Page images
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Settlement :

[ocr errors]

H. L.—-Vendor and Pm-chas'er—General Warrandice—C'o'n.cealment—Misrepresentation.—-Articles of roup of lands stipulated that the purchaser was to take the property with all risks of error in the particulars. The particulars contained the statement, “ The lands hold of the Crown.” The conveyance contained a clause of warrandice in the usual general terms. Immediately before the sale, the agents of B. the disponee of the last superior, wrote to the vendor claiming the right of mid-superiority, but did not persevere with the claim. Afterwards D. renewed, and succeeded in establishing, his claim : Held that the vendor was not liable to the purchaser either for breach of warrandice or for misrepresentation.—Brownlie v. Campbell, L.R. 5 App. 925.


Ch- Div. V. C. H.—-Marriage Settlermmt—-After-acquired PropertyCovenant to Setlle—Wi,fe's Sepa/rate Es!ate.—A marriage settlement contained a covenant to settle after-acquired property of the wife except such as should previously be otherwise settled: Held not to include a fund coming to the wife under a bequest made to her after

the marriage for her separate use.—Krme v. Kane, 50 L.J. Ch. 72; 29 W.R. 21.2.

Ch. Div. V. C. ]![_—Mm~riage Settlement—Limitali0n to Newt-of-kinWife‘s debts. By a marriage settlement, the wife's property was settled on certain trusts, giving her a general power of appointment by will, in the event of her dying before her husband without children, and, in default of appointment, for her next-of-kin; but if she survived her husband and there were no children, then in trust for her absolutely. The wife had contracted debts, and there were no children, and no probability of there being any. On the application of the wife, the corpus of the trust fund was directed to be applied in payment of her debts.—-Paul v. Paul, LB. 15 Ch. D. 580; 50 L.J. Ch. 14; 43 L.T. 239.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

minority in interest of co-owners are entitled to bail for safe return of the ship, as far as the value of their shares extend, if they object to the proposed employment of the ship ; and the fact that the manager who arranged the employment was appointed with their acquiescence is no bar to their claim.—The Talca, L.R. 5 P.D. 169; 29 W.R. 123.

C. A.-—Bill of Lading—Set of Thres—Right of Indorsee—Warehouseman's L1'aln'lity.—The consignees of a cargo to arrive in London indorsed and delivered the first of three bills of lading to plaintilfs to secure money advanced. When the ship arrived the goods were placed in defendants’ warehouse, the master signing an authority to defendants to deliver the goods to the holders of the bills of lading. After receipt from the consignees of the second of the bills of lading and after removal of a stop for freight which the master had lodged, defendants delivered the goods to various persons upon delivery orders signed by the consignee. Plaintifif did not know of this until after the consignees' bankruptcy: Held that defendants were not liable to plaintiffs for the value of the goods.—Glynn,1l[ills Q‘ 00. v. E. J‘ W. India Ducks, 50 L.J. Q.B., 62; 43 L.T. 584-.


P. D. A. DiV.—Bott0mry Bond—Necessa/riea—Mnney adramced topay
Dock Dues—Pri0r1Ily.——-Plaintiffs, in an action of necessaries against a

foreign ship, having, at the request of the master, advanced money to '

pay dock dues for the ship at the port of discharge, were held entitled

to have the amount paid out of the proceeds of the ship in priority to a bottomry bond-holder, who had avanced money on bottomry at the port of lading.~—The St. Lawrence, L.R. 5 P.D. 250; 49 L.J. P.D.A. 82.

(xv.) H. L.—Collision—36 §/' 37 Vict., c. 85, s. 17.-—The regulations for preventing collisions at sea, made under the authority of the Merchant Shipping Acts, must be strictly followed, actual necessity alone being a sufiicient excuse for their non.observance.—Stoomvaart Maatschappy Nederland v. Peninsular 19' Oriental Steam Navigation 00., L.R. 5 App. 876; 43 L.T. 610; 29 W.R. 173.

(xvi.) P. D. A. DiV.—Coll4'sion—Compulsm'y Pz'lotage—Tug and Tow.When a ship in charge of a pilot, whose employment is compulsory, is being towed by a steam-tug, and the tug without waiting for orders adopts a wrong manoeuvre and causes the ship to come into collision, the owners of the ship are responsible.—The Sinquasi, L.R. 5 P.D. 241.

(xvii) P. D- A. Div.—Collisi'on— Lleasu/re of Damages—Loss of Charter-Party. ——A vessel on its way to load a cargo pursuant to charter-party was damaged by collision and obliged to put into port to repair, and was in consequence so delayed that she could not have got to her port of loading before it was closed for the winter. Her owners therefore abandoned the charter-party : Held that the loss arising from this was a loss caused by the collision.—Thc Consetl, L.R. 5 P.D. 229.

(xviii.) P. D. A. Div.——Collisi0n,-Sailing Vessel.—A sailing vessel hove-to on the port-tack is bound to keep out of the way of a crossing vessel under sail close-hauled on the starboard-tack.— The Rosalie, L.R. 5 P.D. 245.

P. D. A. DiV.——C'olI1's¢'on—Thames Nam'gation—Breach of Bye-Law.-
If a collision in the Thames is caused solely by plaintiff, there is no cause
of action against defendant on account of the damages being increased
by the breach of a bye-law of the Thames Conservancy on his part.—
The Margaret, L.R. 5 P.D. 238.

(xx.) P. D. A. DiV.—C0-Ownership—Receiver.—The Court will appoint a receiver in a co-ownership suit where circumstances render such a course just and convenieut.—The Anvpthill, L.R. 5 P.D. 224.

(xxi.) C. A.—Foreign Mail Pack-et—Arrest.—An unarmed packet belonging to the sovereign of a foreign state and in the hands of oflicers commissioned by him, and employed in carrying mails, is not liable to arrest in a suit in rem to recover redress for a oollision.—The Parlement Belgc, L.R. 5 P.D. 197.

(xxii.) C. P. Div,—1'ns'urance—Constmctiva Total Loss-Sale by Master.-—-A ship which was stranded was sold by the master for a small sum, and the owners sought to recover from the insurers for a constructive total loss: Held, by Lord Coleridge, C.J., that the only question was whether the ship was at the time she was sold, constructively lost, and that on the facts there was no evidence from which a jury could reasonably find this; by Grove, J ., that the question was, whether the circumstances were such as to afford suflicient evidence to be laid before the jury that the sale was justifiable.—Hall v. Jupe, 49 L.J. C.P. 721 ; 43 L.T. 411.

(xxiii.) Ex. Div,-—I1|sulranca--Incorporated Company—L1Lability—30 J 31 Vict., c. 23, s. 7.—HeZd that a policy of sea insurance issued by an insurance association, incorporated under the Companies Acts, under the common seal of the association, authenticated by the manager's signature, complied with the requirements of sec. 7 of 30 & 81 Vict., c. 23; and, on the rules of the association, that the policy disclosed a contract between the association and the assured.—Ma.n'ne Mutual Insurance Association v. Young, 48 L.T. 441.

(xxiv.) C. A,.—-Insurable Interest.—-D. having undertaken to transport the Cleopatra Obelisk to England, expended £4,000 in constructing a vessel to carry it and providing for its transport. He insured tho obelisk and vessel for £3,000, and the policies, which were for total loss only, provided that the vessel and obelisk should be valued by agreement at £4,000. On the way to England the obelisk incurred salvage liabilities, and the salvors were awarded £2,000, tho obelisk being valued at £25,000: Held that the insurers were liable to repay D. the £2,000 under the suc and labour clause in the policies.—Dir0n v.Wh‘it1vorth.,43 L.T. 365.

(xxv.) C. A..—Insu/rance—Stramling.——-A policy of marine insurance on a cargo contained a warranty of freedom from average unless the ship stranded. The voyage was to a tidal harbour, where the ship must necessarily take ground at every tide. She grounded before reaching the quay on a small bank, and settled down into a hole, whereby the cargo was damaged. The existence of the bank and hole was caused by the passage of steamers and was previously unknown: Held that the ship had been stranded within the meaning of the policy.—L0tch_ford v. Oldham, L.B.. 5 Q.B.D. 538.

(xxvi.) C. A.—Insurance—Time Policy—Loss by Ewplosion-A time policy contained a clause rendering insurers liable for perils of the seas, fire, and all perils, losses and misfortunes, causing hurt to the ship insured. The vessel, which was a steamer, was damaged by the bursting of a boiler: Held that the insured were entitled to recover.—West India Telegraph Co. v. Home and Colonial Marine Insu-rance C0., L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 51; 50 L.J. C.P. 41; 43 L.T. 420; 29 W.R. 92.

(xxvii.) C. P. DiV.—Ins1nance—Valued Policies—-Compensation for Emcee: VaZue.—-Plaintiffs granted to defendants valued policies on a cargo of a United States merchant ship, which was destroyed by the Alabama during the American War. The Alabama Indemnity Fund was distributed by the United States, under an Act of Congress, which provided for its distribution to subjects of the States, whose losses were not fully covered by insurance. Plaintiffs were precluded by the Act from making any claim. Defendants obtained compensation in respect of so much of their loss as exceeded the amount insured: Held that they held the money so obtained as trustees for plaintiffs.»-Bumand v. Rozlocanachi, L.B.. 5 C.P.D. 424; 49 L.J. C.P. 732.

(xxviii.) P. D. A. DiV.—Mortgage of Ship—Oharter by Owner-—Arrest by liIorlgagee.—When the owner of amortgaged ship charters her before the mortgagee takes possession, the mortgagee cannot interfere to prevent the execution of the charter-party, unless it will materially impair the value of his security.—The Fanchon, L.R. 5 P.D. 173.

[ocr errors]

(xxxi.) P. D. A. DiV.—-Wages a/mi Disburssnumts— Habitual Drunkenness of Master.—A shipmaster who has been habitually drunk during his employment cannot maintain an action for his wages.—The Macleod,

[ocr errors]

(iii.) P. D. A. DiV.—Lien for Cosls—Al1'mony.—A sclicitor's lien for costs does not extend to money paid to him for a wife’s alimony pendants lite

in the absence of a direct waiver by her of her right to have it applied as she requires.—-Cross v. Cross, 4-3 L.T. 633.

(iv.) Ch. Div. F. J .—Lien for C'osts—Money in hands of Third Party—23 4}‘ 24 Vict., c. 127, s. 28.—-An action having been brought against W. and a building society, in which plaintifi claimed money standing in W.'s name on the books of the society, judgment was given for defendants, and W.'s solicitor petitioned for a charging order on the fund ; the society opposed on the ground that they had a lien on the fund for their costs : Held that the society had no lien on the fund, being in the position of trustees for W.—Porter v. West, 48 L.T. 569.

(v.) Ch. Div. V. C. 1\I.—Mortgage—Daclaration of Trust-—Solicitor for Both Parties—Notice.—A client borrowed from his solicitor £8,000 on mortgage, and the solicitor subsequently, by a declaration of trust, declared himself trustee of £800 of this sum for B., another client, who had advanced the £800. The mortgagor had no notice of this advance, and paid off the whole debt to the solicitor, who never paid R. : Held that the mortgagor was not affected with constructive notice of R.’s rights.—Allen v. Lord Southampton, Roper’s Claim, 43 L.T. 625; 29 W.R. 210.

(vi.) Ch. Div. V. C. ]![.—Mm'tgage—-Constructive Notice—Solicitor for Both Partiee.—S. madea mortgage to his solicitor B., for £8,000 by deposit of title deeds and memorandum, and B. handed over the deeds and memorandum to 0., another client, who had entrusted him with £2,000 for investment, with a memorandum, stating that £2,000 of the mortgage belonged to C. B. afterwards induced C. to give back the deeds, promising to give him deeds of equal value, and he gave C. deeds of no value. Subsequently, the property was sold, and the mortgage paid of! to B. : Held that S. was not afiected with constructive notice of the transfer to C.—Allen v. Lord Southampton, Banfather's Claim, 29 W.R. 231.

(vii.) Ch. Div. F. J.—-Solicitor and Client—Mortgage—Improper Sale-— Damages-Costs.—A solicitor took a mortgage from a client containing a power of sale without giving any notice, and afterwards sold under the power: Held that the onus lay upon him to show either that he had properly explained the nature of the mortgage, or had given the usual notice; and failing to prove this he was liable for damages to the extent of the costs caused by the sale, the costs of procuring a new investment of a similar nature by the client, the difference between the plaintitf's costs as between party and party and as between solicitor and client, and the increasing value of the property.—Cockbura v. Edwards, 29 W.R. 136.

Tithe Rent Charge =

(i.) Ex. DiV.—Payment by Mistaka.——Plaintifi made over-payments to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in respect of tithe rent charge, supposing the amounts claimed in notices served on him by them were correct, whereas such amounts included rent charge on land not in his occupation : Held that he was entitled to recover the sums paid in mistake, though the time for levying these rent charges upon the land actually liable thereto had run out.—Durrant v. Ecclesiastical Colmnissioncrs, 50 L.J. Ex. 30.

Trade Mark :

(v.) Ch. Div, M, R,— Registration - Cotton Trade Mark — Colour.Difference of colour in cotton trade marks will be taken into consideration in considering the question of their similarity to other cotton trade marks already registcred.—Re Robinson's Trade Mark, 29 W.Ii.. 31.

[ocr errors]

Ch. Div. V. C. H.—Registration—Cotton Marks-—-Bleachers’ Mwrk—Bleachers' trade marks which would not have been sufliciently distinctive to entitle to registration as ordinary cotton marks, ordered to be registered on the bleachers undertaking to use them only by stamping them in a different place on the goods bleached, to that where other cotton trade marks are usually stamped.—Re Sykes (5/‘ Co.’s Trade Marks, 43 L.T. 626; 29 W.R. 285.

Ch, Div. M. R.—Registrat1'on—Opposition,—When an application to

register a trade mark is opposed by proprietors of a registered trade mark and the case stands for the determination of the Court under Trade Mark Rules, 1876, r. 16, the proper course is for the applicant to apply in Chambers for directions as to the mode of trial.—Re Simpson/s Trade Mark, L.R. 15 Ch. D. 525.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Ch. Div. V. C. M.—-Advice of Cowrt—1lIa/rried Woman of Unsound Mind--22 §‘ 23 Vict., c. 35, s. B0.—-A married woman of unsound mind not so found by inquisition was entitled for her separate use to the income of the trust funds, and her written consent was required to investments by the trustees. On petition under the Trustees Relief Act for advice: Held that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition, and that the whole income might be paid to the husband on his undertaking to apply it to the maintenance of the wife, and that her consent to investments might be dispensed with.—Re T—, L.R.. 15 Ch. D. 78; 29 W.R. 42.

C. A.—Breach of Trust—Statute of Limitations.—Where atrustee receives money not belonging to the cestui-que-trust, but which the latter can claim on the ground that the receipt of it was a fraud upon him, the statute of limitations will run against the claim of the cestui-que.trnst from the time when he discovers the fraud.—Metropolitan Bank v. Heiron, L.R. 6 Ex. D. 319.

Ch. Div. M. R.—Direction to Carry on T1-ade—Default1'ng TrusteeTrade C'reditor.—Where a trader has by his will directed his trustee to carry on his trade, and to employ a part of the trust estate for that purpose, though the trustee is personally liable for debts incurred in the trade, he has the right to resort for his indemnity to the assets directed to be so employed, and consequently, the trade creditors have the same right; but if the trustee is in default to the trust estate devoted to the trade, he can only claim indemnity on his making good his default, and the trade creditors are in the same position.—Shearman v. Robinson, L.R. 15 Ch. D. 548; 49 L.J. Ch. 745; 43 L.T. 372; 29 W.R. 168.

C. .A.—New Trustee—Lunatic Trustee—I'1~ustee Act, 1850, s. 32.—One of three trustees became lunatic. On petition in Lunacy and Chancery, for the discharge of the lunatic and re-appointment of the two continuing trustees in place of the three, the Court refused to do so, and required the original number to be filled up.—Re Colyer, 50 L.J. Ch. 79; 43 L.T. 454.

Ch. Div. V. C. M.—New Trustee—Reti1-ing Trustee—Fo1-m of Order.—-
Form of order, appointing two continuing trustees to be trustees of
property settled by will in place of themselves and retiring trustee.—
Taylor v. Northrop, 29 W.R. 134.

Ch. Div. V. C. 1tI.—P0wer of Sale—Infant's Esta-le—Discretion.-— Testator left real estate to an infant in tail with remainders over, and gave power to his trustees, at the request of the infant's guardians, to sell the property and re-invest. The guardians had requested the trustees to sell part of the property, in order to increase the income,

« PreviousContinue »