man against a person claiming under that lease, notwithstanding such lease might contain licences to the lessee as to the use of the mines, which were ultra vires. Held, by Byles, J. and Montague Smith, J., that such lease was void, as the testator's daughter had no power under the will to lease the mines for a term extending beyond her own life, the meaning of the will being that she might get the minerals in her own time, or the value of them, in any way she pleased, disposing of the proceeds, however, in the way prescribed by the testator. Held, per totam Curiam, that the receipt of rent under the lease by a receiver appointed by the Court of Chancery during the minority of an infant remainderman, who was a ward of such Court, was no evidence of a yearly tenancy between the infant ward and the lessee. Jegon v. Vivian, C.P. 73 construction: residuary clause: ejectment]— Testator, in his will, after directing that his debts and funeral expenses should be paid out of his personal estates, proceeded as follows: "All the rest of my worldly estate, both real and personal, I give, devise and bequeath as follows." He then gave and devised to his natural daughter an estate tail in certain copyhold hereditaments, and also an estate tail in some other copyhold hereditaments. Then followed the residuary clause : "And all the rest, residue and remainder of my personal estate and effects wheresoever and whatsoever, and of what nature, kind or quality soever the same may be, moneys, securities for moneys, or whatever I may be possessed of or entitled to at the time of my decease, I give and bequeath the same to my said daughter to and for her own sole use and benefit absolutely ":-Held, that the reversions in fee expectant on the determination of the daughter's estates tail in the copyhold hereditaments did not pass to her under the residuary clause. Wilce v. Wilce commented upon. Cook v. Jaggard, Ex. 76 construction: devise of undivided fourth part]-Testator being seised in fee of two undivided fourth parts of land under lease to different persons, devised one of them by the following words: "I give unto Joseph Manning all my undivided quarter of three fields in the parish of Plympton Maurice, and are at lease to Miss Elizabeth Palmer on three lives; conventionary rent, 13s. 4d.; heriot 10s. on each life dying; known and commonly called Castle Hayes; to be received by the said Joseph Manning or his father for him":-Held, that Joseph Manning took an estate in fee, and not an estate for life merely. Doe d. Atkinson v. Fawcett followed. Manning v. Taylor, Ex. 145 construction of "appurtenances": тапиfactory"]-Testator was possessed of two buildings used as manufactories of earthenware, one on the west and the other on the east side of a street. The buildings were capable of being used as separate manufactories, but for very many years they had been used together, and they were occupied by the same tenants, A. and B, at the time of testator's death. At that time, however, certain repairs were necessary in order to make the buildings on the east side available as a separate manufactory. The value of the buildings on the east side was about half that of those on the west. Testator, by a codicil to his will, devised his manufactory on the west side of the street-describing it as in the occupation of A. and B, with the outbuildings and appurtenances thereto belonging-to certain devisees. The buildings on the east side were not specifically mentioned either in the will or the codicil, but there was in the will a general devise of all the real property to trustees for sale : -Held, (affirming the judgment below, Ex. 11) that the buildings on the east side, although at the time forming part of the manufactory in the occupation of A. and B, did not pass, under the words of the devise in the codicil, as appurtenant to the manufactory on the west side. Smith v. Ridgway (Ex. Ch.), Ex. 198 WINDING-UP of industrial societies. See County Court. WITNESS-commission to examine: alleged prejudice on the part of Judge of a foreign Court: cross-interrogatories]-Upon application for a commission to issue directed to the Judges of a foreign Court, to examine witnesses on the part of the defendant, it appeared that the action was brought, in forma pauperis, to recover the value of certain shares and coupons, and it was objected by the plaintiff's attorney that she had already been interrogated by one of the Judges (whose name appeared in the commission) in the course of proceedings taken against her abroad, respecting the same shares and coupons; and it was stated that this Judge had put questions to her suggesting that she had been guilty of fraud; that he had threatened her with imprisonment, and refused to hear evidence on her behalf; and it was requested that, even if the commission were allowed, she might be at liberty to exhibit crossinterrogatories to the witnesses for the defence: -Held, that the commission might issue, the name of the Judge complained of to be omitted from it, and the foreign Court to be requested not to allow him to take part in the examination; the plaintiff to be at liberty to crossexamine on interrogatories, if the foreign Court would allow such interrogatories to be used. Valentin v. Hall, Q.B. 121 Errata and Notanda. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH,-page 9, 1st column, line 13, for "plaintiff," read defendant. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,-page 9, 2nd column, line 13, for "36," read 63; also, p. 226, 2nd column, line 28, for "children" read children; also, page 232, 1st column, lines 16 and 17, for "offence," read office. NEW SERIES, 35.-INDEX, Com. Law. f COMMON LAW. VOL. XLIV.-XXXV. NEW SERIES. [In this Table the letters M.C. denote that the case belongs to the MAGISTRATES' CASES, the Head-note only being given in the QUEEN'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS, or EXCHEQUER respectively.] BENCH. Lunn v. London and North-Western Rail. Co., 105 Lyle v. Richards (House of Lords), 214 M'Crea v. Holdsworth (Ex. Ch.), 123 Morgan v. Vale of Neath Rail. Co. (Ex.Ch.), 23 v. Northowram and Clayton Ratepayers, 90 v. Parts of Lindsey, Justices (M.C. 90), 90 v. Phillips (M.C. 217), 229 v. Rand (M.C. 147), 129 v. St. Leonard, Shoreditch (M.C. 48), 80 v. Spurrell (M.C. 74), 73 v. Stone (M.C. 208), 184 -- v. Strugnell (M.C. 78), 86 Saint Helen's Smelting Co. (Lim.) v. Tipping (House of Lords), 66 Sanders v. Baldy (M.C. 71), 86 Smith v. Redding (M.C. 202), 174 Swinford v. Keble, 185 Tarner v. Walker, 179 Bolton v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Rail. Co., 137 Bremner v. Hull, 332 Budenberg v. Roberts (M.C. 235), 354 Bullen v. Sharp (Ex. Ch.), 105 Carr v. Wallachian Petroleum Co. (Lim.), 314 City of Dublin Steam Packet Co. v. Thompson Coles v. Turner (Ex. Ch.), 169 Connelly v. Bremner, 319 Corner v. Sweet, 151 Crafter v. Metropolitan Rail. Co., 132 Dodds v. Thompson, 97 PLEAS. Jegon v. Vivian, 73 Kelly v. Morray, 287 Kidston v. Empire Marine Insurance Co. (Lim.), 250 Kynnaird v. Leslie, 226 Lane v. Nixon, 243 Lees v. Newton, 285 Lievesley v. Gilmore, 351 Lisburne, Earl of, v. Davies, 193 Lock v. Furze (Ex. Ch.), 141 London and South-Western Rail. Co. v. Reeves Longmore v. Great Western Rail. Co., 135 M'Andrew v. Chapple, 281 Macrae v. Clarke, 247 Mallett v. Bateman (Ex. Ch.), 40 Malpas v. London and South-Western Rail. Co., Marsden v. City and County Assurance Co. Mason v. Harris, 101 Mullett v. Mason, 299 National Discount Co. v. Mid-Wales Rail. Co., 205 Neill v. Whitworth (Ex. Ch.), 304 North British Rail. Co., in re, 262 Overend, Gurney & Co. v. Mid-Wales Rail. Co., 205 Palmer v. London and South-Western Rail. Co., Peache v. Colman (M.C. 118), 160 Phillips v. Im Thurn, 220 v. Poland, 128 Prout v. Harris, 101 Ralston v. Smith (House of Lords), 49 Richardson v. Power (Ex. Ch.), 44 Robinson v. Great Western Rail. Co., 123 Scott v. Uxbridge and Rickmansworth Rail. Co., Seagrave v. Union Marine Insur. Co., 172 Shears v. Jacobs, 241 Short v. Simpson, 147 Smith v. Holloway, 100 v. Thackerah, 276 Stanhope v. Thorsby (M.C. 182), 261 Browning (M.C. 145), 204 Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Gibbs (House of Lords), 225 v. Penhallow (House of Lords), 225 Montefiore v. Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co., 90 Noble v. Ward, 81 Oakley v. Monck (Ex. Ch.), 87 O'Brien v. Brodie, 188 Parker v. Tootal, 53 Parsons v. Lloyd, 190, note Pearce v. Brookes, 134 Pearson v. Kingston-upon-Hull Local Board of Health (M.C. 36), 67 v. Pearson, 172 Prichard v. Timothy, 165 Queenshead Industrial Soc. v. Pickles, 1 Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co. v. Goldsmid, 90 v. Montefiore, 90 Rayment v. Minton, 153 Redpath v. Wigg (Ex. Ch.), 211 Reuss v. Picksley (Ex. Ch.), 218 Richards v. Harper, 130 Roberts v. Rose (Ex. Ch.), 62 Roe v. Bradshaw, 71 Ryalls v. Leader, 185 Saunders v. Merryweather, 115 Stanger v. Miller, 49 Stapley v. London, Brighton and South Coast Rail. Co., 7 Stubley v. London and North-Western Rail. Co., 3 Sutton v. Great Western Rail. Co. (Ex. Ch.), 18 v. South-Eastern Rail. Co. (Ex. Ch.), 18, 38 Tanner v. European Bank (Lim.), 151 Vandenbergh v. Spooner, 201 Whittaker v. Lowe (Ex. Ch.), 44 Wilson v. Jones, 94 v. Newport Dock Co., 97 Woods v. De Mattos (Ex. Ch.), 64 Wright v. Child, 209 Printed by JAMES HOLMES, 4, Took's Court, Chancery Lane. |