« AnteriorContinua »
CASES ARGUED BEFORE THE PRIVY COUNCIL.
tures; there are others, which are exceedingly marked, ARMSTRONG which I have not dealt with; it is not necessary. It
remains to observe, that this is a large property, that the family of the testator had been exceedingly beloved by him, that a very great change had taken place in his intentions within a very few months ; that at the period of making of the Will his mind was enfeebled by his affections—his affections prevailed; not that his judgment was weak, but that his affections were stronger. The result of that was, that instead of having a comparatively large fortune left them, the family whom he had cherished with great affection, an affection mutual between the parties, were left with a legacy only of 1,0001., and nearly the whole, if not the whole, was left to the widow, Mrs. Armstrong. Their Lordships are of opinion that the estate in this case should bear the costs of the whole proceeding, with the exception of that needless part to which I have adverted; that all the other costs ought not to be thrown upon the family but upon the estate, but that the Appellant whose conduct caused those needless costs should pay those costs.
With these observations we affirm the judgment of the Court below. We do not give the costs of the appeal. We do not consider that it follows, that because it was right that the Court below should thoroughly sift this case, therefore it was right that the party losing below should come here. We think there was enough done below to satisfy justice, and which ought to have satisfied the party, and therefore we do not give the costs of the appeal here; we say nothing about those costs, and that of course flings them upon each party. All I have said applies to the costs below.
IN DE X
the party so deported had enjoyed
into a conquered or ceded country
CONTAINED IN THIS VOLUME.
Mauritius must be determined by
by an order of the Governor and
c. 119, s. 29.
Delay in prosecution of.
tion of her voyage, is bound to as-
of knowing a fact, he is bound to
ATTORNEY, PRIVILEGE FROM
tise in the Supreme Court of Prince
suit instituted in the Prerogative
“ CODE CIVIL DE COMMERCE.”
BANNS (PUBLICATION OF).
See “ MARRIAGE ACT.”
from the master of a vessel, requir-
perty, both real and personal, for
he directed certain sums to be set
On the subject of the bequest
funds, but did not state whether he
no objection had
CODE CIVIL DE COMMERCE.
cessation of payment is not suffi-
(Of Order in Council.) See “GUERNSEY, DEPENDENCIES OF."
(Of the 441 Art. of Code Civil de
Commerce.) See “ CODE CIVIL DE COMMERCE."
(Of 13 Art. of Code Civil.
See “ ALIENS."
See “ PRIVILEGE OF THE HOUSE OF
ASSEMBLY OF JAMAICA."
CO-PLAINTIFF. Where a party is made a co-plaintiff
, having no interest in one of the objects sought by his co-plaintiff, and the bill is sustainable only in respect of that object, it must be dismissed. [Denton y. Davy]
See “ CAPACITY.”
See “ ALIENS."
cient to establish the "ouverture de la faillite" under the 441 Article of the Code de Commerce of France; and a suspension of payment does not necessarily amount to a cessation within the terms of that article: but as a general stoppage of payments necessarily amounts to a refusal at the time, if such stoppage has taken place, the "ouverture de la faillite" may be carried back to the time of
the antecedent refusal. Where a house in the Mauritius car
ried on trade in co-partnership with one in London, and suspended his payments in consequence of the stoppage of the London house, though not till some time after the arrival of intelligence of such stoppage, the Judicial Committee (affirming the judgment of the Court of First Instance and the Supreme Court in the island) refused to carry back the date of the “ouverture de la faillite" to the failure of the London house, but held it fixed only from the period of the actual stoppage of payments in the island. [D'Epinay v. Cockerell] - . - 103
COMMISSION TO TRUSTEES. (Under the Jamaica Act, 24 Geo. 2,
(Of 24 Geo. 2, c. 19.)
(Of 5 Geo. 4, c. 51.) See “ NEWFOUNDLAND,”_" WASTE
ENGLISH LAW IN THE EAST