COMMON INFORMER,

See Indictment, No. 2.

COMPOUNDING

PUBLIC PROSECUTION,

See Indictment, No. 1, 2, 3, 4.

CONDITION,

See Devise, No. 1.

1. A condition against alienation, ex-
cept to sisters or their children, an-
nexed to a devise to two and their
heirs, is good; and for a breach of
it by one of them, in levying a fine
of her moiety to the use of her hus-
band in fee, the heir of the devisor
(the remainder, on non-perform-
ance of the condition, not being
disposed of by a general residuary
clause) may enter on such moiety.
Doe d. Gill and Wife v. Pearson,
H. 45 G. 3.
2. One of several co-heirs of the de-
visor may enter for non-perform-
ance or breach of such condition,
and recover her own share in eject-
ment,
ib.

CONSIGNOR,

See Stopping in Transitu.

CONVERSION,

See Trover.

CONVEYANCE,

173

See Fraudulent Conveyance to defeat
Creditors.

Where an estate was conveyed to a
trustee, habendum to him and his
heirs, to the use of such person and
for such estate as W. should by deed,
&c. appoint, and for want of such
limitation to the use of W. and his
heirs, and the same conveyance re-
served a certain fee-farm rent to the
chief lord, and contained a covenant
by W. his heirs and assigns, for the
payment of it: held, That W. took
a tested fee, liable to be divested, by

the execution of his power of ap-
pointment; and W. having con-
tracted to sell the estate, afterwards
by indentures of lease and release, to
which he and his trustee were par-
ties, after reciting the former con-
veyance, the trustee, by direction of
W. did grant, bargain, sell, and re-
lease, and W. did grant, bargain, sell,
alien, release, ratify, and confirm,
and also direct, limit, and appoint
to the purchaser and his heirs all
their estate, title, interest, use,
trust, &c. in law and equity, sub-
ject to the reserved rent, and to the
performance of covenants on the
part of W. to be performed; and
the purchaser also covenanted with
W. to pay the said rent, and to in-
demnify and save him harmless: held,
That the purchaser took the estate
by the appointment of, and not by
conveyance from W.; the instru
ments (a lease and release) though
more commonly and properly adapt-
ed to pass an interest, and contain-
ing words of grant for that purpose,
yet professing in terms to be an ap
pointment; and the trustee having
joined in it by the direction of W.
which was unnecessary, if it had
been intended that the purchaser
should take an estate derived only
out of the interest of W. and it be-
ing obviously for the benefit of the
purchaser to take by appointment,
and such appearing upon the whole
to have been the intention of the
parties; and held, in consequence,
That the defendant (the heir, devi-
see, and executor of the purchaser)
was not liable in covenant for rent
in arrear, either as executor, or as-
signee of land, which was not bound
in the hands of W.'s appointee by
W.'s covenant. Roach v. Wad-
man; and the same v. the same,
Executor of Wadman, II. 45 G. 3.
289

carrying on any manufacture, &c.
in the conduct thereof, &c. shall be
illegal and it gives a summary form
of conviction, in which the offence is
required to be stated: held, That
a conviction, alleging generally, that
the defendants were concerned in
entering into " a certain agreement,
for the purpose of controlling A.B."
&c. without stating what the agree-
ment was (even if a departure from
the words of the statute in stating
the agreement to be for the purpose
of controlling, &c. instead of for
controlling, &c. would not at any
rate have been a fatal variance) was
bad. Rex v. Neild and others. E.
45 G. 3.

COPARCENERS,
See Entry, No. 3, 4.

COPYHOLD.

417

2. A mandamus lies to the lord and
Steward of a manor to admit one to
a copyhold tenement who has a pri-
ma facie legal title, in order to ena-
ble him to try his right, though
equity had before refused to compel
the lord to admit him for want of
his shewing an equitable right to
the property; but if there be a claim
of a previous fine due to the lord,
in respect of the ancestor, from
whom the party claims, the rule will
only be granted on payment of such
fine or fines as shall be due. Rex
v. Coggan and another, East. 45
G. 3.

431

3. A mandamus was just before grant
ed to the Duke of Leeds, to admit
Mr. Conolly to certain customary te
nements in the manor of Wakefield,

4.

in Yorkshire, in order to enable Mr.
Conolly to try his title to them.
Rex v. Corgan and another, East.
45 G. 3.
432

Devisees of a copyhold, holding as
tenants in common, have several es-
tates to which they must be severally
admitted, and for which several ser-
vices are due to the lord, and several
heriots on the death of each tenant;
and the multiplication of heriots
and fees on admission still continues,
notwithstanding the re-union of the
same land afterwards in one per-
son, the estates or interests in
the land, once divided in severalty,
continuing several. Attree v. Scutt,
E. 45 G. 3.

CORN STANDING.

476

1. Where one devised a farm in his
own occupation in his mother for
life, remainder to G. in tail; and
also devised to his mother all his
goods and chattels, stock of his farm,
bonds, &c. and all other his move-
ables whatsoever," and made her
executrix: held, That growing corn,
which was not reaped till after the
death of the testator and of his mo-
ther, who died soon after him, pass-
ed to her representative, and not
to G. the devisee of the land. Cor
v. Godsalve, 11 W. 3.
604

2. Agreement for purchase of stand-
ing crop. See Frauds, Stat. of,
No. 2.

CORPORATION,

See Deputy, No. 1, 2; Mandamus,

No. 1; Quo Warranto, No. 1.
Upon affidavit, that one of the candi-
dates for an office had a majority
only by means of illegal votes, the
Court granted a mandamus to the
corporation to admit and swear the
other, who appeared upon the affi-
davits to have the greater number
of legal votes; and this, although
the first was admitted and sworn into
the office, there being no other spe
cific, or at least no other such con
venient mode of trying the right.

See Poor Relief, No. 3.
Where A, having a vested fee, liable
to be divested by his own execu-
tion of a power of appointment,
and the deed whereby the estate
was conveyed to his trustee con-
tained a covenant by A. his heirs
and assigns, for payment of a fee-
farm rent to the chief lord; and he
afterwards executed the power by
appointment to a purchaser in fee,
subject to the reserved rent, and to
the performance of covenants on
the part of A. to be performed; and
the purchaser also covenanted with
A. to pay the said rent, and to in-
demnify and save him harmless;
yet held, That the heir, devisee, and
executor of the purchaser was not
liable in covenant for rent in arrear,
either as executor, or as assignee of
the land, which was not bound in
the hands of A.'s appointee by A.'s
covenant. Roach. Wadham, Hil.
45 G. 3.

-

289

DEBT.

Debt lies for use and occupation gene-
rally, without stating the place
where the premisses lie, or any of
the particulars of the demise. King
348
v. Fraser, East. 45 G. 3.

DECLARATIONS,

See Evidence, No. 2.
DEED,

See Bond.

1. Where a deed cancelled in fact
may be set up again. Vide Lease.
2. After an award made under the
hand of an umpire, and ready for
delivery, pursuant to the terms of
reference, of which notice was given
to the parties, an alteration by the
umpire of the sum awarded, though
made on the same day, and before
delivery of the award, is void; but
the award is good for the original
sum awarded, which was still legi-
ble, the same as if such, alteration
had been made by a mere stranger,
without the privity or consent of
the party interested. Henfree v.
Bromley, E. 45 G. 3.

DEMAND OF MONEY.

309

The stat. 42 G. 3, c. 90, s. 61, enables
a magistrate to make an order for
payment of servants' wages in cer-
tain cases; and directs, that in case
of refusal or non-payment of any,
sum so ordered for 21 days after
such determination, he may issue
his warrant of distress; but it gives
an appeal to the Sessions: held,
That 21 days having elapsed be-
tween the making of such order be-
fore the appeal, and also 21 days
after such appeal dismissed before
the warrant of distress issued, the
magistrate was warranted in issuing
such order of distress, without
proof of any demand subsequent to
the appeal. Wootton v. Harvey,
Clerk, H. 45 G. 3.

75

DEPUTY.

DEPUTY.

1. The stat. 15 Car. 2, c. 17, creating
the corporation of the Bedford
Level, directs, That they shall ap-
point a registrar and other officers
at their pleasure; and the corpora-
tion having, at the request of the
registrar, eleted a deputy registrar,

356

held, That the latter officer must
be considered as much a deputy of
the principal registrar as if nomi-
nated by him; and that however
such deputy were properly or not
constituted in the first instance, yet
his authority necessarily expired on
the death of his principal. Rex v.
The Corporation of the Bedford Le-
vel, East. 45 G. 3.
2. However the acts of a legal deputy
to a ministerial officer may be good,
after the death of his principal, be-
fore notice thereof to those who are
interested in his acts, as being done
under a colour of authority; yet
the titles of land owners, within
the Bedford Level, registered by the
deputy after the death of his princi-
pal was known, were holden to be
invalid; and that the persons,
whose titles were so illegally regis-
tered, had no authority under the
act of parliament to vote at the elec-
tion of a new registrar.

DEVISE.

ib.

1. One devised lands to trustees in fee
(subject to the uses of a certain term
of 1000 years) to the use of IV. H.
for life, second son of the devisor's
daughter, Lady E. subject to the
proviso after mentioned, remainder
to trustees to preserve contingent
uses during W. H.'s life, but to per-
mit him to take the rents, &c.; and
after his decease, to the use of his
first and other sons successively in
tail male, subject to the same pro-
viso, &c.; and in default of such is-
sue, remainder to the use of the third
and other sons of Lady E. succes-
sively in tail male, subject to the same
proviso, &c.; and in default of such
issue, with like remainders to the se-

cond son of Lady E.'s eldest son, &c.
and in default of such issue, to the
use of the devisor's grand-daughter
C. H.for life, subject to the proviso,
&c.; remainder to trustees to pre-
serve contingent uses, &c. ; remain-
der to the use of her first son (the
plaintiff) in tail male, with other
remainders over, all subject to
the same proviso; which was, That
"if W. II. or either of the persons
to whom the estate was limited,
should become Earl of E. the use li-
mited to such person and his issue
male should cease and be void, as if
such person were dead without issue
of his body." The devisor's daugh-
ter, Lady E. at the time of his death
had only two sons, her eldest (after-
wards Lord E.) and the said . H.;
but she had afterwards a third, who
died under age; and the said W. H.
was let into possession at twenty-
three, and had one son ; — and held,
That on the death of his eldest bro-
ther without issue, by which event
W. II. became Earl of E. the plain.
tiff, who was then next in remainder,
supposing W. H. had in fact died
without issue, was entitled under the
will to take an estate in tail male in
possession, subject to the trusts of
the term of 1000 years. William
Holwell Carr, an infant, v.The Earl
of Errol, H 45 G. 3.
2. One having real and personal estates,
gave by his will several legacies and
annuities, which he directed to be
paid by his executrixes out of his
real and personal estates, which he
charged therewith, and then devised
certain lands in Y. to A. and H.
(two out of five daughters which
he had) and their heirs, as tenants
in common, on condition that, in
case they or either of them should
have no issue, they or she having no
issue, should have no power to dis-
pose of her share, except to her sister
or sisters, or their children; and
he devised all the rest and resi
due of his real and personal estates
to A. and H. in fee, whom he made
his executrixes. On his death, A.
and H. entered, and afterwards A.

58

levied a fine of her moiety to the
use of her husband in fee, and died;

held, That the condition against
alienation, except to sisters or their
children, annexed to the devise to
A. and H. and their heirs, was good;
and that for the breach of it by A.
in levying such fine, the heirs of the
devisor might enter on her moiety,
it being a remainder undisposed of
by the residuary clause, which was
only intended to operate upon such
things of which no disposition had
been made by the will, and not con-
templating the devise over of the re-
spective moieties of the daughters on
non-performance of the condition;

and held, That one of the several
co-heirs of the devisor might enter
for non-performance or breach of
the condition, and recover her own
share in ejectment: for that where
the entry upon a claim by one of
several coparceners, who make but
one heir, is lawful, such entry, made
generally, will vest the seisin in all
as the entry of all. Doe d. Gill and
Wife v. Pearson, Hil. 45 Geo. 3.

173
3. A devise to trustees of a reversion
in land (after payment of debts, &c.
which were found to be paid) to be
applied by them and their successors,
and the officiating ministers for the
time being of a Methodist congre-
gation, as they should from time to
time think fit to apply the same, is
not a devise to charitable uses with-
in the stat. 9 G. 2, c. 36 ; and there-
fore held, That the trustees were en-
titled to recover at law, however the
Court of Chancery might afterwards
direct the application of the trust -
fund. Doe d. Toone and West v.
Copestake, E. 45 G. 3.

323
4. Under a devise to D. O. the testa-
tor's eldest son, for life; remainder
to trustees, &c.; remainder to the
first and other sons of his said eldest
son and their heirs; and for want
of such issue to the testator's second
son J. O. &c. with like remainders.
to his first and other sons; and for
want of such issue, to the testator's
own right heirs: held, That the first
and other sons of D. O. the eldest
VOL. VI.

son took estates tail, in succession;
and consequently the remainders
over vested, and were not contin-
gent and defeated upon the event of
D. O.; having a son, who died in
the lifetime of D. O. and therefore
that D. O. having died without any
son living at his death, but leaving
daughters, a son of J. O. was enti-
iled to take, in preference to such
daughters of his elder brother.
Lewis d. John Ormond v. Waters
E. 45 G. 3.

-

336

5. Words may be supplied in a will
to render a sentence complete and
intelligible, in aid of the apparent
intent to be collected from the whole
context. As where a testator hav-
ing two sisters, H. and J. and also
two infant cousins, T. and G. the
maintenance and education of which
latter he recommended to his execu-
trix and residuary legatee, devised
his estate at A. to his sister H. for
life; remainder to his sister J. for
life; remainder to his cousin T. in
tail; remainder to his cousin G. in
tail, &c.; remainder to his own right
heirs; and then devised another
estate at B. "to his sister J. for life,
or if she should survive his sister H.
so that she should come into posses-
sion of the estate at A," then to L.
J. (whom he made executrix and
residuary legatee) for life, towards
the support, &c. of his cousins T.
and G. remainder to the said G. in
fee held, That as the word or, so
placed, was unintelligible; being
referrable to no other alternative to
give it effect; and as it was apparent
from the whole context that the tes-
tator had in contemplation another
alternative, namely, the death of his
sister J. and that he meant to make
a provision after the death of his sis-
ters for his cousin G. as well as his
cousin T. which was not satisfied by
only giving G. a remainder in tail
APTER a remainder in tail to his
brother T., therefore, in order to
render the sentence complete and
sensible, and to give effect to the
apparent intent of the testator, the
will should be read as if he had de
vised his estate at B. to "his siste
LI
J. fo