Page images

of discharge shall not release a bankrupt “from any debt for the unpaid balance of the debt; if no dividends had been or liability incurred by means of any fraud or breach of paid, the creditor might sue for the whole of the debt. But trust." and by section 125, sub-section 10, this provision is the debtor would be entitled to have set apart, in the names made applicable to an order of discharge in liquidation pro- of his trust or fraud creditors, pari passu with the ordinary ceedings. Section 15 of the Debtors Act provides that creditors, dividends under the liquidation, and, if he had paid “where & debtor makes any arrangement or composition any one of those creditors in full, he would be entitled to with his creditors under the provisions of the Bankruptcy stand in his shoes and receive the dividends set apart for him. Act, 1869, he shall remain liable for the uppaid balance of In the result he would pay out of assets freed from the any debt which he incurred or increased, or whereof, before liquidation no more than the balance of the debt, and, at the date of the arrangement or composition, he obtained the same time, the rights of the general body of the creditors, forbearance, by any fraud; provided that the defrauded / would be in no way interfered with. creditor has not assented to the arrangement or composition otherwise than by proving his debt and accepting dividends." It was argued that a creditor, in respect of a debt incurred

LIQUIDATION PETITION_REGISTRATION OF RESOLUTIONSby means of a fraud, was, by virtue of section 15, limited,

INSUFFICIENT DESCRIPTION OF DEBTOR-BANKRUPTCY ACT, as regarded bis right of action, to the unpaid balance of his

| 1869, 6. 125-BANKRUPTCY RULES, 1870, RR. 252, 257, debt, and that, consequently, he must wait until the close

295-BANKRUPTCY Forms, 1870, Nos. 106, 111.-In a case of the liquidation in order that that balance might be

of Ex parte Ewen, before the Court of Appeal on the 27th ascertained, and this view was adopted by Mr. Registrar | ult., the question was whether the registration of resolutions Murray, who restrained the creditor from prosecuting an | passed by creditors under a liquidation petition had been action, which he had commenced against the debtor for the properly refused, on the ground that the debtor had not whole amount of his debt. pending the liquidation proceeds given a sufficient description of himself in his petition. He ings. This decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal 1 was, in fact, & barrister, but he had been carrying on the (JAVES. BAGGALLAY. and THESIGER, L.JJ), who held that I business of a restaurant keeper. He bad discontinued the the creditor was entitled to go on with his action.

business shortly before he filed the petition, and had gone to TIESIGER, L.J., who delivered the considered judgment of

live in lodgings. In his petition he described himself as a the conrt. said that in Cobham y. Dalton (23 °W.' R. 865. I barrister and gave his address at bis lodging, but did not give 1. R. 10 Cb, 655) the Court of Appeal (James and

the address where he had carried on the business. Most of Mellisb, LJJ.) expressed a very clear opinion that such

his debts had been incurred in connection with the business. s creditor would have a right to sue the debtor as soon as

The court (JAMES, BAGGALLAY, and THESIGER, L.JJ.) held be bad obtained his discharge. In that case, however, the

that the description was insufficient, inasmuch as it would not decision wag only that a creditor wbo, before the order of

inform the business creditors who it was who was petitioning, discharge is obtained, takes proceedings against the person

and that the registration of the resolutions had been rightly

refused. The case, they said, was really governed by the or property of the debtor, in respect of a debt or liability

principle of Ex parte Jerningham (27 W. Ř. 157, L. R. 9 incurred by means of fraud, ought to be restrained from

Ch. D. 466). And, there being other grounds on which the proceeding. It was decided in Ebbs v. Boulnois (23 W. R. * 820, L, R. 10 Ch. 479) that property acquired by a liqai.

registrar bad refused the registration, their lordships declined

to give leave to summon a fresh first meeting of the creditors, dating debtor after his disobarge does not vest in his

leaving the application to be made to the registrar. trustee, although the liquidation be not closed-in other words, that, after the discharge, the debtor is in the same position as if the creditors who are barred by the discharge DEBTOR'S SUMMONS-DISPUTED DEBT-SOLVENT DEBTORbad actoally released him, and his fatore property is his STAYING PROCEEDINGS ON SUMMONS — SECURITY — BANKown. It followed that the time when the order of dis- RUPTCY Act, 1869, s. 7-ORD. 3, R. 6-SPECIALLY INDORSED charge became effective was the time when the excepted | WRIT-ORD. 14, RR.1, 4.-In a case of Ex parte Sewell, before creditors' rights acorded. And, independently of author- the Court of Appeal on the 27th alt., an application by a somity, tbis appeared to be the reasonable interpretation of the moned debtor to dismiss the sommons had been refused by Bankroptcy Act. What could be more reasonable than the registrar. In the opinion of the Court of Appeal there that the debtor, when he obtained the benefit of section was a bona fide dispute as to the debt, and there was no 49 in respect of debts from which he was disobarged, reason to doubt the solvenoy of the debtor. The court should at the same time feel the burden of those to which (JAMES, BAGGALLAY, and THESIGER, L.JJ.) ordered the be was left liable? Why, on the other hand, should the proceedings under the summons to be stayed, pending the trast or fraud oreditor be remitted to the close of the the trial of an action to determine the debt, on the terms Jiquidation for a remedy attaching to aggets which were of the debtor paying the amount claimed into court. freed from the liquidation, and which, if he was delayed in JAMES, L.J., said that a debtor's summons was always a asserting his rigbte, might be squandered by the debtor, more or less vexations proceeding against a solvent person, or be seized by fresh creditors, asserting and enforcing If the debtor bad really no defence, judgment could be ob· subsequently acquired claims? With regard to the tained very cheaply under order 14, and that was the course argument founded upon section 15 of the Debtors Act, 1 which the creditor onght to adopt in such a cage. THESIGER, there were manifest objections to that reading of the sec- L.J., said that, but for previous decisions, that when the tion. In the first place, the section did not deal at all balance of the evidence was in favour of the creditor, securwith debts or liabilities incurred by means of a breach of ity ought to be required, he should bave thought that the trast, and yet they were, by section 49 of the Bankruptcy proceedings under the summons ought to be stayed unconAct, pot in the same category with debts or liabilities ditionally. The proceeding by way of debtor's summons incurred by means of fraud. And, secondly, sec was not intended to apply to & case where the debtor was tion 15 left even debts or liabilities incurred by solvent and had a bond fide defence to the claim ; it was means of fraud untouched in the case of a bankruptcy, as not intended to be used for the purpose of patting the opposed to a liquidation by arrangement or composition. No screw on debtors. The Act gave the right to issue & szeason had been suggested why this distinction should be | debtor's summons in respect of any debt above £50, but the .made. And, on the other hand, it bad been pointed out that process was intended to be used when the circumstances Section 15 might be construed as applying, not to liquida were sooh as would probably result in bankraptoy. It was tions by arrangement under section 125 of the Bankruptcy | not intended to make the Court of Bankruptoy a court for Act, but only to arrangements under section 28 and composi trying ordinary actions of debt. tions undor section 126 of that Act. It was not, however, necessary to decide whether that was the true construction of - section 15. It was sufficient to say that its terms were not VENDOR AND PURCHASER-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCEsuch as to require the court to hold that it qualified or VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENT OF LAND-GENERAL POWER OF limited-in the case of a liquidation by arrangement, and in ATTORNEY BY SETTLOR TO SELL REAL ESTATE-SALE OF respect of a debt incurred by means of a fraud-rights which, 1 SETTLED ESTATE BY ATTORNEY-SUIT TO EXECUTE in the case of a bankruptcy, in respect of such a debt, and, I TRUSTS OF SETTLEMENT-CONSENT ORDER TO CONFIRM in the cases both of bankraptcy and liquidation by arrange SALE.-On the 1st inst, the Court of Appeal (JAMES, BAGmedt, in the case of a debt incurred by means of a breach of GALLAY, and TheSIGER, L.JJ.) affirmed the decision of trust, the Bankruptcy Act most olearly gave. If the creditor Bacon, V.C., in a case of The General Meat Supply 4880bad accepted dividende, the debtor would only renain liable | ciation v. Bouffler. In 1873 one Bell executed a voluntary


bad paid.

settlement of land in favour of his wife and children. In plaintiff contended that the expulsion was invalid. 1875 the trustees of the settlement filed a bill against Bell JESSEL, M.R., was of opinion that the words in the and his wife and infant obildren, to have the trusts of the rule, "after inquiry," meant after inquiry into the factssettlement carried into execution under the direction of the alleged against the member, and after giving him notice to Court of Chancery, and, in July, 1875, a decree for the attend and, if possible, explain bis conduct. In hisexecution of the trusts was made by Hall, V.C. In opinion there had been no proper inquiry, and the comSeptember, 1875, the settlor, who was then going abroad, mittee should really have taken evidence and been satisfied executed a power of attorney to one Edmands, empowering of the truth of the facts. As to the validity of the notice, Edmands to sell any lands, tenements, or hereditaments, of be was of opinion that a fortnight was a legal term, and a which the settlor then was, or at any time thereafter should notice given on the 1st for a meeting on the 14th would not become, seised or entitied, or of which be then bad, or at be sufficient. The secretary of the club seemed to think any time thereafter should have, power to dispose. In May, that the club day went into the next morning, but that 1876, Edmands, purporting to act under the power of could not alter the legal construction of the rule. The attorney, contracted to sell to the defendant Bouffer part objection as to the required majority was also good. It had of the settled property, and an agreement for the sale was heen argued that members “present” meant those present entered into in tbe name of Bell, and by it tbe vendor and voting. In his opinion persons present” applied to purported to agree to apply to Hall, V.C., to sanction the those present during the discussion and who either voted or agreement, wbich was made subjec to the sanction of the abstained from voting, and therefore the required majority of

The day after tbis agreement Bouffer entered into two-thirds of the 117 members had not been obtained. Then another agreement to sell the land, which he had agreed to the chairman should not have put the resolution as if it were purchase, to the plaintiff company. Soon afterwards, upon a personal matter between the committee and himself, but the application of the plaintiffs, an order was made by should have put the resolution in the very words of the rule, Hall, V.C., in the suit to execute the trusts, that the con and should have asked whether the plaintiff's conduct had ditional contract between Bell and Bouffler should be carried been detriinental to the interests of the club. He said on into effect, and that the deposit which had been paid by the above grounds he should grant an injunction, with costs. Bouffler should be paid into court to the credit of the suit. This order was expressed to be made by the consent of the parties to the suit. Afterwards the company gave notice

PRACTICE-MOTION TO COMMIT-RIGHT TO SEE AND to rescind their contract with Bouffler, and brought the

ANSWER AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY.-In a case of Dodge v. action against him for a return of the deposit which they

Brown, also before the Master of the Rolls, on the 28th ult., Bacon, V.C., held that the power of attorney

a question was raised whether on a motion to commit, the did not authorize a sale of the settled land ; that the con

respondent was entitled to see or answer an affidavit in reply sent order in the trastees' suit did not bind the company who

until it was read on the hearing of the motion. It was were not parties to it; and that, as Bouffler had no title to the

stated that the praotice at law was not to allow the respondproperty when he contracted to sell it to the company, he

ent to see the affidavit until it was read in court. JESSEL, could not perfect a title by a subsequent conveyance to

M.R., said that such had never been the practice in chancery, him from the settlor. Judgment was accordingly given for

and that on a motion to commit the respondents were entitled the plaintiffs. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision

to see the affidavit in reply, and, in fact, the parties generally simply on the ground that, the trustees' suit being a suit

exhausted their affidavits before the motion was actually for the execution of the trusts of the settlement, there was

heard, no joriediction in it to make an order to confirm a sale in derogation of those trusts. Consequently, Bouffler had no title to the property.


before the Master of the Rolls on the 29th ult., a question CLUB EXPULSION OF MEMBER CONSTRUCTION OF arose whether in an action where the plaintiff only desired to RULE-LENGTH OF NOTICE-MAJORITY OF THOSE “PRE

have judgment for certain preliminary inquiries, it was necesSENT.”-In the case of Labouchere v. Wharncliffe, before sary to have an affidavit verifying generally the statements in the Master of the Rolls on the 28th ult., a question tbe claim inasmuch as infants were interested in the property. arose as to the construction of the following rule of a Reference was made to Senior v. Hereford (L. R. 4 Ch. D. 494),London club:-"In case the conduct of any member where Hall, V.C., said that such an affidavit was necessary. either in or out of the club shall, in the opinion of the JESSEL, M.R., said that his practice was not to require such committee, after inquiry, be idjarious to the welfare an affidavit, even where infants were interested, if only preand interest of the club, the committee shall call upon liminary accounts and inquiries were directed. The produc.him to resign, and in the event of bis refusal to do so tion of the probate was generally sufficient. sball call a general meeting, at wbich it sball be competent to expel such member.” By another role the committee were required to give a fortnight's notice of any

LEASE-RESTRICTIVE COVENANT-COPENANT NOT TO USE, general meeting. A general meeting bad voted for the House FOR ANY “ART, OCCUPATION, OR Calling"-Assoplaintiff's expulsion, and he now moved for an injunotion

CIATION TO PROVIDE HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION ON Pay. to restrain them from acting on such vote. The committee MENT. - In the case of Putman v. Home Hospitals' Associabad dot held any proper inquiry according to the rule, tion, before the Master of the Rolls on the 1st inst., a quosand had pot called the plaintiff before them or given tion arose whether the defendant society bad committed a him any opportunity of explaining his conduct. They

breach of a covenant “not to use the premises or permit had, in fact, considered a letter written to the committee

them to be used in the exercise or carrying on of any art, by the plaintiff, and also a letter published by him in a trade, or business, occupation, or calling whatsoever." newspaper; and at a subsequent meeting the plaintiff was

The defendants were incorporated under section 23 of the called upou to resign, and on his refusal a general meeting

Companies Act, 1867, in accordance with a licence of the was called for his expulsion. The committee meeting,

Board of Trade, and according to their memorandum of when the general meeting was decided upon, was held on

association their objects were “to provide accommodation the evening of the 31st of October, and continued sitting for the treatment of all patients, whether such from until the morning of the 1st of November, the notices con

disease or acoident, who are able and willing to pay for the vening the general meeting being posted up in the club-room,

same according to their respective requirements.” and sent to the members on the morning of the 1st of November.

effeot, what the defendants intended to do was to establish The notices were dated as of the 31st of October, and con hospitals for the middle classes on payment. By their vered the meeting for the 14th of November. At the meet. į articles, any person subscribing £20 became a member, and ing 117 members were present, and 115 voted, 77 for the entitled to nominate one patient during the year. The expulsion and 37 against. The chairman, before the voting defendants did not contemplate carrying on their hospital at began, said that those who voted for the committee would a profit, and did not intend taking any infections cases. vote aye, and those who voted for the plaintiff would vote They had recently acquired the underlease of certain day. He then put the formal resolution that the plaintiff premises, of which the plaintiff was ground landlord, and should be expelled. On the ground of no "inquiry,” that intended to convert them into a home hospital for about no proper notice of the meeting had been given, and that thirty patients. JESREL, M.R., was of opinion that the there was not the required majority of two-thirds, the defendants must be said to intend carrying on the "art" of


bealing at the premises in question. The acoidental o in question was void as between grantor and grantee, and by a physician of a patient's house for the parpose of this decision was appealed from. For the appellant, it was exercising his art could not be said to be within this cove argaed that the 8th section of the Act, by specifying par. nant, but where, as here, it was intended to have some ticular classes of creditors, proved that the 10th section did thirty patients in one bouse, and to call in the physicians not make an anattested and unregistered bill of sale void to attend tbem, that was a user of the house for the very as against the grantee. For the respondent it was con. porpose of the physician exercising there bis “ art." H. tended tbat the Act was pagged to protect unlearned thought the use tbe defendants proposed to put the house grantors, and that the decision below was right. The to most be said to constitute their "ocoupation or calling." | court (Lord COLERIDGE, C.J., and LINDLEY, J.) upheld the They were constituted for the very purpose of this hospital, decision of the county court jadge. They said that the new and if that were not their “ occupation or calling," | Act oontained a provision not to be found in the old one it would be difficult to say what was. He did not think (17 & 18 Vict. c. 36). The new Act did not say (in geotion : that the acquisition of profit or gain was necessary to con- | 8) that every bill of sale should be “duly attested and stitute an occupation." A person might, for instance, registered," but that every bill of sale sbould be duly do the printing for some large obarity, and out of motives attested and should be registered. The phrase "shall be of charity, and it could not be said but that such person duly attested” was mandatory, and the next phrase "shall had an "occupation." He certainly thought the defendants be registered” governed tbe conditions which followed, would be committing a breach algo of that part of the ander which the bill of sale would be void. The 10th Covedant. He therefore granted the injunction claimed, section of the new Act was mandatory, and it was framed ' with costs.

for the express purpose of affording protection to the grantor and of shielding him from imposition. Their

lordships gave judgment for the respondent, with costs. PRACTICE-ADMINISTRATION ACTION-PROOF OF DebtDISPUTE-TRIAL ON AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE.-In a case of

PRACTICE-ORDER BY CONSENT TO REFER TO ARBITRA In re Shirreff (deceased), Keighley v. Shirreff, before the

TIUN-AWARD OF ARBITRATOR-AWARD MADE A RULE OF Master of the Rolls on the 1st inst., a question arose whether

COURT-APPLICATION ON AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE.-In a case the Master of the Rolls would try a disputed question of a debt upon affidavit evidence. The plaintiff alleged that he

of Jones v. Jones, before Hall, V.C., on the 27th alt., a

motion was made upon affidavit of service to make the had leat the deceased, Shirreff, a sum of £500, such sum

award of an arbitrator & role of court. The matters in having been borrowed through the agency of his partner.

dispute in the action bad, under an order taken by consent An action at law had been brought for the debt, when Shirreff was alive, the defence being that the money had

of counsel for both plaintiff and defendant, been referred been advanced by the plaintiff as a joint adventure with the

to Mr. Kekewich, Q.O., as arbitrator. The learned arbidefendant in a colliery speculation. The jury were unable

trator baving made his award, the application in question to agree, and were discharged. This action had, subse

was made, on the authority of a case of Cudlip v. Smedley quently to the death of Shirreff, been commenced for the

(12 W. R. 200), and of the form of notice of motion given administration of his estate against Shirreff's administratrix,

in the latest (3rd) edition of Daniell's Chanoery Forms (No. vith the will annexed. The debt was disputed, and the

1,944), and the form of order given in the latest (4th) parties agreed to try by affidavit evidence. The plaintiff's

edition of Seton on Decrees, vol. 1, p. 403. It was, howevidence consisted of his own and partner's oaths and the ever, bronght to the notice of the court that in a very only evidence to the contrary was the affidavit of Shirreff's recent case-In re Oglesby's Arbitration (W. N., Aug. 2, solicitor, wbo stated bis belief that the money was advanced as

1879, p. 151)-the Master of the Rolls had considered that a joint speculation. Shirr-ff's evidence in tbe former trial bad

in the case of an arbitration by agreement, the proper not been made evidence in this action. Having agreed to the

course was to apply that the babmission, not the fact of the former trial, and that Shirreff was now dead,

award, should be made a role of court. In the present JESSEL, X. R., said that he would not under the circum case HALL, V.C., decided that, as the arbitration itself stances require the plaintiff to commence an action, and to was held under an order of the court, although by consent, try the fact of the debt on oral evidence, but would determine the award itself, and not the submission, would properly the issue himself. He took into consideration, also, the fact be made a rule of court, and made the order accordingly. that it was alleged that Shirreff's estate was insolvent, and the additional costs the plaintiff would be put to by sending

Costs_TAXATION-DIRECTION TO TAXING MASTER-WIThim again to a jury, and that, even if the debt were well establisbed, an administration action would still be necessary to

NESSES NOT CALLED.-In a case of Webster v. Chatterton, obtain peyment. His lordship then went into the evidence

before Fry, J., on the 29th ult., the action was brought to and decided in favour of the plaintiff, and made the usual

set aside a lease which the plaintiff bad granted to the decree for administration. The plaintiff desired to have a

defendant, on the ground of fraud. After some witnesses declaration that his debt was established, so as to avoid the

had been examined on behalf of the plaintiff, his counsel necessity of proving the same again in chambers, but his

| abandoned the case, and judgment was given for the lordship stated that he could not make any such declaration,

defendant, with costs. His counsel then stated that the " and that formal proof would still be required to be made in

defendant was prepared with witnesses to rebat the charge chambers, as some creditor might then come in and object to

of fraud, and asked for a direction to the taxing master to the proof.

allow the costs of those witnesses in the taxation of the defendant's costs. Fry, J., said that he did not think any direction was pecessary, but that the taxing master would

have power to allow the proper costs of the witnesses withBALLS OF SALE ACT, 1878 (41 & 42 VICT. C. 31), ss. 8, 10-1 out it. His lordship added that if a special direction was ATTESTATION BY Souiorror-REGISTRATION. -An important

needed, there could not be a more proper case for giving it. question ander the above Act was raised in the case of Davies 3. Goodman, wbich was an appeal from a decision of the judge of the Dadley County Court. The respondent (the plaintiff in the court below), sned the appellant for the On Monday it was stated that the Lord Chancellor ad wrongful conversion of bis (plaintiff's) goods. The appel- been ordered by his medical attendant to keep to his coom lant pleaded ibat be kad seized the goods under a bill of for a few days, as his lordship was suffering from a severe ssle given to him by the repondent. It was admitted that

cold. the bill of sale in question was neither attested by a solici

The Virginia Law Journal says that an eloquent lawyer tor, nor registered, and it was therefore contended that the bill of sale wag void onder the Bills of Sale Act, 1878, the

who was prosecuting a man for the murder of Silas Jones in 20th section of which, sub-section 1, enacts that," the

North Carolina, opened his speech as follows: “Gentlemen

of the jury, Silas Jones is dead-you ne'er shall see his execution of every bill of sale sball be attested by a solicitor smiling face again, as he eat with quiet composure on the of the Supreme Court, and the attestation shall state that banks of the Yadkin river jerking out the perch and trout before the execution of the bill of sale the effect thereof (hestitation and embarrassment) ; no, gentlemen, Silas lies has been explained te the grantor by the ættesting solici- cold and stark in the grave, with his pale face turned up totor. The county court judge held that, as the provisions | the blue vault of heaven, and-and--and his legs cocked up of this section had pot been complied with, the bill of sale | about two feet."




[ocr errors]



[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]


With reference to leases and conveyances in fee, or for An appendix to the recent report of the Liverpool Law long terms on rents (which are usually called chief or fee Society contains the following scale of solicitors' fees in farm ronts), it is recommended that the scale proposed in conveyancing transactions, which is stated to have been 1876 should be adopted with a slight reduotion, and tbat recommended at & Meeting held on the 1st Augast, it be as follows:1879, between a Special Committee of the Counoil of the Incorporated Law Society and the Committee of the FOR LEASES AT RACK Rent (EXCEPT MINING LEASES). Associated Provincial Law Societies. [No representative from the Liverpool Society attended

Legsor's solicitor for preparing and completing lease. this meeting.]

Up to £40 rept


For every £10 beyond £40 to £100 159.

For every £10 beyond £100 to £200... 58.

28. 6d., but the PROPOSED SCALE. For every subsequent £10

total not to

exceed £20.

One-third of the


amount payLeggeo's solicitor, for perusing draft

able to tbe 3 per cent, to £500 and completing

Jessor's soliof Purchaser's 1 5,000

citor, bat Solicitor.

50,000 1

never to be afterwards

less than £2. The lessor's solicitor to have £2 in addition in all cases $ s. d.

£ .

where there is a counterpart.
6 15 0

11 50
15 0

16 17 6

22 10
28 2

37 10
39 7 6
52 10

50 12 6

67 10
61 17 6

82 10
67 10 0

90 0
73 2 6
97 10

8. d.

SP. d.
78 15 0
105 0
Up to 40


2 0
84 76


2 0 0
112 10

4 15
2 0 0

5 10 0
90 00
20 0


118 2 6
157 10

6 5 0
146 6 0

2 6 8

7 0 0

90 30,000


2 11
270 0
202 10 0

7 15 0
258 15 0


2 16 8 345 0

8 10 0

3 5 0
315 00
420 0

9 15 0
3 13 4

il 0
343 9

457 10
371 5

495 0

4 18 4

14 15 €
399 7
532 10

6 6 8

20 00
576 0

and above
455 12 6

607 10
736 17 6

982 10


ESTATE RESERVING RENT, OR BUILDING LEASES REIt is suggested that the following rules be adopted in

SERVING RENT. any case:

Vendor's or lessor's solicitor, for preparing and com. 1. Sales in lots to be treated as separate transactions, pleting conveyance or lease (exclusive of abstract of title, if lots are sold to separate purohasers.

if furnished): 2. In sales and parcbases of equities of redemption Up to £5 rent

£5. the scale to be caloulated on the money paid and For every £5 beyond £5 to £50

the principal of the mortgage debt.

For every £5 beyond £50 to £150 103.

59., but the total For every £5 beyond £150

not to exceed


One-tbird of the



Parchaser's or lessee's solicitor, for vendor's

or perusing draft and completing

lessor's soliof Mortgagee's

2 per cent. to £2,000


bat $ afterwards

never to be

less than £3.

The vendor's or lessor's solicitor to have £2 in addition $ 300

in all cases where there is a counterpart or duplicate. 4 10

7 10

15 0

30 0

37 10




VENDOR'S OR 60 5,000


60 0

67 10

£ s. d.

£ 8. d.
75 0

Up to 5

0 0

5 00
82 10

0 0

6 0
90 0


8 0 0
127 10

3 6 8

10 0
146 5


12 0 0
183 15

4 13

14 0 0
221 5

8 6 8

19 0
258 15

6 0 0

24 0 0
295 5

8 16 8

26 10 0
333 15

10 10 0

31 10 0
371 5

12 3 4

36 10 0


13 16

41 10
446 5

15 10 0

46 10 0 200,000 8216 1,095

16 13 4

50 00 and above



[ocr errors]

3 3 3






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

The foregoing scales are to include all charges for pro. too high, except in the comparatively few cases where the curation and negotiation, but are not to include counsel's purchaser's solicitor not only does the legal work of Lees, stamps, plans, travelling expenses, or other disburse- conveying the property, but also negotiates the purchase. ments, or time expended on journeys beyond 200 miles or out That there should be an additional allowance to vendors' of England; nor are they to include auy business of a con- solicitors in cases where they negotiate the sale ; and that tentious character, such as proceedings to enforce perform the allowance to mortgagors' solicitors is much too high in ance of a contract, nor any proceedings in any court, such as proportion to that to the mortgagees' solicitors. That no an application for a vesting order or payment of money into scale will be satisfactory which does not provide for or out of coart on a chancery sale; nor are they to include different rates when the solicitor does or does not negotiate a charges for searching and registering in register counties, nor sale, purchase, or loan. acknowledgments by married women, nor extra work occasioaed by changes occurring in the course of the business, such as the death or insolvency of a party to the transaction.

Obituary. Practions of £100 are throughout to be reckoned as £100 in the case of sales, parchases, and mortgages. As to leases at rack rent, fractions of £10 are to be reckoned as £10, and

THE RIGAT AON. JOHN ARTHUR ROEBUCK, as to conveyances reserving rent, and building or repairing

Q.C., M.P. leases, fractions of £6 as £5.


at his residence, 19, Ashley-place, Westminster, on the 30th LAW SOCIETY OF LIVERPOOL,

ult., after a short illness, at the age of seventy-seven. He 1.-That this society acknowledges the pains and care

was the son of Mr. Edward Roebuck, of Madras, where he

was born in 1802. Having spent the early part of his life bich the council of the Incorporated Liw Society of tbe

in Canada, in Hilary Term, 1831, he was called to the bar at United Kingdom have bestowed upon the question of a

the Inner Temple. He joined the Northern Circuit, and in scale of ad valorem charges in conveyancing matters, and

1843 received a silk gown from Lord Lyodhurst. At one time trusts that the council will continue their efforts to prepare

he pracrised before the Privy Council, but bis attention was such a scale as shall le suited for the whole profession and to

subrequently almost entirely absorbed by political life. In obtain legal sanction to it.

1832, immediately after the passing of the Reform Bill, he 2.-That this society does not consider the same scale for

was elected M.P. for the city of Bath in the Liberal interest. Vendors' and mortgagors' as for purchasers' and mortgagees'

He was for several years agent for the House of Assembly of solicitors either feasible or desirable.

Lower Canada in its dispute with the Executive Government, 3.-Tbat this society is of opinion that there should be

and he actively supported the interests of that assembly in a scale of charges by commission for negotiations for sales, many discussions in Parliament. He lost his seat for Bath purchases, and loans (where the same are conducted by the

in 1837, but regained it in 1841. In 1847 he was again unsolicitor and not by an estate agent) in addition to the charge

successful, but two years later he was returned for Sheffield. for the legal work.

In 1868 he lost bis seat at Sheffield, but at the election of 4.—That this society considers the scale of charges pro

1874 he was returned at the head of the poll, Mr. Roebuck posed in 1876 by the council of the Incorporated Law Society of the United Kingdom for rack rent, leages, and building

supported the present Goveroment during the discussions

upon the Eastern Question, and in August, 1878, he was leases to be very fair ones, except as regards the commission

raised to the rank of a Privy Councillor. He dined in the payable to the lessee's solicitor, which this society considers

hall at the Inner Temple on Tuesday, the 25th alt., but ebould be one-half as much as the commission payable to the lessee's solicitor, and with such an alteration they would be

caught cold on the following day, and he ruptured a blood

vessel wbile coughing. He was married to the daughter of glad to see the scales proposed adopted. 5.-That in the opinion of this society charges by com.

the Rev. Thomas Falconer, of Leighton Hall, Cheshire, and mission should be based upon the three following essential

he leaves one daughter, principles :(1) A consistent graduate percentage ; large transactions

SIR ARCHIBALD PAULL BURT. being charged a less percentage than small ones.

Sir Archibald Paull Bart, Knight, Chief Jagtice of the (2) The recogoition of extra charges for negotiations and auctions.

colony of Western Australia, died at Perth, West Australia, (3) The allowance to solicitors of purchasers and mort

on the 21st ult., at the age of sixty-nine. Sir A. gagees of a higher percen'age than that allowed to solicitors

Bart was the son of Mr. George Henry Burt, Speaker of the of vendors and mortgagorr.

House of Assembly of the Island of St. Christopher, where 6.-That in the opinion of this society the report of the

he was born in 1810. He was called to the bar at the House of Commons' Committee on Land Transfer to the

Middle Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1845, and practised effect that it is desirable that solicitors should be paid by a

for several years in his native island. He was for percentage commission affords a good opportunity for press.

several years Speaker of the House of Assembly, and ing for the adoption of a scale framed upon the principles sot

from 1849 till 1860 he was Attorney-General of St. forth in the 5th paragraph. And that if it be found that

Christopher, and a member of the Legislative Council and any soch scale is in some respects too high to permit any

Administrative Committee. He also acted for several hopes of its being sanctioned by authority, the remedy is to

months as Chief Justice. On leaving St. Christopher for be sought in a reduction of the rate of percentage rather

Australia he was presented with a handsome piece of plate, than is an abandonment of the principles upon which the

as a testimonial, subscribed for by all classes in the island, scale is framed.

and a statute was passed, granting him the sum of £500 7.-That in the opinion of this society the scale of com from the public revenue in consideration of his valuable mission charges recommended by this society, in conjunction

publio services. He was appointed civil commissioner with the law societies of Manchester, Birmingham, New and chairman of quarter sessions in Western Australia in castle-on-Type, and Worcester in 1871, is in several respects 1860, and in the following year be was appointed Chief preferable to that adopted by the council of the Incorporated Justice of the Supreme Court of the colony, and he Law Society of the United Kingdom in 1876, and is desery occupied that post antil his death. In 1873 he received ing of careful re-consideration by the council previous to the the honour of knighthood. Sir A. Bart was married to the adoption of any other scale.

daughter of the late Dr. John Bryan, bat he became a Upon a copy of the scale being sent to the committee by widower in 1870. the secretary of the Associated Provincial Law Societies, with an intimation that in the opinion of the conference the scale for mortgagees' solicitors was too high, the committee

MR. JOHN DICKONSON HOLMES. passed the following further resolutions :

Mr. John Dickonson Holmes, solicitor, died at Barnard That so far from the scale jointly proposed by the Castle, on the 16th ult. Mr. Holmes was born in Associated Law Societies of the United Kingdom and the 1813, and was admitted a soliciter in 1841. A few years Associated Provincial Law Societies for mortgagees' solicitors later he commenced to practise at Barnard Castle, where he being 100 high, it is lower than mortgagors are willing to continued in business until his death. He had a good private pay; but that the proposed scale for purchasers' solicitors is | practice, and held several important appointments. He was

« PreviousContinue »