Page images
PDF
EPUB

Meyrick v. Hargreaves; in re Meyrick

(L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 99; 75 L.T. 621), 76, viii.

Middlesex County Council v. Assessment Committee of St. George's Union (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 64; 75 L.T. 464), 76, ii.

Morris and Others v. Beves and Others (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 449; 76 L.T. 120), 77, iv. Morriss v. Howden (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 378; 76 L.T. 156), 68, vi. Mountfield v. Ward (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 326), 67, i.

Murray v. Epsom Local Board (L.R.

[1897] 1 Ch. 35; 75 L.T. 579), 67, iii. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association v. New York Life Assurance Co. and Harvey (75 L.T. 528), 61, iv.

NATIONAL BANK OF WALES, LTD.

(L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 298; 76 L.T. 1), 22, 42, i.; 60, ii. Nelson v. Anglo American Land, Mortgage, and Agency Co., Ltd. (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 130; 75 L.T 482), 60, v.

Nevill v. Fine Arts and General Insurance Co. (L.R. [1897] A.C. 68: 75 L.T. 606), 66, vii.

ODHAMS BROS., LTD. v. BRUNNING (75 L.T. 602), 22, 22, iv.; 73, iii. Ogston v. Aberdeen District Tramways Co. (L.R. [1897] A.C. 111; 75 L.T. 633), 70, iii.

Oporto, the (75 L.T. 599), 79, iv. Osborn v. Wood Bros. (L.R. [1897]

1 Q.B. 197; 76 L.T. 60), 65, vi.

PAGE V. RATLIFFE (76 L.T. 63), 70, v. Paige v. Brooks (75 L.T. 455), 83, vii. Paliser v. Dale (L.R. [1897]

Q.B.

257; 76 L.T. 14), 64, iii. Palmer v. Rich (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 134; 75 L.T. 484), 65, v. Parkdale, the (L.R. [1897] P. 53; 75 L.T. 597), 79, ii.

Pattle v. Hornibrook (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 25; 75 L.T. 475), 61, ii. Peebles and Others v. The Oswaldtwistle Urban District Council (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 384; 75 L.T. 689), 22, 21, i.; 75, iii. Penfield v. McMurdo; in re McMurdo

(L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 119; 75 L.T. 576), 72, ii.

Petty v. Taylor (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch.

465; 75 L.T. 545), 61, vi. Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. East London Rubber Co. (75 L.T. 488), 71, ii.

Plymouth, Stonehouse, and Devonport Tramway Co. v. The General Tolls Co., Ltd. (75 L.T. 467), 81, i. Pomeroy v. Tanner (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 284; 75 L.T. 625), 80, ii. Poole v. Downes (76 L.T. 110), 70, i. Potter and Co. v. Burrell and Son

(L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 97; 75 L.T. 491), 78, iv. Princesse Clémentine, the (L.R. [1897] P. 18; 75 L.T. 695), 72, iii.

REG. V. BAGSHAWE AND OTHERS (75 L.T. 513), 76, iii.

Reg. v. Charity Commissioners of England and Wales (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 407), 68, ii.

Reg. v. Clerk of Assize of Oxford Circuit (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 370), 62, i.

Reg. v. King (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 214), 22, 43, iv.

Reg. v. Lord Leigh; in re, Kinchant

(L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 132), 22, 48, vi. Reg. v. Soden and Overend (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 188; 76 L.T. 161), 64, ii.

River Ribble (Joint Commissioners of) v. Croston Urban District Council (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 251), 63, ii.

Roberts v. Security Co., Ltd. (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 111; 75 L.T. 531), 65, iv. Robinson v. The Mayor of Workington (75 L.T. 674), 67, iv. Robinson, in re; Wright v. Tugwell (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 85; 76 L.T. 95), 82, vi. Roundwood Colliery Co., Ltd., in re; Lee v. Roundwood Colliery Co., Ltd. (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 375; 75 L.T. 508 and 641), 59, ii. Rowland v. Michell affirming (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 71; 75 L.T. 498), 22, 31, iv.; 81, ii.

Royal Insurance Co. v. Watson (L.R. [1897] A.C. 1), 22, 52, i. Rymer v. McIlroy (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 528; 76 L.T. 115), 62, iii.

ST. ASAPH (DEAN AND CHAPTER OF) v. OVERSEERS OF PARISH OF LLAN

RHAIADR YN MOCHNANT AND THE ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE OF LLANFYLLIN UNION (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 511; 76 L.T. 42), 76, iv.

St. John's, Hackney (Vestry of) v. Hutton (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 210 75 L.T. 686), 69, i.

St. Olave's Union v. Canterbury Union (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 438; 76 L.T. 88), 71, vi. Salomon v. Salomon and Co., Ltd., (L.R. [1897] A.C. 22; 75 L.T. 426), 59, iii.

Sanders v. Jenkins (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 93), 78, v.

Satania, the, Clarke v. Earl of Dunraven, 22, 53, ii.

Shields v. Howard (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 84), 69, vi.

Simmons v. Blandy (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 19; 75 L.T. 646), 74, v. Simpson v. Hughes and Armstrong (75 L.T. 487), 61, iii.

Simpson, in re: in re Wilchurch (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 256; 76 L.T. 131), 77, viii.

Sloane v. The Britain Steamship
Co., Ltd. (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 185;
75 L.T. 542), 73, i.
Smelting Co. of Australia v. Com-
missioners of Inland Revenue
(L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 175; 75 L.T.
534), 22, 26, vi.; 77, i
Smith v. Wilkinson; in re Victoria
Steamboats, Ltd. (L.R. [1897]
1 Ch. 158), 22, 41, vi.
Southcombe v. Guardians of Yeovil
Union (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 343;
76 L.T. 58), 82, ii.
Spiller and Baker, and Leetham and
Sons, in re an Arbitration (L.R.
[1897] 1Q.B.312; 76 L.T 35), 55, iv.
Spratt, in the goods of (L.R. [1897]
P. 28; 75 L.T. 518), 82, vii.
Stephenson, in re; Donaldson v.
Bamber (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 75;
75 L.T. 495), 83, i.

Stileman-Gibbard v. Wilkinson and
Others (76 L.T. 90), 63, i.
Stock, in re; e. p. Amos (75 L.T. 422),
56, v.

Streatham and General Estates Co.,

in re (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 15; 75 L.T. 574), 60, iv.

Sudely (Lord) v. Attorney-General (L.R. [1897] A.C. 11; 75 L.T. 398), 21, 82, vi.; 77, ii.

TATE V. LATHAM (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B.

502; 75 L.T. 694), 68, iii. Thomson v. Burns (76 L.T. 58), 77, v. Thorpe v. Prestnall (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 159), 66, i.

Tubbs v. Wynne (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 74), 82, iv.

Turner, in re; Barker v. Ivimey (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 536 ; 76 L.T. 61), 81, v.

Turner Pneumatic Tyre Co., Ltd. v. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co., Ltd. (75 L.T. 651), 74, ii.

UMFREVILLE V. LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (75 L.T. 550). 75, iv. Universo Insurance Co. of Milan v. Merchants Marine Insurance Co. (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 205), 79, vi. VALLANCY V. FLETCHER (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 265; 76 L.T. 201), 57, iii. Venner v. McDonell (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 421; 76 L.T. 152), 69, ii. Vestry of St. John's, Hackney v. Hutton (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 210; 75 L.T. 686), 69, i.

Vestry of St. Mary's, Battersea v. Palmer (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 220), 22, 47, iii.

Victoria Steamboats. Ltd., in re; Smith v. Wilkinson (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 158), 22, 41, vi. Vincent v. Tomlinson and Eyton (L.R. [1897] P. 1), 62, iv.

WARD, in re; e. p. WARD (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 266; 76 L.T. 37), 56, iv. Weeke's Settlement, in re (L.R.

[1897] 1 Ch. 289; 76 L.T. 112), 84, ii. West Derby Union (Guardians of) v. Metropolitan Life Assurance Society and West Derby Union v. Priestman (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 335; 75 L.T. 412; 76 L.T. 73), 71, iv. West of England Fire Insurance Co. v. Isaacs (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 226; 75 L.T. 564), 22, 45, iii.; 65, iii. West Hartlepool (the Mayor of) v. Robinson (75 L.T. 677), 67, v. Western v. Bailey (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 86; 75 L.T. 470), 61, v. Western Counties Steam Bakeries and Milling Co., Ltd. (75 L.T. 648), 60, vi. Wild v. Southwood (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 317), 22, 38, iii.

Wilmot v. Alton (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B.

17; 75 L.T. 447), 22, 4, i.; 56, iii. Winkle v. Bailey (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch.

123; 75 L.T. 577), 68, i. Wood, in re; e. p. Fanshawe (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 314), 22, 38, iv. Wood v. Middleton (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 151 75 L.T. 480), 72, iv. Worthington v. Robinson and Others (75 L.T. 446), 57, iv.

Wragg, Ltd.; in re E. J. (75 L.T. 652), 58, vi.

Wynne v. Tempest (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 110; 75 L.T. 624), 73, ii.

Quarterly Digest

OF

ALL REPORTED CASES

IN THE

Law Times and Law Reports

FOR APRIL, MAY, AND JUNE, 1897.

By THOMAS J. BARNES, of the Middle Temple,
Barrister-at-Law.

DIGEST.

Where a case has already been given in the Digest for a preceding quarter, the additional report is given after the name of the case, with a reference to the volume of the Digest in which it first appeared, the thick number being the number of the volume.

Actio Personalis:

(i.) C. D.-Obstruction to Light-3 & 4 Wm. IV., c. 42, s. 2.-An obstruction to ancient light is an injury continuing from day to day, and therefore an action brought within six months of the decease of the tort feasor can be maintained against his executors or administrators though the obstruction was completed by the deceased more than six months before his death.-Jenks v. Viscount Clifden, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 694; 76 L.T. 382.

Administration:

(ii.) C. A.--Executor and Trustee "Wilful Default"-Judicial Trustees Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict., c. 35), s. 3.-Where the executor of a solicitor was reasonably satisfied that he could not maintain an action to recover costs from a client of his testator, it was held that he was not guilty of wilful default; and that even if he had been technically liable, he would have been excused under sect. 3 of the Judicial Trustees Act, 1896.—In re Roberts; Knight v. Roberts, 76 L.T. 479. (iii.) C. D.-Administrator's Costs-Interest-Set Off-O. lxv., r. 1.--An executor or administrator is entitled to his proper costs, and will not be ordered to pay interests on sums not improperly paid away by him, and an administrator of an intestate is entitled to set off against the next-of-kin's share costs which the next-of-kin had been ordered to pay to him. In re Jones; Christmas v. Jones, 76 L.T. 454.

H

(i.) C. D.-Insolvent Estate-Crown Debt-Specialty and Simple Contract Debts--Priority-Hinde Palmers Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict., c. 46).-A question arose under an order in an action for the administration of an insolvent testator's estate whether or not a crown debt should come out of the whole fund without distinguishing between specialty and simple contract creditors, and it was held that it was to be borne entirely by the portion of assets available for simple contract creditors. -In re Bentinck; Bentinck v. Bentinck, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 673; 76 L.T. 284.

Annuity :

(ii.) C. D.-Annuity subject to Condition-Deficiency of Assets--Payment of Fund. Where a covenantor's estate was not sufficient to meet an annuity granted without any gift over for the life of the annuitant, or until he should do or suffer something by which, if the annuity had been his absolutely, it would have become vested in some other person, it was held, following Wroughton v. Colquhoun (1 De G. & Sm. 357), that a fund representing the balance of the covenantor's estate must be paid to the annuitant, the Court declining to follow Carr v. Ingleby (1 De G. & Sm. 362).—In re Sinclair; Allen v. Sinclair, L,R. [1897] i Ch. 921; 76 L.T. 452.

Assignment:

(iii.) C. A.—Assignment in form Absolute to Agent to Collect-Judicature Act, 1873, s. 25, sub-s. 6.-A foreigner resident abroad assigned to enable another to sue for him in England a debt without consideration by a deed which purported to assign absolutely in consideration of £50. Held, reversing the judgment of the Court below, that it was a valid assignment within sect. 25, sub-sect. 6, of the Judicature Act, 1873, and enabled the assignee to sue in his own name for the benefit of the assignor.-Wiesener v. Rackow, 76 L.T. 448.

Auction:

(iv.) C. D.-Specific Performance-Sale of Lands by Auction-Signature of Auctioneer binding Purchaser-Delay-Delegation—Statute of Frauds.— The defendant, under a mistake, bid, as a puffer at an auction, for freehold property, which was knocked down to him. He repudiated the contract at once, and refused to pay the deposit, but the auctioneer's clerk signed the usual memorandum, and a week afterwards the auctioneer signed another memorandum as agent for the defendant. Held, that though the mistake might be a defence to a claim for specific performance, it did not of itself affect the validity of the contract (Tamplin v. James). But that the action failed under the Statute of Frauds, for, as to the first memorandum, the auctioneer could not delegate his authority (Pierce v. Corf, L.R. 9 Q.B. 210; 29 L.T. Rep. 919), and the signature to the second memorandum was not contemporaneous with the auction (Buckmaster v. Harrop, 13 Ves. 456).—Bell v. Balls, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 663; 76 L.T. 254.

Bankruptcy :

(v.) Q. B.-Revocable Mandate-Fraudulent Preference Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict., c. 52), s. 48.—A solicitor just before bankruptcy conveyed real estate to trustees, without the knowledge of the cestuis que trust, to cover a breach of trust which he had committed. Held, that the deed was not a revocable instrument within the doctrine of Garrard v. Lauderdale (3 Sim. 1), and was not a preference to a creditor within the meaning of sect. 48 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883.— The Trustees of New, Prance and Garrard v. Hunting & Others, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 607; 76 L.T. 196.

(i.) Q. B.-Receiving Order-Assets and Costs-Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 7, sub-s. 3.-That assets will probably be exhausted by costs is not a sufficient reason for refusing to grant a receiving order. In re Betts; e. p. Betts [1897] 1 Q.B. 50 distinguished.-In re Jubb; e. p. Barman, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 641; 76 L.T, 329.

(ii.) Q. B.-Banker and Customer-Cheques Paid after Date of Receiving Order-Res Judicata.-Where the banking account of a debtor's wife had been declared to be the account of the debtor, it was held that the trustee in bankruptcy could not recover from the bank the amount for which cheques had been honoured between the date of the receiving order and the date of the declaration; and further that the matter was res judicata as the point could have been raised on the motion for declaration. In re Montague; e. p. Ward v. London and South Western Bank, 76 L.T. 203.

(iii.) Q. B.-Purchase by Partner of Member of Committee of Inspection-316 of Bankruptcy Rules, 1886.-The purchase of part of a bankrupt estate by the partner of a member of a committee of inspection is not forbidden by rule 316 if the member has no interest in the purchase.In re Gallard; e. p. Gallard, L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 8; 76 L.T. 327. (iv.) Q. B.-Damages in Divorce Proceedings-Settlement Approved by Court -Intention to Defeat Creditors--Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict., c. 52, s. 33).-Damages obtained in divorce proceedings were settled with the approval of the Court so as to give a contingent life interest to the debtor. Held, that the case did not come within the doctrine of Higginbotham v. Holme (19 Ves. 88), as there could not be a settlement in fraud of creditors of money never in the debtor's possession, the application of which was in control of the Court; and a motion of the trustee in bankruptcy that the limitation was void as against him was negatived.-E. p. Stephenson; Brown v. Stephenson, 76 L.T. 328.

(v.) C. D.-Legacy-Forfeiture-Domicil.-A domiciled Englishman had a life interest in a fund until it should "become vested in or payable to some other person." Held, that it was not forfeited by his being adjudicated a bankrupt in New Zealand on a creditor's petition. In re Blithman (L.R. 2 Eq. 23; 14 L.T. Rep. 61) followed.-In re Hayward; Hayward v. Hayward, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 905; 76 L.T. 383.

(vi.) Q. B. D.-Deed of Assignment Acquiescence-Estoppel.-A creditor who has assented to a deed of assignment for the benefit of creditors is estopped from presenting a bankruptcy petition against the debtor. In re Stray (L.R. 2 Ch. App. 374) followed.—In re Hawley; e.p. Ridgway, 76 L.T. 501.

(vii.) Q. B. D.-Deed of Assignment—Acquiescence-Estoppel.-A creditor who has not expressly assented to a deed of assignment may be estopped by his conduct from setting up the deed as an act of bankruptcy, and cannot then set up a circular convening a meeting of creditors as a notice of suspension of payment.-In re Woodroff; e.p. Woodroff, 76 L.T. 502.

(viii.) Q. B. D.-Act of Bankruptcy during Currency of Bill of Exchange given for Debt-Affidavit-Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 6, sub-s. 1.—A creditor who holds an acceptance of a debtor who commits an act of bankruptcy may treat the acceptance as dishonoured and present a petition based on the original debt. An affidavit of verification ought to state the existence of the acceptance and that the petitioning creditor is the holder.-In re Raatz; e. p. Raatz, L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 80; 76 L.T. 503.

« PreviousContinue »