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/ssactsengr0792 and id is 1 raw text is: DOUGLAS V. CONGREVE
Mr. Lloyd, conr.
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS [Lord Langdale]. In suits for specific performance
between vendor and purchaser, the Court has, for some time past, been in the habit,
upon admission of the Defendant by his answer that there is nothing but the title in
dispute, of directing a reference, upon motion, to inquire into the title; and even
before answer the title will be referred, when no objection is raised by the Defendant.
Everything that appears to be connected with the title may be the subject of that
reference. I think, therefore, that there is no objection, in addition to the ordinary
reference, to an inquiry whether the Defendant objected at any time to the want of
evidence as to the identity of the premises. As to the inquiry whether the ab-[409]-
stract was perfect, and if deficient, in what respects its deficiency consisted, and
whether it was ever perfected, the ordinary rule of the Court does not justify the
introduction of that part of the proposed reference. It was directed by Sir John
Leach, that in every order by which it was referred to the Master to inquire whether
a good title could be made, there should be inserted a direction that, if the Master
should find that a good title could be made, he should inquire when it was first shewn ;
and so the order is now always made, unless for some reason stated at the time, and
by the express direction of the Court, the inquiry as to the time when a good title.
was first shewn should be omitted.
The order was as follows :- His Lordship doth order that it be referred to the.
Master of this Court to inquire and state to the Court whether the Plaintiff can make
a good title to the estate in question, in this cause agreed to be purchased by the.
Defendant, and when such title was first shewn, and whether the Defendant or his.
solicitor ever and when required of the Plaintiffs or their solicitor any and what
evidence of the identity of the premises in the abstract with the premises purchased;
and for the better making the said inquiry, the parties are to produce before the
Master upon oath all deeds, books, papers and writings in their custody relating
thereto, and to be examined upon interrogatories as the Master shall direct.
[410] DOUGLAS V. CONGREVE. May 3, August 4, 1836.
[S. C. 6 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 51; 7 L. J. C. P. 43; 4 Bing. N. C. 1; 5 Scott, 223. See.
In re D'Estampe's Settlement, 1884, 53 L. J. Ch. 1120.]
A testator gave to M. S. £50,000 3 per cent. consols to be transferred within six
months after his decease, and after giving a variety of specific and pecuniary legacies,
he directed that the duty upon all the pecuniary legacies thereinbefore bequeathed
should be paid out of his general personal estate. Held, that the legacy of the.
stock was not a pecuniary legacy, and consequently not exempted under this clause!
of the will from the payment of legacy duty.
The testator devised and bequeathed the residue of his estate and effects real and,
personal to trustees, upon trust to convert the same into Government securities in
their own names, and to pay the interest and dividends thereof to M. S. for her-
life, and after her decease to pay and transfer such residue in equal moieties to the.
persons therein mentioned. Held, that the tenant for life was entitled to the
interest of the residue, making interest as it stood at the time of the testator's.
death, until the end of one year, or so much of that year as should elapse before
the conversion of the residue according to the direction of the will.
By a settlement dated the 1st of October 1828, made in contemplation of a marriage,.
which was shortly afterwards solemnised, between the Plaintiff Margaret Stoddart.
Douglas, then Margaret Brazier, and the Defendant James Douglas Stoddart
Douglas, the sum of £11,510, 15s. 10d. three per cent. consolidated Bank annuities was
transferred into the names of trustees upon trust to pay the interest and dividends there-
of to the Plaintiff, or such person or persons as she should from time to time by any
writing direct and appoint, but not so as to deprive herself of the benefit thereof
by sale, mortgage, charge, or otherwise in the way of anticipation, for and during her
natural life, for her sole, separate, and independent use and benefit, so as not to be
in any manner subject to the debts, engagements, or control of her then intended,
364
1f KEEN 409.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0792&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)