« PreviousContinue »
Public Health :(i.) C, D.—Urban District Council—-Drainage—Surface Water—Right to
Discharge into Stream-—Public Health Act, 1875, ss. 15, 17, 308.—-A local authority made drains intercepting from the sewers the surface water of roads, and carrying it into a stream, the property of the plaintifi, which was the natural outlet for it. Held, that the authority had the right to so drain the roads, provided they observed the restrictions of sect. 17; that sand or silt is not filthy water within the meaning of that section ; and that the plaintifi’s remedy, if he had sufiered damage, was to seek compensation under sect. 308.—Durrant v. The Branksome Urban District Council, 76 L.T. 486.
Public Health Act, 1875, es. 15, 21, 299.—On the ground that an exclusive remedy is provided by sect. 299 of the Public Health Act, a mandamus cannot be granted to compel a local authority to provide, under sects. 15 and 21 of the same Act, sewers to carry off liquids from a factory in the district. Decision of Court below (see Vol. 22, p. 75 (iii.) ) reversed. Robinson v. Mayor of Workington (see Vol. 22, p. 67 (iv.) ) followed.-Peehles v. The Oswaldtwistle Urban District Council, L.R.  1 Q.B. 625; 76 L.T. 315.
or Damage.A notice on the ticket given to the depositor of articles in the cloak room of a railway, that “ the Company will not be responsible for any package exceeding the value of £10," means that such an article is taken in at the owner‘s risk, and that the company has no responsibility for loss or damage to the article.—P1-att v. South-Eastern Railway Co., L.R.  1 Q.B. 718; 76 L.T. 465.
Rating :— (iv.) Q, B, D_—Valuati0n List—Notice of Objection to Rateable Value only—
Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862 (25 it 26 Vict., c. 103), ss. 18, 19Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, ss. 11, 32.——Where a ratepayer has given notice of objection to the rateable value, but not to the gross value of his hereditament, the assessment committee has no jurisdiction, without the consent of the overseer, to entertain an objection to the gross.—Reg. v. London (Justices of), L.R.  1 Q.B. 433.
Portions of a county building which are used partly for Crown purposes and partly for County purposes are rateable to the relief of the poor (see also Vol. 22, p. 25 (vi.) ).—The County Council of Worcestershire v. The Assessment Committee of the Worcester Union, L.R. 
s. 33—-Brickfield—-Property other than Land.-On a brickfield were engines, engine houses, and other accessories of brickmaking, and a foreman’s cottage. Held, that the land was the principal and the building the accessory, and taken as a whole, ought to be rated as land, but that if separately assessed, the fore1na.n’s house, and possibly some other structures, could be rated as a building.—Overseers of the Poor for the Parish of Crayford and the District Council for Crayford v. D. at C. Rutter, L.R.  1 Q.B. 650; 76 L.T. 392.
Court of L0nd0n,—Public Records—Custody— Disp0sal.—T e Consistorial Court of London has the custody of
documents relating to the see of London, and may, through the Chancellor of London, order their relinquishment to a foreign power. —The Log of the Mayflower, 76 L.T. 295.
(ii-) Q. B. D.—Estate Duty-—Deduction for M0rIyagee—Annuities—Finance Act, 1894 (57 ct‘ 58 Vict., c. 30), 1, 2 (lb , 7 (lb) and 7.—By arrangement between an equitable life tenant an an equitable tenant in tail in remainder, certain mortgages were effected on the estate, and the life tenant granted out of his own interest thus arising, an annuity to the equitable tenant in tail. On the death of the life tenant, it was held, that the amount liable to estate duty was the principal value of the estate less the mortgages, but without allowing any deduction for the capitalised value of the annuity.—In re Estate Duty Payable on the Death of the 2nd Earl Cowley, 76 L.T. 567.
(iii-) Q. B. D.—Settlement Estate Dnty—O'ontingent Settlenzent—Finance Act, 1894, s. 5. An absolute settlement of part of an estate, together with the contingent settlement of the residue, is, for the purposes of the Finance Act, a settlement of the whole estate, and a contingent settlement of part is a settlement within the meaning of sect. 5.-The Asttplrrriey-General v. Fairley and Others, L.R.  1 Q.B. 698; 7 . . 526.
(iv.) Q, B, D,—Stamp Duty—Bonds of Foreign Railway Signed in England~Stamp Act, 1891, s. 82 (1), (b) (i., ii., iii.).—B0nds of a foreign railway expressed not to be valid, unless authenticated by the certificate of a trustee, were sent over for the English holders, and for convenience or safety were signed in London. Held, that such bonds were issued in England within the meaning of the Stamp Act, sect. 82, and liable to duty.—Baring v. Comm1'ssione1's of Inland Revenue, 76 L.T. 563.
(v.) Q. B. D—Stamp Du-ty—C'on'veyanee on Sale—5tamp Act, 1891, ss. 54, 55, 73 and 1st sched.—A company resolved to amalgamate with another company and to exchange its shares for shares in the latter. Held, that an instrument by which a shareholder in the amalgamated company so exchanged its shares was a “ conveyance on sale ” within the meaning of sects. 54 and 55 (1) of the Stamp Act, and chargeable with ad valorem duty.—J. and P. Coates, Limited, v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, L.R..  1 Q.B. 778; 76 L.T. 561.
(Vi-) Q. B. D.—Estate Duty—Finance Act, 1894, ss. 1, 2 (b), 21, sub-s. 1.— A wife, who died before the commencement of the Finance Act, appointed a trust fund under powers of her marriage settlement, and probate duty was paid on the fund less the value of her husband’s life interest. The husband died after the commencement of the Finance
Act. Held, that estate duty was chargeable only on that portion of the trust fund (viz., the value of his life interest) upon which probate
(vii.) C. D.-—— Succession Duty.—Where under powers of a. marriage settlement an appointment was made of so much of the settled fund as should be sufficient to raise a certain net sum, it was held, that as the appointment was not of a net sum, the appointee took subject to succession duty. Banks v. Braithwaite. 8 L.T. 80, applied.-In re Saunders; Saunders v. Gore, L.R.  1 Ch. 888; 76 L.T. 345.
(i.) H, L_—Ass1'gnor of Policy of Insurance—Liability for Succession Duty or Account Dut1—Succes8i01t Duty Act, 1853 (16 cf 17 Vict., c. 51), ss. 2 and l7—Cu.9toms and Inland Revenue Act, 1889 (52 Vict., c. 7), s. 11. — Seven years before his death a person assigned a policy on his own life to his daughter, who thereafter paid the premiums out of her own money. Held, that she was not liable to pay either succession duty or account duty on the amount received under the policy on the death of the insured.—Lord Advocate v. Robertson, 76 L.T. 125.
(ii.) C, D,—Scotch ll'ill—English Decree of General Power of Appointment.The distribution of a fund passing under a general power of appointment created by a Scotch Will is regulated by Scotch law, though the power be exercised by the English Will of a domiciled Englishman.-—In re Bald ; Bald v. Bald, 76 L.T. 462.
Settled Land :
(iii.) C, D,—Jurisdiction—Repairs in Nature of Salvage——Capital—Settled Land Acts, 1882 (45 rt‘ 46 Vict., c. 38),s. 25; and 1890 (53 11554 Vict., e. 69) s. 13, sub-s. 2.—The Settled Land Acts do not take away the jurisdiction of the Court to sanction, with the concurrence of a remainderman, expenditure, in the nature of salvage, of capital in the repair of farms
on the estate of an infant tenant in tail in possession.—In re Hawker’s Settled Estates; Dufl v. Hawker, 76 L.T. 286.
(iv.) C. D. 8t C. A.—Jurisdiction-Pulling Down and Rebuilding Houses. The Court has no jurisdiction to direct the expenditure of settled money in pulling down and rebuilding houses. Decision of Court below aflirmed.—In re Mo-ntagu; Derbyshire v. Montagu, L.R.  1 Ch. 685 and 2 Ch. 8; 76 L.T. 289 and 485.
(v.) C, D,-Covenant to Settle After-acquired Property of Wt:fe.—By a marriage settlement it was covenanted that any property above a certain value which the wife became entitled to during coverture should be subject to the settlement. Under a will she became entitled to income for life for her sole and separate use with restraint on anticipation, and out of it she saved and invested sums which amounted to more than the value mentioned in the settlement. Held, that as the income which she received was not subject to the covenant in the settlement, the covenant did not govern investments from such income. Wallis 12. Bendy (see Vol. 20, p. 55 (iii.)) not foll0wed.—Finley v. Darling, L.R.  1 Ch. 719; 76 L.T. 461.
(vi.) C. D_—Sale of Heirlo0ms—In'vestment—Conditlons.—Land purchased with the proceeds of heirloom chattels sold by the tenant for life was held not to be subject to charges to which other land, but not the settled chattels, was subject by the original settlement.—In re ’l‘he Duke of Marlborough and the Governors of Queen Anne’s Bounty, L.R.  1 Ch. 712; 76 L.T. 388.
(vii.) C, D,—Trust for Payment of Debts—Death of Settlor-Deed Irrevocable. —By a re-settlement of estates a father and son were made successive tenants for life with remainder in tail to an infant, subject to a trust for payment of the father’s debts. The deed was made in 1867, and the creditors had no notice of it. Held, that on the death of the father the deed became irrevocable, and the tenant in tail took subject to the debts. Synnot v. Simpson (5 I-LL. cases 121) followed. Garrard 11. Lauderdale distinguished.—P'riestley v. Ellis, L.R.  1 Ch. 489; 76 L.T. 187.
(i.) C. .A..-—C'0llisian-Bye-Laws for Regulation of River Tyne, 1884, Art. 20. -—The distance from mid-channel which vessels must keep in entering the Tyne is not one to be measured on the chart, but must be such as to leave reasonable room for vessels to pass out of the river.—The John O’Scott, L.R.  P. 64; 76 L.T. 222.
(ii.) C. A.—Damage—River Riblrle Navigation~—Hired Tugs—Liability.—The corporation of Preston under their powers do the towage of the river Ribble, and for this purpose charter tugs. Held, that the corporation were responsible for the efliciency of the hired tugs and for the competence of the crews supplied by the tug owners.-The Ratata, L.R.  P. 118; 76 L.T. 224.
(iii.) P, D,—Salnage—Tug and T0w—Negligence—C0ntribut0ry Negligence— Unfair Bargain.—A barque went ashore while being towed for a fixed sum by a tug which steered its own course and took no soundings. While the barque was ashore another tug offered assistance for £500, successful or not. This was accepted and the barque was got ofi" by the two tugs. The owners of tug No. 1 claimed salvage and the owners of the barque counterclaimed for damage. Held, that, on the evidence, tug No. 1 was the cause of the disaster and therefore was not entitled to salvage; that as the master of the barque had not checked the course of the tug, the barque owners were guilty of contributory negligence and could not succeed on the counterclaim; and that £400 was suflicient remuneration for the second tug as the master of the barque entered into the agreement under compulsion and the tug ran no risk.—The Altair, L.R.  P. 105; 76 L.T. 263.
(iv.) C. C.—Insurance-Master Part Owner—Mortgage—Barratry.—Where the master of a ship is part owner an act barratous against his co-owners is barratous against his mortgagee. The fact that a master has scuttled a ship his part share on which he had mortgaged, is no defence to an action by the mortgagee on a policy of insurance on the vessel.—Small and Others v. United Kingdom Mutual Insurance Co.,
(v.) P, D_—Sal'uage—Services Rendered by Request without Benefit.—-A vessel which stands by another upon request, is entitled to salvage remuneration, though no benefit is produced to the salved ship.—The Cambrian, 76 L.T. 504.
(vi.) P, D,—C'ollision—Arrest and Sale of Ship Abroad——Acti0n in England to Limit Liability—Life C'laimants.—Owners of a British steamship, which had sunk a German vessel and been sold in Holland under a judgment of the local Court for less than enough to satisfy all claims, commenced an action in the English Admiralty Court for limitation of liability. Held, that the claimants who had recovered in Holland were not estopped from proving in the limitation action, and that life claimants were entitled to interest on the sum representing £7 per ton on the tonnage of the steamship from the date of oollision.—The Crathie, L.R.  P. 178; 76 L.T. 534.
(vii.) C_ C_—Marine Insnrancc—General Average.—The master of a ship in taking measures to repair damage on a voyage caused damage to the cargo. Held, that the ship and cargo were in peril; that the master’s
(i.) C, A_-Charter-Partg—Timber—Custom of Port of Loruion.—A_ clause in a charter-party that timber should be “taken from alongside the ship at merchant’s risk and expense” is not inconsistent with the custom of the Port of London, under which it is the duty of the shipowner to lower timber into a barge brought alongside to receive it.-Aktieselskab Helios v. Ekman and 00., L.R.  2 Q-B- 83; 76 L.T. 537.
(ii.) C. D.—Practice—( 70sts—i-I gency Charges—~Ta.ration—Solicitors Act, 1843 (6 <13" 7 Viet., c. 73), s. 37.—In a case in which the facts were similar to those reported in Vol. 22, p. 80 (ii.), the Court made an order for taxation of a solicitor’s bill after the expiration of twelve months from its delivery, where agency charges, amounting to £15 in a bill of £146,
were treated as disbursements.—In re Pomeroy and Tanner, No. 2, 76 L.T. 149.
Specific Performance :
(iii.) C, D,—Public-h0use—Sale—Licence “A_fi'ected”—9 Geo. IV., c. 61, us. 11, 14—5 and 6 Viet., c. 44, s. 1.—An agreement for the sale and purchase of a beer-house, with the off-beer licence attached, contained a proviso that if the licence should be endorsed or “ otherwise afiected ” before completion, the proposed purchaser could terminate the agreement. He applied to the magistrates, without consulting the vendors, for authority to carry on the business till the next transfer day in the name of a nominee. The magistrate refused the application. On his claim to have the contract set aside, it was held, that the licence had not been “afiected” within the meaning of the contract, and specific performance was decreed on a counterclaim.—Tadcaster Tower Brewery C0. v. Wilson, L.R.  1 Ch. 705; 76 L.T. 459.
(iv.) C. D_—-“Magn0lia"— Geographical Name — Character of Goods—— Assigrz1ncnt—Pate1tts, Designs and Trade Zllarks Acts, 1883 (s. 70), and 1888 (s. 10).—A representation of a Magnolia flower, and the word “Magnolia,” notwithstanding that several towns in America are so named, may be available for trade marks; but the word cannot be used as the trade mark of goods made of a metal known as Magnolia, and a representation of the flower cannot be assigned as a trade mark of metal bearings by a foreign assignor who had a goodwill in the metal only.—In re Magnolia Metal Co.’s Trade Mark, 76 L.T. 190.
Vendor and Purchaser :—
(v.) C. D_~Sale as Going Concern—-Negotiations after Date fired for Completion—1'itle and Draft Conveyance Approved -— Reasonable Notice to Complete.-—Where the time fixed for the completion of the purchase of a public-house as a going concern was past by six weeks, a notice from the vendor, after the title and the draft conveyance had been approved,
to complete in ten days, was held to be a reasonable notice.—S1nith v. Batsford, 76 L.T. 179.