling act of the bankrupt executed under pressure, so as to prevent it from being a fraudulent preference (/). If the security is obtained by pressure, it will not, in tho absence of collusion (m),be a fraudulent preference, although the creditor was aware of the insolvency of the debtor (») ; although a transaction, under which a power of sale is given to a creditor practically over all the debtor's property, may be within tho Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 4 (o), yet, where the trader receives a fair equivalent, the transaction is not void under the bankrupt law, though the trader assigns his whole property (/>). It is well settled that merely colourable exceptions of part of a debtor's property will not render valid an assignment of what is substantially the whole of his property (q). (h) Young v. Fletcher, 3 H. & C. 732. (i) Smith y. Tmtns, 1 H. & C. 849. (k) Young v. Fletcher, sup. ; Exp. Wensley, 1 De G. J. & S. 273 ; Good- ricke v. Taylor, 2 De G. J. & S. 135. {I) Exp. Bailey, lie Barrett, 3 De G. M. & G. 534. See Exp. Reader, Re Wrigley, L. R. 20 Eq. 7G3 ; Tomkins v. Saffery, 3 App. Cas. 213. Im) Belcher v. Jones, 2 M. kW. 258. («) Smith v. Pilgrim, 2 Ch. D. 127, C. A. ; Exp. Hall, Re Cooper, 19 Ch. D. 580, C. A. (o) Philps v. Hornstedt, 1 Ex. D. 62, C. A. See Exp. Norton, L. R. 16 Eq. 397. (p) Ibid. ; Mercer v. Peterson, L. R. 2 Ex. 304 ; S. C, L. R. 3 Ex. 104. And see Exp. Cooper, In re Baum, 10 Ch. D. 313, C. A. {q) Worsley v. Be Mattos, 1 Burr, ACTS OF BANKRUPTCY. 583 The general test as to whether an exception is colourable or chap. xxxi. not appears to be whether or not the exception will save the Tost is, assignment, if enforced, from causing an immediate insolvency. Aether ex- t , £ . . ception is sut- In the case of a trader it will generally be inferred that the ficient to save result of an assignment will be to produce insolvency if the lns result actually is to stop his business (r). In the case of a non- trader, this test is, of course, not applicable, and the general test must be applied having regard to the circumstances of each particular case. The exception will not be sufficient to save an assignment if What are the excepted part of the property is such as would not pass to exceptions. the trustee nor be capable of being taken in execution (s). So the exception of a pension which would not pass to an assignee is not substantial (t) ; nor is the exception of tenant right under a lease, which is a mere contingent right («). In estimating whether a bill of sale comprises the whole of a debtor's property, the value of his book debts is to be taken into account (#). It is sufficient if the debtor is left in possession of sufficient materials to carry on his trade (y) . If the mortgage passes all the stock in trade, so that he cannot carry on his business, it is held void, although he has other property besides his stock in trade (s). But though the effect of a mortgage of the whole, or of Mortgage substantially the whole, of a debtor's property is not to produce withdraws insolvency in the mortgagor, it may be liable to be set aside in aU deb * or 8 bankruptcy if its result is to defeat or delay the creditors of the from legal mortgagor. So, the fact that the amount secured is much less creditors, in amount than the value of the property assigned will not save the security, unless saved by sect. 49 from being void as a fraudulent conveyance, inasmuch as the vesting of the legal estate in the mortgagee prevents the equity of redemption from being seized in execution, and thus takes the whole of the 467 ; Hale v. Allnutt, 25 L. J. C. P. 502. 267 ; Smith v. Timms, 1 H. & C. (t) Exp. Hawker, Re Kecly, L. R. 849 ; Ecnnell v. Dawson, 18 C. B. 355 ; 7 Ch. A. 214. Pennell v. Reynolds, 11 C. B. N. S. («) Exp. Darin, 17 Ch. D. 26, C. A. 716. \x) Exp. Bolland, 41 L. J. Bky. 60 ; {;■) Young v. Ward, 8 Ex. Ch. 234 ; Exp. Burton, 13 Ch. D. 102, C. A. v. Young, 5 E. & B. 255 ; Young (y) Johnson v. Fesemeyer, 3 De G-. & v. Fletcher, 3 H. & C. 732; Exp. Bland, J. 13 ; Goodricke v. Taylor, 2 De G. 6 De G. M. & G. 757 ; Smith v. J. & S. 135 ; Smith v. Cannon, 2 E. & Cannan, 2 E. & B. 35 ; Exp. Glater, Re B. 35. Wilkinson, 48 L. T. 648. (a) Young v. Fletcher, 3 H. & C, (*) See Re Cockshott, 3 Bro. C. C. 732. 584 MORTGAGES IX FRAUD OF CREDITORS L3 ELIZ. chap. xxxi. debtor's property out of the reach of the common law remedy of the creditors (a) . Mortgage by It was lield in one case that an assignment by a partner in an his seSrate insolvent firm of all his separate property was a fraudulent con- property, veyance, though the assignment did not include the partnership assets, which were, of course, seizable in execution on a judgment against the partner (/») ; and conversely, a mortgage by a partner in an insolvent firm of the partnership property as a security for his separate debt is void, as fraudulent as against the creditors of the partnership (c). An assignment of what was, in fact, the whole of a trader's property, was held to be a fraudulent conveyance, though ho was not aware that he was assigning all his property, but intended to except his furniture and stock in trade, which had been taken in execution without his knowledgo (d). Bankruptcy Act, 1SS3, 8. 4. Principle of the doctrine of fraudulent preference. Statutory recognition of the doctrine. iii. — Fraudulent Preference. — The avoidance of conveyances on the ground of fraudulent or voluntary preference is now regulated by the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 4, sub-s. (c), and s. 48 (e). The doctrine of fraudulent preference has been established for the benefit of creditors generally, and not for the benefit of any individual creditor. And accordingly, where the result of recovering property alleged to have been delivered or transferred would be to benefit not the creditors generally, but a particular creditor who claims a security on the property, the trustee ought not himself to take proceedings or allow proceedings to be taken in his name for the recovery of the property on the ground of fraudulent preference (,/'). The former Bankruptcy Acts, prior to that of 1869 (g) t did not contain any express mention of " fraudulent preference," though the term was frequently used in bankruptcy proceedings to signify voluntary assignments made by persons in insolvent circumstances, or in contemplation of insolvency or bankruptcy for the benefit of any creditor in particular or creditors («) Smith v. Carman, 2 E. & B. 35 ; Re Wood, L. R. 7 Ch. A. 302. (b) Exp. Trevor, lie Burghardt, 1 Ch. D. 297. (c) Exp. Snowball, Re Douglas, L. R. 7 Ch. A. 534. 534. See Exp. Richardson, 14 Ves. 186 ; Wedge v. Newlin, 4 B. & Ad. 831 ; Exp. Sparrow, 2 De G. M. & G. 907. (<■) See sect. 4 set out ante, p. 577. (/) Exp. Cooper, Re Zucco, L. R. 10 Ch. A. 510. (d) Exp. Bailey, 3 De G. M. & G. (g) 32 & 33 Vict. c. 71. FRAUDULENT PREFERENCE. 585 generally. The term " fraudulent preference " was first defined chap. xxxi. by the Act of 1869 in language similar to that of the present Act, except so far as will be presently pointed out. The Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (//). enacts as follows: — Sect. 48. " (1.) Every conveyance or transfer of property or charge Avoidance of thereon made, every payment made, every obligation incurred, and preferences in every judicial proceeding taken or suffered («') by any person unable certain cases - to pay his debts as they become due from his own money, in favour of any creditor or any person in trust for any creditor with a view of giving such creditor a preference over the other creditors shall, if the person making, taking, paying, or suffering the same is adjudged bankrupt on a bankruptcy petition presented within three months after the date of making, taking, paying, or suffering the same, bo deemed fraudulent and void as against the trustee in the bankruptcy. " (2.) This section shall not affect the rights of any person making title in good faith and for valuable consideration through or under a creditor of the bankrupt." Sect. 49. " Subject to the foregoing provisions of this Act with Protection respect to the effect of bankruptcy on an execution or attachment, 0I bond fide and with respect to the avoidance of certain settlements and prefer- transactions ences, nothing in this Act shall invalidate in the case of bank- -^ithouT ruptcy— notice. (c) Any conveyance or assignment by the bankrupt for valuable consideration ; (d) Any contract, dealing, or transaction by or with the bankrupt for valuable consideration: Provided that both the follow- ing conditions are complied with, namely — (1) The payment, delivery, conveyance, assignment, contract, dealing or transaction, as the case may be, takes place before the date of the receiving order ; and (2) The person (other than the debtor) to, by or with whom the payment, delivery, conveyance, assignment, contract, dealing or transaction was made, executed, or entered into, has not, at the time of the payment, delivery, con- veyance, assignment, contract, delivery or transaction, notice of any available act of bankruptcy committed by the bankrupt before that time." Having regard to the definition introduced by the Act of How far 1869, and repeated with modifications by the Act of 1883, the gfons^ppiy" decisions under the earlier Bankruptcy Acts must be consulted with some caution (/). Such decisions may serve as a guide, but must not be substituted for the words of the Act (k). The following decisions were made under the old Acts. An Voluntary assignment or payment by an insolvent was not voluntary, if by iMolvents under the (h) 46 & 47 Vict. c. 52. (j) Per Lord Cairns, C, in Butcher old law. (i) See Exp. Lancaster, 25 Ch. D. v. Stead, L. R. 7 H. L. 839, at p. 846. 311, C. A. ' (k) Exp. Griffith, Re Wilcoxon, 23 Ch. D. 69, C. A. 586 MORTGAGES IX FRAUD OF CREDITORS - 13 ELIZ. C. 5. cnAP. xxxi. made for a bond fide consideration (I) ; or under pressure on the part of the creditor (in) ; or even without pressure or threat, if there were a bond fide demand on the part of the oreditor (n) ; if, in fact, anything were done by the oreditor to interfere with control the debtor's will (o) ; and the oiroumstanoe of the or grantor being the grantee's solicitor made no difference in this respect (p). Though the debtor may have desired to favour the creditor, yet if there was a bond fide application, and the act in any degree proceeded from such application, it was not entirely voluntary, and therefore not fraudulenl (q). There must not have been any collusion : as if the oreditor acted on a hint from his debtor as to his circumstances (r). Secus, if the creditor derived his information from a third person («). The security was protected, though the debt was not actually payable (t) ; but the demand must have been made by someone entitled to make it (h), as by a guarantor (./•), and tin- transaction must have been in the usual course of business (y) ; but know- ledge by the creditor of the insolvent state of the debtor's affairs was held to be immaterial where the question was merely as to the voluntary character of the act (z). Where the security con- tained provisions for the benefit of third persons, the demand did not deprive those provisions of their voluntary character (a) ; nor had the holder of a collateral security tho benefit of the demand (&). So a transfer of a part of a trader's goods in satisfaction of a pre-existing debt, if made voluntarily and in contemplation of bankruptcy, was held void as against the assignees under a subsequent adjudication (c). The question. The question of fraudulent preference depended upon the (l) Amell v. Sean, 8 Bing. 87. See Krp. Cox, Re Reed, 1 Ch. D. 302. (m) Davies v. Acocks, 2 C. M. & R. 461 ; Knujht v. Ferguson, 5 M. & W. 389 (n) Mogg v. Baker, 4 M. & W. 318 ; Reynard v. Robinson, 9 Bing. 717 ; Belcher v. Prittie, 10 Bing. 408 ; Van Casteel v. Booker, 2 Exch. 691 ; Ogg v. Shuter, L. R. 10 C. P. 165. (o) Vacher v. Cocks, 1 B. & Ad. 152 ; Strachan v. Barton, 11 Exch. 650 ; Johnson v. Fesemeyer, 3 De G-. & J. 13 ; Exp. London and County Bank, L. R. 16 Eq. 391. (p) Johnson v. Fesemeyer, sup. \q) Broun v. Kempton, 19 L. J. C. P. 169 ; Edwards v. Glyn, 2 E. & E. 29 ; Bills v. Smith, 34 L. J. Q. B. 68. (»•) Singleton v. Butler, 2 B. & P. 283 (s) Belcher v. Jones, 2 M. & W. 2.">S. (<) Thompson v. , 1 T. R. 155 ; Hartshorn v. Shidden, 2 B. & P. Crosby v. Crouch. 11 East, 256; Strachan v. Barton, 11 Exch. 650. But see Exp. Palmer, W. N. (1882) 130. (u) Belcher v. Frittic, 10 Bing. 408. (x) Edwards v. Glyn, 2 E. & E. 29. (y) Alderson v. Temple, 4 Burr. 2234 ; Abrll v. Daniett, Moo. & M. 370. (z) Davison v. Robinson, 3 Jur. N. S. 791. (a) Morgan v. Horseman, 3 Taunt. 241. (b) Marshall v. Lamb, 5 Q. B. 115. (c) Bcran v. Nmn, 9 Bing. 107. FRAUDULENT PREFERENCE. 587 intention of the bankrupt ; if sucli intention was to defeat the dis- chap. xxxr. tribution of the property under the bankruptcy laws, the circum- stance of there being a demand by the particular creditor would go for nothing ; but if the moving cause was the solicitation of the creditor, and not the desire of the bankrupt himself to defeat the general distribution, that was no fraudulent prefer- ence (d) . Considerable difference of opinion prevailed as to the meaning of the words " in contemplation of bankruptcy " (e) ; but if the circumstances of the debtor were such that bankruptcy or insol- vency was inevitable, that would satisfy the expression "in contemplation of bankruptcy " (/). Where the debtor exe- cuted the securitj- when in embarrassed circumstances, and under expectation of going to prison, it was held to be a fraudulent preference, although no distinct act of bankruptcy was contemplated {g). i '. \- sect. 48 of the Act of 1883, two important alterations are Alterations introduced in the law relating to conveyances, &c. on the ground S tr ^ uc f d by of fraudulent preference. ruptcy Act, First, by sub-sect. (1), a conveyance by a debtor is now void, * 883 ' as a fraudulent preference, if made within three months before for avoidance. the presentation of a petition on which the debtor is adjudged bankrupt, and not, as under the Act of 1869, if made within three months before adjudication. Accordingly, a mortgage by a debtor of part or even of the whole of his property, will, on the expiration of three months without the presentation of a petition, be unimpeachable on the ground of fraudulent preference. Secondly, by sub-sect. (2), the immunity afforded by the Act Restriction of 1869 is restricted so as no longer to protect a purchaser from, of immumt J r - or incumbrancer of, the debtor in good faith and for valuable consideration, but only a " person making title in good faith and for valuable consideration through or under a creditor of the bankrupt." A creditor who takes security for his debt in ignorance that he is being preferred is therefore no longer within the statutory protection {li) . (d) Per Parke, B., in Van Casteel v. Gibson v. Muskctt, 4 Man. & Gr. 1G9. Booker, 18 L. J. Ex. 9, 14, 20. (g) Aldred v. Constable, 4 Q. B. 674. (c) See the cases collected in Robson (h) The effect of sect. 48, sub- on Bankruptcy (.3 th ed.), p. 172. sect. (2), is thus to abrogate the (/) Johnson v. Fesemeyer, 3 De Gr. & decision of the House of Lords in J. 13 ; Gibson v. Boutts, 3 Sc. 229 ; Butcher v. Stead, L. R. 7 H. L. 839 538 MORTGAGES IN FRAUD OF CREDITORS L3 BLIZ. C. CHAP. XXXI. Burden of proof. Intention to prefer, not creditor's knowledge material. Whether contemplation of bankruptcy is material. Effect of pressure by creditor. It was held, under the Act of 1869, and would probably bo held under the present Act, that the onus of proving good faith and valuable consideration lies on the person who Beeks to support a conveyance which would otherwise be void as a fraudulent preference (/). An important result of the restriction of the immunity to persons deriving title under a purchaser or inoumhranoex of tho debtor, is to revive the rule of law, prior 1" the Act of Inch, that the question whether a particular transaction amounts to a fraudu- lent preference depends on the intention of the debtor to prefer, and not on the motives or privity of the creditor (k). In other respects the definition of fraudulent preference given by the Act of 1883 is identical with that given by the Act of 1869. The definition does away with the necessity of there being a contemplation of bankruptcy by the debtor (/), and it substitutes the fact of the debtor being unable to pay his debts, as they become due, out of his own money, and the presentation of a petition on which the debtor is adjudged bankrupt within three months alter the transaction, for " the contemplation of bank- ruptcy," required under the former law (id). It is apprehended, however, that the fact that a mortgage was made by a debtor in contemplation of bankruptcy would still be material in deter- mining whether the instrument is void as a fraudulent prefer- ence (n). Indeed, a man who is unable to pay his debts as they become due is insolvent (o), and must know that he is so, or he would not give to a particular creditor a security with the view of preferring him to other creditors (y>) ; and a person in such a position and giving such a security must, it would seem, he presumed to contemplate bankruptcy (q). In order to constitute a fraudulent preference, the mortgage or other conveyance must still be voluntary, and practically the old law, requiring the act to be the spontaneous act of the debtor, applies (r). The word "voluntary," in the technical (i) See Exp. Tate, 35 L. T. 531. See also Williams on Bankruptcy, p. 213. (k) Bust v. Cooper, Cowp. 629 ; Davidson v. Bowlandson, 3 Jur. N. S. 791. See Williams on Bankruptcy, p. 213. (I) Exp. Norton, Be Golden, L. R. 16 Eq. 398, 408. \m) See Williams on Bankruptcy, p. 209. («) Exp. Tempest, L. R. 6 Ch. A. 70 ; Exp. Blackburn, Be Cheesebrough, L. R. 12 Eq. 358, 363. (o) Exp. Fearse, 2 D. & C. 451, 464. (p) Bell v. Simpson, 2 H. & N. 410 ; Bills v. Smith, 34 L. J. Q. B. 68. (q) See Williams on Bankruptcy, p. 210. (r) Exp. Tempest, L. R. 6 Ch. A. 7Q ; Exp. Bolland, Be Cherry, L. R. 7 FRAUDULENT PREFERENCE. 589 sense which it had under the old law, means practically the chap, xxxi. same thing as " with a view of giving such creditor a preference over the other creditors " (s). If there is pressure, or a request by the creditor, the act is not fraudulent ; the Court must be satisfied that the debtor's substantial motive was to prefer the creditor (t). It is not necessary that it should be the sole motive (»). If preference of a particular creditor or creditors is not the main or dominant motive, it is immaterial that the actual effect of the transaction is to prefer the secured creditor to the other creditors (x) . If, however, the transaction is fraudu- lent in its inception, no pressure by the creditor will support it(y). A disposition will not generally be held to have the spon- Spontaneity taneity necessary to constitute fraudulent preference where it is fraudulent made in pursuance of a previous contract (z) ; or to make good preference. a breach of trust (a) ; or to avoid a distress (b) ; or, apparently, under threat of legal proceedings to enforce payment (c), though in a later case it was held that threats of proceedings ought not to be regarded as pressure in the case of a man who was on the verge of, and contemplating, bankruptcy (d). Where the owner of certain furniture gave to his wife a bill Substituted of sale thereon to secure a bond fide advance, but subsequently, on discovering that the bill was void, by reason of its including after-acquired property, he gave to her a fresh bill of sale on the same furniture ; it was held that, as in giving the second bill of sale the intention, in fact, was to correct the mistake in the first, this negatived any intention to prefer, and that the security was accordingly valid (e) . Where, upon an advance, an agreement is made for a bill of Security sale at a subsequent period, the bill of sale will be treated as P ure ; iimt to contract. Ch. A. 24; Exp. Wreford, 24 L. T. Re Cooke, 4 App. Cas. 213; Exp. Bol- N. S. 63S ; Exp. Halliday, L. R. 8 land, Re Gibson, 8 Ch. D. 230. Ch. A. 283; Smith v. Pilgrim, 2 (z) Harman v. Fisher, Cowp. 117; Ch. D. 127. Hunt v. Mortimer, 10 B. & Cr. 44 ; (s) Exp. Bolland, sup., per Mellish, Exp. Hodgkin, Re Softley, L. R. 20 Eq. L. J., p. 27. 746. (t) Exp. Topham, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 616 ; (a) Exp. Stubbing, Re Wilkinson, 17 Exp. London and County Bank, L. R. Ch. D. 58, C. A. 16 Eq. 391. (*) Mavor v. Croome, 1 Bing-. 261. (h) Exp. Hill, 23 Ch. D. 695, C. A. (c) Exp. Scudamore, 3 Ves. 85 ; Dixon (v) Exp. Taylor, Re Goldsmid, 18 v. Baldwin, 5 East, 175; Murray v. Q B D. 295, C. A. ; Re Mills, Exp. Pinkett, 12 CI. & F. 764. Official Receiver, W. N. (1S88) 24, (d) Exp. Hall, Re Cooper, 19 Ch. D. Q. a. 580, per Jessel, M. R. (y) Exp. Reader, Re Wrigley, L. R. (e) Re Ticeedale, Exp. Tweedale, 20 Eq. 763. See Exp. Arnold, Re (1892) 2 Q. B. 216. Wright, 3 Ch. D. 70; Exp. Saffery, 590 MORTGAGES IN FRAUD OF CREDITORS 13 ELIZ. C. 5. cnAr. xxxi. Completion of previous security. having been executed at the date of the agreement (/), unless the giving of the bill of sale is purposely postponed till the situation of the trader is hopeless, or where the bill of sale is not to be given " until the lender lias lost confidenoe in the borrower," or "until the lender requires it " (g) ; but in such case the promise to give the future bill of sale to be effectual must be absolute (h) ; and the onus probandi ia upon the | who sets up the prior agreement to prove noi only that the agreement did exist in fact, but that it was in all respects a fide agreement (/) , and there must be a very clear explanation why the giving of the bill of sale was delayed (k) ; and the device of renewing the bill of sale from time to time will not avail (/). It would seem that the requirements of the Bills of Sale Act, 1882 (m), render an agreement to give a bill of sale altogether inoperative as a security, but the agreement might be material as evidence of the good faith of a bill of sale given in pursuance of the agreement, so as to prevent the bill from being set aside in bankruptcy. If a bond fide deposit be made, and the debtor afterwards, and in immediate contemplation of bankruptcy, execute a convey- ance of the legal estate to the creditor in completion of the mortgage, it is a good legal title, and will be protected by the equitable title previously obtained (it). And without such con- veyance the depositee was entitled, even at law, to the rents, as against the assignees in bankruptcy of the depositor, since such assignees only took what the bankrupt or insolvent was entitled to at law and in equity (o). Where a landlord advanced a part of the purchase-money on the sale of a sub-lease by his L and the sub-lease was immediately on its execution deposited with the landlord, he was held to have a lien by virtue of the deposit against the assignees of the sub-lessee, though he was at the time an uncertificated bankrupt, on the ground that the sub-lease and deposit were simultaneous transactions (p). (/) Mercer v. Peterson, L. R. 3 Ex. 104 ; Jones v. Barber, L. R. 6 Q. B. 77 ; Exp. Izard, L. R. 9 Ch. A. 271 ; Exp. Ilodqkin, Re Softley, L. R. 20 Eq. 746 ; lie Jackson, Exp. kail, 4 Ch. D. 682. {g) Exp. King, 2 Ch. D. 256, C. A. ; Exp. Burton, 13 Ch. D. 102, C. A. ; Exp. Kilner, 13 Ch. D. 245. C. A. (/<) Exp. Fisher, L. R. 7 Ch. A. 644. (i) Exp. Kilner, 13 Ch. D. 245, C. A. (/<•) Ibid.; Exp. Ilauxurll. Re Heming- way, 23 Ch. D. 638. (0 Exp. Cohen, L. R. 7 Ch. A. 20 ; Exp. Stevens, L. R. 20 Eq. 786. But see Re Jackson, Exp. Hall, 11 Ch. D. 682. And see sup. p. 242. (m) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 43. See ante, p. 229. (n) Per Lord Eldon in Hiem v. Mill, 13 Ves. 114. (o) Garry v. Sharratt, 10 B. & Cr. 716; Sumpter v. Cooper, 2 B. & Ad. 223. (p) Mcuxv. Smith, 11 Sim. 410. FRAUDULENT PREFERENCE. 591 An equitable mortgage for securing a voluntary bond debt chap. xxxi. is good against a subsequent bankruptcy, unless there be fraud or insolvency at the time (q) . Inasmuch as a bill of sale transfers the property in the mort- Notice to gaged chattels to the holder, it is no fraudulent preference for ^editor of the grantor to give to the holder notice of impending bank- impending ruptcy, in consequence of which the holder seizes and sells the up CJ ' chattels (r). A trust deed by a partner assigning all his property for his Trust deed separate creditors is a fraudulent preference ($), though his by partnei "• partnership assets are not specifically mentioned in the deed (t). The creditor cannot apply the principle of consolidation (u). An attornment clause in a mortgage, so framed as to amount Attornment to a mere device to enable the mortgagee to obtain thereby a ° ause ' preference over the other creditors on bankruptcy, is a fraudu- lent preference («?). So a licence in a builder's contract to seize materials on Licence to bankruptcy is void (%). seize- No payment or composition made or security given after Payments arrest made under sect. 25 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, is af ter arrest. exempt from the provisions of the Act relating to fraudulent preferences (//). Under the present Act, as under the Act of 18G9, a convey- Avoidance of ance or charge which amounts to a fraudulent preference within C0Ilv °y ance - the statutory definition is made void, not voidable only as under the former law (»). After composition resolutions have been passed and re- Securities gistered (a), a debtor cannot, before completion of the com- KXStSl position, enter into a valid agreement with a creditor who is bound by the resolutions to pay him his debt in full, even though the agreement is made for valuable consideration, such as an agreement by the creditor to give fresh credit to the debtor (b). (q) Meggison v. Foster, 2 Y. & C. C. 0. Bowes, 14 Ch. D. 725, C. A. 336. (x) Exp. Jay, Re Harrison, 14 Ch. D. (r) Exp. Symmons, Re Jordan, 14 19, C. A. Ch. D. 693, C. A. (?/) See also the Bankruptcy Act, («) Exp. McLean, 24 L. T. N. S. 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 71), s. 7. 144. (z) Exp. Tempest, L. R. 6 Ch. A. 70. (t) Exp. Trevor, 1 Ch. D. 297. (a) Compositions are now regulated (m) Exp. Hodgkin, Re Snftley, L. R. by sect. 3 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, 20 Ch. D. 746. 53 & 54 Vict. c. 71. (y) Exp. Williams, Re Thompson, 7 (b) Exp. Barrow, Re Andrews, J 8 Ch. D. 138, C. A. ; Exp. Jackson, Re Ch. D. 464, C. A. 592 MORTGAGES IN FRAUD OF CREDITORS —13 ELIZ. I CHAP. XXXI. Secret securities. Agreement with surety. Agreement with third party. Recovery of amount secured. Security to particular creditor in composition. Securities given by a compounding debtor to a creditor before the passing of the composition resolution without oommunioal ton to the other creditors, by which the creditor obtains preference over them, are void 1 1 It makes no difference that the fraudulent creditor is surety for the composition (. B. 49; Exp. Phillips, Re Harvey, 36 W. E. 567 ; Exp. Milner, 15 Q. B. D. 605. {d) Wood v. Barker, L. R. 1 Eq. 139; Bissell v. Jones, L. R. 4 Q. B. 49. (e) Exp. Oliver, 4 De G. & J. 354 ; Mallalieu v. Hodgson, 15 Jur. 817, Q. B. (/) McEewan v. Sanderson, L. R. 20 Eq. 65. (g) Exp. Burrell, Be Robinson, 1 Ch. D. 537, C. A. (/») Alsager v. Spalding, 8 Sc. 204. (i) Bradshaw v. Bradshaw, 9 M. & W. 29 ; Horton v. Riley, 1 1 M. & W. 492. But see Watson v. Bennett, 12 AV. R 1008. [k) Smith v. Cuff, 6 M. & S. 160; Smith v. Bromley, 2 Doug. 697, note P. 6 ; Sort< . I v. /'•'.. 7 II. & N. 934 ; Lensberg's . 7 I li. D. 650. But see // v. Ray, -1 V. & D. 253: Belcher v. Sambourne, 8 Jur. 85s ; Wiggins v. Titt, 4 Exch. 312. (1) Dauglish y. Tennant, L. R. 2 Q. B. 49*; Cullingworth v. Lloyd, 2 Beav. 385; Woody. Barker, L. 1.'. 1 Eq. 139. See Bush v. Shipman, 10 Jur. 507: see Robs. Bky. 249, ed. 4. (»0 llouden v. Haigh, 3 P. & D. 661. FKAUDULENT PREFERENCE. 593 of this sort on the other creditors, will not, if the composition is chap. xxxi. not paid and the debtor becomes bankrupt, be allowed to prove under the bankruptcy for either his original debt or the com- position (n). And where a debtor obtained the consent of one of his credi- tors to a composition by a secret promise to pay his debt in full, which promise he performed and afterwards became bankrupt, the creditor was not allowed to prove a new debt, without first deducting the sum so paid to him beyond the former composi- tion (0). The protection afforded by sect. 49 extends to a payment in Extent of good faith and for valuable consideration, although the transac- sect^D?" ° tion would otherwise be a fraudulent preference and an act of bankruptcy ( p) . Mortgages, whether of the whole of a debtor's property or Mortgage to only of a part thereof, given to secure an actual present advance ad^nce"^ 11 * only, are clearly protected by sect. 4!) of the Act, provided they are given previously to the date of a receiving order made against the mortgagor, and that the mortgagee has not notice of any available act of bankruptcy (0). The notice intended by the Act is actual notice of a complete Notice. act of bankruptcy (/•). A bond fide sale by a trader of all his stock has long been held Bond fide to be valid as against his trustee in bankruptcy, if the purchaser "hole^ ° was ignorant of any fraudulent intention on the part of the property. trader (*), although the purchaser had knowledge that an exe- cution is intended (t) ; and later, this principle was extended so as to render valid a bond fide assignment by way of mortgage of all a person's property to secure a present advance of which the mortgagor obtains, at the time, the full benefit (u). There must be an equivalent (.*■), but if the security is for a {») Be Cross, 4 De G. & S. 364, Bird v. Bass, 6 Man. & Gr. 143. note. (*) Baxter v. Pritchard, 1 A. & E. (0) Exp. Minton, 1 M. & A. 440. 156 ; Rose v. Haycock, 1 A. & E. 460, n. (p) Exp. Blackburn, W. N. (1884) And see Harwood v. Bartlett, 6 Bing. 131, C. A. N. C. 61. (•) Conway v. Nail, 1 C. B. 643; (x) Huilon v. Cruttuell, 1 E. &B. 15; VOL. I. — R. Q Q 594 MORTGAGES IX FRAUD OP CREDITORS 13 BLIZ. < . 5, cn.vr. xxxr. Mortgage to secure existing debt and present advance. Test of bona fides in such cases. present substantial advance, it is not necessary that the lull vali io of the property be advanced (//). It has been held that a bond fide sale for a present considera- tion will not be invalid as a fraudulent conveyance simply because the vendor intends to misapply the purchase-money or to abscond with the money, and so defraud his creditors, pro- vided there is no fraudulent collusion on the part of the pur- chaser (z) ; and the same principle applies in tho case of a mortgage (a) . A security given bond fide for a present advance will not be invalidated merely because it extends to secure an antecedent debt (b). But where a mortgage is given to secure an existing debt and also a further present advance, questions of complica- tion and difficulty sometimes arise as to the bona fides of the transaction. In the case of a trader, the validity of the transaction in bankruptcy will depend on whether tin- present advance is an equivalent by enabling tho debtor to carry on his business. " The greatness or smallness of the advance made by the lender to the grantor, though to be taken into consideration, is not the real test. The real test is (whatever the amount of the advance compared with tho antecedent debt was), did the lender into ad that the advance should enable the debtor to carry on his busi- ness, and had he a reasonable ground for believing that it would enable him to do so ? " (c). In such a case, the Court will not go into the intention of the debtor, nor consider that the result of the transaction was in fact that the business could not be carried on (d). So, conversely, the security will be bad if it appears on the evidence that the lender advanced his money with the purpose not of enabling the debtor to meet his engage- Bittlestone v. Cooke, 6 E. & B. 296 ; Harris v. Rickitt, 4 H. & N. 1 ; not- withstanding Exp. Sparrow, 2 De G. M. & G. 907. (y) Bittlestone v. Cooke, sup. ; Allen v. Bonnett, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 577. (z) Cook v. Caldicott, Moo. & M. 522 ; Baxter v. Pritchard, 1 A. & E. 456 ; Exp. Stubbing, Be Wilkinson, 17 Ch. D. 58, C. A. («) Re Colemere, L. R. 1 Ch. A. 128. (b) Bennett v. Reynolds, 1 1 C. B. N. S. 709, 722; Shrubsole v. Sussams, 16 C. B. N. S. 452 ; Lomax v. Buxton, L. R. 6 C. P. 107. {c) Exp. Johnson, Re Chapman, 26 Ch. D. 338, C. A., per Cotton, L. J., at p. 346. See also Exp. King, Re Kt»g, 2 Ch. D. 256, C. A. ; Exp.' Ellis, 2 Ch. D. 797, C. A. These three cases were cited and approved as good law and good sense by the Privy Coun- cil in Adtnor. -Gen. of Jamaica v. Las- celles, (1894) A. C. 135. See also Bell v. Simpson, 2 H. & N. 410; Whitmore v. Bowling, 2 F. & F. 134; Penneli v. Dawson, 18 C. B. 355 ; Allen v. Bonnett, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 577 ; Exp. Eisher, L. R. 7 Ch. A. 644. (d) Exp. Johnson, Re Chapman, 26 Ch. D., at p. 347. FRAUDULENT PREFERENCE. ^9§ ments, and, if a trader, to continue his business, but of giving chap, xxxi. the lender a security in preference to other creditors (e). If the creditor "makes a present advance with the bond fide intention of enabling the debtor to carry on his business, the security will not be avoided, though the creditor is aware that the debtor intends to apply the money advanced to pay off an existing debt so as to relieve the estate from distress or other proceedings (/). So it was held that an actual sale of goods for money, the vendor intending to make a fraudulent prefer- ence with the purchase-money, was not a fraudulent transfer, although the purchaser knew of the transaction (g). It may be, in some cases, that the relief of a debtor's estate from distress or other pressure affords the only prospect of his being able to carry on his business. A present advance, if made bond fide by a creditor to enable Smallnesa the debtor to carry on his business, need not be of large amount advance, in proportion to the subsisting debt or to the property mort- gaged (/<). The smallness of the amount of the advance, however, affords strong evidence that the principal object of the parties in the whole transaction was not to enable the debtor to continue his trade but to secure to the creditor the repayment of his past advance (/). Conversely, it would seem that the fact that the further Effect where advance is of a substantial amount will be regarded as affording advance is a presumption that the object was to enable the debtor to con- macle , or . . . . agreed, tinue his trade, so as to support the mortgage (/;). And if this is the case, the transaction will be supported, though no advance is actually made at the time, and though the security merely recites an agreement, but contains no covenant by the creditor, to make the further advances which are made afterwards (I). The fact that future advances were contemplated will not Mere con- suffice, if there is no agreement to that effect (m), but it is advance not sufficient. 0) Re Juleff, Exp. Hole, W. N. 39 L. T. 364. (1883: (i) Exp. Fisher, Re Ash, L. R. 7 (f) WKitmore v. Claridge, 31 L. J. Ch. A. 636, 644; Exp. Ellis, 2 Ch. Q. B. 141 ; Sutton y: Cruttwett, IE. & D. 797, C. A. See Exp. Winder, 1 B. 15. See also Exp. Swilchenbart, 3 Ch. D. 290; Exp. Greener, 46 L. J. M. D. & De G. 671 ; Re Colemere, L. R. Bky. 76, C. A. 1 Ch. A. 128 ; Exp. Reed, Re Twed- (k) Exp. Sheen, Re Winstanley, 1 Ch. dell, L. R. 14 Eq. 586. D. 560, C. A. (g) Exp. Stubbins, Re Wilkinson, 17 (I) Exp. Winder, Re Winstanley, 1 Ch. Ch. D. 58; C. A. D. 200. (/<) Exp. ThreUfall, Re Williamson, (m) Exp. Bonn, Re Parker ^ 1*1 Gh. D. 35 L. T. 675 ; Exp. Evans, Re Edwards, 26, C. A. Q Q ^ 500 MORTGAGES IN FRAUD OF CREDITOR8- 13 ELIZ. C. 5. chap. xxxr. Secret promise to pay other creditor^. Test in ease of traders. Test in case of non- traders. sufficient if such agreement is contained in the assignment, although the mortgagee does not Bign it (n). The fact that further advances are afterwards made, hut without any undertaking to make them, is qoI sufficient (o). It is not a fair equivalent when the assignee makes a secret verbal promise to pay all the assignor's creditors, from whom it is studiously concealed, and who have uo power to enforce it (p). In considering whether a trader receives an equivalent con- sideration for the security sufficient to enable him to carry on his business, the nature of the business may bo taken into consideration, so that a present advance of small amount com- pared with the existing debt may be sufficient, in the case of a trader in a small way of business, to raise the presumption that the advance was intended and might reasonably be expected to enable him to carry on his business (y). A mortgage of all a debtor's property given to secure an existing debt and further advances will bo good, if it appears that the main object is to secure further advances in order that the borrower may be enabled to continue his business (/•). A bill of sale to secure an existing debt and a present advance will not necessarily bo void as a fraudulent conveyance byreason of its including the whole of the debtor's present property and also property intended to be purchased with the moneys ad- vanced, provided the transaction is made with the intent to enable the debtor to carry on his business (*). "With regard to non-traders (t), no defiuite rule appears to have been laid down by any judicial decision. It would seem that the test that the creditor's intention in making the further advance is to enable the debtor to carry on his business for the benefit of his creditors, will be applied in the case of persons engaged in businesses which are not, strictly speaking, trades (it). But in the case of a person of no occupation, it is obvious that this test could not be applied, and it would seem difficult to {n) Exp. Wilkinson, Re Berry, 22 Ch. D. 788, C. A. (o) Exp. Cooper, 10 Ch. D. 313, C. A. ; Exp. Latin, Re Parker, 17 Ch. D. 26, C. A. (p) Exp. Chaplin, Re Sinclair, 26 Ch. D. 319, C. A. (q) Exp. Evans, Re Edwards, 39 L. T. 364. (r) The Thames, 63 L. T. 353. (*) Exp. Sauxwell, Re TTemmingtoay, 23 Ch. D. 638, C. A. (t) The Act of 1883 contains no de- finition of traders. Sect. 65 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1849, contained a definition of the term for the purposes of that Act. (u) Admor.-Gen. of Jamaica v. Las- celles, (1894) A. C. 135. FRAUDULENT PREFERENCE. 597 show that the advance was made with the intention and chap. xxxi. reasonable expectation that the creditors would derive any benefit therefrom. It is doubtful whether a new security can be enforced, or New security action brought on any new contract, for recovery of a debt tarrldb included in a bankrupt's discharge (x). bankruptcy. Irrespective of enactment, it has been held in many cases that a debt, though barred by a certificate, is a sufficient con- sideration for a promise to pay it (y). The ratio decidendi of the cases was, that the remedy only was gone, but that the debt continued to exist ; and so there was such a moral obligation to pay it as would afford a sufficient consideration to support the express promise (~). By 6 Geo. IV. c. 1G, s. 131, no bankrupt was liable upon a Course of promise to pay a debt discharged by a certificate, unless the le 8 idatia11 ' promise were in writing. By the Bankruptcy Act, 1849 (a), and the Bankruptcy Act, 18G1 (b), no action could be brought on such a promise, whether verbal or written. Those Acts are repealed by the Bankruptcy Act, 18G9 (c), and neither that Act nor the Bankruptcy Acts now in force (d) contain any enactment on the subject ; but by sect. 30 of the Act of 1883, in any proceedings in respect of any debt dis- charged, the bankrupt may plead his discharge. Under the corresponding sect. 1!) of the Act of L869, a bill of Whether such exchange given, after the repeal of the old Acts, for a debt yoi.'lulfder the barred while they were in force, Avas held void (e) ; and a promise present law. to pay a debt discharged, without any new consideration, is void as nudum pactum (,/'), but such promise was held to be valid if there was any new consideration (g). Such promise, however, will not be valid if the bankrupt has not been discharged, as where a composition has not been completed (//). Any bill of sale, warrant of attorney, or promissory note, merely for the old debt, was void under the repealed statutes (/) ; (.r) Ashley v. Killich, 5 M. & W. Vict. c. 71. 509. (e) Rimini v. Van Praagh, L. R. 8 in) Kirhpatrieh v. Tattcrmll, 13 M. Q. B. 1. .V W. 770. (/) Jones v. Phelpi, 20 W. R. 92 ; (;) Ford v. Dornford, 10 Jur. 285, Heathers. Webb, 2 (J. P. D. 1. Q. B. {[/) Jakeman v. Cook, 4 Ex. D. 26. (a) Sect. 201. (/() Exp. Barrow, Re Andrews, 18 (b) Sect. 164. Ch. D. 464. C. A. (c) 32 & 33 Vict. c. 71. (i) Peakman v. Harrison, L. R. 14 {d) 46 & 47 Vict. c. 52 ; 53 & 54 Eq. 484 ; Exp. Hart, 2 T>. & L. 778 ; 508 MORTGAGES IX FRAUD <>F CREDITORS- -13 ELIZ. < . 5. ciiAr. xxxi. but, if the new security wi re under seal, whioh requin consideration, it would apparently have been valid. And it would seem, in the absence of judicial decision to the i thai such ;i security would !»• g 1 :it tic present day. Fraudulent preference. iv. — Fraudulent Preference in Winding-up of Companies. — The Companies Act, L862, contains the following provision: — Sect. 101. "Any such conveyance, mort{ delivery of g Is, payment, execution, <>r other aot relating \>> \ ropertj aa would, if made or done by or against any individual trader, he deemed in the event of his bankruptcy to have been made or done by way of undue or fraudulent preference of the cr< ditora of such trader shall, if made or done by or againsl an\ company, be deemed, in the evi nt of such company being wound up under this Act, to have been made or done byway of undue or fraudulent preference of the creditors of such company, and shall be invalid accordingly, and for the purposes of this section the presentation of a petition for Winding Up a company shall, in the case of a company being wound up by the Court or subject to the supervision of the Court, and a resolution for winding up the company, shall, in the case of a volun- tary winding up.be deemed to correspond with the act of bank- ruptcy in the case of an individual trader; and any conveyance or assignment, made by any company formed under this Ait of all its e.-tate and effects to trustees for the benefit of all its creditors, shall be void to all intents." This section is only intended 1 . . apply in the case of a wind- ing up, and, as in bankruptcy I . tor the benefit of the general creditors, and accordingly the doctrine of fraudulent preference cannot be taken advantage of by an individual creditor in a debenture-holders' action (/). In determining whether a security given by a company is void under sect. 164, the Court will strictly regard the definition of "fraudulent preference" given bv the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (ro). In order to avoid the security on the ground of fraudulent preference, there must be a contemplation of a winding-up, and there must, generally, be an absence of pressure (»). Thus, a security not exhausting the whole property of the Sheerman v. Thompson, 11 A. & E. 1027 ; Xidson v. Turner, 27 L. J. Ex. 492. (k) See ante, p. 584. (/) WiUmott v. London Celluloid Co., U Ch. D. 147, C. A. (m) 46 & 47 Vict. c. 52, 8. 48, ante, p. 5S5. (w) Be Inns of Court Hotel Co., L. R. 6 Eq. 82. See WiUmott v. London Celluloid Co., 34 Ch. D. 147, C. A. FRAUDULENT PREFERENCE IN WINDING UI\ 599 CHAP. XXXI. company, and given in consequence of a demand by the creditor at a time when there was nothing to show that a winding up of the company was then contemplated, is not a fraudulent preference (o). A security given by an insolvent company for payment of a Security to . o ,1 i • i* ±1 » director. debt due to a director cognisant of the state ot the company s affairs may be set aside as an undue preference under this section, even although the director may have pressed for pay- ment of his debt (p). (o) Re Patent File Co., Exp. Binning- Terrell, L. R. 10 Eq. 168. And see ham Banking Co., L. R. 6 Ch. A. 83. Habershon's Case, L. R. 6 Eq. 286 ; (p) Gaslight Improvement Co. v. Sykes' Case, L. R. 13 Eq. 255. ( 600 CHAPTER XXXII. OF THE AVOIDANCE OF MORTGAGES AS BEING CONVEYANCES IN FRAUD OF PURCHASERS, ETC., UNDER THE STATUTE 27 ELIZ. C. 4. Avoidance of covinous and fraudulent conveyances. i. — The Statute 27 Eliz. c. 4. — This statute (a), after stating in the preamble that great loss had been incurred by reason of fraudulent and covinous conveyances, gifts, &c, made or to be made out of lands, tenements, and hereditaments purchased, or to be purchased, which said gifts, &o., " were or hereafter shall be meant and intended by the parties that so make the same to be fraudulent and covinous of purpose, and intent to deceive such as shall have purchased or shall purchase the same, or else by the secret intent of the parties, the same to be to their own proper use and at their free disposition, coloured neverthe- less by a feigned countenance and show of words and sentences, as though the same were made bond fide for good causes and upon just and lawful consideration," enacts in effect, by sect. 1, that all and every conveyance, grant, charge, lease, estate, incumbrance, and limitation of use or uses of, in or out of, any lands, tenements, or other hereditaments whatsoever, had or made for the intent and of purpose to defraud and deceive such person or persons, bodies politic or corporate, as shall afterwards purchase in fee simple, fee tail for life, lives, or years, the same lands, tenements, and hereditaments, or any part thereof, or any rent, profit or commodity, in or out of the same or any part thereof, are declared void, as against purchasers for money or good consideration, and persons claiming under them. Saving, however (by sect. 3), all estates in and assurances of lands made for good consideration and bond fide. By sect. 4, every conveyance or assurance of lands, with a clause of revocation, is declared to be void as against a subse- (a) Made perpetual by the stat. 39 Eliz. c. 18, s. 31. THE CONSIDERATION. 601 CHAP. XXXII. quent assurance of the same hereditaments or any part thereof made without exercise of the power of revocation, for money or other good consideration. Provided that no lawful mortgage, made bond fide without fraud upon good consideration, shall be impeached by force of the Act. Copyhold and other estates and interests in land are within Property the stat. 27 Eliz. c. 4 (b), but not personal estate (c). 27 EUz. c. 4. ii. — The Consideration. — It will be observed that the expres- Voluntary ... . . ,, . , , . . _. conveyances sion " voluntary conveyance does not occur in this statute (a) ; fraudulent but ever since the passing of the Act it has been held, in a long T 11 ? 111 the series of decisions, that such conveyances are fraudulent within the meaning of the Act, though made without any intent to defraud (e). A conveyance for good and meritorious but not valuable consideration, and although free from actual fraud (/), is voluntary, and, because voluntary, fraudulent and capable of being set aside in favour of a subsequent mortgagee or other purchaser for value, even with notice of the voluntary con- veyance (g). A conveyance, however, is not voluntary, if there is anything What con- in the nature of consideration which can be called valuable (//). 8u gi c ient to Questions as to what consideration is sufficient to support a support conveyance under this statute have frequently arisen with regard to settlements (/). But such questions can seldom arise in the case of mortgages, except where a security is given for a past debt (k) . In such a case, pressure by the creditor, or the fact that the mortgage was made pursuant to an agreement ante- cedent to or contemporaneous with the loan, would be deemed to be a sufficient consideration to take the mortgage out of the mischief of the statute. And even if no such agreement were proved, it would seem that, after lapse of time, it would be presumed (/). (b) Doe v. Bottriell, 5 B. & Ad. 131 ; (g) Doe v. Manning, 9 East, 59 ; Currie v. Kind, 1 My. & Cr. 17 ; Doe Chapman v. Emeri/, Cowp. 278; Good- v. Rolfc, 8 A. & E. 650. right v. Moses, 2 W. Bl. 1019. (c) BUI v. Cureton, 2 My. & K. 503, {h) lie Foster, 6 Ch. D. 89 ; 512; Watson v. Parker, 10 Jur. N. S. Hewison v. Negus, 22 L. J. Ch. 655, 577 ; Jones v. Crouchcr, 1 S. & St. 315. L.JJ. ; Teasdale v. Braithwaite, 5 Ch. (d) See supra. D. 630, C. A. (e) BarreVs Case, 6 Rep. 72 ; GoocKs (i) As to what amounts to valuable Case, 5 Rep. 60 ; Standen v. Bullock, consideration in such cases, see Vaizey Moo. 605, 615 ; Doe v. Manning, 9 on Settlements, pp. 1538 et seq. East, 57 ; Trowell v. Shcnton, 8 Ch. {k) Lloyd v. Attwood, 3 De G. & J. D. 318. 614. ' (/) Buckler. Mitchell, 18 Ves. 100. (1) Cracknallv, Janson, 11 Ch. D. 1, C. A. con- veyance. 602 MORTGAGES IX FRAUD OF PURCHASERS- 27 ELIZ. C. 4. ciiAr. xxxir. Consideration may be proved aliunde. Conveyances void under the statute on the ground of fraud. Voluntary Conveyances Act, 1893. Voluntary conveyances, if bona fide, not to be avoided under 27 Eliz. c. 4. Saving trans- actions com- pleted before passing of Act. Definition of ' ' convey- ance." Application to Ireland. Although the deed be apparently voluntary, the consideration may be proved aliunde (m) ; but the onus of proving valuable consideration generally falls on the person sustaining the deed (>t). A deed may be fraudulent within the Mat. 27 Eliz. <•. 1. and therefore void as againsl a purchaser For value, independently of the question as to whether it is or is not voluntary. Thus a secret mortgage to secure a valid debt, retained by the mort- gagor for his own purposes, is fraudulent within the statute against a bond fide mortgagee ("). So also a mortgage to a relative, the title deeds being left with the mortgagor to enable him to raise money on them, is fraudub ; and the assignee for value from the mortgagee, if he allows the deeds to remain with the original mortgagor, is also postponed (j>) ; and a settlement is fraudulent if it reserves to the settlor an un- limited power to mortgage ( gage of lands as against a subsequent incumbrancer or purchaser for value thereof, except in cases where the subsequent incum- brance or purchase has been effected before the 29th of June, 1893, the date of the passing of that Act. The Voluntary Conveyances Act, 1893, only prevents convey- ances from being avoided on the ground of want of consideration as against a subsequent purchaser for value, under the statute 27 Eliz. c. 4, but leaves that statute to operate as before so as to avoid conveyances which are fraudulent irrespectively of the question of consideration. iii. — Against what Purchasers, &c, a Fraudulent Conveyance Who are is avoided.— A mortgage, like any other conveyance or other SJjSSs disposition which is voluntary or fraudulent within the Act of statute. Eliz., is void as against a purchaser for valuable consideration and persons claiming under him. An equitable purchaser is within the statute (.*■), and a mort- Equitable gagee is a purchaser pro tanto within it (y), as also an equitable JS*^? mortgagee (a), and a mortgagee by deposit of title deeds (a), gagees, &c. although the contrary was held at law (b) ; also the purchaser under a settlement made in consideration of an intended mar- riage (c) ; so a person who releases a contested right in consi- deration of the conveyance to him (d) ; also lessees at rack rent (e) ; but a lessee without fine or rent is not (/). Persons claiming under ante-nuptial settlements are pur- Persons chasers (g) ; so if under post-nuptial settlements made in con- unXr'sfttle- sideration of ante-nuptial articles, or of an additional portion (A), ments. A husband of a volunteer cannot on his marriage be treated as (x) Barton v. Yanheythusen, 11 Ha. (c) Douglas v. Ward, I Ch. Ca. 79. 126. (d) ffill v. Bishop of Exeter, 2 Taunt. (y) Chapman v. Emery, Cowp. 278 ; 69. White v. Hussey, Prec. in Ch. 13; (e) Goodright v. Moses, 2 W. Bl. Lister v. Turner, 5 Ha. 281 ; Lloyd v. 1021. Attwood, 3 De G-. & J. 614. (/) Upton v. Bassett, Cro. Eliz. 444. (z) Lloyd v. Attwood, sup. (g) Martin v. Seamore, 1 Ch. Ca. (a) Lister v. Turner, sup. ; Ede v. 170. Enowles, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 172. (k) Doe v. Howe, 4 Bing. N. C. 737. (b) Kerrison v. Borrien, 9 Bing. 76 : See Troivell v. Shenton, 8 Ch. D. 318 Holfordv. Holford, 1 Ch. Ca. 217. 604 MORTGAGES IN FRAUD OF PURCHASERS 27 BUZ. C. 4. CHAT. XXXII. Judgmenl creditor. Cases under former law. Purchaser from heir or devisi e. Title under conveyances voidable under the statute. Specific de- scription not necessary. Conveyance f ir value sub- ject to "all charges." a purchaser under the statute (•). It was held in an Irish case («) that where a conveyance for value was expressly made subject to all existing charges, it did not avoid a prior voluntary charge under the stat. 10 Car. I. sess. 2, c. 3. (g) Collins v. Burton, 5 Jur. N. S. 952, reversed on other points, 4 De G. & J. 612; Doe v. Lewis, 11 C. B. 1035. (h) Martin v. Seamore, 1 Ch. Ca. 170. (t) Doex. Jliotve, 4 Bing. N. C. 737. See Trowellv. Shenton, 8 Ch. D. 318. (Jc) Beavan v. Lord Oxford, 6 De G. M. & G. 507 ; Dolphin v. Aylward, L. R. 4 H. L. 416, overruling Garth v. Ersfield, Bridg. 22 ; Girling v. Lowther, 2 Rep. in Ch. 136. See Barton v. Vanheythu&en, 11 Ha. 131. (I) 6 De G. M. & G. at p. 517, pt r Ii. C. (m) Parker v. Carter, 4 Ha. 409 ; /' v lewis, sup. ; Doev. Rushain, ltj Jur. 359, Q. B. : Lewis v. Bees, 3 K. & J. 132, explaining Barrel's Case, 6 Rep. 72, and observing on Jones v. Whitaker, 1 Long. & Town. 141. (h) Major v. Ward, 5 Ha. 598. (0) Dickinson v. Burr ell, L. R. 1 Eq. 337. (/>) Doe v. Martyr, 1 B. & I\ N. R. 332. (q) Butterfield v. Heath, 15 Beav. 108; Clarke v. Willott, L. R. 7 Ex. 313. (r) Barton v. Vanheythusen, 11 Ha. 131. (s) Blake v. Blake, 19 L. R. Ir. 261, AVOIDAXCi: OF FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE. 605 The subsequent purchaser or mortgagee can recover in an chap, xxxii. action for land (as he could formerly by ejectment) against the Rights and volunteer (t), and he may bring an action to complete his pur- p^w^or chase or mortgage and set aside the voluntary deed. The mortgagee volunteer is a proper party to a suit by the purchaser or mort- avoid as ° gagee to set the voluntary deed aside (u), but the volunteer has fraudulent ji i . -p • conveyance. no equity to the purchase-money (.r). And even if the sale is effected under a power contained in the voluntary settlement, the purchaser can safely pay the vendor the purchase-money, although, by the settlement, it ought to be held upon the trusts of the settlement (//). The purchaser or mortgagee cannot require the voluntary settlement to be delivered up to be cancelled (z). The settlor is himself bound by the settlement, and cannot bring an action to compel the purchaser to complete the con- tract (a), unless the defendant is a willing purchaser (b). Nor can the purchaser or mortgagee obtain relief in a suit instituted to set aside the settlement by himself and the settlor as co- plaintiffs (c). The volunteer may, however, show, by evidence of the inade- quacy of the consideration, that the purchase was colourable (t). And the declarations of the mortgagor are not admissible after his death to prove payment of the mortgage money against the parties claiming under the settlement (d). (t) Boe v. James, 16 East, 212. A. Ifi4. (m) Tovmend v. Taker, L. R. 1 Ch. (a) Clarke v. Willott, L. R. 7 Ex. 313; A 44G. Smith v. Garland, 2 Mer. 123. See (x) Ibid. ; Baking v. Whimper, 26 Ayerst v. Jenkins, L. R. 16 Eq. 275. Beav. 568. (b) Feter v. Nicolls, L. R. 11 Eq. (v) Evelyn v. Templar, 2 Bro. C. C. 391. 148. ( c ) Bill v. Cureton, 2 My. & K. 503. (z) Be Hoghten v. Money, L. R. 2 Ch. (d) Boe v. Webber, 1 A. & E. 733. ( 606 CHAPTER XXX1I1. OF AVOIDANCE OF MORTGAGES AS ME1NG EXTORTIONATE. General rule I: adequate consideration. Security for loan by trus- tee to cestui que trust. Instances of undue influ- ence. i, — Of Mortgages by Persons under Undue Influence generally. — Mortgages for inadequate or no consideration given to persons standing in a fiduciary or other relation to the mortgagor, by which he is subject to undue influence, are liable to be set aside and treated only as securities for so much money as can be proved to have been advanced, with interest at a reasonable rate. Inadequacy of consideration alone does not give any title to reliefs). But such inadequacy, or the exorbitant terms of a bargain for a loan to a person who is in pecuniary distress may be material as indicating that the lender took advantage of the borrower's position so as to exercise undue influence over him. So, where a money lender, advertising loans on easy terms, induced a farmer to give a bill of sale securing interest at 125 per cent, per annum, the bill of sale was set aside (b). There is no rule of law or equity that a trustee may not lend money to his cestui que trust on the security of trust property ; but such a case is" regarded by the Court with some jealousy, as it must be assumed that the trustee has acquired much infor- mation as to the nature and value of the property, and he will not be allowed to foreclose, as his duty is to take every possible step for saving the estate (c). A trustee cannot bargain for a benefit to himself with his cestui que trust (d). Cases of undue influence arise where the borrower is a person of weak intellect (e) ; or where there exists the relation of child (a) Guest v. Harrison, 8 H. L. C. (c) Tennant v. Trenchard, L. E. 4 481. Ch. A. 537. (b) Moorhouse v. Wolfe, 46 L. T. (d) See Vaugliton v. Nolle, 30 Beav. 374. 39. (e) Longmute v. Ledger, 2 Gift". 157. UNDUE INFLUENCE. ■607 ward. and parent (/) ; or person standing in loco parentis (g) ; or ward chap, xxxiii. and guardian (h) ; or client and solicitor (/) ; or patient and medical attendant (A) ; or where one party has obtained a spiritual ascendancy over another (/) ; or where any person transacts business with another under whose influence he may be supposed to be (m). The rule stands on a general principle applying to all the variety of relations by which dominion may be exercised by one person over another (a). Some of the deci- sions cited in the notes relate to cases of gifts obtained by undue influence ; but the principles stated therein seem equally to apply to cases of unconscionable bargains by way of loan. Dealings between a child and his parent are regarded with Relation of great jealousy by the Court, especially if the child has only e ^id.. recently come of age, as he is peculiarly liable to be unduly influenced to the advantage of his parent by the exercise of parental authority and pressure (o). If, however, a transaction between a child and his parent is bond fide and reasonable, it will not be set aside (p). Similarly, the Court is extremely watchful to prevent a Guardian and guardian from taking advantage, immediately upon his ward coming of age, and at the time of settling accounts, because undue influence may be taken (q). A fortiori, if the accounts are not settled, or if the guardian still retains control over the property of his late ward (r) . This principle applies to persons acting as guardians, though not legally constituted guardians (s). Transactions between wards and their guardians are liable to (/) Carpenter v. Herriot, 1 Ed. 338. (1893) 1 Ch. 736, 752. And see infra. (o) Carpenter v. Herriot, 1 Ed. 338 ; (g) Archer v. Hudson, 7 Beav. 551 ; Baker v. Bradley, 7 De G. M. & G. Espey v. Lake, 10 Hare, 260. 597. See also the following cases of (ft) Montesquieu v. Sandys, 18 Ves. gift, &c, Cocking v. Pratt, 1 Ves. 401 ; 313; Maitlandv. Irving, 15 Sim. 437 ; Hoghton v. Hoghton, 15 Beav. 278; A rcher v. Hudson, 7 Beav. 551. 'Turner v. Collins, L. R. 7 Ch. A. (*) See infra. 329, and cases there cited. (k) Dent v. Bennett, 4 My. & Cr. (p) Blackborn v. Bdgley, 1 P. Wms. 262. But see Blackie v. Clark, 15 600. Beav. 595. (q) Hylton v. Hylton, 2 Ves. 5-17. (I) Norton v. Belly, 2 Ed. 286 ; See Ay/ward v. Kearney, 2 Ba. & Be. Nottage v. Prince, 2 Giff. 246. See 463. Kirwan v. (Mien, 4 Ir. Ch. R. 322 ; (r) Pierse v. Waring, 1 P. Wms. Maccabe v. Hussey, 2 Dow & C. 440. 120, n. ; Hylton v. Hylton, sup., at See also Lyon v. Home, L. R. 6 Eq. 655. p. 549. (m) Kay v. Smith, 7 H. L. C. 750. (*) Griffin v. Be Yeuille, 3 P. "Wms. (n) Per Sir S. Romilly, arg. in Hu- 131, n. ; Huguenin v. Baseley, 14 Ves. gueuin v. Baseley, 14 Ves. 273, adopted 273, at p. 283 ; Hylton v. Hylton, by Wright, J., in Motley v. Loughnan, sup. 608 MORTGAGES \'<>II> FOE EXTORTION. CHAP. XXXIII Unconscion- able mort- gage set aside after lapse of time. Independent advice. Unconscion- able mortgage may be valid if parties are strangers. Indirect exercise of undue in- fluence. be set aside after considerable lapse of time if it appears that the influence induced by the relationship has continued « 1 i i • or indirectly (<). Where a confidential relation is proved to have existed between the parties, the dealings between them may be set aside on the ground of undue influence, even though at the time of such dealings the actual relation between them had come to an end (it). And where a confidential relation is proved, it seems that the Court will presume its continuance unless it is clearly shown to have ceased (.r). The onus in all these cases is on the purchaser or mortgagee to show that the grantor had proper independent professional advice, and was not misled by any contrivance or false recital or suggestion (//). But where the father's solicitor professed to act on behalf of the children, the mortgagee was not fixed with notice of undue influence (~). Independent professional advice is not necessary when the fiduciary relation has completely ceased to exist (a). It has been held, in the case of a voluntary gift (A), and it is conceived that the same principle would apply to a mortgage the terms of which are exorbitant, that the Court will not set aside the transaction where the parties are strangers, not stand- ing in any confidential relation to each other, unless undue influence, misrepresentation, or other actual fraud is shown, and in such cases the burden of proving undue influence or fraud lies on the person seeking to avoid the transaction (c). But a security for a debt or advance is liable to be set aside on the ground of undue influence, where such influence is exer- cised not directly by a stranger who advances the money, but through the debtor or borrower, between whom and the person giving the security a confidential relation subsists. So where a son, who had recently come of age, at his father's instigation, and without independent professional advice, joined with his father in a mortgage to secure debts due from the father, it was (t) Ayhvardv. Kearney, 2 Ba. & Be. 463 ; Batch v. Hatch, 9 Ves. 292. (u) Hylton v. Hylton, 2 Ves. Sen. 547 ; Maitland v. Irving, 15 Sim. 437. {x) See Modes v. Bate, L. R. 1 Ch. A. -252. {><) Baker v. Bradley, 7 De G. M. & G. 597. (;) Bainbrigge v. Browne, 18 Ch. D. 188. See O'Jiorke \. Bolingbroke, 2 App. Cas. 814. (a) Mitchell v. Homfray, 8 Q. B. D. 587, C. A., commenting on Rhodes v. Bate, L. R. 1 Ch. A. 252. (b) Villers v. Beaumont, 1 Vera. 100. (c) Hunter v. Atkins, 3 My. & K. 113; Tokcr v. Toker, 31 Beav. 629; Armstrong v. Armstrong, Ir. R. 8 Eq. 1. SOLICITOR AND CLIENT. CO 9 held that the mortgage was void as obtained by undue in- chap, xxxiii. fluence (d). So securities given by a niece for debts due from her uncle, who had been her guardian, were set aside (e) . So, also, where a debtor induced a lady, to whom he was engaged to be married, to give a security for his debt (,/'). An assignee for value of a security, with notice that it was Assignee of obtained by undue influence, will be in no better position than obtSJefby the original mortgagee (;/). But a security, though originally JJ ndue in " so obtained, will not be set aside as against a bond fide assignee without notice (//). In cases of undue influence generally, where the transaction Sale turned takes the form of a sale, the conveyance will be directed to stand ^ mort " as a security for the amount actually found due, with interest on the footing of a mortgage (/), and, it is said, even with costs (k), but the costs are in the discretion of the Court (/) ; and in case of refusal on tender of a proper sum, the mortgagee will be fixed with costs (»i), as also where there has been fraud, or misrepre- sentation, or other misconduct (w), in which case the security will bo set aside unconditionally. But in general the defendant will be put in the same position as if the transaction had not taken place (o). The plaintiff in such a suit will be made to pay the costs occasioned by charges of fraud which he does not substantiate (p). ii. — Mortgages to Solicitors by their Clients. — The question of undue influence has frequently been raised in cases of securities given to solicitors to secure advances made by them to their clients. Formerly a mortgage by his client to a solicitor for costs due Former rule and to become due was restricted to those actually due (q) ; but ^^ | ecu " costs. (d) Baker v. Bradley, 7 De G. M. & (m) Tottenham v. Emmet, 11 L. T. G. 597 ; Berdoe v. Dawson, 34 Beav. N. S. 404 ; 8. C, 12 L. T. N. S. 838 ; G03; Espey v. Lake, 10 Hare, 260; Nevill v. Snelling, 15 Ch. D. 679. Savery v. King, 5 H. L. C. 627. («) Kay v. Smith, 7 H. L. C. 750; (e) Archer v. Hudson, 7 Beav. 5.31 ; Thomas v. Lloyd, 3 Jur. N. S. 288 ; Maitland v. Irving, 15 Sim. 437. Tottenham v. Green, 32 L. J. Ch. 201. (/) Corbett v. Brock, 20 Beav. 524. (o) Savery v. King, 5 H. L. 627. (g) Bainbrigge v. Browne, 18 Ch. (p) Edwards v. Burt, 2 De G. M. & D. 188, 197. G. 65 ; St. Albyn v. Harding, 27 Beav. (/«) Blackie v. Clark, 15 Beav. 595. 11 ; Foster v. Roberts, 29 Beav. 471. (i) Peacock v. Evans, 16 Vos. 512 ; (q) Williams v. Piggott, Jac. 598 ; Davis v. Duke of Marlborough, 2 Pitcher v. Rigby, 9 Pri. 79 ; Re Moss, Swanst. 139. 17 Beav. 346. And see Re Foster, 6 (/>-) Sug. V. & P. (14th ed.) p. 286. Jur. N. S. 687, L.JJ. See as to ac- (l) Tyler v. fates, L. R. 11 Eq. counts between solicitor-mortgagees 265. and client -mortgagors, post, p. 11 13. VOL. I. K. R R 610 MOETGAGES VOID FOE EXTORTION. CHAP. XXXIII. Present rule. Security on subject- matter of suit. there was no objection to a security given to a solicitor for a debt really due, or for a reasonable reward for services ren- dered (;•). Nor was it unfair for a solicitor to stipulate, on procuring money for his client on mortgage, that the security should cover the balance which should be found due to him on a settlement of accounts (r). And with respect to the rule as to future costs, a distinction was drawn as to those cases where the client, being a trustee, stipulated that the attorney should not make demand upon him personally, and agreed with him that, when funds were in hand, he should be paid thereout such claim as he might have a right to make (s). But now a solicitor may take security for his future costs, charges, and disbursements to be ascertained by taxation, or otherwise (7) , which may now include profit costs of, and inci- dent to the mortgage (u) . Charges made by a solicitor, though secured by mortgage, have long been open to taxation (x). And a mortgagor may, under 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, obtain an order for taxation at any time before payment, or, under special circumstances, even after pay- ment (y) ; but, under such circumstances, a strong case must be made against the solicitor {&). A solicitor who has a mortgage for his costs may commence an action of foreclosure without having first had his bill of costs taxed, notwithstanding sect. 37 of the Act (a) . A solicitor cannot enforce a charge on his client's estate pending the taxation of the costs (b) . A security given by a client to his solicitor upon the subject- matter of the suit is valid, as it is likely to be beneficial to the client (c). A sale, however, by the client to his solicitor of such subject- matter is void for champerty or maintenance (d) , and will only stand as a security for the money actually advanced (c) . (r) Cheslyn v. Daily, 2 T. & C. Exch. 170 ; Blagrave v. South, 3 Jur. N. S. 399, L.JJ. ; Pearson v. Benson, 28 Beav. 598. (s) Per Wigram, V.-C, in Parsons v. Spooner, 5 Ha. 111. (0 33 Vict. c. 28, b. 16 ; 44 & 45 Vict. c. 44, s. 5. (u) 58 & 59 Vict. c. 25, post, p. 1194. (x) Walmsley v. Booth, 2 Atk. 27; Newman v. Payne, 4 Bro. C. C. 350 ; Morgan v. Lewes, 4 Dow, 29. (y) Pc Careiv, 8 Beav. 150. See Pe Sutton, 11 Q. B. D. 377. (z) Eorlock v. Smith, 2 My. & Or. 510. See Waters v. Taylor, 2 My. & Cr. 526 ; Wragge v. Denham, 2 Y. & C. Exch. 117. (a) Thomas v. Cross, 10 Jur. N. S. 1163. (1) JVaugh v. Waddelt, 16 Beav. 521. (c) Anderson v. Padcliffe, E. B. & E. 816 ; Woody. Dowries, 18 Ves. 120. (d) Simpson v. Lamli, 7 E. & B. 84. (e) Wood v. Dotvnes, sup. See Lewis v. Hillman, 3 H. L. C. 607 ; James v. Kerr, 40 Ch. D. 449. SOLICITOR AND CLIENT. Oil All securities from clients to their solicitors, and, in fact, nil CITAP - their dealings, are regarded with jealousy, as the relation be- Dealings with tween them gives such room for the exercise of undue influence, garded with and may be so easily abused that they are not allowed to deal jealousy. upon the same footing as other persons (,/'). In all such dealings the solicitor must show that he has taken no advantage, but has given his client every information, advice, and protection as if the client had been dealing with a stranger, and in default thereof a purchase will be treated as a security for the amount actually due (g). The transaction will be set aside after many years, and after Dealings set J J aside alter the deaths of the parties, if the facts have been concealed or lapse of time, misrepresented so as not to have been known to the client (h) . Though lapse of time always forms an ingredient in these cases, less weight will be attached to it, whilst the relation between the parties still continues (7) . The rules in regard to securities by clients are strict ; the debt Unusual pro- ° J visions not secured must, before the statute, have been actually due, and the allowed, onus of ascertaining the amount falls on the solicitor. There must be no unusual provisions in the security which will preju- dice the client (k) ; and if any advantage is given to the solicitor as interest upon costs, full information must have been furnished to the client of his rights (!) . If any unreasonable postponement of the time for redemption Proviso for is inserted, the mortgagor will have the same rights as in an ordinary mortgage (k), and especially so if there has been any concealment or misrepresentation (m). Where a mortgage by a client to his solicitor contained a Power of sale, power of sale to be exercised, although there was no default, and without the attention of the client being especially called to it, a sale was set aside, and the solicitor was fixed with the damages (/) Walmsley v. Booth, 2 Atk. 27. 96. See Lyddon v. Moss, 4 De G. & J. (g) Cane v. Allen, 2 Dow, 289 ; Gib- 104. And see Blagravev. South, 3 Jur. sow v. Jeijes, 6 Ves. 266 ; Welles v. N. S. 399. Middleton, 1 Cox, 112; Holman v. (k) Coivdry v. Bay, 1 Giff. 316; Loynes, 4 De G. M. & G. 270 ; Tomson Coekburn v. Edwards, 18 Ch. D. 449, v. Judge, 3 Drew. 306; Eiggins v. C. A. ; Cradock v. Rogers, "W.N. (1885) Joyce, 2 J. & L. 282 ; Gibbs v. Daniel, 134, C. A. 4 Giif. 1. (0 Lyddon v. Moss, 4 De G. & J. (h) Charter v. Trevelyan, 11 CI. & F. 104. 714 ; Ward v. Sharp, 32 "W. E,. 584 ; (m) Coivdry v. Day, sup. ; Dunstan W. N. (1884) 5. v. Baterson, 11 Jur. 96; Thomas v. (i) Greeley v. Mousley, 4 De G. & J. Lloyd, 3 Jur. N. S. 288. R It 2 612 MORTGAGES VOID FOl! EXTOETION. ohap. xxxrn and costs, the damages including the difference between solicitor and client and party and party costs (n) . "Where, however, a olienl owed a Bum to his solicitor, and, being pressed for payment, executed a oharge to * oure the deht containing a power for the solicitor to sell the property without notice if the money was not paid by a specified day, it was held that this was not an ordinary mortgage transaction, but an arrangement for giving time to the debtor, and accordingly, that a sale under the power could not be impeached, though the debtor had no independent advice, and it did QO< appear that the unusual form of the power was explained to him The obligation of a solicitor in dealings with his olient extends to cases where the solicitor of a bankrupt is dealing with the trustee in the client's bankruptcy (p). A solicitor whose fiduciary relation towards his client has been put an end to is free from all obligations incident to tho relation in subsequent dealings with his former client (•) Newman v. Payne, 4 Bro. C. C. 350. (s) Morgan v. Minett, 6 Ch. D. 638. (t) Nevillv. Snelling, 15 Cb. D. 679. See Readdy v. Prendergast, 56 Jj. T. 790. (u) Earl of Fortmore v. Taylor, 4 Sim. 182 : Davis v. Duke of Marl- borough, 2 Swanst. 139 at p. 143. REVERSIONARY INTERESTS. 613 XXXIII. where the mortgagor is poor and ignorant, especially if he is CHAP without independent advice (x). And the same rule would apparently be applied even where the mortgaged interest is in possession (//). But in such cases a bargain will not be readily presumed to be unconscionable on account of inadequacy of consideration, unless it is clearly proved to be the result of fraud, surprise, or misrepresentation, or unless the inadequacy is so gross as of itself thereby to indicate fraud, so as to afford a ground for setting aside a mortgage (z). On the other hand, it has been held in several cases that it is not necessary for the mortgagor to prove that he was in actual penury at the time of the transaction (a). This interference of the Court was at first limited to dealings Interference with expectancies, or what is called ])ost obit securities, which formerly the Court has always regarded with a jealous eye ; and unless J^f a £° ieSi the transaction has been a fair one, it has either restrained an action at law upon the securities (b), or set the bargain aside as unconscionable (c), or refused to carry it into execution, leaving the plaintiff to his remedy at law (d). The onus falls on the mortgagee to show that the bargain is provident (e). But where the bargain is a fair one, the Court will enforce an agreement which rests on a contingency, although the event has turned out favourable for the mortgagee or purchaser (,/')• And the debtor cannot invariably impeach the post obit security, though the money might have been raised on more moderate terms (7/). Nor will the Court grant relief further than as against the penalty of a bond, where the debtor, after coming into possession, and being under no pressure, has chosen to confirm the bargain (A). It is (x) Fry v Lane, 40 Ch. D. 312. See 27 ; Curling v. Marquis of Toivnsend, 19 James v. Kerr, 40 Ch. D. 449 ; Eae v. Ves. 628. See Earl of Ay Word v. Joyce, 29 L. R. Ir. 500, C. A. Morris, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 484 ; Beynm v. (y) Fry v. Lane, sap., per Kay, J., Cook, L. R. 10 Ch. A. 389. at p 3 9 2 ( d ) Johnson v. Noti, 1 Vern. 271. (z) Guynne v. Beaton, 1 Bro. C. C. \e) Davis v. Duke of Marlborough, 2 8 ; James v. Morgan, 1 Lev. Ill ; Stil- well v. Wilkins, Jac. 280; Bice v Ion, 11 Beav. 265; LLaygarth v Wearing, L. R. 12 Eq. 320. (a) Bromley v. Smith, 26 Beav. 644 r v. Bradshaw, 26 Beav. 161 St. Autyn v. Harding, 27 Beav. 11 Foster v. Roberts, 29 Beav. 467 ; Emmet 27. T Tottenham, 10 Jur. N. S. 1090. {h) Lord Chesterfield v. Janssen, 2 ' (b) Uarsaek v. Lleevers, 6 Madd. 108. Ves. Sen. 125. And see generally as to (e) Sir John Barnardistonv. Lingood, dealings with expectant heirs the 2 Atk 133 ; Wiseman v. Beake, 2 Vern. notes on this case m 1 Wh. & lud. L. O. 121 ; Earlof Ardglassey. Muschamp, 1 Eq. pp. 675 et seq. ; Wharton v. * Vern. 237 ; Wharton v. May, 5 Ves. 5 Ves. 27. Swanst. 139. (/) Mortimer v. Capper, 1 Bro. C. C. 156 ; Baker v. Bent, 1 R. & My. 224. But see Fope v. Foots, 1 Bro. P. C. 370. (q) Carting v. Marquis of Townsend, 19 Ves. 628"; Wharton v. May, 5 Ves. G14 MORTGAGES VOID FOK EXTORTION. Vested rever sionary inte- rests. Privity of father, &c chap, xxxiii. a l s0 to be remarked that dealings Avith expectancies, though liable to be set aside on the ground of fraud, were not within the Statutes of Usury, on account of the risk of the prin- cipal (h). The same principle of relief was extended to sales of vested reversionary interests (/). The doctrine not only includes the class who in a popular sense might be called " expectant heirs," but also all remaindermen and reversioners (k) . Although a reversion which is expectant upon the failure of issuo of a tenant for life is generally not capable of valuation (/), yet if such tenant for life be a female, who has been many years married without having issue, though not past the age of child- bearing, it seems that the Court will, for the purposes of valua- tion, treat the interest expectant on her death without issue as a simple reversion (m). It was held in one case that although an expectant heir might be entitled to relief, he would lose such title if he acted in the matter with the privity of the father or other person standing in loco parentis, but in that case the heir had also, after repu- diating the bargain, acted in such a manner as to alter the situation of the other party and his property (»). But the principle that the fact that dealings by an expectant heir are known to his father or other relative deprives the heir of his equity to relief is strongly dissented from by Lord St. Leonards (o). And it may now bo regarded as settled that such knowledge, though material as tending to rebut the presumption of fraud or extortion ( p), will not of itself prevent relief from being given in a proper case (7). The interest of a tenant for life, whose estate is subject to annuities and to interest upon mortgages, is not a reversionary interest within the scope of these considerations (r) . Although a party dealing with an expectant heir must before the Sale of Reversions Act («) have shown that he gave a fair Life interest. How value ascertained (h) See note (h), ante, p. 613. (i) 1 Sug. V. & P. 14th ed. p. 2S5. (k) Per Jessel, M. R., in Beynon v. Cook, L. R. 10 Ch. A. 391, n. See also Tottenham v. Emmet, 11 L. T.N. S. 404; Earl of Aylesford v. Morris, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 484, 497. (I) Baker v. Bent, 1 R. & My. 224. (m) Paries v. Cooper, 5 My. & Cr. 270. See Lord v. Jefkins, 35 Beav. 7 ; Benyon v. Fitch, 35 Beav. 570. (w) Hamlet v. King, 3 CI. & F. 218. (o) Sug. V. & P. 11th ed. p. 316. (p) O'Rorke v. Bolingbroke, 2 App. Cas. 814. (?) Talbot v. Stainforth, 1 J. & H. 484, 502 ; Savery v. King, 5 H. L. C. 627 ; Earl of Aylesford v. Morris, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 492 ; Miller v. Cook, L. R. 10 Eq. 641. (r) Webster v. Cook, L. R. 2 Ch. A. 542 ; questioned, Tyler v. Yates, L. R. 11 Eq. 276. (s) Infra, p. 615. REVERSIONARY INTERESTS. 615 price for his post obit securities, such value, where a valuation chap. xxxm. is possible, was to he ascertained not by the tables of actuaries, but by the market price at the time of dealing, taking all the circumstances of health and age into account; and it was in the discretion of the Court to direct an inquiry if it had not sufficient information ; and the case of Gowland v. Be Faria (/), if it laid down any rule that the value must be ascertained by the tables (which is, however, denied), was so far over- ruled («). Hence, a sale by auction of expectancies, or of securities thereon, was held good, that being evidence of the market price (x). In estimating the value of a contingent reversionary interest, the Court may admit evidence to show how far such value is affected by the remoteness of the contingency (//). The adequacy of the consideration is a matter for the Court to decide in each case, having regard to the circumstances of the particular trans- action (s). By the Sale of Eeversions Act (a), it is enacted that no pur- Sale of Rever- chase, made bond fide and without fraud or unfair dealing of any S10ns Act " reversionary interest in real or personal estate, shall hereafter be opened or set aside merely on the ground of undervalue ; and the word " purchase " shall include every kind of contract, convey- ance, or assignment under or by which'any beneficial interest in any kind of property may be acquired. The Act came into operation on January 1, 1868, and does not apply to any purchase concerning which any suit was then depending. It is in other respects retrospective. The law regarding setting aside unfair and unconscionable Effect of this bargains respecting reversionary interests remains the same as Aot * before the statute (b). The Act leaves undervalue still a material element in cases in which it is not the sole equitable ground for relief. These changes of the law have in no degree (t) Supra. Ch. Ca. 121 ; Edwards v. Browne, 2 («) Lord Aldborough v. Trye, 7 CI. & Coll. 100 ; Edivards v. Burt, 2 De G. F. 430. And see Seaden v. Bosher, M. & G-. 62 ; Foster v. Roberts, 29 Eeav. M'Cl. & T. 89; Botts y. Curtis, Y. 471; Jones v. Bickctts, 31 Beav. 130 543 ; Baker v. Bent, 1 R. & My. 224. (a) 31 Vict. c. 4. (*) Shelley v. Nash, 3 Madd. 232. (b) Miller v. Cook, L. R. 10 Eq (y) Baker v. Bent, 1 R. & My. 646 ; Tyler v. Yates, L. R. 6 Ch. a! 224; Bavies v. Cooper, 5 My. & Cr. 665 ; Earl of Aylesfordv. Morris, L. R. 270 ; Boothby v. Boothby, 1 Mac. & G-. 8 Ch. A. 480 ; Beynon v. Cook, L. R.' 604. 10 Ch. A. 392; Nevill v. Snellina, (z) See and compare Nott v. Sill, 2 sup. 6ii; MORTGAGES \ou> FOB l.\ I' i.'i [ON. chap, xxxi ii. v ] ia < ( vcr altered the onus probandi in those cases, which, accord- ing to the language of L-.nl Hardwioke (( . " raise from the cir- cumstances or conditions of the parties contracting — weakn one side, usury on the other, or extortion, or advantage taken of that weakness — a presumption of fraud. Fraud does not hero mean deceit or circumvention; it means an unconscientious use of the power arising out of these circumstances and conditions; and when the relative position of the parties is such as primd facie to raise this presumption, the transaction cannot stand, unless the person claiming the benefit of it is aLlo to repel the presumption by contrary evidence, proving it to have been in point of fact fair, just, and reasonable " (//). The burden of proof will, however, apparently be shifted, so far as undervalue is concerned, if the value of the property has been stated by the mortgagor in his proposals (e). In a case of setting aside for inadequacy of value a sale by a young man of a reversion, relief was refused, tin re being no fraud; but it was held by Lord BEatherley, that as a separate and independent adviser was not employed, the whole transac- tion must be opened Relief may be granted as againsi an ee of a mortgage with notice of fraud affecting the original transaction (//). The Court gives relief in cases of sales and mortgages of expectant and reversionary interests on the principle of redemp- tion ; the conveyance will stand as a security for principal and interest, and generally for costs also (//). Mortgages of reversionary interests stand on the same prin- ciple as sales (7) ; and the mortgagee is only entitled to the sum advanced with interest and costs as mortgagee (/.) . But compound interest is not given, however long the pur- chaser has been kept out of his money (/) . Relief against assignee, with notice. Nature of relief. Interest. (c) In Earl of Chesterfield v. Janssen, 2 Ves. Sen. 125, at p. 157. (d) Per Lord Selborne in Earl of Aylesford v. Morris, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 484, at p. 490. See Fry v. Lane, 40 Ch. D. 312. (e) Perfect v. Lane, 3 De G. F. k J. 3C9. (/) O'Rorlce v. Bolingbroke, 2 App. Cas. 814. (g) Addis v. Campbell, 4 Beav. 401 ; Savery v. King, 5 H. L. C. 627 ; Wright v. Vander plank, 2 Jur. N. S. 599. (/<) Edwards v. Broicne, 2 Coll. 100; Bawtret v. Watson, 3 My. & K. 339, 341 ; Silliard v. Gambel, Taml. 375. See Sug. V. & P. 11th ed. p. 314 ; 14th ed. p. 277. But see Belcher v. V"ardon t 2 Coll. 1G2. (i) Benyon v. Fitch, 35 Beav. 510 ; Emmet v. Tottenham, 10 Jur. N. S. 1090; Bromley v. Smith, 26 Beav. 644. (k) Be Stater's Trust, 11 Ch. D. 227 ; see Bones v. Heaps, 3 V. & B. 117. (I) Goulandv. Be Faria, 17 Ves. 20. REVERSIONARY INTERESTS. 017 Costs, though they will generally be allowed, are in the dis- chap, xxxin. cretion of the Court (m). Costs. Accounts between borrower and lender relating to post-obit Accounts, bonds or mortgages of reversionary interests will not be treated as settled accounts (n). In a suit to set aside pod-obit securities a receiver of the rents Receiver, of the estate would not usually be granted, on the motion of the defendant, if the principal money and interest were paid into Court (o). But where the whole security possessed by the party making the motion was contingent on the life of the borrower, and the lender had been out of his money for twenty years, the Court granted a receiver, notwithstanding an offer on the part of the plaintiff to pay principal and interest into Court {p>). A mortgagor may lose his right to relief against an uncon- Ratification scionable bargain by any act amounting to a formal confirma- ti on rdnsac " tion of the transaction, as by executing a deed or will expressly or impliedly confirming the same (q) ; especially if in so doing he has acted under independent and competent advice (/•). He may also lose his right by any act which so alters the relation of the parties as to render it impossible for him to restore the con- sideration with interest and costs. So where goods were sold to a person in distressed circumstances by a tradesman ; he knew that they were bought merely with a view to raise money by selling them again, and the goods were resold accordingly ; the Court refused to set aside securities given for the price (s). The right to relief may also be lost by acquiescence for a considerable length of time (t). But confirmation or acquiescence will not deprive a person of his right to relief if, at the time of confirmation, or during the period of acquiescence, the borrower continues to be under the same pecuniary distress or pressure which forced him to enter into the original transaction («) . (m) Tiikr v. Yates, L. R. 11 Eq. 265 ; (?) Cole v. Gibbons, 3 P. Wins. 289 ; see Twisleton v. Griffith, 1 P. Wms. Stump v. Gabey, 2 De G. M. & G. 310 ; Bromley v. Smith, 26 Beav. 644, 623. 676 ; Neville v. Smiling, 15 Ch. D. (r) Lyddon v. Moss, 4 De G. & J. 679 ; Fry v. Lane, 40 Ch. D. 312 ; 104. James v. Kerr, 40 Ch. D. 449. (s) King v. Hamlet, 3 CI. & F. 218. («) Croft v. Graham, 2 De G. J. & S. (t) Sibbering v. Earl of Balcarras, 3 155 ; Tottenham v. Green, 1 N. R. 466. De G. & S. 735 ; Addis v. Campbell, See further as to accounts between 4 Beav. 401 ; Lord v. Jeffkins, 35 Beav. mortgagees and mortgagors, post, 7 ; Turner v. Collins, L. R. 7 Ch. A. Chap. LIV. pp. 1137 et seq. 329. See Gerrard v. O'Reilly, 3 Dr. & (o) Curling v. Marquis of Townsend, War. 414. 19 Ves. 628. («) Goivland v. Be Faria, 17 Ves. (p) Free v. Hinde, 2 Sim. 7. 20 ; Curwyn v. Milner, 3 P. Wms. 618 MORTGAGES VOID FOR EXTORTION. CHAr. xxxin. Statute of Limitations. The Statutes of Limitations will, in the case of a mortgage of a reversionary interest, begin to run only from the time when the interest falls into possession so as to preclude the borrower from seeking to set aside the mortgage (x). 292, n. (where an obligee was com- pelled to refund money actually paid on a post-obit bond) ; Midlicott v. O'Donel, 1 Ba. & Be. 156 ; Kendall v. Beckett, 2 R. & My. 88 ; Edwards v. Brown*, 2 Coll. 100; Kcmpson v. Ash- bee, L. R. 10 Ch. A. 15. (x) Salter v. Bradshaw, 2G Beav. 1G1. Seo Beynon v. Cook, L. R. 10 Cb. A. 393. ( 619 ) CHAPTER XXXIV. OF MORTGAGES WHICH ARE VOID ON GROUNDS OF PUBLIC POLICY. i. — Securities for Debts incurred in Gaming and Wagering. — By 9 Anne, c. h. the stat. 9 Anne, c. 14, s. 1, notes, bills, bonds, judgments, mortgages or other securities or conveyances for or in considera- tion of money lost or lent at play are made utterly void, and all mortgages and incumbrances or conveyances of lands made upon that consideration are made to enure to the use of the person next in remainder or succession, as if the mortgagor were then dead (a) ; and payments made on such securities could not be supported, and might have been recovered back in equity as incidental to the delivery up of such securities (b) ; and the for- feiture of such securities under the first section of the statute of Anne was hold not to be a penalty of such a nature as to protect a party from discovering the consideration for the security on which the action at law was brought (c). It was formerly considered that there was a distinction under this statute between money lent and money lost at play, and that, in the former case, the security was avoided, but the contract for payment was good ; but it was subsequently decided that where the game was illegal, the contract for payment of money lent or lost at play was void, as well as the security, by the statute of Anne (//). By 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 41, so much of the above Acts as 5 & 6 Will. declares " notes, bills, or mortgages " to be void is repealed, and IV ' c ' 4L (a) See Smith v. Bond, 11 M. & W. (c) Sloman r. Kelly, 4 T. & C. C. C 558. 169 ; and 3 T. & C. C. C. 673. (b) Fonb. Eq., Vol. 1, Ch. 4, s. 6; (d) M'Kinell v. Robinson, 3 M. & W. and Eawden v. Shadtvell, Amb. 269 ; 434. And see Young v. Moore, 2 Wils. Smith v. Bond, sup.; and sect. 2 of the K. B. 67 ; Applegarth v. Colley, 10 M. statute of Anne. & "W. 723, 732 ; Thorpe v. Coleman, 1 C. B. 990. 620 MORTGAGES VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLH V. chat, xxxiv. the said Acts are made to operato as if they had enacted thai every such "note, bill, or mortgage" should ho deemed to have been made, drawn, aocepted, given, or executed for an illegal consideration. The Act also repeals that part of the statul Anne relative to incumbrances on land enuring to the ben< the remainderman, &c, and enacts that tho money paid by the drawer, &o. upon such "bill,note, or mortgage" to the indorsee, holder, or assignee thereof, shall be taken aa paid to the use of the party to whom the security was originally given, and be recoverable from him by action at law This Act was passed for the relief of purchasers of such secu- rities for valuable consideration without But even under tlie old law tho Court would not set aside a judgment founded on a warrant of attorney, given to secure a gaming debt, as against a purchaser, if the debtor had repre- sented before the purchase that the debt was a valid one (,/'). It maybe remarked that ; > & 6 "Will. IV. o. II onlj alters the operation of tho prior Act as to bills, notes, or mortgages. It lias been decided that, as to judgments, the prior A•). The distinction between these cases and those in which the transaction is illegal and subject to penalties is obvious (s). But it would seem that money deposited with a stakeholder cannot now, on the ground of playing for ready money, be re- covered by the winner (/) ; though it seems that any one of the depositors who has repudiated tho wager before the time fixed for its determination, or even before the money is paid over, may recover back the sum deposited by him from the stake- holder, as fully as he could before the Act (11). Where an action was brought to recover back securities deposited as cover for differences which might arise on dealings in stocks and shares which were found by the jury to have been gambling transactions, it was held that sect. 18 of the stat. 8 & 9 Yict. c. 109 did not apply to such a deposit so as to prevent the depositor from maintaining his action, and that he was entitled to delivery up of the securities. The case was treated by Lord Esher, M. R., and Sir A. L. Smith, L. J., as one (») See Rawden v. Shadivell, Amb. 269 ; Wynne v. Callander, 1 Puss. 293. See Story's Eq. Jur. s. 303. (o) See Hasteloiv v. Jackson, 8 B. & Cr. 225. (p) See Rawden v. Shadwett, sup. But see the judgment of Lord Talbot, in Bosanquet t. Dashicood, Cas. t. Talb. ("Williams), 38. (q) Amb. 269. (>•) 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 41 ; Gilpin v. Clutterluch, 13 L. T. 71, 139, 159, Q. B. ; Jessopp v. Lutwyche, 10 Exch. 614 ; Rosewarne v. Billing, 15 C. B. N. S. 316 ; Fitch v. Jones, 5 E. & B. 238. (s) Fisher v. Bridges, 3 E. & B. 642. It) See Jpplegarth v. Colley, 10 M. & W. 723 ; Comcy v. Plimmcr, (1897) 1 Q. B. 634, C. A. («) Varney v. Hickman, 5 C. B. 271 ; 17 L. J. C. P. 102. And see Hastelow v. Jackson, 8 B. & Cr. 225 ; Hodson v. Tcrrill, 1 Cr. & M. 797 ; Gatty v. Field, 9 Q. B. 431. GAMBLING AND WAGERING DEBTS. 623 of trover or detinue; but Rigby, L. J., regarded it rather as one of chap, xxxtv. a claim to redeem, and said that the transactions having been held to be gaming transactions there was nothing due upon the security, and accordingly that the mortgagee must deliver up the securities, or, if they could not be given up, he must pay their value (a?) . It seems that the effect of the proviso at the end of sect. 18 of ^ o ub ^P tion8 the stat. of Yictoria is to render valid, or rather to save out of the operation of the former part of the clause, any subscription or contribution to abide the event of a lawful game, though the subscribers themselves are the parties engaged in the game, and that the winner may recover the money so subscribed or agreed to be subscribed (y) ; and thus, where a foot race or horse race takes place between two or more parties, each of whom deposits a sum with a stakeholder, such deposit may be recovered by the winner ; and yet, by a strange anomaly, the security given for such money may be illegal, and money paid on such security may, perhaps, be recovered back under the statutes of Anne and Will. IV. (!/). In Applegarth v. Collcy (2), before the statute of Yictoria, a Horse racing, horse race for money, raised by the parties themselves, was said to be within the statute of Anne ; but it was said that, since the repeal of 13 Greo. II. c. 19, by 3 & 4 Yict. c. 5, there was nothing to prevent a race for a sum of money given by a stranger by way of prize. Horse racing was, by 13 Geo. II. c. 19, declared'to be illegal, unless the stake was 50/. at least, or the race was held in certain places named in the Act. But wagers even on such legal races were illegal, at least if exceeding 10/. (a), and, it seems, are void in all cases, since 8 & 9 Yict. c. 109, s. 18. Where judgment has been obtained in an action on the contract, in which the illegality within the above statutes was not set up, it cannot be impeached (b). By 18 Greo. II. c. 34, courts of equity were empowered to make a decree in suits to enforce payment under transactions contrary to 9 Anne, c. 14, and in several cases have accordingly given relief by ordering the delivery up of securities (c). (x) Strachan v. Universal Stock Ex- Shillito v. Thced, 7 Bing. 405 ; Pugh change (1895) 2 Q. B. 329, C. A. v. Jenkins, 1 Q. B. 631 ; Greville v. (v) Batty v. Marriott, 5 C. B. 818 ; Chapman, 8 Jur. 190, Q. B. 17 L J C P 215. (*) Lane v. Chapman, 11 A. & E. W'lOM. &W.723. 966,980. (a) Goodbum v. Marley, 2 Stra. 1159 ; {c) Newman v. Franco, 2 Anst. 519 ; 624 MORTGACM'.s vmn As AGAINST PUBLIC POLK V. cnAr. xxxiv. Stock- jobbinj transactions. Anno, c. 14, enaoted(d) that persona Liable to be sued for money or valuables under the statute should be compelled to give discovery (e). The repeal by 8 & 9 Vict o. L09 of the Act of Anne, and of that pari of the Act of Geo. II. whioh relates to it, appears to leave the matter subject to the general rules of courts of equity, concerning answers whioh would expose a defendant to criminal prosecution. If a loan be placed by the lender in the hands of the borrower as the lawful owner of it to dispose of as he | . security for its repayment will bo good, although the Li nder may have expected to be paid out of it the amount of bets won by him from the borrower; but if it were lent under an agreement that the bets should be paid out of it, the security will be bad as a colourable evasion of 9 Anne, c. II, and 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. I i A bond to secure moneys agreed to bo paid to avoid being posted as a defaulter for non-payment of racing d good(.y). The enactments in restraint of stock- jobbing have been abro- gated^), and, accordingly, securities giver for moneys paj in respect of such transactions are no Longer impeachable on the ground of illegality of the consideration, unless such transactions are in fact gambling transactions (/). Considera- tion of future cohabitation. Considera- tion of past cohabitation. ii. — Immoral Securities. — Securities given for an immoral consideration are void ; as where a mortgage or annuity is given to a woman in consideration of future illicit intercourse with the grantor (/.) ; in a case of this kind the Court ordered the bond to be delivered up, and set aside a judgment and other proceedings upon it (/) . A distinction, however, is made where the security is given as premium pudicitice in consideration of a cohabitation which has determined, which has been said to be a "lawful and conscieu- Andrews v. Berry, 3 Anst. 634 ; Raw- den v. Shadwell, Amb. 269 ; Wynne v. Callander, 1 Russ. 293 ; Barker v. Aleock, Yo. 361. (d) Sect. 3. (e) Earl Lichfield v. Bond, 6 Beav. 88 (/) Hill v. Fox, 4 H. & N. 359. (ff) Bulb v. Yeherton, L. R. 9 Eq. 471. And see, as to the legality of such a debt in other respects, Johnson v. Lasley, 12 C. B. 46S. (A) 23 Vict. c. 28. (i) Supra. \k) Robinson v. Cox, 9 Mod. 263 ; Walker v. Perkins, 1 W. Bl. 517; Gray v. Mathias, 5 Ves. 286 ; v. ffarmoM, 2 C. & P. 584 : Rex v. rnigjidd, 1 B. &Ad. 912 ; Batty v. Chester, 5 Beav. 103; Smythe v. . L3 Sim. 245 ; Evans -v. Carring- 30 L. J. Ch. 370; Bullmorc v. Willyams, 32 Beav. 574. (I) James v. lloskins, 1 Tidd. Pr. 593. IMMORAL SECURITIES. 625 tious" consideration (w), on the ground that such a course chap, xxxtv. enables the woman to lead a course of life more conducive to her own happiness and to public morality. It is now settled, after some difference of opinion (n) , that the Consideration Court wiH not relieve against a security given in consideration cohabitation. of past cohabitation, even though the defendant is proved to be a common prostitute (o). If, however, the consideration be a past cohabitation with a Cohabitation . , ., .,, . • i ,i i p ,i with married married man, equity will not assist the woman to entorce the man security, if she knew that the defendant was a married man (p) ; but if there are children, the Court will regard their interests (q) ; and in such a case the Court will enforce a security for payment of money as a provision for the woman and her children. It must be borne in mind that the consideration of past Security must cohabitation, though meritorious, is not valuable (r), and accord- ingly will not support a security for payment of money unless the instrument creating the security is under seal and executed (s) ; for in matters executory, even on the consideration of premium pudicitice, the Court will not compel the party or his executors to fulfil an agreement to provide for a forsaken mistress. Whore a security is given by a man to his mistress in consi- Continuance deration of past cohabitation, the continuance of the cohabitation ° io °° is not of itself sufficient to raise the presumption that the security is given in consideration of a continuance of the con- nection (t). No turpi* contractus shall be presumed unless proved (it). If the instrument creating a security given in consideration L oss of deed .... . , , -i-i it iii^i creating secu- of past cohabitation is lost or destroyed, it would seem that the r it y . grantee may have her remedy in equity notwithstanding (x) ; but "these matters are discretionary " (y), and there are some old cases to the contrary (z). (;«) Turner v. Vaughan, 2 "Wils. (t) Re Yallance, Yallance v. Blag den, K.B. 339. 26Ch. D. 353. (>t) Whaley v. Norton, 1 Vern. 484. (") Lightbone v. Weedesh, 1 Eq. Ca. (o) Hill v. Spencer, Ambl. 641. Ab. 24, pi. 7 ; 93, pi. 5. (p) Priest v. Parrot, 2 Ves. Sen. 160. (x) Underwood v. Slaney, 1 Ch. Ca. (q) Knye v. Moore, 1 S. & St. 61. 78 ; Lightbone v. Weedesh, sup. (>•) Beaumont v. Peeve, 10 Jur. 284, (g) 1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 62, pi. 4. Q. B. ; Binnington v. Wallis, 4 B. & (z) Miller v. Peames, 1 Boll. Abr. Aid. 650. Gibson v. Dickie, 3 M. & S. 375, Chancery (Q), pi. 1 ; Vincent v. 4C3 is not law. Beverlge,~Noy,82. See Toulmin v . Price, (s) Matthews v. L , 1 Madd. 558 ; 5 Ves. 235. Whaley v. Norton, 1 Vern. 483. VOL. I. — R. s s 626 MORTGAGES VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY. CHAP. XXXIV. Marriage brocage. Securities for obtaining sale of public office. Compound- ing felony. iii, — Other Invalid Securities. — Securities given as a reward for procurement of marriage (commonly called marriage brocage) with a particular person are also void as contrary to that freedom of choice in marriage which is encouraged by public policy. Such securities may be ordered to be delivered up, and sums already paid under them to be returned (a) . Upon the same principle of public policy, securities given for obtaining or for procuring the sale of a public office of trust are void, whether the office be or be not one the sale of which is for- bidden by statute (b) . Where the security is the result of an illegal agreement to compound a felony it will be void (c) ; but a security given for a debt actually owing will not be avoided merely because it appears that the creditor was thereby induced to abstain from prosecution (d) . A deposit by a married woman of securities held to her separate use to cover a loss occasioned to the plaintiff by the felony of her husband, upon condition of the charge being withdrawn, is illegal (e) . (a) Drury v. Hooke, 1 Vern. 411 ; Strlbblehill \. Brett, 2 Vern. 445 ; Smith v. Bnmmg, 2 Vern. 392. See Smith v. Aykwell, 3 Atk. 566 ; and Shirley v. Martin, 3 P. Wms. 74, n., per Lord Hardwicke ; Cole v. Gibson, 1 Ves. Sen. 506 ; Sail v. Potter, 3 P. Wms. 392, n. (b) Law v. Law, 3 P. Wms. 391 ; Stackpole v. Earle, 2 Wils. K. B. 133. (c) Ward v. Lloyd, 6 M. & Gr. 785. \d) Flower v. Sadler, 10 Q. B. D. 572, C. A. See Williams v. Bai/h-i/, L. R, 1 H. L. 200 ; Seear v. Cohen, 45 L. T. 589, Q. B. (e) Whitmore v. Farley, W. N (1881) 8. ( 627 ) Part Y, OF THE ESTATE, EIGHTS, LIABILITIES, AND REMEDIES OF THE MORTGAGOR AND PERSONS CLAIMING UNDER HIM. CHAPTEE XXXV. OF THE NATURE AND INCIDENTS OF AN EQUITY OF REDEMPTION. i # — Equity of Redemption is an Estate. — It Las been already Mortgagor shown that, by the common law, the legal ownership of the ™on fcwno land, on the execution of the deed of mortgage, is transferred estate, but to the mortgagee, subject to be divested on performance of the f re-entry, condition, and that a mere right of re-entry on performance of the condition remains in the mortgagor, of which, being neither alienable nor devisable prior to the modern statutes (a), advan- tage might be taken only by him or his heirs. In an early case (b), these doctrines were applied in equity Application to the right to redeem after condition broken ; and it was there trine iu held that an equity of redemption was a mere right, and was equity. not an estate of inheritance capable of being entailed under the statute Be Bonis (c). In the leading case of Casbornc v. Scarf e (d), however, Lord Equity of Hardwicke, C, stated the settled rule of equity to be that an held™o bcTan eouitv of redemption is to be deemed an estate in the land, for esta * e m the " J ., , .,, . , mortgagors. that it may be devised, granted, or entailed with remainders, and such entail and remainders might be barred by fine or recovery, and therefore cannot be considered as a mere right only, but such an estate whereof there may be a seisin. The person, therefore, entitled to the equity of redemption is con- sidered as owner of the land. It is now an established doctrine of equity that the mort- (a) See 1 Vict. c. 26, s. 3, and 8 & 9 (b) Roscarrich v. Barton, 1 Ch. Ca. Vict. c. 106, s. 6, by which rights of 217. entry are made devisable and alienable (c) 13 Edw. I. c. 1. by deed. W 1 Atk. 602. SS2 628 NATURE OF EQUITY OF REDEMPTION. CHAP. XXXV. Vote for Parliament. Holding courts. Nomination to benefice. Director's qualification not lost by- mortgage of shares. Poor law settlement. gagor is, until foreclosure, the real owner of the property, and possessed of it in right of his ancient and original estate (c) . ii, — Personal Rights and Privileges of Mortgagor. — With whatever strictness the common law may have originally re- garded the breach of the condition by the mortgagor, yet, in modern times, the doctrine of the courts of equity, recog- nizing the mortgagor (until foreclosure) to be the actual owner of the land, has to a certain extent, with reference to the posses- sion by the mortgagor, been acted upon as well by the courts of common law as by the legislature. The statute law (/) has provided that the mortgagor in possession shall have the privilege of voting for the return of members of Parliament notwithstanding the mortgage. If, however, the interest on the mortgage reduces the annual value below 40s., the mortgagor has no vote (g) ; but nothing but interest can be deducted (//). The monthly payments, how- ever, secured by mortgage to trustees of a benefit building society under 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 32, are a charge on the estate which will destroy the owner's right to vote if they do not leave him the requisite quantity of interest prescribed by statute (/). He has the right of holding courts where lord of a manor (k). A further privilege annexed to the estate of the mortgagor is the right, where an advowson is the subject of the mortgage, of nominating to the church on an avoidance of the living (/). Though by the articles a director of a company must be a registered member in his own right (;;?), he does not lose his qualification by a mortgage of his shares (n). At common law the title of ownership of a mortgagor while in possession is so far recognized as to gain him a settlement under the poor laws (o) , but for this purpose he must reside within ten miles of the property (p), and be in possession in his capacity (e) See per Lord Selborne in Heath v. Pugh, 6 Q. B. D. 345, at p. 360, and per Kekewich, J., in Tarn v. Turner, 39 Ch. D. 456, at p. 460. ( f) 8 Hen. VI. c. 7 ; 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 23 ; and 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18, s. 74. (gi) Bedfordshire, 2 Lud. 469 ; Mid- dlesex, 2 Peckw. 103 ; Zee v. Hutchin- son, 8 C. B. 18 ; 2 Lutw. Reg. Ca. 159. (h) Rolleston v. Cope, L. R. 6 C. P. 292. (i) Copland, app., Bartlett, resp., 6 C. B. 18. (k) Ante, p. 168. {!) Jorxj v. Cox, Prec. Ch. 71 ; Amhurst v. Dawling, 2 Vern. 401 ; Gaily v. Selby, Stra. 403 ; Mackenzie v. Robinson, 3 Atk. 559, wbich overruled Gardiner v. Griffith, 2 P. Wms. 403. And see ante, p. 169. (m) Exp. Liltledale, 6 De G. M. & G. 714. (n) Pulbrook v. Richmond, §c. Co., 9 Ch. D. 610 ; dimming v. Prescott, 2 T. & C. Ex. 488. (o) Rex v. Inh. of Catherington, 3 T. R. 771. {p) 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 76, s. 68, a. ACTIONS BY AND AGAINST MOETGAGOR. 629 as mortgagor, and not by fraud or wrong ; and in a case (q) m chap, xxxy. which a mortgagee of several messuages having recovered in ejectment, afterwards permitted the mortgagor to inhabit one of the houses for a particular purpose, i.e., the overlooking of some repairs, the Court of King's Bench held that no settle- ment was gained by such latter residence, for he was not in possession as mortgagor. And in another case (r), in which an estate had been conveyed to trustees, upon trust to sell for pay- ment of debts and to pay the residue to the grantor, the grantor before sale got fraudulently into possession, and it was held that he did not, by such residence, gain a settlement. iii,_Right of Mortgagor to bring or defend Actions with regard ^ ht *° d to the Mortgaged Property.— By the Judicature Act, 1873 (s), defend s. 25, it is enacted as follows : — " (5 ) A mortgagor entitled for the time being to the possession Suits for pos- or receipt of the rents and profits of any land as to which no notice session of land of his intention to take possession or to enter into the receipt of the ^^ - rents and profits thereof shall have been given by the mortgagee, b may sue for such possession, or for the recovery of such rents or profits, or to prevent or recover damages in respect of any trespass or other wrong relative thereto, in his own name only, unless the cause of action arises upon a lease or other contract made by him jointly with any other person." The mortgagor may defend actions relating to the land or other property subject to the mortgage as against persons other than the mortgagee (t). As a general rule, where an action is brought by or against When the & . , t • j i • i l^' ~U mortgagee a person having only an equitable interest in property wnicn mugt be party is the subject-matter of the action, the person in whom the Jj^Jg£ legal estate is vested must be made a party thereto, so as to equity of bind the legal estate, and to prevent the owner of it from redemption molesting the party against whom relief is sought by further proceedings (vO- So, the mortgagee must be made a party if his interests are in any way likely to be prejudiced by the result of an action brought by or against the mortgagor. Thus, if the action is for recovery of land subject to a mortgage, the mortgagee in whom the legal estate is vested must be made a party (v) . So, also, if the matter in dispute involves the taking of accounts, he must be a party, so as to bind him by the accounts (a). t q ) Hex v. Inhabitants of Catherington, Hobson v. Staneer,9 Mod. 80 ; Wood v. 3T R 771. Williams, 4 Madd. 186; Hickens v. (r) Rex v. 'inhabitants of St. Michael's, Kelly, 2 Sm. & G. 264. 2 Dou"- 630 ( v ) Allen v - W° ocls ' 6S h - L - 14t5, (s) 36 & 37 Vict. c. 66. (*) Van Gelder Apsimon § Co . v. It) Sellickv. Smith, 11 Moo. 459. Sowerby Bridge §e. Soc, 44 Ob. D. \u) Dan. Ch. Pr. vol. i. p. 202. See 374, at p. 392, C. A. 630 NATURE OF EQUITY OF REDEMPTION. CHAP. XXXV. "When the mortgagee need not be a party. Adding parties. Whether mortgagor must offer to redeem. Multifarious actions by mortgagor. Action in name of mortgagee. But if the relief sought in no way prejudices or affects the mortgagee's interest, he need not be made a party to an action by or against the mortgagor. So, a mortgagor in receipt of the rents and profits of land has been held to be entitled to maintain an action for an injunction to restrain an injury done to the mortgaged property without making the mortgagee a party (//). And where a registered owner of a patent which was subject to a mortgage brought an action claiming an injunction and damages for infringement, it was held that he might maintain his action without making the mortgagee a party, but without prejudice to any application by the defendant to have the mort- gagee made a party, if circumstances should render it necessary to do so (z). So, also, a mortgagor may enforce specific per- formance of an agreement relating to the mortgaged property, without making the mortgagee a party, if the interests of the latter will not be affected by the decision of the matter in dispute (a). No person can be added as a plaintiff in any cause or matter without his own consent in writing thereto (b). If a mortgagee is a necessary party to an action, and declines to be joined as plaintiff, the Court will order him to be added as defendant (c). If the mortgagor brings an action relating to the mortgaged property, and finds it necessary to make the mortgagee a party in order that the relief sought may bind the interest of the latter, the mortgagor must offer to redeem (), a mortgagor, indemnifying the mortgagee in respect of costs, is (y) Faircloughx. Marshall, tT&x.'D.Zl. (z) Van Gelder, Apsimon $ Co. v. Sowerby Bridge, §c. Soc, 44 Ch. D. 374, C. A. (a) FrancJdyn v. Fern, Barn. Ch. R. 30, 32 ; Tasker v. Small, 3 My. & Cr. 63 ; Sanders v. Richards, 2 Coll. 568. And see Ford v. Tennant, 3 De Gr. F. & J. 695. (J) R. S. C. Ord. XVI. r. 11. (c) Van Gelder, Apsimon § Co. v. Sowerby Bridge, $c. Soc, 44 Ch. D. 374, at p. 394, C. A. (d) Hughes v. Cook, 34 Beav. 407. (e) Fearse v. Hewitt, 7 Sim. 471. (/) R. S. C, Ord. XLS. r. 27. (g) United Telephone, §c. Co. v. Tasker, 59 L. T. 852. {h) Supra, p. 629. ACTIONS BY AND AGAINST MORTGAGOR. 631 entitled, if necessary, to take proceedings in the name of the cnA:p - xxxv - mortgagee to recover or protect the mortgaged property (i) . If the subject-matter of an action is a disputed claim of right Whether or title to property, and a party, whether plaintiff or defendant, '^ S J^ ute mortgages his interest pendente lite, the question will arise whether is a necessary the mortgagee is a necessary or proper party to the action. p The registration of a lis pendens relating to land will affect Notice of Us a mortgagee with notice of the claim which is the subject of pen em ' the action (,/), and bind him by its result accordingly, provided the plaintiff has, previously to the mortgage, sufficiently indi- cated the real estate sought to be charged in the action (k) ; and accordingly such a mortgagee need not be made a party, even though the plaintiff is aware of the mortgage. The doctrine of lis pendens is confined to real estate and leaseholds, and has no application to goods and chattels (/). Prior to the stat. 2 & 3 Yict. c. 11, requiring registration of Assignees 7 . in ii n ± • i i ti pendente lite lis pendens, the general rule was that assignees pendente lite were not generally not necessary or proper parties to an action claiming right or necessary title to property. It was said that such assignments were void or voidable (m) , but the true meaning of this proposition appears to be that such an assignment was inoperative to vary the rights of the parties in that action as between themselves, and conse- quently that the assignee, though not a party, would be bound by a judgment adverse to his assignor, and so may wholly or in part lose the benefit of his assignment ; otherwise, suits would be undeterminable if one party, pending the suit, could, by con- veying to others, create a necessity for introducing new parties ; if, however, the effect of the judgment should be to affirm the right or interest assigned, the assignment would be good as between the assignee and his assignor (ti) . The rule applied whether the assignor be plaintiff or defendant (o) . If, however, the absence of the assignee would have prejudiced Exception rights or interests of other parties to the action, it was proper to es tate vested make him a party, as, for instance, if the legal estate had been in him > &c - conveyed to him (_/;) ; or if the title deeds have been handed over (t) Phene v. Gillan, 5 Ha. 1. Metcalfe v. Pulvertoft, 2 V. & B. 200, (J) See further as to notice by regis- at p. 205. See Mead v. Lord Orrery, 3 tration of Us pendens, post, p. 1330. Atk. 243; Worseley v. Lord Scarborough, (k) Price v. Price, 35 Ch. D. 297. 3 Atk. 392 ; Bellamy v. Sabine, 1 DeG. {1) Wigram V. Buckley, (1894) 3 Ch. & J. 566, 585. 483, C. A. (o) Eades v. Karris, 1 T. & C. C. C. (m) Dan. Ch. Pr. 256. See Walker 233; Patch v. Ward, L.R. 3 Ch. A. 203. v. Smallwood, Ami?. 677 ; Gaskell v. (p) Daly v. Kelly, 4 Dow, 435. See Dunlin, 2 Ba. & Be. 167. Bp. of Winchester v. Paine, 11 Ves. (») Per Sir T. Plumer, V.-C, in 197. 632 NATURE OF EQUITY OF REDEMPTION. OHAP. XXXV. Exception as to matters of account, &c. Effect of 2 & 3 Vict. c. 11. Continuance of action after assignment. Order of re- vivor without prejudice. to him ; or if other incidental or consequential relief is asked for requiring something to be done by the assignee (q). Again, if no right or title to the property, which is the sub- ject-matter of the action, is in dispute, but the question is merely one of administration or account, it would seem that an assignee pendente lite, who is, whatever the event of the action may be, entitled to a valid interest in the property, and concerned in any order which may be made affecting it, is a proper party to the action. Thus in an action for the administration of the trusts of a will, where the plaintiffs assigned their interests pendente lite, Sir L. Shadwell, V.-C, unhesitatingly upheld an objection that the suit was defective, and could not proceed, because the assignee was not before the Court ; his Honour considered the case to be analogous to that of a suit for redemption, which, he said, could not be maintained in the absence, pendente lite, of the person entitled to redeem (>•). It would seem that since the stat. 2 & 3 Yict. c. 11, when a suit has not been duly registered, a legal assignee pendente lite not having actual notice of the suit will not be bound, unless he is made a party ; but that if he has not acquired the protection of the legal estate, the old rule will apply, and accordingly he will be bound though not a party. According to the present practice a cause or matter does not become defective by the assignment of any estate or title pendente lite, but in such a case the cause or matter may be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such estate or title has come or devolved ; and where, by reason of a change or transmission of interest, it becomes necessary or desirable that any person not already a party shall be made a party, an order that the proceedings shall be carried on between the continuing parties and such new party may be obtained ex parte upon an allegation of such transmission of interest (s) . Where one of two plaintiffs had after decree assigned his equitable interest in the subject-matter of the suit, and the chief clerk's certificate had been made after the assignment, the Court, on the application of the other plaintiff, made an order of revivor against the assignee, without prejudice to the question whether the assignee was bound by the certificate (/). (q) See Higginsv. Shaw, 2 Dr. & War. 356, 362 ; London v. Morris, 5 Sim. 247, 269 ; Wood v. Surr, 19Beav. 551 ; Massy v. Batu-ell, 4 Dr. & War. 58, at pp. 68, 80 ; MacLeod v. Annesley, 16 Beav. 607. (»•) Solomon v. Solomon, 13 Sim. 516. As to parties to actions for redemp- tion, see post, pp. 720 et seq. ; as to fore- closure, see jwst, pp. 1003 et seq. (*) R. S. C, Ord. XVII. rr. 1, 3, 4. See Kino v. JRudkin, 6 Ch. D. 160. (0 Vibart v. Vibart, L. R. 6 Eq. 251. SALE, MORTGAGE, ETC. OF EQUITY OF REDEMPTION. 633 iv. — Sale, Mortgage, &c. of Equity of Redemption.— A mort- chat. xxxv. gagor, being the owner of the mortgaged property, may dispose Sale by mort- of the equity of redemption therein. gagor. A mortgagee may, pursuant to an agreement subsequent to Purchase by and independent of the mortgage transaction, purchase the mort §' a 8' ee - equity of redemption (u) . Where a mortgagee in fee has purchased the equity of redemp- tion, and taken a conveyance of it to himself, a conveyance from his trustee, in whom the legal estate was vested by the mortgage deed, will be presumed (v) . Where a mortgagor executed an agreement to release the Abandonment equity of redemption to the mortgagee, and the agreement was a fter lapse of not acted upon for twelve years, during which period the mort- tune - gagor continued in possession, when the mortgagee sold the property under his power of sale, it was held that the agreement must be treated as abandoned, and that the mortgagor was entitled to the surplus proceeds of the sale (u>). A mortgagor may also assign any rights incident to his Champerty, ownership of the equity of redemption (.r) . So it would seem that an assignment of a claim to reduce a conveyance into a mortgage is not champerty ; in bankruptcy, at any rate, the trustee can sell such a right {y). The sale of incumbered estates is much facilitated by sect. 5 of Discharge of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (a), which n n C s m e brance8 enacts as follows : — Sect. 5. — " (1.) Where land subject to any incumbrance, whether Provision by immediately payable or not, is sold by the Court or out of Court, Court for in- the Court may, if it thinks fit, on the application of any party to cumbrances> the sale, direct or allow payment into Court, in case of an annual therefrom sum charged on the land, or of a capital sum charged on a deter- minable interest in the land, of such amount as, when invested in Government securities, the Court considers will be sufficient, by means of the dividends thereof, to keep down or otherwise provide for that charge, and in any other case of capital money charged on the land, of the amount sufficient to meet the incumbrance and any interest due thereon ; but in either case there shall also be paid into Court such additional amount as the Court considers will be suffi- cient to meet the contingency of further costs, expenses, and interest, and any other contingency, except depreciation of invest- ments, not exceeding one-tenth part of the original amount to be paid in, unless the Court for special reason thinks fit to require a larger additional amount. (if) Ante, p. 16. (x) Steers v. Rogers, (1893) A. C. 232 (v) Noel v. Bewley, 3 Sim. 103. (patent rights). (w) Rushbrooke v. Lawrence, L. R. (y) Hartley v. Russell, 2 S. & St. 244. 5 Ch. A. 3. See also Harris v. See Seear v. Lawson, 15 Ch. D. 426, Morwell, Gilb. 11. 434, C. A. (z) 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41, s. 5. 634 NATURE OF EQUITY OF REDEMPTION. CHAP. XXXV. Definition of incumbrance, Application by summons. " (2.) Thereupon, the Court may, if it thinks fit, and either after or without any notice to the incumbrancer, as the Court thinks fit, declare the land to be freed from the incumbrance, and make any order for conveyance, or vesting order proper for giving effect to the sale, and give directions for the retention and investment of the money in Court. " (3.) After notice served on the persons interested in or entitled to the money or fund in Court, the Com-t may direct payment or transfer thereof to the persons entitled to receive or give a discharge for the same, and generally may give directions respecting the application or distribution of the capital or income thereof. "(4.) This section applies to sales not completed at the com- mencement of this Act, and to sales thereafter made." An " incumbrance," within the meaning of this section, includes " a mortgage in fee or for any less estate, and a trust for securing money," as w r ell as other charges, "and incum- brancer has a meaning corresponding with that of incumbrance, and includes every person entitled to the benefit of an incum- brance, or to require payment or discharge thereof" (s). An application for an order under this section must be by summons at Chambers ; notice of the application must be served on parties interested ; and the costs are in the discretion of the Court (a). The jurisdiction of the Court under this section is discre- tionary. An application by a purchaser under this section was dismissed, where it was shown that an order directing the vendor to pay money into Court for the purpose of discharging an incumbrance on the land contracted to be sold would inflict great hardship upon him, inasmuch as the amount required for the purpose would have largely exceeded the amount of the purchase-money (b). The Court will not act under this section, except in view of a particular sale (c). An order under this section was made upon a sale of mort- gaged property by the mortgagor's trustee in bankruptcy, though proceedings w r ere pending to set aside the mortgage on the ground of fraudulent preference (d). Where an application under this section is made in an action to which the incumbrancer, whose charge is intended to be provided for, is not a party, the order should follow the words (z) 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41, s. 2 (vii). (a) Ibid. s. 69, sub-ss. (3), (4), (5), (6), (7). See Patching v. Bull, 30 W. R. 244 ; Dickin v. Dickin, 30 W. R. 887 ; Milford Raven Hail. §c. Co. v. Mowatt, 2*8 Ch. D. 402. For forms of orders, see Seton, pp. 1374, 1589. (b) Re Great Northern Rail. Go. and Sanderson, 25 Cb. D. 788. See He Jack- son and OaJcshott, 14 Ch. D. 851. (c) Patching v. Bull, 30 W. R. 244. (d) Milford Haven Rail. §c. Co. v. Mowatt, 28 Ch. D. 402. SALE, MORTGAGE, ETC. OF EQUITY OF REDEMPTION. 635 of the statute, and, after directing payment into Court of the chap. xxxv. purchase-money, and the setting aside of an amount sufficient to meet the incumbrance, should proceed to declare that there- upon any party should be at liberty to apply in Chambers for a declaration that the land is free from the incumbrance (c). An equity of redemption may itself become the subject of Mortgage of mortgage, and each equitable mortgagee will generally have redemption preference according to his priority in time, the maxim of equity being, Qui prior est in tempore, potior est in Jure (f). Of the protection afforded by the statute law to the mortgagee of an equity of redemption, and by what means a subsequent mort- gagee of the equity of redemption may obtain preference to a prior mortgagee of the equity, an explanation is given in other parts of this treatise (g) . The powers of mortgagors to lease mortgaged lands without Leases. the concurrence of their mortgagees will be considered later (h) . Where there is an overriding mortgage of the entirety of an Partition, estate, partition will be decreed of the equity of redemption subject to the mortgage without the mortgagee being made a party to the action (i). Of course, the power of sale under a mortgage of the entirety is paramount to a partition (k) . A tenant in common whose share is subject to a mortgage Mortgage of thereby loses his right to partition against his co-tenant, except tenant* C °" upon the terms of paying off the mortgage (I). Where the owner of an undivided share of land mortgaged Priority as his share and remained in possession, and received more than between ™ ort - § a o ee °i snare his due share of the rents, on the sale of the property in a and co-owner, partition action, it was held that the claim of the mortgagor's co-owner in respect of the excess of rents received by the mort- gagor must be paid out of the latter's share of the proceeds of sale in priority to the mortgagee (m). Where, in a partition action, the mortgagees, to the extent of When mort- a moiety in value of the property, desired a sale of the property f^^ale in and a distribution of the proceeds in lieu of partition, but the lieu of parti- owners of the equity of redemption desired a partition, it was held that the Court had a discretion, under sect. 3 of the Parti- te) Dickin v. Dickin, 30 W. R. 887. v. Binghij, 21 Ch. D. 674 ; Sinclair v. (/) Fonb. Eq. Vol. 1, 5th ed. 320, James, (1894) 3 Ch. 554. and cases in note. And see also Exp. (k) lie JVorris, W. N. (1883) 65; Knott, 11 Ves. 609. Sinclair v. James, supra. (ff) Ante, Ch. VII., p. 46; post, {>) Gibbs v. Haydon, 30 W. R. 726; Ch. LV., pp. 1214 et seq. Sinclair v. James, supra. (h) Post, p. 685. {m) Heckles v. Heckles, W. N. (1892) (i) Swan v. Swan, 8 Pri. 518 ; Waite 188. 636 NATURE OF EQUITY OF REDEMPTION. CHAP. XXXV. Dissentient co-owner must redeem. Exchange. Entail of equity of redemption. tion Act, 1868 (>i), to order a sale of the property, and that, as the mortgagees were persons interested " to the extent of one moiety or upwards " of the property, it was the duty of the Court, under sect. 4 of the Act, at their request to exercise that discretion by ordering a sale of the property (o) . Where one of several tenants in common purported, on behalf of himself and his co-tenants, to enter into a contract for the sale of the property, which was subject to a mortgage, and the purchaser, under the belief that all the co-tenants would concur in the conveyance to him, paid off the mortgage, but one of the co-tenants refused to so concur ; the purchaser then brought an action for specific performance of the agreement ; it was held that the dissentient co-tenant must, as regards his share, redeem or be foreclosed, and that in case of redemption there should be a partition (p). In an action for partition of a mortgaged estate only one set of costs can be allowed for each share, and if some shares are incumbered and some not, each owner of an incumbered share must bear the costs of his own incumbrancers (q). Where an Inclosure Act authorizes exchanges to be made with the consent of the owner or proprietor of the lands exchanged, whether tenant in fee simple, fee tail, for life, or years, and provides that all incumbrances charged on the lands given in exchange shall become charged on those taken in excharjge, it appears to be undecided whether the consent of the mortgagor in possession to an exchange is sufficient without the consent of the mortgagee (>•). The Court, in a case of this nature, considered themselves not called upon to decide the point, as they had no right to presume that the consent of the mortgagee was not obtained, the commissioners not being bound to set out in their award all the authorities they had, and the presumption being that they acted according to their jurisdic- tion, unless the contrary appeared. V. — Entail and Settlement of Equity of Redemption. — Prior to the decision that an equity of redemption was an estate in the land, and so long as the notion prevailed that it was but a right, the limitation of it by way of entail, or in strict settle- ment, seemed out of the question ; and it was considered that («) 31 & 32 Vict. c. 40. (o) Davenport v. King, 49 L. T. 92. (;;) Davies v. Davies, 6 Jur. N. S. 1320. (q) Cotton v. Banks, (1893) 2 Ch. 221. But see contra, Belcher v. Wil- liams, 45 Ch. D. 510. (r) Goodtitle v. Milbum, 3 M. & W. 863. ENTAIL AND SETTLEMENT. 637 such an entail, if it could subsist, would tend to a perpetuity. CHAP - xxxv. But when the equity was declared to be the ancient estate without change of ownership, it became, of course, subject to all the limitations to which other estates in equity were liable (s). It had been long (7) settled that an equitable entail and re- Bar of entail, mainders were barrable by such mode of assurance only as would have barred a legal entail and remainders. By 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 74, abolishing fines and recoveries, a power of disposition has been given to tenants in tail of freehold lands by simple deed inrolled in Chancery, and of copyholds by deed inrolled in the manor, or by actual surrender («) . Where the legal estate is outstanding in a mortgagee, the Contingent failure of the particular estate does not destroy the contingent remainders in an equity of redemption {%). It is a general rule, where an estate is settled subject to a Tenant for mortgage, that the tenant for life of an equity of redemption ). "Where a fund is insufficient to keep down the arrears of an annuity which become a charge on the corpus, the tenant for life is only bound to keep down the interest of the arrears (/). But, if the rents are not sufficient to pay the interest which the tenant notwithstanding pays, he cannot claim the excess against the remainderman without having previously intimated to the latter his intention to charge the inheritance (/.). The tenant for life, however, is only answerable during the period of his possession ; and therefore, if there be tenant for life, with remainder over for life, under the same settlement, and the first tenant for life permit the interest to run in arrear, the second tenant for life shall not be compelled by the reversioner or remainderman out of the rents to discharge the arrears (/). A careful distinction must, however, be drawn between the last-mentioned case and certain cases with which it may be easily confounded. As, for example, if an estate in mortgage be limited in strict settlement, subject to a jointure created by a prior settlement, and during the life of the jointress the surplus rents are not sufficient to keep down the interest, so that it runs in arrear, and afterwards the jointress dies in the lifetime of the tenant for life, on which there arises a surplus rent beyond the current interest, the tenant for life must, during the continuance (c) Caulfield v. Maguire, 2 J. & L. 160 ; Hayes v. Hayes, 1 Ch. Ca. 223. (d) Revel v. Watkinson, I Ves. Sen. 93. (e) Waring v. Coventry, 2 My. & K. 406. But see the dictum of Lord Westbury contra, in Scholefield v. Lock- wood, 4 De G. J. & S. 22. (/) Lord Kensington v. Bonverie, 19 Beav. 54. (g) Lord Brougham in Lord Ken- sington v. Bouverie, 7 H. L. C. 564 ; Baldwin v. Baldwin, 4 Ir. Ch. 505 ; S. C., 6 Ir. Ch. 156. (/<) Whitbread v. Smith, 3 De G. M. & G. 741. ((') Flay fair v. Cooper, 17 Beav. 187. (k) Lord Kensington v. Bouverie, 1 H. L. C. 557. (I) See 1 Ves. Sen. 95. ENTAIL AND SETTLEMENT. 639 of his estate in the property, apply the surplus rent in reducing CHAP - xxxv - the arrears (m). In like manner, if an estate be limited to A. for life, with remainder (as to part) to B. for life, remainder (as to the whole) to 0. for life, with power to A. to charge the estate with a sum of money, but not so as to encumber the life estate of B., and A. charges the whole estate with a sum of money carrying interest, and dies, and then, during the life of B., the estate of C. in possession is not sufficient to discharge the interest which runs in arrear, and afterwards B. dies in C.'s lifetime, 0. will be compelled to apply the surplus rents of the whole estate towards liquidation of the arrears (n). A tenant for life will not be bound to keep down the interest Liability to on a mortgage on property, his enjoyment of which is postponed Sett where during the period of postponement. So, where the trustees of a conversion will paid out of the income of the testator's residuary estate the P ° 3 P ° ne ' premiums on a mortgaged policy of assurance on a surviving life (the realization of which by surrender they postponed for the benefit of the estate), and the interest on the mortgage ; on the falling in of the life, the mortgage was paid off out of the policy moneys received by the trustees ; it was held that the tenant for life was entitled to be recouped the amount of income so expended with interest at 4 per cent, out of the surplus policy moneys (o) . It is a general rule that, where a testator makes to the same Rule as to person several gifts, one of which is beneficial, and the other is w m of^ene^ onerous, the test as to whether the one gift may be taken and ficial an(i the other rejected, is whether or not the gifts are separate and perty USpr °" distinct (p). This rule has been applied in several cases as determining Gift including whether a tenant for life is liable to keep down the interest on j^di^n- estates which are settled, subject to a mortgage out of all pro- cumbered perty given to him by the will, or whether he is bound only to apply towards payment of the interest the income of such pro- perty as is subject to the mortgage. So, where a testatrix, being at the time of her death possessed Where the in fee of two estates, one of which was subject to a mortgage, f r0 pert' gift of several ies is (m) Revel v. Watkinson, 1 Ves. Sen. (1895) 2 Ch. 738. 93. (p) See Jarm. "Wills, 5th ed. vol. i. (n) Tracey v. Hereford, 2 Bro. C. C. p. 422. See also Talbot v. Earl of 128 ; Sharshaw v. Gibbs, Kay, 333. Radnor, 3 My. & K. 254 ; and Guthrie See Franks v. Cooper, 4 Ves. 763. v. Walrond, 22 Ch. D. 573 (cases of (o) Re Morley, Morley v. Haig, onerous leases) . 640 NATTL'l. OF EQUI1 v OF REDEMP1 [ON. CIIAl'. :n an uinli- \ ided whole. Frewen v. Law lift Ass. Soe. Where gifts are separate aud distancl . Annuity. Assignee of tenant for life. and the other unencumbered, devised all her real and persona] estate to trustees apoD tru I for Bale at their discretion, and to invest th< ; is, and to hold Buoh " real and personal est upon trust to pay the rents and annual produce thereof to A. for life, with remainder to the use of B., "his heirs, exeoui administrators, and assigns for ever, aooording to the nature and quality thereof respectively ; " it was held thai the rents of the unencumbered estate were liable for the interest on the mortg of tlio encumbered est I So, also, where a testator devised certain estates subject to a term to raise money Eor payment of his debts to the use of his son for life, with remainder to his first and other son succes- sively in tail male, and different parts of the devised estate were subject to various mortgages; it was held that, inasmuoh as the testator had by his will given his estates as an undivided whole, the tenant for life was hound to keep down the interest in respect of the mortgages on the several parts of the estate out of the income of the whole (r). On the other hand, where a testator devised a freehold house on trust Eor A. and 13. for life, and, after the decease of the survivor, directed that the house should form part of his resi- duary estate, and he also bequeathed an annuity to A. and B., and suhjeet thereto he devised his residuary estate npon trust for the benefit of certain persons; the rent of the house having proved insufficient to keep down the interest on the mortgage debt, it was held that A. and B. were not bound to makeup the deficiency (s). Where money is borrowed by way of a grant of a redeemable annuity out of land, the annuitymust be valued, and the tenant for life under the will of the borrower, as between hini and the remainderman, is only bound to nay interest on the estimated value of the annuity at the death of the grantor (t). The assignee and judgment creditor of the tenant for life are subject to the same liability to keep down the interest as the tenant for life himself («). Where the mortgagee (x) having permitted the tenant for life to run in arrear, purchased the life (q) Re Rotchkys, Freake v. Calmady, 32 Oh. D. 408, C. A. (r) Frewen v. Late Life Assurance Soc, (1896) 2 Ch. 511. (s) Syer v. Gladstone, 30 Ch. D. 614. \t) Buhner v. Astley, 1 Ph. 422, (u) Scholefield v. Zockicood, 4 De G-. J. & S. 22/ (x) Lord Penrhyn v. Lluyhes, .5 Ves. 106 ; and Amesbnn/ v. Brown, 1 Ves. Sen. 477. ENTAIL AND SETTLEMENT. 641 estate, the Court directed him to apply the surplus rent beyond chap , xxxv. the current interest towards liquidation of the arrears. If the estate of the wife is subject to a mortgage, the husband husband and and wife are not bound to keep down the interest for the benefit of the heir of the wife ; and, therefore, the amount of interest actually due at the death of the wife should be added to the principal, and the husband, entitled as tenant by the curtesy, should keep down the interest of the aggregate sum during the remainder of his life. But he is not entitled to any allowance for interest actually paid by him during his wife's life (//). Where the estates of the husband and wife were mortgaged to secure the husband's debt, which was paid off out of the produce of the wife's estate, the representatives of the wife were not allowed interest on the sum paid against the husband's estate (z) ; apparently because it constituted a men' simple contract debt which did not carry interest. A tenant in tail in possession cannot be compelled to keep down Tenant in • • • j tail, the interest on a mortgage, because the reversioner and remain- derman are considered as wholly in his power (a). But an exception to the rule arises if the tenant in tail is an in, ant, in which case the reasoning does not apply; and it is therefore decided that the guardians or trustees of an infant tenant in tail are bound to apply the rents in keeping down the interest ; and if the guardian permits the interest to run in arrear during the infancy of the tenant in tail, an account of the rents and profits will be decreed after the infant's death (b) . And even in the case of an infant tenant in fee, the guardian is bound to keep down the interest of incumbrances out of the rents, and not increase the infant's personal estate at the expense of the real estate (c) . If a tenant in tail of full age keeps down the interest and dies, his personal representative will not be a creditor for the amount of interest paid, but the remainderman or reversioner will have the benefit (d) ; and in a case in which it appeared that a man, being seised of lands in right of his wife, who was tenant in tail in possession, subject to a subsisting mortgage, took in the mort- gage, and during his wife's life was himself in receipt of the (y) Ruscombe x. Rare, 2 Bli. N. S. {b) Sergison v. Sealey, 2 Atk. 416 ; 192. Burgess v. Mawbeg, 1 T. & R. 167, (a) Lancaster v. Evors, 10 Beav. 154, and cases there cited ; Bertie v. Lord 266. Abingdon, 3 Mer. 566. (a) Amesburgv. Brown, 1 Ves. Sen. (e) Jennings v. Looks, 2 P. "Wms. 477 ; Chaplin v. Chaplin, 3 P. Wms. 276. 235. (d) Amesbury v. Brown, sup. atp. 481. VOL. I. K. T T 642 NATURE OF EQU1 i\ OF REDEMPTION. WW. Persons bound by equity of re- demption. The Crown and lords of manors, whether bound. No escheat of property held on trust or mortgage. rents, the Court, after the wife's death, on ;i bill filed by the reversioner to redeem, refused the husband interest on the mortgage diu-ing the period he had been in possession of the rents (e). vi. — Escheat and Forfeiture. — Questions of great nicety formerly arose in reference to the persons on whom this equity of redemption was binding, but for the most part they have now ceased to have any interest. Lord Hale described it to lie not merely a trust, but a title in equity, and to be inherent in the lands, and binding- on all persons, whether in the post or otherwise (f) ; and although on the immediate establishment of the equity of redemption, ancient prejudices so far prevailed as to lead to a decision that lands conveyed to a mortgagee in fee became subject to his legal incumbrances, and to the dower of his wife (i) to all that was not answered to the Crown, i.e., to all but the mesne profits. His right of redemption therefore returned to him (o). An equity of redemption of a mortgage in fee was liable to forfeiture for treason, but not for felony (p) ; but the equity of redemption in the case of a term was forfeited by either treason or felony (q). Now, however, forfeiture for treason and felony has been abolished (r), and administrators are {l) Rogers v. Maide, 1 Y. & C. C. Crofts, 4 Bro. P. C. 136. But see C. 4. King v. Dnonmond, Cro. Jac. 5113, and (m) Att.-Gen. v. Crofts, 4 Bro. P. C. Sugd. Gilb. on Uses, 78, note. By 136. 54 Geo. III. c. 145, corruption of (») Rockley v. Wilkinson, Sir T. blood is in all cases saved except for Jones, 100; Eyre v. Woodsine, Cro. treason, petit treason, and murder. Eliz. 278. See 1 Jarm. on Wills, 5th ed. p. 45. (o) Peyton v. Ayliffe, 2 Vera. 312. [q) See Sug. Gilb. on Uses, 70. \p) Att.-Gen. v. Sands, Hard. 488 ; \r) 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23. LoveIVs case, 1 Salk. 85; Att.-Gen. v. T T 2 • Ml \A1 URE OF EQU] IV 0] REDEMP1 CHAP. XXXV, Escheats oi equity of re- demption in realty. Intestates Act, 1884. Crown sub- ject to debts. Prerogative of Crown as to mortgaged personalty. Escheat to lord. appointed by tho Crown "I the property of any convict, who may pay I ; and the property of the convict, on completion of hifl Bentenoe or on hie death, reverts to him or his heirs. Formerly, in case of death intestate and without an heir, the equitable interest of a ■■ tut que trust in land, or in the pn of sale of land devised apon trusi Eor sale, did no! esohi I the Crown, bul vested beneficially in the trust i similarly, in such a case an equity of redemption was not liable to escheat, and, accordingly, Lord Eldon thought thai the mortgagee might refuse to be redeemed by anyone t). It was, however, de in a later case thai the mortgagee was subject to the debts of the mortgagor, whose administrator could redeem, and 1 1 1 < • title of the mortgageo was held nol to 1"' complete ev< a after twenty years; as although ordinary debts would be barred, yet a debl on covenant not yel broken might arise at any moment But now, by the [ntestates' Estates Act, L884 (a?), where a person lias died since the 1 Itli of August, 1884, without an heir and intestate in respect of any real estate consisting of any equitable estate or interest in Land, corporeal or incorporeal, the law of escheat is to apply in the same manner as if the estate or interest were a legal estate in oorporeal hereditaments. When an estate is mortgaged beyond its value, but the legal estate is h-ft in the mortgagor and escheats to the Crown, the estate may be sold in an administration suit, and a grant be applied for from the Crown (//), or in a suit by the mortgagee (not being a creditor's suit | he will be decreed to hold against the Crown until the mortgage debt is paid If a mortgagor of personalty dies intestate without any next of kin, the Crown, by virtue of its prerogative, will stand in their place (a), subject, nevertheless, to the right of his widow to the amount or value of 500/. (//), and to a moiety of the residue of the mortgaged property, if of greater amount or value (c). The lord, under the reservation of the equity of redemption to (s) Burgess v. Wlicate, 1 Ed. 177. And see Faxveet v. Lowther, 2 Ves. Sen. 300, 304; Taylor v. Kay garth, 14 Sim. 8, 17; Re Lashmar, Mood// t. Pen/old, (1891) 1 Cb. 258, C. A. (t) Gordon v. Gordon, 3 Swanst. 470. (?<) Beale x. Si/monds, 16 Beav. 406. (*) 47 & 48 Vict. c. 71. (y) Rogers v. Mattle, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 4. (z) Hodge v. Att.-Gen., 3 Y. .V O. Ex. 342. (a) Taylor v. Haygarth, 14 Sim. 8 ; Powell v. Merrett, 1 Sm. & G. 381. See 39 & 40 Vict. c. 18, repealing 15 & 16 Vict. c. 3. (b) 53 & 54 Vict. c. 29. (c) See Cave v. Roberts, 8 Sim. 214. CURTESY AND DOWER. 645 the mortgagor, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, chap. xxxv. takes it by esoheat, as an assign in law, as belonging to the inheiitanoe •/). So the lord would, in equity, he entitled to a term of years attendant upon the inheritance as part of the escheated property (., lVern. 340. ante, p. 627. (/) Evans v. Brown, 5 Beav. 114; (i) Ail. -Gen. r. Scott, Cas. t. Talb. Httghesv. Wells, 9 Ha. 750. (Williams) 138, and cases in note; (g) Viscount IJowne v. Morris, 3 Ha. It' Area/ v. Blake, 2 Sch. & L. 391. 394. See Rogers v. Maule, 1 Y. & C. See also Dixon v. Saville, 1 Bro. C. C. C. C. 4 ; Hancock v. Att.-Gen., 12 W. 326. R. 569, V.-C. Kindersley. (J) Banks v. Sutton, 2 P. Wms. 700. 646 NAI i BE OF EQ1 II V OF REDEMPTION. chap. \\w. viii. — Devolution, Devise, &c, of Equity of Redemption. — 5 nuf An equity of redemption being i in the Land without . chaim-e of ownership, it necessarily follows that it s line "I' redemption in o i freeholds. devolution must, in the course of desoent, be governed as th" land itself would have been, by the general law k , or by the lex loci; and therefore, if the land be of gavelkind tenure, the equity of redemption will Ijo divisible in like manner; or if the tenure be borough-English, the youngest son will be entitled. •So an equity of redemption in copyholds will descend to the customary heir of the mortgagor, as the legal estate would have done(/). It also follows that the doctrine of possesmo fratris would formerly have applied in exclusion of tho half- blood (in). Devise of A devise of the equity of redemption will be valid if attended equity of vnth the like formalities as tho law requires for a devise of tho redemption. land (n). It may be here observed that, until tho period for redemption i rived, the mortgagor has a rigid of entry only, but such a right is now devisable at law(o). Even before the Wills Act, though probably a devise made by the mortgagor in tho interval before breach of the condition might not have been maintainable at law (p), there can be no doubt that it would have been good in equity, whether tho mortgagor died before or after the breach of the condition. Revocationof Before the Wills Act, which makes wills speak from tho will by movt- death, a will was only revoked pro tanto by a subsequent niort- old law. gage of the devised land, if such mortgage was confined to the purposes of tho security (y) ; but a mortgage by a disentailing deed, which limited the equity of redemption to the mortgagor in fee, was a total revocation of a prior will (>•). Devolution of As the mortgagor of copyhold lands remains tenant to the equity of re- lord until the admittance of the mortgagee, the copyholds will demptmn m . , ° ° . x J copyholds. on his death descend to his customary heir, though the lord has accepted rent from the surrenderee («), and a heriot will (/;) Duly v. Kaldcr, llJur.N. S. 921. (q) Perkins v. Walker, 1 Vern. 97; (I) Faivcct v. Lowther, 2 Ves. Sen. Hall v. Bench, 1 Vern. 392 ; Brain 300,304. See Blake v. Foster, 2 Ea. & v. Brain, 6 Madd. 221. See Youde Be. 387, 402. v. Tones, 13 M. ic W. 534. (;«) But see 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 106, (>•) Power v. Power, 9 Ir. Ch. E. s. 9. 178 ; Sparrow v. Harclcastle, 3 Atk. («) Pliillijjs v. Hele, 1 Eep. in Ch. 798; Harmood v. Off lander, 8 Ves. 107 ; 190. Locke v. Foote, 5 Sim. 618. (o) 1 Vict. c. 26, s. 3. (s) Frosel v. Welsh, Cro. Jac. 403. \p) See 2 Ch. Ca. 8. LIABILITY TO DEBTS. 64 ' become due (/) ; and the mortgagor remains liable to the lord chap, xxxv. for services, and for the purpose of forfeiture («), and before 55 Geo. III. c. 192, a surrender to the use of his will was necessary (x). A surrenderee, not being tenant until admittance, cannot in Devise, the meantime pass the lands by surrender (y), although he may make an equitable transfer of them. He may also devise the lands, and, in the case of a will made before the 1st of January, 1838, they would have passed in equity (c), but the devisee was not entitled to admission as legal tenant, for a legal devise of copyholds could not be made before admittance (if) ; and, there- fore, although the devisee was admitted, the surrenderor or his heir still remained tenant to the lord. But equity considered the legal tenant to be a trustee for the devisee. The proper course to be pursued, probably, was for the heir of the surren- deree to be admitted and to make a surrender to the devisee. In Doe v. Vernon (a), it was held that the devisee (who had been admitted) of a devisee, who had died without admittance, could not maintain ejectment as the legal tenant. The principle that a mortgage of property does not affect the Devolution, devolution or testamentary disposition of the mortgaged property g ° g ° d ™*_ ' applies to personalty no less than realty ; and, accordingly, an sonalty. equity of redemption in personalty vests, on the death of the mortgagor, in his personal representatives, to be applied by them in due course of administration. i x , —Liability of Equity of Redemption to Mortgagor's Debts. Liability of ... , . P , , , equity of re- — An equity of redemption, being an estate of the mortgagor, dempt i n to is liable in his hands to satisfy the claims of creditors, whether mortga gor's by specialty or simple contract, and they may enforce their claims by entering up judgment, and proceeding thereunder against the property subject to the mortgage. By sect. 11 of the statute 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, the sheriff is Judgment^ empowered to deliver in execution to judgment creditors all ^LiTc. no. lands, &c. of their debtors; and by sect. 13 of the same Act, a charge upon the real estate of a judgment debtor was created (t) Watk. Cop., 4th ed. p. 104 ; 2 L. R. 3 Ch. A. 615. Pow. Mtg., 6th ed. p. 1071. («) 1 Seriv. Cop., 4th ed. p. 210. hi) Doe v. Wroot, 5 East, 132 ; Floyd (y) Doc v. Tofteld, 11 East, 246. v. Aldridge, cited 5 East, 137; Beg. («) Davie v. Beversham, 3 Rep. m v Mildmay, 5 B. & Ad. 254 ; Pow. Ch. 2. Mt°- 6th ed. p. 433 a, n. See Fawcet (a) 7 East, 8 ; Phillips v. Phillips, 1 v. Zowther, 2 Ves. Sen. 300; Minton My. & K. 649. v. Kiricood, L. R. 1 Eq. 449, affirmed NAT! RE "I i ','i in 0] u.M.Mri CHAP. WW. o. 38. 27 & 28 Via. c. Hi'. Equity "f re- demption extendible ai Miit nf Crown ; — not at suit of subject. ke effect in favour of a creditor who had entered up hit judgment. Jn L860, by 23 & 24 \ r iot. o, 38, an alteration was effected in it of judgments, statutes, or recognizances i ntered ap the 23rd July, L860, and no mortgagee was affected thereby, unless the writ of execution thereon had been issued and n tered under the above statute, and also executed within three' calendar months from such registry. In I si; | ;i further alteration was mad'' in the law, and a judgment creditor lias now no lien, until the land has been actually delivered in execution. By 27 & 28 Vict. o. 1 L2, . I. no judgment, statute, or recognizance entered up after the 29th July, 1864, shall affect land of any tenure, until suoh land shall have been actually delivered in execution by virtue of a -writ of elegit or other lawful authority in pursuance of such judgment. Under an extent at the suit of the Crown, an equity of redemption (6), or any other equitable interest in lands except copyholds, i" whioh the debtor is beneficially entitled i . can be actually taken and delivered in execution, and may be Bold to satisfy the ( !rown debt {(I). On an application for an order for sale of a Crown delator's equity of redemption in lands, under the statute 25 Geo. Ill; c. 35, notice must be given to the mortgagee of the intended motion for an order to sell the estate subject to the mortg and under this order the sheriff ought to sell the equity of redemption only. And where the whole estate was Bold without reference to the mortgage, the Court refused to order payment of the mortgage out of the proceeds of the sale, without the consent of the mortgagor; hut directed a reference to the dejuity-rememhrancer, to ascertain what was due on the mort- gage^). An equity of redemption, whether in a freehold estate (/) or a term (g), cannot he extended by the sheriff at the suit of a (b) Ji. v. Coombes, 1 Pri. 207 i I v. Philpot, 12 Pri. 197. (c) Att.-Gen. v. Sands, Hard. 495 ; shire's Case, 11 Rep. 92. See 13 Eliz. c. 4. a. 5. (d) Ii. v. Be La Moltc, Forr. 1G2. See 13 Eliz. c. 4 ; 25 Geo. III. c. 35 ; 28 & 29 Vict. c. 104, s. 50. (e) R. v. Coombes, 1 Pri. 207. (/) Blanket v. 2 Atk. 290; Thorni h, 4 Giff. 515 ; Haltm v. Haywood, L. P. 9 Ch. A. 229 ; nk v. Davies, 9 < !h. D. 275. C. A. (y) Salt v. Cooper, 16 Ch. D. 544. See Burdon v. Kennedy, 3 Atk. 738 ; Lyster v. Bolland, 1 Ves. Jun. 431. LIABILITY TO DEBTS. 640 subject ; and, accordingly, a creditor cannot, by entering up chap. xxxv. judgment and suing out a writ of elegit, obtain a cliarge, by virtue of sect. 11 of the statute 1 & 2 Yict. c. 110, upon lands in mortgage. In such a case, however, the creditor can obtain equitable Equitable execution which will give him a charge under sect. 13 of executl0n - that Act. For this purpose, the aid of equity may be invoked by writ of assistance, sequestration, or the appointment of a receiver. Writs of assistance have now become virtually obsolete, Writ of though the Court has still power to grant, and has under special absls duoc ' circumstances recently granted, such writs in aid of judgments for the recovery of land or delivery of chattels (//). Sequestration is a prerogative process addressed to Commis- Nature and sioners, empowering them to enter upon real estates and sequester aequesteation. the rents, and upon the personal estate and effects of a person in contempt for disobedience of a decree or order, and to keep the same until the defendant clear his contempt (/). Equitable execution of an equity of redemption or other Appointment interests in land not extendible, is usually effected by means of ° receiver< an appointment by tho Court of a receiver of the rents and profits of the lands (k). Inasmuch as equity is now adminis- tered by all Divisions of the High Court, a judgment creditor may now, without commencing a fresh action or suit for the purpose, make an interlocutory application by motion or sum- mons in Chambers, in tho action in which he has recovered judgment, for the appointment of a receiver (/). In a case where the giving security by the receiver was part Omission of of the order appointing him, and, therefore, the order was not re / seiver to ., 1 L ° give security. complete without security being given (w), yet the omission to give such security was held not to prevent the order from operating as a delivery of the land in execution (/i). An equity of redemption in chattels cannot be seized and sold Equity of re- by the sheriff. If goods are taken in execution, and it appears chattels. 11 m that they have been previously assigned by way of bill of sale, it 3ee Rail v. Hall, 47 L. J. Cli. (/) Smith v. C'owell, 6 Q. B. D. 75, 680; Wyman v. Knight, 39 Ch. D. C. A. ; Westhead v. Riley, 25 Ch. D. 165. See also Kazis tie la Horde v. 414. Othon, 23 TV. R. 110. ( m ) Edwards v. Edwards, 2 Ch. D. (i) Wharton, Law Lex. a. v. "Se- 291, C. A. See Defries v. Creed, 34 qui •.-♦ration." See also R. S. C, L. J. Ch. G07. Ord. XLIII. r. 6. (») Exp. Evans, Re Watkins, 13 Ch. (k) Anglo-Italian Bank v. Davies, 9 D. 252, C. A. Ch. D. 275, 291, C. A. \vi i mi I OF BEDEMP1 CHAP. XXXV. Satiafai of deW out "f tnd profits, or by sale. Equity of ro- diinptiuii in trus- tee of I ank- rupl mort- gagor. Power of attorney. I disclaimer of onerous pro- perty. Vesting 1 order. is the duty of tip- sheriff to withdraw and retain nulla hot the property in the goods has already passed by the bill of o). But in such the < kmrt has power to order a of the g Is ( /'). Where a judgment oreditorhas i ' equitable execution by means of a receivership order over the mortgaged lands of his debtor or otherwise, he may, subject to the rights of prior incumbrancers, satisfy his debt out of the rents and profit he may, by virtue of the charge created by Beot. 13 of the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, proceed to a sab- of the lands for r faction of his debt, under sect, l of the stat. 27 & '-' s Viot. 0. 1 12, in liko manner as if he had actually sued out execution by means of a writ of elegit. On the bankruptcy of a mortgagor, the equity of redemption in tho mortgaged property passes to the official receiver until the appointment of a trustee, and then to the trustee, whether the property be valuable or not Tho tru tee may make a valid release of the equity of re- demption to the mortgagee (r). A power of attorney by a mortgagor to his agent is at an end on his bankruptcy; the receipt of the agent afterward- is not as agent for the trustee, and the annulment of tho bank- ruptcy does not vest in the bankrupt any right to recover such rents («). By sect. 55 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1£S ; > (/), the trustee is empowered to disclaim property of the bankrupt consisting of bind burdened with onerous covenants, or of shares, or stock in companies, unprofitable oontraots, and other unsaleable property; such disclaimer is, however, only effectual for tho purpose of releasing the bankrupt and his trustee, and does not affect the rights of a mortgagee as against the property. Under the Bankruptcy Act, L869 (tt), which contained a similar power of disclaimer, it was decided, where the owner of freeholds burdened with onerous covenants, the title deeds of which he had deposited by way of equitable mortgage, became (o) Scarlett v. Sanson, 12 Q. B. J). 213 C A. (J) R. S. C, Ord. LVII. r. 12, sub- stituted for sect. 13 of the Common. Law Procedure Act, 1860 (23 & 24 Vict. c. 126), repealed by 46 & 47 Vict. c. 49. (q) Desborough v. Karris, 5 De G. M. & G. 439. (r) Melbourne Banking Corp. v. Brougham, 4 App. Cas. 156, J. C. (a) Marhwick v. Hardingham, 15 Ch. D. 339, C. A. (0 46 & 47 Vict. c. 52. («) 32 & 33 Vict. c. 71. LIABILITY TO DEBTS. G51 bankrupt, and the trustee disclaimed, and subsequently the chap. xxxv. trustee and the bankrupt purported to convey the property to the mortgagee, that the conveyance was inoperative, and that the legal estate was outstanding, and could not be got in under the Trustee Act, 18-30 (ar), it having apparently, on the dis- claimer, become vested in the Crown (//). Now, however, the Court has power, under sect. 55 (G) of the Act of 1883, by order, to vest the disclaimed property in any person entitled thereto, and it would seem that in such a case an order would probably be made vesting the property in the mortgagee or his assign. An equity of redemption is assets applicable for payment of Liability of the debts of a deceased mortgagor (z) . demotion for Assets in a court of equity are legal or equitable. If they debts of ). Before the Statute of Frauds (c) beneficial interests in Trust estates. trust estates were not legal assets, and, on the balance of authorities, not even equitable assets (d) . By that statute, trust estates in fee simple were rendered liable to an execu- tion at law (as they are now under 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110), it being thereby enacted, that if any cestui que trust thereafter should die, leaving a trust in fee simple to descend to his heir, such trust should be deemed and taken to be assets by descent, and the heir should be liable to and chargeable with the obli- (.») 13 & 14 Vict. c. 60. book i. (y) Re Mercer and Moore, 14 Ch. D. («) Vide sup. pp. 647, 648. 287. \b) Williams on Executors, 9th ed. (z) See generally as to the applica- pp. 1546 et seq. tion of assets to the satisfaction of (c) 29 Car. II. c. 3, s. 10. claims on the estate of a deceased (d) Williams on Real Assets, p. 18. person, Williams on Executors, pt. iv. Mil RE "I EQUITY OP REDEMPTION. CHAP. Equity of redemption is freeholds is leeal a Inheritable inter* realty. Reversion in fee. Judgments. Copyholds. Leaseholds. gation of his ancestor Eoi and by reason of such assets, as fully and amplj as he mighl or oughl to have been, it" the estate in law had descended to him in ; ion, in like manner as the trusi descended. Thus a rtrusl estate of inheritance became Legal ind, by analogy, it was held that an equity of redemption in free- holds was also legal a In Plunket v. /' 1 , Lord Hardwicke determined it to be equitable ind thai the heir might, on an action against him by a specialty creditor, plead Hens per descent (g) ; but this has been overruled h). [nheritable interests in real estate, nol charged with the pay- menl of debts, are governed (whether Legal or equitable), as to liability to debts, by 3 & I Will. IV. o. L04(t). Having regard to this Act, an equity of redemption in fee is, f<>r all practical purposes, applicable to the payment of debts on the same foot- ing as legal assets &), notwithstanding the old cases (/) . The priority whioh this Aj I gave to creditors by specialty over other creditors is now abolished (//<). If the mortgage is but Eor a term of years, Leaving a legal reversion in the mortgagor, the reversion in fee will be, of course, legal assets (n), for the specialty creditors might have judgment at law with a cesset executio until the reversion fell into possession (o). The judgment at Law will be only of assets quando acciderint, but the creditor may, by suit, compel the heir to sell the reversion, even, as it seems, if it be expectant on an estate tail (/>). If the mortgagee be in fee, and there be judgment creditors, who under any statute (7) have a lien, the equity of redemption will not, as to them, be applicable as equitable assets (/•). An equity of redemption in copyholds is legal assets It would seem that an equity of redemption in a leasehold (e) Freem. Ch.Pl. 130. Then] adds. " Come al moy fuit dit per Sir F. AYinnington, il esteant de concilio en le case ; " and see 3 Leon. 32. (/) 2 Atk. 290. And see Solley v. . 2 Vern. 61 ; Clay v. Willis, 1 B. & Cr. 372. (g) Plucknet v. EirJc, 1 Vern. 411. (h) Cook y. Greg son, 3 Drew. 547 ; Shee v. French, 3 Drew. 716; Att.- Gen. v. Brunning, 8 H. L. C. 24 3 ; Christy v. Courtenay, 26 Beav. 140 ; Mutlow v. Mutlow, 4 De G. & J. 539. (i) Richardson v. Jenkins, 1 Drew. 477. (k) Foster v. Handtey, 1 Sim. N. S. 200; 16 Jur. 73 ; Ei Burrell, L. E. 9 Eq. 443. (1) Solley v. Gotoer, 2 Vern. 61 ; Plunket v. Penson, 2 Atk. 290. (»0 32 & 33 Vict. c. 36. («) Plucknet v. Kirk, 1 Vern. 411. (o) Plunket v. Penson, sup. (p) See Tyndale v. Warre, 1 Jac. 212, and cases there cited. {g) Vide sup. pp. 647, 648. (r) Sharpe v. Earl of Scarborough, 4 Ves. 538. (*) Re Burrell, L. R. 9 Eq. 443. LIABILITY TO DEBTS. 653 estate is legal assets (/), notwithstanding some earlier decisions ciiai-. xxxv. to the contrary {u). The following have also been held to be legal assets : — The Instano .. n i j legal assets, equity of redemption of a mortgage ot money charged on land (.r) ; the surplus proceeds of sale of mortgaged property (y) ; and a personal chattel subject to a lien minus the amount of such lien (z) . An equity of redemption in inheritable real estate devised to trustees or executors for payment of debts is equitable assets (a) . Whether estates are devised to trustees or executors to sell for payment of debts, or descend to the heir charged by the ancestor with the payment of debts, will make no difference in their being accounted equitable assets; nor is it of any effect that the testator directs that the produce shall be considered as part of his personal estate (b) . (t) See Cook v. Greg son, 3 Drew. (a) See Lenin v. Okeley, 2 Atk. 50, 647, 551. and cases in note. Clay v. Jr'tl/i-s, 1 (u) The Creditors of Sir Charles Cox, B. & Cr. 372 ; Silk v. Prime, 1 Bro. 3 I'. Wms. 342; Hartwett v. Chitters, C. C. 138; Barker v. May, 9 B. & Cr. Amb. ot)S ; Clay v. Willis, 1 B. & Cr. 489, overruling Girling v. Lee, 1 Vern. 372. 63. (s) Cook v. Gregson, 3 Drew. 547. (b) Bailey v. Ekins, 7 Ves. 319 ; \y) Christy v. Courtenay, 20 Beav. Shiphard v. Lutioidge, 8 Ves. 26 ; HO. Soames v. Robinson, 1 My. & K. 500 ; (2) Glahohn v. Soumtree, 6 A. & E. Shakelsy. Richardson, 2 Coll. 31. 710. «;,i CHAPTER XXXVI. OF THE RELATION OF THE MOETGAGOB TO THE MORTGAGEE. Mortgagor J — Generally. — The mortgagor cannot dispute his mortgag estopped from ' . , * . b ° . . ' ... disputing title against his own solemn aot (a) , ana it makes no difference mortgagees though the mortgagor boa trustee acting in B publio cap and not for his own benefit (6) ; nor could he, i, Bet np a Legal title in a third person paramount to that of the mortgagor (rf), or Bet up a prior Legal mortgago from the mortgagor to a third per d . in order to defend his own possession. But the rule does not apply when a subsequent purchaser or mortgageo for valuable consideration, without notice of the prior mortgage, obtains a valid legal conveyance from tho mortgagor (who has in the meantime become clothed with the legal estate), or gets in an outstanding legal estate (/) ; though it would seem that such party might ho bound l>y estoppel, if there was a positive recital of the legal Beisin of tho mortgagor contained in the mortgage deed (//) ; but not if the recital was that he was legally or equitably seised (A). There is an estoppel from tho word " demise " . but none from the word " grant " (./). The whole deed must be looked at in order to decide whether there is an estoppel (a) Goodtitle v. BaiU>i, CWp. G01 ; L. J. (O. S.) Cb. 85. See Goodtitb v. Doex. l'iekirs, 4 A. & E. 782 : Doe v. T. R. 765 : / Clifton, 4 A. & E. 813. 4 Dr. & War. 354 ; Keate v. Phillips, (b) Doe v. Home, 3 Q. B. 757 ; not- W. N. (1881] 72. withstanding Fairtille v. Gilbert, 2 (g) Right x. Bucknell, su/>. See T. R. 171. Finance, <$-c. Co. x. Liberator, {c) Freeman v. Barnes, 1 Vent. 55, 80; &;e. Soe., 10 Ch. D. 15, 22. Focus v. Salisbury, Hard. 402. See (k) Right v. BuehneU, sup.; Heath Fermor's Case, 3 'Rep. 77; Smith x. x. Crealock, L. R. 10 Ch. A. 22, 28; Tierce, Carth. 101: Earl Pomfret x. Sungerford v. Becher, 5 Ir. Ch. R. Lord Windsor, 2 Ves. Sen. 472, -182; 117/426. Sail v. Doe, 5 B. & Aid. 687. (i) Sturgeon x. Wingftcld, 15 M. & W. (d) Doe x. Stone, 3 C. B. 176. 22 1. \e) Doe x. Clifton, 4 A. & E. 813. (J) Heath x. Crealock, L. R. 10 Ch. (/) Bight x. Bucknell, 2 B. & Ad. A. 22. 278, overruling Bensley x. Bunion, 8 (&) Crofts x. Middleton, 2K. & J. 194. TENANCY FOR TERM. 655 But a mortgagor may take out an originating summons under ciiap. xxxvi. R. S. C. Ord., LIV. r. 1, to have a question of construction arising Question of under the mortgage deed, without offering to redeem (/). There is some obscurity in the books as to the position in Relation of which the mortgagor, during the period of actual possession, or ™ S s^% n r to n receipt of the rents of the land, stands in respect to the mort- mortgagee. gagee. The result of the eases, however, appears to be, that he may be considered as tenant for a term, or at will, or by suffer- ance, or a trespasser, according to circumstances. ii. — When the Mortgagor is Tenant for a Term. — Formerly it Proviso for was the actual practice to insert in mortgage deeds a proviso \ [ " { u u \ 'Q? nJ ~ that it should be lawful for the mortgagor to have quiet enjoy- mortgagor mcnt of the property, until default should be made in payment on the day fixed by the mortgage deed. The effect of such a proviso was that the mortgage deed operated as a re-demise by the mortgagee to the mortgagor for the term allowed for pay- ment of the money (»i). As this term is now generally six months from the date of the mortgage deed, and the operation of the proviso would then cease, there is little or no practical advantage in inserting such a proviso, and it is now, in practice, usually omitted. But where the proviso is merely that the mortgagee may Default where enter and take possession on default in payment on the given n ? cortam L } a Y 1 1 J ° m oi payment. day, or that the mortgagee shall not take the profits until default in payment, or, as it seems, that the mortgagor shall take the profits until default in payment (no definite time being in such last-mentioned case fixed for payment of the mortgage money), in any of these cases the proviso only amounts to a covenant, and the mortgagee may bring an action for the land at any time without notice, though by the proviso he be required to give notice before entry, or though there bo a covenant for further assurance by the mortgagor in case of default in payment (//). The action can be brought, although a bill of (/) Xobbs v. Law Reversionary Interest viso had been in the form in the text, it Soc, (1896) 2 Ch. 830. would have amounted to a demise for (m) Wilkinson v. Hall, 3 Bing. N. S. a term. In the note it is ingeniously f>08 ; Powaeley v. Blackman, Cro. Jac. suggested that a mortgagor may be 6;VJ. In a note to the case of Doe v. considered as tenant in fee determin- Maisey, 8 B. & Cr. 767, it is considered able, as in the case of a shifting use that the case of Powseley v. Blackman under a marriage settlement, but this does not bear out the above proposition. would be repugnant to the use already But, on perusing the case, it will be limited to the mortgagee in fee. seen, it was admitted that if the pro- (n) Doc v. Bay, 2 Q. B. 147 ; Boc v. G56 KM i.\ i [ON OF MORTGAGOB TO MOETG ^GEE. i HAP. Effect of prm 1^.1 in case of mortgage of chattels. Damages for breach of proviso. Vesting of property. MortfraLT'' for term of years. exohange has be< d given for the debl (o . In the earli< i lh„ v. Goldwin (p) t where one of the trusts of a deed I an annuity was t<> permii the mi to reoeive the i until default in payment "I tin- annuity, the Court of Qu< Benoh held, upon tin' authority of Wilkinson \. Hall (q), that the trusts amounted to a re-demise, ami thai notice to quitj given by the mortgagor to a tenant of the premises, was valid against ;i notice by the mortgagee to pay rent. But, in his judgment in Dot v. Dap (r), Lord Denman said, " It may be questioned whether sutlicient attention was paid in that ease to the point as to the certainty of time." '1 an, therefore, hardly ho considered as an authority. In like manner, in a mortgage of ohatteli il, a proviso that the mortgagor shall hold till default, and thou that the mortgagee may tako possession, was held, in the Queen's Bench, not to prevent the immediate operation of the assignment, bo ae to vest the property in the goods in the assignee, though the clause authorized the mortgagor to make use of articles consum- able, which was held to amounl only to a lioenoe to oonsum< But the mortgagee of chattels and leaseholds cannot, until he has aright of possession of the former, or until entry on the latter, maintain an action of trespass againsi a third | nor until he has a right of possession to the chattels can he sue in trover (w). The damage recoverable by the mortgagor for breach of such proviso is not the value of the chattel-, but his interest in them (./•). The property, notwithstanding the proviso for quiet enjoy- ment, vests in the mortgagee (//). If the mortgage is for a term of years, with a proviso that the mortgagor shall continue in quiet enjoyment until the end of the term, or until default shall be made in payment of interest, or in the performance of some other obligation under the secu- Ughtfoot, 8 M. & W. 553; Bac. Abr. tit. Leases, (K.) ; Shep. Touchst. by Preston, 272; Rogers v. Grazebrook, 8 Q. B. 895 ; 3l< tropolitan Counties Soc. v. Brown, 1 E. & E. 832 ; Doe x. Ken- siw/ton, 8 Q. B. 429 ; Trent v. Bunt, 9 Exch. 14; Doe v. Barton, 11 A. ..V- E. 307 ; Doe v. Giles, 5 Bing. 121 ; Doe v. Mayo, 7 L. J. K. B. 84 ; Jolly v. Arbuthnot, 4 De G. & J. 224. (o) Bramwell v. Eglington, 5 B. & S. 39. (p) 2 Q. B. 143. \q) 3 Bing. N. S. 508. {>■) 2 Q. B. 117. (s) Gait v. Burnell, 7 Q. B. 150; and the judgment in 2)oe v. Day, 2Q.B. 147. (t) W heeler v. Montefiore, 2 Q. B. 133 (w) Bradley v. Copley, 1 C. B. 685. (x) Fenn v. Bill /'.atom-, 7 Exch. 752 ; Brierley v. Kendall, 17 Q. B. 937. (y) White v. Morris, 16 Jur. 500, C. P. TENANCY AT WILL. 657 rity, it would seem that the mortgagor will be tenant of the chap, xxxn . mortgagee for the term defeasible on default (z). So, where the plaintiff on the 5th of December, 1833, Covenant mortgaged in fee with a proviso for redemption on payment of ]„'„„,',,' '.[' the principal and interest on the 5th of June, 1834, but the operating as • ■ • i x-i n redemise, mortgagee covenanted not to call in the principal until the 5th of December, 1840, if the interest in the meantime was duly paid, and it was agreed that the mortgagor should quietly enjoy the premises until default, it was held that this agree- ment amounted to a redemise to him until the 5th of December, 1840 (a). The form of the proviso is immaterial, if the intention is Form of clear. " Whatever words are sufficient to explain the intent of P roviso - the parties, that the one shall divest himself of the possession and the other come into it for such a determinate time, such words, whether they run in the form of a licence, covenant, or agreement, are of themselves sufficient, and will, in construction of law, amount to a lease for years as effectually as if the most proper and pertinent words had been made use of for that purpose " (b). But the mere omission to take possession is not evidence of Omission to such an agreement; and where there is nothing more than B f on . pob such omission, the mortgagor holds possession merely on suffer- ance (r). A redemise is not created by a covenant on the part of the Negative mortgagee not to take the profits until the day for payment of ^Sclent: U< the money, or by a covenant that a mortgagee may enter after default : it is no good lease, only a covenant, for the words are negative only and not affirmative ('/). To create a redemise there must be a certain time fixed during which the mortgagor is to hold, and an affirmative covenant (e). iii, — When the Mortgagor is Tenant at Will.— If no proviso Effect where for quiet enjoyment by the mortgagor is inserted in the mortgage ^^ " ° (;) Poicseh y v. Blachnan, Cro. Jac. Rogers v. Grasu brook, 8 Q. B. 895 _ g^y Poivseley v. Blackmail, Cro. Jac. 659; (a) Wilkinson v. Hall, 3 Bing. N. C. Gale v. Bunnell, 7 Q. B. *50. 50y (e) Doe v. Goldwin, 2 Q. B. 143 ; Doe tb) Bac.Ab. tit. Leases (K.). v. Day, 2 Q. B. 147, explaining (c) J 'ay son v. Rush, 1 Salk. 209; Wheeler v. Montefiore, 2 Q. B. 13 3 ; 1 Keymott, 7 Moo. 574. Sm. L. C. 6th ed. p. 523; 2 Lav. {el) Shep. Touchbt. by Preston, 272; Conv. 4th ed. vol. u. pt. 2, pp. 314, Doe v. Lightfoot, 8 M. & W. 553; 315. quiet enjoy- ment. VOL. I. R. U U 658 l;i i.\ i |m\ OF MORTGAGOR TO MOKTG m.i.i .. ( HAP. XXXVI. Cases on ques- tion whether mortgagor is tenanl of mortgagee considered. deed, it has been said thai lie will be deemed to be tenanl at wil] of the mortgagee who, in the abeenoe of Buoh proviso, may enter into possession immediately upon the execution of the morf - deed (/), A tenant at will is one who, ab initio, enjoys the Land by the express or implied consent of the owner without there being any obligation on the pad of either of the parties to continue the tenanoy Eor any certain time (p . But, in respects, a mortgagor under these ohroumstanoes is in a worse position than an ordinary tenant at will, inasmuch as the mort- gagee may evict him without notice or demand of possession, and may retain the emblements (//). In Doe d. Roby v. Maisey (t), Lord Tenterden is reported to have said that a mortgagor in possession was not in the situation of tenant at all; or, at all events, he was not more than tenant at sufferance, and that in a particular character, liable to be treated as tenant or trespasser, at the option of the mortg aj But in a prior case (k), the Court of King's Bench appeared clear in opinion thai the mortgagor might be considered as tenant in the strictest definition of that word, for the purpose of enabling the mortgagee to maintain an action for trespass against a third person; thi> was followed in a later case, where the mortgagee was allowed to declare "in case" as reversioner for injury to the premises, by removal of fixtures by the mort- gagor's assignees (/). In Moss v. Gattimon (»w), in which the estate was in tho hands of tenants, the mortgagor was considered as a rcm'rrr Eor the mortgagee; but Lord ESldon (n) expressed his surprise at this doctrine, and said it was a misapplication of the principle- of equity. In the earlier case of Birch v. Wrig Jit (0), Mr. Justice Buller considered it sufficient to designate the parties as mort- gagor and mortgagee, without having recourse to any other description ; and he considered that a mortgagor was neither a tenant at will nor receiver, nor was it necessary he should be so, for a mortgagor and mortgagee were characters as well known, and their rights, powers, and interests as well settled, as any in the law. But this view of the question does not meet the (/) Keech v. Halt, Doug. 21 ; Doe v. Pullen, 3 So. 271. {ff) Co. Litt. 270 b. (h) Per Buller, J., inPirch v. Wright, 1 T. R. 37S, at p. 383. (i) 8 B. & Cr. 767. (*) Partridge v. Sere, 5 B. & Aid. 604. (/) Sitchman v. Walton, 4 M. & W. 409. (m) Doug. 283. («) See Exp. Wilson, 2 V. & B. 252. (o) 1 T. R. 383. TENANCY AT WILL. 659 difficulty, for the rights, powers, and interests of mortgagor chap, xxxvi. and mortgagee are in many instances grounded on their respec- tive estates in the land ; and therefore we are still driven back to the original question, what are those estates ? The common law recognizes no such estate as that of mortgagor or mortgagee independently of some other known estate or interest in the land; for the estates both of mortgagor and mortgagee are of a compound nature, partaking partly of legal and partly of equit- able rights ; and it is difficult to perceive in what manner these compound estates can, as such, be regarded in a Court of law, although the possession of the mortgagor may, as noticed in the next chapter, confer on him certain privileges under the statute law and poor laws. In addition to this it may, under some circumstances, become essential to ascertain whether at common law there is any, and what, privity of estate between the parties ; for if the mortgagor in possession may be considered as tenant at will, or, under the agreement for possession, as tenant for years, to the mortgagee, there will be sufficient privity of estate between them to admit of an enlargement by release alone, which will not be the case if he is to be considered as tenant at sufferance, or as agent or receiver. So long as the mortgagor is in possession of the land, and the legal ownership is in the mortgagee, there must subsist a tenancy of some sort between the parties (p) ; otherwise the mortgagor must be a trespasser, for the law of England recognizes no possession independent of a tenancy, either to the lord paramount or a mesne lord. The mortgagor in possession must hold of someone, and to say that his possession is that of a mortgagor, is in fact leaving the question undecided. At all events, the possession of the mort- gagor is not adverse to the mortgagee (q). But in Doe v. Giles (>•), it seems to have been considered that Definition of a mortgagor in possession is not a tenant at will. And in Doc ^atwrfto " v. Barton (s), Lord Denman observed, " It is very dangerous to mortgagee attempt to define the precise relation in which mortgagor and mortgagee stand to each other in any other terms than those very words; but thus much is established by the cases of Partridge v. Bere and Hitchman v. Walton, that the mortgagee may treat the mortgagor as being rightfully in possession, and (p) Partridge v. Bere, 5 B. & Aid. (?) Doe y. Williams, 5 A. uot hostile t<> qot inconsistent with the morl right" (t). In tin- same ease Patteson, J., observed, " It is very diffioult to say what the mortgagor's estate lb"(«). And in another ease the same judge said, "One is muoh at a loss as to the proper terms in which to describe the relation of mortgagor in posi — Lon and moi And upon this ground, that the mortgagor in possession is not tenant to the mortgagee without an agreement to thai effect, and as such possession is consequently no estate in law, it will not support the -rant of a rentoh e : and in a case "I a covenant to surrender copyholds by way of mortgage with grant of a power of distress to secure the interest, it was held that if the grant of the power of distress operated, as it probably did, as the grant of a lvntcharge, the rentoharge was extinguished by tin' admission of the mortgagee, although tne mortgagor remained in p m (//). But a grant of a power o! diet by the mortgagor to the mortgagee, to Becure tin- payment of interest, although it cannot operate ;is n rentoharge, from the time that the Legal --tat.- becomes vested in the mortgagee, may operate as a personal covenant that the mortgagee may seize such goods of the mortgagor as may be on the premises at the time the distress is made, and tnat them as if distrained ; and hence, there being no lien created on the specific goods, tiny would pass to the trustee in bankruptcy of the mortgagor It would also seem, from another case, that a mortgagor in possession has not such an interest as can be taken under an elegit, so as to enable the creditor to eject a tenant, though the tenancy was created by the mortgagor subsequently to the mortgage and to the judgment. In the case referred to, it was held that under such circumstances the tenant could not, in answer to an action of covenant by his lessor (the mortgagor), plead eviction by the elegit creditor, as the plea at the same time disclosed the mortgage on the face of it, and therefore the want of right of possession in the elegit creditor (a). An agreement in the mortgage deed that the mortgagor shall be tenant at will to the mortgagee, creates a strict tenancy at (f\ Sitehman v. Walton, 4 M. & W. 409.' (m) 11 A. &E. 311. (x) Doe v. Williams, 5 A. & E. 297. (y) Freeman v. Edwards, 17 L. J. Ex. 258. (r) lb. ; Doc v. Goodier, 10 Q. B. 957. (a) Mayor of Poole v. Whitt, 15 M. & W. 571. Aud see Fargeter v. Harris, 7 Q. B. 708. TENANCY AT WILL. 661 will, though an annual rent bo reserved (b). And the relation chap, xxxvi. of landlord and tenant may be created between them by a clause to that effect, although the mortgagor alone execute the deed (c) ; and the subsequent occupation of the premises by the mortgagor will be held to be under the tenancy, though the receipts given for the half-yearly payments of the rent are given in the name of interest (d). Such a stipulation must, however, be clear and consistent with the principal object of the deed, or it will be rejected ; so, where a mortgage deed provided that the mortgagors should retain possession and receive the rents and profits till default, with a .stipulation that the mortgagors should become tenants at will "henceforth," the stipulation was rejected as inconsistent on the ground that it would have rendered the mortgagors liable to a distress for rent before default (e). A covenant for quiet enjoyment as tenant at will at a yearly rent is -till only a tenancy at will, although there is a proviso that no possession shall be taken till the expiration of twelve months after notice of such intention, as no certain term is thereby created (/). So an agreement to become tenant al the wish and pleasure of the mortgagee, at a rent pa} r able on certain days of the year, is but a tenancy at will ( deprive hii trust of his possession, but a mortgagee may assume tin' p siun whenever he pleases [n) ; it there is no agreement to the contrary, equity uever interferes to prevent tin- mortgagee from assuming the >n, but for such purposes will consider tbo mortgagor a mere tenani at will The mortgagor cannol determine the tenancy a< will or by agreement by transferring his interest t" another without notice to the mortgagee, so a- to affeol his right of dist] and a tenancy at will which existed before the mortgage i» not d< termined by the mortgage (y). The mortg; i -or is not tenant at will of the mortgagee within the meaning of the provision in the Statute <>t' Limitations, that when any person shall be in possession or receipt of the rents and profits of any Land, or in receipt of any rent as tenant at will, the right of the person entitled subject thereto, or of the person through whom he claims, to make an entry or die or to brin-- an action, -hall be deemed to have first accrued at the determination, or at the expiration of one year next after the commencement of such tenancy (r . But where the mort- gage has been paid off without any reconveyance the mortgagor is a tenani at will under sect. 7 Unless a strict tenancy is created between mortgagee and mortgagor in possession by payment of rent or otherwise, there is no jurisdiction, under sect. 138 of the County Courts A- 1 to order delivery of the mortgaged property to the mort- gagee (u). Mortgagor iy. — When the Mortgagor is Tenant at Sufferance. — If a mort- afterdrfault g a g' or m possession under an express proviso that he shall continue (*) Doe v. Males, 7 Bing. 322 ; Doe v. Olley, 12 A. & E. 481. (/) Dobson v. Land, 8 Ha. 216. (»») U'.n-xn- v. Jacob, 20 Ch. D. 220. (n) Doc v. Maxsey, 8 B. & Cr. 767. (o) Cholmondeley v. Clinton, 2 Mer. 171 at p. 359. (p) Pinhorn v. Souster, 8 Exch. 763. {q) Doe v. Carter, 9 Q. B. 863. (>•) 3 & 4 Will. IV. e. 27, B. 7. (s) Sands to Thompson, 22 Ch. D. 614. (/) 51 & 52 Vict. c. 43. (m) Jones v. Owen, is L. J. Q. B. 8; R< Banks, 1"> Jur. 657 (cases decided under sect. 122 of the stat. 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95). ATTORNMENT CLA 663 in possession till default hold over after default without any new - nxv. xxxvi. agreement, he will not necessarily he deemed to he more than a La tenant at truant at sufferance of the mortgagee (x). " A tenant at suffer- ^^Z.'"' ance is where a man cometh to the possession first lawfully and holdeth over " (//). If the mortgagor has made default in pay- ment of the principal and interest on the day appointed by the mortgage deed, generally six months from the date thereof, the operation of the proviso ceases, and thereupon the mortgagor, like any other tenant at sufferance, becomes liable to eviction by the mortgagee without notice or demand of possession (~), and will not be entitled to emblements (a). He may, at the option of the mortgagee, be treated as tenant or trespasser (b). If the mortgage is transferred to a third person, the mort- Effect of , . , i ... b .r i b transfer of gagor becomes a mere tenant by sufferance or the transferee, mor tg a ge. who may bring ejectment against the tenants of the mortgagor without notice to quit (c). Vi — Attornment Clauses. — In order to create the relation of Attornment f'ltlUSGS landlord and tenant between the mortgagor and mortgagee, clauses of attornment by the mortgagor to the mortgagee are sometimes inserted in mortgages, where the mortgagor is himself in occupation of the mortgaged property; but it makes nodiffer- ence to the rights of the mortgagee under the clause if the property is afterwards let by the mortgagor to an under- tenant (d). Attornment clauses have in great measure fallen into disuse in consequence of the dicta of James and Bramwell, L. JJ., in Be Stockton Iron Furnace Co. {e), that the effect of such clauses is to render mortgagees liable as mortgagees in possession to account as against any second mortgagees or incumbrancers for rent received, or which but for their wilful default they might have received. The dicta were adopted by Jessel, M. 11., in Exp. Punnett (/) ; but Bacon, V.-C, in Stanley v. Grtfndy (g), (r) Powseley v. Blachnan, Cro. Jac. (b) TJoe d. Moby v. Maisey, 8 B. & 659; Smart lew Williams, 1 Salk. 245; Cr. 767. Thunden v. Belcher, 3 East, 449; Doe (e) Smartlev. Williams, 1 Salk. 245; d. /" '/ v. Maisey, 8 B. k Cr. 767; Scobie Thunden v. Belcher, 3 East, 419. v! Collins, (1895) 1 Q. B. 375. (d) Kearsley v. Philips, 11 Q. B. D. (//) Co. Lit. 217, a. 620. See Co. Lit. 311, a. (a) Doe v. Giles, 5 Bing. 421. See [e) 10 Ch. D. at p. 356. further as to mortgagee in possession, (•/) 16 Ch. D. 235. post, p. 799. (y) 22 Ch. D. 478. (a) Baynall v. Yillar, 12 Ch. D. 812. r,C4 RELA I !"\ OF MORTG IGOR TO MOB fG \'.i E. CHAr. xxxvi. Avoids attornmi oi clauses by Bills oi Bale Acts as re- gards power of distress. Validity of attornment clauses in other respects. refused to follow them. Havi rd to this risk, it hai generally been oonsidered byconveyanoersthal it is not advisable to inserl these olauses in mortgage dei Moreover, bj recent statutory enactments, mort{ now been deprived of a greal advantage formerly attaching to anient clauses, namely, thai by creating a tenancy Buch clauses enabled the mortgagee to distrain for the renl reserved thereby, thus affording him an easy and expeditious mode of enforcing the payment of his interesi instead of being obliged to enter into actual possession of the prop* rty. The Bills of Sale Act, 1878 (A), enacts that attornments and other Instruments giving powers of distress by way of security, shall 1)»' deemed bills of Bale, within the meaning of the .\< t, of any personal chattels which may 1"' seized thereunder and accordingly will be void as regards Buch property, unit i> |. .1 in accordance with the requirement-* <>!' tin- Act. And by the Bills of Bale Act, L882 ery bill of Bale given byway of security is required to have a Bohedule of the personal chattels oomprised therein, and is void, exoepl as against the grantor, in respect of any ohattels not specifically described in the schedule, but it has been hcM that attornments □ 1 not be in accordance with the form prescribed by the A.o1 / ■. The effeot of the above enactments is to render an attornment clause in a mortgage wholly inoperative as regards the pow( r of distress, whether such power is i spressly given or is relied on as inoident to the demise for the purpose of enabling the m to seize personal chattels nol assigned to him by the mortgage (/), unless the mortgagee has actually entered into possession <>f the land, and, being in possession, has demised it to the mortgagor at a fair and reasonable rent (m). But, inasmuch as the Bills of Sale Acts do not include within their scope and operation real property, it has been held that attornment clauses, though invalid so far as they purport to give power to distrain personal chattels, are of effect, in other respects, in creating the relation of landlord and tenant between the parties, e. g., so as to enable the mortgagee to issue a writ (//) 41 & 42 Vict. c. 31, s. 6, set out ante, p. 201. (0 45 & 46 Vict. c. 43, S. 4. (k) Green v. Marsh, (1892) 2 Q. B. 330, 335, C. A. (0 lie Willis, Exp. Kennedy, 21 Q. B. D. 381, C. A. See Green v. Marsh, sup. (m) See the saving proviso at the end of sect. 6 of the Act of 1878. ATTORNMENT CLAUSES. 665 specially indorsed with a claim for recovery of land under ckap.xxxvi. E. S. C. Ord. III. r. 6, and Ord. XIV. r. 1 (n). Where a mortgage contained nn alfornment clause in the Attornment usual form, the mortgagor died, and bis heir occupied and paid ^l'notT.ind' interest, it was held that the attornment clause created a mere lieir - tenancy at will which came to an end at the mortgagor's death, and that the payment of interest by the heir was not referable to payment of rent, he not having attorned, and therefore created no new tenancy (o). If the heir had himself attorned, he would have become tenant at will | p). "Where the mortgagor had attorned to the mortgagee at a Attornment rent, and after the death of the mortgagee remained in posses- ?J mortgagor sion and paid rent to his devisees, the subsequent occupation, after death of coupled with the provisions of the deed, constituted the relation of landlord and tenant, though receipts were given as for interest, and the deed was executed only by the mortgagor (q). An attornment by a mortgagor to a second mortgagee is Successive valid although there was an attornment by him to the prior attornments - mortgagee (r). If a receiver is appointed, the attornment should be to him; Attornment and if he be appointed by a separate deed, the attornment to receiver - should bo by that deed The tenantry created should be a tenancy from year to year, Term of and not a tenancy al will only, as in the latter case it would be tonanc y- defeasible by the death of either party t) ; but even where the tenancy [g al will, it is not determined by the alienation of the mortgagor without notice to the mortgagee (it) ; and the mortgagor is tenant both in law and equity (r). A tenancy under the attornment clause from year to year is not inconsistent with a power to enter and determine the tenancy (./•). So, where under the mortgage deed the mort- gagor became tenant to the mortgagee at a rent, but the mort- gagee had a power of immediate entry on default in payment, it was held that the mortgagee might, on default made, eject (w) Daitbuz v. Lavington, 13 Q. B. D. (.?) Dav. Conv., vol. ii. pt. ii., p. 93 ; 347. See Rail v. Comfort, 18 Q. B. D. Byth. and Jarm. Conv., vol. iii. 4th ed. 11; Mumford v. Collier, 25 Q. B. D. p. 1005, n. 279. (t) Turner v. Humes, 2 B. & S. 435, (o) Scobie v. Collins, (1895) 1 Q. B. 447—449. 375. (») Tinhorn v. Souster, 8 Exch. 763, (p) West v. Tritche, 3 Exch. 216. 768, 770. (q) Ibid. (r) Anderson v. Midland Rail. Co., 3 (>•) Exp. Tunnett, 16 Ch. D. 226. E. & E. 614. (x) Me Threlfall, 16 Ch. D. 274, C. A. 666 ],'i.i.\ i i« »\ of mok rc v.' m ro m\ e. I II VI' Reservation of rent in attornment olauai Fluctuating rent. Power of distress. the mortgagor without aotioe to quit, or demand of pay- ment^), and thai ;i distress for rent under the deed did not prevenl the mortf Erom treating the mortgagor trespasser in respect of a subsequent default e . And in such a , the mortgagee may specially ind >rse thewrit tinder R. Ord. III. r. 6(f), and apply for summary judgment under Ord. XIV. (a). The provision oonsiste of an attornment by the mortgagor to the mortgagee at e rent usually the same in amount, and payable on the same half-yearly days, as the interest, with a proviso enabling the mi to enter without notioe and determine the tenancy b). Upon assignment bythemortgi the power of distress for the arrears of interest is gone In the ordinary attornment clause, either the rent reserved is as of the Bame amount as the interest, or, if in excess, the Burplus is applicable towardja discharge of the principal (d). The rent reserved must be fair and reasonable (< . The rent is 'sometimes made np partly of interest and partly of the principal, and if not unreasonable in regard to the value of the premises the tenancy will be valid The attornmenl oreates a tenanoy by estoppel g)\ but the mortgagee is none the L< bs a mortgagee because he is also land- lord. The tenanoy is or* ated for better securing the interest. But if the rent is exorbitant, or if there is an arrangement that the attornment olause is only to enme into operation upon bankruptcy, it will be a device to give a fraudulent preference and be void (//). It was held no objection to an attornment clause that the monthly rent was fluctuating in amount (i). vi. — Power of Distress. — Formerly a mortgagor in occupation of the property was sometimes required, instead of attoniing, to (>/) Poex. Tom, I Q. 15. 615; Doe v. . L2 A. & E. 481. (r) Doc v. OIL v. sup. (a) Kemp v. Letter, (1896) 2 Q. B. 162, C. A. (//) Dav. Conv., vol. ii. pt. ii. p. 95. (c) Brou v. Metropolitan, $c. Insur- ance Soc., 1 E. & E. 832. (d) Dav. Conv., vol. ii. pt. ii. p. 96. See also Exp. Harrison, Re Betts, 18 Ch. D. 127, C. A. ; Exp. Voisey, Re Knight, 21 Ch. D. 442, C. A. 0) Exp. Williams, 7 Ch. D. 138; Re Stockton Furnace Co., 10 Ch. D. 335, C. A. : Exp. Jackson, Re Bower, 14 Ch. D. 725, C. A. See Exp. Voisey, Rc Knight, 21 Ch. D. 442. (/) R>- Stockton Irot Co., 10 Ch. D. 335, 0. A. : Exp. Punnett, 16 Ch. D. 226, C. A. ; / cp. Tshertcood, 22 Ch.D.384 : <. /.'< Knight, sup. (g) i ■ ". L6 Ch. D. 226, C.A. See Exp. Vox ey,Ei Knight, sup., at p. 452. (//) Exp. Williams, 7 Ch. D. 138; n, Re Bowes, 14 Ch. D. 725, C. A. ; Re Knight, 46 L. T. 539. See Exp. Barter, 26 Ch. D. 510. (j) Exp. Voisey, Re Knight, 21 Ch. D. 442. MOBTGAGOB NOT ACCOUNTABLE I'Oli BENTS. 667 give to the mortgagee a power of distress, which did not of chap, xx.wi. itself create any tenancy (k). The insertion of powers of distress in mortgage deeds is, however, now useless, and has fallen into disuse. Although the insertion of such a power may not render the mortgage a hill of sale within the meaning of the Bills of Sale Acts by virtue of sect. G of the Act of 1878 (/), unless a rent is reserved by such instrument, yet it has been held that the power falls within the definition of bills of sale contained in sect. 4 of that Act, as being a licence " to take possession of chattels as security for a debt," and is void accordingly, as not being in conformity with the requirements of the Act of 1882 (m) ; but the insertion of the power will not of itself vitiate the instrument as regards the other ^ti]>ulations contained in it (;/). A mortgagee who had taken possession and had re-let the Mortgagee pnmises to the mortgagor was held to be entitled to distrain (o) ; mJl'Xtrun and this right is expressly saved by sect. G of the Act of 1878 (p). vii. — Mortgagor in Possession entitled to Rents and Profits. — Mortgagor A mortgagor is not bound to account for the rents and profits aUe^OTrents. while in possession, even although the security shall prove insufficient. For this Cohnan v. The Duke of St. Albans is in point (//). In that ease the office of registrar of the Court of Chancery being granted for lives, and the fees of office being mortgaged, the patentee remained in receipt of the profits until only one life survived. Thereupon, the office having become an insufficient security, a bill was filed for an account of the past fees and emoluments received by the mortgagor, but a demurrer was allowed. In a more recent case in ecpiity (>), a mortgage was made for 1,000/., and the property was in lease. The mortgagor became bankrupt. The mortgagee gave the tenant notice to pay the rent to him. The assignees nevertheless received the rent. A (k) Chapman v. Beecham, 3 Q. B. 723. (p) Sup. p. 201. See hoc v. Goodicr, 10 Q. B. 957 ; \q) 3 Ves. 25; JLele v. Lord Bexley, Freeman v. Edwards, 17 L. J. Ex. 20 Beav. 127; Ford v. RackAam, 17 258. Beav. 485 ; Life A>soc. of Scotland v. (/) 41 & 42 Vict. c. 31. Siddall, 3 Ue G. & J. 271. \m) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 43. (r) Exp. Wilson, 2 V. & B. 252. (n) Stevens v. Marston, W. N. (1890) And see Bertie v. Lord Abingdon, 3 193. Mer. 560 ; Greeley v. Adderley, 1 (o) Dawson v. Johnson, 1 F. & F. Swanst. 573 ; Thomas v. Brigstocke, 4 656. Rus8. 64. 668 l;i LA I [ON "I MOKTG iG( »K !•» MORTC Mil I'. I 1 1 A I • . XXXVI. Appointment Of re© LVI r. Surplus rents paid into i lourt by ]•>■'■< i \ • i . Effect of bankruptcy of mortgagor. petition by the mi that the ai to pay to the petitioner the rent received was dismissed, 'I mortgagor do< leive the rem* Porthemortj In Codringto v. J . where the mortgagor in pos sion had consigned the crops of a \\ < a\ [ndia estate to the oon- Bignee in England, and the bills of Lading had been Bigned prior to an order of the < !ourt of ( lhancery for the appointment of a receiver, il was held thai the receiver was noi entitled to the produce of the sale of suoh pari of the orops as was onoon- verto to t'w pp. 120 t (/) National Mercantile Bank v. Hampton, 5 Q. B. D. 177 . 1. J. < . P. \ . • ,290, .1. I i r. j'. («) Bagnallv. I Ch. D. 812. I 671 CHAPTER XXXVII. OF I 111: RELATIVE RIGHTS OF MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES WITH RESPECT TO LESSEES AND TENANTS OF MORT- GAGED L\XDS. i. — As to Leases, &c. subsisting at the Date of the Mortgage. — Mortgagee The mortgagor can give t<> the mortgagee no better title than ^r 68 ^ 1 ?' 60 * he has himself, and, consequently, tin' latter, by the mortgage leases, &c. conveyance, takes the property Bubject to all leases and tenancies subsisting at the date thereof. 1 »y the conveyance the reversion passes to the mortgagee, and Mortgagee's with it the right to future rents and other rights incident to the nght to rent8- reversion [a) ; but arrears of rent do not pass without express words (b). The tenant may, however, continue to pay the rent to the Payment mortgagor so long as lie is allowed by the mortgagee to receive mortgagor. it ; lor though the conveyance is effectual as to the mortgagee's rights against the tenant without any attornment (c) by the latter, the tenant is not prejudiced by payment of the rent to the m r, or by breach of any condition for non-payment of rent before notice of the mortgage (y inurt g Parol teuaucy. Notice to quit. Liability of _>. ,■ ..n covenants. Anomalous ]"i-.iti. hi of in. irtgagor in j. isgessi ,n before the Judicature Act. ami not aotually paid over t'» the mori , and all - quent rent, belong of right to tin- morl who may distrain ie for them (A), or it' the tenant hold- from year to year, or under an agreement, may recover them in an action for ami occupation (t) ; ami that, too, though the mortgagor ha-, after the mortgage, altered the property and raised tin- rent The mi . although the assignee of the revi reion, cannot distrain or sue for rent accrued, or for breaches of covenant, prior to the assignment (A*). II' the assignment Lnolude in terms the previous arrears, still the mortgagee could not distrain (/), although he could recover the arrears like any "t! bs in * aotion assigned to him. When a tenant under a parol contract assigns lii> interest, but the assignee is not accepted by tlm mortgagor, a subsequent mortgagee cannot sue the tenant, parol contracts not being incident to the reversion If tlir land, at tli>' time of the m . 1'" in the occupation of a tenant from year to year, he will be entitled to the usual notice to quit A morts - not liahle to affirmative covenants not running with the land, although he has notice Formerly, serious inconveniences attended the position of a mort£-;irror who was allowed to remain in possession of the mort- gage lands as regards his remedies for enforcing payment of rent against persons holding under Leases ami tenancies subsisting at the date ^\' the mortgage. Tims, the mortgagor, having con- veyed away the legal i state, could not sue the tenant in eject- ment ( /o, and he oould only distrain by virtue of an implied authority from the mortgagee, which, apparently, the latter could at any time determine by notice (q). (p) See l Aiu.r. e. 16, as. 9, 10. (h) Moss v. Gatlimore, 1 Doug. 279; Sogers v. Mttmphn v. 1 A. a I (,) Birch v. Wright, 1 T. 1.'. 378; , A. & E. 11 ; / Hunkey, I M. & McA..'247. U) Burrows v. Gradin, 12 L. J. Q. B. 333; 1 Dowl. & L. 313. (k) Flight v. Bentley, 7 Sim. 149; Wuodf. L. & T. 12th ed. pp. 236, S92 ; Hunt v. Remnant , 9 Exch. 635; Johnson v. St. Peters,4 A. & E. 520; Martin v. Williams, 1 H. & X. 817. (/) Metrop. Counties £>:c. v. Broun, 1 E. & E. 832. (>n) Alkock v. Moorhouse, 9 Q. B. D. C. A. (;/) Birch v. Wright, 1 T. R. 378, (o) Haywood v. Brunswick Building Q. B. D. 403, C. A. (p) Marriott v. Edwards, 5 B. & Ad. (rj) Trent v. Ih,,,/, 9 Exch. 14 ; ch, 13 C. B. N. S. 657, 658 ; Dtlat.ey v. Fox, 2 C. B. N. S. 774. See S.C., 1 Smith's L. C. 10th ed. . r >04 ; 'J/ir Dean oj Christchnrch v. liuhe of Buckingham, 17 C. B. N. S. 413. LEASES BY MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. 673 Some of the difficulties of the mortgagor, whilst ho was chap, xxxvn. allowed to remain in possession by the mortgagee, have been Power oi removed by sect. 25, sub-sect. (5), of the Judicature Act, mortgagor I oi '■> (r) ; by which it is thus enacted : Judicature Act. "A mortgagor entitled for the time being to the possession or Suits f,, r receipt of the rents and profits of any land, as to which no notice of possession of his intention to take possession or to enter into the receipt of the land, &c. by rents and profits thereof shall have been given by the mortgagee, mortgagors, may sue for such possession, or for the recovery of such rents or profits, or to prevent or recover damages in respect of any trespass or other wrong relative thereto, in his own name only, unless the cause of action arises upon a lease or other contract made by him jointly with any other person." Under the Act, until notice is given by the mortgagee, no action can be brought by him on the matters referred to in this sub-section ; otherwise the same causes of action would vest in both the mortgagor and mortgagee at the same time. A mortgagor may bring an action for an injunction in his own name to prevent a breach of a restrictive covenant by a tenant without making the mortgagee a party, unless his security is likely to be affected («) . diet) ii. — Leases granted by Mortgagors and Mortgagees jointly. — Concurr The concurrence of both the mortgagor and mortgagee is required ga gor and for the demise of lands in mortgage, unless the lease is granted morfc gap e by the mortgagor alone in exercise of an express power of leasing necessary. contained in the mortgage, or in exercise of the statutory powers of leasing hereaf ter to be considered (/) . If a mortgagor, who has parted with the legal estate in the Lessee's land, and who has consequently an equity of redemption only, JSKSk joins with his mortgagee in a lease of the premises, and the gagorarein lessee enters into covenants with the mortgagor and his assigns, ° these covenants, being collateral to the land, will neither descend at common law to the heir of the mortgagor, nor pass to an assignee of the mortgagee under 32 Hen. VIII. c. 34, but will be covenants in gross, on which actions must be brought in the name of the mortgagor or his personal representatives. This point was decided in Webb v. Russell («) , where it was held that an altera- tion of the reversion had taken place, for the mortgagor, being possessed of a term of ninety-nine years when he made the (>•) 36 & 37 Vict. c. 6G. (t) Post, p. 685. («) Fairclough v. Marshall, 4 Ex. D. (») Webb v. Russell, 3 T. R. 393. 37. VOL. I. — R. X X 674 RIGHTS OF MOBTCUGORS, ETC. aGAINSl I I II U'. ' Covenant for quiet enjoy- iii. -it by mortj: Willi whom Lessei 'a cove- nants Bhonld be made. Effect of Beveral cove- nants with mortgagor ami mort- gagee. Reservation of rent. loaso of eleven years, afterwards purchased the reversion u and merged the term of ninety-nine years, so thai the assignee of the reversion was not Beised of the same estate in n which the covenants had been made. For the same reason that the covenants are in gross, the mortgagor, though the reversion is extinguished, may sue tho lessee ( !( inversely, if tho mortgagor enters into the lessor's covenants for quirt enjoyment, &o., then, inasmuch as the Legal estate is in tin- mortgagee, such covenants are covenants in gross only, and do not run with the land so as to hind the k-gal reversion. A covenant for quiet enjoyment from both Lessors would, in the absence of any express covenant, be implied .v ; but an expn - covenant by the mortgagor excludes such implication (s). Where, therefore, a lease is made by a mortgagee and mort- eraaror, the lessee's covenants Bhonld always be made with the mortgagee as the owner for tho time being of the legal estate ; and when the mortgage is paid off and the estate is reoouv to the mortgagor, the right to sue on such of the covenants as run with the land will pass to the mortgagor as incident to tho reversion. On a demise by tho mortgagee with the concurrence of the mortgagor, a covenant entered into by the tenant with them both severally to pay rent to the mortgagee until payment of the mortgage debts, and then to the mortgagor, is a coven: ml running with the land until the mortgage is discharged, and then becomes a covenant in gross; and during the continuance of the mortgage, it was held that the action was properly brought by the mortgagee alone, and that the payment of the mortgage money was a condition subsequent operating in defeasance of the covenant with the mortgagee, and must be pleaded (a) ; but in other cases (6) it was held that the action should be brought in the joint names. So, also, in leases by mortgagors and mortgagees, the rent should be reserved to the mortgagee, or generally, the effect of which will be that the benefit of such reservation will, on reconveyance, pass with the estate to the mortgagor. (x) Stokes v. Russell, 3 T. R. 678 ; Thu-aites -v.McLonough, 2 Ir.Eq. R. 97. (y) Coleman v. Shencin, 1 Salk. 137. (z) Noakes' Case, 4 Rep. 80 ; Smith v. Pocklington, 7 Sc. 69. (a) JFMtaker v. Harrold, 11 Q. B. 147. {b) Wakefield v. Brown, 9 Q. B. 209; Magnay v. Edwards, 13 C. B. 479. LEASES BY MORTGAGOR AFTER MORTGAGE. 675 A right of entry in a lease cannot be reserved to a stranger, chap, xxxvn. and, therefore, if it appears on the face of the lease that the Right of legal estate is in the mortgagee or a trustee for him, and cutl - v - the right of entry is reserved to the mortgagor, it will be void (c). A right of re-entry, however, being reserved to them, or either of them, in such joint lease, enures to the benefit of the person with the legal estate for the time being, to the mortgagee while his interest lasts, and to the mortgagor when his interest commences, but they cannot sue on a joint demise (d). A joint lease by mortgagee and mortgagor operates as a lease Operation of by the mortgagee, and an equitable confirmation by the mart- • ,oint e ' gagor, who is in law a stranger to the estate ; so a covenant by the mortgagor cannot be implied as incident to the demise, and he cannot be sued jointly with the mortgagee (e). Where a mortgagee of leaseholds joins with the mortgagor Power of sale, in leasing part of the premises, although for the residue of the term, and the rent and power of re-entry is reserved to the mortgagor, but it is provided that the rights of the mortgagee on the entirety of the estate are to remain unaffected, the mort- gagee will in equity be entitled to the rent, but he will not be allowed to defeat the lease by his power of sale (/). In an action of trespass against assignees in bankruptcy of Underlease, the mortgagor, a replication that the bankrupt before his bank- ruptcy made an underlease by way of mortgage, and that before the bankruptcy it was agreed between mortgagor, mortgagee, and the plaintiff that the latter should have an underlease from the two former, under which the plaintiff entered, &c, was not objectionable on the ground of duplicity in pleading (g). iii, — Leases, &c. improperly granted by Mortgagor after the Leases by Mortgage. — Independently of sect. 18 of the Conveyancing and not generally Law of Property Act, 1881(A), which applies only in case of blnfl mort- a mortgage made after the commencement of this Act, a mort- gagor cannot, after the date of the mortgage, and in the absence of an express power in that behalf, or the concurrence of the (c) Doe v. Lawrence, 4 Taunt. 23 ; (e) Smith v. Focldhir/ton, 7 Sc. 69. Doe v. Adams, 2 Cr. & J. 232 ; Saunders ( f) Edwards v. Jones, 1 Coll. 247. v. Merry weather, 3 H. & C. 902. \g) Pirn v. Grazebrooh, 2 C. B. 429. (d) Doe v. Adams, 2 Cr. & J. 232. (A) 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41, s. 18, set out See Doe v. Lawrence, 4 Taunt. 23. post, p. 686. xx 2 676 i-h.ii rS OJ MORTGAGORS, ETC. LGAIN81 I i '• \n is. OH IP. K\\\ n Power for mortgagor to lease. Specific per- formance. Notice to quit. Right to emblements. mortgagee, create a lease or tenancy which will bind the i gagee, and if he purports to create Buoh a lease or tenancy, the mortgagee or his transferee may prooeed to eject the L< — e or tenant without notioe Ah it was often one of the terms of the arrangement for a loan thai the mortgagor Bhould l>e able to grant Leases indepen- dently of the mortgagee, an express power of leasing was frequently given to the mortgagor by the mortgage deed. The validity <>f a lease so granted will, of oourse, depend upon its having been made in strict compliance with the terms of the power. The mortgagor not being able by himself to make a valid lease in tin' absence of an express power, it was held that, in order to enforce specific performance of an agreement for a lease, lie must have obtained a prior reconveyance from the mortgagee, or procured tie' Latter t>> concur in tin* lease (/■). In that case, it seems to have been considered that the tenant could not, under an agreement for a Lease, compel the mortgagor to redeem for the purpose of granting a valid Lease, on the prin- ciple that specific performance will not bo decreed where it is unreasonable to do so (/). Notioe t" quit is not necessary in an action against a tenant subsequent to the mortgage, though the mortgag (ovenahts not to take possession without twelve months' notice (m) ; and after default in payment of the mortgage money, the mort- gagee may treat Buoh tenant as a trespasser (»)• On the eviction of the lessee he is not entitled to emblements ; the point was started in Keech v. Half (o), but did not call for a decision, the Court only remarking that the right to emble- ments would be no bar to the mortgagee's recovering in eject- ment; it would only give the lessee a right of ingress and egress to take the crops. It may, however, be considered that, both on legal and equitable principles, the lessee will not be entitled to emblements, for at law he is evicted by title para- mount, and the law makes a distinction as to the right to (i) Doe v. Maisey, 8 B. & Cr. 767 ; Thunder \. Belcher, 3 East, 449 ; Mogers v. Humphreys, 4 A. & E. 299 ; Evans v. Elliott, 1 P. n) Doe v. Davies, 7 Exch. 89. (») Gibbs v. Cruikshank, L. R. 8 C. P. 454. (o) 1 Doug. 21. LEASES 13Y MORTGAGOR AFTER MORTGAGE. 677 emblements, between tenants who have particular estates that chap, xxxyu . are uncertain, defeasible by the act of the parties to the original contract, or by the act of God, and those who have particular estates defeasible by a right paramount ; for, in the latter case (p), "he that hath the right paramount shall have the emblements; for although quoad actionem the law will not by a fiction make the lessee who comes in by title liable to punish- ment as a trespasser, yet quoad prqprietatem, the regress of the disseisee revests the property as well for the emblements as for the freehold itself, and equally against the feoffee or lessee of the disseisor, as against the disseisor himself. For the rule and reason of the law is, that after the regress of the disseisee, the law adjudges that the freehold has continued in him : which rule and reason extends as well to the emblements as to the freehold, and although the act of the disseisor may alter a man's action, yet his act cannot take away his action, property, or right " (q). Nor if the tenancy determines by the act of the lessee, will he be entitled to emblements (r) ; and, therefore, it was decided thai if a base be granted subject to a condition of re-entry on bankruptcy, insolvency, or by the lessee incurring a debt on which judgment shall be entered up, and the lessor re-enter for condition broken, the latter will have a right to the emble- ments (n). A mortgagee is not entitled to arrears of rent which have Right to ar- accrued due up to the time of his taking possession, whether the rearso ren * property was, up to that time, in possession of the mortgagor himself (t), or his trustee in bankruptcy (u), or any other person claiming under him (./•). And this rule applies not only to a mortgagee in fee, but also to a mortgage of a term (//), or of a life estate (z). A mortgagee entering into possession is not disentitled by Current rents the Apportionment Act, 1870 (a), from demanding and receiv- tioned P ° r ~ ing current rent becoming payable after entry (b). But he is (p) Co. Lit. 55 b. (x) Hall v. Lord Bexley, 20 Beav. \q) Liford's Case, 11 Rep. 46, 51. • 127; Flight v. Camac, 25 L. J. (N. S.) (;•) Buhver v. Bulwer, 2 B. & Aid. Ch. 654. 470. (y) Gresley v. Adderley, 1 Swanst. (s) Davis v. F.yton, 7 Bing. 154. 573. (I) Drummond \. Duke of St. Albans, (z) Coleman v. Duke of St. Albans, 5 Ves. 438 ; Biggins v. York Buildings 3 Ves. 25. Co., 2 Atk. 106. (a) 33 & 34 Vict. c. 35. {u) Exp. Wilson, 2 V. & B. 252. (*) Anderson v. Butler's Wharf Co., 48 L. J. Ch. 824, 678 i is OP MOKTGAGOBS, BT< , AG UN8T I I OH IP. wwii. ■ renl i. i for profits against lessi e. Actual mortgagee aiy. Remedy of ejected tenant against mortgagor. iml entitled to so-called rents doe to the morl housing goods, though recoverable under statute of distrain! and of the go i \ j remedy is by an action, formerly the :i of trespass pi et armis, and in thi b, a distinction is between a disseisor and one who comes in under him by title ((f) ; for if a man were disseised, and the disseisor, d the di out down tho tr» as, . upon the land, and afterwards the re-entered, the dis- ■ had an action of trespass againsi him vi et armis for the , c 'in, &o. : for after the regress, the law, as to the and his servants, supposes the freehold always con- tinued in the " e. But if the disseisor made a feoffment in fee, gift in tail, lease for life or 3 1 afterwards the re-entered, he had not tri | et armis against those who came in by title, for this fiotion <»f the law, that the I hold continued always in ti , had no! relation to make him who came in by a title a wroi ' et aril But in such oase, the dis- e might reoover all the mesne profits againsi the disseisor. it might be thought that the l< asee who came in under the mortgagor in ; we within the rule, and consequently not liaLle to an action for mesne profits; though according v. Biggs (c), the lessee was Liable to suoh an action on ejectment by the m tor rents due :>t the time when notice of tho mortgage was given and not then paid over to the mortgagee; bul payments by the tenant to his landlord, the mortgagor, "before the rent is due, are not prote< ted The mortgagee cannot bring •' q of trespass for mesne profits against the tenant, or waive the tort and sue in use and occupation, unless he has been in actual possession of the land, or unless the tenant is estoppi d from denying the possession by a verdict, or has suffered judgment by default in ejectment Tho mortgagor, after disturbance by the mortgagee, will be liable to his tenant in an action for damages on his covenant for quiet enjoyment (fi) ; and the lessee's right to sue is not affected (c) Anderson v. Butler's Wharf Co., 48 L. J. Ch. 824. (d) LiforaVs Case, 11 Rep. 46, 51. (e) 9 B. & Cr. 245. (/) Be Nicholls v. Saunders, L. R. 5 C. P. 593; Cook v. Guerra, L. R. 7 C. P. 132. (ff) 'Turner v. Cameron's Coalbrooh Co., 5 Exeh. 932; Litchj /,'- ady, 5 Exch. 939. (h) Costigan v. Hastier, 2 Sch. & L. 160; Howe v. Hunt, 31 Beav. 420. LEASES BY MORTGAGOR AFTER MORTGAGE. G79 by tho circumstanco of his having obtained from the mortgagee cuAr. xxxvn. compensation for improvements (/) . If the mortgagee refuses to adopt a lease, or agreement for a lease, made without his consent by the mortgagor, whether or not he proceeds to evict the lessee, yet the lease, being a valid demise of the equity of redemption, will entitle tho lessee to redeem the mortgage (j), and will at all events be binding on the mortgagor, and all persons claiming under him. The mortgagee may elect not to eject the lessee, and may Confirmation confirm the tenancy, or rather establish a new tenancy upon the by mortgagee. same terms (/.■) ; and any act of the mortgagee demonstrating an approbation of the lease, such as the receipt of or distress for rent, or notice to quit (/), or the like, will be evidence of a tenancy, and a demand by the mortgagee or his agent, and payment by the tenant of interest of the mortgage instead of rent will suffice (>/>). If the mortgagee encourages the lessee to lay out money on the premises, he will not afterwards be permitted to disavow the tenancy (n) ; but mere inspection by the mortgagee of the im- provements will not amount to acceptance of the lessee as his tenant (o). The mortgagee does not, by making the lessee his tenant, set Tenancy from up a lease for the term, but only creates a tenancy from year to created 3 aU year (p). So, if the mortgagee asserts his paramount title by giving to a lessee or tenant notice to pay the rents to him, the lessee of the mortgagor, subsequent to the mortgage, may consider himself as tenant from year to year of the mort- gagee, and determine his tenancy with the mortgagor, notwith- standing that he has in the meantime paid rent to the mortgagee pursuant to tho notice ( by the mortj to the tenant of the mortgagor under Buoh :i Lease does not of I constitute the relation of tenant to them , or entitle the latter to distrain Eor the subsequ* • A absequent payment of rent will not act by way of relation back to establish a distress for previous rent u ; there must be an attornme] other evidence of consent by the tenant New tenancy A new tenancy may be created between tho mortgagee and mortgagee tenant by payment and aooeptanoe of rent, as rent (y), or even and tenant of by the acquiescence of the tenant in tho notice to pay the rent mortgagor. ' . . . . p to the mortg g .which will, it b tenancy Erom year 1" year upon the terms of the Lease (a), although mere notioe by the mortgagee to the tenant to pay the rents to him, without attornment or assent on the part of the tenant, is insufficient to create a new tenancy (6). But it would seem that a notice by the mortgagee to pay all future rents to him may be treated by the tenant, as against the mortgagor, as an eviction by title paramount; and it was accordingly held in VTaddiUm v. Barnett (c), that under an issue of non-assumpsit the defendant (the tenant) could, as to tho rents due after the notice, give suoh notice in evidence, though as to the rents due prior to such notice, the notice must have been specially pleaded It seems to be open to tho tenant to treat tho payments made to the mortgagee in oonsequence of the notice as payments made on the mortgagor's account, and to plead the same accordingly, without denying the mortgagor's title as landlord (e). (*) Evans v. Elliott, 9 A. & E. 342 ; . Jackson, (1891) 2 Q. B. 484. C. A. (i) Evans v. Elliott, .sup. ; Rogers v. Hum pin; i/s, 1 A. & E. 299. (>t) Partington v. Woodcock, 5 X. & M. 672; Rogers v. Humphreys, sup.; Evans v. Elliott, sup. (x) Wheeler v. Branscombe, 5 Q. B. 375 ; Doe v. Thompson, 9 Q. B. 1037. (ij) See Rogers v. Humphreys, 4 A. & E. 313, per Lord Denman, C. J. (2) Broicn v. Storey, 1 Man. & Gr. 117. (a) Doe v. Boulter, 6 A. & E. 675 ; Brown v. 8ton y, sup. (b) Evans 7. Elliott, 9 A. & E. 342. And see 6 A. & E. 695. (c) 2 Bing. N. S. 538. (d) And see Doe v. Barton, 11 A. & E. 315, and the judgment in Goulds- worth v. Knights, 11 M. & W. 337 ; and Mai/or and Burgesses of Poole v. Whitt, 15 M. & W. 571. (e) Johnson v. Jones, 9 A. & E. 809 ; though in this case the rent was due before the notice. LEASES BY MORTGAGOR AFTER MORTGAGE. 681 If the mortgagee recognize the lessee as his own tenant, or as chap, xxxvn. being in lawful possession of the premises at a given time, it is not competent for him to say afterwards that ho was at that time a trespasser (/). And in Evans v. Elliott, Lord Denman said that he was by no means prepared to admit that a jury would not be warranted in inferring a recognition of the tenant's right to hold from the circumstance of the mortgagee's knowingly permitting the mort- gagor to continue the apparent owner of the premises as before the mortgage, and to lease them out exactly as if his property in them continued (g) . In Pope v. Biggs (//), the Court of King's Bench decided that the tenant in possession under a demise subsequent to the mort- gage was justified in paying the rent to the mortgagee due at the time of the notice and demand made, on the ground thai as the mortgagee might have evicted tho tenant, and obtained the rents due in an action for mesne profits, the mortgagee must be entitled to receive them without bringing an eject- ment. Where a mortgagee gives notice to tenants, but does not take l ssion, any loss arising to the mortgagor therefrom will fall on tho mortgagee (/) ; but if the mortgagee, after he has taken possession, refuses to apply for rent, tho mortgagor has no remedy in equity ; his only remedy is against the mortgagee on taking the accounts (/.•). As a tenant cannot dispute his Landlord's title, the lease by Leaseby tho mortgagor after the mortgage will be good until the mort- "^J^f ° n *t gagee interferes, until which time the mortgagor may receive void. the rent to his own use, and may distrain for it (/), even after the mortgagee has given notice to the tenant to pay, but before he has paid ; and the tenant before the Judicature Act would have had no defence (m) ; but semble, it would be otherwise now ; the tenant, however, after such notice, is quite justified in giving up the premises to the mortgagee (>?). In Wilton v. (/) Birch v. Wright, 1 T. R. 383 ; (k) Salmon v. Dean, 14 Jur. 235, Doe v. Sales, 7 Bing. 322. And see reversed on other points, 3 Mac. & G. Doe v. Olley, 12 A. & E. 481 ; Doe v. 344. Goodier, 10 Q. B. 957. (1) Trent v. Hunt, 9 Exch. 14. (ff) 9 A. & E. 355 ; qucere, however. (m) Per Williams, J., in Carpenter v. (A) 9 B.& C. 245. And see Johnson Parker, 3 C. B. N. S. 206. v. Jones, 9 A. & E. 809. (n) Carpenter v. Parker, 3 C. B. N. S. (i) Hcales v. McMurray, 23 Beav. 206. 401. 682 RIGHTS OP MORTGAGORS, ETC, A.QAINS1 TENANTS. chap, xxxvn. Dunn (o), it was held that it was not euflioieni for the tenanl to show a notice and claim by tlio mortgagee; he must prove payment; but payment of rent by a tenant to the mortgagee after notice and on compulsion is valid (p). Nor is the tenancy under the mortgagor affected by an authority from tho mortgagor to the mortgagee to receive the rents, though perhaps such a power may be irrevocable and justify all payments made under it while the mortgage debt continues (q) . Estoppel. After the lessee has been compelled to pay the mortgagee, he still, in defending himself against the mortgagor, must admit the latter's titlo, and show that it has determined (r) ; or if the payment were with tho mortgagor's consent, the plea might have been ricn in arricrc (s) ; but such payment of rents due at the time of the notice must, in an action by tho mort- gagor, have been and still must be specially pleaded (/). So if the rent has become duo, and is not paid to mortgagee or mort- gagor, any binding agreement between them for payment of rent to the former must have been, and must bo still, specially pleaded by the tenant (u). But though the tenant will thus be allowed all payments to the mortgagee made under compulsion, or with the assent of the mortgagor, he could not, in an action brought against him by the latter, plead what amounted to nil habuit in tenementia (.*■), though he might show that the mortgagor's interest had deter- mined by eviction by the mortgagee (//) . Of course a lessee claiming under the mortgagor subsequently to the mortgage may, in answer to an action by the mortgagee, show eviction by title paramount ; or, if the lease be prior in date to the mortgage, it would seem that he may either make the same defence of eviction by title paramount, or without showing any eviction, plead that by reason of the paramount (o) 17 Q. B. 294. See Hickman v. son v. Jones, sup. Maehin, 4 H. & N. 716; Salmon v. (s) Dyer v. Bowley, 2 Bing. 94; Dean, 3 Mac. & G. 344. Wheeler v. Branseombe, 5 Q. B. 375, (p) Johnson v. Jones, 9 A. & E. 809. 377. See Brown v. Storey, 1 Man. & Gr. (t) JFaddilovej. Barnet, 2Biag.'N.C. 117 ; Hickman v. Maehin, sup. ; Under- 538. hay v. Bead, 20 Q. B. D. 209, C. A. {u) Wheeler v. Branseombe, sup. (q) Wheeler v. Branseombe, 5 Q. B. (a;) Alchome v. Gomme, 2 Bing. 54. 375. And see Johnson v. Jones, 2 P. f copy-* holds, and subsequently takes a surrender of the Legal estate, and is admitted, his assignee of the reversion cannot sue the lessee on tho covenants in the lease (k). It is provided by statute (/), that when the reversion expec- tant on a lease, made either before or after the passing of tlio Act, of any tenements or hereditaments of any tenure, shall, alter the 1st of October, L845, be surrendered or merged, the estate, which shall for the time being confer as against the tenant under tho same lease the next vested right to the same tenements or hereditaments, shall, to tho extent of preserving such incidents to and obligations on the same reversion as but for the surrender or merger thereof would have subsisted, be deemed the reversion expectant on the same lea-''. Right of Generally the assignee of the mortgagor can sue tho tenant, assignMo? though the lease is subsequent to the mortgage, as the lease mortgagor. operates by way of estoppel (»)) ; but where the lease shows the mortgage there is no estoppel (>i). And as against the assignee of the mortgagor, the tenant may show that the assignee could not have a derivative title from the mortgagor, and he would (g) Whitton v. Peacock, 2 Bing. N. C. (t) 3 T. R. 393. 411; Carrick v. Blagrave, 1 B. & B. (k) Whitton v. Peacock, 2 Bing. N. C. 531 ; Doe v. Barton, 11 A. & E. 307. 411. And see the judgment in Pargeter v. (/) 8 & 9 Vict. c. 106, s. 9. Harris, 7 Q. B. 708, and in Webb v. \m) Cuthbertson v. Irving, 6 H. & N. Austin, 8 Sc. N. It. 419. 135, Exch. Ch. (h) Webby. Austin, sup. ; Sturgeon v. («) Sounder s v. Merewether (or Merry- WingfieU, 15 M. & W. 224. wether), 3 H. & C. 902. LEASES BY MORTGAGORS UNDER EXPRESS POWERS. 685 not be concluded from doing so by payment of rent to the chap, xxxvn. assignee under a mistake of facts (0). Where the assignee of the mortgagor acquires the legal estate from the mortgagee, who was not privy to or estopped by the lease, the assignee will not be bound by it (p). An underlease by the mortgagor passes no legal interest (r even nominal rent in consideration of the lessee having carried out, or undertaking to carry out, building operations involving large capital expenditure on his part, a contrary intention must bo expressed in tho mortgage deed under sub-sect. (13). The consideration of "having repaired buildings" will not be satisfied by part repairs effected by the lessee without any binding obligation or contract on his part (o). It is not unusual in practice to insert in mortgages a proviso excluding or modifying tho provisions of this section, on the ground that the powers thereby conferred upon mortgagors are unduly extensive. Where it is intended to exclude the operation of this section, this should be done in express terms, and not merely by giving different powers of leasing to the mortgagor, which might bo construed as collateral to and not in substitution of the statutory powers. If the operation of the section is simply negatived, the con- currence of the mortgagee in leases will be required, as was the case before the passing of the Act. Sub-sect. (13) requires that the contrary intention should be expressed not merely in the mortgage deed, but " by the mort- gagor and the mortgagee in the mortgage deed, or otherwise in writing." The words "by the mortgagor and the mortgagee" would seem to be superfluous, unless it is intended that, where contrary intention is expressed, the -mortgage deed shall be executed by the mortgagee. Even independently of this re- quirement, it would seem that the mortgagee ought in such case to execute the mortgage deed. No doubt the execution of the deed by the mortgagor alone would bind him, as between himself and the mortgagee, not to grant such a lease, and the mortgagee, although he had not himself executed the deed, might restrain the mortgagor from doing so ; but it seems doubtful wdiether, after the lease had been granted, the mortgagee, unless he had executed the mortgage deed, could treat the lease as void as against a person who was not a party to that deed and had taken his lease bond fide and without notice that the mortgagor's statutory powers of leasing had been therein expressed to be excluded. (o) Re Chawner's Settled Estates, (1892) 2 Ch. 192. LEASES BY MORTGAGORS UNDER STATUTORY POWERS. 691 The effect of sub-sect. (15) is to render the powers of leasing chap, xxxvn. conferred by this section inapplicable, except by licence of the Sub-sect. (15). lord, to copyholds in manors where there is no custom to lease co^hold without such licence. The powers of leasing given by sect. 18 apply to mortgages Sub-sect. (16). made after, but in pursuance of agreements made before, the a fter°he Act commencement of this Act. So where an agreement for a mort- undl f agree- gage made before the commencement of the Act provided that a mortgage should be executed containing a power of sale and all other " usual clauses," it was held that the mortgagor was not entitled to have the operation of this section excluded (p). The words " so far as circumstances admit " apparently render Sub-sect. (17). inapplicable to parol agreements sub-sect. (7), as to covenant for and tenancies, payment of rent and condition of re-entry, and sub-sect. (8), as to delivery of a counterpart, and also permit an agreement to pay rent to be substituted for a covenant in agreements in writing not under seal for leasing or letting. (p) Re Nugent and IiUei/s Contract, 49 L. T. 132. Y Y V 692 ) CHAPTER XXXVIII of ukm:mption. Section I. Right to redeem in- herent to mort" , aere. No redemp- tion where conditional sale. Title to re- deem must be shown. Of the Right to Redeem genek vi i.v. i, — Who are entitled to redeem. — Tt lias boon seen that the right of redemption is inherent to and inseparable from a mortgage transaction, whether, as is usually the oase, the right is vested in the mortgagor by an express proviso to that effect contained in the mortgage died, orwhether it is to be reasonably inferred from the circumstances of the transaction that the instrument was intended to operate by way of security, and not as an absolute conveyance (rt). This inherent right is, how- ever, enforceable only by the persons, subject to the conditions, and in the manner hereafter stated. If the transaction be by way of sale, but reserving to the vendor a right of repurchase within a limited time or in a certain event, it is not a mortgage, and if the condition of repurchase is not strictly complied with, the grantee's title will become absolute so as to deprive the grantor of any right of redemption (b). It is a general principle that no person shall be entitled to redeem but he who can show a title to the estate of the mortgagor (c) ; for the mortgagee is entitled to hold the property against all persons who cannot clearly establish their title to the equity of redemption (d). So where a person claiming under the heir general sought to redeem a mortgage (a) See ante, p. 11. (b) Goodman v. Grierson, 2 Ba. & Be. 278 ; Williams v. Owen, 5 My. & Cr. 303 ; Ferry v. Meadoivcroft, 4 Beav. 202 ; Alderson v. White, 2 De G. & J. 97. As to conditional sales, see ante, p. 19. (c) Lomax v. Bird, 1 Vern. 182 ; Bickley v. Borrington, and Monk v. Pomfret, 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 605, pi. 39 ; James v. Biou, 3 Swanst. 237. {d) See Tyson v. Cox, T. & R. 395. PERSONS ENTITLED TO REDEEM. 693 on the fee, and the mortgagee by his answer set up a deed of chap, xxxvm. entail entitling another person to the equity of redemption, it was held that the plaintiff could not be admitted to redeem even at his own peril (e) . As a general rule, the mortgagor and all persons having any ^JeTto^" interest in the equity of redemption are entitled to redeem. redeem. It has been seen that if the mortgage is of renewable lease- Jf°^8™ e holds, and the mortgagee obtains a renewal, the mortgagor will leaseholds, be entitled to the benefit of the new term, and will have the right to redeem and enjoy the term free from the mort- gage^/"). One of several joint tenants or tenants in common of the One of several equity of redemption is entitled to redeem subject to accounts as ga gorsmay between himself and his co-owners ((f) . ' A co-mortgagor is, however, not entitled or compellable to -j£^£* le< redeem his part only of the mortgaged property, but must redeem the whole, subject, as between himself and his co-mort- gagors, to his right of contribution in respect of the amount paid by him to redeem the mortgage and to the rights of all other persons interested in the equity of redemption (//.) . So, also, if two estates are comprised in the same mortgage, J™^ 68 the owner of the equity of redemption of one of the estates can- same mort- not claim or be compelled to redeem that one apart from the f^med other, his right being to redeem the whole property comprised together. in the mortgage, subject to the equities of other persons interested (/). A mortgagor who has absolutely assigned the equity of redemption cannot bring an action for redemption (/.•). The assignee of the equity of redemption may also redeem, ^jg ie e f of although the equity has been abandoned for a considerable time, redemption. Of this an instance frequently referred to is to be found in a case before Lord Hardwicke (/), in which a person who is there styled a prowling assignee, bought in, for a very inconsiderable sum, an equity of redemption which had been abandoned for fifteen years. The Court decreed a redemption on terms, (c) Umax v. Bird, 1 Vern. 182. 134. See Talk v. Clinton, 12 Ves. 48, (f) Ante, p. 164. 49. (g) Wynne v. Styan, 2 Ph. 306 ; (i) Sail v. Seward, 32 Ch. D. 430, Waugh v. Land, G. Coop. 130 ; Wicks C. A. v. Scrivens, 1 J. & H. 215 ; Pearee v. (k) Kinnaird v. Trollope, 39 Ch. D. Morris, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 227. . 636. (A) Cholmondleyx. Clinton, 2 J. &"W. (0 Anon., 3 Atk. 314. cm MORTGAGOR'S ESTATE, ETC. — REDEMPTION. chap, xxxvni. Contractor for purchase. Voluntary- conveyance. Tenant. Puisne mortgagees. First mortgagee refusing pay- ment. namely, that on taking the account ho should he allowed to surcharge and falsify only, and that the interest on the mort- gage should be calculated at 5 per cent. But the assignee of the mortgagor pendente lite, after action for redemption brought by the mortgagor, is bound by a decree for foreclosure in his absence (in) ; and after foreclosure and decree, must pay the costs of revivor (n) . If the assignee purchase the equity of redemption without communicating with the mortgagee, whose mortgage turns out to have been executed by the fraud of the mortgagor, the assignee will be cast (o). A contractor for the purchase of the equity of redemption is not entitled to redeem until he has accepted the title so as to be in a position to call for a conveyance (p). Although a voluntary conveyance be, under 27 Eliz. c. 4, fraudulent and void against a mortgagee, who is, pro tan to, a purchaser, nevertheless the party claiming under the deed is entitled to redeem (q), and a fortiori he is now so entitled. It has been said that a tenant may redeem or procure one to redeem for him (>•) . So, it has been held that a tenant for years in occupation under an agreement for a lease made prior to 1882 by a mortgagor, without the consent of his mortgagee, was entitled to redeem, the mortgagee having refused to adopt the agreement (s) . Subsequent mortgagees may redeem (t) ; but they must make the mortgagor or his heir party to the action (u) ; and if the first incumbrancer be not in possession, they must pay him all the arrears of interest (x) . If the first mortgagee does not appear at the hearing, the subsequent mortgagee will be allowed to make the decree absolute against him (y) . But a first mortgagee ought, without a judicial proceeding, to accept payment from a second mortgagee, although he has not the concurrence of the mortgagor ; and the refusal of the first mortgagee to do so, on tender after notice, debarred him of his (*») Woody. Surr, 19 Beav. 551. (») James v. Harding, 24 L. J. Ch. 749. (o) Vorleij v. Cooke, 1 Giff. 230. \p) Tosher v. Small, 3 My. & Cr. 69 ; Pearce v. Morris, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 227, 231. See also Tarn v. Turner, 39 Ch. D. 456, 465, C. A. (q) Band v. Cartwright, 1 Ch. Ca. 59 ; Howard v. Harris, 1 Vem. 193 ; Barthrop v. West, 2 Rep. in Ch. 62. (r) Keech v. Sail, 1 Doug. 21. (s) Tarn v. Turner, 39 Ch. D. 456, C. A. (t) Fell v. Brown, 2 Bro. C. C. 276. See 4 & 5 Will. III. c. 16. (u) Farmer v. Curtis, 2 Sim. 466. (x) Aston v. Aston, 1 Ves. Sen. 264, 268. (?/) Cottingham v. Lord Shrewsbury, 5 Sim. 395. PERSONS ENTITLED TO REDEEM. 695 right to the costs of the foreclosure suit, though he might, chap, xxxynr. perhaps, in strictness have objected to assign the debt (»). The trustee of a bankrupt may redeem (a) ; but neither Trustee of an insolvent (b) nor a bankrupt, though uncertificated, can an rupt ' do so (c). Sect. 70 of 6 Geo. IY. c. 16, and sect. 149 of 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106, which enabled the assignees of a bankrupt to revest the legal estate by tender or payment before the day fixed, are not included in the Bankruptcy Act, 1869 (rf), or in the Acts now in force. Whether a mortgagor who had become insolvent and filed his petition under 5 & 6 Vict. c. 116, and had after the final order obtained a discharge from the creditors, but had failed in obtaining a reconveyance from the official assignee, could maintain a suit for redemption of the mortgage, seemed to be doubtful, if the defendant mortgagee demurred, or the official assignee resisted the jurisdiction of the Court; as no express power was given of compelling the assignee to assign a surplus, or of taking off the file or dismissing the petition, or otherwise determining the duties of such assignee (e), especially if the surplus was not clear or in danger (/) ; but the better opinion is, that neither an insolvent or bankrupt (g), or their creditors, can redeem (//) . It was well settled under the old law that a creditor who had Judgment obtained a judgment against his debtor might redeem a mort- gage of freeholds, without taking out execution (/), by virtue of his so-called general lien on the land (/r) ; but the rule was different as to mortgaged leaseholds, in which case execution must first have been issued (/). Since the statute 27 & 28 Vict. c. 112, it is only by issuing legal or equitable execution that creditors can obtain any charge or lien upon the land of their (z) Smith v. Green, 1 Coll. 555 ; (/) Dyson v. Hornby, 7 De G. M. & Pcarce v. Morris, L. R. 5 Ch. A. G. 1. 230. (g) Bochfort v. Battersby, 2 H. L. C. (a) Francklyn v. Fern, Barn. Ch. R. 408 ; Be Leadbitter, 10 Ch. D. 388, 30. C. A. (b) Kay v. Fosbroke, 8 Sim. 28. But (h) Heath v. Chadwick, 2 Ph. 649 ; see Latour v.Holcombe, 8 Sim. 76 (qu.). Davis v. Snell, 2 De G-. F. & J. 468. (c) Tarlcton v. Hornby, 1 Y. & C. (i) Sharpe v. Earl of Scarborough, 4 Ex. 172; Motion v. Moojen, L. R. 14 Ves. 538; Tunstall v. Trappes, 3Sim. Eq. 202. 286, 300. (d) Dunn v. Massey, 6 A. & E. 479. (k) Stonehewer v. Thompson, 2 Atk. \e) Preston v. Wilson, 5 Ha. 185 ; 440. Wearing v. Ellis, 6 De G. M. & G. (I) Shirley v. Watts, 3 Atk. 200 ; 596 ; Saxton v. Davis, 18 Ves. 72. Angell v. Draper, 1 Vern. 399. G9G MORTGAGOR'S J>i vir, ETC. — REDEMPTION. HAP. X\XVIII. Creditors in bankruptcy, &c. Plaintiff in creditor's suit. Crown, &c. Lord of manor. Surety. debtor (m). It is clear that creditors who have actually issued execution are entitled to institute proceedings for redemption (n) ; so also a creditor who has taken out a sequestration (o) ; and in one case it has been held that a judgment creditor, who had filed a bill to redeem against the debtor and his mortgagees without having first obtaiued execution, was entitled to the ordinary redemption decree (/>). It would thus seem that any creditor, who has entered up his judgment without issuing a writ of elegit, being now in a position to obtain equitable execu- tion, is entitled himself to bring an action for redemption of the mortgaged property. If a judgment stand between two mortgages, it was held by Lord Thurlow that the judgment creditor, in a suit to redeem the first mortgage, need not make the subsequent mortgagee a party to his action in order to postpone him (q). But as the second mortgagee must be interested in the account, it is some- what difficult to understand the grounds on which his lordship arrived at this decision. If a trustee in bankruptcy (r) , or a trustee of a deed of arrangement for the benefit of creditors (s), refuse to enforce their right of redemption, the creditors may bring their action for relief. The plaintiff in a creditor's suit may, after a decree for sale of the real estate, bring a supplementary action for redemption against the mortgagee in order to carry out the sale (t). The Crown, or its grantee, might have redeemed on forfeiture of the equity of redemption (u), and now the administrators or interim curators of the estate of the felon, under 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23, may do so (.r). So the lord, claiming the reversion by escheat, may redeem a mortgage term (//). A surety to a mortgage is entitled to redeem (s) by reason of his right to pay off the debt, and to avail himself of all the {>») 27 & 28 Vict. c. 112, s. 1. (n) Champneys v. Burland, 23 L. T. N. S. 584; 19 W. R. 148. (o) Fcnvcet v. Fothcrgdl, Dick. 19. \p) Beckett v. Buckley, L. R. 17 Eq. 435. See Sat ton v. Sai/wood, L. R. 9 Cb. A. 229 ; Wells v. Kilpin, L. R. 18 Eq. 298. (q) Shepherd v. Gwinnet, 3 Swanst. 151. (»•) Franklyn v. Fern, Barn. Cb. R 30. w («) 136; (*) (y) Beale M 204. Troughton v. Binkes, 6 Ves. 573. Christian v. Field, 2 Ha. 177. Att.-Gen. v. Crofts, 4 Bro. P. C. LoveWs Case, 1 Salk. 85. See ante, p. 643. Bourne v. Morris, 3 Ha. 394. See v. Symonds, 16 Beav. 406. Green v. Wynn, L. R. 4 Cb. A. PERSONS ENTITLED TO REDEEM. 697 remedies of the creditor (a) ; but a surety for part of a debt is chap, xxxyih. not entitled to the benefit of a mortgage given by the debtor to the creditor at a different time for another part of the same debt, and, therefore, is not entitled to redeem such mortgage (b) . Where a married woman mortgages her separate estate with Husband and the concurrence of her husband, the presumption is that the money was raised for his benefit, and, in the absence of rebut- ting evidence, the wife is regarded as a surety, with all rights incident to that relation, and will, therefore, be entitled to redeem (c) . If the wife's leasehold be mortgaged by the husband and wife, and the husband covenants to pay the debt, and after- wards reduces the amount of the debt out of his money, and dies, leaving his wife the survivor, the wife may, it seems, redeem, on placing the husband's estate in the situation of the mortgagee to the amount of the sum paid by the husband (d). If a term of years be purchased by a husband, in the joint names of the husband and wife, and the husband mortgage it, and afterwards die in the lifetime of his wife, the creditors of the husband may, it seems, redeem (e) . A creditor was permitted to redeem whose debt was considered Wife creditor to be released by operation of law, and to subsist in equity only; as in the case (/) of a bond given by a husband before marriage to his wife for a sum of money payable after his decease. A committee of a lunatic may redeem out of the rents and Committee of , . .... . , lunatic. profits for the benefit of the lunatic s estate (g) ; and it is said that he may do so out of the personal estate of the lunatic without the leave of the Court, if threatened with foreclosure (//) ; but in such a case the proper course is to obtain an order of the Court (/). And a guardian of an infant may apply the rents of a Guardian, descended estate in discharge of the principal of the mortgage, because the mortgage is a subsisting charge on the estate (k). (a) See as to sureties to mortgages have absolutely disposed without his generally, ante, Ch. IX., pp. 78 et seq. wife's concurrence. Note. — In the (b) Wade v. Coope, 2 Sim. 155. register book the case is entered as Pitt (c) Earl of Kinnoul v. Money, 3 v. Reicl. And see Clark v. Burgh, 2 Swanst. 202, n. ; Hudson v. Garmichael, Coll. 221. Kay, 613. (e) Watts v. Thomas, 2 P. Wins. (d) Pitt v. Pitt, T. & R. 180. Sed 365. quaere, if the husband's representatives (/) Acton v. Peirce, 2 Vern. 480. would not have been absolutely en- {$) Exp. Grimstone, Amb. 706. titled to the equity of redemption if it \h) Pow. Mort., p. 285, n. had been reserved to him, the estate (t) See 53 Vict. c. 5, s. 117 (1). being a chattel real, of which he could {k) Palmes v. Danby, Prec, Ch. 137. 698 MORTGAGOR'S ESTATE, ETC.— RED] MPTION. CHAP. XXXVIII. Heir. Dowrcss aud tenant by curtesy. Devisee. Personal re- presentatives. An equity of redemption will, in its desoent, devolve in like manner as the legal estate, that is, to the common law, or customary heir, according to the circumstances of the case ; to such heir the right of redemption of course belongs ; and upon an action by an heir-at-law to redeem, a primd facie title is sufficient (/). So, also, if the land be gavelkind or borough- English, the heir special will be entitled to redeem (»?). A dowress («) may redeem. So, also, may a tenant by curtesy (0). The hcBre8 f actus, or devisee of the equity of redemption, is entitled to redeem, and he need not make the heir-at-law of the mortgngor a party, unless he claims to have the will estab- lished^). And a devisee has a right to redeem against a purchaser from a pretended heir, with notice of the pendency of a suit to establish the will (q) . If the subject-matter of the mortgage is leasehold or other personalty, the legal personal representatives of a deceased mort- gagor may redeem. But if the mortgage is of realty in fee, the personal representatives cannot redeem in the absence of the heir- at-law or customary heir or devisee (/•). Even though the mort- gage is for a term created out of the inheritance, the legal personal representatives cannot redeem ; so also if the equity of redemption escheats to the Crown (.s). So, where freeholds were mortgaged for a term, and the owner of the equity of redemption, by his will, directed the mortgage to be paid off and the term to be assigned to one person, and devised the fee to another person, it was held that the right to redeem passed to the devisee of the fee (t) . The persons who are to avail themselves of the equity of redemption must be the same as those who, during the time fixed in the mortgage deed, could have redeemed at law, or their representatives or assigns ; for otherwise equity would alter the bargain, and, therefore, where a term of years is mortgaged by an executor or administrator, the equity of redemption passes to the representative of such executor or (I) Pym v. Bowerman, 3 Swanst. 241, n. ; Lloyd v. Wait, 1 Ph. 61. (m) Fawcett v. Loivther, 2 Ves. Sen. 300, 304. (m) Palmes v. Banby, Prec. Ch. 137. But see Dawson v. Bank of Whitehaven, 6 Ch. D. 218, C. A., post. (o) Jones v. Meredith, Bunb. 346. (p) Saunders v. Hawkins, 8 Vin. Abr. 156 ; 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 771 ; Sail v. Bench, 1 Vern. 342 ; Lewis v. Nangle, 2 Ves. Sen. 431 ; Phillips v. Hele, 1 Rep. in Ch. 191. See 1 Vict. c. 26, s. 3. (q) Finch v. JVewnham, 2 Vern. 216. (r) Fray v. Brew, 11 Jur. N. S. 130. (s) Catley v. Sampson, 33 Beav. 551. (t) Amhurst v. Litton, 6 Bro. P. C. 254. LIMITATION OF REDEMPTION TO NEW USES. r »W administrator, though he he not the representative of the chap, xxxvhi. deceased, and does not pass to the administrator de bom's non of the deceased (u). Legatees whose legacies are charged on the mortgaged land Legatees. may apparently redeem (.r) ; hut it seems that they can only sue through their trustee or executor unless he refuses to do so (y) . "Where property subject to a mortgage is settled to uses, the Tenant for tenant for life is entitled to redeem, and to have the legal estate conveyed to himself, but must hold the equity of redemption subject to the limitations of the settlement (s). So, also, an equitable tenant for life may redeem (a) . The mortgagee of tenant for life may redeem a mortgage in Mortgagee of lit*G CSttltG fee ; but if the tenant for life die before decree, his mortgagee will have to pay costs, and his action will be dismissed (b) . A tenant in tail (c), or other remainderman or reversioner (d), Remainder- may redeem. But a remainderman cannot, during the con- man ' tinuance of a particular estate, redeem a mortgage of the fee where the mortgagee of the fee is also mortgagee of the particular estate, except by consent of the mortgagee (e) . A jointress may redeem (/). Jointress. ii. — Limitation of Equity of Redemption to new Uses. — A very important class of cases is next to be considered, viz., those in which the question has been, whether it is intended by the parties making the mortgage that the equity of redemption shall be limited in a manner different from the uses subsisting in the estate prior to the mortgage, or shall result to the same uses. As a general rule, it may be laid down that where the equity General pre- of redemption is limited to persons other than the owners, the a^™mst° n right is nevertheless in the owners (g) ; but the mere frame of change of the deed may so clearly show an intention to act upon the limi- tation of the equity of redemption that the Court would be bound to give effect to it (h) ; but a clear intention must be (tt) Butler v. Bernard, Freem. Ch. (a) Haymer v. Haymer, 2 Vent. 343. 139 ; Skeffington v. Whitehurst, 9 CI. & \b) Riley v. Croydon, 2 Dr. & S. 293. F. 219. And see Greemvood v. Both- (c) Playford v. Playford, 4 Ha. 546. well, 7 Beav. 279. (d) Aynsley v. Reed, Dick. 249. [x] Batchelor v. Middleton, 6 Hare, (e) Ravald v. Russell, Yo. 9, 21 ; 75, 78. Prout v. Cock, (1896) 2 Ch. 808. (y) SeeTronghtonv. Binks, 6Ves. 573. (/) Howard v. Harris, 2 Ch. Ca. \z) Lewis v. Nangle, Amb. 150; 1 147; Smithett v.Hesketh, 44 Ch. D. 161. "Cox, 240; Earl of Kiunoul v . Money, 3 (g) Hipkin v. Wilson, 3 De G. & S. Swanst. 202, n., at p. 219, n. ; Wicks 738. v. Scrivens, 1 J. & H. 215 ; Pearce v. (A) Sug. H. L. 174. See Roivell v. Morris, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 227. Whalley, 1 Rep. in Ch. 116. 700 M.)i;i'(iA(;«»i,'s KSTA'J E, ETC. — REDEMPTION. chap, xxxvin. shown to change the ownership of the property (i) for purposes other than those of the particular mortgage (/). It is not necessary that the mortgage deed itself should con- tain an express declaration or recital of such intention (/) ; but where no such declaration or recital appears, the presumption is that the mortgage is for the mere purpose of raising money, and consequently against any alteration of the previous rights. The presumption, however, may he rehutted if the special circum- stances of the case afford sufficient evidence of intention (m). " In cases thus depending on intention there cannot, of course, he any general rule. Each case must depend upon its own particular circumstances. The authorities seem to me to furnish us with no further guide than that the charge upon the estate, "being, of course, in cases of this nature, the immediate motive of the deed, the Court will not impute the further intention to change the limitations, unless that further intention appears hy recital or other special circumstances, and that the mere fact of the reservation of the equity of redemption deviating in a slight or partial degree from the original limitations of the estate, does not of itself furnish sufficient ground for imputing the further intention to change the limitations, hut is rather to he ascribed to inaccuracy or mistake " (n). In Lines v. Jackson (o), there was a distinct and subsequent clause declaring the uses ; and a doubt has been expressed whether the intention to change the equitable title to the estate would ever be inferred from the mere language of the proviso for redemption (without aid from other parts of the instrument) in whatever terms it were framed (p). At all events, in cases depending merely upon the reservation of the equity of redemp- tion, variations which can reasonably be referred to mistake or inaccuracy are not to be regarded ; but if the variations be such that they cannot from their nature be referred to mistake or inaccuracy, they must, it is submitted, have their effect (q) . Express limi ration of different uses. (i) lord Hastings v. Astlcy, 30 Beav. 260. (k) Barnett v. Wilson, 2 T. & C. C. C. 407 ; Eddleston v. Collins, 3 De G. M. & G. 1 ; Parker v. Sills, 7 Jur. N. S. S33, H. L. ; reversing 4 De G. & J. 362. (I) Innes v. Jackson, 16 Ves. 367. See Eddleston v. Collins, 3 De G. M. & G. 1, at p. 15. (m) Seather v. ff Neil, 2 De G. & J. 399, and cases there cited. (n) Per Turner, L. J., in Seather v. O Neil, sup., at p. 414. (6) 16 Ves. 356 ; commented on in Martin v. Mitchell, 2 J. & W. 423, 424 ; and reversed, 1 Bli. 136. See Rowel v. Walley, 1 Eep. in Ch. 116. (p) 2 Dav. Conv., 4th ed. vol. ii. pt. 2, pp. 41, 42. (q) Seather v. O'Neil, 2 De G. & J. 399, 416. LIMITATION OF REDEMPTION TO NEW USES. 701 Where several mortgages were made in which the limitations chap, xxxvni. of the equity of redemption varied, it was held that no inten- Several niort- tion to re-settle was shown (r) ; but the Vice-Chancellor's deci- different sion, which was reversed, may be deemed more in accordance limitations, with other authorities (s). Where the instructions for the mortgage were to re-settle Variation the estate upon the same uses, no effect was given to an altera- instructions, tion (t). There is a distinction also between a mere mortgage and a conveyance to trustees on trusts expressly declared, in which latter case effect will be given to the altered ownership (u). If a mortgage be made under a power of appointment, Mortgage whether in fee or for years, it is a revocation of the sub- sisting uses pro tanto (x) ; and therefore whether the form of the proviso for redemption be that on payment of the mortgage money the appointment shall be void, or that the estate shall be reconveyed to the old uses, or shall be conveyed to the use of the mortgagor, his heirs and assigns, the equity of redemption will in all respects, in the absence of evidence of contrary intention, correspond with the title prior to the mortgage (y). The case of Anson v. Lee (s) seems opposed to this rule, but has been questioned by Sir E. Sugden (a). The result is, that unless there be on the face of the in- strument, or from a comparison of the wording of different instruments of mortgage, an indication of an ulterior intention inconsistent with a future exercise of the power (6), in the case of the execution of a special power by way of mortgage, the right of redemption will remain in the persons entitled to the estate in default of appointment (c). If a mortgage is made by the exercise of a general power of appointment, the equity of redemption is apparently in the appointor (d). (r) Whitbread v. Smith, 3 De G. M. See Perkins v. Walker, 1 Vern. 97. & G-. 727. And see Farwell on Powers. (s) Harnett v. Wilson, 2 Y. & C. C. (y) See Lines v. Jackson, 16 Ves. 367; C. 407 ; Atkinson v. Smith, 3 De G. & Pow. Mtg., p. 346 ; Patch on Mtg. J. 186; Farw. Pow. 139; Sug. Pow., p. 176; Hipkmv. Wilson, 3 De G. & S. 8th ed. p. 274 ; Fish. Mtg., 4th ed. 738. See Fitzgerald v. Fauconberg, sup, p. 704. (z) 4 Sim. 364. (t) Meadows v. Meadows, 16 Beav. (a) Sug. Pow., 8th ed. p. 275. 404. (b) Fitzgerald v. Fauconberg, Fitz. (u) Fitzgerald v. Fauconberg, Fitz. 207 ; Harnett v. Wilson, 2 T. & C. C. 207 ; followed in Heather v. 0' 'Neil, 2 C. 407, but qiuere this case. De G. & J. 399. (c) Innes v. Jackson, 16 Ves. 356. (z) Thome v. Thome, 1 Vern. 141. (d) He Van Mag an, 16 Ch. D. 30. 702 MORTGAGOR'S ESTATE, etc — REDEMPTION. chap, xxxvni. Where a mortgagor, having a power to appoint by will, appointed io tho mortgagee by will an). The general principle to be applied in deciding whether it be the estate of the wife, or the estate of the husband (if the wife join in the conveyance, either because the estate belongs to her, or because she has a charge byway of jointure out of the estate, and there is a mere reservation in the proviso for redenrption, which would carry the estate from the person who was owner at the time of executing the mortgage ; or where the words admit of any ambiguity), is, that there is a resulting trust for the (k) And see Pitt v. Pitt, T. & R. (m) Cotton v. Cotton, 2 Rep. in Ch. 180, ante, p. 697, note (d), a case of the 72; Brend v. Brend, 1 Vern. 213; wife's leasehold mortgaged by hus- Southcoat v. Memory, Cro. Eliz. 744. band. (n) Meek v. Chamberlain, 8 Q. B. D. (I) See Huntington v. Huntington, 2 31. Vern. 437 ; Corbett v. Barker, 1 Anst. (o) 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 106. 138; 3 Anst. 755; Ruscombe v. Hare, (p) Dawson v. Bank of Whitehaven, 6 Dow, 1. 6Ch. D. 218, 0. A. 701 .\|uun..\i.i)i;'s INSTATE, ETC. REDEMPTION. ciiAv. xxxvin. benefit of the wife, or for the benefit of the husband, as the case may be (y) ; but it is not necessary, in order to bar the wife, that there should be sufficient evidence in the recitals to inform her of the alteration in the limitations (;•). The old uses were held to be altered where the mortgage wa ! made by a husband under a general power, and there was superadded a trust for sale and an express trust for himself in fee (a). And so where a modification of the equity of redemption was made in order to enable the wife to deal with it without a fine(0. Where a wife joined in a mortgage and released a rent-charge to which she was entitled, her equity of redemption was not barred because there was no express contract to bar it (n). The same result followed where the wife was ignorant of the effect of the proviso and had no intention to bar her rights (x). Similarly, where money of a married woman was lent on mortgage, and by the mortgage deed the mortgage money was made payable to the husband and wife or the survivor, on proof that the wife did not consent and was not represented by a separate solicitor the deed was rectified (//). In one case (z), in which the estate of the wife was convey* ''I by way of mortgage in fee, and the equity of redemption was limited to such uses as the husband and wife should jointly ap- point, and in default of such joint appointment, then as the wife should by will appoint, and in default of any such appointment, to the wife in fee, the Master of the ltolls doubted if there was any alteration of the wife's estate, but this opinion is justly questioned by Sir E. Sugden (a). In a later case, where husband and wife demised the wife's lands, and covenanted to levy a fine, to confirm the mortgage term, and subject thereto to enure to the use of the husband in fee, and for no other purpose whatever, it was held that the wife's right of redemption was barred (b). Effect where equity of redemption is made subject to power. (q) See Jackson v. Innes, 1 Bli. 126. (r) Innes v. Jackson, 16 Ves. 356. (s) Heather v. O'Neil, 2 De G. & J. 399. (t) Atkinson v. Smith, 3 De G. & J. 186 ; hardly reconcilable with Whit- bread v. Smith, 3 De G. M. & G. 727. See Sug. Pow., 8th ed. p. 285 ; Farw. Pow., p. 139. (m) Re Betton's Trust Estates, L. R. 12 Eq. 553. {x) Stansfield v. Hallam, 5 Jur. N. S. 1334; 29 L. J. Ch. 173. (y) Knight v. Knight, 11 Jur. N. S. 617. (z) Martin v. Mitchell, 2 J. & TV. 423. (a) 1 Sug. Pow., 8th ed. p. 311. (6) Reeve v. Hicks, 2 S. & St. 403. LIMITATION OF REDEMPTION TO NEW USES. 7°* The above rule applies equally to a mortgage of the wife's chap, xxxvm. chattels real, unless a contrary intention appear from the Chattels real. deed (r) , though slighter evidence would appear to be sufficient in this case (d). The case of Ruscombe v. Hare (e), in the House of Lords, shows strongly the force of the rule. In that case the estate devolved on the wife already charged with the mortgage, and the husband paid a considerable sum in keeping down the interest; he and his wife afterwards joined in deeds of convey- ance and fine to the mortgagee, reserving the equity of redemp- tion to the husband in fee ; after his death, the heir of the wife obtained a decree for redemption against his heir, and against the representatives of a purchaser of part of the estate from him. The following: conclusions may be drawn : — General result n • • 01 tllG C3-SGS 1. Where the mortgage is for the mere purpose of raising money, the presumption is against any alteration in the previous rights. 2. A different reservation of the equity of redemption is not enough to rebut the presumption. 3. A recital is not necessary, but is very advisable. 4. A subsequent clause declaring new uses will suffice, espe- cially where the mortgage is of a term and the new uses are declared of the fee. 5. There must be sufficient evidence of intention to alter the previous rights, which will depend upon the circumstances of each case. 6. It will require stronger evidence to alter the rights of a wife. 7. The alteration will be effectual if there is an object ulterior to the purposes of a mortgage. 8. The above principles apply to an appointment by way of security. The effect on the old uses of a disposition by a tenant in tail Bar of estate ,,..,, • tail. by way of mortgage or for any other limited purpose, is regu- lated by statute (/), the effect of which is that a disposition for a limited purpose, if it create only an estate pour autre vie, or a term of years absolute or determinable, or a charge without any estate to secure it, is only a bar of the entail pro tanto, although (e) Clark v. Burgh, 2 Coll. 221 ; (*) 2 Eli. N. S. 122. And see Wood Bigot v. Bigot, L. R. 4 Eq. 549. v. Wood, 7 Beav. 183. \d) Watts v. Thomas, 2 P. Wms. (/) 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 74, s. 2. 365. VOL. I. — R. Z Z 706 MORTG LGOB'S ESTATE, I n . RED] Ml'l I chap, xxxvin. an intention is expressed Or implied thai it should ope] total bar ; to give effeoi to such an intention, the deed mus\ tain ;t further valid disposition to the extent intended ; v. on the other hand, a disposition (treating an actual estate g] than an estate pour autre vie will operate as a total bar of the estate tail to the extent of the estate created, although it be only as a security, and the deed declare that it is intended to be a bar pro tunto merely. To give effect to that intention the estate tail must be re-limited subject to the interest created. In eith) i the further limitations maybe created by the same deed ; for, although the statute denies effect to a mere intention, whether implied or expressed, yet it does not of course prohibit the express limitation of the old or any other uses which the tenant in tail may choose to introduce. The clause is skilfully yet singularly framed ; but it expressly denies, in the general case provided for, effect to an express declaration confining the operation of the deed to the incumbrance created, whilst it equally denies, in the ex- cepted cases, effect to an express declaration extending the opera- tion of the charge beyond its immediate purpose; the object was to put an end to such questions as arose in Jackson v. Tones (g). In a case arising in New South "Wales, to which colony the Fines and Recoveries Act does not extend, where a mortgage recited that the mortgagor was entitled under his father's will to a life estate, with remainder to his children as tenants in tail, with cross remainders between them, and that for the purpose of increasing the mortgagee's security, a daughter and her husband had agreed to join for the purpose of barring the entail ; and the deed provided that if the money should be paid, the mort- gagee should reconvey the hereditaments to the mortgagors according to their respective estates and interests therein, it was held that the hereditaments must be reconveyed to the uses limited by the will, and not as altered for the purposes of the mortgage (h). Mortgage not iii. — When the Right of Redemption first arises. — A mortgage before^a/of * s no ^ redeemable before the day thereby fixed for the payment payment. f the mortgage moneys, though the full amount of principal {g) 1 Bli. 123 ; Sugd. H. L. 174. (A) Phmley v. Fclton, 14 App. Cas. See Sugd. R. P. Stat., 2nd ed. p. 200. 61, P. C. See Re Byron's Settlement, Williams v. Michell, (1891) 3 Ch. 474. WHEN THE RIGHT TO REDEEM ARISES. 707 and interest up to that day be offered to the mortgagee (/). This cirAr. xxxyrrr; period is usually six months from the date of the deed. But the period may be shorter or longer, provided its duration is fixed and not unreasonable (/,). The period must be ascertainable by reference either to a fixed day, or to the happening of a certain event ; if the period be uncertain, or of unreasonable duration, equity may grant relief by decreeing redemption before the determination of the period (/). The proviso for redemption is not merely a restriction on the mortgagee's right, but is a substantive agreement between the parties as to the time of payment (/it). Eedemption was allowed before the day of payment under a peculiar form of proviso enabling the mortgagor to redeem on a day named, or on payment before or after it (a). The Lands Clauses Act (o) provides for the payment off of Time of re- mortgages of lands compulsorily taken before the day limited f^r wis for payment, with compensation for expense of re-investment, Clauses Act. and in certain cases, for loss arising through change of invest- ment. Where a mortgage deed contained mutual covenants binding Effect of the mortgagee not to call in, and the mortgagor not to pay off, jjj g p £ the loan for five years, it was held that a subsequent mortgagee of payment, with notice of the covenants was not entitled to redeem the prior mortgage until the expiration of the .stipulated period (p). The right to call in the money, and the correlative right to redeem, may be postponed by agreement until after the hap- pening of a given event, as the death of a named person (cj). Where the loan is made repayable at the end of six or nine Alternative months, the borrower may at his option pay off the debt at the peno 8 ' end of either period (/•). In a Welsh mortgage, the mortgagor may redeem at any Welsh time («). mortgage. If the mortgage is made redeemable on payment " or demand," Effect where or if no time is fixed for redemption, as in the case of a mortgage fixe^fc* pay- ment. (i) Brown v. Cole, 14 Sim. -127. (w) Harding v. Tingeij, 10 Jur. N. S. See Burrowea v. Molloy, 2 J. & L. 872. 521 ; Burrough v. Cranston, 2 Ir. Eq. (o) 8 Vict. c. 18, s. 114. R. 203. \p) Lawless v. Mansfield, 1 Dr. & (&) See ante, p. 136. War. 557. (/) See Neve comb v. Bonham, 1 Vern. (q) Ante, pp. 135, 136. 8; Talbot v. Bradyl, 2 Vern. 183; (>') Reed v. Kilbum Co-operative Soc., Coivdry v. Bay, 1 Giff. 316. L. R. 10 Q. B. 264. (w) Lay v. Lay, 31 Beav. 270. (*) Sec ante, p. 27. zz2 70S MOBTGAGORS ESTA1 B, ETC. REDEMFflON, chap, xxxviii. by simple deposit of deeds, then, iuasrauoh M the mort] in a position without formal demand to oall in and sue for the debt, tin- mortgagor baa a correlative righl to relieve himself from bis liability by redeeming at any time If a mortgagee enters into possession before the day fixed fox payment the mortgagor may redeem at once mortgagee in [MIS.SI SMOI1. \l irl gagee entitled to six lllolltll.s' aotice. Interest in lieu of notice. Meaning of "month." When a new notice is required. Trustee for sale. Depositee of deeds not entitled to notice. iv. — Notice to redeem. — After default, tbo mortgagee is generally entitled to notice before he can 1"- compelled to accept payment, in order tbat bo may have a reasonable opportunity to find a new security for bis mom \ It bas become a settled rub' that in tbe case of a regular mortgage deed, with a proviso for redemption, a mortgagor must, after default made by him in payment of tbe money according to the proviso, give the mortgagee Biz calendar montbs' notice of his intention to pay oil the mortgage, or six months' interest in lieu of notice (y). If tbe mortgagor be willing to pay six montbs' interest in advance (s), notice will be unnecessary a); and whether regarded as interest or as a consideration for the relinquishment by tbe mortgagee of his right to notice, Bince the repeal of the usury laws, ii" danger will be incurred by the transaction. In mortgage transactions, the expression month always means calendar monl b {b). "Where notice is given by the mortgagor to pay off, and tbe money is not paid on tbe day, the general rule is tbat a further six montbs' interest is payable if the nmitgagee demand il or unless acquiescence in tbe delay is to be implied from bis conduct (< "Where a conveyance on trust for sale, but without any proviso for redemption, was held to be a mortgage, the usual six months' notice was directed (d). But in a recent case it has been held that an equitable mort- gagee, by deposit of title deeds of land, is not entitled to six (t) See infra. («) Bovill v. Endle, (1896) 1 Ch. 648, stated inf. p. 710. [x) See Browne v. Lockhart, 10 Sim. 420, 424. (y) 2 Ca. and Op. p. 51, tit. Mtge. Burton ; Sharpnell v. Blake, 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 603, pi. 34 ; Smith v. Smith, (1891) 3 Ch. 550. (z) Johnson v. Evans (No. 2), W. N. (1889) 95, C. A. (a) Anon., Barn. Ch. R. 324 ; Sutton v. Brown, W. N. (1881) 116. (b) Bartlett v. Franklin, 15 W. R. 1077. (c) He Moss, Levy v. Sewill, 31 Ch. D. 90. {d) Belly. Carter, 17 Beav. 11. NOTICE TO REDEEM. 709 months' notice before lie is bound to accept a tender of the chap, xxxvni. amount due, nor to six months' interest in lieu of notice (e). It will be observed that in Bell v. Carta-, although there was no proviso for redemption, the legal estate passed for the pur- pose of the security, and, therefore, it might be reasonably inferred in that case that the loan was intended to be of a permanent character so as to entitle the mortgagee to six months' notice. But in Fitzgerald's Trustee v. Mellersh, the mortgage being by deposit merely, the just inference from the transaction was that the loan was intended to be temporary so as to render it unreasonable to infer that the parties intended that a six months' notice should be given. In that case the deposit of title deeds was accompanied by a memorandum con- taining an undertaking by the mortgagor to execute a legal mortgage on request, but no request had been made, and the undertaking had been rendered impossible of performance by a sale of the mortgaged property with the mortgagee's concur- rence, and was accordingly disregarded. No doubt, a memo- randum accompanying a deposit of title deeds might be so worded as to sufficiently indicate an intention that the loan should be permanent, so as to entitle the mortgagee to six months' notice or interest in lieu thereof. Of course, a mort- gagee would be so entitled under a legal mortgage actually made pursuant to such an undertaking. If an application is made on behalf of the Crown for sale Extent by under an extent (,/') of an estate belonging to a Crown debtor, rown - which is subject to a mortgage, notice of the application must be given to the mortgagee, and if the estate be sold absolutely under the extent and the money be paid into Court, the Crown will not be allowed upon motion to pay off the mortgagee at once without his consent ; but a reference will be ordered to ascertain what is due on the mortgage (g). It is well settled that if a mortgagee demands payment, or Bar of right takes any proceedings to compel payment, or to enforce his *° t notl £ e L or security, the mortgagor is entitled to pay him off at once, taking pro- without six months' notice, or interest in lieu of notice. ngs ' So a mortgagee who, after the death of the mortgagor, filed Administra- a bill for the administration of his estate, was held not to be tlon actl0n - entitled to six months' notice, or interest in lieu thereof (/i). (e) Fitzgerald's Trustee v. Mellersh, (g) R. v. Coombes, 1 Pri. 207. (1892) 1 Ch. 385. (A) Letts v. Eutchins, L. K. 13 Eq. (/) See 25 Geo. III. c. 35, s. 1. 176. 71<) MORTG LGOH - ESTATE, ETCL BEDEMP1 [ON. in\r . I nt to sale. Proof of debt in action. Entry into possession. Whether mortg enforcing security is entitled to interest pay- able in ad- vance. Ami where a mortgagee join< '1 with tie residuary legatee under the mortgagor's will in an administration action, and, si quently to the commencement "1 the proceedings, the executor gave to tin' mortgagee bus months' notice to redeem, it held thai th" latter was bound to accept, in satisfaction "t claims, his principal •with interest np to the time "1 payment, and costs, though such payment w. cpiration of the notice (/). Consent to a sale in an administration suit is equivalent to six months' notice (/.•). A mortgagee who comes in and proves his debt in a cause is hound to take his money without notice, and to join in the conveyance (/). In a recent case, a mortgagor absconded before the time fixed by the mortgage deed for payment, and the mortgagee thereupon entered Lnto possession of the premises; it was argued on behalf of the mortgagee thai th.' entry was no! the case of taking steps to enforce the Beourity, hut merely for the protection of the property; hut it was held that such entry was a taking proceedings to en force the security, so as to deprive the mortgagee of his right to six months' interest in lieu of notice (///). Where, on a mortgage of a ^liip, it was stipulated that the interest should he payable halt-yearly in advance, and the mortgagee sold the ship before one of the days upon which the interest became payable, but the purchase was completed two days after that day, it was held that the mortgagee was not entitled to the next half-year's interest, but only to interest up to the day of completion and actual payment (/>). Mortga gor must tender amount due. V. — Tender of Mortgage Moneys. — A mortgagor who has given notice of his intention to pay off the mortgage on a certain day, must, in order to exclude the right of the mortgagee to a further notice, or interest in lieu thereof, make on the appointed day a strict tender of the moneys due, or the Court cannot stop the interest from running, though the circumstances of the case (i) Be Alcock, Prescott v. Phipps, 23 Ch. D. 372, C. A. (A) Lay v. Lay, 31 Beav. 270. (/) Matson v. Swift, 6 Jur. 645. (m) Bovill v. Endle, (1896) 1 Ch. 648. (n) Banner v. Berridge, 18 Ch. D. 254, 278. TENDER. II maybe such that the Court might wish to do so (o). On a chap, xxxvm. proper tender being made, interest stops (p), and also all subse- quent COSts {q) , To constitute a good tender, it must be made by the proper Requisites of person, to the proper person, at a proper time and place, in tendLT - proper currency, and in a proper manner. A valid tender may be made by any person entitled to By whom a redeem, but not by a stranger, for as against him the mort- tender may 1/07 ° .be made. gagee's estate is absolute (r) . It has been seen that guardians and committees under the >anction of the Court may redeem (s), and accordingly they may make a good tender of mortgage moneys on behalf of infants and lunatics, and it has been said by Lord Coke, that if the heir be an idiot, of what age soever, any man may make the tender for him in respect of his absolute disability, and the law in this case is grounded on charity (t). A solicitor or other agent may make a good tender on behalf Tender by (. t . 1 . . ■ . i / \ solicitor or 01 his client or principal (u). a»-ent. A tender by the agent of a debtor of the whole sum demanded by the creditor is good, although the agent is only authorized by the debtor to tender a smaller sum, and offers the rest at his own risk (x). If the condition was for payment by the mortgagor and Joint tender, another person (//), payment by that person alone, after the death of the mortgagor, was good ; but not during his life. At law the tender must formerly have been made only to the To whom persons named in the condition (~). In equity the tender may be made to the persons entitled to receive the money and reconvey the estate, and, if the legal and partial beneficial interest is united in one of such persons, he cannot demand payment to himself on his separate receipt (a) . Tender may be made to the executors of a deceased mort- Tender to gagee, who may give a valid receipt for the money before execu ors ' probate (b). (0) Sentance v. Porter, 7 Ha. 426. (») Ante, p. 697. See Williams v. SorreU, 4 Ves. 389. (t) Co. Lit. 206 b. (p) Bishop v. Church, 2 Ves. Sen. (w) See Ward v. Cartter, L. R. 1 370, 372. See Garforth v. Bradley, 2 Eq. 29. Ves. Sen. 675, 678. (z) Head v. Goldring, 2 M. & S. 86. (q) Lord Midleton v. Eliot, 15 Sim. (y) Sbep. Touchst. by Preston, 141. 531 ; Woodman v. Higgins, 14 Jur. Iz) Co. Lit. 210. 846. (a) Cliff v. Wadsworth, 2 Y. & C. C. (r) Lit. s. 334 ; Watkyns v. Ash- C. 598. wicke, Cro. Eliz. 132. See Lomax v. (b) Austen v. DodivelVs Executors, 1 Bird, 1 Vern. 182; James v. Biou, 3 Eq. Ca. Abr. tit. Executors (A. b), Swanst. 234. pi. 31. tender must be made. 712 MORTGAGOR'S i-i a n . i n . Bl it.mi'I [i cnAP. xxxviii. Tender to trustees. Tender to one of several joint credi- tors. Tender to solicitors, &c. Statutory provision as Notwithstanding the statutory powers of giving receipt* the receipt of trustees will not discharge the mortgaged estate, whore the security is for a re-transfer of stock, and only cash is paid, until the trustees have invested it in an authorized invest- ment ((f). Payment must be made to all the trustees, or to their joint account in a bank, notwithstanding sect. 56 of the Convey- ancing Act, 1881 (e). A valid tender at law might be made to one of several joint creditors (/), but in equity the receipt of the creditor would not discharge the debtor from claims by the other creditors ([/). So, where a mortgage is made to several persons jointly, they are in equity tenants in common of the mortgage money, and, accordingly, the receipt of the representatives of such of them as may be dead is necessary to discharge the debtor (h) . It was therefore formerly usual to insert in mortgages to trustees, and in other cases where the benefit of the mortgage debt and of the security was intended to survive, a joint account clause providing that the receipt of the survivor should be a good discharge for the debt ; but the insertion of such a clause is now rendered generally unnecessary by statute (/). Independently of statutory enactment, a good tender cannot generally be made to the solicitor or other agent of the creditor (/»•). A solicitor may, however, have an express authority to receive the mortgage moneys. So, where a mortgagee's action was compromised on the terms that the amount agreed upon should be paid out of Court to the plaintiff's solicitor, it was held that the solicitor's receipt discharged the mortgagor and his estate from the debt (/). So, also, such authority may be inferred from the circumstances of the case as tending to show that the mortgagee treated his solicitor as agent to receive the mortgage moneys (»t). A mortgagor may now make good tender and payment to (c) 22 & 23 Vict. c. 35, s. 23 ; 23 & 24 Vict. c. 145,8.23; andConv. Act, 1881, s. 36. {d) Fell v. De Winton, 2 De G. & J. 13. (e) Re Bellamy, 24 Ch. D. 387, C. A. ; Re Flower, W. N. (1884) 186. (/) Husband v. Davis, 10 C. B. 645. (ff) Matson v. Dennis, 10 Jur. N. S. 460. See Steeds v. Steeds, 22 Q. B. D. 537. (/i) Tickers v. Coicell, 1 Beav. 529. \i) 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41, s. 61, set out ante, p. 534. (*) Withington v. Tate, L. It. 4 Ch. A. 288. (/) Bourton v. Williams, L. It. 5 Ch. A. 655. (w) See Kent v. Thomas, 1 II. & N. 473. TENDER. 713 the mortgagee's solicitor on production by the latter of the deed chap, xxxyhi. of reconveyance with a receipt in the body thereof, or indorsed, to tender to executed, and signed by the mortgagee (»). And trustees may sohcltor - now, by the Trustee Act, 1893 (o), appoint a solicitor to be their agent to receive such payment. A tender made to an agent or servant of the creditor duly Tender to authorized to receive payment is a valid tender to the creditor D himself (p). But as regards general agents, tender to them is, generally speaking, not sufficient, inasmuch as, in the absence of express authority, the receipt of money is not within the scope of an agent's employment (q). But the authority to receive payment may be inferred from the circumstances of the case (r). If, however, an agent accepts tender and payment on behalf Ratification of his principal without authority, the latter may expressly ° g ^ ratify or by his subsequent conduct show that he has confirmed or acquiesced in the transaction, and in such case the debtor will be discharged (*) . If time and place are appointed for payment of the money, Time and tender must be made accordingly. tender. A tender by the mortgagor of the money on the appointed Tender on day at any convenient time at which the money might be ^° m ' counted before sunset is good at law ; but if both the parties meet together at any time of that day, and the mortgagor makes a tender to the mortgagee, who refuses it, the mortgagor need not make a tender again before the last instant of the day (0- If a particular hour be appointed, the mortgagor may attend Tender at for the purpose of making his tender at any time before the ^ m ' commencement of the next hour, inasmuch as an hour in law is considered to be a twenty-fourth aliquot part of the day. So, notice by a mortgagor of attendance for tender at three o'clock was held to be satisfied by his attendance at the appointed place shortly before four o'clock (u). In) 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41, e. 66, set out (r) Kir ton v. Braithwaite, 1 M. & W. ante, r>. 114. 31 °- See Fineh v - Bmin 9, 4 C. P. D. (o) 56 & 57 Vict. c. 53, s. 17, sub- 143. sect (l) ante p. 115. (*) See Duchess of Cleveland v. Dash- ( p) \ Good/and v. Blewith, 1 Camp. xcood's Executors, Freem. Ch. 249. 477 See Anon., 1 Esp. 349; Hart v. (t) Wade's Case, 5 Rep. 114 a. bee ilwthorne, 42 L. T. 79. 1 Selw N. P., 13th ed p. 187. (q) Burrough v. Cranston, 2 Ir. Eq. (m) Knox v. Simmonds, 4 Bro. 0. O. R. 203. 433 - 714 MORTGAGOR'S ESTATEj ETC. REDEMP1 [ON. CH IP XXXVIII. When tender may be mule :it any time. Tender at appointed place. Tender where no place is appointed. Time and place for tender not now generally appointed by mortgage deed. So, conversely, if an hour is fixed for payment, and the mort- gagee does nol appear to receive the money at the strike of the hour, the mortgagor must wait until the strike of the next hour, or there will be no sufficient attendance for tender If the mortgagee has demanded payment, or if the mortgagor is willing to pay six months' interest in lieu of notice, it seems clear thai tender may be made, so as to stop further interest from running, at any time before the mortgagee has commenced his action by actually issuing his writ (//). If a particular place be appointed by the mortgage deed for the payment of the money, the mortgagee must demand pay- ment at that place (~), and he is entitled to receive payment there, so that the mortgagor will not generally be at liberty by his notice to appoint a different place for making his tender (a). But where money was charged on land in Ireland, the place fixed for payment being in Lincoln's Inn, was, upon the whole instrument, disregarded, and the owner of the money was held not to be entitled to have it sent to England free of charges and exchange (b). If no place was appointed by the mortgage deed, then, unless the mortgagee makes no objection to the place appointed by the mortgagor's notice, the mortgagor must generally seek out the mortgagee and tender him the money personally, if within the realm, inasmuch as the money is a sum in gross collateral to the title, and therefore tender on the land would not be suffi- cient, as in the case of a rent issuing out of the land (c). But in such cases if attendance at the mortgagee's place of residence would intail undue hardship on the mortgagor, the appointment by the mortgagor of a different place, if within reasonable access of the mortgagee, will be good, if the mortgagee makes no objection to the place at the time of the notice. Formerly, when the proviso for redemption was in the form of a condition for defeating the mortgagee's estate, it was customary to specify in mortgage deeds the place and hour of payment of the mortgage money, so as to avoid the danger of his estate being defeated by a tender in his absence on the day (x) Anon., 1 Coll. 273. See Bernard v. Norton, 10 L. T. N. S. 183. (y) Briggs v. Caherley, 8 T. R. 629 ; Eirton v. Braithxcaite, 1 M. & "W. 310. (z) Thorn v. City Eke Mills, '40 Ch. D. 357. (a) Gyles v. Sail, 2 P. Wins. 378. (b) Lansdoivne v. Lansdoivne, 2 Bli. 60. (c) Co. Lit. 210 b. TENDER. 715 named; but now, having regard to the terms of the present chap, xxxvrn. proviso for reconveyance, and to the doctrine of equity making mortgages redeemable at any time after default, the practice has been discontinued (d ) . In order to constitute a valid tender, there must, as a general Production pi /\T)i ^ m oncy due rule, be actual production and otter of the money (e). 15 ut generally non-production may be waived by the creditor (/), and actual necessary, production may be dispensed with if the creditor refuses to accept the money when the debtor offers to produce it, bat before he has actually done so (;/) ; but in such cases it must clearly appear that the debtor was ready to produce and pay the money at the time when he offered to do so (//). A letter from a debtor stating his willingness to pay the Tender by money due to the creditor, and stating that he now tenders the same, but not actually inclosing it, is not a valid tender, though the creditor treats it as such (i). But an actual tender by letter will be good if accepted as such by the creditor (/.•). A summons by a mortgagor, in an action by the mortgagee Summons in on the covenants in the mortgage, for stay of proceedings on ™°j on ^ gee payment within one month of the amount due, is not equivalent to a tender, so as to stop the interest (/). The mortgagor may tender the money tied up in bags, if it What pro- is proved that they really contained the amount due, and it is J^^^ at the peril of the mortgagee to miscount it (///). Where a debtor offered a sum of money twisted up in bank notes, which were not shown to the creditor, stating at the time the precise sum offered, this was held to be a sufficient tender (11). Where a loan is made in England of English money, the Currency in repayment must, as a general rule, be in English currency, and JJ^Jj. bema a^ the debt will carry English interest, and the creditor will have a right to receive payment in England (o). (d) Dav. Conv., 4th ed., vol. ii. pt. 2, Brook, 1 Bing. N. C. 253. p. 33. (ft) Kraus v. Arnold, 7 Moo. 59. (e) Polglass v. Oliver, 2 Cr. & J. 15 ; (i) Powney v. Blomberg, 14 Sim. 179. Thomas v. Evans, 10 East, 101 ; GUmcott (k) Jonesv. Arthur, 8 Dowl. P. C. 442. v. Day, 5 Esp. 48; lluxham v. Smith, 2 (I) Kinnaird v. Trollope, 42 Ch. D. Camp. 21 ; Leatherdale v. Sweepstonc, 3 610. See as to summons to stay pro- C. & P. 342. ceedings in mortgagee's action, post, '(f) Douglas v. Patrick, 3 T. P. 683. p. 873. (g) Harding v. Davis, 2 C. & P. 77 ; (m) Wade's Case, 5 Rep. 115. But Black v. Smith, Peake, 88 ; Jackson v. see Suckling v. Coney, Noy, 74. Jacob, 3 Bing. N. C. 869; Norway, («) Alexander v. Brown, 1 C. &P. 288. 3 Moo. P. C. N. S. 245 ; Exp. Banks, 2 (o) Noel v. Rochfort, 4 CI. & F. 158. De G. M. & G. 936. But 6ee Finch v. See Lansdoivne v. Lansdowne, 2 Bli. 60. 716 MORTGAGOR'S ESTATE, ETC. — REDEMPTION. chap, xxxvin. Tex^der in notes of Bank of England. Tender in notes of private banks. Tender in counterfeit coin. Tender in bills. Tender by- cheque. Tender must be uncon- ditional. A doubt was formerly entertained whether a tender in Bank of England notes (if objected to by the creditor (p) ) was such a tender as would save the condition (q). But now (r) a tender of a note of the Bank of England is, in England, a legal tender for all sums above 5/., on all occasions ; but such notes are not a tender by the Bank of England, or any branch bank thereof. But the governor and company thereof are not to be liable or required to pay and satisfy, at any of their branch banks, notes of the company not made specially payable at such branch bank, although they are liable to pay and satisfy at the Bank of England in London all notes of the company or any branch bank. Bank of England notes are not a legal tender in Ireland (s), nor in Scotland (t). The statute of Will. IV. applies only to Bank of England notes, and a mortgagee may still object to accept tender of his money in notes of private bankers, or bonds, bills, or other securities for money (it). If, however, a mortgagee accepts a tender in such a form, he will not afterwards be heard to say that the tender was not well made (.<•). Even if part of the money were counterfeit coin, and the mortgagee accepted it, it has been said that this would be a good tender as such (//), though the mortgagee in such case might have relief by an action of deceit, or other action (~). If the money is tendered in bills which are afterwards dis- honoured, the mortgagee, though he has signed a receipt for the money, will retain his lien on the estate, and will not be com- pelled to reconvey if he has not already done so (a). A tender by cheque is good if no objection is made to the quality but only to the amount of the tender (b). A tender may, by agreement between the parties, be required to be made according to the currency of a British possession, or of a foreign state (c). A tender to be good must not be clogged with any con- (p) Austen v. Executors of Dodwell, 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. 318 ; Wright v. Reed, 3 T. R. 554. And see Biddulph v. St. John, 2 Sch. & L. 534. (q) Shep. Touchst. by Preston, 136. (») 3 & 4 Wdl. IV. c. 98, s. 6. («) 8 & 9 Vict. c. 37, s. 6. (0 8 & 9 Vict. c. 38, s. 15. (u) Biddulph v. St. John, 2 Sch. & L. 521. (x) Lockyer v. Jones, Peake, 180, n. ; Tilei/ v. Courtier, 2 Cr. & J. 16, n. ; Folglass v. Oliver, 2 Cr. & J. 15. {y) Bac. Abr. Tender, B. (z) Shep.Touchst. by Preston, 136, n. (a) Teed v. Carruthers, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 31. See Grant v. Mills, 2 Ves. ic B. 306 ; Frail v. Ellis, 16 Beav. 351. (b) Jones v. Arthur, 8 Dowl. P. C. 442. See Blum berg v. life Interests, §c. Corp., (1897) 1 Ch. 171. (c) 33 Vict. c. 10, s. 6, TENDER. 717 dition (d) ; for a person tendering money must not make any chap, xxxvm. terms, but must leave it open to the creditor accepting the money to say that more was due (e). A mere request for a receipt does not vitiate a tender, for it Demand of is not a condition (/) ; but if the debtor demands a stamped a receip ■ receipt, the tender will be bad whether the debtor actually pro- duces the money or not, for a person to whom money is due, and who refuses to deliver a stamped receipt, is liable to a penalty by statute (g). Where, however, a creditor refuses to accept the money tendered to him only on the ground that the amount tendered is insufficient, he cannot afterwards object to the tender on the ground that the debtor required a receipt (/<). A fortiori, the tender will be bad if a debtor tenders money but will not pay, unless the creditor will give him a receipt in full of all demands («'), or expressing that the sum tendered is the balance due (k). So, if a debtor puts down a sum of money, and the creditor offers to take it in part, but the debtor will only allow him to take it as a settlement in full, there is no good tender. As a general rule, the exact amount due must be tendered (/) ; Tender must a tender of part only of the amount due is inoperative (m). amount. A tender of a larger sum requiring change is not good tender Requiring of a smaller sum due (»), unless the mortgagee objects to give chau o e - change only on the ground that he disputes the amount of change to be returned (o). The sum tendered must include the full amount due upon the No set-off mortgage for principal, interest, and costs ; and the tender of a owe " less amount is not made valid by the mortgagor having a set-off for the balance (p). So, if there be a mortgage from A. to B. (d) Jennings v. Major, 8 C. & P. Harvey, 3 Bing. 304. 61. [k) Higham v. Baddely, Gow, 213; (e) Strong v. Harvey, 3 Bing. 304 ; Evans v. Judkins, 4 Camp. 156. Evans v. Judkins, 4 Camp. 156; Ghami- (I) Peacock v. Dicker*on, 2 C. & P. nantv. Thornton, 2 C. & P. 50 ; Peacock 51, n. ; Mitchell v. King, 6 C. & P. v. Pickerson, 2 C. & P. 50, n. ; Mitchell 237 ; Cottrell v. Finney, L. R,. 9 Ch. v. King, 6 C. & P. 237. A. 541. (/) Jones v. Arthur, 8 Dowl. P. C. (m) Pickson v. Clarke, 5 C. B. 365. 442. (n) Robinson v. Cook, 6 Taunt. 336 ; (g) Paing v. Reader, 1 C. & P. 257 ; Bctterbee v. Paris, 3 Camp. 70 ; Pcan Ryder v. Lord Townsend, 7 D. & Ry. v. James, 4 B. & Ad. 547. 119. (o) Saunders v. Graham, Gow, 111. (h) Richardson v. Jackson, 3 M. &W. See Cadman v. Pubbock, 5 D. & Ry. 298 ; Cole v. Blake, Peake, 179. 389. (i) Ford v. Noll, 12 L. J. C. P. 2 ; {p) Scarles v. Sadgrove, 5 E. & B. Griffith v. Hodges, 1 C. & P. 419 ; Glas- 639. cott v. Pay, 5 Esp. 48 ; Strong v. 18 MORTGAGORS ESTATE, ETC. — UKDKMPTION. cnAP. xxxvin. Tender where amount is in dispute. Recovery of over- pay- ment. Tender of full amount under protest. Refusal of mortgagee to accept tender. for a certain sum, and an open account between the parties, with a balance due from 13. to A., a tender of the mortgage money, deducting the balance due on the account, will not stop the interest, nor prevent costs being allowed to the mortgagee (7). Though the tender must be unconditional, it may be of a less amount than what the mortgagee alleges to be due, the mort- gagor reserving the right to dispute the amount claimed ; in such a case, the question of costs will be reserved until it is ascer- tained whether the amount tendered was sufficient (/•). Where the amount is in dispute, the mortgagor must prove that the amount, admitted by him to be due, was actually pro- duced and offered (s). Where the amount of interest was disputed, but the mort- gagor made no tender, he was saddled with the costs, although he succeeded on the point of interest (f). If the mortgagee extort more than is due, the over-payment may be recovered by the mortgagor as money received by the mortgagee to his use (it). Though a conditional tender is not good, a tender under pro- test of the full amount claimed, reserving the right of the debtor to dispute the amount due, is a good tender if it imposes no condition on the creditor (x). When the time fixed by the notice expires, the mortgagee is bound to know the amount due to him, and if that sum, or a sum calculated by the mortgagor to be the probable amount of principal, interest and costs, be tendered to him unconditionally, he is bound to accept it ; and if he refuses to accept payment of such sum, he does so at his own peril. If a mortgagee refuses to accept a proper tender of the moneys due to him under his mortgage, his lien on the property will be extinguished (y), though the amount due will still be recoverable as a debt (z). And if the mortgagee refuses, when called upon, to accept the amount tendered and to execute a reconveyance of the property, he will be liable to an action to enforce the right of redemption, (q) Garforth v. Bradley, 2 Ves. Sen. 671. (r) Greenwood v. Sutclifc, (1892) 1 Ch. 1, C. A. (s) Dickinson v. Shee, 4 Esp. 68. (t) Hodges v. Croydon Canal Co., 3 Beav. 86. (h) Close v. Phipps, 7 Man. & Gr. 586 ; Fraser v. Fendlebury, 10 W. R. 104, C. P. (x) Manning x. Lunn, 2 C. & K. 13 ; Scott v. TJxbridtje and Rickmansivorth Rail. Co., L. R. 1 C. P. 596 ; Sweny v. Smith, L. R. 7 Eq. 324. See Green- wood v. Suicliffe, (1892) 1 Ch. 1, C. A. (y) Martindale v. Smith, 1 Q. B. 389. (z) 5 Bac. Abr. tit. "Mortgage," D. ; Co. Lit. 209 b. TENDER. 719 in which suit, if the tender be found to cover principal, interest chap, xxxvm. and costs, the mortgagee will he fixed with the costs of the suit (a) ; hut until the day fixed by the decree for redemption, the mortgagee remains invested with all the rights of a mort- gagee (b), and he may, accordingly, after tender, get in the legal estate (c). Where a mortgagor makes an unconditional tender which the mortgagee refuses to accept, and the mortgagee sells under his power, the sale will be set aside against the mortgagee, and also against a purchaser with notice, notwithstanding the proviso that a purchaser need make no inquiry (d). If there are any costs due to the mortgagee, the tender must Dispute as to comprise them ; and if the costs are in dispute, a decree will be cos 8 " made in such a form that, if costs are chargeable, the common mortgage account will be taken for principal, interest and costs ; but if the costs are not chargeable against the mortgagor, and he has duly tendered principal and interest, the costs of the suit will fall on the mortgagee (e). A tender of a less sum than is due may be a good tender of Partial the sum offered, if accepted as such by the creditor (/) ; but a tender - creditor accepting a sum so tendered is not thereby precluded from proceeding for the remainder of his claim (g). Such a tender will not be vitiated merely by the debtor saying at the time that the amount tendered is all that he considers to be due, but if the tender implies that the creditor, by accepting the money, is required to admit that no more is due, the tender will be conditional, and therefore bad (//). The question whether the tender was made conditionally or not is for the jury (/). (a) Harmer v. Priestly, 16Beav. 569; (/) Kenwood v. Oliver, 1 Q. B. 409; Hosken v. Smcock, 11 Jur. N. S. 477. Thorpe v. Burgess, 8 Dowl. P. C. 603. (b) Bank of New South Wales v. (n). "Where in a redemption action the mortgagee fails to appear, and the mortgagor takes out a summons under r. 1 of Ord. XV., for proper accounts, the order must be restricted to accounts of the sum due by the mortgagor, and of the rents due by the mortgagee; the rest of the decree must be adjourned (n). It may also be directed, in a proper case, that the amount due to each mortgagee in respect of his own debt be added to whatever he may have paid for the redemption of preceding incumbrancers, together with all sums to which the Court may consider him to be entitled for improvements, or payments made in respect, or for the protection, of his security or of the estate. The time allowed by the judgment for redemption is, as a general rule, six months, as in an action for foreclosure (o) ; but as in a redemption action the mortgagor takes the initiative, he may, under special circumstances, be put upon terms, as by being ordered to pay the estimated amount due for principal, interest, and costs into Court by a shorter date. As a general rule, the time for payment will not be enlarged in a redemption action as in an action for foreclosure, unless special grounds for such indulgence are shown. The difference in principle between the two classes of cases is that the plaintiff in a redemption action comes into Court professing that his money is ready and asking for his estate in return, but a fore- closing mortgagee calls upon the Court to act against a person unwilling to pay (p) . If, accordingly, the mortgagor do not pay the sum due at the time appointed in the redemption suit, he will not be allowed to redeem, although he tender the money before the motion to Time allowed for redemp- tion. Effect of default. (k) Jones v. Griffith, 2 Coll. 207. {1) See as to rests, post , p. 1207. (w/) See Thorneyeroft x. Crockett, H. L. C. 246. (n) Clover v. Wilts, §c. Soc, W. N. (1884) 110. (o) Post, p. 1027. (p) Moosielski v. Wakefield, 17 Ves. 417 ; Faulkner v. Bolton, 7 Sim. 319. DECREE FOE REDEMPTION. 735 dismiss the action (q), unless, as it seems, good cause is shown chap, xxxyih . for the delay (>•). But where in a redemption action, an order was made giving leave to the plaintiff to lodge the mortgage moneys in Court, and directing that in default of such lodgment within two months from the date of the order, the action be dismissed ; owing to a bond fide mistake of the plaintiff's solicitor this period was allowed to lapse, but the money was lodged within two months from the date on which the order was passed and entered, the Court extended the period allowed by the order so as to include the latter date («). Redemption, where there are several parties entitled, will be Successive decreed according to the priorities of the claimants ; that is, if re emp lons ' there are several mortgagees, the Court will decree in detail that the second shall redeem the first, the third the second, and so on (f). If the equity of redemption be limited to uses, the remainder- Tenant for man may bring his action to redeem (u) ; but he must give the mainderman first tenant for life and intermediate remaindermen an option of redeeming according to their priorities (a?) . The tenant for life has the first option to redeem ; and if he procures an assign- ment of the mortgage, or if the mortgagee purchases the interest of the tenant for life, it seems that the remainderman cannot, without the consent of the tenant for life or his assignee, redeem the mortgage (y). The tenant for life can only be compelled to keep down the Contribution interest during his life (s) ; but if the tenant for life refuse to ^ l^re- redeem, the remainderman may, by redeeming the mortgage, demption by and ejecting the tenant for life, and taking possession of the man. profits, or by bringing an action of foreclosure, compel the tenant for life to come in and contribute, or give up the posses- sion of the estate (a). It was formerly the rule, that the tenant for life should pay (q) Faulkner v. Bolton, 7 Sim. 319. 3 Anst. 755 ; and ante, p. 699. (r) See Jones v. Creswicke, 9 Sim. (x) Raffety v. King, 1 Keen, 601, 618. 304. (y) Raffety v. King, sup. See Ravald (*) CoMmon v. Jeffery, (1896) 1 Ch. v. Russel, Yo. 9, 21. 644. (z) Ante, p. 638. (t) Archedeckne v. Bowes, M'Cl. 153. (a) Hayes v. Hayes, 1 Cb. Ca. 224 ; And see Ramsbottom v. Wallis, 5 L. J. Cornish v. Mew, 1 Ch. Ca. 271 ; Clyat (N. S.) Ch. 92. See as to orders for v. Batteson, 1 Vern. 404 ; Ballett v. successive redemptions and fore- Spraingcr, Prec. Ch. 62 ; Rowel v. Wal- closures, post, p. 1027. ley, 1 Rep. in Ch. 116. And see 3 [u) See Corbett v. Barker, 1 Anst. 138 ; Anst. 757. rm MORTGAGORS ESTATE, ETC -REDEMPTION. cnAr. xxxyiii. Redemption of annuity. one-third, and the remainderman two-thirds (h) ; and in one case it was decreed that the tenant for life should contribute two- fifths, and the remainderman three-fifths (r). The usual course now is a reference to chambers to state the amount of contribution (d) . In an action for redemption of an annuity, the principle of the common order is applied (e). Motion to dismiss action for redemp- tion. Effect of dis- missal of action. Who bound by dismissal. ii. — Dismissal of Action for Redemption. — The suit for redemp- tion will be dismissed on motion of course, upon production of the certificate of the amount due, and of an affidavit of attend- ance and non-payment of the money (/"), even though after the time fixed for payment the mortgagor have tendered the princi- pal and interest, with an additional sum for interest to the day of tender (g), unless under special circumstances (It). But it seems proper in such a case to move upon notice. If the money be not duly paid and the redemption action be accordingly dismissed, the mortgagee thereupon becomes entitled to hold the estate free from the mortgage debt in respect of which default has been made. A final decree dismissing an action for the redemption of a legal mortgage, is equivalent to a decree for foreclosure (/). But this rule does not apply to the dismissal of an action for the redemption of an equitable mort- gage by deposit of title deeds (J) ; and the dismissal of a redemp- tion action for want of prosecution has not the effect of a decree for foreclosure, but leaves the mortgagor at liberty to commence a fresh action for redemption (/i) . The dismissal of an order for redemption will bind not only the mortgagor and his heirs, but also a purchaser of the equity of redemption after commencement of the action (/), provided the action is duly registered as a Us pendens (m). Where, pending a suit by a mortgagor for redemption, the plaintiff became insolvent, and his assignees were not made parties to the suit, it was held that the assignees were not bound (b) RowelY. Walley, 1 Rep.inCh. 116. (c) James v. Hales, 2 Vern. 268. (d) 1 Pow. Mtg. by Cov. 314 a. (e) Moorev. Roive, and £ynev. Vivian, cited Seton, 1759. (/) Stuart v. Worrall, 1 Bro. C. C. 581 ; Proctor v. Oatcs, 2 Atk. 140 ; Newsham v. Gray, 2 Atk. 287. (y) Faulkner v. Bolton, 7 Sim. 319 ; the report in 4 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 81, is incorrect. (/<) Collinson v. Jeffery, (1896) 1 Ch. 644. (i) Cholmley v. Countess of Oxford, 2 Atk. 267 ; Bishop of Winchester v. Paine, 11 Ves. 194, 199; Inman v. Wearing, 3 De G. & S. 734. (j) Marshall v. Shrewsbury, L. R. 10 Ch. A. 250. (A) Hansard v. Hardy, 18 Ves. 460. {I) Garth v. Ward, 2 Atk. 175. hn) 2 & 3 Vict. c. 11, s. 7. DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOE REDEMPTION. 737 by the foreclosure occasioned by the dismissal of the mortgagor's chap, xxxyiii. bill to redeem, in consequence of bis failing to pay the amount found due at the time appointed (n). In an action by a second mortgagee to redeem a first mort- Dismissal of gagee and foreclosure the mortgagor, the proper form of judg- p U i me m ort- ment is, that in default of the plaintiff redeeming, the action is o a o ee ; to stand dismissed with costs (o) . Where one person has mortgaged his estate as a surety for —by surety, another, the judgment is so framed as to give the surety the full benefit of his rights against the estate of the principal debtor, and the right of redemption being given to both, it is ordered that if the money be paid by the principal debtor, the estates shall be conveyed to their respective owners ; but if the money be paid by the surety, both estates are conveyed to him, and he, of course, holds that which belonged to his principal, subject to redemption by him ; if neither principal nor surety redeem both, their estates are foreclosed (p). If the plaintiff be an infant, and bring his action to redeem, Dismissal of and a day is given for that purpose, and default made in pay- ac ti on . ment, and the action consequently dismissed, it does not seem clear whether the infant will be bound, or will have six months after he comes of age to show cause (q). The right of redemption being a creature of equity must be Decree for subject to the rules of equity. The Court, therefore, will make n terms 10 " terms with the mortgagor, if necessary, before it permits him to redeem ; and the decree for redemption will be either absolute or conditional, as suits the circumstances of the case. Of this, an instance occurs (r) in which a mortgagee, having purchased the estate for a valuable consideration, a third party made adverse claim to the right of redemption, but was desirous of having the validity of the mortgage tried at law before he should redeem ; the Court held that he ought to declare whether he would redeem or not before he disputed the title, and that if he would redeem he ought to pay the defendant all his principal money, damages, and costs, which, he refusing, the Court dismissed the bill : and in another case (s), in which an infant heir of a mortgagor, by his (n) Wood v. Surr, 19 Beav. 551. 401. As to the right of an infant de- (o) Hattett v. Furze, 31 Ch. D. 312. fendant to a foreclosure action to a (p) Beckett v. Micklethwaite, 6 Madd. day to show cause, see post, p. 1052. 199 ; Set. Dec. 3rd ed. p. 417 ; Aid- (»•) Smith v. Valence, 1 Rep. in Ch. worth v. Robinson, 2 Beav. 287. 90. And see Goodtitle v. Bailey, Cowp. (q) See Gregory v. Molesworth, 3 Atk. 601. 625 ; Napier v. Effingham, 2 P. Wms. (s) Ramsden v. Langley, 2 Vera. 536. VOL. I. R. 3 B 738 moetgagob's estate, etc.— redemption. chap, xxxvni. Dismissal of action where several in- cumbrancers. Conduct of sale. Trustee Act, 1893, s. 39. Vesting order consequential on judgment for *ale on mortgage of land. guardian, having fruitlessly endeavoured by proceedings at law to overthrow tho mortgagee's title, brought his bill to red the Court would not allow redemption, unless the mortgagor would pay a sum of money which tho mortgagee, on his oath, declared ho had paid above his taxed costs, in defending the title at law, and the Court also allowed him his costs of taking out administration to tho mortgagor as principal creditor. Where there are several incumbrancers, and tho mortgagor's action for redemption is dismissed, the last incumbrancer becomes quasi mortgagor, and tho others become first and subsequent incumbrancers according to their priorities (/). iii, — Order for Sale in lieu of Redemption. — The conduct of a sale is always in tho discretion of the Court, but, in a redemption action where a sale is prayed, it seems that the conduct will be given to the plaintiff, on tho ground that he is more interested in obtaining the best price for the property («). Tho sale may bo ordered to bo made out of Court (.r) ; a reserve price may be fixed to cover the amount due on incumbrances ; and the plain- tiff may be ordered to give security for the costs of the sale {y). By sect. 30 of the Trustee Act, 1893 (~), it is enacted as follows : — u Where any Court gives a judgment or makes an order directing tho sale or mortgage of any land, every person who ia entitled to or possessed of tho land or entitled to a contingent right therein [as heir, or under tho will of a deceased person for payment of whose debts the judgment was given or order made], and is a party to the action or proceeding in which tho judgment or order is given or mado, or is otherwise bound by the judgment or order, shall bo deemed to be so entitled or possessed, as the case may be, as a trustee within tho meaning of this Act ; and the ITigh Court may, if it thinks expedient, make an order vesting the land or any part thereof for such estato as that Court thinks lit in the purchaser or mortgagee or in any other person." This section virtually re-enacts (a) tho repealed provisions contained in sect. 29 of the Trustee Act, 1850 (b), and sect. 1 of the Trustee Act, 1852(c). (t) Cottingham v. Earl of Shrewsbury, 3 Ha. 637. (m) Brewer v. Square, (1892) 2 Ch. 111. (.i-) Barks v. Wright, 32 Ch. D. 220 (foreclosure action) ; Brewer v. Square, sup. (g) Woollegv. Colman, 21 Ch. D. 1G9. (z) 56 & 57 Vict. c. 53. The words in brackets are repealed by the statute 57 Vict. c. 10, s. 1. (a) The only material variations are : (1) that the power to make vesting orders is given to the High Court generally, and not only to courts of equity ; and (2) that the power is extended to cases where the Court orders a mortgage. (b) 13 & 14 Vict. c. 60. (c) 15 & 16 Vict. c. 55. COSTS. ' :>)(J The power of the Court to make vesting orders is not confined chap. xxxtoi - to cases of persons under disability (d) ; it extends to the case of a person of unsound mind, but not found lunatic (e) . Where property is sold in lots, the purchasers may apply for a vesting order, and the costs of each purchaser will be paid out of the proceeds of his particular lot, not out of the fund in Court generally (/). Formerly, applications under the Trustee Acts had to be made by petition, but such applications may now be made by sum- mons in Chambers (g). iv. — Costs. — In a suit for redemption, the plaintiff pays his own costs, and the defendant adds his to his mortgage debt (/»)• Where taxation of the costs of the mortgagee is sought after payment, the application must be against the mortgagee, and not against his solicitor (t). In the decree for redemption, the costs of a prior foreclosure suit must be provided for (/.•) . The scale of taxation in a mortgage suit is regulated by the amount due at the commencement of the litigation, and not the amount of the original debt (/), and in administration suits, by the gross value of the estate to be administered (m) ; but the value of the equity of redemption only is estimated, not that of the entire mortgaged estate (n) ; and if the real value turns out to be less than the higher scale, in consequence of a sale by the mort- gagee, the scale will be reduced accordingly («). Id) Beckett v. Sutton, 19 Ch. D. 646. Sect. iv. pp. 1174 et seq. (e) Herring v. Clark, L. E. 4 Ch. (i) Re Abbott, 4 L. T. N. S. 576. A. 167. (/"') Ainsivorth v. Hoe, 14 Jur. 874. '(/) Ayles v. Cox, 17 Beav. 504. \l) Cotterell v. Stratton, L. R. 9 Ch. («7) R. S. C, Ord. LV. r. 2 (8). A. 514. (h) The question as to what costs (m) Re Recce's Estate, Gould v. Dum- are allowed to a mortgagee will be mett, L. R. 2 Eq. 009. considered fully, post, Chap. LIV. («) Re Sanderson, 7 Ch. D. 177. 3b2 ( 740 ) CHAPTER XXXIX. OF THE STATUTES OF LIMITATION IN BAR OF REDEMPTION. Statutory limit to entry on lands under statute of Jac. I. Analogous principles adopted in equity. i. — Application of the Statutes to Claims for Redemption. — The statute 21 Jac. I. c. 16, s. 1, enacted that no entry into any lands, tenements, or hereditaments should be made but within twenty years after the right or title to the same should accrue or descend. This section was superseded by the statute -'5 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27, and was ultimately repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act, 180:3. The older statute did not affect claims which could only be brought in a Court of Equity (a). But even prior to the statute 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27, the time within which the equity of redemption of land or rents would be allowed was a matter for consideration ; and after considerable conflict of opinion, it was settled that the Courts of Equity would be regulated in this respect by analogy to the old Statute of Limitations, and that after twenty years' abandonment by the mortgagor (b), the right of redemption should be lost, unless the mortgagor could bring his case within one of the exceptions mentioned in that statute, namely, imprisonment, infancy, coverture (c), or being beyond the seas (not having absconded) , or nonsane memory ; in any one of which cases, the Courts, by further analogy to that statute, gave ten years after the disability was removed (d). But if the time once began to run, a subsequent legal disability, by analogy to the decisions at law, would not have been sufficient to stop it (e) . (a) Bonnet/ v. Ridgard, 1 Cox, 149. \b) Corbett v. Barker, 1 Anst. 138 ; 3 Anst. 755 ; Bonnet/ v. Ridgard, sup.; Whiting v. White, 2 Cox, 290 ; G. Coop. 1 ; Barrow v. Martin, 19 Ves. 327 ; Bodle v. Healey, 1 V. & B. 536; Hovenden v. Lord Annesley, 2 Sch. & Li. 636 ; Marquis Cholmondeley v. Lord Clinton, 2 J. & W. 191 ; Harrison v. Hollins, 1 S. &St. 471. (c) Cornel v. Sykes, 1 Rep. in Ch. 193 ; Price v. Copner, 1 S. & St. 347. \d) White v. Ewer, 2 Vent. 340 ; Belch v. Harvey, 3 P. Wms. 287, n. And see Beckford v. Wade, 17 Ves. 99. (e) Floyd v. Hansel, Gilb. Eq. Rep. 185 ; St. John v. Turner, 2 Vern. 418 ; Knowles v. Spence, Mos. 225 ; 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. 315, pi. 5 ; Corbett v. Barker, 1 Anst. 138. CLAIMS FOR REDEMPTION. 741 By the statute 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27, s. 28, the law on this chap, xxxix. subject was made clear and precise, and the period within which Stat. 3 & 4 . . Will IV suits for redemption of mortgaged lands or rents must be 0> 27, s . 28. brought was fixed at twenty years nest after the mortgagee took possession, or from the last written acknowledgment of the mortgagor's title or of his right to redemption. This section has been repealed by the Real Property Limita- Repeal. tion Act, 1874 (/) ; but its provisions have been substantially re-enacted, the general period of redemption being reduced to twelve years. As regards the redemption of mortgages of personalty other No statutory than leaseholds, the Statutes of Limitation would seem to have f or re demp- no direct application. The statutes 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27, s. 28, J^£ ged and 37 & 38 Vict. c. 57, s. 7, apply only to suits to redeem personalty. mortgages of land and rents ; and sect. 8 of the Trustee Act, 1888 (g), which enables trustees to plead lapse of time as a bar to an action for the recovery of any property, does not appa- rently extend to mortgagees (h), so as to cause such lapse to bar a right of redemption in cases where such right would not have been barred independently of that Act. The statute 21 Jac. I. c. 16, s. 3, does indeed bar claims after six years to (among other actions) an action for account, and it might be said that a suit for redemption necessarily involves a claim for an account from the mortgagee in possession. But in this statute, the term " action " must be strictly construed as meaning an action at law (7) ; and, even since the Judicature Acts, though actions which must formerly have been brought only in a common law Court may generally be now brought in any Division of the High Court, yet it has been said that those Acts did not alter or touch the Statutes of Limitation at all, and that these statutes still apply to the circumstances which constituted the actions named in it (k). It is obvious that the circumstances of a mort- gage transaction would not have supported an action for account at common law under the former practice, and thus it would appear that this Act of Jac. I. does not apply, and consequently there is no statutory limitation of time within which a claim (f) 37 & 38 Vict. c. 57, s. 9. (k) Per Brett, L. J., in Gibbs v. (a) 51 & 52 Vict. c. 59. Guild, 9 Q. B. D. 59, C. A., at p. 67. (h) See sect. 1 of the Act. See He Sharpe, Masonic, $c. Ass. Co. v. (i) See, per Jessel, M. R., in Re Sharpe, (1892) 1 Oh. 154, C. A., at Greaves, Bray v. To field, 18 Ch. D. p. 167. 551, at p. 554. '42 MORTGAGOR'S ESTATE, ETC. — REDEMPTION. CHAP. XXXIX. Analogy of principle of statute of JilC. I. applied. must be brought to redeem mortgaged personalty other than leaseholds. But the Court has, iu several recent cases, recognized and applied, with respect to equitable claims to personalty, the prin- ciple that where there is a remedy in equity corresponding or analogous to a remedy at law, which is subject by statute to a limit in point of time, equity will act by analogy to the statute, and impose on the remedy it affords a similar limit (/). If the mortgaged personalty had remained legally vested in the mort- gagor, he could, under the statute of Jac. I., have brought an action of detinue and for account at law, subject to the limit of six years imposed by that Act ; and it would seem that his right to claim redemption, on payment of the amount which should be found due for principal, interest, and costs, is a corresponding or analogous right in equity which would be subject to the same limit in point of time as the right of action would have been subject to at common law. This point does not seem to have arisen in any reported case, but the analogy of tho statute was recognized in the case of a contract to execute a mortgage, where an action for damages for breach of such contract would have been barred by the statute of Jac. I., but for certain letters of the defendant, which were held to contain a sufficient admission of his liability to take the case out of the principle of the statute (m). Mortgagors to be barred at end of twelve years from the time ■when the mortgagees took posses- sion, or from the iast ■written ac- knowledg- ment. ii, — Bar of Actions for Redemption after Twelve Years' Posses- sion. — By the Real Property Limitation Act, 1874, it is enacted as follows : — Sect. 7. " AVhen a mortgagee shall have obtained the possession or receipt of the profits of any land, or the receipt of any rent, comprised in his mortgage, the mortgagor, or any person claiming through him, shall not bring any action or suit to redeem the mort- gage but within twelve years next after the time at which the mortgagee obtained such possession or receipt, unless in the mean- time an acknowledgment in writing of the title of the mortgagor, or of his right of redemption, shall have been given to the mort- gagor or some person claiming his estate, or to the agent of such mortgagor or person, signed by the mortgagee or the person claim- ing through him : and in such case no such action or suit shall be brought but within twelve years next after the time at which such acknowledgment, or the last of such acknowledgments, if {l) Knox v. Gye, L. R. 5 H. L. 674 ; Peek v. Gurney, L. R. 6 H. L. 377 ; Mule v. Jewell, 18 Ch. D. 667 ; . Re Hastings, Eastings v. Hastings, 35 *Ch. D. 105, C. A. ; Allcard v. Skinner, 36 Ch. D. 186, C. A. ; Beck v. Pierce, 23 Q. B. D. 322, C. A. (m) Firth v. Slingsby, 58 L. T. 483. STATUTES OF LIMITATION — TWELVE YEARS' POSSESSION. ' 743 more than one, was given; and when there shall be more than chap, xxxix. one mortgagor, or more than one person claiming through the ' mortgagor or mortgagors, such acknowledgment, if given to any of such mortgagors or persons, or his or their agent, shall be as effectual as if the same had been given to all such mortgagors or persons ; but where there shall be more than one mortgagee, or more than one person claiming the estate or interest of the mort- gagee or mortgagees, such acknowledgments, signed by one or more of such mortgagees or persons, shall be effectual only as against the party or parties signing as aforesaid, and the person or persons claiming any part of the mortgage money, or land or rent, by, from, or under him or them, and any person or persons entitled to any estate or estates, interest or interests, to take effect after or in defeasance of his or their estate or estates, interest or interests, and shall not operate to give to the mortgagor or mort- gagors a right to redeem the mortgage as against the person or persons entitled to any other undivided or divided part of the money or land or rent ; and where such of the mortgagees or persons aforesaid as shall have given such acknowledgment shall be entitled to a divided part of the land or rent comprised in the mortgage, or some estate or interest therein, and not to any ascer- tained part of the mortgage money, the mortgagor or mortgagors shall be entitled to redeem the same divided part of the land or rent on payment, with interest, of the part of the mortgage money, which shall bear the same proportion to the whole of the mortgage money, as the value of such divided part of the land or rent shall bear to the value of the whole of the land or rent comprised in the mortgage." Sect. 1 of the statute 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27, contains the Definitions, following definitions of expressions used in the Act : — "The words and expressions hereinafter mentioned, which in their ordinary signification have a more confined or a different meaning, shall in this Act, except where the nature of the pro- vision or the context of the Act shall exclude such construction, be interpreted as follows (that is to say) : the word ' land ' shall extend to manors, messuages, and all other corporeal hereditaments whatsoever, and also to tithes (other than tithes belonging to a spiritual or eleemosynary corporation sole), and also to any share, estate, or interest in them or any of them, whether the same shall be a freehold or chattel interest, and whether freehold or copyhold, or held according to any other tenure ; and the word ' rent ' shall extend to all heriots, and to all services and suits for which a distress may be made, and to all annuities and periodical sums of money charged upon or payable out of any land (except moduses or compositions belonging to a spiritual or eleemosynary corpora- tion sole) ; and the person through whom another person is said to claim shall mean any person by, through, or under, or by the act of whom, the person so claiming became entitled to the estate or interest claimed, as heir, issue in tail, tenant by the curtesy of England, tenant in dower, successor, special or general occupant, executor, administrator, legatee, husband, assignee, appointee, 714 mortgagor's estate, etc. redemption. OHAP. XXXIX. devisee, or otherwise, and also any person who was entitled to an estate or interest to which the person so claiming, or sunn- person through whom he claims, became entitled as lord by escheat ; and the word 'persons' shall extend to a body politic, corporate, or collegiate, and to a elass of creditors or other persons, as well as an individual; and every word importing the singular number only shall extend and be applied to several persons or things as well as one person or thing ; and every word importing the masculino gender only shall extend and be applied to a female as well as a male." Rent. Trusts for sale. Sale with right to re-purchase. Welsh mortgage. The expression " rent " includes quit rents (n), and also titho rent- charge (o). A trust for sale of land as a security for money lent is a mortgage within this section, and not an express trust within the meaning of the 25th section of the statute (p). In Alderson v. White (7), Lord Cran worth said that he was disposed to think that the statute could not apply so as to make the mere possession by the mortgagee for twenty years without acknowledgment a bar to redemption where the original con- tract was that the mortgagor may redeem at any time during the period extending beyond the ten (now twelve) years ; but the determination of this cpuestion was unnecessary in the case referred to, as the instrument in question was held to be a con- ditional sale, and not a mortgage. It has been seen (>•) that in the case of a Welsh mortgage it is of the essence of the contract that the mortgagee shall hold possession of the land until the mortgage is fully satisfied. Accordingly, it has been held that no time w r ould bar the redemp- tion of a Welsh mortgage (s), or of a mortgage, where the deed contained an agreement that the mortgagee should hold until the mortgage was satisfied (t), unless on an account taken of the rents and profits it appeared that the mortgagee had been in possession upwards of twenty years since the mortgage debt was fully paid(«). But a plaintiff who seeks to redeem a (n) De Beauvoir v. Owen, 5 Exch. 166 ; lord Chichester v. Hall, 17 L. T. 121. (o) Irish Zand Commission v. Grant, 10 App. Cas. 14. (p) Locking v. Parker, L. R. 8 Ch. A. 30 ; Re Alison, Johnson v. Moun- sey, 11 Ch. D. 284, C. A. And see Kirkwood v. Thompson, 2 H. & M. 392 ; Bennett v. Cooper, 9 Beav. 252. (?) 2 De G. & J. 97. (r) Ante, p. 27. (s) Howel v. Price, 1 P. Wms. 291. (t) Orde v. Honing, 1 Vern. 418 ; Yates v. Hambly, 2 Atk. 360. (u) Yates v. Hambly, sup. See Walters v. Webb, L. R. 5 Ch. A. 533. And see Fenwick v. Reed, 1 Mer. 125 ; and ante, p. 28. STATUTES OF LIMITATION — TWELVE YEARS' POSSESSION. 745 mortgage alleged to be of this nature after many years must chap, xxxix. prove his case clearly and indef easibly (a?) . Where a mortgagee has been in undisturbed possession of Mortgagee part of the land comprised in the mortgage for the statutory f part eSfel ° n period, the mortgagor's right to redeem that part is barred, though he held possession of the remainder of the land (//). The rule before the statute of Will. IY. was different (z) . Time will not run in the case of a mortgage until the day of Time will redemption has arrived, for the mortgagor cannot redeem before default that day (a) . In order to bar a right to bring an action for redemption of Possession land, the possession of twelve years must be of the same person s ^ e person or of several persons claiming one from or under the other by °, r ? f * hose conveyance, will, or descent (b) . under Mm. So, where a mortgagor's solicitor, out of his own moneys, paid off the mortgage debt due from his client, without taking any assignment of the debt and the security for the same, and received the rents and profits, it was held that he must be taken to have acted as agent of the mortgagor, and that the posses- sion must be taken to be that of the mortgagor, so that time would not run against him (c). Conversely, the statute will apply not only as against the Possession mortgagor, but as against all persons claiming under him. So, c i a i m in°- if a person by his will devises his lands in settlement, and then und er mortgages the lands, the statutory period will run from the time when the mortgagee enters into possession against the mortgagor himself and his successive devisees (d). Time will not run against the mortgagor under this Act, as it Mortgagee did not under the old law, during the time that the mortgagee undeTanother is in possession under some other rightful title ; as where the title - mortgagee, after being seven years in possession without acknow- ledgment purchased the estate of the tenant for life who had joined with the remainderman in making the mortgage (e), or (x) Sevvaji v. Chinna, 10 Moo. I. A. (c) Ward v. Carttar, L. R. 1 Eq. 151. 29. (y) Kinsman v. Rouse, 17 Ch. D. (d) Browne v. Bishop of Cork, 1 Dr. & 104. Wal. 700. See Raffety v. King, 1 Keen, (z) Rakestraw v. Brewer, 2 P. Wms. 601. 511 ; Burke v. Lynch, 2 Ba. & Be. (e) Hyde v. Dallaway, 2 Ha. 528. 426. And see Ravald v. Russell, Y. 9 ; (a) Brown v. Cole, 14 Sim. 427. Raffety v. King, 1 Keen, 601, 616, 617 ; (b) Doe v. Barnard, 13 Q. B. 952. Corbett v. Barker, 3 Anst. 755 ; Reeve v. Hicks, 2 S. & St. 403. 746 MORTGAGOR'S ESTATE, ETC. — REDEMPTION. CHAP. XXXIX. Possession after pre- sumed death of tenant for life. Joint posses- sion of hus- band and wife. Possession of husband as mortgagee. Where several persons are successively entitled to equity of redemption. the estate of a tenant by the courtesy or otherwise, whether he acquired the interest before (/) or after (). Where the trustee in bankruptcy is barred by the Statute of Limitations, the bankrupt, after annulment of the bankruptcy, is barred also (c) . Acknowledg- ment before statute 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27. What amounted to such acknowledg- ment. iii. — What Acknowledgment is sufficient to keep alive the Right of Redemption. — Before the statute 3 & 4 Will. IV. any act of a mortgagee of lands acknowledging the mortgage as subsisting would have saved the mortgagor's right of redemp- tion (d). Such an acknowledgment might be proved by any clear and unimpeachable evidence by parol or otherwise (e). As neither that statute nor the statute 37 & 38 Met. c. 57, affects mortgages of personalty, other than leaseholds, it would seem that the rules as to acknowledgment laid down in the earlier decisions are still applicable to such mortgages, so as to require a brief consideration in this place. An acknowledgment, so as to save the equity of redemption, need not have been made in a transaction between the mortgagee and the mortgagor, or their representatives. So a conveyance by way of sale, security, or settlement of the lands expressed to be made subject to the mortgage would be a clear acknowledg- ment, though the mortgagor was not a party to the deed (/) . So also if the mortgagee devised the property as his " mortgaged estate," or subject to the mortgage (g), or if he alluded to it as (a) Re Alison, Johnson v. Mounsey, 11 Ch. D. 284, C. A. ; Chapman v. Corpe, 41 L. T. 22. {b) Ante, p. 731. (c) Markwick v. Hardingham, 15 Ch. D. 339, C. A. (d) Hodle v. He a ley, 1 V. & B. 536 ; Price v. Copner, 1 S. & St. 347 ; Cutler v. Cremer, 1 L. J. Ch. 108. (e) Whiting v. White, 2 Cox, 295 ; G. Coop. 1 ; Peeks v. Postlethwaite, G. Coop. 161. (/) Smart v. Sunt, 4 Ves. 478, n. ; Perry v. Marston, 2 Bro. C. C. 399 ; Hansard v. Hardy, 18 Ves. 455. (g) Anon., 3 Atk. 313. STATUTES OF LIMITATION — ACKNOWLEDGMENT. 749 subsisting by recital or otherwise in a deed or will (It), there chap- xxxix. would be sufficient evidence of acknowledgment. It is said, however, that a conveyance of the property subject to the subsisting equity of redemption, " if any," would not be suffi- cient («). The equity of redemption would be saved by an account kept Accounts of with the mortgagor or his representatives (k), or even by a private account kept by a mortgagee of the profits of the estate in which he treated the property as redeemable (I). But an account or other acknowledgment given by an agent of the mortgagee without his authority would not keep alive the right (m). The case was taken out of the statute if the mortgagee sub- mitted to be redeemed (n) ; or if the mortgagor, or his heir, remained in possession of any part of the estate (o) ; or if the time was otherwise well accounted for, as in a case in which it appeared that there had been a promise that the mortgagor should be at liberty to redeem after twenty-seven years, where redemption was allowed after forty-one years, being only four- teen years from the time allowed (p) ; and as in another case (q), in which redemption was allowed fifty years after the mortgage, and after forty-seven years' possession by the mortgagee, and five ejectments at law to try the title, and refusal by four several answers to account, the time being accounted for by the legal proceedings. If, however, a mortgagor filed his bill to redeem, and obtained a decree to account, he must have prosecuted his suit, or in twenty years he would be barred (r) . Parol evidence was admissible to affect the mortgagee, but it Parol must have been clear and unimpeachable (s) . Even if the equity admissible. of redemption was actually released by the mortgagor to the mortgagee, evidence would be admitted that the release was made upon a secret trust for his benefit (t), or that it was not intended to be an absolute sale (u). (h) Ord v. Smith, Sel. Ca. Ch. 9 ; (o) Rakestraio v. Brewer, 2 P. Wins. Price v. Copner, 1 S. & St. 347. 511 ; Burke v. Lynch, 2 Ba. & Be. 426. (i) Hardy v. Beeves, 4 Ves. 466, And see 2 Ba. & Be. 573. 480. (p) White v. Pigeon, Tothill, tit. 102, (k) Procter v. Cowper, 2 Vern. 377 ; p. 135. Anon., 2 Atk. 333. (q) Palmer v. Jackson, 5 Bro. P. C. (1) Fairfax v. Montague, cited 2 Ves. 281. Jun. 84 ; Campbell v. Beckford, cited 4 (r) St. John v. Turner, 2 Vern. Ves. 474 ; Lake v. Thomas, 3 Ves. 418. 17—22. (s) Whiting v. White, 2 Cox, 295. (m) Barron v. Martin, G-. Coop. 189. (f) Morley v. Elways, 1 Ch. Ca. 107- («) Proctor v. Oates, 2 Atk. 140. («) Vernon v. Bethell, 2 Ed. 110. 750 MORTGAGOR'S ESTA'l I , in'. aEDEMPTION. onxr. sxxix. Acknowledg- ment under statute 3 & 4 Will. IV. 0. 27, s. 28. Retrospective effect of sect. 28. Acknowledg- ment after expiration of statutory pei'iod. Eedemption was allowed after forty years' possesion, on evidence of a contract entored into within seven years preceding tin' filing of the bill, by the heir of the mortgagee, for purchase* of tho equity of redemption (it), and where bills of foreclosure had been filed (r). In order to take a case out of the operation of the statutes now in force, so as to preserve tho right of redemption, notwith- standing possession by the mortgagee, sect. 28 of tho Act of Will. IV. requires that an acknowledgment must in the mean- time have been given of the title of tho mortgagor, or of his right to redemption to the mortgagor, or to some person claim- ing his estate, or to the agent of such mortgagor or person, in writing signed by the mortgagee or some person claiming through him. This section has been held to be retrospective in its operation as regards acknowledgments (x) . It was held under tho statute of Jac. I. that an acknowledg- ment made after twenty years' possession by the mortgagee would revive the mortgage and restore tho equity of redemp- tion (i/). And in one case, since the statute of "Will. IV., the Lord Justices Knight-Bruce and Turner expressed their opinion that the rule still clearly applied, and they decided accord- ingly (z) . The correctness of this decision was doubted in a recent case (a), and seems open to question. According to tho express language of sect. 28, a case does not come within the exception unless the acknowledgment is given " in the mean- time," which would seem to be capable of no other construction than as meaning within twelve years after the mortgagee entered into possession. This question is not affected by the decisions on extinguishment of title under sect. 34 (b), inasmuch as that section applies only to entries and actions for recovery of land, and it has been seen that an action for redemption is not an action to recover land for the purposes of the Statute of Limi- tations (c). (u) Conway v. Shrimpton, 6 Bro. P. C. 187. (v) Palmer v. Jackson, 5 Bro. P. C. 281. (%) Batchelor v. Middlelon, 6 Ha. 75. (?/) Pendleton v. Booth, 1 De G. F. & J. 81. (z) Stansfield v. Sobson, 3 De G. M. & G. 620. (a) Markwick v. Harding ham, 15 Ch. D. 339, at p. 346, C. A. See Brassing- ton v. Llewellyn, 27 L. J. Ex. 297. See also the cases cited post, p. 982, on the similar phrase in sect. 40 of 3 & 4. Will. IV. c. 27. (b) See post, p. 1073. (c) See ante, p. 747. STATUTES OF LIMITATION — ACKNOWLEDGMENT. 75 1 The acknowledgment must be made to the mortgagor or those chap, xxxix. claiming under him, or the agent of one of such persons. To whom the An acknowledgment of the mortgagor's title by a recital in an ment°must g " assignment of the mortgage, but to which the mortgagor is not *e given. a party, is not sufficient to stop the statute from running (d). But it seems to be otherwise if the mortgagor is a party (e). An acknowledgment made to the grandfather, tenant by the curtesy, of the right of his infant granddaughter, entitled as heir to the inheritance, has, however, been held to be sufficient, as being made to her agent, though the acknowledgment would otherwise seem to have been sufficient, as being made to the particular tenant of the equity of redemption (/). An acknowledgment to a bankrupt is not sufficient, as the bankrupt is not the agent of his trustees (jj). A letter written by a mortgagee to his own solicitor would not amount to an acknowledgment (h). Formerly, as has been seen (k), a parol acknowledgment would ^^Tustbe have been sufficient to keep alive the equity of redemption, but in writing, now the acknowledgment must be in writing signed by the mortgagee or the person claiming under him. Whatever expressions made by parol would have amounted 2^ ledo ._ before the statute to an acknowledgment, will still be sufficient ment is if in writing, and if the other requirements of the statute are sufficient - duly complied with (/). Any expression, therefore, referring to the estate as mortgaged, or to the person entitled to the equity of redemption, and expressing a readiness to settle the account, or referring to a proposed arrangement for accounting or for paying off the mortgage debt, will be a sufficient acknowledg- ment (m). No particular form is necessary, nor need the amount be stated (n) . The acknowledgment may be by affidavit in an action (o) ; in a schedule (o) ; or by an answer to interrogatories (o) ; or by a letter or other writing. (d) Lucas v. Dennison, 13 Sim. 584. (1) Stansfield v. Eobson, 3 De G. (e) See Batchelor v. Middleton, 6 Ha. M. & G. 620. 75. (m) Fish. Mtg. 694. '(/) Trulockx. Holey, 12 Sim. 402. \n) Trulock v. Robcy, 12 Sim. 402; (g) Markivick v. Hardingham, 15 Ch. Lord St. John v. Boughton, 9 Sim. 219 ; D. 339, 352, C. A. Prance v. Sympson, Kay, 678. (h) Stansfield v. Sobson, 3 De G. M. (o) Blair v. Nugent, 3 J. & L. 658 ; & G. 620. see Sug. E. P. St. 130. (k)-Ante, p. 748. MORTGAGOR'S E8TA1 B, I KJ. i:i W MP! [< chap, i Acknou ledg- mi nt limit ■licit. Account?. Acknowledg- ment by agent of mortgagee. Joint mortjrasrees. Tin' acknowledgment most, however, amount to a oleai and anequiveoal admission that tin- morl holds undec a mortgage title (p). A Letter denying the right of redemp- tion claimed, btrl stating that, even it' the mori leers entitled to rcilt.'.-ni. In- wmiM derive no benefit from the aooonnt, was held to be insufficient (q). The fact of the mortgagee treating hints. 'it' as mi and accounting, but without any signature of the accounts according to tlir Act, is not sufficient (r) ; and it has been Baid the com- mencement of an action of foreclosure would not be sufficient but under tho old practice the mere riling of a bill for foreoli was suflicient, though Bervioe might not have been effected till long afterwards (t). A mere demand without process will not suilice (it). I rnder sect. 28 no force is given to an acknowledgment by an it of the mortgagee, which seems to stand on the Bame foot- in-- as under another statute (*), whereby an acknowledgment of a debt must be made in writing signed by the party chargeable therewith. Under that statute it has been held that th ture of an agent of the debtor was not sufficient^); but now, in cases falling within that statute, an acknowledgment by an agent is rendered sufficient by sect. 13 of the stat. 19 & 20 Vict, o. 97. Where there is a mortgage to several jointly, there must be a joint acknowledgment (z). {p) Whiting v. White, G. Coop. 1 ; Reeks v. Poatlethwaite, G. Coop. 1(31 ; Barron v. Martin, G. Coop. 189. (q) Thompson v. Bouycr, 9 Jur. N. S. 863. (>•) Baker v. Wetton, 14 Sim. 426. \s) Kah. Mtg. G95. (<) Cqppin v. Gray, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 205 ; PureeU v. Blennerhastett, 3 J. & L. 24 ; Fortter v. Thompson, 4 Dr. & "War. 303 ; Uele v. 1. , 20 Bear. 127. (m) Eodle v. ffealt y, 1 V. & B. 536. (j) 9 Geo. IV. c 14, > 1 (//) Hyde v. Johnson, 2 Bing. N. C. 776 ; dark v. Alexander, 8 Sc. N. R. 165. (z) Biehardton v. Toungc, L. R. 6 Ch. A. 478. ( "53 ) CHAPTER XL. OUT OF WHAT FUND A MORTGAGE DEBT IS PAYABLE. Section I. Primary Liability of Personalty under former Law. i.— General Rule as to Mortgages of Realty before Locke King's Alteration Act.— The law relating to the primary liability of the personal Locke Kfrg'I estate of a deceased mortgagor to payment of a mortgage debt in Act, &c. exoneration of real estate comprised in the mortgage has been altered by the statute commonly known as Locke King's Act (a), which statute, however, does not apply to the estates of persons who died before the 1st of January, 1855, nor so as to affect the rights of any person claiming under or by virtue of any will, deed, or document made before that date. Moreover, neither that Act nor either of the amending Acts (b) have any applica- tion to mortgages of personalty other than leaseholds. The rule of law which prevailed before Locke King's Act Former rule was that, as between the heir or devisee of a deceased mort- JJjJjjj* thT gagor of the one part, and his personal representatives of the primary fund. other part, the personal estate was primarily liable to the pay- ment of a debt secured by mortgage of real estate, and must have indemnified the real estate against the debt, so as to exonerate the mortgaged lands. This rule was of general application, and prevailed, subject to exceptions to be here- after noticed, whether the lands in mortgage devolved on the heir-at-law as hares natus (c), or on a general devisee as hares /actus {d), or on a particular devisee {e) ; in either case the (a) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 113,1km*, p. 767. (d) Lutkins v. Leigh, Forrester, Cas. \b) 30 k 31 Vict. c. 69 ; 40 & 41 t. Talb. 54 ; Galton v. Hancock, 2 Atk. Vict c. 34. See infra, P- 769. 436. (c) Cope v. Cope, 2 Salk. 449; Ilowel (e) Pockley v. Pockley, 1 Vera. 36; v Price 1 P. Wms. 292; Chester v. Johnson v. Milksopp,2 Vein. 112. And Powell 7 Jur. 389. see Galton v. Hancock, sup. VOL. I. — R. 3c 754 MOBTG IGOR S ESTATE, ETC. I KON1 R Ml" •■ persona] estate, in the absenoe of evidence of Intention to the oontrary, beoame the primary fund, and exonerated the estate, descended or devi ed, from the debt. And this rule held good even in the oa f a Welsh m . where the mort- gagee cannol foreclose, nor bring an action for the sum lenl and whether, in the case of an ordinary mortgage, there was a covenant or 1>< >ii' 1 accompanying the mortgage or not(^); and applied equally to the case of a devise "by a m< who had oreated a sub-mortgage (h). Contrary in- tention might be express or implied. Intention to exempt | i r- sonal estate necessary. Parol evi- ii. — Exemption of Personalty by Expressions of Contrary Inten- tion. — The operation of the rule above referred to might, how- ever, always have been excluded by contrary intention to be gathered expressly («) or by plain implication (k) from the lan- guage of the mortgagor's will that the mortgage debl should be borne by the mortgaged property, or that the debts gene- rally should be paid out of a specific fund in exoneration of the general personal assets; for in construing a direction for pay- ment of debts the expression '•debts" was, until the passing of the statute 40 & II Vict. o. 34, deemed to inolude mortg But it was ii"t sufficient for a testator to show an intention to charge his real estate with the payment of his debt-, whether by a trust for sale limiting a term, or simply charging the estate; ho must show an intention to exempt his personal estate (m) ; though the grounds of this rule would appear to be somewhat weakened since the statute 3 & 1 Will. IV. c. Jul, rendering realty assets for the payment of debts. The question was decided only by an examination of the (/) Sowel v. Price, 1 P. Wins. 292. And t-ee Langut t v. Scat* en, 1 \ < 9. Sen. 402, -lit.') ; Bulwer v. Ast ey, 1 Ph. 122. {ff) Yates v. Aston, 4 Q. B. 182; , v. Dalton, 5 L. J. K. B. 312 ; A \ . King, 3 P. Wins. 358 ; ( Co . ■: Salt. 1 19. (//) See Lochhart v. Hardy, 9 Beav. 379. (i) Morrow v. Bush, 1 Cox, 185 ; Young v. Young, 26 Beav. 522. (k) Ion v. Ashton, 2S Beav. 379 ; Forrest v. Prescott, L. R. 10 Eq. 545. (I) See post, p. 769. (m) Dolman v. Smith, Prec. Ch. 456 ; French v. Chichester, 2 Vern. 568 ; Staple- ton v. Colrile, Forrester, Cas. t. Talb. 202; Haslewoodv. Pope, 2 V. Wmt Fereyes v. Robertson, Bunb. 302; Walker v. Jackson, 2 Atk. 625; Bridgman v. /'"", 3 Atk. 202; Lord Inchiq . Aml>. 33 : Samuell v. Wake, 1 Bro. C. C. 144 ; Aldridge v. Lord ourt, 1 Ba. & Be. 312; Watson v. vood, 9 Ves. 1 17, 153 ; Tail y. Northtoick, 4 Ves. 816; Tower v. Lord Sous, 18 Ves. 132 ; Buotle v. Blundell, 1 Mer. 193; Rhodes v. Budge, 1 Sim. 79; Walker v. Hard' 1 Mv. & K. 396 ; Colhs v. Robins, 1 De G. & S. 131 ; Quenell v. Turner, 13 Beav. 240; Dairies v. Ashford, 15 Sim. 42. OLD LAW — CONTRAR1 INI T.M'ION. 755 whole will taken together, and extrinsio ovideuco was not ,11AI ' "■ reoeived to show the testator's intention (»). denoe not Where the personalty was expressly disoharged Erom the pay- ^ ndMibto - ment of a partioular debt, or of debts generally, the exemption exoneration of is clear; the effeol was to throw the liability on all other pro- Personalty. perty not expressly exempted (<>). \\ here a mortgaged estate was devised expressly oharged Exoneration with "the paymenl of any sum or sums of money on the onargeof 8 security of the said estate,'' it was held that the personally mortgage was exonerated, as otherwise, in Eavour of a creditor, the charge would be superfluous and meaningless (p). So, also, the personalty was held to ho exempted where there Express trust was an express trust to pay mortgage debts and interest out of '" i Klv ll,1,ls - the rents and the produce of the sale of the partioular estate mortgaged {rsons, but the two characters were carefully kept separate (a?) ; where the gift of the general personal estate was specific (//). (n) Booth v. Blundell, 1 Mer. 193, Sinnett v. Herbert, L. K. 12 Eq. 206, 21G. See J. '■fl Inchiquin v. French, reversed en other points, L. R. 7 Ch. Ami). 33; Andrews v. Emmot, 2 Bro. A. 232. G. U. 303. (*) Toivnshendy. Mostyn, 26 Beav. 72. (o) Young v. Young, 26 Beav. 522; (/) Bwton v. Knowlton, •"> Ves. 107. Gilbertson v. Gilbertson, 34 Beav. 367. But. .sec Aldridye v. Lord Wallscourt, {)>) Evan* v. Cockeram, l Coll 128. 1 Ba. & V,,'. 312. And see Symons v. James, 2 T. & 0. 0. (") Booth \. Blundell, 1 Mer. 193; ('. ::iil ; Dawes v. Scott, 6 Russ. 42; Gilbertson v. Gilbertson, 34 Beav. 357; Clutterbuck v. Clutterbuck, 1 My. & K. Metcalfe v. Eutchinson, 1 Ch. D. 591. 15; Watch v. Skelton, 20 Beav. 453; (.<) Bootlev. Blundell, sup. I. mlii l.miijiinlr \. lirnjij", s Dr (i. M. (>/) Blount v. Hipk'vns, 7 Sim.43. Ami & <;. 391; Birds v. Askey, 21 Beav. see Drive* v. Fenand, I R. & l\Iy. 681. (lis, 620. See also Ibbetson v. Ibbetson, But, sec Collis v. Robins, 1 De G. & 8. 12 Sim. 206. 131 ; and Sargent v. Roberts, 17 Ij. J. (q) Symons v. James, 2 T. & G. 0. O. Ch. 117; Lancev. Aglionby, 27 Beav. 301. 65. Hut sic Greene v. Greene, 1 Madd. (r) Ion v. Ashton, 28 Beav. 379; 148; and Michell-v.Michell,5M.&M.69. a c2 MORTGAGORS ESTATE, ETC. EXONERATION. Direction to pay debt out of particular pari of n alty. i .. hi re ili. personalty was held not ti exonerated. bequest to exeoutors. Same pi trustei a and executors. Bequest of residue. So a u'itt of a persona] estate by as enumeration of sp< as to be a Bpecifio bequest An express direction thai u partioular debt should be paid nut of a partioular portion of the real estate exonerated the personalty. Suoh a direotion affords a very different Lnfen Erom a devise to sell for payment <>i all debts, whioh evinoed nothing more than an Intention that all the debts Bhould 1"' paid, and the real estate, it' neoessary, applied for the purpose, and did not exonerate the personal b). Where all the personalty was bequeathed to the executor, who was also one of the devisees of the real • ; where the tee of the personalty was tenant for life of the real estate, and also exeoutor (rf ) ; where the personalty was bequeathed to sisters, and the ti ; the real estates were appointed exeoutors < : where the Legatee of the personalty was appointed itor together with the trustees of the real estate I f) — there was no exemption ; and no trace of intention to exonerate was held to exist where the personalty is undisposed of The personal estate was not exempted from debts by a di bequest to the exeoutors //). The oiroumstanoe of the same persons being appointed tru I and exeoutors lias had considerable weight in inducing judges to draw au inference that the personal estate is not to be exempted (i) ; and Lord Alvanley has remarked (k) that the oiroumstance of the trustees not being the executors affords a strong inference as to the real intent inn, and is always favour- able to the exemption of the personal estate. A bequest of a residue lias always been considered unfavour- able to exemption (/). But a distinction has been drawn in (a) Driver v. Ferrand, 1 R. & My. 81 ; and Sargent v. Roberts, 17 L. J. Ch. 117. (a) Powell v. Biley, L. R. 12 Eq. 175. (b) Hancox v. Abbey, 11 Yes. 179. And see Walker v. Pink, cited 1 Cox, 5. (c) Brummelx. Prothero, 3 Ves. Ill ; Watson v. Bricktoood, 9 Ves. 417. (d) Watson v. Briektcood, sup. And see Tower v. Lord Pons, 18 Ves. 132. (e) Tait v. Lord Northwick, 4 Ves. 816. (/) Hartley v. Hurle. 5 Ves. 540. And see Williams v. Chitty, 3 Ves. 545 ; SJiallcross v. Finden, 3 Ves. 738 ; King v. Denison, 1 V. & B. 274 ; and Keeling v. Brown, 5 Ves. 359. (g) Lomax v. Lomax, 12 Beav. 285. (A) Duke of -1 \. Mayer, 1 Bro. C. C. 462; Stephenson v. Heath- cited 1 Bro. C. C. 458 ; Booth v. Blnndell, 1 Mer. 223 ; overruling Walker v. Jackson, 2 Atk. 624. (i) Dolman v. Smith, Prec. Ch. 456. And see Stephenson v. Heathcote, sup. ; ./ iter v. Mayer, sup. j Booth v. Blnndell, sup. ; Rhodes v. P> Sim. 7'.'. But Bee Driver v. Ferrand, 1 E. & My. 681, where the contrary inference was drawn under the circum- stances of the case. (k) In Burton v. Knowlton, 3 Ves. 108. (I) lord Inchiquin v. French, Amb. 757 OLD LAW — CONTRARY INTENTION. ' Jl cases in which the residue has Leon immediately preceded by CHAr - XI " an enumeration of specific articles, not likely to be intended by the testator to be sold (m) ; and also in cases in which the residue has been considered as not meaning the residue after satisfaction of debts, &c, but the residue of the personal estate before specifically bequeathed (n) ; and in all cases in which, from circumstances, it can be considered as specific, it will be exempted. It was well settled that a devise of lands " subject to " debts Dejfeesubject generally, or to a specific mortgage or charge on the land was to be considered to be merely descriptive of the state of the property, and not an indication of intention to throw the burden of the debts or charge on the lands in exoneration of the assets (o). 6 . where a testator having two estates comprised in one mortgage devised an estate to A., subject to the payment of part of the debt, and the other estate to B., subject to the pay- ment of the residue, it was held that this only fixed the propor- tions in which the estates were to bear the charge as between themselves, and did not imply an intention to exonerate the personal estate {p). In one case (g) a devise of an estate to a person, " he paying the mortgage thereon," was held to impose the burden on the estate in exoneration of the personalty, but the decision seems questionable, as the contrary was decided as to similar words in two earlier cases (r). The circumstance of the possession of the real and personal Real and per, x t „ , | 1 1: i 1 est 3X6 estate accruing to one and the same person, i.e., ot the real i, lslIn ,. estate charged with debts being limited in strict settlement, and settlement. 33- Philips v Phillips, 2 Bro. C. C. Duke of Ancaster t. Mayer, 1 Bro. 0. C. 273; Stephenson v. Heathcote, cited 1 454; Astley v. Earl oj Tankerville, 3 Bro C C 158. And see Walker v. Bro. C. C. 545; Barnewell v. Lord m ;,„ ;.. , Mv . & K . 396. Cawdor 3 Madd 453; Phillips y. v:.)/Vyr«-A-,lEq.Ca.Abr. Parker, Taml. 136; Bickham v. Crut- 271 ■ Bradnox v. Gratwiek, cited 3 P. well, 3 My. & Or. 763 ; Townshend v. Wms 325 ; Blount v. Hipkins, 7 Sim. Mostyn, 26 Beav. 72, See also Lord i;- Greene v. Greene, 4 Madd. 148; Eldon' s judgments m. Milnes v. Slater, Vichellr.mchell, 5 Madd. 69. 8 Ves. 306 ; Bootle v. BlundM, 1 («) Att -Gen. v. Barkham, citedFor- Mer. 227 ; and Noel v. Noel, U Price, rester, Cas. t. Talb. 206; Adams v. 213 ]/,,,,,'. sup.; Anderton v. Cook, cited (p) G Iwvn v. Lee, IK. ft : J. 377. 1 Bro C C 4.56- Waise v. Whitfield, See also Wythe v. Henmker, 2 My. & 2Eq. Ca. Abr. 374; Walker v. Jackson, K. 635. r .. , 2 Atk. 624; StapUton v. Colvile, For- (?) /'«• Lord Langdale m Zoc/.7<«,-f jter < 'as. t. Talb. 202; Clutterbuck v. v. 7/""///, 9 ro Merbuck, 1 My. & K. 15. And see (»•) #r%« ,„/ v . r<"K U. & W. 102; Browne Meadv. Hid Groombridge, 4 Madd. 495. these cases (o) Serle v. 5<. £%, 2 P. Wms. 386 ; Hardy, sup. 'I Atk. bi-i ; oiapieion \. mmw, aux- v. --■ — —- — o rester, Cas. t. Talb. 202; Clutterbuck v. v. Hardy, <■> Beav. 3/9. ,/,„,/, l My. & K. 15. And see (r) Bridgemanv. Dove 3 Atk 201 CW v. F^fa, U. & W. 102 ; JmwiM J»f«a* v. 2/«fe, 2 Vera. 120. Neither of v. Groombridge, 4 Madd. 495. these cases was cited in Lockhart v. 758 MORTGAGOR'S ESTATE, ETC. EXONERATION. chap. xr.. f no personal estate being given to the person who wa to the possession of the real estate, bo thai the personal • ' was made to acorue to the real estate, was differently considered by different judges. The balance of authority was in Bavour of the view that, as a testator could not intend that his settled family estate should be burdened an it li debts, and his persona] estate be given away discharged from debts to be squandered and dissipated, he must have meant that his personal estate should not be exempt (a). When funeral It seems that the omission to charge funeral expenses (f) on 7i I < 1, ii-...'!] 6 ^ ne rea l ^tate was regarded as ;i circumstance of some weight to show that the personal estate was not to be exempt, because funeral expenses are the first charge on that fund («), and also because it showed that the testator intended the personal estato to be charged beyond the particular legacies or charges men- tioned in the will, and being- once broken in upon, the argument of its being specific was destroyed (•'•). Suspension of The primary liability of the personal estate might have been personalty suspended for a time ; as -where a mortgagor directed by his will that the interest of a mortgage debt should form part of annuities, which he devised, out of the mortgaged estate, to the person having a life interest in the mortgage debt (//). It may be added that a particular part of the personal estate might, in like manner, have been charged with debts and legacies, in exoneration of the residue (~). Revivor of Where the personal estate was bequeathed exonerated from liability. debts, and the gift lapsed, the primary liability of the personal estate returned (a), though otherwise where a general intention, and not merely one in favour of a particular individual (b) , Mas expressed. The evidence of intention to exonerate the personal estate was in all cases to be gathered from an examination of the whole will taken together, but not from extrinsic circumstances (c). (s) Dolman v. Smith, Prec. Ch. 456 ; (z) Brown v. Groombridge, 4 Madd. Husleuood v. Pope, 3 P. Wms. 323 ; 495 ; Choat v. Teats, 1 J. i; W. 102. Earewood v. Child, cited Forrester, {a) Waring v. Ward, 5 Ves. 670 ; Cas. t. Talb. 204. Noel v. Lord Henley, M'Cl. & Y. (t) See, as to the effect of such a 302. charge under the present law, post, (b) Milnes v. Slater, 8 Ves. 295. p. 772. (c) Booth v. Blundell, 1 Mer. 193, at (?<) Burton v. Enowlton, 3 Ves. 107. p. 216 ; Gittins v. Steele, 1 Swanst. 24. (') See Brydyes v. Phillips, 6 Ves. And see Lord Inchiquin v. French, 667. Amb. 33; Andrews v. .Emmot, 2 Pro. [y) Sargent v. Roberts, 17 L. J. Ch. C. C. 303. 117. OLD LAW — DEBT NOT OF ANCESTOR, ETC. 759 iii. — Exceptions to the Rule. — To the general rule, as to the chap, xl. primary liability of personalty under the former law, there were Grounuof certain important exceptions. In order to apply the rule that ru i e f enera personalty was the primary fund applicable for payment of a mortgage debt, the incumbrance must have been created or adopted by the deceased owner himself. The ground on which the claim of the mortgaged estate to be exonerated at the expense of the personalty rested, was that the creation of a mortgage by a testator or immediate ancestor benefited the per- sonalty, which was therefore bound to bear the burden. If, then, the mortgage debt was not the debt of the testator Exception or ancestor himself, but the estate had come to him by devise or ^hLe'debUa descent, incumbered with a mortgage created by a prior owner, of ancestor there was no ground for the application of the general rule ; but himself, the mortgaged estate in the hands of such testator or ancestor was, unless he had done some act to make the debt his own, primarily liable to discharge the debt in exoneration of the personalty. So, in Scott v. Beecher (d), where the devisee was also the sole Heir or legatee, and the personal estate of the mortgagor, after payment w ^g e takes of debts, &c. was sufficient to have discharged the mortgage ; and cum omre - yet on a bill filed by the heir-at-law of the devisee against the administrator of the devisee, who was also administrator de bonis non of the mortgagor, to be indemnified out of the personal assets of the latter, his claim was refused. Again, where a mortgagor devised his real and personal estate to his wife, who died intes- tate without paying off the mortgage, it was held that her heir took the mortgage premises cum onere of the mortgage; but in that case, the proceeds of certain policies of insurance, which were a collateral security for the mortgage debt, were held to have been properly applied in payment of the debt (e). Where, however, the mortgage debt was not originally the Adoption of debt of the deceased owner of the mortgaged property, yet he r devisee. might, in his lifetime, adopt the mortgage debt and make it his own by some act affording sufficient evidence of intention so to do, in which case his personal estate, as between his real and personal representatives, became primarily liable to discharge the debt (/). (d) 5 Madd. 96. See also Earl of (e) Swainson v. Swainson, 6 De G-. Ilchester v. Earl of Carnarvon, 1 Beav. M. & Gr. 648. 209 ; Sickling v. Rover, 3 Mac. & G-. (/) See Barham v. Earl of Than et, 3 635, 644 ; Earl of Clarendon v. Barham, My. & K. 607, and other cases cited, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 688 ; Sepworth v. Bill, inf. 30 Beav. 476, 484. 7C>0 mortgagor's estate, etc. exoneration. Evidenoe of intention to adopt debt. In matters of tins sort, the question Lfl oonfined to evidenoe of intention; and therefore as, on transfer or assignment of the mortgage, the concurrence of the heir or devisee, or of the hus- band of such party, in the deed, and his personal covenant for payment of the money, is only hy way of additional security to the mortgagee, the burden of the debt was not, as between the real and personal representatives, altered (g). And even where a party entitled to the estate under the limitations of a settle- ment became also entitled to a charge on the estate, which charge ho assigned as a security for a sum borrowed by him, the land remained the fund for payment (//). The same principle applied if other estates were added to the security, on a further sum being lent(/), or if there were a covenant on his part for increas- ing the rate of interest (/.•) ; and it seems that if the sums borrowed by the heir or devisee, and added to the original mortgage, were comparatively small, the Court would not have considered that he had different intentions as to the different sums, but would have charged the real estate with the whole (/). The latter doctrine must, however, be received with much caution. Where, since the execution of a mortgage of lands, the equity of redemption had become vested in several persons, and on a transfer of the mortgage the deed of transfer contained a cove- nant by the mortgagors for personal payment of their respective proportions of the mortgage debt, and also a new proviso for redemption, providing for re-conveyance to each person of his own share, it was held that the personal estates of such persons were not rendered primarily liable for the payment of the mort- gage debt notwithstanding the covenant and proviso, since these only expressed what the law would imply (ni). Lord Northington (n) is said to have given an opinion that if, on a transfer of mortgage, a new equity of redemption is created, the personal estate of the heir would, on his death, have become the primary fund. But this opinion seems to be at variance with several well-considered cases, and must, it is submitted, be con- (g) Bagot v. Oughton, 1 P. "Wins. 347 ; Evelyn v. Evelyn, 2 P. Wins. 659 ; Leman v. Neicnham, 1 Ves. Sen. 51. And see Waring v. Ward, 7 Ves. 336. [h) Noel v. Lord Henley, M'Cl. & Y. 302. (i) Duke of Aneaster v. Mayei-, 1 Bro. C. C. 454, 464. (k) Shafto v. Shafto, 2 P. Wms. Kangle, 2 P. Wms. cited 664, n. (/) Zeuis cited 664, n. (m) Sedges v. Sedges, 5 De G. & S. 389. (n) Donisthorpe v. Porter, Amb. 600, but the exact nature of the transac- tion in this case does not clearly ap- pear from the report. See also Lush? ington v. Sewell, 1 Sim. 435, OLD LAW — DEBT NOT OF ANCESTOR, ETC. 761 fined to instances in which, from the circumstances attending the chap. xl. case, an evidence of sunn an intention could have been collected. ~ The same rule applied to the heir or devisee as to a pur- chaser (o), that a charge by his will of debts generally on his real and personal estate would not of itself have been sufficient to shift the onus from the mortgaged estate (p). Even a direct and original mortgage made by the heir or devisee would not have operated to render his personal estate the primary fund, if the money borrowed was for the purpose of paying off the debts (q) or legacies (r) of the ancestor or devisor, and the like was the case if the heir or devisee gave his bond (s) or note of hand (t) for payment of debts or legacies charged on the land. In the case of Barham v. Earl of Thanet (n), where the heir of Further the mortgagor and the mortgagee joined in conveying a part of a vance - the property to a fresh mortgagee, who advanced a sum to pay off a part of the first mortgage, with an entirely new equity of redemption, and alteration of the rate of interest, it was held that this amounted to an original mortgage, and was not an assignment, and the personal assets of the heir were therefore first applied to payment of the debt. Where the heir consolidated his own mortgage and the mort- Consolida- gage of his ancestor into one mortgage and covenanted to pay lon ' the w^hole, he made it his own debt (ar) . Where a testator devised an estate previously mortgaged by Devise on him to his eldest son in tail, and also devised another estate to ^ 0I1 ? ltl0I J that devisee shall trustees upon trust to sell, unless the son should satisfy the adopt debt, creditors, and apply the proceeds towards the payment of his debts, and pay the surplus to his son whom he made his resi- duary legatee ; the trustees not having acted, the son entered into possession of all the testator's property ; the mortgage was transferred, with a new proviso for redemption and a covenant for payment, with interest at a different rate ; the son having (o) Duke of Ancaster v. Mayer, 1 Bro. (r) Basset v. Perceval, 1 Cox, 268 ; C. C. 454 ; Butler v. Butler, 5 Ves. Mattheson v. Hardwicke, 2 P. Wms. 534. 665, n. ; Billinghurst v. Walker, 2 Bro. (p) Lawson v. Hudson, 1 Bro. C. C. C. C. 604 ; Hamilton v. Worley, 2 Ves. 58 ; Hamilton v. Worley, 2 Ves. Jun. Jun. 62. 62 ; Leman v. Kewnham, 1 Ves. Sen. (*) Billinghurst v. Walker, sup. ; 51 : Butler v. Butler, 5 Ves. 534 ; Duke Basset v. Perceval, sup. of Ancaster v. Mayer, sup. (t) Mattheson v. Hardwicke, sup. (q) Tankerville v. Fawcett, 1 Cox, {n) 3 My. & K. 607. 237 ; Perkyns v. Baynton, 2 P. "Wms. \x) Toivnshend v. Mostyn, 26 Beav. cited 664, n. 72. And see Bagot v. Bagot, 34 Beav. 134. 702 MORTGAGOR'S ESTATE, ETC. — EXONERATION. 1 )r\ isCO appropriating fund set apart for debts. Purchase of equity of redemption. Evidence of intention to adopt debt. Fresh contract between pur- chaser and mortgagee. died withoul paying off the mortgage, it waa held thai his | ef- sona] estate was primarily Liable, on the ground thai he mu presumed to have aoted as he did in pursnanoe <>f the will, which gave him the option of preventing a sale by taking the debts on himself (y). In another rase, in which pari of a testator's real estate was by Act of Parliament expressly sei aside for the payment of his debts, and the devisee converted the money to his own use, it was held that he had made the debt his own, and that his personal estate was primarily liable for the payment of the debts (;:). The same principles which determined what property was primarily liable to a mortgage debt in cases of descent or devise, applied also to the case of a purchaser of property subject to a mortgage. So, if a man purchased an estate subject to an existing mortgage, the debt did not, without more, become his debt, so as to render him personally liable to the mortgagee; the land remained the proper fund for its discharge; and it required clear evidence of intention on the part of the purchaser to make the debt his own, so as to render his personal estate the primary fund for payment (a). In such a case the question may arise what degree of evidence was sufficient to indicate the purchaser's intention to make the debt his own? Generally speaking, a covenant with the vendor for payment of the debt would not have that effect, it being no more than a covenant of indemnity (b). In one case, however, a covenant of that nature was held sufficient for the purpose (c), the purchaser having joined in the covenant to the mortgagee, and afterwards borrowed a further sum, and made a fresh mort- gage for the whole debt. Where there w\as a fresh agreement altogether for payment of the original debt, between the purchaser and the mortgagee de novo (d), it was decided that the personal estate of the purchaser was the primary fund. In another case (e), where an estate subject to a mortgage was sold out of Chancery, and the pur- (y) Bruce x. Morris, 1 Bro. C. C. 454. (z) Effingham v. Napier, 5 Bro. P. C. 22. (a) See per Arden, M. R., in Woods v. hunting ford, 3 Ves. 128. See also Barry v. Harding, 1 J. & L. 475. (b) Forrester v. Leigh, Amb. 171 ; Waring v. Ward, 7 Ves. 332, at p. 337 ; Bridgman v. Daw, 40 W. R. 253. (c) Woods v. Hun tine ford, sup. See Butler v. Butler, 5 Ves! 534. (d) Earl of Oxford v. Lady Rodney, 14 Ves. 417. (e) Waring v. Ward, 7 Ves. 332. OLD LAW — PURCHASE OF EQUITY OF REDEMPTION. 763 chaser borrowed a larger sum, out of which the mortgage debt chap. XL - was paid off and a new mortgage created, the whole debt was directed to be paid out of the personal estate of the purchaser, on the ground that the transaction was a personal contract between the purchaser and the mortgagee. It is suggested that these cases do not bear out the doctrine, that if the purchaser by any communication with the mortgagee took the debt upon himself so as to give the mortgagee a right to sue him for the mortgage debt at law, he would be considered to have made the debt his own ; and that as between his real and personal representative, his real estate would be only the auxiliary fund for payment. All the three cases of Woods v. Euntingford, Waring v. Ward, and Lord Oxford v. Lady Hod iirg (/), had strong circumstances evidencing the purchaser's intention to consider the debt his own ; but it is submitted that no reported case goes so far as to decide that a mere covenant by a purchaser with a mortgagee to pay the debt, without any alteration of the time of payment or any other variation of the original contract, would have operated to render the personal estate of the purchaser the primary fund. Another class of cases to which the general rule as to the Mere charge exoneration of the mortgaged estate at the expense of the per- personal 8 " sonalty did not apply, was where the transaction did not strictly liability. impose any personal liability on the owner of the mortgaged property or on any other person ; as where a sum of money was agreed to be settled and secured on land, though the mortgage deed contained a covenant for payment ; in such cases the per- sonalty was not benefited by the mortgage, and accordingly the mortgaged property must have borne the burden. Thus, where a father agreed, on the marriage of his daughter, Agreement , -i i i to settle and to secure a portion for her, and accordingly gave to her trustees secure money . a mortgage of part of his estates, and by the mortgage deed cove- nanted to pay the money ; and he afterwards died, having by his will directed payment of his debts first out of his residuary per- sonal estate, then out of his money in the funds, and, lastly, out of his residuary real estate ; it was held that the covenant was a matter of form and merely auxiliary, and that the charge created no personal debt of the settlor so as to entitle the mortgaged estate to be exonerated out of the settlor's personalty (g). If) Supra 444: ! Lechmere v. Charlton, 15 Ves. (g) Graves v. Hicks, 6 Sim. 398. 193. See Lanoy v. Duke of Athol, 2 Atk. 704 mortgagor's estate, etc. exoneration. CHAP. XL. Settlement Bubjecl to mortgages. Si sttlor paying off charge. Failure of intermediate limitations. Case of surety. Where an estate has been settled by deed, subjeoi to mort- gages created by the settlor, or to be created under a power given him by the settlement, the devisees of the reversion in Eee would, it seems, not have had the usual right of exoneration out of the personal estate, on account of the difficulty of attributing a divided intention to the settlor as to different parts of the Pee, unless such intention were shown, for which a general charge of debts on real and personal estate was not sufficient (//). The rule of exoneration did not apply to a mortgage made under a power, as in that case the property, as between the persons entitled to it and the mortgagor, was looked upon as the debtor, even though the personalty of the donee of the power might have received the benefit of the charge (/). If a person who had secured by mortgage the payment of a sum agreed to be settled by him, paid off the charge, he became himself an incumbrancer to that extent for the benefit of his personal estate (/•). Where a tenant for life created a oharge in exercise of a power, and afterwards, by failure of the intermediate limita- tions, became entitled to the fee, it seems clear that his personal estate would not have been primarily liable if he had died tenant for life (/) ; but if the ultimate remainder had become vested in possession during his lifetime, the point does not seem free from doubt (m). It remains to consider how far the above principles were appli- cable in the case of a surety. In many instances, persons are concurring parties in a mort- gage, or assignment of mortgage, in the character of sureties. For instance, if a man having a power to charge an estate with a sum of money, raise it by way of mortgage, and on an assign- ment of the mortgage the person then entitled to the estate is a party, and gives his personal covenant for payment (»), the (/») Lbbetson v. Ibbetson, 12 Sim. 206 ; Lady Longdate v. Briggs, 8 De G. M. & G. 391 ; Bruce v. Morice, 2 De G. & S. 389 ; Loosemoore v. Knapman, Kay, 123. (i) Jenkinson v. LTareourt, Kay, 688 ; Schole field v. Lockwood, 4 De G. J. & S. 28. See Bar ham v. Earl of Clarendon, 10 Ha. 126. (k) Vandeleur v. Vandeleu/r, 3 01. & F. 82 ; Reddington v. Reddington, 1 Ba. & Be. 131; Exp. Bigby, Jac, 235; Jameson v. Stein, 21 Beav. 5. (I) Noel v. Noel, 12 Pri. 213, at pp. 307, 308 ; Lady Longdate v. Briggs, 8 De G. M. & G. 391. (in) See Scott v. Beecher, 5 Madd. 96 ; Lord llchestcr v. Lord Carnarvon, 1 Beav. 209 ; Earl of Clarendon v. Bar- ham, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 688, 711. (n) Evelyn v. Evelyn, 2 P. Wms. 664. And see Lechmere v. Charlton, 15 Ves, 193. OLD LAW — CASES OF SURETYSHIP. 765 covenant will operate as an auxiliary security only, and the land cnAP - XL - must bear the onus : or, if a person having an estate in lands concur in a mortgage with some other party having also an estate in the same lands, for the purpose of raising a sum of money for the benefit of the latter, he is merely a surety, and may require to have his estate exonerated out of the assets of the other party ; and it is said, if he enter into no covenant, that he will not be personally liable to the mortgagee either by way of specialty or simple contract (o). But if he entered into a covenant with the mortgagee, and the estate of the other party was insufficient to meet the debt, it was a question whether his estate in the land or his personalty was the primary fund. A charge of the debt by the will of the surety upon his own estate would not seem to have altered the nature of the debt. But in a case where A. had mortgaged property by way of col- lateral security for a debt of two of his sons, which was secured also by a mortgage of property belonging to them, and a bond of indemnity had been given by the latter to the former, and A. afterwards devised the property so mortgaged to one of the two sons, and gave the rest of his real and personal estate to trustees on trust to convert into money and pay debts, and particularly the sums which might become payable out of the property so devised to his son, and after payment of certain legacies, then to divide the residue among his three sons in certain proportions, Vice-Chancellor Knight-Bruce held that the testator had taken the debt on himself, and that it was a gift to his two sons (p). On the principle of suretyship rest the cases in which it has been decided that if in a settlement of real estate a settlor covenant for payment of children's portions or widow's join- ture (- oharges. Trusts for conversion. Vendor's lien. Questions arising under the Act. gagee on such lands 01 hereditaments to obtain lull paymen satisfaction of his mortgage debt either out oi the personal • of the person Bodying as aforesaid or otherwise. Provided also, that nothing herein contained >hall affed the rights of any person claiming under or by virtue <>t' any will, deed, or document air made or to bo made before the l-i day of January, 1855." It will be observed that this Act applies only to m of land or other hereditaments j it applies ta copyholds (e) ; but was held not to apply to leaseholds 1 ; but leaseholds have been included within its operation by tin' statute hereafter referred to (i lands oi any possessed of or entitled to any land or other hereditaments or what- tenure. ever tenure which shall at the time of his death be charged with the payment of any sum or sums of money by way of mortgage or any other equitable charge, including any lien for unpaid purchase- money ; and the devisee or legatee or heir shall not be entitled to have such sum or sums discharged or satisfied out of any other estate of the testator or intestate, unless (in the case of a testator) he shall, within the meaning of the said Acts, have signified a con- trary intention ; and such contrary intention shall not be deemed to be signified by a charge of or a direction for payment of debts upon or out of residuary real or personal estate or residuary real estate." (q) Stone v. Parker, 1 Dr. & Sm. (t) "Intestates" are omitted from 212; Allen v. Allen, 30 Beav. 395; this Act; but the omission was re- Neicman v. Wilson, 31 Beav. 33 ; Re medied in the next mentioned Act. Nevill, Robinson v. Xevill, "W. N. (1890) See Harding v. Harding, L. R. 13 Eq. 125. 493. (r) Smith v. Smith, 3 Griff. 263; (ic) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 113, sup. Mellish v. ValUns, 2 J. & H. 194 ; Eno (x) As to vendor's lien, see Re Cock- er. Tatham, 3 De G. J. & S. 451 ; Moore roft, Broadbent v. Groves, 24 Ch. D. 94. v. Moore, 1 De G. J. & S. 602, overruling (y) 40 & 41 Vict. c. 34. Roicson v. Harrison, 31 Beav. 207. (■=) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 113, and 30 & 31 (n) 30 & 31 Vict. c. 69. Vict. c. 09, sup. VOL. 1. R. 3 D 770 MORTGAGOR'S ESTATE, ETC. — EXONERATION. General effect of the Acts. Personal lia- bility not im- posed on heir or devisee. Mortgage comprising realty and personalty. Persons claiming through deceased. Considering these Acts as a whole, it will be seen that their effect, in cases to which they apply, is to altogether reverse the former law as to the exoneration of mortgaged estates, and to throw upon the devisee of a deceased mortgagor who seeks to lease mortgaged lands of any tenure exonerated out of the assets, the burden of showing that the mortgagor has by his will suffi- ciently indicated an intention to exclude the operation of the Acts. A mortgaged estate devolving upon the heir of an intes- tate mortgagor can in no case be exonerated under these Acts. The Acts do not impose any personal liability in respect of the mortgage debt upon the heir or devisee of the mortgaged estate, but merely prevent him, in the absence of expressions of contrary intention, from being entitled to call upon the personal representatives of the intestate or testator to pay off the mort- gaged debt (a). Where real and personal estate are comprised in the same mortgage, there is nothing in Locke King's Act or the amending Acts which throws the liability to pay the whole debt upon the realty in exoneration of the personalty ; in such a case the mortgage debt must, as between the heir or devisee of the realty and the personal representatives of the mortgagor, be borne rate- ably according to the value of the respective properties at his death (&) , unless, on the construction of the instrument of charge, it appears that one or other of the properties should be primarily charged (c) . And a similar rule applies where two separate real estates are comprised in the same mortgage (d). In Locke King's Act, the words " as between the different persons claiming through or under the deceased person," include the Crown claiming personalty on an intestacy in default of next of kin of deceased mortgagor. So, where a person made his will, in 1858, devising real estate which was subject to a mortgage, and disposing of his personalty upon trusts which failed, and died leaving a widow, but no next of kin, it was held that the executors took the personalty as trustees for the widow and the Crown in moieties, and that the devisee was not entitled to have any part of the personalty applied in discharge of the mortgage (e). {a) Syer v. Gladstone, 30 Ch. D. 614, 616. (b) Trestrail v. Mason, 7 Ch. D. 655 ; He JSfeiomarch, Newmarch v. Storr, 9 Ch. D. 12, C. A. ; Leonino v. Leonino, 10 Ch. D. 460. (c) Lipscomb v. Lipscomb, L. R. 7 Ex. 502. (d) De Rochefort v. Dewes, L. R. 12 Eq. 502. (e) Deare v. Fatrickson, 1 Dr. & S. 182. LOCKE KING'S ACT — CONTRARY INTENTION. 771 The clause at the end of sect. 1 of Locke King's Act saving chap. xl. the rights of persons claiming under or by virtue of any will, Savingclause. deed or document made before the 1st of January, 1855, seems, as regards wills so made, to make them speak from the date of execution and not from the death of the testator for the purpose of excluding the operation of the Act. The Act does not apply to any will made before the Act, though republished after the Act (,/'). This latter proviso does not apply to the heir of a mortgagor who had executed the mortgage before January 1st, 1855 (g), nor to an heir claiming a lapsed devise, as he does not claim under the will (h) . The words in the Act of 1877 (/), "by way of mortgage or Application any other equitable charge," extend the operation of Locke judgment King's Act, and of the Act of 1867, to a judgment affecting debts. land devised as being of the nature of an equitable charge, so that the devisee is not entitled to have the land exonerated out of the personal estate from the judgment debt (k). In any cases which may arise under the former law, and also in any cases coming under Locke King's Act and the amending Acts, where either a will contains a sufficient indication of inten- tion to exclude the operation of the Acts, or where the value of the mortgaged land is insufficient for the payment of the mort- gage moneys in full, the mortgagee will be entitled to claim payment out of the general assets of the deceased mortgagor in a due course of administration. For an examination of the law as to the order of administra- tion of assets, and as to marshalling of assets, reference should be made to the text books dealing with the duties of executors and administrators with regard to these matters. ii. — Contrary Intention. — The Acts do not prescribe any par- What will ticular mode of signifying contrary intention so as to exclude the sufficient operation of the present rule. The intention must be collected of C ^tention from the will or other document taken as a whole ; and for this purpose the manner in which the mortgaged estate is disposed of is material. (/) Rolfe v. Perry, 3 De G. J. & S. (A) Kelson v. Page, L. R. 7 Eq. 25. 481. (i) 40 & 41 Vict. c. 34, sup. (g) Piper v. Piper, 1 J. & H. 91. (7c) Re Anthony, Anthony v. Anthony, See Power t. Power, 8 Ir. Ch. 340. (1892) 1 Ch. 450.' 3d2 772 MORTGAGOR'S i>i a i E, i.ic.— i'.X< >NERA TH >H. CHAT. XL. Settlement. I)i \ ise on trust for sale. Mixed fund. Heritable bond. Meaning of "debts." Direction to pay debts oui nf personalty in exoneration of realty. Limitations in strict settlement per se are not sufficient (I). In one case(/v/) where lands subject to a mortgage v. devised on trusl for sale, the Court laid stress on the Cad thai the proceeds of sale were
  • posed of in detail after payment of costs, but not alluding to the mortgage, and accordingly held that the mortgaged estato must be exonerated out of the personalty. A direction to pay all debts out of a mixed fund from real and personal estate does not show a contrary intention within the meaning of these Acts (n). A Scotch heritable bond was held, under Locke King's Act, to be included in a direction to pay all just debts (o). But it was also held that a direction to pay " debts " included " mort- gage debts" within the meaning of that Act (p). By the Act of 1867 (q) the word " debts " does not include mortgage debts, unless there are express words showing an intention that it should do so, and this applies to a direction to pay debts out of real estate as well as out of personalty (>•). A direction to pay all debts and funeral expenses out of the personalty in " exoneration " of the real estate is not sufficient. There must be words referring to mortgage debts either ex- pressly (s) or by necessary implication. So, where a testator devised his business premises to his son subject to and charged in exoneration of the rest of his estate with his business debts, and devised and bequeathed all the residue of his real and personal estate to trustees upon trust for sale and conversion, and for payment out of the proceeds of his debts other than those thereinbefore provided for, and subject thereto upon specified trusts, it was held that the will sufficiently indicated an intention that all the testator's private debts, including debts secured by mortgages on the property specifically devised to the son, should be paid out of the re- siduary estate in exoneration of such property (/). (I) Pembrooke v. Friend, 1 J. & H. 131 ; Coote v. Loivndes, L. R. 10 Eq. 376. (m) Eno v. Tatham, 3 De G. J. & S. 443. (m) Gall v. Fenwick, 43 L. J. Cb. 178 ; Elliott v. Dearsley, 16 Cb. D. 322, C. A. (o) Maxwell v. Maxwell, L. R. 4 H. L. 506. But see Smith v. Moreton, 37 L. J. Cb. 6. (p) Woolstencroft v. Woohtencroft, 2 De G. F. & J. 347 ; Rowson v. Harri- son, 31 Beav. 207 ; Broicnson v. Laiv- rancc, L. R. 6 Eq. 1. See Sackville v. Smyth, L. R. 17 Eq. 153. (q) 30 & 31 Vict. c. 69, ante, p. 769. (r) ReNewmarch, Xewmarchy. Storr, 9 Ch. D. 12, C. A. (s) Re Rossiter, Rossiter v. Rossiter, 13 Cb. D. 355. See Kelson v. Page, L. R. 7 Eq. 25 ; Lconino v. Leonino, 10 Cb. D. 460. (t) Re Nevill, Robinson v. Nevill, W. N. (1890) 125. LOCKE KING'S ACT — CONTRARY INTENTION. 773 Again, where a testator directed his private debts to he paid chap, xl. out of a specified fund, and after devising his real estate to certain persons and giving certain legacies, he bequeathed his residuary personalty to trustees, subject to the payment of his trade debts, it was held that there was a sufficient indication of contrary intention to entitle the devisees to have the real estate exonerated out of the residuary personalty from an equitable charge made by the testator to his bankers to secure an over- drawn trade account (n). A direction to pay off any incumbrance on a particular pro- perty, which is not subject to any incumbrance at the testator's death, does not raise any implication of intention to exonerate out of his general personal estate other properties which are subject to incumbrances at his death (r). A specific devise of part of the mortgaged premises, leaving Partial devise, the other part to fall into the residue, does not show a contrary intention (x). A specific devise to a person " absolutely" of land, part of the Devise to A. testator's realty which is subject to a mortgage, coupled with a a so u e y " direction to executors to pay legacies out of personalty, is not a sufficient indication of a " contrary intention " (//). A charge of debts on personalty and on residuary realty, or a Charge on specified part of realty, or on residuary realty in aid of per- andrealty. sonalty, does not sufficiently indicate an intention to exonerate the mortgaged property (z) . Where the contrary intention is shown by the substitution of a specific fund, it has been held that the Acts are excluded only to the extent of the substituted fund, so that if that fund proves insufficient, the right to exoneration is exhausted and the lia- bility reverts to the mortgaged land (a). (u) Re Fleck, Colston v. Roberts, 37 Ch. D. 195. Ch. D. 677. (s) Leivis v. Lewis, sup.; Saclcville v. (c) Re Bull, Catty v. Bull, 49 L. T. Smyth, sup. ; Re Newmarch, Neivmarch 592. v. Storr, 9 Ch. D. 12. (x) Sackville v. Smyth, L. R. 17 Eq. (a) Per Kindersley, V.-O, in Rod- 153, questioning Brownsonv. Laivrance, house v. Mold, 35 L. J. Ch. 67. But L. R. 6 Eq. 1. And see Gibbins v. Romilly, M. R., without deciding the Eyden, L. R. 7 Eq. 371 ; Lewis v. point, seems to have been of a con- Lewis, L. R. 13 Eq. 218. trary opinion in Allen v. Allen, 30 (y) Re Smith, Hannington v. True, 33 Beav. 403. 77 1 MORTGAGOR'S ESTA1 I . ETC. - I KONERA1 .. !lt of Till''. Devise of general estates to different persons. Devise of several estates to same person. 8e< 1 ION III. ( >k Contribution between mivkralOwxersofiiii Ivjrrn of Redemption, and those < ilaiming i ndeb them. "Where several estates subject to the same mortgage either originally belong to, or subsequently become the property of different owners, and one of such owners pays off the debt, he has the right to call upon the owners of the other estates to con- tribute rateably to the payment of the debt, according to a valuation of the several estates taking into account any other incumbrances affecting them respectively (b). This rule will apply in cases where the mortgaged estates of a deceased person are primarily liable to satisfy the debt under Locke King's Act and the amending Acts, and also in cases not within 1 ] Acts, where the personalty of the deceased mortgagor is not sufficient to pay the debt in full. AVhere different estates in mortgage are devised to different persons, each devisee, either primarily, or on a deficiency of assets, takes hi cum onere (c). But the rule is otherwise where all the estates were by the will charged with the payment of debts. So, in Carter v. Barnardiston (d), it was held that if one seised of Whiteaore and Blackacre mortgage the former, and then by his will devise Whiteacre to A., and Blackacre to B., the devisee of the former shall compel the latter to con- tribute. On the like principle, if several estates are comprised in the same mortgage, and are devised to several persons, they must all contribute ; so also if the estates in mortgage were freehold and copyhold respectively, and descended to different heirs (e) . The principle of contribution does not apply where several estates, subject to a mortgage, are devised to the same person so as to entitle the person claiming one of the estates under him to throw the mortgage debt, or any part of it, upon the other estates which have been devised to or devolved upon different persons. The question whether he is so entitled must depend not upon any (b) Aldrich v. Cooper, 8 Ves. 390 ; Clarke v. Brereton, 1 Jo. 165 ; Johnson v. Child, 4 Ha. 87. (c) Ralliivell v. Tanner, 1 R. & My. 633 ; Sijmons v. James, 2 Y. & 0. C. C. 301. {d) 1 P. \Yms. 506. See Irvine v. Ironmonger, 2B. & My. 531 ; Middle- ton v. Middleton, 15 Beav. 450 ; Barnes v. Bacster, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 401. (e) Aldrich v. Cooper, 8 Ves. 390. CONTRIBUTION. 775 right arising under the will creating the title of the original chap. * L - devisee, but upon the right, if any there be, arising upon the instrument creating the title of the person claiming under the devisee (/). Before a case of contribution can arise, the several estates Common must have been liable to one common demand. Thus where A., the first mortgagee of Whiteacre, and B., the first mortgagee of Blackacre, joined in a mortgage of both estates and consented to give to the subsequent mortgagee priority over their respective charges ; and the lands were subsequently sold, and the subse- quent mortgage was paid off out of the proceeds of sale of both properties ; the surplus proceeds of sale of Whiteacre were not sufficient to pay off the mortgage upon it; it was held that A. was not entitled to contribution against B., there not having been any common liability to pay a common demand {g). Moreover, the several estates must be liable equally, and not C u °^ mon one as surety or collateral security for the other, and be a common fund (h). Thus, where under Locke King's Act (/) land is specifically charged with a debt, which is also generally charged on shares of a company by a provision of the Act of Settlement, there is no contribution, because there is no common fund (/.•). In a case arising under the former law before Locke King's Act, where a person possessed of several leasehold estates mort- gaged one of them, and then, by his will, bequeathed them sepa- rately to different parties, and directed his debts to be paid out of his residuary personal estate, and such residuary estate proved insufficient for the purpose, it was held that the legatee of the mortgaged estate must take it cum onere, and could not call on the other legatees to contribute (I). But where several estates subject to distinct mortgages were specifically devised to different persons, and the testator directed that the mortgages should be discharged out of the personal estate, so that the devisees might hold the estates freed there- from, and there proved to be a deficiency of personal assets for payment of the mortgage and other debts, a decree was made Buss. 275, 299 ; Averall v. Wade, LI. 633 ; Emms v. Smith, 2 De G. & S. & G. t. Sug. 252 ; Re Dunlop, 21 Ch. D. 736. 776 MORTGAGOR'S ESTATE, ETC. — EXONERATION. ohap. xl. that the mortgage and other specialty debts should first he paid out of the personal assets pro rata, that tho residue of the mort- gage debts should bo borne by the respective estates on which they were charged, and that tho deficiency of the other specialty debts, and the simple contract debts, should be borne by the several devised estates, and the specific legacies, pro rata (m). By this decree, though it made the mortgaged estates pay each its own debt as against other creditors, yet the specific devisees of the land were in part preferred to the specific legatees. It may deserve consideration whether such weight should have been attributed to the direction in tho will that the mortgages should be discharged out of the personal estate, since that is not more than the law r would then have implied. In a case where a testator devised his freehold and copyhold and leasehold estates to his seven children in equal shares, charged with payment of his debts, and bequeathed his personal estate to A., exonerated from his debts, and declared that the freeholds and copyholds should be the primary fund, and the leaseholds the secondary fund, for payment of the debts, and one of the children died in his lifetime, it was held that one-seventh share of tho freeholds and other estates, after payment of tho debts charged thereon, lapsed to the heir-at-law and next of kin respectively, and that the devisees of the other six shares were not entitled to have the lapsed share applied in exoneration of the devised shares (n). By this rule, also, where legacies are charged on two mort- gaged estates, one of which is of sufficient value to pay its mortgage and also the legacies, the mortgagee of the other can compel the assignees of the bankrupt mortgagor to discharge the legacies out of the proceeds of sale of the first, or stand in the place of the legatees (o). (m) St/mons v. James, 2 Y. & C. C. C. («) Fisher v. Fisher, 2 Keen, 610; 301. the marginal note is inaccurate. (o) Exp. Hartley, 2 M. & A. 496. ( 777 ) CHAPTER XLI. OF MARSHALLING OF MORTGAGED ASSETS. i. — Nature and Effect of the Doctrine of Marshalling as applied statement of to Mortgages.— The general rule of equity is, that a person the doctrhie - having two funds to which he may resort, shall not disappoint another person who can resort to one only of the funds (a). If, therefore, a creditor has a claim upon two funds, and another creditor has a claim upon one only of those funds, the Court will marshal the funds, without regard to the interests of the debtor, so as to satisfy the claim of the creditor having both funds, out of that fund which, paying him, will leave the other fund for the other creditor (b) . The doctrine of marshalling applies not only in the administration of assets of a deceased person, but also in the appropriation of particular funds at any time, either during the life or after the death of a debtor, in satisfaction of claims arising under successive charges or interests to which the several funds are subjeet. The leading case upon the doctrine of marshalling is that of -Aldrich v. Aldrich v. Cooper (c), in which it was contended on the authority °° per of Robinson v. Tonge (d), that specialty creditors had no right to insist that a mortgage debt, secured both on freeholds and copyholds, should be thrown on the coj)y holds, so as to leave the specialty creditors the freehold fund, on the ground that copy- holds (the case being prior to the 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 104) were not assets for specialty debts, and that none of the rules of equity subject any fund to a claim to which it was not before subject, but only take care that the election of one claimant shall (a) Aldrich v. Cooper, 8 Ves. 382, (b) Att.-Gen. v. Tindatt, Amb. 619. 891. And see notes to S. G. in Wh. & (c) 8 Ves. 382. And see Gwynne v. Tud. L. C. Eq., vol. ii. pp. 109 et seq. Edwards, 2 Russ. 289, note ; Greenwood See also Trimmer v. Bayne, 9 Ves. 209 ; v. Taylor, 1 R. & My. 187. Gibson v. Seagrim, 20 Beav. 614 ; (d) Stated in Mr. Cox's note to Tidd v. Lister, 3 De G. M. & G. 857. 1 P. "Wms. 680. 778 mortgagor's estai i:— maksiialuno of assets. CHAP. XLI. Application of the doctrine to cases of mortgage. Rights of first mort- gagee not interfered with. Right of puisne as- not prejudioe the claims of others. Lord Eldon justly observed that it was clear the caso was by no means a duo application of the principle, for the copyholds, as well as the freeholds, were both subject to the mortgage debt ; and as to copyholds not being assets for specialty debts, was freehold estate, he asked, assets for simple contract debts P which, at that time, it was not, either in law or equity. Upon what principle, then, did the Court say that in given cases simple contract debts should be paid out of the real estate ? Not upon the ground of assets, but that a specialty creditor had a double fund to resort to. Upon the like principle, the Court, in that case, directed (if it were necessary for the payment of the creditors) that the mortgagee should take his satisfaction out of the copyhold estate, and that if he took it out of the freehold, those who were thereby dis- appointed should stand in his place as to the copyhold estate ; thereby overruling Robinson v. Tongc The reader will, of course, bear in mind that this reasoning has in a great measure become inapplicable since the passing of the statute above referred to. The doctrine of marshalling, in relation to mortgages, results in the general rule that where an owner of several properties has mortgaged them to the same person and afterwards deals separately with the equity of redemption in one or more of those properties either by way of mortgage or otherwise, the person or persons interested in the equities of redemption so dealt with are entitled, as- against the mortgagor, to require that the first mortgage shall be paid off in the first place out of the property not so dealt with, or, if that mortgage is paid off out of the property in which they are so interested, to stand pro taitto in the place of the first mortgagee in regard to the property which has not been resorted to for satisfying his security. In applying the doctrine of marshalling, the Court will not restrain a prior mortgagee from satisfying his debt out of avail- able property comprised in his mortgage, which is subject to a subsequent incumbrance, merely because his security comprises other property which is not so subject, he has a right to take the money that is realised by any of his securities which comes first to hand (e) . If, however, a prior mortgagee realizes several properties (e) Wallis v. Woodijear, 2 Jur. N. S. 179. NATURE AND EFFECT OF THE DOCTRINE. 779 comprised in his security he will not be allowed to satisfy his chap, xli. debt out of one of those properties over which another person signee where T, l • l r\ i-cji first mort- nas a claim as mortgagee or otherwise, in exoneration 01 the ga gee realizes proceeds of sale of other properties which are not subject to such a?* his secu " a claim. So a second mortgagee will be entitled to the extent of the value comprised in his security to have the balance of the moneys received by the first mortgagee in respect of all the securities realized by him, after satisfying his mortgage debt, applied in or towards satisfaction of the second mortgage, and the first mortgagee will be deemed to be a trustee of such balance for the second mortgagee, and if he refuses to account for and apply the moneys received by him on that footing, he will be liable to the costs of proceedings to compel him to do so (/). If the prior mortgagee of several properties realizes property Where first which is subject to a subsequent incumbrance, instead of pro- ™alizes°secu- perty which is not so subject, and satisfies his debt out of the rity which is proceeds of the property realized, the subsequent incumbrancer second mort- will be entitled to stand in the place of the prior mortgagee as g ' age - regards the property to which the latter has not resorted, so that the payment of both claims may as far as possible be worked out (g) . This rule will apply where the only one of two funds to which a subsequent incumbrancer could resort has been applied in payment of the prior mortgage by order of the Court for convenience of administration (//). So, where an executor was mortgagee of real estate of the testator, and also a legatee under the will, it was held that he was not bound to satisfy the mortgage debt out of the first assets which came into his hands on the ground that on his so doing the right of marshalling would arise so as to entitle the other legatees to go pro tanto against the real estate (*). This equity has been applied in favour of a mortgagee whose Marshalling interest in an estate was affected by an extent of the Crown ; ex t en t by the and he was held entitled to stand in the place of the Crown as Crown. to those securities which he could not affect directly because the Crown had affected them (k) . Where a mortgagee of chattels has left the mortgagor in Distress for possession without fraud, and the landlord distrains those, as (/) South v. Bloxom, 2 H. & M. 457. 289, n. For forms of order, see Seton, p. 1738. (i) Binns v. Nichols, L. R. 2 Eq. {ff) Trimmer v. Bayne, 9 Ves. 209. 256. \h) Gwynne v. Edwards, 2 Russ. (k) Sagitary v. Hyde, 1 Vern. 455. 780 MORTGAGOR'S ESTATE MAKSHALl.IM IIS. CHAr. XLI. Paraphernalia of widow. Bankruptcy docs not pre- vent marshal- ling-. Husband and wife. Pee simple reduced to life estate. Effect of well as other chattels belonging to the mortgagor absolutely, and sells some of each kind, and the mortgagor then becomes bankrupt, the mortgagee is entitled, as against the assignees in bankruptcy, to have the chattels marshalled (/). So, in a case under the old law, whereby personalty was primarily liable for payment of a mortgage debt in exoneration of mortgaged realty, it was said that if the mortgagee took tho paraphernalia of a widow in satisfaction of his debt she would be entitled in equity to stand in place of the mortgagee, and to take as much out of the realty as should be equivalent to the value of the paraphernalia taken by the mortgagee (>//). This general rule may be enforced where the equities of redemption subject to the first mortgage have descended upon different persons (n). The bankruptcy of the debtor will not prevent the applica- tion of the rule, for the trustee in the bankruptcy stands in the place of the bankrupt. So, where a trader mortgaged certain real estate and policies of assurance to one person, and afterwards mortgaged the estate alone to another person, and subsequently became bankrupt, it was held that the second mortgagee was entitled to have tho policy moneys applied in the first instance in payment of the debt due to the first mort- gagee (o). AVliere a husband and wife together mortgaged freeholds and copyholds belonging to the wife, the mortgagor was held to be entitled, after the husband's death, to marshal as against the wife surviving, and to require that the first mortgage should be paid off primarily out of the copyholds so far as they would extend (p). It is not clear whether the principle of marshalling applies between two interests, where the owner of a fee simple subject to a mortgage reduces his interest to a life estate, and then mortgages his life estate (q) . It would seem that the doctrine of marshalling will apply (l) Exp. Stephenson, De G. 586, 589. See Broadbent v. Barlow, 3 De G. F. & J. 570. (m) Tipping v. Tipping, 1 P. Wms. 729. (n) Lanoy v. Duke of Athol, 2 Atk. 444. See Be Jones, Farrington v. Fores- ter, (1893) 2 Ch. 461. (o) Baldwin v. Belcher, 3 Dr. & "War. 173. See also Hughes v. Williams, 3 Mac. & G. 683, 690; Gibson v. Seagrim, 20 Beav. 614; Heyman v. Dubois, L. R. 13 Eq. 158. (p) Tidd v. Lister, 3 De G. M. & G. 857. (q) Dolphin v. Aylward, L. R. 4 H. L. 486, 502. NATURE AND EFFECT OF THE DOCTRINE. 781 notwithstanding that the result will be to defeat a restraint on chap, xlt. anticipation. So, where a woman entitled under a will to a life restraint on interest without power of anticipation in one fund, and to an an lcipa 10n " unrestricted life interest in another fund, during widowhood mortgaged her life interest and certain policies of assurance on her life to secure an advance ; and, having married again, she charged her life interests in favour of a subsequent mortgagee, it was held that the doctrine of marshalling applied in favour of the second mortgagee, and that the interest on the first mortgage must be primarily kept down out of the income, which was subject to the restraint on anticipation (r). The right of a subsequent incumbrancer to insist, under the Covenant doctrine of marshalling, that the debt of the first mortgagee JSJtaaiwes. shall be satisfied out of the property not subject to the puisne incumbrancer, may be enforced though the instrument creating the second charge does not contain any covenant or state- ment that the property comprised therein is free from incum- brances (s) ; but a covenant or statement to that effect may strengthen the position of the puisne incumbrancer by working in aid, as against the mortgagor, the principle of equity that what has been agreed upon, and ought to be done, shall so far as possible be specifically enforced (t) . So, where a mortgagor settled part of the mortgaged lands and other lands not in mortgage, and the settlement did not recite that any incumbrances existed, but contained a covenant against incumbrances, it was held that as between the tenant in tail under the settlement and the settlor the settled estates must be deemed to be exonerated from the mortgage so as to throw it wholly on the unsettled estates, and that a subsequent judgment creditor and the assignees in insolvency of the settlor were subject to the same equities as the settlor himself (u). But the principle of this decision would clearly not be applied to the prejudice of a subsequent bond fide incumbrancer or pur- chaser without notice (.r) . Where a person was owner of two estates charged with debts, Erroneous "x: recital that and mortgaged one of them, and the mortgage deed recited debts are paid. (r) Be Loder, W. N. (1886) 166. («) Hughes v. Williams, 3 Mac. & G. Is) Hales v. Cox, 32 Beav. 118. 683 ; Chappell v. Bees, 1 De G. M. & (0 Averall v. Wade, LI. & G. t. G. 393. s u i). Claim to marshal need lmt be pleaded. Rule between ij, — In Favour of what Persons the Right of Marshalling g^gee arises. — Tho rule as between one mortgageo of several estates several estates an( j a su hsequent mortgagee of one of them is thus laid down mortgagee of by Lord llardwickc, C, in Lanoy v. Duke of A thol ( A) : — Suppose one estate. a p erson w j l0 ] ias f- wo rca i estates, mortgages both of them to one person, and afterwards only one estate to a second mort- gagee who had no notice of the first, the Courts, in order to relieve the second mortgagee, have directed the first to take his satisfaction out of that estate only which is not in mortgage to the second mortgagee, if that is sufficient to satisfy the first mortgage in order to make room for the second mortgagee, even though the estates descended to two different persons. Notice imma- j^ i s to be observed, however, with regard to this statement of the rule, that it is now immaterial whether the second mortgagee had notice of the first mortgage or not (c). (y) Stronge v. Hawkes, 4 De G. & J. 632, 651. (a) Ibid. (a) Gibbs v. Ougier, 12 Ves. 413, 416. {b) 2 Atk. 444. (c) See Baldwin v. Belcher, 3 Dr. & War. 176 ; Hughes v. Williams, 3 Mac. & G. 683 ; Tidd v. Lister, 3 De G. M. & G. 857 ; Hey man v. Dubois, L. R. 13 Eq. 158. WHO MAY MARSHAL. 783 It may also be remarked that in a recent case, Sir E. Kay, L. J., chap. xli. intimated that Lord Hardwicke, in saying that " the Court Extent of the would direct the mortgagee to take his satisfaction out of that rul °' estate only not in mortgage to the second mortgagee," must be taken to have meant merely that the second mortgagee could, as against the mortgagor and those claiming under him, compel the payment of the first mortgage out of the estate on which he had no charge, according to the ordinary doctrine of marshal- ling^). The right to marshal may arise though the two estates, sub- First charges ject to the first mortgage, do not become so subject at the same taneous 11 " time, as, for instance, where lands not comprised in the original mortgage are afterwards mortgaged by way of collateral secu- rity for the same debt (e). The doctrine of marshalling is applied in favour of persons Rule applies having charges arising otherwise than by way of subsequent ^ persons mortgage upon one only of the mortgaged properties. So, h ., avi,1 & , U i A Si i i j z ru charges other where a mortgage was made ot two estates, and one 01 them was than by way subsequently settled so as to be subject to a portion, it was held m0I % a ge. that the person entitled to a portion had the right to require that the estate which was not subject to the portion should be first resorted to in or towards satisfaction of the mortgage (/). So, also, where an advance was made on the security of certain Vendor's lien, deposited goods, and of a bill of lading of other goods sent to the borrower by the unpaid vendor of the goods comprised therein, it was held that the vendor could compel the depositee, who had sold all the goods comprised in his securities, to satisfy his claim out of proceeds of sale of the goods not comprised in the bill of lading (g) . Marshalling may be enforced in favour of an incumbrancer Voluntary whose charge is merely voluntary (A) . charge. The doctrine has been extended so as to apply in favour of other claims persons having claims not secured by any charge against part r^dem^tion^ only of the property included in a prior incumbrance. Where a man made a settlement of real estate and covenanted Volunteers. for quiet enjoyment, and then mortgaged the settled and other unsettled estates, the persons claiming under the settlement, (d) Flint v. Howard, (1893) 2 Ch. 54, (f) Lord Rancliffe v. Parkyns, 6 at p. 73. Dowl. 216. (e) Gtvynne v. Edwards, 2Russ. 289. ($>) He Westinthus, 5 B. & Ad. 817. (A) Aldridge v. Forbes, 4 Jur. 20. 7S4 MORTGAGOR'S ESTATE- MARSHALLING 0] CHAT. XI I. Surety. "Where one of the securities is impeached. Rule applies where first charge is not a mortgage. Jointure. Portions. though voluntary, were entitled to throw the mortgage on the unsettled estates The principle of marshalling has been held nol to apply as between mere volunteers (j). A surety is entitled to the benefit of marshalling (k). Where a person deposited with his bankers, to seoure the balance of his current account, an annuity deed together with documents of title relating to other property, it was held, in a suit to set aside the annuity deed, that the plaintiff might recmire the bankers to first apply in payment of their debl the securities in whioh the plaintiff had no int- as to lib the annuity deed (/). In this ease the Couri did restrain tin- creditors from dealing with one of their securities pending tin- result of the suit, but this was done on the express ground that no injustice would ultimately follow from suoh restraint. The doctrine also applies where several properties are >ul»jcot to a charge arising otherwise than by way of mortgage, in favour of a person having a subsequent charge or claim upon one only of such propertii The rule was applied in favour of portions charged on I hold and leasehold estate, subject to the jointure of a wife by settlement, as against the wife, who had the collateral security of a covenant for her jointure, though the copyhold and personal estate, which were affected by the covenant, were bequeathed to her by the settlor absolutely (in). So, in a case where estate A. was devised to uses, and estate B. was devised on trusts to raise portions, and subject thereto in the first instance, and subject to the payment of debts, to the eldest son of the testator in fee, and the debts swallowed up all estate 13., it was held that to the amount of the specialty debts (the testator having died before 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 104) the portionists were entitled to come upon estate A. (it). It is submitted whether the testator did not show an equal intention to exempt both the portionists and the devisees of estate A. from the debts, and whether, consequently, a contribution should not have been decreed. (i) Hughes v. Williams, 3 Mac. & G. 684; HalesY. Cox, 32Beav. 118; Anstey v. Hen-man, 39 L. J. Ch. 709. But see Ker v. Ker, Ir. R. 4 Eq. 15. (j) Boazman v. Johnston, 3 Sim. 377. But see Lomas v. Wright, 2 My. & K. 769. (k) Heyman v. Dubois, L. E. 13 Eq. 158. (1) Buncombe v. Davis, 1 Ha. 1S4, 195. (iii) Lanoy v. Duke of At hoi, '1 Atk. 44. («) Leigh v. Leigh, 15 Sim. 135. WHO MAY MARSHAL. 785 Where debts are charged generally on the residuary estate, chap. xli. and the devisee-executor mortgages part of the residuary estate, General the mortgagee is entitled to have the assets marshalled so as to ftf of throw the debts on the residuary estate not comprised in the mortgage (o). Where legacies are charged on several estates, one of which Char ? e <> f is mortgaged subsequently, the mortgagee is entitled to have legacieS> the legacies raised out of the other estates (p). So, if a devisee of two estates charged with legacies mort- gages them separately, and the proceeds of sale of one estate are insufficient to satisfy the legacies and the mortgage debt charged thereon, the mortgagee of that estate may, as against the mortgagor or his trustee in bankruptcy, require the other mortgaged estate to be first resorted to, if sufficient also to satisfy the mortgage on that estate, for payment of the legacies, so as to enable his own mortgage to be satisfied (•) . So in the case of two legacies, one merely pecuniary, and the other charged on land, there is the like marshalling («). In cases not falling within Locke King's Act (t), so that the personalty is primarily liable to the payment of mortgage debts, the principle of marshalling is applied in favour of credi- tors (w), and of legatees, whether specific (x) or pecuniary (y), as against a descended mortgage estate, but not as against a specific devisee (z), although the specific devisee be the heir (a), unless the specifically devised estates were charged with the (o) IlaunesY. Forshaw, 11 Ha. 93. 769. tu) Finch v. Shaw, 5 H. L. C. 905 ; (*) O'Neal v. Mead, 1 P. Wms. 2 Jur N S 25 693 - {«) 'Exp. Hartley, 2 M. & A. 496. (y) Davis v. Gardener, 2 P. Wms. (>•) Amb 1^9 • Hasleivood v. Pope, 3 190 ; Elder v. Wager, 2 P. Wms. 33o ; P Wms. 324, 4th point. But see Wythe v. Eenneher, 2 My. & K. G35 ; Spona v. Spong, 3 Bli. N. S. 84. unless the will otherwise directs. See (s ) Eanby v. Roberts, Amb. 127; Symons v. James, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 301. Masters v. Masters, 1 P. Wms. 421 ; (~) Aldrich v. Cooper 8 Ves. 396 ; Bligh v. Earl of Darnley, 2 P. Wms. Hensmm v. Fryer, L. K. 6 Oh. A. 619 420. (/) See ante, pp. 753 et seq. (a) Strickland v. Strickland, 10 Sim. (m) Bartholomew v. May, 1 Atk. 374. 487 ; Lomas v. Wright, 2 My. & K. VOL. I. — R. ^ E 786 MORTGAGOR'S ESTATE — MARSHALLING OF AB81 fS. ciur. xii. Lien. Mortgagee of voidable policy of life assurance Mortgage of policy to assurance company. payment of debts (/>) ; nor against a residuary legatee either before ') or after (d) the Wills Act. So, where a contract for purchase <>f real estate is oompl after tho purchaser's death, and lit" purchase-money has paid out of his general estate, a pecuniary Legatee will be entitled to marshal against the purchased estate, there beinj distinction between a mortgage and the vendor's lien in this respect Tin- doctrine of marshalling will not be extended so as to entitle a life assurance society to require the mortgageo of a policy which is in terms to be void on suicide of the assured, except to the extent of an assignee's interest, to throw tho mortgage debt primarily upon other property included in his security, nor to have it apportioned between the policy moneys and tho other property (/). So, also, where an assurance company advanced money on the security of a mortgage of certain real estates and of a policy on the life of tho mortgagor effected in its own office in similar terms, and tho assured committed suicide, it was held that the company stood in no better position than if the policy had been mortgaged to a third person, and could not be allowed to satisfy their debt out of the real estates to tho preju- dice of the persons interested therein, and accordingly, the policy money being sufficient to satisfy tho debt, the real estates were ordered to be reconveyed free from the mortgage {< -t 1 1 fund . mad.' expressly subject to and after payment and satisfaction "i* tho moneys secured by the prior mori the first morl . having exhausted fund A., the seoond mortgagee was held to be entitled to be paid in full out of fund B. before the third mortgagee (p). Where one has a mortgage upon Blaekaero and a collateral charge upon Blaokacreand Whiteacre, and takes a subsequent mortgage on Blackaore for a further sum, he oan exhaust White- aore in satisfying his oharge, Leaving Blaokaore dear for his furtlier mortgage, and cannot be compelled by a puistk in- cumbrancer on Whiteacre to marshal his securities, notwith- standing his further mortgage contains a covenant against incumbrances, exoept tlio first mortgage (•). Two funds, On the principle thi shall not bo marshalled where by lien The other so doing another person's rights would be prejudiced, the doc- not - • trine of marshalling will uot apply where there are different funds as to which different rights exist. 8 >, where creditors had a lion upon a fund, and merely a right of set off as to another fund, a person having a subsequent oharge on the former fund was held not to 1 ntitlod to compel the creditors to retire from their higher right by virtue of their prior lien, and to resort to the fund in respect of which they had only a right of set off («). Rights of Where Blackacre and Whiteacre are mortgaged together to several mort- ^ an( j subsequently Blaokaore is mortgaged to B., and White- distinct funds acre is mortgaged to (_'., there can be no such marshalling as prior mort- shall prejudice either B. or ('., but, in such a case, their rights gage. are to require that A.'s debt shall be satisfied rateahly out of the two estates so as to leave a proper proportion thereof respectively to satisfy the claims of B. and C, the ultimate surplus arising from both estates being payable to the mortgagor, or those claiming under him (t) . Where the several equities of redemp- tion become absolutely vested in different persons by purchase, (p) Re Mowers Trusts, L. R. 8 Eq. (s) Webb v. Smith, 30 Ch. D. 192, 110. C. A. (r i& THE Law Journal Reports. THE CHEAPEST, BEST, MOST ACCURATE, AND OLDEST- ESTABLISHED REPORTS. Edited by JOHN MEWS, Bamater-at-Law. Sub-Editors: W. E. GOBDON and A. J. BPENCEE, Bwrri«ten-al-Law. The following are a few of the advantages of these Reports: — 1. Conciseness and Accuracy. On tlif niirstiiiin)f:iiTur:icy the Law Jouknal Reports have never been impeached. 2. Speedy Publication of the Cases. This is now a Leading feature, the REroins l><-iutr published as speedily as possible, consistent with good reporting and editing; and the Weekly Edition includes Notes of all Cases up to date. 3. Simplicity of Arrangement and Facility of Reference. There is only One Volume in 1 ftcU year for each Division of the Courts. 4. Digests. Mews' Diobbt of all the Reported Decisions of all the Superior Courts, unhiding a Selection from the Irish, with a Collection of Cases followed, distinguished, explained, commented on, overruled or questioned, and Referei b to the Statutes, Orders and Rules of Court during the year (issued Quarterly, commencing in 1897), will lie supplied to Subscribers at the reilueed rate of fa 5. Economy. A xxual Suhscriition. The Law Journal Reports and Statutes - - - - £3 ■ 4:0 The Law Journal Reports, Statutes, and Mews' Annual 1 3 • 10 • Digest (issued Quarterly) ' LAW JOURNAL ANALYTICAL DIGEST of Cases in Law Journal and Law Reports from Michaelmas, 1890, to Trinity, 1895. Uniform in Size with the Reports. NOW READY. Trice 30*. To Subscribers to LAW JOURNAL REPORTS, net, 5s. ; per post, M. extra. SYNOPSIS of CONTEMPORARY REPORTS, 1832— 1895.— Printed on linen paper and bound iu boards. Uniform in size with the Reports. NOW READY. Price, net, 5*. To Subscribers to LA W JO I'RXAL REPORTS, post free for cash, net, 2s. 6d. Subscribers to the LAW JOURNAL REPORTS have the additional advantage of obtaining, for a further Subscription of £1 per annum, THE LAW JOURNAL NEWSPAPER, Published Weekly (price 6d.), containing the best weekly Notes of all decided Cases of the week, New Orders and Rules of Court, Cause Lists, Articles by Eminent Specialists, Personal Information, Notices of all new Law Books, &c. *** A Catalogue of New Law Works gratis on application. LAW LIBRARY ; 3%> UK: v ERS1TY OF CALIFORNIA I,. - ELES AA 000 838 883 STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED, 119 & 120, CHANCERY LAJNK, J.UJMJU1N. RULING CASES ARRANGED, ANNOTATED, AND EDITED BY ROBERT CAMPBELL, M.A., Of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law, Advocate of the Scotch Bar. ASSISTED BY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BAR. WITH AMERICAN NOTES By IEVING BKOWNE, Formerly Editor of the "American Reports,'''' $-c. TO BE COMPLETED IN ABOUT TWENTY-FIVE VOLUMES. The following Volumes have been published : — Vol. I. — Abandonment — Action. II. — Action — Amendment. III. — Ancient Light — Banker. IV. — Bankruptcy — Bill of Lading. V.— Bill of Sale- Conflict of Laws. VI. — Contract. Vol. VII. — Conversion — Counsel. VIII. — Criminal Law — Deed. IX. — Defamation — Dramatic and Musical Copyright. X. — Easement — Estate. XI. — Estoppel— Execution. X [I. — Executor — Indemnity. Vol. XIII.— Infant — Insurance. Vol. XIV. Insurance— Judge. (Nearly ready.) (In the Press.) Royal Svo., half vellum, gilt top, price each, net, 25s. Subscription for Five Volumes, paid in advance, £1 per Volume. *■»* Specimen Volume sent on application. NOW READY. Index to Vols. I. to X. With Addenda from 1894 to 1896 inclusive. Price, bound in half vellum, net 20s. ; to Subscribers to the Work, 10s. OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. " A perfect storehouse of the principles established and illustrated by our case law and that of the United States." — Laiv Times. " By this time this series has become so widely known, and doubtless appre- ciated, that it becomes unnecessary to do much more than chronicle the appearance of the new volume, to state the contents, and to say that its worlananshiji is quite up to the former level." — Law Journal. " A work of unusual value and interest. . . . Each leading case or group of cases is preceded by a statement in bold type of the rule which they are quoted as establishing. The work is happy in conception, and this first volume shows that it will be adequately and successfully carried out." — £o^cito>-,s' Journal. ' ' The general scheme appears to be excellent, and its execution reflects the greatest credit on everybody concerned. It may, indeed, be said to constitute, for the present, the high-watermarkof thescience of book-making." — Saturday Review. V SPECIAL OFFER TO NEW SUBSCRIBERS :— Volumes!, to XV., with Index Volume, £15 : 15s. STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED, 119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON. — . . &i * t * All Standard Law Works are kept in stock, in law calf and other bindings.