Page images

RESIDENTIAL CHAMBERS to be LET, and he correspondence.tornthet Belicitors' Intermediate


[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]

hlicitore deor, stationer, or patent ngent.-Applomat PRELIMINARY LAW EXAMINATION. Bonuses declared

LAW STATIONERS PRINTERS, and Gower-street, King's-cross, and Euston Stations.
Courts and the chancery lane Safe Deposit : highted LAW. Solicitor


[ocr errors]


meandig Willing to chemote Coposition and THE MORTGAGE, INSURANCE COR

TIMSON'S LIST of PROPERTIES for LL.B. AND 'LAW EXAMS. TOTTENHAM LOCAL BOARD of ments and can be had free. Particulars inserted withont

LONDON LL.B. (let in Honours) pre-
pares for all Law Exams.-London LL.B. a

APPOINTMENT OF SOLICITOR. charge. It is the recognized medium for selling or purchasing property by private contract.-Mr. STIMBON, speciality-by Correspondence and privately. - For

The Board is prepared to receive and consider apAuctioneer, Surveyor, and Valuer, 2, New Kent-road, 8.E! particulars of these and Crrrespondence Classes for all London University Exams. address Prof. CLIVE, plications for the post of "Solicitor to the Board."

Particulars of the duties will be sent to applicants MR: BA REEVES LAND AGENT and 54, Nelson-square, London, A, E.

(Solicitors) on a written application to me at the MR. LEONARD H. WEST, LL.B.,

Board's Offices, Coombes Croft House, High-road, CHANCERY LANE, is prepared to conduct Sales of

Solicitor, First Division and Honours in Tottenham. Freebold and Leasehold Properties by Auction on

Common Law and Equity, 1887; First Division and Applications endorsed "Solicitor" must be remoderate terms. The Management of Property and Honours in Jurisprudence and Roman Law, 1885, ceived at the Board's Offices at or before noon on the Collection of Rents undertaken. University of London ; Sir Henry James Gold Medal 22nd February, 1887.

By order, list, 1886, &c., prepares Pupils at his chambers in Tends

EDWARD CROWNE, in Lincoln's-inn-fields; fitted with every conand Final, Bar, LL.B., and other Law Examinations.

Clerk to the Board. venience, bath room (hot and cold water); key and Terms moderate.-Apply, Brough, East Yorkshire. Tottenham, 3rd February, 1887. ure of square; splendid situation ; moderate rent.

UTTLEY, Solicitor, Fuccessfully ROVIDENT LIFE OFFICE coln's-inn-fields; or at Collector's Office in the Hall PREPARES CANDIDATES, either Privately

(FOUNDED 1806), of 63, Chancery-lane.

or by Correspondence, for SOLICITORS' and BAR 50, REGENT STREET, W., and 14, CORNPRELIMINARY, INTERMEDIATE, and FINAL,


Pupils have obtained
Rooms in a fine building close to the Law Honours. Terms from £1 1s. per month.-Address, Invested Funds

£2,4 5,955 Courts, the Patent Office, and the Chancery-lane

£319.215 17, Brazennose-street, Albert-square, Manchester. Annual Income Safe Deposit; lighted by electric light, and with

Claims and Surrenders paid exceed... £8,000,000


REVISED CONDITIONS OF ASSURANCE. - Foreign the Collector's Office in the Hall of 63 and 64, Chan

-Special Preparation under a Graduate in
Honours of long experience. For the last five years

Residence and cery. lane.

el.-All Policies already, issued not one failure.-For prospectus address H. SER and to be issued after having been Five Years in GEANT, 8, High-street, Camden Town, not far from Force--the Life Assured not being engaged in any

Military, Naval, or Seafaring Service, and of the a te Others.--Convenient Premises to be Let in

of Thirty years and upwards-shall be relieved from requires Partnership ; all conditions as to Foreign Residence and Travel.

admitted 1981; at present and for five years last HALF-CREDIT SYSTEM.-Merchants, Traders, and y electric light, and fitted with every convenience; past in one of the largest City offices ; has connection others requiring the full use of their Capital, and moderate rent. - Apply at once at the Collector's Office in the Hall of 63 and 61, Chancery-lane.

and command of capital; preliminary clerkship not desiring a Life Policy at the cheapest present outlay. objected to.-X., at the Office of this Paper.

are invited to examine the terms of the Half-Credit System of this Office.

Prospectuses and further information to be obto Let in Lincoln's-inn-fields; well suited to Solicitors, Barristers, Law Stationers and others

neatly and expeditiously.--Apply, by letter, tained at the Head Office, or of any of the Agents. desiring to be near the Law Courts; splendid situaA. B., care of Housekeeper, 4, Tokenhouse-buildings,


Actuary and Secretary. tion; moderate rent.-Apply to Attendant, 3 and 4, Lincoln's inn-fields; or at the Collector's Office, in the Hall of 63 and 64, Chancery-lane.

means is willing to negotiate for the purchase

AMOUNT OF CAPITAL SUBSCRIBED, £696,000 required to Purchase by Trustees; a high price desirous of retiring. Principals only dealt with, and

Offices of the Corporationwill be paid for suitable properties; to employ a fund

any particulars given will be received in confidence. Winchester House, old Broad-street, E.C. of £17.500:-ROBERTS & BARNARD, 53 and 54, Chancery- Advertising Agent, 13, South Molton-street, W.

-Address, SOLICITOR, care of Mr. C. F. Scripps, Rt. Hon. E. PLEYDELL BOUVERIE, Chairman. lane, W.C.

Sir SYDNEY H. WATERLOW, Bart., Deputy-Chairman.

Policies are now being issued by this Corporation

BARRISTERS and insuring Mortgages of Freehold and Leasehold Sa.e. to pay 7 per cent. ; £800 per annum net; SOLICITORS Mode of becoming Such. Copy Debentüre Stock, against loss of principai and in

of Mortgage Debentures and thoroughly secured and arising from premises let on New Zealand Law Practitioners' Acts and Rules

terest. full repairing lease to well-known firm; would suit Hooper & Batty, Advertising Contractors, 14, Walthereunder. Sent post-free for 5s.-N. Z., care of

These Policies will be of especial advantage to Trustees.-Apply to ROBERTS & BARNARD, 53 and 54, Chancery-lane, W.C. brook, London, E.C.

Trustees who may be held responsible for losses

consequent upon their Investments. Leasehold Investment, nearly equal to Freehold, pro

Mortgagors insuring with the Corporation will EDUCATION. TO Solicitors and other also be enabled to obtain Advances at the lowest ducing in one collection £111 10s. per annum.

Professional Men and Gentlemen of Limited In, possible rate of interest. R. WALTER KNIGHT is instructed to come.-A few boys, sons of the above, are admitted

The Corporation also grants Policies to LeaseSELL by AUCTION, at the MASONS'

into a well-known School of high tone on greatly holders insuring the return of the Amount invested HALL, Masons'-avenue, Coleman-street. E.O., on

reduced fees.- For full particulars address, in strict at the expiration of their leases or at any fixed TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22nd, 1887, at ONE o'clock,

conidence, “Mu." care of Meesrs. Relfe Bros., 6, periods. a leasehold Improved Rental arising out of the East Charterhouse-buildings, Aldersgate, City, E.C.

For particulars and conditions of Insurance apply Dulwich Hotel, eituate at the corner of Lordship-lane,

to the Secretary.

By order, and Goose-green, Dulwich. Held on lease for ninety

JAS. C. PRINSEP, Secretary. frur years at the ground-rent of £8 10s., and let for

The only acknowledged Establishment in the January 6, 1887. 70 years at £120 per annum.

City of London. Apply, write, wire, or telephone.
May be viewed by leave of the tenants. Cards and
Terms moderate.

HE NEW ZEALAND LAND MORTparticulars of the Auctioneer, 104, Great RussellNo. 900.-HENRY SLATER, Manager, 27, Basinghall

GAGE COMPANY, Limited, street, Bloomsbury. street, City.

Capital £2,000,000, fully subscribed. SALES BY AUCTION FOR THE YEAR 1887.


£200,000 paid up. Reserve Fund, £12,000.

The Company's loans are limited to first-class freeDEBENHAM, TEWSON, CLASSES only in any Misfortune or Distress.KARMER, & BRIDGEWATER beg to announce Two Guineas on admission and Five Guineas per

HOME DIRECTORS. that their SALES of LANDED ESTATES, Investments, quarter for education, maintenance, and clothing:

8. J. BRISTOW, Esq. Town, Suburban, and Country Houses, Business Premises,

Sir WILLIAM T. POWER, Apply to the CHAPLAIN, St. Michael's, Woodside,

W. K. GRAHAM, Esq.

K.C.B. Building Land, Ground-rents, Advowsons, Reversions, Croydon. Latin, French, Mathematics.

FALCONER LARKWORTHY, THOS. Btocks, Shares, and other Properties, will be held at the

RUSSELL, Esq. Esq.

O.M.G. Auction Mart, Tokenhouse-yard, near the Bank of Eng. land, in the City of London, as follows:

NTEMPERANCE.-Ladies suffering from


Esq. Tues., Feb 22

the effects of Intemperance or from the use of
Tues., May 10 Tues., July 26
Tues., March 1

Chairman of Colonial Board-
Drugs are provided for with security and every com-
Tues., May 17 Tues., Aug 2
Tues., March 8
fort. First Department for ladies; Second Depart-

The Hon. Sir FREDK. WHITAKER, K.C.M.G., M.L.C.,
Tues., May 24 Tues., Aug 9
Tues., March 15
ment for the friends of tradesmen.-Apply to the

late Premier of New Zealand.
Tues., June 7 Tues., Aug 16
Tues., March 22
SECRETARY, St. Raphael's, Woodside, Croydon.

The Directors are issuing Terminable Debentures
Tues., June 14 Tues., Aug 23

bearing interest at 4 per cent. for three years, and Tues., March 29 Tues., June 21 Tues., Aug 30 Tues., April 5 Tues., June 28

44 per cent. for five years and upwards. Interest halfTues., Oct 4

Others. - Lofty yearly by Coupons. Tues., April 19 Tues., July 5 Tues., Oct 16

and Well-lighted Offices and Chambers to be Tues., April 26

A. M. MITCHISON, Managing Director. Tues., July 12 Tues., Nov 8

Let at Lonsdale Chambers, No. 27, Chancery-lane Tues., May 3

Leadenhall-buildings, Leadenhall-st., London, E.C. Tues., July 19 Tues., Nov 22

(opposite the New Law Courts). Also large, well

Tues., Dec 13 Auctions can also be held on other days. In order to

Apply to Messrs. LAUNDY & Co.. Chartered Accountinsure proper publicity, due notice should be given. ants, on the premises.

Railway Accidents, Employer's Liability, The period between such notice and the proposed auc

property to be sold. A printed scale of terms cun be
had at 80, Cheapside, or will be forwarded. Telephone

No. 1,503.



The Object of this College is to enable Students at
the earliest practicable age, and at a moderate cost,



to take the University Degree in Arts, Law, or Landed Estates, Town and Country Residences, Hunting Medicine.

£2,350,000. and Shooting Quarters, Farms, Ground Rents, Rent

Students are admitted at 16, and a Degree may be

MODERATE PREMIUMS Charges, House Property and Investments generally, is

taken at 19. published on the first day of each month, and may be The College Charges for Lodging and Board (with

Prompt and Liberal Settlement of Claims. obtained, free of charge, at their offices, 80, Cheapside,

CHAIRMAN-HARVIE M. FARQUHAR, Esa. E C., or will be sent by post in return for three stamps. Particulars for insertion shonld be received not later than

are £84 per apnum. our daya previous to the aud of the preceding month.

For further information apply to the WARDEN,
Cavendish College, Cambridge.

Head Office : -64, CORNHILL, LONDON, E.C.

WILLIAM J. VIAN, Secretary.

CITY-Long Leasehold Investment for


[ocr errors]

Consultations free. Telephone T


INSTITUTION for BOYS of the UPPER hold mortgages. The Debenture issue is limited to




blished Rooms for Meetines, Arbitrations et ACCIDENTS AT HOME AND ABROAD, propenst. Considerabis depend upon the nature of the CAVENDISH COLLEGE, Cambridge. THE RAILWAY PASSENGERS' ASSURANCE COMPANY




necessary expenses of tuition for time. Bonalu degree, West-End Office: -8, Grand Hotel Buildings, W.C.;


.... 284


even the most exacting member of the society would take excepIn the Solicitors' Journal. In the Weekly Reporter.

tion to it. We doubt, however, whether it would be ultrà vires, Buckmaster v. Buckmaster... 284 Crosley, In re. Munns v. Burn

because permitting a person, under exceptional circumstances, to

291 Conolly v. Conolly 285 Crossman v. Reg.

use a club for a few days, does not constitute him a member. In Dever, Ex parte, Re Suse

286 Ganlard & Gibbs' Patent, In re .. 301 Eberles Hotels and Restaurant Gowan v. Wright..


every provincial town which the Law Society have visited, the Co. (Lim.) v. Jonas & Brothers.. 284 "Johann Sverdrup," The Feast, Ex parte, Re Feast

300 solicitors attending the meetings have been made honorary members 286 Knott, In re. Bax v. Palmer

302 Hotekin's Settled Estates, Re

Nathan Newman & Co, In re


for the time being of all the clubs in the town. Hughes, In the Goods of 286 Nottebohn v. Richter

300 Knight, Re, Knight v. Burgess ..., 285 Olley v. Fisher

301 Lloyd v. Gordon 286 Pommery v. Apthorpe

307 Marrett, Re, Chalmers v. Wing Reg. v. Croydon and Norwood field 286 Tramways Oo....


ATTEMPT was made last week, in Phipps v. Pearce, Re, McLean v. Smith .... 285 Van Duzer's Trade-Mark, In re, Jackson, to induce Mr. Justice STIRLING to undertake the enforcePhipps v. Jackson

286 In re Leaf, Son, & Co.'s Trade-


ment of a stipulation in an agricultural agreement to maintain on Webber, Ex parte, In re Webber.. 308 the demised farm a sufficient stock of sheep, horses, and cattle.

If the attempt had succeeded, the court might before long have

had added to its other manifold duties that of superintending the The Solicitors' Journal and Reporter. execution of agricultural agreements throughout the country. As

the late Master of the Rolls said in Musgrave v. Horner (23 W.R. LONDON, FEBRUARY 26, 1887.

125, a case which seems to have been lost sight of in Phipps v.

Jackson), “the court would be inundated by suits to compel CURRENT TOPICS.

farmers to farm in accordance with their covenants, followed by

motions to commit them for not doing so”; and as there are AT HIS PRESENT RATE of progress in hearing causes, Mr. Justice probably few judges or chief clerks who know turnips from manKEKEWICH will require a new transfer in the course of two or gold wurzel, it is obvious that this extension of jurisdiction would three weeks. We understand that more than half of the cases have involved the addition of an Agricultural Department to the transferred to him on the 22nd of January will, at the end of this offices of the Supreme Court, and ruddy-faced assessors, clad in week, be exhausted.

leather gaiters, would have had to sit by the learned judges on the hearing of these applications. The rule that the court will

not enforce specific performance of corenants in a farming lease IT IS UNDERSTOOD that the Attorney-General intends to organize has never been doubted since Rayner v. Stone (2 Eden, 128), where a system of contributions from members of the bar towards the Lord NORTHINGTON asked, “How can a Master judge of repairs in establishment of the proposed Imperial Institute of the United husbandry ?” It has always been considered that these contracts are Kingdom, the Colonies, and India, and that the Incorporated Law of such a nature that the court cannot enforce their performance. Society propose to adopt a similar plan as regards solicitors.

But, although the court will not grant a mandatory injunction to compel a tenant to cultivate and manage his farm in accordance with his agreements, it has often granted injunctions to restrain acts of

farm tenants inconsistent with their express or implied obligations; THERE IS an anticipation that, among the honours to be con

and there is no small difficulty in laying down any clear rule as to ferred upon the completion of the fiftieth year of her Majesty's the limits within which the granting of these injunctions will be reign, some will be bestowed upon the higher officials of the confined. In Johnson v. Golswaine (3 Anstr. 749) the Court of Supreme Court ; and it may not perhaps be unreasonable to look Exchequer, sitting in equity, attempted to limit the intervention for a repetition of the precedent set on the opening of the Royal by injunction to cases of threatened injury in the nature of Courts with regard to the official heads of the governing bodies irreparable waste, and refused to restrain mere breaches of contract, connected with either branch of the profession.

such as carrying off straw and manure contrary to the tenant's agreement; but about the same tim9, in Geast v. Belfast (Ibid., 749, note (a.)), an injunction was granted to restrain a tenant from

carrying off manure in breach of an affirmative covenant to spend Tue Suggestions we ventured to throw out a few weeks ago with upon the premises all the hay and manure arising from them (see regard to the London-provincial meeting of the Incorporated Law also Fleming v. Snook, 5 Beav. 250, where the doctrine of irreSociety have been practically adopted. The council have issued a parable injury was disregarded). And in Onslow v. Anon (16 Ves.173) circular to all the London members of the society informing them a tenant from year to year was restrained from taking away crops aná that the meeting usually held in the provinces in October will this manure contrary to the implied affirmative stipulation to farm gear be held in London, in the week commencing the 6th of June ; according to the custom of the country. The line of division and in order to make some return for the hospitality received in between these cases and the case before Mr. Justice Stirling-where the provinces, it is proposed to give a dinner, a ball, and some the tenant, having agreed to maintain on the farm a sufficient stock, other entertainment, either theatrical or musical, to be fixed on

threatened to sell off all his stock-is, it must be admitted, somewhat afterwards. The invitation will be extended to all the country fine. The learned judge, in refusing the injunction, appears to members of the society, and, baving regard to the time of the have limited the remedy by injunction to cases where there is either year and the occasion, it is likely to be very well attended. To an express negative covenant” or “a covenant which necessarily meet the expenses a guarantee fund is proposed to be formed by carries with it a negative.” He thought that the covenant to the members of the council and the London members of the keep a sufficient stock on the farm did not fall within either class, society. All members who guarantee up to, but not exceeding, ten and that the application was in reality that the court should superguineas are to be members of a grand committee for carrying the intend the execution of this particular stipulation during the rest ot jects in view into effect, and those who guarantee not less than five of the tenancy. It is greatly to be desired that an opportunity guineas will be entitled take part in the entertainment. Sub- should be given to the Court of Appeal of laying down clearly and scriptions of a less amount than five guineas will also be received. precisely the limits of the intervention of the court by injunction Sufficient guarantees ought to flow in soon, though it is doubtful in the case of agricultural agreements. whether the maximum has not been put at too low a figure. As soon as the guarantees have been received, it is proposed to appoint a sub-committee, to whom the duties connected with the organiza. THE RECENT IRISH CASE of Reg. v. Barrett (18 L. R. Ir. 430) tion of the entertainment will be intrusted. This committee should is of considerable interest as a decision by the Court for the Conbe small and well chosen, because upon it will, in a great measure, sideration of Crown Cases Reserved that a threat to “ boycott depend the failure or success of the undertaking. While on this is an indictable offence. The prosecution had been instituted subject we desire to throw out a suggestion, which is that the under the Whiteboys Act, 1831 (1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 44); section 3 of club should admit as extraordinary members for the week com- which imposes a sentence of transportation or imprisonment on any meneing the 6th of June all country members present at the person who shall knowingly print, write, post, publish, circulate, meeting. This may be ultrà vires, but we do not suppose that send, or deliver, or cause to be printed, written, posted, published,

[ocr errors]

circulated, sent, or delivered, any notice, letter, or message exciting, Goldstrom v. Tullerman (34 W. R. 507, 17 Q. B. D. 259) in the or tending to excite, any riot, tumultuous or unlawful meeting, or court below, as deciding that a provision that moneys paid for assembly, or unlawful confederation or conspiracy, or threatening insurance by the grantor of a bill of sale should remain a charge violence, damage, or injury, upon any condition or in any event or during a fixed period at twenty per cent. interest, invalidated a otherwise, to the person or property, real or personal, of any person bill of sale, but did not refer in. this connection to the rerersal whatever, or demanding any matter or thing whatso- of that decision on appeal (reported 18 Q. B. D. 1). ever, or directing or requiring any person to do, or not to do, any act, or to quit the service or employment of any person, to set or give out any land." The indictment was for knowingly and unlawfully printing a certain notice, described in the first count as REASONABLENESS OF A CONDITION UNDER THE

RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACT. "exciting, or tending to excite, an unlawful confederacy amongst the traders of Loughrea to refuse to supply goods of all kinds to The case of Dickson v. Great Northern Railway Co. (35 W.R. 202, 18 certain persons then being caretakers of lands, with intent to Q. B. D. 176) raised a number of interesting and important points with injure the said persons", in the second count as “threatening regard to the liability of railway companies as carriers of animals injury and damage to the traders of Loughrea, ind their property, and the construction of the provisions of the Railway and Canal if they should supply goods to certain persons then being care- Traffic Act, 1854. The decision arrived at seems to us to be based takers”; and in the third count as “ directing and requiring the on most convincing arguments so far as the particular case was traders of Loughrea not to supply goods to certain persons being concerned, but each of the judges of appeal, in delivering caretakers.” The notice set out in the indictment was a copy of judgment, appears to have enunciated a proposition about which a resolution passed by the local branch of the Iris National

we must confess to feeling some little difficulty. League condemning the action of the traders of Loughrea in sup The question upon which the case turned was whether a certain conplying goods to emergency men, and stating that the league would dition contained in a printed ticket signed by a person delivering a dog

• take such steps as we may deem advisable to boycott any trader to a railway company for carriage was just and reasonable within the who supplies them with such goods." At the trial it was proved meaning of the 7th section of the Railway and Canal Traffic that several copies of this notice had been printed and circulated Act, 1854. The condition was as follows :-“The company are by the prisoner's directions. The prosecution put in a copy of the not and will not be common carriers of dogs, nor will they receive Dublin Gazette containing a proclamation of the district of Loughrea, dogs for conveyance except on the terms that they shall not be but gave no other evidence of its disturbed state, and the prisoner responsible for any amount of damages for the loss thereof, or for was convicted, subject to a case reserved by Mr. Justice ANDREWS. injury thereto, beyond the sum of £2 unless a higher value be There was some difference of opinion among the judges, but declared at the time of delivery to the company, and a perfour of them upheld the conviction. The only judges who centage of five per cent. paid upon the excess of value beyond the thought that the conviction ought to be quashed were the Lord £2 so declared." The court held, in substance, that, though Chief Baron and Mr. Justice O'Brien. The former thought that the the company were not bound to be common carriers of dogs, they meaning of the word "boycott” ought to have been explained by were bound to carry dogs on reasonable terms, and that the condition evidence, so as to satisfy the jury that the notice amounted to a

was unreasonable on the ground that the percentage of five per threat of force or violence. He further held that all the three cent. was unreasonably large. They held that the addition of that counts were bad, apart from the consideration that they could not percentage to the ordinary fare made the total fare for the carriage have been sustained without further evidence of “the existence of of the dog from London to Newcastle, on the terms of the ordinary Whiteboy disturbance” in the district. Mr. Justice O'Brien also liability of bailees for hire, outrageously large, and, therefore, he!d that all the counts were bad, since an“ unlawful combination practically left the sender no alternative but to accept terms which or confederacy,” as contemplated by the statute, could not include imported total absence of liability on the part of the company “the casual identity in conduct of a number of traders of different even for gross negligence or wilfúl misconduct of their servants. kinds upon uncertain and contingent occasions which in fact may

Inasmuch as they appear to have held this with regard to the never arise at all.". In the earlier case of Reg. v. Coady (10 L. R. condition as applied to the particular case-viz., that of a journey Ir. 205), a prosecution for boycotting broke down because the court from London to Newcastle—the proposition to which we allude held that the jury should have been asked whether a notice by is, perhaps, to be regarded as only an obiter dictum. It appears which a man was “declared boycotted by the competent tribunal” to be to the effect that, when the condition is by way of general tended, as alleged in the indictment, to excite an unlawful con- notice or condition given or used by the company indiscriminately in federacy within section 3 of the Whiteboy Act.

all cases, the reasonableness or otherwise of the condition must be

judged of, not in relation to the circumstances of the particular IT MAY BE REMEMBERED that throughout the discussions last For instance, a percentage on the value of the dog which might

case only, but to all possible cases to which the condition would apply. year and the year before of the Lanacy Bills introduced by Earl make the fare not excessive for a long distance, as from London SELBORNE, and subsequently by Lord Herschell, we urged the to Newcastle-might still conceivably make it excessive, for it necessity for giving to every person to whom lunucy was imputed journey of a few miles. And it would seem that the court thought (subject, of course, to special provisions in urgent cases) an absolute that, if such a condition were unreasonable as applied to such a right to demand a judicial investigation before he was deprived of journey, it would be unreasonable generally, although it was visions intended to carry out this object in Lord HERSCHELL'S Bill, "The condition appears to be a notice to the public in general, and when we observed the more effectual provisions which appear applicable to the case of all persons for whom dogs are carried, and necessity for further protest had ceased. In committee on the applied to all cases to which it is applicable.” Lindley, Li Bill, however, both the predecessors of the present Chancellor fell, tooth and nail, on these provisions, being apparently greatly more indiscriminately to all senders of all dogs by all trains and to all out unnecessary delay" with alleged lunatics, than with the Stance justifies the court in looking to the contract, not only with in deference to these objections, the clause is to be modified, and ness to the public generally. It is not like a special contract the clause should be seriously mutilated, we hope that there will regard to the fact that the terms are contained in a printed be found some lawyer in the House of Commons who will attempt notice, and are used indiscriminately, whatever the ordinario to restore its efficiency.

opinion that the reasonableness of the terms must be determined A CORRESPONDENT reminds us that, in one part of our article on to the conveyance of this particular dog from London to NewThe Form of Mortgage Bills of Sale (ante, p. 181), we cited) castle.”



We cannot help feeling some doubt whether this view of the case relating to land. A., the owner of a ship, entered into a charteris not at bottom inconsistent with the principle finally established party with B., by which the ship was bound to make a particular by the case of Peek v. North Staffordshire Railway Co. (10 H. L. voyage. A. then mortgaged his interest to C., who had notice of Cas. 473). The decision that the condition, to be effective, the contract. It was held that C. would be restrained by injuncmust be embodied in a signed special contract seems to us to involve tion from doing anything to interfere with the fulfilment of A.'s the view that these notices or conditions are, after all, only contract. But, as A. had, in fact, before the transfer to C., effective as terms of a contract; and, that being so, it seems to us lost the power to perform the contract, C. was, in the event, difficult to see why the reasonableness of such a condition should not fixed with any obligation in the matter. The rule in question, be considered, otherwise than with regard to the circumstances of this however, was clearly laid down by Knight-Bruce, L.J., as folparticular contract. It is not as if the Legislature had given to lows : the company power to make general conditions in inviļos, to affect Reason and justice seem to prescribe that where a man, by gift the public, as being in the nature, as it were, of statutory bye- or purchase, acquires property from another, with knowledge of a laws; it might well be then that the condition must be reason- previous contract, lawfully and for valuable consideration made by able, as applied to all circumstances, to be valid; but we cannot him with a third person, to use and employ the property for a very well see, having regard to the decisions, how the section can particular purpose in a specified manner, the acquirer shall not, to be construed as meaning anything more than that the special the material damage of the third person, in opposition to the contract must be reasonable, and, if so, it seems to follow that contract and inconsistently with it, use and employ the property in that must be judged of with regard to the bearing of the contract a manner not allowable to the giver or seller.on the particular case in reference to which it is made. We shall

This form of the doctrine of notice was applied in Catt v. Tourle look forward with interest to the further discussion of this point, (1869, 4 Ch. 654). C., a brewer, conveyed land to the trustees of which

may be very important in relation to the construction of a freehold land society, who covenanted with him that he should these special contracts.

have the exclusive right of supplying beer. The trustees conveyed Though there may be little difficulty in arriving at the conclu- a plot to T., who was also a brewer, with the result that C. sought sion that the percentage in the particular condition which we are to protect himself by praying for an injunction against him. It discuseing, was too large, it seems to us that the effect of the was attempted on various grounds to shew that the covenant was considerations relied upon by the judges is to shew the great not binding. Uncertainty, want of mutuality, restraint of trade, difficulties that must arise in the application of the provisions of all were tried and all failed. The notice which T. had had was the 7th section of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act to the deemed to be conclusive, and Sir C. J. Selwyn, L.J., founded his exigencies of railway traffic in general. The 7th section in judgment on the extension the doctrine had received in De Mattos terms makes, with regard to certain animals, provisions v. Gibson. which, in form, are analogous to those of the dition in the case we

It may be interesting to refer to the powerful effect the doctrine are discussing It is provided, with had in Daniel v. Stepney (1872, L. R. 7 Ex. 327, 9 Ex. 185); S. regard to sheep for instance, that no more than £2 shall be re- demised mines to E. for forty years, and took power of distress coverable unless the value is declared, in which case the company over any lands of E. that might have openings into the mines. may charge a reasonable percentage on the excess of value so Lands answering this description were sold to D:

In the declared over £2. It would appear that this percentage may be Exchequer they went by strict law. A rent service issues only fixed irrespectively of the distance for which the animal is carried; out of the land demised, and a rent-charge must be properly and, if the statute provides for the same percentage being imposed, imposed, and cannot shift about from one piece of land to another. whatever the distance, in the case of sheep, it appears impossible Thus, in neither form, could the power be supported. But, on to say that the same is not to hold good in the case of percentages appeal, s. brought in the late Mf. Joshua Williams, who exfixed by special contracts with regard to animals not expressly pounded to the court and his opponents the doctrine of notice, a provided for by the 7th section. It seems extremely difficult to doctrine which the latter at once admitted they could not withsay with reference to what considerations the reasonable percentage stand. Thus the power of distress was beld good as against D. is to be fixed. There is nothing to shew whether the Legislature

Finally, we may notice how this modern doctrine of notice has contemplated something in the nature of a premium of insurance quite done away with the old requirement of privity of estate or a reward for extra responsibility involving extra care. In one between covenantor and covenantee, if it ever existed ; how, case the reasonableness would seem to depend on some such basis indeed, no relation of any kind other than that created by the as the calculation of the average rate of casualties in proportion to covenant itself is necessary. Thus, in Luker v. Dennis (1877, the number of carriages of animals of the sort in question. We 17 Ch. D. 227), where the purchaser of a public-house covenanted do not know how far such a calculation would be possible, but it to get beer from a particular brewer, not his vendor, it was said is manifest that many difficulties would arise. In the other case

by Fry, J., that, although there was no antecedent relation between it seems equally difficult to arrive at a reasonable percentage as the original covenantor and covenantee, such as lessor and lessee, applicable to all distances indiscriminately.

vendor and purchaser, yet the covenant bound a purchaser taking with notice. He also pointed out how the equitable doctrine had

been extended since the time of Lord Brougham in Keppel v. COVENANTS RUNNING WITH THE LAND.

Bailey, referring to the cases of De Mattus v. Gibson and Catt v.

Tourle just quoted. (II.) COVENANTS IN GENERAL (continued).

Thus the doctrine of notice has practically replaced the old In our last article we shewed that there has been a strong current doctrine of covenants running with the land, and the required

Some of judicial opinion setting against the possibility of the burden of effect is produced in a plain and straightforward manner. any such covenants as those now in question running with the land alarm, however, has been felt at the ease with which burdens may ..covenants, namely, touching the doing or not doing of certain in this way be imposed on land, and it has been suggested that things connected with it. But, in the place of the doctrine thus it constitutes an infraction of the rule against perpetuities. The exploded, a

more powerful engine still for effecting the same point was raised, as we have already remarked, by Lord Brougham purpose has been discovered in the equitable doctrine of notice. in Keppel v. Bailey (2 My. & K., at p. 527). The objection is that a This we shall now further examine. It rests, as we have seen, restraint imposed on land by covenant impedes its free alienation upon the view that a man who has purchased anything, knowing for a time which may exceed the limit allowed by the rule. Lord that his vendor has entered into a contract with regard to that Brougham admitted this, but decided that, if the benefit of thing, is bound to do nothing that would cause a breach of such the covenant was vested in a person able to release it, then contract. This, of course, is a great development of the doctrine, it was possible for a good title to be made to the land free Brougham in Keppel v. Bailey (1834, 2 My. & K? 517). "He, as alienation. In this, however, there were two fundamental errors. we have seen, refused to give effect to notice when the covenant The rule against perpetuities did not apply to the case at all; and, in question was of an unusual nature. The extent to which the even supposing it did, the use made of it was incorrect. As to the doctrine has been carried is well illustrated by the case of De first point, it is only necessary to quote the following passage Mattos v. Gibson (1858, 4 De G. & J. 282), though it is not one from Sanders' Uses and Trusts (vol. 1, p. 204) :


It may be interesting to quote the following from Mr. Challis (Real refuse a transfer as there was upon the power to refuse a renewal at

A perpetuity may be defined to be a future limitation, restrain- provided the intention be clear that the assigns should be bound, it ing the owner of the estate from aliening the fee simple of the is immaterial whether they are mentioned or not. Reference may property discharged of such future use or estate, before the event is be made, however, to Wolstenholme and Turner's Conveyancing determined or the period is arrived when such future use or estate is Acts, p. 113, where, in the note to section 58, it is stated to be to arise."

advisable for assigns always to be mentioned when they are It is implied, of course, that such event or period is more remote intended to be bound. The section only deals with the devolution of than the law allows. Thus, the rule against perpetuities forbids the benefit of the covenant; the framers of the Act seem to future estates and interests from arising beyond the proper period ; have preferred not to touch the question of the burden. but the covenants we are discussing are present interests, and no

more offend against the rule than easements perpetual rent-charges, or any other of the lesser rights which may be cut off from the totality of rights known as the owner TRANSFER OF BEERHOUSE CERTIFICATES. ship. Again, the rule against perpetuities may be infringed

(Simonds v. Blackheath Justices, 35 W. R. 167, 17 Q. B. D. 765.) although the objectionable interest is vested in a person who is capable of releasing it. The mistake of Lord Brougham was

BEFORE the passing of the Wine and Beerhouse Act, 1869, a beer. repeated very strikingly in Gilbertson v. Richards (4 H. & N. house licence was obtained from the Excise without any intervention

of justices, but that Act required a certificate from the general 277, 5 H. & N. 453). The same view was taken also by Fry, J., annual licensing meeting of justices as an authority for the Excise in Birmingham Canal Co. v. Cartwright (11 Ch. D. 421). This licence, thus assimilating the law as to beerhouses to that relating to was a case in which the owner of land had covenanted to give a public-houses under 9 Geo. 4, c. 61. But by section 8 a certificate in right of pre-emption over it, unlimited in point of time. Mr. respect of a licence for sale for consumption off the premises was not Justice Fry expressed himself as follows :-I think that where to be refused except on some of the four grounds there specified, and ever a right or interest is presently vested in A. and his heirs, by section 19 a certificate for sale for consumption on the premises although the right may not arise until the happening of some con

was not to be refused in the case of a house with respect to which an

on-licence was in force on 1st May, 1869, except on some of tingency which may not take effect within the period defined by the the same grounds. By section 7 of the Wine and Beerhouse Act rule against perpetuities, such right or interest is not obnoxious Amendment Act, 1870, section 19 of the Act of 1869 is made to to that rule, and for this reason. The rule is aimed at preventing extend to licences by way of renewal from time to time of licences in the suspension of the power of dealing with propertythe aliena- force on 1st May, 1869, “whether such licences continue to be tion of land or other property. But, when there is a present right held by the same person, or have been or may be transferred to any of that sort, although its exercise may depend upon a future con- other person or persons, tingency, and the right is vested in an ascertained person or persons, sessions intrusted with transfers of public-house justices' licences and

The question in the above case was whether the justices at special that person or persons, concurring with the person who is subject to the right, can make a perfectly good title to the property. The beerhouse certificates (among other cases) from an outgoing to an total interest in the land, so to speak, is divided between the cove- of a certificate for an on-licence for premises in respect of which an nantor and the covenantee, and they can together at any time alienate on-licence was in force on 1st May, 1869, restricted to refusing the land absolutely."

the transfer upon some of the grounds referred to in secti'on 19 of the The whole matter, however, was reviewed, and the above Act of 1869, or whether they had an unqualified discretion to refuse opinion corrected in London and South-Western Railway Co. v. the transfer. Gomm (1882, 30 W. R. 321, 620, 20 Ch. D. 562). There

In the Act of 1869 the only distinct provision-and, it is submitted, the company sold superfluous land, and the purchaser cove

the only provision-relative to transfers is section 9, authorizing a nanted to re-convey at the same price whenever it was

transfer at petty sessions, which was to remain in force till the next wanted for the railway. The matter first came before Kay, first ; and that enactment merely says: “A certificate may be transferred

special sessions or the next annual licensing meeting, whichever came J. He quoted the two cases just referred to, but refused to to a new tenant. by the justices .

in petty sessions." Theenact. be bound by them. In his opinion a present right to an ment was repealed by the Act of 1870, and the enactments in that Act interest in property which might arise at a period beyond on this subject are the following :-Section 4, sub-section (4), enacts, the legal limit was void, notwithstanding that the person " It shall be in the discretion of the justices to whom an application entitled to it might release it. This view he established on the for a transfer is made, either to allow or refuse the application, or to authority of eminent writers, such as Butler, Lewis, and Jarman. adjourn the consideration thereof”; and sub-section (5), after But as he considered that the covenant in question did not, in fact, repealing section 9 of the Act of 1869 as already mentioned, enacts create an interest in the land, he held that the rule against per- the Act 9 Geo. 4,0. 61, and Acts amending the same, relating to petuities did not apply, and that the covenant could be enforced on the principle of Tulk v. Moxhay. In the Court of Appeal he was (that is, justices' licences], and the grant of licences upon assign

the transfer, removal, and transmission of such licences strongly supported as to the former part of his judgment, and the ment, death, change of "occupancy, or other contingency matter was fully treated by Jessel, M.R., but, as to the latter, it shall have effect with regard to certificates granted, or to be granted, was held that the covenant did constitute an interest in land, and under the principal Act (the Act of 1869) and this Act.” The words 80 was void within the rule.

subject to the provisions of this section

can only have reference to It is thus clearly established that a covenant binding the land in the preceding sub-section (4). equity—i.e., binding successive owners with notice is not void as Bowen, 2.9., having taken time to consider, in their judgement

In the above case the court, consisting of Lord Coleridge, C.J., and infringing the rule against perpetuities, unless it is of such a adopted the idea that before the passing of the Act of 1870 theretons

But, although the doctrine that the burden of the covenants in for a transfer, and, there being no provision previously made for the question is binding by virtue of notice seems to be thus settled, adjournment of special sessions, considered that section 4, sub-section and the objection to it, on the ground of perpetuity, to be suc- (4), of the Act of 1870 though perhaps inartistically expressed, cessfully overcome, yet a learned writer on the law of real property really was designed only to perfect the procedure at a transfer has expressed a doubt upon the final acceptance of the doctrina sessions by making adjournments Tawful,” and accordingly held that

there was the same restriction upon the power of a special sessions to Property, p. 151):But the whole principle of Tulk v. Moxhay rests upon dubious

the annual licensing meeting. grounds of equity, and seems in the courts below to have been scarcely to have been adequately dealt with in the judgment, and was

The provisions affecting the question under consideration seem carried to some absurd lengths. It has never been considered by submit, with deference, that the conclusion come to by the fourten ube doctrine of the consolidation of mortgages, to have its wings clipped transfer such as the court was referring to; section 19 of the Act plastices

We have said nothing as to the form of the covenant, whether at special sessions, uses the expression, it shall not be lawful for the to bind assigns taking with notice, they should be expressly men tendeeds, bando unhael thoor te beniustice the last "Shews that the justice tioned. For this latter requirement there seems to be no reason; mentioned in this section are the justices at the annual licensing

« PreviousContinue »