The by-law being valid on its face. 1. Investment of moneys left to inthe Court, under the circumtances, fants by will-Deposit in savings

ments, and the draft lease settled provided that the plaintiffs should at the end of the term pay for such improvements or renew the lease for a further term of twenty-one years:—

bank-Liability of trustee for legal the end of the term for his improveinterest-Acquiescence of statutory guardian of infants. Costs. Where moneys are left by will to be invested at the discretion of the executor or trustee, the discretion so given cannot be exercised otherwise than according to law, and does not warrant an investment in personal securities or securities not sanctioned by the Court. And

Held, that the provisions of the agreement and lease were reasonable, and bound the trust estate, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance. Brooke et al. v. Brown, 124.

Held, that an executor and trustee who deposited funds so left in trust for infants, at three and a half 3. Breaches of trust-Taking seor four per cent. interest, in a savcurities in name of one of two joint ings bank, did not conform to his trustees-Pledging securities for adduty; and his failure to do so ex-vance-Misapplication of moneys adposed him to pay the legal rate of vanced Following securities in interest for the money, although he hands of pledgee.]-One of two joint acted innocently and honestly; and trustees assumed to lend trust monthe acquiescence of the statutory eys on the security of mortgages on guardian of the infants, not being land, taking the mortgages to himfor their benefit, did not relieve him. self alone "as trustee of the estate Held, also, that defendant was not and effects of J. C., deceased." These entitled to costs out of the fund, but mortgages were hypothecated by him that he should be relieved from payto, and moneys were advanced to him ing costs. Spratt et al. v. Wilson, by, the defendants, ostensibly to meet an unexpected call by one of the beneficiaries; but the moneys were not so applied, nor otherwise for the benefit of the estate, and they were not required for any such purposes under the terms of the will creating the trust.

28.

2. Provisions of will Implied powers of trustees-Reasonable building lease-Specific performance of agreement for.]-The plaintiffs were trustees under a will, holding the legal estate in the property devised and bequeathed, in trust to maintain themselves and their children, with remainder over to the children upon the death of themselves; with power to absolutely convey the property and to exclude any child from participating in the remainder :

-

In an action by the other trustee and two new trustees, who were also beneficiaries, appointed in his stead :

Held, that he had been guilty of two breaches of trust, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to follow the trust securities and to make the defendants account for all moneys received by them thereunder. Cumming et al. v. Landed Banking and Loan Co., 426.

Held, that that the plaintiffs had implied power to make all reasonable leases. The plaintiffs made an agreement for a building lease to the defendant of part of the trust estate for twenty-one years, with a provision |PANY, 2. for compensation to the defendant at

Breach of by director.]-See COM

See also WILL, 2.

VENDOR AND PURCHASER.

1. Exchange of lands Lands subject to mortgage - Liability of purchaser to pay.]—A purchaser of an equity of redemption is bound as between himself and his vendor to pay off the incumbrances, and this quite irrespective of the frame of the contract between the parties.

Where therefore lands were exchanged between the plaintiff and defendant which were subject to certain mortgages, the defendant was held bound to pay off those on the lands conveyed to him, and to protect the plaintiff from liability thereon. Boyd v. Johnston, 598.

VENDOR'S LIEN.
See RAILWAYS, I.

VOLUNTARY CONVEYANCE. Transaction improvidently carried out and without professional advice -Setting aside.]—One of the plaintiffs was the owner of a farm valued at about $4,500, and being, as was also his wife, old and feeble and incapable of doing much manual labor, and also illiterate, negotiated with the defendant, the wife's nephew, a young man, with the object of effecting an arrangement for their support and maintenance. The defendant

2. Title "Devolution of Estates without permitting the husband Act"-Outstanding mortgage-Mat- plaintiff to obtain independent adters of conveyancing and matters of vice induced him and his wife to title -R. S. O. 1887, c. 108.]-On a execute a deed to defendant, the latsale of lands the purchaser objected ter giving them back a life lease. to the title on the grounds (1) that The consideration of the deed was there was no evidence that a certain natural love and affection $1, and the mortgage had been discharged and life lease. The habendum and cove(2) that the title being deduced nants for quiet enjoyment were made through the devisee of a person who subject to the lease and the covenants had died since the coming into force of the "Devolution of Estates Act," R. S. O., 1887, c. 108, the legal estate was outstanding in the executor of such person. It appeared that all debts of the testator had been paid :

were

Held, that both matters matters of conveyancing, and not of title.

Under the "Devolution of Estates Act," where debts have been paid, or where there are no debts, executors will hold the bare legal estate for the devisee of the land of the deceased. Martin v. Magee et al.,

705.

Rights of as to damages under agreement for sale of land.]-See DAMAGES.

See also SALE OF LAND, 2.

therein. The annual rental in the

On failure

lease was $1 with a covenant for quiet
enjoyment, and a special covenant
by defendant to support and main-
tain the plaintiffs, on performance
of which he was to have the proceeds
of the land. The defendant was
also to pay $30 in cash yearly, and
provide plaintiff with a horse and
vehicle and house room.
by defendant to perform such provi-
sions plaintiff's were to have the pro-
ceeds of the land on giving defendant
two months notice in writing, and
if the default still continued plaintiffs
were to be at liberty to take steps
to eject defendant. The deed did
not contain any power of revocation
in case of defendant's default:

Held, under the circumstances, the deed and life lease must be set aside. Hagarty v. Bateman, 381.

WAIVER.

Held, that the dam as a piece of See BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PRO- property was an entire thing and MISSORY NOTES, 1.

WAREHOUSE.
See RAILWAYS, 4.

WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS.
See BANKS AND BANKING.

that the plaintiff was not entitled to an injunction restraining the use of the water, his remedy being in damages against the owner not entitled to the easement.

A right to an easement previously enjoyed cannot be acquired by the lapse of time during which the owner of the dominant tenement has a lease of the land over which the right would extend. During such unity of possession the running of the Statute of Limitations is suspended. Stothart v. Hilliard et al., 542.

3. "Ditches and Watercourses

WATERS AND WATERCOURSES 1. Definition of watercourse-Surface-water.]—A watercourse entitled Act, 1883"-Work not in accordance to the protection of the law is con- with award-Remedy under sec. 13 stituted if there is a sufficient natu--Costs.]-Where an award has ral and accustomed flow of water to been made under the "Ditches and form and maintain a distinct and Watercourses Act, 1883," the only defined channel. It is not essential that the supply of water should be the work in accordance with the remedy for the non-completion of continuous or from a perennial living award is that provided by sec. 13 of It is enough if the flow ari- the Act. ses periodically from natural causes and reaches a plainly-defined channel of a permanent character. Beer v. Stroud, 10.

source.

2. Easement Prescriptive rights -Dominant and servient tenements

Lease of servient tenement-Unity of possession-Suspension of easement-Joint owners of mill dam Injunction Damages.]-One of two joint owners of a mill dam, each having a mill on the opposite sides of the river by which the dam was formed, was entitled to a prescriptive right to the supply of water as furnished by the dam all the way across the river and to dam back the water on to the plaintiff's land, but the

other owner was not.

In an action to restrain both owners from backing the water to the detriment of the plaintiff :

Murray v. Dawson, 17 C. P. 588, followed; and O'Byrne v. Campbell, 15 0. R. 339, distinguished.

No other or greater costs were allowed to the defendants than if they had successfully demurred into trial. Hepburn v. Township of stead of defending and going down Orford et al., 585.

WAY.

Easement-Severance of tenement by devise-Reasonable enjoyment of parts devised-Necessary rights of way.]-Upon the severance of a tenement by devise into separate parts, not only do rights of way of strict necessity pass, but also rights of way necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the parts devised, and

which had been and were up to the The attorney and medical man in time of the devise used by the owner attendance were of opinion that he of the entirety for the benefit of such Briggs v. Semmens et al..