Page images
PDF
EPUB

must either put in new defence or obtain leave to amend original defence, and so on toties quoties.-Darling v. Lawrence, 46 L.J. Ch. 808.

(xcix.) C. A.-Pleading-Amendment—Ord. 19, r. 22.-Decision of F. J. (see Bankruptcy, xxxviii., p. 26) affirmed.—Byrd v. Nunn, 46 L.J. Ch 1; 37 L.T. 585; 26 W.R. 101.

(c.) C. P. Div.-Pleading-Defence-Confession-Ord. 20, r. 3.—In action for rent and breach of covenant in not building a wall: defendant paid rent claimed into Court, and pleaded performance of covenant after action commenced: plaintiff confessed "the defence as to the covenant: Held that plaintiff was not entitled to costs under Ord. 20, r. 3, the defendant's statement not being a "defence.”—Callander v. Hawkins, L.R. 2 C.P. 592; 26 W.R. 212.

(ci.) Q. B. D.-Pleading-Striking-out.-The Court refused to strike ont paragraphs in a statement of defence which stated facts with a view of showing that the case came within the equitable doctrine with regard to dealings with expectant heirs.-Heap v. Morris, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 630; 46 L.J. Q.B. 761.

(cii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Pleading-Striking-out-Counter-claim.—A counter-claim must not seek relief which does not relate to the subjectmatter of the cause.-Harris v. Gamble, L.R. 5 Ch. D. 748; 46 L.J. Ch. 768.

(ciii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Pleadings-Striking out-Ord. 19, r. 18.—In an action for account with respect to a long series of transactions, the statement of claim set out a number of documents in full, the Court refused an order directing the pleadings to be struck out or amended.Davy v. Garrett, 26 W.R. 110.

(civ.) C. P. Div.-Reference.-A judge has power to refer not the whole action but only one or more issues of fact to an official referee.Longman v. East, 37 L.T. 410; 26 W.R. 183.

(cv.) Ex. Div.-Reference-Power of Referee.-Ord. 40, r. 2.--Official referee to whom an action is compulsorily referred, has no power, unless expressly authorised by the order of reference, to order judgment to be signed by the party in favour of whom he reports: his report need not deal specifically with each particular issue, if it decides the real issue between the parties.-Pontifex v. Severn, 37 L.T. 471; 26 W.R. 80. (cvi.) P. D. A. Div.-Service-Action in rem—Ord. 9, r. 10.-Service of writ on captain and nailing of arrest-warrant to the mast. Held not sufficient notice in action in rem.-The Marie Constance, 37 L.T. 366. (cvii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Service-Petition-25 & 26 Vict., c. 108.-A petition by trustees having power to sell lands with consent of tenant for life to sell mines separately, need not be served on remaindermen.-Re Nagle's Trusts, L.R. 6 Ch. D. 104.

(cviii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Service-Petition under Settled Estates Acts.Where beneficiaries were very numerous the Court dispensed with service on married woman and her husband entitled to life interest in one-tenth share of the estate, and with examination of another married woman entitled to one-fortieth share, also with notice to parties whose concur. rence was dispensed with.-Re Cundee's Settled Estates, 37 L.T. 271. (cix.) Ex. Div.-Stay of Proceedings-Company-Winding-up.--Application to stay proceedings in an action against a Company on the ground that a petition for winding-up the Company has been presented, may be made ex parte, and a rule absolute may be granted in the first instance.Masbach v. Anderson and Co., 37 L.T. 440; 26 W.R. 100.

(cx.) C. P. Div.-Transfer of Action-36 & 37 Vict., c. 66, s. 34.-Where an action has been commenced in a C. L. Div., defendant cannot by instituting a cross-action in Ch. Div. with regard to the same subject.

matter, and also other subject-matter specially consigned to Ch. Div., claim a transfer of the first action into the Ch. Div., unless the two matters are so connected as to render it necessary they should be tried together.-Standard Discount Co. v. Barton, 37 L.T. 581.

(cxi.) Q. B. Div.—Transfer of Action-County Court-30 & 31 Vict., c. 142, s. 10. -An order was made remitting an action to a County Court unless plaintiff should give security for costs within a week: such security not having been given, a master made an order for extension of time for giving security: Held that until the writ and order for transfer had been lodged with the registrar the case was still retained in the superior Court, and that the master had jurisdiction to make the order for extension of time.— Welply v. Buhl, 37 L.T. 640; 26 W.R. 211.

(cxii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Trial-Action with Witnesses-Counsel's Speeches.Rule laid down, that in trial of an action with witnesses, plaintiff's leading counsel shall open case and put in evidence, and junior counsel sum up the evidence.-Kino v. Rudkin, L.R. 6 Ch. D. 160; 46 L.J. Ch. 807. (cxiii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Trial-Action with Witnesses-Counsel's Speeches. -Leading counsel is to open case and put in evidence, and either leading or junior counsel to sum up.-Metzler v. Wood, 37 L.T. 523; 26 W.R. 125. (cxiv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Trial-Assizes-Ord. 36, rr. 3, 10, 29 a.-In action for damages relating to property in Staffordshire, in which the evidence of many local witnesses was necessary: Held that there was sufficient reason to order trial of the action at assizes, such being the wish of all parties. Wood & Ivery v. Hamblet, L.R. 6 Ch. D. 113.

(cxv.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Trial-Assizes-Delay.-On September 30th, plaintiffs gave notice of trial without jury before V.C.M.: on November 19th they took out summons for trial of issue of fact at assizes: the action having been transferred to F. J., on November 30th they gave notice of motion that action might stand out of paper till Hilary Sittings, 1878, which was ordered to come on for hearing on December 11th, and on December 7th the summons was at plaintiffs' request adjourned to be heard by F. J. with the motion: both applications were refused on ground of delay.-Lloyd v. Jones, 37 L.T. 524.

(cxvi.) Ch. Div.-Trial-Jury-Ord. 36, r. 3.-Any party to an action is entitled subject to approval of the judge to submit issues of fact to a jury. Clements v. Norris, 26 W.R. 94.

(cxvii.) Ch. Div.-V. C. M.-Trial-Jury-Discretion of Court.-In a suit for specific performance the court has power to refuse trial by jury, and the hearing will then be in Ch. Div. without a jury.-Pilley v. Baylis, L.R. 5 Ch. D. 241; 46 L.J. Ch. 817; 36 L.T. 296.

(cxviii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Trial-Default of Appearance-Service.-Where action is in paper for trial, and defendant does not appear, service of notice of trial must be strictly proved.-Cockshott v. London General Cab Co., 26 W.R. 31. .

(cxix.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Trial-Non-appearance-Ord. 36, rr. 19, 20.-Where plaintiff's non-appearance at the trial was shown to have been accidental, the action which had been dismissed with costs was restored to the list, the plaintiff paying costs of the day and of the application.—Cockle v. Joyce, L.R. 7 Ch. D. 56; 37 L. T. 428; 26 W.R. 41, 59.

(cxx.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Writ-Indorsement-Administration-Realty.— Writ of summons in a creditor's action for administration of real estate must express that action is brought on behalf of plaintiff and all other creditors.-Re Vincent, 26 W.R. 94.

(cxxi.) Q. B. Div.-Writ-Renewal-Barred Claim.-The Court has no power to extend time for renewal of writ of summons where otherwise the claim would be barred by Statute of Limitations.-Doyle v. Kaufman, L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 7; 47 L.J. Q.B. 26; 26 W.R. 98.

(cxxii.) Q. B. Div.-Writ-Special Indorsement-Particulars-Ord. 3, r. 6-In an action for contribution on a bill of exchange, the indorsement must specify fully the amounts and dates of the bills and the parties thereto.Walker v. Hicks, L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 8; 47 L.J. Q.B. 27; 37 L.T. 529; 26 W.R. 113.

Principal and Agent :

(v.) C. A.-Commission-Proximate Cause.-Defendant employed plaintiff to sell a ship under an agreement that he should receive a commission if a sale should be effected "to any person led to make an offer in consequence of" his publication or mention of it: plaintiff advertised the ship for sale, and it was purchased by S., who heard of it from a person who had been in communication with plaintiff: Held that plaintiff was not entitled to commission.-Bayley v. Chadwick, 37 L.T. 593.

(vi.) C. A.-Factor-6 Geo. 4, c. 94; 5 & 6 Vict., c. 39.-H., a broker, sold tobacco in bond in his name to plaintiffs who paid for it but left it at the docks to be delivered as they should direct: H. pledged it to defendants, and handed to them the documents, and transferred it into their names: Held that defendants were not protected by the Factor's Act, and were not entitled to retain the tobacco.-Johnson v. Credit Lyonnais, 26 W.R. 195.

(vii.) P. C.-Fraud by Agent-Liability of Principal. Respondent's agent in course of business sent to appellants an account showing advances made on goods on their account, and drew a bill on them for the amount which was borrowed; the advances had not been made, and the agent had ap propriated the money: Held that appellants were entitled to recover from respondents the amount of the bill.-Swire v. Francis, 37 L.T. 554.

Probate :

(iii.) P. D. A. Div.-Attestation-Order of Signing.-At foot of will were words "Signed in the presence of," followed by signatures of attesting witnesses, and beneath these signatures that of testator: the witnesses deposed that both were present when testator and themselves signed it, but they could not remember in what order the signatures were made: Probate granted. In the goods of S. P. Jones, 46 L.J. P.D.A. 80.

(iv.) P. D. A. Div.-Evidence-Lost Will-Copy.-A deed whereby a person mortgaged his interest under a lost will was admitted as proof of the will having been executed; a copy of the will found after 50 years among the papers of an executor thereof was admitted as evidence of contents of will.-Sly v. Dredge, L.R. 2 P.D. 91; 46 L.J. P.D.A. 63; 25 W.R.463.

(v.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Suppressed Will-Jurisdiction. In a case of alleged fraudulent suppression of a will: Held that no relief could be granted till the will was proved, that the Chancery Division had jurisdiction to grant probate, but would not under the circumstances exercise its right, and that action must stand over for proceedings to be taken in Probate Division.--Pinney v. Hunt, L.R. 6 Ch. D. 99; 26 W.R. 69.

(vi.) P. D. A. Div.-Two Wills-Compromise.-By consent of parties the Court will grant probate to two testamentary instruments if not inconsistent with one another.-Robinson v. Clarke, L.R. 2 P.D. 269.

Public Health:

(iii.) C. P. Div.-Lodging-House-38 & 39 Vict., c. 55.-A lodging-house, frequented by hawkers and others of a similar class staying for various periods Held to require registration as a common lodging-house under the Public Health Act, 1875.-Langdon v. Broadbent, 37 L.T. 434.

(iv.) C. A.-Sewer-38 & 39 Vict., c. 55.-Held that on the construction of the Public Health Act, 1875, s. 16, the local authority may carry sewers on or over, as well as under, lands, and that "lands" includes buildings.-Roderick v. Local Board of Aston, L.R. 5 Ch. D. 328; 46 L.J. Ch. 802; 36 L.T. 328; 25 W.R. 403.

Railway :

(xi). C. A.—Level-Crossing—Private Right of Way.-Plaintiff, under a contract with a railway company, was entitled to free way over a level. crossing whereon was then a public right of way, which was subsequently extinguished by a private Act of Parliament: Held, on the construction of the Act, that it only affected public rights, and that plaintiff was entitled to an injunction to restrain the blocking up of the crossing.Wells v. London, Tilbury, & Southerd Rail Co., 37 L.T. 302; 25 W.R. 325. (xii.) Q. B. Div.-Mandamus-Board of Trade Order.-A mandamus will not lie to compel construction by a railway company of a bridge in lieu of a level crossing in pursuance of an order of the Board of Trade, when from want of funds the company is unable to comply with the order.Re Bristol and N. Somerset Rail. Co., L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 10; 47 L.J. Q.B. 48; 37 L.T. 527.

(xiii) H. L.-Mine-Right to Support-Compensation-8 & 9 Vict., c. 20, ss. 6, 78.-Held that a railway company, having paid to a lessee of mines compensation under the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1875, was entitled to restrain in perpetuity the working of minerals required for support of the line.-Smith v. Gt. West. Rail. Co., 26 W.R. 130.

(xiv.) Q. B. Div.-Reduced Rate-Delay in Delivery-Misconduct.—Defendants contracted with plaintiff to carry a van at a reduced rate on terms that they should not be liable for damage or delay caused otherwise than by wilful misconduct of their servants: delay was caused in delivery of the van at a station on the line of another company, owing to its having been loaded on a truck too high to allow of its passing under the other company's gauge: Held that defendants were not liable.Webb v. Gt. West. Rail. Co., 26 W.R. 111.

(xv.) C. A.-Undue Preference.-Defendants gratuitously carted goods of three brewers, and allowed them certain rebates: Held that plaintiff, also a brewer, being charged for carriage aud allowed no rebate, could maintain action for undue preference.-Evershed v. L. & N. W. Rail. Co., 37 L.T. 623; 26 W.R. 102.

Revenue:

(v.) Ex. Div.-Income-tax-Mine-Balance of Profit-5 & 6 Vict., c. 35.— A colliery company, having worked out coal and thereby reduced the selling value of their mine by upwards of £10,000, were held to be entitled to deduct that sum for exhausted capital in estimating the balance of profits of their business, under Sched. D., r. 1.-Knowles & Sons v. McAdam, 26 W.R. 114.

(vi.) Ex. Div.-Inhabited House Duty-Police Superintendent.-A superintendent of police lived in a house separate from, but communicating with, the station: he was compelled to live in the house, and was removeable from the station at any time: Held that there was no occupation by the superintendent such as to render him liable to property-tax or inhabited house duty.-Bent v. Roberts, 26 W.R. 128. (vii.) C. P. Div.-License-Dog-Fraction of Day.-Where an excise officer took out a summons against a person for keeping a dog without a license : Held that the production of a license taken out later on the same day did not purge the offence.-Campbell v. Strangeways, 47 L.J. M.C. 6. (viii.) Ex. Div.-License-Goldsmith-30 § 31 Vict., c. 90.—A goldsmith holding a license entitling him to sell articles composed wholly or in part

of gold in which the gold is less than 2 oz. in weight, sold as gold a chain weighing more than 2 oz., but containing less than 2 oz. of pure gold: Held that he was liable to a penalty of £50.-Young v. Cook, 37 L.T. 536; 26 W.R. 100.

(ix.) Ex. Div.-Stamp-33 & 34 Vict., c. 97, ss. 8, 78.—An appointment by Charity Commissioners of new trustees vesting property in them is an instrument relating to two distinct matters, and must be stamped accordingly.-Hadgett v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, 37 L.T. 612; 26 W.R. 115.

Reversionary Interest:

(i.) H. L.-Expectant Heir-Pressure-Undervalue.-An heir-expectant may apply on grounds of mere inadequacy of price to set aside the sale of a reversion, and onus of proof of the fairness of the transaction lies on the purchaser the repeal of the Usury Laws has not affected the juris. diction of the Court to protect expectant-heirs and persons under pres. sure.-O'Rorke v. Bolingbroke, L.R. 2 App. 814.

Scotland, Law of:

(iv.) H.

L.—Evidence-Presumption—Paternity.—Where, after courtship between the parties, a marriage was hurried on to avoid scandal owing to the woman's pregnancy, and shortly afterwards the child was born: Held that the presumption of the fact of the paternity could not be rebutted by the oaths of both husband and wife that no sexual intercourse had taken place between them.-Gardner v. Gardner, L.R. 2 App. 723.

Settlement:

(ix.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Advancement-Annuity-Hotchpot.-Continu. ing or determined annuities brought into hotchpot as advancements must be valued as from the date of grant.-Hatfield v. Kent, 46 L.J. Ch.

812.

(x.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-After-acquired Property.-A covenant to settle after-acquired property will be generally read as limited to duration of coverture, even though it relates to a specific property.-Re Campbell's Policies, L.R. 6 Ch. D. 686; 46 L.J. Ch. 142; 25 W.R. 263.

(xi.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.--After-acquired Property-Covenant—Recital.— A marriage settlement to which the wife was a party, recited that it had been agreed that wife's after-acquired property should be settled, and that husband should enter into the covenant thereinafter contained that he would settle the same : Held that the covenant did not bind the wife after termination of the coverture.-Re Welb's Trusts, 46 L.J. Ch. 769.

(xii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Construction-Absolute Gift-Direction to Settle. -Where there is an absolute gift to children followed by a direction that the daughters' shares shall be settled on themselves for life with remainder to their children, any daughter who dies without issue takes her share absolutely.-Re Sidway Hall Estate, 37 L.T. 457.

(xiii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Construction-Representatives.-A fund was ultimately limited in trust for the person or persons (exclusive of A. and his representatives) who under the statute, &c.: Held that the children of A. were excluded.-Lindsay v. Ellicott, 46 L.J. Ch. 878.

(xiv.) C. A.—Fraud-False Recital-Bankruptcy of Settlor.-C., an insolvent trader, on his marriage, executed a settlement containing a false recital that he was indebted to his intended wife in £20,000, which he covenanted to pay to the trustees of the settlement, to be by them held in trust for wife for life, remainder for C. for life, remainder for children : the wife did not know of C.'s insolvency, or of the arrangement with regard to

« PreviousContinue »