« PreviousContinue »
whether there was an entire execution of the contract or not, there was such an execution as could be effected consistently with the incapacity under which the cargo labored; the plaintiff was therefore entitled to freight. Also that, as the master had been obliged to take the petroleum out of the harbor of Havre, and had carried it back to London, the plaintiff was entitled to return freight, demurrage for detention while travelling to Honfleur and Trouville, and the necessary incidental expenses, and that there was a lien for the several charges. — Cargo ex Argos, L. R. 4 Ad. & Ec. 13. See INSURANCE, 3; LIEN, 1.
GUARANTEE. F. gave a guarantee to a bank to continue in force until six months after notice to the bank under the hand of F. Held, that the guarantee was determined upon notice to the bank of the death of F. – Harris v. Fawcett, L. R. 15 Eq. 311.
HUSBAND AND WIFE. — See SETTLEMENT, 1, 3.
ILLEGITIMACY. — See LEGACY, 3.
INDICTMENT. 1. The prisoner was indicted for setting fire to a stack of straw. It was proved that he set fire to straw on a lory, and he was convicted. Held, that the conviction must be quashed. — Regina v. Satchwell, L. R. 2 C. C. 21.
2. The prisoner was indicted for receiving goods with knowledge that they had been obtained under false pretences. The false pretences were not set forth. The prisoner was found guilty. On motion in arrest of judgment, held, that the defect in the indictment was cured by verdict. - Regina v. Goldsmith, L. R. 2 C. C. 74.
INFANT. An infant gave a promissory note, charging his reversionary interest with its payment, and executed a statutory declaration stating that he was of full age. After attaining twenty-one he mortgaged said reversionary interest. Held, that said charge was avoided by the mortgage. — Inman v. Inman, L. R. 15 Eq. 260.
INFLUENCE. — See UNDUE INFLUENCE.
INNKEEPER. In an action for the value of goods stolen from the plaintiff at a hotel, the defendant was the manager of the hotel and the license was in her name, but all the property in the house belonged to a hotel company whose name was printed at the top of customers' bills. Held, that the defendant was not liable for the loss. — Dixon v. Birch, L. R. 8 Ex. 135.
INSOLVENCY. — See BANKRUPTCY; LIMITATION.
1. A vessel was insured at and from L. to the west or southwest coast of Africa during her stay and trade there, and back to a port of call in the United Kingdom; returning at a percentage varying with the period of the risk; the ship being held covered at 1381. 4d. per month if longer than twelve months out. The vessel when on the African coast remained in a port a month assisting another vessel. Held, a deviation. — Company of African Merchants v. British and Foreign Marine Insurance Co., L. R. 8 Ex. 155.
2. A proposal for insurance on a vessel was accepted by an insurance company on March 11th. On the 17th March the plaintiffs learned that the vessel was lost, and the same day sent to the company for a policy in pursuance of the terms of said proposal. The company then for the first time asked the amount of previous insurance, and a warranty was inserted in the policy as to its amount, and the policy was then given to the plaintiff. The jury found that the company accepted the risk on March 11th. Held, that the addition of said warranty, which was for the benefit of the company and did not affect the risk, did not postpone the date of the contract until March 17th; and that the plaintiffs were not bound to communicate information received after March 11th. — Lishman v. Northern Maritime Insurance Co., L. R. 8 C. P. 216.
3. The owners of a vessel then on a voyage to New Zealand chartered the vessel to M., agreeing that it should proceed to Calcutta, and there, “ being tight, staunch, and strong, and every way fitted for the voyage,” should carry a cargo provided by M. to London. The owners then insured the freight. The vessel was injured at New Zealand, and the master being unable there to learn the extent of said injuries had some partial repairs made, and then proceeded to Calcutta. There he learned that the damage sustained justified an abandonment, and notified his owners thereof. The owners on receipt of this information gave the insurers notice of abandonment and claim for total loss. Held, that the loss of freight was caused by a peril of the sea ; that no notice of abandonment need be given to insurers of freight; and that, even if necessary, the notice given as above was not, under the circumstances, too late. — Rankin v. Potter, L. R. 6 H. L. 83; s. c. L. R. 5 C. P. (Ex. Ch.) 341; L. R. 3 C. P. 562.
INTERROGATORIES. The plaintiff brought suit to establish a right of common. The defendant filed interrogatories asking the plaintiff to set forth any instance when such right had been enjoyed. Held, that the plaintiff was not bound to answer the interrogatories. Either party is entitled to discovery of facts making out his own case, but not of matters supporting his opponent's case. — Commissioners of Sewers of the City of London v. Glasse, L. R. 15 Eq. 302.
JUDGMENT. — See CRIMINAL LAW.
JURISDICTION. On an application of an infant by petition for an allowance for maintenance, the court has jurisdiction to charge the expense of his past and future maintenance upon the corpus of an estate to which the infant is entitled in fee. — In re Howarth, L. R. 8 Ch. 415.
See ADMIRALTY ; BOTTOMRY BOND; LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF ; RECEIVER.
LARCENY. The prisoner was a depositor in a post-office savings-bank in which 118. stood to his credit. Wishing to withdraw 108. be obtained a delivery warrant for that sum, and presented the warrant to the post-office clerk. The clerk referring by mistake to another warrant for £8, placed £8 upon the counter, and the prisoner took the money and went away. Held (by COCKBURN, C. J., Bovill, C. J., KELLY, C. B.; BLACKBURN, KEATING, MELLOR, LUSH, GROVE, DENMAN, and ARCHIBALD, JJ., and Pigott, B.; MARTIN, BRAMWELL, and CLEASBY, BB., and BRETT, J., dissenting), that the prisoner was guilty of larceny. — Regina v. Middleton, L. R. 2 C. C. 38.
Law, MISTAKE OF. — See COMPANY, 3.
LEASE. — See DISCOVERY, 1.
LEGACY. 1. A testatrix bequeathed £500 in trust for E. for life, and in case E. should leave no children at her decease, then the trustees were to divide said sum “amongst the heirs of my late brother J.” She made another similar bequest in which the ultimate gift in default of the children of E. was to her nieces; and her residuary estate she bequeathed to “the five youngest children of my late brother J.," naming them. Held, that the word “heirs” in the first bequest must, under the circumstances, be held to signify the next of kin of J. — In re Stevens's Trusts, L. R. 15 Eq. 110.
2. A testator after making two pecuniary bequests gave the residue of his property to his wife for life, and after her death among his children, should there be any. There were no children. Held, that the wife was absolutely entitled. Crozier v. Crozier, L. R. 15 Eq. 282.
3. A testator gave legacies to several persons whose relationship to himself he specified, including T., whom he described as his niece. He further directed that if the whole of his property made more than the whole amounts mentioned in his will, the residue should be divided among his relations in proportion to their separate amounts. T. was illegitimate. Held, that T. was not entitled to share in the residue. — Hibbert v. Hibbert, L. R. 15 Eq. 372.
4. A testator made a will and two codicils, giving therein no logacy to a college. In a third codicil the testator recited that he had given £1000 to said college, confirmed the bequest, and in other respects revoked said will; he also gave £5000 additional to the college. Held, that the testator revoked said will only; and that said college took £6000. — Farrer v. St. Catharine's College, Cambridge, L. R. 16 Eq. 19.
5. A testatrix bequeathed all sums of money which should be due and owing to her at the time of her decease to A., with residuary bequest to B. At the time of her death, in 1781, the testatrix was one of the next of kin of her brother, who had died intestate, being the residuary legatee of his father. In 1820 a sum of money was paid into court on account of the interest said father had held in a partnership. Held, that the burden of proof lay upon A. to show that said money did not fall to B. under the residuary clause, and that A. failed in such proof. — Martin v. Hobson, L. R. 8 Ch. 401.
6. A testator gave personal estate to a college “ for the purpose of founding 3 new professorship of archæology, for the regulation of which I purpose preparing a code of rules.” In case the college should decline to accept such rules the said legacy was to be void. The testator never prepared any rules. Held, that said bequest took effect absolutely. - Yates v. University College, London, L. R. 8 Ch. 454.
7. A mariner made a will, beginning : “ Instructions to be followed if I die at sea or abroad." Held, that the bequests were conditional upon the testator's dying at sea or abroad. — Lindsay v. Lindsay, L. R. 2 P. & D. 459. .
See APPOINTMENT; CHARITY; Class; CONDITION; EVIDENCE; LIMITATION; Trust; UNDUE INFLUENCE; VESTED INTEREST.
LEX LOCI. — See MARSHALLING Assets.
LIBEL. Statements made before a British military court of inquiry are privileged although false and malicious. — Dawkins v. Lord Rokeby, L. R. 8 Q. B. (Ex. Ch.) 255.
LICENSE. — See INNKEEPER.
LIEN. 1. It is legally possible for the master of a vessel to land his cargo without losing his lien for freight. — Mors-le-Branch v. Wilson, L. R. 8 C. P. 227.
2. A., an administratrix, entitled to dower in her husband's real estate, and to one-third of his personal estate, executed with her intended second husband a marriage settlement, settling her estate to her separate use with power of appointment by deed or will. With consent of her husband, A. instructed her bankers to keep separate accounts, and to consider any overdraft on her private account secured by deposits in their hands under her account as administratrix. A. was allowed to overdraw her private account on the faith of large deposits under her account as administratrix. By her will A. exercised her power of appointment in favor of certain parties. Held, that whether or not the bankers had notice of said settlement they were entitled, against said appointees, to a lien on the funds in their hands under said administratrix account for payment of the sums overdrawn on said private account. - London Chartered Bank of Australia v. Lemprière, L. R. 4 P. C. 572.
LIMITATION. A testator gave property in trust for B. for life, or until he should become bankrupt or insolvent or make a general assignment for the benefit of his creditors, or otherwise deprive himself, or be deprived by law, of the beneficial enjoyment thereof, and after the happening of any such event, over. B. executed a composition deed reciting that he was indebted in divers sums of money which he was unable to pay in full, and covenanting to pay 108. in the pound. Held, that B. was bound by the above recital, and that his interest in said property ceased. — Billson v. Crofts, L. R. 15 Eq. 314.
LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF. A. had an illegitimate son by a woman whom he subsequently married, and by whom he had another son, the eldest legitimate son. The illegitimate son was always treated as legitimate, and upon his marriage, in 1823, an estate which had been settled upon A. and his first and other sons in tail male, was settled upon said illegitimate son. The illegitimate son remained in possession until his death, in 1842, when his eldest son entered. In 1866 said legitimate son of A. first learned that his brother was illegitimate. On demurrer to a bill by said legitimate son of A., praying that those claiming under said settlement might be ordered to give up possession to him, held, that the case was a proper one for a court of equity to entertain; that there was a case of concealed fraud within the Statute of Limitations of 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, s. 26; and that time did not begin to run against the plaintiff until the time when he might first with reasonable diligence have discovered the fraud. — Vane v. Vane, L. R. 8 Ch. 383.
MAINTENANCE. — See JURISDICTION.
MARINER. - See LEGACY, 7.
MARRIED WOMAN. — See ANTICIPATION.
MARSHALLING ASSETS. A testator domiciled in England died possessed of personal estate and of real estate in Scotland. His will was ineffectual according to the law of Scotland to pass real estate, which accordingly descended to his heir at law. Held, that the liability of said real estate to the payment of debts, as between the heir and pecuniary legatees, must be determined by the law of Scotland and not by the law of England, where the testator's estate was being administered. — Harrison v. Harrison, L. R. 8 Ch. 342.
MASTER AND SERVANT. — See EMBEZZLEMENT.
MINES. — See RESERVATION.
MISTAKE. A deed was executed conveying a moiety only of a parcel of land instead of the whole. On a bill praying that the deed be rectified, held, that the original deed might be rectified by alteration of the words in it, and that an additional conveyance of said unconveyed moiety was not necessary. — White v. White, 15 Eq. 247. See COMPANY, 3; WILL.
MORTGAGE. — See SPECIALTY DEBT.
NECESSARIES. — See BOTTOMRY Bond.