also the personal representative of the widow. The object of the present claim was, to have an administration decree as to the property of the intestate, and also an account of the intestate's estate received by the widow. (Forest v. Scholfield, 14 Jur. 845.)

Leave was granted to file a claim on behalf of a husband and his wife. The testator, by his will, gave to the wife a legacy of 100l., which he charged on his real estate. In default of payment of the legacy, the husband and his wife claimed to be paid out of the personal estate, of which they asked an account; and should the personal estate be found deficient, a sale was asked of the real estate. (Rose v. Smith, 14 Jur. 544.)

Leave was granted to file a claim on behalf of a residuary legatee. The residue had been ascertained, and a sum appropriated on account of it, and this claim was for the appropriated sum. No accounts were asked for. (Woodford v. Wood

ford, 14 Jur. 846.)

Leave was given to file a claim on behalf of a legatee, who was also one of the residuary legatees, and also a residuary devisee. Had the case been only that of a legatee and residuary legatee, no leave could have been required. (Anon. 14 Jur. 518.)

Leave to file a claim was granted on behalf of a tenant for life of the residue. A testator, after making certain bequests, gave the residue of his estate to a trustee, upon trust to pay the interest to the plaintiff for life. The executor ascertained the residue to be 2004., and paid it over to the trustee, who invested it on personal security at 5l. per cent., and paid the interest to the plaintiff down to November, 1848, but did not pay anything after that time. The claim was for arrears, and for a proper investment of the principal. The only defendant was the trustee. The court gave leave, without expressing any opinion as to the question whether there were sufficient parties before the court. (Dawson v. Young, 14 Jur. 847.)

Leave was given to file a claim on behalf of a party who was tenant for life of the rents of real estate, and of the dividends and interest of personalty. The claim only related to the real estate, a separate claim as to the personal estate being intended. The court gave leave, but without saying whether claims as to real and personal estate could be thus divided. (Goodall v. Skerratt, 14 Jur. 845.)

Leave was given to file a claim for the arrears of an annuity charged on real and personal estate. (Thompson v. Cooper, 14 Jur. 613.)

Leave was given to file a claim on behalf of parties to enforce the distribution of the proceeds of a sale. A testator gave real estate to trustees for 1000 years, upon trust for certain persons for life, and afterwards to sell, and divide the produce among several persons. The tenant for life died, and the trustees sold, but had not made the distribution. One of

April 22, 1850.

April 22, the parties had mortgaged his share. (Brooke v. Biddall, 14 1850. Jur. 518.)

Leave was given to file a claim for the administration of real and personal estates, and to establish a will against the heir at law. (Rickford v. Young, 14 Jur. 428; 12 Beav. 537.) Leave was given to file a claim for the transfer of funds. A settlement, dated the 24th March, 1821, was made, and funds were thereby placed in the hands of the trustees of it. The claimant was the sole representative of his late wife, and was sole guardian, according to the law of Tuscany, of her only child, and he claimed a share of the fund in both those characters. The point in dispute would be, whether the claimant was entitled by the law of Tuscany to receive and give a valid discharge for the fund if paid to him. (Salviati v. Denman, 14 Jur. 543.)

Two persons who were executors and legatees under a will, a residuary legatee and certain devisees, had entered into an arrangement for the distribution of the property, and a deed was prepared by one of the parties, who was a solicitor. He now, having possession of the deed, refused to accede to the terms of it. Leave was given to file a claim in order to compel him to accede. (Dansey v. Marshall, 14 Jur. 639.)

Leave was granted to a tenant for life of a fund under a settlement, to file a claim to have a fund, which was subject to the trusts of the settlement, properly invested, and the income paid to the claimant. The fund had been invested in debentures, which were paid off, and it had been recently discovered that the money had been allowed to remain uninvested in the hands of one of the trustees, although the interest had been regularly paid. (Bold v. Powell, 14 Jur. 682.)

Leave was given to file claim where the specialty was, that it was sought to establish a case of wilful default against an accounting party. (Toon v. Cotterell, 14 Jur. 846; Davis v. Davis, 14 Jur. 848; Frankis v. Washbourne, ibid.)

Leave was given to file a claim on behalf of a mortgagee, where there were subsequent mortgages (Peacopp v. Humble, 14 Jur. 518), and where there were disputes between the mortgagees as to their priority of claims, and doubts existed as to there being other mortgages. (Wude v. Newnhum, 14 Jur. 518.)

Leave to file a claim was given on application on behalf of a mortgagor to file a claim to redeem a first mortgage, and also a second mortgage. The form of the claim varied in some respects from the form of the decree for redemption prescribed by these orders, and on that account it was considered necessary to obtain the leave of the court. (Ainsworth v. Roe, 14 Jur. 584.)

Leave was given to file a claim for specific performance of an agreement. Watson made a lease, in 1847 to Thompson, and a power was given to the lessee to purchase the fee simple on a given notice. The lessor died, and by his will devised

the property to trustees, in trust for one for life, and afterwards upon trusts for a class of persons, some of whom were infants. The lessee gave the required notice of his desire to buy the fee simple and to have the property conveyed to him, and this was the object of the claim. (Thompson v. Wilberforce, 14 Jur. 518.)

Leave was given to file a claim for specific performance in a case where the officers in the record and writ clerks' office declined to file the claim unless leave was given by the court. (Keeble v. Dennish, 14 Jur. 847.)

April 22, 1850.

Leave was given to file a claim to have the accounts of a Partnership testator's estate taken, the executor being charged with wilful accounts. default. The claimant was interested under a will, and it was also sought to take accounts of a partnership in which the testator was engaged. (Cramer v. Jennings, 14 Jur. 518.)

Leave was granted to file a claim to take an account of business transacted by two solicitors for a railway company, the profits of which it had been agreed should be divided between them. (Eyre v. Williams, 14 Jur. 568.)

In 1829, the plaintiff's solicitors at Bristol arranged with the defendants, who were also solicitors, to work for them a commission of bankruptcy, the profits to be equally divided. The business was done, but no accounts had been rendered of the profits. Leave was granted for taking the partnership accounts, there being some doubt as to the case forming a partnership within the terms of the orders. (Bevan v. Baynton, 14 Jur. 846.)

Leave was given to file a claim to compel the production of deeds pursuant to a covenant for that purpose entered into by the defendant. (Wright v. Bratt, 14 Jur. 847.)

Leave was given to file a claim on behalf of a cestui que trust, to use the names of the defandants, who were executors, in suing a lessee on the covenants entered into by him with the testator, who was a lessor. (Macadermott v. Ward, 14 Jur. 518, 568.)

Leave was given to persons beneficially entitled under a Appointment will to file a claim to have new trustees appointed. All the of new trustrustees but one had died, and he refused to execute the tees. power. (Frith v. Brindle, 14 Jur. 518.)

Leave was given to file a claim to appoint new trustees. Trustees were appointed of a marriage settlement, who were unwilling to act. The deed contained a power to appoint new trustees, but they refused to act upon it. (Anon. 14 Jur. 518.) A testator gave power to appoint new trustees, with the consent of his nephew and niece, and, after their decease, of the surviving or continuing trustees. The nephew, niece and trustees were all dead: it was held that the power could now be executed, and that it was a case for a special claim. (Chambre v. Maude, 14 Jur. 540.)

Leave to file a claim was given for the appointment of new trustees. Originally two trustees were appointed, one of

1850.

April 22, whom was dead, and the other refused to act. There was a power "in case any trustee should die, or become incapable to act," given to the surviving or continuing trustee, or his executors or administrators, to appoint new trustees "in the place of trustees dying, refusing, or becoming incapable to act." (Tarlton v. Titley, 14 Jur. 848.)

Election.

Special claims.

Amendment of claim.

Leave was granted to file a claim to compel a defendant, who was tenant in tail of lands, to elect between the lands devised to him under a testamentary appointment made by his mother a married woman, and lands of which he was seised as tenant in tail in possession on the death of his mother, who had devised, or affected to devise them to another party by her will. (Rayner v. Rayner, 14 Jur. 543.)

Where a question, which ought to have been made the subject of a special claim, is brought before the court on a common claim, the court will give leave to have it filed as a special claim nunc pro tunc. (Matthews v Pincomb, 20 L. J. Ch. 395.) A testator bequeathed a legacy, payable to the legatee at the age of twenty-one, with interest from his death, and died in 1840. The legatee attained the age of twenty-one in 1850, and filed a common claim for the legacy, with interest from her majority, and obtained a decree for the payment of the amount claimed, and received the money. The legatee afterwards, having discovered that she was entitled to interest from the testator's death, filed another common claim for this interest. It was held, that she was entitled to this interest, but that she ought to have made it the subject of a special claim. (Ib.)

Leave has been given to amend a claim. Early v. Whitling, 12 Beav. 549; 14 Jur. 658; see also Potts v. The Thames Haven, Dock and Railway Company, 15 Jur. 762. Where after a claim had been filed respecting a legacy vested in three trustees, it was discovered that one of the trustees had previously retired, and that another had been substituted in his stead as trustee, leave to amend the claim was granted. (Early v. Whitling, 12 Beav. 549.)

As to filing printed copies of amended claim, see 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 8, ante, p. 8, and 7th, 8th and 9th Orders, 7th Aug. 1852, post.

Where a claim, which had been filed without leave by one of the residuary legatees under a will, and asked an administrative decree, and a decree for the redemption of a mortgage and a lien on the assets in respect of a judgment which another residuary legatee had obtained against the executor, the claim was ordered to be taken off the file on the ground of being multifarious. (Withenden v. Mercer, 14 Jur. 613.)

The joining in a claim parties whose interest is contingent, to ask for the preservation of the fund, is not multifarious, or a misjoinder of parties. It was questioned if an objection to a claim is to be raised by motion to take it off the file. (Davies v. Davies, 21 L. J. Ch. 543.) When leave

is obtained to file a claim, the signature of the registrar should April 22, be applied for and attached at the same time. (Auckrett v. 1850. Barnet, Rolls, 26th June, 1852.)

are necessary

cutor or ad

VII. In the case provided for by the 5th article What parties of Order I. any one person who, under the 3rd or as defendants 4th article of Order I. might have claimed relief where exeagainst the executor or administrator of the de- ministrator is ceased person whose personal estate is sought to be plaintiff. administered, and the co-executor or co-administrator (if any) of the plaintiff, may be named in the writ of summons as defendants to the suit; and in the first instance no other person need be therein named (r).

(r) On a claim for the general administration of the personal estate of a testator, some person, one at least, beneficially interested, must be before the court, and, à fortiori, where real as well as personal estate is sought to be administered. (Leslie v. Smith, 5 De G. & S. 78.)

VIII. In other cases the only person who need be named in the writ of summons as defendant to the suit in the first instance is the person against whom the relief is directly claimed.

The person against whom direct relief is claimed,

the only ne

cessary party.

as bills.

IX. All claims, and all writs, caveats, proceed- Claims to be ings, directions, and orders consequent thereon, subject to Geeither before the court or in the master's offices, and enforced are to be deemed proceedings, writs, and orders subject to the general rules, orders, and practice of the court, so far as the same are or may be applicable to each particular case and consistent with these orders; and all orders of the court made in such proceedings are to be enforced in the same manner and by the same process as orders of the court made in a cause upon bill filed (s).

(s) The general orders relating to the enforcement of orders and decrees are the 10th, 11th and 12th Orders of August, 1841, as amended by the 6th Order of April, 1842, and the 13th and 15th Orders of August, 1841.

defendants.

X. Writs of summons are, as to the number of Number of defendants to be named therein, as to the mode of service thereof, and as to the time and mode of entering appearances thereto, to be subject to the