The reader is requested to insert the cases on this and the following pages, and note the errors therein mentioned, in their proper places in the work. The cases have, for convenience of removal, been printed on one

side only.

Page 3, line 16, add after Ewart v. Graham, "see Houston v. Sligo, 52 L. T. 870; 55 L. T. 614."

5,

44, add after Rangeley v. Midland R. Co., see Hawkins v. Rutter, 1892, 1 Q. B. 668."

7, 33,"11 Ch. D. 352," should read "11 Ch. D. 852."

third marginal note, omit words "except in cases of light." 27, line 16, for Holecroft v. Hole, read "Holcroft v. Heel."

77, 78,

82,

83,

93,

,, 107,

,, 109,

,, 110, ,, 111,

,, 51, add after Doidge v. Carpenter, "see Baring v. Abingdon, 1892, 2 Ch. 374. Common is not extinguished on the release of seignorial rights in ancient arable land of customary freehold tenure (Baring v. Abingdon, sup.)."

6 (from bottom), for Homer, read "Horner."

,, 47, add after Blood v. Keller, "Plimmer v. Wellington, 9 App.

Cas. 714."

,, 36, add after Burgess v. Northwich, "Ramuz v. Southend Board, 67 L. T. 169."

30, for Biddlesford v. Onslow, read "Bedingfield v. Onslow."

8, for Shattlewell, read "Shuttleworth."

4 (from bottom), add after Dixon v. Curwen, "as to the public rights on the Norfolk broads, see Micklethwaite v. Vincent, 67 L. T. 225."

12, add after Colchester v. Brooke, "see Hawkins v. Rutter, 1892, 1 Q. B. 668."

28, add after Birmingham Banking Co. v. Ross, "Corbett v. Jonas, 1892, 3 Ch. 137."

49, add after Thomas v. Sylvester, "Ex p. Graham, 42 Ch. Div. 343; Searle v. Cooke, 43 Ch. Div. 519."

3 (from bottom), add after Perry v. Eames," Re Pratt, 55 L.T.
313; Dacre v. Patrickson, 1 Dr. & Sm. 186."

12 (from bottom), add, "As to Ireland, see 39 & 40 Vict. c. 37."
6 (from bottom), add, "Under 52 Vict. c. 7, ss. 12, 14, the
claim of the Crown to legacy and succession duty in
specified cases cannot be enforced after the expiration of
specified periods."

2 (from bottom), add after Rains v. Buxton, "A title to a
tunnel was acquired by possession (Bevan v. London Port-
land Cement Co., 1892, W. N. 151)."

17, add reference to Eccl. Commissioners v. Treemer, 1892, W.N. 170. 14, add after (19 Car. 2, c. 6), "Compare the statutory rules in Scotland (44 & 45 Vict. c. 47).'

3 (from bottom), add after Thomson v. Eastwood.

Barker, Buxton v. Campbell, 1892, 2 Ch. 491."

2, for Bevington, read "Berrington."

,, 120,

,, 123,

,, 142,

18, Boyer v. Norwich has been affirmed in the H. L., see 1892,

A. C. 417).
28, for p. 183, read "

p. 185,"

26, add after Darb. & Bos. Stat. Lim. 119, "see Re Smith, Henderson Roe v. Hitchins, 42 Ch. D. 302."

30, add after (Ib.), "see however Dix v. Burford, 19 Beav. 412; Re Smith, Henderson Roe v. Hitchins, 42 Ch. D. 305." see Re Barker, Buxton v. Campbell, 1892, 2 Ch. 491." ,, 182, 11 (from bottom), for Linsall v. Bonson read "Linsell v. Bonsor."

34, add "

ƒ2

Addenda and Corrigenda.

Page 183, line 23, for Becker read "Beckett."

185,

220,

220,

232,

lxxxiv

15, add after Millington v. Thompson, "see however Re Hoyle, Hoyle v. Hoyle, 67 L. T. 234; 1892, W. N. 62."

31, for Clark, read "Clarkson."

12, add, "

see Re Gardner, Long v. Gardner, 1892, W. N. 164. 4 (from bottom), add " and in the case of possession of a tunnel (Bevan v. London Portland Cement Co., 1892, W. N. 151)." 5 (from bottom), add reference to Eccl. Commissioners v. Treemer, 1892, W. N. 170.

15 (from bottom), add after Evans v. Moore, "see Re Barker,
Buxton v. Campbell, 1892, 2 Ch. 491."

2 (from bottom), add after Evans v. Moore,
Buxton v. Campbell, 1892, 2 Ch. 491."

see Re Barker,

13 (from bottom), add after Munns v. Burn, "but see, as to purely common law actions, Armstrong v. Milburn, 54 L. T. 247, 723."

8 (from bottom), add, "Time was held to run against a trustee in bankruptcy in the same way as against the bankrupt (Exp. Norton, 1892, W. N. 32)."

21, for Cliff, read "Clegg."

26, for c. 39, read 66 c. 35."

14, add, "Where the action was commenced before 1st January, 1890, but the decree was made after that date, the section did not apply as against persons served with the decree (Re Harrison, Allen v. Cort, 1892, W. N. 148)." 34, Hunt v. Wenham is now reported "1892, 3 Ch. 59." 244, 19, for 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, read " 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 74." 7 (from bottom), Snow v. Boycott is now reported "1892, 3 Ch. 110."

26, for Derry, read "Dering."

297, 21, for Cowper, read "Cooper."

298, (last line), for Butley, read "Butler."

299, line 2, add after Cox v. Bennett, "see Everett v. Paxton, 65 L. T. 383."

see Re Turner, Turner v. Fitzroy, 66 L. T. 758."

4, add after Byram v. Tull, "Re Gue, Smith v. Gue, 1892, W. N. 88, 132."

11, add after Pelton v. Harrison, "She may be ordered to attend for examination as to her means (Holtby v. Hodgson, sup.; Aylesford v. G. W. R. Co., 41 W. R. 42).”

3, add "The right to dower of the widow of an intestate is not affected by the provision made for her by 53 & 54 Vict. c. 29 (see sect. 4)."

,, 34, for see Re Parkin, 1892, W. N. 114, read "As to the application in payment of a married woman's ante-nuptial debts of property appointed by her under a general testamentary power, see Re Parkin, Hill v. Schwartz, 67 L. T. 77."

21, add after Re Tanqueray-Willaume, "Re Stokes, Parsons v. Miller, 67 L. T. 223."

40, omit the words "and the note to."

8, add after Lewis v. Lewis, "see Re Hooper, Ashford v. Brooks, 1892, W. N. 151."

34, for Beckford, read "Pickford."

9, for 7 D. M. G. 555, read "7 D. M. G. 55."

14, add after Moor v. Raisbeck, "see Re Clowes, 1892, W.N. 154." 13 (from bottom) add "Re Champion, affirmed 1892, W. N. 170. Compare the effect of the codicil in Re Blackburn, Smiles v. Blackburn, 43 Ch. D. 75."

10 (from bottom), Davies v. Davies is now reported "1892, 3 Ch. 63."

429, 14 (from bottom), add "Re Blackburn, Smiles v. Blackburn, 43

,, 460,

32, add after Gibbs v. Pike, "see Ex p. Hammond Brown, 67 L. T. 234."

,, 467, last marginal note, read "22 & 23 Vict. c. 35, s. 22."

,,477, line 15, add after Re Rush, "see Ex p. Hammond Brown, 67 L. T.

234.

,, 25, add after Atkins v. Shephard, "see Re Cave, Mainland v. Cave, 1892, W. N. 142."

43, add, "As to declaring a charge on reversionary personal estate of a judgment debtor, see Flegg v. Prentice, 1892, 2 Ch. 428."

47, add, "Semble, the application should be made by summons (Re Hartley, Nuttall v. Whitaker, 1892, W. N. 49).”

14 (from bottom), for Davies, read "Davis."

508,

513,

513,

,, 517,

4, add after Re Price,

6, Re Trubee is now reported "1892, 3 Ch. 55."

7 (from bottom), after Re Peacock, add reference to Re New Zealand Trust Co., 1892, W. N. 169.

17 (from bottom), Re Higginbottom is now reported "1892, 3 Ch. 132."

517, 22, add reference to Re New Zealand Trust Co., 1892, W. N. 169. 523, bottom line, after Re Peacock add reference to Re New Zealand Trust Co., 1892, W. N. 169.

546, line 46, for 23 & 24 Vict., read "22 & 23 Vict."

555, "

569,

570,

589,

5 (from bottom), for Dicks v. Barford, read "Dix v. Burford."
20, add, "See further, as to the jurisdiction under this section,
remarks of Chitty, J., in Re Lander & Bagley, 1892,
3 Ch. 41."

29, Re Lander & Bagley is now reported "1892, 3 Ch. 41."
9 (from bottom), add, "The lien of a company on shares is
within sect. 15 (Everitt v. Automatic Weighing Machine
Co., 1892, W. N. 143).”

26, add after Merchant Banking Co. v. London, “see Provident
Clerks' Association v. Lewis, 1892, W. N. 164.

604, first marginal note, for trustees for rule, read "trustees for sale." 613, line 26, for As to, read "Compare."

634,

656,

676,

700,

7, add "As to the costs of employing a solicitor and surveyor before this Act, see Skinners' Co. v. Knight, 1892, 2 Q. B. 542; Bridge v. Quick, 67 L. T. 54."

21 (from bottom), after Conway v. Fenton, add "see Re De Teissier, 1892, W. N. 163, and S. L. Act, 1890, s. 13, post."

35, for post, p. 643, read "post, p. 721."

8 (from bottom), for 23 & 24 Vict., read "22 & 23 Vict."

31, for 23 & 24 Vict., read "22 & 23 Vict."

7 (from bottom), Re Ailesbury was affirmed on appeal to the House of Lords, sub nom. Bruce v. Ailesbury (1892, A. C. 356). A subsequent action to restrain the sale on the ground of fraud, was dismissed (Bruce v. Ailesbury, 1892, W. N. 149).

3, add, "Expenditure under sub-sect. (ii) can only be made for purpose of immediate letting (Re De Teissier, 1892, W. N. 163); which case see also as to 're-building' under sub-sect. (iv)."