« PreviousContinue »
of; and by codicil he gave to another person everything this person might desire from the said furniture, except certain articles. Held, that the person named in the codicil could take all the furniture, other than the excepted articles. Where land is made security for a debt by any instrument which gives to the person entitled to the charge an equitable interest in the land, such instrument creates an equitable charge within the meaning of Locke King's Amendment Act, 1877.— In re Sharland; Kemp v. Rozey (No. 2), 74 L.T. 664.
(i.) C. D.—Covenant to Pay Sum Certain—Payable at Certain Time— Interest–3 & 4 Wm. IV., c. 42, s. 28.—Where a testator, covenanted to pay a fixed sum of money within six months after his death, it was held that interest at 5 per cent. was payable from the end of the six months till the money was paid.–In re Horner; Fooks v. Horner, L.R.  2 Ch. 188; 74 L.T. 686.
(ii) C. D.—Tenant for Life and Remainderman-Reversion-Discretionary Power of Sale–Construction.—A testator left property, part of which consisted of a reversion expectant on the death of his mother, upon trust for his mother for life with remainder to others, with a discretionary power of sale on the trustees, which was not exercised. Held, that the personal representative of the mother was not entitled to any share or proceeds of the sale of the reversion.-In re Pitcairn ; Brandreth v. Colvin, L.R.  2 Ch, 199.
(iii.) C. D.—Construction—Absolute Gift—Direction to Pay Part of Proceeds of Sale—Repugnant and Void.—A testator left tea plantations in Assam and all his other property to the plaintiff, whom he appointed sole executrix, subject to the payment of his debts; but on any sale of the tea plantations he directed her to pay out of the proceeds certain sums to other persons. Held, that there was no obligation imposed upon the plaintiff to sell, and that the direction to pay to other persons part of the optional sale was repugnant and void.–In re Elliot; Kelly v. Elliot, L.R.  2 Ch. 353; 75 L.T. 138.
ALL REPORTED CASES
IN THE Yatu Çimes amb fatu Reports FoR OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, AND DECEMBER, 1896.
Where a case has already been given in the Digest for a preceding quarter, the additional report is given after the name of the case, with a reference to the volume of the Digest in which it first appeared, the thick number being the number of the volume.
(i.) P. D. – Intestate Married Woman–Husband Bankrupt—Citation— —Sureties.—The official receiver was allowed without finding sureties to administer to a small estate of the intestate wife of a bankrupt on giving him notice without citation.–In the goods of Sarah Ann Morgan, 75 L.T. 190.
(ii) C. D.—Insolvent Estate—Surplus—Interest—Judicature Act, 1875, s. 10– O. lv., rr. 62, 63.—In the administration of an estate in a creditor's action, any surplus which remains after discharge of the claims stated in the chief clerk's certificate is applied first in satisfaction of interest from date of order to date of payment, on debts which at law carry interest, and then on paying interest at 4 per cent. On the other debts. –In re Henley; Alcock v. Henley, 75 L.T. 307.
Adulteration: (iii.) Q. B. D.—Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, ss. 6, 13, 18, 20 d 21.— Under sect. 21 of the Food and Drugs Act a certificate was held to be admissible in evidence which drew from a comparison between the percentage of solids not fat found in a sample of milk analyzed and the percentage which genuine milk should contain the inference that a named percentage of water had been added to the sample. Fortune v. Hanson distinguished.—Bridge v. Howard, L.R.  1 Q.B. 80; 75 L.T. 300.
Author an d'Publisher:
(i.) C. D.—Half Profits—Assignment of Agreement—Receiver—Assets.—An
agreement for the publication of a book cannot be assigned by the publisher without the consent of the author. A receiver in a debenture-holder's action should sell surplus copies of a book published on the half-profit principle for the benefit of all parties. Hole v. Bradbury applied to companies.–Griffith v. Tower Publishing Co., Limited, L.R.  1 Ch. 21; 75 L.T. 330.
Bankruptcy:(ii) Q. B. D.—Amendment of Creditors Valuation of Security-Bankruptcy
Act, r. 13.—A secured creditor had on the bankruptcy of his debtor valued his security, which shortly afterwards increased in worth. The trustee in bankruptcy then tendered the assessed value, and gave written notice of intention to redeem. The creditor applied to amend his proof. Held, that the creditor had a right to amend, and that the tender and the written notice did not amount to payment.-In re Newton: e. p. National Provincial Bank of England, L.R.  2 Q.B. 403; 75 L.T. 144.
(iii.) Q. B. D.-Charging Order—Prior Act of Bankruptcy–Title to Money
in Court.—Where an act of bankruptcy has been committed, a charging order subsequently made under sect. 23 of the Partnership Act is not protected by sects, 45 and 49 of the Bankruptcy Act, and money paid into Court under the order belongs to the trustee in bankruptcy.— Wild v. Southwood, 75 L.T. 388.
(iv.) Q. B. D.—Solicitor's Lien–Charging Order—Solicitors Act, 1860, s. 28.
-There is jurisdiction to make a charging order under sect. 28 of the
(v.) Q. B. D.—Marine Insurance-Bankruptcy of Underwriter–Salvage
Rights of Brokers and of Trustee.—On the bankruptcy of an underwriter, balances were due by him to brokers for losses on various policies of marine insurance. Subsequently the brokers received salvage on other losses which they had settled in account with the underwriter before his bankruptcy. Held, that the salvage was part of the bankrupt's estate, and could not be set off by the brokers against their unpaid - Flaood v. Harris and Another, L.R.  2 Q.B. 491;
* Infant—Dealing with -The rule which " dissolved by 'ent partner for with a
not resided or had a dwelling-house or place of business in England within a year of the presentation of the petition, and that the notice was issued when he was out of England.—In re Clark ; e. p. Beyer, Peacock at Co., L.R.  2 Q.B. 476; 75 L.T. 304.
(i.) C. A.—Partnership—Notice–Service on Receiver—Bankruptcy Rules, 1883, r. 260.—A receiver and manager of a partnership business who has been appointed by the Court is not a person upon whom a bankruptcy notice can be served under rule 260 in respect of a judgment against the firm.–In re Flowers d Co.; e. p. Ware di Co., L.R.  1 Q.B. 14; 75 L.T. 306.
(ii) C. A.—Debtor an Undischarged Bankrupt—Receiving Order—Bankruptcy Act, 1883, ss. 5 & 7.—Where a bankruptcy petition was presented against an undischarged bankrupt the Court refused to make a receiving order on the ground that to make it would be a waste of money.—In re Betts; e. p. Betts, L.R.  1 Q.B. 50; 75 L.T. 292.
(iii.) Q. B. D.—Receiver—Equitable Execution Judicature Act, 1873, s. 25 sub-s. 8–0. 50, r. 15a.—Where the official receiver and trustee of a bankrupt had obtained an order for the payment of a sum of money against a creditor of the bankrupt estate whose only property was a life interest under a will, he was appointed, without salary or security, receiver of the creditor's life interest until satisfaction of the sum ordered to be paid.—In re Gondie; e. p. the Official Receiver, L.R.  2 Q.B. 481; 75 L.T. 277.
(iv.) Q. B. D.—Post Nuptial Settlement—Non-trader – 13 Eliz., c. 5– Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s.47.—A person entitled under his father's will to a sum of money on attaining majority and to a further sum on the death of his mother, made just before coming of age, a post nuptial settlement of all his interest under the will, except a sum set aside to meet his minority debts, upon trust to pay the income to himself for life or until he should charge it, and then in trust for his wife. His mother and brother were parties to the deed and covenanted to make him certain payments. Held, that the settlement was for valuable consideration, and though the consideration was given for the purpose of protecting the settlor and his family from future creditors it was not intended to delay or defeat them. A motion on the part of the trustee in bankruptcy to set aside the deed was dismissed.—In re Tetley; e. p. Jeffery, 75 L.T. 166.
Bill of Exchange:–
(v.) H. L.— Accommodation Bill – Fraudulent Alteration — Liability of Acceptor.—Decision of C. A. and of Q. B. D. (see Vol. 20, p. 3 (iii.) and p. 66 (iii.) affirmed. — Scholefield v. Lord Londesborough, L.R.  A.C. 514; 75 L.T. 254.
(vi.) C. A.—Description of Witness Omitted—Void—Bills of Sale Act, 1878, 8.10; Amendment Act, 1882, 8.9 and Schedule.—Where, in the attestation clause of a bill of sale, the description of the witness had been omitted, it was held that the bill was void as being not in accordance with the form in the schedule of the Act. Parsons v. Brand and Coulson v. # followed.—Sims v. Trollops at Sons, L.R.  1 Q.B. 24; 75 L.T. 351.
Bona Vacantia :—
(vii) C. A.—Friendly Society—Objects Exhausted—Funds—Cy pres—Bona Vacantia.—A society was established to provide a fund for the benefit of the widows of ordinary subscribers. On the death of the last subscriber and of the last pensioner, the question arose of title to the