-Held, that the interests of the persons or person who on the death of A. would become the right heirs or right heir of A. were bound in equity by the decree. Basnett v. Moxon, 44 L. J., Ch. 557; L. R. 20 Eq. 182; 23 W. R.

945.

Held. also, that such persons were "unborn" persons within the meaning of the Trustee Act, 1550. s. 30. Ib.

Sale before Result of Inquiries Certified.-A decree in a partition suit directed inquiries as to the persons interested, and whether a sale would be more beneficial than a partition, and if so found directed a sale. The sale took place before the certificate was made :-Held, that the purchaser was entitled to be discharged, but that the decree was not wrong in directing a sale without reserving further consideration. Powell v. Powell, 44 L. J., Ch. 122; L. R. 10 Ch. 130; 31 L. T. 737; 23 W. R. 201.

By a decree for administration in a county court a sale of real estate devised to A. and six other persons, parties to the suit, was ordered, and an inquiry was directed before the registrar of the court as to A., who had not been heard of for many years. On an affidavit being produced to the registrar showing that A. had not been heard of for seventeen years, the sale was effected without any certificate as to the result of the inquiry being made. The sale produced more than 5007., and the cause was transferred to the court of chancery. On motion by the purchaser to be discharged and to have his costs paid, on the ground that the sale was invalid as having been made before a certificate in answer to the inquiries had been made :-Held, that A. must be presumed to be dead without issue; and that as all parties interested were in fact before the court at the hearing, and were willing to convey, and a good title could be made independently of the Partition Act, 1868, the purchaser was bound to accept such a title, and could not rely upon the technical informality in the decree. Rawlinson v. Miller, 46 L. J., Ch. 252; 1 Ch. D. 52.

Sale under Partition Decree made before Act of 1868.]-In 1864 a decree was made for a partition, liberty being given to carry in proposals for a sale before the commission should be issued. No commission was issued, and after the Partition Act of 1868 had come into operation a supplemental bill was filed praying for a sale or a partition :-Held, that the rights of the parties under the decree were not taken away by the Partition Act, and that the court had not now power to compel a sale. Pryor v. Pryor, 44 L. J., Ch. 535; L. R. 10 Ch. 469; 32 L. T. 713; 23 W. R. 738.

sale by the court, in a partition suit, one of the conditions of sale provided that if any purchaser should make any objection or requisition which the vendors should be unable or unwilling for reasonable cause to remove or comply with, the vendors should be at liberty, with the leave of the judge, and notwithstanding any intermediate negotiation, or attempt to comply with or remove such objection or requisition, to cancel the contract, which should thereupon be delivered up, and the deposit returned without interest and without costs on either side. The sale was held to be irregular, and a purchaser thereupon took out a summons to be discharged from his purchase with a return of his deposit, and 41. per cent. interest and his costs. vendors submitted to the purchaser being discharged, but contended that under the condition he was only entitled to a return of his deposit without interest and costs :-Held, that the condition did not apply, and that the purchaser was entitled to be paid the consols, in which his deposit had been invested, and the dividends which had accrued thereon, and his costs. Powell v. Powell, 44 L. J., Ch. 311; L. R. 19 Eq. 422; 32 L. T. 148; 28 W. R. 482.

The

Sale by Court - Lunatic-Conversion - Real and Personal Representatives.] By an order made in a partition suit a share of real estate belonging to a lunatic was sold, and the proceeds paid into court to the credit of the matter of the lunacy, but they were not carried to a real estate account. The lunatic died intestate, and his administrator claimed the money as part of the lunatic's personal estate :-Held, that the money retained the character of real estate, and passed to the lunatic's heir-at-law. The words of s. 23 of the Settled Estates Act when imported into s. 8 of the Partition Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 40), are not to be restricted to a sale of estates in settlement, but apply to all sales effected under the Partition Act. Barker, In re, 50 L. J., Ch. 334; 17 Ch. D. 241; 44 L. T. 33; 29 W. R. 873.

The payment of the money into court to the credit of the lunacy was not a payment" to a person becoming absolutely entitled" within the meaning of s. 23 of the Settled Estates Act. Ib.

Order to Pay Over-Subsequent Lunacy of Beneficiary.]-On the 21st May, 1879, P. N. died intestate, leaving M. H. P. one of four coheiresses-at-law. On 18th February, 1880, an action was brought asking for sale of P. N.'s real estate in lieu of partition. On the 15th June, 1880, an order was made for sale. The sale took place on the 30th August, 1880, and the proceeds of sale were carried to the credit of the action, "proceeds of the sale of the testator's Proceeds of Sale of Settled Leaseholds in- real estate." On the 22nd April, 1882, by the vested in Consols - Deficiency in Income.]-order on further consideration in the said action, Under an order of the court in a partition action one-fourth part of the money standing to that leasehold property settled upon trust for A. for account was ordered to be paid to M. H. P., sublife with remainders over was sold, and the project to duty. M. H. P. left the money in court, cels paid into court, and invested in consols, the and took no steps concerning it. On the 14th dividends of which were much less in amount than the yearly rents received from the leaseholds-Held, that A. was not entitled to any allowance out of the corpus to make up the deficiency in her annual income. Langmead v. Cockerton, 25 W. R. 315.

January, 1884, by an order made on a petition presented in lunacy, T. was authorised to apply to the chancery division for a transfer of the said one-fourth amounting to 4347. 178. 9d. to the account of M. H. P., a person of unsound mind, "proceeds of the sale of the real estate of P. N.," and the transfer was made accordingly. M. H. P. Invalid Sale-Discharge of Purchaser.]-On a died on the 10th June, 1881:-Held, that there

being no evidence that M. H. P. was of unsound | X., by an event contemplated at the time, mind at the date of the sale and the order for became insufficient :-Held, that A. could not be payment to her, the fund then ordered to be paid relieved on that ground. Ib. to her belonged to her absolutely without any trust or equity for re-conversion, and went on her death to her personal representatives. Pickard, In re, Turner v. Nicholson, 53 L. T.

293.

Waste-Injunction after Decree.]-After a decree has been made in a partition suit, there is jurisdiction in the suit, upon motion, to restrain by injunction one of the parties to the suit from wasting the property, or doing anything amounting to an alteration of it. Bailey v. Hobson, 39 L. J., Ch. 270; L. R. 5 Ch. 180; 22 L. T. 594; 18 W. R. 124.

But where, after a decree for sale had been made in a partition suit, one of the parties, who was in possession of the whole property, but not under any tenancy, was about to sell off the property certain crops, and there was evidence only to show that by the custom of the country, as between landlord and tenant, those crops could not be sold by the tenant off the land-Held, that no injunction to restrain the sale could be granted. Ib.

5. COMPENSATION AND ACCOUNTS. Decree for Partition and Account of Rents.]On bill for partition and account of rents and profits, a decree for that purpose will be made, and relief will not be confined merely to a partition. Lorimer v. Lorimer, 5 Madd. 363. And see Turner v. Morgan, 8 Ves. 143.

Owelty of Partition.]-Commissioners of partition have no power to award sums to be paid for owelty of partition. Mole v. Mansfield, 15

Expenditure by Party on Property in which he had no Legal Right.-The court will not make any special directions in a partition suit because a party has laid out money on property in which he has no legal right, it being his wife's, who has only a life interest in it. Heath v. Bostock, 5 L. J., Ex. Eq. 20.

Expenditure by one Tenant in Permanent Improvements-Contribution. ]-The owner of a moiety of a property who was also tenant for life of the whole, and the tenant for life in remainder of the other moiety, concurred in raising a sum of 9007. by a mortgage which was expended in permanently improving the property:-Held, in a partition action, that the present value of the improvements, but not exceeding the amount raised, must be paid out of the proceeds of sale of the whole property. Teasdale v. Sanderson (33 Beav. 534) discussed. Jones, In re, Farrington v. Forrester, 62 L. J., Ch. 996; [1893] 2 Ch. 461; 3 R. 498; 69 L. T.

45.

Freehold and leasehold property belonging to two sisters, as tenants in common, was settlel upon their respective marriages in the usual way. An agreement was afterwards come to by which the property was to be partitioned and held in severalty on the trusts of the two marriage settlements, a sum of money being paid for equality of partition. That sum was never paid. but interest was paid on it. The parties entitled under each settlement took possession of the property allotted to them, and expended money in improving it, and, as the result of larger expenditure on the property which was originally the most valuable, its value increased to a greater extent than did that of the less valuable proMoney Laid Out in Improving Premises.]-perty. Children having been born of each Where it is stated, by answer to bill for partition, marriage, an action of partition on the basis of that defendant has laid out money in improving the agreement was commenced-Held, that in premises, court will not decree partition without calculating the amount to be paid for equality reference to master to take an account. Money of partition, one moiety of the difference laid out in improving premises does not, how-between the present values of the properties ever, in strictness, create a lien on premises; but should be taken, expenditure by both sides on it is sufficient ground for equity to refuse to permanent improvements having been first interfere. Swan v. Swan, 8 Price, 518; 22 R. R. deducted. Watson v. Gass, 51 L. J., Ch. 480: 770. 45 L. T. 582; 30 W. R. 286.

Sim. 41.

Compensation for Mistake of Surveyors in Partition.] Surveyors in partition having allotted by mistake a piece of land to one to whom it belonged previously, and several allotments having been sold before mistake discovered, court decreed pecuniary compensation to be made to him. Dacre v. Gorges, 2 Sim. & S. 454; 4 L. J. (0.8.) Ch. 50; 25 R. R. 246.

Occupation Rent.]-The plaintiff and defendant were tenants in common of a copyhold estate; the defendant was in possession when the plaintiff's title accrued, and continued to hold the estate during the infancy of the plaintiff :Held, that the defendant must be considered as having entered upon the plaintiff's estate; that the defendant was entitled to an allowance for permanent improvements, but that he must be charged with an occupation rent proportionate to the improvements made. Pascoe v. Swan, 29 L. J., Ch. 159; 5 Jur. (N.S.) 1235; 1 L. T. 17; 8 W. R. 130.

Compensation for Inequality in Partition.] By a deed between A. and B., A. was to pay B. a sum of money in four months, which he also secured by confessing a judgment; A. did not pay it, and B. had him arrested; the deed pro- A., one of several tenants in common, had vided for the attendance of the parties before been in the personal occupation of part of the the arbitrators and their examination :-Held, property. In a suit by another tenant in that the imprisonment of A. being the conse- common, for partition and an account of rents: quence of his own breach of contract, gave him-Held, that unless A. was charged with an no better equity. Dimsdale v. Robertson, 7 Ir. occupation rent, he could not be allowed for Eq. R. 536; 2 Jo. & Lat. 58. substantial repairs and lasting improvements made by him on any part of the property. Teasdale v. Sanderson, 33 Beav. 534.

Compensation was to be awarded to A. out of X., for any inequality in a partition of Y.;

side, and, if necessary, in order to secure an uneven number, for one commissioner to be appointed by the court. Howard v. Barnwell, 2 N. R. 414.

b. Commissioners' Powers, Duties and

Legal Mortgage of Share by one Co-owner- certain number (generally two), and for a porMortgagor in Possession of the Entirety-Occu- tion of them to be struck out by the opposite pation Rent-Set-off as against Mortgagee.]Where one co-owner of real property executed a legal mortgage of his share and remained in possession of the entirety of the property, but not as tenant or bailiff of his co-owners, and in a partition action the chief clerk, in answer to an enquiry directed by the judgment, found that a certain sum was due from the co-owner for rent in respect of his occupation of the premises, and the property was sold, such sum cannot be set off as against the co-owner's share of the proceeds to the prejudice of his mortgagee. Heckles v. Heckles (W. N. (1892), p. 188) commented on. Hill v. Hickin, 66 L. J., Ch. 717; [1897] 2 Ch. 579; 77 L. T. 127; 46 W. R. 137.

Sale by Mortgagee-Distribution of Surplus Proceeds of Sale-Allowance by other Tenant. The owner in fee of one moiety of a property (subject to a paramount mortgage), who was also tenant for life of the whole, borrowed money on mortgage, which was expended in permanently improving the whole property. After her death the property was sold by the paramount mortgagee under his power of sale-Held, that in distributing the surplus proceeds of sale, one half of the present value of the improvements (not exceeding the amount actually expended) must be charged against the owner of the other moiety. Cook's Mortgage, In re, Lawledge v. Tyndall, 65 L. J., Ch. 654; [1896] 1 Ch. 923; 74 L. T. 652; 44 W. R. 646.

6. COMMISSION.

a. Issue of Commission.

Reference Necessary-Postponement of Commission. In a suit for partition, if a reference is necessary to ascertain the interests of the parties, the direction for the commission ought to be postponed until the hearing for further directions. Cole v. Sewell, 15 Sim. 284.

Return.

Jurisdiction and Practice of Court.]-Jurisdiction and practice of the court with respect to proceedings under commissions of partition. Manners v. Charlesworth, 1 Myl. & K. 330; Coop. t. Brough. 52.

Owelty of Partition.]-Commissioners of partition have no power to award sums to be paid for owelty of partition. Mole v. Mansfield, 15 Sim. 41.

Mistake of Surveyors in Partition.]-Surveyors in partition having allotted by mistake a piece of land to one to whom it belonged previously, and several allotments having been sold, before mistake discovered, court decreed pecuniary compensation to be made to him. Dacre v. Gorges, 2 Sim. & S. 454; 4 L. J. (0.8.) Ch. 50; 25 R. R. 246.

Annexing Right of Way to Allotment.]Commissioners of partition may annex to one allotment a new right of way over another allotment, the right of way being occasional and for the purpose of repairs, may direct new fences to be made to divide the allotments at the expense of the different parties entitled, and may award the mansion house to the heirat-law, though the rest of his allotment was at a distance. Lister v. Lister, 3 Y. & C. 540.

The court will not suppress or vary the certificate of commissioners by reason of alleged irregularity in the allotments, except on the ground of fraud or of negligence amounting to fraud. Ib.

not have excepted but moved to suppress the returns; the deposit therefore ordered to be paid to the plaintiff. Corbet v. Davenant, 2 Bro. C. C. 252. See 6 Price, 332, n.

After decree in a partition suit, and before the return of the writ of partition and commission of perambulation, one of the commis- Making different Returns.]-Commissioners sioners, and one of the defendants who was making different returns, a new commission entitled to a part of the lands, died. The of partition ordered; but the defendants should cause having been revived by suggestion, and the master having approved of a new commissioner, the court on motion directed a renewal of the writ and commission, and directed the part allotted by the decree to A. to be allotted Under commission of partition to four comto his widow and children, pursuant to his will missioners, two different returns were made by as stated in the suggestion. Valentine v. Middle-each two commissioners; the court would not ton, 2 Ir. Ch. R. 93. act on either, but directed new commission to five commissioners. Watson v. Northumberland, 11 Ves. 153.

Copyholds. The court will not make a decree for a partition of copyholds, without directing a commission. Bowles v. Rump, 9 W. R. 370.

Form of Decree.]-The court, in a suit for partition, will not in general direct a commission to issue, but will make a declaration that the estate ought to be divided, with liberty to the parties entitled to bring before the judge at chambers proposals for a partition. Clarke v. Clayton, 2 Giff. 333; 6 Jur. (N.s.) 1238 ; 3 L. T. 176. |

Partition Decree as between Co-heiresses.]On a commission under a partition decree as between co-heiresses, the eldest has no right of choice. The commissioners are to exercise their own discretion, and may take into account, in allotting, eldership or any other circumstance, and should only draw lots if they cannot on any grounds make a discretionary allotment. Canning v. Canning, 2 Eq. R. 1147; 2 Drew. 434; 23 L. J., Ch. 879; 18 Jur. 640; 2 W. R. 661.

Appointment of Commissioners.]-The usual and proper course in a summons to have commissioners appointed for a partition where the -Drawing Lots.]-Upon their continuing to parties cannot agree, is for each side to name a disagree, a new commission was directed, and

a third commissioner appointed, in order to evidence. Meers v. Stourton (Lord), Dick. avoid the necessity of making a partition by 21. drawing lots. Ib.

Inequality of Value.]-Exceptions will not lie to the return of commissioners in a suit for partition, on the ground of inequality of value in the lots. In all cases of improper conduct in the commissioners, a motion must be made to suppress the return. Jones v. Totty or Tolley, 1 Sim. 136; 5 L. J. (0.s.) Ch. 105.

Where schedule written on paper was returned with commission of partition, the plaintiff's clerk in court was allowed to engross it on parchment and file engrossment, with return, in analogy to practice where foreign depositions are returned on paper. Ib., 2 Sim. & S. 219.

Where commissioners of partition are directed to divide lands equally between the parties entitled, it is their duty, after dividing the lands into proportions of equal value in the market, to assign them to those parties respectively to whom they would be of most value, with reference to their respective situations in relation to the property before the partition took place. Therefore, where commissioners were directed to divide lands equally between A., B., and C., and they accordingly divided the lands into portions of equal value in the market, but assigned to A. an inn of which C. had been for many years the occupier, upon which he had expended money in improvements, and adjoining to which he had purchased property for the purposes of his occupation:-Held, that the adjudication of the commissioners was wrong, and that a commission should be directed to the new commissioners, to be approved of by the master. Gross error in judgment, without positive proof of impartiality, is sufficient to enable the court to set aside an adjudication made by the commissioners of partition. Story v. Johnson, 1 Y. & C. 538; 5 L. J., Ex. Eq. 9.

Special Instructions to Commissioners.]—A court of equity, in decreeing a partition, does not act ministerially, and in obedience to the call of those parties who have a right to the partition, but founds itself upon the general jurisdiction given to courts of equity. It will, therefore, on a bill of partition, adjust the equitable rights of all the parties interested in the estate, and will for that purpose give special instructions to the commissioners of partition, and even, in cases of necessity, nominate the commissioners. And in decreeing partition will have regard also to the provisions of the 8 & 9 Will. 3, c. 31, s. 4. Iò., 2 Y. & C. 586.

A road was set out by two tenants in common of property, for the convenience of their respective dwelling houses for ever; the court, in a partition suit, though of opinion that it ought not to be interfered with, declined giving any special direction on the subject to the commissioners. Morris v. Timmins, 1 Beav.

411.

Examination of Witnesses under Commission.] -On a bill for partition, there is no occasion to examine witnesses before the hearing. Said arguendo, that the commissioners may examine witnesses under the commission ore tenus, or take their depositions in writing, as they shall think fit, and found their partition on such

Interference with Commissioners on Application of one Tenant in Common.]-The court will interfere and direct partition commissioners in the exercise of their discretion in case of mis carriage by them; but an application to the court to give such directions must be made by

one of the tenants in common, and be founded on something the commissioners have done, or on some dealing between the tenants in common. The court has no jurisdiction to interfere upon the application of a stranger, or of a tenant in common, founded on dealings between one of the tenants in common and such stranger, Wright v. Vernon, 1 Dr. & Sm. 231; 8 W. R.

724.

Grounds for Setting Aside Partition.] - A partition will not be set aside on light grounds. or for light matters, or for mere inequality of value of the allotments, if, in making it, the commissioners have honestly exercised their own judgment. Peers or Pearse v. Needham, 19 Beav. 316; 2 W. R. 514.

It is not necessary that, in making a partition. an aliquot share of each species of property, or of each house, if it be house property, should be allotted to each of the tenants in common. But where, under a decree for partition amongst three tenants in common, which did not empower the commissioners to order owelty of partition, the commissioners, upon some previous understanding that two of the tenants in commo were willing to take one of the two houses comprising the property without severance, allotted that house to them, and the other to the third tenant in common, the return was suppressed.

Ib.

Objections being made to a partition, first. because a leasehold estate forming part of the property had been divided and the rents appertioned; and, secondly, because the commissioners had not directed or permitted the parties to draw lots:-Held, that both objections were untenable. Ames v. Comyns, 17 L. T. 163; 16 W. R. 74.

No Right of Interference after Partition.— After a partition under a decree, the court cannot give a party any right to the property, which the certificate of the commissioners and the deeds of partition do not give him; nor will it interfere to reform the deeds, in order to give a party the more convenient and complete use or enjoyment of his portion of the premises. Barley v. Moore, 5 L. J. (0.s.) Ch. 120.

Assignee of Parcel of an Undivided Share. The assignee of an undivided share of certain premises, part of a larger site, held by the assignor in common, has no title as against the other tenants in common to require that, on par tition, the particular premises which he has purchased, or any part of them, shall be allotted to him. Cooper v. Fisher, 10 L. J., Ch. 221.

Equality of Shares.]-On a partition in chancery, every part of the estate need not to be divided, but sufficient if each tenant in common. &c., have an equal share of the whole. Clarendon v. Hornby, 1 P. Wms. 446.

Freeholds and Copyholds-Copyholds Allotted in Entirety to One Party.]-On a suit previous to the 4 & 5 Vict. c. 55, s. 85, for a partition of freeholds and copyholds, the court directed the copyholds to be allotted in entirety to one of the parties. Dillon v. Coppin, 6 Beav. 217, n.; 3 L. J., Ch. 201.

Lien for Fees.]-Commissioners under a commission of partition, have no lien on the commission for their charges. Young v. Sutton, 2 V. & B. 365.

Inclosure Acts - Partition not Incident to Inclosure Effect of Award of Partition as regards Title to Lands Allotted.]-The plaintiffs brought an action for the recovery of certain land as representatives of a person to whom the land had been allotted in severalty by an award of partition under the Inclosure Acts in 1880. The defendants were in possession of the land, and at the date of the award had acquired a good title thereto under the Statute of Limitations, having been in undisturbed possession since 1858. The partition was not made under any inclosure scheme. None of the parties to the partition proceedings had any interest whatever in the land, and it was by a mere mistake included in the schedule to their application, and dealt with in the award :-Held, that the effect of s. 105 of the Inclosure Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Viet. c. 118) was not to make the award conclusive as to the title of the allottee, and that the award, not having been made on the application of persons interested in the land within the meaning of s. 13 of the Inclosure Act, 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 99), had been made without jurisdiction, and that the defendants were therefore entitled to judgment. Jacomb v. Turner, [1892] 1 Q. B. 47.

7. CONVEYANCES.

In General.]-It is essential to partition to have the legal title before the court. Miller v. Warmington, 1 J. & W. 493; 21 R. R. 217.

A right merely dependent on ownership cannot be reserved over the entirety after partition. Charlesworth v. Garsted, 3 N. R. 54-L.JJ.

Difference between partition at law and in equity. The former operates by the judgment of a court of law, conclusive on the parties, the latter proceeds on conveyances to be executed between the parties, and cannot be effectual if the parties be incompetent to execute. Whaley v. Dawson, 2 Sch. & Lef. 372.

Mutual Conveyances.]-On a partition between A., B., and C., A. refused to execute a conveyance to B. unless B. and C. executed a conveyance to him :-Held, that he was only entitled to require a conveyance from B. to himself as the condition of his executing a conveyance to B. Orger v. Sparke, 9 W. R. 180.

came afterwards very valuable. The plaintiffs, who were now the owners of the other moiety, claimed a participation in the royalties and rents arising from the lime pits or quarries, on the ground that lime-rock was included in the term "mines and minerals"; and on bill filed to determine the question whether lime-rocks were minerals -Held, that they were not, and bill dismissed. Semble, a mineral refers to the mode in which the substance is worked, a mine being a covert working; a quarry, sub dio. Darrel or Darvell v. Roper, 3 Eq. R. 1004; 3 Drew. 294 ; 24 L. J., Ch. 779; 3 W. R. 467.

Vesting Estate in Trustee with directions to Convey.]-Upon a partition, the shares of the parties were very minute and complicated. The court, to save expense, and instead of directing a conveyance of the several shares, declared each of the parties trustees as to the shares allotted to them, and then vested the whole trust estate in a single new trustee, under the Trustee Acts, with directions to convey to the several parties their allotted shares. Shepherd v. Churchill, 25 Beav. 21.

After a sale under a decree for partition in a suit under the Partition Act of 1868, it appeared that one-sixth of the estate was vested in B. (one of the parties to the suit), a bachelor, for life, with remainders to his issue in tail, with ultimate remainders to the right heirs of the plaintiff :-Held, that the power (to make declarations as to the interests of unborn persons, and that such persons on coming into existence would be trustees) given by the Trustee Act, 1850, s. 30, which is incorporated in the Partition Act, 1868, enabled the court to make an order to appoint a person to convey the legal estate in the one-sixth limited to the right heirs of the plaintiff. Basnett v. Moxon, 44 L. J., Ch. 557; L. R. 20 Eq. 20; 23 W. R. 544. And see Lees v. Coulton, ante, col. 342.

Section 1 of the Trustee Extension Act, 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 55), applies to sales under the Partition Acts, 1868 and 1876, and is not limited to cases of persons under disability. Beckett v. Sutton, 51 L. J., Ch. 432; 19 Ch. D. 646; 46 L. T. 481; 30 W. R. 490.

Sale-Infants Entitled to Undivided ShareTrustees for Purchaser-Direction as to Conveyance-Form of Order.]-Where an action was brought by infants to obtain a sale in lieu of a partition of certain freeholds of which they were entitled to one undivided third, the court made an order declaring that upon any sale being made such of the parties interested as were infants would be trustees for the purchaser, and appointing the next friend of the infants to convey their share or shares to the purchaser. Davis v. Ingram, 66 L. J., Ch. 386 ; [1897] 1 Ch. 477; 45 W. R. 459.

Partition between an adult and the infant, the latter having time till of age to show cause, court orders the conveyance from the adult to be respited till that time. Luckfield v. Buller, Amb. 197.

Minerals-Lime Rock.]-Under a power to make a partition in a marriage settlement, certain lands in Wales ("mines and minerals" There being on bill for partition, infant cestuis excepted) were partitioned by an agreement, que trust, conveyance respited till they come of and deeds of partition were afterwards executed age. Att.-Gen. v. Hamilton, 1 Madd. 214; 16 carrying out the agreement upon a valuation R. R. 208. and report of two surveyors. The property was Lands conveyed to trustees in trust, as to one divided into moieties, one moiety consisting to a moiety to B. (who is of age) in tail, A., the great extent of limestone rock, which, though of infant, brings a bill for a partition. Decreed a small value when the partition was made, be-partition, but the trustees not to convey till the

VOL. X.

12