« PreviousContinue »
They said thpt if the debtor had been alive the proceedings ac
e gone on without personal service of thc etition or sub
, P of is. N ow substituted service meant service substituted for a th inal service. There could be no substituted service where pa ice could not by any possibility be effected. In this case, ca ther personal nor substituted service could be efiiected. The cr mid mt 8° °n w1th°‘-"5 39l'Vi¢9, as the court had no power to co ( _1t. Therefore they were of opinion, in the case of a ‘of ition, that th_e court could not _allow the proceedings to th I the debtor died before the petition was served.—Oovxssr., w
tion was brought by a sharel older in the defendant company, on behalf
ninselt and all other the shareholders, except the directors, against 6_compa_ny and the directors, claiming to restrain the defendants from ying adivideiid which the plaintiff alleged they were about to pay out of Pltfih The plaintiif alleged that the defendants had improperly ineased the values at which estates belonging to the company stood in the mpany s books. The defendants had been required to make an afiidavit d°°1"1'1@11i9. and the secretary of. the company had made an affidavit, e first schedule to which contained 646 items. Many of these items ere described as bundles of letters and other documents and books (such letter books), each of which comprised a large number of distinct docu
THE GENERAL MUTUAL INVESTMENT BUILDING plents. Some of the books were general letter books of the company and
SOCIETY—O. A. No. 2, 10th August. th
lumes 0f_ copies of letters. The plaintiff applied by summons to have e aifidavit taken off the file, on the ground that it was an abuse of the
ms in the schedule, or what parts of the items, related to the matters in
appeal from 8 decision of North, J_ pm,’ P 626) The question in the action. North, J ., ordered the aflfldavit to be taken off the
light by a member of a building society, ‘who had. given file‘
drawal, and whose notice had expired, against the society,
lleged to be aim? vim-.i. The resolutions had been passed Q‘
itiff gave his notice of withdrawal. One of the rules of the d that “ the board shall have power to determine all matters
ng between the society and any member or person claiming J
.ny member, and it the party shall be dissatisfied with ir shall refuse to abide thereby, the matter shall be referred arbitrators of the society.” The plaintiff moved for the a receiver, and by consent the matter was treated as if had been made by the defendants to stay the proceedings
The question in this case was whether, in an action commenced before
This defendants contended that the dispute ought to be the R. B. (J., 1883, came into operation, ‘and in which judgment was also
d not ,;pp]y_ because he had, by his notice of withdrawal’ was to run from tho date of the judgment or from the date of the taxing member’ and had become ,1 creditor of the society_ Norm, master's certificate. The old rule in equity was that the interest ran . . ,.
s rule applied, and that the dispute ought to be referred f
om the date of the certificate ; at law the rule was that interest ran from
rmmm as pl-ovlded by the rp1e_ The plaintifi contended given before that date, interest on the taxed costs payable by the plaintiffs h
e date of the judgment. In the note to Form No. 1 (writ of fi. fa.) in
ote to Form No. 1 (writ Jffi. fa.) in Appendix H. to the R. S. C., 1883, it s stated that the interest on costs is to run from “ the day of the judgent or order, or day on which money directed to bc paid, or day from
a trade protection society, and one of the rules provided t should employ any traveller, carinan, or outdoor ¢’lII})[i7_!/2,5 service of another member, without the consent in writing loyer, until after the expiration of two years from his 3
appeal from R daemon of Chitty, J. (ante, P‘ 626). The gecision (27 Oh. D. 421), but the House of Lords restored the decision of
ry, J. (11 App. Cas. 232). The taxing master made his certificate as to he costs of the defendant Bunyon on the 30th of July, 1387.
Nonra, J ., held that the provisions of the Rules of 1883 applied to an _otion which was pending at the time when those rules came into opera
y1(;e_ This action was brought by the society and Cox, tion, and that the interest on the costs must run from the date of the
ibers, against Booth 8: Co., who were also members, J
st quitted the service of Cox. The number of the mem
W W9-9 limited '10 500, and the "Gilli"-1 1111111561‘ 05 members Re THE NEW HOLLINGBOURNE PAPER MILLS CO.—North, J .,
0 . i
The question in this case was whether a gift of a share of residue had lapsed by reason of the death of one of the residuary legatees in the lifetime of the testator. The testator devised and bequeathed all his estate, real and personal, on trust for sale and conversion, and directed them to divide the clear net residue of the proceeds equally between and among nine persons whom he named (describing also two of them as his nephew and niece and the other seven as the children of deceased persons whose names he mentioned) “ when and as they shall severally attain the age of twenty-one years or die under that age leaving lawful issue, the share or shares of such one or more who shall die under the age of twentyoue, whether original or accruing, without leaving lawful issue, to go and be divided equaly among the survivors, and, if there shall be but one such child who shall live to attain twenty-one, then upon trust for such only child, such child dying under twenty-one as aforesaid to take the share, whether original or accruing, of his, her, or their deceased parent as tenants in common, and to be paid to them on their severally attaining twenty-one." H., one of the nine legatees, died in the lifetime of the testator. She had attained twenty-one, and had married, and she left one child. The other eight legatees survived the testator, and attained twenty-one. The question was whether the gift of the residue had lapsed as to one-ninth thereof, or whether the fund was divisible in eighths among the eight legatees who survived the testator. On behalf of the eight survivors it was contended that the gift, being contained only iii the direction to divide, was really a gift to a class—viz., to such of the iiine_ persons named as should attain twenty-one or die under that age leaving issue, and that, according to the ordinary rule applying to class gifts, the gift would not fail in any respect by reason of the death of a member of the class before the testator, and that the whole fund was divisible among such of the nine persons as answered the description and survived the testator—-i'.e., in eighths. Reliance was placed on Lea/re v. Robimioii (2 Mer. 363); Dimuiid V. BU8fD1‘/J (IO Ch. 358); and Sl|i'er.\- Y. Aaliivortli (25 Ch. I). 162).
Non-i-ii,_J., held that the gift was to individuals, not to a class, and that it had_lapsed as to one-ninth of the fund. To construe the words of the gift as a gift to such of the nine persons as should attain twenty_-one or die under that age leaving issue would be to make a great alteration in the words, and the words which followed were not consistent with that construction. Those words referred to the “ share " of a person who should die under twenty-one without leaving issue, whereas on the construction suggested such a person could not have taken ii " share " at B“. nnd yet his “share” was to go over. Moreover, it was essential to a gift to a class that the class, when ascertained, should take the whole fund iii any event. That would clearly not be so in this case. Suppose H. had died under twenty-one, leaving a child, and that child had died before the testator, what would become of that share? There was no gift over in such a case. The judgment in Leaks v. Ilotinsan, taken as a whole, was not opposedto his lordshi_p‘s conclusion. In I) maid v. 11:»-loci: the gift was toall the nephews and nieces of the late husband of the testatrix who glare living at his death, except A. or B_. Two of the nephews died before
eltestatrix. and it was held that the gift was to at-lass, and that there was "° f‘P5@, but that_ the fund was divisible among those of the class who Bvlillvlllcd the testatrix_. It was clear that there could be no increase of the t sis,‘ and the exception of two persons did not prevent its being a gift to atclass. James, L.J., said that “ where there is a gift to a class the rule gh npse goes not apply. In that case the fund is to_ be_di.ided among wgirgnené ers_ the class living at the time of distribution,_unless the desi 8 afi€SCItlhll1g the class are pysed for mere brevity, _instead of magi‘; W128 el persons by name. That shewed that, if it was plain the use of Incas y iptended to designate individuals, there was no magic in been th fiwgr s o_ class description. _James, L.:I., added, “if this had
e rs occasion on_ which the point had arisen, there might have
good ground for contending that the legatees in such s gift as the present were prrsonw (I205;/nalzr, just as if the testator had mentioned their names." ';:1:m%ecgvn!i) quite different from the present. In Re Smillifis between "1 21117,, the gift was of rpsidue “to be equally divided this W588; ve aughters of S. and M.,' and llfalins, V.C., held that class Ma1_e<ll1‘i§'5 to the fixc daughters as perimnw desiynalw and not as a man'the thins» -C_.,_said if it had been a gift to the daughters simply, have ‘Bk rep] surviving daughters, being only members of a class, would dau mflsn ilei whole. Suppose the testatrix had named the five in cgmmoh Cnfnth apyone have doubted that they would have been tenants remaiuin 3) ‘Z ;-“Ld»lY:11dlf0116‘l18(l died could it be possible for the when mg" 1:12‘ th ufle er share: "What difference, then, can there be named “Mayan B 3 “:8 daughters? It is precisely the same if she had _ , 11 ey take as prnionz dmgnatre.” St/in.g/ield v. slaiix/ipld
5&5 Ch. D. 84) was another authority to the same effect. The share of !e;flh§§t:a::°:gl:£:;itzlgigunlild iwould go, as to so much of it as arose from from penéml estate to 1:‘; ngxl;-11°12!-law, and as to so much of it as arose M‘.,,M'_ Undflmu; Fen,“ Lock. gr)-L;:?:)0U:sEIé; Iliulkay-; O. T. J. Fm ‘ 00.; Emma, SM, § Smbbx; G. R‘ Hubbaszd )ll , awdom Q’ Low,
upon the goods of which the possession had been intrusted to him for sale on behalf of the company. The company had agreed to pay him a weekly salary of £2 10s. and also ii commission of 'i'._ per cent. on all sales effected by him. The premises in which the local business was carried on were taken in the name of the company, and the business was carried on in their name. The manager did not keep any banking account of his own, but he pnid moneys received by him for the company to their bankers, retaining first his salary and expenses and the rent of the premises, which he paid. He never, in fact, retained his commission, and his claim to alien was made in the winding up of the company for his commission on sales effected during the whole period of his engagement. He did not keep any books of his own, but entered his transactions for the company in their books. It was contended on his behalf that, being intrusted with the possession of the company’s goods for sale, he was in the position of a factor, and that he was entitled to a factor's lien or the goods in respect of his commission. Reliance wns placed on Robinson V. Rutiar (4 E. 5: B. 95-1) ; Slecms v. Biller (25 Ch. D. 31) ; and R: I’av_i/’.i Patent Felted Fabric C0. (l Ch. D. 631).
Noim-i, J ., held that the claimant was not a factor, but only a servant of the company; that his possession of the goods was that of the company ; and that he was not entitled to any lien. The receipt of a weekly salary was entirely inconsistent with the relation of principal and factor. In one sense, no doubt, he was intrusted with the possession of the company's goods, but not in the sense in which a factor was intrusted with the possession of his principal's goods. He was intrnsted with the possession of the goods in the same way as a company or a large trading body like the Civil Service Association instrusted their servants with the possession of goods for sale. There being no special contract for a lien, he was not entitled to any lien by virtue of his position.—-Cou:~'sst, T. Rf//inn,‘ Coo/l-son, QC., and Emdm. SOLICITORS, T. H. Philpals; Goldberg if Langdon.
W. H. Partington died in the year 1876, having, by his will (among other things), bequeathed £30,000 upon trust for his wife for life, and, subject thereto, to fall into residue, which was to be divided among his children. The executors and trustees were the testator's wife and the defendant G. P. Allen, who had been the testator-‘s partner in the business of a solicitor. The trustees were authorized to invest the trust funds upon mortgage of freeholds or leaseholds having sixty years to run; and the defendant was also authorized to charge for work done by him in connection with the trusts. The trustees invested £2,500 upon mortgage ofa freehold public-house, and £2,400 and £1,500 respectively upon mortgage of lands and houses. The defendants employed afirm of surveyors to value the public-house prior to advancing the money, and, by letter. 11° instructed the surveyors to state, “ not only the value of the property, but also the maximum amount which might, in your opinion, be safely lent by way of first mortgage thereon by trustees," and similar instructions were sent with regard to the other proposed mortgages. The surveyors advised that the public-house was worth £4,174, and wasa good security fol‘ £3,130, and, with regard to the other properties, that they were respectively worth £3,884 and £2,080, and were ample securities for £2,000 and £1,500 respectively. The securities turned out to be insufficient. The testator's widow commenced proceedings to have it determined whether the above investments were proper, and, if not, whether the defendant was solely liable for the loss, or whether she was liable jointly with him.
STIRLING, J., said that Spziyht v. Gaunt (31 W. R. 401, 9 App. C85-1) and Whiteley v. Learoyd shewed that a trustee might avail himself_ of the assistance and advice of a valuer or surveyor or solicitor in inaking his investments, but must not adopt that advice blindly, but exercise his judgment upon it as a prudent man would. With regard W 111058589 security there was something further to consider, and the rule was that trustees should not advance more than two-thirds of the value upon freehold lands, and not more than one-half u on freehold houses. That was not a hard and fast rule; but if the limit laid down by It was exceeded it was for the trustee to justify his conduct. In the present case that rule had not been observed. The value of the publichouse depended to some extent on the licence and the business, mi’ "me of which was of a speculative character, and the surveyors ought to haw been asked the value of the property apart from its value as a hotel. ho!‘ was either of the other investments, in his lordship's opinion, proper._ T119 defendant was, therefore, liable for the loss. The widow was, in his lordship‘s opinion, as between herself and the beneficiaries, also linb19|f°' she hiid no right to delegate her duty and responsibility as n W1P°F°She wns, therefore, jointly liable with the defendant, but the decision was without prejudice to any question between the trustees.
Aug. ll, 1l.—'l‘his was an adjourned summons in the same mutter: taken out for the purpose of having it determined whether Mrs. Partll18' ton and the defendent Allen were, as between themselves, j01n¢1Y responsible for the loss resulting from the improper In°1'l'8“B° iiilvlestments, or whether the whole loss ought to fall on the defendant
STIRLING, J ., held that the the defendant A119"He had been the active f?Il18'bé't5I,l0d?1ll'.~)i1BB-I(‘i1‘ll?:0f:l3lf;ldpo8!; the solicitor fol‘ the trust, and had made professional profit in that capacit . The impl'0P“r investments were not the acls of Mrs. Partlngton to such an extent as £0 make he! liable to make good to the defendant her share of the loosiOvvsssn in both matters, Robinson, Q.C., and Lritliam, Q-0-; Evmlt,
himzwicii, J ., said that the rule did not refer to a voluntary winding up. He was, however, as Vacation Judge, sitting as a judge of the Que_en’s Bench Division, and, under scclion 24, sub-section 0, of thc flpgicature Act, 1813, he had Jurisdiction, sitting as, a judge of that He 31un,fto stay proceedings in the action in the Queen s Bench_ Division. “kin ere ore made the order in the action, that Bett be restrained from _ gany further proceedings on the Judgment debt obtained by him fisflmst the colnpany on the 12th of August, 1887, and that all proceedg'_18" 0l_1 such Judgment be stayed. The sheriff to withdraw.—Cuvssiai., ""1441. A-Bvddllll; Temiant. SoLici'ros.s, W. W. Elliott; Jienjrmiinlinrton.
DI“l31° 09-59! 9f llfimson v. Odiam, Manson v. Jordan, and Mumon v.
and from 1871 till 1884 he was a puisne judge of the High Court at Bombay. In 1884 he was appointed a member of the Council of the Governor of Bombay, which position he occupied until his death. In 1886 he was created a Companion of the Order of the Star of India, and a few months ago _he was created a Knight Companion of the Order of the Indian Empire.
Mr Hoii_ai-ro MANSFIELD, barrister, died at Liverpool on the 12th inst. from pleurisy, after a short illness. Mr. Mansfield was the fifth son of Mr. John Mansfield, and a younger brother of the first Lord Sandhurst, and of Mr. John Smith Mansfield, magistrate at Marlborough-street Police Court. He was born in 1821, and he was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Trinity Term, 1853, and he had practised on the Northern Circuit and at the Liverpool and Kirkdale Sessions and the Liverpool Court of Passage. He had for some time acted as deputy-stipendiary magistrate for the city of Liverpool. Mr. Mansfield was married in 1871 to the widow of Lieut.Col. Cumming. He was buried at Totton, Hampshire, on the 17th inst.
Mr. ROBERT SANKBY, solicitor (of the firm of Sunkeys & Flint), of Canterbury, died on the 5th inst. in his eighty-eighth year. Mr. Sankey. who was almost the oldest solicitor in Kent, was the son of Mr. John Sankey, and was born in 1799. He was admitted a solicitor in 1823, and he had practised for over sixty years at Canterbury. He was at the time of his death associated with his son, Mr. Herbert Tritton Sankey, Clerk of the Peace for Canterbury, and with Mr. Rest William Flint, Town Clerk of Canterbury. Mr. Sankey was a perpetual commissioner for the county of Kent and the city of Canterbury. He was for several years one of the city alderman, and he was elected mayor of Canterbury in 1858 and again in 1861. He was buried at Barham on the 12th inst.
Sir RICHARD GREEN PRICE, Bart., late M.P. for Radnorshire, died on the llth iast., aged eighty-four. Sir R. Price was the son of Mr. George Green, of Kuighton. He was born in 1803, and he assumed the ad-iitional name of Price by Royal licence. He was admitted a. solicit-or in 1825, and he was for several years in practice at Knighton. He was for nearly ten years county treasurer for Radnorshire, and he was one of the original members of the Knighton Local Board, of which body he afterwards became chairman. In 1863 he was elected M.P. for the Rodnor boroughs in the Liberal interest. He was re-elected at the General Elections m 1865 and 1868, but in 1869 he retired in favour of the Marquis of Hartington, who was at that time without a seat in the House of Commons. He was created a bai-onet in 1874, andin 1880 he was returned for Radnorshire. He retired in 1885, but in 1886 he unsuccessfully contested the county as a Home Rule Liberal. Sir R. Price was married first in 1837 to the daughter of Mr. Dansey, of Easton Court, Radnorshire, and secondlyin 1841 to the daughter of Dr. King, of Mortlake. He was a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant for Radnorshire, and he served the oflice of high-sherifi in 1876. He was buried at Norton, Radnorshire, on the
Mr. EDWARD ALEXANDER. HEBLIB, solicitor, of Appleby, has been up
pointed Registrar of the Appleby County Court (Circuit No. 3) in succes-
l\[r. CHARLES Gsoiios N.\NTE§, solicitor, of Bridport, has been elected a_ii Alderman for that Borough. Mr. Nantes was admitted a solicitor in 1873. He is Registrar of the Bridport County Court and Coroner for the Bridport District of Dorsetshire.
Mr. GAINSFORI) Biwcn, Q.C., has been appointed Temporal Chancellor of the County Palatine of Durham iii succession to the late l\Ir. James Fleming, Q C. Mr. Bruce is the eldest son of Dr. John Collingwood Bruce, of Newcastle-upmi-Tyne, and was born in 1834. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Trinity Term, 1859, and he became a Queen's Counsel in 1883. Mr. Bruce practises on the North-Eastern Circuit. He has been recorder of Bradford since 1877, and he was Solicitor-General oi the County Palatine of Durham from 1877 till 1885, when he was appoint-ed Attorney-General.
Mr. WILLIAM GERALD SEYMOUR FXTZGBRALD, C.S.I., has been created a Knight of the Order of the Indian Empire. Sir W. Fitzgerald is the eldest son of the Right Hon. Sir William Robert Fitzgerald, G.C.S.I., and was born in 1841. He was educated at Oriel College, Oxford. He was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Trinity Term, 1865, and he formerly practised on the Home Circuit. He was private secretary to his father when Governor of Bombay, and he has been political aide-de-camp to the Secretary of State for India since 1874. He was created a companion of the Order of the Indian Empire in 1885.
Mr. CHARLES JOHN PEARSON, barrister and advocate, has received the honour of Knighthood. Sir C. Pearson is the second son of Mr. Charles Pearson, of Edinburgh, and was born in 1843. He was educated at the Edinburgh Academy, and he was formerly scholar of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, where he graduated first class in Classics in 1865. He obtained the Gaisford Prize for Greek Prose in 1962, and the Gaisford Prize for Greek Verse in 1863. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Trinity Term, 1870, and he was admitted a member of the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland in the following July. Sir C. Pearson is sheriff of chancery, and procurator for the Church of Scotland.
STA MMERERS and STUTTERERS should read a little book by Mr. B. BEASLEY, Baron's Couit House, West Ken:-ington, London, price 13 stamps. The Author, alter sutfering nearly 40 years, cured himself by a method entirely his owrl.—[ADv'r.]
BANKRUPTCY NOTICES. BANKRUPTCIES ANNULLED. Under the Bankruptcy Act, 1869. London Gaze!fe.—TUESDAY, Aug. 16, 1887. Hoooms, HORATIO Jmss, Risinghill st, Pcntonville, Manufacturer oi Bottle Washing Machines. Aug 10 London Gale!te.—Fn.1"lJ.iY, August 12. RECEIVING ORDERS.
BATTS? BESANT, Humbledon, Hampshire, Bricklayer. Soirthampton.