Page images
PDF
EPUB

V.

V.

Hayes Common (Conservators of) v. | Lancaster Banking Co., Ltd., in re

Bromley Rural District Board (75 L.T. 647), 59, i.
(L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 321 ; 76 L.T. Lancaster (Commissioners of Part
51), 58, iv.

of) v. Overseers of Barrow-in.
Heimbs v. Newcastle Co-operative Furness (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 166),
Society (76 L.T. 109), 74, vi.

72, i.
Hill, Viscount Hill, Dowager Lane v. Cox (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 415;

Viscountess (L.R. (1897) 1 Q.B. 76 L.T. 135), 70, iv.
483; 76 L.T. 103), 81, iv.

Lawrence v. Adams (75 L.T. 410),
Hill Equitable Reversionary

56, ii.
Interest Society, Ltd.; in re Hill's Lee v. Roundwood Colliery Co., Ltd.;
Settlement Trusts (75 L.T. 477), in re Roundwood Colliery Co., Ltd.
78, i.

(L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 375; 75 L.T.
Hindle v. Birtwistle (L.R. (1897] 508 and 641), 59, ii.

1 Q.B. 192; 76 L.T. i59), 63, vi. List v. Tharp (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch.
Hobson v. Gorringe (L.R. (1897] 260; 76 L.T. 45), 69, iv.

1 Ch. 182 ; 75 L.T. 610), 63, v. London County Council v. Hobbis
Holloway v. Coster (L.R. [1897] (75 L.T. 687), 69, v.

1 Q.B. 346 ; 76 L.T. 57), 82, i. London and Eastern Counties Loan
Hopkinson's Patent, in re (75 L.T. and Discount Co., Ltd., v. Crease
462), 71, i.

(L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 442; 76 L.T.
Hornsey District Council v. Smith

87), 57, ii.
(75 L.T. 684), 75, ii.

London Health Electrical Institute,
Huber, Mary H., in the goods of 175

Ltd., in re (75 L.T. 658 and 76 L.T.
L.T. 453), 55, i.

98), 60, vii.
Humphreys v. Gadsden; in re Cosier London and North Western Railway

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

Fobbing Levels (75 L.T. 629), 77,

vi.
INCANDESCENT GAS LIGHT CO., LTD. London and North Western Railway

v. New INCANDESCENT (SUNLIGHT v. Llandudno Improvement Com-
PATENT) Gas LIGHTING Co., Ltd. missioners (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 287;
(76 L.T. 47), 70, vi.

75 L.T. 659), 76, v.
International Commercial Co., Ltd.,
in re (75 L.T. 639), 60, i.

MANCHESTER AND MILFORD RAILWAY,
Isaac, in re; Cronbach v. Isaac (L.R. in re_ (L.R. (1897) 1 Ch. 276;

[1897] 1 Ch. 251; 75 L.T. 638), 75 L.T. 416), 75, vi.
74, iv.

Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincoln-

shire Railway V. Guardians of
Janet Court, the (L.R. (1897] P. 59; Doncaster Union (L.R. (1897] 1
76 L.T. 172), 80, i.

Q.B. 117; 75 L.T. 472), 71, v.
Jones v. German (L.R. (1897]

Q.B.

Mannheim, the (L.R. (1897] P. 13;
374; 76 L.T. 136), 22, 45, v. ; 66, ii. 75 L.T. 424), 79, iii.

Mantle v. Jordan (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B.
KENT COUNTY COUNCIL V. LORD GERARD 248 ; 75 L.T. 552), 67, ii.

(L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 351; 76 L.T. Marsh v. Joseph (L.R. (1897] 1 Ch.
8), 22, 44, v. ; 64, vi.

213; 75 L.T. 558), 22, 30, v.;
Killin v. Swatton (76 L.T. 55), 66,

80, iv.
viii.

Martin v. Martin and Co. (L.R. [1897]
Kippins, e. p. (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 1; 1 Q.B. 429; 76 L.T. 44), 74, iii.
75 L.T. 421), 64, v.

Master in Equity v. Pearson and
Kirkham v. Attenborough and Kirk- Others (75 L.T. 526), 58, iii.

ham v. Gill (L.R. (1897) 1 Q.B. McGarel (a lunatic), in re (L.R. (1897]
201 ; 75 L.T. 543), 77, iii.

1 Ch. 400; 76 L.T. 70), 80, iii.
McMurdo,

in re;

Penfield
LACAVE AND Co. THE CRÉDIT McMurdo (L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 119 ;

LYONNAIS (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 148; 75 L.T. 576), 72, ii.
75 L.T. 514), 56, vii.

McNab v. Robertson and Others
Lamond v. Richard (75 L.T. 693), (L.R. (1897) A.C. 129; 75 L.T.

V.

[ocr errors]

666), 66, v.

65, ii.

OF

Meyrick v. Hargreaves; in re Meyrick Plymouth, Stonehouse, and Devon-
(L.R. (1897]1

Ch.99; 75 L.T. 621), port Tramway Co. v. The General
76, viii.

Tolls Co., Ltd. (75 L.T. 467),
Middlesex County Council v. Assess-

81, i.
ment Committee of St. George's Pomeroy v. Tanner (L.R. [1897]
Union (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 64; 1 Ch. 284 ; 75 L.T. 625), 80, ii.
75 L.T. 464), 76, ii.

Poole v. Downes (76 L.T. 110), 70, i.
Morris and Others v. Beyes and Potter and Co. v. Burrell and Son

Others (L.R. (1897) 1 Q.B. 449; (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 97; 75 L.T.
76 L.T. 120), 77, iv.

491), 78, iv,
Morriss v. Howden (L.R. [1897)

Princesse Clémentine, the (L.R. (1897]
1 Q.B. 378; 76 L.T. (56), 68, vi. P. 18; 75 L.T. 695), 72, iii.
Mountfield v. Ward (L.R. (1897]
1 Q.B. 326), 67, i.

REG. V. BAGSHAWE AND OTHERS (75
Murray v. Epsom Local Board (L.R. L.T. 513), 76, iii.

(1897] 1 Ch. 35; 75 L.T.579), 67, iii. Reg. v. Charity Commissioners of
Mutual Reserve Fund Life Associa- England and Wales (L.R. (1897)

tion v. New York Life Assurance 1 Q.B. 407), 68, ii.
Co.and Harvey (75 L.T.528), 61, iv. Reg. v. Clerk of Assize of Oxford

Circuit (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 370),
NATIONAL BANK WALES, Ltd. 62, i.

(L.R. (1897) 1 Ch. 298; 76 L.T. 1), Reg. v. King (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 214),
22, 42, i.; 60, ii.

22, 43, iv.
Nelson v. Anglo American Land, Reg. v. Lord Leigh; in re, Kinchant

Mortgage, and Agency Co., Ltd. (L.R. (1897) 1 Q.B. 132), 22, 48, vi.
(L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 130; 75 L.T Reg. v. Soden and Overend (L.R.
482), 60, v.

[1897] 1 Q.B. 188; 76 L.T. 161),
Nevill y, Fine Arts and General

64, ii.
Insurance Co. (L.R. (1897]A.C. 68: River Ribble (Joint Commissioners
75 L.T. 606), 66, vii.

of) v. Croston Urban District

Council (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 251),
ODHAMS Bros., LTD. V. BRUNNING

63, ii.
(75 L.T. 602), 22, 22, iv.; 73, iii. Roberts v. Security Co., Ltd. (L.R.
Ogston v. Aberdeen District Tram- [1897] 1 Q.B. 111; 75 L.T. 531),
ways Co. (L.R. (1897] A.C. 111;

65, iv.
75 L.T. 633), 70, iii.

Robinson v. The Mayor of Working-
Oporto, the (75 L.T. 599), 79, iv.

ton (75 L.T. 674), 67, iv.
Osborn v. Wood Bros. (L.R. (1897] Robinson, in re; Wright v. Tugwell
1 Q.B. 197; 76 L.T. 60), 65, vi.

(L.R. (1897) 1 Ch. 85; 76 L.T. 95),

82, vi.
PAGE V. RATLIFFE (76 L.T. 63), 70, v. Roundwood Colliery Co., Ltd., in re;
Paige v. Brooks (75 L.T. 455), 83, vii.

Lee v. Roundwood Colliery Co.,
Paliser v. Dale (L.R. (1897) 1 Q.B. Ltd. (L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 375; 75
257; 76 L.T. 14), 64, iii.

L.T. 508 and 641), 59, ii.
Palmer v. Rich (L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. Rowland y, Michell affirming (L.R.
134; 75 L.T. 484}, 65, v.

[1897] 1 Ch. 71; 75 L.T. 498),
Parkdale, the (L.R. (1897] P. 53 ; 75

22, 31, iv. ; 81, ii.
L.T. 597), 79, ii.

Royal Insurance Co. v. Watson (L.R.
Pattle v. Hornibrook (L.R. [1897 [1897] A.C. 1), 22, 52, i.

1 Ch. 25 ; 75 L.T. 475), 61, ii. Rymer v. McIlroy (L.R. (1897) 1 Ch.
Peebles and Others y. The Oswald- 528; 76 L.T. 115), 62, iii.

twistle Urban District Council
(L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 384; 75 L.T. St. ASAPH (DEAN AND CHAPTER OF) v,
689), 22, 21, i. ; 75, iii.

OVERSEERS OF PARISH OF LLAN-
Penfield v. McMurdo; in re McMurdo RHAIADR YN MOCHNANT AND THE

(L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 119; 75 L.T. ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE OF LLAN-
576), 72, ii.

FYLLIN ONION (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B.
Petty v. Taylor (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 511 ; 76 L.T. 42), 76, iv.
465; 75 L.T. 545), 61, vi.

St. John's, Hackney (Vestry of) v.
Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. East London Hutton (L.R. (1897) 1 Q.B. 210

Rubber Co. (75 L.T. 488), 71, ii. 75 L.T. 686), 69, i.

V.

St. Olave's Union v. Canterbury Turner Pneumatic Tyre Co., Ltd. v.

Union (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 438; Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co., Ltd.
76 L.T. 88), 71, vi.

(75 L.T. 651), 74, ij.
Salomon v. Salomon and Co., Ltd.,

(L.R. [1897 A.C. 22; 75 L.T. UMFREVILLE LONDON COUNTY
426), 59, iji.

COUNCIL (75 L.T. 550). 75, iv.
Sanders v. Jenkins (L.R. (1897] Universo Insurance Co. of Milan v.
1 Q.B. 93), 78, v.

Merchants Marine Insurance Co.
Satania, the, Clarke v. Earl of Dun- (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 205), 79, vi.

raven, 22, 53, ii.
Shields v. Howard (L.R. (1897) VALLANCY V. FLETCHER (L.R. (1897]
1 Q.B. 84), 69, vi.

1 Q.B. 265 ; 76 L.T. 201), 57, iii.
Simmons v. Blandy (L.R. (1897] Venner v. McDonell (L.R. (1897]
1 Ch. 19; 75 L.T. 646), 74, v.

1 Q.B. 421 ; 76 L.T. 152), 69, ii.
Simpson v. Hughes and Armstrong Vestry of St. John's, Hackney v.
(75 L.T. 487), 61, iii.

Hutton (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 210;
Simpson, in re: in re Wilchurch 75 L.T. 686), 69, i.

(L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 256; 76 L.T. Vestry of St. Mary's, Battersea v.
131), 77, viji.

Palmer (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 220),
Sloane v. The Britain Steamship

22, 47, iii.
Co., Ltd. (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 185; Victoria Steamboats. Ltd., in re;
75 L.T. 542), 73, i.

Smith v. Wilkinson (L.R. (1897]
Smelting Co. of Australia v. Com- i Ch. 158), 22, 41, vi.

missioners of Inland Revenue Vincent v. Tomlinson and Eyton
(L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 175; 75 L.T. (L.R. (1897] P. 1), 62, iv.
534), 22, 26, vi.; 77, i
Smith v. Wilkinson; in re Victoria WARD, in re; e.p. WARD (L.R. (1897)

Steamboats, Ltd. (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 266; 76 L.T. 37), 56, iv.
1 Ch. 158), 22, 41, vi.

Weeke's Settlement, in re (L.R.
Southcombe v. Guardians of Yeovil [1897] 1 Ch.289; 76 L.T.112), 84, ii.

Union (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 343 ; West Derby Union (Guardians of)
76 L.T. 58), 82, ii.

v. Metropolitan Life Assurance
Spiller and Baker, and Leetham and Society and West Derby Union v.
Sons, in re an Arbitration (L.R. Priestman (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 335;

[1897] 1 Q.B. 312; 76 L.T 35), 55, iv. 75 L.T. 412; 76 L.T. 73), 71, iv.
Spratt, in the goods of (L.R. (1897] West of England Fire Insurance Co.
P. 28; 75 L.T. 518), 82, vii.

v. Isaacs (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 226;
Stephenson, in re; Donaldson v. 75 L.T. 564), 22, 45, iii. ; 65, iii.

Bamber (L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 75; West Hartlepool (the Mayor of) v.
75 L.T. 495), 83, i.

Robinson (75 L.T. 677), 67, v.
Stileman-Gibbard v. Wilkinson and Western v. Bailey (L.R. (1897)1 Q.B.
Others (76 L.T. 90), 63, i.

86; 75 L.T. 470), 61, v.
Stock, in re; e. p. Amos (75 L.T. 422), Western Counties Steam Bakeries
56, v.

and Milling Co., Ltd. (75 L.T. 648),
Streatham and General Estates Co., 60, vi.

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

Q.B. 317), 22, 38, iii.
Sudely (Lord) v. Attorney-General Wilmot v. Alton (L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B.

(L.R. (1897] A.C. 11; 75 L.T. 17; 75 L.T. 447), 22, 4, i. ; 56, iii.
398), 21, 82, vi. ; 77, ii.

Winkle v. Bailey (L.R. (1897) 1 Ch.

123; 75 L.T. 577), 68, i.
TATE V. LATHAM (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. Wood, in re; e. p. Fanshawe (L.R.
502; 75 L.T. 694), 68, iii.

[1897] 1 Q.B. 314), 22, 38, iv.
Thomson v. Burns (76 L.T. 58), 77, v. Wood v. Middleton (L.R. (1897] I
Thorpe v. Prestnall (L.R. (1897] Ch. 151: 75 L.T. 480), 72, iv.
Q.B. 159), 66, i.

Worthington v. Robinson and Others
Tubbs v. Wynne (L.R. (1897) 1 Q.B. (75 L.T. 446), 57, iv.
74), 82, iv.

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

(L.R. [1897] i Ch. 536 ; 76 L.T. 61), Wynne v. Tempest (L.R. (1897) 1
81, v.

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 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.

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 Off0. lxv., 7. 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]

1 Ch. 921; 76 L.T. 452. Assignment:(iii.) C. A.-Assignment in form Absolute to Agent to CollectJudicature 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 AuctionSignature 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 MandateFraudulent 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.

« PreviousContinue »