Form XII.-Summons under Section 26 (1). Title as in Form I. Formal parts as in Form II. a or b. 1. That the scheme left at my chambers this day for the execution of improvements on the lands settled by the above-mentioned settlement may be approved. 2. (Add application for costs as in Form III. 2.) Form XIII.-Summons under Section 26, Sub-section (2) (ii) for appointment of an Engineer or Surveyor. Title as in Form I. Formal parts as in Form II. a or b. 1. That M. N. of engineer [or surveyor] may be approved as engineer [or surveyor] for the purposes of section 26, sub-section (2) (ii) of the above-mentioned act. 2. (Add application for costs as in Form III. 2.) Form XIV.-Nomination of an Engineer or Surveyor by the Trustees. We C. D. of Title as in Form I. and E. F. of the trustees of the above of mentioned settlement for the purposes of the above-mentioned act, hereby (Signed) C. D. E. F. Form XV.-Summons under Section 26, Sub-section (2) (iii). Title as in Form I. Formal parts as in Form II. a or b. 1. That C. D. and E. F. the trustees of the above-mentioned settlement, for the purposes of the above-mentioned act may be directed to apply the sum of £ out of the capital money arising under the said act in their hands subject to the said settlement in payment for [describe the work or operation] being [ part of] an improvement executed upon the lands subject to the said settlement pursuant to a scheme approved by the said C. D. and E. F. under the said act. 2. (Add application for costs as in Form III. 2.) Form XVI. Summons under Section 26, Sub-section (3). be paid to may be ordered to be raised out of the upon his undertaking to apply the same in payment for [describe the works or operation] being part of an improvement executed upon the land settled by the above-mentioned settlement pursuant to the scheme approved by order dated the 2. (Add application for costs as in Form III. 2.) Forms. Forms. Form XVII.-Summons under Section 31. Formal parts as in Form II. a or b. 1. That the applicant may be at liberty to enforce [or carry into effect or vary or rescind as the case may be] the contract entered into between the applicant of the one part, and of the other part. 2. Or that such directions may be given relating to the said contract as the judge may think fit. 3. (Add application for costs as in Form III. 2.) Form XVIII.-Summons under Section 34 for application of Money paid for a Lease or Reversion. Title as in Form I. Formal parts as in Form II. a, b, or d. 1. That the sum of £ being the proceeds of sale of a lease for years [or life or a reversion or other interest describing it] settled by the above-mentioned settlement, may, pursuant to section 34 of the abovementioned act, be directed to be applied for the benefit of the parties interested under the said settlement in such manner as the court may think fit. 2. (Add application for costs as in Form III. 2.) Form XIX.-Summons under Section 38 for the Appointment of Title as in Form I. Formal parts as in Form II. a, b, c, or d. 1. That G. H. and I. J. may be appointed trustees under the abovementioned settlement for the purposes of the above-mentioned act. 2. (Add application for costs as in Form III. 2.) See Re Harrop, 24 Ch. D. 719; Re Simpson, Re Whitchurch, 1897, 1 Ch. 256; Seton, 5th ed. 1512. 1. That it may be declared that (set out the declaration required). 2. (Add application for costs as in Form III. 2, or as the circumstances require.) Form XXI.-Summons under Section 56 for Advice and Direction. Formal parts as in Form II. a to h. For the opinion, advice, and direction of the judge on the following questions: 1. Whether 2. Whether 3. Whether (or if the questions involve complicated facts.) for the opinion, advice, and direction of the judge on the facts and ques-- Form XXII.-Summons under Section 60 for Appointment of Title as in Form I. Formal parts as in Form II. b. 1. That the powers conferred upon a tenant for life by sections 6 to 13, both inclusive, and sections 16 to 20, both inclusive, of the abovementioned act (or such other powers as it is desired to exercise) may be exercised by the said on behalf of the said minority. 2. (Add application for costs in Form III. 2.) during his Form XXIII.-Summons for Directions as to Service of a Petition. Title as in Form I. Formal parts as in Form II. That directions may be given as to the persons to be served with the petition presented in the above matter on the day of 18 Forms. TITLES OF SUMMONSES. The following regulations as to the title of summonses were adopted by the Practice Masters. See Annual Practice for 1901, Table of Titles, &c. : 7. If under the Settled Land Act, 1882, a summons must be entitled in accordance with the Rules of the Supreme Court (December, 1882) under that act, and in the form given in the appendix to such rules as varied by the form, Appendix L., No. 25, R. S. C. 1883. 1886, J. No. or 1886, R. No. and 1884. [or of the Acts, 1882 In the matter of the Blackacre Estate [or, of the timber on the Settled Land 1886, S. No. In the matter of the Blackacre Estate [or, of the timber of the Infant. estate] situate at in the county of within the meaning of the Settled Land Act, In the matter of the Settled Land Act, 1882. settled land 1882, s. 59, by or entitled to 1886, R. No. in the county Tenant by In the matter of the Blackacre Estate, at In the matter of the Settled Land Act, 1884. The address and description of the applicant and of the next friend (if any) and of the respondents should in all cases be stated in the summons, and if the applicants apply as, or the respondents are summoned as trustees, or in a representative capacity, the fact should appear. If the applicants or respondents are females, it should be shown on the summons whether they are spinsters, married women, or widows. c. 43, s. 1. THE INFANT SETTLEMENTS ACT, 1855. 18 & 19 VICT. c. 43. An Act to enable Infants, with the Approbation of the Court of [2nd July, 1855.] 18 & 19 Vict. WHEREAS great inconveniences and disadvantages arise in consequence of persons who marry during minority being incapable of making binding settlements of their property (a); for remedy Infants may, with the approbation of the Court of Chancery, make valid settlements or whereof it is enacted as follows: 1. From and after the passing of this act it shall be lawful for every infant upon or in contemplation of his or her marriage, with the sanction of the Court of Chancery, to make a valid and binding settlement or contract for a settlement of all or any part of his or her property, or property over which he or she has contracts for any power of appointment, whether real or personal, and whether settlements of in possession, reversion, remainder, or expectancy; and every their real and conveyance, appointment, and assignment of such real or personal estate, or contract to make a conveyance, appointment, or assignment thereof, executed by such infant, with the approbation of the said court, for the purpose of giving effect to such settlement, shall be as valid and effectual as if the person executing the same were of the full age of twenty-one years: provided always, that this enactment shall not extend to powers of which it is expressly declared that they shall not be exercised by an infant. personal estate upon marriage. (a) An infant's contract of settlement on marriage has been held not to fall within the Infants' Relief Act, 1874 (Duncan v. Dixon, 44 Ch. D. 211). It is voidable, not void (Ib.; Cooke v. Cooke, 35 Ch. D. 209; Cooper v. Cooper, 13 App. Cas. 108); i.e., it is valid until repudiated, not invalid until confirmed (Duncan v. Dixon, 44 Ch. D. 213; see Smith v. Lucas, 18 Ch. D. 543; Burnaby v. Equitable Society, 28 Ch. D. 423; Oakes v. Turquand, L. R. 2 H. L. 375). It was said by Lord Herschell, in a case where a male infant's contract in a marriage settlement was in question, that such a contract was not absolutely void, but voidable only; that is to say, that after he came of age it was as binding as if he had been of age at the time when he executed it, subject only to this, that the law enabled him to avoid his obligations provided he did so within a reasonable time" (Edwards v. Carter, 1893, A. C. 364). On the other hand, in a case relating to a female infant's settlement, Lindley, L. J., said that the great bulk of an infant's contracts are only voidable. "That means that when the infant comes of age he can elect either to c. 43, s. 1. affirm or disaffirm the contract. If he does nothing within a reasonable 18 & 19 Vict. time after he attains twenty-one, the presumption is that he has affirmed the contract" (Viditz v. O'Hagan, 1900, 2 Ch. 97; and see the judgment of Chitty, J., Re Hodson, Williams v. Knight, 1894, 2 Ch. 421; and Re Bankes, Reynolds v. Ellis, 1902, 2 Ch. 343). Contracts of settlement made independently of this act by a male Male infant. infant were held not binding as regards his own real estate (Trowell V. Shenton, 8 Ch. Div. 325), or his own personal estate (Nelson v. Stocker, 4 De G. & J. 458), or his wife's personal estate (Kingsman v. Kingsman, 6 Q. B. Div. 122). The affirmation of such a contract under the law before the Infants' Relief Act, 1874, was discussed in Trowell v. Shenton (8 Ch. Div. 325). Again, contracts of settlement made independently of this act by a Female female infant were held not binding as regards her non-separate property infant. whether real (Milner v. Harewood, 18 Ves. 275; see Mills v. Fox, 37 Ch. D. 162) or personal (Cunningham v. Antrobus, 16 Sim. 436). But where there was affirmation by her when adult, such settlements were binding. See as to real estate, Cooke v. Cooke, 38 Ch. D. 202; Barrow v. Barrow, 4 K. & J. 409; and as to personal estate, Davies v. Davies, 9 Eq. 468; Wilder v. Pigott, 22 Ch. D. 263; Re Hodson, Williams v. Knight, 1894, 2 Ch. 421. See also ante, p. 315. And further, if the settlement contained a covenant by an adult husband to settle his wife's property, such covenant bound the wife's personal estate to the extent of the husband's interest therein (Fisher v. Shirley, 43 Ch. D. 290); even if she repudiated the settlement (Stevens v. Trevor-Garrick, 1893, 2 Ch. 307; Buckland v. Buckland, 1900, 2 Ch. 534); and not only bound his interest in her real estate, but prevented him from concurring with her in defeating the settlement (Pimm v. Insall, 1 Mac. & G. 449; Ex p. Blake, 16 Beav. 463; Sharpe v. Foy, 4 Ch. 35). Again, contracts of settlement made independently of this act by a female infant were held not binding as regards her separate estate (Simpson v. Jones, 2 R. & M. 365). But where there was affirmation by her when adult, such settlements were binding (Smith v. Lucas, 18 Ch. D. 531); e.g., affirmation by appointing new trustees (Merryweather v. Jones, 4 Giff. 509; see Haywood v. Tidy, 63 L. T. 679). It is clear that voidable contracts of settlement executed by male and Repudiation. female infants may be repudiated by the infants after majority (Cooper v. Cooper, 13 App. Cas. 108; Edwards v. Carter, 1893, A. C. 360); but unless repudiated within a reasonable time they will be binding (Edwards v. Carter, sup.). The settlor cannot wait for repudiation until property falls in to which the settlement would apply (Edwards v. Carter, sup.; see contra, Re Jones, Farrington v. Forrester, 1893, 2 Ch. 461); nor, it seems, can a settlement be from time to time repudiated as to property subsequently falling in (Viditz v. O'Hagan, 1899, 2 Ch. 576). În a case where a female infant on her marriage with a foreigner executed a settlement and lived abroad where by the law of the matrimonial domicil she could always repudiate but could never ratify the settlement, and she repudiated it about thirty years later, the settlement was held not binding, notwithstanding that she had in the interval acted upon it (Viditz v. O'Hagan, 1900, 2 Ch. 87). Where a person elects to repudiate a settlement made by him or her Impounding when an infant, any interest to which he or she is entitled in property to make good brought into settlement by the other person may be impounded to make repudiation. good the loss to the other beneficiaries (Carter v. Silber, 1891, 3 Ch. 553; Hamilton v. Hamilton, 1892, 1 Ch. 396). In the case, however, of a woman, property subject to a restraint on anticipation cannot be impounded (Hamilton v. Hamilton, sup.). The disability of infancy is the only disability with which the act deals. It does not affect the disability of coverture (Seaton v. Seaton, 13 App. Cas. 70, 79). Nor does it enable an infant to execute during infancy a power conferred upon her by a settlement approved by the court (Re (2) Effect of the act. |