The Law Magazine and Review: For Both Branches of the Legal Profession at ...

25, vi.

Hooper v. Hill (63 L.J. Q.B. 598), 19, 81, i.

Horsham Industrial Society, re, 6, iv.

House and Investment Trust, re;

e. p. Smith, 5, vii. Hoyle v. Oldham Assessment Committee (63 L.J. M.C. 178), 19, 133, iv.

Hull Docks Co. v. Sculcoates Guardians (42 W.R. 595), 19, 133, ii. Hunt v. H., 18, vii.

Hydarnes S.S. Co. v. Indemnity Mutual Assurance Co., 24, i.

IND, COOPE & Co. v. KIDD, 21, iv. Industrie, the (70 L.T. 791), 19, 102, iv.

Ingham v. Rayner (70 L.T. 825), 19, 146, v.

Innes v. Newman (63 L.J. M.C. 198; 42 W.R. 573), 19, 131, v. Isaacs v. Reginall, 7, ii.

Ives v. Willans (L.R. [1894] 2 Ch. 478; 63 L.J. Ch. 521), 19, 114, iii.

J. v. S. (L.R. [1894] 3 Ch. 72; 63 L.J. Ch. 615; 42 W.R. 617), 19, 132, ii.

Jacobs v. Crusha (63 L.J. Q.B. 526), 19, 97, i.

Jamaica (Administrator-General of) v. Lascelles (63 L.J. P.C. 70), 19, 71, iv. Jaquess v. Thomas (63 L.J. Q.B. 572), 19, 142, iii.

Jeffery v. St. Pancras Vestry, 16, ii. Johnson v. Newnes, 7, viii.

Jones v. Daniel (63 L.J. Ch. 562; 42 W.R. 687), 19, 144, vi.

Kemp v. Wanklyn (63 L.J. Q.B. 520), 19, 100, iii.

v. Wright, 3, v.

Kennedy v. Thomas, 3, iv.
Kinchella, goods of, 1, iv.

Kleinwort v. Comptoir National (63
L.J. Q.B. 674), 19, 121, v.
Kops v. The Queen, 9, 1.

5, vi.

LAND SECURITIES Co., re,
Laws v. Read, 2, iv.
Le Bas v. Herbert, 1, i.
Leese, goods of (63 L.J. P. 124; 70
L.T. 810), 19, 113, ii.

Leicester (Mayor, &c., of) v. Beanmont Leys Churchwardens (63 L.J. M.C. 176), 19, 134, i.

Lemmon V. Webb (L.R. [1894] 3 Ch. 1; 63 L.J. Ch. 570), 19, 131, iii.

Leslie v. Earl of Rothes, 29, 1. v. Young, 7, vii.

Lister, goods of, 10, i. London County Council v. Herring, 15, ii.

2 Ch. 428), 19, 114, vii. Macfarlane v. Lord Advocate, 21, v. Mack v. Postle, 15, vi.

Makin v. A.-G. of New South Wales (63 L.J. P.C. 41), 19, 82, i. Malkin, goods of, 1, iii. Maplin Sands, the, 19, ii. Mary Thomas, the (71 L.T. 104), 19, 104, iii.

Massey v. Morris 24, ii. Mellin v. White (63 L.J. Ch. €87; 70 L.T. 901), 19, 127, v. Meunier, re, 10, ii. Meux Brewery Co. v. City of London Electric Light Co. (42 W.R. 644), 19, 131, iv.

Meyrick v. A.-G., 13, iii.

Mighell v. Sultan of Johore (63 L.J.
Q.B. 593), 19, 86, v.
Mills v. Johnston, 28, vi.
Minehead Local Board v. Luttrell

(42 W.R. 667), 19, 128, iii. Minter v. Carr (42 W.R. 619), 19, 130, ii.

INDEX OF CASES.

Minter v. Carr, 15, v.
Mohideen Hadjiar v. Pitchey, 9, v.
Mona, the, 23, ii.

Moreton v. Hughes (63 L.J. Ch. 607;
70 L.T. 901), 19, 146, iv.
Morgan v. Hill, 26, ii.
Morris v. Atherden, 28, iv.
Musurus Bey v. Gadban (63 L.J.
Q.B. 621; 71 L.T. 51), 19, 128, ii.

NATIONAL DWELLINGS SOCIETY V. SYKES,
5, iii.
Hallett, 3, ii.
Neville v. Matthewman, 20, i.
New Zealand Loan, &c., Co., re, 6, i.
Nichols v. Regent's Canal Co., 25, i.
Nind v. Nineteenth Century Building
Society (67 L.J. Q.B. 636; 70 L.T.
831), 19, 126, iii.

Insurance Co., e. p.; re

Norland (Vicar of) v. Parishioners, 9. iv.

N.E.R., e. p.; re Hicks (63 L.J. Ch.
568), 19, 136, v.
Northledge v. N., 10, vi.
Noyes v. Patterson, 27, ii.

ODDFELLOWS SOCIETY, e. p.; re WELCH

(63 L.J. Q.B. 524), 19, 115, vi. Ontario (A.-G. of) v. A.-G. of Canada (63 L.J. P.C. 59), 19, 118, iv. Owen, re, 12, v.

PAGE V. NORFOLK, 27, i.
Pallister, e. p.; re Holloway (63 L.J.
Q.B. 672), 19, 137, ii.
Palmer v. Wick Steam Shipping Co.,
11, iii.

Parapano v. Happaz (63 L.J. P.C. 63), 19, 77, iv.

Patten v. West of England Iron, &c.,
Co. (70 L.T. 908), 19, 114, ii.
Pecke's Settled Estates, re, 22, ii.
Peek v. Ray (63 L.J. Ch. 647; 70
L.T. 769), 19, 135, iii.
Perrett, e. p.; re Frape (63 L.J. Ch.
678; 71 L.T. 80), 19, 141, v.
Pharmaceutical Society v. Armson
(L.R. [1894] 2 Q.B. 720; 63 L.J.
Q.B. 532), 19, 132, v.

Primula, the (63 L.J. P. 118), 19, 103, ii.

Printing Telegraph and Construction Co. v. Drucker, 19, i.

Pryor v. Petre (63 L.J. Ch. 531), 19, 144, v.

RAMSAY V. MARGRETT (63 L.J. Q.B. 513; 70 L.T. 788), 19, 117, ii. Read, re, 25, iii.

Reg. v. Berger (63 L.J. Q.B. 529; 70 L.T. 807), 19, 122, vii.

v. Blaby (70 L.T. 879), 19, 123, ii.

v. Bradley (63 L.J. M.C. 183), 19, 124, iii.

v. Dennis, 20, v.

v. Dyson (70 L.T. 876), 19, 123, i.

v. Essex Justices, 17, iv.

v. Jones (63 L.J. Q.B. 656; 42 W.R. 607), 19, 123, vii.

v. L. & N.W.R., 21, iii.
v. Mansel-Jones, 18, iv.
v. Oxfordshire Judge, 8, iii.
v. Pontypool Judge, 8, ii.

v. Richardson (63 L.J. M.C.
212; 70 L.T. 805), 19, 132, vi.
v. Silverlock, 8, v.

v. Sowerby (71 L.T. 300; 42 W.R. 608), 19, 122, vi. Reid v. Wilson, 26, i.

Reigate Assessment Committee v. S.E.R. (42 W.R. 585), 19, 95, iv. Reischer v. Borwick, 23, v. Richardson v. Rowntree (70 L.T.817), 19, 117, iv.

Robinson v. Geisel, 19, vii.

v. Lynes, 14, iv.

v. Shaw, 14, ii.

Rochdale Canal Co. v. Brewster, 17, v.

Rogers v. Harding, 18, i.

Rose v. Bank of Australasia (63 L.J. Q.B. 504), 19, 141, iii.

v. Watson (70 L.T. 906), 19, 118, iii.

Ross v. White, 16, iii.

Royal Bank of Scotland v. Tottenham, 4, ii.

Russell v. R, 18, viii.
Rymer v. Stanfield, 28, ii.

SADLER V. WORLEY (63 L.J. Ch. 537), 19, 119, vi.

Salaman, re (63 L.J. Ch. 664; 70 L.T. 772), 19, 142, iv.

Saltburn, the, 24, iii.
Sanders, e. p.; re S., 3, i.
Sbutega v. Attwool, 23, i.

Scholfield v. Earl of Londesborough, 3, iii. Securities Insurance Co., re (L.R. [1894] 2 Ch. 410), 19, 134, vi. Sheffield (Corporation of) v. Alexander, 13, i.

Shenstone v. Hilton, 10, iii.

Shoosmith, goods of (70 L.T. 809), 19, 70, ii.

Sims v. Landray (63 L.J. Ch. 535; 42 W.R. 621), 19, 145, iv.

Sir Titus Salt & Co.'s Application, re, 26, iv.

Skinner v. Shew, 17, i.

Smith v. Hancock (L.R. [1894] 2 Ch. 377), 19, 137, vi.

v. Mason (63 L.J. M C. 201; 70 L.T. 909), 19, 138, v.

v. Lancaster (63 L.J. Ch. 668; 70 L.T. 870), 19, 139, vi. Smurthwaite v. Hannay, 19, vi. Snaith v. S., 29, iv.

Somerset v. Land Securities Co., 5, v.

Southampton (Sheriff of), e. p.; re
Crook, 22, iv.
Stelfox, goods of, 1, ii.

Stephenson, e. p.; re Langtry (63
L.J. Q.B. 570), 19, 115, i.
Stretton's Brewery v. Mayor, &c., of
Derby (42 W.R. 583), 19, 98, iii.
Sturgeon v. Lawrence, 18, iii.
Sutton v. Grey (63 L.J. Q.B. 633),
19, 39, iii.

Sydney (Council of) v. A.-G. of New
South Wales, 4, iv.

TEMPLE V. T., 22, v.
Theta, the, 23, iii.

Thomasset v. T., 10, v.
Thorne-George v. Godfrey, 14, vii.
Tullett v. Colville (63 L.J. Ch. 554;
1 L.T. 189), 19, 147, i.

UNDERWOOD V. LEWIS (70 L.T. 833), 19, 142, v.

Union S.S. Co. v. Claridge (63 L.J. P.C. 56), 19, 91, iii.

United Alkali Co. v. Simpson (71 L.T. 258), 19, 124, ii.

VITORIA, e. p.; re V. (L.R. [1894] 2 Q.B. 387; 70 L.T. 48), 19, 116, ii.

WAINEWRIGHT v. W., 29, v. Walker v. Lambeth Waterworks Co., 27, iii.

Wallace v. Automatic Machines Co. (L.R. [1894] 2 Ch. 547; 63 L.J. Ch. 598; 70 L.T. 852), 19, 119, v. Wallasey Brick and Land Co., re (70 L.T. 870), 19, 120, v.

Walsh v. The Queen (63 L.J. P.C. 52), 19, 77, v.

Warren v. Murray, 12, iii. Wegg-Prosser v. Evans (42 W.R. 639), 19, 126, i.

West Ham Guardians v. Bethnal Green Churchwardens (70 L.T. 818; 42 W.R. 573), 19, 133, i. West London, &c., Building Society, re (70 L.T. 796), 19, 117, iii. Wieland v. Bird, 30, ii.

Wigram v. Buckley, 15, vii. Williams v. Knight; re Hodson (L.R. [1894] 2 Ch. 421; 63 L.J. Ch. 609; 71 L.T. 77), 19, 125, iii.

Torrey and Field v. Knight,

23, iv. Wilson v. McIntosh (63 L.J. P.C. 49), 19, 119, iii.

e. p. ; re Dunhill, 2, v. Winkle, re (L.R. [1894] 2 Ch. 519; 63 L.J. Ch. 541), 19, 128, iv. Winnipeg Street Railway Co. v. W. Electric Railway Co., 21, i.

Wood v. Cooper, 12, i.

Worcester Bank v. Firbank (63 L.J. Q.B. 542), 19, 97, vi.

X., re, 13, iv.

YORKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL V. HOLMFIRTH SANITARY AUTHORITY (71 L.T. 217), 19, 131, vi.

Quarterly Digest

ОР

ALL REPORTED CASES,

IN THE

Law Reports, Law Journal Reports, Law Times Reports, and Weekly Reporter,

FOR AUGUST, September, AND OCTOBER, 1894, AND IN THE "WEEKLY REPORTER" FOR JULY.

By C. H. LOMAX, M.A., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law.

(i.) Ch. D.-Specific Legacy-Incumbrance on—General Charge of Debts. -When the general personal estate is insufficient to pay a testator's debts, a specific legatee of a part of the estate which is subject to an incumbrance created by the testator must, as between himself and other specific legatees and devisees, bear the burden of it; and a general direction for the payment of debts, though amounting to a charge of debts on the real estate, does not alter the incidence of that burden.-Le Bas v. Herbert, 63 L.J, Ch. 662.

(ii.) P. D.—Bond-Sureties dispensed with.-In the case of an estate where there were no debts, and it appeared that nothing could come to the hands of the administratrix except her own share, a receiver having been appointed, who had given security, the Court dispensed with sureties to the administration bond. In the goods of Stelfox, 70 L.T. 814.

(iii.) P. D.-Creditor.-The fact that the next-of-kin of an intestate was a lady of over eighty years of age, who had held no communication with the deceased, and that the estate was said to be insolvent, held, to be insufficient ground for passing over the next-of-kin and granting administration to a creditor.-In the goods of Malkin, 70 L.T. 811.

(iv.) P. D.—Representative of Next-of-Kin—Citation—Probate Act, 1857, s. 73. -A grant may be made to the representative of the next-of-kin without citing a person entitled in distribution.-In the goods of Kinchella, L.R. [1894] P. 264; 71 L.T. 263.

« 이전 계속 »

도서