Page images
PDF
EPUB

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.

[ocr errors]

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 a Co. v. Ludwig, 75 L.T. 69. (ii.) Ch. D.—Articles of Partnership in Brewery–Death of one Partner— Purchase by Survivor—Goodwill–Tied Public-Houses.—A deed of part. nership 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 d. 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] A.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

[ocr errors]

Post Office :(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 at North Western Railway, 74 L.T. 624.

POWer:- (vi.) C. A.—Appointment to First Wife-Then to Children Appointment :

Second Wife Invalid.—Decision of Court below (see Vol. 21, p. 80, ii
affirmed.–In re Hancock ; Malcolm v. Burford Hancock, L.R. [1896

[ocr errors]

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,

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

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; 7.5 L.T. 91.

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.

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.

C. A.—Costs—Tavation—Action for Tort Remitted to County Court— Appeal 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.

C. A.—Judgment against a Married Woman—Examination in aid of Execution.–0. 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 # other person.”—Hood-Barrs v. Heriot, L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 338; 75 L.T. 15.

C. A.—Receiver before Probate–Caveat-Lis Pendens—Judicature Act, 1873, s. 25, sub-8, 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.

C. A.—Service out of Jurisdiction—Notice of Motion with Notice of Writ—O. xi., r. 1; O. 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.

C.A.—Interrogatories—Member of Company—O.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.

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,

[ocr errors]

(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 nalty 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., r. 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–O. 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 a 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

[graphic]

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 Claim— O. xviii., r. 2; O. lxx., r. 2.—An application to set aside any proceeding for irregularity” under O. l., 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–O. 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 vivá 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.

[ocr errors]

(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 Costs— Bankruptcy 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 the tenancy without notice, it was held that the claim was founded on the determination of a tenancy at will and not on forfeiture, and that '' B' could be specially endorsed.—Kemp v. Lester, L.R. [1896] 2 O.B. 162.

Principal and Agent:(i.) C. A.—Receiver appointed by Trustees for Debenture Holders—Order to

Wind-up Company-Goods ordered by Agent subsequently—Liability of Trustees.—Trustees for debenture holders in possession of the property of a company were held liable, as undisclosed principals, for goods supplied, after a winding-up order, to an agent appointed by them under powers of a deed, who was to be “the agent of the company who alone should be liable for his acts.” (Dissentiente, Rigby, L.J.)# and Another v. Gosling and Another, L.R. [1896] 1 Q.B. 669; 74 L.T. 674.

Probate :(ii.) P. D.—Chain of Executorship—Missing Executor to whom Power

[merged small][ocr errors]

Reserved—Death of Acting Executor-Citation.—A grant of administration de bonis non was refused where one executor to whom power had been reserved had not been heard of for 14 years and the other to whom probate had been granted had died before he had fully administered, as the chain of executorship could be continued in the executor of the deceased executor, and citation could be effected on the missing executor by advertisement.—In the goods of Reid, L.R. [1896] P. 129; 74 L.T. 462.

P. D.—Foreign Will–Probate of Copy.—A German having personal property in England died domiciled in Wurtemberg where his will was proved, his wife being the £ of executrix. By the local law the custodian of the will is forbidden to let it leave his custody. Held that probate of a copy of the will might be granted.—In the goods of Von Linden, L.R. [1896] P. 148.

P. D.— Presumption of Death—Filing Letter.—The Court granted an application for probate and for leave to depose to death of testator on presumptive evidence, subject to the filing of a letter from an insurance company, in which the testator had insured his life, stating that they would not interfere in the proceedings.–In the goods of Saul, L.R. [1896] P. 151.

Promissory Note:(v.) Q. B. D.—Unnecessary Provisions in Document Described as Promissory

Note—Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, s. 83, sub-s. 3.—Where a document contained a clause that “no time given to, or security taken from, or composition or arrangements entered into with either party hereto, shall prejudice the rights of the holder to proceed against any other party,” it was held that it was not a promissory note and could not be sued on as one.—Kirkwood v. Smith, L.R. [1896] 1 Q.B. 582; 74 L.T.423.

Public Health :(vi) C. A.—House Refuse—Refusal to Permit Removal–Penalty-Public

Health (London) Act, 1891, ss. 16, 30, 31, 116.—The London County Council made a bye-law that the sanitary authority should remove the refuse of houses in their district once a week. A householder refused to admit the men sent to perform the duty. Held, that he was guilty of “wilfully obstructing” within the meaning of sect. 116 of the Public Health Act and was liable to the penalty imposed by the section.—Borrow v. Howland, 74 L.T. 787.

[graphic]
« PreviousContinue »