Page images

(i.) Q. B.-Receiving Order-Assets and CostsBankruptcy 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 CustomerCheques 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 à 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 bank. ruptcy, 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.


(i.) Q.B.D.-Act of Bankruptcy-Deed of Arrangement--Proof of Execution

Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1887, 88.6 & 11.-Where a petitioning creditor alleges an act of bankruptcy by the execution of a deed of arrangement, he ought to prove the actual date of the execution. Even if the document is some evidence that its execution was on the day it bears date, it is not evidence strong enough for the Court to act upon.-In re

Slater ; e. p. Slater, 76 L.T. 529. (ii.) Q. B.-Principal and Surety-Joint and Several Promissory Note

Payment by Surety-Right to Prove for Interest--Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1856, s. 5Bankruptcy Act, 1883, r. 20, Sched. 2.A claim for interest on the amount of a joint and several promissory note paid at maturity by a surety is a claim on an instrument in writing within the meaning of r. 20 of the rules of second schedule

of the Act of 1883.-In re Evans ; e. p. Davies, 76 L.T. 530. (iii.) Q. B. D.-Act of Bankruptcy-Words understood as Notice of Intention

to Suspend Payment-Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 4, sub-s. 1.-Words which do not amount to a notice of intention to suspend payment, although the creditor to whom they are addressed so construes them, do not create an act of bankruptcy.-In re Phillips ; e. p. W. Thomas & Co.,

76 L.T. 531. (iv.) Q. B.-Bankruptcy Act, 1890, s. 3—Composition Secured by Promissory

Notes--Overvaluation of Creditor's Security.—Where a debtor's estate had been vested in trustees under 'a scheme approved by the Court, and instalments had been secured by joint and several promissory notes of the trustees, a creditor was held entitled to revalue his security and prove for the balance, but as the contract of the trustees was limited to the promissory notes, he was not entitled to payment of the

composition in full.-In re Morter ; e. p. Nichols, 76 L.T. 532. (v.) Q. B. D.-Suspension - Review Bankruptcy Act, 1890, s. 8.–Sus

pension of discharge for five years should be reserved for only very bad cases.-In re Swabey ; e. p. Swabey, 76 L.T. 534.

Bill of Sale:(vi.) C. A.-Bills of Sale Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict., c. 31) s. 10Defeasance

-Landlord and Tenant-Contract to Purchase Reversion-Distress.The grantor of a bill of sale given to secure repayment of money at the end of a month, gave at the same time a mortgage by which he covenanted to pay on demand a sum of money which included the sum secured by the bill of sale. Held, that by sect. 10 the mortgage was a defeasance of the bill of sale. A contract by a lessee to buy the reversion does not determine the lease at law, but in equity it suspends the landlord's right to distress so long as the contract is enforceable by action for specific performance.-Ellis v. Wright, 76 L.T. 522.

Bill of Exchange : (vii.) Q. B. D.-Banker-Cross Cheque CollectedDefective Title of Customer

- Overdrawn Account-Protection to Banker-Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict., c. 61), s. 82.—A banker who collects a crossed cheque to which his customer had no title, is protected from liability to the true owner by sect. 32 of the Bills of Exchange Act, and this protection is not impaired though the banker apply the proceeds of the cheque to a debt due to himself on the overdrawn account of the customer.-Clarke_v. The London & County Bank, L.R. [1897) 1 Q.B. 552 ; 76 L.T. 293.

Canal: (i.) C. D.-Mining under Canal-Liability under Special Act-Undertaking

by Public Body.-By a special Act colliery owners were empowered to work minerals, not thereby injuring a canal ; and the canal owners, for the preservation of their works, were entitled to treat for the cession of the right. Held, that the colliery owners were under no statutory obligation to the canal owners for working adjacent minerals and that for subjacent minerals they were not entitled to compensation if the canal owners gave an undertaking to release them from statutory liability and to themselves make good any damage caused to the canal.-New Moss Colliery Co. v. Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Co., L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 725 ; 76 L.T. 231.

Charity: (ii.) C. D.-Mortmain-Metropolitan Board of Works (Loans) Act, 1869

(32 & 33 Vict., c. 102), s. 5.-Consolidated stock of the Metropolitan Board of Works is impure personalty. Cluff v. Cluff considered.-In re Crossley ; Borrill V. Greenhough, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 928 ; 76 L.T. 419.


Colonial Law:(iii.) P. C.-- British HondurasRegistered Title to LandAdverse Possession

-Consolidated Laws of 1887, c. 19, ss. 5 & 6, and c. 106, s. 30.-Twenty years' adverse possession of land will set up a title antagonistic to that of an owner registered under the Honduras Lands Titles Acts. The Beliz Estate and Produce Co. v. Quilter, L.R. [1897] A.C. 367;

76 L.T. 361. (iv.) P. C.-CanadaCompany-Winding-up—Payment in Cash—Revised

Statutes of Quebec, 4722, s. 1.-A bonâ fide transaction between a company and one of its shareholders which amounts to a payment is a

payment in cash" within Art. 4722, sect. 1, which is equivalent to sect. 25 of the Companies Act, 1867 (England). Larocque v.

Beauchemin and Others, L.R. [1897] A.C. 358; 76 L.T. 473. (v.) P. C.-Cape Colony-Pondoland Annexation Act, 1894, 5.— Governor

Proclamation Ultra Vires.--The Governor of Cape Colony, for the public safety, ordered by proclamation the imprisonment of a native chief under the authority of an Act of the Colonial Legislature which made the territory where the chief resided subject to such laws, statutes, and ordinances” as “the Governor shall from time to time by proclamation declare to be in force.” Held, that the Governor had authority to enact in the territory laws, &c., already existing in other parts of the colony, but not to make new laws; and that the proclamation was ultra vires.-Sprigg v. Sigcau, L.R. (1897] A.C. 238;

76 L.T. 127. (vi.) P. C.-CeylonConstruction of Will— Fidei CommissumOrdinance

No. 21 of 1844, No. 10 of 1863, and No. 7 of 1871.- Where a testator left property to three grandchildren jointly with benefit of survivorship and substitution of descendants as fidei commissum, held, that the heirat-law of a deceased great-grandchild had no claim so long as any person could shew a title as institute or substitute.--Hamini and Others

v. Tillekeratne, L.R. [1897] A.C. 277; 76 L.T. 210. (vii.) P. C.- NatalCompany-Articles of AssociationMeetingPowers of

Chairman.—Where articles of association of a company provided that “ the chairman may, with the consent of the members present at any meeting, adjourn the same,” it was held that the chairman was

not bound to adjourn a meeting, even though the majority of those present desired the adjournment; and that a resolution carried after à motion for adjournment had been rejected by the chairman was effectual.-Salisbury Gold Mining Co. v. Hathorn and Others, L.R. (1897) A.C. 268; 76 L.T. 212.

Company :(i.) C. A.-Substratum of Business Gone-Winding-up Notwithstanding

Ancillary ObjectsCompanies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict., c. 89), s. 79, sub-s. 5.- On the failure of the special object which a company puts in the forefront of its memorandum of association, the substratum of the company is gone, and a winding-up order may be made though the company may have taken large powers in addition to its particular purpose. - In re The Coolgardie Consolidated Gold Mines, Limited, 76 L.T. 269.

(ii.) C. D.-Debenture Holder's Action-Uncalled Capital on Plaintiff?:

SharesCompanies Act, 1867, s. 25.—Where, in a debenture holder's action, the chief clerk found that the plaintiff was a debtor for uncalled capital on which the debentures were charged, it was held that the certificate of the chief clerk contained a proper finding, and as the plaintiff had submitted to the jurisdiction the matter could be determined in her action.Madeley v. Ross Sleeman & Co., Limited,

L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 505 ; 76 L.T. 321. (iii.) C. A.— Winding-up -- Issue of Paid-up Shares Consideration

MisfeasanceCompanies Act, 1867, s. 25.--Agreements by a limited company to pay for property or services by paid-up shares are valid; and the liability of a shareholder to pay the amount represented by his shares can be discharged by any mode in which a specialty debt can be discharged. Decision of Court below (see Vol. 22, p. 58 (vi.)) affirmed.-In re E. J. Wragg, Limited, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 796 ;

76 L.T. 397. (iv.) H. L.-Winding-up-Shares issued at a Discount.Holders of shares

issued at a discount are, after outside debts and expenses have been discharged in a winding-up, liable to be called upon to pay their shares to the full amount in order that the rights of various classes of shareholders inter se may be adjusted. Ooregum Gold Mining Co. v. Roper explained and followed. Judgment of Court of Appeal (see Vol. 20, p. 37 (v.)) affirmed, Lord Herschell dissenting.-Welton v. Saffery,

L.R. (1897] A.C. 299; 76 L.T. 505. (v.) C. A.-Alteration of ArticlesIssue of Preference Shares.- Decision of

the Court below (see Vol. 22, p. 42 (vi.)) reversed; and held that unless the memorandum of association of a limited company imposes a condition that there shall be equality amongst the shareholders, the company can by special resolution alter its articles and take power not contained in the original articles to issue preference shares. Hutton v. The Scarborough Cliff Co. (13 L.T. 57; 2 Dr. & Sm. 52) overruled. –

Andrews v. Gas Meter Co., Limited, L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 361 ; 76 L.T. 132. (vi.) C. D.-Declaration of DividendInjunction-Alteration of Articles of

Association.-On the motion of a shareholder who had subscribed the memorandum of association of a company, the Court restrained the declaration of a dividend at a proposed general meeting of the company, on the ground that such a declaration would not be in accordance with the articles of association, but refused to restrain the company from altering its articles.--Nicholson v. Rhodesia Trading Co., Limited, L.R. [1897] i Ch. 434; 76 L.T. 147.

(i.) H. L.-Shares described on face as Fully Paid-up--Liability of Holder.

-A company which issues shares described on the face as fully paid up is estopped from denying that they are so paid. Decision of Court of Appeal (see Vol. 22, p. 7 (i.), under name In re Veuve Monnier et ses fils, Limited), reversed.-Bloomenthal v. Ford, L.R. (1897] A.C. 156 ;

76 L.T. 205. (ii.) C. D.-Action by Majority of Debenture HoldersFloating Charge

Foreclosure-Sale.- Foreclosure was refused but an order for sale was made in an action by four out of a total of five debenture holders whose security was a floating charge upon the property of a limited company.-In re The Continental Oxygen Co., Limited ; Elias v. The

Continental Oxygen Co., Limited, 76 L.T. 229. (iii.) C. A.-AuditorsWinding up-Misfeasance— Companies (Winding-up)

Act, 1890, s. 10.-Auditors, if they are appointed as officers of a company fall within sect. 10 of the Winding-up Act, even though they are irregularly appointed; but primâ facie an auditor is not an officer, and does not become one by happening to do some of the work which he would have to do if he were an officer in the proper sense of the word. Decision of the Court below (see Vol. 22, p. 60 (vi.)) reversed.-In re The Western Counties Steam Bakeries and Milling Co., Limited ; e.p.

Parsons and Robjent, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 617; 76 L.T. 239. (iv.) C. A.-SharesUnderwriting LetterNo Communication of Acceptance

-Authority to apply for Shares-Estoppel.--By a letter declared to be irrevocable, a person engaged to underwrite shares in a company, and authorised an application for shares to be made in his name if he himself failed to apply. Acceptance was not communicated to him. Held, reversing the decision of the Court below, that communication of acceptance was necessary and therefore there was no contract; that in the absence of communication, he could not fail in his obligation to apply, and therefore the authority to apply in his name never arose ; that there was nothing to shew that he was precluded from denying å failure on his part, and therefore the doctrine of estoppel did not apply.

-In re The Consort Deep Level Gold Mines, Limtd.; e. p. Stark and

Elliston, L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 575; 76 L.T. 300. (v.) C. D.-Articles of Association-Reduction of Capital-Loss of Voting

Power of Class of Shareholders.-A limited company had by its articles power to reduce its capital and power for a majority in a class of shareholders to consent to any scheme prejudicial to the class. Such a majority resolved to reduce the capital in a manner which would reduce the voting power of the class. Held, that the Court had power to sanction the resolution. The Continental Union Gas Company (7 Times L.R. 476) not followed.-In re James Colmer, Limited,

76 L.T. 323. (vi.) C. A.-Writ of Prohibition-Examination of Company's Affairs by Board

of Trade-Companies Act, 1862, ss. 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61.–Neither an inspector appointed by the Board of Trade under sect. 56 of the Companies Act to inquire into the affairs of a joint stock company, nor the Board of Trade itself, is liable to a writ of prohibition in respect of the inquiry.--In re The Grosvenor and West End Railway Terminus Hotel Co., Limited, 76 L.T. 337.

Contempt of Court:(vii.) C. A.-Breach of Injunction-Committal of Person Abetting.- The Court

has jurisdiction to commit for contempt a person who aids another against whom an injunction has been granted to commit a breach of the injunction.-Seaward v. Paterson, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 545 ; 76 L.T. 215.

« PreviousContinue »