« PreviousContinue »
Author an dPublisher :(i.) C. D.-Half Profits—Assignment of Agreement-Receiver-Assets.—An
agreement for the publication of a book cannot be assigned by the publisher without the consent of the author. A receiver in a debenture-holder's action should sell surplus copies of a book published on the half-profit principle for the benefit of all parties. Hole v. Bradbury applied to companies.—Grifith v. Tower Publishing Co., Limited,
L.R.  1 Ch. 21 ; 75 L.T. 330. Bankruptcy :(ii.) Q. B. D.-- Amendment of Creditors Valuation of Security-Bankruptcy
Act, r. 13.--A secured creditor had on the bankruptcy of his debtor valued his security, which shortly afterwards increased in worth. The trustee in bankruptcy then tendered the assessed value, and gave written notice of intention to redeem. The creditor applied to amend his proof. Held, that the creditor had a right to amend, and that the tender and the written notice did not amount to payment.-In re Newton ; e. p. National Provincial Bank of
England, L.R.  2 Q.B. 403 ; 75 L.T. 144. (iii.) Q. B. D.-Charging Order --Prior Act of Bankruptcy—Title to Money
in Court.- Where an act of bankruptcy has been committed, a charging order subsequently made under sect. 23 of the Partnership Act is not protected by sects. 45 and 49 of the Bankruptcy Act, and money paid into Court under the order belongs to the trustee in bankruptcy.
Wild v. Southwood, 75 L.T. 388. (iv.) Q. B. D.-Solicitor's Lien-Charging Order—Solicitors Act, 1860, s. 28.
- There is jurisdiction to make a charging order under sect. 28 of the Solicitors Act, 1860, and it should be exercised by a registrar.-In re
Wood ; e. p. Fanshawe, 75 L.T. 387. (v.) Q. B. D.-Marine Insurance-Bankruptcy of Underwriter-Salvage
Rights of Brokers and of Trustee.- On the bankruptcy of an underwriter, balances were due by him to brokers for losses on various policies of marine insurance. Subsequently the brokers received salvage on other losses which they had settled in account with the underwriter before his bankruptcy. Held, that the salvage was part of the bankrupt's estate, and could not be set off by the brokers against their unpaid losses.-Elgood v. · Harris and Another, L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 491;
75 L.T. 419. (vi.) Q. B. D.-Partnership-Solvent Partner an Infant—Dealing with
Liquidator with Knowledge of Misapplication of Assets.-The rule which allows a solvent partner to liquidate the assets of a firm dissolved by the bankruptcy of a member does not apply when the solvent partner is an infant. Whoever pays partnership assets to a liquidator with a knowledge that they will be applied otherwise than to the partnership liabilities will be held liable to account.-In re Beauchamp Bros.; e. p.
Carr, 75 L.T. 315. (vii.) Q. B. D.-Fraudulent Preference - Accommodation Bill-Acceptor a
Creditor- Bankruptcy Act, 1883, ss. 37, 48.-— The acceptor of an accommodation bill given to a bankrupt is a creditor within sect. 48 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, with a right of proof under sect. 37. Payment to a surety in anticipation of enforcement of his liability may make a fraudulent preference.-In re Paine ; e. p. Read v. Barnard, L.R. (1897]
1 Q.B. 122 ; 75 L.T. 316. (viii.) C, A.-Debtor Domiciled Abroad-Notice-Service in England
Bankruptcy Act, 1883, 88. 4, 6, rr. 136 to 142.-Where a bankruptcy notice has been served on a debtor in England it will not be set aside on the ground that he is a foreign subject domiciled abroad, who has not resided or had a dwelling-house or place of business in England within a year of the presentation of the petition, and that the notice was issued when he was out of England.-In re Clark; e. p. Beyer,
Peacock & Co., L.R.  2 Q.B. 476; 75 L.T. 304, (i.) C. A.-Partnership-Notice-Service on Receiver-Bankruptcy Rules,
1883, r. 260.-A receiver and manager of a partnership business who has been appointed by the Court is not a person upon whom & bankruptcy notice can be served under rule 260 in respect of a judgment against the firm.—In re Flowers & Co.; e. p. Ware & Co.,
L.R.  1 Q.B. 14; 75 L.T. 306. (ii.) C. A.-Debtor an Undischarged Bankrupt-Receiving Order—Bankruptcy
Act, 1883, ss. 5 & 7.—Where a bankruptcy petition was presented against an undischarged bankrupt the Court refused to make a receiving order on the ground that to make it would be a waste of
money.-In re Betts ; e. p. Betts, L.R.  1 Q.B. 50 ; 75 L.T. 292. (iii.) Q, B. D.-- Receiver-Equitable Execution Judicature Act, 1873, s. 25
sub-s. 8-0. 50, r. 150.- Where the official receiver and trustee of a bankrupt had obtained an order for the payment of a sum of money against a creditor of the bankrupt estate whose only property was a life interest under a will, he was appointed, without salary or security, receiver of the creditor's life interest until satisfaction of the sum ordered to be paid.-In re Gondie; e. p. the Official Receiver, L.R.
2 Q.B. 481; 75 L.T. 277. (iv.) Q. B. D.—Post Nuptial Settlement—Non-trader - 13 Eliz., c. 5
Bankruptcy Act, 1883, 8. 47.-A person entitled under his father's will to a sum of money on attaining majority and to a further sum on the death of his mother, made just before coming of age, a post nuptial settlement of all his interest under the will, except a sum set aside to meet his minority debts, upon trust to pay the income to himself for life or until he should charge it, and then in trust for his wife. His mother and brother were parties to the deed and covenanted to make him certain payments. Held, that the settlement was for valuable consideration, and though the consideration was given for the purpose of protecting the settlor and his family from future creditors it was not intended to delay or defeat them. A motion on the part of the trustee in bankruptcy to set aside the deed was
dismissed.—In re Tetley ; e. p. Jeffery, 75 L.T. 166. Bill of Exchange:(v.) H. L.- Accommodation Bill — Fraudulent Alteration – Liability of
Acceptor.—Decision of C. A. and of Q. B. D. (see Vol. 20, p. 3 (iii.) and p. 66 (iii.) affirmed. Scholefield v. Lord Londesborough,
L.R. (1896] A.C. 514; 75 L.T. 254. Bill of Sale :(vi.) C. A.-Description of Witness Omitted-Void—Bills of Sale Act, 1878,
s.10; Amendment Act, 1882, s. 9 and Schedule.—Where, in the attestation clause of a bill of sale, the description of the witness had been omitted, it was held that the bill was void as being not in accordance with the form in the schedule of the Act. Parsons v. Brand and Coulson v. Dickson followed.—Sims v. Trollops & Sons, L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 24;
75 L.T. 351. Bona Vacantia :(vii.) C. A.-Friendly Society-Objects Exhausted—Funds,Cy près—Bona
Vacantia.-A society was established to provide a fund for the benefit of the widows of ordinary subscribers. On the death of the last subscriber and of the last pensioner, the question arose of title to the residue of the funds. Held, that there was no resulting trust; that cy prês did not apply; and that the Crown was entitled to the surplus as bona vacantia.-Cunnack v. Edwards, L.R.  2 Ch. 679; 75 L.T. 122.
Option to Inrest in Land-Validity of Bequest to Charity.—A testatrix,
2 Ch. 617; 75 L.T. 113. (ii.) C. D.-Charitable Rent Charge-Liability of Tenant for Years
Charitable Trusts (Recovery) Act, 1891.-A tenant for years is not, except in special circumstarces, liable in an action for debt for nonpayment of a rent charge issuing out of the land of which he is in occupation, and there is no personal duty upon him to pay such a charge created for charitable purposes, but the Charity Commissioners can, under the Charitable Trusts (Recovery) Act, enforce payment in equity against the persons legally liable to pay, even though the legal title may not be clear.-In re the Herbage Rents Charity, Greenwich ; the Charity Commissioners v. Green, L.R.  2 Ch. 811; 75 L.T. 148.
50 € 51 Vict., c. 39, s. 1 (88), s. 2 (173).—The only distinction in the Act
Co. v. The Queen, L.R. (1896] A.C. 551; 75 L.T. 234. (iv.) P. C.-Canada–British Columbia Act, s. 3 – Mines—Precious Metals
Crown Rights.-A grant of lands including all minerals does not include gold and other metals, which are the prerogative right of the Crown.--Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Co. v. Bambridge, L.R. (1896]
A.C. 561 ; 75 L.T. 111. (v.) P. C.-New South Wales--Company-Shares issued as paid up
Winding up-Companies Act, 1874, of New South Wales, s. 57.-A resolution of persons interested in property setting forth the manner in which they propose to put it before the public as a company is not a contract within sect. 57 of the Companies Act of New South Wales (which is similar to sect. 25 of the Companies Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict., c. 131), and a shareholder to whom shares are issued as paid-up shares under such a resolution is liable to contribute in a winding up of the
company.-Smith v. Brown, L.R. (1896] A.C. 614; 75 L.T. 213. (vi.) P. C.-New South Wales-Dismissal of Civil Servants - Civil Service
Act, 1884.-The common law right of the Crown to dismiss civil servants at pleasure, is surrendered in the case of those engaged under the Civil Service Act, 1884.—Gould v. Stuart, L.R. (1896)
A.C. 575; 75 L.T. 110. (vii.) P. C.-Victoria --- Marine Act, 1890, s. 13–Sunken Wreck-- Liability to
Clear.--The registered owner of a ship sunken in a port must bear the expense of clearing the wreck, and cannot escape this liability by abandoning the wreck to underwriters. Sect. 13 of the Victorian Marine Act, 1890, differs from sect. 56 of the English Harbours, &c., Act, 1847.- Wm. Howard Smith and Sons v. Wilson, L.R.  A.C. 579.
(i.) P. C.-Victoria—Probate Duty-Administration and Probate Act,
1890.–A debt fully secured on property outside the colony cannot be deducted from the value of assets within the colony in a valuation for probate.--Henty and Another v. The Queen, L.R. (1896] A.C. 567 ;
75 L.T. 106. (ii.) P. C.—Trinidad and Tobago— Right to Possession of Land-Erroneous
Recitals-Equitable Title—Notice-Registry. -Notice of a prior equitable title is valid although there be in the conveyance of the equitable interest an erroneous recital of the mode in which the equity became vested in the grantor. A purchaser from a vendor out of possession must investigate the interest of a person who is in possession under a registered deed.—Trinidad Asphalte Co. v. Coryat, L.R. (1896] A.C. 587 ;
75 L.T. 108. (iii.) P. C.-Nova Scotia—Privileges of Members of Provincial Legislature
British North America Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict., c. 3)—Revised Statutes of Nova Scotia, 5th Series, c. 30, s. 20.- Members of the Provincial Legislature who voted for the imprisonment of a person for contempt of the House were, under an Act of the Legislature giving them the same immunities and powers as are held by members of the Dominion Legislature, held, to have a good defence against an action by him for assault and false imprisonment.—Fielding and Others v. Thomas, L.R.  A.C. 600; 75 L.T. 216.
Company :(iv.) C. D.-Debenture Stock Certificate-Purchaser --Mortgagee-Authority
of Agent.—A company applied to its broker for a loan of £3,000 on the security of £8,000 debenture stock, which by trust deed was assignable free from equities. The broker obtained £6,000 on the security accompanied by a certificate from the secretary that the len ler was registered as holder of £8,000 debenture stock, which could only be transferred by deed registered in the company's books. The broker paid only £3,000 to the company. Held, that though the certificate was a negotiable instrument, the lender was entitled to assume that the broker had authority to deal with it; that the lender was not required to see that the broker paid the full sum to the company, and could prove for the £8,000, though he could receive dividends only on
£6,000.—Robinson v. Montgomeryshire Brewery Co., L.R.  2 Ch. 841. (v.) C. D.- Application for Allotment under Mistake—Repudiation-Delay
Payment on Account of Shares.-A person applied for shares in the Dunlop-Truffault Cycle Co. under the impression that it was connected with the Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Shortly after an allotment had been made to her she discovered her mistake, and on tho 23rd May wrote to repudiate the contract. On the 27th May she paid a sum which was due on allotment, and on the 20th June a further sum then due on the shares. On the 13th July she served notice of motion to remove her name from the register of shareholders. Held, that she would have been entitled to rescission of contract on the ground that she was deceived by the use of the name of Dunlop in the prospectus, but that by delay and by payments on account of the shares she had acted in a manner inconsistent with repudiation.-- The Dunlop-Truffault
Cycle and Tube Manufacturing Co., Limited ; Shearman's Case, 75 L.T. 385. (vi.) C. D.-Debentures—Floating Security-Receiver.—Where a creditor of
a company had presented a petition for winding up, it was held in a debenture holder's action that receiver and manager could be appointed notwithstanding that the debentures had not“ crystallised.” -In re Victoria Steamboats, Limited; Smith v. Wilkinson, 75 L.T. 374.
(i.) C. D.-Winding up—Transfer of Shares—Change of Status—Companies
Act, 1862, 88. 38, 74, 76, 131, 133, 153.—Where partly paid up shares were, with the sanction of the liquidator, transferred after the date of a voluntary winding up and the transferee in turn transferred, it was held, that the holder whose name was on the list at the date of the liquidation was liable as a contributory under sect. 38, though under sect. 131 his transfer was effective in other respects; that each of the transferees, though freed from contribution, was bound to indemnify his immediate transferor; and that the Court has power under sect. 153, though it was not exercised in this case, to alter the status of a transferor and release him from liability.-In re National Bank of
Wales, Limited, L.R. (1896] 2 Ch. 851; 75 L.T. 296. (ii.) C. D. & C. A.-General Meeting—Voting-Show of Hands-Proxies
dated after Execution.-Voting at a general meeting of a company should be in person not by proxy. A space for the date of meeting left blank when the proxy is executed can be filled in at any time before the proxy is used. In re The Caloric Engine and Siren Fog. Signals Co., followed; In re Bidwell Bros., Limited, overruled.—Ernest v. Loma Gold Mines, Limited, L.R.  2 Ch. 572;  1 Ch. 1; 75 L.T. 221, 317.
(iii.) C. D.-Winding up-Borrowing ultra vires–Officer Common to Borrower
and Lender—Imputed Knowledge.—The managing director of a building society was secretary to a land company which borrowed a large sum from the society. The borrowing company exceeded its powers in effecting this loan, but this irregularity was unknown to the lending society, though it was within the knowledge of its managing director as secretary of the land company. Held, that it was not the duty of the person who was an officer both of the lending society and of the borrowing company to give or receive notice that the transaction was ultra vires; and therefore that the knowledge could not be imputed to the lending society.—In re Hampshire Land Co., Limited, L.R. (1896]
2 Ch, 743; 75 L.T. 181. (iv.) C. D.-Winding up--Transfer of Shares with False Certification
Estoppel-Contributory.—Where a transfer stated falsely that shares were fully paid and where it also bore a false certification by the secretary of the company that certificates of the shares had been lodged, it was held that the purchaser was not liable as a contributory, as the company was estopped from denying the lodgment of certificates of fully paid shares.—In re Concession Trust, Limited ; McKay's Case,
L.R.  2 Ch. 757 ; 75 L.T. 298. (v.) C. D.-Winding up—“Surplus Assets.”_"Surplus assets" is a term
which has not such a recognised meaning as necessarily always to signify the balance after payment of debts and liabilities only, but
some circumstances signify surplus profits remaining after recoupnent of capital out of that balance.-In re New Transvaal Co.,
L.R. (1896] 2 Ch. 750; 75 L.T. 272. (vi.) C. D.-Alteration of Articles-Invalid Issue of Preference Shares
Restitution.—By the memorandum and articles of limited company an authorised increase of capital was to be considered as part of the original ordinary capital and to be subject to the like provisions. The company altered its articles and issued preference shares. Held, that the issue was invalid, and that the holders of the preference shares were not shareholders of the company and were entitled to restitution only. Hutton v. Scarborough Cliff Hotel Co. followed.-Andrews v. Gas Meter Co., Limited, 75 L.T. 267.