Page images

CLARKE. JAMES ARTHUR, New Quay, Cornwall, Harbour Master. Sept 17 at 12. Off Rec, Boscawen st. Truro

CLIIT. CIIARLEs JAMEs, Skelton in Cleveland, York, Printer. Sept 20 at 11.45. Ofl’ Rec. 8. Albert rd, Middlesborough

DAWB, ROBERT. Portloe, Cornwall, Fisherman. Sept 19 at 12. Off Rec, Boscawen st. Truro

DORWARD. DAVID. Chepstow. Mon, Coal Dealer. Sept 19 at 12. Off Rec, 12 Tredeaar pl, Newport. Mon _ ,

DURHAM, 'In0MAs, Howden, Yorks, Joiner. Sept 19 at 11. Off Rec, Lincoln s inn bldgs. Bowlalley lane, Hull

DWRLLRY, CIIARLEs Bow rd. Coach Builder. Sept 16 at 1. Bankruptcy bldgs. Portugal st. Lincoln's inn fields

EAsRY. T1IoMAs. iun. and EASBY, J ossrn. Grange Town, Yorks, Painters. Sept 20 at 11. Off Rec, 3. Albert rd, Middlesborough

FLANDER3, ELIAS. Derby, Dairyman. Sept 16 at 2.30. Off Rec, St James's chambers, Derby

GEARY. EDWIN, Bristol, Brush Dealer. Sept 20 at 12.30. Off Rec, Bank chanibers. Bristol '

GRAVETT, WILLIAM AVERY, Waterloo, Hampshire. Grocer. Sept 26 at 12.30. Chamber of Commerce. 145. Cheapside _

HANNETT, JOIIN ROBERT. Nottingham. Furniture Dealer. Sept 16 at 3.30. Oil Rec. 1. High pavement. Nottingham

HIORLING. EDWARD. Nottingham, Grocer. Sept 16 at 12. Off Rec, 1, High pavement. Nottingham

HOBSON. HENRY. Great Grimsby, Ironmonger. Sept 21 at 12. Ofl Rec. 3, Haven st, Great Grimsby

JAcIIsoN. GEOROE FREDERIOII, Leicester, Coal Merchant. Sept 17 at 11.30. 26, Friar lane. Leicester

JOHNSON. Cnmsrornnn. Cole-heater, Licensed Victualler. Sept 20 at 11. Town Hall olch ster

, C e

J oNEs, J OHN, Wrexham, Hosier. Sept 16 at 12. Off Rec, Crypt chmbrs, Chester

KRLLEWAY. HORATIO. Totland’s Bay, Isle of Wight, Builder. Sept 17 at 4. Off Rec, N rwport. Isle of Wight

M1'rcIIELL.WILLIAM. Eccleshil Bradford, Tin Plate Worker. Sept 19 at 11. Off Rec, 3|, Manor rd, Bradford

MOFFATT. WILLIAM. Barrow in Furness. Draper. Sept 21 at 10.45. 2, Paxton terrace. Barrow in Furness

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

NOBTH._T¥ItgMAS, Lee, Commission Agent. Sept 16 at 12. 109, Victoria st. West

mins r

PEARsoN. BENJAMIN. Brierley hill, Staffs, Engine Fitter. Sept 20 at 10.30. Talbot Hotel, Sfourbridge

PEARsoN, GEORGE. Middleiborough, Milkseller. Sept 20 at 11 30. Ofl‘ Rec. 6, Albert rd. Middlesboroueh

PENQELLY. HENRY, Ottery St Mary, Devon, Farmer. Sept 19 at 11. Off Rec, 13, Bedford circus, Exeter

PRICE, JOHN, Llansadwrn. Carm, Farmer. Sept 16 at 3. Off Rec, Carmarthen READIN_Gs. JOHN NATHANIEL, Margate. Licensed Victualler. Sept 16 at 4. 53, High st, Marirate

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

GANDRR, FREND, and CIIARI.Es BATCHELOB, Bexhill on Sea. Sussex, Builders.
Hastings. Pet Auiz 11. Ord Aug 31
GEARY, EDWIN, Bristol, Brush Dealer. Bristol. Pet Sept 3. Ord Sept 6

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

MILES. S8IC1NS.k.EVi’IS, Pentre. Glamorganshire, Grocer. Pontypridd. Pet Sept 5. t 6

MITCHELL,r WILILIAM, Eccleshill. Bradford. Tin Plate Worker. Bradford. Pet Sept 5. Ord Sept 7

MOORE. J OIIN, Mileham, Norfolk, Baker. Norwich. Pet Sept 5. Ord Sept 5

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

- D WARDLE. ROBERT, Leeds, out of business. Leeds. Pet Sept 7. Ord Sept 7

[ocr errors]

London Gazefte.—TUEsDAY, Sept. 13. RECEIVING ORDERS.

JOHN, Eastbourne, Fruiterer. Eastbourne and Lewes. Pct Aug 23. 1' ept 8

BBA.I'I6IVgAATE, THOMAS, Downshire hill, Hampstead, Solicitor. High Court. r ug 19

BRITT, DANIEL, Bristol, Builder. Bristol. Pet Sept 8. Or-i Sept 8

BURNET. FREDERICK, Liverpool, Music Dealer. Liverpool. Pet Aug 27. Ord

[ocr errors]

CHAMBERS, WILLIAM, York, Boot Maker. York. Pet Sept 9. Ord Sept 9

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

EVENS, Gnonon JACKSON, address unknown, Au

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

A . pavement. Nottingham

Auras, JOSEPH. and Faun RAYNER, Kuostrop, nr l1. Oil’ Rec. 22. Park row, Leeds ssor. Enwann WILLIAM, Bristol, Cabinet Make

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

ILKINSON, FREDERICK WILLIAM, Liverpool Fu O1! Rec. 36, Victoria st. Liverpool ILLS, Tiioiras, Leicester. Currier. Sept 22 at 11 oon, WALTER, Delahay st, Gt George st Sept 2 Hill] ADJUDICATION ARGBB, THOMAS Joniv. Rhyl, Hotel Keeper Ba iirir, DANIEL, Bristol. Builder. Bristil Pet S ABNEY, THOMAS, Rock Ferry, Cheshire Drap

Ord Sept 9

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

26. Ord Se t9 Pet Aug 4. Ord Sept 1

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

4. Ord Sept 9

AWLEY,J0lIN'. York, Whitesmith. York Pe IBBS, GEORGE, Swanage, Licensed Victualler

imr, WILLIAM Joan, Liverpool, Tailor Liv Josnrn, Sterrv st. Tabard st, So

Court. Pet July 4. Ord Sept B

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

OBERTS, WILLIAM, Colwyn Bay, Farmer Ba.

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

ll letters intended for publication authenticated by the name of the wri

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

ni Pot Aug!) 0rdSept8

Plumber Coventry Pet Aug BAN!-‘IELD, Ssimizn. Rolvenden, Kent, Veterinary Surgeon Hastings Pet rchant. High Cou't Pet July Avis. DANIEL ‘lnoiias, Aston, Birmingham, no occupation. Aberystwith morden, Yorks, Cotton Makers

[ocr errors]

t Sept 8 Ord Sept 8

Poole Pet Sept 8 Ord Sept 8 erpool Pet J ul) 26 Ord Sept 9 uthwark, Fish Salesman High

eeper Madeley, Shropshire Pet Harpist. Pontyprldd Pet Sept 8. Pilot Truro Pet Sept 8. Ord

ngor Pet Sept 2. Ord Sept 8 Dealer in Paper Hangings. Kingston

am common, Clerk High Court Builder. Gloucester. Pet Sept 0 n, Auctioneer High Court Pei rpool Cowkeeper Liverpool Pet

York. Pot Sept 8 Ord Sept 9 Kendal Pet J nne 30 Ord Sept S GKBBS, Nottingham, Timber Mer

p, nr Leeds Farmers Leeds Pet on Blackburn Pet Aug 1. Ord snshire, Accountant. Pontypridd Hull Hairdresser. Kingston upon nshire Boot Maker Banbury Pot

rt, at 2 p m , Freehold Estates and

ring the Journal with regularity, applzcalwn be made direct to the

[ocr errors]

the “ Solmtora Journal" mull be

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

SUSSEX. Sllnfold, near Horsham.—-Valuable Freehold Farms, in all about 255 acres. In Four Lots.

by AUCTION at the MART Tolrenhouse-

qimi. 12.0., on FRIDAY, aara snflrsmana, It
W0 lunless Ereviously sold privately), desirable
FREEHOLD STATES, comprising 254 acres oi
highly-productive Freehold Land, with two tarm-
houses and homesteads. cottage, &c., eligibly situate
in the parish of Slinfold, about 20 minutes from Hor-
sham town and railway station, in Four Lots, as
follows:- 0.. r. p.
Lot l.—Brookhurst, oomgrising several
enclosures of arable, moo ow, and wood
land, having a frontage of l,750It. to the
main road from Horsham to Guildlord,
lying high, and presenting a flue site for
aresidance Lot 2.—Clemslcld Farm, comprising an
old-fashioned residence, with homestead,
lcotfiags, and superior meadow and arable
Lot 8.—Perry‘s. three enclosures of supe-
rior freehold land ornainentally timbered.
with a frontage of 580 feet to the main road
to Guildford, and admirably adapted for
the erection oi a residence Lot 4.-Nowhurst Farm, comprising s
farmhouse, homestead, and excellent
lrflblfl» meadow. find wood land, and

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


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

1-and Ian and sea vic-vs, and close to the station I-“lg

own. The plots trout on Overstrand-road and other
well-made roads, and are well adapted for the erec-
tion of marine residences, which are here in great
demand. (lromer possesses great natural attractions,
having gmagniflcent sea beach and a most invigorating
air; itis surrounded by a lovely country, whic aflnrds
charming walks and drives, and is, without doubt,
the most fashionable seaside resort on the east coast.
A special train will leave Liverpool-st reet Station at
9.50 on the morninf; of sale, and luncheon will be
provided immediate 3' on arrival. A limited number
of tree return tickets will be issued to intending

urehasers. Possession on payment of 10 per cent.
geposit, the balance of purchase-money by instal-

Particulars. plans, and conditions of sale of Messrs.
J . U. Taylor 8: Sons, Solicitors, Norwich; of Messrs.
S elman, Land and Estate Aaents. Norwich ' and 0!
Elia?) Auctioneers, ll, Queen Victoria-street, London,

FARMER, l BRIDGEWATER beg to announce
thatthcir SALES of LANDED ESTATES, Investments,
l‘own, Suburban, and Country Houses, Business Premises,
Building Land, Ground-rents, Advowsons, Reversions
Stocks, Shares, and other Properties, will be held at the
Auction Mart, Toksnhouse-yard, near the Bank of Eng-
land, in the City of London. as follows:—
Tues., Oct 4 'I‘ues., Nov B '1‘ues., Dec 13
Tues, Oct 1S ’I‘ues., Nov 22
Auctions can also be held on other days. In order to
insure proper publicity, due notice should be given.
The period between such notice and the proposed auc-
tion must considerably depend upon the nature of the
property to be sold. A printed scale of terms can be
NEG {it 80, Cheapsida, or will be forwarded. Telephone
0. ,503.

ESTATES and HOUSES to be SOLD or LET, including
Landed Estates, Town and Country Residences, Hunting
and Shooting Quarters, Farms, Ground Rents, Rent
Charges, House Property and Investments generally, is
published on the first day of each mouth, and maybe
obtained, free of charge, at their oflices, 80, Cheapside,
E.C., or will be sent by post in return iorthree stamps.-
Particulars for insertion should be received not later than
four davs previous to the sud cf the preceding month.

Cususnas for cm: GENTLEMEN!

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic]

, ants, on the premises.




[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Policies are now being issued by thltl Corporation insuring Mortgages of Freehold and Leasehold Property. holders oi Mortgage Debentures and Debfiélfillffi Stock, against loss oi principal and iiiteres .

These Policies will be of especial advantage to Trustees who mg be held respsonsible for losses ccnseqtuent upon air Investmen .

Mor gagors insuring with the Corporation will also be enabled to obtain Advances at the lowest possible rate of interest.

The Corporation also grants Policies to Leaseholders insuring the return of the Amount invested at rgigs expiration oi their leases or at any iixsd pe .

For particulars and conditions of Insurance apply to the Secretary. By order,


Subscribed Capital - - £4,183,815.
Paid-up - - - - - slates.
Reserve Fund - - - 460,000.
Notice is hereby given that. in consequence oi the
improved demand ior money, the Runs oi Iivrsnssr
allowed for DEPOSITS are RAISED as follows, viz., to :-
Tnnss YER CENT. per annnm at call.
Trmne arm A Qtuiarna 1'-an Cam". at seven and
I4 days’ notice.
CHARLES H. Horcnms, Sn Manager.
No. 85, Cornhill, E.C., September 15, 1881.

K ENT FIRE OFFICE. Established in 1802.
KEN1‘ LIFE OFFICE. Estubllsbedin 1824.
Chief Ofllce—Maidstone.
Branch : London, 124, Cannon-street, E.C.
Ofices Manchester, Lombard-chambers, Brown-st.
One of the most recent claims upon the Company
was under Life Policy N0. 503. issued in 181:1 for £000.
and which had acquiarifd bivinusmadgigions amounting
to £2 Oib increas e o c .
’ ’ mg pW.yL. SEYFANG.
Secretary and General Manager.

[ocr errors]

ESTABLISHED nx run Yuan 1864. _
The only Law Insurance Ofllce inthe United Kingluolill
which transacts both Fire and Life Insurance -

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

CASE REPORTED THIS WEEK. DeBensaudev.DeBensauda ...-.. 754

[merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic]

Tns nncrsiox in the case of Re Robertson (35 W. R. 833) carries out the construction of the phrase “other documents” in the Remuneration Order, Schedule IL, adopted by Mr. Justice Ciiirrr in Re R. A. Parker (38 W. R. 54l)—-viz., that it does not include an abstract of title, and consequently that a solicitor is not entitled to a fee of ls. per folio for perusing an abstract in lieu of the old fee of 6s. 8d. for three brief sheets of eight folios each. In Re Robertson a solicitor employed by a client to obtain a loan on mortgage of real estate, made advances on the security of the property, after perusing the title deeds, including a will and life policies. The solicitor charged ls. per folio for perusing these documents, but it was held by DAY and WILLS, JJ., that the charge was wrong. If the ls. per folio fee is not allowed for perusing abstracts, it would seem that ci fortiori it cannot be allowed for perusing documents of title. The effect of the recent decision is to confine the fee of ls. per folio in respect of “ other documents” to new documents which have been drawn by the other side. Mr. Justice WILLs, in laying down this restriction, said: “ By applying the words to documents drawn by an opponent it is possible to give them a reasonable and natural construction. In perusing such documents the task of a solicitor is highly responsible, and there is a possibility, if he does not exercise his utmost vigilence, that he may be led to overlook some provision injurious to his client's interest; but there is nothing in the circumstances under which the Solicitors’ Remuneration Act, 188], was drawn to suggest that the framers of the General Order meant that there should be a charge of ls. per folio for the perusal of documents of every description.” It is certainly odd, if the construction now adopted was that intended by the framers of the order, that they did not use the word “ drafts ” instead of “ other documents.”

We no nor KNOW whether under-sheriffs are always aware of the liability they incur in case of the death of the high-sheriff during his year of oflice. The statute 3 Geo. 1, c. 15, provides (section 8) that if any high-sheriff shall happen to die, in such case the Under-sheriff shall, nevertheless, continue in ofiice and execute the "me. and all things belonging thereto “in the name of the said deceased sheriff until another sheriff be appointed”; and that “the said under-sheriff shall be answerable for the execution of the said oflice in all things and to all respects, intents, and purPoses whatsoever during such interval as the high-sheriff so deceased would by law have been if he had been living " ; but the same section proceeds to expressly keep alive the bond given by the under-sheiifi to the deceased high-sheriff as ii security“ to the King, his heirs and successors, and to all persons whatsoever, for such under-sheriff's due performance of his oflice during such interval.” Section 11 enables “the under-sheriff in case of the high-sherifi’s death, when he acts as high-sherifi, to appoint a deputy.” These provisions have been held by the Queen's Bench Division, in Gloucesterahire Bankiny O0. v. Edwards (35 W. R. 842), t0 B19811 that during the interval between the death of a high-sherifi and the appointment of his successor, the under-sherifi “ is actually to Btand in the shoes of the deceased sheriff.” He is no longer the iervant of the sheriff, but to all intents high-sherifi, and is liable t0 be sued in the same manner as the high-sherifi would have been if he had survived. Suppose that the case of the death of the

[ocr errors]
[merged small][graphic]

Airoiva run BATCH of Acts which received the Royal assent on Friday lat was the Copyhold Act, 1887, which was the last of a series of seven Bills on the subject of copyhold enfranchisement which had been presented to Parliament. It was, we believe, considered by a special committee of the House of Lords, and considering this and the long incubation the subject has undergone, the present measure ought to be free from the defects which marked some of the earlier proposals. We propose hereafter to consider the Act at length, but we may say now that its inain provisions are that, on the admittance of any copyhold tenant after the 31st of December next, the steward must, without charge, give the tenant a notice informing him of his right to enfranchise, and of the modes in which the lord's compensation may be fixed. If the steward omits to serve the notice, he is docked of his fees. The Act enables the lord and tenant to agree in writing on the amount of the compensation, or to appoint a valuer or valuers to ascertain it, and provides that they may appoint one and the same person as valuer. The tenant may, if he chooses, pay the compensation in a gross sum, but, unless the parties otherwise agree, in cases where the enfranchisement is effected at the instance of the lord, and where the compensation amounts to more than one year’s improved value, the compensation is to consist of an annual rent-charge equivalent to interest at 4 per cent. per annum on the amount of the compensation. This rent-charge is to be redeemable by the tenant upon six months’ prior notice at twenty-five years’ purchase. Power is given to limited owners to charge the enfranchised land with the compensation money and expenses of enfranchisement, and for a lord to charge any expenses paid by him in proceedings under the Copyhold Acts either on lauds settled to the same uses as the manor or on the rent-charges arising out pf enfranchisements. Provision is also made for lords who are limited owners giving a complete discharge for compensation money. The compensation payable to stewards on enfranchisements by award of the Land Commissioners after the 31st of December next is prescribed in a schedule to the Act. The Land Commissioners are to frame such a scale of compensatiori for enfra_nchisement “as in their judgment will _be fair and just and will facilitate enfranchisement," with directions for the lord, tenant, and valuers; also a scale of allowance to valuers; _but these scales are to be “for guidance only, and not to be_ binding as a matter of law in any particular case.” This provision appears rather to savour of the “ sort of _.T osrPn_ Sunracp Bill, full of. high sentiments not carried into practice, an illustration of faith without works," which Lord CRANBROOK declared was the leadlllg characteristic of a predecessor of the present_ Bill. Section 47 introduces the principle of compulsory enfranchisement of all the copyholds within a manor, in cases of manor,-is where the fines are certain, and in which it is “the practice for copyholdelg 111 fee to grant derivative interests to persons w_ho are admlligse Q-5 copyholders of the manor in respect of such interests. t 9321118 to be a local inquiry by the commissioners on the requepi pf the lord or of one-fourth of the copyholders o_n the T011, an f the commissioners find that not less than two-thirds in fllimbflzgl t afi copyholders desire enfranchisement, they are to de-c are at in the copyholds of the manor are to be enfranchised, tohascerat the amount of compensation an_d to effect the enfranc iseinep ex; The compensation in every case is to consist of a gross sum, un es the “lord and tenant in fee ” otherwise agree.

[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]

case, if the testator had been in the chair instead of the learned judge, the decision would have been different. There is reason in the rule that a specific legacy is adeemed if the testator afterwards converts it into something else. He must know and mean that the legacy is cancelled. And where the property given has ceased to exist in the lifetime of the testator—as, for instance, where a ship which he has bequeathed has been lost (Durrant v. Frienrl, 5 De G. & Sm. 343)—it is reasonable to assume that the testator knew and intended that the legatee should be deprived of all benefit in respect of the gift which is no longer capable of taking effect. But in the case of more changes in the description of the subject-matter of the legacy—as, for instance, a change of investment by trustees of stock standing in their names which has been specifically bequeathed by the person beneficially entitled (Harrison v. Jackson, 7 Ch. D. 339)—it would never occur to an ordinary testator that any fresh disposition was needed in order to secure to the legatee the benefit previously given. Especially is this the case where a testator has bequeathed shares in a company by the description of “ my shares in the Co.,” and the shares held by the testator at the date of the will are subsequently altered by the company. It has been held that the mere conversion of the shares into stock will not adeem the legacy (Oalces v. Oakes, 9 Hare, 666). On the other hand, it was held in Re Lane, Luard v. Laue (28 W. R. 764, 14 Ch. D. 856) that, where debentures held by a testator had, subsequently to the date of the will, been converted into debenture stock, a legacy of “my debentures in the St. Paulo Co.” was adeemed. That decision was much relied on by Mr. Justice KAY in the recent case, but in Re Lane the change in the description of the debentures was made by Ilze teslator. He exercised an option given him by the company who had issued the debentures, and himself converted the debentures into debenture stock. In Re Gray a testator bequeathed 50 shares in a banking company. At the date of the will he had 70 shares in the company, which was then unlimited, of the nominal value of £100 each, £25 per share being paid up. Subsequently to the date of the will the company was converted into n limited company, the nominal value of the shares being reduced to £60 per share, with £12 10s. paid u_p, and the testator received 140 shares in place of his 70. At the time of his death he held these 140 shares, together with others subsequently acquired. The alteration was made by resolution in accordance with the provisions of the company's deed of settlement, no act on the part of individual shareholders being required to effect the conversion. Mr. Justice Kat held that, if the legacy wasa specific one (he considered that it was 1:. general legacy)

the substituted shares “ were so entirely a different thing from the; shares in the unincorporated company” that the legacy was adeemed. We wish that in this matter of ademption learned Judges would try to put themselves rather more completely “in the chair ” of the testator.

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

his affairs to one alone (see Cholmondeley v. Clinton, I9 Ves. 261). On a dissolution of partnership, therefore, each client is entitled to the possession, not only of his deeds, but also of all drafts and papers for which he has paid (Exports E. Horafall, 7 B. & C. 528) ; and, the solicitors having discharged themselves, the court, on the application of the client, will compel them to give over the papers to a new solicitor upon the usual undertaking for saving the lien of the discharged solicitors (Griflitha v. Grifiths, 2 Hare, at p. 590). These rights of the client cannot, of course, be affected by any agreement between the partners.

But, subject to these rights, solicitor-partners may provide, as between themselves, as they think fit for the division of the papers on the dissolution of the partnership. Lord Eldon, in Uolegravs v, Zlloseley (T. & R., at p. 401), said :—“I formerly thought that these bargains, by which one solicitor assigns his business over to another, were contrary to public policy. The Court of King's Bench entertained a different opinion, on the ground that the client could say, ‘ My business shall not be so assigned.’ I doubt, however, whether the court, in coming to such a conclusion, recollected sufllciently the situation in which a client generally is when a recommendation, purchased with money, is thus urged upon him ”; but in Candler v. Candler (4 East, 190) he remarked :—“ I knew that this would rip up many transactions. and I was happy that the Court of King’s Bench was of a different opinion, though I never could entirely reconcile myself to their doctrine." It may be considered to be now well established that stipulations of this kind between solicitor-partners are not only valid at law (see Burns v. Guy, 4 East, 190), but that they may be specifically enforced (see B7lii'ltaker v. Hows, 3 Beav. 383; Aubin v. Holt, 2 K & J. 66).

The form of clause which has received the sanction of Mr. Davidson and Messrs. Key and Elphinstone, and which we have reason to believe is in very frequent use, provides that, upon the dissolution of the partnership during the joint lives of the partners, the partnership papers shall, unless the client to whom they belong shall object, be delivered to the partner “ who shall usually have attended to the business of such client.” This clause may work fairly well in cases where the business of a partnership is so allotted as that all the afiairs of each client are continuously attended to by one only of the partners. In large otlices it may possibly be satisfactory, though we doubt whether, even in them, it can obviate questions ; and its effect can hardly be fair to all the partners. It is possible to conceive that the senior partner, if shrewd and wily, can contrive to exercise a nominal or forlllfll continuous “attention " to the business ofaprofitable client, while throwing most of the work on the junior partner; end, on the other hand, an enterprizing junior partner can gradually elbow his easy-going senior out of " attention" to most of the best clients. And in any case the clause leaves the division of the papers t0 *1 question of fact—viz., usual attention—upon which disputes N0 likely to arise.

Mr. Prideaux seems to have considered that the matter was one which ought to be settled in each case by the partners, f0r_ ill his form of partnership deed between solicitors, in his twelfth edition, we do not find any provision as to the division of papers on the determination of the partnership during the joint lives of the partners. Mr. Jarman constructed two somewhat elaborate alternative clauses, one of which provides, in effect, that the paper! relating to the business of persons who were clients of either of the partners before the formation of the partnership 81101115 (subject to the express directions of the clients) be delivered to the partner whose clients such persons formerly were, and tllfll the other papers should be equally divided between the purine" [the profits being equally divided] ; and that disputes with respect to the papers in any particular business should be referred to the client to whose business they relate, to determine to which of _$l19 Pamleffl the papers should be delivered. The other clause divide! the papers according to the question whether the business of the client has been brought into the partnership by the personal intercst or connection of one or the other partner.

$everal other kinds of provisions have come to our knowledgeIn some oases a principle of division is adopted based simPl_Y on the number of clients, irrespective of the value of their business; and in other cases the whole matter is referred to the decision of the clients, who are to be circularized on the determinition of the partnership. None of these forms, however, has struck 115

« PreviousContinue »