Page Houlditch, Cauty v.-

M. Hugonin, Hall v. --I595

MOTOREY Page Husband, Lane v. agii A-072 656 Macdonald, Hall v. - - I GTA brusle to somola

» Young v. - - 34 en

I clima Ilona Mackerell v. Fisher - - - 604

J. 802 Pavons sainte Maitland v. Rodger -10-1.92

Mansfield (Earl of), Attor-
Jackson, Butcher vant

444
293.000 i ney-General v.

Ve601 James v. Smith

- 214 amal

Manton v. Roe - - - - 353 Johnson v. Johnson

313

Marjoribanks, Knight v. - 198 Jones v. Geddes VerW

606

as son Marshall, Gardner v. -20- 575 381

Youde v. sta. moto, 131 Martin v. Maughambre - 230 238 Silword sogn Maugham, Martin v.

21 - 230 OSI

ziwal & brotonda Meares, Green v. - - I. II526 eea K..Taigida Medley v. Horton

222 22 NH nottenmiwa Meux, Lord Rendlesham v. - 249 Kidd v. North 463 Miller, Hansen v.

22 King v. Wright

- 400
v. Harris

540 Knight v. Marjoribanks nibanks - 10.198 Milroy v. Milroy

48 v. Morrall 8 asysh

398 Mitchell, Emmott v. - - - 432 -, Turquand v.- 643 PES cama oration Montgomery v. Calland

19

79 000

idato T Stilood Moore, Scott v.
L.076

Voltbil Morrall, Knight v.) Distalo 398 808 380S oooo. 19TOT Moser v. Platt

27-176 95 Laing, Bowden v.w3.- _- 113

OS Mouloudig. Noebendig Laver, Lloyd v. 1 645

a do N. V Lane v. Husband e jjsilo-656

Todo eroid Le Vasseur v. Scratton

116 Newbolt v. Pryce - 1971 1970354 Leeds (Duke of) v. Lord

Newport, Turner V: 10571 1970

32 Amherst

357 Nicholson v. Wilson anim- 54

காமப் பாட Leslie, Wastell v. o

84 Nightingale, Barnacle v. - 456 Lewis, Stratford 120 Norcott v. Gordon

258 Lloyd v. Laver 645 North, Kidd v.

463 Lockwood v. Abdy a = 3-19-437 London and Croydon Rail-swea Josep d'W eVbaca

0. ceway Company, Pearson v. 541 08

DOOM02 Lygon v. Lord Coventry 41 Oakes, Smith v. - - - 122

Page

A TABLE OF THE CASES REPORTED,

vii P. Page Shaw, Gordon v.

393 Paley, Sturgis v. 599 Shipman, Bush v.

239 Palmer v. Horton - - 633 Skillern, Amies v.

4:28 Park, In re

89 Sloman v. Bank of England 475 Parker, Ashton v. 632 Small, Smith v.

119 Pearson V. London and

Smith v. Groves

· 603 Croydon Railway Com

James v.

214 pany

541
v. Oakes

122 Peddle, Askew v.

301
v. Small

119 Perry, Creed v

592
Wrey u.

202 Phillips v. Barlow

- 263 Stanhope, Deeks v. 57 & 200 Piper, Craddock v. 310 Stapleton v. Stapleton

- 186 Platt, Moser v.

95 Stoughton, Browne v. 369 Powell, Davenport v. 275 Stratford v. Lewis

120 Powney v. Blomberg - 179 Sturgis v. Paley

599 Pratt v. Pratt

- 129 Swinnerton, Heming v. 588 Pryce, Newbolt v.

354

T.
R.

Taylor, Greenwood v. 505 Rabbits, Wiltshire v.

v. Haygarth

8 Reeves v. Glastonbury Canal

Thomas v. Thomas

234 Company 351 Thornhill v. Thornhill

600 Rendlesham (Lord) v. Meux 249 Trathen, Ward v.

82 Ricardo, Garcias v. - 265 & 52# Turner, Cooke v..

- 218 & 293 Richardson v. Richardson 526

v. Newport

32 Warwick v. - 281 Turquand v. Knight - 643 Rickards, Darbon v. - 537 Tyrer, Follett v.

125 Rimner, Freer v.

391 Rodger, Maitland v.

92

V. Roe, Manton v. 353 Varty, Duncan v.

393 Rumball, Wilton v.

56

76

- 131

34

CASES IN CHANCERY,

BEFORE THE

VICE-CHANCELLOR.

HALL V. MACDONALD.

1844 :

19th January. This was a creditor's suit.

Retainer.

Trustee. The testator's personal estate being insufficient to pay Debt. his debts, his real estates were ordered to be sold, and

Debtor and

creditor. the proceeds applied in payment of his debts remaining unsatisfied.

A trustee of

real estates sold The Vice-Chancellor held that the Defendant, who was the testator's

for payment of one of the unsatisfied creditors and also a trustee and debts, is entitled

to retain a debt executor of the will, was entitled to retain his debt out

due to him of the proceeds of the sale ; and that his right was not from the testaprejudiced by the proceeds having been paid into tor, out of the Court (a).

proceeds; and his right is not

prejudiced by Mr. Campbell appeared for the Plaintiff.

the proceeds

having been Mr. De Gex and Mr. Winstanley appeared for the paid into Court. Defendants.

(a) See Loumes v. Stotherd, i Sim. & Stu. 458; Player v. Foxhall, 1 Russ. 538; Chissum v. Dewes, 5 Russ. 29; Langton v. Higgs, ante, Vol. V. p. 228.

Vol. XIV.
Dain Cader 12 Eq

ģ

B

:

1844:

WALSH v. GLADSTONE.V
19th Jan.

C. R. BLUNDELL, esq., the testator in the cause,
Will.
Construction. appointed John Gladstone, Robert Gladstone, and Thomas
Trustee.

Robinson to be the executors and trustees of his will;
Legacy.

and gave, to each of them who should prove and act, a 3001. to each of legacy of 300l. ; but, if any of them should die without his three trus

having acted, or should refuse or decline to act, the legacy teez and execu; or legacies intended for him or them, were to go to the tors who should

trustee or trustees who, under the power for that purpose prove and act: but if any of contained in his will, should be appointed in his or their them should die place. The will afterwards provided that, in case all or without haring acted, or should any of the said trustees, or any trustee or trustees to be refuse or decline appointed under that proviso, should die or be desirous to act, the legacies intended for them, were to go to the trustees, who, under the power for thut purpose contuined in the will, should be appointed in their place. Two of the trustees died in the testator's lifetime, and two new ones were proposed by the surviving trustee and appointed by the Master in compliance with the decree in a suit for administering the testator's estate. Held that they were not entitled to the legacies intended for the deceased trustees.

Power to appoint new trustees.- Construction.— Trustee. Testator, after appointing three trustees of his will, provided that, if they, or any of them, or any trustee or trustees to be appointed under that proviso, shoul:t die or be desirous to be discharged, or go to reside beyond sea, or neglect or refuse or become incapable to act, before the trusts should be performed, it should be lawful for the surviving, continuing or acting trustees or trustee for the time being or the last acting trustee, to nominate a new trustee or trustees; and that the trust property which should he or have been vested in the trustee or trustees so dying, desiring to be discharged &c., and should then be subject to the trusts of the will, should be vested in the new trustee or trustees jointly with the surviving or continuing trustee or trustees, or solely, as the case might require. Two of the trustees died in the testator's lifetime. Query, whether new trustees could be ap

pointed under the power? Kurtarr ibilter . Beckett 4 DeG. 6.74.