Page images
PDF
EPUB

in re;

[ocr errors]

re

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

Bamber ; in
Stephenson (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 75;

75 L.T. 495), 83, i.
Douglas v. Pintsch's Patent Light-

ing Co. (L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 176),

22, 48, v.
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.

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.,

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, iy.
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.

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,

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.

[blocks in formation]

HALFORD V. HALFORD (Bryce inter-

vening) (L.R. [1897] P. 36; 75

L.T. 520), 83, vi.
Hanbury, Whitting and Nicholson,

in re (75 L.T. 449), 80, v.

[ocr errors]

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 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. (59), 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 175

L.T. 453), 55, i.
Humphreys v. Gadsden; in re Cosier

(L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 325; 76 L.T.
31), 78, ii.

Lancaster Banking Co., Ltd., in re

(75 L.T. 647), 59, i.
Lancaster (Commissioners of Part

of) v. Overseers of Barrow-in-
Furness (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] 1 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 Com-
missioners (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 287;
75 L.T. 659), 76, v.

[ocr errors]

INCANDESCENT Gas Light Co., LTD.

v. New INCANDESCENT (SUNLIGHT
PATENT) GAS LIGHTING CO., LTD.

(76 L.T. 47), 70, vi.
International Commercial Co., Ltd.,

in re (75 L.T. 639), 60, i.
Isaac, in re; Cronbach v. Isaac (L.R.

[1897] 1 Ch. 251; 75 L.T. 638),
74, iv.

Janet Court, the (L.R. [1897] P. 59;

76 L.T. 172), 80, i.
Jones v. German (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B.

374; 76 L.T. 136), 22, 45, v.; 66, ii.

KENT COUNTY COUNCIL V. LORD GERARD

(L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 351 ; 76 L.T.
8), 22, 44, v. ; 64, vi.
Killin v. Swatton (76 L.T. 55), 66,

viii.
Kippins, e. p. (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 1 ;

75 L.T. 421), 64, v.
Kirkham v. Attenborough and Kirk-

ham v. Gill (L.R. (1897) 1 Q.B.
201 ; 75 L.T. 543), 77, iii.

MANCHESTER AND MILFORD RAILWAY,

in re (L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 276;

75 L.T. 416), 75, vi.
Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincoln-

shire 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

Penfield
McMurdo (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 119;

[ocr errors]

v.

V.

LACAVE AND Co. THE CRÉDIT

LYONNAIS (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 148;

re;

75 L.T. 576), 72, ii.
McNab v. Robertson and Others

(L.R. (1897) A.C. 129; 75 L.T.
666), 66, v.

75 L.T. 514), 56, vii.
Lamond v. Richard (75 L.T. 693),

65, ii.

Meyrick v. Hargreaves; in re Meyrick

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

76, viii.
Middlesex County Council v. Assess-

ment 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]

1Q.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 Associa-

tion v. New York Life Assurance
Co.and Harvey (75 L.T. 528), 61, iv.

[blocks in formation]

Plymouth, Stonehouse, and Devon-

port 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 Working-

ton (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.

ODHAMS BROS., LTD. v. BRUNNING

(75 L.T. 602), 22, 22, iv. ; 73, iii.
Ogston v. Aberdeen District Tram-

ways 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) 1 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 Oswald-

twistle 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 Có. v. East London

Rubber Co. (75 L.T. 488), 71, ii.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

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]

i Ch. 158), 22, 41, vi.
Vincent v.' Tomlinson and Eyton

(L.R. [1897] P. 1), 62, iv.

St. Olaves 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, iji.
Sanders v. Jenkins (L.R. (1897]

1 Q.B. 93), 78, v.
Satania, the, Clarke v. Earl of Dun-

raven, 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] 1 Q.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] í Ch. 536 ; 76 L.T. 61),
81, v.

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] 1Ch. 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] I

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 LT. 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.

[ocr errors]

Actio Personalis :(i.) C. D.-Obstruction to Light3 & 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.

[ocr errors]

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 CostsInterest-Set Off-0. lxv., 1. 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

« PreviousContinue »