afflicted when the testator made his will: Held, 1, that the conveyance of 1833 was not conditional, executed for a specific purpose which had not been performed, and that on its execution the legal estate was vested in J; 2, that the estate was not divested by the son not afterwards marrying; 3, that the circumstances of the case did not establish a trust for S. Semble, that the true construction of the devise to J. is, that it is a gift to him in case he did not die from his then present illness in the lifetime of the testator. Alleyne v. Alleyne, 2 J. & L. 544.

2. Defect-Illegitimate child.-Defect in a legal conveyance not supplied in favour of a natural child. Blake v. Blake, Beat. 575.

3. Fraud-Relief against-Time.-In a suit to set aside a conveyance for fraud, after sixteen years, relief given against the purchaser not extended to his minor child claiming an equity under articles executed before the bill was filed. Farrell v. Kelly, Beat. 492.

4. Petition-Omission in decree.-A direction for the master to settle a conveyance, omitted in a decree, was supplied by petition. A secret purchase by an agent from his principal was set aside. By the decree possession was directed to be given, and a conveyance to be executed. Accounts were also directed to be taken of the rents and purchase money, and the balance was directed to be paid, but no lien given: Held, that the conveyance must at once be made without waiting for the result of the accounts. Trevelyan v. Charter, 9 B. 140.

COPY BILL.-Substituted service- General Orders-Practice. -Whether the court can order substituted service of a copy bill under the 23rd Order of August, 1841, quære. Thomas v. Selby,

9 B. 194.

CORPORATION. See CHARITY, 2, 3. TRUST, 4, 7.

COSTS.-1. Appearance Answer. The costs" occasioned thereby," in the 18th General Order of 1843, are the costs occasioned by the defendant entering an appearance in the common form, and not merely the costs occasioned by his answer. Peyton v. Browne, 2 J. & L. 560.

2. Attorney-general. -The attorney-general made a party to a cause, as representing a charge belonging to a deceased bastard, is not entitled to costs if nothing is reported to be due on the charge. Murphy v. Osborne, 9 Ir. Eq. R. 254.

3. Bill of discovery-12th Order of May, 1845.-A bill of discovery is not within the 12th Order of May, 1845, unless it be a cross bill in aid of a defence to an original bill. Heming v. Dingwall,

2 P. 212.

4. Order for rehearing discharged-Practice.-An order for rehearing was discharged with costs, but in the meantime the cause had been set down and briefs delivered: Held, that the costs thereof could not be included in the order, and could only be given on a rehearing or upon special application. Davenport v. Stafford, 9 B. 106. 5. Revivor.-A judgment creditor's bill was filed in 1829, the

VOL. VII. NO. XIII.-DIG.

N

answers were filed in 1830, but no further steps were taken in the cause until 1843, when leave to file an original bill in the nature of a bill of revivor was obtained, under the 58th rule, the plaintiff having accounted for the delay between 1830 and 1839. The court gave him no more costs than he would have been entitled to if the original bill had been filed in 1843, but gave him interest. Fairclough v. Ackland, 9 Ir. Eq. R. 251.

And see CREDITORS' SUIT. DISMISSAL, 2, 3, 4, 5. EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR, 4. FINE. ISSUE. MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT. MORTGAGE, 1. PATENT. PATENT. RECEIVER, 3, 4. SOLICITOR, 1-10. STAYING PROCEEDINGS.

COUNSEL. See APPEARANCE. 1, 2, 3.

BARRISTER.

SOLICITOR,

CREDITORS' SUIT.. Contribution to costs-Lien- Practice. The usual direction in decrees in creditors' suits that the creditors shall, before they are admitted, contribute their proportion to the expenses of the suit, does not prevent the court, on further directions, if the case warrant, from ordering the plaintiff to pay all the costs of the suit; but if the suit be anything more than a mere creditors' suit the direction for contribution ought to be limited to the costs of that part of the suit in which all the creditors have a common interest with the plaintiffs. Dunning v. Hards, 2 P. 294.

And see REHEARING.

CROSS BILL. See PRACTICE, 2.

CROWN. See CHARITY, 2.

DEBT. See CONTRIBUTION. EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR, 6. DEED.-1. Construction of.-E., being entitled to an annuity of 4801. issuing out of the lands of X., of which her son A. was seised in fee, upon her marriage in 1801 with W. executed a settlement, whereby, after reciting that the clear annual rents of X. did not upon an average exceed the sum of 2401., and were therefore insufficient to answer the accruing payments of the annuity, she assigned the annuity and all arrears and future payments thereof to trustees, upon trust that if A. should attain the age of twenty-one, the trustees should thenceforth during the joint lives of E. and A. thereout pay him a certain annuity, with a proviso for its lessening or abatement in case A. should become entitled to an annual income of equal or lesser amount, and subject thereto to receive so much and such part of the annuity of 4801. as the clear yearly rents of X. should from time to time be sufficient to pay, and pay the same to W., and to E. after the death of W., and to stand possessed of the arrears then due and thereafter to become due, if any, in consequence of the rents of X. being insufficient to answer the same; apon trust that if A. should attain twenty-one or marry and survive E. to release the lands from the arrears due at the time of the settlement or thereafter to become due; and if A. should either die in the life of E. or should

survive E. and die under twenty-one, and without having been married, to stand possessed of the arrears upon such trusts as E. should appoint, and in default of appointment to call in and enforce payment thereof, and invest the same, and pay the interest thereof, to E. for life, then to W. for his life, and then the principal to the children of E. and W. equally. And it was declared that in the meantime and until under the trusts the arrears should either become absolutely vested in A. or become absolutely subject to the appointment of E., the trustees should forbear from requiring or enforcing payment of the arrears. A. attained the age of twenty-one years. W. died. Afterwards the rents of X. amounted to more than 480l. per annum: Held, E. and A. being both living, that the surplus rents, after paying the accruing gales of the annuity, were properly applicable to the payment of the arrears which accrued since the settlement of 1807. Battersby v. Rochfort, 2 J. & L. 431.

2. Escrow. A deed, the possession of which was not delivered, held complete, and not merely an escrow, when it was complete on the face of it, and the memorial was duly registered treating it as executed at the time of its date, and the non-delivery accounted for by delay respecting a mortgage which was part of the consideration. Blennerhasset v. Day, Beat. 468.

3. Registry act-Provisional assignee.-A. being entitled to lands in Ireland was discharged in England as an insolvent debtor, under the 1 Geo. 4, c. 119. The assignment of all his estate and effects to the provisional assignee was filed in the Insolvent Court, but was not registered. The subassignment to the general assignees was registered. Afterwards A. by deed duly registered conveyed his Irish estates in mortgage to B., who had no notice of the insolvency. The title of the mortgagee is to be preferred to that of the assignees of the insolvent. Battersby v. Rochfort, 2 J. & L. 431.

And see ANNUITY. CONVEYANCE.

DEFAULT. See EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR, 1. RE

CEIVER.

DEFENDANT. See WITNESS, 1, 2.

DEMURRER.-Ore tenus-Special or general.-A demurrer ore tenus cannot be more extensive than the demurrer on the record. The uncertainty of a statement is ground of special demurrer, and cannot be relied on upon a general demurrer. M'Carthy v. Hatch, 9 Ir. Eq. R. 206.

And see HUSBAND AND WIFE. LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF. PLEADING. RIVER.

DEPOSITIONS. See WITNESS.

DISCOVERY. See COSTS, 3. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. SOLICITOR, 11.

DISMISSAL OF BILL.-1. For want of prosecution-Excuse of delay. Under the General Orders, any defendant is entitled to move to dismiss for want of prosecution, after the expiration of six

weeks from the time when his answer is to be deemed sufficient. Upon such a motion, all unavoidable and all just and reasonable causes of delay may be considered, and in the cautious exercise of its discretion, the court may grant or refuse to grant any further time the plaintiff may require. Forman v. Gray, 9 B. 200.

2. For want, &c. - Filing replication - Practice. - On a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution, the plaintiff undertook to file a replication. The case stood over to enable him to perform his undertaking, and having so done, he was ordered to pay the costs of the motion. Young v. Quincey, 9 B. 160.

3. For want, &c.-General Orders-Order to amend-Costs.Under the orders of May 1845, in a case where there are several defendants, any one of them may move to dismiss for want of prosecution at the expiration of four weeks after his answer is sufficient, if the plaintiff has since taken no step, and that although his codefendants may not have put in their answer; but an order to amend, obtained and served after the notice of motion and before its hearing, is, under ordinary circumstances, an answer to the motion to dismiss, but the plaintiff, having by such means interrupted the defendant's right, must pay the costs of the motion. Lester v. Archdale, 9 B. 156.

4. Same. Where plaintiff amended his bill bonâ fide after the defendant was entitled to move to dismiss it, the court refused to dismiss the bill, but made the plaintiff pay the costs of the motion. Moore v. Lalor, 9 Ir. Eq. R. 148.

5. For want, &c.-Security for costs.-It is no answer to a motion to dismiss the bill for want of prosecution by one defendant, that another defendant has obtained an order staying the plaintiff until he gives security for costs.-Kelly v. Magee, 9 Ir. Eq. R. 216. And see EX PARTE ORDERS, 2.

DOCKETING ACTS. See MORTGAGE, 3.

DRAINAGE. See LUNACY, 1.

ECCLESIASTICAL RIGHTS.-Non-residence.-A non-resident clergyman cannot claim from the ecclesiastical commissioners the allowance under statute 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 37, s. 20, for there being no glebe house or place of residence in the parish. Ecclesiastical Commissioners v. Delmege, 9 Ir. Eq. R. 117.

ELECTION.-1. Articles-Will. By marriage articles the settlor agreed to settle lands specifically named, of which some were recited to be held in fee and for lives, and others to be leaseholds, on himself for life, with remainder to his first and other sons, &c. in strict settlement, that they should be charged with a jointure of 1007. a-year for his wife, and that 20007., his wife's fortune, should on his death be divided among his children, subject to his appointment. He afterwards acquired property and purchased other estates. By his will he devised" all his real and personal estates," subject to debts and legacies, to his eldest son for life, remainder to the first and other sons, &c., gave 100l. a-year to his wife in consideration of the join

ture provided by the articles; bequeathed sums of money to his younger children, exceeding in amount 2000l., with directions as to maintenance and accumulation, &c., and appointed his eldest son residuary legatee. Held, that the children should take the settled property under the articles, and the acquired property under the will, as there was no inconsistency to raise an election, and the latter was not to be deemed an execution of the former. Knox v. Knox, Beat. 501.

2. Same.-By the testator's marriage settlement 1000l. was secured of his property for his wife for life, with remainder to the issue of the marriage. The plaintiff was the only issue. By his will he gave the interest of 2000l. to his wife, expressly in addition to her claims under the settlement, and 5000l. to the plaintiff (without making any reference to the settlement) on her attaining twenty-one or marriage. Held, she could not claim both sums, but must elect between the settlement and will.-O'Neil v. Hamill, Beat. 618.

And see PORTIONS, 2.

EQUITABLE MORTGAGE. See MORTGAGE, 4.
ESCROW. See DEED, 2.

EVIDENCE. See PERPETUATION OF TESTIMONY. WILL, 9. EXAMINATION. See WITNESS.

EXCEPTIONS.-1. Irregularity - General Orders. In a transition case under the orders of 1845, exceptions were filed one day too late; the court declined to order them to be taken off the file. Whitmore v. Sloane, 9 B. 1.

2. Same.-Exceptions for insufficiency were referred by the plaintiff to the master in rotation instead of to the master to whom there had been a previous reference. Pending the discussion on the irregularity in the master's office, the time limited for obtaining the report expired. The court, considering the error to have arisen from inadvertence, and not from wilfulness or perverseness, gave directions to the master to hear the exceptions. Tuck v. Rayment, 9 B. 38.

3. Nunc pro tunc-General Orders-Practice.-An order for leave to file exceptions in the form of nunc pro tunc will not now be made, even by consent; but a special order may be made for filing them, notwithstanding the time limited has expired. Biddulph v. Lord Camoys, 9 B. 155.

And see INJUNCTION.

EXECUTION. See POWER, 1, 2.

EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR.-1. Administration suit-Pleading-Costs of evidence improperly taken-Distinction between wilful neglect and default, and improper expenditure of trust-money by executors.-The right of an apothecary to charge for attendances is not matter of law but of contract, either express or to be implied from the usage of the place. Proof of improper expen