Page images

upon its execution by the grantee to the grantor. In fact only £90 was paid to the grantor, £30 being retained for interest and expenses by the grantee. After the attestation clause there was a receipt signed by the grantor which stated that the £90 together with the agreed sum of £30 for interest and expenses made up the £120," the consideration money within expressed to be paid : " Held that the receipt was not part of the bill, and that the consideration was therefore not truly stated.-Ex parte

Charing Cross Bank, Re Parker, L.R. 16 Ch. D. 35; 29 W.R. 204. (xiii.) C. J. B.-Consideration-41 & 42 Vict., c. 31, s. 8. --The consideration

in a bill of sale dated 14th January, 1879, was stated to be £65, "now paid by the grantee to grantor. The £65 was in fact advanced by instalments between 16th of April, 1877, and 16th of October, 1878: Held that the consideration was not truly stated within sec. 8 of the

Bills of Sale Act, 1878.-Ev parte Berwick, Re Young & Co., 43 L.T. 576. (xiv.) C. J. B.--Consideration–41 & 42 Vict., c. 31, s. 8.—A bill of sale

stated that grantor was indebted to grantee in a certain sum, and had agreed to execute the bill in order to induce the grantee not to institute proceedings against him. In fact the sum dae by the grantor had been advanced by the grantee shortly before the execution of the bill of sale, on the express understanding that good security should be given, and no proceedings had been threatened by the grantee : Held that the consideration was properly stated within the Bills of Sale Act, 1878.Ev

parte Ord, Re Fothergill, 43 L.J. 637. (xv.) C. P. Div.-Consideration, Unregistered BillBill in Lieu of—41 & 42

Vict., c. 31, ss. 8, 9.-A bill of sale stated that it was given in consider. ation of the payment of £81 : Held that it was valid though the money had been paid two months previously. Section 9 of Bills of Sale Act, 1878, applies only to a bill given within seven days after the prior

unregistered bill.-Carrard v. Meek, 29 W.R. 244. (xvi) C. A.-Growing Crops-Crops Severed-Bankruptcy418-42 Vict., c.31.

-Growing crops so soon as they are severed become personal chattels within the Bills of Sale Act, and are not protected against a trustee in bankraptcy by an unregistered assignment.-Ex parte National Mercantile

Bank, Re Phillips, 29 W.R. 227. (xvii.) C.A.-Registration-- Affidavit-Solicitor for both Parties17 & 18 Vict.,

c. 36.-An affidavit filed with a bill of sale is good, though sworn before a solicitor acting for grantor and grantee of the bill.--Vernon v. Cooke, 49 L.J. C.P. 767.

Charity :(i.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Scheme-Charity Commissioners.--Property was

left by Lord C. in 1629, the income to be yearly employed for the good and benefit of the poor of the parish of K. in such manner as the trustees should think fit; and property was left by Lady C. on trust to apply one. half the income for the better relief of the most poor and needy in the parish of K., and the other half towards apprenticing poor boys in the parish. Five new ecclesiastical districts were formed out of the parish of K., and an order was made in 1852 apportioning the charitable funds between the districts and the original parish: Held that the Charity Commissioners, in confirming a new scheme, might apply part of the revenue of Lord C.'s gift to educational purposes, and that Lady C.'s gift must be applied as to one-half in giving pensions and other relief to the poor, and the other half in apprenticing boys ; and that regard must be had to the distribution of income directed by the order of 1852.- Re The Campden Charities, 49 L.J. Ch. 676.

Company :(xxi.) Ch. Div. M. R.- ArticlesNumber of Directors-CallUltra Vires.

--Articles of a company provided that its business should be carried on by not less than five directors, and that a director becoming insolvent should vacate his office. There were five directors, of whom one became insolvent, and the company, at a quarterly meeting, resolved that the business should be conducted by four directors : Held that this resolution was invalid, and therefore that the four directors could not make a call.

-Re Alma Spinning Co., 43 L.T. 620; 29 W.R. 133. (xxii.) Ch. Div. V.C. H.-Debenture Stock-Priority.—A railway company

were empowered by their Act to borrow £250,000 on mortgage, and to isene debenture stock subject to the provisions of part 3 of the Com. panies Clauses Act, 1863 ; but all debenture stock at any time created should rank pari passu with the interest of all mortgages at any time granted by the company, and should have priority over all principal moneys secured by such mortgages. By a subsequent Act the company were empowered to raise additional capital, and to borrow on mortgage to the extent of £25,000, and the Act gave similar powers of issuing debenture stock and provided that the interest of all debenture stock created after the passing of the Act should rank pari passu with the interest of mortgages created after the Act, and have priority over the principal moneys of such mortgages : Held that the interest on mort. gages and debenture stock created before the second Act had priority over the interest on debenture stock issued after the second Act; and that the principal of mortgages issued under the first Act would be pay. able in priority to interest of debenture stock issued after second Act.Harrison v. Cornwall Mineral Rail. Co., L.R. 16 Ch. D. 66; 49 L.J. Ch.

834 ; 43 L.T. 496. (xxiii.) C. A.-Director -- Contract Trust Liability. - Plaintiff deposited

£1,000 with a company on the terms that it should remain with them for five years, the company to pay £6 per cent. interest and transfer to him as security a mortgage made to them, and if the mortgage should become ineffective during the five years, they should replace it with another. The mortgage was paid off during the five years, but was not replaced by another, and the company dealt with the proceeds as part of their general funds. The company having gone into liquidation, plaintiff brought an action against the directors for the £1,000, on the grounds that it was lost to him by reason of defendants' gross negli. gence : Held that the directors were not liable.--Wilson v. Lord Bury,

L.R. 5 Q.B.D. 518. (xxiv.) C. A.-Illegal Association-Investment Trust--Companies Act, 1862.

-Shares in submarine telegraph companies to the amount of £400,000 were purchased by subscription and vested in trastees, and each sub. scriber of £90 received a certificate for the nominal sum of £100 and a deferred coupon for a proportionate share of the funds. The trustees were to apply the income in paying £6 per cent. on the certificates, with certain powers of sale and re-investment. There were more than twenty subscribers : Held that they did not form an association within sec. 4 of Companies Act, 1862.-Smith v. Anderson, L.R. 15 Ch. D. 247;

50 L.J. Ch. 39; 43 L.T. 329; 29 W.R. 21. (xxv.) C. A.-Promoter-Prospectus--Concealment of Contract--30 &• 31 Vict.,

c. 131, s. 38.-B. and C. agreed with the promoters of a company formed for the purchase of a patent belonging to them for £56,000, that £54,000 out of the purchase money should be divided between the promoters : Held that this agreement ought to have been specified in the prospectus of the company, and that its omission rendered the defendants liable

under sec. 38 of the Companies Act, 1867, to subscribers on the faith of the prospectus.-Sullivan v. Metcalfe, L.R.5 C.P.D, 455; 49 L.J. C.P.

815; 29 W.R. 181. (xxvi.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Promoter Prospectus— Material Concealment

Measure of Damages.- Vendors of a business to a company, in accordance with a previons understanding, transferred 800 paid-up shares to some of the directors. The prospectus did not disclose this, and plaintiff took shares in the company on the faith of the prospectus : Held that the non-disclosure of the understanding was a fraudulent concealment, and that plaintiff having retained his shares after he knew of the under. standing, was entitled to damages from the directors to the extent of the difference between the price he paid for the shares, and what would have been a reasonable price under the circumstances.-Arkwright v.

Newbold, 49 L.J. Ch. 684. (xxvii.) C. A.-Winding-up-Action brought before-Costs.-An action was

brought by two shareholders on behalf of themselves and all others, to impeach a contract made with the company on the ground of fraud. Before the trial the company was wound-up, and the action was dismissed by consent without costs : Held that the Court could not order plaintiffs’ costs to be paid out of the assets in the winding-up.-Re Hull Central

Drapery Co., L.R. 15 Ch. D. 326; 29 W.R. 164. (xxviii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Winding-up-Commencement of— Debentures -A

company having power to borrow issued debentures, whereby they bound themselves and their successors, and their real and personal estate for payment of the sums advanced. The company went into liquidation, a provisional liqaidator having been appointed on their petition, and a resolution for a voluntary winding-up having been passed, which was continued under supervision : Held that the debentures were a charge on the real and personal estate of the company, as it existed at the commencement of the winding-up, which was at the date of appointment of the provisional liquidator.--Ex parte Bradshaw, Re Colonial Trusts

Corporation, L.R. 15 Ch. D. 465. (xxix.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Winding-up-Contributory- Director-Qualifica.

tion.-P. was invited to become a director of a company, whose articles provided that a director's qualification should be the holding of ten shares, and he accepted the offer, and acted as director for a short time. No shares were ever allotted to him, and he afterwards resigned, but his resignation was declined, and an action was brought against him for calls due on his qualification shares, which was dismissed for want of prosecution. On the winding-up of the company : Held that P. must be put on the list of contributories in respect of the qualification shares.

Purcell's Case, Re Hampshire Co-operative Milk Co., 29 W.R. 170. (xxx) C. A.-Winding-up-Contributory-Insurance Company.—Decision of

V.C.M. (see Company iv., p. 10) affirmed.-Re Albion Life Assurance

Society, 43 L.T. 523; 29 W.R. 109. (xxxi.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Winding-up-- DirectorMisfeasance-Lapse of

Time-Companies Act, 1862, s. 165.-A liquidator in a winding-up, which began in 1876, applied in 1879 for an order against directors to repay a dividend declared by them in 1872. The application was dismissed as

a stale demand.-Re Mammoth Copperopolis of Utah, 30 L.J. Ch. 11. (xxxii.) C. P. Div.-Winding-up-Loan Society-Set-of-3 & 4 Vict., c. 110.

Defendant, a member of a co-operative loan society, having given the requisite notice to withdraw the money paid by him to its funds, the directors, who were unable to pay the amount, granted him a loan of £15. The rules of the society provided that members who were borrowers could not withdraw their deposits until the loan was repaid, and if there

were more applications to withdraw than there were funds to meet the requirements, the claims of each applicant would be considered by precedence. On the winding.up of the society, the liquidator brought an action in the County Court for the balance of defendant's loan: Held that defendant could not set off the money paid by him into the funds

of the society against his loan.-Phillipson v. Beale, 43 L.T. 508. (xxxiii.) C. A.-Winding.up-Mutual Iusurance Society—33 34 Vict., c. 61,

88. 21, 22.-In a mutual assurance society, in which the liability of members is limited to funds in the directors' hands, policy holders are not liable for the society's debts; and, in a winding-ap, the funds are divisible pro ratll among the policy holders for the time being, subject to costs. The Court will, with the consent of the policy holders, order the reduction of the policies under sec. 22 of the Life Assurance Companies Act, 1870, instead of a winding-up.—Re Great Britain Mutual Assurance

Society, 29 W.R. 202. (xxxiv.) C. A.-Winding-up-Payment of Debts-Execution Creditor- Bank.

ruptcy Act, 1869, S. 87; Judicature Act, 1875, s. 10.-Sec. 10 of Judicature Act, 1875, does not make sec. 87 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, applicable to the winding-up of companies. --Re Withernsea Brick

Works, 29 W.R. 178. Copyholds :(i.) C. A.-Inclosure of Waste--Encroachment-Copyhold Tenant.-The lord

of a manor granted to M., in 1808, a license to inclose part of the waste, and hold it as yearly tenant so long as he should continue governor of a neighbouring fort. M. ceased to be governor in 1811, and since then the inclosed land had been in possession of the Crown. In 1809, a copyhold of the manor adjoining the inclosed land was surrendered to trustees for the Crown: Held that the inclosure was not an encroachment, as it was made under license, and that the Crown had acquired a free. hold title to the land inclosed.--- Attorney-General v. Tomline, L.R. 15 Ch.D. 150; 43 L.T. 486.

Copyright: (iv.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Title of Book - Registration–5 & 6 Vict., c. 45,

ss. 2, 16.—The title of a book is part of a book, and by registration the owner may acquire a statutable copyright title.--Dicks v. Yates, 43 L.T.

470; 29 W.R. 135. County Court:(ii.) C. A.--Admiralty Jurisdiction–32 & 33 Vict., c. 51 s. 2.-Sec. 2 of the

County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Amendment Act, 1869, gives thə
County Courts jurisdiction in cases of claims arising out of charter.
parties or other agreements for hire of ships, though the Admiralty
Court may have no original jurisdiction in sach cases. The Alina.

Brown v. The Alina, 29 W.R. 94. (iii.) Q. B. Div.-Control over by High Court-Notes by Judge--Signing

Notes-38 & 39 Vict., c. 50, 8. 6.- The High Court of Justice has no power either to order a County Court Judge to re-enter a cause on his list, or to order him to sign notes taken by him at the trial, where no request to make a note of a question of law was made to him at the

trial.-Morgan v. Rees, 29 W.R. 213. (iv.) C. A.-Interpleader-Stay of Action—30 & 31 Vict., c. 142, s. 31.—

Plaintiff, whose goods had been taken in execution, brought an action against the high bailiff and the persons who had bought the goods from him : Held that the action could be stayed as against the high bailiff,

but not as against the parohasers of the goods.Hills v. Renny, L.R. 5 Ex. D. 313; 49 L.J. Ex. 710.

Crimes and Offences : (vi.) Q. B. Div.-Adulteration-Delivery of sample to Agent of Seller

38 $ 39 Vict., c. 63, s. 14; 42 & 43 Vict., c. 30, s. 3.-Section 14 of Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, is not incoporated into sec. 3 of 42 & 43

Vict., c. 30.-Rouch v. Hall, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 17; 50 L.J. M.C. 6. (vii.) C. P. Div.-Assault-Consent-Submission.-An action for assanlt

will not lie merely because the complainant has submitted unwillingly to the act complained of, and where there is no evidence of any force, threats, or compulsion having been used.-Latter v. Braddell, 43 L.T.

605; 29 W.R. 239. (viii.) Q. B. Div.-Defect in Conviction-Return-Right to Substitute fresh

Conviction-Certiorari.-Where justices have convicted for an offence unknown to the law, and have returned the conviction to the clerk of the peace, the Court will allow a rule for a certiorari to go, though the justices return a corrected record of the conviction showing it to have

been properly made.- Ex parte Austin, 50 L.J. M.C. 8. (ix.) C. P. Div.-False Imprisonment-Malicious Prosecution.- Defendant

told a police-constable that some of his property had been stolen, and that it was last seen in the possession of D.; and thereupon the constable arrested D., who was taken before a magistrate, and committed for trial: Held that defendant was not liable in an action by D. for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.Danby v. Beardsley, 43

L.T. 603. (x.) C. C. R.-Manslaughter-Rifle Practice-Dangerous Place.-- Three

persons went out together for rifle practice in a place where such practice would be dangerous to the public. Several shots were fired, and by one of them a boy was killed, but it was uncertain which of the three fired that shot : Held that all three were guilty of manslaughter.

Regina v. Salmon, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 79; 43 L.T. 573; 29 W.R. 246. Debtor and Creditor :(v.) C. A. - Bond Loan Payable by Instalments Default-Penalty.

Plaintiffs lent money to s. upon a bond executed by himself and de. fendant as surety, under which the loan was repayable by instalments in five years, if S. should so long live, and was to become void on repayment or the death of S. It was provided that the balance of instalments should at once become payable on default made in payment of any instalment. S. made default in payment of an instalment: Held that plaintiffs could recover the whole of the balance.-—Protector Endowment Loan Co. v. Grice, L.R. 5 Q.B.D. 592; 49 L.J. Q.B. 812; 43

L.T, 564. (vi.) C. P. Div.-Bond Executed in India-Lex Loci contractůs-Limitation

of Actions—3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 42, s. 3.-Held that where an action on a bond executed in India is brought in England, the remedy is not barred until after a lapse of twenty years, though in India a lapse of three years bars every remedy on such bond. Alliance Bank of Simla v.

Carey, L.R. 5 C.P.D. 429; 49 L.J. C.P. 781. (vii.) C. A.-Stolen Cheque-Forged Indorsement-Negligence-Conversion.

To a statement of claim alleging that a cheque payable to plaintiffs' order was stolen from them and the indorsement of their name forged apon it, and that it came into defendant's possession, who converted it to his own use; defendant pleaded that the theft of the cheque arose through the gross negligence of plaintiffs, and that if they had not been


« PreviousContinue »