subject to be divested in a certain event. That gift carries with H. it the intermediate income which is not expressly disposed of. There is nothing in the will to cut down that right to the intermediate income. [Counsel referred to Peter v. Shipway 1; Whitter V. Bremridge 2; Armytage v. Wilkinson 3.]
Clive Teece and Bonney, for the respondent Frances de Vernet Angus, were not called upon.
The judgment of the COURT, which was delivered by ISAACS J., was as follows :-
This case involves no considerations of a technical nature, and the only rule of law applicable is that it is the duty of the Court to read the whole will in order to determine the meaning of a contested portion of it. So reading it, we are of opinion that the view taken by Harvey J. is correct. The appeal will therefore be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed with costs. Solicitors for the appellants, Villeneuve-Smith &Dawes, Solicitors for the respondent, Perkins, Stevenson &Co.
17 C.L.R., 232. 2L.R. 2 Eq., 736. 33 App. Cas., 355