after the expiration of a then subsisting lease, which did not expire until 1843: and on the 24th of October he lodged objections to the title, and subsequently swore that he was misled by the statement in the rental: Held, that the misstatement was ground for discharging the purchaser, and not for compensation; but that in consequence of the delay of the purchaser in lodging his objection, that he was not entitled to any costs. Martin v. Cotter, 9 Ir. E. R. 44.

5. Specific performance or indemnity-Suit by executor of vendor to compel the purchaser to perform the covenants of the vendor or for indemnity.-A., B. and C., possessed of a manor under an ecclesiastical lease, agreed with M. to grant him, upon the expiration of a subsisting grant, a copy of court roll of a tenement holden of the manor, and entered into a joint and several bond to perform the contract. A. afterwards conveyed his interest in the manor to B., subject to the agreement with M., and died, having appointed the plaintiff his executor. The validity of the lease constituting the title of B. and C. to the manor was subsequently impeached; and pending the trial of their right to the manor, they were unable to grant the copy of court roll according to the agreement. M. thereupon brought three several actions upon the bond, against the plaintiff, B. and C. respectively. The plaintiff, B. and C. entered into a consolidation rule, whereby they all consented to be bound by the verdict in one of the actions. The plaintiff then filed his bill against B. and C. and M. for a specific performance of the contract by B. and C. and to restrain the action brought by M.: Held, that the question as against M. was the same both at law and in equity, and that having consented to be bound by the verdict in the action, the plaintiff could not sustain the suit, and the bill was dismissed without prejudice to any question of contribution or indemnity as between the plaintiff, B. and C. the obligors in the bond. Hole v. Pearse, 5 H. 408. And see DEBTOR AND CREDITOR, 3. RAILWAY COMPANY, 4. TRUSTEES, 1.

VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENT.

Covenant for further assurance- -Creditor-Administration suit.-The executors of a person who had entered into a covenant for further assurance in a voluntary settlement having refused to perform it, the Court in a suit insti tuted by a third party for the administration of the covenantor's estate, would not permit the covenantee to prove as a creditor under the decree in the administration suit, but gave him leave to bring such action as he might be advised. Hervey v. Audland, 14 S. 531. WATERCOURSE. See INCLOSURE ACT.

WILL.-1. Annuity- Construction. Testator bequeathed two leasehold houses to trustees, in trust out of the rents to pay 50l. ayear to his daughter in law so long as she should remain his son's widow, and to invest the surplus in stock, to be held in trust for his wife for life, remainder for his grand-daughters; and after his death, in case his daughter in law should be then married, or after her decease or second marriage, whenever the latter event might happen, to sell the houses and invest the proceeds in stock, to be held in trust

for his wife for life, remainder for his grand-daughters. The daughter in law continued single, and the trustees paid her the 501. a-year out of the rents, and disposed of the surplus in the manner directed until the lease of the houses expired: 'Held, after the death of the testator's widow, that the stock purchased with the surplus rents was not subject to the payment of the annuity, notwithstanding the lease had expired. Darbon v. Rickards, 14 Š. 537.

2. Conversion-Construction.-Testatrix, after expressing her intention to dispose of all her real and personal estate as thereinafter mentioned, gave certain legacies, and appointed A. and B. her executors; and gave to them and their heirs all lawful powers and authorities to conduct and manage her freehold estates, so as that the same might at their discretion be sold and converted into money, and the net money to form part of her personal estate; and for those and every purpose connected with her property, whether real or personal, she invested them and the survivor of them, and his heirs, executors and administrators, with her full authority; and she directed that any undisposed-of surplus monies should be paid as any future writing or will direct: Held, that the real estate was converted out and out into money, and subjected, in common with the personal estate, to the payment of the testatrix's debts and legacies. Flint v. Warren, 14 S. 554.

3. Devisavit vel non-Form of issue.-Form of issue where the entire will is impeached on the ground that the testator was not of sane mind, and particular devises in it are also impeached on special grounds. Guillamore (Lord) v. O'Grady, 2 J. & L. 210.

4.

Guardian-Construction.—Testator directed the trustees of his will to procure a suitable house for the residence of his children (who were infants), and to engage a proper person for the purpose of taking the management and care of the house and of his children during their minorities; and he requested his late wife's sister, if she should be alive at his decease, to take such management and care on herself: Held, that the testator had appointed his wife's sister to be the guardian of his children. Miller v. Harris, 14 S. 540.

5. Personal representatives-Next of kin-Construction.-Testator bequeathed 8001. in trust for his daughter Sarah for life, and after her death he bequeathed it to such of his other children as should be living at her death equally, if more than one; and if but one such child should be then living, then to such only child; and if all his children should be then dead (which event happened), then to his personal representative or representatives, and he directed the trustees to transfer the stock accordingly. Sarah and the testator's other children were his next of kin at his death: Held, that their personal representatives, and not his next of kin at Sarah's death, were entitled under the ultimate bequest. Nicholson v. Wilson, 14

S. 549.

Testatrix

6. Precatory trust - Joint tenancy - Construction. willed that after payment of her legacies the whole of her property should be given to her sister Mary, to be hers independent of any husband and earnestly recommended her to take such measures as

she might deem best for making it sure, that whatever she might inherit might go at her decease to her children: Held, that the children, on their mother's death, were entitled to the property as joint tenants absolutely. Cholmondley v. Cholmondley, 14 S. 590.

7. Precatory words-Trust-Quia timet-Demurrer.-A direc tion in a will that a certain person should be employed as agent and manager of the testator's estates, whenever his trustees should have occasion for the services of a person in that capacity, held not to create a trust which such person could enforce. Finden v. Stephens, 2 P. 142, (accidentally omitted from the last Digest).

8. Remoteness-Construction.-Testator gave all his real and personal estate to trustees, their heirs, executors, &c., in trust to pay, divide and distribute the income, rents, interest and profits unto and equally amongst all his children whose names he mentioned, and such other children as he might have, or as should be in ventre de sa mere at his death, share and share alike; the shares of his daughters to be paid to them half-yearly for their separate use; and if any of his children should die in his lifetime without leaving issue, he gave their shares to their survivors, but if leaving issue, then to their issue, and in case any of his children and their issue should die in the lifetime of any husband or wife with whom his children should have intermarried, he gave their shares to his surviving children and to the issue of such of his children as should then be dead; it being his will that none of his sons' wives or daughters' husbands should become heirs to their children's property, and that none of his children should sell any part of his estates. Some of the testator's children died in his lifetime, but without issue: Held, first, that each of the surviving children was entitled to a share of his property, not for life merely, but in fee; secondly, that the gift over in case any of his children and their issue should die in the lifetime of any husband or wife with whom his children should have intermarried, was too remote. Hodson v. Ball, 14 S. 558.

9. Tenancy in common-Construction.-Testator devised his copyhold and leasehold estates in trust for his son for life, and after his decease in trust to assign and surrender the same unto and among the person or persons, who, at the son's death, would be entitled to his personal estate in case he should die intestate. The son died, leaving a widow and four children: Held, that they took the estates in equal fifth parts, as tenants in common. Richardson v. Richard

son, 14 S. 526.

10. Trust for payment of debts-Breach of covenant.-Damages for breach of a lessor's covenant for quiet enjoyment broken after the lessor's death: Held a debt within a trust in his will to pay all such just debts of every kind as he should happen to owe at his decease, the context showing an intent to include any debt payable out of his personalty; and semble even without the latter circumstances. Bermingham v. Burke, 9 Ir. E. R. 86.

And see PRACTICE, 8.

WITNESS. See EVIDENCE, 1, 2.