Page images
PDF
EPUB

(i.) C. D.-Equitable Mortgage of Land within Yorkshire Registries Act, 1884, ss. 3, 7, 14—Subsequent Mortgage Registered first. 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.--Consolidation. 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.-Pledge v. White and Others, L.R. [1896] A.C. 187; 74 L.T. 323.

Municipal Corporation :

(iii.) Q. B. D.-Bye-law against Street Betting-Municipal 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 valid.-Burnett v. Berry, L.R. [1896] 1 Q.B. 641; 74 L.T. 494.

National Schools :

(iv.) Ch. D.-Trustees are " Owners"—Contribution to Cost of Making up Street-Public Health Act, 1875, ss. 4, 257; School Sites Act, 1841, s. 6.— 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.-Hornsey District Council v. Smith, L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 254; 74 L.T. 415.

Negotiable Instruments:

(v.) C. A.—Promissory Note" on Demand"-Maturity-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.

Nuisance:

(vi.) C. D.-Exhibition-Cabs-Nuisance Injunction.-Where cabs assembled, under police supervision, near the plaintiff's residence at night, for the conveyance of persons quitting an exhibition, the Court refused an injunction against the proprietors of the exhibition.-Germaine v. The London Exhibitions, Limited, 75 L.T. 101.

(vii.) Q. B. D.-Overcrowding-Misdescription in Summons and OrderPublic Health (London) Act, 1891, s. 2.-On an order for abatement of a nuisance by overcrowding, a rule nisi for a certiorari was obtained

[ocr errors]

on the grounds that in the summons and the order the place where the overcrowding occurred was not described in the words of the Act as a house," and that the persons who were on the premises were not "inmates." Held, that the rule should be discharged.-Reg. v. Slade; e. p. Robinson, 74 L.T. 656.

Partnership:—

(i.) C. D.-Foreign Firm Located Abroad—Administration of English Estate of Deceased Partner-English Creditors-Conflict of Laws.-The rule of English law that a creditor of a firm can proceed against the surplus separate estate of a deceased partner without first exhausting the partnership assets, holds good as to a partner of a foreign firm who dies in England possessed of property here, even though the rule be contrary to the law of the State in which the firm is domiciled.In re Doetsch; Matheson & Co. v. Ludwig, 75 L.T. 69.

(ii.) Ch. D.-Articles of Partnership in Brewery-Death of one PartnerPurchase by Survivor-Goodwill-Tied Public-Houses.-A deed of partnership for a fixed period in a brewery provided that on the death of one partner the survivor should have the option of purchasing the property and effects at a valuation. After the fixed period had expired, the partnership was continued without any agreement. On the death of a partner the survivor exercised his option. Held, that the goodwill must be valued separately, except as to tied public-houses.— Page v. Ratliffe, 74 L.T. 343.

Poor Law:

(iii.) H. L.-Rating-Fine Art Society-Liability-6 & 7 Vict. c. 36, s. 1.— An art society for the benefit of subscribers only, each of whom obtains a valuable return for his subscription is not exempt from being rated within sect. 1 of the Parochial Assessments Act. Judgment of Court below (see Vol. 19, p. 17, vi.) reversed.-Overseers of the Savoy v. Art Union of London, L.R. [1896] Á.C. 296; 74 L.T. 497.

(iv.) C. A.-Rating-Beneficial Occupation.-Decision of Divisional Court (see Vol. 21, p. 16, iii.) reversed.-London County Council v. Churchwardens and Overseers of Lambeth, L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 25; 74 L.T. 605.

Post Office :

[ocr errors]

(v.) Q. B. D.-Railway Companies-Postal Parcels-Outward and Inward Stations Post Office (Parcels) Act, 1882.- -" Inwards station" is that to which a post office receptacle is directed. 'Outwards station" is that at which the receptacle is delivered to the railway company.-Reg. v. London & North Western Railway, 74 L.T. 624.

Power:

(vi.) C. A.—Appointment to First Wife-Then to Children - Appointment to Second Wife Invalid.-Decision of Court below (see Vol. 21, p. 80, ii.) affirmed.—In re Hancock; Malcolm v. Burford Hancock, L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 173; 74 L.T. 658.

Practice :

(vii.) Q. B. D.-Writ-Incorrect Description of Defendant-O. ii., r. 3.—A defendant, who resided in Ireland, was incorrectly described in a writ which was served upon him in England as of a place in the county of Lancaster. Held, that the writ was good.-Smith v. Hammond, L.R. [1896] 1 Q.B. 571; 74 L.T. 590.

(i.) C. A.—Case stated on Appeal from Order Granting Distress Warrant on Account of Poor Rate-Appeal from Queen's Bench-Judicature Act, 1873, s. 47.-No appeal lies from a decision of the Queen's Bench Division on a case stated on appeal from an order for a distress warrant to enforce payment of poor rate.-Seaman v. Burley, L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 344; 75 L.T. 91.

(ii.) C. A.-Examination of Witnesses Abroad-Letters of Request to Foreign Tribunals-O. xxxvii., r. 6 (a).-Letters of request to foreign tribunals for the examination of witnesses abroad should only be issued when the evidence to be obtained is material to the main question, not when it is merely collateral. Decision of Court below reversed.Ehrmann v. Ehrmann, 75 L.T. 37.

(iii.) C. A.-Security for Costs-Plaintiff out of Jurisdiction-Application after Delivery of Defence-O. lv., r. 6.—O. lv., r. 6, which provides that security for costs may be "given at such times as the Court or Judge shall direct," abrogates the old rule in Chancery that application for security must be made in a reasonable time.-In re Smith; Bain v. Bain, 75 L.T. 46.

(iv.) C. A.-Costs-Taxation-Action for Tort Remitted to County CourtAppeal after Order—County Courts Act, 1888, s. 66.—An action for tort was remitted to the county court, but before the order was lodged the plaintiff took an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeal, and was allowed costs. Held, that these costs must be taxed by the officer of the High Court, and that sect. 66 of the County Courts Act, 1888, did not apply.-D'Errico v. Samuel, 75 L.T. 59.

(v.) C. A.-Judgment against a Married Woman-Examination in aid of Execution.-O. xlii., r. 32.—Where an order was made under O. xlii., r. 32, for the examination of a married woman, who was a judgment debtor, as to her separate estate not subject to restraint, it was held that the Court had no jurisdiction under the order to compel the examination "of any other person."-Hood-Barrs v. Heriot, L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 338; 75 L.T. 15.

(vi.) C. A.-Receiver before Probate-Caveat-Lis Pendens-Judicature Act, 1873, s. 25, sub-s. 8.-Where a caveator who has been warned has merely entered an appearance, a receiver of the testator's property cannot be appointed on his application, as there is no lis pendens.— Salter v. Salter, 75 L.T. 7.

(vii.) C. A.-Service out of Jurisdiction-Notice of Motion with Notice of Writ-0. xi., r. 1; 0. lii., r. 9.-Leave to serve notice of motion, with notice of writ, out of the jurisdiction upon foreign defendants, will be given without prejudice to any question which may be raised on the order. Overton & Co. v. Burn, Lowe & Sons, 74 L.T. 776.

[ocr errors]

(viii.) C. A.-Interrogatories-Member of Company-0.xxxi., r. 4.-The plaintiff sought to deliver interrogatories to the defendant company to be answered by a particular individual, a member of the company. An order was made that interrogatories might be delivered for answer by "the proper officer of the company.' Held, that the order was properly made, and that before application was made for leave to deliver interrogatories to a member of a company, notice should be served upon him.-Chaddock v. The British South Africa Co., L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 153; 74 L.T. 755.

(ix.) Q. B. D.-Originating Summons to revoke submission to Arbitration— Appeal Judicature Act, 1894, s. 1 (4).-An appeal from the decision of a Judge in Chambers on an originating summons for leave to revoke a submission to arbitration within sect. 1 of the Arbitration

Act, 1889, is to the Court of Appeal not to the Divisional Court.—An
Arbitration between the Portland Urban District Council and Tilly & Sons,
L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 98; 74 L.T. 703.

(i.) C. A.-Death of Plaintiff in Action for Mandamus—Survival of Cause of Action-0. xvii., rr. 1, 4.—Where a plaintiff died after commencing an action for a mandamus to enforce an alleged statutory duty, it was held that the cause of action survived and that the plaintiff's executors were properly added as plaintiffs.-Peebles v. Oswaldtwistle Urban District Council, L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 159; 74 L.T. 721.

(ii.) C. A.-Discovery-River Pollution Prevention Acts, 1876, ss. 3, 10, 11; and 1893.-A defendant in an action for injunction is not privileged from giving discovery on the ground that it might subject him to a penalty if the penalty can be incurred only by disobeying the injunction if granted.-The Derbyshire County Council v. The Mayor and Aldermen of Derby, L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 53; 74 L.T. 747.

(iii.) C. A.—Libel-Interrogatories as to Circulation of a Newspaper.—Where it is admitted that the circulation of a newspaper which contained an alleged libel was considerable, interrogatories as to the number of copies circulated will not be allowed.-Whittaker v. The Scarborough Post Newspaper Company, L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 148; 74 L.T. 553. (iv.) C. A.-Statute of Frauds-Pleading-O. xix., 7. 15.-R. 15 requiring the Statute of Frauds to be pleaded if it is relied on will be construed strictly.-Odham Brothers v. Brunning, 74 L.T. 370.

(v.) C. A.-Scotch Bank-Inspection of Books.-Under sect. 7 of the Act the High Court can make an order for the inspection of the books of a Scotch bank.-Kissam v. Link, L.R. [1896] 1 Q.B. 574; 74 L.T. 368. (vi.) H. L.-Procedure-Special Case-Appeal—0. xxxiv., r. 1.—Where a special case raises only questions of fact an appeal is not allowed.— Burgess v. Morton, L.R. [1896] A.C. 136.

(vii.) Ch. D.-Discovery of Documents from a Co-Defendant—0. xxxi., r. 12. -Discovery of documents will be granted under O. xxxi., r. 12, to one defendant from a co-defendant when there is some right between them to be adjusted in the action.—The Alcoy & Gandia Railway and Harbour Co., Limited v. Greenhill, 74 L.T. 345.

(viii.) C. A.-Costs in Action Paid to Solicitor-Judgment Reversed.—A solicitor will not be required to repay costs which have been paid to him by the other side under a judgment of the Court of Appeal in favour of his client, although that judgment is reversed by the House of Lords.-Hood-Barrs v. Heriot, L.R. [1896] 1 Q.B. 610; 74 L.T. 372. (ix.) Ch. D.—Costs-Set-off-County Court Action—High Court―0. lv., r. 14. —The Court refused an action, made on the ground that the plaintiff was impecunious, to set-off against costs in a judgment which the defendant had obtained in the county court, costs which he had incurred in an unsuccessful motion for a certiorari to remove the action to the High Court.-Hassell v. Stanley, L.R. [1896] 1 Ch. 607; 74 L.T. 375. (x.) Ch. D.—Practice—Title of Writ and of Statement of Claim—Administration. Where a plaintiff is suing on an administration action on behalf of himself and all the creditors, the statement of claim must be so intituled.-Tottenham v. Tottenham; in re Tottenham, L.R. [1896] 1 Ch. 628; 74 L.T. 376.

(xi.) C. D.-Costs-Taxation-Minimum Fee-General Order under Solicitors Remuneration Act, 1881, schd. 1, part 2, r. 5, schd. 1, part 1, r. 8.—-A lessee obtained a lease for lives at a rental of 12s. 1d., paying a fine of £12 1s. 8d. The lessor's solicitor charged £7 11s., and on application

sent in items amounting to a larger sum, writing below the total "say £7 11s." The taxing-master held that under the above general orders, the solicitor was entitled to more than the sum claimed and allowed him the costs of taxation. -In re Hellard, L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 229; 74 L.T. 457.

(i.) C. D.-Joinder of Causes of Action-Setting Aside Mortgage-Redemption -Recovery of Land-Application to Strike out Statement of ClaimO. xviii., r. 2; 0. lxx., r. 2.—An application to set aside any proceeding for irregularity" under O. 1., r. 2, is not too late, though made after appearance (Mulkeson v. Doerks not followed). A claim to set aside a mortgage or to redeem it can be joined in the alternative with a claim for recovery of the land without leave under O. xviii., r. 2.—Hunt v. Worsfold, L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 224; 74 L.T. 456.

(ii.) C. D.-Originating Summons-Breach of Trust―0. lv., r. 3.—In an action commenced by originating summons, inquiries were directed which comprised an investigation into a breach of trust, and an order was made for a common account of personal estate. Held, that the inquiry as directed went too far, and if it had been objected to at the time would not have been proceeded with; and that if the taking of the account required vivâ voce evidence, further application should be made. In re Stuart; Smith v. Stuart, 74 L.T. 546.

(iii.) P. D.--Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895-Appeals— Notes of Evidence and of Grounds of Decision-Costs.-The Divisional Court will not interfere in questions of fact unless the Court of Summary Jurisdiction was wrong in its conclusion. In administering the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, care must be taken not to interfere too much in matrimonial life. Magistrates' clerks should take notes of evidence and should shew upon what grounds of fact or or law the decisions were based. The costs of a proper note ought to be allowed.-Harling v. Harling, 74 L.T. 559.

(iv.) H. L.- Parties-Joinder of Defendants-R.S.C. 1883, O. xvi., r. 4.— (See Vol. 21, p. 44, iv.) Affirmed.-Sadler v. Great Western Railway Co., 74 L.T. 561.

(v.) C. A.-Proceedings under the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, ss. 3 and 10.-Where proceedings had been commenced under Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, in a county court for an order requiring a corporation to abstain from causing sewage to flow into a stream, it was held that the proceedings were not of a criminal or penal nature, and that complainants might interrogate the corporation.-In re The County Council of Derbyshire and the Mayor, &c., of the Borough of Derby, L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 297.

́(vi.) P. C.--Insurance-Condition in Policy-Non-Suit.—A plaintiff was held to have been rightly non-suited for not having complied with a condition in a policy to give full particulars within a given time of a fire loss, when his own evidence shewed that he could have done so.Hiddle v. National Fire Insurance Co. of New Zealand, L.R. [1896] A.C. 372. (vii.) C. A.-Bankruptcy-Appeal from Receiving Order-Security for CostsBankruptcy Rules, 1886, r. 131.-The fact that a respondent's out-ofpocket costs on a debtor's appeal from a receiving order will exceed £20 is not a ground for increasing the amount of deposit required from the debtor under rule 131.-In re Phillips; e. p. The Treboeth Brick Co., L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 122.

(viii.) C. A.-Mortgage-Attornment-Power to Enter-Tenancy at Will— O. xiv.--In an action by a mortgagee to recover possession under a deed which contained an attornment clause with a power to determine

« PreviousContinue »