Page images

agreed that a suit she had commenced for restitution of conjugal rights should be stayed upon certain terms, which the husband was ready to fulfil, subsequently sought to proceed with the suit: Held that she was bound by the agreement.-Stanes v. Stanes, 47 L.J. P.D.A. 19 ; 26

W.R. 238. (xxvi.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Separate Estate--Debts contracted before Mar.

riage-Costs.-A creditor of a married woman is entitled to recover against her separate estate in respect of a debt contracted before mar. riage, and also for costs of obtaining judgment and costs paid to the hus. band in obtaining judgment, although the property is settled on the wife without power of anticipation on her marriage.- London and Provincial

Bank v. Bogle, 37 L.T. 780. (xxvii.) C. A.-Separate Estate Equitable Estate Tail-Restraint on Anticipa.

tion-Power to Bar-Curtesy.-A married woman was entitled under a will to an equitable estate tail to her separate use, and restrained from anticipating the rents and profits: Held that the restraint on anticipation did not prevent the wife from barring the entail; that the previous bank. ruptcy of her husband did not prevent him from joining in the disentail. ing deed; and that the wife had thereupon power to defeat her husband's right to curtesy, which would otherwise have arisen, by devising the estate.--Cooper v. Macdonald, L.R. 7 Ch. D. 288; 28 L.T. 191; 26

W.R. 377. (xxviii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Separate Estate-Restraint on Anticipation

Fraud by Married Woman.- A married woman having concurred in the fraudulent mortgage of property settled to her separate use, with restraint on anticipation, the mortgagee, having obtained judgment against her, is not entitled to a charging order on her next accruing dividend. — Stanley v. Stanley, L.R. 7 Ch. D. 589; 47 L.J. Ch. 256 ; 37 L.T. 777; 26

W.R. 310. (xxix.) C. A.-Wife's Chose in Action-Reduction into Possession.-Decision

of V.C.M. (See Husband and Wife vi., p. 15) affirmed.— Widgery v. Tepper, L.R. 7 Ch. D. 423.

Innkeeper's Lien :(i.) C. A.-Guest's Goods-Wrongful Conversion.-B. bought horses and

carriages of plaintiff and took them to defendant's inn, where he was entertained for a long time: he never paid for the horses and carriages, and absconded owing defendant his bill, and leaving the horses and carriages with him : subsequently, he re-assigned the horses and carriages to plaintiff; but defendant refused to give them up till B.'s bill was paid, and afterwards sold the horses : Held that defendant had a general lien on the horses and carriages for the whole of B.'s bill ; but that the sale of the horses was a wrongful conversion, for which the plaintiff could maintain an action, and that the measure of damages was

the value of the horses.-Mulliner v. Florence, 38 L.T. 167 ; 26 W.R. 385. Insurance: (vii.) C. A.-Life Insurance---Cancellation of DeedPowers.-Decision of

V.C.B. (See Insurance vi., p. 53) affirmed.-Re Norwich Provident
Insurance Co., 38 L.T. 267; 26 W.R. 441.

Justice of Peace :(i.) Q. B. Div.-Disqualifying Interest. - The Corporation of London sum.

moned C. under 24 & 25 Vict., c. 97, s. 53, for destroying notice boards erected in Epping Forest : one of the justices who heard the summons was a commoner of Epping Forest, and had also made an affidavit in an action between the corporation and C. relating to the same matter, in which he stated that the management of Epping Forest by the corpora. tion was beneficial to the commoners: Held that these facts did not show any interest disqualifying the justice from adjudicating on the

summons.--Regina v. Alcock, Ex parte Chilton, 37 L.T. 829. Landlord and Tenant:(xxv.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Agreement for Lease--Damages-Rent.--Defendant

signed a receipt for £5 embodying an agreement to let land for 99 years, and stating that a rent of £20 should be payable quarterly, and that the ground rent should commence from a fixed date; but not stating when the lease should commence : Held that there was no stipulation that the land should be built upon imported by the words“ ground rent,” that the lease commenced from the time when the ground rent commenced, and that the damages payable for breach of the agreement were a sam equivalent to the rent payable during the time the plaintiff was out of

possession.-Wesley v. Walker, 38 L.T. 284; 26 W.R. 368. (xxvi.) C. P. Div.-Agreement for Lease-Personal Ayreement. The owner of

premises agreed to let them to defendant by writing not under seal, at a certain rent, and not to increase the rent or give notice to quit so long as defendant desired to remain : Held that this was a mere personal agreement, and did not bind a subsequent purchaser of the premises

with notice.--- Roberts v. Tregaskis, 38 L.T. 176. (xxvii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Agreement for Lease- Specific Performance-Rent.

Specific performance of an agreement for a lease which did not state when the term was to commence, was decreed (the term to commence from the date of the agreement) with damages : Held that rent com. menced from the date of entry of the plaintiff. - Jaques v. Millar (No. 2),

38 L.T. 99; 26 W.R. 368. (xxviii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Agreement for Lease-Usual Covenant.-A cove

nant not to assign without the lessor's consent is not a “usual covenant" in the lease of a dwelling-house.Hampshire v. Wickins, L.R. 7 Ch. D.

555; 47 L.J. Ch. 243; 26 W.R. 491. (xxix.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Confusion of Boundaries-Obligation of Tenant

Enquiry at Chambers.-A tenant is under an obligation to his landlord to keep distinct, not only at the end, but during the continuance, of his term, the property of his landlord from his own: instead of directing a commission in the usual way to ascertain boundaries, an enquiry was by consent directed at chambers.-Spike v. Harding, 38 L.T. 285 ; 26 W.R.

420. (xxx.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Lease-Covenant-Breach-Accruing Damages.-In

a suit by an assignor of a lease against the assignee for indemnity in respect of breaches of covenants in the lease, the Court will direct pay. ment on account of breaches already committed, and will not make a general declaration of the assignor's right to indemnity.-Lloyd v.

Dimmack, L.R. 7 Ch. D. 398; 38 L.T. 173; 26 W.R. 458. (xxxi.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Lease-Covenant-Repair-Waste.-A covenant by

a lessor to keep premises in good condition implies a covenant to put them in good condition for the purpose for which they are let, and damage arising from their use by the lessee for such purpose, in con. sequence of their unfitness, is not waste : a proviso for reduction of rent in case of damage by fire, flood, storm, tempest, or other inevitable accident, does not apply to damage arising from faulty construction.

Saner v. Bilton, 47 L.J. Ch. D. 267; 38 L.T. 281; 26 W R. 391. (xxxii.) Q. B. Div.-Lease Joint Covenant.--In a lease to two joint tenants,

they covenanted for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, that they, or some or one of them would pay rent and repair at his or their own expense: Held a joint and not a several

covenant.-Levy v. Sale, 37 L.T. 709. (xxxiii.) C. P. Div.-Lease--Surrender-Fixtures.-The lessee of premises for

14 years built a green-house, affixed to the soil, the lessor undertaking to allow him to remove it: he afterwards assigned the greenhouse to H., and gave him power to enter and sell : he entered on the 4th April, and advertised the green-house for sale on 4th May: no sale took place, and on 11th May the auctioneers sent the keys of the premises to the lessor, who entered on the 14th : Held that a person who claimed to have bought the green-house on June 7th, and had sent notice thereof to the lessor, could not remove it, a surrender of the term having taken

place on May 14th.—Moss v. James, 47 L.J. Q.B. 160; 37 L.T. 715. (xxxiv.) C. P. Div.-Payment to out-going Tenant.-An alleged custom that

the out-going tenant shall look to the in-coming tenant for payment for seeds, tillage, &c., properly bestowed on the farm, to the exclusion of the landlord's liability, cannot be supported.—Bradburn v. Foley, L.R.

3 C.P.D. 129; 26 W.R. 423. Lands Clauses Act :(vi.) C.A.-Practice-Payment out to Trustees.-Funds in Court representing

the purchase-money of lands taken under the Lands Clauses Acts, which were subject to trusts, were ordered to be paid out to the trustees.

In re Hobson, 26 W.R. 470. (vii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-- Re-investment-Special Contract-Costs.-Costs

of a purchase thrown by special stipulations on the purchaser : Held not to be under the circumstances costs of re-investment payable by pro.

moters.-Re Temple Church Lands, 47 L.J. Ch. 160; 26 W.R. 259. (viii.) C. A.-Superfluous Lands.-Decision of Q.B. Div. (see Lands Clauses

Act ii., p. 17) affirmed.-Hooper v. Bourne, 26 W.R. 295. Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Acts :(iii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Purchase-money-Application. The purchase.

money of part of a settled estate may be applied in payment of a sum assessed by a corporation on the owners of another part of the estate as their contribution towards the expenses of making a street.-Re Hilliard's

Settled Estates, 38 L.T. 93. Licensed House :(v.) Q. B. Div.-Wine-dealer's Licence-Grocer—6 Geo. 4, c. 81-35 & 36

Vict., c. 94.-A grocer selling wine by retail to be consumed off the premises does not require a justice's certificate. - Regina v. Justices of Bristol,

Palmer v. Thatcher, 47 L.J. M.C. 54; 37 L.T. 784; 26 W.R. 314. Lord Mayor's Court:(ii.) C. P. Div.-Jurisdiction-Cause of Action.--In an action brought in

the Lord Mayor's Court for the price of goods sold, it was proved that part of the goods were ordered by a letter posted in Liverpool, and received by defendant at his house of business in London: Held that part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction.-Bennett v.

Cosgrif, 38 L.T. 177. (iv.) C. A.-Jurisdiction-Counter Claim-Judicature Act, 1873, s. 90.

Where an action has been brought in an inferior Court, and a counterclaim is set up which is beyond its jurisdiction, the Court has power to deal with the counter claim to the extent of the amount of the plaintiff's

claim only.—Davis v. Flagstaf Silver Mining Co., 26 W.R. 431. (v.) C. P. Div.-Jurisdiction-Place of Business.-Same decision as in

Rogers v. London, Chatham, and Dover Rail. Co. (see Lord Mayor's Court,

ii., p. 55).Le Tailleur v. South Eastern Rail. Co., L.R. 3 C.P.D. 18. Master and Servant:(viii.) C. P. Div.-Apprentice-Grievous Bodily Harm- Reasonable Ground

of Fear. To a claim alleging that defendant was surety for the faithful service of an apprentice, and that the apprentice had absented himself, defendant pleaded that plaintiff assaulted the apprentice, and inflicted personal injury upon him and threatened to do him grievous bodily harm, and that the apprentice, fearing grievous bodily harm from plaintiff, left his service: Held that the defence should be amended by adding an allegation that the apprentice had reasonable ground for such fear.

Halliwell v. Counsell, 38 L.T. 176. (ix.) Ex. Div.-Contract of Service-Illness of Serrant caused by his own

Act.-Plaintiff was engaged at a yearly salary as clerk to defendants, and was entitled to one month's notice of dismissal. He was obliged by illness to absent himself from 1st Aug st to 2nd September, and on the 20th August received a notice of dismissal: Held that he was entitled to salary to the 20th September, although the illness was caused by an act of his own which occurred before the contract, and which he did not know at the time of the contract would lead to his illness.-K v.

Raschen, 38 L.T. 38. (x.) C. A.--Negligence-Common Employment.—Decision of Ex. Div. (See

Master and Servant ii., p. 19) reversed.-Swainson y. North Eastern Rail.

Co., 38 L.T. 201 ; 26 W.R. 413. Metropolitan Management:(vi.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Party-wall-Undermining-18 & 19 Vict., c. 122.

Defendant dug beneath and undermined the wall which separated his own premises from those adjoining for the purpose of making altera. tions : notice was served on the adjoining owner, under the Metropolitan Building Act, 1855, and a surveyor appointed on each side, but they had not appointed a third surveyor: Held that defendant was acting within his rights as tenant in common of the wall and as adjoining owner under the 'Act, but that he should have waited till the appointment of the third surveyor, and must therefore pay the costs of a motion for injunc.

tion.- Standard Bank of British South Africa v. Stokes, 26 W.R. 492. Mines :(xi.) Ex. Div.-Rules-Breach-Liability of Owner35 8.36 Vict., c. 76, s. 51.

-An information being preferred against a part owner of a mine in which one of the general rules had not been complied with; it appeared that the general rules were put up in various parts of the mine, and that the defendant occasionally visited the mine, but took no part in the management, which was under the exclusive control of a certificated manager, also a part owner : Held that there was evidence on which the justices might properly find that defendant had taken all reasonable means by publishing, and to the best of his power enforcing, the rules and regulations to prevent such a non-compliance.- Baker v. Carter,

L.R. 3 Ex. Div. 132; 26 W.R. 497. Mortgage :(vii.) Ch. Div. F. J.--Agreement not to call for Principal-Breach of

Covenant-Waiver.-A mortgagee agreed not to call for payment of principal for two years, if interest was regularly paid : six months' interest being in arrear for a month, and having been frequently applied for, the mortgagee demanded payment of the principal: three days afterwards he accepted the interest: Held that he had not waived his

right to call in the principal.- Keene v. Biscoe, 38 L.T. 286. (viii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Payments by Mortgagor-Salvage.-A husband and

wife mortgaged a contingent reversionary interest of the wife: the wife died, and on the interest falling into possession the husband took out administration to her estate, having previously executed a creditor's deed, under which he took the ultimate surplus after payment of his debts: after his death his executrix incurred other expenses in perfect

ing his title : Held that the executrix could not claim, by way of salvage, in respect of the expenses incurred by the husband or herself in perfecting

his title to the mortgaged property.-Saunders v. Denman, 26 W.R. 397. (ix.) Q. B. Div.-Power of Sale-Payment by BillDishonour.--A mortgage

deed contained the condition that if default should be made seven days after notice requiring payment, the mortgagee might sell : the mort. gagee having given the notice, took on the sixth day a bill at three months for the amount: the mortgagor died, and the bill being dishonoured, the mortgagee sold the premises : Held that the power of sale was well exercised, and that the mortgagee's widow was not entitled to redeem.

Wood v. Murton, 47 L.J. Q.B. 191; 27 L.T. 788. (x.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Redemption-Costs of Enforcing Security-Ship.

Under a redemption order mortgagees of a ship were allowed costs of taking and holding possession of the ship and advertising it for sale and of effecting insurances.-Wilkes y. Saunion, L.R. 7 Ch. D. 188; 47 L.J.

Ch. 150. (xi.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Redemption, Mortgagee in Possession, Just Allow.

ances ---Necessary Repairs.--In taking accounts in a redemption action, a mortgagee in possession is entitled to “necessary repairs" under the head of “just allowances”: to entitle him to an enquiry as to permanent improvements, he must make out a case for them at the trial.—Tipton Green Colliery Co. v. Tipton Moat Colliery Co., L.R. 7 Ch. D. 192; 47

L.J. Ch. 152; 26 W.R. 318. Municipal Law :(viii.) C. A.-Local Board-By-Law8–21 & 22 Vict., c. 98--Decision of Ex.

Div. (See Municipal Law v., p. 58) affirmed.- Baker v. Mayor of Ports

mouth, 47 L.J. Exch. 223; 37 L.T. 822; 26 W.R. 303. (ix.) C. A.-Penalty-3 & 4 Vict., c. 97, s. 16–5 86 Will. 4, c. 76 s. 126.

Decision of Ex. Div. (See Municipal Law vi., p. 58) affirmed.-Attorney.

General v. Moore, 38 L.T. 251; 26 W.R. 366. Nuisance :(iv.) C. A.-Altering Level of LandInjury to Neighbour.-If anyone, by

artificial erection on his land, causes water to pass into his neighbour's land, and thus substantially to interfere with his enjoyment, he will be liable in an action for damages, provided that such injury is not caused by ihe natural use of the land, such as mining.--Hurdman v. North

Eastern Rail. Co., 26 W.R. 489. Palatine Court of Lancaster :(i.) C. A.-Jurisdiction--Stay of Proceedings. The jurisdiction of the

Palatine Court is co-ordinate with that of the High Court : the Palatine
Court has no jurisdiction to restrain an action in the High Court.-In re

Alison's Trusts, 26 W.R. 450. (ii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Stay of Proceedings-Foreclosure- Property out of

Jurisdiction.— The High Court will not stay proceedings in an action of foreclosure or sale, in the Palatine Court, where the property is without the jurisdiction of the latter, but both the mortgagor and mortgagee are within the jurisdiction.-Re Longdendale Cotton Spinning Co., 26

W.R. 491. Partition :(ii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Sale-Receiver- Judicature Act, 1873, sec. 25, sub-sec.

8.-In an action for partition, where one of the co-owners is in partoccupation, the Court has jurisdiction to appoint a receiver: a sale must be directed when the owner of a moiety desires it, unless good reasons against the sale can be adduced : consideration of what would be re. garded as good reasons.-Porter v. Lopes, L.R. 7 Ch. D. 358; 37 L.T. 824.

« PreviousContinue »