ADDENDA ET ERRATA. The Case of Webb v. Temple, 83, n. was cited in 3 Ves. jun. 660. published. Add a Reference in note (p), p. 108, to Sturgis v. Corp, 13 Vcs. 190, since published. The Case of Doe v. Manning, mentioned in the note to p. 338, has been since reported by Mr. East (vol. 9, p. 59.). The most important Case on the Subject (Taylor v. Stile, Treat. Purch. 432, 2d edit.) appears to have escaped the notice of the Court, although it was, I believe, cited in the Argument. A Case has been just decided, where the trust in a will was to permit and suffer his niece to receive and take the interest, dividends, and proceeds, of the capital sum of £2100, or so much thereof as should from time to time be vested in his said trustees for the purposes of his said will, during her natural life, for her own sole and separate use and benefit, notwithstanding any husband she might happen to marry, and should pay the same into her own proper hands, for her own separate use and benefit; and that her receipt and receipts alone should from time to time be a good and sufficient discharge and discharges for the same; and that the same, or any part thereof, should not be subject or liable to the debts or engagements, power or controul of any such husband.". The question was, whether the niece could make a sweeping appointment. The able Counsel for the defendant gave up the point without argument, and it was accordingly decreed that an absolute sale by her was valid.-Brown v. Like. Rolls, 18th March, See ch. 2, s. 1, div. iii. of this work. 1908. |