« PreviousContinue »
(vii.) C. P. Div.-Declarations by Deceased Tenant for Life.-A declaration
by a deceased tenant for life is not admissible in evidence against a remainder man, unless it was accompained by some act done by the
tenant for life.-Howe v. Malkin, 40 L.T. 196; 27 W.R. 340. (viii.) C. P. Div.-Fraud by Company's Agent-Proof of Other Frauds.-In an
action against a company to recover a sum of money obtained by them through the frauds of their agent, committed with their knowledge, and for their benefit, evidence of similar frauds committed on other persons by the same agent, is admissible on behalf of the plaintiff.—Blake v. Albion Life Assurance Society, L.R. 4 C.P.D. 94 ; 48 L.J. C.P. 169;
40 L.T. 211; 2:7 W.R. 321. Highway:(iv.) Q. B. Div.-Furious Driving-Bicycle—5 & 6 Will. IV., c. 50, s. 78.
Held that a person who rode a bicycle furiously and injured a passenger was driving a carriage within sec. 78 of the Highway Act, 1835.
Taylor v. Goodwin, 27 W.R. 489. Husband and Wife :(xxi.) C. P. Div.-Conveyance by Married Woman—3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 74,
s. 91; 20 g. 21, Vict., c. 57, s. 1.-Where an order under 3 & 4 Will, IV., c. 74, s. 91, and 20 & 21 Vict., c. 57, s. 1, for the conveyance of a married woman's interest in property beqneathed to her, is obtained by fraud or concealment of material facts, the Court will set it aside.
Ev parte Cockerell, L.R. 4 C.P.D 39; 27 W.R. 366. (xxii.) P. D. A. Div.-Divorce-Variation of Settlement—41 & 42 Vict., c. 19,
s. 3.- The Matrimonial Causes Act, 1878, s. 3, does not apply to cases where the decree for dissolution was made absolute before the Act came
into operation.—Yglesias v. Yglesias, 40 L.T. 37 ; 27 W.R. 432. (xxiii.) P. D. A. Div.-Restitution of Conjugal Rights --Separation Deed.-
A deed of separation between husband and wife is not contrary to public policy, and may be so framed as to be a good answer to a suit for restitu.
tion of conjagal rights.- Marshall v. Marshall, 39 L.T. 640; 27 W.R. 399. (xxiv.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.--Separate Estate, Annuity Forfeitable on Assign
ment. The regulations of a fand established for the benefit of certain widows and children, provided that the pensions payable thereout should be forfeited on assigament. A widow entitled to a pension married again: Held that she was entitled to the pension as her separate
property-Re Peacock's Trusts, L.R. 10 Ch. D. 490; 39 L.T. 661. (xxv.) Q. B. Div.-Separate Estate--Right of Action—33 8 34 Vict., c. 93,
8. 11.-A married woman can maintain an action in her own name against a wrong-doer for her expulsion from a beerhouse in which she carried on business apart from her husband, and for loss of profits, stock-in-trade, and fixtures, which she had purchased with her separate
earnings.- Moore y. Robinson, 48 L.J. Q.B. 156 ; 40 L.T. 99; 27 W.R. 312. (xxvi.) C. A.-Separate Trading-Debtor's Summons against Husband.—A
debtor's summons was issued against a husband in respect of debts incurred by his wife in carrying on separate trade under her maiden nime, the wife having absconded: Held that the summons must be dismissed with costs.-Ex parte Shepherd; Re Shepherd, 48 L.J. Boy. 35 ;
39 L.T. 652; 27 W.R. 310. (xxvii.) Ch. Div. F.J.-Wife's Equity to Settlement-Power of Appointment
--In a settlement made by the Court of property to which a married woman has an equity to a settlement, an exclusive power of appointment among children of the marriage will be given to her.-Oliver v. Oliver, 39 L.T. 563.
Insurance : (ii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Life Insurance-Concealment of Material Fact.—In
a contract of life assurance the not fairly answering a question as to proposals made to other offices, is concealment of a material fact sufficient to avoid the contract.-London Assurance Co. v. Mansel, 27 W.R. 444.
Landlord and Tenant:(xiv.) Ex. Div.-Apportionment-Rent-Assignee of Term-33 & 34 Vict.;
c. 35.—The Apportionment Act, 1870, enables a landlord to recover apportioned rent from an assignee of the term who has assigned over during a current quarter of the term.-Swansea Bank v. Thomas, 27
W.R. 491. (xv.) C. A.-Building Agreement-Rent-Possession.-A clause in a building
agreement that until the is executed the intended lessee shall hold the land at the rent and subject to the conditions contained in the lease, creates a liability on the part of the lessee to pay the sum reserved by way of rent though no tenancy has actually existed.-Adams v. Hagger,
27 W.R. 402. (xvi.) C. P. Div.-Distress—Injunction to Restrain-Judicature Act, 1873,
s. 25, sub-s. 8. -An injanction to restrain a landlord from exercising his legal right of distress will be granted only upon such terms and conditions as the Court shall think sit.—Shaw v. Earl of Jersey, L.R. 4
C.P.D. 120. (xvii.) C. H.-Lease-Covenant for Quiet Enjoyment-Breach-Measure of
Damages.-In an action for damages for breach of a covenant for quiet enjoyment resulting from the lessor having previously granted a right of way to a third person over land let to plaintiff : Held that only the damage actually sustained at the time of issuing the writ could be taken into account: and that defendant was also liable to repay plaintiff the costs of an unsuccessfal action for trespass against the grantee of the
right of way.-Child v. Stenning, 27 W.R. 462. (xviii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Lease-Covenant not to Carry on Busiuess—Hospital.
-The lease of a honse contained a covenant not to carry on any trade or business, or to suffer any act or thing which might be or grow to the annoyance or injury of the neighbouring premises, which were dwelling houses : Held that the use of the house as a hospital for out-patients suffering from diseases of the throat and chest vas a breach of the
covenant.—Bramwell v. Lacy, 27 W.R. 463. (xix.) Ex. Div.-Lease--Covenant to Repair.--Premises were demised for a
term of ninety-nine years, described in the lease as a parcel of land, together with the messuage and all other buildings thereafter to be erected, and an acre of land abutting on the said parcel : and the lease contained a covenant by the lessee to keep in repair the said messuage and buildings then built or to be built on the ground demised, or any part of it: Held that the covenant to repair extended to buildings erected on the acre of land subsequently to date of lease.--Hudson v.
Williams, 39 L.T. 632. (xx.) Q. B. Div.-Lease of Beer House-Imperilling License.—S. took an
assignment of the goodwill and stock.in-trade of a beer-house and a transfer of the license, and agreed not to do anything to imperil the license on pain of forfeiting the tenancy and fixtures : he then executed a declaration of trust in favour of plaintiff, a married woman living apart from her husband, and handed to her the license indorsed in blank. She carried on the business and S. went away to sea: Held, that S.'s absence did not cause the license to be imperilled so as to create a forfeiture.-Moore v. Rubinson, 48 L.J. Q.B. 156.
(xxi.) C. A.- Property Tax-Deduction from Rent—5 & 6 Vict., c. 35, ss. 60, 103.
-An agreement that if tenant will continue to pay the full rent without deducting landlord's property-tax, landlord will repay him the amount of the tax, is not illegal. Decision of Q.B. Div. (L.R. 4 Q.B.D. 220; 48 L.J.
Q.B. 277; 27 W.R. 395) affirmed.-Lamb v. Brewster, 27 W.R. 478. Lands Clauses Acts :(v.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Re-investment-Costs - Different Companies.-On
petition for re-investment in land of a sum made up of four amounts, varying from £490 to £1,797, paid into Court by four respondents as purchase-moneys for lands taken compulsorily, the costs of re-invest. ment were ordered to be borne by the respondents equally and of the ad valorem stamp rateably.-Ex parte Governors of Christ's Hospital,
27 W.R. 458. Lord Mayor's Court :-(ii.) Ex. Div.---Nonsuit in City of London Court-Subsequent action in
Lord Mayor's Court. - Where judgment of nonsoit had been given in an action brought by plaintiff in City of London Court: Held that this was a bar to a fresh action for the same cause in the Lord Mayor's Court.
Davis v. Great Eastern Railway Co., 39 L.T. 635. Lunacy (ii.) C. A.-Appointment of Committee--Surrender of Lease.—Where a lunatic
was entitled to a lease for seven, fourteen, or twenty-one years, which it was desirable to surrender at the expiration of the seven years, and the intended committee's security could not be completed in time for notice to be given to determine the tenancy, the Court appointed the lanatic's wife committee of the lunatic's interest under the lease, and
authorized her to give the notice.-Re Lambert, 40 L.T. 205. (ii.) C. A.-Deceased Lunatic-Cost of Proceedings-25 & 26 Vict., c. 86,
8. 11.-Where costs have been properly incurred for the protection of a lunatic and his estate, the Court has jurisdiction to order such costs to be paid out of the lunatic's estate, though the lanatic has died before the appointment of a committee, and there are no funds in Court.- Re
Meares, 18 L.J. Ch. 190; 40 L.T. 111; 27 W.R. 369. (iv.) C. A.-Infant-Ward of Court-Jurisdiction.- The High Court of
Justice and the Lancaster Palatine Court have jurisdiction to entertain applications respecting infants wards of Court, though they may be of unsound mind.-Re Edwards, McNeile v. Chambers, 48 L.J. Ch. 233; 40 L.T. 113.
Market: (ii.) Q. B. Div.-Negligence-Duty of Owner of Market.—The owners of a
market for the sale of cattle erected some iron railings near the site in the market which plaintiff occupied and paid a toll for, which were of insufficient height, and in consequence, a cow of plaintiff's was killed : Held that plaintiff was entitled to recover damages.—Lax v. Mayor of Darlington, 48 L.J. Q.B. 143 ; 40 L.T. 64; 27 W.R. 338.
Master and Servant:(iv.) C. A.-Hiring--Contract not to be Performed within a Year-Statute of
Frauds.- Plaintiff entered defendant's service under a verbal contract for a year, to commence two days after the day on which the contract was made, and before the expiration of the year was dismissed : Held that the contract was within Sec. 4 of the Statate of Frauds, that no new contract could be implied, and that the principles of equity as to part performance were not to be extended to contracts of this nature. Brittain v. Rossiter, 40 L.T. 240; 27 W.R. 4$2.
Mines: (vi.) P. C.-Injury to Neighbour's Land-Measure of Damages.-In an action
for injury to property by a mining company in the exercise of their rights : Held that in estimating the amount of compensation, the jury could properly consider the further injury which might result from the operations already carried out.---Great Laxey Mining Co. v. Clague, L.R. 4 App. 115; 27 W.R. 417.
Mortgage :(xviii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Auctioneer Mortgagee-Sale Commission.—An
auctioneer took an absolnte assignment of chattels under a bill of sale by way of mortgage, and afterwards conducted the sale of the chattels by auction, ander an agreement with another incumbrancer : Held that he was entitled to charge the usual commission on the sale.—Miller v. Beal,
27 W.R. 403. (xix.) C. A.-Attornment Clause-Distress-Bills of Sale Act, 1854.-A mortgage
was executed in 1875 by a company to secure the balance of its account at a bank limited to £50,000, and the mortgagor attorned yearly tenant to the mortgagee, at the annual rent of £5,000 : subsequently the mortgagees levied a distress, and seized chattels which realized less than £5,000: the deed was not registered as a bill of sale, and a winding-up order was made shortly afterwards : Held that the mortgagees were entitled to retain the proceeds of sale of the chattels.—Re Stockton
Ironworks Co., L.R. 10 Ch. D. 335; 40 L.T. 19; 27 W.R. 433. (xx.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Mortgage of Trust Fund—Notice-Priority.--A
notice by an incumbrancer of a trust fund to the solicitor of the trustees of the fund is a good notice to the trustees.-Saffron Walden Building
Society v. Rayner, 27 W.R. 449. (xxi.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.--Trust for Sale—Express Trust of Surplus
Statute of Limitations.-A mortgage, in the form of a trust for sale, con. tained a trust of the surplus proceeds for the mortgagor : the mortgagee entered and retained possession for 27 years without acknowledging the mortagagor's title: on the mortgagees death, the trustees under his will sold and conveyed the property under the trust for sale, having previously consulted persons claiming under the mortgagor as second mortgagees, as to the mode sa Held that the trustees had acknowledged the title of the second mortgagees, and that there was a trust of the surplus proceeds, so as to prevent the operation of the statute of limitations against the mortgagor.—Johnson v. Mounsey, 40 L.T. 93 ; 27 W.R. 389.
Municipal Law :-(vi.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Expenses of Opposing Bill in Parliament—5 8 6
Will. IV., c. 76, s. 92 ; 35 & 36 Vict., c. 91, s. 8.—A manicipal corpora. tion may defray, out of the borough funds or rates, the expenses of opposing a Bill in Parliament attacking either their existence as a corporation, their property, or their rights and powers.-Attorney-General v. Mayor of Brecon, L.R. 10 Ch. D. 204; 48 L.J. Ch. 153; 40 L.T. 52 ; 27 W.R. 332.
New South Wales, Law of:(i.) P. C.-Mortgage-Notice to Pay-Excessive Demand.--A notice under
sec. 55 of (Colonial Statute) 26 Vict., No. 9, is not bad because it demands more than is due to the mortgagee.—Campbell v. Commercial Banking Co., 40 L.T. 137.
Parent and Child :(i.) Ch. Div. M. R.- Advancement, Mother— Presumption.-- Where a
mother makes a purchase or investment in the name of her child or in the joint names of herself and child, that does not afford the presumption of advancement.--Bennet v. Bennet, L.R. 10 Ch. D. 474.
Partnership (x.) C. A.-Articles - Construction-Good-will.- Partnership articles pro
vided that on a partner ceasing to be a member, accounts should be adjusted by payment to him of the sum found due on taking a general account of the stock and other estate and effects of the partnership, when a fair valuation should be made of all the particulars in their nature susceptible of valuation : Held that the good-will onght not to be
included in the valuation.-Steuart v. Gladstone, 40 L.T. 145. (xi.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Contract—Express Stipulation against Partner.
ship.-Although a contract contains an express stipulation that it is not to be construed into a partnership, and is only to relate to the particular transaction contemplated, yet if it confers privileges and liabilities usually incident to partnership, as between the parties themselves and with respect to the particular transaction, an interest arises which by
law enures as a partnership.-Moore v. Davis, 27 W.R. 335. (xii.) C. A.-Dissolution-Sale of Business—Name of Firm.-A partnership
between Miss A. and Miss B. carried on under the name of A. and B. in London was dissolved by order of the Court, and the business sold to B. A. married C. and they started a similar basiness in Paris under name of A. and Co.: Held that B. could not be restrained by C. and A. from carrying on business under the style of A. and B.-Levy v. Walker,
L.R. 10 Ch. D. 436; 39 L.T. 654; 27 W.R. 370. (xiii.) C. A.-Loss from Partner's Negligence-Arbitration-Assent.-T., the
managing partner of a colliery, having received notice from an adjoining owner that the workings were being carried on beyond the boundary, continued to carry on the workings, and an action was commenced against him, which he referred to arbitration, and damages were assessed at £6,000 : Held on anaction by T. against the other partners, that though they did not know of the reference till after it was agreed upon, they had by their subsequent acts assented to it; but that T. having acted with gross negligence in continuing the workings after notice, and without consulting the other partners, the other partners were not liable to contribute.—Thomas v. Atherton, L.R. 10 Ch. D. 185; 40 L.T. 77.
(v.) P. C.-Notice of Objection-Evidence. It is sufficient, prior to tendering
evidence of instances of anticipation, to state the grounds of objection to extension of letters patent without stating particulars of objections.
Re Ball's Patent, L.R. 4 App. 171; 27 W.R. 477. (vi.) P. C.-Presumption of Inutility-Prolongation.—Where the utility of a
patent has not been tested by actual employment, the question to be considered on an application for prolongation is, whether the evidence is sufficient to rebut the presumption of its inutility arising from its
non-use.—Re Hughes' Patent, L.R. 4 App. 174. (vii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.--Specification-Part not Novel.-Held that a
patent was bad for want of novelty, on the ground that the specification contained a claim for a part of the machine patented, which was not novel.- Roberts v. Heywood, 27 W.R. 454.