« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
Held, that his lien upon the land was defeated by the execution of the power. Doe d. Wigan v. Jones, 10 B. & C. 459.
Page 346.-An estate consisting of fen land, and so described in the particular of sale, was charged by a local, but public act of parliament, with drainage and embanking taxes, of which the purchaser had no express
notice. Held, that he was not entitled to a compensation for those taxes. Barrand v. Archer, 2 Sim. 433.
Page 358.—To the cases cited in n. (a) may be added, Vacher v. Cocks and others, 1 B. & Ad. 145.
Page 359.-An instrument executed by mark may be proved from inspection, by a person who has seen the party execute the commission. George v. Surrey, 1 Moo. & Mal. 517.
Page 382.—To the case in n. (d) add, Andrews v. Pledger, 4 Car. & Pay. 274.
Page 389.–To the cases cited in n. (g) may be added Middleton v. Melton, 10 B. & C. 317.
Page 390.-A certificate obtained under the 6 Geo. IV.c. 16, on a commission of bankruptcy issued before that statute, is proved by the production of the certificate duly allowed. Taylor v. Welsford, 1 Moo. & Mal. 503.
Page 402.-Where a lease was dated on the 27th of March, habendum from the 1st of May next, it seems that evidence will be admissible for the purpose of showing that the lease was executed on the 1st of May; although the tenant had stated in his answer in a suit in Chancery brought to impeach the lease, that it had been “executed” on the 27th of March. Jack d. Wheatley v. Creed, 2 Hudson & Brooke, 128.
Page 479.—To the case in n. (c) may be added, Stewart v. Nicholls and others, Tamlyn, 307.
Page 542.—Neither the decisions on an executor's legal right to retain an undisposed of residue, nor the reasons for those decisions, are reconcileable with each other; but in tracing this subject through the successive cases, there appears to be a gradual tendency towards favouring the next of kin. Browne v. M'Guire, 1 Beatt. 358.
Page 76, line 6, for devisor, read devisee.
57 Geo. III.