Page images
PDF
EPUB

Allard, Henry, Birmingham, Furniture Dealer. Sept 8 at 3 at offices of Jaques, Temple row, Birmingham

Ash, Thomas Nevett, Wolverhampton, Stafford, Pastrycook. Sept 13 at 12 at offices of Stanley, Washington bldgs, Queen st, Wolverhampton

Baker, Daniel, and Eliza Round, Brierley Hill, Stafford, Dealers in Fancy Goods. Sept 14 at 1 at Queen's Hotel, Birmingham. Shakespeare, Oldbury

Ballard, James, Ebbw Vale, Monmouth, Grocer. Sept 11 at 12 at offices of Dauncey, Commercial st, Newport

Birchenall, Edwin, Macclesfield, Chester, Milliner. Sept 14 at 11 at offices of Parrott, Church Side, Macclesfield

Brewster, Charles Matthew, Blackburn, Furniture Dealer. Sept 11 at 3 at Grosvenor Hotel, Deansgate, Manchester. Clarke, Preston

Brooks, Frederick, Leeds, Bricklayer. Sept 8 at 3 at offices of Saville, East parade,

Leeds

Brown, George, Hastings, Sussex, Builder's Merchant. Sept 9 at 11 at Guildhall Tavern, Gresham st. Mann, Hastings

Bushall, James, Walton-on-the-Hill, Lancaster, out of business. Sept 11 at 2 at offices of Norris, Union ct, Castle st, Liverpool

Chrispin, William, Ossett, near Dewsbury, York, Chemist.
Welsh, Queen st, Huddersfield

Davies, David, Llandebie, Carmarthen, Timber Merchant.
Arms Hotel, Pantyffynon. Bishop and Childs, Llandilo
Dyson, Benjamin, Dewsbury, Boot and Shoe Manufacturer.
Simpson and Burrell, Albion st, Leeds

Sept 8 at 3 at offices of

Sept 13 at 12.30 at Dynevor Sept 11 at 2 at offices of Ehrenfest, Jennet, Plattfield House, Putney. Sept 11 at 12 at offices of Seeley, High Holborn Evans, Griffith, St David's, Pembroke, Grocer. Sept 7 at 11 at offices of Jones, Victoria pl, Haverfordwest

Francis, Richard, Aberystwith, Cardigan, Retired Master Mariner. Sept 7 at 11 at offices of Jones and Co, Gt Darkgate st, Aberystwith

Fuhr, Heinrich Carl, Mortlake, Surrey, Publican. Sept 13 at 12 at offices of Hindson
and Co, Moorgate st
Galen, Michael, Fish st Hill, Restaurant Proprietor. Sept 5 at 3 at offices of Mitchell,
Thanet pl, Strand. Harrison, Pancras lane, Queen st

Gooderham, William, Monewden, Suffolk, Farmer. Sept 16 at 2 at Crown and Anchor
Hotel, Framlingham. Mills, Ipswich

Greaves, John Frederick, and Thomas Fidoe, Kidderminster, Worcester, Rug Makers. Sept 8 at 3 at Black Horse Hotel, Mill st, Kidderminster. Miller and Corbet, Kidderminster

Handforth, David, Manchester, Bacon Factor. Sept 12 at 3 at office of Addleshaw and Warburton, Norfolk st, Manchester

Harling, William, jun., Colyton, Devon, Butcher. Sept 13 at 3 at Colcombe Castle Hotel, Colyton. Wilton, Colyton

Heare, John, Heckmondwike, York, Poultry Salesman. Sept 11 at 11 at Scarborough Hotel, Market pl, Dewsbury. Haigh

Hill, John Ebenezer, Oldswinford, Worcester, Iron-plate Worker. Sept 13 at 3 at office of Waldron, High st, Brierley Hill

Hilton, Francis Ogden, Bolton, Lancaster, Licensed Victualler.
of Ramwell and Co, Mawdsley st, Bolton
Hitchman, Martha Ann, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, Coal Merchant.
Aldermanbury. Cripps, Tunbridge Wells

Sept 13 at 3 at office

Sept 12 at 12 at 68, Ironmonger, John Charles, Stratford, Essex, Carriage Driver. Sept 7 at 12.30 at 49, Bromley st, Commercial rd, East. Newson, White Horse lane, Stepney Joel, Lewis, and Gustave Deal, Coventry, Watch Makers. Sept 11 at 1 at Gt Western Hotel, Birmingham. Hodgson, Birmingham

Jones, William Tucker, Saracen's Head Hotel, Snow Hill, Commission Agent. Sept 11 at 11 at office of Innes and Co, Billiter House, Billiter st

Kench, Ben John, Charlbury, Oxford, Draper. Sept 8 at 2 at White Hart Hotel, Charlbury. Rawlinson, Chipping Norton

Kyle, Robert John, Liverpool, Grocer. Sept 11 at 3 at office of Wilkinson, Victoria st, Liverpool

Lamberg, Sven Robert, East India avenue, Merchant. Sept 14 at 2 at office of James and Edwards, Coleman st. Reep and Co, Queen st pl, Cannon st

Lee, George, Clay Cross, Derby, Innkeeper. Sept 8 at 11 at office of Jones and Middleton, Gluman gate, Chesterfield

Lees, Robert, Nottingham, Box Maker. Sept 14 at 12 at office of Brittle, St Peter's chbrs, St Peter's gate, Nottingham

Lockyer, George Francis, Bournemouth, Hants, Plumber. Sept 12 at 1.30 at 369, High Holborn. Sharp, Christchurch

McCrerie, Alexander, Frithville grdns, Shepherd's Bush, Wood Turner. Sept 13 at 3 at office of Pain, Marylebone rd

Maslin, George Albert, Bridgnorth, Salop, Painter.
wood, Bank st, Bridgnorth

Matthews, Robert, Lambeth walk, Lambeth, Oilman.
Gresham st

Sept 13 at 12.30 at office of Hasle

Sept 9 at 3 at Guildhall Tavern,

Mearns, Walter Barron Robert, Chipping Norton, Oxford, Brewer. Sept 13 at 11 at Crown Hotel, Chipping Norton

Sept 18 at 2 at offices of

Milles, Alexander, Maxilla gardens, Notting hill, Traveller.
Ward, Lincoln's inn fields
Mizon, George, The Grove, Hackney, Licensed Victualler. Sept 7 at 3 at the Masons'
Hall Tavern, Basinghall st. White, Queen st, Cheapside
Mundy, George Matthias, Tyler st, Regent st, Cabinet Maker. Sept 18 at 4 at offices of
Yorke and Wharton, Conduit st, Bond st

Nightingale, Thomas, Birmingham, out of business. Sept 8 at 3 at offices of Fallows,
Cherry st, Birmingham

SCHWEITZER'S COCOATINA, Arti-Dyspeptic Cocoa or Chocolate Powder. Guaranteed Pure Soluble Cocoa of the Finest Quality, with the excess of fat extracted.

The Faculty pronounce it "the most nutritious, perfectly digestible beverage for Breakfast, Luncheon, or Supper, and invaluable for Invalids and Children."

Oliver, George, Liverpool, Pianoforte Manufacturer. Sept 12 at 3 at offices of Seaman,
West Derby st, Liverpool
Pennell, Alfred, Liverpool, Bedding Manufacturer. Sept 13 at 3 at offices of Barrell
and Co, Lord st, Liverpool
Philcox, Henry Frederick, Featherstone buildings, Holborn, Tailor's Traveller. Sept
9 at 11 at offices of Hunt and Williams, Lombard st
Poulter, William, Plaistow, Essex, Oil and Colour Man. Sept 12 at 3 at the Masons'
Hall Tavern, Basinghall st. Martin and Banks, Queen st, Cheapside

Prust, Thomas William, Leeds, Chemist. Sept 13 at 3 at offices of Brooke, East parade,
Leeds
Rantzen, Mannas, Bridgwater sq, Furrier. Sept 25 at 3 offices of Cannon, Wool Ex-
change, Coleman st

Rhodes, Joseph, Calverley, York, out of business. Sept 9 at 10.30 at offices of Cross,
Parkinson's chambers, Market st, Bradford

Robinson, William, and Joseph Booth, Bradford, York, Billiard Table Manufacturers. Sept 13 at 3 at the Shoulder of Mutton Inn, Kirkgate, Bradford

Schafer, John, Philpot st, Commercial rd, Stepney, Baker. Sept 13 at 4 at offices of
Eves, Mark lane

Sheldon, Joseph, Stockport, Chester, Innkeeper. Sept 4 at 3 at offices of Johnston,
Vernon st, Stockport
Sheldon, Ralph, Sidcup, Kent, Fruit Dealer. Sept 13 at 1 at Crescent Farm House,
Pound pl, Sidcup. Woodard and Hood, Ingram ct, Fenchurch st
Slater, Arthur Webster, Leeds, Woollen Merchant. Sept 11 at 3 at offices of Turner and
Hewson, Park sq, Leeds

Slight, William, and Christopher Boak Sparshott, Berwick-upon-Tweed, Grocers.
Sept 8 at 2 at offices of Weatherhead, Palace gr, Berwick-upon-Tweed
Stinton, Henry, Worcester, Boot Manufacturer. Sept 18 at 11 at offices of Allen and
Beauchamp, Sansome pl, Worcester

Smith, Frederick Sutherland, Sutton Coldfield, Warwick, Commercial Traveller. Sept
11 at 2 at offices of Marris, Waterloo st, Birmingham. Britton, Alcester
Tandy, Edward, Wolverhampton, Stafford, Labourer. Sept 11 at 11 at offices of Lang.
man, Bilston st, Wolverhampton
Taylor, Ellen, and Mary Taylor, St Helen's, Lancaster, Fruiterers. Sept 13 at 3 at
offices of Riley, Hardshaw st, St Helen's

Taylor, Robert, Ormskirk, Lancaster, Builder. Sept 14 at 12 at offices of Oppenheim, Hardshaw st, St Helen's

Tidy, James, Horsham, Sussex, Horse and Cattle Dealer. Sept 14 at 2 at office of Medwin and Co, Carfax, Horsham

Tuck, Walter George, Norwich, Confectioner. Sept 8 at 12 at office of Sadd and Linay, Theatre st, Norwich

Valyer, Michael Pierrepoint, Folkestone, Kent, Job Master. Sept 14 at 2 a Rose Hotel, Folkestone. Minter, Folkestone

Wait, John, Wroughton, Swindon, Wiltshire, Builder. Sept 11 at 2 at office of Ware, Shannon ct, Bristol. Fussell and Co, Bristol

Wallraven, James, Old Kent rd, Ship's Steward. Sept 12 at 2 at office of Holmes, King st, Cheapside

Watkinson, William, Chester, Auctioneer. Sept 13 at 11 at office of Walker and Co, Abbey gateway, Northgate st. Chester

Weeks, William Burnham, Tower Hill, Carman. Sept 18 at 2 at Guildhall Tavern, Gresham st. Beard, Basinghall st

Welch, Ralph, Manchester, Accountant. Sept 22 at 3 at office of Payne and Galloway, Brazennose st, Manchester

West, Charles George, Bollo Bridge rd, Timber Merchant. Sept 20 at 12 at Albion Hotel, Aldersgate st. Howard, Southampton bldgs, Chancery lane

Yapp, Louisa Eliza, Aston juxta Birmingham, Warwick, Grocer. Sept 9 at 11 at office of Pointon, Temple row West, Birmingham

[blocks in formation]

ESTABLISHED 1825.

HEWETSON, THEXTON, & PEART,

MANUFACTURERS AND HOUSE FURNISHERS,

200, 203, and 204, TOTTENHAM COURT ROAD, W.
Estimates and Designs submitted free for entirely Fur.
nishing Residences, Chambers, Offices, &c.

Highly commended by the entire Medical Press. Being without sugar, spice, or other admixture, it suits all palates, keeps better in all climates, and is four times-PAINTING, DECORATING, & HOUSE REPAIRS.the strength of cocoas THICKENED yet WEAKENED with starch, &c., and IN REALITY CHEAPER than such Mixtures. Made instantaneously with boiling water, a teaspoonful to a Breakfast Cup, costing less than a halfpenny. COCOATINA A LA VANILLE is the most delicate, digestible, cheapest Manilla Chocolate, and may be taken when richer chocolate is prohibited.

In tin packets at 1s. 6d., 3s., 5s. 6d., &c., by Chemists and Grocers.

Charities on Special Terms by the Sole Proprietors, H. SCHWEITZER & CO 10, Adam-street, London, W.C.

[blocks in formation]

Carved Oak Furniture, Reproductions from Ancient
Designs, &c. Bedroom Furniture, including Bedstead and
Bedding, from £7 10s. per set.

THIRTY LARGE SHOW ROOMS.

HEWETSON, THEXTON, & PEART,
200, 203, and 204, Tottenham Court-road, London, W.
N.B.-Household Furniture Warehoused or Removed
on reasonable terms

£29,000 UPSET PRICE.-By order of the Mortgagees.

ROBE

EDE AND SON,

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

To Her Majesty, the Lord Chancellor, the Whole of the Judicial Bench, Corporation of London, &c.

SOLICITORS' AND REGISTRARS' GOWNS. BARRISTERS' AND QUEEN'S COUNSEL'S DITTO, CORPORATION ROBES, UNIVERSITY & CLERGY GOWNS, ESTABLISHED 1689.

94, CHANCERY LANE. LONDON.

TO CAPITALISTS, LAND COMPANIES,

HEAPEST ESTATE ever offered in Kent chapel, schools, post-office, &c., and only about 2 miles CHE

(near Dover), comprising 856 acres, Gentleman's Residence, Four Farms, Sixteen Cottages, and Timber. Annual value, £1,360. To be SOLD, as a Whole or in Lots, at CANTERBURY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1882.

For particulars, plans, and view of house, apply to the Auctioneers, Messrs. PRIOR & NEWSON, Canterbury, and 57, Lincoln's-inn-fields, W.c.

and Others.-A compact FREEHOLD ESTATE for SALE, on the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway, near a station, close to good village, with church, from the important market town of Horsham. It consists of 93 acres, exceedingly well situated, with a splendid frontage to main road. It is at present farmed, but admirably adapted for development into small pleasure farms, which would be a success. Beautiful locality; price £46 per acre, including timber and valuation. FREEHOLDER, 9, Navarino-road, Dalston, London, E,

CURRENT TOPICS.

LONDON, SEPTEMBER 9, 1882.

THE LIST for hearing before the Vacation Judge on Wednesday included fifty-five cases independently of the ex parte applications. There were three petitions and thirty-one motions on notice for the present week. The Vacation Judge disposed of

the paper.

THE DEATH of Mr. MOUNTAGUE BERNARD has deprived the University of Oxford of an active and distinguished member. Although, except in the matter of the Alabama question, he hardly played any conspicuous part in the eye of the general public, he was a man whose capacity was recognized in the highest quarters. The radical alterations which have recently

claiming in the one way or the other are required to frame their
applications; and that the whole table of fees is entirely re-
arranged, which is, indeed, none too soon, considering the number
of the alterations and additions that have been made during the
six
years of its existence.

For

his indomitable reliance on his own powers, has been assuring his THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN, who may be congratulated on colleagues in the municipality that the punishment of contempt of court shall forthwith be abolished by Parliament, and that Mr. Gray's imprisonment shall furnish the occasion of it. Leaving political questions entirely out of the question, it seems difficult to understand how the legal business of the country could possibly be carried on without some such power being held in reserve. the question to be left to a jury whether a person considered by a judge to have committed a contempt of court had in fact done so been effected in the constitution of the colleges of Oxford are would be an impossibility, and for the discretion of the judges to understood to have been mainly the work of the present Lord be fettered by statute would involve just the same kind of diffiChancellor and Mr. BERNARD, sitting on the University Commis-culties as those the anticipation of which led chancery judges to sion; and the thorough manner in which this work was carried refuse to define trusts. For a gross and corrupt act of tyranny out may be ascribed not less to the pertinacity and industry of there is a parliamentary remedy now existing, with less harsh the latter than to the authority of the former. As a draughtsdecisions prisoners must be content, and Mr. Gray can hardly man Mr. BERNARD possessed great skill and patience; he was expect Parliament to take the same view of his case as has been an accomplished lawyer; but his eminent and, in some respects, taken by the Irish office-seekers. unique position in the University was, perhaps, chiefly attributable to his remarkable practical good sense, combined with unusual firmness, industry, and public spirit.

THE ALTERATION in the fees chargeable by the Trade-Marks Registry, which has been brought about by the recent rules of the Lord Chancellor, seems likely to put an end to some objections which have often been made as to the scale of charges. The principle which had been accepted was that where one trade-mark was registered a fee of £2 should be paid, and that where a second trade-mark was registered on the same application a fee of £1 should be paid, and then these sums were sub-divided by directing that half should, in each case, be paid on application, and the other half on the actual registration. But since all that was gained by the expenditure of the first half of the fee was the chance of obtaining registration, and it was found in very many cases that registration was refused, complaints were frequently made as to the amounts which were thus thrown away. According to the new scale five shillings will, in every case, be payable on application for each mark, first or subsequent, and the remainder of the fee on registration. As the sequel of this regulation, notice is given by the registry that, for the future, the practice of allowing the substitution of a second mark on one application fee will be discontinued.

THE OTHER ALTERATIONS which are made by the new rules are not of much consequence, dealing, as they do, not so much with principle as with the details of the procedure in the office, but it may be noted that, for the future, applications made on behalf of a firm or partnership must be made by a single member of the firm or partnership, or a person duly authorized; that in the case of new marks-i.e., marks first adopted since the passing of the Act of 1875-no declaration of the right to use the mark is required; that parts of entries on the register, as well as entire entries, may be cancelled by the registered proprietor; that the whole scheme of application by persons claiming to have succeeded to the right to a trade-mark by assignment or transmission is recast, and forms provided in accordance with which persons

The

IN THE CURRENT NUMBER of the Law Reports will be found the full report of the highly-interesting and important case of London and South-Western Railway v. Gomm, on appeal from Mr. Justice KAY. It appears, from the report, that the Court of Appeal was asked to allow the reply of the Master of the Rolls contains costs of the shorthand notes of the judgment below. an impressive warning:-"We have not used them," he said, “but have read had appeared a sufficient length of time before your brief was Mr. Justice KAY's judgment in the Law Journal. If that report delivered, we should not have allowed the costs of a shorthand note; but as it was published so late as the 3rd of March, we think that costs ought to be allowed." It seems rather hard that practitioners should be compelled to keep themselves au courant with all the reports, upon pain of losing part of their costs if documents usually supplied in MS. should happen to appear in print. Besides, although we have the highest respect for the reports of simple fact that law reporters are in the habit of materially conour learned contemporary, the Law Journal, we think that the densing their matter ought to be enough to justify parties in providing an exact copy of any judgment for use upon appeal.

THE CURRENT NUMBER of the Law Reports contains the report on appeal of the case of Weston v. Managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District, which was reported in the Weekly Reporter, p. 623. The case raised, in a very instructive manner, one of the familiar questions upon the effect of provisions in the nature of penalties to secure the performance of covenants. The instrument was a lease, containing a covenant against carrying on offensive trades. In addition to the yearly rent a penal rent was made payable in case such trades were carried on; and the lease had a proviso for re-entry for non-payment of either of the rents, or breach of covenant. The courts of first instance and appeal held that the reservation of the penal rent did not conflict with, or prevent the enforcement of, the power of re-entry on breach of the same covenant. It may be remembered that we commented

in a recent issue (p. 489) upon some practical bearings of the decision. The case is, however, an interesting one from other points of view than that of the landlord. A similar quesvery tion to that which it deals with has been several times con

sidered with regard to the jurisdiction of equity by injunction in cases where a penalty has been fixed by the parties for default in some obligation under the contract. Lord ST. LEONARDS dealt with this subject very elaborately in French v. Macale (2 Dru. & War. 269), holding that the court must grant an injunction unless the agreement is framed in such a manner as to show that the party is to be at liberty to do the act if he chooses to pay the penalty. These points are distinct from the further question whether a fixed penalty is or not in any particular case recoverable as liquidated damages, if the party chooses to seek his remedy in damages. The well-known rule at law and equity on that head furnishes a striking instance of persistent interference by the courts with the express provisions of contracts; but we are far from suggesting that another course ought to be taken. The reason that leads contracting parties with equal persistency to agree to stipulated penalties is often, no doubt, a simple desire to save the expense of litigation; but these stipulations would have many oppressive consequences if the law enforced the letter of the bargain.

[ocr errors]

pay

WE FEAR that the case of Babbage v. Coulburn (30 W. R. 950) will not be of much value upon the vexed point of construction with which it deals. The point was whether a provision for reference to arbitration as to the amount of damages made the arbitration a condition precedent to a right of action for damage. Not so very long ago (and not for the first time) the principles of construction in these cases were authoritatively laid down by the Court of Appeal in Dawson v. Fitzgerald (24 W. R. 773). There the defendant covenanted with his landlord to keep so much ground game only as would do no injury, and, in case he should keep such a number as to do injury, to a fair and reasonable compensation, the amount of such compensation to be referred to arbitration. The action was allowed to proceed. "There does not appear to me," said the Master of the Rolls, "to be any violent necessity for reading the words .. otherwise than according to their proper legal construction, by which there are two covenants and not one." Now the terms of the instrument in Babbage v. Coulburn were that the tenant agreed to deliver up possession of house and furniture in as good order and condition as on taking possession, and in the event of any loss, damage, or breakage, the same to be made good or paid for by the tenant, the amount of such payment, if in dispute, to be referred and settled by two valuers. This was held by the county court judge and by FIELD, J., and HUDDLESTON, B., not to be governed by Dawson v. Fitzgerald. Questions of pure construction present endless difficulties; and to criticise the views taken by judges on such matters is somewhat invidious. But, in our opinion, when the two learned judges decided the last case on the professed ground that it was to be distinguished from Dawson v. Fitzgerald because no independent covenant was to be found, but only a covenant to pay the particular sum ascertained, it is open to very great question whether they allowed to Dawson v. Fitzgerald that authority to which, in a case of such very similar language, it was entitled on the mere point of construction.

According to Kemp's Mercantile Gazette the number of failures in England and Wales gazetted during the week ending Saturday, September 2, was 169. The number in the corresponding week of last year was 190, showing a decrease of 21, being a net decrease in 1882, to date, of 679. The number in the corresponding week of 1880 was 227; the numbers in the same week for Scotland and Ireland in the three years of 1882, 1881, and 1880, respectively, being as follows:-Scotland, 12, 8, 17; Ireland, 4, -, 14; and the totals for United Kingdom, 185, 198, 258. The number of bills of Fale published in England and Wales for the week ending September 2 was 829. The number in the corresponding week of last year was 921, showing a decrease of 92, being a net decrease in 1882, to date, of 1,216. The number published in Ireland for the same week was 27. The number in the corresponding week of last year was 4, showing an increase of 23, being a net decrease in 1882, to date of 237.

THE REMUNERATION ORDER.
II.

WE pointed out in our last article that, although a commission
is provided for vendor's solicitor "for conducting a sale of prop-
erty by public auction, including the conditions of sale," yet it is
provided, by rule 11 in schedule I., that " the scale for conducting
a sale by auction shall apply only in cases where no commission is
paid by the client to an auctioneer." As an auctioneer is
always employed by the vendor, and as such auctioneer retains his
commission out of the deposit, or is paid it by the vendor, it is
difficult to understand in what cases, in the event of the property
being sold, this commission for conducting a sale by public auction
will be payable to the vendor's solicitor. Of course, if the explana-
tion is that suggested in our previous article, and adopted by a
correspondent last week-viz., that solicitors should take out an
auctioneer's license-the difficulty is solved; but we can hardly
think that a change of so great importance can be intended to be
brought about by a side-wind of this kind, and there are consider-
able practical difficulties in the way of the adoption of this
course. We have waited in vain for some other explanation of
this difficulty in answer to our request for enlightenment, and we
can only conjecture that in cases in which the client pays
commission to the auctioneer it is intended that the solicitor shall
be paid for conducting the sale according to the present system,
as altered by schedule II. But does the Order carry out this pre-
sumed intention? According to rule 2 (a), "in respect of
sales. completed, the remuneration of the solicitor having
the conduct of the business
is to be that prescribed in
Part I. of Schedule I. to this Order, and to be subject to the
regulations therein contained." Does this (when taken in connec-
tion with the introductory words of the some rule," the remunera-
tion of a solicitor in respect of business connected with sales
is to be regulated as follows,") mean that the vendor's
solicitor is not to have any remuneration in respect of completed
sales except that provided by the scale in Part I. of Schedule I.,
and by the rules appended thereto-that is to say, that in the
case of completed sales, the commission for deducing title and
completing conveyance is to cover all the work connected with the
sale? If so, it would seem that wherever the auctioneer at a
public auction is paid a commission by the client, and the sale is
completed, no commission or fee can be claimed by a solicitor for
conducting, or being present at, the sale. We have not overlooked
the provision of rule 2 (c) that, "in respect... of all
other business, the remuneration for which is not hereinbefore,
or in Schedule I. hereto, prescribed, the remuneration is to be
regulated according to the present system as altered by Schedule
II." The remuneration in respect of sales completed is prescribed
by the schedule, and it does not include any remuneration to the
vendor's solicitor for conducting, or being present at, a sale in
cases where commission is paid by the vendor to the auctioneer

that is to say, under the present practice, in all sales by auction. It is to be hoped that a construction will be adopted by which remuneration according to the present system, as altered by Schedule II., will be allowed in this case.

In case the property is sold at the auction, it is expressly provided that the costs of conditions of sale are to be included in the commission for "deducing title and perusing and completing conveyance." But in case the property is not sold, and a commission is paid by the vendor to the auctioneer, how is the vendor's solicitor to be paid for the troublesome and responsible duty of preparing the conditions of sale? The commission on the reserved price provided by the scale in Schedule I., Part I., in case the property is not sold, of 10s. for the first £1,000, 5s. for the second and third £1,000, 2s. 6d. for the fourth and each subsequent £1,000 up to £10,000, and 1s. 3d. for each subsequent £1,000 up to £100,000, is excluded by rule 11 in schedule I., since in the case we have supposed commission is paid by the client to the auctioneer. The commission for deducing title and perusing and completing conveyance will, of course, be inapplicable. The provision of rule 2 (c), that " in respect of business not hereinbefore provided for, connected with any transaction the remuneration for which, if completed, is hereinbefore, or in Schedule I. hereto, prescribed, but

[ocr errors]

which is not, in fact, completed, . . the remuneration is to be regulated according to the present system as altered by Schedule II. hereto," does not apply to the case we have put, because, as we have seen, the commission for conducting a sale by auction is to include the preparation of conditions of sale, and this commission is not applicable in cases where commission is paid by the client to an auctioneer. In this case, since the sale is not completed, and the provision of rule 2 (a) does not therefore apply, the remuneration of the vendor's solicitor for preparing the conditions of sale will apparently be regulated according to the present system as altered by Schedule II. (see the concluding clause of rule 2 (c)).

In cases of a sale by auction where no commission is paid by the client to the auctioneer, a minimum charge of £5 is to be payable to the vendor's solicitor for conducting the sale and preparing the conditions, whether the property is sold or not.

Rule 2 in Schedule J. provides that "the commission on an attempted sale by auction in lots is to be chargeable on the aggregate of the reserved prices." A sale is "attempted" both when the property is sold and when it is not sold, the attempt in the one case being successful and in the other unsuccessful. We presume it is meant by this curious expression that the commission for conducting a sale by auction in case the property is not sold is to be chargeable on the aggregate of the reserved prices. It is also provided that when property offered for sale by auction is bought in and terms of sale are afterwards negotiated and arranged by the solicitor, "he is to be entitled to charge commission according to the above scales on the reserved price where the property is not sold, and also one-half of the commission for negotiating the sale." Is the solicitor to get both these commissions, although upon the abortive sale commission was paid by the client to the auctioneer? Apparently the proviso at the end of the rule that the provisions as to commission on sales are to be subject to rule 2 (which provides that the remuneration of the solicitor is to be subject to the regulations contained in part 1 of schedule I., will make rule 11 of schedule I. applicable; but the question is not free from doubt.

being paid to an auctioneer, or estate or other agent) to claim a commission of one per cent. up to the first £3,000, and one-half per cent. thence to £10,000, in addition to the commission for deducing and investigating title? Supposing the purchaser's solicitor succeeds in inducing the vendor to undertake some charge or expense which would otherwise fall on the purchaser-he will so far diminish the price-can he be taken to have arranged the price, so as to entitle him to the commission for negotiating the sale? It is probable that the expression "arranging the price" will be taken strictly as including the whole arrangements connected with the price, but the instances we have given will show the nature of the questions which are likely to be raised. The commission to the mortgagee's solicitor for negotiating a loan is to be payable only in cases "where he arranges and obtains the loan from a person for whom he acts." It will be observed that the Order leaves it doubtful whether by these last words there is meant acts in the matter of the loan, or acts generally. It is presumed that the former must be the meaning. What is the meaning of "arranging" a loan? This term "arrange," which occurs, as we have seen, several times in the Order, appears to have been inserted for the purpose of enabling difficulties to be raised on taxation, so as, if possible, to diminish still further the chances of a solicitor being entitled to the commission for negotiation. The result of our examination of the rules relating to this subject is to strengthen the opinion we expressed previously, that for practical purposes, in considering the adequacy of the remuneration provided by the Order, we may altogether put out of sight the commission for negotiating a sale by private contract; and the commission for negotiating a loan is also subject to qualifications which are likely to render it delusive in many cases.

If, however, in spite of all these qualifications, a solicitor finds himself entitled to charge a commission for negotiating a sale or mortgage, or for conducting a sale by auction, and he is willing to forego such commission, rule 12 in schedule I. provides that he shall be entitled to charge the rates allowed by the first column of the scale in Schedule I. Part I., on all transactions up to £2,000 It is also provided by the same rule that, "when property is (instead of £1,000), and to charge, in addition, the rates allowed bought in and afterwards offered by auction by the same solicitor, by the second column on all amounts above £2,000 and not he is only to be entitled to the scale for the first attempted sale, and exceeding £5,000 (instead of for the second and third £1,000), for each subsequent sale ineffectually attempted, he is to be entitled and further to charge the rates allowed by the third column on to charge according to the present system, as altered by schedule all amounts above £5,000 and not exceeding £50,000 (instead of II. hereto. In case of a subsequent effectual sale by auction, the for the fourth and each subsequent £1,000 up to £10,000). full commission for an effectual sale is to be chargeable in addition, That is to say, if the mortgagee's solicitor has" arranged and less one-half of the commission previously allowed on the first obtained " a loan of £3,000, he will be entitled under the scale to attempted sale." That is to say, the solicitor is to be entitled to charge a commission of £30 for negotiation, and a commission the reduced commission for the first ineffectual sale; to remunera- of £35 for investigating title and preparing and completing the tion on the present system, as altered by schedule II. for subse- mortgage-together £65. He may, if he thinks fit, under rule quent ineffectual sales, and to two-thirds of the full commission 12, instead of charging this commission, charge commission for for the subsequent effectual sale. But it is presumed that in this investigating title and preparing and completing the mortgage case also the provisions of rule 11 in schedule I. are applicable, at the higher scale of one-and-a-half per cent. for the first £2.000 and that in case commission is paid by the client to the auctioneeri.e., £30, and one per cent. for the remaining £1,000-i.e., on each sale, no commission will be payable to the solicitor for £10-together £40, thus sacrificing £25. It does not seem very conducting any of the sales. In this case what is to be the probable that in the case of small loans this self-denying ordinance remuneration of the solicitor? will be adopted. It is probably not intended for such cases.

So much as to the commission for conducting a sale of property by public auction. The commission to the vendor's or purchaser's solicitor for negotiating a sale of property by private contract will only be allowed (see rule 11 in Schedule I.)" where the solicitor of a vendor or purchaser arranges the sale or purchase, and the price and terms and conditions thereof, and no commission is paid by the client to an auctioneer, or estate or other agent." How often does the solicitor arrange the price? Is it not usually the case that the matter is put by vendor and purchaser into the hands of their solicitors after the price has been settled, in order that the other terms may be arranged? But in this case it would seem that no remuneration by commission is payable to the solicitor for the negotiations connected with arranging these other terms. The preparation, perusal, and completion of the purchase agreement are included in the commissions for deducing and investigating title. It is safe to say that numerous questions will arise as to the meaning of the expression in rule 11, arranges the price." If the purchaser's solicitor can induce the vendor to accept £1 abatement on the price agreed on with the purchaser, will both he and the vendor's solicitor be entitled (no commission

We come now to the vendor's or mortgagor's solicitor's commission for deducing title and perusing and completing conveyance or mortgage, and the purchaser's and mortgagee's solicitor's commission for investigating title and preparing and completing conveyance or mortgage. The first point to be observed here is that the amount of commission is the same in the case of the vendor's or mortgagor's solicitor, and in the case of the purchaser's or mortgagee's solicitor. In the Law Society's scale of 1873 the remuneration of the vendor's or mortgagor's solicitor was fixed at three-fourths of the purchaser's or mortgagee's solicitor's allowance; and since then, as regards sales, the tendency has certainly been to render conditions of sale more stringent, and the titles abstracted shorter, and so to diminish the labour and responsibility of the vendor's solicitor. It may be suggested that the same causes also operate to diminish the labour and responsibility of the purchaser's solicitor; and as regards the diminished length of title this is, no doubt, true; but stringent conditions do not greatly lessen the labour of the purchaser's solicitor. A title fenced round with conditions has to be examined with exactly the same care as if the contract were an open one. The defects have to be discovered,

and means devised, if possible, for curing them. Moreover, the operation of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, in shortening conveyances, is, as our readers will doubtless have discovered, very limited. A few folios are saved by the omission of express covenants for title, but the longest parts-the recitals and the parcels-remain untouched. It appears to us that if the Law Society's principle was correct ten years ago, it is equally correct now, and it would be interesting to learn on what grounds it has

been discarded.

With regard to the question propounded by our correspondent "B. D. H." last week, the limits of this article will not allow us to reach the subject to which it relates, but we may say that at present we think rule 3 in schedule I. will be construed as relating solely to the case of a mortgage, and rule 6 as relating to the case of a conveyance and mortgage completed at the same time and prepared by the same solicitor-in other words, that, in the case put by our correspondent, rule 3 must not be read with rule 6, and the remuneration will be full charges on the purchase-money and half the commission for investigating title and preparing mortgage deed. We shall discuss the matter more fully hereafter.

EXECUTORY CONTRACTS AND THE

RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES. THE rule against perpetuities, as it is now understood, was the slow growth of that zeal for freedom of alienation which is almost as marked a feature of English law, or at least of English judges, as the zeal for freedom of personal status. Its modern shape is due to the efforts made by the courts to keep pace with the ingenious devices of conveyancers, at a time when an annual Conveyancing Act was not within the region of practical politics. A similar spirit was shown, both in the reluctance with which legal contingent remainders were suffered to establish their right to exist, and in the restrictions which made their existence precarious. When shifting and springing uses had for many purposes displaced the old-fashioned legal limitations, it seemed to be more in accordance with general principles to devise a new rule restricting the period within which such uses might arise, than to hold that uses were subject to the restrictions affecting legal remainders; and the event has proved that the remedy thereby devised was of more permanent utility.

Since no legal remainder could take effect which was not vested at the moment of the determination of the preceding particular estate, and since a life estate could not be limited to an unborn person followed by an estate tail to the issue of such person, it follows that the strictest "tying up" which the common law allowed was effected by limiting an estate for life to a living person, followed by successive estates tail to his unborn issue. And under the most favourable circumstances that could possibly happen—namely, when, on the death of such a tenant for life, he left behind him a tenant in tail en ventre sa mere—this arrangement would have prevented alienation of the lands during the lifetime of the tenant for life, and the whole minority of the tenant in tail plus the further time which might elapse between his birth and the death of his parent. It is evident that this supplied the model upon which the rule against perpetuities was framed. The result was to enable the new modes of settlement to effect deliberately, and in all cases, what, by the employment of the old methods, could have been brought to pass only at haphazard and by a lucky concurrence of circumstances.

The main application of the rule was to the creation of executory limitations, arising by springing and shifting uses, and by executory devises without the machinery of uses, all of which, when they take effect, give rise to legal estates; and also to trusts, which were identical with the uses employed in executory limitations, but were not so limited as to be executed into legal estates by the statute. Though this was the main application of the rule, the reasons given for its institution, which largely take the shape of violent tirades against the hatefulress of attempts to fetter alienation, are much wider in their scope. In a recent case, London and South-Western Railway Company v. Gomm, of which a full report will be found in the September number of the Law Reports and in 30 W. R. 620, the Court of Appeal,

apparently actuated by these sentiments, made a number of remarks which will probably have the effect of settling the law upon the subject to which they relate.

The facts of that case, so far as they are material, were as follows:-In 1865 the South-Western Railway Company sold certain lands in fee simple, which they no longer required for the purposes of their railway, to one Powell; and in the conveyance Powell covenanted that he, his heirs and assigns, owner and owners for the time being of the lands, and all other persons who might be interested therein, would at any time thereafter (whenever the said land might be required for the railway), upon the request and at the cost of the company, execute a re-conveyance on receiving back his purchase-money without interest. In 1879 Powell sold the land to the defendant, who had full notice of the covenant. In March, 1880, the company required the defendant to re-convey according to the terms of the covenant; and upon his refusal they brought the present action for specific performance.

Since there is not the slightest ground for suggesting that such a covenant runs with the land at law, it follows that the defend ant, as the assign of the covenantee, could be made liable, if at all, only in equity by means of the doctrine of notice in Tulk v. Moxhay (2 Ph. 774) and its allied cases. And since the Court of Appeal at Westminster, with the full approval of the court in the present case, has lately decided (Haywood v. Brunswick Permanent Building Benefit Society, 30 W. R. 299, 8 Q. B. D. 403) that the principle of Tulk v. Moxhay applies only to negative covenants, it follows that a covenant to re-convey, which is plainly not a negative covenant, could not be enforced against the defendant. Since the covenant for this reason could not be enforced, the question was superfluous whether it was also void as contravening the rule against perpetuities; but the court thought fit to consider this question, and the remarks which were made will probably have the effect of deciding it.

"Whether the rule [against perpetuities] applies or not," said the Master of the Rolls, "depends upon this, as it appears to meDoes, or does not, the covenant give an interest in the land?" Then he threw the argument against the plaintiff upon this part of the case into the form of a dilemma :-Either the covenant is merely personal, in which case it cannot bind the assign of the covenantor; or else it gives to the covenantee what is equivalent to an equitable interest in the land, in which case it is void for contravening the rule against perpetuities. But he plainly intimated his opinion that such a covenant does, in fact, give such an interest.

We do not doubt that this expression of opinion will practically settle the question; and that in future all executory contracts of this sort will be void unless the time within which they may be enforced is expressly restricted within the limits of time allowed by the rule against perpetuities. But the adaptation to covenants of a rule which was originally designed to meet the case of executory limitations is not without difficulty. The Master of the Rolls seems to have effected the adaptation, by holding that an agreement to convey gives in equity an interest, and that the arising of that interest may reasonably be made subject to all restrictions affecting interests which arise upon a limitation. But there remains this distinction between the two cases, that when a limitation is declared void, there is an end of the matter; while in the case of the covenant, it does not follow that, because the covenant is void for this particular purpose, therefore it is void altogether. The question still remains, whether the company can sue the original covenantor for damages; and this question has not been answered.

We may take this opportunity to mention an opinion which has received, or seemed to receive, some degree of countenance from no mean authorities, and which was examined, only to its complete destruction, in the present case-we mean the opinion that no limitation can involve a perpetuity so long as there exists any person capable of releasing it. It is evident that, if this principle be admitted, a limitation to the use of A. and his heirs, but if A. or any of his issue, being entitled under the preceding limitation, shall die without heirs of his or her body, then to the use of B. and his heirs, would be good; since it might at any time be released by B. or his heir for the time being: a proposi tion which only needs naming to refute itself. The necessity for the concurrence of the person entitled to the benefit of the limita

« PreviousContinue »