Page images

though H. did not know it, shied and kicked, so that II. fcll out, was kicked, and died in consequence: the jury found that the van was left there unreasonably and negligently, and that H.’s death was caused by the van standing there and the vice of the horse combined: Held that H.’s executors were entitled to a verdict under Lord Campbell's Act.—Hm-1-is v. Mobbs, L.R. 3 Ex. D. 268.

[ocr errors]

21 .§' 22 Vict., c. 98, s. 4-1.—Section 4-1 of the Local Government Act, 1858, does not empower a local board to take upon themselves the repair or alteration of a longitudinal section of a- turnpike road: no damages done by a local board in repairing u turnpike road under that section can

-be the subject of arbitration under the Public Health Act, 184-8.—Nutfer

v. Accrington Local Board, 47 L.J. Q.B. 521.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

C. A,——Diuorce——Costs of Suit.——Where a suit has been properly instituted by a wife for a divorce on the. ground of adultery and cruelty, the husband is liable to her solicitor for fair and reasonable costs as between solicitor and client, incurred in the suit, though snch costs have been

disallowed on the party and party taxation.—Ottaway v. Hamilton, 38 L.T. 925; 26 W.R. 783.

[ocr errors]


parties to a divorce suit, material facts which might have been adduced in support of a counter-charge against the petitioner are withheld from the Court, although such facts might not have established the counteroharge, such agreement will amount to collusion.—Hunt v. Hunt, 39 L.T. 4-5.

[ocr errors]

(iv.) P. D. A. DiV.—Divo'rce——Foreign. Su,bject—20 §‘ 21 Vict., c. 85, s. 27.


—The Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery and desertion in England against u

foreign subject resident in England as a consular eflicer of his own _

country: and his having formerly presented a petition for dissolution in the same Court, which was abandoned, does not constitute a submission to the jurisdiction.—N1Iboyet v. Niboyet, L.R. 3 P.D. 52; 4:7 L.J. l’.D.A. 49.

P. D. A. DiV.—Divorce—Settlement—-—Variu,tion.——-The fact that pro. cecdings are pending in the Chancery Div. for administering the trusts of a settlement is no answer to a petition for variation of its provisions ; nor will a delay of five years after divorce disentitle the petitioner to relief: the Court ordered the income of settled property to be paid to the wife and children, although in the settlement an absolute discre. tionary power was given to the trustees to dispose of the income for benefit of husband, wife, and children, in the event of the husband's bankruptcy, which had taken place.—-Marsh v. Marsh 47 L.J. P.D.A. 34; 39 L.T. 107.

P, D, A. DiV_—Dicorce—Seitlement—Vm-ialicm-Decree Nisi—Injunc. tion. A husband having obtained a decree nis-i for divorce, gave instructions to his solicitor to file a petition for the variation of an alleged post-nuptial settlement, under which the respondent had possessed herself of £3,000 with which she bought a. house : it appearing that she was about to dispose of the house, the Court granted an injunction restraining her from doing so.—Noakes v. Noakes, 39 L.T. 47.

(vii.) Ch, Div, V, C, M, —Equity to Settlement-—Life Interest.—The Court

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

has power to give the wife an equity to a settlement of the whole of a life interest as against the assignee in insolvency of the husband.Tazmton v. Morris, 47 L.J. Ch. 721. '

P. D. A. DiV.—J'udicia.Z Separation—Custorly of C]t‘I:ld'T€1I-—'Jl1dl'Cl8,l separation having been decreed on wife’s petition, husband and wife were both at time of marriage Roman Catholics, but husband had since become Protestant, and children had been placed at a Protestant school. The Court committed the custody of the children to the mistress of the school with leave for both parents to have full access to them.——1)’Alt0n v. D'Alt¢m, 47 L.J. P.D.A. 59.

[ocr errors]

P. D. A. DiV.—NulZit'y of Marria,ge—Res|'dence in Scotland for 21 do/ys—19 Q‘ 20 Vict., c. 96, s. 1.——Two persons domiciled in England left Lon-You on the 30th June and arrived in Edinburgh the next morning, where they were married on the 21st July, having been in Scotland during the interval: on evidence being given that the Scotch law requireduresidence of 21 whole days in the country to render a marriage valid, decree of nullity of marriage was pr0uounced.—La-wford v. Davies, 47 L.J. P.D.A. 38; 39 L.T. 111.

P, D, A, Div,—Restitution—Com-prom'ise.—A wife who agrees to stay proceedings in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights on certain terms, will be bound by the agreeu1ent.—Sfanes v. Stanes, L.R. 8 P.D. 42; 39 L.T. 46.

P, D, A, Div,—Restitution—Foreign Domt'ct'l—Serv‘ice—20 §" 21 Vict., c. 85, s. 42.—The Court has no power to order service out of the jurisdiction of a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, and the wife of a man not domiciled in England cannot maintain a suit for restitution if her husband has left the jurisdiction before the commencement of proceedings.—Firebrace v. Firebrace, 47 L J . P.D.A. 41; 39 L.T. 94-.

Q. B. DLV.-Sepa/mtion Deed-—Nccessar-ies.—A husband and wife had executed a separation deed, whereby the income of property settled on the wife at the marriage, and a small allowance from the husband, was secured for the support of the wife and her children, and the wife covenanted that she would not apply for further assistance: Held that the wife could not pledge the husband's credit for necessaries, even though the income secured to her should prove insufficient for her support.—-Eastla-nd v. Burchell, L.R. 3 Q,.B.D. 432; 417 L.J. Q.B. 500.


C. A.—Wife’s Chose 1'/n Acti0n—-Reduction into Possassion.—A. sold his wifo’s share in an intestate's estate to B., a solicitor, who conducted a suit for the administration thereof : the executors of A., who predeceased his wife, instituted a suit to set aside the sale on the ground of conceal. meut by B. of the true value of the share: Held that the wife's chose in action had been reduced into possession by A., and that the right to avoid the sale survived to his execut0rs.——-Wid-gery v. Tepper, 4.-7 L.J.

Ch. 550.

India, Law of :— (i-) P. C.—P0we'|'s of Legislatm-e——Incl1'an High Courts Act, 1861—Act XXII.

of 1869.——Act XXII. of 1869 of India is not inconsistent with 24 & 25 Vict., c. 10 L, or with the Charter of the High Court, and is within the legislative powers of the Governor-General in Couucil.—-Regma. v. Burch, L.R. 3 App. 889.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

C. A.—G'uasts Gomis-—lVr0ngful Convcrsi<m.—-B. bought horses and carriages of plaintiff and took them to defendant's inn, where he was entertained for a long time : he never paid for the horses and carriages, and absconded owing defendant his bill, and leaving the horses and carriages with him: subsequently, he re-assigned the horses and carriages to plaintifi; but defendant refused to give them up till B.'s bill was paid, and afterwards sold the horses : Held that defendant had a general lien on the horses and carriages for the whole of B.’s bill; but that the sale of the horses was a wrongful conversion, for which the plaintifi could maintain an action, and that the measure of damages was the value of the horses.—M11.ll' v. Florence, L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 4-84.

Insurance :

[ocr errors]

Ch. Div. M. R.——L|fe Assurance—Assignm.ent—-Payment into Cou/rt.—
An assurance company is not a trustee but a debtor, and is not justified
in paying policy-monies into Court under the Trustee Relief Act.-
Matfhew v. Northern Assurance Company, 47 L.J. Ch. 562.

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

randum of agreement for a lease was signed by both parties but did not state when the lease was to commence: Held that the agreement was valid within the Statute of Frauds, and that the term commenced from the date of the mem0randum.——Jaques v. Millar, 47 L.J. Ch. 54.-4.

Ch. Div, V. C. M,—Ag1reement for Lea..<e—Mistake—Quiet Enjoy. ment.—A. agreed t-o take an underlease for whatever term B. held. By mistake the under-lease was made for seven years longer than that B. held, and nearly at the end of B.'s term his executors discovered the mistake and told A. that he must give up possession at the end of B.’s term ; whereupon A. procured a fresh lease from the landlord at an increased rent : Held that A. could not recover damages on that account, and that there had been no breach of the covenant in the nnderlease for quiet enjoyment.-Besley v. Besley, 38 L.T. 844.

H. L,—-Lease—Covenant—Alteration of Property by Lessee.——A lease of premises described as stores for a term of which 900 years was unexpired, contained a covenant to “ preserve, support, maintain, and keep the premises and all improvements in good repair :" Held that the reversioner was not entitled to an injunction to restrain the lessee from converting the premises into dwelling-houses, it appearing that the security for the rent would be thereby increased.—Dohe1-ty v. Allman, L.R.. 3 App. 709.

C. A__—Lease—Coi-ena/nt—Qu.iet Enjoyment_—When, after granting a lease of premises for a. special purpose, an Act has been passed which renders it illegal to use the premises for that purpose, the refusal to permit them to be so used is not a breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment, and a covenant to keep the premises in proper repair and condition for the special purpose, relates only to the physical condition, and does not impose on the lessor any obligation to put them in a condition to be used for the special purpose in accordance with the Act.——NewI-y v. Sharpe, 4-7 L.J. Ch. 617.

C. P. Div.-—Lease—Covmumt to Pay Ratos—D1m'naga E'.vpenses—38§‘39 Vict., c. 55.-—-A covenant to pay rent without deduction except land and property tax, and to pay all rates, taxes, and charges imposed during the term on the premises or in respect thereof: Held not to make lessee liable for expenses of drainage incurred by landlord in consequence of a requisition under the Public Health Act to abate a nnisance.——Rau*lins v. Bi;/gs, L.R. 3 C.P.D. 368; 4-7 C.P. 487.


(vi.) B. DiV,—Lerzse— Covenant not to use as Beer-sh0p.——A lease contained a covenant by the lessee not to allow the premises to be used as a beer-shop : Held that the selling beer by retail to he consumed ofi the premises was a breach of the covenant.—Bishop of St. Albans v. Battersby, 47 L.J. Q.B. 571.

(vii.) H, L.——Lease—Io-on Mi1w—Poor Rate—37 Jr 38 Vict., c. 54-, s. 8.—The lease of an iron mine, made before the passing of the Rating Act, 1874, contained a covenant by the lessee to pay all manner of taxes, rates, assessments, charges, and impositions then or thereafter during the continuance of the lease to be imposed upon the premises, landlord's pro. perty tax excepted : He ld that the lessee had not specifically contracted to pay the whole of the poor-rate on the mine in the event of the abolition of its exemption within the meaning of 37 & 38 Vict., c. 54-, s. 8.—C'hal01wr v. Bolcl-‘ow, 47 L.J. C.P. 662.

C. P. DiV.—Notice to Quit—Qua1-ter Da.y.——A six month’s notice to determine a yearly tenancy commencing on one of the usual quarter days, means a notice from one such quarter-day to the next but one following.—Morgran v. Davies, 39 L.T. 60; 26 W.R. 816.

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

(ii.) Ch, Div. V, C. M.—Investment—Metmpolitan S!ock—34 §" 35 Vict., c. 47, s. 15.—Purchase-money paid into Court under the Lands Clauses Act ordered to be invested in Metropolitan Consolidated Stock.—Re Readhead’s Trusts, 39 L.T. 60.

(iii.) C. A_.——Part of House or other Bu€Zd|'ng.—Held, that premises consisting of a house and shop, with a manufactory at the back, adjoining to a. cottage, which was used as a store-room, constituted one house within section 92 of the Act, and that a company, having given notice to treat as to the cottage, might be compelled to take the whole premises.— Richards v. Swansea Improvements Co., 38 L.T. 833.

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

(i.) C. A,—Ju1*isdictio1t—Cou.nter—Jmlicatu-re Act, 1873, s. 90.Where an action has been brought in an inferior Court, and a counter. claim is set up which is beyond its jurisdiction, the Court has power to deal with the counter-.claim to the extent of the amount of the plaintiff’! claim ouly.—Davis v. Flagsta_fl' Silver Mining Company, 47 L.J. C.P. 503.

[ocr errors]

(i.) C, A_—-Pauq>er—Mainten1mce.-The Court has no jurisdiction, on the death of a pauper lunatic, to interfere with the rightof his administrator by ordering payment of the expenses of his maintenance out of a fund in Court to which he had been entitled.—Re Ma/rma.n’s Trusts, 88 L.T. 797.

Market :—

[ocr errors]

to a Saturday market, a right to compel butchers to close their shops on Saturday and sell only in the market, or else to make payments in place of stallage might legally exist as incident to the market, and that there was sutficient evidence of enjoyment to establish such right.-—Mayor of Penryn v. Best, L.1{. 3 Ex. D. 292; 38 L.T. 805.

Master and Servant :—

(i-) Q. B. DiV.—-Dismissul—l’roceedings in County Court—Res jud.n'cata.—38 .§' 39 Vict., c. 90, ss. 3, 4.—Appellant having been discharged by respondents for neglect of work, and they having refused to pay wages in lieu of notice, he took proceedings in the County Court against them and recovered: Held that respondents were not precluded from pre

ferring a claim before justices against appellant for damaging materials. ——Hind.ley v. Ilaslam, L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 481.

Metropolitan Management :—

(i.) B. DiV.—(''on of Sewm-—Apporh'onment—25 §‘ 26 Vict., c. 102, s. 53.—Where a sewer had been constructed, in 1868, and no apportionment of the costs of construction among the owners of houses in the street was made till 1876 : Held that the apportionment was valid. -—Bradle*y v. Greenwich Board of Works, 38 L.T. 8&9.

(ii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-—-Pa/rty-wall ~ U-ndermining—18 Jr‘ 19 Vict., c. 122.Defendant dug beneath and undermined the wall which separated his own premises from those adjoining for the purpose of making altem. tious: notice was served on the adjoining owner, under the Metropolitan Building Act, 1855, and a suzveyor appointed on each side, but they had not appointeda. third surveyor: Held that defendant was acting within his rights as tenant in common of the wall and as adjoining owner under the Act, but that he should have waited till the appointment of the third surveyor, and must therefore pay the costs of a motion for injunction.—Standard Bank of British South Africa. v. St0kes,47 L.J. Ch. 554.

(iii.) C. A.—— Vesrryn1an—QualijZcation.—Defemlant occupied premises jointly with his father: a rate was made on the father only : defendant asked to have his name put on the rate, which was not done : afterwards he was nominated as vestryman, was declared elected and sat and voted, and subsequently was entered on the rate-book and paid the rate : Held that he was not qualified and liable to penalty.—Goodhew v. Williams, L.R. 3 C.P.D. 882.

[ocr errors]

(i.) Ch. Div. F. J'.——Agreement — Construction — Winning -— E'.rpenses -Profits.—M. granted to T. a license to work mines under an estate, and first to repay himself out of the profits, the expenses incurred in the winning of the coal only, and then to pay M. a certain proportion of the profits: Held that “ winning " meant only the performance of all conditions necessary to the continuous working of the coal, and no expenses incurred afterwards were winning expenses: that interest of -l per cent. should be allowed on the winning expenses, and that the profits arising

« PreviousContinue »