« PreviousContinue »
C. D. & C. A.—Winding-up—Substratum of Business gone—Fraudulent Purpose—Companies Act, 1862 (25 d 26 Vict., c. 89), s. 79, sub-s. 5.—A limited company had been restrained from using the title under which it traded unless it added to it a statement that the company was distinct from an old established firm of the same name. On a petition being presented for winding-up on the ground, inter alia, that it was a bubble company, it was held that a material part of the substratum of the company’s business having gone, it was “just and equitable” on a balance of facts shown, that a winding-up order should be made.—In re. Thomas Edward Brinsmead a Sons, Limited, L.R.  1 Ch. 45 and 406; 75 L.T. 585, and 76 L.T. 100.
C. D.—Agreement for Lease—Parol Evidence to Negative Agreement.— A document in the form of an agreement for the lease of a house was signed by the proposing tenant, and subsequently, but without the intention of contracting, by the other party, and deposited by him with his solicitor with instructions to require a further condition. Held, that parol evidence was admissible to shew that there was no agreement.—Pattle v. Hornibrook, L.R.  1 Ch. 25; 75 L.T. 475.
C. D.—Contract founded on Letters—Uncertainty of Date—Specific Performance.—A purchaser wrote that he had “decided to accept’ an offer made by letter of a freehold at the sum asked, but that he should like to know from what time the vendor wished the purchase to date. Held, to be a completed contract.—Armstrong v. Hughes, 75 L.T. 487.
(iv.) C. A.—Personal Services—Agreement to “act exclusively for” Employer.
–An agreement to “act exclusively for ” an employer does not, in the absence of a negative covenant, entitle him to an injunction to restrain the servant from entering into the employment of other persons.—The Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association v. The New York Life Insurance Co. and Harvey, 75 L.T. 528.
s: 13–Fine Arts Copyright Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict., c. 68), ss. 1, 4.— Drawings for a trade circular which was prepared by the managing director of a limited company, were paid for, and used by the company. He was registered as proprietor of the copyright in the catalogue and in the drawings; but there was no writing vesting the copyright in him. On an action by him and the company as co-plaintiffs to restrain infringement, held that he had acted as agent of the company, and that the registration was bad under both the Copyright Acts; that even if he were entitled to be registered as proprietor of the copyright in the catalogue, this would not protect the drawings; and that the action was not maintainable. London Printing and Publishing Alliance v. Cox, 65 L.T. 60; L.R.  3 Ch. 291, followed.—Petty v. Taylor, L.R.  1 Ch. 465; 75 L.T. 545.
County Courts Act, 1888 (51.652 Vict, c. 43), s. 156.—Where goods which had been seized by a bailiff in execution of a County Court judgment are claimed by some one other than the judgment debtor, the ways in which the claimant can arrest sale of the goods are stated in sect. 156 of the County Court Act, 1888. If the claimant should not perform any of the conditions, the bailiff must sell the goods; the purchaser without notice of the claim will have a good title.— Goodlock v. Cousins, L.R.  1 Q.B. 348; 76 L.T. 86.
Criminal Law:— (i.) Q. B. D.—Pleading—Coroner's Inquisition.—A coroner's inquisition
stated the cause of a person's death to be injury from falling into a quarry, and that by the neglect of three persons to fence the quarry the deceased “fell therein, and therefore the said” (three persons) “did feloniously kill” the deceased. Held, that the inquisition was bad, and might be quashed, as the qualification of the finding of manslaughter shewed no legal ground for the finding.—Reg. v. The Clerk of Assize of the Oxford Circuit, L.R.  1 Q.B. 370.
Divorce :(ii.) P. D.—Maintenance and Allowance—Agreement set up in Bar
Matrimonial Causes Acts, 1857 (20 d: 21 Vict, c. 85), s. 32; 1866 (29 d. 30 Vict., c. 32), s. 1.—A wife withdrew a petition for dissolution of marriage on an agreement by the husband to make her an annual allowance by way of permanent maintenance for herself and child, to be continued even if the marriage should be thereafter dissolved. On fresh grounds of offence, the wife subsequently obtained a divorce, and on petition for permanent maintenance and for maintenance and education of the child, the registrar held the agreement to be a bar. The Court reversed the decision, but gave the respondent leave to appeal on paying the petitioner's costs up to # # giving security for her costs on the appeal.—Bishop v. Bishop, 76 L.T. 28.
(iii) C. D.—Grant of Right of Way to Lessee who acquires Fee.—A right of
way was granted to a tenant, from year to year, of the dominant tenement, who subsequently acquired the fee. Held, that having regard to the terms of the grant and the surrounding circumstances, the easement survived, and would pass to an assignee.—Rymer v. M'Alroy, L.R.  1 Ch. 528; 76 L.T. 115.
(iv.) Consistory Court of London.–Military Colours fixed to
Walls of Chancel—Faculty—Member of Parliament and St. Margaret's, Westminster.—Where a former rector and the churchwardens have without a faculty affixed military colours to the walls of the chancel of a church, the existing rector has no right without a faculty to remove them. In such a case of removal from St. Margaret's, Westminster, a Member of the House of Commons has a sufficient interest to institute a suit, and the Ordinary has jurisdiction to authorise by faculty the affixing of such colours to the chancel walls.—Vincent and Tomlinson v. Eyton, L.R.  P. 1.
P., C.-Simony-False Declaration under Clerical Subscription Act, 1865-Clergy Discipline Act, 1892.–Proceedings cannot be taken under the Act of 1892 against a clergyman charged with simony or with a false declaration under the Act of 1865. Decision of Court below (see Vol. 21, p. 76, ii.) reversed.—A Beneficed Clerk v. Lee, 75 L.T. 461.
(i.) Q. B. D.—Title to Pew in Church.—In a claim of legal right to a pew as being by prescription annexed to a house, it was held, that the relining of the pew with baize, secured to the woodwork by nails, would not alone be a sufficient act of repair to establish the right, but the right could be established by evidence of exclusive possession, and that the woodwork of the pew was removed and appropriated by the claimant many years before.—Stileman-Gibbard v. Wilkinson and Others, 76 L.T. 90.
(ii) Q. B. D.—Matter of Record—Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict., c. 75), s. 3, 20.—The defendants in an action in the county court had consented to an order declaring them to have committed an offence against the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, and on being summoned for disobedience of the order, sought to shew that they were exempted by sect. 20 of the Act. Held, that the order of the Court was equivalent to a judgment, and that the defendants were estopped from disputing the commission of the offence.—The Joint Committee of the River Ribble v. The Croston Urban District Council, L.R.  1 Q.B. 251.
(iii.) C. D.—Deed more than 30 years old——Executed by Attorney–Power not Produced—Presumption.—Where no power of attorney is produced, or any evidence of its contents, in support of a deed more than 30 years old, which purports to be an appointment under a special power and to have been executed by an attorney, it was held, on the ground that there is no rule of law requiring the Court to presume that an attorney is duly authorised that the title of the appointees was not made out.— In re Airey; Airey v. Stapleton, L.R.  1 Ch. 167; 76 L.T. 151.
(iv.) C. D.—Misappropriation–Bankruptcy- Injunction.—The Court has jurisdiction without appointing a receiver to restrain a person from acting as an executor.—Bowen v. Phillips, L.R.  1 Ch. 174; 75 L.T. 628.
(v.) C. A.—Engine under Hire and Purchase—Attached to Soil–Mortgagee in Possession — Rights of Vendor, of Hirer, and of Mortgagee.—A mortgagee of land in fee, who enters upon the mortgaged premises, can take possession of an engine which is attached by bolts and screws to the soil, although the engine never was the property of the mortgagor, and whether it was fixed before or after the date of the mortgage. The vendor on the hire and purchase system of an engine so fixed can remove it, so long as the freehold of the land is in the purchaser of the engine, if instalments are in arrear, but he has no such right in law or equity against a purchaser of the land without notice of his claim. The vendor's remedy is then by action against his purchaser for the price of the engine, or for damages for its loss, or if the purchaser is bankrupt by proof against his estate. If a licence is given by a mortgagee to remove a fixture during the continuance of a term, entry by him determines the licence.—Hobson v. Gorringe, L.R.  1 Ch. 182; 75 L.T. 610.
Factory and Workshop Acts :(vi) Q. B. D.—Dangerous Machinery—Shuttles—Factory and Workshop Acts, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict, c. 16), s. 5, sub-s. 3; 1891 (54 & 55 Vict, c. 75), s. 6, sub-s. 2.—Shuttles of looms in a cotton factory, if they are s likely to fly out of the shuttle race often enough to satisfy a reasonable interpretation of the word “dangerous,” must be securely fenced.—Hindle v. Birtwistle, L.R.  1 Q.B. 192; 76 L.T. 159.
(i.) Q. B. D.—Borough Vote—Residents in Almshouses–Reform Act, 1832 (2 & 3 Will. IV., c. 45), s. 36.—An old endowment vested lands in the recipients, elected and removable by a town council of a charity for old, feeble and necessitous persons. The beneficiaries received a weekly allowance, were bound by rules, resided within precincts in rooms of which they were the legal owners, and had always voted at Parliamentary elections. Held, that as the legal interest in the land of the charity was vested in the recipients of the charity, they were not disqualified from voting under sect. 36 of the Reform Act.—Cowen and Another v. The Town Clerk of Kingston-upon-Hull, L.R.  1 Q.B. 273; 7.5 L.T. 593.
(ii.) Q. B. D.—Voters — Objections – Lists Closed—Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict., c. 26), s. 28, sub-ss. 9, 10, 11. —Sect. 28 (9), (10) & (11) do not affect the practice, which is a reasonable and convenient one, of separating the defended from the undefended objections to names in municipal and parliamentary voters' lists, and of fixing days for applications to be heard. (See also Wol. 22, p.12, viii.) -Reg. v. Soren and Overend, L.R.  1 Q.B. 188; 76 L.T. 161.
(iv.) Q. B. D.—Payment of Bets in a Public House—Betting Act, 1853 (16 & 17 Vict., c. 119), 88. 1, 3.—Payment of bets is not “betting,” and neither the bookmaker who pays at the bar of a public house bets made elsewhere, nor the licensee who permits the payment, can be convicted under sect. 3 of the Betting Act.—Bradford Commissioner of Police v. Dawson and Parker, L.R.  1 Q.B. 307; 76 L.T. 54.
Hackney Carriage:– i (v.) Q. B. D.—Refusal to Drive into Railway Station—London Hackney Carriage Act, 1853, 8, 17, sub-s. 2.—The driver of a hackney carriage may be required to drive to any place within the limits of the Act to which he can lawfully obtain access. The interior of a railway station is a “place” within the meaning of sect. 17 of the Act.—E. p. Kippins, L.R.  1 Q.B. 1; 75 L.T. 421.
(vi.) C. A.-Person by whose Order Extraordinary Traffic has been Conducted -Highways and Locomotive (Amendment) Act, 1878, s. 23.–Decision of Court below (see Vol. 22, p. 44, v.) reversed; dissentiente Lopes, L.J.— # #" v. The Kent County Council, L.R.  1 Q.B. 351 76 L.T. 8.
Husband and Wife :-
had never lived together under the same roof, it was held, that the cohabitation was sufficient to give justices jurisdiction to make an order against the husband, who had refused to receive the wife into the house where he lodged.—Bradshawe v. Bradshawe, L.R.  P. 24.
(i.) Q. B. D.—Separation under Summary Jurisdiction (Married Woman) Act, 1895, ss. 4 & 5)—Summons dismissed—Action in County Court for Costs.—A summons taken out by a married woman for separation on the ground of the husband's cruelty was dismissed, without order as to costs, and her solicitor brought an action in the County Court against the husband for the costs. Held, that neither the wife nor her solicitor could maintain such an action.—Cale v. James, L.R.  1 Q.B. 418; 76 L.T. 119.
(ii.) Q. B. D.—Liability to keep Guest.—As the obligation of an innkeeper to receive a person as a guest only attaches where that person is a traveller, it was held, that no action would lie against the proprietor of an hotel for ejecting a guest who had remained for some months and refused to leave.—Lamond v. Richard, 75 L.T. 693.
(iii.) C. A.—Fire–Subrogation—Rights of Insurers.—A lessee who was bound to repair had insured the premises, although the lessor had covenanted to do so. A fire occurred, and the lessee received £100 on his policy. He did not make good the damage, and at the termination of the lease, the lessor commenced an action for breach of covenant to repair, which the lessee compromised by paying £140, and undertaking not to sue on the lessor's covenant to insure. The lessor had also received £100 from the insurance company in which he had insured the premises. Held, that the plaintiff company who had paid the defendant lessee were entitled to his rights under the lease, and could recover from him the £100 which he had given up.—West of England Fire Insurance Company v. Isaacs, L.R.  1 Q.B. 226; 75 L.T. 564.
(iv.) C. A.—Claim under Policy Executed but Retained – Recital of Payment of Premium—Non-payment—Waiver.—A policy of insurance against burglary, which recited that a premium had been paid covering loss from 14th December was executed on 27th December, but retained by the insurers until the premium should be paid. On the 27th December a loss of goods insured took place. Held, that by the recital a condition for prepayment of premium was waived, and that the policy was a completed contract, under which the defendants were liable.—Roberts v. Security Co., Limited, L.R.  1 Q.B. 111; 75 L.T. 531.
(v.) C. D.-Severance by Marriage.—A joint tenancy in freeholds or leaseholds is not severed by the marriage of a female joint tenant, nor by the granting (in 1867) of a lease, or a sub-demise by her husband, and the other joint tenant where the rent was reserved to them jointly. –Palmer v. Rich, L.R.  1 Ch. 134; 75 L.T. 484.
(vi.) Q. B. D.—First Offence-Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879 (42 d: 43 Vict., c. 49), ss. 4 a 51–Cotton Cloth Factories Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict., c. 62), s. 13.—Notwithstanding sects, 4 and 51 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, justices have no jurisdiction in the case of a first