« PreviousContinue »
(viii.) C. A.-Winding-up-Contributory-Director— Allotment.--A director
who never applied for shares attended a meeting at which a previous allotment of shares, including shares allotted to him which he did not know of, was confirmed, and his name was found on the register when the Company was ordered to be wound up: Held that he was entitled to have his name struck off the list of contributories.— Re Wincham Ship
building Co., Hallmark's Case, 26 W.R. 824. (ix.) C. A.--Winding-up--Contributory-Director-Fraudulent Reference.
Directors of a company were liable to a bank on their personal guarantee for the over-drafts of the company, and were holders of shares on which nothing had been paid : the bank, having recovered judgment against them in respect of their guarantee, they paid the amounts due on their shares into the bank in reduction of the balance due from the company : Held that the payment was made bonâ fide, and must be allowed in the winding-ap.-— Re Wincham Shipbuilding Co., Poole, Jackson, and White's
Case, 26 W.R. 823. (x.) C. A.-Winding-up-Contributory-Past Members—Power to Com.
promise.— A life assurance company's deed contained powers to alter the
Re Norwich Provident Insurance Society, 47 L.J. Ch. 601. (xi.) C. A.-Winding-up-Contributory-- Purchase of Shares by Company
Ultra Vires. The deed of the N. Insurance Company, whose capital was in £10 shares, provided that every instrument whereby the company became liable to pay money, should contain a clause limiting the liability of the shareholders to the amounts payable on their shares, and that the company might at a general meeting purchase the business of any other company of a like nature : the N. company resolved to purchase the business of the C. company, whose capital was, in £50 shares and £5 paid up, and whose deed contained no power to sell : the C. company's shares were bought by the N. company and transferred to its officers, and by a deed not sanctioned at a general meeting, the shares were transferred to the N. company, which was entered in the C. company's register: Held that the transfer was ultra vires, and that the N. company could not be pnt on the list of contributories of the C. company. -Ex parte British Nation Association, Re European Society Arbitration,
L.R. 8 Ch. D. 679. (xii.) H. L.-Winding-up-Contributory- Registration of Contract, Estoppel.
-Where a company issues certificates of shares as fully paid-up, it is estopped as against a transferee without notice, from alleging that they have not been paid for in cash, and so is the official liquidator.
Burkinshaw v. Nicholls, 26 W.R. 819. (xiii.) C. A.-Winding-up--Contributory- Registration of Contract.– News
paper proprietors agreed to take 100 fully paid-up shares to be paid for by future advertisements of the prospectus of a company, and in return sent a receipt for their advertising account: the transaction was not registered : Held that they must be put on the list of contributories for 100 shares.-Andress's Case, Re Church and Empire Insurance Co.,
47 L.J. Ch. 679. (xiv.) C. A.-Winding-up-Contributory- Registration of Contract.-A. sold
property to a company, which was paid for partly in shares issued as fully paid-up, but the contract was not registered. He afterwards
transferred some of the shares to B. for valuable consideration, B. having notice of the circumstances under which the shares were issued : Held, on the winding-up, that B. must contribute in respect of these
shares.---Re British Farmers' Co., Potter and Brown's Case, 26 W.R. 839. (xv.) C. A.-Winding-up-Comtributory- Registration of Contract.—30 g. 31
Vict., c. 131, s. 25.-A company, having agreed to purchase property partly for paid-up shares, à contract was sent to be registered, but owing to a mistake the registratiou was delayed, and the allotment of shares took place before registration: no certificates of the shares were issued, or registration of the shareholders made, till after the registration of the contract: the allottee, however, executed transfers of some of the shares : Held, on the winding-up of the company, that the shares were paid up, and the allottee could not be made a contributory Clarke's Case, Re Ambrose Lake Mining Co., L.R. 8 Ch. D. 635 ;
47 L.J. Oh. 696. (xvi.) C. A.-Winding-up-Payment of Debts—Income Tax-Priority.—In the
winding-ap of a company under the Companies Act, 1862, the Crown has a right to payment of all arrears of income tax in priority to other
debts.- Re Henley & Co., 39 L.T. 53; 26 W.R. 885. (xvii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Winding-up-Payment of Debts-Secured Creditors
--Judicature Act, 1875, s. 10.-Execution creditors issned a fi. fa. against a company, under which the sheriff seized: but a petition was presented three days after for winding up the company, and on receiving notice of the winding-up order, the sheriff withdrew from possession: Held, that the execution creditors were entitled to no priority in the payment of their debt. - Re Printing and Numerical Registration Company,
L.R. 8 Ch. D. 535; 47 L.J. Ch. 580. (xviii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Winding-up-Petition-Companies Act, 1867,
8. 40.-A petition for winding-up may be presented by persons who have obtained a decree ordering the company to allot them shares, though they have not been registered as shareholders at the time of presentation.
-Re Patent Steam Engine Co., 26 W.R. 811. (xix.) C. A.-Winding-up-Rent-Distress—Companies Act, 1862, s. 163.
A distress for rent accrued due before commeucement of winding-up and levied afterwards by a person who cannot prove in the winding-up, is good.-Re Regent United Service Stores, L.R. 8 Ch. D. 616, 47 L.J.
Ch. 677. (xx.) C. A.-Winding-up Voluntarily— Return of Registrar-Jurisdiction.
-After the completion of a voluntary winding-up, and the expiration of three months from registration of the return made by the Registrars of Joint Stock Companies of the holding of the final meeting, the Court has no jurisdiction, in the absence of fraud, to make a winding-up order.-
Re Pinto Silver Mining Co., 47 L.J. Ch. 591. (xxi.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Winding-up Voluntarily-Return of Registrar
Jurisdiction. Same decision as (xx).- Re Westbourne Grove Drapery Co.,
39 L.T. 30. Copyright:(i.) H. L.-Dramatic Copyright-Infringement—Facts left to Judge—3 & 4
Will. 4, c. 15, s. 2.--To support an action for infringement of dramatic copyright, the taking some substantial part of plaintiff's production by defendant, must be proved. Where by agreement the case was withdrawn from the jury and left to the judge : Held that on motion for new trial or to enter verdict for plaintiffs, the judge might explain to the Court the reasons and meaning of his finding.--Chatterton v. Cave, 47 L.J. C.P. 545.
County Court: (i.) Ex. Div.-Arbitration-Appeal-9 & 10 Vict., c. 95, s. 77 ; 13 & 14
Vict., c. 61, s. 14.–The decision of a County Court Judge refusing to set aside an award under the County Court Act, 1846, s. 77, is final.—Mayer
v. Farmer, L.R. 3 Ex. D. 235. Crimes and Offences :(i.) Q. B. Div.-Adulteration-Notice to Purchaser-38 & 39 Vict., c. 63,
s. 6.- Where the seller of an article brings to the purchaser's knowledge the fact that the article sold is not of the nature of the article demanded, the sale is not to the prejudice of the purchaser within the meaning of section 6 of Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875.-Sandys v. Small, L.R.
3 Q.B.D. 449; 26 W.R. 814. (ii.) C. A.-Obscene Book-Indictment.--In an indictment for publishing an
obscene book, the words alleged to be obscene must be set out, and if not, the defect will not be cured by a verdict of guilty.–Bradlaugh v.
The Queen, L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 607. (iii.) Q. B. Div.--Obscene Book-Order for Destruction—2 & 3 Vict., c. 71,
S. 49; 20 & 21 Vict., c. 83, s. 1.--The omission of the magistrate, making an order for the destruction of obscene books, to state that he was satisfied that such books were of such a character and description that the publication of them would be a misdemeanour and proper to be prosecuted as such is a substantial objection to the order, and such order may be brought up on certiorari notwithstanding, 2 & 3 Vict., c. 71, s. 49.
-Ex parte Brodlaugh, L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 509. (iv.) C. P. Div.-- Penalty-Common Informer-Corporation.-By an act
regulating the sale of coal, it was provided that penalties for offences therennder should be recoverable by action of debt by the person or persons who should inform or sue for the same : Held that a corporation not expressly empowered, could not bring an action as common iuformers under the Act.---Guardians of St. Leonards, Shoreditch v. Franklin, L.R.
3 C.P.D. 337; 26 W.R. 882. Debtor and Creditor :(i.) C. P. Div.--Acknowledgement of Debt-Statute of Limitations—9 Geo. 4,
c. 14, s. 1.-Defendant, in answer to a demand for a debt incurred in 1865, wrote, in 1874, "I never lose sight of my obligations towards you, and shall be glad, as soon as my position becomes somewhat better, to begin again with my instalments:" Held that at the most this only amonnted to a conditional promise.---Meyerhoff v. Froehlich, L.R. 3
C.P.D. 333. (ii.) Q. B. Div.- Attachment of Debt--Existing Debt.-A. gave B. a cheque
in respect of a debt due : C. subsequently obtained an order attaching this debt in respect of a judgment debt due from B., and served the order on A., who stopped payment of the cheque before it was presented : Held that there was an existing debt at the time of making the order
which could be attached.—Cohen v. Hale, 47 L.J. Q.B. 496; 39 L.T. 35. (iii.) C. A.-Creditor's Deed—No Communication. Where a debtor conveys
property by a voluntary deed to one of his creditors on trust to pay his debts, a creditor, not a party to the deed, and who does not allege that the deed was communicated to him, cannot maintain an action for the administration of the trusts thereof.--Johns v. James, L.R. 8 Ch.D. 744;
39 L.T. 54; 26 W.R. 821. (iv.) Ch. Diy. V. C. M.-Creditors' Deed-No Communication Revo.
cation.-By a trust deed executed by a debtor, certain monies assured on certain policies on his life were directed to be held by trustees who were creditors as security for the payment to creditors, parties to the deed, of
the debts mentioned. S., one of the creditors, never executed the deed, nor was it communicated to him : Held that after debtor's death his executors could revoke the trusts as against S.-Re Sanders' Trusts,
47 L J. Ch. 667. (v.) C.A.-Equitable Assignment—Building Contract.-G. contracted with
defendant to build a ship, to be paid for by instalments : before completion, G. gave plaintiff an order on defendant to pay plaintiff £100 out of moneys to become due under the contract, of which order defendant had noticg: subsequently defendant made advances to G. to an amount greater than that due under the contract, to enable G. to complete the contract: Held that the order was a good equitable assign. inent of the money when it became due, and defendant could not set off the advances to G. against plaintiff's claim.--Brice v. Bannister, L R. 3
Q.B.D. 569. (vi.) C. A.-Illegal Consideration-Gaming Debt-5 8 6 Will. 4, c. 41, s. 1.-
Money lent to a man to pay a bet already lost is not money knowingly lent or advanced for gaming within sec 1 of 5 & 6 Will. 4., C. 41.-
Ex parte Pyke, Re Lister, L.R. 8 Ch. D. 754; 38 L.T. 923; 26 W.R. 806. (vii.) C, A.-Sequestration - Judge's Pension--15 & 16 Vict., c. 54, s. 15— 32
33 Vict., c. 62, s. 5—Ord. 47.-Order 47 enables a writ of sequestration to be issued against the estate of judgment debtor who has disobeyed an order under section 5 of Debtor's Act, 1869, for payment of a debt by instalments. The pension of a County Court judge may be attached by
such an order.-Willcock v. Terrell, 39 L.T. 84. Defamation: (i.) C. P. Div.---Libel-Injunction to Restrain Publication.--The Court has
power to restrain by injunction the future publication of matter injurious to the plaintiff's trade which a jury has found to be libellous.-Sarbo v.
Easterbrook, L.R. 3 C.P.D. 339. (ii.) C. P. Div.-Libel-- Privilege-Fair Report.-A fair report in a news
paper of ex parte proceedin'zs before a magistrate for a summons under the Masters and Servants Act, 1867, is privileged, although the magis. trate decide that he has no jurisdiction.—Usill v. Hales, L.R. 3 C.P.D 319.
Domicil:(i.) C. A.-Abandonment Animus Revutendi. - The expressions of a
foreigner engaged in trade in England of an intention to return to his native country when he has ma le his fortune, are not sufficient to prevail against the evidence of intention to be gathered from his conduct, if otherwise this would be sufficient to constitute an abandonment of
domicil.-- Doucet v. Geoghegan, 26 W.R. 825. Easement:(i.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Light ană Air--Agreement - Notice.-An agree.
ment between adjacent owners provided for the enjoyment of a certain window without obstruction : a purchaser for value of the servient tenement without notice, but knowing of the window, held, bound by
the covenant.-Allen v. Seckham, 47 L.J. Ch. 742. (ii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Right of Way.--Defendant agreed to grant a lease
of a piece of ground to plaintiff for purpose of erecting a workshop thereon: there was only one access to the land, by means of a paved roadway through a yard belonging to defendant, and in the agreement it was stipulated that plaintiff should not obstruct the gateway of the yard except for purposes of ingress and egress : Held that plaintiff had an unrestricted right of way through the gateway and over the yard.Cannon v. Villurs, 47 L.J. Ch. 597; 38 L.T. 939.
(iii.) C. A.-Right of Way-Inclosure-8 & 9 Vict., c. 118, ss. 16-68.--H. sold
land to defendant, reserving any allotments to be made in respect thereof of waste lands about to be inclosed, and he afterwards sold the inclosed allotments to plaintiff : before the inclosure a trackway existed over this land, which had been used by the occupiers of defendant's land for more than 40 years: the award did not set out this track way: Held that it was extinguished.--Crush v. Turner, L.R. 3 Ex. D. 303; 47 L.J. Ex. 636 ;
26 W.R. 900. (iv.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Right of Way-Statutory Powers—24 & 25 Vict.,
c. 45, s. 11.-Under the authority of a general order made ander 24 & 25 Vict., c. 45, and confirmed by a special Act, plaintiffs erected a pier so as to obstruct an alleged public right of way: Held that as the statutory powers authorised the erection of a pier so as to render the existence of the right of way inconsistent with that of the pier, the right of way must be deemed to have been taken away by the powers.—Corporation
of Yarmouth v. Simmons, 38 L.T. 881 ; 26 W.R. 802. Ecclesiastical Law:(i.) C. A.-Mortgage of Pew Rents—13 Eliz., c. 20.--A mortgage of pew
rents of a consolidated chapel, paid to the churchwardens on trust to pay the expenses of the chapel and hand over the surplus to the vicar, is void under 13 Eliz., c. 20.-Ex parte Arrowsmith, Re Levison, 47 L.J.
Bcy. 46. Evidence:(i.) Q. B. Div.-Admissibility-Order to Pay-Assignment-Stamp-33 &
34 Vict., c. 97.-T., who was building a steam launch for J., and was indebted to R., wrote to J.-"I hereby assign to R. the sum of £40 or any other sum now or hereafter to become due in respect of the steam launch, to hold same at R.'s disposal, R.'s receipt to be a sufficient discharge : " Held not an order to pay, but an assignment, and admissible in evidence on payment of duty and penalty.—Buck v. Robson, 26 W.R.
804. (ii.) P. D. A. Div.-Admissibility--Ship’s Log.- Entries made in a ship's
log by the mate, and signed by him and the captain two days after collision, cannot be used on behalf of the ship after the death of both
mate and captain.—The Henry Coxon, 38 L.T. 819. (iii.) C. A.-Lease -Counterpart—Presumption.-In an action for possession
of land, plaintiff alleged that defendant occupied under a lease the counterpart of wb was produced by plaintiff : Held that this was evidence of the execution of the lease, and, in the absence of other evidence, it would be presumed that defendants occupied under the
lease.—Magdelen Hospital v. Knotts, L.R. 8 Ch. D. 709. Fishery :(i.) H. L. - Salmon Fishings-Erection on Foreshore.-Held that the raising
of the embankment on the foreshore of a river by an inferior heritor in order to prevent overflow did not constitute an illegal obstruction within the Salmon Fishery Acts, though it might to some extent delay salmon
in ascending the river.--Duke of Sutherland v. Ross, L.R. 3 App. 736. (ii.) H. L.-Several Fishery--Evidence--Question for Jury.-A claim of
several fishery was founded on a grant from the Crown in 1660: Held under the circumstances that the case ought to have been left to the
jury as a question of fact.-Bristow v. Cormican, L.R. 3 App. 641. Highway :(i.) Ex. Div.-Obstruction—Frightening Horse-Injury to Driver. - De.
fendant left a van by the side of a highway, four or five feet from the metalled way,
and as H. was driving past, his horse, which was a kicker,