Page images

amount has been certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments. Judgment of Court of Appeal (see Vol. 20, p. 81 (vi.)) reversed.-Guardians of West Ham Union v. Churchwardens of Bethnal Green, L.R. [1896] A.C. 477; 75 L.T. 286.

Post Office Savings Bank :(i.) C. D.-Nomination of ExecutorSavings Bank Act, 1887, s. 3.—A

testatrix, some time after executing her will, nominated, under sect. 3 of the Act, one of her executors to receive at her decease an amount standing to her credit in the Post Office Savings Bank. Held, that it was her intention to transfer the fund to him in his capacity of executor.-In re Read ; Turner v. Read, 75 L.T. 295.

Practice :(ii.) C. D. & C. A.-Disputed Title— EjectmentReceiver-Defendant in

Possession as Heir-at-Law-Judicature Act, 1873, s. 25, suh-s. 8.—An order of the Court below, within its jurisdiction under sect. 25, sub-sect. 8, appointing a receiver at the instance of the plaintiff in an ejectment action was discharged where the defendant was in possession

as heir-at-law.Foxwell v. Van Grutten, 75 L.T. 311 & 368. (iii.) C. D.- Administration Literty to Sign Judgment0. xiv.-Priority.-

Liberty to sign judgment under 0. xiv. will not entitle a creditor to priority in an administration action. In re Gurney; Clifford v. Gurney,

L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 863; 75 L.T. 332. (iv.) C. D.-Originating SummonsConstruction of Mortgage-0. liva., r. 1.

-A question affecting the rights of mortgagor and mortgagee under a mortgage can be determined on an originating summons taken out under O. liv a., 1. 1, by the mortgagor, although he has made no offer to redeem ; and the mortgagee's costs may be ordered to be added to his security.-In re Nobbs ; Nobbs v. Law Reversionary Interest Society,

Limited, L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 830 ; 75 L.T. 309. (v.) Q. B. D.-Bill of Sale-0. xxxviii., r. 16Affidavit of Execution.A

bill of sale will be void if the affidavit of execution is sworn before the solicitor who acts for the grantee in the preparation of the bill.—

Baker v. Ambrose, L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 372. (vi.) H. L.CostsSequestration-0. xliii., r. 7.—An order for sequestration

made by a master and confirmed by the Court ought not to be interfered with on appeal unless it has been made on some erroneous principle. The burden of proof, that sequestration under 0. xliii., r. 7, would be futile, is on the debtor. The creditor need not indicate any particular property which may be made available. Judgment of Court below reversed.- Hulbert and Another v. Cathcart, L.R. [1896]

A.C. 470 ; 75 L.T. 302. (vii.) P. D. Divorce-SequestrationTrustees not PartiesMatrimonial

Causes Act, 1857, s. 52.-An order to enforce a sequestration against third persons who dispute their liability to the debtor is not made on motion in a suit to which they are not parties.-Craig v. Craig and

Hamp, 75 L.T. 280. (viii.) C. D.—DiscoveryDocuments Sealed up-Privilege-Jurisdiction of

Court to Unseal0. xxxi, r. 19A (2).—The term “Privilege " in 0. xxxi., r. 19a, includes irrelevancy. The Court has power to unseal and inspect the sealed-up part of books or documents to satisfy itself whether a claim of privilege from discovery is made out or not.Ehrmann v. Ehrmann (No. 2), L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 826; 75 L.T. 243.

(i.) C. D. & C. A.-Action on behalf of Crown— Interlocutory Injunction,

Undertaking.- Where the Court decides that the Attorney-General, suing on behalf of the Crown, is entitled to an interlocutory injunction, it is not the practice to require an undertaking as to damages.Attorney-General v. The Albany Hotel Co., Limited, L.R. [1896]2 Ch. 696 ;

75 L.T. 140 & 195. (ii.) C. D.-Effect of Former Judgment.--Where a person had taken a

benefit under an order in an action to which he was not a party, it was held, that though he was not bound by the judgment, he was not entitled in good faith and equity to raise the same question that had been decided in that action. In re Lart; Wilkinson v. Blades,

L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 788; 75 L.T. 175. (iii.) C. A. -Joinder as Plaintiff—Own Consent in Writing –Unauthorised

Joinder-Consequences.-A consent to being joined as plaintiff in an action must be signed by the person consenting and not by his solicitor. If he has been joined as plaintiff without his own signature, a stay of all proceedings in his name will be directed, and his costs and those of the defendant also will be ordered to be paid by the solicitor who made the improper joinder.-Fricker v. Van Grutten, L.R. (1896] 2 Ch. 649 ; 75 L.T. 117.

Principal and Agent:(iv.) Q. B. D.-Practice-Joinder of Defendant0. xvi., rr. 7 & 11.-In an

action against an agent in this country for breach of warranty of authority a principal, resident out of the United Kingdom can be joined.-- Bennetts & Co. v. McIlwraith & Co., L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 464; 75 L.T. 145.

Probate:(v.) P. D.-Lost WillProof-Consent of Next-of-Kin.The consent of the

next-of-kin is required to the proof on motion of the contents of a lost

will.In the goods of Pearson, L.R. [1896] P. 289. (vi.) P.D.-Administration with Will annexed-Limited Company as Surety.

The Court granted administration with will annexed to the manager of a limited company who were appointed executors and trustees of a will, and accepted the company as sole surety.-In the goods of Hunt, L.R. [1896] P. 288.

Public Health:(vii.) Q. B. D.-Drain or SewerLiability for Repair-Public Health Act,

1875, ss. 15, 41, 299—Amendment Act, 1890, s. 19—-Hastings Improvement Act, 1885, s. 148.—A sanitary authority refused to repair a drain which carried into a public sewer the drainage of a block of houses belonging to one owner. Held, that the introduction of sect. 41 of the Act of 1875 into a local Act does not remove the liability of the authority under sect. 15 to repair sewers, and as the authority in this case had taken no proceedings under sect. 41, they were bound to repair the drain. The proper remedy to enforce such an obligation on a sanitary authority is by complaint to the Local Government Board under sect. 299 of Public Health Act, 1875, and not by mandamus.

Reg. v. Mayor, &c., of Hastings, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 46; 75 L.T. 377. (viii.) C. D.- ExpensesApportionment-Dispute—PrepaidLetter-- Public

Health Act, 1875, ss. 41, 94, 257 & 267-Amendment Act, 1890, s. 19.Where there was no evidence that a letter, said to have been sent disputing an apportionment, had been, as required by sect. 267 of the Public Health Act, 1875, prepaid, it was held that the dispute was bad, and that the plaintiffs were entitled under sect. 257 of the Act to

à charge on the land of the defendant for the apportioned amount of expenses incurred by them under sect. 41 of the Act of 1875, and under sect. 19 of the Amendment Act.-Walthamstow Urban District

Council v. Henwood, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 41 ; 75 L.T. 375. Railway :(i.) Q. 3. D.-Fences-Accommodation WorksLiability of Company

Limit of Time-Railway Clauses Act, 1845, ss. 68, 73.—Sect. 68 of Railway Clauses Act, 1845, imports an obligation on a railway company to make and maintain sufficient fences for separating the line from adjoining lands, and sect. 73 does not relieve from this obligation where the fences have not been put up within the period named, but only relieves from a claim for additional accommodation works where those afforded have not been shown to be insufficient within the

prescribed time.-Dixon v. Great Western Railway, 75 L.T. 245. (ii.) C. A.-Powers to Take Land--Severance— Accommodation WorksCom

pensationManchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Act, 1893, S. 42Railway Clauses Act, 1845, s. 68.—The private Act of a railway company incorporated the Lands Clauses Act and part 1 of the Railway Clauses Act, and contained a section empowering the company to take such part only as they might require of a certain manufactory if severance could be effected without material detriment to the entire property. The company proposed to carry their line by a viaduct over the access to this manufactory, and undertook in an arbitration to grant a perpetual right of way under the viaduct, by which practically the existing access to the manufactory would be continued. Held, that the company had power to grant a perpetual right of way; that they were liable under sect. 68 of the Act of 1845 to make good the interruption to the use of the land and that the umpire should take these two points into his consideration in deciding whether the severance would be a “ material detriment" to the rest of the property. Held, also, that the Court had jurisdiction over the costs of an appeal in a special case. Holliday v. Mayor of Wakefield held not now to be a binding authority.--In re An Arbitration between Gonty and the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway, L.R. (1896]

2 Q.B. 439; 75 L.T. 239. Rating: (iii.) Q. B. D.-LighthouseRateable Value.—Commissioners of a harbour

and docks were empowered by Act of Parliament to levy dues for the maintenance of a lighthouse erected by them. Held, that the rateable value of the lighthouse was to be based on its structural value only. -Commissioners and Trustees of the Port of Lancaster v. Overseers of

the Parish of Barrow-in-Furness, 75 L.T. 358. (iv.) C. A.-Floating Pontoon.-A railway company owned a pontoon

which by leave of the owner of a pier was moored thereto in a tidal river, and at low water rested on the ground. The company drove a pile into the river bed as a fender to the pier. Held, that the company were not in occupation of the land and were therefore not liable to be rated.Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Co. v.

Kingston-upon-Hull, 75 L.T. 127. (v.) C. A.-Distress-Receiver and Manager-43 Eliz., c. 2, s. 2-Poor Rate

Assessment Act, 1869, s. 16.—Distraint for rates can be made on the goods of a company, of whose property a receiver and manager has been appointed under an order which does not direct the company to give up possession.The North of England Trustee Debenture and Assets Corporation, Limited v. Marriage, Neave & Co., Limited ; re Marriage, Neave & Co., L.R. (1896] 2 Ch. 663; 75 L.T. 169.

Revenue:(i.) H. L.-Income Tax-DeductionsMoney Expended for Purpose of

Trade.-Judgment of Court below (see Vol. 21, p. 47 (i.)) affirmed.

Royal Insurance Co. v. W'atson, 75 L.T. 334. (ii.) Q. B. D.--Foreign Firm with English Trade Mark and Goodwill

Agreement Stamp Act, 1891, s. 59 (1).—A limited company, by agreement made in England, bought the work and goodwill of a company in America supplying goods for consumption in England, and having a registered trade mark here and an office in London. Held, that the English trade mark and goodwill were property

" within sect. 59, sub-sect. 1, of the Stamp Act, and that the agreement was liable to ad valorem stamp duty.Brooke v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue,

L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 356. (iii.) H. L.--Income Tax-Exemption-Literary and Scientific Institution

Public Library-Public Libraries Act, 1892-Income Tax Act, 1842, s. 61, r. 6.—Decision of Court of Appeal (see Vol. 20, p. 117 (iv.)) reversed (the Lord Chancellor dissenting).—Mayor of Manchester v. McAdam,

75 L.T. 229. (iv.) Q. B. D.- Foreign Marketable Securities-Stamp Act, 1891, s. 82.—The

business of an English company was purchased by, and transferred to, an American company, with an arrangement that the debentures of the old company should be exchanged for debentures on the American company, payable in Chicago. Held, that the American debentures were not "made or issued in the United Kingdom,” or “offered for subscription," or "given or delivered to a subscriber in the United Kingdom,” within sect. 82 of the Stamp Act, and were therefore not liable to duty as marketable securities of a foreign company.--The Chicago Railway Terminal Elevator Co. v. The Commissioners of Inland

Revenue, 75 L.T. 157. Riparian Owner:(v.) Q. B. D.- Bed of Thames-Dredging SandThames Conservancy Act,

1894.-—The foreshore of the tidal part of the Thames is not the "bed" within sect. 87 of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1894, and the owner of such foreshore can dredge sand from it without the licence of the Conservators.Pearce v. Bunting ; Reg. v. Justices of Kent; e. p. Pearce,

L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 360; 75 L.T. 184. Scottish Law:(vi.) H. L.-Succession-Heirs Female.--" Heirs female” in Scottish law

means heirs portioners who take as a class.—Mackenzie and Others v.

The Duke of Devonshire, L.R. [1896] A.C. 400. (vii.) H. L.Testing Clause in Marriage Contract.—There is no legal effect

in a declaration in the testing clause of a deed which purports to qualify provisions in the body of the deed.-Blair and Another v. Assets

Co., Ltd., L.R. [1896] A.C. 409. Settled Land :viii.) C. D.-Money to be Invested in Land-Permanent RepairsTenant for

Life and Remainderman. Where personal property was bequeathed to trustees for the purchase of land to be limited, like realty devised to them, to a tenant for life with remainder to his son in tail male with remainder over, with power to the trustees to postpone investment, and to apply any of the personalty for the benefit of the estate, it was held that the Court could not direct any part of the capital to be applied to the permanent repairs of the mansion house. In re De Teissiers Settled Estates followed.-In re Lord De Tabley; Leighton v. Leighton, 75 L.T. 328.

(i.) C. D.-Mansion HouseTenant for Life.—Where a testator had

directed the sale of a mansion house on the death of the life tenant, it was held that the tenant for life could sell at his discretion.In re. Wortham's Settled Estates and the Settled Land Acts, 75 L.T. 293.

Ship (ii.) H. L.-Collision--Special Contract--Merchant Shipping Act, 1862, s. 54.

-The owner of a yacht is liable for the consequences of violating a rule which he has bound himself to observe during a race, and the limitation of liability in sect. 54 of the Merchant Shipping Act is

excluded.Clarke v. Lord Dunraven ; The Satanita, 75 L.T. 337. (iii.) P. D.-Freight-Damage-Inherent Vice.-A charter-party contained

a provision for payment of freight “less value of cargo short delivered or damaged not covered by the preceding act of God clause.” Some of the cargo was damaged owing to inherent vice. Held, that the consignees were liable for the entire freight as the deduction applied only to damage from causes for which the shipowner was responsible. -Eyre, Evans & Co. v. Watsons ; The Barcore, L.R. (1896] P. 294; 75 L.T. 168.

Solicitor :(iv.) C. D.-CostsLease in Consideration of Rent a Premium-General

Order under Solicitors Remuneration Act, 1881, sched. 1, part 2, r. 5.For a lease at a rent and in consideration of a premium the lessor's solicitor is not entitled to a fee for negotiation in addition to the scale charge calculated on the rent and to the scale charge for deducing title calculated on the premium.-In re Horn and Francis, L.R. (1896] 2 Ch. 797; 75 L.T. 370.

Theatre : (v.) Q. B. D.-Licence Under ConditionsTheatre Regulation Act, 1843,

s. 5, 5 and 6 Will. IV., c. 39, s. 7.A county council can in the exercise of its judgment make it a condition to the grant of a licence for the public representation of stage plays, that the grantee shall not apply for an excise licence for the premises under sect. 7 of the Act of Will. IV.Reg. v. County Council of West Riding of Yorkshire, L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 386 ; 75 L.T. 252.

Trust:(vi.) C. D.-Marriage Settlement Next-of-Kin in Bloodto Wife

Construction.-By a marriage settlement there was an ultimate trust for “the persons who shall be next-of-kin in blood” to the wife “at the time of her decease in case she had so died intestate and unmarried.” Held, that the words imported a reference to the Statute of Distributions, and that the children of the deceased brothers and sisters of the wife, as well as her living brothers and sisters, were entitled to participate.--In re Gray's Settlement; Akers v. Gray, L.R.

[1896] 2 Ch. 802; 75 L.T. 407. (vii.) C. A.Depreciation in Authorised SecuritiesLiability.-- To throw on

to trustees a loss sustained by a fall in value of securities authorised by the trust, want of ordinary prudence on the part of the trustees must be proved, otherwise the loss must be borne by the cestius que trust.-In re Chapman; Cocks v. Chapman, L.R. (1896] 2 Ch. 763 ; 75 L.T. 196.

« PreviousContinue »