and the lord take subject to payment of the debts of the deceased (F. Bk. 114, 115, 160; Law Dict. 51; Evans v. Brown; 6 Jur. 380; see 16 Jur. 928).

X. Define the difference between a remainder, a reversion, and an executory devise.

ANS. A remainder is an estate limited to take effect and be enjoyed after a prior estate is determined, both estates being created at the same time, whilst a reversion is the residue of an estate left in the grantor to commence in possession after the determination of some particular estate granted away by him. And an executory devise is a disposition by will of a future interest in lands not to take effect at the testator's death, but limited to arise and vest upon some future contingency. The difference between the remainder and the reversion is that the former is created by deed or will, whilst a reversion arises by construction of law. They agree in this respect, that both must await the determination of the prior particular estate before taking effect. An executory devise must necessarily be created by will, and requires no particular estate for its support, and may, indeed, be limited after a fee simple (See F. Bk. 150, 152; Burt. Comp. pl. 163, 784, 824).

XI. Give three instances of an executory devise.

ANS.-The following are instances of limitations in a will amounting to an executory devise: 1. A devise to A. and his heirs; but if he should die under twenty-one, then to B. and his heirs; 2. A devise to A. and his heirs from six months after the testator's decease; 3. A devise to B. and his heirs until C. returns from Rome, and then to D. and his heirs; 4. A devise to B. and his heirs for ever, and if he die without issue in the lifetime of C., then to C. and his heirs ; 5. A devise to A. and his heirs, but in case he should not, within one year after the testator's death, adopt the surname of the testator, then to B. and his heirs ; 6. A devise to the first son of J. S., when he shall have one, he having none at the testator's death; 7. A devise to A. for five years from next Christmas, remainder to C. and his heirs : testator dying before Christmas, both the devisees would be executory (See 1 Prest. Abstr. 114; 2 Id. 138, 151, 153).

XII. What is a heriot? Claimable by whom, from whom, and when?

ANS.-A heriot is the term applied to the right of the lord of a manor, on the death of the tenant, to seize the tenant's best beast, or other chattel. It is claimable from the tenant's representative, and not only from a copyholder, but likewise, by custom, from a free tenant (11 Jur. 331). The kind of chattel which may be taken for a heriot varies in different manors; in most cases it is commuted into a money payment. In some manors it arises on alienation (See

F. Bk. 202; 6 Jur. 257; 17 Id. 57; Burton's Comp. pl. 1304, 1305).

XIII. When copyholds are not subject to a fine certain, what fine is usually paid to the lord of the manor on death and alienation, and if the devisees are three trustees, how is the fine usually calculated?

ANS.-The fine must be reasonable, and the general rule is that it must not exceed two years' value of the land after deducting quit rents (Burt. Comp. Pl. 1300). In many manors it is customary to assess the fine at only one and a half years' value on alienation, and at two years' value in case of death. In the case of an admittance of three trustees, the fine is calculated in this way: a full fine for the first, half for the second, and one-fourth for the third, and so on (Shelf. Copyh. 97; F. Bk. 192, 193; 2 Law Chron. 47, 307, 388; ì Watk. Copyh. 308).

XIV. Can a rectory or vicarge be charged by the incumbent deed, warrant of attorney, or how otherwise?

ANS.-By the 13 Eliz. c. 20 (as partially repealed by the 57 Geo. 3, c. 99, s. 1) ecclesiastical persons (having the cure of souls) are restrained from charging their benefices so as to render them liable to the payment of pension or profit thereout, even in their own time. Under the Acts regulating Queen Anne's Bounty, the living may be charged for the purpose of erecting a parsonage house, &c. An incumbent usually borrows money by giving a warrant of attorney and insuring his life, and then assigning the policy. If he neglects to pay interest or keep up policy, the creditor signs judgment on the warrant of attorney, and issues writ of sequestration against the profits of the benefice. If the incumbent should die before the amount of the debt is realised, the mortgagee obtains payment from the proceeds of the policy (See F. Bk. 74, 75; 1 Law Chron. 209, 214, where the subject is fully treated and the various cases set forth).

XV. Can a voluntary conveyance of real and personal estate be defeated, and how?

ANS.-A voluntary conveyance of real estate may be defeated by a conveyance for value, and so may any conveyance by a party indebted; for by 27 Eliz. c. 4, voluntary conveyances of realty, or interests in realty (except when made to a charity) are void as against subsequent bond fide purchasers or mortgagees for valuable consideration, even with notice. And by the 13 Eliz. c. 5, any voluntary conveyance is void as against creditors to whom the party was indebted at the time, if he were in insolvent circumstances at the time of making it (21 Law Tim. 99; Greenwood, 105, 1st ed.; F. Bk. 167; 16 Jur. 359; 2 Jur., N. S., 169; 3 Law Chron. 60;

Exam. Quest. 26; Burton's Comp. pl., 222, 228; 20 Law Tim. 257.)

EQUITY.

I. Give some instances in which a Court of Equity will set aside a deed or contract, and state the grounds on which the Court acts in such instances.

ANS.-Equity will set aside a deed or contract under the following circumstances:-1. Where there has been actual fraud practised, in which the complainant has not joined. 2. Where there is a constructive fraud against public policy, and the complainant has not participated therein. 3. Where there is a fraud against public policy, though the complaining party has participated therein, but public policy would be defeated by allowing it to stand. 4. Where there is a constructive fraud by both parties, but they are not in pari delicto. So in certain cases of accident, mistake, misrepresentation, essential defect in the subject-matter, &c. (See Fry on Spec. Perf. 128, 191. 252). Equity will set aside voluntary conveyances, under 27 Eliz. c. 4, in favour of subsequent bonâ fide purchasers, even with notice, on the ground that the statute in such cases infers fraud, and will not suffer the presumption to be rebutted. Equity will do the like in favour of creditors under 13 Eliz. c. 5, on the ground that they are fraudulent and void. And in case of contracts entered into with expectant heirs, equity will set these aside, unless a fair consideration be paid for the contract, approved by the person standing in loco parentis. And in case of contracts entered into by trustees, or any persons in a fiduciary position, equity will set them aside if a bill be filed within a reasonable time (Story's Eq. Jurispr. pl. 161, 439, 695, et seq.; Smith's Man. 44, et seq. 6th ed.).

II. State what bills it would be irregular for a defendant to move to dismiss for want of prosecution.

ANS.-A suit for the mere purpose of appointing a receiver pendente lite is never brought to a hearing, and it cannot, therefore, be dismissed. It is the same with a mere bill of discovery, and with a bill to perpetuate testimony (Ayckb. Ch. Pr. 240, 242, 6th ed.; 1 Dan. Pract. 780).

III. Will a Court of Equity ever refuse to decree the specific performance of contracts? If so, in what cases?

ANS.-Equity will not enforce a contract where there is no contract in writing to satisfy the statute of frauds, unless there has been a part performance, or the contract was prevented from being reduced into writing by the fraud of the other party; where the parties were not able to contract, as infants, &c.; where there is no mutuality in the contract; where the terms are not certain, fair, or just; where there is no valuable, or an inadequate consideration; where the con

tract is illegal, or against public policy; where the contract is ultra vires; where the party seeking specific performance has not performed his part of the agreement; where there has been fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the person seeking to enforce it; where there has been a material mistake; where the Court cannot perform the whole of the contract; where there is no title to the thing contracted for; where there has been great delay, &c. (See fully, Fry on Spec. Perf. part 2; 1 Exam. Chron. 234).

IV. In what cases has a Court of Equity concurrent jurisdiction with a Court of Common Law?

ANS.-The old heads of concurrent jurisdiction were ordinarily stated to be accident, mistake, and fraud. These were the more extensive matters, but, as Story says (1 Eq. Jurispr. pl. 441), these were cases not necessarily dependent on any of these heads, as account, dower, partition, partnership, rent, &c. Recently jurisdiction has been given to both law and equity, where it did not before exist, and thus the courts of equity and common law have concurrent jurisdiction in compelling the specific performance of contracts comprising a public duty; in enforcing the delivery up of specific chattels; in granting injunctions; in interpleader; in compelling a discovery; equitable defences and pleadings may be had recourse to at law; equity may award damages either in addition to, or substitution for, the relief prayed in suits for injunctions or specific performance; there is also concurrent jurisdiction in relieving against forfeiture for breach of a covenant to insure or to pay rent, by 22 & 23 Vic. c. 35, and 23 & 24 Vic. c. 126 (Hunter's Prop. Acts, 15, et seq.; Stephen's C. L. P. Act, 1860, pp. 12, 14, 40, 49; 1 Exam. Chron. 136, 137, 170; 2 L. C., N. S., 101, 178).

V. How is the consent of a married woman taken to an application for sale under the Settled Estates' Act; and what persons are incompetent to take such consent?

ANS.-By the 19 & 20 Vic. c. 120, s. 38, the examination of such married women is made either by the Court or by some solicitor (in actual practice, and not being the solicitor of the husband) duly appointed for that purpose, who certifies under his hand that he has examined her apart from her husband, and is satisfied that she is aware of the nature and effect of the intended application, and that she freely desires to make or consent to the same. By 21 & 22 Vic. c. 77, s. 6, whenever a married woman is resident out of the jurisdiction of the Court, her examination may be made by any person appointed for that purpose by the Court, whether he is or is not a solicitor of the Court; and the appointment of any such person, not being a solicitor, affords conclusive evidence that the married woman was at the time of such examination resident out of the jurisdiction,

Where a married woman petitions, her examination should not be taken until after the petition has been presented and answered (Ayckb. Ch. Pr. 6th ed., 562; 5 Week. Rep. 726; 3 Jur, N. S., 833).

VI. When a sole plaintiff becomes bankrupt, and the assignee neglects to proceed, what course is open to the defendant? ANS.-If a sole plaintiff becomes a bankrupt the suit is not abated; but upon a new assignee being appointed his name may be substituted. If this be not done the defendant should serve the plaintiff's assignee with a notice of motion that he may file a supplemental bill within a given time, or that the suit may stand dismissed without costs. The notice also should be served upon the bankrupt. If the bankruptcy happens after decree, the motion is for the assignees to file a supplemental bill, or that all proceedings may be stayed in the suit. If one of two or more plaintiffs becomes a bankrupt, the defendant may move to dismiss for want of prosecution in the usual way without serving the assignees (Smith's Ch. Pr. 206, 5th ed.; Ayckb. Pract. 348, 6th ed.; 5 Sim. 636; 2 Dan. Pract. 192, 789, 2nd ed.; 10 Jur. 1051; 20 Law Tim. 231).

VII. What relief is an equitable mortgagee entitled to at the

hands of the Court of Chancery, and by what means is it to be obtained?

ANS.-In some respects there is a difference, according as the memorandum of deposit contains an agreement for a mortgage, or is silent thereupon; but in either case the plaintiff may file a bill for sale; in the former case he is not bound to ask for a legal mortgage and to foreclose, and in the latter he cannot (Sce Matthews v. Goodday, 10 Week. Rep. 148; 6 Sol. Journ. 176).

VIII. Can a plaintiff file a replication to the answer of a deceased defendant?

ANS.-A plaintiff cannot file a replication to the answer of a deceased defendant until he has revived the suit (Deeks v. Stanhope, 2 W. R. 651; 23 L. T. 341; Ayckb. Ch. Pr. 135, 6th ed.),

IX. If a person purchase an estate sold under the direction of the Court of Chancery, to whom does he uay the purchasemoney, when is he entitled to a conveyance, and who bears the expense of obtaining its execution?

ANS. The money must, unless otherwise provided by the conditions, be paid into Court upon order being obtained for that purpose by summons at Chambers. After accepting the title, the conveyance is settled and approved, and after payment of the purchasemoney, the purchaser is entitled to have it executed at the vendor's expense (Dart's Vend. 759, et seq., 3rd ed.; Ayckb. Ch. Pract. 476, et seq., 6th ed.).