Page images

(i.) P. C.-VictoriaProbate Duty-Administration and Probate Act,

1890.–A debú fully secured on property outside the colony cannot be deducted from the value of assets within the colony in a valuation for probate.Henty and Another v. The Queen, L.R. (1896] A.C. 567; 75 L.T. 106.

(ii.) P. C.Trinidad and Tobago-Right to Possession of Land-Erroneous

RecitalsEquitable TitleNotice-Registry. -Notice of a prior equitable title is valid although there be in the conveyance of the equitable interest an erroneous recital of the mode in which the equity became vested in the grantor. A purchaser from a vendor out of possession must investigate the interest of a person who is in possession under a registered deed.—Trinidad Asphalte Co. v. Coryat, L.R. (1896] A.C. 587; 75 L.T. 108.

(iii.) P. C.-Nova ScotiaPrivileges of Members of Provincial Legislature

British North America Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict., c. 3)—Revised Statutes of Nova Scotia, 5th Series, c. 30, s. 20.—Members of the Provincial Legislature who voted for the imprisonment of a person for contempt of the House were, under an Act of the Legislature giving them the same immunities and powers as are held by members of the Dominion Legislature, held, to have a good defence against an action by him for assault and false imprisonment.Fielding and Others v. Thomas, L.R. (1896] A.C. 600 ; 75 L.T. 216.

Company: (iv.) C. D.-Debenture Stock CertificatePurchaser --Mortgagee-Authority

of Agent.-A company applied to its broker for a loan of £3,000 on the security of £8,000 debenture stock, which by trust deed was assignable free from equities. The broker obtained £6,000 on the security accompanied by a certificate from the secretary that the lendler was registered as holder of £8,000 debenture stock, which could only be transferred by deed registered in the company's books. The broker paid only £3,000 to the company. Held, that though the certificate was a negotiable instrument, the lender was entitled to assume that the broker had authority to deal with it; that the lender was not required to see that the broker paid the full sum to the company, and could prove for the £8,000, though he could receive dividends only on

£6,000.Robinson v. Montgomeryshire Brewery Co., L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 841. (v.) C. D. - Application for Allotment under MistakeRepudiation-Delay

Payment on Account of Shares.-A person applied for shares in the Dunlop-Truffault Cycle Co. under the impression that it was connected with the Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Shortly after an allotment had been made to her she discovered her mistake, and on tho 23rd May wrote to repudiate the contract. On the 27th May she paid a sum which was due on allotment, and on the 20th June a further sum then due on the shares. On the 13th July she served notice of motion to remove her name from the register of shareholders. Held, that she would have been entitled to rescission of contract on the ground that she was deceived by the use of the name of Dunlop in the prospectus, but that by delay and by payments on account of the shares she had acted in a manner inconsistent with repudiation.- The Dunlop-Truffault

Cycle and Tube Manufacturing Co., Limited; Shearman's Case, 75 L.T. 385. (vi.) C. D.Debentures--Floating Security-Receiver.—Where a creditor of

a company had presented a petition for winding up, it was held in & debenture holder's action that a receiver and manager could be appointed notwithstanding that the debentures had not “ crystallised.” -In re Victoria Steamboats, Limited; Smith v. Wilkinson, 75 L.T. 374.

(i.) C. D.-Winding upTransfer of SharesChange of StatusCompanies

Act, 1862, 88. 38, 74, 76, 131, 133, 153.—Where partly paid up shares were, with the sanction of the liquidator, transferred after the date of a voluntary winding up and the transferee in turn transferred, it was held, that the holder whose name was on the list at the date of the liquidation was liable as a contributory under sect. 38, though under sect. 131 his transfer was effective in other respects; that each of the transferees, though freed from contribution, was bound to indemnify his immediate transferor; and that the Court has power under sect. 153, though it was not exercised in this case, to alter the status of a transferor and release him from liability.-In re National Bank of

Wales, Limited, L.R. (1896] 2 Ch. 851; 75 L.T. 296. (ii.) C. D. & C. A.-General MeetingVoting-Show of Hands-Proxies

dated after Execution.-Voting at a general meeting of a company should be in person not by proxy. A space for the date of meeting left blank when the proxy is executed can be filled in at any time before the proxy is used. In re The Caloric Engine and Siren Fog. Signals Co., followed; In re Bidwell Bros., Limited, overruled.—Ernest v. Loma Gold Mines, Limited, L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 572; [1897] 1 Ch. 1;

75 L.T. 221, 317. (iii.) C. D.-Winding up-Borrowing ultra viresOfficer Common to Borrower

and LenderImputed Knowledge.—The managing director of a building society was secretary to a land company which borrowed a large sum from the society. The borrowing company exceeded its powers in effecting this loan, but this irregularity was unknown to the lending society, though it was within the knowledge of its managing director as secretary of the land company. Held, that it was not the duty of the person who was an officer both of the lending society and of the borrowing company to give or receive notice that the transaction was ultra vires; and therefore that the knowledge could not be imputed to the lending society.In re Hampshire Land Co., Limited, L.R. (1896]

2 Ch, 743; 75 L.T. 181. (iv.) C. D.-Winding up--Transfer of Shares with False Certification

Estoppel-Contributory.—Where a transfer stated falsely that shares were fully paid and where it also bore a false certification by the secretary of the company that certificates of the shares had been lodged, it was held that the purchaser was not liable as a contributory, as the company was estopped from denying the lodgment of certificates of fully paid shares.—In re Concession Trust, Limited ; McKay's Case,

L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 757 ; 75 L.T. 298. (v.) C. D.-Winding up—Surplus Assets.”_"Surplus assets" is a term

which has not such a recognised meaning as necessarily always to signify the balance after payment of debts and liabilities only, but

some circumstances signify surplus profits remaining after recoupnent of capital out of that balance.-In re New Transvaal Co.,

L.R. (1896] 2 Ch. 750; 75 L.T. 272. (vi.) C. D.-Alteration of Articles-Invalid Issue of Preference Shares

Restitution.—By the memorandum and articles of limited company an authorised increase of capital was to be considered as part of the original ordinary capital and to be subject to the like provisions. The company altered its articles and issued preference shares. Held, that the issue was invalid, and that the holders of the preference shares were not shareholders of the company and were entitled to restitution only. Hutton v. Scarborough Cliff Hotel Co. followed.-Andrews v. Gas Meter Co., Limited, 75 L.T. 267.

may in


Compensation : (i.) Q. B. D.- Railway Company-Compulsory Taking of Land.-Where

land was underleased at less than rack rent for the whole term less one day with provisoes that the land should be maintained for a purpose which brought no profits to the underlessee, and that if any part of it should be required by a public company under statute the original lessee could re-enter such part, it was held that he was entitled to be paid the full commercial value of a portion taken by a railway company under its private Act.In re An Arbitration between Morgan and Another and the London and North-Western Railway Co., L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 469; 75 L.T. 226.

Copyhold :(ii.) C. A.-Heriot-Right to Seize Outside the Manor.—A beast may be

seized as a heriot although it has never been within the manor (see also 22, p. 8 (vi.) ).-Western v. Bailey, L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 87; 75 L.T. 210.

Copyright :(iii.) C. A.-InfringementMusic Printed and Published Abroad-Importation

and Sale - English Copyright-Copyright Act, 1842, ss. 2, 11, 13, 15 17– International Copyright Act, 1844, ss. 2, 3, 10.—The plaintiff was the assignee, though unregistered, of the English copyright of a piece of music which was first printed_and published in Leipzig. The defendant imported copies from Brussels and sold them in England. Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction.Pitts v. George and Co., L.R. (1896] 2 Ch. 866 ; 75 L.T. 320.

Criminal Law:(iv.) C. C. R.-False PretencesIndictmentCountsEvidence- Permissible

QuestionsMisdemeanour and Larceny-Concurrent Sentences, 27 & 28 Vict., c. 47, s. 9.-In an indictment for obtaining goods by false pretences, the counts should be restricted to those necessary to formulate the charge, and if they are numerous, the Court may be asked to try each one separately. At the trial, the person defrauded may be asked what opinion he formed of the position and occupation of the accused on the receipt of a letter containing the false representations. If the accused is convicted of the charge, he cannot afterwards be convicted of larceny on the same facts. A sentence on a ticket-of-leave man for a fresh offence cannot be made concurrent with

the unexpired part of the old sentence.Reg. v. John King, 75 L.T. 392. (v.) C. C. R.- Assistant OverseerEmbezzlement-Indictment-Servant of

Inhabitants of Parish.43 Eliz., c. 2–59 Geo. III., c. 12, s. 7– 24 & 25 Vict., c. 96, s. 68451 & 52 Vict., c. 41, s. 75 -56 & 57 Vict., c. 73, ss. 5, 6, 81.-An assistant overseer is not, by the Local Government Act, 1894, constituted a servant of the parish council, and in an indictment of such an officer for embezzlement, he was properly described as in the employment as servant of the inhabitants of the parish, and money received by him for rates was rightly described as their property.-Reg. v. Smalman, L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 4; 75 L.T. 394.

Ecclesiastical Law : (vi.) Consistory Court of Norwich. - Faculty.A faculty was

ordered to be issued for the retention of three figures on a screen in a parish church.Banham (Rector of), Suffolk v. Parishioners of Same, L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 256.

Fixtures : (i.) Q. B. D.-Tenant's Fixtures may become part of Freehold.-A tenant

who, on the termination of his tenancy, leaves on the premises his fixtures under an agreement with the landlord that they may be subsequently removed, loses his right to such removal after mortgagees have entered into possession.Thomas V. Jennings, 75 L.T. 274.

Foreign Court:(ii.) Q. B. D.-- Company Winding up-Property Abroad - Foreign Court

Judgment in remCompanies Act, 1862, 88. 84, 87, 163.—Where a foreign Court, in a proceeding in rem, orders a chattel within its jurisdiction to be sold and the proceeds divided amongst claimants, one of these who is in England cannot be declared by the English Courts a trustee for another person, though the latter would, according to English law, have a preferential title to the chattel, and though the claimant had notice of that title when making his claim in the foreign Court. Castrique v. Imry followed.—The Minna Craig Steamship Co., Limited, and James Laing, L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 55 ; 75 L.T. 354.

Franchise :(iii.) Q. B.D.-RegistrationOld Lodger Claim-Omission of Declaration

Jurisdiction to Amend Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, 8. 28 (2).—Where from an old lodger claim otherwise in order the declaration in Form H., No. 2, of the Registration Order, 1895, was omitted, it was held, that the revising barrister had jurisdiction to correct the claim by inserting the declaration.-Francis v. Metcalfe, 75 L.R. 380.

Friendly Society :(iv.) C.D.-Failure of Objects-Charity-Cy Près. —A friendly society formed

for the relief of distressed members had dwindled to one member, and one annuitant whose annuity was amply secured, when a testator bequeathed to it a legacy. Held, that the society, not being a mutual insurance society and poverty being a qualification for relief, was a charity and that the legacy was applicable cy près.-In re Buck; Bruty v. Mackay, L.R. (1896] 2 Ch. 727 ; 75 L.T. 312.

Highway:(v.) Q. B.D.-Person by whose order Extraordinary Traffic has been conducted

-Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878, s. 23.-A private landowner who bought building materials to be delivered free on to his premises, and who was aware that a traction engine would be used for their draught, was held to be the person by whose order extraordinary traffic was conducted on a public highway and therefore liable to contribute towards the road repairs, under sect. 23 of the Highways and Locomotives Act, 1878.-Kent County Council v. Lord

Gerard, 75 L.T. 247. (vi.) Q. B. D.-Gas Company-Negligence in Repairing Highway-Right of

Action against CompanyGas Works Clauses Act, 1847, ss. 11, 29.Where a jury had found that a gas company after opening a highway, had left the road in a condition which constituted a public nuisance, it was held that the company were liable for mischief caused by their negligence, notwithstanding sect. 11 of the Gas Works Clauses Act, 1847.Goodson v. Sunbury Gus Consumers Co., Ltd., 75 L.T. 251.

Husband and Wife :(i.) P. D. -Restitution of Conjugal RightsMatrimonial Causes Act, 1884,

s. 5.—Conduct which would disentitle a petitioner to maintain a suit for judicial separation, on the ground of desertion, may empower the Court to refuse a decree compelling the respondent to return to

cohabitation.Oldroyd v. Oldroyd, 75 L.T. 281. (ii.) P. D.- Living Apart by Consent-Desertion-Summary Jurisdiction

(Married Women) Act, 1895.—Where husband and wife have been living apart by mutual consent cohabitation must be resumed and broken to sustain a summons for desertion. Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald and Reg. v.

Lereche considered.-Bradshaw v. Bradshaw, 75 L.T. 391. Insurance:(iii.) Q. B. D.-FireIndemnity--Benefit to Insurer of Contract of Assured.

– The insurer under a fire policy can recover any benefit which the assured has received from other sources in excess of his loss, and also the value of rights which the assured may have renounced against third parties.-West of England Fire Insurance Co. v. Isaacs, L.R.

[1896] 2 Q.B. 377. (iv.) C. A. & Q. B. D.-Policy on Freight-Claim Consequent on Loss of

Time Excepted Frustration of Adventure. -A time policy which insured freight against total loss or general average contained a clause “warranted free from any claim consequent on loss of time, whether arising from perils of the sea or otherwise.” Soon after the vessel had started with a cargo it was disabled by perils of the sea and had to put back and discharge at the port of loading. The adventure was frustrated by the delay and the freight was totally lost. Held, reversing the decision of the Court below, that a claim made for the loss of freight was “a claim consequent on loss of time,” and that the assured could not recover.-Bensaude and Others V. The Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Co., L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 29; 75 L.T. 155 and

405. Justices :(v.) Q. B. D.-Search Warrant-Sufficiency of Information-Specification of

Goods.—To justify a magistrate in granting a search warrant it is sufficient if the information can be fairly understood as alleging reasonable grounds for suspecting that the goods sought for are being feloniously dealt with by the defendant, and the search warrant need not specify the goods for which search is desired.Jones v. German,

L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 418; 75 L.T. 161. Lands Clauses Act:(vi.) C. A.ArbitrationCostsLands Clauses Act, 1845, s. 34.–By sect. 34

of the Lands Clauses Act, unless an arbitrator “ shall award the same or a less sum than shall have been offered by the promoters of the undertaking,” costs are to be borne by the promoters. Held, that the exception applies only when the subject matter of the award and of the offer is the same.—Miles v. Great Western Railway, L.R. [1896]

2 Q.B. 432; 75 L.T. 290. Lease : (vii.) C. A.-Licence to assign-Deposit of Money-Money in Nature of a Fine

-Conveyancing Act, 1892, s. 3.-Under a covenant by the lessee of a building lease not to assign without licence, the lessor may demand as a condition for granting the licence the deposit of a sum of money as security for the performance of the covenants of the lease, as such a deposit is not “in the nature of a fine.”-In re Cosh's Contract, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 9; 75 L.T. 365.

« PreviousContinue »