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

London Gazette of Oct 5.

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

SECREGY. SECURITY. SAFETY.

GHANGERY LANE

[graphic]

Your Jewelry and

‘ FIRST NIGHT WATCH

[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[graphic]

Pr t on PATROL DUTY ON PATWL DUTY and oper y .......... Dgcumentg safe from , V Safe from Burglar or ‘ ,'»'

Thief.

Under your I

own Lock and Key.

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

SAFES from 1 to 5 Guineas. STRONG R00

MS from 7 to 80 Guineas per Annum.

GUARDED NIGHT AND DAY.
WRITING, TELEPHONE, AND WAITING ROOMS FOR LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

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

PROSPECTUS.

This Companyhas been incorporated ior the purpose oi granting Insurances to the holders oi Mortgages, Mortgage Debentures, Mortgage Debenture took 311% 01:181.‘ securities against loss oi principal and

res .

Although advances upon mortgages justly occupy the first 1‘8Ilk_ among investments, experience (particularly dunng the last ic_w years) has demonstrated that. in spite o the _EX6l'l!lB6 oi every ordinary precaution. t is impossible to make adequate provision against loss in 0VBl’{e(:B8. The Directors confidently believe. and have n assured. by many Solicitors and other comgieteut authorities, that in introducing the system 0 assurance to mortgage investments, this? will supply a valuable element oi security oi w ch advantage is certain to he largely taken.

It is believed that the operations oi this Corporation. whilst vergdprotltable to its Shareholders. will be oi the utmost vantage to all who are interested, either as Owners or Morfigees oi pro ert , and esDeclllli so to Trustees. e Policies 0% thg Corporation will assurs and strengthen the relative position oi borrowers and lenders. and Will remove the element oi doubt and uncertainty which, as above stated, oiten attends even the best class oi mortgage business. Prudent lendei-swill naturallz desire that their interest shall be regularly paid, an their securities enhanced by the guarantee oi a large and powerful company, whilst borrowers who are prepared to sslllre their Obligations. will necessarily be able to piocure better terms as to interest and otherwise t an wouldbe obtainable without such guanintee.

The field open to the operations oi the Co oration is practically illiminable_. It is believed that the elicct oi the additional security oiiered to Moi-tgagees und others will largely increase the present volume oi Mortgage transactions, but it may be saiel stated that, assuming only a small er centsge oi the propcrt&at present the subject 0? Mortg e were assured wi the Corporation. it would yie-lg an amount oi business whic would return a large dividend to the s"i~‘1'§°“€“"l‘?;1 lid Will

9 BP up be invested in read available and hIgh-class securities and will iurnisflhy. with the amount uncalled, a guarantee ior the engsments which the Corporation may enter into.

eryuproposal ior insurance will be considered on its I11 Fl, and will be accepted at such rates and

[graphic]

subject to such conditions as the Directors may consider proper having regard to the risk undertaken.

The Corporation is prepared to oflcr at once such terms as it is believed will securoanimmediatc, large, mid urofltable business.

No crlntnichs have been entered into and no promotion money has been or will be paid.

The founders have subscribed he ilnt £260,000 oi the onlimiry Slinrc Capital and pay all the preliminary expenses. except law charges and usual hi-okcmge; they will be entitled to receive upon their Founders‘ Shares ns distinct ii-om the Ordinary Shares, one-liali the nett profits aiter payment oi 7

er cent. on the Ordinary Shares, and lLft€;]I)l'OVldl!lK For a Reserve Fund, the remaining h will be available ior increased dividends on the Ordinary Shares.

Ii no allotment is made the application money will bemturned in iull, and in case asmsller amountis allotted than is applied _ior the excess {rigid on application will be applied m payment of e allotment

money.

Prospectuses and ionns oi application ior shares may be obtained at the ofllces o the Corporation, or irom its Brokers. Bankers. or Solicitors. Copies oi the Memornndiim and Articles oi Association may be seen at the Ofliccs oi the Solicitors.

THE NEW ZEALAND LAND MORT-
GAGE COMPANY . Limited.
Capital £2,000,000. fully subscribed.
£200,000 paid up. Reserve Fund, £5,000.
The Company's loans are limited to first-class iree-
hold mortgages. The Dchenture issue is limited to
the uncalled capital.

[ocr errors]
[graphic]
[ocr errors]

Chairman oi Colonial BoardThe Hon. Sir Fm-znx. Wnirsxsa, K.C.1\i.G., M.L.C., late Premier oi New Lcalnnd.

The Directors are issuing Tenninable Debentures bearing interest at 4 per cent. ior three years. and cl per cent. ior five years and upwards. Iutcrust haliyearly by Coupons.

[ocr errors]

LAW LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY,

Fnnam Srsam, LONDON.—Institutsd ieza. Assets on 31st December. 1885... £5,213,223 Income ior the Your 1885 £135,476 Amount paid in claims to 81st Dec.. 1% £14,536,593 Reversionary Bonus allotted ior the live

years endinggllst Dec..1ss4 £690.9~16 Revei-sionary onuses hitherto allotted £6.l<b0.937

The Expenses oi Management, including Commission, are aboutii 118" cent. oi the Income.

The limits oi iree travel and residence have been largely extended, und rates oi extra premium reduced.

Loans grzuited on securiigr oi Policies Liie Interests, Revei-sions, and oi-ough and County Rates, as well as on other approved Securities.

Liio Interests and Reversious are purchased. mtlllaims paid immediately on prooi 01 death and

e.

Commission allowed to Solicitors and others on Assurances effected throutgh their introduction.

Prospectus and Form 0 Proposal sent ou application to the Actuary.

[graphic]
[graphic]

I AW UNION FIRE and LIFE INSU-
RANCE COMPANY.
Esrmusnnn IN run YEAR 1851.
The only Low Insurance Ofllce in the United Kingdom
which transects both Fire and Liie Insurance Busi-

ncss. Chief Oflice— 216, CHANCERX LANE. LONDON, W.C. The Funds in hand and Capital Subscribed amount to _ £1,900,000 sterling. Chan-inan—Jums CUDDON, Esq. oi the Middle Temple Barrister-at-Law.

Deputy-Chair-man—('Jaim.i:s Pxiliisnroiv, Esq. (Lee

it Pembertoni-i_), Solicitor, 44, Lincoln's-inii-iiclds.

The Directors invite attention to the New Form oi Liie Policy, which is tree from all conditions.

Policies 0! Insurance granted ainst the contingeney oi Issue at moderate rates gig Premium.

The Company ADVANCES Money on llim-cgnge of Liie _Intei-eats and Reversions, whether absolute or contingent.

The Company also purchases Reversions.

Prospectuses, co lies of the Directors‘ Report and Annua Balance Sheet, and every iniormntioii sent post-tree on application to ’

FRANK llicGEDY, Actuary and Secretary.

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

Firs Premiums ... £677,000

Lite Premiums ... ... 191,000

‘interest... ... ... ... 132,000 Aosmnnlated Funds -- .. .. £3,134,000

[graphic]

{EVERSIONARY and LIFE INTE

1 BESTS in LANDED or FUNDED PROPERTY or other Securities and Annuities PURCHASED. or Doanl or Annuities thereon granted, by the EQUITABLE BEVERSIONARY IN'l‘ERES'1‘ SOCIETY (LIMITED), 10, Lancaster-place, Waterloo Bridge, Strand. Established 1835 C ital, £500,000. Interest on Loans may be

[ocr errors]

ACCIDENTS or DAILY LIFE

[ocr errors]

(ESTABLISHED 1840‘, 64, CORNHILL, LONDON.

Capital £1.f-00.000. Income £216,000.

COMPENSATION PAID F011 117,000 ACCIDENTS,

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

The Object oi this College is to enable Students at the earliest practicable age. and at ii moderate cost. £3 dtiiilfe the University Degree ni Arts. IJ1W| 01'

G (.1110
Students are admitted at 16, and a Degree maybe

to en at 10.

The College Charges ior Lodging und Board (with an Extra Term in the Long Yiicntion), including all necessary expenses oi tuition ior the B.A. Dsgmvi are £81 per annum.

For further inionnation apply to the WARDEN, Cavendish College, Cambridge. A

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

Tni: Aiiniroriiasrs consequent on the retirement of \'ice-Chancellor B.ico.\' have given rise to a migration of leaders probably without parallel. ‘Va believe that the following is a correct statement, so far as it goes, of the changes which have occurred :—The Queen's Counsel practising before Mr. Justice KAY will consist of Mr. MARTRN, Mr. Iron (who has migrated from Mr. Justice Cinrri"s court). Mr. HORTON Siiirn, Mr. Mrtnin, and Sir A. Warson. The Queen's Counsel practising before Mr. J usticc Sriiiuxo will consist of Mr. FISCHER, Mr. W. PEARSON, Mr. HI-IMMING, Mr. GRAHAM HASTINGS, Mr. W. F. Roiimsoiv, Mr. CROSSLI-ZY, and Mr. BUSH. Mr. BARBER, Q-C., and Mr. Wi\RlIINGTON, Q.C., will practise before Mr. Justice garswicu, and Mr. MACLEAN, Q.C., will practise before Mr. Justice

HI’l'l'Y.

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

act for the purpose of hearing and determining appeals, and also for the purpose of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary taking their seats and the oaths, during any prorogation of Parliament.” During a prorogatiou, therefore, only Lords of Appeal in Ordinary may take the oaths, and as Lord BBAM\\'}-‘.LL and Lord HERSCHELL are not Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, and had not taken the oaths after the last dissolution, they cannot take the oaths during a prorogation. This follows from the Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866, which prescribes that the oath of allegiance set out in that Act (changed in form only by the Promissory Oaths Act, 1868) “shall, in every Parliament, be solemnly and publicly made and subscribed by every member of tho House of Peers at the table in the middle of the said House . . . and whilst a full House of Peers is there with their Speaker in his place.” And to make assurance doubly sure, it is provided by the concluding portion of section 8 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, “that no business other than the hearing and determination of appeals, and matters connected therewith, and Lords of Appeal in Ordinary taking their seats and the oaths as aforesaid, shall be transacted by the House of Lords during such prorogation." An amending statute will, we presume, be passed to remedy the defect.

To run nnucnr of the impressionable part of the public, and, we think, rather to the surprise of the majority of the legal profession, Mr. Justice Burr has seen his way to granting a decree of nullity in Scott v. Scbriqhi, on the ground that the petitioner was, at the time of her marriage, incapable of consenting to the marriage contract, and that that contract ought to be avoided on the same grounds as other contracts may be avoided, subject to the qualification that the court avoiding it must watch more jealously ‘~ than in the case of other contracts the evidence which is tendered in support of the desired avoidance. It may perhaps be questioned whether, in not subjecting Sizimioiir to examination on certain points, the learned judge quite observed his own qualification, and whether the case docs not bear on the face of it something like the judicial sanction of the dissolution of amarriage by mutual consent, although, as Lord Psnzwcn eloquently points out in Jllordaunt v. Moi-dnunt (2 P. D., at p. 196), the fcaturc of non-rescission by consent is a feature which belongs to marriage contracts alone among contracts. The question, however, was one of evidence only, and all that can be said is that different facts strike different judges differently. As to the authorities, although no cases are cited in the judgment, it is well to point out that the books contain at least three O886S~—Hd7fOTd v. Morris (2 Hagg. Con. 423), Portsmouth v. Porisnzouth (1 Hagg. 356), and Will-inson v. Wz'Ilrinsmi (4 Notes of Ecclesiastical Cases, 295) —in which a marriage has been declared void on the ground of incapacity to consent, not amounting to insanity. Of the three cases Wilkinson v. 7Vilkinson is the strongest. There a rich infant, incurably imbecile, but whose friends had failed to procure her to be declared lunatic, had been inveigled into a marriage with a cousin “in concert with other parties.” The ceremony was hurried, and the bride, when required to say “I will,” said “ No,” till prompted by the clerk and told to use the former words; moreover, when in the vestry, sh_e “fool: of the ring and threw it down, saying she was not mamed." The husband was represented but not examined at the tnal, his_counsel admitting that the wife was undoubtedly unfit to enter into the matrimonial contract, and “ leaving the matter in the hands of the court” (Dr. LUSIUNGTON), with the result that the decree was ' granted on the ground that the marriage had been brought about by fraud and circumvention.

A CORRESPONDENT of a contemporary, signing himself “Lincoln’s Inn," has accomplished a feat and made a discovery which may well fill his inn with pride. The feat is the reading of “the words of section 13 of 8: 2 Vict. c. 110," and the discovery is that thcre is no necessity for “ any panic about Ra Pope” (34 W. R. 654, 693). Referring to an article which he appears to have written on the 9th of October, he says, “ I observe that I stand alone in my opinions therein expressed; and your contemporaries the So_Liciroiis’ Joniiiur. and the Law Journal, and the respective contributors thereto, are wholly at sea amidst what they consider the shoals of the Judgmen; ActsI

[graphic]
[graphic]

Would you believe it, sir, those valiant journals and their learned contributors occasion their own troubles by not reading the words of section 13 of 1 & 2 Vict. c. H0 which they comment on?” And then he proceeds to state the provisions of this unknown section, the effect of which he states to be that “the in invitum charge which, by that section, is given by the judgment being duly registered, is made thereby equivalent to a voluntary charge made by writing of the debtor under hand—that is to say, the judgment debt, being registered, is, by the statute, made and declared to be an equitable mortgage on the lands—exactly what I (wno READ riir: Acrs I wriira snorr) have stated in the article in question." And he then refers to another unknown Act of 27 8: 2'5 Vict. e. 112, and asks “why purchasers should be in any panic about Re Pope ? " It is satisfactory to know that “ Lincoln's Inn " has read section 13 ; and it would have been still more satisfactory if his reading had extended to the observations in the SoLicirons' JOURNAL on which he comments. What we have endeavoured to shew (with what success our readers must judge) is that there are two totally distinct methods of enforcing a judgment debt against the debtor's land

.F1'rst, the judgment creditor may obtain execution against the debtor’s lands, by suing out an eloyit, or by obtaining an order appointing a receiver, or for a commission of sequestration. He can do this witliuut registering either iliejudgrnent or the writ or order. In this case he enforces his remedy against the rents and profits of the debtor's land. There is no means by which a purchaser can be certain that the judgment creditor has not obtained execution.

Secondly, the judgment creditor may obtain a charge on the corpus of the land of the udgment debtor by registering his writ or other process of execution under 27 & 28 Vict. c. 112. In this case a purchaser can ascertain by searching what has been done.

Without again discussing the extremely intricate law of judgments and executions, we may point out, for the benefit of “ Lincoln's Inn," that the decision in Re Pope (which he surely cannot have read) expressly decided (1) that, where land is actually delivered in execution, it is not necessary to register the execution, except for the purpose of obtaining an order for sale; and (2) that a judgment creditor who has got the land actually delivered in execution is safe as against a purchaser—in other words, that the purchaser is not safe as against the execution creditor. Perhaps even “ Lincolu’s Inn" will now see why there has been “ a panic about Re Pope."

[graphic]

Ox Fnrnsr fortnight the Master of the Rolls announced that the bankruptcy appeal, Ex parts The Ofiuial Receiver, In re Morritt, would be re-argued before the full Court of Appeal. The case is one of several relating to bills of sale in which judgment_was reserved just before the Long Vacation. One of the questions raised was, whether section 19 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, which confers on a mortgagee by deed “ a power, when the mortgage-money has become duo, to scll the mortgaged property," applies to a bill of sale of personal chattels given as security for money. Section 20 provides that the mortgagee shall not exercise the power of sale unless and until notice requiring payment of the mortgage-money has been served on the mortgagor, and default in payment has been made for three mouths after the service, or interest is in arrear for two months. Section 19 also provides that

“the provisions of this Act relating to the foregoin 0W€l‘s

. . . . . . B P ~ 0°51pfiised either 1? this section, or in any subsequent section regiilating

e exercise 0 those powers may be varied or extended by the mortgage deed,” and in this particular case the bill of sale contained a proviso that the power of sale conferred upon the mortgagee by the Conveyancing Act should he exercisable by him “ in every respect as if the 20th section of the said Act had not been enacted." Another question was, whether a mortgagee of chattels has (independently of the Conveyancing Act and of any express power in the deed) an inherent power of sale by vii-tuc of his mortgage in case of default by the mortgagor. The case was argued before the full court on Thursday, the llth inst. and judg. ment was reserved. ’

[ocr errors][merged small]
[graphic]

duties Lord Conitiiinoiz has this week intimated an anxious desire for information, was, before the Judicature Acts, styled “the Otlicial Solicitor of the High Court of Chancery,” and before the Chancery Funds Act “the Solicitor to the Suitors’ Fund." His functions, as described in the Second Report of the Legal Departments Commission, were to protect the Suitors' Fund, and to administer, under the direction of the court, so much of it as then came under the spending power of the court. He acted for parties in pauper suits, when so directed by the judge, and for those who, through ignorance or forgetfulness, were guilty of contempt of court by not answering process. Every quarter he visited Holloway Prison, to see and report upon any prisoner of the Court of Chancery, taking up any case requiring assistance. He assisted the Paymnstcr-General in preparing the Chancery Estimates for Parliament, and acted generally as a solicitor in all cases in which the several Chancery Courts required such services. All these duties he still performs, with the exception of administering so much of the Suitors’ Fund as comes under the spending power of the court. He may be also required, under R. S. C., 1883, XXXIIL, 9, to act in case of “ undue delay ” in proceedings under any judgment or order. As solicitor of the court he is the general intermediary for the Lord Chancellor, as president, in respect of a large amount of public business in connection with the courts. _ It frequently happens that the Oficial Solicitor is appointed guardian for an infant in cases where a guardian is unfit to act through misconduct, and the judge thinks it desirable to retain a strict hold on the infant's property. But this forms no part of his ofllcial duties, though in such cases the existence of a trustworthcy otlicer is a great convenience, and facilitates the exercise of the uties of the judges.

Ir ANY IMPUTATION was intended by the Master of the Rolls, in his recent remarkable speech, against the county court judges on the ground of inefficiency or defective administration of the law, no support for such a charge can be gathered from the results of the appeals from their decisions (apart from their equity, admiralty, and bankruptcy jurisdiction) which are given in the last issue of the Judicial Statistics. The number of appeals from county courts by special case in the year ending the 3lst of October, 1885, was 31; and of this number 22 were argued, l0 decisions being affirmed and 12 reversed. Appeals by motion numbered 151, of which 41 were refused, and of the 111 orders nun’ granted, 36 only were made absolute, and 74 were discharged. The figures spcak for themselves, and shew only 48 successful appeals from the -586,7l6 decisions of 59 county court judges.

ON THE FORM OF MORTGAGE BILLS OF SALEII.

C'0nu'J0ration.—'l‘he Act of 1882 requires (section 8) that the bill of sale shall “truly set forth the consideration for which it was given," differing only from the corresponding provision in the Act of 1878, s. 8, by the addition of the word “truly.” It hardly requires the authority of Bowen, L.J. (Ea: pzirte Johnson, R0 L‘/1"P""""\ 26 Ch. D., at p. 348), to enable one to see that the difference in language is immaterial. and that the Act of 1878 roquires the consideration to be stated truly.

The cases shew that the statement of the consideration need not be literally accurate ; that it satisfies the requirements of the Act! if it be substantially accurate (Hughes v. Little, 35 W’. R. 36)» and if it states, either in legal or business language, the true effect of What actually took place : see the remarks of Bowen L..I. E1‘

[ocr errors]

K6 l1- B- D-, Bl? P- 295) “ The real principle of the form is that, whatever may be the consideration forthe sum of money secured by the bill of sale, a first sum shall be stated therein iii figures, and in direct terms" (par Brett, M.lt., Davis v. Burton, 11 Q. B. D., at p. 540).

Most of the cases where the consideration is incorrectly stated may be grouped under two heads-—first, where the consideration is °1l’1e5§°d l7° be P9-id “now” or “on or immediately before the execution of th "

[graphic]

_ _ _ e_se presents, and the whole or part of the conlsldel-'3ll0I1 is paid some time before the execution of the bill

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

of sale, or no money is actually paid; secondly, where the consideration is expressed to be paid to A. and the whole or part is really paid to B.

In cases of the first class the bill of sale was held good, in Er parte Allam, Ra .l[11mIa_i/ (14 Q. B. D. 43), where the debtor gave a bill of sale for the sum advanced, and, upon its being discovered that it was invalid owing to its offending against the provisions of the Acts, gave a fresh bill four days after the execution of the first bill, which was thereupon cancelled; in Em parts Johnson, Re Chapman (32 W. R. 393, 26 Ch. D. 338), where part of the loan was made four days before the execution of the bill of sale on the undertaking of the debtor to execute a bill of sale if required ; in Ex parts Bolland, Re Roper (31 W. R. 102, 21 Ch. D. 543), where no money actually passed, but the sum expressed to be paid was a sum owing by the grantor to the grantee for unpaid purchase-money; in The Credit Co. v. Putt (29 W. R. 326, 6 Q. B.D. 295), where no money passed, there was a recital of an intended loan, and the amount of the loan was the sum found due by the grantor to the grantee on a stated account; the effect of the transaction in each of the two latter cases really being payment by the grantor of the money due by him, and an immediate advance of the same sum to him by the grantee. On the other hand, the bill of sale was hcld to be invalid in Ea: parts Berwick, Re Young (29 W. R. 292), where thc loan had been made by instalments extending over eighteen months, the last of which was paid three months before the bill of sale was given.

In cases of the second class the consideration is truly said to be paid to the grantor if it is by his direction, at the time of the advance, paid so as to satisfy existing debts then due from him (see the remarks of J easel, M.R., and Brett, L.J., Ea: parle Firth, Re Cowbum, 19 Ch. D. 419 ; Hamlyn v. Beltelcy, 29 W. R. 956, 5 C. P. D. 327), or, apparently, if it is paid for any purpose by his direction (see Re Oann, Ea: parts I1 unit, 13 Q. B. D., where it will be observed that part of the costs which were paid on the execution of the bill of sale had not become due). The bill was even upheld where, immediately after the payment of the consideration, the grantor applied part of it, pursuant to an agreement entered into at the time, giving the bill of sale in payment of a debt bond fide due by him to the grantee: Ex parts National Mncanlile Bank, Re Haynes (28 W. R. 248, 15 Ch. D. 42), a case decided under the Act of 1878; if it had fallen under the Act of 1882 the collateral agreement would have made the sale bad : see ante, p. 41.

On the other hand, where part of the consideration was paid to, or retained by, the grantee as bonus : Re Williams, Ex parts Pearce (32 W. R. 187, 25 Ch. D. 656); as commission on the loan_: Hamilton v. Chains (7 Q. B. D. 1, 319); for the sake of providing for the rent subsequently becoming due of the housc where the chattels were: Em pa/rte Ralph, Re Spindlcr (19 Ch. D. 98); for interest and expenses: Ea: arte Charing Cross Advance and Depwit Bil/nh‘, Ra Parker (29 R. 204, 16 Ch. 1). 35); 01' the costs of the grantee’s solicitor, including costs of registration, are retained by him out of the consideration: Ex parts Firth, Re Cowburn (19 Ch. D. 419) overruling Ea: parte Uhallmor (29 W. R. 205, 16 Ch. D. 260), the consideration was l19ld_not to be truly expressed. In all the cases where part of the consideration is retained by the grantee for the purpose of future ‘_‘P]_Jlioation, the consideration is not truly stated, not only because it is stated to be paid to the grantor, but also because it is stated

to be now paid” : Exports Ralph, Re Szindler (19 Ch. D. 98).

The consideration was held not to be truly stated where the bill secured repayment of advances thereby recited to he made to the g"mt°|'» but which were really made to his firm : Ewpa/rte Carter, Re Thrnapplelon (12 Ch. D. 908). The consideration was held to he sufficiently stated in the words, “In consideration of the Emilee having, at the request of the grantor, become guarantee, and ha“PR Flgllcd ii promissory note for the payment of a sum of £45, obtained by the grantor from B., of which £32 or thcrcabouts is 11°_W flying”: Hughes v. Little (17 Q. B. D. 204), confiinied on til“ P°}11t 011 appeal (35 W. R. 36) ; and where part of the consideration was a transaction relating to promissory notes which were incorrectly stated to be bills of exchange : Roberts v. Roberts (82 W. R. 605, 13 Q. B. D. 794).

If’m*cels_.-—Personal chattels must be specifically described in a 311 Edulc-inventory contained in a schedule to the bill of sale, and

° Srantor must be the true owner thereof at the time of the

void, except as against the grantor: see the Act of 1882, ss. 4, 5.

An interminable controversy might be raised on the meaning of the words “ specifically described,” but fortunately they have been decided to mean that the inventory must describe the things as a business man would describe them : see remarks of Lindlcy, L.J., in Roberts v. Roberts (13 Q. B. D., at p. 806). It is unnecessary to state in what house the chattels are: Ex parts Hill, Re Lane (17 Q. B. D. 74).

These provisions eflectually prevent a mortgage of after-acquired chattels, unless they are acquired in substitution for those comprised in the bill of sale which become wom out: Comolidated Credit C’o. v. Goeneg (34 W. R. 106, 16 Q. B. D. 24). It should, perhaps, be stated that where a bill of sale mortgages both chattels in possession and after-acquired chattels, the invalid provisions as to the after-acquired chattels do not invalidate the mortgage of the property in possession: Roberts v. Roberts (32 W. R. 605, 13 Q. B. D. 794), overruling Levy v. Polack N., 1885, 76).

These provisions are subject to the important exceptions of (1) any growing crops separately assigned or charged where such crops were actually growing at the time when the bill of sale was executed; (2) any fixtures separately assigned or charged, and any plant or trade machineiziy, where such fixtures, plant, or trade machinery are use in, attached to, or brought upon any land, farm, factory, workshop, shop, house, warehouse, or other place in substitution for any of the like fixtures, plant, _or trade machinery specifically described in the schedule to such bill of sale : sec the Act of 1882, s. 6.

The words “ separately assigned ” in this section have reference to the 4th section of the Act of 1878. As to growing crops, they mean “not assigned together with any interest in the land on which they grow.” As to fixtures, “not assigned together with a freehold or leasehold interest in any land or building to which they are annexed.”

It should be observed that a grant of after-acquired chattels passes only an equitable interest, and that, therefore, if, after they come into existence, and before the grantee takes possession,_some other person, without notice of the grantee's iiiterest, acquires a legal interest in them, the title of the grantee is ousted: Joseph v. Lyon: (33 W. R. 145, 15 Q. B. D. 280), Hallas v. Robzrson (as W. R. 426, 15 Q. 13. 1). 2a9).

*,,* There is an omission of some words in a sentence in our previous article at the top of page ~11, second column. The latter part of the sentence should read, “ were intended to apply solely to the case where the mortgage was by demure, or whether they would also apply to the case of a mortgage in foo, and whether they apply to the implied tenancy of the mortgagor created by the mortgage, or only to the express tenancy created by the attornmcnt."

[ocr errors][merged small]

Rqqistration qfju<lgments.—By section 19 of 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, no judgment of any of the said “superior courts "—i'.e., at Westminster—-“ nor any decree or order in any court of equity, nor any order in bankruptcy or lunacy, shall, by virtue of this Act, affect any lands,” &c., as to purchasers unless aml until registered in the Court of Common Pleas in the manner therein prescribed, in tho name of “ the person whose estate is intended to be affected thereby.” (Semble, therefore, that if a defendant was sued as trustee, the registration should be in the name of the 1.-estui gue trust, against whom a purchaser would search.) _

The section does not mean that judgments shall, when registered, affect lands as from entry of judgment; its effect is to cut down the prior sections which bind lands as from entry of judgment and to affect purchasers only from the time of registration (Hargrai.-e v. Ha:-grave, 23 Beav. 4_84).

The statute 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110 did not repeal the Statute'of Westminster 2 or the Docket not (ante, p. 25), so that, sf, section 19 applies only to the rights given“ by virtue of this Act, it was,

[graphic]

execution of the bill of sale, otherwise the bill of sale will be

[ocr errors]

l

apparently, still open to a creditor to docket his judgment un

[graphic]
« PreviousContinue »