Page images
PDF
EPUB

-

not so unusual and unreasonable as to give right to object to the title.Hyde v. Warden, 37 L.T. 567; 26 W.R. 201. (xvii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Lease-Counterpart · Evidence.-Held under the circumstances of this case that the counterpart of a lease was admissible as evidence against the defendants who claim to be owners in fee of the property comprised in the lease: Held also that the fact that the defendants had dealt with the property as owners in fee did not rebut the presumption that they held under the lease.-The Governors of Magdalen Hospital v. Knotts, 37 L.T. 428; 26 W.R. 141. (xviii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Lease - Covenant-Breach - Arbitration.Certain covenants in a lease which contained an arbitration clause were modified by a deed of even date containing no arbitration clause: Held that the two deeds must be read together, and that alleged breaches of covenant arising under the supplemental deed must be referred to arbitration.-Wade-Gery v. Morrison, 37 L.T. 270. (xix.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Lease-Covenant-Implied Obligation - Notice.Lessee of a public-house covenanted to purchase all beer to be thereat consumed from plaintiffs, to be supplied of certain quality and price: he assigned lease to defendant with notice: defendant mortgaged the lease to plaintiffs, and in consideration of the loan covenanted to purchase all beer to be consumed on the premises: Held that the covenant in the lease was binding on defendant as assignee with notice, but that such covenant was conditional on plaintiffs' observance of the covenant on their part, and that the covenant in the mortgage was also subject to implied covenant to supply good beer, and that evidence as to quality of the beer was admissible.-Luker & Co. v. Dennis, 26 W.R. 167.

66

(xx.) C. A.-Lease-Covenant-Private Residence.-Held that a covenant not to use buildings on land otherwise than as a private residence only and not for any purpose of trade was infringed by erection thereon by trustees of a charitable institution of a residence for 100 girls. Decision

[ocr errors]

of V. C. B. (reported 37 L.T. 265; 25 W.R. 802) reversed.-German v. Chapman, 26 W.R. 149.

(xxi.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Lease-Covenant―Sale of Liquor-Notice.-Vendors of a plot of land to plaintiff covenanted that no sale of liquor should be carried on on adjoining land, which they subsequently sold to T., who granted to defendant a lease of the same: the lease purported to allow defendant to carry on liquor trade on the premises, but defendant had notice of the covenant with plaintiff: Held that plaintiff was entitled to an injunction to restrain the trade without showing substantial damage, and that he was not debarred from relief by acquiescence in a trivial breach of the covenant.-Richards v. Revett, 37 L.T. 632; 26 W.R. 166. (xxii.) C. P. Div.-Lease-Public-House-Usual Covenant.-By agreement for assignment of a lease of a public-house it was agreed that the purchaser should take the lease subject to performance of the covenants thereby reserved, such covenants being usual in leases of public-houses: the lease contained a proviso that all underleases and assignments should be left with lessor's solicitor for registration; the jury having found that this clause was not usual: Held that purchaser was discharged from the agreement.-Brooks v. Drysdale, 37 L.T. 467. (xxiii.) C. P. Div.-Lodger-34 & 35 Vict., c. 79-Distress.-A., a tenant of a house, let the greater portion of it unfurnished to B. under a written agreement: B. occupied part and sub-let part: A. paid rent to superior landlord, and the rates and taxes: Held that B. was a lodger within the meaning of the Lodgers' Protection Act.-Phillips v. Henson, 37 L.T. 432; 26 W.R. 214.

(xxiv.) C. A.-Mining Lease Agreement-Specific Performance.-Trustees of two separate mining properties held by them on distinct trust agreed to lease them together for one rent: Held that specific performance could

not be enforced.- Tolson v. Sheard, L.R. 5 Ch. D. 19; 46 L.J. Ch. 815; 36 L.T. 756; 25 W.R. 667.

[blocks in formation]

(iii.) C. A.-Arbitration-Costs-Taxation-32 & 33 Vict., c. 18, s. 1.-Court has no power to review the master's taxation of an arbitration to settle disputed compensation.-Sandbach Charity Trustees v. N. Staffordshire Rail. Co., L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 1; 47 L.J. Q.B. 10; 37 L.T. 391.

(iv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Fund in Court-Investment-Conversion.-Purchasemoney of an infant's land paid into court, and invested under s. 69, is reality, and on infant's death descends to his heir-at-law.-Kelland v. Fulford, L.R. 6 Ch. D. 491; 25 W.R. 506.

(v.) C. A.—Superfluous Land.—Decision of Q.B. Div. (see Lands Clauses Act, ii., p. 17) affirmed.-Hooper v. Bourne, 37 L.T. 594.

Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Acts :

(ii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Title-Advertisements.-Where a petition and adver. tisements under the repealed Acts had omitted to describe in the title certain property ordered to be sold, the Court on a fresh petition under the Act of 1877 dispensed with fresh advertisements, and also with consent and examination of married women contingently entitled to rent charges or portions, and of service on their respective husbands and children. Re Earl of Kilmorey's Settled Estates, 26 W.R. 54.

Licensed House:

(iii.) Q. B. Div.-Drunkenness-35 & 36 Vict., c. 94.—A publican found drunk on his own premises after closing hours is not liable to penalty under Licensing Act, 1872, s. 12.-Lester v. Torrens, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 403; 46 L.J. M.C. 280; 25 W.R. 691.

(iv.) Q. B. Div.-Conviction-Appeal-Notice-35 & 36 Vict., c. 94.-Notice of appeal against a conviction under the Licensing Act, 1872, s. 12, must be addressed to the convicting justices.-Ex parte Curtis, L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 13; 37 L.T. 533; 26 W.R. 210.

Lord Mayor's Court:

(ii.) C. P. Div.-Jurisdiction-Place of Business.-Defendants had a chief office at their terminal station in the City, but the general superintendence and management of their business was conducted at Victoria Station: Held that they did not carry on their business within the City.— Rogers v. London Chatham and Dover Rail Co., 26 W.R. 192.

Lunacy :

(v.) C. A.-Insolvency-Contingent Interest.-In 1854 H. took the benefit of the Insolvent Act without mentioning a contingent interest to which he was entitled, and which in 1876 fell into possession and, H. having been found a lunatic, was paid into Court; on a petition by the provisional assignee the Court ordered the transfer of the fund to the credit of the insolvency. -Re Hinds, L.R. 7 Ch. D. 26.; 26 W.R. 193.

Master and Servant:

(iv.) Q. B. Div.-Employers and Workmen.-Respondent, an infant, entered into a contract for service: by the contract, power was given to his employers in certain events to terminate agreement and dismiss respondent: Held that the contract was not on the face of it inequitable, and that its validity depended upon whether its provisions were usual and reasonable.-Leslie v. Fitzpatrick, 47 L.J. M.C. 22; 37 L.T. 461. (v.) Q. B. Div.--Mine-Intimidation-35 & 36 Vict., c. 76.—Appellant, a check-weigher in respondent's mine, was convicted for intimidating workmen, but there was no proof that the intimidation had impeded the

working of the mine: Held that appellant had been guilty of misconduct within s. 18 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1872, and a summary order of removal was rightly granted by the justices.-Prentice v. Hall, 37 L.T. 605.

(vi.) Q. B. Div.-Tramway Conductor-Deposit-Forfeiture.-A conductor on entering service of a tramway company, deposited money to be forfeited on breach of any of the company's rules, and it was agreed that the company's manager should be the sole judge as to whether the deposit was to be retained, and that his certificate should be conclusive evidence of cause of retention, and bar any claim for recovery of the deposit: Held that such contract was binding on respondent.-London Tramways Co., v. Bailey, 47 L.J. M.C. 3; 37 L.T. 499.

(vii.) C. P. Div.-Truck Act.-Where a workman was compelled by his master to take a piece of cloth which he had damaged in lieu of part of his wages the master was held to have infringed the Truck Act.Smith v. Walton, 37 L.T. 437.

Market:

(i.) C.P. Div.-Sale within Limits.-Where certain carcases were delivered by respondent on January 12, within the limits of the City of E., in pursuance of a previous contract made on January 5, and a summons was taken out for infringement of the E. Market Act on January 12: Held that the summons might be amended by alteration of the date, and that the respondent might be convicted on the facts.-Mayor, &c., of Exeter v. Heaman, 37 L.T. 534.

Mauritius, Law of:

(i.) P. C.-Mortgage-Priority.-Mortgage of the P. estate agreed by deed to give priority to advances "pour les besoins et affaires d'habitation P. pendant la coupe de 1873 à 1874": Held that such priority included advances to pay off creditors of the estate whose claims fell due in 1873-1874.-Divre v. Lachambre, 37 L.T. 250.

Metropolitan Management:

(iii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-New Street-Paving-25 & 26 Vict., c. 102, s. 77.— When the cost of paving a new street has been improperly charged upon the general rate of the parish, the Court will order the district board to refund the amount and levy same on owners of adjoining houses and land.-Atty. Gen. v. Wandsworth Board of Works, L.R. 6 Ch. D. 539. (iv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Purchase of land-Interim investment-Costs57 Geo. 3, c. 29.-Costs of interim investments and a petition for that purpose are expenses of all purchases from time to time" within s. 89 of General Metropolitan Paving Act, 1817.-Re Merceron's Trusts, 26 W.R. 187.

[ocr errors]

(v.) C. A.-Vestryman—Qualification.-Defendant occupied premises jointly with his father: a rate was made on the father only: defendant asked to have his name put on the rate, which was not done: afterwards de. fendant was nominated as vestryman: inspectors declared him elected, and he sat and voted: subsequently defendant demanded that his name should be put upon the rate-book, which was done, and the rate was paid by defendant and his father jointly: Held that defendant was not qualified by rating and occupation, and, therefore, liable to penalty.-Goodhew v. Williams, 37 L.T. 454; 26 W.R. 107.

Mines:

(vi.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Clay Workings-Surface-Support.-In a con. veyance under 39 Geo. 3, c. 21, for redemption of land-tax: Held that an exception out of a reservation of minerals was not cured by 57 Geo. 3,

c. 100 grantees of surface held to be entitled to support as against grantees of clay.-Whidborne v. Ecclesiastical Commissioners, 37 L.T. 346. (vii.) Ex. Div.-Inclosure Act-Highway-Support.-An Inclosure Act reserved to the lord of the manor rights and powers of working mines: Held that the lord was not entitled to work the mines so as to injure public roads.-Benfieldside Local Board v. Consett Iron Co., 26 W.R. 114. (viii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Water-Negligence--Ordinary Working.-Defendants got rid of water from their mine by sinking a bore-hole, whence the water percolated into plaintiff's adjoining mine: Held that defendants were liable for the damage.-West Cumberland Coal Co. v. Kenyon, L.R. 5 Ch. D. 773; 46 L.J. Ch. 850.

(ix.) H. L.-Water-New Channel-Overflow.-Where A., a mine-owner, diverted a stream flowing across the surface of his land, and, owing to an extraordinary rainfall, the stream burst its banks and overflowed into an adjoining mine: Held that A. was liable for the damage.-Fletcher v. Smith, L.R. 2 App. 781; 47 L.J. Exch. 4; 37 L.T. 367; 26 W.R. 83. (x.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Wrongful Working-Railway Company-Ultra Vires-Release-Statute of Limitations.-Plaintiffs and the W. H. Rail. Co. were lessees of adjoining mines; in 1862 diputes arose as to boundaries of respective mines: in 1863 an Act passed that the W. H. Rail. Co. should sell their mines within five years: in 1864, it was mutually agreed that all trespasses, &c., should be condoned: In 1865, another Act provided for amalgamation of W. H. Rail. Co. with defendants: in 1870, it was first discovered by plaintiffs that in 1863, pending the agreement, and after the boundaries had been settled, the W. H. Rail. Co. had broken down plaintiffs' barriers and worked their coal: Held that defendants were liable.-Eccl. Commrs. v. N. E. Rail. Co., 47 L.J. Ch. 20.

[blocks in formation]

(v.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Equitable Mortgage-Pledge.-A. deposited with B. railway bonds as security for a loan: Held that B. was pledgee thereof and entitled to decree for sale but not for foreclosure.-Carter v. Wake, L.R. 4 Ch. D. 605; 46 L.J. Ch. 841.

(vi.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Foreclosure-Re-opening Decree.-In foreclosure action the equity of redemption was sold with approbation of judge to M. and G. who entered into negotiations with the mortgagee for a transfer to them of the mortgage; their solicitor assuming these negotiations were virtually completed, attended pro formâ on the day named for completion of the purchase, and admitted that M. and G. were liable for the purchase-money: the mortgagee had meanwhile transferred the mortgage to F. who obtained a foreclosure decree. M. and G., after unsuccessful proceedings to enforce specific performance of agreement with the mortgagee, offered to redeem: Held that they were entitled to re-open the foreclosure decree.-Campbell v. Holyland, 26 W.R. 160.

Municipal Law:

(iii.) C. P. Div.-Arbitration-Jurisdiction.—Where a landowner claimed compensation for alleged damage and gave to a local board the usual arbitration notices, and on the board's refusal to appoint an arbitrator, proceeded to reference before an arbitrator appointed by himself: Held that in order to set aside the award, the board must show grounds for their denial of their liability to make compensation.-Burgess v. Northwich Local Bd., 37 L.T. 355; 26 W.R. 19.

(iv.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Local Board-Arbitrary Powers-Injunction.— The Court considering that the plaintiff had been misled by the defendants, restrained them from levying upon the plaintiff unless or until

she should have an opportunity of stating a case to the Queen's Bench.Ashworth v. Hebden Bridge Local Board, 37 L.T. 496.

(v.) Ex. Div.-Local Board-Bye-Laws-21 & 22 Vict., c. 98.-An urban sanitary authority has power under Local Government Act, 1858, s. 32, to pull down houses erected in a new street on ground of non-compliance with bye-laws as to structure and deposit of plans.-Baker v. Mayor of Portsmouth, L.R. 3 Ex. D. 4; 37 L.T. 381; 25 W.R. 677.

(vi.) Ex. Div.-Penalty-3 & 4 Vict., c. 97, s. 16-5 & 6 Wm. 4, c. 76, s. 126. A penalty for impeding the officer of a railway company in execution of his duty, summarily recovered before a borough justice, goes to the borough not to the Crown.-Atty.-Gen. v. Moore, 37 L.T. 610, (vii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Street-Frontage-line-Penalty-Injunction.— Where a local board took proceedings to recover a penalty for advancing a building beyond the street frontage line: Held that the board were not estopped by alleged notice and acquiescence, and that the Court had no jurisdiction to restrain the proceedings.-Kerr v. Mayor of Preston, L.R. 6 Ch. D. 463; 46 L.J. Ch. 409; 25 W.R. 265.

New South Wales, Law of:

(iii.) P. C.-Ejectment-Legal Estate-Trustee.-Held that the legal estate which was vested in trustees by a private Act of Parliament was vested in them for all purposes, so that they could maintain an action of ejectment.-Underwood v. Pennington, 37 L.T. 320.

[blocks in formation]

(i.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Acquiescence-Increase of Noise-Injunction.— Where occupants of premises adjoining a steam-printing press had for 20 years made no complaints with regard to the noise made thereby : Held that they were not barred by acquiescence from obtaining an injunction to restrain increased noise caused by additions to the machinery.-Heather v. Pardon, 37 L.T. 393.

(ii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Gas-10 Vict., c. 15-23 & 24 Vict., c. 125.—A gas company cannot justify themselves from proceedings for nuisance, on the ground that they cannot make or supply gas without creating such nuisance. Atty.-Gen. v. Gas Light & Coke Co., 26 W.R. 125.

(iii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Military Exercises-Jurisdiction.-The Secretary of State for War is a necessary party to an action for an injunction to restrain alleged nuisance caused by instruction of troops on land acquired by Government for that purpose: an action will lie against the Secretary of State for nuisance, but not for reasonable user of such land for military purposes.-Hawley v. Steele, L.R. 5 Ch. D. 521; 46 L.J. Ch. 782; 37 L.T. 625.

Partnership:

(iii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.- Dissolution-Trade Name.--Plaintiff, the inventor of "Condy's Fluid," took defendant into partnership for the manufacture and sale thereof: Held that on dissolution of the partnership defendant could not be restrained from manufacturing and selling "Condy's Fluid," on his own account.-Mitchell v. Condy, 37 L.T. 268. (iv.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Dissolution-Reference of Disputes to Foreign Tribunal Stay of Proceedings.-British subjects entered into an agreement to trade in partnership in Russia and that all disputes should be referred to the St. Petersburg Commercial Court: one of the partners having commenced an action for dissolution of the partnership: the Court on motion by defendants granted them order for stay of proceedings and a reference of the disputes to the St. Petersburg Commercial Court.-Law v. Garrett, 37 L.T. 602.

« PreviousContinue »