Page images

Bill of Sale :(i.) Q. B.--Bankruptcy-True Consideration--Payment off of Prior Bill

--Repayment of Principal and Interest by Periodical InstalmentsRedemption.- Where the money consideration for a bill of sale is handed to the grantor, the fact that the bulk is immediately returned in discharge of a previous bill of sale need not be expressed. If the principal and interest are to be discharged by fixed periodical instalments, the bolder is in the same position as if the date of repayment which can be gathered by calculation had been specifically stated, and the bill of sale can be redeemed only by the payment of the whole of the instalments.-In re Davies ; e. p. The Equitable Investment Co.,

Limited, 77 L.T. 567. Brewer's Lease:(ii.) C. D.-Tied House--Assignment_Construction.--A lease of a public

house contained a covenant that the lessee and his assigns would deal exclusively with the lessor, a brewer, and his successors in business for beer; and it was declared that the expressions “lessor" and “lessee" should be deemed to include the respective executors, administrators and assigns The lessor assigned the reversion of the house to a brewery company, but continued to carry on his business as a brewer. Held, that the brewery company, as assignees of the lessor, was entitled to enforce the covenant and compel the lessee to deal exclusively with them.--The Birmingham Breweries, Limited, v. Jameson,

78 L.T. 37. Charity:(iii.) C. D.-" Ecclesiastical Charity"-Local Government Act, 1894 (56 & 57

Vict., c. 73), 8. 75.-A charity was founded for the benefit of persons (1) who regularly attended service at their parish church, and (2) received the communion, and (3) lived a godly life. Held, that though qualifications 1 and 3 might be possessed by others than members of the Church of England, the second could not; and that the charity was an ecclesiastical charity within the Local Government Act.-In re

Perry's Almshouses Charity, 78 L.T. 103. Coal:(iv.) Q. B. D.-Weights and Measures Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict., c. 21),

8. 22—W'eight of Wagon.The Weights and Measures Act, sect. 22, sub-sect. 1, requires that when any quantity of coals exceeding two hundredweight is sent out for sale in bulk, the vendor shall cause the vehicle and contents to be weighed and the result shewn, with the tare weight of the wagon, on a ticket supplied to the purchaser. A coal merchant, selling under these conditions, described the wagon weight as 29 cwt., but on a weighing after delivery, it appeared that the wagon was 28 lbs. less than the weight stated, and although the vendor had thus delivered 28 lbs. of coal more than he charged for, he was fined by the justices under sub-sect. 2 of the same section for not describing the correct weight. The conviction was quashed on appeal, it being held, that the weighing should be performed near the place from which the coals are brought and not after delivery.-Knowles & Sons,

Limited, v. Sinclair, L.R. (1898) 1 Q.B. 170; 77 L.T. 624. Colonial Law :-. (v.) P. C.-New Zealanıl-New Zealand Criminal Code, 1893, 8. 24.--A jury

had found, but without evidence to warrant the finding, that a married woman had acted under her husband's control in the commission of an offence for which husband and wife were jointly charged. Held, that leave had been granted under a misapprehension.--Annie Brown v. Attorney-General for New Zealand, L.R. (1898] A.C. 234.

(i.) P. C.--New South Wales--Crown Lands dct, 1889 (No. 21 of 1889),

8. 8, sub-s. 6Rabbit Act, 1890 (No. 29 of 1890), s. 5, sub-89. 1, 2, 3 – Special Case.--The Land Appeal Court of New South Wales has jurisdiction to state a case for the opinion of the Supreme Court in proceedings under the New South Wales Rabbit Act, 1890.-Hill and

Co. v. Dalgety and Co., 77 L.T. 541. (ii.) P. C.-Canada -- Appointment of Queen's Counsel.-It is within the

authority of a Provincial Legislature to empower by Act the Lieut.Governor to appoint Queen's Counsel and to issue patents of precedence within the province; and the exercise of such a power by the Lieut.Governor is not an encroachment on the prerogative of the Crown.-Attorney-General for Canada v. Attorney-General for Ontario, L.R.

[1998] A.C. 247; 77 L.T. 539. Company :(iii.) C. D.- Debentures-Sinking Fund_Construction.-A company by its

prospectus offered bonds“ redeemable within 17 years by half-yearly drawings . . . . by the application of a sinking fund of £5,000 per annum." The bonds stated on the face that "& sinking fund

... shall be established and to the credit thereof the company shall in each half-year carry the sum of £2,500 which shall be applied in redeeming .... so many of the said debentures as the sum from time to time standing to the credit of such sinking fund shall suffice to pay off.” For a time the company credited the sinking fund with a sum equal to the interest released by the redeemed bonds; but subsequently discontinued the practice. It was shewn that without this addition to the £5,000 a year the bonds could not be cleared off in 17 years. Held, that the contract was contained in the bond alone, and that the prospectus could not be looked to for the construction of the bond ; that even if it could the words, “redeemable within 17 years," meant only that the company would have the option to redeem; and that neither in the bond nor in the prospectus was there a contract to form an accumulating sinking fund.-Morrison v. Chicago and North

Western Granaries' Company, Limited, L.R. (1898]1 Ch. 263.; 77 L.T. 677. (iv.) C. D.-Debentures-Floating Security-Equitable Mortgage-Priorities.

-A company issued debentures charged on all its property as a floating security, with a restriction that mortgage charges could not be created with priority over the debentures. The company afterwards deposited as security title deeds with their bankers, who had no notice of the existence of the debentures. Subsequently in & debenture holders' action a receiver was appointed. Held that the debenture holders could not set ip their prior charge against the equitable mortgage, and the bank having the stronger equity were entitled to priority. In re Castell and Brown, Ltd.; e. p. Union Bank of London,

78 L.T. 109; L.R. (189871 Ch. 315. (v.) C. D.- Debentures-Agreement by Company to issue on Demand

Delay in Claim-Holder in Equity.The holder of a mortgage debenture of the first series in a company, advanced money to the company on promissory notes and an undertaking to issue to him at any time when called upon debentures of a second series to the amount of his advance. He joined in a debenture holders' action, on account of his first series debenture without raising any further claim, and obtained judgment. He then claimed after a receiver and manager was appointed, to have an interest in the second series of debentures according to agreement. Held, that he was a holder in equity on the second series to the amount of his advance.Pegge v. The Neath and District Tramways Company, Limited; Pegge's Claim, L.R. (1898]

1 Ch. 183; 77 L.T. 550. (vi.) C. A.--Debenture Holders to Appoint Receiver - Jurisdiction of Court.If it is shewn that a power conferred on debenture holders to appoint & receiver has been exercised otherwise than for the common benefit, the Court has jurisdiction to appoint its own officer as receiver.-In re The Maskelyne British Type Writer, Limited; Stuart v. The same Company,

L.R. (1898) 1 Ch. 133; 77 L.T. 579. (i.) C. D.-Winding-up-Promoter and Officer-Secret Profit-Statutes of

Limitation Trustee Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict., c. 59), s. 8-Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict., c. 63), 8. 10.-A person who was one of the promoters and temporarily the secretary of a company received with the knowledge of the other promoters who were directors of the company a sum of money from the vendor. The date and parties to the agreement under which he received the money were mentioned on the prospectus. Hell, that the statement on the prospectus was not a sufficient disclosure to the shareholders ; that the defendant could not avail himself of the Statutes of Limitation either under sect. 8 of the Trustee Act, 1888, or under the rule in Metropolitan Bank v. Heiron (43 L.T. Rep. 676); L.R. 5 Ex Div. 319); that his services not being meritorious could not be set off contra ; and therefore that he was liable as a promoter who had received secret profit.-In re Sale Hotel and Botanical Gardens, Limited ; Hesketh's case,

77 L T. 681. (ii.) C. D.-- l'inding-up-Special resolution under 8.5 of Companies Act, 1879

(42 C 43 Vict., c. 76)--Claims of Mortgage Debentures on Uncalled Capital.--A company by special resolution declared that a sum of £5 per share should be called only for the purposes of a winding-up. The company subsequently issued debentures charged on all its property, including uncalled capital. Later a winding-up order was made, and a debenture holder applied to have it declared that the debentures were a first charge on this £5 per share. Held, that the passing of a special resolution under sect. 5 of the Act of 1879 creates a statutory inability in a certain event to call up capital for any purpose except a winding-up, and that the debenture holder's application therefore failed. In re Pyle Works (62 L.T. Rep. 887; L.R. 44 Ch. Div. 534) followed. Newton v. Debenture Holders of AngloAustralian Co.-Bartlett v. Mayfair Property Co., Limited, 77 L.T. 652. C. D.- W'inding-up-Company Defunct-Companies Act, 1880 (43 | 44 l'ict., c. 19), s. 7Companies Il'inding-up Rules, 1890, r. 35. – Where under sect. 7 of the Companies Act, 1880, a company has been struck off the register, the remedy of a creditor is to petition for a winding. up order. Special directions as to service must be obtained.--In re

Anglo-American Exploration and Development Co., L.R. (1898) 1 Ch. 100. (iv.) C. D.-Winding-up--- Articles of Association as to Distribution of Assets.

-The articles of association of a company with shares of £l each provided that on a winding-up the surplus assets should be distributed to the shareholders in the ratio of the capital paid, or which ought to have been paid, by them respectively ; 25,000 shares were fully paid up and 5s. per share was paid on 100,000 shares. On the winding-up it was held that a call of 3s. per share must be made on the 100,000 shares so as to make the amount called up thereon 8s. per share; that the sum so accumulated should be applied to repaying 12s. per share on the 25,000 shares, and that any surplus should be divisable equally on the whole 125,000 shares.-In re Anglo-Continental Corporation of

Western Australia, L.R. (1898] 1 Ch. 327. (v.) C. A.-Jl'inding-up-Right to Petition-Companies Act, 1862, s. 82.

Decision of C. D. (23, 34, ii.) affirmed.-In re Peveril Gold Mines,

Limited, L.R. (1898) i Ćh. 122 ; 77 L.T. 505. (vi.) C. D.-IVinding-up -- Contributories -- Fraud.--A person joined an

institution under the mistake, wilfully fostered by the institution, that he was becoming a member of another society. Held, that there was no contract, and that he was entitled to have his name removed from

the list of contributories on a winding-up.-In re International Society

of Auctioneers and Valuers, L.R. [1898] 1 Ch. 110; 77 L.T. 523. (i.) C. D.--Winding-up-Contributories-- Conditional Application for Shares.

--A company allotted shares to an applicant without fulfilling a condition which he imposed. No notice of allotment was sent to him, and he made no payment on account of the shares, but served notice under sect. 35 of the Companies Act, 1862, to have his name removed from the register, not on the ground of non-performance of condition, but of misrepresentation in the prospectus. Before the motion was heard a petition was presented to wind-up the company, and he unsuccessfully opposed it as a contributory. Held, that on the ground of non-compliance with the condition there was no contract between him and the company; that he was not estopped from denying that he was a shareholder; and that he was entitled to have his name removed from the list of contributories. Foulkes v. Quartz Hill Gold Mining Co. commented on.--In re Thomas Edward Brinsmead & Sons,

Limited; Tomlin's Case, L.R. (1898] 1 Ch. 104; 77 L.T. 521. (ii.) P. C.-Winding-up in ColoniesJoint Stock Companies Arrangement

Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict., c. 104).-The Joint Stock Companies Arrangement Act does not extend to the Colonies, and proceedings under it in the English Courts cannot be pleaded as a defence to an action by a creditor of a Colonial company in a Colonial Court.-New Zealand

Loan and Mercantile Agency Company v. Morrison, 77 L.T. 603. (iii.) C. D.-Inspection of Register of Shareholders -- Right to take Notes,

Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26| Vict., c. 89), 8.32.-The right of inspection, whether by common law or by statute, implies, in the absence of express prohibition, the right to take notes or a copy of the document which there is a power to inspect. The right of a member of a company under sect. 32 of the Companies Act, 1862, to require a copy of the register of shareholders is an additional right. A company which had supplied under sect. 32 of the Act a list of holders of shares at the date of the transcript, but had refused to let notes be taken of entries in the register of shareholders which had been ruled out were restrained from persisting in the refusal.-- Boord v. The

African Consolidated Land and Trading Company, 77 L.T. 553. (iv.) C.A.-Will-Declaration that Shares shall carry Dividend Accruing at

Testator's Death-Apportionment Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict., C, 35), 88. 2, 5, 7. - A company registered under the Companies Act, 1862, is a public company within the meaning of sect. 5 of the Apportionment Act, 1870. A testator left shares in trust, with a declaration that they should carry the dividend accruing at his death. Held, that the dividend must be treated as income and not as capital.- In le

Leysaght; Leysaght v. Leysaght, L.R. (1898] 1 Ch. 115; 77 L.T. 637. (v.) C. D.- Directors' Fees on Winding-up-Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26

Vict., c. 89), 8. 38, sub-s. 7.- Articles of association of a company required directors to be shareholders, and provided that their remunera. tion should be an annual sum to be paid out of the funds of the company. Held, that these provisions were part of the contract between the company and the directors, who were entitled to rank as ordinary creditors in respect of the remuneration due to them. In re Dale and Plant, 62 L.T. 215 ; 43 Ch. Div. followed ; 1. p. Cannon, 53 L.T. 340; 30 Ch. Div. 629, distinguished.-In re New British Iron Co.; e. p.

Beckworth, L.R. [1898] 1 Ch. 324. Conspiracy: (vi.) Q. B.-Conspiracy to do an Act which is not an Actionable Wrong.-An

act not criminal which would have given no right of action if done without preconcert does not become actionable when done by conspiracy. Kearney 1. Lloyd, [1890] 26 L.R. Jr. 268, approved. --Huttley v. Simmons, L.R. [1898] 1 Q.B. 181.

Conversion:(i.) Q. B. D.-Sale of Pledge with knowledge of Pawnor-Action against

Executor for Conversion. The pledger of an article sold it with the knowledge, but against the wish of the pawnor. The latter tendered to the executor of the pledge more than six years after the sale the amount of the loan and interest. Held, without dealing with the Statute of Limitations, that an action for conversion would not lie against the executor as he never had any interest or property in the

article claimed.-Hinchcliffe v. Sharp, 77 L.T. 714. County Court:(ii.) Q. B. D.-Practice- Appeal-County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict.,

c. 43), s. 120.-No appeal lies from a county court on the ground that the judge in his summing up failed to give the jury proper directions on a point of law. Objection should be taken at the time the judgment is declared.-Clifford v. Thames Iron Works and Shipbuilding Co.,

L.R. (1898] 1 Q.B. 314. (iii.) Q. B. D.-Practice-Solicitor-Action on Bill of Costs Statutory

Defence-Solicitors Act, 1843 (6 & 7 Vict., c. 73), 8. 37-County Court Rules, 1889, 0. x., rr. 10, 18.-In an action by a solicitor on his bill of costs a defence that a signed bill of costs was not, as required by sect. 37 of the Solicitors' Act, delivered one month before action, is a statutory defence within the meaning of 0. x., rr. 10 and 18, of the County Court Rules, 1889, notice of which must be given.-Lewis and Davies v.

Burreli, 77 L.T. 626. (iv.) Q. B. D.-Tort--Claim under £20-Judgment with Injunction-Appeal

against Injunction without Leave - County Courts Act, 1888, s. 120.Where in a county court action for tort damages are given under £20, and an injunction granted, the defendant can without leave of the judge appeal against the part of the judgment granting the injunction, though precluded by sect. 120 of the County Court Act from appealing without leave against the damages. --- Brune v. James, L.R. (1898)

1 Q.B. 417; 77 L.T. 802. (v.) Q. B. D.-Practice - Sufficiency of Stamp --County Court Act, 1888

(51 & 52 Vict., C. 43), s. 164.–0. xxxix., r. 8, of the Supreme Court applies by virtue of sect. 164 of the County Court Act, 1868, to a ruling of a county court judge on the sufficiency of the stamp on a

document.-Mander v. Ridgway, 78 L.T. 118. Criminal Law:(vi.) Q. B. D.-Trespass-Damage-Malicious Injuries to Property Act, 1861

(24 & 25 Vict., c. 97), s. 52.-A trespasser walked across a field in spite of warning and did damage to the grass to the value of 6d. Held, that he was liable to summary conviction under sect. 52 of the Malicious Injuries to Property Act, 1861.-Gayford v. Chouler, L.R. (1898]

1 Q.B. 316; 78 L.T. 42. (vii.) C. C, R.- Practice-Indictment-Proof of Age.-In one indictment

there may be counts charging individual prisoners separately and counts charging all the prisoners jointly. The Court has power to order the prisoners to be tried separately. The age of a person may be proved by any lawful evidence.Reg. v. Cox, L.R. (1898] 1 Q.B. 179;

77 L.T. 534. (viii.) C. C. R.--Indictment-Rape--48 & 49 Vict., c. 69, ss. 5 & 9.--A

prosecution for rape is a prosecution for any of the offences of which a person charged in an indictment for rape may be found guilty, and therefore a person so charged may be convicted for an offence under sub-sect. 1, sect. 5, of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1855, if prosecuted within three months of the offence.-Reg v. West, L.R. (1898] 1 Q.B. 174; 77 L.T. 536.

« PreviousContinue »