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

ich the testator’s residuary estate was to be divided in certain pro

resid - . ' _ _
givenuemlzg ;':r'~3lY g1dV_el1 0:1 wholly undisposed of, or partly portions consisted of two individuals; the others of 213, 119, 32,
siduary legume 0% Z10 ispose of; whether thei-e_ be one re- and 110 individuals respectively. It_was held, neyertheless, that
the thing that is tak re, _or one person next_ of kin or more, the costs of all the persons who established their claims were notto
wh. h _ en is of the same quality, and the parts be paid exclusively out of the portions attributable to their classes

[ocr errors]

espectively, but out of the residuary fund before any apportion

ion ft . .
taken: ofhgihegegltfaral cost: of administration; in other words, the ment of it took place; the result being that the two persons
res, w ere shares are taken, are liable to the composing one of the classes paid a share of the ex ense of

[ocr errors]

stablishing the title of the 474 other persons interested in the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The same rule, of course, applies to the costs of ascertaining

be flllflry personal estate should exonerate_the other shares and the kinship of next of kin taking the share of a deceased

[ocr errors]

eneficiary under a gift of residue which is construed to be a. gift

u ' - - . giloufiy g2t?P1m°" lppeors to have been that, having pre- to several persons ort/ieir next o/‘kin. In this case the decision lapsed share of r _\:1- Cumberland, 1874, 18 Eq. 578), held that a appears to have rested on the consideration that the next of kin shares. the 1 9" '1_l1PY real estate should exonerate the other of the deceased beneficiary were to be considered “as much the in - Famed Judge fifillsidercd “that it would be very testator’s legatees as” the other beneficiaries who had survived

[ocr errors]

oody v Hzyyins, 1852 9 Hare App xxxii) This principle

_ D . ' , . . . anfigsonal estate.” His observations. however, were mere dicta, would not seem to be applicable to the costs of ascertaining the

ext of kin of the testator who becomes entitled to lapsed shares

(1377:-7(lC8h76'D43ch' D' 53), by Bacon, Y.C., in Fenton v. lVzlls of a residue. The precise question does not appear to have been 70h D ' - 3); Ind by Hall, V.C., in Blimn v. Bell (1877, contested and determined in any reported case until Re

[ocr errors]

la: (1886 34 W R 712) In that case Kay, -T, held

[ocr errors]

re costs of administration. “The only question," he said, “is

Hotel s;m1'¢80well v Olzealyn 2 Eden 123, as explamed m whether these costs are costs of administration. On the the opeml an 571: -F"lf01_l v Walls, ubi supra), or owmg to whole, I think they are. No authority has been cited

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

me to show that a lapsed share ought _to_ bear the

[ocr errors]

tion of the general residue. If, in an administrationaction, it had

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

1

THE SOLICITORS’ IOURNAL. April

[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[graphic]

been a matter of course to direct an inquiry as to who were the
next of kin of the testator, and, so far as I know, there is no case
in which it had been held that the cost of an inquiry of that kind
ought to be borne by the lapsed share instead of by the general
residue. On the other hand, I think it would have been treated
as a matter of course to order those costs, as well as the other
costs of the action, to be paid out of the general residue. And the
reason of that is well expressed in the case of E)/re v. Murder: (ubi
suprd)-viz., that there can be no residue until the costs of the
administration have been paid. The trustees would have a right to
ascertain at the expense of the general residue, who were the persons
entitled either in the case of lapse or under the will, and the costs
of ascertaining that are costs which ought to be paid, in the first
instance, out of the general fund before you can arrive at the
residue at all. Of course it is easy to put, as I put in the argu-
ment, cases where that would seem to be very hard. A case may
be imagined where the residue is divisible into twelve shares, and
one of the shares lapses. Are the persons entitled to the other
eleven shares to wait until a very difiicult inquiry as to the next
of kin entitled to the twelfth share is worked out? But then, I
think the answer to that is simple. They need not wait. It is
easy enough for the trustees to ascertain approximately the
amount of the shares, and to set apart a fund to answer and pay
for the cost of ascertaining the next of kin; or, if any diflicalty
should arise, then the trustees can come to the court at once, and
ask the court to ascertain the fund for them or to tell them what
they ought to pay over, or if they ought to pay over anything, and
thus act by the direction and under the sanction of the court."

[graphic]

THE LAND TRANSFER BILL.
IV.
IV.—Tni-1 INSURANCE FUND (continued).

2. Will it be a taa: ? (continued).-—We would call attention to a fact (mentioned in our last week’s issue, but) which seems to have been overlooked by some who have been studying the Bill, that no contribution to the fund will be payable on registrations with possessory title only. _So that the extra expense that will be incurred on next sales will consist of the correspondence with the registry, the furnishing of such information as the rules may require, and the payment of the ofilce fees (if any) prescrib9d_

It must further he observed that the insurance charge on giibsequent registered dealings (which, by the way, is to he paid equally, whether the first registration was with possessory, qualified or absolute title) is only levied where such dealings are for milue. So that (subject to a possible doubt as to whether or not a marriage settlement, or a charge of jointurc, or portions, is a dealing for value) as long as, and in so far as, changes of ownership only take place by way of Settlement, Will, or Succession on Death, no insurance money will be payable on registering such changes. To owners of large estates these considerations are clearly of great importance, because, if, as at first sight appears possible, on every retsettlement or succession on death (the necessary and permanent private expenses of which will probably be but little diminished from what they are now) there were to be added an insurance charge amounting, in large estates, to some hundreds of pounds besides the correspondence with the registry and ofiice fees tné

. _, _ ,
obvious drawbacks or the new system might well appear greater
than its possible advantages. We have reason to believe that 8
certain amount of misapprehension on the above points has arisen
ow_ing to the provisions of Schedule I. having been rather inguf.
ficiently studied.

3. How will it be ‘l bl ?—O ‘ '
. have the land, and who is to have the money ‘? What we beli vo
l7° be the “'19 "118 has (curious to state) onl now t let

emerged into notice or even into existencel they originsl rfie
P"°P°‘°d bl’ the Commissioners of 1857 being its exact o osite
and the Torrens Acts only partially niloptin it Th t PP I _,
thus stated by a marginal note on page 3; ofg till, St he mi Tu egg
Land Laws (Incorporated Law Society Janunr alga?“ 9?; e
compensation should be given to purchasiar and °y._ 3--Id IIY
be dispossessed.” LandTransfer (Bar Cominittee vllnlir S Du not

[ocr errors]

ception in the case of dormant claims. Registration of Title to Land (C. F. Brickdale, November, 1886), at p. 46, advocates the enforcement of the rule without any exception whatever. The question was raised in the House of Lords last Monday evening on the second reading of the Bill. The Bill (clause 16) provides that “ where a person satisfies the High Court that he has been deprived of registered land by forgery. or fraud, or error of the board or its officers, the court may, according as the court may think equitable, either order compensation to that person, or that the land shall be restored to that person, and that the person losing the land shall receive compensation." It was pointed out that this clause laid down no principle to guide the court, and that it would be better to lay down some principle, to be followed in ordinary cases, subject to exception, perhaps, on special cause shewn. Lords I-Ierschell and Bramwell advocated the rule above stated. Lord Selborne was for favouring purchasers, if possible, as against volunteers: but in making this suggestion the noble and learned lord appears to have overlooked the consideration that owners of family estates-the very persons most obviously entitled to restoration of the land in specie—-are nearly all volunteers, a consideration fatal to the adoption of the rule he proposed.

Of course, there are objections to any rule that can be proposed. The present law, which leaves a purchaser with no greater protection than his own vigilance and the vendor’s covenant for title, is hardly so perfect as to justify very severe criticism of a law where the only possible question will be whether he is to have the land or full damages paid by the Government.

Leaving the substantial question to be decided as may he thought best, let us turn to one or two incidental matters that claim attention in regard to the subject of this section.

The first is that procedure by application to the High Court, wherever restoration is sought, appears to be needlessly cumbrous. It must be remembered that if some such rule as that above suggested is laid down, the inquiry needed to be made will be of the simplest possible kind. Therefore, subject to an appeal to the court, it would seem well to make the Board the tribunal in the first instance, especially as they will have before them all the material documents, and probably all the material facts, at no expense in the great majority of instances. With regard to the frequency of appeal s, it is the Australian experience that the decisions of the registrar are usually acquiesced in (1881 2 Return on Australian Registration, p. 148).

The second matter is that the expression registered land in the portion of the clause above quoted introduces at least a doubt as to whether or no, in cases where land is wrongly placed on the register in the first instance with absolute or qualified title, tho rightful owner of the unregistered estate will be entitled to apply for restoration, or whether he will he confined to his compensfltloll under Clause 15 (1) and Schedule I. (A) (1)—where, by the bye. the use of the word “land” alone lends colour to the doubt now expressed. Such is the rule, it may be observed, under tho Torrens Acts; and it is possible that it may be intended to repoflm in the Bill. The reasons for making such an exception (if 117 be intended) are not obvious. It would create much reasonable “I1easiness, and it would oblige the registrar to be far more particillifl‘ in registering absolute and qualified titles, and in confirming titles and boundaries, than he otherwise need be. _

The third matter is that the exact procedure under clause 16 li not laid down in the Bill. It is not clear, for instance, whether it will be necessary for the purposes of the section that the owner shall have been actually deprived of his land before the court coll exercise its authority. Some procedure whereby Ia rnere1Y threatened owner might bring the matter on for decision would probably be useful, and also definite power for the defendant }11_'m action for recovery of land to claim the benefit of this jurisdiction in the same action. The costs of the application to the court under this clause (16), being definitely occasioned by the error of the Board, it would seem that, if reasonably incurred, they oughtI50 to he paid out of the fund. This is also not quite clear from the Bill as it stands.

A fourth point is that it is nowhere exactly stated whether 01‘ no the Board will have power to admit and satisfy such clairnfl 5°’ compensation as may appear jngt without putting the clsimantsfo any further expense. lt will be observed that clause 15. W}'“°h P"°“d°5 the fund, also empowers the rules to provide “Eli ““£

[graphic]

matters necessary or proper for giving effect " to the section I111

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

4:5 ulhtlits the scheme in Schedule I. It is unprofitable, therefore, to go into ‘the insurance fund may be conjecturally estimated somewhat as mats the Ii much detail on these points until the rules appear. follows :_ M, The 4. The possible uses of tliefuml in facilitatiny the despatch of The general experience of private purchasers is well known to ersningni busi'ness.—Enough has already been said to shew that the omission be perfectly satisfactory in point of security ; therefore, it appears ;»rid@3thi{ of the compensation fund was a grave one from the point of view that, if the board can exercise an ordinary purchaser's Vigilance, zndsprirrqi of abstract justice. It was, however, no doubt, defended by the the mistakes made in the bulk will be more than covered by the ssrdsis _ consideration that the rsiyistrar would always proceed cautiously, proposed insurance charge(supplemented as it is by the provisions of tqllliii/ii. so that_ no injuries wou d result to innocent persons. And, in Schedule I. (c.) and (y.)). Thus the expenses and delays of procuring ndshill le truth, in this respect (as probably only in this respect), the ex- an absolute title might possibly be reduced to little more than those ,1,,,¢1,]a1[ pericnce of the Acts has entirely justified the expectations of their incurred by ordinary purchasers on sales. But this is not all that cliueeliil frsiners What appears to have been forgotten was that in ordinary can be done. A good deal of the trouble incurred by ordinary lbebszs business people do not proceed cautiously ; they proceed indolently, purchasers is directed, not to the satisfaction of their own doubts, mam}, coufidingly, eagerly, recklessly; they prefer risk to trouble, sus- but to the accumulation of evidence that may satisfy possible gliersebel piciou, restraint, d_elay. A system that proposes to conduct future purchasers from themselves, or is due to that extra degree ,mm,1,; oidinary business without ever running a risk will never fulfil the of caution that is natural wherever dealings are entered into singly ,5; hm requirements of the case. or in small numbers. But the board will have no needto perpetuate mwhgy: In orderto understand the influence which the insurance fund evidence if once really satisfied; for it will never have to “shew ,t,,,,,_~;,¢ seems designed to exercise on the despatch of business in the its title” again, and also, by reason of the large extent o_f its l]9hiIh'll1 01506. it will be necessary to observe the procedure hitherto operations, diminishing the relative importance pf a possible_failure (,1 in ts adopted somewhat closely. here and there, the board will be able (should it be authorized to (1.) First re_qis-tration wills absolute tifle.——Under Lord West- do so) to proceed with rather more boldness than any private Bpmpwl bury s Act nothing but a “ marketable ” title was to be approved i‘ purchaser can in overlooking remote possibilities of error. And, ,M,,,P,,. by the registrar. Now, assuming (as equity does) that a market- lastly, those who have perused the titles of a large apes well_know itlortih able title is absolutely safe (which it is not,_but no matter), this the-t,_ as the process goes_ on, a sort of general bird s-eye view is , al iliv Was fair enough; but what a work did it entail l In the appendix obtained. which renders incidental doubts less frequent. wh,,,;h, to the report of 1870 (p. 78) are the particulars of twenty-five All these considerations put together may possibly have created cases furnished by the registrar himself as affording “a fair a belief that, with the insurance fund at their backs, the_boai_"d bethuigit ,. average illustration :' of the time occupied in first registrations. will be able to sanction the registmtion of an absolute title in laimma, The average time will be found to be about two years and three ordinary cases on as easy terms as ordinary purchasers proceed months apiece; one comes within nine days of five years; only upon on sales. We do not desire to express any opinion as to Iighgw, flfur are under a year. The shortest “ run” on the record is whether the belief is well founded, but if it should prove to be so, comm a so given_—four months twenty-seven days. Some may wonder vendors and purchasers will be likely enough before long to acquire BMW E, how the time was wiled away in the oflice; the following oecur- a habit of applying for absolute titles o_n sales instead of being Hun, rence may serve _to explain. One of the former owners _of an content with the necessary possessory registration required by law, M1,,-1;. Ffltste to be registered was one John ]_Iarrison, of Reigate, even though the latter be now capable of confirmation after ml“ arin_er, who bought in 1830, and died in 1850: Proof was further formalities and the lapse of five years. M ‘HM required that a Judgment against one John Harrison, _of NewMsfl g¥B¢l¢~M-Tyre, beer-seller, and another judgment against one _~ ganihsg airy: Hsrnson, of_ Ooekermouth, zronmonyer, did not affect the “hut Elie l2i<;'s(;fl31Z0uolppe1:idix,t;l;. a6). No; can we suggctitblthat, under CQRRESP()NDENCE_ . s sis in , e r ere unsui e. Hind! Rwmbe rememfiered5:hI;t6C‘:]1de(;l15LVgrd Cairns, Act of 1875 THE LAND TR.ANSI:‘I~?R ,BILL. P |,,4;1r.> (Shawn 17, Bl-lb-B6C_tl0l1 3) power is given tp the registrar to ' l_To the Editor of the Solicitors Jam-na._. ' W, approve of, and register as indefensible, any title which, though Su-,—I begto enclose copy of aletterI have addressed, and by this 3,39,"; “°Pe11 to objection,” yet, in his opinion, “ will not be disturbed.” Post 591$» *-° F1"? °_°°1t*"'Y °5 $11? I11°°'P°1‘°-ted _L‘“' S°‘I’:Phg' {lithe at of *,'".~ we 1.s<>.»m=-ls» we or or a:*:*.:.i;aai.-:2a:.*z%3,;. ::"..>";.;::.*iL.:::*,.t.’;*.s:.a'*.: 2 ibliditors. Mm: 111811 in facilitating the registration of titles is obvious, but this - * R_ R_ LmTHoBNE_ M convenience is manifestly gained by giving power to an_oflicia1 to 2‘ P°rfland_sheet, Southampton, Aplfl 25_ b)_M», figgfifoéetp dormant rights without compensation if he thinks them The following is the letter refer,-ed to ;_ _ _ _ MBLIH _1_ Y to be prosecuted with effect.” And later, “If such _ "2.-ith April, 1881.

MW provisions are administered with prudence and discretion, they “Dear Sii-,—Observing in a recent 188118, of the SOIJCIl‘0}tS£

tmii £;‘;e%1? Procedure practically unaltered. Some_reduetion may be JOURNAL that a copy of the Lf0l'd (_Itl;a_ncellords Lang tlilgglilifii B210

Mi 111 the necessary expenses, but the practical effect for this has been sent to _your society or on cism_sn sugg s ,_ ' g

1‘-,_,,_ PIll'p08e of s mere reduction is ' 'd bl " (Land Transfer draw your attention to one matter which, m my hunible opinion,_ is

1hh‘l'. 5 - mconm e-Ia -6 - ’ f the utmost im ortauoe to solicitors and the public. It is this:

limb tip‘ 5' 61). Eiqienence has shewn the Justice of this Observm glauses of the mos: comprehensive character should, I think, be sug

nillhu ' ddnltl Theyiovlslon him (as would hardly be doubted) Peen pub gested by the society, and receive its most strenuous support, for

l Ln ya-dm1,msteredwith the hehulh that first heghhhhhtwn under providing that all business required to be done in relation to

M15mi Calms Actah under L°hd hvehthl-WY,“ (hhmlgh ihh-1955 degree): registration of land, and all dealings with registered land, should be

rhshi. cpntinues to be both a longe_r_and a more expensive. business transacted in person or_by solicitor and byno (Tiller urgent, I i

Wm lfflu a sale under ordinary conditions. This makes it simply out “ Unless some provision of this krnd be made, the pl'Oi1'?BBll)O|JtiYIll

En, 0 the question for a vendor to try to register preparatory to a find auctioneers and estate ‘agents (who draw the pub c _y eir

°" - sale a ' ' ' ements to find urchasers and niortgagees) transacting all

5 , v 11d renders it most unl k l th t h ho has onl Bdveftlfi P .

I W Just finished i I e Y a a Pmic age-r’-W 1 - -y the business connected with the Land Regist , to the exclusion of the

iiflhi put his grumbling at th? length of hm sohcitor 8 binwill profession and the disadvantage of the puhhc, and who, no doubt,

will acid d nameown as hh hllphchht fhh 3 dohhle dmie of the same will charge for their servicesas much as, if not more than, solicitors;

,,',=i'3 if - dwghh that he hm! lust Ewfllhwed with 5° had 9- Ehhchi and and there will be nothing, as the law now stands, to prevent their

moi it is not to the interest °f ah intending Vendor, 01t° the taste doing so as the only prorection solicitors now have as regards the

,1: of h receht Purchaser to register his title it is diflifilllt t0 B69 at conveyancing branch of their business is under the 60th section of

Ls Zgflioguncture of affairs it will be eitheriuseful or pleasant to the Stamp Act, 1870, which is, practically, limited to instruments

W: Y. _ under sea . _ _ _ _ tion land "1 mt, ,

. abg,T§,’,e§“lf,““hh° fm.meT-‘?_of the Present Bill have entirely be géltlliiieerifgf£:1c;~9£:;nfi¢gh%mbg 1;€"'1;‘“con!-leufiou w9ithit

1:26; for absol *1_ ope of inducing vendors or purchasers to apply the}? will have no muse of complaint; but shouldnot be done, and

W1. that th ute t.tles (which is certainly possible), it may be supposed it ileum afterwards be found necessary for the pr-ofeggion to take

omcial Bynflpiect the insurance fund to exercise an influence on the some step, in the matte, the profession wguld hear of the scqiusitiou

mes wlgthgfi as on first registrations that will bring absolute of vested interests requiring 00I£lpe1}88-tl.{)D,"&:;. shewin the ‘umber

to =11-W. ..¢..t1°..:.::“°"'i‘£: :“1‘;‘°i°"i‘L‘:.f“ "‘ '-i‘f“°§Zfl”.f;?..£"£i ,.3.L;.*;:?:::i:;. ?‘;§,i‘;‘fi teas M P P “ gs - x n o e possi e I '

[ocr errors]
[graphic]
[graphic]

“ Trusting the society will, in the interests of solicitors, deem this

of sufiicient importance to give it their favourable consideration, “I am, dear sir, “ Yours truly,

“ R. R. LINTHORNE. “ E. W. Williamson, Esq., Secretary Incorporated Law Society. “ P.S.-—I have by this post sent a copy of this letter to the editor i of the SoLicI'r0iis' Jouniviin R. R. L.” [The cuttings from the local paper enclosed are a notice for claims against the estate of a deceased person signed by afirm of auctioneers as “agents to the executors," and an advertisement by the same auctioneers describing themselves as “ valuers, house, estate, farm, and inurance agents, arbitrators, fire assessors, mortgage brokers, &c," and stating that “mortgages at 4§ per cent. on good leasehold and freehold property can always be an-anged."]

[ocr errors]

CONCERNING SIGNATURES. [To the Editor of the Solicitors’ Jo/u.rnul.'_1

Sir,—In commenting on my letter to the Times you think I have stated my experience too strongly. I feel I have not stated it strongly enough. I aflirm that no man or woman can muleaigncdly sign his or her name in identically the same characters ; they must be similar, but cannot be the same. Nullzim simile est idem. Lord Coke was aware of and recognized the distinction. The impossibility of identity rests upon a physical fact. The human body is not a piece of mechanism like a watch or steam-engine. It is an organism, fearfully and wonderfully made, which is kept in perpetual motion from the moment of the first inspiration to the last expiration, from the first moment of independent life to the last, be the interval what it may, to the last syllable of recorded time. When a. man or woman signs his or her name the act is a completed act ; when the attempt to sign again is made an interval of time must have elapsed, during which the_o_r-gamsm has undergone a change, neccssa'ri'.ly—-not dependent on volition—_—a change which makes identity physically impossible, but necessarily, in the absence of volition to the contrary, produces similarity. Physicists have calculated that in seven years these changes in the organism, silent and imperceptible, produce a new body.

I am not desirous of indulging in the luxury of a theory. Try yourself to write your own name twice or oftener, and see for yourself whether your signatures are identical. A few days ago I signed my name forty times consecutively to tickets for admission to the Botanical _Gardens, of which society I am a fellow. I could not find two signatures exactly alike. Yesterday I signed a cheque payflblfl to order, and added my signature at the back. The two signatures were not, on examination, identical. W. T. S. DANIEL.

'71. Pflfldei Leamington, April 26.

[graphic][merged small]

NORTH AND SOUTH-WESTERN JUNCTION RAILWAY CO. v. ERENTFOBD UNION ASSESSMENT COMMI'1‘TEE—C. A. No. 1, lst April.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

'c1useut to an arbitrator, who stated his awardin the form of a special case

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

Assesment Committee appealed from this decision and B Y
. ,

Tun COURT (Lord ESHER, M.R., FRY and Lorizs, LJJ.) allowed the appeal. They said that the utmost effect of the decisions on the rating of railways was that it was not wrong to rate a portion of a homogeneous railway worked by one company and as one line from terminus to terminus on the mileage principle._ But it was only because no other principle was applicable in such a case, and it was at best but a rough method of assessing the rate. In this case it was clear that the individuality of the junction company had been preserved, and the agreement, which had now the force of an Act of Parliament, contemplated the possibility of the whole undertaking being demised by the three companies, with the consent of the junction company, to a tenant. A tenant was therefore possible, and the proper method of arriving at the assessment was to consider what such a tenant would give for the line. The arbitrator had found, on perfectly admissible evidence, that such a tenant would give an amount which justified this 8BB6BBH1G1‘ll':.——COC1\'SlL, St! R. E. Webster, A.G., .llcIntyre, Q_.C., and Cyril Dodd; Sir E. Clarke, S.G., Jllazdows While, Q.C., and 1!/rr¢llPatm:. Souciroiis, Pillvy 4- Wright, for Ilu-iton, Clarke, if Ruslon, Brentford; Paine, Son, Q Pollock.

nae. 0. JUDGE or THE CHELMSFORD COUNTY COURT AND CLARKE—-C. A. No. 1,210.1. April.

[ocr errors]

This case raised the question whether county court judgments carry interest under section 17 of 1 8: 2 Vict. c. 110. Clarke recovered judgment in 1880 against one Cotton for £26 in the Ohelmsford County Court. Cotton died in 1886, the judgment remaining unsatisfied, and then the £26 was paid into court. Clarke thereupon applied for leave to add Cottou's adminlstratrix as defendant for the purpose of reviving the judgment, and for leave to issue execution upon the judgment for £6_ in respect of interest. The county court ju go granted the application. C-0tton's adininistratrix thereupon applied for a prohibition on the ground that county court judgments were not within section 17 of 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110 and did not carry interest, and the judge had no jurisdiction to make the order. That section enacts that “every judgment debt shall carry interest at the rate of four pounds per ceutum per annuin from the ' time of entering up the judgment until the same shall be satisfied, and such interest may be levied under a writ of execution on such judgment." The Divisional Court (Mathew and Cave, JJ.) refused the prohibition. I

Tns COURT or Arrest allowed the appeal and granted the prohibition. Lord Esnsa, M..R., said that before the passing of 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, judgment debts did not carry interest, and the writ ot_fi.fa. addressed to the sherifi gave him no authority to levy for interest on the judgment debt. 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 17, was passed to enable the sherlfi to execute the writ of /i. fa. for more than was contained in the judgment—namely, for interest upon the judgment debt. That section did not make any new judgment, but it f0ll0Wed from it that the wnt of ji. fa. was altered and made to include interest on the judgment debt. Afwrwards the present county courts were established by 9 A‘: 10 Vict. c. 95. That statute authorized county court judges to make very peculiar orders. very unlike judgments at common law. Section 94 provided that when a judge should have made an order for the payment of money, execution by a writ of fi. fa. might issue for the amount and costs ct the execution. Nothing was said about interest. If it had been intended to ilwllldfl interest it would have been mentioned. So also sections 109 and 119 provided that the execution should be superseded on payment of tbs debt and costs. Again, nothing was said about interest. That shewed that the Legislature, having full knowledge of the provisions of section 1* of 1 & 2 Vict. c. 1lO, must have intended that the provisions of section 17 should not appLy. There was also authority on the point. In Bfilwlfll "Elderkin (1 W. R. 305, 1 E. & B. 805) it was held that an action would 11°F lie on a county court judgment, on the ground that a county court W15‘ ment was essentially different from an ordinary judgment. The L8“1"' ture had invented new rights and given new remedies, and those_w§r6 Yb“ only remedies. County court orders or judgments were not within section 17 , and did not carry interest, being governed solely by the County Court Acts. FRY and Lorss, L.J J ., concurred.--Coimsst, It. T’. W illwwi Iticlnnonzl. Soticrrons, Sandilci/ids; Peace g (J0

[ocr errors]

The question in this case was as to the construction of a coveiifml 111 restraint of trade which the defendant had entered into upon the dissolutiou of a partnership between himself and the plaintiff. The defendant had for some years carried on business as a ship and boat builder, and ll} 1882 the plaintiff was admitted into partnership with him foratemo fourteen years, under articles which provided that the business of the film should be that of B. ship and boat builder and engineer in All its bunch?" and all things incident thereto. In July, 1883, the partnership W85 41'; solved by agreement, and a deed. was executed by which the defeudrmd assigned all his share and interest in the business to the plwmfiv 5“ covenunted that he would not at any time thereafter “OM11 °“_°' bg engaged or concerned directly or indirectly in the business of 0 sh1P 5“ boat builder and engineer on the River Thames, or within 1159? mu“ therefrom.” The defendant shortly afterwards entered into P_m“9" ship at Limehousc and West lndia Dock in a business which lllé eluded the making of masts and spars ships’ fittings and gel". "ll flllipwfight-B’ and Bhipsmiths’ work but nbt the actual building Of Wt: and ships. The plaintiff brought the action to restrain the defendmh from carrying on this business, which the plaintiff alleged to be a brew

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

April 30, 1887. fl-IE SOLTCITORS’ IOURNAL. q J g 427

[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]

of_the defendant’s covenant. Kay, Jjgranted an injunction, being of ‘us. 1
opinion that thedefendant, in making all things requisite for shipbuilding dir

t ough not actually putting the things together, was infrin "n the '

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

t . . used by shipbuilders in the building and repair ofp ships was a distinct payongs qther groundsthat of not havmg commenced blame“. The

business from that of a ship and boat builder; and they varied the order tion
by directmg that the_ injunction was not to flgevent the defendant from the
carrying on the busmess of making and sel g oars, masts blocks and cos

ments in question were made upon or immediately after the presentaof the petition, and a number of new shares were issued about same time. In October, Mathew, J., dismissed the petition with

other articles used in shipbuilding; but they ordered himtopay the,costs fur“. In February1886' the Court of Appealhaving admitted

ther evidence, _ma_de a winding-up order. The respondents to

[ocr errors]
[graphic]
[ocr errors]

estate of an_inf_ant for the purpose of raising a sum required for his ad- 0
vancement in life, there being no power to do so contained in the will by

t the application could not be made under section 165, as that section nly rendered directors liable for rnisfeasance and the like.

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

ctors must be taken as knowing section 153 of the Act, and as having do the payments with the knowledge that they would be disallowed

. _ l t li ' . It t ' ' th provide for the fee which would have to be paid to the farmer and for Bu,-,8“ the com ("dew-d at ermse was car amly a bold flung tn make

e infant's outfit and passage-money. Chitty, J’ felt a difficulty in 1,

[ocr errors]

h payments. He directed an account to be taken of the moneys which d come into the hands or under the control of the directors or any of

[ocr errors]

. - - R
Re Ho_wmb it _was held that the court had powei to charge the real estate

ofaii infant with the cost of his past maintenance which had been pro-
ggfgtlzl’ his mother, on the ground that, if the mother were to sue the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

I11“ tantially to the same thing. In, the present case Re Howarth was

refied on, and it was urged that judgment could be obtained at law in an “P

The question in this case was whether, on the withdrawal of a windingpetition, the petitioner ought to be ordered to pay the costs of persons

ac on for money advanced for the purpose of supplymg an infant with appearing. The petition was presented by ashareholder in the company.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

the time when it was presented it was anticipated that resolutions for oluntary winding up would be proposed, and the petition contained e following statements:—“Your petitioner has been informed and

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

ajority; notwithstanding that, as your petitioner is informed and

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

presented this petition in the interest and for the protection of the

as . ya "need and apphed m pmwdmg the Infant Wm, necessanes holders of the greater part of the shares in the company, and at their the order iil ’

[ocr errors]

quest, and in the event of resolutions for a voluntary liquidation being

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

tics, ‘?- find he thought that the court ought not to express a hypothe

th opinion. In lns opinion the decision in Re liowartli was right. There in

[ocr errors]

ding up had been passed, and the petition was ordered to stand oi er order to see whether the resolutions would be confirmed at a second eating of the shareholders. At the second meeting the resolutions were

[ocr errors]

ked that it might be dismissed without costs. The company did not op

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

eir costs, or that a supervision order mightbe made. The statements in

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

e petition, the petitioner wouldlobject t_o their having any costs. _ Noam, J., ordered the petition to be dismissed without costs. He did

[ocr errors]

at would generally be done, but it must depend on the circumstances of

[ocr errors]

pegfiom Onnation they could get by attendmg proceedings m the it
"THY, J . declined to - , -

gh 1 accede to the a licants re uest saying that

opt-{'1 K9391 not served with notice of thglinotion, and alsb, that it was 11:8

e em 5° °bta1n any information as to the result of the cross

[ocr errors]

would be fair, under the circumstances, to allow the petitioner to thdraw the petition without ordering him to pay anyocosts. There was reason why a supervision order should be made enable the sharelders who appeared to obtain their costs.—Cousssi., Abraham ; Willis

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

In this case there were two petitions for the winding up of the com

The second petition was prepared without any notice of the first,

an . . gut? when the petitioner’s solicitor went to the ofice to file It, ho W88, according to the present practice, informed by the otlicer of the court that another petition had already been filed; He, notwithstapdlng, filflil $19 second petition, and when the petitions came on for hearing counse or

« PreviousContinue »