Page images
PDF
EPUB

port in the London district to a port in Europe north and east of Brest, and, therefore, was exempt from compulsory pilotage.-The Rutland, 75 L.T. 48.

(i.) P. D.-Shipwrecked Passengers-Forwarding by other Vessels-Salvage -Agency of Master.-Where at the request of the master of a stranded vessel the passengers were conveyed to their destination by other vessels, it was held that the life salvors had no claim against the owners of the stranded vessel, who were not under any obligation to forward the passengers to their destination after the ship was disabled, and that the master made the request as the agent of the passengers.-The Mariposa, 75 L.T. 54.

(ii.) Q. B. D. & C. A.-Light Dues-Horses and Cattle on DeckMeasurement-Merchant Shipping Act, 1876, s. 23.-Horses and cattle carried on deck come within the words 66 other goods" in the 23rd sect. of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1876, and from vessels arriving in port so freighted the Trinity House are entitled to light dues calculated on the rectangular space occupied by the animals.— Richmond Hill Steamship Co. v. Corporation of Trinity House, L.R. [1896] 1 Q.B. 493; 2 Q.B. 134; 74 L.T. 380 and 75 L.T. 8.

(iii.) P. D.-Practice-Separate Salvors-Joinder of Claims—O. xvi., r. 1.— The practice of the Admiralty Court permits several salvors to join their claims in one action.-The Maréchal Suchet, L.R. [1896] P. 233; 74 L.T. 789.

(iv.) P. D.-Wages-Master's Lien-Mortgagee in Possession.-A master's lien for wages does not take priority of a mortgage debt the payment of which he has personally guaranteed.-The Bangor Castle, 74 L.T. 768. (v.) P. D. & C. A..-Marine Insurance" at and from "-Vessel Lost before Arrival at Loading Port.—An insurance was effected on freight “at and from " any port on the west coast of South America. The policy was "to cover the freight from the time of the engagement of the goods, or after a shipping order has been issued, by the agent or his broker." While on her way to load at a port within the terms of the policy, the ship was lost by perils insured against. Held, that the engagement clause must be construed, subject to the "at and from clause," and as the vessel had not arrived at a loading port, the risk had never attached. The Copernicus; Liverpool, Brazil and River Plate Steam Navigation Co. v. Holmes, L.R. [1896] P. 154, 237; 74 L.T. 431, 757.

[ocr errors]

(vi.) P. D. & C. A.-Collision-Bye-Laws of Harbour of Newport, 1894, Arts. 12 & 13-Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, Art. 16.Although an inward bound steamer had committed a breach of the bye-laws of the harbour of Newport in failing to enter the harbour as directed by Art. 13, it was held that this had not contributed to a collision which took place with an outward bound steamer, and that the latter was alone to blame. The Winstanley, 74 L.T. 432 and 75 L.T. 133. (vii.) H. L.--Charter Party-Duty of Charterer to be Ready with Cargo.A charterer is not bound in all cases to be ready with cargo to meet the possibility of an opportunity occurring for a ship to load out of her turn.-Little v. Stevenson & Co., L.R. [1896] A.C. 108; 74 L.T. 529. (viii.) Q. B.-Marine Insurance-Life Salvage.-The crew, but no part of cargo, were rescued from a vessel which was insured in a Shipowners' Protection Association against such risks as were not capable of being assured against by the usual form of Lloyd's policy, and the owner had to pay a sum of money to the life salvors. Held, that simple life salvage is not covered by the ordinary Lloyd's policy of

insurance, and that plaintiff could recover against the Protection Association. Nourse v. The Liverpool Sailing Ship Owners' Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association, Limited, L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 16; 74 L.T. 317, 543.

(i.) Q. B. D.-Bill of Lading --Contraband of War-Restraint of Princes— Duty of Master of Ship.-By the terms of a bill of lading explosives contraband of war were to be delivered at Yokohama or as near thereto as the vessel could safely get having regard to the restraint of rulers, princes and people; but if the master considered the port of discharge unsafe by reason of war the goods were to be landed at the nearest safe and convenient port and thereupon the ship's responsibility was to cease. The vessel arrived at Hong Kong during the war between China and Japan, and being, while carrying a contraband cargo, in peril of capture by Chinese warships the master landed the goods and proceeded on his voyage. Held, that the well founded fear of seizure was a restraint within the terms of the bill of lading; that under the circumstances Hong Kong was the nearest safe and convenient port; and that landing the goods there was a proper discharge of the master's duty.-Nobels Explosives Co., Limited v. Jenkins & Co., L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 326; 75 L.T. 163.

Solicitor :

(ii.) C. D.-Evidence-Statement by one Party to Solicitor of other PartyPrivilege.-Statements made by one party in a joint undertaking to the solicitor of the other party in an interview, had at the latter's request, were held to be privileged.—Rochefoucauld v. Boustead, 74 L.T. 783. (iii.) H. L.-Company-Costs of Private Act-General and Separate Capital. -Decision of C. A. (see Vol. 20, p. 90, vii.) affirmed.-Nichols v. North Metropolitan Railway and Canal Co., 74 L.T. 744.

(iv.) C. D. & C. A.-Costs-Common order to Tax-Set-off-Counsel's fees. -Under a common order to tax the solicitor must give credit for all such sums received by him in his capacity of solicitor or agent of his client, as he is legally or equitably liable to pay over to his client and against which, if sued by the client, he would set-off his costs. But against a bill of costs, for which a member of the bar is liable as a client, the solicitor cannot be required to set-off fees which he has received on behalf of the client acting as counsel in another matter.In re Le Brasseur and Oakley; e. p. Terrell, L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 487; 74 L.J. 526, 717.

(v.) Ch. D.-Fund in Court-Payment out on Fraudulent PetitionUnauthorised use of Name of Firm of Solicitors - Condonation by one Partner-Liability of Both.-A sum of money was obtained from the Paymaster-General by means of a fraudulent petition, to which the name of a firm of solicitors had, without their knowledge, been attached. One of the partners was subsequently informed that the firm's name had been used in a merely formal business, and without making any enquiry into the nature of the business, accepted a cheque for fees which he handed to his partner, who paid it to the firm's account. Held, that both partners were jointly and severally liable for all loss which occurred to the misappropriated fund from the date when the one partner condoned the misuse of the firm's name. Marsh v. Joseph, 74 L.T. 412.

(vi.) Ch. D.-Solicitors Act, 1843, ss. 37, 41-Solicitors Remuneration Act, 1881, s. 8- Delivery of Bill-Cash Account-Payment Taxation.-The delivery of a cash account without items is not equivalent to the delivery of a bill of costs, and the Court has power to order the delivery of a bill whether or not there has been payment, even though it

may not have jurisdiction to refer the bill for taxation. Decision of Court below affirmed.-In re Baylis, L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 107; 74 L.T. 337 and 506.

(i.) C. A.-Costs-Order of Course to Tax One of Several Bills.—Where a solicitor who had delivered separate bills to his client on distinct matters wrote that he treated the sums which he had received on account as a complete discharge and gave up all documents, it was held that a common order of course to tax one only of the bills which the client had subsequently obtained was properly made.----In re Ward (a Solicitor), L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 31; 74 L.T. 567.

Stock Exchange :

(ii.) H. L.-"Differences "-" Cover "-Gaming and Wagering ContractGaming Act, 1845, s. 18.- Where a Stock Exchange transaction is intended to end in the payment of differences it is not removed from being a gaming and wagering contract by a provision that either party may require delivery of stock; and securities deposited as "cover may be recovered by action. Judgment of C. A. affirmed.—Universal Stock Exchange v. Strachan, L.R. [1896] A.C. 166; 74 L.T. 468.

Succession Duty:

[ocr errors]

(iii.) Q. B. D.-New Succession— Consideration of Money or Money's' Worth"-Succession Duty Act, 1853, ss. 2, 15, 17, 18.-The interests of beneficiaries under a will were conveyed by deed to trustees in trust amongst other things to (1st) pay an annuity for life to F. Lord W. during the life of another, and (2nd) after that other's death to "continue to pay the said annuity" to the person for the time being holding the title of Lord W. Held, that the annuity in the 2nd clause was not a continuation of the annuity provided by the 1st clause, but created a new succession; and that the circumstances shewed that the deed was not made in consideration of "money or money's worth" so as to be exempt from duty under sect. 17 of the Act.-The Attorney-General v. Baron Wolverton, 75 L. T. 71.

Trade Mark:

(iv.) C. D.-Registration-Portrait of Manufacturer as Distinctive DeviceInfringement--Delay-Patents, &c., Act, 1888, s. 10, sub-s. 1 (c).—The plaintiff registered the name of a lozenge with a device of his own portrait. Another manufacturer imitated the trade mark. Held, that the portrait was a distinctive device; that as it was obviously the defendant's intention to pass off his goods as made by the plaintiff, the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction, notwithstanding a delay in claiming his right.-Rowland v. Michell, 75 L.T. 65.

(v.) C. D.-Registration by Agent of Trade Mark of Foreign ProducerPatents, Designs and Trade Marks Act, 1883, s. 90. An English company were agents, but not sole agents, for goods supplied by an American firm and registered in the United States. The English company registered the trade mark in this country a few weeks before the American firm sold its business to another firm. Held, that such registration was without sufficient cause, and rectification was ordered. -In re European Blair Camera Company's Trade Mark, 75 L.T. 63. (vi.) C. D.- Registration-Change of Name of Proprietor-Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Acts, 1883, ss. 78, 87, 90, 92; 1888, ss. 21, 23.Where the registered proprietors of a trade mark changed their name, it was held that the new name should be inserted in the register under sect. 87 of the Act of 1883.-In re New Ormonde Cycle Co., Limited, L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 520; 75 L.T. 50.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

(i.) C. A.—Bovril-Fancy Word not in Common Use-Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Act, 1883, ss. 64, 90.-"Bovril" was held to have been properly registered in 1886 as a fancy word not in common use within sect. 64 of the Act of 1883.-In re Trade Mark 66 Bovril," 74 L.T. 805.

(ii.) C. A.-Foreign Words or Oriental Characters-Trade made Limited to Goods Exported.-Foreign words or oriental characters, merely descriptive of a device already registered, cannot be registered as part of the existing trade mark. Nor can a trade mark be registered with a limitation of its use to fabrics exported to a particular foreign country. The Trade Mark Application of John Dewhurst & Sons, Limited, L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 137; 74 L.T. 388.

(iii.) C. A.-Right to Name apart from Registration as Trade Mark.Decision of Ch. D. (see Vol. 20, p. 58, iii.) affirmed. (See also Vol. 19, p. 27, i., and p. 106, iv.)-Powell v. Birmingham Vinegar Brewery Co., L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 54; 74 L.T. 509.

(iv.) C. D.-Registration- Representation of a Crown.-There is no binding rule prohibiting the registration of a trade mark which contains the representation of a crown.-In re König and Ebhardt's Application, L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 236.

Trades Union :

(v.) C. A.-Strike-Picketting.-Picketting except "to obtain or communicate information" will be restrained by interlocutory injunction. -Lyons & Sons v. Wilkins, L.R. [1896] 1 Ch. 811; 74 L.T. 358.

Trespass:

(vi.) Ch. D. & C. A.—Tipping Spoil on to Neighbouring Land-Measure of Damages. Where defendants had been restrained by injunction from tipping spoil on to plaintiff's land, it was held, on the principle applied to wayleaves, that the measure of damages for the trespass committed previous to the injunction was to be based on the value for tipping of so much of the land as had been used for that purpose by the defendants, and on the diminished value to the plaintiffs of the remainder of the land.-Whitwham v. Westminster Brymbo Coal and Coke Co., Limited, L.R. [1896] 1 Ch. 894; 74 L.T. 405 and 804.

Trust:

(vii.) C. A.—Breach-Following Trust Funds.-Where a father had appropriated trust funds to which his son was ultimately entitled, it was held, affirming the decision of the Court below, that as there was no evidence of arrangement between the parties or of presumption of satisfaction, the son's interest under the trust was not diminished by the father having settled upon him funds in excess of that interest; notwithstanding (in this respect reversing the decision of the Court below) that part of the sums so settled had been derived from the trust fund appropriated.-Chrichton v. Chrichton, L.R. [1896] 1 Ch. 870; 74 L.T. 357. (Vide 50 (vii.) ante.)

Trustee :

(viii.) C. A.—Liability— Breach of Trust-Lapse of Six Years-AccountStatute of Limitations-Trustee Act, 1888.-Decision of Chancery Court (see Vol. 21, p. 85, iii.) affirmed. How v. Earl Winterton, 75 L.T. 40.

C. D.- Investment-Company Incorporated by Act of Parliament.Power to trustees to invest in "bonds, debentures, or debenture stock of any company incorporated by Act of Parliament" does not authorise investment on similar securities in a company registered under the Companies Act.-In re Smith; Davidson v. Myrtle, L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 590; 74 L.T. 810.

(ii.) C. D.-Negligence-Loss-Liability of Sleeping Trustee-Trustee Act, 1888, s. 8, sub-s. 1-Statute of Limitations.-Money for investment under a marriage settlement was handed to trustee A., who, without further steps, handed it to his fellow trustee B., who confided it to an outside broker, with the result that the greater part was lost. Held, that B. was liable to make good the loss; that both trustees were liable to the cestuis que trust following Speight v. Gaunt; that as A. and B. were in pari delicto, B., on making good the loss, would have right of contribution from A., following Chillingworth v. Chambers (Vol. 21, p. 51, i., and p. 85, iv.), and that Statute of Limitations furnished no defence.-Robinson v. Harkin, L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 415; 74 L.T. 777. (iii.) Ch. D.-Trustee Act, 1893, ss. 31, 32, 50—Infant Tenant-in-tail-Vesting Order. The estate tail and remainders over are barred by the issue of an order under the Trustee Act, 1893, appointing a person to convey the estate of an infant tenant-in-possession. Faber v. Montagu, L.R.1 Ch. 549; 74 L.T. 346.

Vesting Order

(iv.) C. D.-Absconding Trustee Trustee Act, 1893, ss. 26 & 35; Lunacy Act, 1890, ss. 135 & 136.-Where one of the trustees under a marriage settlement absconded, the Court made an order vesting the property in the remaining trustees.-In re Lees Settlement, L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 508; 75 L.T. 178.

Vendor and Purchaser:

(v.) C. D.-Misdescription of Lease for Underlease.-Under a contract of sale a vendor described the property as held under a lease with which the title was to commence. The so-called lease contained covenants relating to the lessor and his superior landlord. Held, that the misdescription was fatal and that therefore a good title had not been shewn.-Broom v. Phillips, 74 L.T. 459.

(vi.) C. A.-Title Deeds-" Information not in the Vendor's Possession ". Conveyancing Act, 1881, s. 3, sub-s. 6.-The expense of ascertaining the whereabouts of title deeds which are out of the vendor's possession falls upon the purchaser, under sect. 3, sub-sect. 6, of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary. In re Stuart and Olivant and Seadon's Contract, L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 328; 74 L.T. 450. (vii.) C. D.-Will-Residue Charged with Legacies-Power to Trustees to Sell -Concurrence of Residuary Devisees.-A testator after pecuniary and specific bequests left part of the residue of his real and personal estate to trustees upon trusts and part to certain persons equally share and share alike, with power to the trustees to sell any of the realty and hold the proceeds upon the trusts. The personal estate was not sufficient to meet the debts on the legacies. Held, that the trustees could make a valid assurance of freehold to purchaser without the concurrence of the residuary devisees. In re Dyson and Fowke's Contract, 74 L.T. 759.

(viii.) Ch. D.-Auction-Non-disclosure of Covenants-Constructive Notice.A purchaser of leaseholds at auction, when neither the contract nor the printed conditions of sale gave notice of onerous covenants, and who was unaware that he could have inspected the lease, was held

C

« PreviousContinue »