No money or securities in Court will be carried over except in pursuance of an order; and the rules applicable to the form, &c., of orders for transfer, &c., out of Court apply generally to orders for carrying over.

SEPARATE ACCOUNT.

Where practicable, funds ought always to be paid in or carried over to separate accounts, so as to avoid the expense of service on unnecessary parties.

Care must be taken in wording the heading of a separate account, because when a fund is placed to such an account, it is released from the general questions in the action, and becomes marked as being subject only to the questions arising upon the particular matter referred to in such heading, so that, in all subsequent dealings with it, those parties only need be served who are interested in the particular fund; and the Court, from the heading of the account, sees to what extent the fund has been severed from the other questions in the action: Laprimaudaye v. Teissier, 12 Bea. 206; Re Jervoise, ib. 209; Re Eyton, Bartlett v. Charles, 45 Ch. D. 458; and see Re Tillstones, 9 Ha. lix. In Noble v. Stow, 29 Bea. 409, it was held that carrying over the fund to the separate account of a person was not equivalent to a declaration that she was absolutely entitled. But see Re Jenkins, 3 N. R. 408; 10 Jur. N.S. 332; et inf. Chap. XLI., "TRUSTEES."

A fund should not be carried over to "the account of A. or his incumbrancers" when there is no suggestion that incumbrances exist: Hargrave v. Kettlewell, 33 W. R. 136; 55 L. T. N.S. 674.

Until a fund is carried to a distinctly separate account the represve of the deceased person whose estate is being administered is a necessary party to any application respecting it: Salmon v. Anderson, 9 Bea. 445, 449. But the costs of persons appearing unnecessarily, though properly served, may be refused: In re The Justices of Coventry, 19 Bea. 158; Dan. 1570, 1776, inf. p. 222.

The purchaser under the judgment or order, and a person as against whom proceedings had been stayed, were allowed their costs of appearing on application to carry over the funds to particular accounts: Rowley v. Adams, 16 Bea. 312; Noble v. Stow (2), 30 Bea. 272. But not a purchaser who has got his conveyance: Barton v. Latour, 18 Bea. 526.

The title of an account directed to be raised must not exceed thirty-six words, exclusive, in the case of a separate account in a cause or matter, of the title of the cause or matter in which such separate account is raised; unless a sufficient reason be assigned to the satisfaction of the registrar in the case of orders, or of the paymaster in the case of requests, who, in such case, is to add to the direction to raise such account the words "notwithstanding r. 103;" four figures are reckoned as one word: r. 103.

In dealing with securities, it should be borne in mind that railway and other public companies have generally a limit below which they do not permit a division of their stocks. For the purposes of division, therefore, it may in some cases be necessary to sell the stock, or some portion of it. As a rule, railway stocks cannot be carried over on account of the stock certificates, which are lodged at the Bank by the paymaster when the stock is brought into Court: see Piper v. Bateman, V.-C. B., 24 July, 1875, B. 2690, where two sums of railway stock, parts of larger sums, could not be carried over for this reason. The Court directed that they should be deemed to have been set apart to answer a certain legacy, and that the dividends should be paid to the tenant for life of the legacy.

The Bank of England cannot be required to transfer Consols into the joint names of a corporation and individuals: Law Guarantee Society v. Hunter, 24 Q. B. D. 406.

Since 51 V. c. 2, s. 18, the Bank of England allows not more than four accounts of government stocks to be opened in the same name or names: see Vaizey on Investments, 87.

A sum of railway stock ordered to be carried to six separate accounts had to be apportioned with the aid of cash paid in at the same time, so as to prevent fractions of £1: Re Perry, 22 W. R. 433.

Cash or money on deposit in Court to the credit of an action or matter

VOL. I.

P

may be invested to the credit of a separate account or of another action or matter without being previously carried over; but as the money on deposit must be withdrawn from deposit before it is carried over, the order must provide for any interest to be credited.

Fees of taxation are carried over by the paymaster under r. 67, without any direction in the order; but if the order is dated after the taxing master's certificate, there ought to be a direction: see Schedule, Form No. 4.

If the fund is liable to duty, the words "subject to legacy" or "succession duty" must be added to the title of the account: r. 20.

CHAPTER XVII.

COSTS.

SECTION I.-COSTS BETWEEN PARTIES.

1. Taxation and Payment of Costs by one Party to another. LET Plt (Deft) A. pay to the Deft (Plt) B. his costs of this action [or application], such costs to be taxed by the taxing master.

2. The Like-Other Forms.

REFER it to the taxing master to tax the costs of the Plt (Deft) A. of this action [or application]; [or Let the costs of the Plt (Deft) of this action [or application] be taxed by the taxing master]; And Let the Deft (Plt) B. pay to the Plt (Deft) A. the amount of his said costs when so taxed.

In the absence of special direction, the registrar ought to include in the costs of action the costs of all applications reserved to be disposed of at the hearing, and all costs reserved to be disposed of at the hearing: per M. R., in Hodges v. H., 25 W. R. 162.

3. Costs of Application to be Costs in the Action.

AND the costs of the Plt [or Petr, or Deft, or Applicant, or all parties] of this application are to be costs in this action.

4. Action and Counterclaim dismissed—Apportionment of Costs. THE application of the Deft, which upon hearing &c., was adjourned &c., and upon hearing counsel for the Deft and for the Plt; And this Court being of opinion that in the taxation of the costs under the said judgment, dated &c., the Plt is liable to pay the whole of the Deft's costs except so far as they have been increased by the Deft's counterclaim; And that there ought to be no apportionment of the Deft's general costs of this action, and that the Deft is liable to pay to the Plt only the amount by which the Plt's costs have been increased by the Deft's counter-claim, Let it be referred back to the taxing master to review his taxation accordingly.-Saner v. Bilton, Fry, J., 19 March, 1879, B. 648.

For form of order, where a solr brought an action on his bill of costs, and the Deft failed to appear and support his counter-claim, and the Court

sent the bill for taxation, under the 7 & 8 V. c. 73, s. 37, see Lumley v. Brooks, 3 April, 1889, B. 461; S. C., 41 Ch. Div. 323.

5. Petition dismissed with Costs.

UPON the petition of &c., on &c., preferred &c. that [recite prayer of petition], and upon hearing &c., this Court doth order that this petition do stand dismissed out of this Court with costs, to be taxed by the taxing master (in case the parties differ). And it is ordered. that the Plt A. pay to the said B. and C. the amount of their costs, when taxed.

6. Motion refused with Costs.

UPON motion this day made unto this Court by counsel for [recite notice of motion], and upon hearing &c., this Court doth not think fit to make any order on this application; but doth order that the Plt. [or Deft] A. do pay to the Deft (Plt) B. [name the party to receive costs] his costs of this application, to be taxed by the taxing master.

For order on abandoned motion, v. inf. Chap. XXIV., "MOTION."

7. Summons in Chambers dismissed with Costs.

THE Judge doth not think fit to make any order upon this application, but doth order that the Plt A. do pay to the Deft B. his costs of this application to be taxed by the taxing master (in case the parties differ).

8. Summons originating Proceedings dismissed with Costs. LET the originating summons filed in this action stand dismissed out of this Court with costs, to be taxed by the taxing master; And Let the Plt A. pay to the Deft B. the amount of such costs when taxed.

9. Costs occasioned by Adjournment of Summons into Court.

LET the Plt A. pay to the Deft B. his costs occasioned by the adjournment into Court of this application, such costs to be taxed &c.— In re General Estates Co., M. R., 16 Feb. 1869, A. 1725; 8 Eq. 123.

In Holden's case, 8 Eq. 444, it was held that where a summons is adjourned into Court, the costs of the application directed to be paid by the unsuccessful party are ordinarily the costs of the adjournment into Court only.

10. Costs of adjourned Summons in Court and in Chambers.

LET the Deft B. pay to the Plt A. his costs of this application in Chambers, and occasioned by the adjournment thereof into Court, such costs to be taxed &c.

11. Taxation and payment of Costs without prejudice how ultimately

to be borne.

TAX the costs of the Plts and the Defts of this action; And Let the Plt A. pay to the Defts B. and C. respectively the amount of their said costs when taxed, without prejudice to any question how such costs are ultimately to be borne.

Where a party is entitled to costs, but it is not ascertained who ought ultimately to bear them, the judgment or order often directs payment to be made by one of the parties, or out of a fund in Court available for the purpose, without prejudice to the question how the same are ultimately to be borne: Smith v. Hammond, 6 Sim. 10, 15.

66

Defts disclaiming all interest may be dismissed with costs on motion by Plt ex parte, without prejudice to the question how the costs shall ultimately be borne as between Plt and the other Defts: Clements v. Clifford, 14 W. R. 22; Baily v. Lambert, 5 Ha. 178. As to the costs of disclaiming Defts generally, v. inf. Chap. XLVII., "MORTGAGES."

12. Costs made a Charge.

AND Let the Plts' costs, and also the costs which the Plts or any of them shall so pay to the Defts, be a lien (charge) on the estate of the testator in question in this action.

As to making costs a charge with interest, see p. 229.

13. No Costs given on either Side.

THE Court doth not think fit to give any costs of this action [or application] on either side.

14. The Like-As to Part.

AND this Court doth not think fit to give any costs on either side, as to so much of the costs of this action [or application] as have been occasioned by &c. [or as relate to &c., or so far as such costs have been increased by &c.].

15. Taxation of Plt's and Deft's respective Costs of Parts of Action— Set-off.

TAX the costs of the Plt of this action, except so much thereof as relates to the claim set up by him to &c.; Tax the costs of the Deft of so much of this action as relates to the said claim; And the taxing master is to set off the said costs of the Plt and of the Deft when so respectively taxed, and certify to which of them the balance after such set-off is due; And Let such balance be paid by the party from whom to the party to whom the same shall be certified to be due.

As to set-off, v. O. LXV. 14 and 27 (21), and inf. pp. 226, 228.

An order in this form involves an apportionment of the costs of every general proceeding in the action; v. inf. p. 226,