Page images
[graphic][merged small]

(i.) C, _A,.—-Accident—~Ner1:ous Shock from Fright.—A railway signalman, in the excitement of his elforts in the course of his duty to prevent an accident to a train, suflered a nervous shock which incapacitated him. He was insured by the railway company under a policy which declared that the insurance was absolute for all accidents occurring in the discharge of his duty. Held, that he had sustained an accident within the terms of the policy.—Pugh. v. London, Brighton and South Coast Railu'u_r/, L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 248; 74 L.T. 724.

(ii.) C, D,-i-lccident e Renewed Policy is New Contract. A renewal of a policy of insurance for t-he term of a year against accident is a new

contract, not a renewal of the original contract.—Sfokell v. Heywood, 74 L.T. 781.

Landlord and Tenant :

(iii.) C, A. -Lease——Covenant not to Assign without I.ice1zce—Licence Withheld.—The plaintiff held the reversion of a lease which contained a covenant not to assign without a licence, which was “not to be unreasonably withheld,” and a proviso for re-entry on breach. He refused his licence, because he wished to acquire possession himself, although he had made no binding offer to purchase. Held, that the licence had been unreasonably withheld.—Bates v. Donaldson, L.R. [1896'| 2 Q.B. 241; 74 L.T. 751.

(iv.) C, _A,—1~‘arm Lease—Covenant to Consume Hay and Straw on Premises —-Penalty.- A covenant in a farm lease fixed a penalty of £3 per ton for all hay and straw sold off the premises during the last year of the tenancy. There was a difference in the manurial value of hay and of straw. Held, that the sum made payable was a penalty, and not liquidated clamages.—Willson and Another v. Love and Others, L.R. [1896] 1 Q.B. 626; 74 L.T. 580.

(v.) Q, B, D_--Allotment !—Allotment and Cottage Gardens Compensation for Crops Act, 1887, s. 4.—A small piece of land cultivated by a seedsman for trade purposes is not an allotment within sect. 4.—C00perv. Pearse, L.R. [1896] 1 Q.B. 562; 74 L.T. 495.

[ocr errors]

(vi.) C, D,—Possession Prior to Parol ilgreement—Continuunce—Part Performance—Statute of Frauds, ss. 1 and 4.-The plaintiff went into possession of premises on a parol agreement for a lease for more than three years, which was subsequently varied as to re11t. Held, that continuance of possession was a parol performance which took the case out of the Statute of Frauds and entitled the plaintiff to specific performance.—Hodson v. Heuland, L.R. [1896] 2 Ch./128; 74 L.T. 811.

[ocr errors][graphic][merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Q. B, D,—Sale of Intozeicating Liquor to Drunken Person by Barman— Liability—Licensing Act, 1872, s. 13.—The licensee of a public-house is guilty under sect. 13 of the Licensing Act if, in his absence and contrary to his standing instructions, his servant supplies intoxicating

liquor to a drimken person.—The Commissioners of Police v. Cartman, L.R. [1896] 1 Q.B. 655; 74 L.T. 726.

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]

C. A.—District Council-Refusal to Approve Plans for new Buildings

_ Public Health Act, 1875.—A district council was held not entitled to

[ocr errors]

disapprove of plans of houses in new streets on the ground that they did not shew into what sewer the house drains were to communicate ; and on the requirement that the street and outfall sewers should be constructed at the expense of the house owners.—Reg. v. Tynemoulh Rural District Council, L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 219; 75 L.T. 86.

[ocr errors]

C, A,-“Siugle Priratc Drain“—Public Health Act, 1875, 0. 41Amendmenr Act, 1890, s. 19.»—A private drain connecting houses of several owners with a public sewer was held to be within sect. 19 of the Public Health Act, 1890, rendering the owners liable under sect. 41 of the Public Health Act, 1875, for a nuisance in the drain.—The Mayor of Eaetbourne v. Bradford, L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 205; 74 L.T. 763.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

Measures Act, 1889, s. 28.—A bye-law made by the corporation of Blackburn under sect. 28 of the Act, to the effect that every person in charge of any vehicle carrying coal for sale in quantities not exceeding two hundredweight, should re-weigh the coal at the request of the purchaser or of anyone on his behalf, or of an inspector of weights and measures, or of a constable, was held to be unreasonable and bad.Alty v. Farrell, L.R. [1896] 1 Q.B. 636; 74 L.T. 492.

Q, B, D,—Obstruction on Highwa_1/—Re1noi'ul—Public Health Act, 1875, s. 149—Local Government Act, 1894, s. 26.—Encroachments upon a highway may be removed by the urban district council without first proceeding summarily or by indictment against the person causing the obstruction.—Iie_l/holds v. The Urban District Council of Prestcign, L.R. [1896] 1 Q.B. 604; 74 L.T. 422.

H. L.—Public Conveniences Below the Surface of a Strcct—Public Health Act, 1875, s. 149—Tunbridge Wells Irnproverncnt Act, 1890, u. 4, 93.—\Vhere a street is vested in an urban authority by the Public Health Act, the authority has only such property in the soil as is necessary for the maintenance of the highway, and have no right to make public conveniences below the surface.-Jlag/or of Tunbridge Wells v. Baird and Others, 74 L.T. 385.

Q, B, D,——Difl'crcnccs Between District Councils—Jl[ode of Adjustn1cnt—Local Govcrn1ncntAct, 1888, ss. 57, 59 (4 and 6), 62 (2).—Sect. 62 (2) of the Local Government Act, 1888, provides for the settlement by arbitration of differences between district councils “if no other mode . . . . of determining such difference is provided by this Act." The only other mode is by terms of the order issued by a county council under sect. 57 of the Act.—./in Arbitration Between the Sowerby Urban District Council and the Mytholmroyd Urban District Council, 74 L.T. 313.

[ocr errors]

(i.) C. A.—Jurisdiction—British Subject Detained as Lunatic Abroad— “ Not so Found by Inquisition ”—Management of Estate—Lunacy Act, 1890, s. 116, sub-s. 1 c) 2.—An order for the management of the estate of a lunatic will not e made unless the lunatic is so found by inquisition or is resident within the jurisc1iction.—In re Florence Lzmise Watkins (a person of unsound mind), L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 336 ; 74 L.T. 505.

(ii.) Nisi P1‘i11S.—-—Lunatic’s Business Carried on by Committee-—Personal Liability ?—A committee appointed by the Court to carry on the business of a lunatic is in a dififerent position from that of a manager and receiver. The committee has no personal liability for credit given to the firm.-Isaacs v. Chinery, 74 L.T. 320.

Marriage Settlement :

(iii.) C. A.-—Divorce—Variation of Settlement-Death of Petitioner-Jurim diction-—Matrimonial Causes Acts, 1859, s. 5, and 1878, s. 3.-~On obtaining a decree absolute for dissolution of her marriage a husband, in terms of an arrangement with his divorced wife, filed a petition to vary the marriage settlement, Before any further step had been taken he died. Held, that the Court had no jurisdiction to make the order to vary on the application of the executor.——Th0mson v. Thomson, 74 L.T. 801.

[ocr errors]

(iv.) Ch. D. & C. A.—Sepa-rate Estate—Restraint on Anticipation-—-Cow reyancing Act, 1881, s. 39.—The Court refused the application of a married woman to be relieved of a restraint on anticipation in order to pay off a debt contracted with a money lender.—Pollard’s Settlement, L.R. [1896] 1 Ch. 901; 2 Ch. 552; 74 L.T. 374; 75 L.T. 116.

[ocr errors]

(vi.) H, L,—Separate Estate—Restraint on Anticipation—Liability of Income. —Income from property of a married woman subject to a restraint on anticipation can be taken in execution as soon as it is accrued due. Decision of C. A. reversed.—Ho0d-Burrs v. Heriot, L.R. [1896] A.C. 174 ; 74 L.T. 353.

(vii.) C, A_—Separate Estate subject to Restraint—Liability of Arrears Accruing due since Judgment—Married Women’s Property Act, 1882, ss. 1 and 19.-—A judgment against a married woman with separate estate subject to restraint on anticipation cannot be enforced against arrears of income which have become due since the judgment. Hood-Baa-rs v. Heriot (see above) explained.—Whiteley v. Edwards, L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 48; 74 L.T. 720.


Mayor-’s Court: (viii.) C. A. Practice—Mayor’s Court—Time for Appealing— The Mayor’s Court of London Procedure Act, 1857, s. 8, 0.59, r. 16.—The High Court

has no jurisdiction to extend the time for giving notice of appeal in the Mayor’s Court.-—Kirby v. The North British and Mercantile Insur

[ocr errors]

Metropolis:(i.) Q. B. D.-London Building Act, 1894, ss.,54 (3); 59; 75; 77 (3)—

[ocr errors]

One portion of a wall may be a party wall, and another portion an
external wall only, not subject to the requirements of the London
Building Act, 1894, affecting party walls – Drury v. The Army and
Nary Auriliary Stores, L.R. 1896] 2 Q.B. 271; 74 L.T. 621.

Q. B. D. -Nuisance Order–Costs—County Court—Summary Jurisdic. tion Act. 1818, s. 11; Public Health (London) Act, 1891, ss. 11 and 117.Sect. 11 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, which prescribes that complaints or information under the Act shall be laid within six months from the time when the matter of complaint arose, applies to county court actions under sect. 11 of the Public Health Act for recovery of costs of enforcing a nuisance order. The Westry of Hammersmith v. Lowenfeld, L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 278; 75 L.T. 182.

Metropolis Management:–

[merged small][ocr errors]

Q. B. D.-Neir Street with Houses on one side only—Paving New Foot. path where Houses built on other side—Appointment—Metropolis Local Management Act, 1855, s. 105.—At a time when a new street had houses upon the north side only, the cost of paving under sect. 105 of the Act was charged upon and paid by the owners of these houses. Subsequently houses were built and a footpath made on the south side. Held, that the local authority had no jurisdiction to compel further contribution from the owners on the north side. —White v. The Westry of the Parish of Fulham, 74 L.T. 425.

Q. B. D. & C. A.—Drainage—“Serer”—Metropolis Management Act, 1855, ss. 68, 69, 74, 250–Amendment Act, 1862, ss. 47, 48.—The owner of a block of houses, without order from the vestry and without approval by the Board of Works, drained them by one pipe running into a sewer in another street. Held, that the pipe was a “sewer” notwithstanding sects. 69 and 250 of the Metropolis Manage. ment Act, 1855, and was to be repaired by the Westry.—Reg. v. Vestry of St. Matthew, Bethnal Green, L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 95 and 319; 74 L.T. 701 and 75 L.T. 60.


[ocr errors]

C. A.—Inspector of Mimes—Authority to Agent to Lay InformationMetalliferous Mines Regulation Act, ss. 33 and 35.—An inspector of mines can authorise an agent to lay information in a court of summary jurisdiction in the inspector's name for an offence under the Act.— Foster v. Fyfe and Another, L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 104; 74 L.T. 784.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small]

C. A.—Power of Sale to one of Several Mortgagors.—In a mortgage by tenants in common, the mortgagee may sell to one of the mortgagors, without notice to the others, for the amount of principal, interest and costs, and even though the purchaser was manager for his comortagors.—Kennedy v. De Trafford, L.R. [1896] 1 Ch. 762; 74 L.T. 599. C. D.—Equitable Mortgage—Fraud-Priorities–Conveyancing Act, 1881, ss, 2, 54, 55.—A solicitor fraudulently procured a conveyance to himself of an equity of redemption by a trustee. The deed contained a receipt for purchase money though none was paid. The solicitor deposited the deed with his bankers, who had no notice of the fraud, as security for a loan. Held, that the deed was not void, though possibly voidable between the solicitor and the trustee; and that the %ankers had priority over the trustee and the cestuis que trust.-Lloyd's Bank, Limited v. Bullock, L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 192; 74 L.T. 687.


(i.) C, D,—Equitable Mortgage of Land within 1'o'rl.-shire Registries Act, 1884, ss. 3, 7, 14—Sub.<>-eqiuent lllortgage Registeredfirst.—To secure an advance of money two tenants in common of land subject to the Yorkshire Registries Act, deposited the title deeds of the estate with a. bank. The bank did not register the charge. The solicitor to both of the tenants in common, who was aware of the claim of the bank, took a mortgage from one of them, unknown to the other, and registered his charge. Held, that as it was the solicitor’s duty to obtain the sanction of his principal to any transaction which would give him a security over the property of his principal, the non-disclosure amounted to “ actual fraud ” within the meaning of the Act, and gave to the security held by the bank a priority over the mortgage held by the solicitor.-—Batteson v. Hobson, L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 403: 74 L.T. 689.

(ii.) C. A.— C0ns0lidation.—The right to consolidate mortgages which are united in title exists against the assignee of the equity of redemption of all the mortgages made before the unity of title.—Plcdge v. White and Others, L.R. [1896] A.C. 187; 74 L.T. 323.

Municipal Corporation 1

(iii.) B, D_~—B_1/e-law against Street Be!ti11g—]lIzmi-cipail Corporation Act, 1882, s. 23.—A bye-law of the borough of Wolverhampton that “ any person who shall frequent or use any street or other public place within the borough for the purpose of bookmaking or betting or wagering, or agreeing to bet or wager, with any person shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £5,” was held to be properly made under sect. 23 of the Act, and va1id.—B1m1ett v. Berry, L.R. [1896] 1 Q.B. 641; 74 L.T. 494.

National Schools :—

(iv.) Ch. D_—Trustees are “ Owners”—Oontribution to Cost of Making up »Street—-Public Health Act, 1875, ss. 4, 257 ; School Sites Act, 1841, s. G.— Trustees are “ owners ” within sect. 4 of Public Health Act, 1875, of school premises conveyed to them under sect. 6 of School Sites Act, 1841, and costs of metalling a street may be made a charge on the school buildings.—Ho1'nsey District Comwil v. Smith, L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 254; 74 L.T. 415.

Negotiable Instruments :—

(v.) C, _A_—Promissory Note “ on Demand "—Matm'ity—Renunciation—Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, ss. 8 (4), 62 (1, 2), 83 (1), 89 (1, 2), 97 (2).—A promissory note payable “ on demand” matures as soon as it is made and delivered. The delivery up of a note to a devisee of the maker with the intention of renouncing it is not a renunciation either at law or in equity without writing.—Edwards v. Walters, L.R. 2 Ch. 157; 74 L.T. 396,

[ocr errors]

(vi.) C, D_—E.2cIzibition—C'abs —Nuisa nee Inju,nction.—Where cabs assembled, under police supervision, near the plaintiffs residence at night, for the conveyance of persons quitting an exhibition, the Court refused an injunction against the proprietors of the exhibition.-—-Ge1"mai1ze v. The London Erchibitions, Limited, 75 L.T. 101.

(vii.) Q, B, D,—Overcrou-ding—Jllisdescription in Summons and Order

Public Health (London) Act, 1891, s. 2.—On an order for abatement of a nuisance by overcrowding, a rule nisi for a certiorari was obtained

« PreviousContinue »