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/ssactsengr0812 and id is 1 raw text is: two for their joint lives, or the life of the survivors, a joint-tenancy and not a tenancy
by entireties is created, and the income not having been received, survives to the
widow as joint-tenant.
2. The terms of the decree are such as to determine that the husband and wife
were joint-tenants; for the income is to be paid to the husband and wife during
their joint lives and to the survivor of them.
3. So far as the property consists of the life interest of the wife not reduced into
possession, the cases of Wilkinson v. Charlesworth and Marsack v. Lyster (10 Beavan,
324) decide that the wife is entitled by survivorship.
He also cited Forbes v. Phipps (1 Eden, 502).
[208] Mr. Miller, contri, for the representatives of the husband. 1. The gift to
the husband and wife is not and cannot be in joint-tenancy; they are tenants by
entireties, and there is no right of survivorship.
In A cheson v. Atcheson (11 Beavan, 485), where there was a gift to a husband and
wife as tenants by entireties, all the Court could do was to direct the dividends to be
paid to the husband during the joint lives of the husband and wife, and preserve the
rights of the wife to the corpus.
2. The husband does not claim a chose in action in right of his wife, but he claims
in his own right, and, therefore, the cases are inapplicable. Maintaining his wife and
family a husband is entitled to the income of his wife's estate; and even if it were a
separate estate, no account would be decreed against him beyond a year; Dalbiac v.
Dalbiac (16 Ves. 116), Beresford v. Armagh (13 Simons, 643; and see Caton v. Rideout,
I Mac. & G. 599, and 2 Hall & Twells, 33).
He also cited Oglander v. .Baston (1 'Vernon, 396).
Mr. Lewin, in reply, was stopped by
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS [Lord Langdale], who said that, if the fund was
standing to the account stated in the petition, he thought the Petitioner was entitled.
Nov. 12. Mr. Lewin stated that the stock stood to the account of B. B. H. and
C. his wife their stock account.
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS. Then I think the unreceived dividends go to the
survivor.
[209] In 7e JERVOISE. Nov. 17, 1849.
[Followed, In re Eyton, 1890, 45 Ch. D. 458.]
Observations on the effect of carrying over funds to separate accounts in the
Accountant-General's books, and to the importance of affixing appropriate headings
thereto.
When a fund is carried over to a particular separate account, it is released from the
general questions in the cause, and becomes marked as being subject only to the
questions arising upon the particular matter referred to in the heading of the
account.
In this and many other cases, the Court has had occasion to call the attention of
the practitioners to the importance of carrying over funds to separate accounts in the
Accountant-General's books, and affixing appropriate headings thereto. It is important
that the view of the Court, on these occasions, should be generally known.
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS [Lord Langdale] has expressed himself to the
following effect :-
There are few points of practice so neglected, and respecting which so little is to
be found in the books, as that relating to the heading of accounts in the Accountant-
General's books. (See Laprimaudaye v. Teissier, 12 Beav. 206.) It is, however, a
matter of great importance, and one which, when properly attended to, saves a con-
siderable expense to the suitors, and diminishes the labour of the Court in investigating
the title upon any subsequent applications to deal with the fund.
When a fund is carried over to a particular separate account, it is released from
the general questions in the cause, and becomes marked as being subject only to the
1039
12 BEAV. 208,
IN RE JERVOISE](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0812&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)