(i.) Q. B. D.-Stolen Money-Right to follow.-The bankrupt, who was cashier of a bank, misappropriated money entrusted to him by his employers, and purchased shares therewith. Held, that the bank had a right to follow the money, and that the trustee in bankruptcy must deliver up the shares to them.-E. p. Manchester and County Bank; in re Hulton, 39 W.R. 303.

Bill of Exchange:

(ii.) H. L.-Banker-Negligence-Forgery-" Fictitious or Non-existent Payee-Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, s. 7, sub-s. 3.-Decision of C. A. (see Vol. 14, p. 101, vii.) reversed.-Bank of England v. Vagliano, 60 L.J. Q.B. 145.

See Infant, p. 81, vi.

Bill of Sale:

(iii.) C. A.-Validity-Address of Witness-Names of Parties.-The execution of a bill of sale was attested by C. "clerk to the D. Bank, 6, D. Street." It appeared from the affidavit filed with the bill of sale that C., though employed at the D. Bank, resided elsewhere. Held, that the address was sufficient. The grantee was described as "the D. Bank, of 6, D. Street, Charing Cross (of which said bank L. S. of the same place is the sole proprietor.") The D. bank was treated throughout the instrument as the grantee, the name of L. S. not being again mentioned. Held, that the bill of sale was void, because the name of the grantee was not given without ambiguity.-Woodward v. Heseltine, L.R. [1891] 1 Ch. 464; 39 W.R. 405.

(iv.) C. A.-Assignment of Chattels-Hire-Substance of Transaction.-The plaintiff executed a deed whereby he assigned chattels to the defendants absolutely, and also an agreement whereby he hired the chattels from them. The intention was merely to create a security for money. The documents were not registered as bills of sale. Held, that the substance of the transaction, and not the form must be looked at, that the documents amounted to a bill of sale, and were void for want of registration, and that the plaintiff was entitled to sue the defendants who had seized the chattels for breach of the conditions of the hiring agreement.—Madell v. Thomas & Co., L.R. [1891] 1 Q.B. 230; 64, L.T. 9 ; 39 W.R. 280.

See Company, p. 76, iii. Marriage Settlement, p. 85, iv. Building Society:

(v.) Q. B. D.—Arbitration-Power to Order Case to be Stated.-In an arbitration under the Building Societies Act, 1874, between a building society and one of its members, the Court has no power to order the arbitrator to state a case on points of law which have arisen in the reference. In re Arbitration between Knight & Tabernacle Building Society, 64 L.T. 204.

(vi.) Ch. D.-Mortmain-Interest in Land.-A corporation, under the powers of Acts of Parliament which imposed on them the duty of supplying their town with water, borrowed money on the security of mortgages of the rents, rates, and waterworks, which they were authorised to charge, levy, purchase, and make. Held, that the intention of the Acts was that the waterworks should continue as a going concern under the management of the corporation, notwithstanding the mortgages, and that the mortgages must be construed as charges on the general undertaking, and not as giving an interest in laud.-Wignall v. Park, 60 L.J. Ch. 195; 64 L.T. 257; 39 W.R. 346.

Cheque:

(i.) C. A.-Negotiability-Crossing-Bill of Exchange Act, 1882, ss. 8, 35, 73. -When it is intended that a cheque shall not be negotiable it must be so stated on it clearly and unmistakably. Quære, whether a cheque payable to bearer or order can be rendered not negotiable otherwise than by writing "not negotiable" across it. S. gave a cheque to M., payable to order, and crossed "Account of M., N. bank." The cheque was sent to the N. bank, and placed to M.'s credit, and M. was allowed to draw on account of it before the amount was paid to the bank. On presentation at the bank of S. the cheque was dishonoured, whereby M.'s account at the N. bank was overdrawn. M. did not refund, and the N. bank sued S. for the amount of the cheque. Held, that the cheque was negotiable, and that the N. bank was a bona fide holder for value, having allowed M. to draw on account of the cheque, and could sue S. for the amount.-The National Bank v. Silke, L.R. [1891] 1 Q.B. 435; 60 L.J. Q.B. 199; 63 L.T. 787; 39 W.R. 361.

Colonial Laws:

(ii.) P. C.—Ceylon-Fiscal Sale-Ejectment.—In an action of ejectment it appeared that the plaintiff had derived title from the mortgagor of the estate, and had covenanted with his vendor to pay all sums due on the mortgage; while the defendant had derived title and possession by a subsequent purchase at a fiscal sale obtained by the mortgagee in possession in proceedings to which the plaintiff was not a party. Held, that whether the plaintiff was bound by the fiscal sale or not, he could not eject the defendant without at least paying him the moneys due on the mortgage, and that, whether he was entitled to redeem or not, it could not be decreed to him in this action, as he had not claimed such relief.-Murugaser Marimuttu v. De Soysa, L.R. [1891] A.C. 69.

(iii.) P. C.-New South Wales-Intestacy-Real Estate-Tenant by Courtesy. -By the New South Wales Act, 26 Vict., No. 201, sect. 1, the real estate of an intestate is vested in his personal representative, instead of in his heir-at-law; and the proviso in sect. 2, with respect to tenancy by courtesy does not have the effect of restoring the right of succession to the heir-at-law when the intestate is a married woman whose husband survives her.-Plomley v. Shepherd, 64 L.T. 94.

(iv.) P. C.-Victoria-Transfer of Land-Statute No. 301 of 1866-Register -Forged Deed-Mortgage.-A mortgagee advancing money on the faith of the register of titles and incumbrances does not get a good security except by dealing with the person who, according to the register, is the proprietor having title to create the incumbrance; and the mortgagee must ascertain that the principal for whom an agent professes to act is the person who is registered as proprietor, and must see that he gets a genuine deed executed by that principal. Where a solicitor, by a forged transfer, fraudulently procured the name of a non-existent person to be registered as that of the proprietor of land, and afterwards professed to have witnessed the signature of such person to a deed of mortgage, the signature having in fact been written by himself, held, that such deed was invalid, and did not constitute an incumbrance upon the title of the real proprietor, even in the hands of a bona fide mortgagee for value. Gibbs v. Messer, 64 L.T. 237.

(v.) Ch. D.-Alteration of Memorandum-Business-Objects-Main Purpose -Companies (Memorandum of Association) Act, 1890, s. 1 (2), (4), (5), (a), (b).-A company formed for the purpose of investing in Government

stock or other securities guaranteed by Government, cannot alter its memorandum of association, so as to extend its power of investment to non-Government securities.-In re Government Stock Investment Co., 39 W.R. 375.

(i.) Ch. D.--Alteration of Memorandum of Association — Companies (Memorandum of Association) Act, 1890.-The objects of a company, as stated in its memorandum of association, were those of a loan and investment company. It was proposed to add to these the objects of a guarantee and finance company with greater borrowing powers. It was proved that the alterations would enable it to carry on business more efficiently. The company had not been brought before the public, nor had it carried on any business. There were no shareholders except the subscribers to the memorandum of association, and no creditors or debenture-holders. Held, that the alteration ought to be sanctioned; and that advertisements of the petition might be dispensed with.—In re Empire Trust Co., 64 L.T. 221.

(ii.) C. A.-Contributory-Payment in Cash for Shares-Companies Act, 1867, s. 25.-Shares which have been allotted to, and accepted by, a creditor of a company as fully paid up, in consideration of the extinguishment of the company's debt, cannot, in the liquidation of the company, be treated as paid for "in cash," because a contract to take fully paid up shares creates no liability to pay money, and there is, therefore, no extinguishment of existing cross-debts.-E. p. Zoutpansberg Prospecting Co.; in re Johannesburg Hotel Co., 64 L.T. 61; 38 W.R. 260.

(iii.) C. A.-Debentures—Bill of Sale-Bills of Sale Acts, 1854, 1878, 1882. -Debentures of a joint stock company, which charge the floating real and personal estate of the company, do not require registration as bills of sale. Mortgages, or charges of any incorporated company, for the registration of which statutory provision is made by the Companies Clauses Act, 1845, or the Companies Act, 1862, are not within the Bills of Sale Act, 1878.-E. p. Lowe: in re Standard Manufacturing Co., 39 W.R. 369.

(iv.) Ch. D.-Debenture-Receiver.-Where debentures include all the property of a company, and the company is insolvent, the debentureholders are entitled to the appointment of a receiver of the assets of the company, although the principal secured by the debentures is not immediately payable, and there is no interest in arrears.-M'Mahon v. North Kent Ironworks, 39 W.R. 349.

(v.) Ch. D.-Debenture-holder's Action-Winding-up.-Decision of Ch. D. (see Vol. 16, p. 40, iv.) affirmed.- Barney v. Joshua Stubbs, Limited, L.R. [1891] 1 Ch. 475; 60 L.J. Ch. 190.

(vi.) Ch. D.-Memorandum of Association-Defective Signature-Registration-Winding-up-Jurisdiction.-The certificate of registration is not conclusive as to the due signature of the memorandum of association. Where of seven persons who purported to have signed the memorandum, one signed it twice, once in his own name, and once in that of another person, held, that the company was not incorporated, and that the Court had no jurisdiction to wind it up on a creditor's petition.-In re National Debenture and Assets Corporation, 61 L.T. 229.

(vii.) Ch. D.-Reduction of Capital-Lost Capital-Companies Act, 1877, s. 3.-A sum which has been expended out of capital in preliminary, agency, establishment, and extension expenses, in order to establish a company as an insurance office, cannot be regarded as lost capital, or

capital unrepresented by available assets, and a petition for the reduction of the capital by the greater part of such sum will be dismissed.— In re Abstainers and General Insurance Co., 64 L.T. 256.

(i.) C. A.—Winding-up-Arrangement—Sanction to Scheme-Joint Stock Companies Arrangement Act, 1870, s. 2.-Decision of Ch. D. (see Vol. 16, p. 42, i.) affirmed.—In re Alabama, New Orleans, Teras, and Pacific Junction Railway Co., L.R. [1891] 1 Ch. 213; 60 L.J. Ch. 221; 64 L.T. 127.

(ii.) C. A.-Winding-up-Contributory-See Vol. 16, p. 41, vii.-Held, that though C. might have rendered himself liable on the ground of fraud, yet the facts did not disclose such a contract on his part to take shares as to justify placing his executors on the list of contributories. Decision of Ch. D. reversed.-In re Britannia Fire Association; Coventry's Case, L.R. [1891] 1 Ch. 202; 60 L.J. Ch. 186; 64 L.T. 185; 39 W.R. 328.

(iii.) Ch. D.-Winding-up-Contributory-Balance Order-Action for Calls -Merger-Companies Act, 1862, ss. 101, 102, 120.-A balance order was made on a contributory, ordering him to pay the amount of calls made before the winding-up. The order could not be served, owing to the contributory being out of the jurisdiction. Held, that the original obligation of the contributory to pay the calls was not merged in the balance order, and that an action for the amount of the calls was maintainable.-Westmoreland Green and Blue Slate Co. v. Feilden, 39 W.R. 379.

(iv.) Ch. D.-Winding-up-Landlord-Hypothec-Sequestration-Companies Act, 1862, s. 163.-Held, that a sequestration issued without leave of the Court at the suit of Scotch landlord to enforce his hypothec was void. Leave granted to the landlord to proceed with the sequestration unless security was given for the current year's rent, including a period previous to the winding-up, on terms of the landlord paying the costs of the motion.-In re Wanzer, Limited, L.R. [1891] 1 Ch. 305; 39 W.R. 343.

(v.) Ch. D.-Winding-up-Surplus Assets--Ordinary and Preference Shareholders.-A company's articles provided that the directors might set aside out of profits a reserve sum for specified purposes and contingencies in priority to dividends, and subject thereto, that the entire profits of each year should belong to the shareholders. Preference shares were issued under a power to increase capital. The undertaking was sold under an Act of Parliament at a price which left a surplus in excess of the liabilities and the paid-up capital. The sale was com. pleted during the currency of a financial year. Held (1), that the ordinary shareholders were entitled to the net profits of the current year (subject to paying an apportioned dividend to the preference shareholders), including a balance carried forward from the last year, and a sum reserved for improvements, and not applied; (2) that they were not entitled to reserve funds for insurance and depreciation; (3) nor to any inquiry as to the excess of the real value of the plant and works over the value as stated in the published accounts, or as to any application in the past accounts to capital purposes of sums which might have been divided as profits.--In re Bridgewater Navigation Co., L.R. [1891] 1 Ch. 155.

See Practice, p. 94, iii, iv.

Conflict of Laws:

(vi.) Ch. D.-Scotch Judicial Process· - Charges — Notice-Priority.-The Q. company, domiciled in Queensland, issued debentures charging its unpaid capital. After such capital had been called up, but not paid,

the A. company commenced an action in Scotland against the Q. company, and arrested the calls on certain shares in the Q. company which were held in Scotland, the holders of such shares having no notice of the debentures. It was in evidence that the arrestment was equivalent to an assignment with notice to the debtor, and took priority over an earlier assignment without notice. Held, that the question of priority in respect of the calls so arrested must be deter. mined by Scotch law, and that the A. company had priority.—In re Queensland Mercantile and Agency Co., L.R. [1891] 1 Ch. 536.

Copyright:

(i.) Ch. D.-Dramatising Novel.-A. published a drama, and afterwards a novel founded on it. C. published a drama which was dramatised directly from the novel, and not with the help of A.'s drama. Held, that A. having published his drama before the novel, no person had a right to infringe the stage copyright in the drama, even though the passages complained of were taken from the novel and not from the drama, and that C. must be restrained from representing his drama.-Schlesinger v. Turner, 63 L.T. 764.

(ii.) Ch. D.-Dramatising Novel.-A. published a novel and afterwards published a dramatised version of it. B. published a dramatised version of the novel, after the publication of A.'s version, B.'s version being made directly from the novel, and not with the help of A.'s version. Held, that A. having published the novel before the drama, any person had a right to dramatise the novel and represent the drama, and that B. could not be restrained from doing so.-Schlesinger v. Bedford, 63 L.T. 762.

(iii.) Q. B. D.—Drama-Infringement—Penalties-Double Costs—Indemnity -3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 15, s. 2-5 & 6 Vict., c. 97, s. 2-R.S.C., 1883, O. xxii., . 7.-Where the owner of the copyright of a play had sued for penalties in the High Court, and the defendant had paid the amount into Court, and the plaintiff had accepted that amount in satisfaction, held, that the plaintiff was entitled to the costs of the suit, although the amount recovered was under £10, either, per Wills, J., because he was, by the above-mentioned statutes, entitled to a full and reasonable indemnity as to costs, or, per Williams, J., because the Court had a discretion to allow such costs.-Reeve v. Gibson, 64 L.T. 141.

Coroner :

(iv.) Q. B. D.-Salary-Period of Five Years-New Coroner-Division of District-Remedy of Coroner-County Coroners Act, 1860, s. 4.-The period of five years, for which a coroner's salary is fixed, ends with the coroner's death, and his successor is entitled to have a new fixing of his salary, and to receive the salary so fixed for a period of five years from the time it is so fixed, although in the meantime his district is divided, and a new coroner appointed to part of it. The coroner's remedy for enforcing his rights with respect to the salary is the prerogative writ of mandamus to the county justices, and not an action against the justices or any number of them acting for the whole, claiming a declaration of his rights or a mandamus to enforce such rights.Baxter v. London County Council, 63 L.T. 767.

Costs :

(v.) Q. B. D.-County Court-Action Remitted from High Court--Charge of Solicitors.-An action for £30 for work done was commenced in the High Court, and was remitted to a County Court, where the plaintiff obtained judgment for £30 and costs. Before the action was remitted