6 revisions | 1 Mr AD. Payne's case
May 26 1860
Qu. 1. Is Exhibit No 1 testamentary in its character, &
revoked by no. 3?
I can see no ground to regard it as testa-
mentary except to [tur?] as the suggestion offended may [?] sertained
by Ruth v Owens 2 Rand. 572. There the bonds were [en'd?]
by [direct?] [?th] before his death. the [same?} [him?] [w?]
given to the obligees respectively [one] the same as there named in the [l?] and it was in [suwf?] that
when he en'd the the notes bonds (almost 3 days before his death), he
declared that it was to reduce the legacies.
The [power?] of husband to bar his wife's claims by deed in his
life-time, will not be [centivated?] after li[?] [?] v [Colsin?] 5 [?] 42;
6 [Grat?] 594, Gentey v Bailey.
Qu. 2. If not testamentary was the execution of Exhibit
no 1, as a deed or assignment, complete & perfect?
If it is not, it must be because it was
not duly signed, sealed, or delivered. That it was signed
and sealed is sufficiently demonstrated by the acknowledg-
ment before the [justice?]. The only enquiry open is conceived
to be, was it duly delivered?
The acknowledgment before the justice is admitted
to be cogent evidence of a delivery, although not [?]. Mr AD. Payne`s case
May 26 1860
Qu. 1. Is Exhibit No 1 testamentary in its character, &
revoked by no. 3?
I can see no ground to regard it as testa-
mentary except to [tur?] as the suggestion offended may [?] sertained
by Ruth v Owens 2 Rand. 572. There the bonds were [en'd?]
by [direct?] [?th] before his death. the [same?} [him?] [w?]
given to the obligees respectively [one] the same as there named in the [l?] and it was in [suwf?] that
when he en'd the the notes bonds (almost 3 days before his death), he
declared that it was to reduce the legacies.
The [power?] of husband to bar his wife's claims by deed in his
life-time, will not be [centivated?] after li[?] [?] v [Colsin?] 5 [?] 42;
6 [Grat?] 594, Gentey v Bailey.
Qu. 2. If not testamentary was the execution of Exhibit
no 1, as a deed or assignment, complete & perfect?
If it is not, it must be because it was
not duly signed, sealed, or delivered. That it was signed
and sealed is sufficiently demonstrated by the acknowledg-
ment before the [justice?]. The only enquiry open is conceived
to be, was it duly delivered?
The acknowledgment before the justice is admitted
to be cogent evidence of a delivery, although not [?]. 1 Mr AD. Payne's case
May 26 1860
Qu. 1. Is Exhibit No 1 testamentary in its character, &
revoked by no. 3?
I can see no ground to regard it as testa-
mentary except to [tur?] as the suggestion offended may [?] sertained
by Ruth v Owens 2 Rand. 572. There the bonds were [en'd?]
by [direct?] [?th] before his death. the [same?} [him?] [w?]
given to the obligees respectively [one] the same as there named in the [l?] and it was in [suwf?] that
when he en'd the the notes bonds (almost 3 days before his death), he
declared that it was to reduce the legacies.
The [power?] of husband to bar his wife's claims by deed in his
life-time, will not be [centivated?] after after li[?] [?] v [Colsin?] 5 [?] 42;
6 [Grat?] 594, Gentey v Bailey.
Qu. 2. If not testamentary was the execution of Exhibit
no 1, as a deed or assignment, complete & perfect?
If it is not, it must be because it was
not duly signed, sealed, or delivered. That it was signed
and sealed is sufficiently demonstrated by the acknowledg-
ment before the [justice?]. The only enquiry open is conceived
to be, was it duly delivered?
The acknowledgment before the justice is admitted
to be cogent evidence of a delivery, although not [?]. Mr AD. Payne`s case
May 26 1860
Qu. 1. Is Exhibit No 1 testamentary in its character, &
revoked by no. 3?
I can see no ground to regard it as testa-
mentary except to [tur?] as the suggestion offended may [?] sertained
by Ruth v Owens 2 Rand. 572. There the bonds were [en'd?]
by [direct?] [?th] before his death. the [same?} [him?] [w?]
given to the obligees respectively [one] the same as there named in the [l?] and it was in [suwf?] that
when he en'd the the notes bonds (almost 3 days before his death), he
declared that it was to reduce the legacies.
The [power?] of husband to bar his wife's claims by deed in his
life-time, will not be [centivated?] after after li[?] [?] v [Colsin?] 5 [?] 42;
6 [Grat?] 594, Gentey v Bailey.
Qu. 2. If not testamentary was the execution of Exhibit
no 1, as a deed or assignment, complete & perfect?
If it is not, it must be because it was
not duly signed, sealed, or delivered. That it was signed
and sealed is sufficiently demonstrated by the acknowledg-
ment before the [justice?]. The only enquiry open is conceived
to be, was it duly delivered?
The acknowledgment before the justice is admitted
to be cogent evidence of a delivery, although not [?]. |
EN
