ing in our High Court of Chancery, wherein A. B. [and others, or in case of subpœna duces tecum, add, and that you then and there bring DEVON. 7.-Subpoena ad test. and Subpoena duces tecum. Victoria, &c. Το greeting. We command you [and every of you] that, laying all other matters aside, and notwithstanding any excuse, you personally be and appear before Mr. one of the examiners of witnesses in our High Court of Chancery, at his office in Rolls Yard, Chancery Lane, London, at such time as the bearer hereof shall by notice in writing appoint, [or before E. F. or G. H. Commissioners appointed for the *examination of witnesses in our Chancery, at such times and places as the bearer hereof shall by notice in writing appoint,] to testify the truth according to your knowledge in a certain cause depending in our said Court of Chancery, wherein A. B. [and others, or another, are or] is plaintiff [or Plaintiffs,] and C. D. [and others, or another, are or] is defendant [or defendants,] on the part of the [in case of subpœna duces tecum, add, and that you then and there bring with you and produce, &c.] And hereof fail not at your peril. Witness, &c. DEVON. LYNDHURST, C. LANGDALE, M. R. LANCELOT SHADWELL, V. C. E. JAMES WIGRAM, V. C. REPORTS OF CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE ROLLS COURT. THE MARQUIS OF HERTFORD V. LORD LOWTHER. (Countess Zichy's Case.) 1843: June 12; December 14. Generally, choses in action do not pass by a bequest of “goods and chattels,” in a particular locality. Bequest of "all the goods and chattels, plate, linen, money at the bankers, or stock in the Monte de Milano, linen, horses, carriages, &c., I may die possessed of at M." Held, not to pass Polish certificates and Neapolitan bordereaux (being government obligations,) there situate, entitling the bearers to receive the interest and capital at a future time. Held also, that such securities could not be considered as money or cash; and, thirdly, that not having their locality at M. they did not pass under the words et cætera at M. By a codicil to his will, dated the 3d of May, 1827, the late Marquis of Hertford bequeathed as follows: "I give and bequeath to Charlotte Leopoldina, now Countess Emanuel de Zichy, over all other bequests and legacies, all the goods and chattels, plate, linen, money at the bankers or stock in the Monte de Milano, linen, horses, carriages, &c., 1 may die possessed of at Milan, or in Lombardy, on condition she gives 30001. sterling to the Casa d'Assicurazione, to make an annuity for the life of Angelica Felicite Borel, (late of Milan, No. 1246 Contrada di Monte, and of No. 3 Rue Provence at Paris,) *and that her husband gives her power to hold this [*2] as her own separate property. A codicil." "HERTFORD." The testator at the time of his death, was the owner of property at Milan of various descriptions and of considerable value, the particulars of which the master set forth in a schedule to his report, and amongst them he included the following particulars 600 Polish certificates A, of 300 florins each, with 5 per cent. interest, payable 1st January and 1st July; in total, 180,000 florins. 1259 Polish certificates B, of 200 florins each, without interest; in total, 251,800 florins. Four.certificates of the Vienna loan, to be reimbursed 1st January, 1843, of 370 florins each; in total, 1480 florins. Seventeen certificates of the Vienna loan 1831, of 500 florins each, nominal capital, without interest; in total, 8500 florins. Eight bordereaux, each bearing 10 coupons of six months' interest of 12 ducats and 50 grains, relative to the Neapolitan state obligations. The master found that, together with other property of vari. ous kinds, these certificates and bordereaux passed to the Countess Zichy, by the codicil of the 3d day of May, 1827. The plaintiff took exceptions to this report, which now came on for argument. [*3] *The precise nature of the certificates and bordereaux did not appear upon the report; but the master had treated them as negotiable securities which passed by delivery. Previous to judgment being delivered, authenticated translations were obtained, from which the court considered that they "constituted the bearers the persons entitled to receive, at future times, the interest and capital to which the instruments respectively were the evidence of title." Mr. Kindersley and Mr. Schomberg, in support of the exceptions. The certificates and bordereaux do not pass by the codicil. There are two rules of construction which determine this question. First, where there is a gift of certain enumerated descriptions of personal property, followed by general words, as "all other goods and chattels," the operation of the latter words is limited to things ejusdem generis, as those enumerated, and 1843. The Marquis of Hertford v. Lord Lowther. they will not be extended to the general personal estate. Thus, in Trafford v. Berrige, (a) money was held not to pass by the words "all goods, chattels, household stuff, furniture and other things" in the testator's house; the reason given is this:-" for by the words other things, shall be intended things of the like nature and species with those before mentioned." The general rule was admitted in Hotham v. Sutton.(b) So in Timewell v. Perkins(c) it was held that a devise of plate, jewels, linen, household goods, and coach and horses, will be confined to things of the same nature; and that goldsmiths' notes and bank bills do not pass by those words.(d) These certificates, therefore, not being in the nature of "goods, chattels, &c." will not pass under this bequest. *Secondly, where there is a gift of personal property in [4] a given locality, choses in action, which have no locality, will not pass, although the securities may be there situate: the only exception is, that of Bank of England notes, which are considered money. In Chapman v. Hart(e) there was a gift of all the testator's "goods and chattels in his house and on board the Warwick, (a man-of-war.) Lord Hardwicke said, "Undoubtedly no goods and chattels in the house can pass but such as were properly in possession, not choses in action, except bank notes, which the court considers as cash; for these words may certainly extend farther than to bare furniture: and if any ready mo ney in the house (if not an extraordinary sum, and just received) that would pass. In the Countess of Aylesbury's Case(g) I was of opinion, that by devise of all things in a house, money and bank notes passed to the testator's wife, and that the testator meant to consider the notes as cash: but bonds do not pass, not admitting of a locality, except as to the probate of wills," &c. In Green v. Symonds (h) B. bequeathed to C. all his goods, &c., in his study, except his books and writings. He gave to D. all his books at his chambers in the Temple. At the testator's death, there were in his study a considerable sum of ready (a) 1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 201. (b) 15 Ves. 326. (c) 2 Atk. 103. (d) See Sutton v. Sharp, 1 Russ. 146. (e) 1 Ves. sen. 271. And see Belt's Supplement, 146. (g) Amb. 68. (h) 1 Bro. C. C. 129, n. |