such property in the name as to entitle him to restrain the owner of another house from applying the same name to that house.-Day v. Brownrigg, 27 W.R. 217.

Landlord and Tenant:

(x.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Agreement for Lease-Uncertain Term-Specific Performance.-Defendant, lessee of a house for 80 years, agreed to let it to plaintiff for a certain rent, and to let him have a lease of it at that rent at any period he might feel disposed, and not to disturb plaintiff or raise his rent after he had laid out money on the premises: plaintiff laid out £150: Held that he was entitled to call for a lease for the residue of the 80 years less one day.-Kusel v. Watson, 47 L.J. Ch. 825. (xi.) C. P. Div.-Lease-Agreement for New Lease-Tender of RentDefendant, having let five rooms to plaintiff for a term, entered into negociations to let only three of the rooms at a less rent, and on next quarter-day received the lesser rent. The agreement was intended to be reduced into writing, but ultimately the parties disagreed. There was evidence that plaintiff had given up possession of two of the rooms: Held that the jury were justified in finding that there was a new tenancy. Plaintiff tendered rent to defendant with the words: "Here is your rent:" Held, a good tender.-Jones v. Bridgeman, 39 L.T. 500.

(xii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Underlease-Executory Agreement-Pleading Incon sistent Relief.-Plaintiff, who was about to take a renewed lease ofpremises, agreed to grant defendant a lease of them, such underlease to contain all such covenants and conditions as should be contained in the lease to plaintiff with such additions as might be necessary and proper, and also a provision that on non-performance of any of the agreements by tenant it should be lawful for plaintiff to re-enter and eject. The renewed lease contained a covenant by lessee not to convert premises into a shop or affix any outward mark of business thereon, and a proviso for re-entry if lessee should not observe, perform, and keep all covenants: defendant put in the window a wire blind with "H. B. & Co." on it, and also outside the entrance a brass plate with "H. B. & Co., Tailors," on it: Held that this was a breach of the covenant in the lease which must be taken as contained in the underlease, and that plaintiffs had a right of re-entry but that as by his claim he asked for an injunction and damages, and alleged that he was ready and willing to execute the underlease, the prayer to recover possession was inconsistent, and therefore he was only entitled to the injunction and damages without costs.Evans v. Davis, 39, L.T. 391.

(xiii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Underlease by Administrator-Assignment-Merger.C., as administrator, held land for a term of years, which he demised to P. for a shorter term, and P. afterwards assigned this term to C.: in the first deed C. was described as administrator, but not in the second: Held that there was no merger in equity.-Chambers v. Kingham, 39 L.T. 472. Lands' Clauses Act:

(iv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Payment out of Deposit-Petition by Vendor-Delay in Completing.-When a railway company has entered into possession of land and paid money into Court under sec. 85 of the Lands' Clauses Act, 1845, the vendor is entitled to petition for payment out of the money to him on the company failing to complete: but the acceptance of the title by the company will not be presumed from mere delay in completing. Re Mutlow's Trusts, 27 W.R. 246.

Licensed House :

(iii.) Q. B. Div.-Certificate for License-Notice-Insufficiency-32 & 33 Vict., c. 27, s. 8.—An applicant for a justice's certificate under 32 & 33

Vic., c. 27, authorizing the granting to him a license to sell beer by retail to be consumed off the premises under 3 & 4 Vict., c. 61, omitted to state in the notice that he already held a license for the same purpose under 26 & 27 Vict., c. 63: Held that he was entitled to the certificate.Regina v. Justices of Over Darwen, 39 L.T. 444.

;

(iv.) Q.B.Div.-General License-Renewal-Discretion of Justices-9 Geo. IV., c. 61, s. 1; 32 & 33 Vict., c. 27, ss. 8, 19.-Justices have a general discretion as to granting or refusing a renewal of a public-house license secs. 8, 19 of the Wine and Beerhouse Act, 1869, being confined to applications for licenses for sale of beer, cider, and wine.—Regina v. Smith, 48 L.J. M.C. 38.

Master and Servant:

(ii.) C. A.-Negligence-Common Employment.-Plaintiff was hired by a man who contracted to unload a barge at defendants' brewery: he was paid by defendants, who alone could discharge him, and while working at the unloading was injured through the negligence of defendants' servants in moving barrels: Held that there was evidence to justify a finding that plaintiff was defendants' servant, and injured by a person engaged in a common employment.-Charles v. Taylor, Walker, & Co., L.R. 3 C.P.D. 492; 27 W.R. 32.

(iii.) C. A.-Negligence-Common Employment.-The signal service at a joint siding was managed at the joint expense of the North-Eastern & Great Northern Railway Cos.', but the servants there were engaged and paid by the G. N. R. Co. alone: one of these servants was killed by the negligence of a North-Eastern Railway engine-driver: Held that deceased and the engine-driver were not engaged in a common employment.-Swainson v. North-Eastern Rail. Co., L.R. 3 Ex. D. 341.

Metropolitan Management:

(iv.) Q. B. Div.-Dangerous Structure-Owner or Occupier-Incumbent of Church-18 & 19 Vict., c. 122, ss. 69-81.-The incumbent of a district church is not the owner or occupier of the church within the meaning of the Metropolitan Building Act, 1855.-Regina v. Lee, 18 L.J. M.C. 22; 27 W.R. 151.

Mines:

(v.) Ex. Div.-Coal Mine-Checkweigher-Dismissal of Miners-35 & 36 Vict., c. 76, s. 18.-Where owners of a coal mine dismiss all the miners, the office of a checkweigher appointed under Section 18 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1872, is thereby determined.-Whitehead v. Holdsworth, L.R. 4 Ex. D. 13; 27 W.R. 94.

Mortgage :

(xii.) C. A.-Ejectment by Mortgagee-Pending Administration.-The Court will not stay an action of ejectment by a mortgagee against his tenants, on the application of an executor to a testator of whose estate the mortgaged property formed part on the ground of a pending administration action.-Crowle v. Russell, 39 L.T. 320; 27 W.R. 84.

(xiii) Ch. Div. M. R.-Estoppel-Grant-Covenant for Title.-By a deed containing no recitals but with usual covenants for title, A. purported to grant B. a freehold estate by way of mortgage: at the date of the deed A. had no interest in the property, but subsequently he acquired the legal estate which he mortgaged to C.: Held that no estoppel had been created in favour of B. as against C.-General Finance Co. v. Liberator Building Society, L.R. 10 Ch. D. 15; 27 W.R. 210.

(xiv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Executor-Retainer.-A. having mortgaged life policies to solicitors died insolvent. The solicitors received the policy

monies, and A.'s executrix filed a bill against them for accounts and payment over of the surplus, and after obtaining a decree for the usual accounts died, having appointed one of the solicitors her executor: Held that the solicitor could not retain the balance in payment of a simple contract debt due to them from A.-Talbot v. Frere, L.R. 9 Ch. D. 568; 27 W.R. 148.

(xv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Foreclosure-Heirship not proved-Action dismissed. -Judgment having been obtained in a foreclosure action against an alleged heir-at-law of mortgagor, and a contract for sale entered into; it being found that there was no evidence of the alleged heirship of defendant, judgment was set aside, and action dismissed without costs. -Lancaster Banking Company v. Cooper, L.R. 9 Ch. D. 594; 27 W.R. 164.

(xvi.) C. A.-Injunction-Parties-Action by Mortgagor.-When no notice of intention to take possession has been given by mortgagee, mortgagor can maintain an action for injunction against a breach of covenant affecting mortgaged premises, without joining mortgagee as a party.— Fairclough v. Marshall, 39 L.T. 389; 27 W.R. 145.

(xvii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Priority-Trustee-Solicitor.-Plaintiff

contributed

£500 and his solicitor £300 to a loan on deposit of deeds, and afterwards the solicitor took a mortgage to himself for the £800, and deposited the title deeds with a bank as security for a loan of £400: Held that plaintiff had priority over the bank for his £500.-Bradley v. Riches, L.R. 9 Ch. D. 189; 47 L.J. Ch. 811; 26 W.R. 910.

Municipal Law:

(iii.) C. P. Div.---Fees to Justices' Clerk-Conviction under Vagrant Act, 5 & 6 Will. IV., c. 76.-A station-master gave a person into custody of a constable on the charge of picking pockets at the railway station, and afterwards appeared and gave evidence before the borough justices, when the prisoner was convicted under the Vagrant Act: Held that the station-master was not liable for the justices' clerk's fees.-—Reddish v. Hitchinor, 48 L.J. M.C. 31.

(iv.) C. A.-Local Board-Street-Vesting-38 & 39 Vict., c. 55, s. 149.— The vesting of a street by sec. 149 of Public Health Act, 1875, in an Urban Authority gives them a right to let the pasturage by the side of such street.-Coverdale v. Charlton, 27 W.R. 257.

(v.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Rebuilding-Depositing Plans-Approval-38 & 39 Vict., c. 55.-The owner of a house had left with a local board a plan of an intended new building, and the board had approved of it and offered him £40 compensation for certain land to be thrown into the street which he refused, but proceeded to pull down the old house; subsequently the board passed a resolution abandoning the terms offered, and requiring the owner to set his frontage further back: Held that having approved of the original plan the board could not compel the owner to alter it.-Masters v. Pontypool Local Board, L.R. 9 Ch. D. 677; 47 L.J. Ch. 797.

Negligence:

(ii.) Ex. Div.—Excavation_near Highway-Fencing -5 & 6 Will. IV., c. 50, s. 70.—A contractor made an excavation within 5 yards of a highway and fenced it off therefrom: plaintiff's horse drawing a cart loaded with a ton weight backed the cart against the fence which gave way, and in consequence the horse was dragged down the excavation: Held that the contractor was not liable to the owner of the horse.-Blakeley v. Baker, 39 L.T. 359.

(iii.) Ex. Div.—Injury to Cattle-Noxious Tree-Adjoining Occupier.—If a man knowingly plant on his land and suffer to grow over the land of his neighbour a noxious tree whereby his neighbour's cattle are injured, an action will lie against him at the suit of his neighbour.-Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board, L.R. 4 Ex. D. 5; 39 L.T. 355; 27 W.R. 95. Palatine Court of Lancaster :

:

(ii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Stay of Proceedings-Foreclosure-Property out of Jurisdiction. The High Court will not stay proceedings in an action of foreclosure or sale, in the Palatine Court, where the property is without the jurisdiction of the latter, but both the mortgagor and mortgagee are within the jurisdiction.-Re Longdendale Cotton Spinning Co., 48 L.J. Ch. 54.

Partition :

(ii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Sale-Disability-Person Authorised to Ask39 & 40 Vict., c. 17, s. 6.—On a request for sale under the Partition Act, 1876, section 6, counsel, if instructed, is a person authorised to act on behalf of a person under disability.-Crookes v. Whitworth, 39 L.T. 348; 27 W.R. 149.

Partnership:

(v.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.—Articles—Accounts-Variation.—Partnership articles provided that the accounts should be taken half-yearly, and that the share of any partner who died should be taken to be the sum due up to last account, and an additional sum in lieu of subsequent profits, calculated at a fixed rate: in practice the accounts were only taken yearly, and one of the partners wrote a letter to the others approving of this plan: Held, on the death of this partner, that his interest under the articles was not affected by the custom of taking the accounts yearly, or by his approval of it.—Lawes v. Lawes, L.R. 9 Ch. D. 98; 27 W.R. 186. (vi.) C. A.-Contract by Partners-Joint and Several Liability. - When a person has obtained judgment against one member of a partnership for breach of contract entered into by the partnership, he cannot maintain an action in respect of the same breach against another member.Kendall v. Hamilton, L.R. 3 C.P.D. 403; 47 L.J. C.P. 665; 39 L.T. 250; 27 W.R. 121.

(vii.) C. A.-Loan-28 & 29 Vict., c. 86, s. 1.-The question whether or not an advance of money to a firm constitutes the lender a partner must be decided from the whole circumstances of the case, and not merely by a proviso in the articles that he shall not be a partner.-Ex parte Delhasse, Re Megevand, 47 L.J. Bcy. 65.

(viii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Property and Effects-Goodwill.-Held that 'goodwill" must be taken into account in estimating the value of the property and effects of a partnership on a dissolution.-Reynolds v. Bullock, 47 L.J. Ch. 773; 39 L.T. 443.

(ix.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Settled Accounts-Error-Liberty to Surcharge and Falsify. In a partnership action seeking to open settled accounts, one error of £950 being established, leave to surcharge and falsify was given to plaintiff, such liberty not to be confined to errors appearing from the books.-Gething v. Keighley, L.R. 9 Ch. D. 547; 48 L.J. Ch. 45.

Patent:

(iii.) C. A.—Infringement-Property of Foreign Sovereign-Injunction.—A foreign sovereign bought in Germany shells made there, and which were infringements of an English patent: they were brought to England in order to put them on board a man-of-war of the foreign sovereign, and the patentee obtained an injunction against the agents

of the sovereign and the persons who had charge of the shells restraining their removal: the foreign sovereign applied to be made defendant, and obtained an order for liberty to remove the shells.- Vavasseur v. Krupp, L.R. 9 Ch. D. 351; 39 L.T. 437; 27 W.R. 176.

(iv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Threatened Infringement-Injunction.-A patentee can sustain an action for an injunction to restrain a threatened infringe. ment of his patent, though no infringement has taken place.-Frearson v. Loe, L.R. 9 Ch. D. 48; 27 W.R. 183.

Poor Law:

(ii.) Q. B. Div.-Settlement-Criminal Lunatic-3 & 4 Vict., c. 54, s. 7.— An order by justices for maintenance of a female criminal lunatic, detained in an asylum, should be made on the union in which her husband's last legal settlement is at the time of making the order.Barton Regis Union v. Berkshire Clerk of Peace, 39 L.T. 445.

(iii.) Q. B. Div.-Settlement-Derivative Settlement of Father-39 & 40 Vict., c. 61, s. 25.—Where a pauper has acquired no settlement of his own, and whose father has only a derivative settlement, the pauper has a settlement at his own, and not his father's, birthplace.-Woodstock Union v. St. Pancras Churchwardens, L.R. 4 Q.B.D. 1; 48 L.J. M.C. 1; 39 L.T. 256; 27 W.R. 229.

Power of Appointment:

(ii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Excessive Appointment.—A person having power to appoint to such of her issue as should be living at the time of appointment, by deed appointed to the children of her daughter, in equal shares, on their attaining twenty-one: the daughter had three children at the date of the deed and three born afterwards: Held that each of the first three, on attaining twenty-one, would take a sixth of the property, together with an accruing share of the sixths of the others of the first three who might die under twenty-one, and that the remaining half of the property would go as in default of appointment.-Re Farncombe's Trusts, L.R. 9 Ch. D. 652.

Practice :

(lxiii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Administration Decree - Subsequent Action Against Executor-Consol. Ord. 31, r. 11.—Where plaintiff has obtained an administration decree against an executor and, in the subsequent inquiries, has obtained materials for a case of wilful default, he cannot bring a fresh action charging wilful default without leave of the Court. -Laming v. Gee, 27 W.R. 227.

(lxiv.) H. L.-Appeal-Quarter Sessions-Poor Rate-Judicature Act, 1873, s. 19.-An appeal lies from the Judgment of the Q.B. Div. on a case stated for its opinion by a Court of Quarter Sessions: decision of C. A. (see Practice ix., p. 24) reversed.-Walsall Overseers v. L. & N. W. Rail. Co., 39 L.T. 453; 27 W.R. 189.

(lxv.) C. A.—Appeal-Refusal of Application-Ord. 58, r. 15.—A petitioner applied for payment out of Court of the whole of a fund, his title to onehalf of which was not disputed, and the Court ordered payment to him of one-half only: Held that an appeal from this order was not from the refusal of an application.-Re Michell's Trusts, L.R. 9 Ch. D. 5; 48 L.J. Ch. 50.

(lxvi.) C. A.-Appeal-Security for Costs-Ord. 58, r. 15.-Where plaintiff was a pauper, and brought an action for administration of an estate against a person who had obtained letters of administration, on appeal from an order refusing an injunction to restrain defendant from dealing with the estate, and for a receiver: Held that the fact of the plaintiff not having

F