The board had, under the 11 & 12 Vict.
c. 63, s. 69, given notice to the inhabi-
tants of certain streets to make these
connecting drains, the effect of the
notice being that if the said inhabitants
did not make those connecting drains
the board might make them and charge
the expenses on the defaulting inhabi-
tants. The notice was disregarded.
No subsequent resolution was passed by
the board. M. was about to take away
his carts and working materials, when
L. said to him, "What objection have
you to making the connections?" to
which M. answered, "None, if you or
the board will order the work, or be-
come responsible for the payment;"
and L. replied, "M., go on and do the
work, and I will see you paid." M. did
the work, and, the board refusing to
pay, sued L. for the amount :

Held, that the words of L. were prop-
erly left to the jury as evidence to 1.
sustain a claim against him personally,
and that they did not constitute a prom-
ise to pay the debt of another, so as
to come within the operation of the
Statute of Frauds.

without the knowledge of the presi-
dent or directors of the bank, made
a representation to A. which, by omit-
ting a material fact, misled A., and
induced him to accept a bill in which
the bank was interested; and A. was
compelled to pay the bill:

Held, that A. could recover from the
bank the amount so paid. Mackay v.
Commercial Bank.
202, 222 note.

See ADMIRALTY, 422.
BONA FIDE, 114 note.
BROKERS, 729.

PLEADING, 202.

PROTEST.

A. in London drew a check on B. &
Co., bankers at Jersey, in favor of C.,
on the 27th of January, and C. handed
it to a London bank on the 28th, who,
having no agent at Jersey, the same day
sent the check by post direct to B.
& Co. demanding payment. The check
in due course of post would have arrived
at Jersey on the 29th. B. & C. stopped
payment on the 4th of February, and
on the 7th of February returned the
check marked "refer to drawer." By
the custom of London bankers, when
a foreign check is paid to a banker by
a customer, if the banker has no agent
at the place where the check is payable,
he sends the check direct to the banker
on whom it was drawn demanding
payment, and the banker immediately
either remits the money or returns the
check; checks drawn on bankers in
Jersey are considered foreign checks:

Held, that there was a due present-
ment for payment of the check accord-
ing to the custom of bankers; and that
C. had been guilty of no laches so as to
make the check his own. Heywood v.
Pickering.

QUIA TIMET.

See INJUNCTION, 786.

363

1. When personal property treated as.
738, 743 note.

See ELECTION, 39.

RECORD.

See MORTGAGE, 94, 114 note.

RECORDING ACTS.

See CHATTEL MORTGAGE, 657.

RESIDENCE.

1. The claimant, a freeman of a borough,
was an officer in the army serving with
his regiment. When he obtained leave
of absence, which he usually did for
three months in the year, he used to
reside at the house of his mother, within
seven miles of the borough, occupying
apartments there, which were always
reserved for his use. He was unmar-
ried, and had no other home than his
mother's house:

Held, that in the case of an officer
subject to the will and pleasure of the
Queen, and who was therefore not sui
juris, there could not be such an inten-
tion of returning as to constitute a con-
structive residence, and consequently
that the claimant was not qualified.
Ford v. Hart,

400

2. A testatrix, by her will, gave to a mar-
ried woman a sum of consols; and by a
codicil directed that all gifts and pro-
visions (whether absolute or limited)
thereby or by her will made for any
female should be for her separate use,
and (whilst she should be under cover-
ture) without any power of anticipa
tion. The executor transferred the
fund into court under the Trustee Re-

1.

TRIAL.

See CRIMINAL LAW, 323.

Held, that she could only have the in-
come paid to her during her coverture.

8. As to the effect of a clause restraining
anticipation on an absolute gift of a
fund not producing income, quære.
Matter of Ellis's Trust.

TENANTS IN COMMON.

See DISTRESS, 873.

TITLE.

See DEVISE, 309.

LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF, 832.

TOMBSTONES.

See CHARITY, 685.

611

not entitled to transfer of estate.

611

2. A gift of an annuity to a trustee, so
long as he should continue to execute
the office of trustee:

Held, to determine on the cesser of
active trusts by the payment of the
whole of the trust property to a person
absolutely entitled, without a devolution
of the office of trustee on any other
person. Hull v. Christian.

647

3. Testator devised his real estate to
trustees, in trust for his wife for life,
with remainder to F. for life, with re-
mainders over, and with a power of
sale, at the discretion of the trustees or
trustee for the time being, and with
the usual power for the surviving or
acting trustee or trustees, with the con-
sent of the tenant for life, to appoint
new trustees. The sole acting trustee
appointed the testator's widow and F.
new trustees jointly with himself. F.
being sole surviving trustee contracted
for the sale of part of the property:

Held, that the power to appoint new
trustees had been well exercised, there

being nothing in the will to prevent
the appointment of a tenant for life as
trustee; and that F. could make a good
title to the property, which the court

share to the covenantee, who then
stands in the same position as any other
legatee.

579

4 D., who was possessed of leasehold
business premises and stock-in-trade,
shortly before his death purported to
make a voluntary gift in favor of his
grandson E., who was an infant and
who assisted in the business, by the fol-
lowing memorandum, signed and in-
dorsed on the lease: "This deed and
all thereto belonging I give to E. from
this time forth, with all the stock-in-
trade." The lease was then delivered
to E.'s mother on his behalf:

Held, that there was no valid declara-
tion of trust of the property in favor
of E. Richards v. Delbridge. 669

5. A trustee who accepts office at the re-
quest of a cestui que trust is entitled to
be indemnified by that cestui que trust
personally against all loss which may
accrue in the proper execution of the

trust.

6. Notice of a remote contingent liability
on the part of a testator is not sufficient
to prevent his executor from distribu-
ting his residuary estate; and if the
executor distributes with such notice,
and the liability afterwards ripens into
a debt, he will be entitled to call on the
residuary legatees to refund.

7. The executors of a testator had dur-
ing his lifetime, and at his request,
become trustees of a deed, whereby cer-
tain shares in an unlimited company
were settled on a tenant for life, with
remainders over. While the company
was a going concern, and believed to
be perfectly solvent, they distributed
the residuary estate: afterwards the
company was ordered to be wound up.
Large calls were made in respect of
the shares, and the remaindermen all
disclaimed:

Held, that the trustees and executors
were entitled to be indemnified out of
the testator's estate, and to call on the
residuary legatees to refund.

8. A person who has covenanted to be-
queath or otherwise provide that a share

the settlement made on the marriage
of one of his daughters, covenanted to
bequeath or otherwise provide that a
certain share of his residuary estate
should go to her; and it was by the
same settlement agreed that such share
should be paid to the trustees and held
by them on the trusts of the settle-
ment. The testator accordingly be-
queathed the proper share to his daugh-
ter, and it was paid by the executors to
the trustees of the settlement:

Held, that the trustees were liable
to refund equally with the other re-
siduary legatees.

10. An executor who compels a legatee
to refund can recover only the capital
sum which he has paid to the legatee,
without any intermediate income. Jer-
vis v. Wolferstan.

674

11. The estate of a testator who died in
1832 was distributed in 1847, as the
evidence showed, at the written request
of the persons beneficially entitled.
Another part of the estate which fell
in in 1852 was distributed also at the
request, but not in writing, of the bene-
ficiaries, and in 1871 the acting trustee
died. No accounts or vouchers were
forthcoming from the trustees.

Bill, filed in 1872 by one of the bene-
ficiaries and her husband against the
surviving trustee, and the representa-
tive of the deceased trustee, for admin-
istration, dismissed; but owing to the
negligence of the trustees in not keep-
ing accounts and vouchers, without
costs. Payne v. Evens.

858

LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF, 784, 832.
TENANT FOR LIFE, 611.

U

UNBORN CHILD.

fulfils his covenant by bequeathing the

first and other sons of M. in tail male,