The MASTER of the ROLLS. Yes; I think no trustee would be safe unless such costs were allowed.

The Defendant was decreed to execute to the Plaintiff, or as he should direct, a surrender or assignment of the term, and the Master was ordered to tax the Defendant his costs of this suit, as between solicitor and client, and to tax him his charges and expences, properly incurred, to be paid by the Plaintiff. Reg. Lib. B. 1838. fol. 965.

ON

VANCE v. VANCE.

N the 22d of March 1837, the intestate, George Vance, being confined to his bed by an accident which afterwards occasioned his death, signed an order on his bankers, Messrs. Coutts and Co., in the following

form:

"Gentlemen, Be so good as to buy a thousand consols for me and my wife, old account.' I am your

obedient servant."

A. B. gave
directions to

his bankers to
invest a sum
of money in

the joint

names of him-
self and wife,
and their

brokers ac-
cordingly
made the pur-
chase: A. B.
died after the

contract, but
before the

Having signed this order, he desired that it should transfer had be sent, on the ensuing day, to Messrs. Coutts and Co.

and

Mrs. Vance kept the order in her possession, from the distress of mind under which she at the time laboured, did not send the order the following day, nor on the next succeeding day (being Good Friday); but the order was forwarded, on Saturday the 25th of

March,

been com-
pleted: Held,
that the wife

was entitled to
the stock by
survivorship.

1839.

VANCE

V.

VANCE.

March, to Messrs. Coutts and Co., who acted on it, and sent to the intestate the following letter:

"Strand, London, 25th March, 1838. "Sir, According to your direction, our broker has purchased 1000l. consolidated 3 per cents. at 90 for

To be transferred into the joint names of yourself and Mrs. Vance on Tuesday next, when the cost will be charged to your account."

The testator died in the evening of Monday, the 27th of March 1837.

On Tuesday, the 28th of March 1837, the sum of 1000l, consols was transferred into the joint names of the intestate and his wife; and on the same day the sum of 9051. 15s. was charged by Messrs. Coutts and Co. to the account of the intestate.

The question was, whether this sum belonged to the estate of the intestate, or to the widow on the trusts of the "old account."

Mr. Skirrow and Mr. E. J. Lloyd, for the Plaintiff, submitted the point to the Court.

Mr. W. H. Clarke, for the widow of the intestate.

The MASTER of the ROLLS said he thought there was enough to entitle the widow, that there was an order

--

given

given by the intestate to his bankers, which had been acted on by them by making a contract, after which the intestate could not alter it.

1839.

VANCE

v.

VANCE.

WALKER v. MOORE.

June 25.

HE testator by his will expressed himself as fol- A testator be

THE

lows: :

As to all the rest, residue and remainder of my property, and which I shall be entitled to at the death of my wife, I give, devise and bequeath the same to be divided equally, share and share alike as tenants in common and not as joint tenants, amongst my five grand

queathed the residue amongst his five grandchildren, A., B., C., D. and

E., his grandson 4.'s two children, F. and G., and his niece's two

children, H. and K.; and

last-men

tioned chil

dren should die before

children, William Moore, Thomas Moore, Clement Moore, Henry Moore and Joseph Moore, my grandson William declared that Moore's two children, Elizabeth Moore and William of the said Moore, and my niece Rachael Walker's two children, Robert Moore Walker and Esther Walker; and in case any of the said last-mentioned children shall die before their attaining their respective ages of twenty-one years tive ages of and leave no lawful issue, then the survivors to have the twenty-one share or shares of him, her or them so dying, equally leave no lawdivided amongst them, share and share alike.

William Moore, the son of the testator's grandson William Moore, died under twenty-one without issue, and the question was, whether his one ninth became divisible, and amongst what "survivors."

It was submitted, first, that the share was not divisible; and, secondly, that the five grandchildren first mentioned did not participate in his share.

their attaining

their respec

and should

ful issue, then the survivors were to have

his or her share." F., died under twenty-one,

and left no issue: Held, that his share became divisi

ble between the eight surviving legatees, children Mr. children. and grand

1839.

WALKER

V.

MOORE.

Mr. Walker, Mr. Koe and Mr. J. F. Hall, for different parties.

The MASTER of the ROLLS was of opinion that the eight survivors, children and grandchildren, participated in the one ninth share of William.

Reg. Lib. 1839. 966.

ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA.

Page 1. Tullett v. Armstrong was affirmed by the Lord Chancellor, 22d Jan. 1840.

79. for "1837" read “1838," and for "1838" read "1839."

89. for "1838" read "1839."

146. for "John Gough" read " Charles John Gough."

146. last line, "for Henrietta Seare" read "Anna Maria Baker."

181. line 17. for "have" read "had."

184. line 17. for "allowed" read "overruled."

ditto.

6th Nov. 1839.

228. Heighington v. Grant, affirmed by the Lord Chancellor, 24th Dec. 1839. 284. reference "(e)" read " Younge & Coll."

301. for "1838" in the margin, read "1839."

317. line 26. for "party and party" read "solicitor and client."

382. Bacon v. Spottiswoode, affirmed by the Lord Chancellor, 26th July 1839.

AN

INDEX

THE PRINCIPAL MATTERS.