Page images
PDF
EPUB

owners of a business turned it into a limited company, in which they became the only shareholders receiving paid-up shares on the conversion. Two of them, on behalf of the vendors, made with the company an agreement, which was filed before the issue of any shares, fixing the sale price of certain items of property transferred to the company at a much higher sum than that at which the same items were entered subsequently in the books of the company. On the winding-up, the Official Receiver claimed from the two signatories on behalf of the vendors the difference between these two valuations as damages for their misfeasance as officers of the company, and alternatively sought to make them liable for the amount as unpaid on their shares. On a preliminary objection, it was held, that though the joinder of the alternative claims might be inconvenient, it was not embarrassing, and that the claim to make the two vendors contributories was not improper; but that as there were no damages proved, the claim for misfeasance failed, and the claim for contribution failed, on the ground that the Official Receiver had not made out a case to induce the Court to go behind the registered contract.-In re E. J. Wragg, Limited, 75 L.T. 652.

(i.) C. D.-Practice-Extending Objects of Company-Order on Petition— Advertising Companies Acts, 1862 to 1890-Companies (Memorandum of Association) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict., c. 62), s. 1, sub-s. 3.-There is no established practice as to advertising orders under sect. 1, sub-sect. 3 of the Companies (Memorandum of Association) Act, 1890, but the Court can dispense with advertisements of such orders.--In re The Lancaster Banking Co., Limited, 75 L.T. 647.

(ii.) C. D. & C. A.-Winding-up-Mining Lease-Distress-Validity against Debenture Holders-Seizure of Chattels on Neighbouring Land-Bills of Sale Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict., c. 31), ss. 4 & 6—Amendment Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict., c. 43), ss. 3 & 8-Companies Act, 1862, ss. 85, 87, 138.The day before a mining company confirmed a resolution to wind-up voluntarily the landlord distrained for rent and seized under powers of a lease chattels of the company not within the demise. Held, reversing the decision of the Court below, that the power was not a "licence to take possession of personal chattels " within the meaning of sect. 4 of the Bills of Sale Act, and was not invalidated by being unregistered (Pulbrook v. Ashby considered). A distress made before a winding-up and before the appointment of a receiver is valid against debentures with a floating charge on the chattels of the company. Biggerstaff v. Rowatt's Wharf (Vol. 22, p. 7, vii.), and in re The Opera, Limited, L.R. [1891] 3 Ch. 260; 65 L.T. 371) applied. In re the Roundwood Colliery Co., Limited; Lee v. the Roundwood Colliery, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 375; 75 L.T. 508 & 641.

(iii.) H. L.—“ One Man" Company—Indemnity Companies Acts.-A boot manufacturer, solvent at the time, converted his business into a limited company, he and six members of his family subscribing the memorandum of association for one £1 share each. The nominal capital of the company was £40,000 in £1 shares, and the purchase money was fixed at £38,782, payable £10,000 in debentures and the remainder in cash. The vendor subscribed for 20,000 shares and the funds which came into the business were paid to him and returned to the company until the 20,000 shares had been by this means fully paid up. The greater part of the rest of the cash portion of the purchase money was applied to the discharge of liabilities incurred before the conversion of the business. No shares beyond the 20,007 were issued. In a few months the company was wound-up, the debentures absorbing all the assets, leaving the trading debts unpaid. Held, reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal, that as the company was constituted in accordance with the Statute, the motive (in the absence of direct

are claimed by some one other than the judgment debtor, the ways in which the claimant can arrest sale of the goods are stated in sect. 156 of the County Court Act, 1888. If the claimant should not perform any of the conditions, the bailiff must sell the goods; the purchaser without notice of the claim will have a good title.Goodlock v. Cousins, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 348; 76 L.T. 86.

Criminal Law:

(i.) Q. B. D.-Pleading-Coroner's Inquisition.-A coroner's inquisition stated the cause of a person's death to be injury from falling into a quarry, and that by the neglect of three persons to fence the quarry the deceased "fell therein, and therefore the said" (three persons) "did feloniously kill" the deceased. Held, that the inquisition was bad, and might be quashed, as the qualification of the finding of manslaughter shewed no legal ground for the finding.-Reg. v. The Clerk of Assize of the Oxford Circuit, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 370.

Divorce:

(ii.) P. D.-Maintenance and Allowance-Agreement set up in BarMatrimonial Causes Acts, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict., c. 85), s. 32; 1866 (29 & 30 Vict., c. 32), s. 1.-A wife withdrew a petition for dissolution of marriage on an agreement by the husband to make her an annual allowance by way of permanent maintenance for herself and child, to be continued even if the marriage should be thereafter dissolved. On fresh grounds of offence, the wife subsequently obtained a divorce, and on petition for permanent maintenance and for maintenance and education of the child, the registrar held the agreement to be a bar. The Court reversed the decision, but gave the respondent leave to appeal on paying the petitioner's costs up to date, and giving security for her costs on the appeal.-Bishop v. Bishop, 76 L.T. 28.

Easement:

(iii.) C. D.-Grant of Right of Way to Lessee who acquires Fee.-A right of way was granted to a tenant, from year to year, of the dominant tenement, who subsequently acquired the fee. Held, that having regard to the terms of the grant and the surrounding circumstances, the easement survived, and would pass to an assignee.-Rymer v. Milroy, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 528; 76 L.T. 115.

Ecclesiastical Law:

(iv.) Consistory Court of London. -Military Colours_fixed

to

Walls of Chancel-Faculty-Member of Parliament and St. Margaret's, Westminster.-Where a former rector and the churchwardens have without a faculty affixed military colours to the walls of the chancel of a church, the existing rector has no right without a faculty to remove them. In such a case of removal from St. Margaret's, Westminster, a Member of the House of Commons has a sufficient interest to institute a suit, and the Ordinary has jurisdiction to authorise by faculty the affixing of such colours to the chancel walls.-Vincent and Tomlinson v. Eyton, L.R. [1897] P. 1.

(v.) P. C.-Simony-False Declaration under Clerical Subscription Act, 1865-Clergy Discipline Act, 1892.—Proceedings cannot be taken under the Act of 1892 against a clergyman charged with simony or with a false declaration under the Act of 1865. Decision of Court_below (see Vol. 21, p. 76, ii.) reversed.—A Beneficed Clerk v. Lee, 75 L.T. 461.

(i.) Q. B. D.-Title to Pew in Church.—In a claim of legal right to a pew as being by prescription annexed to a house, it was held, that the relining of the pew with baize, secured to the woodwork by nails, would not alone be a sufficient act of repair to establish the right, but the right could be established by evidence of exclusive possession, and that the woodwork of the pew was removed and appropriated by the claimant many years before.-Stileman-Gibbard v. Wilkinson and Others, 76 L.T. 90.

Estoppel :

(ii.) Q. B. D.-Matter of Record--Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict., c. 75), s. 3, 20.-The defendants in an action in the county court had consented to an order declaring them to have committed an offence against the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, and on being summoned for disobedience of the order, sought to shew that they were exempted by sect. 20 of the Act. Held, that the order of the Court was equivalent to a judgment, and that the defendants were estopped from disputing the commission of the offence.-The Joint Committee of the River Ribble v. The Croston Urban District Council, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 251.

Evidence:

(iii.) C. D.-Deed more than 30 years old--Executed by Attorney-Power not Produced-Presumption.-Where no power of attorney is produced, or any evidence of its contents, in support of a deed more than 30 years old, which purports to be an appointment under a special power and to have been executed by an attorney, it was held, on the ground that there is no rule of law requiring the Court to presume that an attorney is duly authorised that the title of the appointees was not made out.In re Airey; Airey v. Stapleton, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 167; 76 L.T. 151.

Executor :—

(iv.) C. D.-Misappropriation-Bankruptcy-Injunction.-The Court has jurisdiction without appointing a receiver to restrain a person from acting as an executor.-Bowen v. Phillips, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 174; 75 L.T. 628.

Fixtures:

(v.) C. A.-Engine under Hire and Purchase-Attached to Soil-Mortgagee in Possession-Rights of Vendor, of Hirer, and of Mortgagee.—▲ mortgagee of land in fee, who enters upon the mortgaged premises, can take possession of an engine which is attached by bolts and screws to the soil, although the engine never was the property of the mortgagor, and whether it was fixed before or after the date of the mortgage. The vendor on the hire and purchase system of an engine so fixed can remove it, so long as the freehold of the land is in the purchaser of the engine, if instalments are in arrear, but he has no such right in law or equity against a purchaser of the land without notice of his claim. The vendor's remedy is then by action against his purchaser for the price of the engine, or for damages for its loss, or if the purchaser is bankrupt by proof against his estate. If a licence is given by a mortgagee to remove a fixture during the continuance of a term, entry by him determines the licence.-Hobson v. Gorringe, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 182; 75 L.T. 610.

Factory and Workshop Acts :(vi.) Q. B. D.-Dangerous Machinery-Shuttles-Factory and Workshop Acts, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict., c. 16), s. 5, sub-s. 3; 1891 (54 & 55 Vict., c. 75), s. 6, sub-s. 2.-Shuttles of looms in a cotton factory, if they are

likely to fly out of the shuttle race often enough to satisfy a reasonable interpretation of the word "dangerous," must be securely fenced.-Hindle v. Birtwistle, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 192; 76 L.T. 159.

Franchise:

(i.) Q. B. D—Borough Vote-Residents in Almshouses-Reform Act, 1832 (2 & 3 Will. IV., c. 45), s. 36.—An old endowment vested lands in the recipients, elected and removable by a town council of a charity for old, feeble and necessitous persons. The beneficiaries received a weekly allowance, were bound by rules, resided within precincts in rooms of which they were the legal owners, and had always voted at Parliamentary elections. Held, that as the legal interest in the land of the charity was vested in the recipients of the charity, they were not disqualified from voting under sect. 36 of the Reform Act.-Cowen and Another v. The Town Clerk of Kingston-upon-Hull, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 273; 75 L.T. 593.

(ii.) Q. B. D.-Voters- Objections Lists Closed-Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict., c. 26), s. 28, sub-s8. 9, 10, 11. -Sect. 28 (9), (10) & (11) do not affect the practice, which is a reasonable and convenient one, of separating the defended from the undefended objections to names in municipal and parliamentary voters' lists, and of fixing days for applications to be heard. (See also Vol. 22, p. 12, viii.) -Reg. v. Soren and Overend, L.R. [1897] 1`Q.B. 188; 76 L.T. 161.

Friendly Society :

(iii.) C. A.-Expulsion of Member-Jurisdiction-Friendly Societies Acts, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict., c. 60), 8. 22; 1895 (58 & 59 Vict., c. 26), s. 10.—A dispute as to the legality of the expulsion of a member of a friendly society is not one that must under the above sections of the Friendly Societies Acts be decided in the manner provided by the rules of the society.-Palliser v. Dale, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 257; 76 L.T. 14.

Gaming:

(iv.) Q. B. D.-Payment of Bets in a Public House-Betting Act, 1853 (16 & 17 Vict., c. 119), 88. 1, 3.-Payment of bets is not "betting," and neither the bookmaker who pays at the bar of a public house bets made elsewhere, nor the licensee who permits the payment, can be convicted under sect. 3 of the Betting Act.-Bradford Commissioner of Police v. Dawson and Parker, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 307; 76 L.T. 54.

Hackney Carriage:

(v.) Q. B. D.-Refusal to Drive into Railway Station-London Hackney Carriage Act, 1853, s. 17, sub-s. 2.-The driver of a hackney carriage may be required to drive to any place within the limits of the Act to which he can lawfully obtain access. The interior of a railway station is a "place" within the meaning of sect. 17 of the Act.-E. p. Kippins, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 1; 75 L.T. 421.

Highway :

(vi.) C. A.-Person by whose Order Extraordinary Traffic has been Conducted -Highways and Locomotive (Amendment) Act, 1878, s. 23.-Decision of Court below (see Vol. 22, p. 44, v.) reversed; dissentiente Lopes, L.J.— Lord Gerard v. The Kent County Council, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 351 76 L.T. 8.

Husband and Wife:

(vii.) P. D. Desertion-Neglect to Provide Cohabitation

[ocr errors][merged small]

Jurisdiction (Married Woman) Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict., c. 39), s. 4.-
Where a child was born of a marriage, though the husband and wife

[ocr errors]

had never lived together under the same roof, it was held, that the cohabitation was sufficient to give justices jurisdiction to make an order against the husband, who had refused to receive the wife into the house where he lodged.-Bradshawe v. Bradshawe, L.R. [1897] P. 24.

(i.) Q. B. D.—Separation under Summary Jurisdiction (Married Woman) Act, 1895, ss. 4 & 5)—Summons dismissed-Action in County Court for Costs. A summons taken out by a married woman for separation on the ground of the husband's cruelty was dismissed, without order as to costs, and her solicitor brought an action in the County Court against the husband for the costs. Held, that neither the wife nor her solicitor could maintain such an action.-Cale v. James, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 418; 76 L.T. 119.

Innkeeper:

(ii.) Q. B. D.-Liability to keep Guest.—As the obligation of an innkeeper to receive a person as a guest only attaches where that person is a traveller, it was held, that no action would lie against the proprietor of an hotel for ejecting a guest who had remained for some months and refused to leave.-Lamond v. Richard, 75 L.T. 693.

[blocks in formation]

(iii.) C. A.—Fire-Subrogation-Rights of Insurers.-A lessee who was bound to repair had insured the premises, although the lessor had covenanted to do so. A fire occurred, and the lessee received £100 on his policy. He did not make good the damage, and at the termination of the lease, the lessor commenced an action for breach of covenant to repair, which the lessee compromised by paying £140, and undertaking not to sue on the lessor's covenant to insure. The lessor had also received £100 from the insurance company in which he had insured the premises. Held, that the plaintiff company who had paid the defendant lessee were entitled to his rights under the lease, and could recover from him the £100 which he had given up.-West of England Fire Insurance Company v. Isaacs, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 226; 75 L.T. 564.

(iv.) C. A.-Claim under Policy Executed but Retained-Recital of Payment of Premium-Non-payment-Waiver.-A policy of insurance against burglary, which recited that a premium had been paid covering loss from 14th December was executed on 27th December, but retained by the insurers until the premium should be paid. On the 27th December a loss of goods insured took place. Held, that by the recital a condition for prepayment of premium was waived, and that the policy was a completed contract, under which the defendants were liable.-Roberts v. Security Co., Limited, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 111; 75 L.T. 531.

Joint Tenancy:

(v.) C. D.-Severance by Marriage.—A joint tenancy in freeholds or leaseholds is not severed by the marriage of a female joint tenant, nor by the granting (in 1867) of a lease, or a sub-demise by her husband, and the other joint tenant where the rent was reserved to them jointly. -Palmer v. Rich, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 134; 75 L.T. 484.

Justices:

(vi.) Q. B. D.-First Offence-Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Vict., c. 49), ss. 4 & 51-Cotton Cloth Factories Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict., c. 62), s. 13.-Notwithstanding sects. 4 and 51 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, justices have no jurisdiction in the case of a first

« PreviousContinue »