Page images
PDF
EPUB

Vaccination :

(i.) Q. B. D.-Vaccination Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict., c. 86), s. 31-Sufficiency of Notice.-Notice to a parent to have a child vaccinated need not be served personally. The question of the sufficiency of a notice is one to be determined by justices.-Holloway v. Coster, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 346; 76 L.T. 57.

(ii.) Q. B. D.-Neglect-Signing of Summons and Order-Vaccination Act, 1867, s. 31. The justice who signs an order for vaccination need not be the same who signed the summons.-Southcombe v. The Guardians of Yeovil Union, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 343; 76 L.T. 58.

(iii.) Q. B. D.-Power of Vaccination Officer to take Proceedings-Vaccination Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict., c. 84), s. 31-General Order of Local Government Board, October 31st, 1874, art. 16.-Under sect. 31 of the Act a vaccination officer is empowered to take proceedings for an order directing a child to be vaccinated.-Bramble v. Lowe, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 283.

[blocks in formation]

(iv.) Q. B.-Conditions of Sale.--By conditions of sale of land within the metropolis, all outgoings up to the date fixed for completion were to be cleared by the vendor. Before that date the county council took down, in accordance with an order of a magistrate, dangerous structures on the land. Held, that the expenses of the demolition were outgoings which the purchaser was entitled to recover from the vendor. Midgley v. Coppock, followed; Boor v. Hopkins, distinguished.— Tubbs v. Wynne, L R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 74.

(v.) C. D.-Action for Rescission of Contract-Motion for Specific Performance -Receiver.-In an action for rescission of a contract for the sale of leasehold lands on the ground of misrepresentation on the part of the purchaser who had been let into possession, it was held that a motion that the purchaser should deliver up possession in default of paying moneys he had agreed to pay, could not be allowed; but leave was given to amend the notice of motion and to ask for the appointment of a receiver to preserve the property from forfeiture by payment of the rents and rates.-Cook v. Andrews, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 266; 76 L.T. 16.

Vestments:

(vi.) C. A.—Preaching in Black Gown.—It is not illegal for a clergyman of the Church of England to wear a black gown in the pulpit when preaching. In re Robinson; Wright v. Tugwell, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 85; 76 L.T. 95.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

(vii.) P. D.-Letter from Officer on Active Service-Construction-Wills Act (1 Vict., c. 26), s. 11-Probate.-A British officer, on active service in the Maori War of 1864, wrote to his sister a letter, saying: "The chances are in favour of more of us being killed. In case of accident, I wish to make everything I possess over to you. There is money at Cox's and over £100 in N.S.W. Bank. Keep this till I ask you for it. Your affectionate brother, J. Spratt." The testator returned to this country and died in 1894, having been for some time previously not on good terms with his sister. Held, that as there was no expression in the letter of any period within which alone it was to be operative, or any indication that it did not

apply to whatever property the testator might at any time be possessed of, the document was a valid will within sect. 11 of the Wills Act.-In the goods of James Spratt, L.R. [1897] P. 28; 75 L.T. 518.

(i.) C. A.--Construction-Uncertainty.—A will ran: “I give all the residue of my estate unto the children of the deceased son (named Bamber) of my father's sister, share and share alike." There were three deceased sons of the father's sister, all of that name. Held, reversing decision of Court below, that the gift was void for uncertainty. Hare v. Cartridge (13 Sim. 165) distinguished.--In re Stephenson; Donaldson v. Bamber, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 75; 75 L.T. 495.

(ii.) C. A.-Construction—Tenant for Life and Remainderman-Trust for Sale with Power to Postpone-Trustees not Agreed.-Decision of Court below as to power of remainderman to force trustees to sell (see Vol. 22, p. 54, iii.) reversed.-In re Lever; Cordwell v. Lever, 76 L.T. 71. (iii.) P. D.-Misdescription of Legatees.-A testator left £4,000 to the widow of a nephew for life, and afterwards in trust for her two children, but the Christian names by which these children were described in the will were the names of the children of another nephew to whom he left £2,000, and to whose wife he also left £2,000, both bequests with the like remainder to their two children who were described by the names of the widow's children. A motion, to omit from the probate the Christian names so transposed, was refused on the ground that it was not shewn that the testator did not mean the names to be inserted, and the point was left for a Court of Construction.-In the goods of Alexander Durlacher (deceased), 75 L.T. 664.

(iv.) C. D.-Executor - Intermeddling — Remuneration-Wilful Default.-A solicitor who had been named as an executor, but who had not joined in proving the will and who claimed in all that he did to have acted as the agent of the executor who proved, was held, by having signed with the other executors a letter dealing with a policy on the testator's life, to have intermeddled with the estate and to be precluded from renunciation; but a delay in getting in the policy moneys was held not to warrant an account on the footing of wilful default, though some loss of interest had occurred.—In re Stevens; Cooke v. Stevens, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 422; 76 L.J. 18.

(v.) P. D.-Probate-Foreign Executor Declaration instead of Oath-0. xxxviii., rr. 6, 14-Oaths Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict., c. 46)—Interpretation Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict., c. 63), s. 3.-The Court accepted a declaration in lieu of an oath from a German executor who was precluded from taking the oath by the laws of his place of residence.-In the goods of Caspari, 75 L.J. 663.

(vi.) P. D.-Will in English Form-Scotch Domicile-Holograph Letter-Probate Construction.--A domiciled Scotchman before commencing a voyage with his wife, wrote a letter partly repeating and to some extent supplementing the provisions of his will made in English form. He and his wife returned and settled in England, where some years later he died. Held, that the letter was entitled to probate as a testamentary paper with the will; but that the effect should be left to a Court of Construction.-Halford v. Halford (Boyce intervening), L.R. [1897] P. 36; 75 L.T. 520.

(vii.) P. D.—Duplicate Will-Part Retained by Testator not to be FoundHolograph Copy-Properly Executed Codicil admitted to probate Alone.In 1891, a testator executed a will in duplicate, one part of which he sent in the next year to a beneficiary, who subsequently tore it up by accident, but pasted together the fragments. No testamentary papers

were found on the decease of the testator in his repositories; but a friend produced a holograph copy of the will, and of a codicil stated to have been executed in 1892, and a later holograph properly executed codicil, described as "a second codicil to my will.' Held, that the will and the first codicil were revoked by the testator, but that the second codicil was entitled to probate.-Paige v. Brooks, 75 L.T. 455. (i.) C. A.-Duplicate Will--Destruction of One-Evidence.-Hearsay evidence that a testator had declared that he had, with the intention of revocation, destroyed one part of a will executed in duplicate is not admissible. Sugden v. Lord St. Leonards; Doe d. Shallcross v. Palmer; in the goods of Ripley, applied.-Atkinson v. Morris. L.R. [1897] P. 40; 75 L.T. 440.

(ii.) C. D.-Gift for Life with Power to Dispose amongst a

Class--No

Gift Over.-A wife gave by will real property to her husband for life, with "power to dispose of all such property by will amongst our children in accordance with the power granted to him as regards other property which I have under my marriage settlement." There was no gift over, and the husband died intestate. Held, that the power was a bare power, imposing no trust, and that there was no gift by implication to the children in default of appointment.—In re Weekes's Settlement, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 289; 76 L.T. 112.

INDEX.

AIREY V. STAPLETON; in re AIREY (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 164; 76 L.T. 151), 63, iii.

Armstrong v. Hughes (75 L.T. 487),
61, iii.

Atkinson v. Morris (L.R. [1897] P.
40; 75 L.T. 440), 84, i.
Attorney-General of Canada v. A.-G.

of Ontario; ditto of Quebec v.
A.-G. of Ontario (75 L.T. 522),
58, i.
Attorney-General

V. Tod-Heatley and Brownrigg (75 L.T. 452), 70, ii. A.-G. v. Lord Wolverton_ (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 231; 75 L.T. 569), 76, vi.

BADISCHE ANILIN UND SODA FABRIK V.
H. JOHNSON & Co. AND THE BASLE
CHEMICAL WORKS, BINDSCHEDLER
(76 L.T. 21), 71, iii.

Barker v. Ivimey; in re Turner
(L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 536; 76 L.T.
116), 81, v.

Beneficed Clerk, a, v. Lee (75 L.T. 461), 62, v.

[blocks in formation]

Bradford v. Dawson and
(L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 307; 76 L.T.
54), 64, iv.

Bradshawe

V. Bradshawe (L.R.

[1897] P. 24), 64, vii. Bramble v. Lowe (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 283), 82, iii.

Brett v. Rogers (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 525; 76 L.T. 26), 66, iii.

Brewers and Maltsters Association of Ontario v. Att.-Gen. for Ontario (76 L.T. 61), 57, v.

Brinsmead, T. E., & Sons, Ltd., in re (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 45 and 406; 75 L.T. 585, and 76 L.T. 100), 61, i.

Brown v. Maurice; in re Maurice

(75 L.T. 415), 55, ii. Brunning v. Odhams Bros., Ltd. (75 L.T. 602), 22, 22, iv.; 73, iii. Bultfontein Sun Diamond Mine, Ltd.,

in re; e. p. Cox, Hughes and Norman (75 L.T. 669), 58, v.

CALE V. JAMES (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B.
418; 76 L.T. 119), 65, i.
Cannon Brewery Co. v. Gilbey (75
L.T. 407), 72, v.

Caspari, in the goods of (75 L.T. 663), 83, v.

Chandler v. Bradley (L.R. [1897]

1 Ch. 315; 75 L.T. 581), 77, vii. Chicago Railway Terminal Elevator

Co. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (75 L.T. 572), 76, vii. Clarke v. Earl of Dunraven (the Satanita) (L.R. [1897] A.C. 59), 22, 53, ii. Clutton & Co. v. Attenborough (L.R. [1897] A.C. 90; 75 L.T. 556), 56, vi.

Collman v. Mills (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 396; 75 L.T. 590), 69, iii. Cook v. Andrews (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 266; 76 L.T. 16), 82, v.

Cooke v. Stevens; in re Stevens (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 422; 76 L.T. 18), 83, iv.

Cordwell v. Lever; in re Lever (76 L.T. 71), 83, ii.

Cowen v. Town Clerk of Kingston

on-Hull (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 273; 75 L.T. 593), 64, i.

Crocker v. Sturge (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 330; 75 L.T. 549), 79, i. Cronbach v. Isaac; in re Isaac (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 251; 75 L.T. 638), 74, iv.

Cudworth v. Hayward (75 L.T. 456), 74, i.

Currie v. McKnight (L.R. [1897] A.C. 97; 75 L.T. 457), 79, v.

DALTON V. FITZGERALD (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 440; 76 L.T. 83), 78, iii. Darlow v. Bland and Others (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 125; 75 L.T. 537), 57, i.

De la Rochefoucauld v. Boustead (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 196; 75 L.T. 502), 81, iii. Didcot, Newbury and Southampton Railway v. Great Western Railway and London and South-Western Railway (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 33; 75 L.T. 401), 76, i.

Dixon v. Great Western Railway (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 300; 75 L.T. 539), 22, 51, i.; 75, v. Dombey & Son, Ltd. (in liquidation), v. Playfair Bros. and Others (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 368; 75 L.T. 676), 72, vi. Donaldson V. Bamber; Stephenson (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 75; 75 L.T. 495), 83, i. Douglas v. Pintsch's Patent Lighting Co. (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 176), 22, 48, v.

in re

Dumbleton v. Williams, Torrey and
Field, Ltd. (76 L.T. 81), 73, iv.
Dunn v. Macdonald (L.R. [1897]
1 Q.B. 401), 75, i.
Durlacher, A., in the goods of (75
L.T. 664), 83, iii.

EDISON GENERAL ELECTRIC Co. v. WESTMINSTER AND VANCOUVER TRAMWAY CO. AND THE BANK OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (75 L.T. 438), 58, ii.

Eley v. Read (76 L.T. 39), 69, vii. Engelhardt v. Farrant and Co. and

Lipton (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 240; 75 L.T. 617), 68, iv.

FAVARD V. FAVARD (75 L.T. 664), 56, i. Fletcher v. Nokes (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 271; 76 L.T. 107), 66, iv. Fluister v. Fluister and Hutton (L.R. [1897] P. 22), 74, viii. Fowle v. Fowle (75 L.T. 514), 55, iii. Foxwell v. Van Grutten (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 64), 22, 49, ii.

GEILIGER V. GIBBS (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 479; 76 L.T. 111), 74, vii. General Insurance Co. of Trieste v. Cory (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 335), 79, vii.

Gold Reefs of Western Australia, Ltd. v. Dawson (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 115; 75 L.T. 575), 73, v. Goodlock v. Cousins (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 348; 76 L.T. 86), 61, vii. Government Stock Investment Co. v. The Manila Railway Co. (L.R. [1897] A.C. 81; 75 L.T. 553), 21, 6, iii; 60, iii.

HALFORD V. HALFORD (Bryce intervening) (L.R. [1897] P. 36; 75 L.T. 520), 83, vi.

Hanbury, Whitting and Nicholson, in re (75 L.T. 449), 80, v.

Hayes Common (Conservators of) v. !
Bromley Rural District Board
(L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 321; 76 L.T.
51), 58, iv.

Heimbs v. Newcastle Co-operative
Society (76 L.T. 109), 74, vi.
Hill, Viscount v. Hill, Dowager
Viscountess (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B.
483; 76 L.T. 103), 81, iv.
Hill v. Equitable Reversionary
Interest Society, Ltd.; in re Hill's
Settlement Trusts (75 L.T. 477),
78, i.

Hindle v. Birtwistle (L.R. [1897]
1 Q.B. 192; 76 L.T. 159), 63, vi.
Hobson v. Gorringe (L.R. [1897]
1 Ch. 182; 75 L.T. 610), 63, v.
Holloway v. Coster (L.R. [1897]
1 Q.B. 346; 76 L.T. 57), 82, i.
Hopkinson's Patent, in re (75 L.T.
462), 71, i.

Hornsey District Council v. Smith
(75 L.T. 684), 75, ii.

Huber, Mary H., in the goods of (75
L.T. 453), 55, i.

Humphreys v. Gadsden; in re Cosier (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 325; 76 L.T. 31), 78, ii.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Lancaster Banking Co., Ltd., in re (75 L.T. 647), 59, i. Lancaster (Commissioners of Part of) v. Overseers of Barrow-inFurness (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 166), 72, i.

Lane v. Cox (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 415; 76 L.T. 135), 70, iv.

Lawrence v. Adams (75 L.T. 410), 56, ii.

Lee v. Roundwood Colliery Co., Ltd.; in re Roundwood Colliery Co., Ltd. (L.R. [1897] Ch. 375; 75 L.T. 508 and 641), 59, ii.

List v. Tharp (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 260; 76 L.T. 45), 69, iv. London County Council v. Hobbis (75 L.T. 687), 69, v.

London and Eastern Counties Loan and Discount Co., Ltd., v. Crease (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 442; 76 L.T. 87), 57, ii.

London Health Electrical Institute, Ltd., in re (75 L.T. 658 and 76 L.T. 98), 60, vii.

London and North Western Railway v. Commissioners of Sewers of Fobbing Levels (75 L.T. 629), 77, vi. London and North Western Railway v. Llandudno Improvement Commissioners (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 287; 75 L.T. 659), 76, v.

MANCHESTER AND MILFORD RAILWAY, in re (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 276; 75 L.T. 416), 75, vi. Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway v. Guardians of Doncaster Union (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 117; 75 L.T. 472), 71, v. Mannheim, the (L.R. [1897] P. 13; 75 L.T. 424), 79, iii.

Mantle v. Jordan (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 248; 75 L.T. 552), 67, ii.

Marsh v. Joseph (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 213; 75 L.T. 558), 22, 30, v.; 80, iv.

Martin v. Martin and Co. (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 429; 76 L.T. 44), 74, iii. Master in Equity v. Pearson and Others (75 L.T. 526), 58, iii. McGarel (a lunatic), in re (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 400; 76 L.T. 70), 80, iii. McMurdo, in re; Penfield McMurdo (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 119; 75 L.T. 576), 72, ii.

V.

McNab v. Robertson and Others (L.R. [1897] A.C. 129; 75 L.T. 666), 66, v.

« PreviousContinue »