Page images
PDF
EPUB

EDE AND son, ROBE

MAKERS

SCHWEITZER'S COCOATINA,

ESTABLISHED 1825.

CLERICAL, MEDICAL, AND GENERAL Anti-Dyspeptic Cocoa or Chocolate Powder.

LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY. Guaranteed Pure Soluble Cocoa of the Finest Qua

13, ST. JAMES'S SQUARE, LONDON, S.W. with the excess of fat extracted. The Faculty pronounce it “the most nutritious, per.

MANUFACTURERS AND HOUSE FURNISHERS,

| CITY BRANCH: MANSION HOUSE BUILDINGS, E.C. fectly digestible beverage for Breakfast, Luncheon, or | 200, 203, and 204, TOTTENHAM COURT ROAD, W. Supper, and invaluable for Invalids and Children.”

ChairmanHighly commended by the entire Medical Press. Estimates and Designs submitted free for entirely Fur- Rt. Hon. Sir John ROBERT MOWBRAY, Bart., M.P., D.C.L Being without sugar, spice, or other admixture, it suits | nishing Residences, Chambers, Offices, &c. all palates, keeps better in all climates, and is four times -PAINTING, DECORATING, & HOUSE REPAIRS.the strength of cocoas THICKENED yet WEAKENED with

ELEVENTH BONUS MEETING, 1882. starch, &c., and IN REALITY CHEAPER than such Mixtures. Carved Oak Furniture, Reproductions from Ancient

The Report presented at a Meeting, held on the 5th Made instantaneously with boiling water, a teaspoonful Designs, &c. Bedroom Furniture, including Bedstead and

h o to Breakfast. Con motin

de pronunc

Donfurniture,
muding bedstead and Jannarv last. showed that on the

January last, showed that on the rigorous basis of the
Bedding, from £7 10s. per set.

Institute of Actuaries' HM Table of Mortality, with 3 per CocoaTINA A LA VANILLE is the most delicate, digestible,

THIRTY LARGE SHOW ROOMS.

cent. interest and net premiums, cheapest Manilla Chocolate, and may be taken when

The calculated liability was ... ... £1,970,019 richer chocolate is prohibited. In tin packets at Is. 60., 38., 6s. 6d., &c., by Chemists

HEWETSON, THEXTON, & PEART,

To which further Reserves were added of 116,684 and Grocers. 200, 203, and 204, Tottenham Court-road, London, W.

Making the Total Reserves ... ... 2,086,703 Charities on Special Terms by the Sole Proprietors, | N.B.--Household Furniture Warehoused or Removed H. SCHWEITZER & CO 10, Adam-street, London, W.C. on reasonable terms.

And the Assurance Fund being ... 2,433,397

The Net Surplus was ... ... ... £346,694 DREEHOLD INVESTMENT for SALE,

Of this sum, £345,000 was divided-an amount larger producing, at present, a gross income of £832 per

l
by £45,000 than an
a 0001

previously distributed, and producing annum; arising out of a Building in a central position at the highest ratio of profit ever declared by the SocietyWestminster, let off in offices; with a further income when

viz., a
some remaining rooms are let.- For detailed particulars,

CASH BONUS OF 32 PER CENT.
apply to Messrs. GEO. GOULDSMITI, Son, & Co., 2, Pont-
BY SPECIAL APPOINTMENT,
street, Belgrave-square, S.W.

on the Premiums of the Five Years. To Her Majesty, the Lord Chancellor, the Whole of the Judicial Bench, Corporation of London, &c. I OST.-Reported recently found at Exeter, CLAIMS PAID IMMEDIATELY ON PROOF OF DEATE AND TITLE,

U by a Gentleman, Documents belonging to the late
SOLICITORS' AND REGISTRARS' GOWNS
John Mole, relating to Estates--viz., the Manor of North

The NEXT DIVISION OF PROFITS will be in January,
BARRISTERS' AND QUEEN'S COUNBBL'S DITTO,
Molton, &c., Devonshire ; also missing, from North Molton

1887. NEW POLICIES EFFECTED BEFORE THE END OF Church, Monuments to the memory of the Mole family,

JUNE NEXT will then rank for Five full Years' Bonus, CORPORATION ROBES, UNIVERSITY & CLERGY GOWNS, late Lords of the Manor, &c. Any information concerning

and so obtain one year's additional share of Profits.
this which shall lead to the recovery of the same by the
ESTABLISHED 1089.

direct Heir will be suitably rewarded.-- Please address 94, CHANCERY LANE. LONDON. Mrs. MOLE, 43, Tivoli-street, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire. The Report above-mentioned, a detailed account of the

proceedings of the Bonus meeting, the returns made to

the Board of Trade, and every information can be mo BARRISTERS, SOLICITORS, and TO LET, in Chancery-lane, an Office with obtained at either of the Society's Offices, or from any J the Legal Profession.-House to be Let; rent £60; I use of Clerk.-Apply, A. B., care of Housekeeper,

of its Agents. twenty minutes only from the Temple Station : trains 89, Chancery-lane.

GEO CUTCLIFFE, Actuary and Secretary. every few minutes. House contains five bed and dressing

B. NEWBATT, Assistant Actuary. rooms, bath room, and three reception rooms, excellent servants' offices ; small garden; gravel soil, and healthy

THE MORTGAGE COMPANY of ENG COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE situation.--Apply to GIBBS & FLEW, Cedars Estate Office,

LAND (LIMITED). opposite West Kensington Station, W.

COMPANY.-FIRE, LIFE, MARINE.
The Directors are prepared to receive applications for

Capital fully subscribed .................. £2,500,000 No SOLICITORS.—The Freebolder of an the appointment of Manager to the Company.

Capital paid-up ......

... 250,000 Applications, with references, to be addressed to the unencumbered Building Estate, in active develop.

Life Funds in Special Trust for Life Policy. ment, wishes to arrange for Advances to Builders. All Secretary before the 14th March, 1882.-By order,

holders exceed

733,000 Legal Business and a Bonus given to Solicitor arranging

O. C. BOWLBY, Secretary, Total Annual Premium Income exceeds .. 1,050,000 the matter.-Mr. GRAHAM, Architect, 5, Air-street, Picca No. 15, Great George-street, Westminster,

CHIEF OFFICES : 19 AND 20, CORNHILL, LONDON, E.C. dilly.

21th February, 1882.

West End OFFICES: 8, PALL MALL, LONDON, S.W.

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON.

£200

£100

50

50

MEDICINE.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, That on WEDNESDAY, 26TH OF APRIL Next, the Senate will proceed

to ELECT EXAMINERS in the following departments :-
Examinerships.

Salaries.
Present Examiners.

Examinerships.

Salaries.

Present E.raminers. ARTS AND SCIENCE. (Each.)

LAWS

(Each.) Two in Classics

S James S. Reid, Esq., LL.M., M.A. Two in Jurisprudence, Roman Law,)
(L. Schmitz, Esq.,Ph.D., LL.D.,F.R.S.E.

Prof. W. A. Hunter, M.A.
Principles of Legislation, and

(T. Waraker, Esq., LL.D. Two in The English Language, Lite

Prof. Henry Morley, LL.D.

International Law rature, and History :

120
1 Vacant.

Two in Equity and Real Property
Two in The French Language and

Ş W. H. G. Bagshawe, Esq., B.A., Q.C. 100 \ B. P. Buisson, Esq., M.A.

Lano

1 Vacant. Literature

Prof. Cassal, LL.D.
Two in The German Language and

Prof. Althaus, Ph.D.
Two in Common Law and Law and/

Į James Anstie, Esq., B.A.
Literature - -

(Vacant.
Principles of Evidence . .)

(Vacant. Two in The Hebrew Text of the old)

Two in Constitutional History of}

S Rev. Hereford B. George, M.A. Testament, the Greek Text of the

Rev. W. F. Moulton, D.D., M.A.
England - .

Vacant.
New Testament, the Evidences of

Vacant. the Christian Religion, and Scrip-|

ture History -
Two in Mental and Moral Science ..

S James Sully, Esq., M.A.
Two in Medicine

SW. H. Dickinson, Esq., M.D.

150 | James Ward, Esq., M.A.

{c. Hilton Fagge, Esq., M.D. Two in Political Economy - ..

(Prof. H. S. Foxwell, M.A.

Two in Surgery
Vacant.

. . . 150 Sir William MacCormac, M.Ch., M.A.

Prof. John Wood, F.R.S. Two in Mathematics and Natural)

J. Hopkinson, Esq., D.Sc., M.A.,F.R.S.
Philosophy

200
· ·
(B. Williamson, Esq., M.A., F.R.S. Two in Anatomy - ... 100

(H. G. Howse, Esq., M.S., M.B.
(Prof. Redfern, M.D.

{Hoc. Two in Experimental Philosophy

S Prof. W. G. Adams, M.A., F.R.S.
120
( William Garnett, Esq., M.A.
Two in Physiology

Prof. A. Gamgee, M.D., F.R.S.

· · · 100 Two in Chemistry

P. H. Pye-Smith, Esq., M.D., B.A.
Prof. Dewar, M.A., F.R.S.
- - . 200
Vacant.

SJ. M. Duncan, Esq., M.D., LL.D. Two in Botany and Vegetable Physi

.
75
(W.T. Thiselton Dyer. Esa..M.A.F.R.S. Two in Obstetric Medicine -

Henry Gervis, Esq., M.D. ology - .

Sydney H. Vines, Esq., D.Sc., M.A.
Two in Materia Medica and Pharma->

Prof. E. B. Baxter, M.D.
Two in Comparative Anatomy and} 100

( Prof. A. Milnes Marshall, D.Sc., M.A. 1
Prof. A.
ceutical Chemistry . . .S

Prof. F. T. Roberts, M.D., B.Sc. 75 Prof. P. M. Duncan, M.B., F.R.S.. Two in Geology and Palaeontology

Two in Forensic Medicine . . 50 Prof. G. V. Poore, M.D., F.R.S.

Vacant, ( R. Davies Roberts, Esq., Þ.Sc., M.A. The Examiners above-named are re-eligible, and intend to offer themselves for re-election.

Candidates must send in their names to the Registrar, with any attestation of their qualifications they may think desirable, on or before TUESDAY, MARCH 28th. It is particularly desired by the Senate that no personal application of any kind be made to its individua Members.

By order of the Senate,
University of London, Burlington-gardens, W.,

ARTHUR MILMAN, M.A.,
February 28th, 1882,

Registrar,

LONDON, MARCH 11, 1882.

any other kind of gun from which any shot, bullet, or other CURRENT TOPICS.

missile can be discharged,” imposes a duty of ten shillings upon every person using or carrying a gun, the penalty for using or carry

ing a gun without license being ten pounds. It is probable that the IT IS UNDERSTOOD that the Rule Committee of Judges com

statute is very much evaded. Even where it is not evaded, the pleted their consideration of the Report of the Procedure Committee

rule, no doubt, is to buy the gun first, and to take out the license at their meeting on Wednesday last.

afterwards. All things considered, we do not see any very great objection to making it a condition precedent to obtaining a gun that the license should first be produced. This object could in a

great measure be attained by making it penal to sell a gun without LORD JUSTICE BAGGALLAY is suffering from a severe attack of

à production by the buyer of a license. Thus the means of gout, and it is doubtful whether his lordship will be able to resume his sittings in the Court of Appeal till after Easter.

identifying buyers would be increased, and impecunious buyers might be forced, in some instances, to abandon the intention of

purchasing altogether. IT HAS BEEN ARRANGED that, in the absence of Lord Justice BAGGALLAY, Sir JAMES HANNEN will sit with the Court of Appeal at Lincoln's-inn on two days in each week. On the THE POPULAR IDEA that JUMBO was going to be made a ward other four days the court will take interlocutory appeals.

of court, and the legal notion that since no express power to sell animals is given by the charter of the Zoological Society, the

elephant could not be sold, were dispelled by the decision of Mr. THE HOPE EXPRESS ED by Mr. Shaw-LEFEVRE in the House of Justice Chitty on Wednesday. The doctrine of acts done ultrà Commons on Thursday last that the courts in the new building of vires has never been put so high as this. The true proposition is the Royal Courts of Justice would be formally opened about Mid- | that the society cannot do anything which its constitution does summer next, must appear to anyone who has recently inspected not expressly or impliedly warrant. According to the learned judge, the interior of the building to be somewhat sanguine. It is true and we think also according to common sense, a power of selling off that the central hall is in a fair way towards completion, the | dangerous or expensive animals must be implied as incidental to the Dennett flooring being now filled in. It will, however, take some power of management vested in the council. The council ratified time to complete the ornamental carving and to lay down the pave- the sale of JUMBO ; hence there was an end of the case. The ment. The courts are roofed in, and in most of them the ceiling is Master of the Rolls, some years ago, refused to grant a mandatory complete, but the fittings are not more advanced than they were injunction to compel the performance of a farming covenant, on the three months ago. The general impression seems to be that the ground that the court could not take upon itself the superintendlong vacation is likely to arrive before the courts are ready forence of farming operations througnout

ence of farming operations throughout the country, and Mr. Justice occupation. We believe that a somewhat imposing opening

Chitty has now, with equal decisiveness, declined to undertake ceremony is contemplated.

the management of menageries. The attempt to apply to the case the doctrine that persons acting in a semi-judicial capacity, such as the committee of a club considering the question of the expul

sion of a member, must not exercise their discretion contrary to THE LAW as to attacks upon the Sovereign is very severe and natural justice—that is to say, without hearing the member-was, precise. It is contained in two statutes, the first dealing with to speak mildly, more courageous than complimentary to the underattempts to kill or hurt, the second with attempts to intimidate. I standing of the court. The first statute, 36 Geo. 3, c. 7, made perpetual by 57 Geo. 3, c. 6, makes it treason to “compass, imagine, devise, or intend death, or any bodily harm tending to death ”; the punishment for treason (mitigated of its attendant horrors by 54 Geo. 3, c.

SINCE THE ACQUISITION of the inland telegraphs by the Post 146, and 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23, s. 31) being death. The second

Office there have from time to time been discussions, not without statute, 5 & 6 Vict. c. 51, makes it a high misdemeanor “ to

some divergencies of judicial opinion, as to the right of the discharge, or attempt to discharge, or point, aim, or present at or

Postmaster-General to refuse to produce a telegram in evidence near the person of the Queen any gun, pistol, or any other

after being served with a subpæna to do so. Most of the predescription of firearms,” whether loaded or not, “ with intent

valent uncertainty upon this subject will probably have been .... to alarm her Majesty," the punishment to which the

iemoved by the observations made last week by Sir JAMES offender is liable being penal servitude for seven years, or impri

HANNEN in the Palliser divorce case. The petitioner desired to sonment for three years, with the additional liability “to be

give evidence of the contents of a telegram which had been sent by publicly or privately whipped as often and in such manner and

the co-respondent to the respondent, and the representative of the

..Post Office, who attended upon a subpæna duces tecum, stated that all form as the court shall order and direct, not exceeding thrice.” A subsequent statute, 25 Vict. c. 18, provides that “no offender

original telegrams were treated by the departmentas privileged comshall be whipped more than once for the same offence"; but it

munications, and declined to produce the telegram asked for unless may be doubted whether this provision applies generally, or is

expressly ordered to do so by the court. Sir J. Hannen, thererestricted to offences punishable by summary conviction only.

upon directed its production, and expressed a hope that the Post Office would in future give no trouble in such cases. He laid it down that “there is no privilege in courts of justice for private case of private telegrams, no greater powers or privileges than descriptions of persons and things. Thus, the barrister appointed would attach to an ordinary telegraph company.

documents which pass through the Post Office," except where, “ in IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED that some stringent measures are the opinion of the proper authority,” it would be "inexpedient in necessary to check the growing use of revolvers. If it should be the public interest" to produce them. These observations, determined to legislate in this direction, a very simple amendment while fully recognizing the well-established right of the head of a of the Gun License Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 57), would Government department to withhold information or documents the probably effect all that could be reasonably desired. This Act, disclosure of which would, in his opinion, be detrimental to the which applies to “a firearm of any description, and an air-gun, of public interest, seem to give the Postmaster-General, in the

to assist the recorder is to be called “ assistant recorder," instead of assistant barrister, and the room in which borough justices sit

is to be called “ justices' room," instead of “ police office.” We THE RECENT CASE of Graf v. Evans decides that there are told, too, that “the office of ward assessor is abolished by the is no obligation on the committee of a club of which the Ballot Act, 1872, and, accordingly, would revive on the expiration members are proprietors to take out a license under the Licensing of that Act, but it has been assumed in the Bill that the abolition Acts. The question turned upon section 3 of the Licensing Act, was intended to be permanent.” On this point, however, the 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 94), which enacts that “no person shall | Bill is not quite in keeping with the promise of the note, for we sell or expose for sale by retail any intoxicating liquor without are presented, in part 4 of schedule 3, with a list of ten “enactbeing duly licensed to sell the same," and the court (FIELD, J., and ments which are to revive on the expiration of the Ballot Act." Huddleston, B.) held that as the stock of liquor, though legally vested in trustees for purposes of convenience, was really and equitably the property of the members, sale to a member

THE STATEMENT by Mr. Justice Kay on Wednesday last, in was no “ sale” within this section, although the price paid the case of Williams v. Williams. that a man could not dispose. considerably exceeded the cost price, by reason of an addition by will or any other instrument, of his own body, was not quite thereto to provide for the expense of warehousing, &c., I accurate. There is at least one case in which a man may deal with which addition went to the general purposes of the club. I his mortal remains. The Anatomy Act (2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 75), s. 8, Curiously enough, the particular offence complained of consisted

provides that "if any person, either in writing at any time during in a supply to 8. member for his own use at home, so that the his life, or verbally in the presence of two or more witnesses license required, if any, would have been a license to sell the during the illness whereof he died, shall direct that his body. particular liquor supplied for consumption off the premises after death, be examined anatomically. or shall nominate any where sold. But HUDDLESTON, B., was careful to point out that party by this Act authorized to examine bodies anatomically to this circumstance. did not affect his decision in the least, and it is ' make such examination, and if. before the burial of the body of clear that the law is the same whether the liquor sold be consumed such person, such direction or nomination shall be made known to on the club premises or elsewhere, so long as it is supplied to a

the party having lawful possession of the dead body, then such member. There was a finding in fact by the magistrate (Mr. | last-mentioned party shall direct such examination to be made. D'EYNCOURT, who had, however, convicted the manager) that the

... unless the deceased person's surviving husband or wife or club was a bona fide club, so that the court was relieved from the

| nearest known relative ... shall require the body to be consideration of any such difficult questions as might arise in the

interred without such examination." case of a club having terms of admission so easy as to be to all intents and purposes a public-house, or, to use the statutory term, an “inn, alehouse, or victualling house." And it is very material to point out that the case is by no means an authority upon which

RIGHT TO INSURANCE MONEY OF PREthe proprietors of proprietary clubs, in which ownership and membership are distinct, may safely continue their business with

MISES CONTRACTED TO BE SOLD. out taking out licenses. The immunity of these gentlemen The case of Rayner v. Preston (29 W. R. 547, L. R. 18 Ch. D. depends upon whether the courts would take a strict view of the 1) which we briefly discussed in its practical aspects at the time Licensing Acts or not. They are clearly within the letter of of its decision, deserves a more careful consideration. It section 3, which prohibits a sale without license, for they sell, raised a very nice point with regard to the law of vendor and and they have no license. But we are inclined to think that if purchaser, which unfortunately led to a difference of opinion in their terms of admission were sufficiently exclusive-a question the Court of Appeal. The Master of the Rolls in the court which seems to be one of fact-a court would hold that they below, and Cotton and Brett. L.JJ., in the Court of Appeal. required no license, on the ground that the Licensing Acts are thought one way, and James, L.J., the other. The point is one concerned with places of public resort only, whereas it is the of some importance, and either conclusion involves difficulties. essence of a club, properly so called, that it should be nothing of The case arose as follows :—The owner of a house contracted the kind. But the question is a difficult one, and must inevit- with a purchaser for the sale of it. At the time of the contract ably arise for judicial decision before long. As an argument

the house was insured against fire, but the contract contained no in favour of a license being required, we may mention that it was reference to the insurance. After the making of the contract, stated in evidence before the Select Committee on Public Houses, but before the time fixed for completion, the house was damaged in 1854, that the excise license, at any rate, ought to be taken out by fire, and the vendor received a sum of money from the insurby “ all the proprietary clubs in St. James'-street." It is clearance office. The purchaser completed the contract: it does not law, however, that where an excise license is required for the sale appear as clearly as it might from the report whether the money of intoxicating liquor to be drunk on the premises where sold, was paid by the insurance office before or after the completion, there a corresponding license from justices of the peace is but we rather gather that it was before. required also (6 Geo. 4, c. 81, s. 13; Wine and Beerhouse It was held by the Master of the Rolls in the court below and Act, 1869, s. 4 ; Licensing Act, 1872, s. 74).

by the majority in the Court of Appeal that the purchaser was not entitled, as against the vendor, to the benefit of the insurance.

And it was thrown out as possible that the office could compel THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILL, which is prepared and the vendor to refund the money. James, L.J., on the other brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, is, as hand, held that the purchaser was entitled to the benefit of the we learn from a useful explanatory note, “as far as practicable, insurance. It may be noticed that the Master of the Rolls rather a pure consolidation Bill.” It contains 258 clauses, nine puts the case as one which was concluded by previous decisions, schedules, and sixteen forms. It repeals “ generally" forty-three and does not argue it on general principles. There does not seem, prior statutes from the Municipal Corporations Act, 1835, to the however, to be any previous decision that was directly binding on Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, this latter the Court of Appeal. The argument for the defendant was that and eleven other statutes being partially eliminated, and the the contract of insurance being something collateral to the subjectremaining thirty-one wholly swept away. It repeals, “ only as matter of the sale, the benefit of it would not pass with the subjectto boroughs within ” its scope, twenty-six statutes from 3 Ed. 1, matter of the sale unless it were expressly so provided. This conc. 6, “in part,"' to the Town Council and Local Boards Act, 1880, tention was adopted in substance both by Cotton, L.J., and Brett, which it repeals entirely. “Some slight alterations are proposed L.J. Cotton, L.J., says, “ The contract passes all things belonging by the Bill of matters, either of mere language or comparatively to the vendors appurtenant to, or necessarily connected with, the unimportant detail.” From the samples given of these alterations use and enjoyment of the property mentioned in the contract, but it seems that they merely clear up doubts, supply omissions, or not, in my opinion, collateral contracts, and such, in my opinion, substitute what are considered to be more, for less, convenient at least, independently of the Act 14 Geo. 3, c. 78, the policy of

insurance is. It is not a contract limiting or affecting the interest put the money in his pocket as an entirely gratuitous windfall ; of the vendors in the property sold, or affecting their right to whereas the unfortunate vendee pays for a house and only gets a enforce the contract for sale, for it is conceded that if there were ruin. On the other hand, to our mind there is great difficulty in no insurance, and the buildings sold were burnt, the contract for the way of the suggestion that the insurance office can recover the sale would be enforced. It is not even a contract in the event of money back. At the time of the receipt of the money the vendor a fire to repair the buildings, but a contract in that event to pay would be entitled to recover it in an action : Collingridge v. Royal the vendors a sum of money which, if received by them, they may Exchange Assurance Corporation (L. R. 3 Q. B. D. 173). If so, it apply in any way they think fit. It is a contract not to repair the does not seem very clear how the subsequent conveyance of the damage to the buildings, but to pay a sum not exceeding the sum property can have the effect of entitling the insurance company to insured, or the money value of the injury. In my opinion the recover back money which they paid under compulsion of law, contract of insurance is not of such a nature as to pass without apt and which they were bound by law at the time to pay. It does words under a contraet for sale of the thing insured." Brett, L.J., seem to us, therefore, that James, L.J., was right when he said that says, “ The subject-matter of the contract of insurance is money, the plaintiff's contention was founded on the natural equity which and money only. ... The only liability of the insurance com- commends itself to the general mass of the lay world not instructed pany is to pay money. The contract was made by the in legal principles. If the insurance office cannot recover the defendants solely and entirely on their own behalf, and money back, who ought to have it? The vendor who has received at a time when they had no relation of any kind his full price for the value of the buildings uninjured by fire, or with the plaintiffs. It was a personal contract between the the vendee who has paid the full price? Surely, every layman defendants and the insurance office, to which they were the sole would say the vendee. The Master of the Rolls says that it is parties. It is true that under certain circumstances a policy of possible that were he making law for the first time he might devise insurance may in equity be assigned so as to give another person some arrangement which would be fair to the purchaser, clearly a right to sue upon it, but in this case the policy of insurance, as a indicating on which side he thought natural equity lay. On the contract, never was assigned by the defendants to the plaintiffs. other hand, it is argued for the defendant, and apparently admitted Any valuation of the policy, any consideration of increase of the by James, L.J., that, if the conveyance had been executed, nothing price of the premises in consequence of there being a policy, was could be recovered upon the policy against the insurance office, wholly omitted. There was nothing given by the plaintiffs to the The policy not being assigned, the vendee could not recover ; the defendants for the contract. The contract, therefore, was neither vendor could not recover, having no interest in the premises, and expressly nor impliedly assigned to the plaintiffs, and, so far as not being damnified by any injury to them by fire. This arguregards the contract of insurance, there never was any relation of ment may not perhaps be absolutely fatal to the plaintiff's contenany kind between the plaintiffs and the defendants.”

tion, but it may be urged that it is anomalous that the plaintiff It was, no doubt, the fact that there was no express assignment should be entitled to the money recovered before the conveyance of the benefit of the contract of insurance by the contract of sale, to him, which money he could not, by any means, recover from and if there was no implied assignment of it, it is difficult to the office after the conveyance to him. But, practically speaking, see how the plaintiff's case could be put. But that is, perhaps, there is no bardship in the fact that there can be no recovery on no more than saying that if the law will not treat it as assigned the policy for injury by fire after the conveyance is once the plaintiff cannot recover, which is really begging the question. executed, because it is the purchaser's business to secure himself The contention of the plaintiff was that the defendant, being by effecting a policy on his own account when he has become the between the time of the making of the contract and completion a legal owner of the premises. With regard to the time between trustee of the property for the purchaser, and having recovered the contract and completion, the case stands on a different footing; the money by virtue of his legal ownership of the property, must the purchaser naturally does not insure what may never be his; be considered a trustee of the money recovered. The majority in the period is one of transition, during which the beneficial interest the Court of Appeal did not assent to this argument. Cotton, L.J., is combatant, and if the forms of law can be so moulded as to says: “An unpaid vendor is a trustee in a qualified sense only, produce that result, the equity of the case certainly would seem to and is so only because he has made a contract which a court of be that any insurance then existing should be for the benefit of equity will give effect to, by transferring the property sold to the the party who may ultimately turn out to have been really purchaser, and, so far as he is a trustee, he is so only in respect of interested at the time of the damage by fire. the property contracted to be sold. Of this the policy is not a Lord Justice · Brett cited the common law cases as to marine part. The argument that the money is received in respect of insurance as being fatal in principle to the plaintiff's contention, property which is trust property is, in my opinion, fallacious, but those cases do not seem to us similar to that of the sale of a The money is received by virtue or in respect of the contract of house which we are discussing. The sale of a chattel personal insurance.” Brett, L.J., doubts whether the vendor can properly at once passes the legal and beneficial interest, and then the purbe said to be a trustee for the vendee, and says that they are only chaser must secure himself by insurance if he wishes to be parties to a contract of which a court of equity will, under certain insured. The vendor, we take it, could not in such a case circumstances, decree a specific performance; and, further, that recover on the policy, except in cases where it is assigned to even if the vendor could be properly said to be a trustee for the him as trustee for the purchaser. Such a case is not similar to rendee it does not follow that anything under the contract of the case of the sale of a house, when there is a period of insurance would pass. James, L.İ., on the contrary, was of transition between contract and completion during which the opinion that the doctrine of equity is that, upon completion, the title is investigated, and during which the legal ownership completion relates back to the contract, and it is thereby ascer- remains in the vendor, and he remains entitled to sue on the tained that the relation was, throughout, that of trustee and cestui policy if loss occurs. In the case of a mere personal chattel we que trust-that is to say, that it is ascertained that while the legal should scarcely suppose it would happen that the vendor could estate was in the vendor, the beneficial or equitable interest was recover and retain a sum of money on a policy of insurance, and wholly in the purchaser; and, furthermore, he held it to be an yet obtain the full price from the purchaser of that of which the universal rule of equity that any right which is vested in a trustee, I purchaser really never got the benefit. any benefit which accrues to a trustee, from whatever source or ! We may be wrong, but we cannot see any insuperable diffiunder whatever circumstances by reason of his legal ownership of culty in holding that, by implication of law, the benefit of the the property, that right and that benefit he takes as trustee for the policy, pending the completion of the contract, follows the subbeneficial owner.

ject-matter of the sale, on the principle omne accessorium sequitur We should not like to say that the decision of the majority was principale, and must be treated as assigned therewith. The law wrong, and it seems to us that this case is fraught with much annexes many incidents to contracts in relation to which the difficulty whichever way it is decided, but we do feel much regret parties have not really contracted at all. It is common to call that the court could not see its way to give effect to what seems to such cases cases of implied contract, and to say that the law us the justice of the case. The contract of fire insurance being one implies the contract. We do not like this expression, because of indemnity, it seems monstrous that the vendor who, in the it seems to us that it gives an unnatural meaning to the result, turns out not to be interested in the premises at all, should words " implied contract," which more naturally denote cases where the presumption is that the parties really did intend prepared the pitfall into which we fear many an unwary policyto make a contract which they have not expressed in words. | holder must have fallen. There are many cases in which the law says that the conse- It may not, we think, be without interest shortly to trace the quences of a contract shall be something which the parties history of the cases which have hitherto been decided with never had in their minds. The liability imposed on the common reference to these unfortunate policy-holders. To understand carrier as an insurer, for instance, was originally entirely the them it is necessary to refer to some features of the constitution creation of law, though at the present day people may perbaps of the society. The Albion Life Assurance Society was incorcontract for the carriage of goods with reference to the well-porated as an unlimited company under the Act of 1862. The known liability of the common carrier. In like manner, what scheme of it was peculiar in these respects: that the company insuperable difficulty is there in the way of holding, for the purpose consisted of two classes of members—(1) shareholders, and (2) of giving effect to the justice of the case, that the vendor of a assurance members for the time being. There was a register of house renders himself liable to account to the purchaser, if the members, both shareholders and assurance members, and these contract is ultimately completed, for moneys received by him latter members were defined in the articles as “every person for which in substance represent that which the purchaser has paid the time being holding a subsisting policy of assurance with the for, but never got? It is an incident of the contract which no fair company for the whole term of life on the terms of participating dealing or reasonable vendor would object to if the point sug in the profits of the company, and duly registered as a member of gested itself before the contract was executed.

the company.” The assurance members had rights of calling It may be said that parties ought to protect themselves by meetings, of voting, and becoming directors, which are usually having proper terms inserted in their contracts. It may be so in only conceded to shareholders; and by means of provisions for general, and it may be that the law ought to be chary of annexing the payment off of the subscribed capital, together with a bonus incidents to contracts. We think that it ought, but we can have no of fifty per cent. to the shareholders, the assurance members were doubt that there are cases in which it ought to annex incidents to eventually to become the only members of the company. The contracts—cases in which the justice of the case undeniably whole profits of the concern were to be applied, first, in paying requires it. The only result of its not doing so in such cases is to six per cent. to the shareholders on their subscribed capital, then add a common form to most contracts, and leave a few unfortu one-fourth of the net profits was, at the expiration of every three nate cases in which a substantial injustice is wrought by reason of years, to be paid to the shareholders, and the remaining threethe form being, through haste or carelessness, omitted.

fourths was to be appropriated to, and apportioned amongst, the holders of policies on which five years' premiums had been paid, by way of reversionary bonus on their policies according to a caiculation to be made by the actuary. The articles also contained

the following clause as to policy-holders—-namely, “No person PARTICIPATING POLICY-HOLDERS.

shall be entitled to be registered as a member of the company In July, 1879, we discussed in the columns of this journal the in respect of any policy until he shall (if required by the directors decision of Mr. Justice Fry in Winstone's case (27 W. R. 753, so to do) have signed an agreement to become a member of the L. R. 12 Ch. D. 239). That was the first of a series of cases company. The payment of a premium on a policy, which would which have arisen out of the winding up of the Albion Life entitle the holder, if registered, to be an assurance member, shall Assurance Society; and the result of it was that the policy. | be deemed to be an agreement to becume a member in respect holders in that society, who participated in the profits, were thereof." ordered to be placed on the list of contributories. We then con- ! Now the first question which arose in settling the list of contended that the impression which seemed to have gained ground, tributories in the winding up was this: Were the assurance that the position of participating policy-holders in life insurance members, whose names were not in fact on the register of the offices generally had been seriously affected by that decision, was company, to be included in the list at all? This was decided, as to a great extent unfounded; while the chief lesson to be drawn we have seen, in Winstone's case in the affirmative. The question from the case was the importance to all policy-holders of a whether a person is a contributory usually resolves itself into the careful examination of the articles of association, where reference question whether he is a “member," and under the 23rd section is made to them in the policy or proposal. Several questions of the Act of 1862 every person who has agreed to become a relating to the liabilities of the policy-holders in the same society member, and whose name is on the register, is deemed a member. have been the subjects of judicial decisions since Winstone's case, Now these policy-holders had signed proposals for their policies, and these decisions have confirmed the views we formerly ex- which contained agreements in terms to execute the articles of pressed. “It has not been contended,” says Lord Justice James association, and it was accordingly held that they had thereby in one of them, “ that in the ordinary case of an insurance office acceded to the articles, and that they had, by paying premiums on issuing policies, some participating and some not, every person their policies, “ agreed to become members in respect thereof," taking out a participating policy, which is only like taking within the clause of the articles quoted above. Two further back the excess of his premiums, is constituted a shareholder objections, however, were raised to their being treated as members and partner, and becomes liable to all the debts of the office. An -(1) that they were not on the register ; (2) that the members ordinary participating policy-holder does not undertake that indicated by the Act in the case of an unlimited company with liability." Within the last year the liability of policy-holders in share capital are members who have agreed to become such in a mutual insurance society not registered under the Companies the character of shareholders. The latter objection was held by Acts was discussed in the Court of Appeal; and, though this was the court to be untenable, and the former was obviated by not the question at issue in the case, it was stated by the court, “ for directing the register to be rectified, under section 35. The the comfort of the holders of policies in that society, and in other policy-holders were, therefore, placed on the list of contributories, similarly constituted mutual societies," that there was no liability and two classes were formed, one of shareholders and the other imposed on them to contribute one farthing (see per Jessel, l of policy-holders. But the further question soon arose as to the M.R., in Great Britain, &c., Society, 29 W. R. 202, L. R. 16 Ch. liabilities of these two classes inter se—the shareholders conD., at p. 252). It may be said, then, that in ordinary cases there tending that the policy-holders must contribute either in proporexists no liability on the part of a policy-holder to contribute, tion to their share in the profits or, at any rate, equally with them ; because in ordinary cases there is no contract on his part to do the policy-holders contending that they were not to be called on so. The Albion Society, however, affords an example of a case in to contribute anything until the shareholders had been exhausted. which, by acceding to articles of association, which, by their In this case it was decided, first by Malins, V.C. (In re Albion special terms, made policy-holders members of the society, the Life Assurance Society, L. R. 15 Ch. D. 79), and afterwards holder of a policy may yet render himself liable to be placed on by the Court of Appeal (29 W. R. 109, L. R. 16 Ch. D. 83), the list of contributories in the event of the insurance company that the contention of the policy-holders must prevail. On being wound up. But it was the peculiar constitution of that the part of the shareholders it was urged that the policysociety, and the special terms of its articles of association, which holders were partners with them, and, that in view of the formed the ground of the decision in Winstone's case, and which general rule of partnership, that where profits are shared a

« PreviousContinue »