This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1883 Excerpt: ...of intention, and these two classes are not always easy to reconcile, but it must be remembered that the question to be decided upon in each case is one more of fact than of law.6 The following cases are examples of the former class: Reeve v. Hicks,1 Fitzgerald v. Lord Fauconberge, s Heather v. O'Neil,9 and these of the latter class, Whitbread v. SmithTM Corbett v. Barker11 Wood v. Wood12 Clark v. Burgh,13 Stansfield v. Hallam,1 Gleaves v. Painelb and consider also Plowden v. Hyde16 Lord Hastings v. Astley.11 Where a husband and wife, who had a joint power of appointment over an estate, the ultimate limitations of which were in default of such appointment to the use of the husband and wife in moieties in fee, executed the power by way of mortgage to secure the husband's debt, it was held that the mortgage could not, with propriety, be described as a mortgage of the wife's estate, as from the act of the wife alone, the mortgagee took nothing, the interest of the mortgagee being no part of that estate or interest which the wife singly had, and that therefore it was not a case where the wife's estate had been pledged or charged for the husband's debts.1 1 Per Lord Eldon L.C., 1 Bli. 135. 2 Woods. Wood, 7 Beav. 183. 3 In re Betton's Trust Estate, L. R. 12 Eq. at p. 557. 4 Earl of Kinnoul v. Money, 3 Swans at p. 208, notis. 5 I Ves. 173; In re Betton's Trust Estates, L R. 12 Eq. at 558. 6 Whitbread v. Smith, 3 De G. M. & G. 738. 7 2 S. &S. 403. 8 Fitz. G. 207. 9 2 D. G. & J. 299. 10 3 De G. M. & G. 727. 11 I Ans. 138; 3 ib. 775. 12 7 Beav. 183. 13 2 Coll. 221. 14 29 L. J. Chy. 173. 15 1 De G. J. & S. 87. 16 2 De G. M. & G. 684. 17 30 Beav. 260. It was said, in the case of Clinton v. Hooper, "that where "it has been clearly proved...