« 이전계속 »
PAGE Lawrence, Blades v.. . 106 Paton, Cory v. .
163 | Sowerby v. Smith . . . .
164 Law Union Insurance Company, nacem Peggo v. Guardians of Lampeter Union 118 Sanford, Falvey v. .
224 donald r.
Peirce v. Corf .
23 Stanton, Richardson e. Stanton v. RichLeach and Another, Resps., Yates and Pembliton, Reg. t. .
108 ardson , Others, Pets. 128 Pender, Ionides r". .
126 *** v. Richardson. Richardson v. Lee Conservancy Board, Marchant u. . 43 Percy, Applebee v. .
128 Stanton. .
17 Leigh, Cox . . . . .
101 Petrocochino and Others v. Bott. 106 Stepney and Another, Daniel and Leman v. Houseley . .
. : Liver Alkali Company v. Johnson . 16 Pickering, Heywood v. . . . 122 -- Union (Guardians of), Reg. r. . 103 Liverpool and Great Western Steam Pitts, App.; Millar, Resp. .
103 Stewart v. Eddowes and Another . . Company, Taylor and Others v. . Plumstead Board of Works v. British
- Hudson and Others v. . . - Marine Insurance Company, Land Company . . . . 199
Stock v. Holland . . . .
114 Fisher and Others v. . 114 Pope, App.; Tearle, Resp.. . 128 Strachin, Copin . . .
118 Local Government Board, Reg. v. . . 12 Porto Alegre, New Hampurgh, and Bra Stratton and Others 0 Metropolitan Lock, Fowler o. . . . . . zilian Railway Company, Melhado and
Board of Works . . . .
216 Loftus Iron Company, Ellis v. . . 208 Another v. .
1361 | Sutton Coalfield, Reg. v. London and North Western Railway Com Pratt, Attorney-General r. . .
108 | Swift v. Jewsbury (P.O.) and Goddard .. 141 pany, Reg. v. In re Kempston Rate
Price, Lord v. . . . . .
36 - - v. Winterbotham (P.O.) and God--- Vaughton 1.
dard . . London Brighton, and South Coast Rail Radcliffe, Oulton v. .
Swindon New Town (Local Board of), way Company, Weller v. . . . Raeburn v. Andrews.
Lord Bolingbroke o. . . .. London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, Reg. 1. Castro . . Baxendale and Others v. . . .
r. Cooper . . .
Taylor and Others v. Liverpool and - (Mayor, &c., of), Thorn v. .
v. Edmonds .
141 Great Western Steam Company 140 London and South Western Railway
v. Farrell. .
162 Company (Garnishees), Sampson (Judg
128 ment Creditor); Seaton and Beer Railv: Guardians of Stepney Union 103 Thomas v. Reg. : . .
208 way Company (Judgment Debtors) . 224 v. Guardians of Worcester Union . 105
Thompson, Morrison 1.
162 Lord Price . . . .
- v. Harvey .
107 Lovelock, Ayres v. . . 29 -- v. Inhabitants of Bradford . . 122 Tiden, Smidt v. . . .
136 Lowley, Resp., Maude and Others, Pets. 24, 32 - r. Local Government Board .
Toole v. Young · ·
126 Lymington Railway Company, Horne v.
· 135 v. London and North Western Rail Treloar v. Bigge
107 way Company. In re Kempston Rate 23 | Trenchard, Ec parte .
105 Macdonald v. Law Union Insurance Com
-0. Oastler, .
Turner and Another, Resps., Cutler, - v. Overseers of Haslingfield .
App. . .
108 Magee r. Lavell
. Malcolm, Pet.; Ingram and Parry, Resps.
— v. Sutton Coalfield
Union Marine Insurance Company JackMarchant r. Lee Conservancy Board .
Thomas v.. 43
son Rhodes and Another v. Airedale Drainage
· Marshall 7. King
200 Martin r. Smith.
Richardson, Stanton v.
Van Praagh, Newell v.
. Dlaude and Others, Pets; Lowley, Resp. 24, 32
Vaughton. London and North Western Stanton.
Railway Company. . . 18 Megrath, Gray v. Megrath v. Gray . 13
Vaughan v. Weldon, .
. -0. Gray. Gray v. Megrath Melhado and Another v. Porto Alegre,
122 Iron Cottipany
Waddell v. Wolffe New Hamburgh, and Brazilian Rail
127 way Company .
Wall v. City of London Real Property .
Rickard, Resp., Hampden, App. .
42 Mellor r. Watkins
i . 104
105 Metropolitan Board of Works, Stratton
--, Gunn v.
. and Others
Walsh v. Smith, 142
- v. Walley and Another Metropolitan Railway Company, Way: 96 | Rodoconachi v.
Watkins, Mellor v. .
104 land o. . .
. 96 Midland Railway Company, Kento. . 186
Wayland v. Metropolitan Railway ComSampson (Judgment Creditor); Seaton and Beer Railway Company (Judg
pany Mill v. Hawker and Others.
. . . Millar, Eastwood v.
Weldon, Vaughan v. . .
ment Debtors); London and South -, Resp., Pitts, App. Western
Weller v. London, Brighton, and South
Railway Company (Gar-
Coast Railway Company.
Western Counties Manure Company v. r. David :
St Mary, Íslington (Vestry of the Parish Mills, Resp., Carter, Pet.
Lawes Manure Company,
of), App. ; Barrett, Resp. . Morgan v. Bain. Scott, Cape v.
Whaite v. Lancashire and York Railway .
Company , Gorris v. .
. Morrison v. Thompson
. 162 Muller v. Baldwin Searle v. Laverick
Whetham and Another, Dennis v..
. Musgrave o. Inclosure Commissioners for Seaton and Beer Railway Company
Williamson and Others, Curtis and
Others v. (Judgment Debtors), Sampson (Judg
. England and Wales .
224 . . . ment Creditor); London and South Wilmot, Ellis and Others v..
thers v. . . . 200 Western Railway Company (Gar
Wilson, Laurie v. ..
210 Nevill t. Bridger
Winch v. Conservators of the Thames. 117 Newell y. Van Praagh .
Sheffield (Town Clerk of), Resp., Haigh Winterbotham (P.O.), and Goddard, Swift Neild c. Batty .
30 North Eastern Railway Company, Oliver
Woad and Others, Wood v. . . . 128 Smith v. Fletcher and Others . 44
| Wolffe, Waddell v. . . . . 122 Wood v. Woad and Others,
128 - Martin o. Oastler, Reg. c. . .
88 . Smith,
Worcester Union (Guardians of), Reg. v. Ogben é. Benas and Another . . 142 - Sowerby r. . Oliver D. North Eastern Railway Com
-, Walsh v..
Yates and Others, Pets. ; Leach and pany
Another, Resps. ·
. Sneesby v. Lancashire and Yorkshire
. . . Dalton o. Radcliffe
Young, Toole v. . . . . . 126
TABLE OF CASES.
some cases superseded by a joint commission, but that would not be done in such a case as this. Moreover the English adjudication was the first, the greater number of the joint creditors
were in England, and there were considerable assets in England. Equity.
The decision of the registrar must be affirmed. ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. WIDNES RAILWAY COMPANY (Highway
Solicitors : Linklater & Co.; A. G. Ditton ; Abrahams & Roff y. Nuisance-User by Railway Company-Railways Clauses Corsolidation Act, 1845, s. 53-Railways Construction Facilities
Act, 1861 (27 & 28 Vict. c. 121) s. 5) . . . M. R. 2
Jan. 12. Rule in Shelley's Case — Contingent Remainder - Effect of
Will - Election, · Decree to bind Remainderman).
. M. R. 2 Dorin v. DORIN (Construction of Will—Illegitimate Children)
This was an appeal from a decision of Lord Justice James, V.-C. M. 3
sitting for Vice-Chancellor Wickens. The case is reported FERRAO'S CASE. In re PARAGUASSU STEAM TRAMROAD COMPANY | Law Rep. 15 Eq. 389. (Companies Act, 1867, s. 25-Manner in which Shares are to
The testatrix advanced to the defendant 9001. on an assignbe held-Payment“ in Cash ") . . . V.-C. B. 5 ment by him of a covenant by F. H. Synge to transfer to the GOODSON v. RICHARDSON (Highway-Trespass—Injunction)
defendant a sum of 10001, stock, and to pay interest in the
L. C. & L. JJ. 1 meantime. By her will she gave F. H. Synge 30001., and all HUDDERSFIELD (CORPORATION OF) AND JACOMB (Award-Arbitra
sums due to her from him, and directed her executors not to tion-Limit oj Period for Objection- Last Day of Term9 & 10 Wm. 3, c. 15)
require payment of the 9001. from the defendant, but out of the . . . . . 1.-C. M. 4 LATHAM V. CHARTERED BANK OF INDIA (Mercantile Law - Letter
30001. given to F. H. Synge to retain enough to purchase 10001. of Hypothecation of Bill of Lading-Insurance Policy Moneys
stock, in satisfaction of F. H. Synge's covenant, and to pay the -Bill of Exchange-Effect of giving Time to the Acceptor
surplus thereof beyond the 9001. to the defendant. F. having upon the Liability of the Drawer) . . . V.-C. B. 6
predeceased her, she by a codicil directed the 30001, to form part MENIER v. HOOPER'S TELEGRAPH WORKS, LIMITED (Company, of her residuary estate, but directed her executors not to call on
Right of Shareholder to support his private Interest against F. H. Synge's representative for transfer of the 10001. stock, nor
the Interests of the Company-Frame of Suit) . V.-C. B. 5 to enforce payment by the defendant of the 9001. Moon v. ORIGINAL HARTLEPOOL COLLIERIES COMPANY (Demurrer
A special case was filed in order to ascertain the rights of -Cross Bil-Different Reliefi. . . L. C. & L. JJ. 1 the defendant and the representative of F. H. Synge, and the O’REARDON, In re (Bankruptcy - Joint and Separate–Irish Bank Lord Justice James decided that the defendant was not at ruplcy). . . . . . L. C. & L. J. M. 1
liberty to sue the representative of F. H. Synge for any part of POLINI v. GRAY. LANE v. Gray. Prando v. GRAY (Adminis
the 10001. stock. From this decision the defendant appealed. tration Summons-- Treasury Solicitor Defendant-Decree in three Suits) .
Dickinson, Q.C., and Cookson, for the appellant. . . . . V.-C. M. 3 POOLE FIRE BRICK AND BLUE CLAY Company, In re (Company
Ilemming, for F. H. Synge's representative. - Voluntary Winding-up-Action – Costs - Companies Act,
THE LORD CHANCELLOR was of opinion that the decision of 1862, s. 138).
. . N. R. 2 the Lord Justice was correct, except as to the trifling difference RICHARDS v. GODDARD (Cross-examination — Payment of Wit. between the sum of 9001. and the value of the 10001. stock, the
nesses' Expenses in the first instance-Practice). V. C. II. 6 payment of which the defendant ought to be at liberty to enforce Stone's SETTLEMENT Trusts, In re (Practice--" Opinion, Advice, against the respondent.
or Direction” Clause-22 & 23 Vict. c, 35, 8. 30) V.-C. B. 4 LORD JUSTICE MELLISH concurred. SYxGE v. SYNGE (Will-Election) . . . L. C. & L. J. M. 1 Solicitors : Mossop; Osborn Jenkyn. TREACHER & Co., LIMITED v. TREACHER (Covenant- Construction —"Retail” Business) . . . . . V.-C. B. 4
L. C. & L. JJ.
Jan. 13. During the sittings of the Courls THE WEEKLY NOTEs will be published
Moon v. ORIGINAL HARTLEPOOL COLLIERIES COMPANY. on Saturday, and will generally comprise Notes of the Decisions up to
Demurrer-Cross Bill-Different Relief. and including those of the previous Wednesday. All cases of permanent interest noted herein will be reported in full in THE LAW REPORTS.
This was a demurrer to a cross bill, and the Vice-Chancellor
The company appealed.
Kay, Q.C., and Caldecott, in support of the demurrer.
THEIR LORDSHIPS said that even assuming that on this deIn re O’REARDON.
murrer they had before them the proceedings in the original Bankruptcy - Joint and Separate-Irish Bunkruptcy. suit, and that such an objection was a good ground for a deD. O'Reardon and Mrs. Murphy were partners in business, murrer--even then it did not appear that Mrs. Moon could O'Reardon in London and Mrs. Murphy in Dublin. In November, through the undertaking get all that by the cross bill she 1872, O’Reardon was adjudicated bankrupt in London. On the asked for, and might be entitled to if the bill in the original 3rd of February, 1873, Mrs. Murpby was adjudicated bankrupt suit was dismissed. The demurrer must be overruled. in Dublin, and on the 10th of February they were jointly adju- Solicitors: J. W. Hickin; Harcourt & Macarthur, dicated bankrupts in Dublin. The assignees in the joint bankruptcy applied to have the proceeds of the sale of property in England remitted to them in Ireland. The registrar in bankruptcy refused to make the order, and the joint assignees
L. C. & L. JJ. Goodson v. RICHARDSON.
Jan. 14. appealed.
Highway-Trespass-Injunction. Winslow, for the appellants.
The defendant in this case had, with the leave of the HighDe Gesc, Q.O., Warmington, and Henriques, opposed.
way Board at Ramsgate, laid down along the highway pipes for • Gill, for the stakeholder.
the supply of water to certain houses belonging to him. The THEIR LORDSHIPS said that separate commissions were in owner of a piece of land adjoining the highway, and of the soil No. 1,-1874.
of the highway, filed the bill in this suit to restrain the defendant. I funeral and testamentary expenses and debts of the testator The Master of the Rolls granted an injunction, and the defendant were all paid previously to June, 1830. appealed.
By indentures of lease and release, dated the 5th and 6th Jackson, Q.C., and Beaumont, for the defendant.
of June, 1830, the trustees conveyed the real estate to William Southgate, Q.C., and Davey, for the plaintiff.
Collier and his assigns for his life. In the same month William THEIR LORDSHIPS considered that the defendant had without Collier conveyed the estate to a tenant to the præcipe, and sufany excuse put pipes in the plaintiff's land and intended to send fered a common recovery. water through them, thereby committing a continued trespass. In 1840 William Collier mortgaged the estate in fee to the deThere was no occasion to make the plaintiff establish his right fendant, William Walters. at law, and as he could not go upon the highway and remove In 1861 William Walters and William Collier (the mortgagor) the pipes, he was entitled to the interference of the Court. The filed a bill against the then trustee of the testator's will, and the appeal must be dismissed.
plaintiff in the present suit (who was the eldest son of William Solicitors : Paterson, Snow, & Burney; Wright & Pilley. Collier), praying for a declaration that William Collier became,
under the testator's will, entitled to the real estate for an estate
tail in equity, subject only to the payment of debts and legacies, M. R.
Dec. 18. and that the trustee might be directed to convey all his estate and In re POOLE FIRE BRICK AND BLUE CLAY COMPANY. interest in the property to William Collier, and William Walters Company-Toluntary Winding-up- Action-Costs—Companies his mortgagee. The present plaintiff put in an answer, by which Act, 1862, s. 138.
he submitted that William Collier took only a life estate under
the will. A decree was made on the 3rd of June, 1862, which The above company being in voluntary liquidation, was applied
contained no declaration, but directed that the trustee should to by certain creditors, whose claim was disputed, to have the
convey all his estate and interest in the hereditaments to Wilclaim settled by summons in chambers; but the liquidators re
liam Walters, his heirs and assigns, subject to such equity of fused. Thereupon the creditors brought an action to recover the
redemption as might be subsisting therein in the said William amount of their claim. The company defended the action, which
Collier, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns under came into the paper for trial on the 10th of December. On the 11th
the mortgage. This decree had been inrolled. of December, a motion was made on behalf of the company that
William Collier died in 1871. the action should be restrained, and the claim should be decided
The plaintiff filed the bill in this suit in February, 1873, on in chambers, but the creditors objected on the ground that the dispute could be better settled in the action; and the motion
praying for a declaration that William Collier took under the
will an equitable estate for life only, and that the demise to the was ordered to stand over for a week. On the 12th of December,
right heirs of his body operated as a legal contingent remainder, the action was tried; the company did not appear, and the credi
and that the joining of the trustees in the indentures of June. tors recovered a verdict.
1830, so as to enable William Collier to destroy such contingent lladley, now renewed the motion, and asked that the creditors might be restrained from issuing execution, with liberty to prove
remainder, was a breach of trust, and that under these circum
stances William Walters was a trustee for the plaintiff and the for the amount of their judgment in the winding-up.
heirs of his body, and that a conveyance from Walters to the Jason Smith asked that the creditors might be at liberty to
use of the plaintiff and the heirs of his body might be decreed issue execution for costs on the ground that the action had not been defended bonâ fide.
accordingly. THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS held that both on principle and
Southgate, Q.C., and Badnall, for the plaintiffs.
Fry, Q.C., and Cadman Jones, for the defendant. authority the creditors could only add their costs to their debt.
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS held that the trustees took a Solicitors : Randall & Angier; Plunkett.
legal fee under the will, and, consequently, that William Collier took an equitable estate tail; that the trustees were not trustees
to preserve contingent remainders, and consequently were not M. R. COLLIER v. WALTERS.
guilty of a breach of trust in joining in the indentures of June, Will - Construction-Estate of Trustees--Rule in Shelley's Case
1830; and, further, that the plaintiff was bound by the decree
of June. 1862; and that the bill must be dismissed with costs. Contingent Remainder-Efect of Decree to bind Remainderman. |
Solicitors: Henry Tyrrell; Tucker & Lake.
Jan. 12. heirs, and the survivor of them, and his or her heirs, should stand
ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. WIDNES RAILWAY COMPANY, seised of the same during the life of William Collier, and also | Highway -- Nuisance -- User by Railway Company - Railways until the whole of his just debts and all interest due thereon, Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, s. 53— Railways Construction together with certain legacies, should be fully paid. upon thé Facilities Act, 1864 (27 & 28 Vict. c. 121) s. 5. trusts thereinafter mentioned, that is to say, upon trust to The defendant company are incorporated by a certificate of let the same, and to pay and apply the rents and profits the Board of Trade, made in pursuance of the Railways Constructhereof, and the value of whatever timber might be considered at tion Facilities Act, 1864, and confirmed by Act of Parliament its best growth, from time to time in discharge of his debts, and (36 & 37 Vict. c. LXXXIV.). The certificate incorporated the the interest thereon, until the same should be fully paid off and Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1815, and provided (clause 5) satisfied, and then upon further trust to pay and apply the rents that subject to the provisions contained in the certificate and in and profits in discharge of and until the whole of the legacies the Railways Construction Facilities Act, 1864, the company should be paid, and from thenceforth upon further trust to pay might enter upon, take, and use such of the lands delineated on over from time to time the rents and profits to William Collier the deposited plans and described in the deposited books of during his life, and from and immediately after the decease of reference as might be required by them for the construction of William Collier and the payment of all his just debts as afore- their railway, and for the purchase, possession, or user of which said and also the said legacies, together with all expenses in- they had already contracted. curred by his trustees in the execution of his will, the testator The deposited plans comprised part of a highway under the gave and devised all his said real estate unto the heirs of the control of the Widnes Local Board, and shewed that it was body of William Collier.
intended that the railway should pass along that highway. The testator died shortly after the date of his will. The In December, 1873, the company proceeded to lay down
sleepers and lines of rail along part of the highway, but without by inadvertence. The effect of the affidavit in Prando v. Gray, crossing it. Such lines of rail were intended to be used for the was to displace all title in the plaintiffs in the other suits. One construction of the line and not as part of the permanent way. decree was never made in several suits except where each of the
In January, 1874, the present information was filed at the plaintiffs had some interest. relation of the Widnes Local Board, alleging that the defendants THE VICE-CHANCELLOR held that an administration suit of ran locomotives on the rails so laid down by them; and that such this kind against the Crown could properly be instituted by user of the road rendered it dangerous and extraordinarily in- summons, and stated that the decree would be worked out by convenient to passengers and carriages, and made it incapable taking an inquiry first of all as to the plaintiff in Prando v. Gray of use as a highway; and praying for an injunction to restrain and then, if required, as to the plaintiffs in the other suits in sucthe defendant company from laying down or continuing any line cession. The decree would be for the inquiry as to the next of rails on the road, and from using the same, until they should of kin of the intestate, and if it appeared that the plaintiffs or have provided for the use of the public a sufficient road in sub- any of them were the next of kin, an administration decree. stitution for that taken by the company in accordance with Solicitors: Deane & Lickorish; J. T. A. Patrick; Ewbank & s. 53 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845.
| Partington; Raven & Bradley. A motion was now made for an injunction accordingly.
There was no evidence that the defendant company had contracted for the purchase, possession, or user of the road. Fry, Q.C., and North, for the motion.
mg DORIN v. DORIN.
Dec. 20. Henning, for the defendant company, contended that the road
Construction of Will—Illegitimate Children, was not made dangerous or extraordinarily inconvenient within the meaning of s. 53, but offered to abandon the use of steam, The testator in the cause made his will, dated the 30th of and insisted that the injunction could not at any rate go further April, 1864, in these terms: "I bequeath all I possess, real and than that.
personal property, to my wife M. C. Dorin in trust that she THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS held that the 5th clause of the shall apply the same to her own personal use during the term certificate did not entitle the company to take the road; that the of her natural life. And I leave her at liberty to direct the dis5th section of the Railways Construction Facilities Act, 1864, posal of the property amongst our children by will at her death conferred no power on the company, but was a mere direction to in such manner as she shall think fit, and should she make no the Board of Trade as to how they should exercise the legislative will, I desire that the property existing at her death shall be powers conferred on them; that the user of the road by the com- divided, so far as it may be practicable to do so, equally between pany was dangerous, and extraordinarily inconvenient to pas- my children by her. And I nominate my said wife to be the sengers, within the meaning of the 53rd section of the Railways sole executrix of this my will." Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and consequently that the com- The testator had had two illegitimate children by his wife pany were not entitled to interfere with the road until they had M. C. Dorin, whom he married on the 29th of April, 1864, the provided another road in substitution; and he granted an in- day before he made his will. The children were always acknowjunction to restrain the company from using the road until they ledged by him to be his children, and they were baptised as such had provided such substituted road, or until the hearing of the in a Roman Catholic chapel in London. No other children were cause, or until further order.
born of this marriage, and the testator died in December, 1872. Solicitors: W. W. Wynne, for Beasley de Oppenheim, St Helen's; The testator had been previously married in 1823, and by that E. Reddish.
marriage he had two children, both of whom were dead, but one of them had left an only son.
A question was now raised in an administration suit whether V.-C.M. POLINI v. Gray.
Dec. 19. the two illegitimate children of the testator could take under LANE V. GRAY,
the words of the will. PRANDO V. GRAY.
Cotton, Q.C., and Kekewich, for the plaintiff the widow. Alministration Summons-Treasury Solicitor Defendant-Decree Glasse, Q.C., and Vaughan Hawkins, for the illegitimate in three Suits.
children. These were three suits, two of them instituted by bills and the Pearson, Q.C., and Millar, for the personal representative. remaining one by administration summons in chambers.
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR said the general rule that a bequest The defendant in all of them was the solicitor to the Treasury to the children of a testator or of any other person must primâ 23 administrator of a Mrs. Maria Mangin Brown, who had died fucie be taken to mean legitimate children could not be disputed; intestate leaving a large personal estate.
whether illegitimate children could take under that descripThe plaintiff in the suit of Prando v. Gray claimed to be a tion must depend upon the language of the will itself, or upon next of kin and related to the intestate in the fifth degree, the that language as interpreted by surrounding circumstances. It plaintiffs in Polini v. Gray claimed to be all the next of kin could not be doubted that the intention of the testator was to related in the sixth degree, and the plaintiff in the remaining benefit the two illegitimate children whom he had already had, suit elaimed as next of kin in the seventh degree.
and it was the duty of the Court to carry out that intention if it The suits were put in the paper to be heard short on the 13th could be done without infringing any principle or settled rule of of December, but stood over on the application of Mr. Hemming, law. In his opinion the language of the will clearly pointed to on behalf of the Crown.
existing children and not to future children, though such The plaintiffs in each of the suits had shewn a primâ facie children might well be included in the gift. It was clearly case of relationship on affidavits supporting a pedigree. . established by the authorities that illegitimate children might
It was now proposed to take one decree in all the suits, direct- take under the description of the children of a particular person ing inquiries who were the next of kin of the intestate.
when they had acquired the representation or character of being Glasse, Q.C., and Maidlow, for the plaintiffs in Polini v. Gray. so, and the Court was satisfied of the intention of the testator Cotton, Q.C., and E. Ford, for the plaintiffs in Lane v. Gray. that they should take. Both these requisites were in his opinion Higgins, Q.C., and G. Murray, for the plaintiff in Prando v. completely fulfilled in the present case, and he should therefore Gray.
decide that the illegitimate children of the testator by the plainTiemming, for the Crown, submitted that a decree such as tiff answered the description of “our children” and “ my oposed would not be proper in form. It was now admitted children by her.” He was also of opinion that there was no rule not to be the practice to institute a suit of this kind against the which prevented illegitimate children and legal children taking Crown by summons, and where this had been done it was only together as a class where it was intended that they should do so,