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/ssactsengr0860 and id is 1 raw text is: fund after deducting the charges; and if no individual can claim to have those
deductions made, the residuary legatee is entitled to the whole fund. The case of
Falmner v. Butler (Amb. 514) is conclusive on the point.
Mr. James Parker, in reply, said that Falkner v. Butler was decided on the
particular wording of the will.
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR [Sir L. Shadwell]. It seems to me that the testatrix has
manifested an [428] intention to give to Henry Baskcomb, not the residue of the
£10,000 consols after the sums which she has given to the other persons named in
her will should have been deducted from it; but the £10,000 consols charged with
those sums.
She, first of all, shews that she intends to dispose of the whole of that fund. She
then gives certain sums to different individuals; and with respect to one of those
sums, I mean the £600 consols which she gives to Sarah Toon for life, she directs
that, after the decease of Sarah Toon, it shall sink into the residue of her estate; by which
she plainly means the' £10,000 consols out of which the £600 were given. And,
taking the whole of the will together, my opinion is that the £500 sterling given to
George Adney was a charge upon the £10,000 consols; and that what the testatrix
meant by the words all the rest and residue of the said £10,000 consols after
deducting therefrom the different legacies above mentioned was that the legacies
should be deducted if there were any persons capable of claiming them; but not
otherwise.
In Falkner v. Butler it was held that the sum which was not properly appointed
was not to be deducted at all.
Exception overruled.
[429] MASON v. BEST. Nov. 23, 1848.
New Orders. Service of Office Copy. Practice.
Service of an office copy of the bill held to be good, notwithstanding the interrogating
part was not omitted in the office copy.
Mr. Archibald Smith stated to the Court that the registrar felt some difficulty
about drawing up an order, which he had obtained, for leave to enter a memorandum
of the service of an office copy of the bill on two of the Defendants, because the inter-
rogating part of the bill was not omitted in the office copy.
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR [Sir L. Shadwell] said that the Plaintiff had only done
more than he was required to do, and directed the order to be drawn up.(1)
[429] M'MAHON v. RAWLINGS.(2) Nov. 24, 1848.
Colonial Representation. Executors and Administrators. Personal Representative.
Colonial letters of administration will entitle the administrator to sue in this country
in respect of a sum of stock standing in the names of trustees, to a share of which
the intestate was entitled.
This was a suit to carry into execution the trusts of a 'marriage settlement, dated
the 14th of November 1804, under which a sum of £12,000, to be raised out of an
estate in one of the West India Islands, was settled on the children of W. W.
Rawlings.
There were ten children; one of whom, Stedman Rawlings, died intestate in the
West Indies, and his brother David obtained letters of administration to his effects,
(1) See 23 and 24 Orders of August 1841 ; Beav. Ord. 171 ; and Gibson v. Haines,
1 Hare, 317.
(2) Ex relatione.
940
MASON V). BEST
16 SIM. 428.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0860&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)