« PreviousContinue »
amount of the expenses : Held that the magistrate rightly made an order under sec. 73 of Metropolitan Building Act, 1855, for the whole amount
against appellant. - Debenham v. Metropolitan Board of Works, 43 L.T. 696. (iv.) C. A.-Erection of Urinal-Nuisance-18 & 19 Vict., c. 120, s. 88.
Section 88 of Metropolis Management Act, 1855, does not authorize a vestry to erect a urinal, where it will be a nuisance to neighbouring
householders.—Vernon v. Vestry of St. James', 29 W.R. 222. Mortgage :(xi.) C. A..-Attornment Clause-Bankruptcy-Fixtures—Second Mortgage
Goodwill of Public-House.—Though a mortgage contains an attornment clause, tenants fixtures placed on the premises after the date of the mortgage, pass to the mortgagee as against the mortgagor's trustee in liquidation. An attornment clause in a second mortgage is valid, though the first mortgage contain an attornment clause. The good-will of a mortgaged public-house belongs to the mortgagor's trustee in liquidation as against the mortgagee.-Er parte Punnett, Re Kitchen, 29 W.R.
129. (xii.) C. A.-Attornment Clause - Landlord and Tenant-Bankruptcy
Distress.- A mortgage deed, under which mortgagor attorned tenant from year to year to the mortgagee at a rent payable quarterly, con. tained a proviso enabling the mortgagee at any time after a certain date to enter and determine the tenancy without notice. The mortgagor having filed a liquidation petition, and a receiver having been appointed the mortgagee distrained for two quarters' rent in arrear : Held that the distress was good.-Ex parte Queen's Benefit Building Society, Re
Trelfall, 29 W.R. 128. (xiii.) C. A.-Contemporaneous Mortgages-One Debt-Debt borne Rateably.—
Decision of V.C.H. (see Mortgage v., p. 23) affirmed.--Athill v. Athill,
43 L.T. 581. (xiv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Contemporaneous Mortgages-One Debt-Debt
borne Rateably.-E. mortgaged policies of assurance to secure repayment of a sum of money, and at the same time deposited title deeds of certain lands with the mortgagee, and gave a memorandum stating that the deeds were deposited as collateral security for the repuyment of the same sum. He died intestate : Held that the debt was payable rateably out of the insurance moneys and the land.-Early v. Early, 49 L.J. Ch.
826 n. (xv.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Foreclosure—Personal Order Against Mortgagor.–An
equitable mortgagee is entitled to obtain a personal order against a defaulting mortgagor as well as a foreclosure decree.-Greenough v.
Littler, L.R. 15 Ch. D. 93. (xvi.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Proviso for Reducing Rate of Interest-Mortgagee in
Possession.—When a mortgage deed contains a covenant for payment of interest with a proviso for reducing the rate on panctual payment, a mortgagee in possession is entitled, on taking accounts, to be credited with the higher rate.—Union Bank of London v. Ingram, L.R. 16 Ch. D.
53; 50 L.J. Ch. 74; 29 W.R. 209. Municipal Law :(iv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Alderman-Disqualification-Arrangement with
Creditors—5 & 6 Will. IV., c. 76, 8. 52; 32 & 33 Vict., c. 62, s. 21.Held that an alderman who had made a private arrangement with his creditors, under which they accepted a composition on their debts, had not become disqualified under sec. 52 of Municipal Corporations Act, 1835, or sec. 21 of Debtors Act, 1869; and that the Chancery Division
had jurisdiction to restrain by injunction persons threatening to remove him from office.-Aslatt v. Southampton Corporation, 50 L.J. Ch. 31; 43
L.T. 464; 29 W.R. 117. (v.) C. A.—Conveyance of Prisoners to Prison—40 & 41 Vict., c. 21, ss. 4,
57.-The Prisons Act, 1877, transfers the liability for the expenses of conveying to prison a prisoner committed by justice summarily or for trial, from the county treasurer to the Secretary of State.--Mullins v.
Treasurer of Surrey, 29 W.R. 179. (vi.) Ex. Div.-Local Authority-Bye-Law--Construction.—A bye-law of an
urban sanitary authority, provided that every person who laid out a new street should comply with certain requirements as to its width: Held that a person who, in accordance with a contract with a building owner, built along a line of street already laid out by the owner, was not a person who laid out a new street within the bye-law.-Sunderland
Corporation v. Brown, 43 L.T. 478. (vii.) c. A.-Maintenance of Insane Prisoners—3 & 4 Vict., c. 54, s. 2; 40
& 41 Vict., c. 21.-The liability for the maintenance of insane prisoners, which by 3 & 4 Vict., c. 54, s. 2, is imposed upon the county in default of any ascertained place of settlement, is not transferred to the Consolidated Fund by the Prisons Act, 1877.-- Regina v. Mews, L.R. 6
Q.B.D. 47 ; 43 L.T. 403; 29 W.R. 66; Regina v. Oastler, 50 L.J. M.C. 4. (viii.) C. A.-Vestry Meeting-Summoning Authority.—The vicar and church.
wardens of a parish have power to fix the hour of holding vestry meetings, and the parishioners cannot, by mandamus, compel them to alter it. Regina v. Vicar of Tottenham, 49 L.J. Q.B. 870; Regina v. Wilson, 43 L.T. 560.
Partition :(iv.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Sale-Time for Sale fixed by Will—31 & 32 Vict.,
C. 40.— Testator devised real estate to trastees upon trust for A. and B. equally for life, and after the death of either his share for his children, with a direction to sell and divide upon the death of survivor of A. and B. A. having died, his children asked for a sale : Held that a sale could not be ordered in the lifetime of B.- Swaine v. Denby, 49 L.J.
Ch. 734. (v.) C. A.-Trust to Work Quarries.-- Partition at the suit of the equitable
tenant for life of real and leasehold property held on trust, with power for the trustees to work quarries, refused.—Taylor v. Grange, L.R. 15
Ch. D. 165 ; 49 L.J. Ch. 794; 48 L.T. 233. Patent : (i.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Allegation of Infringement-Slander of Title-Injunc.
tion.-A patentee who issues notices against purchasing from a vendor, alleging infringements of his patent, is not bound to take legal proceed. ings to prevent the alleged infringements, and if he issues his notice bona fide, he is not liable to an action by the vendor for injury caused thereby, though he may be restrained by injunction from continuing to issue the notice.-Halsey v. Brotherhood, L.R. 15 Ch. D. 514; 49 L.J.
Ch. 786 ; 43 L.T. 366 ; 29 W.R. 9. (ii.) Ch. Div. V.C.B.-Infringement Injunction against Agent.—Plaintiffs
were patentees of an invention, an element of which was the rendering nitro-glycerine less liable to explode, so that it could be transported with safety: Held that the trans-shipping in an English port of a preparation of nitro.glycerine manufactured abroad by a similar process was an infringement, and injunction granted restraining defendants from acting as Custom House agents so as to enable the foreign owner
of this preparation to pass it through the English Customs.—Nobel's
Esplosives Co. v. Jones, Scott, & Co., 49 L.J. Ch. 726. Poor Law:(iii.) Q. B. Div.-Rate-Appeal-Time-17 Geo. II., c. 38., s. 4; 12 & 13 Vict.,
c. 45, s. 1.-Where a rate was published on the 21st of March, and the next Quarter Sessions were held on the 6th of April : Held that appellant was not bound to appeal to these sessions, but might appeal to the next following sessions. - Regina v. Surrey Justices, 50 L.J. M.C. 10;
43 L.T. 500. (iv.) Q. B. Div.- Rate-Occupation — Sale of Pasturage.—The owner of
certain lands on the 7th May, 1879, sold the grass thereon in lots, under conditions that each lot was sold from the day of sale to the 21st of March, 1880, to be fed by different kinds of stock; the seller to pay all rates and taxes : Held that the owner was the occupier of the lands, notwithstanding the sale, and rateable in respect of them.-Mogg v.
Yatton Overseers, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 10; 29 W.R. 74. (v.) Q. B. Div.-Rate-Woodlands— Right of Sporting—Valuation—37 & 38
Vict., c. 51, s. 4 (a).-In estimating the value of land used as a plantation or wood, the value of the right of sporting over the land may be taken into account.-Eyton v. Mold Overseers, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 13 ; 43 L.T.
472; 29 W.R. 122. (vi.) Q. B. Div.-Settlement—Order of Removal-Appeal-Evidence-39 &
40 ict., c. 61, s. 34.-An appeal was made to Quarter Sessions from an order by justices for the removal of a pauper to M., by reason of a settlement required under sec. 34 of the Divided Parishes Act, 1876; the appeal being on several grounds, including the objection that no corroboration of the paaper's evidence was given before the justices ; Held that it was competent for the sessions to receive such corroborative evidence, though not tendered before the justices making the order appealed from.- Regina v. Abergavenny Justices, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 31;
50 L.J. M.C. 1 ; 43 L.T. 602. Power of Appointment: (ii.) C. A.-Testamentary Appointment to Trustee—Real Estate-Failure of
Trust-Resulting Trust.—Testatrix having a general testamentary power of appointment over real estate subject to a gift over on default of appointment, devised the property to trustees upon trust for A., who died in her lifetime : Held, reversing the decision of V.C.M. (49 L.J. Ch. 705), that the property vested in the trastees subject to a resulting trust for testatrix's heir-at-law.-Spirling v. Rochefort, L.R. 16 Ch.D.
18; 50 L.J. Ch. 1; 29 W.R. 84. (iii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Void Limitation on default of Appointment-Sub.
sequent Re-settlement.--Testator bequeathed residuary estate to his children in equal shares, and directed that a part of each son's share should be set apart in trust for the son until bankruptcy, and then for such of his children as he should appoint, and in default of appointment for such children as should attain twenty-five: Held that there was an intestacy in default of appointment as to the moneys subject to this trast. All the testator's children executed a settlement reciting the will, and declaring that the son's shares should be held on the trusts of the will: Held that the gift over on default of appointment was
rendered effectual by the settlement.--Miley v Cape, 43 L.T. 236. Practice :(xlix.) C. P. Div.-Acknowledgment by Married Woman-Colony—3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 74 ; 15 & 16 Vict., c. 86, s. 22.-The acknowledgment of a
disentailing deed by a married woman taken in a colony, can, by virtue of sec. 22 of 15 & 16 Vict., c. 86, be taken before any person authorized to adminster oaths in the colony.-Re Smith, 50 L.J. C.P. 32; 43 L.T.
438. (1.) C. A.-Action against Foreign State—Jurisdiction.—A foreign sovereign
or state cannot be served with a writ or other process of our courts except where the claim is in the nature of a cross-action to one by the sovereign or state, or where the plaintiff and the sovereign or state have claims apon funds in the hands of third persons within the jurisdiction
of our courts.—Strousberg v. Republic of Costa Rica, 29 W.R. 125. (li.) C. A.-Action against Foreign Subject-Litigation in Foreign Court
Power to Restrain.-When a foreign subject has appeared in an English court, he gives jurisdiction to that court to restrain him from proceeding to litigate the same subject matter in the courts of his own country, but it is a matter of discretion, and the court onght only to exercise this jurisdiction to prevent double vexation.—Dawkins v. Simonetti, 29
W.R. 228. (lii.) C. P. Div.-Appeal—Enlarging Time-Ord. 57, ". 6.—The Court will, in
a proper case, enlarge the time limited for appealing after the expiration of the time so limited, though the omission to appeal within the limited time was not induced by the conduct of the opposite party, nor due to
inevitable accident.-Carter v. Stubbs, 50 L.J. C.P. 4; 29 W.R. 132. (liii.) C. A.- Appeal—Leave to Person not Party to Appeal.-- Leave to a person
not a party to an action to appeal from an order may be obtained by ex parte application to the Court of Appeal.-Markham v. Markham, L.R. 6
Ch. D. 1; 29 W.R. 228. (liv.) C. A.-Appeal-Security for Costs-Delay in Applying for.-An appli.
cation for security for costs of an appeal will be refused unless made promptly before costs of the appeal have already been incurred.-Mayor
of Saltash v. Goodman, 43 L.T. 464. (lv.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Appeal—Staying Proceedings pending-Inquiries.
Inquirios having been directed as to the amount to be paid to a plaintiff who had succeeded in an action for specific performance and damages, the Court refused to stay proceedings pending an appeal.-Hyam v. Terry,
29 W.R. 32. (lvi.) C.A.-Appeal-Time-Refusal to make Order.-An order containing a
declaration as to the rights of parties, no further order being made, is not a simple refusal to make an order so as to limit the time for appealing
therefrom to twenty-one days.-— Re Clay and Tetley, 43 L.T.402; 29 W.R. 5. (lvii.) C. A.--Compromise—Infants.-The Court bas no power to compromise.
a claim in which infants are interested against the wish of their next friend or guardian ad litem acting under the advice of counsel.-- Wilson
v. Birchall, L.R. 16 Ch. D. 41 ; 29 W.R. 27. (lviii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Contempt-Attachment- Motion to Commit.-When
an order has been made upon notice of motion for an attachment, the Conrt will not afterwards, on an ex parte application, alter the order to one of committal.-Buist v. Bridge, 43 L.T. 432; 29
W.R. 117. (lix.) C. A.-Contempt--Attachment-Extradition Act, 1870, s. 19.-A party
to an action in the Chancery Division was arrested in Paris for a crime under the Extradition Act, 1870, and while in prison in England under the warrant, was served with an attachment for disobedience to an order in the action : Held that the attachment was valid, and that the prisoner was not entitled to his discharge till he had cleared his contempt, though
he had been acquitted on the criminal charge.—Pooley v. Whetham,
L.R. 25 Ch. D. 435; 43 L.T. 267. (lx.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Contempt-Breach of Undertaking—Publication
of Interlocutory Proceedings.-On a motion for an injunction defendant undertook not to publish a certain advertisement likely to injure plaintiff's business until the trial. He published in a newspaper a notice of the hearing of the motion and of his undertaking which virtually repeated the advertisement : Held that he had not committed a contempt
of Court.-Buenos Ayres Gas Co. v. Wilde, 29 W.R. 43. (lxi.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Costs-Administration Action-Apportionment.-
Under a power of appointment in a marriage settlement the shares of children were appointed unequally, but were nearly equalised by a division of the anappointed property ander a hotch-pot clause : Held that the costs of an action to administer the trusts of the settlement must be paid rateably out of the appointed and unappointed shares.
Moore v. Dixon, L.R. 15 Ch. D. 566; 49 L.J. Ch. 807 ; 29 W.R. 12. (lxii.) Q. B. Div.-Costs-Admiralty Action County Court-31 & 32 Vict.,
c. 71, s. 9–Ord. 55.-Section 9 of County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868, is repealed by Order 55.- Tenant v. Ellis, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 46;
43 L.T. 506; 29 W.R. 121. (lxiii.) C. A.-Costs-Collision.—Cargo owners, whose cargo had been lost
through a collision, brought an action against the vessel which had come into collision with the vessel carrying their cargo, and both vessels were found to blame : Held that no costs vaght to be given.-The City of
Manchester, L.R. 5 P.D. 221; 49 L.J. P.D.A. 81. (lxiv.) Ch. Div. F.J.--Costs—Inquiry as to Damages.—Where in an action for
damages, judgment was given for plaintiff with costs, and an inquiry as to damages directed, the costs of the inquiry were reserved in order that the Court might exercise control over the manner in which it was
conducted.-Slack v. Midland Rail. Co., L.R. 16 Ch. D. 81; 43 L.T. 434. (lxv.) C. A.-Costs—Set-off.—Judgment having gone by default against
J. and H., and the sheriff having taken J.'s goods in execution, H. got the judgment against him set aside with costs; and in an interpleader issue claimed the goods seized, but was decided against with costs : Held that the costs in the interpleader could not be set-off against the costs of the action.—Barker v. Hemming, L.R. 5 Q.B.D. 609; 49 L.J.
Q.B. 730. (lxvi.) C. A.-Costs—Taxation Counter-Claim.--A claim and counter-claim
having both been dismissed with costs : Held that plaintiff must pay the general costs of the action, and defendant only those costs incurred on account of the counter-claim.-Mason v. Brentini, L.R. 15 Ch. D. 287;
43 L.T.557; 29 W.R. 126. (lxvii.) Ex. Div.--Costs_Taxation - Counter-claim.--Plaintiff claimed com.
mission from defendants, who set up a counter-claim for a specifio sum for goods sold, and plaintiff, by his reply, admitted his indebtedness for their amount. At the trial the jury found defendants were indebted to plaintiff for a sum less than the amount of the counter-claim, and judgment was entered for plaintiff on claim and defendants on counter. claim : Held that in taxing the costs, defendants were entitled to the
costs of the cause.-Baines v. Bromley, 29 W.R. 245. (lxviii.) C. A.-Costs—Trial by Jury-Discretion of Judge-Ord. 55.-In
exercising his discretion to deprive a successful party of his costs under Ord. 55, a judge may take into consideration the conduct of the party previous to and conducing to the action, as well as in the course of litigation.-Harnett v. Vise, L.R. 5 Ex. D. 307 ; 29 W.R. 7.