Page images
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]





SIGNED REVIEWS of important new books, English and Foreign, in Belles-Lettres, Travel, History, Biography, Philosophy, Natural Science, Philology, the Fine Arts, and Archaeology. PERIODICAL NEWS-LETTERS from 0Xf0rd, Cambridge, Paris, Rome, Florence, Berlin, and other Centres of Learning and Literary Activity.

Obituaries of Distinguished Men. Transactions of Learned Societies. Correspondence.

Notes and News, Literary, Geographical, Scientific, and Artistic. Jottings respecting rare Books, Sales, and Curiosities. Publishers’ Announcements, &c.

Notices of Exhibitions in London and the Provinces, and of important Novelties in Music and the DramaORIGINAL ARTICLES on Cu1'rent Topics of Literary Interest.

TI-IE -ACADEMY has always maintained the prirwiple of Signed Articles as affording the best guarantee of fairness and competence. In the list of its C'ontrib1ttors will be found the rccogn/izcd Authorities in their several departments of Krw1l*l<‘1l!l¢ The half-yearly Volumes are of permanent value for purposes of Refercrwe, ewecially to those interested in the English Classics, in H istorg/, Philology, and Oriental Studies.

A New Volume commenced on January 1, 1887.


27’, OHANOERY LANE, W-G. To be had at all Railway Stations, and of all Newsvendors in Town and Country

Sent to any part of the United Kingdom on receipt of Threepence-Halfpenny in postage st8.mpS-



Five Lines of Small Type - - - - - 0 2 6 A Column - - - - - - - 3 0 0 Every 9-d1il'1°nal Lme ' - - - - 0 0 6 A Page (equivalent to Three Columns) - ' 8 8 0 Half a Column - - - - - - - 1 10 ()


Advertisements should be sent to the Publisher, H. Villers at the Oflice, 27, Chancery-lane, W.C., on or beforfi like Wednesday P1'8V'1011S to the Saturday on which they are intended to appear.

'1 “ THE ACADEMY " is a desirable medium for all Advertisements addressed to the educated classes.





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

Is isornsn COLUMN there will be found a notice issued by the Incorporated Law Society containing a list of the subjects to be taken up in the year 1888 for the final examination of articled, clerks before admission. The effect of this notice is to produce some, but not very material change. According to the existing arrangements three of the six subjects given are essential to be taken up to give a pass—they embrace real property, common law, and equity. Under the new arrangement the examination is divided into the four several heads enumerated in the notice, and it is, no doubt, intended that candidates should offer themselves for examination in all the prescribed heads, and their answers, generally, will, of course, be conside d in determining whether they are entitled to pass. This will jxnly give an advantage to those candidates who have had special acquaintance with some of the subjects mentioned in those heads of examination which, under the old system, were not essential, and were not, therefore, in the majority of cases, of any assistance to them.


Mn. MACNAGHTKN, Q.C., has been made a Lord of Appeal in Qfdinary, and we believe the general impression will be that, failing the eminent judge to whom, if rumour is correct, the appointment was first offered, few better selections could have been made. The qualification for the oflice is fixed by section 6 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876 (39 & 40 V ict. c. 59), by which it is enacted that a person shall not bc appointed unless he has been the holder for not less than two years [this period was evidently inserted to prevent a repetition of the CoLLii:ii scandal] i 0_f some high judicial ofiice, or has been for fifteen years a practising barrister. The term of fifteen years is the same as that fixed for the extinguished oflices of Vice-Chancellor by 53 Geo. 3, 0- 24, and 5 Vict. c. 5, s. 19, and of Lord Justice of Appeal by 14 15 Vict. c. 83, and exceeds by five years the term fixed as a qualification for a judge of the High Court by section 8 of the Judicature Act,’1873. Mr. llisciriionraiv will be entitled to sit and vote in the House of Lords so long as he holds the oflice of Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, and no longer, and his dignity of a Lord of Parliament will not descend to his heirs.


Tan muons have afiirmed the decision of the benchers of the Middle Temple refusing to call a gentleman to the bar. We understand that another case of a similar nature will shortly come t° lfe hefldi and there is no doubt that in the long course of time which has elapsed since the benchers of the several inns have had the jurisdiction to call vested in them, very many more cases hsve_ occurred than the solitary one which we have been able to find in the books. This is Reg. v. Grays-inn (1 Doug. 354), in which Lord MANSFIELD, after consulting the other judges, laid d°'"1t1l9 11118 that no mamimnus would be granted to an inn of court to admit one of their members to the degree of barrister, and ill!’-t the only remedy of a person whom benchers refused to call Y” 75° appeal to the 'ud es in the exercise of their “ visitatorial

it was further held that no mandamus lay to benchers to admit a person to the slafus of student with the view of being eventually called, and this although it was admitted that the judges to whom the candidate had unsuccessfully applied had no jurisdiction to review the decision of the benchers, which might be, and had, in the particular case, been given without any reason assigned. In 1834 the benchers of the Inner Temple refused to call Mr. DANIEL WIIITILE HAR\'EY an attorney. Mr. HARVEY, who sat in the House of Commons as member for Colchester, which constituency returned him six times, brought his grievances before the House of Commons, and a Select Committee of that House exonerated him from the charge of professional malpractice brought against him before the benchers, but that august body refused to rescind its decision. Mr. HARVEY gave evidence before the Inns of Court Commission in 1855, and stated that Lord CAMPBELL had announced his intention of introducing a Bill to curtail the powers of the benchers; and it also appears that the Common Law Commissioners reported, in 1834, that “though the probity of the persons who fill the benches of the different societies is well known, and although the number of rejected candidates has been extremely small, yet a power, in the right use of which society is so deeply interested, ought not to be left without control in the hands of persons whose functions are not of a public and responsible kind.” The right of appeal to thc judges is, we think, amply sufficient to prevent abuse.

[ocr errors]

We nnroiir elsewhere several decisions on the Remuneration Order. In one the Court of Appeal aflirmed the decision of Mr. Justice KAY, in Rs Allen (ante, p. 78), with regard to the time at which a lessor’s solicitor may elect, under clause 6 of the order, that his remuneration shall be “according to the present system as altered by schedule II.” In discussing that decision (ants, p. 71) we did not dispute that it might be correct on the facts of the particular case, but we ventured to question the general rule laid down by the learned judge that, “ after a solicitor had accepted any employment, and had done anything therein for which he could make a charge supposing the scale did not apply, it was too late for him to elect to charge according to the system existing before the General Order came into operation.” This rule was not in terms adopted by the Court of Appeal, who laid down a principle much more reasonable in appearance—unmely, that the “ business” was “undertaken” by the solicitor “as soon as the client retained him and he accepted the retainer ”_; and there are expressions in Lord Justice Cori-os’s judgment which might shew that he meant that the retainer must be “ to attend to the matter and to undertake the preparation of the lease.” _But all the judgments indicate that the court adhere to the strict construction of “business” adopted in Re Fielil (33 W. R. 504) and Re .E7)l!I7llt€l and Simmonds (34 W. R. 6_l3)i find l1°ld that t_he1;° can be no division of the preliminary business “ connected_ with ’ the lease which is included in the scale fee; and, if this view is to be adopted, there scems to be little practical difference between the rule laid down by the Court of Appeal and that laid down by Mr. Justice KAY.

ANOTHER CASE relates to the scale fee “ for conducting a sale of
property by public auction.” Our readers will remember the
, 1 1
discussion to which the case of Re Wilson (29 Soriciroiis J ov11N-H-.
438 29 Ch. D. 790) gave rise. In that case the taxing master
disallowed the “ conducting fee " to a solicitor, on the ground that,
as an auctioneer and surveyor had been employed, the Bvliciliolhad
not “conducted the sale,” and the Court of Appeal afiirmed the
disallowance, on the ground that " the account_ of the surveyor s
charges showcd that many of the things for which he had charged
ought to have been done by the person who conducted tlgi Consequently, the solicitor had not conducted the sale, an can f
not charge for having done so. the surveyor having done muc 0
what he should have done.” In that case a fee of_ five guinea!

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

to have been that, on a sale under the order of the court, the solicitor having the conduct of the sale obtained in chambers an allowance of £23 12s. 6d. for “ auctioneer’s fees." According to the north-country practice, all the arrangements and work preliminary to the sale were made and done by the solicitor, and the auctioneer was employed only to offer the lots in the auction-room. The taxing master disallowed the “ conducting fee ” to the solicitor, on the ground that commission had been paid by the client to an auctioneer under rule 11 of schedule I., part I., and Mr. Justice Cnirrr aifirmed this disallowance. It seems probable that the £23 12s. 6d. was commission, and not an agreed fee to the auctioneer; and, if so, there is nothing very novel in the decision. The express words of rule ll appear to cover the case where the solicitor does the preliminary work and the auctioneer gets the commission from the client. If, on the other hand, the £23 12s. 6d. was an agreed fee, the case seems to shew that, in order to obtain the “conducting fee,” the solicitor must not only do the preliminary work, but also himself pay the auctioncer’s agreed fee, and it appears that in the ease of a sale under the court he is not allowed to do this.

Tue cssr: of Rodocanac/ii v. jllilburn (18 Q. B. D. 67) decides a somewhat important point with regard to the measure of damages. The action was for non-delivery of cargo under a charter-party. The plaintiffs had sold the cargo “ to arrive ” at a price less than the market value of the goods at. the port of discharge at the time when the cargo should have arrived. The Court of Appeal have held that, in estimating the damages for non-deliverv, the market value must be looked to, not the price at which the plaintiffs had sold the cargo. We must confess to having felt some little ditficulty about the point. It will be observed that the result of this decision is that a plaintiff may absolutely be a gainer by the breach of contract. The ground on which the court acted seems to have been that, in estimating the damages in such a case, a general test applicable to all cases ought to be taken without regard to circumstances peculiar to the parties; and they relied, Ill support of that view, on the admitted fact that, if the plaintifls had sold the goods “ to arrive ” at a higher price than the market value, nevertheless they could not have recovered more than the market value. \Ve feel some doubt whether this last consideration has any bearing on the case. The impossibility of recovering the excess over the market value in this case depends on the doctrine of remoteness of damage. That doctrine often prevents a plaintiff from recovering the full amount of the loss he has actually sustained; but here the question is whether he can recover more than the full amount. According to that doctrine a plaintiff cannot enhance his damages by reference to circumstances peculiar to himself; but the essential nature of the doctrine seems to us to be that it imposes a limitation on damages. We do not see that considerations arising from that doctrine have any application when the proposition is that the plaintiff can recover more than tho amount of the actual loss he has sustained. \Ve cannot therefore, think this consideration so conclusive as the Court of Appeal seemtohave thought it. If their decision is right, it seems to us that it must depend on the view that it is more convenient, on the whole, that a rough general rule should be applied in all- cases than that greater nicety should be sought after by admitting into consideration collateral matters peculiar to the particular case, thereby possibly in. volving issues quite foreign to the main questions in the action and of which no notice would be given by the pleadings This decision is obviously n deviation from the general doctrine. which is that a plaintiff is to be put into the same position as it the contract had been fulfilled. Such a deviation requires of course, a reason for existence. We do not think that céqeg depending on the doctrine of remoteness of damage can afford such n reason, for that doctrine seems to us to be a doctrine t}, scope of which is the protection of defendants from und e liability. If such a reason can be found it seems to us th tuft must be found elsewhere; and we think it imay pcrhu s be fa Id in the direction we have suggested-vi; by considerilg th oun tical inconvenience which would arise a tribunal v%er etpml? obligcd to take cognizance of circumstances peculiar to the ii . O tilf instead of applying one universally applicable E ‘;1PR1lnFor instance, if a defendant proved that the plaintiff ghzdrsold


goods “to arrive” at a price less than the market value, could the plaintiff reply by proving that the person to whom he had sold had, by breach of some condition of the contract of sale, incapacitated him from insisting on delivery, and therefore he was free to sell at the market value ‘.9 If so, it might happen that, in addition to the question whether the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant had been broken, it would be necessary, in order to estimate the damages, to try whether a contract between the plaintiff and a third person had been broken.

Tan as ARRANGEMENT of the Ministry has considerably increased the legal element in the Cabinet, no less than five members of which, independently of the English and Irish Lord Chancellors, have been practising barristers. Mr. Msrrnsws belonged to the Oxford Circuit, and Mr. Srssnors to the Home Circuit, while Lord Casxnuoox, Lord Cnoss, and Sir Hsnnr Hortssn were all members of the Northern Circuit. Among Ministers of less than Cabinet rank who have been in actual practice at the bar may be mentioned Sir JOHN Gonsr, Mr. Runes, and Mr. Srnaar Woartsr, while Mr. Pnnnxnr is an Irish Queen’s Counsel.

[ocr errors][merged small]

We resume the series of articles which, after the second article (anlc, p. 56), was suspended awaiting certain decisions of the Court of Appeal.

Hiring a_qreemenf.—The decision of the Court of Appeal in The 1V0:-th Central Wagon 0'0. v. Manchester, Sllcfiield, and Lincolnshire Railway Co., delivered on the 15th of December, I'(.‘\'e1'sing the decision of Bacon, V.C. (34 W. R. 430, 32 Ch. D. 477), renders it necessary to modify very slightly the statement (ante, p.41) as to the law relating to attempts to evade the Bills of Sale Acts by a sale to the lender and a demise back to the vendor, which will be found stated correctly in 30 Soucrross’ Jonnnsn, 448. In the case in question the wagons belonged to the Blacker Co., subject to a lien to the Sheifield Co. for £257. In February, 1884, the Blacker Co. wanted to raise £1,000. They agreed to sell 100 wagons to the plaintiffs for £1,000 on an arrangement that the plaintiffs should let them to the Blacker Co. on a hiring agreement. The hiring agreement was executed on the 18th of February. On tho following day the plaintiffs scnt, at the request of the Blacker Co., a cheque for £257 to the Sheffield Co., and a cheque for £743 (the balance of the £1,000) to the Blacker Co. In the opinion of the court the agreement for sale, followed by sending the cheqllqsi was a complete sale, not carried out by any document; midi?! effect was not altered by the documents following:—Fiflf, ‘"1 invoice dated the 18th (but handed to the plaintiffs on the 19th ?) February, shewing how the purchase-money had been appropriated. Second, a receipt from the Blacker Co. in the form following :—“Receivcd of the North Central Wagon Co. chequffi value £733, which is placed to your credit, with thanks ”——_tlJ8 result being that there was no bill of sale. The question bcu1B raised whether the receipt was not a “ receipt ” within the deficit-1°11 of “ bill of sale ” in the Acts, Cotton, L.J , stated that, in order that an invoice or receipt should constitute a bill of sale, it mustbe “an assurance of personal chattels," unless it came within til? subsequent words “authorities or licences to take possession of P°"°l1R1 ¢l111tto1s.” In the present case the evidence sliewcd that there was a complete contract for sale before either the invoice or receipt was given. Bowen and Fry, L.J J ., concurred, the former P°1I1ti11g out that the ralio daoidendi of Ooclzrune v. Mathews (lo Ch. 1). so), E1 pclrfe Odell (27 w. 1t. 214, 1o Ch. 1). re). E1" parts Cooper (10 Ch. D. 313) was that certain documents ought to be read together, and that, when they were read together. tb“F amounted to an “assurance” of the chattels. (See this discussed ante, p. 41.)

P"‘”""*"-9'" "3 3° P113/ment.-Thcse are not given in the body of the Acts, but the form in the schedule to the Act of 1882 shew! that the rate per cent. per annum and tho time of payment 11111975 be specified.

Notwithstanding that the rate of interest is to be stat/ed “P°'




annum," a statement of the rate per month is suificient : lmnley v. Simmons (34 W. R. 759). Apparently, if no rate of interest is specified, but a fixed sum is to be paid as interest, the bill is bad : see illyarc v. Elliott (16 Q. B. D. 526), in which the decision in Tliorp v. Creycen (33 W. R. 845), upholding a bill of sale in this form, was disapproved of; the last-mentioned case and Wilson v. Kirkwood (27 Soriciroiis’ Jovaivsn, 296; same case, \V. N ., 1883, 40, 44) must be considered as overruled. The reservation of compound interest renders the bill of sale void : Goldsi/rom v. Tallerman (17 Q. B. D. 80), reversed on appeal on the construction only, 14th of November, 1886, so that the case is still an authority on the point for which it is cited.

The principal may be made payable by instalments, notwithstanding that it is provided that on default of payment of any gpstiilmppg) they shall all become due: Iumlay v. Simmons (34 _ The direction that the stipulated time of payment shall be stated is imperative. “ The words of the statute and schedule are, perhaps, not clear; they may well include a time fixed by reference to any known event; they may, perhaps, include a time to be ascertained by. the happening of some contingency; but they do not, in our opinion, include a time to be ascertained by nothing but the mere choice and volition of the holder of the bill of sale,” per Fry, L.J., Hellierznylon v. Groome(l3 Q. B. D., at p. 792), in which case it was held that an_agreement for payment “on demand " rendered the bill of sale void: see also Clemson v. Ton-nseml (1 Ca. & El. 418), Maclcay V. _Il[e1'riIf (34 W’. R. 433), Bianclii v. O//brrl (17 Q. B. D. -184), Melville v. Slrlnyer (13 Q. B. D. 394), Sibley v. Hiiyya (15 Q. B. D. 619). The case of Davis v. Z7slicr (12 Q. B. D. 491) must be considered as overruled. Notwithstanding the opinion of Fr_y,_ L.J., stated above, it is now decided by the imanimous opinions of Lord Esher, M.R., Lindley, L.J., and Lopes, L.J., that the time of payment being uncertain avoids the bill of sale : Huyhea Liltla (35 W. R. 36).

Bf” qf 8r1l_e yiveri by way of ind'emm'ty.—Sometimes a bill of sale is given in consideration of the grantee becoming a guarantor for the grantor to a creditor ; in this case the sum secured by the bill of sale is payable at (or at some time determined by relation to) the time when the grantee pays the original creditor, and the amount secured by the bill is the amount so paid by him. A bill of sale of this nature is void for two reasons (Huylzes v. Little, 35 W- R- 36. reversing 17 Q. B. D. 204)

F"‘§h the liability of the grantor to pay the grantee arises on the failure of the grantor to pay the original creditor, and may not “met an; so that the time of payment is uncertain.

Secondly, the amount that the grantee has to pay to the original creditor, andtherefore the amount that the grantor has to pay to the grantee, is uncertain.

It also may, as in Hughes v. Little, be void as not being in accordance with the statutory form.

Th.Provmo_ns as to the maintenance or zlqfeasancc of the security. —

e prescribed form authorizes the insertion of “terms as to insurance, payment of rent, or otherwise, which the parties may agree upon for the maintenance or defeasance of the security.”

fi Insurance.—A_n agreement that the grantor shall insure against f reiifly U19 premiums, produce and deliver to the grantee the receipts

aft B premiums; that, on his default, the grantee may insure; that ill, mm-193’! paid by the grantee for that purpose shall be repaid to

{In by the grantor on demand, and, till payment, shall be charged gth interest on the premiums, does not avoid the bill of sale: Bllmmoncl v. Hocking (12 Q. B. D. 291), Ex parle Stanford, Re

“'6” (34 W. R. 507, 17 Q. B. D. 259). In these cases the $""lll' had power to repay to the grantee any moneys paid for insurance whenever he liked, and the rate of interest was £5 per gent-_ P918111mm. _On the other hand, where the moneys were to £2151" B_ charge during a fixed period at £20 per cont. per anniim, V 1P1;;V1!lOhB were held to invalidate the bill of sale: Golilslrom

-R" "mann (34 W. R. 459, 17 Q. B. D. 80).

gmn;;'tit"'l°‘@» and ia.res.—Where there_ were covenants by the breach? E pay rent, &c., to produce receipts for rent, and that on should fie “Y ¢°V6IH1l1t by the grantor, all the moneys secured 414 32 “$01110 due: Davis v. Burton (31 \V. R. 523, 10 Q. B. D. ne ie ted . R. 423, 11 B. D. 537), and where, if the grantor mighg d to perform his covenants as _to rent, &c., the grantee coir blo _B0, and that the sums so paid by him “should be re

8 In the same manner as the principal moneys and interest

[ocr errors]



[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


Wn have already, in explaining the nature of the different things that can he discovered by a search, pointed out what are all the searches that can possibly have to be made; we now proceed to consider what searches are usually made in practice. This is a very dithcult task, as the practice is not uniform in all oflices; it is constantly changing, and there are no judicial decisions as to what are the proper searches.

There is a preliminary question, Whether it is worth making any searches? That eminent conveyancer, the late Mr. Dicey, once stated to the present writer, “ I must say that my own opinion is rather against the utility of searches, except in Middlesex, Yorkshire, and for bankruptcies. But in the case of a mortgage, at least, I think it safer to adhere to the established practice as to searches.” A solicitor who holds an important ofiicial appointment, in the exercise of which he has constantly to make very small transactions in land, told the writer that the expense of the usual searches would sweep away all his costs, and perhaps put him out of pocket in purchases of this nature, and that therefore he invariably omitted them, running the risk of an action for negligence (see 30 Soniciroiis’ Jounrian, 683). Notwithstanding these remarks it is the usual practice to make searches, restricted in the manner that we shall point out.


Some years ago it was the custom to search against every person mentioned in the abstract who had been owner. As above mentioned, this practice is still followed by some firms as to searches in register counties, but perhaps the more usual plan is to search against the last purchaser on sale and all persons claiming under him. This practice is practically safe, owing to the great probability that, in ordinary cases, similar searches were made on the occasion of the last purchase, and that either nothing was discovered on that occasion, or that if anything was discovered it was satisfactorily disposed of. On the other hand, if there were special circumstances attending the sale—as, for instance, where, though it was nominally a sale for value, it was really a part of a family arrangement ; or where it was a sale of a small plot to enable ii landowner to round ofi his property, we cannot feel certain that the proper seaiches were made; and therefore in cases of this sort we ought to carry the searches further back. As, however, cases of this sort are rare, we shall, in these articles, assume that the searches are to be carried back to the time of the last purchase on sale. It may be asked, why do not we content ourselves with carrying back the searches to the last mortgage ? There are two reasons. First, we can never be sure that a mortgage was not given to secure an antecedent debt, in which case the mortgagee might omit_the searches; secondly, if the security is ample, a mortgagee might reasonably omit to search for charges of the_ nature that we discusscd 30 Somciroiis’ .Toniu<.\L, 699, 714, which_ are often called terminablc charges. It is, however, right to point out that some practitioners of eminence only search since the last mortgage,

Where a vendor or mortgagor has in his possession a certificate of an oflicial search made under the Conveyancing Act, 1882, it ought to be shewn on the abstract.

LOCAL AND Pnnsoiun Ac-rs.

There is, unfortunately, a_ practice growing up, but to what extent we cannot say, of passipg Local and Personal facts auth_orrzing a company or some public body to improve buildings within a limited area, and to make, perhaps with the consent of the Chancery Division, a charge, generally of a terminable nature, on the property for the amount expended. See, for example, the “Improvement of Buildings Act (23 Sc 24 Vict. c. cxix.) (Local and Personal), authorizing the company thereby_incorporated to improve buildings in the following districts :—1_1irsl, the London district, comprising all lands situate within a distance of fifteen miles, measured in a straight line, from any part of bt- Paul!

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Cathedral; Second, the Liverpool district, comprising all lands situate within a distance of ten miles, measured in a straight line, from any part of St. George's Hall, Liverpool; Tlzird, the Manchester district, comprising all lands situate within a distance of ten miles, measured in a straight line, from any part of the Exchange at Manchester; Fourth, the Birmingham district, comprising all lands situate within a distance of ten miles, measured in a straight line, from any part of the Town Hall at Birmingham. The repayment by instalments of the money advanced by the company for the purposes of the Act may be charged on the land, with interest, by an order of the Chancery Division.

Reference must also be made to the “Chambers and Ofices Act, 1881 " (44 & 45 Vict. c. clxxxii.) (Local and Personal). This enables “ the Chambers and'0ffices Co.” to acquire “ common rights," as defined in the Act, over buildings laid out in flats, chambers, or oflices, and situate in the County of Middlescx, the Borough of Southwark, the City of London, the Liberty of the Rolls, or in the Parish of Hove near Brighton. “ Common rights ” include the site of the roads, paths, entrances, staircases, passages, &c., the roof, chimneys, and outer walls, the rights of light and air and other easements over adjoining property, lifts and machinery provided for the general use of the building and occupiers, laundries, baths, lavatories, kitchens, closets, &c., fittings and appliances connected with the supply of hot and cold water, soil pipes, drains, and apparatus connected with soil drainage, rain water, and other things mentioned in the Act. The company has general powers to enter and repair, to pay “general expenses,” which include insurance against fire, the performance of the lessee’s covenants where the building is leasehold, the payment of rates and taxes, the costs of lighting and warming the building, the costs of painting and repairing, and of new works, wages of servants, the costs of enforcing bye-laws and recovering penalties, and of some other matters. All the several tenements are to pay a proportionate share towards the “general expenses," and the owner or occupier of cach tenement is to pay “ special expenses” incurred with respect to his tenement as certified by the surveyor of the company. The proportion of general expenses and also the special expenses payable to the company in respect of each tenement is to be a debt due to the company “ from the owner and also from the occupier of the tenement,” and is made a charge on his holding; the company, besides its remedy by action, may recover the amount by distress, _entry and receipt of rents, and appointment of a receiver, _leasing an unoccupied tenement, and may enforce their charge in the same manner as if the owner had agreed in writing to make a mortgage to the company for the amount due; the charge is to take priority over all other charges created after the tenement has become subject to the Act. The company may delegate their powers to a committee appointed by the owners and occupiers of the tenements. No provision is made for the registry of the charges. _Having regard to the heavy burden thrown on the owners and occupiers of tenements in a building subject to the provisions of the Act, no prudent person will purchase, take a lease, or even go into occupation of chambers, in places where the Act applies, without inquiring whether the building of which the chambers form_a part is subject to the provisions of the Act ; fortunately the inquiry is easy, as the company is bound to keep posted up at or near the principal entrance a notice that the building is subject to the provisions of the Act. The omission by the company of keeping the notice up docs not appear to prevent them from exercising the powers conferred on them by the Act.

Reference may also be made to the Act regulating New-square Lincoln’s-inn (23 8: 24 Vict. c. clxxxiv.) (Local and Personal), imposing rent charges on certain chambers therein, imposing restrictions on the user thereof, and charging the expense of rebuilding chambers in certain cases on the inheritance. We shall not attempt to_ deal with charges created by Local and Personal A t

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

been imposed on agricultural land which becomes building land before the charge expires. It might be thought that no searches need be made for any terminable charges as to land within a town, but this is not the case; one of the large London properties is subject to charges of this nature.

[ocr errors]

Cnp_y7i0ld8.——lt has been said (1 Bythewood, by Sweet, 3rd

ed., 103; Hansard v. Hardy, 18 Ves. 462; Bugilm v. Bignold, 2 Y. & C. C. C., at p. 390) that the court rolls of a manor are not notice to a purchaser. On the other hand, Leach, V.C., says, in Pearce v. 1\’ewI_i/n (3 Madd., at p. 188), that “a purchaser is affected by notice of the court rolls as far back as a search is necessary for the security of the title.” These conflicting dicta may perhaps be reconciled, as meaning that the court rolls may be considered to benotice to a purchaser who searches, but not to one who does not. _As it is impossible to rely with safety on want of notice, it is now the invariable practice, notwithstanding the remarks of Lord St. Leonards above referred to, to search the court rolls. It should be observed that in some manors a surrender made out of court may be presented at any time, and an admittance taken thereon, so that a subsequent incumbrancer _or purchaser may be ousted by the existence of a surrender which he cannot discover by searching : Horlock v. Priestley (2 Sim. 75). It will be remembered that no searches for Crown debts or executions at the suit of the Crown can be required on the purchase of copyholds: 30 S0i.icirons' J'ouiiiuL, 770. X0 searches need made under the Middlesex, Yorkshire, or repealed Yorkshire Registries Acts. All other searches should be made that would be required in the case of freeholds. _

Lease7ioZiIa.—Searches on the purchase of leaseholds will be the same as those on frecholds with the following exceptions. _ It will be unnecessary to search :—( 1) for charges under the Pubhc Money Drainage Acts and the Private Money Drainage Act, 1849, unless the lease is for a life or lives, or for years, for a term originally greater than fourteen years, and the rent does not exceed two-thirds of the clear yearly value at the time when the lease was gfflulied; (2) for charges under the Improvement of Land Act, 1864, unless the lease is on life or lives renewable, or for years, for a term of twenty-five years at least or renewable. In these cases the leaseholder and the person in receipt of the rents and profits together make up the “landowner,” and must be searched againstInquiry must be made from the sheriff whether any writ of fl’against the vendor is in his hands, but it will not be necessary to inquire as to elegils. _

.»ldi~owson.—An advowson in gross cannot be taken in execution.

as it yields no profits : see Robinson v. Tonga (3 P. W., at p. 401); Wcs(faZi1i_q v. Westfi1li11_q(3 Atk., at p. 463). It followed that. although, after the passing of 1 8: 2 Vict. c. 110, an advowsou became liable to the charge created by a judgment undei section 13, the charge cannot arise, probably on a judgment entered “P on or after the 23rd of July, 1860, and certainly not on a judgment entered up after 27 8: 28 Vict. c. 112, owing to the impossibihti of delivering the advowson in execution. Probably an advowsoll appendant can be taken in execution with the manor. An advowson in gross can, however, be extended at the suit of the Crown

From the nature of an advowson it cannot be liable to drainage or improvement rent charges. lt follows that, on the sale of an advowson in gross, the only searches that are necessary a1‘@_l°1' Crown debts, executions at the suit of the Crown, bankruptcies, lis pcndens, annuities, and in the local registers. If it hu8011lY been lately severed from the manor, the same searches may ll!" to be made up to the time of severance as if the manor itself W" being sold. _

Beat charge.—A rent charge can be taken under an B199”: 2 Cruise, 52, citing Moo. 32, pl. 104, and Noy. 104 (the latter reference is incorrect), l 8; 2 Vict. c. 110, s. ll, and therefore the same searches for judgments and executions must be made 011 the purchase of a rent charge as if it was land.

It should be remarked that, although drainage or improvement rent charges cannot be charged on the rent charge itself, still, 1151 whether they are made before or after the creation of the F6115 °l1a1‘8ei l7l1eY generally have priority over it it may, in case the 1'ent°l1a1'{-56 nearly amounts to the annual iralue of the land, be advisable to search for them.

[ocr errors][graphic]
« PreviousContinue »