« PreviousContinue »
Colonial Law :
(i.) P, C,—Canada—British North America Act, 1867—Canada Temperance Act, 1886 (Revised Statutes of Canada, 49 Viet., c. 106)—Ontari0 Act (53 Viet., c. 56), s. 18—ProI1ibitive 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 trafi'1c.—Attorney-General of Ontario v. A4lt£’!‘1:2[€y-G€'ll8Tal of Canada and Others, L.R.  A.C. 348; 7 . . 533.
(ii.) P. C.—New South Wales—Parliamenta1~J Representatives Allowance Acts (53 Viet., 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,
(iii.) H, L,—Lag0s—Practice—Appeal—Action in forma panperis—Seourity —S. C. of Lagos Ordinance No. 4 of 1876, O. liii.—To refuse to a litigant who had been admitted to sue in fornui panperis leave to appeal unless he gave security for payment of the sum awarded by the judgment which he desired to impeach, was held to be an improper exercise of the discretion committed to the full Court.—Johnson v. Voight 113' Co., 75 L.T. 57.
(iv.) P, C_——Natal—Grant of Land with Rese'rvation—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.—Vict0ria—Wreck in Port-—Cost of Remonal—Marine Act, 1890 (Consolidated Victorian Statutes, No. 1565), r. 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.—Srnith and Sons v. Wilson, 75 L.T. 81.
(vi) P. C.—New South Wales—Practice—-Consnltations—Ea:pcnses of Witnesses —Ta:cation.—A taxing ofiicer in estimating fees may consider the number of consultations, but he need not inquire into their length. The allowance to witnesses should he made on a consideration of the claims of each individual.—Co1nmission for Railways v. O’R0urke, 75 L.T. 84.
(vii.) Ch, D_-—Winding-up-—Re-C’onstruction—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. '' had in its memorandum of association a clause that shares might be “divided into different classes with such preference riorities, restrictions, or special incidents, as may from time to time £ 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,75L.T.23.
(ii.) C. A.-II inding-up—Distress for Interest by Mortgagees–Companies Act, 1862, ss. 87, 163. – Where on the winding-up of a Cotton Mill Co. the liquidator had continued the business in order to sell the under. taking 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, atc., 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 a 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.
(viii.) C. A.-Prospectus-Omission of Facts—Rescission of Contract 3– Decision of C. C. (see Vol. 21, p. 74, vi.) affirmed.-McKeown v. Boudard Peveril Gear Co., Limited, 84 L.T. 712.
(i.) C. .A.—Wind1"ng-up-Shares Allotted as fully paid—Lial>ility of Holder Companies Act, 1867, s. 25.—The holder of shares purporting to be fully paid, of which he was the original allottee, is liable to be placed on to the list of contributories in a winding-up, if he had knowledge of facts which should have led him to the conclusion that the shares were not paid up as described. The Building Estates Brickfield Co., Limited ; Parbury’s Case [see Vol. 21, p. 37, ii.) followed.—In re Veuve Monnier et ses fils, Limited; e.p. Bloomenthal, L.R.  2 Ch. 525 ; 74 L.T. 670
(iii.) C, A,—C'ompanies (Winding-up) Act, 1890—Misfeasance—Direct0rs— Auditors.-—(See Vol. 21, p. 57, ii.). Aflirmed as to misfeasance. An auditor is not an insurer, and where there is nothing to excite suspicion, less care may be reasonable than would be so considered if suspicion ought to have been aroused.—I-rt re The Kingston Cotton Jlill Co., Limited ,e. p. Pickering and Peasegood, No. 2, L.R.  2 Ch. 278 ; 74 L.T. 568.
(iv.) C, D,-—General Meeting-—Evidence of Resolution—Ea:tra0rdinary Meeting S11flicie1w_1/ of Notice — Companies Act, 1862, s. 51. — Though by sect. 51 the declaration of the chairman of a general meeting of a limited .company is “conclusive evidence” that a resolution has been carried, the Court may enquire whether the provisions of the Act has been complied with. A statement in a notice convening an extraordinary general meeting that a resolution rescinding Table A which was to be submitted could be seen at the oflices of the company’s solicitors was held sufiicient.-—Young v. South African and Australian Exploration and Development Syndicate, Limited, L.R.  2 Ch. 268; 74 L.T. 527.
(v.) C, D.—Winding-z1p—Debentures—C0i*ering Deed Poor and General Rate —Distress.—Goods of a company in hands of a receiver for the trustee of a covering deed securing debentures are not distrainable for poor or general rates.—Richards v. Overseers of the Poor of the Parish of Kidderminster, L.R.  2 Ch. 212; 74 L.T. 483.
(vi.) C, _A_,—Preference Shares-—Cumulatine or Non-Cumulative Dividends ?— The memorandum of association of a company provided that “ holders of preference shares shall be entitled out of the net profits of each year to a preference dividend at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum.” Held, that these dividends were not cumulative.—Staples v. The Eastman Photographic Materials Co., L.R.  2 Ch. 303; 74 L.T. 479.
(vii.) C. A.—Floating Secm'ity—Debentures—Date of Assignment—Set-0fi"— Receiver—Goods Paid For but not Delivered—-Managing Director.— Debentures issued as floating security over assets of a company operate as an assignment of debts due to the company on the appointment of a receiver, but until assignment there is a right of set-off. A purchaser of goods paid for and delivered only in part, and not earmarked, has a claim for liquidated damages for money had and received on a consideration which has totally failed. Persons dealing with a managing director who acts within his apparent authority have a right to assume that he is properly appointed.—-.Biggersta_fi"v. Rou-att’s Wharf, Limited ; Howard v. Rowatt’s Wharf, Limited, L.R.  2 Ch. 93; 74 L.T. 473.
(viii.) C. A.—P0u-ers of Board to deal with Business without Notice.—A board of directors can deal at any meeting with all business of the company, whether it has been announced or not in a notice summoning the
(i.) C. A.—-Winding-up—Sche1ne of Arrangement-—.lleam'ng of “Discount " for Prepayment of Calla.—The word “discount " in an essentially commercial document means "rebate of interest;” not “present value.”—In re the Land Securities Company, Limited; e.p. Farquhar, L.R.  2 Ch. 320: 74 L.T. 400.
(ii.) C, D, & C, A,—L'nder1rriting Contract to Subscribe for Shara— Withdra|ral—Irrerocability-~Companies Act, 1862, s. 35.—An underwriting contract to subscribe for shares in a company was entered into with the promoter by a person who, before allotment, repudiated the agreement. Held, that the contract was an authority coupled with an interest and irrevocable. —I n re Hannans Empress Gold Mining and Development Co., Limited, 74 L.T. 550; 75 L.T. 45.
(iii.) P. C,-—Indemnity—Estoppel—Abandonment of Claim.—A guarantor, who had agreed to indemnify a joint guarantor for a loss sufiered, sought to have the agreement of indemnity discharged. Held, that in absence of a contract to discharge it, it could be enforced notwithstanding an express representation of an intention to abandon it.Chadirick v. Mmnling, L.R.  A C. 231.
(iv.) H. L.-—Implie¢l Condition of Fitness—Sale of Goods Act, 1893, s. 14Evidence.’—Evidence of negotiation prior to contract is admissible to raise the implication of condition specified in sect. 14 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893.—(iilu-s-pie Brothers and ('0. v. (‘honey Eggar and Co., L.R.  2 Q.B. 59.
(v.) C. D.—0ption Limited in Time—E.1:ercised by Unauthorised AgentRatifierl after Limited Period—Invalid.—A partnership deed provided for the purchase of the business by the surviving partner on notice within a given time after the decease of the other. Such notice was given on behalf of the surviving partner (a person of unsound mind) by his solicitor without authority. After the given time had expired, a further notice was given under the Lunacy Act. Held, that both notices were invalid.—Dibbins v. Dibbins, L.R.  2 Ch. 348; 75 L.T. 137.
(vi.) Q. B. D.—Heriots.—The lord's right to a heriot may exist in copyhold as well as in freehold tenements of a manor.—-Western v. Bailey, L.R.  2 Q.B. 234.
(viii.) C, _A,—Administration for purpose of Making Title—Lands Clauses Act, 1845, s. 80.~Where a railway company took leasehold lands settled on a life tenant under a will with remainder to several legatees who predeceased the life tenant, it was held that the company was liable under sect. 80 of the Act for the costs of administration to the legatees in remainder, but not to costs of administration to the original testator. (In re Midland Great Western (Ireland) Railway; e. p. Rorke [I894], Ir. Ch. 146; and City of Dublin Junction Railways; e. p. Kelly, 31 L. Rep. Ir. 137, f0llowed.)—In re Lloyd and North London Railway (City Branch), L.R.  2 Ch. 397; 74 L.T. 548.
(ii.) Q, B, D,—Actionin County Court by Trustee: of Charity—Rent Charge —Que.stion of Title-—Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, s. 41——County Courts Act, 1888, s. 60.—An action to recover £10 arrears of rent charge brought by trustees of a charity after leave obtained under sect. 17 of the Charitable Trusts Act was held to be within the jurisdiction of a. county court as not being a “proceeding ” within sect. 41 of that Act; as not raising a question of title to land under sect. 60 of the County Court Act; and as the value of the hereditament did not exceed £50 a year. — Bassano and Others v. Bradley and Others, L.R.  1 Q.B. 645; 74 L.T. 553.
(iv-) C. .A.—Practice—Joinder of Plaintifls-Separate Causes of ActionCounty Court Rules, 1882, O. iii., r. 1; O. xliv., rr. 18, 19—Employers Liability Act, 1880, s. 6, sub-s. 3.—Though out of one act of a defendant several plaintiffs may have cause of action, they cannot be joined under O. iii., r. 1, in a county court action. And O. xliv. of the county court rules and sect. 6 of the Employers Liability Act, 1880, make no exception to this ru1e.—Carter and Others v. Rigby rt Co., L.R.  2 Q.B. 113; 74 L.T. 744.
(v.) Q, B, D,—Admim'stration of Insolvent Estate—Costs—Discretion of
Registrar—-County Court Rules, O. 50 A., r. 20.—In taxation the administrator of an insolvent estate is allowed only such costs as are necessary in the discretion of the registrar for the protection of the estate.—Pain v. Bowden, L.R.  2 Q.B. 301; 75 L.T. 102.
(vi.) Q. B.—Claim under a Counter Claim over £20—Appea.l without Leave —County Court Act, 1888, s. l20.—The right of appeal under sect. 120 of the County Court Act, 1888, applies when the counter claim exceeds £20 although the plaintiffs claim is below that amount.-—Smith v. am, L.R.  2 Q.B. 166.
Constitutional La :—
(vii.) At B&1'.—-Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870—Constructi0n—-British Subject out of Jurisdiction—Indictment—.lllegations.—When a statute is applic able to the Queen’s Dominions it applies to all the Queen’s subjects. Therefore, a British subject may commit a crime within the jurisdiction while he is beyond the Queen’s dominions. Such a statute also applies to foreigners during a residence within the dominions. In an indictment for an offence against the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870, it is sufficient to allege that the Act was in operation where the alleged oflencc was committed ; and the conclusion of the indictment that the offence is against the form of the statute and against the peace of the Queen is sufficient without stating that the defendants are subjects of the Queen.--Reg. v. Jameson and Others, 7-'5 L.T. 77._