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

MOLYNEAUX, Joan, Chorley, Lanes, Licensed Victualler. July 29 at 11. 10, \Vood st. Bolton _

NELSON, WILLIAII. Liverpool, Engineer's A8818t».°.I‘ll5. Aug 8 at 3. Oii Rec, 35, Victoria st. Liverpool _

PEAKE, JOHN NAsII. Congleton, Cheshire, Colliery Proprietor. Aug 1 at 2.30. North Stafl'ord Hotel. Stoke upon Trent

RADFORD, FREDERICK Rrommn, Bristol, Butcher. Aug 8 at 12.90. Off Rec, Bank chrnbrs. Bristol

RILEY, EDWARD, ltawtcnstall. Lanes, Smallwarc Dealer; July 29 at 3.30. Oil Rec, O|zden’s chinbrs. Bridge st. Manchester

Rovrrr. RANDOLPH STEWART Arman. Dulverton, Somerset, no occupation. July 30 at 11. Bankru tc bdgs. Portugal st

ROYCE, WILLIAM, Bircg, I5/ssex, Miller. J uly3O at 11,30. Towuhall, Colchester

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

Wmonr, SAMUEL. Lilyppt lane, Noble st, Warchouseman. Aug 4 at 12. 3,
Carey st, Lincoln’s inn holds
ADJUDICATIONS.

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

SALES OF ENSUING VVEEK.

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

KEARNEY, Jnma, Manchester, Millincr. Manchester. Pet July 23. Ord J lily 23

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

d July 2! STEPHENSON. BENJAMIN, York, B(6I‘ Commission Agent. York. Pet July 22.

Ord July 22

Bvrrn. WILLIAM Hsmir, Liverpool, out of business. Liverpool. Pet July 7.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

their Volmma bound

Country, 285. 6d. ; with the Wnsxnr Rlzi-oarsii, 53¢. Payment in aduancs includia Double Numbers and Postage. Subscribers can have

[ocr errors]
[graphic]
[ocr errors]

TKWAXTB, Ba; Haiirnizr. Bradford, Grocer. Bradford. Pet July 6. Ord July 2! TURNER. HARRY, Remington st, City rd, Builder. Eigh Court. Pet July 21. ,

Ord July 28

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Wrnxms, ANN, Liverpool, Boot Manufacturer. Liverpool. Pet J uly 6. Ord

[ocr errors]

WILLIAMS. J OH-‘N. Chester, Provision Dealer. Chester. Pet July 20. Ord J uly 23 1
WRIQIIT, SAMUEL, Lil pot lane, Noble st, Warehoiiseman. High Court. Pet

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

, All letters iiztendcd for publication in the “ Solicitors’ Journal" mus! be

[graphic]

Ord July 20

authenticated by the name of the writer.

[graphic]

UNTEARABLE LETTER ‘P ce e ost nutritious, per

iectly digesti ls beverage for Breakfast, Luncheon, or Supper, and invaluable for lnvalids and Children." _Highly commended by the entire Medical Press.

Being without sugar, spice, or other admixture, it suits

all palates, keeps for years in all climates, and is four

times the strength cl cocoas rnioniiun yet wiialliisn

lvzlth starch, &c., and II nnnrrz ciisarils than such ix

turns.

Made instantaneously with boiling water, a. te'spoonful to a Breakfast Cup, costing less than a halt nny. COGOATIIA A La Vai<ii.i.s is the most delicate, gfpzestibls, cheapest Mauilla Chocolate, and may be taken when

richer chocolate is rohi

[ocr errors]

_ Charities on Special Terms by the Sela Proprietor,
H. Sciiwri-rzn 3.00., 10, Adam-st., Strand, London, W.C.

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

BY SPECIAL arrorxrxsxr.
To Her Majesty; the Lord Chancellor. the Whole ot
the J udiolal ench, Corporation of London, &c.

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

GUPYING BOOKS.

(HOWARD’S PATENT.)
1,000 Leaf Book, 5s. 6d.
500 Leaf Book, 3s. 6d.

, English made THE BEST LETTER COPYING BOOK OZ/T.

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

pf that judge will be open duringthe Long Vacation for vacation

11118111888, and that all apphcations to the Vacation Judge in
0 embers must be made at those chambers. Presumably this
only applies to chancery busmess.

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

T IN siiivoimcrne, on Monday last, the abandonment of the Land hggnlsier 13:11, Mr. W. H. Siirin is stated to have remarked that it and ‘hell received generally with great interest in the country,_” . at the Government “ had certainly hoped to have passed it “:_t1BW this session.” It is fortunate for the Government, and $0It‘??? F0 for the draftsinen, that this hope has not been realized, er _ 9 Inevitable result of hurrying the measure through this anlzfilvg would liave_ been to render necessary next session an mag“ mg APT?exposing to the legal public the imperfections which La 31'; consideration and careful examination of the provisions of the for" ransfer Act, 1875, had revealed. We suppose we may take it witgmllted that when the Bill appears again it will be consolidated

such of the provisions of the Act of 1875 as it is thought

[graphic]

of these individuals, bound to meet and thresh out together the provisions of the draft.

ONE iuicnr nsvrt SUPPOSED that Re rllnrritt (35 W. R. 277, 18 Q. B. D. 222; discussed, ante, p. 137), which decided that the power of sale conferred on mortgagees by the Conveyancing Act, 1881, was repugnant to the Bills of Sale Act Amendment Act of 1882, would have entirely put a stop to the practice of attempting to incorporate into mortgage bills of sale the whole or any part of the statutory provisions as to sales under that power; but it seems that this is not the case. Lord Justice Far, in delivering the judgment of himself and Lord Justice Bownx in 7Vatl=ins v. Evans (18 Q. B. D., at p. 379), is reported to have said :—“ The decision of the majority of the court in Eu: pm-Ie Oflicial Receiver, Re Zllorritl, has, we conceive, laid down this rule, that the power of sale given by the Conveyancing Act of 1881 does apply to a bill of sale in the statutory form, unless where, under the power given by the statutory form to add clauses for the maintenance of the security, some other provision is introduced which shews that the power of sale given by the Act of 1881 is unnecessary ; and, further, that a power to seize, with the power of sale which thereupon arises, is such a provision, and accordingly repels the introduction of the statutory power of sale.” This statement as to the effect of the decision in Re Merritt is clearly incorrect. As pointed out, ante, p. 138, it was held in that case by the Master of the Rolls and COTION, LINDL1-IY, Bowen, and Lorrs, L.JJ., dissentiente Fur, L.J., that the power of sale conferred on mortgagees by the Conveyancing Act, 1881, was repugnant to the Bills of Sale Act Amendment Act, 1882, and therefore could not apply to mortgage bills o_f sale. The point on which Corron, LINDLEY, and Bowrn, L.JJ., differed from the Master of the Rolls and Lorrzs, L.J., was as to how the mortgagee under a bill of sale had power to sell; the three former judges considering that he could sell under his common law rights after seizure and waiting for a reasonable time (_i.e. _five days as mentioned in the Act) ; the two latter judges considering that he could sell under a power conferred by th_c Act of l_882. we hope that the misconception appearing in the judgment in YVal/sins v. Evan! as to the effect of the decision in Re Mowztt will be finally put an end to by the judgments in Calvert v. Thomas (19 Q. B. D. 204), where the Master of the Rolls and LINDLEY and Lor-Es, L J J , all dissented from the construction placed in the judgment in Waikllls v. Evans on the decision in Re fllorritt.

A RECENT DECISION of the House of Lords in Drummond v. Van Ingpen, and the course of the litigation in that case, have led to a

[graphic]
[graphic]

renewal of the cry for the establishment of tribunals of commerce. A deputation representing twelve chambers of commerce in the West Riding of Yorkshire waited on the Lord Chancellor last week to urge this demand, and met with an unusually, and perhaps unexpectedly, favourable reception. The Lord Chancellor’s observations on the change which has been brought about in the present metropolitan tribunals for the administration of commercial law are of so much interest and importance that they deserve to be quoted. He said :—

“When I first remember Westminster Hall and the City of London I believe better tribunals than we had then for the administration of the commercial law it was impossible to obtain. You had the first merchants of the City serving as jurors, and though they were not called commercial judges, they were in truth commercial judges. You had the direction of ihe law from the judge, and you had sitting in the jury box, as a general rule, twelve special jurymen of the City of London, all of them engaged in commerce and generally persons in a very high position. I do not say that that is so now. I quite admit that a change has come over the system by reason of an alteration, rightly or wrong y, of the jury system. I believe, it the truth were known, the special jurors of the City of London, and those like them all over the country, rather complained that their time was more occupied than ought to have been, and that the special jury panel ought to be somewhat wider than it was. However, the fact is as I have stated it; and I quite admit that under the changing circumstances it may be necessary to make some alteration of the system.” Everyone who knows the facts will admit that there has been a change, though everyone will not admit that it is wholly due to the cause mentioned by the Lord Chancellor. Some will say that the London sittings at which the results described by him were obtained were practically destroyed by the judges after their transfer, in 1883, to the Royal Courts. It will be remembered that it was not until the conference which took place in the early part of 1886 between the Lord Chief Justice and several leading City solicitors that any reasonable arrangements for the sittings were adopted. But no change in the metropolitan courts will meet the wishes of the present memorialists. They want to have cheap and speedy commercial tribunals at their doors. They have the common sense to recognize the necessity for_the presidency of a lawyer judge, but they insist on his being assisted by commercial judges, and they propose that the tribunals shall either be, or be connected with, the county courts, and that appeals from the decisions of the tribunals shall be allowed on questio_ns_of law, but not on matters of fact. We think that the mcmorinlists make a mistake in insisting on commercial judges; commercial assessors sitting with a judge would seem to answer ev_ery reasonable purpose, and would obviate the objection which arises at once to a court of one lawyer and two commercial men— viz., that the latter would overrule the lawyer on questions of law, and so lead to endless appeals. It is useless, however, to criticize the proposals until they have taken shape in 0. Bill introduced either by the Chamber of Commerce or (as seems not very unlikely) by the Government. The points to be noted are, on the one hand, that the commercial community are not satisfied with the present provision for the settlement of their disputes, and, on the oltlher hand, that they are beginning to recognize the reasonableness of t ° °bl9<=tions we and others have for years urged to tribunals of commerce unprovided with lawyer judges,

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

TRUSTEES’ MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS.

Tan judgments delivered in the House of Lords in Lear-o_1/a' v. Whiteley on Monday last are of great importance as apparently settling the long controversy, to which our columns have ire. quently borne witness, as to the rule relating to the margin of value to be allowed on investments on mortgage by trustees. We have always contended, and, what is of more importance, §if James Bacon, when on the bench, considered (Re G011/‘"z~e_y, 3'3 W. R. 23), that the so-called “two-thirds ” rule was not a hard and fast rule binding on the court. Three or four years ago, in a somewhat elaborate consideration of the subject, we traced the history of the so-called rule from its first enunciation, or supposed enunciation, in a remark made by Lord Cottenliam in Stickney v. Sou-ell (1 My. & Cr. 13), and we attempted to shew that this remark had been misapprehended, and that the so-called “rule,” if considered as a hard and fast rule, had very little authority to support it. That was so then ; but we wrote before Mr. Justice Kay had, in F'r_z/ v. Tupson (33 W. R. l l3), attempted to re-establish, and had specially approved, the doctrine in its most stringent form. The opinion of the House of Lords on the matter was expressed on Monday in the following terms:—“As a general rule, the law required of a trustee no higher degree of diligence in the execution of his ofllce than a man of ordinary prudence would exercise in the management of his own private affairs. Yet he was not allowed the same discretion in investing the moneys of the trust as if he were a person sui juris dealing with his own estate. Business men of ordinary prudence might, and frequently did, select investments which were more or less of a speculative character; but it was the duty of a trustee to confine himself to the class of investments which were permitted by the trust, and likewise to avoid all investments of that class which were attended with hazard. So long as he acted in the honest observance of these limitations the general rule already stated would apply. The courts of equity had indicated and given eflect to certain general principles for the guidance of trustees in lending money upon the security of real estate. Thus it had been laid down that, in the case of ordinary agricultural land, the margin ought not to be less than one-thiul of its value; whereas in cases where the subject of the security derived its value from buildings erected upon the land, or its use for trade purposes, the margin ought not to be less than one-half. He did not 1/link {bees /iarl been laid down as /lard and fast limit..up I0 winch I-rustees would be invari'abl_1/ safe, and beyond wine/i they could never be in srgfely to lend, but as indicating the lowest margins which, in ordiiiary circumstances, a careful investor of trust funds ought to accept.” This appears to be very much in accordance with our contention, and with Lord Cottenham’s remark above referred to, that “ to advance two-thirds is admitted to be within the rule of ordinary prudence.”

The question immediately before the court in Wliitelej/_v. Lt-aroyd, however, related to another matter connected with trustees’ investments on mortgage. An advance was made by trustees on mortgage of a freehold brickyard, buildings, and machinery, and about ten acres of land containing beds of clay and coal. The property was reported on by an experienced surveyor before the mortgage was taken, who stated that he considered it a good security for £3,500, and there was evidence that the mortgagors had given £6,000 for the property, and had spellli £3,000 upon it before the date of the mortgage. Vice-Chancellor Bacon held (34 W. R. 450) that, although the money was lent 011 the security of freehold land and buildings, the advance was, in fact. on the security of a trade, and that it was not an advance on “ real securities" within the provisions of an investment clause. We ventured to question this decision at the time; and the Court of Appeal subsequently held (30 Souciroas‘ JOURNAL, 672) that the advance was on a “real security" within the investment clause; but they considered that the trustees had not suificiently looked_ or inquired into the details of the valuer's report, and that in acting upon it without inquiry or investigation they had not exercised the care which an ordinarily prudent man of business would have exercised; and therefore the court made them responsible for the investment. The House of Lords aflirmed this decision, L001 Watson, who delivered the leading judgment, saying that:-—“It °PP§81'9d that the appellants had no information regardillfl the subjects mortgaged except what was contained in the leP°'t °f their V9-1\19l‘- I11 his opinion the report was not such a document

« PreviousContinue »