Page images
PDF
EPUB

though for long past firmly established in the Attorney-General personally, has been the subject of conflicting decision as to its extension to the Solicitor-General and ordinary counsel when representing the Crown—though there is little doubt but that at the present day the Solicitor-General has an equal claim to it, yet the tendency of judicial decisions is to narrow it as much as possible. Mr. Kyshe notices that in 1891 it was decided in the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements that the privilege extends to the Attorney-General of a Crown Colony, though not to the Attorney-General of a County Palatine, the reason doubtless being that the latter does not represent the Crown but the county.

Among other periodicals we notice: The Chicago Legal News; T he Law Book News, of St. Paul, Minn.; The National Corporation Reporter, of Chicago; The Canadian Law Times; The Western Law Times, of Canada; The Madras Law #ournal; The Law Times, London; The Law Żournal, London; Bulletin Mensuel de la Sociëté de Législation Comparée ; Annuaire de Législation Française; Annuaire de Legislation Etrangere, Paris; La Revue Générale; Revue Biblio. graphique Belge ; Case and Comment, Rochester, N.Y.; American Law Review; University Law Review ; Canada Law journal: journal du Droit International Priva et de la jurisprudence Comparée, Nos. I.-VI. (Paris, 1897).

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

C. D.—Breach of Covenant to Pay Money—Indemnity—Right of Administrator to Retain.—A life tenant and a remainderman joined in a mortgage to secure an advance to the former who covenanted to pay all moneys falling due under the mortgage, and to keep the remainderman indemnified. The life tenant died without having paid off any part of the principal. The remainderman took out administration, and was held entitled to retain in respect of the life tenant's # of covenant.—In re Allen; Adcock v. Evans, L.R. [1896]2 Ch. 345; 75 L.T. 136.

C. D.—Deposit by Testator as Security for Sons—Legacy to Sons— Bankruptcy of Sons—Appropriation of Deposit—Claims on Sons' Interest under Will.—A testator deposited with a bank a sum of money as security for an advance to his sons, and by his will he made a bequest to each son. The sons became bankrupt, indebted to the bank a sum much in excess of the deposit. Held, that the trustees of the will were not entitled to retain the sons’ interest under it, to recoup the testator's estate the loss of the deposit with the bank.—Lee v. Binns; in re Binns, L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 584; 7.5 L.T. 99.

C. D.—Assets—Mortgage—Equitable Charge by Sole Executor and Legatee–Unsatisfied Creditors—Priorities.—If an executor who is also residuary legatee parts by sale or mortgage for valuable consideration with the control of the testator's assets to a person who has no notice of any ground which rendered it improper for the executor so to deal with them, and who, if his title is equitable only, has given the proper notice, this person's purchase or mortgage is valid against any unsatisfied creditor of the testator.—Graham v. Drummond, L.R. [1896] 1 Ch. 968; 74 L.T. 417.

P. D.—Intestates Estates Act, 1890, s. 1–Court of Probate Act, 1857, s. 73–-Grant to Executor of Widow who had not taken Administration.— The Court, under sect. 73 of the Probate Act, 1857, granted administration to the executor of a widow who died without having administered to her husband's estate, which was of the net value of less than £500. –In the goods of Bryant, L.R. [1896] P. 159.

P. D.—Intestacy of Married Woman–Husband a Bankrupt—Estate under £30–Grant to Official Receiver—Citation and Sureties dispensed with—Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 121. (In the goods of Jane Turner, deceased, see 12 P.D. 18, followed.)—Where the husband of a deceased intestate was an undischarged bankrupt, the Court made a grant of her personal estate to the official receiver, and on account of the smallmess of the estate dispensed with citation of the husband and accepted the administrator's personal bond.—In the goods of Sarah Jane Conolly, 74 L.T. 461.

C. A.-Statute Barred Debt Due to Administrator—Right of Retainer— Payment out of Court Claimed.—In the presence of the administrator of the estate of a deceased insolvent who had been liable to the administrator for a debt now statute barred, an order was made carrying over a fund of the deceased to a separate account and directing enquiry for persons beneficially interested. On the death of the administrator his personal representative took out letters of administration de bonis non to the insolvent estate and claimed to have the fund paid out to her. The Court refused to comply, as the object of

A

the claim was to acquire a right of retainer which would defeat the purpose of the enquiry directed.-Trevor v. Hutchins, L.R. (1896]

1 Ch. 844; 74 L.T. 470. (i.) P.D.-Probate - Administration with Will Annexed-Foreign Domicil.

Where a testatrix with a French domicil executed under a power of appointment a will in English form the Court granted administration with the will annexed. In the goods of Huber, L.R. (1896] P. 209.

cream.

Adulteration:(ii.) Q. B. D. -- Abstraction of Cream from Milk-Disclosure under sect. 9 of

Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875.—Milk was sold in a glass on which was engraved, “ Not guaranteed new or pure milk, or with all its

See notice.” The notice stated that every precaution was taken to ensure the excellence of the milk supplied, but that to meet the requirements of the Act, the quality was not guaranteed. Held, that the notice was a " disclosure of the alteration,” and the vendor was not liable for abstraction of any part of the article of food

sold.-Spiers and Pond v. Barrett, L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 65 ; 74 L.T. 697. (iii.) Q. B. D.-Place where Offence CommittedJurisdiction of Magistrate

-Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, 88. 6, 20, 27.- Where the sale and delivery and the giving of a warranty in respect of milk all took place outside the limits of jurisdiction of a Metropolitan magistrate, the submission to the public analyst of a sample obtained within the limits will not give jurisdiction to the magistrate to hear the information against a defendant of having given a false warranty with respect to milk sold and delivered by him.- Reg. v. Horace Smith, L.R. (1896] 1 Q.B. 596; 74 L.T. 340.

Animal :(iv.) C. A.--Bite of Dog-Scienter.—In an action for injury from a dog bite,

evidence must shew that the owner of the dog knew that he was disposed to bite mankind ; not merely that the dog had previously bitten sheep or cattle.- Osborne v. Chocqueel, L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 109; 74 L.T. 786.

[ocr errors]

Apportionment: (v.) Ch. D.- Tenint for Life and Remainderman-Sale by Order of Court

Rights of Personal Representative of Life Tenant-Apportionment Act, 1870, ss. 2, 3, 4, 5.-On the death of a person entitled for life to the dividend on stocks, trustees were to pay transfer and assign the stocks to certain beneficiaries. The life tenant died in the middle of a halfyear. In the absence of her representatives, an order of the Court was made for the sale of the stocks. Some dividend for the half-year, in which the tenant for life died, was paid to the trustees before the sale was effected. Some stocks were sold cum dividend. Held, that under sect. 5 of the Act the personal representative of the life tenant was entitled to a proportion of the dividend which actually came into the hands of the trustees. That as the Act would also have applied to the stocks sold cum dividend if the trustees had transferred them in specie to the beneficiaries, the personal representatives were entitled to stand in a position as good as if this course had been adopted.—Bulkeley v. Stephens, L.R. (1896] 2 Ch. 241; 74 L.T. 409.

Arbitration :(vi.) Q. B. D.-Reference to Three ArbitratorsNot Unanimous.—Where a

dispute is referred to the decision of three arbitrators, an award by two

of them, in which the third does not concur, is invalid.—United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Assurance Association v. Houston & Co.,

L.R. [1896] 1 Q.B. 567. (i.) Q. B. D.-Umpire giving Evidence on other matter for one Party --

BiasLands Clauses Consolidation Act.—The fact that au umpire has, during the course of an arbitration, given evidence for one of the parties in another similar case is not necessarily an objection to the award on the ground of bias.-An Arbitration between Haigh and the London and North-Western Railway and the Great Western Railway Companies, L.R. (1896] 1 Q.B. 649 ; 74 L.T. 655.

Assessment: (ii.) C. A.- Valuation ListAppeal---Clerk of Assessment Committee-Right

of Audience-Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, s. 62.-The clerk of an assessment committee has no right to be heard in their behalf in consent on appeal against a valuation list.--Reg. (on the prosecution of Dewey) v. Justices of London, L.R. [1896] 1 Q.B. 659; 74 L.T. 523.

Bankruptcy:(iii.) Q. B. D.-Act of Bankruptcy-Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 4, sub-s. 1 (h).

A letter sent to a creditor by the solicitor of the debtor on the following terms: “We send you herewith a statement shewing the income and expenditure and the amount of the mortgages on the estate. We think it well to repeat what we stated to you at our interview that a receiving order will be applied for immediately execution is issued,” was held not to be an act of bankruptcy within sect. 4, sub-sect. 1 (b) of the Act.The Trustee of Viscount Hill (deceased), a Bankrupt v.

Rowlands, L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 124; 74 L.T. 556. (iv.) Q. B. D.-Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 6, sub-s. 1- Right to present

Petition.—A bill of exchange. was given for money lent and interest, and was renewed by agreement after interest on the first had been paid. Before the renewal became due, the acceptor committed an act of bankruptcy. Held, that the original debt was “a liquidated sum payable either immediately or at some certain future time," and that the creditor was entitled to present a bankruptcy petition.In re Barr ;

e. p. Wolfe, L.R. (1896] 1 Q.B. 616; 74 L.T. 555. (v.) Q. B. D.-An Act of Bankruptcy by a Non-trader-Bankruptèy Act,

1883, s. 4, sub-s. 1 (h).—A verbal statement to a creditor by a nontrading debtor that he is unable to pay his debts and that he will deal with all his creditors in a body may constitute an act of bankruptcy.

-In re Scott; e. p. Lewis, L.R. (1896] 1 Q.B. 619; 74 L.T. 555. (vi.) Ch D.—Composition-Default-Mortgagee's Remedy-Bankruptcy Acts,

1883, ss. 18 (11), 108 ; 1890, s. 3 (15); T. 211 of 1886 and 33 of 1890. -On the death of debtor after making default in a composition with his creditors, a mortgagee can proceed, under the above sections and rules, to have the debtor adjudicated a bankrupt.-In re Hardy; Hardy

V. Farmer, L.R. (1896] 1 Ch.904 ; 74 L.T. 403. (vii.) Q. B. D.-Guarantee to Bank jor Whole Debt to Limited Amount

Rights of Bank.-When a surety guarantees the whole debt which may arise, but yet limits his liability to a fixed sum, the creditor may prove for the entire claim, although he has received the maximum, but lesser sum, of the guarantee, and the surety has no right of proof till the debt has been paid in full.-In re Sass ; e. p. National Provincial Bank of England, L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 12; 74 L.T. 383.

A-2

(i.) Q. B. D.-Mortgage of Future Payments—Bankruptcy of Mortgagor— Rights of Trustee—Bankruptcy Act, 1883.—X. entered into a contract in consideration of a weekly payment to supply goods and to keep them in repair for a certain number of weeks. After the goods were supplied X. mortgaged to W. the future payments as a collateral security. X. then became bankrupt and the trustee claimed all the payments which had become due since the bankruptcy. Held, that these payments were not debts under sect.44(2)(iii.) of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, and that the mortgage of them was not an assignment as against the trustee in bankruptcy.—Wilmot v. Alton, L.R. [1896]

[ocr errors]

Bastardy:

(ii.) Q. B. D.-Putative Father out of Jurisdiction—Service of Summons,— Service of a summons at the house which the putative father had shortly before quitted for America was held sufficient service.—Reg. v. Webb and Others (Justices) and Grove, L.R. [1896] 1 Q.B. 487;

[ocr errors]

Bye-Law:

(iii.) Q. B. D.—Borough-Submission of Plans to Corporation—Appeal to Quarter Sessions—Reasonableness of Bye-Law.—By the bye-laws of a borough, plans of new buildings were to be submitted to the corporation, who were to signify their approval or disapproval within 21 days, and a builder proceeding without their approval was liable to a penalty. By a local Act there was an appeal to quarter sessions from a refusal to approve. Held, that the bye-law was not unreasonable and was valid.—Cook v. Hainsworth, L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 85;

[ocr errors]

(iv.) Ch. D. Unconscionable Bargain Acquiescence Rescession.—A contract to supply information concerning, and to actively assist in the recovery of, property on condition of sharing in what may be recovered is void as being in the nature of champerty although no hostile action may be necessary. A right to rescind a contract is not lost by delay through ignorance of the right if the position of the

parties is unchanged.—Rees v. De Bernardy, L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 437;

74 L.T. 585.

Charity:—

(v.) C. D.—Charitable Bequest–Validity.—Property was left in trust to pay the income to “respectable single women.” Held, that the intention was for the relief of distress and that the gift was good. Attorney-General v. Comber (2 St., & St. 93) and Thompson v. Corley (27 Beav. 629) followed.–In re Dudgeon; Truman v. Pope, 74 L.T. 613.

(vi.) Ch. D.–Endowed Schools Act, 1869, s. 14–Christ's Hospital—Endowments.--An application to the Court to make over to the new governing body of Christ's Hospital under a scheme approved by virtue of the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, certain endowments less than 50 years in existence which were excluded from that scheme and left in the hands of the old governing body, was refused in the face of opposition on the part of the old governing body whose title was founded on Royal Charter and Act of Parliament.—Attorney-General v. Governors of Christ's Hospital, L.R. [1896] 1 Ch. 879. (vii.) C. A.-Will-Construction.-Decision of the Court below (see Vol. 21, p. 73, v.) affirmed.-In re MacDuff; MacDuff and MacDuff, L.R. [1896]

2 Ch. 451; 74 L.T. 706.

[graphic][graphic]
« PreviousContinue »