Page images

first taken proceedings to have the letters of administration revoked, justified the Court in requiring security for costs.- Hankin v. Turner,

39 L.T. 285; 27 W.R. 20. (lxvii.) C. A.-Appeal Security for Costs-Ord. 40, 9. 10.-A defendant in

insolvent circumstances gave two notices of appeal in an action tried before a judge alone, and also moved for a rule nisi for a new trial : Held that as the appeals were unnecessary defendant must give security for

costs.-Waddell v. Blockey, 27 W.R. 233. (lxviii.) C. A.-Appeal-Setting Down-Mistake-Ord. 58, r. 8.-An appeal

must be entered before the day mentioued in the notice of appeal, or, if the day named is in vacation, before the next day on which the Court sits : a mistake of the meaning of the rules of Court by counsel or solicitor is not sufficient reason for granting an extension of time.

Rhodes v. Jenkins, In re Mansel, 47 L.J. Ch. 870. (lxix.) C. A.–Appeal Time - New Trial.-A rule for a new trial having

been made absolute, held that an appeal from the order could not be brought after twenty-one days; leave to extend time for appealing

refused.-Highton v. Treherne, 39, L.T. 411; 27 W.R. 245. (lxx.) C. A.-Appeal-Time-Verdict of Judge. Where a judge of the Ch.

Div. has pronounced a verdict on a question of fact and subsequently delivered judgment, the verdict is an interlocutory order and must be appealed from within twenty-one days, such appeal being in the form of an application for a new trial.-Krehl v. Burrell, 39 L.T. 461; 27

W.R. 324. (lxxi.) C. A.-Appeal-Verdict Directed by Judge--New Trial-Ord. 40, r. 4 a.

When a judge directs the jury to find a verdict for one of the parties and gives judgment, the other party cannot appeal to the Court of Appeal, but must apply to the Divisional Court for a new trial.— Yetts v.

Foster, L.R. 3 C.P.D. 132. (lxxii.) C. P. Diy.--Appeal from County Court-Entering Judgment

38 & 39 Vict., c. 50, s. 6.-On appeal by inotion under the County Courts Act, 1875, s. 6, the Court has power to order judgment to be entered as provided by 13 & 14 Vict., c. 61, s. 14.-Whiteman v.

Hawkins, L.R. 4 C.P.D. 13. (lxxiii.) C. P. Div.--Appeal from County Court-Time—38 8. 39 Vict., c. 50,

s. 6.—Where in order to extend the time for appealing, a County Court Judge allowed his judgment to be entered as delivered a fortnight after the day on which it was delivered: Held that the time within which an appeal must be brought was eight days from the day on which the judgment was actually pronounced.-Wilberforce v. Sowton,

48 L.J., C.P. 28; 39 L.T. 474. (lxxiv.) Ex. Div.-Appeal from Master-Time-Ord. 54, r. 4.- A summons on

appeal to judge at chambers from the master must be returnable before the judge within four days from the decision of the master. - Bell y.

North Staffordshire Railway Co., 27 W.R. 263. (lxxv.) C. A.-Appearance Notice--Default.-A writ of

issued in a district registry : defendant entered appearance in London, but gave no notice to plaintiff's solicitor in the district: Held that plaintiff was entitled to sign judgment for default of appearance.

Smith v. Dobbin, L.R. 3 Ex. D. 338. (lxxvi.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Costs-- Administration-Partial Distribution.

Executors and trustees distributed three-fourths of testator's residuary estate, but neglected to give accounts of or pay the income of the remaining fourth to the person entitled; on an administration action, held that the trustees were personally liable for the costs of action, except those



of the accounts and enquiries, which must be born by the whole of the residue, and that the trustees were also personally liable for the share of these costs falling on the residue already distributed.-Bath v. Bell,

39 L.T. 422. (lxxvii.) Ex. Div.-Costs-Claim for £50 and Interest—30 & 31 Vict., c. 142,

s. 7.--A claim for £50 and interest is a claim exceeding £50 within sec. 7 of County Courts Act, 1867, and when an action on such a claim is brought in the High Court, it is not competent for a judge to order on dismissing an application by defendant to have the action tried in the County Court, that if £50 only be recovered, plaintiff shall only be entitled to County Court costs.-Insley v. Jones, L.R. 4 Ex. D. 16;

27 W.R. 111. (lxxviii.) C.P. Div.-Costs---Counter Claim-Summons to Vary Entry.—On the

findings of the jury in an action the judge directed a verdict to be entered for plaintiff for the balance of his claim over the counter claim. On summons to vary entry by stating that plaintiff and defendant respectively recovered, so as to give defendant costs of counter claim,

the Court refused to interfere.—Poffer v. Chambers, 39 L.T. 350. (lxxix.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Costs-Discretion of CourtTrade Mark Registra

tion.—The costs of and incident to all proceedings that have actually come into the Court only are within the discretion of the Court under Order 55; and a case under the Trade Marks Regulation Acts does not come into Court until the parties opposing registration have given security for costs under Rule 18 of Trade Marks Rules, 1876.-Re Brand.

reth's Trade Mark, L.R. 9 Ch. D. 618; 47 L.J. Ch. 816. (1xxx.) Q. B. Div.-Costs-No Order by Judge at Trial-Ord. 55.—When in

an action before a jury no application as to costs is made at the trial, a subsequent application may be made to the Divisional Court, if made

within a reasonable time.- Bowey v. Bell, Brooks v. Israel, 27 W.R. 247. (lxxxi.) C. A.-Costs-Revivor.-A plaintiff having obtained a decree with

costs, died, and subsequently defendant gave notice of appeal: the executor of plaintiff then obtained the common order to revive, and the action was dismissed with costs on the appeal: Held that the executor was personally liable for the costs.—Boynton v. Boynton, L.R. 9 Ch. D.

250; 27 W.R. 141. (lxxxii.) H. L.-CostsSlander-21 Jac. 1, c. 16—Ord. 55.- Section 6 of

21 Jac. 1, chapter 16, is repealed by Ord. 55.—Garnett v. Bradley, L.R.

3 App. 944; 39 L.T. 261. (lxxxiii.) C. P. Div.-CostsTaxation.—The Court will not interfere with the

master's discretion as to the amount allowed for counsel's fees unless it is obvious that he has failed to exercise it reasonably.—Hargreaves v. Scott,

L.R. 4 C.P.D. 21. (lxxxiv.) P. D.-CostsTaxation,Negligence of Solicitor.-On taxation of

costs of a cause between solicitor and client, the registrar cannot consider objections raised by the client to some of the items on the ground that they were incurred in consequence of the solicitor's negligence.The

Papa de Rossie, L.R. 3 P.D. 160. (lxxxv.) C. A.-Costs--Taxation-Ord. 3, r. 7.—Where a writ was indorsed

with the amount of a debt and a sum claimed for costs, and defendant after the expiration of four days from service paid to plaintiff the whole amount which he accepted : Held that defendant was entitled to have

the costs taxed.—Hoole v. Earnshaw, 39 L.T. 409. (lxxxvi.) C. A.-CostsTaxation-Short-hand Notes.- Plaintiff and defendant

having agreed that a short-hand writer should be employed at the hear. ing at their joint expense, an order was made in favour of defendant from which plaintiff appealed, and the appeal was dismissed with costs :

Held that the taxing master could not, in the absence of special directions by the Court, allow the costs of copies of the notes or the sum paid by defendant to short-hand writer.--Ashworth v. Outram, L.R. 9 Ch. D.

483; 39 L.T. 441 ; 27 W.R. 98. (lxxxvii.) Ex. Div.-CostsT'avation-Short-hand Notes. The costs of making

copies of the transcript of short-hand notes will not be allowed on taxation in the absence of any direction by judge at trial.-Wills v. Mitcham

Gas Co., L.R. 4 Ex. D. 1; 27 W.R. 112. (lxxxviii.) C. A.Default of Appearance-Married Woman-Judgment set Aside.

-A married woman was sued on a cheque which she had signed at her
husband's request, and handed the writ to him, he promising to attend
to it: no appearance was entered, and judgment was signed : more than
a year afterwards, a summons to commit her having been taken out, the
judgment was set aside on her application.- Attwood v. Chichester, L.R.

3 Q.B.D. 722. (lxxxix.) C.P. Div.-Discovery- Affidavit of Documents.—The omission of the

words, "and never have had,” from an affidavit of documents is sufficient reason for ordering a further affidavit.-Wagstaffe v. Anderson, 39 L.T.

332. (*c.) C. A.-Discovery - Interrogatories. – Where plaintiffsued as ad.

ministrator on a breach of covenant, and defendants alleged a verbal consent by intestate to the breach : Held that plaintiff could interrogate defendant as to when the consent was given, but not as to the persons

present at the time.-Eade v. Jacobs, L.R. 3 Ex. D. 335. (xci.) C. A.- Discovery-Interrogatories Striking out Ord. 31, r. 5.—A

party who applies to strike out interrogatories must, unless they are altogether objectionable, specify those to which he objects. - Allhusen v. Labouchere, L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 654; 47 L.J. Q.B. 819; 39 L.T. 207 ; 27

W.R. 12. (xcii.) Ch. Div. M. R.- DiscoveryInterrogatoriesTime for Delivery.-In

an ordinary action in the Chancery Division interrogatories may be delivered before statement of defence.-Harbord v. Monk, L.R. 9 Ch. D.

616; 27 W.R. 164. (xciii.) C.A.-Discovery-Production of Court Rolls.-In an action concerning

disputed rights as to a sheepwalk, plaintiff alleged that he was a free. holder of a farm, and as such entitled to the sheepwalk; and defendant, the lord of the manor, alleged that plaintiff was only a freehold tenant of the manor in respect of the farm: Held that plaintiff was not entitled to the production of the Court rolls of the manor.-Owen v.

Wynn, L.R. 9 Ch. D. 29. (xciv.) C.A.- Discovery-Production of DocumentsPrivilege.-A party making

an affidavit as to documents and claiming protection for some of them as privileged will not be required to identify those for which protection is claimed further than he would if no protection was claimed.—Taylor v.

Batten, 39 L.T. 408; 27 W.R. 106. (xov.) Ex. Div.-DiscoveryProduction of Documents-Ord. 31, r. 12.-In

the absence of an affidavit, showing circumstances rendering immediate discovery necessary, no order for discovery of documents will be made before delivery of statement of defence.-Hancock v. Guerin, L.R. 4

Ex. D. 3 ; 27 W.R. 112. (xcvi.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Evidence-Commission.-Defendant company,

which was registered in England and whose business was in Paris, applied for a commission to examine witnesses at Paris and Boulogne, and in their affidavit stated that certain persons residing there were necessary witnesses: the Court ordered the commission to issue, and required no security for costs.-Spiller y. Paris Skating Rink Co., 27 W.R. 225.

(xcvii.) C. A.-Injunction-Foreign Suit.—The Court will not, in the absence of

special circumstances, interfere to restrain by injunction proceedings

taken in a foreign Court.-Fletcher v. Rodgers, 27 W.R. 97. (xcviii.) C. A.-Interpleader-1 8. 2 Will. IV., c. 58, s. 1.-Decision of C. P.

Div. (see Practice xli., p. 27) reversed. --Attenborough v. St. Katherine's

Dock Co., L.R. 3 C.P.D. 450, 47 L.J. C.P. 763. (xcix.) C. A.-Leave to Sign Judgment-Affidavit-Ord. 14, r. 1.-It is not

necessary under Ord. 14, r. 1, that the affidavit of plaintiff should be made prior to the granting of the summons calling on defendant to show

cause against signing final judgment.--Begg v. Cooper, 27 W.R. 224. (c.) C. A.-Motion to Enter Judgment-MisdirectionOrd. 40, r. 4.

Where defendant at close of plaintiff's case asked the judge to withdraw the case from the jury and enter judgment for him, but the judge left certain questions to the jury, who found in plaintiff's favour: Held that defendant could not move in the Court of Appeal to set aside the judg. ment under Ord. 40, r. 4, as it was, in effect, asking for a new trial, but he must first go to a Divisional Court.--Davies v. Felix, 48 L.J. Q.B. 3;

39 L.T. 322; 27 W.R. 108. (ci.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Parties--Action by Life-Tenant against Executor.

- A tenant for life under a will brought an action against the executor, claiming that certain mortgage debts on the estate, which had been paid off out of income, should have been paid out of corpus, and repayment of the money, and, so far as necessary, administration of trusts of will: Held that the remainder-men were not necessary parties.—Bemment v.

Balls, 47 L.J. Ch. 781. (cii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-PartiesDeath of Defendant- Leave to Amend.

Where in an action against a defendant for damages occasioned by defendant's fraud, he dies, leave may be obtained, ex parte, to amend the statement of claim so as to make a primâ facie case against defendant's personal representatives, and to add such representatives as defendants.

-Ashley v. Taylor, 27 W.R. 228. (ciii.) C. A.— Parties-Death of Plaintiff-Ord. 50, r. 4.–Plaintiff in an action,

having recovered a verdict against defendants for statutory fraud, died while an appeal was pending in the House of Lords: Held that ad. ministratrix of plaintiff was entitled to be made a party under Ord. 5,

r. 4.-Twycross v. Grant, 48 L.J. C.P. 1; 27 W.R. 87. (civ.) C.P. Div.-Parties--Joinder of Indorsee and Drawer of Bill.–A state

ment of claim contained claims by the indorsees of a bill of exchange and by the drawer : Held such a statement must be struck out as embarrass.

ing.–Smith v. Richardson, 27 W.R. 230. (cv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-PartiesPartition-Ord. 16, 7. 7.-In partition

actions trustees may be treated as sufficiently representing the benefi.

ciaries. --Simpson v. Denny, L.R. 10 Ch. D. 28. (cvi.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Parties--Redemption-Consolidation of Mortgages.

-When a mortgagor brings a redemption action, and mortgagee insists on an admitted right to consolidate the mortgage with another on lands, of which a third party is mortgagor, the Court will not make any

decree in the absence of such third party.—Mills v. Jennings, 39 L.T. 442. (cvii.) Ch. Div. M. R.- Parties Representative Party - Ord. 16, r. 14 ;

31, 1. 4.- The practice of making an officer of a corporation a party for the purpose of discovery is now abolished : a person must show that the parties having the same interest are numerous before he can be authorised to defend on behalf of all such parties.—Wilson v. Church,

L.R. 9 Ch. D. 552; 39 L.T. 413. (cviii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-- Payment into Court-Administration Summons.

When it is doubtful to whom a legacy is payable the executor should not

pay the legacy into Court, but take ont an administration summons, and accounts being waived, the decision of the judge may be obtained on a statement of facts in the nature of a special case.— Re Birkett, L.R. 9

Ch. D. 576; 39 L.T. 418; 27 W.R. 164. (cix.) C. A.Payment into Court-Admission of Liability.--After a decree

directing accounts in Chambers, if it appears, before the chief clerk's certificate as to the ultimate talance is made, that a certain sum will probably be found due from either party, the Court has power to order such sum to be paid into Court: an admission of liability sufficient to support a motion for payment into Court may be made by the party or his agent, without appearing in the pleadings or affidavits.-London

Syndicate v. Lord, 48 L.J. Ch. 57. (cx.) Ch. Div. V. C.M.-Payment of DividendsInfant Entitled to Stock

11 Geo. IV. & 1 Will. IV., c. 65.—An infant was beneficially entitled to a a sum of consuls standing in her name : on a petition presented in an action, and under sec. 32 of 11 Geo. IV.& 1 Will. IV., c. 65, by her father, and by the infant by her father as next friend, payment of the dividends to the father for the infant's benefit was ordered.—Ramon v. Ramon, 39

L.T. 532; 27 W.R. 260. (cxi.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Payment out of Court-Trustee Relief Act-Service of

Petition-Chancery Funds Amended_Orders, 1874, 7. 8.—Where the rights of parties to money paid into Court under the Trustee Relief Act have been declared in an action, it is unnecessary to serve the petition for payment out on persons not interested, though they are stated by the

trustee's affidavit to be interested.—Re Fosbury's Trusts, 39 L.T. 422. (cxii.) C. A.-- Payment out of Court-Woman past Child-bearing.—The Court

refused to treat a woman as past child-bearing who was fifty-four years and a half old, but had only cohabited with her husband during the last

three years.-Croxton v. May, L.R. 9 Ch. D. 388; 39 L.T. 461. (cxiii.) C. A.--PleadingAmendment-Admission by Mistake.— A defendant in

denying that he had offered a bribe, as alleged by the statement of claim, denied only that he had offered the particular sum stated: in an affidavit filed in the action he denied that he had offered that or any other sum : Held, reversing the decision of Fry, J. (L.R. 7 Ch. D. 403 ; 47 L.J. Ch. 263; 38 L.T. 60; 26 W.R. 263) that he must have liberty to amend.

Tildesley v. Harper, 27 W.R. 249. (cxiv.) C. P. Div.-Pleading-Counter Claim-Ord. 17, r. 5; Ord. 19, r. 3.

Where plaintiff sued in her own right, defendant was not allowed to set apas a counter-claim, a claim against plaintiff as executrix.—Macdonald v.

Carington, 39 L.T. 426; 27 W.R. 153. (cxv.) C. A.- Pleading-Demurrer.-A defendant who has pnt in a statement

of defence may afterwards demur to an amended statement of claim, though no substantially new case is made by the amendment. -- Powell v.

Jewesbury, L.R. 9 Ch. D. 34; 39 L.T. 213; 27 W.R. 142. (cxvi.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Pleading-Demurrer-Statute of Limitations.-A

defence under the Statute of Limitations may in all cases be raised by demarrer.- Noyes v. Crawley, L.R. 10 Ch. D. 31 ; 39 L.T. 267; 27 W.R.

109. (cxvii.) Q. B. Div.-Pleading-Statement of Claim-Ejectment.-In an action

for the recovery of land, the Statement of Claim alleged that plaintiff was heir male of the body of certain persons, and heir-at-law of another person, all of whom at the time of their deaths were possessed in fee simple of the property in question, and that under certain deeds, assurances, and wills in the possession of defendants, plaintiff as such heir male, and heir-at-law was entitled to possession of the property : Held that the Statement of Claim was not embarrassing.-Phillips v. Phillips, 39 L.T. 329.

« PreviousContinue »