CHAN.]

[CHAN.

Re THE ROYAL BRITISH BANK, MIXER'S CASE.
Friday, Nov. 11.

had jurisdiction in respect of such company if the PEDDER . Pedder. registered office of the company had been established Practice-Abatement - Administration suit-Death of in Scotland or Ireland, and in the same manner in all sole defendant-Sole plaintiff executor-Reriror. respects as if such order had been made by the courts Where in an administration suit there was a sole that are hereby required to enforce the same, and in plaintiff and defendant, and the sole defendant died, like manner orders, interlocutors and decrees, made haring appointed the plaintiff executor, the court by the court in Scotland for or in the course of the allowed the suit to be revived against the parties in-winding-up of a company, shall be enforced in England terested, who had appeared before the chief clerk in the prosecution of the suit in chambers. This was a motion for revivor. The suit was an administration suit, in which there was a sole plaintiff and a sole defendant. The usual administration decree had been made, and the suit was being proceeded with before the chief clerk in chambers, and some of the parties interested had been summoned and had appeared in such proceedings. In this state of things the sole defendant died, having by his will appointed the plaintiff his sole executor, and he proved the will. The suit having thus abated,

C. Hall moved that, under the circumstances, the plaintiff might be allowed to revive the suit against the parties who had appeared before the chief clerk in chambers.

The MASTER of the ROLLS thought this would be a proper course, and made an order accordingly.

COURT OF APPEAL IN CHANCERY.
Reported by C. H. KEENE, THOMAS BROOKSBANK and JOSHUA
METCALFE, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law.

Wednesday, Nov. 2.

(Before the LORD CHANCELLOR (Campbell). Re MACKEAN'S PETITION. Practice-Opposition to a patent-Negligence in filing affidavits.

A., opposing a patent, did not file affidavits until the morning of hearing:

Held, that, as the affidavits were only filed that morning, they could not be read, and the great seal was affixed.

This was a petition to have the great seal affixed to a patent, notwithstanding the respondent had filed some affidavits in opposition that morning. It was alleged that the reason of the delay in filing the affidavits was occasioned by the difficulty of procuring them during the long vacation, from persons residing in different parts of Scotland.

Hindmarch and Druce appeared for the petitioner.
Karslake for the respondent.

and Ireland, and orders made by the court in Ireland for or in the course of winding-up a company shall be enforced in England and Scotland by the courts which would respectively have had jurisdiction in the matter of such company if the registered office of the company were established in the division of the United Kingdom where the order is required to be enforced, and in the same manner in all respects as if such order had been made by the court required to enforce the same in the case of a company within its own jurisdiction." The 13th section enacts, that "where any order, interlocutor or decree made by one court is required to be enforced by another court, as hereinbefore provided, an office copy of the order, interlocutor or decree so made, shall be produced to the proper officer of the court required to enforce the same; and the production of such office copy shall be sufficient evidence of such order, interlocutor or decree having been made; and thereupon such last-mentioned court shall cause such order, interlocutor or decree to be registered, or shall take such other steps in the matter as may be requisite for enforcing such order, interlocutor or decree, in the same manner as if it were the order, interlocutor or decree of the court enforcing the same."

During the vacation the M. R. ordered the order in question to be enrolled.

C. T. Swanston appeared for the application.
The LORD CHANCELLOR made the order asked.

(Before the LORD CHANCELLOR (Campbell) and the
LORDS JUSTICES.)

Re THE ROYAL BRITISH BANK.
MIXER'S CASE.

Joint-stock bank-Contributory — Misrepresentation
-Contract.

The Royal British Bank allotted shares in their bank
issued under its supplemental charter to M. under the
same circumstances of fraud as in Brockwell's case.
M. having executed the deed and received dividends,
was held to be a contributory.

This case came on upon an order made by The LORD CHANCELLOR.-I think, under the cir- Kindersley, V.C. upon two summonses at chainbers. cumstances, I ought to make an order for the great The V.C. considering the question to be in substance seal to be affixed to this patent. It having been re-identical with that in Brockwell's case, 4 Drew, 205, ferred to the Solicitor-General, and no opposition having desired that the case might be heard before the full been made; but now, on the first day of term, the court. There being hardly any difference between the respondent comes into court and files his affidavits, but circumstances of Brockwell's case and this, it was these cannot now be read. The respondent can, how-agreed that, mutatis mutandis, the facts in Brockwell's ever, hereafter impeach the petitioner's patent, by an action for infringement or by scire facias. I shall therefore order the great seal to be affixed.

Re THE WESTERN BANK OF SCOTLAND. Practice-Order of Scotch Court-Enrolment in England-Winding-up-21 & 22 Vict. c. 60, ss. 12, 13. Application was made to have an order of a Scotch court in the winding-up of the Western Bank of Scotland enrolled in this country, under the provisions of the above Act. The L.C. made the order. This was an application to have an order of a Scotch court in the winding-up of the above bank, enrolled in England under the provisions of the 21 & 22 Vict. c. 60, the 12th section of which enacts, "That any order made by the court in England for or in the course of the winding-up of a company under the Joint-Stock Companies Acts, shall be enforced in Scotland and Ireland, and in the courts that would respectively have

case should be taken as evidence. One summons was, upon an application of the official manager of the bank, to make an addition or variation in the list of contributories by including therein Robert Mixer as a member of the company in respect of twelve shares. The other was upon an application by Mr. Mixer claiming to prove against the estate of the bank for 60%. and 6007. and interest, being the amount paid by him on the twelve shares by way of premium and deposit thereon.

Giffard, Q.C. and Field appeared for Mr. Mixer.They contended that the issue of shares having been under the supplemental charter of the bank, no final contract of partnership was entered into with Mr. Mixer; that the bank never having procured other subscribers to the extent of the intended additional capital, could not go on with less without breaking the contract with those who had taken shares upon the faith of the representations they had made.

Re THE COLNE VALLEY AND HALSTEAD RAILWAY BILL.

CHAN.]

[CHAN.

Glasse, Q.C. and Lewis, Q.C. appeared for the the new stock was to be taken to be as much "East official manager. India Stock as the Old East India Stock, within the Joseph Browne (of the common law bar) for the meaning of the Act of last session. The case, howcreditors' representatives. Field in reply.

The following authorities were referred to:-Chaplin v. Clark, 4 Exch. 493; Nockells v. Crosby, 3 B. & Cr. 814; Fox v. Clifton, 6 Bing. 776; Pickford v. Davis, 5 M. & W. 2; Re the Royal British Bank, ex parte Nicol, 53 L. T. Rep. 14; Walstab v. Spottiswood, 15 M. & W. 501; Garrett v. Kennedy, 6 C. B. 19; Ashpitel v. Sercombe, 5 Exch. 146; Henderson v. The Royal British Bank, 7 Ell. & B. 356; White v. Gordon, 10 C. B. 919; Stevenson v. Newnham 13 C. B. 323; Blackburn v. Smith, 2 Exch. 783; Macbride v. Lindsay, 9 Hare, 72.

The LORD CHANCELLOR.-I am of opinion that Mr. Mixer is not entitled to prove for the money which he has so advanced, and that he is liable to remain on the list of contributories. He became a shareholder, received the certificates of his shares, and executed the deed. The provision in the supplemental deed which is relied on, is not applicable here; as it would be a monstrous situation for an allottee of the new shares to be placed in, if his rights depended on what transpired subsequently to his allotment. It is said, however, that in this case there was fraud in inducing Mr. Mixer to take the shares. No doubt there was gross fraud; but, after what has happened, this contract cannot be rescinded. It is well settled, that a contract tainted with fraud may be repudiated, but it is not absolutely void. But here it has been acted upon, and therefore cannot be rescinded. None of the parties can be restored to the | same position. Mr. Mixer acted upon the contract, and received dividends on the shares. He had a right to sell them, and, if the concern had been prosperous, might have made a profit. He also attended the meetings, and even after the bankruptcy did not repudiate his contract.

The LORDS JUSTICES Concurred.

Tuesday, Nov. 15.

(Before the LORD CHANCELLOR (Campbell) and the
LORDS JUSTICES.)

Re THE COLNE VALLEY AND HALSTEAD RAILWAY
BILL.

New East India Loan-Investment-Trust funds--|
Trustees Relief Act, 22 & 23 Vict. c. 35, s. 32.
The investment of trust-funds in the New East Indian
Loan, under the 32nd section of the above Act, not
sanctioned by the Court of Ch.
Per the L.C.: If a trustee had invested in the New
East Indian Stock, and was brought before this
court for breach of trust, and pleaded the provisions
of the above Act, the court would decide in his favour.
But if the court is asked whether it is a fitting in-
vestment for a trustee to make, I am of opinion that
it is not."

The question raised in this case was, whether trustfunds could be properly invested in the New East Indian Loan, under the provisions of the 32nd section of the Trustees Relief Act of last session (22 & 23 Vict. c. 35), which enacts, "That when a trustee, executor or administrator shall not by some instruments creating his trust be expressly forbidden to invest any trust-fund on real securities in any part of the United Kingdom, or on the stock of the Bank of England or Ireland, or on East India Stock, it shall be lawful for such trustee, executor or administrator, to invest such trust-fund on such securities or stock, and he shall not be liable on that account as for a breach of trust, provided that such investment shall in other respects be reasonable and proper." The case was sent by Wood, V.C. for the opinion of the Court of Appeal, and when heard on the 7th of the month, the L.C. expressed an opinion that

ever, stood over for counsel to look into the nature of the Old East India Stock, to see whether its guarantee was different from that of the new stock.

Mayhew, for the petition, now stated that he applied for an order sanctioning the investment of a sum of money raised for the purposes of the Colne Valley and Halstead Railway in the New East India Stock. He cited the Acts of 26 Geo. 3, c. 62; 29 Geo. 3, c. 65, and the 33 Geo. 3, c. 47, and particularly referred to the 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 85, the 9th section of which enacts, "That from and after the 22nd April 1834, all the bond debt of the said company in Great Britain, and all the territorial debt of the said company in India, and all other debts which shall on that day be owing by the said company, and all sums of money, costs, charges and expenses which after the said 22nd April 1834 may become payable by the said company in respect or by reason of any covenants, contracts or liabilities then existing, and all debts, expenses and liabilities whatever which after the same day shall be lawfully contracted and incurred on account of the government of the said territories, and all payments by this Act directed to be made shall be charged and chargeable upon the revenues of the said territories, and that neither any stock or effects which the said company may hereafter have to their own use, nor the dividend by this Act secured to them, nor the directors or proprietors of the said company, shall be liable to or chargeable with any of the said debts, payments or liabilities." The 14th section enacts, "That there shall be paid by the said company into the Bank of England, to the account of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, such sums of money as shall in the whole amount to the sum of 200,000l. sterling, with compound interest after the rate of 37. 10s. per centum per annum, computed half-yearly from the said 22nd April 1834, on so much of the said sums as shall from time to time remain unpaid, and the cashiers of the said bank shall receive all such sums of with the said commissioners, to be intituled The Acmoney and place the same to a separate account count of the Security Fund of the India Company,' and that as well the moneys so paid into the said bank as the dividends or interest which shall arise therefrom, shall from time to time be laid out under the direction of the said commissioners in the purchase of capital stock in any of the redeemable public annuities transferable at the Bank of England, which capital stock so purchased shall be invested in the names of the said commissioners on account of the said security fund, and the dividends payable thereon shall be received by the said cashiers and placed to the said account until the whole of the sums so received on such account shall have amounted to the sum of twelve millions sterling; and the said moneys, stock and dividends, or interest, shall be a security fund for better securing to the said company the redemption of their said dividend after the rate hereinbefore appointed for such redemption." The 16th provides, "That all dividends on the capital stock forming the said security fund, accruing after the moneys received by the said bank to the account of such fand shall have amounted to the sum of 12,000,000l. sterling, until the said fund shall be applied to the redemption of the said company's dividends, and also all the said security fund, or so much thereof as shall remain after the said dividend shall be wholly redeemed after the rate aforesaid, shall be applied in aid of the revenues of the said territories." The 17th enacts, "That the said dividend on the company's capital shall be paid or retained as aforesaid out of such part of the revenues of the said territories as shall be remitted to Great Britain, in preference to all other charges payable thereout in Great Britain, and

་

CHAN.]

BARBER . BARBER.

that the sum of 2,000,000l. sterling shall be paid in manner aforesaid, out of any sums which shall on the said 22nd April 1834 be due to the said company from the public, and when the same shall be received, and out of any moneys which shall arise from the sale of any Government Stock on that day belonging to the said company, in preference to all other payments thereout." He also cited the 21 & 22 Vict. c. 106, s. 42, by which it is enacted, "that dividends of the stock of the company, and existing and future debts, liabilities and expenses, are to be charged on the revenues of India. He stated that the only point of distinction between the two stocks was, that one was a prior charge on the revennes of India, and a fund was set apart out of the revenues of the East India Com- | pany for the redemption of the dividends of the old stock at the rate of 200 per cent. He submitted that, as the revenues of India must be taken to be sufficient to meet all charges upon them, this was a proper investment for a trustee to make.

[V.C. K.

any one asking my opinion, as the V.C. has done, that at present it is not such an investment as ought to be made by a trustce, especially as the enactment which authorises it will probably be removed from the statutebook next session."

Lord Justice KNIGHT BRUCE.-I confess I consider the point raised too doubtful to enable me to accede to this petition; I therefore concur in the decision of the L.C.

Lord Justice TURNER.-The question is, whether this is an investment the court will sanction; and I am of opinion that it is not. Whether a trustee would be chargeable if he made such an investment is another question, and must depend on the construction of the Act. I am not at all certain that the stock in question is East India Stock within the Trustees Act of last session, and that the clause applied to other than the East India Stock which was already in existence when the Act passed. If that were so, the Act would be prospective, and would apply to any future stock which might be created. I am not prepared to admit that all Indian bonds and bank stock are proper investments to be made.

V. C. KINDERSLEY'S COURT. Reported by P. M. LEONARD and H. R. YOUNG, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law.

Nov. 8 and 9.

BARBER . BARBER.
Pleading-Demurrer-Costs.

Where a defendant, by one demurrer, demurred to the
plaintiff's bill on the two distinct grounds of want of
jurisdiction and want of equity, the Court overruled
the demurrer; but without costs, as the plaintiff had
not fully shown such a case by her bill as would
have entitled her to relief on the hearing.

Broad-street, in the city of London, her next friend."

The LORD CHANCELLOR.-I have written to Lord St. Leonards on the subject, and it appears from his answer that he disapproves of this section of the Act, and disclaims being the author of it. No such clause was in the Bill as it passed the House of Lords, but it was added in the House of Commons and sent back to the Lords at a time when it was impossible for Lord St. Leonards to ask their Lordships to disagree to the amendment without incurring the loss of what was in other respects a very valuable Bill, and he thought it was more advantageous to the public that it should become law for the time as it stood; he has, however, publicly announced his intention of introducing a Bill next session for the repeal of this clause. But here it stands, and we are bound to give it the interpretation which we think the Legislature intended. Lord St. Leonards thinks this clause in direct opposition to the principles of law which governed the relative rights of This case came on now to be heard upon a demurrer tenants for life and reversioners, and that it would lead to the plaintiff's bill. The plaintiff was described in to jobbing with trust-funds. In this opinion I concur. the bill as "Elizabeth, the wife of Frederick Charles This clause contains words embracing bank stock of the Barber, now residing at Bridge Allan, in Scotland, Banks of England and Ireland, and securities in Scot-suing by William Ogilvie, of No. 1, Cushion-court, Old land and East India Stock, none of which have any imperial guarantee, though in the case of a certain East India stock a fund has been appropriated by statute to secure the payment of the dividends. The enactment is such a one as this court is bound to obey. The loan which is contracted under the provisions of the 22 & 23 Vict. c. 39, is East India Stock, and if it had been borrowed on the security of long annuities terminable in fifty years, the powers under which it is raised are the same. Putting a construction on Lord St. Leonards' Act as it stands, I am bound to say that I think the loan in question is East India Stock within the meaning of the 32nd clause of the Act. This court cannot look to whether it is a just enactment or not; but all we can say is, that it enables trustees to invest in the securities named in the 32nd clause, of which East India Stock is one. The Trustees Act, and the East India Loan Act of last session received the Royal assent on the same day, and by the former the Legislature enacts that trustees may invest in East India Stock; and though there was an East India Stock previously existing, yet by the latter another East India Stock is created which is generically the same. Any trustee, therefore, investing in the new East India Stock will not be guilty of a breach of trust; at the same time I do not say that such an investment is one which this court ought to sanction. If a trustee had invested in that stock and was brought before the court for breach of trust, and pleaded the provisions of the Trustees Act of last session, this court would be bound to decide in his favour. But if I am asked whether this is a proper investment for a trustee to make, I should say that it is not; and it is my duty to advise

The bill stated as follows:-John Wright, the late father of the plaintiff, duly made his will, dated the 30th Dec. 1841, and thereby gave certain specific and pecuniary bequests. The will contained the following devise and bequest: "All the rest, residue and remainder of the whole of my real and personal property of every description not before given or disposed of, after payment of my just debts and funeral expenses, I give and bequeath unto my son John Innes Wright, and to my daughter Elizabeth Wright, share and share alike, the same to be paid to them when and as they attain their several and respective ages of twenty-one years, or in case of my daughter, on the day of her marriage, which shall first happen, provided she marry with the consent as hereinafter mentioned; and until my said son and daughter shall so attain their respective ages of twenty-one years, my will is, that from and out of the interest and produce of their several and respective shares and proportions of my estate, my executor, James Wright, do pay for their maintenance and education as in his discretion he may think fit, provided always, nevertheless, and my will and mind is, that in case my said daughter Elizabeth Wright shall marry under age with consent, that my said executor shall pay to her out of the share as she may be entitled to, such portion thereof as he may think fit, the remainder to be settled upon her and her children; but should she marry under age, without having obtained the consent of my exccutor James Wright, or, in the event of his death, the consent of his executor or administrator, it is my will that the whole of the property she may be entitled to be settled upon her and her children, she only being entitled to a

V.C. K.]

BARBER . BARBER.

The testator made a codicil to his will, dated the 13th Feb. 1842, which it is not material now to state, and he died in London on the 28th June 1842, without having revoked his said will and codicil. The said will and codicil were proved in the proper Ecclesiastical Court in London, by the defendant James Wright, on the 4th Jan. 1843, and also in Scotland by him, and in Madras by John Horne, one of the members of the said firm of Messrs. Griffiths and Co.

The testator left at his decease the plaintiff Elizabeth Barber, and the said J. I. Wright, his only children him surviving.

The plaintiff Elizabeth Barber was born on the 28th Nov. 1825, and intermarried, with the consent of the said defendant James Wright, with the defendant Frederick Charles Barber, on the 15th July 1846, and while she was a minor; but there has been no issue of the marriage.

[V.C. K. life-interest in the same; but in the event of my said | F. C. Barber gives and disposes to the said Elizabeth son or daughter departing this life before attaining Wright, if she shall survive him, the whole household their respective ages of twenty-one years, or after furniture, including carriages, horses, plate and china, attaining that age, unmarried and intestate, it is my and such other personal property as shall belong to him at will and desire, and I hereby bequeath the whole of the his death, warranted free from all debts and claims whatresidue of my estate to the survivor; and I hereby ever, or the price and proceeds to be obtained therefor, nominate and appoint my said brother James Wright, subject to the ordinary burdens and deductions for writer to the signet in Edinburgh, and Messrs. Griffiths house-rent and servants' wages, in the event of the said and Co., of Madras, to be executors of this my last household furniture and other articles being sold in will and testament." India, in the terms of usual general orders in such cases; and he binds and obliges himself and his foresaids, within three months from his death, to make payment to her, if she shall survive, of the sum of 1007. as an allowance for mourning, with legal interest till payment, and of a sum at the rate of 4081. per annum, for maintaining the family, and for houserent and servants' wages, from the term of his death until the first term of Whit-Sunday or Martinmas thereafter, which sums the said E. Wright hereby accepts of in full of all she can ask in the name of mourning, and for alimenting and supporting the family to the first term after her husband's death, these provisions being over and above the annuity to which she will be entitled, if she survives her husband, from the Military Fund or otherwise, as foresaid; and considering that the said Lieut.-Col. Wright, now deceased, by his last will and testament, dated the 30th day of Dec. 1841 years, and registered in the books of Previously to the marriage of the plaintiff, the de- council and session at Edinburgh as a probative writ fendant James Wright caused an instrument of settle- the 28th day of Nov. 1841 years, divided the residue ment or ante-nuptial contract in the Scotch form, and of his property and succession between his son J. I. dated the 14th July 1846, to be prepared and executed Wright, now ensign in the 27th Regiment of Madras by the plaintiff and defendants Frederick Charles Native Infantry, and his own surviving daughter, the Barber and James Wright, and by the said John Innes said E. Wright, and nominated the said James Wright Wright (deceased), which instrument (omitting the and Messrs. Griffiths and Co., of Madras, to be his formal parts thereof) was in the following words :-executors, but that by that deed he provided always "It is contracted, agreed upon and matrimonially nevertheless, that should his said daughter marry when ended between t 1 parties following, viz.—Frederick under age, with consent of the said Jas. Wright, he, Charles Barber, lieutenant in the 25th Regiment of the said Jas. Wright, should pay to her only such Madras Native Infantry, at present residing in Edin- portion of her share as he might think fit, the remainburgh, on the one part, and Miss Elizabeth Wright, only der to be settled upon her and her children; and that surviving daughter of the deceased John Wright, lient.- should she marry without his consent, the whole of colonel in the service of the Hon. the East India Com- her share of her father's succession should be settled pany on the Madras establishment, with the special upon her and her children, she only being entitled to a advice and consent of James Wright, writer to the sig-life-interest in the same; and considering that almost net, her guardian, nominated and appointed by her the whole of that part of the said Lieut.-Col. John said father in his said will and testament hereinafter Wright's succession, which was bequeathed to the said mentioned, on the other part, and to which contract Elizabeth Wright under the foresaid provision, conthe said James Wright is also a party, as the only dition and restriction, is still in India under investexecutor residing in Scotland of the said Lieutenant-ments by Government securities or otherwise in his Colonel John Wright, named and appointed with spe- name, or partly under investments obtained by the said cial powers by his aforesaid last will and testament, all Messrs. Griffiths and Co., his executors in India, or in manner following (that is to say): The said partly situate otherwise under their management, and F. C. Barber and E. Wright have accepted and hereby that the same is understood to amount at this date to accept of each other for lawful spouses, and promise to about 55,000 sicca rupees, therefore, and on the other solemnise the holy bond of marriage with all conve- part, the said E. Wright, with consent foresaid, for all nient speed, agreeably to the rules of the church. In right, title and interest she has under her father's last contemplation of such marriage the parties foresaid, will and testament or otherwise, and the said J.Wright as with consent foresaid, have entered and hereby enter his executor specially authorised by the powers and into the following contract and agreement: The said directions contained in that deed, hereby assign, disF. C. Barber hereby becomes bound to purchase and secure pose, convey and make over to and in favour of the said to his said intended spouse, from the Madras Military John Innes Wright, her brother, whom failing, to any Fund, in the event of her surviving him, the annuity trustee to be assumed by him, whom failing, to his own payable to the widow of an officer according to the nearest male heirs, being of full age, the whole share of rank he shall hold in the service at the time of his the succession of the personal estate of the said Lieudeath; and failing his doing so, he binds and obliges tenant-Colonel John Wright still remaining in India, himself, his heirs, executors and successors, to pay and with power to him or them to obtain and procure the secure to her an equivalent annuity from his own funds, said funds and securities, under whatever form of investin the event of her surviving as foresaid, and he also ment or otherwise they may be placed, vested in his becomes bound to purchase and secure from the or their persons, according to the law prescribed by law same fund the usual allowance to the issue of the and practice, to uplift, discharge, renew, alter and said marriage, and he hereby secures and gives, disposes and makes over to her and to the children of the intended marriage their full share in his uccession, whether of heritage or conquest, according their legal rights respectively; and, further, the said

change the said investments from time to time thereafter as may be proper and necessary, as circumstances shall arise, but in trust always for the uses and purposes following, namely: first, that 50,000 sicca rupees of the said fund shall belong to the said Elizabeth

BARBER T. BARBER.

The moiety by the said will of the said testator bequeathed for the benefit of the plaintiff of and in his residuary estate barely exceeds 50,000 sicca rupees. The plaintiff is advised that the said instrument of settlement or ante-nuptial contract is not a proper settlement, and that the ultimate trust therein contained, in default of the children of the plaintiff for the benefit of the nearest of kin of the plaintiff, is not authorised by the terms of the said will; that the said settlement is not binding on the plaintiff or her said husband, and that the trust-funds ought to be settled, in default of children of the marriage, in trust for the plaintiff absolutely in case she survived her husband; and that in the event of her dying in his lifetime she ought to have full and unlimited power to bequeath by will, notwithstanding coverture, the whole of the said trust-funds, and that in default of such will the said trust-funds ought to be held in trust for the plaintiff, The following authorities were cited:-Story's Conher executors or administrators, and that the said set-flict of Laws, 46, 505; Trollope v. Linton, 1 Siin. & St.; tlement ought to be rectified accordingly, or, if neces- Duncan v. Cannan, 7 De G. M. & G. 78; Duke of sary, that a proper settlement of the said trust-funds Brunswick v. King of Hanover, 6 Beav. 1; S. C., 2 ought to be directed by this honourable court. H. L. Cas. 1; Innes v. Mitchell, 29 L. T. Rep. 273, 289; Meiklan v. Campbell, 24 Beav. 100.

The said J. I. Wright attained the age of twentyone years, and accepted the trusts of the said instru- The VICE-CHANCELLOR. -I shall express my ment of settlement, and the said trust-funds became opinion on the merits of the case so far only as to say vested in him as sole trustee thereof; and the defen- that I shall overrule this demurrer without costs. The