The Express.
London, England, 1852-12-20 00:00:00

JAW intelligence.

EQUITY COURTC-SATURDAY.
11001/1 TSUI LAID CRANCOLLON, WITS WOOD YDa LIMA !MIMI

jet'.
Km V. MIDDLESSX HOSPITAL.- ANNUITT IV/ISTIIEH

POI Lll■ OR PzarervL.

---
This was an appeal from a decree of the Master of the
Hons, by which be decided that Eliza Burn, an annuitaat
under the will of Mr. Joseph Kerr, was entitled ouly to an
annuity for life, and not a perpetual annuity. The wstator,
by his will, left aE his property to three trustees, for cer-
tain uses and bequests, and then bequeathed en annuity of
1001. a year each to his two sisters, of whom Elsa Burn
was one. He directed that certain landed property should
be sold, and the proceeds invested in the British funds, in
order to provide for the annuities, and if that was not found
to be sufficient for the purpose, he decreed that the ennui.
ties should be made up out of his personal property; and
the residue of that he bequeathed, under certain regula-
tions, to the Middlesex Hospital. Ina codicil, however, he
►eft to another person, to whom, also, ho had left an MM-
ity, the landed property, which he bad before directed to
be sold, and the proceeds applied to providing for the an-
nuities,__

Mr. Elmsley and Mr. F. J. Riddell, for the appellant,
contended that the annuity was given without any words
of limitation, %propel:lied with words referring to the pro-
perty out of width it was to be derived, and that it watt,
therefore, a perpetual annuity, where there wu •dedicat ion
of a particular fund (or the purpose of an annuity, it was a
perpetual annuity, and that was tits ease here ; nor did the
withdrawal of part of the property by the codicil hese
any effect in altering its character.
Mr. Roupell and Mr. Cairns, for the respondents, urged
that the direction to purchase property in ties British funds
was only intended to secure the amount necessary for the
annuity. The gift of [annuity " semplicator" would only
create an annuity for life, which must, of course, be secured
in some way. The testator had tto ul.jeets in view : firstly,
to give 1001. a year to his sisters ; end secondly, that his
executor. should take proper step. to secure annuities,
which were only for life.
Their lordships said they would take time to consider
their judgment. At • later period Gf the day, however,
their lordships gave judgment, reversing the decision of the
Master of the Rolls, and granting the appeal.

Bono Eva Loam IVITICIVI Sr Amur.
IN RN TUE PENNANT AND CE.AIO WEN CONSOLIDATED LEAD

MINING COMPANY EX PARTE FENN.
The wan an appeal from an order of Vice•Chaneellor
Stuart, directing the name of Mr. Fenn to bo struck off the
list of sostributories, upon which it had been placed by the
rare in respect of 90 sharea in the company. The affairs
shin innipany, it appeared, had been cooducad upon the
innPilersk principle, the shareholders not being liable bc-
ps.d their proportion of a certain amount of capital to be
real up. By one of the rules of the company, it was
provided that coy shareholder might determine Lis million-
sibility or liability with respect to the affairs of the mines,
by giving notice to the parser of the company of his inten•
lion to retire and depositing with the purser a transfer of
his shares, and lastly, signing a relinquishment of all
claims and demands on the company in respect of hie shares.
The muter had held that the document purporting to be a
transfer deposited by Mr. Fenn with the purser was not
proper formal transter, and therefore had placed the name
on the list. The Vice-Chancellor had held the transfer
sufficient.

Mr. Daniell aml Mr. Roxburgh, for the official manager,
called the attention of the court to another rule of the corm
' patsy, providing that before the shareholder could escape
from liatnlity Must:wet of the debts of the company incurred
prior to the transfer he must settle his account with the
purser and also furnish a satisfactory transferee. They
alleged that this provision bad not been complied with.
Mr. Selwyn, for Mr. Fenn, contended that the account
with the purser had been settled, and that the provision as
to finding a transferee wu not binding.
Lord Justice Knight Bruce said be and his learned bro-
ther doubted whether this last rule had been brought to the
attention of the Master, as it certainly appeared nut to have
beets to that of the Vice-Chancellor. They were of opinion,
therefore, that the parties should her.: an opportunity of
taking the case back to the .!este., so as to be totally un-
fettered by anything that had as yet taken p:ace. f hey
then discharged both the order of the Master and that 01
the Vice-Chancellor without prejudice t. any qutstion.

Bayou VICIC-Cll \
Moao.so o. HOLVORD.
This was. • special case stated fir the opinion of the
court on behalf of the trustees of the nvirriage swimsuit
and will of the late C.,10n0l Hulford. It appeared that in
the month of Auguq, 1636, Colonel (then major) Holford
entered into negotiations for the porch use of on estate in
the county of Breton from Mr. Crespigny. A coirespen-
deuce ensued. On the 6th of October Major Rodent wrote
to Mr. Crespigny in the following terms: " I will there-
fore
take you at your word and agree to give 66,000 f., and
as Ido not wish to take any unhandsome advantage if
your omission respecting the timber, tither on that occasion
or in your letter when you first wrote to me proposing
terms fur sale, I will take that at a valuation." Mr.
Crespigny's anima of the 7th of October teamed 4,0001. as
the puce of the timber, and upon the 11th of the same
month Mr. Crespigny wrote to his solicitor thus: " My
friend:Major Holton, has arced to purchase our estate in
this county for 60,0001., including timber. Wall you have
the goodness to settle an agreement on the basis
of the above for us to sign." Some further cor-
respondence passed relative to the leases existing on
the estate and the obligations which Mr Crespigny con-
sidered that he was under to grant other leases, and as to
the jointure of Mrs. Crespigny, the mother. On the 21th
of November, Major Holford wrote to Mr. Crespigny's
solicitor thus : " 1 beg to know then you will forward me
the agreement relative to the purchase I have ror,cluded
with Mr. Crespigny." In Decemb x, the proposed agree-
ment was sent to counsel to be settled, with instructions for
bum to insert such (if any) stipulations as, upon perusal of
the abstract, he might thiuk proper. On the 9th of
January, 1837 (before 7 Wen. IV. and I Vic. c. 26) Major 1
Holford made his will, giving to the plaintiffs, Sir C.
Morgan, 11. Morgan, and George Stevenson, his perms'
estate (furniture exeepted) "on trust, in the first place to
complete the purchase which I have recently made, and
held it upon the trusts of my marriage settlement,
noon trust to secure thereout the annual sum of
2,0004 for my dear wife." On the 18th of Fel.
ruary, 1837, the draft agreement was signed and
the estates were subsequently conveyed to Colonel Holford
in fee. In August, 1846, Colonel liolford died without
having altered or revoked his will, and leaning John Owynne
Pries Holford, his eldest son and heir at law, who now
deemed in opposition to the widow and younger children
ad his father. The principal question for the opinioa of
the awn was, whether the equitable estate or interest In
**purchased estate passed by the will to the plaintiffs, the
Imams of the will, to be held by them on the trusts of
the will.

—Mr.hdalins and Mr. Ou. Like Russell, for the testator's
widow, and Mr. Elnuley, for his younger children, con-
tended for the affirmative of the question.
Mr. Higley and Mr. Greene, for the heir at law, sub-
mined that the estates did not pass.
Mr. Glean was for the trustees.
The cue occupied a long time in the early part of the
week, when his Honour promised to give judgment today.
The Vice-Chancellor now said it had been contended on
behalf of the heir at law, that the true construction of the
acts of the parties antecedent to the will of Major Holford,
and to the execution after the date of that will, of a formal
nt for the purchase by the contracting parties, no
agreement
gagreement for the purchase of the estate had been
made, but that a basis only had been agreed upon for the
Coco:Won of terms on which the treaty for a contract was
to proceed, and that it was understood between the parties
that until a formal agreement was perfected and executed
neither party was to be considered as bound. On the part
of the widow and younger children of Major Milford it
had been contended that the basis of • mere formal
agreement wee en actual agreement in general terms that
Major Holford should purchase, and Mr. Crespigny sell to
him the estates for 60,0001., and that the formal agreement
to be prepared was merely to settle the necessary details
upon points relating to the tenancies on the estates, the
title, and other matters upon which the parties by emaing
to a distinct agreement might save adverse litigation. His
Honour then read the letter of the 11th of October, 1897,
and proceeded to say that it had been *et-
tied on Wand principles that if the main terms of
an agreement for the sale of an estate had been concluded
and these main terms expressed in a letter signed by the
party sought to be charged it made a binding contract,
although there might be an arrangement between the par-
ties to have a formal contrast prepared for their signature.
In the present case in none of the many subsequent letters
or acts of the parties was anything to be found to alter or
vary the menet of that agreement. The subsequent dis-
cussions were entirely on minor point,. His Honour then
referred to the subsequent discussions and letters between
the parties, and referred to the letter of the 29th of Novem-
ber, 1837, which his Honour thought contained clear evi-
dence to bind Major Helloed to the agreement. His Ho-
nour then referred to the observstions of Sir T. Plomer in
" Martin v. Mitchell" (2 Jac. and Wal., 126), and, after
remarking on that case, said in the pis sent ease it was his
opinion that the letter of the 29th of November, 1837, must
be construed on • fair view of the evidence as referring to
the agreement and transaction stated in the letter of the
11th of October, and therefore to the memorandum referred
to in that letter, and could not be held as referring to any-
thing else, the difficulty which might otherwise
hue occurred did not arise, and he must hold
that there was a valid contract for the purchase of
the estate by Major Holford before the date of oil will, and
that hie equitable interest under that contract passed by
his will. In the case of" Broome r. Mona" (1( Yes. 511),
the difficelty vote from the title to the estate having, after
the testator's death, been reported to be • bed title, which
puts an end to the contract ; any ordiaary c. Direct for the
, purchase of an estate might fail on that ground. But the
testator might in his lifetime have agreed to accept the
title however defective, and no argument seemed to have
been suggested for the devisee in " Broome o. Muck " as
to how far the direction in the will to complete the contract
could be held to amount to an acceptance of the title. The
ease of the devisee there failed from his attempt to inforce
a right to have the purchase money invested for his benefit
in other real estates. Upon the whole his Honour said he
came to the conclusion that the right of the heir at law was
excluded by the devise in the will of 91sjor Holford.
The questions stated in the ;cage would be answered ac-
cordingly.

COURT OF QUERN'S BENCH.—SATURDAY.
*num' ar Non Pairs is Iseasos.—Karoas LAID curlew. Asa
Cosmos Alma.
GARNER V. GOLLOWAY.—ACCOUNTANT'S BILL.
This was an action brought to recover the sum of 891.,
the amount of an accountant's bill for endeavouring to ob-