Vya\\\^
SsNr'xi'*'^^
V \ \ O
Sisv
v\\\
-*? !,\,V i
(flnrupU Ham Btl^aal Sjibrary
KF 399.S88'l92o"''*™">"-"'"'y
l^aKifprudence
*i?iII?,!Il?.!?«?r'e8on
R. S. STEVEMS
|
DATE |
DUE |
||
|
^^i-"^ |
^ |
||
|
"YJ^ |
i?r«T*" |
UK |
|
|
^z |
|||
|
i;;. |
|||
|
i |
|||
|
_L |
|||
|
GAYLORD |
PRINTED IN U.S.A, ^ |
||
|
I-Tiwj.;;;;,;; V :, ■' |
■■mmF' |
Cornell University Library
The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library.
There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text.
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924017859871
COMMENTARIES
ON
EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE
Hon. Mr. JUSTICE STORY, LL.D.
Sometime one of the Justices of the Supreme Oourt of the United States.
THIRD ENGLISH EDITION,
BY
A. E. RANDALL
of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister - at - Law.
LONDON :
SWEET AND MAXWELL, LIMITED, 3 CHANCERY LANE, W.C. 2.
SYDNEY, N.S.W. :
LAW BOOK CO. OF AUSTEALASIA,
Limited,
TOEONTO, CANADA:
THE CAESWBLL COMPANY,
Limited,
145-149 Adelaide Street West
51-53 Elizabeth Stbebt. 1920.
51J.il
PRINTED BY
THE EASTERN PRESS, LIMITED,
LONDON AND READING.
PEEFACE TO THE THIKD ENGLISH EDITION.
My main difficulty in preparing this edition was how to deal with the author's text. It is a recognised classic, and many passages have been adopted judicially. At the same time there are many statements which have been allowed to stand in previous editions, and which could not be supported at the present day. To allow the original text to remain unmodified would clearly mislead the student without assisting the practitioner.
Let me give one or two examples. Founding himself upon a dictum of Lord Hardwicke, the author asserted that " common sailors " in the mercantile and naval service required guardianship during the whole course of their lives, and received special consideration in courts of equity in relation to their bargains. But people in humble positions have shown the astuteness of the plaintiff in Armory v. Delamirie (1722) 1 Stra. 504. Again Jenkins v. Kemis as reported in 1 Ch. Cas. 103 could never have survived the distructive criticism of Lord St. Leonard's assuming that it was law in the author's day. See Mamell v. Blake (1816) 4 Dow. 248 ; 16 R.R. 36. So too, the accountability of one co-owner to another (be they joint tenants or tenants in common) does not rest on a fiduciary relationship, and the doctrine that joint debts are joint and several in equity was finally exploded about forty years ago.
I have frequently had occasion to comment on the practice which has persisted of supplementing the text by footnotes. Some editors have even deemed footnotes to be the proper medium for correcting inaccuracies in the text. To paraphrase a passage from a judgment in the text and set out the passage at large in a footnote, is a method of treatment which calls for special justification, but to cite identical passages from a judgment both in the text and in a footnote, as happened
IV PREFACE.
in the preceding edition, is inexcusable. I have been able to reduce the bulk of this edition over that immediately preceding by omitting what was redundant or unnecessary. I have at the same time incorporated much that formerly appeared in footnotes. In a few instances I have allowed long footnotes to stand, but not without misgivings as to the wisdom of that course of treatment.
The text passed out of my hands before the full report of Bourne v. Keane appeared. The learned reader is requested to note that it is now reported [1919] A.C. 815.
A. E. EANDALL.
Lincoln's Inn,
December, 1919.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PREFACE
TABLE OP CONTENTS
TABLE OP CASES .
PAGE
iii
V
vii
Chaptek I. — Nature and Chakactek. of Equity
JUBISPRUDENOE 1
n. — Origin and History of Equity Juris- prudence 21
IIL — (Jeneral View of Equity Jurisdiction . 32
rV. — CONCDERBNT JURISDICTION — ACCIDENT . 39
V. — Mistake 51
VI. — Actual or Positive Fraud ... 79
VII. — Constructive Fraud 99
VIII. — Account 177
IX. — Administration 226
X. — Legacies 253
XI. — Confusion of Boundaries .... 258
XII.— Dower 264
XIII. — Marshalling of Securities . . . 267
XIV.— Partition 273
XV.— Partnership 282
XVI. — Peculiar Remedies in Equity — Cancella- tion and Delivery of Instruments . 293
XVII.— Specific Performance of Agreements and
other duties 304
XVIII.— Compensation and Damages . . . 339
XIX. — Interpleader 342
XX.— Bills Quia Timet 349
XXI. — Bills of the Peace 359
XXII. — Injunctions 363
XXIII. — Exclusive Jurisdiction- Trusts . . 393
XXIV. — Marriage Settlements .... 403
XXV. — Terms of years 410
CONTENTS.
|
Chapter XXVI.— Mortgages |
PAGE 412 |
|
|
, XXVII.— Assignments |
430 |
|
|
, XXVIII. — Wills and Testaments |
442 |
|
|
, XXIX.— Election and Satisfaction |
450 |
|
|
, XXX.— Application of Purchase Money |
470 |
|
|
, XXXI.— Charities |
475 |
|
|
, XXXII.— Implied Trusts |
504 |
|
|
, XXXIII. — Penalties and Forfeitures |
544 |
|
|
XXXIV.— Infants |
557 |
|
|
, XXXV. — Idiots and Lunatics .... |
572 |
|
|
, XXXVI.— Married Women .... |
575 |
|
|
XXXVII.— Set-off |
601 |
|
|
, XXXVIII.— Establishing Wills |
611 |
|
|
XXXIX.— Awards |
614 |
|
|
, XL. — Writ of Ne Exeat Regis and Supplicavit |
620 |
|
|
INDE |
, XLI.— Discovery and the Practice employed to Preserve and Pekpetuate Testimony X |
626 643 |
TABLE OF CASES (a)
PAOE
Aas ». Benham 285
Abbott Fund, In re ; Smith v.
Abbott 505, 507
Abergavenny (Earl) v. Powell ... 640
Abernethy v. Hutchinson 285, 386
Abraham v. Budd 374
Ackroyd v. Smithson 337
Acton 0. Pearce 61
V. Woodgate 397, 430
Adair v. Shaw 260, 251
Adam's Trust, In re 541
Adam v. Newbigging ... 79, 82, 84, 295 Adams and Kensington Vestry,
In re 447
Adams v. Claxton 171
V. Clifton 535
Adderley v. Dixon ... 305, 307, 314, 340
Addington v. Cann 494
Adey v. Whitstable Co 215
Adye v. Feuilleleau 534, 535
Agar Ellis, In re ; Agar Ellis s.
Lascelles 564
V. Fairfax 273, 276, 279
■ V. AUacklew 616
Agnew V. Pope 463
Agra Bank v. Barry 160, 161
Aislabie u. Eice 120
Albert (Prince) v. Strange 389
Aldborough (Earl) v. Trye 142,
144, 145, 294 Aldrich v. Cooper 199, 209, 212,
236, 239, 240, 241, 242, 244, 267, 268
Aldridge v. Westbrook 232
Allan V. Allan 637
V. Backhouse 201, 444
V. Bower 322, 323
AUcard v. Skinner 127, 136
Allen V. Anthony 161, 163
V. Coster 568
V. Harding 308
V. Jackson 117
V. McPherson ... 79, 98, 176, 611
AUeyn v. AUeyn 459
Allfrey c. AUfrey 223
Allison V. Clayhills 130, 132
AUsop, In re; Whitaker v. Bam-
ford 533, 534
PAGE
Amber Size & Chemical Co. v.
Eanzel 389
Amesbury v. Brown 201
Ancaster (Duke) v. Mayer 246
Anderson v. Anderson 287
V. Elaworth 301
Andrews v. Bamsay 192
1). Trinity Hall 455
Angel ij. Smith 352, 353
Angell V. Angell 636, 638
Angier v. Angler 594
Anglo-Italian Bank v. Davies 351, 353 Anon (3 Atk. 644) 617, 633
(1 Bro. C.C. 158) 67
(1 Ch. Gas. 207) 479
(1 Ch. Cas. 267) ... 480, 488, 492
(2 Ch. Cas. 337) 220
(1 Freem. 303) 220
(2 Freem. 27, 128, 145, 206)
220, 317, 356 (2 K. & J. 441) 287
- (6 Madd. 10—15) 390, 425
(F. Moo.) 20
(4 Euss. 473) 571
(2 Sim. N.S. 54) 564
(3 Swanst.) 279
(1 Vern. 162) 527
(1 Ves. Jun. 93) 391
(6 Ves. 470) 322
(12 Ves. 4) 354
(5 Vin. Abr. 523) 322
Aroedeckne, In re ; Atkins v.
Arcedeckne 208
Archer's Case 181, 406, 407
Archer v. Hudson 129
V. Preston 313
Arglasse v. Muschamp 313, 643
Armitage v. Wadsworth 40, 297
Arnott, In re 632
Arnsby v. Woodward 554
Arrowsmith, Ex p 422
Arthington v. Fawkes 360
Arthur v. Bodenham 432
V. Lamb 374
Arundell v. Phipps 302
Ashburton (Lord) v. Nocton ... 161, 167 V. Pape 385, 386
(o) The references are not to the paragraphs as in the preceding edition, but to" the pages.
VIU
TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE Aaherman v. Tredegar Dry Dock
Co 138,209,309
Ashley v. Baillie 229
Ashworth v. Lord 419
Aspland v. Watt 530, 536
Asten V. Asten 630
Astley B. Weldon 549
Aston V. Aston 374
V. Pye 299
Athill, In re; Athill v. Athill 199,
240, 267, 268
Atkins V. Hatton 261, 262
V. Hill 253, 254
Atkinson & Horsell's Cent., In re 330
Atkinson v. Leonard 41, 622
1). Littlewood 460, 462
Attenborough v. St. Katherine
Dock Co 346
V. Solomon 280, 250, 254
Athol (Earl) v. Derby (Earl) 813
Att.-Gen. v. Bains 494
V. Bowyer 478, 483, 491, 493, 495
V. Brentwood School 484
V. Brereton ... 478, 480, 481, 489
V. Brunning 235, 236
V. Cains Coll 541
• V. Cambridge Consumers Gas
Co 377
B. Cambridge (Margaret &
Begins Prof.) 494
B. Chester (Bp.) 492
B. Christ's Hospital 502
0. Clarendon (Earl) 488
V. Clifton 501
B. Combe 494
V. Dimond 251
V. Dixie 484
B. Dublin (Corp.) ... 177, 178, 484
«. Emmerson 376
B. Exeter (Mayor) 501
B. Forbes 376, 377
B. PuUerton 262
B. G-askill 626, 627
B. Gleg 494
B. Harrow School (Governors) 489
V. Heelis 501
B. Hewer 488
B. Hickman 489
B. Hubback 288
B. Ironmonger's Co. ... 492, 499
V. Jeames 489
V. Lepine 498
V. London (City) 492
V. Lonsdale (Earl) 454
B. Lucas 571
B. Marlborough (Duke) 374
B. Middleton 480, 489
B. Mucklow 621
v. Newman 480
B. Oglander 492
V. Parker 489
PAGE
Att.-Gen. B. Parmeter 376
B. Partington 600
- — B. Peacock 492
V. Pearson 489, 501
B. Piatt 492, 494
B. Price 489
B. Bay 68
i;. Eichards 876
B. Eye 482, 493
B. Sheffield Gas Consumers
Co 377, 878
». Skinners Co 488
V. Silwell 318
0. Smart 489
V. St. John's Hospital 501
B. Stamford (Earl) 600
B. Stevens 260, 262
B. Stewart 492
u. Sturge 498
B. Syderfin 491, 492, 498
B. Taucred 479, 481
V. Terry 378
B. Wax Chandlers Co 495
B. Whitley 489
V. Windsor (Dean & Chapter)
495, 497
(Canada) v. Standard Trust
Co. of N. Y 132, 529
Attwood B. Small 82, 83
Atwood B. Maude 46, 195
Auriol B. Smith 617
Austen b. Taylor 398
Austin, In re; Chetwynd b. Morgan 38
B. Chambers 130
Austria (Emperor) b. Day 388
Averall b. Wade 171, 198, 268, 270, 513
Awde B. Dixon 69
Ayerst b. Jenkins :... 128, 124, 296
Aylesford (Earl) b. Morris 142, 144, 296
Aylwin b. Withy 208
Aynsley b. Wordsworth 198
Baber's Teubt, In re 430, 435
Baber b. Harris 577
Baohford b. Preston 122
Bacon b. Clark 532
Baggett B. Meux 599
Bagot, In re; Baton b. Ormerod 454
Bailey b. Barnes 165, 169
B. Ford 287
B. Hobson 374
Bain v. Sadler 235, 288
Bainbridge v. Smith 76
Bainbrigge b. Blair 351
B. Brown X29
Baker b. Salmon, In re 330
. S^ P 573
, In re; NichoUs b. Baker 231, 233
Baker's Trusts, In re 573
Baker b. Adams 609
B. Bradley 129
TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE
Baker v. Monk 98, 141
V. Mosley 448
V. Paine 70
V. Rogers ■ 361
Balfour v. Welland 470, 473
Ball V. Harris 473
V. Montgomery 594
V. Stone 71, 294
Ballard v. Tomlinson 378
Banks v. Jarvia 609
Barber, In re; Burgess v. Virmi-
come 136
Barclay, In re; Barclay v. Andrew 536
Barfield v. Nicholson 391
Baring v. Day 214
V. Dix 287
V. Nash 276, 277, 279, 280
V. Stanton 133
Barker v. Dacie 218
V. Keete 506
V. May 230, 235
V. Perowne 197
V. Eichardson 440
Barkshire v. Grubb 70
Barnard's (Lord) Case 374
Barnes v. Eacster ... 200, 240, 241, 268
Barnett v. Weston 158, 178
Barnesdale v. Lowe 639
Barnett, In re; Daves v. Ixer ... 47, 77
Barrett v. Beckford 468
Barrow's Case 168, 530
Barrow v. Barrow 70
V . Greenough 107
V. Isaacs & Son 554
Barrow in Furness & Rawlinson's
Cont., In re 443
Barry v. Stevens 191
Bartlett v. Hodgson 540
V. Pentland 74
Barwick v. English Joint Stock
Bank 84
Baskerville v. Browne 607
Basingstoke (Corp.) v. Lord Bolton 263 Bate V. England (Bank) 136
V. Hooper 51, 52
Bateraan v. Bateman 444
Bates V. Graves 612
Bath (Earl) v. Sherwin 40, 361
V. Standard Land Co 136
Bathurst «. Murray 570, 671
Batten c. Earnley 357
Battersby v. Parrington 149, 152
Batthyany v. Walford 216
Baudains v. Eichardson 130
Baxendale v. Scale 71
Bax, Ex p 181
Baxter v. Connoly 307
Bayley, Ex p 195
Baynum v. Baynum 624, 625
Beale v. Kyte 68, 69
Beard v. Beard 578
PAGE
Beauchamp (Earl) v. Wynn 57
Beaufort (Duke) v. Berty 558
Beaumont v. Olivera 224
V. Eeeve 123
Beavan v. Oxford (Earl) 171
Bechervaise ». Lewis 605
Beckett v. Cordley 157
Beckley v. Newland 333, 422
Beddall v. Maitland 610
Beddow v. Beddow 617
Bedford (Duke) v. Abercorn (Duke) 70
V. British Museum (Trustees)
311, 315
Bedford. D. Backhouse 166
Bedouin, The 93
Beech ». Ford 301
Beechcroft v. Broome 447
Beeny, In re; Ffrench v. Sproston 361
Beeston o. Booth 237
Beidley v. Carter 57
Belchier, Ex p 533
Belfast (Earl) v. Chichester 637
Belfield v. Bourne 46, 195
Bell V. Alexander 44
V. Gardiner 86
V. Holtby 57
V. Marsh 130, 132, 156
Bellairs v. Tucker 85
Bellamy v. Debenham 331
V. Jones 638
V. Sabine ... 58, 69, 129, 166, 370
Bellasig v. Uthwatt 459
Bellhaven's (Lord) Case 59
Bellwood V. 'Wetherell 634
Benbow v. Townsend ... 397, 606, 508
Bending u. Bending 455
Benfield v. Solomons 126
Bengough v. Walker 460
Benham v. Keane 161, 167
Bennet v. Whitehead 216
Bennett, Ex p 136
V. Hayter 492
V. Wyndham 444
Benningfield v. Baxter 136
Benson v. Heathorn 128, 132, 192
Benyon c. Pitch 144
Bernard ». MinshuU 447
Berney v. Sewell 364
Berridge v. Berridge 138, 208
Berrisford v. Done 48
Bertie i>. Abingdon (Earl) 354
Berwick & Co. v. Price 167
Besant, In re 564, 566
V. Wood 31, 368, 665, 596
Bethune v. Kennedy 196
Beverley's Case 96, 557, 569, 561
Beverley (Corp.) v. Att.-Gen. ... 497
Beynon v. Cook 37
Bidder v. Bridges 638, 639
Biederman d. Seymour 243
Biggs V. Peacock 280
TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE
Bigland v. Huddlestone 452
Bilbie v. Lumley 61
Bill V. Curetou 151
■». Kynaaton 255
V. Price 145
Billage v. Southbee 132
Bingham v. Bingham 56, 57
Birch V. Ellames 160
Birchall, In re; Birchall v. Ashton 399
Birmingham v. Kirwan 452
Birmingham & Dist. Land Co. and
Allday, In re 311
Birtwhistle v. Vardill 252
BiBcoe V. Perkins 407, 408
Bishop V. Church 72
Bissell V. Axtell 231
Blackburne «. Gregeon 515, 519
Blackford v. Christian 97
Blackmoor v. Mercer 249
Black Point Synd. ». Eastern
Concessions Co 263
Blackwell v. Wood 107
Blackwood v. London Chartered
Bank of Australia 159
V. Eeg 252
, Ex p 601
Blagden v. Bradbear 318
Blake v. Blake ; 230
V. Luxton 406
V. Peters 373
Bland, Ex p 513, 523
Blandy v. Widmore 460, 461
Blenner Lassett v. Day 616
Blewitt, In re 573
Bloomer v. Spittle 326
Blore V. Sutton 339
Blockley, In re ; Blockley v.
Blockley 467
Blow, In re; St. Bartholomew's
Hosp. V. Campden 533
Blundell, In re ; Blundell v.
Blundell 460, 462
Blyth v. Whiffin 183, 184
Boardman v. Mosman 539
Boddington, In re; Boddington v.
Clariat 78
Bodenham v. Purchas 185, 188
Bogue V. Houlston 383
Bold V. Hutchinson 70
Bolton (Duke) u. Williams 345
Bolton V. Cooke 205, 207
Bonar v. Hutchinson 137, 138
Bond V. Hopkins 14
11. Walford 71, 295, 299
Bone V. Cook 635
Bonhote v. Henderson 68, 70
Bonnard v. Perry man 389
Bonser v. Cox 240
Boone's Case 228
Booker v. Allen 463
Booth V. Eich 424
PAGE
Bootle V. Blundell 245, 246, 444, 625, 612
Bor V. Bor 456
Borell V. Dann 101
Bosanquet v. Dashwood ... 126, 127, 179
V. Wray 186, 188, 290
Boston Deep Sea Kshing Co. ■».
Ansell 133
Bothamley c. Sherson 243
Bourgeoise, In re 569, 662, 571
Bourke o. Davis 45
Bourne v. Bourne 337
V. Keane 489, 498
Bouverie v. Prentice 262
Bovey v. Smith 168, 530
Bowen ». Phillips 364
Bower, In re; Lloyd Phillips v.
Davis 501
Bowes v. Bowes 112
V. Heaps 97, 101, 139, 141
Bowker v. Bull 138
Bowlby, In re; Bowlby v. Bowlby 569 Bowman v. Secular Soc., Ltd 382, 489
Bowser o. Colby 554
Bowsher u. Watkins 365
Bowyer v. Bright 332
Box V. Barrett 454
Boxall 1). Boxall 694
Boyd V. Allen 280
- t>. Boyd 467
». Hind 164
Boyse v. Rossborough ... 128, 130, 613
Bozon V. Williams 421
Brace v. Marlborough (Duchess)
170, 171, 172, 428, 612
Bracebridge u. Buckley 553
Brackenbury v. Brackenbury 123, 296
Bradbury v. Hotten 383
Bradford (Earl) v. Eomney (Earl) 69 Bradshaw, In re; Bradshaw v.
Bradshaw 106, 443
B. Bradshaw ^ 568
Braithwaite, In re ; Braithwaite
t). Wallis 230
V. Britain 471
V. Coleman 609
Bramwell ». Halcomb 382, 384
Brandt's Sons & Co. v. Dunlop
Rubber Co 436, 436
Brecon (Mayor) v. Seymour 171
Breedon v. Breedon 478
Brenchley v. Higgins 141, 142
Brentwood Brick & Coal Co., In
re 519
Breton's Estate, In re ; Breton v.
Woolven 61
Brewer, Ex p 567
Brice u. Bannister 432
V. Brice 467
». Stokes 537
Bridge c. Brown 569
Bridges ». Longman 444
TABLE OF CASES.
XI
Bridgett, In re; Cooper v. Adams 289
Bridgman o. Green 107
Bridgewater (Duke) v. Edwards 263
Bridgman's Trust, In re 541
Briggg v. Massey 191
V. Penny 448
Bright V. Boyd 523
Bristow V. Warde 451, 453
Bristowe v. Needham 353
Britain v. Kossiter 319
British S. Africa v. De Beers Con-
Bolidated Mines 369
Broadhurst v. Balgay 539
Brbderick, Ex p 421
V. Broderick 93
Brogden, In re; Billing v.
Brogden 191, 535
Bromley v. Holland 41, 42, 293,
294, 295, 296, 297
V. Smith 141
Brook V. Hook 127
Brooke v. Enderby 185, 188
Brookes, In re ; Brookes v. Taylor 534 Brooking v. Maudslay Son & Eield
297, 636
Brookman v. Rothschild 529
Brooks 0. Reynolds 233, 234
Brooksband, In re; Beauclerk v.
James 456
Brophy v. Bellamy 568
Brown, In re; Dixon v. Brown ... 62 ^ c. Brown. ". 297
V. Collins 567
V. Heathcote 520
V. HiggB 48, 74, 106, 443
V. Kennedy 129
V. Pring 59
V. Selwin 511
V. Tapscott , 213
V. Vermuden 360
V. Wales 298
V. Yeale 485
Brown's Will, In re 119
Browne v. Lee 204
V. Rye 233
V. Savage 437
Brownell v. Brownell 222, 224
Brownlie v. Campbell 83
Bruner v. Moore 329
Brunker, Ex p 621, 622
Bryant & Barningham, In re 330
Bryson v. Whitehead 121, 307
Buckle V. Atleo 231
Buccleuch (Duke) v. Met. Bd. of
Works 615, 616
Buchanan v. Buchanan 593
Buck V. Robson 432
Buckeridge v. Whalley 222
.Buckle V. Mitchell 147, 294
Buckmaster v. Harrop 319
Buden v. Dore 630
PAGE
Bull V. Faulkner 215
BuUer v. Plunket 437
Bullock V. Downes 56
Bunbury t>. Bunbury 631
Bunn V. Markham 256, 257
Burchell v. Wild 388
Burden v. Barkus 286
Burford (Corp.) v. Lenthall 177,
182, 360
Burges v. Mawbey 202
Burgess c. Burgess 387
V. Wheate 10, 34, 505
Burke v. Smyth 307, 309
Burley, In re; Alexander v.
Burley 447
Burn V. Carvalho 432, 435, 436
Burnet v. Burnet 568
Burns' Application 86
Burrough v. Philcox 74
Burroughs, In re 573
V. Elton 173
Burrows r>. Walls 535, 539
Burstall v. Beyfus 626, 630, 633
Burton v. Pierpoint 242
Bush V. Western , 362
Bustros V. White 31
Butcher v. Butcher 106
Bute (Marq.) v. Glamorganshire
Canal Co 258, 260, 262, 263
Butler and Baker's Case 226
Butler V. Butler 576, 598
V. Freeman 559
J). Wigge 546
Buttanshaw v. Martin 401
Button V. Thompson 194
Buxton V. Lister 301, 306, 326
Byrchall ». Bradford 536
Bym V. Godfrey 511
Caddick v. Skidmore 319
Cadman v. Horner 86
Cadogan v. Kennett 147, 150, 391
Cain V. Moon 256
Caird v. Syme 385, 386
Calmady v. Calmady 276
Calverley v. Williams .; 63, 64
Camden (Marq.) v. Murray 570
Cameron and Wells, In re 405
Campbell v. French 78, 589
V. Holyland 256
V. Hooper 95
t). Home 106
V. Mackay '563
V. Macomb 271
V. MuUett 289, 527
V. Rothwell 209
V. Sanders 405
V. Scott 382
V. Twemlow 616
V. Walker 135
Cane v. Allen (Lord) 130
TABLE OF OASES.
PAGE
Cann v. Cann 52, 55, 68, 59
Cannam v. Parmer 101
Cannel v. Buckle 61, 576, 577
Canterbury (Archb.) v. House ... 229
^ V. Wills 228, 229
Cantiere Meccanico Brindisino v.
Jansen 93
Capon's Trusts, In re 106
Capper v. Spottiswoode 518, 519
Carey v. Faden 384
Carnan c. Bowles 384
Carlisle (Corp.) v. Wilson 177, 182, 360
Carr's Trusts, In re 590
Carr v. Bastabrooke 468, 592, 595
Carriage Co-op. Supply Assn., In re 606 Carritt u. Real and Personal Ad- vance Co 37, 159
Carrou Iron Co. ■». Maclaren ... 369
Carrow o. Ferrior 354
Carter v. Carter 76
V. Palmer 130, 133
V. Wake 427, 428
V. White 138
Carteret v. Petty 263, 369, 542
Cartwright, In re; Avis v. New- man 373
V. Cartwright 120
V. Green 631
D. Pultney 277, 280
Carver v. Bowles 451
Carwe's Estate, In re 121
Cary v. Abbott 491
Casamajor v. Strode 330
Casborne v. Searfe 418
Castell, Ex p 291
Caetelli v. Cook 391
Catling 0. King 318
Cathcart, In re 672
Catchside v. Ovington 228, 229
Caton V. Caton 318, 325
o. Eidout 586
Cator V. Bolingbroke 519
«. Cooly 166
Cave V. Mills 224
Cavendish v. Greaves 224
Cavendish Bentinck v. Fenn ... 82, 137
Cawdor (Lord) v. Lewis 606
Central Bly. of Venezuela v.
Kisch 86
Chace v. Westmore 616
Chadwick v. Turner 162, 165
Chalmer v. Bradley :.. 223
Chamberlaine v. Chamberlains 300, 332
Chamberlain v. Durnmer 372
Chambers v. Goldwin 221, 222
Champion, In re ; Dudley v. Cham- pion 528
V. Eigby 127
Chancey's Case 468
Chandelor v. Lopus 86, 91
Chaplin v. Chaplin 245, 469
PAGE
Chapman v. Chapman 421
V. Esgar 238
B. Koops 290
V. Perkins 107, 117, 119
V. Tanner 515
Charter v. Watson 427
Chase v. Westmore 214
Chatham v. Hoare 105
Chatterton o. Cave 382, 384
Chattock V. MuUer 332
Chavany v. Van Sommer 286
Chawner's Will, In re 444
Cheale v. Kenward 308
Chedworth (Lord) u. Edwards 370, 390
Cheesman v. Price 285
Cherry v. Mott 497
Cheslyn v. Dalby 614
Chesterfield's (Earl) Trusts 196
V. Janssen 79, 81, 82, 83,
101, 109, 140, 141, 143, 144 Chesham (Lord) , In re ; Cavendish
V. Dacre 455
Child V. Comber 318
u. Godolphin 318
v. Mann 347
Childers c. Childers 507, 508
Cholmondeley o. Cholmondeley ... 447
V. Clinton 35, 389, 399, 426
V. Oxford 638
Christ's College (Case) 493
Christ's Hosp. v. Grainger 601
n. Hawes 493
Christie o. Courtenay ... 235, 505, 508
V. Craig 391
v. Gosling 405
Chudleigh's Case 395, 406, 407
Chumley, Ex p 573
Church Estate Charity; Wands- worth, In re 492
Churchill v. Churchill 451, 4-57
Clancarty (Lord) v. Latouch .... 224
Clapham ». Shillito 86
Clarendon (Earl) v. Barham ... 240, 241
V. Hornby 278, 279
Claringbould ». Curtis 309
Clark J). Abingdon (Lord) 551
V. Cort 603, 604
V. Grant 71
V. Hackwell 317
Tj. Eoyle 621
Clarke v. Hart 665
0. Ormonde (Earl) 234
V. Parker .... 107, 117, 118, 119
V. Eamuz 335, 514
t). Eichards 610
V. Sewell 468, 459
V. Tipping 190
V. Wright 321
Clavering's Case 625
Clay n. Willis 235
Clayton's Case 185, 187, 188
TABIiB OF CASES.
xm
PAGE
». Rees 435
Clergy Orphan Corp., In re 487
Clifford V. Brooke 339
». Praucis 492
V. Turrell 339, 340
Clifton V. Burt 240, 241, 243
Clinan v. Cooke 319, 320, 821
Cloutte V. Storey 58
Clowes V. Higginson 71, 312
Clvm's Ca^e 195
Clutterbuck v. Clutterbuck 525
Coakes v. Boswell 65
Coates V. Clarence Ely. Co 378
Cochrane v. Moore 300, 317, 397
Cock o. Eichards 112, 113
Cockburn v. Edwards 61, 131
Cocking V. Pratt 55, 63
Cocks V. Smith 504
Cockshott V. Bennett 153
Coffin i,. Coffin 374
Cogan V. Duffield 70
Coham v. Coham 562
Colburn v. Sims 380
Cole V. Gibson 110
V. White 321
Coleman c. Mellersh 222
Coles V. Pilkington 312, 320
». Trecothick 102, 133, 135
Collins 0. Archer 36, 266
V. Collins 519
Collins Co. V. Brown 388
V. Curwen 888
CoUinson's Case 479, 482, 493
CoUinson t). Lister 165
CoUyer v. Burnett 498
V. Fallon 520
Colmer v. Colmer 593, 594
Colman u. Orton 632
Colverson v. Bloomfield 622
Colyear v. Mulgrave (Countess)... 521 Colyer v. Clay 64
V. Finch 158
Comiskey v. Bouring Hanbury 446, 447 Commercial Bank of Scotland v.
Ehind 223, 224
Commissioner of Stamp Duties v.
Byrnes 508
Compagnie Financifere and Com- merciale du Pacifique v. Peruvian
Guano Co 633
Conington's Will, In re 547
Consett V. Bell 136
Consolidated Exploration & Fin- ance Co. V. Musgrave 121, 123
Const V. Harris 285
Conyers v. Abergavenny 360
Cood V. Pollard 518, 519
Cook V. Baker 112
V. Collingridge 287
V. Field 144
V, Fountain 504
PAGE
Cook V. Fryor 71
V. Gregson 235, 251
Cooke V. Cholmondeley 612
V. Clayworth 96, 293
V. Martyn 364
Cookes V. Cookes 190, 192
Coomber, In re ; Coomber v. Coom-
ber 128, 130
Coope V. Twynam 205, 207
Cooper, Ex p 47
, In re; Cooper v. Vesey 250
V. Cooper 455, 457
V. Evans 212
V. Kynoch 403
V. Martin 77
c. Phibbs 52, 67
Cope V. Cope 245
Copis V. Middleton 102, 148, 149,
150, 210
Copland v. Toulmin 185
Corbett c. Corbett 546
Corder v. Morgan 425
Cornwall, In re 239, 240
V. Henson 327
Corley v. Stafford 129, 130
Corser -c. Cartwright 444, 473
Cory o. Cory 96
V. Yarmouth and Norwich
Ely 378
Coslake v. Till 307
Cosnahan v. Grice 266
Costa Eica Ely. v. Forwood 137
Cothay v. Sydenham 158
Getting V. Keighley 222
Cotton I!. Cotton 577
Couldey v. Barkieve 377
Coulson V. White 377
Counter v. Macpherson 49
County Life Assoc., In re 52
Courtenay v. Williams 436, 438
Couturier v. Hastie 63
Cousins, In re 164
Coventry v. Barclay 223
(Mayor) v. Att.-Gen 541
Cowles V. Gale 329
Cowper V. Clerk 360, 361
V. Cowper 9, 18
V. Laidler 378, 379
Cox (Creditors of Sir Charles) 232,
233, 236 V. Bennett 570
V. Parker 505
Crabb v. Crabb 509
Crabtree c. Bramble 38
u. Poole 335
Crampton v. Walker 609
Cranstown (Lord) v. Johnston ... 543
Craven v. Stubbins 46, 195
Crawshay c. Maule 285
V. Thornton 842, 344, 346
Craythorne v. Swinburne 207
TABLE OF CASKS.
330
58
898
390
PAGE
Croft V. Day 387
V. Graham 37
D. Powell 425
Crofton V. Ormsby 161
Crooks V. De Vandes 446
Crosbie ». Murray 451
Crosby v. Marriott 622
Cross V. Sprigg 299
Crossling v. Crossling 75
Crowder v. Austin 121
Crowe V. Ballard 127
V. Clay 43
Crowfoot V. Gurney 431
Crozier v. Dowsett 233
Curwys v. Colman 394, 447
Cud V. Enlter 303, 308
Cullingworth v. Lloyd 153, 154
Curl Bros. v. Webster 388
Curling v. Plight
Cursou V. Bellworthy
Curteis' Trusts, In re
Curtis V. Buckingham (Marq.) ...
V. Curtis 216, 264, 265, 266
V. Perry .... 33, 34, 78, 507, 556
». Price 151
V. Eippon 448
V. Worthington 508
Cutter V. Powell 194
Da 'Costa v. Davis 546
V. De Paz 489, 491
V. Mellish 563
Dagenham (Thames) Dock Co.,
In re 549
Dalbiac v. Dalbiac 94
Dalby o. PuUen 330
Dale 0. Sollet 603
Dallas, In re 437
V. Walls 204
Dalston v. Coatsworth 42
Dalton, In re 567
Daly V. Kelly 870
Damus' Case 493
Danby v. Danby 230
Daniel ». Arkwright 47, 52
V. Newton 571
V. Skipwith 424
V. Sinclair 51, 57, 62, 222
Daniels v. Davison 161, 163, 885
Danvers v. Manning 78
Darbishire v. Home 538
D'Arcy v. Blake 398
Dare "Valley Rly., In re 616
Darley v. Darley 578
Darlington (Earl) v. Bowes 362
V. Pulteney 47, 76, 78
Darlow v. Cooper 418
Dartnall, In re ; Sawyer v. God-
dard 535
Darvill o. Terry 150
Dashwood v. Bithazey 424
Dashwood v. Maguire 219
V. Peyton 454
Davenport v. Bishop 398, 405
Davidson, In re; Mintz v. Bourne 497
Davies v. Cooper 90
... Dodd 44
v. Ga,s Light and Coke Co. 626
V. London and Prov. Marine
Ins. Co 92
V. Otty 125
V. Thomas 517
V. Topp 242, 245
Davis' (Dr.) Case 570
Davis, In re; Davis v. Davis ... 536 ; Hannen u. Hilly er 491,
496, 497
Davis' Trust, In re 498
Davis B. Dysart (Earl) 298, 631
V. Hone 329
». Marlborough (Duke) 121,
140, 351, 352, 434
V. Shepherd 326
u. Spurling ... 223, 224, 470, 539
V. Symonds 68
v. Turvey 280
Davy V. Pollard „ 588
Dawson, In re; Dawson v. Jay ... 571
V. Whitehaven (Bank) 422
Day J). Brownrigg 30, 364
V. Luhke 829
Deakin, In re; Starkey v. Eyres 106
Dearie v. Hall 37, 429, 436, 437
Debenham «. Mellon 101
V. Ox 109
Debeze v. Mann 464
De Carrifere v. De Calonne 622
De Clifford (Lord) , In re; Lord
De Clifford v. Quilter 534
Decks V. Strutt 229, 253, 254
De Garcia v. Lawson 498
De Hoghton v. Money 435
Delver v. Barnes 615
Delves v. Gray 168
Demaindray v. Metcalf 428, 429
De Manneville v. De Manneville
559, 560, 561
De Mattos v. Gibson 801
Dendy v. Powell 609
De Nicholls v. Saunders 418
De Nicols, In re; de Nicols v.
Curlier 237
Dent V. Bennett 128, 130, 132, 136
Denton v. Stewart 316, 326, 340
Denny v. Hancock 330
Denys v. Shuckburgh 192
Derby v. Humber 195
Dering v. Winchelsea (Earl) 193,
197, 202, 204, 205, 208
Derry o. Peek 79, 88
Desborough v. Harris 847
Deschamps v. Miller 369, 543
TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE Be Therminnes v. De Bonneval ... 491
Devese v. Poutet 468
Devousher v. Newenham 362
Devonshire's (Earl) Case ...... 178, 179
Dibbs V. Goren 51
Dick V. Milligan 616
Dickinson v. Barrow 319, 320
V. Burrell 435
V. Dickinson 473
Dickson, In re 118
; Hill V. Grant 569
Dilley v. Doig 360
Dillon V. Parker 450, 452, 453,
455, 456, 457
Dibrow v. Bone 399
Dimsdale v. Dimsdale : 144
Dingle v. Cooper 37
Disney v. Bobertson 361
Di Sora v. Phillips 68
Dive, In re; Dive v. Eoebuck 534
Dixon, Ex p 237, 298
V. Enoch 34
V. Evans 59
u. Samuel 454
Docker v. Somes 191, 529
Doddington v. Halkett 524
Dodkin v. Brunt 399
Dodsley ». Kinnersley 312
V. Varley 513, 520
Doe ■». Bancks 554
V. Davies 74, 421
V. Dowell 403
V. Emmerson 614
V. Guy 253
V. Hales 164
V. Joinville 448
V. Lewis 42
V. Manning 147, 174
V. Oliver 432
V. Smith 448
Doherty v. AUman 218, 219, 373
Dolman v. Nokes 65
Doloret v. Bothschild ... 305, 306, 308
Dolphin V. Aylward 242, 268
Dominion Coal Co. v. Dominion
Steel and Iron Co 301
Done's Case 220
Donne v. Hart 590
Donnell ». Bennett 301
Dormer's Case 573
Dormer v. Eortescue 216, 217, 265, 364
Douglas V. Andrews 568
V. Baynea 64, 324
V. Douglas 457
V. Eussell 440
Dove B. Dove 392
Dover Coalfields Extension Ltd.,
In re 136
]5owdale'B Case 251
Dowell V. Dew 75
Dowling V. Betjemann 298, 306
PAGE
Downe v. Morris 423
Downham v. Matthews 601
Downshire (Marq.) v. Sandys
(Lady) 372, 373
Dreyfus v. Peruvian Guano Co. ... 627 Drummond i). Att.-Gen. (Ireland) 501
Drury v. Drury 274
Drysdale v. Mace 326
Du Barre v. Livette 632
Duberly v. Day 590
Dubois V. Hole 576
Dudley u. Dudley 11
Duffield V. Elwes 256
Duffy's Trust, In re 590
Dufour D. Pereira 334
Dulwich Coll. V. Johnson 232
Dunbar ». Dunbar 508
Dunboyne (Lord) v. Mulvihill ... 96
Duncan v. Campbell 595
V. Dixon 100
V. Duncan 593, 595
V. Lawson 252
V. Lyon 607
». Worrall 297
Duncan Fox & Co. u. N. & S.
Wales Bank 208
Buncombe v. Greenacre 590
V. Mayer 297
Duncuft f). Albrecht 308
Dundas v. Dutens 152, 325
Dungey v. Angove 345, 346
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v.
New Garage Motor Co 552
Dunn V. Eeg 625
Dunnage v. White 55, 60, 96
Bunne v. Boyd 257
Durham Bros. v. Eobertson 333,
432, 435, 440
Durham (Earl) ti. Legard 315
Dursley e. Eitzharding 636, 637
Dutton I). Morrison 289
V. Poole 35
c. Thompson 300
Dyer v. Dyer 505, 607, 508, 509
Dykes' Estate, In re 75
Dwyer v. Collins 632
Dymock v. Atkinson 585, 588
Bast ». Cook 455
E. & W. India Dock Co. v. Little- dale 347
East India Co. B. Boddam 40, 41,
42, 44
V. Donald 73
V. Neave 73
Eastern Concessions, Ltd. u. Black
Point Synd 369
Eastern Counties Ely. v. Hawkes
294, 305, 316
Eastern Telegraph Co. «. Bent ... 555
Eastewoode «. Vinoke 458
XVI
TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE
Eastland v. Eeynolds 107
Ebrand v. Dancer 507
Echcliffe v. Baldwin 370, 390
Edge V. Worthiugton 421
Edmunds v. Eobinson 195
Edwards ii. Carter 100
V. Freeman 467
V. Jones 338
». Meyrick 129, 130
V. Warwick (Countess) 198
Eedes v. Bedes 591
Egerton v. Brownlow 404
Eland v. Eland 473
Elderton (Infants), In re 565
Elibank (Lady) u. Montobeir 587
EUard v. Llandaff (Lord) 89, 326
Ellesmere Brewery Co. v. Cooper
205, 216
Elliott V. Merryman 249, 471, 472, 473
Ellice V. Eoupell 634, 637, 638
Ellis B. Emmanuel 209
V. Kerr 290
V. McHenry (Levita's Claim) 154
V. Munson 610
V. Selby 487
Ellison V. Ellison 338
Elme Hosp. v. Andover 360
Elton V. Shephard 585
Emma Silver Mine v. Grant 137
Emery v. Hill 498
V. Waae 614
Emmet v. Dewhurst 318
Emson, In re; Grain v. Grain ... 33
England u. Downs 112
Ennis, In re; Coles v. Peyton ... 207
Erlanger v. New Sombrero Co. ... 137
Ernest v. Croysdill 528
Esdaile v. Stephenson 330
Espin V. Pemberton 163, 167
Essell V. Hayward 287
Eseery v. Cowlard 71
Essex V. Atkins 684
Bstwick V. Caillaud 430
Etches B. Lance 622
European Bank, In re 214
Evans, Ex p 353
, In re ; Welch v. Channell ... 133
». Bagshaw 279
V. Bicknell ... 79, 82, 86, 157, 158
0. Bremridge 208
V. Edmonds 83
V. Evans 454, 455
e. Llewellin (or Llewellyn)
54, 104, 105
V. Merthyr Tydvil Urban
Council 639, 640
B. Eosser 117
Evelyn v. Evelyn 245, 247, 445
Ewer s.. Corbet 472
Ewing V. Orr-Ewing 251, 542
V. Osbaldiston 33, 34
PAGE
Eyre v. Dolphin 160, 163
V. Shaftesbury (Countess)
478, 480, 557, 659, 563, 670 Eyton V. Littledale 603
Fabian v. Nunn 321
Fairbrother v. Pratterit 345, 346
Fairclough v. Marshall 418, 421
V. Swan Brewery Co 417, 420
Falcke v. Gray 306
V. Scottish Imperial Ins. Soc. 522
Falmouth (Lord) o. Innye 362
Fane u. Fane 64
Faraker, In re ; Faraker v. Dicrell 492
Farewell v. Coker 55
Farhall v. Farhall 251
Farman, In re; Farman v. Smith 256 Farmers' Mart, Ltd. v. Milner ... 154 Parquharson Bros. & Co. v. King 157 Farr v. Middleton 520
V. Newman 400
Farrand v. Yorkshire Bank 159
Farrant v. Blanchford 93
V. Lovell 373
Farrer v. Hutchinson 105
Farrington v. Knightley ... 230, 254
Faulkner v. Daniel 200
Fawcett and Holmes, In re 331
V. Whitehouse 133
Fawell V. Heelis 519
Featherstonehaugh v. Fenwick ... 287
Fells V. Eeed 298, 302
Fellows V. Mitchell 537, 5.S8
Fenhoulet v. Passavant 243
Fenton v. Browne 86
V. Hughes 633
Fenwick v. Bulman 333
V. Potts 421
Ferguson v. Wilson 20, 341
Fermois' Case 98
Feme v. Bullock 317
Ferris v. Carr 46, 195
Fettiplace v. Gorges 333
Feversham v. Watson 328
Field V. Brown 570
Fielding v. Bound 495
Finch V. Augell 627
v. Winchelsea (Earl) 520
Finlay, In re ; Wilson & Co. v.
Finlay 133
Fitzgerald, In re 561
V. Falconberg 167
V. Fitzgerald 61, 577
Fitzhugh 0. Leigh 638
Fitzroy v. Cave 435, 438
o.Gwillim 126
Flack V. Holm 621, 622, 623
Flammank, In re; Wood v. Cock 586
Flanagan v. G. W. Ely 326
Fletcher v. Ashburner 336
V. Bealey 850
TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE
Plight V. Bolland 307, 335
V. Carnac 335
V. Cook 357, 390
Flint, Ex p 604
V. Howard ... 200, 240, 241, 268
Flood's (Griffith) Case 494
Flower, In re ; Edmonds v. Ed- monds 47
V. Lloyd 105
V. Marten 299
Foley V. Burnell 356
Follet V. Jefferys 632
Folliot V. Ogden 270
Forbes v. Forbes 498
V. Jackson 171, 209
• ». Peacock 473
Ford V. Fowler 447
Fordyce v. Willis 504
Forrest v. Elwes 307, 529
V. Prescott 445, 525
Forrester v. Leigh 243
Forster v. Forster 526
V. Hale 323
V. Hoggart 330
Forth v. Simpson 214
Poster V. Blackstone 521
V. Cockerell 436
V. Denny 563
V. Donald 287
V. Vassall 543
Fothergill v. Fothergill 74
V. Eowland 301
Fountaine v. Carmarthen Ely. ... 52 Fowler v. Fowler 68, 69
V. Garlike 497
Pox V. Mackreth ... 66, 88, 89, 135, 191
V. Star Newspaper Co 638
V. Wright 145
Fox well V. Van Grutten 354, 379
Frail -u. Ellis 518, 519
Frame b. Dawson 320, 321
V. Wood 532
Prampton v. Frampton 595
Prancke, In re; Drake v. Francke 233
Franco v. Alvarez 254, 255
Frank, In re 573
Fraser, In re; Lowther v. Eraser 248
; Yates v. Fraser 498
V. Wood 315
Frederick v. Aynscombe 613
Freeman v. Bishop 345
V. Cooke 156
11. Fairlie 355, 535
V. Lomas 602, 603, 604, 605
V. Pope 150
Preke v. Carberry (Lord) 252
French v. Macale ... 305, 307, 316, 549
Prewin v. Lewis 390
Friend v. Young 188
Frietas v. Don Santos 183, 184
Frieze-Green's Patent, In re 78
E.J.
PAGE
Frost V. Knight 113
Fry v. Lane 55, 58, 99, 141
V. Porter 10, 12
I/. Tapson 532
Fuggle V. Bland 353
FuUager v. Clark 82
'Fuller V. Abrahams 121
V. Eedman 45, 233
Purser V. Penton 577
Fyler v. Fyler 534
V. Fynn 562
Gage v. Acton 577
Galam (Cargo ex) 204
Gale V. Gale 405
V. Leckie 284
V. Linds Ill
Galton V. Hancock 245
Gambart v. Ball 383
Games u. Bonner 330
Garden Gully United Quartz
Mining Co. v. McLister 555
Gardner v. 622
Garrard v. Frankel 65, 73
V. Landerdale (Lord) 430,
435, 505
Garth v. Cotton 218, 373, 407
■ V. Townsend 75
Garthshore v. Chalie 460
Gartside u. Isherwood 98
Gaskeld v. Durdin 166
Gaskell ». Gaskell 279, 435
Gaunt V. Pyermey 377
Gedye v. Matson 209
Gedge v. Trail 355
Gee V. Liddell 138, 299
V. Pearse 329
V. Pritchard 385, 386
Gen. Accident Assce. Co. o. Noel 20 Gen. Assembly of Free Church (Scotland) v. Overtown (Lord) 501
Gent V. Harrison Johns 219
Gerrard v. Clowes 20
Giacometti v. Prodgers 591, 595
Gibbons v. Causil 59
Gibbs V. Guild 35
Gibson, Ex p 624
, In re 573
V. Ings 297, 298
V. Jeyes 130, 132
V. Eussell 97, 132, 136
». Seagrim 267
Giddings v. Giddings 512
Giffard v. Hart 354
Gifford, Ex p 52
Gilbee v. Gilbee 573
Gilbertson v. Gilbertson 246
Gilchrist Charity, In re 487
Gilchrist v. Caton 593
Giles V. Giles 78
Gillibrand v. Goold 473
b
XVlll
TABLE OF CASES.
Gilpin V. Southampton (Lady) 233, 234
Gimblett, In re 149
Gladstone v. Birley 513, 514
Glenochy (Lord) v. Bosville 403
Gloucester (Corp.) v. Osborne 490, 505
Glyn 1). Duesbury 344
Goddard ». Carlisle 128, 129, 130
Godfrey v. Littells 262
V. Poole 174
V. Saunders 177
Godin V. London Assce. Co 214
Goldsmid v. Goldsmid ... 107, 460, 461
Goldsworthy, In re 565
Goodfellow V. Burchett 468
Goodman v. Grierson 420
V. Sayers 51, 52, 59, 616
V. Whitcomb 287
Goodtitle v. Otway 27
Goodwin v. Fielding 127
V. Waghorn 421
Gordon «. Gordon ... 55, 59, 60, 85, 93
V. Holland 168, 530
V. Horsefall 37
V. Selby 420
Gorringe v. India Bubber & Gutta
Percha Works 436
Goswell's Trusts, In re 337
Goy & Co., Ltd., In re; Farmer
V. Goy & Co., Ltd 436, 604
Graham, In re 567
V. Londonderry 579, 581
V. Oliver 330
Granard (Earl) v. Dinikin 386
Grant B. Grant 217, 551, 623
». Lynam 448
V. Mills 518
Grave v. Salisbury (Earl) 464
Gray v. Churchill 435
V. Haig 192, 536
V. Mathias 123
■ V. Seckham 209
V. Smith 388
Great Berlin Steamboat Co., In re 124 G. N. Ely. & Sanderson, In re ... 331 Great Western Ins. Co. v. Cunliffe 133 G. W. Ely. V. Birmingham, &c.
Ely 390
V. Cripps 62
Greatrex v. Greatrex 286
Green ». Bailey 44
V. Briggs 192
V. Farmer 603
o. Green 452, 581
V. Howell 286
B. Lowes 370, 390
V. Paterson 338
V. Butherford 488
V. Wymer 138
Greenaway v. Adams 316, 326,340
Greenside v. Benson 229
Greenway, Ex p 27, 42
PAGE
Greenwood In re; Goodhart v.
Woodhead 545
B. Frith 232
Greet'ham v. Colton 444
Gregory b. Mighell 321
B. Wilson 550
Gresley b. Adderley 355
V. Mousley 131
Gretton b. Howard 453, 455
Greville ». Parker 555
Grey v. Grey 505
Griffies v. Griffies 280
Grifath V. Spratley 102
Griffiths «. Evan 448
Grigby v. Cox 584
Grimes u. French 364
Grinstone, Ex p 561
Grindey, In re ; Clowes ». Grindey 5.34
Grosvenor, Ex p 625
Grove v. Bastard 613
Guest B. Homfray 330
B. Smythe 130, 132
GuUan v. Grove 76
GuUey v. Cregs 448
Gumbleton, Ex p 624
Gurnell B. Gardner 435
Gyles V. Wilcox 384
Gynn ». Wilcox 384
Habershos v. Bluston 290
Hacker b. Mid-Kent Ely 333
Hadley b. London Bk. of Scotland 390
Hagg ». Darley 121
Haigh, Ex p 421
V. Brooks 102
B. Jaggar 218, 375, 379
Hale B. Saloon Omnibus Co 545
Haley B. Bannister 568
V. Goodson 391
Halifax Joint Stock Bk. (/. Gled-
hill 151, 154
Hall, Ex p 435
, In re; Foster ». Metcalfe 255
B. Cazenove 545
B. Hall 286, 300
V. Hallett 536
B. Hill 468
B. Smith 163
V. Warren 305, 312, 316
Hallett u. BouseCeld 204
Halsey v. Brotherhood 380
V. Grant 314, 332
Hamilton, In re; Trench v.
Hamilton 446
B. Houghton 431
u. Watson 89, 92
V. Wright 136
Hammerton v. Dysart (Earl) ... 378
Hammond v. Messenger 441
Hampden v. Hampden 105
TABLE OF CASES.
XIX
PAGE Hampton, In re; Public Trustee
B. Hampton 390
Hanbury v. Hussey 273
V. Walker ..." 563
Hancock v. Hancock 600
Hauoomb v. Allen 534
Hannington v. Dunchastel 122
Hankin v. Middleditch 638
Hanley v. Pearson 69
Hansard v. Eobinson 48, 44
Hanson, Ex p 60S
V. Gardiner 360
V. Keating 37, 589, 590
Harbert's Case 197
Hardcastle v. Smithaon 220
Harding v. Glyn 48, 106, 443
Hardwick v. Myned 213
Hardwicke (Earl) v. Vernon 190,
192, 223 Hare & O'More's Cont., In re ... 71 Hargreavee, In re; Dicks v. Hare 265
Harland v. Trigg 447
Harmon v. Cannon 52
Harnett v. Yielding 324, 826
Harrington (Countess) v. Harring- ton (Earl) 405, 406
Harrington v. Churchward ... 182, 190
«. Long 438, 440
Harris, In re; Harris v. Harris 237
0. Beauchamp 351, 352
V. Brisco 437, 438
V. Cotterell 689
V. Pepperell 326
V. Eickett 324
V. Tremenheere 130
». Trueman 628
Harrison, In re ; Harrison v.
Harrison 219
V. Austin 74
V. Barton 509
V. Forth 168
V. Guest 140
V. Gurney 542
V. Harrison 120, 251, 252
V. Eutland (Duke) 377, 379
V. Seymour 208
Harold v. Plenty 427
Harrow School v. Alderton ... 372, 374 Hart «. Hart 565, 595
V. Herwig 806, 391
V. Minors 254
Hartley v. Hitchcock 613
V. Eice 112
V. Enssell 438, 489
Hartopp V. Hartoppp 129
Harvey, In re; Harvey v. Hobday 200
V. Aston 119
V. Harvey 578
I). Mount 99
Harwood v. Tooke 110
Haslam & Hier-Evans, In re 180, 629
PAGE
Hatch V. Hatch 131, 134
Hatfield v. Mine* 467
Hatton V. Car Maintenance Co.,
Ltd 513
V. Harris 300, 561
V. Haywood 353
Haughton v. Haughton 118
Hawkins v. Day 229
Haythome, In re; Graham v.
Massey 268, 313, 869, 549
Hay's Case 138
Hay V. Palmer 198
Hayes ». Hayes 357
V. Ward 206
Haygarth v. Wearing 86
Haynes v. Eoster 461, 457
Hays, Ex p 669
Hayward t). Hayward 389
Haywood v. Brunswick Perm.
Benefit Bldg. Soc 811
V. Cope 294, 312
Plead, In re. Ex p. Head's
executors 289
V. Head 598, 594
Heard v. Stanford 88
Heath v. Crealock 36
V. Hay 188
V. Lewis 118
Heather, In re; Pumfrey v. Eryer 462
Heaton v. Dearden 279
Heffer v. Martyn 121
Hele V. Bexley (Lord) 215
Heli, In re 661
Helmore v. Smith 94, 289
Henning v. Clutterbuck 469
Henderson v. Astwood 419
Henkle v. Eoyal Assoce. Co 68
Hennesey v. Bray 227
Henry v. Armstrong 800
Hensman v. Eryer 246
Henty v. Wrey 106
Hepworth v. Hepworth 509
Hercy v. Eerrers 298
Herman b. Charlesworth 109
Hetley v. Morton's Cont., In re ... 532
Hewitt V. Foster 639
B. Looaemore 167, 158, 162, 163
Hewson, In re 457
Heywood, Ex p 513
Hibbert 0. Cooke 623
Hiern u. Mill 160
Higgin c. Liddal 171
Higginbotham v. Hawkins 219, 221,
389, 340
Higgins B. Betts 878, 879
». Hill 144
B. Samuels 815
Hill V. Barclay 549, 550, 551, 558, 566
B. Boyle 434
B. Buckley 314
u. Curtis 227
XX
TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE
Hill V. Fulbrook 278
V. Hart-Davies 388
V. Hill 267
V. Paul 122, 434
V. SimpBon 172, 173, 249,
250, 472, 528
Hillary, In re 667
Hilton V. Biion 624
V. Scarborough (Lord) 361
Hinchcliffe v. Hinchcliffe 462
Hine v. Dodd 165
Hinton v. Parker 228, 229
Hirst V. Tolson 194
Hitchcock V. Giddings 57, 63, 64
Hitchman ®. Stewart 204
Hoare, In re; Hoare ii. Owen 362, 419
V. Brembridge 79
V. Colenciu 183, 184
B. Osborne 489
Hobday v. Peters 131
Hoblyn v. Hoblyn 129
Hobson V. Bass 209
V. Trevor 422
Hoddel V. Pugh 336
Hodgens v. Hodgens 593
Hodges, In re 667
Hodgkinson v. Fernie 615
Hodgson, Ex p 552
, In re; Hodgson v. Fox ... 606
V. Shaw 210
Hodson V. Henland 321
Hogg V. Kirby 380, 387
Hoggart V. Cutts 346, 347
V. Scott 330
Hoghton V. Hoghton 129
Holbird v. Anderson 430
Holbrook v. Sharpey 126, 296
Holden v. Hayn 333
Holding V. Elliott 69
». Thompson 122
Holditoh V. Mist 270
Hole V. Thomas 374
Holford, In re ; Holford v. Holford 569
V. Yate 266
Holgate V. Shutt 222
Holland, In re ; Gregg v. Holland 318
V. Holland 540
V. Prior 173
Hollinrake v. Lister 550
HoUis V. Bulpitt 221
V. Edwards 319
V. Whiteing 326
Holloway v. Headington 324
V. Millard 149
Holman v. Loynes 129, 130
Holmes, In re 436
Holmes v. Goghill 74, 75
0. Matthews 420
V. Mentze 290
Holroyd v. Marshall 432
Holt V. Holt 308
PAGE
Holtzapffel v. Baker 49
Homan v. Moore 346
Honner v. Morton 590
Honywood v. Honywood 219, 376
Hood (Lady) of Avalon v. Mac-
kinnon 63, 69
V. Aston 370, 390
V. Phillips 200
Hood Barrs, Ex p 596, 599
V. Cathcart 696
V. Heriot 596, 599
Hooley v. Hatton 469
Hooper, Ex p 320, 421
1). Keay 188
V. Smart 331
Hope V. Carnegie 542
Hope Johnstone, In re 120
Hopkins, Ex p 563
, In re; Dowd c. Hawkin ... 354
V. Hewsworth 436
V. Hopkins 390
Hopkinson v. Burghley (Lord) ... 386
V. Bolt 171, 172
Hopwood J). Hopwood 463
Hore J). Becher 64
Horlock, In re; Calham v. Sipith 468
V. Smith 419
Home, In re; Wilson u. Cox
Sinclair 49
V. Pringle 539
Horrell v. Waldron 229
Horrocks v. Eigby 331
Horsey Estate Co. v. Steiger 665
Horton v. Bott 634
V. Smith 200
Horwood V. Schemedes 221
Hotchkis u. Dickson 68
Hotham v. Stone 209
Hovenden v. Annesley (Lord) 35, 225 How V. Bromsgrove (Tenants) ... 360
V. Vigures 424
V. Winterton (Earl) 399, 633
Howard v. Brownhill 254
D. Castle 121
V. Digby (Earl) 580, 586
V. Harris 417, 420
V. Howard 231
V. Papera 354
Howe V. Dartmouth (Lord) 196
V. Smith 327
Howell V. Price 246, 246, 445
Howells V. Jenkins 451, 453
Howkins v. Howkins 623
Howley Park Coal & Canal Co. v.
L. & N. W. Ely 379
Hubbard v. Alexander 469
V. Hubbard 280
Hudson V. Granger 214
V. Hudson 511, 540
Huggins, Ex p 121
Hughes' Trusts, In re 436
TABLE OF OASES.
XXI
PAGE
Hughes V. Graeme 306
V. Kearney 515, 518
V. Morris 78
V. Science 559
V. Walmesley 436
V. Wells 77
Hughes Hallett v. Indian Mammoth
Gold Mines Co 207
Huguenin v. Baseley 107, 128, 136,
140, 259, 363, 392 Huish, In re; Bradshaw v. Huish 468 Hulme V. Tennant ... 101, 583, 584, 586
Humphreys v. Harrison 373, 420
Hummings v. Williamson 631
Hunt I). Luck 163
V. Peake 379
Hunter v. Atkins 130
V. Att.-Gen 497
V. Belcher 224
•». Daniel 438
Hurlbatt & Clayton's Cont., In re 86
Hurst V. Beach 254, 255
Hutchinson and Tennant, In re ... 448
u. Heyworth 431
v. Massareene 352
Hyde v. Parrat 356
V. White 144
Hylton V. Hylton 134
Hyman v. Helm 369
Impebial Gas Light & Coke Co.
V. Broabent 377
Imperial Loan Co. v. Stone 95
Imperial Mercantile Credit Assc.
V. Coleman 137
Ind Coope & Co. o. Emmerson 36,
266, 298, 630, 633 Incorporated Society v. Eichards
485, 493
Ingram v. Stiff 391
Inman v. Wearing 37
Inwood u. Twyne 570
Irnham v. Child 53, 68
Ironmongers' Co. d. Att.-Gen. 490,
491, 492, 495
Irving V. Young 224
Irwin, In re; Irwin v. Parkes ... 34
Isaacson v. Harwood 540
Ives V. Metcalfe 633
Jaokman v. Mitchell 153, 151
Jackson's Will, In re 47
Jackson, t). Cummins 214, 51-S
V. Duchaise 155
V. Hobhouse lO'i.
V. Innes 578
V. Leap 234
D. Petrie 543
J). Bowe 36, 165, 633
Jacques v. Millar 340
FAOE
James, Ex p 136, 512
V. Dean ._. 512
V. Kerr 55, 141
V. Morgan 81, 545
Jarrold o. Houldston 382
Jefferson v. Durham (Bp.) 364, 371, 372
V. Morton 410
Jeffery, In re; Arnold v. Burt ... 569
Jeffreys v. Jeffreys 338, 397
Jeffs V. Wood 601
Jenkins & H. E. Eandall's Cont.,
In re 512
Jenkins d. Moore 98
Jenner v. Harper 493
V. Morris 298
V. Turner 117
Jennings v. Broughton 87
Jervis v. Berridge 327
V. Wolferstan 213
Jervoise v. Northumberland (Duke)
401, 403, 404
V. Silk 568
Jessop V. Watson 338
Jeston 1). Key 309, 310, 404
Jesus College v. Bloom 217
Jew V. Thirkenell 198
Jewon V. Grant 213
Jewson V. Moulson 588
Job V. Cordeaux 192
V. Job 191
1). Potton 192
Jobson V. Palmer 532
Jodrell V. Jodrell 197, 579
Johnson, In re 354
, In re; Sandy c. Eeilly 256
Wragg ». Shand 233
Johnson v. Bragge 70
^— V. Child 199, 240
V. Curtis 221, 222, 223
V. Gallagher 586
». Kennet 473
o. Legard 174
B. Mills 357
Johnstone ». Beattie 662, 666, 867
Joliffe V. Baker 64, 71
Jones, In re; Parrington v.
Forrester 199, 278, 522
». Bennett 617
V. Chappie 373
V. Corry 615
V. Croucher 147, 174
V. Heavens 305
V. Jones 612
V. Lewis 191
V. Llandaff Urban Council 378
V. Martin 155
V. Merioneth Bldg. Soc. 121,
124, 125
V. Monte Video Gas Co. ... 31
c. Morgan 200, 458
V. Mossop 605
TABLE OF OASES.
PAGE Jones V. North Vancouver Land & Imp. Co 555
D. Selby 256
V. Smith ... 86, 162, 171, 427, 428
V. Thomas 132, 345
V. Waite 120
V. Yates 291
Jope V. Morshead 273
Jorden v. Money 82
Joseph J). Lyons 30
Joy V. Campbell 638
Joynes v. Tatham 325
Kapitigalla Eubbee Estates v.
Nat. Bk. of India 224
Kay V. Johnston 214, 278, 522
Keane v. Boycott 100
«. Eobarts 250
Kearley v. Thornton 123, 124
Kearsley v. Cole 52
Keate v. Allen 110
Keble o. Thompson 539
Keech u. Hall 419
V. Sandford 512
Kehoe v. Lansdowne (Marq.) 219
Keily v. Monck 116
Kekewich v. Manning ... 123, 300, 397
V. Marker ....» 374
Kelly V. Bnderton 86
V. Morris 382
V. Solari 62, 457
Kelsey, In re ; Woolley v. Kelsey 454 Kemp V. Finden 204
V. Kemp 106
V. Pryor 9
V. Weatbrook 427, 428
Kempsoii v. Ashbee 129, 134
Kendall, Ex p. 240, 241, 267, 271,
272, 527 V. Granger 486
V. Hamilton 72, 289
Kennard v. Kennard 47
Kennedy v. De Trafford 192
Kenney v. Wrexham 49, 91
Kenrick v. Mountstephen 278
Kensington, Ex p 421
Kent V. Elstob 615, 616
«. Kent 221
Kerr v. Eeed 626
Kershaw, In re ; Whittaker u.
Kershaw 213
Ketleby o. Atwood 405
Kettlewell v. Watson 162
Key V. Bradshaw 112, 113
Keys V. Williams 421
Kidney v. Coussmaker 238, 455
Kilmer v. Brit. Columbia Orchard
Lands, Ltd 549
Kimber v. Barber 132
Kimpton v. Eve 807, 373
King V. Dennieon 524
PAGE
King V. Hamlet 142, 143, 145
0. King 370
0. Malcott 255
V. Smith 373, 420, 425
B. Wilson 329
I). Zimmerman 45
Kingston (Lord) v. Lorton (Lord) 447 Kingston - upon - Hull (Corp.) v.
Harding 92
Kinnaird v. Webster 185
Kinnoulc. Money 422
Kimberley v. Jennings 326
Kirby v. Marlborough (Duke) ... 188
Eavens worth Hosp., Ex p. 488
Kirk V. Eddowes 459
Kirkham v. Shawcross 214
V. Smith 20O
Kirkman ». Booth 136
Kirkwood v. Thompson 418
Kirwan's Trusts, In re 47
Kitts V. Moore 364
Knatohbull v. Hughes-Hallett .... 189
Knebell v. White 221
Knight V. Boughton 447
V. Bowyer 221
V. Bulkeley 434
V. Davis 243
V. Hunt 154
V. Plymouth (Lord) 532, 533
V. Simmonds 311
Knott, Ex p 170, 171, 428, 512
V. Morgan 387
Knox V. Symmonds 616
Lacan v. Mertins 241
Lacey, Ex p 128, 135, 136, 512
V. Ingle 169, 171
Lacou, In re ; Lacon u. Lacon
459, 463, 467
V. Allen 421
Lagunas Nitrate Co. v. Lagunas
Synd 137
Lake v. Brutton 208
o. Craddock 288, 509, 522
V. De Lambert 600
V. Gibson 509
Lamb c. Lamb 457
Lambe v. Eames 447, 448
Lambert v. Lambert 593
V. Rogers 298
Lamlee v. Haninan Ill
Lampet's Case 356, 431
Lambeth Charities, In re 492
Lamplugh v. Lamplugh 506
Lancefield v. Iggulden 245
Lane, Jn re; Belli D. Lane 77
V. Leadbetter 384
V. Newdigate 307, 378
Lane Pox, In re ; Gimblett, ex p. 149
Langley o. Oxford (Earl) 472
Langston Ex p 421
TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE
Langstaffe v. Fenwiok 61
Langston v. Boylston 344, 345
— — V. OUivant 539
Langton v. Horton 420, 440
V. Langton .., 354
V. Waite 427
Lansdowne (Marq.) v. Lansdowne
(March.) 217, 219
V. 53
Lanoy v. Athol (Duke) 568
Lashley v. Hogg 237
Latouohe v. Dusany 165, 166
Latymer's Charity, In re 495
Laughter's Case 546
Lavery o. Pursell 20, 341
Law V. Garrett 617
V. Law 355
Lawless v. Mansfield ... 131, 133, S12
Lawley v. Hooper 80
Lawrence v. Campbell 631
u. Lawrence 453
V. Smith 881, 382
Lawton v. Carrfflion 59
Lea, In re; Lea v. Cooke 500
Leach v. Leach 133
Leader v. Pnrday 383
Leake v. Leake 623
Learoyd v. Halifax Banking Co. 632
V. Whiteley 534
Leary v. Shout 287
Leathes v. Leathes 297, 298, 630
Lechmere v. Brazier 316
V. Carlisle (Earl) 459, 460
V. Charlton 526
V. Lechmere (Lady) ... 459, 460
Leconturier v. Beg 388
Lee V. Alston 218
V. Clutton 161, 162, 165
V. Jones 92
V. Lee 309
V. Page 195
V. Park 234
Leech v. Trollop 634
Leeds (Duke) v. Amherst (Earl)
192, 223
V. Strafford (Earl) 262
V. New Radnor (Corp.) ... 44, 263
Leeke c. Bennett 255
Lees V. Nuttall 133
Legard v. Hodges 520
Legott V. Barrett 324
Leigh, Jn re; Leigh ». Leigh 571
V. Burnett 419
V. Dickeson 214, 522
Legg V. Goldwire 70, 71
Leighton v. Leighton 361, 362,
463, 467, 612
Lemau v. "Whitley 505
Lench u. Lench 521
Le Neve v. Le Neve 161, 162
Lennon v. Napper 315, 329
PAGE
Lenty v. Hillas 70
Leonard v. Leonard 56
Lerouse «. Brown 319
Leslie, In re; Leslie v. Prench ... 622
V. Baillie 63, 436
V. Thompson 85
- ». Young 384
Leslie, Ltd. v. Shiell 101
Lester v. Eoxcroft 312, 320
Lettershedt v. Broers 540
Letton I). Gooden 361
Lever v. Goodwin 380
Levick v. Epsom and Leatherhead
Ely 164
Levy V. Walker 388
Lewis, Ex p 624
, In re; Lewis v. Lewis 33,
46, 136, 660
». Pullarton 382, 384
V. Hillman 131, 132
Lightfoot u. Heron 96
Like V. Beresford 592
Liley v. Hey 448
Lilford (Lord) v. Powys-Keck 243, 519
Lilia V. Airey 576
Lind, In re; Industrials Finance
Synd., Ltd. v. Lind 432
Lindo V. Lindo 65
Lindsay v. Lynch 321, 323, 324
Lindsay Petroleum Co. o, Hurd ... 86
Lingen v. Simpson 285, 303
Linley v. Taylor 450
Little, In re 600
Liverpool Household Stores Assn.
t). Smith 388
Llanover v. Homfray 640
Lloyd, In re; Lloyd v. Lloyd ... 37
V. Attwood 93, 421
V. Banks 436, 437
V. Branton 117, 119
V. Grace Smith & Co 84
V. Johnes 201
«. Loaring 302
V. Mason 588, 501
V. Pughe 579
V. Bead 507
V. Spillet 396
's Bank v. Pearson 436
Locke V. Lomas 473
Lockhardt c. Hardy 424
Locking v. Parker 417
Lockwood V. Ewer 427
Lodge V. Prichard 289
Logan V. Wienholt 155, 305, 316,
334, 549
Lomas v. Wright 243
London and Birmingham Ely v.
Winter 327
London and County Bank v. God-
dard 169, 172
V. Lewis ... 167, 310, 370
TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE liondon Chartered Bank of Aus- tralia V. Lemprifere 568
London and Midland Bank v. Mit- chell 427
London (City) v. Nash 308
V. Perkins 361
». Pugh 307
L. & N. W. Rly., In re; Cooper,
ex p 47
L. & S. W. Rly. 0. Blackmore ... 65 London Gen. Omnibus Co. v. Hol-
loway 92, 155
Long V. Dermis 118
V. Eicketts 119
Longman v. Winchester 384
Loog (Hermann) v. Bean 389
Loosemore «. Knapman 525
Lopdell V. Creagh 225
Lord V. Jeffkins 144, 145
Lound V. Grimwade 121
Loval (Lord) v. Leeds (Duchess) 219
Imw v. Bouverie 82
V. Burron 405
Lowe ». Peers 112, 113, 119
Lowndes v. Cornford 345
V. Lane 85
Lowson V. Copeland 535
Lowther v. Carlton 167
Lowthian v. Hasel 171, 428
Loxley v. Heath 324
Loyd V. Brooking 406
Lubbock V. Tribe 221
Lucas V. Dixon 318
V. Lucas 579
Lucy's Case 59
Luddy's Trustee v. Peard 130
Ludlow (Corp.) v. Greehouse 484, 488
Lumley v. Wagner 307, 392
Lunn V. Thornton 432
Lupton V. White 193, 263
Lush's Trusts, In re 592
Lutkins v. Leigh 243
Luttrell V. Waltham (Lord) 105,
107, 332 Lyde v. Munn 309
V. Mynn 422
Lydney and Wigpool Iron Ore Co.
0. Bird 137
Lyell V. Kennedy 626, 631
Lyon V. Tweddell 195
Lysaght v. Edwards 335
V. Eoyse 573
Lythgoe ». Vernon 452
Lytton (Earl) v. Dewey 385
Mabeb v. Hobbs 435
McCarthy u. Decaix 55
McCormick v. Garnett 63
McCreight v. Foster 333, 334
McCulloch, In re 563
PAGE
McCulloch V. Gregory 613
McDonnell v. Heselrige 295
McFadden v. Jenkyns ... 317, 397, 398
McGruther v. Pitcher 517
McKewan v. Saunderson 154
McLeod V. Drummond ... 172, 173, 250
McManus v. Cooke 322
McNeil V. Cahill 154
McQueen v. Parquhar 85, 106, 168
Macartney v. Graham 43
Macaulay v. Shackell 638, 639
Macdonald v. Bell 212
V. Longbottom 324
V. Macdonald 252
Macdonnell v. Harding 533
Mackay, In re ; Griessermann o. Kerr 534
V. Bentley 69
V. Douglas 150
Mackenzie v. Coulson ... 68, 195, 405
V. Johnston 183, 184, 191
V. Bobinson 424
Mackintosh v. Pogose * 652
V. Townsend 498
Macklin v. Lichardson 385, 386
Mackreth v. Symmons 171, 214,
514, 515, 516, 518, 519
Maddeford v. Austwick 94
Maddison v. Alderson 319, 321
Maguire, In re 492
Maitland v. Backhouse 129
V. Irving 129
Major V. Lansley 584
Makepeace v. Rogers 190
Makings ». Makings 201
Malcolm v. Charlesworth 440
Maiden v. Menil 62
Malim v. Keighley 394, 446
Mallet V. Halfpenny ... 105, 139, 318
Man D. Ballet 494
Manaton v. Molesworth 364
Manby v. Robinson 345
Mann, In re; Hardy v. Att.-Gen. 496
Manning's (Mathew) Case 356
Manning v. Spooner 245
Mansel v. Mansel 407
Mansell v. Valley Printing Co. ... 385
Manton ». Manton 351
Mare v. Sandford 154
Marker v. Marker 219
Marples v. Bainbridge 118, 119
Marriage v. Skiggs 234
Marriott v. Marriott 228, 253
Marsden's Trust, In re 105, 106
Marsh v. Lee 169, 170
Marshall v. Colman 285
V. Rutton 586
Martidale v. Martin 478
Martin v. Cooper 33
V. Nutkin 391
V. Tomkinson 124
TABLE OF CASES.
XXV
PAGE Maskell and Goldfinch's Cont.,
In re 100
Mason, In re 188
t). Armitage 308
V. Gardiner 126
V. Goodburne 634, 637
V. Provident Clothing and
Supply Co 121
Masonic Gen. Life Assn. v. Sharpe 35
Massenburgh v. Ash 398
Massey v. Banner 183, 184
0. Davies 190
Masson Templar & Co. v. De Pries
244, 248
Mathews v. Feaver 148, 150
Matthew v. Bowler 519
Matthews v. Cartwright 428
V. Jones 890
V. Newby 231
». Smallwood 555
Matthewson v. Stockdale 384
Maugham ». Ridley 421
V. Sharpe 510
Maundrell v. Maundrell 160
Mawman v. Tegg 381, 384
Maxey Drainage Bd. v. G. N. Ely. 378
Maxwell v. Montacute 325
May V. Piatt 60, 65, 66, 68, 69, 71, 318
Mayer v. Murray 418
Mayhew v. Crickett 138
Mead v. Orrery (Lord) 163, 178
Mecca, The 187
Meek v. Kettlewell 338
Melhuish v. Moore 98
V. Milton 79, 176
Mellish «. Richardson 629
Merchant v. Driver 249
Mercier v. Mercier .". 509
Meredith u. Wynne 329
Mestaer ». Gillespie 35, 78
Metcalf V. Hervey 344
V. Pulvertoff 166
Metcalfe v. Hutchinson 444
Metropolitan Counties Soc. v.
Brown 66, 71, 294
Metropolitan Asylums Bd. v. Hill 877 Metropolitan Rly. v. Woodhouse ... 390
Meux V. Bell 487
V. Howell 430
Mexborough (Earl) ». Whitwood
Urban Council 631
Middleton's (Sir Thomas) Case... 482 o. Brown 101
V. Jackson 860
V. Middleton 35, 81, 318
V. Pollock; Knight and Ray- mond, ex p 608, 605
V. Pollock; Nugee, ex p.
602, 604, 605, 609
Midgley v. Midgley 288
Mignan v. Parry 70
PAGE
Milbourne ». Ewart 677
Miles c. Harrison 244
V. Langley 163
V. New Zealand Alford Es- tate Co 59
Millar «. Craig 222, 224, 225
Miller v. Blandist 317
1). Harris 562
u. Warmington 262
Mills V. Banks 422
V. Bowyer's Co 614, 615
V. Campbell, 629
V. Eden ..." 239
V. Parmer 477, 483, 490, 493, 496
V. Haywood 319, 320
Millett V. Davy 873
Milner, ex p.; Milner, In re .... 163
v. Milner 78
Milnes v. Gery 49, 322
Mirams, In re 422
Mirehouse v. Scaife ;... 243
Mitchell «. Hayne 344
Mitford V. Mitford 620
V. Reynolds 498
Mogg V. Hodges 245
Moggridge v. Thackwell 477, 483,
488, 490, 491, 494, 496, 499, 500, 501
Mole I). Mansfield 278
Monck V. Monck (Lord) 463
Mondey v. Mondey 424
Montacute v. Maxwell 139, 326
Montague v. Dudmau 627
B. Sandwich (Earl) 462
Montefiore v. Guedalla 463, 466
Montesquieu v. Sandys ... 130, 132, 133
Montreal (Bank) v. Stuart 294
Moodaley o. Morton 638
Moodie v. Bannister 233
V. Reid 75, 77
Moody V. "Walters 401, 408
Moor D. Black 265
Moore, In re; Trafford v. Macono-
chie 120
V. Darton 256
V. Ellis 677
V. Usher 344
Moran v. Race 596
Moravian Society, In re 641
Mordue i). Palmer 78
More V. Preeman 578
V. More 570
Morecock v. Dickens 166
Morehouse v. Newton 223
Morgan, Ex p 521
, In re; Pilgrem v. Pilgrem 249
V. Dillon 560
V. Larivifere 221, 339
0. Marsack 346
». Mather 615, 616
V. Minett 130
V. Morgan 119
XXVI
TABLE OP CASES.
"Morice v. Durham (Bp.) 485, 486, 497
Morrison v. Moat 389
Morley v. Loughnan 136
V. Morley 532
V. Eennoldson 115, 119
Mornington (Countess) ». Keane
621, 526 Morocco Bound Synd. c. Harris 388
Morphett v. Jones 319, 320, 321
Morret j). Paske 171
Morrice v. Bank of England 231,
232, 233, 234, 236
Morris ». Baron & Co 326
V. Colman 391
V. Kelly 386
V. McCullock 122
, Ltd. V. Saxelby ... 121, 307, 335
Morrison v. Arnold 640
Morse c. Roach 613
V. Eoyal 127, 136
Mortimer v. Capper 49
J). Shortall 60, 68, 69, 70
Morllock V. Buller 80, 293
Moseley v. Simpson 106
«. Victoria Co 632
Moses V. Levi 537
Moss B. Barton 307
V. Gallimore 419
Motteaux v. London Assce. Co. ... 70
Mount, Ex p 673
Moxhay v. Inderwick 333
Moxon V. Payne 144
Moyle V. Home 317
Mullens v. Miller 84
MuUineaux v. Mullineaux 258
Mundy v. Mundy 264, 265, 276
Munns v. Isle of Wight Ely. ... 621
Murray v. Bogue 383
1). Elibank (Lord) 585, 588,
591, 692
Murrell v. Goodyer 612, 614
Murthwaite ». Jenkinson 406
Mustnpha b. Wedlake 256
Mutlow V. Bigg 337
Naibn v. Prowse 515, 518
Nantes 0. Carrock 136
Nash V. Derby (Earl) 666
V. Inman 99
V. Morley 485
National Phonograph Co. v. Edison
Bell Nat. Phon. Co 301
National Provincial Bank of Eng- land, Ex p. ; Boulter, In re ... 70, 318
, In re Newton ... 237
, In re Eees 209
National Provincial Bank ti. Jack- eon 73
V. Marshall 305, 649
V. Glennusk (Baron) 92
PAGE
National Trustee Co. of Austra- lasia V. Gen. Finance Co 534
Naylor v. Winch 55, 59
Neal's (Sir Paul) Case 679
Neale, In re 562
V. Neale 59
Neate v. Marlborough (Duke) ... 514
V. Pink 361
Nelson v. Bridges 339
B. Duncombe 673
V. Stocker 87
Nelthorpe v. Holgate 87, 90
Nesbitt V. Tredennick 419
Nevill V. Snelling 140, 141
Neville v. London "Express"
Nevpspaper, Ltd 437
V. Matthewman 355
V. Wilkinson ... 35, 82, 83, 111
Newcastle (Duke) v. Lincoln
(Countess) 404
(Duchess) V. Pelham (Lord) 631
Newdigate v. Newdigate 374
Newen, In re; Newen v. Barnes 298
Newham v. May 339
Newman v. Barton 213, 627
V. Newman 436, 456
V. Pinto 387
New Eiver Co. v. Greaves 360
Newstead v. Searles 405
Newton v. Bennett 235
V. Marsden 117
Nichol ». Bestwick 152
Nicholas v. Eidley 209
Nichols 1). Chalie 614
V. Pitman 386
V. Eoe 614
Nicholson v. Chapman 522
c. Hooper 157, 428
V. Eevell 208
Nickels v. Hancock 617
Nickolson v. Knowles 346
Nightingale v. Goulburn 485
Nives V. Nives 519
Nocton V. Ashburton (Lord) ... 82, 84
Noel V. Eobinson 213, 229, 517
V. Ward 631
Nordenfeldt ». Maxim Nordenfeldt
Guns and Ammunition Co 121
Nokes V. Gibbon 549, 553
t!. Kilmorey (Lord) 315
Norey v. Keep 626
Noriss V. Chambers 369
Norfolk (Duke) v. Myers 360
Norman ». Morrill 243
Norris, Ex p.; Sadler, in re .... 237
North V. Ansall 104
North British Insce. Co. v. Lloyd 92 North London Ely. v. G. N. Ely.
364, 617 North West Transportation Co. v. Beatty 137
TABLE OF OASES.
PAGE
Northen B.- Carnegie 507
Northern Counties of England Fire
Insoe. Co. v. Whipp 1S9
Nugent V. Vetaera 571
Nutbrown v. Thornton ... 302, 303, 308
Oakes v. Turquand 294
Oatway, In re; Hertslet v. Oat- way 193, 263
O'Connor v. Spaight 180, 182
Odessa Tramways Co. v. Mendel 107
Oelkers ». Ellis 35
Ogilvie V. Poljambe 324
Okill V. Whittaker 64, 65, 67
Oldfield, In re ; Oldfield v. Oldfield 447
Oliphant v. Hendrie 498
Olliver's Settlement, In re ; Evered
V. Leigh 467
Oliver v. King 151
Olley V. Fisher ... 20, 69, 70, 71, 312
Ommaney v. Butcher 486, 497
Onions v. Cohen 297
V. Tyrer 48
Opera, Ltd., In re 52
Oquendo, The 204
Orby V. Trigg .._. 420
Orme, In re 505
Ormond (Marq.) v. Kynersley 217, 219 O'Korke b. Bolingbroke ... 140, 141, 142
Orr V. Diaper 626
Osborn v. Morgan ... 585, 587, 588, 589 Osborne ». Bradley 311
V. Eowlatt 57
V. Williams 124, 125
Osbaldiatou v. Simpson 125
Osmond v. Fitzroy 109
Ostell V. Le Page 369
Ouseley v. Anstruther 246
Owen V. Griffith 215
V. Homan 92
Owens V. Bean 492
Oxenden v. Compton .... 660, 561, 572 Oxenham v. Esdaile 513
Pacaza Rubber and Produce Co.,
In re; Burns' Appln 86
Padbury v. Clark 457
Paddon v. Richardson 539
Page V. Broom 329, 504
V. Midland Rly 324
Paget V. Marshall 65, 69
Pain V. Coombs 320
Paine V. Miller 48
Palmer's Case 188
Palmer v. Hendrie 424
B. Johnson 64
— ^- V. Moore 555
. V. Neave Ill
Pankhurst 8. Howell 466
PAGE
Papillon B. Voice 404
Paradine b. Jane 48, 194
Pardo B. Bingham 237
Parfitt V. Lawless 130
Paris (1. Gilham 346
Paris Chocolate Co. v. Crystal
Palace Co 331
Parker b. Brooke 163
B. Gerrard 277
V. McKenna 529
B. Sowerby 450
B. Trigg 278
Parkhurst B. Lowten 631
B. Smith 407
Parkin, In re; Hill v. Schwartz ... 334
Parkinson v. Hanbury 224, 418
Parmeter b. Gibbs 376
Parrott b. Congreve 390
V. Palmer 218
Parry, In re; Scott b. Leake .... 255
Parsons, Ex p 533
V. Baker 448
Partridge v. Partridge 546
B. Walker 478
Paschall v. Ketterick 255
Pascoe V. Swan 214, 278
Pasley v. Freeman 82, 87
Patrick, In re; Bills b. Tatham 437
Paterson b. Scot 243
Patman v. Harland 163
Pawlet B. Ingres 360
Paxton B. Douglas 233
Payton v. Bladwell 110
Peace v. Harris 299
Peachy B. Somerset (Duke) 660,
553, 556
Peacock b. Evans 141
u. Monck 583
Peake, Ex p 519
B. Highfield 297
Pearce b. Crutchfield 571
V. Green 190, 191
V. Piper 370
Pearl v. Deacon 137, 208, 209
Pearse v. Green 535
Pearson b. Morgan 84, 157
Pease b. Hewitt 196
Peckering B. Kimpton 258
Peers b. Lambert 64, 85, 314, 330
V. Neeham 279
Pelton Bros. v. Harrison 599
Pember B. Mathers 309
Pemberton v. Barnes 281
B. Pemberton 79, 612
Pembroke b. Thorpe 305, 308, 321
Pendlebury B. Walker 204
Penn v. Baltimore (Lord) 263, 309,
313, 369, 392, 542
Pennell B. Dysart (Earl) 298
Penrhyu B. Hughes 201
Pentland v. Stokes 166
XXVlll
TABLE OF CASES.
Percival (Lord) v. Phipps 385, 386
Perkins, In re; Perkins v. Bagot 106
; Poyser v. Beyfus 65
Perrius v. Bellamy 534
Perry v. Attwood 223
c. Barker 424
V. Meadowcroft 420
— — V. Nat. Prov. Bank of Eng- land 138
V. Phillips 232, 233, 234
V. Shipway 540
V. Truefitt 387
Perry's Almshouses, In re 501
Persse v. Persse 59, 62
Petch ». Tutin 432
Peter v. NiohoUs 151
B. Eussell 158
Peters v. Blake 375
Petit V. Smith 231
Petre v. Espinasse 151
». Petre 301, 528
Philanthropic Soc. v. Kemp 244
Philip V. Pennell 385, 386
Phillips, Ex p 558, 560, 570, 572
Phillips V. Cayley 77
V. Foxhall 92
V. Homfray 216, 217, 218
V. Hudson 360
V. Jones 298
V. Phillips 37, 159
t). Silvester 514
's Trusts, In re 437
Phillipson v. Gatty 529
Phipps V. Lovegrove 436
Pickard, Ex p 673
V. Sears 156, 157
Pickering «. Cape Town Ely 617
V. Stamford (Lord) 35
Pickett V. Loggon 105
Pickstock V. Lyster 430
Pidcock V. Bishop 83, 92, 137, 155
Pierce v. Thornley 590
V. Webb 297
Piercey v. Fynney 291
Pierson v. Garnett 447
». Hutchinson 42
Pigot V. Cubley 428
Pike B. Fitzgibbon 101
V. Nicholas 382
Pilcher v. Eawlins 163
Pink, In re ; Pink v. Pink 299, 511
Pinnell v. Hallett 459
Pitt V. Cholmondeley 223
V. Jones 281
Plenty v. West 246
Plumb V. Fluitt 157, 158, 162
Plymouth (Countess) v. Throg-
morton 194
Pocoek J). Eeddington 529
Podmore v. Gunning 325
Pollexfen v. Moore 515
PAGE
Pollock, In re ; Pollock v. Worrall
463, 466
Poole, 7n re; Thompson c. Bennett 236
V. Adams 521
1). Bott 118
V. Middleton 308
V. Shergold 33, 330
Pooley V. Quilter 136
V. Eudd 302
Poor V. Clark 360
Pope V. Curl 385
V. Gwinn 236
Popham V. Lancaster 360
Porcher v. Wilson 243
Portarlington (Lord) v. Soulby ... 369
Porter t>. Bolton 447
V. Lopes 281
Porter's Case 478, 479, 506
Portland (Duke) v. Topham ...105, 106
Portmore (Earl) v. Taylor 143
Portsmouth (Earl) v. Fellows ... 541
Post V. Marsh 107
Pothonier v. Dawson 428
Potter V. Sanders 333, 334
Powell V. Evans Jones & Co 133
V. Powis 360
V. Eiley 246, 445
V. Smith '. 52
Power, In re; Acworth v. Storie... 235 V. Bailey 333
V. Banks 512
Powis V. Blagrave 373
Powys V. Mansfield 459, 463
Pratt V. Brett 218, 307, 373
Prebble v. Boghurst 577
Prevost V. Clarke 447
Price V. Cheesman 287
V. Fashredge 171
V. Jenkins 173
V. North 236
V. Price 98, 166
V. Varney 215
V. Williams 616
Prichard v. Gee 638
Priddy v. Eose 504
Priestley v. Lamb 570
Priestman v. Thomas 176, 611
Prime v. Stebbing 459
Primrose v. Bromley 207
Pritchard v. Ovey 307
Pritt 5). Clay 225
Probert v. Clifford 680
Progers v. Langham 154
Produce Brokers Co. «. Olympia
Oil and Cake Co 615
Professional Life Assce., In re ... 267
Prosser v. Edmonds 431, 434
Prudential Asses. Co. v. Knott ... 388
Pugh V. Heath 30
Pullen V. Eeady 53
PuUerton v. Agnew 545
TABLE OF CASES.
XXIX
PAGE
Pulsford I). Bichards 83, 85
Pulteuey c. Warren 215, 216, 217,
265, 551
Pultuey V. Shelton 372
Purdue v. Jackson 590, 591
Pusey I). Desbouvrie 54
V. Pusey 302
Pybus V. Mitford 506
Pye, Ex p 338, 464
V. George 400
Pym V. Blackburn 48
V. Lockyer 458, 463
Pyne, In re; Lilley b. Att.-Gen. 496
QuABRiBE V. Colston 127
Quartz Hill Cons. Gold Mining
Co. V. Beall 389
Quick V. Haines 249
Quin and Axtens, Ltd. v. Salmon 137
Eaffeety v. King 426
Kailton v. Matthews 87, 89, 92
BamloU v. SoojomnuU 121
Eamsay v. Shelwerdine 507
Eamsbotham v. Senior 567
Bamsden v. Dyson 156
V. Hylton 56, 56
Bamuz v. Clay 43
Bandall v. Phillips 151
■ V. Willis 155
Baphael v. Boehm 636
Batcliffe v. Barnard 421
Baw V. Potts 35
Eawden v. Shadwell 126
Eawlins u. Powell 468
». Wickham 84
Bawson v. Samuel 603, 604, 605
Bay V. Bay 249
Bayner v. Koehler 227
V. Preston 48
Bead v. Anderson 121
V. Brokman 41
«. Price 152
Beade v. Lowndes 209
Beddaway v. Banham 387
Bedding v. Wilkes 325
Eede v. Farr 554
Eedfern v. Eedfern 631
V. Smith 574
Bedgrave v. Kurd 83, 86
Eedington v. Bedington 201
Bedman v. Bedman Ill
Beech v. Kennigate 300, 332
Beed ». Norris 133, 512
Bees V. Berrington 138
V. De Bernardy 98, 122, 141,
437, 438 Bees Biver Silver Mining Co. v.
Smith 83, 295
Eeeve -u. Parkins 370
Beeves v. Pope 609
PAGE
Beg. V. Cox 632
Behden v. Wesley 533
Beid-Newfoundland Co. v. Anglo- American Telegraph Co 533
Eeid V. Beid 597
• u. Shergold 76
Beiuer v. Salisbury (Marq.) 627
Benals v. Cowlishaw 309, 311
Eendall v. Blair 487
Benter v. Sala 329
Eevell V. Huosey 294, 312
Bevett V. Harvey ;.... 134
Beynell v. Sprye 122, 438
Bex V. Bennett 212
V. Bowes 625
V. Watson 430
V. Whitstable (Free Fishers) 215
Eeyuish v. Martin 255
Beynolds v. Pitt 549, 561, 653
V. Waring 321, 322, 323
Bhodes, In re; Bhodes v. Ehodes 95
V. Bate 131
Bice V. Bice 519
Bich V. Aldred 343
V. Cockell 578, 581
V. Jackson 71, 324
Bichards,, In re; Humber v.
Bichards 436
V. Chambers 585
V. Jones 603, 609
V. Noble 218, 219
Eichardson v. Bank of England ... 287
V. Feary 281
V. Horton 72, 73
V. Nourse 616
V. Young 426
Bicherson, In re ; Scales v. Heyhoe 338
Eider v. Kidder 124, 507
Eidgway «. Woodhouse 546
Bidler, In re; Bidler v. Bidler 149, 150
Eidout I/. Plymouth (Earl) 680
Eigden v. Pierce 287
V. Vallier 509
Bipon (Earl) v. Hobart 376
Bippon V. Dawding 576, 577
Eitchie v. Smith 122
Bivaz 0. Gerussi 93
Bivett's Case 482
Eoach v. Garvan 563
Boberdeau v. Ecus 313
Eoberts, In re ; Fowler v. Boberts 234
, ; Knight v. Boberts ... 534
— — V. Barry Improvement Com- missioners 546
D. Gray 99
V. Kuffin 222
V. Marchaut 336
V. Oppenheim 626
V. Eoberts 110, 390
Bobertson v. Hartopp 45
Bobinson, In re 434, 594
XXX
TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE
Eobinson ». Bland 126
V. Byron (Lord) 378
V. Geldard 244
V. Jenkins 347
V. Lowater 444, 472
V. Preston 509
V. Eobinson 536
V. Tongue 514
V. Wall 87
t). Wheelwright ... 457, 546, 599
V. Wilson 212
Eoby, In re; Hewlett v. Newing-
ton 461, 467
Rochfoucauld v. Boustead 132, 133, 612
Eochfort V. Ely (Earl) 560
V. Pitzmaurice 403, 404
Sogers, Ex p 298
V. Dallimore 616, 617
V. Hadley 69
V. Hosegood 311
V. Ingham 221, 528
V. Eogers 370
Rolfe V. Gregory 528
EoUand v. Hart 161, 162, 165
Rook V. Worth 308
Eoper ti. Holland 254
Roscarrick v. Barton 417
Eose V. Hyman 555
V. Poulton 290, 577
V. Spicer 555
c. Watson 214, 319,574
EosB V. Close 636
EosBwell's Case 78
Roundell v. Currer 546
Rous V. Barker 262
Rouse V. Bradford Banking Co. ... 138
Routh V. Webster 387
. Rowe V. 638
V. Rowe 468
V. Wood 373
Rowell v. Sutchell 311
Roy V. Beaufort (Duke) 98
Ruchiner v. Polsue & Alferi, Ltd. 377
Rudd V. Lasoelles 314, 315, 331
Eudge ti. Hopkins 360
Euffin, Ex p 527
Eule V. Jewell 555
Ruscoe V. Richards 631
Rush V. Higgs 232, 233
Rushforth, Ex p 212
RuBsel V. Eussel 421
Eussell, Ex p 196
V. Dickson 469
V. East Anglian Ely 353
V. Jackson 632
Eyall V. Eolle 413
!). Eowles 414
Rymer, In re; Eymer v. Stanfleld 492
St. Dunstan (Pooe) v. Beauchamp
480, 488
PAGE
St. John V. St. John 595
St. Luke's Parish,!!. St. Leonard's
Parish 261
Sackvill V. Aylworth 637
Sackville West v. Holmesdale
(Vise.) -404
Sadler v. Hinxman 213
V. Hobbs 539
V. Worley 427
Sale V. Moore 447, 448
Salisbury (Lord) v. Wilkinson ... 190
Salkeld v. Vernon 85
Salmon, In re ; Priest v. Uppleby
512, 529
Salomons v. Knight 389
Salt, In re; Brothwood v. Eeeling 243 Salvin v. N. Brancepeth Coal Co. 377
Sampson & Wall, In re 571
Samuel v. Newbold 141, 295
Sanderson's Trusts, In re 573
Sandon v. Hooper 419
Sanford v. Remington 632
Saunders v. Dehew 161, 400
V. Leslie 518
V. Newbod 295
Savage v. Poster 156, 157, 320
Savery u. King , 127, 129, 144, 145
Saville c. Tankred 302
Savoy c. Dyer 364
Saxby v. Easterbrook 388
Saxton V. Bartley 281
Say V. Barwick 96
Sayer v. Pierce 216
Sayers c. CoUyer 311
Scarf V. Jardine 72
Scawin v. Scawin 508
Schlencker o. Moxsy 283, 577
Schneider v. Heath 83, 87
Schofield V. Ingham 419
Scholefield v. Templer 145
Scholfield V. Londesborough (Earl) 157
Scotland (Bank) v. Christie 185
Scribblehill v. Brett 109, 110
Scott, In re; Langton ». Scott 459, 464
V. Alvarez 312, 341
V. Avery 49
V. Becher 230, 528
V. Coulson 63, 64, 91
c. Hanson 86
V. Liverpool Corp 286
V. Nesbit 126, 295
■». Porcher 435
V. Rayment 285
0. Surman 191, 520
V. Tyler 115, 117, 118
Scurfield v. Howes 538
Seagrave v. Knight 375
V. Seagrave 593
Searle v. Choat 351, 852, 353
V. Cooke 44, 262
Seaton v. Seaton 100, 456
TABLE OF OASES.
PAGE Seddon v. N. Eastern Salt Co. ... 64
Seeon v. Lawson 435
Seeley v. Jago 337
Belby v. Selby 242, 615, 519
Sellack v. Harris 325
Seruenza v. Brinsley 606
Sergeson v. Sealey 202
SetoD V. Slade 45, 315, 329, 335,
836, 416, 544
Seymore v. Treailian 580
Seymour v. Prickett 188
Shaftesbury (Lady) v. Arro-wsmith
627, 630
Shannon v. Bradateed 47
Shardlow v. Cotterill 324
Sharmau v. Bell 615, 616
u. Brandt 290
Sharp, In re; Eickett v. Eickett 51, 62
V. Carter 352
V. Taylor 124
Sharpe v. Foy 101, 105
Shaw V. Bower 473
V. Foster 833, 436
V. Jersey (Earl) 298
V. Neale 613
V. Picton 224
V. Thackray 96
Shedden v. Patrick 105
Sheffield v. Buckinghamshire
(Duchess) 611
Sheffield Waterworks v. Yeomans 860 Shelburne (Earl) v. Biddulph 307, 309 Sheldon v. Forteacue Aland 557,
560, 573 Shelf er v. City of London Electric
Lighting Co 377
Shelley's Case 398
Shelley v. Westbrooke 664
Shelly V. Nash 142, 145
Shepard v. Jones 419
Shephard, In re; Atkins v. Shep-
hard 861
Shepherd v. Harris 539
B. Tilley 171, 428
V. Wright 204
Sheppard, In re; De Brimont v.
Harvey 533
V. Elliot 419
Sheridan v. Joyce 528
Sheriff i'. Butler 227
Sherman v. Sherman 628
Sherry, In re; London & County
Bk. V. Terry 185, 187
Sherwood v. Sanderson ... 557, 560, 672
Shewen v. Vanderhoat 233
Shields, In re; Corbould-Ellis v.
Dales 459, 466
Ship V. Crosskill 82
Shirley v. Ferrers (Earl) 638
Shore v. Wilson 489, 501
Shortridge v. Lamplugh 506
PAGR
Shrewsbury (Countess) v. Shrews- bury (Earl) 200
Shrewsbury v. Blount 86
Shrewsbury & Birmingham Ely.
V. L. & N. W. Ely 313
Shrewsbury & Chester Ely. v. Shrewsbury & Birmingham Ely. 390
Shuldham v. Smith 630
Shulter's Case 33
Sibbard v. Hill 93
Sibbering o. Balcarres (Earl) 144
Sichel V. Mosenthal 285
Sidebotham v. Barrington -330
Sidney v. Sidney 592
Silk V. Prime 236, 236
Sillitoe, Ex p 291
Simmonds, Ex p 52
Simmons v. Cornelius 317
Simpson v. Howden (Liord) 121,
154, 293, 294, 297 Simson v. Cooke 185
V. Ingham 185, 188
Skip V. Harwood 290, 352
Skipworth v. Skip worth 192, 223
Skyring v. Greenwood 224
Skyrme, Ex p 240, 241
Slade V. Tucker 632
Slamming v. Style 357, 579
Slater's Trusts, In re 142
Sleech's Case 72, 188, 289
Sleight V. Lawson 539
Slevin, In re; Slevin v. Hepburn 497
Slingsby v. Boulton 847
Sloman v. Walter 45, 549
Small V. Marwood 430
Smallman o. Onions 374
Smart v. Smart 562, 664, 665
V. Tranter 597, 600
Smith, In re; Oswell v. Shepherd 73
B. Capron 163
V. Chadwick 85
V. Chichester 630
V. Clarke 121
V. Claxton 338
V. Clay 35, 225
c. Colbourne 312
V. Cowan 351
V. Cowell 353
V. Everett 540
V. Fremont 310
V. Garland 151, 171
V. Harrison 87, 90
V. Hibbard 885
V. Jones 165
V. Kay 128
V. Leveanx 190
0. Moffatt 543
V. Nethersole 623
V. Packhurst 74
v. Pincombe 55, 59
V. Scotland (Bank) ... 83, 86, 155
XXXll
TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE Smith V. Smith 571
V. Stowell 493
V. Warde :. 299
V. Wheatcroft 327
Smith's Will, In re 356
Smith & Nelson, In re 616
Smyth, Ex p 193, 194, 195
Snelling v. Thomas 327
Sneyd v. Sneyd 76
Snowdon, Ex p., In re Snowdon 207
Soar V. Ashwell 526
Soci^t^ Anon, des Manuf. de Glaces
V. Tilghman's Patent Sand Blast
Co 389
Soci^t^ Anon. Panhard et Levassor
V. Panhard Levassor Motor Co. 388 Solicitors & General Assce. v.
Lamb 271
Soltau V. De Held 377, 378
Somers Cocks , In re; Wegg Prosser
I). Wegg Prosser 496
Somerset (Duke) v. Cookson 802
Somerset, In re; Somerset v.
Poullett (Earl) 399
South, Ex p 435, 436, 440
u. Bloxam 268
Southampton Dock Co. v. Southamp- ton Board 19
Southcomb v. Exeter (Bp.) 329
Southcote's Case 574
Southey ». Sherwood 381
South Wales Ely. v. Wythes ... 331 Southwark Water Co. v. Quick ... 633
Sowden v. Sowden 459
Spalding v. Gamage 388
Sparks v. Liverpool Water Works 555 Speer v. Crawter ... 258, 259, 260, 262
Speight V. Gaunt 532
Spike v. Walrond 273
Spence, In re 562, 563
Spencer (Earl) v. Peek 636
Spencer v. Pearson 169
Spicer v. Martin 309, 311
Spike V. Harding 262
Spiller V. Spiller 310
Spooner v. Pain 434
Sprange v. Lee 284
Spread v. Morgan 456, 457
Sproule V. Prior 242, 519
Sprye v. Porter 437
Squire c. Dean 586
Staokpole v. Beaumont ... 114, 115, 592
Stainton v. Carron Co 221, 235
Stanford v. Eoberts 298
Staniland v. Willott 256
Stannard v. St. Giles (Vestry),
Camberwell 379
Stanley v. Stanley 101
Stansfield v. Habergham ... 373, 407
Stapilton v. Stapilton 55, 69, 74
Stapleford Coll. Co 630
PAGE
Stapleton v. Stapleton 398
Stead V. Clay 370, 390
Steadman v. Hockley 214
Steel V. Dixon 208
Steff V. Andrews 616
Stephens, Ex p 601, 603, 605
V. Green 437
V. James 568
Stevens, In re ; Cooke v. Stevens 536 V. Bagwell 123, 438
V. Savage 571
V. Stevens 454, 455
V. Trevor-Garrick 600
Stewart v. Hall 523
V. Stewart 53, 56, 62
Stickney v. Keeble 315, 329
Stikeman v. Dawson 101
Stileman u. Ashdown 425
Stillwell V. Wilkinson 102
Stilwell V. Wilkins 353
Stirling v. Burdett 207
V. Forrester 138, 202
Stock V. McAvoy 508
Stockley v. Parsons 597
V. Stockley 58, 59
Stocks V. Dobson 436
V. Wilson 99, 101
Stoell V. Boleter 624, 625
Stogdon V. Lee 582, 599
Stone V. Comptou 92
V. Lidderdale 434
V. Littledale 121
Stones V. Cook 594
Storer t,. G. W. Ely 309
Storey v. Johnson 278
Stowell (Lady) v. Cole 221
Strange t. Harris 230
Strangways v. Eead 133
Strathmore (Countess) v. Bowes 112 Stranbenzee (Van), In re ; Boustead
V. Cooper 196
Streatfield v. Streatfield 451
Street v. Eigby 614
V. Street 622
Stribley v. Hawkie 313
Strong V. Bird 299
Stuart , In re; Smith v . Stuart ... 534
Stuart «. Bute (Marq.) 559, 662, 567
V. Kirkwall (Lord) 586
Stubbs ». Sargon 505
V. Slater 133, 427
Stucley, In re; Stucley v. Keke-
wich 517
Sturge V. Sturge 58, 60
Sturgis V. Champneys ... 589, 590, 591
Sturt V. Mellish 394
Styles V. Gury 535
Sudlow D. Dutch Ehenish Ely. ... 555
Suffolk (Earl) v. Green 636
Suisse V. Lowther (Lord) 466, 469
Sumner o. Powell 72, 73
TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE
Snmpter v. Hedges 156
Sutherland v. Brigga 320
Suttou V. Chetwynd (Viae.) 398
Swaine D. G. N. Ely 377
Swan V. Swan 278, 280, 522
Swanwick v. Lifford 422
Sweet V. Southoote 168
Swift V. Swift 564
Sympson v. Hornsby 47
Tailby o. Official Eeceiver 482
Talbot (Earl) v. Scott 375, 379
Talbot V. Frere 171, 235
-^ V. Badnor (Earl) 7..... 455
Talbott V. Shrewsbury (Duke) 467,
468, 563 Tallerman v. Dowring Eadiant
Heat Co 389
Talmarsh v. MugleSton 35
Tamplin v. James 20, 30, 312, 326, 341 Tanqueray Willaume & Landau,
In re 249
Tapling v. Jones 418, 423
Tate V. Hilbert 256, 338
Tatham v. Wright 612
Taunton v. Morris 589, 594
Taylor v. Beech 325
V. Coenan 150
V. Fields 527
V. Haylin 221, 222
V. London & County Bk. 169,
172, 436
V. Meads 583, 584
V. Plumer 528
V. Popham 417, 450
V. Portington 324
V. Eussell 159, 161, 418
V. Stibbert 335
V. Taylor 467, 609
Taylor Sons & Co., Ex p 151
Teale v. Teale 278
Teesdale v. Teesdale 156
Tenham (Lord) u. Herbert 360, 361, 362
Thackwell v. Gardiner 77
Thellusson v. Woodford 450, 456
Thetford School Case 478
Thomas, In re ; Sutton Garden &
Co. 5). Thomas 226
Thomas v. Canterbury (Archb.) ... 229
V. Brigstocke 355
V. Edwards 388
V. Jones 378
V. Lloyd 131
V. Oakley 379
V. Porter 556
V. Thomas 171
Thompson ». Fisher 446
V. Harcourt 302
V. Hodgson 256
v. Hudson 188
V. Leake 34, 78, 556
PAGE
Thompson v. Smith 78, 622, 623
V. Stanhope 386
Thomson v. Thomson 122
Thorley's Cattle Food Co. c.
Massam 388
Thorn v. Bigland 82
Thornborough v. Baker 256, 416
Thornborrow v. Whiteacre ... 545, 546
Thorndike v. Hunt 227
Thorne v. Heard 533
V. Kerr 249
Thorneycroft v. Crockett 170
Thornton v. Knight 297
V. StokiU 529
Thoroughgood's Case 33
Thursby, In re ; Grant ». Littledale 84
Thwaites v. Foreman 237
Thynne (Lady) v. Glengall (Earl)
459, 460, 462, 465
Thynne v. Shove 388
Tichner, In re 437
Tickel V. Short 224
Tidd V. Lister 590
Tilley v. Bridges 216
Tillott, In re; Lee v. Wilson ... 535
Timson v. Eamsbottom 161, 437
Tindall v. Powell 190
Tinsley v. Lacey 382
Tipping V. Tipping 242, 580
Tissen v. Tissen 366
Tittenson v. Peat 633
Todd V. Gee 340
Toilet V. Toilet 33, 46, 47, 75, 76
Tolson V. Collins 468
V. Sheard 335
Tombs V. Eock 246
Tomlinson v. Harrison 622
Tomson v. Judge 129
Tommins v.- Prout 370
Topham v. Portland (Duke) ... 105, 106
Toplis V. Hurrell 539
Torrance v. Bolton 90
Towell V. Band 157
Tower v. Eous (Lord) 246, 525
Towers ». Davys 301
Townley v. Sherburne 537
Townsend (Marq.) v. Stangrom
53, 69, 105, 324, 327
Townsend v. Ash 217
V. Lowfield 82
V. Westacott 150
Townshend (Lord) v. Windham
149, 244, 578, 580 •
Trafford v. Boehm 534
Travis v. Milne 173
Treasury Solicitor v. Lewis 256
Trego V. Hunt 388
Tregonwell v. Sydenham 507
Trenohard v. Wanley 82
Trevor o. Trevor 404
Trimmer v. Bayne 209
XXXIV
TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE
Trinidad Asphalte Co. v. Coryat 160
Troughton c. Binkes 423
Trowell v. Shenton 174
Trower v. Newcombe 83, 86
Trutch V. Lamprell 539
Tubbs, In re; Dykes o. Tubb ... 444 Tucker «. Bennett 68, 300
V. Laing 138
I). Lingern 218
V. Phipps 105
V. Wilson 427
Tuff, /n re; Nottingham, eai p. ... 597
Tuffnell V. Page 493
Tulk V. Moxhay 311
TuUett V. Armstrong 582, 599
Tullock V. Hartley 263
Turner's Case 589, 690
Turner v. Collins 129
u. Green 67
V. Harvey 82, 87, 88, 293
0. Merryweather 638
V. Newport 196
V. Tomer 65
I). Wright 219, 373
Turquand v. Dawson 638
u. Wilson 192
Turton v. Benson 110
u. Turton 387
Tussaud, In re; Tussaud v.
Tussaud 462
Tuther v. Caralampi 20
Twiss V. Maasey 289
Twyne's Case 148, 149, 161
Tyler v. Yates 142
Tyndale v. Warre 514
Tynt J). Tynt 580
Tyrrell v. Bank of London ... 133, 192
Tyson v. Fairclough 354
V. Smith 682
Udell v. Atherton 84
Underbill v. Van Cortlaindt ... 619
Underwood v. Courtown 165, 166
Upwell V. Halsey 356
Uvedale v. Bttrick 541
Vachel v. Vachel 356
Vallanoe, In re ; Vallance v. Blag- don 123
Vandenberg v. Palmer 397
Vandergucht v. De Blaquiere 622
Vanderzee v. Willis 428
Vane (Earl) v. Eigden 444
Vane v. Dungannon (Lord) 106
Van Gelder Apsimon & Go. o. Sowerby Bridge Flour Soc. 418, 419
Vansittart v. Vansittart 564
Vardon's Trusts, In re 461, 457
Vaughan, Ex p 563
Venning v. Leckie 284
Venture, The 505, 507
PAGE
Vernon's Case 127
Vernon v. Keys 67
V. Vawdry 540
V. Vernon 309
Vezey v. Jamson 486
Vigers v. Pike 326
Viola V. Anglo-American Cold
Storage Co 363
Voll T. Smith 317
Vulliamey v. Noble 603, 605
Vyvian v. Vyvian 347
W. V. B 125
Wace V. Bickerton 71
V. Mallard 447
Wade V. Coope 209
I/. Paget 76
Wadman v. Caloroft 553
Wagstaff, In re ; Wagstaff v.
Jalland 78
Wain V. Bailey 43
Wake V. Conyers ... 258, 260, 262, 264
Walcot I). Walker 381
Waley Bridge Co. v. Green 137
Walker, In re 95, 588, .592
, In re; Sheffield Bkg. Co.
V. Clayton 209
; Walker v. Buncombe 668
• V. Armstrong 70
V. Jackson 246
V. Limon 159
V. Meager '. 238
V. Perkins 123
V. Symonds 636, 638
V. Taylor 172, 260
u. Walker 326
i>. Ware Hadham & Bunting- ford Ely 621
V. Wetherell 569
Wall V. Stubbs 86
Wallace v. Auldjo 588, 691
Wallis V. Bastard 602, 603
V. Portland (Duke) 123
V. Pipon 229
V. Smith 549, 661
Wallwy V. Coutts 435, 504
Walmsley v. Child 42
V. Walmsley 192, 223, 636
Walsh V. Gladstone 495, 500
V. Stoddart 232
Walter v. Ashton 387
V. Hodge 579
Walters v. Walters 235
Waltham's (Lord) Case 81
Walworth «. Holt 286
Ward V. Bevill 406
V. Buckinghamshire (Duke)
. 303, 306
0. Duncombe 436, 437
V. Hobbs 91
TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE
Ward v. National Bank of New
Zealand 208
v. Thomas 249
■». Turner 256
Warden n. Jones 152
Ware d. Bgmont (Lord) 165
V. Horwood 360
V. Polhill 405, 570
Waring v. Coventry 201
V. Hotham 261, 263
Warington ». Wheatstone 345
Warner v. Baynes 278, 279
V. Jacob 418
Warren v. Eudall 455
Warrick v. Warrick 167
Warwick ». Warwick 73
Wasdale, In re; Brittin v. Part- ridge 437
Wason J). Wareing 65
Wasserberg, In re; Union Bank of
London v. Wasserberg 256
Waterhouse ». Stansfield 251
Waters v. Mynn 420
V. Taylor 290
V. Waters 619'
Wakins, Ex p 3*13
Watkins v. Cheek 472
V. Williams 279
Watkyns v. Watkyns 594
Watney v. Trist 285, 286
V. Wells 287
Watson V. Gass 278
V. Marston 71
V. Mid Wales Ely 605
u. Northumberland (Duke) 275
Watts V. Girdlestone 529
Way's Trusts, In re 436
Weale v. OUive 838
Weall, In re; Andrews v. Weall 532
V. Eice 458
Wearmouth Crown Glass Co. , In re 197
Webb, In re 573
; Lambert ». Still 222
V. England 194
— - V. Grace 118
V. Hewitt 138
V. Jones 525
V. Shaftesbury (Earl) 456
V. (Lord) 570
Webber v. Webber 255
Webster v. Bosanquet 552
V. Cecil 315
Wedderburn v. Wedderburn 134, 529
Wedgwood v. Adams 316
Weekes' Settlement, In re 46
Weekes v. Slake ..• 360
Wekett V. Eaby 300
Welby V. Eutland (Duke) 361
D. Welby 454, 456
Welch, In re 569
Wellbeloved v. Jones 500
PAGE
Weller v. Smeaton 361, 362
Wellesley's Case 567
Wellesley v. Beaufort (Duke) 560, 562
V. Wellesley 557, 560, 562, 564
Wells V. Poster 434
V. Eow 246, 525
Welsbaoh Incandescent Gaslight Co. •». New Sunlight Incandes- cent Co 683
Wenham, In re ; Hunt ». Wen- ham 233
Wentworth v. Lloyd 631
Wesley v. Walker 340
West, In re; George v. Grose ... 524
West V. Erissey 405
V. Knight 480-
V. Eeid 158, 421
u. Sackville (Lord) 686
V. Shuttleworth 489
V. Skip 289, 290
V. Williams 171, 172
Westmeath (Marq.) v. Salisbury
(Marq.) 120
Westmeath v. Westmeath 595
Wethered «. Wethered 110, 144, 422
Whale V. Booth 250
Whaley v. Bagenal 321
V. Dawson 277
Wheeler v. D'Esterre 329
V. Home 179, 180
V. Le Marchant 631, 632
Whelan v. Palmer 106
Wheldale v. Partridge 337, 512
Whieldon v. Spode 246
Whincup ». Hughes 195
Whistler v. Webster 456, 457
Whitaker v. Bush 603, 607, 609
V. Wright 284
Whitbread v. Brockhurst 319
Whitbread & Co. v. Watt 319,
335, 514
Whitchurch v. Bevis 325
White, Ex p 497
, In re; White v. White .... 451
V. Cordwell 609
V. Damon 140
V. Hall 543
V. Lincoln (Lady) 192
V. Nutt 49
V. Parsither 423
V. Peterborough (Bp.) 351, 354
t). Warner 553
0. White 201, 477
V. Williams 182
White's Trusts, In re 497
Whitehorne Bros. v. Davison 82
Whitehouse v. Partridge 622
& Co., In re 602
Whiteley and Eoberts, In re ... 615
Whitfield, Ex p 558
V. Bewitt 217, 218
TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE
Whitfield 0. Clemment 454
V. Pausset 40, 41, 42
Whiting's Settlement, In re;
Whiting V. De Eietzen 118
Whiting v. Burke 204
Whitmore v. Oxborrow 232
Whittingham v. Murdy 100
Whitwell V. Arthur 287
Whitwood Chemical Co. v. Hard- man 392
Whorewood v. Whorewood 593
Widmore v. Woodruffe 479
Wier K. Tucker 224
Wigsell V. Wigaell 200
Wigram ». Buckley 166
Wilde V. Porte 319, 320
Wilder v. Piggott 457
Wilkes ». Groom 532
V. Spooner 168
— — V. Steward 534
V. Wilkes 595
Wilkins v. Aiken 380, 382, 384
Wilkinson v. Dent 455
V. Henderson 289
v. Jonghim 78
Willan o. Willan 55, 294
Wiloock ». Terrell 434
Willesford v. Watson 617
Williams, Ex p 527
V. Bayley 124, 125, 295, 297, 298
V. Cooke 221
V. Everett 435
B. Plight 42
B. Games 281
V. Kershaw 486
V. Lambe 266
V. Neville 317
V. Nixon 538
V. Owen 420
V. Preston 105
V. Prince of Wales Life
• Insce. Co 386
V. Protheroe 439
V. Quelrada Ely. Land and
Copper Co 632
V. Eawlinson 188
». Scott 135
V. Thomas 266
- V. Williams 42, 278
Williamson v. Barbour 222
V. Gihon 109, 110
V. Hine 133
Willis V. Jernegan 223, 224
Willmott V. Barber 156
Willoughby v. Willoughby ...411, 633
Wills V. Slade 279, 280
• V. Stradling 321
Wilson, Ex p 138, 419
V. Church 633
V. Pielding 242
V. Hiscox 401
PAGE
Wilson V. Johnstone 46, 195
». Townshend (Lord) ...456, 457
V. Northampton and Ban- bury Ely 309
V. O'Leary 469
V. Eay 154
V. Thornbury 457
V. Turner 568
V. W. Hartlepool Ely. ...319, 320
V. Williams 314
v_ Wilson 74, 595
Winch V. Winchester 71
Winchester (Bp.) v. Knight 217, 218
D. Paine 166
Wind V. Jekyll 230, 254
Windhill Local Bd. u. Vint 121
Wing V. Harvey 556
Winged v. Lefebury 335
Winter v. Anson (Lord) 519
Wiseman v. Westland 166
Withy V. Cottle 807, 340
Wolmerhausen ». GuUick 207
Wolterbeek v. Barrow 70
Wolverhampton (Corp.) v. Em- mons 305, 309
Wood, In re; Att.-Gen. v. Ander- son 505
; Ward v. Wood 454
V. Barker 154
V. Boosey 383
V. Conway (Corp.) 377
V. Dixie 150
V. Downes 129
V. Griffith 439, 616, 617
V. Midgley 139, 318, 325
V. Eowcliffe 302
V. Eowe 354
V. Wood 581
Woodgate v. Pield 232
Woodhouse v. Shepley 113
Woodward, Ex p 565
u. Goulstone 48
V. Woodward 576
Woolaston v. King 455
Wooldridge ». Norris ... 138, 209, 309 Woollam V. Hearn 68, 70, 71,
324, 326 WooUey v. Clarke 249
V. Colman 425
Woolridge v. Woolridge 451, 457
Worrall v. Jacob 52, 595
V. Martar 520
Worsley v. Scarborough (Earl) 167 Worthing (Corp.) v. Heather ... 501 Worthington c. Abbott 270
V. Evans 119
V. Morgan 518, 519
Wortley v. Birkhead 170, 171
Wotherspoon v. Currie 387
Wray v. Steele 509
V. Wray 288, 510
TABLE OF CASES.
XXXVll
PAGE
Wren v. Bradley 120
Wright V. Atkyna 448
V. Bell 307
V. Black 232
V. Cadogan 577, 583
V. Carter 128, 129
«. Cartwright 356
V. GofE 52, 66, 69
V. Maidstone (Lord) 43, 44
V. Morley 210, 212, 593, 594
V. Nutt 270
V. Redgrave 368
V. Simpson 138, 270
V. Snowe 88
V. Ward 345
V. Wright 422
Wrightson v. Hudson 165, 166
Wrixdon c. Vige 201
Wyatt V. Barnard 382
B. BarWell 162, 165
Wyllie V. Pollen 171
PAQE
Wynn o. Morgan 330
V. Newborough (Lord) .... 353
Wynne, In re 573
XiMENBS V. Prance 370
Yates v. Cousins 195
V. Hambley 215
Yeatman v. Yeatman 173
York (Mayor) v. Pilkington 261,
360, 361
Youatt V. Winyard 389
Young V. Bank of Bengal 603
V. Keighley 527
0. Peachey 325
V. Walter 614, 616
Younge, Ex p 324
Youngs, In re; Doggett c. Eevett 539
ZoucH «. Parsons 100
E.J.
COMMENTARIES
ON
EQUITY JURISPHUDENCE.
CHAPTER I.
THE TEDE NATURE AND CHABACTEE OP EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE.
§ 1. In treating of the subject of equity, it is material to distinguish the various senses in which that word is used. For it cannot be dis- guised, that an imperfect notion of what, in England, constitutes equity jurisprudence, is not only common among those who are not bred to the profession, but that it has often led to mistakes and con- fusion in professional treatises on the subject. In the most general sense, we are aecustorried to call that equity, which, in human trans- actions, is founded in natural justice, in honesty and right, and which properly arises ex sequo et bono. In this sense it answers precisely to the definition of justice, or natural law, as given by Justinian in the Pandects. " .Justitia est constans et perpetua voluntas jus suum cuique tribuendi. Jus pluribus modis dicitur. Uno modo, cum id quod semper aequum et bonum, jus dicitur; ut est jus naturale. Juris prsecepta sunt hsec; honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere" (a). And the word jus is used in the same sense in the Roman law, when it is declared, that jus est ars boni et sequi (b), where it means, what we are accustomed to call, jurisprudence (c).
§ 2. Now, it would be a great mistake to suppose that equity, as administered in England, embraced a jurisdiction so wide and exten-
(a) Dig. Lib. 1, tit. 1, ff 10, 11.
(6) Dig. Lib. 1, tit. 1, f. 1.
(c) Grotiua, after referring to the Greek word, used to signify equity, says, " Latinis autem sequi prudentia vertitur, quae se ita ad aequitatem habet, ut juris- prudentia ad justitiam." Grotius de jEquitate, ch. 1, § 4. This distinction is more refined than solid, as the citation in the text shows. See also Taylor's Elements of the Civil Law, pp. 90 to 98. Cicero, Topic. § 2; II. ad Heren. 13; III. ad Keren. 2. Bracton has referred to the various senses in which jus is used. Item (says he) jus quandoque ponitur pro jure naturali, quod semper bonum et squum est; quandoque pro jure civili tantum ; quandoque pro jure praetorio tantum ; quandoque pro eo
E.J. • 1
2 EQUITY JURISPRUDEXCE. [CH. I.
sive, as that which arises from the principles of natural justice above stated. Probably the jurisprudence of no civilized nation ever at- tempted so wide a range of duties for any of its judicial tribunals. Even the Eoman law, which has been justly thought to deal to a vast extent in matters ex asquo et bono, never affected so bold a design (d). On the contrary, it left many matters of natural justice wholly unpro- vided for, from the difficulty of framing any general rules to meet them, and from the doubtful nature of the policy of attempting to give a legal sanction to duties of imperfect obligation, such as charity, gratitude, and kiMness, or even to positive engagements of parties, where they are not founded in what constitutes a meritorious con- sideration. Thus, it is well known that in the Eoman law, as well as in the common law, there are many pacts, or promises of parties (nude pacts), which produce no legal obligation, capable of enforcement in foro externa ; but which are left to be disposed of in foro conscientise only (e). " Cum nulla subest causa propter conven- tionem, hie constat non posse constitui obligationem. Igitur nuda pactio obligationem non parit " (/). And again: " Qui autem promisit sine causa, condicere quantitatem non potest, quam non debet, sed ipsam obligationem " (g). And hence the settled distinction, in that law, between natural obligations, upon which no action lay, but which were merely binding in conscience, and civil obligations, which gave origin to actions (h). The latter were sometimes called just, because of their perfect obligation in a civil sense ; the former merely equitable, because of their imperfect obligation. " Et justum appellatur " (says Wolfius) ' ' quicquid fit secundum jus perfectum alterius ; sequum vero quod secundum imperfectum " (f). Cicero has alluded to the double sense of the word equity in this very connection. " .^Equitatis " (says he) " autem vis est duplex; cujus altera directi, et veri, et justi, ut dicitur, sequi et boni ratione defenditur; altera ad vicissitudinem referendse gratise pertinet; quod in beneficio gratia, in injuria ultio nominatur " (fc). It is scarcely necessary to add, that it is not in this latter sense, any more than in the broad and general sense above stated, which Ayliffe has, with great propriety, denominated Natural Equity, because it depends on and is supported by natural reason, that equity is spoken of as a branch of English jurisprudence. The
tantum, quod corapetit ex sententia. Bracton, Lib. 1, ch. 4, p. 3. See Dr. Taylor's definition of lex and jus. Elem. Civ. Law, pp. 147, 148; ibid. pp. 40 to 43, 55, 56, 91 and 178.
id) SeeHeinecc. Hist. Edit. L. 1, ch. 6; De Edictis Prffitorum, § 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ; ibid. § 18, 21 to 30.
(e) Ayliffe, Pand. B. 4, tit. 2, pp. 424, 425 ; 1 Domat, Civ. Law, B. 1, tit. 1, § 5, art. 1, 6, 9, 13.
(/) Dig. Lib. 2, tit. 14, f. 7, § 4.
(g) Dig. Lib. 12, tit. 7, f. 1.
(h) Ayliffe, Pand. B. 4, tit. 1, pp. 420, 421.
(j) Wolff. Instit. Jur. Nat. et Gent. P. 1, ch. 3, § 83.
(k) Cic. Orat. Part. § 37.
§ 2 4.] NATURE OF EQUITY. 3
latter falls appropriately under the head of Civil Equity, as defined by the same author, being deduced from and governed by such civil maxims as are adopted by any particular State or community (i!).
§ 3. But there is a more limited sense in which the term is often used, and which has the sanction of jurists in ancient, as well as in modem times, and belongs to the language of common life, as well as to that of juridicial discussions. The sense, here alluded to, is that in which it is used in contradistinction to strict law, or striatum et summum jus. Thus, Aristotle has defined the very nature of equity to be the correction of the law, wherein it is defective by reason of its universality (m). The same sense is repeatedly recognised in the Pandects. " In omnibus quidem, maxime tamen in jure, eequitas spectanda sit. Quotiens sequitas, desiderii naturalis ratio, aut dubi- tatio juris moratur, justis decretis res temperanda est. Placuit in omnibus rebus prsBcipuam esse justitise sequitatisque, quam stricti juris rationem " (re). Grotius and Puffendorf have both adopted the definition of Aristotle ; and it has found its way, with approbation, into the treatises of most of the modern authors, who have discussed the subject (o).
§ 4. In the Roman jurisprudence we maj' see many traces of this doctrine, applied to the purpose of supplying the defects of the customary law, as well as to correct and measure the interpretation of the written and positive code. Domat accordingly lays it down, as a general principle of the civil law, that if any case should happen,
(1) AyMe, Pand. B. 1, tit. 7, p. 37.
(m) Arist. Ethic. Nicom. L. 6, ch. 14, cited 1 Wooddes. Lect. vii. p. 193; Taylor, Elem. of Civ. Law, pp. 91, 92, 93; Francis, Maxims, 3; 1 Ponbl. Eq. B. 1, § 2, p. 5, note (e). Cicero, speaking of Galba, says, that he was accustomed, " Malta pro aequitate contra jus dicere." Cic. de Oratore, Lib. 1, § 57. See also other passages cited in Taylor's Elem. of the Civ. Law, 90, 91. Bracton defines equity, as contra- distinguished from law (jtis), thus : " ^quitas autem est rerum convenientia, quae in paribus causis paria desiderat jura, et omnia bene coaequiparat ; et dicitur sequitas, quasi aequalitas." Bracton, LiS. 1, ch. 4, § 6, p. 3.
(n) Dig. Lib. 50, tit. 17, ff. 85, 90; Cod. Lib. 3, tit. 1, f. 8.
(o) Grotius de ^Equitate, ch. 1, § 3; Puffend. Law of Nature and Nat. B. 5, ch. 12, § 21, and Barbeyrac's note (1); 1 Black. Comm. 61; 1 'V^^ooddes, Lect. vii. p 193; Bac. de Aug. Sclent. Lib. 8, ch. 3, Aphor. 32, 34, 45. Grotius says: " Proprie vero et singulariter squitas est virtus voluntatis, eorrectrix ejus, quo lex propter universalitatem deficit." Grotius de iEquitate, ch. 1, § 2. " .^ilquum est id ipaum, quo lex corrigitur. " Ibid. Dr. Taylor has with great force paraphrased the language of Aristotle. That part of unwritten law, says he, which .is called Equity, or rh EmeiKes, is a species of justice distinct from what is written. It must happen either against the design and inclination of the law-giver, or with his consent. In the former case, for instance, when several particular facts must escape his knowledge ; in the other, when he may be apprised of them, indeed, but by reason of their variety is not willing to recite them. For, if a case admits of an infinite variety of circumstances, and a law must be made, that law must be conceived in general terms. Taylor, Elem. Civ. Law, 92. And of this infirmity in all laws, the Pandects give open testimony. " Non possunt omnes articuli aingulatim aut legibus, aut senatus consultis comprehendi ; sed cum in aliqua causa sententia eorum manifesta est, is qui jurisdictioni prsoest, ad similia procedere, atque ita jus dicere debet." Dig. L. 1, tit. 3, ff. 10, 12.
4 EQUITY JDKISPRUDENCE. [CH. I.
which is not regulated by some express or written law, it should have for a law the natural principles of equity, which is the universal law, extending to every thing (p). And for this he founds himself upon certain texts in the Pandects, which present the formulary in a very imposing generality. " Hseec sequitas suggerit, etsi jure deficiamur, " is the reason given for allowing one person to restore a bank or dam in the lands of another, which may be useful to him, and not injurious to the other (g).
§ 5. The jurisdiction of the Prsetor doubtless had its origin in this application of equity, as contradistinguished from mere law. " Jus autem civile" (say the Pandects) "est, quod ex legibus, plebiscitis, senatus consultis, decretis principum, auctoritate prudentium venit. Jus praetorium est, quod Pra»tores introduxerunt, adjuvandi, vel sup- plendi, vel corrigendi juris civilis gratia, propter utilitatem publicam; quod et honorarium dicitur, ad honorem praetorum sic nominatum "(r). But, broad and general as this language is, we should be greatly deceived if it were to be supposed that even the Praetor's power extended to the direct overthrow or disregard of the positive law. He was bound to stand by that law in all cases to which it was justly applicable, according to the maxim of the Pandects, " Quod quidem perquam durum est; sed ita lex scripta est " (s).
(p) Domat, Prel. Book, tit. 1, § 1, art. 23 See also Avliffe, Pand. B. 1, tit. 7, p. 38.
(q) Dig. Lib. 39, tit. 3, f. 2, § 5. Domat cites other texts not perhaps quite so stringent ; such as Dig. Lib. 27, tit. 1, f. 13, § 7 ; ibid. Lib. 47, tit. 20, f. 7. Dr. Tay- lor has given many texts to the same purpose. Elem. Civ. Law, pp. 90, 91. There was a known distinction in the Eoman law on this subject. When a right was founded in the express words of the law, the actions grounded on it were denominated Aetiones Directae ; where they arose upon a benignant extension of the words of the law to other cases, not within the terms, but within what we should call the equity of the law, they were denominated Aetiones Utiles. Taylor, Elem. Civ. Law, 93.
(r) Dig. Lib. 1, tit. 1, f. 7. " Sed et eas aetiones, quae legibus prodit^ sunt (say the Pandects) si lex justa ac necessaria sit, supplet Praetor in eo, quod legi deest." Dig. Lib. 19, tit. 5, f. 11. Heineccius, speaking of the Praetor's authority, says : His Edictis multa innovata, adjuvandi, supplendi, corrigendi juris civilis gratia, obtentuque utilitatis publicae. 1 Heinecc. Elem. Pand. P. 1, Lib. 1, § 42.
{s) Dig. Lib. 40, tit. 9, f. 12, § 1. See also 3 Black. Comm. 430, 431; 1 Wood- des. Lect. vii. pp. 192 to 200. Dr. Taylor (Elem. Civ. Law, p. 214) has therefore observed that, for this reason, this branch of the Eoman law was not reckoned as part of the jus civile scriptum by Papinian, but stands in opposition to it. Ana thus, as we distinguish between common law and equity, there were with that people aetiones civiles et prsetorise, et obligationes civiles, et praetoriae. The Praetor was therefore called Gustos, non conditor juris; judicia exercere potuit; jus facere non potuit ; dicendi, non condendi juris potestatem habuit ; juvare, supplere, interpretari, mitigare jus civile potuit ; mutate vel tollere non potest. The praetorian edicts are not properly law, though they may operate like law. And Cicero, speaking of contracts bonae fidei, says, in allusion to the same jurisdiction . In his magni esse judicis statuere (praesertim cum in plerisque essent judicia contraria), quid quemque cuique prEBstare oporteret ; that is, he should decide according to equity and conscience. Cic. de Officiis, Lib. 3, cap. 17. Dr. Taylor has, in another part of his work, gone at large into equity and its various meanings in the civil law. Taylor, Elem. Civ. Law, pp. 90 to 98.
§ 5 — 7.] NATURE OF EQUITY. 5
§ 6. But a more general way in which this sense of equity, as contradistinguished from mere law, or strictum jus, is applied, is to the interpretation and limitation of the words of positive or written laws : by construing them, not according to the letter, but according to the reason and spirit of them (t). Mr. Justice Blackstone has alluded to this sense in his Commentaries, where he says : " From this method of interpreting laws by the reason of them arises what we call equity " (m) ; and more fully in another place, where he says : " Equity, in its true and genuine meaning, is the soul and spirit of all law ; positive law is construed, and rational law is made by it. In this, equity is synonymous with justice; in that, to the true and sound interpretation of the rule " (x).
§ 7. In this sense equity must have a place in every rational system of jurisprudence, if not in name, at least in substance (y). It is impos- sible that any code, however minute and particular, should embrace or provide for the infinite variety of human affairs, or should furnish rules applicable to all of them. " Neque leges neque senatus consulta ita scribi possunt " (says the Digest) " ut omnes casus, qui quandoque inciderint, comprehendantur ; sed suf&cit ea, quas plerumque accideunt contineri " (z). Every system of laws must necessarily be defective; and cases must occur, to which the antecedent rules cannot be applied without injustice, or t-o which they cannot be applied at all. It is the office, therefore, of a judge to consider whether the antecedent rule does apply, or ought, according to the intention of the law-giver, to apply to a given case ; and jf there are two rules, nearly approaching to it, but of opposite tendency, which of them ought to govern it; and if there exists no rule applicable to all the circumstances, whether the party should be remediless, or whether the rule furnishing the closest analogy ought to be followed. The general words of a law may embrace all cases; and yet it may be clear, that all could not have been intentionally embraced; for if they were, the obvious objects of the legislation might or would be defeated. So, words of a doubtful
(i) Plowden, Comm. pp. 465, 466.
(u) 1 Black. Comm. pp. 61, 62.
(x) 3 Black. Comm. p. 429. See also Taylor, Elem. Civ. Law, pp. 96, 97; Plowd. Comm. p. 465, Eeporter's note. Dr. Taylor has observed that the great difficulty is, to distinguish between that equity, which is required in all law what- soever, and which makes a very important and a very necessary branch of the jus scriptum ; and that equity, which is opposed to written and positive law, and stands in contradistinction to it. Taylor, Elem. Civ. Law, p. 90.
iy) See 1 Eonbl. Equity, B. 1, § 3, p. 24, note (h); Plowden, Comm. pp. 465, 466. Lord Bacon said in his Argument on the jurisdiction of the Marches, there is no law under heaven which is not supplied with equity ; for summum jus sumraa injuria ; or as some have it, summa lex summa crux. And, therefore, all nations have equity. 4 Bac. Works, p. 274. Plowden, in his note to his Eeports, dwells much (pp. 465, 466) ■on the nature of equity in the interpretation of statutes, saying, " Eatio legis est anima legis." And it is a common maxim in the law of England, that " Apices juris non sunt jura.." Branch's Maxims, p. 12; Co. Jjitt. 304 (b).
(z) Dig. Lib. 1, tit. 3, f. 10.
6 EQUITY JURISPEDDENCE. [CH. I.
import may be used in a law, or words susceptible of a more enlarged, or of a more restricted meaning, or of two meanings equally appropriate (a). The question, in all such cases, must be, in what sense the words are designed to be used ; and it is the part of a judge to look to the objects of the legislature, and to give such a construction to the words, as will best further those objects. This is an exercise of the power of equitable interpretation. It is the administration of equity, as contradistinguished from a strict adherence to the mere letter of the law. Hence arises a variety of rules in interpretation of laws, according to their nature and operation, whether they are remedial, or are penal laws; whether they are restrictive of general right, or in advancement of public justice or policy; whether they are of universal application, or of a private and circumscribed intent. But this is not the place to consider the nature or application of those rules (b).
§ 8. It is of this equity, as correcting, mitigating, or interpreting the law, that, not only civilians, but common-law writers, are most accustomed to speak (c) ; and thus many persons are misled into the
(a) It is very easy to see from what sources Jlr. Charles Butler drew his own state- ment (manifestly, as a description of English equity jurisprudence, incorrect, as Professor Park has shown), "that equity, as distinguished from law, arises from the inability of human foresight to establish any rule, which, however salutary in general, is not in some particular cases, evidently unjust and oppressive, and operates beyond or in opposition to its intent, &c. The grand reason for the interference of a court of equity is, that the imperfection of the legal remedy, in consequence of the universality of legislative provisions, may be repressed." 1 Butler's Eeminisc. 37, 38, 39; Park's Introd. Lect. 5, 6. Now, Aristotle, or Cicero, or a Eoman Prsetor, or a Continental Jurist, or a Publicist of modern Europe might have used these expressions, as a description of general equity ; but it would have given no just idea of equity, as administered under the municipal jurisprudence of England.
(b) See Grotius de Jure Belli ac Pacis, Lib. 3, ch. 20, § 47, pp. 1, 2; Grotius de .^quitate, ch. 1. This paragraph is copied very closely from the article Equity, in Dr. Lieber's Encyclopaedia Americana, a licence which has not appropriated another person's labours. There will be found many excellent rules of interpretation of Laws in Euthevforth's Ins.titutes of Natural Law, B. 2, ch. 7; in Bacon's Abridgment, title Statute; in Domat on the Civil Law (Prelim. Book, tit. 1, § 21 ; and in 1 Black. Comm. Introduction, pp. 58 to 62.
There are yet other senses, in which equity is used, which might be brought be- fore the reader. The various senses are elaborately collected by Oldendorpius , in his work De Jure et ^quitate Disputatio ; and he finally offers, what he deems » very exact definition of equity in its general sense. " jEquitas est judicium animi, ex vera ratione petitum, de circumstantiis rerum, ad honestatem vitae pertinentium, cum incidunt, recte discemens, quid fieri aut non fieri oporteat." This seems but another name for a system of ethics. Grotius has in one short paragraph (De .Equitate, ch. 1, § 2) brought together the different senses in a clear and exact manner. " Et ut de Eequitate primum loquamur, scire oportet, sequitatem aut Ecquum de omni interdum jure dici, ut cum jurisprudentia ars boni et aequi dicitur; interdum de jure natnrali absolute, ut cum Cicero ait, jus legibus, moribus, et aequitate constare ; alias vero de hisce rebus, quas lex non exacte definit, sed arbitrio viri boni per- mittit. Ssepe etiam de jure aliquo civili p'roprius ad jus naturale aecedente, idque respectu alterius juris, quod paulo longius recedere videtur, ut jus Prsetorium et quipdam jurisjprudentias interpretationes. Proprie vero et singulariter sequitas est virtus voluntatis, correctrix ejus, in quo lex propter universalitatem deficit."
(c) Merlin, Eepertoire Bquite. Grounds and Rudim. of the Law (attributed
§ 8, 9.] NATURE OF EQUITY. 7
false notion, that this is the real and peculiar duty of courts of equity. St. Germain, after alluding to the general subject of equity, says: " In some eases it is necessary to leave the words of the law, and to follow that reason and justice requireth, and to that intent equity is ordained, that is to say, to temper and mitigate the rigour of the law, &a. And so it appeareth, that equity taketh not away the very right, but only that that seemeth not to be right, by the general words of the law " ((?). And then he goes on to suggest the other kind of equity, as administered in chancery, to ascertain " whether the plaintiff hath title in conscience to recover or not " (e). And, in another place, he states : ' ' Equity is a rightwiseness, that considereth all the particular circumstances of the deed, which is also tempered with the sweetness of mercy " (/). Another learned author lays down doctrines equally broad. " As summum jus " (says he) " summa est injuria-, as it cannot consider circumstances; and as this [equity] takes in all the circum- stances of the case, and judges of the whole matter according to good conscience, this shows both the use and excellence of equity above any prescribed law." Again: "Equity is that which is commonly called equal, just, and good; and is a mitigation or moderation of the common law, in some circumstances, either of the matter, person, or time; and often it dispenseth with the law itself" (g). "The matters, of which equity holdeth cognizance in its absolute power, are such as are not remediable at law ; and of them the sorts may be said to be as infinite, almost, as the different affairs conversant in human life" (h). And, he adds, that "equity is so extensive and various, that every particular case in equity may be truly said to stand upon its own particular circumstances ; and, therefore, under favour, I apprehend precedents not of that great use in equity, as some would contend; but that equity thereby may possibly be made too much a science for good conscience " (t).
§ 9. This description of equity differs in nothing essential from that given by Grotius and Puffendorf (k), as a definition of general equity, as contradistinguished from the equity which is recognised by the mere municipal code of a particular nation. And, indeed, it goes
sometimes to Francis), pp. 3, 5, edit. 1751 ; 1 Fonbl. Equity, B. 1, ch. 1, § 2, note (e) ; 1 Wooddes. Lect. vii. pp. 192 to 200; Pothier, Pand. Lib. 1, tit. 3, art. 4, § 11 to 27.
(d) Dialogue 1, ch. 16.
(e) Ibid. 1, ch. 17. (/) Ibid. ch. 16.
(g) Grounds and Eudim. pp. 5, 6, edit. 1751.
(h) Grounds and Eudim. p. 6, edit. 1751.
(i) Grounds and Eudim. pp. 5, 6, edit. 1751. Yet Francis (or whoever else was the author) is compelled to admit, that there are many cases in which there is no relief to be had, either at law or in equity itself; but the same is left to the con- science of the party, as a greater inconvenience would thence follow to the people in general. Francis, Max. p. 5.
(k) Grotius de ^^quitate, ch. 1, § 3, 12; Pnffend. Elem. Juris. Univ. L. 1, § 22, 23, cited 1 Fonbl. Eq. B. 1, ch. 1, § 2, note (e), p. 6.
8 EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE. [CH. I.
the full extent of embracing all things, which the law has not exactly defined, but leaves to the arbitrary description of a judge; or, in the language of Grotius, ' ' de hisoe rebus, quas lex non exacte definit, sed arbitrio viri boni permittit" (I). So that, in this view of the matter, an English court of equity would seem to be possessed of exactly the same prerogatives and powers as belonged to the Praetor's forum in the Roman law (m).
§ 10. Nor is this description of the equity jurisprudence of England confined to a few text-writers. It pervades a large class, and possesses the sanction of many high authorities. Lord Bacon more than once hints at it. In his Aphorisms he lays it down, ' ' Habeant similiter Curiae Praetoriae potestatem tam subveniendi contra rigorem legis, quam supplendi defectum legis " (n). And on the solemn occasion of accepting the office of Chancellor, he said : Chancery is ordained to supply the law, and not to subvert the law (o)^ Finch, in his Treatise on the Law, says, that the nature of equity is to amplify, enlarge, and add to the letter of the law (p). In the Treatise of Equity, attributed to Mr. Ballow, and deservedly held in high estimation, language exceedingly broad is held on this subject. After remarking, that there will be a necessity of having recourse to the natural principles, that what is wanting to the finite may be supplied out of that which is infinite; and that this is properly what is called equity, in opposition to strict law, he proceeds to state: " And thus in chancery, every particular ease stands upon its own circumstances; and although the common law will not decree against the general rule of law, yet chancery doth, so as the example introduce not a general mischief. Every matter, therefore, that happens inconsistent with the design of the legislator, or is contrary to natural justice, rnay find relief here. For no man can be obliged to say anything contrary to the law of nature ; and indeed no man in his senses can be presumed willing to oblige another to it" (g).
§ 11. The author has, indeed, qualified these propositions with the suggestion : ' ' But if the law has determined a matter with all its circumstances, equity cannot intermeddle." But, even with this qualification, the propositions are not maintainable, in the equity
(I) Grotius de iEqiiifcate, ch. 1, § 2; 1 Ponbl. Equity, B. 1, ch. 1, § 2, note (c).
(m) Dig. Lib. 1, f. 7. See also Heinecc. De Edict. Praetorum, Lib. 1, ch. 6, § 8 to 13; ibid. § 18 to 30; Dr. Taylor's Elem. Civ. Law, 213 to 216; ibid. 92, 93; be Lolme on Eng. Const. B. 1, ch. 11. Lord Kaims does not hesitate to say, that the powers assumed by our courts of equity are in effect the same that were assumed by the Eoman Prsetor from necessity, without any express authority. 1 Kaims, Eq. Introd. 19.
(n) Bac. De Aug. Scient. Lib. 8, ch. 3, Aphor. 35, 45.
(o) Bac. Speech. 4; Bac. Works, 488.
(p) Finch's Law, p. 20.
iq) 1 Fonbl. Eq. B. 1, ch. 1, § 3. The author of Eunomus describes the original jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, as a court of equity, to be " the power of moderating the summum jus." Eunomus, Dial. 3 § 60.
§ 10 — 13.] NATURE OF EQUITY. 9
jurisprudence of England, in the general sense in which i>hey are stated. For example, the first proposition, that equity will relieve against a general rule of law, is (as has been justly observed) neither sanctioned by principle nor by authority (r). For, though it may be true that equity has, in many cases, decided differently from courts of law, yet it will be found that these cases involved circumstances to which a court of law would not advert; but which, in point of sub- stantial justice, were deserving of particular consideration ; and which a court of equity, proceeding on principles of substantial justice, felt itself bound to respect (s).
§ 12. Mr. Justice Blackstone has taken considerable pains to refute this doctrine. " It is said " (he remarks) " that it is the business of a court of equity, in England, to abate the rigour of the common law (t). But no such power is contended for. Hard was the case of bond creditors, whose debtor devised away his real estate ; rigorous and unjust the rule which put the devisee in a better condition than the heir; yet a court of equity had no power to interfere. Hard is the common law still subsisting, that land devised, or descending to the heir, should not be liable to simple contract debts of the ancestor or devisor, although the money was laid out in purchasing the very land ; and that the father shall never immediately succeed as heir to the real estate of the son. But a court of equity can give no relief; though, in both these instances, the artificial reason of the law, arising from feudal principles, has long since ceased" (w). And although these remarks of Mr. Justice Blackstone have now lost their force owing to the Statute against Fraudulent Devises (3 Will. & Mary, c. 14, s. 2), which rendered the devisee equally with the heir liable to the bond debts of the deceased, and the 8 & 4 Will. 4 c. 104, which made the lands of a deceased debtor liable to his simple contract debts, yet from the very fact that legislation was necessary, it appears that it was not within the province of courts of equity to relieve the hardships complained of. And (not to multiply instances) what could be more harsh, or indefensible, than was the rule of the common law% by which a husband might receive an ample fortune in personal estate, through his wife, and by his own act, or will, strip her of every farthing, and leave her a beggar?
§ 13. A very learned judge in equity, in one of his ablest judg- ments, has put this matter in a very strong light (x). "The law is clear " (said he), " and courts of equity ought to follow it in their judgments concerning titles to equitable estates; otherwise great
(r) Com. Dig. Chancery, 3 P. 8.
(s) 1 Ponbl. Eq. B. 1, ch. 1, § 3, note (g) ; 1 Dane's Abridg. ch. 9, art. 1, § 2, 8 ; Kemp v. Pryor, 7 Ves. 249, 250.
(t) Grounds and Eudim. p. 74 (Max. 105), edit. 1751.
(u) 3 Black. Comm. 430. See Com. Dig. Chancery, 3 F. 8.
(x) Sir Joseph Jekyll, in Cowper v. Cowper, 2 P. Wms. 753.
10 ' EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE. [CH. 1.
uncertainty and confusion would ensue. And, though proceedings in equity are said to be secundum discretionem boni viri; yet when it is asked " Vir bonus est quis? " the answer is " Qui consulta patrum, qui leges juraque servat. " And, as it is said in Book's Case (5 Rep. 99 b), that discretion is a science, not to act arbitrarily, according to men's wills, and private affections; so that discretion, which is executed here, is to be governed by the rules of law and equity, which are not to oppose, but each in its turn to be subservient to the other. This discretion, in some cases, follows the law implicitly; in others, assists it, and advances the remedy ; in others, again, it relieves against the abuse, or allays the rigour of it. But in no case does it contra- dict or overturn the grounds or principles thereof, as has been sometimes ignorantly imputed to the court. That is a discretionary power which neither this nor any other court, not even the highest, acting in a judicial capacity, is by the constitution entrusted with " (y).
§ 14. The next proposition, that every matter that happens incon- sistent with the design of the legislator, or is contrary to natural justice, may find relief in equity, is equally untenable. There are many cases against natural justice, which are left wholly to the con- science of the party, and are without any redress, equitable or legal. And so far from a court of equity supplying universally the defects of positive legislation, or peculiarly carrying into effect the intent, as contradistinguished from the text of the legislature, it is governed by the same rules of interpretation as a court of law ; and is often compelled to stop where the letter of the law stops. It is the duty of every court of justice, whether of law or of equity, to consult the intention of the legislature. And, in the discharge of this duty, a court of equity is not invested with a larger or a more liberal dis- cretion than a court of law.
§ 15. Mr. Justice Blackstone has here again met the objection in a forcible manner. "It is said " (says he) " that a court of equity determines according to the spirit of the rule, and not according to the strictness of the letter. But so also does a court of law. Both, for instance, are equally bound, and equally profess to interpret statutes according to the true intent of the legislature. In general, all cases cannot be foreseen; or, if foreseen, cannot be expressed. Some will arise which will fall within the meaning, though not within the words of the legislator; and others, which may fall within the letter, may be contrary to his meaning, though not expressly excepted. These cases, thus out of the letter, are often said to be within the equity of an Act of Parliament; and so, cases within the letter, are frequently out of the equity. Here, by equity, we mean nothing but the
(y) Sir Thomas Clarke, in pronouncing his judgment in the case of Burgess v. Wheats (1 W. Black. 123), has adopted this very language, and given it his full approbation. See also Fry v. Porter. 1 Mod. 300 ; Grounds and Eudim. p. 65 (Max. 92), edit. 1751.
§ 14 17.] NATURE OF EQUITY. 11
sound interpretation of the law. . . . But there is not a single rule of interpreting laws, whether equitably or strictly, that is not equally used by the judges in the courts both of law and equity. The con- struction must in both be the same ; or, if they differ, it is only as one court of law may happen to differ from another. Each endeavours to fix and adopt the true sense of the law in question. Neither can enlarge, diminish, or alter that sense in a single title " (z).
§ 16. Yet it is by no means uncommon to represent that the peculiar duty of a court of equity is to supply the defects of the common law, and next, to correct its rigour or injustice (a). Lord Kaims avows this doctrine in various places, and in language singu- larly bold. " It appears now clearly " (says he) " that a court of equity commences at the limits of the common law, and enforces benevolence, where the law of nature makes it our duty. And thus a court of equity, accompanying the law of nature in its general refine- ments, enforces every natural duty that is not provided for at common law " (h). And in another place he adds, a court of equity boldly under- takes " to correct or mitigate the rigour, and what, in a proper sense, may be termed the injustice of the common law " (c). And Mr. Wood- deson, without attempting to distinguish accurately between general or natural, and municipal or civil equity, asserts, that " equity is a judicial interpretation of laws, which, presupposing the legislator- to have intended what is just and right, pursues and effectuates that intention " {d).
§ 17. The language of judges has often been relied on for the same purpose; and, from the unqualified manner in which it is laid down, too often justifies the conclusion. Thus, Sir John Trevor (the Master of the Eolls), in his able judgment in Dudley v. Dudley (e), says: Now, equity is no part of the law, but a moral virtue, which quali- fies, moderates, and reforms the rigour, hardness, and edge of the law, and is a universal truth. It does also assist the law, where it is defective and weak in the constitution (which is the life of the law), and defends the law from crafty evasions, delusions, and mere subtleties, invented and contrived to evade and elude the common law, whereby such as have undoubted right are made remediless. And thus is the office of equity to protect and support the common law from shifts and contrivances against the justice of the law.
(z) 3 Black. Comm. 431; 1 Dane, Abr. ch. 9, art. 3, § 8.
(a) 1 Kaims on Equity, B. 1, p. 40.
(b) 1 Kaime on Equity, Introd. p. 12.
(c). 1 Kaims on Equity, Introd. p. 15. Lord Kaims' remarks are entitled to the more consideration because they seem to have received, in some measure at least, the approbation of Lord Hardwicke (Parke's Hist, of Chan. Appx. 501, 502; ibid. 333, 334) ; and also from Mr. Justice Blackstone having thought them worthy of a formal refutation in his Commentaries. 3 Black. Comm. 436.
(d) 1 Wooddes. Lect. vii. p. 192.
(e) Free. Ch. 241, 244; 1 Wooddes. Lect. vii. p. 192.
12 EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE. [CH. I.
Equity, therefore, does not destroy the law, nor create it, but assists it." Now, however true this doctrine may be sub modo, to suppose it true in its full extent would be a grievous error.
§ 18. There is another suggestion, which has been often repeated; and that is, that courts of equity are not, and ought not, to be bound by precedents; and that precedents, therefore, are of little or no use there; but that every case is to be decided upon circumstances, according to the arbitration or discretion of the judge, acting according to his own notions, ex sequo et bono (/). Mr. Justice Blackstone, addressing himself to this erroneous statement, has truly said : ' ' The ■system of our courts of equity is a laboured connected system, governed by established rules, and bound down by precedents, from which they do not depart-, although the reason of some of them may perhaps be liable to objection. . . . Nay, sometimes a precedent is so strictly followed, that a particular judgment, founded upon special circumstances, gives rise to a general rule " {g). And he after- wards adds: "The systems of jurisprudence in our courts of la%v and equity are now equally artificial systems, founded on the same principles of justice and positive law, but varied by different usages in the forms and mode of their proceedings " Qi). The value of prece- dents, and the importance of adhering to them, were deeply felt in ancient times, and nowhere more than in the Praetor's forum. " Con- suetudinis autem jus esse putatur id " (says Cicero) " quod, voluntate omnium, sine lege, vetustas comprobarit. In ea autem jura sunt, quasdam ipsa jam certa propter vetustatem ; quo in genere et alia sunt multa, et eorum multo maxima pars, quae Praetores edicere con-
(/) See Francis, Max. pp. 5, 6; Selden, cited in 3 Black. Comm. 432, 433, 435; 1 Kaims, Eq. pp. 19, 20.
(g) 3 Black Comm. 432, 433.
(h) 3 Black. 434; ibid. 440, 441; 1 Kent, Comm. Lect. 21, pp. 489, 490 (2nd edition). The value and importance of precedents in chancery were much insisted upon by Lord Keeper Bridgman, in Fry v. Porter (1 Mod. 300, 307). See also 1 Wooddes. Lect. vii. pp. 200, 201, 202. Lord Hardwicke, in his letter to Lord Kaims, on the subject of equity, in answer to the question whether a court of equity ought to be governed by any general rules, said, " Some general rules there ought to be; for otherwise the great inconvenience of jus vagum et incertuin will follow. And yet the Praetor must not be so absolutely and invariably bound by them, as the judges are by the rules of the common law. For if they were so bound, the consequence would follow, which you very judiciously state, that he must sometimes pronounce decrees which would be materially unjust ; since no rule can be equally just in the application to a whole class of cases, that are far from being the same in every circumstance." (Parke's Hist, of Chancery, pp. 501, 506.) This is very loosely said; and the reason given equally applies to every general rule ; for there can be none , which will be found equally just in its application to all cases. If every change of circumstances is to change the rule in equity, there can be no general rule. Every case must stand upon its own ground. Yet courts of equity now adhere as closely to general rules as courts of law. Each expounds its rules to meet new cases ; but each is equally reluctant to depart from them upon slight inconveniences and mischiefs. See Mitford, Plead, in Eq. p. 4, note (b); 1 Fonbl. Eq. B. 1, ch. 1, § 3, note (fe). 'The late Professor Park, of King's College (London), has made some very acute remarks on this whole subject, in his Introductory Lecture on Equity (1832).
§ 18, 19.] NATURE OF EQUITY. 13
suerunt " (i). And the Pandects directly recognize the same doctrine, "Est enim juris civilis species consuetudo; enimvero, diutuma con- suetude pro jure et lege, in his, quse non ex scripto descendunt observari, solet, &e. Maxime autem probatur consuetudo ex rebus judicatis " (k).
§ 19. If, indeed, a court of equity in England did possess the un- bounded jurisdiction which has been thus generally ascribed to it, of correcting, controlling, moderating, and ever superseding the law, and of enforcing all the rights, as well as the charities, arising from natural' law and justice, and of freeing itself from all regard to former rules and precedents, it would be the most gigantic in its sway and the most formidable instrument of arbitrary power that could well be- devised. It would literally place the whole rights and property of the community under the arbitrary will of the judge, acting, if you please, arbitro boni judicis, and, it may be, ex aequo et bono, according to his own notions and conscience, but still acting with a despotic and sovereign authority. A court of chancery might then well deserve the spirited rebuke of Selden : "For law we have a measure, and know what to trust to. Equity is according to the conscience of himi that is chancellor; and as that is larger, or narrower, so is equity.. 'Tis all one as if they should make the standard for the measure the- chancellor's foot. What an uncertain measure would this be ! One chancellor has a long foot; another a short foot; a third an indifferent- foot. It is the same thing with the chancellor's conscience " (I). And' notions of this sort were, in former ages, when the chancery jurisdic- tion was opposed with vehement disapprobation by common lawyers, very industriously propagated by the most learned of English antiquarians, such as Spelman, Coke, Lambard, and Selden (m). "We might, indeed, under such circumstances, adopt the language of Mr. Justice Blackstone, and say : "In short, if a court of equity in England did really act, as many ingenious writers have supposed it (from theory) to do, it would rise above all law, either common or- statute, and be a most arbitrary legislator in every particular case " (n). So far, however, is this from being true, that one of the most common- maxims upon which a court of equity daily acts, is, that " equity follows the law, and seeks out and guides itself by the analogies of the- law " (o).
(i) Cicero de Invent. Lib. 2, cap. 22. My attention -was first called to these- passages by a note of Lord Eedesdale. Mitford, Plead, in Eq. p. 4, note (b). See- Heineccius, De Bdictis Prstorum, Lib. 1, cap. 6, § 13, 30.
(k) Pothier, Pand. Lib. 1, tit. 3, art. 6 n. 28, 29; Dig. Lib. 1, tit. 3. f. 33, f. 34.
{I) Selden's Table Talk, title Equity, cited 3 Black Comm. 432, note (y).
(m) See citations, 3 Black. Comm. 433; ibid. 54, 55, 440, 441.
(n) 3 Black. Comm. 4.33; ibid. 440, 441, 442. De Lolme, in his -work on the Con- stitution of England, has presented a vie-w of English equity jurisprudence, far more- exact and comprehensive than many of the English text--writers on the same subject.. The -whole chapter (B. 1, c. 11) is -well -worthy of perusal.
(o) Cowper v. Cowper, 2 P. Wms. 753.
14 EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE. [CH. I.
§ 20. What has been already said upon this subject cannot be more fitly concluded than in the words of one of the ablest judges that ever sat in equity. "There are" (said Lord Eedesdale) "certain principles, on which courts of equity act, which are very well settled. The cases which occur are various; but they are decided on fixed ■principles. Courts of equity have, in this respect, no more dis- cretionary power than courts of law. They decide new cases, as they .arise, by the principles on which former cases have been decided; and may thus illustrate, or enlarge, the operation of those principles. But the principles are as fixed and certain as the principles on which the courts of common law proceed " (p). In confirmation of these remarks it may be added, that the courts of common law are, in like manner, perpetually adding to the doctrines of the old jurisprudence; and enlarging, illustrating, and applying the maxims which were at first derived from very narrow and often obscure sources. For instance, the whole law of Insurance is scarcely a century old; and more than half of its most important principles and distinctions have been created within the last fifty years (g).
§ 21. In the early history of English equity jurisprudence, there rmight have been, and probably was, much to justify the suggestion, that courts of equity were bounded by no certain limits or rules ; but they acted upon principles of conscience and natural justice, without .much restraint of any sort. And as the chancellors were, for many .ages, almost universally either ecclesiastics or statesmen, neither of whom are supposed to be very scrupulous in the exercise of power; and as they exercised a delegated authority from the Crown, as the fountain of administrative justice, whose rights, prerogatives, and duties on this subject were not well defined, and whose decrees were not capable of being resisted, it would not be unnatural that they should arrogate to themselves the general attributes of royalty, and interpose in many cases, which seemed to them to require a remedy, more wide or more summary than was adopted by the common courts of law.
§ 22. This is the view which Mr. Justice Blackstone seems to have taken of the matter; who has observed that, in the infancy of our courts of equity, before their jurisdiction was settled, the chancellors themselves, " partly from their ignorance of the law (being frequently bishops or statesmen), partly from ambition and lust of power (encouraged by the arbitrary principles of the age they lived in), but principally from the narrow and unjust decisions of the courts of law, had arrogated to themselves such unlimited authority as hath totally been disclaimed by their successors, for now [1765] above a century past. The decrees of the court of equity were then rather in the
(p) Bond V. Hopkins, 1 Sch. & Lef. 428, 429. (g) The original edition was published in 183S.
§ 20 — 25.] NATURE OF EQDITY. 15
nature of awards, formed on the sudden, pi)-o re natd, with more probity of intention than knowledge of the subject, founded on no settled principles, as being never designed, and therefore never used, as precedents " (r).
§ 23. It was fortunate, indeed, that, even in those early times, the knowledge which the ecclesiastical chancellors had acquired of general equity and justice from the civil law, enabled them to administer them with a more sound discretion than could otherwise have been done. And from the moment, when principles of decision came to be acted upon and established in chancery, the Eoman law furnished abundant principles to erect a superstructure, at once solid, con- venient, and lofty, adapted to human wants, and enriched by all the aids of human wisdom, experience, and learning. To say that later chancellors have borrowed much from these materials, is to bestow the highest praise upon their judgment, their industry, and their reverential regard to their duty. It would have been little to the commendation of such learned minds, that they had studiously dis- regarded the maxims of ancient wisdom, or had neglected to use them, from ignorance, from pride, or from indifference (s).
§ 24. Having dwelt thus far upon the inaccurate, or inadequate notions, which are frequently circulated, as to equity jurisprudence, it may be thought proper to give some more exact and clear state- ment of it. This may be better done by explanatory observations, than by direct definitions, which are often said in the law to be perilous and unsatisfactory.
§ 25. In England, equity has a restrained and qualified meaning. The remedies for the redress of wrongs, and for the enforcement of rights, were distinguished into two classes : first, those which were administered in courts of common law ; and secondly, those which were administered in courts of equity. Rights, which were recognized and protected, and wrongs, which were redressed by th* former courts, were called legal rights and legal injuries. Eights which were recog- nized and protected, and wrongs, which were redressed by the latter, courts only, were called equitable rights and equitable injuries. The former were said to be rights and wrongs at coxnmon law, and the remedies, therefore, were remedies at common law; the latter were said to be rights and wrongs in equity, and the remedies, therefore, were
(r) 3 Black Comm. 433; ibid. 440, 441.
(s) The whole of the late Professor Park's Lecture upon Equity Jurisprudence, delivered in King's College in Nov. 1831, on this subject, is well deserving of a perusal by every student. There is much freedom and force in his observations, and, if his life had been longer spared, he would probably have been a leader in a more masculine and extensive course of law studies by the English Bar. There are also two excellent articles on the same subject in the American Jurist, one of which, pub- lished in 1829, contains a most elaborate review and vindication of the jurisdiction of courts of equity, and the other in 1833, a forcible exposition of the prevalent errors on the subject (2 Amer. Jurist, 314 ; 10 Amer. Jurist, 227). I know not where to refer the reader to pages more full of useful comment and research.
16 EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE. [CH. I.
remedies in equity. Equity jurisprudence may, therefore, properly be said to be that portion of remedial justice, which was exclusively administered by a court of equity, as contradistinguished from that portion of remedial justice, which was exclusively administered by a court of common law.
§ 26. The distinction between the former and the latter courts may be further illustrated by considering the different natures of the rights they were designed to recognize and protect, the different natures of the remedies which they applied, and the different natures of the forms and modes of proceeding which they adopted to accomplish their respective ends. In the courts of common law there were certain pre- scribed forms of action, to which the party must have resorted to furnish him a remedy ; and, if there were no prescribed form to reach such a case, he was remediless; for they entertained jurisdiction only of certain actions, and gave relief according to the particular exigency of such actions, and not otherwise. In those actions, a general and unqualified judgment only could be given, for the plaintiff, or for the defendant, without any adaptation of it to particular circumstances.
§ 27. But there are many cases, in which a simple judgment for either party, without qualifications, or conditions, or peculiar arrange- ments, will not do entire justice ex eequo et bono to either party. Some modifications of the rights of both parties may be required ; some restraints on one side, or on the other, or perhaps on both sides ; some adjustments involving reciprocal obligations, or duties ; some compensatory, or preliminary, or concurrent proceedings to fix, con- trol, or equalise rights ; some qualifications or conditions, present or future, temporary or permanent, to be annexed to the exercise of rights, or the redress of injuries. In all these cases courts of common law could not give the desired relief. They had no forms of remedy adapted to the objects. They could entertain suits only in a prescribed form, and they could give a general judgment only in the prescribed form. From their very character and organisation they were incapable .of the remedy, which the mutual rights and relative situations of the parties, under the circumstances, positively required.
§ 28. But courts of equity were not so restrained. Although they had prescribed forms of proceedings, the latter were flexible, and might be suited to the different postures of cases. They might adjust their decrees, so as to meet most, if not all, of these exigencies; and they might vary, qualify, restrain, and model the remedy, so as to suit it to mutual and adverse claims, controlling equities, and the real and substantial rights of all the parties. Nay, more : they could bring before them all parties interested in the subject-matter, and adjust the rights of all, however numerous; whereas, courts of common law were compelled to limit their inquiry to the very parties in the litiga- tion before them, although other persons might have the deepest interest in the event of the suit. So that one of the most striking
§ 29 31.] NATURE OF EQUITY. 17
and distinctive features of courts of equity was, that they could adapt their decrees to all the varieties of circumstances, which might arise, and adjust them to all the pecuhar rights of all the parties in interest; whereas courts of common law (as we have already seen) were bound down to a fixed and invariable form of judgment in general terms, altogether absolute, for the plaintiff, or for the defendant (t).
§ 29. Another peculiarity of courts of equity was, that they could administer remedies for rights, which rights, courts of common law did not recognize at all ; or, if they did recognize them, they left them wholly to the conscience and good-will of the parties. Thus, what are technically called Trusts, that is, estates vested in persons upon particular trusts and confidences, were wholly without any cognizance at the common law; and the abuses of such trusts and confidences were beyond the reach of any legal process. But they are cognizable in courts of equity; and hence they are called equitable estates; and an ample remedy is there given in favour of the cestuis que trust (the parties beneficially interested) for all wrongs and injuries, whether arising from negligence, or positive misconduct (m). There are also many cases (as we shall presently see) of losses and injuries by mistake, accident, and fraud ; many cases of penalties and forfeitures ; many cases of impending irreparable injuries, or meditated mischiefs; and many cases of oppressive proceedings, undue advantages and impositions, betrayals of confidence, and unconscionable bargains, in all of which courts will interfere and grant redress; but which the common law took no notice of, or silently disregarded (x).
§ 30. Again: the remedies in courts of equity were often very different, in their nature, mode, and degree, from those of courts of common law, even when each had a jurisdiction over the same subject-matter. Thus, a court of equity, if a contract is broken, would often compel the party specifically to perform the contract; whereas, courts of law could only give damages for the breach of it. So, courts of equity would interfere by way of injunction to prevent wrongs; whereas, courts of common law could grant redress only, when the wrong was done.
§ 31. The modes of seeking and granting relief in equity were also different from those of courts of common law. The latter proceed to the trial of contested facts by means of a jury; and the evidence till lately was drawn, not from the parties, but from third persons who
(t) 1 Wooddes. Lect. vii. pp. 203 to 206; 3 Black. Comm. 438. Much of this paragraph has been abstracted from Dr. Lieber's Encyclopedia Americana, article Equity. The late Professor Park, of King's College, London, in his Introductory Lecture on Equity (1831, p. 15), has said, " The editors of the Encyclopedia Americana have stated the real case, with regard to what we call courts of equity, much more accurately than I can find it stated in any English Law Books"; and he thus admits the propriety of the exposition contained in the text.
(u) 3,Black. Comm. 439.
(x) Ibid. 484, 435, 438, 439.
E.J. 2
18 EQUITY JUEISPEUDENCE. [CH. I.
were disinterested witnesses. But courts of equity tried causes without a jury; and they addressed themselves to the conscience of the defendant, and required him to answer upon his oath the matters of fact stated in the bill, if they were within his- knowledge; and he was compellable to give a full account of all such facts, with all their circumstances, without evasion, or equivocation; and the testimony of other witnesses also might be taken to confirm, or to refute, the facts so alleged. Indeed, every bill in equity may be said to have been, in some sense, a bill of discovery, since it asked for the personal oath of the defendant, to purge himself in regard to the transactions stated in the bill. It may readily be perceived, how very important this process of discovery may be, when we consider how great the mass of human transactions is, in which there are no other witnesses, or persons, having knowledge thereof, except the parties themselves.
§ 32. Mr. Justice Blackstone has, in a few words, given an outline of some of the more important powers and peculiar duties of courts of equity. He says, that they are established " to detect latent frauds, and concealments, which the process of courts of law is not adapted to reach ; to enforce the execution of such matters of trust and confidence, as are binding in conscience, though not cognizable in a court of law ; to deliver from such dangers as are owing to mis- fortune or oversight; and to give a more specific relief, and more adapted to the circumstances of the case, than can always be obtained by the generality of the rules of the positive or common law " (y). But the general account of Lord Eedesdale (which he admits, however, to be imperfect, and in some respects inaccurate), is far more satis- factory, as a definite enumeration. " The jurisdiction of a court of equity" (says he) (z), " when it assumes a power of decision, is to be exercised, ' (1) where the principles of law, by which the ordinary courts are guided, give a right, but the powers of those courts are not sufficient to afford a' complete remedy, or their modes of pro- ceeding are inadequate to the purpose; (2) where the courts of ordinary jurisdiction are made instruments of injustice ; (3) where the principles of law, by which the ordinary courts are guided, give no right, but upon the principles of universal justice, the interference of the judicial power is necessary to prevent a wrong, and the positive law is silent. And it may also be collected, that courts of equity, without deciding upon the rights of the parties, administer to the ends of justice by assuming a jurisdiction; (4) to remove impedi- ments to the fair decision of a question in other courts; (5) to provide for the safety of property in dispute, pending a litigation,
(i;) 1 Black. Comm. 92.
(z) Mitford, PI. Eq. by Jeremy, pp. Ill, 112. See also ibid. pp. 4, 5. Dr. Dane, in his Abridgment and Digest, ch. 1, art. 7, § 33 to 51 (1 Dane, Abrid. 101 to 197), has given a summary of the differences between equity jurisdiction and legal juris- diction in regard to contracts, which may be read with utility.
§ 32, 33.] NATURE OF EQUITY. 19
and to preserve property in danger of being dissipated or destroyed by those to whose care it is by law entrusted, or by persons having immediate but partial interest; (6) to restrain the assertion of doubtful rights in a manner productive of irreparable damage; (7) to prevent injury to a third person by the doubtful title of others; and (8) to put a bound to vexatious and oppressive litigation, an,d to prevent multiplicity of suits. And further, that courts of equity, without pronouncing any judgment, which may affect the rights of parties, extend their jurisdiction; (9) to compel a discovery, or obtain evidence, which may assist the decision of other courts; and (10) to preserve testimony, when in danger of being lost, before the matter, to which it relates, can be made the subject of judicial investigation."
§ 33. Perhaps the most general, if not the most precise, descrip- tion of a court of. equity, .is, that it had jurisdiction in cases of rights, recognised and protected by the municipal jurisprudence, where a plain, adequate, and complete remedy could be not had in the courts of common law (a). The remedy must have been plain ; for if it be doubt- ful and obscure at law, equity would assert a jurisdiction (fa). It must have been adequate ; for, if at law it fell short of what the party was entitled to, that founded a jurisdiction in equity (c). And it must have been complete; that is, it must have attained the full end and justice of the case. It must have reached the whole mischief, and secured the whole right of the party in a perfect manner, at the present time, and in future ; otherwise, equity would interfere and give such relief and aid as the exigency of the particular case might require (d). The jurisdic-
(a) Cooper, Eq. PI. 128, 139; Mitford, PI. Eq. by Jeremy, 112, 123.
(b) Southampton Dock Co. v. Southampton Board, L. E. 11 Eq. 254.
(c) In the early days of English jurisprudence, subjects could sue each other in the county and hundred courts only. The King's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer Courts were exclusively employed in the king's business with his subjects. The king also administered many matters of justice between his subjects in his council. His chancellor was the secretary of the council, and to him the petitions of the subject for redress came in the first instance. The chancellor examined the petitions, and referred the matter of the petitions to the King's Bench, Common Pleas, or Exchequer, according to the nature of the business. In cases where no proper redress could be had in any of those courts, the chancellor retained the petition in his own hands, and the king, or the chancellor, gave such relief as was judged proper. Hence arose the custom of inserting, in petitions to the king or his chancellor, the allegation that the petitioner had no complete and adequate remedy in the ordinary courts of law. See Bispham, Prin. of Eq. pp. 6-9. Thus the inadequacy and incompleteness of all legal remedy underlie the whole system of equity jurisprudence. But gradually the jurisdiction of the chancellor in giving relief where there was no adequate remedy at law became settled; and there grew up certain great heads of equity jurisdiction, and courts of equity took jurisdiction rather because they had jurisdiction in certain matters, than because there was no adequate and complete remedy at law in the particular case. Thus the jurisdiction of a court of equity at the present day in England is determined, not by the question whether there is an adequate remedy at law, but whether it has been, the practice of the chancellor to take jurisdiction in similar matters.
(d) See Dr. Lieber's Encyc. Americana, art. Equity; Mitford, Eq. Plead, by Jeremy, 111, 112, 117, 123.
20 EQUITY JURISPHUDBNCE. [CH. I.
tion of a court of equity was, therefore, sometimes concurrent with the jurisdiction of a court of law; it was sometimes exclusive of it; and it was sometimes auxiliary to it.
§ 34. The author in the preceding paragraphs had led up to the discussion of the jurisdiction exercised by the Lord Chancellor, and in the concluding paragraphs expressed his approval of the divided juris- dictions of the common law courts and the court of chancery. There had bjsen small attempts at fusion into one court which should give to suitors the actual relief to which they were entitled according to the facts proved, either by cumulation of remedies, or by allowing matters to be raised by way of defence, or by awarding one of two alternative measures of relief. Thus the 8 & 9 Will. III., c. 11 (e); 4 & 5 Anne c. 3 (/); and 7 Geo. II., c. 20, empowered the common law courts, in proceedings on bonds, to restrict the rights of the plaintiff within the limits laid down in courts of equity. Conversely the court of chancery was empowered by the Court of Chancery Amendment Act, 1858 (21 & 22 Vict. c. 27) to award damages in cases where it exercised concurrent jurisdiction, instead of dismissing the bill, without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff to maintain proceedings at law (g). By the Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 87 Vict. c. 66) one court adminis- tering law and equity was constituted. Still a clear understanding of the principles upon which the courts of chancery or of the common law acted is essential, for as has been said, the statute is not concerned with rights but with procedure. Accordingly, where the plaintiff is entitled to one of two alternative remedies, the relief granted will be that to which he would have been entitled upon the facts proved, and may in the circumstances have been lost (h). It may be added that the author limited his treatise to equity as administered in the court of chancery. There had been an equitable jurisdiction exercised by the court of exchequer, a jurisdiction transferred to the second Vice- Chancellor by statute 5 Vict. c. 5.
(e) Tuther v. Caralampi, 21 Q. B. D. 414. {/) Gerard v. Clowes, [1892] 2 Q. B. 1. (3) Ferguson v. Wilson, L. E. 2 Ch. 77.
{h) Tamplin v. James, 15 Ch. D. 215; Olley v. Fisher, 34 Ch. D. 367; Lavery v Pursell, 39 Ch. D. 608; General Accident Assurance Co. v. Noel, [1902] 1 K. B. 377,
§ 34 — 39.] ORIGIN AND HISTORY. 21
CHAPTER II.
THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE.
§ 38. Having thus ascertained what is the true nature and character of Equity Jurisprudence, as it is administered in countries governed by the common law, it seemed proper, before proceeding to the con- sideration of the particulars of that jurisdiction, to take a brief review of its origin and progress. It is not intended here to epeak of the common law jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, 'or of any of its specially delegated jurisdiction in exercising the prerogatives of the Crown, as in cases of infancy and lunacy; or of its statutable jurisdic- tion in cases of bankruptcy (a). The inquiry will mainly relate to its equitable, or, as it is sometimes called, its extiraordinary, jurisdic- tion (b).
§ 39. The origin of the Court of Chancery is involved in the same obscurity, which attends the investigation of many other questions, of high antiquity, relative to the common law (c). The administration of justice in England was originally confided to the Aula- Regis, or great Court or Council of the King, as the Supreme Court of Judicature, which, in those early times, undoubtedly administered equal justice, according to the rules of both law and equity, or of either, as the case might chance to require (d). When that court was broken into pieces, and its principal jurisdiction distributed among various courts, the Common Pleas, the King's Bench, and the Exchequer, each received a certain portion, and the Court of Chancery also obtained a portion (e). But, at that period, the idea of a court of equity, as contradistinguished from a court of law, does not seem to have sub- sisted in the original plan of partition, or to have been in the
(a) See Com. Dig. Chancery, C. 1; 1 Mad. Ch. Pr. 262; 2 Mad. Ch. Pr. 447; ibid. 565; 3 Black. Comm. 426, 427, 428.
(6) 3 Black. Comm. 50; Com. Dig. Chancery, C. 2; 4 Inst. 79; 2 Inst. 552.
(c) Mitford, PL Equity, 1; Com. Dig. Chancery, A. 1; 4 Inst. 79; 1 Wooddes. Lect. vi.
(d) 3 Black. Comm. 50; 1 Beeves, Hist. 62, 63.
(e) 3 Black. Comm. 50; Com. Dig. Chancery, A. 1, 2, 3; 1 Collect, jurid. 27 to 30; Parke, Hist. Chan. 16, 17, 28, 56; 1 Eq. Abridg. 129; Courts, B. note (a); 1 Wooddes. Lect. vi. pp. 174, 175; Gilb. For. Roman. 14; 1 Reeves, Hist, 59, 60, 63; Bac. Abridg. Court of Chancery, C.
22 EQUITY JUEISPRUDENCE. [CH. II.
contemplation of the sages of the day (/). Certain it is, that among the earliest writers of the common law, such as Bracton, Glanville, Britton, and Fleta, there is not a syllable to be found relating to the equitable jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery {g).
§ 39a. The author, in subsequent paragraphs, discussed at length the conflicting views of which Lord Coke 's is perhaps the most virulent and the most inaccurate (h), respecting the antiquity of the jurisdic- tion. The Statute' of Westminster the Second (13 Ed. 1, c. 24) had imposed upon the clerks in chancery the duty of framing