Dominion Law Reports Volume 1 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1912 edition. Excerpt: ...evidence is not admissible to rebut it. Thus, where a legacy of 500 is bequeathed free of legacy duty, and, by a codicil, a legacy of 1,000 is bequeathed to the same person "in lieu of" or "in addition to" the original legacy, the subsequent legacy is also free of legacy duty. Cooper v. Day, 3 "or. 154; Earl of Shaftsbury V. Duke of Marlborough, 7 Sim. 237; Scott v. Gohn, 4 QB. 457. And so when the original legacy is void under the statutes of mortmain, the substituted legacy fails. Bristow v. Bristou.-, 5 Beav. 289; In re Boddington, Boddinglon V. Olairat, 25 Ch. D. 685.. Even where the legacies are cumulative, the subsequent legacy will fail if the original legacy is void, when the two legacies are given for the same purpose and are to become blended in one fund. Jolmstone V. Earl of Harrowby, Johns. 425, 1 DeG. F. &. J. 183. So, Where the original legacy is intended to form part of the separate estate of a married woman, the substituted or'augmented legacy is impressed with the same trust. Russell V. Dickson, 2 D. & War. 133, 17 Jur. 307; Martin v. Dr1'/nkwater, 2 Beav. 215; Day v. Craft, -1 Beav. 561; ll'a1-wick v. Hawlcins, 5 DeG. & S. 481. and where the original legacy is payable out of a particular fund, the substituted legacy is payable out of the same fund. Burrell v. Earl of Egrcmont, 7 lleav. 205. In the following cases the subsequent legacies were "imlieu of" or "in substitution for," etc. Cooper v. Day, 3 Mer. 154; Russell v. Dickson: 2 D. & War. 133; Martin v. Drinlcwatcr, 2 Beav. 215; Bristow v. Bristow. 5 Beav. 289; Earl of Shaftesbury V. Duke of Marlborough, 7 Sim. 237; Fenton v. Farington, 2 Jur. N.S. 1120; Knowles '. Sadler (1879), ..."