« PreviousContinue »
such property in the name as to entitle him to restrain the owner of
Landlord and Tenant :—
Ch. Div. V. C. B.—Agreement for Lecse—Uncertain Term—Spec1fic Performa/nce.—-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 plaintili or raise his rent after he had laid out money on the premises: plaintifi 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, 4-7 L.J. Ch. 825.
C, P, Div,-——Lea-se—Agreem-eat for New Lease—Teruier of Rent— Defendant, having let five rooms to plaintifi 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. Plaiutifi tendered rent to defendant with the words: “Here is your rentz” Held, a good tender.—Jones v. Bridgeman, 89 L.T. 500.
Ch. Div. F. J'.--Underlease—Ea:eculor'y Agreemont—-Pleading Incon sistent Relie_f.—Plaintiff, who was about to take a renewed lease ofpremises, agreed to grant defendant a lease of them, such nnderlease 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 plaintifi to re-enter and eject. The renewed lease contained a covenant by lessee not to convert premises into a shop or afiix 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. & C0." 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 there
fore he was only entitled to the injunction and damages without costs.— Evans v. Davis, 39, L.T. 391.
Ch. Div. F. J.—Um1erlease by Act/mim'strator-—Assigmnent—Merger.— 0., 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 O. : in the first deed C. was described as administrator, but not in the second: Held that there was no merger in equity.—Chambera v. Kingha/m, 89 L.T. 472.
Ch. Div. M. R.——Pa/yment out of Deposit—Petitio'n by Ve'n.dor—Delay in Com4>leti'ng.—When a railway company has entered into posession of land and paid money into Court under sec. 85 of the Lands’ Clauses Act, 184-5, 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.B. 246.
Vic., c. 27, authorizing tho granting to him a license to sell beer by retail to be consumed oii the premises under 3 & 4 Vict., c. 61, omitted to state in the notice that he already hold 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.
applications for licenses for sale of beer, cider, and wine.—Regu'na v. Smith, 48 L.J. M.C. 38.
Master and Servant :—
(ii.) C. A..—-Negligimce-Common Em4_oloynwnt.—Plaintifi 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 emplcyment.—-Charles v. Ta/ylor, Walker, §' 00., L.R. 3 C.P.D. 492; 27 W-R. 32.
C. A.—Negl/ige'nce—Commo'n. Emqoloyment.-The signal service at a joint siding was managed at the joint expense of the North-Eastern dz 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.—Swainszm v. North-Eastern Rail. 00., L.R. 3 Ex. D. 34.1.
(xii.) C. A.——E'jectme'nl by Mortgagee—-Pend/ing Admim'strctlion.—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.—C"rowle v. Russell, 39 L.T. 320; 27 W.R. 84-.
(xiii.) Ch. Div, M. R,_—Estoppel—G'ranf——C0v0na-nt for Tifle.—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 0.: Held that no estoppel had been created in favour of B. as against C.—~Generctl Finance C0. v. Liberator Building Society, L.R. 10 Ch. D. 15; 27 W.R. 210.
(xiv.) Ch. Div. M. R.—Erecutor-—Relat'ner.—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 ovor 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.
Ch, Div, M, R,—-Foreclos-u,re—Heirship not p1'oved—Action dismissed. —-ludgment 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. —La'ncaste'r Ba/nking Company v. Cooper, L.R. 9 Ch. D. 594; 27 W.R. 164.
C. A.—Injunction—Parties—Act£on by Morlgagor.—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.— Fairclouyh v. Marshall, 39 L.T. 389; 27 W.R. 145.
£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 plaintifi 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 :
C, P, Div,-—Fees to Justices’ CZerk—Conviciim1 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.
C. A.—Local Board—Straet—Vesting—38 §‘ 89 Vict., c. 55, s. 149.—-
Ch. Div. F. J.-—R.ebuilding—Depos1'ting Plans~—Approva.l—-38 J‘ 89 Vict., c. 55.—'1‘he 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 £4.-0 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 olfered, 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.-1' . Ch. 797.
Ex, ])]'_V,——Ezca,vati0n 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: plaintilfs 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.
(ii.) Ch. Div. M. R.—Stay of Proceed/ings—ForecZosure—Prope1~ty 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 jurisdiotion.—Re Longdendale Colton Spinning Co., 4.-8 L.J. Ch. 54.
(ii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.—Sa.le—Disa,bihty—Person Authorised to Ask— 39 &' 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.. 14,9.
(v.) Ch, Div. V. C, M,—Articks—AccwMs—Variatio'n.—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 Oh. D. 98; 27 W.R. 186.
(vi.) C. A.—C0'nt1'act by Pwrme1rs—-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,—Lo¢m—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.—.E:v parte Delhasse, Re Megemmd, 47 L.J. Boy. 65.
(viii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.—P1-operty and Efl'ects—Goodwill.—Held that “goodwill” must be taken into account in estimating the value of the property and efiects of a partnership on a dissolution.—Rey-nolds v. Bullock, 47 L.J. Ch. 773; 89 L.T. 443.
(ix.) Ch. Div. M. R.—Settled Accounts-E1'ror—L1'berty to Surcha/rge and FaZsify.—-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 b0oks.—Gethi-ng v. Keighley, L.R. 9 Oh. D. 547; 48 L.J. Cb. 45.
(iii.) C. A,—Inf'r~i'ngeme-nt—Pr0pe'rt1_/ of Foreign Sovereign—Injunct1T0n.-—A foreign sovereign bought in Germany shells made there, and which were infringement 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.— Vavassewr v. Krupp,
(iv.) Ch, Div, M, R,-—Th1'ealened Infringement—Inj'unction.-—A patentoe can sustain an action for an injunction to restrain a threatened infringe.
ment of his patent, though no infringement has taken place.—F1-earson v. Loe, L.R.. 9 Ch. D. 418; 27 W.R. 183.
Q. B. DiV.—Settlement—Grim1§1w.l Lunatz'c—-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.
Ch. Div. V. C. H.—E:ocessi've 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 Fa/mcombehs Trusts, L.R. 9 Ch. D. 652.
Ch. DiV. V. C. H.--Ad/nn'mZstration Decrae— Subsequent Action Against E:vecutor—Consol. Ord. 31, r. 1l.—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. ——Lam1'/ng v. Gee, 27 W.R. 227.
(lxv.) C, A_—Appeal—Refusal of Application—Orol. 58, r. 15.—A petitioner applied for payment out of Court of the whole of a fund, his title tonnehalf 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 applioa.tion.——Re Michell’s Trusts, L.B.. 9 Ch. D. 5; 48 L.J. Ch. 50. ,
(lxvi.) C. A.—Appeal—Secu'rity for Costs—O1-d. 58, r. 15.—Where plaintifi 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 plaintifl not having