8 Bligh, 437. See also Blackston v. Hemsworth Hospital, Duke, 49; Bridgman, 644; Watson v. Hemsworth Hospital, 2 Vernon, 596; S. C. 14 Vesey, 324, Lydiatt v. Fouch, 2 Vernon, 410; Taylor v. Dulwich Hospital, 1 Peere Williams, 655. See further Attorney-General v. Moses, 2 Maddock, 294, and Attorney-General v. Wray, Jacob, 307. NEEP U. Аввот. M. R. March 24, 1838. A witness who has been already examined may nevertheless prove an exhibit THE plaintiff had procured the common order to prove an exhibit vivâ voce at the hearing, and now produced for that purpose one Richard Hall, who had already at some length given evidence respecting the matters in difference at the hearing. in the cause under a commission for the examination of witnesses. Mr. Pemberton objected that to allow this would be to violate a rule which it is expedient should be strictly observed, forbidding a re-examination of a witness except under very special circumstances; there was nothing to show that the exhibit might not have been proved before the commissioners. The MASTER OF THE ROLLS Overruled the objection. KIRK and another v. CURETON and others. V. C. January 29, 1838. transfers stock case she should SEE the Report of the case of Bill v. Cureton, 2 Mylne A single woman and Keen, 503. Mary Bill, who made the voluntary set- upon trusts in tlement of the 16667. 13s. 4d. in the 3 per cent. consols, ever marry, for on the 22d April, 1835, took the benefit of the Insolvent her husband Debtors' Act; and the plaintiffs, being appointed her such transfer valid, as against and children; her assignees under the Insolvent Debtors' Act. assignees, filed the present bill to have such stock transferred and sold, and the proceeds, after the discharge of the incumbrances upon the same, paid over to them. Mary Bill was still a single woman. The Vice-Chancellor dismissed the bill with costs. Mr. Knight Bruce, Mr. Cooper, and Mr. White for the plaintiffs. Sir Charles Wetherell, Mr. Barber, and Mr. Jacob for different defendants. M. R. June 26, 1838. Creditors' suit against executors and in in real estate : decree, there being no evidence, but the NASH V. BENTON. THIS was a bill by simple contract creditors to have satisfaction of their debts out of the personal estate of their fants interested debtor, who had died since the passing of the act 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 104, and in case that were insufficient then out of his real estate, in which, under his will, infant defendants were interested. No evidence had been gone into, but the executors by their answer admitted the debts. A decree was made directing accounts of the personal estate and of debts, with liberty to exhibit interrogatories to prove the will. former admit ting the plain tiffs' debts. Mr. Cooper and Mr. Spurrier for the plaintiffs. Mr. Temple for the defendants. See Lord Caledon v. Evory, 2 Molloy, 360; Wood v. Blake, ibid. 392; Lechmere v. Brasier, 2 Jacob & Walker, 287, 289. See also Hill v. Binney, 6 Vesey, 738. END OF PART I. WILLIAM HYDE, since deceased, v. MARY PRICE, JOHN PRICE, WILLIAM PRICE, WILLIAM MANN GODSHALL, THOMAS SHEARCROFT, EDWARD WALWYN SHEPHERD, and WILLIAM JOHN PLAYTERS, all since deceased, and the Governor and Company of the BANK OF ENGLAND; and GEORGE HART v. CHASE CRADOCK, WILLIAM TEMPLE, GEORGE MAULE, and WILLIAM BROWN and MARY his wife. (By Original and Supplemental Bills.) V. C. July 16, 17, 1837. tisfaction of arrears of an an Operation of 42, s. 28, em upon debts. THE early circumstances of these causes are reported In a suit for sain the third volume of Vesey, page 437. So far as the same need be here recapitulated they were as fol- nuity, interest given upon a lows. In 1779 differences arose between William Price judgment for securing it, and Mary his wife, in consequence of which a separa- and beyond the tion was agreed upon, and by virtue of indentures of penalty. June, 1779, and January, 1794, property ultimately re- 3 & 4 Wil. 4, c. presented by a sum of 25001. four per cent. annuities, powering jury to became assigned in trust to apply the dividends for the allow interest maintenance and support of Mary Price during the joint lives of herself and William Price; and in case John Price, the son of William Price and Mary, should survive Mary Price, then after her decease to transfer the said annuities to him for his own use, but in case he should die before her then in trust to transfer the same to the said William Price, his executors, administrators, or assigns. In May, 1795, money being wanted to purchase John Price a commission in the army, Mary Price and John Price, in consideration of the sum of 5601., sold to William Hyde an annuity of 701. during their joint lives and the life of the survivor, charged upon the aforesaid stock, and an indenture dated the 25th May, 1795, made between Mary Price and John Price of the one part and the said William Hyde of the other part, was executed for giving effect to such charge; and as further security, a bond was executed by Mary Price and John Price to the said William Hyde in the penalty of 11207., conditioned for the due payment of the said annuity; and the said Mary Price and John Price also executed a warrant of attorney for confessing judgment against them at Hyde's suit for the amount of such penalty. In August, 1795, Mary Price and John Price, in consideration of the sum of 2401. sold to Thomas Shearcroft an annuity of 301. during their lives and the life of the survivor, and which was secured in all respects in the same way as the annuity previously sold to William Hyde. Hyde's annuity being in arrear he, in June, 1796, filed the bill in the first cause against Mary Price, John Price, William Price the husband, Thomas Shearcroft, and the Trustees under the indentures of 1779 and 1794, and the Bank of England, to have the 25007. transferred to the Accountant-General, and the dividends applied in payment of his annuity of 70%. The cause was heard before Lord Alvanley, who dismissed the bill, so far as it sought payment of the annuity during the life of Mary Price; the indentures of 1779 and 1794 containing no limitation of the dividends to the separate use of Mary Price, and giving her no dominion over the same, but creating a trust for her maintenance and support in which her husband had an interest as well as herself. His lordship, however, said the grant of the annuity was good as far as it affected the contingent interest of John Price, and that if he survived his mother the fund would be amenable to the annuities. The decree therefore directed a transfer to the Accountant-General, payment of the dividends to a trustee, to be applied for the maintenance of Mary Price during her life, with liberty for the said Mary Price if she survived her husband, and also for William Hyde and William Price, after the death of Mary Price, or any other person interested in the fund, to apply to the Court as they should be advised. William Price died in October, 1798. But John Price did not survive his mother; he died at Cape Coast Castle in June, 1802, and she died at Ghent in March, 1810. Both died intestate. William Price, however, made a will, but it contained no disposition of his residue, which became divisible between Mary Price his widow and John Price his sole next of kin. In the events that took place the 2500l. stock, upon which the annuities had been secured, formed part of this residue. A Mrs. Deriaz was his executrix. The plaintiff in the second cause had married a daughter and residuary legatee of William Hyde, the annuitant. She was since dead, and he had administered to her, and in the month of May, 1834, he filed his bill to have the arrears of the annuity of 70l. with interest paid out of the fund which had been accumulating in the Court since Mary Price's death; and after stating the proceedings in the suit of Hyde v. Price and the matters aforesaid, the bill stated as a reason for the late institution of the suit, that the plaintiff had some time ago applied to the proper Ecclesiastical Court to obtain letters of administration of the goods, chattels and effects of the said John Price and the said Mary Price, as being a creditor of them respectively, and that he had incurred very considerable expense in attempting to obtain such letters of administration, but that letters of administration were refused to the plaintiff, and letters of administration of the personal estate and effects of the said Mary Price were on the 4th day of February, 1834, and also of the said John Price on the 14th day of March, 1834, granted out of the proper Ecclesiastical Court to the defendant, George Maule, Esq. the solicitor to His Majesty's Treasury, on behalf of His Majesty, who thereby became the sole legal personal representative of the said Mary Price and John Price, and claimed to be entitled to the sum of 25007. three and a half per cent. reduced annuities, into which the said four per cent. annuities had been converted, and the dividends which had accrued due thereon, and all other assets, if any, belonging to the said |