place, or, of his messuages, lands, tenements, and hereditaments in that place, to uses applicable only to freehold property, passes only the freeholds. (Rose v. Bartlett, Cro Car. 292; Thompson v. Lanby, 2 B. & P. 303.) But if a different intention on the part of the testator can be collected, either from words in the will, or from the circumstance of the leasehold property being blended in enjoyment with the freehold, that leasehold will pass, notwithstanding the limitations be to uses strictly applicable to freehold property only.-Hobson v. Blackburn, M. & K.

571.

8. (Same.) When a grant is general of ten acres of land adjoining or surrounding a house, part of a larger quantity, the choice of such ten acres adjoining or surrounding is in the grantor, and a devise is to be considered as a grant.-S. C.

9. (Legacy.) In deciding whether a legacy is accumulative or substitutional, the Court can only proceed upon what appears to have been the testator's intention as collected from a close examination of his language. Guy v. Sharpe, M. & K. 589.

10. (Construction.) A testator directed his property to be settled on his daughter in such manner, that, in case of his death, it should devolve on her children if she should have any; and if she should not have any, then that she should bequeath it to any person she might think fit: Held, that the word devolve meant to pass from a person dying to a person living, and that the representative of a child, who died before the mother, took no interest on the death of the latter.—Parr v. Parr, M.& K. 647.

11. (Conversion-Lapse.) In general, where a testator mixes the produce of his real estate to be sold after his death with his personal estate as a common fund, out of which he gives pecuniary or residuary legacies, the heir, in case of lapse or failure, shall have the benefit thereof so far as the legacy would have been payable out of the real estate (Cruise v. Bailey, 3 P. N. 20; Ackroyd v. Smithson, 1 Bro. C. C. 503); but where an intention on the part of the testator, that the produce of the real estate shall for all purposes have the same quality as if it had been part of his personal estate at the time of his death, may be collected from the tenor of the will, then the heir will not be entitled to any proportion of a lapsed or failing legacy. (Mallabar v. Mallabar, Ca. temp. Talb. 78; Dusom v. Motteux, 1 Sim. & Stu. 292.)-Phillips v. Phillips, M. & K. 649. 12. (Conversion-Partners.) Real estate purchased with partnership capital for the purposes of partnership trade, is personal estate to every intent, and retains that character as between the real and personal representatives of a deceased partner. (Townsend v. Devaynes, 1 Mont. Law of Partn. App. 97; 1 Roper's H. & W. 346, edit. Jac.)—S. C. 13. (Copyholds.) Where a testator at the making of his will has legal seisin of a copyhold, his devisee has an inchoate legal title, to be perfected by admittance; and he not having been admitted at the date of his will, nothing passes by his will, though he be subsequently admitted. But

where a testator has never been admitted, and has therefore no legal, but an equitable title, that equitable title vests in his devisee, and will pass by his will, though he never was admitted.—S. C.

14. (Conversion.-Lapse.) A testator directed a residuary fund, composed of the produce of his real and personal estate, to be divided among all and every his children and child, if sons, at 21, and if daughters, at 21 or marriage; and in case there should be no child, to be paid to such person or persons as he should thereafter, by any codici or writing, direct or appoint, his or their executors or administrators. The testator died without having made any appointment, leaving an only child, a daughter, born after the date of his will, and who afterwards died under 21 intestate, and without having been married: Held, that so much of the residuary fund as was composed of real estate descended to the daughter as heir at law (Ackroyd v. Smithson, 1 Bro. C. C. 503), but in the character of personal estate (Smith v. Claxton, 4 Mad. 484); and so much as was composed of personal property was to be considered as personal property of the testator undisposed of by his will, and divisible under the statute of distributions.-Jessop v. Watson, M. & K. 665.

15. (Distribution.-Half-blood.) By the statute 1 Jac. 2, c. 17, s. 7, brothers and sisters of the half-blood of an intestate share with the mother after the death of the father of the intestate, in the personal property of the intestate dying without wife or children. (Burnet v. Mann, 1 Ves. sen. 156.) S. C.

16. (Republication.) Testator having estates in Jamaica and England, by his will, duly executed, directed his English estates to he sold, and £10,000 to be paid out of the produce to the plaintiff. He afterwards sold his English estates, and by an unattested codicil recited that he had so done, and directed that, notwithstanding, the £10,000 should be paid to the plaintiff, and charged all his estates with the payment thereof. He then made another codicil, which was duly attested, and in which he referred to his will, and ratified all the provisions and bequests, which he had thereby made in the plaintiff's favour: Held, that the first codicil was part of the will, and the second codicil, by referring to the will, ratified aud confirmed every thing that was part of it; and, therefore, that the Jamaica estates were liable to the payment of the £10,000. —Gordon v. Lord Reay, Sim. 274.

BANKRUPTCY.

[Containing 3 Deacon & Chitty, Part 2.]

(Some cases in this part were abstracted in our last number.)

ACT OF BANKRUPTCY.

A trader, being indebted, leaves this country without making provision for the payment of all his debts. Two years afterwards one of the creditors, whose debt was left unprovided for, issues a fiat against him, which the bankrupt, by his agent in this country, after the forty-second day, petitions to supersede: Held, (dissent. Sir J, Cross,) that the fiat could not be superseded without the previous surrender of the bankrupt: Held also, that the continued absence of the bankrupt, under these circumstances, amounted to an act of bankruptcy.-Exp. Kirkman, 450.

APPEAL.

The Court will not order a petitioner residing out of its jurisdiction to give security for, or pay into Court, a sum of money which he had been declared entitled to by a previous order, merely because the respondent intends to appeal against the order, if there is no probability of a different decision on the appeal.—Exp. Davidson, 447.

ASSIGNEES.

1. (Reserved Bidding.) A reserved bidding was allowed to assignees, on the sale of an estate which had been mortgaged by the bankrupt, the assignees undertaking to pay the mortgagee his principal, interest and costs.-Exp. Ellis, 297.

2. (Discretion.) The Court will not interfere, on the application of the assignees, to sanction an arrangement made by them for the satisfaction of a claim of the bankrupt's wife. The assignees must use their own discretion.-Exp. James, 290.

3. (Purchase by.) An assignee, who was also a mortgagee of the bankrupt's freehold property, having purchased it for himself when it was put up for sale, the estate was ordered to be re-sold, subject to any claims of the assignee, by virtue of his mortgage.-Exp. Turville, 346.

4. (Evidence.) The examination of the assignee before the commissioner, as to the sale of the property, was permitted to be read as evidence of the assignees' misconduct; the petition praying to discharge him for misconduct, although it did not pray a re-sale.—S. C.

5. (Petition.) A petition of assignees is informal if signed by only one.— Exp. White, 366.

6. (Official.) An official assignee, having no funds in hand, cannot be compelled to join in a suit in equity with the other assignees without being indemnified as to the costs. But if he improperly refuses to join in such suit, he may be made a defendant, and then incur the risk of having to pay his own costs.-Exp. Evans, 470.

BANKRUPT.

A bankrupt, on passing his last examination, neglected to disclose an interest which he possessed in certain property: after a lapse of twenty years he petitioned for a fiat to be issued to fresh commissioners, (only one of the original being alive), and that the assignee might be ordered to account. The Court allowed a fiat to be issued in the name of a creditor, but refused an inquiry against the assignee.-Exp. Holder, 276.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE.

The holder of a bill of exchange falling due and being dishonoured after the bankruptcy of the drawer, is bound to use diligence in giving notice to the bankrupt, or his assignees, of the dishonour of the bill. Therefore, where the bankrupt's house continued open in his absence after the bankruptcy, the messenger being in possession during part of the time, and the bankrupt's wife or clerk during the other period of his absence: Held, that the holder was, at least, bound to leave notice at the bankrupt's house. (Rhode v. Proctor, 4 B. & C. 517; Exp. Rhode, M. & Man. 430.)-Exp. Johnson, 433.

CERTIFICATE.

Under the Bankruptcy Court Act, the bankrupt is not bound to pay the fee for the signature of the commissioner to his certificate, but the assignees, it seems, are now liable for the payment of it.-In the matter of Dawson, 317.

DIVIDENDS.

1. (Refunding.) After a proof by A., as the holder of a bill of exchange, B. pays it for the honour of the drawer, which is unknown to the assignees until after several dividends had been paid by them to A.'s representatives. Upon a petition by the assignees to expunge the proof and have the dividends refunded: Held, that the drawer of the bill, or B., who paid it for his honour, ought to have been served with the petition, notwithstanding the assignees had obtained the possession of the bill.-Exp. Greenwood.

2. (Unclaimed.) Unclaimed dividends can only be ordered to be divided among all the other creditors generally, and not among a particular class of creditors.—Exp. Lackington, 331.

FIAT.

1. (Amending.) Quare, Whether the date of a fiat, which had not been opened, can be altered, so as to give effect to a subsequent act of bankruptcy. In the matter of Roberts, 315.

2. (Same.) Quare, Whether the Court can direct the amendment of a fiat without the approbation of the Lord Chancellor; and whether this can be done now after adjudication.-In the matter of Bell, 326.

3. (New.) A new fiat was issued on the application of the petitioning creditor, to give effect to a more recent act of bankruptcy, the time for opening the first fiat not having expired.— In re Crawley, 251.

4. (Same.) A renewed fiat can only be issued by a creditor whose debt is sufficient to support the original fiat.—Eap. Maude, 365.

JURISDICTION.

The Court will not interfere between two adverse claimants, one claiming as equitable mortgagee, and the other under a prior lease made by the bankrupt of the same property, when the estate of the bankrupt has no interest in the question. (Exp. Allison, 1 G. & J. 210.)-Exp. Royds, 294. LIEN.

1. (Partners) The managing owner of a ship received the warrants for the ↑ freight, and paid them into a bank in his own name, drawing out the proceeds, which were partly applied for the use of the ship: Held, that the other owners had no lien on this fund in the hands of the bankers, nor any claim against the bankers as their debtors.—Exp. Gribble, 339. 2. (Equitable.) The bankrupt, being indebted to the petitioners as the acceptor of two bills of exchange, entered into an agreement with them and W. L. that the bills should be paid out of the proceeds of certain property, the deeds of which were then in the hands of W. L. for sale: Held, that the petitioners might claim as equitable mortgagees, but subject to any prior lien of W. L.-Exp. Greenhill, 334.

3. (Acquiescence.) A debenture for a tontine annuity was deposited by an intestate with his bankers, one of whom received the dividends and placed them to the credit of the intestate's account. The intestate died in 1801, and a commission issued against the bankers in 1810; notwithstanding which, the same partner continued to receive the dividends and pay them to the intestate's widow, up to the period of his own death, which happened in 1822: sometime after which the assignees of the bankers claimed a lien on the debenture, for a debt due from the intestate to the banking-house : Held, that after so long an acquiescence the assignees had no lien, and that the debenture could not be said to be in the order and disposition of the bankrupt, the case being one of trust.-Erp. Douglas, 310.

PARTNERS.

1. (Petitioning creditor's debt.) The bankrupt, who was in partnership with W. P., borrowed various sums of him by way of personal loan, and upon the dissolution of the partnership, purchased the stock in trade for a stipulated sum. W. P. made out an account, entitled “Mr. H. P. (the bankrupt) in account with H. and W. P.:" Held, that W. P. had a good petitioning creditor's debt, notwithstanding this mode of entitling the account.-Exp. Richardson, 244.

2. (Petitioning creditor's debt.) A. lends B. money, to enable him to com