« PreviousContinue »
of the issue was heard by the judge of the Chancery Div.—Jenkins v. Morris, L.R. 11 Ch. D. 671.
(xxxiv.) C. A.—New Trial—Triul by J'ury—-Final Ju.dgnwnt—Ord. 4-0, yr. 4-, 10.—Whore, in an action tried by a jury, the judge gives judgment for one party on the findings, the other party may move for a new trial on the ground that the findings are against the evidence, and the divisional Court may, on such motion, enter tiual judgment under 0rd. 40, r. 10. —Humilton v. Johnson, 28 W.R. 879.
(xxxv.) Ex. Div_—Notiw of Tn'al—Entry for Triul——Clnse of Pleadings--01-d. 36, 1. 3.—A plaintilf cannot enter an action for trial before the close of the pleadings. —Metropolitan Inner Circle Co. v. Metropolitan Rail. Co., 49 L.J. Ex. 505.
(xxxviii.) Ch, Div, M. R.—Pluading—-Recovery of LamL——Ord. 17, 1'. 2.—A writ claimed a declaration of plaintiffs title to certain land, a declaration that a lease had been entered into by mistake, an injunction against receiving rents, a receiver and account of past rents, and the statement of claim claimed possession of the land: Held that the
leave of the Court to join these claims was not necessary.—-Gladhill v. Hunter, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 492.
(xxxix.) C. A.—Referenca— Che/rge of Fruuul——Appeal -Judicature Act, 1873, s. 57.—A judge has jurisdiction to refer compulsorily issues involving questions of fraud affecting the character and reputation of the parties ; and an appeal from a compulsory order of reference, made by a judge
sitting at nisi prius or assizes, must be brought direct to the Court of Appeal.—Hoah v. Boor, 49 L.J. CP. 665.
(iii.) C. A,.—Reference—Prol0ngeJ. E.z:amina.lion of Aceounts——Judicatura Act, 1873, s. 57.—Any question of account which may be referred compulsorily to a master under sec. 3 of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, may also be referred compulsorily to an oflicial referee under sec. 57 of the Judicature Act, 1873.—lVard v. Pilley, L.R. 5 Q.B.D. 427; 28 W.R. 937.
(xli,) Ch. Div. M. R,—Scotch Order-——W1'-nding-up of Compa/ny—Companies Act, 1862, ss. 122, 123.—Where, in the winding-up of a company by the Court of Session in Scotland, it has become necessary toenforce an order for a call made by that Court against cnntribntorics in England, the
order must be made an order of the Chancery Division in England.—Re City of Glasgow Bank, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 628.
(xlii.) C. Ar-Securityfor C0sts—-Ilfarried lVoman—Nert F1'iend—Ord. 16, 1’. 8.— ' The Court has a judicial discretion to allow a married woman to sue alone
withlor without giving security for costs, and to direct a next friend to give such security at any sta e of the proceedings.—Marta,no v. llfmm, L.R. 14 Ch. 1). 1-19; 19 L.J. C .510; 42 L.T. 890.
(xliih) Ch. Div. V. C. H.— -Service out of Juris<liclion—Afiidavil.—Wherc leave had been obtained to serve notice of the writ in lieu of service on a defendant residing at Beyrout, the Court held that an affidavit in which deponent swore that he had personally served defendant with a
notice, a true copy of which was thereunto annexed, was sutficient.— Bustros v. Bustros, L.R. 14 Ch, D. 849.
order under 0rd. 14, r. 1a, refusing leave to defend except on payment into Court.—W'allingford v. illutual Society, LB. 5 App. 685.
(xlvi.) C. P. Div-—Test Aclion—Staying other Actions.—Thirty-eight actions having been brought by difierent plaintilfs against the same defendants, involving a question common to all, on the application of plaintiffs in one action, the Court ordered the other actions to be stayed until after the trial of that one.—Benn,eLt v. Lord Bury, L-B. 5 C.P.D. 339.
(xlvii.) Q. B. DiV.——Transfor ofActi0n—Collisimwf Sh.ips—Limitati0n Action-. —Pe-rsona-l Inju~ry.—One of two ships having been held in an Admiralty action solely to blame for a collision, the owners instituted an action for limitation of liability in the Admiralty Division. A fireman on board the other ship having issued a writ in the Q. B. Div., claiming damages for personal injuries from the owners of the delinquent ship, the action was, on defendants’ application, transferred to the Admiralty Div.HuwI::'ns v. Morgan, 49 L.J. QB. 618, '
(xlviii.) Ch. Div. V. C. ]![.—-lV|'lhd1'awa,l of De_fence.—One of two defendants to an action for the recovery of land, after defending the action, gave up possession and sought to withdraw his defence : Held that he should be allowed to do so on payment of mesne profits and the costs occasioned by his defence and of the application to withdraw.—Rea.l and Personal Advance Co. v. Mo Carthy, 49 L.J. Ch. 615.
Principal and Agent :—
(i.) Ch. Div. M. R.—Accounts—Commiss(on Agent—C0nsigm2r.—~The general course of trade between a consignor and commission agents was that the agents were liable to the consignor for the amounts received and made advances to him, crediting themselves with advances and interest, and debitiug themselves with the amounts realized : Held that the oonsignor, in an action for accounts, was not entitled to an account
of the application by the agents of the proceeds of the sale of his goods. —Ki1-kham v. Peel, 48 L.T. 171; 28 W.R. 94-1.
(ii.) C. A.— Sale of Good-s—Unilisclosed Priucipal——Puyine1tt to Agent.When an agent buys goods as agent for an undisclosed principal, the liability of such principal to the seller for the price of the goods is not discharged by a payment to the agent, unless such payment is the result
corn from New Zealand to England endorsing the bills of hiding to llI.. a factor in Glasgow, in order that M. might sell the corn and pay over the purchase-money after deducting commission at 3 per cent. M. endorsed the bills over to defendants in London, who sold the corn and credited M. with the proceeds, less 2 per cent. commission. Defendants knew that M. was acting as agent for another person, but plaintiffs were not disclosed as principals in the transaction: Held that plaintiffs were entitled to recover from defendants the balance due from them to M. in respect of the sales, Without deducting any set-oile in respect of other transactions between defendants and M.-——New Zealand Land Co. v. Rceston, L.R. 5 Q.B.D. 474'.
C, P, Div_—Uninco1'p0ral‘e|1 S0ciety—Bor1-owing Powera—Authority— Agent. —The directors of an unincorporated building society were authorised to borrow money up to a certain amount. The directors having already exceeded this amount, the plaintifi lent £100 to the society, which he paid to the treasurer, who embezzled the money. The jury found that the treasurer had been held out both by the directors and the society as a person authorised to receive the money : Held that both the directors and the society were liable.——Ohapleo v. Brunswick Building Society, L.R. 5 C.P.D. 331.
Principal and Surety =-—
C. A..—Benkruptcy—Neylect to Value Secu.rity—Discharge of Surely.Defendant was surety for the repayment of a loan made by plaintifl to P., for which plaintilf held as collateral security on insurance on P.’s life. P. having become bankrupt, plaintiff proved for the whole of his debt without valuing the insurance, which was subsequently given up to the trustee by order of the Court : Held that defendant was not thereby discharged from his liability beyond the value of the policy of insurance. ———Reinbow v. Juggins, L.R. 5 Q.B.D. 422.
P. D. A. Div.—Evidence-—Contmts of Will——Declarations of Teatator.— Oral and written declarations of a testator, made either before or after the date of execution of a. will, are admissible in evidence to show what
were the constituent parts of the will at the time of execntion.—Gou.ld v. Lakes, 49 L.J. P,D.A. 59.
Public Health =
Q. B, DiV.——Foreign Cattle —Slaughter at Sea—(,'0mpensation—32 59‘ 33 Vict., c. 70.-—-Under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act no compensation is payable by loral authorities in respect of foreign animals slaughtered after their arrival, but before being landed at a British port. —Nissler v. Hull Corporation, 49 L.J. Q.B. 50l ; 42 L.T. 894.
C. A..—-Local Board ——- Disqualification-—Penalt-y—-38 (5’‘ 39 Vict. (1. 55, s. 253.—An action to recover a penalty for acting as member of a local board after disqualification may be brought under r. 70 of schedule 2 of the Public Health Act. 1875, by any person without obtaining the consent of the Attorney-General.—Fletcher v. Hudson, L.R. 5 Ex. D. 287 ; 49 L.J. Ex. 697.
Q. B. DiV.—Local Board—Disquali/ination-—Leassfr0m Bou.rd—88 r5’ 39 Vict., c. 55, sch. II., 1'. 164-.—A person is not disqualified for membership of a local board by reason of a lease by the board to him of a sewage farm containing covenants by the board to supply and by him to use the sewage of the district.-Regi'n.a, v. Gaskarth, 4-9 L.J. (2.13. 509.
8 Vict., c. 20, as. 68—73.—A railway company having constructed a culvert under the provisions of the L.C.C. Act, 1845, to drain adjoining land, twenty years afterwards a flood took place and injury was caused to the land owing to the culvert being insuflicient to carry off the water. Held that an action would not lie against the company for damages.-—Culley v. L. .§‘ N.W. Rail. Co., L.R.. 5 Ex. D. 277; 49 LJ. Ex. 575; 42 L.T. 807.
H. L.——Arbitrati0n under Special Act—Cosfs—8 9 Vict., c. 18, s. 34-.— A railway company's Special Act provided that the company might alter certain streets, paying compensation to the owners of adjoining houses or purchasing the houses; and in case of dispute, the compensation or purchase-money was to be assessed by a single arbitrator, to be appointed by the Board of Trade. There was no provision as to the costs of the arbitration, but the Act incorporated the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts, unless expressly varied: Held that Sec. 34 of the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, applied to such an arbitration, and that the taxing of the costs was not a condition precedent to the right to bring an action to recover them. —Metr0p0liian Dist. Rail. Co. v. Sharpe, L.R. 5 App. 425 ; 43 L.T. 130.
Q. B, Div,—Bye-Law—Penalty—Passenger Refusing to Show Tickst— 8 Vict., c. 20, s. 108.—A bye-law of a railway company that any passenger failing or refusing to show or deliver up his ticket, should be required to pay the fare from the station whence the train originally started to the end of his journey, is bad, and cannot be enforced in the absence of fraud.—-Saunders v. South-Eastern Rail. 00., L.R. 5 Q.B.D. 456.
I divert streams, are only given in respect of necessary Acts, and the
saving of expense to the company does not constitute a necessity within the meaning of the section.—Pugh v. Golden Valley Rail. Co., 42 L.T. 863; 28 W11. 863.
30 J‘ 31 Vict., c. 127, s. 4.—Whenever a judgment creditor of a railway company is unpaid, the appointment of a receiver or manager under sec. 4 of Railway Companies Act, 1867, is a matter of right, and the only evidence requisite in support of a petition under that section is an aflidavit proving that the applicant is a judgment creditor, that his debt is unpaid, and that the company is a going concern.-—E:n parte Cambr1'an Rail. Co., Re Manchester and Milford Rail. Co., L.R. 14 Ch. D. 645.
C. A. — Passenger—Inju1~y — Measure of Damages. — The rule that damages for breach of contract should be such as naturally arise from the breach, or may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of the parties, does not apply to an action for injury to a passenger by railway so as to exempt the company from liabilty for damages in respect of the loss of an income which they did not know the plaintifi was earning.—Phillips v. London d‘ S. Western Rail. Co., L.R. 5 C.P.D. 280.
6 Vict., c. 79, ss. 2, 4.—Dcfendants in addition to the sum charged for fare received from passengers a further sum in respect of the duty imposed by the Railway Passengers Duty Act: Held that they were liable to pay duty on the entire sum received from their passengers, and that they were also liable to pay duty on extra charges made for the use of sleeping carriages.Attorney-Gevwral v. L. §‘N. W. Railway Co., 49 LJ. Ex. 670.
H. L-—Statut0ry Powers—Lett1'm.g of Imilivay Stock-—Ultra. Vi1'es.— The E. Railway Co. were empowered by Act of Parliament to take a lease of the line of the T. Railway Co., and to enter into agreements with respect to the working of the line, apportionment of tolls, &c. The E. Co. did not take a lease, but subsequently entered into an agreement with the T. Co. to supply locomotives and rolling stock for working the line: Held that such agreement was not ultra cires.—-Att0r1wy
Ex. D1'J7.—Inc0me Tam—F0reiyn Corporation—16 17 Vict., c. 34-, s. 10. -—-A foreign company had an agency in London which conducted a branch business and earned profits. The dividends of the company were payable at the option of shareholders abroad or in London. In a particular year the London agency earned an amount which enabled them to pay all dividends demanded of them in that year. They were assessed to income tax under schedule D. on the profits earned in England on an average of three years: Held that the money in their hand for the payment of dividends was intrusted to them within the meaning of 16 & 17 Vict., c. 34, s. 10, but that since they had paid income tax under schedule D. on their earnings they ought only to be further assessed in respect of that part of the dividends representing profits arising out of the United Kingd0m.—GiZbe1~tson v. Fergusson, 49 L.J. Ex. 536.
Ex. DiV.——-Succession Duty—Predecessor—-16 §’ 17 Vict., c. 51, s. 2.-— A lunatic was tenant in tail in possession of an estate, with remainder to his brother and sister R. and D. successively in tail. R. converted his estate into a base fee in remainder, and mortgaged it for more than the value of the fee simple. A compromise was afterwards entered into, with the consent of the Lord Chancellor, and deeds of settlement executed, whereby the estate was conveyed to trustees discharged from the mortgage on trust after the lnnatic’s death to raise and pay the amount due to the mortgagees, and subject thereto to hold to the use of D. for life, remainder to her sons successively in tail. On the lunatic's death D. became tenant for life in possession, and on her death her son became tenant in tail in possession: Held that her son derived his
interest as successor from his mother.—Att0rney-General v. Dowling, 49 L.J. Ex. 621.
Vict., c. 13, s. 1.—A. procured from B. an advance of £1,000 on a bill of exchange for G. and D., his sons. B. signed the bill as drawer, and addressed it to C. and D. who signed as acceptors, and afterwards A. wrote his name on the back of the bill and gave it to B. C. and D. had since become bankrupt, and A. and B. both being dead there was no evidence why A. put his name to the bill : Held that A.’s representatives were not liable on the bill.—Steele v. M’Kinlay, LB. 5 App. 754.
—In valuing the interest of second and third heirs substitute on a petition for disentail by the first heir in possession: Held that it was proper to take into consideration the state of health of the first heir, and that the chance of succeeding to the fee simple ought to be valued.M‘Dom1ld v. M‘Donald, L.R. 5 App. 519.