STATUTES. -Time for completion-Interest.]—ciety v. Fairfield, 205. Where in a contract for the sale and purchase of land, the parties fix the time for payment of the purchase money and the period from which interest thereon is to be computed, irrespective of the time fixed for completion, interest must, in the absence of default or breach of contract or of actual misconduct in relation thereto on the part of the vendor, be paid from the period named, notwithstanding the exist ence of difficulties as to title justifying the purchaser in refusing to complete until they are removed. B. N. A. Act.]-See CONSTITUTIONAL Law, 1, 2. Judgment of BOYD, C., reversed. De Visme v. De Visme, 1 Mac. & G. 352, observed upon as being no longer authority. IN RE DINGMAN AND HALL'S CONTRACT, 398. SALE OF LIQUOR. SECRET TRUST. R. S. O. (1877) ch. 138, sec. 4.]-See LAW SOCIETY. R. S. O. (1877) ch. 167.]-See LIFE INSURANCE. 47 Vic. ch. 20 (0).]-See LIFE INSURANCE. R. S. C. ch. 109, sec. 27.]-See Anderson v. Canadian Pacific R. W. Co., 480RAILWAYS, 1. R. S. C. ch. 178, secs. 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67.1-See JUSTICE OF THE PEACE. R. S. O. (1887) ch. 25, secs. 4, 10.]— See CROWN LANDS. R. S. O. (1887) ch. 28.]-See CROWN LANDS-RAILWAYS 1. R. S. O. (1887) ch. 73, sec. 14.]-See JUSTICE OF THE PEACE. R. S. O. (1887) ch. 124, secs. 2, 3.]See ASSIGNMENTS AND PREFERENCES. R. S. O. (1887) ch. 145, sec. 4.]-See See FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE, 1. LAW SOCIETY. SEWER. R. S. O. (1887) ch. 145, secs. 36, 44.]— See BARRISTER AND SOLICITOR. R. S. O. (1887) ch. 184, sec. 492, subSee MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, 2. sec. 2.]-See MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, 2. died in the year 1846, appointed the affirmed. McDonald v. McDonald, plaintiff and two other sons of the 192. testator his executors, and among 2. Breach of trust-Following trust other bequests devised the land in question to the defendant. The moneys.]-Three persons occupying testator had endorsed a note for the a fiduciary position towards a bank, accommodation of the plaintiff, and became partners in a firm, agreeing after the testator's death the holders to pay for their interest a certain of this note sued the plaintiff and sum of money in liquidation of pay this the two brothers as executors and creditors' claims. They did recovered judgment against them. sum but out of the moneys of the The land in question was sold under bank wrongfully appropriated by that judgment at sheriff's sale and them. Subsequently the firm was was bought in by the plaintiff. The formed into a joint-stock company, will had been registered but had not and the assets of the partnership been proved. Subsequently the were assigned by the partners to plaintiff mortgaged the land in question and sold it subject to the mort gage. The mortgagees afterwards sold and the plaintiff again bought in the land. the company. The company soon afterwards failed, and a winding-up order was made, the original assets, upon which the bank claimed a lien, to a considerable extent coming into the possession of the liquidator. Held, that the original partners Held, that the plaintiff and his brothers having defended the action on the note as executors, and judg-were not affected with constructive ment having been recovered against them as such must be held to have accepted the office; that want of probate was therefore immaterial and that the sheriff's sale was valid. notice of the means by which the incoming partners obtained the moneys brought in, and that no actual notice to them or to the company being shown the bank had no lien. Judgment of the County Court In re Herr Held, also, that it being the plaintiff's duty to pay the note, he had of York reversed. not acquired title to the land for his | Piano Company, 333. own benefit at the sheriff's sale, but became a trustee for the devisee, the defendant, and that this trust revived when the plaintiff bought in the land for the second time. Held, further, that assuming that the plaintiff was not a trustee for See FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCe, 1. ULTRA VIRES. the defendant and had no paper title See Owen Sound Steamship Co. v. there was not, upon the evidence, Canadian Pacific Railway Co. et al, any possession of the land in question 482. by the plaintiff sufficient to confer a title under the Statute of Limitations. Held, lastly, that the situation of the parties not having changed the defendant was not bound by laches. Judgment of the Chancery Division UNCERTAINTY. See Temperance Colonization Society v. Fairfield, 205. |