« PreviousContinue »
Ch. Div. V. C. H.—Charity C‘om1m'su'oners—- Consent to Sula--16 §‘ 17
lands by the Society was not reqnired.—Re Royal Society and Thompson, 44 L.T. 274.
C. A.—E.rpulsion of M'ember.—Where a club has expelled a member, the Court will enquire whether the expulsion was conducted in accordance with the rules, but will not review the discretion of the club in exercising the power of expulsion unless malice can be shown to have influenced that discreti0n.—-Dawkins v. Antrobus, 29 W.R. 511.
Company :(xxxv.) Ch. Div.V. C. M.—Applicationfor Shares—Allolment—Repudiation——
Ccsts.—A. applied for shares in a company of which G. was director and chairman, by reason of his confidence in G. Before allotment G. resigned his position, and the company allotted shares to A., and told him of the retirement of G. Therenpon A. asked to cancel his application, but the company refused to consent : Held that A.'s name must be removed from the register, with costs of the application as between solicitor and client against the company.—Amlerson’s Case, Re Scottish Petroleum Co., 50 L.J. Ch. 269; 4-3 L.T. 723; 29 W.R. 372.
) C. A.—Agreement by Promoters—Ratification.—A company cannot ratify an agreement mad 3 on its behalf before the company was incorporated.—Re Empress Engineering Co., L.R. 16 Ch. D. 125; 43 L.T. 74-2; 29 W.R. 34.2.
Ch. Div. V. C. H.——-Articles—Bon-owing Powsrs—Capital not called up.——The articles of a company provided that the directors might borrow upon the security of that portion of the capital not called up or of other property of the company a sum not exceeding two-thirds of the capital for the time being not called up. Capital was, by the interpretation clause, to mean the nominal capital from time to time or (as the context might require) the capital moneys from time to time of the company: Held that the capital not called up referred to in the articles included unissued capital.--English Channel Sleamship CO. v. Roll, 44 L.T. 135.
) Ch. Div. F. J'.—Construcii0n of Special Act—-Borrowing Powers-
not in terms stated.—Land0wners Drainage and Inclosure Co. v. Ashford, L.R. 16 Ch. D. 4.11; 50 L.J. Ch. 276; 44 L.T. 20. .
Ch. Div. M, R,—Dividends out of Capital—Preference ShareholdersNet I’roflts.—'1'he articles of a limited tramway company provided that dividends should be paid only out of profits, after a reserve fund for maintenance and repairs had been set aside. The directors had, for some time past, failed to set apart a sufiicient reserve fund, and the amount required to restore the plant of the company exceeded the whole of the net profits in the hands of the directors: Held that the company could only declare a dividend out of net profits after making due provision for the maintenance of the tramway ; but the preference shareholders, whose dividends were dependent on the profits of each year, were entitled to a dividend out of the profits of any year after setting aside a proportionate part sufficient for the maintenance of the tramway for that year only.
1869, ss. 31, 49. On the trial of issues it was found that defendant was a promoter of a company and accountable to it for a sum of £108,000 received by him as profit under undisclosed agreements. After the finding of the issues defendant went into liquidation : Held that defendant's liability was incurred by means of fraud and breach of trust within the meaning of sec. 49 of the Bankruptcy Act; and that it was not a demand in the nature of uuliquidated damages arising otherwise
than by reason of a contract, within sec. 31.—Emma Mining Co. v. Grant, 29 W.R. 481.
Injunction-—Companies Act, 1862, s. 20.—I)n motion on behalf of a company. incorporated in 1836, and not registered under the Companies Act, 1862, for an injunction to restrain defendants from registering a new company under a similar name: Held that see. 20 of the Companies Act, 1862, did not apply, and plaintifis not having alleged fraudulent intention on the defendants part, the action was dismissed and leave to amend refused.—Hendricks V. Montagu-, 50 L.J. Ch. 257; 44 L.T. 89.
County C0urt—25 Q’ 26 Vict., c. 89, s. 87; 30 §‘ 31 Vict., c. 131, s. 43; 37 <3" 38 Vict., c. 42, s. 32. —The directors of an incorporated building society gave a depositor a bond in which the funds and assets of the society were declared to be held liable for the repayment of the deposit. The depositor brought an action for foreclosure on the bond, and while the action was pending a winding-up order was made in a County Court, and the Judge refused leave to the depositnr to continue his action: Held that the Companies Acts, 1862 and 1867, apply to the Building Societies Act, 1874, and that an appeal on a matter of discretion lay to the Court ; that the effect of sec. 32 of the last-mentioned Act is to substitute the County Court for the Court of Chancery, and that the bond was not a mortgage. and a foreclosure action could not be maintained upon it.— And/rew v. Swansea Cambrian Building Society, 4-1 L.T. 106; Jones v. Swansea Cambrian Building Society, 29 W.R. 382.
C. P. DiV.—Winding-up—C'ontributary—Sel-nfi'—("o1mter-claim.—A person who has been duly settled on the list of contributories of a company, and on whom calls have been made, cannot,in an action for calls by the liquidator, counter-claim for a debt or damages due to him from the
Act, 1875, s. 10.—'1‘he holder of a policy of insurance against fire granted by a limited company, and which is current at the date of the windingnp of the company, is entitled to prove for the full amount of his policy when a loss by fire exceeding such amount occurs after winding-up and
before the time limited for sending in claims against the company.—Re Northern Counties Fire Insurance Co., 50 L.J. Ch. 278 ; 44 L.T. 299.
Ch, Div, F, J'.—ll'inding- p—Lease ofMine—Retenti0n by Liquidat0r— Rent.—-A coal mine was let to a company by a lease containing a power for the lessor, if rent should remain unpaid for 30 days, to stop the working of the mine and distrain, and if the distress should be insultioient, to enter and determine the lease. Rent became due on November 8rd, and on the 5th the company was ordered to be wound.up. On December 6th the lessor required the liquidator to pay the rent, and stated that otherwise he should apply to the Court to restrain the working. The liquidator did not pay the rent, and continued to work the mine: Held that leave should be given to the lessor to distmin for the full rent which accrued due on November 3rd.—E.r parte Perkins, Re Silkstone &' Dodworth. Coal §r‘ Iron Co., 29 W.R. 484.
l C. .A.-—Winding-up—Lacwe to Sue in Name of Comps/ny.—A company being in course of liquidation, certain costs were ordered to be taxed and paid to R. out of the assets. After taxation the liquidators represented that there were no assets available, and they refused to bring an action against former directors to make them account for moneys alleged to have been improperly received by them. Held that R.’s solicitors were not creditors of the company in respect of the costs ordered to be paid to R., and could not have leave to bring the action in the name of the c0mpany.—Cape Breton Co. v. Fenn, 29 W.R. 386.
Ch. Div. V. C. B.— Wi:u1i11g-up—Secured CrecZilor—-Failure of Security —Judica!m-e Act, 1875, s. l0.—A creditor of a company believing himself to be fully secured by the hypothecation of a call on the company's shares, made no claim in the wiuding.up. It afterwards turned out that his security was defective, owing to the call moneys hypothecated having been paid away : Held that he was entitled to value his security and prove for the balance, not disturbing any dividend already declared. —Ea: parts Williams, Re Kit Hill Tunnel, L.R. 16 Ch. D. 590; 50 L.J. Ch. 303; 29 W.R. 419.
Ch. Div. V. C. M.—Winding.up volu.nlarily—No liquidator Appointed —Distrcss.—On July 30th a company passed a resolution for a voluntary winding-up, but appointed no liquidators. The landlord of the company distraiued for rent. On August 9th liquidators were appointed, and on the 18th a compulsory order for windingmp was made: Held that the
distress was validly levied.—-Thomas v. Patent Lionits Jlfannfaclm-|"ng Co., 4»! L.T. 94; 29 W.R. 349.
County Court =—
Q. B, DiV.—Admiralty J'uris(licti0n—Action in rem for Necessaries— 31 5/‘ 82 Vict., c. 71, s. 2.—A County Court exercising Admiralty jurisdiction under County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868, cannot entertain a claim for necessaries against a British ship, whose owner is domiciled in Great Britain.—Allen v. Gnrbull, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 165; 50 L.J. QB. 14!; 29 W.R. 287.
C_ A_—(‘nnh-nl m-or by High Cou.rt—l\'oles by Jmlge—-Sig1n'ng Nolcs— 38 39 Vict., c. 50, s. 6.-—Decision of Q.B. Div. (see County Court iii., p. 52) nllirmed.—Morgan v. Rees, 414- L.T. 133 ; 29 W.R. 345.
§’ 20 Vict., c. 108, s. 26—Ord. 55.—The costs of an action remitted by the Superior Court to the County Court for trial, under 19 & 20 Vict., e. 108, s. 26,
are not within the jurisdiction of the County Conrt.—Fa/rmer v. May, 50 L.J. C.P. 295; 44- L.T. 148.
(see Crimes and Ofences vii., p. 53) aflirmed.-Latter v. Bradd-ell, 29 W.R. 366. C. C. R.—Bigamy—Presumption of Duration of Life.-—In 1861 W. married A. In 1868 he was convicted of bigamy for marrying B., A. being then alive. In 1879 he married C., and in 1880, C. being then alive, he married D. On a charge of bigamy for marrying D., 0. being then alive: Held that the question should have been left to the jury whether A. was not alive when W. married 0., as, if so, the marriage with C. would be invalid.—Regina v. Willshire, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 366; 44 L.T. 222; 29 W.R. 473.
c. 75, s. 91.—G. was convicted on an information charging him with having been guilty of corrupt practices at a school board election “contrary to the sub-section of sec. 91 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870:" Held that the conviction was bad, as the ofience ought to have been specified and the time and place mentioned in the information. —Reg1'na v. Ingall, 29 W.R. 288.
Q. B. DiV.—Elementa/ry Education Acts— Attendance Orcler—Scho0l Fees—33 &3t Vicl.,c. 75, s. 17; 39 J” 40 Vict., c 79, 3.9. 10-12.—A parent who. under an order bya court of summary jurisdiction that his child shall attend a board school and that he do see the order complied with, causes the child to attend the school but without paying the school fees, is not liable to conviction under sec. 12 of the Elementary
Education Act, 1876, for non-compliance with the order.—Richardson v.
Ch. Div. F. J'.—-Forcible Ent-ry—Occupier Holding Ouer—-Da,magos— 5 Ric. II.,[c. 1, s. 8.--Where an occupier unlawfully holds possession of a house against the rightful owner, and the owner forcibly enters and ejects the occupier, although the occupier cannot claim damages in respect of the forcible entry, he can for independent wrongful acts done at the
Q. B. DiV.—Malici0us Proxecuti0n—Prose/:uti0n by Police of Railway Company.—An action was brought against a railway company for malicious prosecution, plaintifi having been prosecuted by the police of the company: Held that such action would lie._—Edwa/rcls v. Midland Rail. Co., L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 287; 50 L.J. Q.B. 281; 43 L.T. 694-.
C. A.—Parlia.menta;ry Oath--Right to Aflirm—Penalty—Inf0rmer—29 ‘S’ 30 Vict., c. 19; 32 & 33 Vict., c. 68.—It is no defence to an action for a penalty for having sat and voted in the House of Commons without having taken the oath, that the defendant was a person npou whose conscience an oath had no binding effect, and that he had, before sitting and voting, made a solemn affirmation. The penalty imposed by sec. 5 of Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866, may be sued for by a common iuformer.—Clarke v. Bmdlaugh, 29 W.R. 516.
Debtor and Creditor :
Ch. Div. V. C. B.—Attachment of Debt—Second Mortgagee—Sale by First Mor!ga5n'e.~P1u'orities.~A judgment creditor of a second mortgagee who has obtained a garnishee order against the mortgagor is not entitled to the surplus proceeds of the mortgaged estate when sold by the first
mortgagee under his power of sale after the date of the order. But the holder of a garnishee order against the first mortgagee, it having been obtained after the sale, is entitled to attach the nrplus proceeds in the hands of the first mortga-gee.—-Ohatte-rton v. Wat/ney, L.R. 16 Ch. D. 378; 50 L.J. Ch. 227; 44 L.T. 53; 29 W.R. 378.
C. P. Div. Execution — Compositz'011——Failu/re to withdra-w SlwnEj'.—ln the absence of malice no action will lie against a judgment creditor for not withdrawing the sheriff from possession after the creditor has become bound by a composition of the debt.—Plu'l-lips v. General Omnibus Co., 50 LJ. C.P. 112.
Q- B. DiV.——Judg1nent Summons— Ga/rnishea Order—Oonc1u-rent Revue. dies.—A judgment creditor obtained an order for the examination of the debtor, with a view to ascertaining whether any debts were due to him. The debtor failed to appear, and the creditor obtained a judgment summons by which the debtor was ordered to pay the amount of the debt by instalments: Held that having obtained this order he was not entitled to an order for the debtor's attachment for not appearing for examiuation.—Hayton v. Beall, 44 L.T. 131 ; 29 W.R. 333.
Ch- Div. V. C. B.—~Prics of O_fiicer’s Com'missian-—1ncu/mbi-a.ncers— Notice—Priorily.—'l‘he incumbrancer who gives notice to the army agents who have received the money paid by the Army Purchase Commissioners for an ofiicer's commission, first after the publication in the Gazette announcing the officer's retirement, will have priority; and where several give notice simultaneously, they will rank according to the seniority in date of the instruments creating their incumbrances.—
:_P.C.—SZa'nder—Inue'ndo—Dou.btfulMeaning.—In an action for slander, if the declaration contains inuendoes, a plaintifi cannot substitute for them a prefatory averment in the same declaration imputing motives to defendant. If the words complained of have two meanings, one imputing suspicion, and the other guilt, the question in which sense they were used is one for the jury, and a witness to whom the words were addressed cannot be asked in what sense he understood them.—Simmons v. Mitchell, L.R.6App. 156; 50 L.J.P.C. 11; 43 L.T. 7l0; 29 W.R. 401.
(‘om-1m'ftee.—A witness examined before a Committee of- one of the Houses of Parliament is absolutely privileged as to anything he may
special case stated in an action for damages for wrongful entry, the Court was equally divided in opinion as to whether a grant of a right of way over the grantor’s land was limited to the use of the way for the special purposes expressed in the grant, or whether it gave an unqualified right of way.—Sm1mcr v. Sr/hofield, 43 L.T. 763.
joining.-—Whcre the owner of a house and adjoining land sells the house