CARRIER. 1. In an action against a coachproprietor for the loss of a trunk containing wearing apparel and jewels, the value of which was not disclosed by the plaintiff (nor asked by the defendant), the Jury were directed generally to consider whether or not the defendant had been guilty of gross negligence, without reference to the non-disclosure of the value of the article. The Jury having found for the plaintiff, the Court refused to set aside the verdict. Brooke v. Pickwick, 447 CERTIFICATE. 1. The plaintiff, an attorney, arrested the defendant for 100l., the amount of a bill of costs delivered, and served him with a copy of a declaration. The defendant pleaded the general issue, on which issue was joined. At the trial, the amount of the bill was, by consent of the parties, referred to the Prothonotary to be taxed, and he found that 60%. only were due, as the plaintiff had neglected to take out his certificate for a part of the time during which the business was done :-Held, that the defendant was not entitled to his costs under the statute. Hinton v. Warren, 31 2. Costs of a suit in equity may be set off against the costs of an action at law. Webber v. Nicholas, 87 3. The defendant obtained a verdict against the plaintiff at the Sittings after Trinity Term. Shortly afterwards a commission of bankrupt issued against the plaintiff, under which. he obtained his certificate on the 9th November. Final judgment was signed on the 14th November-Held, that the costs were not a debt proveable under the commission, and therefore that the plaintiff was liable to an 4. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to an award, and the arbitrator found that the debt had been reduced below 40s. by part payment before action brought. The Court ordered a suggestion to be entered on the roll, under the Middlesex Court of Conscience Act, 23 Geo. 2, c. 33, to deprive the plaintiff of costs. Nightingale v. Barnard, 385 5. In an action against the Sheriff for a false return of non sunt inventæ, per quod the defendants were waived, and were put to expense in reversing the waiver:-Held, that the plaintiffs were only entitled to recover the taxed costs. Jenkins v. Biddulph, 390 COURT OF CONSCIENCE. 1. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to an award, and the arbitrator found that the debt had been reduced below 40s. by part payment before action brought. The Court ordered a suggestion to be entered on the roll, under the Middlesex Court of Conscience act, 23 Geo. 2, c. 33, to deprive the plaintiff of costs. Nightingale v. Barnard, 385 COVENANT. 1. The defendants, as directors of a mining company, agreed by deed to purchase a mine of the plaintiffs, the purchase-money to be paid within twelve months, by certain instalments, "out of the monies to be raised by the company;" with a proviso, that, in case they should not have received the deposits from the shareholders so as to enable them to pay the money by the time stipulated for, the directors should be allowed a further time of six months: and the defendants covenanted that they would, "out of the said payments so to be made by the subscribers or shareholders in the said company," pay the said purchase-money, according to the terms and at the times before specified, subject to the aforesaid proviso:-Held, that this was a personal undertaking on the part of the defendants, to pay at the expiration of the additional six months. Hancock v. Hodgson, 504 2. A. demised land to B. and C., who demised to D., subject to certain covenants, with a proviso for re-entry "by B. and C., their executors, administrators, or assigns, and A., his heirs and assigns:"-Held, that B. and C. alone might maintain ejectment for a breach of covenant. Doe d. Bedford v. White, 526 heirs, directing them to sell it:-having afterwards sold his estate C., and purchased another, A., he, by a codicil written on the back of the will, attested by two witnesses only, directed that the money obtained from the sale of the estate C. should go to a general fund, to be divided amongst all his children; and also that the estate A. should be sold, and its produce applied in like manner; and he appointed his wife an executrix jointly with those named in the will. By a second codicil, also attested by two witnesses only, he, after stating that one half of the estate O. had been sold, and giving directions as to the sale of the other half, appointed new executors in lieu of those named in the will; subsequently, he made a third codicil, duly attested to pass lands, by which he merely appointed another executor in the room of one of those in the second codicil named; all the codicils were written on the back sheet of the will:-Held, that the third codicil operated as a republication of the first codicil. Guest v. Willasey, 2 2. A testator directed that the rents of his freehold property at L. should be applied, first, in payment of two sums charged thereon, and (subject thereto) in paying to A., the widow of his son R. D., an annuity of 10., till her death or second marriage; and (subject as aforesaid) that the remainder of such rents should be applied to the maintenance and education of his grandson J. D. (son of the said R.D.), till he attained the age of twenty-one; that, if he should die before that time, the rents should be applied to the education of the testator's grand-daughter, M. F. D. (daughter of the said R. D.), till she attained the age of twenty-one; and after J. D. (the grandson) should have attained his age of twenty-one, or M. F. D. (the grand-daughter), him surviving, should have attained that age, he gave to his son W. D., out of the said rents, an annuity of 201. for his life; and, subject thereto, he gave the remainder of the said rents to A. D. (the widow), during the life of W. D. (the son), or till her second marriage; and, after the death of W. D. (the son), he gave the said lands (subject as aforesaid) to the use of J. D. (the grandson), and his heirs; but, if J. D. (the grandson) should die before the period aforesaid, without lawful issue living at the time of his death, then he gave the said rents to W. D. (the son), for life (deducting thereout the annuity of 10l. for A. D., as long as she should remain the widow of R. D.); and, after the death of W. D. (the son), he gave the said premises (subject as aforesaid) to the children of the said W.D. as tenants in common; and, in default of such issue, to A. D. (the widow), her heirs and assigns for ever. The testator died, leaving all the abovenamed parties surviving, W, D. (the son) being his heir-at-law, A. D. (the widow) died intestate, and unmarried, J. D. (the grandson) being then eighteen. He attained the age of twenty-one, and died unmarried, leaving W. D. (the son) surviving:Held, that W. D. (the son) took an estate for life in possession in the lands at L. Mason v. Robinson, 11 3. Where freehold property is limited to trustees, their heirs and assigns, in a marriage settlement, to the use of the settlor and his heirs, until the solemnization of the marriage, and, after that event, to the use of the settlor and his assigns, for the life of the husband, without impeachment of waste; and, after the settlor's decease, to the trustees, their executors, administrators, and assigns, for a term of three hundred years, to secure an an annuity of 400l. for the wife, in case she survived her husband; and, subject thereto, to the use of the set tlor, his heirs and assigns, for ever; and the settlor died after the execution of the settlement, but before the marriage was solemnized:-Held, first, that the executors of the settlor took no estate in the settled property; and, secondly, that the husband took an estate in fee therein, under the limitation contained in the deed, and also as the heir-at-law of the settlor, subject only to the three hundred years' term for raising the wife's annuity in case she survived her husband, Trevelyan v. Trevelyan, 19 4. A testator, after leaving several estates for life, and 1s. to his heir, directed certain property to be sold to pay his debts, and ordered that other part should not be sold unless necessary. He then gave his wife an additional annuity of 20l. to be issuing out of the whole estate that should remain unsold; and then devised "all the rest and residue of his goods and chattels, &c.,not before bequeathed, his debts being paid, subject and charged as aforesaid, to his brother R. S., ifliving at the time of his (testator's) death; if not living, to his children, to be divided between them; C. to have 2001., T. 300l., and E. 2001., more than any of the rest:"-Held, that the fee passed to the children of R. S. Gully v. The Bishop of Exeter, 591 DISTRESS. 1. A barge moored alongside a wharf, was held to be liable to a distress for rent of the wharf. Buszard v. Capel, 339 [This judgment has been reversed in the Court of King's Bench.] 2. It seems that, in the case of cattle taken damage feazant, the owner is not precluded from tendering amends whilst they remain in the custody of the distrainor; at all events, not where the latter intimates an intention of sending them to a public pound. Browne v. Powell, 454 EJECTMENT. 1. In ejectment at the suit of an heir-at-law, general reputation of marriage is sufficient prima facie evidence of heirship-even where the father is living. Doe d. Fleming v. Fleming, 500 2. A. demised land to B. and C., who demised to D., subject to certain covenants, with a proviso for re-entry "by B. and C., their executors, administrators, or assigns, and A., his heirs and assigns:"-Held, that B. and C. alone might maintain ejectment for a breach of covenant. Doe d. Bedford v. White, 526 3. J. S., who was tenant from year of certain premises, with an to year agreement for a lease, demised to the defendant, as tenant from year to year. J. S. was discharged under the Insolvent Debtors' Act, 1 Geo. 4, c. 119. The provisional assignee never took possession of the premises, but J. S. continued to receive and pay the rent, and no ultimate assignee was appointed:-Held (Lord Chief Justice Best dissenting), that J. S. could not maintain ejectment, all his interest being divested by the assignment, though not acted upon. Doe d. Palmer v. Andrews, ELEGIT. 601 See USE AND OCCUPATION, 2. 1. A testator devised certain estates to M. J., for life; and then, subject to an annuity, unto F. L. D. and T. E., their heirs and assigns, in trust for W. J., for life; and after the death of W. J., subject to the annuity, to R. E. C., for life, remainders over; with a declaration that the estates were so limited, "to the end and intent that the legal estate so vested in the trustees and their heirs, might preserve and support the several contingent limitations and estates subsequent to the estate limited thereof in trust for the said W. J." An elegit was sued out upon a judgment obtained against R. E. C. during the continuance of his interest. After the judgment, and before the execution of the elegit, the trustees conveyed the property in trust for the benefit of the creditors of R. E. C..Held, that the land could not be extended under this elegit, inasmuch as the legal estate was in the trustees at the time of the judgment, and R. E. C. had no equitable estate at the time of the execution sued. Harris v. Pugh, ENGLISH NOTICE. See PRACTICE, 26. ENGRAVINGS. 577 |