Page images
PDF
EPUB

(xxvi.) P. D. A. Div.- Co-ownership-Sale opposed by Majority of Co-owners24 Vict., c. 10, s. 8.-The Court has power to order sale of a vessel proceeded against in an action of co-ownership, though such sale is opposed by the majority of the co-owners.-The Nelly Schneider, L.R. 3 P.D. 152; 39 L.T. 360.

(xxvii.) C. A.—Salvage.-Vessels belonging to the Board of Trade are not "Her Majesty's Ships," and salvage can be claimed in respect of services rendered by them without consent of the Admiralty.-The Cybele, 47 L.J. P.D.A. 86.

(xxviii.) P. D. A. Div.-Limitation of Liability-Recognised British Ship17 & 18 Vict., c. 104, ss. 19, 516; 25 & 26 Vict., c. 63, s. 54.-A vessel at the time of her launch, and before registration, is not a recognised British ship, and cannot avail herself of the limitation of liability created by section 54 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1862, for damage done to another vessel.-The Andalusian, L.R. 3 P.D. 182; 47 L.J. P.D.A. 65; 39 L.T. 204; 27 W.R. 172.

(xxix.) P. D. A. Div.--Salvage-Apportionment. The vessel containing Cleopatra's Needle having been abandoned in a storm was picked up and brought into a Spanish port by the F. The judge estimated the value of the ship and obelisk at £25,000, and awarded £2,000 for salvage. -The Cleopatra, L.R. 3 P.D. 145; 47 L.J. P.D.A. 72.

(xxx.) P. D. A. Div.-Salvage-Infectious Disease.-The loan of a navigator to a vessel in distress, by reason of her own navigator being incapacitated by an infectious disease, is a salvage service.-The Skiblander, 47 L.J. P.D.A. 84.

Solicitor:

(vi.) C. P. Div.-Negligence-Damages. When a mortgagee agreed to make a further advance to the mortgagor on the additional security of a piece of land recently acquired by mortgagor, and the mortgagee's solicitor omitted to ascertain that a third person had an equitable charge for £46 on the additional piece of land, so that mortgagee on selling the property had to pay off this charge before he could convey: Held that the solicitor was liable for negligence and that the measure of damages was £46.-Whiteman v. Hawkins, L.R. 4 C.P.D. 13; 27 W.R. 262.

Trade Mark:

(vii.) C. A.-Export Agent-Custom of Manchester.-By an arrangement between the parties W. a manufacturer was to export goods to G. through R. as shipping agent, and goods were to bear a trade mark consisting in part of R.'s name and arms: afterwards W. discontinued exporting through R. and exported the goods through F. continuing to use the same trade mark but substituting F.'s name and arms for R.'s: R. also begun to export other goods under the old mark: Held that neither W. nor R. had an exclusive right to the use of the trade mark.→ Robinson v. Finlay, L.R. 9 Ch. D. 487; 39 L.T. 398.

(viii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Infringement-Injunction-Delay-Statute

of Limita

tions. The right asserted by a plaintiff seeking to restrain defendant from representing his business to be identical with the plaintiff's, being a legal right, mere delay on his part, short of the period imposed by the Statute of Limitations, will not affect his right to an injunction.Fullwood v. Fullwood, L.R. 9 Ch. D. 176.

Trustee :

(vi.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Breach of Trust-Separate Use of Married WomanPayment of Dividend to Husband.-The trustee of stock for the separate use of a married woman having transferred it into the joint names of her husband and herself, the husband for six years received the dividends,

when the trustee died, and the husband sold the stock and applied the proceeds to his own use: Held that the wife was entitled to recover as against her husband and the estate of the trustee, arrears of dividends which had accrued since the sale of the stock, and to have the fund replaced.-Dixon v. Dixon, L.R. 9 Ch. D. 587.

(vii.) C. H. Div. V. C. M.-Discretion of Trustees-Uncontrolled and Irresponsible.—Where trustees of a settlement have power, if they should in their uncontrolled and irresponsible discretion think fit, to apply the income of trust funds to the support of either husband, or wife, or children of marriage, or any one or more of them, the Court will not, in the absence of mala fides, interfere with the exercise of their discretion. -Tabor v. Brooks, 39 L.T. 528.

(viii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-New Trustee-Lunatic out of Jurisdiction-Trustee Act, 1850, ss. 3, 6. -A petition for the appointment of new trustees and a vesting order in the place of a trustee lunatic, and out of jurisdiction, need not be entitled in lunacy as well as chancery.-Re Gardner's Trust, L.R. 10 Ch. D. 29; 27 W.R. 164.

(ix.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-New Trustee-Trustee out of Jurisdiction Appointed. A fund being left in trust for six women for life with remainder to their children respectively, one of them married a Canadian and had children who took vested remainders in the fund, and were Canadians, and her share of the fund was principally invested in Canadian securities. On the retirement of one trustee the Court appointed a Canadian trustee of her share jointly with the continuing trustees.-Re Cunard's Trusts, 27 W.R. 52.

Vendor and Purchaser :—

(viii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Bare Trustee--Unpaid Vendor-38 & 39 Vict., c. 87, s. 48.-Held that a vendor, who let the purchaser into possession before payment of purchase-money and execution of conveyance, was not a bare trustee within the meaning of section 48 of Land Transfer Act, 1875.-Morgan v. Swansea Urban Authority, L.R. 9 Ch. D. 582. (ix.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Building Covenant-Right of Assignee.—The owners of an estate sold adjoining land to defendant's predecessor in title, who covenanted with the owners, their heirs and assigns, not to build in a certain way: the owners afterwards sold the estate to plaintiff's predecessor in title but no reference was made to the restrictive covenant: Held that the plaintiff could not sue upon the covenant.-Renals v. Coulishaw, L.R. 9 Ch. D. 125; 48 L.J. Ch. 33. (x.) Ex. Div.-Sale of Shares-Dividend declared after Sale and before Completion.-Defendant sold shares in a company to plaintiffs, the purchase to be completed a week after date of sale. In the interval a dividend was declared at the ordinary half-yearly meeting of the share. holders: Held that the purchasers were entitled to the dividend.— Blake v. Homersham, L.R. 4 Ex. D. 24; 27 W.R. 171.

(xi.) Ch. Div. F. J.—Specific Performance—Vendor entitled only to part.— Two persons agreed to sell property, of whom one was entitled to a moiety subject to a mortgage for its full value, and the other had no interest: Held that specific performance with abatement might be made against the former.-Horrocks v. Rigby, L.R. 9 Ch. D. 180; 47 L.J. Ch. 800.

(xii.) C. A. Ireland.-Tenants in Common-Conveyance to same uses— Voluntary Conveyance-27 Eliz., c. 4.-A conveyance by two tenants in common, settling the estate of each to the same uses, in pursuance of a previous agreement, constitutes a reciprocally valuable consideration, so as to take the conveyance out of 27 Eliz., c. 4, and renders the persons entitled thereunder purchasers from both settlors.-Mullins v. Gilfoyle, 39 L.T. 511.

Warranty:

(i.) H. L.-Sale in Market-Animals-Disease.-A sale in market of animals does not imply representation that they are free from contagious disease. -Ward v. Hobbs, 27 W.R. 114.

Water:

(i.) C. A.-Riparian Owner-Negligence-Damage-Overflow of WaterStatutory Duty.-A dock company were authorized by their special Act to make certain works, according to levels defined in plans which showed the retaining banks of a height of four feet above Trinity high. water mark. At one point their wall was several inches below highwater mark. An unusually high tide occurred of four feet five inches above high-water mark, and water flowed over the dock company's wall, and damaged plaintiff's premises: Held that independently of their statutory obligation to maintain their wall at four feet, the company were bound to maintain the wall at the height of four feet two inches, being the height of the rest of the river wall, and that they were liable for damages for negligence, but ought to have an opportunity of showing that the damage caused by the high tide and that due to their negligence ought to be apportioned.-Nitrophosphate Manure Co. v. London and St. Katherine's Dock Co., L.R. 9 Ch. D. 503; 39 L.T. 433.

Will:

(xxxv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Charitable Bequest-Void Trust.--Bequest of £500 to incumbent for time being of U. to apply income in keeping a grave in repair, and remainder of income for benefit of poor of U: Held that the whole of the income was applicable to the charity.-Re Birkett, L.R. 9 Ch. D. 577; 47 L.J. Ch. 846; 39 L.T. 418; 27 W.R. 164. (xxxvi.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Construction-Admissibility of Subsequent Writing. Testator having by his will provided that his children should bring into hotchpot money advanced to them in his life-time: Held that letters written subsequently to date of will by testator modifying the effect of this provision were inadmissible as evidence.-Smith v. Conder, L.R. 9 Ch. D. 170; 47 L.J. Ch. 878; 27 W.R. 149.

(xxxvii.) C. A.-Construction-"Die Seized."-Devise of realty, "of which I may be seized." Testatrix at her death was entitled to freeholds of which A. had taken wrongful possession: Held that these did not pass by the will.-Leach v. Jay, 9 Ch. D. 42; 47 L.J. Ch. 876; 39 L.T. 242; 27 W.R. 99.

(xxxviii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Construction-Gift to Class.-Testatrix gave £100 to each of the children of M. who should attain twenty-one: at testatrix's death M. had no children: Held that no after-born child could take.-Rogers v. Mutch, L.R. 10 Ch. D. 25; 27 W.R. 131.

(xxxix.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Construction-Gift to Children at 25-Remoteness.-Testator gave a mixed fund to trustees on trust for such of children of A. and B. as should attain twenty-five. At testator's death A. and B. were living, A having three children who where twenty-five, and B. infant children: Held that the gift was not void for remoteness, and that the class was to be ascertained at testator's death.-Picken v. Matthews, 39 L.T. 531.

(xl.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Construction-Heirs—Next-of-Kin.—Gift of real and personal property between five sisters for their lives, or till marriage, and direction that on death or marriage of all five the said property should be divided equally between testatrix's brothers and sisters then living, or their heirs: Held a good gift to all brothers and sisters living at the period of distribution, and to the heirs of such as were then dead, whether they died before the date of the will or not; but that a brother who died before testatrix was born was not included:

that as to personalty the word heirs was to be read as statutory next-ofkin, including widows, and that the next-of-kin of the brothers and sisters who pre-deceased testatrix must be ascertained at her death, and as to those who survived her at their respective deaths.-Wingfield v. Wingfield, L.R. 9 Ch. Div. 658; 47 L.J. Ch. 768; 39 L.T. 227. (xli.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Construction-Heirs or Next-of-Kin-Personalty.— Bequest of personalty to the heirs or next of kin of A. deceased: Held to be a gift to the statutory next-of-kin of A.-Re Thompson's Trusts, L.R. 9 Ch. D. 607.

(xlii.) C. H. Div. M. R.-Construction-Household Furniture-Fixtures.— Gift of household furniture will not pass tenants' fixtures in testator's leasehold house.-Finney v. Grice, L.R. 10 Ch. D. 13; 27 W.R. 147. (xliii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Construction-Residuary Gift-Failure of Trust for Investment-Restraint on Anticipation.—Testatrix gave real and personal estate on trust for conversion, and after payment of debts and legacies, to invest and pay income to A. for life, and after A.'s death to divide the corpus between B. and C., a married woman, for her separate use without power of anticipation: A. died in testatrix's lifetime: Held that the gift became one of the corpus of a fund not producing income, and that C. was entitled to her share free from restraint.-In re Crough. ton's Trusts, 47 L.J. Ch. 795.

(xliv.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Construction—Rule in Shelly's Case-Personalty— Gift of freeholds and leaseholds to A. for life, then to trustees to preserve contingent remainders, then to sons of A. successively in tail, then to daughters of A., as tenants in common, with ultimate remainder to right heirs of A. for ever: Held that A. took an absolute interest in all the property on failure of the contingent remainders in tail.—Comfort v. Brown, 27 W.R. 226.

(xlv.) H. L.-Express Trust-Tenant in Tail-Recovery.-Devise to A. in tail, "upon special trust and condition" that if he should have no issue, he would do nothing to defeat subsequent limitations, with remainders over: Held that the right to suffer recovery was not destroyed by the trust.-Dawkins v. Lord Penrhyn, 27 W.R. 173.

(xlvi.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Gift Over on Alienation-Bankruptcy at Date of Will.-Testatrix gave a share of residue to A., provided that if he should become insolvent or bankrupt, or do or suffer anything whereby his share should become vested in any other person, then he should forfeit his share. At date of will A. was a bankrupt and continued so until five months after testatrix's decease, when his creditors agreed to accept a composition, but the bankruptcy was not annulled till three years afterwards: Held that no forfeiture of A.'s share had occurred.-Ancona v. Waddell, 27 W.R. 186.

(xlvii.) H. L.-Revocation-Will of Realty before Wills Act-Statute of Frauds, s. 6.-Testator, who died in 1836, devised realty to A. B., her heirs and assigns, for ever, and afterwards struck out all the clause except the christian name and re-wrote the surname: Held that there was a revocation of a clause within the meaning of sec. 6 of the Statute of Frauds, and that A. B. took a life estate only.-Swinton v. Bailey, 48 L.J. Ex. 57.

« PreviousContinue »