Page images
PDF
EPUB

Libel:(i.) C. A.-- Communication of Contents of Libellous Publication.-A person

into whose hands a libellous publication comes is not answerable to the publisher for communicating the contents to the person libelled.The Seyd and Kelley's Credit Index Co., Limited v. Saunders and Chapman, 75 L.T. 193.

Limitations :(ii.) C. D.-Settled EstatesReal Property Limitations Acts, 1833, ss. 1, 3,

20, and 1874, ss. 1 & 2.–By a settlement made in 1857 a life tenant was entitled to the reversion of land let from year to year, with a power, which he exercised, of appointment subject to a second life tenancy. Circumstances happened under which it was admitted that by the Statutes of Limitations the life tenant's right to recover this land was barred in his lifetime. The second life tenant died without having recovered possession. Held, that the estate of the appointee was not barred by sect. 20 of the Real Property Limitations Act, 1874, and that the appointee was entitled under sect. 2 of the Act of 1874 to recover the land within six years from the death of the last tenant for life.--In re Earl of Devon's Settled Estates ; White y. Devon ; Steer v. Dobell, L.R. (1896] 2 Ch. 562 ; 75 L.T. 178.

Local Government:(iii.) C. A. - Public NuisanceRight of Action by Local Authority-Public

Health Act, 1875, s. 107.—The proceedings in a superior court which under sect. 107 of the Public Health Act a local authority may cause to be taken are the ordinary proceedings, and in the absence of special damage, the fiat of the Attorney-General is necessary to empower such an authority to sue for the abatement of a public nuisance. Wallasey Local Board v. Gracey followed. Tottenham Urban District Council v. Williamson & Sons, Limited, L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 353 ; 75 L.T. 238.

Married Woman: (iv.) C. A.-Settled Funds - Removal of Restraint on Anticipation--Con

veyancing Act, 1881, s. 39.—Under sect. 39 of the Conveyancing Act the Court ordered the sale of a part of trust funds in which a married woman had a life interest with restraint on anticipation, when it was of opinion that such a course was for her benefit.-In re Wilson Stewart ;

Keown-Boyd v. Gilmour, 75 L.T. 381. (v.) C. A.-Restraint on Anticipation--Omission of Words " for her Separate

Use—Married Woman's Property Act, 1882, ss. 1, 2, 19.—When by a marriage settlement executed before the Married Woman's Property Act, 1882, came into force, an estate was vested in trustees for the use of the woman during life “ without impeachment of waste and without power of anticipation,” it was held that the restraint was effectual although there was no gift “ for her separate use.”In re

Lumley ; e. p. Hood-Barrs, L.R. (1896] 2 Ch. 695 ; 75 L.T. 236. (vi.) Q. B. D. --Carrying on Trade-Act of Bankruptcy--Married Woman's

Property Act, 1882, s. 1, sub-s. 5. -A married woman who has given up a business which she had carried on separately from her husband continues subject to the bankruptcy laws until all her trade debts are paid. The issue of a circular by a trader calling a meeting of creditors in such circumstances that it would be dishonest to pay creditors separately before the date of the meeting amounts to an act of bankruptcy.-In re Dagnal ; e. p. Soan and Morley, L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 407; 75 L.T. 142.

[ocr errors]

Master and Servant:(i.) C. A.-School Established Under Deed-Appointment and Dismissal of

Schoolmistress.—Where the mistress of a public elementary school, which was established under a deed of trust, had been appointed and dismissed by an irregularly constituted committee, it was held that she had no right to an injunction to restrain the committee from removing her, notwithstanding that the deed vested the appointment and dismissal of the teaching staff in another body than the committee. Lane Norman distinguished. Pottle v. Sharpe, 75 L.T. 265.

[ocr errors]

Metropolis Management: (ii.) C. A.-Drainage-New System-Discontinuance of Old Drain--Expense

of New Drain-Metropolis Management Act, 1855, ss. 69 & 73.- The owner of a house the drain of which even though it be not “a sufficient drain” within sect. 73, is discontinued in consequence of a new system of drainage being carried out by a vestry under sect. 69 is not liable for the expenses of making a new house drain.—Vestry of St.

Martin-in-the-Fields v. Ward, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 40; 75 L.T. 349. (iii.) Q. B. D.-New Street-Paving-Liability of LandownerMetropolis

Management Act, 1855, s. 105 ; Amendment Act, 1862, ss. 77, 112.-A highway 200 yards long with two houses only on it was laid out as a road and paved by the local authority. Held, that the road was not a “new street" within sect. 105 of the Act of 1855 or sect. 77 of the Act of 1862, and that the owner of a plot of land abutting on the road was not liable for paving expenses - Vestry of the Parish of St. Mary,

Battersea, v. Palmer and Another, 75 L.T. 362. Mortgage :(iv.) C. D.-Mortgagee of both Fee and Particular Estate--Redemption

Consent of Mortgagee.—Mortgaged real estate was devised to a wife during the minority of her two children, and was to be equally divided, when the children attained 21, between the wife and the children, “whichever of them might be living at that time.” The widow mortgaged her interest to the mortgagee of the fee and died intestate in the minority of the two children. Held, that the children as remaindermen were not, during the continuance of the particular estate, entitled to redeem without the consent of the mortgagee.

Prout v. Cock, L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 808; 75 L.T. 409. (v.) C. D.--Claim as Mortgagees and as CreditorsCosts. - Where a

mortgagee, in an action against devisees and personal representatives of a deceased mortgagor, claims general administration in addition to ordinary relief, he will only be allowed costs so far as they relate to

his mortgage security. In re Banks ; Dawes v. Sladen, 75 L.T. 387. Nullity:(vi.) P. D.-Nullity of MarriageNon-ConsummationInference.—A decree

nisi for nullity of marriage was granted on an inference of some latent incapacity beyond what was disclosed by the medical evidence.

F. v. P., 75 L.T. 192. Partnership :(vii.) C. D.-Brewery-ArticlesOption to Purchase by Surviving Partner

ValuationTied Public HousesGoodwill-Allowance-Partnership Act, 1890, s. 42.-Partnership articles in a brewery business provided that the share of a deceased partner should be ascertained in a certain manner, and thereupon " the continuing partner should have the option to become the purchaser on terms set out. The continuing

partner exercised the option, and pending a settlement carried on the business. Held, that "thereupon " meant on a valuation of the whole of the assets being made ; that the time and manner of payment prescribed by the deed must be observed; that having regard to sect. 42 of the Partnership Act, 1890, and to evidence that the profits had been increased by the exertions of the surviving partner, he was entitled to a special allowance ; and that a valuation of tied public houses, on the basis of what a brewer would give for them at auction,

must be taken to include goodwill.Page v. Ratliffe, 75 L.T. 371. (i.) Q. B. D.- Debts of Firm.—Where one partner takes all the assets of a

partnership on a dissolution, he takes them subject to all the debts of the partnership, unless there is an express intention to the contrary.

In re Daniel ; e. p. Powell, 75 L.T. 143. (ii.) Q. B. D.--Adrance of Capital--Bankruptcy-Partnership Act, 1890,

88. 2 & 3.-In consideration of a weekly payment out of profits, a person made an advance of capital to a business undertaking, retaining control of his advance and exercising some powers of management in the business. He had also an option, which he did not exercise, to become a partner within a specified time. Held, that he was not a partner, but that under sect. 3 on the bankruptcy of the undertaking he could not recover until all other claims had been satisfied. In re

Young; Jones v. Berry, L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 484; 75 L.T. 278. Patent: (iii.) H. L.--Revocation-Amendment of Specification. A declaration that

a patent is invalid does not estop the patentee from amending the specification by disclaiming a part of his claim, and an order for revocation may be made conditional. Decision of Court of Appeal (see Vol. 20, p. 113 (iv.)) varied.Deeley v. Perks, L.R. (1896] A.C. 496 ;

75 L.T. 233. (iv.) C.D.-Amendment of Specification-Petition for RevocationPatents, &c.,

Act, 1883, s. 19.--Leave to apply to amend a specification by disclaimer is in the discretion of the Court, and this discretion is not affected by Moser v. Marsden, or Deeley v. Parkes.-In re Dellwick's Patent, L.R.

(1896] 2 Ch. 705. (v.) C. D.-Threats of Legal Proceedings Patents, Designs and Trade

Marks Act, 1883, s. 32.--To support an action to restrain threats of legal proceedings under sect. 32 of the Patents Act, it is not necessary that the document containing the threats should also contain à claim to the patent in respect of which they are made.Douglas v. Pintsch's Patent Lighting Co., 75 L.T. 332.

Police Pensioner: (vi.) C. A.-Non-Compliance with Order for Medical ExaminationNon

Payment of Pension-Mandamus-Police Act, 1890, 88. 5, 7, 12.-Where an order under sect. 5 of the Police Act, 1890, is made for some other object than the medical examination of a pensioner he is not bound to obey the order, and a mandamus will lie against the police authority to enable him to obtain payment of his pension. The police authority cannot, under the Act, cancel a pension without giving a pensioner the option of returning to the force. If a pensioner attends for medical examination, though not at the time or place named in the order, he cannot be treated as having disobeyed the order.Reg. v. Lord Leigh, 75 L.T. 339.

Poor Law:(vii.) H. L. -Costs~-Poor Law (Payment of Debts) Act, 1859, s. 1.-An order

of the House of Lords for payment of costs is not complete until the

amount has been certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments. Judgment of Court of Appeal (see Vol. 20, p. 81 (vi.)) reversed.—Guardians of West Ham Union v. Churchwardens of Bethnal Green, L.R. [1896] A.C. 477 ; 75 L.T. 286.

Post Office Savings Bank :(i.) C. D.-Nomination of ExecutorSavings Bank Act, 1887, s. 3.—A

testatrix, some time after executing her will, nominated, under sect. 3 of the Act, one of her executors to receive at her decease an amount standing to her credit in the Post Office Savings Bank. Held, that it was her intention to transfer the fund to him in his capacity of executor.-In re Read ; Turner v. Read, 75 L.T. 295.

Practice :(ii.) C. D. & C. A.-Disputed Title-Ejectment-ReceiverDefendant in

Possession as Heir-at-Law-Judicature Act, 1873, s. 25, suh-s. 8.--An order of the Court below, within its jurisdiction under sect. 25, sub-sect. 8, appointing a receiver at the instance of the plaintiff in an ejectment action was discharged where the defendant was in possession

as heir-at-law.Foxwell v. Van Grutten, 75 L.T. 311 & 368. (iii.) C. D.- Administration - Liberty to Sign Judgment~0. xiv.--Priority.

Liberty to sign judgment under 0. xiv. will not entitle a creditor to priority in an administration action.In re Gurney; Clifford v. Gurney,

L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 863; 75 L.T. 332. (iv.) C. D.-Originating Summons-Construction of Mortgage -0. liv A., r. 1.

-A question affecting the rights of mortgagor and mortgagee under a mortgage can be determined on an originating summons taken out under O. liva., 1. 1, by the mortgagor, although he has made no offer to redeem; and the mortgagee's costs may be ordered to be added to his security.-In re Nobbs ; Nobbs v. Law Reversionary Interest Society,

Limited, L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 830; 75 L.T. 309. (v.) Q. B. D.—Bill of Sale-0. xxxviii., r. 16Affidavit of Execution.—A

bill of sale will be void if the affidavit of execution is sworn before the solicitor who acts for the grantee in the preparation of the bill.—

Baker v. Ambrose, L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 372. (vi.) H. L.-CostsSequestration-0. xliii., r. 7.An order for sequestration

made by a master and confirmed by the Court ought not to be interfered with on appeal unless it has been made on some erroneous principle. The burden of proof, that sequestration under 0. xliii., r. 7, would be futile, is on the debtor. The creditor need not indicate any particular property which may be made available. Judgment of Court below reversed.- Hulbert and Another v. Cathcart, L.R. [1896]

A.C. 470 ; 75 L.T. 302. (vii.) P. D. - Divorce-SequestrationTrustees not PartiesMatrimonial

Causes Act, 1857, s. 52.-An order to enforce a sequestration against third persons who dispute their liability to the debtor is not made on motion in a suit to which they are not parties.-Craig v. Craig and

Hamp, 75 L.T. 280. (viii.) C. D.—Discovery-Documents Sealed upPrivilege-Jurisdiction of

Court to Unseah~0. xxxi, r. 19A (2).-The term “Privilege " in 0. xxxi., r. 19a, includes irrelevancy. The Court has power to unseal and inspect the sealed-up part of books or documents to satisfy itself whether a claim of privilege from discovery is made out or not. Ehrmann v. Ehrmann (No. 2), L.R. (1896] 2 Ch. 826; 75 L.T. 243.

(i.) C. D. & C.A.- Action on behalf of CrownInterlocutory Injunction

Undertaking.- Where the Court decides that the Attorney-General, suing on behalf of the Crown, is entitled to an interlocutory injunction, it is not the practice to require an undertaking as to damages.Attorney-General v. The Albany Hotel Co., Limited, L.R.[1896] 2 Ch.696 ;

75 L.T. 140 & 195. (ii.) C. D.-Effect of Former Judgment.--Where a person had taken a

benefit under an order in an action to which he was not a party, it was held, that though he was not bound by the judgment, he was not entitled in good faith and equity to raise the same question that had been decided in that action.-In re Lart; Wilkinson V. Blades,

L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 788; 75 L.T. 175. (iii.) C. A. -Joinder as Plaintiff—" Own Consent in Writing—Unauthorised

Joinder-Consequences.-A consent to being joined as plaintiff in an action must be signed by the person consenting and not by his solicitor. If he has been joined as plaintiff without his own signature, a stay of all proceedings in his name will be directed, and his costs and those of the defendant also will be ordered to be paid by the solicitor who made the improper joinder.-Fricker v. Van Grutten, L.R. (1896] 2 Ch. 649; 75 L.T. 117.

Principal and Agent:(iv.) Q. B. D.-Practice-Joinder of Defendant-0. xvi., rr. 7 & 11.-In an

action against an agent in this country for breach of warranty of authority a principal, resident out of the United Kingdom can be joined.-Bennetts & Co. v. McIlwraith & Co., L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 464; 75 L.T. 145.

Probate :(v.) P. D.-Lost Will-Proof--Consent of Next-of-Kin.—The consent of the

next-of-kin is required to the proof on motion of the contents of a lost

will.-In the goods of Pearson, L.R. [1896] P. 289. (vi.) P.D.-Administration with Will annexed-Limited Company as Surety:

The Court granted administration with will annexed to the manager of a limited company who were appointed executors and trustees of a will, and accepted the company as sole surety.-In the goods of Hunt, L.R.

[1896] P. 288. Public Health:(vii.) Q. B. D.--Drain or SewerLiability for Repair Public Health Act,

1875, ss. 15, 41, 299--Amendment Act, 1890, s. 19-Hastings Improvement Act, 1885, s. 148.-A sanitary authority refused to repair a drain which carried into a public sewer the drainage of a block of houses belonging to one owner. Held, that the introduction of sect. 41 of the Act of 1875 into a local Act does not remove the liability of the authority under sect. 15 to repair sewers, and as the authority in this case had taken no proceedings under sect. 41, they were bound to repair the drain. The proper remedy to enforce such an obligation on a sanitary authority is by complaint to the Local Government Board under sect. 299 of Public Health Act, 1875, and not by mandamus.

Reg. v. Mayor, &c., of Hastings, L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 46; 75 L.T. 377. (viii.) C. D.- Expenses-Apportionment– Dispute—Prepaid" Letter- Public

Health Act, 1875, ss. 41, 94, 257 & 267-Amendment Act, 1890, s. 19.Where there was no evidence that a letter, said to have been sent disputing an apportionment, had been, as required by sect. 267 of the Public Health Act, 1875, prepaid, it was held that the dispute was bad, and that the plaintiffs were entitled under sect. 257 of the Act to

« PreviousContinue »