Page images

Searches must be made for bankruptcies, lis pendens, annuities, and in the local registers.

It should be observed that, although no annuity can at law be made to issue out of an incorporeal hcreditaiuent such as an annuity or rent charge, it is possible to charge it with an annuity in equity, and therefore that searches for annuities must be made on the purchase of an annuity or rent charge.

[graphic][merged small]
[ocr errors]

The object of this little book, as stated in the preface, is to answer the questions—“Is it a proper investment ? ” “ Would it be a breach of trust?" On the whole the answers given are satisfactory. In the first chapter the author discusses the duty of the trustee as to the investment of trust funds. He states most of the recent decisions bearing on the point at some length, and the conclusion he arrives at is, in the words of Jessel, M.R., that “ the trustee ought to conduct the business of the tiust in the same manner that an ordinary man of business would conduct his own.” But he adds an important qualification not, we believe, hitherto stated in the text-books“thrit the trustee may not do all that a prudent man of business might do in managing his own concerns, but that which the prudent man of business would do while strictly following the ordinary course of business."

The chapters on “ Permissible Investments ” and “ Investments not Permitted" will be found useful. The general conclusion that the author comes to is that—(l) In the investment of trust funds the trustees should never employ the solicitor who acts for the borrower ; (2) Trustees, when entertaining the question of investment, should not favour the tenant for life at the expense of the reniaindernien; (3) Any conditions annexedto the power to invest or vary investments should be observed strictly; and (4) Trustees should avoid making any investment which subjects the trust funds to the control of any one of the trustees singly. Perhaps the best part of the book is the discussion of lending money on_personal security, on real securities, and on second mortgages. The author also discusses the questions of profits made by the trustee out of the trust property, of neglect by the trustee to invest, of bringing money into court, and of investments by the court. We rather wonder that the author has not discussed the cruel decision of Jlilletl v. Haicortli (29 SOLiciT0ll'8 J 0L'1't.\‘AL, 555)—a. decision which appears to render it desirable, in all cases where a wide range of investments is authorized, to give p0_We_r to the trustees, notwithstanding the opposition of the bene

fi_cia_ries, to change any investments which may, in the event, throw liability on the trustees.

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

'I_‘he question in this case was whether a plaintiff was entitled to deliver interrogatories for the examination of a third party. The plaintifi, who was the owner of land, brought the action for specific performance of an agreement by the defendants to take a lease of the coal under the land. The defendants commenced to work the coal, but they were served by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners with a notice that the coal belonged to them as lords of the manor. The defendants served athird party notice on the commmioners, claiming indemnity from them iii case the plaintifi I-hould establish his claim. An order was afterwards made giving the ('OYl1lDlSSl0D6l'8 leave to defend and to deliver a counter-claim. The Court ‘*5 A_PP'~‘al decided ('28 Ch. D. 333) that there was no power to give leave to “thud PB-It)’ to deliver a counter-claim against the original plaintiff. The counter-claim was accordingly struck out, and the commissioners afterwards obtained an order to strike out their defence. Bya subsequent “fie!” 15 wlls directed that the question of indemnity as between the comrnissioners as third parties and the defendants should be tried after the ‘Fm °f the "_'i°l1, and that, pursuant to rule 53 of order 16, the commis‘“°'16"i 118 third parties, should be at liberty to appear at the trial and "PP\>se the plaintiffs claim so far as they might be affected thereby, and, for that purpose, to adduce evidence, oral and documentary, and to :!l'0lIS—€X8l1ll_I16 the plaintifi’s witnesses. Chitty, J ., gave the plaintiffs

Hive to deliver interrogatories for the examination of the commissioners. th_I'Ha Coi'i~ir or Arrest (Corrox, Lrsnnsr, and Lorna, L.JJ.) affirmed

ll order. It was contended on behalf of the commissioners that they acre not “opposite parties" within the meaning of rule 1 of order 31,

are M1118 11° issue between them and the plaintiff. THE Conn-r held

[ocr errors]


that the commissioners, by obtaining leave to oppose the plaintiff and to
adduce evidence against him at the trial, had really placed themselves in
the position of defendants, and had become “opposite parties” within
rule 1 of order 31.—CouusaL, Elton, Q.C., and Bliikmley; Sir §A. Wal.von,
Q.C., and Dmilmm. Sonicirous, W/rite, Born-ll, <§- Co. ; Orr/ssinaii, Ores-smzm,
Q 1'1iclzar0l.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The question in this case was as to striking out the whole of a stair-
ment of claim, on the ground that it was embarrassing to the defendant.
Rule 27 of order 19 em owers the court, at any stage of the rocaedings,
to “ order to be strueh out any matter in any pleading which may be
unnecessary or scandalous, or which may tend to prejudice, embarrass, or
delay the fair trial of the action.” The action was brought to recover
possession of land. By his statement of claim the plaintiff alleged that
E , who died in 1759, was seised in fee in possession of the land, and that
during her life she executed a deed of settlement, by virtue of which the
property vested on her death in hcr niece, T., the wife of D , and her
heirs, from whom and her successors in title, as the plaintiff alleged, the
defendant’s predecessor in title, G., Well knowing the facts, fraudulently
concealed the existence of the settlement, and entered into possession of
the estates. The plaintifi claimed as purchaser of the property from
J. D., the eldest son of G. L. D., who died in 1859, whose title was
derived from the heir-at-law of T. D. The plaintiff alleged that the
settlement still remained in the possession of the defendant, and that
ever since the death of E. the defendant and his predecessors in title had
retained it and received the rents of the property, \vith.full notice that
under it the property rightfully belonged to the plaintiff and his pre-
decessors in title, and had fraudulently concealed from them the existence
of the deed, and made it impossible for them to discover their right and
title to the property imtil the year 1876, when the existence of tlie_deed
first came to the knowledge of J. D. and the plaintifl’. The plaintiff
claimed to recover the possession of the estates and the rents or mesne
profits. On the application of the defendant,_ North, J., ordered the
statement of claim to be struck out as embarrassing.

Tun Coviir or APPEAL (Oorrox and LXNDLEY, L.JJ.) alfirmed the
decision. COTTON, L.J., said that in such a case, where the plainliff
sought to escape from the Statute of Limitations on the ground of a
eonrcalcd fraud, he ought to state his case with extreme particularity, so
as to enable the defendant to meet the case without disclosing all his
title. The alleged settlement should have been stated so as enable the
defendant to raise the defence that such a settlement never existcd._ The
rule was well stated by Bramwell, L.J., in Ifliillips v. 1'/“flip-Y (4
Q. B. D. 127). It was not enough to_state an inference of law, but
the fact should be stated _from which the court copld see the
plaintifi's title. The plaintiff must not say simply, ‘Under and
by virtue of a certain deed I am entitled"; he ir_ust state what
the limitations of the deed were and the other facts, so as to
enable the court to infer what his title was. In the present case the
plaintiff had not stated his case in such a way as to_ enable the defendant
to meet it without embarrassment and without disclosing B.ll.'l]lfl title.
There was no statement at all that T._D. was named as a remamderman
in the settlement, but only of an inference of law that she became
entitled. That was not a_reasonal_)le statement; it was embarrassing.
Under rule 27 of order 19 his lordship thought that the_court had 3uris_-
diction to strike out the whole of a statement of claim if the whole of it
was embarrassing. You could not fairly Judge whether there _ha_d been
fraud in concealing a settlement without knowing what its limitations
were. The whole thing depended on the statement of the settlement.
LXNDLEY, L J., thought the case was near the line, but that it was covered
by the principle of 1’lii'Ili'p.s v. 1'/iillipi. The action was clearly a fishing
one, and one could not help feeling that the plamtiif had not a cap;
which he knew, but that he thought he had alcase, and hoped he won
be able to fish one out. His statement of claim was not in accordance
with the requirements of rules 4, 6, and 7 of order 19. The only fr.-apt:
suggested was fraudulent concealment of the settlement, and it wasnqu It
consistent with the allegations that _there had been no fraud at a h
might be the plail'll7lfi'S misfortune if he could not state any more Bl;
he had done about the settlement, but this vague statement was? no
sufficient —COl,'N8EL. Coolvwn, Q.C., Jlvfilyinont, and C. E. rillan; i’\vIpl¢‘f
111';/yim, Q.C., and Herbert Stephan. Soriciroiis, J. E. 45- H. -Scott; II mam
Q Sons.

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

This was a petition for the revocation of ii patent (this being the mode of procedure substituted by section 26 of the Patents Act, 1893, for the old stir: /71.-int to repeal a patent) on the ground of want of novelty in the alleged invention. Particulars of objection had been delivered by the petitioner. This wns a motion by the respondents to the petition (the pateiitee and the assiguees of the patent) that the petition might be heard with witnesses vii-if core, and transferred into the list of witness causes.

Noiirii, J., held that, the petition being equivalent to an action to try the validity of the patent, the applicants were entitled to the order for which they aaked.——Couivssi., Aston, Q-C-, Md -7- '/'- 9"“/W"; -I/0"’/'»‘=. (.),.C., and L. E. I’!//ra. Sour!-rons, (/!!l)l])]I&‘”, R1-e1-es, Q Hoopflr; A. Cm-tin Hayward.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

The question in this case was as to the validity of a resignation by a clerk in holy orders of his bcneflce. The plaintiff in the action claimed a declaration that an instrument of resignation of his benefice executed by him was void, and an injunction to restrain the defendant, the bishop of the diocese, from accepting the plaintiil"s resignation, or treating it as valid, or declaring the benefice vacant, or instituting any other person thereto. In September, 1-‘IS-'1, a charge of immoral conduct was publicly made against the plaintiff in his parish, and the bishop called upon him to clear his character or to resign his benefit-e. The plaintiff then took proceedings for this purpose, but without success. The bisho then wrote to the plaintiff to the effect that he expected to receive from Iiim at once an intimation that he was ready to resign his living without delay, and, after some further correspondence, the bishop's secretary, by his authority, wrote to the plaintiff that “the bishop desires me to send you iideed of resignation, and to inform you that his lordship proposes to date his formal acceptance of it on the 1st of October next, and not to declare your bsnefice vacant until that date if the deed is at oncc executed and returned to r_ne, and if his lordship also receives in the meantime an assurance of satisfactory arrangements for the care und duties of the parish during your absence. Tho deed requires to be executed by you

efoi-e witnesses, and, if you are unable to obtain the attestation of s. notary public in London, it may be remitted to me attested by two persons.” The date October 1 was irieiitioncd in this letter in consequence of s communication which had been madeto the bishop by u friend of the plaintiff, and the bishop, in his evidence at the trial, stated that one reason for fixing that date was that the plaintiff might be able to receive ahslf:year‘s_tithe. With this letter the bishop's secretary sent to the plaintiff s printed form of resignation. The plaintiff, on the 2nd of June, executed t is instrument, and it was attested by two witnesses, neither of whom was a notary public. On the same day the plaintiff returned the instrument so cxccutcd to the bishop's secretary, who received it the next day, and siguedu memorandum of surrender which was attached to it. He then sent the document to the bishop, with ii memorandum of acceptance attached to it for his signature, and the bishop signed it and returned the document to his secretary. On the 16th of J ulf the plaintifi handed to the bishop's secretary a document duted the (‘th of June, executed by him, by which he purported to withdraw his resignation. This document was not communicated to the bishop or his secretary before the 16th of July. The action was commenced on the llth of September, and the psintifi, on the 22nd of September, applied to Grantham, J ., as vacation (judge for an interlocutory injunction. This application was refused (3 Soi.rci-mus’ JOL'lt.NAL, T62). The plaintiff appealed, and the Court of Appeal, without deciding any question, requested North, J ., to advance t e trial of the action, and it was accordingly now tried: 0i_i behalf of the plaintifi it was contended that the resignation was invalid on three grounds—(l) that the deed of resignation was invalid because it was not made before the bishop in person or before a notary public ; (2) that the deed was void because it was made under pressure, on’condition, and for s pecuniary consideration; (I1) that no resignation was binding until it had been accepted by the ordinary and that it might be withdrawn before such acceptance, and that the plaintifi had withdrawn his resignation before acceptance.

Noimi, J ., overruled all these objections and dis nissed the action As to the first objection, he said that the authorities cited did not bear out the proposition. Resignation might be to the bishop in person and if he accepted it, was complete and final. But it was not su hated

that this was the only mode by which a resignation could be elzgct d His lordship could not find anything in canon statute or common le making it essential that a resignation to be valid ysho ld b aw

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


[ocr errors]

formalities ordinarily required in practice for his protection. And the bishop had stated in his evidence that in exceptional cases he did in practice dispense with attendance before a notary, and that it would be very inconvenient if he could not. The bishop could not make s practice for himself contrary to law, but there was nothing to show t at his practice was of that character. In the present case the bishop had expressly waived the appearance of the plaintiff before a notary. As to the second point, his lordship said it was clear that a resignation of ii benefice must, except in the case of an exchange, be unconditional, or, as the Old. writers S11-id, ll; must be made pure, span/r, 07>-to/rrtr, 9! st'mpli'rifer. There was no evidence of any pressure being applied to induce the laiiitiff to resign. He was. no doubt, in a difilcult position by reason of iiis own misconduct, but he had free choice between resignation by his own act and deprivation by hostile proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court, and he deliberately chose the fornier. There was no pecuniary considerstion for the resignation; the plaintiff was merely left iii receipt of the legal emoluments of his ollice during the time he filled it. hnr was the resignation really upon any condition. It was necessary to fix some time from which the actual resignation should operate. If proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court had become unavoidable, some time must have elapsed before any sentence of deprivation could have been passed, and tho bishop acted within his powers in fixing a time _iit which the formal accepltance shouldbe dated and declared. The plaintiffs’ argument must go to t is extent, that any resignation which has not to come into full operation at the very moment at which it was sent in and accepted, but only at a future time agreed on, would be invalid. His lordship did riot assent to this proposition. It was a confusion of language to call tiring the date when a resignation was to operate the insertion _of a condition. He thought that an honest arrangement that a resignation should take effect from n named future day wiis not illegal. It could not prejudice the patron of the living, for the time for lapse ran only from the date when the patron had notice of the actual avoidance. As toth_e third point, his lordship was of opiuioii that the sending in by the plaintiff of his resignation of the 2nd of June was not an offer which required some acceptance by the bishop, and was revocable by the plaintiff until such acceptmice, but that an offer was made by the bishop to the effect that, if the plaintiff would pluce in the bishop's hands his formal resignation (the formal acceptance of which declaring the benefics vacant the bishop would date on the lst of October) the bishop would abstain from taking the threatened proceedings against the plaintiff in the licclcsiastics Court. This offer was accepted by tho plaintiff and iictcd_ on by the bishop, and aft-er that it was impossible for the plaintiff to withdraw bl“ resignation. Even if it was open to the plaintiff to withdraw his resignation before acceptance, in his lordsliip‘s opinion the plaintiff had not dflflfl so. He thought that it was not necessary that the bishop s acceptance should be in writing, and that he did accept the resignation when he received back the deed without objection, and abstained from further action. At any rate, the onu- was on the plaintiff to prove the withdrawal before acceptance, and lie had failed to prove it. Moreover, according to the ecclesiastical law, if a man hiid once given up his benefi_ce, and all"wards, chan 'ng his mind, wished to return to it again, this ll-W" wish would Qe in vain, unless some cause existed which made flit ordinary think that the former session should be undone and treatel._as nothing. It was not stated in terms that this applied to a case in which the resignation had not been accepted, but his lordship thought that it did, because, if the avoidance had been completed by acceptance. B ll" presentation, institution, and induction would have been necessary, and such ceremonies could not be dispensed with by a mere change of mind 011 the part of the bishop and the priest. According to ecclesiastical law, as his lordship understood it from the authorities, a pt:l‘S0ll who had teudtrtd a resignation which had not been accepted, and who might withdraw it ll matters remained as they were, was prevented from withdrawing IF. 2"“ before acceptance, if, in consequence of the tender, any party W15 "I “ different position from that in which he would have been if no tender had been made. The plaintiff, by sending iii his resignation, procured 8 P95“ ponement of legal proceedings against himself, and thereby, by ec_cli-.siitical law, incapacitated himself from withdrawing it during the _iiitcrrs1 before the lat of October, and this would be so even if the true view WM that the bishop did not accept the resignation until that date. Consequently the plsintiffs attempt to withdraw his resignation failed entirel!—CoL':~'si-:|., Cozens-Hardy, Q,.O., and A. Young ; Jeff, Q.C., Hutr4M""‘ /cenzif, and llliu-1.-arntsa. Soucrroas, Hyde. Tandy. 6' U"/10".‘ 0""[‘1r"‘i .Dat.'enport.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

This was an application for a grant of letters of administration 011 presumption of death. In an administration action in the Chancery Division inquiries had been directed as to the persons entitled to share ill certain settled property, and it became necessary to prove the death of the children of a Mr. and Mrs. Thompson. These artiea were Pl‘°'°d to have had a daughter, who had married a Mr. Tayibr. The deaths of Ml‘and Mrs. Tayior were proved, but then it was alleged that there Md also been a son born of the marriage who had died before the birth of the daughter, and whose death the court was now asked to presu!11§- lime being no evidence as to either his Christian name or the date of bl! blrm It was proved, by production of her baptismal certificate, that the daughl" was born in May, I811. From uffidavits iiisdc by two former sert; rants of the family, it appeared that Mrs. Thompson had stated W ,9“ of them that she had had a son who had died before her daughter’s birth, but, to the best of the recollection of both depouents, she had ne'er


mentioned the Christian name of such son, and they both stated that when they were respectively servants of the family the said daughter was the only living child of Mr. and lllrs. Thompson.

HANSEN, P., said that the mother’s statement was plainly admissible as a declaration by a deceased person as to a question of pedigree. He saw no reason to doubt its genuineness, and, therefore, the grant might be made. The grant must state the surname of the deceased, and that his Christian name was unknown. There would be u limitation as to date, and it would be recited in the grant that the death occurred after the date of the marriage, and before the date of the daughter’s birth.—CoL'.\"ssr., Bag/fo1'd,Q.O. Sorrcrroiis, Linda 4- 0'0.

Re ALLEN-0. A. No. 2, 12th January.

[ocr errors]

This was an appeal from the decision of Kay, J . (35 W. R. 100, rmta, p. 7§), the question being at what time a solicitor was entitled to exercise the figglét at ellgctron givergg him ?g.1'll1et 6 ii the; §{8mlt1eI191'l1lil:i1te0l'?1€{) of Afiigdust,

, remuziera acco in o e o s s m as re sc e ule

II. to the order, instead of by ghe scale fee.y Rule 2 of the Zrder provides that the remuneration of a_solicitor “ in respect of business connected 1 ID911

Ziiflig '...',..;t i‘i“iZZ...; .;...i .‘§.§§m‘é§tZ“%$i“‘1‘§;‘i..§‘ §?“€1§l.“'r‘.i?.i‘;°" “ tioned in part II. of schedule I. to this order, . . . when the transactions shall have been completed, the remuneration of the solicitor having the conduct of the business is to be that prescribed in part II. of such schedule I." And by rule 6, “ In all cases to which the scales prescribed i.n schedule I. hereto shall a 1 a solicitor ma before imdertaking any business, by writing undepr yhis hand commhinicated to the client, elect that hisremuneration shall be according to the present system as altered by schedule II. hereto; but if no such election shall be made, his remuneration shall be according to the scale prescribed by this order." In the present case a summons was taken out by lessees to review a taxation of the costs of the lessor's solicitors, which the lessees were liable to pay. The question arose thus:—On the 29th of January, 1823, a lease was granted which contained a covenant by the lessor that he or his representatives would grant to the lessee or his representatives, at his or their costs, new leases of the demised premises until ninety-nine years in the whole had been granted, every such renewed lease and the counterpast ttlhereoftstoflloe péepargdbbyttilhe lessons solhifitor for the time beilng, an e cos ereo ai e essee or 's re resentatives. he property was copyhold,l:ind a lyease of it could not be granted without the icence of the lord of the manor. In July, 1885, a renewed lease which had been granted under the covenant was about to expire, and on the 2-lth oi’ July the solicitors of the persons who claimed to be entitled to a further renewal wrote to l’., who was the representative of the original lessor, claiming on behalf of their clients a renewal of the lease in accordance with the covenant, and asking to be put in communication with P.‘s slollicitoffs, ggd ‘that he would instruct them to preparfi a lease accordingly. ey o er a t e same time to roduce to P. s so 'citors certain documents shewiug the title of the claigiants to the beneflt of the covenant for renewal. P. took this letter to his solicitors, and on July 25 they wrote to the claimants‘ solicitors :—-“ Our client has seen us with your letter of yesterday addressed to him, and the matter therein referred to shall have our attention.” P.‘s solicitors were afterwards satisfied that the claimants were entitled to the renewal, but some delay took place in getting P. admitted on the rolls of the manor, and in obtaining the licence of the lord for the lease. This having been done, P.’s solicitors, before commencing the preparation of the draft of the lease, on the 19th of October, 1885, gave notice in writing to P., that on the grant of the lease it was their intention to charge their costs thereof and incidental thereto in accordance with schedule II. The lease was afterwards prepared. On the taxation of the costs, at the instance of the lessees it was objected that P.‘s solicitors had not made their election in time “ before undertaking the business,” and that they were only entitled to remuneration according to the scale fee under part II. of schedule I. The t-axing master held that the election had been made in suflflcient time and that the solicitors were entitled to be remunerated according to the; old system as altered by schedule II. Kay J . reversed this decision holding that the business was “undertaken ” on the 25th of July when P.'s solicitors wrote to the solicitors of the claimants that being ’a part of the business for which they could charge P. , and beiiig business “ connected with ” the Efilzoé and that after that it was too late for P.‘s solicitors to elect under This decision was afllrmed by the Court of Appeal (Co-r-ro1~:, LINDLEY, and L°"1 L.JJ.). COTTON L.J. thought that it would be wrong to hold that, after a solicitor hdd donye any part of the business which would be covered by the scale fee, he was at liberty to say that that fee would not pay him for the work and that he would elect to be remunerated under schedule II. That wbuld be giving the solicitor the 0 tion of accepting the scale fee when it would pay him and re'ectin it wgen it would not Rule 6 applied, and the question was whetliler thegnoticc of election of the 19th of October was given early enough That depended upon what was meant by the words “ undertaking” and “business " in the rule In his 1°'dhiP'I opinion the word " business ” meant all that businessthe payment for which would be covered by the scale fee for tho h art II of Bchedule I. only spoke of the remuneration for “,prepariugu,gse€tling, and °°mP1°t"18 lease and counterpart,” yet rule 2 said that that remuneratirn

[ocr errors]

was to be “ in respect of business connected with" a lease. What, then, wa_s_the meaning of “undertaking” the business? In his lordship’s 0Ell1lO'lllil1§ business was “undertaken” by the solicitor as soon as the c ent retained him and he accepted the retainer. He thought that, in the present case, the solicitors had, before the 19th of October, “ undertaken ” the business to which the scale fee applied, and that the proper conclusion was that, when P. put into their hands the letter of the 24th of July from the claimants’ so icitors, he instructed them to attend to the matter, and to undertake the preparation of the lease, if they should be satisfied that the applicants were entitled to it. They then undertook the business for w ich the scale fee provided the remuneration, in case the lease should be granted. If the lease had not been completed their remuneration would have been under schedule II. The proper conclusion was that they accepted the letter handed to them by their client as instructions to attend to the matter referred to in it, and their own letter to the claimants’ solicitors showed that they understood it as instructions to carry out the lease, if the persons who had applied for it should prove to be entitled to it. Consequently the election on the 19th of October was made too late. His lordship would give no opinion now whether the business of getting P. put on t e rolls and obtaining the licence of the lord was covered by the scale fee. Lr:mr.u\', L.J., said that the expression “before undertaking any business," in rule 6, was obscure, and to understand it the earlier part of the order must be looked at. Subject to the question of election, it was obvious that the business would have to be paid for according to part II. of schedule I., and it was for the solicitors to shew that they had done what

was necessary to exclude that. Rule 6 provided that, in order to exclude,

the solicitor must elect, in writing, “ before undertaking the business."

Looking at the facts of this case, and the correspondence, his lordship

could not see any ground for saying that the business was undertaken in
October; he thought it was undertaken in July. The only other pos-
sible view was that that part of the business which was done before the
notice of the 19th of October had nothing to do with the granting of the
lease ; but it was very diflicultto say that it was not business “ connected
with ” the lease. If the court were to accede to the view of the appel-
lants, a solicitor might always sub-divide any business, and elect, as to s.
part of it, not to be paid according to the scale. This would be totally
inconsistent with the rules. Lorss, L.J., C0l10l11'!‘€d.—-COUNSEL, lltllnr,
Q C., and A. J. Allen ; Haldane. Sonrcrroris, Allm gf Son; Parker,
Garrett, Q Parker.

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

ot the auctioneer, but that the custom in the North of England was difierent to that in the South. That might be so, but, inasmuch as rule 11 of the General Order did not constitute any distinction between the custom obtaining in different parts of the kingdom, he had no option except to dismiss the summons.-Soiicirons, H. B. Clarke if Sons, for W. H. Clougli, Checkheaton, Yorks; Flower Q Nus.sey, for Carr 4- Cndmun, Gomersall, Yorks.

Ezpurlc THE MAYOR, &c., OF LONDON, Re THE METROPOLITAN AND DISTRIGI‘ RAILWAYS ACT, 1879-Kay, J., 13th January. SoLici'roa—“ INVBSTIGATING TITLE ”——Soi.icii-oiis‘ Rauuxanxriox Acr, 1881—GBNBRAL Oanan, Auovsr, 1882, a. 2, scaan. I., PART I.

This case raised the question as to a solicitor’s right to be paid the scale charge, under the General Order, “for investigating title." &c., on a purchase of property, where the nature of the title and the circumstances of the purchase were such as rendered the labour of investigation slight, whilst owing to the large amount of the purchase-money (over £90,000), the sum payable under the scale was considerable. The question arose out of a re-investment inland by the Corporation of London of moneys which had been paid into court by the above-mentioned railways in respect of property required for the purposes of their undertaking under the special Act, and of which re-investment the railways were liable to pay the costs. The moneys had been re-invested in the purchase of the old Bankruptcy Court, Basinghall-street, which, under section 68 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1861, was vested in the Commissioners of her Majesty's Vlforks and Public Buildings, and by that section was to be “appropriated to such purposes as the Lord Chancellor shall direct." On the purchase an intimation had been given by the Solicitor to the Treasury that the Government did not intend to furnish any evidence of title to the propcrty,_but that the sale would be effected under the authority, and by the direction, of the Lord Chancellor, under the above section. The purchaser's solicitor had previously prepared a summons for procuring _the_ sanction of the court to the purchase, by which the usual inquiry into title was asked. On receiving the above intimation he referred to section 68 of the Bankruptcy Act, and subsequently wrote to the Sohcitor to the Treasury on the subject of whether the Lord Chancellor_hadauthorized the sale. The reply was that the authority h_ad been given in a letter signed by the secretary, but that an authority signed by the Lord Chancellor himself should be procured, and it was procured accordingly, and i1 copy sent_to the purchaser's solicitor. Upon this he amended the summons by omitting the inquiry as to title, as he thought he should be able to satisfy the chief clerk that the inquiry would be unnecessary. In the result the chief clerk, after ad journing the matter for the purpose of the original of the authority from the Lord Chancellor being produced before hi_m, sanctioned the purchase without referring the title to the conveyancing counsel, and the purchase was accordingly completed. On the taxation of the purchasers’ costs their solicitor claimed the scale fee for investigating the title, &c., calculated on the amount of the purchase-money, under schedule I., part I., of the General Order, which thus amounted to $278 15s. 7d. This the taxing master disallowed, on the ground that no title had been produced or investigated, and the purchasers now applied by summons to review his taxation. In support of the application it was contended that there had been an ilfiV€Si|lg8}»:i1011 of the title, for the chief clerk would not have sanctioned thepprc ase except upon beirigvsatisfied that the title was a good one, and the to The illerslimil Taylors ca. (33 W. R. G9-3, 30 Ch. D. 28) established _ at a solicitor was equally entitled to the scale fee whether the title was lltlqllllfld into by the court or not. On behalf of the _rail_way companies, éhwas contended that there had been no investigation into the title, as e vendors had stipulated that they were not to shew any ; the reference to the general Act of Parliament under which their title arose amounted to no more than a. proviso by a vendor that a purchaser should assume that he was seised in fee; and that Ra Lacey 4- Sam! (32 W. R. 233 25 Ch. D. 301) shewed that, where the work included in the schedule was not in fact performed, the scale fee was not Dayable. KAY, J ., decided in favour of the claim. _His lordship said that he was gorry not to able to agree with the taxing master, but_there had clearly een an investigation of the title by the purchaser s solicitor. The reason the Solicitor to the Treasury refused to fumish evidence of title obviously $2138 igierely because the Act of Parliament, on which the vendor‘; title , was perfectly accessible to the purchasers. But there was never. theless, a title to investigate, and the purchaser‘s solicitor would have lA@l?51t‘{1v$1§]ipg_ 1:1; hgs ddaity to l1l8hC11e11t% if he had not investigated ig_ M .... ;...:% .-.0‘ ii. "*1; Y if ‘W as the further a e_ yo e an ori y o se ,he required, and obtained, uthority from the Lord Chancellor. The question as t the commissioners‘ power of sale was one that required careful cons‘d O tion. And had the solicitor allowed the matter to be referred to til; emveyancing counsel to the court, in that case there would clearly have 82:an investigation of title within the General Order. His lordshi dd n that it was no part of his duty to consider whether the result f pha ed of Parliament and of the General Order was to produce h d I2‘ t e Act It was true that this was by no means the first case in 1?‘! E ‘P or not the scale had resulted in gross overpayment but presum hllsififurt wile“ ture intended the possibility of this being so In this ca y £5 L°g‘P‘"tion of title had clearly taken place, and he was com silage an m'em5i“' reluctance, todifier from the taxing magtey and topflue ’fl'1h°ughuh with costs.—-CoL'nsai., Sir;-1. Watson, Q.C. .Tll‘¢‘€d - F -0-W e summons’ H. H. Crawford; Baxters Q Co. , ymUHsoucnonsv

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


The following notices of motion have been given for the special general meeting to be held on Friday, the 28th inst., at 2 o'clock :-

Mr. H. E. Gribblewill callattentionto the resolution of the society passed at the annual provincial meeting held at York on the 12th and 13th of October, 1886, and subsequently approved by the council, and will more : " That a committee be appointed to consider and report to the council on the measures necessary to be taken with the object of assimilating the practice in England generally to that which prevails in the North of England with respect to the employment and remuneration of auctioneers. That the committee (of whom ten shall be a quorum) shall consist oi members of the society, to be named at the meeting, with power to add to their number. That it be an instruction to such committee to especially invite the co-operation of members familiar with the practice in the North of England.”

Mr. F. K. Munton will ask : " What steps have been taken by the council in relation to the resolution passed at the last annual meeting as to the questions with the llliddlesex registry? " and will move: “ That the special committees’ county court report be remitted back to such committee for reconsideration, with the aid of the council's observations thereon, and especially in conjunction with the oflicial rules_and regulations promulgated since the report was drawn up—the committee to have power (with the concurrence of the council) to add to their number."

Mr. Samuel Day will move: " That the following be added to the existing rules of the Law Society Club : ‘ The committee, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in these rules, shall have power, subject to the approbation of a majority of the members voting at a general meeting specially called for the purpose, to elect, as honorary member, any person not being a member of the Incorporated Law Society.’ " _

Mr. J . J . Coulton will move ; “ (1) That, at the annual provincial meetings of this society, a printed copy of all the papers be handed to every member on application at the place of meeting or during the meeting. (2) That the papers be taken as read and the whole time of the meeting devoted to their discussion. (3) That the papers be grouped into sections, and the time apportioned to each section in proportion to quantity and impffirtance. (4) That no speaker be allowed more than ten minutes. (.5)

at the author of a paper should have the right of reply. (6) That no thanks be given to any member or oflicial of the society.”

Mr. Charles Ford will ask: “ (1) ls the president of the society, and are the members of the council, unanimously of opinion that the Law Club (as constituted after the commencement of my Chancery action in regard to the old club) is beneficial to the general body of members of the society: what is the estimated value of the premises occupied by the club; and what is the present number of members of the club who are members of the society? (2) Referring to the statements made by Mr. Roscoe, when president of the society, at general meetings held in July, 1885, and Jtl!§\'1_B!Y, 1886, as to the Students‘ Fee Fund created by section 8 of the Solicitors Act, 1877, what is the sum now available for legal education in oonnectlfm with that section?" And will move: “ (1) This meeting, whilst recognizing the good intentions of the council in small grants recently msde_i0 Liverpool and Newcastle-on-Tyne for educational purposes, is of oplllloll that these and similar grants should be larger in amount, and should be made without the conditions hitherto imposed by the council. (2) Thai the interests of solicitors and the public require that many public leg appointments, from which solicitors are at present excluded, should thrown open to them.”

[graphic][ocr errors]

Subjects of examination in the year 1888 :—

1. 'l‘he Principles of the Law of Real and Personal Property, and the Practice of Conveyancing. _

2. The Principles of Law and Procedure in matters usually determined or administered in the Chancery Division of the High Court of J usticc.

3. The Principles of Law and Procedure in matters usually determined 01’ administered in the Qucen’s Bench Division of the High Court Oi J'1lBlI1CB,'Bl]d the Law and Practice of Bankruptcy. _

4. Phe Principles of Law and Procedure in matters usually determined or administered in the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division of _th6 Hlsh Court 92 Justice; Ecclesiastical and Criminal Law and Pi-mice; and Proceedings before J ustioes of the Peace.

Candidates are required to give notice in writing forty-two days at leasl before the date of the examination to the Secretary of the Incorpolflmd Law Society, Chancery-lane, London,

Candidates are also required, at the same time, to leave with the secret"? °f the 900_iB15y their articles of clerkship and supplemental articles (If any), and certificate of having passed the intermediate examination, WBethef with answers to the questions as to due service and conduct. Vbe answered by the candidate and his principal and agent if any. Print»! °f these questions can be obtained on application at the oi-fice of the Incorpopgiiled Law Society. 1 tb

_ ere articles of clerkshi e ' b t 10th J nuary and 5

APII1 Cfflldidfltos may be exgmifigdrein eJ:iifi:ry, 18885; between 1431


April and 22nd May in April, 1888 ; between 21st May and 2nd November in June, 1888 ; between 1st November, 1888, and 11th January, 1889, in November, 1888; or at any subsequent examination.

The examinations in 1888 will be held at the hall of the society, Chancery-lane, London [the dates of the examinations will be published in July next].

Candidates who fail to pass, or attend at the examination for which they have given notice, may attend at any subsequent examination. A renewed notice must, in that case, be given fourteen days, at least, before the date of such subsequent examination.

The fee payable on giving notice of examination is £5, for a renewed notice £2 10s., and for the honours examination £1. Cheques or post~ ollice orders should be crossed “ Messrs. Goslings & Sharpe."


The society held its usual quarterly meeting at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, on Tuesday, January 11th; Mr. E. P. Bilbrough in the chair; when, owing to the prolonged discussion of special business, the subject on the agenda paper was not reached.


The first general meeting of this society for session 1886-87 was held on the Tth inst. The chair was occupied by Mr. W. E. M. Tomlinsori, M.P., barrister-at-law. Six legal queries were discussed and satisfactorily i-ettled. The following case was then orgued:—“Should the case of 11//wllnmi, Low, if Co. v. Vigars be reversed on appeal to the House of Lords?” In this case, which was one on marine insurance, a principal appointed an agent_to effect a policy of insurance on his ship. Before the agent could effect it he discovered that the ship was lost. He told his principal that he could not effect an insurance, but concealed the fact that the ship was_lost. The principal then appointed another agent to try to effect an insurance, and this agent succeeded. \Vas the policy effected by the second agent good? Mr. A. Bush opened the case on behalf of the affirmative, and he was supported by Messrs. A. W. Ladyman and R. A. McNab. Mr. Rawsthorne upheld the negative contention, and he was followed by Messrs. T. H. Clarke and H. Whiteside. After Mr. Rawsthorne had summed up and Mr. Bush replied, tho chairman very impartially summed up and put thc question to the jury, when it was uiiammously decided for the negative—-i'.a., that the policy entered into by the second agent was void, and, therefore, that the case ought not to be reversed on appeal to the House of Lords. A vote of thanks to the chairman brought the proceedings to a termination.


Serieant WILLIAM BALLANTINE died at Margate on the 9th inst., at the B86 Of seventy-tlve. The deceased was the eldest son of Mr. William Ballantme, magistrate at the Thames Police-court, and was born in 1812. He was educated at St. Paul's School. He entered at the Inner Temple at an early age, and, after having been a pupil in the chambers of the late Baron Watson, was called to the bar in Trinity Term, 1834. He selected the Home Circuit, and for over twenty years he practised at the Central Criminal and at the Middlesex Sessions. He was for several years B revising barrister, and he soon acquired a large criminal practice, besides being extensively employed in licensing business. In 1856 he was created a ser]eant-at-law (at the same time with the late Serjeant Parry), and he Kmdllnlly acquired a leading civil business both on circuit and in London, while still holdmg special briefs in criminal cases. In 1863 he received a Patent of precedence, and for the next fifteen years he occupied a leading £_3Blt10l1 at the Common Law bar. He was a powerful cross-examiner, and

pi tact and powers of sarcasm rendered him very successful with juries. He ° W11 flppeared as leading counsel for the large railway companies, and he all frequently successful in defeating fraudulent claims to compensation. h e was also largely employed in election petitions. It would be impossible Bi;-‘Ii? to enumerate all the important cases in which Mr. Scrjeant antine was engaged. but we may mention among criminal cases Rf-7' " M"""“"9i 199. V. Jlullur, Reg. v, Baker, the Ifizcbel vase, the Oz'e1'i'ml (51! Gurney. nus, the Boullon and Park, and among civil cases the ""‘y"l1 divorce case, the Mordaimt divorce case, and the Risk Allah Boy "'98- He was also leading counsel for the plaintiff in the Tiahborne ejectgiernt suit. In 187o_ he went to India, being specially retained for the rs ence of the Guikwar of Baroda, when he was understood to have b<;@ived_the unprecedented fee of 10,000 guineas. His health gave way Bif six years ago, and since that time he had gradually ceased to pgactice. About five years ago he published two volumes of “ExperiOcf! £0! _a B8l'1'l8l'£l"8.LI.f6.," which contained some amusing experiences ‘mgr? essional and social life. He afterwards went to the United States bu hiecturing tour, which was not believed to have been successful, and WM]; zeturn he published another work, entitled “ From the Old Inna T 0 the hew. Mr. Serjeant Ballantine was a bencher of the whicg ample. He had filled the oflice of treasurer of Serjeant's-inn, in miet °“P;°lt7 he camed out the_sale and division of the property of that bmmyi] d ewas married in 181;: to the daughter of Mr. George Gyles, Hen ‘aalbecn a widower for many years. His only son, Mr. William

. 17 T fer Ballantine, was called to the bar at the Inner Templein ml”! "mi 1871, and is a member of the South-Eastern Circuit.


Mr. THOMAS Kssxanr Raiis.u', a Puisne Judge of the Court of Queen's Bench at Quebec, died at St. Hogues, Canada, on the 22nd ult. Mr. Justice Ramsay was the youngest son of Mr. David Ramsay, of Grimmet, Ayrshire, and was born in 1826. He was educated at the Ayr Academy, and at the University of St. Andrews, and he was called to the bar in Lower Canada. He was secretary to the Commissioners for the Codification of the Laws of Lower Canada. He was assistant judge of the Superior Court of Canada from 1870 to 1873, when he was appointed a Puisne Judge of the Court of Queen's Bench at Quebec.

Mr. THOMAS Pun-r, barrister, died at Brockley Lodge, Finchley, on the 14th ult, in his eighty-seventh year. Mr. Platt was the fourth son of Mr. Samuel Platt, and was born in 1800. He was educated at St. Paul’s School. Ile was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Trinity Term, 1826, and he had for many years a considerable practice a.s a conveyancer. He was the author of a work on the Law of Covenants, and of a wellknown work on the Law of Leases. Mr. Platt was married tlrst, in 1839, to the eldest daughter of Mr. John Hugh Smyth Pigott, of Brockley Hall, Somersetshire. He became a widower in 1853, and he was married secondly, in 1859, to the eldest daughter of Mr. Charles Phillips, Commissioner of the Insolvent Debtors Court.


Mr. EDWARD llfacmlonras, Q.C., M.P., who has been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary on the resignation of Lord Blackburn, is the second son of the late Sir Edmund Workman Macnaghten, Bart., and was born in 1830. He was formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, where he graduated in the first class of the Classical Tripos, and as Chancellor's Medallist, and a Senior Optime in 18-3'2. lie was called to the bar at Linc-oln’s-inn in Hilary Perm, 1857. He was Secretary to the Chancery Funds Commission. He became a Queen's Counsel in 1880, and he has since practised in the Rolls Court and before Mr. Justice Chitty. He was M.I’. for the county of Antrim in the Conservative interest from 1880 till 1885, when he was returned for North Antriin. He is a bcncher of Lincoln’s-inn. He is married to the daughter of the late Mr. Baron Martin.

The Right Hon. Sir HENRY THUILSTAN Hoi.i.a.\'n, Bart., G.C.M.G., llI.P., who succeeds Mr. St-anhope as Secretary of State for the Colonies, is the eldest son of Sir Henry Holland, Bart., M.D., and was born in 1825. He was educated at Harrow and at Trinity College, Cambridge. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1849, and he formerly practised on the Northern Circuit. He was Secretary to the Common Law Commission, and he was Assistant Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies from 1870 till 1874. He was M.P. for Midhurst in the Conservative interest from 1874 till 1885, when he was elected M.P. for Hampstead. In June, 1885, he was appointed Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and two months afterwards he was appointed Vice-President of the Committee of the Council on Education, and was sworn in as a member of the Privy Council. He went out of otfice in February, 1886, but he was re-appointed in the July following. Sir H. Holland was created a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St. Michael and St. George in 1885. He is a bencher of the Inner Temple, a magistrate for Surrey, and a deputy-lieutenant for Middlesex.

The Bight Hon. EDWARD STANHOPI, barrister, M.P., Secretary of State for the Colonies, has been appointed Secretary of State for War. Mr. Stanhope is the second son of the fifth Earl Stanhope, and was born in 18-10. He was educated at Harrow, and at Christ Church, Oxford, where he graduated B.A. in 1862, and he was subsequently elected a liellow of of All Souls’ College. He was called to the bar at the Inner_ Temple in Easter Term, 1865, and he formerly practised on the Home Circuit. He acted asan assistant commissioner on the Employment of _\Vomen and Children in Agriculture, and he was M.P. for Mid L_in_colnshire from 1874 till 1885, when he was returned for the Horncastle Division of that county. Mr. Stanhope was Secretary to the Board of Trade from 1875 till 1878, Under-Secretary of State for India from 1878 till 1880, Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education from June till_ August, 188a, and President of the Board of Trade from August, 1885, _till February, 1886. He was appointed Secretary of State for the Colonies in July, 1886.

Mr. ALFRED MILXBR, barrister, who has been appointed Private Secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is the only son of D_r. Charles Milner, and was born in 1804. He was formerly scholar of Balliol College, Oxford, where he graduated fi_rst class in Classics in 1876. He obtained the Hertford Scholarship in 18i4, the Ciaven Scholarship i_i_i 18i A, and the Derby Scholarship and the Eldon Law Scholarship in 1318, and he was subsequently elected a fellow of New College. Mr. Milncr was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in January, 1881, and he is a member of the Midland Circuit.

M1-. Enwimn Biunroan Mznnrcorr, barrister, has succeeded to B Baronetcy on the death of his elder brother, Sir William Co_le_s Medlycott. Sir E. Medlycott is the second son of the late Sir William Coles Medlycott, and was born in 1832. He was educated at _Merton Collegm Oxford. He was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Michaelmas Term, 1855, and he practises on the Western Circuit.

Mr. \Vir.i.i.ur Bowiix Rownaxns, Q.C., M.P., has been appointed B Magistrate for Cardiganshire.

Mr. Janus FOTHBROILL Evans, solicitor, of Chepstow, has 1168!! "P" pointed Clerk to the Magistrates for the Chepstow Divison of h%onmonvt1gshire and for the Lydney Division of Gloucestershire. Mr. M1115 5 admitted a solicitor in 1874.

« PreviousContinue »