HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0742 and id is 1 raw text is: DREVER V. MAUDESLEY
July 1. The Master of the Rolls [Sir John Leach]. If it were admitted that
Colonel Popham was of capacity to understand, and did perfectly understand, the
nature and effect of these instruments, they could not be maintained by the Defend-
ant. On the 8th of July the Defendant was informed by Dr. Nevinson that Colonel
Popham could not recover, nor survive long; and, either on that or on the preceding
day, the Defendant stated to Mrs. Popham his own opinion that Colonel Popham
could not live more than a month or six weeks. When, therefore, these instruments
were executed on the 12th of July, the Defendant well knew that.he was, in fact,
giving little or no consideration for so large a gratuity ; whereas Colonel Popham
must have executed [11] them in the hope of a prolonged life. Under such circum-
stances, it would have been the bounden duty of the Defendant to have declined
a compensation of that character, even if Colonel Popham had pressed it upon him,
and had been, in truth, capable of business. If, however, the capacity of Colonel
Popham on the 12th of July, when the deeds were executed, had been a material
ingredient in the case, is it possible that such capacity could be assumed, consistently
with the evidence of Dr. Nevinson and V&rs. Popham, which applies to the 8th of
July .
The Plaintiff is entitled to a decree according to the prayer of the bill, with
costs.
DREVER v. MAUDESLEY. Rolls. June 26, 1828.
A foreigner, who claimed to be a creditor of the testator in the cause, petitioned to
have his claim referred to the Master, after he had made his report : the Court
made the order, upon condition of his giving security for the costs.
A foreigner, who claimed to be a creditor of the estate of the testator, which was
administered in this suit, and who had omitted to bring in his claim, before the
Master had made his report, now petitioned to have his claim referred to the Master.
The petition described him as resident in Paris.
Mr. Roupell and Mr. Tinney objected, that, as the party was not within the
jurisdiction, he ought to give security for costs.
Mr. Pemberton, contra.
The Court made the order, upon his giving security for costs.
[12] VAISEY v. REYNOLDS. Rolls. July 2, 1828.
[S. C. 6 L. J. Ch. (0. S.) 172. See Hopkins v. Abbott, 1875, L. R. 19 Eq. 227. Dis-
approved, In re Roose, 1880, 17 Ch. D. 696.]
Where a testator gives to one person all his monies in hand; and to another
all his monies out on securities ; the balance at his bankers will pass as money
in hand. A gift of all farming stock will not, as against the devisee, pass crops
on the ground, unless there be a plain intention that the legatee of the farming
stock is to take all the personal estate.
The testator, James Reynolds, inter alia, made his will in the following words
I give to my wife all and every my household goods, furniture, plate, linen, china,
and household effects whatsoever; and also all and every my book debts, monies
in hand, stock in trade in my dwelling-house, shop, and malting; and also my
farming stock of every kind and description whatsoever. I give and bequeath to
my executrix and executor hereinafter named all and every my monies out at in-
terest on mortgage, notes of hand, or any other security whatsoever, together with
all my monies vested in the public funds, and all the rest, residue, and remainder
of my personal estate and effects and property of every kind and description whatso-
ever and wheresoever, not by me otherwise disposed of.
The testator, at the time of his death, had money in his banker's hands, which
was afterwards paid, with interest. The banker's habit was to pay three per cent.
to his customers on all monies which remained in his hands for nine months;
but all such monies were in the same order and disposition of. the customers, as if
no such interest had been allowed.
One question was, Whether that money passed to the wife, or was included in
the residuary bequest
5 RUSS. 11.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0742&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)