« PreviousContinue »
collision of trains : Held that the company was liable for damages arising from delay in delivering goods caused by their being sent to the
wrong person.-Goldsmith v. Great Eastern Rail. Co., 44 L.T. 181. (xiii.) C. P. Div.-Liability to fence Adjoining Lands--Release by Owners
Occupier---8 & 9 Vict., c. 20, s. 68.-—-Plaintiff was yearly tenant of land belonging to G., when in 1847, part of the land was taken by a railway company under their statutory powers, and the company paid G. compensation in lieu of all accommodation works, including the right to have his land fenced off from the railway. The company, however, made a fence, but it was not kept in repair, and in consequence plaintiff's cow was killed : Held that the company was liable.-Corry v. Great
Western Rail. Co., L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 237. (xiv.) C. A.–Passenger Duty-Sleeping Carriages-5 & 6 Vict., c. 79, s. 2.
Decision of Ex. Div. (see Railway vii., p. 32) affirmed.-Attorney.
44 L.T. 236; 29 W.R. 346. (xv.) C. A.-Railway Commissioners-Jurisdiction–36 8. 37 Vict., c. 48.
Held that the Railway Commissioners have authority to make an order directing a railway company to make certain structoral alterations necessary in order to render reasonable facilities for carrying on the traffic undertaken by them; and that a general demurrer to a declara. tion in prohibition against the Commissioners should be allowed, although some of the works ordered by the Commissioners to be executed were improper.- South-Eastern Rail. Co. v. Railway Commissioners, 50 L.J.
Q.B. 201 ; 44 L.T. 203. (xvi.) H. L.--Transfer of Railway-Local Act-Construction. A local Act
provided that the D. line, of which the C. company were proprietors and in respect of which they were liable to pay certain half-yearly dividends to shareholders, should from 1st February, 1880, vest in the C. company, and N. B. company jointly, and that from the vesting period the N. B. company should pay to the C. company every 1st of March and 1st of September a sum equal to half the agregate of the following half-yearly dividends for which the C. company were liable : Held that the time for making the first of such payments by the N. B. company did not, under the circumstances, occur till the 1st of September next after the transfer of the line.-Caledonian Rail. Co. v. North British Ra:l. Co., L.R.
6 App. 114. Revenue:(ii.) C. A.-Inhabited House Duty-Exemption-Care-taker—32 & 33 Vict.,
c. 14, s. 11.-A clerk employed at a salary of £150 a year occupied as care-taker, with his family and a servant, the upper part of a house otherwise used only for trade purposes : Held that this was not an occupation within the exemption contained in sec. 11 of 32 & 33 Vict.,
c. 14.-Yewens v. Noakes, 50 LJ. Ex. 132; 44 L.T. 128. (iv.) C. A.-Succession Duty-Predecessor-16 & 17 Vict., c. 51, s. 2.
Decision of Ex. Div. (see Revenue ii., p. 33) affirmed.-Attorney-General v. Dowling, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 177 ; 50 L.J. Ex. 192; 44 L.T. 234; 29 W.R. 327.
Settlement: (xi.) Ch. Diy.M.R.-Executory Settlement-Power of Appointment to Children.
-In making a settlement of property directed to be settled on the wife and children of testatrix's son, the Court has jurisdiction to give to the husband a life interest and a power to appoint amongst the children
jointly with the wife during coverture and alone if he survived her.
Gowan v. Gowan, 50 L.J. Ch. 248. (xii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Protector to Settlement–Trustee-Death-3 & 4
Will. IV., c. 74, s. 22.---Trastees of the real estate under a will were appointed protectors of the estates tail created by the will. They all died, and new trustees were appointed by the Court: Held that the tenant for life had become protector to the settlement, and that he and the first tenant in tail could convey.-Clarke v. Chamberlain, L.R. 16 Ch.
D. 176; 29, W.R. 415. (xiii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.--Settled Estates---Costs of Action for Benefit of
Inheritance--40 & 41 Vict., c. 18, s. 17.-Where trustees of a settlement held a sum of money, the proceeds of enfranchisement of copyholds of which the freehold and inheritance were comprised in the settlement, the Court gave its sanction to their expending this sum in defraying the costs of actions brought by the tenant for life for protecting the inheri. tance and also those which might be incurred in a pending appeal.-Re Earl de la Warr's Settled Estates, L.R. 16 Ch, D. 587; 44 L.T. 56; 29
W.R. 350. (xiv.) Ch. Div. V.C.M.-Woman Past Childbearing--Payment out of Settled,
Fund.-A woman aged 52, who had been a widow for twenty-four years, was absolutely entitled in default of children, to a fund in the hands of trustees: Held, on petition for advice, that the trustees were justified in paying it over to her.-Re Taylor's Settlement Trusts, 43 L.T. 795; 29
W.R. 350. Ship :(xxxii.) Q. B. Div.-Agreement to Transfer Ship-Registration-17 & 18
Vict., c. 104, s. 55.-A written agreement to sell a ship does not require to be registered under the provisions of sec. 55 of the Merchant Shipping
Act, 1854.-Batthyany v. Bouch, 44 L.T. 177. (xxxiii.) C. A.-Authority to Sell Cargo.—The master of a ship is not justified
in selling cargo in a wreck unless he is compelled by absolute necessity, and there is no possibility of forwarding the cargo to its destination. Atlantic Mutual Marine Insurance Co. v. Huth, L.R. 16 Ch. D. 474; 44
L.T. 67; 29 W.R. 387. (xxxiv.) C. P. Div.-- Charter-party-Demurrage.—A charter-party provided
that a ship was to load a cargo at certain rates varying according to the place of loading, and discharge at M. at the rate of 300 tons per day, demurrage to be paid over and above the said days at a certain rate. The ship loaded at a less rate than that prescribed by the charter-party, but discharged at a greater rate : Held that in calculating the demurrage, the days for loading and unloading must be kept separate.—Marshall v.
Bolckow, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 231. (xxxv.) H. L.--Charter-party-Demurrage-Obligation to Provide Place of
Discharge.---Plaintiffs agreed by charter- party with defendant that their ship should proceed to a port in the Baltic, load timber, and proceed to London to the S. C. docks (which are private), or as near thereto as she might safely get, and deliver the same on being paid freight, the carge to be recceived at port of discharge as fast as the ship could deliver. Defendant was unable to obtain a berth in the S. C. docks for unload. ding, as the docks were full. Plaintiffs brought the ship to London, and being refused admission to the docks they unloaded the ship themselves by lighters : Held that defendant was liable for demurrage.—Dahl v.
Nelson, L. R. 6. App. 38 (xxxvi.) C. A.-Insurance-Concealment of Materia! Fact. The concealment
by the assured at the time of effecting a marine policy of insurance, of
a fact which is material to enable an underwriter to judge whether he shall accept the risk, and at what rate, will vitiate the policy, although the fact may not be material with regard to the risk incurred.-Rivaz
v. Gerussi, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 222 ; 50 L.J. Ex. 176; 44 L.T. 79. (xxxvii.) C. A.-Insurance— Valued Policy--Compensation for Excess Value.
Decision of C. P. Div. (see Ship xxvii., p. 71.) reversed.--Burnand v.
Rodocanachi, 50 L.J. C.P. 284; 29 W.R. 460. (xxxviii.) Q. B. Div.-Necessaries—Managing Owner — Authority to bind other
Owners.-W., the owner of certain shares in a ship, was registered as managing owner, and, without the consent of defendant, who was registered owner of other shares, sent the ship on a voyage. Defendant did not participate in the adventure, and did not know that W. registered as managing owner : Held that an action would not lie against defendant for necessaries supplied to the ship previous to the voyage on W.'s order without defendants knowledge.-Fraser v.
Cuthbertson, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 93 ; 50 L.J. Q.B. 277 ; 29 W.R. 396. (xxxix.) P. D. A. Div.-Salvage - Rate of Contribution.—The general rule
that property on board a salved ship, if liable to contribute to an award of salvage, must do so in proportion to its value, is to be followed, though part of such property consists of specie.-The Longford, 44 L.T. 254;
29 W.R. 491. (xl.) P. D, A. Div.---Wages-Assessors—Dismissal for Misconduct.-In an
action of wages which involved questions as to the state of the machinery of a steamship, engineer assessors were summoned to assist the Court. Circumstances in which a shipmaster was held justified in discharging his engineer abroad, on the ground of misconduct.—The Marina, 29 W.R. 508.
Solicitor:(viii.) C. J. B.-Lien for Costs-Solicitor for Mortgagee acting for Mortgagor.
--A solicitor who was employed by, and held the title deeds for a mortgagee, subsequently acted for the mortgagor. On the bankraptoy of the latter, the solicitor claimed a lien on the deeds belonging to the mortgagees for costs incurred on behalf of the mortgagor: Held that the solicitor had no lien apon the deeds as against the trustee in bank. ruptcy of the mortgagor.-Ex parte Fuller, Re Long, L.R. 16 Ch. D. 617;
44 L.T. 65; 29 W.R. 448. (ix.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Taxation of Bill-Amending after Delivery.-A
solicitor cannot, upon objection being taken to the charges made in a bill of costs delivered by him, avoid taxation by withdrawing the bill and substituting another, unless the charges were inserted by mistake.- Re
Holroyde and Smith, 43 L.T. 722. Telegraph:(i.) Ex Div.-Telephone--26 & 27 Vict., c. 112, s. 3 ; 31 f. 32 Vict., c.
110; 32 & 33 Vict., c. 73.—Held that the Edison telephone was a tele. graph within the meaning of the Telegraph Acts, 1863 and 1869; and that conversations held by subscribers through the telephones of the defendant company were infringements of the exclusive privilege of transmitt telegrams granted to the Postmaster-General by the Act of 1869.–Attorney-General v. Edison Telephone Co., L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 244 ; 50
L.J. Ex. 145; 43 L.T. 697; 29 W.R. 428. Trade Mark :(viii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-— Registration--Opposed Application.— Defendants in
an action for infringement of trade-mark, applied for registration of the
trade-mark which they had been restrained by injunction in the action * from using. The Court ordered that the matter should be brought before
it by motion by applicants to proceed with the registration, with liberty to either party to use the evidence in the action.--Re Johnston's Trade
Mark, 43 L.T. 672. (ix.) Ch. Div. M. R.- Registration-Rectification of Register.-A trade
mark belonging to a firm, was by mistake registered in the name of one of the partners. This partner died : Held that the proper course to take was for the firm to take an assignment of the trade-mark from the legal personal representative of the deceased partner.-Re Farina's Trade
Mark, 44 L.T. 99; 29 W.R. 391. (x.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.- Registration-Rectification of Register.—The
powers given to the Court by the Trade Marks Registration Acts to rectify the register of trade marks, are only exercisable where there has been some error in the registration, and not when a change is desirable in consequence of a devolution of title.- Re Ward, Sturt, and
Sharp's Trade Marks, 44 L.T. 97; 29 W.R. 395. (xi.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Trade-Name-Legal Fraud-Injunction-Held that
a company that had acquired the business of the Guardian Horse and Vehicle Assurance Association, and had added to it fire and life assurance business must be restrained at the suit of the plaintiffs from carrying on business as the Guardian and General Assurance Company. -Guardian Fire and Life Assurance Co. v. Guardian and General Insurance Co., 50 L.J. Ch. 253; 43 L.T. 791.
Trustee : (xii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Breach of Trust-Liability of Co-trustee—Indem.
nity Clause.—Testator authorized his trustees to carry on his business, and declared that each trustee should be answerable only for his own defaults, and that any trustee who should do any act enabling his cotrustee to receive moneys for the purpose of the will should not be obliged to see to the application thereof, nor be made responsible by express notice of this application. After testator's death the business was, with the consent of the beneficiaries, carried on by one trustee, P., who was authorised by his co-trustee to draw on the banking account of the trust estate. P. drew out moneys and misappropriated them: Held that the co-trustee was not liable.-Pass v. Dundas, 43 L.T. 665 ; 29
W.R. 332. (xiii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Leaseholds— Tenant for Life in Receipt of Rents
Repairs.-Leaseholds were left to trustees on trust to pay the rents to defendant for life, and after her death on trast for her children. Defen. dant received the rents herself, but did not keep the premises in repair, thereby incurring a risk of forfeiture: Held that the trustees were entitled to pay for the repairs required out of the rents, and to have a receiver appointed; and that they were not bound to accept an indem. nity fron defendant against any liability which they might incar, in case
of the houses not being repaired.- Fowler v. Odell, 44 L.T. 99. (xiv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Liability to Account— Rate of Interest.-A trustee
under a will, having retained a fand in his own hands which was directed to be paid to his son on his attaining twenty-one, without explaining to his son his rights with regard to the trust fund, and having mixed the fund with his own moneys : Held that he must be charged with com, pound interest at the rate of four per cent. per annum, with half-yearly rests, on the whole fund from the time of his son attaining twenty-one. --Emmet v. Emmet, 44 L.T. 172; 29 W.R. 464.
(xv.) C. A.-Lunatic Trustee-Cestui-que-trust Absolutely Entitled.—Where a
sole trustee becomes lunatic, the Court will not vest the trust property in a cestui-que-trust, although sui juris and absolutely entitled.- Re
Holland, 50 L.J. Ch. 271; 29 W.R. 449. (xvi.) C. A.-Lunatic Trustee-New Trustee - Vesting Order - 13 & 14 Vict., c.
60, s. 5.- Where one of several trustees becomes lunatic, the Court will require a new trustee to be appointed in the place of the lunatic before making a vesting order under the Trustee Act, 1850, s. 5.-Re Nash,
L.R. 16 Ch. D. 503; 44 L.T. 40; 29 W.R. 294. (xvii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Severance of Trusteeship.—Testator gave freeholds
and leaseholds by several specific gifts on similar trusts for several classes of persons respectively, with cross remainders. Many of the cestuis-que-trust were not sui juris : Held that separate trustees of separate parts of the property might be appointed.-Cooper v. Todd, 29 W.R. 502.
Vendor and Purchaser :(xiv.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Specific Performance-Order in Chambers—37 &
38 Vict., c. 78, s. 9.-A purchaser applied by summons in chambers under the Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874, to obtain an opinion of the judge on a point in dispate, and that the vendor should answer certain requisitions. The vendor not having complied with the order made on the summons, the purchaser instituted an action for specific performance : Held that he was not entitled to bring the action, but must go back to chambers to
enforce compliance with the order.—Thompson v Ringer, 29 W.R. 520. Water:(ii). Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Artificial Stream-Prescription-Riparian Rights.
--Plaintiff claimed exclusive use of the water of a stream which flowed through defendant's land, on the ground that the watercourse through defendant's land was artificial and constructed from time immemorial for sole benefit of plaintiff and his predecessors : Held that as there was no evidence when the artificial part of the water-course was made, it must be deemed to be a natural stream, or else to have been inade so as to give all the rights of a riparian proprietor to defendant and his pre.
decessors.—Roberts v. Richards, 50 L.J. Ch. 297 ; 44 L.T. 271. Will : (xl.) Q. B. Div.-Attesting Witness-Marriage of Devisee after Attestation to
-1 Vict., c. 26, s. 15.— The marriage after attestation of a will of a devisee to the attesting witness, does not affect the validity of the
devise.-Thorpe v. Bestwicke, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 311; 44 L.T. 180. (xli.) C. A.-Construction-Bequest towards support of Children.--Testator
gave his niece an annuity of 8s. a week towards the support and main. tenance of her two children until they should attain twenty-one years, and in a codicil referred to his will as" my said will in my niece's favour" : Held that the niece was entitled to the annuity for her life.-Farr v.
Hennis, 44 L.T. 202. (xlii.) Ch. Div. V.C.H.-Construction-Gift of Residue-Intestacy.—Testator
directed his trustee to stand possessed of his residuary estate upon trust, as to one-seventh for his daughter for life, remainder to her children who should attain twenty-one, but if there should be no such child he directed the trustees to appy the share as part of his residuary estate. He afterwards declared trusts of the other six shares of the residue. The daughter survived the testator but left no children: Held that the daughter's share was undisposed of by the will.— Re Savage's Trusts, 50 L.J. Ch. 131.