sons, so to be appointed receiver or receivers in America, is or are first to give security (1) to be approved of by the said Master, to be answerable for and to remit what he or they shall so receive to a proper person in London, to be also approved of by the said Master to receive the same. And the said Master is to make such person, to whom the same shall be so remitted, a reasonable allowance (2) in respect thereof; but such person is first to give security, to be approved of by the said Master, duly to account for and pay what he shall so receive, as this Court shall direct. And the tenants of the said estates are to attorn, and pay their rents in arrear and growing rents to such receiver or receivers; who is or are to be at liberty to let and set the said estates, with the approbation of the Master, as there shall be occasion. And it is ordered, that such person so to be appointed in London, to whom the monies aforesaid are to be so remitted, do pass his accounts annually before the said Master, and pay the balances which shall be reported due from him into the Bank, with the privity &c. [See Usual Directions, No. X. ante.] And it is ordered, that the said Master do consider and state to the Court, whether any and what steps, ought to be taken by such receiver or receivers so to be appointed to enforce the payment of any and which of the outstanding debts due to the said late testator in America, and out of what fund the necessary expense attending the same, and also the allowances to the said receiver or receivers, should be paid. Hanson v. Walker, M. R. 12th May, 1815. Reg. Lib. A. 1814. fol. 1219.

For order for receiver of estate in Ireland. See Equity Draftsman, 613.

For orders for manager of West India estate. Cunyngham, L. C.

S. C. 1 Ves. 522.

See Cunyngham v.

31st July, 1750. Reg. Lib. A. 1749. fol. 635.

Belt's Supplement, 232.

Belt's Supplement, 232. Equity Draftsman,

636, 637. 2 Newl. Pract. 349.

NOTES.

(1) A manager of a West India estate is not required to give

security faithfully to manage, but only to consign, or otherwise account for the produce. Morris v. Elme, 1 Ves. jun. 139. Rutherford v. Wilkinson, No. VII. post.

In Forbes v. Hammond, L. C. 15th Jan. 1811.

Reg. Lib. A. 1810. fol. 178. a manager was appointed of a West India estate without giving security.

But in Rutherford v. Wilkinson, Rolls, 9th July, 1825, ex relatione Mr. Tinney, the Master of the Rolls said that that case was under special circumstances; and that in general by the report it should appear that no manager could be found who would give security, or that the proposed person was fit to be appointed without security; but, under the circumstances of that case, made the order with the consent of such of the parties as were capable of consenting.

(2) The manager of a West India estate is not entitled to commission during his absence from the island, but is entitled to what he has paid to others for the management of the estate during his absence, provided the payments are reasonable. Forrest v. Elwes, 2 Mer. 68.

No. VII.

ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF CONSIGNEE AND DORMANT MANAGER. (1)

[Inter alia] And it is ordered, that it be referred to Mr. S. the Master to whom these causes stand transferred, to appoint a proper person in London, to whom the rents, profits, and produce of the said testator Mr. Bond's estate in Jamaica, may be consigned and committed. And the said Master is to make such person a reasonable allowance in respect thereof; but such person is first to give security, to be approved of by the said Master, to be answerable for what he shall receive (2) in respect of the said testator's estate in Jamaica, as this Court hath hereby directed and shall hereafter direct. And it is ordered, that such person do pass his accounts annually up to the 30th day of April in every year, before the said Master, to be included in the said Master's general report, and pay the balances which shall be reported due from him to the said Richard Robinson, until the further order of this Court. And it is ordered, that the said Master do appoint one or

more proper person or persons to act as manager or managers of the said testator's estate in Jamaica, in the event of the death, absence from the island, or other incapacity to act of the said Peter Robertson, the present manager, to receive the rents, profits, and produce thereof, and remit the same to the consignees or consignees for the time being in London. Rutherford v. Wilkinson, 31st May, 1823. Reg. Lib. B. 1822. fol. 1241.

For the like order, with direction for security. See S. C. M. R. 30th November, 1824. Reg. Lib. B. 1824. fol. 146.

For the like order without security, the plaintiff's counsel consenting. See S. C. M. R. 22d April, 1826. Reg. Lib. B. 1825. fol. 903.

NOTES.

(1) In Forbes v. Hammond, 1 J. & W. 88. the Master of the Rolls doubted whether a consignee could be appointed prospectively, in the event of the death of another; but made the order, observing, that it must again come before the Court upon the report.

And such orders have been since repeatedly made. Rutherford v. Wilkinson, supra.

(2) See No. VI. Note (1), ante.

No. VIII.

ORDER FOR RECEIVER AGAINST SEQUESTRATOR. ACCOUNT OF INCUMBRANCES AND PRIORITIES.-RECEIVER TO KEEP DOWN IN

TEREST.

His Lordship doth order, that it be referred to Mr. T. one &c. to inquire what annuities or other incumbrances there are affecting the tithes, rents, issues, and profits of the rectory of Simpson and the vicarage of Little Missenden, in the county of Bucks, in the pleadings of this cause mentioned, and to state their priorities, and what is due thereon. And the said Master is to cause an advertisement to be published in the London Gazette, and such other public papers as he shall think proper, for all persons claiming annuities or other incumbrances affecting the tithes, rents, issues, and profits of the said rectory and vicarage to come in before him, and make out their claims; and he is to fix a peremptory day for

that purpose, and for the better recovery thereof. [See Usual Directions, No. I. ante.] And it is ordered, that it be referred to the said Master to appoint a proper person to be receiver of the tithes, rents, issues, and profits of the said rectory of Simpson and vicarage of Little Missenden, and to make him a reasonable allowance in respect thereof; such person so to be appointed first giving security &c. [See No. I. ante.] And it is ordered, that the respective holders of the said tithes, rents, issues, and profits now due, and which shall hereafter accrue due in respect thereof, do pay the same to such receiver. And it is ordered, that the said receiver do provide for the service of the said churches of Simpson and Little Missenden, and make and pay a proper allowance and remuneration to the persons serving the same. And it is ordered, that the said receiver do pay the said bishop his costs of this application, such costs to be taxed by the said Master in case the parties differ about the same; and he is to be allowed the same in passing his accounts before the said Master. And it is ordered, that the said receiver, in the next place, do pay and keep down the arrears and growing payments of the annuities and other incumbrances charged on the said tithes, rents, issues, and profits, according to their respective priorities. And it is ordered, that the said receiver do pass his accounts before the said Master, and pay the balances that shall be reported due from him, after paying such allowance and remuneration for the service of the said churches as aforesaid, and paying and keeping down the arrears and growing payments of the said annuities and other incumbrances, into the Bank, with the privity &c. [See Usual Directions, No. X. ante.] Couraud v. Hanmer, L. C. 26th July, 1823. Reg. Lib. A. 1822. fol. 2387.

The like order (except as to incumbrances) was made by the Lord Chancellor in Littleboy v. Spooner, on the same day. And see Orders in Silver v. Bishop of Norwich, 3 Swan. 117. note. White v. Bishop of Peterborough, 3 Swan. 118.

No. IX.

ORDER FOR RECEIVER OF HEIR LOOMS.

His Lordship doth order that the defendant, George Duke of Marlborough do, on or before the 11th day of April next, being the first seal before the next term, pay the sum of £ into the Bank, with the privity &c. to be there placed to the credit of this cause, "the gold plate account," subject to the further order of this Court. And in case the said sum of £ shall not be paid into the Bank by the said defendant, the Duke of Marlborough, by the time aforesaid, then, but in that case only, it is ordered that it be referred to Mr. C. one &c. to whom this cause stands referred, to appoint a proper person or persons to have the care and custody of the several articles at Blenheim, particularly specified and set out in the inventory in the bill mentioned, and which are specifically bequeathed by the will and codicils of George, late Duke of Marlborough, upon the trusts therein contained. And the said Master is to make him or them a reasonable allowance, &c. [See No. I. ante.] such person or persons so to be appointed first giving security &c. [See No. I. ante.] to take due care of such several articles as aforesaid, and deliver up the same as this Court shall hereafter direct. And for the purpose aforesaid it is ordered, that the several articles so at Blenheim as aforesaid be delivered to such person or persons who shall be so appointed receiver or receivers as hereinbefore directed. Earl of Shaftesbury v. Duke of Marlborough, L. C. 28th March, 1820. Reg. Lib. A. 1819. fol. 792.

No. X..

DIRECTION IN DECREE FOR CONTINUING RECEIVER. (1)

And it is further ordered, that the receivers appointed in this cause be continued, and pass their accounts before the said Master; and that the several orders (2) directing the payment of the balances in the receivers' hands into the Bank,