With regard to the alternative and inconsistent claim mentioned in the Petition filed by the Plaintiff and his wife on 10th August, 1895, namely the claim that I. & Falconer be assigned under a deed dated 13th February, 1882, of the widow's interest of Mrs. Marion (Marianne) Falconer, in the estate of her husband Matthew Falconer, the following observations apply.
The said Marion Falconer is dead and is not known to have left any assets.
(2.) No proceedings were instituted, although they were threatened, against the said Marion Falconer or against Matthew Taylor Falconer as administrator of the Estate of Matthew Falconer to enforce the said claim during the lifetime of either of them.
(3.) The admitted correspondence on this subject see Hongkong Daily Telegraph 22nd August, 1885, shows that the said Marion Falconer repudiated the assignment.
In view of this repudiation it would be necessary to take the evidence of the witnesses to the said deed on commission to Chicago.
It does not appear that there are any assets available to meet the demand, even if successful.
(4.) Of course it is apparent that the Plaintiffs could not under any circumstances proceed with both the claims before referred to.
I will observe in concluding that the conclusion laid down in No. Granels's opinion, 943 - that if the Plaintiffs could prove the legitimacy of Matthew Falconer Junior they had a case, his...
མཁན་འཇས་
449
Woith regard to the alternative and inom Pistent elaim mentioned the Pellion filed by the Plain if and his wife on 100 Qusust, 1895, namely the claim bou mo? I. & Falconer to be assiprice under a deed..W dated 13th Feirmary, 1882, of the widow's interest of Mr. Marion (Marianne) Falcone, in the estate of her husland Matthew Falconer, the following Joservations apply. :-
The said Marion Falconer is dead and is mot known to have lift and assets.
leff
༤.༽
No procedings were insilluted, although they were threatened, "against the said Marion - Lattoner or against Matthew Jaylor Falcmer as administrait of the Estate of Matthew Falconer to enforce the said claim dioung the lived of either of them
(3.)
The admitted expuspondence on this subject see Konghong Daily Telegraph 22nd August, 1885, shows that the said marion Falconer repudiated) the assignment.
In view of this repudiation it would be mecessary to fake the evidence of the wifguesses to the said deed on commission "40 Chicago.
It does not appear that there are any asser's available to meet the demand, eveñ if successful.
(42)
of course it is apparent that the Plaintiffs could not under any elicumstanas proceed with both the claims before referred to.
I
will ofsewe in concluding that the emmalfion laid down in no. Granels's opinion, 943-- that if the Plaintiffs could prove the uteguliniaey of Matthew Salloner Junior they had a ease, his
до
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.