« PreviousContinue »
the claim was to acquire a right of retainer which would defeat the purpose of the enquiry directed.—Trevor v. Hutchins, L.R. 
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.
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 cream. 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 Committed—Jurisdiction of Magistrate
-Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, ss. 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.
Apportionment:(v.) Ch. D.-Ten ont 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 Arbitrators—Not 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.  1 Q.B. 567. (i.) Q. B. D.-Umpire giving Evidence on other matter for one Party --
Bias—Lands Clauses Consolidation Act.—The fact that an 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 List—Appeal-- 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.  1 Q.B. 616; 74 L.T. 555. (v.) Q. B. D.-An Act of Bankruptcy by a Non-trader-Bankruptcy 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); rr. 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.
(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. 
2 Q.B. 254; 74 L.T. 813. 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; 74 L.T. 428.
Bye-Law:(iii.) Q. B. D.- Borough—Sulmission 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 ;
75 L.T. 51. Champerty: (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 à 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—Endow
ments.--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.  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.
Colonial Law :(i.) P. C.-Canada–British North America Act, 1867—Canada Temperance
Act, 1886 (Revised Statutes of Canada, 49 Vict., c. 106)—Ontario Act (53 Vict., c. 56), s. 18—Prohibitive Liquor Laws—Powers of Dominion Parliament.—The Dominion Parliament can in the interest of the whole country legislate on local and provincial interests. Provincial legislatures have no power to repeal Statutes, which would be beyond their power to enact. The Prohibitive Enactments of the Canada Temperance Act are not“ for the regulation of trade and commerce ; and the British North America Act, 1867, gives no authority to local legislatures to abolish liquor traffic.-Attorney-General of Ontario v. Attorney-General of Canada and Others, L.R.  A.C. 348;
74 L.T. 533. (ii.) P. C.-New South Wales—Parliamentary Representatives Allowance Acts
(53 Vict., 1889, No. 12).-Sect. 2 of the Act applies to the Legislative Assembly as a permanent part of the constitution of the Colony, and is not restricted to the Parliament which was sitting at the time the Act was passed.- Attorney-General of New South Wales v. Rennie,
L.R.  A.C. 376 ; 74 L.T. 532. (iii.) H. L.-Lagos, Practice- Appeal-Action in formâ pauperis–Security
-S. C. of Lagos Ordinance No. 4 of 1876, 0. liii.—To refuse to a litigant who had been admitted to sue in formâ pauperis leave to appeal unless he gave security for payment of the sum awarded by the judg. ment which he desired to impeach, was held to be an improper exercise of the discretion committed to the full Court.-Johnson v.
Voight & Co., 75 L.T. 57. (iv.) P. C.-Natal-Grant of Land with Reservation-Right to take Water.
Land in Natal was granted on the condition that it should be liable to have water courses made over it for the public use. Held, that this reservation included a right to divert and use water from a natural
stream.—Remfry v. Surveyor-General of Natal, 75 L.T. 58. (v.) P. C.-Victoria—Wreck in Port—Cost of Removal—Marine Act, 1890
(Consolidated Victorian Statutes, No. 1565), %. 13.—The Act imposes upon the owner the cost of removing a wreck from ports in Victoria ; and he is liable for excess of expenses beyond the proceeds of sale of the wreck, but the costs of lighting the wreck prior to removal are not
part of such expenses.-Smith and Sons v. Wilson, 75 L.T. 81. (vi.) P. C.-New South Wales-Practice-Consultations—Expenses of Witnesses
-Taxation. A taxing officer in estimating fees may consider the number of consultations, but he need not inquire into their length. The allowance to witnesses should be made on a consideration of the claims of each individual.—Commission for Railways v. O'Rourke, 75 L.T. 84.
Company :(vii.) Ch. D.-Winding-up-Re-Construction-Option of Allotment-Failure
to Allot-Liability of Liquidator—Companies Acts, 1862—Winding-up Act, 1890, and rr. 89 and 90.—A shareholder of a company in liquidation had on making a certain payment a right to allotment of shares in a revival of the company under a re-construction scheme. He made the payment, but the bankers who had received it omitted his name from the list of applicants which they supplied to the liquidator, who in consequence sold the shares. Held, that the Court could not declare the liquidator liable in damages.-In re Hill's Waterfall Estate and Gold Mining Company, L.R.  1 Ch. 947; 74 L.T. 341.
(i.) C. D.- Reduction of Capital— Powers of Memorandum and Articles,
Opposition by Shareholder--Companies Acts, 1867, ss. 11, 15; and 1877.A company had in its memorandum of association a clause that shares might be divided into different classes with such preference priorities, restrictions, or special incidents, as may from time to time be provided by the articles and special resolution of the company”; and there was a power in the articles to attach or take away priorities from any shares by special resolution. An article was subsequently added giving power to reduce capital, and a resolution was passed and confirmed to cancel a certain number of deferred shares and to convert the remainder of the deferred shares into ordinary shares. On the petition being presented it was opposed by a holder of ordinary shares who was also a creditor. Held, that having regard to the clauses in the memorandum and articles, the resolution was not ultra vires; that the objecting shareholder had full notice of the proposal; that his position as a creditor was not affected ; and that the resolution was
not inequitable.- In re The Hyderabad (Deccan) Co., Limited, 75 L.T. 23. (ii.) C. A.- Minding-up - Distress for Interest by Mortgagees-Companies
Act, 1862, 88. 87, 163. Where on the winding-up of a Cotton Mill Co. the liquidator had continued the business in order to sell the undertaking as a going concern, leave was refused to mortgagees to distrain for interest accrued due during the liquidator's possession as his efforts were as much in their interest as in that of the creditors.-In re Higginshaw Mills and Spinning Co., Limited ; the Manchester and County
Bank v. the Higginshaw, d'e., Co., L.R.  2 Ch. 544; 75 L.T. 5. (iii.) H. L.- Interest out of Capital on Prepaid Calls.—Decision of C. A.
(see Vol. 21, p. 58, ii.) affirmed.—Lock v. Queensland Investment and
Land Mortgage Co., Limited, 75 L.T. 3. (iv.) H. L.-Fraudulent Prospectus-Repudiation of Contract to Take Shares
- Calls.-Where a defendant pleads in an action for calls on shares that he was induced to take the shares by fraud, it lies on the plaintiff to shew that the defendant adhered to the contract after he discovered the fraud. A document which is intentionally made to convey a false impression upon which persons are induced to act is false and fraudulent although no specific statement in it is proved to be false.
Aaron's Reefs, Limited v. Twiss, L.R.  A.C. 273; 74 L.T. 794. (v.) C. A.- Option to Call for Shares- Breach of Contract-- Measure of
Damages.-A company agreed to give to a person an option or call on some of its shares up to a fixed date, but before that date entered into a contract to sell its assets to another company. Held, that in estimating the damages, if any, of the option holder the price paid by the purchaser should alone be taken into account.-In re The South
African Trust and Finance Co., Limited; e.p. Hirsch & Co., 74 L.T. 769. (vi.) C. D.-Borrowing Powers-Articles of Association- Uncalled Capital.
- Where articles of association, but not the memorandum, authorised a company to borrow on its property and effects, it was held that it could mortgage its uncalled capital.-Jackson v. Rainford Coal Co.,
L.R.  2 Ch. 340. (vii.) H. L.-Judgment of C. A. (see Vol. 20, p. 37, ii.) affirmed; but each
party_to pay own costs.-Craig v. Midland Coal and Iron Co.,
74 L.T. 744. (viii.) C. A.— Prospectus — Omission of Facts — Rescission of Contract ?
Decision of C. C. (see Vol. 21, p. 74, vi.) affirmed.—McKeown v.