agent they would be liable for his defaults as agent, and not as co-trustee, in the same way that they would be liable for the defaults of any other person whom they might appoint to the office. The principle of the rule is the same in Scotland as in England.

The mere fact of trustees allowing balances to remain against their factor at the annual settlement of his accounts, where it is impossible to include his whole receipts and payments for the year, is not a breach of trust, or such culpable negligence as would make them liable for the ultimate balances due from him to the trust: Secus, if they assented to his contrivances to retain larger balances than were necessary for the management of the trust.

A trustee does not, by being cashier to the trust-estate, incur any additional liability in respect of its management beyond what he was subject to as trustee.

The rule of the Courts in England, preventing trustees from having any office with profit under the trust, or any remuneration for their trouble, beyond what the trust-deed allows them, is so beneficial, that a different rule ought not to be sanctioned in Scotland. (Quære, whether the contrary practice there is not assumed, rather than decided, to be legal).-Home v. Pringle, p. 264.

2. N. A. made a will, with certain trusts relating to his real and personal estate, and appointed trustees to carry them into execution. One of these trusts was for the payment of provisions of 2,500 l. for the younger children, and of 5007. for the eldest daughter, R. A. B. was one of the execu tors and trustees under the will. An Act of Parliament was obtained to carry some of the trusts of this will into execution; and under this Act, lands devised by N. A. were sold. The trustee under the Act was W. L. On a bill filed against him by the legatee of the 2,500 l., he sought to take advantage of the payment by him of that sum to R. A. B. Held, that R. A. B.'s receipt was no discharge of W. L.'s liability, as by the terms of the Act he was absolutely bound to pay the debts and discharge the children's portions; and it was not set up in the answer, nor proved, that R. A. B. had specifically received this money as trustee for his daughter.-Lawrence v. Blake, p. 504.

VENDOR AND PURCHASER. See SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
1. Trustees for sale of a manor described it in advertise-
ments, and particulars and conditions of sale, as a manor
in which the fines were arbitrary; adding that the clear
profits, on an average of the last eight years, had been
150l. a year;
and it was one of the conditions of sale, that
if there should be any error or misstatement in the par-
ticulars, the vendors, or purchaser, as the case might
happen, should pay or allow a proportionate value, accord-
ing to the average of the whole purchase money, as a
compensation either way. After the sale it was found that
by the custom of the manor arbitrary fines were payable
only in alienation, and that on the death of the tenant, his
customary heir paid upon admittance a small fixed sum,
and the widow was admitted to her free-bench without any
payment. It was also found that the clear profits ex-
ceeded 200 l. a year. Held (reversing a decree made on
a bill which was filed by the purchaser for specific per-
formance, with compensation in respect of the misstate-
ment as to the fines), that there was no such misdescription
of the property as would entitle the purchaser to com-
pensation, inasmuch as the annual profits, which constituted
the substantial value, far exceeded the amount stated.-
White v. Cuddon, p. 766.

Semble, that if there was a substantial misdescription, a Court
of Equity would not enforce against trustees specific per-
formance with compensation, as being prejudicial to the ces-
tui qui trust, and incapable of being ascertained.-Id. ibid.
The vendor and purchaser consenting to a specific perform-
ance, without compensation, the decree was accordingly so
varied, the purchaser paying the costs of the suit.-Id. ibid.
WAIVER OF RIGHT.

W. had for some years received money on the tonnage levied
on goods and parcels alone. Held, that this did not
prevent him from afterwards claiming payment on the
tonnage duty on passengers.-Edinburgh Railway Com-
pany v. Wauchope, p. 710.

END OF VOL. VIII.

LONDON:

Printed by James and Luke J. Hansard, near Lincoln's Inn-Fields.