« PreviousContinue »
the suit, the Court will order it to be placed in the reserved ligt till pay.
ment of the Queen's Proctor's costs.-- Collins v. Collins, 44 L.T. 31. (cxx.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Costs—Taxation.—The costs of all work which is
reasonable and not premature are allowable down to the time of any notice which stops the work, and the taxing-master must decide whether such work is reasonable and the time for doing it has arrived.—Harrison
v. Leutnor, L.R. 16 Ch. D. 559; 50. L.J. Ch. 264; 29 W.R. 393. (cxxi.) C. A.-Costs—Taxation-Action for less than £20–19 $ 20 Vict.,
c. 108, s. 36.—The words “any action" in sec. 36 of County Courts Act Amendment Act, 1856, mean any action in the County Court; therefore, where less than £20 is recovered in the superior Court, a master is wrong in refusing to tax the costs save on the County Court scale. Decision of C. P. Div. (29 W.R. 336) reversed.--Ex parte Drew, Re Copp, 50 L.J.
C.P. 223 ; 44 L.T. 48; 29 W.R. 390. (cxxii.) Ch. Div. M.R.-Costs-- Tacation--Administration in County Court
19 820 Vict., c. 108 ; 38 8. 89 Vict., c. 50.—Where an administration action was brought in a County Court, it was held that taxation could be
obtained in the high Court. --Ře Worth, 50 L.J. Ch. 262; 29 W.R. 371. (cxxiii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Costs—Taxation-Affidavit of Increase.—The
Chancery Div. or its taxing.masters will not adopt the common law practice of requiring an affidavit of increase upon taxation, unless it appears that such a course is advisable under the circumstances of the
particular case.-Smith v. Day, 44 L.T. 217; 29 W.R. 424. (cxxiv.) C. P. Div.-Costs—Taxation-Apportionment—Rules of Court (costs)
1875, Ord. 6.—Plaintiff having brought an action claiming two separate sums of money in respect of different matters, failed as to one sum, and as to the other claim, succeeded partially; and the order of Court directed that he should recover such costs, as a master might find that he had rightly incurred in recovering the amount for which he got judg. ment; and that defendant should recover such costs as he had rightly incurred in respect of those points on which he had succeeded : Held on taxation, that each party should be allowed or disallowed such items as applied to the particular parts of the claim on which he had succeeded or failed; and that the general costs should be apportioned. Ord. 6. of Rules of Court (costs) 1875, applies only to objections to selected items, and not when the objection is to the principal of taxation.-Sparrow v.
Hill, 44 L.T. 146; 29 W.R. 490. (cxxv.) C. P. Div.-Costs—Taxation-Higher Scale-Rules of Supreme Court
(costs) Ord. 6, 7. 3.-Semble that Ord. 6, r. 3 of Rules of Supreme Court (costs) applies to actions brought in the common law Division of the High Court, and there need be no equitable element in the case in order to warrant the Court in awarding costs on the higher scale.—Duke of Norfolk
v. Arbuthnot, L.R. 6. Q.B.D. 279; 29 W.R. 337. (cxxvi.) C. A.-Costs—Tavation-Inspection of Documents-Counsel's Fees.
In taxing costs as between party and party, the successful party can be allowed no costs of producing documents at the office of his solicitor, or of inspecting his opponent's documents; and when the hearing of an action occupies part of two days, but less time than one whole day, refreshers to council ought not to be allowed. The discretion of the taxing-master as to the amount of counsel's fees will only be interfered with in extreme cases.-Brown v. Sewell, L.R. 16 Ch. D. 517; 44 L.T.
41; 29 W.R. 295. (cxxvii.) C. P. Div.-Costs—Taxation-Short-hand Notes.—The Court can
make an order for the allowance on party and party taxation, of the costs of short-hand notes of evidence at the trial, as part of the costs of a rule
for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, in a case where such notes were necessary.-Watson v.
G. W. Rail. L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 163; 29 W.R. 427. (cxxviii.) C. A.-Costs—Trial by Jury-Ord. 55.—Where an action has been
tried by a jury, application at the trial and good cause shown are con. ditions precedent to the exercise by a judge of his power to deprive a successful party of his costs.-Marsden v. Lancashire and Yorkshire
Rail. Co., 44 L.T. 239. (cxxix.) C. A.-Discovery-Inspection of Documents—Privilege-Ord. 31, rr.
11, 12.-In answer to an order for discovery of documents, defendants made an affidavit in which documents in their possession were described
“ numbered 101 to 110 inclusive, tied up in a bundle, marked with the letter A., and initialed ;” and they swore that such documents related only to their own case and objected to produce them : Held that the affidavit was sufficient both for identifying the documents and show. ing that they were privileged.-Bewick v. Graham, 44 L.T. 220;
29 W.R. 436. (cxxx.) Ch. Div. M. R.—Hearing-Motion for Judgment-No Pleadings.
Defendant in a foreclosure action had given notice that he did not require a statement of claim, and plaintiff did not deliver one and set down the action to be heard short on motion for judgment. Defendant opposed the judgment and the action was ordered to go into the general paper, time being allowed for filing affidavits on both sides.- Wilmott v. Young,
29 W.R. 413. (cxxxi.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Information under Marriage Act, 1823, s. 23–
Form of Judgment— Appearance of Attorney-General.--Minutes of judgment in an information under the Marriage Act, 1823, should follow the words of the Statute. The Attorney-General and relator need not appear separately on the information. -Attorney-General v. Teather, 43
L.T. 749; 29 W.R. 347. (cxxxii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Motion to Dismiss Action on Admissions-Ord. 40,
7. 11.-A defendant who has not counter-claimed is entitled to move under Ord. 40, r. 11, to dismiss the action upon the admissions of the
plaintiff in the pleadings.-Pascoe v. Richards, 44 L.T. 87; 29 W.R. 330. (cxxxiii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Ne exeat Regno-Debtors Act, 1869, s. 6.-A writ
of ne exeat regno can be granted only in those cases which fall within the exceptions contained in sec. 6 of the Debtors Act, 1869.-Hands v.
Hands, 43 L.T. 750. (cxxxiv.) C. A.-Order for Custody of Infant until further Order-Application to
Vary-36 & 37 Vict., c. 12, s. 1.-Where an order is made under sec. 1 of Infants Custody Act, 1873, on the mother's petition, giving her the custody of an infant till further order, an application to vary the order should be by motion before the judge who made the order. Such a motion can be made by the respondent to the original petition.-Re
Holt, L.R. 16 Ch. D. 115; 29 W.R. 341. (cxxxv.) Q. B. Div.-Parties—Third Party Notice-Application for Directions
-Ord. 16, rr. 18, 21.-When a third party is cited by a defendant under Ord. 16, r. 18, and defendant applies for directions as to the mode of trial under r. 21, the Court or judge may, at any stage of the proceedings, inquire into the facts of the case for the purpose of seeing whether such directions should be given or not, and may refuse to make an order giving such directions where it is clear that plaintiff's case would other.
wise be prejudiced and delayed.-Schneider v. Batt, 44 L.T. 142. (cxxxvi.) Ch. Div. V.C.B.—Pleading-Amendment-Patent Action.—Where
defendant in a patent action applies after notice of trial for leave to
amend his particulars of objections, leave will only be granted on certain terms as to costs, and plaintiff will have time to elect to discontinue.
- Edison Telephone Co. v. India Rubber, &c., Works Co., 29 W.R. 496. (cxxxvii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Pleading—Amendment of Writ-Afidavit in
support-Cross-examination. It is unnecessary, except in special circum. stances, to make an affidavit in support of an application for leave to amend a writ of summons, and if such affidavit is made it is improper to cross-examine on it with a collateral object.—Conybeare v. Lewis, 44
L T. 242 ; 29 W.R. 391. (cxxxviii.) Ch. Div. F.J.-Pleading-Counter-claim-Judicature Act, 1873,
8. 24, sub-sec. 3.-A counter-claim can extend to a right of action arising after the date of the original writ.-Beddall v. Maitland, 44 L.T. 248 ;
29 W.R. 484. (cxxxix.) C. A.-Pleading-Recovery of Land-Ord. 19, 7. 15.—The mere state.
ment by a defendant in an action for the recovery of land that he is in possession pnts the plaintiff to the proof of his title.- Danford v.
McAnulty, 50 L.J. Ex. 294; 29 W.R. 437. (cxl.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Sale under Direction of Court-Private Con.
tract-Re-opening-30 f31 Vict., c. 48, s. 7.—The principles of the Sale of Land by Auction Act, 1867, apply as well to sales by private contract under the direction of the Court, as to sales by auction.—Newman v.
Hook, L.R.16 Ch. D. 561; 50 L.J. Ch. 205; 44 L.T. 17; 29 W.R. 279. (cxli) Ch. Div. F. J. Service of Writ - Indorsement of Date Extension
of Time for-Ord. 9, r. 13.- The Court has power to extend the time for indorsing on a writ of summons the date of the service, after the expira. tion of the time limited for such indorsement by Ord. 9, r. 13.-Hastings
v. Hurley, 44 L.T. 176; 29 W.R. 440.. (cxlii.) C. A.-Sherif's Officer— Possession Money-Action against Solicitor
for.—The solicitor for a judgment creditor handed the writ to the sheriff for execution, but did not instruct him to employ any particular officer : Held that the officer appointed by the sheriff could not maintain an action against the solicitor for his fees and possession money.—Royle v.
Busby, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 171; 50 L.J. Q.B. 196 ; 43 L.T. 717; 29 W.R. 315. (cxliii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Special Case-Motion for Judgment—Ord. 34,
r. 1.-When, in a special case stated under Ord. 34, r. 1, the answers to the questions in effect dispose of the action, the action should be set down for trial on motion for judgment, and the judgment taken upon the declarations following the answers.—Harrison v. Cornwall Minerals
Rail. Co., 29 W.R. 258. (exliv.) Ch. Diy. M. R.-Substituted Service-Absconding Defendant-Ord.
9, p. 2.-Leave for substituted service of writ on a defendant should not be given unless there is a probability of defendant being thereby
reached.-Wolverhampton Banking Co. v. Bond, 43 L.T. 721. (cxlv.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Tenant pur Autre Vie-Production of Cestui-que-vie
6 Anne, c. 18.—Assignees of leaseholds, held for a term determinable on the death of a tenant for life, may, at the instance of those entitled in reversion expectant on the death of the tenant for life, be called upon
to produce him.-E.c parte Castledine, Re Hall, 29 W.R. 521. (cxlvi.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Transfer of Action-Winding-up of Company--Ord.
51, r. 1a.-When an order for winding op a company has been made by one judge of the Chancery Div., and an action against the company is pending before another judge of the same division, application to transfer the action to the judge who made the winding-up order must be made to the Lord Chancellor or his secretary.- Re Madras Irrigation and Canal Co., 29 W.R. 520.
(cxlvii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Transfer of Action--Winding-up of Company,
Ord. 51, 1. 20.—The transfer to a judge of the Chancery Div. under
ex parte motion.—Rc United Kingdom Telegraph Co., 29 W.R. 332. (cxlviii.) Ch. Div.M.R.-Trial by Jury-Ord. 36, r. 26.—The question whether
lands acquired by a railway company are superfluous lands within sec. 127 of the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, is one which can be more conveniently
tried without a jury.-Smith v. North Staffordshire Rail. Co., 44 L.T. 85. Principal and Agent:(vi.) C. A.-Accounts-Commission Agent-Consignor.—Decision of M. R.
(see Principal and Agent i., p. 30) affirmed.- Kirkham v. Peel, 44 L.T.
195. (vii.) Ch. Div. M. R.--Commission-Opening Accounts-Overcharges.-In
dealings between prineipal and agent, one case of proved frandulent overcharge is sufficient reason for opening settled accounts.-Williamson
v. Barbour, 50 L.J. Ch. 147. Principal and Surety:(iii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Joint and Several Promissory Note.—Plaintiffs lent
to B. £1000 upon the security of a joint and several promissory note by B. and defendant, payable on demand, and on deposit of deeds of pro. perty belonging to B., with a memorandum signed by him that the deeds were deposited as security for any general balance not exceeding £1000 which might be due to plaintiffs from him, and an undertaking by B. to execute a legal mortgage of the property : - Held that defendant was liable apon the note as principal, and not merely as surety for B.-York
City and County Banking Co. v. Bainbridge, 43 L.T. 732. Probate : (v.) P. D. A. Div.-Interlineation after Execution-- Re-execution.—Imme.
diately after execution of her will by testatrix, an interlineation was added which was approved by testatrix, and the witnesses then placed their initials in the margin opposite the interlineation: Held that there had been no re-execution and the interlineation must be omitted from probate.--In the goods of Shearn, 50 L.J. P.D.A. 15; 43 L.T. 736 ;
29 W.R. 445. (vi.) P. D. A. Div.-Two Wills—No Revocation.—Deceased made two wills,
by the firet giving all bis property to his wife and appointing her sole executrix; by the second giving his household furniture and cash to his wife for life and after her death to her sister, whom he appointed joint executrix with his wife. The second will contained no revocation clause and no disposition of real estate or residuary personalty. Probate was granted of both wills, after notice of the application for probate had been served on the heir-at-law.- In the goods of Hartley, 50 L.J. P.D.A. 1 ;
29 W.R. 356. (vii.) P. D. A. Div.-Will made in India-Proof in Scotland.-A. died in
India, leaving a will wherein H. was a legatee. His personal estate was nearly all in Scotland and his executors proved his will there. The Court refused to make an order on H.'s application for A.'s executors to prove the will in England, or to grant administration with the will annexed to H.-In the goods of Ewing, Hope v. Ewing, 50 L.J. P.D.A. 11; 44 L T.
278; 29 W.R. 474. (viii.) P. D. A. Div.-Will of Married Woman-Codicil during Widowhood
Incorporation.-A married woman having a power of appointment under her settlement, made a will whereby she appointed an executor. After
her husband's death, she duly executed a codicil upon the same paper as the will. The codicil began. “This is a codicil to the last will of me" &c. : Held that the will was sufficiently incorporated in the codicil and should be admitted to probate therewith.- In the goods of Heathcote, 44
L.T. 280; 29 W.R. 356. (ix.) P.D.A. Div.-Will of Married Woman-Husband's Consent.-A married
woman executed a will by which she appointed her husband and brother executors, and on the same day the husband signed a paper acknowledging that two sums of money were the separate estate of the wife tofdispose of as she might think fit. After her death, the husband died before probate was granted. The Court granted probate to the surviving executor.—In
the goods of Cooper, 29 W.R. 444. (x.) P. D. A. Div.-Will of Married Woman-Power of Appointment
Judicature Act, 1873, s. 24.-Semble, where a question of the valid execution of a power arises upon a will already before the Probate Div., that question will be determined before that division.— Phillips v.
Jenkins, 44 L.T. 281. Public Health :(vii.) Ex. Div.-Local Authority-Abating Nuisance-38 8. 39 Vict., c. 55
s. 94.- A local sanitary authority required the applicant under sec. 94 of the Public Health Act, 1875, to abate a nuisance and erect a particular kind of closet: Held that they had no power to prescribe the erection of
any particular closet.-Ex parte Whitchurch, 29 W.R. 507. (viii.) Ex. Div.-Local Authority-Contract exceeding £50—38 & 39 Vict.,
c. 55, ss. 174, 200.-A medical man agreed verbally with a committee appointed by an urban sanitary authority under sec. 200 of Public Health Act, 1875, to attend cases of scarlet fever at the rate of 53. 3d. per tent per day, and attended until the amount due was nearly £100 : Held that he could not recover this amount either from the committee or from the members personally, nor from the urban anthority.-Eaton v.
Basker, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 201 ; 50 L.J. Ex. 194; 44 L.T. 60; 29 W.R. 398. (ix.) C.A.- Paving Rate-Adjoining Owner-Former Decision-Res Judicata.
A local board took out a summons to compel defendant to pay his con. tribution towards sewering and paving a road, and it was dismissed by the justices on the ground that the road was a highway. Further work having been done to the road the board took out a fresh summons against defendant: Held that the matter was not res judicata, and that the former decision of the justices did not estop the local board from claiming the expenses claimed on the second summons. - Regina v. Hutchins, L.R. 6
Q.B. D. 300; 50 L.J. M.C. 35. (x.) Q. B. Div.-Repair of Street-Notice to Owner-Private Improvement
Expenses--- Recovery-11 & 12 Vict., c. 63, 38 & 39 Vict., c. 55.-A notice by a local board requiring an owner to execute certain repairs, and that in default the board will proceed itself to execute them, and declaring the expenses thereby incurred to be private improvement expenses, binds the board, on the owner's default, to treat the expenses as private im. provement expenses, and precludes them from recovering the expenses
summarily.---Gould v. Bacup Local Board, 44 L.T. 103; 29 W.R. 471. Railway :(xii.) Q. B. Div.-Carrier-Liability-- Owner's Risk Rate-Misdelivery.—A
railway company forwarded goods at a reduced rate on the terms that they were to be solely at the risk of the sender, with the exception that the company should be responsible for any wilfal act or defanlt of the company or its servants, for any fraud or theft by the servants, and for