« PreviousContinue »
given it by statute advertised that they were prepared to receive proposals for loans on debentures. The plaintiff offered a loan of £500, upon the basis of the advertisement. By resolution of the directors the offer was accepted. A debenture for £500 was accordingly sent to the plaintiff in return for his payment of that amount. The debenture was decreed by the Court of Chancery to be void. Held, that said directors were liable for breach of warranty that they had power to issue said debenture. — Weeks v. Propert, L. R. 8 C. P. 427.
4. By the articles of a company it was provided that a director should vacate his office if he participated in the profits of any contract with the company without "declaring his interest" therein to the other directors. C., a director who had arranged to place certain debentures at five per cent commission, proposed at a meeting of the directors of said company that the company should place said debentures at a commission of one and one-half per cent, and he stated that he had an interest in the transaction. The company accordingly placed a large number of said debentures. Held, that C. should have declared the nature of his interest in said transaction, and not simply that he was interested; and that he must account to the company for the difference between the one and one-half per cent commission which the company received on the debentures placed and the five per cent commission which he received; and that C.'s partner, although not connected with said company, was jointly and severally with said C. liable for said difference, as the transaction was a partnership transaction.—Liquidators of Imperial Mercantile Credit Association v. Coleman, L. R. 6 H. L. 189; s. C. L. R. 6 Ch. 558; 6 Am. Law Rev. 291.
Complicity. — See Extradition.
1. The engineer of a railway company prepared specifications of the works to be executed on a proposed railway, and the plaintiffs offered to construct the railway for a sum equal to the total of the prices at which the plaintiffs fixed the items in said specifications. A contract under seal was then entered into between the company and the plaintiffs, wherein the latter agreed to complete said railway for said sum. Held, that the plaintiffs could not, under the circumstances, maintain a claim against the company on the ground that the work to be done was understated in said specifications. — Sharpe v. San Paulo Railway Co., L. R. 8 Ch. 597.
2. The defendant sold the plaintiff his news-agency business for a sum, part of which was to be contingent upon the profits of the business for the ensuing two and one-half years. The defendant also agreed to superintend the plaintiff's business and obey his orders. Within the first year the plaintiff agreed with R. to discontinue his news business, transferring to R. such contracts and business as R. should elect to continue. The plaintiff then directed the defendant to discontinue sending news, and applied for an injunction. Held, that the plaintiff, having broken his implied covenant to carry on the business, was not entitled to an injunction to restrain the defendant breaking any other portion of the agreement. — Telegraph Despatch and Intelligence Co. v. McLean, L. R. 8 Ch. 658.
3. The plaintiff offered at B. to buy cotton, and the defendant accepted the offer at L., the cotton to be delivered at L. The plaintiff brought suit at B. for breach of contract. By statute an action can be brought iu the district where the cause of action wholly or in part arose. Held, that the offer at B. was part of the cause of action, and that the suit was properly brought at B. — Green v. Beach, L. R. 8 Ex. 208.
See Company, 1; Custom; Damages, 1,2; Frauds, Statute Of; GenEral Average; Insurance, 1; Principal And Agent, 2; Sale.
A copyholder in fee devised the lands to I., subject to a term of years, upon certain trusts. I. was admitted and paid a full fine. By the terms of admission it appeared that proclamations were made, that I. produced said copyholder's will, and that the lord of the manor delivered seisin of said lands by the rod, to hold the premises according to the purport and effect of said will. After said admission, proclamations were made for other persons having any interest in said estate to come in and be admitted, and as said trustees refused to be admitted for said term, the lord seized quousque. Held, that by the above admission of I. there was a tenant admitted in prcesenti to the whole estate, and not merely in futuro after the expiration of the term, and that the lord could not force the trustees to be admitted. — Everingham v. Ivait, L. R. 8 Q. B. (Ex. Ch.) 388; s. c. L. R. 7 Q. B. 683; 7 Am. Law Rev. 471.
Corporation. — See Bills And Notes, 1.
Where an attorney brought an action without the authority of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was held entitled to have the proceedings stayed without payment of costs. — Reynolds v. HoweU, L. R. 8 Q. B. 398.
The directors of the T. railway leased from the owners of the B. dock certain land adjoining the dock, to be used for the purpose of shipping goods from and into vessels entering the dock; and they covenanted that they would procure, so far as they should be able, all merchandise conveyed upon or along the said railway, or any part or branch thereof, for the purpose of being brought to the sea-coast for shipment, to be shipped into vessels in said dock, and would pay certain dues upon such merchandise; and that when any merchandise which should be conveyed upon or along the said railway, or any part or branch thereof, should be shipped into or out of any vessel in any dock other than the B. dock, they would pay the same dues that would have.been payable on such merchandise if shipped into or out of a vessel in said B. dock. After this lease a company was authorized to construct certain docks and a line of railway thereto, and said T. railway was empowered to lease all the company's works, by act of Parliament. The directors of the T. railway accordingly leased such work?, and shipped goods from the company's docks and carried them over the leased line of railway, and abandoned the use of the B. dock. Held, that said directors had not broken their covenants; and that there were no dues payable in respect of
goods shipped from or into said company's docks.—Directors of the Tajf Vale
Cul-de-sac. — See Street.
The defendants signed, "as agents to merchants," a charter-party expressed to be between themselves, "as agents to merchants," and the plaintiffs. Held, that evidence of a trade usage that if the principal's name is not disclosed within a reasonable time after signing of the charter-party, in such case the broker shall be personally liable, was admissible. — Hutchinson v. Tatliam, L. R. 8 C. P. 482.
See Bills And Notes, 1.
Charitable trusts created in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in favor of poor prisoners in London, failed in consequence of the abolition of debtors' prisons. Hdd, that the trust funds could not be applied towards the establishment of an industrial school for children of persons convicted of crime and undergoing sentence — In re Prison Charities, L. R. 16 Eq. 129.
1. A manufacturer of iron contracted to sell 150 tons of iron to the plaintiff", delivery to be twenty tons per month. Deliveries were not duly made, and the plaintiff partly supplied the deficiency by buying iron in the market. The seller filed a petition in bankruptcy, and the purchaser claimed to prove the difference between the contract price of the whole amount of iron undelivered and the market-price at the time of filing the petition. The value of iron had greatly risen. Held, that the purchaser could only prove for the differences between the contract price and the market-price at the time when the monthly deliveries should have been made. — Ex parte Llansamlet Tin Plate Co. In re Voss, L. R. 16 Eq. 155.
2. Declaration stating that the defendant had agreed to present certain bills to B. for acceptance, and if, after acceptance, the bills were not paid, then to return the bills to the plaintiff or pay him the amount of the same; that the bills were presented, accepted, and not paid, but that the defendant had not returned the bills nor paid the amount thereof to the plaintiff. No plea was put in. Held (by Keating, Brett, and Grove, JJ.), that the measure of damages was the amount of the bills; (by Bovill, C. J., dissenting), that it was the value of the bills (assessed by the jury at oue farthing). — Deot, ill v. IiurneU, L. R. 8 C. P. 475.
See Annuity; Insurance, 1; Lease.
Debenture. — See Bills And Notes, 1.
By statute, a local board of health was authorized to cause the ditches at the sides of or across public roads to be filled up, and to substitute pipe or other drains alongside or across such roads. Between a public road and the plaintiff's enclosed land there was a strip of land nine feet wide. This strip comprised a fence of posts and rails two fret high, fixed in a strip of greensward one foot wide, on the outer edge of said strip of land; then a ditch five feet wide; then a strip of greensward three feet wide, next to the plaintiff's enclosed estate. There was a similar strip of land with similar posts and rails fronting the estate of the adjoining owner, where no ditch existed. The posts in the strip fronting the plaintiff's land had existed forty years, and had been repaired by the plaintiff from time to time, and occasionally, without the knowledge of the plaintiff, by the surveyor of highways. Held, that said board had no right to fill up the ditch in said strip of land, or cause the posts and rails to be removed. — TutiU v. West Earn Local Board of Health, L. R. 8 Q. B. 447.
Deposition. — See Interrogatories.
A testatrix devised " all that my share and interest in the lands known by the name of D., in the parish of K., now in the occupation of E." There was no residuary devise. Part of the lands known as D. was situated in the parish of L,, but formed part of enclosures in the parish of K., and another part was in the occupation of M. at the date of the will and the death of the testatrix. Held, that all of said lands passed under the devise. — Hardwicky. Hardwick, L. R. 16 Eq. 168.
See Vested Interest.
Director. — See Company, 8, 4.
In a suit for declaration of nullity of a marriage the burden of proof is on the complainant, and long delay on the part of the complainant will have influence upon the judgment to be formed upon the evidence adduced. — Cuno v. Cuno, L. R. 2 H. L. Sc. 300.
Egypt. — See Sovereign Prince.
By indenture made in 1850, between a husband and wife of the first part, the wife's father of the second part, and four trustees of the third part, and reciting that upon the treaty for the marriage it was agreed that certain stock belonging to the husband, and a reversionary interest belonging to the wife, should be settled upon the trusts thereinafter mentioned, and that the wife's father had agreed to transfer certain shares to said trustees, to be settled upon the trusts thereinafter mentioned, it was declared that said trustees should pay the income of the husband's stock to him for life, and after his decease to his wife for life; and should pay during the joint lives of said husband and wife one moiety of the income of said shares to the husband and the other moiety to the wife, for her separate use, and, after the decease of either, should pay the whole income to the survivor for life; and, after the decease of the survivor, should hold all of the above funds upon trusts for the children of the marriage. And it was lastly witnessed that, in pursuance of said agreement, the wife, with the privity of her husband, assigned her said reversionary interest to said trustees, to hold on the same trusts as said shares. In 1865 the marriage was dissolved, the order nisi having been made in 1864. In 1871 the said reversionary interest came into possession. Held, that the wife must elect between the benefits given her by said settlement and her right to said reversion, free from the settlement; and that if she elected to take against the settlement, she must account for the income received under the settlement from the date of the order nisi. — Codrington v. Lindsay, L. R. 8 Ch. 578.
Equity. — See Affidavit Of Documents; Foreign Judgment; InjuncTion.
Erasure. — See Will, 4. Estofpel. — See Bills And Notes, 2; Lease, 1. Evidence. — See Annuity; Custom ;. Divorce; Interrogatories; NegliGence; Will, 4.
Executors And Administrators.
An executor employed the solicitor who had drawn the will of the testatrix to prove the will, and to settle a claim against the estate. The solicitor wrote to the executor that the claim could be settled by paying a certain sum, which the executor thereupon sent the solicitor. Five months later the executor discovered that said money had been misappropriated by the solicitor. Held, that, under the circumstances, the executor should not be charged with the loss. — In re Bird. Oriental Commercial Bank v. Savin, L. R. 16 Eq. 203.
England is, by treaty with Belgium, bound to give up persons accused of certain crimes, provided the particular crime charged is included in the Extradition Act. Among such crimes are "crimes by bankrupts against bankruptcy law." Held, that the treaty did not extend to persons guilty of complicity in fraudulent bankruptcy. —In re Counhaye, L. R. 8 Q. B. 410.
Foreclosure. — See Mortgage.
Foreign Judgment. A bill in equity, praying an injunction to restrain a suit upon a foreign judgment alleged to have been obtained by fraud, was refused, on the ground that fraud was a good defence at law to such a judgment. — Ochsenbein v. Papelier, L. R. 8 Ch. 695.
Foreign Principal. — See Principal And Agent, 2.
Franchise. — See Lease, 8.
Frauds, Statute Of.