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

CuLvERiIonsR, ALFRED, and FREDERICK HENRY Cni.vERiIoUsi=:. Camden Town. golnltractors. Jan 18 at 2 30. Bankruptcy bldgs, Portugal st, Lincoln's inn e < s DODSON, BENJAMIN, Weston super Mare. out oi business. Jan 18 at 12.15. George and Railway Hotel, Victoria st, Bristol

DRARRLE. ELIZA, ALFRED J OIIN DRAERLE, WALTER HIcimAi~i DRILBBLE, and ARTRUR MAnnocx DRABBLE, Worksop, Notts, Cabinet Makers. Jan 19 at 10.30. Corn Exchange. Worksop

HALL. ENOCII, Great Grimsby, Millwright. Jan 19 at 2. Oii Rec, 3, Haven st, Great Grimsbv

HANNAN, FRANcIs JOIIN. Woodstock, Oxfordshire, M.D. Jan 24 at 11.30. Oif Rec, 1. St Aldates, Oxford

HA\\'RINs. HARRY, Natal rd, Streatham, Builder. Jan 18 at 3. 102, Victoria st, Westminster

I.\'M.\N. JOHN, Huttons Ambo, Yorks, Farmer. Jan 19 at 11.30. Talbot Hotel, New Malton. Yorlis

J .\consoN, LIONEL. Mai-ylebone rd. Business Transfer Agent. Jan 19 at 2.3). Bankruptcy bldgs, Portugal st, Lincoln’s inn fields

KINO. GEOROE WILLIAM. Keen's Kld. St Paul's rd, Canonbury, Cab Proprietor. Jan 18 at 11. 33, Carey st. L coln’s inn

LENG. THOMAS. Lcavening, Yorks, Farmer. Jan 19 at 2. Talbot Hotel, New Malton, Yorks

LEARMONTH. ALEXANDER, Eaton pl. Eaton sq. Esq. Jan 19 at 11. Bankruptcy bldgs, Portugal st, Lincoln's inn fields

MICHELL. CARLTON CUMBERIJATCII, and J mas DRAPER Bisnor, Woodstock rd, Shepherd's bush, Orizan Builders

Nu'i'rALL. FREDERICK. Ba ford, Grocer. Jan 24 at 2.30. Oi! Ree, Ogden's ehbrs Bridge st, Manchester

OLDROYL. SAMIIIBII. Miriield, Yorkshire, Furniture Dealer. Jan 19 at 3. Oii Rec, Bank ehbrs, Batley

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

Anti-Dyspeptic Cocoa or Chocolate Powder. Guaranteed Pure Soluble Cocoa of the Finest Quality with the excess of int extracted.

The Faculty pronounce it “ the most nutritious, parfecily digestible beverage for Breakfast, Luncheon, or Supper, and invaluable for Invaliils and Children."

Highly commended by the entire Medical Press.

Being without sugar, spice, or other admixture, it suits all palates keeps for years in all climates, and is tuur times the strength of 0OCOBl’llflClIllD yet. wnniun with starch, &c., and II nnurr cunrn than such Mixtures.

Made instantaneously with . tiling water, a maspooniul no a Brcakfasfllup, costing less than a halfpenny. Coconnu A La V,nn|.i.s is the most delicate, digestible, cheapest Manilla Chocolate, and may be taken when richer chocolate is prohibited.

In tins at ls. 0d., 9s., Bs. 6d., &c., by Chemists and

_ _ _ Grocers. Charities on Special Terms by the Solo Proprietor,

[ocr errors]


MlLNER’S Strong, Holdfast, & Fire Res t ing Safes & Bankers Strong Rooms.

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

Y ROBE @ - muss,

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


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


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

The Companies Acts. W 1333

Evsry requisite under the above Acts supplied on K114 shortest notice.

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


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

Ssvsiiii. SHORT CAUSES having been brought on before Mr. Justice STIRLING on Saturday last in which minutes of the proposed judgment had not been left with the papers for the judge, his lordship said that it must be understood that any matter intended to be heard as a short cause must be so marked in the Cause Book at least one clear day before the same could be put in the paper to be so heard; and the necessary papers, including minutes of the proposed judgment or order, must be left with the Judge's ofiicer one clear day before the cause was to be put in the paper.

Tin-: asovn iiiaiacrioss should be read in connection with the notice issued by the registrars in 1876 relating to setting down and marking “short,” which will be found set out at p. 514 of the “Annual Practice” for 1886-7, and as supplementary to R. S._C., 1883, XXXVL, 30. While on this subject, we may add that it does not seem to be always understood that the judges of the Court of Appeal require three copies of all the necessary papers to be left for their use.

[ocr errors]

As as ILLUSTRATION of the mistakes which may arise by acting on a so-called copy of a document, Mr. Justice CHITTY, on s°_t‘{"lBY. by way of explaining his reasons for calling for an original deed, informed the bar that on one occasion within his cxpenence a gift was copied in the following words—viz., “One thousand pounds to such son on his attaining twenty-one.” In connection with the context, these words applied to one person, but when the original document was examined, it was found that fl1e_W0rd “such ” should have been “ each,” and that nine persons were to have £1,000 each, instead of one. In the instance referred i0, the mistake appears to have been discovered in time to prevent Complications, but such mistakes give ample grounds for the exercise of the utmost caution with regard to “ copies " of documents.

[ocr errors]

_ TH!-I Covar or Arrmr, having, in Re Allen (ante, p. 185), got its teeth well into clause 6 of the Remuneration Order, is proceed111819 further rend and shake the efiicacy out of that provision. lt will be remembered that in Ra Allen Lord Justice Corros laid ff d°WI1 that the “ business ” was “ undertaken " by the solicitor

as soon as the client retained him and he accepted the retainer,” ""13 11B_We_rsmarked last week, there are expressions in thejudgment which indicate that the retainer must be “to attend to the matter aud to undertake the preparation of the lease ”; but we warned °ll1' readers that, notwithstanding these expressions, it would be

[ocr errors]


found that there was little practical difference between the rule laid down by the Court of Appeal and that laid down by Mr. Justice K.ii'—viz., that, “ after a solicitor had accepted any employment, and had done anything therein for which he could mal-e a char-_qe supposing the scale did not apply, it wastoo late for him to elect to charge according to the system existing before the General Order came into operation." A decision of Healer v. Hester, which we report this week, shews as plainly as possible that a solicitor may “undertake ” the “business” so as to debar himself from electing under clause 6, although at the time of the acts which constitute the “undertaking of the business” he had no specific instructions or retainer in the matter, but was merely acting in the interest of clients for whom he had previously habitually acted. It is interesting to compare this decision with the principle which forms the basis of the well-known case of Safii-on Walden Buildin Society v. Ifa_1/ner (28 W. R. 681), where Lord Justice Janna lays it down that it is a “ prevailing fallacy that there is such a thing as the oflice of a solicitor—that is, that a man has a solicitor, not as a person whom he is employing to do some particular business for him, . . . but as an official solicitor." It appears that, for the purposes of the Remuneration Order only, there is such a. thing as “an oflicial solicitor.” The facts of the case shew the hardship resulting from the construction given to clause 6, and an interesting letter, which we print elsewhere, shews the some thing with regard to Re Allen. The scale fee in the latter case is stated to have barely covered the stationer’s charges and- parchment, and in Hester v. Healer it was stated that, while the scale fee was £12, the cost of the abstract alone amounted to £12 10s. The result of the cases appears to be to render it necessary fora solicitor, in every case in which there is reason to suppose that the scale fee may be thus grossly inadequate, to take care that notice in writing of election is given to the client before anything is done by the solicitor for which he can make ii charge.

[graphic][merged small]

firet, whether the attornment clause was void under the Bills of

Sale Acts? second, whether the term created by the attornment had
expired or been determined under R. S. C., 1883, ord. 3, r._ 6 (F.)?
As to the first question, it was argued that the clause was void under
the Act of 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 31), (1) under section 3, as creat-
ing a tenancy to which a power of distress was incident, so that
it gave power to seize personal chattels; (2) under section 6, as
being “ an attornment, &c., whereby a power of distress . . .
is given to any person . . . by way of security for any ._ . .
debt " : that it was void under the Act of 1882 (45 & 46 Vict: c.
43), (1) under section 8, for want of registration; (2) under section
9, as not being in the prescribed form; (3) under section 13, as
giving a power of immediate removal. _ The court (COLBRIDGE,
C.J., h[AI\‘IST1', J ., and STEPHEN, J.) decided that the mortgage
deed was not a bill of sale within the meaning of the Act. “ I
cannot think,” says COLERIDGE, C.J., “ that because the law
attaches the right of distress to the relation of landlord and tenant
that necessarily makes n document which creates such ii relation a
bill of sale. . . . I could get no answer to the suggestion that
if this were within the Acts all leases would be bills of sale.
M.\NISTY, J ., was of opinion that the language of section 5 Of the
Ad; of 1378-“ every attornment . . . whereby a power of
distress is given"-—ir|'iI)liES “ that the power must be expressly
given, and must be a special power, not the usual power of dis-
tress incidentsl to a demise." Both C01-ERI1>GE._ C-J» afld M-41"5TYi
J., thought that the power to seize mentioned in_ section 6 11181111!
a power to seize particular goods, not the power implied by law on
a tenancy, which extends tp any goods which may be 011
the premises during the demise, including goods of a_ strongly-
M.ANISTY, J ., was also _of opinion that, as it W118 1ml;°"1 de
to comply with the directions in section 9 as to an inventory {>1 8°11];
in a demise, the result of holding the attorninent clauiie vii t Wound
be that all demises would _be within the Bills of Sag Q fit, was
would be void. The decision of the court on the secon pin;

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

in favour of the plaintiff on the authority of Daubuz v. Lavinylon l (32 W. IL772, 13 Q. B. D. 347). The practical result is that thero is no objection to the insertion of an attornment clause in a mortgage according to the usual practice. It should, however, be remembered that only a fair, not a fictitious, rent can be reserved: Ea: par-is Williams (26 VV. R. 274, 7 Ch. D. 138), Re Stockton, 120., C0. (27 W. R. 433, 10 Ch. D. 335), Ea: pane Jackson (29 W. R. 253, 14 Ch. D. 725), Ea: parts Voiaey (31 W. R. 19,21 Ch. D. 442). As to disclaimer, by the trustee in bankruptcy of the mortgagor, of the tenancy created by the attornment, see lilo parle Islierwood, Re Knight (31 W. R. 442, 22 Ch. D. 384). It should, perhaps, be observed that, notwithstanding dicta in some of the older cases, the insertion of the attornment clause does not render the mortgagee liable to account as mortgagee in possession : Stanley v. Grundy (22 W. R. 315, 22 Ch. D. 478). The amount levied by distress for rent under the attornment may be applied in the payment of principal as well as interest, in the absence of any rovision to the contrary in the mortgage : Ea: pm-fa Harrison, Re gem (30 W. R. 38, 18 Ch. D. 127), and per BACON, V.C., in Stanley v. Grundy (ubi 8up.).

In run conasr. of the hearing of several motions for the appointment of a receiver in four actions against the same company, the usual vigorous and lively contest arose before Mr. Justice Cnirr! as to whose nominee should be appointed. The learned judge, after witnessing with exemplary patience the great pitched battle which was waged before him for a long time, took occasion at length to rcmark very pointedly upon the prevalent practice of describing the receiver appointed by the court as “ our receiver,” meaning the receiver of the nominor, as if the nominor were entitled to any greater consideration or benefit from the receiver than any other party to the proceedings. He protested against this practice ; the receiver being the receiver of the court, and not in any sense the servant of the parties. It is sometimes useful to be reminded of elementary propositions, especially when the reminder comes from one who is in a position to disallow the costs of imsuccessful parties whom he may consider to have been obstructive; and, under similar circumstances, it may be useful to remind practitioners that the phrase “ our receiver ” is henceforth tabooed in lllr. Justice Cni'rn"s court.

We REPORT elsewhere an interesting address delivered by Mr. WALDRON, the President of the Cardiff Law Society, which contains a suggestion which, so far as we know, is novel, and deserves consideration as affording a hint of one direction which some scheme for relieving the pressure in chambers might possibly take. “There is one reform,” said Mr. Winnuozv, “in the practice of the Chancery Division of the High Court which I should like to see carried out. In my judgment it would greatly lessen the time and expense wasted in the present system of ‘taking accounts’ if, alter ‘order made,’ the papers in the action were remitted to an experienced local solicitor (unconnected with the urties), who could examine the vouchers, hear the evidence of the litigants and their witnesses, and report the result to the court. In this way the repeated adjournments before chief clerks would be avoided, and accounts which now take months to settle could be disposed of in a day or two.”

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


Keeping up the value of the properly/.—-In The Uomolidafed Credit and Mortgage C’orporaI2'on (Limited) v. Gamay (34 W. It. 106, 16 Q. B. D. 24), a covenant to replace chattels worn out out so as to keep up the total value to the gresent value was held good. In Furber v. Cobb (17 Q. B. D. 4 9), where the covenants were, not to allow deterioration other than by fair wear and tear, and to replace articles destroyed or deteriorated, and there was ii power to the grantee to seize on breach of covenant, the bill of sale was declared to be invalid.

Power of sale.—The decision of the Court of Appeal in E: parie The Oflicial Receiver, Re Merrill (ante, p. 143), on appeal from E1-parts Bentley, Re Morilt (84 W. R. 579), is a conclusive authority that every bill of sale confers a power of sale on the mortgagee, though it leaves it doubtful whether such power is conferred by the general law or by the Bills of Sale Amendment Act, 1882; it also decides that the power of sale conferred on mortgagees by the Conveyancing Act, 1881, cannot be implied in a bill of sale (see ante, p. 137). But the decision leaves undecided the important question whether an express power of sale may be safely inserted in a bill of sale. The case of Hetheringfon v. Groom (33 W. R. 103, 13 Q. B. D. 789), which decided that ii bill of sale containing such a power was good, cannot be considered as a binding authority, as the decision depended on the opinion that the insertion of an express power was necessary in order to render the bill of sale efiective, an opinion which is inconsistent with the decision in Re Jllorrill. In the absence of decision it appears safer not to insert an express power, owing to the risk of its being held that the insertion of the power renders the bill not m accordance with the form in the schedule.

Bearing in mind the provisions of the 7th section of the Act of 1882, it will readily be understood that, even if the insertion of an express power does not render the bill of sale invalid, a provision protecting a purchaser from being bound to see or inquire whether any default in payment by the grantor had been made renders the bill invalid: Blaibery v. Parsons (17 Q- B» D336 ; same case sub. nom. Parsons v. Ilaryreaves, 34 W. R. 717); Blai'ber_q v. Beckett (35 \V. R. 34).

Seizuro.-The prescribed form contains a declaration that the chattels “ are not to be liable to seizure or to be taken possession Oi by the yrantce for any cause other than those specified in” the 7ll1 section of the Act of 1882—that is to say—

(1) If the grantor shall make default in payment of the sum or sums of money thereby secured at the time therein provided for payment or in the performance of any covenant or agreement contained in the bill of sale and necessary for maintaining the security; (‘-3) If the grantur shall become a bankrupt or suffer the said goods 0! any of them to be distrained for rent, rates, or taxes ; (3) if the grantor shall fraudulently either remove or sulfer the said good! or any of them to be removed from the premises; (4) If il_1° grantor shall not, without reasonable excuse, upon demand 111 writing by the grantee, produce to him his last receipts for rent, rates, and taxes; (5) if execution shall have been levied Bgfllliil the goods of the grantor under any judgment at law.

To consider these causes in order:—

(1) As to default qfpaymenl.—Where the principal and interest were to be paid by monthly instalments, a power on default of payment of any instalment to seize and sell after the statutory fiV° days and apply the proceeds in payment of the whole sum secured, the bill of sale was held invalid: .l!ysrs v. Elliott (34 W. Rsas, 16 Q. B. D. 5-26).

(2) Mninfenance of the aecuri{y.—The following covenants haw been decided not to be necessary for maintaining the seclmll within the meaning of this section; to deliver to the grantee the receipts for rates and taxes of the place where the goods were! Re Williams, Ex parts Pearce (32 \V. R. 187, 25 Ch. D. 656); Davis v. Burton (31 W. R. 523, 10 Q. B. D. 537, 32 W. R. 42:5, _ll_ Q. B. D. 414); not to permit the chattels to be dest1‘°F°di 1D]1ll‘6d, or deteriorated, fair wear and tear excepted, and to reP1i1°° %l°5e i°_5;§°Y9d. injured, or deteriorated: Fnrber v. Cobb (17 Q

. . a .

(3) “If the grantor shall do or sigfer any matter or 17""!

whereby he shall become a bankrupt " was held to mean the B81119 BSif the grantor shall become a bankrupt in Ea: pnrte Allflmi

[ocr errors]

hand, e power of seizure, “if the grantor shall do or suffer anything whereby he shall render himself liable to become a bankrupt,” renders the bill of salo invalid: Re 7Villiams, Ex parte .Pem‘t'e(32 W. R. 18, 25 Ch.D. 657).

(4) Fraudulent removal of _qoorI.s.—A power of seizure in the words of sub-section (3), with the omission of the word “fraudulently,” renders the bill of sale invalid: Re Williams, Er parte Pearce (uhi suprri).

(5) Receipt for rent, §rc.—A power of seizure, if the grantor shall not “forthwith,” after every payment of rents, rates, and taxes, produce the receipt, rendered the bill of sale invalid in Re ll'illianis, Ex parle Pearce (ubi an rd‘. _

In Zumley v. Simmons (34 W. i59) a provision that, if the grantee became entitled to seize the chattels, he might enter and remain upon any premises where they might be, and, if necessary, break open doors and windows in order to obtain admission, was Sli]¥01‘tl-Id. _

0 recapz'fuIate.—(l) A mortgage bill of sale must be substantially in accordance with the form given in the schedule to the Act ofl882; if it be not it is avoided in toto (ante, pp. 40, 41); (2) a mortgage bill of sale in the prescribed form accompanied by an instrument containing other terms of the agreement is void (ante, p. 41); (3) the consideration must state with substantial accuracy, eitherin legal or business accuracy, the true effect of what actually took place (ante, p. 56); (4) personal chattels (with certain exceptions as to growing crops, fixtures, and trade machinery) must he described in an inventory contained in a schedule to the bill of sale “as a business man would describe them” (ante, p. 57); (5) with some exceptions, no mortgage can he made of afteracquired chattels (ante, p. 57) ; (6) the rate of interest, which may be per month, must be stated ; the reservation of a fixed sum as interest where no rate is specified, or of compound interest, avoids the bill of sale (ante, pp. 180, 181); (7) the time for payment must be stated definitely and with certainty (ante, p. 181) ; (8) a bill of sale given by way of indemnity is void (ante, p. 181); (9) as to provisions with respect to insurance, rent, rates and taxes, and as to keeping up the value of the security, which appears not to be capable of reduction to a rule see ante, pp. 181. The cases appear to shew that a provision causing the money secured by the bill of sale to become due on breach by the mortgagor of his covenants as to either of these matters avoids a bill of sale. (10) Every bill of sale confers a power of sale on the mortgagee (ante, p. 137, and suprd). It is doubtful whether the insertion of an express power is admissible. (1 1) The decisions on the cases arising under the 7th section of the Act of 1882—i.e., as to seizure by the grantee—are discussed supra.

In conclusion, we cannot help calling attention to the frightful expense occasioned to the public—and, we may add, the scandal occasioned to the administration of justice—owing to the Bills of Bale Acts having been drawn in language which is unintelligible to an ordinary lawyer. Some of our readers who flatter themselves that they understand the Acts may consider our language too strong; this is not the case. We constantly find that an able Judge, assisted by the arguments of able counsel, arrives with much difficulty at a decision as to the meaning of the Act, and that it is an even chance whether his decision may not be reversed by the Court of Appeal after, perhaps, more than one argument.

Considering that a bill of sale is the security generally used by Yery poor people who cannot afford to pay for expensive legal advice, It appears to us that one of the most pressing legal reforms is the passing of an amending Bills of Sale Act. No pains and expense Should be spared in rendering it intelligible to an ordinary lawyer. This is, perhaps, a Utopian wish; but at all events it must be within the power, and therefore it is the duty, of Parliament to pass_an Act which a judge, aided by the arguments of counsel, Ofln interpret with reasonable certainty.

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

SEARCHES as Arrncren BY run INTEREST or THE Visunoii.

Estate in fee simple where the vendor was a purehaserfiir value. -—The time for commencing searches for judgments or Crown debts does not depend on the date when the vendor purchased, but on the date of his birth, as judgment may be had against an infant-, and an infant may be a Crown debtor. It is, however, the practice, in the absence of special circumstances, not to search against any person before the time when he came of age, but it may be doubted whether this practice is safe (see post, “ Infir'nt.”).

The searches to be made for judgments and executions at the suit of a subject are stated ante, p. 105; for Crown debts and executions at the suit of the Crown, at 30 Soniciroiis’ Jocizivsn, 783; in the local registries, at 30 Sonicirons’ Jounivsn, 751, 760; terminable charges, at 30 Sonicirons‘ JOURNAL, 714, 629; insolvencies, lie psnrlene, and annuities, at 30 Soniciroiis’ Jori:.\'.ir., 818; for bankruptcies and creditors’ deeds, at 80 Soniciroirs’ Jornxsn, 795.

In addition to these searches inquiry must be made from the sherifl whether he has in his hands, or has lately returned, a writ of elegit against the vendor, and inquiries must be made from any person likely to know whether a receiver or sequestrators have been appointed over his land : 30 Sonrcrroiis’ Jouinvsn, 724, 742.

Vendor seisell in fie taking by descent, devise, or by voluntary come_yance.—The searches will be the same as in the last case, with the addition of searches against every predecessor in title up to and including the last purchaser for value.

Wr_'fe’a lands.—-If the wife’s title accrued, or if she was married, after 1882, searches must be made against her, not against her husband: see the Married \Voman’s Property Act, 1882, s. 1 (2). If her title accrued, and she was married to her husband, before 1883, searches of all natures must be made against her in her maiden name till the marriage, and afterwards against the husband, except for judgments, where necessary, and annuities, which must be made against the husband and wife jointly, and also against the husband alone. It has been argued that if the property devolves on the wife after the marriage it is not necessary to search for judgments in her maiden name, on the ground that the husband’s marital right would be preferred to that of the wife's judgment creditor. This is probably correct; but it must be remembered that a judgment made against the wife before marriage may be enforced against her after the husband’s death.

Infant.—A judgment may be made against an infant by which the inheritance will be bound: per James, L.J., Re Howarth (8 Ch. App., at p. 418), and execution can he sued out on such judgment: Re South (9 Ch. 369). The scarchcs, therefore, for judgments and executions, and also for Crown debts and executions against an infant, will be the same as against an adult. An infant may be either pluintifl or defendant in an action relating to real estate, therefore searches for Its penrtene must be_ made against him. An infant could be made bankrupt on his own petition under the Bankruptcy Act, 1861 (Re Snierlley, 10 L. T. N. S. 432; Ex parte Hands, 15 W. R. 1089), and_possibly he can pr_esent a bankruptcy petition under the_existing law; but in ordinary cases no searches for such petitions cap be required. No searches for annuities need be made agamst an infant. 0w_1ng to the possibility of a judgment haviiig been entered up against him searches must be made in the h[i_d_dlesex and old lorkshrre Registries: and owing to the possibility of an order of_court afiecting the land having been made, searches must be made in the present Yorkshire Registry. Searches for charges under the Sewers Amendment Act (3 &_4 Will. 4, c. 22) and the_Lnnd Drainage Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 183), may also oc required.

Thc question whether searches ought to be made against an infant for other terminable improvement charges is one_ of great nicety. The definition of “landownei_'” in the Public Money Drainage Acts, the Private Money Drainage Act, 1849, and _t119 Improvement of Land Act, 1864, is (with some exceptions not important for the present purpose) the person “in actual possession pr receipt of the rents and profits”; not the person entitled to t e possession or the receipt of the rents and profits. _ 1

The question, therefore, arises, Can an rnfaiit be in actwtli PK5; session or receipt of the rents and profits? It is apprehende t I1.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »