Page images
PDF
EPUB

2. That the subjects of examination be as follows:

(a) The English and Latin languages.

(6) English history. 3. That the examination be conducted by a joint board, to be appointed by the four Inns of Court.

4. That, for constituting such board, each Inn do appoint six examiners.

5. That the examiners do attend according to a rota to be fixed by themselves, and that two be a quorum.

6. That meetings of the examiners of students applying for admission at either of the four Inns of Court be held at least once every week, between the 20th October and the 10th August

in each year.

7. That every student shall pay the sum of one guinea upon application for the form of admission.

On the Subject of Examination of Students previously to their

being called to the Bar:

8. That the examination shall include, at the option of the candidate, examination for honours as well as for certificates of sufficiency for call to the bar.

9. That the examination shall be the act of the four Inns jointly, and conducted by examiners appointed for that purpose by the four societies.

10. That the examiners be selected from the barristers, and that no bencher shall be an examiner,

11. That the examinations for pass certificates shall be held four times a-year, but examinations for honours twice only in each year.

12. That the subjects for the examinations of students desirous of being called to the bar shall be divided into two branches, consisting of the following subjects :First branch

1. Constitutional law and legal history.
2. Jurisprudence, especially private and public iuterna-

tional law.
3. Roman civil law.
Second branch

1. Common law.
2. Equity.
3. The law of real property.

13. That no person shall be called to the bar unless he shall have received a certificate from the board of having passed a satisfactory examination, in at least one subject in each of the above branches.

14. That the candidates for honours shall pass a satisfactory examination in all the subjects of the above branches.

Generally 15. That there be a superintending board, consisting of two benchers from each Inn of Court, for regulating the examinations, and giving such directions respecting the same as may from time to time be required, and that any three of such benchers be a quorum.

16. That the superintending board have power to give such directions as may from time to time be necessary as to the conduct of the examinations.

I have the honour to be, your faithful and obedient servant,

RICHARD BETHELL, Chairman of the Committee.

COUNCIL CHAMBER, LINCOLN'S INN,

27th May, 1859.

Notes of Kecent Leading Cases.

.

CHANCERY.

Page 1. ESPIN v. PEMBERTON (4 Drew., 333; 28 L. J. Chanc., 308, 311)

Equitable and Legal Mortgages--Solicitor and Client-Notice-
Negligence-Priority

415 COMMON LAW. 2. JACKSON v. FORSTER (28 L. J. Q. B., 166, and in Error 18th June,

1859) Policy of Insurance on Life-What is a bona fide Assignment
for a valuable Consideration

427 3. LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY V. GLYN (28 L. J.

Q.B., 188) Fire Policy-Railway Co.'s Insuring Goods Ware-
housed with Them

428 4. LOFFT v. DENNIS (28 1. J. Q.B., 168) Fire Insurance-Honse burnt

down-Rent payable for Use and Occupation-Lord St. Leonards'
Handy-Book observed upon.

430

.

[ocr errors]

1. ESPIN v. PEMBERTON, 28 L. J. Chanc., (V. C. KINDERSLEY)

308 & (L.C.) 311; 4 Drew., 333. Equitable and Legal Mortgages-Solicitor and Client-NoticeNegligence

Priority. In 1855, the defendant Pemberton, a solicitor, borrowed of Espin, the plaintiff, a sum of £300, and, by way of security, deposited with Espin the lease of a house in Southampton-street, Bloomsbury, and the assignments of the same, and delivered to him a memorandum, whereby Pemberton agreed to execute an assignment of the premises to Espin, on being required so to do by him. In the month of April, 1857, Browne, a defendant, the stepson and articled clerk of Pemberton, lent Pemberton a sum of £1500, and on the 8th September, 1857, Pemberton assigned the house in Southampton-street to Browne (who was then ignorant of the security to Espin) as a security for £500, part of the sum of £1500. At the time the assignment was executed, Browne, for whom no separate solicitor acted, requested Pemberton to hand over to him the title-deeds; and subsequently he repeatedly asked for the deeds, but was informed by Pemberton that they were mislaid, and that he should have them when they could be found.

The questions raised on this state of facts were firet, whether Pemberton must be considered as having acted as

Browne's solicitor; and, inasmuch as Pemberton knew of the previous equitable mortgage to Espin, whether there was constructive notice of the same to Browne; and secondly, whether there was such negligence on the part of Browne, in not asking for the title-deeds, as to postpone his legal estate to Espin's equitable security

With respect to the first question, Kindersley, V.C., said: " In the case of Hewitt v. Loosemore (9 Hare, 449), it appears that Lord Justice Turner, then Vice-Chancellor, came to the conclusion, in a similar case to the present, where a mortgagor was himself a solicitor, and no solicitor was acting for the mortgagee, that there the mortgagor quà solicitor was to be considered as solicitor of the mortgagee. I confess I think I am bound to state, that if it were not for the opinion expressed in that

case,

I doubt whether I should arrive at a similar conclusion; but the long experience and ability of that learned judge are such, that although I should consider it probable that his opinion is right and mine wrong, yet I should hesitate to apply the principle in every case. It might be, for instance, that the intended mortgagee was a retired solicitor, and thought fit to act for himself. How could I say in such a case, that, because the mortgagor happened to be a solicitor, he was to be considered as solicitor for the mortgagee? Or, suppose the mortgagor were a barrister who was not in practice, he might say he could take care of himself, and could act for himself. It would be very hard in such a case to say, that he was therefore to be taken to have acted professionally for the mortgagee. I should also feel great difficulty in a case like the present, where the gentleman is being educated as a solicitor, and is, in fact, an articled clerk. He has got, at least, some knowledge of what should be done. I do not see the reasonableness of saying, that because Mr. Pemberton was a solicitor, consequently he is to be treated as solicitor for his articled clerk. Therefore, if it were not for the expression of opinion found in the case of Hewitt v. Loosemore, I should not have come to the same conclusion; but as it is I dare say the Lord Justice is right and I am wrong. But suppose Pemberton were to be treated as solicitor for Browne in the transaction, it would be a monstrous perversion of the doctrine of constructive notice to say that, because Pemberton knew of a prior mortgage to the plaintiff, that is constructive notice to the subsequent mortgagee of the prior mortgage. It appears, however, that, in the same case I have mentioned, the same judge refused to add to the constructive solicitorship the additional ingredient of constructive notice, and I entirely concur in the justice of that conclusion."

On this first question Lord Chancellor Chelmsford said :-

« The notice which a principal is supposed to receive through a solicitor is generally treated as constructive notice; but I cannot help thinking it would be better if it were classed under the head of actual notice. The notice which affects the principal through a solicitor, does not depend upon whether it is communicated to him or not. If a person employs a solicitor who either knows, or has intimated to him in the course of his employment, a fact that is hostile to his interest, he is bound by it, whether the fact is communicated to or is concealed from him. Constructive notice is properly the knowledge which the court imputes to a person, the contrary presumption being so strong it cannot be allowed to be rebutted; and the knowledge must exist either from his knowing something which ought to have put him on further inquiry, or from his wilfully abstaining from inquiry to avoid notice. I should, therefore, prefer calling the knowledge which a person has either by himself or his agent, actual knowledge; or, if it is necessary to make a distinction between that which a person knows himself, and that which is known to his agent, the latter might, I think, be called imputed knowledge. Was Pemberton, then, who came to the transaction with a perfect knowledge of the plaintiff's incumbrance, the solicitor of the defendant? I find it very difficult to accede to the proposition, however high the authority from which it proceeds, that when a mortgagor is himself a solicitor, and preparing the mortgage-deed, the mortgagee employing no other solicitor, the mortgagor must be considered to be the agent or solicitor of the mortgagee in the transaction. I think there must be some consent on the part of the mortgagee to constitute this relation. If he is imprudent enough to intrust his interest to the mortgagor, who is himself a solicitor, he may do so and take the consequences; but he may not desire to have any solicitor, he considering himself equal to the protection of his own interest, and then his mere omission to communicate the circumstance to the mortgagor, who is preparing the deed, cannot constitute him the solicitor. If the mortgagor, under these circumstances, becomes the solicitor of the mortgagee, it is impossible to stop short in applying all the consequences of the relation, and then the knowledge which the mortgagor possesses becomes the knowledge of his client, the mortgagee. It is difficult to escape from this conclusion unless you apply the principle of Kennedy v. Green (3 Myl. & K., 699), and exclude this particular knowledge; because the mortgagor was committing a fraud in the transaction which he could not be presumed to communicate, or rather perhaps, because the very commission of the fraud broke off the relation of principal and agent, and therefore prevented the possibility of imputing his knowledge to his client. I think

« PreviousContinue »