'Q\ainj'iM 
 
 'OU3IHJ-3\l 
 
 -jiajni jui " 
 
 "joj/uniur*' 
 
 v>» 
 
 
 >??uiviwjn-v;^ 
 
 
 \M[UNIVER5/^ ^lOSANCfUr^ 
 
 <r;inNvw-^ 
 
 
 
 ^U)S-ANCEl% ^-UBRARYO^ -^\t-UBRARYQ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^OFCAUFOfti^ ^OFCAIIFOR^^ 
 
 
 
 SANCEl^;* 
 
 v^ 
 
 ^'E-UBRARYO^ 
 
 -^14JBRARY<>, 
 
 %Qi\mi^^ 
 
 ^OFCAUFOff^ 
 
 If?! 
 
 ^OFCAUFOR^ 
 
 
 ^^EtiNivnisy^ 
 
 <f^U3IIV-S01^ 
 
 ,5yEUNIVER% 
 
 
 
 ^lOSANCEUr^ 
 
 Q 
 
 
 /5JAEUNIVERS/A 
 
 '^S3]mm^ 
 
 ^ — 1-\^ 
 
 oa — " — 
 
 =3 
 
 ^lOSANCElCr^ 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 '%aAlNfl-3Ww^ 
 
 > \ 
 
 ^xaiQW-soi^ ■^/savuNft^iwv 
 
 ^l-UBRARYQc^ 
 
 5>^t-UBRARYa<^ 
 
 ^.OFCALIFOff^ ^.OFCAllFOff^ 
 
 
 >&vujvaai>^^ 
 
 )SANCEl% -il^tUBRAftY^/^ ^iUBRARYQ<r 
 
 1 
 
 CO 
 
 5 
 
 ^WEIIN!VER% vj,lOSANCElfj> 

 
 "WdWVJJU' 
 
 'JiUUHVMJr 
 
 '<^iflJAIH(IJHV' 
 
 ^^\ ^OFCAUFORil^ 
 
 
 
 <f5unKvsoi^ %iiMiNnmv' 
 
 ^OFCAUFOi?^ ^or 
 
 
 
 j*clOSWICfl&i. 
 
 i 3 
 
 _ ^ C? 
 
 o _ _ _ 
 
 CO 
 
 so 
 
 > 
 
 ^lUBRARYOr. ^t-UBRARYQr 
 
 4? 
 
 
 
 ^^OJIIVOJO^ %0JnV3JO'»^ %UQNVS01^ 
 
 A.OFfAllF0% aOFCAIIF0% 
 
 < 
 
 i>:lC 
 
 <r7Wfwv«;n\^ 
 
 -*;jNt-UBRARYO/, 
 3 i ii~^ ^ 
 
 AOFCAUFOff^t^ 
 
 
 .5MMINIVERS/A 
 
 (S- — -^ 
 
 I 
 
 ^lOSANCflEfe 
 
 o 
 
 %OJI1VDJO^ <J^DNVS01^ %a3AINrt3l\V^ 
 
 ^WEUNIVERSyA 
 
 "^i^uaNvsoi^ 
 
 ^10SAKCEI% 
 
 vAaaAiNflJwv* 
 
 -^^^•UBRARYQ^ 
 § 1 <i-^ ^ 
 
 #•1 
 
 «3 
 
 
 i 3 
 
 $0 c? 
 
 ^^•UBRARYi?/;^ 45^HIBRARYG<;^ 
 
 soi^ "^aiAiNftrnv^ ^ojnvDJO'^ '^^^ojnvDJo'^ ^j^udnvsov^^ 
 
 'ER% ^10SANCEI% 
 
 "Si 
 
 ^OFCAllFORj^ ^OFCAtlFOR^ 
 
 S 
 
 soi^ "^/^ajAiHn-jftV^ "^(^AHvuaiH^ ^<?>uiviian-^^'^ 
 
 
 ^10 
 
 "^XiuaNvsoi^ 
 
 
 RYq^, <^^UBRARYa^, ,\MEUNIVraS'/A ^lOSANCEl^ 
 
 "* *]UI7I i!^l tfJti 
 
 s 5 
 
 ^IIIBRARY(9/^ ^, 
 
 
 JUlTilA
 
 5 4^ //r-^ C ■ 
 
 fi^^ /SiS 
 
 ^^dt-K 
 
 THE LAW AND PRACTICE 
 
 EELATING TO THE 
 
 ADIINISTEATION OF THE ESTATES 
 OF DECEASED PERSONS. . 
 
 W- 
 
 .¥
 
 ADDENDA. 
 
 REFERENCES TO THE RULES OF COURT, 1883, 
 AND THE STATUTES OF 188;1 
 
 Page 1. All the sections of the Chancery Procedure Act and of 
 
 15 & IG Vict. c. 80 referred to in this work are repealed 
 by 46 & 47 Vict. c. 49, with a proviso (sec. 6 (c) ) that the 
 enactments relating to the making of Rules of Court con- 
 tained in the Judicature Act, 1875, and the Acts amending 
 it, shall be deemed to extend and apply to the matters 
 contained in and regulated by the repealed Acts. Under 
 this power, new Rules of Court have recently been made, 
 regulating the practice of administration actions. Most of 
 these are merely re-enactments of old Rules and Orders ; 
 those that are new are particularly mentioned below. 
 
 (c). For Form of Summons, see App. L., 25. 
 
 Pages 2, 30. By Ord. LV. ii. r. 3, it is now expressl}^ provided that 
 an assignee of a person entitled to apply may himself take 
 out the summons. 
 
 Page 7. Under Ord. LV. ii. r. 4, an order ma}' be made on 
 
 summons for the administration of the real estate, whether 
 there is or is not a trust for or power of sale. 
 
 Page 8. There is now no power for the plaintift' to choose the 
 
 Judge ; see Ord. V. r. 9.
 
 Hi ADDENDA. 
 
 rage 11. Chapters II. and III. must now be read subject to the 
 
 provision in Ord. LV. ii. r. 10, that it shall not be obligatory 
 on the Court or a Judge to make an order for the adminis- 
 tration of the estate, if the questions between the parties 
 can be properly determined without ; and in Lane v. Lane 
 (W. N. 1883, 171) a reference to chambers was ordered to 
 inquire whether general administration was necessary. 
 
 Taf-c 21. ^'^ to delivering statement of claim, see now Ord. XIX. 
 
 r. 2, and Ord. XX. r. 1 (c), and the Forms in App, C. II., 
 Nos. 1, 2 ; D. II. If more prolix forms are used without 
 justification, the parties using them will have to pay the 
 costs ; see Ord. II. r. 2. 
 
 Pages 31, 37. As to actions by infants, lunatics, and married women, 
 see now Ord. XVI. iii. rr. 16 — 21. 
 
 .Pa„e 36 (a-). This case was affirmed by the House of Lords (W. N. 
 1883, 200), but seems likely to lead to a remarkable 
 conflict of jurisdiction, for a decree for administration of 
 the whole estate in Scotland has since been obtained from 
 the Court of Session, including an injunction against 
 removing any part of the estate out of the jurisdiction of 
 the Scotch Court. 
 
 Page 40. Add to note {z), " see also Ord. XVI. r. 11." 
 
 Page 41. For Ord. XVI. r. 12, read Ord. XVI. r. 11 ; but see now 
 
 Ord. XVI. rr. 33—40. 
 
 Page 45. By Ord. IX. r. 3, husband and wife must both be served, 
 
 ■unless the Court or a Judge shall othertuise order. 
 
 Page 47 (?>). For Form of indorsement, see App. G., 28.
 
 ADDENDA. liii 
 
 rage 48. Persons served with notice of the judgment now appear 
 
 as defendants, without any order of course : Ord. XVI. r. 
 41. As to service on infants and persons of unsound 
 mind, being defendants to an action, see Ord. IX. rr. 4, 5. 
 
 r-ageSi. For Forms of executors' and trustees* affidavit of the 
 
 testator's estate, see App. L., 11 — 13. 
 
 Page 54. Chapter V. must now be read subject to Ord. LV. r. 12, 
 
 which provides that the issue of a summons under r. 2 of 
 the same Order for the determination of any question in 
 the administration shall not interfere with or control any 
 power or discretion vested in any executor, adminis- 
 trator, or trustee, except so far as such interference or 
 control may necessarily be involved in the particular 
 relief sought. 
 
 rage 60. As to payment into Court, see App, M. 
 
 rage 91. As to examination of witnesses, see Ord. XXXVII. ii. ; 
 
 subpoena, Ord. XXXVII. iii. ; and examination before a 
 chief clerk, Ord. LV. rr. 16, 17. 
 
 ra"-e 95. For the procedure on sales, and Forms, see Ord. LI. i. 
 
 and ii., (which gives a much wider power of sale) ; and 
 App. L., 15, 16, 23. 
 
 Pa"-e 96. ^^^' directions as to taking accounts, and Form of chief 
 
 clerk's certificate, see Ord. XXXIII. r. 7, and App. L., 10, 
 17—20. 
 
 Page 99. Under Ord. LV. r. 71, the Judge may, if the special 
 
 circumstances require it, discharge or vary the certificate 
 at any time. 
 
 Page 102 (c). For Form of advertisement, see App. L., 3.
 
 liv ADDENDA. 
 
 f'ngc \03 ({). For Form of notice, sec App. L., 8. 
 
 I'age 104. For Form of executor's affidavit, see Ibid, 5, 6. 
 
 (/). For Form of notice, see Ibid., 4. 
 
 I'agc 112. For Form of notice to creditors of claims allowed or 
 
 disallowed, see Ibid., 7, 8. 
 
 Pnge 118 {z). For Form of advertisement, see Ibid., 2. 
 
 Page 128. For Form of request to set down an action for further 
 
 consideration, see Ibid. 26. 
 
 I'age 129. For Form of notice of so setting down, see Ibid. 27. 
 
 Page 134. For Form of notice that cheques may be received, see 
 
 Ibid. d. 
 
 Page 138. Add to note (/>) a reference to Ord. XXXIV. ; but it is 
 
 suggested that such a question should now be decided by 
 summons under LV. ii. rr. 8, 5. 
 
 Pages As to costs of executors and trustees who unreasonably 
 
 institute or carry on or resist any proceedings, see now Ord. 
 LXV. r. 1. 
 
 Pages This must be read subject to sec. 125 of the Bank- 
 
 168-173, ** 
 
 ruptcy Act, 1883, which provides that any creditor whose 
 debt would have been sufficient to support a bankruptcy 
 petition may on the decease of the debtor apply to the 
 Bankruptcy Court by petition for an order for the adminis- 
 tration in bankruptcy of the debtor's estate ; but such 
 order is not to be granted without the concurrence of the 
 personal representatives, until the expiration of two months 
 from the grant of probate or letters of administration, 
 \inless the debtor shall have committed an act of bank- 
 ruptcy within three months of his decease. The petition
 
 ADDENDA. Iv 
 
 is not to be presented after proceedings for administration 
 have been commenced in any other Court, but that Court 
 may transfer such proceedings to the Bankruptcy Court, 
 on proof that the estate is insolvent. After the order is 
 made, the estate vests in the official receiver, who will 
 realise and distribute it, as in bankruptcy, V)ut proper 
 funeral and testamentary expenses are to be paid first, and 
 everything done " in good faith " by the personal repre- 
 sentative, before the order, is of course not to be upset ; 
 but as between him and the official receiver, notice of the 
 presentation of the petition is equivalent to notice of an 
 act of bankruptcy, and no payment or transfer of property 
 by the personal representative after such notice will be a 
 good discharge to him. See also Rules 200 — 202. 
 
 169. Section 168 of the Act of 1883 defines " secured 
 
 creditor " in practically the same terms. 
 
 Sections 45 and 46 of the new Act correspond to sec. 87 
 of the old Act. 
 
 rage 171 {q). The right of a secured creditor to realise his security is 
 still preserved ; sec. 9 (2). 
 
 The rules as to proof by secured creditors are now 
 contained in Schedule II. of the Act, rr. 9 — 17, and the 
 provisions for taking accounts of mortgaged property and 
 the sale thereof, in the Rules of 1883, rr. 65—69. The 
 practice will be much the same as it has hitherto been, 
 but under r. 12 (c) of the Rules in Schedule II. the 
 creditor can call upon the trustee to elect within six 
 months whether the property shall or shall not be realised, 
 and if he does not exercise the option, the equity of 
 redemption vests in the creditor, and the valuation will be 
 unimpeachable. Rules 13 and 14 provide for rectification 
 of the valuation, and consequent adjustment of accounts 
 between the creditor and the trustee.
 
 Ivi ADDENDA. 
 
 rage 172. The debts and liabilities proveable are, under sec. 37 of 
 
 the new Act, the same as before, except that unliquidated 
 demands arising by reason of a breach of trust are now 
 proveable, and the Court has power to order any debt or 
 liability which is incapable of being fairly estimated to be 
 deemed a debt not proveable. 
 
 Section 40 of the new Act corresponds to sec. 32 of the 
 old Act, bat it may be mentioned that though by 4G & 47 
 Vict. c. 28 the rule laid down in the cases referred to in 
 note (c) is substituted for that Avhich eventually prevailed, 
 so far as relates to wages, yet, as the Act does not refer to 
 the administration of estates of deceased persons, the 
 practice in administration will remain unaltered. 
 
 Section 42 of the new Act re-enacts the provisions with 
 regard to distress for rent contained in sec. 34 of the old 
 Act, but provides also that where an order is made for the 
 administration in bankruptcy of the estate of a person 
 dying insolvent, the landlord's rights are limited as in the 
 case of bankruptcy. 
 
 Page 173. It would seem that voluntary bonds are still payable 
 
 pari 2MSSIL with other debts ; sec. 40 (4). 
 
 For r. 77, is now substituted r. 20 of Schedule II. 
 
 As to valuation of annuities and future and contingent 
 liabilities, see now sec. 37. 
 
 {(f). See now sec. 38 of new Act. 
 
 rage 181. The limit of value up to Avhich applications may 
 
 be made in chambers by summons instead of petition 
 has been much extended by Ord. LV. i. ; and by sub-sec. 
 16 of r. 2 of this Order, applications for orders on the
 
 ADDENDA. 
 
 Ivii 
 
 further consideration of any cause or matter, where 
 the order to be made is for the distribution of an 
 insolvent estate or for the distribution of the estate of an 
 intestate, or of a fund among creditors or debenture 
 holders, are to be made by summons in chambers. 
 
 Page 189. The motion on an appeal under 38 & 39 Vict. c. 50, s. 6, 
 
 must now be made upon two clear days' notice to the 
 other side ; Ord. LIII. rr. 2, 3, 5 ; Re a County Court 
 appeal, Q. B. D. Nov. 9, 1883, 
 
 rage 193. See now App. L., 25. 
 
 rage 195. ^or Form of indorsement, see App. G., 28. 
 
 For usual administration order, see App. L., 28. 
 
 For Form of advertisement, see Ihid. 3. 
 Page 200. For Form of notice, see Ihid. 8. 
 
 Page 201. For Form of notice to produce documents, sec Ihid. 4. 
 
 For Form of advertisement, see Ihid,. 2. 
 
 INDEX :— 
 
 Page 
 227 
 
 Old Reference to Rules 
 
 P.vaE. 
 
 Reference to Rules of Court, 
 
 OR Orders. 
 
 1883. 
 
 Cons. Ord. VII. r. 1 . 
 
 13, 194 
 
 0. XVI. r. 45. 
 
 r. 5 
 
 45 
 
 See now 0. XVI. r. 44. 
 
 IT. 6, 7 
 
 49 
 
 See 0. XVI. r. 41, and 0. LV. r. 27. 
 
 XXI. r. 10 . . 
 
 128, 129 
 
 0. XXXVI. r. 21. 
 
 XXIII. r. 9 . 
 
 181 
 
 / Not provided for ; see Chancery 
 I Funds Rules, 1874, r. 14. 
 
 r. 14 . . 
 
 51 
 
 0. XXXIII. r. 6. 
 
 r. 18 . 
 
 49 
 
 0. XVI. r. 40. 
 
 r. 19 . . 
 
 46 
 
 0. XVI. r. 42. 
 
 r. 20 . 
 
 47, 195 
 
 0. XVI. r. 43. 
 
 XXXV. r. 7 
 
 3 
 
 0. LIV. r. 4. 
 
 rr. 8, 9 
 
 3' 
 
 0. LV, rr. 22, 23. 
 
 r. 13 . . 
 
 96 
 
 0. LI. r. 3. 
 
 r. 15 . 
 
 86 
 
 0. LV. r. 28.
 
 ADDENDA. 
 
 Old Reference to Rules 
 OR Orders. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Pacfc 
 227 Coiis.Ord.XXXV.r. 16 . . 
 
 87, 93 
 
 r. 18 . 
 
 45 
 
 r. 19 . . 
 
 52, 53 
 
 r. 20 . 
 
 94 
 
 1'. 22 . . 
 
 86, 123 
 
 r. 23 . 
 
 124 
 
 r. 26 . . 
 
 90 
 
 rr. 27,28 . 
 
 90 
 
 r. 29 . 
 
 91 
 
 r. 30 . . 
 
 92 
 
 rr. 33, 34 . 
 
 90 
 
 rr. 35, 36 . 
 
 103 
 
 r. 37 . . 
 
 118 
 
 r. 38 . 
 
 118 
 
 r. 39 . . 
 
 108, 118 
 
 r. 40 . 
 
 105,118 
 
 r. 41 . . 
 
 118 
 
 228 rr. 43, 44 . 
 r. 45 . . 
 rr. 46, 48 . 
 r. 49 . 
 r. 50 . . 
 r. 51 . 
 rr. 52, 53 . 
 
 119 
 
 100 
 
 97 
 88, 100 
 88, 100 
 98,. 100 
 98, 100 
 
 r. 54 , . 
 
 100 
 
 r. 55 . 
 
 r. 56 . . 
 
 98 
 100 
 
 XXXVII. r. 10 . 
 
 49 
 
 XL. rr. 24, 25 . 
 
 111 
 
 XLII.rr. 9—11 . 
 
 110,119 
 
 Sched. K., No. II. 
 
 193 
 
 Sched. L. . 
 
 201 
 
 Ord. May 27, 1865, rr. 1, \ 
 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 . . / 
 
 rr. 10, 12, 13 
 Kegulations, August 8, 1857, 
 r. 5 
 
 r. 6 . 
 
 r. 7 . . . . 
 
 r. 13 . . . . 
 
 Ch. IX. 
 
 113 
 Ch. IX. 
 
 86 
 86 
 45 
 96 
 
 Reference to Rules of Court, 
 1883, 
 
 0. LV. r. 33. 
 0. LV. r. 35. 
 See now 0. XXXIII. r. 2. 
 0. LV. r. 40. 
 
 f 0. LV. r. 32, and see 0. XXXIII. 
 I r. 9. 
 
 0. XXXIII. r. 9. 
 O. LV. r. 37. 
 0. XXXVIII. rr. 20, 21. 
 0. XXXVII. r. 28. 
 See 0. XXXVIII. ii, 
 0. XXXIII. rr. 4, 5. 
 0. LV. rr. 45, 46, 
 0. LV. r. 47. 
 Not provided for, 
 0. LV. r. 48. 
 0. LV. r. 54. 
 
 /Not provided for, Tnit see 0. LV. 
 t r. 57. 
 0. LV. rr. 57, 59. 
 0. LV. r. 18. 
 0. LV. rr. 68, 67. 
 See 0. LV. r. 69. 
 Abrogated ; see 0. LV. r. 69. 
 Abrogated ; see 0. LV. r. 65. 
 0. LV. r. 70. 
 
 / See now 0. L. ii. and Ajip. L, 
 I Nos. 14, 22. 
 0. LV, r. 70. 
 See now 0. LV. r. 65. 
 0. LXIV. r. 1. 
 
 / O. LV. rr. 51, 58, and 0. LXV, 
 I r. 27, § 26. 
 0. LV. rr. 62—64. 
 App. L., No. 25. 
 App. L., No. 2, 
 
 0. LV. rr. 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56. 
 
 / Not provided for, but see 0. LV. 
 I r. 57. 
 0. LV. rr. 57, 60, 61. 
 
 See LV. r. 28. 
 0. LV. r. 30. 
 Obsolete. 
 0. LI. r. 4.
 
 ADDENDA. 
 
 lix 
 
 228 
 
 229 
 
 2:J1 
 
 Old Reference to Rules 
 OR Orders. 
 
 Rules of the Supreme Court, 
 1875, Or<l. I. r. 1 
 Ord. II. r. 1 
 III. r. 2 . 
 r. 4 
 r. 8 . 
 y. r. 4 
 
 r. ia . 
 IX. rr. 4, 5 
 XI. r. 1 . 
 r. 1« 
 XII. r. 4 . 
 XIII. r. 9 
 XV. rr. 1, 2 
 XVI. r. 7 
 r. 9 . 
 r. 9rt 
 r. 11 . 
 r. 12« 
 r. 12/; 
 r. 17 
 XVII. r. 2 . 
 XXIX. rr. 10, 11 
 XXXIII. 
 XXXV. rr. 1,4, 11, 12,1 
 XL. r. 1 . 
 r. 11 
 L. r. 4 . 
 LI. rr. 1. 2«, 3, ' 
 LII. r. 6a . 
 LIII. r. 4 . 
 LVIII. r. 15 . 
 ^r. 19 
 A pp. A. II. s. 1 . 
 J lid. EhIcs, 12 August 
 
 1875, Orel. VI. 1 
 Add. Rules, 1875 (Costs), 
 
 r. 21 
 
 15&16Vict. c. 80, s. 26 . . 
 s 30 . . 
 s. 33 
 
 s. 34 . . 
 
 c. 86. s. 42,r.l . 
 
 rr.2,3 
 
 r. 6 . 
 
 r. 8 . 
 
 ':} 
 
 9 
 
 S, 22 
 
 45 
 
 36 
 
 36 
 
 190 
 
 22 
 
 8, 22, 23, 191 
 
 43 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 41 
 
 45 
 
 93 
 
 116 
 
 29 
 
 19, 20 
 
 23, 52 
 
 191 
 
 21 
 
 18, 66, 68 
 
 46 
 
 77, 84, 77, 79 
 
 124 
 
 19, 20 
 
 88 
 
 188 
 
 9 
 
 135 
 
 95 
 
 126 
 91 
 88 
 98 
 24 
 29 
 26 
 
 Reference to Rules of Court, 
 
 1883. 
 
 0. I. r. 1. 
 
 0. II. r. 1. 
 
 0. III. r. 2, and 0. XX. r. 4. 
 
 0. III. r. 4, and App. A. III. vii. 
 
 0. in. r. 8. 
 
 0. V. r. 4. 
 
 0. V. r. 9. 
 
 0. IX. rr. 4, 5. 
 
 0. XL r. 1 (but jurisdiction limited). 
 
 0. XL r. 2, and see r. 4. 
 
 0. XII. r. 6. 
 
 See 0. XIIL r. 12. 
 
 0. XV. rr. 1,2. 
 
 0. XVI. r. 8. 
 
 0. XVI. r. 9. 
 
 0. XVI. 32. 
 
 See 0. XVI. rr. 33—40. 
 
 0. XVI. r. 44. 
 
 0. XVL r. 47. 
 
 See 0. XVL rr. 48—55. 
 
 0. XVIII. r. 2. 
 
 0. XXVII. rr. 11, 12. 
 
 0. XXXIIL r. 2. 
 
 0. XXXV. rr. 1, 2 ; 6 ; 13 ; 1 4 ; 16, 1 7. 
 
 (). XL. r. 1. 
 
 0. XXXII. r. 6. 
 
 0. XVII. r. 4. 
 
 0. XLIX. rr. 1, 5, 7, 8. 
 
 0. L. r. 10. 
 
 0. LII. r. 5. 
 
 0. LVIII. r. 15. 
 
 0. LIX. r. 4. 
 
 App. A. III. ss. 1, 2. 
 
 0. LXV. r. 8, and A).p. N. 
 
 0. LXV. r. 27, § 23. 
 
 0. LV. r. 2. 
 
 0. LV. r. 16. 
 
 See now 0. LV. rr. 67 -6H. 
 
 See now 0. LV. r. 70. 
 
 0. XVI. r. 33. 
 
 0. XVI. rr. 34, 35, 
 
 0. XVL r. 38. 
 
 40, 44, 47-49 0. XVI. r. 
 
 40. 
 
 /■
 
 Ix 
 
 AI^ENDA. 
 
 
 Old Refeuknce to Rules 
 
 Page. 
 
 Reference to Rules of Court, 
 
 
 OR Orders. 
 
 1883. 
 
 Page 
 231 
 
 15. tit) Vict, c.m, s. 42, r. 9 
 
 40, 43 
 
 0. XVI. r. 8. 
 
 
 s. 44 
 
 34 
 
 0. XV. r. 46. 
 
 
 s. 45 
 
 1, 193 
 
 0. LV. rr. 3— 5, but see r. 10. 
 
 
 s. 4(3 . . 
 
 3 
 
 0. LV. r. 20. 
 
 
 s. 47 
 
 7, 193 
 
 Extended byO. LV. rr. 3—5, but 
 see r. 10. 
 
 
 s. 52 . . 
 
 46 
 
 0. XVIL 
 
 
 s. 54 . . 
 
 ■ 75 
 
 0. XXXIIL r. 3. 
 
 
 s. 55 
 
 95 
 
 0. LL r. 1. 
 
 
 s. 57 
 
 1S2 
 
 0. L. r. 9.
 
 THE 
 
 LAW AND PRACTICE 
 
 RELATING TO THE 
 
 ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATES 
 OF DECEASED PERSONS 
 
 BY THE 
 
 CljHitcerf lifrbioit of tljc f iglj Court of |nsticr. 
 
 WITH AN 
 
 APPENDIX OF ORDERS AND FORMS, 
 
 ANNOTATED BY KEFERENCES TO THE TEXT. 
 
 BY 
 
 W. GEEGORY WALKER, B.A., 
 
 AUTHOR OF "the PARTITION ACTS, IbOS AND 187G : A MANUAL OK THE LAW OF lARTITION" AND OK 
 SALE IN LIEC OF PARTITION," " A COMPENDIUM OF THE LAW OF EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS," 
 
 EDGAR J. ELGOOD, B.C.L., M.A., 
 
 BOTH OF LINCOLN'S INN, BARRISTERS-AT-LAW, AND LATE SCHOLARS OF EXETEB COLLEGE, OXFORD. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 STEVENS AND HAYNES, 
 
 BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 1883.
 
 T 
 l?83 
 
 LONDON : 
 BRADBURY, AGNEW, &. CO., PEISTERS, WHITKFKIAIW.
 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 This Treatise was planned and commenced by Mr. 
 Gregory Walker as a companion volume to his " Com- 
 pendium of the Law of Executors and Administrators," 
 but, after v/riting rather more than one-half of the book, 
 he decided to relinquish the English Bar for that of New 
 South Wales, and placed his manuscript and materials 
 in my hands for completion. Before he left England we 
 discussed together the general jDlan of the unfinished 
 part of the work, but as he gave me full discretion to 
 revise and add to what he had written, it follows that 
 the responsibility for any deficiencies should more 
 properly rest upon myself. 
 
 I believe the arrangement of the Table of Cases to be 
 entirely new, and I hope that I have attained the double 
 object of not burdening the text or notes with references 
 to contemporary Reports, while sparing those who do not 
 possess the authorised Reports considerable trouble, when 
 referring to the Law Journal, Law Times, AVeekly 
 Reporter, or Jurist, as the case may be. 
 
 The references to Daniell's Chancery Practice are to 
 the 5th edition throughout ; where possible, a reference 
 
 79^03
 
 VI rrvEFACE. 
 
 lias been added in 1)rackets to the 6tli edition, of wliicli 
 the first volume only is as yet published. The Rules 
 and Orders of the Supreme Court are cited as " 0./' the 
 Consolidated Orders of the Court of Chancery as " Cons. 
 Ord." These latter have been verbally altered in 
 accordance with the nomenclature of the present practice, 
 "action/' "statement of claim," and "judgment" 
 being substituted for " suit," " bill," and " decree ;" but 
 I have not thought it necessary to call attention to this 
 in the text. 
 
 In the Appendix will be found references to the text, 
 as in the Compendium of Executors. 
 
 My thanks are due to Mr. Pemberton for kindly per- 
 mitting me to insert in the Appendix some of the more 
 ordinary Administration Judgments from the 3rd edition 
 of his " Judgments and Orders," to which, as also to the 
 4th edition of Seton's Decrees, frequent reference has 
 been made ; also to my friends Mr. W. T. Langford and 
 Mr. J. W. Brodie-Innes, both of Lincoln's Inn, for many 
 valuable suggestions ; and to Mr. Langford and my 
 brother E. Crawshaw Elgood (of the Common-Law Bar) 
 for very considerable assistance in the laborious and 
 uninteresting task of filling in the references to contem- 
 porary Reports. 
 
 E. J. E. 
 
 Lincoln's Inn, 
 
 April, 1883.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS FOR ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 A. Administkation Summons, 
 
 (rt) Personal Estate. 
 
 I'.UIE 
 
 Assignees may obtain the summons. — Representatives of the accounting 
 representative maj' be defendants. — Upon whom it must be served. — 
 Copy to be filed.- — Extension of time for appearance. — Appearance to be 
 entered. — Court may make order ex 2)nrte in default of appearance. — 
 Summons by executor against co-executor. — Discretion of Judge to 
 refuse order for administration upon summons. — The jurisdiction only 
 exercised in simple cases.-— Only the xtsual order can be made ; e.g., 
 no account for wilful default. — Questions arising out of usual order 
 may be determined ; but an administration action will generally be 
 directed. — Administration of property appointed by will oifcme covert. 
 — Service of summons out of jurisdiction. — Appointment of guardian 
 ad litem to lunatic defendant ........ 1 
 
 (J) Eeal Estate. 
 
 Jurisdiction where executors have only power of sale, or sale is comlitionally 
 
 directed to be postponed.— No jurisdiction in case of intestacy . . 7 
 
 B. Administration Action. 
 
 Title of writ. — Indorsements on writ ; claiming that accounts be taken ; for a 
 receiver ; showing representative capacity of parties. — Special indorse- 
 ment necessary in creditors' actions for administration of real and per- 
 sonal estate ; optional in case of personal estate only .... 8 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 HOW JUDGMENT FOR ADMINISTRATION MAY BE OBTAINED. 
 
 Judgment for administration. — I. In proceedings by summons.— II. In 
 administration actions :— (1) At the trial.— As a short cau.se after 
 notice.— Evidence.— Plain tiflf's right to sue uiust be proved or 
 admitted. — Creditor plaintiff.— Holder of a bill of exchange.— Title 
 of legal personal representatives ; of devisees ; of heir of an intestate. — 
 Evidence required for common judgment; {ov special judgment, e.g.,
 
 Vni CONTENTS. 
 
 wilful default, — at the hearing upon sijccial case made ; in a proper case 
 on furtlier consideration ; or in a fresh action after leave of the Court 
 obtained ; generally before judgment, after amendment of the plead- 
 ings, if necessary. — Lord Eldon's rule that one act of wilful default 
 must be proved before inquiry directed, still the rule of the Court. — (2) 
 On motion for judgment ;(«) upon admissions in the jjleadings ; but 
 only in simple cases, and subject to the discretion of the Court to order 
 the action to go into the general paper. — Motion on admissions combined 
 withmotion in default of pleading. — (I) In default of defendant pleading; 
 either as short causes or in thein regular turn in the general paper. — 
 Notice of motion. — (c) Where there are no pleadings. — In what cases 
 statement of claim should be delivered. — (d) In default of appearance. — 
 (3) Upon summons for accounts and inquiries, either after statement of 
 claim, or when none intended to be delivered , . . . .11 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 OF THE PARTIES TO ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 
 
 I. Who may Maintain Actions as Plaintiffs. 
 
 A. Personal Estate. 
 
 (1 & 2) Beneficiaries, although their interest contingent, ifpresent or existing; 
 sec2is, if an expectancy only. — (3) Creditors, including voluntary cove- 
 nantees. — But the debt must be dehitum in presenti. — (4) Legal personal 
 representatives, or one of them, sufificient if one at least has proved the 
 will. — Executor may even commence action before probate, and deliver 
 jdeadings, but must produce probate before motion made, for right 
 of action is not dependent on probate. — So, also, in the case of jjlaintiff 
 taking out administration after action brought. — This right not to be 
 used oppressively. — Proceedings when plaintiff's title as legal personal 
 representative lost after judgment .24 
 
 B. Real and Personal Estate. 
 
 (1) Legatee, when legacy charged on land. — (2) Persons interested in 
 proceeds of sale of realty. — (3) Residuary devisee or heir. — (4) Creditor. 
 — (.'5) Trustee, but not executor or administrator as such. — Assignees of 
 persons who might have been plaintiffs may sue both as to real and 
 ])ersonal estate, including mortgagees, legal personal representatives, 
 trustees in bankruptcy, and scmble, since the Judicature Act, voluntary 
 assignees of a debt due from a testator. — Infant or lunatic plaintiff, and 
 feme covert 29 
 
 II. Who are Necessary or Proper Defendants. 
 
 A. In administration of 2]e)-sonal estate at suit of beneficiaries or creditors, 
 all executors proving or acting must be defendants. — Any proving or 
 acting afterwards must be added as defendants. — Relief in actions 
 against executors before probate generally confined to appointment of
 
 CONTENTS. IX 
 
 a receiver.— Person naiued executor, but not proving or acting except 
 as agent of other executors. — Appointment of administrator ad Utent 
 by Chancery Division insuflicient to enable administration judgment 
 to be obtained. — Full personal representative necessary. — So, as to 
 administrator «a! Ztte;?i appointed by Probate Division. — Where testator 
 died out of the jurisdiction. — Married woman defendant. — Repre- 
 sentatives of deceased executors. — When administrator durante minore 
 cvtate a necessary party. — Executor de son tort cannot be sued for 
 administration ; nor for an account, unless legal personal representative 
 be before the Court ; at least before the hearing ..... "51 
 B. In administration of real estate, all the trustees must be parties. — 
 
 Practice where one of two trustees dies insolvent after judgment . . 39 
 
 III. Persons served with Notice of the Judgment. 
 
 All who w'ould formerly have been necessary parties. — Trustees represent 
 their cestuis que trustcnt. — Reason for bringing all interested parties 
 before the Court. — All interested in personalty alone represented by the 
 executor. — In general, all residuary devisees and legatees must be before 
 the Court. — How far trustees represent their cestuis que trustent. — One 
 or more of a class in same interest allowed or appointed to sue or be sued 
 on behalf of or for all. — Service upon infants, &c. — Service dispensed 
 with, or substituted service allowed. — Birth of infant beneficiary after 
 action brought. — Entry of memorandum of service. — Title and endorse- 
 ment of notice. — Service out of the jurisdiction.— Service of a copy. — 
 Persons served bound by the proceedings, but cannot be made to 
 account till made parties. — Nor can they be treated as co-plaintiffs, 
 and obtain inquiries as such. — Parties served may obtain order of course 
 to attend the proceedings. — ^Infants. — Persons served may apply to 
 add to the judgment 40 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE JUDGMENT, AND ADDITIONS MADE TO IT. 
 
 Administration judgment moulded to enable the Court to deal with the 
 whole action on further consideration. — Less extensive in creditors' 
 actions. — Further accounts or inquiries may be ordered ; but formerly, 
 not so as to charge defendants with wilful default ; otherwi.se under the 
 new [iractice. — How application made to add to judgment ... 50 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE EFFECT OF JUDGMENT FOR ADMINISTRATION ON POWERS 
 AND DISCRETIONS OF TRUSTEES AND EXECUTORS. 
 
 ^/ter judgment, new trustee cannot be appointed without approval of the 
 Court ; nor investments made, nor powers of management exerci.sed. — 
 Nor may one creditor be preferretl to another. — But an ^ecutor may 
 exercise his right of retainer. — Executor may mortgage assets after
 
 X CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 judgment. — Before judgment, trustees may exercise discretion. — And 
 the Court will not interfere with "absolute" or " uncontrolled " dis- 
 cretion of trustee. — Payment of debts. — Sale of real and leasehold estate 54 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 AS TO SECURING TRUST FUNDS BY ORDERING THEM INTO 
 
 COURT. 
 
 Funds admitted to l)e in hand ordered to be paiil iuto Court upon interlocu- 
 tory motion ; even though applicant may show only a 'primCi fade. 
 title. — In what cases the application refused. — The Court will exercise 
 discretion to prevent needless payment in and out. — Debts admitted to 
 be due from executor to the testator regarded as in his hands. — So, 
 as to moneys in the hands of executor's partner. — What moneys 
 may be deducted by executor. — What amounts to an admission by 
 executor. — At what stage in the action money will be ordered to be 
 paid into Court. — Immaterial in w'hat manner the money is admitted 
 to be in his hands. — Motion under Order XL., r. 11. — Investment of 
 money in Court ........... 60 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 CONCURRENT ACTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION- STAY— TRANSFER 
 —CONSOLIDATION. 
 
 One of two concurrent administration actions will be stayed, when judgment 
 obtained in the other. — Upon whose application. — Mode of applying for 
 stay. — Principles on which order will be made. — When relief claimed 
 is co-extensive, which action will be stayed. — Action of residuary legatee 
 preferred to that of a creditor ; tenant for life to remainderman. — Two 
 actions by same infant. — The Court may interfere ex mero motu. — 
 Consolidation of concurrent administration actions. — Palatine Court. — 
 Where relief claimed is not co-extensive. — One action may hn partially 
 stayed ; or accounts in one ordered to be used in the other ; or one 
 stayed, the judgment in the other being added to. — Costs of applications 
 to stay proceedings. — Transfer of one of two concurrent actions from 
 one branch of Chancery Division to another. — Which action will be 
 transferred. — As to consent of plaintiff in second action. — Con- 
 solidation. — Staying proceedings after foreign judgment has been 
 obtained. — Staying creditors' actions in Queen's Bench Division after 
 judgment for administration in Chancery Division. — Actions not in the 
 High Court may still be restrained liy Chancery Division. — Transfer to 
 Chancery Division, after judgment for administration, of actions 
 against executors or administrators ....... 69 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 PROCEEDINGS IN CHAMBERS. 
 
 Prosecution of judgment. — Directions by the Judge. — Adjournment to the 
 Judge. — Appeal from Judge. — Suitor's right to be heard by Judge
 
 CONTENTS. XI 
 
 himself. — How qualified. — Rehearing by Judf^e in Court. — Time 
 limited for re-hearing. — Evidence. — Affidavits. — Notice of amount and 
 particulars of charge beyond amount admittiul. — Cross-examination. — 
 Powers of chief clerk. — Examiner. — Mode of examining witness before 
 chief clerk. — Practice where witness refuses to answer. — Persons having 
 liberty to attend the proceedings. — Their right to costs determined by 
 the Judge. — Sale under judgment or order. — The chief clerk's certifi- 
 cate. — Certificates either general or scjjaratc. — Time for signature of 
 certificate by Judge. — Certificate, &c., signed and adopted by Judge, to 
 be filed, and be binding on all parties, unless discharged or varietl 
 within eight clear days. — Applications to discharge or vary certificate. 
 — Exceptions as regards certificates to be acted upon by Paymaster- 
 General without further order, and certificates on passing receivers' 
 accounts. — Certificate may be referred back ..... 86 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 PROOF OF CLAIMS IN CHAMBERS. 
 
 A. Advertisements for creditors. — Peremptory. — In what papers inserted. — 
 
 By whom prepared. — Creditor need not make affidavit or attend, unless 
 recpiired ; but party prosecuting cause to take office copies of affidavits, 
 if any. — Notice to creditor to produce security or other evidence. — 
 Notice by post sufficient. — Claims to be examined and result verified by 
 affidavit of executor or other person appointed by Judge. — S\ich affidavit 
 may be postponed. — Adjudication on the claims. — Plaintifi' must prove 
 his debt in chambers, unless assets admitted. — Evidence. — Claims for un- 
 liquidated damages. — Contingent liabilities, &c. — Cross-examination of 
 creditor. — Right of creditor to affidavit of documents by executors. — The 
 Statute of Limitations. — The rule iu Stcrndale v. Hankinson, semhle, 
 no longer prevails. — Interest on debts. — Costs of creditors establishing 
 claims ; and failing to establish them. — Notice to creditors of claims 
 allowed or disallowed. — New claims before adjourned adjudication. — • 
 Special leave to make claims after time fixed by advertisement ; even 
 after certificate. — As to claims after apportionment. — Creditor may 
 obtain proportion only of his claim ; and maybe obliged to sue legatees 102 
 
 B. Advertisements for claimants not named in will. — Claims book. — 
 
 Adjournment ; closing further evidence. — Claims heard on adjournment 
 day. — Admitting further claims. — List of claims allowed. — Interest on 
 legacies. —Costs of next of kin. — Refunding ..... 117 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 THE CONDUCT OF ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS AND OF 
 PROCEEDINGS ARISING THEREOUT. 
 
 Plaintiff" has privid facie right to conduct of proceedings. — Practice when 
 plaintiff guilty of delay. — Conduct of different inquiries given to 
 different persons ; e.g., conduct of sale given to trustees. — Plaintiff in 
 creditors' action found to be a debtor to estate. — Death of creditor
 
 XU CONTENTS. 
 
 plaintiff. — Application for conduct to be made in chambers. — Conduct 
 
 of proceedings arising out of the administratiou action . . . 122 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 FUKTHER CONSIDERATION. 
 
 When and how actions set down on further consideration. — Short cause. — 
 Notice of setting down, and appearances, and costs of persons unneces- 
 sarily appearing. — Declaration of title, and distribution of fund. — 
 Inquiry as to damages. — Costs of action dealt with. — Evidence. — 
 Questions cannot generally be raised on further consideration which 
 have not been pleaded. — Interest on balances or debts. — Certificate 
 cannot be varied, unless on regular application, except where error 
 apparent . . . . . . . . . . . .123 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 
 
 Costs and debts first provided for on further consideration. — Costs. — 
 Principles on which costs are allowed out of the estate. — Costs of 
 plaintiffs. — Mere pecuniary legatee. — Rule in Wilson v. Squire. — 
 Legatee plaintiff generally allowed his costs. — Concurrent actions. — 
 Annuitant. — Residuary legatees or next of kin. — Where executors have 
 overpaid some of the residuary legatees, and the others obtain ad- 
 ministration judgment. — Costs of residuary legatee not allowed as 
 between solicitor and client, except by consent, and should never be 
 allowed where infants interested. — Appeal for costs. — Creditor generally 
 allowed his costs. — When ordered to pay the costs, or deprived of his 
 costs.- — Costs in chambers. — Executor or administrator. — General rule 
 as to costs of trustees and executors. — Strong case required to deprive 
 them of costs ; still stronger to make them pay them. — Executors may 
 lose, or have to pay, costs of parts of the action. — When ordered to pay 
 all the costs ; except of the accounts. — Sometimes allowed costs upon 
 making restitution. — Executor's costs when improperly bringing ad- 
 ministration action. — Costs of insolvent executor or trustee. — -Costs set 
 off against debt to estate. — So as to legacy or share of residue ; except 
 where debtor bankrupt before death of creditor. — Bankruptcy of one of 
 two co-executors. — Where innocent executor ordered to pay costs 
 jointly with guilty executor. — Trustees should not generally sever in 
 their defence. — Costs of an executor who is a solicitor. — Executors or 
 trustees may appeal for costs. — Their costs are payable as between 
 solicitor and client. — Real Estate. — Costs of persons attending the pro- 
 ceedings.— Plaintiff not succeeding may be allowed his costs ; but not 
 from the defendants personally. — Costs of assignees or mortgagees of 
 beneficiaries. -Rules where fund deficient. — Costs of executor paid in 
 priority. — When heir regarded as trustee for creditors. — Costs of dis- 
 claiming trustees as between party and party o\\\y. — Executors, as 
 such, not entitled to costs out of real estate. — Creditor plaintiff, when
 
 CONTENTS. Xlll 
 
 rA(;E 
 entitled to solicitor and client costs. — No contribution now ordered 
 from creditors towards plaintifi''s costs. — Costs of mortgagee, plaintiff 
 in an administration action.— Costs of legatee plaintiff, wliere fund 
 deficient. — When paid in priority to debts, but as between party and 
 party only ; except as to costs of getting in and realization. — Next of 
 kin plaintiffs have no priority. — Executor's right of retainer i)aramount 
 to right to costs of all other persons. — The general personalty the 
 primary fund for costs ; then the pecuniary legacies, next the undisposed 
 of realty, lastly specific gifts. — What costs included. — Costs of admin- 
 istration of real estate only. — Apportionment between real and personal 
 estate. — Apportionment between pure and impure personalty. — Adjust- 
 ment after payment of costs out of a fund not chargeable therewitli. — 
 Marshalling of assets by testator. — Costs of administration action 
 included in " testamentary expenses. " — Apportionment between legal 
 and equitable assets . 135 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 OF THE ORDER IN WHICH ASSETS ARE ADMINISTERED. 
 
 The old law not here discussed. — The Act of 1869, and the Judicature Act, 
 1875. — The Act of 1869. — Specialty creditors have no prioritj' over 
 simple contract creditors. — The Judicature Act, 1875, imports the rules 
 of Bankruptcy in administering insolvent estates. — -What debts still 
 have priority. — Costs and debts payable out of the same fund . . 161 
 
 Order in which assets are resorted to. — 1. The general residuary personalty. 
 — 2. Real estate devised in trust to pay debts. — 3. Real estate descended. 
 — 4. Specific devises and bequests charged with debts. — 5. General 
 pecuniary legacies. —6. Specific devises and bequests. — 7. Real or 
 personal estate appointed. — Adjustment when debts paid out of 
 property not chargeable therewith. — Alienation by heir or devisee. — 
 Retainer by executor for his own debt, out of legal assets only. — Rule 
 of hotchpot where part of debt retained or paid out of legal assets in 
 priority to other creditors. — Marshalling ...... 164 
 
 The Judicature Act, 1875, and the rules in Bankruptcy. — 1. As to secured 
 and unsecured creditors. — Mortgagees. — Object of the enactment. — 
 Courses open to secured creditors. ^Redemption by e.xecutor at credi- 
 tor's valuation. — 2. Debts and liabilities provable. — No priority for 
 rates, or wages, or rent. — Semble, right to distrain unaffected. — Mutual 
 credits. — Statute-ljarred debts. — Voluntary bonds. — No interest on 
 debts from date of administration judgment. — 3. Valuation of annuities 
 and future and contingent liabilities. — Locke King's Act. — Mortgaged 
 estate now taken by devisee cum ontre. — Specific legatee of mortgaged 
 personal estate, other than leaseholds, may have it redeemed. — Marshal- 
 ling ; against devisees of mortgaged estates ; against real estate in 
 favour of legatees having no charge upon it. — No marshalling in favour 
 of charities ; except by direction of testator. — Priority between legatees ; 
 none in general ; but widow has priority, if entitled to dower, and 
 given a legacy in satisfaction thereof. — Annuities, whether [layable out 
 of capital or income only. — Abatement of legacies and annuities . .168
 
 XIV CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER XTV. 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AFTER FURTHER CONSIDERATION. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Assots generally distrilmted on further consideration. — If not, shares usually 
 carried over to separate accounts. — Subsequent ajiplication for payment 
 out. — Payment of duty. — Payment out to trustees. — Payment out on 
 security being given to refund, or when woman past child-bearing. — 
 Payment out pending inquiries. — Chattels bequeathed for life. — 
 Legatees now not called ujiou to give security to refund. — No a.ssets 
 now retained to meet claims in respect of leaseholds. — E.xecutors liable 
 for distributing assets out of Court with notice of contingent claims. — 
 Stay of payment out pending an appeal ...... 180 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 OF THE JURISDICTION OF COUNTY COURTS AND DISTRICT 
 REGISTRARS. 
 
 Concurrent jurisdiction of County Courts up to £500. — In what Court pro- 
 ceedings to be commenced. — Transfer to Chancery Division. — Provisions 
 for a re-transfer. — When action transferred and when dismissed. — 
 Counter-claim. — Costs. — Transfer to County Court. — Appeals. — 
 Appeal by motion. — District registries. — Limitation of autliority of 
 District registrars . . . . . . . . . .184 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Form of administration summons under 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, ss. 45, 47 . 193 
 
 Cons. Ord. vii. r. 1 194 
 
 Probate Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 77), s. 64 194 
 
 Form of indorsement on notice of judgment or order 195 
 
 Minutes of ordinary administration judgments ; 
 
 I.— IV. Creditors' actions 195—197 
 
 V. — VIII. Actions by next of kin, trustees, executors or 
 
 beneficiaries ....... 197 — 199 
 
 Form of advertisement for creditors 200 
 
 Notice to creditor to prove his claim 200 
 
 Notice to creditor to produce documents 201 
 
 Form of advertisement for claimants, other than creditors .... 201 
 
 INDEX 203
 
 TABLE OF 
 
 CASE 
 
 S. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 NAMES OF CASES. 
 
 Authorised 
 Kkpurts. 
 
 Law 
 Journal. 
 
 (Xew Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Law Times. 
 
 (New Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Weekly 
 Reporter. 
 
 Jurist. 
 
 (Old Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Paoe. 
 
 AcASTER V. Anderson ... 
 Adair v. Young 
 
 19 Be. 161 
 11 C. D. 136 
 
 6 Ves. 226 
 
 W. N. '66, 200 
 3DeG.F.&J.194 
 
 7 C. D. "547 
 W. N. '69, 270 
 
 8 Ves. 308 
 
 4 Be. 212 
 
 5 Be. 188 
 8 C. D. 1 
 
 35 Be. 466 
 
 2 Eq. 205 
 
 3 C. D.""i98 
 
 1 Bro. C. C. 454 
 
 21 C. D. 131 
 1 Madd. 529 
 
 24 Ch. 437 
 
 35 Ch.' 727 
 30 Ch. 619 
 
 47 cii.' 229 
 
 10 Ch.' 363 
 
 47 Ch." 755 
 
 50 Ch. 574 
 
 13 Ch. 65 
 
 45 Ch. 768 
 
 51 Ch. 694 
 
 46 Ch.' 322 
 
 22 Ch. 659 
 
 26 Ch. 275 
 43 Bk. 142 
 
 50 Ch. 201 
 
 19 Ch. 300 
 
 24, O.S., 249 
 40, 598 
 
 14, 727' 
 4, 430 
 
 38, 207' 
 21, 704 
 
 38, 304' 
 44, 547 
 
 14, 451 
 
 2, O.S.,206 
 
 35, 93 
 
 25, 199 
 
 36, 200' 
 
 21, O.S., 39 
 
 28, O.S., 228 
 30, 906 
 
 43, 753 
 
 3, 156 
 
 14^789 
 9, 682 
 11, 330 
 26, 348 
 
 26^450 
 
 29, 732 
 
 14, 722 
 24, "982 
 
 30, 723 
 
 19, 971 
 
 25^356 
 
 1, 260 
 
 5, 271 
 22, 925 
 
 29, 277 
 
 7, N.S.", 590 
 
 8, 114 
 17, 435' 
 
 17, 269 
 
 3, N.S., 146 
 
 14, 77 " 
 
 5 
 
 183 
 134 
 109 
 
 88 
 
 87 
 172 
 
 87 
 175 
 147 
 154 
 
 72 
 
 60 
 
 109 
 
 123 
 
 38 
 164, 174 
 
 89 
 
 114 
 
 59 
 
 12 
 
 63 
 
 54 
 
 74 
 93, 146 
 
 10 
 154 
 
 36 
 179 
 103 
 
 4, 6, 35 
 
 99 
 171 
 134 
 
 172 
 
 57 
 137, 157 
 
 Adams r. Claxton 
 
 — V. Waller 
 
 Agriculturist, &c., Co., He 
 
 Albion Steel &WireCo. ,i?c 
 Alcock '('. Gill 
 
 Aldrich r. Cooper 
 
 Aldridge v. Westbrook... 
 
 Alison's Trusts, iZc 
 
 Alison V. Alison 
 
 Alston V. Trollope < 
 
 Alvanley(Ld. )i'. Kinnaird 
 
 Ambler v. Lindsay 
 
 Ancaster (D.) v. Mayer... 
 
 Anderson v. Butler's 1 
 
 Wharf Co j' 
 
 Auwell i'. Haddou 
 
 Annesley v. Ashurst 
 
 Anon 
 
 3 P. Wms. 282 
 
 4 Sim. 359 
 
 
 — V. Robarts 
 
 Anson v. Towgood 
 
 Armstrong v. Armstrong 
 — V. Storer 
 
 Arthur v. Hughes 
 
 1 J. & W. 251 
 6 Madd. 374 
 12 Eq. 614 
 
 9 Be. 277 
 14 Be. 535 
 4 Be. 506 
 
 2 Bro. C. C. 108 
 4 C. D. 757 
 
 10 Ha. App. 66 
 3l)eG.M.&G.933 
 SDeG.M.clG.698 
 18 E(i. 705 
 
 29 Be. 462 
 
 16 C. D. 373 
 
 1 Bo. 467 
 8 Ha. 32 
 
 Ashburner v. Macguire... 
 Ashley v. Ashley 
 
 — r. Sewell | 
 
 Ashton V. Wood 
 
 Ash worth, Ex parte 
 
 Aspinall v. Bourne 
 
 Association of Land ) 
 
 Financiers, Re / 
 
 Att.-Gen. i'. Clack 
 
 — V. Lawes
 
 XVI 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 NAMES OF CASES. 
 
 Austell r. Haines 
 
 Avlmer v, Wiiiterbotham 
 
 Bagot r. Legge 
 
 Bagshaw, Ux parte 
 
 Bailey r. Bailej' 
 
 Baillie v. Baillio .. 
 
 Baiii V. Sadler 
 
 Baker v. Baker 
 
 — V. Martin 
 
 — V. Wait 
 
 Ballard r. Marsden 
 
 Bank of Turkey v. \ 
 
 Ottoman Bank / 
 
 Barber v. Mackrell 
 
 Barker v. Rogers 
 
 Barnard v. Wieland 
 
 Barnewell v. Iremonger 
 Barraclough v. Green- \ 
 
 hough J 
 
 Bartlett v. Bartlett 
 
 — V. Wood 
 
 Barton v. Barton 
 
 — V. Cooke 
 
 Basevi v. Serra 
 
 Bateman v. Maigerison . . 
 
 Bates V. Eley 
 
 Bath V. Bell 
 
 Bayliss ?•. Watkins 
 
 Beaney v. Elliott 
 
 Bear v. Smith 
 
 Beardmore v. Gregory . . , 
 
 Beauchamp (Earl) v. \ 
 
 Marq. of Huntley .../ 
 
 Beaumont i\ Oliveira ... 
 
 Bedford v. Leigh 
 
 Belcher v. Belcher 
 
 Bell V. Alexander 
 
 — V. Bell 
 
 — V. Turner 
 
 Bennett v. Baxter 
 
 — V. Bowen 
 
 — V. Moore 
 
 Bentall r . Sharp 
 
 Bentley I'. Bentley 
 
 Berkeley v. Mason 
 
 Berry r. Gaukrogcr 
 
 — r. Gibbons 
 
 authorised 
 Reports. 
 
 i Ch. 445 
 
 — V. Hebblethwaite 
 Bestwick, Err parte 
 
 Law 
 
 Jol'RN.^L. 
 
 (New Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 38 Ch. 385 
 
 48 Ch. 628 
 
 61 Ch. 225 
 
 40 Ch. 791 j25, 202 
 
 27 Ch. 417 ol, O.S. 
 
 W. K '80, 99 
 5DeG.&Sm.92 
 2 H. & M. 491 
 
 Jac. 546 
 
 4 Ch. 309 
 2 Dick. 707 
 2 Dr. & Sm. 44 J 
 6 Ha. 543 
 
 2 C. D."'409 
 10 Sim. 417 
 20 C. D. 538 
 I C. D. 692 
 
 (Seton, 320) 
 
 1 N. R. 390 
 19 Eq. 467 
 \N. N. '82, 64 
 15 Eq. 150 
 
 8 Ch. 747 
 t K. & J. 80 
 
 2 C. D. 485 
 
 39 Ch. 204 
 49 Ch. 614 
 
 2 Dr. & Sm. 259 34 Ch. 156 
 
 13 C. D. 304 i 
 12 C. D. 268 
 
 5 Eq. 175 
 12 Eq. 570 
 
 6 H. L. C. 616 
 
 8 Sim. 25 
 5 Sim. 380 
 
 9 Eq. 103 
 
 14 C. D. 374 
 
 2 Eq. 366 
 
 12 C. D. 534 
 
 7 Ha. 19 
 
 W. N. '82, 103 
 1 Dr. & Sm. 255 
 
 L. R. 2 Q. B. 612 
 
 4 Ha. 631 
 
 3 K. kS. 512 
 
 5 Ves. 461 
 14 Ves. 313 
 
 6 Ha. 496 
 
 1 C. D.'473 
 
 Law Times. 
 
 (New Series 
 unle.ss other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 20, 152 
 
 11, 263 
 
 41, 743 
 
 41, 157 
 17, 376 
 
 36Q.B. 251 
 30 Cii. 614 
 
 45 Ch. 270 
 
 32 cii. 106 
 
 21 cii. 176 
 34 Ch. 392 
 
 38 Ch. 239 
 
 33 Ch. 384 
 45 Ch. 681 
 9 Ch. 137 
 •il Ch. 825 
 45 Ch. 275 
 
 U Ch. 554 
 
 42 Ch. 23] 
 12 Ch. 89 
 
 15 Bk. 14.^ 
 
 62 
 
 21, 632 
 42, 763 
 
 14, 884 
 
 41, 201 
 
 14, 899 
 4, 692 ' 
 
 34, 50 
 
 39, 422 
 
 12, 264 
 20, 53 
 
 9, 643 
 47, 114' 
 7, 8I9" 
 
 :9, 88 
 
 i2, O.S., 9 
 
 !4, 784 
 
 Weekly 
 Reporter. 
 
 17, 900 
 
 Jurist. 
 
 (Old Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) . 
 
 4, N.S., 19 
 
 10,N.S.,1092 
 
 13, 1 
 
 28, 403 
 27, 909 
 16, 272 
 19,1077 
 
 6, 410 i4, N.S., 
 
 18, 185 
 28, 914 
 
 137 
 
 491 
 
 27, 894 
 
 30, 947 
 
 8, 740 
 
 4, 934 
 
 9, 817 
 
 2, 607 
 24, 424 
 
 3, N.S., 
 
 9, N.S., 570 
 
 1 
 
 13, 
 
 674 
 
 17, 
 
 269 
 
 13^ 
 
 913 
 
 12, 
 
 230 
 
 24, 
 
 451 
 
 24, 
 
 690 
 
 23, 
 
 687 
 
 21^ 
 
 '754 
 
 24^ 
 
 938 
 
 16, 708 
 11, N.S. 
 
 10,'N.S. 
 4, 50 "" 
 
 , 363 
 
 14 
 
 158 
 171 
 164 
 
 82 
 168 
 178 
 
 55 
 106 
 185 
 146 
 
 60 
 
 52 
 
 43, 114, 
 
 117 
 
 19 
 158 
 
 14 
 
 61 
 136 
 128 
 138 
 150 
 
 39 
 131 
 
 91 
 2.3, 139 
 
 99 
 131 
 132- 
 
 39 
 
 82, 84 
 
 176 
 
 9 
 
 71 
 
 37 
 
 126 
 
 129 
 
 126 
 
 22, 191 
 
 18, 68 
 
 n. 
 
 112 
 
 3,6,3.5,41 
 
 99 
 
 96 
 
 56, 58 
 
 154 
 
 172
 
 TARLE OF CASES. 
 
 XV 11 
 
 NAMES OF CASES. 
 
 Beswick v. Orpeu 
 
 Betagh v. Coiicaimou ... 
 
 Belholl V. Abraham 
 
 Beynoii I'. Beynon 
 
 Bick V. Motley 
 
 Birkett, Ee 
 
 Birks V. Alicklethwait ... 
 
 — r. Silverwood 
 
 Birt r. Bart 
 
 Blackett r. Blackett 
 
 Blake r. Blake 
 
 Blakeley v. Blakeley ... 
 
 Bland v. Dauiell 
 
 Blami y. Bell 
 
 Ble\vitt V. Blewitt 
 
 Bluett V Jessop 
 
 Boatwright v. Boatwright 
 
 Bolton V. Powell < 
 
 Authorised 
 Reports. 
 
 — V. Stannard . 
 Bond V. Barnes 
 
 — V. Graham 
 
 Booth V. Hutchinson 
 
 — i\ Lcycester . 
 Bootle V. Bluudell 
 
 Boswell V. Guniey.... 
 
 Bothamley v. Sherson . 
 
 Bourne v. Mole 
 
 Bowen v. Bowen 
 
 Bowyer v. Griffin 
 
 Boyes i'. Cook 
 
 Brackenbur}', Er. 
 
 Bradford v. Nettleship . 
 
 Bradley v. Stelfox 
 
 Braithwaite v. Wallis , 
 Brandon v. Brandon..., 
 Bran white, Ex parte ... 
 
 Bray v. Tofield 
 
 — V. AVest 
 
 Breton i'. Mockett 
 
 Brett V. Carmichael ... 
 
 Brewer ?'. Yorke 
 
 Briant r. Tibbut 
 
 Bridges v. Hinxman... 
 Bridgwater Engineer 
 
 iug Co., Jie 
 
 Bridson v. Smith 
 
 Briggs IK "Wilson 
 
 British M. Investment! 
 
 Co. V. Smart j 
 
 Brook V. Badley 
 
 Brookes v, Stroud 
 
 16 C. D. 202 
 2 Moll. 559 
 
 17 Eq. 24 
 
 W. N. 73, 186 
 
 2 M. & K. 312 
 9 C. D. 576 
 
 14 Eq. ibi 
 22 C. D. 604 
 
 2Sch. & L. 26 
 
 W. N. '67, 169 
 
 7 C. D. 382 
 Younge, 541 
 Tac. 240 
 
 17 Eq. 71 
 
 14 Be. 275 
 2DeG.M.&G.l 
 
 2DeG.r.'&J.387 
 1 Ha. 482 
 
 15 Eq. 30 
 
 3 M. & Cr. 459 
 
 1 Mer. 193 
 
 13 C. D. 136 
 
 20 Eq. 304 
 
 8 Be. 177 
 
 9 Eq. 340 
 
 W. N. '76, 23 
 
 2 P. D. 272 
 
 Law 
 
 JdUKNAL. 
 
 (New Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 50 Ch. 
 43 Cii. 
 
 47 Ch. 
 34 Ch. 
 11 Ch. 
 
 25 
 180 
 
 846 
 362 
 638 
 
 47 Ch. 120 
 43 cii." 12 
 27 Ch. 845 
 
 11 Ch. 
 42 Ch. 
 
 306 
 492 
 
 Law Times. 
 
 (New Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Weekly 
 Reporter. 
 
 ev- \ 
 
 3DeG.J.&S.402 
 21 C. D. 121 
 
 3 N. R. 287 
 
 18 C. D. 551 
 9 Sim. 429 
 W. N. '75, 255 
 35 Be. 340 
 W. N. '66, 103 
 20 C. D. 669 
 
 16 Sim'. "71 
 12 C. D. 181 
 
 5DeG.M.&G.12 
 
 10 Ch. 567 
 
 4 Eq. 106 
 1 Salk. 3 
 
 44 Ch. 589 
 
 39 ciiV 159 
 46 P. b. 42 
 
 52 cii. 15 
 
 48 Ch.' 463 
 50 Ch. 817 
 
 35Ch.369 
 
 48 Ch. 389 
 
 44 Ch. 09,'') 
 37 Ch. 884 
 
 43, 728 
 29, 715 
 
 39, 413 
 13, 31 
 
 27, 18 
 48, 67 
 24, 276 
 
 24, O.S.. 322 
 
 29, 603 
 
 31, O.S.,310 
 
 27, 606" 
 
 33, 150 
 
 33, 778 
 36, 744 
 
 40, 652 
 
 45, 464 
 
 33, 684" 
 14, 247 
 
 46, 289 
 20, 62 
 
 23, O.S., 136 
 32, 849 
 16, 762 
 
 29, 467 
 
 22, 179 
 
 27, 164 
 
 31, 334 
 19, 559 
 
 3, 288 
 
 26, 165 
 
 22^147 
 6, 570 
 21,"il6 
 
 27, 865 
 
 23, 848 
 
 24, 246 
 18, 227 
 
 25, 698 
 10, 264 
 
 (Old Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 1, N.S., 363 
 
 16, 24 
 
 4, N.S., 576 
 
 6, 620 
 
 31, 
 
 '18O 
 
 27', 
 
 646 
 
 30, 
 
 55 
 
 14, 
 
 507 
 
 31, 
 
 109 
 
 17, 
 
 274 
 
 24, 
 
 392 
 
 23, 
 
 800 
 
 16, 
 
 947
 
 XVlll 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 NAMES OF CASES. 
 
 Authorised 
 Reports. 
 
 Law 
 
 Journal. 
 
 (Xew Series 
 unless otlier- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Law Times. 
 
 (New Series 
 unless otlier- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Weekly 
 Reporter. 
 
 Jurist. 
 
 (Old Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Page. 
 
 Brooks ?'. Reynolds ...- 
 Broughton r. Broughton 
 
 1 Bro. C. C. 183 
 
 2 Dick. 603 
 5DeG.M.&G.160 
 
 1 Ke. 275 
 
 4 Pais.s. 126 
 
 2 Coll 620 
 lDeG.&Sm.l44 
 Gilb. 75 
 
 17 Eq. 343 
 1 Ex. D. 425 
 
 12 Eij. 586 
 
 7 Ch. 217 
 
 3 M. & Cr. 683 
 IJ. & H. 332 
 
 9 Eq. 443 
 
 6 H. & N. 93 
 
 14 Be. 33 
 
 1 H. & M. 715 
 
 5 Q. B. D. 88 
 
 3 Ha. 245 
 
 5 Ha. 24 
 
 16 C. D. 198 
 4Ch. 1 
 
 6 Eq. 464 
 
 5 App. Cas. 588 
 
 11 Be. 415 
 lDeG.&Sm.362 
 
 5 H. L. C. 416 
 
 2 Dr. 248 
 
 15 Eq. 79 
 
 12 C. D. 293 
 
 3 Sm. & Gif. 
 369 
 
 1 B. & C. 150 j 
 
 33 Be. 551 
 
 8 Be. 243 
 
 10 Ha. App. 27 
 
 13 Be. 308 
 
 5 C. P. D. 308 
 W. N. '79, 93 
 
 3 C. D. 218 
 McCl. & Y. 307 
 
 4 C. D. 230 
 4DeG.M.&G.798 
 
 I 
 
 1 ■■■ 
 
 25 Ch. 250 
 
 43 cii.' 228 
 
 41 cii. 402 
 
 39 cii.' 544 
 29 Ex. 484 
 
 49Q.B.249 
 
 13 Ch. 169 
 
 49 cii.' 829 
 18 Ch. 39 
 
 23 Ch. 679 
 
 42 Ch. 100 
 
 48 Ch. 691 
 
 26 Ch. 93, 
 353 
 
 1, O.S., K. 
 
 B., 16 
 34 Ch. 96 
 
 14 Ch. 138 
 
 22 Ch. 1038 
 
 20 cii.' 465 
 
 49 C. P. 425 
 
 45 cii." 705 
 
 46 cii." 95 
 
 23 Ch. 233 
 
 29, 872' 
 26, 223' 
 
 22, 263' 
 
 10, 95" 
 
 42, 54 
 
 43, 727" 
 
 19, 47 " 
 43, 227 
 
 20, 797 1 
 12, O.S.,529 
 
 28, 6 "' 
 40, 878 
 28, O.S.,118, 
 197 
 
 i ■■■ 
 10, 519 
 
 42, 538' 
 40, 678 
 
 34, 412 
 
 35, 501" 
 
 22, S.,298 
 
 3, 602 
 
 30," "923 
 
 20, "284 
 
 9, 264 
 
 12,' 571 
 28, 136 
 
 29,' 233 
 
 29,"293 
 
 17, 342, 
 
 837 
 
 3, 597 
 
 2, 325 
 
 21, 166 
 
 27, 835 
 
 i 
 12, 927 
 
 1, 265 
 
 28, 919 
 24^ 874 
 25," "211 
 
 1, N.S., 965 
 
 7, N.S.", 565 
 
 14, 1009 
 
 8, 141 
 
 1 
 
 J - 
 
 3, KS., 38 
 
 9, 418 " 
 
 17, 754 
 
 15, 265 
 
 18, 114' 
 
 81 
 
 147, 148 
 177 
 
 66 
 125 
 114 
 
 32 
 187 
 189 
 117 
 
 89 
 
 49 
 
 72 
 
 181 
 
 183 
 
 25, 106 
 
 155, 167 
 
 81 
 132 
 125 
 
 189 
 
 56 
 
 30, 136 
 
 56 
 
 46 
 
 107 
 178 
 
 ■ 131 
 
 154 
 178 
 
 83 
 
 30 
 32, 33 
 
 32 
 
 92, 108 
 
 14 
 
 30 
 114 
 
 62 
 45, 47 
 9 
 190 
 
 84 
 152 
 
 72 
 
 44 
 
 26 
 
 — V. DeTastet 
 
 — r. Lake 
 
 
 — V. Pittnian 
 
 _ r. Rye 
 
 — V. Shaw 
 
 — r. Stone 
 
 Browne r. Collins 
 
 Brnff I'. Cohbold 
 
 Builgen V. Sage 
 
 Buller r. Withers 
 
 Bunting?'. Marriott 
 
 Bnrch v. Coney 
 
 Burrell I'. Snaith 
 
 Burton v. Roberts 
 
 Bush V. Watkins 
 
 Butlin 1'. Arnold 
 
 Buttou r. Woolwich \ 
 Building Society ... J 
 
 Cafe v. Bent 
 
 
 Campbell v. Campbell ... 
 CaT)ps V. Capps 
 
 Cardell I'. Hawke 
 
 Carniichael v. Gee 
 
 Carne v. Brancker 
 
 Carr v. Henderson 
 
 — V. Ingleby 
 
 Carron L'on Co. v. \ 
 
 Maclaren / 
 
 Carter!'. Sanders 
 
 Gary v. Hills 
 
 Cash V, Parker 
 
 Cast V. Poyser j 
 
 Catherwood v. Chabaud . 
 
 Catley v. Sampson 
 
 Cattell ■!'. Simons 
 
 Chaffers v. Headlam 
 
 Chalmers r. Laurie 
 
 Chapman r. Chapman ... 
 
 — V. Knight 
 
 — I'. Mason 
 
 Charter v. Charter 
 
 Cheetham 1'. Crook 
 
 Chester?' Phillips 
 
 — V Rolfe 
 
 

 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 XIX 
 
 NAMES OF CASES. 
 
 Authorised 
 Reports. 
 
 Law 
 
 Journal. 
 
 (New Serios 
 unless other 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Law Times. 
 
 (Xew Series 
 unless other- 
 wi.se stated.) 
 
 Weekly 
 Reporter 
 
 JURI.ST. 
 
 (Old Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Page. 
 
 Chilton V. Corp. of London 
 
 7 C. D. 735 
 5 Russ. 29 
 
 \V. N. '69, 208 
 
 2 Ph. 161 
 
 W. N. 'Q7, 179 
 21 C. D. 865 
 
 9 Ha. App. 13 
 
 9 Q. B. I). 386 
 
 3 Eq. 368 
 
 10 Sim. 564 
 
 4 C. D. 413 
 
 4 C. D. 625 
 
 3 N. R. 355 
 
 4 Ex. D. 315 
 16 Ves. 321 
 
 4 Ch. 415 
 
 lDeG.J.&S.398 
 
 1 C. D. 690 
 
 2 Ha. 119 
 2 Sim. 365 
 lDeG.&Sm.l31 
 10 Eq. 230 
 
 1 Moll."332 
 31 Be. 330 
 
 5 Russ. 282 
 
 2 Dr. 286 
 21 Be. 497 
 
 L. R. 1 P. & M. 
 193, 288 
 2DeG.M.&G.292 
 1 C. D. 691 
 L. R. 7 H. L. 53 
 16 Eq. 534 
 W. N. 77, 87 
 L. R. 7 H. L. 731 
 
 16 C. D. 8 
 
 1 Ke. 199 
 
 8 Ch. 295 
 
 19 C. D. 394 
 
 3 Ha. 539 | i 
 
 1 Ex. D. 404 
 Prec. Ch. 83 
 Jac. 514 
 
 9 Be. 530 
 
 2 Sm. & G. 241 
 1 Mac. & G. 664 
 1 H. & Tw. 617 
 
 6 Madd. 114 
 
 47 Ch. 433 
 
 16 Ch.' 119 
 51 cii. 553 
 
 51Q.'b.525 
 36 Ch. 137 
 
 46 ciiV 271 
 46 Ch. 501 
 
 49 E.X.' 9 
 
 45 cii. 749 
 
 16 ChV 251 
 39 Ch. 776 
 
 32 Ch.' 101 
 
 31 cii.' 807 
 
 23 Ch.' 734 
 
 35P.'&'m.78 
 36P.OL21 
 21 Ch. 570 
 45 Ch. 272 
 
 44 Ch. 6 
 42 Ch. 846 
 
 45 Ch.' 605 
 
 50 Ch. 7 
 
 42 cii'.' 417 
 
 51 Ch. 265 
 13 Ch. 461 
 15 Ch. 204 
 45 Ex. 573 
 
 1 19Ch.l07 
 
 1 
 
 38, 498 
 
 46, 851' 
 20, O.'s'., 88 
 15, 385' 
 
 35, 729 
 
 20, 207 
 
 10, 284 
 
 9, 0.s'.',"l21 
 
 22, 836 
 
 7, 522 ' 
 
 23, 0.S'.,86 
 26, O.S.,268 
 
 14, 635 
 
 15, 329 
 
 19, O.S.,119 
 
 30, 409 
 29, 206 
 56, 437 
 29, 596 
 
 43, 399 
 
 28, 2l'8" 
 45, 689 
 
 U, O.S., 517 
 35, 484 
 
 S, O.S.',' 1 
 23, O.S. ,19 
 
 15, O.S.,61 
 
 26, 474 
 
 30, 789 
 2, 331 
 
 I, 48 
 
 15, 251 
 
 25, '224 
 25, 300 
 
 28, "259 
 
 17, 509 
 
 12, 678 
 
 24, 235 
 
 18, 963 
 
 II, 355 
 11, 79 
 
 10," 727 
 
 2, 401 
 4, 268 
 
 14, 975 
 
 15, 286 
 
 24,"235 
 22, 713 
 21, 837 
 
 29, 179 
 
 21^ 234 
 
 30, 141 
 
 25, 116 
 2, 319 
 
 10, N.S., 532 
 
 10, N.S., 531 
 
 11, 362' 
 
 9, N.S.", 294 
 
 8, N.s'.^ 906 
 
 ■■• 1 
 ... i 
 
 S, 844 
 
 10, 236' 
 14, 97 
 
 19 
 156 
 142 
 158 
 182 
 145 
 
 53 
 
 45 
 190 
 4, 37 
 
 34 
 
 25 
 
 172 
 
 150, 158 
 
 80, 184 
 
 44 
 
 78 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 51 
 
 63 
 
 152 
 
 7 
 
 44 
 
 143 
 
 14 
 
 58 
 
 123 
 
 167 
 
 39 
 
 168 
 
 17, 52 
 
 9 
 
 95 
 
 38 
 
 181 
 
 166 
 
 92 
 
 182 
 149 
 171 
 
 146 
 
 189 
 
 32 
 
 14 
 106 
 134 
 
 147 
 
 65 
 
 Christian V. Adamson ... 
 
 — V. Fo.ster 
 
 Chubb r. Carter 
 
 Clare v. Clare 
 
 Clark r. Phillips 
 
 Clarke ('. Clarke 
 
 Clarkson v. Musgrave ... 
 Clegg r. Rowland 
 
 Clough ?'. Dixon 
 
 Clowes V. Hilliard 
 
 Coal Consumers' Asso- ~ 
 
 elation, /& / 
 
 Coatcs v. Coates 
 
 Cobbold r. Prvke 
 
 Cockburn v. Thompson... 
 
 Cocq V. Hunasgeria \ 
 
 Coffee Co j" 
 
 Coheu r. Alcan 
 
 Colebourne v. Colebourne 
 
 Collinson v. Ballard 
 
 Cullis V. Collis 
 
 — V. Robins 
 
 Colman v. Turner 
 
 Colyer v. Colyer 
 
 Coneannon v. Cruise 
 
 Consterdine v. Consterdine 
 Cook V. Bolton 
 
 — ■ V. Gregson 
 
 Cooke V. Gittings 
 
 Coombs r. Coombs \ 
 
 Coope V. Carter 
 
 Cooper V. Blissett 
 
 — V. Cooper 
 
 Coote V. Whittington . . . 
 Cope's Trusts, Re 
 
 Corser v. Cartv^right 
 
 Costa Rica, Rep. of, v. 
 Strousberg 
 
 Coster r. Coster 
 
 Cottcrell V. Stratton 
 
 Couldery v. Bartrum 
 
 Courtenay v. Williams ... 
 
 Cousins y. Lombard Bank? 
 
 Cowslad V. Cely 
 
 Cox 1!. Allingham i 
 
 — V. King 
 
 Cradock v. Owen 
 
 — V. Piper \ 
 
 Creak v. Capell 
 
 b 2
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 NAMES OF CASES. 
 
 Jreasor 1!. Robinson 
 
 >ress\vell v. Parker 
 
 ]!rofton v. Crof'ton 
 
 ^roggau V. Allen 
 
 ^ronipton v. Huber 
 
 Jross V. Keniiington 
 
 — V. Maltby 
 
 yrowder v. Stewart 
 
 ;!ro\vle v. Rnssell 
 
 ]!roxton v. May 
 
 ;!rnmlin Viaduct Works \ 
 
 Co., Ee J 
 
 ;!uniberland r. Clark ... 
 
 !!!umming, Be 
 
 — V. Slater 
 
 Dummins i\ Bromfiekl ... 
 
 — V. Cummins ... 
 
 ]!urling V. Austin 
 
 Uutlibert v. Harmby 
 
 - V. ~ ...-1 
 sub nom. Wharmby J 
 
 3anby v. Danby 
 
 — V. Poole 
 
 Daubney v. Leake ] 
 
 davenport v. Stafford 
 
 ])avey t'. Ple.stow 
 
 — V. Ward 
 
 3avid t'. Dalton 
 
 — V. Frowd 
 
 Davies v. Topp 
 
 — V. Williams 
 
 3avis V. Angel | 
 
 — V. Davis 
 
 — V. Flagstaff Min-Y 
 
 ing Co / 
 
 Da wkins v. Mortan 
 
 Dawson v. Kearton 
 
 Day V Batty 
 
 — V. Day 
 
 — V. Whittaker 
 
 Dean v. Morris 
 
 — V. Wilson 
 
 — V. Wright 
 
 De Balinliard v. Bullock 
 De Foucheres v. Dawes.., 
 Do La Salle v. Moorat ... 
 
 Delevante ?'. Childe 
 
 Densem v. Elworthv 
 
 Attthorised 
 Bkports. 
 
 14 Be. 589 
 11 C. D. 601 
 
 15 C. D. 591 
 22 0. D. 101 
 
 II Be. 89 
 
 16 C. D. 368 
 
 4 C. P. D. 186 
 9 C. D. 388 
 
 11 C. D. 755 
 
 Law 
 
 Journal. 
 
 (New Serios 
 unle.ss otlier- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 21 Ch. 64 
 49 Cii.' 689 
 
 50 Ch. 136 
 48 C. P. 76 
 
 48 Ch. 537 
 
 4Ch. 412 
 5DeG.M.&G.30 23 Ch. 261 
 1 Y. & C. C. 484 
 
 3 Jo. & L. 64 
 2 Dr. &Sm. 129 
 13 Eq. 202 
 
 W. N. '69, 12 
 
 35 Be. 311 \ 
 1 Eq. 495 / 
 14 Be. 319 
 2DeG.M.&G.901 
 
 7 C. D."754 
 W. N. 79, 86 
 1 M. & K. 200 
 
 1 Bro. C. C. 525 
 13 C. D. 550 
 
 31 Be. 223 
 4DeG.F.&J.524 
 
 2 Atk. 21 
 
 3 C. P. D. 228 
 
 I Jo. & H. 339 
 3 Sm. & G. 186 
 21 C. D. 830 
 31 Be. 270 
 
 6 C. D. 734 
 
 10 C. D. 136 
 21 C. D. 581 
 9 Ha. App. 13 
 5 Be. 110 
 
 II Eq. 8 
 
 9 Ha. App. 42 
 
 41 Ch. 216 
 
 35 Ch. 347 
 
 19 Ch. 491 
 
 47 Ch. 335 
 
 2 Ch! 68 
 
 49 Ch." 352 
 |31Ch.613 
 
 48 cii." 40 
 
 47 C. P. 503 
 
 25 cii." 166 
 
 31 Ch. 806 
 46 Ch. 680 
 
 48 cii.' 148 
 
 40 Ch. 44 
 
 Law Times. 
 
 (Xew Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 18, O.S., 82 
 40, 599 
 
 47, 437* 
 25, O.S., 43 
 
 39, 320 
 39, 461 
 
 22, O.S 
 
 ,312 
 
 32, O.S., 348 
 
 7, 240 
 
 42, 469 
 
 6, 850, 880 j 
 
 38, 769 
 
 6, 214 
 
 26, O.S.,256 
 
 36, 683 
 
 47, 501 
 
 20, O.S., 189 
 
 23, 479 
 
 1, 397 
 
 20, O.S., 217 
 
 Weekly 
 Reporter. 
 
 27, 897 
 29, 169 
 31, 319 
 3, 347 
 
 8, 646 
 
 29, 331 
 
 27, 84 
 27, 325 
 
 27, 722 
 
 17, 524 
 2, 248 
 
 10, 682 
 
 10, 515 
 14, 413 
 
 26, 390 
 
 10, 685, 
 722 
 
 28, 345 
 
 26, 431 
 
 10, 339 
 
 4, 222 
 
 10, 728 
 25, 767 
 
 5, 345 
 
 27, 377 
 31, 174 
 
 19, 88 
 
 JtlRI 
 
 5T. 
 
 
 (Old Series 
 
 
 mi loss ( 
 
 tlier- 
 
 
 wise stated.) 
 
 
 
 
 39 
 
 
 
 36 
 
 
 
 82, 83 
 
 
 
 136 
 
 1, N.S., 
 
 465 
 
 100 
 
 156 
 
 99 
 
 
 1 
 
 56, 163, 
 
 
 166 
 
 
 
 81 
 
 
 
 182 
 
 
 
 170 
 
 
 
 76 
 
 18, 181 
 
 
 26 
 72 
 
 3, N.S. 
 
 657 
 
 147 
 26 
 
 131 
 46 
 
 102 
 
 5, KS., 
 
 54 
 
 60, 61 
 15 
 
 95, 130 
 51, 132 
 
 14, 388 
 
 
 76 
 
 57 
 
 21 
 
 113, 120 
 
 168 
 
 187 
 
 8, N.S. 
 1024 
 
 709, 
 
 |24, 25 
 
 99 
 
 77, 78 
 
 187 
 88, 90 
 
 2, N.S., 
 
 113 
 
 173 
 93, 95 
 
 8, N.S., 
 
 1166 
 
 196 
 
 192 
 
 158 
 
 124 
 
 28 
 
 44 
 
 32, 33 
 
 7 
 
 6, N.S., 
 
 118 
 
 5 
 43
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 NAMES OF CASES. 
 
 Authorised 
 Rehokts. 
 
 L.wv 
 
 JuUKNAL. 
 
 (New Series 
 unle.ss other- 
 wise .stated.) 
 
 Law Times. 
 
 (Xew Series 
 luiless otlier- 
 wisc stated.) 
 
 Weekly 
 Reporter. 
 
 Jurist. 
 
 (Old Series 
 unless otlier- 
 wise stilted.) 
 
 Page. 
 
 Dewdney, Ex parte 
 
 Dickenson v. Teasdale . . . 
 
 Dickhis V. Harris 
 
 Dicks V. Yates 
 
 15 Ves. 479 
 lDeG.J.&S.52 
 W. N. '66, 93 
 18 C. D. 76 
 
 9 C. D. 243 
 31 Be. 423 
 2DeG.F.&J.566 
 
 1 Y. & C. C. 265 
 
 3 Bro. C. C. 509 
 
 4 Madd. 392 
 
 7 Ad. & El. 240 
 
 16 Q. B. 620 
 
 16 Be. 26 
 
 2 Bro. C. C. 257 
 9 Ha. App. 32 
 15 C. B. 142 
 
 4 Bing. 686 j 
 
 18 Be. 74 
 
 1 R. & M. 231 
 W. N. 72, 150 
 
 19 C. D. 61 
 9 C. D. 294 
 
 5 Be. 578 
 
 32 Cii.' 37 
 
 50 Ch.' 809 
 
 47 Ch. 761 
 
 30 Ch." 268 
 
 20Q.B. 480 
 
 23 C.'P. 221 
 
 6,0.S.,C.P. 
 
 157 
 
 48 Ch.' 23 
 
 12 cii. 189 
 45 cii. 612 
 
 50 Ch. 740 
 37 Ch. 503 
 
 26 Ch. 614 
 
 7, 655 " 
 14, 98 
 
 44, 660 
 38, 794 
 
 3, 605" 
 
 23, O.'s'., 144 
 
 } ;;; 
 
 27, 731 " 
 38, 828" 
 
 41, 672' 
 35, 27" 
 
 45, 196 
 
 33, 338" 
 
 21, O.'s"., 263 
 6, 151 
 
 2, 744" 
 
 35, 900 
 2, 559 
 
 41, 565 
 
 26, '730 
 9, 238 
 
 1, 36' 
 
 2, 480 
 
 20, 1024 
 30, 601 
 
 27, 241 
 
 24, 700 
 
 27, 376 
 
 29, 877 
 24, '39 
 1, 504 
 17, 900 
 
 8, 660 
 
 24, 417 
 
 25, 211 
 
 28, '127 
 24, 317 
 
 9,N.s!',60,237 
 
 7, N.s'.i 56 
 
 15, 677 
 
 8, N.S'.', 329 
 2, 583'" 
 
 109, 173 
 165 
 
 37 
 150 
 
 90 
 155 
 166 
 137 
 
 97 
 125 
 
 14 
 
 15 
 
 36 
 
 164, 165 
 
 42,43,47 
 
 14 
 
 32 
 
 66 
 
 33, 34 
 71, 122 
 
 127 
 
 34, 35 
 105 
 113 
 
 80 
 
 74 
 167 
 177 
 
 21 
 192 
 
 36 
 122 
 190 
 123 
 
 61 
 142, 143 
 
 46 
 127 
 
 91 
 
 119 
 26 
 22 
 92 
 
 58 
 
 82 
 131 
 169 
 8, 9 
 158 
 
 Dickson v. Harrison 
 
 Dighton -y. Withers 
 
 Dilkes ?'. Broadmead ... 
 Dimsdale i'. Budding ... 
 Dixon V. Dixon 
 
 — V. Wvatt 
 
 Doe rf. Bassett t'. Mew... 
 
 — d. Aslilnirnham v. ) 
 
 Michael ... | 
 
 Donald I'. Bather 
 
 Donne v. Lewis 
 
 Doody V. Higcins 
 
 Dorrett V. Meux 
 
 Douglas V. Forrest 
 
 Douthwaite v. Spensley . 
 Dove V. Everard 
 
 Dowbiggin v. Trotter ... 
 Dowd V. Hawtin 
 
 Dowdeswell v. Do wdeswell 
 
 Drever v. JMaudesley 
 
 Drewry v. 'J'hacker 
 
 Dryden v. Foster 
 
 5 Russ. 11 
 3 Sw. 538 
 
 6 Be. 146 
 
 W. N. 79, 206 
 16 Be. 204 
 3 C. D. 512 
 W. N. 79, 12 
 
 18 C. D. 347 
 
 W. N. '68, 121 
 
 5 Madd. 31 
 10 Ha. App. 63 
 
 3 Giff. 434 
 
 4 Ch. 448 
 
 L. R. 7 H. L. 39 
 
 24 Be. 137 
 
 1 Sch. & Lef. 1 
 3 Bro. C. C. 624 
 
 2 Ha. 621 
 
 7 C. D. 733 
 
 W. N. 76, 299 
 
 Duignan v. Croonie 
 
 Duncan v. Watts 
 
 Dymond ■)'. Croft 
 
 Dyson V. Pickles 
 
 Eames v. Hacon 
 
 Earle v. Sidebottom 
 
 Eccles t'. Eccles 
 
 Edmunds v. Acland 
 
 Edwards v. Edwards 
 
 Eglin V. Sanderson 
 
 Egremont v. Thompson . 
 EiH'e t\ Hilliard 
 
 Electric T. Co. of Ire- \ 
 
 land. Re J 
 
 Ellis V. Ellis 
 
 Elmslie v. Mc Aulay 
 
 Eltoft V. Brown 
 
 Esgair, &c., Co. Re 
 
 European Assurance Co. ' 
 V. Eadcliffe j" 
 
 Eustaces. Lloyd 
 
 Evans v. Lewis 
 
 13 C. D. 252 49 Bk. 7 
 
 — , Ex jiM'te 
 
 Eyre v. Cox 
 
 4 M. & Cr. 231 
 
 46 Ch. 316 
 
 — V. Llarsden 

 
 Xll 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 NAMES OF CASES. 
 
 Authorised 
 Reports. 
 
 IjAW 
 Journal. 
 
 (New Series 
 unless otlier- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Law Times. 
 
 (New Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Weekly 
 Reporter. 
 
 Jurist. 
 
 (Old Series 
 unless otlier- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Page. 
 
 ■"allows v. Lord Dillon, 
 ^arquharson r. Floyer ... 
 "'arrell v. Smith 
 
 3 C. D. 109 
 
 2 B. & B. 337 
 18 C. D. 58 
 22 C. D. 579 
 
 6 Madd. 3 
 
 7 C. D. 33 
 
 14 Eq. 379 
 
 lSim.,N.S.,218 
 12 C. D. 735 
 
 2 Ke. 610 
 
 W. N. '79, 103 
 3DeG.M.&G.976 
 Kay, A pp. 52 
 5 Mddd. 423 
 
 4 Ha. 309 
 29 Be. 295 
 
 1 Bro. C. C. 274 
 
 9 Be. 410 
 
 20 C. D. 134 
 
 10 Ha. 217 
 
 10 Eq. 545 
 
 1 Sim., N.S., 20(1 
 
 3 Mac. & G. 500 
 
 2 Giff. 226 
 (Bacon ,V.-C.'82) 
 
 8 C. D. 148 
 
 3 Mer. 29 
 3DeG.F.&J.295 
 18 C. D. 499 
 2DeG. J.&S.70 
 
 4 Be. 76 
 
 5 C. D. 540 
 
 3 K. & J. 317 
 24 Be. 217 
 26 Be. 600 
 2DeG. &J. 125 
 
 W. F. '82, 92 
 
 20 Be. 469 
 
 1 Be. 527 
 
 6 Sim. 504 
 3 Ha. 438 
 
 12 C. D. 771 
 
 2 Be. 346 
 2 Ha. 413 
 W. N. '78, 91 
 W. N. '74, 207 
 
 11 C. D. 891 
 
 7 Ch. 646 
 
 2 Ch. Cas. 198 
 
 45 Cii. 750 
 
 47 Ch.' 191 
 41 Ch. 640 
 
 20 Ch. 328 
 
 7 Ch!"l76 
 22 Ch'.' 886 
 
 30 Ch.' 486 
 
 15 cii. 261 
 51 Ch. 461 
 22 Ch. 548 
 
 21 Ch.' 121 
 
 47 Ch. 560 
 
 31 Ch.' 216 
 50 Ch. 801 
 
 28 Ch. 398 
 
 29 Ch. 324 
 
 48 Ch.' 644 
 
 8 Chr369 
 3 Ch. 159 
 
 48 Ch." 763 
 7 Ch. 2 
 
 48 Ch.' 657 
 41 Ch. 732 
 
 23, 
 35, 
 
 45, 
 
 48, 
 
 •37, 
 
 39, 
 
 22, 
 23, 
 
 4, 
 
 46, 
 
 18, 
 ■2, 
 
 5, 
 
 44, 
 
 9, 
 
 36, 
 
 46, 
 
 41, 
 40, 
 
 O.S., 154 
 355 
 
 227' 
 154 
 
 373 
 
 662' 
 
 O.'S., 8 
 O.S., 252 
 
 78 ■" 
 
 70" 
 O.S., 190 
 
 O.s!, 113 
 368 
 
 514 " 
 
 398 
 668 
 
 441 
 
 848 
 82 
 
 is" 
 
 663 
 
 88 
 
 2, 507 
 
 30, 50 
 
 31, 318 
 
 26, 139 
 
 27, 352 
 
 2, 643 
 
 9, 294 
 
 30, '374 
 1, 118 
 18, 1065 
 
 8, 492 
 
 26, 689 
 
 10, 184 
 30, 1 
 12, 285 
 
 25, 528 
 5, 552 
 
 27, 935 
 
 23, '71 
 
 27, 843 
 
 20, 762 
 
 -f 
 15, 121 
 
 18, 1112 
 
 7, N.S.', 324 
 10, 484" 
 
 17, 228' 
 
 15, 73" 
 15, 1019 
 6, N.S., 1189 
 
 3, N.s!^ 485 
 5, N.S.', 1046 
 
 8, 396 " 
 
 4, 166 
 
 ... 
 
 131, 157 
 
 165 
 
 37 
 
 140. 149 
 
 165 
 
 139 
 
 157 
 
 55, 152, 
 
 166 
 
 105 
 
 192 
 
 158, 165 
 
 163 
 
 165 
 
 131 
 
 123 
 
 111, 133 
 
 35 
 
 182 
 
 16 
 
 88 
 
 175 
 
 164 
 
 167 
 
 132 
 
 81 
 
 37 
 
 68 
 
 64 
 
 30, 42 
 
 165 
 
 71 
 
 71, 76 
 
 9 
 
 5 
 
 140 
 
 109 
 
 19, 71 
 
 144 
 
 124 
 
 76, 84 
 
 52 
 
 18 
 130 
 
 23 
 147 
 151 
 
 69 
 160 
 178 
 
 108 
 
 24 
 
 ^arrow v, Austin 
 
 ^earnside v. Flint 
 
 ^"enner V. Taylor 
 
 ^enton v. Wills 
 
 ^'erguson v. Gibson 
 
 ■•"ield V. Titmuss 
 
 ■''inlay v. Davis 
 
 ?isher v. Fisher 
 
 — V. Shirley 
 
 ^'leming I'. Buchanan ... 
 — V, East 
 
 — V. Prior 
 
 Flintoff V. Haynes 
 
 Flood t;. Patterson 
 
 Foley v. Burnell 
 
 Ford v. Bryant 
 
 fordham v. Clagett 
 
 — V. Wallis 
 
 Forrest r. Prespott 
 
 Foster V. Handley 
 
 Fowler v. lleyn al 
 
 — V. Roberts 
 
 Eraser v. Do\vbiggin 
 
 Freeman v. Cox 
 
 — V. Fairlie 
 
 — V. Pennington . 
 Freme v. Clement 
 
 Frost V. Ward 
 
 Frowd V. Baker 
 
 Fryer v. Royle 
 
 — , Ee 
 
 Fuller V. Green 
 
 — V. Redman 
 
 Furze v. Hennet 
 
 jAGR v. Rutland 
 
 jrardner v. Beaumont . . . 
 
 — V. GaiTett 
 
 Grarland V. Littlewood ... 
 Grarrett V. Noble 
 
 
 Glatti 1'. Webster 
 
 3^aunt V. Taylor 
 
 
 "lawthorpe v. Gawthorpe 
 Gree V. Mahood 
 
 
 Greneral Rolling Stock ^ 
 
 Co., He J 
 
 "iibbons t'. Dawley
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 NAMES OP CASES. 
 
 Gilbert v. Lee 
 
 — V. Smith 
 
 Gillespie v. Alexander . . 
 
 Gill's Case 
 
 Gisborne v. Gi;sborne ... 
 
 Glass V. Oxeiiham 
 
 Gledhill r. Hunter 
 
 Glover v. Elli.son 
 
 Godfreys. Harben 
 
 Golden V. Newton 
 
 Golder v. Golder 
 
 Goldsmid v. Stonehewer 
 
 Good, Ex 2Mrte 
 
 Goodchild V. Terrett 
 
 Goodrich v. ilarsh 
 
 Gough V. Bult 
 
 Gouldsmith v. Luntley... 
 Governesses' B. Inst. v. \ 
 
 Rusbridger / 
 
 Gowan v. Hroughton 
 
 Grace v. Terrington 
 
 Graham v. Keble 
 
 Authorised 
 Reports. 
 
 V. Maxwell 
 
 Grant v. Grant ... 
 Graves v. Hicks... 
 
 — V. Wright 
 
 Gray v. Gray 
 
 Great Britain Mutual 1 
 Life Ass. Soc. , Re ... j 
 
 Greedy r. Lavender 
 
 Green r. Badley 
 
 — V. Cole])y 
 
 — r. Measures 
 
 Greenwood?'. Penny 
 
 Greig r. Somerville 
 
 Gresham v. Price 
 
 Grifhths v. Hamilton ... 
 Groves i\ Groves 
 
 — V. Lane 
 
 Guidici ?'. Kinton 
 
 Gunnell «•. AVliitear 
 
 Guthrie?'. Walrond 
 
 G wyer r. Petersen 
 
 Hagell v. Carrie ... 
 Haldane v. Eckford 
 
 Hales V. Morris 
 
 Hall V. Austin 
 
 — r. Hallet 
 
 Halliley v. Henderson 
 
 34 Be. 574 
 ■2 C. D. 686 
 3 Russ. 130 
 
 12 C. D. 755 
 
 ■2 App. Cas. 300 
 2 Atk. 121 
 14 C. D. 492 
 W. N. 72, 34 
 
 13 C. D. 216 
 Johns. 720 
 
 9 Ha. 276 
 
 9 Ha. App. 38 
 
 14 C. D. 82 
 
 5 Be. 398 
 
 W. N. '78, 186 
 16 Sim. 323 
 W. N. '75, 97 
 
 18 Be. 467 
 
 19 Eq. 77 
 Coll. 3 
 
 2 Dow, 17 
 
 I Mac. & G. 71 \ 
 1H.&TW.247/ 
 
 34 Be. 623 
 
 II Sim. 551 
 
 1 C. & L. 267 
 
 2 Dr. & W. 77 
 13 Ir. Ch. 404 
 
 19 C. D. 39 
 
 11 Be. 417 
 7 Be. 274 
 
 1 C. D. 693 
 W. K '66, 122 
 
 12 Be. 403 
 
 1 R. & M. 338 
 
 35 Be. 47 
 12 Yes. 298 
 Kay, App. 19 
 
 6 Be. 517 
 
 10 P:q. 664 
 W. N. '74, 99 
 26 Be. 83 
 
 2 Ch. 449 
 
 W. N. '66, 50 
 W. N. '79, 80 
 (Kav, J., 1882) 
 2 Coll. 570 
 1 Cox, 134 
 
 Law 
 Journal. 
 
 (New Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 12, 818 
 45 Ch. 514 35, 43 
 
 (New Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 I Weekly 
 Repoeter, 
 
 48 Ch. 
 46 Ch. 
 
 49 Cii.' 
 41 Ch. 
 49 Ch. 
 
 22 Ch.' 
 22 Ch. 
 49 Bk. 
 
 774 
 556 
 
 333 
 
 288 
 3 
 
 154 
 109 
 49 
 
 41, 21 
 36, 564 
 
 43, 392 
 
 26, 234 
 
 1, 541 " 
 
 20, O.S., 202 
 
 42, 450 
 
 17 Ch. 486 
 
 32, 535 
 
 44 Ch. 275 31, 533 
 
 18 Ch. 225 
 
 34 Ch. 
 10 Ch. 
 
 51 Ch. 
 18 Ch. 
 
 641 
 185 
 
 45 Ch. 303 
 
 23 Ch. 199 
 39 Ch. 869 
 
 36 Ch. 448 
 
 15 ciiV 384 
 
 12, 721 
 
 45, 554 
 
 12, O.S., 266 
 
 22, O.S., 184 
 
 22, 645 
 
 29, 377 
 
 16, 307 
 14, 14 
 
 7, O.S., 279 
 31, O.S., 9 
 
 13, 1012 
 24, 568 
 
 27, 934 
 25, 516 
 
 28, 530 
 20, 408 
 28, 73 
 8, 256 
 
 28, 553 
 
 23, 332 
 
 13, 1057 
 
 30, 145 
 
 24, 246 
 
 2, 86 
 
 18, 883 
 22, 723 
 
 15, 605 
 14, 306 
 
 (OklS.ries 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 11,N.S.,899| '^^^\}^^' 
 
 { 
 
 13, 217 
 
 11, N.S., 7S7 
 5, 674 
 
 11, 958 
 
 9, 421 
 
 16, 1061 
 
 10, 452 
 
 4, N.S.', 202
 
 :.\iv 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 NAMES OF CASES. 
 
 authori.skd 
 Reports. 
 
 Law 
 jouiinal. 
 (New Scries 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Law Timks. 
 
 (New Scries 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Weekly 
 
 REPORTEn. 
 
 .Uiusr. 
 
 (Old Scries 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Page. 
 
 Haly r. \]a\ry 
 
 3 Ch. 452 
 
 3DeG.'J!&S.97 
 5 Ha. 212 
 
 2 S. & S. 196 1 
 
 2C. D.'"628 
 IOC. D. 372 
 W. N. '83, 7 
 8 C. D. 154 
 28 Be. 325 
 10 Eq. 683 
 
 20 Eq. '471 
 1 Russ. 155 
 
 8 Ve-s. 106 
 lDeG.F.&J.13 
 
 1 P. Wms. 241 
 
 2 J. & W. 563 
 
 1 Ch. 473 
 
 16 Be. 140 
 
 4 Eq. 13 
 
 W. N. '75, 22 
 
 4 Be. 215 
 14 Eq. 438 
 
 2 Sm. ..t G. 147 
 
 3 C. D. 148 
 
 5 Madd. 17 
 
 Kay, App. 31 
 
 19 C. D. 326 
 
 1 Ph. 600 
 
 2 Eq. 532 
 
 9 C. D. 469 
 9 Eq. 451 
 
 3 Ch. 420 
 
 3 Ha. 485 
 
 9 Be. 11 
 
 10 C. D. 162 
 W. N. '75, 186 
 7 Be. 348 
 
 Jac. 49 
 
 13 C. D. 236 
 
 6 Ves. 738 
 
 17 C. D. 342 
 1 N. R. 341 
 
 4 K. &j'. 166 
 4 C. D. 389 
 
 4 Be. 597 
 17 C. D. 151 
 
 37 Ch. 723 
 
 3, O.S.",Cli. 
 
 110 
 28 Ch. 873 
 
 ... 
 47 cii 671 
 
 18, 491 
 
 \ ••• 
 
 32, O.S., 330 
 
 39, 285' 
 
 16, 654 
 
 24, I'bsi 
 27, 20 
 
 26, 736 
 8, 512 
 18, 1083 
 
 23, 789 
 
 10, '31 
 
 14, '823 
 
 15, 527 
 
 2, 242 
 
 2, 332 
 30, 72 
 
 14, 908 
 
 26, 885 
 
 16, 162 
 
 27, 393 
 
 24, 51 
 
 28, '499 
 
 25, '275 
 25, 161 
 
 29, 500 
 
 3, N.S'.', 686 
 
 5, N.S., 190 
 
 6, N.S.', 906 
 17, 436" 
 
 ... 
 
 12, n!s., 871 
 
 10, 21 " 
 
 9, N.Sr, 527 
 
 81 
 
 60, 62 
 
 37 
 
 90 
 
 10 
 
 157 
 178 
 120 
 145 
 163 
 148 
 186 
 
 12 
 
 159 
 
 145 
 
 164, 165 
 
 70 
 70, 71 
 
 33 
 
 82 
 126 
 113 
 
 16 
 122 
 
 44 
 164 
 112 
 178 
 
 70 
 
 88, 92 
 
 90 
 
 143 
 
 152, 153, 
 
 154 
 
 163 
 
 99 
 
 157, 165 
 
 154 
 
 42 
 
 18, 68 
 142 
 144 
 
 22 
 114 
 
 13 
 107, 173 
 
 97 
 190 
 
 55 
 139 
 
 64 
 165 
 
 laiiioiid r. "Walker 
 
 lamp i'. RobiiKSou 
 
 iaiidford v. Handford ... 
 
 — V. Storie 
 
 laTidley v. Davis 
 
 lankin v. Kilburn 
 
 — r. Turner 
 
 laimay r. Basham 
 
 Hai'bin ?'. Darby 
 
 29 Ch. 622 [2, 531 
 
 !22, 776 
 22 Ch. 640 
 44 Ch 512 '^^ 947 
 
 Hares ?' Lea 
 
 ^argi-aves V. White 
 
 larloe r. Harloe 
 
 Harnier v. Harris 
 
 29 cii.' 38 
 35 ciiV 677 
 
 41 Ch." 698 
 24 Ch. 22 
 
 23 Ch. 549 
 
 51 Ch. 225 
 11 Ch. 171 
 
 48 Ch. 147 
 39 Ch. 524 
 37 Ch. 97 
 
 15 Ch. 58 
 
 48 Ch. 171 
 
 49 cii'.' 192 
 
 50 ciiV 470 
 
 46 Ch.' 43 
 50 cii'.' 364 
 
 15, 137" 
 
 32, 52"'" 
 
 27, 471' 
 
 22, O.S., 280 
 
 22, O.S., 345 
 45, 455 
 
 14, 752 
 
 39, 53 
 21, 784 
 17, 394 
 
 33, 659' 
 
 42, 383' 
 
 44, 730" 
 8, 220 
 
 32, O.'S. /I 
 35, 750 
 
 ^armood V. Oglander ... 
 Harris 1'. Gandy 
 
 — V. Lightfoot 
 
 Harrison v. Graham 
 
 — V. Gurney 
 
 — V. Richards 
 
 Flartwell ?'. Colvin 
 
 Harvey v. Bradley 
 
 — V. Coxwell 
 
 — V Harvey 
 
 — V. Wilde 
 
 Hatch V. Searles 
 
 Hatton r. May 
 
 Hawkes i'. Barrett 
 
 Hay ward v. Hay ward \ 
 or Price... j 
 
 Heatley v. Newton 
 
 Heighington t'. Grant ... 
 
 Henderson v. Dodds 
 
 Pleuley & Co., i?e 
 
 Henshaw r. Angell 
 
 Ilepworth v. Heslop 
 
 Hertford, M. of, v. De ) 
 
 ^ichy i 
 
 Hetherington v. Longrigg 
 Heufh ■?' Scard 
 
 Hewett ?'. Foster 
 
 Heyn v. Heyn 
 
 Hicks 7'. May 
 
 
 — V. KinsT 
 
 — V. Persse 
 
 — ?'. AValker 
 
 Hilliard r. Fiilford 
 
 Hinde v. Blake 
 
 Hinsley r. Ickeringill ..
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 NAMES OF CASES. 
 
 AT'THOniSF.D 
 KkI'DRTS. 
 
 Law 
 
 Journal. 
 
 (New Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Law Times. 
 
 (New Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stilted.) 
 
 Weekly 
 Reporter. 
 
 Jurist. 
 
 (Old Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Pace. 
 
 Hipkiiis ?'. Hildick 
 
 11 C. D.'278 
 10 Eq. 471 
 
 3 Salk. 154 
 
 1 Ld. Ray. 154 
 
 4 Ad. & E. 646 
 
 14 Be. 492 
 
 19 C. D. 516 
 
 1 C. D. 90 
 
 1 Ch. 320 
 
 6 C. D."281 
 
 2 H. & M. 43 
 
 1 C. D. 535 
 
 2 Dr. & Sm. 236 
 
 8DcG.M...tG.325 
 lDeG.J.&:S.617 
 
 W. N. '66, 105 
 
 1 Ha. 486 
 
 20 Be. 395 
 T. ic R. 307 
 
 3 Ha. 119 
 
 6 Madd. 331 
 1 P. Wms. 752 
 3 P. Wms. 349 
 20 C. D. 365 
 3 Taunt. 113 
 
 3 (iiff. 214 
 
 4 E.x. D. 256 
 6 C. D. 692 
 
 1 C. D. 11 
 
 32 Be. 661 
 
 24 Be. 525 
 
 25 Be. 632 
 
 10 Ha. App. 30 
 
 1 J. & W. 229 
 19 Eq. 96 
 17 Eq. 341 
 
 \ 
 
 ] ■" 
 
 21 Ch. 722 
 51 Ch. 208 
 
 45 Ch. 99 
 
 23 cii'.' 10 
 
 46 Ch. 817 
 
 32 Ch. 686 
 
 25 cii." 341 
 32 Ch. 788 
 
 35 Ch. 402 
 11 cii'.' 297 
 
 ... 
 51 Ch. 683 
 
 31 cii'.' 432 
 48 Ex. 689 
 
 45 cii'.' 79 
 
 32 cii'.' 813 
 
 43 cii'.' 280 
 25 Ch. 343 
 
 44, 547 
 23, 335" 
 
 6, 374 
 
 33, 499 
 14, 117 
 22, O.S., 
 
 35, 935 
 
 10, 93 
 
 34, 633 
 
 45, is'e" 
 
 27, O.S. , 
 9, 184 
 
 14, 616 
 
 11, 76"i' 
 
 46, 399' 
 
 5, 46 "" 
 41, 142 
 
 36, 173 
 33, 337 
 
 25, O.S. 
 9, 361"" 
 32, O.S. 
 
 27, O.s". 
 
 115 
 61 
 
 , 43 
 141 
 
 , 33 
 
 29, 733 
 18, 1015 
 
 30, 120 
 
 10, 457 
 
 24, 1.52 
 14, 489 
 2, 47 
 
 25, 779 
 12, 546 
 
 24, 592 
 
 11, 585 
 
 29, 885 
 
 11, 1050 
 14, 553 
 
 30, 527 
 
 27, 637 
 
 25, 452 
 
 9, 649 
 
 12, 65 
 
 6, 853 
 
 23, "43 
 4, 401 
 
 12, N.S., 284 
 9, N.S., 634 
 
 169 
 
 171 
 
 34 
 
 13 
 
 79 
 
 16, 133 
 
 89 
 
 88 
 
 16 
 82 
 
 27, 39 
 149 
 
 72 
 
 28, 48, 
 125, 142, 
 
 149 
 132 
 142 
 
 99 
 
 175 
 
 93, 95, 
 
 119, 130 
 
 100 
 
 13 
 147 
 165 
 114 
 
 12, 42 
 14 
 27 
 39 
 50 
 
 13, 27 
 109 
 
 37, 116 
 
 191, 192 
 
 77 
 
 181 
 
 125 
 
 65 
 
 5.5, 158 
 
 146 
 
 68 
 
 76 
 157 
 146 
 
 34 
 124 
 
 Hitcheu t' Birks 
 
 Hoe V. Nelthorpe or i 
 
 Natliorp ... I 
 
 HoUingsworth v. Brodrick 
 
 — V. Shake- / 
 
 shaft \ 
 
 Holloway r. Cheston 
 
 Home Counties, &c., ) 
 
 Co., Re \ 
 
 Hooper?'. Smart 
 
 Hoiie I'. Carnegie 
 
 
 Hoskius' Trusts, Ee 
 
 — V. Campbell ... 
 
 Houseman v. Houseman 
 
 Howard v. Chaffers 
 
 — V. Easton 
 
 Howell?'. Kightley 
 
 Howells ?'. Jenkins 
 
 Hubbard v. Latham 
 
 Hudson i< Carmichael ... 
 
 r 
 ... 1 
 
 18, 851 
 6, 455 
 
 — V K e V 
 
 — V. Wynne 
 
 11, N 
 
 1, N.J 
 7, N.t 
 
 "S., 151 
 ^., 440 
 
 >.. nsi 
 
 Hull?'. Falconer 
 
 
 Hume?'. Rundell 
 
 Humphreys v. Ingledon 
 — ?'. Humphreys 
 
 Hunt ?'. Chambers 
 
 — ?'. Stevens 
 
 Hunter?'. Ba.xter 
 
 — r. Young 
 
 Hutchin son v. ^Vard 
 
 Hutley, Ee 
 
 I BBF.nsoN ?'. Warth 
 
 Inchley ?'. Allsop 
 
 1 ugle 1'. Pa itridge 
 
 3, N.S.',' 1314 
 
 2, N.S.", 224 
 2, N.S.. 436 
 
 Irby ?'. Irby 
 
 
 Isaacs V. Weatherstone . . . 
 .Jackson v. Leaf 
 
 — V. Pease 
 
 Jacubs V. Rylance 
 
 James?;. Aston 
 
 — V, Gwynne 
 
 

 
 [XVI 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 NAMES OF CASES. 
 
 feiiner v. Morris 
 
 Fennings r. Paterson 
 
 Jervis v. White 
 
 — V. Wolferstan 
 
 Fesse v. Bennett 
 
 leudwine v. Agate 
 
 Fob V. Job 
 
 Foel V. Mills 
 
 Folinsou i'. Aston 
 
 — V. Hammersley., 
 
 — V. Palmer 
 
 — V. Prendergast ., 
 Fohnstone v. Hamilton.. 
 
 lollitie V. East 
 
 Fones v. Chennell 
 
 — V. Foulkes 
 
 — V. How 
 
 — V. Jones 
 
 — V. Jukes 
 
 — V. Morrall 
 
 Fosel yne, £x jM.rte 
 
 Fosepb V. Goode 
 
 Keaton v. Lynch 
 
 Kelk ?'. Archer 
 
 [vennedy v. Turnley 
 
 Kenyon v. Kenyon 
 
 Keyworth, Ee 
 
 Kidd V. Ciieyne \ 
 
 or, Ex parte Kidd ... J 
 King V. Bryant 
 
 — V. Hammett 
 
 — V. King 
 
 — V. Malcott 
 
 Kitching v. K itching 
 
 Kitto V. Luke 
 
 Knapman v. Wreford 
 Knight V. Davis 
 
 — V. Knight 
 
 Knott, Re 
 
 — V. Cottee 
 
 Laperoke r. Sloane... 
 Lainson v. I.iainson ... 
 
 Lainbe v. Orton 
 
 Laming r. Gee 
 
 Lanccfield v. Iggulden 
 
 Land Credit Co. of Ire- 
 land, Re 
 
 Langton v. Langton ... 
 
 Authorised 
 Reports. 
 
 15 Be. 28 
 6 Ves. 738 
 18 Eq. 18 
 6DeG.M.&G.609 
 
 5 Fhiss. 283 
 
 6 C. D. 562 
 
 3 K. & J. 458 
 1 S. & S. 73 
 24 Be. 498 
 
 4 C. P. D. 258 
 28 Be. 480 
 
 7 Ha. 267 
 W. X. '82, 6 
 2 Ves. 518 
 
 2 Sim. N.S. 241 
 
 8 C. D. 327 
 W. N. '75, 4 
 
 1 Y. & C. C. 437 
 
 6 Ir. Eq. 399 
 35 Be. 300 
 9 Ch. 379 
 
 3 Bro. C. C. 
 
 8 C. D. 492 
 
 25 
 
 4 Be. 460 
 
 3 M. & Cr. 191 
 
 34 Be. 10 
 9 Ha. 692 
 
 W. N. 76, 225 
 
 18 C. D.'SOO 
 3 M. & K. 358 
 16 Be. 358 
 7 C. D. 549n. 
 16 Be. 77 
 27 Be. 33 
 
 3DeG.&Sm.291 
 18 Be. 7 
 
 10 C. D. 715 
 10 Ch. 136 
 
 W. N. '72, 210 
 
 Law 
 
 Journal. 
 
 (N'fiW Series 
 unles.s other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 26 Ch. 63 
 
 47 Ch. 583 
 17 Cii." 369 
 
 21 Ch. 630 
 47 Bk. 91 
 
 Law Times. 
 
 (New Series 
 unless otlier- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 18, O.S 
 28, O.S 
 
 12, 822 
 38, 494 
 
 20, O.S., 30 
 38, 661 
 
 , 82 
 ,134 
 
 19, O.S., 252 
 43 Bk. 102 130, 620 
 
 7 Ch. 167 
 11 Ch. 14 
 34 Ch. 195 
 22 Ch. 157 
 
 50 Ch. 629 
 
 23 Ch. 170 
 ■:9 Ch. 286 
 48 Ch. 196 
 
 44 Ch. 203 
 
 •24 Ch. 625 
 
 9, 832 
 19, O.S 
 
 43, 25 
 
 , 19 
 
 ■22, O.S. 
 1, 290 
 40, 33 
 
 31, 813 
 
 150 
 
 Weekly 
 Reporter, 
 
 10, 640 
 
 5, 56' 
 26, 206 
 
 6, 120 
 27, 941 
 
 26, 595 
 10, 55 
 
 26, 645 
 23, 225 
 
 22, 350 
 2, 316 
 
 24, 901 
 28, 411 
 30, 395 
 
 2, 82 
 8, 111 
 27, 226 
 
 23, 223 
 21, 135 
 
 (Old Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 2, N.S 
 
 11, N.S 
 
 14, 145 
 
 1125 
 
 16, 605 
 
 18, 348 
 
 90 
 
 42 
 
 67 
 
 117 
 
 39 
 
 125 
 
 16, 53 
 
 30 
 
 63 
 
 125 
 
 9 
 
 133 
 
 777 38,48, 49 
 
 136 
 
 131, 149 
 
 35 
 
 43 
 
 73 
 
 55 
 
 16, 52 
 
 169 
 93, 153 
 
 13 
 
 71 
 
 54 
 
 72 
 
 169 
 
 2, 106 
 5, 1052 
 10, N.S., 762 
 16, 237 
 
 16, 752 
 
 17, 1044 
 6, N.S., 61 
 
 1, N.S., 1078 
 
 49 
 
 140 
 
 22 
 141 
 
 76 
 
 26 
 
 29 
 145 
 146 
 174 
 182 
 170 
 144, 158 
 124 
 
 76 
 110 
 134 
 
 16 
 
 112, 157, 
 
 165 
 
 4 
 
 196
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 XXVU 
 
 
 
 Law 
 JounNAL, Law Times. 
 
 
 Jurist. 
 
 
 NAMES OP CASES. 
 
 Authorised 
 Keports. 
 
 (New Series 
 unless other 
 wise stated.) 
 
 (New Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Weekly 
 Repokter. 
 
 (Old Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Paoe. 
 
 
 W. N. '77, 198 
 11 Vcs. 602 
 10 Ch. 464 
 
 1 Kuss. 100 
 
 2 Ph. 140 
 
 44 Ch.' 445 
 
 
 
 23, 686 
 
 
 9 
 10, 113 
 26, 32, 39 
 15, 16 
 
 I.ashlev i'. HoETif 
 
 
 Law v. Hunter 
 
 \ 
 
 Lawrence v. Bowie . . . < 
 
 1 C. P. Coop. 
 241 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 147 
 
 Lechmere v. Brazier 
 
 1 Russ. 72 1 
 
 4, O.S.,Ch. 
 95 
 
 } 
 
 
 
 r 
 ... 1 
 
 133, 153, 
 154 
 
 Lee V. NiUtall 
 
 12 C. D. 61 
 
 W. N. 76, 226 
 ci Ves. 605 
 
 15 Eq. 151 
 
 48 Ch. 616 
 42 Cii." 319 
 
 41, 
 
 27, 
 14. 
 
 363 
 
 743" 
 8 
 
 27, 805 
 
 21, 215 
 14, 361 
 12, 1127 
 
 3, N.S.", 1290 
 
 55, 56, 
 
 163, 170 
 
 47 
 
 97 
 
 87 
 
 95 
 
 134 
 
 108 
 
 — V. Stnrrock 
 
 — V. Willcock 
 
 Leeds v. Lewis 
 
 Lees t'. Lees 
 
 Leigh t'. Turner 
 
 Lenton 1'. BrudencU 
 
 Leonino v. Leoiiino 
 
 10 C. D. 460 
 
 48 Ch. 217 
 
 40, 
 
 359 
 
 27, 388 
 
 
 174 
 
 Lew V. Lovell 
 
 14 C. D. 234 
 
 49 Ch. 305 
 
 42, 
 
 242 
 
 28, 602 
 
 
 170 
 
 Lewellin v. Cohbold 
 
 1 Sni. & G. 572 
 
 
 22, 
 
 O.S., 131 
 
 
 17, 1111 
 
 61 
 
 Lewis V. Trask 
 
 21 C. D. 862 
 1 Eq. 347 
 
 35 Ch. 302 
 
 
 
 14, 240 
 
 
 144, 145 
 175 
 
 Lilford (Ld.) 1'. Powys- \ 
 
 Keck / 
 
 Lincoln v. "Windsor 
 
 9 Ha. 158 
 
 20 Ch. 531 
 
 18, 
 
 O.S., 39 
 
 
 15, 765 
 
 148 
 
 Linford v. Gudgeon 
 
 6 Ch. 359 
 
 40 Ch. 514 
 
 
 
 19, 577 
 
 
 185, 188 
 
 Littlewood v. Collins ... 
 
 1 N. R. 457 
 
 
 8, 
 
 265 
 
 11, 387 
 
 
 72 
 
 Li vesey w. Harding 
 
 1 Be. 343 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 196 
 
 Lloyd V. Cro.ss 
 
 W. N. 71, 101 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 47 
 
 Lockhart t'. Hardy 
 
 5 Be. 305 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 106 
 
 — V. Reilly 
 
 1 DeG. A: J. 464 
 
 27 Ch. 54 
 
 
 
 
 
 147 
 
 Lodge V. Pritcliard 
 
 4 Giff. 294 
 
 32 Ch. 775 
 
 9, 
 
 107 
 
 11, 532 
 
 9, N.S., 982 
 
 151 
 
 London & County Ass. \ 
 Co.. He j 
 
 
 
 
 
 5, 794 
 
 
 88, 92 
 
 London & Prov. Bk. v. \ 
 Bogle j 
 
 7 C. D. 773 
 
 47 Ch. 301 
 
 37, 
 
 780 
 
 26, 573 
 
 
 166 
 
 London Syndicate v. \ 
 Lord J 
 
 S C. D. 84 
 
 48 Ch. 57 
 
 38, 
 
 329 
 
 26, 427 
 
 
 66, 67 
 
 Longbourne v. Fisher .. 
 
 
 47 Ch. 379 
 
 40, 
 
 124 
 
 27, 405 
 
 
 127 
 
 Longdendale Cotton S. \ 
 Co., He J 
 
 Loomes v. Stotherd 
 
 8 C. D. 150 
 
 48 Ch. 54 
 
 38, 
 
 776 
 
 26, 491 
 
 
 73 
 
 1 S. k S. 458 - 
 
 l,O.S.,Ch. 
 220 
 
 } 
 
 
 
 
 166, 167 
 
 Lord V . Lord 
 
 2 Eq. 605 
 
 L. R. 1 H. L. 
 
 Sc. 24 
 
 35 Ch. 683 
 
 } - 
 
 
 
 
 
 91 
 164 
 
 Lovat V. Fraser i 
 
 I 
 
 Low V. Carter 
 
 1 Be. 426 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 142 
 
 Lowe V. Farlie .. 
 
 2 Madd. 101 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 36 
 
 Lowes?'. Lowe.s 
 
 2DeG.M..'cG.784:22 Ch. 179 
 
 20, 
 
 O.S., 196 
 
 1, 27 
 
 16, 991 
 
 125 
 
 108 
 
 33 
 
 Lowis V. Runmey 
 
 4 Eq. 451 
 .) Sim. 115 
 
 8 Ch!'314 
 
 Lowry I'. Fulton 
 
 Lucas 1'. Siggers 
 
 7 Ch. 517 
 
 41 Ch. 364 
 48 cii.' 636 
 
 26, 
 
 651 
 
 20, 458, 
 
 478 
 10, 606 
 
 8, N.S., 207 
 
 78, 79 
 
 82 ■ 
 157 
 
 — V. Williams.. 
 
 Luikraft r. Pridham ... 
 
 Luke r. Tonkin 21 C. D. 757 
 
 46 
 
 684 
 
 30, 874 
 
 
 17, 53
 
 XXVlll 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 NAMES OF CASES. 
 
 AtTTHORISED 
 
 Rei'outs. 
 
 Law 
 Journal. 
 
 (New Se)ie.s 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Law Time.s. 
 
 (New Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Weekly 
 
 REI'OUTEU. 
 
 Ji 
 
 (Old 
 unles 
 wise 
 
 HIST. 
 
 belies p 
 s other- ^^°^- 
 stated.) 
 
 I.yallt'. Weldhen 
 
 I>yttleton V. Cross 
 
 Macarthur r. Dudgeon 
 
 jMacdonald v. Foster 
 
 Macfarlane's Claim 
 
 JIcHardy v. Hitchcock.. 
 
 McHeiiry w. Lewis 
 
 Mackenzie v. Taylor 
 
 Mackie ^•. Darling 
 
 9 Ch. 287 
 3 B. & C. 317 
 
 15 Eq. 102 
 
 6 C. D. 193 
 17 C. D. 337 
 
 22 C. D. 397 
 
 7 Be. 467 
 
 12 Eq. 319 
 
 1 Sw. &"Tr. 425 
 27 Be. 21 \ 
 4DeG.&J.150 j 
 W. N. '76, 47 
 lDeG.J.ctS.399 
 32 Be. 658 
 
 16 C. D. 702 
 
 2 S. i: S. 227 
 
 7 Be. 93 
 
 14 Sim. 353 
 
 3 M. .^ Cr. 31 
 
 4 Q. B. D. 491 
 
 2M. & Cr. 443 
 
 4 Q. B. D. 459 
 
 2 J. & H. 728 
 
 8C. D."424 
 
 5 C. D.' 342 
 
 21 C. D. 647 
 
 3 Mac. & G. 648 
 
 8 Ch. 205 
 
 9 Q. B. D. 648 
 
 1 C. D. 591 
 
 4 Be. 343 
 
 7 Ha. 106 
 9 Ch. 316 
 
 1 Mac. & G. 687 
 
 13 C. D. 639 
 
 1 App. Cas. 428 
 
 8 Sim. 64 
 1 Ph. 706 
 
 42 Ch. 263 
 50 Ch'.' 273 
 52 Ch. 16 
 
 26 Cii. 332 
 28 Ch. 742 
 32 cii." 521 
 
 3,O.S."ch.85 
 13 Ch. 194 
 
 6 Ch!'303 
 48Q.B. 677 
 13 Ch. 392 
 
 48Q.B. 679 
 
 32 Ch. 13 
 
 45 Ch. 711 
 
 47 cii'.' 605 
 
 46 Ch'.' 398 
 
 42 cii'.' 479 
 51Q.B. 576 
 
 45 Ch. 210 
 
 34 Ch. 281 
 
 18 Ch. 153 
 
 43 Ch. 585 
 
 49 cii. 209 
 
 46 Ch. 2 
 
 33 cii'.' 187 
 5 Ch. 294 
 
 30, 146 
 
 37, 296" 
 44, 299 
 
 47, 54'9' 
 
 26, O.'s"., 191 
 34, O.S., 53 
 
 33, O.S., 158 
 
 33, 804 
 
 8, 100 
 
 2, O.S.',' 456 
 47, 556 
 
 4, O.S., 190 
 
 3, O.S.',' 433 
 
 7, 311 
 
 34, 718 
 
 34, 6I4' 
 
 37, 7 "" 
 
 46, 437 
 
 18, O.S., 337 
 28, 296 
 
 47, 369 
 
 11, 582 
 
 30, 190' 
 
 42, 169 
 25, 1 
 
 9, 282"" 
 
 22, 
 
 •21, 
 25, 
 
 31, 
 19, 
 
 11, 
 29, 
 
 28, 
 
 27, 
 
 11, 
 24, 
 26, 
 24, 
 25, 
 30, 
 
 21, 
 31, 
 
 13, 
 
 22 
 
 28, 
 25, 
 5, 
 12, 
 
 633 
 
 166 
 602 
 
 '305 
 796 
 
 '457 
 520 
 
 '143 
 
 676 
 
 '610 
 660 
 690 
 293 
 401 
 525 
 
 '305 
 80 
 
 210 
 
 441 
 
 '549 
 27 
 583 
 39 
 
 12, 78 
 
 2, N.£ 
 5, K^ 
 9, N.>' 
 
 8, 159 
 
 8, 609 
 1, 330 
 
 13, 11 
 
 3, N.S 
 
 9, N.^ 
 
 7, 3 
 
 78, 79 
 55 
 
 91 
 
 192 
 
 173 
 
 1 69 
 
 79 
 
 139 
 
 30, 62 
 
 5., 49 79 
 
 34 
 
 ^., 1091 34 
 
 70 
 i., 240 108 
 158 
 84 
 58 
 15 
 
 89 
 
 140 
 182 
 184 
 140 
 162, 170 
 
 189 
 
 17 
 
 75 
 
 75 
 
 158 
 
 16,17,53 
 20 
 19 
 
 72,73,75 
 
 74 
 
 183 
 
 170, 173 
 
 95, 164 
 64 
 
 93, 106 
 
 6 54 
 
 159, 176 
 
 13 
 
 43 
 
 55 
 
 i', 1238 52, 142 
 
 5., l'/72 87 
 
 55, 168 
 101 
 
 Maclaren i\ Stainton ... 
 Maclean v. Dawson 
 
 - . - 1 
 
 McMurray v. Matthew . . . 
 
 M c Veagh v. Croall 
 
 Maddison r. Pye 
 
 Madras Irrigation Co., Be 
 Maltby v. Russell 
 
 Man V. llicketts 
 
 Manchester Paving Co. \ 
 
 ^'- Slagg J 
 
 Manton z'. Roe 
 
 
 Martin v. Bannister 
 
 — V. Maugham 
 
 Mason v. Bogg 
 
 — V. Wirral High- \ 
 way Board J 
 
 Massey v. Massey 
 
 Matthews z). Matthews... 
 
 — V. Palmer 
 
 Mayd r. Field 
 
 Mayer V. Murray 
 
 Jleakin r. Sykes 
 
 Mellor 1'. Sidebottom ... 
 
 — V. Swire 
 
 Menzies v. Connor 
 
 Merry v. Nickalls 
 
 Mersey Steel & L'on 1 
 Co. V. Naylor j 
 
 Metcalfe v. Hutchinson.. 
 
 Meyer ?>. Montriou 
 
 Micklethwait v. Win- ' 
 Stanley ^ 
 
 Middleton v. Eeay 
 
 j\Iiles V. Harrison 
 
 Miller t'. Priddon 
 
 Mills V. Jennings 
 
 Minors?'. Battison 
 
 Mirehouse V. Herbert ... 
 
 Mitchell, Jic 
 
 Mitchel.son v. Piper 
 
 Mitford !>. Reynolds
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 XXIX 
 
 NAMES OF CASES. 
 
 Al'TIIOBISED 
 llEl'OKTS. 
 
 I, AW 
 JoUKNAL. 
 
 (N'ew Series 
 unless ntlier- 
 wisc stated.) 
 
 Monteilore •?;. Browne .. 
 
 Moodie v. ]-5;xnnister , 
 
 Moore v. Frowd 
 
 — V. Moore 
 
 — V. ilorris 
 
 Moors V. Marriott 
 
 Morewood v. Currey 
 
 Morgan v. Davies 
 
 — V. Elstob 
 
 — V. ISIiddlemiss .. 
 
 — V. Morgan 
 
 — V. Rees or Reiss 
 Morley v. Finney 
 
 — V. AVhite 
 
 Morris v. Morris 
 
 Morse i\ Sadler 
 
 Morshead i'. Reynolds .. 
 
 Mortlock V. Leatlies 
 
 Morton v. Miller 
 
 MuUins V. Smith 
 
 Musbacli V. Anderson .. 
 
 Mutlow v. Mntlow 
 
 Mutter V. Hudson 
 
 Nash v. Dillon 
 
 Nayler v. Blount 
 
 Neal, Ex2Mrte 
 
 Neeves v. Burrage 
 
 Nelson, Ex parte 
 
 — V. Booth 
 
 Nesbitt V. Baldwin 
 
 Neve V. Weston 
 
 Newbegin V. Bell 
 
 Newbery, Ec 
 
 Newell V. Nat. Prov. "1 
 
 Bank J 
 
 New land I'. Steer 
 
 Xewmarch i). Storr 
 
 Newton v. M. R. Co. .. 
 
 — V. Slierry 
 
 Nichols ?'. Nichols ... . 
 Nicholson v. Falkiner .. 
 
 Noble V. Brett 
 
 Nokes I'. Steppings 
 
 Norton Ironworks Co., 1 
 
 Ee I 
 
 H. L. C. 241 
 Dr. 432 28 Ch. 881 
 
 3 M. & Cr. 45 6 Ch. 372 
 
 13 Kq. 139 41 Ch. 161 
 
 7 C. D. 543 47 Ch. 331 
 
 3 C. P. D. 260 
 
 4 Ha. 477 
 
 13 Be. 441 
 
 6 Q. B. D. 508 50 M. C. 27 
 
 W. N. 70, 82 
 
 8 Ch. 731 42 Ch. 880 
 10 Ch. 68 44 Ch. 178 
 
 1 Cox, 352 
 21 Be. 638 
 
 2 Mer. 491 
 
 3 C. D. 516 45 Ch. 613 
 1 Dr. & S. 204 
 
 4 De G. & J. 539 
 
 1 Moll. 236 
 
 14 C. D.'579 
 
 14 Q. B. 504 19 Q.B. 68 
 
 14 C. D. 41 49 Bk. 44 
 
 3DeG. &J. 119 27 Ch. 782 
 
 7 C. D. (Ir.)134 
 
 3 Atk. 557 
 
 23 Be. 386 
 
 Norvall, or Nowall, v. \ 
 Paseoe J 
 
 Norway v. Norway 
 
 Nunn V. Barlow 
 
 Law Timrs. 
 
 (New Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 32, O.S., 376 
 45, 466 
 
 39, 60 
 
 43, 758" 
 
 29, 282 
 31, 491 
 
 Obbard, Ec 
 
 O'Connor v. Haslam , 
 
 1 C. P. D. 496 
 
 9 C. D. 12 
 
 1 Dr. & Sin.583 
 
 1 C. P. D. 246 
 
 1 Moll. 555 
 24 Be. 499 
 
 2 Ph. 19 
 
 2 M. k K. 278 
 
 1 S. & S. 588 
 
 5 H. L. C. 170 
 
 Weekly 
 Reporter. 
 
 26, O.S., 116 
 
 43, 264 
 14, O.S., 394 
 42, 389 
 32, O.S., 45 
 
 45 C. P. 285 34, 533 
 
 13, 111 
 39, 146 
 5, 542 
 34, 251 
 
 48 Ch. 28 
 45 C. P. 257 
 
 27 ciiV 516 
 
 47 Ch. 9 
 
 31 Ch. 456 
 
 SCh.lll, 
 163 
 
 {" 
 
 31, O.S.,228 
 
 10, 809 
 
 } •• 
 
 7, 278 
 
 26, 626 
 
 28, 213 
 26, 816 
 
 14, 414 
 
 29, 213 
 18, 490 
 21, 746 
 23, 120 
 
 24, 723 
 8, 739 
 26, 100 
 
 27, 865 
 
 28, 875 
 
 28, 554 
 6, 845 
 
 Jurist. 
 
 (Old Scries 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 24, 145 
 
 25, O.S., 237 
 
 4, N.S., 1201 
 
 5, N.S., 402 
 1, 653 
 
 15, 319 
 
 10, 
 
 378 
 
 24, 
 
 458 
 
 13, 
 
 1014 
 
 27, 
 
 104 
 
 10, 
 
 102 
 
 24, 
 
 371 
 
 10, 
 
 598 
 
 6, 
 
 219 
 
 26, 
 
 53 
 
 10, 
 
 338 
 
 19, 
 
 563 
 
 2, N.S., 34 
 
 14, 177 
 
 5, KS.', 28 
 
 11, N.S., 596 
 
 4, N.S., 623 
 
 113 
 
 108, 109 
 
 147 
 
 121 
 
 40 
 163 
 
 37 
 189 
 112 
 139 
 
 52 
 190 
 106 
 
 33 
 166, 167 
 
 42 
 112 
 
 63 
 
 21 
 119 
 
 84 
 
 160 
 
 52, 53 
 
 151 
 9 
 172, 173 
 
 58 
 170 
 
 52 
 
 68 
 
 74 
 156 
 4, 6 
 
 81 
 
 108 
 174 
 
 27 
 4, 37 
 
 26 
 151 
 116 
 
 64 
 
 172 
 
 72, 124 
 
 152 
 55 
 
 169 
 165
 
 XXX 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 NAMES OF CASES. 
 
 AUTirORLSED 
 
 Kei'ort.s. 
 
 Law 
 Journal. 
 
 (New Series 
 luiles.s other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Law Times. 
 
 (New Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated ) 
 
 Weekly 
 Reporter 
 
 Jurist. 
 
 (Old Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Page. 
 
 
 3 Ch. Rep. 92 
 
 6 Be. 515 
 
 2 Cox, 274 
 22 C. D. 456 
 
 5 Ch. 467 
 
 1 Sm. & G. App. 
 
 12 
 2DeG.M.&G.892 
 
 8 Be. 602 
 34 Be. 175 
 
 15 Eq. 134 
 
 Cr. & Ph. 48 
 
 1 S. & S. 232 1 
 
 3 Madd. 241 
 W. N. '74, 17 
 W. N. '70, 58 
 
 6 C. D. 335 
 33 Be. 535 
 (Seton, 974) 
 
 16 Eq. 34 
 28 Be. 627 
 3 Sim. 97 
 
 6 C. D. 694 
 
 3 Bro. C. C. 365 
 
 4 Dr. 253 
 
 9 Be. 424 
 
 iDeG.M.&G.SSl' 
 1 Ves. jun. 170 
 18 Eq. 356 
 
 3 Mer. 297 
 
 W. N. 76, 109 
 
 8 Q. B. D. 147 
 1 Y. & C. C. 3 
 13 Eq. 349 
 
 1 Be. 316 
 
 11 C. Dr440 
 
 9 Ha. 39 
 
 2 Ph. 149 
 
 W. N. '82, 4 
 
 4 Be. 197 
 
 AV. N. '83, 26 
 
 3 Eq. I'i'l 
 
 12 Be. 170 
 
 2 M. & K. 357 
 
 25 Ch'.' 198 
 
 } :•• 
 
 21 Ch. 501 
 14 Ch. 177 
 
 42 Ch'.' 232 
 
 1, O.S.,Ch. 
 107 
 
 43 cii. 349 
 
 47 Bk. 21 
 
 42 cii'.' 470 
 
 27 cii'.' 505 
 
 51 Ch. 74 
 21 Ch. 346 
 
 51 Q.'b. 128 
 41 Ch.' 209 
 
 30 Ch. 185 
 
 48 Ch. 691 
 20 Ch. 339 
 16 Ch. 146 
 
 36 Ch'.' 101 
 3 Ch. 97 
 
 1, O.S.',' 455 
 
 22, 461* 
 
 20, O.S., 322 
 
 20, O.S.,204 
 4, O.S., 411 
 
 27, 647' 
 
 \ 
 
 ) '" 
 
 37, 450' 
 
 28, 353' 
 
 31, O.'s., 7 
 
 45, 29'2' 
 
 18, O.S., 343 
 
 26, 389 
 40, 393' 
 
 48, 7 
 16, 377 
 
 4, l'56 
 
 31, '464 
 18, 588 
 
 1, 255 
 
 1, 18 
 
 21, "2I8 
 
 26, 194 
 21, "638 
 
 25, 410 
 
 6, 388 
 
 30, 433 
 
 9, 8 " 
 
 15, '164 
 
 16, 1134 
 4, 1151 
 
 4, N.s!^ 200 
 16, 898' 
 
 2, 100'9* 
 
 7, N.S., 248 
 
 15, 445 
 13, 459 
 
 32 
 
 7 
 
 126 
 
 33 
 
 36, 73 
 
 78, 79 
 
 6 
 
 79 
 
 139 
 
 32, 33 
 
 26 
 
 105, 109, 
 
 167 
 
 77, 138 
 
 27 
 144 
 131 
 171 
 163 
 181 
 
 28 
 
 124 
 
 60, 65 
 
 19, 20 
 
 42 
 5, 49, 52 
 
 52 
 158 
 175 
 
 63 
 143 
 106 
 
 20 
 173 
 
 17 
 
 96 
 140 
 
 71 
 159 
 
 39 
 38, 39 
 
 19 
 
 157 
 
 79 
 
 5 
 120 
 181 
 
 137 
 
 Oaiden 1'. Lowry 
 
 Old Held V. Cobbett 
 
 Orr V. Newton 
 
 Orr-Ewing v. Orr-Ewing. 
 Orrell v. Busch 
 
 Osbaldiston v. Crowther - 
 
 Ostell V. Le Page 
 
 Ottley V. Gilbey 
 
 Overington v. Ward 
 
 Owen IK Delamere 
 
 Owens i). Dickenson 
 
 Packwood 1'. Maddison.. 
 Paddy, Ex parte 
 
 Palmer v. Jones 
 
 — V. Perry 
 
 Pannell, Ex parte 
 
 Parker V. Ringham 
 
 Parkin v. Proudfoot 
 
 — V. Seddons 
 
 Parkinsons. Lucas 
 
 Parry u. Ashhy 
 
 Parsons 1'. Harris 
 
 Parsons v. Neville 
 
 Partington r. Reynolds... 
 Passingham v. Sherborn. 
 
 Patching v. Barnett 
 
 Paterson v. Scott 
 
 Payne 1). Collier 
 
 — V. Evens 
 
 Paynter i>. Houston 
 
 Pearce ?'. Spickett 
 
 Peat V. Jones 
 
 Pelhani v. Hilder 
 
 Pembertou v. Barnes 
 
 — V. Topham . 
 Penney J7. Francis 
 
 Penny v. Penny 
 
 
 — V. Watts 
 
 Perpetual Lisur. Co. v. \ 
 
 Gillespie / 
 
 Perry v. Meddowcroft ... 
 Peruvian Guano Co. v. \ 
 
 Bockwoldt J 
 
 Peterson v. Peterson 
 
 Petty V. Petty 
 
 Philanthropic Society \ 
 V. Hobson /
 
 TAI5LE OF CASES. 
 
 XXXI 
 
 NAMES OF CASES. 
 
 Pliilippo V. Munnings 
 
 Phillipps r. Beal 
 
 — r. Parry 
 
 \ 
 
 Phillipson v. Gatty 
 
 Pickford i\ Hunter 
 
 Pierce i'. Hamuioiul 
 
 PiiTpoint i\ Cartwriglit.. 
 Pigott V. Pigott 
 
 — I'. Young 
 
 Pinchard v. Fellows 
 
 Pinney v. Pinney 
 
 Player r. Foxhall 
 
 Plunkett V. Lewis 
 
 Pointon 1'. Pointou 
 
 Polini r. Gray 
 
 Pollard !». Doyle 
 
 Portarlington v, Damer. . 
 Postmaster-General, ^a; "i 
 
 parte J 
 
 Pott V. Gallini 
 
 Pottinger, Ex parte 
 
 Powell V. Wallworth 
 
 Price V. North 
 
 — V. Price 
 
 Prince I'. Nicholson 
 
 Prosser I'. Mossop 
 
 Proudfoot V. Hume 
 
 Prowse 2'. Spurgin 
 
 Purcell V. Blennerhassett 
 
 — V. Mannins 
 
 authoeised 
 Reports. 
 
 2 M. & Cr. 309 
 32 Be. 26 
 22 Be. 279 
 6 Ha. 26 
 2 H. k Tw 
 5 Sim. 122 
 
 459 
 
 C. P. D. 139 
 
 2 N. R. U 
 
 17 Eq. 421 
 8 B. & C. 335 
 
 I Russ. 538 
 
 II Sim. 379 
 12 Eq. 547 
 W. N. 74, 3 
 
 1 Dr. & Sm. 319 
 
 2 Ph. 262 
 
 10 G. D. 595 
 
 1 S. & S. 206 
 8 C. D. 621 
 
 2 Madd. 183 
 
 2 Y.&C. Ex.620 
 15 Sim. 484 
 
 5 Taunt. 665 
 W. N. '81, 38 
 
 4 Be. 476 
 
 5 Eq. 99 
 
 3 Jo. & L. 24 
 
 Rankin v. Harwood... 
 
 Ratclifl'e v. Winch 
 
 Rawlings v. Lambert 
 Raymond v. Tapson ... 
 Rayner v. Green 
 
 — V. Koehler ... 
 
 Rees V. George 
 
 Reeve's Trusts, i?e 
 
 — V. Goodwin 
 
 Regent United Service \ 
 
 Stores, Jie J 
 
 Rex V. Haines 
 
 Rhodes c. Barnt 
 
 — V. Khodes 
 
 Riholdi V. Maireau 
 
 Rice V. Gordon 
 
 — V. Orgies 
 
 Richards, Re 
 
 Richardson v. Bank of \ 
 England J 
 
 — V. Horton ... 
 
 — V. liichardson 
 
 2 Ph. 22 
 16 Be. 576 
 IJ. & H. 458 
 22 G. D. 430 
 2 Curt. 248 
 
 14 Eq. 262 
 
 15 C. D. 490 
 4 C. D. 841 
 
 Skinn. 583 
 12 Eq. 479 
 
 I Ch. 483 
 (Fry, J., 1883) 
 
 II Be. 265 
 
 W. N. 71, 177 
 8 Eq. 119 
 
 4 M. & Cr. 165 
 
 7 Be. 112 
 14 C. D. 611 
 
 Law 
 
 Journal. 
 
 (New Series 
 unless other- 
 wise .stated.) 
 
 |l7Ch.241 
 
 43 Ch. 227 
 
 40 Ch. 609 
 
 16 Cii. 370 
 48 Bk. 84 
 
 47 Bk. 43 
 18 cii. 232 
 
 37 Ch." 251 
 
 15 Ch. 446 
 22 Ch. 915 
 
 (New Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 11, O.S., 472 
 
 10, 261 
 42, 259 
 8, 268 
 
 29, 882 
 
 25, 294 
 3, 432 
 
 40, 16 
 
 38, 432 
 
 17, 590 
 
 30, O.'s'., 50 
 
 7, O.S., 467 
 21, O.S., 30 
 
 41 Ch. 697 27, 506 
 
 49 Ch. 568 
 
 46 Ch. 412 .36, 906 
 
 8, O.S., 251 
 
 38, 130 
 
 41 Ch. 103 24, 654 
 35 Ch. 729 
 
 25, 263 
 
 8 Ch. 1 
 
 13 Ch. 186 
 
 49 Ch. 612 43, 279 
 
 Weekly 
 Reporter. 
 
 12, 686 
 
 28, 583 
 
 7, 235 
 22, 612 
 
 19, 1051 
 22, 255 
 9, 28 
 
 27, 325 
 
 26, 648 
 
 29, 439 
 
 31, 394 
 20, 859 
 
 25, 628 
 
 26, 579 
 19, 871 
 
 Jurist. 
 
 (Old Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 12, 430 
 
 6, N.S., 
 11, 443 
 
 1139 
 
 3, N.S., 1070 
 
 10, 794 
 
 17, 586 
 
 Page. 
 
 10, 1050 
 
 2, 911 
 
 128, 942 
 
 165 
 
 55, 109 
 
 164 
 
 42 
 
 74 
 
 99 
 
 189 
 
 43 
 
 7, 8 
 
 154 
 
 14, 27 
 
 55 
 
 72 
 
 24 
 
 3 
 
 148 
 
 69, 70 
 
 163 
 
 74 
 
 107, 173 
 
 122 
 
 122 
 
 167 
 
 58 
 
 11 
 
 60 
 121 
 119 
 
 99 
 
 83 
 80, 84 
 
 39 
 
 91, 92 
 
 33 
 
 38 
 
 130 
 
 157 
 
 9, 61 
 
 172 
 
 13 
 
 71, 72 
 
 88 
 
 36 
 
 25 
 151 
 119 
 
 63 
 
 166 
 153, 155
 
 XXXll 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 
 
 l.AW 
 
 Law Times. I 
 
 Jurist. 
 
 
 
 
 JOUR.VAL. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 NAMES OF CASES. 
 
 aothorisf.d 
 Rei'okts. 
 
 (New Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 (New Serie.s 
 unless other- 
 
 Week r.Y 
 Repoktek. 
 
 (01(1 Series 
 unless other- 
 
 Page. 
 
 
 
 wise statttd.) 
 
 
 wise stated.) 
 
 
 Richardson v. Ward 
 
 13 Be. 110 
 
 20 Ch. 227 
 
 
 
 
 
 134 
 
 Richmond v. AVhito 
 
 12 C. D. 361 
 
 48 Ch. 798 
 
 41, 
 
 570 
 
 27, 878 
 
 1, N.S., 249 
 
 56, 58, 
 156 
 
 Ridley v. Tiplady 
 
 20 Be. 44 
 
 24 Ch. 207 
 
 24, 
 
 O.S., 296 
 
 3, 276 
 
 95, 124 
 
 Ritchie v. Humberstonc 
 
 
 22 Ch. 1006 
 
 
 
 
 17, 756 
 
 75 
 
 Roberts ?'. Roberts 
 
 2 Ph. 534 
 
 17 Ch. 174 
 
 11, 
 
 O.S., 285 
 
 
 12, 148 
 
 25 
 
 Robertson ?•. Norris 
 
 1 Gitf. 428 
 
 
 1, 
 
 123 
 
 
 
 89 
 
 Robinson r. Elliott 
 
 1 Russ. 599 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 140 
 
 — r. Geldard ... 
 
 3 Mac. & G. 735 
 
 18 Ch. 454 
 
 19, 
 
 O.S., 365 
 
 
 14, 143 
 
 176 
 
 Rocke, Ex parte 
 
 6 Ch. 795 
 
 40 Bk. 70 
 
 25, 
 
 287 
 
 19, 1129 
 
 
 169 
 
 Rodney v. Rodney 
 
 16 Sim. 307 
 
 
 11, 
 
 O.S., 532 
 
 
 12, 665 
 
 167 
 
 Rogers t\ James 
 
 7 Taunt. 147 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 27 
 
 — V. Powell 
 
 2 Ke. 598 
 
 3 C. D. 714 
 
 38 Ch. 648 
 7 Ch. 118 
 
 3'>, 
 
 155" 
 
 18, 282 
 24, 1013 
 
 
 106 
 119 
 177 
 
 — V. Soutten 
 
 Roper r. Roper 
 
 Roper's Trusts, iZe 
 
 11 C. D. 272 
 
 
 40, 
 
 97 
 
 27, 408 
 
 
 57 . 
 
 Ross V. Ross 
 
 12 Be. 89 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 60, 61 
 
 — V. Tatbam 
 
 W. N. '69, 183 
 
 38 Cii. 577 
 
 21, 
 
 351 
 
 17, 960 
 
 
 183 
 
 Rossiter v. Rossiter 
 
 13 C. D. 355 
 
 49 Ch. 36 
 
 42, 
 
 353 
 
 28, 238 
 
 
 174 
 
 Roth well V. Rothwell ... 
 
 2 S. & S. 217 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 60, 63 
 
 Roupell V. Parsons 
 
 W. N. 76, 61 
 
 
 34, 
 
 56 
 
 24, 269 
 
 
 20 
 
 R owclitie v. Leigh 
 
 3 C. D. 292 
 5 C. D. 596 
 
 46 Ch.' 552 
 
 37, 
 
 43 " 
 
 24, 782 
 
 25, 521 
 
 
 106 
 151 
 
 Rowles r. Mayhew 
 
 Rowley v. Burgess 
 
 17 Eq. 20 
 4 Ha. 65 
 
 43 Ch.' 97 
 
 29, 
 
 446' 
 
 2, 652 
 22, 67 
 
 
 182 
 
 29, 38 
 
 64 
 
 Rowsell V. Morris 
 
 Roy V. Gibbon 
 
 Rump V. Greenhill 
 
 20 Be. 512 
 
 24 Ch. 90 
 
 24, 
 
 O.S., 124 
 
 3, 51 
 
 1, KS., 123 
 
 4,5 
 
 Salter v. Tildesley 
 
 
 
 11, 
 
 759 
 
 13, 376 
 
 
 70 
 
 Sampson, Re 
 
 
 39 cii. 592 
 
 14, 
 22 
 
 97 
 457 
 
 14, 472 
 18, 530 
 
 
 5 
 181 
 
 Samson v. Samson 
 
 Samuel v. Jones 
 
 2 Ha. 246 
 12 C. D. 152 
 
 12 Ch. 496 
 47 Ch. 716 
 
 41, 
 
 462' 
 
 26, '7.50 
 
 7, 845 
 
 145 
 93, 126 
 
 — V. Samuel 
 
 Sander V. Heathfield 
 
 19 Eq. 21 
 
 44 Ch. 113 
 
 31, 
 
 400 
 
 23, 331 
 
 
 167 
 
 Sanders v. Miller 
 
 25 Be. 154 
 7 C. D. 176 
 
 
 38, 
 
 379" 
 
 26, 309 
 
 
 158 
 135 
 
 Sanderson, Re 
 
 — V. Stoddart ... 
 
 32 Be. 155 
 
 
 7, 
 
 S62 
 
 11, 275 
 
 9, N.S., 1216 
 
 151 
 
 Sandilands v. Junes 
 
 3 Sim. 263 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 36 
 
 Sawver v. Birchmore . . . 
 
 1 Ke. 391, 825 
 
 6 Ch. 277 
 
 
 
 
 
 114, 120 
 
 Say V. Creed 
 
 3 Ha. 455 
 
 
 
 
 
 8, 893 
 
 130 
 
 Seaffold V. Hampton 
 
 W. N. '73, 218 
 
 43 cii. 137 
 
 29, 
 
 575 
 
 22, 182 
 
 
 19 
 
 Scales I'. Collins. . 
 
 9 Ha. 656 
 12 C. D. 337 
 
 4S Bk.' 122 
 
 40, 
 
 823' 
 
 27, 925 
 
 
 175 
 170 
 
 Schofield, Ex -parte 
 
 Score V. Ford 
 
 7 Be. 333 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 62, 63 
 
 Scott V. Bentley 
 
 1 K. & J. 281 
 
 24 Ch. 244 
 
 25, 
 
 O.S., 114 3, 280 
 
 1, N.S., 394 
 
 30 
 
 ■=— V. Briant 
 
 6 N. & M. 381 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 14 
 
 — V. Cumberland 
 
 18 Eq. 578 
 
 44 Ch. 226 
 
 31, 
 
 26 
 
 22, 840 
 
 
 156 
 
 — V. Jones 
 
 4 CL & F. 382 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 165 
 
 — V. Spashett 
 
 3 Mac. & G. 599 
 
 21 Ch. 349 
 
 19, 
 
 O.S., 37 
 
 
 16, 157 
 
 181 
 
 Scurrah v. Scurrah 
 
 
 
 
 
 2, 53 
 
 
 151 
 
 Scurry v. Morse 
 
 9 Moo. 89 
 4 C. D."494 
 
 
 
 
 9, 847 
 25, 223 
 
 
 32 
 
 157, 165 
 
 19 
 
 Sellou V. "Watts 
 
 Senior z'. Hereford
 
 TABLE OF CASKS. 
 
 XXXlll 
 
 NAMES OF CASES. 
 
 Authorised 
 Eeports. 
 
 Law 
 
 Journal. 
 
 (New Series 
 unless otlier- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Law Times. 
 
 (New Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Weekly 
 Reporter 
 
 Jurist. 
 
 (Old Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Page. 
 
 4, 6, 35 
 
 31 
 
 81 
 189 
 
 55 
 
 93, 95, 
 
 159 
 
 43 
 
 26 
 159, 176 
 
 74 
 159 
 107, 162 
 55, 108, 
 109 
 162 
 154 
 157 
 
 56 
 
 34 
 187 
 143 
 123 
 196 
 166, 168 
 181 
 119 
 17, 75 
 
 44 
 
 43 
 134 
 
 90 
 
 17 
 147 
 
 125 
 
 163 
 
 108 
 
 5 
 
 92 
 
 79 
 
 26 
 166 
 176 
 154 
 165 
 119 
 
 33 
 133 
 108 
 . 79 
 146 
 177 
 
 31 
 
 Jewell V. Ashley - 
 
 — p. Moxsy 
 
 sexton I'. Smith 
 
 10 Ha. App. 66 
 3DeG.M.&G.933 
 2 Sim. N.S. 189 
 3DeG.&Sm.694 
 
 5 Q. B. D. 359 
 
 10 C. D. 468 
 
 15 C. D.'548 
 
 6 C. D. 597 
 T. & R. 379 
 33 Be. 129 
 12 C. D. 68 
 
 2 R. & M. 75 
 
 6 C. D. 610 
 
 5 Madd 447 
 Or. & Ph. 228 
 1 K. & J. 602 
 
 1 Dr. 295 
 
 6 Eq. 324 
 5 Ch. 193 
 
 3 Men 458 
 
 2 Y. & C. C. 405 
 (Kay, J., 1882) 
 
 11 Eq. 474 
 
 2 Ves. sen. 560 
 
 3 K. & J. 292 
 
 7 Be. 500 
 
 6DeG.M.&G.150 
 
 11 Ves. 564 
 2 Ph. 221 
 
 18 C. D. 516 
 
 2 Ph. 159 
 
 2C. P. Coop. 289 
 5 C. P. D. 337 
 
 12 vSim. 17 
 
 1 Dn & Sm. 153 
 
 22 C. D. 5 
 
 1 Eq. 626 
 
 8 Sim. 253 
 
 9 Be. 450 
 
 15 Eq. 16 
 
 16 C. D. 18 
 9 Ves. 483 
 
 1 M. & K. 195 
 
 23 Be. 386 
 
 1 Sm. & G. 415 
 21 Be. 500 
 
 3 Ch. 195 
 12 Sim. 42 
 
 1 22Ch.659 
 
 21 Ch. 824 
 
 49Q.B.604 
 27 Ch. 844 
 
 48 Ch. 231 
 
 49 Ch.' 745 
 
 46 Ch. 763 
 
 1 Ch. 107 
 
 47 Ch. 137 
 
 21 Ch. 312 
 37 Ch. 751 
 
 40 Ch. 366 
 26 Ch. 553 
 
 50 cii.' 352 
 
 I 
 
 i ■■■ 
 
 49 C. P. 410 
 10 Ch. 192 
 
 52 cii.' 209 
 
 35 Ch. 454 
 6 Ch. 147 
 16 Ch. 57 
 42 Ch. 21 
 
 50 Ch. 1 
 
 2 Chy50 
 37 cii'.' 353 
 
 21, O.S., 39 
 18, O.S., 270 
 
 31, O.S., 325 
 
 43, 372 
 36, 909 
 
 40, 70'i' 
 
 18, 678 
 
 23, 29 
 
 24, 220 
 
 29, O.S., 379 
 
 26, O.'s'., 251 
 
 44, 460 
 
 48, 167 
 14, 350 
 7, O.S.',' 465 
 44, 161 
 
 21, O.S., 208 
 18, 1 '" 
 46, 372' 
 
 1, 260 
 
 28, 664 
 
 27, 528 
 
 2, 657 
 
 29, 168 
 25, 764 
 
 27, '842 
 
 25, 842 
 
 3, 653 
 
 16, '963 
 
 18, 772 
 
 19, '583 
 5, 5'89 
 
 4, 353 
 
 29, '330 
 
 8, 596 
 31, 262 
 24, 900 
 
 21, '95 
 29, 84 
 
 16, 489 
 
 17, 269 
 16, 603 
 
 4, N.S.', 527 
 
 '" \ 
 
 ( 
 ... -^ 
 
 5, 499 
 
 1, N.S., 608 
 
 7, 571 " 
 
 2, N.S.', 359 
 11, 359' 
 
 10, 448' 
 5, 817 " 
 
 Seymour t". Coulsoii 
 
 Shariuau r. Radd 
 
 •iharp V. Lush 
 
 >haw V. Hardiiigham ... 
 Sliearman r. Robinson ... 
 ■^htqilieard i\ Beetham ... 
 ■^luqilierd v. Towgood ... 
 ■^heppard r. Sheppard ... 
 sliervvin 17. Selkirk 
 
 ihewen v. Vanderhorst.. 
 
 ^hirreft'w. Hastings 
 
 ■iliortle}' 1'. Selby 
 
 ■^Imttleworth v. Howarth 
 5illibourne ?'. Newport.. 
 
 silver V. Stein 
 
 ?imons r. McAdam 
 
 5impsou t'. Bathurst 
 
 5key V. Bennett 
 
 ■ikinner v. Anglesey (M.) 
 
 skottowe iJ. Young 
 
 sleech 1'. Thorington ... 
 
 5mart v. Bradstock 
 
 imith V. Andrews 
 
 — V. Armstrong 
 
 — V. Althus 
 
 — r. Chambers 
 
 — V. Dale 
 
 — u. Guy -f 
 
 — v. Morgan 
 
 — V. Poole 
 
 — V. Spilsbury 
 
 — V. Watts 
 
 — V. Whiciicord 
 
 — V. White 
 
 ^packman v. Timbrell ... 
 >parling v. Parker 
 
 >l)ensley v. Harrison 
 
 ^perling v. R ochfort 
 
 ^ purway v. Gly nu 
 
 ^taeey v. Elph 
 
 >taf}brd V. Eiddon 
 
 ^tahlschmidt v. Lett ... 
 itainton v. Carrou Co. ... 
 
 stammers V. Elliott 
 
 — r. Halliley ... 
 Hamper v. Stamper
 
 xxxiv 
 
 TABLE OF 
 
 CASES. 
 
 
 
 
 NAMi:S OF CASKS. 
 
 AiiTiioui.sr.D 
 Reports. 
 
 Law 
 
 Journal. 
 
 (New Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Law Times. 
 
 (New Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Weekly 
 
 REroRTRR. 
 
 Jurist. 
 
 (Old Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Paoe. 
 
 Stanhope S. Collieries \ 
 Co., Re / 
 
 Stanton r. Hatfield 
 
 Starteu r. Bartholomew 
 
 Stead V. Hardaker . . . 
 
 — V. Stead 
 
 Stebbing V. Atlee 
 
 Steele r. Cobham 
 
 11 C. D. 160 
 
 1 Ke. 358 
 G Be. 143 
 15 Eq. 175 
 
 2 C. P. Coop. 311 
 
 1 Ch. 325 
 
 I Sim. 393 
 
 II C. D. 522 
 
 Kay, 721 
 
 1 Y. & C. C. 603 
 
 3 Bro. c! C. 365 
 
 12 Sim. 463 
 
 20 Be. 299 
 
 2 Sim. '513 
 22 C. D. 511 
 22 Be. 401 
 
 W. N. '80, 187 
 W. N. '76, 78 
 
 10 C. D. 273 
 20 C. D. 217 
 
 9 C. D. 568 
 
 3 Ch. 622 
 
 2 Dr. & Sm. 285 
 7 Eq. 436 
 
 20 C. D. 465 
 
 2 Giff. 530 
 
 W. N. 75, 193 
 
 3 Madd. 176 
 
 4 M. &"Cr. 203 
 
 10 Eq. 477 
 17 Eq. 324 
 
 1 Madd. 290 
 
 35 Be. 201 
 
 21 C. D. 571 
 
 4 C. P. D. 133 
 1 Y. & C. C. 481 
 6 C. D. 346 
 2DeG.F.&J.555 
 
 1 Dr. & Sm. 134 
 
 1 R. & M. 729 
 
 48 Ch. 409 
 
 12 cii." 179 
 
 42 Ch. 317 
 
 26 Ch'.' 265 
 17 ciiV 214 
 
 48 Ch. 562 
 
 11 Ch. 373 
 31 Ch. 746 
 
 11 oil. 198 
 22 Ch. 917 
 
 50 Ch.' 744 
 
 48 Ch. 130 
 
 51 Ch. 491 
 
 37 cii. 52 
 
 38 cii." 459 
 51 Ch. 434 
 30 Ch. 191 
 
 8 Ch!'l37 
 
 39 Ch. 676 
 
 43 Ch. 314 
 
 28 cii." 782 
 51 Ch." 785 
 
 30 cii." 465 
 
 29 Ch. 670 
 
 40, 204 
 
 28, 0."s"., 172 
 14, 242 
 
 8, 719 
 40, 669 
 
 6, 592' 
 
 30, 377 
 48, 95" 
 
 45, 172' 
 34, 277 
 
 39, 528 
 
 46, 409 
 
 19, 223 
 12, 761 
 
 46, 542 
 3, 661 
 
 33, O.S., 232 
 
 23, 134' 
 30, 49 
 
 33, O.'s., 26 
 14, 8 
 48, 13 
 
 3, 761 " 
 
 2, 77 
 
 27, 561 
 
 21, '258 
 14, '493 
 
 11, 936 
 27, 850 
 
 10, 605 
 
 1, 509 
 
 22, 639 
 31, 369 
 
 29, 821 
 
 24, 512 
 
 30, "4-23 
 27, 148 
 
 30, 801 
 9, 296 
 
 18, 'iio2 
 
 22, 349 
 
 7, 394 
 14, 326 
 
 31, 326 
 27, 682 
 
 25, '871 
 9, 293 
 
 8, 328 
 
 2, N.S.', 1161 
 12, 282 
 
 18, 344 
 
 6, 1029 
 
 7, N.S., 937 
 
 5, N.S.', 701 
 
 3, 214 
 
 5, N.S., 381 
 12, N.S., 539 
 
 6, 386' 
 
 7, N.S.', 293 
 6, N.S., 391 j 
 
 169 
 
 153, 154 
 
 31 
 
 157 
 
 70, 77 
 
 91, 92 
 
 127 
 
 146 
 
 106, 109, 
 
 110, 140 
 
 94 
 
 36, 73 
 
 126 
 164 
 
 97 
 
 60 
 26, 32 
 41,47,49 
 141 
 182 
 106 
 165 
 
 77 
 
 51 
 
 61 
 
 57 
 
 170 
 
 166, 168 
 
 143 
 
 62 
 139 
 
 164 
 
 152 
 
 21 
 
 142 
 
 159 
 
 74 
 
 117, 183 
 
 178 
 
 142, 143 
 
 117 
 
 32 
 
 57, 58 
 
 189 
 
 70 
 
 89 
 
 113, 116 
 
 153, 155, 
 
 156 
 
 182 
 
 Stephens v. Pillen 
 
 Stemdale v. Hankinson 
 
 Stevenson v. Abington... 
 Stirling - Maxwell v. \ 
 
 Cartwright / 
 
 Stone V. Van Heythuysen 
 Story V. Fry 
 
 Stott V . Meanock 
 
 Strange?'. Harris 
 
 Strickland v. Strickland 
 
 Strong V. Moore 
 
 Sullivan v. Beavan 
 
 Summer, i?e 
 
 Sutton V. Mashiter 
 
 — V. Sutton 
 
 Swale V. Swale 
 
 Sykes 1'. Brook 
 
 Symonds v. Jenkins 
 
 Tabor v. Brooks 
 
 Tadman v. D'Epineuil ... 
 Talbot V. Frere 
 
 Tann v. Tann 
 
 Tanqneray-Willanme ) 
 
 and Landau, Re \ 
 
 Tardrew ??. Howell 
 
 Taylor v. Duckett 
 
 — V. Glanville 
 
 — V. Linley 
 
 — V. Southgate 
 
 — V. Taylor 
 
 
 Tebbs V. Carpenter 
 
 Teed tJ. Beere 
 
 Tempest v. Camoys(Lord) 
 
 Tennant v. Rawlings 
 
 Therry v. Henderson . . . 
 
 Thomas w. Elsom 
 
 — V. Griffith 
 
 — V. Jones 
 
 — V. Montgomery 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 TABLE or CASES. 
 
 XXXV 
 
 
 L.\w 
 
 Law Times. 
 
 
 Jurist. 
 
 
 
 
 JOUBNAI.. 
 
 
 
 
 
 NAMES OF CASES. 
 
 authori.sed 
 Reports. 
 
 (Xew Series 
 unless other- 
 wi.se stated.) 
 
 (New Series 
 unless oOier- 
 Wise stated.) 
 
 Weekly 
 Rei'outer. 
 
 (Old Serie.s 
 unless otlier- 
 wi.se stated.) 
 
 Page. 
 
 Thoma-s v. PateutLion- \ 
 
 ite Co / 
 
 Thompson'!'. Bennett ... 
 
 17 C. D. 250 
 
 50 Ch. 544 
 
 44, 392 
 
 29, 596 
 
 
 172 
 
 6 C. D. 739 
 
 46 Ch. 803 
 
 37, 119 
 
 25, 862 
 
 
 167 
 
 — V. Cooper 
 
 1 Coll. 81 
 
 13 Ch. 416 
 
 2, O.S., 419 
 
 
 
 167 
 
 J, 
 
 2 Coll. 87 
 
 14 Ch. 318 
 
 5, O.S., 191 
 
 
 9, 768 " 
 
 154 
 
 — V. Dnnn 
 
 5 Ch. 573 
 
 
 
 18, '854 
 
 
 60 
 
 — V. Harri.s 
 
 19 C. D. 552 
 
 51 Cii. 273 
 
 46, 359 
 
 30, 293 
 
 
 156, 158 
 
 — V. Hope 
 
 (Seton, 84) 
 
 
 
 
 
 60 
 
 — T. Reynolds .. 
 
 3 Car. & P. 123 
 
 
 
 
 
 27 
 
 — V. Thompson 
 
 
 
 8, 490 " 
 
 11, 797 
 
 
 6 
 
 — r. Trotter ... 
 
 3 M. & Cr. 193 
 
 
 
 
 
 22 
 
 Thomson r. Eastwood ... 
 
 2 App. Cas. 215 
 
 
 
 
 
 165 
 
 — V. Flinn 
 
 17 Eq. 415 
 
 1 Russ. 540 n. 
 
 2 K. & J. 54 
 
 W. N. '77, 192 
 
 43 Ch.' 256 29, 829 
 
 25 cii. 57 26, O.S., 233 
 
 22, 293 
 
 
 186 
 164, 167 
 9 
 155 
 
 — V. Grant 
 
 Thorne v. Kerr 
 
 Threlfell v. Harrison 
 
 Tickner r. Smith 
 
 3 Sm. & a. 42 
 W. N. '78, 141 
 
 47 cii." 831 
 
 2.5, O.S., 44 
 38, 679 
 
 3, 224 
 
 26, 692 
 
 
 143 
 
 85 
 
 Timms, Re 
 
 Tipping i'. Power 
 
 1 Ha. 405 
 3 K. & J. 324 
 
 11 Ch. 257 
 26 Ch. 271 
 
 29, O.s!, 24 
 
 5, 277 
 
 6, 434 " 
 
 151, 152 
 116 
 
 Todd V. Studholme 
 
 Tolpntt V. AVells 
 
 1 M. & S. 395 
 
 2 Coll. 490 
 
 15 cii. 308 
 
 ... 
 7, O.S., 428 
 
 
 10, 534' 
 
 58 
 165 
 
 Tombs ('. Roch 
 
 Tomkins i\ Colthnrst ... 
 
 1 C. D. 626 
 
 
 33, 591 
 
 24, 267 
 
 ... 
 
 157, 165 
 
 Tomlin v. Tomlin 
 
 1 Ha. 236 
 
 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 Towuseud v. Townsend 
 
 W. N. '83, 34 
 
 
 
 
 
 73 
 
 Towsey t\ Grov'es 
 
 
 32 Ch.' 225 7, 778 
 
 11, 252 
 
 9, N.S., 194 
 
 31 
 
 Travers V. ToAvnsend ... 
 
 ] Moll. 496 
 
 
 
 
 
 142 
 
 Trestrail v. Mason 
 
 7 C. D. 655 
 4 C. D. 53 
 
 47 Ch'.' 249 
 46 Ch. 125 
 
 
 26, 260 
 
 
 174 
 157 
 
 Trethewy i\ Helyar 
 
 Trick's trusts, Ee 
 
 5 Ch. 170 
 2 Coll. 136 
 
 39 Ch. 201 
 
 21, 739 
 
 18, 123 
 
 9, 486 " 
 
 138 
 30 
 
 Tubby u. Tubby 
 
 Tuckley v. Thompson .. 
 
 IJ. & H. 126 
 
 29 Ch.' 548 
 
 2, 565 
 
 8, 302 
 
 
 154 
 
 TuUochi'. Tullwh 
 
 3 Eq. 574 
 
 
 
 
 
 95 
 
 Turner 1). Bridge tt 
 
 8 Q. B. D. 392 
 
 51 Q.'b. 374 
 
 
 30, '.586 
 
 
 170 
 
 — V. Buck 
 
 18 Eq. 301 
 
 43 Ch. 583 
 
 
 22, 748 
 
 
 119 
 
 — V. Hancock .... 
 
 20 C. D. 303 
 
 51 Ch. 517 
 
 46, 750' 
 
 30, 480 
 
 
 141, 149 
 
 — t'. Mullineux 
 
 
 
 3, 687 
 
 9, 252 
 
 
 145 
 
 — V. Reiinold.son ... 
 
 16 Eq. 37 
 
 42 Ch'.' 510 
 
 28, 330 
 
 21, 558 
 
 
 2, 184 
 
 — V. Turner 
 
 IJ. & W. 39 
 
 
 
 
 
 58, 132 
 
 ,, 
 
 30 Be. 414 
 1 Sw. 154 
 
 
 ... 
 
 
 
 59 
 99 
 
 V. — 
 
 Turquand r. Kirby 
 
 4 Eq. 123 
 
 36 Ch. 570 
 
 16, 260 
 
 15, 633, 
 730 
 
 1 
 J 
 
 25 
 
 Tyler r. Bell 
 
 2 M. & Cr. 89 
 5 Be. 36 
 
 6 Ch. 169 
 
 
 
 
 35 
 55 
 
 Underwood v. Hatton 
 
 — V. Jee ... i 
 
 1 Mac. & G. 276 
 1 H. & Tw. 379 
 
 |l9Ch.l71 
 
 14, O.S., 123 
 
 
 
 74 
 
 Upton V. Brown 
 
 20 C. D. 731 
 
 21 C. D. 189 
 
 51 Ch. 929 
 
 47, 289 
 47, 46 
 
 30, 817 
 30, 789 
 
 
 87,88,95 
 161, 163 
 
 Van Gheluive v. Ne- \ 
 
 rinckx / 
 
 Van Kamp ^'. Bell 
 
 3 Madd. 430 
 
 
 
 
 
 129 

 
 XXXVl 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 
 
 Law 
 
 JOUBNAI,. 
 
 L 
 
 \w Times. 
 
 
 JlIUIST. 
 
 
 NAMES OF CASKS. 
 
 ArriioRisi'D 
 
 KeI'OKTS. 
 
 (New Seriefl 
 unless otlier- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 (New Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Wekki.y 
 
 RKrOllTEH. 
 
 (Old Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 I'AiJi:. 
 
 Vanderwell f. Vamlcrwell 
 
 
 
 1, 266 
 
 
 
 
 124 
 
 Vaiic (E. ) V. Rif^doii 
 
 5 Ch. 603 
 
 39 Cii. 797 
 
 
 
 
 IS, 1092 
 
 
 58 
 
 Vanvcncii ?'. Pifiard 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 13, 425 
 
 
 4, 75 
 
 Venables v. Scliwcitzcr... 
 
 16 Eq. 76 
 
 42 cii'. 389 
 
 28, 
 
 462 
 
 
 21, 505 
 
 
 92 
 
 Vernt v. Uuproz 
 
 6 Eq. 329 
 
 37 Ch. 552 
 
 18, 
 
 501 
 
 
 16, 750 
 
 
 34 
 
 Viekers r. Hdl 
 
 4DeG.J.&S.274 
 3 Madd. 62 
 
 
 10, 
 
 77 
 
 
 12, 589 
 
 10, N.'s., 376 
 
 33 
 
 63 
 
 Vii^rass r. liinfield 
 
 Virtue v. Miller 
 
 10 Ch. '2'36 
 9 C. D. 212 
 
 44 cii. 344 
 
 38, 
 
 910 
 
 
 19, 406 
 23, 299 
 
 26, 802 
 
 
 69, 71 
 88, 89 
 
 171 
 
 Vyse f. Foster 
 
 Waddell v. Toleman ... 
 
 Wadhaiu ?'. RigJ? 
 
 2 Dr. & Sm. 78 
 21 C. D. 674 
 12 Eq. 152 
 
 51 Ch.' 651 
 40 Ch. 601 
 
 6, 
 25, 
 
 180 
 294' 
 
 
 10, 365 
 30, 698 
 
 8, N.S.', 206 
 
 6, 88 
 15 
 48 
 
 AVaite V. Bingley 
 
 Walker t;. Seligmaim ... 
 
 — V. Smalwood ... 
 
 Ambl. 676 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 59 
 
 — V. Woodward ... 
 
 1 Russ. 107 
 
 
 
 
 
 ... 
 
 
 15 
 
 Waller V. Barrett 
 
 24 Be. 413 
 Mo. & Ma. 362 
 18 C. D. 182 
 
 27 Ch.' 214 
 50 Ch." 819 
 
 30, 
 44, 
 
 o.s'., 
 
 769' 
 
 216 
 
 29, '888 
 
 4, N.s!', 128 
 
 142, 183 
 
 14, 27 
 
 167 
 
 Walters v. Pfeil 
 
 — r. Walters 
 
 — V. Woodbridge 
 
 7 C. D. 504 
 
 47 Ch. 516 
 
 38, 
 
 83 
 
 
 26, 469 
 
 
 142 
 
 Waiikford v. Wankford 
 
 1 Salk. 299 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 27 
 
 Warburton v. Hill 
 
 Kay, 470 
 
 23 cii'.' 633 
 
 23, 
 
 o.'s. 
 
 57 
 
 2, 365 
 
 
 81 
 
 Ward V. Mackinlay 
 
 2DeG.J.&S.358 
 
 34 Ch. 52 
 
 11, 
 
 326 
 
 
 13, 65 
 
 10, N.'s., 1063 
 
 154 
 
 — V. Raw 
 
 15 E(i. 83 
 5 C. D. 779 
 7De,G.M.&G.739 
 
 25 cii'.' 199 
 
 27, 
 37, 
 26, 
 
 601 
 
 68 
 
 O.S. 
 
 251 
 
 21, 116 
 
 25, 866 
 4, 223 
 
 2, N.S'., 129 
 
 188 
 
 186 
 
 98 
 
 — V. Wyld 
 
 Ware ?>. Watson 
 
 Waring I'. Dauvers 
 
 1 P. Wm.s. 295 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 58 
 
 Waterton !». Burt 
 
 W. N. '70, 106 
 
 39 cii.' 425 
 
 
 
 
 18, 683 
 
 
 97, 111 
 
 — V. Ennis 
 
 W. N. '80, 154 
 
 
 43, 
 
 748' 
 
 
 28, 885 
 
 
 198 
 
 Watkius V. Brent ] 
 
 7 Sim. 512 
 1 M. & Cr. 97 
 
 1 5 Ch. 49 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 26 
 
 Watson r. Birch 
 
 15 Sim. 523 
 6 Be. 283 
 
 16 Ch. 188 
 12 Ch. 221 
 
 8, 
 
 O.S., 
 
 531 
 
 
 11, 198 
 7, 143 
 
 110 
 25, 43 
 
 — V. Parker 
 
 — v. Row 
 
 18 Eq. 680 
 
 19 C. D. 640 
 
 43 Ch. 664 
 
 45, 
 
 757 
 
 
 22, 793 
 30, 316 
 
 
 147 
 172 
 
 Wearmouth Crown \ 
 Gla.ssCo., Ee j 
 
 Weaver, Re 
 
 21 C. D. 615 
 14 C. B. 401 
 7 Ves. 480 
 16 Sim. 55 
 3 B. & Al. 360 
 
 23 C.V. 96 
 17 cii. 13 
 
 48, 
 22 
 
 10 
 
 93 
 O.S. 
 
 O.'s'. 
 
 260 
 154 
 
 31, 224 
 2, 225 
 
 
 26, 57 
 
 28 
 54, 56 
 
 147 
 26, 27 
 
 Webb r. Adkins 
 
 — V. Shaftesbury (E. ) 
 
 — v. Webb 
 
 Webster V. Spencer 
 
 Wedgwood r. Adams ... 
 
 8 Be. 103 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 149 
 
 Wells V. Berwick 
 
 17 C. D. 798 
 19 C. D. 246 
 3 Dr. 331 
 
 50 Ch. 241 
 19 cii'.' 81 
 
 44, 
 
 45 
 
 26 
 15 
 
 49 " 
 
 514 
 
 O.S. 
 O.S. 
 
 66 
 43 
 
 29, 834 
 
 30, 33 
 4, 1 
 
 14, 360 
 
 177 
 
 40 
 
 6 
 76 
 
 Werderman v. Soc.Gen. 1 
 d'Electricite j" 
 
 West?'. Laing 
 
 — V. Swinburne 
 
 Westbourne Grove Dra- "1 
 
 pery Co., Re j 
 
 Weston ?\ Clowes 
 
 5 C. D. 248 
 15 Sim. 610 
 33 Be. 285 
 
 46 Ch. 525 
 
 36 
 
 9, 
 
 439 
 361 
 
 
 25, 509 
 12, 66 
 
 9, N.S., 1216 
 
 170, 172 
 
 155 
 155, 156 
 
 Wetenhall v. Dennis ' 
 or Davis j 
 
 Wheeler, He 
 
 1 Sch. & Lef. 242 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 114 
 
 — V. Gill 
 
 19 Eq. 316 
 
 44 Ch. 181 
 
 31 
 
 641 
 
 
 23, '227 
 
 
 110 

 
 
 
 TABLE 
 
 OF 
 
 CASES. 
 
 
 
 
 
 xxxvii 
 
 
 
 
 I.A 
 
 w 
 
 Law Times. 
 
 
 
 JURLST. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Journal. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 NAMES OF CASES. 
 
 
 ArXHORISED 
 
 Reports. 
 
 (New Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 (New Series 
 imless other- 
 
 Weekly 
 Reportee. 
 
 (Old Series 
 unless other- 
 
 Taoe. 
 
 
 
 
 wise stated.) 
 
 
 
 wise staleil.) 
 
 
 Whitaker v. Eobin.soii 
 
 
 W. N. 77, 201 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 84 
 
 — V. Wright .. 
 
 
 2 Ha. 310 
 
 12 Ch. 
 
 241 
 
 
 
 
 
 7, 320 
 
 '. 
 
 105, 106, 
 107 
 
 White?'. Barton 
 
 
 18 Be. 192 
 20 Eq. 644 
 15 Be. 191 
 
 44 cii. 
 
 746 
 
 
 
 23, 
 
 826 
 
 
 
 33, 63 
 145 
 142 
 
 — i\ Cord well .- 
 
 — V. Jackson .... 
 
 
 — V. Stevviirt 
 
 
 35 Be. 304 
 
 2 Y. & C. C. 13 
 
 12 Ch. 
 
 21 
 
 
 
 
 
 6, 985" 
 
 
 44 
 25 
 
 Whitmore v. Oxborrow 
 
 
 — V. Turqnand 
 
 1 J. & H. 296 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 61 
 
 Whitney?'. Smith 
 
 
 4 Ch. 513 
 
 
 
 20, 
 
 468 
 
 17, 
 
 579 
 
 
 
 16, 48 
 
 WJiittaker v. Whittaker 
 
 21 C. D. 657 
 
 51 Ch. 
 
 737 
 
 46, 
 
 802 
 
 30, 
 
 787 
 
 
 
 106 
 
 Whittington r. Edwar 
 
 Is 
 
 3 De G. & J. 243 
 
 
 
 32, 
 
 O.S.,187 
 
 7, 
 
 72 
 
 
 
 3, 69 
 
 Wliittle r. Henning ... 
 
 
 2 Be. 396 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 50 
 
 Wickenden v. Rayson 
 
 
 6DeG.M.&G.210 
 
 25 cii'. 
 
 162 
 
 26, 
 
 O.S., 192 
 
 4, 
 
 39" 
 
 
 
 196 
 
 Widdowson r. J.hick . 
 
 
 2 Mer. 494 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 54 
 
 Wigle.sworth v. Wigles- 
 worth 
 
 1 
 
 16 Be. 269 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 60,64,65 
 
 Wildes V. Diidlow 
 
 
 19 Eq. 198 
 9 Be. 294 
 7 Ch. 314 
 
 44 Ch. 
 15 Ch. 
 41 Bk 
 
 341 
 129 
 
 38 
 
 26, 
 
 303' 
 
 23, 
 
 20, 
 
 435 
 
 430 
 
 
 
 166 
 
 147 
 
 163, 169 
 
 Wiles i: Cooper 
 
 Williams, Ex parte .. 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 16 C. D. 590 
 
 50 Ch. 
 
 303 
 
 44, 
 
 336 
 
 29, 
 
 419 
 
 
 
 171 
 
 — V. Chard .. 
 
 
 5 De G. & Sm. 9 
 
 21 Ch. 
 34 Ch. 
 
 9 
 20 
 
 18, 
 
 9, 
 
 O.S., 71 
 
 824 
 
 12, 
 
 367 
 
 15, 1026 
 10, N.S 
 
 , 384 
 
 123 
 183 
 
 — r. Headland 
 
 
 4 Giff. 505 
 
 — r. Hopkins 
 
 
 18 C. D. 370 
 
 
 
 45, 
 
 117 
 
 29, 
 
 767 
 
 
 
 171 
 
 — V. — (No 
 
 2) 
 
 
 
 
 44, 
 
 773 
 
 29, 
 
 752 
 
 
 
 171 
 
 — V. Kershaw 
 
 
 1 Ke. 274 n. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 176 
 
 — V. Williams 
 
 
 W. N. '68, 241 
 
 37 cii. 
 
 854 
 
 18, 
 
 785 
 
 
 
 
 
 188 
 
 V. — 
 
 
 15 Eq. 270 
 
 42 Ch. 
 
 158 
 
 28, 
 
 17 
 
 21, 
 
 160 
 
 
 
 163 
 
 Williamson r. Jefferys 
 
 
 
 
 
 10, 
 
 330 
 
 12, 
 
 403 
 
 
 
 44 
 
 Wills r. Rich 
 
 
 2 Atk. 285 
 11 Be. 492 
 13 Sim. 212 
 2 Moll. 323 
 
 12 cii. 
 
 •• 
 
 139 
 
 
 
 8, 
 
 133 
 
 6, N.S.', 
 
 190 
 
 27 
 
 159 
 
 137, 157 
 
 98 
 
 5 
 
 Wilson i: Hcaton 
 
 — V. Sqnire 
 
 — V. Wilson 
 
 Wiltshire's Estate, Ee 
 
 
 Wiuehouse i\ Winehouse 
 
 20 C. D.' 545 
 
 51 cii. 
 
 560 
 
 46, 
 
 362" 
 
 30, 
 
 729 
 
 
 
 163 
 
 Winkworth v. Wink- 
 worth 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 32 Be. 233 
 
 32 Ch. 
 
 40 
 
 7, 
 
 303 
 
 11, 
 
 15 
 
 9, N.S., 
 
 61 
 
 181 
 
 Withernsea Brick- 
 works, He 
 
 16 C. D. 337 
 
 50 Ch. 
 
 185 
 
 43, 
 
 713 
 
 29, 
 
 178 
 
 
 
 170 
 
 WoUaston v. Wollaston 
 
 7 C. D. 58 
 
 47 Ch. 
 
 117 
 
 37, 
 
 631 
 
 26, 
 
 77 
 
 
 t 
 
 584 
 
 24, 29, 
 138 
 
 Wood V. Ordish 
 
 
 3 Sm. & G. 125 
 13 Eq. 434 
 
 
 
 25, 
 26, 
 
 O.S., 327 
 
 385 
 
 20, 
 
 '459 
 
 1, N.S., 
 
 157, 165 
 103 
 
 — V. Weightmau.. 
 
 
 Woodcock's Settled 
 Estates, He .. 
 
 } 
 
 13 Eq. 183 
 
 41 Ch. 
 
 22 
 
 25, 
 
 459 
 
 
 
 
 
 68 
 
 Woodgate V. Field 
 
 
 2 Ha. 211 
 
 11 Ch. 
 
 321 
 
 
 
 
 
 6, 871 
 
 1 
 
 13, 50, 
 105 
 169 
 
 Woods V. Greenwell ... 
 
 
 W. N. "82, 10 
 
 
 
 45, 
 
 707 
 
 30, 
 
 283 
 
 
 — V. Sowerhy 
 
 
 6 Eq. 410 
 
 37 Ch. 
 
 640 
 
 19, 
 
 144' 
 
 14, 
 16, 
 
 9 
 965 
 
 
 
 29 
 25 
 
 Wooldridge v. Norris 
 
 
 Woolf t'. Femberton... 
 
 
 6 C. D. 19 
 
 
 
 37, 
 
 328 
 
 25, 
 
 873 
 
 
 
 31 
 
 Wormald r. Muzeen ... 
 
 
 17 C. D. 167 
 
 [50 Ch. 
 1482, 776 
 
 44, 
 45, 
 
 409 
 115 
 
 29, 753, 
 795 
 
 \ 
 
 
 178 
 
 Wornisley ?•. Stnrt ... 
 
 
 22 Be. 398 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 91 
 
 Worraker y. Prver 
 
 
 2 C. D. 109 
 
 45 Ch. 
 
 273 
 
 
 
 24, 
 
 269 
 
 
 1. 9 1 
 
 
 
 1
 
 XXXVlll 
 
 T.ABLE OF 
 
 CA^^ES. 
 
 
 
 
 NAMES OF CASES. 
 
 Authorised 
 Keports. 
 
 Law 
 Journal. 
 
 (New Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Law Times. 
 
 (New Series 
 unless other- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Weekly 
 IIetortek. 
 
 Jurist. 
 
 (Old Seiies 
 unless <ither- 
 wise stated.) 
 
 Page. 
 
 Worth, Re 
 
 18 C. D. 521 
 2DeG.M.&G.652 
 13 Be. 107 
 lDeG.&Sm.357 
 ') Sim. 450 
 3 Be. 498 
 Johns. 41 
 
 26 Be. 377 - 
 
 2 M. & K. 635 
 
 2 Cox, 377 
 24 Be. 127 
 
 18 Be. 70 
 
 18 Eq. 634 
 21 C. D. 642 
 
 1 R. &; M. 426 
 
 10 Ha. 158 
 
 2 Y. i: C. C. 582 
 
 11 Eq. 439 
 
 50 Ch. 262 
 21 Ch. 787 
 20 Ch. 32 
 
 28 Ch.' 562 
 28 Ch. 283, 
 
 485 
 3 Ch. 221 
 
 23 Ch. 695 
 
 44 Ch. 93 
 
 51 Ch. 940 
 
 44, 462 
 
 19, O.S., 308 
 
 16, O.S., 257 
 
 32, O.'s., 370 
 |32,O.S.,329 
 
 22, O.S., 151 
 
 47, 644' 
 44, 499 
 
 2, O.S., 165 
 
 24, 770 
 
 29, 371 
 
 7, 254 
 
 7, 197 
 
 2, 93 
 
 22, 764 
 31, 173 
 
 16, 647 
 
 5, N.S.", 818 
 5, N.S., 165 
 
 17, 1090 
 7, 1147' 
 
 190 
 178 
 
 66 
 
 156, 178 
 
 126 
 
 63 
 
 99 
 
 73 
 
 175 
 
 62 
 112 
 
 89 
 
 143 
 
 91 
 159 
 130 
 
 11 
 158 
 
 70,74,77 
 
 Wright V. Callander 
 
 — V. Lukes 
 
 Wronghton v. Colqnhoun 
 Wyatt V. Sadler 
 
 — V. Sharratt 
 
 Wycherley v. Barnard .. 
 Wynne v. Hughes 
 
 Wythe V. Hennikcr 
 
 Yare r. Harrison 
 
 YeoTnans v. Haynes 
 
 York and North Mid- '^ 
 laudRy.l'o.r. Hudson j 
 Youde r. Cloud 
 
 Younff, U.i: parte 
 
 — r. Dolman 
 
 — r. Everest 
 
 — V. Hodges 
 
 — V. Martin 
 
 Zambaco v. Cassavetti..
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Abington, Stevenson r. 
 
 , 
 
 94 
 
 Barrett, Hawkes v. 
 
 
 71 
 
 Abraham, Bethell v. 
 
 . 54 
 
 , 56 
 
 — Waller i'. . 
 
 142^ 
 
 183 
 
 Acland, Edmunds v. 
 
 
 123 
 
 Barry, Haly i\ 
 
 
 81 
 
 Adams, Wedgwood r. 
 
 
 149 
 
 Bartholomew, Starten v. . 
 
 
 31 
 
 Adamson, Christian v. 
 
 
 142 
 
 Barton, White v. 
 
 " 33 
 
 , 63 
 
 Adkins, Webb v. . 
 
 , 
 
 28 
 
 Bartrum, Couldery v. 
 
 
 171 
 
 Agate, Jeudwine v, . 
 
 . 
 
 125 
 
 Basham, Hannay v. 
 
 
 145 
 
 Alcan, Cohen v. . 
 
 
 6 
 
 Bather, Donald v. . 
 
 
 36 
 
 Alexander, Bell r. . 
 
 
 37 
 
 Bathurst, Simpson v. . 
 
 
 143 
 
 — Gillespie r. Ill 
 
 5, 115, 
 
 lie 
 
 Battison, Minors v. 
 
 
 55 
 
 Allen, Croggan v. 
 
 , 
 
 136 
 
 Batty, Day v. 
 
 . ' 9a 
 
 , 95 
 
 Allingham, Cox v. . 
 
 
 14 
 
 Baxter, Bennett v, . 
 
 
 126 
 
 AUsop, Inchley v. 
 
 
 125 
 
 — Hunter v. 
 
 
 109 
 
 Althus, Smith v. 
 
 , , 
 
 90 
 
 Beal, Phillips v. 
 
 55^ 
 
 109 
 
 Anderson, Acaster v. . 
 
 
 5 
 
 Beavan, Sullivan v. 
 
 
 141 
 
 — Musbach v. 
 
 
 82 
 
 Beaumont, Gardner v. 
 
 
 124 
 
 Andrews, Smith v. 
 
 
 43 
 
 Beere, Teed v. 
 
 
 117 
 
 Angel, Davis v. 
 
 . 24 
 
 , 25 
 
 Beetham, Shepheard i: 
 
 159, 
 
 176 
 
 Angell, Henshaw v. 
 
 
 9!^ 
 
 Bell, Bath v. 
 
 
 139 
 
 Anglesey (M.), Skinner r. 
 
 166^ 
 
 168 
 
 — ■ Blann -v. 
 
 
 157 
 
 Archer, Kelk v. . 
 
 
 71 
 
 — Newbegin v. 
 
 
 156 
 
 Armstrong, Smith v. 
 
 
 134 
 
 — Tyler V. . 
 
 
 35 
 
 Arnold, Butlin v. 
 
 
 125 
 
 — Van Kamp v. 
 
 
 129 
 
 Ashley, Parry v. 
 
 . 61 
 
 , 65 
 
 — Vickers v. 
 
 
 33 
 
 — Sewell V. 
 
 4, 6 
 
 , 35 
 
 Bennett, Jesse v. . 
 
 
 39 
 
 Ashurst, Annesley r. 
 
 
 69 
 
 — Skeyr. . 
 
 
 196 
 
 Aston, James i\ . 
 
 
 34 
 
 — Thompson i\ 
 
 
 1G7 
 
 — Johnson v. . 
 
 
 63 
 
 Bent, Cafe v. . . .3 
 
 b, 56, 
 
 136 
 
 Atlee, Stebbing v. 
 
 .' 91 
 
 92 
 
 Beutley, Scott v. 
 
 
 30 
 
 Austin, Curling v. 
 
 
 131 
 
 Bintield, Vigrass v. 
 
 
 63 
 
 — Farrow i'. , 
 
 140, 
 
 149 
 
 Bingley, Waite v. 
 
 
 15 
 
 — Halite. . 
 
 
 39 
 
 Binney, Hill v. 
 Birch, Watson v. 
 
 
 13 
 
 JIO 
 
 
 
 
 Birchmore, Sawyer v. 
 
 114, 
 
 120 
 
 Backhouse, Pickering v. 
 
 
 197 
 
 Birks, Hitchen v. 
 
 
 34 
 
 Badley, Brook v. 
 
 
 130 
 
 Blake, Hinde v. 
 
 
 64 
 
 — Green v. 
 
 
 52 
 
 Blennerhasset, Purcell v. 
 
 
 119 
 
 — Frowd V. 
 
 ' 71 
 
 , 76 
 
 Blissett, Cooper v. . 
 
 
 9 
 
 Baldwin, Nesbitt r. 
 
 
 68 
 
 Blount, Nayler v. 
 
 
 9 
 
 Ballard, CoUinson r. 
 
 
 51 
 
 Blundell, Bootle v. . 
 
 
 164 
 
 Bank of England, Richardso 
 
 1 r. . 
 
 63 
 
 Bockwoldt, Peruvian Guano 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 79 
 
 Bannister, Martin v. . 
 
 
 184 
 
 Bogg, Mason v. 
 
 162, 
 
 170 
 
 — Moodie v. 
 
 108, 
 
 109 
 
 Bogle, London & Provincial 
 
 Bk. t>. 
 
 166 
 
 Barlow, Nunn v. . 
 
 
 65 
 
 Bolton, Cook v. 
 
 
 123 
 
 Barnard, Wyeherley v. 
 
 
 99 
 
 Booth, Nelson v. . 
 
 
 52 
 
 Barnes, Bond v. . 
 
 
 77 
 
 Berwick, Wells v. . 
 
 
 177 
 
 — Pemberton v. 
 
 
 96 
 
 Bourne, Aspinall v. 
 
 
 134 
 
 Barnett, Patching v. 
 
 
 158 
 
 Bowen, Bennett v. . 
 
 22, 
 
 191 
 
 Barret, Rhodes r. . 
 
 . 7] 
 
 , 72 
 
 Bowie, Lawrence v. 
 
 
 147
 
 xl 
 
 lAfUJ: OF CASKS. 
 
 Bradley, Harvey r. . 
 Biadstock, Smart r. 
 Braiickor, Came v. . 
 Brazier, Lecliinere v. . 133, 1 
 Brent, Watkins v. . 
 Brett, Noble r. . 
 Briaiit, Seottr. 
 
 Bridges, Hill I'. . . . 1 
 Bridgett, 'I'urner v. . 
 Broadinead, Dilkes r. . 
 Brodriek, nulliugsworth r. 
 Bronitield, Cummins v. 
 Brook, Sykes v. 
 Brooks, 'J'abor v. 
 Bronghton, Gowan r. . 
 Brow n, Eltoft v. 
 
 — Ujiton r. . 
 Brow ne, Alnntefiore r. 
 Brudenell, Lcnton v. . 
 Bryant, Ford v. 
 
 — King V. . 
 Buchanan, Fleming v. 
 Buck, Turner v. . 
 Bullock, De Baliuhard ti. 
 Bult, Gough ?'. 
 Burgess, Rowley v. . 
 Burn ell, Foley v. 
 Burrage, Neeves v. . 
 Burt, Birt v. 
 
 — ^Yaterton r. . 
 Rxisch, OiTell V. . 
 Butler's Wharf Co., Anderson 
 
 Callander, "Wright r. . 
 Cainoys (Lord), Tempest r 
 Caui]ibell, Hoskinsf. 
 Capell, Creak v. . 
 Carniichael, Brett v. 
 
 — Hudson V. 
 Carnegie, Hope v. . 
 Carpenter, Tebbs v. 
 Carron Co., Stainton v. . 
 Carter, Chubb v. . 
 
 — Coo]ie ('. 
 
 — Low r. 
 Cart Wright, Corse r v. 
 
 — Pierpoint r. 
 
 — Stirling- Maxwell t 
 Cassavetti, Zambaco v, 70 
 Cely, Cow3lad v. . 
 Chabaud, Catherwood v. . 
 Chaffers, Howard v. 
 Chambers, Hunt v. . 
 
 — Smith V. . 
 Chard, Williams r. . 
 Chennell, Jones v. 
 Cheston, HoUoway r. 
 Cheyne, Kidd r. . 
 
 53, 
 
 (17, 
 
 22, 
 
 97, 
 78 
 
 AUV. 
 
 IG 
 
 44 
 
 131 
 
 154 
 
 2(J 
 llt> 
 
 14 
 173 
 170 
 166 
 
 79 
 147 
 
 51 
 
 57 
 156 
 
 22 
 , 95 
 113 
 108 
 
 16 
 140 
 165 
 119 
 
 44 
 119 
 182 
 182 
 
 58 
 
 58 
 111 
 , 79 
 
 89 
 
 42 
 
 ^^1 
 
 . 178 
 32, 57 
 . 72 
 . 65 
 . 114 
 . 100 
 . 82 
 143 
 79 
 182 
 : 17 
 . 142 
 . 166 
 . 189 
 36, 73 
 74, 77 
 32 
 14 
 132 
 50 
 17 
 123 
 149 
 89 
 49 
 
 31 
 
 Cliilde, Delevante r. 
 Clack, A.-(;. V. . 
 Clagett, Fordham v. 
 (/lark, Cumberland r. 
 Claxton, Adams v. . 
 Clement, Freme v. 
 Cloud, Yonde v. 
 Clowes, Weston v. 
 Cobbett, Oldfield v. 
 Cobbold, Bruffr. 
 
 — Lewellin i\ 
 Cobham, Steele v. 
 Coleby, Green v. 
 Collier, Payne r. . 
 Collins, Browne v. 
 
 — Liltlewood v 
 
 — Scales r. 
 Col(]uhoun, Wroughton r 
 Colthurst, Tondvins v. 
 Colvin, Hartwell r. 
 Concannon, Betagh v. 
 Coney, Burch v. . 
 Connor, ilenzies v. . 
 Cook, Boycs v. 
 Cooke, Ijarton v. 
 Cooper, Aldridge v. 
 
 — Thompson v. 
 
 — Wiles V. . 
 Cor<lwell, White v. .. 
 Cottee, Knt)tt r. . 
 Coulson, Seymour v. 
 Cox, Eyre v. 
 
 — Freeman v. 
 Coxwell, Harvey v. 
 Creed, Say v. 
 Croall, McYeagh v. 
 Croft, Dymond v. . 
 Crook, Cheetham v. 
 Croome, Duignan v. 
 Cross, Lloyd r. . 
 
 — Lyttleton v. . 
 Crowther, Osbaldiston 
 Cruise, Concannou v. 
 Cumberland, Scott v. 
 Currey, Morewood v. 
 Currie, Hagell v. . 
 
 Dale, Smith v. 
 Dalton, David v. . 
 Damer, Portarlington v. 
 Daniell, Bland r. 
 Danvers, AYaring v. 
 Darby, Harbin v. 
 Darling, Jlackie r. . 
 
 — Morgan v. 
 Davis, Fin lay v. 
 
 — Handley v. 
 
 — Knitrht v. 
 
 24, 
 
 j'Afii-: 
 
 5 
 
 57 
 
 88 
 
 76 
 
 134 
 
 165 
 
 143 
 
 155 
 
 126 
 
 49 
 
 61 
 
 127 
 
 21 
 
 63 
 
 89 
 
 72 
 
 175 
 
 178 
 
 165 
 
 113 
 
 62 
 
 106 
 
 74 
 
 21 
 
 138 
 
 175 
 
 167 
 
 147 
 
 145 
 
 1.^)8 
 
 1S» 
 
 8, 9 
 
 68 
 
 122 
 
 130 
 
 108 
 
 21 
 
 72 
 
 167 
 
 47 
 
 55 
 
 6 
 
 14 
 
 156 
 
 137 
 
 60 
 
 . 147 
 . 21 
 
 69, 70 
 . 157 
 . 58 
 . 148 
 
 30, 62 
 . 189 
 . 192 
 . 157 
 . 174 
 
 25, 
 
 154, 
 
 144,
 
 TABLE OF CASKS. 
 
 xli 
 
 
 I'AflE 
 
 Dawes, De Feucheres v. 
 
 32, 33 
 
 Davvley, Gibbons v. 
 
 . . 24 
 
 Dawson, Maclean v. 
 
 . 34 
 
 Dehiinere, Owen v. . 
 
 . . 26 
 
 Dennis, Wetenhall v. . 
 
 . 155, 156 
 
 D'Epincuil, Tadman v. . 
 
 . . 170 
 
 De Tastet, Brown v. 
 
 . 66 
 
 Dew'es, Chissum v. . 
 
 . . 156 
 
 De Zichy, Hertford (M.) v. 
 Dickenson, Owens i'. 10 
 
 . 42 
 5, 109, 167 
 
 Dillon (Lord), Fallows v. 
 
 . 131 
 
 — Nash V. 
 
 . . 151 
 
 Dixon, Clongh v. . 
 
 . 34 
 
 Dodds, Henderson v. 1. 
 
 52, 153, 154 
 
 Dolman, Young r. 
 
 . 159 
 
 Douthwaite, Spensley i: . 
 
 . . 66 
 
 Dowbiggin, Fraser v. . 
 
 . 37 
 
 Doyle, Pollard v. 
 
 . . 148 
 
 Dnck, Widdowson v. . 
 
 . 54 
 
 Duckett, Taylor v. . 
 
 . . 21 
 
 Dudding, Dinisdale v. . 
 
 . 137 
 
 Dudgeon, McAriliur v. 
 
 . . 91 
 
 Dudlow, Wildes v. 
 
 . 166 
 
 Dunn, Thompson v. 
 
 . . 60 
 
 Duprez, Veret v. . 
 
 . 34 
 
 Dyson, Pickles v. . 
 
 . . 192 
 
 Fades, Hughes v. . 
 
 . . 13 
 
 Fast, Fleming v. 
 — Jolliffe V. 
 
 .131, 132 
 . . 136 
 
 Fasten, Howard v. 
 
 . 142 
 
 Eastwood, Thomson v. 
 
 . . 165 
 
 Fckford, Haldane v. 
 
 32, 46 
 
 Edwards, AVhittingtou v. 
 
 . . 3 
 
 Eley, Bates v. 
 Elliott, Beaney v. 
 — Robinson v. 
 
 . 91 
 
 . . 131 
 
 . 140 
 
 — Stammers v. 
 
 . . 146 
 
 Ellis, Down v. 
 
 . 105 
 
 Ellison, Glover v. 
 
 . . 91 
 
 Piljjh, Stacey v. . 
 Flsoiu, Thomas t'. 
 
 . 33 
 . . 89 
 
 J^lstob, Morgan v. 
 
 . 112 
 
 Elworthy, Densem v. 
 
 . . 43 
 
 Funis, Waterton v. 
 
 . 198 
 
 Evens, Payne v. 
 Everard, Dove i\ 
 
 . . 143 
 
 33, 34 
 
 Everest, Young v. . 
 
 . . 130 
 
 Fairlie, Freeman v. . 
 
 . 64 
 
 Falconer, Hull v. 
 
 . ". 114 
 
 Falkiner, Nicholson v. . 
 
 . 151 
 
 Farlie, Lowe v. 
 
 . . 36 
 
 Fellows, Pinchard v. . 
 
 . 154 
 
 Fiddon, StatTord v. . 
 
 . . 133 
 
 Field, Mayd v. 
 
 — Woodgate v. 1 3, 
 
 . 158 
 50, 105, 197 
 
 Finney, Morley v. 
 Fisher, Longbourne r. 
 
 . 106 
 . . 127 
 
 Flagstatr Mining Co., P 
 Flinn, Thomson v. 
 Flint, Fearnside t'. , 
 Floyer, Fan^uharsou v. 
 Ford, Score v. . 
 Forrest, Douglas v. 
 Foster, Christian v. 
 
 — Dryden v. 
 
 — Hewett V. 
 
 — Miicdonald v. . 
 
 — Vyse V. 
 Foulkes, Jones v. . 
 Foxhall, Player v. . 
 Francis, Penney v. 
 Fraser, Lovat v. 
 Frere, Talbot v. . 
 Frowd, Moore v. 
 
 — David V. . 
 Fry, Story v. . 
 Fryer, Hensman v. 
 Fulford, Hilliard v. 
 Fulton, Lowry v. 
 
 Galijni, Pott V. 
 Gandy, Harris v. . 
 Garrett, Gardner v. . 
 Gatty, Phillipson i\ 
 Gaukroger, Berry v. 
 Gee, Carmichael v. 
 
 — Laming v. 
 Geldard, Kobinson v. . 
 George, Eees v. 
 Gibbon, Roy v. 
 Gibbons, Berry v. . 
 Gibson, Fei-guson v. 
 Gilbey, Ottley v. 
 Gill, Alcock V. 
 — Wheeler v. 
 Gillespie, Perpetual Insur. 
 Gittings, Cooke v. . 
 Glanville, Taylor t. 
 Glynn, Spurway r. . 
 Goode, Joseph v. . 
 Goodwin, Reeve v. . 
 Gordon, Rice v. . 
 Graham, Bond v. 
 
 — Harrison v. . 
 Grant, Heighington v. 
 
 — Thomson v. 
 Gray, Polini v. 
 Green, Fuller i\ . 
 
 — Rayner v. 
 Greenhill, Rump v. 
 Grecnhough, Bai'raclour 
 Greenwell, Woods r. 
 Gregory, Beardmore v. 
 Gregson, Cook v. 
 Griffin, Bowyer v. 
 Griffith, Tliomas c. 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 ACR 
 
 vis V. 
 
 187 
 
 
 186 
 
 
 
 165 
 
 
 i 
 
 57, 
 
 165 
 
 
 
 62 
 
 , 63 
 
 32 
 
 1.58 
 
 74 
 
 144 
 
 192 
 
 
 
 88 
 
 , 89 
 35 
 55 
 71 
 
 164 
 
 
 
 66, 
 
 168 
 147 
 
 
 
 13^ 
 
 120 
 164 
 
 
 
 57^ 
 
 165 
 
 139 
 
 33 
 
 74 
 
 70 
 
 
 
 7b 
 
 , 84 
 
 42 
 
 99 
 
 178 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 176 
 
 
 48^ 
 
 130 
 64 
 
 . 56, 58, 96 
 
 55, 152 
 
 166 
 
 
 139 
 
 
 87 
 
 
 110 
 
 ir. Co. V. 
 
 19 
 
 
 
 39 
 
 
 
 142 
 
 
 
 119 
 
 
 '93] 
 
 153 
 
 
 
 
 , 61 
 
 25 
 
 35 
 
 33 
 
 143 
 
 
 
 164^ 
 
 167 
 
 3 
 
 140 
 
 33 
 
 4, 5 
 
 1 r. 
 
 
 
 14 
 
 169 
 39 
 
 
 
 167 
 
 
 ' 144^ 
 
 145 
 
 
 
 113, 
 
 116
 
 xlii 
 
 TAULK OF CASES 
 
 Groves, Towsey r. . 
 (Judgeou, Linlbrd v. 
 Gurney, lioswell v. . 
 
 — Harrison v. 
 Guy, Smith v. 
 Gwyniie, James v. 
 
 Hacon, Eames v. 
 Haddou, Aiigell v. 
 Haines, Austen v. . 
 
 — Eex V. 
 Ballet, Hall v. 
 Halliley, Stammers v. 
 Hamilton, Griffiths v. 
 
 — Johnstone v, 
 Hammersley, Johnson ^ 
 Hammett, King v. 
 Hammond, Pierce v. 
 Hampton, Scaffold v. 
 Hancock, Turner v. 
 Handley, Foster v. 
 Hankinson, Sterndale v 
 Harben, Godfrey v. . 
 Hardaker, Stead v. 
 Harding, Livesey v. 
 Hardiugham, Shaw v. 
 Hardy, Lock hart v. 
 Harmby, Cuthbert r. 
 Harris, Dickins v. . 
 
 — Harmer v. 
 
 — Parsons v. . 
 
 — Strange v. 
 
 — Thompson v. 
 Harrison, Dickson v. 
 
 — Miles V. . 
 
 — Spensley ?'. 
 
 — Threlfall v. 
 
 — Yare v. 
 Harwood, Eankin v. 
 Haslani, O'Connor v. 
 Hastings, Shirreff v. 
 Hatfield, Stanton v. 
 Hatton, Underwood v. 
 Hawke, Cardell v. 
 Hawtin, Dowd v. 
 Haynes, Flintoffv. 
 
 — Yeomans v. 
 Headlam, Chaffers v. 
 Headland, Williams v. 
 Heathfield, Sander v. 
 Heaton, Wilson v. . 
 Hebblethwaite, Berry i 
 Helyar, Trethewy v. 
 Henderson, Carr v. 
 
 Halliley v. 
 
 — Therry ?•. 
 Hennet, Furze v. 
 Henniker, Wythe v. 
 Henning, Whittle v. 
 
 107 
 
 106 
 
 
 PAGE 1 
 
 
 31 
 
 . 185^ 
 
 188 
 
 , 111, 
 
 173 
 
 
 82 
 
 
 125 
 
 
 124 
 
 
 36 
 
 
 114 
 
 
 46 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 142 
 
 
 177 
 
 
 13 
 
 38J 48 
 
 , 49 
 
 
 125 
 
 
 141 
 
 
 99 
 
 
 19 
 
 141^ 
 
 149 
 
 
 167 
 
 ', iioj 
 
 140 
 
 
 165 
 
 
 
 157 
 
 
 
 196 
 
 
 
 43 
 
 
 
 106 
 
 
 46^ 
 
 102 
 
 37 
 
 145 
 
 
 18 
 
 , 20 
 
 
 60 
 
 156 
 
 158 
 
 
 90 
 
 159, 
 
 176 
 
 
 ]54 
 
 
 155 
 
 
 
 62 
 
 
 
 83 
 
 
 
 165 
 
 
 
 162 
 
 . ] 
 
 63', 
 
 154 
 
 55 
 
 107 
 
 127 
 
 . ] 
 
 ll! 
 
 133 
 112 
 
 62 
 183 
 167 
 159 
 154 
 157 
 154 
 
 87 
 
 , 
 
 70 
 
 19 
 
 , 71 
 
 
 175 
 
 
 
 50 
 
 10, 
 
 Herbert, Wirehousei'. . 
 Hereford, Senior v. 
 Heslop, Hcpworth v. . 
 Hicks, Graves v. 
 Higginbottom, Chatham v. . 
 Higgins, Doody v. . . 42 
 Hilder, Pelham v. 
 Hildick, Hipkins v. 
 Hill, Warburton v. 
 Hilliard, Clowes v. . 
 
 — Eiffe V. . 
 Hills, Gary t\ . 
 Hinxman, Bridges v. . 
 Hitchcock, Me Hardy v. . 
 Hobson, riiilanthropic Society 
 Hodges, Young v. . 
 Hogg, Lashley v. 
 Holmes, Gaskell v. . 
 Hope, Thompson v, 
 Hopkins, Williams v. 
 Horton, Richardson v. 
 Houston, Paynter v. 
 How, Jones v. . . . 
 Howarth, Shuttleworth v. 
 Howell, Tardrew v. 
 Huber, Crompton v. 
 Hudson, Mutter v. 
 
 — York, &c. Ry. Co. v. 
 Hughes, Arthur v. 
 
 — Wynne v. . 
 Humberstone, Ritchie v. 
 Hume, Proudfoot v. 
 Hunasgeria Coffee Co., Cocq v. 
 Hunter, Gledhill v. 
 
 — Law V. . 
 
 — Pick ford v. 
 Huntley (M.),Beauchamp(E.)v. 82, 84 
 
 Hutchinson, Booth v. 
 — Metcalfe v. 
 
 IcKERiNOiLL, Hinsley v. 
 Iggulden, Lancefield v. 
 Ingleby, Carr v. 
 Ingledon, Humphreys v. 
 Junes, Sandilands v. 
 Iremonger, Barnewell v. 
 
 Jackson, White v. . 
 James, Rogers v. . 
 Jee, Underwood v. , 
 Jefferys, Williamson v. 
 Jenkins, Howells v. 
 — Symonds v. 
 Jenny, Otfley v. 
 Jessop, Bluett v. . 
 Jones, Palmer ?'. 
 
 — Peat V. 
 
 — Samuel v. 
 
 — Scott V. . 
 
 112, 
 
 PAGE 
 , 142 
 . 19 
 . 154 
 . 178 
 . 197 
 
 43, 47 
 . 17 
 . 169 
 . 81 
 . 25 
 . 127 
 
 32, 33 
 . 13 
 . 69 
 . 137 
 . 11 
 113 
 130 
 . 60 
 . 171 
 . 166 
 . 106 
 . 43 
 . 157 
 . 162 
 . 100 
 
 52, 53 
 . 89 
 . 36 
 . 73 
 . 75 
 . 60 
 . 78 
 . 29 
 16 
 74 
 
 15, 
 
 173 
 
 95, 164 
 
 . 165 
 
 157, 165 
 
 . 178 
 
 . 27 
 
 . 36 
 
 . 158 
 
 . 142 
 
 . 27 
 
 . 74 
 
 . 44 
 
 . 175 
 
 . 61 
 
 . 32 
 
 . 140 
 
 . 144 
 
 . 173 
 
 . 145 
 
 . 165
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 xliii 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Jones, Tlioiiias v. . 153, 
 
 155, 
 
 156 
 
 Lush, Sharp r. . 
 
 93, 95, 159 
 
 Jukes, Jones v. 
 
 
 55 
 
 Lynch, Keaton v. . 
 
 . . 13 
 
 Kearton, Dawson v. , 
 
 
 173 
 
 McAdam, Simons r. . 
 
 . 187 
 
 Keble, Graham v. , 
 
 
 34 
 
 McAulay, Elmslie v. 
 
 . . 26 
 
 Kennington, Cross v. . 
 
 
 156 
 
 Macguire, Ashburner v. 
 
 . 179 
 
 Kerr, Thorne v. 
 
 
 9 
 
 Mackinlay, Ward v. 
 
 . . 154 
 
 Kershaw, Williams v. . 
 
 
 176 
 
 Mackrell, Barber v. 
 
 . 52 
 
 Key, Hughes v. 
 
 
 147 
 
 Maclaren, Canon Iron Co. r. . . 83 
 
 Kightley, Howell v. 
 
 
 99 
 
 Maddison, Packwood v. 
 
 . 77, 138 
 
 KiJburn, Hankin v. 
 
 
 178 
 
 Mahood, Gee r. 
 
 150, 178 
 
 King, Cox V. 
 
 
 106 
 
 Maireau, Riboldi v. 
 
 . 36 
 
 — HilH'. . 
 
 
 97 
 
 Malcott, King v. 
 
 . . 26 
 
 Kinnaird, Alvanley (Lord) v. 
 
 
 123 
 
 Maltby, Cross v. . 
 
 . 99 
 
 Kinton, Guidici v. . 
 
 . 18 
 
 , 36 
 
 Manning, Purcell v. 
 
 . . 99 
 
 Kirby, Turquand i'. 
 
 
 25 
 
 Margerison, Bateman v. . 
 
 39, 131 
 
 Knight, Chapman i'. 
 
 
 190 
 
 Marriott, Bunting v. 
 
 . . 183 
 
 Kochler, Rayner v. 
 
 
 38 
 
 — Moors V. 
 Marsden, Eyre v. 
 
 . 163 
 
 . . 158 
 
 Laing, West V. 
 
 
 6 
 
 — Ballard v. 
 
 . 146 
 
 Lake, Bro\\Ti r. 
 
 114, 
 
 125 
 
 Marsh, Goodrich v. 
 
 . . 43 
 
 Lambert, Ilawlings v. 
 
 
 39 
 
 Marshfield, Talbot v. 
 
 62, 143 
 
 Lane, Groves v. . 
 
 
 34 
 
 Martin, Baker v. 
 
 . 55, 106 
 
 Latham, Hubbard v. 93, 95 
 
 119^ 
 
 130 
 
 — Young V. . 
 
 . . 158 
 
 Laurie, Chalmers v. 
 
 45 
 
 , 47 
 
 Mashiter, Sutton r. 
 
 . 106 
 
 Lavender, Greedy r. 
 
 
 150 
 
 Mason, Berkeley v. . 
 
 3, 6, 35, 41 
 
 Lawes, A.-G. v. . 
 
 137," 
 
 157 
 
 — Chapman v. 
 
 . 84 
 
 Lawson, Sleight v. . 
 
 . 17 
 
 , 7o 
 
 — Trestrail r. . 
 
 . . 174 
 
 Lea, Hares r. 
 
 
 186 
 
 Matthew, McMurray v. 
 
 . 70 
 
 Leaf, Jackson v. 
 
 
 76 
 
 Maudesley, Drever r. 
 
 . . 113 
 
 Leake, Daubney v. . 
 
 95^ 
 
 130 
 
 Maugham, Martin v. . 
 
 140 
 
 Leathes, Mortlock v. 
 
 
 63 
 
 Maxwell, Graham r. 
 
 . 76, 82 
 
 Lee, Gilbert r. . 142 
 
 143^ 
 
 144 
 
 May, Croxton r. . 
 
 . 182 
 
 Legge, Bagot v. . 
 
 
 158 
 
 — Hat ton r. 
 
 . . 178 
 
 Leigh, Bedford r. 
 
 
 9 
 
 — Hicks V. 
 
 . 114 
 
 — Eowcliffe V. 
 
 
 106 
 
 Mayer, Ancaster D. v. 
 
 164, 174 
 
 Le Page, Ostell v. . 
 
 
 79 
 
 Mayhew, Rowles v. 
 
 . 151 
 
 Lett, Stahlsohmidt v. . 
 
 
 108 
 
 Meanock, Stott r. 
 
 . . 97 
 
 Lewis, Donne v. 
 
 164, 
 
 165 
 
 Measures, Green r. 
 
 . 47 
 
 — Evans v. . 
 
 
 131 
 
 Meddowcroft, Perry v. 
 
 . . 157 
 
 — Leeds v. 
 
 
 87 
 
 Meux, Dorrett v. 
 
 . 14 
 
 — McHenry r. 
 
 
 79 
 
 Mew, Doe d. Bassett r. . 
 
 . . 14 
 
 — Plunkett V. . 
 
 
 72 
 
 Michael, Doe d. Ashburnh. 
 
 im r. . 15 
 
 Leycestcr, Booth v. 
 
 
 82 
 
 Micklethwait, Birks v. 
 
 . 144 
 
 Lightfoot, Harris v. 
 
 . 70 
 
 , 71 
 
 Middlemiss, Morgan i'. 
 
 . . 139 
 
 ]jindsay. Ambler v. 
 
 
 38 
 
 Midland Ry. Co., JSTewton 
 
 V. . 27 
 
 Linley, Taylor v. 
 
 
 159 
 
 Miller, Morton r. 
 
 . 21 
 
 Littlewood Garland i'. . 
 
 
 52 
 
 — Sanders v. . 
 
 . . 158 
 
 Lloyd, Eustace v. 
 
 
 82 
 
 — Virtue r. . 
 
 69, 71 
 
 Lombard Bank, Cousins c. 
 
 
 189 
 
 Mills, Joel V. . 
 
 . . 30 
 
 London (Corporation of), Chi 
 
 ton V. 
 
 19 
 
 Mockett, Breton v. 
 
 . 21 
 
 Longrigg, Hetherington r. 
 
 . 18 
 
 , 68 
 
 Mole. Bourne v. 
 
 . 64, 66 
 
 Lord, London Syndicate v. 
 
 . 66 
 
 , 67 
 
 IMontgomery, Thomas r. 
 
 . 182 
 
 Lovell, Levy v. . 
 
 
 170 
 
 Montriou, Meyer ?•. 
 
 . . 64 
 
 Lowry, Ogden v. 
 
 
 7 
 
 Moorat, De la Salle r. . 
 
 . 7 
 
 Lucas, Parkinson v. 
 
 
 124 
 
 Moore, Bennett v. . 
 
 . 18, 68 
 
 Luke, Kitto r. 
 
 
 145 
 
 — Strong V. . 
 
 41, 47, 49 
 
 Lukes, Wriglit r. 
 
 
 66 
 
 Morgan, Smith c. 
 
 . .163 
 
 Luntley, Gouldamith r. . 
 
 
 181 
 
 Morrall, Jones v. . 
 
 16, 52
 
 xliv 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Woni.s, Dean v. 
 
 — J [ales, V. . 
 
 — .Tenner v. 
 
 — Moore v. . 
 
 — Rowsell V. . 
 Morse, Scurry v. . 
 Mortan, Dawkins v. 
 Mossop, Prosser v. 
 Motley, Bick v. 
 Moxsy, Sewell v. 
 Mullineux, Turner v. 
 Mannings, I'liilippo v. 
 ]\1 array, Mayer v. 
 Musgrave, Clai'kson v. 
 Muzeen, Worniald v. 
 
 1(5, 1 
 
 National Provcl. Bank, New 
 Naylor, Mersey Steel & 
 
 Co. V. . . . 
 Nelthorp o?- Nathorp, Hoe r. 
 Nerinckx, Van Gheluive r. 
 Nettlesbip, Bradford v. . 
 Neville, Parsons v. . 
 Newport, Sillibourne r, 
 Newton, Golden v. . 
 
 — Heatley v. 
 
 — Orr r. 
 Nicholson, Prince v. 
 Nickalls, Merry v. . 
 Noble, Garrett r. 
 Norris, Piobertson v. 
 
 — Wooklridge v. 
 North, Price v. 
 
 Nuttall, Lee v. . 55, 56, 
 
 I'AGE 
 
 158 
 
 52 
 
 90 
 
 40 
 
 29, 38 
 
 32 
 
 88, 90 
 
 11 
 
 97 
 
 31 
 
 145 
 
 lt)5 
 
 7, 53 
 
 190 
 
 178 
 
 ell V. 81 
 
 Iron 
 
 170, 173 
 
 . 13 
 
 101, 163 
 
 181 
 
 42 
 
 56 
 
 22 
 
 90 
 
 33 
 
 58 
 
 183 
 
 18 
 
 89 
 
 25 
 
 122 
 
 170 
 
 163, 
 
 Oglandeii, Harniood v. . 164, 165 
 
 Oliveira, Beaumont v. . . . 176 
 
 Ordish, Wood v. . . . 157, 165 
 
 Orgies, Rice v. . . . .151 
 
 Orpen, Beswick v. . . , . 146 
 
 Orton, Lan\be v. . . . .134 
 Ottoman Bank, Bank of Turkey v. 60 
 
 Owen, Ci'adoek v. . . .134 
 
 Gxburrow, Whitniore v. . , . 25 
 
 Oxenham, Glass v. . . .38 
 
 Palmer, Johnson v. 
 
 — Matthews r. . 
 I'arker, Cash v. 
 
 — Cresswell r. 
 
 — Sparling v. . 
 
 — Watson V. 
 Parry, Phillips v. 
 Parsons, Eoupell v. 
 Partridge, higle v. . 
 Pascoe, Norvall r. 
 
 Patent Lionite Co., Thomas v. 
 Paterson, Jennings v. . 
 Patterfcon, Plood v. . 
 
 9 
 . 75 
 . 32 
 . 36 
 . 176 
 25, 43 
 . 164 
 . 20 
 . 65 
 124 
 172 
 42 
 35 
 
 1-^, 
 
 Pease, Jackson v. 
 Pemberton, Woolf v. 
 Pennington, Freeman v 
 Penny, Greenwood v. 
 Perry, Palmer v. . 
 Persse, Hill v. 
 Petersen, Gwyer v. 
 Pfuil, Walters v. . 
 Phillips, Chester v. 
 
 — Clark V. . 
 Piffard, Vanrenen v. 
 Pillen, Stephens v. . 
 Piper, Cradock v. 
 
 — Mitchelson v. 
 Pittman, Brown l\ 
 Plestow, Uavey v. . 
 Poole, Danby v. . 
 
 — Smith V. 
 Powell, Bolton v. 
 
 — Rogers v. 
 Power, Tipping v. 
 Powys-Keck, Lilford (Lord) v. 
 Poyser, Cast v. 
 Prendergast, Johnson t 
 Prescott, Forrest v. 
 Price, Greshani v. 
 
 — Hay ward v. 
 Priddon, Miller v. . 
 Pridham, Luckraft v 
 Prioi', Fleming r. 
 Pritchard, Lodge v. 
 Proudfo(^t, Parkin v. 
 Pryer, Worraker v. 
 Pryke, Cobbold v. . 
 Pye, Maddison v. 
 
 55 
 
 151 
 
 92 
 
 J'ACE 
 
 157 
 
 31 
 
 30, 42 
 
 175 
 
 131 
 
 190 
 
 75 
 
 , 27 
 
 43 
 
 53 
 
 75 
 
 146 
 
 147 
 
 168 
 
 32 
 
 76 
 
 15 
 
 108 
 
 26 
 
 106 
 
 152 
 
 175 
 
 108 
 
 133 
 
 164 
 
 144 
 
 92 
 
 13 
 
 157 
 
 123 
 
 151 
 
 181 
 
 1, 9 
 
 184 
 
 158 
 
 Radcliffe, European Assurance 
 Society r. . . . . . 58 
 
 Raw, Ward v 188 
 
 Rawlings, Tennant v. . , . 189 
 Rayson, VVickenden v. . . 196 
 
 Redman, Fuller v Iu9 
 
 Reay, Middleton v. . . ,54 
 Rees, Morgan v. . . . . 190 
 Reilly, Loukhart v. . . .147 
 Rennoldson, Tiu'ner v. . . 2, 184 
 Reynal, Fowler i;. . . . 132 
 
 Reynolds, Brooks v. . . . 81 
 
 — Mitford V. . . . 101 
 
 — Morshead v. . . . 112 
 
 — I'artington v. 5, 49, 52 
 
 — Thompson r. . . 27 
 
 Rich, Wills V 27 
 
 Richards, Harrison v. . . . 126 
 Ricketts, Man v. . . . .15 
 
 Ridge, Sims v 123 
 
 Rigden, Vane (E.) r. . . .58 
 Rigg, Wadham v. . . . 6, 88 
 Ringham, Parker r. . . . IG.S
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 xlv 
 
 Kobarts, Anon. v. 
 Koberts, Hiirtou v. 
 
 — Fowler v. . 
 Robins, CoUis v. . 
 Robinson, Creasor v. 
 ■ — Hamp V. 
 
 — Shearman r, 
 
 — Whitaker v. 
 Roch, Tombs v. 
 Rochfort, Sperling v. 
 Roe, Manton v. 
 Rogers, Barker v. 
 Rolt'c, Chester v. 
 Row, Watson v. . 
 Rowland, Clegg v. . 
 Royle, Fryer v. 
 Rudd, Sharman v. . 
 Rumnej', Lowis v. 
 Rundell, Hume v. . 
 Rusbridger, Governesses' 
 
 lent Institution v. 
 Russell, Crowle v. 
 
 — Maltby v. . 
 
 — Marsh v. . 
 Rutland, Gage v. 
 Rye, Brown v. 
 Rylance, Jacubs v. . 
 
 Sadler, Bain v. . 
 
 — Morse v. 
 
 — VVyatt V. 
 Sage, Budgen v. 
 Sampson, Catley %\ 
 Sanders, Carter r. . 
 Sanderson, Eglin v. 
 Scard, Heugh v. 
 Schweitzer, Venables i\ 
 Scott, Paterson v. . 
 Searles, Hatch v. 
 Seddons, Parkin v. 
 Selby, Shortley v. 
 Seligniann, Walker v. 
 Selkirk, Shirwin v. 
 Serra, Basevi v. 
 Sewell, Ashley v. 
 Shaftesbury (E.), Webb v. 
 Shakeshaft, Hollingsworth v. 
 Sharp, Bentall v. 
 Shari-att, Wyatt v. 
 
 Shaw, Brown v. 
 Sherboru, Passingham v. 
 Sherry, Newton v. . 
 Shei'son, Bothamley v. 
 Shirley, Fisher v. 
 Shore, Humble v. 
 Sidebottom, Earlc v. . 
 
 — Mellor V. 
 
 Siggers, Lucas v. . 
 Silverwood, Birks v. 
 
 43, 
 
 PAGE 
 
 . 54 
 
 . 81 
 
 . 81 
 
 . 152 
 
 , 39 
 
 . 37 
 
 . 26 
 
 . 84 
 
 . 165 
 
 . 165 
 
 . 140 
 
 14, 117 
 
 . 26 
 
 . 147 
 
 4, 37 
 
 . 9 
 
 . 55 
 
 . 108 
 
 . 14 
 
 Benevo- 
 
 . 61, 157 
 
 . . 81 
 
 58 
 
 182 
 
 144 
 
 187 
 
 146 
 
 . 168 
 . 42 
 . 126 
 . 72 
 . 30 
 . 30 
 42, 143 
 . 142 
 . 92 
 . 175 
 . 112 
 . 28 
 . 154 
 . 48 
 107, 162 
 . 150 
 [, 6, 35 
 
 54, 56 
 16, 133 
 . 77 
 . 63 
 . 189 
 . 52 
 4, 37 
 . 174 
 . 163 
 
 12, 42 
 . 122 
 . 19 
 
 78, 79 
 . 186 
 
 26, 
 
 Simons, Cattell v. ... 
 
 Slagg, Manchester V. Paving 
 Co. V. . . . . . . 
 
 Slater, Gumming v. . 
 
 Sloaue, Ladbroke v. ... 
 
 Smalwootl, Walker •;;. . 
 Smart, British Mutual Investment 
 Co. V 
 
 — Hooper v. ... 
 Smith, Bear v. .... 
 
 — 15ridson v. , . . 
 
 — Burrell v. 
 
 — Farrell v. 
 
 — Gilbert v. 
 
 — MuUins V. 
 
 — Sexton V. 
 
 — Tickner v. 
 
 — Whitney v. 
 Societe Gen. d'EIectricite, Werder 
 
 man v. ..... 
 
 Somerville, Greig v. . 
 
 Southgate, Taylor v. 
 
 Soutteu, Rogers I'. 
 
 Sovverby, Woods v. . . , 
 
 Spashett, Scott i\ 
 
 Spencer, Webster v. 
 
 Spensley, Douthwaite 2^. 
 
 Spickett, Pearce v. . 
 
 Spilsbury, Smith v. 
 
 Spurgin, Prowse v. . 
 
 Squire, Wilson v. 
 
 Stafford, Davenport v. 
 
 Stainton, Maclaren i\ . 
 
 Stannard, Bolton v. 
 
 Steer, Newland v. 
 
 Stein, Silver v. 
 
 Stelfox, Bradley v. 
 
 Steppings, Nokes v. 
 
 Stevens, Hunt v. . 
 
 Steward, White v. . 
 
 Stewart, Crowder v. . 56, 
 
 Stirling- Maxwell, Cartwright v 
 
 Stoddart, Sanderson v. 
 
 Stone, Brown v. . 
 
 Stonehewer, Goldsmid v. 
 
 Storer, Armstrong v. 
 
 Storie, Handford v. 
 
 Storr, Newmarch v. 
 
 Stotherd, Loomes v. 
 
 Stratton, Cotterell v. 
 
 Stroud, Brookes v. 
 
 Strousberg, Costa Rica (Rep.) v. 
 
 Stubbs, Hanson i\ 
 
 Studholme, Todd v. 
 
 Sturrock, Lee v. . 
 
 Sturt, Wormsley v. . . . . 
 
 Swinburne, West v. . . . 
 
 Swire, Mellor v. . . 72, 73, 
 Sykes, Meakin v. ... 
 
 VACrK 
 
 . 114 
 
 166 
 
 . 116 
 . . 132 
 
 . 19 
 155, 167 
 
 . 37 
 . . 19 
 
 . 119 
 . . 81 
 
 . 143 
 . 16, 48 
 
 40 
 
 115 
 
 74 
 
 119 
 
 29 
 
 181 
 
 27 
 
 . 66 
 
 . . 20 
 
 . 5 
 
 . . 121 
 
 137, 157 
 
 51, 132 
 
 . 79 
 
 . 43 
 
 . 108 
 
 . 34 
 
 73, 74 
 
 . 64 
 
 13, 27 
 
 . 44 
 
 163 
 
 42, 
 10, 
 
 166 
 
 36 
 
 151 
 
 117 
 
 43 
 
 154 
 
 .' 10 
 
 . . 174 
 
 166, 167 
 
 . .149 
 
 . 27 
 
 92 
 
 163 
 
 116 
 
 47 
 
 91 
 
 76 
 
 75 
 
 20
 
 xlvi 
 
 TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 
 
 'A(iE 
 
 
 
 pack 
 
 Tapson, Raymond p. 
 
 . 91, 92 
 
 Watson, Ware ?'. . 
 
 
 98 
 
 Tatliam, Ross r. . 
 
 
 183 
 
 Watts, Duncan v. . 
 
 
 177 
 
 Taylor, Fenner v. . 
 
 
 139 
 
 — Penny v. . 
 
 . 38, 39 
 
 — Gannt v. 
 
 . 147! 
 
 151 
 
 — Sellon V. 
 
 157 
 
 165 
 
 — Mackenzie v. 
 
 
 139 
 
 — Smith V. . 
 
 
 92 
 
 Teasdale, Dirkeiison v. 
 
 
 165 
 
 Weatherstone, Isaacs v. . 
 
 
 68 
 
 Terrett, Goodcliild v. 
 
 
 13 
 
 Webster, Gatti v. 
 
 
 23 
 
 Terrinj^ton, Grace v. 
 
 
 44 
 
 Weightman, Wood v. 
 
 
 103 
 
 Thacker, Drewry r. 
 
 
 80 
 
 Weldhen, L3'all v. 
 
 
 78 
 
 Thompson, Cockburn v. 
 
 
 44 
 
 Wells, Tolputt V. . 
 
 
 58 
 
 — Egremont v. . 
 
 
 46 
 
 West, Bray v. 
 
 
 152 
 
 — Tuckley v. . 
 
 
 154 
 
 Westbrook, Aldridge v. . 
 
 147 
 
 154 
 
 Thnrington, Sleech v. 
 
 
 119 
 
 Weston, Neve v. . 
 
 
 74 
 
 Tibbut, Briant v. 
 
 
 99 
 
 Wharmley, Guthbert v. . 
 
 
 102 
 
 Tildesley, Salter v. 
 
 
 70 
 
 Whichcord, Smith v. . 
 
 
 79 
 
 Timbrell, Spackman v. 
 
 
 166 
 
 White, Hargraves v. 
 
 
 12 
 
 Timms, re . . . 
 
 
 85 
 
 — Jervis i'. . 
 
 
 67 
 
 Tiplady, Ridley v. 
 
 . '95! 
 
 124 
 
 — Morley v. 
 
 
 33 
 
 Titmuss, Field v. 
 
 
 105 
 
 — Richmond v. . 
 
 56^ 58 
 
 , 156 
 
 Tofield, Bray v. . 
 
 • ' 9,' 
 
 110 
 
 — Smith V. 
 
 
 26 
 
 Toleman, Waddell v. 
 
 
 171 
 
 Wliitear, Gunnell v. 
 
 
 138 
 
 Tonkin, Lnke v. . 
 
 . 17 
 
 , 53 
 
 Whittaker, Day v. . 
 
 
 192 
 
 Topham, Pemberton v. 
 
 
 140 
 
 Whittington, Coote v. . 
 
 
 38 
 
 Topp, Davies v. . 
 
 
 168 
 
 Wieland, Barnard v. 
 
 
 19 
 
 Towgood, Anson v. . 
 
 
 74 
 
 Wilcock, Lee v. . 
 
 
 97 
 
 — Shepherd v. . 
 
 
 74 
 
 Wilde, Harvey v. 
 
 
 164 
 
 Townsend, Travers v. 
 
 
 142 
 
 Williams, Courtenay v. 
 
 
 146 
 
 Trask, Lewis v. . 
 
 . 144, 
 
 145 
 
 — Davies r. 
 
 
 187 
 
 Trollope, Alston v. 
 
 
 109 
 
 — Lucas V. 
 
 
 82 
 
 Trotter, Dowbiggin v. . 
 
 • '71', 
 
 122 
 
 Wills, Fenton v. 
 
 
 157 
 
 — Thompson v. 
 
 
 22 
 
 Wilson, Briggs v. 
 
 
 109 
 
 Turner, Bell v. . 
 
 
 129 
 
 — Dean v. 
 
 
 124 
 
 — Colman v. . 
 
 
 7 
 
 Winch, Eatcliffe v. 
 
 " 8( 
 
 ), 84 
 
 — Hankin v. 
 
 
 120 
 
 Windsor, Lincoln v. 
 
 
 148 
 
 — Leigh V. 
 
 
 134 
 
 Winstaniey, Mickelthwait v. 
 
 93^ 
 
 106 
 
 Turnley, Kennedy v. . 
 
 
 54 
 
 Winterbotham, Aylmer v. 
 
 
 137 
 
 Turquand, Wliitmore v. . 
 
 
 61 
 
 Wirral Higliway Board, Mason r. 
 
 189 
 
 
 
 
 Withers, Buller v. . 
 
 
 181 
 
 
 
 
 — Dighton V. 
 
 
 155 
 
 Vanderhorst, Shewen v. 
 
 55, 108, 
 
 109 
 
 Wolferstan, Jervis r. 
 
 
 117 
 
 Van Heythuysen, Stone v. 
 
 
 126 
 
 Wood, Ashton i'. 
 — Bartlett v. 
 Woodbridge, Walters v. 
 
 
 99 
 136 
 142 
 
 Wait, Baker v. , 
 
 . 
 
 185 
 
 Woodward, Walker v. 
 
 
 15 
 
 Walker, Hamond v. 
 
 . 60 
 
 , 62 
 
 Woolwich Building Soc, Button?'. 
 
 189 
 
 — Hillw. . 
 
 
 55 
 
 Wreford, Knapman v. 
 
 
 146 
 
 Waller, Adams i>. 
 
 
 109 
 
 Wright, Dean v. . 
 
 
 28 
 
 Wallis, Braithwaite r. 
 
 . Ql, 
 
 181 
 
 — Graves v. . 
 
 
 28 
 
 — Fordham i'. . 
 
 
 175 
 
 — Whitaker v. . 
 
 106*, 
 
 107 
 
 Wallworth, Powell v. . 
 
 
 122 
 
 Wyatt, Dixon v. 
 
 
 125 
 
 Walrond, Guthrie v. 
 
 
 32 
 
 Wyld, Ward v. . 
 
 
 186 
 
 Ward, Davey v. . 
 
 
 57 
 
 Wjniue, Hughes v. . 
 
 
 165 
 
 — Frost V. 
 
 
 71 
 
 
 
 
 — Hutchinson v. . 
 
 . 191, 
 
 192 
 
 Yater, Dicks v. . 
 
 
 150 
 
 — Overington v. 
 
 . 32 
 
 , 33 
 
 Yorke, Brewer v. 
 
 
 183 
 
 — Richardson v. 
 
 
 134 
 
 Young, Adair v. . 
 
 
 183 
 
 Warth, Ibberson v. 
 
 
 181 
 
 — Hunter v. . 
 
 37', 
 
 116 
 
 Watkins, Bayliss v. 
 
 
 99 
 
 — Pigottv. . 
 
 
 7, 8 
 
 — Bushr. . 
 
 
 132 
 
 — Skottowe r. 
 
 
 181
 
 ABBKEVIATIONS 
 
 USED IX REFETIENCR TO 
 
 LAW REPORTS AND TEXT BOOKS. 
 
 ABBREVIATION'S. NAME OF WORK, ETC. 
 
 Ad. & El Adolplms & Ellis' Reports. 
 
 Ambl A mbler's Reports. 
 
 App. Cas Law Reports, Appeal Cases. 
 
 Atk Atkyns' Reports. 
 
 B. & Al Barnewall & Alderson's Reports. 
 
 B. & B Ball & Beatty's Reports (Ireland). 
 
 B. & C Barnewall & Cresswell's Reports. 
 
 Beav. (rr Be Beavan's Reports. 
 
 Bing Bingham's Reports. 
 
 Bro. C. C Brown's Chancery Reports. 
 
 Q Y> / Common Bench Reports, or Manning, Granger k Scott's 
 \ Reports. 
 
 C. D Law Reports, Chancery Division. 
 
 C. P. D Law Reports, Common Pleas Division. 
 
 C. P. Coop C. P. Cooper's Cases, temp. Cottenham. 
 
 C. & L Connor & Lawson's Reports (Ireland). 
 
 Car. & P Carrington & Payne's Reports. 
 
 Ch Law Reports, Chancery Appeals. 
 
 Ch. Cas Cases in Chancery. 
 
 Ch. Rep Reports in Chancery. 
 
 CL & F Clarke & Finuelly's'Reports. 
 
 Coll CoUyer's Reports. 
 
 Comp. Exors. ... Walker's Compendium of the Law of E.xecutors. 
 
 Cons. Ord Consolidated Orders of the Court of Chancery. 
 
 Cr. & Ph Craig & Phillips' Reports. 
 
 Curt Curteis' Ecclesiastical Reports. 
 
 Dan. or Dan. Pr. Daniell's ChaDcer}^ Practice. 
 
 Dan. Forms Daniell's Chancery Forms. 
 
 De G. F. & J. ... De Gex, Fisher, & Jones' Reports. 
 
 De G. & J De Gex & Jones' Reports. 
 
 De G. J. & S. ... De Gex, Jones, & Smith's Reports. 
 
 De G. M. & G. . . . De Gex, Macnaghten, & Gordon's Reports. 
 
 De G. & Sm De Gex & Smale's Reports. 
 
 Dick Dickens' Reports. 
 
 Dow Dow's Reports. 
 
 Dr Drewry's Reports. 
 
 Dr. & Snr Drewry & Smale's Reports. 
 
 Dr. & War Dniry & Warren's Reports (Ireland).
 
 xlviii ABHRKVIATIOXS. 
 
 AlilillEVIATIONS. NAMK OF WOllK, ETC. 
 
 Eq Law Reports, Equity Cases. 
 
 Ex. I) Law Reports, Exchequer Division. 
 
 Giff. Gill'ard"s Keports. 
 
 Gill) Gillicrt's Cases in Law and in Equity. 
 
 II. L. C Clark's House of Lords Reports. 
 
 H. & M Hennnin^' & Miller's Reports. 
 
 IL & N Ihirlstone & Norman's Reports. 
 
 H. & Tw I! all & Twells' Reports. 
 
 Ha Hare's Reports. 
 
 Ir. Ch Irish Law and Equity Reports, New Series. 
 
 Ir. Eq Jri^,h Law & Equity Reports. 
 
 J. & H Johnson & Heinming's Reports. 
 
 Jo. & L Jones & Latouche's Reports (Ireland). 
 
 J. & W Jacob & Walker's Reports. 
 
 Jac Jacob's Re])oi-ts. 
 
 Johns Johnson's Reports. 
 
 Jur Jurist Reports. 
 
 Jnr. N. S ,, ,, New Series. 
 
 K. & J Kay & Johnson's Reports. 
 
 Kay Kay's Reports. 
 
 Ke Keen's Reports. 
 
 L. J. 0. S Law Journal, Old Series. 
 
 L.J ,, ,, New Series. 
 
 L. R The Law Reports. 
 
 L. T Law Times Reports, Old Series ; and New Series, from Vol. 3.'>. 
 
 L. T. N. S „ ,, „ New Series. 
 
 Ld. Ray Lord Raymond's Reports. 
 
 M. & Cr Mylne & Craig's Reports. 
 
 M. & K Mylne & Keen's Reports. 
 
 M. & S ]\Iaule & Selwyn's Reports. 
 
 McCl. &Y McCleland & Young's Reports. 
 
 Mac. & G Macnaghten & Gordon's Reports. 
 
 Madd Maddock's Reports. 
 
 Mer Meri vale's Rejjorts. 
 
 Mo. & Ma M oody & Malkin's Reports. 
 
 Moll Molloy's Reports (Ireland). 
 
 Muo Moody's Chancery Cases. 
 
 N. R New Reports. 
 
 N. & M Nevill & Manning's Reports. 
 
 O Rules and Orders of the Supreme Con rt. 
 
 P. D Law Reports, Probate Division. 
 
 P. Wms Peere Williams' Reports. 
 
 Pemb Pemberton's Judgments & Orders. 
 
 Ph Phillips' Reports. 
 
 Prec. Ch Precedents in Chancei-y (Finch). 
 
 Q. B Adolphus & Ellis ; Queen's Bench Report.s, New Scries. 
 
 Q. B. D Law Reports, Queen's Bench Division. 
 
 R. & M Russell & Mylne's Reports. 
 
 Russ Russell's Reports. 
 
 S. & S Simons and Stuart's Reports. 
 
 Salk Salkeld's Reports. 
 
 Sch. & Lef. Schoales & Lefroy's Reports. 
 
 Set, or Seton Seton's Decrees. 
 
 Sim Simons' Reports. 
 
 Sim. N. S ,, ,, New Series. 
 
 Skinn Skinner's Reports. 
 
 Sm. & G Smale & Giffard's Reports. 
 
 Sw Swanstou's Reports. 
 
 Sw. & Tr Swabev & Tristram's Reports. 
 
 T. & R Turner & Russell's Reports.
 
 ABBREVIATIONS. xHx 
 
 ABBRKVIATIONS. NAMK OP WOllK, KTC. 
 
 Taunt Taunton's Reports. 
 
 Ves. sen Vesey's, sen., Reports. 
 
 Ves Vesey's, jun. , Reports. 
 
 "W.N Law Reports, Weekly Notes. 
 
 W. R Weekly Reporter. 
 
 Wh. & Tud White & Tudor's Leading Cases. 
 
 Y. & C. C Younge & Collyer's Chancery Cases. 
 
 Y. & C. Ex Younge & Collyer's Exchequer Cases. 
 
 Younge Younge's Reports.
 
 ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA. 
 
 Page 4, n. (r), dcU " Wood v. Wood, 21 W. R. 135." 
 
 23, I. 19, /oT- " 51," rcaci "52." 
 
 54, n. (c), a(£(^ a reference to Eashoood v. Clarke, 31 W. R. 417 ; W. N. 
 1883, 44, where tlie Irish, decision is followed. 
 
 71, n. (o), a(^£i a reference to Re Primers Estate, 48 L. T. 203. 
 
 105, last I., add "But the rule does not apply to trials by jury of claims 
 
 against the estate ; Lawrencey. Rowley, 0. A. April 3, 1883." 
 ,, n. (s), add a reference to Wynne-Finch v. Wyjinc-Finch, 48 L. T. 
 129 J W. N. 1883, 56. 
 
 143, I. 22, add "A creditor, plaintiff in an administration action against an 
 executor de son tort who declines to prove the will by which he is ap- 
 pointed exe(nitor, is entitled to have his costs of a motion for a receiver, 
 pending a grant of probate, paid by the executor ; Foster v. Davis, 31 
 W. R. 411." 
 
 ,, 147, n. (c), add "See, however, ante, p. 145, (o) and {p)." 
 
 ,, 171, I- 17, add " But when a secured creditor proves for his debt and values 
 his security, and his proof is rejected on the ground that less is due to 
 him than the amount of his valuation, he is remitted to all his former 
 rights, and may retain out of his security more tlian the amount of his 
 valuation ; Williams v. Hopkins, (3), W. N. 1883, 53 ; 31 W. R. 495." 
 
 „ 173, n. (A), add a reference to Grec^i v. Smith, 22 C. D. 586 ; 48 L. T. 254 ; 
 31 W. R. 413, where the proper course of proceeding with reference to 
 the mutual-credit clause is pointed out. 
 
 ,, 180, n. {d). It is hardly necessary to state that the reference is to Lord 
 Romilly and Sir George Jessel (to whom allusion is also made, p. 143, 
 L 3), whose death the profession will not soon cease to lament.
 
 ADMINISTEATION ACTIONS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS FOR ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 A. By Originating Summons. 
 
 a. As to Personal Estate. 
 
 By the 45th section of the Chancery Procedure Act, a. Administra. 
 1852 {a), it is enacted that it shall be lawful for any t'"';^-^""""""'^- 
 
 •'a. Personal 
 
 person claiming to be a creditor (6), or a specific, pecu- estate. 
 niary, or residuary legatee, or the next of kin, or some 
 or one of the next of kin, of a deceased person, to 
 apply for and obtain, as of course, without bill or claim 
 filed {i.e., when translated into the nomenclature of the 
 present practice, without suing out a writ of summons), 
 or any other preliminary proceeding, a summons (c) from 
 the Master of the Rolls {d), or any of the Vice-Chan- 
 cellors (e), requiring the executor or administrator, as the 
 
 (a) 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86. {d) The Master of the Eolls, 
 
 {h) Under the old practice, the having been transferred to the Court 
 
 Court required all parties interested of Appeal (44 & 45 Vict. c. 68, s. 2), 
 
 to be present ; but, where the parties and having thus lost his original 
 
 were too numerous, it allowed one jurisdiction, can no longer issue this 
 
 member of the class to sue on behalf summons. 
 
 of the rest. That was the theory of {e) Whose jurisdiction is now by- 
 creditors' suits {per Jessel, M. R., the Judicature Act, 1873, ss. 16(1), 
 Worrakcrv. Fryer, 2 C. D. p. 110). 34 (3), transferred to and vested in 
 (c) For Form of Summons, see the Chancery Division of the High 
 Appendix, post, p. 193. Court of Justice.
 
 Z IXHTITUTIOxN OF PUOCEEDINGS 
 
 case may be, of such deceased person to attend before him 
 at chambers for the purpose of showing cause why an order 
 for the administration of the personal estate of tlie 
 deceased should not be granted ; and, upon proof by 
 affidavit of the due service of such summons, or on 
 the appearance in person or by his solicitor or counsel 
 of such executor or administrator, and upon proof by 
 affidavit of such other matters, if any, as such judge 
 shall require, it shall be lawful for such judge, if in his 
 discretion he shall think fit so to do, to make the usual 
 order for the administration of the estate of the deceased, 
 with such variations, if any, as the circumstances of the 
 case may require ; and the order so made shall have the force 
 and effect of a decree to the like effect made on the hearing 
 of a cause or claim between the said parties, provided 
 that such judge shall have full discretionary power to 
 grant or refuse such order, or to give any special directions 
 touching the carriage or execution of such order, and, in 
 the case of applications for any such order by two or more 
 different persons or classes of persons, to grant the same 
 to such one or more of the claimants or of the classes 
 of claimants as he may think fit ; and, if the judge 
 shall think proper, the carriage of the order may subse- 
 quently be given to such party interested, and upon such 
 terms as the judge may direct; see j^osf, Ch. X. 
 Assignees may The words of the section which define the persons who 
 
 obtain tlie ... . . . . 
 
 summons. may initiate proceedings under it have received a liberal 
 interpretation. They mean all those persons (including 
 assignees) who represent the several interests there 
 stated (/). Although not strictly within the words of 
 sections 45, 47, it is the established practice to make 
 administration orders on the application of persons claiming 
 under persons therein mentioned, and against the repre- 
 
 (/) PcrMaliiis, Y.-C, Taniei- v. Ee»iiohlson, 16 Eq. 40.
 
 FOR ADMINISTRATION. 3 
 
 sentatives of deceased executors (a). The doubt on tliis Representa- 
 
 . tives of the 
 
 point, which was raised, but not solved, in Whittington v. accounting 
 Edwards {k), is now therefore disposed of jnarbc'de-'^** 
 
 The summons must be served seven clear days before Pendants, 
 the return thereof upon the executor or administrator Upon wliom it 
 of the deceased, who is the only person to be served there- served. 
 with (/). A duplicate or copy of the summons shall, pre- 
 viously to the service thereof, be filed in the Record and Copy to be 
 Writ Clerk's office ; and no service thereof upon any executor 
 or administrator shall be of any validity, unless the cojjy 
 so served shall be stamped with a stamp of such office 
 indicating the filing thereof {j). Where, from any cause, 
 the summons may not have been served seven clear days Extension of 
 before the return thereof, an indorsement may be made ^^f^! '°/„^„ 
 upon it and upon a copy thereof stamped for service, 
 appointing a new time for the party not before served 
 to attend at the chambers of the Judge ; such indorse- 
 ments shall be sealed at the Judge's chambers, and the 
 service of the copy so indorsed and sealed shall have the 
 same force and effect as the service of any original 
 summons ; and where a party has been served before such 
 indorsement, the hearing thereof may, upon the return of 
 the summons, be adjourned to the new time so ap- 
 pointed (/i'). The party served shall, before he is heard in Appearance to 
 
 . . be entered, 
 
 chambers, enter an appearance in the Kecord and v\ rit 
 
 Clerk's office, and give notice thereof {I). If when 
 summoned to attend the Judge in chambers he fail so Court may 
 
 . , , , . , make order 
 
 to attend, whether upon the return oi the summons or at c.rparfe in 
 anytime appointed for the consideration or further con- *^ '^" ° 
 
 appearance. 
 
 (f/) Daniell, 1071, n. (;)). tiated by summons under the Chan- 
 
 i'h) 3 De G. & J. 245, 247. eery Procedure Act ;PoIiniv. Gray, 
 
 (i) Cons. Ord. XXXV. r. 7 ; 22 W. R. 255. 
 
 Berkeley v. Mason, 19 Eq. 467. (./) Chancery Procedure Act, 
 
 There is no objection to proceedings 1852, s. 46. 
 
 against the Crown, where the Trea- {k) Cons. Ord. XXXV. r. 8. 
 
 sury solicitor has taken out adminis- (/) Ibid. r. 9. 
 
 tration to the deceased, being ini- 
 
 B 2
 
 INSTITUTION OF rROCEEDINOS 
 
 Siirumons by 
 executor 
 against 
 co-executor. 
 
 sideration of the matter, the Judge may proceed ex jmrfc, 
 if, considering the nature of the case, he think it expedient 
 so to do (m). 
 
 Although the 45th section, which requires the executors 
 and administrators to be made defendants, gives legal 
 personal representatives acting together no power of 
 initiative, yet one of them, if also a beneficiary, may take 
 out the summons against the other, as was done in 
 Va7irenen v. Piffard {n), where the plaintiff who had 
 not proved the will, sued as residuary legatee, and sub- 
 mitted to account as executor ; see Daniell, 1076, note (s). 
 Under Sir G. Turner's Act (o), as amended by 23 & 24 Vict, 
 c. 38, s. 14, the Court may, at the instance of a personal 
 representative, direct an account to be taken of the 
 debts and liabilities affecting the personal estate of the 
 deceased, if no other proceeding for administration be 
 pending {p). As, however, an executor or administrator 
 cannot be sued by a creditor, or even by the next of 
 kin {q), after having issued advertisements under 22 & 23 
 Vict. c. 35, ss. 27 — 32, and distributed the assets amongst 
 the persons claiming in answer to such advertisements, 
 or of whose claims he may have had notice aliunde {r), 
 these provisions are not now acted on. 
 
 The Judge's complete discretion to refuse to exercise 
 order for \-id-' the jurisdiction conferred by the section has been fully 
 recognised — e.g., by Knight-Bruce, L. J. (s), Romilly, 
 M. R. (t), and Kindersley V.-C. (u). 
 
 The Court only makes the common order on summons, 
 and will not make it if there are complicated questions in 
 
 Discretion of 
 
 ministration 
 nf)onsummons 
 
 The juris- 
 diction only 
 exercised in 
 simple cases. 
 
 (m) Cons. Ord. XXXV., r. 10. 
 
 {n) 13 W. R. 425. 
 
 (o) 13 & 14 Vict. c. 35, s. 19. 
 
 (p) See Dan. 1076—1082, and 
 Seton, 846, 847. 
 
 (q) Ch'<jg V. Rowland, 3 Eq. 
 368 ; Nexrton v. Sherry, 1 C. V. D. 
 246. . 
 
 (/•) JFood V. fFood, 21 W. R. 135 ; 
 Ee Land Credit Co. of Ireland, W. 
 N. 1872, 210. 
 
 (s) Seircll V. Ashlnj, 3 De G. M. 
 & G. p. 936. 
 
 {t) Rnmj^ V. GreenhiU, 20 Beav. 
 p. 520. 
 
 (u) Re Newhery, 10 AV. R. p. 3/9.
 
 FOR ADMINLSTRATION. 5 
 
 the case (v), or if a release be pleaded, there being no 
 
 jurisdiction to set a release aside on summons (x), or if it 
 
 is sought to make a defendant liable on a balance of 
 
 account, or where there is a point of construction on the 
 
 "vvill to be decided (y), or where any person is pr had facie a 
 
 necessary party in addition to the executor {z). The only Only the usual 
 
 order that can be made on summons under this section n^ade • 
 
 is the usual one — that the executor or administrator 
 
 shall account for the personal estate which has been 
 
 received by him — and it confers no jurisdiction to make 
 
 on summons in chambers an order that he shall account 
 
 for what, without his wilful neglect or default, he might ^••'^•' "°^ 
 
 ° " account tor 
 
 have received, or to make him accountable for any mis- wilful default, 
 conduct. The words " with such variations, if any, as 
 the circumstances of the case may require " are only in- 
 tended to enable the Judge to adapt the precise terms of 
 the usual order to the circumstances of the case, and not to 
 enable him to pronounce any other than the usual adminis- 
 tration judgment. If such a special judgment is desired, 
 the party seeking it must proceed by writ (a). So, under 
 an order made on summons, an executor or trustee cannot 
 be charged with breach of trust, though the chief clerk's 
 certificate has provided the materials for such a charge \ / u L ' /*^ 
 
 on further consideration (6), nor can he be surcharged on I ^,^— -— ' 
 
 the ground of constructive receipt (c), nor charged upon ' 
 
 an admission of assets (d). However, where a decree has Questions 
 
 been made, the Judge may, if he thinks fit, decide questions '''"^'"" '^"*' °' 
 
 usual order 
 may be deter- 
 mined ; 
 
 (f) Rump V. Greenhill, 20 Beav. Blakcley v. BlakeUy, 1 Jur. N. S. 
 
 519. 368 ; re Fryer, 3 Iv. & J. 317. 
 
 {x) Acastcr V. Andergon, 19 Beav. {h) Delevante v. C'hilde, 6 Jur. N. 
 
 161. S. 118 ; and net jwst, p. fr2. 
 
 (2/) Smith V. Sj>ilsbury, 1 Dr. & (c) Icterson v. Peterson, 16 L. T. 
 
 Sm. 153. 377. 
 
 (i) He Smnjyson, 14 W. R. 472. (d) AV mJtsh ire's Estate, 8 W. R. 
 
 (re) See per Kindersley, V.-C, 133. 
 Pa rt iiirjton V . Reynolds, 4 Dr. p. 259 ;
 
 6 
 
 INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS 
 
 but an ad- 
 ministration 
 action will 
 generally be 
 directed. 
 
 properly arising out of such decree (e) ; but even then, if 
 the Judge sees that there are questions depending on 
 controverted facts, or questions partly of fact and partly 
 of law, he ought to say, in the exercise of his discretion, 
 that the matter should be made the subject of an 
 action (/ ). 
 
 Administration An Order may be made on summons for the administra- 
 apiioh!tol"by *^°" °^ ^^^® property appointed by the will of a married 
 will oifeme woman under a power contained in a deed (a) or will (h). 
 
 coccrt. ... . 
 
 Service of An administration summons, relating to stocks and 
 
 summons out gh^res in England, was allowed to be served out of the 
 
 01 jurisdiction. o ' 
 
 Appointment jiinsdiction, as being a " suit " within 4 & 5 Will. 4, 
 ^acUUcmio ^' ^^ ^^')' ^^^ ^ guardian ad litem may be appointed for a 
 
 lunatic lunatic defendant to such a summons (k). 
 
 defendant. 
 
 Where an administration summons has been refused on 
 the merits, the plaintiff cannot, it has been held, institute 
 an action for the same object in another branch of the 
 Court ; if dissatisfied he must, it is said, appeal from the 
 order (/). It is respectfully submitted that this decision is 
 not altogether sound. It is absolutely in the discretion 
 of a judge to grant or refuse the common order on 
 summons {m) ; but it is at least doubtful whether he is not 
 hound to grant it in an action properly constituted, at the 
 suit of a competent plaintiff (-Ji). Moreover, the grant or 
 refusal of the order on summons being discretionary, it is 
 questionable whether an appeal against such a refusal 
 would in any case lie. 
 
 (r) West V. Laing, 3 Dr. 331 ; 
 Wadham v. Rigg, 2 Dr. & Sm. 78. 
 
 (/) West V. Laing, tibi siqjra. 
 
 (g) Seivell v. Ashley, 3 De G. M. 
 k G. 933. 
 
 {h) Berkeley v. Mason, 19 Eq. 
 467 ; compare 7-e Ncwhery, 10 W. K. 
 378. 
 
 (i) Since repealed : aee now 0. 
 
 XI. ; Cohen y. Alcan, 1 De G. J. & 
 S. 398. 
 
 (k) Oshaldistonv. Crotvther, 1 Sm. 
 &G. App. 12. 
 
 {I) Thompson v. Thompson, 11 
 W. R. 797. 
 
 {m) Ante, p. 4. 
 
 (?0 Post, Oh. iii.
 
 FOK ADMIMSTRATK^N. 
 
 b. As to Real Estate. 
 
 By the 47th section of the Chancery Procedure Act, b. Real esute. 
 1852, it wa.s enacted that it should be lawful for any 
 person claiming to be a creditor of any deceased person, or 
 interested under his will, to apply for and obtain in a 
 summary way, in the manner thereinbefore provided uith 
 respect to the jDersonal estate of a deceased person, an 
 order for the administration of the real estate of a deceased 
 person, where the whole of such real estate was by devise 
 vested in trustees, who were by the will empowered to sell 
 such real estate, and authorised to give receipts for the 
 rents and profits thereof, and for the produce of the sale of 
 such real estate ; and that all the provisions thereinbefore 
 contained with respect to the application for such order in 
 relation to the personal estate of a deceased person, and 
 consequent thereon, should extend and be applicable to 
 an application for such order as last thereinbefore men- 
 tioned with respect to real estate. The references are to 
 the 45th section, q. v. ante, p. 1. 
 
 The Court has jurisdiction under the 47th section to Jurisdiction 
 
 \vllGr6 GXG* 
 
 make an order on summons for the administration and sale cutore have 
 of a testator's real estate, where the will only gives the °",'j p°'''''" °^ 
 f-xecutors a power to sell such estate and to give receipts, 
 without vesting it in them by devise (o), or where it con- or sale is con- 
 
 T . ,1 . , p diticinally 
 
 tarns a clause conditionally postponing the sale for a fixed directed to be 
 period (jj), or where the devise is made subject to the pay- ^'^^ ^^°"^' ' 
 ment of debts, funeral and testamentary expenses (q). 
 
 The section, it will be observed, makes no provision for No jurisdiction 
 administering the real estate of an intestate. 
 
 iiitetjtacy. 
 
 (o) Colman v. Turner, 10 Eq. {q) Ogden v. Luirrii, 4 W. l;. 
 
 230. lij^i ; I'ujoU V. Young, 7 W. ll. 
 
 {p) Dc la Salle v. Moorat, 11 
 Eq. 8. 
 
 -<jy.
 
 8 INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS 
 
 B. By Writ. 
 B. Aihninisira- jj. appears from what has gone before that procedure by 
 
 tion actiou. ... ... . 
 
 originating summons is of limited operation. In all cases 
 in which that procedure cannot properly be resorted to, 
 proceedings for the administration of the estates of 
 deceased persons must be initiated by writ, which is the 
 first step in a formal action {r). Such a writ must be 
 Title of writ, intituled "In the matter of the estate of A. B., 
 deceased " (s), as well as between the parties. It should 
 be issued for the Chancery Division of the High Court {t), 
 and marked with the name of some one of the Judges of 
 ludorsements that Division {u). It must be indorsed with a statement 
 on writ ; ^^ ^.j^^ nature of the claim made, or of the relief or remedy 
 
 required in the action {x) ; but such indorsement need not 
 set forth the precise ground of complaint, or the precise 
 remedy or relief to which the plaintiff considers himself 
 claiming entitled {y). The writ may, if desired, be further indorsed 
 
 be^takeir-" ^ with a claim that the executors' or trustees' accounts be 
 taken {z) : such an indorsement, though optional, is gene- 
 rally advisable, as giving the plaintiff the benefit of the 
 summary procedure under O. XV., presently noticed {a). 
 for a receiver ; It has also been held that the claim for the appointment 
 of a receiver should be indorsed, when that is a substan- 
 showing tial object of the action (?>). And it should be borne in 
 
 capacity of mind, as specially applicable to administration actions, that 
 parties. if the plaintiff sues or the defendant or any of the defen- 
 
 dants is sued in a representative capacity, the indorsement 
 must show in what capacity the plaintiff or defendant sues 
 
 (r) 0. I. r. 1. An action com- (?<) 0. V., rr. 4, 4a. 
 
 inenced by writ may, in a fitting {x) 0. II., r. 1. 
 
 case, be adjourned to, and carried (?/) 0. III., r. 2. 
 
 out in, chambers {Pigott v. Young, {z) 0. III., r. 8. 
 
 7 W. R. 235). («) Post, p. 22. 
 
 (s) Eyre v. Cox, 24 W. R. 317. {h) C'olebourne v. Co?ebourne, 1 C. 
 
 (t) Jud. Act, 1873, s. 34 (3). D. 690.
 
 FOR ADMINISTRATION. Of(y2-i>ii 9 
 
 or is sued (c). Where tlie action is brought by a creditor, Special 
 Avho seeks administration of both real and personal estates, nectsmru in 
 Hall, V.-C, held that it was not necessary for him to indorse creditors' 
 
 .\- < _ '' actions for 
 
 his writ as suing on behalf of himself and all other the administration 
 
 creditors (d) ; but Jessel, M.R (e), and Bacon, V.-C. (/), personal estate; 
 
 have declined to follow this decision, and it must now be 
 
 taken as settled practice that, in such an action, the 
 
 plaintiff's claim should be expressed to be on behalf of ^^ 
 
 all the creditors, though, if the statement of claim states ♦^*^-^ ^ /^^ 
 
 that he so sues, the writ, if it has omitted to state it, *' ' / '^ y- 
 
 need not be amended (g) ; indeed, as a general rule, where 
 
 a statement of claim has been delivered, it is unnecessary 
 
 to amend the indorsement on the writ to correspond (h). 
 
 The Court never administers the real (i) assets of a 
 testator on behalf of any one creditor (k). 
 
 Where, however, the action is for administration of the ojjtional in 
 personal estate only, a creditor may sue on his own behalf estate ouly.°"^ 
 alone, by analogy to the practice under an originatiuo- 
 summons (/). 
 
 Although, however, the action be expressed to be insti- 
 tuted on behalf also of the other creditors, the plaintiff is 
 dominus litis until judgment, and may dismiss the 
 
 (c) 0. III., r. 4; and App. A., equitable mortgagee, sued for fore - 
 ii. s. 1. closure, and failed to establisli his 
 
 (d) Cooper v. BlisscU, 1 C. D. mortgage, it was held that he could 
 691. not, on such a record, ask, as a 
 
 (c) Worraker v. Fryer, 2 C. D. specialty creditor, for administra- 
 
 109. tion of the real estate generally 
 
 (/) Fryer y. Royle, 5 C. D. 540. {Chapman v. Chapman, 13 Beav. 
 
 {g) Eyre v. Cox, 24 W. R. 317. 308). 
 
 (/() Large \ . Large, W. N., 1877, {k) Reeve v. Goodwin, 10 Jur. 
 
 198 ; approved by Coleridge, L. C. J. , 1050 ; Bedford v. Leigh, 2 Dick. 707 ; 
 
 in Johnson v. Fal^ner, 4 C. P. D. Thome v. Kerr, 2 K. & J. p. 62. 
 p. 262. {I) Nayler v. Blount, 27 W. R. 
 
 (t) One who has or claims a spe- 865 ; and see, ^^er Jessel, M. R., 
 
 cific charge upon the real estate .Sr«y v. Tq/feW, 18 C. D. p. 554, "it 
 
 may maintain his action to have his is no longer the practice, so far as 
 
 ch.crge satisfied thereout, but tliis ^)^'/',wwaZ estate is concerned, to bring 
 
 is not administration. And, where an action by one creditor on behalf 
 
 a bond-creditor, claiming also as of others. "
 
 10 
 
 INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 '<f3/ ( U U' i 
 
 action {y)i) ; after judgment, the other creditors can of course 
 insist upon the action being prosecuted (n), and it will not 
 be dismissed, even with the consent of all creditors who 
 have come in, and though the time named has elapsed, for 
 other creditors may still come in (o). 
 
 {m) Handford v. Storie, 2 S. & S. 
 p. 198 ; semble, even after judg- 
 ment in another action, Arinstrong 
 V. Storer, 9 Beav. 277. 
 
 {n) Handford v. Storie ; see 2^ost, 
 p. 125. 
 
 (o) LnshJei/v. Hong, H Ves. 602 ; 
 but it was there intimated that the 
 iund in Court miglit be distrilnited 
 by consent, upon further considera- 
 tion.
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 HOW JUDGMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIOX MAY BE OBTAINED, 
 
 Judgment (a) for administration may be obtained in at Ju.lgment for 
 
 1 . 3'j}c J. V-1.J.1- j_ administration. 
 
 least seven dmerent ways, according to the circumstances 
 of each case. It may be mentioned here that where the 
 residuary estate of one testator has devolved upon another, 
 and the relations between the two estates are complicated, 
 both estates may be administered in one action (b). 
 
 I. Where the Proceedinqs have been Oriqlnatcd by ^- i" i"'°- 
 
 •^ t/ </ ceedings l.y 
 
 Swrnmions. summons. 
 
 The practice in this case has been stated, ante, p, 3. 
 
 II, Where the Proceedings have been Originated by n. in adminis- 
 
 _,. , tration actions; 
 
 Writ. 
 
 (1.) At the trial, in cases in which both plaintiff and (i.) At the 
 defendant have pleaded, and issue has been joined. This 
 will be the case with many, if not most, of the actions in 
 which wilful default is charged, or in which the plaintiff 
 asks for something more than the common order (c). But 
 it not uncommonly happens that the plaintiff's demand for 
 administration is actually or practically unopposed {d). 
 
 (a) The Court may of course order (c) As to which, see ante, p. 5. 
 
 administration before the expiration (d) There is no objection, ou the 
 
 of one year from the testator's death ground of improper collusion, to a 
 
 {Prosser v. Mossop, 29 W. R. 439). trustee procuring a plaintiff to ob- 
 
 (ft) Youny v. Ho'hf^s, 10 Ha. 158. tain the cominou order ngainst Inni
 
 12 
 
 HOW JUDGMENT FOR ADMINISTRATION 
 
 As a short 
 cause, 
 
 after notice. 
 
 Evidence. 
 
 Plaintirs 
 right to sue 
 must be 
 proved or 
 admitted. 
 
 Ill such a case he will probably desire to avail himself of 
 the opportunity so given of having the trial of the action 
 advanced. When a cause involves no question of difficulty, 
 and is not likely to take up much time in argument — not 
 moie than ten minutes as a rule (e) — or is such that the 
 subject-matter of it would authorize the Court to make a 
 decree as of course, it may be heard as a short cause 
 amongst the short causes, for the hearing of which one day 
 in each week is appointed. To obtain this privilege, there 
 must be a certificate — which, however, in one case (/) 
 was dispensed with — from the counsel of the plaintiff that 
 the cause is fit to be heard as a short cause, but the con- 
 sent of the solicitors for any of the defendants will not be 
 required. Upon the production of such certificate to the 
 Registrar's clerk at the order of course seat, he will 
 mark the cause as " short " in the cause-book. Notice 
 that the cause has been so marked must be given to the 
 other solicitors in the cause by the solicitor of the plaintiff. 
 The plaintiff, thus advancing a cause, proceeds at his peril ; 
 and if, on the cause coming on, it appears that it is not one 
 which is entitled to be so advanced, the costs occasioned 
 by the advancement will have to be paid by the 
 plaintiff ((/). 
 
 As to evidence, it must be pi'oved, if not admitted, as a 
 foundation for a common judgment (h), that the plaintiff 
 is a person entitled to sue (i), and the defendant or the 
 principal defendant a person liable to be sued (/.;), for 
 administration. A beneficiary suing must show that he 
 
 to account {Humble v. ,Sho7r, 3 Ha. 
 119). See, however, the practice 
 with reference to concurrent actions, 
 post, Ch. vii. 
 
 (c) Anun., 17 Jur. 435. 
 
 (/) Margraves v. White, 17 Jur. 
 436. 
 
 [g) Daniell (685), 836. 
 
 (Ji) For the distinction between 
 this and a special judgment, see 
 a7itc, p. 5. 
 
 {i) Post, Ch. iii. 
 
 iJc) Post, Ch. iii.
 
 MAY BR OBTAINEl). 13 
 
 fills the character he alleges (I). A creditor plaintiff's deht Creditor 
 must be proved or admitted. Whether an admission by 
 the legal personal representative that he believes the debt 
 to be due is sufficient has been doubted (m), but in 
 Hughes v. Eades {n), the decree was made against 
 the real estate upon the admission of the executors and 
 trustees, and some of the beneficiaries, others not being 
 sui jurii^. It was said in Keaton v. Lynch (o), that H'^l^^er of a 
 the plaintiff did not sufficiently prove his debt by ex- exchange. 
 hibiting to an affidavit a bill of exchange drawn by him 
 upon, and accepted by, the testator — apparently on the 
 ground that he had not proved any consideration for the 
 bill — but this decision is open to grave doubt, for a con- 
 sideration is presumed to have been given for every bill or 
 note till the contrary is shown {'p), and to found a judg- 
 ment for administration, prima facie evidence of the suing 
 creditor's debt is in the first place sufficient (q) ; nor, since 
 the 3 & 4 Will. 4, c, 104, is it necessary to establish the 
 will against the heir, or to make the heir a party as 
 well as the devisee (7^). 
 
 The title of legal personal representatives is properly Title of legal 
 proved by the production of the probate or letters of ad- sentath-es^-^"^^" 
 ministration (.s), or of examined or office copies thereof 
 respectively (t) ; but the Probate Act-book, and even an 
 unstamped copy thereof, has been admitted as evidence of 
 the appointment of executors, without the non-production 
 
 (Z) See Miller v. Priddon, 1 Mac. (r) Goodchild v. Terrctt, 5 Beav. 
 
 & G. 687. 398 ; Bridges v. Hinxman, 16 Sim. 
 
 (m) HiU V. Binney, 6 Ves. 738. 71 ; see also Cons. Orel. VII., r. 1, 
 
 [n) 1 Ha. 486. Appendix, post, p. 194. 
 
 (0) 1 Y. & C. C. 437. (*■) Griffiths v. Hamilfon, 12 Yes. 
 
 (p) Byles on Bills, 12th ed. 119 ; 298; Hunt v. Stevois, 3 Taunt. 
 
 Woodgate v. Field, 2 Ha. p. 217. 113. 
 
 iq) Per Wi<^ram,Y.-C., Hughes V. (0 -^- v. Haines, Skinn. p. 584, 
 
 Fades, 1 Ha. 486. He must prove pn- Lord Holt : Hoe v. Nelthorpe, 3 
 
 his debt subsequently in chambers. Salk. 154 ; S. C. sub nom. Hoe v. 
 
 like any other creditor ; jwst, p. Nathorp, 1 Ld. Ray. 154. 
 105.
 
 14 HOW jrDGMKNT FOR ADMIMS I'RATION 
 
 of the probate being accounted for (u). The title of 
 several claiming as executors is well evidenced by the 
 probate, granted to one only, of the will appointing them 
 all (x). The title of an administrator de bonis non is 
 sufficiently proved by tiie production of letters de bonis 
 non, without producing the letters granted to the original 
 of devisees ; administrator (?/). The title of the devisees of the de- 
 ceased's real estate must, however, as a rule, be otherwise 
 established. Probate is not conclusive proof that instru- 
 ments, so far as they affect real estates, are of a testamentary 
 character {z), unless the will has been proved in solemn 
 form {a). But, even where the will has been proved in 
 common form, the probate or an office copy may be made 
 evidence in actions concerning real estate by following the 
 course pointed out by the 64th section of the same Act (6). 
 In all cases of testacy in which the will has not been 
 proved, or administration cum testamento annexo granted, 
 in solemn form, or in which the notice prescribed by the 
 64th section has not been given, or in which, though such 
 notice has been given, a counter-notice that the validity of 
 the testamentary disposition is disputed has been received, 
 the title of devisees must be proved by formally verifying 
 the will in the usual way — viz., by the evidence of all the 
 attesting witnesses, or proof of their deaths and hand- 
 writings (c) — subject to this, that a will thirty years old (d), 
 
 {u) Cox V. AlUngham, Jac. 514 ; 362 ; Scott v. Briant, 6 N. & M. 
 
 Dorrett v. Meux, 15 G. B. 142. 381 ; see post, p. 26. 
 The will itself is no evidence as (y) Catherwood v. Chahaud, 1 B. 
 
 to personal estate {Pinncy v. Pin- k C. 150. 
 
 ney, 8 B. & C. 335) ; except that (z) Hume v. Rundcll, 6 Madd. 
 
 where, as in the Bishop's Courts at 331. 
 
 AVinchesteraud Well?, no Act-book (a) Probate Act, 1857, s. 64. 
 
 was kept, production of the will, (b) Appendix, p. 194 ; see Barra- 
 
 with an indorsement thereon by the dough v. Grcenhough, L. R. 2 Q. B. 
 
 Registrar that the probate had 612. 
 
 passed the seal, has been held suffi- (c) Concannon v. Cruise, 2 Moll, 
 
 cient [Doe d. Bassctt v. Mein, 7 Ad. 332. 
 & El. 240). (d) The time is to be computed 
 
 {x) Walters v. Pfeii, Mo. & Ma. from the date of the will (not from
 
 MAY BE OBTAINED. 15 
 
 produced from the proper custody, proves itself (^), attest- 
 ing witnesses being presumed, after the lapse of that time, 
 to be dead (/). For the purposes of the usual preliminary 
 judgment in a partition action (and semble, for all pur- 
 poses), letters testimonial of the Supreme Court of a colony 
 having probate jurisdiction, setting out the will verbatim, 
 are sufficient proof of a will made and proved in the colony 
 of real estate in England (g). Where the deceased died of heir of an 
 
 11 1 1 • 1 • n intestate. 
 
 intestate, and the real estate descended to his heir, the 
 heirship must be established by proving the pedigree of 
 the heir. 
 
 Evidence of the kind specified above will usually be Evidence 
 
 ro • ■ T ^ -I • • nr' ■ ^ I'equired for 
 
 sutncient to entitle the plamtiti to the common judg- common 
 ment for administration, which is generally regarded as ^^^* S'"'^'^* > 
 of course on the mere proof that the plaintiff is entitled 
 to have, and the defendant liable to render, a general 
 account ; the only question at the original hearing, said 
 Lord Gifford, M.R., is whether the defendant is an 
 accounting party (A). The same learned judge laid it 
 down strongly, after an elaborate discussion, that the 
 Court will not at the hearing go into, or enter as read, 
 evidence as to the items of the defendant's accounts, that 
 being matter for Chambers (/), and this rule— tliouo-Ji 
 Wigram, Y.-C, as strongly dissented from it, at all events 
 in cases where the defendant did not in terms concede 
 the plaintiffs right to an account (Z;) — is still, it is sub- 
 mitted, the practice of the Court (l). 
 
 If, however, the plaintiff asks for a S2)eci al judcrment — for .y)erial 
 
 e.g., one founded on wilful default or breach of trust — "'S™^" ' 
 
 ^ e.f/., wiltul 
 
 default, 
 
 the death of the testator) to the W. R. 515. 
 
 time of its production {Man v. (h) Walker \. lVoodword,\ Wwsa. 
 
 Rickctts). p. 110. 
 
 (e) Man v. Itiel-eUs, 7 Beav. 93. (i) Lmv v. Huiifrr, 1 Rnss. p. 
 
 (/) Per Lord Campbell, Doe d. 101 ; Walker \. Woodward. 
 
 Ashbu7'7ihamv.3Iichael,15J\xr. 679. (k) Tomlinv. Tontlin, 1 Ha. p. * 
 
 (g) Waite v. Bingley, 21 C. D. 245. 
 
 674 ; and see Danhy v. Poole, 10 (/) See Daniell (582) 753.
 
 16 
 
 HOW JUDGMKNT FOR ADMINISTRATION 
 
 
 something further in the way of both allegation 'and evi- 
 dence is required from him. You cannot charge an executor 
 or administrator with wilful default without making out a 
 case (»i), and charging him in the pleadings (n) ; and an 
 application for leave to interrogate an executor, the object 
 
 7<Pc being to charge him with a breach of trust not raised by 
 . the pleadings, has been refused with costs (o). So, too, 
 ^^J^^^Z-^,.^'-^-^^ 'Y'^^ Court refused to order at the original bearing any 
 ^^^ — v«-<_w*-^ inquiries as to income, the tenant for life not being a 
 ^L^«--'^A>^^^)^ai'ty (^j), and as to an executor's balances, with a view of 
 ^^^^^^^*ZZ^-^ charging him with interest upon them, unless on a special 
 /^^ at the hearing case made by the plaintiff or admissions by the defend- 
 ■> 2- cf«e"mar ' ^^^ ^5^) ' ^^^ ^^ must be added that such special inquiries 
 are not necessarily a condition precedent to the establish- 
 ment of such a charge at a later stage of the action, for 
 executors may, on further consideration, if the certificate 
 supplies the necessary materials, be charged with interest 
 on their balances, though only the common judgment for 
 administration has been taken, and the point has not been 
 raised on the pleadings (r) ; and in Laming v. Gee (s) leave 
 was given by the Court to bring a fresh action against a 
 Court obtained; defendant against whom the plaintiff had previously 
 obtained a common administration judgment, for the 
 purpose of charging him with wilful default in the admin- 
 istration of the same estate, upon evidence showing that 
 when the first judgment was obtained he was not aware 
 of the circumstances on which the second action was 
 founded ; and where, in an action by a residuary legatee 
 against the executors, wilful default was charged by the 
 
 la a proper 
 case on 
 further con- 
 sideration ; 
 
 or in a fresh 
 
 action after 
 leave of the 
 
 (m) Per Jesse], M. R., Job v. Job, 
 6 C. D. p. 564. 
 
 (n) Per eundem, Mayer v. Mur- 
 ray, 8 C. D. r- 427. 
 
 (o) Ford V. Bryant, 9 Beav. 410. 
 
 {q) Law V. Hunter, 1 Euss. 101. 
 
 (r) Jones V. Morrall, 2 Sim. N. S. 
 241 ; HoUings worth v. ShaJcesJwft, 
 14 Beav. 492 ; and see post, p. 52. 
 
 (s) 10 C. D. 715 ; see also Harvey 
 
 ( p) Whitney v. Smith, 4 Ch. v. Bradley, 4 Eq. 13. 
 
 513.
 
 MAY BE OBTAINED. 17 
 
 plaintiff but'denied by the defendants, and only the com- 
 mon administration judgment "was obtained (the claim to 
 relief on the footing of wilful default not being dismissed), 
 it was held, on further consideration, that the plaintiff was 
 then entitled to relief on that footing (t). The charge of 
 wilful default, unless originally pleaded, must be intro- 
 duced by amendment, that is, of course, by amendment generally 
 
 before jiulg- 
 
 at any stage of the action at which amendments may be ment, after 
 made, namely, before judgment (it). It was Lord Eldon's ^he pleadings, 
 rule, that, in order to obtain an inquiry as to wilful ^^ necessary. 
 neglect or default, the plaintiff must allege and prove at rule that one 
 least one act of wilful neglect or default,' and it is still the '"jc* of ^'''f"' 
 
 o ' (leiault must 
 
 rule of the Court {v). True, it was said by Knight be proved, 
 
 . \ 1 r •If 1 before inquiry 
 
 Bruce, L. J., m Coope v. Carter {x), that a case of wilful directed, 
 
 default might be alleged, and a prayer might be founded 
 
 on it, but the circumstances appearing by admission 
 
 or proof might only raise a case of suspicion in the 
 
 mind of the Court, on the question whether an act 
 
 of wilful default has been committed, and that in such 
 
 a case he could conceive that the Court, if it were 
 
 likely that further evidence might be obtained, ought 
 
 to direct an inquiry (y) short of directing wilful default, 
 
 in order to ground upon that a new order, and to direct 
 
 an inquiry as to wilful default at a future stage ; but these still the rule 
 
 , . .of the Court. 
 
 observations were not meant to let m general allegations 
 of default, but to meet the case of specific allegations 
 imperfectly proved at the hearing (z). Reference may 
 
 (t) Luke V. Tonkin, 21 C. D. ham, " the pleadings afforded quite 
 
 757. sufficient foundation for an incjuiry 
 
 (it) Per Jessel, M. R., Mayer v. whether the expenses, the incurring 
 
 Murray, uhi S7ipra. of which was charged as wilful de- 
 
 (v) Sleight v. Lawson, 3 K. & J. fault, were properly incurred, with- 
 
 292 ; Massey v. Massey, 2 J. & H. out going into any such evidence at 
 
 728. the hearing." 
 
 {x) 2 De G. M. & G. 298. {z) Per Wood, V.-C., Sleight v. 
 
 (2/) See Smith v. Chambers, 2 Lawson, Massey v. Mousey ; cf. 
 
 Phill. p. 226, ]}er Lord Gotten- Pelhavi v. Hilder, 1 Y. & G. G. G. 3. 
 
 c
 
 18 now JUDGMENT FOR ADMINISTRATION 
 
 here be made to Guidici v. Kinton (ft). There, under a 
 decree in a legatee's suit to take the usual accounts, 
 A. B. went in and claimed the residue, which the Master 
 found him entitled to, but the residue was not then ascer- 
 tained, and no order was made in respect of it, and it 
 was held that he was not precluded from afterwards 
 asking relief against the executor, in respect of an alleged 
 breach of trust, in a suit of his own, he not having been, 
 in the first suit, in a situation to investigate the accounts 
 of the executor, or to ask the relief which he claimed in 
 the second. In Garrett v. Noble (6) it was laid down 
 that, if a plaintiff sues for an account against executors, 
 and does not seek to charge them with wilful default, 
 his personal representatives cannot, on his death, so 
 charge them, if the acts complained of were known to 
 the deceased plaintiff. 
 
 (2.) Upon (2.) On Motion for Judgmient, in four ways, as 
 
 motion for f^^j^^^g 
 
 ]UQgraeut : 
 
 («) upon ad- («) On admissions in the defendant's pleadings, under 
 plSdings • *^^ O. XL. r. 11, which provides that any party to an action 
 may at any stage thereof apply to the Court or a judge 
 for such order as he may, upon any admissions of fact in 
 the pleadings, be entitled to, without waiting for the 
 determination of any other question between the parties ; 
 that any such application may be made by motion, so soon 
 as the right of the party applying to the relief claimed has 
 appeared from the pleadings, and that the Court or a judge 
 nia}^ on any such application, give such relief, subject to 
 such terms, if any, as such Court or judge may think fit (c). 
 As to what admissions will be sufficient to enable a 
 plaintiff to move under this rule, see ante, p. 12. 
 
 {a) 6 Beav. 517. Hcthcringlon v, Longrigrj, 10 C. D. 
 
 [h) 6 Sim. 504. 162. 
 
 (c) Bennett v. Moore, 1 C. D. 692 ;
 
 MAY BE OBTAINED. 19 
 
 In any case, however, the admissions must be such hut only in 
 as would show that the plaintiff is clearly entitled to the "'"'^'^^ ''^^*^''' 
 order asked for ; the rule was not meant to apply when 
 there is any serious question of law to be argued (d) : in 
 such a case a judge would have a discretion whether or not 
 to make an order on motion, and with the exercise of that 
 discretion the Court of Appeal ought not to interfere (e). 
 
 A motion under this rule is made on motion-day. The and subject to 
 action need not be set down, but, if, on the motion being Jf lile com'tto 
 made, it appears that there must be a discussion or argu- °»"'^i*^'' ^^^ 
 
 action to go 
 
 ment, it will (or, at least, may) be ordered to go into the into the 
 general paper, subject to an order for its being ad- ^^"^^^'^ ^''^^^^^• 
 vanced (/). Two clear days' notice of the motion must 
 be given unless the Court or a judge give special leave 
 to the contrary (g). 
 
 If the circumstances warrant it, a plaintiff may com- Motion on 
 
 ,. .. .. ^ c ^ , !•• ■ ^ admissions 
 
 bine a motion against one deiendaut on admissions with combined with 
 a motion against another defendant on default of plead- ™f^^^°iVo"f 
 
 ing (h). Ijleading. 
 
 (6) In default of defendant pleading, under O. XXIX. (*) in default 
 r. 10, by which it is provided that, if the defendant makes pleading • 
 default in delivering a defence or demurrer, the plaintiff 
 may set down the action on motion for judgment, and 
 such judgment shall be given as upon the statement of 
 claim (i) the Court shall consider the plaintiff to be 
 entitled to. As to what allegations will entitle him to 
 
 {rl) Per Mellish, L. J., Gilbert v. Furze v. Hcnnd, 2 De G. & J. 125 ; 
 
 Smith, 2 C. D.689 ; Chilton v. Cur- Scaffold v. Bamj^ton, W. N., 1873, 
 
 2)oration of London, 7 C. D. 735. 218. 
 
 (e) Mcllor v. SidcboUom, 5 C. 1). (i) It has been tliought, that, on 
 
 342. motion under this order, the state- 
 
 (/) Registrars' Notice, W. N. ment of claim should be concisely 
 
 1877, 58, Miscellaneous. verified by affidavit, Senior v. Here- 
 
 (g) 0. LIII. r. 4. ford, 4 C. I). 494 ; but there the 
 
 {h) Bridson v. Smith, 24 AY. R. defendant was an infant ; see also 
 
 392 ; Parsons v. Harris, 6 C. D. Barnard v. Wicland, 30 W. R. 
 
 694. Under the old practice, too, 947, and Perpetual Insurance Co. 
 
 an administration order could by v. Gillespie, W. N., 1882, 4. 
 consent be obtained on motion ; see 
 
 c 2
 
 20 
 
 HOW JUDGMENT FOR ADMINISTRATION 
 
 either as 
 short causes, 
 or in their 
 regular turn 
 in tlie general 
 paper. 
 
 Notice of 
 motion. 
 
 an order for administration, see ante, p. 12 : r. 11 of the 
 same Order provides that, where there are several defend- 
 ants, then, if one of such defendants make such default 
 as aforesaid, the plaintiff may either set down the action 
 at once on motion for judgment against the defendant so 
 making default, or may set it down against him at the 
 time when it is entered for trial, or set it down on motion 
 for judgment against the other defendants. 
 
 Motions for judgment under these rules are not to 
 be brought on as ordinary motions — though, if all parties 
 appear and consent this may be done {k) — but to be set 
 down in the cause-book. They can be marked " short " 
 on production of the usual certificate of counsel (l), and 
 will then be placed in the paper on the first short-cause 
 day after the day for which notice is given {m). If not 
 marked " short " they will come into the general paper 
 in their regular turn. It is advisable that the notices 
 of motion for judgment should, if it is intended to mark 
 them "short," contain a statement to that effect, and 
 also a statement that no further notice will be given of 
 their having been so marked : such statement will dis- 
 pense with the necessity for giving defendants further 
 notice that motions for judgment have been marked 
 " short " {n). 
 
 Two clear days' notice of motion must be given, unless 
 short notice be specially allowed (o). As against a defen- 
 
 {k) Boioen v. Boicen, 24 "W. R. 
 246 ; Pearcc v. Spickctt, W. N., 
 1876, 109, in which a motion for 
 judgment in default of a defence 
 was allowed to be brought on on a 
 motion-day, though the defendant 
 did not appear on the motion, was 
 anterior to the Registrars' Notice 
 referred to in the text, and would 
 not now be followed. The motion 
 should have been brought on among 
 the short causes. 
 
 il) Ante, p. 12. 
 
 {m) Where, on such a short cause 
 being called on, the defaulting de- 
 fendant appeared and opposed, the 
 M. R. made no order then, but fixed 
 an early daj' for the hearing (Mcakin 
 V. Sykca, 24 W. R. 293). 
 
 (h) Registrars' Notice, W. N., 
 1877, 58, Miscellaneous. 
 
 (o) U. LIII. r. 4 ; Roiqiell v. 
 Parsons, 24 W. R. 269 ; Parsons v. 
 Harris, 6 C. D. 694.
 
 MAY BE OBTAINED. 21 
 
 dant who has not appeared, the notice of motion must be 
 filed (2^). 
 
 As to combining a motion on default of pleading witli 
 one on admissions, see ante, p. 19. 
 
 (c) Where there are no pleadings at all. — As notice of (c) Where 
 
 . , IT- n • ••11 there are no 
 
 trial can only be given after issue joined, the proper course, pleadings. 
 where there are no pleadings, is to set the action down on 
 motion for judgment under O. XL. r. 1, which provides 
 that, except where by the Judicature Act or the rules made 
 under it, it is provided that judgment may be obtained in 
 any other manner — and neither Act nor Rules contain any 
 express provision for the decision of a case in which no 
 statement of claim has been delivered — the judgment of 
 the Court shall be obtained by motion for judgment {q). As 
 to marking such a motion " short," see ante, p. 20. As 
 to evidence, see ante, p. 12. 
 
 There has been a conflict of opinion as to the proper in what cases 
 course to be pursued, with reference to the delivery of a chhn"sToiUd 
 statement of claim, where the defendant consents at the ^^ delivered, 
 outset to a judgment for administration. In the case of a 
 creditors' action, Jessel, M. E.., has said that the defendant 
 ought to require the plaintiff not to deliver one {r), and 
 Hall, y.-C, has in a beneficiaries' action also pronounced 
 the delivery unnecessary (.s) ; but Malins, V.-C. (t), who 
 draws a distinction between these two classes of actions, 
 and Bacon, V.-C. (u), have in beneficiaries' actions ordered 
 a statement of claim to be delivered. Unless the distinc- 
 tion drawn by Malins, V.-C, be taken as a guide, it is sub- 
 mitted that the propriety of delivering a statement of claim, 
 where the action is intended to be heard " short," must 
 
 {]}) Dymond v. Croft, 3 C. D. (s) Green y. Colchy, 1 C. D. 69S. 
 
 512 ; Morton v. Miller, ibid. 516. {t) Breton v. Mockctt, 33 L. T. 
 
 (q) Eegistrars' Notice, W. IST., 684 ; and see Boycs v. Cook, ibid. 
 
 1877, 58, Miscellaneous. 778. 
 
 (r) Taylor v. DucJcett, W. N., (u) David v. Dalton, W. N., 
 
 1875, 193. 1879, 86,
 
 qiiines 
 
 22 HOW JUDGMENT FOR ADMINISTRATION 
 
 depend upon the terms of each will and the complexity of 
 the case. 
 
 Another mode of taking the common judgment for 
 
 administration without pleadings is pointed out below (3). 
 
 (<f) In default (r7) In default of appearance. — By O. XIII. r. 9, it is 
 
 of api)earauce. -iii • • ^ n , ^ ■ r ^ -r ^• 
 
 provided that m actions by the o4th section oi the Judica- 
 ture Act, 1875, assigned to the Chancery Division (includ- 
 ing administration actions) in case the party served with 
 the writ does not appear within the time limited for 
 appearance, upon the filing by the plaintiff of a proper 
 affidavit of service, the action may proceed as if such party 
 had appeared {x). 
 
 (3.) Upon sum- (3) By Summons, under 0. XV., which provides (y) that 
 
 nions tor ac- . . „ . 
 
 counts and in- in default of appearance to a writ of summons indorsed 
 under O. III., r. 8 (z), and after appearance, unless the 
 defendant, by affidavit or otherwise, satisfy the Court or a 
 judge that there is some preliminary question to be tried, 
 an order for the account claimed (a), with all directions 
 usual in the Chancery Division in similar cases, shall be 
 forthwith made ; that an application for such an order 
 may be made at any time after the time for entering an 
 appearance has expired, and that it shall be made by 
 summons, and be supported by an affidavit filed on behalf 
 of the plaintiff, stating concisely the grounds of his claim 
 to an account (b). Under these rules the common (c) judg- 
 
 (a;) Where an order to account Hayn, Jac. 49). 
 has been made upon a defendant in {ij) R. 1. 
 
 default of appearance, the account (z) As to which, see ante, p. 8. 
 
 mny he. ta^Qivcv parte {Thompso)iY. (a) i.e., a,u "ordinary account," 
 
 Trotter, cited 3 M. & Cr. 193; see O. III. r. 8, and note (c) belo\v. 
 Eltoft V. Brown, 2 Ha. 621 ; but (J) R. 2. 
 
 see Golden v. Neivton, Johns. 720) ; (c) An order for an account on 
 
 but where the order has been made the footing of wilful default is not 
 
 in default of pleading, the defen- an "ordinary account, " and cannot 
 
 dant is entitled to attend the taking be made under this Order {Bennett v. 
 
 of the accounts (King v. Bryant, 3 Bowcn, 20 C. D. 538). 
 M. & Cr. 191 ; compare Hayn v.
 
 MAY BE OBTAINED. 23 
 
 mcnt for administration may be obtained, as it may be to 
 a considerable extent under 0. XXXIII., which enables the 
 Court or a judge, at any stage of the proceedings in a 
 cause or matter, to direct any necessary inquiries or 
 accounts to be made or taken, notwithstanding that it may 
 appear that there is some special or further relief sought 
 for or some special issue to be tried, as to which it may be 
 proper that the cause or matter should proceed in the 
 ordinary manner. Application under the last-mentioned 
 order may be made by summons. 
 
 Though the common administration order under 0. XV. either after 
 
 . pi. statement of 
 
 is usually obtained m cases where a statement of claim has claim, or 
 not been, and is not intended to be, delivered, yet there is j^tendell' to be 
 no objection to the order being made after delivery of the delivered. 
 claim, and, e converso, a claim may be delivered after the 
 order has been made (d), but it would be improper then to 
 deliver one, unless for the purpose of raising issues not 
 covered by the order, and of obtaining an addition to the 
 order in respect of those issues. As to adding to the order, 
 see jyost, p. 51. 
 
 After an order for preliminary accounts and inquiries, 
 the hearing should not be brought on until the Chief 
 Clerk has made his certificate, and a postponement will 
 be ordered at the costs of the party bringing on the 
 hearing (e). 
 
 It may be mentioned that the common order for ad- 
 ministration is often made, by consent, at the hearing of 
 some preliminary motion, e.g., for a receiver, it being un- 
 necessary to set the action down formally. 
 
 {(l) See Gatti v. Wcbsler, 12 C. D. (c) Bath v. Bell, 39 L. T. 422. 
 
 771.
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 OF THE PARTIES TO ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 
 
 I. Plaintiffs, 
 
 A. Persanal 
 estate. 
 
 (1 & 2.) Bene' 
 ficiaries, 
 
 although 
 their interest 
 contingent, 
 if present or 
 existing ; 
 
 seats, if an 
 cxijectancy 
 only, 
 
 I. Who may maintain Actions as Plaintiffs. 
 A. As to Personal Estate. 
 
 (1.) Any legatee, or an annuitant, whose annuity is 
 charged upon the residuary personalty («). 
 
 (2.) Any residuary legatee, or next of hinili), though 
 the testator may have directed that the quantity of the 
 residue should be as the executor voluntarily, and without 
 being thereto compelled by law, should declare (c). It is 
 not necessary that the plaintiff's interest should be a 
 vested, provided it be a present one. An existing interest, 
 said Lord Westbury, whether it be vested or contingent, 
 however future or remote, may, if it be a present interest, 
 form the foundation of a right in the party representing 
 it to come here with a bill to have the share secured (d). 
 But an action for administi'ation cannot be maintained by 
 one who has only an expectation, and not an interest. On 
 this principle it was decided, where there was a gift to the 
 testator's nephew for life, with remainder to his eldest or 
 only child, subject to a condition precedent that the 
 nephew should marry a specified niece of the testator, and 
 the nephew, in the testator's lifetime, married someone 
 
 [a) Wollaston v. WoUaston, 7 C. (c) Gibbcms v. Da^olcy, 2 Ch. Gas. 
 D. 58. 198. 
 
 (b) Chancery Procedure Act, 1852, [d) Davis v. Angel, 4 Do G. F. k 
 s. 42, r. 1 ; Pointon v. PoMon, 12 J. p. 529. 
 
 Eq. 517, 550.
 
 OF THE PARTIES TO ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 25 
 
 else, and he, his wife, and a son were living at the 
 testator's death, that the possibility of the nephew's wife 
 predeceasing him and his marrying the niece did not 
 confer upon the nephew's son an interest sufficient to 
 enable him to maintain a bill (e) : and that, where there 
 was a bequest, on the death of the testator's daughters 
 without issue, to the persons who would be entitled under 
 the Statute if the testator had then died intestate, an 
 administration action brought in the lifetime of the 
 daughters, and before they had had any issue, by persons 
 who would then be next of kin, if the daughters were 
 dead without issue, did not lie (/). 
 
 (3.) Any creditor of the deceased (g), or of the firm in (3.) Credi- 
 which the deceased was a partner (h), whether suing singly ' 
 or on behalf of himself and all other the creditors. The ^^^•^---x-^'^^"-^^^;^ 
 liquidator of a company, of which the legal personal -TT-^ '^:^lJU. 
 representative of the deceased has, as such, been made a cL^^-,-^ li^-*^}^ 
 contributory, provided such representative has made de- /^— ----—.-— ^ - 
 fault in paying any sum ordered in the winding up to be ^^^^^ . ^^^j^ ^ 
 paid by him (i) ; a creditor having debitum in ^^'i'cesenti '^'r^,L^< — ^ a. ^ 
 -^ solvenduvi in futuro (k) ; a voluntary covenantee (l) ; one incliuling y ""^/li^ 
 nt/^-^^wTiose claim is for unliquidated damages recoverable for ^°|"J].*^'^^gg (^ l.^^:^'^, 
 '^''id^^eaLch of covenant (m) ; a surety on a bond secured by a ^'^ <^^ .^<... 
 
 ll bond of indemnity given by the testator who had devised 
 ,/ certain property specifically upon trust to pay the debt {n) : 
 ■ all these can, as creditors of the deceased, maintain an 
 / ,/^ action for the administration of his estate. Again, where 
 ^^jj(^ man has been found lunatic, and has died, the solicitor 
 -**-*^'fe the inquisition may, if the inquisition was for the 
 
 (c) Davis V. Ancfd. see Turquand v, Kirhy, 4 Eq. 123. 
 
 (/) Clowes V. Billiard, 4 C. D. (k) IVhitmore v. Oxborroiv^ Y. 
 
 413, in which Roberts v. Roberts, 2 & C. C. C. 13. fU-t 7^ ^rT^^tr^ i^^^^^i. ^ fa- 
 
 Ph. 534, is considered. (/) Watson v. Parker, 6 Beav. 283. '^ '^ ■^ -^^ . , 
 
 {</) See ante, p. 9. (m) Burchv. C'o7ici/,li Jur. IQOd. kilCd^ ^t^ , U^ 
 
 (h) Rice V. Gordon, 11 P)cav. 265. (n) Wooldridge v. Nurris, 6 Eq. ^^/ / '^'^ f'^. 
 
 (i) 25 & 26 Vict. c. 89, s. 105 ; 410. ^^^^_^ ^ A^L /4^
 
 26 
 
 OF THE PARTIES TO ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 
 
 But the debt 
 must he dcbi- 
 tuiii la iiroi- 
 senti. 
 
 (4.) Legal 
 persoual repre- 
 sentatives or 
 one of them ; 
 
 sufficient if 
 one at least 
 hns proved the 
 will. 
 
 lunatic's benefit, institute a creditors' action for adminis- 
 tration in respect of his costs (o). But such an action is 
 not maintainable by a lessor of the deceased to whom 
 nothing is due, in respect of possible future breaches of 
 covenant (p), nor by a person claiming to be a creditor 
 oY tbe testator's business carried on under the will by the 
 executors, and suing for administration of the estate so em- 
 ployed {q), nor by a creditor of a residuary legatee {r), nor, 
 semhle, by a creditor in respect of an illegal debt(6'). As 
 to whether and under what circumstances a person claiming 
 under an administration-bond (i) can sue upon such bond for 
 administration of the estate of the obligor, see Bolton v. 
 Foivell (u). A creditor who sues for administration of the 
 estate, and afterwards himself takes out representation, is 
 still to be regarded as plaintiff in a creditors' action {v). 
 As to the practice where it is found that a plaintiff, suing 
 as a creditor, is in fact not a creditor, see post, p. 125. 
 
 (4.) An executor or adiininistrator {x), or one of two 
 or more executors or administrators {y). 
 
 Probate granted to one of several executors enures for 
 the benefit of all, and, upon the death of the executor to 
 whom probate has been granted, the other executors may 
 accept the office, and, upon doing so, fully represent the 
 testator without further probate {z), so that executors who 
 
 (o) Chester v. Rolfc, 4 De G. M. 
 & G. 798. The costs may be treated 
 as incurred for the lunatic's benefit 
 notwithstanding the pendency of a 
 traverse of the inquisition {Re C'um- 
 ming, 5 De G. M. & G. 30) ; but 
 see Re Weaver, 21 C. D. 615. 
 
 (p) King v. Malcott, 9 Ha. 692 ; 
 but see^os^, p. 183. 
 
 {q) Owen v. Delamere, 15 Eq. 
 134 ; and see Shea rmany. Robinson, 
 15 C. D. 548. 
 
 (?•) Elmslia v. 31'Aiday, 3 Bro. 
 G. C. 624, 626. 
 
 (.s) Smith V. IVhitc, 1 Eq. 626. 
 
 (t) This is now given under 20 
 & 21 Vict. c. 77, ss. 81, 82, 83, not 
 to the Ordinary, but to the Judge. 
 
 {u) 14 Beav. p. 290 ; 2 De G. 
 M. & G. 1. See further as to 
 the bond, Comp. Exors., Chap. 
 XV. 
 
 {v) See Nichols v. Nichols, 10 W. 
 E. 598. 
 
 (x) Chancery Procedure Act, 18.'>2, 
 s. 42, r. 6. 
 
 {y) Latch v. Latch, 10 Ch. 464. 
 
 (z) Gummi7is v. Cummins, 3 Jo. 
 & L. 64 ; ^er Bayley, J., JVehstcrv. 
 Spencer, 3 B. & Aid. 363 ; JFatkitis
 
 OF THE TARTIES TO ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 27 
 
 have not proved may join in bringing actions with one 
 who has (a). 
 
 An executor may commence an action for administration Executor may 
 before probate, but he cannot go on with it beyond the action before 
 stage at which he has to prove his title : at which stage tlie P''^'^''^^'^' 
 executor suing must prove that he is executor, and that 
 he can only do by producing the probate (6). He need and deliver 
 not have obtained probate at the time he delivers his 
 pleadings ; it is sufficient if he have it, when it is wanted '^"* ™"st 
 
 . _ * produce 
 
 in evidence (c). Where the probate was necessary to prove probate before 
 
 the title of an executor moving, it was held sufficient to pro- ' ^ ' 
 
 duce it when the motion was actually heard, though the will 
 
 had not been proved at the time for which notice of motion 
 
 was given ((/), It must be borne in mind that not proving for right of 
 
 the will is only an impediment to the action : the right of dependent on 
 
 action is the same before probate as after (e). In like P''°'^^*^- 
 
 , .1 r> .. n 1 .. , ,,. So also in tlie 
 
 manner, under tne fiction oi relation (/), one may sue case of plaintiff 
 
 before the sjrant to him of letters of administration, but *''',M^^.°"*',. 
 
 ■-> ' administration 
 
 he meets with the same impediment that confronts an after action 
 executor suing before probate : he cannot proceed beyond 
 the point where proof of his title becomes necessary, 
 without producing the letters of administration (^), though 
 it is sufficient to produce them then {It). A receiver of 
 the personal estate and of the rents of the real estate. 
 
 V. Brent, 7 Sim. 512 ; StricMund v. (c) Thompson v. Reynolds, 3 Car. 
 
 Strickland, 12 Sim. 463. & P. 123. It would be prudent, 
 
 (a) Brookes v. Stroud, 1 Salk. 3 ; however, for the pleader to aver 
 
 Webster v. Si>encer ; Walters v. probate, to avoid difficulties on de- 
 
 Pfcil, Mo. & Ma. 362. See further, murrer : see Humiyhreys v. Ingledon, 
 
 as to the nature and effect of pro- 1 P. Wms. 752. 
 
 bate and administration, Comp. (d) Neioton v. M. R. Co., 1 Dr. & 
 
 Exors., Chap. XVI. Sm. 583. 
 
 (6) Wankford v. Wanlford, 1 (c) Wankford v. Wankford, 1 
 
 Salk. p. 303 ; Wills v. Rkh, 2 Atk. Salk. 303. 
 
 285 ; Finney v. Finney, 8 B. & C. (/) See Comp. Exors., Chap. XIX. 
 
 335; compare Rogers v. James, 7 (g) ITunl v. Stevens, 3 Tinmt.ir:^. 
 
 'Ta.m\t.li7,£M2Jarfe Faddy, BlSlddd. (A) Horner v. Horner, 23 L.J. 
 
 241. Ch. 10.
 
 28 OF THE PARTIES TO ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 
 
 has been appointed, pending the grant of probate, which was 
 delayed on account of a caveat being entered (no probate 
 action having been actually commenced), upon the appli- 
 cation of the plaintiff, named sole executor and residuary 
 legatee and devisee, the defendant alleging himself to be 
 heir-at-law and one of the next of kin (^). 
 This right not ^^ would appear, however, that an executor's or adminis- 
 
 to be used trator's ris^ht to sue before takinsj out representation is not 
 oiipressively. "^ o ± 
 
 quite absolute. It has been held that, where it appears that 
 a plaintiff, by suing as executor when he had not proved 
 the will, is abusing the process of the Court, the Court has a 
 common-law jurisdiction, under its general superintending 
 power to prevent its process from bemg used for the purpose 
 of oppression and injustice, to stay the proceedings until 
 probate shall be taken out ; but some good ground must 
 be shown by a defendant making such an aj^plication (/ii). 
 T, ■,• Where a decree for administration was obtained bv 
 
 Proceedings •' 
 
 when plaintiff's an administrator, but his letters of administration were 
 
 title as legal . i i i i • 
 
 personal repre- afterwards revoked, the suit was stayed, and the plaintiff 
 aiter iud<^-°^ ^^^^ deprived of his costs, his right being in dispute when 
 ment. i\-^q \y[\i ^y^^g ^{q^ q^ . jr^^t where judgment had been obtained 
 
 at the suit of residuary legatees for the administration of 
 the real and personal estate of a testator, and after this, a 
 subsequent will having been discovered by which the 
 estate was disposed of in a different way, probate of the 
 old will had been recalled, and letters of administration 
 Avith the later will annexed had been granted to one of 
 the beneficiaries, the Court of Appeal made an order 
 dismissing the action, the administratrix, with the new 
 will annexed, undertaking to pay the costs, charges, and 
 expenses of the defendants out of the assets (m). 
 
 (?) Parlin v. Scddons, 16 Eq. D. 535 ; corn-pure Graves y.TFrigkt, 
 
 ZL cited 2)ost, p. 125. 
 
 (k) Webb V. Adkins, 14 C. B. {m) Dean v. Wright, 21 C. D. 
 
 401. 581. 
 
 (/) Houseman v. Houseman, 1 C.
 
 OF THE PARTIES TO ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 29 
 
 B, As to Heal and Personal {n) Estate. 
 
 (1.) Any legatee interested in a legacy charged upon ?.. Real and 
 real estate (o), or an annuitant whose annuity is charged g^toTe." 
 upon the residuary realty {p). (1-) Legatee, 
 
 /-i \ A • -7 7 c 1 when legacy 
 
 (2.) Any person interested m the proceeds of real estate charged on 
 directed to be sold (q). '^^ ' 
 
 (3.) Any residuary devisee (r), or heir (s). interested in 
 
 (4.) Any creditor of the deceased, as interpreted ^^Ii^^q^ realty, 
 above (^), provided he sue on behalf of all the creditors (u), (3.) Residuary 
 and not singly (v). A testator empowered and directed i,e[r?^^ ""^ 
 the trustees of his real estate to raise by mortgage thereof (4.) Creditor, 
 any sum not exceeding £20,000, and to apply the same 
 in paying such of the creditors of M. as they should 
 think fit. The trustees raised £G,000, and in their answer 
 to a bill by a judgment-creditor of M. to enforce his 
 lien, they stated that they had raised this sum, but 
 had not further exercised their power, and refused to do 
 so, except under the direction of the Court. They then 
 filed a bill to have the trusts carried into execution by the 
 Court, and to this bill they made the judgment-creditor a 
 party, and stated in it that they intended to raise the 
 
 (ti) The Court will not administer 14 C. D. 492) ; sccus, as to a claim 
 
 the real estate alone {Rowscll v. by heir-at-law, oneof the next of kin, 
 
 Morris, 17 Eq. p. 21). to recover real estate in the hands of 
 
 (o) Chancery Procedure Act, s. 42, an administratrix, and to admin- 
 
 r. 2. ister the personalty {Kitching v. 
 
 {p) Wollaston v. WoUaston, 7 C. KitcMng, 24 W. R. 901). 
 D. 58. (s) Chancery Procedure Act, 1852, 
 
 {q) Chancery Procedure Act, s. 42, r. 3. 
 r. 2. {t) A. (3), ante, p. 25. 
 
 (?•) An action to "estalilish title" {u) In Woodsy. Soiccrhj, 14 W. 
 
 to real estate, not claiming posses- R. 9, the Court, at the hearing, 
 
 sion, is not an action "for the re- directed the bill of a single creditor 
 
 covery of land," so as to require the to be taken as a bill on behalf of all 
 
 leaveof the Court under Ord. XVII., the creditors, and ordered the real 
 
 r. 2, for its joinder with another estate to be sold, if necessary, 
 cause of action {Glcdhill v. Hunter, {v) Ante, p. 9.
 
 30 
 
 OF THE PARTIES TO ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 
 
 (5.) Trustee, 
 but not 
 executor or 
 administrator 
 as such. 
 
 Assignees of 
 persons wlio 
 might have 
 been plaintiffs 
 may sue, both 
 as to real and 
 personal 
 estate. 
 
 including 
 
 mortgagees, 
 
 legal personal 
 representa- 
 tives, 
 
 trustees in 
 bankruptcy. 
 
 and, sevihle, 
 since the Judi- 
 cature Act, 
 voluntary 
 assignees of a 
 debt due from 
 a testator. 
 
 whole £20,000. It was held that the judgment-creditor 
 had an equity to sue to have the fund raised ^secured, 
 if not to have the whole £20,000 raised and distributed ; 
 and that the trustees were bound, if not by the will, by 
 their answer and the statement in their bill, to raise the 
 whole £20,000 (x). 
 
 (5.) Any trustee (^), but not an executor or adminis- 
 trators as such (0). 
 
 It may be laid down as a rule, to which there is probably 
 no exception, that in all cases, in which, but for an assign- 
 ment or devolution of his interest, any particular person 
 might have maintained an action for administration, such 
 action may be maintained by the person or persons who 
 have taken an assignment of that interest or upon whom 
 it has devolved by act of law. In accordance with this 
 principle, actions to administer the estate of a deceased 
 person may be brought by assignees (a), mortgagees {h), 
 Scotch curatores bonis (c), and legal personal representa- 
 tives (d), of persons beneficially interested in the estate. 
 The list, of course, might easily be extended ; trustees, 
 e.g., in the bankruptcy or liquidation, and committees of 
 the estate in the lunacy, of persons who, but for such bank- 
 ruptcy, liquidation, or lunacy, might have sued, may them- 
 selves sue, for administration. It was formerly held that 
 a voluntary assignee of a debt due from a testator could 
 not sue for administration of his estate, on the ground that 
 as the law then stood, he could not have enforced his 
 assignment (which operated merely as an agreement) 
 against his assignor, and therefore could not be treated as 
 
 (x) Joel V. 3IiUs, 3 K. & J. 458. 
 
 (y) Chancery Procedure Act, s. 42, 
 r. 6. 
 
 {z) Tubby v. Tubbtj, 2 Coll. 136 ; 
 compare Catlcy v. Samjison, 33 
 Beav. 551 ; Carter v. Sanders, 23 
 L. J. Ch. 679. 
 
 {a) Cafe v. Bent, 5 Ha. 24. 
 (?)) Freeman v. Pennington, 3 De 
 G. F. & J. 295. 
 
 (c) See Scott v. Bcntlcy, 1 K. & J. 
 281 ; and comjjare Mackie v. Dar- 
 ling, 12 Eq. 319. 
 
 (d) See ante, p. 2,
 
 OP THE PARTIES TO ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 31 
 
 a creditor of the deceased (e) : but the law as to the 
 assignment of debts and choses in action has recently- 
 been altered, and now a voluntary assignee in writing 
 of a debt due from the deceased is competent to sue for 
 administration of the debtor's estate, provided exj)ress 
 notice in writing of the assignment shall have been given 
 to the debtor, trustee, or other person from whom the 
 assignor would have been entitled to receive or claim the 
 debt. 
 
 When any person entitled to sue for administration is infant or 
 an infant, or otherwise not sui juris, the action may be tiff,\ami '/cwc 
 brought by him or her by his or her next friend (/) or *^*^'^'^''^' 
 committee (g) as the case may be (h) ; but by sec. 12 of 
 the Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (i) it is enacted 
 that every married woman shall have in her own name 
 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, and by sees. 2 and 5 all property of 
 women married after the commencement of the Act (1st 
 January, 1883), and all property of women married before 
 that date the title to which shall accrue after that date, 
 shall be held and disposed of as their separate property. 
 
 II. Who are necessary or proper Defendants. 
 To actions for administration of personal estate instituted H- ^'^' 
 
 FENDANT?". 
 
 by beneficiaries or creditors all the legal personal repre- ^ j^ a,dminis- 
 
 tration of 
 
 (c) Scn-ell V. Moxsy, 2 Sim. N. S. D. 19, the infant's father success- personal estate 
 
 189 ; see now Judicature Act, 1873, fully applied to be substituted for a 
 
 s. 25, sub-s. 6. self-constituted next friend. 
 
 (/) The principles on which the (g) For a recent and instructive 
 
 Court acts in the case of suits insti- case of administration at suit of 
 
 tuted on behalf of infants are well lunatic by his committee, see 
 
 stated by Lord Langdale in Startcn Stamper v. Stamper, 46 L. T. 372. 
 
 V. Bartholomcio, 6 Beav. 143 ; and {h) See Daniell (104—153) 65— 
 
 sec Toivsey v. Groves, 9 Jur. N. S. 119. 
 
 194. In JVoolf V. Pcmberton, 6 C. (i) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 75.
 
 32 
 
 OF THE PARTIES TO ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 
 
 at suit of bene 
 ficiaries or 
 creditors, all 
 executors 
 proving or 
 acting must bo 
 defeudauts. 
 
 Any proving 
 or actinfj 
 afterwards 
 must be added 
 as defeudauts. 
 
 Relief in 
 actions against 
 executors 
 before probate 
 generally con- 
 fined to 
 appointment 
 of receiver. 
 
 • sentativcs must be defendants (k), if they have respectively 
 elected to act (l), and (as it would seem) have signified 
 that election by proving the will. 
 
 It is not sufficient to omit some of them from the 
 record, and serve them subsequently with notice of the 
 judgment (m), for, as hereafter appears (?i), a party so 
 served cannot be made to account. And, where one of 
 several persons named executors has not proved or acted 
 at the time of the action being commenced, but afterwards 
 proves or acts, he must be added to the record as a 
 defendant (o). 
 
 A bill for administration was allowed against an 
 executor before probate by Lord Lyndhurst ( ^9) ; but such 
 bills have, on the other hand, not infrequently been dis- 
 allowed, it being held in such cases that the Court is limited 
 to granting protection to the estate (q), even though the 
 defendant had possessed himself of part of the personal 
 estate {r). If (said Lord Romilly, in the case last cited) 
 the defendant had possessed himself of every penny of the 
 personal estate, that would not entitle the plaintiff to the 
 relief he asks : if a person has taken possession of the 
 
 (k) Offley V. Jenny, 3 Ch. Rep. 
 92 ; Scurry v. Morse, 9 Mod. 89 ; 
 Latch V. Latch, 10 Ch. 464. But 
 proceedings have been allowed 
 against one only of co-executors 
 for an account of his own payments 
 and receipts alone {Coivsladv. Ccly, 
 Prec. Ch. 83). 
 
 {I) Brown v. Pitman, Gilb. 75 ; 
 Strickland v. Strickland, 12 Sim. 
 463. It woiild be injustice to allow 
 actions to be brought against one 
 appointed executor, who never 
 meant to act as such, before he had 
 an opportunity of renouncing. If 
 he be liable to actions before he has 
 acted as executor or proved the will, 
 his liability must arise on the in- 
 stant of the death of the testator, 
 
 and many actions might be brought 
 against him before he could re- 
 nounce, and from these actions he 
 could not be relieved without ex- 
 pense and trouble {per Best, C. J. , 
 Douglas v. Forrest, 4 Bing. 704). 
 
 (»i) Latch v. Latch. 
 
 (n) Post, p. 48. 
 
 (0) See Haldane v. Eckford, 14 
 W. R. 306 ; Guthrie v. Walrond, 
 22 W. R. 723. 
 
 {p) Blcwitt V. Blewitt, Younge, 
 541. 
 
 {q) Baron de Feuchtres v. Daurs, 
 5 Beav. 110 ; Overington v. Ward, 
 34 Beav. 175 ; compare Teraiiest v. 
 Lord Camoys, 35 Beav. 201 ; and see 
 Cash V. Parker, 12 C. D. 293. 
 
 (r) Cary v. Hills, 15 Eq. 79.
 
 OF THE PARTIES TO ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 33 
 
 estate, you may file a bill for a receiver to take care of 
 the property until a legal personal representative is 
 appointed, and the Court will appoint a receiver (s) for 
 that purpose, but that is a totally different thing from 
 making a decree for general administration. It will thus 
 be seen that the practice in this respect can hardly be 
 called settled. Since one who has been named an 
 executor, if he has elected to act, is veritably an executor 
 before probate, deriving, as he does, his authority not from 
 the probate, but from the will (f), the reason of the thing 
 would seem to be with Lord Lyndhurst's decision in 
 Blewitt v. Blewitt ; but the authorities are principally the 
 other way. It was decided in Vickers v. Bell (u) that an 
 executor, who had acted, but had not proved, might be 
 joined as co-defendant in an administration suit with the 
 executors who had proved ; but this is not necessarily 
 inconsistent with Baron de FeucJures v. Dawes, Overington 
 V. Wai'd, and Cary v. Hills, above referred to, for probate 
 by one of co-executors enures for the benefit of them all (v). 
 In Morley v. White {x), the executor who had not proved 
 or acted seems to have been made a defendant qua 
 debtor to the estate, not in any alleged representative 
 capacity. 
 
 One named executor may excuse himself from account- Person named 
 
 1 •!• 1 1 • 1 executor, but 
 
 abuity by showmg that he has acted merely as agent or not proving or 
 attorney of those who were named co-executors with ^^ a^ent'^of ^* 
 him iy), even where he has not formally renoimced (0), and ^^^^"^ ^^e- 
 
 i^^ (5) 111 Blackett V. Blackett, 19 W. per Lord Hardwicke, Harrison v. 
 *^ iR. 559, a receiver and manager was Graham, cited 1 P. Wms. ed. 6, 
 
 ?'^: 
 
 appointed, on an ex parte motion, 241 (7) ; Dove v. Everard, 1 R. & 
 
 I* I before administration, all the parties M. 231; Lmory v. Fulton, 9 Sim. 
 
 rt'^ to the suit being infant children of 115; but see White v. Barton, 18 
 
 the intestate. Beav. 192, where the defence of 
 
 \t) See Comp. Exors. Chap. XIX. agency was disallowed, apparently, 
 
 (m) 4 De G. J. & S. 274. however, on the ground that it had 
 
 (y) Ante, p. 26. not been properly pleaded ; and 
 
 (x) 8 Ch. 731. consider Orry. Newton, 2 Cox. 274. 
 
 ly) Ra.yner v. Green, 2 Curt. 248; (?) Stacey v. Elph, 1 M. k K. 195. 
 
 D
 
 34 
 
 OF THE TARTIES TO ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 
 
 Appointmcut 
 of adminis- 
 trator ad 
 litem by 
 Chancery 
 Division 
 insufficient to 
 enable ad- 
 ministration 
 judgment to 
 be obtained. 
 
 Full i^ersonal 
 
 representative 
 
 necessary. 
 
 So, as to 
 administrator 
 ad litem 
 appointed by 
 Probate 
 Division. 
 
 such an agent ought not to be made a party to an action 
 for administration of the estate (a). But an executor can 
 only thus excuse himself, where he has not proved the will. 
 An executor who has proved cannot act in any other 
 character : he cannot renounce his executorship, and act 
 only under power of attorney from his co-executors {h). 
 
 An administrator ad litem appointed under the 44th 
 section of the Chancery Procedure Act, 1852, does not, in 
 an action for administration, sufficiently represent the 
 deceased's estate (c), for the section does not apply where 
 the estate, to which it is desired to appoint a represen- 
 tative, is the estate to be administered by the Court (d). 
 To administer you must have a full personal representative 
 constituted. So said Kindersley, V.-C. (e), who on another 
 occasion declared that, until it was decided by a higher 
 Court to be proper, he would never make a decree to dis- 
 tribute an estate without a proper representative (/) : and 
 the Court of Appeal has recently decided that such a course 
 would be improper (g). Nor is the section applicable to 
 an action which, though not in terms asking administra- 
 tion, prays relief which, if granted, would involve or lead 
 up to it (h). Equally insufficient as a representative of an 
 estate to be administered is an administrator ad litem (i) 
 appointed by the Probate Division under its ordinary 
 jurisdiction (k) ; and tlie fact of that Division appointing a 
 person administrator for the purpose of taking, or being a 
 
 (a) Dove v. Everard, 1 R. & M. 231. 
 
 (b) Graham v. Kehle, 2 Dow. 17. 
 
 (c) Groves v. Lane, 16 Jur. 1061. 
 \d) Silver v. Stein, 1 Dr. 295 ; 
 
 Maclean v. Daioson, 1 Sw. & Tr. 
 425. 
 
 (e) Groves v. La7ie. 
 
 (/) James v. Aston, 2 Jur. N. S. 
 224. 
 
 ((/) Donxlesiocll v. Doiodesicell, 9 
 C. b. 294. 
 
 (/i) Maclean v. Davmon (No. 1), 
 
 27 Beav. 21, 23 ; Bowdeswell v. 
 Dowdcswell, 9 C. D., p. 304, 
 
 [i) But after such an appointment 
 the Court will not appoint a receiver 
 of the personal estate, considerino' 
 that such an administrator has the 
 same power of protecting tlie pro- 
 perty ( Veret v. Du-pre.z, 6 Eq. 329 • 
 Hitclicn V. Birks, 10 ib. 471. 
 
 (k) See DoivdeswcU v. Dowries- 
 luell; Clough v. Dixon, 10 Sim. 
 564.
 
 OF THE PARTIES TO ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 35 
 
 party to, proceedings in the Chancery Division, does not 
 Gstop the latter Division from saying the appointment is in- 
 sufficient for the purpose [l). There is nothing in the 
 Judicature Act which enables the Court in this respect to 
 depart from the ordinary course. It is still necessary, as 
 it was before, that in an action involving administration 
 there should be, not a limited administrator, but a general 
 administrator, in order to enable the Court to make a 
 decree (m). But an executor or administrator cum testa- 
 Tiiento annexo of a married woman's testamentary appoint- 
 ment, though the grant to him be limited to such property 
 as she had power to dispose of by will, is not such a limited 
 personal representative that judgment for administration 
 cannot be had against him (')i). 
 
 To an action which seeks an account of the assets of one Where testator 
 
 . ,. . tliucl out of the 
 
 who died out of the jurisdiction, possessed by a personal jurisdiction. 
 representative there, a personal representative constituted 
 in England is a necessary party, although it does not 
 appear that the deceased at the time of his death had any 
 assets in England (o) ; it is not sufficient to make the 
 representative out of the jurisdiction a party, and pray 
 process against him when within the jurisdiction (p), and 
 to an action in respect of assets remitted from India, in 
 the hands of an executor residing in England, but who was 
 only constituted executor in India (q), a personal repre- 
 sentative constituted in England is a necessary party. A 
 fortiori, the same rule applies, where the assets are in 
 the hands of a mere agent, to whom they have been 
 
 (/) Dovdesv-dl v. Dowdctswell, {n) Scwcll v. Ashley, 3 De G. M. 
 
 esp. ■per Cotton, L. J., p. 305. & G. 933 ; Berkeley v. Mason, 19 
 
 (m) Per Cotton, L. J., S. C. 306. Eq. 467. 
 
 It has been thought {Jones v. (o) Tyler v. Bell, 2 M. & Cr. 89 ; 
 
 Foulkcs, 10 W. R. 55) that the Flood v. Patterson, 29 Beav. 295. 
 
 strictness of the rule may be re- ( p) Tyler v. Bell. 
 
 laxed by the consent of the parties ; (q) Bond v, Graham, 1 Ha. 482. 
 sed (J lucre. 
 
 D 2
 
 36 OF THE PARTIES TO ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 
 
 remitted by the executors resident abroad (r). But, where 
 a man died intestate in India, and representation was 
 taken out both there and here, his legal personal repre- 
 sentative constituted in this country was held entitled as 
 such to sue the Indian administrator for an account of 
 assets possessed in India as well as here (s), and, con- 
 versely the foreign personal representative may maintain 
 an action against the English one for an account of 
 the English assets (t). 
 
 Where the will of a domiciled Scotchman having at his 
 death personal estate both in England and Scotland, is 
 proved in both countries, judgment for administration 
 of the whole of his personal estate wheresoever situated, 
 will be made in an action instituted by a minority of the 
 executors in the High Court — if a person is found here who 
 is accountable, or who is within the jurisdiction of the 
 Court (u), even though the English assets have been re- 
 moved to Scotland for administration there since the testa- 
 tor's death (a;). The only bar to the action would, it seems, 
 be a decree for the administration of the estate by the 
 Scotch Courts (0). Semble, any executor residing out of 
 the jurisdiction, and made a defendant, might in such a 
 case, before the hearing, successfully apply (a) to have the 
 order for service on him out of the jurisdiction, obtained 
 under O. XI., discharged, but if this be not done, there is 
 no defence to the action (6). 
 
 (r) Lowe v. Farlie, 2 Madd. 101. C. D. 456. 
 See and distinguish Arthur v. {z) Stirling-Maxwell v. Cart- 
 Hughes, 4 Beav. 506, where the wright ; Orr-Ewing v. Orr-E^cing ; 
 fund was clear and ascertained. Eiholdi v. Maireau, Yrj , i . , Feb. 
 
 (5) Sandilands v. Inncs, 3 Siiit. 1, 1883. 
 263, and compare Eames v. Hacon, [a) As in Cressivell v. Parker, 11 
 
 16 C. D. 407, 18 ih. 347. C. D. 601. 
 
 {t) Giiidiciv. Kinton, 6 Beav. 517. (b) Orr-Ewing v. Orr-Eicing. 
 
 (u) Slirling-Mnxinfll v. Cart- Judgment for .administration could 
 
 wright, 11 C, D. 522 ; O. XI. rr. not formerly have been obtained 
 
 1, la. against a personal representative 
 
 {ic) Orr-Ewing v. Orr-Ewing, 22 out of the jurisdiction {Donald v.
 
 OF THE PARTIES TO ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. St 
 
 The Attorney-General does not, as a party to the cause, 
 sufficiently represent the estate of an illegitimate person 
 who has died intestate (c). 
 
 The mere fact of one executor having paid over 
 the personal estate to the other is no discharge of the 
 executor who has paid the money. He remains liable 
 to account ((7), but no action, either by creditors (e) or by 
 the next of kin (/), can be brought against him, after 
 distributing the assets amongst persons coming in under 
 advertisements issued in accordance with 22 & 23 Vict. 
 c. 35, ss. 27 — 32 (g) and a fortiori after distribution by 
 the Court the executors cannot be sued (h). 
 
 In an action brought against a married woman who was Married 
 an executrix (or administratrix), it was formerly necessary Jefeudant 
 that her husband also should be a party, unless he had 
 abjured the realm, or she had obtained a protection order, 
 or was judicially separated (i) ; but under the recent 
 Act (j), she may sue or be sued as if she were a fevie sole. 
 
 The cases do not seem to afford a very clear answer to Representa- 
 the question, under what circumstances, in an action deceased 
 to administer the assets of a testator or intestate, the executors. 
 plaintiff ought to join, with the existing personal repre- / 
 sentatives, such parties as fill the position of administra- X-— ^^ '^ '^^ 
 tors or executors of a former representative of the original //?// Z C4 . J^ 
 
 Bather, 16 Beav. 26) ; semhlc, an Dovjhiggin, V.-C. B., Dec, 1882. 
 
 administrator must have been first (c) Bell v. Alexatider, 6 Ha. 543. 
 
 appointed under 38 Geo. 3, c. 87, {d) Per Tin-ner, L. i.,Hampv, 
 
 .ss. 1, 2, 3 ; and 20 & 21 Vict. c. 77, Robinson, 3 De G. J. & S. p. 109. 
 
 s. 74, as to which statutes and (c) Clegg v. Rowlaiid, 3 E(i. 368. 
 
 grantsof administration thereunder, (/) Newton v. Sherry, 1 C. P. D. 
 
 see Comp. Exors., Chap. XII. ; but 246. 
 
 in Dickins v. Harris, 14 L. T. N. S. {g) See ante, p. 4, and Hunter 
 
 98, a receiver was appointed, the v. Young, 4 Ex. D. 256. 
 
 sole executor being abroad, and the (h) Farrell v. Smith, 2 B. & B, 
 
 beneficiaries being unable to obtain 337. 
 
 an account from the persons left iu {i) Mitford, 5th ed, 32 ; 20 cfc 21 
 
 control of the property, which was Vict. c. 85, ss. 21, 25, 26. 
 
 iu England ; see also Eraser v. {j) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 75, s. 18.
 
 38 OF THE PARTIES TO ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 
 
 estate. It is conceived, however, that the practice in this 
 respect is now settled, viz., to make the personal repre- 
 sentatives of a deceased executor parties, where he has 
 received assets of the testator for which he has not 
 accounted with the surviving executor, and in respect of 
 which it is sought to charge his estate ; but where this is 
 not the case, to introduce into the statement of claim an 
 allegation that the deceased executor fully accounted with 
 the survivor, and that nothing is due from his estate to 
 the testator, and not to make his representative a party 
 to the action. The fact of such deceased executor having 
 died insolvent, or without having received assets, would 
 in all cases probably prevent his executors being proper 
 parties (k). 
 When adminis- Unless an administrator durante minore oetate has fully 
 
 trAtor durante j. i -ii xi. • r j. i r i, 
 
 minore estate a ^ccounted With the iniant, when ol age, he remams a 
 necessary necessary party to an action relating to the estate (I). 
 
 Where it is necessary to bring the Attorney-General 
 before the Court, he should be made a defendant. He 
 cannot be bound by service of the judgment on him under 
 the practice hereafter referred to {711), so as to preclude the 
 institution on behalf of the Crown of further inquiries (n). 
 Executor de An executor de son tort cannot be sued for the admin- 
 
 be sued for istratiou of the estate of the deceased, even though it be 
 admnus- alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant, being the 
 
 person entitled to take out representation, refuses to apply 
 for it, and impedes the plaintiff in procuring a grant to 
 any other person (0), an executor de son tort being only 
 treated as executor for the purpose of being charged, not 
 
 (^-) Daniell, (241) 222. Eowsell v. Morris, 17 Eq. 20 (M. 
 
 (Z) Glass V. Oxenham, 2 Atk. R. ), dissenting from Rayncr v. 
 
 121. Koehler, 14 Eq. 262, and Coote v. 
 
 (m) Post, p. 40. Whittington, 16 Eq. 534 (Malins, 
 
 {n) Johnstone v. Hamilton, 11 V.-C.) ; see Ambler v. Lindsay, 3 
 
 Jnr. N. S. 777. C. D. 198. 
 
 i^u) rnanj V. Watts, 2 Ph. 149 :
 
 OF THE PARTIES TO ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 39 
 
 for any other purpose {p). So he cannot be sued for an nor for an 
 
 , i i- 1 1 /■ account, unless 
 
 account unless the Jegal personal representative be beiore legal ijcrsonai 
 the Court {q), though he be himself the proper person to ['^^™rc'thr 
 take out administration {r). When, however, it is said that <^ourt; 
 such actions will not lie against an executor de son tort, 
 apparently no more is meant than that, if the defendant at least Lefore 
 can by any meaas bring the action to a hearing while tlie 
 record is imperfect as regards parties, the plaintiff must 
 fail ; for the plaintiff's action is good, if he can at the 
 hearing produce the letters of administration, it being 
 immaterial that the action was commenced before the 
 grant (s). If one of several executors sues for administra- 
 tion, he must make all the other executors defendants {t). 
 
 In actions for administration of real estate all the trus- B- In admini.s- 
 
 ,_. ,. ,.„. IT. tration of nol 
 
 tees are necessary deiendants (u), and it, m addition to estate, all the 
 seeking administration, it is sought to make the trustees J''""^*^'';^ '""^*' 
 
 » ' *= be ])avties. 
 
 liable for breaches of trust, in which cestuis que trustent 
 have participated, the latter should also be made defend- 
 ants (v). But the heir-at-law need not also be joined (x). 
 
 Where one of two trustees of an estate which was being Piactice where 
 administered m Court died intestate, and, as was alleged, trustees dies 
 
 1 , /•, 1 n , • J. 1 • ir insolvent after 
 
 insolvent, atter a decree tor an account against himsell ^j^c^^i^ent 
 and his co-trustee, and after the certificate made in pur- 
 suance thereof had been settled by the Chief Clerk, except 
 in some formal particulars, it was held that the proceed- 
 ings ought to be carried on in the absence of a represent- 
 ative of his estate, although considerable balances were 
 proved to be due from the trustees, and although one of 
 
 (p) Per Lord Cottenham, Penny (r) Creasor v. Rohinsmi. 
 
 V. Watts, 2 Ph. p. 152. (s) Hm-ner v. Horner, 23 I.. .1. 
 
 (17) Hnmphr-eys v. Humphreys, Ch. 10 ; Bateman v. Margerison , 6 
 
 3 P. Wms. 349 ; Benrdmorc v. Gre- Ha. 496 ; and see ante, p. 27. 
 
 gory, 2 H. & M. p. 496 ; Raiolings v. (;!) Latch v. Latch, 10 Ch. 464. 
 
 Lambert, 1 J. & H. 458 ; Creasor y. (u) Hall v. Aitstin, 2 Coll. 570 ; 
 
 Robinson, 14 Beav. 589 ; and see Penny v. Penny, 9 Ha. 39. 
 
 Cooke V. Gittings, 21 V>eav. 497. But (v) Jesse v. Bennett, 6 De G, M. 
 
 it is sufficient if such representative & G. 609. 
 
 beaddedby amcnduicnt {5can^;;(o/'f (.,) Ante, p. 13. 
 V. Gregory).
 
 40 OF THE PARTIES TO ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 
 
 the parties having the conduct of the cause was entitled to 
 take out repi^esentation to the deceased trustee {y). 
 
 It may be added that under the Judicature Acts, a 
 demurrer for want of parties will not lie {z). 
 
 III. Who ought to he Served %uith Notice of the Judg- 
 ment. — The Practice as to Service. — The Effect of 
 Service on the Status of Parties served. 
 
 (IIT.) Persons After providing in effect, as before mentioned, that any 
 
 SERVED WITH 
 
 NOTICE OF THE reslduary legatee or next of km, as regards personal estate, 
 and as regards real estate, any legatee interested in a 
 legacy charged upon real estate, any person interested in 
 the proceeds of real estate directed to be sold, and any 
 residuary devisee or heir, might have a decree for admin- 
 istration against the executor, administrator, or trustee, 
 without serving any person beneficially entitled, and that 
 any executor, administrator, or trustee might obtain a 
 decree against any one legatee, next of kin, or cestui que 
 All who would trust, the Chancery Procedure Act, 1852, enacts that in 
 been necessary ^11 the above cases the persons who, according to the 
 parties. then practice of the Court, would be necessary parties to 
 
 the suit, shall be served with notice of the decree (a) ; 
 Trustees and (b) that in all suits concerning real or personal 
 
 represent their gg^g^^g vested in trustees under a will or otherwise, such 
 
 cestuis que 
 
 trustent. trustees shall represent the persons beneficially entitled 
 
 under the trust, in the same manner and to the same 
 extent as the executors or administrators in suits con- 
 cerning personal estate represent the persons beneficially 
 interested in such personal estate, and that in such cases 
 it shall not be necessary to make the persons benefi- 
 cially entitled under the trusts parties to the suit ; but 
 the Court might, upon consideration of the matter, at the 
 
 {y) Moore v. Morris, 13 Eq. 139. {a) S. 4'2, r. 8. See j^ost, 
 
 (z) Wcrderman v. Soc. Gen. ]>. 47 (/). 
 d Elcdricite, 19 C. D. 246. {b) K. 9 ; and see post, p. 43.
 
 OF THE PARTIES TO ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 41 
 
 hearing, if it should so think fit, order such persons, or 
 any of them, to be made parties. These provisions are 
 by O. XVI. r. 12 confirmed, and directed to be in force as 
 to actions in the High Court. 
 
 The result of the practice established by the Chancery 
 Procedure Act, and continued under the Judicature Act, 
 is to make it unnecessary, in a case where only the com- 
 mon judgment fo r administration is required, to name 
 as detendants on the record any persons other than the 
 executors, administrators, or trustees, but to make it 
 incumbent on the plaintiff, when he has obtained his 
 judgment, to serve notice of it on all those persons, if 
 any, who, but for the practice so introduced, must have 
 been parties to the record. It is obvious, therefore, that 
 the old cases as to who were necessary parties in the first 
 instance survive as authorities upon the question what 
 persons ought to be served with notice of the judgment. 
 
 Formerly it was necessary that a party coming to a Reason for 
 Court of Equity for relief should bring regularly before intefe°tir 
 the Court, either as co-plaintiffs with himself or as defend- P-i^'ti^^ '^'^^'^^^ 
 
 the Court. 
 
 ants, all persons so circumstanced that, unless their rights 
 were bound by the decree of the Court, they might 
 cause future molestation or inconvenience to the party 
 against whom the relief was sought; but now a plaintiff 
 is enabled, in many cases, to avoid the expense of making- 
 such persons active parties to the cause by serving them 
 with notice of the judgment (c). 
 
 "We proceed to consider upon whom such notice ought 
 to be served, premising that the Court has power to direct 
 service of an order made on an originating summons {d) 
 with the like effect as service of a judgment pronounced 
 in an action commenced by writ (e). 
 
 (c) Daniell (194, 275) 172, 358. 467 ; Strong v. Moore, 22 L. J. Ch. 
 
 (d) As to which, see aiife, p. 1. 917. 
 (c) Bcrkclcij V. Mason, 19 E(i.
 
 42 OF THE PARTIES TO ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 
 
 All interestea j\^q executor represents sufficiently all who are inter- 
 in persouiilty _ "• '' 
 
 alone repre- ested in the personalty (/), and accordingly legatees out 
 the executor, of personal estate only need not, while those whose lega- 
 cies are charged on the realty must be served with notice 
 of the judgment {g). It is perfectly settled, as a general rule, 
 that a pecuniary legatee need not be served in an action 
 for an account of personal estate, it being the duty of the 
 executors to protect the estate from improper demands (/t), 
 nor need legatees and annuitants who have no charge on 
 the real estate, in a suit for administration of real and 
 personal estate, although they may collaterally or inci- 
 dentally be interested in the real estate (i). 
 In general, all Subject to the rule above mentioned as to trustees 
 
 residuary . , -,.. , ,, , ,., r ^ 
 
 devisees and representmg benenciaries (read by the light oi the cases 
 lb?before™he* pi'esently cited), and to the rule referred to below as to 
 Court. one member of a class being taken to represent the whole 
 
 class, and to the decision that it is not necessary to serve 
 persons who, on a disputed construction of a will, have no 
 reasonable ground of claim [k), and to the power vested in 
 the Court by the Cons. Ord. referred to below to dispense 
 with service, all residuary devisees {I), though but con- 
 tingently entitled {in), or their assignees or mortgagees 
 pendente lite (n), and residuary legatees (o), must be 
 served with notice of the judgment. It is a general rule 
 (with a possible exception in some cases of extreme diffi- 
 culty) that, where an estate is to be sold under the direc- 
 tions of the Court, all the persons interested in the proceeds 
 
 (/) GoMsmid v. Stonehcwm-, 9 [I) Parsons \. Neville, 3 Bro. C. 
 
 Ha. App. 38. C. 365 ; Doody v. Iliggins. 
 
 (g) Morse v. Sadler, 1 Cox, 352. (m) Fhillvpson v. GaUy, 6 Ha. 
 
 (/i) Per Lord Langdale, Marquis 26. 
 
 of Hertford v. Count dc Zichy, 9 {n) Humble v. Shore, 3 Ha. 119 ; 
 
 Beav. 15 ; and see post, p. 93 (y). Freeman v. Pennington, 3 De G. F. 
 
 {i) Per Romilly, M. R., Jennings & J. 295 ; Brandon v. Brandon, 3 
 
 V. Paterson, 15 Beav. p. 30. N. E. 287. 
 
 (k) Doody V. Higgins, 9 Ha. App. (o) Daniell, (223) 198. 
 32.
 
 OF THE PARTIES TO ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 43 
 
 must, if not already parties, be so served (p). Where a 
 testator has directed the produce of real estate to be held 
 in strict settlement, all persons entitled under the directed 
 settlement down to and including the first vested estate of 
 inheritance must be served (q). It is not necessary to 
 serve notice of the judgment on persons claiming specific 
 portions of property in the possession of the deceased at 
 his death (?■). 
 
 Executors with a power of sale are trustees within the How far trus- 
 
 n ^ n. \ i/\r>i ■ f ^ *^^® represent 
 
 meaning of the 9th rule (s) of the 42nd section of the their cestuls 
 Chancery Procedure Act (^), but, notwithstanding ^i^qI"^^ ''"'^^'^' 
 rule, it was formerly held that trustees of the real estate 
 only represent infant, not adult cestuis que trustent (u) ; 
 if, however, an adult has settled his share, the trus- 
 tees of such settlement must be served, and then 
 represent, under the rule, the beneficiaries under their 
 settlement (x). But having regard to the express words 
 of 0. XVI. r. 7, and to the observations thereon in 
 Mills V. Jennings (y), it is submitted that in the 
 absence of any direction of the Court to the contrary, 
 trustees do now represent all their cestvuis que trustent 
 for the purposes of an administration action, unless 
 any questions arise between the various cestuis que 
 trustent {z). Where A. has covenanted with B. to 
 transfer stock into the names of trustees upon trust 
 for B., it is not necessary, in an action by B. as creditor 
 for the administration of A.'s estate, to serve notice of 
 the judgment on those trustees {a). 
 
 {2)) Doody V. Higgins. App. 38 ; and see Jones v. How, 7 
 
 (q) Pigutt V. Pigott, 2 N. R. 14. Ha. 267, 270. 
 
 (r) Barker v. Rogers, 7 Ha. 19. (x) Benson v. Elicorthii, 9 Ha. 
 
 (s) Ante, p. 40. App. 42. 
 
 {€) Shaio V. Hardingliam, 2 W. (y) 13 C. D. 639. 
 
 R. 657 ; and see Smith v. Andrews, (z) See also Goodrich v. Marsh, 
 
 4 W. R. 353 ; Bolton v. Stannard, W. N., 1878, 186. 
 
 4 Jur. N. S. 576. («,) Watson v. Parker, 6 lieav. 
 
 {lo) Goldsinidv. Stoitchcivcr,yiia.. 283.
 
 44 OF THE PARTIES TO ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 
 
 Where a person who has been served with notice of the 
 judgment effects a settlement of his share, the trustees 
 thereof must be served (6). But it has been said that 
 trustees of the deceased's estate appointed after judgment 
 cannot properly be brought before the Court by service 
 of the judgment, not being within the words of r, 8 of 
 42nd section of the Chancery Procedure Act (c). 
 
 Where the suit was by appointees, and there was a 
 
 question as to the validity of the appointment, it was held 
 
 that the party entitled in default of appointment ought 
 
 to be brought before the Court (d). 
 
 One or more of Where there are numerous parties having the same 
 
 a class in same . , , • , • p i . • 
 
 interest interest in one action, one or more oi such parties may 
 
 allowed or ^^^^ ^j. ^^ sued, or may be authorised by the Court to 
 
 appointed to ' j j 
 
 sue or be sued defend in such action, on behalf or for the benefit of all 
 for all.' parties so interested (e). See also r. 9a, under which the 
 
 Court is empowered to appoint any person or persons to 
 represent any heir-at-law, next of kin, or class, before such 
 heir, next of kin, or class shall have been ascertained (/). 
 So, under the old practice, where the residuary legatees 
 were very numerous, some of them sufficiently represented 
 the rest ig). 
 
 The Judge in Chambers will not, in general, in the first 
 instance direct upon whom the notice of the judgment is 
 to be served (/i). 
 Service upon Until recently, where any person required to be served 
 infants, &c. y^\\\^ notice of a judgment was an infant or a person of 
 unsound mind not so found by inquisition, the notice 
 was to be served upon such person or persons, and in such 
 
 {h) JFhitcv.Sf,eivart,Z5Beav.iOi. D. 230. 
 
 (c) Colyer v. Oolyer, 11 W. R. (g) Cockburn v. Thomijson, 16 
 355 ; see Williamson v. Jefferijs, Ves. 328 ; Harvey v. Harvey, 4 
 12 W. R. 403. Beav. 215 ; and see Smart v. Brad- 
 
 (d) Grace v. Terrington, 1 Coll. 3. stock, 1 Beav. 500. 
 
 (c) 0. XVI. r. 9. This may be iji) Daniell (277) 306 ; but see 
 
 done at the hearing. Be Balinhard v. Bullock, t) Ha. 
 
 {J) See Chester v. Phillips, 4 C. App. 13.
 
 OF THE PARTIES TO ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 45 
 
 manner as the Jiulge to whose court the cause was 
 attached might direct (I), and for the purpose of procur- 
 ing this direction the plaintiff' was by the 7th of the 
 " Regulations" of August 8, 1857 (j), directed to make an 
 ex -parte application by summons, and thereupon to show 
 by affidavit certain particulars relating to the infant or 
 person of unsound mind as therein mentioned. As a rule 
 an infant might be served personally (/;), but now notice 
 of a judgment or order on an infant or person of unsoimd 
 mind not so found by inquisition is to be served in the 
 same manner as a writ of summons in an action (J), i.e.,, 
 in the case of an infant, unless otherwise ordered (m), on 
 the infant's father or guardian, or, if there be no father 
 or guardian, on the person under whose care the infant is, 
 or with whom the infant resides {n), and, in the case of a 
 person of unsound mind not so found (unless otherwise 
 ordered), on the person under whose charge such person 
 is, or with whom he or she resides (o). Where a husband 
 and wife have to be served, the notice must be served on 
 each personally, notwithstanding that they are residing 
 together (p). Where, upon the hearing of the summons Service dis- 
 to proceed {q), it appears to the Judge that by reason of ^^"^^^ ^' ' 
 absence, or for any other sufficient cause, the service of 
 notice upon any party cannot be made, or ought to 
 be dispensed with, the Judge may, if he shall think fit, or substituted 
 wholly dispense with such service, or may, at his discre- albwed. 
 tion, order any substituted service or notice by advertise- 
 ment or otherwise in lieu of service {r). An application 
 
 (i) Cons. Orel. "VII. r. 5. deemed good service (ibid., and see 
 
 (j) Morgan, 5th ed. 166. Seton, 1624, No. 7 ; Pemb. 10). 
 
 ijc) Clarke v. Clarke, 1 W. R. {n) 0. IX. r. 4. 
 
 48 ; Chalmers v. Laurie, 10 Ha. (o) 0. IX. r. 5. 
 
 App. 27. (}}) Braith. 520 ; and see 45 & 
 
 (Z) 0. XVI. r. 12a. 46 Vict. c. 75, s. 1 (2). 
 
 (m) But the Court or a Judf^e (q) See post, p. 86. 
 
 may order that service made or to (r) Cons, Ord. XXXV., r. 18, 
 
 be made on the infant shall be
 
 46 OF THE PARTIES TO ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 
 
 under this order is usually required to be made by ex 
 jjarte summons, supported by evidence of the facts on 
 which it is founded ; and, where a special mode of service 
 is directed, an order is ordinarily drawn up by the Regis- 
 trar, which will contain a direction that a copy of it shall 
 be served with the notice. Where service is dispensed 
 with, an order to that effect is not usually drawn up, but 
 the fact is stated in the Chief Clerk's certificate of the 
 result of the proceedings (s). 
 Biitli of infant If during the progress of an administration suit a child 
 
 beneficiary 
 
 after action was born who took an interest m the property, and it was 
 ^' ■ desired that he should be bound by the proceedings, there 
 
 was jurisdiction to make an order under 15 and 16 Vict., 
 c. 86, s. 52, bringing the child before the Court, and direct- 
 ing that he should be so bound (t) if no proceedings had 
 been taken in the action after his birth (u) ; otherwise a 
 supplemental suit was necessary (x) ; and in a subsequent 
 case, a Chief Clerk's certificate, which had been filed after 
 the infant's birth, was allowed to be taken off the file and 
 the usual supplemental order was then made (y) ; and 
 though, by Order L. r. 4, it is expressly provided that in 
 such a case an order may be obtained that the proceed- 
 ings may be carried on between the continuing parties 
 and the infant, upon an allegation of the child's birth, it 
 has been held that this is subject to the same proviso^ — 
 that no proceedings have been taken since the birth (s). 
 Entry of memo- A memorandum of the service upon any person of 
 service. notice of the judgment shall be entered in the office of 
 
 the Clerks of Records and Writs upon due proof by affi- 
 davit of such service (a). 
 
 (s) Daniel], (277) 361. (y) Cuthbert v. Harmby, 13 Eq. 
 
 {t) Egremont v. Thompson, 4 Ch. 202. 
 
 448. (2) Haldane v. Eckford, W. N., 
 
 (m) Capjos V. Cai^l^s, 4 ibid. 1 ; 1879, 80. 
 
 Austen v. Haines, 4 ibid. 445. («) Cons. Ord. XXIII. r. 19. 
 
 {x) Ibid.
 
 OF THE TARTIES TO ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 47 
 
 Notice of a judgment shall be intituled in the cause, Title and en- 
 and there shall be indorsed thereon a memorandum in no[i^ce"'^°* 
 the prescribed form or to that effect (h). 
 
 Notice of a judgment may be served out of the juris- Service out of 
 
 T ,. 1 ,1 1 • • .• the jurisdic- 
 
 diction, whether pronounced on an origmating summons tion. 
 or in an action instituted by writ (c), but an order is neces- 
 sary for leave to do so ((/). 
 
 Service of a copy of the judgment is regarded as Service of a 
 service of notice of the judgment, but the copy must be 
 indorsed in like manner as a notice (e). 
 
 Persons who are not made parties, and have not yet 
 been served with notice of the judgment, have no locus 
 standi, though interested in the subject matter of the 
 action (/). 
 
 Persons served with notice of the judgment are after Persons served 
 such notice bound by the proceedings in the same man- proceedings, 
 ner as if they had been originally made parties to the 
 action (g). Notice of the judgment is notice of the 
 subsequent proceedings, and persons once served with 
 notice of the judgment, though they have not attended 
 the proceedings, need not, as a rule, be served with 
 any further notice (h), nor, before the certificate be signed, 
 with a summons to proceed (i), but where it was desired 
 on further consideration to obtain a personal order for 
 payment of money against parties who had been served 
 with notice of the judgment, but who had not obtained 
 an order to attend the proceedings, Jessel, M. R, con- 
 sidered that they ought to be served with notice of the 
 
 (6) Cons. Ord. XXIII. r. 20 ; for 101. 
 
 the form, see Appendix, p. 195. (g) Chancery Procedure Act, 18.^)2, 
 
 (c) Strong v. 3foore, 22 L. J. Ch. s. 42, r. 8 ; and see Doodij v. Hig- 
 
 917 ; Chalmers v. Laurie, 10 Ha. gins, 9 Ha. App. 32. 
 
 App. 27. (h) Lee v. Sturrock, W. N., 1876, 
 
 {d) Daniell, (277) 360. 226. 
 
 (c) Braith. 519. (i) Green v. Measures, W. N., 
 
 (/) Lloyd V. Cross, W. N., 1871, 1866, 122.
 
 48 
 
 OF Tin-: PARTIES TO ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 
 
 but cannot be 
 made to 
 account till 
 made i)arties. 
 
 action having been set down on further consideration, 
 
 and directed that tlie further consideration should stand 
 
 over for tliat purpose (/;), 
 
 Though bound by the proceedings, a person served is 
 
 under no liability to account : a plaintiff must make a 
 
 person against whom he seeks an account a party to 
 
 the action, and pray specific relief against him, or else 
 
 some independent proceeding must be taken to enforce 
 
 Nor can they the liability (l). On the other hand, persons served 
 
 be treated as , ^ i i ^ t • ,■ rr- i 
 
 co-plaintiffs cannot be treated as co-plamtins, and no inquiries can 
 
 and obtain ^^ obtained in the action for their benefit that could 
 
 inquiries as 
 
 such. not be obtained between co-defendants (m), unless, as it 
 
 would seem, the party served be the Attorney-General (n). 
 Where, however, the plaintiff in an action for admin- 
 istration was, after judgment, found to have no title, the 
 action was stayed on the application of a party served 
 with a notice of the judgment (o). 
 
 Parties served Parties served may by an order of course have liberty 
 
 may obtain . . 
 
 order of course to attend the proceedings under the judgment (p), but 
 proceedings. ^^^ necessarily at the expense of the estate (q). A copy 
 {^/i.^^'d^^^y^'^ every such order should be served on the solicitors 
 of all parties in the cause, and of all persons who have 
 leave to attend the proceedings, and a copy, certified 
 by the solicitor to be a true copy, should be left at 
 the Judge's Chambers (r). Infants and persons of un- 
 sound mind not so found by inquisition, attend the 
 proceedings by their guardians ad litem, who are ap- 
 pointed in the same manner as guardians ad litem, to 
 defend actions (s), and the Judge may, at anytime during 
 
 / /^7'^ 
 
 Infants. 
 
 (/t) E&es V. George, 15 C. D. 490. 
 
 (Z) WoXker v. ScUgmann. 12 Eq. 
 152 ; of. Rees v. George, ubi supra. 
 
 (m) Whitney v. S^nith, 4 Cli. 
 513. 
 
 (w) See Johnstone v. Hamilton, 
 cited, post, (s). 
 
 (o) Houseman v. Houseman, 1 C. 
 D. 535. 
 
 (p) Chancery Procedure Act, 
 1852, s. 42, r. 8. 
 
 {q) See post, p. 93. 
 
 ()•) Daniell, (279) 363. 
 
 (*) Daniell, (280) 363.
 
 OF THE PARTIES TO ADMINISTP.ATION ACTIONS. 49 
 
 proceedings in Chambers under any judgment require a 
 guardian ad litem to be appointed for any infant or 
 person of unsound mind not so found, who has been 
 served with notice of such judgment {t). 
 
 A party served may, within one hmar month after Persons served 
 
 may apply to 
 
 service, apply to the Court to add to, or appeal from {u) add to the 
 the judgment (x) ; but, semble, the time may be extended •"" ^™*'° ' 
 in the case of a person out of the jurisdiction (y), and 
 the limit does not apply to the Crown (z). Such appli- 
 cation is usually made on summons (a) ; but where a 
 party served, who is aggrieved by the decree, is unable 
 to raise his case (e.g. a charge of wilful default or breach 
 of trust) under the pleadings, he should move on notice 
 for leave to institute an action in the nature of review (6). 
 
 {t) Cons. Ord. VII. rr. 6, 7. (z) Johnstone v. Hamilton, 11 
 
 (!/) Bniff-v. Cobhold, 7 Ch. 217. Jur. N. S. 777. 
 
 (a;) Chancery Procedure Act, 1852, (a) Daniell (279) 363. 
 
 s. 42. r. 8; Cons. Ord. XXIII. r. (h) Kiddy. C'heyne, 18 Jur. 348; 
 
 18 ; XXXVII. r. 10 ; see j:'os^,Ch. iv. Partington v. Reynolds, 4 Dr. 
 
 {y) See Strong v. Moore, 22 L. J. 253. 
 Ch. 917.
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE JUDGMENT AND ADDITIONS MADE TO IT. 
 j\(iminiKtra- It does iiot fall Within the scope of this treatise to deal 
 
 tion iudgnient •,^ ,-, • r- t • i t i^i 
 
 moulded to "^vith the various forms which, according to the circum- 
 enabie the stances of each case, a iudgrment for administration assumes. 
 
 Court to deal > J b 
 
 with the whole A few of the more ordinary Forms are, by the kind per- 
 
 action on .. r-in-T-ki • i • i * T 
 
 further con- mission 01 Mr. rembertoii, printed m the Appendix, 
 sideration. ^^^^^ p. 195 (a) ; and it is sufficient here to say that 
 except where the executor or administrator admits assets, 
 and, in a creditors' action, the debt of the plaintiff is proved 
 or admitted, or, in a legatee's action, the legacy is assented 
 to (b), such accounts and inquiries will be directed, and 
 such declarations made, as are required in each case to 
 enable the Court, when the action shall come on for 
 further consideration, to deal effectively with the estate. 
 Where, however, the debt is so proved or admitted, or the 
 executor or administrator has assented to the legacy, and 
 assets are admitted, the plaintiff, whether creditor or 
 legatee (c), is entitled at the hearing to an immediate judg- 
 ment for payment, with costs,and not merely to a judgment 
 for an account, for, the legal personal representative making 
 himself liable, the other creditors cannot be prejudiced (cZ); 
 
 (a) This subject is amply dis- reasons for trying the question with- 
 
 cnssed and illustrated in Seton, 801 out a jury {Ricnt v. Chambers, 20 
 
 — 827, 848 — 855, and Pemberton, C. D. 865) ; and see Beynon v. 
 
 Ch. vi., to which the reader is Beynon, W. N. 1873, 186. As to 
 
 referred. what acts amount to assent to a 
 
 {h) Where assets are admitted legacy, see Comp. Exors. 120 — -123, 
 
 (as to which, see Comp. Exors., 223 and Seton, 860, 861, where the cases 
 
 — 225), but the debt is disputed, are collected. 
 
 and the defendant desires a trial by (c) JFoodgatev. Field, 2 Ha. 211 ; 
 
 jury, the proper course is to transfer Whittle v. Henning, 2 Beav. 396. 
 
 the action to the Queen's Bench (t^) JFoodgate v. Field, 2 Ha., 
 
 Division, unless the Judge sees p. 213.
 
 THE JUDGMENT AND ADDITIONS MADE TO IT. 51 
 
 and, by admitting assets, the executor of an executor ren- 
 ders himself liable to the same judgment as the executor 
 himself, if living, would have been liable to in respect of 
 the personal estate of the original testator (e). 
 " It will be seen on reference to the forms given in the f^ess extensive 
 
 in creditors' 
 
 works above mentioned, that, although the purview of the actions. 
 judgment, when pronounced at the instance of a creditor, 
 is more limited than when it is obtained by a beneficiary, 
 executor, administrator, or trustee, yet in each, accounts 
 are directed to be taken of the deceased's debts, funeral ex- 
 penses, and personal, or real and personal estate, including (/) 
 an inquiry what parts, if any, of his personal estate are 
 outstanding or undisposed of. In the former case, how- 
 ever, the payment of debts is the object principally aimed 
 at, the plaintiff's interest in the estate ceasing with the 
 satisfaction of his claim {g) ; while, in the latter, the Court 
 goes further, providing for the payment not only of the 
 creditors, but also of the legatees, and, in short, supervises 
 the complete administration of the estate. As to the 
 distinction between common judgments and judgments 
 charging the trustees on the footing of wilful neglect or 
 default, see ante, p. 15. 
 
 The accounts and inquiries directed by the judgment 
 are usually taken and made in chambers, but they may 
 be referred to an official referee {It). 
 
 («) Daven2wrt v. Stafford, 2 De will, on fmther consideration, be 
 
 G. M. & G. 901. canned over to a separate account, 
 
 (/) Under Cons. Ord. XXIII. r. with liberty (for beneficiaries) to 
 
 1 4. apply ; see the Form of Order, Seton, 
 
 {g) Accordingly, in a creditors' 837. It may be mentioned that 
 
 action, no inquiries will be ordered in taking the accounts of the per- 
 
 as to the propriety of proceedings sonal estate, property specifically 
 
 proposed to be taken for the bene- bequeathed is not excepted in a 
 
 ficial management and realisation of creditors' action, as in a legatee's ; 
 
 the estate {Collinson v. Ballard, 2 Seton, 955 ; Pemb. 178 ; Appendix, 
 
 Ha. 119) ; but after providing for post, pp. 195, 199. 
 
 payment of costs and of the debts, (h) SyJces v. Brook, 50 L. J. C'li. 
 
 the residue of the estate (if any) 744; but in a partnership nctinu 
 
 E 2
 
 52 
 
 THE JUDGMENT AND ADDITIONS MADE TO IT. 
 
 but formerly, 
 not so as to 
 charge de- 
 fendants with 
 wiJful default 
 
 Furtlicr It, was provided by Cons. Ord. XXXV. r. 19, that, 
 
 accounts or _ 
 
 inquiries may where, in tlio prosccution of the decree or order, it 
 ' appeared to the Judge tliat it would be expedient that 
 further accounts should be taken or further inquiries made, 
 he might order the same to be taken or made accordingly. 
 In pursuance of this rule, a further inquiry was directed 
 as to leases granted by a trustee, and his expenditure in 
 repairs (i). But it was considered that a decree for ad- 
 ministration in the common form could not be so added 
 to as to charge the defendants on the footing of wilful 
 default (/<:), though Stuart, V.-C, was of a different 
 opinion (I) ; nor, after the common decree, could the 
 defendants be so charged on further consideration, or an 
 inquiry be then directed on the subject, though the chief 
 clerk's certificate had laid the foundation for such a charge 
 or inquiry, and wilful default had been sufficiently alleged 
 on the pleadings (m), on the principle that matters in issue 
 at the first hearing, which were neither decided, put into 
 a train of investigation, nor reserved, must, on further 
 consideration, be regarded either as abandoned or as points 
 on which the plaintiff was entitled to no order (n). But 
 now, by O. XXXIIL, the Court or a Judge may, at any 
 J, if-u itvwf''- stage of the proceedings in a cause or matter, direct any 
 *'*T v'^ ^ , , , r-t^ ^^_^5_^necessary inquiries or accounts to be made or taken (o) ; 
 
 -TU* , uri^-*^ ^ and, if wilful default is properly charged in the statement 
 
 ^fc..*-^^,-^ ""^^ of claim, it would appear that, under the new practice, a 
 
 A Hales v. Morris, 1882)'' Kay, J. (/) Mirehousc v. Herbert, 5 W. 
 
 .«-''-'^^»-*^"*-*^,t/<''^*iaidthat though there was an ad- R. 584. 
 • C^ (Vf/ ^^ ■/.■ vantage that the proceedings con- 
 n2ti'i^^ed (^^ ^'^ ^^ rf/CTW, yet the ex- 
 ' ■- ' pense was so much greater that this 
 
 otherwise, 
 under the new 
 practice. 
 
 
 ^ Ice ^7 ^ 
 
 ^^Ct^ *^ ^^♦'"''^ourse should never be directed un- 
 less both parties desired it. 
 
 (i) Mutter v. Hudson, 2 Jur. N. 
 S. 34. 
 
 (Jc) See Partington v. Reynolds, 
 4 Dr. 261, and compare Nelson v. 
 Booth, 3 De G. & J. 119. 
 
 (7?;.) Garland, v. Littlewood, 1 
 Beav. 527 ; Gree/n v. Badlcy, 7 
 Beav. 274 ; Coo^je v. Carter, 2 De 
 G. M. & G. 292 ; Jones v. Morrall, 
 2 Sim. N. S. 241 ; compare Morgan 
 v. Morgan, 13 Beav. 441. 
 
 {n) rassingham v. Sherhorn, 9 
 Beav. 424. 
 
 (o) Barher v. MackreU, 12 C. D. 
 534.
 
 THE JUDGMENT AND ADDITIONS MADE TO IT. 53 
 
 judgment on that footing may be pronounced, or in- 
 quiries directed, at any time during the progress of an 
 action (p), provided, of course, the plaintiff establish liis 
 case by sufficient evidence (q). Stuart, V.-C, said that a 
 Judge may direct any further account or inquiry that 
 may seem to him necessary, without evidence, on the 
 suggestion of a suitor (r) ; but it is submitted that the 
 practice is not so, except in quite simjjle and ordinary 
 cases, certainly not where it is sought to charge for wilful 
 default. 
 
 An application for further accounts or inquiries may be How applica- 
 
 . TCI -Till *^°" maile to 
 
 made on summons or motion, it, however, it should be add to judg- 
 made on motion, when the cheaper procedure would be "^'^ * 
 equally available, the applicant might be ordered to pay 
 the extra costs occasioned thereby. 
 
 If desired by any party, the Judge may direct the 
 further accounts or inquiries to be considered in open 
 Court (s). 
 
 (p) Job V. Job, 6 C. D. 562 
 Mayer v. Murray, 8 C. D. 424 
 Mke V. Tonkin, 21 C. D. 757 
 
 (?•) Mutter V. Hudson, 2 Jur. N. 
 S. 35. 
 
 (a) Cons. Old, XXXV. 19 ; sue 
 
 and see ante, p. 16. Clark v. rhillips, 2 W. R. 331. 
 
 {q) See ante, p. 17.
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 After judg- 
 ment, new 
 trustee cannot 
 be appointed 
 without 
 approval of 
 the Court; 
 
 nor invest- 
 ments made, 
 nor powers of 
 management 
 exercised. 
 
 THE EFFECT OF JUDGMENT FOR ADMINISTRATION ON 
 POWERS AND DISCRETION OF TRUSTEES AND EXECUTORS. 
 
 We have to consider in this chapter what effect the 
 mere institution of an action for administration, and Avhat 
 effect judgment for administration has upon the powers 
 and discretion of trustees and executors. These questions 
 have several times arisen for decision, but the cases on 
 the subject are not always to be easily reconciled one 
 with another. 
 
 After judgment the Court will restrain a trustee from 
 appointing new trustees, except under its direction. It 
 does not, said Lord Eldon, prevent the exercise of his 
 discretion, but takes care that it shall be duly exer- 
 cised {a). So, after judgment, trustees and executors can- 
 not exercise powers of investment, except under direction 
 of the Court (6) ; for then all powers of management {e.g., a 
 discretionary power of investment), which may be vested 
 in them are subject to the control of the Court, and the 
 Judge who exercises such control must be personally satis- 
 fied of the propriety of the course proposed to be adopted 
 by the trustee (c). An estate was administered under the 
 
 (n) Webb v. Earl of Shaftesbury, 
 7 Ves. 480, 487 ; and see Anon. v. 
 Robarts, 1 J. & W. 251 ; Middleton 
 V. Reay, 7 Ha. 106. But the Court 
 is bound to adopt the nominee of 
 the person to whom the power of 
 ajipointment is given, unless he re- 
 
 fuses to nominate any but a person 
 who is unfit {Kennedy v. Turnley, 
 6 Jr. Eq. R. 399). 
 
 {b) Widdoicson v. Duel-, 2 Mer. 
 494. 
 
 (c) Bethdl V. Abraham, 17 Eq. 
 p. 27j £cW^-x..-.-v-^>, c-e^-^j^^
 
 EFFECT OF JUDGMENT ON TOWERS OF TRUSTEES. 55 
 
 Court, and all claims being provided for, the devisee was 
 let into possession ; a further claim being afterwards 
 made against the estate, it was held that the trustees were 
 not justified of their own authority in taking possession to 
 provide for it (d). And, in general, after having invoked 
 the aid of the Court in administering an estate, and after 
 judgment for administration has been obtained, they 
 cannot act (e) in the matter of the administration except 
 under the sanction of the Court (/). 
 
 Although up to judgment for administration an exe- Nor may oue 
 cutor may prefer any creditor over others of equal preferrwito 
 degree, and pay his debt in full (y), after judgment another. 
 he is not at liberty to prefer one to another, or do any 
 act which affects their relative rights (h), and there- /-^^ u-^'^^^^^ 
 fore has no power to give a creditor a valid acknow- ^'^^J/i^^"^ 
 ledgment of his debt, so as to take it out of the Statute 
 of Limitations (?) ; nor will he be allowed payments 
 made to creditors after judgment, though he will be 
 permitted to stand in their place (/u). But unless he has But an exe- 
 waived his right by his form of pleading (Z), he may exer- exercise his 
 cise his right of retainer, notwithstanding judgment ygf^iuer 
 for administration has been given in an action by the 
 other creditors, and the assets out of which he seeks to 
 retain have come to his hands after judgment (/u) ; and 
 
 {d) Undcrwoodx. Hattoii, 5 Bea.v. Kuttall, 12 C. D. p. 64. 
 36. (0 Phillips \. BeaLCNo.,2), 32 
 
 (e) Shachvell, V. -C, refused to Beav. 26. But 'he may vetaui for 
 
 hold that an annuity given to an his own debt, sfatute-barred before 
 
 executor "for his trouble" ceased the death of the testator: Hill v. /P tt /J /V 
 
 upon the institution of a suit, un- Walker, 4 K. & J. 169; A***-— *-^ *- ^*'**^*'< ^7 ^-'^ 
 less it could be shown that the (k) Jones v. Jukes, 2 Ves. 518; iT^-^r- 
 
 trouble of the executorship had Milchdson v. Pijjer, 8 Sim. 64 ; 
 
 ceased ; Baker v. Martin, 8 Sim. 25. Irby v. Irby, 24 Beav. 525. 
 
 (/) Minors v. Battison, 1 App. {I) Player v. Foxkall, 1 Euss. 
 
 Cas. p. 453. 538 ; and see Ferguson v. Gibson, 
 
 (g) Lyttleton v. Cross, 3 B. & C. 14 Eq. 379. 
 p. 322, and see post, p. 58. (m) Niinn v. Barlow, 1 S. & 8. 
 
 (A) Shewen v. Vanderlwrst, 2 R. 588 ; Shannan v. Rudd, 27 L. J. 
 
 & M, 75 ; per James, L. J., Lee v. Ch. 844.
 
 56 
 
 THE EFFECT OF JUDGMENT FOR ADMINISTRATION ON 
 
 Executor may 
 mortgage 
 assets after 
 judgment. 
 
 Before 
 judgment, 
 trustees may 
 exercise dis- 
 cretion. 
 
 this right is not affected by the statute 32 & 33 Vict. 
 c. 46 (??), or by sect. 10 of the Judicature Act, 1875 (o), or 
 by the fact that he is himself suing as creditor on behalf 
 of himself and all other creditors (;>), even though the 
 fund out of which he claims to retain his debt has been 
 paid into Court (q). 
 
 An executor can mortgage the assets after judgment, if 
 no receiver has been appointed, and no injunction been 
 granted restraining him from dealing with them (r). So, 
 trustees can, after judgment, exercise discretionary powers 
 of maintenance, education, &c. (s), for the doctrine of 
 Wehb V. Earl of Shaftesbury (t) applies only to cases of 
 management (u). 
 
 In Cafe v. Bent (x) the question was as to an appoint- 
 ment of new trustees by a surviving trustee, after a bill 
 for accounts had been filed against him, but before decree, 
 and the Vice-Chancellor's judgment in that case is often 
 cited on this subject. " There is no authority," he said, 
 " for the proposition that the mere filing of a bill has the 
 effect of suspending the power given by the will to 
 the surviving or remaining trustee. There is no reason 
 why the mere institution of a suit, which may never be 
 prosecuted, should have the effect of preventing trustees 
 from exercising their discretion. Where, indeed, the 
 Court has assumed the execution of the trusts, it would be 
 highly inconvenient, if not impracticable, that the trustees 
 should afterwards act independently of the Court. The 
 Court does not, however, in the absence of any misconduct 
 
 (n) Crowder v. Stewart, 16 C. D. 
 368 ; and see^os^, p. 164. 
 
 (o) Lee V. Nuttall, 12 C. D. 61 ; 
 and see post, p. 164, 
 
 (p) Campbell v. CamijhcU, 16 C, 
 T>. 198. 
 
 . (q) Richmond v. White, 12 ibid. 
 [361 ; and seejws^, p. 58. 
 
 (?•) Berry v. Gibbo7is, 8 Cli. 747. 
 
 (s) SiUibourne v. Neivport, 1 K. 
 & J. 602, approved by Jessel, M. E. , 
 Bcthell V. Abraham, 17 Eq. p. 26. 
 
 {t) Ubi sujrra. 
 
 (u) Per Jessel, M.R., 17 Eq. 26. 
 
 (x) 3 Ha. 245,
 
 POWERS AND DISCRETION OF TRUSTEES, ETC. 57 
 
 of the trustees, deprive them of the exercise of their dis- 
 cretion, but only requires them to act under the control of 
 the Court. That is all that the case of Wehh v. Uarl of 
 Shaftesbury decided upon this point. If the trustees, by 
 acting independently after the suit has been instituted, 
 should occasion expense which might have been avoided if 
 they had acted under the direction of the Court, they may 
 be made to pay the expense occasioned by such conduct. 
 The decision in Attorney -General v. Clack (y) is to that 
 effect. But the mere filing of a bill cannot have the 
 effect of preventing trustees from doing acts which are 
 necessary to the due execution of the trust which is 
 imposed upon them. Such a rule might, in many cases, 
 operate to destroy the trusts altogether " (z). So it has And the Court 
 been held that where a discretionary trust {e.g., for distri- fgj,g ^,j^j^ 
 bution of a fund) is vested in trustees, the Court will not "a-bsolute' 
 
 or uncon- 
 
 iiiterfere with the exercise of the discretion, if it be not trolled " dis- 
 
 T , . , . . 1^1 cretion of 
 
 capricious or improper, though a suit be instituted for the trustee, 
 administration of the trust funds (a). It would seem, 
 however, that unless there is an "absolute" or "uncon- 
 trolled " or " irresponsible " discretion given to the trustees, 
 the Court will in a proper case interfere with their exercise 
 of discretionary powers (b). The old distinction between 
 what may be termed restrictive and mandatory inter- 
 ference, has recently been clearly pointed out by Jesse 1, 
 M.R., in the following words : " It is settled law that 
 where a testator has given a pure discretion to trustees as 
 to the exercise of a power, the Court does not enforce the 
 exercise of it against the wish of the trustees, but it does 
 prevent them from exercising it improperly. The Court 
 
 (y) 1 Beav. 467. Gisbome, L. E. 2 App. Cas. 300, 
 
 (2) Per "VVigram,V.-C., 3 Ha., p. Tabor v. Brooks, 10 Ch. D. 273, 
 
 249. and Tempest v. Lord Camoys, 21 
 
 {a) Gray v. Gray, 13 Ir. Ch. R. ibid. 571, with Davcy v. Ward, 7 
 
 404, ibid. 754, Re Raider's Trusts, 11 ibid. 
 
 {b) See and compare Gisbornc v. 272, and A'c IVeavcr, 21 ibid. 615.
 
 58 
 
 THE EFFECT OF JUDGMENT FOR ADMINISTRATION ON 
 
 Payment of 
 debts. 
 
 Sale of real 
 and leasehold 
 estate. 
 
 /I 
 
 says that the power, if exercised at all, is to be exercised 
 properly " (c). But, if trustees commence an action for 
 administration, their discretion as to investments is, ac- 
 cording to a decision of Romilly, M.R., taken away, and 
 they must only act as the Court shall direct (d). 
 
 An executor may, however, after action })rought 
 against him by a creditor, but before judgment, con- 
 fess a judgment in favour of another creditor of equal 
 degree, and thus give the latter a preference (e), though 
 he cannot so confess to a stranger, a mere trustee for 
 creditors (/). So, after the commencement of a creditors' 
 action and before judgment, an executor or administrator 
 may voluntarily pay any (g) creditor in full, though he 
 may have had notice of the action, and he will be allowed 
 such payment in his accounts (Ii). The only way to pre- 
 vent such preferential payments being made is for the 
 plaintiff, upon issuing the writ, to immediately apply for 
 and obtain a receiver (i). Such an appointment will also 
 deprive (k) the executor of his right of retainer out of 
 assets got in by the receiver (/). An executor can sell and 
 make a good title to leaseholds at any time before judg- 
 ment (m) ; but devisees of real estate could not, it was , 
 
 (k) A receiver is never appointed, n , 
 except for misconduct or by tlie^ ^ 
 
 (c) Tempest v. Lord Camoys. 
 
 (d) Consterdine v. Constcrdine, 31 
 Beav. 333. 
 
 (e) Prince v. Nicholson, 5 Taunt. 
 665 ; Waring v. Danvers, 1 P. 
 Wins. 295. 
 
 (/) Tolpiott V. Wells, 1 M. & S. 
 p. 403. 
 
 {g) A legatee cannot complain of 
 the order in which an executor pays 
 
 consent of the executor (Comp. 
 Exors. 237 — 242 ; Richmond v. 
 White, 12 C. D., p. 362). The 
 Court more readily appoints a re- 
 ceiver where there is an administra- 
 tor only : e.g., on the ground of 
 poverty ; and absolute insolvency u , 
 makes it "just and expedient " to^ 
 
 debts, even though he indirectly appoint a receiver against an exe- J^^ 
 
 sutt'cr loss {Turner v. Turner, 1 J. 
 & W. 39). 
 
 (h) European Assurance Society 
 V. Radcliffe, 7 C. D. 733. See fur- 
 ther, Maltby v. Russell, 2 S. & S. 
 277 ; Earl Vane v. Rigden, 5 Ch. 663. 
 
 (i) Per Jessel, M. R., Eurojycan 
 Assurance Society v. Radcliffe. 
 
 cutor ; Gawthor2oe v. GaivthorjK^ 4 
 W. N. 1878, 91. 
 
 {I) See Richmond v. White, and 
 Birt V. Burt, 31 W. R. 334. 
 
 {m) Neeves v. Burrage, 14 Q. B. 
 504 ; and see Berry v. Gibbons, 
 cited ante, p. 56.
 
 POWERS AND DISCRETION OF TRUSTEES, ETC. 59 
 
 held, sell, except under the Court, after answer, though 
 before decree (71), it being proper that trustees shoidd 
 obtain the sanction of the Court to their exercise of 
 powers of sale and leasing (0). 
 
 This being the state of the authorities, a trustee or 
 executor, who has instituted or has had instituted against 
 him an action for administration, should be very cautious 
 in committing himself, without the sanction of the Court, 
 to any but formal acts in connection with the estate, even 
 if judgment has not been pronounced in the action ; for, 
 though an act on his part may be valid and effectual as 
 between himself and strangers to the trust, it by no means 
 follows that it is justifiable as between himself and his 
 cestuis que trustent. 
 
 (n) Walker v. Smalwood, Ambl. (0) Tuimer v. Turner, 30 Bear, 
 
 676 ; Anncsley v. Ashurst, 3 P. 414. 
 Wms. 282.
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 AS TO SECURING TRUST FUNDS BY ORDERING THEM 
 INTO COURT. 
 
 Funds ad- -A.S sooQ as an executor, administrator, or trustee 
 
 initted to be admits (a) a trust fund in hand, it is a matter of course, on 
 
 in hand ^ ' 
 
 ordered to be au interlocutory motion, or where the application is un- 
 
 Courtupon opposed, upon a summons (6), by a party sufficiently inte- 
 
 luition'r"'^ rested, to order it into Court (c), irrespective of danger to 
 
 the assets or of misconduct by the trustee (d) ; and, where 
 
 the admissions show the defendant to be a trustee of 
 
 money, a mere formal denial of the fact will not prevent 
 
 him from being ordered to bring in the money (e). But it 
 
 Las been said that the plaintiff's right must proceed upon 
 
 admissions made in reference to an equity raised by him, 
 
 not upon admissions in reference to an independent equity 
 
 stated only in the admissions (/). 
 
 even though lu Order to entitle a plaintiff to have the fund secured 
 
 applicants • (jQ^-f it is not iiecessarv that he should show an 
 
 may snow only ' -^ 
 
 a prima facie 
 
 *'*'^^- {„.) "The Court has always," said v. Rothwell, 2 S. & S. 217. 
 
 Lord Hatheiiey, "thought it de- (rf) Strange v. Harris, 3 Bro. C. 
 
 sirable that an executor should, by C. 365 ; Blalcc v. Blake, 2 Sch. & 
 
 his answer, make a full discovery Lef. 26 ; Hamond v. Walker, 3 
 
 of the assets, so that the plaintiff Jur. N. S. 686 ; but see fer Lord 
 
 may be in a position to move to Langdale, Ross v. Ross, 12 Beav. 
 
 have the balance brought into p. 90. 
 
 Court" (Thompson V. Dunn, 5 Ch., [e) HagcllY. C'urrie, 2 Ch. 449 ; 
 
 p. 576) ; and see Alison v. Alison, and see Bank of Turkey v. Otluman 
 
 50 L. J. Ch. 574. Bank, 2 Eq. 306. 
 
 [h) See Daniell, 1629 ; Thomp- (f) Proudfoot v. Hume, 4 Beav. 
 
 son V. Hope, cited Set on, 84. 476 ; see per Koniilly, M. R., 
 
 (f) Pt';- Koniilly, M. R., Da/i'^y V. Wiglesworth v. ]Viglesworth, 16 
 
 Danbg, 5 Jur. N. S. 54 ; Rothwell Beav. 269.
 
 AS TO SECURING TKUST FUNDS. 61 
 
 absolute title to maintain an action for administration ; 
 
 for this purpose a prima facie title, affording a reasonable 
 
 expectation of success at the hearing, is sufficient (g). Nor 
 
 need the applicant necessarily show an absolute or vested 
 
 interest in the fund ; for money has been ordered into 
 
 Court on the application of a party entitled merely to a 
 
 contingent interest, notwithstanding the opposition of all 
 
 the other interested parties (Jt), though in one case such a in what cases 
 
 motion was refused on the ground that there was no allega- j.'f^g^j^ ication 
 
 tion of danger and that the fund might be sufficiently 
 
 protected by distringas (i), and in another because all the 
 
 persons interested in the fund had not been served with 
 
 notice of the motion (/.■). In BraitJnvaite v. Wallis (l), 
 
 Hall, V.-C, said that the rule was not absolute, though 
 
 the fund would no doubt be brought into Court in 
 
 any case where there was reasonable ground for the 
 
 application. 
 
 The order for payment will go, where the trustee does 
 not deny title in the applicant, but only does not admit 
 that the title is as alleged (m). But the order has been 
 refused to the plaintiff in a single creditor's suit, and 
 to the next-of-kin of a deceased person, when they asked 
 for it against the executor of an alleged will of the 
 deceased, the validity of which was denied by them and 
 was still sub judice (^n) ; and a curator bonis and factor 
 loco tutoris of Scotch infants was held not bound to pay 
 into Court assets belonging to the infants receivable under 
 an English will, of which the curator was administrator, 
 
 (g) Danhy v. Danhy, 5 Jur. N. S. (k) Leivellin v. Cohhold, 1 Sni. 
 
 54 ; Whitmore v. Turquand, 1 J. & & G. 572. 
 
 H. 296 ; Parry v. Ashley, 3 Sim. (Z) 21 C. D. 121. 
 
 100. (m) Symonds v. Jenkins, 24 W, 
 
 (h) Bartlett v. BurlUtf, 4 Ha. E. 512. 
 
 631 ; Governesses' Benevolent Insti- (n) Reeve v. Goodxcin, 10 Jur. 
 
 Udion V. Rushridgcr, 18 Beav. 467. 1050 ; Edwards v. Edivards, 10 Ha. 
 
 (i) Ross V. Ross, 12 Beav. 89. A pp. 63.
 
 02 AS TO SECURING TRUST FUNDS 
 
 and Avhich was in course of administration in Eng- 
 land (o). 
 
 The conduct of a trustee being proper, the Court will 
 not, in general, on the application of one of several cestuis 
 que trustent — though it lias power to do so — order pay- 
 ment into Court of the whole fund, but only of the appli- 
 cant's aliquot share (jj). 
 The Court will The mere existence of a discretionary power in trustees 
 cretimrto"'' 0"^'^^^ ^ ^^^'-^st fuud would afford no reason why the ordinary 
 i.reveiit need- rjoiit to have it paid into Court should not prevail, for 
 
 less payment ^ *■ 
 
 in and out. bringing it into Court would not prevent the discretion 
 being exercised. Where, however, in such a case, the 
 trustees were about to exercise their discretion in a proper 
 manner, the exigency contemplated by the power having 
 already arisen, the Court, to prevent useless expense, 
 refused to order the fund to be paid in {q). 
 
 An executor, having admitted a large balance to be in 
 his hands, was ordered to pay the whole into Court, 
 although he stated that an action at law was pending 
 against him for a debt to a considerable amount due from 
 the testator, but liberty was given him, in case the plaintiff 
 in the action should recover, to apply to have a sufficient 
 sum paid out again (r). However, in a like case in Ireland, 
 the Court allowed the executor to retain sufficient not only 
 for costs already incurred in connection with suits he was 
 carrying on as executor, but also for probable growing 
 costs (s). 
 
 Where an executor admits himself to have been a debtor 
 
 Debts admitted 
 to be due from 
 
 (o) MacJcie v. Darling, 12 Eq. (>-) Yare v. Harrison, 2 Cox, 377. 
 
 £19. The plaintiff in the action did re- 
 
 {p) Hamond v. Walker, 3 Jnr. cover, and the Court ordered the 
 
 N. S., 686 ; and see Score v. Ford, amount to be paid out to him, not 
 
 7 Beav. 333 ; Chaffers v. Headlam, to the executor (ibid.). 
 
 17 Jur. 754. (s) Betagh v. Concannon, 2 Moll. 
 
 {q) Talbot V. Marshfidd, 2 Dr. & 559. 
 Sm. 285.
 
 BY ORDERING THEM INTO COURT. 63 
 
 to the testator at the time of his death, this has always executor to the 
 
 been held a clear admission of assets in his hands to the regarded as ia 
 
 amount of the debt, and he is compelled to pay it into '^^^ ^^^'^^• 
 
 Court accordingly (f), even, in one case, where there were 
 
 debts of the testator outstanding, the testator having died 
 
 three years before (u). In these cases, the person to pay 
 
 and the person to receive being the same, the Court 
 
 assumes that what ought to have been done has been done, 
 
 and orders the payment not as of a debt by a debtor, but 
 
 as of moneys realised in the hands of the executor or 
 
 trustee (x). 
 
 Moneys in the hands of his partner are moneys in an So, as to 
 
 moneys in the 
 
 executor's own hands for the purpose of being ordered into hands of 
 Court, though the partner be not before the Court (y). partner^ ^ 
 
 Where an executor admits that he has received a certain What moneys 
 sum, but adds that he has made payments, the amount of ducted by 
 which he does not specify, the Court will allow him to ^■'^®^"^°'^- 
 verify the amount of his payments by affidavit, and order 
 him to pay the balance into Court (2) ; but he cannot 
 make any deductions in respect of moneys which he has 
 improperly applied, as will appear from several of the cases 
 presently cited. Thus, where money appears to have been 
 invested on an improper security, e.g., note of hand or 
 bond (a), it will be ordered to be brought into Court within 
 a given time ; but in a proper case, the period will be 
 extended from time to time to enable the defendant to 
 realise the securities {h). And an administrator was 
 ordered to transfer a sum of consols into Court upon an 
 admission that he possessed it, and sold it out after the 
 
 {t) Per Leach, V.-C. E., Rotlnvell 192. 
 
 V. RothweU, 2 S. & S., p. 218. {z) Anon., 4 Sim. 359. 
 
 (m) Mortlock V. Leathes, 2 iler. (a) Vigrass v. Binfield, 3 Madd. 
 
 491. 62 ; C'ollis v. Collis, 2 Sim. 365 ; 
 
 {x) P«rLordCottenliam, Richard- and see Payne v. Collier, 1 Ves. jr. 
 
 son V. Bank of England, 4 M. & Cr. 170. 
 
 p. 174. (h) Score v. Ford, 7 Beav. 333 ; 
 
 (?/) Johnson v. Aston, 1 S. & S. JVyatt v. Sharratt, 3 Beav. 498. 
 73 ; White v. Barton, 18 Beav.
 
 64 AS TO SECURING TRUST FUNDS 
 
 bill was filed, and invested it in other securities which he 
 did not specify (c) ; but, in a similar case, where a trustee 
 liad a power to vary investments, some admission of mis- 
 application was required (d). Again, a trustee was directed 
 to bring into Court the amount of the loss sustained on an 
 improper investment (e), and, a fortiori, the amount 
 appearing by the answer to be due, after deducting items 
 for which the trustee had taken credit in a debtor and 
 creditor account set out in the answer, by which, however, 
 he also admitted that he had applied them to purposes not 
 warranted by the trusts (/). 
 What amounts In Freeman v. Fairlie (g), where an executor admitted 
 sLrby''""'^' ^^^^^ *^^® whole amount of the property was near £40,000, 
 executor, ^nd that the whole was invested in India on public 
 
 securities, either in his name or in the name of the house 
 in which he was a partner, but subject to his disposal, 
 unless some part was in the hands of the said house at 
 interest, which he believed might be the case, Lord Eldon 
 held that there was not a sufficient admission of money 
 in his hands to order the payment into Court of any part 
 of it. But in Roy v. Gibbon {h), where the executor, who 
 had proved the will in India, admitted that after payment 
 of all the known debts, a certain balance of the estate 
 remained in his hands, subject to other charges and 
 expenses, the amount of which he had not ascertained, and 
 that he had invested such balance on personal security in 
 India, Wigram, V.-C, after remarking that the rule (as 
 to precision of admission) was perhaps less strict at the 
 present day than it was stated in Freeman v. Fairlie, 
 ordered payment of the balance into Court, after retention 
 
 (c) Hinde v. Blake, 4 Beav. 597; (c) Bourne v. Mole, 8 Beav. 177. 
 
 Wiglesxvorth v. Wiglesv-orth, 16 (/) Nokes v. Steppings, 2 Pli, 
 
 Beav. 269. ' 19. 
 
 {d) Meyer v. Moniriou, 4 Beav. (g) .3 Men 39. 
 
 343. (f') 4 Ha, 6.5.
 
 BY OKDERING THEM INTO COURT. G5 
 
 of a reasonable sum in respect of the suggested charges 
 and expenses, by a day which would afford time for the 
 remittance of the fund from India. 
 
 Trustees sold out trust funds, and the produce was 
 received by one alone, who misapplied it. The others 
 were ordered to bring in the amount (i). 
 
 A testator charged his real estate, which consisted of a 
 single house, with an annuity to his widow, and, subject 
 thereto, devised it in fee to his executrix. The testator 
 had insured the house, but the policy expired a few months 
 after his death, and was then renewed by the executrix. 
 Soon afterwards the house was burnt down. The in- 
 surance money was ordered into Court on the application 
 of the annuitant, in a suit, to which the insurance company 
 was a party, instituted by her for the administration of 
 the testator's estate {k). 
 
 As to the stages at which a plaintiff may apply for an A* y'^** ^^^^^ 
 
 * ^ -^ _ ^^ -^ m the action 
 
 order on a defendant to pay trust money in his hands into money will be 
 
 _, , , i 1 ii 1 1-1 ordered to be 
 
 (Jourt, the rule seems now to be that he may obtain such paid into 
 an order, whenever and by what ever means the defendant *"'^"''*- 
 has, by himself or his agent, admitted, or must be taken to 
 have admitted, that he has such a fund in his hands, or 
 under his control, and that the plaintiff has a sufficient 
 interest therein to entitle him to apply for the order in 
 question. In support of this proposition only a few cases, 
 in addition to those already referred to, need be cited. 
 According to the practice of the Court of Chancery, when 
 it was sufficiently ascertained after decree, as Sir John 
 Leach said in Creak v. Cajpell (l), that a sum of money 
 would be due on taking the accounts, the Court had power 
 — a discretionary power, undoubtedly — to order that sum 
 to be brought into Court as security. That was the 
 
 (t) Wighsworth v. Wicjhsworth, (k) Parry y. Ashley, 3 Sim. 97. 
 
 16Beav. 269; Ingle v. Partridye, (l) 6 Madd. 114. 
 
 32 Beav. 661.
 
 66 
 
 AS TO SECURING TRUST FUNDS 
 
 general rule. Then how was it to be sufficiently ascer- 
 tained ? Sir John Leach gave tliree instances in that case, 
 but there may be many others. Sufficiency of ascertain- 
 ment cannot be positively defined a priori, nor can it be 
 limited a 'priori to any number of particular modes of 
 proceeding, and we have a very strong instance of that in 
 the case of Brown v. De Tastet {m). That case is a very 
 high authority to establish that without a confirmed report, 
 but after accounts have been taken, the Court may look 
 at the result of the accounts, and, upon being satisfied that 
 there is a probability amounting to reasonable certainty 
 that not less than a certain amount will be due from the 
 defendants, may in its discretion direct the amount to be 
 brought into Court. If the Judge finds that, by reason of 
 unavoidable delay in ascertaining how much will be due, 
 no certificate can be made, and no final decision as to the 
 ultimate balance of the account arrived at, he has power to 
 say, " I am satisfied now that this amount, at all events, 
 has been sufficiently ascertained, and I will order the 
 defendant to pay it into Court as security." This point is 
 of general, if hot of universal application, as regards the 
 taking of accounts under judgments or decrees (n). 
 
 (m) 4 Russ. 126. 
 
 (n) Per Jessel, M. R., London 
 Syndicate v. Lord, 8 C. D. 88, 89, 
 90. Tliis case seems to over-rule 
 the Hecision in Douthwaite v. Spens- 
 ley, 18 Beav. 74, that money found 
 due by a chief clerk's certificate will 
 not be ordered into Court until the 
 expiration of eight days, unless an 
 objection to the report by the party 
 charged thereby, has been sooner 
 over-ruled. An order for payment 
 into Court is not necessarily a final 
 decision on the merits (seeder Jessel, 
 M. R. , Lomlvn Syndicaie v. Lord, 8 
 C. D. 91), and, if thought expe- 
 
 dient, the order may be expressed to 
 be made without prejudice (Bourne 
 V. 3IoIe, 8 Beav. 177). Under the 
 old practice a plaintiff could not 
 after decree obtain an order for pay- 
 ment into Court on admissions 
 in the answer, but must have pro- 
 ceeded on the examination or re- 
 port {Wright v. Liikes, 13 Beav. 
 107) ; but this canon cannot be ajj- 
 plied to the modern statement of 
 defence, for by 0. XL. r. 11 (ante, 
 p. 18), motions founded on admis- 
 sions in the pleadings may be made 
 at any stage of the action.
 
 BY ORDERING THEM INTO COURT. 67 
 
 There is not any virtue in one mode of admission rather Immaterial in 
 than in another. What the Court has to be satisfied of is tii? moifeTfs^ 
 that the defendant has admitted tlie amount to be due. ';^J"\i"e'^ to l^a 
 
 m his bauds. 
 
 At one time it was supposed that the admission must be 
 in an answer, and no doubt that was the practice of the 
 Court of Chancery before decree. It was next settled that 
 it need not be in the answer, but that it might be in an 
 affidavit brought in by the defendant, or in an answer to 
 a question which he could not help answering on an exam- 
 ination taken by direction of the Master. Whether it was 
 a compulsory statement on oath or a voluntary statement 
 on oath was immaterial, because it need not be upon oath 
 at all. A man may admit by his agent or solicitor that 
 the sum is due ; he may put in a formal admission to that 
 effect without any oath whatever, or he may act in such a 
 manner as to authorize a third person to admit for him. 
 There is no difficulty in doing that, and, if the Court ascer- 
 tains he has done it, the Court will act upon the admis- 
 sion (o). Accordingly, where the Court had referred it to 
 accountants to report on the accounts, and they verified 
 by affidavit their report showing that £o4<l was due from 
 defendant to plaintiff on the undisputed items, and that 
 the disputed items were items of charge against the 
 defendant, so that, however they were decided, the £541 
 would not be reduced, the Court ordered that amount into 
 Court (p). Like orders have been made upon the joint 
 result of an affidavit of a plaintiff charging the defendant 
 with having a sum of money in his hands and an affidavit 
 by the defendant before answer (q), and also in a case 
 where the plaintiff, immediately after the issue of the writ, 
 moved for payment into Court by the defendant of a trust 
 fund which it was shown by affidavit he had received, and 
 the defendant did not appear on the motion, the defendant 
 
 (o) Per Jessel, M. R., London (p) Loiuloii Syndicate v. Lord. 
 
 Syndicate v. Lord, 8 C. D. p. 90. iq) Jervis v. White, 6 Ves. 738.
 
 68 AS TO SECURING TKUST FUNDS. 
 
 in these circumstances being treated as admitting 
 
 that the money was in his hands for the purpose of the 
 
 application (r). 
 ^Totions under Motions for payment into Conrt of funds admitted to be 
 r. 11. in a defendant's hands are constantly made under O. XL., 
 
 r. 11 (s). The Order is stated ante, p. 18. 
 
 Money may be ordered into Court at the trial of an 
 
 action without a notice of motion for that purpose (t). 
 In the Chancery Funds Consolidated Rules, 1874, are 
 
 contained directions with respect to the payment of money 
 
 and transfer of stock into Cuurt. 
 Investment of When paid into Court, money will either be placed on 
 
 nicney iu i •, , r>r-. , • , i -n i. 
 
 Court. deposit at tZ per cent, per annum, or invested. Hixcept 
 
 however, in the case of legacies paid into Court under the 
 Legacy Duty Acts (m), and money paid in under the 
 Trustee Relief Acts, 1850 and 1852, no money in Court 
 (whether cash, interest, or dividends) will be invested 
 without an order (x), and notwithstanding an order for that 
 purpose, a request must also be made to the Chancery 
 Paymaster by the party interested or his solicitor (y). If 
 there be no order for investment, money in Court will be 
 placed on deposit (z). 
 
 (?•) Freeman v. Cox, 8 C. D. 148 (u) 36 Geo. III. c. 52 ; 37 Geo. 
 
 — a case, however, -which the Court HI. c. 185. 
 
 in Ireland has declined to follow, (.c) Chancery Funds Rules, 1874, 
 
 Ncsbiit V. Baldu-in, L. R. (Ir.) 7 C. r. 36, and see rr. 61—67. 
 
 !>• 134. [ij) Re Woodcock's Settled Estates, 
 
 (s) Bennett v. Moore, 1 C. D. 692 ; 13 Eq. 183. 
 
 Iletheringfon v. Longrigg, 10 C. D. (~) Chancery Funds Act, 1872, 
 
 162. ss. 14, 15 ; Rules, 1874, rr, 68— 
 
 (<) Isaacs V. Weather stone, 10 Ha. go. 
 App. 30.
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 CONCURRENT ACTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION — STAY — 
 TRANSFER — CONSOLIDATION. 
 
 The Court will not permit the assets of a deceased One of two 
 person to be wasted by suffering concurrent and competi- l^l^jXation' ' 
 tive actions to be prosecuted for the ordinary administra- actions will be 
 
 . . stayed, 
 
 tion of his estate. A common course is to direct a stay of 
 all the actions except one ; but cases of this kind being 
 matters of discretion {a), the Courts, as will be seen from the 
 authorities cited in this chapter, have not dealt with them 
 according to any rigid rule, but have in each particular case 
 aimed at making such an order as would secure justice to 
 all parties, and discourage the practice of racing for judg- 
 ments. Nevertheless, certain general principles are to be 
 elicited from the decisions. 
 
 A stay of proceedings (b) will not be ordered, unless and when ju.lg- 
 until judgment for administration has been obtained in i^ the other, 
 one of the actions, if there be no misconduct or other 
 special circumstances to induce the Court to interfere (c). 
 
 Tlie application to stay ought to be made by the defen- Upon whose 
 dant to the actions, l)ut it may also be obtained by the '^^'^' "^'^ '°"' 
 plaintiff in the action in which judgment has been pro- 
 nounced, although not a party to the other action, if he 
 have an interest in staying the proceedings (d). The order 
 
 (a) Per LovdCottcnham, M' Hard y wards, 3 De G. & J. 243), as wel 
 V. Hitchcock, 12 Jur. 781. as where judgment has been \no- 
 
 (b) Of course, proceedings may nouiiced in Court. 
 
 be stayed where an order has been (c) M'Hardy v. Hitchcock ; coni- 
 
 oblained on originating summons pare Virtue v. Miller, 19 W. 1!. 406. 
 in chambers ( U'hittington v. Ed- {d) Purtarliugton v. Darner, 2
 
 70 CONCURRENT ACTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 Mode of apply- to stay may be obtained on special motion, or, where the 
 
 ing 01 & ay. jmJgiyient is in prosecution at Chambers, on special 
 
 summons ; and notice of the motion, or the summons, 
 
 must be served on all parties to each action (r). 
 
 Principles on As to the propriety of staying the proceedings, the only 
 
 uhich onler . . i • i i • i i i • i 
 
 will be made, question IS whether the judgment which has been obtained 
 will give the plaintiff in the other action all that he asks. 
 It is no objection that the judgment embraces something 
 more, and that its complexity may create delay (/), for the 
 chief clerk may, in a proper case, make separate certiti- 
 cates, e.g. of debts, so that creditors whose action has been 
 stayed shall not be delayed by proceedings with which 
 they have nothing to do [g). 
 "When relief Where the relief asked by the competitive actions is co- 
 
 ciauned is extensive, the rule is that that action shall be prosecuted in 
 
 co-extensive, ' ■•■ 
 
 -which actidii -which the earlier judgment has been obtained (li). But 
 will be stayed. i • i 
 
 the rule does not apply where the judgment has been 
 
 snatched or unfairly or improperly obtained (i), and in this 
 connection it may be noticed that, where a second admi- 
 nistration action is instituted, and it is proposed to take 
 a judgment by consent, the fact of there being already 
 another action having the same object should be stated 
 to the Court, upon the general principle that in all 
 unopposed matters it is proper that everything should be 
 mentioned (k). The Court may allow the action, in which 
 judgment has been first but improperly obtained, to pro- 
 ceed, giving the conduct of it to the plaintiff in the other 
 action (J). But in one case, on the consent of the admi- 
 
 Ph. 262 ; Therry v. Henderson, 1 and see post, p. 98. 
 
 Y. & C. C. C. 481 ; Stead v. Stead, (h) Harris v. Gandy, 1 De G. F. 
 
 2 C. P. Coop. 311 ; Zambaeo v. & J. 13; McMurray v. Mattheiv, 
 
 Cassavetti, 11 Eq. 444. 33 L. T. 804. 
 
 (e) Daniell, 700; and see 1438, {i) Harris v. Gaiuhj ; Salter v. 
 
 andj;os<, p. 77. Tildeslnj, 13 W. R. 376 ; Harris v. 
 
 (/) Per Lord Cottenhara, Port- Lighffont, 10 W. R. 31. 
 
 arlington v. Darner, 2 Ph. p. 265. (A-) Harris v. Lighffoot. 
 
 {g) Goldcr v. Colder, 9 Ha. 276, {I) Harris v. Lightfoot ; Hawkcs
 
 STAY TRANSFER — CONSOLIDATION. 71 
 
 nistrator and lieir-at-law, the Court gave immediate judg- 
 ment on motion for the administration of the real and 
 personal estate of an intestate at the suit of a creditor 
 after a summons had been taken out by another creditor 
 for the administration of the personal estate, which 
 summons was returnable before the first day on which the 
 suit, in which the motion was made, could be heard as a 
 short cause (m). In determining which of two or more 
 competitive actions for administration shall be stayed, and 
 which prosecuted, the Court is also influenced by general 
 considerations. Thus, residuary legatees being interested Action of 
 in reducing the expenses as much as possible, actions by legatee pre- 
 them are preferred to actions by creditors (n), or by ?'''®^^ to that 
 
 ^ "^ ^ '' '^ 01 a creditor ; 
 
 executors (o). A tenant for life, being more interested in tenant for life 
 effecting a speedy conversion, was preferred to the *° i"e"i«iiii^er- 
 remainderman (2^). Again, if two actions are instituted on rj^.g actions 
 behalf of an infant, one by a relative, the other by a !'y/'""Q 
 
 •^ _ "^ infant. 
 
 stranger, as next friend, the former will be preferred (q) ; 
 
 or an inquiry may be directed which action will be more 
 
 beneficial to the infant (r). Two suits had been instituted ^^t^'..^-^ . ^^^«-wi^ 
 
 on behalf of infants for the same purpose, and, the second ^/^^- /^ 
 
 being a friendly one, a decree had first been obtained in 
 
 it; upon motion to stay the first suit, the Court ordered C-,^^^.h^ -^-y/ 
 
 it to be stayed, giving liberty to the next friend in that ^-■^^ x-^-^-c^ 
 
 V. Barrett, 5 Madd. 17 ; Belcher v. (according to the rule presently ^ 
 
 Belcher, 2 Dr. & Sm. 444 ; Frost v. stated in the text) to be preferred, 
 
 Ward, 2 De G. J. & S. 70 ; PJiodes v. as being more extensive in scope. 
 Barret, 12 Eq. 479 ; see also Froicd (n) Penney v. Francis, 9 W. N. 
 
 V. Baker, 4 Beav. 76. 8. 
 
 (m) Furze v. Hennet, 2 De G. & (0) Kelk v. Archer, 16 Jur. 
 
 J. 125. The circumstances of this 605. 
 
 case, one would have thought, laid (p) Dowblgginv. Trotter, W. ]<i ., 
 
 it open to the suspicion of racing, 1872, 150. 
 
 but the Court was probably influ- {q) Frost v. IFo^-d, 2 De G. J. k 
 
 enced by the fact that, Avliile the S. 70 ; Harris v. Liyhtfoot, 10 W. 
 
 summons only sought administra- li. 31. 
 
 tiou of tliB personal estate, the other (r) See Virtm v. Miller, 19 W. 
 
 suit asked for adniiuistration of the R. 406. 
 realty as well, and was therefore
 
 72 CONCURRENT ACTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 suit to apply in Chambers for the conduct of the 
 second {s). 
 The Court Where no application is made to stay proceedings, the 
 
 exrnero motu. Court may, of its own motion, instead of giving judgment 
 in a second action, direct it to stand over, and come on 
 with the action in which judgment has already been 
 obtained, when that action is heard on further considera- 
 tion {t). 
 Consolidation Instead of staying proceedings in either action, the 
 of coiicuiTciit (Jquj-j;, max consolidate the actions, after pronouncinoj 
 
 adnnnistratiou J ' i o 
 
 actions. separate judgments in each (u), or one judgment in the 
 
 two, and leaving the question of the conduct of the various 
 inquiries directed to be decided in Chambers, the general 
 rule, however, being that the plaintiff in the earlier action 
 has the conduct of the proceedings [v). But, where two 
 judgments have been obtained in different branches of the 
 Court, and the actions are consolidated, the administration 
 will be ordered to proceed in that branch in which the 
 order is in the most perfect state, though posterior in 
 date {w). 
 
 Palatine The Palatine Court of Lancaster has only a concurrent 
 
 Couit. 
 
 jurisdiction with the High Court, even though the parties 
 and the subject matter of the action be both within the 
 local limits {x), and cannot restrain an action in the High 
 Courts {y). There can be no question but that, if the two 
 Courts have co-extensive jurisdiction and the two suits 
 
 (s) Kenyon v. Kenyan, 35 Beav. of proceedings in the legatee's suit, 
 
 300. there being no suggestion of a deti- 
 
 [t) Cumming v. Slater, 1 Y. &; C. ciency ol" assets. 
 
 C. 0. 484 ; and see post (c). (r) Norvall v. Pascoe, 10 W. R. 
 
 (u) Budgen v. Sage, 3 M. & Cr. 338 ; Ji/iodesv. Barret, 12 Eq. 481 ; 
 
 683 ; Hoskins v. Campbell, 2 H. & Mcllor v. Siuire, 21 C. 1). 647. 
 
 M. 43. It was held in Flunkett v. (iv) Littlewood v. Collins, 11 W. 
 
 Lewis, 11 Sim. 379, that where R. 387. 
 
 decrees had been made in two suits, (x) Clicctham v. Crook, M'Cl. & 
 
 oneacreditor's, the other a legatee's, Y. 30. 
 
 the creditor had no right to a stay {y) lie Alison s 'Trusts, 8 C. D. 1.
 
 STAY — TKANSFER — CONSOLIDATION. 73 
 
 are so constituted that all that is required in one may be 
 obtained under the decree in the other, the High Court will 
 stay the proceedings in the suit in which no decree has been 
 made, and will allow the other to proceed {z), and even if 
 the actions are not so constituted, the rule will prevail, 
 special inquiries being by consent added to the judgment 
 already obtained («) ; so in Jones v. Jones (b), the action in 
 the High Court was stayed, a judgment for administration 
 having been already given in an action in the Palatine 
 Court, the plaintiffs in the action stayed having liberty to 
 apply in the Palatine Court for the conduct of the action 
 in that Court. An action in the Palatine Court ought 
 not to be stayed on the mere ground that the property 
 concerned is without the local limits, if the parties are 
 within the limits, the jurisdiction being in personam (c). 
 
 A person who has obtained a creditors' order for admi- 
 nistration in the Palatine Court, and who neither is a 
 party to an action in the High Court for the same purpose 
 nor has proved his debt under an adminstration order 
 made subsequently to the order in the Palatine Court, is a 
 mere stranger to the action in the High Court, and cannot 
 be heard to ask in such action that the proceedings therein 
 may be stayed (c?). 
 
 So far we have been considering the practice applicable where relief 
 to concurrent actions claiming co-extensive rehef; and ^ *'"7 ji'>"°* 
 we may add that, where, after notice of a judgment 
 for administration, another action is instituted and 
 brought to a hearing, asking no relief which could 
 
 {z) Pc7' Romilly, M. R., Wynne {c\ Ee LongciulaJeCoffon Spuming 
 
 V. Hughes, 26 Beav. 377. The Co., 8 C. U. 150 ; and see Stirling- 
 
 order on appeal of Uiiscase (28 L. J. Maxwell v. C'aHwrigM, and O^t- 
 
 Ch. 485) was taken by arrangement Eicing v. Orr-Eiving, cited ante, 
 
 between the parties ; see 3 De G. J. p. 36. 
 & S. 406. {d) BraUey v. Stelfox, 3 De G. J. 
 
 (rt) Mellor V. Swire, 21 C. D. & S. 402 ; but see Towmcnd v. 
 
 647 ; and see posf, p. 75. 2'owtise/ul, W. N. 1883, 34. 
 
 (/;) W. N. 1882, 6.
 
 74 
 
 CONCURRENT ACTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 One action 
 may be 
 partially 
 stayed ; 
 
 not be obtained in the former one, the later ought to be 
 dismissed with costs (e), the earlier judgment being a 
 bar (/). But, where a second action has a further object 
 than the action in which judgment has been obtained, asks 
 additional accounts not covered by the judgment, or seeks 
 to charge the defendants upon a more stringent footing, it 
 may be prosecuted, subject to risk of payment of costs by the 
 plaintiff, if it shall turn out that he has come to the Court 
 unnecessarily ((/). But here again the practice is not 
 uniform. Proceedings may be partially stayed, i.e., so far 
 only as the objects of the action are provided for by the 
 judgment already obtained. Thus, where a creditors' bill 
 was filed, which also prayed other relief, and soon after a 
 simple creditor's bill was instituted by another party, and 
 a decree obtained, the Court stayed the first suit so far 
 only as it prayed administration, giving the plaintiff 
 therein liberty to prove in the second suit for what he 
 or accounts in might eventually establish in his own (/t). Or a second 
 
 one ordered to ., , , i]-i"ii i a 
 
 be used in the judgment may be pronounced, dn-ectmg the usual accounts 
 other; .^^^ giving the further relief asked, with liberty to the 
 
 chief clerk to use the accounts taken under the former 
 judgment {i), and semhle, the Court here may adopt the 
 result of proceedings in the Palatine Court (k), and ac- 
 counts recorded in the Court of Chancery in Jamaica in 
 a suit instituted against executors who had proved their 
 testator's will in that island, were, in a suit against them 
 in England, ordered to be taken, under 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, 
 
 («) Menzies v. Connor, 3 Mac. & 
 G. 648. 
 
 (/) Pott V. Gallini, 1 S. & S. 
 206. 
 
 {g) Anson v. Toivgood, 6 Madd. 
 374 ; Shepherd v. Toicyood, T. & R. 
 379 ; Pickford v. Hunter, 5 Sim. 
 122 ; Underwood v. Jee, 1 Mac. & 
 G. 276 ; Taylor v. Southgate, 4 M. 
 k Cr. 203 ; Zamhaco v. Cassuvctti, 
 
 11 Eq. 439; see A^'evc v. Weston, 3 
 Atk. 557. 
 
 (/i) Drydcn v. Foster, 6 Beav. 
 146. 
 
 (i) Pott V. Gallini, 1 S. & S. 
 206. 
 
 {k) See 2)cr Lord Westbury, 
 Bradley v. Stelfox, 3 De G. J. &. S. 
 409.
 
 STAY TRANSFER — CONSOLIDATION. 7 5 
 
 s. 54, as 'prima facie evidence of the 'truth of the matters 
 tlierein contained, with liberty to the plaintiff to surcharge 
 and falsify {I). Or proceedings in the second action may or one stayed, 
 
 1 ■, \ • p \ ^ c ^ -IP • the judgment 
 
 be entirely stayed, it the defendant in the nrst action in the other 
 undertake not to object to any additions to the decree '^^'^ ^ ^^' 
 already obtained which the Judge in Chambers may think 
 reasonable {in). Similarly, where an action was com- 
 menced by a creditor, whose claim was disputed, to esta- 
 blish his claim, and also seeking general administration, 
 and the common judgment for administration was subse- 
 quently obtained on a summons taken out by another 
 creditor, the Court stayed the first action, added an 
 inquiry as to incumbrances to the judgment in the second 
 action, and gave the conduct of it to the plaintiff in the 
 first action (?i). The plaintiff in the wider action, while 
 yet without a judgment, has no right to a stay of the more 
 limited one. Whilst an administration suit was pending, 
 but before a decree had been made, the defendant in the 
 suit obtained the common order in Chambers upon a sum- 
 mons, and a motion to discharge such order was refused, 
 although there were questions in the suit which could not 
 be decided under the common order (o) ; so in Ritchie v. 
 HuTYiberstone {p) under almost similar circumstances, the 
 action was stayed, directions being added to the decree 
 made upon the summons sufficient to let the plaintiff 
 charge the trustee for wilful default, the taxed costs of the 
 plaintiff in the action stayed to be paid by the plaintiff in 
 the other action, he to have them out of the estate. 
 
 As to the costs of applications for a stay of proceedings, Costs of appli- 
 the practice for some time varied, but is now fairly settled, proceedings^ 
 
 (?) Slcifjkt V. Lmcson, 3 K. & J. {n) Matthews v. Matthews, 34 L. 
 
 292. T. 718. 
 
 (m) Gv:yer v. Petersen, 26 Beav. [o) Vanrenen v. Piffard, 13 W. 
 
 83 ; Matthcu-s v. Palmer, 11 "VV. R. E. 425. 
 610 ; Mdlur V. Hicire, 21 C. D. (j^) 17 Jur. 756. 
 
 647.
 
 76 CONCURKENT ACTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 Where a stay is directed, the costs of the plaintiff in the 
 action stayed up to the time of his having notice of the 
 judgment in the second action, and also his costs of the 
 motion to stay, are taxed. If the defendant, the executor, 
 admits the debt and admits assets, then he should at once 
 pay such costs ; if the debt is disputed, or, the debt being 
 admitted, upon affidavit being made that the executor has 
 no assets, then tlie plaintiff in the action stayed is to be at 
 liberty to add his costs to his claim and prove (q) for them 
 under the judgment in the second action, the debt and 
 costs to stand or fall together. The defendant's costs, and 
 what, if anything, he shall pay to such plaintiff' for his 
 costs will be added to his costs in the second action, or 
 allowed him in his accounts therein (r). 
 
 So also if a legatee's suit be stayed after a judgment for 
 administration, he will be entitled to his costs up to notice of 
 tlie judgment and the costs of the application, subject to the 
 claims of creditors (s). But the costs of the plaintiff in the 
 action stayed are only payable in a due course of adminis- 
 tration, and have no priority over the costs of the plaintiff 
 in the action which is allowed to go on, still less over 
 those of the personal representative (t). A party pro- 
 secuting an action after notice of a judgment in another 
 action, in which he may obtain all the relief which he 
 seeks in his own, will be ordered to pay tlie costs of an 
 application to stay proceedings (u). And if a trustee who 
 is made defendant to two actions for administration 
 
 (q) If, however, assets are ad- 276 ; Frowd v. Baker, 4 Beav. 76. 
 nitttd, but the debt is disputed, (s) Jackson v. Leaf, 1 J. & W. 
 
 the debt aud costs must be paid so 229. 
 
 aoon as the debt is proved ; A'mg' V. (/) Cumberland v. Clark, 4 Ch. 
 
 King, 34 Beav. 10. 412. 
 
 (?•) The practice was so certified (?/,) Graham v. Maxwell, 1 Mac. 
 
 by the Registrars in JVest v. Swiii- & G. 71 ; and see Gardner v. Gar- 
 
 hurne, 19 L. J. Ch. 81, as explained rcU, 20 Beav. 469, where such costs 
 
 in Davey v. Plestoir, ibid. 491 ; see were set off against the costs of the 
 
 also Ladbroke v. Sloanc, 3 De G. & action stayed, prior to the notice. 
 Sni. 291 ; Goldcr v. Colder, 9 Ha,
 
 STAY TRANSFER — CONSOLIDATION. 77 
 
 refrains from moving to stay proceedings, where a suffi- 
 cient judgment has been obtained in one of them, he may 
 lose his costs (x). 
 
 Where actions for the administration of the same Traiisfcr of one 
 estate have been instituted in different branches of the cm-rent actions 
 Chancery Division, and a stay of proceedings in one of[™"°"® 
 
 "^ J r o branch of 
 
 them is desired, it will be necessary, or at least expedient, Chancery 
 first to procure a transfer of one of them to that branch of another. 
 the Court in which the other has been instituted. Indeed, 
 even where no stay of proceedings is in immediate contem- 
 plation, the parties ought to apply for a transfer ; if they 
 do not, it has been said the Court itself will make the 
 application (y). Any action or actions maybe transferred 
 from one judge to another of the Chancery Division by the 
 order of the Lord Chancellor (s), the Court of Appeal 
 having no jurisdiction (a). Such an order will be made 
 by his lordship on a written application to his secretary, 
 accompanied by the written consent of all parties ; where 
 all parties do not consent, the application must be made 
 to the Lord Chancellor himself (b), on motion (c), or peti- 
 tion (d), which must be served on all the parties who do 
 not consent (e). On such an application, the Lord Chan- 
 cellor has no jurisdiction to stay the action (/) : for that 
 purpose a subsequent application must be made to the 
 
 (x) stead v. Stead 2 C. P. Coop, sitting, it is the practice to make 
 
 311 ; Packwood v. Maddison, 1 S. & the application to him at his pri- 
 
 S. 232. vate room at Westminster (as was 
 
 (y) SiL-ale v. Svale, 22 Beav. 401 ; done in Davis v. Dains) or at his 
 
 and see /)cr Lord Romilly, Zn^nbaco residence, or wherever he may be 
 
 V. Cnssavetti, 11 Eq. p. 444 ; avfe, found. 
 p. 70 (c). (c) As in Davis v. Davis, 48 L. J. 
 
 {z) 0. LI. r. 1 ; and see r. 3. Ch. 40. 
 
 (a) Re ffvflei/, 1 C. D. 11. (d) See the Forms in Seton, 318 ; 
 
 (b) Memorandum, 1 C. D. 41. Pemb. 96; Daniell's Forms, 18.53. 
 The memorandum says "to the («) Bovd v. Barnes, 2 De G. F. & 
 Lord Chancellor in Cdurt," but as J. 387. 
 
 a matter of fact, he seldom sits in (/) Bcntallw Sharp, cited Seton, 
 
 Court, and, in default of his so 320 ; and see Davis v. Davis.
 
 78 
 
 CONCURRENT ACTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 Which action 
 will be trans- 
 ferred. 
 
 judge to whose Court the action 'shall have been trans- 
 ferred. As a general rule an action instituted in one 
 branch of the Chancery Division when an action as to the 
 same matter is pending in another branch of the same 
 Division will be transferred to the latter branch {g), not- 
 withstanding that in the first action judgment has not {Ji), 
 but in the second has {i), been obtained. And the same 
 rule applies where the actions, though not identical, are 
 cognate in kind. Thus, where an action was brought, and 
 judgment obtained, in the Chancery Division for adminis- 
 tration of the personal estate of a deceased person, and for 
 an inquiry whether his moiety of certain real estate had 
 become assets of his partnership business carried on with 
 B., and B. brought an action in another branch of the 
 same Division for winding np the partnership, the Lord 
 Chancellor, considering the two actions to be cognate, 
 transferred B.'s action to the judge before whom the admi- 
 As to consent nistration action was pending (k). The proper course is 
 
 of plaintiff in i i • i- 
 
 second action, for the party who desires to transfer to apply to the party 
 who has commenced the second action, and ask for his 
 consent to the transfer (Z) ; if such consent be refused on 
 insufficient grounds, the party refusing will be ordered to 
 pay costs, if the notice of motion or petition for transfer 
 asks for them (m). On the other hand, where the plaintiff 
 in the second action offered to consent to a transfer, if the 
 costs of the application were made costs in the cause, and 
 such offer was unreasonably refused by the plaintiff in the 
 first action, the last-mentioned plaintiff had to pay the 
 costs subsequent to the offer (%). Subject as above, the 
 Court has generally acted on the principle that, if a suitor 
 insists on proceeding in another Court, when a suit rela- 
 
 (g) Lyall v. Weldhen, 9 Cli. 287. 
 {h) Orrell v, Busch, 5 Oh. 467. 
 (i) Lucas Y. Siggers, 7 Oh. 517. 
 (^-) Davis V. Davis, 48 L. J. Ch, 
 
 40. 
 
 (Z) Per Lord Selhorne, Lyall v. 
 Wcldhcn, 9 Ch. p. 289. 
 
 [m) Cocq V. Hunasgeria Coffee 
 Co., 4 Ch. 415, 
 
 (») Lyall V. Weldhen.
 
 STAY TRANSFER CONSOLIDATION. 79 
 
 ting to the same matter is already in existence, he 
 must expect to have to pay the costs of the transfer, if a 
 transfer is ordered against his will (o). 
 
 Consolidation has been mentioned before in this chapter. Consolklatiou. 
 By 0. LI. r. 4, actions in any Division or Divisions may 
 be consolidated by order of the Court or a Judge in the 
 manner theretofore in use in the Superior Courts of 
 common law. A consolidation order may be obtained at 
 any time after service of the writ (2)). Where actions are 
 consolidated, leave will be given for evidence taken in any 
 one of them to be used in them all (q). 
 
 The Court has also jurisdiction to stay proceedings in ^*^^y!"g P™- 
 an action in this country by reason of a judgment in a foreign juJg- 
 foreign country. Such jurisdiction was fully recognised ^*j,ainecf ^^^ 
 by Lord Cranworth in Odell v. Le Page (r). But, before 
 the Court will so interpose on an interlocutory application, 
 it must be satisfied that such judgment does justice, and 
 covers the whole subject of the action (s), and it has 
 recently been held that although there is no doubt of the 
 jurisdiction to stay an action here on the mere ground 
 of an action having been brought between the same 
 parties and for the same object in a foreign country, yet 
 it would require very special grounds to obtain the in- 
 junction (t). 
 
 We have now discussed the practice of the Court where 
 the executors or trustees are harassed, or the estate is 
 likely to be impoverished, by a multiplicity of actions for 
 its administration. But the protection of trustees from 
 
 (0) Per Lord Selborne, Hid. (s) Ibid. ; and see Stain(on v. 
 
 p. 289; Orrell v. Busch, 5 Ch. 467 ; Carron Co. (No. 3), 21 Beav. 500 ; 
 
 Lucas y. Siggcrs, 7 Ch. 517. Madaren v. Staintoii, 2 Jur. N. S. 
 
 (p) HolUngswurth v. Brodrick, 4 49. 
 A. & E. 646. (0 McHenry v. Lncis, 22 C. D. 
 
 {q) Smith v. Whichcord, 24 W. 397 ; and see Peruvian Guano Co. 
 
 R. 900. V. Bockivoldt, 48 L. T. 7. 
 
 (r) 2 De G. M. k G. 892.
 
 80 CONCURRENT ACTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 litigation after judgment for administration, does not stop 
 there. They are equally entitled, as a rule, to be relieved 
 against any other proceedings taken against them in the 
 Queen's Bench Division or in the Chancery Division. This 
 further protection we proceed to consider. 
 Staying credi- Before the Judicature Act, the Court of Chancery used 
 
 tors' actions , r i r i • • 
 
 in Queens Constantly to restrain creditors, after decree for admmis- 
 sionVfter judg- tration, from proceeding at law against the executors, on 
 mentforad- ^|jg application of the latter (m), whether administration 
 
 ministration in ^ ^ _ ^ ' 
 
 Cliancery had been ordered in Chambers on an originating 
 
 summons (x), or in Court on a bill filed. But by that 
 Act (y), the power of restraining proceedings in the High 
 Court or Court of Appeal by injunction was taken 
 away (z). At the same time it was provided that nothing 
 therein contained should disable either of those Courts 
 from directing a stay of joi'oceedings in any cause or 
 matter pending before it, and that any person, whether 
 a party thereto or not, who would formerly have been 
 entitled to apply to any Court to restrain the prosecution 
 thereof, should be at liberty to apply to the said Courts 
 respecti^'ely, by motion in a summary way, for a stay of 
 proceedings in such cause or matter, either generally, or 
 so far as might be necessary for the purpose of justice. 
 Since the Act, then, the course for the executor to pursue 
 is to apply by motion to the Court, in which the proceed- 
 ings are pending, for an order to stay them. The right 
 of the executors to the protection of the Court arises 
 directly judgment for administration has been pronounced, 
 and accordingly, after judgment, creditors will not be 
 
 (u) E.g., Drewrij v. Thacker, 3 Court, before which an administra- 
 
 Sw. 544. tion action is pending, cannot now 
 
 (a;) Ikttdiffe v. Winch, 16 Eeav. restrain creditors' actions [Cohhold 
 
 576. V. Prylce, 4 Ex. D. 315), these Courts 
 
 (y) 36 & 37 Vict, c. 66, s. 24, having by 28 & 29 Vict. c. 99, s. 1 
 
 siib-s. 5. {aoe post p. 184), only " the power 
 
 {z) For this reason, a Comity and authority of the High Court."
 
 STAY TEANSFER — CONSOLIDATION. 8 1 
 
 allowed to sue (a) executors, though the creditors have not 
 yet been ascertained under the judgment (h) ; see, however, 
 Sexton V. Smith (c), where, under special circumstances, 
 persons whose claim under the decree had been rejected, 
 were not restrained from suing the executrix at law for 
 the same demand. But proceedings by a mortgagee to 
 realise his security will not be stayed (d). 
 
 A creditor recovered judgment against his debtor, and 
 issued a ^. /a. Shortly afterwards the debtor died. The 
 creditor entered a suggestion on the record, entitling him 
 to have execution against the executors, and obtained a 
 charging order nisi upon shares belonging to the debtor. 
 After the order nisi had been obtained, but on the same 
 day, a decree was made for administration of the debtor's 
 estate. The order nisi not having been made a,bsolute 
 the plaintiff in the administration suit applied for an 
 injunction to restrain further proceedings by the judgment 
 creditor. The Court of Appeal held (under the old 
 practice) that an injunction ought not to be granted, a 
 charging order, when made absolute, operating from the 
 making of the order nisi (e). And where a creditor, 
 before decree for administration, obtained judgment against 
 an executor, the Court refused to enjoin him from 
 enforcing his judgment against a debtor to the estate (/); 
 and in such cases proceedings would not now be stayed. 
 Nor will an action by a creditor be stayed, where an 
 executor has rendered himself liable de bonis propriis, 
 
 {a) Nor can they, if also delitors (c.) 3 De G. & Sin. 694. 
 
 to the estate, counter- cLiim against (d) Crowlc v. Russell, 4 C. P. D. 
 
 the executors suing for the debt 186. 
 
 (except by way of set-off or in the (e) Haly v. Barry, 3 Ch. 452, 
 
 case of mutual credits and an insol- explaining JVurhurtonv. Hill, Kay, 
 
 vent estate, as to which see post, p. 470. 
 
 173), Neioell v. National Provincial (/) Fowler v. Roberts, 2 Giff. 
 
 Rank, 1 C. P. D. 496. 226 ; Rurtun v. Roberts, 29 L. J. 
 
 {b) BroT>l\i V. Reynolds, 1 Bro. C. Ex. 484. 
 C. 183.
 
 82 
 
 CONCURRENT ACTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 Actions not 
 the High 
 Court may 
 still be re- 
 strained by 
 Chancery 
 Division. 
 
 e.g., where, in carrying on liis testator'.s Lnsiness, he has 
 given bills or notes {(j). 
 
 It will be observed that the enactment above referred 
 to abolishes the restraint of actions by injunction so far 
 only as relates to actions in the High Court or the Court of 
 Appeal. As regards, then, actions brought against him 
 in the inferior Courts, or Courts of a foreign country {It), 
 the executor's remedy is still to obtain (if he can make a 
 case for it) an injunction from the Court, in which judg- 
 ment for administration has been pronounced, restraining 
 the other action {i). 
 
 After judgment in England for administration of a 
 testator's estate in England and abroad, an incumbrancer 
 upon the foreign estate, having come in and proved his 
 debt (/i-), was restrained from proceeding in a creditors' 
 action instituted by him abroad, receiving his costs up to 
 the time of his having notice of the judgment and paying 
 the costs of the application (?) ; and, generally, after judg- 
 ment for administration, parties {e.g., the trustees) will be 
 restrained from proceeding abroad with an action having 
 the like objects {ni). In Baillie v. Ba'ilUe (n), creditors 
 who had obtained judgment in Scotland against a benefi- 
 ciary were restrained from suing the executors there to arrest 
 the amount in their hands belonging to the beneficiary, 
 the executors undertaking forthwith to obtain an adminis- 
 tration decree here. The persons restrained not being 
 creditors of the deceased, this case is not inconsistent with 
 
 {g) L%icas v. IViUiams, 10 W. R. 
 606. 
 
 {h) E.g., in Ireland, as in Beau- 
 champ V. Huntley, Jac. 546. 
 
 ii) Eustace v. Lloyd, 25 W. K. 
 211. 
 
 (k) As distinguished from carry- 
 ing in a claim, and afterwards, 
 before allowance, abandoning it 
 
 (Crofton V. Crofton, 15 C. D. 591). 
 
 (Z) Beauchamj) v. Huntley ; 
 Graham v. Maxwell, 1 Mac. & G. 
 71. 
 
 (»i) Harrison v. Ourney, 2 J. & 
 W. 563 ; and see Booth v. Leycester, 
 3 M. & Cr. 459. 
 
 (?() 5 Eq. 175 ; and see Ho2)c v. 
 Carnegie, 1 Ch. 320.
 
 STAY TRANSFER CONSOLIDATION. 83 
 
 Rankin v. Harivood (o), where it was held that the Court 
 will not restrain a creditor from prosecuting his legal 
 remedy against the personal representatives of his debtor, 
 unless there is a decree under which he has a present right 
 to go in and prove his debt. 
 
 The leading case on this branch of the subject is Carron 
 Iron Co. V. Maclaren {'p), in which the authorities were 
 exhaustively discussed. The following was Lord Cran- 
 worth's statement of the law. " There is no doubt as to the 
 power of the Court to restrain persons ivithin its jurisdic- 
 tion from instituting or prosecuting suits in foreign Courts, 
 wherever the circumstances of the case make such an 
 interposition necessary or expedient. The Court acts in 
 ^personam, and will not suffer anyone within its reach to 
 do what is contrary to its notions of equity, merely because 
 the act to be done may be, in point of locality, be3^ond its 
 jurisdiction. Where, therefore, pending a litigation here, 
 in which complete relief may be had, a party to the suit 
 institutes proceedings abroad, the Court in general con- 
 siders that act as a vexatious harassing of the opposite 
 party, and resti'ains the foreign proceedings. But is there 
 any rule or principle of the Court, which, after a decree for 
 administering a testator's assets, would induce it to inter- 
 fere with a foreign creditor resident ahroad, suing for his 
 debts in the Courts of his own country ? Certainly not. 
 Over such a creditor the Court here can exercise no juris- 
 diction whatever. He is altogether beyond their reach, 
 and must be left to deal as he may with his own forum, 
 and to obtain such relief as the Courts of his own country 
 may afford [q). If, however, the party sought to be re- 
 
 (o) 2 Ph. 22. appear ; judgment against them by 
 
 (p) 5 H. L. C. 416. default can only he treated here a3 
 
 (17) To the foreign action so j)'''^^^ facie evidence of the debt 
 
 brought the legal personal represen- ( ^j*?- Malins, V. -C, Crofton v. Crof- 
 
 tatives, if well advised, will not ton, 15 C. D. 591, 592). 
 
 G 2
 
 84 
 
 CONCURKENT ACTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 strained had come in under tlie decree, so as to obtain 
 payment partially from the English assets, a very different 
 question would arise, according to the doctrine in Beau- 
 champ V. Marquis of Huntley," cited supra (r). 
 
 As a rule, creditors whose actions were restrained were 
 entitled to the costs of their proceedings down to the time 
 of their being served with notice of the order for adminis- 
 tration (s). But where a creditor continued his proceed- 
 ings after such notice, he was ordered to pay the costs of 
 a motion to restrain him, but allowed to set off against 
 such costs his costs of the action at law down to the 
 date of the notice (t). It is apprehended that like 
 rules prevail now, under the new practice of staying 
 proceedings. 
 Transfer to ^^ '^^ further provided by order of Court that when an 
 
 Chancery Divi- qy^qy ^as been made by any judge of the Chancery 
 
 siou, after _ _ ... 
 
 judgment for Division for the administration of the assets of any testator 
 tion, of actions 01' intestate, the judge in whose Court such administration 
 against exe- shall be pending shall have power, without any further 
 
 en tors or ad- ± o ir ' .; 
 
 ministrators. consent, to order the transfer to such judge of any action 
 pending in any other Division (u), brought or continued 
 by or against the executors or administrators of the 
 testator or intestate whose assets are being so adminis- 
 tered (x). But a transfer will not be ordered under this 
 rule except of an action brought against the executors or 
 administrators as such {y) ; nor, on a transfer being 
 made, will an executor or administrator escape his liability, 
 if any, by reason of judgment for administration having 
 been pronounced, but the plaintiff will be entitled to 
 
 (r) 5 H. L. C. 436, 441, 442. 
 
 (s) Ratcliffc V. Winch, 16 Beav. 
 676. 
 
 {t) Gardner v. Garrett, 20 Beav. 
 469. 
 
 (ii) See Re Madras Irriyation Co., 
 16 U. D. 702. 
 
 (r) Ord. LI. r. 2a. The applica- 
 tion may be made ex parte ; Whi- 
 taker v. Robinson, W. N. 1877, 
 201 ; Musbach v. Anderson, 26 W. 
 R. 100, 
 
 (y) Chapman v. Mason, 40 L. T. 
 678.
 
 STAY — TRANSFER CONSOLIDATION. 85 
 
 pursue his remedies in the Chancery Division just as he 
 might have done in the other Divisions (0), unless a stay 
 of proceedings, or a consolidation of the actions, be applied 
 for and obtained. 
 
 iz) Be Timms, 38 L. T. 679,
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 PROCEEDINGS IN CHAMBERS. 
 
 Prosecution of I^ ^^1 cases of proceedings in chambers under any 
 judgment. judgment or order, the party prosecuting the same shall 
 leave a copy of such judgment or order at the judge's 
 Chambers, and shall certify the same to be a true copy of 
 the judgment or order as passed and entered (a). Every 
 judgment or order directing accounts or inquiries to be 
 taken or made shall be brought into the judge's Cham- 
 bers by the party entitled to prosecute the same within 
 ten days after the same shall have been passed and 
 entered ; and in default thereof, any other party to the 
 cause or matter shall be at liberty to bring in the same, 
 and such party shall have the prosecution of such judgment 
 or order, unless the judge shall otherwise direct (6). At 
 the same time that any judgment or order made in a suit 
 instituted b}' writ is left in Chambers, a print of the 
 statement of claim, if any, is to be left (c) ; and a note 
 stating the names of the solicitors for all the parties, and 
 showing for which of the parties such solicitors are con- 
 cerned, is to be left at Chambers with every judgment or 
 order (<:?). 
 Directions by Upon a copy of the judgment or order being left, a sum- 
 the judge. nions shall be issued to proceed with the accounts or 
 inquiries directed ; and, upon the return of such summons, 
 the judge (by his deputy, the chief clerk), if satisfied by 
 
 (a) Cons. Ord. XXXV. r. 15. Ch. x. 
 
 (h) Cons. Ord. XXXV. r. 22. As (c) Reg., 8 Aug., 1857, r. 5. 
 
 to conduct of proceedings, see^os^, (d) R. 6.
 
 PROCEEDINGS IN CHAMBERS. 87 
 
 proper evidence that all necessary parties have been served 
 with notice of the judgment or order (e), shall thereupon 
 give directions as to the manner in which each of the 
 accounts and inquiries is to be prosecuted, the evidence to 
 be adduced in support thereof, the parties who are to 
 attend on the several accounts and inquiries, and the time 
 within which each proceeding is to be taken ; and a day 
 or days may be appointed for the further attendance of 
 the parties, and all such directions may afterwards be 
 varied or added to as may be found necessary (/). 
 
 A chief clerk should not adjourn a summons into Adjournment 
 
 /-^ 1 1 • 1 • /-ii 1 / \ 1 ... 1 to the judge. 
 
 Court, but to the judge m chambers [g) ; but it is in the 
 discretion of the judge to hear matters in Chambers or 
 to adjourn them into Court (A). An adjournment [before 
 the judge in Chambers personally or] into Court is merely 
 a continuance of the hearing begun before the chief clerk, 
 and the costs of such adjournment go with the costs in 
 Chambers ; the party at whose instance the adjournment 
 is made will not have to pay the costs thereof, even if the 
 question then appears unarguable, unless in the opinion of 
 the judge there has been misconduct in bringing the 
 matter before him in person (?'). 
 
 Generally, when a summons is refused, the respondent 
 should be allowed all the costs, not only of the adjourn- 
 ment, but in Chambers (A:). 
 
 Before the Judicature Acts, where a judge had decided Appeal from 
 on an adjourned summons a question which had arisen in •*" *^' 
 the proceedings in his Chambers, there could be no 
 appeal, unless the judge thought fit to direct an order to 
 be drawn up ; the course was to wait for the certificate, 
 
 (c) As to this, see ante, p. 40. (t) Leeds v. Lexvis, 3 Jur. N. S. ef-/L*J^ f^^'^f 
 
 (/) Cons. Orel. XXXV. r. 16. 1290; Re Mitchell, 9 Jur. N. S. IZ C)' ^ - 
 
 (g) Hallilcy v. Henderson, 4 Jur. 1272 ; and see Upton v. Brown, 
 
 N. S. 202. cited /)05/, p. 88. 
 
 ill) Re Aijriculturlst, tt-c, Co., 11 (A;) Per James, V.-C, Alcuck v. 
 
 W. R. 330. GUI, W. N., 1869, 270.
 
 88 PROCEEDINGS IN CHAMBERS. 
 
 and then apply to vary it {1} ; but iii a recent case (m) it 
 was held by the Court of Appeal that the disallowance by 
 the judge of a creditor's claim made in answer to adver- 
 tisements issued under a judgment for administration was 
 a "refusal" within the meaning of 0. LVIII./r. 15, from 
 which an appeal could be brought, and that no order need 
 be drawn up. 
 Suitor's riRht In proceedings in Chambers every party has the un- 
 tid'4 l^i'iii'self qualified right to have his case, or the minutest point 
 arising in Chambers, heard personally (in the first instance 
 and not by way of appeal) by the judge, though there be 
 no controversy between the parties, and the chief clerk 
 cannot refuse an application to have it so heard {n). 
 Again, any party shall, either during the proceedings 
 before the chief clerk, or within four clear days after such 
 proceedings shall have been concluded, and before the cer- 
 tificate or report shall have been signed and adopted [by 
 the judge], be at liberty to take the opinion of the judge 
 upon any particular point or matter arising in the course 
 of the proceedings or upon the result of the whole proceed- 
 ing, when it is brought by the chief clerk to a con- 
 clusion (o). Such opinion shall be taken by summons, to 
 How qualified, be obtained within the four clear days (p). " Under the 
 Chancery Amendment Act, 1852," said Jessel, M.R. (q), " it 
 is the right of the suitor to have the matter at once ad- 
 
 (Z) Ehodes v. Rhodes, 1 Ch. 483 ; 3Torfon, 10 W. R. 339 ; Hayward 
 
 Vyse V. Foster, 10 Ch. 236. As to v. Hayward, Kay, App. 31. 
 
 the application to vary the certifi- (o) 15 & 16 Vict. c. 80, s. 33 ; 
 
 Gate, see post, p. 98. Cons. Ord. XXXV. r. 49. 
 
 (m) Fordhamv. Clagett, 20 CD. (/>) Cons. Ord. XXXV. r. 50. 
 
 134. Rules 49 & 50 of Cons. Ord. XXXV. 
 
 {n) Re Agriculturist, d-c, Co., 3 do not, however, apply to certificates 
 
 De G. F. & J. 194 ; per Kindersley, upon which the Paymaster- General 
 
 V.-C, Wadham v. Rigg, 2 Dr. & is to act without further order, or to 
 
 Sra. 80 ; Re London and County certificates on passing receivers' ac- 
 
 Assurance Co., 5 W. R. 794 ; Re counts, as to which, seepost, p. 100. 
 
 Home Countigs, d-c., Co., 10 \V. R. (q) In Upton v. Brown, 20 Ch. D. 
 
 457 ; per "Wood, V.-C, Dmvkins v. 732.
 
 PROCEEDINGS IN CHAMBERS. 89 
 
 journed before the judge without taking oat any summons. 
 Of course if a solicitor took an adjournment before the 
 jueige of every item in an account, no business could be 
 transacted. In theory there is a right to do this, but in 
 practice it is found impossible that it should be done. The 
 practice is to wait until the taking of the account is com- 
 pleted, and then to take an adjournment once for all to the 
 judge. When, however, a question of principle is involved 
 in an item which decides the mode in which the account is 
 to be taken, it is, of course, impossible to wait until the ac- 
 count is completed, and then it is quite right to adjourn (r) 
 the item at once before the judge. If a solicitor were so 
 unreasonable as to insist on the adjournment of every item 
 in an account to which he might object, that would be an 
 abuse of the process of the Court, and I have no doubt the 
 judge would have jurisdiction to punish the solicitor by 
 making him pay the costs personally." It has been laid Rehearing by 
 
 1 • • T • n judge iu Com t. 
 
 down that where objections to the certificate are heard 
 and disposed of by the judge himself in Chambers, they 
 will not be reheard by the same judge in Court, the 
 party's course being to proceed to the Court of Appeal (.s) ; 
 but this would seem not to be the present practice (t). 
 
 Application should be made to a judge in Court to dis- Time limited 
 
 1 1 1 1 1 • • /-ii 1 . , • ^'Ji" I'e-hcaiing. 
 
 charge an order made by him lu Chambers withm twenty- 
 one days from the drawing up of the order, unless the 
 
 (r) A motion to obtain the opinion does not desire to hear any further 
 
 of the Court as to the principle on argument iu Court, Thovuis v. 
 
 which an account ought to be taken, Elsom, 6 C. D. 346, where the 
 
 for the guidance of the chief clerk, proper course is pointed out, if the 
 
 has been held not irregular {Robert- judge declines to give such a certiti- 
 
 son V. Norrls, 1 Giff. 428 ; and see cate. 
 
 Vyse V. Foster, 10 Ch. 238), and a (t) Sec Holloway v. Chester, 19 C. 
 
 petition for tlie like object has not D. 516, which, however, was not 
 
 been objected to (Browne v. Collins, followed to its full extent by Hall, 
 
 12 Eq. 586). V.-C, in Amlerson v. Butler's 
 
 (s) York <i- North Midland Rail- Wharf Co., 21 C. D. 131 ; see also 
 
 way Co. V. Hudson, 18 Beav. 70 ; Manehester, Ac., Paving Co. v. 
 
 but a certificate should lie ob- Slar/tj, 47 L. T. 556. 
 tained from the juilge that he
 
 1)0 
 
 PROCEEDINGS IN CHAMBERS. 
 
 order is simply a refusal of an application, in which case 
 the twenty-one days must be reckoned from the refusal (u). 
 
 Evidence. The course of proceeding in Chambers shall ordinarily 
 
 be the same as the course of proceeding in Court upon 
 motions (x) ; but the party intending to use an affidavit 
 shall give notice to the other parties concerned of his 
 
 Affidavits. intention in that behalf (v/). All affidavits which have 
 been previously made and read in Court, upon any pro- 
 ceeding in a cause or matter, may be used before the 
 judge in Chambers {s), subject of course to the general 
 rules as to the admissibility of evidence (a). Where any 
 account is directed to be taken, the accounting party, 
 unless the judge shall otherwise direct, shall make out his 
 account and verify the same by affidavit. The items on 
 each side of the account shall be numbered consecutively, 
 and the account shall be referred to by the affidavit as an 
 exhibit, and be left in the judge's Chambers (b). Affida- 
 vits used in Chambers are, of course, subject to cross- 
 examination, but not after the chief clerk's certificate has 
 been signed and approved by the judge (c). 
 
 Notice of ^'^y P^rty seeking to charge any accounting party 
 
 amount and boyoud what he has by his account admitted to have 
 
 particulars of . 
 
 charge beyond received, shall give notice thereof to the accounting party, 
 admHted. Stating, as far as he is able, the amount sought to be 
 charged, and the particulars thereof, in a short and suc- 
 Cross-exami- ^inct manner ((/). An affidavit filed by an accounting 
 nation. party in an administration action is subject to cross-ex- 
 
 amination {e) ; but he is entitled to notice of the points on 
 
 (u) See Dickson v. Harrison, 9 
 C. D. 243 ; Heathy v. Newton, 19 
 ibid., 326. 
 
 («) Cons. Ord. XXXV. r. 26. 
 
 iy) R. 27. 
 
 (z) R. 28. 
 
 (a) See Hand/ord v. Handford, 
 5 Ha. 212 ; Smitkv. Althus, 11 Yes. 
 564 ; and au luidertakiug not to use 
 
 an affidavit at the hearing does not 
 prechide its use in Chambers {Jenner 
 V. Morris, 10 W. R. 640). 
 {b) Cons. Ord. XXXV. r. 33. 
 
 (c) Dawkins v. Morton, 10 W. R. 
 339. 
 
 [d) Cons. Ord. XXXV. r. 34. 
 
 {e) It may be mentioned that 
 when a person, though not a party
 
 PROCEEDINGS IN CHAMBERS. 91 
 
 which he is to be cross-examiued, in default of which, it 
 
 would seem, he may decline to be sworn (/), and it is not 
 
 sufficient to inform him that all the items but one are 
 
 objected to {g) ; or the objecting party may examine the 
 
 accounting party viva voce as his own witness, but in this 
 
 case also he must give notice of the points as to which he 
 
 wishes to examine (h). The rule as to notice applies to 
 
 the case of a party seeking to charge by his account, as 
 
 well as to the case of a merely accounting party (/). Each Powers of 
 
 . . chief clerk, 
 
 chief clerk has full power to summon witnesses, admmister 
 
 oaths, take affidavits, receive affirmations, and, when so 
 directed by the judge to whose Court he is attached, to 
 examine parties and witnesses either upon interrogatories 
 or viva voce, as such judge shall direct (k), and a witness 
 cannot refuse to be sworn in Chambers, on the ground that 
 he desires to be examined before the examiner, where he 
 would have the assistance of counsel, it being in the dis- 
 cretion of the judge whether the examination shall be 
 before the examiner or in Chambers (Z). If an examina- Examiner. 
 tion is to be taken before an examiner, a subjxxna should 
 be issued for the attendance of the witness (r/t). Such 
 subpoena was formerly issued upon a note from the 
 judge (n), but now, any party may take it out (o) ; and 
 subject to the power of the Court to prevent this right from 
 being oppressively used, any person able to give information 
 relating to the assets may be summoned, and is bound to 
 attend before an examiner, and to answer all questions pro- 
 
 to the proceedings, has made and (h) Wormsley v. Sturt, 22 Beav. 
 
 filed an affidavit to be used in a 398. 
 
 pending matter, he cannot be ex- (i) Bates v. Eley, 1 C. D. 473. 
 
 enipted from cross-examination by (Jc) 15 & 16 Vict. c. 80, s. 30. 
 
 the withdrawal of the affidavit (Ex (Z) Re Electric Telegraph Co. of 
 
 parte Young, 21 C. D. 642). Ireland, 24 Beav. 137, 139. 
 
 (/) LordY. Lord, 2 Eq. 605 ; and [m) See Stehbing v. Ailee, 26 L. 
 
 see Glover v. Ellison, 20 W. K. J. Ch. 265. 
 
 408. in) Cons. Ord. XXXV. r. 29. 
 
 [q) McArthur v. Dudgeon, 15 E((. (o) Raymond v. Tapson, 22 C. 
 
 102. D. 430.
 
 92 PROCEEDINGS IN CHAMBERS. 
 
 perly put to him by the party having the conduct of the pro- 
 Mode of ccedinffs (i>). Where a chief clerk is directed by the judge 
 
 examining b \i / ^ ^ j j o 
 
 vitiiess before to examine any witness, the practice and mode of proceed- 
 inof shall be the same as in the case of the examination of 
 witnesses before an examiner, subject to any special direc- 
 tions which may be given in any particular case (q). The 
 examiner is the proper person to take evidence in all 
 cases, in the absence of any special directions for tlie 
 examination of witnesses in Chambers or in Court ; there- 
 fore no special order is necessary for transferring the cross- 
 examination of a witness from the judge in Chambers to 
 the examiner (?■), and the leave of the judge is not neces- 
 sary to give the examiner jurisdiction to take the cross- 
 examination (s) ; but if the examination be in Chambers, 
 the witness has the right to require that all or any part of 
 Tractice where it be adjourned before the judge personally (t) ; and if a 
 refuses to person under examination in Chambers refuse to give a 
 answer. sufficient answer, the proper course is to apply to the 
 
 judge to examine him personally, and then, if he refuse to 
 answer, he may at once be committed (u). In a recent 
 case (r) a person who refused to answer questions before a 
 special examiner was (upon motion) ordered again to 
 attend before him, and there and then to answer certain 
 questions, which he had previously refused to do. 
 
 Persons having Jq any cause for the administration of the estate of a de- 
 liberty to "^ 
 attend the ceased person, no party to the cause, other than the execu- 
 
 pioteet ings. ^^^ ^^, administrator, shall, unless by leave of the judge, be 
 entitled {x) to appear either in Court or in Chambers, on 
 
 ( 2') Venablcs v. Schweitzer, 16 {u) Hayward v. Hayward, Kay, 
 
 Eq. 76 ; Raymond v. Tapson, 22 App. 31 ; and see Re Esgair, dbc, 
 
 C. D. 430. Co., 8 W. R. 660. 
 
 iq) Cons. Ord. XXXV. r. 30. (r) Republic of Costa Rica v. 
 
 {)•) Stebbing v. Atlce, 26 L. J. Ch. Strousbenj, 16 C. D. 8. 
 
 265. {k) In Smith v. Watts, 22 C. D. 
 
 (s) Cast V. Poyscr, 26 L. J. Ch. 5, Jessel, M. R., called attention to 
 
 93, 353. this rule, and stated that altliough 
 
 (t) Re London ((: County Assurance in that case (where the defendant, 
 
 Co., 5 W. R. 794, and see lotte, p. the administrator, had taken out a 
 
 88. summons against a creditor and
 
 PROCEEDINGS IN CHAMBERS. 
 
 93 
 
 the claim of any person not a party to the cause against 
 the estate of the deceased, in respect of any debt or 
 liability ; but the judge may {y) direct any other party to 
 the cause to appear, either in addition to or in the place 
 of the executor or administrator, upon such terms as to 
 costs or otherwise as he shall think ^i{z). Subject as 
 above, any persons interested who ought to be served can, 
 under the general practice, and as of course, attend the 
 proceedings ; but that does not entitle them to the costs 
 of attending (a). Their right to costs is determined by Their right to 
 
 7 costs detei- 
 
 the judge in Chambers, who, under a general order (6), mined by the 
 decides what parties interested in the estate shall attend •'"'^^' 
 the taking of the accounts at the costs of the estate ; that 
 is the subject of a special application (c), and it has been 
 recently decided {d) that mere liberty to attend the pro- 
 
 mortgagee) the Court had, in the 
 absence of any opposition, heard 
 counsel for the plaintiff, yet in 
 future no costs would be allowed to 
 persons appearing unnecessarily, 
 within the meaning of the rule. 
 
 {y) As to the principle upon which 
 this discretion will be exercised, see 
 Samuel v. Samuel, 12 C. D. , p. 
 160 ; "where in an administration 
 suit there is reason to believe that 
 the legal personal representative 
 will not perform his duty and defend 
 the estate, the right course to take 
 is for somebody to appear in his 
 name. A person who accepts a 
 duty is not entitled to say he will 
 not fulfil the duty because he has an 
 adverse interest." See ante, p. 42. 
 
 {z) 0. XVI. r. 12b. 
 
 (a) In Joseph v. Goode, 23 "W. R. 
 225 (following Armstrong v. Arm- 
 strong, 12 Eq. 614), a plaintiff who 
 had been deprived of the conduct 
 of the proceedings was allowed his 
 costs only up to the time at which 
 he was so deprived, costs of sub- 
 sequent attendances in chambers 
 
 being disallowed, but obtained the 
 costs of appearing at the further 
 consideration to ask for such costs. 
 
 {b) Cons. Ord. XXXV. r. 16, 
 cited ante, p. 87. 
 
 (c) Per Jessel, M. R., Sharp v. 
 Lush, 10 C. D. 473. Where, on 
 an administration action being 
 stayed, the plaintiff's costs are 
 provided for to date, and leave 
 is given liim to attend the pro- 
 ceedings in another administra- 
 tion action which is allowed to be 
 prosecuted, such leave is not per se 
 special leave entitling him to his 
 costs of attending such proceedings 
 {Hubbard v. Latham, 14 W. R. 553). 
 So also, liberty given in one action 
 to prove in another for an amount 
 appearing due in the former does 
 not confer an absolute right of 
 proof in the latter, in which the 
 Court must inquire whether the 
 claim isvalid and subsisting (Mickle- 
 thwait V. Winstanley, 34 L. J. Cli. 
 281). 
 
 (c/) Day v. Batty, 21 C. D. 830.
 
 04 PROCEEDINGS IN CHAMBERS. 
 
 ceedings under the judgment (which was in the usual 
 form) docs not entitle the parties having the liberty to the 
 costs of their attendance in Chambers ; and that, in order 
 to entitle them thereto, the order giving the liberty to 
 attend should have expressly provided that they were to 
 be entitled to their costs of such attendance. Where 
 upon the hearing of the summons to proceed, or at any 
 time during the prosecution of the decree or order, it 
 appears to the judge, with respect to the whole or any 
 portion of the proceedings, that the interests of the parties 
 can be classified, he may require the parties constituting 
 each or any class to be represented by the same solicitor ; 
 and, where the parties constituting such class cannot agree 
 upon the solicitor to represent them, the judge may 
 nominate such solicitor for the purpose of the proceedings 
 before him ; and, where any one of the parties constituting 
 such class declines to authorise the solicitor so nominated 
 to act for him, and insists upon being represented by a 
 different solicitor, such party shall personally pay the costs 
 of his own solicitor of and relating to the proceedings 
 before the judge, with respect to which such nomination 
 shall have been made, and all such further costs as shall 
 be occasioned to any of the parties by his being repre- 
 sented by a different solicitor from the solicitor so to be 
 nominated (e). And, even though no solicitor has been so 
 nominated by the judge, yet, where a number of persons 
 in the same interest, having liberty to attend the proceed- 
 ings, appear separately on an adjourned summons, they 
 may be allowed only one set of costs between them (/) ; 
 and only one set of costs of taking the accounts will be 
 allowed to parties appearing under leave to attend, if the 
 interests of such parties are the same as those represented 
 
 {e) Cons. Old. XXXV. r. 20. R. 936 ; see the errata to 11 W. 
 
 (/) Stevenson v. Abington, 11 W. R.
 
 PROCEEDINGS IN CHAMBERS. 95 
 
 by the plaintiff, and semble, even such costs will only be 
 allowed, where the plaintiff and defendant appear by the 
 same solicitor, and it is necessary for the protection of the 
 residuary legatees that they should be separately repre- 
 vsented (</). Where any party appears upon any applica- 
 tion or proceeding in Court or at Chambers in which he is 
 not interested, or upon which, according to the practice of 
 the Court, he ought not to attend, he is not to be allowed 
 any costs of such appearance unless the Court or a judge 
 shall expressly direct such costs to be allowed (h) ; to 
 entitle a person interested in an administration action to 
 the costs of attending proceedings in Chambers, he must 
 attend by special leave of the judge, and, if he attends 
 under the common order of course and without special 
 leave, he may, in addition to paying his own costs, be 
 ordered to pay the extra costs occasioned by his attend- 
 ance (i). 
 
 Where a judgment or order is made(/i;), whether in Sale under 
 
 judgment or 
 
 ((/) Danhney v. Leahe, 1 Eq. 495, spect of liis conduct of the proceed- 
 
 approved in irMZ'?)arf^ V. Latham, 14 ings {Ridley v. Tiplady, 20 Beav. 
 
 W. R. 553 ; but see Shari-) v. Lush, 44 ; and see Upton v. Broicn, cited, 
 
 10 C. D., p. 474, cited infra,not(i{i). ante, p. 88). 
 
 (h) Rules of the Supreme Court, [k) The Court has power, under 
 
 Costs, r. 21 (Spec. All.). the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 55, at 
 
 (i) Sharp V. Lufth, 10 C. D. any time (even before the hearing 
 468. " As a rule," said the M. R., TuUoch v. ^wZ/ocA, 3 Eq. 574), to 
 "I give leave to one solicitor to direct real estate to be sold ; but it 
 attend on one side, and one solicitor is now the practice in a creditors' 
 on the other ; when the residuary action, at the hearing, to direct the 
 legatees come in, I let one solicitor real estate, or a sufficient part 
 take the accounts for the residuary thereof, to be sold, in case the per- 
 legatee on the one side, and one soli- sonal estate proves insufficient to 
 citortake the accounts for the execu- satisfy the debts and funeral ex- 
 tors on the other" (liitZ., 474; and see penses ; Appendix, post, p. 196. 
 Day V. Batty, 21 C. D. 830). Where But the beneficiaries may, upon 
 a solicitor for a party attending the payment of their proper propor- 
 taking of accounts causes by his tion of the debt and costs, &c. , 
 neglect unnecessary costs, he may prevent the sale being made {Cooper 
 be ordered to pay them personallj', v. Cooper, L. R. 7 H. L., p. 72 ; 
 on the client undertaking not to Lees v. Lees, 15 Eq. 151 ; and see 
 bring an action against him in re- Mctcalfcv. Hutchinson, 1 C. D. 591).
 
 J-' 
 
 96 riiOCEKDINGS IN CHAMBERS. 
 
 Court or in Chambers, directiug any property to be sold, 
 unless otherwise ordered, the same shall be sold with the 
 approbation of the judge to whose Court the cause is 
 attached, to the best purchaser that can be got for the 
 same, to be allowed by the judge, and all proper parties 
 shall join in the sale and conveyance as the judge shall 
 direct {I). As to the conduct of sales, see post, p. 124. A 
 sale under the Court is usually by auction [m). The 
 judge in Chambers may fix reserved biddings upon a sale, 
 direct deposits to be made, and appoint persons to receive 
 the same, and receive proposals for private contract {n). 
 Affidavits for the purpose of enabling the judge to fix re- 
 served bids are to state the value of the property by 
 reference to an exhibit containing such value, so that the 
 value may not be disclosed by the affidavit when filed (o). 
 As soon as particulars and conditions of sale, &c., settled at 
 Chambers have been printed, two prints thereof, certified 
 by the solicitor to be correct prints of the particulars and 
 conditions settled at the judge's Chambers, are to be left 
 at Chambers (|:)). Where, in pursuance of an order of the 
 Court directing a sale by public auction, an attempt so to 
 sell has been made and failed, the property cannot be sold 
 otherwise than by public auction until a proper order for 
 the purpose has been obtained (5). 
 The chief The result of the proceedings before the chief clerk 
 
 ficate. " shall be stated in the shape of a short certificate, and 
 shall not be embodied in a formal report, unless in any 
 case the judge shall see fit so to direct {r). Where an 
 account is directed, the certificate shall state the result of 
 such account, and not set the same out by way of sche- 
 
 {l) Cons. Ord. XXXV. r. 13. (0) Eeg., Aug. 8, 1857, r. 13. 
 
 (m) Pemberton v. Barnes, 13 Eq. {p) R. 14. 
 
 349 ; for the practice before and at (q) Berry v. Gibbons, 15 Eq. 
 
 the auction, see Daniell, 1153, 150. 
 
 1161. ('•) 15 k 16 Vict. c. 80, s. 32. 
 
 (w) Morgan, 141.
 
 PROCEEDINGS IN CHAMBERS. ^7 
 
 dule, but shall refer to the account verified by the affidavit 
 filed, and shall specify (s) by the numbers attached to the 
 items in the account, which, if any, of such items have 
 been disallowed or varied, and shall state what additions, 
 if any, have been made by way of surcharge. And where 
 the account verified by the affidavit has been so altered 
 that it is necessary to have a fair transcript of the account 
 as altered, such transcript may be required to be made by 
 the party prosecuting the judgment or order, and shall then 
 be referred to by the certificate. The account, and the 
 transcript (if any) referred to by the certificates, shall be 
 filed therewith {t), but no copies thereof shall be required 
 to be taken by any party (»)• Where the chief clerk, by 
 consent of all claimants, waives a question of title as to 
 some of them, the certificate should be expressed to be 
 without prejudice {w). When prepared and settled, it 
 shall be transcribed by the solicitor prosecuting the pro- 
 ceedinsfs, in such form and within such time as the chief 
 clerk shall require, and shall then be signed by the chief 
 clerk at an adjournment to be made for that purpose ; 
 but, where from the nature of the case the certificate can 
 be drawn and copied in Chambers whilst the parties are 
 present before the chief clerk, the same shall be then 
 completed and signed by him without any adjourn- 
 ment {x). 
 
 (s) The cliief clerk may not refer 509), though it would be sufficient if 
 the whole of the accounts to an it stated a fact involving, according 
 accountant, and then adopt his to the practice of the Court, a par- 
 report as his own certificate {Hill ticular consequence (Bick v. Mothj, 
 V. King, 9 Jur. N. S. 527). 2 M. & K. 312). At the present 
 {t) See note [h), infra. time, however, it is considered that, 
 (m) Cons. Ord. XXXV. r. 46. if the circumstances warrant it, a 
 {xv) Waterton v. Burt, 39 L. J. certificate may state facts, and re- 
 Ch. 425. It has been held that the serve for the consideration of tlie 
 certificate should state not facts Court the legal questions arising out 
 merely, but conclusions drawn from of them {Stott v. Mecmock, 10 W. 
 the facts [Lee v. Willock, 6 Ves. R. 605). 
 605 ; Dixon v. Dixon, 3 Bro. C, C, (a') Cons. Ord. XXXV. r. 48. 
 
 u
 
 98 
 
 TROCEEDINGS IN CHAMBERS. 
 
 Certiti cites 
 eitlicr general 
 or seji'iratc. 
 
 Time for sig- 
 nature of 
 certificate by 
 judge. 
 
 Certificate, 
 &c., signed 
 and adopted 
 by judge, to be 
 filed, and be 
 binding on all 
 parties, unless 
 discharged or 
 varied witbiu 
 eight clear 
 days. 
 
 Applications to 
 discharge or 
 vary certificate. 
 
 Chief clerk's certificates are cither general or separate. 
 General certificates embrace the results of all the proceed- 
 ings taken at Chambers under tlie judgment or order. A 
 separate certificate comprises the result of only some one 
 or more of them. Separate certificates are made in cases 
 where it is not desirable to wait till the whole proceedings 
 are completed. They will be prepared at the request of 
 any of the parties interested, if the judge or his chief 
 clerk is satisfied there is a sufficient reason for so doing (2/). 
 
 At the expiration of four clear days after the certificate 
 shall have been signed by the chief clerk, if no party has 
 in the meantime obtained a summons to take the opinion 
 of the judge thereon {z), the chief clerk shall submit the 
 certificate to the judge for his approval, and the judge 
 may thereupon, if he approve the same, sign such certifi- 
 cate in testimony of his adoption thereof, as follows : — 
 " Approved, this day of " (a). 
 
 When any certificate or report of the chief clerk shall 
 have been signed and adopted by the judge, the same 
 shall be filed {h), and shall thenceforth be binding on all 
 the parties to the proceedings, unless discharged or varied, 
 either at Chambers or in open Court, according to the 
 nature of the case, upon application by summons or 
 motion within eight clear days after the filing of such 
 certificate (f). The eight days run during vacations (d). 
 
 A creditor who has proved in the action has a right to 
 apply to vary the certificate (e). 
 
 It is sufficient if a summons to vary be taken out 
 within the eight days, although not returnable within that 
 
 (2/) Daniell, 1215. 
 
 (z) As to whicli, see mite, p. 88. 
 
 (a) Cons. Ord. XXXV. r. 51, 
 
 {b) The certificate when signed 
 by the judge, with the accounts (if 
 any) to be filed therewith, shall be 
 transmitted by the chief clerk to 
 
 the Report Office, to be there filed 
 (r. 55). 
 
 [c) 15 & 16 Vict. c. 80, s. 34 ; 
 Cons. Ord. XXXV. r. 52. 
 
 id) Ware v. Watson, 7 De G. M. 
 & G. 739. 
 
 (c) JVihoiiv. JFiIson,2'Mo}\. 328.
 
 PROCEEDINGS IN CHAMBERS. 99 
 
 period (/). But the practice has been otherwise laid 
 down, where the application is by motion ; in that case, it 
 is not enough that notice of motion was served within the 
 eight days, if the motion be not made until after their 
 expiration {g) ; where, however, it is necessary or advis- 
 able to proceed by motion, and it is impossible to move 
 on any motion day within the eight days, the Court will 
 give special leave to serve notice of motion for some day 
 within the eight days not a motion day {h). 
 
 Leave was given to move to vary the certificate, though 
 application was not made until after the expiration of the 
 eight days, where the omission to apply arose from pres- 
 sure of business and mistake on the part of the solici- 
 tor, and where there was error apparent on the certifi- 
 cate (i) ; and in Berry v. Gaiikroger (j), the Court 
 of Appeal, notwithstanding lapse of time, varied the 
 certificate (in which was a manifest error), and the order 
 on further consideration, so far as it proceeded on the 
 erroneous finding, the fund not having been distributed. 
 So leave may be given after the eight days to take out a 
 summons to vary ; but after the eight days have elapsed, 
 the certificate will not be discharged or varied, except on 
 special grounds (k), nor while a judgment containing 
 consequential directions founded on it stands (I). 
 
 An affidavit which was not used before the chief clerk 
 cannot generally be used on an application to vary his 
 certificate {m). 
 
 (/) JFychcrlcy V.Barnard, Johns. Jiir. N. S. 1070 ; see post, p. 134. 
 
 41. if) W. N. 1882, 64. 
 
 (g) ffcnshatv v. Angell, 9 Eq. {k) HourU v. Kightlcy, 8 De G. 
 
 451. M. & G. 325. 
 
 {h) Cross V. Maltby, 8 W. R. (l) Turner y. Turner, 1 Sw. 154. 
 
 646. (™) Davis v. Davis, 2 Atk. 
 
 (i) Briant v. Tihhut, 17 W. R. 21 ; Pierce v. Hammond, 10 L. T. 
 
 274 ; Ashton v. Wood, 8 De G. M. 261 ; Bayliss v. Watkins, 9 Jur. N. 
 
 & G. 698 ; Purcell v. Manning, 3 S. 570. 
 
 H 2
 
 receivers 
 accouuts. 
 
 100 rROCEEDINQS IN CHAMBERS, 
 
 Applications to vary certificates arc almost always ad- 
 journed so as to come on with the further consideration of 
 the action (n). 
 
 Exceptions as "phe rules above stated concerning certificates are sub- 
 regards certifi- . 
 cates to he ject to the following exceptions ; — Where the Court directs 
 
 Payniaster- ^ ^^J computation of interest or the apportionment of any 
 General f^^^j which is to be acted on by the Paymaster-General 
 
 without *' "^ 
 
 farther order, or other person without any further order from the Court, 
 
 and certificates , . ■■ , i i i /^ ^• j. 
 
 on passing the judgment or order made by the Court may direct 
 such computation or apportionment to be made by one of 
 the chief clerks attached to the Court of the judge, and 
 may direct the certificate thereof, signed by such chief 
 clerk, to be acted upon accordingly, without the same 
 being signed and adopted by the judge (o). Such certifi- 
 cates shall be transmitted and filed in the same manner 
 as those signed and adopted by the judge (jo). Rules 49, 
 50 (q), 51, and 52 of Cons. Ord. XXXV. shall not apply to 
 certificates which are to be acted upon by the Paymaster- 
 General without any further order. Such certificates may 
 be signed and adopted by the judge on the day after the 
 same shall have been signed by the chief clerk, unless 
 any party desiring to take the opinion of the judge 
 thereon, obtains a summons for that purpose before twelve 
 o'clock on that day. The time for applying to discharge 
 or vary such certificates, when signed and adopted by the 
 judge, shall be two clear days after the filing thereof (r). 
 Neither shall Rules 49, 50, 51, and 52 apply to certificates 
 on passing receivers' accounts. Such certificates may be 
 approved and signed by the judge without delay, and, 
 upon being so signed, shall be filed and forthwith acted 
 upon («). 
 
 {n) See Crompton v. Hiibcr, 3 W. (^)) R. 56. 
 
 R. 347 ; Hudson v. Carmichacl, 18 (q) Ante, p. 88. 
 
 Jur. 851 ; post, p. 133. (r) R. 53. 
 
 (o) Cons. Ord. XXXV. r. 45. (s) R. 54.
 
 PROCEEDINGS IN CHAMBERS. 101 
 
 If it should appear that the chief clerk has entirely Certificate may 
 
 t>G rGfcrrcd 
 
 overlooked a material element of the inquiry, the Court, back. 
 without either allowing or disallowing an application to 
 vary the certificate, may refer it back to him for re- 
 view {t). 
 
 (0 Mit/ord V. Eeynolds, 1 Ph. 706.
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 PROOF OF CLAIMS IN CHAMBERS. 
 
 A. Advertise- I^ Order to be in a position to answer tlie inquiry as to 
 
 ments for ^^^^ dcbts of tho deceased (a), it is usual for the iudoe in 
 creditors. ^ ^' j » 
 
 Chambers to order an advertisement to be issued for 
 creditors affecting the deceased's estate, unless the executor 
 or administrator has already issued advertisements under 
 22 & 23 Vict. c. So, in which case it is unnecessary to issue 
 fresh ones, and the chief clerk will take notice of those 
 already issued without any special directions to that effect 
 in the judgment (6). Every such advertisement issued 
 pursuant to a judgment or order shall direct every creditor, 
 by a time to be thereby limited, to send to the executor 
 or administrator of the deceased, or to such other party 
 as the judge shall direct, or to his solicitor, to be named 
 and described in such advertisement, the name and 
 address of such creditor, and the full particulars of his 
 claim, and a statement of his account, and the nature of 
 the security (if any) held by him ; and such advertisement 
 shall be in the prescribed form (c) with such variations as 
 the circumstances of the case may require ; and at the 
 time of directing such advertisement a time shall be fixed 
 Peremptory. for adjudicating on the claims (d). The advertisement 
 shall be a peremptory and only one, unless for any special 
 reason it may be thought necessary to issue a second 
 
 (a) See ante, p. 51. (c) See Aiipcndix, p. 200. 
 
 (b) Cuthbert v. Wharmby, W. N. (r/) Order '27tli Muy, 1865, r. 1. 
 1869, 12.
 
 TROOF OF CLAIMS IN CHAMBEKS. 103 
 
 advertisement or further advertisements ; and any adver- In what papers 
 
 tisement may be repeated as many times and in such 
 
 papers as may be directed (e), the common practice being 
 
 to direct its insertion in the London Gazette, and generally 
 
 in The Times as well, and also, if the deceased resided in 
 
 the country, in some local paper (/). 
 
 Where, many years after the division amongst creditors 
 of all the assets then available, further funds come in 
 belonging to the estate, fresh advertisements will be issued, 
 but if some only of the creditors or their representatives 
 then appear, they are only entitled to that proportion of 
 the fund which their debts bear to the entire liabilities of 
 the estate, and the residue will be retained to answer any 
 claims of the others in the future {g). 
 
 The advertisement shall be prepared by the party prose- By whom pre- 
 cuting the judgment or order, and submitted to the chief P'^'^^'^- 
 clerk for approval, and, when approved, shall be signed by 
 him, and such signature shall be sufficient authority to 
 the printer of the Gazette to insert the same (Jt), 
 
 No creditor need make any affidavit nor attend in Creditor need 
 support of his claim (except to produce his security), unless "j^\™'^x*^ . 
 he is served with a notice (i), requiring him to do so (J), attend, unless 
 And the claimants filing affidavits shall not be required to but party pro- 
 take office copies, but the party prosecuting the cause '^ecutmg cause 
 shall take office copies and produce the same at the hear- copies of affi- 
 iug, unless the judge shall otherwise direct [k). Every „ . ' 
 creditor shall produce the security (if any) held by him creditor to 
 before the judge at such time as shall be specified in the security or 
 advertisement for that purpose, being the time appointed ^^ ^^^^^^^*^'^^®" 
 for adjudicating on the claims; and every creditor shall, 
 
 (e) Cons. Ord. XXXV. r. 35. {h) Cons. Ord. XXXV. r. 36. 
 
 (/) See jDcr Lord Romilly, M. R. (i) See Appendix, p. 200. 
 
 Wood V. Wcightman, 18 Eq. 436. ( j) Order, 27th May, 1865, r. 
 
 ((/) Ashley V. Ashley, 4 C. D, (/) Cons. Ord. XXXV. r. 39. 
 757.
 
 104 PROOF OF CLAIMS IN CHAMBERS. 
 
 if required, by notice in writing (/) to Lc given by the 
 executor or administrator of the deceased, or by such other 
 party as the judge shall direct, produce all other deeds and 
 documents necessary to substantiate his claim before the 
 Judge at his Chambers at such time as shall be specified 
 in such notice (m). 
 Notice i.y post Evcry notice by the Order of 27th May, 18G5, required 
 sufficient. ^^ -[^q given shall, unless the judge shall otherwise direct, 
 be deemed sufficiently given and served if transmitted by 
 the post, prepaid, to the creditor to be served, according to 
 the address given by such creditor in the claim sent in 
 by him pursuant to the advertisement, or, in case sucli 
 creditor shall have employed a solicitor, to such solicitor, 
 according to the address given by him (?i), 
 ,„ . , , The executor or administrator of the deceased, or 
 
 Claims to be ' 
 
 examined and guch other party as the judge shall direct, shall examine 
 
 result veritied . i i • 
 
 by affidavit of the claims sent in pursuant to the advertisement, and 
 other person shall ascertain, so far as he is able, to which of such claims 
 appointed by ^|^g estate of the deceased is iustly liable ; and he shall, at 
 
 judge. . 
 
 least seven clear days prior to the time aj^pointed for 
 adjudication, file an affidavit, to be made by such executor 
 or administrator, or one of the executors or administrators, 
 or such other party, either alone or jointly with his solicitor, 
 or other competent person, or otherwise as the judge shall 
 direct, verifying a list of the claims the particulars of 
 which have been sent in pursuant to the advertisement, 
 and stating to which of such claims, or parts thereof, re- 
 spectively, the estate of the deceased is, in the opinion of 
 the deponent, justly liable, and his belief that such claims, 
 or parts thereof respectively, are justly due and proper to 
 Such affidavit be allowed, and the reasons for such belief. But in case 
 pSd' ^'°'^' ^^^^ J"^^Se sl^all think fit so to direct, the making of the 
 affidavit referred to in the preceding Rule numbered (5), 
 
 il) See Appendix, p. 201. (h) Yk. 13. 
 
 {m) Order 27th May, 1865, r. 3.
 
 rilOOF OF CLAIMS IN CHAMBERS, 105 
 
 shall be postponed till after the day appointed for adjudi- 
 cation, and shall then be subject to such directions as the 
 judt^e may give. At the time appointed for adjudicating Adjudication 
 
 ... 1 . 1 . on the claims. 
 
 upon the claims, or at any adjournment thereor, the judge 
 may, in his discretion, allow any of the claims, or any part 
 thereof respectively, without proof by the creditors, and 
 direct such investigation of all or any of the claims not 
 allowed, and require such further particulars, information, 
 or evidence, relating thereto, as he may think fit, and . 
 may, if he so think fit, require any creditor to attend and 
 prove his claim, or any part thereof; and the adjudication 
 on such claims as are not then allowed shall be adjourned 
 to a time to be then fixed (o). 
 
 A creditor suing as plaintiff on behalf of himself and the Plaintiff must 
 
 . . ^ prove his debt 
 
 other creditors, must prove his debt over again in Chambers, in chambers, 
 if there be no admission of assets {p), the Court not treat- admitter^ ^ 
 ing the judgment as conclusive evidence of the debt {q), even 
 where it has been proved at the hearing after being put in 
 issue on the pleadings ; and accordingly the judgment 
 will not, even in such a case, be prefaced with a declaration 
 that the plaintiff is a creditor ('/•). 
 
 It has been frequently laid down that the unsupported Evidence, 
 testimony of any person on his own behalf cannot, in /» •• ' y <t**-<^ 
 adjudicating upon claims of creditors and others, be actecF*'^^ <— '•— '*'^'*;^ 
 on in a Court of Equity. " Though in many cases," said^'^ ' r ' ^J 
 Lord Komilly, M.R., " it may prevent a person from "^^r '»" 'C* 
 receiving what he is justly entitled to, still the Court . ' / ' ' <r^' 
 cannot act on the mere unsupported testimony of any jf'*""** >-x -j. j 
 
 claimant (s). 
 
 (o) Order 27th May, 1865, it. 5, {q) See ante, p. 13 ; Owens v. 
 
 6, 7 ; and see Cons. Ord. XXXV. r. Dickenson, Cr. & P. 48, 56 ; ^w Wig- 
 
 40, cited post, p. 118. vnm,Y.-C..Woodgatc v. Field, 2 Ha. 
 
 (;?) As to the right of a creditor- 213; Whitakerw Wright, ibid. 310. 
 
 plaintiff, when not only is his debt ()•) Field v. Titmnss, 1 Sim. N. S. 
 
 proved or admitted, but the execu- 218. 
 
 tor or administrator admits assets, {s) Grant v. Grant, 34 Bear. 
 
 sec ante p. 50. ^'^^ > ^^^ ^^'^ Down v. Ellis, 35 ib. 
 
 7^h^
 
 106 rilOOF OF CLAIMS IN CHAMBERS. 
 
 Claims for A claim fov Unliquidated damages may be brought into 
 
 damages. Chambers as a debt (t), it being competent to the Judge 
 
 in Chambers to take an account of a claim of unascertained 
 amount (u), though the Court may, if it thinks right, 
 direct an action, or such other proceeding as the exigency 
 of the case may require (x). But, where a debt is due 
 from the estate of a testator, one of whose executors is 
 dead, and the estate of such deceased executor is being 
 administered in an action, and the creditor of the original 
 testator has sued for his debt and compelled the surviving 
 executor to pay the whole amount into Court, such creditor 
 cannot, for the purpose of enforcing contribution between 
 the two executors, prove his debt against the estate of the 
 deceased executor (y). A., the widow and administratrix 
 of B., continued B.'s trade after his death, B., at his 
 death was indebted to C. on balance of account. A. con- 
 tinued to receive goods from and to make payments to C, 
 as B. had done, and she was charged in account by C. with 
 the debt. The payments made by her to C. exceeded the 
 debt, but a balance was ultimately due to C, Held 
 that B.'s debt was discharged by A.'s payments, and that 
 the ultimate balance could not be proved against B.'s 
 estate {z). 
 
 In the proof of a bond debt in Chambers it is not the 
 practice to require an affidavit of the consideration, unless 
 a case of suspicion against the bond be raised («), although, 
 
 578 ; Mogcrsv. Pov:dl, SSL. J. Ch. 305 ; e.g. a reference to an official 
 
 648 ; Muflcy v. Finney, 18 W. E. referee, as in the case of a cre- 
 
 490 ; Whittaker v. Whittakcr, 21 ditor's claim which was disirated ; 
 
 C. D. 657. Roicdiffc v. Leigh, 3 C. D. 292. 
 
 {t) Sutton V. Masliiter, 2 Sim. (v/) Michclthtoait v. IVinstanley, 
 
 513 ; Burch v. Coney, 14 Jur. 1009 ; 13 W. R. 210. 
 contra, Cox v. King, 9 Beav. 530. [z] Sterndale v. Hankinson, 1 
 
 (m) Sutton V Mashiter, Baker v. Sim. 393. 
 Martin, 5 Sim. 380 ; Payntcr v. {a) Whitakcr v. Wright, 2 Ha. 
 
 HovMon, 3 Mer. 297. 310. 
 
 (x) Lockhart v. Hardy, 5 Beav.
 
 PROOF OF CLAIMS IN CHAMBERS. 107 
 
 as will be seen hereafter (h), creditors under voluntary 
 bonds, though preferred to legatees, are only paid after all 
 the other creditors are satisfied (c). 
 
 Under a judgment in an action by a creditor on behalf 
 of himself and the other creditors, the executor may in 
 Chambers impeach the validity of a bond on which the 
 plaintiff sues, upon grounds which were not in issue at the 
 hearing (d), and may even go into fresh evidence for the 
 purpose of establishing a case of release, although there 
 are allegations in the statement of claim upon which the 
 defence of release might have been sufficiently raised at 
 the hearing (e). 
 
 By sect. 10 of the Judicature Act, 1875, it is provided Contingent 
 
 ,.,,.. ■ 1 1 /-I r I r liabilities, &c. 
 
 that, in the administration by the Court oi the assets oi any 
 
 person dying insolvent on and after the 1st Nov., 1875 (/), ••^**^''^*^ 
 
 the same rules shall prevail and be observed as to {inter ^'^' 
 
 alia) the valuation of annuities, and future and contingent /' ///V /y" 
 
 liabilities respectively as may be in force for the time^/ -^ 
 
 being under the Law of Bankruptcy Avith respect to the 
 
 estates of bankrupts. Accordingly, a creditor in respect 
 
 of an annuity payable until, and a debt payable upon the 
 
 death of a person living at the date of the judgment for 
 
 administration, was upon the death of that person before 
 
 the certificate, held entitled to prove for the actual amount 
 
 of the debt, and for the annuity upon the same principle, 
 
 less a rebate of interest from the date of the administration 
 
 judgment ((/). 
 
 {b) Post, pp. 161 (h), 173. (e) Cardell v. HawJce, 6 Eq. 464. 
 
 (c) The rule in bankruptcy is (/) See Sherwin v. Se/kirk, 12 
 
 different ; all debts, including those C. D. 68. 
 
 on voluntary bonds, are payable ;;«?•;; {g) Hill v. Bridges, 17 C. D. 342; 
 
 2X(ssic (Ex iMrlc Puttingcr, 8 C. D. see also Bosicellv. Gimiey, 13 C. ]). 
 
 621). It is doubtful whether the 136, where, the estate being insol- 
 
 alteration in the law made by the vent, it was decided that interest on 
 
 Judicature Act, 1875, sec. 10 (see debts ought only to be alloAved up 
 
 post, p. 173) will affect this case. to the date of the judgment. 
 
 {d) Whitukcrv. Wright, 2 Ha. 310.
 
 108 
 
 TROOF OF CLAIMS IN CHAMBERS. 
 
 Right of 
 creilitdr to 
 affidavit of 
 
 Cross-cxanai- j^ cvcditor may be cross-examined on his affidavit in 
 
 nation of t i • i t i • 
 
 cmlitor. support of liis claim (h) ; and a judgment creditor, bring- 
 
 ino- in his claim, may be cross-examined as to the validity 
 of his judgment (i). If the documents by \Yhich a creditor 
 supports his claim are believed to be forged, the party 
 resisting the claim may have them deposited with the 
 chief clerk, with liberty to have them produced for 
 examination by experts, the creditor's solicitor being 
 allowed to be present at such examination (j). On the 
 other hand a creditor, who has come in under the judg- 
 
 documents by mont and producod ^5?'ma /acie evidence in support of his 
 claim, may obtain an order directing the executors to file 
 an affidavit as to their possession of documents relating to 
 the claim or to any item of it (k). 
 
 The legal personal representative need not set up the 
 Statute of Limitations (l) as a defence to a creditor's 
 claim, and may before judgment pay (m) or retain a debt 
 barred by the statute {n), or take it out of the statute by 
 admissions in his answer (o), or by entering it as a debt 
 in the residuary account (p), but after judgment (q) an 
 executor cannot do any act which affects the relative rights 
 >yiUU- : <^^«-^'^'*^creditors (r), and as every creditor has a right to ques- 
 
 The Statute of 
 Limitations. 
 
 ^^^^f't^ 
 
 (h) Cast V. Poyscr, 3 Sni. & G. 
 36'J ; 26 L. J. Ch. 93 ; affirmed, 
 i'nd. 353 ; and see ante, p. 90. 
 
 (i) Lcnton v. Brudenell, 12 W. 
 E. 1127. 
 
 [j) Groves V. Groves, Kay, Ap. 
 19. 
 
 (k) McVeagh v. Croall, 1 De G. 
 J. & S. 399 ; see Ncwland v. Steer, 
 11 Jiir. N. S. 596. 
 
 {I) The statute runs during suck 
 time as the will is not i)roved. 
 The creditor should either compel 
 the executor to prove or take out 
 administration ; see Boatwrlght v. 
 Boaticrujht, 17 E(i. 71 ; and Comp. 
 Exors. 243. 
 
 {ill) Even though the result of so 
 doing be to throw otlier debts upon 
 tho real estate ; Lowls v. Ruvmey, 
 4 Eq. 451. 
 
 («) Stahlschmidt v. Lett, 1 Sm. & 
 G. 415. 
 
 ((>) Moodie v. Bannister, 4 Dr. 
 432. 
 
 (p) Smith V. Poole, 12 Sim. 
 17. 
 
 {(/ ) A creditor wliose debt is not 
 .statute-barred at the date of the 
 judgment cannot of course be barred 
 by lapse of time afterwards ; lie 
 General liolUng Stoek Company, 7 
 Cli. p. 649. 
 
 (r) Shcivcn v. Vandcrhorst, 2 K.
 
 PROOF OF CLAIMS IN CHAMBERS. ] 09 
 
 tion the claim of every other, because it may interfere 
 
 with his own (s), where the legal personal representative 
 
 refuses to set up the Statute of Limitations against a 
 
 claim brought into Chambers by a creditor coming in *^ 
 
 under the judgment, any other creditor (t), or a residuary ^^^^.^^ ^: 
 
 legatee (u), may do so, unless judgment has, not withstand- ^»^/ ■f./j^-^-- 
 
 ing the statute, been recovered in respect of the debt ^ *^ '^f'^* 
 
 against the executors {ic). The statute cannot, however, ^" „ ^^<^^ 
 
 be set up, as regards the 'personcd estate of the deceased ^^ .^ jf"-^ 
 
 against the plaintiff's claim, which is the foundation of ^^^^^^1^/^ 
 
 the judgment (a;), though cestuis que trustent of devised 
 
 estates may set it up against a creditor on the real 
 
 estate, where the devisee in trust has not done so, for, but 
 
 for the Chancery Amendment Act, they would have been 
 
 necessary defendants (?/). Qucere, whether the Judo-e in 
 
 Chambers is himself entitled to set up the statute, where 
 
 it is not set up by any party or quasi-party (2). He was 
 
 clearly not bound to do so before the passing of the 
 
 Judicature Act, 1875, though there was a beneficiary not 
 
 before the Court (a), but it may be doubted whether this 
 
 rule is not altered in the case of insolvent estates by this 
 
 10th section of that Act (b), such a debt not being 
 
 proveable in bankruptcy (c). 
 
 As to the effect of the recent Statute of Limitations (d), 
 even where real estate is devised upon trust for payment 
 of debts, see 2^ost, p. 165 (11). 
 
 It was held in Sterndale v. Hankinson (e) that a The rule ia 
 
 & M. 75, affd. 1 ibid. 347 ; FJiiUips M. & G. 12 ; Fuller v. Bcdmayi, 26 
 
 V. Beal, 32 Beav. 26 ; ante, pp. Beav. 614 ; Adams v. Waller, 14 
 
 55, 58. W. R. 789. 
 
 (s) Per Lord Cottenham, Oicens {y) JSriggsv.TFilsoji; cmte,-p. 4d. 
 
 V. Dickenson, Cr. & P. 56. (z) Shewen v. Vanderhorst. 
 
 {t) Shewen V. Vanderhorst; Ful- [a) Alston \. Tj'oUope, 2 Eq. 205. 
 
 ler V. Ftcdman, 26 Beav. 614. (b) See post, p. 162. 
 
 (u) Moodie V, Bannister, 4 Dr. (c) Ex imrte Dcwdney, 15 Yes 
 
 432. 479. 
 
 (w) Eunlcr v. Baxter, 3 Gif. 214. {d) 37 & 38 Vict. c. 57. 
 
 (x) Brigcjs v. Wilson, 5 De G. (e) 1 Sim. 393.
 
 LiO PROOF OF CLAIMS IN CHAMBERS. 
 
 Stcrnddh v. dccrcc Oil a bill for administration filed by one creditor 
 scmblc, uo ' on behalf (/) of himself and others would prevent the 
 longer prevails. g|.^^^j|.Q ^f Limitations from running against any of the 
 creditors who should come in under the decree ; but 
 this rule cannot be extended to the case of an action 
 brought by an executor, who happens also to be a 
 creditor (g), and Jessel, M. R., has said that creditors 
 had better not rely upon the rule at all for the future, 
 the decision in Sterndale v. Hanhlnson having depended 
 upon a variety of circumstances of which, under the 
 modern practice, none exist (//). 
 Interest on Where a judgment or order is made directing an 
 
 account of the debts of a deceased person, unless other- 
 wise ordered, interest shall be computed on such debts, 
 as to such of them as carry interest, after the rate 
 they respectively carry, and, as to all others, after the 
 rate of 4 per cent, per annum, from the date {i) of the 
 judgment or order [j). A creditor, whose debt does not 
 carry interest, who comes in and establishes the same 
 before a Judge in Chambers, under a judgment or order 
 of the Court, or of a Judge in Chambers, shall be entitled 
 to interest upon his debt at the rate of 4 per cent, per 
 annum from the date of the judgment or order, out of any 
 assets which may remain after satisfying the costs of the 
 action, the debts established, and the interest of such 
 debts as by law carry interest (A:). 
 
 But when the estate is insolvent, interest will be 
 allowed only up to the date of the administration judg- 
 
 (/) A single creditor's bill was Lainson, 18 Beav. 7. y 
 
 held insufficient to stay the statute; {j) Cons. Ord. XLII. r. 9. '^'^'^^ 0- O 
 
 Watsonx. Birch, 15 Sim. 523. {k) R. 10. As to the application A ' t'' 
 
 (g) Bray v. Tojidd, 18 C. D. of these rules to suits pending in 
 
 551. 1841, see Wheeler v. QUI, 19 Er^. 
 
 (h) Ibid. 553, 554. 316, and cases there cited ; and as 
 
 (i) Or, when the debt accrues to interest generally, see Dan. 
 
 due after judgment, from the time 1103 — 1107. 
 
 of its being proved ; Lainson v. 
 
 ^
 
 PROOF OF CLAIMS IN CHAMBERS. HI 
 
 tnent, which by virtue of sect. 10 of the Judicature Act, 
 1875, is equivalent to an adjudication in bankruptcy {1} 
 As to subsequent interest, see 2^ost, p. 133. 
 
 A creditor who has come in and established his debt Costs of 
 in the Judge's Chambers under a judgment or order in establishing 
 an action shall be entitled to the costs of so esta- claims ; 
 blishing his debt ; and the sum to be allowed for such 
 costs shall be fixed by the judge, unless he shall think 
 fit to direct a taxation thereof ; and the amount of such 
 costs, or the sum allowed in respect thereof, shall be 
 added to the debt so established. Where an account 
 consists in part of any bill of costs, or where the judge 
 is authorised to fix the amount of costs under r, 24, 
 the judge may direct the taxing-master to assist him 
 in settling such costs, not being the ordinary costs of 
 passing the account of a receiver ; and the taxing- 
 master, on receiving such direction, shall proceed to tax 
 such costs, and shall have the same powers, and the same 
 fees shall be payable in respect thereof, as if the same 
 had been referred to the taxing-master by an order, 
 and he shall return the same with his opinion thereon 
 to the judge by whose direction the same were 
 ta,xed (m). These rules do not apply to the case of 
 a creditor-plaintiff (n). In general a fixed sum of 
 £1 13s. 4r/. is allowed in respect of a debt under 
 £5, and £2 2s. if it exceed that amount ; but creditors 
 attending by their solicitors to produce their secu- 
 rities under r. 3 of the Order of 27th May, 1865 (ante, 
 p. 104), are allowed their proper costs of such attend- 
 ance ; Daniell, 1108. In Waterton v. Burt (o), three 
 guineas each were allowed for the costs of copyholders 
 successfully claiming a share of a fund paid into Court 
 
 (I) BosivcU V. Qurncy, 13 C. D. (^0 Flintoff v. Hayncs, 4 Ha. 
 
 136. 309. 
 
 (m) Cobs. Ord. XL. rr. 24, 25. («) 39 L. J. Cli. 425.
 
 n2 TROOF OF CLAIMS IN CHAMBERS. 
 
 as compensation for rights of common. Where there is a 
 deficiency of assets the costs of creditors proving their 
 debts are not payable in full in the first instance, but 
 are added to their debts, and if necessary apportioned 
 and failing to with them (j)). Where an alleged creditor carries in a 
 tiiem. claim which is disallowed, he may be ordered to pay 
 
 the costs of the proceeding {q), and of an adjournment 
 into Court (r), and may be refused the cost of an action 
 which the Court gave him liberty to bring for the pur- 
 pose of establishing his claim to damages, where the 
 damages recovered by him were only nominal (s). In 
 Lancejield v. Iggidden {t), the plaintiff, a devisee, un- 
 successfully set up a claim as creditor, and was ordered 
 to pay the costs of the proceedings occasioned by that 
 claim. 
 Notice to Notice shall be given by the executor or adminis- 
 
 daims°alWed ^^'^^or, or such other party as the judge shall direct, 
 or disallowed, ^q every creditor whose claim, or any part thereof, 
 has been allowed, without proof by the creditor, of such 
 allowance ; and to every such creditor as the judge shall 
 direct, to attend and prove his claim, or such part thereof 
 as is not allowed, by a time to be named in such notice, 
 not being less than seven days after such notice, and 
 to attend at a time to be therein named, being the 
 time to which the adjudication thereon shall have been 
 adjourned ; and in case any creditor shall not comply with 
 New claims such notice, his claim, or such part thereof as aforesaid, 
 ^L^^J^f'i- shall be disallowed (u). Any creditor who has not before 
 
 joumea aiiju- ^ ' '' 
 
 dication. gg^t in the particulars of his claim pursuant to the adver- 
 
 tisement, may do so four clear days previous to any day 
 
 (p) Ilorshead v. Reynolds, 21 (r) Bentlcy v. Bentley, 1 K R. 
 
 Beav. 638. 390. 
 
 {q) Hatch v. Searles, 2 Sm. & G. (s) Morgan v. Elsioh, 4 Ha. 477. 
 
 147 ; Yeoma7is v. Hayncs, 24 Beav. (t) 10 Ch. 136. 
 
 127. («) Order 27th May, 186.5, r. 8.
 
 PROOF OF CLAIMS IN CHAMBERS. 113 
 
 to which the adjudication is adjourned (v). This is as of Special leave 
 
 . . to make claims 
 
 right. But after the time fixed by the advertisement, no after time fixed 
 
 claim shall be received (except as before provided in case iljg,)^ . 
 
 of an adjournment), unless the judge shall think fit to give 
 
 special leave upon application made by summons, and then 
 
 upon such terms and conditions as to costs and otherwise 
 
 as the judge shall direct (iv). This is by favour of the 
 
 Court. The practice is to admit all (x) creditors whose 
 
 debts have become due before the date of the certificate (2/), 
 
 and the indulgence of the Court goes yet further : letting even after 
 
 in a creditor after certificate, where he has not been guilty 
 
 of wilful default, is " every day's practice " (0). " Although /Hn^^^***^ 
 
 the language of the decree, where an account of debts is '/ ^ / 
 
 directed, is that those who do not come in shall be excluded 
 
 from the benefit of that decree, yet the course is to permit 
 
 a creditor, he paying the costs of the proceedings, to prove 
 
 his debt, so long as there happens to be a residuary fund 
 
 in Court or in the hands of the executor, and to pay him 
 
 out of that residue " (a). 
 
 The Court may, by additional orders, deal with a fund 
 which is still in Court ; but, where the party requiring 
 the Court to deal with the fund might have appeared at 
 an earlier stage of the action, he will be required to pay 
 all the additional costs vs^hich have been occasioned by the 
 imperfect manner in which his claim was brought for- 
 ward (b). And, the fund being still in Court, a creditor 
 has been let in upon terms as to costs, though he knew of 
 the suit, and omitted to prove within the time limited 
 
 (v) Ibid., r. 9. (z) Per Leach, M. R., David v. 
 
 (^^) R- 10. Froivd, 1 M. & K. p. 209. 
 
 (x) A foreign creditor, as a con- («) Per Lord Eldon, Gillespie v. 1 jfrt^ f £uJZQ 
 
 dition of being let in after certifi- Alexander, 3 Riiss. p. 136 ; Lashley] ^**^' «^*^/»*W 
 
 cate, has been ordered to give seen- v. Hogg, 11 Ves. 602 ; Hartwell v. I ^ k»'^tw^*^tf 
 
 rity for costs ; Drevery. Maudesley, Colvin, 16 Beav. 140. * />/.) % CC ^ f i 
 
 5 R^iss. 11. (J) Monfefiore v. Brovme, 7 H. L, „ ^ ^ 
 
 (?/) P«?- Turner, L. J., Thomas \. c. 241. " /^U-^*-^^'^ f^ 
 
 Griffith, 2 De G. F. ki. p. 564. ' ^a/^f ^ - ^ ^ 
 
 I
 
 I 14 
 
 rilOOK or CLAIMS IN CIIAMHKKS. 
 
 As to claims 
 after appoi-- 
 
 tiomiiei.t. 
 
 by the advoitisemcnts (?;). So in Jllcks v. May (c), a 
 crctlitor, after tlie order on further consideration had been 
 made, was allowed to have an additional sum due to him 
 raised by sale or mortgage out of the testator's real estate, 
 althoufjh in making his claim under the decree he had 
 used a book Avherein he subsequently found evidence to 
 support his additional claim, but the circumstances of the 
 case were such as to negative any imputation of laches. 
 But, after apportionment, the Court has declined to let in 
 a creditor who had been guilty of laches and delay, where 
 to do so would deprive another creditor of a debt which 
 he had established (d) ; and, after an order had been made 
 for payment of a dividend to the creditors who had proved, 
 Kindersley, V.-C, refused to allow a creditor who had not 
 proved to stay the payment of the dividend in order to 
 have an opportunity of establishing his claim (e), though 
 a stay had been directed by Plumei', V.-C, in a like case, 
 on the creditor paying the costs of the application and the 
 expenses incident to a re-casting of the apportionment (/) ; 
 and, after distribution amongst the beneficiaries had been 
 ordered, a stay was directed on the application of the 
 executors, who were being sued in France by creditors 
 who had not come in under the decree (g). 
 Creditor may Where a creditor is let in late, he will be put on an 
 
 ohtain pro- 
 portion only of equality with the other creditors before any further 
 
 ' dividend is paid to them (h), but it does not follow that he 
 
 will be able to get the whole of his debt paid, unless he 
 
 takes proceedings to make legatees refund. Thus, where a 
 
 creditor did not establish his debt until the fund had been 
 
 (b) Broicn v. Lalcc, 1 De G. & 
 Sm. 1 44, affirmed by Lord Cotten- 
 ham ; and see Sawyer v. Birclimore, 
 cited ^;os<, p. 120. 
 
 (c) 13 C. D. 237. 
 
 {d) Cattdlv. Simons, 8 Beav. 243. 
 (c) Hull V. Falconer, 11 Jiir. K. S. 
 15L 
 
 (/) Angcll V. Haddon, 1 Madd. 
 529 ; and see Barker v. Rogers, 
 cited ^ws^, p. 117. 
 
 ((/) Brett V. Carmichacl, 35 Beav. 
 340. 
 
 {h) As in Bankruptcy, Re Wheeler, 
 1 Sch. & Lef. 242.
 
 PROOF OF CLAIMS IN CHAMBERS. 115 
 
 apportioned and part of it paid over, while the remainder 
 had been carried to the account of particular legatees, it 
 was held that he was entitled to receive out of the funds 
 of the legatees so remaining in Court, not the whole of the 
 debt, but only a part of it, bearing the same proportion to 
 the whole as the legacies given to those legatees bore 
 to the whole amount of legacies given by the will (i). 
 In a suit instituted in 1814 to administer the personal 
 estate of an intestate who died in 1807, the Master re- 
 ported that no debts had been proved, and by the decree 
 on further directions in 1817 the whole of the residue was 
 apportioned and distributed ; but, as the plaintiff was then 
 an infant, his share, amounting to four-ninths of the fund, 
 was retained and carried to his separate account. In 1825 
 a foreign prince, claiming to be a creditor of the intestate, 
 applied for leave to prove his debt against the sum re- 
 maining in Court, and the plaintiff coming of age soon 
 after applied to have that sum paid out. It was held that 
 the creditor was not precluded by the previous proceedings 
 or the lapse of time, from tendering such proof before the 
 Master, but that every defence should be allowed there 
 which would have been competent upon a new bill ; that 
 the debt, if established, must be restricted, as against the 
 fund in Court, to that proportion which the plaintiff's 
 share bore to the whole amount distributed ; and, there- 
 fore, that after reserving a sum equal to four-ninths of the 
 claim, the residue of the fund ought to be paid to the 
 plaintiff (Z^). So, where a fund paid into Court has been 
 distributed by mistake among specialty and simple contract 
 creditors to the exclusion of a mortgagee, the Court holds 
 such creditors liable to repay p?'0 rata; but no creditor 
 will be fixed with liability in respect of the rateable part 
 
 (i) Oillespie v. Alexander, 3 (,1c) Grcicj v. Somerville, 1 R. & 
 
 Russ. 130 M. 338. 
 
 I 2
 
 116 PIJOOF OF CLAIMS IN CHAMBEHS. 
 
 which the mortgagee may fail to recover from another 
 creditor (l). Where, however, all the certified debts had 
 been paid, and the residuary legatees, having been declared 
 entitled to the estate, subject to an annuity, to provide for 
 which a fund was retained in Court, had assigned their 
 shares for value, and stop orders bad been obtained, other 
 creditors establishing their claims in another suit to which 
 the executor and residuary legatees were parties, were 
 held entitled to payment out of the fund in Court in 
 priority to the assignees of the residuary legatees (771) ; but 
 it would seem that if, under similar circumstances, an 
 assignee for value of part of a residue had been actually 
 paid, he would not be liable to refund, and that the person 
 entitled to the remainder of the residue would be ordered 
 to refund pro rata only (n). 
 and maybe jf ^ creditor does uot come in till after the residue has 
 
 obliged to sno ... 
 
 legatees. been paid away, he is not without remedy, though he is 
 
 barred the benefit of the decree. If he has a mind to sue 
 the legatees and bring back the fund, he may do so, but 
 he cannot affect them except by suit, and he cannot 
 affect the executor (0) at all (^3). Where, however, a debt 
 has been claimed to be due from the estate, and the 
 claim has been fully investigated and disallowed, the 
 alleged creditor cannot afterwards maintain a suit to 
 enforce the claim against the residuary devisees or 
 legatees ; in such cases the rule of res judicata must 
 apply (q). 
 
 In a suit for administering the estate of one who had 
 
 (1) Todd V. Studholmc, 3 K. & J. tator a party, it was held by the 
 
 324. Court of Appeal that even if tlie 
 
 (»i) Hooper v. Smart, 1 C. D. 90. executor was a necessary party, the 
 
 {11) Noble V. Brett, 24 Beav. 499. defendants could bring him before 
 
 (0) In Hunter v. Young, 4 Ex. the Court under Order XVI. r. 17, 
 
 D. 256, where a creditor brought and the action was not demurrable. 
 
 an action against persons to whom [p) Per Lord Eldon, Gillespie v. 
 
 the residuary estate of his debtor Alexander, 3 Russ. p. 136. 
 
 had been assigned, without making [q) Per Turner, L. J., Thomas 
 
 the surviving executor of the tes- v. Griffith, 2 De G. F. & J. p. 562.
 
 PROOF OF CLAIMS IN CHAMBERS. 11 7 
 
 been the legal personal representative of another, the 
 party entitled to a share of the residuary estate of such 
 other person carried in a claim for such share as a debt, 
 but the claim was disallowed. It was held that the claimant 
 ought forthwith to have applied to the Court for a direction 
 that the claim be received, or to be examined pro interesse 
 suo, or for leave to file a bill for administration of the estate 
 in question, and to stay the distribution of the estate of the 
 representative in the meantime, and that he ought not 
 to have delayed his claim until after the certificate and 
 the order on further consideration ; and where, after such 
 delay the claimant filed his bill against the parties in 
 the administration suit, the Court, though it stayed the 
 general distribution of the fund, would not stay the 
 payment of the costs under the order on further con- 
 sideration (r). 
 
 An executor who distributes the assets with notice of 
 a debt must of course satisfy the debt himself, and cannot 
 recover over from the legatee (s), but notice of a remote 
 contingent liability is not enough to prevent an executor 
 from recovering from the residuary legatee (t). 
 
 Where an account is ordered to be taken of the legacies B- Adver- 
 
 ... . . tisements for 
 
 or annuities given by a will, no advertisement for such claimants imt 
 
 ij. J -J. J. 1. • J 1 • ji named in will. 
 
 legatees and annuitants to come in need be issued where 
 their names appear by the will. If, however, legacies are 
 given to a class (u), and its members cannot be conclusively 
 shown by evidence, or where it is unknown whether a 
 legatee is still living, or, though he be proved to be dead, 
 who is his personal representative, or where an inquiry is 
 directed as to incumbrances created by legatees or next of 
 kin upon their legacies or shares of residue, advertisements 
 
 (r) Barker Y. Rogers, 7 Ha. 19 ; {t) Jcrvisv. Wolfcrstan. 
 
 cf. Teed y. Beere, 5 Jur. N. S. 381. {u) As to the form of the inquiry, 
 
 (s) See Taylor v. Taylor, 10 Eq. s^it Brown v. Stone, 30 W. K. 923, 
 477; JervisY. Wolfcrstan, 18 Eq. 18.
 
 118 
 
 PROOF OF CLAIMS IN CIIAMHEES. 
 
 calling upon such legatees or next of kin, or the persons 
 claiming under them, to come in and prove their claims, 
 are often directed to be issued (x). 
 
 Advertisements for claimants other than creditors (y) 
 shall fix a time for them to come in and prove their 
 claims, and shall appoint a day for the hearing and 
 adjudicating thereon, and may be in a form similar to the 
 form hereinafter set forth (s), with such variations as the 
 
 Claims book, circumstances of the case may require {a). Claimants 
 coming in pursuant to advertisement shall enter their 
 claims at the chambers of the judge in the " Claims 
 Book " for the day appointed for hearing by the 
 advertisement, and shall give notice thereof and of the 
 afiSdavit filed to the solicitors in the cause, within the 
 time specified in the advertisement for bringing in 
 
 Adjournment; claims (6). "Where, on the day appointed for hearing the 
 claims, any of them remain undisposed of, an adjournment 
 
 ciosiny further day for hearing such claims shall be fixed ; and, where 
 
 evidence. r ^ • ^ • ^ ^ ^ t • 
 
 lurtner evidence is to be adduced, a time may be named 
 within which the evidence on both sides is to be closed; 
 and directions may be given as to the mode in which such 
 evidence is to be adduced (c). Any claimant who has 
 not before entered his claim, may be heard on such 
 adjournment day, provided he has entered his claim and 
 filed his affidavit four clear days prior to such day, and 
 no certificate of claims has been made in the meantime (d). 
 After the time fixed by the advertisement no claim shall 
 be received (except, as before mentioned, in case of an 
 adjournment), unless the judge at chambers shall think 
 
 Claims heard 
 on adjourn- 
 ment day. 
 
 Admitting 
 
 furtlier 
 
 claims. 
 
 (a-) Daniell, 1109. 
 
 (y) The actual words of r. 37 
 are "creditors or other claimants," 
 but the Kules iiumliered 37, 88, 41, 
 42, and 43, of the 35th Consoli- 
 dated General Order are abrogated 
 so far as the same relate to creditors; 
 
 (Order 27th May, 1865, r. 11). 
 (z) See Appendix, p. 201. 
 (a) Cons. Ord. XXXV. r. 37. 
 {b) R. 38. 
 (c) R. 40. 
 ((/) R. 41.
 
 PROOF OF CLAIMS IN CHAMBERS. 119 
 
 fit to give special leave upon application made by 
 summons, and then upon such terms and conditions as to 
 costs or otherwise as the judge shall think fit (e). A list List of claims 
 of all claims allowed shall, when required by the judge, be ' " 
 made out and left in the judge's chambers by the party 
 prosecuting the judgment or order (/). 
 
 Where a judgment or order is made directing an account interest on 
 of legacies, interest shall be computed on such legacies ^s^cies. 
 after the rate of four per cent, per annum from the end of 
 one year after the testator's death, unless otherwise ordered, 
 or unless any otlier time of payment or rate of interest is 
 directed (g) by the will, and in that case according to the 
 will {h). The legatee may, through laches, be deprived of 
 interest except from the time of bringing his action (i) ; 
 and by 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27, s. 42, no more than six years' 
 interest on legacies can be obtained, except (k) when 
 charged on real estates (l). There are, however, cases in 
 which interest is pa^^able from the death of the testator, 
 although there be no such direction in the will, e.g., 
 where he is the parent or grandparent of the legatee 
 or puts himself in loco parentis (m), where the legacy is 
 specific {n), or payable out of land (o), but not when 
 payable out of proceeds of sale of land (2)). 
 
 Next of kin are entitled to the costs of proving their Co<?t? of next 
 title (g). °^^"'- 
 
 Where an intestate's estate has been distributed under Refumiint^. 
 
 (e) R. 43. ss. 8, 10, cited ^ws^, p. 165. 
 
 (/) K- 44. (m) JEUis v. Ellis, 1 Sch. & Lef. 
 
 ((/) As by empowering executors p. 5 ; Fvogcrs v. SoiMen, 2 Ke. 598. 
 
 to apply the income of the legacy («) Sleech v. Thoringfon, 2 Ves. 
 
 for maintenance of infant legatee, Sen. 560 ; Mullins v. SinUh, 1 Dr. 
 
 Ee Richards, 8 Eq. 119. & S. 204. 
 
 {h) Cons. Ord. XLII. r. 11. (o) Simnvay v. Ghjnn, 9 Ves, 
 
 {i) Purcell v. Blennerhasset, 3 483. 
 
 J. & Lat. 24. {p) Turner v. Back, 18 E(|. 301. 
 
 {k) Gough v. BuU, 16 Sim. 323. (q) Hubbard v. Latham, 14 W. 
 
 {I) See also 37 & 38 Vict. c. 57, R, 553.
 
 120 PKUUF OF CLAIMS IN CHAMBERS. 
 
 a judgment in an administration action among persons 
 found by the certificate to be liis next of kin, a person 
 claiming to be the sole next of kin is not precluded from 
 suing the persons alleged to have been erroneously found 
 the next of kin for the i^urposc of obtaining restitution of 
 the fund so distributed, and, if the riglit of the plaintiff 
 so claiming shall be established, the persons among whom 
 the fund has been so distributed will be compelled to 
 repay it to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff will be bound 
 by the accounts taken in the administration action (r). 
 And the Court will not refuse its assistance, though the 
 plaintiff had full notice of the proceedings in the suit in 
 which the fund was distributed (s). But where the Pro- 
 bate Division has granted letters of administration to a 
 person as one of the next of kin of the intestate, it is not 
 open to a person claiming to be sole next of kin to sue 
 the administrator for administration in the Chancery 
 Division ; he must first apply to the Probate Division to 
 have the letters of administration recalled (t). 
 
 A legatee paid voluntarily by an executor is not bound 
 to refund to him, nor to the other legatees, unless the 
 executor proves insolvent (u) ; and where one of several 
 residuary legatees or next of kin has received his share of 
 the estate of a testator or an intestate, the others cannot 
 call upon him to refund, if the estate is subsequently 
 wasted ; secus, if they can prove that the wasting took 
 place before such share was received {x). Where, how- 
 ever, a residuary legatee is the plaintiff in an administra- 
 tion action, he can, under an undertaking implied by the 
 fact of bringing the action, be compelled to refund for 
 the purpose of paying legacies of legatees not parties to 
 
 (r) David v. Froivd, 1 M. & K. 372. 
 200. (u) Comp. Exors. 177, 183. 
 
 (s) Sawyer v. Birchmore, 1 Keen, {x) Peterson v. Peterson, 3 Eq. 
 
 391, 825. 111. 
 
 {t) Hankin v. Turner, 10 CD.
 
 PROOF OF CLAIMS IN CHAMBERS. 121 
 
 the action, assets paid him by the executor before 
 action (2/). 
 
 Executors paying a legacy not charged on the real 
 estate to a legatee who was also legatee of the proceeds of 
 sale of realty, he covenanting to refund if the principal 
 estate should prove insufficient, were allowed to retain as 
 against subsequent mortgagees of the interest of the 
 legatee in the proceeds of sale (z). 
 
 {y) Prowse v. Spurgin, 5 Eq. 99. {2) Moore v. Moore, 45 L. T. 466.
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 THE CONDUCT OF ADMIN ISTEATION ACTIONS AND OF 
 PROCEEDINGS ARISING THEREOUT. 
 
 riaintiiT ]ia3 We liavc already («) had occasion to consider the subject 
 
 ri.'ht'to of the conduct of proceedings, where two distinct and 
 
 comiuct of independent actions have been brovio'ht for the adrainistra- 
 
 proceediogs, ^ ° 
 
 tion of the same estate, and an application has been made 
 for the stay of one, or the consolidation of both, of them. 
 But the question who ought to have the conduct of the 
 proceedings also arises in many cases, where only one 
 administration action is pending. It is a matter entirely 
 in the discretion of the Judge in Chambers, whether the 
 proceedings have been commenced by originating sum- 
 mons (6), or by writ (c), and the Court of Appeal will not 
 interfere (d). The general rule, however, is that the 
 plaintiff has the conduct, though, as will be seen, he may, 
 for sufficient reason, be deprived of it. 
 Practice when If there has been unreasonable delay on the part of the 
 ofTelay.^"' ^ plaintiff in an administration action in prosecuting the 
 judgment, or mismanagement or misconduct on his or his 
 solicitor's part (c), the conduct of the action may be given 
 to a creditor who has come in under the judgment, 
 whether the action has been instituted by a creditor (/), 
 
 {a) Ante, pp. 70—72, 75. (e) Price v. North, 2 Y. & C. Ex. 
 
 {b) See ante, p. 1. 628 ; and see Uarlc v. Sidcbottom, 
 
 (c) Harvey Y. Coxwcll, 32 L. T., 3/ L. J. Ch. 503. 
 
 N. S. 52. (/) Powell V. Wallworth, 2 M<add. 
 
 {d) Doivbiggiii V. Trotter, 20 W. 183. 
 K. 1024.
 
 THE CONDUCT OF ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 123 
 
 a cestui que trust (g), a next of kin (/<), or a legal 
 personal representative (i), and though it had become 
 abated by the death of the defendant (k) ; or the conduct 
 may be given to one who has been found a legatee under 
 the will of the deceased (I). In connection with the subject 
 of delay in the prosecution of proceedings in Chambers it 
 will be convenient here to state the provisions of two rules 
 of Court relating thereto. If the party having the prose- 
 cution of tlie judgment does not bring the same into 
 Chambers within the time limited, any other party may do 
 so, and such party shall have the prosecution unless other- 
 wise directed (m). Again, in case any proceeding at 
 Chambers is not prosecuted with due diligence, the parties, 
 or any of them, may be required to attend at Chambers at 
 a time to be appointed for that purpose, to show cause why 
 such proceeding has not been prosecuted : and there- 
 upon such directions may be given at Chambers, or by 
 adjournment in open Court as shall be proper to ensure the 
 prosecution thereof by some person interested therein ; or 
 a certificate by the chief clerk of such neglect as aforesaid, 
 or of any abandonment or abatement of the proceedings, or 
 otherwise according to the facts, may be made and filed, 
 without any fee being payable thereon ; and after such 
 certificate shall have been so made, unless the same shall 
 be discharged, none of the parties shall be at liberty to 
 further prosecute the proceedings at Chambers, unless or 
 until the Court or Judge shall upon application make an 
 order directing the same to be prosecuted ; and upon such 
 certificate becoming binding, any party may apply to the 
 Court, and the Court may make such order relative to 
 
 {g) Edmunds v. ^cZfnirZ, 5 Madcl. (k) Cook v. Bolton, 5 Russ. 282 ; 
 
 31 ; Lord Alvaaley v. Kinnaird, 8 and see Lord Alvanleyv. Kinnaird. 
 
 Jur. 114. {I) See Williams v. Chard, 5 
 
 {h) Sims V. Ridge, 8 liler. 458. De G. & Sm. 9. 
 
 (i) Fleming v. Prior, 5 Madd. {m) Cons. Old. XXXV. r. 22, 
 
 423. fully cited, ante, p. 86.
 
 124 THE CONDUCT OF ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 
 
 costs, and to relieve any party from the effect of any judg- 
 ment or order before made, or proceeding taken which 
 shall not have been duly prosecuted, or otherwise, as may 
 be thought proper (n). 
 - , , , If the Court thinks fit, the conduct of the different 
 
 Conduct of 
 
 iiiiTeient inquiries in Chambers may be given to different persons (o), 
 
 inquiries given i i p • i i / 
 
 to ciitTerent or the conduct ot a particular order {e.g., to pay money mto 
 per&onb , Court) may be taken from a plaintiff, while he is allowed 
 
 e.g., coniluct to retain the general conduct of the action (jj). In accord- 
 of sale given to j^^j^gg with the principle of the case last cited is the recent 
 
 trustees. ^ ^ 
 
 rule (q), that where in actions for administration, or for 
 the execution of the trusts of a settlement, a sale of 
 property vested in trustees upon trust for, or with a power 
 of sale, is ordered, the trustees shall have the conduct of 
 the sale, unless otherwise ordered (r) ; and no other person 
 has the right to interfere without the leave of the Court (s). 
 Where one of four trustees, being also tenant for life, was 
 plaintiff, and the remaining three trustees were defendants 
 in an administration action, the conduct of a sale which 
 was ordered, of property vested in the trustees with 
 power of sale, was, under this rule, committed to the 
 defendants {t). 
 
 When one of two co-plaintiffs refuses to concur in the 
 appointment of a solicitor, there being no solicitor on the 
 record, the proper course is for the other plaintiff to apply 
 in Chambers for the sole conduct of the cause, on a sum- 
 mons assumed to be taken out in person against the 
 
 (n) Cons. Ord. XXXV. r. 23 ; (r) This rule was promulgated 
 
 see James v. Givynnc, 2 Jur. N. S. because the practice which formerly 
 
 436 ; Ridley v. Tijolady, 20 Beav. prevailed of giving the conduct of 
 
 44 ; Parkinson v. Lucas, 28 Beav. sales to plaintiffs, qua plaintiffs, 
 
 627. (Knott V. Cottee, 27 Be. 33), so fre- 
 
 (o) See Norvall v. Pascoe, cited, quently frustrated the inteutions 
 
 ante, p. 72. of testators and settlors. 
 
 ip) Vandenvell v. Vanderwcll, (s) Bean v. IFilson, 10 CD. 1Z6. 
 
 1 L. T., K S., 266. (0 Gardner y. Beaumont, 48 L. 
 
 (q) Ord. LII. r. 6a. J. Ch. 644.
 
 AND OF PROCEEDINGS ARISING THEREOUT. 125 
 
 refusing plaintiff only : a motion to strike out the name 
 of the refusing party as plaintiff, and make him a defendant, 
 will be dismissed (u). 
 
 Where a creditors' suit was brought by one, who on tlie Plaintiff in 
 accounts being taken, was found to be a debtor to the action^found 
 estate, the Court ordered him to bring in the amount due *° ^® -^ Jei.tor 
 
 _ _ to estate. 
 
 from him, and to pay the costs occasioned by his alleging 
 
 he was a creditor, and retained the suit for the benefit of 
 
 the other creditors (x) : but a plaintiff, who sues as 
 
 creditor, will not be deprived of the conduct of the cause, 
 
 because it has been certified that he is not a creditor, if 
 
 exceptions to that finding are pending, and there is no 
 
 reason to suppose that the exceptions will not be prosecuted 
 
 actively (y). 
 
 The Court will not, on the mere ground of irregularity 
 in a creditor's judgment, take the conduct from the t 
 plaintiff, and give it to another creditor, though collusion '^^~y< ^_-^^ 
 be suggested {z). ^ " -^ ^C^ f'U. ^/// 
 
 If a creditor plaintiff dies, leaving a legal personal Death of /i^ /^<r^ 
 
 IT ^ ^ c • ^ Creditor / 
 
 representative, the latter has the first right to an order plaintiff. /^r// <5i5 
 
 for carrying on the proceedings (a) ; but, if the deceased 
 
 plaintiff left no such representative an order that another 
 
 creditor do carry on the proceedings may be obtained on 
 
 a creditor's application (6), though not on the application 
 
 of the accounting parties (e). 
 
 It is enough if one applying as a creditor for the conduct 
 of proceedings has been allowed as a creditor, though the 
 certificate has not been signed {d) : indeed, if the account 
 
 (u) Butlin V. Arnold, 1 H. & M. (a) Dixon \. Wyatt, 4 Madd. 392. 
 
 715. (b) Bro^vny. Lake, 2 Coll. 620; 
 
 {x) Graves v. Wright, 1 C. & h. Lowes v. Lowes, 2 De G. M. & G. 
 
 267. Comj)are House7nanv. House- 784 ; Johnson v. Hammersley, 24 
 
 man, cited ante, p. 28, and see Beav. 498. 
 
 post, p. 149. (f) Johnson v. Hammersley. 
 
 (y) Jeudwine v. Agate, 5 Rnss. {d) Inchley v. Allsop, 9 W. E. 
 
 283. 649. 
 
 (?) Smith T. Guy, 2 Pli. 159.
 
 126 THE CONDUCT OF ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS 
 
 of debts has not yet been taken, it would presumably be 
 
 enough if the applicant claim to be a creditor (e), though 
 
 in this case it is submitted that he should at least adduce 
 
 prima facie evidence in support of his claim. 
 
 Application Applications as to conduct of proceedings should be 
 
 bo^n'uiVhi niade in Chambers (/), as well where they are in two 
 
 cliaiiibers. actions as in one (g). Though the chief clerk has refused 
 
 an application to take the conduct from the plaintiff, the 
 
 Court may grant it, on the application being renewed, the 
 
 the chief clerk's judgment not being final (/<-). 
 
 Where the prosecution of a judgment has been taken 
 
 from A., and given to B., A.'s solicitor must allow B.'s to 
 
 inspect and take copies of all the papers in the cause in his 
 
 possession (i). 
 
 Cnnanct of ^6 have thus far been considering to whom the conduct 
 
 pioceedings ^f ^^ administration action and the prosecution of the 
 
 arising out oi ■*• 
 
 the adminis- judgment will be committed. But this does not conclude 
 the subject. In the course of the administration it may 
 become necessary to take proceedings {e.g., for the recover- 
 ing of outstanding estate of the deceased) external to the 
 administration action (k). The rule as to the conduct of 
 such external proceedings is clear. If an executor refuses 
 to take proceedings which ought to be taken, the Court 
 will give the plaintiff power to take them in his name ; 
 but, where there is no case of misconduct made out against 
 the executor, and he is willing to conduct the proceedings, 
 the Court will not take them out of his hands (l). 
 
 The cases where a legatee may himself sue for recovery 
 
 (r) See BcJl v. Bell, 12 W. R. administered by the Court, an exe- 
 
 231. cutor cannot without leave sue any 
 
 (/) 15 & 16 Vict. c. 80, s. 26. party to the action to recover assets ; 
 
 (g)- Stone y. Van Ileythuysen, 18 OWjiddy. Cohbett, 6 Bear. 515. 
 Jur. 344. {I) Per Turner, L. J., Harrison 
 
 (//) Wyatty. Sadler, 5 Sim. 450. v. Richards, 1 Ch. 475; and see 
 
 (i) Bennett v. Baxter, 10 Sim. Samuel v. Samuel, 12 C. D. 152, 
 
 417. cited ante, p. 93. 
 
 {k) After an estate has been fully
 
 AND OF PEOCEEDINGS ARISING THEREOUT. 127 
 
 of assets are collected and discussed in the judgment of the 
 Vice-Chancellor of Ireland in Eiffe v. Hilliard (m). The 
 principle upon which alone the Court takes from an 
 executor the legal power which he possesses is well under- 
 stood and established. It is in cases of misconduct, cases 
 when justice may be thwarted or impeded by permitting 
 the individual who is named to carry on the suit, notwith- 
 standing his legal right to do so. But no such order has 
 ever been made, according to the practice of the Court, 
 unless there was a clear case of misconduct made out (n). 
 Therefore, where in an administration action it was found 
 necessary to take proceedings to recover misappropriated 
 funds due to the testator's estate, and an action was begun 
 by the executor against his father and half-uncle, who were 
 the accounting parties, the Court held that the executor 
 was entitled to commence the action, notwithstanding an 
 allegation by the beneficiaries, who applied to have the 
 conduct of the litigation given to them, that the executor's 
 object was, b}' obtaining the conduct of the action, to be in 
 a position to shield his father (o). But, where the adminis- 
 trator is bankrupt, the plaintiff was allowed to conduct 
 the litigation in the administrator's name (p). In such a 
 case, it is of course that a receiver should be appointed (q), 
 but the conduct is now never given to the receiver (r). 
 An application for the conduct of proceedings arising out 
 of an administration action is properly made in the Court to 
 •which the administration is attached, though the proceed- 
 ings for the conduct of which such application is made 
 have been taken in another Court (s). 
 
 (m) L. E. 7 H. L. p. 43. {q) Ibid.; Steele v. Cohluim, 1 Ch. 
 
 {n) Per Bacon, V. C, Longbourne 325. 
 
 V. Fisher, 27 W. R. 406. (?•) Bowd v. Ilawtin. 
 
 (o) Longbourne v. Fisher. (s) Ibid, 
 (j}) Doiud V. Ilawtin, 19 C. D. 61.
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 FURTHER CONSIDERATION. 
 
 ^Yllen and iiow Where accounts or inquiries have been directed (a), 
 down oir*^ the judgment at the original hearing adjourns the further 
 
 furtiifnc-ou- consideration of the action ; and, in order to obtain a final 
 
 sideratioii. 
 
 judgment, the action must be set down to be heard on 
 further consideration. This cannot, however, be done 
 until the accounts or inquiries directed by the judgment, 
 have been taken or made, and the chief clerk's certificate 
 of their result has been filed ; or a special certificate ob- 
 tained, showing wliy the accounts or inquiries, or any of 
 them, have not been proceeded with (h). 
 tr Av^«*4L><7 When any cause shall, at the original or any subsequent 
 ^v,^ A/«~ 4^ hearing thereof, have been adjourned for further considera- 
 f^t^ If /**,*«<**-» tion, such cause may, after the expiration of eight days and 
 r'Clv^v"- '^^•^-within fourteen days from the filing of the certificate of 
 ^ ^ **-»-t-iWy/ ^i^g ciiief clerk of the judge to whose court the cause is 
 ffy ^ ^ ^ attached, be set down by the registrar in the cause-book 
 r tr >-. 7 3 . / f r for further consideration, on the written request of the 
 solicitor for the plaintiff or party having the conduct of the 
 cause ; and after the expiration of such fourteen daj^s the 
 cause may be set down by the registrar on the written 
 request of the solicitor for the plaintiff or for any other 
 party (c), [and in either case upon production of the judg- 
 ment or order adjourning further consideration or an office 
 
 (a) After a judgment merely di- K. & J. 512. 
 
 recting accounts and inquiries, an (6) Daniell, 1228. 
 
 action may he dismissed on further (c) Cons. Ord. XXI. r. 10. 
 consideration ; Barton v. Barton, 3
 
 FURTHER CONSIDERATION. 129 
 
 copy thereof, and an office copy of the chief clerk's certifi- 
 cate, or a memorandum of the date when such certificate was 
 filed indorsed on the request by the Clerk of Reports (d)]; 
 but the cause, when so set down, shall not be put into 
 the paper for further consideration until after the ex^^ira- 
 tion of ten days from the day on which the same was so 
 set down, and shall be marked in the cause-book accord- 
 ingly. And notice thereof shall be given to the other parties 
 in the cause at least six days before the day for which the 
 same may be so marked for further consideration (e). 
 
 A cause maybe marked for hearing on further considera- short cause, 
 tion as a short cause, upon production of the certificate of 
 the plaintiff's counsel that the cause is fit to be so heard, 
 without the consent of the solicitors for any of the defen- 
 dants ; but it will not be so marked for any day, until after 
 the expiration of the ten days above mentioned ; unless by 
 consent of all parties (/), and notice that it has been so 
 marked should be given by the plaintiff's solicitor to the 
 solicitors of other parties (g). 
 
 The certificate above referred to, is the chief clerk's 
 general certificate. An action cannot be set down on 
 further consideration on a separate certificate (h) : an order 
 on such a certificate must be sought on petition (i) or sum- 
 mons (j). 
 
 Notice that an action has been set down on further con- ^^^^^.q ^f 
 sideration, or the summons for the further consideration setting down, 
 
 and appear- 
 thereof, must be served on any person who has been served ances, and 
 
 with notice of the judgment, and has obtained an order pgj.j,oj,s „„. 
 
 for leave to attend the proceedings (k), as well as on the J^ecessaniy 
 
 ^ o \ / appearing. 
 
 (fZ) Registrars' Regulations, March (/) Van Kamp v. Bdl, 3 Madd. 
 
 15, 1860, r. 9. 430. 
 
 (c) Cons. Ord. XXI. r. 10. {J) Daiiiell, 1216 ; and see Bell 
 
 (/) Ibid., r. 10. V. Turner, 2 C. D. 409. 
 
 {g) Dauiell, 1234. {k) Where no such order has been 
 
 (/t) For the distinction between obtained, if it is desired to obtain 
 
 general and separate certificates, see against any such person an order 
 
 ante, p. 98. for payment of money personally, 
 
 K
 
 130 FURTHER CONSIDERATION. 
 
 parties named on the record. If any person has obtained a 
 stop order, he must be served with notice, where it is in- 
 tended to deal in any manner with the fund to which tlie 
 stop order applies (1). Even though not served with 
 notice, a person interested may appear on further con- 
 sideration, if the case which he has to make depends only 
 upon what appears in the certificate (in). The principle 
 of Daiihney v. Leake, as to the costs of persons appearing 
 unnecessarily {n), applies also to further considera- 
 tions (o). 
 Declaration of In general, if the case is such as will admit of it, the 
 di.stribution of Court will, upon the first hearing on further consideration, 
 fuud. deliver a final judgment; and, when preliminary accounts 
 
 and inquiries have been directed {p), it will, when the case 
 comes before it on the chief clerk's certificate, declare the 
 rights of the parties in the matters in question, and, if 
 possible, distribute the funds which are the subject matter 
 of the action {q). 
 
 Questions arising under the Mortmain Acts have, of 
 course, frequently to be determined on further con- 
 sideration ('?•). 
 
 If the declaration of the Court, or the result of the 
 former inquiries, renders any further inquiries necessary, 
 the Court will take this occasion to direct such further 
 inquiries, adjourning again the further consideration of the 
 cause ; and this it will repeat as often as may be neces- 
 
 he should be served witli the tion of a will, until the accounts 
 
 notice {Rces v. George, 15 C. D. have been taken (Gaslrll v. Holmes, 
 
 490). 3 Ha. 438) ; and when, as in Sa7j v. 
 
 (1) Daniell, 1235. Creed, 3 ibid. 455, the estate has 
 
 (9)i) See YoiOKj v. Everest, 1 R. k, been finally disposed of at the hear- 
 
 M. 426. ing, the e.xecutors admitting assets 
 
 (?;) See ante, p. 94. for all purposes, the rights of cre- 
 
 (o) Hubbard v. Latham, 14 W. ditors have been expressly saved. 
 
 R. 553. (q) See 2>ost, p. 180. 
 
 (p) It is not the practice of the (?•) As in Brook v. Badlcy, 4 Eq. 
 
 Court, except under special circum- 106. 
 
 stances, to decide on the construe-
 
 FURTHER CONglDERATION. 131 
 
 sary (s), but as a rule, the creditors will be paid at 
 once (t). 
 
 Where in an administration action a party was accepted Inquiry as to 
 
 damages, 
 as lessee, and afterwards broke his contract, the Court on 
 
 further consideration granted an inquiry as to damages 
 
 caused by the breach {ii). 
 
 The Court usually, at the hearing on further considera- Costs of action 
 
 • / \ r ii dealt with, 
 
 tion, disposes of the costs ot the action [x) so lar as tiiey 
 
 have not been already disposed of (//). 
 
 The Court will not, upon the question of costs or interest, Evidence. 
 look at any evidence but that in the cause, and will 
 not look at the proceedings and evidence in Chambers, or 
 on interlocutory motion {z) ; and, generally, evidence used 
 in Chambers cannot be read on further consideration, 
 unless notice of an intention to read it has been given (a), 
 though a technical objection of this kind to the reception 
 of evidence ought to be removed, by the Court, whether 
 so requested or not, granting an adjournment upon proper 
 terms as to costs and otherwise (6), and, even though the 
 evidence be rejected, an inquiry may, if necessary, be 
 directed upon the suggestion of counsel (c). But matters 
 material on costs may be brought before the Court by 
 any party on affidavit (d). 
 
 It shall be lawful for the Court, at the hearing of any 
 cause or of any further directions therein, to receive proof 
 by affidavit of all proper parties being before the Court, 
 and of all such matters as are necessary to be proved for 
 
 (.9) Dauiell, 1230. (b) Ibid., 506. 
 
 (t) See 2}ost, p. 133. (c) Fleming v. East, Ka}', App. 
 
 (u) Came v. Brancker, 17 W. R. 52 ; Hoicanl v. Chaffers, 9 Jur. N. 
 
 342 ; see however ihicL, 837. S. 634. 
 
 (.c) Soe|W5<, p. 135. {d) Fallows v. Lord Dillon, 2 W. 
 
 (y) Daniell, 1230. R. 507 ; Palmer v. Perry, W. N., 
 
 [z) Curling v. Aitstin, 2 Dr. & 1S70, 58 ; Beaiicy v. FllioU,W.'N., 
 
 Sm. 129. 1880, 99 ; contra, Bateman v. Mar- 
 ie) Jones V. Chcnncll, 8 C. D. 492, geriion, 2 W. R. 607; Fvansv. Lcivis, 
 
 504. 2 L. T. N. S. 559. 
 
 K 2
 
 132 
 
 FURTHER CONSIDERATION. 
 
 Interest on 
 balances, 
 
 or debts. 
 
 enabling the Court to order payment of any monies belong- 
 ing to any married woman, and of all such other matters not 
 directly in issue in the cause as, in the opinion of the 
 Court, may safely and properly be so proved (e). Under 
 this enactment, an affidavit by the parents as to the mem- 
 bers constituting a class of children has been admitted 
 on further consideration, instead of an inquiry being 
 directed (/), and also an affidavit as to the apportionment 
 of a fund amongst creditors (g). But evidence discovered 
 after the original hearing, and raising anew issue and a new 
 defence, cannot be admitted under this section upon 
 further consideration ; though, if justice cannot be other- 
 wise done, the Court will direct an inquiry (Ji). 
 
 The decision last cited leads up to the proposition that, 
 where a question is not raised on the pleadings, and there 
 is no direction or inquiry concerning it in the judgment, 
 it cannot be raised on further consideration (i). At least, 
 this is the general rule ; but an executor has been held 
 liable on further consideration for a breach of trust, though 
 the particular matter was not charged in the bill, where 
 the certificate afforded the necessary materials (k). If the 
 matter which is first insisted on in argument on further 
 consideration has already been raised on the pleadings the 
 case is different, see ante, p. 16 ; and it is well settled 
 that an executor may, on further consideration, be charged 
 with interest (l) on balances, though it was neither asked 
 for by the statement of claim, nor adverted to in the 
 judgment (m) ; so a reference to compute interest on 
 
 {c) 13 & 14 Vict. c. 35. s. 28. 
 
 (/) Bush V. Watkins, 14 Beav. 
 33 ; and see Foichr v. Rcynal, 3 
 Mac. & G. 500. 
 
 {g) Bear v. Smith, 5 De G. & Sm. 
 92. 
 
 {h) Howard v. Chaffers, 9 Jur. 
 N. S. 634 ; Fkminff v. East, Kay, 
 App. 52. 
 
 (i) Morgan v. Morgan, 13 Beav, 
 441 ; and see ante, p. 17. 
 
 ik) Daren2Jort v. Stafford, ] 4 Beav, 
 319 ; affirmed, 2 De G. M. & G. 901, 
 
 (l) As to the rate at wliich in 
 terest will be charged, see Set. 478. 
 479, Penib. 151 ; a special case is re 
 rpiired to chargeniore than 4 percent, 
 
 {m) Turner v. Turner, 1 J. & W,
 
 FURTHER CONSIDERATION. 133 
 
 debts may be ordered on further consideration, although not 
 directed at the hearing {n). Subsequent interest will (o) 
 be ordered to be computed and certified (^9) or verified by 
 affidavit (q), and, subject to the payment of costs (r), the 
 total amount of their debts, or, in case of an insolvent 
 estate, a rateable proportion, will at once be paid to the 
 creditors. Sums under £10 may be ordered to be paid to 
 the solicitor of the plaintiff upon his undertaking to apply 
 them properly. By rule 12 of the Order of May 27, 1865, 
 where any decree or order is made for payments by the 
 Accountant-General to creditors, the party whose duty it 
 is to prosecute such decree or order is required to send to 
 each such creditor, or his solicitor (if any), a notice that 
 the cheques may be received from the Accountant- 
 General ; and when required, to produce (s) such decree or 
 order, and any papers necessary to enable such creditors to 
 receive their cheques and get them passed. By rule 13 of 
 the same Order, every such notice shall, unless the judge 
 shall otherwise direct, be deemed sufficiently given and 
 served if transmitted by the post, prepaid, to the creditor 
 to be served, according to the address given by such 
 creditor in the claim sent in by him pursuant to the ad- 
 vertisement, or in case such creditor shall have employed 
 a solicitor, to such solicitor, according to the address given 
 by him. 
 
 It has been already stated that where a sum- Certificate 
 mens has been taken out to discharge or vary the chief '^^°?°* '^^ , 
 
 ° '' varied, unless 
 
 clerk's certificate, such summons is generally directed to °^ regular 
 
 application, 
 
 39 ; Hollingsworfli v. SJiakcshaft, p. 110. 
 
 14 Beav. 492 ; Staffwd v. Fidilon, ( ;;) See also Chancery Funds 
 
 23 Beav. 386 ; Johnson v. Prender- Rules, 1874, r. 10. 
 
 gast, 28 Beav. 480. {q) See Forms 1 & 2, Set. 836, 
 
 {n) Flintoff v. Haynes, 4 Ha. 837. 
 309. (r) See2}ost, p. 135. 
 
 (0) Except in the case of an in- (5) See also Lechvierc v. Brazier^ 
 
 solvent estate, as mentioned, ante, 1 Eus. 72.
 
 134 
 
 FURTHER CONSIDERATION. 
 
 come on together with the further consideration of the 
 action (t). If no summons has been taken out either to 
 refer the certificate to the judge (u) or to vary it, the 
 certificate cannot be objected to on further considera- 
 except where tion (^). Where, however, there is error apparent in a 
 error apparent. j^^ig^^Kj^^t or Certificate, the Court, of its own motion may, 
 and indeed is bound, to set it right (y). 
 
 (t) Ante, p. 100. 
 
 {u) As to which, sec ante, p. 
 98. 
 
 (x) Lamhe v. Orton, 8 W. R. 
 Ill ; Smith v. Armstrong, 6 De G. 
 M. & G. 150 ; Aspinall v. Bourne, 
 29 Beav. 462 ; and see Leigh v. 
 
 Turner, 14 W. R. 3G1. See fur- 
 ther ante, p. 99. 
 
 (y) Cradoclc v. Owen, 2 Sm. & G. 
 241, 247 ; Adams v. Clarion, 6 Ves. 
 226 ; Tucha?-ilson v. JFard, 13 Beav. 
 111.
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 
 
 By the order on the further consideration of an adminis- Costs and 
 tration action, after providing for the payment first of ' ^^ *?,gj^f^^j. 
 costs and secondly of debts, the residue of the estate (if any) ^"^ further 
 
 •^ cousideratior 
 
 is, in a creditors' action, ordered to be carried to a separate 
 account, to be intituled " Residue of the estate of A., 
 deceased, subject to legacy duty," liberty being reserved 
 to beneficiaries to apply as to the distribution there- 
 of {a), whereas the order in an action by a legatee or 
 personal representative goes on to direct distribution of 
 the residue amongst the beneficiaries (6). The costs (c), 
 and debts must in each case be first provided for. 
 
 We now proceed to consider the principles upon which Costs. 
 the Court deals with the costs of the action, and in the 
 next chapter shall discuss the order in which resort is liad 
 to the several classes of assets for the payment of debts, 
 and, as subsidiary thereto, the rights of certain of the 
 creditors or beneficiaries to have the assets marshalled in 
 their favour. 
 
 It will be convenient to consider, first, what parties are 
 entitled to their costs out of the estate, and under what 
 circumstances ; secondly (where the assets are insufficient 
 
 {a) See Seton, 837. of the action, and for this purpose 
 
 {b) See Seton, 863. where part of the estate consists of 
 
 (c) The higher scale of Costs (see an equity of redemption, the value 
 
 Ord. VI. r. 1 of Additional Rules of of the equity of redemption only is 
 
 Court, August, 1875) ajiplies where to be calculated {He Sanderson, X 
 
 the gross value of the estate actually C. D. 176, 
 
 amounts to £1000 at the institution
 
 136 
 
 COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 
 
 Principles on 
 which costs 
 aie allowed 
 out of tho 
 estiite. 
 
 Costs of 
 plaiutiifs. 
 
 to pay all costs properly payable thereout), which of these 
 parties have priority ; aud, thirdly, out of what funds the 
 costs are payable. 
 
 It has long been the rule that " wherever a testator 
 has expressed himself so ambiguously as to make it 
 necessary to come to the Court, his general assets must 
 pay the costs " (d) ; and although it has also been 
 laid down that " no costs ought to be given out of an 
 estate, except for those proceedings only which are in 
 their origin directed with some show of reason, and a 
 proper foundation for the benefit of the estate, or which 
 have in their result conduced to that benefit " (e), yet to 
 the detriment of residuary legatees, very slight reasons 
 have frequently been allowed to justify an administration 
 action, and throw the costs of it upon the estate. But in 
 a recent case (/), the princij)le of Bartlett v. Wood was 
 approved and followed, and the costs of the plaintiff, a 
 tenant for life whose income had been regularly paid, were 
 disallowed, with almost an expression of regret that the 
 practice of the Court did not permit the judge {g) to 
 require her to pay the whole costs of the action ; and as 
 some of the accounts insisted upon were idle and unneces- 
 sary, she was ordered to pay the costs relating thereto. 
 
 It has been stated Qi) that an action for the administra- 
 tion of the personal estate of a testator may be brought 
 by any legatee, or annuitant whose annuity is charged 
 upon the residuary personalty, or any residuary legatee 
 or next of kin, creditor, executor, or administrator, and for 
 the administration also of the real estate by any legatee 
 whose legacy is charged on the real estate, any person 
 interested in the sale of the realty, any residuary devisee 
 
 {d) Per Lord Thurlow, Jolliffe v. 
 East, 3 Bro. C. C. 25. 
 
 (e) Per Lord Westbury, Bartlett 
 V. Wood, 30 L. J. Ch. 614 ; see 
 also Cafe v. Bent, 5 Ha. p. 38. 
 
 (/) Crogcjan v. Allen, 22 C. D. 
 101. 
 
 ig) Fry, J. 
 
 (A) Ante, Ch. IIL
 
 COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 137 
 
 or heir, creditor, or trustee, but it is not a matter of 
 course for all those persons to be allowed their costs out 
 of the estate. 
 
 In a suit by a mere pecuniary legatee, he will not be Mere pecuniary 
 allowed his costs, unless he has exhausted every other ="' 
 means of obtaining his legacy (^), but in a proper case, 
 where assets are admitted and the executor has assented 
 to the legacy, the judgment for payment of the legacy (k) 
 will be made with costs, as " admission of assets for pay- 
 ment of the legacy is admission (l) of assets for the purposes 
 of the suit, and prevents all accounts being taken. It 
 extends, therefore, to an admission of assets for the pay- 
 ment of costs " (m). Where, however, judgment for ad- 
 ministration is obtained by a legatee, a question frequently 
 arises whether the general estate or the legacy should bear 
 the costs of the action. The rule upon this point has I^»le in 
 
 Wilson V. 
 
 been thus stated : " If a fund is separated from the bulk Squire. 
 of the testator's estate, and then a question arises about 
 it, the fund pays the costs. But if the question is who 
 is entitled to the fund in the first instance, that question 
 is raised by the testator himself, and his estate must bear 
 the costs ; for a testator's estate bears the costs of all the 
 questions that arise, on his will, respecting it " {n) ; and 
 the meaning of the rule was in A.-G. v. Laiues (o) thus 
 explained by WigTam, V.-C. : " I take the meaning of the 
 rule to be this : that if the executors, admitting the legacy 
 to be payable, sever it from the estate (p) and a dispute 
 
 (^■) Aylmer v. JFinterbotham, 4 (m) Phila7i(.Jtroj)ic Society v. If ob- 
 
 Jur. N. S. 19. son, 2 My. & K. 357, i^cr Leach, M. 
 
 (k) See ante, p. 50. R. ; and see Dinsdalc v. Budding, 1 
 
 (I) But payment of one legacy is Y. & C. C. 265, 270. 
 
 not an absolute admission of assets (n) Per Shadwell, V.-C, Wilson 
 
 fortliepayment of all other legacies; v. Squire, 13 Sim. 212. 
 
 each case will be determined with (o) 8 Ha. p. 43. 
 
 regard to its own circumstances; (^7) Where a particular fund is paid 
 
 Morewood v. Ciirrey, 28 W. R. 213 ; into Court under the Trustee Relief 
 
 and see ante, p. 50 {b). Act by an executor who has the
 
 138 
 
 COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 
 
 Legatee 
 lilaiiititf 
 generally 
 allowed his 
 costs. 
 
 Concurrent 
 actions. 
 
 Annnitaut. 
 
 afterwards arises between the persons to whom or some of 
 whom the k'gacy belongs, and the Court has to decide to 
 whom it belongs, there the particular fund bears the costs : 
 l)ut if the dispute arises between the persons claiming 
 the legacy and those claiming the estate or the residue, 
 ichether the legacy is jxiyahle or not, that cannot be the 
 case of a severance in the sense in which the rule applies, 
 because there, until the Court makes its decree that the 
 legacy is payable, the legacy is not severed from the 
 estate ; the executors have kept it under their control for 
 the purpose of having the point decided." 
 
 Subject to this rule, it requires a strong case to induce 
 the Court to order the costs to be borne by the legacy, and 
 so to throw upon the legatee the costs of the action {q) ; 
 but where a legatee's suit was brought to a hearing, 
 although the plaintiff might have obtained payment of his 
 legacy by petition in another administration action, neither 
 the legatee nor the executor was allowed any costs (r). 
 
 As to the costs of concurrent actions by legatees, see 
 ante, p. 76. 
 
 The costs of an administration action instituted b}'' an 
 annuitant whose annuity is charged on the residuary per- 
 sonalty would seem, from the judgment of Fry, J., in 
 ^Yol^astoll V. Wollaston (s) to be payable as a general rule 
 out of the estate. 
 
 general residue in his hands, the 
 Court lias jurisdiction to order the 
 costs of a petition relating to that 
 fund to be paid out of the general 
 residue (Ec Trick's Trust, 5 Ch. 
 170) ; and semble, when it is doubt- 
 ful to whom a legacy is payable, 
 the better course is not to pay it 
 into Court under that Act, but to 
 take out an administration sum- 
 mons, waiving accounts, simply for 
 the purpose of obtaining the deci- 
 sion of the judge, or after taking 
 out such summons, where the parties 
 
 agree, to submit a statement of 
 facts in the nature of a special case 
 for the opinion of the judge ; and if 
 the executor does so pay it in, he will 
 be left to take his costs out of the 
 residuary estate, and will not have 
 them out of the legacy [Be Birkett, 
 9 C. D. 676 ; but see Ounndl v 
 Whitear, 10 Eq. 664). 
 
 {q) See Bar ton V. Cooke, 5 Ves. 464. 
 
 (r) Packivood v. Maddison, 1 S. 
 &; S. 232 ; and see ante, p. 77. 
 
 (s) 7 C. D. 58 ; see especially the 
 report in 26 W. R. 77.
 
 COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION ACTrOXS. 139 
 
 With regard to the costs of an action instituted by a Rcsiduai-y 
 
 Ic^iXtjGGS 01* 
 
 residuary legatee or one of the next of kin, the costs are next of kin. 
 primd facie (t) payable out of the residue in which he is 
 himself interested, unless through the executor's mis- 
 conduct (u) he should be ordered to pay the whole or 
 part ; but where exeuctors have made a proper distribution 
 pro tanfo, and have been ready to produce proper accounts 
 to the unpaid residuary legatees, who then institute an 
 administration action, if it turns out that the accounts are 
 substantially correct, the costs of the action must be borne 
 by the residuary legatees only who take the benefit of it. 
 Where, however, in such an action it turns out that the Whpre execu- 
 executors have made serious mistakes whereby they have °\^^ some°of°^' 
 overpaid some of the residuary lesratees, they cannot call *^^ residuary 
 
 ^ J o ' J legatees, and 
 
 upon them to refund, but must stand in the same position the others 
 as if no distribution had taken place, and the costs will be nistration 
 paid as out of the entire estate, so as to charge the J^^^'o"^^"*- 
 executors with the share of costs (x) attributable to each 
 of the distributed shares, and they must pay the balance 
 necessary to make up to each of the unpaid legatees his 
 proper share of the residue (y). 
 
 Although, however, the costs of a residuary legatee are Costs of resi- 
 ordered to be paid out of the residue in which he is him- '^";"T/^'sateo 
 
 ^ not allowed as 
 
 self interested, they will not be so paid as between solicitor i^etween 
 
 IT • T ^ CM • • solicitor and 
 
 and client, without the consent ol all parties interested (z), client, except 
 
 (t.) The Court will not encourage inquiries were thrown on the undis- 
 
 useless litigation, and will deprive trilnited assets, though the action 
 
 a residuary legatee of his costs in a by the persons entitled thereto was 
 
 ■proitev casQ {Otilejj v.Gilheij, 8 Bea.v. rendered necessary by the conduct 
 
 602) ; but where the estate is con- of the executors, who were ordered 
 
 siderable, and it is doubtful whether to pay such proportion of the rest of 
 
 there will be a residue, it is his the costs as the distributed bore to 
 
 clear right to bring an action (Mor- the undistributed assets. 
 
 gan v. Middkmiss. 14 W. R. 414 ; {y) Hilliard t. Fulford, 4 0. D. 
 
 and see 2Kst, p. 155. 389, following the principle of Mac- 
 
 {u) See post, p. 143. ke7izic v. Taylor, 7 Beav. 467, and 
 
 (a;) In Bafh v. Bell, 39 L. T. 422, Tann v. Tann, 7 Eq. 436. 
 
 all the costs of the accounts and (z) Fenner v. Taylor, 6 Madd.
 
 140 
 
 C08TS OF ADMINISTHATION ACTIONS. 
 
 by consent, 
 
 anil sliduld 
 
 iipvcr 
 
 l)e allowed 
 
 where infants 
 
 interested. 
 
 Appeal for 
 costs. 
 
 Creditor 
 
 general ly 
 allowed his 
 
 costs. 
 
 When ordered 
 to pay the 
 costs, 
 
 or depnved of 
 his costs. 
 
 for of course the costs of the various parties interested 
 nicay not be in proportion to their shares, and in no case, 
 it is believed, did the present Master of the Rolls, when a 
 judge of first instance, allow such costs where infants were 
 interested. 
 
 Notwithstanding the Judicature Act, 1873, s. 49, if the 
 costs of a residuary legatee are disallowed, he is entitled 
 to appeal, as such costs are not costs in the discretion of 
 the Court (a). 
 
 The costs of a creditor plaintiff have already been in 
 some measure considered (h). As a general rule a creditor 
 of a deceased person bringing himself within any of the 
 descriptions mentioned in Chapter III. is entitled to his 
 costs of an action for administration, if instituted to obtain 
 payment of his debt. 
 
 It has been stated (c), that he is entitled to immediate 
 payment with costs, if his debt and assets be admitted, 
 and upon payment by the executor, at any time before 
 judgment, of the debt (with interest at 4 per cent.) and 
 costs as between party and party, including the costs of 
 any other defendants, the action will be dismissed (d), for 
 until judgment, the other creditors have only an inchoate 
 interest in the action (e). 
 
 If, however, a creditor commences, or, after commencing, 
 prosecutes an action, in the face of information that the 
 assets are insufficient for the payment of any part of his 
 debt, and this turns out to be correct, he must pay the 
 costs (/) ; but in Robinson v. Elliott (g), the bill was dis- 
 missed without costs, where in the answer the accounts 
 
 3 ; Martin v. Mmtgham, 8 Jur. 353. 
 
 609. 
 
 (a) Farrow v. Austin, 18 C. D. 58. 
 
 (6) Ante, pp. 76, 84. 
 
 (c) Ante, p. 50 ; and see p. 137. 
 
 {d) Pemherton v. Topham, 1 
 Beav. 316 ; Manton v. Roc, 14 Sim. 
 
 (c) Stcrndalc v. Hankinson, 1 
 Sim. 393. 
 
 (/) Bluett V. Jessop, Jac. 240 ; 
 King V. Bryant, 4 Beav. 460 ; Ftil- 
 ler V. Greoi, 24 ibid. 217., ^ '^.v**'.--*-^ 
 
 ig) 1 Kuss. 599. ' ^^ /^^^t*^
 
 COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 141 
 
 were not very satisfactory, and the Master had charged 
 the executrix with more than she had admitted, though 
 there were even then no assets for payment of the plain- 
 tiff's debt ; and if the action is lyroperhj instituted by a 
 simple contract creditor, and the assets are found insuffi- 
 cient for payment of specialty debts, and consequently the 
 plaintiff receives nothing, he may still be allowed his 
 costs {h). This case will, since the 32 & 33 Vict. c. 46 (i), 
 be of rare occurrence. 
 
 As to the costs of creditors comino^ in under the iudg- Costs in 
 
 " JO ciiamljers. 
 
 ment and proving their debts in Chambers, see ante, p. 111. 
 
 The costs of an executor or administrator, whether plain- Executor or 
 
 ■ ^r. -, ,. -, , . p adiiiiuistrator, 
 
 tin or deiendant, are subject to the same rules as those oi 
 trustees, which have been recently referred to by Jessel, 
 M.R., in the following terms : — " It is not the course of the General rule 
 
 r\ J. • J X • J. J • i? 1 . as to costs of 
 
 Court in modern times to discourage persons irom becoming t,,.i,stees and 
 trustees by inflicting costs upon them if they have done executors. 
 their duty, or even if they have committed an innocent 
 breach of trust. The earlier cases had the effect of 
 frightening wise and honest people from undertaking 
 trusts, and there was a danger of trusts falling into the 
 hands of unscrupulous persons who might undertake them 
 for the sake of getting something by them " {h). Where a 
 suit was instituted for the administration of the estate of 
 a supposed intestate, which, after the decree had been made 
 and the accounts taken, was rendered useless by the re- 
 vocation of the former letters of administration, and by 
 
 [h) King v. Hammctt, 11 L. J. {i) See 2)ost, p. 161. 
 
 N. S. Gh., p. 15. In Sullivan v. (k) Turner v. Hancock, 20 C. D. 
 
 Beavan, 20 Beav. 399, the suit was p. 305. lu this case a trustee who 
 
 properly instituted, but improjierly had alleged that he had expended 
 
 prosecuted after notice of a similar more than he had received, but was 
 
 deficiency of assets, and the plain- eventually charged on taking the 
 
 tiff was allowed his costs only up accounts with £62, was allowed his 
 
 to the time of receiving such full costs, as between solicitor and 
 
 notice. client.
 
 142 
 
 COSTS OF AinriNTSTRATION ACTIONS. 
 
 Stron,c; caso 
 required to 
 deprive them 
 of costs ; 
 still stronger 
 
 probate being granted of a will made in favour of one of the 
 next of kin, a defendant in the suit, in whose possession 
 the will had been retained, the costs incurred in the suit 
 were ordered to be borne by the party entitled nudcr the 
 will, who by delaying tlie probate had occasioned the litiga- 
 tion (I). And, as executors can only be fully protected from 
 future claims by an administration action (n), the Court will 
 require a strong case to induce it to deprive (o) them of the 
 to make them costs of One ( p), still more so, to make them pay them (q). 
 
 pay them. . . . . . 
 
 In accordance with this principle, it has been held that 
 the mere fact of executors neglecting to render accounts 
 when asked (r) or being charged with interest on balances 
 in their hands (s), is not of itself sufficient to make them 
 liable for the costs of an administration action (t) ; the 
 true rule being, as laid down by Plumer, V.-C. (u), that 
 " if the misconduct of the executor was the sole occasion of 
 the suit, he ought then to pay the costs." And where a 
 trustee defends an action for the benefit of his testator's 
 estate, he will be allowed his costs of it out of the estate, 
 though he may have also defended his own character from 
 a charge of fraud (x). 
 
 (l) Mircliousc v. Herbert, 5 W. R. 
 683 ; but see Houseman v. House- 
 man, 1 C. D, 535, cited ante, p. 
 28. 
 
 {n) See Low v. Carter, 1 Beav. 
 426 ; Waller v. Barrett, 24 ibid. 
 413. 
 
 (o) But where the executor was 
 guilty of gross misconduct and 
 delay, though lie could not be alto- 
 gether deprived of the costs of an 
 action instituted by Iiinrself, as the 
 estate consisted to an appreciable 
 extent of leaseholds, he was allowed 
 only such costs as would have been 
 incurred if judgment had lieen ob- 
 tained upon an administration sum- 
 mons {Howard v. Easton, 29 W. R. 
 885). 
 
 [p) See Hall v, Halld, 1 Cox, 
 p. 141 ; Taylor v. Glanville, 3 
 Madd. 176. 
 
 iq) Gilbert v. Lee, 34 Beav. 574. 
 
 (?•) White V. Jackson, 15 Beav. 
 191 ; Heiajh v. Scard, 24 W. R, 
 51. 
 
 (s) See the observations of Stuart, 
 V.-C, in Egliny. Sanderson, 3 Giff. 
 pp. 441, 442. 
 
 {t) White v. Jackson, 15 Beav. 
 191 ; and see Travcrs v. Townscnd, 
 1 Moll. 496. 
 
 {u) Tebbs v. Carxicnter, 1 Madd. 
 290, 308. 
 
 {x) Walters v. Woodlridgc, 7 C. 
 D. 504 ; but see Christian v. Adam- 
 son, W. N., 1869, .208.
 
 COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 14:3 
 
 Executors will, however, be deprived (y) of their costs Executors may 
 
 ^ ^'^' lose, or have to 
 
 (0), or ordered to pay the costs (a) of such inquiries as pay, costs of 
 
 , , II- ■ ^ 11 parts of tlie 
 
 are rendered necessary by their own misconduct ; and they action. 
 
 were ordered to pay the costs of the administration of the 
 personal estate, when they had disproved charges relating 
 to the real estate, the costs of which the plaintiff was 
 ordered to pay (&). In Payne v. Evens {c), a bill for ad- 
 ministration was dismissed luithout costs, on the ground 
 that, though the estate, had been, in fact, fully adminis- 
 tered many years before, yet owing to the negligence of 
 the trustees in not preserving accounts and vouchers, there 
 was some colour for the institution of the suit (d); and 
 where a trustee took upon himself to be a partisan of one 
 of the parties to the action, and threw impediments in the 
 way of the other, though, in the absence of any improper 
 motive, he was not ordered to pay any costs, he was not 
 allowed his costs out of the estate (e) ; but where trustees 
 had refused information and an account, and other pro- *^'-*-'^- ***^ ^<^-»-^ 
 ceedings had subsequently been taken, whereby the costs • 
 were greatly increased, they were ordered to pay the A^/^-^-aOv- 
 costs of the suit up to the hearing, and as to the rest of the ' * *" ^ h^ 
 costs, each party had to bear his own (/). /tZ-^ ©^.^l*. 
 
 Executors however have frequently been ordered to pay When ordered /U-^ 
 all the costs of the action ((/), i.e., m))Jo the heariiig ; for costs; ' ''i^'^t 
 
 the costs of takino' the accounts must in general be borne except of the ,- 
 
 ^ ... accounts. • A-'W*-*^ 
 
 by the estate (/i) ; and on this principle they have been Sometimes '^-^ 
 
 (y) Executors ma}'- be deprived of 434. 
 
 their costs when the estate is ad- (c) 18 Eq. 356. 
 
 ministered upon summons, as well {d) See also Youdc v. Cloud, 18 
 
 as in an action, Gilbert v. Lee, 34 Eq. 634. 
 
 Beav. 574. (c) Simiison v. Bathtirst, 5 Ch. 
 
 (2) Colycr V. Colycr, 32 L. J. Ch. 193. 
 
 101. (/) Talhot V. Marshjicld, 3 Ch. 
 
 (a) Tebhs v. Caiycnfcr, 1 Madd. 622. 
 
 290 ; Heighington y. Grant, 1 Ph. {g) Tichncr v. Smith, 3 Sm. &; G. 
 
 600. 42. 
 
 {b) Eglin v. Sanderson, 3 Gifi". {h) See Tehbs v. CarjKiiter ; 
 
 y^
 
 144 
 
 COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 
 
 
 allowed costs allowed tlieii* costs, upon making good the breach of trust 
 
 upon making . . . /-i / • 
 
 restitutiou. and otherwise complying with the order of the Court (i) ; 
 
 but in Blt'ls v. jMirklethivait {j), Westbury, C, said, "I 
 
 cannot understand how the princij^les of this Court can be 
 
 abided by as to the mode of dealing with executors and 
 
 trustees, if I am to give a man all his costs of coming here 
 
 to account for property which he has withheld, to make 
 
 good sums of money which he has fraudulently omitted to 
 
 carry to an account upon a former occasion, and also to 
 
 //Anake good the loss incurred by his neglect and delay. If 
 
 to a trustee standing in this predicament I am to give the 
 
 ^ //'/ ij7 costs occasioned by the necessity of bringing him here, 
 
 ^^ *- J then it would be a premium to defaults and misconduct of 
 
 this kind, instead of being the exercise of that wholesome 
 
 control over the conduct of trustees which it is abundantly 
 
 j~ I ^/.«^ necessary that this Court should at all times carefully 
 
 M hesitate to extend the doctrine in the slightest degree (/c). 
 
 Executors improperly bringing an action for adminis- 
 tration which is dismissed will be ordered to pay the 
 costs (?), for " the Court," said Bacon, V.-C, " will not 
 allow itself to be made the instrument of mere litiofation, 
 when the only result would be to despoil infant children 
 and a widow of the little property they possess. The 
 will involved no question of any difficulty, and the action, 
 which has been improperly instituted, must be dismissed 
 with costs to be paid by the plaintiff." 
 
 In Boivyer v. Griffi.n (m), a suit for the execution of 
 certain trusts, a defaulting trustee who had lost part of the 
 trust funds bv his own default was held to be entitled to 
 
 L^yCC jb<f'{\ preserve; 
 
 Executor's 
 costs when im- 
 properly 
 bringing 
 administration 
 action. 
 
 Costs of 
 insolvent 
 executor or 
 trustee. 
 
 Knotty. Cottcc, 16Beav. 77 ; Gilbert 
 V. Lee, 3-t Beav. 594 ; Gresham v. 
 Price, 35 ibid. 47. 
 
 (i) Hewett v. Foster, 7 Beav. 34d; 
 and see Lewis v. Trasl; 21 C. D. 
 862, and post, (o) and [p). 
 
 ij) 34 L. J. Ch. 362. 
 
 (k) See Palmer v. Jones, 43 L. J. 
 Ch. 349. 
 
 (I) Gage v. Rutland, W. N., 1882, 
 92. 
 
 {in) 9 Eq. 340.
 
 COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 145 
 
 his costs incurred after his bankruptcy, or after the regis- 
 tration of a creditor's deed executed by him under the 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1861 : and though in an earlier case (n), 
 where an executor becoming bankrupt in the course of the 
 suit was allowed to set off his costs before bankruptcy 
 against the balance due from him to the estate, and held 
 entitled to his costs incurred subsequently to the bank- 
 ruptcy, the reasons given for the order were that it would 
 be harsh to deprive of his costs an executor who had 
 become bankrupt, but by whose exertions the estate had 
 been got in, until he had repaid the debt due at his bank- 
 ruptcy, and that the hankriqdcy is the statutory mode 
 by which in such a case the debt is discharged, yet it 
 would seem that neither of these circumstances is necessary 
 to induce the Court to make the order (o). It has, how- 
 ever been still more recently held (p), that a defaulting 
 executor is only entitled to costs incurred after his bank- 
 ruptcy upon making good his default, unless by express 
 request of the beneficiaries he has been kept before the 
 Court to assist in getting in the estate. 
 
 It may here be remarked that a debtor to the estate Costs set off 
 
 . .11 n ^ r 1 •^^ au'ainst debt to 
 
 who IS entitled to costs out of the fund, will not be allowed estate ; 
 to receive payment of them, while his debt continues 
 unsatisfied ; but the costs due to him will be set off pro 
 tanto against the debt due from him (q) ; indeed, whenever so as to legany 
 
 . 1 • 1 '1 0*' share of 
 
 a person beneficially interested m the estate either as residue, 
 legatee or one of the next of kin (r) is also a debtor 
 thereto, his beneficial interest may be set off against the 
 
 (n) Samuel v. Jones, 2 Ha. until he should have made good his 
 
 246. default. C '^ ■ 
 
 (o) Turner v. Midlineux, 9 W. {p) Hannay v. Baslmm, W» N w ^^ C»/b,/4^, 
 
 R. 252 ; Bowyer v. Griffin ; Clare l i QCQ ) 7 '; and see Kitto v. Luke, 28 
 
 V. Clare, 21 C. D. 865 ; but see W. R. 411. 
 
 Lewis V Trask, 21 C. D. 862, where (q) Harmer v. Harris, 1 Russ. 
 
 the bankrupt, though held entitled 155. 
 to his costs, was not to receive them (/) IVliite v. CordireU, 20 Eq. 644.
 
 14 G 
 
 COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 
 
 amount due from him (s), though statute-barred (t), 
 except where except Avhere the debtor became bankrupt in the lifetime 
 debtor i.fink- ^f ^|^g creditor, in which case only the dividend received 
 
 rupt before 
 
 death of by the other creditors may be retained (u), or where, the 
 
 bankruptcy having occurred after the death of the creditor, 
 the executor (v) or (even without the leave of the Court) a 
 receiver (a;), has proved for the debt therein (y). So also, 
 a trustee who is himself a beneficiary and indebted to 
 the estate, cannot claim any part of it until the debt 
 is made good (z) ; although he may have become entitled 
 derivatively, e.g., as being one of the next of kin of an 
 intestate cestui que trust (a) ; but if the debt be not 
 presently payable, he will have his costs at once, unless 
 there is reason to fear he may become insolvent before the 
 debt is actually due (b). 
 Bankruptcy of If One of two co-exocutors represented by the same 
 ^'x^ °t*^° ^"^ solicitor upon a joint retainer, becomes bankrupt, and is a 
 debtor to the estate, the costs incurred by them prior to 
 the bankruptcy will be distinguished, and the solvent 
 executor will be allowed only his own proportion out of 
 the fund, the defaulter's proportion being set off against 
 the debt due from him, the solvent executor being 
 regarded, by reason of the joint retainer, as a surety only 
 in respect of the bankrupt's costs ; but the costs incurred 
 
 (s) So, in Knapman v. Wreford, 
 18 C. D. 300, where legatees had 
 been ordered to pay the executor's 
 costs of probate litigation, the exe- 
 cutor was allowed to set off their 
 legacies against his costs, both as 
 against the legatees and their as- 
 signees. 
 
 {t) CourUnay v. Williams, 3 Ha. 
 539 ; S. C. 13 L. J. Oh. 461, affirmed, 
 15 ibid. 204. 
 
 (?*) Bcsu-ich V. Otycn, 16 C. D. 
 202. 
 
 (v) Stammers v. Elliott, 3 Ch. 
 
 195. 
 
 (x) Armstrong v. Armstrong, 12 
 Eq. 614. 
 
 (y) But where an executor has set 
 apart and appropriated assets to meet 
 a legacy, he cannot retain or im- 
 pound them to meet a debt from 
 the legatee to the estate (Ballard v. 
 Marsdcn, 14 C. D. 374). 
 
 (z) Irhy V. Irhy, 25 Beav. 632. 
 
 {a) Jacubs v. Rylance, 17 Eq. 
 341. 
 
 [b) Stephens v. nilcn, 17 L. J. 
 Ch. 214.
 
 COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 147 
 
 by both sul)sequently to the bankruptcy will be allowed in 
 full (c). 
 
 Although the Court will not, in ordering executors to Where inno- 
 pay costs, distinguish, as between them and the persons ordererto pay 
 beneficially entitled to the estate, the amount of culpability °°;'**^ io'.yt'y 
 of the several executors, but will make the order upon executor. 
 them jointly (d), yet as between the executors themselves 
 one may be primarily and the other secondarily liable (e) ; 
 and the fact of one only being guilty of a breach of trust 
 will justify him in severing in his defence, in which case he 
 may be awarded the whole of the single set of costs 
 allowed (/). 
 
 In general, trustees should not sever in their defence, Trustees should 
 and, if they do so improperly, only one set of costs will be "ever^rfth h- 
 allowed (g). On the other hand, an executor refusing in a defence. 
 proper case to join his co-executor as plaintiff, and in con- 
 sequence made a defendant, would not be allowed his 
 costs (h). 
 
 Although an executor who is a solicitor will as a general Costs of an 
 rule be allowed merely his costs out of pocket (?'), unless a^soHciton 
 the will directs that he shall be allowed his usual profes- 
 sional charges, yet in Cradock v. Piper (k) it was held that 
 the circumstance of a solicitor being a trustee would not 
 prevent him from receiving his usual costs where he acted 
 as solicitor in a suit for himself aiul his co-trustees, and 
 entered a joint appearance for himself and them, provided 
 
 (c) Smith V. Dak, 18 C. D. 516; brook, 4 Beav. 212; and Wiles v. 
 
 Watson V. Row, 18 Eq. 680, not Cooper, 9 Beav, p. 298, 
 followed. (7i) Hughes v. Key, 20 Beav. p, 
 
 {d) Lawrence v. Bowie, 2 Ph. 397. 
 140. {i) Moore v. Frotvd, 3 M. & Cr. 
 
 (e) Lockhart v. Reillv, 1 De G. & 46 ; Broughton v. Broughton, 5 De 
 
 J., p. 477/ /^ J.U*SlJ^(e'i^J } C-U G. M. & G. 160. 
 
 (y ) Wehh V. Well, 16 Sim. 55. Ic {k) 1 Mac. & G. 664 ; see the ob- 
 
 {g) Gaunt y. Taylor, 2 Beav. 346; servations on this case in Lewin on 
 
 and compare Cummins v. Blomfield, Trusts, 7 Ed. p. 259, and. Broughton 
 
 3 Jur. N. S, 657 ; Aldridgev. West- v. Broughton.
 
 148 COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 
 
 the costs were not increased by his being one of the parties 
 for whom such joint appearance was made. " There is, 
 however," said Turner, V.-C, in Lincoln v. Windf^or {I), 
 "a marked difference between the cases of costs in- 
 curred in a suit, and of costs incurred in the ad- 
 ministration of an estate without the intervention of 
 the Court. The general principle of the rule disallowing 
 professional charges by a trustee is this — that a trustee 
 cannot be permitted to profit or to place himself in a 
 situation to profit by his trust. Now, where a trustee is 
 brought into Court in a suit, he can have no opportunity 
 of placing himself in a situation to profit by his trust. 
 Therefore, if a trustee be necessarily made a party to a 
 suit, and the costs be not increased by any conduct of his, 
 there appears to be no reason why he should not be 
 allowed his costs. The reason of the general rule appears 
 to be inapplicable to the case of a suit under such circum- 
 stances ; but this does not extend to the case of the costs 
 of administration out of Court ; " and even when there is 
 a special direction in the will, an executor who acts as 
 solicitor to the trust is not entitled to employ another 
 solicitor to transact all the ordinary affaii's which he may 
 have to perform, such as personal attendances, correspon- 
 dence, &c,: e.g., though it is absolutely necessary to attend 
 personally at the Bank of England to transfer stock, 
 unless a power of attorney be obtained, the expense of 
 such a power will not be allowed to an executor, unless 
 it was really necessary, and the right to profit costs 
 where a solicitor is entitled to them by the will, will be 
 examined upon this principle (m). In Pollard v. Doyle {n), 
 it was held that a solicitor administrator who instituted 
 and conducted proceedings to recover property which 
 
 {I) 9 Ha. 158, approved in (m) Harhin v. Da.rhy, 28 Beav. 
 
 Broughton v. Brnuqhton, 5 De G. M. 325. 
 & G. 1()0. (;*,) 1 Dr. & Sm. 319.
 
 COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 149 
 
 belonged to the estate, and made a judgment creditor 
 party to the suit, was, upon objection by the judgment 
 creditor, only allowed his costs out of pocket, the estate, in- 
 cluding the amount recovered in the suit, being insufficient 
 to pay the judgment creditor. 
 
 The right of an executor to appeal for costs has been Executors oi- 
 
 iii- / ^ ^ • 11T1 .1^ trustees may 
 
 upheld m a recent case (o), where it was held that sec. 49 appeal for 
 of the Judicature Act, 1873, has not taken away the right ^°^^^' 
 which was recognized in Gotterell v. Stratton (jp). 
 
 The costs of executors and trustees are always taxed and Their costs are 
 paid " as between solicitor and client," and on the sugges- between solici- 
 tion of counsel, they will be also allowed any charges and ^"^ ^"^^ client. 
 expenses properly incurred in the administration. 
 
 Where the real estate is also administered, the costs of Real estate, 
 the plaintiff and the ccsts of trustees will be dealt with 
 upon the same principles ; but, as will be seen hereafter, they 
 will be apportioned between the real and personal estate. 
 
 The costs of persons attending the proceedings have been Costs of persons 
 
 1 1 • 1 1 / \ attending the 
 
 already considered {q). proceedings. 
 
 Although in any of the cases mentioned above the plaintiff not 
 plaintiff may fail to substantiate his claim, it is possible ir-Xtved hiT 
 that he may be allowed the whole or part of his costs, costs ; 
 " If," said Lord Langdale, M, K, in Wedgwood v. 
 Adams (r), " through the exertions of a plaintiff, the 
 Court is enabled to distribute a fund, or if it makes a 
 declaration of rights necessary for its administration, there, 
 although the plaintiff may fail in his claim, the Court will 
 not permit the other parties to carry off the fruit of his 
 exertions without defraying his costs out of the fund ; " but 
 see Houseman v. Houseman (s). It will, however, be 
 
 (o) Farroio v. Austin, 18 C. D. (^7) 8 Ch. 295. 
 
 68, overruling Re Hoskins' Trusts, {q) Ante, pp. 93 — 95. 
 
 6 ibid. 281 ; and see Ihirner v. (?•) 8 Beav. 103 ; see the cases 
 
 Hancock, 20 ibid. 303, cited ante, on this point collected at p. 104. 
 p. 141 ; and Jones v. Chcnnell, 8 (s) 1 C. D. 535, cited «>ite, p. 28; 
 
 ibid. 492. and i.ee ante, p. 125.
 
 150 
 
 COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 
 
 Costs of 
 assignees or 
 mortgagees of 
 beneficiaries. 
 
 but not from observed that in no case has a defendant been ordered 
 ^^i-smauT^ P^'^'^'^'^^^^^y to pay such costs, and in Dicks v. Yates {t), 
 it was said by Jesse], M. R., that although " the Court 
 has a discretion to deprive a defendant of his costs 
 though he succeeds in the action, and it has a dis- 
 cretion to make him pay perhaps the greater part of 
 the costs by giving against him the costs of issues on 
 •which he fails, or costs in respect of misconduct by him in 
 the course of the action, a judgment ordering the defen- 
 dant to pay the whole costs of the action cannot be sup- 
 ported unless the plaintiff was entitled to bring the action." 
 The principle that persons having the same interest 
 ought to appear by the same solicitor is carried out in the 
 case where persons interested in the estate have assigned 
 or mortgaged their shares. The practice was first settled 
 in Greedy v. Lavender (u), where it was determined that 
 only one set of costs, namely the costs to which the 
 assignor or mortgagor would have been entitled if he had 
 not dealt with his share, ought to be allowed to each 
 legatee out of the estate, and that as between him and his 
 assignee or mortgagee they should be paid to the latter, 
 so far as required to satisfy his costs, the assignor or mort- 
 gagor receiving the balance (if any) towards his own costs 
 and the deficiency (if any) of the mortgagee's costs being 
 paid out of his assignor's share (v). It will be seen that 
 unless assignor and assignee appear separately; they do 
 not suffer any loss under this rule. 
 
 So, where long inquiries were necessary by reason of the 
 bankruptcy of a person entitled to a share in the residue, 
 the costs were apportioned (iv), but if a mortgagee, who has 
 taken a mortgage from an executor qua beneficiary not 
 
 (t) 18 C. D., p. 85. {iv) Basevi v. Scrm, 14 Ves. 313 ; 
 
 (u) 11 Beav. 417 ; see also Coates but see Geey. Mahoocl, W. N., 1874, 
 
 V. Cnates, 3 N. E. 355. 207. 
 [Vj See also Seton, 879.
 
 COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 151 
 
 qua executor, is made a party to an action for administra- 
 tion, his costs cannot come out of the estate ; they must be 
 added to his security (x). 
 
 We have hitherto assumed that the assets are sufficient Rules where 
 for the payment of all the costs properly payable thereout : ^'""^ ^ "^^^" ' 
 we now proceed to consider the practice where this is not 
 the case. 
 
 The first and most important rule is that the costs, Costs of exe- 
 
 , , . . , cutor paid iu 
 
 charges, and expenses oi the executor or administrator (y), priority. 
 have priority over all other liabilities of the testator's 
 estate, including (2^) his debts and the costs of all other 
 parties, and that as between solicitor and client. " That 
 general rule," said Stuart, V.-C, in Lodge v. Pritchard (a), 
 " proceeds on a very plain principle, that before what has 
 been entrusted to them and is in their hands is taken out 
 of their hands they shall be indemnified against all 
 expenses incurred in the discharge of their duty " (6), but 
 in that case, where it would seem from the headnote that 
 the executors had denied assets, an apparent exception to 
 the rule was laid down, and the creditor's debt and costs 
 were ordered to be paid first. This may, however, be 
 regarded rather as a deprivation of part of an executor's 
 costs than a departure from the rule. Executors are not 
 deprived of the benefit of the rule even where they have 
 exhausted the assets by confessing judgments (c). 
 
 When the whole of the real estate is found to belong to When heir 
 the creditors, the heir-at-law, seised of the legal estate, is trustee*^'f(jr 
 
 creditors. 
 
 (x) Scurrah v. Scurrah, 2 W. R. the estate " {Rov-les v. Mayhew, 5 
 
 63. C. D. 596) ; and costs of an execu- 
 
 (y) As to costs of an administra- trix of a deceased administratrix ; 
 
 tor ad litem, see Nash v. Dillon, 1 Eicev. Orgies, W. N. 1877, 177. 
 
 Moll. 236 ; Nicholson v. Falkincr, {a) 4 Gitf. p. 298. 
 
 ibid. 555. (&) See also Tijjping v. Povcr, 1 
 
 (z) Including also costs incurred Ha. 405, and Gaunt v. Taylor, 2 
 
 inProbate litigation, and by an order ibid. 413. 
 
 of the Probate Division directed to (c) Sanderson v. Stoddarf, 32 
 
 be paid "out of the estate, and to Beav. 155. 
 have priority over other claims on
 
 152 
 
 COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 
 
 reerarded as a trustee, and is allowed his costs out of the 
 proceeds of sale thereof as between solicitor and client ; 
 where part only is required for debts, as between party 
 and party {d). In Tipping y. Power (e), devisees received 
 their costs next after those of the executors and the plain- 
 tiff, an equitable mortgagee of the estate devised to them 
 (they having disclaimed by their answer), and in priority 
 to the debts of the testator ; and on the like principle, 
 in a suit by creditors to administer the realty, there being 
 no personalty, and the realty proving deficient, the Court 
 ordered the costs of the plaintiffs and of the defendants, 
 who were beneficial devisees, to be taxed as between party 
 and party, and paid pari passu out of the fund, and the 
 balance (if any) of the fund then remaining to be applied 
 in payment of plaintiff's extra costs between solicitor and 
 client, and then towards payment of debts (/). 
 Costs of (lis- Persons named as trustees will, on disclaiming, be 
 
 claiming tuifi- g^^^^^jg^ ^q costs as between party and party only, as they 
 thereby divest themselves of the character of trustees {g). 
 
 We have already seen that executors are entitled to 
 their costs, charges, and expenses in priority to other 
 parties, but, qtid their costs as executors, only out of the 
 personal estate, unless the realty be charged therewith. 
 Thus executors cannot have judgment for administration 
 of the realt}^ in order to obtain payment of costs incurred 
 in probate litigation [h), and even where trustees' 
 " costs, charges, and expenses " are charged upon the 
 realty, semble, funeral expenses and costs of probate are 
 not included {i). 
 
 tees as between 
 party and 
 party only. 
 
 Executors, as 
 s^cch, not 
 entitled to 
 costs out of 
 real estate. 
 
 (d) Tardrew v. Howell, 2 Giff. Norumj v. Norway, 2 M. & K. I 
 
 630. 278. \ 
 
 (c) 1 Ha. 405. {h) Charter v. Charter, 3 C. D. 
 
 (/) Henderson v. Dodds, 2 Eq. 218; ^—^-^ /h-^^^;^ «- v/C.*^^/^^ 
 
 532 ; Ferguson v. Gibson, 14 Eq. {i) Col lis v. Robins, 1 i)e G. & ^ 
 
 379. Sni., p. 135. <-' ^^ 
 
 {(j) Bra.y v. West, 9 Sim. 429 ; //f
 
 COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 153 
 
 The rule as to the costs of creditors, plaintiffs in admi- Creditor 
 
 plaintiff, 
 
 nistration actions, where the assets are deficient, is well when entitled 
 stated in Thomas v. Jones (j), where Kindersley, V.-C, ^uent costs, 
 says, " If a creditor files a bill on behalf of himself and all 
 other creditors, and the fund applicable to the payment of 
 the debts turns out to be insufficient for the purpose, that 
 fund, to use the language in one of the cases, belongs 
 exclusively to the creditors. When, therefore, one creditor 
 institutes a suit for the benefit of himself and all other 
 creditors, such creditors being represented only by him, 
 and if in that suit he recovers payment of the debts due to 
 the creditors generally, then he is recouped the expenses 
 he has properly incurred as plaintiff; and he is allowed 
 his costs as between solicitor and client, because he has 
 been at the trouble of recovering the fund for all the parties 
 entitled to it." This rule applies also to cases where a 
 creditor obtains the conduct of an action instituted by a 
 legatee or next-of-kin (k). Ordinarily, where the assets 
 are sufficient for payment of the debts, the creditor 
 plaintiff is paid only his party and party costs (I) ; but 
 where a fund had been realised by the diligence of the 
 plaintiff, and the assets were more than sufficient for pay- 
 ment of the debts, the costs of the plaintiff as between 
 party and party were ordered to be paid out of the general 
 fund, and the extra costs of the plaintiff were directed to 
 be paid 2^7-0 rata by all the creditors who partook of the 
 benefit of the suit (m). 
 
 It was at one time the practice to insert in decrees for No contribu- 
 ad ministration in creditors' suits, a direction that creditors *^T "Tr 
 
 orderetl from 
 
 " before coming in to prove should contribute their pro- c^e'litors 
 
 ^ towards 
 
 plaintiff's 
 costs. 
 (j) 1 Dr. & S. 134, approved in cit.; Josejih v. Goode, 23 W. R. 225. 
 Richardson v. JHchardnon, 14 C. D. (I) Lcchmere v. Brazier, 1 Ruris. 
 
 611 ; and see Henderson v. Dodds, 81. 
 
 2 Eq. 532. (m) Slanton v. Ilaljield, 1 Xe. 
 
 (k) Ilichardsoiiv. Tiichardson, loc. 358,
 
 154 COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 
 
 portion of the expenses of the suit " (n), but it would 
 
 seem that this condition was never enforced (o), and this 
 
 direction is now omitted (2>). 
 
 Costs of mort- There is some conflict of authority as to the costs of 
 
 f.?^!f' ? '^•"*' a mortfTRo^ee who, as a creditor, brings an action for adminis- 
 
 iti an adiniins- o o ' 'to 
 
 tration action, tration. It has been held that as by a sale of the mortgaged 
 property under the order of the Court he obtains an 
 advantage outside his contract, the costs of the executors 
 of the mortgagor will come out of the proceeds of sale in 
 priority to his debt and costs (q), but in Pinchard v. 
 Felloivs (r), Bacon, V.-C, ordered the plaintiff's mortgage- 
 debt, interest, and costs of suit to be paid out of the pro- 
 ceeds of sale in priority to the costs of the executors. It 
 has been held, where a mortgaged estate is sold in a 
 creditors' action, by consent of the mortgagee, not a party 
 to the action, that he is entitled to have his principal and 
 interest, and the expenses of the actual sale (but no 77tore) 
 paid in priority out of the proceeds of sale, his other costs 
 and expenses being left to be defrayed out of the general 
 estate, and the plaintiff's costs of the sale being paid 
 out of the balance of the proceeds (s) ; but in Ward v. 
 Mackinlay {t) a doubt is expressed by Turner, L. J., as to 
 
 (?i) Thompson v. Cooper, 2 Coll. Ke. 358. 
 
 87. il) Armstrong v. Storcr, 14 Beav, 
 
 (o) See SJi07-tle7j V. Sclby, 5 Madd., 535 ; Spciisley v. Harrisun, 15 Eq. 
 
 p. 448 ; Lechmcre v. Brazier, 1 16. 
 
 Russ., p. 76. (»•) 17 Eq. 421; see also Aldridge 
 
 (p) Setoii, 832 : where it is sug- v. Westbrook, 5 Beav. 188; Carrx. 
 
 gested that as the taxed costs are Henderson, 11 Beav. 415 ; Tiicklcy 
 
 paid before the fund in Court is v. TJwrnpson, 1 J. & H. 126, where 
 
 distributed, the plaintiff receives the plaintiff, an equitable mort- 
 
 contribution in effect ; but if the gagee, was not allowed his costs of 
 
 fund be insufficient even to pay the the sale ; and Henderson v. Dodds, 
 
 plaintiff's costs, it would seem that 2 Eq. p. 533. 
 
 creditors who by coming in under (s) Berry v. Hebblethwaitc, 4 K. & 
 
 the judgment have approved and J. 80 ; notwitlistanding Hepicorth 
 
 adopted the action, ought to contri- v. Hcslop, 3 Ha. 485. 
 
 bute to make up the dehciencj^ ; see, {t) 2 Ue G. J. & S. 358. 
 however, Stanton v. Hatfield, 1
 
 COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 155 
 
 the propriety of this practice, as being calculated to 
 prevent mortgagees from consenting to a sale being made 
 free from incumbrances, and a distinction is drawn between 
 such cases and those where the mortgagee is plaintiff (u). 
 
 The case of a legatee's costs (whether of a pecuniary or Costs of legatee 
 
 • J 1 J. \ • . 1 -11 plaiutiif, where 
 
 residuary legatee; remams to be considered. fund deficient • 
 
 The assets may of course be sufficient for payment of 
 the debts, but not of the legacies, or for debts and legacies, 
 without leaving any surplus for the residuary legatee, or 
 they may be insufficient even for payment of debts. 
 
 The costs as between party and party of the plaintiff, a when paid in 
 pecuniary or residuary legatee, and of the residuary legatee debts, but as 
 when made a defendant, are paid out of the estate in p^^y and 
 priority to debts, if the action has enabled the Court to P^^^^y '^^^y' 
 administer the assets (ir). Where there are creditors and 
 legatees upon a fund which is capable of paying them all, 
 leaving a balance, as the fund does not belong to the 
 creditors alone, but to the residuary and general legatees 
 as well, there is no reason for giving one residuary legatee 
 more than any other his costs as between solicitor and 
 client (y) ; and where there is a common legatee's suit as 
 to a fund belonging to creditors and legatees, and it turns 
 out that there is not sufficient to pay the creditors in full, 
 the legatee plaintiff would not (z) be allowed his costs as 
 between solicitor and client, because in fact the fund did 
 not belong to the legatees but to the creditors, and he had 
 no right to be paid extra costs out of a fund belonging to 
 another class of claimants {a) ; but where there is a surplus 
 after payment of debts, but not sufficient for payment of 
 
 (u) See also Dighton v. Withers, (z) This was allowed in Burrell y. 
 
 31 Beav. 423 ; Threlfall v. Harri- Sinith, 9 Eq. 443 ; but see Fdchard- 
 
 son, W. N., 1877, 192. son v. Richardson, 14 C. D. 611, 
 
 {x) Wetenhall v. Demiis or Davis, where this case is questioned. 
 
 33 Beav. 285. {a) Thomas v. Jones ; Weston v. 
 
 [y) Thomas v. Jones, 1 Dr. & Sm. Clowes, 15 Sim. 610. 
 134.
 
 150* COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 
 
 legacies (/;), and wliere and so far as the estate, though 
 
 insufficient to pay the plaintiff anything, has been increased 
 
 except as to by Ins exertions (c), and so far as the plaintiff's costs have 
 
 the costs of . . . 1 !• • 1 
 
 getting in and been mcurred m getting m and realising the estate {a), a 
 legatee plaintiff is allowed solicitor and client costs. Where 
 the funds are insufficient even to pay the costs, the plaintiff 
 is not entitled to priority for any costs ordered to be paid 
 between party and party : all such costs are paid pai-i 
 passu (e). 
 
 Next of kin It appears that the next of kin, bringing an action for 
 
 plaintitl's have . . . . , . . „ , . 
 
 no priority. administration, have no priority lor their costs over the 
 debts, they being entitled only to undisposed of personal 
 estate (/). 
 Executor's It should be remembered, before a legatee's action is 
 
 tamer para- instituted, that the executor's right of retainer for his own 
 S°co"ts*o/aU* ^®^* ^^)' ^^ paramount to the right of both creditor and 
 other persons, beneficiary to the payment of their costs {h). 
 The general Unless the testator has otherwise directed, the general 
 
 personalty the . . ,. , . , 
 
 primary fund pcrsoiialty, that IS, m Ordinary cases, the residuary personal 
 or costs; estate, after specific and pecuniary legatees have been 
 ^ fV^^ ^ satisfied, is the fund for the payment of the costs of 
 ^ /S-u~S^ administering the personal estate ; and notwithstanding 
 
 ■zi <^ ^ ^v^^*-»'^the cases of Scott v. CwmherJand (i), and Gotuan v. 
 _^-vx_ #i>»-< Bro'iighton (Ic), it is well settled that there is no ascertained 
 " ^^P^^ ^ r -^'** residue divisible amongst the beneficiaries until the debts, 
 , '/v!c>.,-w*. 'f.-m.^ funeral and testamentar}^ expenses, and costs of administer- 
 /k.^..^ ^ ^/ia^ <i«^KIie estate have been paid, and that the costs are to be 
 
 y/ /^, ^^2' 
 
 ' {h) Thomas v.Jones,\V)\.k.'^m. 552. 
 
 130 ; Cross \ . Kcnnington, 11 Beav. (/) Ncv-bcgin v. Bell, 23 Beav. 
 
 89. 386. 
 
 (c) JFrougJdoii v. ColqiiJioun, 1 (g) See jwst, p. 166. 
 
 De G. & Sni. 357. (h) Chissum v. Dcv;es, 5 Enss. 
 
 (d) Wetenhallv. Dennis or Davis, 29; liichmond v. Wliitc, 12 C. D. 
 33 Beav. 285. 361. 
 
 (c) IVetenliallv. Z)cnw?s, approved (?) 18 Eq. 578. 
 
 in Thompson v. Harris, 19 C. D. (k) 19 Eq. 77.
 
 COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 157 
 
 paid out of tlie whole residue, before it is divided, and not 
 out of any lapsed share thereof (l). The same rule applies 
 where a naixed fund is created of realty and personalty (m). 
 
 Where, however, the residuary personalty is insufficient, then the 
 
 . . . - ... J, pecuniary 
 
 the pecuniary legacies, and demonstrative legacies so lar legacies, 
 
 as payable out of the same fund (n), are first resorted to 
 
 pi'O rata (o), and after them the real estate not disposed "^xt the un- 
 
 ■^ ^ ' _ _ _ _ disposed of 
 
 of by the will ( p) ; if there still be a deficiency, the realty, 
 
 specifically bequeathed personalty, and the specifically lastly, specific 
 
 devised realty (including realty comprised in a residuary " 
 
 devise) {q), contribute rateably to make it up {v). 
 
 The costs so falling on the residuary personalty as a What cost* 
 
 . . •,-.1 included, 
 
 whole, include the costs of getting m a specific legacy (s), 
 
 of ascertaining what persons are entitled as members of 
 
 classes among whom the estate is to be divided, and that, 
 
 too, althouffli some of the classes are more numerous than 
 
 others (t), and of severing, appropi'iating, and securing a 
 
 legacy {u), but where a legacy had been appropriated and 
 
 the residue had been divided, the costs of a suit by a 
 
 reversioner to secure it, were ordered to be borne out of 
 
 the legacy (r). 
 
 Where there is real estate only to be administered, if it Costs of ad- 
 
 T ■{ p • f c ^ J ^iii ministration 
 
 IS disposed oi m lavour or a class, and some or the shares ^f real estate 
 
 only 
 
 (Z) Trethevy v. Helyar. 4 C. D. field v. Igcndden, 10 Ch. 136. 
 
 5a ; Fenton v. IVills, 7 C. D. 33 ; (r) Jackson \. Pease, 19 ¥.(\. 96. 
 
 Blann v. Bell, 7 C. D. 382. (s) Perry v. Meddowcroft, 4 Beav. 
 
 (m) Luckcraft v. Pridham, 48 L. 204. 
 
 J. Ch. 636. {t) Shuttleivorth v. Howarth, Cr. 
 
 (n) Sellon v. JVati% 9 W. R. & Ph. 228 ; Ec Reeve's Trmts, 4 C. 
 
 847. D. 841 ; and see Bland v. Daniell, 
 
 (o) Tomkins v. Colthurst, 1 C. D. W. N., 1867, 169. ' 
 
 626 ; Farquharson v. Floyer, 3 C. (u) Handlcy v. Davis, 28 L. J. 
 
 D. 109, notwithstanding Hensman Ch. 873 ; and see Attorney-General 
 
 V. Fryer, 3 Ch. 420. v. Lawes, 8 Ha. 32, and Wilson v. 
 
 (p) Woofl\. Ordish, 3 Sm. & G. Squire, 13 Him. 212, cited ante, p. 
 
 125 ; Stead v. Hardaker, 15 Eq. p. 137. 
 
 177. {i^) Gorernesses' Benevolent lasti- 
 
 iq) Henvman v. Fryer; Lance- tidioa v. Rusbridger, 18 Beav. 467.
 
 158 COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 
 
 lapse, tlie costs are nevertheless payable out of the whole, 
 and not out of the lapsed shares (x). Where, however, 
 different estates are specifically devised, and part of the 
 realty is undisposed of, or some of the specific devises 
 lapse, the costs will, as a general rule, fall on the un- 
 disposed of or lapsed estates (y) ; but in Bagot v. Legge (z), 
 where the questions related entirely to the rights of the . 
 devisees inter se, and to the rights of the devisees and 
 heir at law, the costs were ordered to be paid pro raid out 
 of the descended and devised estates. It must be re- 
 %^,L^ A/^ *^*7mernbered that a residuary devise which takes effect, is in 
 "^^y // ^ l^w specific {a), and specific devisees contribute pro rata, 
 
 ZJL^.^^^ -^"^"^-ac^^ding to the net value of their interests (h). 
 ^._£Vk^^^^^ ^f. JWhere J^oth the real and personal estates are adminis- 
 'C~ reaUndper- tered, the costs will be apportioned between them (c), as 
 /»<;<^onal esta^ifef^- ^^ jg ^]^g ^^^^ where the realty and personalty form a 
 'i^'*'*^'^'^ mixed fund (d), or two estates, or a testator's estate and 
 another fund are administered in one action (e) ; but in 
 /^y-o some such cases the costs have been ordered to be borne 
 / in equal shares though the funds are unequal (/); and 
 Xc-^^-T*.**-— ^/J^e Court often declines to apportion costs minutely {g). 
 i, fj^fj, '^*-^^^ It would seem that the apportioned part of the costs 
 , nX^^%^,' * ^ thrown upon the real estate should be borne by it in the 
 <^' c 4..*X-*-*-*< same manner as the costs of the action where there is real 
 '*'Ty '*^/rf, . estate only to be administered ; see supra. 
 
 IC*^)^' 1 ^^L^-*j ^^^ ^y^^ ^ Marsden, 4 M. & Cr. must now be taken to be overruled. 
 
 O 1<l lOU,'^^ 231; Maddison v. Pye, 32 Beav. Only the costs, " so far as they have 
 
 658 ; and see Fisher y. Fisher, 2 Ke. been increased by the administrat* io-f\^ 
 
 610. of the realty " are paid thereout. 
 
 {y) Sanders v. Miller, 25 Beav. {d) Christian v. Foster, 2 Ph. 
 
 154. 161. 
 
 (2) 2 Dr. & S. 259. (e) Young v. Martin, 2 Y. & C. C. 
 
 (a) See ant€, p. 157 (q). C. 582 ; Irby v. Irby, 24 Beav. 525. 
 
 {b) Barnewell V. Iremonger,! Dr. (/) Dean v. Morris, 5 W. R. 
 
 & S. 255. cr 345 ; Mayd v. Field, 24 W. R. 
 
 (c) Patching v. Barnett,hl L. J. 660. 
 
 Ch. 74 ; Thompso7iv. Harris, 19 C. (g) Knott v. Cottee, 16 Beav. p. 
 
 D. 552 ; the cases to the contrary 81 ; Coates v. Coates, 3 N. R. 355. 
 
 '^/^.y^^^'/^^?
 
 COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 159 
 
 When a charitable gift fails as to impure personalty, Apportionment 
 the costs are apportioned between the pure and impure and impure 
 personalty (h), unless the pure personalty be given speci- P®r^°"^^*y- 
 fically to the charity (i), when the costs will be borne 
 by the impure personalty. 
 
 Where costs are ordered to be paid out of a particular Adjustment 
 fund, that does not necessarily determine that this fund is of costs out of 
 ultimately to bear them (k), and accordingly, where costs g^ar^g y * 
 had been ordered to be paid out of income instead of out therewith. 
 of corpus, it was held that the order did not preclude the 
 matter from being afterwards set right [l). 
 
 The testator may of course alter the order in which the Marshalling of 
 different classes of assets are resorted to for payment of ^f^^^ ^^ ^^' 
 costs, whether for the benefit of a charity (ni), or the 
 persons entitled to the general personalty (n), and it is 
 now well settled, contrary to the former rule, that the 
 words " testamentary expenses " (o) in a will include the Costs of ad- 
 costs of an administration action ( p) ; and as in a creditors' ^?on*^nduded 
 action the costs come out of the same funds as the debts, the ^° "t^sta- 
 
 ' mentary 
 
 costs will be paid out of any fund charged with the debts [q). expenses." 
 Where costs had been thus paid out of equitable assets, Apportionment 
 upon the falling in of a reversion, which was legal assets, ^^t^een legal 
 an apportionment of the costs between the legal and assets. 
 
 {h) Taylor v. Linley, 5 Jur. N. S. (w) Harloc v. Harloc, 20 Eq. 
 
 701. 471. 
 
 (i) Shcphcardv. Bectimm, GCD. (o) "Testamentary expenses" 
 
 597 ; Young v. Dolman, 44 L. T. thrown by the testator upon one ^ /• /? 
 
 499. fund include the costs of an admin- ^^ f^ ^-<a.*^ 
 
 (k) But an order to pay over a istration action properly instituted /^<f ) 1- C'^ 
 
 fund to persons by name is inci- by legatees of another fund, Young ^ 
 
 dentally a determination that other v. Dolman. For the meaning of ^/^^^ /d^^^^f^ 
 
 persons, who are not named, are not "executorship expenses," see Sharp /ar / "7 /^ 
 
 entitled, Sheppard v. Shcpjmrd, 33 v. Lush, 10 C. D. 468. L '/ ^ ^^ 
 
 Beav. 129. {p) Penny v. Permy, 11 C. D. 
 
 (l) Ibid. 440. 
 
 (m) Miles v. Harrison, 9 Ch. (q) Wilson v. Heatoa, 11 Beav. 
 
 316. 492.
 
 IGO COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS. 
 
 equitable assets was ordered, in the interests of simple 
 contract creditors {r). 
 
 For further information as to cOvSts, the reader is referred 
 to Morgan and Wurtzburg's Costs, 165 — 204; Seton, 
 826, 827, 832, 845, 846, and 875—880; Pemb., 175 
 —178 ; and Lewin, 7th ed., 844—852. 
 
 (r) Midhnv v. Mutlow, 4 De G. between legal and equitable assets, 
 k J. 539. For the distinction seejoosi, p. 167.
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 OF THE ORDER IN WHICH ASSETS ARE ADMINISTERED. 
 
 It does not fall within the scope of this work to discuss Thcnki law 
 the old law in respect of the administration of assets by cussed, 
 the Court of Chancery, which itself was a partial ameliora- 
 tion, in the interests of simple contract creditors, of the 
 rules of the Common Law, The reader is referred to the 
 text-books of Mr, Joshua Williams and Mr. Eddis (a), for 
 a historical sketch of the steps by which the various 
 classes of creditors have one after another obtained recogni- 
 tion of their just rights. In this chapter we shall consider The Act of 
 only the cases which fall under the two recent enactments, judicature a'iI; 
 32 & 33 Vict, c, 46, and the Judicature Act, 1875, sec. 10, i^-"^- 
 as the estates administered under the old law must neces- 
 sarily be few and continually decreasing in number (b). 
 
 By the first of these enactments it was provided that The Act of 
 
 in the administration of the estate of every person who 
 
 should die on or after the 1st January, 1870, no debt or 
 
 liability of such person should be entitled to any priority or Specialty 
 
 creditors have 
 
 (a) Williams on Real Assets, Ch. the personal representative, payable 
 
 i. and ix. ; Eddis on Administra- in order of date. (5.) Recognis- 
 
 tion of Assets, Ch, vi, ances and statutes. (6. ) Debts by 
 
 (6) It will be sufficient here to specialty, for valuable consideration, 
 enumerate the order in which the arrears of rent, and moneys payable 
 various kinds of debts were paid under sec. 75 of the Companies Act, 
 before the Act of 1869; (1.) Debts 1862. (7.) Debts by simple con- 
 due to the Crown by record or tract and unregistered judgments 
 specialty, (2.) Debts to which (see Van Gheluivc v, NcrincTcx, 21 
 particular statutes give priority. C. D, 189), (8.) Voluntary obliga- 
 (3.) Debts on judgments obtained tions not assigned for value ; ("VVil- 
 against the deceased, duly regis- liams' Exors., Ch. ii.; Comp. Exoi's. 
 tered, payable ^7ari passu. (4.) 157 — 161 ; Seton, 815 ; Eddis on 
 Debtson judgments obtained against Assets, 14 — 24 ; Snell, 6th YA. 255. ) 
 
 M
 
 102 OF TITE ORDER IN WTTTCII ASSETS 
 
 no priority over preference by reason merely tliat the same is secured by 
 
 sirn]iie contract . "^ 
 
 creditors. or arises under a bond, deed, or other instrument under 
 
 seal, or is otherwise made or constituted a specialty 
 debt (c) ; but that all the creditors of such person, as well 
 specialty as simple contract, should be treated as standing 
 in equal degree, and be paid accordingly out of the assets 
 of such deceased person, whether such assets are legal or 
 equitable, any statute or other law to the contrary not- 
 withstanding ; but it was thereby provided that the Act 
 should not prejudice or affect any lien, charge, or other 
 security, which any creditor might hold or be entitled to 
 for the payment of his debt. 
 The Judicature By the Judicature Act, 1875, sec. 10, to which we have 
 imports the already referred {d), it is enacted that, in the adrainistra- 
 ruptc °*in'^"''' *^^^^ ^y ^^^ Court (e) of the assets of any person who may 
 administering die after the 1st November, 1875 (/), and whose estate 
 
 insolvent 
 
 estates. may prove to be insufficient for the payment in full of his 
 
 debts and liabilities, the same rules shall prevail and be 
 observed as to the respective rights of secured (g) and un- 
 secured creditors, and as to debts and liabilities provable, 
 and as to the valuation of annuities and future and con- 
 tingent liabilities respectively, as may be in force for the 
 time being under the Law of Bankruptcy, with respect to 
 the estates of persons adjudged bankrupt ; and all persons 
 who in any such case would be entitled to prove for and 
 receive dividends out of the estate of any such deceased 
 
 (c) Including rent ; Shinrff v. (/ See sec. 2, and Shenvin v. 
 
 Hastings, 6 C. D. 610. Selkirk, 12 C. D. 68. 
 
 {d) Ante, p. 107. (g) Before this Act a mortgagee 
 
 (e) It would therefore appear that might realize his security, and yet 
 
 there is now one rule when an prove for and receive dividends upon 
 
 estate is administered by the Court, tlie whole of his debt, until it 
 
 and another when it is administered shoidd be fully discharged {Mason 
 
 out of Court ; see Eddis on Assets, v. Bogg, 2 My. & Cr. 443). For the 
 
 111. Under sec. 91 of the Judica- effect of this enactment upon mort- 
 
 ture Act, 1873, County Courts M'ill gagees whose security is deficient, 
 
 in the administration of assets follow see juosi, p. 171. As to who is a 
 
 the same rules as the High Court. secured creditor, see post, p. 169.
 
 ARE ADMINISTERED. 163 
 
 person, may come in under the decree or order for the ad- 
 ministration of such estate, and make such claims against 
 the same as they may respectively be entitled to by virtue 
 of the Act. The rules of the Law of Bankruptcy with 
 regard to the payment of debts and distribution of assets 
 are contained in the Bankruptcy Act, 1869 {h), ss, 31 — 40. 
 
 Though, however, the Legislature has thus placed Wliat debts 
 specialty and simple contract creditors upon the same foot- priority, 
 ing, it has not altered the priority of Crown debts over all 
 others of equal degree, the Crown not being named in the 
 Statute of 1869 (i), nor that of certain debts to which 
 particular statutes give priority {j), nor has it deprived a 
 creditor who has obtained and registered {k) judgment 
 against the deceased, or one who has obtained judgment il) 
 against the executor, whether it be or be not registered, of 
 his right to be paid his debt in full in priority over all 
 other creditors of equal degree (to) ; nor, lastly, has it 
 taken from the executor his right of retainer, either 
 expressly or by implication, e.g., by abolishing the distinc- 
 tion between legal and equitable assets, or by regarding 
 him as a secured creditor {n). 
 
 With these exceptions, all unsecured creditors, and 
 
 (7i) 32 & 33 Vict. c. 71. ^vith the other creditors. 
 
 (i) See Seton, 816 ; Re Henley, (l) But a creditor who has ob- ^ _ ^ 
 
 9 C. D. 469 ; Ex i^rtc Postmaster- taiiied an order nisi to sign judg- 01*^/^*^0"^^^^ 
 
 General, 10 ibid. 595. nient against an executor, if judg- /^// Z^ S ^J. 
 
 (j) Moors V. Marriott, 7 C D. ment be not signed before, i.e., at W / 
 
 543 ; Fisher v. Shirley, W. N. latest, the day before {Parker v. 
 1879, 103. /^ f^^Uc^C^f/Z/i^i/J^Pingham, 33 Beav. .^.35), a judg- 
 
 {k) See 23 & 24 "Vict. c. 38, and ment for administration has been 
 
 Va7i Ghelidvc v. Xerinckx, 21 C. D. obtained in the Chancery Division, 
 
 189. If the sheriff has seized imder has no priority over the other cre- 
 
 a fi. fa., he is a secured creditor ditors {Hanson v. Stubbs, 8 C. D. 
 
 {Ex parte Williams, 7 Ch. 314) ; 154). 
 
 qumre, whether, if the fruits of his {m) Williams v. TVilliams, 15 
 
 execution prove insufficient to Efi- 270 ; Smith v. Morgan, 5 C. P. 
 
 satisfy his judgment, he is entitled D. 337 ; Winchousc v. Winchouse, 
 
 to priority for the deficiency, or 20 C. D. 545. 
 
 whether, under the Jirdicature Act, {n) Lee v. Nuttall, 12 C. D. 61 ; 
 
 1875, sec. 10, he must prove for it Croicder v. Stewart, 16 ibid. 368. 
 
 M 2
 
 164 
 
 OF THE ORDER IN WTTiril ABSETS 
 
 Costs and del its 
 payjible out of 
 the same fund. 
 
 Order in wliicli 
 assets are 
 resorted to. 
 
 1. The general 
 res-id uary 
 personalty. 
 
 2. Real estate 
 devised in 
 trust to pay 
 debts. 
 
 3. Real estate 
 descended. 
 
 4. Specific 
 devises and 
 
 secured creditors, so far as their securities are deficient, 
 now stand on an equal footing. 
 
 It will be seen that, subject to Locke King's Acts {n), 
 and to any special disposition by the testator, the order in 
 which resort is had to his assets for payment of debts 
 corresponds closely to that in which they are taken for 
 payment of costs : it is as follows : — 
 
 I. The general residue of the personal (o) estate not 
 specifically bequeathed, after providing for pecuniary 
 legacies, subject, in the case of lapsed shares, to the rules 
 stated ante, p. 156. This general personal estate being 
 the primary fund for payment of debts, it requires strong 
 words to exonerate it (p). 
 
 II. Eeal estates (q) devised in trust to pay debts (r), 
 when the personalty is not expressly exonerated, and the 
 devise is construed to be in aid only of the primary fund (s). 
 
 III. Real estates descended (t). X*-^^ -.-»^^ -u i--^^ -^ 
 
 IV. Real or personal estate specifically given, but (u) 
 
 f >7 /a Af7 
 
 (w) Post, p. 174. 
 
 {<>) Including land in India (9 
 Geo. IV. c. 33 ; Slory v. Fry, 1 Y. 
 & C. C. 603) and in the West Indies 
 (5 Geo. II. c. 7, s. 4 ; Thomson v. 
 Grant, 1 Russ. 540 n. ). 
 
 (p) Booth V. Blundcll, 1 Mer. 
 p. 220 ; and see the notes to Duke 
 ofAncaster v. Mayer,'Wh. & Tud. i. 
 4th ed. 630, et seq. ; for a case of 
 exoneration, see Forrest v. Prescott, 
 10 Eq. 545. 
 
 ((/) It may here be mentioned 
 that a judgment recovered against 
 executors is primci facie evidence of 
 the debt against persons interested 
 in the realty, who may, however, 
 have an inquiry ; Harvey v. Wilde, 
 14 Eq. 438. 
 
 (r) Not including the costs in- 
 curred in defending actions by cre- 
 ditors, though resulting in a reduc- 
 tion of their claims ; see Lovat v. 
 
 Fraser, L. R. 1 Sc. Ap. pp. 31, 38. 
 
 (s) Phillips V. Parry, 22 Beav. 
 279. 
 
 (t) Bonne v. Lewis, 2 Bro. C. C. 
 p. 263 ; Harmood v. Oglander, 
 8 Ves. pp. 124, 125. 
 
 (u) As to what amounts to a 
 charge of debts or legacies, a ques- 
 tion too wide for this treatise, see 
 Wh. Sc Tud. ii., 130—133 ; Paile^j 
 V. Bailey, 12 C. D. 268 ; Ji. 
 Tanqtieray- Willaume and Landau, 
 20 ibid. 465. A direction to pay 
 debts out of rents and profits of 
 real estate, primd facie, and unless 
 the context is inconsistent, charges 
 them on the corpus, not merely on 
 the annual rents and profits ; 3Iet- 
 calfe v. Htotchinson, 1 C. D. 591. If 
 there was a trust of land for pay- 
 ment of debts, a creditor was for- 
 merly not barred by lapse of time, 
 unless barred at the testator's death 
 

 
 -^ /€J^ J.»r^* 
 
 ^^C^^ 
 
 cliarg^Tgenerally \mh uie payment of debts 
 
 Tfii' 
 
 ^^ ^/r^ARE ADMINISTERED. r*H^-^'??i^ 
 
 (u) ; and if a I'equests ^yC - 
 
 1 f 1 111 charged with 
 
 share oi such an estate lapse, the whole estate, and not debts. /C^ 
 
 primarily the lapsed share, is liable (v). 
 
 V. General pecuniary legacie s, and demonstrative lega- 5. General 
 cies(i(;), so far as the specified fund is insufficient, ^>^'0 legacies. 
 
 ,«L /V. 
 
 ^ <.* ■ 
 
 VI. Real estates specifically devised or comprised in a 6. Specific T^y*^/ 
 residuary devise, and s pecific be ^iuests, (including the bequests. -^^Z*^ 
 specified fund {y) for payment of demonstrative legacies), a /^^if^i ^f.^^^ 
 2)ro Tata (z). ,71^^. ^- ■^^ ■^^ 
 
 VII. Real and personal estate a ppointed under a general 7. "'Re'al^i^^-^^^V .'°^' 
 power (a), but, seriible, if the appointment should lapse ^^^,po°^tej^^ '^ ^"^ Ic 
 for the benefit of the heir or of the general personal estate i^*^^'^-*^ ^*/^ 
 of the appointor, the appointed estate would be liable for ^^^y /sL^ I^ 
 
 debts in the same order, if realty, as descended estates, 
 ^^^on^alty^as the^W PJ^^^^^^te (fej^^^^ 
 
 '^'^ ' (Hughes \. JFynn " " '" " '"' " 
 
 f^^^' O'Connor v. Hash 
 
 <e, T. & R. 307 f "^ 
 Uaslam, 5 H. L. C. 
 ^'*^ y \ 170), .^cnis, if there was a charge only 
 /J- -J {Dickenson v. Teasdale, 1 De G. J. 
 
 l^ /^^- 52), or if the charge was on the 
 \!7^^ "'fiersonalty only i^Scott v. Jones, 4 CI. 
 /i,*''-*'*' & F. 382) ; and the same rule ap- 
 ^C'^-*-»2;^J^ed to legacies [Thomson v. East- 
 *2^ ^^ivood, 2 App. Cas. 215), but now, 
 ^"^V^'by 37 & 38 Vict. c. 57, s. 10, it is 
 >*-^^ *^ nroy-ided (repealing, it is presiimed, 
 A~^^^?r'25 (2) of the Judicature Act, 
 *'*'^y' 1873) that after the 1st Januarj', 
 \f y 1879, no action, suit, or other pro- 
 t Cw ceeding shall be brought to recover 
 ? 3 / any sum of money or legacy charged 
 upon or payable out of any land or 
 rent and secured by an express trust, 
 except within the time (in general, 
 twelve years) within which the 
 same would be recoverable if there 
 were not any siich trust. It is pre- 
 sumed that this \\ill not apply if 
 the money has been raised and is 
 in the hands of the trustee or exe- 
 cutor {Pltilippo V. Munnings, 2 M. 
 & Cr. 309) ; but see Sutton v. SiMon, 
 
 W. N". '1882, 172, Fenrnside 
 Flint, 31 W. R. 318. 
 
 (m) Donne v. Lewis, 2 Bro. C. C. 
 263 ; Harmood v. Oglander, 8 Ves. 
 125. 
 
 Fisher v. Fisher, 2 Keen, 
 Wood V. Ordish, 3 Sm. & G. 
 
 610 ; 
 125. 
 
 (w) SeUon 
 
 
 V. Watts, 9 W. R. 
 
 (.r) Tomkins v. CoUhurst, 1 C. D. 
 626 ; Farquhnrson v. Floyer, 3 ihicl. 
 109 ; notwithstanding Hensman v. 
 Fnjer, 3 Ch. 420. 
 
 {y) Sellon v. Watts. 
 
 [z) Tombs V. FocJi, 2 Col. 490 ; 
 Hensman v. Fryer; Lancefield v. 
 Iggulden, 10 Ch. 136. 
 
 (a) Fleming v . ^ ichgnan, 3 Dc 
 G. M. & G. 976 ; GodfrtyT^ff^he}^ 
 13 C. D. 216,^ It is iiresumed that 
 such personal estate is equitable 
 assets ; see })0st (l). 
 
 (h) Sperling v. Bochfort, 16 C. D. 
 18 ; Hinsley v. Ickeringill, 17 ibid. 
 151 ; and see Frevie v. Clement, 18 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ibid. 499. 
 
 ' ^^- t.^ ^
 
 IGG 
 
 OF THE ORDER TN WHICH ASSETS 
 
 Adjustment 
 •wlieii (Iclits 
 paid out of 
 property not 
 chargoal)le 
 tlierewith. 
 
 Alienation by 
 heir or devisee, 
 
 Retainer by 
 execvitor for 
 his own debt, 
 out of legal 
 assets only. 
 
 When it is said that the testator's debts are payable out 
 of his assets in the foregoing order, it is not, of course, 
 suggested that creditors must wait until the various funds 
 are successively realized ; they are entitled to sue the 
 executor at once, and the executor is entitled to pay them 
 out of any funds in his hands. The rights of the persons 
 interested in the assets must be subsequently adjusted (c), 
 and it must not be forgotten that until judgment for 
 administration is obtained, and, semhle, unless the action 
 is registered as a lis peiidens, the heir or devisee of real 
 estate not charged with or devised in trust to pay debts 
 can defeat the creditors of the deceased, by ante-nuptial 
 settlement or other bond fide alienation for value, whether 
 legal or equitable {d) ; and the same rule has been applied 
 in the case of personal estate, where there was no imputa- 
 tion as to the honesty with which the assets had been 
 dealt with, the claim against the assets being for a breach 
 of covenant subsequent to the alienation (e) ; otherwise, 
 semble, the interest under the settlement of the person 
 liable to discharge the debt might have been reached (/). 
 
 As has been already stated (g), the distinction between 
 legal and equitable assets still prevails, and it is still open 
 to an executor as against creditors of equal degree (It), to 
 retain out of legal assets for his own debt, whether it be 
 legal or equitable (?'). Legal assets, as the term is applied 
 
 (c) See 2}ost, p. 174. 
 
 (d) Spackman v. TimhreU, 8 Sim. 
 253 ; Richardson v. Horton, 7 Beav. 
 112 ; British Mutual Investment Co. 
 V. Smart, 10 Ch. 567. 
 
 (c) Dilkes v. Broadmcad, 2 De 
 G. F. & J. 566 ; see also Corser v. 
 Cartwright, L. R. 7 H. L. 731. 
 
 (/) London and Provincial Bank 
 V. Bogle, 7 C. D. 773. 
 
 {g) Ante, p. 163. 
 
 {h) Sec Talbot v. Frcre, 9 C. D. 
 568. 
 
 {i) Including debts of the de- 
 ceased for which the executor is 
 surety ( Wildes v. Dudloiv, 19 Eq. 
 198), though he has not been called 
 upon to pay them {Ferguson v. Gib- 
 son, 14 Eq. 379 ; Skinner v. M. of 
 Anglesey, Kay, J., 1882) ; debts 
 due to him as one of two joint cre- 
 ditors {Crowder v. Steivart, 16 C. D. 
 368) including partners, {Morris v. 
 Morris, 10 Ch. 68), or as a cestid quif 
 trust of the actual creditor {Looines\ 
 V. Slotherd, 1 S. & S. p. 461), 1 
 
 
 
 /•. 1 „ 
 
 <'k^ t'
 
 ARE ADMINISTERED. 
 
 167 
 
 when tlie executor's right of retainer (h) is in question, are 
 such parts of the property of a deceased person as may be 
 reached or made available by an executor virtute officii {I), 
 and consist only of the personal estate, whether in itself 
 legal or equitable (in). If, however, an executor should 
 resort to personalty specifically bequeathed, the legatee 
 would have the right to compensation out of any fund pro- 
 perly chargeable with the debt in priority to his bequest (h). 
 The rest of the assets .are equitable (o), and out of these 
 there is no right of retainer (p). 
 
 or as executor or administrator of 
 
 another person [Thompnon v. 
 
 Cooper, 1 Coll. 85), or as trustee by 
 
 devolution [Saiuler v. Heathficld, 
 
 19 Eq. 21). See also Comp. Exors., 
 
 163—170 ; Set. 893 ; and Pemb. 
 
 68). 
 
 {k) By 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 104, all 
 
 /.^/^ real estate not by will charged with 
 
 ^_^^,_,,^ or devised subject to the payment 
 
 ^1^^---- -• — 
 
 * /Ask 
 
 
 ' debts is made assets to be admin- 
 istcred in equity (at the suit of any 
 
 person interested whether as cre- 
 ditor, heir, or next of kin, or under 
 a will, Price v. Price, 15 Sim. 484 ; 
 Podney v. Rodney, 16 ibid. 307), for 
 the j^ayment of the debts of the 
 person seised thereof or entitled 
 thereto at his death ; and although 
 in Foster v. Hundley, 1 Sim. N. S. 
 200, and Burrell v. Smith, 9 Ec^. 
 443, it was decided that, under the 
 l)roviso in the Act saving the rights 
 of specialty creditors, real estate 
 affected by the Act was made legal 
 assets, yet, now that specialty and 
 .simple contract creditors are paid 
 pari passu {ante, p. 162), the ex- 
 j)ress direction that such real estate 
 shall be assets to be administered in 
 equity will prevail, and it is no 
 longer in any sense legal assets ; and 
 srmble, the heir or devisee of land 
 not made equitable assets by the 
 testator may no longer retain his 
 own debts out of the proceeds, as in 
 
 Loomcs V. StotJicrd, 1 S. & S. 458. 
 In Walters v. Walters, 18 C. D. 
 182, in which Foster v. Haadley 
 was not cited, it was held to be 
 equitable assets so as to de- 
 prive an executor of his (alleged) 
 right of retainer. The distinction 
 between the sense in which the 
 term ' ' legal assets " was applied to 
 real estate descended {i.e., for the 
 benefit of specialty creditors), and 
 that in which it is applied to ])er- 
 sonal estate in the hands of an exe- 
 cutor, and suliject to his right of 
 retainer, is pointed out in Williams, 
 Real Assets, 14. 
 
 (?) Cook V. Gregson, 3 Dr. 286 ; 
 includin.g land in the West Indies, 
 Thomson v. Grant, cited ante, p. 
 164 (o). 
 
 {m) 3Iorris v. Morris, 10 Ch. Qi. 
 
 («) See^os^, p. 174. 
 
 (o) So also was the separate estate 
 of a married woman {Ovxns v. 
 Dickenson, Cr. & Ph. 48 ; Thompson 
 v. Bennett, 6 C. D. 739) ; but 
 whether this will be so under the 
 Married Women's Property Act, 
 1882, qucere. An executor has no 
 right of retainer out of the purchase- 
 money of real estate contracted to 
 be sold by the testator, paid into 
 Court in an administration action 
 {Duignan v. Croome, 41 L. T. 672). 
 
 {p) A mortgagee, though he be 
 executor of his mortgagor, after
 
 168 OF TUi: ORDER IN WHICH ASSETS ^ 
 
 Besides executors, administrators (whether creditors (7) 
 or not), and executors of surviving executors, have the 
 right of retainer (r), but not executors de son tort, though 
 they may prefer one creditor to another, and may even 
 pay debts for which they are sureties (s). 
 Rule of hotch- The executor having no right of retainer out of equitable 
 
 Jiot where l«U"t •n-^i • i r t • i ^ n ^ 1 
 
 of debt re- assets, Will, if he retains part only of his debt out of legal 
 out"of le^aT^ assets, be postponed to the other creditors in the distribu- 
 assets in ^[qy^ q^ equitable assets, until they have received thereout 
 
 priority to _ 
 
 other creditors, sums equal in proportion to the amount of the executor's 
 debt retained by him, after which the remaining assets 
 
 iMarshaiiing. will be distributed ^3ro rata (t). The same rule applies 
 where judgment (or, formerly, where specialty) creditors 
 are paid in part out of the legal assets in priority to simple 
 contract creditors (u), and where one creditor has received 
 part of his debts in preference to others of like degree 
 he will not receive any more, either out of legal or 
 equitable assets, until they have received their proper 
 proportion (cc). 
 
 The Judicature Most of the decisions upon sect. 10 of the Judicature 
 
 Act 1875 
 
 and the rules Act, 1875 (y), liave been given upon questions arising in 
 
 an -lup cy. ^^^q winding up of companies, which are similarly affected 
 
 by this enactment, and it is impossible to state with any 
 
 confidence in which way many questions which must arise 
 
 upon this difficult section will be determined. 
 
 It will be seen that in three particulars the rules of 
 equity are, in the administration of an insolvent estate (z), 
 
 realising his security, and retaining (s) Skinner v. M. of Anglesey, 
 
 the mortgage-debt, must hand over Kay, J., 1882. 
 
 the surplus to creditors of higher (t) W. & Tud. ii. 129 ; Bain v. 
 
 degree than himself ( Tattoi V. 2^rc?-c, Sadler, 12 Eq. 570. 
 
 9 C. D. 568). {u) Davics v. Topp, 1 Bro. C. C. 
 
 {q) In practice this right is taken 525 ; and see p)Ost, p. 174. 
 
 away by the terms of the adminis- {x) Mitchelson v. Piper, 8 Sim. 
 
 tration bond {Coovibs v. Coombs, 64. 
 
 1 P. & M. 193, 288 ; Jn the Goods (y) See ante, p. 162. 
 
 of Brackenhury, 2 P. D. 272). (z) It has been decided that it is 
 
 (r) W. & Tud. ii. 128. not necessary in the administration
 
 ARE ADMINISTERED. 169 
 
 to give way to those of bankruptcy (a) ; (1), as to the re- 
 spective rights of secured and unsecured creditors, (2), 
 as to the debts and liabilities provable, and (3), as to 
 the valuation of annuities and future and contingent 
 liabilities. 
 
 As to (1); by sect. 16 (5) of the Bankruptcy Act, 1. As to 
 18C9 (h), a secured creditor is defined as "any creditor m^ggcuml 
 holding any mortgage charge or lien on the bankrupt's creditors, 
 estate or any part thereof, as securit}' for an}^ debt due to 
 him," and the following, amongst others, have been held 
 to be secured creditors within this definition ; a plaintiff 
 in whose action a sum of money had, before the bank- 
 ruptcy of the defendant, been paid into Court to abide 
 the event (c) ; a judgment creditor who has served a 
 garnishee order nisi before the bankruptcy of the judg- 
 ment debtor, although it had not then been made abso- 
 lute (d) ; a judgment creditor taking a transfer of a legal 
 mortgage, and, in an action for sale of the property and 
 payment of both mortgage and judgment debts, obtaining 
 an order appointing a receiver for both debts (e) ; an exe- 
 cution creditor on whose behalf the sheriff has actually 
 seized the debtor's goods (/), and sect. 87 of the Bank- 
 ruptcy Act, under which the execution may be defeated, 
 if the debtor be a trader and the sheriff be directed to sell 
 
 judgment to direct that if the estate enactment does not apply to tlic 
 
 prove insolvent the rules of hank- case of a debtor filing a petition for 
 
 ruptc)' shall apply ( Woods v. Green- lirjuidation and dying (He Ohhard, 
 
 well, 30 W. R. 2S3 ; notwithstand- 19 W. R. 563). 
 
 ing Hipkins v. Eildick, 29 ibid. {h) 32 & 33 Vict. c. 71. 
 
 733). (c) Re Keyicorth, 9 Ch. 379. 
 
 (a) By sec. 80 (sub-sec. 9) of [d) Ex2MrteJoselyne,%Q..'D.Z27; 
 
 the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, it is Ee Stan}i02)e Silkstonc Collieries Co., 
 
 provided that where a debtor who 11 ibid. 160. 
 
 Jias been adjudicated a bankrupt (e) Ex parte Evans, 13 C. D. 
 
 dies, the Court may order that the 252. 
 
 proceedings in the matter be con- (/) Ex. parte Eocke, 6 Ch. 795 ; 
 
 tinued as if he were alive ; but this Ex parte IVilliaihs, 7 ibid. 3H.
 
 170 
 
 OF THE ORDER IN WHICH ASSETS 
 
 Mortgagees. 
 
 Oliject of the 
 euactment. 
 
 for an amount exceeding £50 {g), is not incorporated by 
 sect. 10 of the Judicature Act, 1875 {h). In addition to 
 these, mortgagees whether legal or equitable, persons 
 having by law or custom a lien on the debtor's property, 
 pawnees, and pledgees, are within the definition, but not a 
 creditor who, after serving a writ of foreign attachment 
 in an action in the Lord Mayor's Court, has not obtained 
 judgment before the bankruptcy {i) ; nor is it enough 
 merely to issue a writ of sequestration against a defendant, 
 and serve it on a debtor to him or a trustee of a fund for 
 him {j) ; nor does a banker become a secured creditor by 
 making advances on bills of exchange indorsed to him to 
 be discounted, and held by him pending discount (A). 
 
 In Lee v. Nuttall [I), James, L. J., said, " the sole 
 object of the section, as it appears to me, was to get rid of 
 the rule in Chancery (m), under which a secured creditor 
 could prove for the full amount of his debt and realise 
 his security afterwards, and to put him on the same footing 
 as in bankruptcy, where he was only entitled to prove for the 
 balance after realizing or valuing his security," and accord- 
 ingly it has been held that it is not the object of the section 
 to increase the assets ; so that an unregistered bill of sale is 
 not thereby avoided {n) ; nor are the rules of bankruptcy as 
 to reputed ownership and fraudulent preference thereby in- 
 corporated (o), and, as has been pointed out by Bacon, V.-C, 
 there is no power to disclaim a lease or onerous contract {p). 
 
 (g) Turner v. Bridgctt, 8 Q. B. D. 
 392. 
 
 {h) Re Withernsca Briclcworks, 
 16 C. D. 337. 
 
 (i) Levyy. Lovcll, 14 C. D. 234. 
 
 {j) Ex parte Nelson, 14 C. D. 
 41. 
 
 (k) Ex parte Sclwficld, 12 C. D, 
 337. 
 
 (Z) 12 C. D. p. 65 ; but see per 
 Jessel, M. K., in Mersey Steel and 
 
 Iron Co. V. Nayler, 9 Q. B. D. 
 p. 662. 1 ,'Vv//j^'--»i-> c^rv'i lA-s 
 
 (»i) Ix., the rule in Mason v. 
 Bogg, see ante, p. I(i2 {g). 
 
 (n) Re Knott, 7 C. D. 549 ii. ; 
 Tadman v. UEpineuil, 20 C. D. 
 217. 
 
 (o) Re Cruonlin Viaduct JForks 
 Co., 11 ibid. 755. 
 
 [2>) Be Westbourne Grove Dra^Kry 
 Co., 5 C. D. 248.
 
 ARE ADMINISTERED. 171 
 
 But a secured creditor must in an administration action <^o»''ses opcu 
 
 lu isccuieu 
 
 strictly follow out the rules of bankruptc}^, under which he cicditors. 
 may either (1) give up his security and prove for the 
 wliole debt, or (2) realize (g) his security and prove for 
 the balance, or (3) value his security and prove for the 
 balance (r). If he does not comply with one or other of 
 these conditions, he will be excluded from all share in any 
 dividend (s), and if he votes in respect of (or, senible, 
 proves for) the whole debt, he thereby forfeits his security 
 for the benefit of the estate {t), but semhle, a mistake may 
 be rectified {u), unless the rights of other creditors have 
 been altered (v) ; but where a creditor of a company, 
 believing himself fully secured, made no claim in respect 
 of his debt, he was allowed (notwithstanding r, 101) to 
 prove for the balance by which his security ultimately 
 turned out deficient, on the terms of his not disturbing 
 any past dividend {x). 
 
 If he values his security, the trustee (and now, pre- Redemption by 
 sumably, the executor) may redeem it at the amount of crediWs''* 
 the valuation, and if, after valuation, it is sold and pro- '^'^l^'T'ti'^n' , 
 
 duces more than the valuation, the balance must be paid 1/ ^' ^ try*'^>^ 
 into Court as part of the assets of the deceased (r, 100) ;( ^f ^'^' ^7 
 while if it produces less, the creditor cannot increase his V* - -^ \^i 
 proof, and must bear the loss [y). If the debtor (and now, 
 
 {q) Tlie right of a secured creditor deceased insolvent mortgagor, 
 to realize his security is preserved (r) Bankruptcy Act, sec. 40. 
 
 by sec. 12 of the Bankruptcy Act ; (s) Sec. 40 ; and see Ex -parte 
 
 and see sec. 40, and r. 78 of 1870 ; Good, 14 C. D. 82. 
 and Ex parte PanncU, 6 C. D. 335 ; {t) Ex parte Ashv:orth, 18Eq. 705. 
 
 Wadddl V. Toleman, 9 ibid. 212 ; {n) Ex jmrte Bagshaw, 13 C. D. 
 
 Ex parte Hirst, Wibid. 278. Under 304 ; see Williams v. JIo2)tins, (2), 
 
 n\ 78 — 81, the mortgagee may 44 L. T. 773. 
 
 have the mortgaged property sold (r) Couldcry v. Bartrum, 19 C. 
 
 hy the Court, and the proceeds -will D. 394. 
 
 be dealt with in the same way as if {x) Ex parte Williams, 16 C. D. 
 
 he had sold. The mortgagee -will, 590. 
 
 therefore, be, as formerly, at liberty (?/) IViUinms v. Hopkins, 18 C. 
 
 to bring an action for foreclosure D. 370 ; r. 101. /^6*— ^d,iA7^ U^.^^^t'^t^A.^ 
 against the representatives of his ^ j/^^ ^^. ,^ ^^.^
 
 172 
 
 OF THE ORDER IN WIITCII ASSETS 
 
 2. Debts and 
 
 liabilities 
 
 provable. 
 
 No priority 
 for rates or 
 wages, 
 
 or rent. 
 
 Seville, right 
 to distrain 
 unaffected. 
 
 presumably, the executor) puts a value on tlic security, 
 the creditor is not bound, but may realize and prove for the 
 actual balance (z), and if the trustee or another creditor 
 be dissatisfied with the value put on it by the creditor, he 
 ma}' require it to bo realized (a). 
 
 As to (2) the debts and liabilities provable ; under sect. 
 81 of the Bankruptcy Act, all debts and liabilities, present 
 or future, certain or contingent, (except demands in the 
 nature of unliquidated damages arising otherwise than by 
 reason of a contract or promise, and debts and liabilities 
 contracted after notice of an act of bankruptcy available 
 for adjudication) may be proved, and the definition of 
 "liability" is extremely wide (b). 
 
 Sect. 32 provides that certain debts (including a year's 
 rates and taxes, certain wages, and moneys in the hands 
 of a bankrupt officer of a friendly society) must be paid in 
 priority to other debts, and it has been held that in the 
 winding up of companies such priority is given by sect. 10 
 of the Judicature Act, 1875 (c), but in three other 
 cases {d) the contrary was decided, and it is submitted 
 that this is the correct view (e). Again, under sect. 34 of 
 the Bankruptcy Act, a landlord may distrain for one year's 
 rent, and for that only ; but as it has been decided that 
 the Judicature Act gives him no such priority as is so 
 given by the Bankruptcy Act (/), it is not probable that 
 it will be held that his common-law right to distrain, as 
 
 (z) Ex parte BestwicTc, 2 CD. 485. 
 
 (a) R. 136 ; but see Bx parte 
 Good, 14 C. D. 42. 
 
 (&) See Ex parte Neal, 14 C. D. 
 579, a very strong case, and the 
 cases there cited, and compare Re 
 Wcstbournc Grove Drapery Co., 5 
 ibid. 248. 
 
 (c) Re Norton Iromvorks Co. (M. 
 E.), 26 W. E. 53 ; Re Association of 
 Land Financiers (V.-C. M.), 16 
 C. D. 373. 
 
 {d) Re Albion Steel and Wire Co. 
 (M. E.), 7 C. D. 547 ; Re Regent 
 United Service Stores (V.-C. M.), 
 38 L. T. 130 ; and Re Wcarmouth 
 Crown Glass Co. (Kay, J.), 19 C. D. 
 640. 
 
 (c) See Tliomas v. Patent Lionite 
 Co., 17 C. D. p. 257. ft,^ 0M.^tr>^ ^1' 
 
 if) Re Coal Consximers' Associa- ^*t- ' 
 tion, 4 C. D. 625 ; Re Bridcjwater C .1)'^ 
 Enginccri7iff Co., 12 ibul. 181 ; Tho- ^ / (^ 
 mas V. Patent Lionite Co. ■' 1 
 
 y')j^c4/r^3
 
 ARE ADMINISTER KD. l73 
 
 modified by 3 e^ 4 Will. 4, c. 27, s. 42, is limited, where 
 the lessee's estate is being administered by the Court. On 
 the other hand, it has been decided that the bankruptcy Mutual crediis. 
 rules as to mutual credits (g) are now to be applied in the 
 winding up of companies (h) ; but not so as to set otf a 
 debt against calls made in the liquidation (i) ; and it would Statute-ban-ed 
 seem that a creditor whose debt is barred by the Statute 
 of Limitations can no longer prove against the estate of a 
 deceased insolvent, the debt not being provable in bank- 
 ruptcy (k) ; and that, as, in bankruptcy, creditors upon voluntary 
 voluntary bonds are paid ^^cm'^ ixlssii, with other ^*^"^^^'^ 
 creditors {I) they should now be placed in the _same ,'J AxfMp Cc *^ 
 category i n ad ministration, instead of being postponed to /t^ *^ r^^ . t<^t,r^ ^y^/ 
 all other creditors and being only paid in priority to ^ ^ 
 
 legatees (m) : but there is not yet any decision on these "^t^ ^^, 
 
 points, ^ A^ 
 
 It has, however, been held that interest on debts is to No interest on 
 be calculated only to the date of the administration judg- of admiuistra- 
 ment, that being equivalent to the adjudication in bank- *'°'^ judgment. 
 ruptcy mentioned in r. 77 (»). 
 
 As to (3) valuation of annuities and future and contin- 3. Valuation 
 gent liabilities ; it is believed that there are only two ^JjJ'l^tu^rr 
 decisions on this point (0), in which, as already pointed ^'^'^ contingent 
 
 ... 111. liabilities. 
 
 out (/>) contingent claims, ripening into debts during the ad- 
 ministration or winding up, wei'e treated as in bankruj)tcy. 
 
 ((/) See sec. 39 of the Bankruptcy 621. 
 
 Act, Booth V. Hutchinson, 15 Eq. (m) Dawson v. Kcarton, 3 Sm. & 
 
 30, and Peat v. Jones, 8 Q. B. 1). G. 186 ; ante, p. 107. 
 
 147. (»0 Bostoell V. Gurney, 13 C. D. 
 
 (/i) Mersey Steel and Iron Co., 136. 
 
 Limited v. Naylor, 9 Q. B. D. (o) Macfarlane's Claim, 17 C. D. 
 
 648. 337 ; and Hill v. Bridges, 17 ibid. 
 
 {i) Gill's Case, 12 C. D. 755 ; Ex 342 ; see also Be Great Britain 
 
 parte Bramchite, 48 L. J. Cli. Mutual Life Assurance Society, 19 
 
 463. iitd. 43, affirmed, 20 ibid. 351 ; and 
 
 {k) Ex parte Dcicdncy, 15 Ves. Ex parte Neal, 14 ibid. 579. 
 
 479. {p) Ante, p. 107. 
 
 (0 Ex parte Pottingcr, 8 C. D.
 
 174 
 
 OF THE ORDER IN WIIICTI ASSETS 
 
 Locke King's 
 Acts. 
 
 Mm-tgagc(l 
 estate now 
 taken l)y 
 devisee 
 cum onere. 
 
 Specific legatee 
 of mortgaged 
 personal estate, 
 other than 
 leaseholds, 
 may have it 
 redeemed. 
 
 Marshalling 
 
 Under Locke King's Act (q), cand tlie two amending 
 statutes (r) passed in the interest, not of creditors, but of 
 the persons entitled to the general personal estate of the 
 deceased, the primary fund for the jjayment of any sum of 
 money charged upon any land or other hereditaments of 
 whatever tenure, of or to which a testator or intestate 
 shall die seised or entitled, whether such charge be by 
 way of mortgage or be equitable only (including any 
 lien for unpaid purchase money), is the mortgaged pro- 
 perty itself, unless the deceased (if a testator) has by will 
 expressly directed to the contrary ; and this direction is 
 not sufficiently indicated by creating a charge or giving a 
 direction for payment of debts upon or out of residuary 
 real and personal estate or residuary real estate (s). 
 
 Where, however, real and leasehold estates are com- 
 prised in one mortgage, or real or leasehold estate is com- 
 prised with other personal estate, the mortgage debt must 
 be borne rateably by both (t), and it may be mentioned 
 that the specific legatee of any personalty except lease- 
 holds which is in pledge or subject to any mortgage lien or 
 charge is entitled to have it discharged therefrom at the 
 cost of the general personalty (u). 
 
 The right of marshalling, to which reference has several 
 times been made (x) arises under the equitable prin- 
 
 Cq) 17 & 18 Vict. 113. 
 
 (r) 30 & 31 Vict. c. 69, and 40 & 
 41 Vict. c. 34. The latest enactment 
 applies in the case of all persons 
 dying after the 31st December, 
 1877; as to the conflicting deci- 
 sions before that Act, see Eddis on 
 Assets, pp. 93 — 95, and the notes 
 to Duke of Ancaster v. Mayer, Wh. 
 & Tud. i. 630, at seq. For the curious 
 fatality attending the obvious in- 
 tentions of the legislature in this 
 respect, see Eddis, loc. cit. 
 
 (s) See Newmarch v. Storr, 9 C. 
 D. 12 ; Rossiter v. Rossiter, 13 ibid. 
 353, where the words "in exonera- 
 tion of my real estate" (the mort- 
 gaged estate) were held insufficient. 
 
 {t) Trcstrail v. Mason, 7 C. D. 
 655 ; Lconino v. Leonino, IOC. D. 
 460. 
 
 (tt) Knight v. Davis, 3 M. & K. 
 358 ; Bothamlcy v. Sherson, 20 Eq. 
 304. 
 
 (a-) Ante, pp. 166, 167.
 
 ARE ADMINISTERED. l75 
 
 ciple {y), that a person having two funds to satisfy his 
 demands, shall not by his election disappoint a person who 
 has only one. Therefore, whatever may be the order in 
 which the testator's assets have been actually distributed 
 in payment of debts and legacies, the rights of the parties 
 must eventually be adjusted so as, if possible (z), to dis- 
 charge the claim of every person interested, although the 
 fund out of which alone one or other had a right to be 
 paid, may have been exhausted by the claims of persons 
 having rights not only against that fund but against 
 others. Marshalling in favour of simple contract creditors, 
 vmder which they were paid out of real estate when the 
 personalty had been exhausted by specialty creditors, is of 
 course noM' no longer necessary {a) ; but as between legatees 
 and creditors, if executors to avoid litigation pay mortgage 
 debts out of the personalty instead of out of the real or 
 leasehold estate which by Locke King's Acts (b) is the against 
 
 devisees or 
 
 primary fund for the purpose, the specific devisees or mortgaged 
 
 legatees must refund for the benefit of the persons inte- ®^*''^*^^ 5 
 
 rested in the personalty (c) ; so if debts or legacies charged 
 
 on land are paid out of the personalty, to the detriment of against real 
 
 legatees or annuitants whose legacies or annuities are not fatouVof 
 
 so charged, they may marsh al the assets in order to obtain legatees having 
 
 ^. ., ^j ~~~~ no charge 
 
 payment (a). Simdarly, persons disappointed by the upon it. ^ 
 election of an heir to take against the will have been C*-«-* "'f^n 
 allowed to prove against his estate for sums received by /^cc^*-^ /' 
 him under it (e). 
 
 (2/) Aldrichy. Cooper, 8 Ves. 308; (a) See ante, p. 162. 
 
 aud see the notes thereto, Wh. & (^) Ante, p. 174. 
 
 Tud. ii. 91—110. (c) Wythe v. Hcnnilcer, 2 M. & 
 
 (z) But the Court will not mar- K. 635 ; Lord Lilford v. Poicys- 
 
 shal the assets for the benefit of a Keck, 1 Eq. 347. 
 
 creditor whose debt is statute-barred (</) Paterson v. Scott, 1 De G. ]\I. 
 
 as against the realty, but has been & G. 531 ; Scales v. Collins, 9 Ha. 
 
 kept alive by admissions of the exe- 656. 
 
 cutor as against the personalty (c) GreenicoodY. Penny, 12 Bcay. 
 
 {Fordham v. IFallis, 10 Ha. 217) ; 403 ; Hov:ells v. Jenkins, 1 De G. J. 
 
 and see Set. 833. & S. 617. 

 
 176 OF THE ORDER IN WHICH ASSETS 
 
 No marshal- Tlicrc is, liowcvcr, One important exception to the rule, 
 
 ling in favour ^ , ^( • c f i • 
 
 of cliaritics : for tlio Court Will not marshal assets in favour or a charity, 
 without a clear expression of the testator's intention (/), 
 so that if a charitable legacy be given out of a mixed fund 
 of real and personal estate, or of pure and impure per- 
 sonalty (g), it onl}' takes effect in the proportion which the 
 pure personalty bears to the whole fund at the testator's 
 death (h), and though the testator directs it to be paid out 
 of the pure personalty, that fund must bear its proportion 
 ^^lii^ ^ *^'**I3 , with the impure personalty of the debts, funeral and testa- 
 Xliir^ A<i— ^ jnentary expenses and costs {%), and the residue of the pure 
 ^L*. (^ A^t^^l^'-^ personalty may then be insufficient to pay the charitable 
 ^ ' except by legacy in full. But in a recent case (/i;) it was held that the 
 testator, whole of the (pure) personal estate was specifically given 
 
 ■■'•' ' ' ,■ •■ to a charity, and therefore that these charges (except costs 
 of probate) must be borne by the real estat e. 
 Priority jf after applvinsf the doctrine of marshalling the assets 
 
 between I r J o o 
 
 legatees : are insufficient for payment of all the pecuniary legacies 
 
 ■ and annuities in full, questions often arise whether any 
 
 ^^'' of the legatees or annuitants are entitled to priority. 
 
 none in " Prliiid fcicie,''^ Said Lord Langdale, M. E,., " a testator 
 
 must be presumed to intend that all his legacies should be 
 
 equally paid, and the onus is upon those who contend for 
 
 a priority to show that the testator meant to give aprefer- 
 
 (/) JViUiams V. Kershaw, Hie. sition. If tlie pure and impure 
 
 274 n. personalty be respectively £100 and 
 
 (g) If given slmpliciter, it is con- £50, and the charitable legacy £60, 
 
 sidered to be given rateably out of the legatee will receive £40, and the 
 
 the whole of the personalty, pure gift takes effect as to two thirds, the 
 
 and impure {Rohiiison v. Geldard, 3 proportion of £100 to £150; or it 
 
 Mac. & G. p. 746). niay be said that the amount which 
 
 {h) Williams v. KersJoaw ; Spar- fails is to that which takes effect as 
 
 liiuj V. Parker, 9 Beav. 450, cited in £50 to £100, or £20 to £40. 
 Seton, 588. It is sometimes said that (i) Beaumont v. Olivcira, 4 Ch. 
 
 the charitable legacy fails in the pro- 309. 
 
 portion which the impure bears to (k) Shepheard v. Bcetham, 6 C. 
 
 the pure personalty, but this is only D. 597 ; and see Miles v. Harrison, 
 
 the other way of stating the propo- 9 Ch. 316, 
 
 ineral
 
 ARE ADMINISTERED. 177 
 
 ence to a particular legatee " (I), and such directions as " in 
 the first place," " in the next place " do not give any 
 priority (>7?), nor is there any for an executor's legacy, even 
 though given him for his trouble (ii) ; nor, where there are 
 annuitants, with power of distress and entry, and legatees, 
 whose annuities and legacies are charged on real estate, 
 have the former any priority (o) ; but a widow, if he r but widow has 
 -/ h usband has at his death land out of which sh e i&^dow able entitled' to 
 t*7^,J tTQ.der the jiiwer Act(p), and not otherwise (notwith- dower, and 
 //7^*vstanding sec. 12 of the Act, which provides that nothing legacy in satis- 
 
 >-«.,. -iiTi- p -1 ir» • faction thereof. 
 
 /.c^^ m the Act contained shall mteriere with any rule ot equity 
 , '^ or of any ecclesiastical Court by which legacies bequeathed 
 - Y^jito widows in satisfaction of dower are entitled to priority 
 ^ ^^over other legacies ; Roper v. Roper) has priority for 
 ' a legacy or annuity, though it may greatly exceed the 
 amount of any dower to which she would be entitled ; and 
 it has been held {q) that where a testator bequeathed to 
 his wife certain specific articles " together with the legacy 
 or sum of £500, which I direct to be paid to her imme- 
 diately after my decease," this legacy is to be paid in ^^ 
 priority to all others, and that where there was a direction 
 to raise and invest two sums of money and to pay the 
 interest to life tenants, and after their decease that these 
 sums should fall into the residue, followed by a gift of 
 other legacies simpliciter, the two sums given for life 
 have priority over all others ; and where the Court has 
 found an indication that a legacy is intended to be given 
 only if there are funds to meet it, it will of course be post- 
 poned to the others (r). 
 
 Where an annuity is given by will, 'a question often Annuities, 
 
 whether 
 
 (I) Brown v. Brown, 1 Ke. 275. (o) Roper v. Roper, 3 C. D. 714. 
 
 (m) See Wells v. Borwick, 17 (jo) 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 108. 
 
 C. D. 798. iq) Wells v. Borwick. 
 
 (h) Dunenn v. Watts, 16 Beav. (r) Sta, nmers v. Halh'Iey, 12 ?iim. 
 
 204. 42.
 
 178 
 
 OF TTTE ORDER IN WHICH ASSETS 
 
 Abatement of 
 legacies and 
 annuities. 
 
 / 
 
 payable out of ariscs between the annuitant and the residuary legatee, 
 
 capital or 
 
 income only, whether it is in fact a bequest of an annuity or of the 
 income of a sum of money which the testator believes can 
 and directs to be set apart to meet it. In the former case, 
 the annuitant must be paid in full (s) before the residuaiy 
 legatee takes anything (i) : in the latter, he will receive 
 only the actual income of the fund {u), and at his death 
 the whole fund will go to the residuary legatee. But, in 
 general, if the assets are insufficient to pay the annuitants 
 /P *y.yi/^-L£^ ^^^ legatees in full, they abate rateably, an d the value o f 
 C. / the annuities must be ascertained as at the testatorls^death, 
 
 allowance being maHe for payments already made. If 
 there is no provision in the will to the contrary {oc), the 
 annuitant will (subject to the provisions of sec. 10 of the 
 Judicature Act, 1875, as to which see ante, p. 173) 
 receive the value of the annuity, less its proper rateable 
 proportion (?/) ; if there is, the apportioned sum will be 
 invested in the purchase of a government annuity in the 
 names of trustees {z). It is submitted that the order made 
 in Hankin v. Kilhurn (a), for the apportionment of the 
 
 (5) In some cases by annual pay- 
 ments of the whole annuity, part of 
 the corjncs being sold ( Wright v. 
 Callander, 2 De G. M. & G. 652); in 
 others, out of rents and income only, 
 to be applied until satisfaction of 
 arrears {Graves v. Hicks, 11 Sim. 
 551 ; and see Taylor v. Taylor, 17 
 Eq. 324). 
 
 (t) Gee V. Maliood, 11 C. D. 891, 
 sub 110772., Ca7-77iichaelv. Gee, 5 App. 
 Cas. 588 ; Wor7nald v. ihizeen, 17 
 C. D. 167 ; but see S. C. 50 L. J. 
 Ch. 776. 
 
 {u) Bakery. Baker, 6 H.L.C. 616. 
 
 {x) See ffattoii v. May, 3 C. D. 
 148. 
 
 iy) Wroughto7i v. Colquhoun, 1 
 De G. & Sm. 357. 
 t {z) Carr v. Imglely, 1 De G. & Sm. 
 
 
 362. 
 
 {a) 2 C. D. 628. In this case 
 certain legacies and annuities were 
 bequeathed, funds were directed to , 
 be invested, to produce an income 
 sufficient to meet the annuities, and 
 the residue, " including the fund 
 set apart to answer the said annui- 
 ties when and so soon as such annui- 
 ties shall respectively cease," was 
 disposed of ; the estate being in- 
 sufficient, it was ordered that the 
 values of the annuities as at the 
 death of the testatrix should be 
 ascertained, and the amounts in- 
 vested, and that the dividends only 
 of these investments should be paid to 
 the annuitants. Upon the death of 
 an annuitant, it was held by the 
 Court of Appeal, reversing Bacon, 
 
 
 /i£^ A.
 
 ARE ADMINISTERED. 
 
 179 
 
 residue amongst legatees and annuitants was incor- 
 rect. 
 
 It follows from what has been already stated (Jj), that 
 specific legacies, though subject to be adeemed by the 
 testator, in which case they fail altogether (c), are not 
 liable to contribute towards the payment of pecuniary 
 legacies: while demonstrative legacies, which, so far as the 
 fund pointed out for their payment (in respect of which 
 they are specific) proves insufficient, are mere pecuniary 
 legacies, have no priority. 
 
 V.-C, that the residuary legatee 
 could take nothiug until the arrears 
 of the annuity had been fully paid 
 to the annuitant's representatives, 
 which, under the circumstances of 
 the case, would probably amount 
 to a perpetual right to receive the 
 
 dividends ; but it is submitted that 
 an annuity ought to have been 
 bought with the amount which was 
 so invested. 
 
 {b) Ante, pp. 164, 165. 
 
 (c) See Ashbxirner v. Macguire, 
 Wh. & Tud. ii. 267. 
 
 N 2
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AFTER FURTHER CONSIDERATION. 
 
 Assets gene- 
 rally distri- 
 buted on 
 further con- 
 sideration. 
 
 If not, shares 
 usually carried 
 over to sepa- 
 rate accounts. 
 
 Subsequent 
 application for 
 payment out. 
 
 As has been already stated (a), the Court will, on 
 further consideration, if possible, and except in creditors' 
 actions (b), determine all questions and distribute the 
 assets, but it frequently happens that owing to the 
 necessity for further accounts and inquiries, the action 
 must come on for a second further consideration ; in other 
 cases, owing to tenancies for life, infancy of persons 
 entitled, incumbrances created by beneficiaries, the possi- 
 bility of the birth of other persons who would be entitled 
 to shares, or other causes, the assets cannot be distributed. 
 
 Under these circumstances, the Court will order any 
 share, the amount of which can be ascertained, to be car- 
 ried over to the separate account (c) of the beneficiary 
 contingently on attaining 21 years, or of the beneficiary and 
 his incumbrancers, or as the case may be, in order that the 
 subsequent proceedings by petition or summons may be 
 simplified (c?). 
 
 So soon as any person becomes absolutely entitled to a 
 fund so retained in Court, he may apply in the action by 
 
 (a) A)ite, p. 130. 
 
 (6) Ante, p. 51 {g). 
 
 (c) For a collection of forms of 
 headings of separate accoimts see 12 
 Beav. 212 n. ; the heading is im- 
 portant, as in all subsequent deal- 
 ings with the fund it is treated as 
 being severed from the rest of the 
 assets, and only those persons need 
 be served who appear therefrom 
 
 to be interested. See Dan. 1646, 
 1647. 
 
 (d) It was the invariable rule of 
 the late and present Masters of the 
 Rolls only to allow £10 for the 
 costs of a petition for payment out 
 of a fund carried over to the sepa- 
 rate account of the petitioner, in 
 which he alone was interested. See 
 Dan. 1160.
 
 PROCEEDINGS AFTER FURTHER CONSIDERATION. 181 
 
 petition (or, where liberty to apply at Chambers has been 
 expressly given, or the fund is small (e), by summons) for 
 payment out. A married woman may present a petition 
 to enforce her equity to a settlement to a fund in Court, 
 which she and her husband had joined in assigning to 
 a purchaser while still reversionary only, the purchaser 
 having obtained a stop order on the fund (/). 
 
 Petitions may also be presented for declarations as to Payment of 
 the amount of duty payable (g). By 16 & 17 Vict. c. 51,s.53, '^''^^^ 
 the Court is required to provide out of any property which 
 may be in its possession or control, for the payment of 
 Legacy and Succession Duty thereon, and under Cons. 
 Ord. XXIIL, r. 9 (li), the words " subject to duty " are added 
 to the title of every separate account unless payment of 
 the duty is provided for by the order under which the fund 
 is carried over to such separate account. 
 
 It has been recently said, that the leaning of the Court Payment out 
 is now rather to get rid of a fund where there are proper 
 trustees to take care of it (i), but not where there is but 
 one trustee (h). 
 
 Funds have been ordered to be paid out, notwithstand- Payment out 
 ing a remote contingency of other persons being born and ^"jn^'^glvea 
 becoming entitled, upon security being given to refund {I), t° refund, 
 or without security, in the case of a woman being past or when 
 child-bearing. This has, under special circumstances, ciam^bearLg. 
 
 (e) See Dan. 1649 ; Winl-worth {i) Braithwaite v. Wallis, 21 
 
 V. JVinkworth, 32 Beav. 233 ; C. D. p. 122 ; and see £ idler v. 
 
 Petty V. Petty, 12 ib. 171. Withers, IJ. & H. 332 (where the 
 
 (/) Scott V. Spashett, 8 Mac. & balance was handed over to the 
 
 G. 599. executor to distribute^, and iZc Cope's 
 
 ig) As in Skottowe v. Yoiincj, 11 Trusts, W. N. 1877, 87. 
 
 Eq. 474. (^•) GouldsmUh v. Limtley, 32 
 
 (h) See also County Court Rules, L. T. N. S. 535 ; Samson v. Sam- 
 
 1875, Ord. II. r. 14, under which son, 39 L. J. Ch. 582 : but see 
 
 the Registrar, before making any Bradford v. Nettl^hip, 10 W. R. 
 
 payment out of Court, requires a 264, and Ihherson v. Warlh, 1 Jur. 
 
 certificate of or receipt for the pay- N. S. 440. 
 
 ment of duty. (Z) Parkin v. Provdjoot, Set. 974.
 
 182 
 
 riiOCEEDlNGS AFTER FUKTIIER CONSIDERATION. 
 
 Payment out 
 
 pending 
 
 inquiries. 
 
 ^^ V* -1.1 9 — ^ 
 
 Chattels 
 bequeatlied 
 for life. 
 
 Legatees now 
 not called 
 upon to give 
 security to 
 refund. 
 
 been refused at the age of 54 i (m), and allowed at 
 47 (n). 
 
 If it clearly appeared that a surplus would remain, after 
 discharging the debts, although the exact amount of such 
 surplus could not be ascertained for a considerable time, 
 the Court would, by anticipation, direct proportional pay- 
 ments to be made to pecuniary legatees, so far as that 
 could be done with safety to the creditors (o) ; and although 
 ] by 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 57, if the Court is satisfied 
 I that the assets will be more than sufficient to answer all 
 ' the claims which ought to be provided for in the action, it 
 imay, at any time after the commencement of the action, 
 i allow any of the parties interested therein, the whole or 
 j part of the income of the realt}^, or a part of the personalty, 
 i or a part of the whole of the income thereof up to such 
 
 I time as the Court shall direct, yet it has been held that 
 
 \ . . 
 
 tthis enactment only applies where assets are admitted or 
 
 the debts are all shown to have been paid {p), and not 
 
 without good cause being shown {q). As to payments 
 
 and transfers out of Court generally, see Dan. Ch. 
 
 XLI. 
 
 Where chattels are bequeathed for life only, they are 
 ordered to be given up to the tenant for life upon signing 
 an inventory which will be deposited in Court {r). 
 
 It seems to have been at one time the practice, when 
 legacies were paid, to oblige the legatee to give security to 
 refund, in case any other debts were discovered (s), but 
 although the legatee's liability remains {t), security is now 
 
 (7?i) Croxton v. May, 9 C. D. 388. 
 
 \n) Be Su7nmer, 22 W. R. 639, 
 and see Set, 976. 
 
 (o) Thomas v. Montgomery, 1 R. 
 & M. 729 ; and see Coster v. Coster, 
 1 Ke. 199. 
 
 [p) KnigJd v. Kaiglit, 16 Beay. 
 358; C]u{bb y. Carter, \Y. N. 
 
 1867, 179. 
 
 {q) lioicley v. Burgess, 2 W. R. 
 652. 
 
 (r) Foley v. Burnell, 1 Bro. C. C. 
 p. 279. 
 
 (s) See March v. . Bussell, 3 My. 
 & Cr. p. 41. 
 
 (t) See ante, p. 116.
 
 PROCEEDINGS AFTER FURTHER CONSIDERATION. 
 
 183 
 
 no longer required. The executors are sufficiently in- 
 demnified by the orders of the Court, and (u) no part of 
 the estate ought to be set apart to meet possible claims in 
 respect of leaseholds subject to onerous covenants sold by 
 the Court (y), but where the estate consisted partly of 
 mining shares, the Court ordered the residuary legatees to 
 undertake to answer all liability in respect thereof (x). 
 
 Where an order has been made directing Consols to be 
 sold and the proceeds to be paid to the person declared to 
 be entitled thereto, and an appeal is brought, it is of 
 course to stay the payment out ; but if the Consols have 
 been actually sold, the proceeds must be reinvested, and 
 the appellant must undertake, in case of failure, to make 
 good the amount of interest falling short of 4 per cent., 
 and must pay the costs of the sale and reinvestment {y), 
 and except under special circumstances (z) must pay the 
 costs of the application to stay the payment out (a). 
 
 No assets now- 
 retained to 
 meet claims in 
 respect of 
 leaseholds. 
 
 Executors 
 liable for dis- 
 tributing assets 
 out of Court 
 with notice of 
 contingent 
 claims. 
 
 Stay of pay- 
 ment out 
 pending an 
 appeal. 
 
 /T 
 
 
 i^i/Uj^ 
 
 7^ 
 1^ 
 
 (w) Per Roniilly, M. R., Waller 
 V. Barrett, 24 Beav. 413 ; and see 
 Boss V. Tatham, 38 L. J. Oh. 577. 
 
 (i') But in a subsequent case, the 
 same Judge held that the landlord's 
 consent was necessary before pay- 
 ment out of a fund which had been 
 so set apart ; Bunting v. Marriott, 
 7 Jur. N. S. 565. 
 
 {x) Williams Y. Headland, 4 GifF. 
 505 ; and see Taylor v. Taylor, 10 
 Eq. 477, where executors who had 
 
 paid a legacy with notice of a lia- 
 bility upon bank shares were ordered 
 to pay calls to the extent of the 
 legacy. As to the executor's right 
 to call upon residuary legatees to 
 refund, see ante, p. 120. 
 
 (?/) Brewer v. Yorke, 20 C. D. 
 669. 
 
 [z) Adair v. Young, 11 C. D. 
 136. 
 
 [a) Merry v. Niclcalls, 8 Ch. 205. 
 
 7'
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 OF THE JURISDICTION OF COUNTY COURTS AND DISTRICT 
 REGISTRARS. 
 
 Concurrent A CONCURRENT jurisdiction in the administration of 
 
 County'courts ^^^ estates of deceased persons is by 28 & 29 Vict, 
 up to £500. ^ 99^ given to County Courts (a), where the personal or 
 real, or personal and real estate does not exceed in amount 
 or value a£500 (b) ; but it should be noted that, pro- 
 bably by an accidental omission, the jurisdiction is con- 
 fined to cases where the action is brought by creditors, 
 legatees, devisees (in trust or otherwise), heirs-at-law or 
 next of kin (c), so that the legal personal representatives, 
 as such, are apparently excluded from the right to com- 
 mence proceedings for general administration in the 
 County Court (d). 
 In what Court By sec. 10 (3) the proceedings must be taken in the 
 be commenced. Court within the district of which the deceased had his 
 last place of abode in England or in which the executors 
 or administrators or any of them have their or his place of 
 abode [nothing is said of the place of abode of the trustees 
 or other persons in whom the real estate may be vested] ; 
 
 (a) By sec. 1 tlie C^ounty Court 4 Ex. D. 315. 
 has, in the matters mentioned in (b) Sec. 1 (1). 
 
 the Act, "all the power and autho- (c) Including (as under the Chan- 
 
 rity of the High Court of Justice " eery Improvement Act, see ante, p. 
 
 (see Martin v. Bannister, 4 Q. B. D. 2) assignees and representatives of 
 
 491) ; and therefore a County Court these classes of persons {Turner v. 
 
 before which an administration ac- Jiennoldson, 16 Eq. 37). 
 tion is pending cannot now restrain (d) Sec. 1 (1). 
 
 creditors' actions ; Cohhuld v. Pryke,
 
 COUNTY COURTS AND DISTRICT REGISTRARS. 185 
 
 but if the defendant is an officer of a County Court, the 
 action may (e) be brought in the district of which he is an 
 officer, or in any adjoining district the judge of which is 
 not the judge of a Court of which the defendant is an 
 officer (/). 
 
 By sec. 3 it is provided that a Judge in Chambers may Transfer to 
 on an application of any party to the action, then and pi^visioZ 
 there, or, if he shall think fit, after hearing a summons 
 served upon the other party or parties, transfer the same 
 to the Chancery Division, upon such terms, if any, as to 
 security for costs or otherwise as he may think fit (g) ; and 
 by sec. 9, if during the progress of the action it shall be 
 made to appear to the Court that the subject-matter 
 exceeds the limit in point of amount to which the juris- 
 diction of the County Courts is limited, it shall not affect 
 the validity of any order or decree already made, but it 
 shall be the duty of the Court to direct the action to be 
 transferred to the Chancery Division, and thereupon it shall 
 proceed before such one of the Judges of that Division as 
 the Lord Chancellor may by general order direct (h) ; and 
 such Judge shall have power to regulate the whole of the 
 procedure therein when it is so transferred ; but it is pro- Provisions for 
 vided that it shall be lawful for any party to apply to the ^ ^^' ^^^^ ^^' 
 Judge at Chambers for an order authorizing and directing 
 the action to be carried on and prosecuted in the County 
 Court, notwithstanding such excess, and the Judge, if he 
 shall deem it right to summon the other parties or any of 
 them to appear before him for that purpose, after hearing 
 such parties, or on default of the appearance of all or any 
 of them, shall have full power to make such order. And 
 
 (c) Under 19 & 20 Vict. c. 108, spectively of the amount or value of 
 
 .s. 21. the projjerty in question ; for an 
 
 (/) Linford v. Gudgeon, 6 Ch. instance of an order made under 
 
 359. this section, sue Baker v. JVait, 9 
 
 {g) This power is to be exercised Eij. 103. 
 
 in the discretion of the Judge irre- (A) Sec Sctou, 328, 3a,
 
 186 
 
 OF THE JURISDICTION OF 
 
 When action 
 transferred 
 and when 
 dismissed. 
 
 altliougli under SO &l 31 Vict. c. 142, s. 14, whenever an 
 action is brought in a County Court which the Court 
 has no jurisdiction to try, tlic Judge must order the cause 
 to be struck out, unless the parties consent to the Court 
 having jurisdiction to try it, the provisions of sec. 9 of the 
 Act of 18G5 (h) are not thereby repealed, and the action 
 can only be struck out under the Act of 18G7, where the 
 fact of want of jurisdiction appears upon the plaint ; where 
 it appears during the progress of the action, it should be 
 transferred to the Chancery Division under the earlier 
 Act (i). 
 
 Where an action is struck out under sec. 14 of the Act 
 of 18G7, the Judge may award costs as if the Court had 
 jurisdiction and the plaintiff had not appeared, or had 
 appeared and failed (j), but after an action has been 
 transferred to the High Court under sec. 9 of the Act 
 of 1865, the jurisdiction of the County Court is gone, 
 and the Judge cannot make any order as to costs (k), but 
 upon the hearing in the High Court, if the plaintiff has 
 made a mistake in bringing the action in a Court which 
 has no jurisdiction, he must pay the costs of the hearing 
 in the County Court (l). 
 Counter-claim. By sec. 90 of the Judicature Act, 1873, it is provided 
 that, where in any proceeding before an inferior Court 
 any defence or counter-claim of the defendant involves 
 matter beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, such defence 
 or counter-claim shall not affect the competence or the 
 duty of the Court to dispose of the whole matter in 
 controversy, so far as relates to the demand of the plaintiff 
 and the defence thereto (m), but no relief exceeding that 
 
 (h) 28 & 29 Vict. c. 99. 
 
 (i) JBirks v. Silverwood, 14 Eq. 
 101 ; Thomson v. Flinn, 17 ibid, 
 415. 
 
 {J) Sec. 14. 
 
 {k) Hares v. Lea, 10 Eq. 683. 
 
 {I) Ward V. Wyld, 5 C. D. 779. 
 
 (m) And therefoie the inferior 
 Court may deal with a counterclaim 
 arising out of matters entirely out- 
 side its jurisdiction, to the extent 
 of answering the plaintiff's claim,
 
 COUNTY COURTS AND DISTRICT REGISTRARS. 187 
 
 wliich the Court has jurisdiction to administer shall be 
 given to the defendant upon any such counter-claim ; but 
 it is provided that in such case it shall be lawful for 
 High Court, or any Division or Judge thereof, if it shall 
 be thought fit, on the application (n) of any party to 
 the proceeding, to order that the whole proceeding be 
 transferred from such inferior Court to the High Court, 
 or to any Division thereof; and in such case the record 
 in such proceeding shall be transmitted by the registrar, 
 or other proper officer, of the inferior Court, to the High 
 Court ; and the same shall thenceforth be continued and 
 prosecuted in the High Court as if it had been originally 
 commenced therein (o). 
 
 As the equitable jurisdiction of the County Court is not Costs, 
 exclusive, and there is no such provision as to costs as is 4-*^^"/ ^'-'■^^ 
 contamed with respect to common-law actions in 80 & ^^y^^^ /?, 
 31 Vict. c. 142, s. 5, a plaintiff who proceeds in the '$,•5* y cc- 
 High Court in a case where there is jurisdiction in the ^^'^j - ( ^<^ 
 County Court is entitled to his full costs, and apparently '^ '7 
 
 the Judge has no discretion to refuse them {]}) ; but Transfer to 
 under the provisions of sec. 8 of the last-mentioned °^^^ ^ 
 Act, upon the application in Chambers of any of the 
 parties to an action which might have been brought in 
 the County Court under the Act of 1865, or, ex niero 
 motu, the Judge may order the proceedings to be carried 
 on in the County Court, or one of the County Courts in 
 which the same might have been commenced, and there- 
 upon the proceedings shall be so carried on, and the 
 parties shall have the same right of appeal as if the 
 
 but not further ; Davis v. Flagstaff duction till after delivery of state- 
 
 Mining Co., 3 C. P. D. 228. nient of claim ; Davics v. Williams, 
 
 {n) The application should be by 13 C. D. 550. 
 
 summons, not ex parte; see W, N., (^j) BroimiY. Rye, 17 Eq. 313, not- jCf'. f>~*v*^ 
 
 1876,12. withstanding Simons \. McAdain, <i,-«--uL^ ^^.n 
 
 (o) So that the plaintiff is not 6 Eq. 321. / 3l Ci% , 
 entitled to discovery and pro-
 
 188 OF THE JURISDICTION OF 
 
 action had been commenced in the County Court ; and 
 the Court of Appeal will not lightly interfere with the 
 exercise of his discretion (q). 
 Appeals. By sec. 18 of the Act of 18G5, a right of appeal in 
 
 all equity actions to such one of the Vice-Chancellors 
 as the Lord Chancellor shall appoint is given, irrespec- 
 tively of the amount or value of the property in ques- 
 tion, to any party dissatisfied with the determination 
 or direction of the Judge on any matter of law (r) or 
 equity, or on the admission or rejection of any evidence, 
 npon giving notice of appeal within 30 days (s) to the 
 opposite party or his solicitor, and depositing £10 with 
 the Registrar of the County Court as security for the 
 costs of the appeal, and it is provided that such appeal 
 shall be final ; but by sec. 45 of the Judicature Act, 1873, 
 all such appeals (t) lie to a Divisional Court of the High 
 Court, consisting of such of the Judges thereof as may 
 from time to time be assigned for that purpose, as therein 
 mentioned, and under O. LVIII. r. 19 (u), every Judge 
 of the High Court is a Judge to hear and determine 
 such appeals, which are to be entered in one list by 
 the officers of the Crown Office of the Queen's Bench 
 Division, and to be heard by a Divisional Court of that 
 
 iq) Linford v. Gudgeon, 6 Ch. to the Chancery Division in conse- 
 
 p. 361. For forms of transfer to quence of having been formerly by 
 
 and from County Conrts, see Seton, Act of Parliament within the exclu- 
 
 327 — 329 ; Penib. 96 ; and see sive jurisdiction of the Court of 
 
 County Court Rules, 1875, Orel. XX. Chancery or any Judge or Judges 
 
 (r) See WiUiainn v. WiUiams, 37 thereof. The right of appeal, by 
 
 L. J. Ch. 854. consent of the respondents, to the 
 
 (s) This limit of time may be Vice-Chancelior of the County Pala- 
 
 waived by the parties, and their tine of Lancaster, given by sec. 19 
 
 consent to the signature of the of the Act of 1865, where the cause 
 
 special case by the County Court arose within the County Palatine, 
 
 Judge is evidence of such waiver seems to be unaffected by the Judi- 
 
 ( Ward V. Eaw, 15 Eq 83). cature Acts ; see sec. 95 of the Act 
 
 {t) See also sec. 34 (2), which ex- of 1873. 
 cepts "appeals from County Courts" (») Rules of December, 1876. 
 
 from the causes and matters assigned
 
 COUNTY COURTS AND DISTRICT REGISTRARS. 189 
 
 Division as the President thereof shall direct. By the 
 above-mentioned sec. 45 the determination of the Divi- 
 sional Court is final unless special leave to appeal to the 
 Court of Appeal be given by the Divisional Court. See 
 also the County Court Rules, 1875, Order XXIX., regu- 
 lating the practice upon appeals by special case ; and 38 
 & 39 Vict. c. 50, s. 6, under which an appeal may be made 
 ex 'parte within eight days (ly) by motion instead of by 
 special case to a Divisional Court sitting to hear appeals 
 from inferior courts, or, if such a Divisional Court be not 
 sitting (and only in that event (a;)), to a Judge in Cham- 
 bers (2/). Except by special leave {z) such a motion can 
 only be made upon production of a copy of the notes of 
 the County Court Judge, which, at the request, at the 
 trial or hearing (a), of either party, he is by the last- 
 mentioned Act required to make of any question of law 
 then raised, and of the facts in evidence in relation 
 thereto, and of his decision thereon, and of his decision 
 of the cause, suit, or proceeding, such copy to be signed 
 by the Judge. 
 
 This enactment gives no nevj right of appeal (6), and Appeal by 
 although it is not a condition precedent of the right 
 to appeal by motion that the Judge should have been 
 requested to make such a note, if he has actually done 
 so and signed it (c), or, if, in an equity appeal, he 
 
 (w) "Whether an extension of time (z) See Orders of Coiirt, January, 
 
 ma.y he ohtaiued, qucere; see Tennant 1877, 1 ; and Morgan v. Davies, 3 
 
 V. RawJings, 4 C. P. D. 133 ; 3faso7i C. P. D. 260. 
 
 V. IVirral Highway Board, 4 Q. B. (a) Pierpoint v. Carhvright, 5 C. 
 
 D. 459. P. D. 139. 
 
 (x) Brown v. Shaw, 1 Ex. D. {h) Cousins v. Lombard Bank, 1 
 
 425. Ex. D. 404. 
 
 (y) The Judge in Chambers must (c) Seymotirv. Coulson, 5 Q. B. D. 
 
 hear and determine the motion, and 359. But where there has not been 
 
 cannot adjourn it to the next sitting any sufficient " request " under tlie 
 
 of the Divisional Court ; Button v. Act, he will not be ordered to sign 
 
 Woolwich Building Society, 5 Q. B. a copy of a note actually made, if 
 
 D. 88. he states that it is rough and iueom-
 
 190 OF TITE JUKIBDICTION OF 
 
 has compiled a note after the trial from affidavits used 
 at the trial (d), yet no appeal will lie unless the point 
 of law has been in fact raised in the County Court (e) ; 
 but the judgment may be affirmed on other grounds 
 than those on which the County Court Judge proceeded, 
 if they appear and are admitted in his notes (/). 
 
 The form of order made upon a motion under sec. 6 
 of the Act of 1875 is that the judgment appealed from 
 be reversed, unless cause be shown within a specified 
 time {g), and upon the application of counsel the Court 
 will order a stay of proceedings under the judgment, 
 which, in the absence of such order and of an order by 
 the County Court Judge, may be enforced ; see County 
 Court Rules, 1875, Order XXIX. r. 4. When the appeal 
 comes on, the rule 7iisi is either discharged or made 
 absolute. 
 
 The costs of an administration action in the County 
 Court may be taxed in the Chancery Division (Ji). 
 
 It is believed that the expense of administration actions 
 in County Courts is as great as in the High Court, if 
 not greater, and the jurisdiction is not often exercised, 
 although, as District Registrars, the Registrars of the 
 County Courts frequently take accounts and make in- 
 quiries in such actions. 
 District Under the Judicature Acts, the District Registrars 
 
 Registries. , . . ^ . . . . . 
 
 have jurisdiction to issue writs in the High Court, and 
 if the defendant or all the defendants appear in the 
 District Registry the action will proceed there (?) ; and 
 even if the action proceeds in London, by sec. 66 of the 
 Judicature Act, 1873, the Court or a Judge may order 
 
 plete, and not such as he would D. 386. 
 
 have taken if he had been requested (/) Chajoman v. Knight, 5 C. P. 
 
 in the terms of the Act ; Morgan v. D. 308. 
 
 Bees, 6 Q. B. D. 508. {g) Eccles v. Ecchs, 24 W. R. 39. 
 
 {(l) Hill V. Persse, 25 W. R. 275. (h) Re Worth, 18 C. D. 521, 
 
 {e) Clarkson v. Musgrave, 9 Q, B. (r) Ord. XII. r. 4.
 
 COUNTY COURTS AND DISTRICT REGISTRARS. 191 
 
 any books or documents to he produced or any accounts 
 taken or inquiries made in the District Registry, and 
 in the latter case the report in writing of the District 
 Registrar (j) shall be acted upon by the Court as to the 
 Court shall seem meet, and an action may be removed to 
 or from a District Registry by the Court or a Judge (k). 
 
 Under Order XXXV., r. 1, which (as modified by the 
 Rules of June, 1876), provides that where an action 
 proceeds in a District Registry all proceedings, except 
 where by the rules it is otherwise provided, or a Court 
 or Judge otherwise orders, are to be taken in the District 
 Registry down to and (except in Chancery actions, 
 which ought to be tried in London before the Judge 
 of the Chancery Division to whom they have been 
 assigned (I) ), including final judgment, and every order 
 for an account by reason of the default of the defend- 
 ant, or by consent, is to be entered in the District 
 Registry, and r. 4, which confers on the District Regis- 
 trar in such an action all the authority and jurisdic- 
 tion of a Judge at Chambers (except such as a Master 
 of the Queen's Bench Division is precluded from ex- 
 ercising), a District Registrar can make an order for 
 an account under Order XV., r, 1, and if the order so 
 directs (but not otherwise) can then proceed to take 
 the account himself; but he cannot make an order for 
 accounts in an administration action on the footinof of 
 wilful default (m). 
 
 If a sale of real estate is ordered in such an action, 
 it is in the absolute discretion of the Judge whether 
 it shall take place in the District Registry or in Chambers, 
 
 (/) In making the report he should (Jc) Judicature Act/1873, sec. 65, 
 
 adopt the form of a Chief Clerk's and Ord. XXXV. rr. 11—13. 
 certificate, and state the persons (Z) Hutchinson v. Ward, 6 C. D. 
 
 who were present before him, and 692. 
 the materials on which he proceeded {m) Bennett v. Bowen. 
 
 {Bennett v. Bowen, 20 C. D. 538).
 
 192 COUNTY COURTS AND DISTRICT REC.ISTRARS. 
 
 but it would seem that in general it should take place 
 in the District Registry (n), but costs will not, except 
 under very special circumstances, be ordered to be taxed 
 otherwise than in London (o). 
 
 A motion made in the Chancery Division, in an action 
 begun in a District Registry, has the effect of removing 
 the action to London (j)). 
 Limitation of District Registrars have no power to appoint receivers, 
 District Vegis- direct banking accounts to be opened or money to be 
 trars. p.^^^^^ j^^q those accounts (q), and money ordered to be 
 
 paid into Court by receivers cannot in such actions 
 be paid into a bank to the credit of the District Regis- 
 trar (r) . 
 
 (?i) Macdonald v. Foster, 6 C. D. 376. 
 
 193. (q) Hutchinson v. Ward, 6 C. D. 
 
 (o) Day V. Whittakcr, 6 0. D. 692. 
 
 734. (r) Finlay v. Davis, 12 C. D. 
 
 {p) Dyson v. Pickles, 27 W. R. 735.
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 1 (fl) FORM OF ADMINISTRATION SUMMONS UNDER 15 & 10 
 VICT. c. 86, ss. 45, 47. 
 
 Cons. Ord., Schedule (K.), No. II. 
 
 In the High Court of Justice. 
 Chancery Division. 1882, T., No. 
 
 Vice-Chancellor Bacon, 
 
 or, 
 Mr. Justice [ ]. 
 
 In the matter of the estate of John Thomas, late of the Parish 
 of A. in the County of B., Esq., deceased. 
 
 Between Joseph Wilson (b), Plaintiff, 
 and 
 William Jackson, Defendant. 
 
 Upon the application of Joseph Wilson, of Russell S<{uare, in the 
 county of Middlesex, Esq., who claims to be a creditor upon the estate 
 of the above-named John Thomas, let William Jackson, the executor 
 of the said John Thomas, attend at my chambers at the Royal Courts 
 of Justice on the day of , at of the clock 
 
 in tlie noon, and show cause, if he can, why an order for the 
 
 administration of the personal [or, real and personal] estate of tlie 
 said' John Thomas by the High Court or Justice should not be 
 granted. 
 
 Dated the day of , 188 . 
 
 W. X., Vice-chancellor, 
 
 or, 
 Y. Z., Justice. 
 
 (re) The munbers refer to the of John Thomas, deceased ; " see 
 
 pages, anfr. ante, p. 9 ; and see Daniell, Forms, 
 
 (h) Adil, if so intended, "on be- .3rd Edition, No. 946. 
 half of himself and all other creditors
 
 ly4 AITENDIX. 
 
 This summons was taken out Ly A. & B., of Lincoln's Inn, in the 
 County of Middlesex, solicitors for the above-named Joseph Wilson. 
 
 The following Note to be added to the original summons ; and when 
 the time is altered by indorsement, the indorsement to be referred to 
 as below. 
 
 Note. — If you do not attend, either in person or by your solicitor, 
 at the time and place above-mentioned [or, at the place above- 
 mentioned at the time mentioned in the indorsement hereon], 
 such order will be made and proceedings taken as the Judge 
 may think just and expedient. 
 
 1^ Cons, Ord. VII., r. 1. 
 
 " In suits to execute the trusts of a will, it shall not be necessary to 
 make the heir-at-law a party ; but the plaintiff shall be at liberty to 
 make the heir-at-law a party, where he desires to have the will 
 established against him." 
 
 14 The Court of Probate Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 77), s. 64. 
 
 In any action at law or suit in equity, where, according to the 
 existing law, it would be necessary to produce and prove an original 
 will in order to establish a devise or other testamentary disposition 
 of or affecting real estate, it shall be lawful for the party intending to 
 establish in proof such devise or other testamentary disposition to 
 give to the opposite party, ten days at least before the trial or other 
 proceeding in which the said proof shall be intended to be adduced, 
 notice that he intends at the said trial or other proceeding to give in 
 evidence as proof of the devise or other testamentary disposition the 
 probate of the said will, or the letters of administration with the will 
 annexed, or a copy thereof stamped with any seal of the Court of 
 Probate ; and in every such case such probate or letters of adminis- 
 tration, or copy thereof respectively, stamped as aforesaid, shall be 
 sufficient evidence of such will and of its validity and contents, 
 notwithstanding the same may not have been proved in solemn form, 
 or have been otherwise declared valid in a contentious cause or 
 matter, as herein provided, unless the party receiving such notice 
 shall, within four days after such receipt, give notice that he disputes 
 the validity of such devise or other testamentary disposition.
 
 APPENDIX. 195 
 
 47 FORM OF INDORSEMENT ON NOTICE OF JUDG- 
 MENT OR ORDER. 
 
 Cons. Ord. XXIIL, r. 20. 
 
 " Take notice, that, from the time of the service of this notice, you 
 [or, as the case may be, the infant, or person of unsound mind] will be 
 hound by the proceedings in the above action in the same manner as 
 if you [or, the said infant, or person of unsound mind] had been 
 originally made a party thereto ; and that you [or, the said infant, or 
 person of unsound mind] may, by an order of course, have liberty to 
 attend the proceedings under the within-mentioned judgment [or, 
 order] ; and that you [or, the said infant, or person of unsound mind] 
 may, within one month after the service of this notice, aj^ply to the 
 Coiirt to add to the judgment [or, order]." 
 
 50 MINUTES OF ORDINARY ADMINISTRATION JUDG- 
 MENTS. 
 
 I. 
 
 Creditors' Action. — Personal Estate. — General Accounts. 
 
 Let the following accounts and inij^uiry be taken and made, that is 
 to say : — 1. An account of what is due to the plaintiff ami all otlier 
 the creditors of A. deceased, the intestate [or, testator] in the 
 phuntiff 's action named. 2. An account of the intestate's [or, tes- 
 tator's] funeral expenses. 3. An account of the intestate's [or, tes- 
 tator's] personal estate come to the hands of the defendants , the 
 administrators of his estate [or, executors of his will], or of [any or] 
 either of them, or to the hands of any other person or persons by or 
 for their or [any or] either of their order or use. 4. An inquiry 
 what parts (if any) of the intestate's [or, testator's] personal estate 
 are outstanding or undisposed of. Let the intestate's [or, testator's] 
 personal estate be applied in payment of his debts and funeral ex- 
 penses in a due course of administration. — Adjourn further consi- 
 deration. — Liberty to apply. 
 
 2
 
 li)G AIM'KNDIX. 
 
 II. 
 
 Creditoi-s' Action. — Real and Personal Estate. — General Accounts. 
 
 Let the following accounts and inquiries Le taken and made : — 
 An account of what is due and owing, &c., and accounts of personal 
 estate [see order, swpra]. Let the intestate's \or, testator's] personal 
 estate be apjjlied in payment of his debts and funeral expenses in a 
 due course of administration. And in case the intestate's [or, tes- 
 tator's] personal estate shall be insufficient for payment of his debts 
 and funeral expenses, let the ft)llowing further inf^uiriesand accounts 
 be made and taken. An inquiry what real estate the intestate \or, 
 testator] was seised of or entitled to at the time of his death. An 
 inquiry what incumbrances (if any) affect the intestate's \or, testator's] 
 real estate, or any and what parts thereof [and their priorities]. An 
 account of what is due to such of the incumbrancers (if any) as shall 
 consent (c) to the sale hereinafter directed in respect of their incum- 
 brances. Let the intestate's \or, testator's] real estate, or a sufficient 
 part thereof to make good the deficiency of his personal estate, be 
 sold with the approbation of the judge, free from the incumbrances 
 (if any) of such of the incumbrancers as shall consent to the sale, 
 and subject to the incumbrances of such of them as shall not consent. 
 Let the money to arise by the sale of such real estate be paid into 
 Court to the credit of this action; and if such money or any part 
 thereof shall arise from real estate sold with the consent of the incum- 
 brancers, the same is to be applied in the first place in payment of 
 what shall appear to be due to such incimibrancers according to their 
 priorities — Adjourn further coii.sideration. — Liberty to apply ((?). 
 
 (c) If the mortgagee be a party, to pay him the amount due to liim 
 
 he may be put to his election on taking the account and tlie bal- 
 
 whether he will have a sale or not, auce into Court, or to pay the whole 
 
 and the order will be framed accord- purchase-money into Court, when 
 
 ingly ( Wickenden v. Eayso7i, 6 De the mortgagee may apply for pay- 
 
 G. M. &G. 210), but no sale can be ment by summons or petition 
 
 made without his express consent (Seton, 821, 822). 
 {LangtoH v. Langton, 1 Jur. N. S. If a mortgagee be the plaintiil', 
 
 1078). If he consents, he must do and desire to realize liis security and 
 
 everything necessary to facilitate the to charge the general assets with the 
 
 sale {Livesey v. Harding, 1 Beav. deficiency, the action should be 
 
 343) ; and he is only entitled to six brought "on behalf of himself and 
 
 months' interest from the date of all otlier the creditors," &c. {Skey 
 
 his consent to be paid oft' out of the v. Bennett, 2 Y. & C. C. 405 ; and 
 
 purchase-money (Day v. Day, 31 see Seton, 823—825 ; Pemb. 179). 
 Beav. 270). ((/) It will be seen that no account 
 
 If the mortgagee consents to the of rents is ordered in the original 
 
 sale, the purchaser may be directed judgment ; this can, of course, be
 
 APPENDIX. 197 
 
 III. 
 
 Creditors' Action. — Real and Personal Estate. — Inquiry as to Heir. 
 
 lift the following accounts and inquiries be taken and made : — An 
 account of what is due and owing, &c., and accounts of personal 
 estate, as in first order. — Let the intestate's personal estate be applied, 
 &c. — Let the following further inquiries and accounts be made and 
 taken : — An inquiry who at the time of the death of the said intes- 
 tate was his heir-at-law, and whether such heir is living or dead, and 
 if dead who, by devise, descent, or otherwise, is now entitled to such 
 real estate (if any) of the intestate as descended to such heir-at-law. 
 Inquiries as to real estate, rents, and profits, and incumbrances, as in 
 preceding order. And if it shall appear that such heir-at-law of the 
 said intestate, or the person so entitled as aforesaid, is a party to this 
 action, let the intestate's real estate, or a sufficient part thereof to 
 make good any deficiency, be sold, &c. — Usual directions. Pickering 
 V. Backhouse (V.-C. B.), Feb. 17, 1873 ; see also Chatham v. Hig- 
 ginhottom (V.-C. W.), Feb. 11, 1860. 
 
 IV. 
 
 Creditors' Action for General Account. — Personalty. — Payment of 
 Plaintiff's Debt. 
 
 The defendant B., the executor [or, administrator] of A., the tes- 
 tator [or, intestate], by his defence [or, counsel or solicitor] admitting 
 assets of the said A. for the purjioses of this action, and that the said 
 A. was at the time of his death indebted to the plaintift' in the sum 
 of £ , and that the sum of £ is now due for principal and 
 interest in respect of such debt ; Let the defendant B. (within one 
 month from the date of this order) pay to the plaintift' C. the said sum of 
 £ , with subsequent interest on the principal sum of £ , part 
 of the said £ , at the rate of £ per cent, per annum from the 
 day of to the day of payment. — Liberty to apply. See 
 
 Woodgate v. Field, 2 Hare, 211. 
 
 V. 
 
 Action by Next-of-Kin. — Personalty. 
 
 Let the following impiiries and accounts be made and taken : — 
 1. An inquiry who were tlie next-of-kin according to the statutes 
 
 olitained on further consideration, desire (Seton, 822). 
 if necessary, and if the creditors so
 
 198 Ai'i'i;\uix. 
 
 I'or tilt; ilistiibutioii of iiitcbUitc's estates of A. dociiaseil, the intes- 
 Uile in the pleadings [or, suninions] named livin'^ at the time of 
 hiu death, and whether any of them are since dead, and if dead, who 
 are their respective legal personal representatives [if required; And 
 whether the intestate left a widow, and if so, whether she is living 
 ur dead, and if dead, who is or are her legal personal representative 
 or representatives]. 2. An account of the personal estate of the 
 saiil intestate come to the hands of the defendants , the ad- 
 
 ministrators of his estate, or any [or either] of them, or to the 
 hands of any other person or persons by or for the order or use 
 of the defendants or any [or either] of them. 3. An account of 
 the intestate's debts. 4. An account of the intestat,e's funeral ex- 
 penses. 5. An inquiry what parts, if any, of the intestate's personal 
 estate are outstanding or undisposed of. Let the intestate's personal 
 estate be applied in payment of his debts and funeral expenses in 
 a due course of administration. — Adjourn further consideration. — 
 Liberty to apply (e). 
 
 VI. 
 
 JVill Established. 
 
 Declare (/) that the will of , the testator [is well proved, and 
 
 that the same] ought to be established, and the trusts thereof per- 
 formed and carried into execution. 
 
 If will admitted : The defendant B., the heir-at-law of , the 
 
 testator, &c., by his defence [counsel] admitting the due execution of 
 the testator's will, dated, &c., this Court doth declare, &c. 
 
 Infant heir not asking issue: And counsel for the infant defendant 
 B. not asking for an issue upon a will of the testator, and the Court 
 being of opinion that it Avill not be for the benefit of the said infant 
 to direct such issue. Declare, &c. 
 
 If ivill proves itself : Upon reading the will of the testator , 
 
 dated, &c., Declare that the same ought to be established, &c. 
 
 VII. 
 
 Action bji Legatee, by Trustees, or Executors, or Beneficiary. — Personal 
 Estate. — General A ccounts. 
 
 Declare that the trusts of the will of , the testator, &c., ought 
 
 to be performed and carried into execution, and order and adjudge 
 
 (e) As to an in(iuiry as to ad- (/) Unnecessary in creditors' ac- 
 
 vances to children, see JVatcrton v. tions, see ante, p. 13. 
 Ennis, W. N., 1880, 154.
 
 APPENDIX. 199 
 
 the same accordingly. [And the plaintiffs (g) by their counsel sub- 
 mitting to account,] Let the following accounts and inquiries be 
 taken and made, that is to say : — 1. An account of the personal 
 estate not specifically bequeathed of , the testator, come to the 
 
 hands of the plaintiffs, the executors of his will, or [any or] either of 
 them, or to the hands of any other person or persons by or for the 
 order or use of the defendants or [any or] either of them. 2. An 
 account of the testator's debts. 3. An account of the testator's 
 funeral expenses. 4. An account of the legacies [and annuities] 
 given by the testator's will. 5. An inquiry what parts (if any) 
 of the testator's personal estate are outstanding or undisposed 
 of. Let the testator's personal estate not specifically bequeathed be 
 applied in payment of his debts and funeral expenses in a due 
 course of administration, and then in payment of the legacies and 
 annuities given by his will. — Adjourn further consideration. — 
 Liberty to apply. 
 
 VIIL 
 
 Action by Trustees, Executors, or Beneficiaries. — Real and Personal 
 Estate. — General Accounts. 
 
 Declare that the trusts of the will of , the testator, &c., ought 
 
 to be performed and carried into execution, and order and adjudge 
 the same accordingly. [And the plaintiffs (g) by their counsel sub- 
 mitting to account,] Let the following accounts and inquiries be 
 taken and made : Accounts of personal estate, as in last order, with 
 inquiry as to heir-at-law if real estate be sold. Let the testator's 
 personal estate not specifically bequeathed be applied, &c. Let the 
 following further inquiries and accounts be made and taken : — 6. An 
 inquiry what real estate the testator was seised of or entitled to at 
 the time of his death. If ordered : 7. An account of the rents and 
 profits of the testator's real estate received by the plaintiffs [or, de- 
 fendants] or [any or] either of them, or by any other person or 
 persons by their or [any or] either of their order, or for their or [any 
 or] either of their use. 8. An inquiry what incumbrances (if any) 
 affect the testator's real estate, or any and what parts thereof. 9. An 
 account of what is due to such of the incumbrancers as shall consent 
 to the sale hereinafter directed in respect of their incumbrances. 10. 
 An inquiry what are the priorities of such last-mentioned incum- 
 brances. If ordered : Let the testator's real estate be sold with the 
 approbation of the judge free from the incuml)rances (if any) of 
 
 (g) If executors or trustees be plaintiffs.
 
 200 Ari'ENDIX. 
 
 such of the incumbrancers as shall consent to the sale, and subject 
 to the mcunibrances of such of them as shall not consent. Let the 
 money to arise by the sale of the testator's I'cal estate be paid into 
 Court to the credit of this [matter and] action to an account to be 
 intituled " Proceeds of Testator's Real Estates." And if such money 
 or any part thereof shall arise from real estate sold with the consent 
 of the incumbrancers, the money so arising is to be applied in the 
 first place in payment of what shall ai)pear due to such incxim- 
 brancers according to their priorities. — Adjourn further considera- 
 tion. — Liberty to apply. 
 
 1012 FORM OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR CREDITORS. 
 
 Pursuant to a judgment [or, an order] of the High Court of Justice, 
 made In the matter of the estate of A. B., and in an action S. against 
 P., the creditors of A. B., late of , in the County of , 
 
 who died in the month of , 18 , are, on or before the 
 
 day of , 18 , to send by post prepaid to E. F., 
 
 of , the solicitor of the defendant, C. D., the executor 
 
 [or, administrator] of the deceased [or, as may he directed], their 
 christian and surnames, addresses and descriptions, the full par- 
 ticulars of their claims, a statement of their accounts, and the nature 
 of the securities (if any) held by them ; or, in default thereof, they 
 will be peremptorily excluded from the benefit of the said judgment 
 [or, order]. Every creditor holding any security is to produce the 
 same before Mr. Justice at his chambers, situated at the 
 
 Royal Courts of Justice, on the day of , 18 , at 
 
 o'clock in the noon, being the time appointed for 
 
 adjudicating on the claims. 
 
 Dated this day of , If 
 
 G. H., 
 
 Chief Clerk. 
 
 1();3 NOTICE TO CREDITOR TO PROVE HIS CLA.IM. 
 
 (Short Title.) 
 
 You are hereby required to prove tlie claim sent in by you against 
 the estate of A. B., deceased. You are to tile such affidavit as you 
 may be advised in support of your claim, and give notice thereof to 
 me, on or Ijefure the day of next, and to attend, by
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 your solicitor, at tlie chambers of the Vice-Chancellor, Sir James 
 Bacon [or, , J.], situate at, &c., on the day 
 
 of , 18 , at o'clock in the noon, being the 
 
 time appointed for adjudicating on the claim. 
 Dated this day of , 18 . 
 
 G. R., of, tt'c, solicitor for the plaintiff 
 [or, defendant, or as may be]. 
 To Mr. S. T. 
 
 201 
 
 104 NOTICE TO CREDITOR TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS. 
 
 {Short title.) 
 
 You are hereby required to produce, in support of the claim sent 
 in by you against the estate of A. B., deceased [describe any probate, 
 administration, deed, or document required], before ]\Ir. Justice 
 at his chambers, situate at, &c., on the day of , 18 , 
 
 at o'clock in the noon. 
 
 Dated this day of , 18 . 
 
 G. R., of, tC-c., solicitor for plaiutilf 
 [or, defendant, or as may be^. 
 To Mr. S. T. 
 
 118 FORM OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR CLAIMANTS, OTHER 
 THAN CREDITORS. 
 
 Cons. Ord., Schedule (L.). 
 
 Pursuant to a judgment [or, order] of the High Court of Justice, 
 jnade in [the matter of the estate of , and in] an action 
 
 against the persons claiming to be next of kin to [or, the heir of, as 
 the case may be] , late of , in the County of , 
 
 Avho died in or about the month of > 18 , are, by their 
 
 solicitors, on or before the day of , 18 , to come in 
 
 and prove their claims at the chambers of 'Mr. Justice , at the 
 
 Royal Courts of Justice, or in default thereof they will be peremp- 
 torily excluded from the benefit of the said judgment [or, order]. 
 
 [Monday], the day of , 18 , at o'clock 
 
 in the noon, at the said chambers, is appointed for hearing 
 
 and adjudicating upon the claims. 
 
 Dated this day of ,18 . 
 
 A. B., 
 
 Chief Clerk.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 ABATEMENT, 
 
 of legacies and annuities, 176, 178 
 
 ACCOUNT, ACCOUNTS, 
 
 adopting, taken in another cause, 74 
 
 assets, admission of, precludes, 50 
 
 beneiiciary's action, of personal estate, 50, 51 (g) ; Appendix, 197 — 199 
 
 real estate, Appendix, 199 
 chambers, how taken in, 90 
 costs of, how borne, 143 
 creditors' action, of personal estate, 50, 51 (g) ; Appendix, 195 — 197 
 
 real estate, 9, 29 (m) ; Appendix, 196, 197 
 debts under Turner's Act, 4 
 district registry, may be taken in, 191 
 evidence on taking, 90 
 
 further, and inquiries, when and how added, 50 — 52 
 judgment for, 23 ; Appendix, 195 — 199 
 liability to, sole issue in administration action, 12 
 real estate, not directed in action by single creditor, 9, 29 (u) 
 
 rents of, not directed until deficiency shown which requires them, 
 Appendix, 196 (d) 
 separate, carrying over to, 51 (g), 180 
 
 title of, 180 
 summons in Chambers for usual, 22 
 usual, 22 ; Appendix, 195—199 
 wilful default, 5, 15, 17, 52 
 
 not directed on summons, 5 
 ACTION, 
 
 against executor, after administration judgment, only by leave of the Court, 16 
 
 how stayed, 69 — 85. See 
 Staying Proceedings. 
 administration by the Court, 37, 183 
 out of Court, 4, 37 
 before probate, 27, 32 
 by executor after administration judgment, 126, 127 
 
 improper, after administration by the Court, 126 (k) 
 
 ADDITIONAL ACCOUNTS AND INQUIRIES, 
 when and how ordered, 50 — 52, 132 
 
 ADJOURNMENT, 
 
 of summons to Judge in Chambers, 87 
 
 vary chief clerk's certificate, 100
 
 204 INDEX. 
 
 ADJOURNMENT— co)i/!i«?;a^. 
 
 ri^lit of suitor to have case ad jomiu'd to Jiulgf, 88 
 how qualilie'd, 88 
 
 ADJUDICATION, 
 
 on claims of creditors, 105 
 
 other claimants, 118 
 
 ADMINISTRATION. See Assets, Costs, Executor, Judgment, Parties, 
 Rules and Orders, Statutes, &c. 
 
 ADMINISTRATOR, 
 
 ad litem, insufficient in action for administration of estate, 34 
 
 costs of, 151 {y) 
 creditor, grant of administration to, 108 (/), 168 {q) 
 durante minorc cctate, when a necessary party, 38 
 feme covert ctim testamento annexo, of, 35 
 de bonis non, proof of title of, 1 4 
 proof of title of, 13 
 
 revocation of letters of administration, 28, 141 
 right to costs, as between solicitor and client, 149 
 generally, 141 — 149 
 in priority to all other parties, 151 
 
 indemnity of the Court, 142 {u) 
 
 order for account under Turner's Act, 4 
 
 retainer for his debt, 168 
 
 sue before grant of administration, 27 
 
 summons, cannot obtain order for administration upon, 4 
 And see Costs, Executor. 
 
 ADMISSION OF ASSETS, 
 
 assent of executor to a legacy, when, 50, 137 
 effect of, in dispensing with account, 50 
 
 entitling to order for payment, 50 
 in summons action, cannot be acted on, 5 
 
 ADMISSION, ADMISSIONS, 
 
 for purposes of ordering payment into Court, what, 64 
 judgment upon, for administration, 12, 18 
 
 for payment of debt or legacy, 50, 137 (?) ; Appendix, 197 
 order for payment into Court, upon, 60 — 68 
 
 ADVANCES, 
 
 inquiry as to, by intestate. Appendix, 198 
 
 ADVERTISEMENTS, 
 
 for claimants other than creditors, 117 
 for creditors, 102 
 
 AFFIDAVIT, 
 
 of documents by executors, 108 
 verifying claims, by executors, 104 
 See Evidence. 
 
 ALIENATION 
 
 by heir or devisee, when good against creditors of deceased, 166
 
 INDEX. 205 
 
 AMENDMENT, 
 
 of indorsement on writ, when necessary, 9 
 
 ANNUITANT, 
 
 administration action may be brought by, 24, 29 
 costs of, 138 
 
 ANNUITY, ^^tM^»x^^>^t^ f '^^^'^ '^ I /'/^ty^ /^^ -^^^^ 
 
 abatement of, 178 
 
 fund, distributable after death of annuitant, when, 178 
 
 income only, when applicable to pay, 178 , 
 
 valued for purposes of administration, if estate deficient, and abates accord- 
 ingly, 178 
 
 APPEAL, 
 
 chambers, from, 89 
 
 time, 89 
 costs, for, 140, 149 
 whether any, from refusal of administration order on summons, (j 
 
 APPEARANCE, 
 
 default of, judgment in, 3, 22 
 entry of, 3 
 
 APPLICATION, 
 
 of assets, order of, inter se, 159, 166, 168, 174 
 in payment of costs, 156 
 debts, 164 
 
 APPOINTMENT, 
 
 power of, if exercised, property is assets, 165 
 
 APPORTIONMENT, 
 
 of costs, between real and personal estate, 158 
 
 pure and impure personalty, 159 
 and debts, between legal and equitable assets, 159, 168 
 payment to creditor, after, 114 
 And see Marshalling, 159, et scq. 
 
 APPROPRIATION, 
 
 of assets, to answer contingent liabilities, not now made, 183 
 loss after, 120 
 
 ASSENT, 
 
 of executor to a legacj', what judgment obtained after, 50, 137 
 
 ASSETS, 
 
 administration of, 161 — 179 
 
 admission of, 50, 137 
 
 appropriation of, 120, 183 
 
 deficient, for payment of costs, 154 (jj) 
 
 debts, 162, 168—173 
 enuitable, what, 167. S'ce Eqititagle Assets.
 
 206 INDEX. 
 
 ASSETS— ca7i<mMC(7. 
 
 legal and equitable, distinction between, 107 
 
 what, 167 
 marshalling, 159, 166, 168, 174. 6'ce Marshalling. ^V 
 order of application of, in payment of costs, W4 '\ 
 
 debts, tSU / b~>^ 
 payment of, into Conrt, 60 — 68 
 personal, including lands in India and the West Indies, 164 (c) 
 
 property subject to power of appointment, if exercised, 16.'). And 
 see Personal Estate. 
 real, 
 
 by descent, 164 
 
 by devise or charge, 164, 165 
 
 by statute 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 104, 13, 167 
 
 equitable assets, 167 (/(•) 
 their priority and order of application, 164 
 
 realisation of, under the administration, 95. And see Real Estate. 
 receipt of, by co-executor, effect of, 37 
 securing, in Court, on admissions, 60 — 68 
 
 ASSIGNEE, 
 
 of creditor, legatee, &c., entitled to administration judgment, 2, 30, 184 (r) 
 costs of, 150 
 
 BANKRUPT, 
 
 debtor to estate, set-oft' against legacy to, 146 
 
 executor or trustee, costs of, 144 
 
 one of co-executoi"s or trustees, costs of, 146 
 
 BANKRUPTCY RULES. See Insolvent Estate, (163—173) ; Rules anu 
 Orders, post, 227. 
 
 BENEFICIARY. See Devisee, Legatee. 
 
 BOND, 
 
 proof of, in chambers, 106 
 
 voluntary, preferred to legacies, postponal to debts, 167, 173 
 
 BREACH OF TRUST, 
 
 simimons action not applicable for, 5 
 liability for, 16, 17, 65, 132 
 
 CARRYING OVER, 
 
 residue to separate accounts on further consideration, 180 
 
 CERTIFICATE, 
 
 of chief clerk, 96—101 
 
 application to discharge or vary, 93, 133 
 
 Chancery Paymaster, to be acted on by, 100 
 
 error in, 99,^101, 134 
 
 filing of, 97 
 
 form of, 96 
 
 general or separate, 98
 
 INDEX. 207 
 
 CERTIFICATE— continued. 
 
 irregularity in, 99, 134 
 
 opinion of Judge on, how taken, 88 
 
 proof of debts, after, 113 
 
 result of accounts, how stated in, 96 
 
 signature and adoption of, by Judge, 98 
 
 variation of, generally on further consideration, 100, 133 
 
 time within which application for, may be made, 
 98 
 of counsel, that cause is fit to be heard " short," 12 
 
 CHAMBERS, 
 
 account ordered in, where writ indorsed under 0. iii., r. 8, 22 
 accounts, how taken in, 90, 104 
 
 of personal estate, order for, under Turner's Act, 4 
 administration in, 1 — 10 
 appeal from, 89 
 
 applications for, conduct made in, 126 
 payment out, in, 181 
 costs of proceedings in, 93, 111 
 creditors establishing debts in, 103 — 117 
 
 costs of. 111 
 evidence in, 90 — 92 
 inquiries, how made in, 104 
 
 conduct of, in, 124 
 judge, opinion of, taken in, 88, 89 
 legatees and others proving claims in, 113 
 proceedings in, generally, 86 — 101 
 sales under judgments conducted in, 95 
 And See Conduct. 
 
 CHANCERY DIVISION", 
 
 juiisdiction in administration of assets, 1 {e) 
 transfers from, to County Court, 185, 187 
 
 to, after judgment for administi-ation, 84 
 from County Court, 185 
 
 CHANCERY FUNDS RULES. ,S'ce Rules and Orders, j^oa^ 227. 
 
 CHANCERY PAYMASTER, 
 
 certificate to be acted on by, 100 
 
 CHARGE, 
 
 of real estate, with payment of debts, 164 {u) 
 
 CHARITY, 
 
 apportionment of costs, &c., between pure and impure personalty, 159, 176 
 no marshalling in favour of, 176 
 
 CHIEF CLERK, 
 
 certificate of {quod vide), 96 — 101 
 powers of, 91 
 And sre Chambkks.
 
 208 INDEX. 
 
 (HILDKEN. 
 
 interest on legacies to, wln'ii payable, 119 
 
 CLAIMS, 
 
 allowance of, 112 
 
 after expiration of time liiuited, 113 
 after apportionment, 114 
 proof of, in Chambers, 102 — 121 
 unli(pudated damages, for, 106 
 And sec Creditoks. 
 
 CLASS, 
 
 inquiry as to, 117 
 
 one of a, suing or being sued for all, 44 
 
 CONCURRENT ACTIONS, 69—85 
 costs of applications to stay, 75 
 
 stayed actions, 84 
 Court may interfere ex mcro motu, in, 72 
 creditor's action in Q. B. D., stay of, 80 
 
 transfer of to Chancery Division, 84 
 for co-extensive relief, 70 
 
 foreign action for same or like purpose, 79, 82, 83 
 how stayed, 70 
 judgment in, 74, 75 
 staying one of two, after judgment in the other, 69 
 
 on whose application, 69 
 transfer of one of two, 77 
 when relief not co-extensive, 72 
 
 stay will be ordered, 69 
 which will be stayed, 71 
 
 transferred, 78 
 
 CONDUCT 
 
 of action for administration, 122 — 127 
 
 alleged creditor found a debtor, conduct given to another, 125 
 
 application for, to be made in Chambers, 126 
 
 costs of plaintiff deprived of, 93 
 
 death of creditor plaintiff, 125 
 
 of different inquiries, when given to different parties, 125 
 
 discretion of Judge in questions of, final, 122 
 
 plaintiff entitled to, unless good cause be shown, 122 
 
 when deprived of, 123 
 proceedings external to the administration, executors generally entitled to 
 
 conduct of, 127 
 of sale, trustees entitled to, 124 . 
 
 CONSENT, ' ' ' 
 
 administration judgment by, 23 
 
 CONSOLIDATED ORDERS. See Rules and Orders, 2wst, 227. 
 
 CONSOLIDATION OF CONCURRENT ACTIONS, 79
 
 INDEX. 209 
 
 CONTINCxENT DEBTS AND LIABILITIES, 
 
 proof in respect of, where estate insolvent, 107, 173 
 
 setting aside fnnds to meet, not nsnal, 183 
 
 whether a ground for obtaining judgment for administration, 26 
 
 CONTINGENT INTERESTS, 
 
 insufficient to entitle plaintiff to administration judgment, when, 24 
 
 CONTRIBUTION, 
 
 to costs of action, by creditors, not now ordered, 153 
 
 by de\'isees in aid of personalty, 95 {1-) 
 And see Marshalling, 159 et seq. 
 
 CORPUS, 
 
 annuity paid out of, when, 178 
 
 apportionment of, amongst anniiitants and legatees, 1 78 
 
 COSTS IN ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS, 135—160 
 
 administrator ad litem, of, 151 ^ u ^■■*^~'"^ ^ 
 
 accounts, of taking, 143 > 
 
 annuitants', 138 j^ y 
 
 appeal for, 140, 149 ^ ' ^7 ,^:t..*-— -/^*-^>»*>-^^ 
 
 apportionment, between legal and equitable assets, 159 C^'7/ ^ ^^^ ' ^*^ 
 
 pure and imj)ure personalty, 159 
 real and personal estate, 158 
 assignees or mortgagees of beneficiaries, of, 150 
 bankrupt executor or tinistee, of, 144, 146 
 concurrent actions, of, 75, 76 
 contribution towards, not now ordered, 153 
 County Court, in, 187, 190 
 creditors', 111, 140, 153 
 defaulting executor or trustee, of, 144 
 deficient estate, rules in case of, 151 — 156 
 disclaiming trustee's, 152 
 executor or administrator, of, 141 — 145, 146 — 149 
 
 as between solicitor and client, 149 
 not out of real estate, 152 
 when a solicitor, 147 
 when deprived of, 139, 142 — 144 
 when jointly liable for, though not pf(n:i]ly 
 guilty, 147 
 first charge on assets, 135 
 further consideration, costs of persons unnecessarily appearing on, 129 
 
 questions as to costs, disposed of on, 131 
 heir's, in creditors' actions. 151 
 higher and lower scale, 135 
 legatees', 137, 138, 155 
 
 liabilit}' for, of creditors or beneficiaries needlessly bringing administration 
 actions, 136, 138, 140 
 executors or trustees improperly causing or bringing adminis- 
 tration actions, 142 — 144 
 
 p
 
 210 INDEX, 
 
 COSTS IN ADMINISTRATION ACTIQ-NS— continued. 
 
 ]iioitg;igo(>, wIktc iiiortf,'af,'o created by testator, costs of, 154 
 
 of boneficiary, costs of, 150 
 next-of-kin, of, 139, 156 
 perscins attending the proceedings, of, 93 — 95 
 plaiiitiifs', how payable, 149, 153, 155, 156 
 priority for, over debts, 155 
 
 except debts for whicli executor or administrator 
 may retain, 156 
 also as to costs of next-of-kin, 156 
 probate proceedings, wlictlier costs of, payable in priority, 151 
 
 out of realt}', 152 
 real estate, apportionment of costs of administration of, 158 
 residuary legatees, costs of, 139 
 set-off of, against debt to estate, 145 
 solicitor, when executor or trustee, costs of, 147 
 
 and client, executors and trustees entitled to costs as between, 149 
 heir entitled to costs as between, when, 151 
 plaintiff in creditors' action, when so entitled, 153 
 
 beneficiary's action, when so entitled, 155 
 residuary legatees not so entitled, 139 
 summons, costs of, 87 
 "testamentary expenses" include, 159 
 trustees', how payable, 141 — 145, 146 — 149 
 
 when severing in defence, 147 
 unnecessary parties, of, 92, 94, 130 
 what they include, 157 
 
 COUNTY COURTS, 
 
 appeal from, 188—190 
 concurrent jurisdiction of, when, 184 
 taxation of costs in, may be in Chancery Division, 190 
 transfer from, to Chancery Division, 185 
 to, from High Court, 187 
 
 COUNTY COURT RULES. See Rules and Orders, ;?05i!, 228. 
 
 COURT. See Chancery Division. 
 
 COVENANT, 
 
 contingent breach of, will not support creditors' action, 26 
 testator's, indemnity against, 183 
 voluntary, will support creditors' action, 25 
 
 debt on, order of payment in administration, 107, 173 
 
 CREDITOR, CREDITORS, 
 
 abandonment of action for administration by, before judgment, 9 
 
 advertisements for, 102 
 
 affidavit by, when necessary, 103 
 
 apportionment, proof after, 114 
 
 certificate, proof after, 113 
 
 contingent liabilities, 107
 
 INDEX. 211 
 
 CREDITOR, CRY.mTO'RS— continued. 
 costs of, when plaintiff, 140, 153 
 cross-examination of, 108 
 
 dmninus litis until judgment for administration, 9 
 evidence on behalf of, 103 — 105 
 notice to, of allowance or disallowance of claim, 112 
 to produce documents, 104, Appendix, 201 
 prove his claim, 103, Appendix, 200 
 payment to, on further consideration, 133 
 
 priorities amongst, 161—164, 166, 169, 172. See PraoRixiES, Retainer. 
 proof of claims in chambers by, 102 — 116 
 
 costs of, 111 . 
 
 secured, when estate insolvent, 169 — 172. See Mortgagee. 
 suing legatees, 116 
 
 unliquidated damages, in respect of, 106 
 verification of claim of, 104 
 when entitled to take out administration, 108 
 And see Creditors' Action ; Debts ; Retainer, 166 ; Statute of Limi- 
 tations, 108 
 
 CREDITORS' ACTION, 
 
 accounts. See Inquiries. 
 
 costs of, 140, 153 
 
 creditor, assignee of, may be plaintiff in, 2, 30 
 
 personal representative of, may be plaintiff in, 2 
 debt to support action, what sufficient, 25 
 
 what insufficient, 26 
 evidence in, 13 
 form of, by single creditor, 9 ; and sec Appendix, 197, (iv.) 
 
 on behalf of all creditors, 9 ; and see Appendix, 195 — 197 
 inquiries, less wide than in beneficiaries' actions, 51 
 personal estate. Appendix, 195 
 real estate, Appendix, 196, 197 
 
 rents and profits of, 196 {d) 
 judgment in, at the hearing, 51 ; Appendix, 195 — 197 
 on further consideration, 135 
 right to, 25 
 marshalling assets in, 166 — 168, 174. See Marshalling. 
 parties in, against personal estate, 31 
 
 against real and personal estate, 39 
 personal estate, against, 1, 9 (J), 31 
 plaintiff in, found debtor to estate, 125 
 
 must prove his debt again in Chambers, 1 05 
 proof of debts in, costs of, added to debt. 111 
 real estate, against, 9, 29 
 
 sale of real estate, when ordered, 95, Appendix, 196 
 single creditor, by, 9 (I) 
 
 Statute of Limitations must be pleaded against iilaiutifl"'s claim before judg- 
 ment in, 109 
 summons, instituted by, 1 
 theory of, 1 (a) 
 
 p 2
 
 212 INDEX. 
 
 CROWN, 
 
 (leljts to, still ciititlod to priority, "Ifil, lfi3 
 
 suuniioiis ugainst Crown solicitor for adiuiiiistratioii, 3 (t) 
 
 DAMAGES, 
 
 unliquidated, proof for, in Chambers, 106, 172 
 inquiry as to, 131 
 
 DEATH, 
 
 of creditor plaintiff, procedure on, 125 
 
 of one trustee insolvent after judgment for administration, 39 
 of one executor before action for administration, whether his representatives 
 should be parties, 37 
 
 DEBTS, 
 
 account of under Turner's Act, 4 
 
 charge of, on real estate, does not now exonerate mortgaged estates, 174 
 
 per se exonerate personalty, 164 
 effect of, in administration of assets, 164 
 
 creditors' action, what will support, 25 
 
 Crown, priority of, 161, 163 
 
 executor's, deemed to be assets in his hands, 63 
 
 exoneration of mortgaged estate from, 174 
 personal estate from, 164 
 
 illegal, no ground for administration judgment, 26 
 
 interest on, 107, 110, 173 
 
 judgment, order of pajTuent of, 161, 163 
 
 mortgage, now primarily charged on mortgaged estate, 174 
 
 order of liability of assets to, 164 
 
 payable m fiUuro, will support creditor's action, 25 
 
 payment of, before judgment, 55, 58 
 
 on further consideration, 133 
 
 priorities of, under pi-esent law, 163 
 
 real estate is assets for payment of, 164 (Jc) 
 
 recognizance, of, 161, 163 
 
 of record, order of payment of, 161, 163 
 
 rent, for, now equivalent to simple contract debt, 162, 172 
 
 retainer for executor's or administrator's, 55, 68, 166. See Retainer. 
 
 specialty, has no longer any priority, 162 
 
 special statutes, by, order of payment, 163 
 
 trust for payment of, does not generally exonerate mortgaged estates, 174 
 does exonerate the other estates, 164 
 not now a bar to the Statute of Limitations, 165 
 And see Creditors, Equitable Assets, Legal Assets, Priorities. 
 
 DECLARATION 
 
 of right, not made until accounts taken, 130 
 
 that will is well proved, and ought to be established and executed, Appendix, 
 198 
 
 DEFAULT, 
 
 of appearance, 3, 22 
 pleading, 19, 21
 
 INDEX. 213 
 
 DEFAULT— contiimed. 
 
 wilful, not chargeable in summons actions, 5 
 how chargeable, at the hearing, 16 
 
 by additional inquiries, 52 
 
 by amendment, 17 
 
 evidence for judgment on footing of, 17 
 
 in a fresh action, 16 
 
 on further consideration, 16 
 
 DELAY, 
 
 of plaintifif in prosecuting judgment, remedy for, 122 
 
 or refusal of co-plaintiff to appoint solicitor, remedy for, 124 
 
 DESCENDED ESTATES, 
 
 alienation of, for value, as against creditors, 166 
 order in which liable for costs, 157, 158 
 debts, 164 
 
 DEVISEE, 
 
 alienation by, for value, as against creditors, 166 
 contribution by, in aid of personalty, 95 {k) 
 entitled as of course to account of testator's estate, 7, 29 
 proof of title of, 14 
 And see Real Estate. 
 
 DISCOVERY 
 
 of documents relating to claims, 108 
 
 DISCRETION 
 
 of Judge, to refuse administration judgment on summons, 4, 6 
 of executors and trustees, when controlled by Court, 54 — 59 
 
 DISTRESS, 
 
 whether right of, affected by s. 10 of Judicature Act, 1875, 172 
 
 DISTRIBUTION, 
 
 final, of the estate, 130, 180, 181 
 
 DISTRICT REGISTRAR, 
 powers of, 191, 192 
 
 DISTRICT REGISTRY, 
 
 accounts and inquiries in, 191 
 
 actions in, 190, 191 
 
 production of documents in, 190 
 
 removal of actions to and from, 191, 192 
 
 sale of real estate in, 191 
 
 taxation of costs in, 192 
 
 writs issued out of, 190 
 
 DOWER, 
 
 priority of legacy in satisfaction of, 177 
 
 DUTY, 181 
 
 yyCr- ^
 
 214 INDEX. 
 
 EQUITABLE ASSETS, 167 
 
 ajiportionment of debts and costs between, and legal assets, 150, 1G8 
 distinction between legal and equitable, 167 
 real estate under 3 & 4 AVill. IV. c. 104, 167 (t) 
 separate estate of married women, 16 7 (o) 
 
 EQUITABLE CHARGE, 174 
 See Locke- King's Acts. 
 
 ESTABLISHING WILL, 
 
 against heir, not now necessary, 13, Appendix, 194 
 order for, Appendi.x, 198 
 
 EVIDENCE, 
 
 account, in actions for, 12. And see Account. 
 
 application to vary certificate, on, 99 
 
 bond debt, of, 106 
 
 chambers, in, 90 — 92 
 
 claims, corroborative, required of, 105 
 
 common administration judgment, for, 15 
 
 cross-examination, 90 
 
 debt, of, in creditors' action, IS, 105 
 
 documents which prove themselves, 15 (/) 
 
 examiners, evidence before, 91 
 
 further consideration, on, 131 
 
 hearing, at the, 12 
 
 special judgment, for, 15 
 
 subpcena ad testificandum, no leave to serve now necessary, 91 
 
 title of devisee, 14 
 
 heir, 15 
 
 legal personal representatives, 13 
 wilful default, in case of, 15 
 will, of, 14 
 
 EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES, 
 
 by chief clerk, 92 
 by examiner, 91 
 
 EXAMINER, 
 
 examination of witnesses by, 91 
 
 EXECUTOR, 
 
 account at .suit of, 4, 26 
 
 not before proving, 27 
 under Turner's Act, 4 
 account against, 1, 31 
 accounts, duty of, to set out, 60 {a) 
 acting, before probate, 27, 33 
 
 actions by and against {quod vide), 4, 16,27, 32, 34, 37, 69—85, 126, 127, 183 
 administration by Court, no liability after, 142, 183 
 
 summons for, by, 4 
 admission by, of moneys in hand, what sufficient, 64 
 
 advertisements for creditors and other claimants, 102, 117, Appendix, 200, 201 
 when protected by, 4, 37
 
 INDEX. 215 
 
 EXECUTOR— cmiH7iue(l. 
 
 affidavit of documents by, 108 
 
 verification of claims by, 104 
 agent of co-executor, no account against, 33 
 annuity to, for his trouble, cesser of, 55 (<') 
 assent by, to legacy, 50, 137 
 assets, admission of, by, 50, 137 
 balances in hands of, interest on, 16 
 before probate, action by and against, 27, 32 
 canuot obtain administration judgment on summons, i 
 co-executors, liability for acts of, 65 
 conduct of proceedings arising out of administration action, generally given 
 
 to, 126 
 contingent liabilities, setting aside sum to answer, 183 
 costs of — 
 
 administration actions, in, 141 — 149, 151, 152. Sec Costs. 
 
 bankrupt executor, 144, 146 
 
 receiver appointed against, 58 
 
 charges and expenses, right to, 149. See Tuustkk 
 
 priority of, 151 
 
 severing in defence, 147 
 
 solicitor himself an executor, 147 
 
 and client, right to, as between, 149 
 costs, ordered to pay, when, 142 — 144 
 debt owing by, regarded as assets, 62 
 debts, preferring one to another, before judgment for administration, 55 
 
 payment of, by, 55, 58 
 deceased, accoimt against estate of, waived, 38 
 de son tort, no action against, for general administration, 38 
 
 no right of retainer by, 168 
 discve-tion of, how affected by administration action, 54 — 59 
 indemnity to, after advertisements, 4, 37 
 
 against contingent liabilities of testator, 183 
 interest on balances of, 16 
 legacy, admission of assets for, 50, 137. And see Legacies. 
 
 prematurely paying, executor held liable for debts, 117 
 action against legatee to refund, when, 120 
 legal and equitable assets, 166, 167 
 Limitations, Statute of, when legacy barred by, 164 («) 
 management, powers of, after judgment, 54 
 mortgage by, 56 
 
 outstanding estate, when legatee may sue as to, 126 
 parties to administration actions, 24 — 49. See Parties. 
 partner of, moneys in hands of, 63 
 payment into Court by, when ordered, 60 — 68 
 
 out of Court to, 181 
 preference of one creditor over another, 55 
 probate, before obtaining, 27, 32. Sec Probate. 
 production of documents by, 108 
 receipt of trust fund by co-executor, 65 
 receiver a^ipointed against, when, 58 
 refunding by, in favour of creditors, when, 117
 
 •2\C) INDEX. 
 
 EXECUTOR — continued. 
 
 retainer, rip;ht to, 55, 1()6 
 
 no ri^ht against receiver, 58 
 not all'i'ctcd by recent statutes, 56, 1G3 
 only out of Icf^al assets, 166 
 waiver of rij^jht, 55 {r) 
 wliat debts may be retained, 166 (0 
 sale by, 58 
 set-off by, 145 
 
 statute-barred debt, retainer of, 55 (i) 
 stayinf^ actions against, 69^85 
 surviving executor, account against, 38 
 title of, how proved, 13 
 Turner's Act (13 & 14 Vict. c. 35, s. 15), 4 
 
 wilful default by, directions as to, 15—17. And sec Trustee, Wilful 
 Default. 
 evidence required in case of, 15, 17 
 not chargeable in summons action, 5 
 
 unless charged by testator or [)Uuutiir, 
 18 
 special case must be made for, 17 
 
 EXONERATION, 
 
 by devise to pay debts, 164 
 
 of mortgaged or pledged property by general personal estate, when, 174 
 land, by personal estate, none in general, 174 
 personal estate from costs and debts, 156, 164 
 purchased estate from purchase-money, none, 174 
 pure personalty, of, in favour of charity, 159, 176 
 real estate appointed, by the other assets, 165 
 
 charged, by descended real estate, 157, 164 
 descended, by devise for payment of debts, 157, 164 
 and personal estate specitically given, by the other assets, 165 
 And see Makshalling. 
 
 EXPENSES, 
 
 executor's or trustee's, first charge on assets, 151 
 testamentary, costs of administration action included in, 159 
 
 FEME COVERT, 
 
 action by or against, 31, 37 
 
 equity to a settlement, how asserted by, 181 
 
 next friend of, 31 
 
 separate account of, transfer to, 180 
 
 estate of, administration of, 35 
 
 whether equitable assets, 167 {o) 
 service on, 45 
 testamentary appointment of, administration of assets on summons, 6 
 
 FILING, 
 
 chief clerk's certificate, 97
 
 INDEX. 217 
 
 FORECLOSURE, 
 
 action for, will not be stayed, 81, 171 
 
 FOREIGN COUNTRIES, 
 
 lauds in what, personal assets, 164 
 stay of action after judgment in, 79 
 concurrent actions in, 83 
 
 FOREIGN EXECUTOR, 
 action against, 35, 36 
 
 FORMS, 
 
 Appendix, 193 — 201. See Contents, xiv, 
 
 FUNDS IN COURT, 
 duty upon, 181 
 investmeut of, ?)9> 
 payment out of, 180 
 
 pending inquiries, 182 
 
 stay of, pending appeal, 183 
 
 to trustees, 181 
 
 upon giving security, 181, 182 
 
 FURTHER CONSIDERATION, 
 appearances on, 129 
 certificate, when couclusive on, 134 
 distribution of fund on, by consent, 10 [o) 
 evidence on, 131 
 interest computed on, 132 
 notice of setting down action on, 129 
 payment of debts on, 133 
 proceedings on, 128 — 134 
 
 after, 180—183 
 questions not pleaded not raised on, 132 
 
 of costs disposed of on, 131 
 setting down action on, 128 
 
 summons to vary certificate usually adjourned until, 100 
 wilful default, inquiries as to, added on, 17 
 
 GUARDIAN AD LITEM, 48 
 
 HEARING, 
 
 evidence at the, 12 
 
 HEIR, 
 
 administration at suit of, 29 /Y /A-^^ Z^.**.*^/- *^ 
 
 alienation for value by, as against creditors, 166 j y.^'^gj^ ^^ ' 
 
 costs, right to, 151 '^^"""l^^ ^^"v y'_v^ 
 
 election of, right to marshal by persons disappointed by, 175 ^^^^T' ''^*^ /^^/-v^t^ 
 establishing will against, 13, Appendix, 194 ^ yjt^^*^i^^ 
 
 inquiry as to, Appendix, 197 f^^ / 
 
 proof of title of, 15 -./^"7 /-'/-' f-^ * 
 
 when and how bound by probate of will, 14, Appendix, 194 ' 
 
 HEIRLOOMS, 
 
 delivery of, to tenant for life, 182 
 
 /u, /v. V7, /
 
 218 INDEX. 
 
 lIOTCHrOT, 
 
 rule of, in distril)ution of equitable assets, 1G8 
 
 IDIOT. Sec Lunatic. 
 
 ILLEGAL DEBT, 
 
 no ground for administration, 26 
 
 INCUMBRANCERS, 
 costs of, 150 
 
 inquiries as to, and tlieir priorities, Apiwndix, 196, 199 
 sale, with concurrence of, Appendix, 196, 199 
 
 or, if not, subject to the incumbrances, Appendix, 196, 
 199 
 
 INDEMNITY, 
 
 of executors after advertisements for creditors, 4, 37 
 
 against testator's covenants iu a lease, 183 
 
 and trustees, by administration in Court, 142, 183 
 
 INDIA, 
 
 land in, ia personal assets, 164 (o) 
 
 INDORSEMENT ON WRIT, 8, 9 
 
 INFANT, 
 
 actions by, by next friend, 31 
 
 birth of beneficiary, after action brought, 46 
 
 concurrent actions by, inquiry as to, 71 
 
 fund carried to account of, 180 
 
 interest on legacy to, 119 
 
 service on, 44 
 
 guardian ad litem of, 48 
 
 INQUIRY, INQUIRIES, 
 
 additional, when and how ordered, 50 — 52, 1 32 
 advances, as to, 193 
 class, 117 
 
 creditors' action, less extensive in, 51 
 further consideration, on, 132 
 
 incumbrances, as to, and their priorities, Appendix, 196, 199 
 olficial referee, before, 51 
 
 personal estate, as to, 51, Appendix, 195, 198 
 real estate, as to. Appendix, 196, 197, 199 
 usual, 22. See Appendix, 195 — 199. 
 which action more beneficial to infant plaintiff, 71 
 And see Accounts, Chambers. 
 
 INSOLVENT ESTATE, 
 
 administered by Bankruptcy Court, when, 169 {n) 
 
 under rules of Bankruptcy, 107 
 annuities, valuation of, 173 
 
 contingent and future liabilities, valuation of, 173 
 debts and liabilities provable, 172
 
 INDEX. 219 
 
 INSOLVENT ESTATE— continitcd. 
 
 form of judgment for administration of, 168 {z) 
 
 interest only up to date of administration judgment, 107, 173 
 
 mutual credits, 173 
 
 priority for rates and wages, none, 172 
 
 secured creditors, rights of, 169 
 
 statute-barred debts, 173 
 
 voluntary bonds, 173 /7 y /Ly^t^ 
 
 INTEREST, .H^ -*-^v^-> '•^'^ ^>c.c^^-— ^^<e*>^ , Q^^V /^^ '^ ^ 
 
 executors charged with, on balances, 16, 132 
 on debts, 110, 133 
 
 where estate insolvent, 107, 111, 173 
 on legacies, 119 
 
 mortgage debt, when mortgagee consents to sale, 196 
 rate of, what, charged against trustees, 132 (/) 
 subsequent, computation of, 133 
 
 INTESTACY, 
 
 as to real estate, summons action inapplicable, 7 
 And see Administrator, Heir. 
 
 INVESTMENT, 
 
 to answer abated annuity, 178 
 
 discretion of trustees in matters of, after administration judgment, 5 4 
 
 of moneys paid into Court, 68 
 
 JUDGE, 
 
 adjournment to, 87 
 
 rehearing by, in Court, 89 
 
 right of suitor to decision of, in Chambers, 88 
 
 taking opinion of, as to certificate, 98 
 
 JUDGMENT, 
 
 adding to, 52, 53 
 
 administration, for, how obtained, 11 — 23 
 
 forms of, Appendix, 195 — 200 
 creditors under registered, priority of, 161, 163 
 
 unregistered, 161, 163 
 declaration in, establishing will. Appendix, 198 
 District Registry, in, 191 
 
 elfect of, on actions by or against executor, 69 — 85. See Concurrent 
 Actions, Staying Proceedings. 
 on discretion of executor or trustee, 54 — 59 
 evidence, what, necessary for administration judgment, 12 — 18 
 for administration, how obtained on summons, 1, 7 
 
 by writ, at the trial, 1 
 
 on motion, 18 — 22 
 by summons, 22 
 by consent, 23 
 on further consideration, 130 
 
 reversal of, for administration, on revocation of probate or letters of ad- 
 ministration, 28, 141 
 
 yD<<(iie<v/r prisrs, L^'ryck^i im il(>^
 
 220 INDEX. 
 
 JURISDICTION, 
 
 ailiiiiiiistratioii of rcul estate on siumuons, when, 7 
 none to administer real estate ol" intestate on sunnnons, 7 
 servico out of the, 6, 47 
 
 clfcct of, uulessj set aside, 36 
 
 LAPSED SHARES, 
 
 not primary fund for costs and debts, 156, 164 
 
 LEASE, 
 
 contingent breach of covenant in, 26, 183 
 
 proof for, 107, 173 
 power to, control of, bj' Court after administration judf^nuent, 59 
 
 LEASEHOLDS, 
 
 now within Locke-King's Act, 174 
 
 LEGACIES, 
 
 abatement of, 178 
 
 admission of assets for, what constitutes, 50, 137 (i) 
 appropriation for, loss after, 120 
 assent to, 50 
 
 assignee of, action by, 2, 30 
 charged on real estate, 164 («) 
 charitable, abatement of, 176 
 dower, in lieu of, have priority, 177 
 duty, payment of, 181 
 general, order of payment, 176 
 interest on, 119 
 marshalling, 174 
 order of payment, 176, 179 
 
 payment of, before debts, when executor liable personally, 117, 183 
 priority of, inter se, 176, 179 
 refunding, 117, 183 
 residuary, what composes, 156 
 specific, order of payment of, 179 
 Statute of Limitations, 164 {u). 
 And see Legatee. 
 
 LEGAL ASSETS, 
 
 distinguished from equitable, 167 
 retainer only out of, 166 
 And see Equitable Assets. 
 
 LEGATEE, 
 
 action by, for administration, 1, 24, 29 
 recovery of assets, 126 
 by summons, 1 
 by writ, 24 
 assignee of, plaintiff, 2 
 costs of, when plaintiff, 137, 138, 155 
 marshalling in favour of, 174 
 refunding by, 116, 117, 120
 
 INDEX. 221 
 
 LEGATEE— continued. 
 
 residuary, costs of, 139 
 
 refu Tiding by, 120 
 
 undertaking by, to answer contingent liability, 183 
 , And sec Legacies, ^^ ^ j j • t l^^j ir 
 
 LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF, 
 
 after judgment for administration, how and by whom set up, 109 
 
 executor may not pay debt barred by, 55, 
 108 
 creditors' action, whether statute runs after institution of, 110 
 debt charged on land, application to, 164 {u) 
 
 trust for payment of, application to, 164 (zt) 
 executor, payment or retainer of debt by, notwithstanding, 55 
 express trust, whether new Act applies to, 164 {u) 
 how and when set up, 109 
 legacy charged on land, application to, 164((<) 
 
 trust for payment of, application to, 164 {\i) 
 marshalling, none where debts barred against land but kept alive against 
 
 personalty, 175 
 plaintilf 's debt, not set up against, after judgment, 109 
 recent enactments (87 & 38 Vict. c. 57, s. 10), effect of, 164 (?<) 
 
 (Jud. Act, 1875, s. 10), 109, 173 
 residuary legatee may set up, 109 / ^^ /^, iA^Z^ , i„^U*^^ 
 
 trust to pay debts and legacies, application to, 164 (jC) S S' 
 
 who may set up, in creditors' actions, 109 
 
 in beneficiaries' actions, 109 
 
 LOCKE-KING'S ACTS, 174. See Exonekation. 
 
 LUNATIC, 
 
 action for administration by, 31 
 
 action by creditor of, for costs of inquisition, 25 
 
 service on, or person of unsound mind, 44 
 
 MANACxEMENT, 
 
 powers of, when controlled by the Court, 54 
 
 MARRIED WOMAN, 6, 31, 37, 45, 167 (o). See Feme Covert. 
 
 MARSHALLING, 
 
 assets among creditors and legatees, principle of, 174 
 in favour of classes of creditors, 168 
 
 legatees, against mortgaged estates, 175 
 
 against real estate charged with debts and legacies, 
 175 
 not ordered in favour of charities, 176 
 
 except by direction of testator, 159 
 creditors whose debts are statute-barred against 
 realty, 175
 
 222 INDEX. 
 
 MISCONDUCT, 
 
 not chargcdlilp in sinninons action, 5 
 
 MORTGAGE 
 
 debt payable primarilj- out of mortgaged estate, 174 
 
 payment of, out of purcliasp-monoy of estate, 19G (/■) 
 inquiries as to, Appendix, 196, 199 
 
 power of executor to, after adniiuistration action instituted, fiG 
 And sec Mortgagee. 
 
 MORTGAGEE, 
 
 action by, to realise security, 9 (/), 154, 196 
 
 will not be stayed, 81, 171 
 costs of, in administration of mortgagor's assets, 154 
 creditors' action by, 154, 196 
 party to administration action must elect whether lie will join in sale or 
 
 not, 196 (c) 
 rules of bankruptcy applicable to, when estate insolvent, 162, 169 — 171 
 sale cannot be ordered without his consent, except subject to the mortgage, 
 196 (c) 
 
 NEW TRUSTEES, 
 
 discretion as to appointment of, after administration judgment, 54 
 
 NEXT OF KIN, 
 
 action by, for administration, by summons, 1 
 by writ, 24 
 costs of, 119, 156 
 inquiries as to, Appendix, 197 
 
 NOTICE, 
 
 further consideration, of, 129 
 
 motion, of, 23 
 
 short cause, of, 12 
 
 to creditor, how given, 104 
 
 of allowance of claim, 112 
 to produce documents, 103, Appendix, 201 
 prove debt, 103, A]ipendix, 200 
 
 OFFICIAL REFEREE, 
 
 inquiries before, 51 
 
 ORDERS OF COURT. See Rules and Orders, jws<, 228. 
 
 OUTSTANDING ESTATE, 
 
 inquiiy as to, 51, Appendix, 195 — 199 
 recovery of, conduct of proceedings for, 126
 
 INDEX. 223 
 
 PALATINE COURT, 
 
 appeal to, from County Court, 188 
 concurrent jurisdiction of, 72 
 
 PARTIES, 
 
 adding, 32, 146 "^ ^ 
 
 administrator durante minnrc cdaU, 38 ^;£.,<!jii«-t^o^— — -r ^ <3 
 
 ^assignees, 2, 30, 184 ^ 
 
 '/Attorney-General, 38 
 
 deceased executor's representatives, when made, 2, 37 
 defendants, 31—40 
 executors, all must be, 30 
 de son tort, 38 
 feme covert, 31, 37, 45 
 generally, 24 — 49 
 infants, 31, 44, 48 
 
 legal personal representative, necessity for, 34, 39 
 lunatic, 31, 45 
 
 new, coming into existence after judgment, 46 
 personal estate, in administration of, 1, 24, 42 
 plaintiffs, 24—31 
 
 real and personal estate, in administration of, 7, 29, 39, 43 
 representation of cestids que trustent by trustees, 40 
 class by one or more members, 44 
 persons interested in personalty by executor, 42 
 served with notice of decree, who should be, 40 
 service dispensed with, 45 
 trustees, all must be, 39 
 
 how far they represent cestuis que trustent, 40 
 want of, no demurrer for, 40 
 See Feme Covert, Infant, Lunatic. 
 
 PARTNER, 
 
 creditor of deceased's firm may obtain administration judgment, 25 
 moneys in hands of executor's, payment into Court of, 63 
 
 PAYMASTER-GENERAL, 
 
 certificates to be acted on by, 100 
 
 PAYMENT, 
 
 into Court in administration action, 60 — 68 
 
 after what deductions by executor, 63 
 investment after, 68 
 order for, on admissions, 60 
 when made, 65 
 when refused, 61 
 of costs, legacies, and debts, 131, 133 
 
 duty, 181 
 out of Court on further consideration, 133 
 
 petition for, after further consideration, ISO 
 unnecessary, in and out of Court, prevented, 62
 
 224 INDEX, 
 
 PERSONAL ESTATE, 
 
 accounts of, 51, Appon<lix, 195—199 
 admiuistration of, by writ, 24 — 28 
 
 on summons, 1 — 6. See Creditous' Action, Parties. 
 appointod, is lialile to debts, 165 
 apportionment of costs between, and realty, 158 
 exoneration of, from mortgage debts, 174 
 
 generally, 156, 164 
 outstanding, inquiry as to, 51, Appendix, 195 — 199 
 parties in administration of, 1, 24, 42 
 primarily liable to costs and debts, 156, 164 
 pure and impure, apportionment between, 159, 176 
 summons for administration of, 1 — 6 
 
 PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, 
 
 necessary party to action for administration of assets, 34 
 proof of title of, 13 
 And see Administrator, Executor. 
 
 PETITION, 
 
 after further consideration, 180 
 
 PLAINTIFF. See Parties. 
 
 PLEADINGS, 
 
 default of, judgment in, 19, 21 
 
 PLEDGE, 
 
 redemption of, specifically bequeathed, 174 
 
 POWERS 
 
 of appointment, exercise of, makes property assets, 165 
 chief clerk, 91 
 executors and trustees, how far controlled by Court, .^i4 — 59 
 
 PRACTICE. See Account, Administration, Chambers, L-^tquiries, Sum- 
 mons, &c. 
 
 PREFERENCE, 
 
 by executor between creditors, 55, 58 
 And see Priorities. 
 
 PRIORITIES, 
 
 application of assets, inter se, 164 
 
 costs of parties, inter se, 151 — 156 
 
 creditors have none out of equitable assets, 168 
 
 Crown debts, 163 
 
 debts, inter se — 
 
 Crown, 163 
 
 judgment, registered and unregistered, 163 
 
 rates and taxes, none for, 172 
 
 rent, none for, 162, 172
 
 INDEX. 225 
 
 PRIORITIES— co»i!t««ec7. 
 debts inter se, 
 
 simple contract and specialty, jmri passu, 162 
 voluntary bonds and covenants, 107, 173 
 wages, none for, 172 
 legacies, generally, 176 
 old law, under, 161 
 And .vcc ExoNEHATioN, Maushallino, Personal Estate, Real Estate. 
 
 PROBATE, 
 
 conclusive, how made against heir, 14, Appendix, 194 
 must be obtained before judgment, 27 
 
 PROCEDURE. See Account, Administration, Chamrkrs, Inqfiiuks, 
 Summons, &c. 
 
 PROCEEDINGS, 
 
 costs of persons attending, 92 — 95 
 order of course to attend, 48 
 
 PROOF, 
 
 of claims, 117 — 121. /SV-c Claims. 
 debts, 102—117. ^Sfe Creditor, Debts. 
 will, 13. 
 
 RATE.S, 
 
 no priority for payment of, 172 
 
 REAL ESTATE, 
 
 administration of, 7, 29, Appendix, 196, 197, 199 
 
 not in single creditor's action, 9, 29 
 not without administration of personalty, 29 (//) 
 appointed, is liable to debts, 165 
 apportionment of costs between, and personalty, 1 58 
 assets for payment of debts, 167 ik) 
 charged with debts, 164 
 
 creditor, not administered at suit of single, 9, 29 
 contribution by devisees of, 95 (k) 
 costs of administration of, 158 
 descended, liable to debts, 164, 167 (^0 
 
 and aliened for value, 166 
 devised, liable to debts, 164, 167 (^) 
 
 in trust for payment of debts, 164 
 
 is specific, though residuary, as against legatees, 157, 165 
 equitable assets, 167 (^O 
 Indian, is personal assets, 164 (o) 
 
 inquiry as to, and incumbrances, Appendix, 196, 197, 199 
 mortgaged, sale of, 154, 196(c) 
 order of liability of, for payment of debts, 164 
 
 payment of debts o\it of, 163 
 parties in administration of, 7, 29, 39 
 rents of, account of, not ordered at tlie hearing, 196 (d) 
 resifluary devise of, is specific, 157, 165
 
 226 INDEX. 
 
 REAL Y.ST ATE— continued. 
 
 sale of, by consent of niortgaj^ec, 19G (o) 
 
 conditional order for, in creditors' action, 196 
 
 conduct of, 124 
 
 in District Registry, 191 
 
 ordered on summons, when, 7 
 
 under judgment or order, 95 
 specifically devised, how far liable to debts, 165 
 summons to administer, when applicable, 7 
 who may sue for administration of, 7, 29. See Parties. 
 And see Assets, Cueditoiis' Action. 
 
 RECEIVER, 
 
 appointed before legal personal representative constituted, 32 
 claim for, 8 
 
 not appointed, when administrator ad litem appointed by Probate Divi- 
 sion, 34 
 when appointed against executor, 58 
 
 RECOVERY OF LAND, 
 
 what claim may be joined in action for, 29 (r) 
 
 REDEMPTION, 
 
 of mortgage at creditor's valuation, 171 
 
 REFUNDING, 
 
 when ordered for payment of debts, 116, 119 
 
 REGISTRATION, 
 
 of judgment, priority secured by, 163 
 
 RELEASE, 
 
 question of, cannot be tried in summons action, 5 
 
 RENT, RENTS, 
 
 account of, not directed until deficiency shown, 196 ((7), 
 
 debt for, has no priority, 162, 172 
 
 distress for, whether allowed where estate insolvent, 172 
 
 REPRESENTATION, 
 
 of cestuis que trustent by trustee, 40, 43 
 class by one or more members, 44 
 persons interested in personalty by executor, 42 
 
 REPRESENTATIVE, 
 
 appointment of one to represent a class, 44 
 dispensed with, 39 
 And see Administrator, Executor, Personal Representative. 
 
 RESIDUARY LEGATEE, 
 
 administration at suit of, 1, 2 4 
 costs of, 139 
 r.'funding by, 116, 120
 
 INDEX. 227 
 
 RESIDUE, 
 
 costs payable out of, 139, 156 
 
 debts payable out of, 164 
 
 of real estate, devise of, is specific, 157, 165 
 
 RETAINER 
 
 of his debt by executor or administrator, rigbt of, 55, 156, 163, 166 
 by heir or devisee, whether any, 167 (k) 
 
 RULES AND ORDERS, 
 
 Bankruptcy Rules, 1870 
 r. 77 : 173 
 rr. 78—81, 101 : 171 
 r. 136 : 172 
 
 Chancery Funds Rules, 1874 
 r. 10 : 133 
 rr. 36, 61—67 : 68 
 
 Consolidated Orders of the High Court of Justice, 1860 
 Ord. VII. (Persons under disability) 
 
 r. 1 : 13, Appendix, 194 
 
 r. 5 : 45 
 
 r. 6 : 49 
 
 r. 7 : 49 
 Ord. XXI. (Setting down and hearing) 
 
 r. 10 : 128, 129 
 Ord. XXIII. (Judgments and orders) 
 
 rr. 2, 9 : 181 
 
 r. 14 : 51 
 
 r. 18 : 49 
 
 r. 19 : 46 
 
 r. 20 : 47, Appendix, 195 
 Ord. XXXV. (Proceedings in Chambers) 
 
 rr. 7—9 : 3 
 
 r. 13 : 96 
 
 r. 15 : 86 
 
 r. 16 : 87, 93 
 
 r. 18 : 45 
 
 r. 19 : 52, 53 
 
 r. 20 : 94 
 
 r. 22 : 86, 123 
 
 r. 23 : 124 
 
 rr. 26—28 : 90 
 
 r. 29 : 91 
 
 r. 30 : 92 
 
 rr. 33, 34 : 90 
 
 rr. 35, 36 : 103 
 
 rr. 37, 38 : 118 
 
 r. 39 : 103, 118 
 
 r. 40 : 105, 118 
 
 r, 11 ; 118
 
 228 INDEX. 
 
 RULES AND Or^TiVM^—continncrf. 
 
 CONSOLIDATKI) OKDKKS (IF TIIK Hlfill CoUKl OF Ju.STUE, 18G0 
 
 Ord. XXXV. (rrocwding.s in Cliambcis) 
 
 IT. 43, 44 : 119 
 
 r. 45 : 100 
 
 rr. 46, 48 : 97 
 
 IT. 49, 50: 88, 100 
 
 IT. 51, 52 : 98, 100 
 
 rr. 53, 54 : 100 
 
 r. 55 : 98 
 
 r. 56 -.100 
 Ord. XXXVII. (Time) 
 
 r. 10 : 49 
 Old. XL. (Costs) 
 
 rr. 24, 25 : 111 
 Ord. XLII. (Miscellaneous) 
 
 rr. 9, 10 : 110 
 
 r. 11 : 119 
 Sched. K., No. II. : Appendix, 193 
 Sched. L. : Appendix, 201 
 Ord., May 27, 1865 : 102—105, 112, 113, 118, 133 
 
 County Court Rule.s, 1875 
 Ord. II., r. 14 : 181 
 Ord. XX. : 188 
 Ord. XXIX. : 189 
 r. 4 : 190 
 
 Registrar.s' Notice, 1877 : 19 — 21 
 
 Registrars' Regulations, 1860 : 129 
 
 Regulations, August 8, 1857 : 45, 86, 96 
 
 Rules of the Supreme Court, 1875 
 Ord. I. (Commencement of Action) 
 
 r. 1 : 8 
 Ord. II. (Writ of Summons) 
 
 r. 1 : 8 
 Ord. III. (Indorsements of Claim) 
 
 r. 2 : 8 
 
 r. 4 : 9 
 
 r. 8 : 8, 22 
 Ord. V. (Issue of Writ of Summons) 
 
 rr. 4, 4a : 8 
 Ord. IX. (Service of Writ of Summons) 
 
 rr. 4, 5 : 45 
 Ord. XI. (Service out of the Jurisdiction) ; 6 
 
 rr. 1, la : 36 
 Ord. XII, (Appearance) 
 
 r. 4 : 190 
 Ord. XIII. (Default of Aiipearancc) 
 
 r. y : 2-Z
 
 INDEX. 229 
 
 RULES AND ORDY.R3—coiUitmcd 
 Rules of the Supreme Coukt, 1875 
 Ovd. XV. (Application for Account) ; 8, 23 
 \ r. 1 : 22, 191 
 
 r. 2 : 22 
 Ord. XVI. (Parties) 
 
 r. 7 : 43 
 
 IT. 9, 9a : 44 
 
 r. 12 : 41 
 
 r. 12a : 45 
 
 r. 12b : 93 
 
 r. 17: 116 
 Ord. XVII. (Joinder of Canses of Action) 
 
 r. 2 : 29 
 Ord. XXIX. (Default of Pleading) 
 
 r. 10: 19 
 
 r. 11 : 20 
 Ord. XXXIII. (Inquiries and Accounts) : 23, 52 
 Ord. XXXV. (District Registries) 
 
 rr. 1, 4, 11—13 : 191 
 Ord. XL. (Motion for Judgment) 
 
 r. 1 : 21 
 
 r. 11 : 18, 66, 68 4|L 
 
 Ord. L. (Change of Parties) 
 
 r. 4 : 46 
 Ord. LI. (Transfers and Consolidation) 
 
 rr. 1, 3 : 77 
 
 r. 2a : 84 
 
 r. 4 : 79 
 Ord. LII. (Interlocutory Orders) 
 
 r. 6a : 124 
 Ord. LIII. (Motions) 
 
 r. 4 : 19, 20 
 Ord. LVIII. (Appeals) 
 
 r. 15 : 88 
 
 r. 19 : 188 
 App. A. II., s. 1 : 9 
 Add. Rides, 12 August, 1875 
 
 Ord. VI., 1 : 135 
 Add. Rules, 1875 (Costs) 
 
 r. 21 : 95 
 Orders of Court, 1877 
 
 r. 1 : 189 
 
 SALE, 
 
 of real estate in administration action, 95 
 auction, by, in general, 96 
 authority of Court, to order, 95 (/•) 
 conduct of, 124 
 
 devised, how prevented, 95 (A') 
 in District Registry, 191 
 mortgaged, how obtained, 196 (c) 
 when directed. 05 (/■■). Ajipendix. V^e
 
 230 INDEX. 
 
 SALE — continued. 
 
 powers of, controlled by Court after juilgincnt, 58 
 summons action when executors have, 7 
 
 SECURED CREDITOR, 
 
 rights of, when estate insolvent, 169 — 172 
 
 SECURING ASSETS, 
 
 by payment into Court, 60 — 68 
 
 SECURITY 
 
 for costs, 113 
 
 repayment by legatees unusual, 182 
 
 SEPARATE ACCOUNT, 
 fund carried to, 180 
 
 SERVICE, 
 
 dispensing with, 45 
 entry of memorandum of, 46 
 of administration summons, 3 
 copy of judgment, 47 
 notice of judgment, 40 — 49 
 ; _ binds persons served, 47 
 
 J/jt of the jurisdiction, 6, 36, 47 
 ' ^^Hstituted, 45 
 
 T^pon infants, lunatics, and married women, 44, 45 
 And sec Notice. 
 
 SET-OFF, 
 
 costs or debt, of, against legacy, 1 45 
 
 mutual credits, of, when estate insolvent, 81, 173 
 
 SHORT CAUSE, 
 
 further consideration, on, 129 
 setting down, 12, 20 
 
 SIMPLE CONTRACT DEBTS, 
 order of payment of, 161 
 
 SOLICITOR, 
 
 and client, when costs paid as between, 149, 151, 153, 155 
 
 costs of, when executor or trustee, 147 
 
 nomination of one, by Judge, to represent a class, 94 
 
 SPECIALTY DEBT, 
 
 priority of, none under present law, 161. And see Debts. 
 
 SPECIFIC 
 
 bequests, no account of, ordered in beneficiary's action, 51 (//) 
 
 and devises, order in which resorted to for costs, 157 
 
 debts, 164, 165 
 devise, residuary, is, 157, 165 
 
 STATEMENT OF CLAIM, 
 
 copy to be left at chambers, 86 
 when necessary, 21
 
 INDEX. 231 
 
 STATUTES, TABLE OF, 
 
 5 Geo. 2, c. 7 (Land in Colonies), s. 4 : 164 
 
 36 Geo. 3, c. 52 (Legacy Duty), 68 
 
 37 Geo. 3, c. 135 (Legacy Duty), 68 
 
 38 Geo. 3, c. 87 (Executors), ss. 1—3 : 37 
 9 Geo. 4, c. 33 (Land in India) : 164 
 
 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27 (Limitation of Actions), s. 42 : 119, 173 
 
 c. 104 (Real Estate made Assets) : 13, 167 
 
 c. 108 (Dower Act) : 177 
 
 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 82 (Repealed by 42 & 43 Vict. c. 59) : 6 
 13 & 14 Vict. c. 35 (Turner's Act), 
 
 s. 19 : 4 
 s. 28 : 132 
 15 & 16 Vict. c. 80 (Masters in Chancery Abolition), 
 s. 26 : 126 
 s. 30 : 91 
 s. 33 : 88 
 s. 34 : 98 
 
 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86 (Chancery Procedure Act, 1852), 
 
 s. 42, r. 1 : 24 ; rr. 2, 3 : 29 ; r. 6 : 26 ; r. 8 : 40, 44, 
 
 47, 48, 49 ; r. 9 : 40, 43 
 s. 44 : 34 
 
 s. 45 : 1, Appendix, 193 
 s. 46 : 3 
 
 s. 47 : 7, Appendix, 193 
 s. 52 : 46 
 s. 54: 75 
 s. 55 : 95 
 s. 57 : 182 
 
 16 & 17 Vict. c. 51 (Succession Duty Act), s. 53 : 181 
 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 113 (Locke-King's Act), 174, 175 
 
 19 & 20 Vict. c. 108 (County Courts), s. 21 : 185 
 
 20 & 21 Vict. c. 77 (Probate Act), 
 
 s. 64 : 14, Appendix, 194 
 s. 74 : 37 
 ss. 81—83 : 26 
 20 & 21 Vict. c. 85 (Divorce Court Act), ss. 21, 25, 26 : 37 
 
 22 & 23 Vict. c. 35 (Lord St. Leonards' Act), ss. 27—32 : 4, 37, 102 
 
 23 & 24 Vict. c. 38 (Lord St. Leonards' Act, 1860), s. 14 : 4 
 25 & 26 Vict. c. 89 (Companies Act, 1862), 
 
 s. 75 : 161 » 
 
 s. 105 : 25 
 28 & 29 Vict, c. 99 (County Courts Equitable Jurisdiction), 
 
 s. 1 : 80, 184 
 
 s. 3 : 185 
 
 s. 9 : 187 
 
 ss. 18, 19 : 188 
 30 & 31 Vict. c. 69 (Locke-King's Act Amendment), 174, 175 
 30 & 31 Vict. c. 142 (County Courts), 
 
 ss. 5, 8 : 187 
 
 s. 14 : 186 
 
 s. 34 : 172 
 
 s. 80 (9) : 169
 
 282 INDEX. 
 
 STATUTES, TABLE OF— ronfmnrd. 
 
 32 & 33 Vict. c. 46 (Assets) : r)G, 141, ICl 
 
 s. 12 : 171 
 
 s. 16 (5) : 1G9 
 32 & 33 Vict. c. 71 (B.ankruptcy Act, 1869), 
 
 ss. 31—40 : 163, 171 
 
 s. 87 : 169 
 35 & 36 Vict. c. 44 (Chancery Funds Act, 1872), ss. 14, 15 : 68 
 3(3 &. 37 Vict. c. 66 (.Jndiaxtnre Act, 1873), 
 
 s. 16 (1) : 1 
 
 s. 24 (5) : 80 
 
 s. 25 (2) : 165 
 
 s. 25 (6) : 31 
 
 s. 34 (2) : 188 
 
 s. 34 (3) : 1, 8, 22 
 
 s. 45 : 188, 189 
 
 s. 49 : 140, 149 
 
 s. 66 : 190 
 
 s. 90 : 186 
 
 s. 91 : 162 , 
 
 s. 95 : 188 
 
 37 & 38 Vict. c. 57 (Limitation of Actions) : 109 
 
 ss. 8, 10: 119, 165 
 
 38 & 39 Vict. c. 50 (County Courts), s. 6 : 189, 190 
 
 c. 77 (Judicature Act, 1875), s. 10 : 56, 107, 111, 161, 162, 
 
 168, 172, 178 
 40 & 41 Vict. c. 34 (Locke- King's Act Amendment) : 174, 175 
 
 44 & 45 Vict. c. 68 (Judicature Act, 1881), s. 2 : 1 
 
 45 & 46 Vict. c. 75 (Married Women's Property Act, 1882), 167 
 
 s. 1 (2) : 45 
 ss. 2, 5, 12 : 31 
 
 STAYING DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS, 
 for benefit of creditors after certificate, 114 
 pending an appeal, 183 
 
 STAYING TROCEEDINGS, 69—85 
 after administration judgment, 69 
 
 foreign judgment, 79 
 concurrent actions (quod riiJe), 69 — 77 
 consolidation with a view to, 72 
 costs, 75 
 
 executor, against, 80 
 foreign Courts, in, 79, 82 
 High Court, in, not now by Chancery Division, 80 
 
 not in, may still be stayed by Chancery Division, 82 
 Palatine Court, in, 72 
 upon whose application, 69 
 when plaintiff's title gone, 48 
 which action will Vic stayed, 70
 
 INDEX. 233 
 
 SUMMONS, 
 
 for administration, under 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, 
 
 personal estate, 1 
 real estate, 7 
 form of, Appendix, 193 
 in what cases applicable, 2 — 7 
 parties to, 1, 7 
 iisual order only will be made, 2, 5 
 
 TAXES 
 
 no priority for, 172 
 
 TESTAMENTARY EXPENSES, 159 
 
 TIME 
 
 for appeal from Chambers, 89 
 
 appearance to administration summons, 3 
 applications to vary certificate, 98 
 claims in Chambers, 112 
 signature of certificate by Judge, 98, 100 
 taking Judge's opinion on certificate, 88 
 
 TRANSFER, 
 
 from Chancery Division to Queen's Bench Division, 50 (i) 
 County Court to High Court, 185 
 one branch of Chancery Division to another, 77 
 Queen's Bench Division to Chancery Division, 84 
 High Court to County Court, 185, 187 
 District Registry to London, 192 
 when transfer and when dismissal the proper course, 186 
 And see Payment into Coukt, Staying Pkoceedings. 
 
 TRUST, 
 
 breach of, executor made liable for, on further consideration, 16, 17, 132 
 
 of co-executor, liability for, 65 
 
 not chargeable in summons action, 5 
 for pajTnent of debts and legacies, 164 (u) 
 
 TRUSTEE, 
 
 appeal for costs by, 149 
 
 breach of trust by, not chargeable in summons action, 5 
 
 costs charges and expenses, right to, 149 
 
 costs of suit, entitled to, in priority to all other parties, 151 
 when deprived of, 141 
 
 disclaiming, costs of, 152 
 
 discretion of, when controlled by Court, after administration judgment, 54 
 
 generally, 57 
 not before judgment, 56, 58 
 
 heir, when regarded as, 151 
 
 severing in defence, costs of, 147 
 And sec Executor. 
 
 TURNER'S (SIR G.) ACT (13 & 14 Vict. c. 35), 4, 132
 
 234 INDEX. 
 
 VOLUNTAKY 
 
 assij,Mimoiit of debt, wlicthor now sufTicient to support creditors' action, 3 
 bond or covoiiant, whothcr jjostponed to other debts, 107, IGl (b), 173 
 covenant suUicient to support creditors' action, 25 
 
 WAGES, 
 
 no {)riority for payment of, 172 
 
 WlFlv Scr Feme Covert. 
 
 WILFUL DEFAULT, 
 
 account for, not ordered on summons, 5 
 
 on further consideration, when ordered, 16, 17, 132 
 only on special case made, 15-^18 
 
 WILL, 
 
 evidence of, what, 13, 14 
 
 WITNESS, 
 
 in Chambers, 91 
 refusing to answer, 92 
 
 WRIT FOR ADMINISTRATION, 
 
 indorsement on, 8, 9, 22 
 title of, 8 
 
 THE END. 
 
 BRADBURV, AONEW, & Co., PRINTERS, WHITEFRIARS.
 
 A CATALOGUE 
 
 LAW WORKS 
 
 PUBLISHED AND SOLD I>Y 
 
 Stevens & Haynes, 
 
 fab ^uMisIjers, ^ocbeKers & €^^xttxs, 
 
 i3, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR, 
 LONDON. 
 
 BOOKS BOUND IN THE BEST BINDINGS. 
 Works in all Classes of Literature supplied to Order. 
 
 FOREIGN BOOKS IMPORTED. 
 
 LIBRARIES VALUED FOR PROBATE, PARTNERSHIP, 
 AND OTHER PURPOSES. 
 
 LIBRARIES OR SMALL COLLECTIONS OF BOOKS PURCHASED. 
 
 A large Stock of Reports of the various Courts of England, Ireland, 
 and Scotland, always on hand. 
 
 Catalogues and Estimates Furnished, and Orders Promptly Executed. 
 
 Note. — To avoid coiifinng our firm zvith any of a similar name, 
 ive beg to notify that we have no connexion %v hat ever with any 
 other house of business, and we respectfully request that Corre- 
 spondents zvill take special care to direct all communications to 
 the above names and address. 
 
 300 
 ■6.3-83:
 
 STEVENS 6- HAYNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 ADMINISTRATORS— 
 
 Walker 6 
 
 ADMIRALTY LAW-'-j^ j ,;_ 
 
 Jones " ." . 14 
 
 Kay 17 
 
 Smith 23 
 
 ARTICLED CLERKS— 
 See STUDENTS. 
 
 ARTIZANS AND LABOURERS' 
 DWELLINGS— Lloyd .... 13 
 
 ASSAULTS— 
 
 Sec MAGISTERIAL LAW. 
 
 BALLOT ACT— 
 
 Biishby '^2) 
 
 BANKRUPTCY— 
 
 Baldwin 15 
 
 Ringwood 15 
 
 BAR EXAMINATION JOURNAL 39 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 40 
 
 BILLS OF LADING— 
 
 Campbell 9 
 
 Kay 17 
 
 BILLS OF SALE— 
 
 Baldwin 15 
 
 Indermaur 28 
 
 Ringwood 15 
 
 BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGIS- 
 TRATION— 
 
 Flaxman 43 
 
 BUILDING LEASES AND CON- 
 TRACTS— 
 
 Emden 8 
 
 CAPACITY— 
 
 See PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL 
 LAW. 
 
 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT— 
 
 Copinger 42 
 
 CARRIERS— 
 
 5^^ RAILWAY LAW. 
 „ SHIPMASTERS. 
 
 CHANCERY DIVISION, Practice of— 
 Brown's Edition of Snell ... 22 
 Griffith and Loveland .... 6 
 
 Indermaur 25 
 
 Williams 7 
 
 And Sec EQUITY. 
 
 CHARITABLE TRUSTS— 
 
 Cooke 10 
 
 Whiteford 20 
 
 CHURCH AND CLERGY-- 
 
 Brice 9 
 
 CIVIL LAW— i-^j ROMAN LAW. 
 
 CODES— Argles 32 
 
 COLLISIONS AT SEA— Kay . . 17 
 
 COLONIAL LAW— 
 
 Canada 18 
 
 Cape Colony . ■. 38 
 
 Forsyth 14 
 
 New Zealand Jurist 18 
 
 New Zealand Statutes .... 18 
 Tarring 41 
 
 COMMERCIAL AGENCY— 
 
 Camphell 9 
 
 COMMON LAW-^ 
 
 Indermaur 24 
 
 COMMON PLEAS DIVISION, Practice 
 of— _ 
 
 Griffith and Loveland ... 6 
 
 COMPANIES LAW— 
 
 Brice 16 
 
 Buckley 17 
 
 Reilly's Reports 29 
 
 Smith 39 
 
 Watts 47 
 
 Sec MAGISTERIAL LAW. 
 
 COMPENSATION— 
 
 Browne 19 
 
 Lloyd 13 
 
 COMPULSORY PURCHASE— 
 
 Browne 19 
 
 CONSTABLES— 
 
 6-^<: POLICE GUIDE. 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND 
 HISTORY— 
 
 Forsyth 14 
 
 Taswell-Langmead . . . . 21 
 Thomas 28 
 
 CONTRACTS— 
 
 Kay 17 
 
 CONVEYANCING— 
 
 Copinger, Title Deeds .... 45 
 Copinger, Precedents in ... 40 
 
 Deane, Principles of 23 
 
 Williams ' . . . 7 
 
 COPYRIGHT— 
 
 Copinger 45 
 
 CORPORATIONS— 
 
 Brice 16 
 
 Browne 19 
 
 COSTS, Crown Office- 
 Short 41 
 
 COVENANTS FOR TITLE— 
 
 Copinger 45 
 
 CREW OF A SHIP— 
 
 Kay .17 
 
 CRIMINAL LAW— 
 
 Copinger 42 
 
 Harris 27 
 
 See MAGISTERIAL LAW. 
 
 CROWN LAW— 
 
 Forsyth 14 
 
 Hall 30 
 
 Kelyng 35 
 
 Taswell-Langmead 21 
 
 Thomas 28 
 
 CROWN PRACTICE— 
 
 Corner lO 
 
 CUSTOM AND USAGE— 
 
 Browne 19 
 
 Mayne 3^ 
 
 CUSTOMS— 
 
 ^« MAGISTERIAL LAW.
 
 STEVENS &- HAYNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS-'^"'''"'^'^. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 DAMAC.ES— 
 
 Mayne 31 
 
 DICTIONARIES— 
 
 Brown 26 
 
 DIGESTS— 
 
 Law Magazine Quarterly Digest . 37 
 Menzies' Digest of Cape Reports. 3S 
 
 DISCOVERY— 
 
 Griffith's Judicature Acts ... 6 
 
 DISTRICT REGISTRIES— 
 
 .Simmons 6 
 
 DIVORCE— Harrison 23 
 
 DOMICIL— 
 
 See PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL 
 LAW. 
 
 DUTCH LAW 38 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL LAW— 
 
 Brice 9 
 
 Smith 23 
 
 EDUCATION ACTS— 
 
 Sec MAGISTERIAL LAW. 
 
 ELECTION LAW and PETITIONS— 
 
 Bushby 33 
 
 Hardcastle ZZ 
 
 O'Malley and Hardcastle ... 33 
 Seager 47 
 
 EQUITY— 
 
 Choyce Cases 35 
 
 Pemberton 32 
 
 Snell 22 
 
 Williams 7 
 
 EVIDENCE 
 
 See USA(;ES AND CUSTOMS. 
 
 EXAMINATION OF STUDENTS— 
 Bar Examination Journal ... 39 
 Indermaur 24 and 25 
 
 EXECUTORS— 
 
 Walker 6 
 
 EXCHEQUER DIVISION, Practice of— 
 Griffith and Loveland .... 6 
 
 EXTRADITION— 
 
 Clarke 44 
 
 See MAGISTERIAL LAW. 
 
 FACTORIES— 
 
 See MAGISTERIAL LAW. 
 
 FISHERIES— 
 
 See MAGISTERIAL LAW. 
 
 FIXTURES— 
 
 Brown "^2) 
 
 FOREIGN LAW^ 
 
 Argles 32 
 
 Dutch Law 38 
 
 Foote 36 
 
 Harris 47 
 
 FORGERY— 
 
 See MAGISTERIAL LAW. 
 
 FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES— 
 May 29 
 
 GAIUS INSTITUTES— 
 
 Harris 20 
 
 PAGE 
 
 GAME LAWS— Locke 32 
 
 Sec MAGISTERIAL LAW. 
 
 HACKNEY CARRIAGES— 
 See MAGISTERIAL LAW. 
 
 HINDU LAW— 
 
 Coghlan 28 
 
 Cunningham 38 and 42 
 
 Mayne 38 
 
 Michell 44 
 
 HISTORY— 
 
 Braithwaite 18 
 
 Taswell-Langmead 21 
 
 HYPOTHECATION — 
 
 Kay 17 
 
 INDEX TO PRECEDENTS— 
 
 Copinger 40 
 
 INFANT.S— 
 
 Simpson 43 
 
 INJUNCTIONS— 
 
 Joyce II 
 
 INSTITUTE OF THE LAW— 
 
 Brown's Law Dictionary ... 26 
 
 INTERNATIONAL LAW— 
 
 Clarke 44 
 
 Foote 36 
 
 Law Magazine 37 
 
 INTERROGATORIES AND DIS- 
 COVERY— 
 
 Griffith and Loveland's Edition of 
 the Judicature Acts .... 6 
 
 INTOXICATING LIQUORS— 
 Sec MAGISTERIAL LAW. 
 
 JOINT STOCK COMPANIES— 
 See COMPANIES. 
 
 JUDICATURE ACTS— 
 
 Cunningham and Mattinson . . 7 
 
 Griffith 6 
 
 Indermaur 25 
 
 Kelke 6 
 
 JURISPRUDENCE— Forsyth . . 14 
 
 JUSTINIAN'S INSTITUTES— 
 
 Campbell 47 
 
 Harris 20 
 
 LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDA- 
 TION ACT— 
 
 Lloyd 13 
 
 LAND, IMPROVEMENT OF, by 
 Buildings — 
 
 Emden 8 
 
 LATIN MAXIMS 28 
 
 LAW^ DICTIONARY— 
 
 Brown 26 
 
 LAW MAGAZINE and REVIEW . 37 
 
 LEADING Cx\SES— 
 
 Common Law 25 
 
 Constitutional Law 28 
 
 Equity and Conveyancing ... 25 
 Hindu Law 28 
 
 LEADING STATUTES— 
 
 Thomas 28
 
 STEVENS &- HAYNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS-""'^'""'-'^- 
 
 I'ACK 
 
 LEASKS— 
 
 Copingcr 45 
 
 LIX'.ACY AND SUCCKSSIOX— 
 
 Hanson lo 
 
 LEGITIMACY AND MARKIA(iK— 
 Sec rKIVATK INTERNA- 
 TIONAL LAW. 
 LICENSES— 
 
 See ^L\GISTERIAL \..\\\. 
 LIFE ASSURANCE— 
 
 Buckley I7 
 
 Reilly 29 
 
 LIMITATION OF ACTIONS— 
 
 Banning 42 
 
 LIQUIDATION with CKEDITOUS— 
 
 Baldwin 15 
 
 Ringwood '5 
 
 And see BANKRUPTCY. 
 LLOYD'S BONDS ...... 14 
 
 LUNACY— 
 
 Williams 7 
 
 MAGISTERIAL LAW— 
 
 Greenwood and Martin .... 46 
 MALICIOUS INJURIES— 
 
 See MAGISTERIAL LAW. 
 MARRIAGE and LICGITIMACY— 
 
 Foote 36 
 
 MARRIED WOMEN'S PRO- 
 PERTY ACTS— 
 
 l3romfield's Edition of Griffith . 40 
 MASTER AND SERVANT- 
 
 Sce SHIPMASTERS .\: SEAMEN. 
 MASTERS AND SERVANTS— 
 6'^<' MAGISTERIAL LAW. 
 
 MERCANTILE LAW 32 
 
 Campbell 9 
 
 See SHIP>L\STERS and SEA- 
 MEN. 
 ,, STOPPAGE IN TRANSITU. 
 MERCHANDISE MARKS— 
 
 Daniel 42 
 
 MINES— 
 
 Harris 47 
 
 Sec MAGISTERIAL LAW. 
 MORTMAIN— 
 
 Sec CHARITABLE TRUSTS. 
 NATIONALITY— 
 
 See PRIVATE INTERNA- 
 TIONAL LAW. 
 NEGLIGENCE— 
 
 Campbell 40 
 
 NEW ZEALAND — 
 
 Jurist Journal and Reports . . iS 
 
 Statutes 18 
 
 OBLIGATION.'*— 
 
 Brown's Savigny 20 
 
 PARLIAMENT- 
 
 Taswell-Langmead 21 
 
 Thomas 28 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY PRACTICE— 
 
 Ikownc 19 
 
 I'ARTITION — 
 
 Walker 43 
 
 PASSENGERS - 
 
 See MA(;iSTERIAL LAW. 
 „ RAILWA^' LAW. 
 
 PASSENGERS AT SEA— 
 
 Kay 17 
 
 PATENT CASES— 
 
 Iliggins 12 
 
 PAWNBROKERS— 
 
 See MAGISTERIAL LAW. 
 
 PERSONATION and IDENTITY - 
 
 Moriarty 14 
 
 PETITIONS IN CHANCERY AND 
 LUNACY— 
 
 Williams 7 
 
 PILOTS— 
 
 Kay 17 
 
 POLICE GUIDE— 
 
 Greenwood and Martin .... 46 
 
 POLLUTION OF RIVERS- 
 
 Higgins 30 
 
 PRACTICE BOOKS— 
 
 Bankruptcy 15 
 
 Companies Law .... 29 and 39 
 
 Compensation 13 
 
 Compulsory Purchase . . . . 19 
 
 Conveyancing .45 
 
 Damages 31 
 
 Ecclesiastical Law 9 
 
 Election Petitions 33 
 
 Equity 7, 22 and 32 
 
 High Court of Justice . . 6 and 25 
 
 Injunctions II 
 
 Judicature Acts .... 6 and 25 
 
 Magisterial 46 
 
 Pleading, Precedents of . . . 7 
 
 Privy Council 44 
 
 Railways 14 
 
 Railway Commission .... 19 
 
 Rating 19 
 
 Supreme Court of Judicature 
 
 6 and 25 
 
 PRECEDENTS OF PLEADINCJ- 
 
 Cunningham and Mattinson . . 7 
 
 PRIMOGENITURE— 
 
 Lloyd I3 
 
 PRINCIPLES— 
 
 Brice (Corporations) 16 
 
 Browne (Rating) 19 
 
 Deane (Conveyancing) .... 23 
 Harri.s (Criminal Law) .... 27 
 Houston (Mercantile) .... 32 
 Indermaur (Common Law) . . 24 
 
 Joyce (Injunctions) 11 
 
 Ringwood (Bankruptcy) . . . 15 
 .'■Jnell (Equity) ..... 22
 
 STEVENS &> HAYNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS-^'"'''^'^'^. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 rRIORITY— 
 
 Robinson 32 
 
 PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW— 
 
 Foote 36 
 
 PRIVY COUNCIL— 
 
 Michell 44 
 
 PROBATE— 
 
 Hanson 10 
 
 Harrison 23 
 
 PROMOTERS— 
 
 \\atts 47 
 
 PUBLIC WORSHIP - 
 
 Brice 9 
 
 QUARTER SESSIONS— 
 
 Smith (F. J.) 6 
 
 QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION, Practice 
 of— 
 
 Ciriffith and Loveland .... 6 
 
 Indermaur 25 
 
 QUESTIONS FOR STUDENTS— 
 
 Aldred 21 
 
 Bar Examination Journal ... 39 
 
 Indermaur 25 
 
 Waite 22 
 
 RAILWAYS - 
 
 Browne 19 
 
 Godefroi and .Sliortl 14 
 
 Goodeve 29 
 
 See MAGISTERIAL LAW. 
 
 RATING — 
 
 Browne 19 
 
 REAL PROPERTY— 
 
 Deane 23 
 
 Tarring 26 
 
 REGISTRATION— 
 
 Flaxman (Births and Deaths) . . 43 
 
 Seager (ParHamentary) .... 47 
 
 REMINISCENCE— 
 
 Braithwaite iS 
 
 REPORTS— 
 
 Bellewe 34 
 
 Brooke 35 
 
 Choyce Cases 35 
 
 Cooke 35 
 
 Cunningham . 34 
 
 Election Petitions 33 
 
 Finlason 32 
 
 Gibbs, Seymour Will Case . . 10 
 
 Kelyng, John 35 
 
 Kelynge, William 35 
 
 Reilly 29 
 
 Shower (Cases in Parliament) . 34 
 
 ROMAN DUTCH LAW— 
 
 Van Leeuwen 38 
 
 RO.MAN LAW— 
 
 Brown's Analysis of Savigny . . 20 
 
 Campbell 47 
 
 Harris 20 
 
 rASK 
 
 SALVAGE— 
 
 Jones 14 
 
 Kay 17 
 
 SANITARY ACTS— 
 
 Set MAGISTERIAL LAW. 
 SEA SHORE— 
 
 Hall 30 
 
 SHIPMASTERS AND SEAMEN— 
 
 Kay 17 
 
 SOCIETIES— 
 
 See CORPORATIONS. 
 STAGE CARRIAGES— 
 
 See MAGISTERIAL LAW. 
 STAMP DUTIES - 
 
 Copinger 40 and 45 
 
 STATUTE OF LI.MITATIONS— 
 
 Banning 42 
 
 STATUTES— 
 
 Hardcastle 9 
 
 New Zealand 18 
 
 Thomas 28 
 
 STOPPACrE IN TRANSITU— 
 
 Campbell 9 
 
 Houston 32 
 
 Kay 17 
 
 STUDENTS' BOOKS . 20—28, 39, 47 
 SUCCESSION DUTIES— 
 
 Hanson 10 
 
 SUCCESSION LAWS— 
 
 Lloyd 13 
 
 SUPREME COURT OF JUDICA- 
 TURE, Practice of— 
 
 Cunningham and Mattinson . . 7 
 
 Griffith and Loveland .... 6 
 
 Indermaur ........ 25 
 
 TELEGRAPHS— 
 
 .SV^ MAGISTERIAL LAW . 
 TITLE DEEDS— 
 
 Copinger 45 
 
 TOWNS IMPROVEMENTS- 
 
 See MAGISTERIAL LAW . 
 TRADE MARKS— 
 
 Daniel 42 
 
 TREASON 
 
 Kelyng 35 
 
 Taswell-Langmead 2i 
 
 TRIALS — Queen v. Gurney ... 32 
 ULTRA VIRES— 
 
 Brice l6 
 
 USAGES AND CUSTOMS— 
 
 Browne 19 
 
 Mayne 3S 
 
 VOLUNTARY CONVEYANCES— 
 
 May , 29 
 
 WATER COURSES— 
 
 Higgins 30 
 
 WILLS, CONSTRUCTION OF— 
 
 Gibbs, Report of Wallace v. 
 Attorney-General lO
 
 STEVENS &• IIAYNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 In Royal i2ino, price 20j., cloth, 
 
 QUARTER SESSIONS PRACTICE, 
 
 OF GENERAL TRACTICE IN APPELLATE AND CIVIL CASES 
 AT QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 By FREDERICK JAMES SMITH, 
 
 or THE MIDDLE TEMPI. E, DARRISTER-AT-LA\V, AND RECORDER OF MARGATE. 
 
 "Mr. .Smith's book will, we are sure, be found 
 to afford much assistance to the magistrates form- 
 ing the Court, and to those who practice before 
 them." — Laiu Magazine. 
 
 "This book will, we think, obtain a high placi 
 amongst the books which deal with this branch of 
 the law." — Laiu Journdl. 
 
 In one volume, 8vo, price 2is., cloth, 
 
 A COMPENDIUM OF THE LAW RELATING TO 
 
 EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS, with an Appendix of 
 
 Statutes, Annotated by means of References to the Text. By W. CIrec.ory 
 Walker, B.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law, Author of "The Partition 
 Acts, 1868 and 1876 ; A Manual of the Law of Partition and of Sale in Lieu of 
 Partition," &c. 
 
 "We highly approve of Mr. Walker's arrange- 
 ment The Notes are full, and .is far as we 
 
 have been able to ascertain, carefully and accurately 
 
 compiled We can commend it as bearing 
 
 on its face evidence of skilful and careful labour, 
 and we anticipate that it will be found a very 
 acceptable substitute for the ponderous tomes 
 of the much esteemed and valued Williams." - 
 Laiv Tifiies. 
 
 " Mr. Walker is fortunate in his choice of a sub- 
 ject, and the power of treating it succinctly, for 
 the ponderous tomes of Williams, however .satisfac- 
 tory as an authority, are necessarily inconvenient 
 
 for reference as well as expensive On the 
 
 whole we are inclined to think the book a good and 
 useful one." — Lnrv 'Jotimal. 
 
 In one thick volume, 8vo, price 30.r., cloth lettered, 
 
 THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACTS, 
 
 1873, 1875, a""-^ 1877 ; the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, and the Rules, 
 Orders, and Costs thereunder ; Edited vvith Notes, References, and a Copious 
 Analytical Index. Second Edition. Embodying all the Reported Cases to 
 Michaelmas Sittings, 1S77, and a Time Table. By Wii,i.i.a.M Dowxes 
 Griffith, of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law, and a Judge of County Courts ; 
 and Richard Lovei.and LovEi.A.xn, of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law,- 
 Editor of " Hall's Essay on the Rights of the Crown in the Seashore," &c. 
 
 In royal i2mo, price 4i-., cloth, 
 A DIGEST OF THE LAW OF 
 
 PRACTICE UNDER THE JUDICATURE ACTS AND RULES, 
 
 AND THE CASES DECIDED IN THE CHANCERY AND COMMON LAW DIVISIONS 
 FROM NOVEMBER 1875, TO AUGUST 1S80. 
 
 By W\ H. HASTINGS KELKE, M.A., Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 In royal i2mo, jDrice 3.^. bd., cloth, 
 THE PRESENT PRACTICE IN 
 
 DISTRICT REGISTRIES OF THE COMMON LAW DIVISION 
 
 OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. 
 By FRANK SIMMONS.
 
 STEVENS &= HAVNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 7 
 
 In 8vo, price 6^'., cloth, 
 
 THE NEW CONVEYANCING ACTS. 
 
 INCLUDING f n P . ■ 
 
 THE CONVEYANCING AND LAW OF PROPERTY ACT, 1881, 
 AND THE SOLICITORS REMUNERATION ACT, 1881. 
 
 WITH AN [INTRODUCTION, NOTES, AND FORMS. 
 
 By SYDNEY E. WILLIAMS, of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law, 
 
 Author of " Petitions in Chancery and Lunacy." 
 
 In one vohime, 8vo, price iSj., cloth, 
 THE LAW AND PRACTICE RELATING TO 
 
 PETITIONS IN CHANCERY AND LUNACY, 
 
 INCLL'DIN'G 
 
 THE SETTLED ESTATES ACT, LANDS CLAUSES ACT, TRUSTEE ACT, WINDING- 
 UP PETITIONS, PETITIONS RELATING TO SOLICITORS, INFANTS, Etc., Etc. 
 
 WITH AN APPENDIX OF FORMS AND PRECEDENTS. 
 
 By SYDNEY E. WILLIAMS, of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 " Mr. Williams' arrangement of the procedure under his various headings, which Include Payment out, 
 Trustee Relief Act, Lands Clauses Act, Settled Estates Act, and many other subjects of jurisdiction which 
 have from time to time been conferred on the Court of Chancery or the Lunacy jurisdiction by special 
 statutes, is very convenient. 'J'he chapter on the Lands Clauses Act is especially good." — Laiv Times. 
 
 "The book is furnished with a selection of Forms and Precedents ; the arrangement of matter seems 
 convenient ; and we have found it easy to consult. We have not observed any important omission within 
 the scope of the Treatise, and the writer deserves the praise of having put together with some skill an 
 unpretending work, which is at least more useful than certain larger law books we know of.' —Solicitors' 
 Journal. 
 
 In 8vo, price 28.C, cloth, 
 
 A SELECTION OF PRECEDENTS OF PLEADING 
 
 UNDER TPIE JUDICATUl^ ACTS IN THE COMMON LAW DIVISIONS. 
 
 With Notes explanatory of the different Causes of Action and Grounds of Defence ; and 
 
 an Introductory Treatise on the Present Rules and Principles of Pleading as 
 
 illustrated by the various Decisions down to the Present Time. 
 
 By JOHN CUNNINGHAM, of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law, 
 
 Author of the " Law Relating to Parliamentary and Municipal Elections ; " and 
 
 MILES WALKER MATTINSON, of Gray's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 KEVIEWS. 
 
 "The notes are very pertinent and satisfactory: the introductory chapters on the present system of pleading 
 are excellent, and the precedents will be found very useful." — Irish Law Times. 
 
 " For pupils, also, and beginners at the bar, the book will be very useful ; because these, never having 
 served an apprenticeship to the old system, are verj- apt to omit allegations, essential in certain cases to the 
 validity of a pleading. The authors of the book before us have introduced their collection of forms to the 
 reader by an essay on pleading under the new rules ; and we think that a perusal of this essay, which is 
 written in an attractive style, would do a great deal of good both to barristers and masters. . . . We th^pk 
 that the authors have deserved well of the profession, and that they have produced a book likely to grow 
 in favour even among those who at first might conceive a prejudice against a work of this kind." — Zaiv 
 youriial. 
 
 "A work which, in the compass of a single portable volume, contains a brief Treatise on the Principles 
 and Rules of Pleading, and a carefully annotated body of Forms which have to a great extent gone through 
 the entirely separate sifting processes of Chambers, Court, and Judges' Chambers, cannot fail to be a most 
 useful companion in the Practitioner's daily routine." — Lazu Magazine and Rcvierv. 
 
 The work contains a treatise on the new rules of pleading which is well written, but would bear com- 
 pression. To most of the precedents there are notes referring to the decisions which are most useful to the 
 pleader in connection with the particular cause of action involved. We are disposed to think that this is the 
 most valuable portion of the work. It is extremely convenient to have some work which collects notes of 
 this sort in connection with pleading." — Solicitors' journal.
 
 STEVENS &- ffAYA'ES, HE [J. YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 In royal i2mo, price 2,0s., cloth. 
 EMDEN'S LA\\ RELATING TO 
 
 BUILDING LEASES & BUILDING CONTRACTS, 
 
 THE IMPROVEMENT OE LAND BY, AND THE 
 CONSTRUCTION OF, BUILDINGS. 
 
 WITH A FULL COLLECTION OF PRECEDENTS OF ARKANGEMEN 1 S FOR 
 
 BUILI)IN(i LEASES, liUILUINC LEASES, CONTRACTS FOR IJUILDING, 
 
 BUILDING GRANTS, MORTtlAGES. AND OTHER FORMS WITH 
 
 RESPECT TO MATTERS CONNECTED Wnil LUILDING. 
 
 TOGL.THKK Willi TlIK 
 
 STATUTES RELATING TO BUILDING, 
 
 WITH NOTES AND THE LATEST CASES UNDER THE VARIOUS SECTIONS. 
 ^nb a oMossarn of i^vcljitcdural unt> ^uilbing (Tnms. 
 
 By ALFRED EMDEN, 
 
 OF THE INNKJ: TE.MPLE, ESQ., liARRISTEK-AT-I.AW. 
 
 "The present treatise of Mr. Emden deals with the subject in an e.\haustl\e manner, which leaves 
 nothing to be desired." — The Thitcs. 
 
 " It is obvious th.it the number of persons interested in the subject of building is no small one. To 
 supply the wants of this class by providing a treatise devoted exclusively to the law of building and 
 kindred matters has been accordingly the main object of Mr. Emden's labours. We are able on the whole 
 to say with confidence that his efforts deserve reward. His arrangement of the subject is clear and 
 
 I)erspicuous It may be said without hesitation that they have been dealt with in a manner which 
 
 merits high commendation." — La7i' Times. 
 
 "This is a careful digest of a branch of the law which, so far as we know, has not yet been fully 
 
 treated The book seems to us a very complete and satisfactory manual, alike for the lawyer as 
 
 for the architect and the builder." — Solicitors' Jouy/ia/. 
 
 ■' Mr. Emden has obviously given time and labour to his task, and therefore will save time and labour 
 to those who happen to be occupied in the .same field of enquiry."- — Law Journal. 
 
 ■' In this work Mr. Emden has collected and systematically arranged a mass of legal lore relating to 
 T.uilding Leases, Building Contracts, and generally to the improvement of land by buildings and their 
 construction. 'J'he lawyer, the architect, and the contractor will here find brought into a focus and 
 readily available, information which would, but for this convenient volume, have to be sought for in 
 various quarters." — Law Maga'^ine. 
 
 "It may safely be recommended as a practical text-book and giiide to all people whose fortune or 
 misfortune it is to be interested in the construction of buildings and other works." — Satiniiay Reficw. 
 
 " In .such cases it is serviceable to possess a book like Mr. Emden's on ' the Law of Building Incases, 
 Building Contracts, and Buildings." The subjects, it is needless to .say, are difficult, but the exposition of 
 them is sufficiently plain to be comprehended by every intelligent layman. Mr. Emden's book is incom- 
 parably the best among those which .nre professedly intended for the use of architects, builders, agents, as 
 
 ^vell as lawyers throughout the pages there is not a paragraph to be discovered which is 
 
 not perfectly clear." — 'J'lic Architect. 
 
 "Mr. Emden's very useful handbook, which supplies a desideratum long felt by lawyers, architects, 
 and others engaged in preparing leases, contracts, and in building operations generally. The work is well 
 printed, and marginal references are given throughout." — Biiilcling^ A'ews. 
 
 "To supply this want is the writer's object in publishing this work, and we have no hesitation [in 
 expressing our opinion that it will be found valuable by several distinct classes of persons .... it seems 
 to us a good and useful book, and we recommend the purchase of it without hesitation." — The Builder. 
 
 " \ye are aware of no other work which deals exclusively with the law relating to buildings and contracts 
 to build. Mr. Emden write.s in an unusually clear style for the compiler of a law book, and has not 
 failed to note the latest decisions in the law courts. His list of precedents is very full." — The Field. 
 
 " From the point of view of practical utility the work cannot fail to be of the greatest use to all who 
 require a little l.-iw in the course of their building operations. 'They will find both a sound arrangement 
 and a clear sensible style, and by perusing it with ordinary attention many matters of which they were 
 before doub:ful will become quite comprehensible." — City J'ress. 
 
 Now ready, royal 121110, price 2s. 6d., cloth. 
 
 EMDEN'S METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AND 
 BUILDINGS ACTS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1882. wui, noi« 
 
 to the Sections, and an Index. Forming a Supplement to the " Law Relating to 
 Building Leases, Building Contracts," &c. By Alfred E.mden, of the Inner 
 Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 
 "There is a copious index to the work, and the architect and surveyor who require to be well informed 
 
 up to present date m the Statute Law will ol)tain this Supplement to .Mr. Emden's v.-ilu.able handbook." 
 
 — Building .\e'ii's.
 
 STEVENS 
 
 IIAYNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 In one volume, royal Svo, price y^s., cloth, 
 THE LAW RELATING TO THE 
 
 SALE OF GOODS AND COMMERCIAL AGENCY. 
 
 By ROBERT CAMPBELL, M.A., 
 
 OF Lincoln's inn, harrister-at-law; advocate of the scotch bar; 
 
 AUTHOR OK THE " LAW OF NEGLKIENCE," ETC. 
 
 " His book will, we are convinced, prove of great service as a thoughtful and clear exposition of a branch 
 of law of practical interest, not only to the legal professioji, but also to the merchant, the shipper, the 
 underwriter and the broker, and to the mercantile community in general. The Table of Contents is 
 analytical and rem.arkably full ; being, in fact, almost an Index within an Iiide.x." — Laiv Ma^^azinc. 
 
 " Notwithst.-inding the existence of the works referred to by the author in his preface, he has produced 
 a treatise which cannot fail to be of utility to practising lawyers, and to increa.se his own reputation."— 
 I, aw V'/'/in's. 
 
 In one volume, Svo, 1879, price 20^., cloth, 
 
 A TREATISE ON THE RULES WHICH GOVERN 
 
 THE CONSTRUCTION AND EFFECT 
 OF STATUTORY LAW. 
 
 WITH AN APPENDIX 
 
 of certain words and expre.s.sion.s used in statutes, which 
 
 have been judicially or .statutably con.strued. 
 
 By henry HARDCASTLE, 
 
 OF THE IN.NER TEMPLE, B.\RR!STEi;-AT-LA\V ; 
 
 EDITOR OF " BfSHBV'S ELECTION L.\W," " H,\RDC.\STLE's ELECTION PETITIONS," AND 
 
 JOINT-EDITOR OF "ELECTION PETITIO.N REPORTS." 
 
 " We should be doing less than justice, however, to the usefulness of Mr. Hardcastle's book 
 if we did fnot point out a valuable special feature, consisting of an appendix devoted to the 
 collection of a list of words which have been judicially or statutably explained, with reference 
 to the cases in which they are so explained. We believe this is a feature peculiar to Mr. Hard- 
 castle's Treatise, and it is one which cannot fail to commend itself to the profession." — Laze 
 A/a^az/7/e and Review. 
 
 " A vast amount of information will be found in its pages — much of it arranged so as to be 
 got at without inucli difficulty ; the chapters and sections being headed with lines of indication. 
 We can only hope Mr. Hardcastle will receive that measure of success to w hicli the amount of 
 labour which he has evidently bestowed upon the work entitles him." —Lniv Times. 
 
 " Its method and object are excellent, and it appears to be the fruit of much careful studv." — 
 Dai/y Xi-'s. " 
 
 In one volume, Svo, price 28^'., cloth, 
 
 THE LAW RELATING TO PUBLIC WORSHIP ; 
 
 WVni SPECI.-VL REFEREN'CE TO 
 
 ifHattfrs of livitual nn^ (Dmamrntatton, 
 
 AND THE MEANS OF SECURING THE DUE OBSERVANCE THEREOF, 
 
 AND CONTAIXIXn I\ EXTEXSO, 
 
 WITH NOTES AND REFERENCES, 
 
 THE PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION ACT, 1S74; THE CHURCH DISCIPLINE ACT; 
 THE VARIOUS .A.CTS OF UNIFOR.MITY; THE LITURGIES OF 1549, 1552, and 1559, 
 
 COMPARED WITH 
 
 THE PRESENT RUBRIC; THE CANONS; THE ARTICLES; AND THE INJUNCTIONS, 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT.S, & OTHER ORIGINAL DOCU.MENTS OF LEGAL AUTHORITY. 
 
 SEWARD 
 
 By 
 
 BRICE, LL.D., 
 
 OF THE I.N.NER TEMPLE, BARRISTER-AT-LAW. 
 
 " To the 7>ast ntnnber of people who in various ways are interested in the 
 working of the Act., Mr. Bi-ice's volume caimotfail to be welcome. It is well con- 
 ceived and carefully executedP — The Times.
 
 10 Sl'EVEiVS &^ HAYNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 Now ready, in Svo, ]irire 65. 6?/. , clotli. 
 
 THE CUSTOMS AND INLAND EEVENUE ACTS, 
 
 1880 and 1881 
 
 (43 Vict. Cai'. 14, and 44 Vict. Cat. 12.) 
 
 So far as lliey Relate to the Probate, Legacy, and Succession Duties, and the Duties on 
 Accounts. With an Introduction and Notes. ]5y Al.l'RiiU Hanson, Es(j., Comp- 
 troller of Legacy and Succession Duties. 
 •,• This forms a Supplement to the Third Edition of the Probate, Legacy, and Succession Duty 
 Acts, by the same Author. 
 
 Third Ldition, in Svo, 1876, price aS-f-, cloth, 
 
 THE ACTS RELATING TO PROBATE, LEGACY, AND 
 
 SUCCESSION DUTIES. Comprising the 36 Cleo. IIL c. 52 ; 45 Ceo. IIL 
 c. 2S ; 55 (ieo. in. c. 1S4 ; and 16 (\; 17 Vict. c. 51 ; with an Introduction, 
 Copious Notes, and References to all the Decided Cases in England, Scotland, 
 and Ireland. An Apjiendix of .Statutes, Tables, and a full Index. By Alfrkd 
 Hansox, of the Middle Temple, Esq., I!arrister-at-Law, Comptroller of Legacy 
 and Succession Duties. Third Edition. Incorporating the Cases to Michaelmas 
 Sittings, 1876. 
 " It is the only complete book upon a subject of great importance. 
 
 "Mr. Hanson is peculiarly qualified to be the adviser at such a time. Hence a volume 
 without a rival." — Law Times, 
 
 " His book is in itself a most useful one ; its author knows every in and out of the subject, 
 and has presented the whole in a form easily and readily handled, and with good arrangement 
 and clear exposition." — Solicitors' yoiir/ial. 
 
 In royal Svo, 1877, price los., cloth, 
 LES LLOSPLCES DE PARLS ET DE L.ONDRES. 
 
 THE CASE OFTor¥ HENRY SEYMOUR'S WILL 
 
 (\VALL.\CE V. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL). 
 Reported by FREDERICK WAYMOUTH GIBBS, C.B., Earrister-at-Law, 
 
 LATE FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. 
 
 In preparation, and to be published shortly, 
 
 CORNER'S CROWN PRACTICE: 
 
 Being the Practice of the Crown Side of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court 
 of Justice; with an Appendix of Rules, Forms, Scale of Costs and Allowances, &c. 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 By FREDERICK H. SHORT, of the Crown Office, and M. D. CHALMERS, 
 
 OF THE INNER TEMPLE, DARKISTER-AT-L.\W, AUTHOR OF "DIGEST OF THE LAW OF 
 BILLS OF EXCHANGE." 
 
 In Svo, 1S67, price l6.f. , cloth, 
 
 CHARITABLE TRUSTS ACTS, 1853, 1855, 1860; 
 
 THE CHARITY COMMISSIONERS JURISDICTION ACT, 1862; 
 THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES ACTS: 
 Together with a Collection of Statutes relating to or affecting Charities, including the 
 Mortmain Acts, Notes of Cases from 1853 to the present time. Forms of Decla- 
 rations of Trust, Conditions of Sale, and Conveyance of Charity Land, and a 
 very copious Index. Second Edition. 
 
 By HUGH COOKE and R. G. HARWOOD, of the Charity Commission. 
 Charities are so numerous, so many persons are | second edition of a collection of all the statutes that 
 directly or indirectly interested in them, they are so ] regulate them, admir.ahly annotated by two such 
 much abused, and there is such a growing desire to | competent editors as Messrs. Cooke and Harwood, 
 rectify those abuses and to call in the aid of the ; whose official experience peculiarly qualifies them 
 conimissioners for a more beneficial application of [ for the task."— Zato Times. 
 their funds, and we are not surprised to receive a \
 
 STEVENS <S^ HAYNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 11 
 
 In one volume, royal Svo, 1877, price SOJ". , cloth, 
 
 THE DOCTRINES & PRINCIPLES OF 
 THE LAW OF INJUNCTIONS. 
 
 By WILLIAM JOYCE, 
 
 OF Lincoln's inn, ijarrister-at-l a w. 
 
 "Mr. Joyce, \vlio?e learned and exhaustive work on 'The Law and Practice of Injunction?;,' has 
 gained such a deservedly high reputation in the Profession, now brings out a valuable companion volume 
 on the ' Doctrines and Principles ' of this important branch of the Law. Iri the present work the Law is 
 enunciated in its abstract rather than its concrete form, as few cases as possible being cited ; while at the 
 same time no statement of a principle is made unsupported by a decision, and for the most part the very 
 language of the Courts has been adhered to. Written as it is by so acknowledged a master of his subject, 
 and with the conscientious carefulness that might be expected from him, this work cannot fail to prove of 
 the greatest assistance alike to the Student — who wants to grasp principles freed from their superincum- 
 bent details — and to the practitioner, who wants to refresh his memory on points of doctrine amidst the 
 oppressive details of professional work." — Law .Magazine and Kc7'iew. 
 
 BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 In two volumes, royal Svo, 1S72, price "JOs., cloth, 
 
 THE LAW & PRACTICE OF INJUNCTIONS. 
 
 EMliRACING 
 
 ALL THE SUBJECTS IN WHICH COURTS OF EQUITY 
 AND COMMON LAW HAVE JURISDICTION. 
 
 By WILLIAM JOYCE, 
 
 OF LINCOLN S INN, BARRISTER- AT-LA\V. 
 
 BE VIEWS. 
 
 " From these remarks it will be sufficiently per- 
 ceived what elaborate and painstaking industry, as 
 well as legal knowledge and ability, has been 
 necessary in the compilation of ^Mr. Joyce's work. 
 No labour has been spared to save the practitioner 
 labour, and no research has been omitted which 
 could tend towards the elucidation and exemplifi- 
 cation of the general principles of the Law and 
 ~ ' " ' ' ;." — La'M 'loiirnal. 
 
 " A work which aims at being so absolutely 
 complete, as that of Mr. Joyce upon a subject 
 which is of almost perpetual recurrence in the 
 Courts, cannot fail to be a welcome offering to the 
 profession, and, doubtless, it will be well received 
 and largely vised, for it is as absolutely complete as 
 
 it aims at being This work is, therefore, 
 
 eminently a work for the practitioner, being full of 
 practical utility in every page, and every sentence, 
 of it We have to congratulate the pro- 
 fession on thisnew acquisition to a digest of the 
 law, and the author on his production of a work of 
 permanent utility and fame." — Law Magazine 
 and Kcz'iew. 
 
 " Mr. Joyce has produced not a treatise but a 
 complete and compendious exposition of the Law 
 and Practice of Injunctions both in equity and 
 common law. 
 
 "Part in. is devoted to the practice of the 
 Courts. Contains an amount ojf valuable and 
 technical matter nowhere else collected. 
 
 "This work, considered either as to its matter or manner of execution, is no ordinary work. It is a 
 complete and exhaustive treatise both as to the law and the practice of granting injunctions. It must 
 supersede all other works on the subject. The terse statement of the practice will be found of incalculable 
 value. We know of no book as suitable to supply a knowledge of the law of injunctions to our common 
 law friends as Mr. Joyce's exhaustive work. It is alike indispensable to members of the Common Law 
 and Equity Bars. Mr Joyce's great work would be a casket without a key unless accompanied by a good 
 index. His index is verj- full and well arranged. We feel that this work is destined to take its place 
 as a standard text-book, and the text-book on the particular subject of which it treats. The author 
 deserves great credit for the very great labour bestowed upon it. The publishers, as usual, have 
 acquitted themselves in a manner deserving of the high reputation they bear." — Canada Law Journal. 
 
 C 2 
 
 Practice of Injunctions.' 
 
 " He does not attempt to go an inch beyond that 
 for which he has express written authority ; he al- 
 lows the cases to speak, and does not speak for them. 
 
 "The work is something more than a treatise on 
 the Law of Injunctions. It gives us the general 
 law on almost every subject to which the process of 
 injunction is applicable. Not only English, but 
 American decisions are cited, the aggregate number 
 being 3,500, and the statutes cited 160, whilst the 
 index is, we think, the most elaborate we have ev^r 
 seen — occupying nearly 200 pages. • The work Ls 
 probably entirely exhaustive." — Law Times.
 
 12 STEVENS 6- HAYNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 HIGGINS'S DIGEST OP PATENT CASES. 
 
 Price 2l.r., 
 
 A DIGEST OF THE REPORTED CASES 
 
 RELATING TO THE 
 
 LAW AND PRACTICE OF LETTERS 
 PATENT FOR INVENTIONS, 
 
 Decided from tJic passing of the Statute of Monopolies to the present time ; 
 
 Together with an Appendix, giving the Reported Cases from June, 1875, to INIarch, 1880, 
 as also some Cases not reported elsewhere. 
 
 By clement HIGGINS, M.A, F.C.S., 
 
 OF THE INNER TEMPLE, BARRISTER-AT-LAW. 
 
 " Mr. Higgins s work will be useful a?; a work of reference. Upwards of 700 cases are digested : and, 
 besides a table of contents, there is a full index to the subject-matter ; and that index, which greatly 
 enhances the value of the book, must have cost the author much time, labour and thought." — Lmu Joiirnnl. 
 
 " 'This is essentially,' says Mr. Higgins in his preface, ' a book of reference.' It remains to be added 
 whether the compilation is reliable and exhaustive. It is only fair to say that we think it is ; and we will 
 add, that the arrangement of subject-matter (chronological under each heading, the date, and double or 
 even treble references being appended to every decision) and the neat and carefully-executed index (which 
 is decidedly above the average), are such as no reader of ' essentially a book of reference' could quarrel 
 with. " — Solicitors yom'nat. 
 
 "On the whole Air. Higgins's work has been well accomplished. It has ably fulfilled its object by 
 supplying a reliable and authentic summarj- of the reported patent law cases decided in P^nglish courts of 
 law and equity, while presenting a complete history of legal doctrine on the points of law and practice 
 relating to its subject." — Irish Laiu Times. 
 
 " Mr. Higgins has, with wonderful and accurate research, produced a work which is much needed, since 
 we have no collection of patent cases which does not terminate years ago. We consider, too. if an inventor 
 furnishes himself with this Digest and a little treatise on the law of patents, he will be able to be as much 
 his own patent lawyer as it is safe to be." — Scientific a)id Literacy Reviezu. 
 
 "Mr. Higgins's object has been to supply a reliable and exhaustive summary of the reported patent cases 
 decided in English courts of law and equity, and this object he appears to have attained. The classifica- 
 tion is excellent, being as Mr. Higgins very truly remarks, that which naturally suggests itself from 
 the practic.il working of patent law rights. The lucid style in which Mr. Higgins has written his Digest 
 will not fail to recommend it to all who may consult his book ; and the verj- copious index, together with 
 the table of cases, will render the work especially valuable to professional men." — Mining Jojty-nal. 
 
 " The appearance of Mr. Higgins's Digest is exceedingly opportune. The plan of the work is definite 
 and simple. We consider that Mr. Higgins, in the production of this work, has met a long-felt demand. 
 Not merely the legal profession and patent agents, but patentees, actual or intending inventors, manufac- 
 turers, and their scientific advisers will find the Digest an invaluable book of reference." — Chcviicat Neius. 
 
 "The arrangement and condensation of the main principles and facts of the cases here digested render 
 the work invaluable in the way of reference." — Stattdard. 
 
 " The work constitutes a step in the right direction, and it is likely to prove of much service as a guide, 
 a by no means immaterial point in its favour being that it includes a number of comparatively recent 
 cases. " — Ens;inccr. 
 
 " From these decisions the state of the law upon any point connected with patents may be deduced. 
 In fine, we must pronounce the book as invaluable to all whom it may concern." — Quarterly yournal of 
 Science. 
 
 In 8vo, price 6s., sewed, 
 A DIGEST OF THE REPORTED CASES 
 
 RELATING TO THE 
 
 LAW AND PRACTICE OF LETTERS PATENT FOR INVENTIONS 
 
 DECIDED BETWEEN JUNE, 1S75, AND MARCH, iSSo: 
 TOGETHER WITH SOME UNREPORTED CASES 
 
 FORMING 
 
 AN APPENDIX TO DIGEST OF PATENT CASES. 
 By CLEMENT HIGGINS, 
 
 BARRISTER- AT-L.\\V.
 
 STE FEIN'S 
 
 HAYNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 13 
 
 In Svo, price 25^., cloth, 
 
 THE LAW OF COMPENSATION FOR LANDS, HOUSES, &c 
 
 UNDER THE LANDS CLAUSES, RAILWAY CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION AND 
 
 METROPOLITAN ACTS, 
 
 THE ARTIZANS AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS IMPROVEMENT ACT 1875. 
 
 WITH A FULL COLLECTION OF FORMS AND PRECEDENTS. 
 
 FIFTH EDITION, Enlarged, with Additional Forms, including 
 Precedents ok Bills of Costs. 
 
 By eyre LLOYD, 
 
 OF THE INNER TEMPLE, BARRISTER-AT-LAW. 
 
 " The work is eminently a practical one, and is of great value to practitioners who have to deal with 
 compensation cases." — Solicitors' Journal. 
 
 "A fourth edition of Mr. Lloyd's valuable treatise has just been publisJud. Feiv bra/iclies of the law 
 affect so many and such important interests as that which gives to private individuals compensation for 
 property compulsorily taken for the purpose of public improz'ements. The questions which arise under the 
 different Acts of Parliament now in force arc very numero7is and difficult, and a collection of decided 
 cases epitomised and well arranged, as they are in Mr. Lloyd's wo7-k, cannot fail to be a welcome additioti 
 to the library of all who are interested in landed property, wfietlur as owners, land agents, public officers 
 or solicitors." — Midland Counties Herald. 
 
 "It is with much gratification that we have to 
 express our unhesitating opinion that Mr. Lloyd's 
 treatise will prove thoroughly satisfactorj' to the 
 profession, and to the public at large. Thoroughly 
 
 satisfactory it appears to us in every point of 
 view — comprehensive in its scope, exhaustive in its 
 treatment, sound in its exposition."— /r«/i Law 
 Times. 
 
 " In providing the legal profession with a book which contains tlie decisions of tlie Courts of Law and 
 Equity upon the various statutes relating to the Law of Compensation, Mr. Eyre Lloyd has long since 
 left all competitors in the distance,' and his book may no-ai be considered tlie standard work upon the sub- 
 ject. T lie plan of Mr. Lloyd's book is generally kno'wn, and its lucidity is appreciated ; the present quite 
 fulfils all the promises of the preceding editions, and contains in culdition to other matter a complete set 
 of forms under the Artizaus and Labourers Act, xZq s, and specimens of Bills of Costs, whichwill be found 
 a 7iovel feature, e.rtremely useful to legal practitioners." — Jlstice of the Peace. 
 
 "The work is one of great value. It deals with of the compensation. All the statutes bearing on 
 a complicated and difficult branch of the law, and it the subject have been collated, all the law on the 
 deals with it exhaustively. It is not merely a com- subject collected, and the decisions conveniently 
 pilation or collection of the statutes bearing on the arranged. With this comprehensiveness of scope 
 subject, with occasional notes and references. \ is united a clear statement of principles,^ and prac- 
 
 Rather it may be described as a comprehensive 
 treatise on, and digest of, the law relating to the 
 compulsory acquisition and purchase of land by 
 public companies and municipal and other local 
 authorities, and the different modes of assessment 
 
 tical handling of the points which are likely to be 
 contested, and especially of those in which the 
 decisions are opposed or differently understood."— 
 Local Go7'ernment Ch^vnicle. 
 
 In 8vo, price "js., cloth, 
 
 THE SUCCESSION LAWS OF CHRISTIAN COUNTRIES, 
 
 WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO 
 
 THE LAW OF PRIMOGENITURE AS IT EXISTS IN ENGLAND. 
 By eyre LLOYD, B.A., 
 
 OF THE INNER TEMPLE, P,ARRISTER-AT-LAW ; AUTHOR OF " THE L.\W OF COMPENSATION 
 INDER THE LANDS CLALSE.S CONSOLIDATION ACTS," ETC. 
 
 "Mr. Lloyd has given us a very useful and compendious little digest of the laws of succession which 
 exist at the present day in the principal States of both Europe and America ; and we should .say it is a book 
 which not only every lawyer, but every politician and statesman, would do well to add to his library." — 
 Pall Mall Gazette. 
 
 "Mr. Eyre Lloyd compresses into little more than eighty pages a considerable amount of matter both 
 valuable and interesting ; and his quotations from Diplomatic Reports by the present Lord Lytton, and 
 other distinguished public servants, throw a picturesque light on a narrative much of which is necess.arily 
 dry reading. We can confidently recommend Mr. Eyre Lloyd's new work as one of great practical 
 utility, if, indeed, it be not unique in our language, as a book of reference on Foreign Succession Laws." 
 — I^aw Magazine and Review. 
 
 " Mr. Eyre Lloyd has composed a useful and interesting abstract of the laws on the subject of succes- 
 sion to property in Christian countries, with special reference to the law of primogeniture in England." — 
 Saturday Review. 
 
 " This is a very useful little handy book on foreign succession laws. It contains in an epitomised form 
 information which would have to be sought through a great number of .scattered authorities and foreign 
 law treatises, and will be found of great value to the lawyer, the writer, and the political student." — 
 Standard.
 
 14 STEVENS d- IIAYNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 In one volume, royal 8vo, price 30X., cloth, 
 
 CASES AND OPINIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 
 
 AND VARIOUS POINTS OF ENGLISH JURISPRUDENCE. 
 
 Collected nnd Digested from Official Documents and other Sources; with Notes. By 
 
 William Eoksy'iii, M.A., M.P., Q.C., Standing Counsel to the Secretary of 
 
 State in Council of India, Author of " Hortensius," "History of Trial by Jury," 
 
 "Life of Cicero," etc., late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 
 
 From the CONTEMPORARY REVIEW. | relations between England and her colonies are 
 
 "We cannot but regard with interest a book becoming eveiy day of niore importance. The 
 
 which, within moderate compass, presents us with I ^?''H of Mr. I'orsyth wdl do more to make these 
 
 the opinions or res/>o,isa of such lawyers and states- ] relations perfectly clear than any which has yet 
 
 men as Somers, Holt, Hardwicke, Mansfield, and, appeared. Henceforth it will be the standard work 
 
 to come down to our own day, Lyndhurst, x\binger, I of reference in a variety of questions which are 
 
 Denman, Cranworth, Campbell, St. ' Leonards^ ; ^°"!'^rj TJ"'f^.''r'i"5„'.''"'"''''''''''^ '"°'' ^°'"""" ^°"^ 
 Westbury, Chelmsford, Cockburn, Cairns, and the 
 present Lord Chancellor Hatherley. At the end of 
 
 each chapter of the ' Cases and opinions,' Mr. 
 Forsyth has added notes of his own, containing a 
 most excellent summary of all the law bearing on 
 that branch of his subject to which the 'Opinions' 
 refer." 
 
 From the LAW IVLAGAZINE and LAW 
 REVIEW. 
 
 "Mr. Forsyth has largely and beneficially added 
 to our legal stores. His work maybe regarded as in 
 some sense a continuation of ' Chalmers's Opinions 
 of Eminent I^awyers.' . . . The constitutional 
 
 here and in our colonies." 
 
 From the LAW TIMES. 
 "This one volume of 560 pages or thereabouts 
 is a perfect storehouse of law not readily to be 
 found elsewhere, and the more useful because it is 
 not abstract law but the application of principles 
 to particular cases. Mr. Forsyth's plan is that of 
 classification. He collects in separate chapters a 
 variety of opinions bearing upon separate branches 
 of the law . . . This is a book to be read, and 
 therefore we recommend it not to all lawyers only, 
 but to every law student. The editor's own notes 
 are not the least valuable portion of the volume." 
 
 In one thick volume, 8vo, price 32j.'., cloth, 
 
 THE LAW OF RAILWAY COMPANIES. 
 
 Comprising the Companies Clauses, the Lands Clauses, the Railways Clauses Consoli- 
 dation Acts, the Railway Companies Act, 1867, and the Regulation of Railways 
 Act, 1868 ; with Notes of Cases on all the .Sections, brought down to the end of the 
 year 1868; together with an Appendix giving all the other material Acts relating 
 to Railways, and the Standing Orders of the Houses of Lords and Commons ; 
 and a copious Index. By Henry Godefroi, of Lincoln's Inn, and John 
 Shortt, of the Middle Temple, Barristers-at-Law. 
 
 "The title of this book is the best possible 
 explanation of its contents. Here we have all the 
 statutes affecting Railway Companies, with the 
 standing orders of Parliament, in a vplume exqui- 
 sitely printed, and of most convenient size and 
 
 form. . . . We believe that we have said enough 
 to show that this book will prove to be of pre- 
 eminent value to practitioners, both before Parlia- 
 mentaiy committees and in the Courts of Law and 
 Equity." — Laiu youriial. 
 
 • ■ In 8vo, price 2s. 6d., 
 
 MORIARTY ON PERSONATION AND DISPUTED IDENTITY 
 
 AND THEIR TESTS. 
 In a handy volume, crown Svo, 1870, price 10s. 61/., cloth, 
 
 THE LAW OF SALVAGE, 
 
 As administered in the High Court of Admiralty and the County Courts; with the 
 Principal Authorities, English and American, brought down to the present time ; 
 and an Appendix, containing Statutes, Forms, Table of Fees, etc. By Edwyn 
 Jones, of Gray's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 Ihis book will be of infinite service to lawyers I is a complete guide, and is full of information 
 practising in the maritime law courts and to those upon ail phases of the subject, tersely and clearly 
 engaged in shipping. In short, Mr. Jones's book | \ir\x.\.^n."— Liverpool Journal of Coiiuncrcc. 
 
 In 8vo, 1867, price \s., sewed, 
 
 LLOYD'S BONDS: THEIR NATURE AND USES. 
 
 By Henry Jefferd Tarrant, of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law.
 
 STEVENS d- HAYNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 15 
 
 Second Edilioii, in Svo, price ioj'., cloth, 
 
 THE PRINCIPLES OF BANKRUPTCY. 
 
 WITH AN APPENDIX, 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 THE GENERAL RULES OF 1870, 1871, 1873, k 1878, SCALE OF 
 
 COSTS, AND THE BILLS OF SALE ACTS, 1878 k 1882, 
 
 AND THE RULES OF DECEMBER 1882. 
 
 Bv RICHARD RINGWOOD, B.A., 
 
 OF THE MIDDLE TEMl'LE, ESQ., RAKRISTER-AT-LAW ; LATE SCHOLAR OF TRINITY COLLEGE, DLDLIN. 
 
 "This edition is a considerable improvement on the first, and although chieflj- written for the use of 
 Students, the work will be found useful to the practitioner." — Laiu Times. 
 
 "The author of this convenient handbook sees the point upon which we insist elsewhere in regard to 
 
 the chief aim of any system of Banlcruptcy Law which should deserve the title of National 
 
 There can be no question that a sound measure of Reform is greatly needed, and would be welcomed by 
 all parties in the United Kingdom. Pending this amendment it is necessary to know the Law as it is, 
 and those who have to deal with the subject in any of its practical legal aspects will do well to consult 
 Mr. Ringwood's unpretending but useful volume." — La7u Mas;azinc. 
 
 "The above work is written by a distinguished scholar of Trinity College, Dublin. Mr. Ringwood 
 has chosen a most difficult and unattractive subject, but he has shown sound judgment and skill in the 
 manner in which he has executed his task. His book does not profess to be an exhaustive treatise on 
 bankruptcy law, yet in a neat and compact volume we have a vast amount of well-digested matter. The 
 reader is not distracted and puzzled by having a long list of cases flung at him at the end of each page, as 
 the general effect of the law is stated in a few well-selected sentences, and .a reference given to the leading 
 decisions only on the subject. . . . An excellent index, and a table of cases, where references to four 
 sets of contemporary reports may be seen at a glance, show, the industry and care with which the work 
 has been done." — Daily Papa: 
 
 Third Edition, in royal l2mo, price iSj., cloth, 
 
 A CONCISE TREATISE UPON 
 
 THE LAW OF BANKRUPTCY. 
 
 WITH AN APPENDIX, 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 The Bankruptcy Act, 1869 ; General Rules of 1870, 1871, 1873, & 1878 ; 
 
 Forms of 1870 and 1871; Scale of Costs; the Debtors Act, 1869; 
 Debtors Act, 1878; and Bills of Sale Acts, 1878 and 1882. 
 
 By EDWARD T. BALDWIN, M.A., 
 
 OF THE INNER TEMl'LE, B.\KRISTER-AT-LAW. 
 
 " This is an excellent book .... It is an eminently practical treati.se, and at once concise and exact 
 .... We have no doubt that Mr. Baldwin's book will be found, alike as a guide and as a work of 
 reference, most useful to both branches of the profession." — Lniu Magazine. 
 
 " This edition is a praiseworthy effort to reduce the Law of Bankruptcy within moderate limits. It refers 
 to all the important cases on the Act of 1869, and concludes with an excellent Index." — Latv Times. 
 
 ■■ This treatise is certainly the most readable book on the subject, and so carefully is the te.xt annotated, 
 that it is perfectly reliable." — Law Join-iiaL
 
 16 STEVENS &> HAYNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 THE LAW OF CORPORATIONS. 
 
 In one volume of One Thousand Pages, royal 8vo, price 42.f., cloth, 
 A TREATISE ON THE DOCTRINE OF 
 
 ULTRA VIRES: 
 
 BEING 
 
 An Investigation ot tiie Principles which Limit the Capacities, Powers, and Liabilities of 
 CORPORATIONS, 
 
 AND MORE ESPECIALLY OF 
 
 JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 By SEWARD BRICE, M.A., LL.D. London, 
 
 OF THE IN'NEK TE.MI'LE, BARKISTER-AT-LA\V. » 
 
 BEVIEWS. 
 
 " Despite its iinpromisiitg and cnhnlistic title, and the technical nature of its subject, it has so recom- 
 mended itself to the profession that a second edition is callid for within three years frojn the first ptibli- 
 catiou ; and to this call Mr. Brice has responded with t lie present volume, the de^'elopinent of which in 
 excess of its predecessor is remarkable even in the annals of law books. Si.tteen hundred new cases have 
 been introduced, and, instead of fii'e hundred pages octaz'o, the treatise occupies a thousand very much 
 larger pages. This increase in bulk is partly due to the incorporation with tlie English law on the subject 
 of the more important American and Colonial doctrines and decisions — a course which we thi/ik H/r. JSn'ce 
 -iuise in adopting, since the judgments of American tribunals are constantly becoming more frequently 
 quoted and more respectfully considered in our own courts, pa rticularly on those no7'el and abstruse points 
 of law for 7vhich it is difficult to find direct authority in English reports. In the present speculative 
 times, anything relating to Joint-Stock Companies is of public importance, and the poi)its on winch the 
 constitution and operation of these bodies are affected by the doctrine of Ultra Vires are just those which 
 
 are most material to the interests of the shareliolders and of the community at large Some 
 
 of the much disputed questions in regard to corporations, on which legal opinion is still divided, are par- 
 ticularly well treated. Thus with reference to the authority claimed by the Courts to restrain corpora- 
 tions or individuals from applying to Parliament for fresli powers in breach of their express agreements 
 or in derogation of private rights, Mr. Brice most elaborately and ably re^'iews the conflicting decisions 
 on this apparent interference with the rights of the subject, which threatened at one time to bring the 
 Legislature and the Courts into a collision similar to that which folhnued on the wcll-kno'wu case of 
 
 Ashbyv. White Another Z'ery difficult point on zuhich Mr. Brice's book affords full and valuable 
 
 infornmtion is as to tiie liability of Companies on contracts entered into before their formation by the 
 promoters, and subsequently ratified or adopted by the Company, and as to the claims of promoters tliem- 
 
 selves for seivices retuiered to the inchoate Cotnpany Tlie chapter on the liabilities of corporations 
 
 ex iieX\c\.<3 for fraud and otiur torts committed by their agents within the region of their authority seems 
 to us remarkably well done, re^'iewiiig as it does all the latest and somewliat contradictory decisions on tlie 
 point. . . . On the whole we consider Mr. B rice's exhaustive work a valuable addition to the literature of 
 the profession." — Saturday Review. 
 
 "The doctrine which forms the subject of Mr. 
 Seward Brice's elaborate and exhaustive work is a 
 remarkable instance of rapid growth in modern 
 Jurisprudence. His book, indeed, now almost con- 
 stitutes a Digest of the Law of Great Britain and 
 her Colonies and of the United States on tlie Law 
 of Corporations — a subject vast enough at home, 
 but even more so beyond the Atlantic, where Cor- 
 porations ar; so numerous and powerful. ISIr. 
 Seward Brice relates that he has embodied a refer- 
 ence in the present edition to about 1600 new 
 cases, and expresses the hope that he has at least 
 referred to ' the chief cases.' We should think 
 there can be few, even of the P'oreign Judgments 
 and Dicta, which have not found their way into his 
 pages. The question what is and what is not Ultra 
 Vires is one of very great importance in commercial 
 countries like Great Britain and the L^nited States. 
 Mr. Seward Brice has done a great service to the 
 cause of Comparative Jurisprudence by his new 
 recension of what was from the first a unique text- 
 
 " On this doctrine, first introdticed in the Common Law Courts in East Anglian Railway Co. v. 
 Eastern Counties Railway Co., Brice on Ultra Vires may be read with advantage." — Judgment of 
 Lord Justice Br.\mwell, in the Case of Ever shed \-. L. &" JSI. II'. Ry. Co. (L. R., 3 Q. B. Div. 141.) 
 
 book on the Law of Corpoi"ations. He has gone 
 far towards effecting a Digest of that Law in its 
 relation to the Doctrine of Ultra Vires, and the 
 second edition of his most careful and comprehen- 
 sive work may be commended with equal confidence 
 to the English, the American, a,nd the Colonial 
 Practitioner, as well as to the scientific Jurist." — 
 Law Magazine and Rcz'iew. 
 
 " It is the Law of Corporations that Mr. Brice 
 treats of (and treats of more fully, and at the same 
 time more scientifically, than any work with which 
 we are acquainted), not the law of principal and 
 agent ; and Mr. Brice does not do his book justice 
 by giving it so vague a title." — La7u Journal. 
 
 "A guide of very great value. JIuch information 
 on a difficult and unattractive subject has been 
 collected and arranged in .t manner which will be 
 of great assistance to the seeker after the law on a 
 point involving the powers of a company." — Law 
 Journal. (Review of First Edition.)
 
 STEVEiVS JL-- ITAYNES, "-BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 17 
 
 Now Ready, Fourth Edition, in royal 8vo, price 32J. cloth, 
 
 BUCKLEY ON THE COMPANIES ACTS. 
 
 FOURTH EDITION BY THE AUTHOR. 
 
 THE LAW AND PRACTICE UNDER THE COMPANIES ACTS, 
 
 1862 TO 1880, 
 THE JOINT STOCK COMPANIES ARRANGEMENT ACT, 1870, 
 
 AM) 
 
 THE LIFE ASSURANCE [COMPANIES ACTS, 1870 TO 1872. 
 
 3V Hvcitiic on tl\c 2.\iU) of tJloiiit 3tock tllomp.uiifs. 
 
 Containing the Statutes, with the Rules, Orders, and Forms, regulating Proceedings in 
 the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice By H. Burton Buckley, 
 M.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law, late Fellow of Christ's College, 
 Cambridge. 
 
 "We have no doubt that the present edition of this useful and thorough work will meet with as much 
 acceptance as its predecessors have." — Scottish Journal of y itris/>r!cdcuce. 
 
 " The mere arrangement of the leading cases under the successive sections of the Acts, and the short 
 explanation of their effect, are of great use in saving much valuable time, which would be otherwise spent 
 in searching the different digests; but the careful manner in which IMr. Buckley has annotated tlie Acts, 
 and placed the cases referred to under distinct headings, renders his work particularly useful to all who 
 are required to advise in the complications in which the shareholders and creditors of companies frequently 
 
 find themselves involved The Index, always an important part of a law book, is full and well 
 
 arranged." — Scottish Journal 0/ ytirisprudence. 
 
 In two volumes, royal 8vo, 70^. cloth, 
 THE LAW RELATING TO 
 
 SHIPMASTERS AND SEAMEN. 
 
 THEIR APPOINTMENT, DUTIES, POWERS, RIGHTS, IIABILITIES, 
 
 AND REMEDIES. 
 
 Bv JOSEPH KAY, Esq., M.A., Q.C., 
 
 OF TRIN. COLI-. C.\1M11RIDGE, AND OF THE NORTHERN CIRCUIT; 
 
 SOLICITOR-GENERAL OF THE COUNTY PALATINE OF DURHAM; ONE OF THE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF 
 RECORD FOR THE HUNDRED OF SALFORD ; 
 
 AND AUTHOR OF 
 
 THE SOCIAL CONDITION AND EDUCATION OF THE PEOPLE 
 IN ENGLAND AND EUROPE." 
 
 REVIEWS OF THE WORK. 
 
 From the NAUTICAL MAGAZINE, July, 1875. 
 
 "It is rarely that we find a book fulfilling the 
 requirements of both classes — full and precise 
 enough for the lawyer, and at the same time intelli- 
 gible to the non-legal understanding. I 'ct the two 
 volumes by Mr. Kay on the laiv relating to ship- 
 masters and seamen, will, we venture to say, be of 
 equal sendee to tlw captain, the lawyer, and the 
 Consul, ill their respective capacities, and even of 
 interest to the public generally, written as it is in a 
 clear and interesting style, and treating of a subject 
 of such vast importance as the rights and liabilities 
 and relative duties of all, passengers included, who 
 venture upon the ocean ; more than that, we think 
 that any able-seaman might read that chapter on 
 the crew with the certainty of acquiring a clearer 
 notion of his own position on board ship. 
 
 " We can make no charge of redundancy or 
 omission against our author : but if we were called 
 upon to select any one out of the fifteen parts into 
 which the two volumes are divided as being espe- 
 cially valuable, we should not hesitate to choose 
 that numbered three, and entitled ' The Voyage.' 
 
 There the master will find a succinct and compen- 
 dious statement of the law respecting his duties 
 general and particular, with regard to the ship and 
 its freight from the moment when, on taking com- 
 mand, he is bound to look to the seaworthiness of 
 the ship, and to the delivery of her log at the final 
 port of destination. In Part W. his duties are 
 considered with respect to the cargo, this being a 
 distinct side of his duplicate character, inasmuch 
 as he is agent of the owner of the cargo just as 
 much as the owner of the ship. 
 
 " Next in order of position come ' Bills of Lading' 
 and ' Stoppage in Transitu.' We confess that on 
 first perusal we were somewhat surprised to find the 
 subject of the delivery of goods by the master given 
 priority over that of bills of lading ; the logical 
 sequence, however, of these matters was evidently 
 sacrificed, and we think with advantage, to the 
 author's desire for unity in his above-mentioned 
 chapters on ' The Voyage.' That this is so is evi. 
 denced by the fact that after his seventh chapter 
 with the heading of the former and a reference
 
 18 
 
 STEVENS &- HAYNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 THE LAW RELATING TO SHIPMASTERS AND SEAMEN. 
 
 REVIEWS OF THE V^O^YL—cotitimicd. 
 
 ante, ' The] power of the master to bind the 
 owner by his personal contracts,' ' Hypothecation,' 
 and 'The Crew,' form the remainder of the con- 
 tents of the first volume, of which we should be 
 glad to have made more mention, but it is ob\i- 
 ously impossible to criticize in detail a work in 
 
 which the- bare list of cited cases occupies forty- 
 four pages. 
 
 " The question of compulsorj' pilotage is full of 
 difficulties, which are well summed up by Mr. Kay. 
 
 " In conclusion, we can heartily congratulate 
 Mr. Kay upon his success." 
 
 From the LIVERPOOL JOURNAL OF COMMERCE. 
 
 " "The law relating to Shipmasters and Seamen ' 
 — such is the title of a voluminous and important 
 work which has just been issued by Messrs. Stevens 
 and Haynes, theeminent law publishers, of London. 
 The .author is Mr. Joseph Kay, Q.C, and while 
 treating generally of the law relating to shipmasters 
 and seamen, he refers more particularly to their ap- 
 pointment, duties, rights, liabilities, and remedies. 
 It consists of two large volumes, the text occupying 
 nearly twelve hundred pages, and the value of the 
 
 work being enhanced by copious appendices and 
 index-, and by the quotation of a mass of authori- 
 ties. . . . The ivork 7)!iist be mi in^'aluable one 
 to the shipoT.vner, shipmtister, or consul at a foreign 
 port. The language is clear and simple, while the 
 legal standing of the author is a sufficient guarantee 
 that he writes with the requisite authority, and 
 that the cases quoted by him are decisive as regards 
 the points on which he touches." 
 
 From the LAW JOURNAL. 
 
 "The .author tells us that for ten years he has 
 been engaged upon it. . . . Two large voliuiies 
 containing ii3i pages of text, 8i pages of :\]ipen- 
 dices, 98 pages of index, and upwards of iSoc cited 
 cases, attest the magnitude of the work designed 
 and accomplished by Mr. Kay. 
 
 "Mr. Kay says that he has 'endeavoured to 
 
 compile a guide and reference book for masters, ship 
 agents, and consuls.' He has been so modest as 
 not to add lawyers to the list of his pupils ; but his 
 work will, 7VC think, be welcomed by lawyers ivho 
 have to do with shipping transactiotts, almost as 
 cordially as it iindonbtedly will be by those ivho 
 occupy their business in the great waters." 
 
 In 8vo, price is., 
 
 THE "SIX CLERKS IN CHANCERY;" 
 
 Their SUCCESSORS IN OFFICE, and the "HOUSES" they lived in. 
 A Reminiscence. 
 By Thomas W. Braithwaite, of the Record and Writ Clerks' Office. 
 
 " The removal of the Record and Writ Office to the new building has suggested the 
 publication of an interesting and opportune little piece of legal history." — Solicitors' 
 yotirnal. 
 
 2 vols. 4to, 1876 — 77. 5/. 5^-. calf, 
 THE 
 
 PRACTICAL STATUTES OF NEW ZEALAND. 
 
 WITH NOTES AND INDEX. 
 Edited i;y G. B. BARTON, of the Middle Temple, Banister-at-Law. 
 
 In royal 8vo, price jO.r., half calf, 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA. 
 
 THE BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT, 1867 ; 
 
 Its Interpretation, Gathered from the Decisions of Courts, the Dicta of 
 Judges, and the Opinions of Statesmen and others ; 
 
 To v/hich is added the Quebec Resolutions of 1864, and the Constitution 
 of the United States. 
 
 By JOSEPH DOUTRE, Q.C, of the Canadian Bar.
 
 STEVENS &- HAYNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 19 
 
 In one thick volume, 8vo, 1875, price 25^., cloth, 
 THE PRINCIPLKS OF 
 
 THE LAW OF RATING OF HEREDITAMENTS 
 
 IN THE OCCUPATION OF COMPANIES. 
 By J. H. BALFOUR BROWNE, 
 
 OF THR MIUDLE TEMPLE, BAUKISTEH-AT-LAW, AN 
 
 "The trible:^ and specimen valuations which are 
 printed in an appendix to this volume will be of 
 great service to the parish authorities, and to the 
 legal practitioners who may have to deal with the 
 rating of those properties which are in the occupa- 
 tion of Companies, and we congratulate Mr. Browne 
 on the production of a clear and concise book of 
 the system of Company Rating. There is no doubt 
 
 D KEGISTRAU TO THE RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS. 
 
 that such a work is much needed, and we are sure 
 that all those who are interested in, or have to do 
 WTth, public rating, will find it of great service. 
 Much credit is therefore due to Mr. Krowne for his 
 able treatise — a work which his experience as 
 Registrar of the Railway Commission peculiarly 
 qualitied him to undertake." — Ln^v Magazine. 
 
 In Svo, 1875, price "js. 6d., cloth, 
 
 THE LAW OF USAGES & CUSTOMS: 
 
 By 
 
 % f rnttital l^afo Cratt. 
 J. H. BALFOUR BROWNE, 
 
 OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, BARRISTER- AT-LAW, AND REGISTRAR TO THE RAILW.W COMMISSIONERS. 
 
 "We look upon this treatise as a valuable addition to works written on the Science of Law." — Canada 
 Law Joiirnijl. 
 
 "As a tract upon a very troublesome department of Law it is admirable — the principles laid down are 
 sound, the illustrations are well chosen, and the decisions and dicta are harmonised so far as possible and 
 distinguished when necessary." — h-isJi Lmv Times. 
 
 "As a book of reference we know of none so comprehensive dealing with this particular branch of 
 Common Law In this way the book is invaluable to the practitioner." — Law Magazine. 
 
 In one volume, Svo, 1S75, pi'ice iS.f., cloth, 
 
 THE PRACTICE BEFORE THE RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS 
 
 UNDER THE REGULATION OF RAILWAY ACT.S, 1873 & 1874; 
 With the Amended General Order.s of the Commissioners, Schedule of Forms, and Table 
 of Fees : together with the Law of Undue Preference, the Law of the Jurisdiction 
 of the Railway Commissioners, Notes of their Decisions and Orders, Precedents of 
 Forms of Applications, Answers and Replies, and Appendices of Statutes and Cases. 
 
 By J. H. BALFOUR BROWNE, 
 
 OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, D.\KRISTER-AT-LAW, AND REGISTRAR TO THE R.\ILWAY COMMISSIONERS. 
 
 work of a man of capable legal attainments, and by 
 official position intimate with his subject ; and we 
 therefore think that it cannot fail to meet a real 
 want .Tnd to prove of service to the legal profession 
 and the public." — Law Magazine. 
 
 " Mr. Browne's book is handy and convenient in 
 form, and well arranged for the purpose of refer- 
 ence : its treatment of the subject is fully and 
 carefully worked out : it is, so far as we have been 
 able to test it, accurate and trustworthy. It is the 
 
 In 8vo, 1876, price 7.V. 6d., cloth, 
 
 ON THE COMPULSORY PURCHASE OF THE UNDERTAKINGS 
 OF COMPANIES BY CORPORATIONS, 
 
 And the Practice in Relation to the Passage of IJills for Compulsory Purchase through 
 Parliament. By J. H. Balfour Browne, of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law ; 
 Author of " The Law of Rating," " The Law of Usages and Customs," &c., &c. 
 
 both by the promoters and opponents, and as this 
 was the first time in which the principle of com- 
 pulsory purchase was definitely recognised, there 
 can be no doubt that it will long be regarded as a 
 leading case. As a matter of course, many inci- 
 
 "This is a work of considerable importance to all 
 Municipal Corporations, and it is hardly too much to 
 say that every member of these bodies should have 
 a copy by him for constant reference. Probably at 
 no very distant date the property of all the existing 
 gas and water companies will pass under mimicipal 
 control, and therefore it is exceedingly desirable 
 that the principles and conditions under which such 
 transfers ought to be made should be clearly under- 
 stood. This task is made easy by the present volume. 
 The stimulus for the publication of such a work 
 was given by the action of the Parliamentary 
 Committee which last session passed the preamble 
 of the 'Stockton and Middlesborough Corporations 
 Water Bill, 1S76.' The volume accordingly con- 
 tains a full report of the case as it was presented 
 
 dental points of interest arose during the progress 
 of the case. Thus, besides the main question of 
 compulsory purchase, and the question as to whether 
 there was or was not any precedent for the Bill, the 
 questions of water compensations, of appeals from 
 one Committee to another, and other kindred sub- 
 jects were discussed; These are all treated at length 
 by the Author in the body of the work, which is 
 thus a complete legal compendium on the large 
 subject with which it so ably deals."
 
 20 STEVENS d- HAYNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 In 8vo, 1878, price 6j-., cloth, 
 
 LAW RELATINg'tO CHARITIES, 
 
 ESl'ECIAl.I.Y ■WITH REKERKNCE TO THE VALIDITY AND CONSTRUCTION OF 
 
 CHARITABLE BEQUESTS AND CONVEYANCES. 
 
 By FERDINAND M. WHITEFORD, of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 "The Law relating to Charities by F. 1\I. 
 Whiteford contains a brief but clear exposition of 
 the law relating to a class of bequests in which the 
 intentions of donors are often frustrated by un- 
 aci]uaintance with the statutory provisions on the 
 suliject. Decisions in reported cases occupy a 
 
 large portion of the text, together with the ex- 
 planations pertinent to them. 'Jhe general tenor 
 of Mr. Whiteford's work is that of a digest of Cases 
 rather than a treatise, a feature, however, which 
 will not diminish its usefulness for purposes of 
 reference." — La-^v Magazine and Ri-'new. 
 
 In 8vo, 1S72, price 7^-. 6J., cloth, 
 AN EPITOME AND ANALYSIS OF 
 
 SAVIGNY'S TREATISE ON OBLIGATIONS IN ROMAN LAW. 
 
 By ARCHIBALD BROWN, M.A. 
 
 EDIN. AND OXON., AND B.C.L. OXON., OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, BARRISTER-AT-LAW. 
 
 " Mr. Archibald Brown deserves the thanks fifty pages. At the same time the pith of Von 
 
 of all interested in the science of Law, whether Savigny's matter seems to be very successfully pre- 
 
 as a study or a practice, for his edition of , .served, nothing which might be useful to the 
 
 Herr von .Savigny's great work on ' Obligations.' 1 English reader being apparently omitted. 
 
 l\Ir. Brown has undertaken a double task — the j "The new edition of Savigny will, we hope, be 
 
 translation of his author, and the analysis of his | extensively read and referred to by English lawyers, 
 
 author's matter. That he has succeeded in reducing j If it is not, it will not be the fault of the translator 
 
 the bulk of the original will be seen at a glance ; ' and epitomiser. Far less will it be the fault of 
 
 the French translation consisting of two volumes, j Savigny himself, whose clear definitions and accu- 
 
 with some five hundred pages apiece, as compared rate tests are of great use to the legal practitioner." 
 
 with Mr. Brown's thin volume of a hundred and ' — Law Joiirnal. 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF ROMAN LAW. 
 
 In 216 pages 8vo, 1875, price icf., cloth. 
 A CONCISE DIGEST OF THE 
 
 INSTITUTES OF GAIUS AND JUSTINIAN. 
 
 With copious References arranged in Parallel Columns, also Chronological and 
 
 Analytical Tables, IJsts of Laivs, er'r. C^c. 
 
 Primarily designed for the Use of Students preparing for Examination at 
 
 Oxford, Cambridge, and the Inns of Court. 
 
 By SEYMOUR F. HARRIS,^ B.C.L., M.A., 
 
 OF WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD, AND THE INNER TEMPLE, BARRISTER-AT-LAW 
 AUTHOR OF " UNIVERSITIES AND LEGAL EDUCATION." 
 
 '■'■ Mr. Harris's digest ought to have very great success among latu students both in the 
 Inns of Court and the Universities. His book gives evidence of praiseworthy accuracy 
 and laborious condensation." — Law Journal. 
 
 " This book contains a summary in English of the elements of Roman I^aiv as contained 
 VI the works of Gains and Justinian, and is so arranged that the reader can at once see 
 7vhat are the opinions of either of these two luriters on each point. From the very exact 
 and accurate references to titles and sections given he can at once refer to the original 
 writers. The concise manner in which Mr. Harris has arranged his digest will render 
 it most useful, not only to the students for whom it 7vas originally 7uritten, but also to those 
 persons who, though they have not the time to wade throiigh the larger treatises of Poste, 
 Sanders, Ortolan, and others, yet desire to obtain some knowledge of Roman Law. " — 
 Oxford and Cambridge Undergraduates' Journal. 
 
 "■Mr. Harris deserves the credit of having produced an epitome 'which will be of sei-vice 
 to those numerous students who have no time or sufficient ability to analyse the Institutes 
 for themselves,''' — Law Tlmes.
 
 irOA'AS FOK LA IV STUDENTS. 21 
 
 In Crown 8vo, price 3^. ; or Interleaved for Notes, price 45-. 
 
 CONTRACT LAW. 
 
 QUESTIONS ON THE LAW OF CONTRACTS. With Notks to the 
 Answers. Founded 0)i '■^ Anson." ^^ Chi/fy," and '■'■ Pollock.'" 
 
 By Philii' Foster Aldred, D.C.L., Hertford College and Gray's Inn; late 
 Examiner for the University of Oxford. 
 
 " This appears to us a very admirable selection of questions, comparing favourably with the average 
 run of those set in examinations, and useful for the purpose of testing progress." — Law yo7irnal. 
 
 For the Preliminary Examinations before Entering into Articles of Clerkship 
 to Solicitors under the Solicitors Act, 1877. 
 
 In a handsome 4to volume, with Map of the World, price lOi-., cloth, 
 
 THE STUDENTS' REMINDER & PUPILS' HELP 
 
 IN PREPARING FOR A PUBLIC EXAMINATION. 
 
 By THOMAS MARSH, 
 
 PRIVATE TITOR, AUTHOR OK AN "ENGLISH GRA:MMAR," i^C. 
 
 " We welcome this compendium with great pleasure as being exactlj' what is wanted in this age of 
 competitive examinations. It is evidently the work of a master hand, and could only be compiled by one 
 thoroughly experienced in the work of teaching. Mr. JMarsh has summarised and analysed ,the subjects 
 required for the preliminary examinations of law students, as well as for the University and Civil Service 
 examinations. He has paid special attention to mathematics, but the compendium also includes ancient 
 and modern languages, geography, dictation, &c. It was a happy idea to make it quarto size, and the 
 tj'pe and printing are clear and legible." — Irish La^v Times. 
 
 Now ready, .Second Edition, in Svo, price 2\s., cloth, 
 
 ENGLISH CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY. 
 
 FROM THE TEUTONIC INVASION TO THE PRESENT TIME. 
 
 ^csigncb us \\ 1Ec.vt-boolt fcv <§tut)cnts anb xitltcvs. 
 
 By T. p. TASWELL-LANGMEAD, B.C.L., 
 
 OF Lincoln's inn, nARRisTER-AT-LAW, late tutor on constitutional l.\w .^nd legal 
 
 HISTORY TO THE FOUR INNS OF COURT, AND FORMERLY VINEKIAN 
 SCHOLAR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD. 
 
 Second and Enlarged Edition, revised throughout, and in many parts rewritten. 
 
 " The work before us it would be hardly possible to praise too highly. In style, arrangement, clearness, 
 and .size, it would be difficult to find anything better on the real history of England, the history of its 
 constitutional growth as a complete story, than this volume." — Boston (V.S.) Literaiy World. 
 
 "As it now stands, we should find it hard to name a better text-book on English Constitutional 
 History." — Solicitors' yournal. 
 
 "That the greatest care and labour have been bestowed upon it is apparent in everj' page, and we doubt 
 not that it will become a standard work not likely soon to die out." — Ox/erd and Cambridge Under- 
 graduates' yournal. 
 
 " As a text-book for the lecturer it is most valuable. It does not always observe a strict chronological 
 sequence, but brings together all that has to be said on a given subject at the point when that subject 
 happens to possess a special importance." — Contemporary Review. 
 
 "Mr. Taswell-Langmead's compendium of the rise and development of the English Constitution has 
 
 evidently supplied a want The present Edition is greatly improved. . . . We have no hesitation in 
 
 saying that it is a thoroughly good and useful work." — Spectator. 
 
 "We think Mr. Tasweil-Langmead may be congratulated upon having compiled an elementary work of 
 conspicuous merit." — Pall Mall Gazette. 
 
 " For students of history we do not know any work which we could more thoroughly recommend." — Laiu 
 Times. 
 
 " It is a safe, careful, praiseworthy digest and manual of all constitutional history and law." — Globe. 
 
 " The volume on English Constitutional History, by JNIr. Tasweil-Langmead, is exactly what such a 
 historj' should be." — .Standard. 
 
 " As a text-book for students, we regard it as an exceptionally able and complete work." — La7u yournal. 
 
 " Mr. Tasweil-Langmead has thoroughly grasped the bearings of his subject. It is, however, in dealing 
 with that chief subject of constitutional history — parliamentary government — that the work e.xhibits its 
 great superiority over its rivals." — Academy.
 
 22 WORKS FOR LAW STUDENTS. 
 
 Sixth Kditicin, in Svo, 1SS2, price 25.^., cloth, 
 
 THE PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY. 
 
 INTENDED FOR THE USE OF STUDENTS AND THE FROFESSION. 
 
 By EDMUND H. T. S N E L L, 
 
 OF THE MIDDLE TEMI'LK, l!AKRISTEK-AT-LA\V. 
 
 SIXTH EDITION. 
 TO WHICH IS ADDED 
 
 AN EPITOME OF THE EQUITY PRACTICE. 
 
 THIRD EDITION. 
 By ARCHIBALD BROWN, M.A., Edin. c^- Oxon., & B.C.L. Oxon., 
 
 OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, HARRLSTEK-AT-LA\V ; AITHOK OF "a NEW LAW DICTIONARY," 
 "an analysis of SAVIGNY on ObLIGATIONS," AND THE " LAW OK FIXTCKES." 
 
 REVIEWS. 
 
 " On the whole we are convinced that the Sixth Edition of Snell's Equity is destined to be as highly 
 thought of as its predecessors, as it is, in our opinion, out and out the best work on the subject with which 
 it deals."- — Gibsotis Law Notes. 
 
 " Rarely has a text-book attained more complete and rapid success than Snell's ' Principles of Equity,' 
 of which a fifth edition has just been issued." — Law Times. 
 
 " Seldom does it happen that a work secures so great a reputation as this book, and to Mr. Brown is 
 
 due the credit of keeping it up with the times It is certainly the most comprehensive as well as 
 
 the best work on Equity Jurisprudence in existence." — Oxford and Cambridge Undergraduates' yournal. 
 
 "The changes introduced by the Judicature Acts have been well and fully explained by the present 
 
 edition of Mr. Snell's treatise, and everything necessary in the way of revision has been conscientiously 
 accomplished. We perceive the fruitful impress of the 'amending hand' in every page; the results of 
 the decisions under the new sj-stem have l^een carefully explained, and engrafted into the original text ; 
 and in a word, Snell's work, as edited by Mr. I'rown, has proved the fallacy of lientham's description of 
 Equity as ' that capricious and inconsistent mistress of our fortunes, whose features no one is able to 
 delineate.' "^Irisli Law Times. 
 
 " We kno7v of Jio better introduction to the Principles of Equity."' — 
 Canada Law Journal. 
 
 "Within the ten years which have elapsed since the appearance of the first edition of this work, its 
 reputation has steadily increased, and it has long since been recognised by students, tutors, and practitioners, 
 as the best elementary treatise on the important and difficult branch of the law which forms its subject." 
 — La7U Magazine and Rci'ieTV. 
 
 In Crown Svo, price 2s. 6<L, sewed. 
 
 QUESTIONS ON EQUITY. 
 
 FOR STUDENTS PREPARING FOR EXAMINATION, 
 
 FOUNDED ON 
 
 SNELL'S "PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY," 
 By W. T. WAITE, 
 
 BARRISTER-AT-LAW, HOLT SCHOLAR OF THE HONOl'RABLE SOCIETY OF GRAY's INN".
 
 irOKKS FOR LAJV STUDENTS. 23 
 
 Second Edition, in one volume, 8vo, nearly Ready, 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF CONVEYANCING. 
 
 AN ELEMENTARY WORK FOR THE USE OF STUDENTS. 
 By henry C. DEANE, 
 
 OF Lincoln's inn, uarrlster-at-law, sometime lecturer to the incorporated law society 
 
 OF THE IMTEU KINGDOM. 
 
 "Mr. Deane is one of the Lecturers of the Incorporated Law Society, and in his elementary work intended 
 for the use of students, he embodies some lectures given at the hall of that society. It would weary our 
 readers to take them over the ground necessarily covered by Mr. Deane. The first part is devoted to Cor- 
 poreal Hereditaments, and the second to Conveyancing. The latter is prefaced by a very interesting ' His- 
 tory of Conveyancing,' and for practical purposes the chapter (Ch. 2, Part II.) on Conditions of Sale is 
 decidedly v.aluable." — L,aiii Times. 
 
 "ITe Jiope to sec this book, like Siiell^s Equity, a standard class-book in all Law Schools 
 'C'here English lazu is taught,'"— C as ADA Law Journal. 
 
 " It seems essentially the book fSr young convey- 
 ancers, and will, probably, in many cases supplant 
 Williams. It is, in fact, a modern adaptation of Mr. 
 Watkin's book on conveyancing, and is fully equal 
 to its prototype." — h'isli Law Titiics. 
 
 " Extremely useful to students, and especially to 
 those gentlemen who are candidates for the various 
 legal examinations. There are so many questions 
 
 set now on case law that they would do well to 
 peruse this treatise of Mr. Deane's, and use it in 
 conjunction with a book of questions and answers. 
 They will find a considerable amount of equity case 
 law, especially in the second part of Mr. Deane's 
 book, which comprises in substance some lectures 
 delivered by the author at the Law Institution." — 
 La7u yourtuil. 
 
 Second Edition, in 8vo, price \os. 6d., cloth, 
 
 A SUMMARY OF TPIE 
 
 LAW & PRACTICE IN ADMIRALTY. 
 
 FOR THE USE OF STUDENTS. 
 By EUSTACE SMITH, 
 
 of THE INNER TEMPLE; AUTHOR OF "a SUMM.\RY OF COMPANY LAW." 
 
 "The book is well arranged, and forms a good introduction to the subject. — Solicitors Journal." 
 
 " It is however, in our opinion, a well and carefully written little work, and should be in the hands of 
 
 every student who is taking up Admiralty Law at the Final." — La7v Students' yournal. 
 
 " IMr. Smith has a happy knack of compressing a large amount of useful matter in a small compass. The 
 
 present work will doubtless be received with satisfaction equal to that with which his previous ' bummary' 
 
 has been met." — Oxford and Catitbridge Undergraduates' yournal. 
 
 Second Edition, in 8vo, price 7^'., cloth, 
 A SUMMARY OF THE 
 
 LAW AND PRACTICE IN THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS. 
 
 FOR THE USE OF STUDENTS. 
 By EUSTACE SMITH, 
 
 OF THE INNER TEMPLE; AUTHOR OF ".A SUMMARY OF COMPANY LAW," AND " .\ SUMM.\RY OF 
 THE LAW AND PRACTICE IN ADMIRALTY." 
 
 " His object has been, as he tells us in his preface, to give the student and general reader a fair outline 
 of the scope and extent of ecclesiastical law, of the principles on which it is founded, of the Courts by 
 which it is enforced, and the procedure by which these Courts are regulated. We think the book well 
 fulfils its object. Its value is much enhanced by a profuse citation of authorities for the propositions 
 contained in it." — Bar E.xaiiiination yournal. 
 
 In 8vo, price 6.f., cloth, 
 
 AN EPITOME OF THE LAWS OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE, 
 
 FOR THE USE OF STUDENTS FOR HONOURS EXAMINATION. 
 By J. CARTER HARRISON, Solicitor.
 
 24 JVOA'A'S FOR LAW STUDENTS. 
 
 Tliinl I'.dition, In one volume, Svo, price 20.r., cloth, 
 
 PRffiCIPLES OF THE COMMON LAW. 
 
 INTENDED EOR THE USE OF STUDENTS AND THE I'ROFESSION. 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 By JOHN INDERMAUR, Solicitor, 
 
 AUTHOR OF "a MANUAL OF THE PRACTICE OF TJIE SUPREME COURT," 
 " EPITOMES OF LEADING CASES," AND OTHER WORKS. 
 
 "The work is acknowledged to be one of the best written and most useful elementary 
 works for Law Students that has been published." — Laio Times. 
 
 " The praise which we were enabled to bestow upon Mr. Indermaur's very useful com- 
 pilation on its first appearance has been justified by a demand for a second edition." — • 
 La'i< Magazine. 
 
 " We were able, four years ago, to praise the first [edition of Mr. Indermaur's book as 
 likely to be of use to students in acquiring the elements of the law of torts and contracts. 
 The second edition maintains the character of the book." — La'v Journal. 
 
 "Mr. Indermaur renders even law light reading. He not only possesses the faculty 
 of judicious selection, but of lucid exposition and felicitous illustration. And while his 
 works are all thus characterised, his ' Principles of the Common Law ' especially displays 
 those features. That it has already reached a second edition, testifies that our estimate of 
 the work on its first appearance was not unduly favourable, highly as we then signified 
 approval ; nor needs it that we should add anything to that estimate in reference to the 
 general scope and execution of the work. It only remains to say, that the present edition 
 evinces that every care has been taken to insure thorough accuracy, while including all 
 the modifications in the law that have taken place since the original publication ; and that 
 the references to the Irish decisions which have been now introduced are calculated to 
 render the work of greater utility to practitioners and students, both English and Irish." 
 — Irish Law Times. 
 
 " This work, the author tells its in his Preface, is written mainly with a view to the 
 examinations of the Incorporated Law Society ; htt we think it is likely to attain a wider 
 tisefiilness. It seems, so far as we can judge from the parts ive have examined, to be a 
 careful and clear ojitline of the principles of the common law. It is very readable ; and 
 not only students, but many practitioners and the public might benefit by a perusal of its 
 pages." — Solicitors' Journal. 
 
 " Mr. Indermaur has very clear notions of what a law student should be taught to 
 enable him to pass the examinations of the Incorporated Law Society. In this, his last 
 work, the law is stated carefully and accurately, and the book will probably prove 
 acceptable to students." — Law Times. 
 
 "The practising solicitor will also find this a very useful compendium. Care has 
 evidently been taken to note the latest decisions on important points of law. A full 
 and well-constructed index supplies ev ry facility for ready reference." — Lazu Magazine.
 
 ll'OKA'S FOR LAIV STUDENTS. 
 
 Second Edition, in 8vo, price \os. 6d., cloth, 
 
 A MANUAL OF THE PRACTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE, 
 
 In the Queen's Dcnch and Chancery Divisions. Intended for the use of Students. 
 By John Indermaur, Solicitor. 
 
 " The second edition has followed quickly upon the first, which was published in 187S. This fact affords 
 good evidence that the book has been found useful. It contains sufficient information to enable the 
 btudent who masters the contents to turn to the standard works on practice with advantage." — Laui 
 Times. 
 
 " This is a very useful student's book. It is clearly written, and gives such information as the student 
 requires, without bewildering him with details. The portion relating to the Chancery Division forms an 
 excellent introduction to the elements of the practice, and may be advantageously used, not only by 
 articled clerks, but also by pupils entering the chambers of equity draftsmen." — Solicitors' Journal. 
 
 Fifth Edition, in 8vo, price bs., cloth, 
 
 AN EPITOME OF LEADING COMMON LAW CASES; 
 
 WITH SOME SHORT NOTES THEREON. 
 Chiefly intended as a Guide to " Smith's Leatmng Cases." By John Indermaur, 
 Solicitor (Clifford's Inn Prizeman, Michaelmas Term, 1872). 
 
 "We have received the third edition of the ' Epitome of Leading Common Law Cases,' by Mr. Inder- 
 maur, Solicitor. The first edition of this work was published in February, 1S73, 'h^ second in April, 1874, 
 and now we have a third edition dated September, 1875. No better proof of the value of this book can be 
 furnished than the fact that in less than three years it has reached a third edition." — Law Joiirnal. 
 
 Fourth Edition, in 8vo, 1881, price bs., cloth, 
 
 AN EPITOME OF LEADING CONVEYANCING AND EQUITY CASES; 
 
 WITH SOME SHORT NOTES THEREON, FOR THE USE OF STUDENTS. 
 By John Indermaur, Solicitor, Author of "An Epitome of Leading 
 Common Law Cases." 
 " We have received the second edition of Mr. Indermaur's very useful Epitome of Leading Convey- 
 ancing and Equity Cases. The work is very well done." — La-M Times. 
 
 "The Epitome well deserves the continued patronage of the class — Students — for whom it is especially 
 intended. Mr. Indermaur will soon be known as the ' Students' Friend.' ' — Canada Lazv Journal. 
 
 Third Edition, in 8vo, 1880, price ^s., cloth, 
 
 SELF-PREPARATION FOR THE FINAL EXAMINATION. 
 
 CONTAINING A COMPLETE COURSE OF STUDY, WITH STATUTES, 
 
 CASES AND QUESTIONS; 
 
 And intended for the use of those Articled Clerks who read by themselves. 
 
 By John Indermaur, Solicitor. 
 
 "In this edition Mr. Indermaur extends his counsels to the whole period from the Intermediate 
 examination to the final. His advice is practical and sensible : and If the course of study he recommends 
 is intelligently followed, the articled clerk will have laid in a store of legal knowledge more than sufficient 
 to carry him through the final examination." — Solicitors' Journal. 
 
 " This book contains recommendations as to how a complete course of study for the above examination 
 should be carried out, with reference to the particular books to be read seriatim. We need only remark 
 that it Is essential for a student to be set on the right track in his reading, and that anyone of ordinary 
 ability, who follows the course set out by Mr. Indermaur, ought to pass with great credit." — Law Journal. 
 
 Second Edition, in 8vo, price 6s., cloth, 
 
 SELF -PREPARATION FOR THE INTERMEDIATE EXAMINATIONS, 
 
 As it at present exists on Stephen's Commentaries. Containing a complete course of 
 Study, with Statutes, Questions, and Advice as to portions of the book which may 
 be omitted, and of portions to which special attention should be given ; also the 
 whole of the Questions and Answers at the nine Intermediate Examinations which 
 have at present been held on Stephen's Commentaries, and intended for the use of 
 all Articled Clerks who have not yet passed the Intermediate Examination. By 
 John Indermaur, Author of " Principles of Common Law," and other works. 
 
 In 8vo, 1875, price 6s., cloth, 
 
 THE STUDENTS' GUIDE TO THE JUDICATURE ACTS, 
 
 AND THE RULES THEREUNDER: 
 
 Being a book of Questions and Answers intended for the use of Law Students. 
 
 By John Indermaur, Solicitor.
 
 26 
 
 IVOKA'S FOR LAW STUDENTS. 
 
 Second Kdilion. In 8vo, price 26.r., cloth, 
 
 A NEW LAW DICTIONARY, 
 
 AND INSTITUTE OF THE WHOLE LAW ; 
 
 EMBRACING FRENCH AND LATIN TERMS AND REFERENCES TO THE 
 AUTHORITIES, CASES, AND STATUTES. 
 
 SECOND EDITION, revised throughout, and considerably enJarged. 
 
 By ARCHIBALD BROWN, 
 
 M.A. EDIN. ANIJ OXO\., AM) U.C.L. OXON., OF THE MIDUI.K TE.MI'I.E, nARRI«;TER-AT-LAW ; Al'THOR OF 
 THE "law of FIXTLKKS," "ANALYSIS OF SAVIGXV'S ODLrtiATIONS l.\ ROMAN LAW," ETC. 
 
 Reviews of the Second Edition, 
 
 ^^ So far as wc have been able to examine the work, it seems to have been most carejidly 
 and accurately executed, the f resent Edition, besides containing much new matter, having 
 been thoroughly revised in consequence of the recent c/ianges in the law ; and we have no 
 doubt whatever that it will be found extremely useful, not only to students and practitioners, 
 but to public men, and men of letters." — Irish Law Times. 
 
 ^' Mr. Brown has revised his Dictionary, and adapted it to the changes effected by the 
 Judicature Acts, and it no'w constitutes a very useful work to put info the hands of any 
 student or articled clerh, and a workwliich the practitioner 'will find of value for reference." 
 ■ — Solicitors' Journal. 
 
 " // will prove a reliable guide to la'u students, and a handy book of reference for 
 practitioners. " — Law Times. 
 
 In Royal 8vo., price 5^., cloth, 
 
 ANALYTICAL TABLES 
 
 01- 
 
 THE LAW OF REAL PROPERTY; 
 
 Drawn up chiefly from STEPHEN'S BLACKSTONE, with Notes. 
 By C. J. TARRING, of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Table I. Tenures. 
 
 ,, II. Estates, according to quantity of 
 Tenants' Interest. 
 Estates, according to the time at 
 which the Interest is to be enjoyed. 
 Estates, according to the number and 
 connection of the Tenants. 
 
 III. 
 IV. 
 
 Table 
 
 V. 
 VI. 
 
 VII. 
 VIII. 
 
 Uses. 
 
 Acquisition of Estates in land of 
 
 freehold tenure. 
 Incorporeal Hereditaments. 
 Incorporeal Hereditaments. 
 
 " Will supplj- the law student with help of a kind found very generally useful. The tables, which*are 
 based on Stephen's Blackstone, have gone through the practical test of being employed as aids to the 
 mental arrangement of the knowledge of the subject required for examinations, and will no doubt be appre- 
 ciated by the large and increasing classes whose requirements they are intended to meet." — Law Magazine. 
 
 " Great c.ire and considerable skill have been shown in the compilation of these tables, which will be 
 found of much service to students of the Law of Real Fropcrty."— Law Tbites.
 
 WORKS FOR LAW STUDENTS. 
 
 27 
 
 Second Edition, in Svo, price 20.f., cloth, 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF THE CRIMINAL LAW. 
 
 INTENDED AS A LUCID EXPOSITION OF THE SUBJECT FOR THE USE 
 OF STUDENTS AND THE PROFESSION. 
 
 By SEYMOUR F. HARRIS, B.C.L., M.A. (Oxon.), 
 
 AUTHOR OF "a CONCISE DIGEST OF THE INSTITITES OF GAIIS AND JVSTINIAN." 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 Revised by the Author and F. P. TOMLINSON, M.A, 
 
 OF THE INNER TE.MFLE, BAKRISTER-AT-LAVV. 
 
 REVIEWS. 
 
 " Tlic favourable opinion we expressed of the first edition of this ivork appears to have 
 been justified by the reception it has met roith. Looking through this new Edition, we see 
 no reason to modify the praise 7ue bestowed on the former Edition. The recent cases have 
 been added and t'/ie provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Act are noticed in the chapter 
 relating to Summary Convictions. The book is one of the best manuals of Criminal Law 
 for the student.'" — Solicitors' Journal. 
 
 " There is vo lack of Works on Criminal Law, bu.t there was room for such a useful 
 handbook of Principles as Mr. Seymour Harris has supplied. Accustomed, by his previous 
 labours, to the task of analysing the law, Air. Harris has brought to bear upon his present 
 work qualifications ivell adapted to secure the successful accomplishment of the object which 
 he hall set before him. lliat object is not an ambitious one, for it does not pretend to soar 
 above utility to tlte young practitioner and the student. For both these classes, and for the 
 yet wider class who may require a book of reference on. the subject, Mr. Harris has produced 
 a clear and convenient Epitome of the P^aw. A noticeable feature of Mr. Harris''s work, 
 which is likely to prove of assistance both to the practitioner and the student, consists of a 
 Table of Offences, with their legal character, their punishment, and the statute under which 
 it is inflicted, together with a reference to the pages where a .Statement of the Imw will be 
 found.'' — Law Magazine and Re\'ie\v. 
 
 "This work purports to contain 'a concise exposition of the natin-e of crime, the various oflTences punish- 
 able by the English law, the law of criminal procedure, and the law of summary convictions,' with tables 
 of offences, punishments, and statutes. The work is divided into four books. Kook I. treats of crime,_its 
 divisions and essentials ; of persons capable of committing crimes ; and of principals and accessories. 
 Book II. deals with offences of a public nature ; offences against private persons ; and offences against the 
 property of individuals. Each crime is discussed in its turn, with as much brevity as could well be used 
 consistently with a proper explanation of the legal characteristics of the several offences. Book III. 
 explains criminal procedure, including the jurisdiction of Courts, and the various steps in the apprehension 
 and trial of criminals from arrest to punishment. This part of the work is extremely well done, the 
 description of the trial being excellent, and thoroughly calculated to impress the mind of the iininitiated. 
 Book IV. contains a short sketch of ' summary convictions before magistrates out of quarter sessions." The 
 table of offences at the end of the volume is most useful, and there is a very full index. Altogether we 
 must congratulate Mr. Harris on his adventure." — Law Journal. 
 
 ''''Mr. Harris has ujidertaken a work, in our opinion, so much needed that he might 
 diminish its bulk in the next edition by obliterating the apologetic preface. The appearance 
 of his 7Jolume is as well timed as its execution is satisfactory. The author has shown an 
 ability of omission which is a good test of skill, and from the overwltelming mass of the 
 criminal laiu he has discreetly selected just so much only as a learner needs to know, and 
 has presented it in terms 'which render it capable of being easily taken into the mind. The 
 first half of the volume is devoted to indictable offences, which are defined and explained in 
 succinct terms; the second half treats of the prevention- of offences, the courts of criminal 
 jurisdiction, arrest, preliminary proceedings before magistrates, and modes of prosecuting 
 and trial ; and a brief epitome of the laws of evidence, proceedings after trial, and summary 
 convictions, with a table of offences, complete the book. The part on procedure will be 
 found particularly useful. Few young counsel, on their first appearance at sessions, have 
 more than a loose and general notion of the manner in which a trial is conducted, and often 
 commit blunders which, although trifling in kind, are nevertheless seriously discouraging 
 and annoying to themselves at the outset of their career. From even such a blunder as that 
 of mistaking the order in tchich the speeches are made and witnesses examined they may 
 be saved by the table of instructions given here.'' — Solicitors' Journal.
 
 28 Jl'ORA'S FOR LA IV STUDENTS. 
 
 Now Ready, in lamo, price 5 J. 6cf., cloth, 
 
 A CONCISE TREATISE ON THE LAW OF BILLS OF SALE, 
 
 rOR THE USK OF LAWYERS, LAW STUDENTS, .\: THE PUBLIC. 
 
 Embracing the Acts of 1S7S and 1SS2. Part L— Of Bills of Sale generally. Part IL — 
 Of the P^xecution, Attestation, and Kegistratinn of Bills of Sale and satisfaction 
 thereof. Part IIP— Of the Effects of Bills of Sale as against Creditors. Part IV. 
 — Of Seizing under, and Enforcing Bills of Sale. Appendix, Forms, Acts, &c. 
 ]5y John Lnukkmauk, .Solicitor. 
 
 " 'I'he object of the book is thoroughly practical. Those who want to be told exactly what to do and 
 where to. go when they are registering a bill of sale will find the necessary information in this little book." 
 — Law ymimal. 
 
 Now ready, in Svo, price zs. 61/., cloth, 
 
 A COLLECTION OF LATIN MAXIMS, 
 
 LITERALLY TRANSLATED. 
 INTENDED FOR THE USE OF .STUDENTS FOR ALL LEGAL EXAMINATIONS. 
 
 " The book seems admirably adapted as a book of reference for students who come across a Latin maxim 
 in their reading." — Laiu Journal. 
 
 "The collection before us is not pretentious, and disarms criticism by its simplicity and general 
 correctness. Students would do well,' early in their studies, to commit these maxims to memory, and 
 subsequent reading will often be systematized and more easily remembered." — Canada Lanv jfonrna/. 
 
 In one volume, Svo, price 91., cloth, 
 
 LEADING STATUTES SUMMARISED, 
 
 FOR THE USE OF STUDENTS. 
 Bv ERNEST C. THOMAS, 
 
 BACON SCHOLAR OF THE HON. SOCIETY OF GRAy's INN, LATE SCHOLAR OF TRINITY COLLEGE, OXFORD", 
 AUTHOR OF " LEADING C.\SES IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BRIEFLY STATED." 
 
 "Will doubtless prove of much use to students, for whom it is intended. . . . Any student who, with 
 this brief summary as a guide, carefully studies the enactments themselves in the Revised Edition of the 
 Statutes, cannot fail to gain a very considerable acquaintance with every branch of English law." — La2v 
 jt/a£-a3ine. 
 
 Second Edition, in Svo, in preparation. 
 
 LEADING CASES IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 
 
 Briefly Stated, with Introductiox, Excursuses, and Notes. 
 By ERNEST C. THOMAS, 
 
 IJACON SCHOLAR OF THE HON. SOCIETY OF GRAy's INN, LATE SCHOLAR OF TRINITY COLLEGE, OXFORD. 
 
 "Mr. E. C. Thomas has put together in a slim octavo a digest of the principal cases illustrating Con 
 stitutional Law, that is to say, all questions as to the rights or authority of the Crown or persons under it, 
 as regards not merely the constitution and structure given to the governing body, but also the mode in 
 which the sovereign power is to be exercised. In an introductory essay Mr. Thomas gives a very clear and 
 intelligent survey of the general functions of the Executive, and the principles by which they are regulated ; 
 and then follows a summary of leading cases." — Satiirdny Kcviciu. 
 
 " Mr. Thomas gives a sensible introduction and a brief epitome of the familiar leading cases." — La',u 
 Times. 
 
 In Svo, price Zs., cloth, 
 
 AN EPITOME OF HINDU LAW CASES. With 
 
 Short Notes thereon. And Introductory Chapters on -Sources of Law, Marriage, 
 Adoption, Partition, and Succession. By William I\I. P. Coghlan, Bombay 
 Civil Service, late Judge and Sessions Judge of Tanna.
 
 STEVENS &- HAYNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 29 
 
 In a handy volume, jsrice 5^. 6(/. , cloth, 
 
 RAILWAY PASSENGERS AND RAILWAY COMPANIES: 
 
 THEIR DUTIES, RIGHTS, AND LIABILITIES. 
 With an Appendix containing Addenda at Corrigenda to Nov. 1880. 
 
 By LOUIS ARTHUR GOODEVE, 
 
 (IK THE MIDDLE TEMI'LE, BAKKISTEK-AT-LAW. 
 
 *^* The Appendix can be had separately, price is. 
 
 " Mr. Goodeve's little book is a concise epitome of the Acts, Bye-laws, and Cases relating to passengers 
 and their personal luggage. It is clearly written, and the reader is able speedily enough to find any point 
 upon which he desires to inform himself." — Lait> Jnurnal. 
 
 " Mr. Goodeve has rendered a service to the public in making a digest of the law relating to railway 
 passengers, including the respective duties, rights, and liabilities of the Companies on the one hand and 
 passengers on the other, as laid down by the statutes and the decisions of the Superior Courts. The 
 various points are treated in a clear yet concise manner ; and it is to be hoped that this little work will be 
 widely studied so that people may know what are their rights, and take steps to maintain them." — • 
 Saturday KeTicw. 
 
 "After reading the volume with great interest, we can only say that it is clear, compact, and accurate. 
 Passengers who want rcliahlc information should consult this book." — Sheffield Post. 
 
 EUROPEAN ARBITRATION. 
 
 Part I., price 7^'. bd., sewed, 
 
 LORD WESTBURY'S DECISIONS. 
 
 Reported by FRANCIS S. REILLY, 
 
 OF LIXCOLN's INX, I!ARRISTER-.\T-LAW. 
 
 ALBERT ARBITRATION. 
 
 Parts I., II., and III., price 25^'., sewed, 
 
 LORD CAIRNS'S DECISIONS. 
 
 Reported by FRANCIS S. REILLY, 
 
 OF Lincoln's inn, barrister-at-law. 
 
 In 8vo, price 2\s., cloth, 
 A TREATISE ON 
 
 THE STATUTES OF ELIZABETH AGAINST 
 FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES. 
 
 The Bills of Sale Registration Acts and the Law of Voluntary 
 
 Dispositions of Property generally. 
 
 By H. W. may, B.A, (Ch. Ch. Oxford), 
 
 and of Lincoln's inn 
 "This treatise has not been published before it 
 was wanted. The statutes of Elizabeth against 
 fraudulent conveyances have now been in force for 
 more than three hundred years. The decisions 
 under them are legion in number, and not at all 
 times consistent with each other. An attempt to 
 reduce the mass of decisions into something like 
 shape, and the exposition of legal principles in- 
 volved in the decisions, under any circumstances, 
 must have been a work of great labour, and we are 
 pleased to observe that in the book before us there 
 has been a combination of unusual labour with con- 
 siderable professional skill. . . . We cannot con- 
 clude our notice of this work without saying that it 
 reflects great credit on the publishers as well as the 
 author. The facilities afforded by Messrs. Stevens 
 and Haynes for the publication of treatises by rising 
 men in our profession are deserving of all praise. 
 We feel assured that they do not lightly lend their 
 aid to works presented for publication, and that in 
 consequence publication by such a firm is to some 
 extent a guarantee of the value of the work 
 published." — Cunada Law yournal. 
 
 , barrister-at-law. 
 
 "Examining Mr. May's book, we find it con- 
 structed with an intelligence and precision which 
 render it entirely worthy of being accepted as a 
 guide in this confessedly difficult subject. The 
 subject is an involved one, but with clean and clear 
 handling it is here presented as clearly as it could 
 be. . . . On the whole, he has produced a very 
 useful book of an exceptionally scientific character." 
 — Solicitors' yournal. 
 
 " The subject and the work are both very good. 
 The former is well chosen, new, and interesting ; 
 the latter has the quality which always distin- 
 guishes original research from borrowed labours." 
 — American. Law Keviezv. 
 
 "We are happy to welcome his (Mr. May's) work 
 as an addition to the, we regret to say, brief cata- 
 logue of law books conscientiously executed. We 
 can corroborate his own description of his labours, 
 ' that no pains have been spared to make the book 
 as concise and practical as possible, without doing 
 so at the expense of perspicuity, or by the omission 
 of anj' important points.' " — Law Times.
 
 30 
 
 STEVENS &> HAYNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 In one volume, 8vo, price 25^., cloth, 
 AN ESSAY ON 
 
 THE RIGHTS OF THE CROWN 
 
 AND THE PRIVILEGES OK THE SUIJJECT 
 
 IN THE SEA SHORES OF THE REALM. 
 Bv ROBERT ORE AM HALL, 
 
 OF Lincoln's inn, harristek-at-law. 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 Rrviskd AM) Corrected, together with extensive Anno'vaito.ns, 
 
 A.NU References to the later Authorities in England, 
 
 Scotland, Ireland, and the United States. 
 
 By RICHARD LOVELAND LOVELAND, 
 
 OK THE INNER TEMl'LE, UARIUSTER-AT-LAW. 
 
 "This is an interesting and valuable book. It 
 treats of one of those obscure branches of the law 
 which there is no great inducement for a legal 
 
 writer to take up JNIr. Hall, whose first 
 
 edition was issued in 1S30, was a writer of consider- 
 able power and method. Mr. Loveland's editing 
 reflects the valuable qualities of the ' Essay' itself 
 He has done his work without pretension, but in a 
 solid and efficient ni.-inner. The ' Simimary of Con- 
 tents' gives an admirable epitome of the chief 
 points discussed in the ' Essay,' and indeed, in 
 some twenty propositions, supplies a useful outline 
 of the whole law. Recent cases are noted at the 
 foot of each page with great care and accuracy, 
 while an Appendix contains much valuable matter ; 
 including Lord Hale's treatise Dc Jure Maris, 
 about which there has been so much controversy, 
 and Serjeant Merewether's learned argument on 
 the rights in the river Thames. The book will, we 
 think, take its place as the modern authority on the 
 subject." — Lmv Jcurnal. 
 
 "The treatise, as originally published, was one of 
 considerable value, and has ever since been quoted 
 as a standard authority. But as time passed, and 
 cases accumulated, its value diminished, as it was 
 
 necessary to supplement it so largely by reference 
 to cases since decided. A tempting opportunity 
 was, therefore, offered to an intelligent editor to 
 supply this defect in the work, and Mr. Loveland 
 has seized it, and proved his capacity in a very 
 marked manner. As very good specimens of anno- 
 tation, sliowing clear judgment in selection, we may 
 refer to tlic subject of alluvion at page log, and the 
 rights of fishery at page 50. At the latter place he 
 begins his notes by stating under what expressions 
 a ' several fishery ' has been held to pass, proceed- 
 ing suljsequently to the evidence which is sufficient 
 to support a claim to ownership of a fishery. The 
 important question under what circumstances 
 property can be acquired in the soil between high 
 and low water mark is lucidly discussed at page 77, 
 whilst at page 81 we find a pregnant note on the 
 property of a grantee of wreck in goods stranded 
 within his liberty. 
 
 "We think we can promise Mr. Loveland the 
 reward for which alone he says he looks — that this 
 edition of Hall's Essay will prove a most decided 
 assistance to those engaged in cases relating to the 
 foreshores of the country." — Law Times. 
 
 The entire book is masterly." — Albany Law Journal, 
 
 In one volume, 8vo, price \2s., cloth, 
 A TREATISE ON THE LAW RELATING TO THE 
 
 POLLUTION AND OBSTRUCTION OF WATER COURSES ; 
 
 Together with a Brief Summary of the Various Sources of Rivers 
 
 Pollution. 
 
 By CLEMENT HIGGINS, M.A., F.C.S., 
 
 OF THE INNER TEMT 
 
 " As a compendium of the law upon a special 
 and rather .intricate subject, this treatise cannot 
 but prove of great practical value, and more 
 especially to those who have to advise upon the 
 institution of proceedings under the Rivers Pollu- 
 tion Preventive Act, 1S76, or to adjudicate upon 
 those proceedings when brought." — Irish Law 
 Times. 
 
 "We can recommend Mr. Higgins' Manual as 
 the best guide we possess." — Public Health. 
 
 "County Court Judges, Sanitary Authorities, 
 and Riparian Owners will find in Mr. Higgins' 
 Treatise a valuable aid in obtaining a clear notion 
 of the Law on the Subject. Mr. Higgins has 
 accomplished a work for which he will readily be 
 recognised as having special fitness, on account of 
 
 LE, EARRISTER-.\T-LAW. 
 
 his practical acquaintance both with the scientific 
 and the legal aspects of his subject." — Law Maga- 
 ::inc and Review. 
 
 " The volume is very carefully arranged through- 
 out, and will prove of great utility both to miners 
 and to owners of land on the banks of rivers." — 
 Tlic Mining Journal. 
 
 " Mr. Higgins writes tersely and clearly, while 
 his facts are so well arranged that it is a pleasure 
 to refer to his book for information ; and altogether 
 the work is one which will be found very useful by 
 all interested in the subject to which it relates." — 
 Engineer. 
 
 "A compact and convenient manual of the law 
 on the subject to which it relates." — Solicitors' 
 Jourfial.
 
 STEVENS '^ HAYNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 31 
 
 In 8vo, Third Edition, price 25s., cloth, 
 
 MAYNE'S TREATISE 
 
 THE LAW OF DAMAGES, 
 
 THIRD EDITION. 
 
 BY 
 
 JOHN D. M A Y N E, 
 
 OF THE INNER TEMPLE, BARRISTER-AT-LAW ; 
 
 AND 
 
 L U M L E Y SMITH, 
 
 OF THE INNER TEMPLE, Q.C. 
 
 " During the iwaity-tioo years luJiich have elapsed since the publication of this well-knotim 
 ■ivo7-k, its reputation has been steadily growing, and it has long since become the recognised 
 authority on the important subject of ivhich it treats.'''' — Law Magazine and Review. 
 
 "This edition of what has become a standard 
 work has the advantage of appearing under the 
 supervision of the original author as well as of 
 Mr. Lumley Smith, the editor of the second edition. 
 The result is most satisfactory. Mr. Lumley 
 Smith's edition was ably and conscientiously pre- 
 pared, and we are glad to find that the reader still 
 enjoys the benefit of his accuracy and learning. 
 At the same time the book has doubtless been 
 improved by the reappearance of its author as co- 
 editor. The earlier part, indeed, has been to a 
 considerable extent entirely rewritten. 
 
 " Upon the general principles, according to which 
 damages are to be assessed in actions of contract, 
 Hadlcy V. Ba.xcndale (9 Ex. 341) still remains 
 the leading authority, and furnishes the text for 
 the discussion contained in the second chapter 
 of Mr. Mayne's book. Properly understood and 
 limited, the rule proposed in that case, although in 
 one respect not very happily worded, is a sound 
 one, and has been repeatedly approved both in 
 England and America. The subsequent decisions, 
 which are concisely summarized by Mr. Mayne, 
 have established that mere knowledge of special 
 circumstances is not enough, unless it can be in- 
 ferred from the whole transaction that the 
 contractor consented to become liable to the extra 
 damage. This limitation is obviously just, especially 
 in the case of persons, such as common carriers, 
 who have no option to refuse the contract. Mere 
 knowledge on their part of special circumstances 
 ought not, and, according to the dicta of the 
 judges in the Exchequer Chamber in Home 
 V. Midland Railiuay Company (21 W. R. 4S1, 
 L. R. S C. P. 131), would not involve the carrier in 
 additional responsibility. Mr. Mayne's criticism 
 of the numerous cases in which this matter has been 
 considered leaves nothing to be desired, and the 
 rules he deduces therefrom (pp. 32, 33) appear to us 
 to exhaust the subject. 
 
 " Mr. Mayne's remarks on damages in actions of 
 tort are brief. We agree with him that in such 
 actions the courts are governed by far looser princi- 
 ples than in contracts ; indeed, sometimes it is 
 impossible to say they are governed by any princi- 
 ples at all. In actions for injuries to the person or 
 reputation, for example, a judge cannot do more 
 than give a general direction to the jury to give 
 what the facts proved in their judgment required. 
 And, according to the better opinion they may give 
 damages 'for example's sake,' and mulct a rich 
 man more heavily than a poor one. In actions for 
 injuries to property, however, 'vindictive' or 
 'exemplary' damages cannot, except in very rare 
 cases, be awarded, but must be limited, as in con- 
 tract, to the actual harm sustained. 
 
 " The subject of remoteness of damage is treated 
 at considerable length by Mr. Mayne, and we notice 
 that much new matter has been added. Thus the 
 recent case of Riding v. Smitli (24 W. R. 4S7, i 
 Ex. D. 91) furnishes the author with an opportunity 
 of discussing the well-known rule in ll'ard v. 
 H'ft-ks (7 Bing. 211) that injury resulting from the 
 repetition of a slander is not actionable. The rule 
 h.as always seemed to us a strange one, if a man is 
 to be made responsible for the natural consequences 
 of his acts. For everyone who utters a slander 
 may be perfectly certain that it will be repeated. 
 
 "It is needless to comment upon the arrangement 
 of the subjects in this edition, in which no alteration 
 has been made. The editors modestly express a 
 hope that all the English as well as the principal 
 Irish decisions up to the date have been included, 
 and we believe from our own examination that the 
 hope i« well founded. We may regret that, warned 
 by the growing bulk of the book, the editors have 
 not included any fresh American cases, but we feel 
 that the omission was unavoidable. We should add 
 that the whole work has been thoroughl3' revised." — 
 Solicitors' yoitrnal. 
 
 " This text-book is so well knozvn, not only as the highest authority on the subject treated 
 of but as one of the best text-books ever zuritten, that it would be idle for tis to speak of it 
 in the words of commendation that it deseit'cs. It is a work that no practising lazvyer can 
 do without.''' — Canada Law Journal.
 
 32 STEVENS ^ HAYNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 In Svo, jiricc 2.f., scwci.l, 
 
 TABLE of the FOREIGN MERCANTILE LAWS and CODES 
 
 in Force in tlic I'rinripal Sialcs of I'.rReU'L: ami AMIORICA. ]!y CllAUi.ES 
 ]-V()N-Cakn, I'rofcsseur agrcgc a la lacultc <le Droit dc I'aris ; Professeur i 
 I'Kcole lil)rc des Sciences politiques. Translated by Nai'OLEON Argles, 
 Solicitor, I'aris. 
 
 •I > 
 
 T' 
 
 In one volume, demy Svo, ]irice lOi'. dd., cloth, 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF STOPPAGE IN TRANSITU, 
 RETENTION, AND DELIVERY. 
 
 By JOHN HOUSTON, of the Middle Temi)]e, liarristcr-at-Law. 
 
 " We have no hesitation in saying that we think 
 Mr. Houston's book will \x. a very useful accession 
 to the library of either the merchant or the lawyer." 
 — Solicitors' Journal. 
 
 " We have, indeed, met with few works which so 
 
 successfully surmount the dilTiculties in the way of 
 this arduous undertaking as the one before us ; for 
 the language is well chosen, it is exhaustive of the 
 law, and is systematised with great method." — 
 Aiiieritan Lam Kcvicio. 
 
 In Svo, price \os. 6d., cloth, 
 A REPORT OF THE CASE OF 
 
 THE QUEEN v. GURNEY AND OTHERS, 
 
 In the Court of Queen's Bench before the Lord Chief Justice Cockburx. With an 
 Introduction, containing a History of the Case, and an Examination of the Cases 
 at Law and Equity applical:)le to it ; or Illustrating the Doctrine of Com- 
 mercial Fraud. By W. F. Finlason, Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 " It will probably be a very long time before the | duty was discharged, and nothing could be more 
 prosecution of the Overend and Gurney directors is j natural than that the reporter should publish a 
 
 forgotten. It remains as an example, and a legal 
 precedent of considerable value. It_ involved the 
 immensely important question where innocent mis- 
 representation ends, and where fraudulent misrepre- 
 sentation begins. 
 
 "All who perused the report of this case in the 
 columns of the Times must have^ observed the 
 remarkable fulness and accuracy with which that 
 
 separate report in book form. This has been done, 
 and Mr. Finlason introduces the report by one 
 hundred pages of dissertation on the general law. 
 To this we shall proceed to refer, simply remarking, 
 before doing so, that the charge to the jury has 
 been carefully revised by the Lord Chief Justice." 
 — Law Times. 
 
 i2mo, price \os. 6d., cloth, 
 
 A TREATISE ON THE GAME LAWS OF ENGLAl^D AND WALES: 
 
 Including Introduction, Statutes, Explanatory Notes, Cases, and Index. By JOHN 
 Locke, M.P. , Q.C., Recorder of Brighton. The Fifth Edition, in which are 
 introduced the GAME LAWS of SCOTLAND and IRELAND. By Gilmore 
 Evans, of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 In royal Svo, price io.f. 6d., cloth, 
 
 THE PRACTICE OF EQUITY BY WAY OF REVIVOR AND SUPPLEMENT. 
 
 With Forms of Orders and Appendix of Bills. 
 By LOFTUS LEIGH PEMBERTON, of the Chancery Registrar's Office. 
 
 " Mr. Pemberton has, with great care, brought | will probably be applied to future cases. — Soti- 
 together and classified all these conflicting cases, cilors' Journal. 
 and has, as far as may be, deduced principles which | 
 
 In Svo, price 55., cloth, 
 
 THE LAW OF PRIORITY. 
 
 A Concise View of the Law relating to Priority of Incumbrances 
 and of other Rights in Prolerty. 
 
 By W. G. ROBINSON, M.A., Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 " Mr. Robinson's book may be recommended to | tioner with a useful supplement to larger and more 
 the advanced student, and will furnish the practi- | complete works." — Solicitors' Journal.
 
 STEVENS ^ HAYNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 33 
 
 In crown 8vo, price i6j., cloth, 
 
 A MANUAL OF THE PRACTICE OF PARLIA- 
 
 MENTARY ELECTIONS throughout great Britain and 
 
 IRELAND. Comprising the Duties of Returning Officers and their De])Uties, 
 Town Clerks, Agents, Roll-Clerks, &c., and the Law of Election Expenses, 
 Corrupt Practices, and illegal Payments. With an Appendix of Statutes and an 
 Index. By Henry Jeffreys Busiuiy, Esq., one of the Metropolitan Police 
 Magistrates, sometime Recorder of Colchester. — Fifth Edition. Adapted to and 
 embodying the recent changes in the Law, including the Ballot Act, the Instruc- 
 tions to Returning Officers in England and Scotland issued by the Home Office, 
 and the whole uf the Statute Law relating to the subject. Edited by Henry 
 Hardcastle, of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 " We have just received at a very opportune J is known as one of the joint editors of O'Malley 
 
 moment the new edition of tliis useful work. We | and Hardcastle's Election Reports, has done his 
 
 need only say that those who ha\e to do with work well For practical purposes, as 
 
 elections will rind ' lUishby's Manual ' replete with a handy manual, we can recommend the work 
 
 information and trustworthy, and that i\Ir. Hard- i to returning officers, .agents, and candidates; and 
 
 castle has incorporated all the recent changes of 1 returning officers cannot do better than distribute 
 
 the'law." — Laiu Journal, this manual freely amongst their subordinates, if 
 
 ' they wish them to understand their work." — Soli- 
 
 " As far as we can judge, Mr. Hardcastle, who i citors Journal. 
 
 A Companion Volume to the above, in crown 8vo, price gs., cloth, 
 
 THE LAW AND PEAOTIOE OF ELECTION PETITIONS, 
 
 With an Appendix containing the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, the General Rules 
 for the Trial of Election Petitions in England, Scotland, and Ireland, Forms of 
 Petitions, (S;c. Second Edition. By Henry Hardcastle, of the Inner Temple, 
 Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 "Mr. Hardcastle gives us an original treatise 
 with foot notes, and he has evidently taken very 
 considerable pains to make his work a reliable 
 guide, licginning with the eflect of the Election 
 Petitions .A-Ct, 1S08, he takes his readers step by 
 step through the new procedure. His mode of 
 treating the subject of 'particulars' will be found 
 
 extremely useful, and he gives all the law and 
 practice in a very sm.-ill compass. In an Appendix 
 is supplied the Act and the Rules. We can 
 thoroughly recommend Mr. Hardcastle's book as a 
 concise manual on the law and practice of election 
 petitions." — Law Times. 
 
 Now ready. Vols. I., II., & III., price 73J. ; and Vol. IV., Pt. I., price 2s. 6d., 
 REPORTS OF THE DECISIONS OF THE 
 
 JUDGES FOR THE TRIAL OF ELECTION PETITIONS 
 
 IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND. 
 
 PURSUANT TO THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT, 1868. 
 By EDWARD LOUGHLIN O'MALLEY and HENRY HARDCASTLE. 
 
 In 8vo, price \2s., cloth, 
 
 THE LAW OF FIXTURES, 
 
 in TITE TRINCirAL RELATION OF 
 
 LANDLORD AND TENANT, 
 
 AND IN ALL OTHER OR GENERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 FOURTH EDITLON. 
 By ARCHIBALD BROWN, M.A. Edin. and O.xon., and B.C.L. Oxon., 
 
 OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, I1ARRISTER-AT-LA\V. 
 
 "The author tells us that every endeavour has 
 been made to make this Edition as complete as 
 possible. We think he has been very successful. 
 For instance, the changes effected by the Bills of 
 Sale Act, 1878, have been well indicated, and a 
 new chapter has been added with reference to the 
 Law of Ecclesiastical P'ixtures and Dilapidations. 
 The book is worthy of the success it has achieved." 
 
 new edition, and we have not space for further 
 remarks on the book itself: but we may observe 
 that the particular circumstances of the cases cited 
 are in all instances sufficiently detailed to make the 
 principle of law clear ; and though very many of the 
 principles given are in the very words of the judges, 
 at the same time the author has not spared to deduce 
 his own observations, and the treatise is commend- 
 
 — LwM Titncs. I able as well for originality as for laboriousness.' 
 
 " \\'e have touched on the principal features of this ' — Laiu Journal.
 
 34 
 
 STEVENS d- HA YATES, HELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 (Stcbcns anil ^lainira' tScvics nf ^Icjjvints of the (E.uli) Jlcportcrs. 
 SIR BARTHOLOMEW SHOWERS PARLIAMENTARY CASES. 
 
 In Svo, lbi76, price 4/. 4.1., best calf Ijindint^, 
 
 SHOWER'S CASES IN PARLIAMENT 
 
 RRSOLVED A\'D ADJUDGED UPON PETITIONS &■ WRITS OF ERROR. 
 
 FOURTH EDITION. 
 
 CONTAINING ADDITIONAL CASES NOT HITHERTO REPORTED. 
 
 KKVISED AM) EDITED HY 
 
 RICHARD LOVELAND LOVELAND, 
 
 t)k thk inner temple, i!auristkk-.vt-la\v ; editor ok " kelyno's ckown cases,'' and 
 "hall's essay on the ri<;hts ok the ckovvn in the seashore." 
 
 " Messrs. Stevicns & IIaynes, the successful publishers of the Reprints of Eellewe, 
 Cooke, Cunningham, Brookes's New Cases, Choyce Cases in Chancery, William Kelynge 
 and Kelyng's Crown Cases, iletermined to issue a new or fourth Edition of Shower's Cases 
 in Parliament. 
 
 " The volume, although beautifully printed on old-fashioned Paper, in old-fashioned 
 type, instead of being in the ([uarto, is in the more convenient octavo form, and contains 
 several additional cases not to be found in any of the previous editions of the work. 
 
 " These are all cases of importance, worthy of being ushered into the light of the 
 world by enterprising publishers. 
 
 "Shower's Cases are models for reporters, even in our day. The statements of the 
 case, the arguments of counsel, and the opinions of the Judges, are all clearly and ably given. 
 
 " This new edition with an old face of these valuable reports, under the al)le editorship 
 of R. L. Loveland, Esq., should, in the language of the advertisement, 'be welcomed by 
 the profession, as well as enable the custodians of public libraries to complete or add to 
 their series of English Law Reports.'" — Canada Law yoiirnal. 
 
 BELLEWE'S CASES, T. RICHARD II. 
 
 In Svo, 1S69, price 3/. 3^., bound in calf antique, 
 
 LES ANS DU ROY RICHARD LE SECOND. 
 
 Collect' ensembi' hors les abridgments 
 RiciL-VRD Bellewe, de Lincolns 
 Edition. 
 " No public library in the world, where English 
 law finds a place, should be without a copy of this 
 edition of Bellewe." — Canada. Laiv Joufnal. 
 
 " We have here z.fac-siinile edition of Bellewe, 
 and it is really the most beautiful and admirable 
 reprint that has appeared at any time. It is a 
 perfect gem of antique printing, and forms a most 
 interesting monument of our early legal history. 
 It belongs to the same class of works as the Year 
 Book of Edward I. and other similar works which 
 have been printed in our own time under the 
 auspices of the M.aster of the Rolls ; but is far 
 superior to any of them, and is in this respect 
 
 de Stathani, P'itzherbert ct Brooke. Per 
 Inne. 15S5. Reprinted from the Original 
 
 highly creditable to the spirit and enterprise of 
 private publishers. The work is an important link 
 in our legal historj' ; there are no year books of the 
 reign of Richard II., and Bellewe supplied the only 
 substitute by carefully extracting and collecting all 
 the cases he could find, and he did it in the most 
 convenient form — that of alphabetical arrangement 
 in the order of subjects, so that the work is a digest 
 as well as a book of law reports. It is in fact a 
 collection of cases of the reign of Richard II., 
 arranged according to their subjects in alphabetical 
 order. It is therefore, one of the most intelligible 
 and interesting legal memorials of the jMiddle 
 Ages." — Laiv Times. 
 
 CUNNINGHAM'S REPORTS. 
 
 In Svo, 1871, price 3/. 3j., calf antique, 
 Cunningham's (T.) Reports in K. B., 7 to 10 Ceo. II.; to which is prefixed a Proposal 
 for rendering the Laws of England clear and certain, humbly offered to the 
 Consideration of both Houses of Parliament. Third edition, with numerous 
 Corrections. By Thomas Townsend Bucknii.l, Barrister-at-Law. 
 " The instructive chapter which precedes the 
 cases, entitled ' A proposal for rendering the Laws 
 of England clear and certain,' gives the volume a 
 
 degree of peculiar interest, independent of the value 
 of many of the reported cases. That chapter begins 
 with words which ought, for the information of 
 every people, to be printed in letters of gold. They 
 are as follows: 'Mothing conduces more to the 
 
 peace and prosperity of every nation than good 
 laws and the due execution of them.' The history 
 of the civil law is then rapidly traced. Next a 
 history is given of English Reporters, beginning 
 with the reporters of the Year Books from i Edw. 
 III. to 12 Hen. VIII. — being near 200 years — and 
 afterwards to the time of the 2.u\.\\ox."— Canada 
 Law Journal.
 
 STEVENS c- HAYNES, BELL YARD, [TEMPLE BAR. 35 
 
 (Stcbcus aub J^ayncs' tStrica of ^Uprints of the €arhi ^icpovtcrs. 
 CHOYCE CASES IN CHANCERY. 
 
 In Svo, 1S70, price 2/. 2.S., calf antique, 
 
 THE PEAOTICE OF THE HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. 
 
 With the Nature of the several Offices belonging to that Court. And the Reports of 
 many Cases wherein Relief hath been there had, and where dcnyed. 
 
 "This volume, in paper, type, and binding (like " Bellewe's Cases ") is a fac-simile of the antique edition. 
 All who buy the one should buy the other." — Canada Law Journal. 
 
 In Svo, 1872, price 3/. 3j'., calf antique. 
 
 SIR G. COOKE'S COMMON PLEAS REPORTS 
 
 IN THE REIGNS OF QUEEN ANNE, AND KINGS GEORGE I. and II. 
 
 The Third Edition, with Additional Cases and References contained in the Notes 
 taken from L. C. J. Eyre's MSB. by Mr. Justice Nares, edited by Thomas 
 TowNSEND BucKNiLL, of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 an old volume of Reports may be produced by thei^e 
 
 " Law books never can die or remain long dead 
 so long as Stevens and Haynes are willing to con- 
 tinue them or revive them when dead. It is cer- 
 tainly surprising to see with what facial accuracy 
 
 modern publishers, whose good taste is onlyequalled 
 by their enterprise." — Canada Law yoin-nal. 
 
 BROOKE'S NEW CASES WITH MARCH'S TRANSLATION. 
 
 In Svo, 1S73, price 4/. 4^., calf antique. 
 Brooke's (Sir Robert) New Cases in the time of Henry VIII. , Edward VI., and 
 Queen Mary, collected out of Brook's Abridgement, and arranged under years, 
 with a table, together with March's (John) Translation <?/" Brooke's New Cases 
 in the time of Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Queen Mary, collected out of 
 Brooke's Abridgement, and reduced alphabetically under their proper heads and 
 titles, with a table of the principal matters. In one handsome volume. Svo. 1873. 
 
 " Both the original and the translation having 
 long been very scarce, and the mispaging and other 
 errors in March's translation making a new and 
 corrected edition peculiarly desirable Messrs. 
 
 Stevens and Haynes have reprinted the two books 
 in one volume, uniform with the preceding volumes 
 of the series of Early Reports." — Catiada Law 
 yoitrnat. 
 
 KELYNGE'S (W.) REPORTS. 
 
 In Svo, 1S73, price 4/. 4.r., calf antique, 
 Kelynge's (William) Reports of Cases in Chancery, the King's Bench, &c., from the 
 3rd to the 9th year of his late Majesty King George II., during which time Lord 
 King was Chancellor, and the Lords Raymond and Hardwicke were Chief 
 Justices of England. To which are added, seventy New Cases not in the First 
 Edition. Third Edition. In one handsome volume. Svo. 1S73. 
 
 KELYNG'S (SIR JOHN) CROWN CASES. 
 
 In Svo, 1S73, price 4/. 45., calf antique, 
 Kelyng's (Sir J.) Reports of Divers Cases in Pleas of the Crown in the Reign of King 
 Charles II., with Directions to Justices of the Peace, and others ; to which are 
 added. Three Modern Cases, viz., Armstrong and Lisle, the King and Plummer, 
 the Queen and ]\Iawgridge. Third Edition, avitainini^ several additional Cases 
 never be/ore printed, together with a Tre.atise upOiN the Law and Proceed- 
 ings IN Cases of High Treason, first published in 1793. The whole carefully 
 revised and edited by Richard Loveland Lovelanu, of the Inner Temple, 
 Barrister-at-Law. 
 "We look upon this volume as one of the most goodservicerenderedby Messrs. StevensandHaynes 
 important and valuable of the unique reprints of to the profession. . . . Should occasion arise, the 
 Messrs Stevens and Haynes. Little do we know Crown prosecutor, as well as counsel for the prisoner 
 of the mines of legal wealth that lie buried in the will find in this volume a complete I'ade mccuiti of 
 old law books. But a careful e.vamination, either of the law of high treason and proceedings in relation 
 the reports or of the treatise embodied in the volume thereto." — Canada Law Journal. 
 now before us, will give the reader some idea of the
 
 36 STEVENS &- HAYNES, BELL YARD, 7EMPLE BAR. 
 
 In one volume, Svo, price 25^., cloth, 
 A CONCISE TREATISE ON 
 
 PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL JURISPRUDENCE, 
 
 BASED O.V TUB DEC/S/OA'S IN THE ENGLISH COURTS. 
 By JOHN ALDERSON FOOTE, 
 
 OF lincoln'sinn, barrister-at-law ; chanxellor's legal medallist and senior whewell scholar 
 
 OV international law CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY, 1873 ; SENIOR STUDENT IN JURISl'KUDENCK 
 AND ROMAN LAW, INNS OF COURT EXAMINATION, HTLAKY TERM, 1874. 
 
 " This work seems to us likely to prove of considerable use to all English lawyers who have to deal with 
 questions of private international law. Since the publication of Mr. Wcstlake's valuable treatise, twenty 
 years ago, the judicial decisions of English courts bearing upon different parts of this subject have greatly 
 increased in number, and it is full time that these decisions should be examined, and that the conclusions 
 to be deduced from them should be systematically set forth in a treatise. Moreover, Mr. Foote has done 
 this well." — Solicitors' Journal. 
 
 " Mr. Foote has done his work very well, and the book will be useful to all who have to deal with the 
 class of cases in which English law alone is not sufScient to settle the question." — Saturday Review, 
 March 8, 1879. 
 
 "The author's object has been to reduce into order the mass of materials already accumulated in the 
 shape of explanation and actual decision on the interesting matter of which he treats ; and to construct a 
 framework of private international law, not from the dicta of jurists so much as from judicial decisions in 
 English Courts which have superseded them. And it is here, in compiling and arranging in a concise 
 form this valuable material, that Mr. Foote 's wide range of knowledge and legal acumen bear such good 
 fruit. As a guide and assistant to the student of international law, the whole treatise will be invaluable : 
 while a table of cases and a general index will enable him to find what he wants without trouble. — 
 Standard. 
 
 " The recent decisions on points of international law (and there have been a large number since Westlake's 
 publication) have been well stated. So far as we have observed, no case of any importance has been 
 omitted, and the leading cases have been fully analysed. The author does not hesitate to criticise the 
 grounds of a decision when these appear to him to conflict with the proper rule of law. Most of his 
 
 criticisms seem to us very just On the whole we can recommend Mr. Foote's treatise as a useful 
 
 addition to our text-books, and we expect it will rapidly find its way into the hands of practising lawyers." 
 — Tlic yournalofjurisprttdencc and Scottisli Law Mai;azinc. 
 
 " Mr. Foote has evidently borne closely in mind the needs of Students of Jurisprudence as well as those 
 of the Practitioners. For both, the fact that his work is almost entirely one of Case-law, will commend 
 it as one useful alike in Chambers and in Court." — La-M Magazine and Ke^'icw. 
 
 "Mr. Foote's book will be useful to the student One of the best points of Mr. Foote's book 
 
 IS the ';Continuous Summary,' which occupies about thirty pages, and is divided into four parts — Persons, 
 Property, Acts, and Procedure. JSIr. Foote remarks that these summaries are not in any way intended as 
 an attempt at codification. However that may be, they are a digest which reflects high credit on the 
 author's assiduity and capacity. They are ' meant merely to guide the student ; ' but they will do much 
 more than guide him. They will enable him to get such a grasp of the subject as will render the reading 
 of the text easy and fruitful." — Law yournal. 
 
 "This book is well adapted to be used both as a text-book for students and a book of reference for 
 practising barristers." — Bar E.vainination Journal. 
 
 "This is a book which supplies the want which has long been felt for a really good modern treatise on 
 Private International Law adapted to the every-day requirements of the English Practitioner. The 
 whole volume, although designed for the use of the practitioner, is so moderate in size — an octavo of 500 
 pages only — and the arrangement and development of the subject so well conceived and executed, that it 
 will amply repay perusal by those whose immediate object may be not the actual decisions of a knotty 
 point but the satisfactory disposal of an examination paper." — Oxford and Cainh-idge Undergraduates' 
 Journal. 
 
 "Since the publication, .some twenty years ago, of Mr. Westlake's Treatise, Mr. Foote's book is, in 
 our opinion, the best work on private international law which has appeared in the English language. . . . 
 The work is executed with much ability, and will doubtless be found of great value by all persons who 
 have to consider questions on private international law." — Athenaum.
 
 STEVENS c- HAYNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 37 
 
 THE 
 
 AND 
 
 QUARTERLY DIGEST OF ALL REPORTED CASES. 
 
 Price FIVE SHILLINGS each Number. 
 
 No. CCXVIII. (Vol. I, No. I, of the New Quarterly Series.) November, 1875. 
 No. CCXIX. (Vol. I, 4th Series No. II.) February, 1S76. 
 
 N.B. — These huo Numbers are out of print. 
 
 No. CCXX. 
 Nc. CCXXI. 
 
 No. CCXXII. 
 No. CCXXIII. 
 No. CCXX IV. 
 No. CCXXV. 
 
 (Vol. I, 4th Scries No. III.) 
 (Vol. I, 4th Series No. IV.) 
 
 No. CCXXVI. 
 No. CCXXVII. 
 No. CCXXVIII. 
 No. CCXXIX. 
 
 No. CCXXX. 
 No. CCXXXI. 
 No. CCXXXII. 
 No. CCXXXI 1 1. 
 
 No. CCXXXIV. 
 No. CCXXXV. 
 No. CCXXXVI. 
 No. CCXXXVII. 
 
 No. CCXXXVIII. 
 No. CCXXXIX. 
 No. CCXL. 
 No. CCXLI. 
 
 No. CCXLII. 
 No. CCXLIII. 
 No. CCXLIV. 
 No. CCXLV. 
 
 No. CCXLVI. 
 No. CCXLVI I. 
 
 (Vol. 2, 4th Series No. V.) 
 (Vol. 2, 4th Series No. VI.) 
 (Vol. 2, 4th Series No. VII.) 
 (Vol. 2, 4th Series No. VIII.) 
 
 (Vol. 3, 4th Series No. IX.) 
 (Vol. 3, 4th Series No. X.) 
 (Vol. 3, 4th Series No. XI.) 
 (Vol. 3, 4th Series No. XII.) 
 
 (Vol. 4, 4th Series No. XIII.) 
 (Vol. 4, 4th Series No. XIV.) 
 (Vol. 4, 4th Series No. XV.) 
 (Vol. 4, 4th Series No. XVI.) 
 
 (Vol. 5, 4th Series No. XVII.) 
 (Vol. 5, 4th Series No. XVIII.) 
 (Vol. 5, 4th Series No. XIX.) 
 Vol. 5, 4th Series No. XX.) 
 
 (Vol. 6, 4th Series No. XXI.) 
 (Vol. 6, 4th Series No. XXII.) 
 (Vol. 6, 4th Series No. XXIII.) 
 (Vol. 6, 4th Series No. XXIV.) 
 
 For May, 1S76. 
 For August, 1876. 
 
 For November, 1S76. 
 For February, 1877. 
 For May, 1877. 
 For August, 1877. 
 
 For November, 1S77. 
 For February, 1878. 
 For May, 1878. 
 For August, 187S. 
 
 For November, 1S7S. 
 For February, 1879. 
 For May, 1S79. 
 For August, 1879. 
 
 For November, 1S79. 
 For February, 1S80. 
 For May, iSSo. 
 For August, 1880. 
 
 For November, iSSo. 
 For February, 1881. 
 For May, iSSi. 
 For August, i8Sr. 
 
 (Vol. 7, 4th Series No. XXV.) 
 (Vol. 7, 4th Series No. XXVI.) 
 (Vol. 7, 4th Series No. XXVII.) 
 (Vol. 7, 4th Series No. XXVIII.) 
 
 For November, iSSi. 
 For P^bruarv, 1S82. 
 For May, 1SS2. 
 For August, 18S2. 
 
 (Vol. 8, 4th Series No. XXIX.) 
 (Vol. S, 4th Series No. XXX.) 
 
 For November, 18S2. 
 For February, 1SS3. 
 
 An Annual Subscription of 20s., paid in advance to the Publishers, will 
 secure the receipt of the LAW MAGAZINE, free by post, within the 
 United Kingdom, or for 24s. to the Colonies and Abroad.
 
 38 STEVENS &> HAYNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 Tliiiil l-'clitiun, in t>iie vol., Svo, jiricc , clolli. in fir/^aralioit. 
 
 A TREATISE ON HINDU LAW AND USAGE. 
 
 By Joii.N D. Maynf., of the Inner Temple, iJnrrister-at-Law, Author of "A Treatise on 
 
 Damages," iVc. 
 
 " A new work from the ]icn of so eslahlished an authority as Mr. Mayne cannot fail 
 to be welcome to the legal jirofession. In his present volume the late Officiating Advocate- 
 General at Madras has drawn \\\)on the stores of his long experience in Southern India, 
 and has produced a work of value alike to the practitioner at the Indian liar, or at home, 
 in appeal cases, and to the scientific jurist. 
 
 " To all who, whether as practitioners or administrators, or as students of the science 
 of jurisprudence, desire a thoughtful and suggestive work of reference on Hindu Law 
 and Usage, we heartily recommend the careful perusal of Mr. Mayne's valuable treatise." 
 — La'iO Mamzinc and Review. 
 
 In Svo, 1877, price 15^., cloth, 
 
 A DIGEST OF HINDU LAW. 
 
 AS ADMINISTERED IN THE COURTS of the MADRAS PRESIDENCY. 
 
 ARRANGED AND ANNOTATED 
 
 By H. S. CUNNINGHAM, M.A., Advocate-General, J\Iadras. 
 
 DUT CH LAW. 
 
 \o\. I., Royal Svo, price 40.C., cloth, 
 
 VAN LEEUWEN'S COMMENTARIES ON THE ROMAN-DUTCH 
 
 LAW. Revised and Edited with Notes in Two Volumes by C. W. Decker, 
 Advocate. Translated from the original Dutch by J. G. KoTZt, LL.B., of the 
 Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law, and Chief Justice of the Transvaal. With Fac- 
 simile Portrait of Decker from the Edition of 1780. 
 
 *^* Vol. II. is in course of preparation. 
 
 Buchanan (T.), Reports of Cases decided in the Supreme Court of the CAPE OF 
 GOOl) HOPE. 1 868, I S69, 1870-73, and 74. Bound in Three Vols. Royal Svo. 
 
 1S75, 1876, 1879, etc. 
 
 Menzies' (W.), Reports of Cases decided in the Supreme Court of the CAPE OF 
 GOOD HOPE. Vok I., VoL II., VoL III. 
 
 Buchanan (J.), Index and Digest of Cases decided in the Supreme Court of the CAPE 
 OF GOOD HOPE, reported by the late Hon. William Menzies. Compiled 
 by James Buchanan, Advocate of the Supreme Court. In One Vol., royal Svo. 
 
 In Svo, 1878, cloth, 
 PRECEDENTS IN PLEADING: being Forms filed of Record in 
 the Supreme Court of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope. Collected and 
 Arranged by James Buchanan. 
 
 In Crown Svo, price 315. 6d., boards, 
 
 THE INTRODUCTION TO DUTCH JURISPRUDENCE OF 
 
 HUGO GROTIUS, with Notes by Simon van Groenwegen van der Made, and 
 References to Van der KeeseFs Theses and Schorer's Notes. Translated by 
 A. F. S. Maasdorp, B.A,, of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 In i2mo, prfce \$s. ncft, boards, 
 
 SELECT THESES ON THE LAWS OF HOLLAND & ZEELAND. 
 
 Being a Commentary of Hugo Grotius' Introduction to Dutch Jurisprudence, and 
 intended to supply certain defects therein, and to determine some of the more 
 celebrated Controversies on the Law of Holland. By Dionysius Godekridus 
 van der Kessel, Advocate, and Professor of the Civil and Modern Laws in the 
 Universities of Leyden. Translated from the original Latin by C. A. Lorenz, 
 of Lincoln's Inn, Barri^ter-at-Law. Second Edition, With a Biographical Notice 
 of the Author by Professor J. De Wal, of Leyden.
 
 STEVENS d- HAYNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 39 
 
 THE 
 
 3Sar Cjcaminatiott Bournal. 
 
 No. 36. Price 2S. 
 
 HILARY, 18 83. 
 
 CONTENTS :— 
 
 SUBJECTS OF EXAMINATION. 
 EXAMINATION PAPERS, WITH ANSWERS. 
 
 Real and Personal Property. 
 
 Equity. 
 
 Common LA^v. 
 
 Roman LA^v. 
 LIST OF SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES. 
 STUDENTSHIP EXAMINATION PAPERS. 
 
 Edited i;y 
 
 A. D. TYSSEN, D.C.L, M.A., 
 
 OF THE INNER TE.MI'LE, l',AKKISTER-AT-LA\V ; AND 
 
 W. D. EDWARDS, LL.B., 
 
 OF Lincoln's inn, barrister-at-law. 
 
 * ^* It is intended in future to publish a Number of the Journal after each Examination. 
 
 Now published, in 8vo, price i8j. each, cloth, 
 
 THE BAR EXAMINATION JOURNAL, VOLS. IV. &Y. 
 
 Containing the Examination Questions and Answers from Easter Term, 1S7S, to 
 Hilary Term, iSSo, and Easter Term, 18S0, to Hilary Term, 18S2, with List of 
 Successful Candidates at each examination, Notes on the Law of Property, and a 
 Synopsis of Recent Legislation of importance to Students, and other information. 
 By a. D. TYSSEN and W. D. EDWARDS, Barristers-at-Law. 
 
 Second Edition. In Svo, price 6-f., cloth, 
 
 A SUMMARY OF JOINT STOCK COMPANIES' LAW. 
 
 By T. EUSTACE SMITH, 
 
 OF THE INNER TEMPLE, BAKRISTER-AT-LAW. 
 
 " The author of this hand-book tells us that, when 
 an articled student reading for the final examin.-i- 
 tion, he felt the want of such a work as that before 
 us, wherein could be found the main principles of 
 law relating to joint-stock companies . . . Law 
 students may well read it ; for Mr. Smith has very 
 wisely been at the pains of giving his authority for 
 all his statements of the law or of practice, as applied 
 to joint-stock company business usually transacted 
 in solicitor's chambers. In fact, Mr. Smith has 
 by his little book offered a fresh inducement to 
 students to make themselves — at all events, to some 
 extent — acquainted with company law as a separate 
 branch of study." — La'jj Times. 
 
 " These pages give, in the words of the Preface, 
 ' as briefly and concisely as possible, a general 
 view both of the principles and practice of the law 
 affecting companies." The work is excellently 
 printed, and authorities are cited ; but in no case 
 is the very language of the statutes copied. The 
 plan is good, and shows both grasp .and neatness, 
 and, both amongst students and laymen, Mr. .Smith's 
 book ought to meet a ready sale." — Laiv Journal. 
 
 " The book is one from which we have derived 
 a large amount of valuable information, and we can 
 heartily and conscientiously recommend it to our 
 readers. "^ C'jyl'?-^ and Cambridge Undergrad- 
 uates' Journal.
 
 ■10 STEVENS &- HAYNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 In Svo, Fifth Edition, price g.r., cloth, 
 
 THE MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACTS ; 
 
 1870, 1874, and 1882, 
 
 With Copious and Kxi'I.anatoky Notes, and an ArrENuix ok the Acts 
 Rei.atinc; to Married Women. 
 
 By S. Wokthincton ISkomkiei-D, M.A., Christ Church, Oxon., and the Inner 
 Temi^le, I>arrister-at-Law. Being the Fifth Edition of The Married Women's 
 Property Acts. By the late J. R. Griefitiis, B.A., Oxon., of Lincoln's Inn, 
 Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 "Upon the whole we are of opinion that this is the best work upon the subject which has been issued 
 since the passing of the recent Act. Its position as a well-established manual of acknowledged worth gives 
 it at starting a considerable advantage over new books ; and this advantage has been well maintained by 
 the intelligent treatment of the Editor." — Solicitor's Joiirnnl. 
 
 " 'I'he notes are full, but anything rather than tedious reading, and the law contained in them is good, 
 and verified by reported cases. ... A distinct feature of the work is its copious index, practically a 
 .summary of the marginal headings of the various paragraphs in the body of the text. This book is worthy 
 of all success." — Law Magazine. 
 
 In Svo, price 12^., cloth, 
 
 THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 By Robert Camtbell, of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law, and Advocate 
 of the Scotch Bar. 
 
 " No less an authority than the late Mr. Justice 
 Willes, in his judgment in Oppcnlieim v. White 
 Lion Hotel Co., characterised Mr. Campbell's 
 ' Law of Negligence ' as a ' very good book ; ' and 
 since very good books are by no means plentiful, 
 when compared with the numbers of indifferent 
 ones which annually issue from the press, we think 
 the profession will be thankful to the author of this 
 
 new edition brought down to date. It is indeed an 
 able and scholarly treatise on a somewhat difficult 
 branch of law, in the treatment of which the 
 author's knowledge of Roman and Scotch Juris- 
 prudence has stood him .in good stead. We con- 
 fidently recommend it alike to the student and the 
 practitioner." — Laiv Magazine. 
 
 In royal Svo, price 2S.r., cloth, 
 
 AN INDEX TO TEN THOUSAND PRECEDENTS 
 
 IN CONVEYANCING, and to common and commercial 
 
 FORMS. Arranged in Alphabetical order with Subdivisions of an Analytical 
 Nature ; together with an Appendix containing an Abstract of the Stamp Act, 1S70, 
 with a Schedule of Duties ; the Regulations relative to, and the Stamp Duties pay- 
 able on, Probates of Wills, Letters of Administration, Legacies, and Successions. 
 By Walter Arthur Copinger, of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 BIBLIOTHECA LEGUM. 
 
 In l2mo (nearly 400 pages), price is., cloth, 
 
 A CATALOGUE OF LAW BOOKS, including aH the Reports 
 in the various Courts of England, -Scotland, and Ireland ; with a Supplement to 
 December, 18S2. By Henry G. Stevens and Rouert W. Haynes, Law 
 Publishers. 
 
 In small 4to, price is., cloth, beautifully printed, with a large margin, for the 
 special use of Librarians, 
 
 A CATALOGUE OF THE REPORTS IN THE 
 
 VARIOUS COURTS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT 
 BRITAIN AND IRELAND, arranged both in alpha- 
 
 BETICAL c- CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER. By Stevens & Haynes, 
 Law Publishers.
 
 STEVENS d- HAYNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 i\ 
 
 Jubl published, in Svo, price I2.>'. , clolli, 
 
 CHAPTERS ON TPIE 
 
 LAW RELATING TO THE COLONIES. 
 
 To which is ap]icnded a Toi'iCAi, Ixni-.x of Cases iikcidf.d in the Privv Council 
 on A])pe.il from the Colonies, the Channel Islands antl the Isle of Man, rep<jrtecl 
 in Acton, Knapp, Moore, the Law Journal Reports, and the Law Reports, to- 
 July, 1SS2. 
 
 By CHARLES JAMES TARRING, 
 
 OF THE IXNER TEMPLE, ESQ., BARRISTER-AI -I. \\\-. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Table of Casks Citp.d. 
 
 Tablk (IK Staiites Cited. 
 
 Introductory. — iJefinition of a Colony. 
 
 Chapter I. — The laws to which the Colonies are 
 
 subject. 
 Chapter II. — The Executire. 
 
 Section i. — The Governor. 
 
 Section 2. — The E.vecutive Council. 
 Chapter lII.-The Legislative power. 
 
 Section i. — Crown Colonies. 
 
 Section!. — Privileges and powers of 
 colonial Legislative Assemblies. 
 Chapter l^'. — The Judiciary and Bar. 
 
 Chapter V.— Appeals from the Colonic.^. 
 Chapter VI. — Section i. — Imperial Statutes relating, 
 to the Colonies in general. 
 Section 2. — I mperial Statutes relating, 
 to particular Colonies. 
 
 Topical Lndex of C.a.ses. 
 
 IxoEX OF Topics of English Law dealt with. 
 
 IN THE Cases. 
 Index of Names of C.^ses. 
 
 GENERAL INDEX. 
 
 In Svo, price \os. cloth, 
 
 THE TAXATION OF COSTS IN THE 
 CROWN OFFICE. 
 
 COMPRISING A COLLECTION OF 
 
 THAT OFFICE; 
 
 BILLS OF COSTS IN THE VARIOUS MATTERS TAXABLE 
 
 INCLUDING 
 
 COSTS UPON the PROSECUTION of FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTS, 
 AND ON APPEALS FROM INFERIOR COURTS; 
 
 TOGETHER WITH 
 
 A TABLE OF COURT FEES, 
 
 AND .\ SCALE OF COSTS USUALLY ALLOWED TO SOLICTORS, ON THE TAXATION 
 
 OF COSTS ON THE CROWN SIDE OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
 
 OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. 
 
 Bv FREDK. H. SHORT, 
 
 CHIEF CLERK I.V THE CROWN OFFICF. 
 
 " This is decidedly a useful work on the subject of those costs which are liable to ba taxed before the 
 Queen's Coroner and .\ttorney (for which latter name that of ' Solicitor' might now well be substituted), or 
 lieforc the master of the Crown OtTice ; in fact, suc'h a book is almost indispensable when preparing costs 
 for ta.xation in the Crown Office, or when taxing an opponent's costs. Country solicitors will find the scale 
 relating to bankruptcy prosecutions of especial use, as such costs are taxed in the Crown Office. The 'general 
 obaervations ' constitute a useful feature in this manual." — Laiv Times. 
 
 ■' This book contains a collection of bills of costs in the v,-\rious matters taxable In the Crown Oftlce. AVTien 
 we point out that the only scale of costs available for the Use of the general body of solicitors is that pub- 
 lished in Mr. Corner's book on ' Crown Practice ' In 1844, we have said quite enougli to prove the utility of 
 the work before us. 
 
 "In them Mr. Short deals with 'Perusals,' 'Copies for Use,' '.Affidavits,' 'Agency,' 'Correspondence,' 
 ' Close Copies,' ' Counsel,' ' Affidavit of Increase,' and kindred matters ; and adds some useful renuirks on 
 taxation of 'Costs In Bankruptcy Prosecutions,' ^ Qjto IVarraKto,' '' Maiuitiiinis,' 'Indictments,' and 
 ' Rules." 
 
 " We have rarely seen a work of this cliaracler better executed, and we feel sure that it will be thoroughly 
 .ippreciated." — Law yotirnnl. 
 
 "The recent revision of the old scale of costs In the Crown Office renders the appearance of this work 
 particularly opportune, and it cannot fail to be welcomed by practitioners. Mr. Short gives, In the first 
 place, a scale of costs u.sually allowed to solicitors on the taxation of costs in the Crown Office, and then 
 bills of costs In various matters. These are well arranged and clearly printed." — Solicitors' ynuriuil.
 
 42 STEVENS &> HAYNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 In one volume, 8vo, price i6j., cloth, 
 A CONCISE TRKATISE ON THE 
 
 STATUTE LAW OF THE LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS. 
 
 With an Appendix of Statutes, Copious References to English, Irish, and American Cases, 
 and to the French Code, and a Copious Index. 
 
 By henry THOMAS BANNING, M.A., 
 
 0|- THE INNER TEMPLE, 1)AKKISTER-AT-LA\V. 
 
 " Jn this work Mr. B.nnnlng has grappled with one of the most perplexing branches of our statute law. 
 The law, as laid down by the judicial decisions on the various St.itutes of Limitations, is given in thirty- 
 .three short chapters under as many headings, and each chapter treats of a sub-division of one of the main 
 branches of the subject ; thus we have ten chapters devoted to real property. 'J'his arrangement entails a 
 certain amount of repetition, but is not without its advantages, as the subject of each chapter is tolerably 
 exhaustively treated of within the limits of a few pages. We think tliat in this respect the author has 
 •exercised a wise discretion. So far .is we have tested the cases cited, '.he effect of the numerous decisions 
 .appears to be accurately ijiven — indeed, the author has, as we are informed in the preface, 'so far as is 
 ■consistent with due brevity, employed the ipsissiina verba of the tribunal ; ' and the cases are brought 
 
 down to a very recent date The substance of the book is satisfactory ; and we may commend it 
 
 both to students and practitioners." — Solicitors' yoitrnal. 
 
 "Mr. Banning's ' Concise Treatise 'justifies its title. He brings into a convenient compass a general 
 view of the law as to the limitation of actions as it exists under numerous statutes, and a digest of the 
 principal reported cases relating to the subject which have arisen in the English and American courts."- — 
 Saiuniay KeTtav. 
 
 " Mr. Banning has adhered to the plan of printing the Acts in an appendix, and making his book a 
 running treatise on the case-law thereon. ']"he cases have evidently been investigated with care and 
 digested with clearness and intellectuality."— /.arec Journal. 
 
 In 8vo, price 8j., cloth, 
 
 The TRADE MARKS REGISTRATION ACT, 1875, 
 
 And the Rules thereunder ; THE MERCHANDISE MAJORS ACT, 1862, with an 
 Introduction containing a SUMMARY OF THE LAW OF TRADE MARKS, 
 together with practical Notes and Instructions, and a copious Index. By 
 Edward Morton Daniel, of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 "The last of the works on this subject, that by l\lr. Daniel, appears to have been very carefully done. 
 ^Ir. Daniel's book is a satisfactory and useful guide." — The Etiginccr. 
 
 "This treatise contains, within moder.ite compass, the whole of the law, as far as practically required, 
 on the subject of trade marks. The publication is opportune, the subject being one which must nearly 
 concern a considerable portion of the public, and it may be recommended to all who desire to take advan- 
 tage of the protection afforded by registration under the new legislation. It is practical, and seems to be 
 complete in every respect. The volume is well printed and neatly got up." — Lmv Times. 
 
 In 8vo, price ij., sewed, 
 AN ESSAY ON THE 
 
 ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. 
 
 Embracing more particitlarly an Eiiitnciation and Analysis of the Prificiflcs of La7v as 
 applicable to Criminals of the Highest Degree of Guilt. 
 
 By WALTER ARTHUR COPINGER, 
 
 OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, ESQ., P..\KR!STER-AT-L.^.W ; 
 
 Author of "The Law of Copyright in Works of Literature and Art," "Index to 
 Precedents in Conveyancing," " On the Custody and Production of Title Deeds." 
 
 "We can recommend Mr. Copinger's book as containing the fullest collection we have seen of facts and 
 quotations from eminent jurists, statistics, and general information bearing on the subject of capital 
 punishments. " — Manchester i 'ciiirier. 
 
 In 8vo, price 3 I.e. t>d., cloth, 
 
 THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, No. IX., of 1872. 
 
 TOGETHER 
 
 Wim AN INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATORY NOTES, TABLE OF 
 
 CONTENTS, APPENDIX, AND INDEX. 
 
 By H. S. CUNNINGHAM and H. H. SHEPHERD, 
 
 )tARKISTEKS-AT-LAW.
 
 STEVEA^S &- IIAYNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 43 
 
 Second Edition, in 8vo, price ?>s., cloth, 
 
 THE PARTITION ACTS, 1868 & 1876, 
 
 A MANUAL OF 
 
 THE LAW OF PARTITION AND OF SALE 
 IN LIEU OF PARTITION. 
 
 With the Decided Cases, and an Appendix containing Judgments and Orders. 
 By W. GREGORY WALKER, 
 
 (IF Lincoln's inn, iiarklstkk-at-law, v...\., author ok "a compendium ok the law of executors 
 
 ANU ADMINISTKATORS." 
 
 "This is a very good manual— practical, clearly 
 written, and complete. The subject lends itself 
 well to the mode of treatment adopted by Mr. 
 Walker, and in his notes to the various sections he 
 has carefully brought together the cases and dis- 
 cussed the difficulties arising upon the language of 
 the different provisions." — Solicitors' Journal. 
 
 "The main body of the work is concerned only 
 with the so-called Partition Acts, which are really 
 Acts enabling the Court in certain cases to sub- 
 stitute a sale for a partition. What these cases are 
 is very well summed up or set out in the present 
 edition of this book, which is well up to date. The 
 
 work is supplemented by a very useful selection of 
 precedents ofpleadingsand orders." — Lnu< J ourital. 
 "This is a very painstaking and praiseworthy 
 little treatise. That such a work has now been 
 published needs, in fact, only to be announced ; 
 for, meeting as it does an undoubted requirement, 
 it is sure to secure a place in the library of every 
 
 equity practitioner We are gratified to be 
 
 able to add our assurance that the pr.ictitioner will 
 find that his confidence has not been misplaced, and 
 that Mr. Walker's manual, compact and ine.xpen- 
 sive as it is, is equally e.vhaustive and valuable." — 
 Jrisli Laiv J'iiiits. 
 
 Ill Svo, price 2is., cloth, 
 A TREATISE ON THE 
 
 LAW AND PRACTICE RELATING TO INFANTS. 
 
 By ARCHIBALD H. SIMPSON, M..A.., 
 
 OF LINCOLN S INN, ESQ., BARRISTF.R-AT-I.AW, 
 
 " Mr. Simpson's book comprises the whole of the 
 law relating to infants, both as regards their per- 
 sons and their property, and we h.ive not observed 
 any very important omissions. The author has 
 evidently expended much trouble and care upon 
 his work, and has brought together, in a concise 
 and convenient form, the law upon the subject down 
 to the present time." — Solici/ors' Jourital. 
 
 "Its law is unimpeachable. We have detected 
 no errors, and whilst the work might have been 
 done more scientifically, it is, beyond all question, 
 a compendium of sound legal principles." — Law 
 Times. 
 
 " Mr. Simpson has arranged the whole of the Law 
 relating to Infants with much fulness of detail, and 
 yet in comparatively little space. The result is 
 due mainly to the businesslike condensation of his 
 style. Fulness, however, has by no means been 
 sacrificed to brevity, and, so far as we have been 
 
 AND FELLOW OF CHRIST S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. 
 
 able to test it, the work omits no point of any im- 
 portance, from the earliest cases to the last. In 
 the essential qualities of clearness, completeness, 
 and orderly arrangement it leaves nothing to be 
 desired. 
 
 " Lawyers in doubt on any point of law or prac- 
 tice will find the information they require, if it can 
 be found at all, in Mr. Simpson's book, and a 
 writer of whom this can be said may congratulate 
 himself on having achieved .a considerable success." 
 -I.atu Magazine, February, 1876. 
 
 "The reputation of '.Simpson on Infants' is 
 now too perfectly established to need any enco- 
 miums on our part : and we can only .say that, as 
 the result of our own experience, we have invariably 
 found this work an e.\haustive and trustworthy 
 repertory of information on every question con- 
 nected with the law and practice relating to its 
 subject." — Irish Law Times, July 7, 1877. 
 
 In 8vo, price %s., cloth, 
 THE LAW CONCERNING THE 
 
 REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS 
 
 IN ENGLAND AND WALE.S, AND AT SEA. 
 Being the whole Statute Law upon the subject ; together with a list of Registration Fees 
 and Charges. Edited, with Copious Explanatory Notes and References, and an 
 Elaborate Index, by Arthur Joiln Flaxman, of the Middle Temple, 
 Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 " Mr. Flaxman' s ■unpretentious but admi- 
 rable little book makes the duties of all parties 
 under the Act abundantly clear. . . . Lawyers 
 will/ind the book net only handy, but also i>tsiruc- 
 Htc and sjiggestive. To registrais^ and all persons 
 engaged in the execution of the law, the book will 
 be invaluable. The inde.x occupies thirty-five pages, 
 and is so full that information on a minute point can 
 be obtained without trouble. It is an index that 
 must have cost the author much thought and time. 
 The statements of what is to be done, who may do 
 it, and what must not be done, are so clear that it 
 is ■tcell-nigh impossible for any one 'iviio consults 
 the book to err. Those who use h'laxman's ' Regis- 
 
 tration of Births and Deaths will admit that our 
 laudatory criticism is thoroughly merited." — Laiu 
 fournal. 
 
 " Mr. Arthur John Flaxman, barrister-at-law, of 
 the Middle Temple, has published a small work on 
 ' The Law concerning the Registration of Births 
 and Deaths in England and Wales, and at Sea.' 
 Mr. Flaxman has pursued the only possible plan, 
 giving the statutes and references to cases. The 
 remarkable feature is the index, which fills no less 
 than 35 out of a total of 112 pages. The index 
 alone would be extremely useful, and is worth the 
 money asked for the work." — Law Times.
 
 44 STJj:VENS 6- HAYKES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 THE LAW OF EXTRADITION. 
 
 Second Edition, in 8vo, price i8x., cloth, 
 
 A TREATISE UPON 
 
 THE LAW OF EXTRADITION, 
 
 WITH THE 
 
 CONVENTIONS UPON THE SUBJECT EXISTING BETWEEN 
 ENGLAND AND FOREIGN NATIONS, 
 
 AND THE CASES DECIDED THEREON. 
 
 By EDWARD CLARKE, 
 
 OV LINXOLN S INN, Q.C. 
 
 "Mr. Clarke's accurate and sensible book is the best authority to which the English 
 reader can turn upon the subject of Extradition." — Sahtrday Review. 
 
 " The opinion we expressed of the merits of this work when it first appeared has been 
 fully justified by the reputation it has gained. This new edition, embodying and ex- 
 plaining the recent legislation on extradition, is likely to sustain that reputation. . . . 
 There are other points we had marked for comment, but we must content ourselves with 
 heartily commending this new edition to the attention of the profession. It is seldom we 
 come across a book possessing so much interest to the general reader and at the same 
 time furnishing so useful a guide to the lawyer." — Solicitoi's' Journal. 
 
 " The appearance of a second edition of this treatise does not surprise us. It is a 
 nseful book, well arranged and well written. A student who wants to learn the principles 
 and practice of the law of extradition will be greatly helped by Mr. Clarke. Lawyers 
 who have extradition business will find this volume an excellent book of reference. 
 Magistrates who have to administer the extradition law will be greatly assisted by a 
 careful perusal of ' Clarke upon Extradition.' This maybe called a warm commenda- 
 tion, but those who have read the book will not say it is unmerited. We have so often 
 to expose the false pretenders to legaJ authorship that it is a pleasure to meet with a 
 volume that is the useful and unpretending result of honest work. Besides the Appendix, 
 which contains the extradition conventions of this country since 1843, we have eight 
 chapters. The first is ' Upon the Duty of Extradition ; ' the second on the ' Early 
 Treaties and Cases ; ' the others on the law in the United States, Canada, England, and 
 France, and the practice in those countries." — Laiojfounial. 
 
 " One of the most interesting and valuable contributions to legal literature which it 
 has been our province to notice for a long time, is ' Clarke's Treatise on the Law of 
 
 Extradition.' Mr. Clarke's work comprises chapters upon the Duty of 
 
 Extradition ; Early Treaties and Cases ; History of the Law in the United States, in 
 Canada, in England, in France, Sec, with an Appendix containing the Conventions 
 existing between England and Foreign Nations, and the cases decided thereon . . 
 The work is ably prepared throughout, and should form a part of the library of every 
 lawyer interested in great Constitutional or International Questions." — AKiany Law 
 yonnial. 
 
 The Times of September 7, 1S74, in a long article upon " Extradition Treaties," 
 makes considerable use of this work, and writes of it as " Air. Clarke's use/id Work on 
 E.xt radii ioir.''' 
 
 In Svo, 1876, price S.f., cloth, 
 
 THE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE IN APPEALS 
 
 FROM INDIA TO THE PRIVY COUNCIL. 
 
 By E. B. MICHELL and R. B. MICHELL, 
 
 llARRISTERS-AT-LAW. 
 
 'A useful manual arranging the practice in convenient order, and giving the rules in force in several 
 Courts. It will be a decided acquisition to thone engaged in Appeals from India." — Lcnv Times.
 
 STEVENS &' HAYNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 45 
 
 PRACTICE OF CONVEYANCING. 
 
 In 8vo, price 2s. 6d., cloth, 
 
 TABLES OF STAMP DUTIES 
 
 FROM 1 815 TO THE PRESENT TIME. 
 By WALTER ARTHUR COPINGER, 
 
 OF THE MIDDLE TliMPLE, ESOl'IRE, UAKRISTEH-AT-L AW : Al TFIOR OF " THE 
 
 LAW OF COPYRIGHT IN WORKS OF LITEKATIRE AND ART," " INDEX 
 
 TO PRECEDENTS IN CONVEYANXING," "TITLE DEEDS," &C. 
 
 "Conveyancers owe Mr. Copingcr a debt of 
 gratitude for his valuable Index to Precedents in 
 Conveyancing : and we think the little book now 
 before us will add to their obligations. Mr. Copinger 
 gives, first of all, an abstract of the St.imp Acl, 
 1870, with the special regulations aOecting con- 
 veyances, mortgages, and settlements in full. He 
 ihcn presents in a tabular form the aj Talorcii' 
 stamp duties on conveyances, mortgages, and 
 settlements, payable in England from the ist of 
 September, 1815, to the loth of October, 1850, and 
 then tables of tui vatorcin duties paj-able on the 
 three classes of instruments since the last-mentioned 
 date, and at the present time : arranged very clearly 
 in columns. We cannot pretend to have checked 
 
 the figures, but those we have looked at are correct: 
 and we think this little book ought to find its way 
 into a good many chambers and offices." — Soli- 
 citors' Journal. 
 
 "This book, or at least one containing the same 
 .amount of v.iluable and well-arranged information, 
 should find a place in every Solicitor's office. It is 
 of especial value when examining the abstract of a 
 large number of old title deeds." — Law Times. 
 
 " His TaJtlesof Stiitup Duties^ from 1815 to 1878, 
 have already t>een tested in Chambers, and being 
 now published, will materially lighten the labours 
 of the profe:ision in .a tedious department, yet one re- 
 quiring great care." — Law Magazine and iKtiiicw. 
 
 In one volume, 8vo, price I4.f. , clolh, 
 
 TITLE DEEDS: 
 
 THEIR CUSTODY, INSPECTION, AND PRODUCTION, AT LAW, IN 
 EQUITY, AND IN MATTERS OF CONVEYANCING, 
 
 Including Covenants for tha Production of Deeds and Attested Copies ; with an Appendix 
 of Precedents, the Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1S74, &c., &c. , &c. By Walter 
 Artiu'R Copinger, of the Middle Temple, Bavrister-at-Law ; Author of " The 
 Law of Copyright '" and " Index to Precedents in Conveyancing." 
 
 "In dealing with 'documentary evidence at 
 law and in equity and in matters of conveyancing, 
 including covenants for the production of deeds 
 artd attested copies,' Mr. Copinger has shown 
 discrimination, for it is a branch of the general 
 subject of evidence which is very susceptible of 
 independent treatment. We are glad, therefore, 
 to be able to approve both of the design and the 
 manner in which it has been executed. 
 
 "The literarj- execution of the work is good 
 enough to invite quotation, but the volume is not 
 
 In 8vo, Second Edition, considerably enlarged, price 30.r., cloth 
 
 THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT, 
 
 In Works of Literature and Art ; including that of the Drama, IMusic, Engraving, 
 Sculpture, Painting, Photography, and Ornamental and Useful Designs ; totrether 
 with Internatioral and Foreign Copyright, with the Statutes Relating thereto, and 
 References to the English and American Decisions. By Walter Arthur 
 Copinger, of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 "Mr. Copinger's book is very comprehensive, 
 dealing with every l>r.anch of his subject, and even 
 extending to copyright in foreign countries. So far 
 as we have examined, we have found all the recent 
 authorities noted up with scrupulous care, and 
 there is an unusually good index. There are 
 merits which will, doubtless, lead to the placing of 
 this edition on the shelves of the members of the 
 
 profession whose business is concerned with copy- 
 right ; and deservedly, for the book is one of con- 
 siderable value." — Solicitors' Journal. 
 
 " Meanwhile we recommend Mr. Copinger's 
 volume as a clear and convenient work of reference 
 on the many knotty points connected with the 
 existing I-aw_ of Copyright, national and inter- 
 national."— .V(j/« a/ui Queries. 
 
 large and we content ourselves with recommend- j 
 ing it to the profession." — Law Times. 
 
 "A really good treatise on this subject must be 
 essential to the lawyer : and this is what we have 
 here. Mr. Copinger has supplied a much-felt want, 
 by the compilation of this volume. We have not I 
 space to go into the details c£ the book ; it appears j 
 well arranged, clearly written, and fully elaborated. 
 With these kw remarks we recommend this volutae i 
 to our readers." — Law Journal.
 
 46 STEPHENS &- HAYNES, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
 Second Edition, in One large Volume', 8vo, price 423;.^ cloth, 
 
 A MAGISTERIAL AND POLICE GUIDE: 
 
 BEING THE STATUTE LAW, 
 
 INCLUDING THE SESSION 4.5 P7CT. 1880. 
 
 WITH NOTES AND REFERENCES TO THE DECIDED CASES, 
 
 RELATING TO THE 
 
 PROCEDURE, JURISDICTION, AND DUTIES of MAGISTRATES 
 AND POLICE AUTHORITIES, 
 
 IN THE METROPOLIS AND IN THE COUNTRY. 
 
 With an Introduction showing the General Procedure before Magistrates 
 both in Indictable and Summary Matters, as altered by the Summary 
 Jurisdiction Act, 1879, together with the Rules under the said Act. 
 
 r-^. By henry C. greenwood, 
 
 STIPKNDIARV"-^lAC;iSTRATE FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE STAFFORDSHIRE I'OTTERIF.S ; AND 
 
 a\ TEMPLE C. MARTIN, 
 
 di.T,i CHIEF CLERK OF THE LAMBETH POLICE COURT. 
 
 CT"? 
 
 "A second -edition has appeared of Messrs. Greenwood and Martin's valuable and 
 comprehensive magisterial and police Guide, a book which Justices of the peace should take 
 care to include in their Libraries." — Saturday Review. 
 
 " Hence it is that we rarely light upon a work which commands our confidence, not merely 
 by its research, but also by its grasp of the subject of which it treats. The volume before us 
 is one of the happy few of this latter class, and it is on this account that the public favour will 
 certainly wait upon it. We are moreover convinced that no effort has been spared by its 
 authors, to render it a thoroughly efficient and trustworthy guide. "—Law Journal. 
 
 "Magistrates will find a valuable handbook in Messrs. Greenwood and Martin's 
 ' Magisterial and Police Guide,' of which a fresh Edition has just been published." — The 
 Times. 
 
 " A very valuable introduction, treating'of proceedings before Magistrates, and largely of the 
 Summary Jurisdiction Act, is in itself a treatise which will repay perusal. We expressed our 
 high opinion of the Guide when it first appeared, and the favourable impression then produced 
 is increased by our examination of this Second Edition." — La7o Times. 
 
 " For the form of the work we have nothing but commendation. We may say we have 
 here our ideal law book. It may be said to omit nothing which it ought to contain." — 
 Law Times. 
 
 "This handsome volume aims at presenting a comprehensive magisterial handbook 
 for the whole of England. The mode of arrangement seems to us excellent, and is well- 
 carried out." — Solicitors' Jotirrial. 
 
 " The Magisterial and Police Guide, by Mr. Henry Greenwood and Mr. Temple 
 Martin, is a model work in its conciseness, and, so far as we have been able to test it, 
 in completeness and accuracy. // oiiglit to be in tlic haiids of all w/w, as magistrates or 
 othcnuise, have authority in matters of police." — Daily News. 
 
 " This work is eminently practical, and supplies a real 7uant. It plainly and concisely 
 states the law on all points upon which Magistrates arc called upon to adjudicate, syste- 
 matically arranged, so as to be easy of reference. It ought to find a place on every yusticc's 
 table, and we cannot but think that its tisefulness will speedily ensure for it as large a sale 
 as its merits deserve. " — Midland Counties Herald. 
 
 " The e.vceedingly arduous task of collecting together all the enactments on the subject 
 has been ably and efficiently performed, and the arrangement is so methodical and precise 
 that one is able to lay a finger on a Section of an Act almost in a moment. It isi^vonderful 
 what a mass of information is comprised in so comparatively small a space. We have much 
 pleasure in recommending the volume not only to our professional, but also to our 
 general readers ; nothing can be more useful to the public than an acquaintance with the 
 outlines of magisterial jurisdiction and procedure." — Sheffield Post.
 
 Mi I Mi i=c;i l^J^l 
 
 **4 III tr' **•* 1 1 I IT* 
 
 "^J^uoKvsoi^ %«.^AlNa•3\^^^ 
 
 
 aweuniver% 
 
 ^lOSANCf^r^ ^fUBRARYi?^ ^IIIBRARY^/^ 
 
 <f?U3WS01^ 
 
 so 
 
 %aiiAwn-3WV^ 
 
 ^«!/OJIlVJJO^ '^.KOJIlVDJO't^ 
 
 C-1 
 
 «AWEUNIVERy/A 
 
 <^U3KVS01^ 
 
 ^IDSANCEl^f^ 
 
 
 AOfCAllFO% aOFCAIIF0% 
 
 v: 
 
 ^'JAbVaaiVi^ >'/?i.MV}<j)nAN5^^ 
 
 (k y CO 
 
 x_ •■■i^k so 
 
 > 
 
 so 
 
 -< 
 
 v-X 
 
 ^IIIBRARY<9/- 
 
 ^lUBRARYQ^. 
 
 ^OFCAUF0«^ 
 
 so ^ 
 
 ^OFCAUFOfti^ 
 
 ^^omm^ 
 
 
 AWEUNIVERS-/A 
 
 o 
 .tqAEUNIVERS/A 
 
 ^■lOSANCEl£r> 
 
 =3 , >f VO 
 
 %a3AiNn3AV 
 
 ^10SANCEI^>. 
 
 '^ 
 
 kmeunivfrs/a 
 
 <*^3K¥S0\^ 
 
 ^lOSANCEia^ 
 
 oo 
 
 3 
 
 ^tUBRARYQ<;^ -^HIBRARYQt^ 
 
 \^my\^ \^myi^ 
 
 s 
 ^ 
 
 ^^WEUNIVE%. 
 >- 
 
 ^lOSANCEl^^ ^OFCAlIFORi^ ^-OFCAIIFOR^ 
 
 ^-^Wim^ 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 ^•UBRARY<V ^j^EUBRARYOr 
 
 aofcaufo% ^^,ofcaufo% 
 
 .5jrtEUNIVER% 
 
 .^EUNIVERS//, 
 
 vvlOSANCElCTy. 
 
 %iUAJNn-3ttV 
 ,vKlOSAHCEl^>.
 
 r 
 
 
 
 ^lOSAKCnfj^ 
 
 o 
 
 "^^/SaaAINfliiHV 
 
 
 ^OFCAllFOff^ 
 
 ^•ifOJIlVJ-JO"*^ "^XiiJOHVSOl^ 
 
 ^OFCAIIFOR^^ 
 
 
 
 aweuniverj/a 
 
 "^iSUONVSOV^^ 
 
 %a3/ 
 
 
 \ 
 
 JO^ 
 
 ^ 1 li— ^ ^ 
 
 ^OFCAIIFOff^i^ 
 
 .•\ME11NIVERS'/A 
 
 5 
 
 ^lOSANCElfj^ 4^tll^ARY^/ 
 
 <riiaoNvsoi=<^ %a3AiNnattV^ 
 
 .5!AMIN(VER% 
 
 
 "^J^uawsoi^ 
 
 o 
 
 %aaAiNft-3ttV^ 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 ^OFCAIIFO/?^ ^OFC 
 
 "^(^AiivaaiH^ ^<?Aii 
 
 ^•losAncn^^ 
 
 4^^tUBRAIlY<9/. A>J*!e-UBRARY<v 
 
 M^ "^/^aaMNft-av^^ '^.^ojiivdjo'^ '^i»0iiiV3jo'»^ 
 
 .5WEUNIVER%. A>:10S 
 
 S i 
 
 
 ^lOSANCElfx^ ^OFCAUF0«j!^ ^OFCAIIFOR^ 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 r-in ■'^ 
 
 
 
 ^ISUDNVSOl^ 
 
 >f?AavaaiivJ^ 
 
 ^iosANCEu;r^ 
 
 > 
 I 
 
 o 
 
 <r;n3Kv-soi^ 
 
 -<^iUBRARY<?/^ 
 
 %^m^i^^ 
 
 ^\WfUNIVERJ/^ ^lOSANCfUr^ ^OFCAUFOR(^ ^OFC