« PreviousContinue »
Metropolis :(i.) Q. B. D.-London Building Act, 1894, 88. 54 (3); 59; 75; 77 (3).
One portion of a wall may be a party wall, and another portion an external wall only, not subject to the requirements of the London Building Act, 1894, affecting party walls.- Drury v. The Army and
Navy Auxiliary Stores, L.R.  2 Q.B. 271; 74 L.T. 621. (ii.) Q. B. D. -Nuisance Order-Costs-County Court-Summary Jurisdic.
tion Act, 1818, 8.11; Public Health (London) Act, 1891, ss. 11 and 117.--Sect. 11 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, which prescribes that complaints or information under the Act shall be laid within six months from the time when the matter of complaint arose, applies to county court actions under sect. 11 of the Public Health Act for recovery of costs of enforcing a nuisance order. The Vestry of
Hammersmith v. Lowenfeld, L.R.  2 Q.B. 278; 75 L.T. 182. Metropolis Management :(iii.) Q. B. D.- New Street with Houses on one side only–Paving New Foot
path where Houses built on other side-Appointment - Metropolis Local Management Act, 1855, s. 105.-At a time when a new street had houses upon the north side only, the cost of paving under sect. 105 of the Act was charged upon and paid by the owners of these houses. Subsequently houses were built and a footpath made on the south side. Held, that the local authority had no jurisdiction to compel further contribution from the owners on the north side. -White v. The Vestry
of the Parish of Fulham, 74 L.T. 425. (iv.) Q. B. D. & C. A.-Drainage _"Sercer ”—Metropolis Management
Act, 1855, ss. 68, 69, 74, 250- Amendment Act, 1862, 88. 47, 48.—The owner of a block of houses, without order from the vestry and without approval by the Board of Works, drained them by one pipe running into a sewer in another street. Held, that the pipe was a
sewer” notwithstanding sects. 69 and 250 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, and was to be repaired by the Vestry.- Reg. v. Vestry of St. Matthew, Bethnal Green, L.R.  2 Q.B. 95 and 319 ; 74 L.T. 701 and 75 L.T. 60.
Mines : (v.) C. A.-Inspector of Mines—Authority to Agent to Lay Information
Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act, ss. 33 and 35.-An inspector of mines can authorise an agent to lay information in a court of summary jurisdiction in the inspector's name for an offence under the Act.
Foster v. Fyfe and Another, L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 104; 74 L.T. 784. Mortgage :(vi.) C. A.-Power of Sale to one of Several Mortgagors.- In a mortgage by
tenants in commor, the mortgagee may sell to one of the mortgagors, without notice to the others, for the amount of principal, interest and costs, and even though the purchaser was manager for his co
mortagors.—Kennedy v. De Trafford, L.R.  1 Ch. 762; 74 L.T. 599. (vii.) C. D,-Equitable Mortgage-Fraud — Priorities — Conveyancing Act,
1881, ss. 2, 54, 55.--A solicitor fraudulently procured a conveyance to himself of an equity of redemption by a trustee. The deed contained a receipt for purchase money though none was paid. The solicitor deposited the deed with his bankers, who had no notice of the fraud, as security for a loan. Held, that the deed was not void, though possibly voidable between the solicitor and the trustee; and that the bankers had priority over the trustee and the cestuis que trust.-Lloyd's Bank, Limited v. Bullock, L.R. (1896] 2 Ch. 192; 74 L.T. 687.
(i.) C. D.-Equitable Mortgage of Land within Yorkshire Registries Act,
1884, ss. 3, 7, 14-Subsequent Mortgage Registered first.–To secure an advance of money two tenants in common of land subject to the Yorkshire Registries Act, deposited the title deeds of the estate with a bank. The bank did not register the charge. The solicitor to both of the tenants in common, who was aware of the claim of the bank, took a mortgage from one of them, unknown to the other, and registered his charge. Held, that as it was the solicitor's duty to obtain the sanction of his principal to any transaction which would give him a security over the property of his principal, the non-disclosure amounted to “ actual fraud” within the meaning of the Act, and gave to the security held by the bank a priority over the mortgage held by the solicitor.—Batteson v. Hobson, L.R.  2 Ch. 403 :
74 L.T. 689. (ii.) C. A.-Consolidation.—The right to consolidate mortgages which a
united in title exists against the assignee of the equity of redemption of all the mortgages made before the unity of title.--Pledge v. White and Others, L.R. (1896] A.C. 187; 74 L.T. 323.
Municipal Corporation :(iii.) Q. B. D.--Bye-law against Street Betting—Municipal Corporation Act,
1882, s. 23.—A bye-law of the borough of Wolverhampton that “any person who shall frequent or use any street or other public place within the borough for the purpose of bookmaking or betting or wagering, or agreeing to bet or wager, with any person shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £5," was held to be properly made under sect. 23 of the Act, and valid.—Burnett v. Berry, L.R.  1 Q.B. 641; 74 L.T. 494.
National Schools :(iv.) Ch. D.—Trustees are “ Owners ”—Contribution to Cost of Making up
Street-Public Health Act, 1875, ss. 4, 257 ; School Sites Act, 1841, s. 6.Trustees are owners " within sect. 4 of Public Health Act, 1875, of school premises conveyed to them under sect. 6 of School Sites Act, 1841, and costs of metalling a street may be made a charge on the school buildings.—Hornsey District Council v. Smith, L.R.  2 Ch. 254; 74 L.T. 415.
Negotiable Instruments :(v.) C. A.-Promissory Note “ on Demand”—Maturity-Renunciation-Bills
of Exchange Act, 1882, ss. 8 (4), 62 (1, 2), 83 (i), 89 (1, 2), 97 (2).—A promissory note payable on demand” matures as soon as it is made and delivered. The delivery up of a note to a devisee of the maker with the intention of renouncing it is not a renunciation either at law or in equity without writing. -Edwards v. Walters, L.R. 2 Ch. 157 ; 74 L.T. 396,
Nuisance : (vi.) C.D.-Exhibition—Cabs-Nuisance Injunction.- Where cabs assembled,
under police supervision, near the plaintiff's residence at night, for the conveyance of persons quitting an exhibition, the Court refused an injunction against the proprietors of the exhibition.-Germaine v. The
London Exhibitions, Limited, 75 L.T. 101. (vii.) Q. B. D.--Overcrowding-Misdescription in Summons and Order
Public Health (London) Act, 1891, s. 2.--On an order for abatement of a nuisance by overcrowding, a rule nisi for a certiorari was obtained on the grounds that in the summons and the order the place where the overcrowding occurred was not described in the words of the Act as a “house,” and that the persons who were on the premises were not “inmates." Held, that the rule should be discharged.—Reg. v. Slade ; e. p. Robinson, 74 L.T. 656.
Partnership :(i.) C. D.—Foreign Firm Located Abroad-Administration of English
Estate of Deceased Partner-English Creditors-Conflict of Laws.—The rule of English law that a creditor of a firm can proceed against the surplus separate estate of a deceased partner without first exhausting the partnership assets, holds good as to a partner of a foreign firm who dies in England possessed of property here, even though the rule be contrary to the law of the State in which the firm is domiciled.
In re Doetsch; Matheson & Co. v. Ludwig, 75 L.T. 69. (ii.) Ch. D.- Articles of Partnership in Brewery—Death of one Partner
Purchase by Survivor-Goodwill—Tied Public-Houses.-A deed of partnership for a fixed period in a brewery provided that on the death of one partner the survivor should have the option of purchasing the property and effects at a valuation. After the fixed period had expired, the partnership was continued without any agreement. On the death of a partner the survivor exercised his option. Held, that the goodwill must be valued separately, except as to tied public-houses.Page v. Ratliffe, 74 L.T. 343.
Poor Law:(iii.) H. L.-Rating-Fine Art Society-Liability—6 & 7 Vict. c. 36, s. 1.
An art society for the benefit of subscribers only, each of whom obtains a valuable return for his subscription is not exempt from being rated within sect. 1 of the Parochial Assessments Act. Judgment of Court below (see Vol. 19, p. 17, vi.) reversed.—Overseers of the Savoy v.
Art Union of London, L.Á.  A.C. 296 ; 74 L.T. 497. (iv.) C.A.-Rating-Beneficial Occupation.—Decision of Divisional Court (see
Vol. 21, p. 16, iii.) reversed.-London County Council v. Churchwardens and Overseers of Lambeth, L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 25; 74 L.T. 605.
Post Office :(v.) Q. B. D.-Railway Companies-Postal Parcels-Outward and Inward
Stations-Post Office (Parcels) Act, 1882.-" Inwards station " is that to which a post office receptacle is directed. “ Outwards station” is that at which the receptacle is delivered to the railway company.-Reg. v. London & North Western Railway, 74 L.T. 624.
Power: (vi.) C. A.-Appointment to First Wife-Then to Children - Appointment to
Second Wife Invalid.—Decision of Court below (see Vol. 21, p. 80, ii.) affirmed.-In re Hancock ; Malcolm v. Burford Hancock, L.R. (1896] 2 Ch. 173 ; 74 L.T. 658.
Practice :(vii.) Q. B. D.-Writ-Incorrect Description of Defendant-0. ii., r. 3.-A
defendant, who resided in Ireland, was incorrectly described in a writ which was served upon him in England as of a place in the county of Lancaster. Held, that the writ was good.— Smith v. Hammond, L.R. (1896] 1 Q.B. 571; 74 L.T. 590.
(i.) C: A.-Case stated on Appeal from Order Granting Distress Warrant on
Account of Poor Rate-Appeal from Queen's Bench- Judicature Act, 1873, 8. 47.—No appeal lies from a decision of the Queen's Bench Division on a case stated on appeal from an order for a distress warrant to enforce payment of poor rate.-Seaman v. Burley, L.R. (1896]
2 Q.B. 344; 75 L.T. 91. (ii.) C. A.-Examination of Witnesses Abroad—Letters of Request to Foreign
Tribunals-0. xxxvii., r. 6 (a).—Letters of request to foreign tribunals for the examination of witnesses abroad should only be issued when the evidence to be obtained is material to the main question, not when it is merely collateral. Decision of Court below reversed.
Ehrmann v. Ehrmann, 75 L.T. 37. (iii.) C. A.-Security for Costs--Plaintiff out of Jurisdiction-Application
after Delivery of Defence~0. lv., r. 6.-0. lv., r. 6, which provides that security for costs may be “ given at such times as the Court or Judge shall direct,” abrogates the old rule in Chancery that application for security must be made in a reasonable time.-In re Smith; Bain v. Bain,
75 L.T. 46. (iv.) C. A.-Costs—Taxation-Action for Tort Remitted to County Court,
Appeal after Order-County Courts Act, 1888, 8. 66.-An action for tort was remitted to the county court, but before the order was lodged the plaintiff took an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeal, and was allowed costs. Held, that these costs must be taxed by the officer of the High Court, and that sect. 66 of the County Courts Act, 1888, did
not apply.--D'Errico v. Samuel, 75 L.T. 59. (v.) C. A.–Judgment against a Married Woman-Examination in aid of
Execution.—0. xlii., r. 32.—Where an order was made under 0. xlii., r. 32, for the examination of a married woman, who was a judgment debtor, as to her separate estate not subject to restraint, it was held that the Court had no jurisdiction under the order to compel the examination “ of any other person.”—Hood-Barrs v. Heriot, L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 338;
75 L.T. 15. (vi.) C. A.-Receiver before Probate-Caveat-Lis Pendens—Judicature Act,
1873, s. 25, sub-s. 8.- Where a caveator who has been warned has merely entered an appearance, a receiver of the testator's property cannot be appointed on his application, as there is no lis pendens.
Salter v. Salter, 75 L.T. 7. (vii.) C. A.–Service out of Jurisdiction—Notice of Motion with Notice of
Writ~0. xi., r. 1; 0. lii., r. 9.—Leave to serve notice of motion, with notice of writ, out of the jurisdiction upon foreign defendants, will be given without prejudice to any question which may be raised on the
order.-Overton & Co. v. Burn, Lowe & Sons, 74 L.T. 776. (viii.) C.A.-Interrogatories- Member of Company-0.xxxi., r. 4.-The plaintiff
sought to deliver interrogatories to the defendant company to be answered by a particular individual, a member of the company. An order was made that interrogatories might be delivered for answer by
the proper officer of the company." Held, that the order was properly made, and that before application was made for leave to deliver interrogatories to a member of a company, notice should be served upon him.- Chaddock v. The British South Africa Co., L.R. (1896]
2 Q.B. 153; 74 L.T. 755. (ix.) Q. B. D.-Originating Summons to revoke submission to Arbitration
Appeal-Judicature Act, 1894, s. 1 (4).—An appeal from the decision of a Judge in Chambers on an originating summons for leave to revoke a submission to arbitration within sect. 1 of the Arbitration
Act, 1889, is to the Court of Appeal not to the Divisional Court.-An
L.R.  2 Q.B. 98; 74 L.T. 703. (i.). C, A.-Death of Plaintiff in Action for Mandamus-Survival of Cause
of Action-0. xvii., rr. 1, 4.-Where a plaintiff died after commencing an action for a mandamus to enforce an alleged statutory duty, it was held that the cause of action survived and that the plaintiff's executors were properly added as plaintiffs.—Peebles v. Oswaldtwistle Urban
District Council, L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 159 ; 74 L.T. 721. (ii.) C. A.-Discovery-River Pollution Prevention Acts, 1876, ss. 3, 10, 11;
and 1893.-A defendant in an action for injunction is not privileged from giving discovery on the ground that it might subject him to a penalty if the penalty can be incurred only by disobeying the in. junction if granted.--The Derbyshire County Council v. The Mayor and
Aldermen of Derby, L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 53; 74 L.T. 747. (iii.) C. A.-Libel—Interrogatories as to Circulation of a Newspaper.- Where
it is admitted that the circulation of a newspaper which contained an alleged libel was considerable, interrogatories as to the number of copies circulated will not be allowed.-Whittaker v. The Scarborough
Post Newspaper Company, L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 148; 74 L.T. 553. (iv.) c. A.-Statute of Frauds- Pleading-0. xix., r. 15.-R. 15 requiring
the Statute of Frauds to be pleaded if it is relied on will be construed
strictly.--Odham Brothers v. Brunning, 74 L.T. 370. (v.) C. A.-Scotch Bank, Inspection of Books.—Under sect. 7 of the Act
the High Court can make an order for the inspection of the books of
a Scotch bank.- Kissam v. Link, L.R. (1896] 1 Q.B. 574; 74 L.T. 368. (vi.) H. L.--Procedure, Special Case – Appeal-0. xxxiv., r. 1.- Where a
special case raises only questions of fact an appeal is not allowed.
Burgess v. Morton, L.R. (1896] A.C. 136. (vii.) Ch. D.-Discovery of Documents from a Co-Defendant -0. xxxi., 7. 12.
---Discovery of documents will be granted under 0. xxxi., r. 12, to one defendant from a co-defendant when there is some right between them to be adjusted in the action.—The Alcoy & Gandia Railway and
Harbour Co., Limited y. Greenhill, 74 L.T. 345. (viii.) C. A.-Costs in Action Paid to Solicitor—Judgment Reversed.-A
solicitor will not be required to repay costs which have been paid to him by the other side under a judgment of the Court of Appeal in favour of his client, although that judgment is reversed by the House
of Lords.—Hood-Barrs v. Heriot, L.R. (1896] 1 Q.B. 610; 74 L.T. 372. (ix.) Ch. D.-Costs - Set-off-County Court Action-High Court-0. lv., r. 14.
-The Court refused an action, made on the ground that the plaintiff was impecunious, to set-off against costs in a judgment which the defendant had obtained in the county court, costs which he had incurred in an unsuccessful motion for a certiorari to remove the action to the
High Court.-Hassell v. Stanley, L.R. (1896] 1 Ch. 607; 74 L.T. 375. (x.) Ch. D.-Practice--Title of Writ and of Statement of Claim-Adminis
tration.- Where a plaintiff is suing on an administration action on behalf of himself and all the creditors, the statement of claim must be so intituled.—Tottenham v. Tottenham; in re Tottenham, L.R. (1896)
1 Ch. 628; 74 L.T. 376. (xi.) C. D.-Costs—Taxation—Minimum Fee—General Order under Solicitors
Remuneration Act, 1881, schd. 1, part 2, r. 5, schd. 1, part 1, r. 8.-A lessee obtained a lease for lives at a rental of 12s. 1d., paying a fine of £12 1s. 8d. The lessor's solicitor charged £7 11s., and on application