der on the 20th of March following

• SERVICE.
was not within reasonable time; the (SUBSTITUTION OF]
tenant having had intimation for two
years before that payment of the fine See PRACTICE, 9.
was expected, and having neglected to
pay it. Jackson v. Saunders, 443

SOLICITOR.
4, Reasonable time within the act is no

more than what is necessary to give 1. A solicitor is bound to give evidence
the tenant full opportunity for ascer of his client's hand writing, if requir.
taining when the cestui que vies died, ed ; it is no breach of the confidence
for computing the amount of the fine reposed in him by his client, - 226

due, and for preparing leases and ten. 2. A solicitor assisting his client in ob-
• dering them for execution: Seinble. taining a fraudulent release, is pro-
• Per Lord CLARE, Freeman v. Lordperly made a party to a bill seeking
Waterford, (note) - - 454 relief from the fraud ; and he shall be

liable to costs if the principal be not
REPLEVIN.

solvent, - - - - 227

3. Where plaintiff changes his solicitor,
1. Writ of replevin does not lie, unless the former solicitor has no right to

there has been a taking of the goods stop him from proceeding until his
out of the possession of the person who costs are paid. O'Dea v. O'Dea, 315
· sues it forth. Ex parte Chamberlain,

. 320 SPECIFIC EXECUTION.
2. The writ of replevin is merely meant
: to apply to the case where A. takes 1. A. being in insolvent circumstances,

goods wrongfully from B. and B. ap- suffers another person to become the
plies to have them re-delivered to apparent owner of his farm, though
him, upon giving security, until it shall under a secret trust for him: A. shall
appear whether A. has taken them not have, against the landlord, a spe-
rightfully. But if A, be in possession cific execution of an agreement made
of goods in which B. claims a property, by him with the trustee, the landlord
this is not the proper writ to try that supposing the trustee to have been the
right. Matter of Wilsons, Bankrupts, rightful owner, and confiding in his

(rote) - 6 *. - 321solvency. O'Herlihy v. Hedges, 123
3. Writ of replevin lies only where there See AGREEMENTS, 1, 2, 3.
: has been an actual taking out of the
s possession of the party suing it. Shan-

SPECIFIC LEGACY.
non in replevin v. Shannon, 324
4. But it lies upon any taking, and not See LEGACY, 6.
to merely upon a distress, ... ibid. 327

SPOLIATION.
...

1. Suppression of deeds is tantamount to

spoliation, in respect of raising pre-
Gi$9.41

sumption against the party suppress-

ing. Bowles v. Stewart, . -. 209
SALE.

See ÉQUITY, 5.

See PRACTICE, 15. "

STATUTE OF FRAUDS.

TRUSTS.

See AGREEMENTS, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1. Where lands are devised in trust for
10, 12.

payment of debts, the statute of limi.
PART-PERFORMANCE, 1.

tationsruns not in equity after the death

of testator, against debts not barred
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS therely at his death. Executors of

Fergus v. Gore, • - • 107
See LIMITATIONS, 1, 2.

TRUSTEES.
STATUTE OF DISTRIBUTION,

1. The rule that a trustee shall gain
Sce RELATIONS, 2, 3.

" no benefit for himself,” shall not en-

title a cestui que trust to compel a
STATUTE OF USURY. party who knew nothing of the trust,

to execute an agreement made with
Sec USURY, 1, 2, 3.

the trustee, and on the credit of his
solvency. O'Herlihy v. Hedges, 123,

131

157

2. All persons coming into possession of

property bound by a trust with notice
of the trust, are chargeable in equity as

trustees, - - - - 262
TACKING

3. Trustees and their representatives

are chargeable in equity for a breach
1. Tacking prevented by the registry of trust, whether they derived benefit
act in Ireland, - • •

from it or not, -

W

to appear " that the lease was cor- necting the loan with the lease moved
“ tracted for, wholly independent of, from the lessor. Molloy v. Irwin, 310
« without any regard to, and uncon7. But an under-tenant, bona fide, and
“nected with a loan, or treaty or com- not concerned in the transaction of the
« munication for a loan of money.” loan, not disturbed, - ibid.
Sembl. Hunt v. Potter ; Drew v.

Power, (note) - - - 119
3. A beneficial lease obtained under the

influence of loans of money made or
expected to be made by the lessee to
the lessor, is a fraudulent evasion of
the statutes of usury, and an undue

WILL.
advantage taken of the lessor, and

therefore void. Drew v. Power, 182 1. A quasi estate tail cannot be barred
4. In such cases, the true consideration by will, Sembl.' - - - 294

is, not whether the loan of money was See CHOSE IN ACTION, 1.
part of the bargain made, but whether
the relation of debtor and creditor was WILLS, (PROVING OF)
that which induced the granting of
the lease, . -

191, 192 1. All wills to be proved shall be pro-
5. The statutes against usury are found- duced in the custody of the proper

ed on principles of public policy; and officer, and delivered to the exami-
it is against public policy that those ner or commissioners, and by them re-
who make profit on their money with delivered to the same officer after exar
out hazard should have as large a mination closed. General Rule, 114
profit as those who employ it in ha-
zardous undertaking, - 195, 312

WRIT.
6. A lease granted at the same time with

a loan of money by lessee to lessor, set See PRACTICE, 2, 3, 4.
aside ; although the proposal for con-

F INI S.