« PreviousContinue »
their negligence: Held that a new trial ought not to be granted, as there had been no misdirection and the damages were not of such an excessive character as to show that the jury were led into error or were influenced by improper motives.-——Lumbkin v. South-Eastern Railway Co., 28 W.R. 837.
P. C.-Duly on Bank Notes.— Cape Colony Act, No. 6, 186%.--Assuming that the Cape Colony Act, No. 6, 1864, for imposingn, duty on bank notes, extends to the Province of Griqualand West, a bank having a branch in the province, and thus putting in circulation notes issued by the bank in the colony and payable in the colony, is not liable to make any return
to the treasurer of the province or to pay duty on such notes.—Orz'-enfal Bank Corporation v. Wright, L.R. 5 App. 842; 48 L.T. 177.
C. .A..—C'hancel—Presc1~iptinn—Grr1.nt by Crown.—Held on the evidence that part of a parochial church occupying the place usually occupied by a chancel, was not the chancel of the church, but the private property of the plaintiiT.—Duke of Norfolk v. Arbuthnot, L.R. 5 C.P.D. 890.
s. 30,- 22 Vict, c. 26, s. 2.—‘Under the Acts regnlating the superannuation allowances oi‘ the Civil Service, the decision of the Com
missioners of the Treasury as to the amount of an allowance is final.—Cooper v. The Queen, 49 L.J. Ch. 490.
Ch. Div. V. C. B.—C0mm0n of Pn.sturage—Estorm-s—Prescription— Profit Ii. premlre.—-By decree of the Duchy of Lancaster Court in 1693, the plaintiffs were declared entitled in respect of their tenements to the sole common of pastnrage and herbage in certain parts of a royal forest: Held. that this gave the commoners the ordinary right of taking the herbage by the mouths of their cattle, and that evidence that for upwards of 60years the commoners had exercised the supposed right of cutting and carrying away brakes and herbage was not admissible to
show that such a right was intended to be recognised by the decree.Eu/rl de la Warr v. Miles, 49 L.J. Ch. 4-76.
Company:— (i.) B. Div. —Agreement Signed by Directors—Liability.—Three
directors of a limited company borrowed £500 from plaintiif under an agreement headed as if made between the company and plaintiff, but signed only by the three directors and not sealed by the company. By the agreement the directors professed to assign to plaintiff the plant and fixtures of the company as security. On default being made plaintiff took possession of the plant and fixtures, and the company obtained an injunction restraining him from dealing with them: Held that the directors were personally liable for the repayment of the £500, but not for damages sustained by plaintiff in respect of the proceedings for the injunction.—McCollz'-n v. Gilpin, 49 L.J. Q.B. 558; 42 L.T. 899.
C. A.—Deben1ures—Slochin-Tmde—Book Debts.—The debenture deed of a company assigned all their premises, plant, and effects in trust to permit the company to carry on business till default, and after default to sell: Held that the assignment included all stockin-trade on the premises at the time of default, but not book debts, and
that the power to carry on business did not give ordinary creditor-sa claim for goods supplied in priority to debenturaholders against the property comprised in the deed.-—Re Anglo-American Leather Cloth Co., 43 L.T. 43.
Ch. Div. V. C. H.—Winding.up — Contributory — Application for Shm-es—Allotment.—Upon a contract between the liquidators of A. company and the promoters of B. company for the transfer of the property of A. company to B. company, part of the consideration was that the liquidators of A. company should receive for themselves or their nominees shares in B. company, which should impart a liability of 10s. each; and the liquidators of A. company might transfer these shares without incurring any liability. The liquidators applied for an allotment of 3,919 shares to their joint names, which were accordingly allotted and registered in their names, but no notice of the allotment was sent to them. Held, on the winding-up of B. company, that the liquidstors must be put on the list of contributories in respect of these shares. —Dyett and Louttit's Case, Re Basye Mining 00., 43 L.T. 85.
Ch, Div. V, C, N[,—Wind-ing-up—Cont1-ibutory—I-nsurance Company. —In the winding-up of an unlimited insurance company, in which the insurance members were liable as contibutories (as decided in W'instone's Case, L R. 12 Ch. D. 239; 48 L.J. Ch. 607; 40 L.T. 838; 27 W.R. 752): Hold that the shareholders were primarily liable for calls and insurance members only secondarily liable.—-Re Albion Life Asswrance Society, Dawn’ and Mills‘ Cases, 4-9 L.J. Ch. 598 ; 43 L.T. 149.
C. A.—l‘Vin<ling-l/11-Contributory——Pnyment in Cash.—Shares in a company purporting to be fully paid-up were issued to A. in consideration in part of debentures issued by the company and repaynble at a future date, and in part of purchase-money payable to A. in respect of certain grants of Crown lands which A. was to transfer to the company : Held that the shares were not paid for in cash.—Appleyard,'s Case, Re Great Australian Mining Co., 42 L.T. 814.
C, A_—-Winding-up—Contributory —Payment m Ca.sh.—Y. having agreed to sell property to H. and W. who were to sell it to a company, this agreement was modified, and Y. sold the land to the company for £2,000 in paid-up shares and the rest in cash. On the winding-up of the company; Held that Y. could not be made a contributory in respect of these shares.—Re Barrow in Furrwss Land Co., L.B,. 14 Ch. D. 4-00; 42 L.T. 888.
agreed to sell to A. certain shares in a ship in exchange for some fully paid-up shares in a company. A., to whom the company was indebted, agreed with them to accept paid-up shares for his debt, and at his request some of these shares were allotted to R., being represented as fully paid-up shares. On the windiug.up of the company : Held that R.’s. shares had not been paid for in cash, and that he must therefore contribute in respect of them.—Re Newport and South Wales Shipowners’ 00., Rowland’: Case, 42 L.T. 785.
C, A_— Winding.up —- Contributory — Paynwnt in Cash — DirectorNo1ice.—Part of the purchase-money of a colliery bought by a company from H. and B. was agreed to be paid in paid-up shares. The contract was never registered. On the winding-up of the company, the executors of B., who had acted as a director, were possessed of (i.) shares originally issued to B. under the contract, (ii.) shares purchased by him from IL, (iii.) shares transferred to him by strangers who had bought them from H.: Held that the executors were liable as contribntories in respect of the first two lots of shares, but not in respect of the third lot.—
(ix.) Ch. Div. M. R.—Wi'nding-up—~Contributory—Registered Sharaholder-—Resc1'ssion.—Where a company is being wound-up, a registered member who has paid nothing on his shares, is not entitled, as against other contributories, to rescind his contract to take shares, on the ground of fraudulent misrepresentation.—Bu/rgess's Case, Re Hull and
County Bank, 49 LJ. Ch. 541; 43 L.T. 45.
(x.) C, A,—Windi»ng-u'p—-C'0st-Book Mining C'ompany—fl‘rwnsfer of Shares —32 &' 33 Vict., c. 19, ss. 25, 35.—-G. transferred shares which he held in a cost-book mining company to A. for a nominal sum. The transfer was registered and calls made on A. which he failed to pay. Two years afterwards the company was wound-up : Held that G. could not be put on the list of contributories nnder'sec. 35 of the Stannaries Act, l869.— Chg/n‘wo1'tli’s Case, Re lVheal Unity lVo0d Mining Co., 28 W.R. 897.
(iii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.—Winding-up—Direct0rs—B'reach of TrustDeceased Directm-—Polz'cy-Holde1'——C'0mpanies Act, 1862, 9. 165.-—On the winding-up of an insurance company it appeared that the directors had failed to invest half the premiums on life policies in the manner provided by the articles. On a summons by the liqnidator and a life policy holder, under sec. 165 of the Companies Act, 1862, for a declaration that the directors were liable to account for half the premiums received: Held that the summons was maintaiuable against the surviving directors who were liable, that the executors of a deceased director could not he proceeded against under the summons, and that the policy-holder was rightly joined with the liquidator in the summons.Re British Guardian Liflz Assurance Co., 28 W.R. 945.
(xii.) C. A.—Winding-up -— Director—_— Liability — Qualzfihation Shares — Companies Act, 1862, s. 166.—'l‘he mere fact that a director has acted without holding the qualification shares required by the company's articles, if no damage has resulted to the company, does not make him liable in the winding-up to pay the price of the qualification shares, or guilty of a misfeasance within sec. 165 of the Companies Act, 186‘7.— Coventry and Dixon's Case, Re Canadian Land Co., L.R. 14 Ch. D. 660.
(xiii) C, A.—Winding-up—Director-—Misfeasance—Liability.—Mi and 'I‘., the principal proprietors in a cost-book mining company, determined to convert it into a limited company, and the mine was conveyed to T. and H. as trustees for a new company, in consideration of £24,000 to be paid half in fully paid-up shares of £2 each, and half in 12,000 shares of which £1 had been paid-up: and the shares forming the purchase. money were divided between the shareholders of the cost.bcok mine. The value of the mine was £6,000. On the winding-up of the company : Held that M. and '1‘. were not liable to pay anything to the company for breach of trust or misfeasance.—E'.v parte Moss and Taylor, Re Ambrose Lake Mining Co., L.R. 14 Ch. D. 390; 4-9 L.J. Ch. 4-57.
(xiv.) C. A.—'Winding-up—Liquidator—-Power to Carry on Busin-ess— Companies Act, 1862, s. 95.—The power conferred by sec. 95 of the Companies Act, 1862, on the liquidator of a company to carry on the business of the company, extends only to enable him to carry it on with a view to winding.up, and not with a view to its continuance —Re Wreck Recovery and Salvage Co., 43 L.T. 190.
(xv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.—Winding-up—Mortg/age Debentm-es.—A company issued debentures whereby they covenanted to repay the principal in 1882, and to pay interest in the meantime, and charged the principal and interest on their stock and effects, with the proviso that until default in payment of principal or interest for twenty-one days, the company might receive and deal with their assets : Held on the winding. up, that the property of the company was subject to the payment to the debenture-holders of the amounts due to them.—Hodson v. The Tea. Company, LB. 14 Ch. D. 859.
(xvi.) Ch. Div. V. C. IH.—Winding-up-~Pr-o0f—C0ntrect to Allot Paid-up Sliares.—-Breach. — A newspaper proprietor inserted advertisements for a company under a written agreement that they were to be paid for in paid-up shares. Shares were allotted to him purporting to be paidup but the agreement was never registered. On the winding-up he was made a contributory in respect of these shares: Held that he could prove for damages for breach of contract, the measure of the damages being the amount eventually called up on the shares.—Mudford's Claim, Ra Government Security Insm-once Co., L.R. 141 Ch. D. 634; 42 L.T. 825.
C. A. — Win-ding-up — Shareholder’s Petition. —Where a company formed for building and using assembly rooms had discontinued building the rooms for some years on account of the depression of trade, a share. holder's petition for winding-up, which was opposed by four-fifths in value of the shareholders, was dismissed.—Re llliddlesborough Assembly Rooms Co., 28 W.R. 868.
(xviii.) Ch. Div. M, R,—Winding-up—Staying Action -Judicature Act, 1873, s. 24 (3).—An application under sec. 85 of the Companies Act, 1862, to stay proceedings in an action while a winding-up petition is pendingI must be made in the division to which the action is attaohed.—-Rn Artistic Colour Printing Co., L.R. 14 Ch. D. 502; 49 L.J. Ch. 526; 42 L.T. 802 ; 28 W.R. 943.
(xix.) C, A,—Wincling-up Vol1mtarily—Agreem.entfin‘ Sale of Business—C'ompanics Act, 1862, s. 161.—An agreement under sec. 161 of the Companies Act, 1862, entered into by a company, to be wound-up voluntarily for the sale of its business to another company, is binding on the creditors of the selling company. The remedy of a creditor injured by such a sale is to obtain a winding-np order before the expiration of a year.—Ra City and County Investment Co., 28 W.R. 983.
(xx.) C, A,_——Wi1mZing.up Voluntarily—-Earumination of Director-Companies Act, 1862, s. l15.—Where a voluntary liquidator has brought an action, on behalf of the company, against an ofiicer of the company, and the latter has fully answered interrogatories which have been exhibited to him, the liquidator will not be entitled to a summons under sec. 115 of the Companies Act, 1862, for the examination of the defendant, in the
absence of special circumstances.—Heiron‘s Case, Re llfetropolitan Bank, 4-9 L.J. Ch. 651.
Constantinople, Consular Court of =
(i.) P. C.—Jurisdiction—Proredure.—'I‘he Consular Court at Constantinople having improperly made various orders affecting the property of the appellant in real estate in Turkey, in his absence, he being a British subject: Held that having regard to the power of the Turkish authori. ties over the land, no order could be made directing restoration of possession to appellant, or deoreeiug damages; but the orders appealed from were set aside with costs.—Pitts v. La Fonlaine, L11. 5 App. 564.
(i.) C. ,A_—Infringement.—8 Geo. II., c. 13.—Held that the copying the design of acopyright engraving by a chrome-printed pattern for wool-work was not an infringement.—Dicks v. Brooks, 43 L.T. 71.
(ii.) Ch. Div. M. R.—Infringsment—Design—5 8'6 Vict., c. 100, :1. 7.Plaintiffs registered and sold a design in braid applied to a jacket.
Defendants sold jackets with a design in braid applied to them, which were substantially the same as plaintiffs : Held that this was a fraudu
lent imitation within sec. 7 of 5 & 6 Vict., c. 100.—Barram. v. Lomas, 28 \V.R. 973.
Ch. Div, IM.R_—Importing Copyright—Injuncti0n—5 & 6 Vic., c. 45 s. 17.—It is an ofience, under the Copyright Act, 1842, s. 17, to import copyright matter for sale or hire, and an injunction will be granted to restrain a defendant from doing so, and he will have to pay the costs of the action, though he has not done so knowingly.—Cooper v. W Iu'ttingha,m, 4-3 L.T. 16.
from a County Court judge, under see. 6 of County Courts Act, 1875, can be entertained on a point of law not argued before him, and of which he was not requested to take a note, but which was present to his mind and dealt with by him in giving judgment.——Seym-our v. Coulstm, 49 L.J. Q.B. 604.
Crimes and Offences :—
Q. B. DiV.——Adulteration—-Inspect0r——Deputy—38 & 39 Vict., c. 63.—— An inspector appointed under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, may employ a deputy to purchase for him for the purpose of analysis,
and may institute proceedings against the seller in his own name.— Harder v. Scott, 49 L.J. M.C. 78; 28 W.B,. 918.
Q,- B. Div.-—Basiardy—AppeaZ—Absence of RespmuZent.—On an appeal from a. bastardy order to quarter sessions it appeared that by mistake respondent was absent, and the Court refused to adjourn the appeal and quashed the order : Held that this was not a decision on the merits, and that fresh proceedings in respect of the same matter might be taken before justices.—Regina v. May, 28 W.R. 918.
H, L,—Chemist and Druggist—C0rporation—31 (Y 32 VlCt., c. 121, ss. 1, 15.—The penalty imposed by secs. 1, 15, of the Pharmacy Act, 1368, cannot be recovered from a corporation for keeping a chemist's shop.—Pha/rmaceuh'cal Society v. London Supply Association, 28 W.R. 957.
(iv.) C. C. R.——Indecant Ass<mZt—Child of Tender Year-s—Consent.—-A
person charged with assaulting a child of seven years of age may allege the consent of the child as a defence.—Regina v. Roadley, 49 L. J. M.C. 88.
(v.) C. A..—Perjury—Separate Misdeme0m0urs—-Cumulative Sentence—Penal
Ser1n'tude—2 Geo. II., c. 25, s. 2.—-Where a defendant is convicted of separate misdemeanours charged in separate courts in the same indictment, the Court may pass separate sentences exceeding together the maximum punishment for one offence. A sentence of penal servitude
may be inflicted for perjury without any other puuishment.—Regina v. Castro, LB. 5 Q,.B.D. 490; 43 L.T. 78.
Debtor and Creditor :
(ii.) Ch. Div. F.
Ch. Div. V. C. H.—Attachment of Debt—Future Payments of Annuity —Ord.. 45.—A receiver of an estate appointed under an administra. tion was ordered to pay the rents and an annuity to a person entitled for life : Held that sums so payable and sums payable hereafter and not
yet in the receiver’s hands were subject to attachment by a judgment creditor.—Rapie1- v. Wright, LB. 14 Ch. D. 638; 42 L.T. 866.
J, — Auction.eer——Notice of Claim — Lia.bility.—— An auctioneer agreed to sell goods for A. at a warehouse where they were.