the £5,000, and A covenants that the lands, if not redeemed in his lifetime, shall not be redeemable. It is proved that A wished to benefit B, but to retain the option of having the estate again, in case A should marry and have issue. After A's death, is his heir entitled to redeem? State the general rule in favour of his claim. 5. Can a partnership creditor sustain a bill for an account and payment of his debt against the personal representatives of a deceased partner? Can he make a surviving partner party to such bill, and pray any and what relief against him? 6. A person makes a statement (material to a transaction. about to be concluded) which he believes to be true, but which subsequently proves to be false. Another to whom the statement is made, acting upon the faith of it, concludes the transaction, and afterwards finds himself in a situation less advantageous than that in which he would have been placed if the statement had been true. Has he any and what remedy against the person who made the statement, 1stly at Law, 2ndly in Equity? 7. A Gas Company employ competent workmen to repair the gas-pipes laid down in a public thoroughfare, omitting, however, to give any specific directions in regard to the precautions which should be taken to prevent accidents to passers-by. One of the workmen, whilst engaged in doing the necessary repairs, by his negligence causes injury to an individual lawfully using the thoroughfare. Will the Company be liable to make compensation to the person thus injured? 8. Illustrate the operation of the doctrine of Merger in connection with Criminal Law. 9. A falsely and fraudulently represents to B, that he (A) is authorised by C to order goods on his (C's) account. The goods are accordingly supplied to A, and C, who declines to pay for them, is unsuccessfully sued by B for their price. Explain the nature of the action which under these circumstances would lie at suit of B against A, and what damages would be recoverable in it. 10. A, the owner of a fee simple estate, mortgages it in fee to B, with power of sale, to secure £1,000. A subsequently mortgages the same estate to C for £900, and afterwards to D for £800. D gives notice of his security to B, but C gives no such notice. The estate is then sold by B, under his power of sale, for £2,100. Will the notice of D be productive of any benefit to him, and what will be the shares of C and D respectively in the £1,100, the balance after paying off the first mortgage? 11. A is the owner of a fee simple (or leasehold) Estate, used for the purposes of trade: the principal value of the estate consists of the trade fixtures, such as steam-engines, machines fixed into and standing upon the ground, going gear, &c. A mortgages this property and the fixtures by one Deed to B, but the Security is not registered pursuant to the Bill of Sales' Act. A subsequently becomes bankrupt. Will the Mortgagee or the Assignees of the Bankrupt be entitled to all or which of the fixtures? and give the late authorities for your answer. 12. Explain the several statutory provisions as to the extent to which a Purchaser with and without notice of registered and unregistered Judgments is affected by such Judgments respectively. 13. Enumerate the exceptions to the general rule of Roman Law, that Rights of Action last thirty years. 14. State the immunities to which a public Minister at a Foreign Court is entitled under the General International Law. 15. What is meant in modern Roman Law by the expression, "Legal Transaction?” POINTS DETERMINED IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY. 1. Charity Lands-Power of Court of Chancery to Alien-Sir Samuel Romilly's Act. 2. Deed-Construction-Waste-Timber. 3. Executor, Liability of Misapplication of Assets by Co-executor. 4. Executors-Assets deposited with Bankers-Liability on Bankruptcy of Bankers. 5. Injunction -Nuisance-Brick-burning. 6. Injunction-Disturbance of Graves purchased in Perpetuity. 7. Legacy-Misdescription of Legatee-Evidence. 8. Legacy to purchase a Living-Discretion of Trustee-Death of Legatee before Purchase. 9. Married Woman-Reversionary Interest of, in Personal Property, subject to her own Life interest to her separate use-Has no power to Alien. 10. Marshalling Assets-Charge of Debts on devised Estate-3 and 4 Will., 4 c. 104. 11. Merger of Charges, when it takes place-Intention. 12. Per petuities-Rule against. 13. Railway Shares-Transfer to Fictitious Name. 14. Resulting Trust-Exception where Conveyance is in Fraud of the Law. 15. Surety-Release of, by giving Time to principal Debtor. 16. Trusteecan derive no Profit connected with Trust-Commission-Collecting Rents. 17. Trustees-Executors-Rule as to obtaining Inquiry as to Wilful Default. 18. Vendor and Purchaser-Railway Company's Contract with Landownerwhether Absolute or Conditional on Commencement of the Line. 19. Voluntary Trust-mere Declaration of intention to divide Property, does not amount to Declaration of Trust, 20, Ward of Court-Trustee Relief Act-Effect of Order on Petition, 21. Will-Validity of―Devisavit vel non-New Trial. 1. IN RE ASHTON CHARITY. 22 Beav., 288. Charity Lands-Power of Court of Chancery to Alien-Sir Samuel Romilly's Act. The question in this case was whether the Court had jurisdiction to sell charity lands under 52 Geo. III. c. 105 (Sir Samuel Romilly's Act), and to force the title upon an unwilling purchaser, unless the sale were confirmed by the charity commissioners (16 and 17 Vict., c. 137, ss. 24, 26). Sir John Romilly, M.R., held that the Court had jurisdiction. "My opinion," said his Honour, "is that, upon an information, the Court of Chancery has a general jurisdiction, as incident to the administration of a charity estate, to alien charity property, where it clearly sees it is for its benefit and advantage. I think this power may also be exercised under the statute of 52 Geo. III. c. 101. That being my opinion, the title can be forced on a purchaser." 2. VINCENT V. SPICER. 22 Beav., 380. Deed-Construction-Waste-Timber. Sir F. Vincent on his marriage settled his estate on himself for life, "without impeachment of, or for any manner of waste, save and except spoil or destruction, or voluntary or permissive waste, or suffering houses or buildings to go to decay, and in not repairing the same." The defendant, who purchased the life interest of the plaintiff, claimed a right to cut timber exactly to the same extent as a tenant for life, without impeachment of waste. Upon a bill for an injunction being filed by the tenant in tail in remainder, Sir John Romilly, M.R., made a declaration, that, according to the true construction of the articles, the defendant, as the assignee of the interest of Sir F. Vincent, was entitled to cut such timber and other trees, not planted or standing for ornament, as an owner of the estate in fee-simple, having due regard to his present interest, and to the permanent advantage of the estate, might properly cut in a due course of management, and granted an injunction to restrain him from cutting any timber or wood beyond that specified in the preceding declaration. “I shall explain," said his Honour, "the general view I take of this case by this illustration :-Suppose there was a very fine oak tree, of one hundred years old, at a distance from the house, and not visible from the grounds, which was perfectly mature and fit to cut, though it might possibly still improve a little, I should hold that the tenant for life was entitled to cut that tree; but if the tree were forty or fifty years old, valuable to cut, but rapidly improving, and had not attained its maturity, I should hold that he was not entitled to cut it. It is a question of degree in each case, to be determined by ascertaining what a sensible owner in fee of an estate, which he wished to preserve for his children, would do. That is possibly not a very legal definition; but a man of common-sense and understanding might easily put it in practice." 3. CANDLER V. TILLETT. 22 Beav., 263. Executor, Liability of-Misapplication of Assets by Co-executor. "If one executor does any act which enables his co-executor to obtain sole possession of money belonging to the testator's estate, which, but for that act, he could not have obtained possession of, and this money is afterwards misapplied, the executor who thus enables his co-executor to obtain possession of the money, is liable to make good the loss."-Per Sir John Romilly, M.R. 4. JOHNSON V. NEWTON. 11 Hare, 160. Executors-Assets deposited with Bankers-Liability on Bankruptcy of Bankers. The testator died in May 1842, having at that time a balance, rather less than usual, at his bankers, of £3243 12s. The executors paid further sums into the bank to the account of the estate, and also drew out such sums as they required; so that, on the bankruptcy of the bankers on the 10th of January 1813, there was in their hands the balance of £2056: 17: 11, belonging to the testator's estate, upon which the executors received dividends to the amount of £1023: 8:3, which they had duly accounted for as part of the testator's estate, by which the loss occasioned by the bankruptcy of the bankers was reduced to £1033 9: 8. It was found by the Master, "that there were not any purposes of their trust which rendered it necessary for the executors to re |