« PreviousContinue »
(lxix.) Ch. Div. M. B,.—Counter-Claim-Trial of Issues-—-Ord. 86, r. 6.— Where defendant counter-claims instead of bringing a new action, he is not entitled to have the issue on his counter-claim tried before the other issues in the action.-—Piercy v. Young, L.R. 16 Ch. D. 475.
(lxxii.) P, D, A, Div,—Discover;/—Interrogatories—Admiralty Ach'on— C0lhsion.—Interrogatories may be delivered in an action for damage by collision, asking for information relative to the collision.—The Radnor.
‘ shire, LB. 5 P.D. 172; 48 L.T. 319.
(lxxiv.) Ch, Div, V, C, M,—Discovery—Interrogatories—Winding-up of Company—Ord. 31, r. l.—-In the winding-up of a company, the omcial liquidator will be allowed to deliver interrogatories to a person claiming to prove, who has made an aflidavit of documents.—Re AZea:a11dm Palace Co., L.R. 16 Ch. D. 58; 50 L.J. Ch. 7; 43 L.T. 406; 29 W.R. 70.
(lxxv.) Ch, Div. M, R,—Discovery—-Production of Documents.—In an action claiming an account of profits made by defendants as agents for plaintifis, where defendants denied the agency, the Court declined to order production of invoices of goods sold by third parties to defendants, and resold by them to plaintiffs, until after trial of the question of agency.—~Verminck v. Edwards, 29 W.R. 189.
(lllvil) C. A..—Em'dence—Attachment of Debt—-Emnnination of Dsbtor—Ord. 45, r. l.—In the oral examination of a judgment debtor, as to whether any and what debts are owing to him, any question fairly pertinent and properly asked, with a view to ascertain full particulars of such debts, must be answered. Decision of V.C.M. (4-9 L.J. Ch. 701) aflirmed.Republic of Costa Rica v. Strousberg, L.R. 16 Ch. D. 8; 50 L.J. Ch. 7; 43 L.'1‘. 399; 29 W.R. 179.
(lxxviii.) C. A,—Evidcnce——Easamination em pa/rte—0rd. 37, W‘. 1. 4.—-After consenting that evidence in an action should be taken by aflidavit, a solicitor for one party was unable to get his witnessesto make aflidavits: Held that the Court had no jurisdiction to allow him to examine witnesses ea: parts before a special examiner, and to use the depositions on the trial, subject to cross-examination of the witnesses.—Wamer v. Houses, 50 L.J. Ch. 28; 48 L.T. 401; 29 W.R.. 201.
(‘nix-) C. A.—E1n'dence—Ewperts-—Nautical Assess0rs.—-Where the Court is assisted by nautical assessors, evidence of experts on questions of nautical science may properly be rejected.—The Sir Robert Peel, 43 L.T. 964.
either party for his own satisfaction.-— Budd v. Davidson, 29 W.R. 192.
(lxxxi-) C. A..—Judgment Debtor-—-Elegu't—Equity 'of Rede1nption—Receirer— Judicature Act, 1873, s. 25 (8).—A judgment creditor who has sued out an clegit against his debtor, whose only property is an equity of redemption, is entitled to the appointment of a receiver, on motion after judgment in the division in which he has obtained jndgment.—Swn'th v.
(lxxxiii.) C. .A.—Married ‘Woman-—Leave to sue Al0ne—Ord. 16, r. B.—A married woman having brought an action in her own name, defendant took out a summons to stay proceedings unless she joined her next friend or gave security for costs: Held that the dismissal of the summons amounted to giving plaintifi leave to sue alone, and that the Court could give such leave after action brought.—Kingsnum v. Kingsman,
(IXXXV-) B. DiV.—New Trial—Trial by Jury——Time for Applying—-Ord. 39, r. la.-—Where an action has been tried by jury in London or Westminster, if no divisional court to which an application for a new trial may be made sit on the last of the four days after the trial, the application is in time if made at the first subsequent sitting.—~Grant v. Holland, 49 L.J. Q.B. 800; 29 W.R. 32.
(lxxxvi.) Ch. Div. M. B.—Nert Friend of Married Women — Acting as Solicito»r.——A writ issued by the next friend of a married woman on her behalf without the employment of a solicitor will be set aside with costs against the next friend.—Swann v. Swarm, 43 L.T. 530.
(lxxxviii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.—- Order to attend Proceedi-ngs—No Authority from Cl1'ent—Discharge.—An order to attend proceedings, obtained by a solicitor without the ‘written authority of his client, will be discharged on the client's applicati0n.—Bird v. Harris, 43 L.T. 434-; 29 W.R. 45.
(lxxxix) C. A.—Pa/rticula/rs—Acco1mt.—In an action in which plaintiff claimed to be repaid out of a certain fund sums advanced by him to 0., in a joint transaction with defendant who had advanced other sums, defendant, before putting in a defence, applied for an account of the amount alleged to have been advanced, with dates and particulars: Held that defendant could not require the particulars applied for before putting in his defence.——Augustinus v. Nerinck, L.R. 16 Ch. D. 13; 4-3 L.T. 458; 29 W.R. 225.
(xc.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.—Parties—Change by Death’-—Applica!i0n by Successor of Deceased Defendant—Ord. 50.—Where an action has abated against a defendant before judgment, and plaintiff has not made his successors in interest parties to the action, defendant’s successors should apply for an order against plaintiff that he obtain an order to prosecute the proceedings against them within a limited time, or that in default the action may be dismissed as against them, without costs.—Motiom. v. King, 29 W.R. 78.
(xci.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.—Pa1-ties-—Patent—Co-owners—0rd. 16, r. 13, 14.—One of several co-owners of a patent can sue for an injunction and an account. An objection by a defendant for want of parties cannot be taken at the hearing, though mentioned in the defence, but the proper course is to move that the other persons should be added as parties.—Sheehan v. G. E. Rail. 00., L.R. 16 Ch. D. 59; 50 L.J. Ch. 68; 48 L.T. 432 ; 29 W.R. 69.
(xoii.) C, A.-—Pn.rties--Third pa/rty Notice— 0rd. 16, rr. 17, 18, 20, 21.-—In an action by a company against its directors and others seeking to make defendants liable in respect of dividends improperly paid out of capital, defendants applied for leave to serve third party notices on all the shareholders on the ground that they would have a right to recover the sums received by the shareholders as dividends: Held that the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, ought to refuse the application. An application by defendant for leave to serve a third party notice ought to be made on notice to plaintiif.—Wye Valley Rail. Co. v. Hawcs, 50 L.J. Ch. 75; 29 W.R. 120, 177.
(xciii.) Ch. Div, M. R.—Petiti0n Presented without Authority-Amendment of Order.—-A petition for appointment of new trustees, and a vesting order, was presented in the names of several co-petitioners, and an order made. More than a year afterwards, an application was made by some of the persons joined as co-petitioners, to have the order rescinded, on the ground that the petition was not authorised by them : Held that the order could not be rescinded, but should be amended by striking out their names as co-petitioners.—Re Savage, L.R. 15 Ch. D. 557.
(xcv.) Ch. Div. F. J.—PZMding—Amendment—Ord. 27, r. 1.—In an action to restrain defendant from committing certain acts upon a foreshore forming part of a settled estate, defendant pleaded that he had acquired an easement by prescription, and denied that plaintifi was entitled to the foreshore, “ save subject to defendant's rights : " Held that defendant could not amend at the hearing, so as to raise the question of plaintifl's ownership, by striking out the words in inverted commas.—Laird v.
(xovi.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.——Pleading—Issue between O0-Defcndants—Notice— 0rd. 16, 'r. 17.—-In an action by A. against his trustees B. and C. for breach of trust, B. claimed in his defence contribution from C., and delivered his defence to C.: Held that 0. had suflicient notice of B.'s claim for indemnity.—Butle-r v. Butler, 49 L.J. Ch. 742.
(xcvii.) C. A.-——Pleacling—-Pay1nent into C'0urt—O'rd. 30, 'r. 1.—When plaintiff claims for distinct pieces of work and labour alleged in separate paragraphs of his statement, defendant on paying money into Court, need not specify in his defence how much is paid in respect of each
head of claim.—Pa1-aire v. Loibl, 43 L.T. 427.
(xcviii.) G. A..—Pleading—Substitution of Pl<u'ntifl'—Title of Action..—Leave having been obtained by C. to carry on an action begun by A. against B. in which the statement of claim had been delivered, in like manner as the same might have been carried on by plaintifl, if he had not assigned his interest (see Practice xii., p. 36): Held, reversing the decision of V.C.B. (43 L.T. 466; 29 W.R. 45), that the statement of claim ought to be amended by adding a new title to the action with O.
as plaintifi, and by showing the devolution of title.—Sear v. Lawson, 29 W.R. 109.
(xcix.) Ch. Div. I‘. J-—Transfer of Action—Further Proceeding-—Charging 0rder—Ord. 51, r. 1a..—A petition being presented by a solicitor for a charging order on moneys, the subject of an action transferred to Fry, J .
for hearing, his lordship ordered the petition to be heard by himself as a further proceeding in the actiou.—Porter v. West, 43 L.T. 569 ; 29 W.R. 236.
(ci.) C. A.—Tn'al—Jwr-y—Interpleade1' Issue—Ord. 1, r. 2; 0rd. 36, rr. 2, 3. —An interpleuder issue having been directed, it was drawn up for trial with a jury, and so tried. A new trial having been directed, plaintiff gave notice of trial before a judge alone, and defendant did not give any counter-notice, but objected at the trial to the jurisdiction of the judge to try the case without a jury: Held that the issue could not be tried by a judge without a jury.——Ha-mlyn v. Betteley, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 68; 50 L.J. GP. 1.
Principal and Agent :—
(v.) C. A.—Agent for Mortgagor—-Bankruptcy of Prinoipal—Transfer of Mortgage to Agent.-—In 1828, plaintiff mortgaged freeholds to B. and in 1832, being about to reside abroad, he gave a power of attorney to defendant to receive the rents and profits of all his property and thereout to pay inoumbrances. In 1845, plaintiff became bankrupt, but his assignee did not interfere with the mortgaged property. In 1849, defendant took a transfer to himself of the mortgage, and in 1877 the bankruptcy was annulled : Held that on plaintiff's bankruptcy defendant ceased to be his agent, and did not become agent of the assignee, and that on the transfer of the mortgage he became a mortgagee in possession, and could plead the statute of limitations against plaintifl's claim to redeem.— Mwrkwick v. Hardingham, L.R. 15 Ch. D. 339.
Principal and Surety :-—
(ii.) C. A.-—Guarantee—Death—Notics—Covenantfor Benefit of Third Party.B. gave a guarantee to the Committee of Lloyd's on behalf of A. on his becoming an underwriter, whereby B. held himself responsible for all A.'s engagements “in that capacity." At this time Lloyd's was a voluntary association, managed by acommittee; and in 1871 it was incorporated by Act of Parliament: Held that the guarantee was not determined by notice of the death of B., and that Lloyd's were in the position of trustees for all persons with whom A. had entered into engagements as an underwriter.—Lloyd's v. Harper, 48 L.T. 481.
(ii.) P. D. A. Div.—C‘odicil—Incorp0ration—-Semble a document containing the words “ This isa third codicil to my will," is not incorporated in a codicil of subsequent date by the words “this is a fourth codicil to my will."—Stockil v. Punshon, L.R. 6 P.D. 9; 29 W.R. 214.
P. D. A. DiV.—Contingent Will.—Deceased, being about to go to M., duly executed a will, which began, “ Being about to leave this station for M., in case of my death on the way, know all men that this is a memorandum of my last will and testament.” He reached M. in safety, but died nine months afterwards: Held that the will was not contingent, and should be admitted to probate.— In the goods of Mayd, 29 W.R,. 214-.
(iv.) P. D. A. Div:-—Will of Persian Subject—Decree of Persian CourtAdoninistration with Decree Annezed;-A Persian domiciled in Persia having died possessed of property in England, administration with the decree annexed of the Persian Court having jurisdiction over wills and matters of inheritance was granted to the duly appointed attorney of the person to whom the property in England was appointed by the Court, limited to the property specified in the decree.—In the goods of Dost Ali Khan, L.R. 6 P.D. 6; 49 L.J. P.D.A. 78; 29 W.R. 80.
Public Health =
EX. DiV.—Ofi'ensivs Trade-38 §' 39 Vict., c. 55, s. 114.—-A manufacturer who carries on an ofiensive trade and so causes a nuisance within the district of an urban sanitary authority may be convicted under sec. 114 of the Public Health Act, 1875, though the nuisance is injurious
C. A.-—Pa/ving Ra.ta—Dema'nd,-—Recove'r'y before Justices—--11 5?‘ 12 Vict., c. 48, s. 11; 11 §‘ 12 Vict., c. 63, s. 68.—A local board having served notices of demand for payment of an apportioned rate for sewering and paving roads on an owner, failed to take proceedings before justices to enforce the demand within six months : Held that they could not after. wards be allowed to prove in the administration of the owner's estate for the amount of the rate.-7!’ est v. Dowman, 29 W.R. 6.
C. A.-—Pcving Rate—-Recovery of—11 § 12 Vict., o. 4-3, s. 11; c. 63, ss. 69, 90; 21 & 22 Vict., c. 98, 5. 62.—The limitation of time for taking summary proceedings before magistrates imposed by sec. 11 of 11 & 12 Vict., o. 43, does not apply to the enforcing of the charge created by sec. 62 of the Local Government Act, 1858; and the fact that a local board has resolved that expenses made a charge on the premises in respect of which the work was done, by that section, were private improvement expenses under sec. 90 of Public Health Act, 1848, and should be recovered by annual instalments, does not prevent the board from enforcing the charge on the land in respect of such instalments as are in nrrear.—Tottenham Local Boa/rd v. Rowell, L.R. 15 Ch. D. 878; 43 L.T. 616; 29 W.R. 36.
C. P. DiV.—-Car1~ier—Pa,ssengers’ Luggage—Negligence.—PlaintilI took a through ticket at S. on the G. W. railway to a station on the N. W. railway : Held that the latter company were bound to take proper care of plaintiff's luggage after it had been delivered into their charge, and were liable for damage to the luggage resulting from negligence.—~ Hooper v. L. ti?‘ N. W. Roll. 00., 43 L.T. 670; 29 W.R. 241.
Ex. Div.—Negligence—Lei-cl 0'rossing.—A level crossing and footbridge crossed defendants’ railway, and were used by persons employed at a neighbouring manufactory. Plaintiff, a boy employed at the menu. factory, was injured by a train while crossing over the level crossing. It appeared that a servant of the company stationed near the bridge was in the habit of preventing the boys at the manufuctory from crossing by the bridge, and making them use the level crossing: Held that there was evidence of negligence to go to the jury.—-Clarke v. Midland Rail. Co., 48 L.T. 381.
E3. Div.—Rolling Stock and Plant—E:vscut1'on against—30 & 31 Vict., c. 127, s. 4.—The restriction against taking in execution the rolling stock and plant of a railway company contained in sec. 4 of Railway Com. pnnies Act, 1867, applies, though the railway has been closed for traflio and it is doubtful whether it will ever be re-opened.—Midlund Wagon. Co. v. Potteries and Shrewsbwry Rail. Co., L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 36; 60 L.J. Ex. 6; 43 L.T. 511; 29 W.R. 78.