at the date of judgment in the action; though acquired after the engage. ment, or though at that date subject to a restraint on anticipation, if the restraint be removed before the judgment.-Pike v. Fitz Gibbon, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 837; 49 L.J. Ch. 493.

(xi.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Settlement -Annuity to Husband and Wife-Wife's Equity. In an anti-nuptial settlement the wife's father covenanted with the trustees to pay them during his life an annuity for the benefit of husband and wife during their joint lives, and after death of husband for the wife, with trusts for the children and for the husband if he survived the wife: Held that the whole of the annuity was during the joint lives of husband and wife liable for the husband's debts.-Ward v. Ward, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 506; 28 W.R. 943.

(xii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Settlement-Gift to Husband and Wife-Wife's Equity.-Bequest to testator's daughter on condition that the legacy should be invested for the benefit of her and her husband during their joint lives, and the survivor of them, with remainders over. Husband became bankrupt: Held that the wife was not entitled to any equity to a settlement.-Godfrey v. Bryan, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 516; 49 L.J. Ch. 504.

Injunction:

(i.) C. A.-Injurious Advertisement-Power to Restrain.-The Court has power to grant an injunction restraining the publication by one trades. man of an advertisement containing false statements calculated to injure a rival tradesman, and it is not necessary to prove actual damage.Thorley's Food for Cattle Co. v. Massam, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 763; 42 L.T. 851; 28 W.R. 966.

Insurance :

(i.) C. A.-Fire Insurance-Contract of Indemnity.--A policy of fire insurance is a contract of indemnity, and where the insurer has paid the insured a sum in respect of damage by fire, which damage is subse. quently repaired by a third party, the insurer is entitled to recover back the money paid by him to the insured.-Darrell v. Tibbitts, 42 L.T. 797.

(ii.) Ex. Div.-Insurance against Accident-Death by Drowning whilst in an Epileptic Fit.-By a policy of insurance defendant company agreed to pay £1,000 to W.'s representatives, if W. should sustain any injury caused by accidental, external, visible means, and such injury should cause his death, provided that the insurance should not extend to any injury caused by or arising from natural disease or weakness. W., in crossing a ford, was seized with an epileptic fit, and fell down and was drowned: Held that defendants were liable under the policy.-Winspear v. Accident Insurance Co., 42 L.T. 900.

Jersey, Law of:

(i.) P. C.-Curatelle.-In order to place a man under curatelle, the Court must be satisfied that he is a prodigal by reason of habitual intemperance; and it has no power to continue the curatelle as regards the property when the interdiction has been reversed as regards the person. -Re Nicolle, 49 L.J. P.C. 51.

Landlord and Tenant :

(i.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Agreement for Lease-Reasonable Terms-Specific Performance.-A., by letter, agreed to take a lease from B., provided the terms of the draft lease were reasonable in A.'s estimation. B. replied that the terins would be of the usual character. The draft contained unreasonable covenants: Held that A. was entitled to decline to take

the lease, though B., in his reply, stated that he was willing to waive the unreasonable covenants.-Wilcox v. Redhead, 49 L.J. Ch. 539.

(ii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Agreement for Building Lease-Rescission-Right of Re-entry.-Held that plaintiff had lost his right to elect to rescind a building agreement because he had not signified his intention to do so in an unqualified manner and within a reasonable time, nor before de. fendant had altered his position with regard to the contract on the understanding that it was to continue. -Marsden v. Sambell, 43 L.T. 120; 28 W.R. 952.

(iii.) C. J. B.-Building Lease-Forfeiture on Bankruptcy.-An agreement for a building lease contained a condition that on the bankruptcy or insol. vency of the lessee, all the material and plant brought on the land should be forfeited to the lessor. The lessee having filed a liquidation petition, the trustee took possession of the materials and plant, and disclaimed all interest under the agreement: Held that the agreement was valid, and that the trustee could not disclaim the burdens and yet retain some of the benefits of it.-Ex parte Meads, Re Harrison, 49 L.J. Bcy. 47. (iv.) C. P. Div.-Breach of Covenant-Forfeiture-Acceptance of RentWaiver. In an action by a lessor to recover possession of premises for breaches of covenant by the lessee, the defendant pleaded that, after action brought, with the intention of waiving the breaches, the plaintiff accepted rent which had accrued due after action brought, and that the breaches of covenant were thereby waived: Held, on demurrer, a good defence.-Evans v. Wyatt, 43 L.T. 176.

(v.) C. P. Div.-Covenant to Pay Rates and Taxes-Abating Nuisance— 3839 Vict., c. 55, s. 104.-A lease contained a covenant by the lessee to pay all taxes, rates, and assessments imposed on the premises or upon the landlord or tenant in respect thereof: Held that the lessee was liable to repay to the landlord expenses incurred in executing works directed by an order made on a summons under sec. 96 of the Public Health Act for default in abating a nuisance.-Budd v. Marshall, 42 L.T. 793.

(vi.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Lease-Covenant not to Assign without LicenseAgreement to Assign-Acquiescence.-A lease of lands from A. to B. contained a covenant by B. not to assign or underlet without previous written license. B., without license, underlet to C. by an agreement, which gave C. an option of purchasing B.'s interest. B. subsequently surrended his lease to A., and obtained a new one on similar terms. C. sought to exercise his option of purchasing, but A. refused his license, though he had, previously to granting the new lease, known of the agreement: Held that C. was not entitled to specific performance against A. and B.-Willmot v. Barber, 43 L.T. 95; 28 W.R. 911.

(vii.) Ch. Div. D. J.-Lease of Brick-field-Covenant to Work—Removal of Fence-Injunction.-Held that a covenant in the lease of a brick-field binding the lessee to get the demised clay to the fullest practicable extent consistent with the means of sale of bricks to be made therefrom, did not bind the lessee to go on working at a loss. The lessee having improperly caused the fall of a boundary fence by excavating clay from under it, a mandatory injunction was granted, in a negative form, to compel the restitution of the fence.-Newton v. Nock, 43 L.T. 197.

Lands Clauses Act:

(i.) C. A.-Compulsory Sale-Leaseholds-Trust for Sale-Income-Costs. Leaseholds settled on trust for sale with the consent of the tenant for life, of which eight years remained unexpired, were sold compulsorily without the life-tenant's consent, and the purchase-money invested in

consols: Held that the tenant for life was entitled to receive an annuity of such an amount that the payment of it would exhaust the fund in eight years.-Askew v. Woodhead, 28 W.R. 874.

(ii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Interim Investment-Affidavit of Title.—On an application by a large public corporation for the interim investment of money paid in under the Lands Clauses Act, the usual affidavit of no title in any other person was dispensed with.-Re Magdelen College, Oxford, 42 L.T. 822.

(iii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Payment out to Mortgagee-Costs of Appearance.On petition by a mortgagor for payment out to a mortgagee of money paid in under the Lands Clauses Act, 1845; the promoters can only be required to pay in addition to the petitioner's costs, 42s. for the mort. gagees costs and the costs of the affidavit of service on him.-Ex parte Jones, L.R 14 Ch. D. 624; 43 L.T. 84.

(iv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Payment out to Trustee.-Lands settled in trust for a widow for life or till second marriage, with remainder in trust for sale, were purchased by a railway company under the 7th section of the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, and the money paid into Court. The money was on the widow's petition, ordered to be paid out to the trustees.-Re Evans' Trusts, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 511; 43 L.T. 172.

Limitations, Statutes of:

(i.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Adverse Possession --Discontinuance of Possession3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 27, s. 3.-Where there has been a discontinuance of possession by the owner of land for sixty years, the person actually in possession obtains a possessory title under the Statute of Limitations, though the original owner was unaware of the possession, unless there has been concealed fraud.-Rains v. Buxton, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 537; 49 L.J. Ch. 473; 43 L.T. 88; 28 W.R. 954.

(ii.) C. P. Div.-Statutory Prohibition against Alienation-Licensee-3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 27; 37 & 38 Vict., c. 57.-The Corporation of Brighton having acquired certain premises under an Act which prohibited them from letting or selling any part of the property without the consent of the vestry, suffered the defendants to retain exclusive possession of a part of the premises for more than twelve years without paying any rent or making any acknowledgment of title: Held that the claim of the corporation to recover possession was barred.-Mayor of Brighton v. Brighton Guardians, L.R. 5 C.P.D. 368; 49 L.J. C.P. 648.

Lunacy :

(i.) C. A.-Committee-Execution of Deed by.-A deed to which a lunatic is expressed to be a party by his committees is sufficiently executed by the committees affixing seals and signing their own names.-Lawrie v. Lees, 49 L.J. Ch. 636.

Metropolitan Management:

(i.) C. A.-Disused Street-Vesting of in Vestry-18 & 19 Vict., c. 120, ss. 96, 154.-A street having been closed and disused, plaintiff, as owner of the adjoining land, claimed the site of the street: Held that he was entitled to succeed.-Rolls v. Vestry of St. George's, Southwark, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 785; 43 L.T. 146; 28 W.R. 867.

(ii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Drainage-25 & 26 Vict., c. 102, s. 6.-Defendants were owners of land outside the Metropolitan area, on which were four cottages which drained into a brook. The brook was vested in the Metropolitan Board of Works by the Act of 1855, and they converted it into a sewer, but allowed a communication to remain through which

the drainage from the four cottages passed into the sewer. Defendants having erected additional buildings on their land: Held that the Board were entitled to an injunction restraining them from draining such new buildings through the communication.-Metropolit in Board of Works v. L. & N. W. Rail. Co., L.R. 14 Ch. D. 521; 42 L.T. 830.

Mines:

(i.) C. P. Div.-Agent-Certified Manager-Conviction-35 & 36 Vict., c. 76, s. 51.—The conviction and fine of a certified manager of a mine for a breach of the regulation in sec. 51, sub-sec. 1, of Mines Regulation Act, 1872, does not prevent the agent of the mine from being also convicted in respect of the same breach.-Wynne v. Forester, L.R. 5 C.P.D. 361. (ii.) C. P. Div. Fencing Shaft - Owner-35 & 36 Vict., c. 77.

Appellant, though nominally lessee of a mine, was in fact only receiver for the owner, being bound by the terms of the lease to pay over all sums received by him in respect of the mine: Held that he was neither owner of the mine nor a person interested in its minerals within Sec. 13 of Metaliferous Mines Regulation Act, 1872.-Arkwright v. Evans, 49 L.J. M.C. 82.

(iii.) Q. B. Div.-Mining Customs-Deposit of Soil.-Held that, where two contiguous micing districts were governed by separate Acts, regulating the rights of the miners against the surface owners, it was not competent for a miner sinking a shaft in one district to use the surface land there to dress ore and place refuse got from the other district.-Wake v. Redfearn, 43 L.T. 123.

(iv.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Preservation of Property-Drowned Mine-Mandatory Injunction-Lease-Usual Covenants.-Where a colliery will be drowned unless the lessee continues to pump, a mandatory injunction will be granted restraining him from ceasing to pump out the mine. In the lease of a colliery in Derbyshire, a proviso that when the mines are incapable of being worked at a profit, the lessee shall be entitled to determine the lease, is not a usual covenant.-Strelley v. Pearson, 43 L.T. 155.

Mortgage:

(i.) C. A.-Annuity-Registration-Subsequent Incumbrances-Notice-18 Vict., c. 15, s. 12.--Section 12 of 18 Vict., c. 15, does not prevent an annuitant, whose annuity is not registered from having priority over subsequent incumbrances who had notice of the annuity.-Greaves v. Tofield, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 563; 43 L.T. 100; 28 W.R. 840.

(ii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Breach of Trust-Constructive Notice-Legal Estate. -By the connivance of the sole trustee of a marriage settlement, a solicitor, trust funds were handed over to the husband and invested by him in real estate which he mortgaged, the trustee acting as solicitor for both mortgagee and husband. The husband and trustee having both become bankrupt, the children entitled under the settlement brought an action seeking to follow the trust funds: Held that as the mortgagee had no notice of the trust, he was entitled to his security in priority to the cestuis-que-trust; but that they were entitled to rank in priority to subsequent equitable encumbrancers without notice.—Chaplin v. Cave, 49 L.J. Ch. 505.

(iii.) C. P. Div.-Consolidation-Bill of Sale-Execution Creditor.-The grantee of a registered bill of sale of goods, seized under a fi. fa., cannot tack a prior mortgage of cther goods of the grantor and claim that the surplus proceeds of the goods seized, after discharging the sum secured on them, shall be applied in satisfaction of the prior mortgage, so as to

defeat the right of the judgment creditor to the surplus.-Chesworth v. Hunt, 49 L.J. C.P. 507.

(iv.) C. A.-Consolidation-Building Society-Joint Mortgage.-V. mortgaged Whiteacre to a building society; subsequently V. and W. jointly mortgaged Blackacre to the society, and then V. mortgaged the equity of redemption of Whiteacre to a bank. On an action by the society to foreclose both mortgages: Held that the society was not entitled to consolidate.-Cummins v. Fletcher, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 699; 49 L.J. Ch. 563; 42 L.T. 859.

(v.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Contemporaneous Mortgages.-One Debt.-Debt Borne Rateably.-Trustees having power to lend on real security agreed to advance & sum on freeholds if leaseholds were mortgaged to them as collateral security, and two contemporaneous mortgage deeds were executed for the same sum, that of the freeholds reciting the agreement to execute a mortgage of the leaseholds as collateral security, and that of the leaseholds reciting the first deed and the agreement that the amount should be thereby further secured : Held that the debt was payable rateably out of both properties according to their values.— Athill v. Athill, 43 L.T. 153.

(vi.) C. A.-Covenant to Repay on Day Certain-Death of Mortgagor-Rate of Interest.-A mortgage deed contained a covenant to repay the principal sum at the end of a year, and to pay interest in the meantime at the rate of £10 per cent. per annum, but there was no other covenant as to interest. The sum was not repaid and interest at the same rate was paid for several years. When the mortgagor died, a decree for administration having been made: Held that interest was only recover. able by the mortgagee at the rate of £5 per cent.-Goodchap v. Roberts, 28 W.R. 870.

(vii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Foreclosure-Accounts-Special Directions.-Mort. gaged property the subject of a foreclosure action was purchased by a public body under statutory powers, and the sum assessed for compen sation paid into Court: Held that the mortgagee was not entitled to an express direction for the allowance of extra costs incurred in the inquiry to assess the compensation.-Rees v. Metropolitan Board of Works, 49 L.J. Ch. 620.

(viii.) C. A.-Mortgage of Trust Fund-Notice.-A verbal notice by an incumbrancer of a trust fund to the solicitors of the trustees of the fund: Held not a good notice to the trustees.-Saffron Walden Building Society v. Rayner, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 406; 49 L.J. Ch. 465; 43 L.T. 3. (ix.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Reversionary Interest-Compound Interest3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 27, s. 42.-The owners of the reversion in funds of which S. was life tenant, mortgaged their property and covenanted that interest in arrear should be capitalized and bear interest at the same rate and S. assigned her life interest as part of the security: Held that the covenant was good, and that mortgagee was not limited to six years' interest.-Clarkson v. Henderson, 43 L.T. 29; 28 W. R. 907. (x.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Transfer.-Executor of Mortgagee-37 & 38 Vict., c. 78, s. 4.-The Vendor and Parchaser Act, 1874, s. 4, does not apply to the case of a transfer of a mortgage.-Re Spradbery's Mortgage, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 514; 49 L.J. Ch. 623; 43 L.T. 82.

Municipal Law:

(i.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Improvement Scheme-Compensation-Alteration of Award-38 & 39 Vict., c. 36.-C. having sent in his claim in respect of a leasehold interest in lands taken by a local authority under the Artizans Dwellings Act, 1875, his claim was by mistake not forwarded