that amount, as it would interfere with the stamp duty on powers of attorney: Brandling v. Humble, Jac. 45; and in Kelsall v. Mintón, 2 Beav. 361, a written authority even for that amount was required, and in general should be given: Staines v. Giffard, 20 Beav. 454; as by letter from each creditor: Anon., 5 Jur. N.S. 355; and the signatures verified by affidavit: Downing v. Picken, Kay, App. 1; but the authority is sometimes dispensed with: Staines v. Gifford, ubi sup. ; Mansfield v. Green, W. N. (66) 220.

As to payments under powers of attorney, see the Conveyancing Acts, 1881 (44 & 45 V. c. 41), ss. 46, 47; 1882 (45 & 46 V. c. 39), ss. 8, 9.

STAMPS.

By 33 & 34 V. c. 97, schedule, the stamps on powers of attorney to be issued in the Pay Office are, for principal money not exceeding £20, five shillings; over that amount, ten shillings; for dividends under £3 a year, nothing; for a single payment, one shilling; and in any other case, five shillings and by sect. 116, and schedule, the duty upon a notarial act is one shilling, which may be denoted by an adhesive stamp to be cancelled by the notary.

LEGACY AND SUCCESSION DUTY.

The Acts relating to legacy duty are the 36 G. 3, c. 52; 55 G. 3, c. 184; 45 G. 3, c. 28; 8 & 9 V. c. 76; and 44 & 45 V. c. 12, ss. 26, 41, 42.

The Succession Duty Act is 16 & 17 V. c. 51. The 28 & 29 V. c. 104, Pt. v. ss. 53-64, relates to the recovery of succession, legacy, and probate duties in certain cases; the 31 & 32 V. č. 124, s. 9, provides for payment of interest at the rate of £4 p. c. per ann. on arrears of legacy or succession duty; the 44 & 45 V. c. 12, s. 41, for the cesser of the one p. c. succession duty in cases where duty has been paid on the affidavit or inventory or account in conformity with that Act; and the 51 V. c. 8, ss. 21, 22, for the charge of additional succession duty, and for the mode of payment of duty on succession to real property chargeable as an annuity.

The 36 G. 3, c. 32, s. 25, enacts that if in any admon suit any direction shall be given for payment of any legacies or residue, the Court shall, in giving such directions, provide for the payment of the duties thereby imposed; and shall take care that no allowance is made in respect of any legacy or residue, without proof of the payment of the duties.

And by the 16 & 17 V. c. 51, s. 53, the Court, in the admon of any property under its control, chargeable with duty under that Act or the Legacy Duty Acts, is to provide for the payment of duty thereout. And as to probate and admon duties, see 23 V. c. 15, ss. 4, 5.

By S. C. F. R. 1886, r. 20, when an order directs payment, transfer, or delivery of funds in Court in respect of which legacy or succession duty is payable, and does not direct the payment of such duty, it shall be stated in the payment schedule that such payment, transfer, or delivery is subject to duty, and in such case the Paymaster is to have regard to the circumstance that such duty is payable; and by r. 52, when any duty is directed to be paid out of funds in Court, such duty shall, without any words in the order to that effect, be assessed, and on the requisition of the Commrs of Inland Revenue, be transferred to the proper account at the bank.

And by r. 66, the Paymaster, before acting upon an order under r. 20, is to require the production of the receipt or certificate of payment, and on receiving notice from the proper officer that the duty is payable, is to cause a memorandum to that effect to be made in his books.

Where the amount of the duty is to be specified in the schedule, a certificate from the Inland Revenue Office of the correct amount must be produced to the registrar.

If the order is made in Court, the registrar sees that the cautionary words are inserted in case the order does not provide for the duty, but if the order is made in Chambers, the chief clerk sees to it, and makes a note on the summons, stating whether or not any duty is payable before transmitting the summons to the registrar to draw up the order.

It ought to be ascertained before the order is passed whether or not the duty has been paid, as the Paymaster will not receive evidence of payment before the date of an order made subject to payment of duty.

Where a legacy is given free of duty, it must be shown that the duty has been paid out of the residue.

Except in obvious cases, the question of liability is to be discussed with the Commrs of Inland Revenue, and not with the registrar or chief clerk; if necessary, it will be determined by the Court.

The Acts are to be construed strictly and in favour of the subject; and the Crown being unsuccessful was held not entitled to costs: Hobson v. Neale, 17 Beav. 185, 6.

The 36 G. 3, c. 52, s. 27, makes the stamped receipt of the office the only evidence of payment. But a copy of the entry from the books is sufficient, if duly proved: Harrison v. Borwell, 10 Sim. 380.

The controller's certificate is sufficient evidence: E. Howe v. E. Lichfield, 2 Ch. 155. The solr's affidavit is not: Re Marsham, 12 W. R. 45.

If the duty has been paid, the official receipt or the certificate of the controller should be produced and entered as read in the judgment or order; but not on a nomination by will to the benefits of the Customs Annuity Fund, as it is in the nature of an appointment under a special power and not of a legacy: A. G. v. Rowsell, 36 Ch. D. 67, n.

By 44 & 45 V. c. 12, s. 34, legacy and succession duty are not chargeable where the gross value of the estate of the deceased does not exceed £300; and by s. 36, the payment of the sum of 30s. for the fixed duty on the affidavit or inventory in conformity with that Act is to be deemed to be in full satisfaction of any claim to such duty.

Where payment is directed to the legal pers. represve of a deceased person, no receipt for duty on the fund as part of such deceased person's estate is requisite, the represve being accountable.

As to what shall be deemed legacies, see 36 G. 3, c. 52, s. 7; Hanson, 61-72; and as to duty on anns, and anns payable out of legacies, and on legacies given to purchase anns, see ss. 8, 9, 10; Hanson, 72–77; and on legacies to persons in succession, s. 12. As to legacy duty on a contingent interest, see Lord v. Colvin, Eq. 737. Money left to pay duty is not chargeable as a legacy: s. 21, and Hanson, 93–96.

Duty is payable on foreign government bonds, the property of a British subject: Re Ewin, 1 Cr. & J. 151; Hanson, 67. And the estate of a British subject, permanently resident in the empire of China, is subject to legacy duty: Re Tootal's Trusts, 23 Ch. D. 532. And where the settlement is English, and the legal ownership of the property is in persons subject as Englishmen to English jurisdiction, so that any claim in respect of the funds must be decided in an English Court, succession duty is payable, though the persons beneficially entitled are foreigners: Re Cigala's Settlement, 7 Ch. D. 351.

The law of the country of the domicile of a deceased person governs the succession to his moveable personalty: Doglioni v. Crispin, L. R. 1 H. L. 301. Therefore the moveable personal assets of a British subject having a foreign domicile are not subject to legacy duty: S. C.; Forbes v. F., 2 Cr. & J. 382; affirmed sub nom. A. G. v. Jackson, 8 Bli. N.S. 15; A. G. v. Forbes, 2 Cl. & F. 48; Arnold v. A., 2 M. & C. 256, 270; Thomson v. Adv. Gen., 13 Sim. 153; 12 Cl. & F. 1; Hanson, 16; nor to succession duty: Wallace v. A. G., 1 Ch. 1; but where the exor of a foreigner has, under the will, collected the assets and invested them in English securities, any subsequent devolution will make them liable to succession duty: A. G. v. Campbell, L. R. 5 H. L. 524. But not where they are merely brought to this country for distribution: A. G. v. Forbes, 2 Cl. & F. 48; 8 Bli. N.S. 15; nor where they have not actually been so got in and invested: Lyall v. L., 15 Eq. 1.

Legacy duty was payable on the share of a deceased partner domiciled in England in the proceeds of freehold property in India forming a partnership asset: Stokes v. Ducroz, 38 W. R. 535; 63 L. T. N.S. 176, following Forbes v. Steven, 10 Eq. 178; and on the proceeds of land in England devised on trusts for sale by a domiciled Frenchman: Skottowe v. Young, 11 Eq. 474. As to probate duty payable on the death of an heir, taking land directed to be sold, the trust for conversion failing, see A. G. v. Lomas, L. R. 9 Ex. 29.

Children, illegitimate in this country, of a person domiciled in a country in which they were legitimate paid legacy duty at 1 p. c. only: Skottowe v. Young, 11 Eq. 474; and see Re Goodman's Trusts, 17 Ch. Div. 266; Re Andros, A. v. A., 24 Ch. D. 637; and in accordance with the law of the country were entitled to succeed on an intestacy: Doglioni v. Crispin, L. R. 1 H. L. 301 ;

a child taking under the marriage settlement of his parents (foreigners), made in England of English funds had to pay duty: Lyall v. L., 15 Eq, 1; Re Budart, 10 Eq. 288; 4. G. v. Lovelace, 4 D. & J. 340. But natural children recognized by foreign law, and, in the absence of legitimate children, admitted to succeed, ab intestato, to the whole personal estate of their father, being "strangers in blood" within s. 10 of the Succession Duty Act, are liable to pay duty at 10 p. c. in respect of land of their father situate in England, Re Atkinson; Anderson v. Atkinson, 21 Ch. D. 100.

Legacy duty is payable on the death of a person domiciled abroad upon personal property in this country of an immoveable nature, such as leaseholds: Chatfield v. Berchtoldt, 7 Ch. 192.

Legacies given free of duty, which the residue was insufficient to bear, had to bear the duty rateably: Wilson v. O'Leary, 17 Eq. 419.

Where "all legacies" were to be “ paid "free of duty, specific legacies, as well as pecuniary, were payable free of duty: Re Johnston, Cockerell v. Earl of Essex, 26 Ch. D. 538; Ansley v. Cotton, 16 L. J. Ch. 56.

Annuities given to trustees while carrying on testator's business are subject to legacy duty: Re Thorley, T. v. Massam, 60 L. J. Ch. 217; 64 L. T. N.S. 15.

And as to domicile, v. inf. Chap. XLIV., "ADMINISTRATION."

As to the right of an exor, who was compelled to pay duty on a fund taken out of Court without providing for it, to recover the amount from legatees or purchasers from them, see Foster v. Ley, 2 Bing. N. C. 269; Bowra v. Rhodes, 10 W. R. 747; Hanson, 62. And as to the duty of exors and solrs notwithstanding the pendency of a suit to provide for the duty, Bryan v. Mansion, 5 W. R. 483; 3 Jur. N.S. 475; Rẻ Sammon, 3 M. & W. 381; Hanson, 105.

In Bryan v. Mansion, sup., the assignee of a life interest had to refund, and under the circumstances with costs, the duty on income paid out of Court without providing for it.

As to the liability of charitable bequests to legacy and succession duty, see inf. Chap. XLII., "CHARITIES."

The Succession Duty Act, 16 & 17 V. c. 51, took effect from the 19th of May, 1853. Duty was payable on a remainder which vested before the Act took effect, but fell in afterwards: Wilcox v. Smith, 4 Drew. 40; and see Hanson, 262, and subsequent cases there cited.

Where property was to be accumulated for twenty-one years, and then to go to a person answering a certain description at that time, succession duty was payable on the death of a person who would have been entitled if he had lived to the end of the twenty-one years: A. G. v. Gell, 3 H. & C. 615; followed, but disapproved, by Wickens, V.-C., in Ring v. Jarman, 14 Eq. 357; and see Crow v. Robinson, 10 W. R. 306; Hanson, 263.

Sect. 4 provides for payment of duty on property passing by the exercise of general or special powers: see A. G. v. Charlton, 1 Ex. D. 204; 4 App. Ca. 427.

This section does not restrict the Act as to appointments to wills taking effect or settlements made after it; personalty not within s. 4 is not to be treated as the property of a donee, so as to be exempt from duty where the donee may be domiciled abroad: Re Lovelace, 4 D. & J. 340.

A corporation having purchased reversionary realty from a vendor who died before the life tenant, had to pay duty at 5 p. c.: S. G. v. Law Revers. Soc., L. R. 8 Ex. 233; s. 15.

As to succession duty on life policies, see s. 17: Re Maclean, 19 Eq. 274; A. G. v. Abdy, 1 H. & C. 266.

Where under s. 18 the succession is accelerated, the Court, before parting with the fund, has required the parties either to arrange with the office as to the payment of duty, by commuting it for a present payment (Bailey v. Tindal, 17 Dec. 1853, A. 252; 18 Jur. 668), or to leave in Court a sufficient amount to answer it: Re Raikes, V.-C. K., 18 Jan. 1856, B. 304.

Where a jointress dies, the succession duty will, under s. 15, be chargeable upon the land, even in the hands of a purchaser: Cooper v. Trewby, 28 Beav. 194, unless the case comes within s. 42, so as to bind the substituted property: Dugdale v. Meadows, 6 Ch. 501.

On the death, prior to the passing of the Act, of a person entitled under a marriage settlement in reversion expectant on the death of a life tenant, who died after the Act, legacy duty was payable by the persons entitled under

the reversioner's will, but not succession duty likewise: A. G. v. Littledale, L. R. 5 H. L. 290.

The tenant for life and the tenant in tail in remainder, having, on re-settlement of the estate, charged an annuity on the estate in favour of the latter during the life of the former, on his death, and the latter succeeding to the estate, an allowance must be made in respect of the annuity, whether the re-settlement was before or after the Act: Commrs. of Inland Revenue v. Harrison, L. R. 7 H. L. 1; Lord Braybrooke v. A. G., 9 H. L. C. 150; A. G. v. Floyer, 9 H. L. C. 477; 10 W. R. 762; and see Le Marchant v. Commrs. of Inland Revenue, 1 Ex. D. 185.

Where settlor settled property upon trust for himself for four years, if he should so long live, and then, or upon his death before that time, for other persons, on his death before the end of the four years duty was payable on the whole fund, and not only on the income between the death and the end of the four years, as the duty attached not merely to the increase of benefit to the successors, but to the property which they acquired: A. G. v. Noyes, 8 Q. B. Div. 125.

A conveyance or assignment by way of bond fide sale, does not create a succession within 16 & 17 V. c. 51: Fryer v. Morland, 3 Ch. D. 675; but see De Rechberg v. Beeton, 38 Ch. D. 192; 36 W. R. 682.

Where a father as admor of his son paid the 3 p. c. admon duty under 44 & 45 V. c. 12, in respect of his son's estate, he was exempted by sect. 41 of that Act from paying 1 p. c. succession duty on a reversion expectant on his own decease, which formed part of the son's estate: Re Haygarth's Trusts, 22 Ch. D. 545.

Where a settled fund during the lives of the tenants for life, is paid to their children under an appointment and power of advancement, there is an acceleration of succession in respect of which duty is payable under s. 15: Exp. Sitwell, Re Drury-Lowe's Settlement, 21 Q. B. D. 466.

Deeds of covenant to transfer stock to trustees for charitable purposes, the transfer not being completed until after covenantor's death, were a disposition of property, and the stock was chargeable with succession duty: A. G. v. Montefiore, 21 Q. B. D. 461.

The principle is that where there is a family arrangement for a re-settlement by which the tenant for life takes back his life estate, and the powers he had before, then, as everything else under the re-settlement must necessarily come out of the rest of the estate which belonged to the tenant in tail, the succession must be derived from him: Lord Braybrooke v. A. G., 9 H. L. C. 150; cited by Lord Selborne in Charlton v. A. G., 4 App. Ca. 427. When a power is created to be exercised over an estate, the donor (the person out of whose estate a "benefit" or "succession" is to be derived) is, under s. 2, the "predecessor" of the person taking such benefit or succession. Where father and first son re-settled, reserving power to father and first son, and in default to father and second son, the first son dying, he is still the donor of the second power: Charlton v. A. G., sup.; and see A. G. v. Mitchell, 6 Q. B. D. 548.

But where first tenant in tail was lunatic, and re-settlement was with consent of L. C., upon terms whereby the estate of the second tenant in tail (who had created a base fee and mortgaged) was treated of a certain value, and the interests of those in remainder were rendered indefeasible, the second tenant in tail was not the predecessor: A. G. v. Dowling, 6 Q. B. D. 177. The exemption granted by s. 18 to persons already charged with legacy duty in respect of the same acquisition of the same property," does not extend to appointees under a general power of appointment conferred on the legatee: A. G. v. Mitchell, 6 Q. B. D. 548.

66

SECTION III.-CARRYING OVER SECURITIES AND CASH.

1. Carrying over Securities, Money on Deposit, Dividends, and Interest.

LET the fund in Court be dealt with as directed in the schedule hereto.

Payment Schedule.

In the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division.

Title of Action. A. v. B. 1889.

Date of Order, 1 Aug. 1890.
A. 120.

Ledger Credit, "as above."

Funds in Court-£10,000 New Consols; £5,650 Cash.

2. Government securities Carry over £5,000 New Con-" The account of of a given value.

sols, being equivalent at A. B."

the date of this order to

£-cash.

4,200 0 0

3. Government securities

of certain value at a future day. S. C. F. R. 87.

Carry over so much New "The account of
Consols as at the bank A. B."

average price, on the

day of shall be equiva

lent to £5,000.

4. Fees of taxation, where Carry over fees of taxation..

the costs have been

already taxed and the

fees ascertained, but

not paid. S. C. F. R.

67.

5,000 0 0

NOTES.

The Bank average price of Government securities appears in the account transmitted by the Bank to the Comptroller General of the National Debt Office, a copy of which is sent daily to the Pay Office: see S. C. F. R. r. 87. In the case of securities other than the above, "the average market price of the day "is the proper expression, and then an affidavit by a stockbroker will be required by the Paymaster.