« PreviousContinue »
Chancellor held that an acknowledgment of title to land, given after the title simply to say that an adverse claim had been made. As to the question of jurishas been barred by twenty years adverse possession, operates to restore the diction, no doubt the words of section 72 were large enough to give the court title, and to deprive the person who makes the acknowledgment of the benefit jurisdiction. But the Court of Appeal bad held that, when å mere money of the title which he has acquired under the statute. And his lordship was demand was made by a trustee in bankruptcy against a stranger to the bankof opinion that the case of Stansfield v. Hobson (1 W. R. 216, 3 De G. M. & G. ruptcy, who asserted a right to have the matter investigated by the ordioary 620) was an authority for this conclusion. Jessel, M. R., said that, when the tribunals, it would not be proper for the Court of Bankruptcy, even if it posjudgments in Stansfield v. Hobson were looked at, it was clear that the point sessed jurisdiction, to exercise it. But here the auctioneer did not at first in question had not been decided there. And the case of In re Alison (27 express any wish to have an action brought against him ; on the contrary, he W. R. 389, L. R. 11 Ch. D. 284) was a direct authority to the contrary, but consented to an order to pay the money into the Court of Bankruptcy. The that case was not cited to the Vice-Chancellor. The effect of the Statute of judge might, no douht, have adjourned the hearing if he had had reason for Limitations was to extinguish the right, not merely to bar the remedy, and thinking that the bill of sale bolder's claim was a bona fide one. But where after the extinction of the right an acknowledgment could not revive it. But the question was whether the judge should exercise an extraordinary or extrain the particular case the court held that the evidence led to the conclusion judicial discretion, it was not an immaterial circumstance to consider that the that the statutory period had not run, and on this ground they afirmed the bill of sale holder had had actual notice of the application, though the notice Vice-Chancellor's decision. JESSEL,' M.R., said that, if a tenant had con- was one day short, And, if the court was satisfied, as the judge seemed to have tipued to pay bis rent regularly for thirteen years, it would be almost im- been, and as the Master of the Rolls was, that the bill of sale holder bad no possible, by any amount of evidence, to induce a jury to hold that he had, for intention of coming forward, tbere was no reason for departing from the strict a previous period of twenty years, paid no rent. The inference would be that rule. BAGGALLAY, L.J., said that, on the money being paid into court, the be had always paid it.-SOLICITORS, Williamson, Fill, & Co.; Gold & Son. full jurisdiction of the Court of Binkruptcy attached. Lush, L.J., said that
the auctioneer, with full knowledge of the adverse claim, elected to take the
part of the trustee and to sell the goods as his, and he was, therefore, estopped BAILOR AND BAILEE-JUS TERTII -SALE BY BAILEE FOR BAILOR AFTER Notice OF ADVERSE CLAIM-Right to PROCEEDS OP SALE-TRUSTEE IN
from denying the trustee's title. If he had not place i himself in that position BANKRUPTCY
it wonld have been open to him to show a better title in the bill of sale holder, AUCTIONEER COURT OF BANKRUPTCY JURISDICTION BANKRUPTCY Act, 1869, s. 72.-In a case of Ex parte Davies, before the there was not a tittle of evidence of the title of the bill of sale holder. The
an eviction, as it was called, of the trustee by title paramount. But in fact Conrt of Appeal on the 24th ult., a question arose as to the right of an auctioneer, who, with full knowledge of an adverse claim by a bill of sale 6 B. & S. 225), for there the auctioneer had no opportunity of electing before
present case was distinguishable from that of Biddle v. Bond (13 W. R. 561, holder, bad sold the goods comprised in it at the instance and by the ihe sale, and, moreover, be proved that the adverse claimant had a better title instructions of the trustee in the liquidation of the grantor, to prevent the than bis own bailor. In the present case the auctioneer deliberately elected proceeds of sale being paid over to the trustee. tion petition in a county court on the 14th of May, and on the 16th of May shown A better title in the adverse claimant.-SOLICITORS, H. G. Field ;
A printer filed a liquida: with a perfect knowledge of the nature of the adverse claim, and he had not a receiver was appointed, who the same day took possession of the debtor's J. J E. Scott. stock-in-trade, and left an auctioneer's man in possession of it for him. The next day the auctioneer was instructed to take possession of the stock.in. trade on behalf of a person who claimed it by virtue of a registered bill of
TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY-DISCLAIMER OF LEASE-LEAVE OF COURTsale executed by the debtor. Shortly afterwards, the auctioneer advertised APPEAL-DISCLAIMER EXECUTED BEFORE NOTICE OF APPEAL-BANKRUPTCY the property for sale by auction on the 30th of May, on behalf of the bill Act, 1869, s. 23—BANKRUPTCY ROLES, 1871, R. 28.-In a case of Er parte of sale bolder. On the 26th of May the receiver obtained from the county
Sadler, before the Court of Appeal on the 24th olt., the question was raised court an order restraining the bill of sale holder until the 6th of June from whether, after the Court of Bankruptoy had given leave to a trustee in selling the property, and directing that he, his agents and servants, bankruptcy to disclaim a lease of the bankrupt, and a disclaimer had been should forthwith withdraw from possession. After this order was made the actually executed, the Court of Appeal could, at the instance of the legsor, auctioneer's man remained in possession on bebalf of the receiver. On the alter the order by imposing on the trustee certain terms which the court 2nd of June the first meeting of the creditors under the petition was held, and
below had refused to impose on him, It was sought to distinguish the a trustee of the debtor's property was appointed, and he, on the 4th of June,
case from that of Ex parte Ditton (24 W. R. 1008, L. R. 3 Cb. D. 459), on directed the auctioneer to hold possession of the property for him. Some the ground that there the person who appealed from the order allowing communications took place between the auctioneer and the trustre, and, the disclaimer was à mortgages of the lease, who wished to put an end to ultimately, the auctioneer advertised the property for sale on the 14th of the disclaimer, and the court said that he was too late because, by force of Jane, the bills which gave notice of the sale and the catalogues of the goods the disclaimer, the term was at an end, whereas in the present case the being beaded, “In liquidation—by order of the trustee.” The property was appellant did not seek to affect the disclaimer, but only to impose some terms sold, and the proceeds of sale were received by the auctioneer. The bill of on the trustee. The Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R., and BAGGALLAY and sale holder claimed the money from him, and the trustee, not being able to Lush, L.JJ.), however, held that this was not a valid distinction, and that obtain payment, served the auctioneer with a notice of motion in the county the principle of Ex parte Ditton applied. Jessel, M.R., said that, whether court for an order to pay the money to him. No notice of the the leave to disclaim was granted conditionally or unconditionally, an the application was given to the bill of sale holder. Before the motion was alteration of the order would amount to a withdrawal of the leave, and heard the auctioneer sent to the trustee an account of the proceeds of sale, in the leave could not be withdrawn after the act which it permitted had been which be charged him with possession money from the 3rd to the 15th of done. The appellant ought to have applied to stay the execution of the June. On the 24th of June the motion was heard by the registrar, when disclaimer pending an appeal, or to have got an order made permitting the an order was made by consent that the proceeds of sale should trustee to execute the disclaimer after such a date as would allow of an be paid into court, that the further hearing should be adjourned to July 5, appeal.-SOLICITORS, Deane, Chubb, de Co.; W. Sturt. and that, in the meantime, notice should be given by the trustee to the bill of sale holder. Notice was served on the bill of sale holder on July 1, but this was not a four clear days' notice as is required hy rule 50 of the Banhroptcy
ACTION AGAINST PARTNERS-FIRM DISSOLVED BEFORE ISSUÈ OF WRIT Rules, 1870. The further hearing of the motion took place before the judge Service or Writ on one PARTNER-JUDGMENT BY Defaulr-Debtor's on July 5. The bill of sale holder did not appear. He had meanwhile com
SUMMONS AGAINST PARTNER NOT SERVED WITII Wrir-ORD. 9, K. 6menced an action against tbe auctioneer to recover the proceeds of the sale. Ord. 12, R. 12-ORD. 16, R. 10-ORD. 42, R. 8.-In à case of Ex The judge ordered the money in court to be paid ont to the trustee, and this order parte Young, before the Court of Appeal on the 28th ult., an important was affirmed by Bacon, C.J. Before the Court of Appeal it was urged that it question was raised as to the effect of the Judicature Rules, which provide for woulà be unjust to leave the auctioneer exposed to the risk of having to pay the suing of partners in the name of the partnership firm, and for the service the money over again to the bill of sale holder ; that the order of the registrar of the writ and the issuing of execution on a judgment against the firm. By as to notice to the bill of sale bolder ought to have been carried out; and ord. 9, r. 6, “ Where partners are sued in the name of their firm, the writ that, as it was not, an adjournment should have been directed to enable proper shall be served either upon any one or more of the partners, or at the principal service to be effected; that the auctioneer was acting as an officer of the court place within the jurisdiction of the business of ihe partnership, upon any and was entitled to its protection, and that the court would not allow the person having, at the time of service, the control or management of the trustee, who was its own officer, to obtain an unjust advantage, even if he was partnership business there; and, subject to the rules hereinafter contained, technically in the right. It was also said that the trustee's claim against the such service shall be deemed good service upon the firm." By ord. 12, r. 12, auctioneer was a mere money demand against a stranger to the liquidation, “Where partners are sued in the name of their firm, they shall appear inand that, according to the principle of Ex parte Dickin (26 W. R.731, L. R. 8 dividually in their own names. But all subsequent proceedings shall, neverCb. D. 377), the Court of Bankruptcy ought not to exercise its extraordinary theless, continue in the name of the firm." By ord. 16, r. 10, “ Any two jarisdiction under section 72 of the Bankruptcy Act, but ought to leave the or more persons claiming or being liable as co-partners may sue or be sued in matter to be determined in an action in the High Court. The Court of Appeal the name of their respective firms, if any; and any party to an action may (JESSEL, M.R., and BAGGALLAY and Lush, L.JJ.) affirmed the order ap- in such case apply by summons to a judge for a statement of the names of the
ealed from. JESSEL, M. R., said that, as a general rule, a bailee of goods persons who are co-partners in any such firm, to be furnished in such manner, could not dispute the title of his bailor. If the goods were taken from him and verified on oath or otherwise, as the judge may direct." And ord. 42, r. by the title paramount of a third person, and he himself had been in no way 8, provides that, “Where a judgment is against partners in the name of the in fault, that would be a defence to the claim of his bailor. But if the bailee, firin, execution may issue in manner following :-(a.) Against any property knowing, of an adverse claim, agreed to sell the goods for his bailor, of the partners as such ; (6.) against any person who has admitted on the and to hand over the proceeds to him, he could not afterwards set pleadings that he is, or has been adjudged to be a partner; (c.) against any up against his bailor the title of the adverse claimant, because he had person who bas been served, as a partner, with the writ of summons, and has acted with his eyes open. In the present case the auctioneer had failed to appear. If the party who has obtained judgment claims to be entitled precluded himself by bis owo bargain with the trustee from setting up against to issue execution against any other person as being a member of the firm, be him the title of the bill of sale holder. And, moreover, in any event, the may apply to the court or a judge for leave so to do; and the court or judge may bailee could not succeed without proving the paramount title of the adverse give such leave is the liability be pot disputed, or, if such liability be disputed, claimant, and this the present appellant had not done. It was not enough may order that the liability of such persun be tried and determined in any manner in which any issue or question in an action may be tried and determined.” he was bound by the judgment. His lordship was of opinion that, under The question arose thus : a firm consisting of several partners was dissolved rule 8 of order 42, execution could not issue on the judgment against the as to one of them on the 17th of December, the business being thenceforth appellant without the leave of the court. But it did not follow ibat other continued by the other partners under the old firm and at the old place of remedies on the judgment—e.g., a debtor's summons—might not be enforced business. On the 18th of December a creditor of the old partnership, whose against him. The Legislature had only thought it safer to bridle the power of debt bad been contracted before the dissolution, and who was not aware of the execution, which was a drastic remedy, put ja force at the will of the judgment dissolution, commenced an action for the debt against the firm, and sued in the creditor, and was irreparably mischievous if wrongly issued.-SOILICTORS, name of the firm. On the 21st of December the writ was served on one of the W. Moon ; Keene, Marsland, f Bryden. continuing partners at the place of business of the firm. It was never served on the outgoing partner, and he was ignorant of the action until the following May. No appearance was entered to the writ, and on the 29th of December
PERSONAL COVENANT-BREACH-ENFORCING BY INJUNCTION-INTERLOCO. the plaintiff signed judgment against the defendants for the amount claimed Chitty, J., on the 25th ult., a motion was made to restrain the female der
TORY APPLICATION-DELAY.-In & case of Mapleson v. Hutchinson, before the goods of the firm, but found none. No application was made to the court fendant, a married woman, from singing at any concerts in England, in breach for Jeave to issue execution against the retired partner. In May, 1881, the of her contract with the plaintiff. In August, 1879, the female defendant, plaintiff served on bim particulars of demand of the judgment debt, this being then a spinster, agreed with the plaintiff to proceed to sing for him in the first potice be bad of the action. He did not comply with the demand, America during the American season, commencing in October, 1879, and and on the 14th of June the plaintiff served him with a debtor's summons in ending in March, 1880. The agreement contained a proviso for renewal respect of the judgment debt. He denied bis liability and applied to the court upon the same terms for the American seasons, 1880-1 and 1881-2. The to dismiss the summons, and his application was refused by the registrar. On agreement contained no provision as to when the notice of renewal should the appeal it was contended that rule 10 of order 16, and the consequential be given. The female defendant duly performed her engagement for the provisions of the other roles, apply only to the case of a firm existing at the winter of 1879, and the notice of renewal was given for the season 1880-1 time when the action is conimenced, and do not authorize the suing in the in July, 1880, and such notice was acted upon, and the engagement duly name of the firm the persons who have been the partners in it before its performed during the winter of 1880. Notice of renewal for the season dissolution. Consequently, it was said, the appellant had never been served
1881-2 was given by the plaintiff to the female defendant at the end of June, with the writ and the judgment did not bind him. The court (Lord 1881. The female defendant, since the original agreement, had married the SELBORNE, C., and Brett and Cotton, L.JJ.), differed in opinion, Lord defendant Hutchinson, and such defendant, immediately on receiving the last SELBORNE and Cotton, L.J., holding that the debtor's summons ought to notice, wrote to the plaintiff stating that the notice had been given too late, have been dismissed, and BRETT, L.J., bolding that the registrar's decision was
and the engagement could not be carried ont. The plaintiff' thereupon gave right. Lord SELBORNE said that the argument had not convinced him that notice that in case of any breach by the defendants be should at once move the effect of a dissolution of partnership was to put an end to the partnership for an injunction. According to the contract the female defendant was to relation between the members of the dissolved firm as to their joint liabilities proceed to London,
early in October, for rehearsals, and subsequently cross and assets, or as to transactions in dependence at the date of the dissolution, over to America. The plaintiff
, having recently heard that the female defendor that the name of the firm under wbich the business had been carried on
ant was advertised to sing at various concerts in England, at once commenced
The female defend. might not, according to that mercantile usage of which the law did and ought this action, and gave notice of motion for an injunction. to take notice, still continue to be applicable for any purposes for which the ant, in answer to the motion, made an affidavit stating that according to the partnership relation might be said to continue. And, if that were so, the custom of the theatrical profession, and to enable her to make her arrangelanguage of rule 10 of order 16 would seem prima facie to be applicable to wents for the future, the notice of renewal should have been given at the end a joint partnership claim or liability, by or against the members of a dissolved of the American season in Marob, 1881. The plaintiff contended that the partnership. This question, however, was one of large and general import- defendants, by entering into the contract in August and bs accepting the ance, and would be much more properly tried in some proceeding in the High previous renewal in July, had shown that the notice could be given later than Court (partioularly by an application under rule 8 of order 42 for leave to March. For the defendants it was also submitted that there had been delay issue execution) than upon a debtor's summons. Thinking the question open
on the plaintiff's part, and that he could bave at once moved for an injunction 10 serious doubt, his lordship was of opinion that the registrar might have
when the defendant had refused to perform her contract. Chitty, J., said done well to stay all proceedings on the summons for such time as might be that the plaintiff was bound to establish his contract with the defendant, and requisite for such a trial. If, however, the determination of the appeal bad his title to sue for the injunction, and he was not satisfied that the notice of depended only on rule 10 of order 16, and the rules as to service and appear. renewal
, so as to constitute a binding engagement on the defendant, bad been ance, it might be going too far to say that the registrar was not competent to given in time. There was evidence wbich was uncontradicted that, according decide tho question. Bat the question depended also on rule 8 of order 42, to the custom of the theatrical profession, the notice should have been given which seemed to show that judgment against a firm was
not and ought not to in March, and in that state of the evidence he did not see how he could grant be held conclusive of the liability of any person who had neither admitted on
an interlocutory injunction, whatever case the plair:tiff might be able to the pleadings, nor had been adjudged to be a partner in the firm sued, and
establish at the trial. It was only a matter of observation, and not conclusive, who had not been served as a partner with the writ. It appeared to his lord that the previous renewal had been later, and that the contract had been ship that it would be improper in any case of disputed liability, in which, on
entered into in August. He was also of opinion, on the question of delay, an application for leave to issue execution under this rule, the court that the plaintiff had disentitled himself to an interlocutory injunction. The could not properly give leave without the trial and determination of motion must be refused, and the costs would be costs in the action.-SOLICIthe question of liabilility by some proceeding at law, to grant a debtor's TORS, J. & W. Gole; Lindo g Co. summons, and afterwards to refuse an application by the person summoned either to dismiss it, or to stay proceedings under it for such time as might be PRACTICE - PETITION — EVIDENCE STATUTORY DECLARATION necessary for the trial of the question. If this was so, the inference which ABROAD.-In a case of Re Vaughan's Trusts, before Chitty, J., on the 26cb his lordship drew from rule 8 of order 42 (in connection with the other rules) ult., a question arose on a petition whetber, under the Statatory Declaration was that, in a case like the present, the judgment was not per se binding on a Act (5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 62) a statutory declaration made in Fiji before a person in the position of the appellant, so as to constitute a debt on which notary poblio was receivable in evidence in a petition. The deponent was he could be made bankrupt, and that something more was necessary to make alive, and CHITTY, J., said there was no reason wby be should depart from it so. If the rules did apply to a dissolved partnership, such a state of the the regular practice and not require an affidavit from the person who had law would appear to his lordsbip to be very convenient and reasonable, made the statutory declaration. The case must be mentioned again when particularly wben, as in the present case, an old firm Lame continued to be the proper evidence had been procared.-SOLICITORS, R. Beale ; Surr, Gribile, used by a new partnership. 80 as to make ihe application of the firm name so & Co. far equivocal and uncertain that it could not be ascertained by anything wbich appeared on the record. Cottox, L.J., said that, by the English law previously to the rules under the Jndicature Act, a firm bad no such existence DISCHARGE. - In a case of French v. Chatterton, before Chitty, J., on the 28th
PRACTICE–INTERIM INJUNCTION-DISCLOSURE OP MATERIAL T'actsas enabled it to sue or made it liable to be sued. It was a mere dame under which certain persons carried on their business, and the individual partners, ult., a motion was made to discharge an interim ipjanction granted on the as such, were alone capable of suing and being sued.
The Judicature Rules 26th, to restrain the performance of a play in a London theatre on that had, no doubt, varied the law in this respect, but the question was to day. The plaintiff in bis affidavit stated be was mortgagee in possession what extent. În bis opinion, the rules applied only to persons who were,
and sole proprietor of the right of representation, but the defendant in an at the time of action commenced, partners in an existing firm, not to persons affidavit filed in sopport of his motion set out the document of title onder who had been partners in a firm which had been dissolved. Such persons which the plaintiff claimed. By that document, which was dated the 21st could no longer properly be called partners. The partnership was at an end of June, 1878, the defendant deposited the manascript of the drama with the by the dissolution, and, though the persons wbo were members of it had plaintiff in consideration of a loan then made to him, and he thereby emauthority to deal with matters in which the partnership was at the time of its powered the plaintiff to receive all moneys for the performance of the dissolution engaged, for the purpose of winding them up, until those affairs drama until the loan and all other sums owing had been repaid. The defendant were wound up, yet this was not because they were still partners, but because was a bankrupt, and bis trustee had consented to the performance on the authority of agency, which was given by the partnership contract, the 26th, and bad directed the royalty to be paid to the plaintiff direct. continued, notwithstanding the dissolution, as regarded matters commenced The defendant also alleged that the drama had been performed since the during the continuance of the partnership. BRETT, L.J., thought that the 21st of June, 1878, and the proceeds paid to the plaintiff in reduction of firm name mentioned in rule
10 of order 16 was the name of the firm which his debt. Chitty, J., was of opinion that there had been a material supexisted when the debt sued for was contracted, and that the firm so named pression on the plaintiff's part in the affidavit upon which he had obtained existed for the purpose of being sned at the time of the issuing of a writ in the ex parte injonction. It should have set out or exhibited the peouliar respect of a debt contracted while the firm was in full force, though document of title under which the plaintiff claimed, and is that had been for other purposes the firm bad ceased to exist. The service of the writ was, done he sbould never have granted the interim injunotion since the therefore, by virtue of rule 6 of order 9, a good service on the appellaut, and plaintif by no means clearly showed bis right to restrain the representa
tation of the drama. Witboot going further into the merits, he sboald discharge the injunction simply because the dooument bad not boen
SOCIETIES. referred to. The plaintiff ooght to have an opportunity of answering the defendant's affidavit, and therefore the motion could be mentioned again on the question of costs on Friday the 2nd December-SOLICITORS, Van Tromp ;
LEEDS INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. Bolton & Mote.
The annual general meeting of this society was beld on the 7th ult., at COMPANY—SALE OF ASSETS-SANCTION OF BONDHOLDER'S MEETING—Statu. the Law Institute, Albion, place, Leeds. TORY MAJORITY-COMPANIES ARRANGEMENT Act, 1870. - In the case of Re
Present :-Mr. T. Simpson, president, in the chair ; Messrg. J. W. Madras Irrigation and Canal Company (Limited), before Chitty, J., on the 29th Middleton,
Vice-president ; J. D. Kay, hon. treasurer ; G. H.
Nelson, E. N. ult., an application was made under the Companies Arrangement Act, 1870, that Jones, F: H. Barr, G. W. Morrison, J. Rider, W. B. Craven,
J. C. Malcolm, a meeting of the bondholders of the company, which is now in liquidation, Teale, J. R. Ford, E. Wilson, and T. Marshall, hon, secretary.
R. S. Wigan, E. Weston, A. L. Booth, J. Soott, J. W. Harland, T. G. might be directed to be held to consider a proposal for the sale by the company of its assets to the Secretary of State for India. The offer, in a similar form,
The hon. secretary read the report of the committee. had been before two previous meetings ; at the first the liquidator bad held
The PRESIDENT, in moving the adoption of the report, called attention to certain proxies which the court held he could not do, not being a bondholder, those parts of it which dealt with the report of the Committee on Legal and therefore the result of the meeting was set aside, and a fresh meeting Procedure, dispensing orders from the preliminary examination and the directed on the 3rd of August, 1881. At the latter meeting a majority in | Incorporated Law Society. number of the bondholders assented to the sale, but the majority in value
Mr. Kar seconded the motion for the adoption of the report. was by some £10,000 short of the statutory amount. The Secretary of State
After some discussion on the points referred to by the president, in had made a fresh offer, open to the end of the year, and this application was
which Messrs. Barr, Rider, Nelson, Kay, Wilson, Marshall, Teale, and Dow made on the ground that various mistakes bad been made in counting the Booth took part, it was resolved." That the report as read be adopted.” votes at the meeting of the 3rd of August, and that certain bondholders who
Messre, W. Clarke, A. L. Booth, J. R. Ford, and G. W. Morrison were had tben voted against the proposal had since changed their minds, and that elected members of the committee in the place of Messrs. W. Clarke, J. C. in effect there was now the statutory majority in favour of the proposal. Malcolm, A. L. Booth, and F. H. Barr, who retired by rotation, Messrs. CHITTY, J., said he should, in exercise of his judicial discretion, direct a Clarke and Bouth having beeu nominated for re-eleotion. farther meeting to be called. He looked upon the renewal of the offer by the Tbe treasurer's account was presented and adopted. Secretary of State as, in effect, a new offer, which the bondbolders ought to Mr. T. Marshall was elected secretary for the year, and Mr. J. D. Kay have an opportunity of considering. As, bowever, the proposal was the same was elected treasurer for the year. as before, be should not have sent it back to be considered by a third meeting, Messrs. H. Armstrong, C. Lapton, and W. Postlethwaite were elected anless he saw that there had been a bona fide change of opinion since the last members of the society. meeting. Having regard to the analysis of the voting at the last meeting, A vote of thanks to the chairman concluded the business of the meeting. and the present state of opinion in the company, he considered that the applicants had shown a fair prima facie case that there was at present a The following are extracts from the report of the committee : statatory majority in favour of the scheme. He should direct the meeting to be
Members. The present number of members is seventy-one, and there are beld on the 15th of December, and the liquidator would have leave if the eight subscribers to the library. proposal were then accepted to take out a summons returnable before bim on
Amendment of the Law of Brinkruptcy.—The Council of the Incorporated the 19th to confirm the
result. --SOLICITORS, W. Rawlins ; Ashurst, Morris, Law Society having made various suggestions for the amendment of the law Ś Co.; Solicitor to the Treasury.
of bankruptcy, in anticipation of a Bankruptcy Bill, these suggestions were
examined by your committee, and a report on them was presented to an REGISTRATION OP VOTERS-LODGER's CLAIM-PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF
extraordinary general meeting of the society, held on the 6th of January last, QUALIFICATION—41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, s. 23.-In a case of Nuth v. Tamplin, and adopted. The Bill subsequently presented to Parliament by Mr. Chamwhich came before the Queen's Bench Division on the 24th of November, and lain, the President of the Bard of Trade, was also considered by your com. which was an appeal against a decision of the revising barrister for the mittee ; bot a committee having, in the meantime, been appointed by the borough of Marylebone, the question was whether the 23rd section of +1 & 42 Associated Provincial Law Societies to report on the subject, it was thought Vict. c. 26 applied to persons claiming the lodger franchise for the first time, better to unite with the other country law societies in their recommendations as well as to those who have already asserted their claim. By section 23 of than to frame an independent report. The representatives of the chief the Act, “In the case of a person claiming to vote as a lodger the declaration country law socie ies, including your own, met at Leeds in the month of July, annexed to his notice of claim shall, for the purposes of revision, be prima facie examined the Bill, and agreed on a report upon it. This report was sent by evidence of his qualification.” The appellant claimed the lodger franchise the honorary secretary of the Associated Provincial Law Societies to the Preunder section 4 of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102 for the first time, and made his sident of the Board of Trade, who has promised to consider it when the ques. claim in accordance with form H., No. 2, in the schedule to the Act of 1878.
tion again comes before Parliament. The claim was duly published by the overseers in the list of lodger claimants,
Report of the Committee on Legal Procedure. This committee was appointed bat the claimant did not appear personally in support of his claim, nor was
by the Lord Chancellor for the purpose of considering what changes might be any evidence tendered in support thereof. It was argued on bis behalf that expedient and practicable in the practice and procedure of the three divisions the declaration annesed to the notice was sufficient evidence of bis qualifica. now forming the Queen's Boooh Division of the High Court of Justice. Their cation. The revising barrister held that section 23 of the Act of 1878 did not report was issued about three weeks ago, and your committee immediately apply to persons claiming the lodger franchise for the first time, and that, the
met to take it into consideration, The report deals with the following sec ion not applying, the appellant should have given further evidence in subjects :-(1) The abuse occasioned by the resort to many modes of procesupport of his claim. The court (Denman and Bowen, JJ.), allowed the dure cumulatively ; (2) the oppressive use of the power of discovery, and the appes), being of opinion that the 23rd section applied to old and new lodgers expense caused by proof of facts about which there ought to be no dispute ; alike. It was admitted that section 25 applied to both, and as the language (3) diminution of appeals in interlocutory matters; (4) debtors' summonses ; was identical in both sections the court could not put a limited construction (5) amendment of the mode of trial, including such matters as the appointon one and exclude new lodgers. Appeal allowed. --SOLICITORS, H. T. Ives; ment of official shorthand writers, the right to new triu), and the procedure Tamplin, Taylor, $ Josephs.
to be adopted to obtain it ; (6) costs in actions under £200, and costs generally.
(1) On the first of these subjects your committee think it essential that REGISTRATION OF Voters-QUALIFICATION FOR BOROUGH AND County parties should be brought to a definite issue before trial. Whether this be Votes—DOPlicate ENTRY—2 WILL. 4, c. 45–41 & 42. Vict. c. 26, s; done by short pleadings, or by notice in lieu of pleadings, is a matter of 23, SUB-SECTION 14.-In a case of Chilcott v. Bullen, which was an appeal secondary ini portance. In most cases an indorsement on the writ of the nature of agaiost a decision of a revising barrister, heard in the Queen's Bench Division the claim, notice of delence, and notice of any matter by way of reply will be on the 24th olt., a question arose as to the construction of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, sufficient, and no further pleadings should be allowed except by judge's 8. 28. The respondent occupied a leasehold house, and owned and occupied a
order. If further particulars are wanted they can be obtained. The pracfreehold tenement, both premises being situated within the borough of Truro. tice of making long garbled statements in the form of pleas, and supplementThe respondent's name appeared twice in the list of borough voters in ing them by summonses for particulars, is an abuse which should be checked. respect of his two properties. On the revision of the list of voters for the ai a certain stage in the pleading the proposed summons for directions will be borough, the revising barrister placed against the entry of the respondeot's useful, and the same may be said of the suggestion that a separate summons name in respect of his freehold qualification a note, to the effect that the re- for each separate matter shall be discontinued. spondent was not entitled to vote in respect of that qualification, in accordance
(2) The committee approve of suggestion No. 6 in the report as to discovery, with 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, s. 28, sub-section 14, and left bim the right of voting but that (No. 7) requiring a party, under penalty of costs, to admit specific as an occapier. The respondent claimed to vote for the county, by reason of bis facts on notice before trial is of more doubtful policy. It will often be di ill. freehold property, and that claim was allowed by the revising barrister, culty to say what is a reasonable cause," within the meaning of the rule, and although the property was situate within the borough. The court (DENMAN in practice it will be found that parties will refuse admission and run the risk and BOWEN, JJ.) allowed the appeal, as it was clear that by 2 Will. 4, c. 45, of costs. 89 person could vole for the county in respect of property occupied within the borough, and the law had not been altered by the provisions of 41 & 42 Vict. tions of the committee Nos. 8, 9, and 10.
(3) As to interlocutory appeals, your committee approve the recommenda
A suggestion has been mado tbat c. 26. Appeal allowed.-SOLICITORS, Fox; Bartrum.
a practice court should be established to hear appeals from masters and distriot registrars as well as appeals on taxation of costs. The use of such a
court in fixing the practice cannot be disputed; on the other hand, an appeal It is stated that the list of actions entered for trial at the London sittings to it would be much more costly, and it is probable that a court would decline consists of 330 cauges, of which number about 130 are marked for special to entertain appeals not on ma't-rs of principle. juries. Of the general list over 30 causes are already struck out as settled, (4) The committee approve the suggestion as to debtors' summonses (No. leaving about 300 to be tried,
(5) The proposed amendments of procedure in matters relating to trial examination, unless such memorial be first submitted to and approved of by the (Nos. 12 to 15) are of great importáncé. They embrace a power to the master committee." to direct, on summons for directions, a motion for judgment where the rights Since this date seven petitions for dispensing orders have been referred to the of the parties are found to depend wholly or in part on matter of law, and committee, five of which have been granted, and two refused. The committee when there is no serious controversy as to the facts. But before a case is have always felt embarrassed in dealing with these applications, The directed to be tried by a jury, the master must be satisfied that the case is one examination in general knowledge required by the regulations of the In. which can conveniently be so tried, subject to certain excepted cases in corporated Law Society, comprises writing from dictation, writing a short which the right of either party to a trial by jcry is to be absolute. Your English composition, elementary arithmetic, the geography of Europe and committee have approved this suggestion, considering that the decision of history of England, elementary Latin, and two languages (to be selected by the the master, that the question can be conveniently tried by a jury, will candidate out of six). This examination, with the exception of the lastpreserve that mode of trial in cases to which it is applicable; the mode of mentioned subject, is one which no clerk, however continuous his office labours trial by official referees has not, in their opinion, worked well, and should be may be, need find any difficulty in passing. Were the applications for disdiscontinued. Your committee agree that applications for new trial, appeals pensing orders usually restricted to an exemption from examination in the two from inferior courts, and the other matters specified in No. 15, should be by languages forming the last of the subjects, there would in most cases be little notice of motion without any rule nisi. On the question of new trial, the objection to them. But those which have come before the committee bave only observation your committee have to make is that an appeal from the invariably asked for dispensation from the whole of the subjects of examina. decision of the arbitrator should be allowed wherever there is a reference tion. The committee think that the facilities given have been abused, and to an abitrator, and not only where the arbitration is compulsory, as is that many clerks who could easily bave prepared themselves by taking a little suggested in No, 24.
trouble, have applied for and obtained dispensing orders to save themselves (6) On the question of costs, the proposal (No. 20) that when the amount that trouble. The regulation has, moreover, been in force for so many years recovered in an action for a mere money demand, or for damages only, is less that any clerk wishing become a solicitor has ample notice of what is re. than £200, the plaintiff's costs shall be taxed on a lower scale, is disapproved quired. The committee have, therefore, decided that it is inexpedient in any by the committee.
case to approve an application for a dispensing order from the whole of the Your committee have further to report upon this subject that a meeting of subjects of examioation. the Associated Provincial Law Societies was held in London, on the 27th of October, and attended by the vice-president and honorary secretary on behalf of the society, at which the report of the committee was fully considered.
HULL INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. The resolutions passed at that meeting do not differ in any material respect from ti:08e at which your own committee have arrived ; and your committee
The annual meeting of this society was held in the large ball of the society
on the 25th ult. propose to support the recommendations of the meeting referred to, with such variations and additions as further discussion may show to be requisite.
The President (Mr. Laverack), in moving the adoption of the report of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881.—The committee need do council, congratulated the members on their meeting for the first time in
premises of their own, and alluded to this and other events which had transno more than refer to this important Act, wbich comes into operation on
pired, as rendering the past year one of the most memorable in the history the 1st of January, 1882. It should be read in connection with the statute of the society. He explained how the financial position of the society bad Dext mentioned.
been affected by the changes which had taken place, and expressed a confident The Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881.- Under this Aot, the Lord Chan. belief that the result would be as successful pecuniarily as it would be advan. cellor, the Lord Chief Justice of Eogland, the Master of the Rolls, the tageous in every other respect. Having alluded to the action of the council president for the time being of the Incorporated Law Society, and the with respect to the Bankruptcy Bill, and their suggestions to the Lord Chancel. president of one of the provincial law societies, as defined in section 1, are lor's Committee on the reform of legal procednre in the common law division authorized to make general orders for regulating the remuneration of of the High Court, and pointed out the effect of the new Act with regard to solicitors in conveyancing and other non-contentious business. The addition professional remuneration, he concluded by moving the adoption of the of the president of one of the provincial law cocieties to the body report. empowered to make general orders, was made in the Bill at
Mr. Peakce seconded the motion, which, after some remarks by Dr. Rollit late stage, at the suggestion, and mainly by the influence of the and others, was put and carried unanimously. Liverpool Law Society, to whom the tbanks of the profession are
Mr. W. J. REED moved, and Mr. FARRELL seconded, a vote of thanks to the due for this amendment. Your committee hope that the exertions of the officers and council for their services during the past year, which was carried Liverpool Society will be recognized by the selection of its president, in the
with acclamation. first instance, as a member of the Role Committee under the Act. The fram. ing of general orders will be a work of much responsibility and difficulty, even
The SECRETARY (Mr. Woodhouse) moved a resolution to separate the offices
This was under the wide powers given by section 4. The committee will take care to of secretary and treasurer, which had hitherto been combined. make their views known to those to whom the framing of the orders is seconded by Mr. J. A. Jackson and carried. intrusted.
The election of officers for the ensuing year was then proceeded with, and The Administration of Justice.—This title refers to a subject to which the president, Dr. Rollit; hon. secretary, Mr. J. T. Woodhouse ; hon. treasurer,
the result of the balloting was as follows : - President, Mr. F. Lowe; viceattention of your society was strongly directed at the close of last year by the Mr. J. J. Thorney ; council, Messrs. H. Birks, R. Middlemiss, J. Leak, J. L. Liverpool Law Society. The assize arrangements for Lancashire are known Jacobs, J. Cook, and C. S. Wake. The officers and ex-president are ex officio to be quite inadequate, and four or five country societies, including Leeds, members of the council. Messrs. T. Pearce and J. B. Sibree were re-appointed were invited to Liverpool on the 22nd of December last, to consider what
auditors. better arrangements could be made for the trial of actions in the counties in which the pressure of business was chiefly felt. Your committee preferred that it must ever be a legitimate source of satisfaction and pride to any member
Mr. Lowe then thanked the members for bis election as president, and said that the matter should be discussed in the first instance by the general body of his profession to be elected to that office, and he felt that in his case the of the Associated Law Societies. It was so discussed on the 19th of January last, and referred to a committee, of which your president was a member. bonoar was enhanced by their unanimous vote, and by the election being made That committee met in Manchester, and presented its report on the 5th of May in view of the visit, during his year of office, of the parent society. Some of Jast, recommending that in the first instance the attempt to obtain continuous them had with himself witnessed the magnificent hospitality which had been sittings for the trial of actions should be confined to the county of Lancaster. extended to them by their brethren in other towns. He felt the responsibility In this recommendation your society, through its representatives, acquiesced. of the position, but relying on their aid, and particularly that of their inde. Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1881.--The 22nd section of this Act ex- chief society with hospitality, dignity, and success.
fatigable secretary, he hoped he should be able to receive the members of the tends the qualification for the office of district registrar, in registries where important business is transacted, to solicitors generally. The clause, as
Mr. A. Rollit regretted that Dr. Rollit bad been compelled to leave the originally framed, made barristers also eligible. Against this proposal to meeting, and, on bis behalf, he thanked the members for electing him vice
president. carry the patronage of the bar into one of the few official legal appointments to which solicitors are eligible, your society, in conjunotion with
Mr. Woodhouse also thanked the members for unanimously re-electing
him. the Incorporated Law Society, and most of the provincial law societies, strongly protested. A petition against the clande was presented to the of association, so as to admit gentlemen practising within forty miles of Hull,
Mr. J. Cook moved, and Mr. Birks seconded, an alteration of the articles House of Commons, and the words to wbich exception was taken were eventually struck out by the Government. Attention is called to the 27th but not in. Hall, as subscribing members at å reduced subscription, with section of this Act, which removes doubts which some judges bad felt as to
limited privileges, and after considerable discussion, the motion, slightly the validity of the County Court Roles and Orders made under 19 & 20 amended, was carried. Vict. c. 108, 8. 32.
Several other topics of interest to the profession were discussed, after which
the meeting terminated. Notices of Incumbrances to Trustees and others.-As a consequence of the decision in The Saffron Walden Second Benefit Building Society y. Rayner, The following are extracts from the report of the council :(L. R. 14 Ch. D. 406), the committee recommended that the practice of soli- Unqualified Practitioners and Debt Collectors' Charges. The council citors to trustees, mortgagees, and others, accepting service of notice of in- bave had under their consideration complaints of misconduct by professional cumbrances or other assurances, should be discontinued. This recommenda. and unqualified practitioners, and
they have communicated to the Council of tion was communicated to members by circular on the 27th of December last.
the Incorporated Law Society in London the facts and circumstances relating Dispensing Orders. At the annual meeting, held on the 27th of October, thereto, for that society to take such action as they might be advised. The 1876, the following resolution was passed :
practice complained of in the last report of so-called accountants filing “ That it is undesirable for members of the society to sign any memorial for debtors' petitions for liquidation has, the council believe, become much less dispensing with the preliminary examination in general knowledge, under the prevalent, if not altogether ceased, and they feel that this is due to the action Ath section of the Aitorneys' Act (23 & 24 Vict, c. 127), or any part of such of the society and to the assistance rendered by the registrar. The council
bave observed with satisfaction that the Court of Appeal have overruled the Armstrong. Walter Scott
Beavan, Samuel Sydney
Bender, Alfred Philipp Paid for sommons
90 Benyon, Winsor George Norman Hearing fee
16 0 Black, James Henry Attending court, waiting upon defendant several times both in
Bliss, William Herbert Wray Reading and Erleigh.
17 0 Boase, Arthur James
Bobbett, Lewis Albert 2 2 0 Bollard, William
Bourne, James Edwin Dawson
, Francis James
Solicitors' Remuneration Act. This is, perhaps, the most important Act Coles, Frederick William
Fuller, Charles Henry
Hacon, Harold Edward
Hamilton, Harvie Cavendish
Hamilton, William Vickers
Hancock, George Strangman
Hart, William Jackson (secretary), grants of £16 were made to the widows of two non-members, one
Heckle, James Herbert new member was elected, and the ordinary general business was transacted.
Heelis, Edward Hopes
Herbert, William Henry
Higgs, William Ward
Hill, Herbert Charles
Hills, Edward John French
Hoyle, Percy Savile
Jackson, Reginald Augustus
Jackson, Samuel Percy
Johnson, Edward William