THE

REVISED REPORTS

BEING

A REPUBLICATION OF SUCH CASES

IN THE

ENGLISH COURTS OF COMMON LAW AND EQUITY,

FROM THE YEAR 1785,

AS ARE STILL OF PRACTICAL UTILITY.

EDITED BY

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE

SIR FREDERICK POLLOCK, BART., D.C.L., LL.D.,

3 DE GEX, FISHER & JONES; 1 HURLSTONE & COLTMAN;
3 FOSTER & FINLASON; 7 LAW TIMES, N. S.

---

LONDON:

SWEET AND MAXWELL, LIMITED, 3, CHANCERY LANE.

BOSTON:

LITTLE, BROWN & CO.

BRADBURY, AGNEW, & co. LD., PRINTERS,

LONDON AND TONBRIDGE,

f

PREFACE TO VOL. CXXX.

24

5

In this volume there are several cases which decided novel and important points, and some which, without being of much direct importance at this day, are in various ways remarkable and instructive. The contention raised in Life Association of Scotland v. Siddal, p. 28, that an acting trustee who had not the legal estate was not an express trustee, may seem audacious to modern practitioners; and indeed it was pretty summarily dismissed at the time. Nothing can be seriously urged in favour of inventing a class of trustees who would be neither express nor constructive. Gresley v. Mousley, p. 195, is not a decision of the first magnitude, but illustrates more than one point in the law of transactions between persons in confidential relations. Emperor of Austria

v. Day, p. 101, marks the general state of unsettlement in 31 Continental politics about fifty years ago, and thus is curious and interesting, though it seems highly improbable that a similar point will arise in modern practice: as improbable as it would then have seemed to the parties that within seven years Francis Joseph would have become, as he still is, the national and constitutional Apostolic King of Hungary. Johnson v. Gallagher, p. 223, is the classical authority on the power of a married woman, apart from more recent legislation, to make her separate estate available for the satisfaction 30 of her "engagements."

es

51

In Att.-Gen. v. Rowe, p. 353, a case of no great difficulty in itself was perplexed by the supposed analogy of the authorities on so-called Anglo-Indian domicil, which, as Mr. Dicey's all but authoritative work has now made clear, were in truth anomalous. Horsfall v. Thomas, p. 394, has been criticized with more zeal than wisdom. It is impossible