Page images
[ocr errors]

Reasonable cause for desertion is not necessarily a distinct offence, on which a decree of separation or dissolution could be founded, but it must be grave and weighty. Mere frailty of temper is not sufficient. — Yeatman v. Yeatman, Law Rep. 1 P. & D. 489.

DEVISE. A testator held two estates, A. and B., — A. under a lease for lives renewable for ever, and B. in fee. In 1833, he made a will, in which he said, “I devise and bequeath to my son all those my property, lands, and premises at A.," together with plate, furniture, &c. “I also devise and bequeath to my son my lands and premises at B.” All his estates were charged with an annuity to his wife. A codicil provided that if the son should die without heirs of his body, in that case, and in default of such heirs, the lands at A., and the plate and furniture, all charged with the annuity to the wife, and also with a reasonable provision for the son's wife, should, at the son's death, descend to D. C., his heirs, &c., for ever. In the event of the death of the son without heirs, a charge was created in favor of a married daughter. The son died, never having had a child. Held, that the son had an estate in the nature of a fee simple, with an executory devise over to D. C. in the event that happened of the son dying without heirs of the body living at his death; and that, in B., the son had an estate for life or in tail, with a contingent remainder to D. C. in the same event. – Coltsmann v. Coltsmann, Law Rep. 3 H. L. 121. See HERLOOM; LEGACY DUTY; VESTED INTEREST.


DISCHARGE. A discharge of joint debts discharges the separate liability of the debtors on a joint and several note given to secure a joint debt (per BYLES, KEATING, and MONTAGUE SMITH, JJ.; Bovill, C.J., dissentiente). Rixon v. Emary, Law Rep. 3 C. P. 546.

DIVORCE. 1. A wife petitioned for judicial separation on the ground of cruelty; the court found the charges not proved, and dismissed the petition. Held, that she was estopped from setting up the same charges of cruelty, coupled with a charge of adultery, in a subsequent petition for dissolution. — Finney v. Finney, Law Rep. 1 P. & D. 483.

2. A., an Englishwoman, married B., a Belgian, in Scotland. They afterwards went through a second ceremony of marriage in Belgium. Subsequently, a Belgian tribunal pronounced a decree of divorce, purporting to dissolve the Belgian marriage, but not purporting to affect the Scotch marriage. A. afterwards married C. in England, in the lifetime of B. Held, that the Scotch marriage was valid and subsisting; and, on the petition of C., the court declared his marriage with A. null and void. Birt v. Boutiner, Law Rep. 1 P. & D. 487. See DESERTION.

DONATIO Causa MORTIS. The delivery of the donor's cheque on his banker, which was not presented before the donor's death: held, not a good donatio causa mortis. - Hewitt v. Kaye, Law Rep. 6 Eq. 198.




Way, 2.




EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR. 1. A testator, owning shares in a company with unlimited liability, directed his executors to convert his estate with all convenient speed. P., one of the three executors, died a year and five weeks after the testator. The shares were not converted. Held, that P.'s estate was liable for all loss occasioned to his testator's estate by the failure to convert within twelve months. Grayburn v. Clarkson, Law Rep. 3 Ch. 605.

2. Where the nomination of the executor of a person who has died domiciled in Scotland has been confirmed in the Court of Probate, as provided by 21 & 22 Vict. c. 56, § 12, the executor has all the powers of an English executor, and may dispose of leaseholds in England; though, by the law of Scotland, an executor cannot deal with leasehold property in that country. - Hood v. Lord Barrington, Law Rep. 6 Eq. 218. See FRAUDS, STATUTE OF, 2.


FIXTURES. A steam-engine and boiler, annexed to the freehold for the more convenient use of them, and not to improve the inheritance, and capable of being removed without any appreciable damage to the freehold, pass under a mortgage of the freehold. - Climie v. Wood, Law Rep. 3 Ex. 257.

FOREIGN COURT. A British ship, mortgaged in England, was arrested at New Orleans by creditors of the mortgagor, who were British subjects resident in England; and, as the courts of New Orleans do not recognize the rights of mortgagees not in possession, the mortgagees, to protect the ship from sale, gave bonds for the amount claimed by the creditors. On a bill by the mortgagees to restrain a suit on these bonds, held, that, though the decisions of the New Orleans courts might be unjust, yet, as the creditors owed no duty to the mortgagees, and had a right to proceed against the property of their debtor, wherever found it, the bill could not be maintained. - Liverpool Marine Credit Co. v. Hunter, Law Rep. 3 Ch. 479. See DIVORCE, 2.

FRAUDS, STATUTE OF. 1. A tenant applied to the landlord's solicitors for a renewal of his lease. The solicitors sent him a report by a surveyor, recommending the grant of a lease for fourteen years at a given rent, if the tenant would make certain repairs. The tenant replied, assenting to the repairs and rent, but asking for a term of twenty-one years. No agreement was come to; but, some months after, the landlord and tenant having negotiated directly, the landlord wrote to the tenant, promising him a lease for fourteen years “at the rent and terms agreed on." The tenant accepted in writing. Held, that parol evidence was admissible to connect the report and the tenant's previous letter with the subsequent letters; and it being proved that there had been no other rent or terms agreed on than those mentioned in the report, the case was taken out of the Statute of Frands. Baumann v. James, Law Rep. 3 Ch. 508.


2. The memorandum of sale of a leasehold house stated that it was the property of A., deceased, and that the sale was by direction of the executors, not naming them, and was signed by the auctioneer, as agent “ for the vendors." A. was a domiciled Scotchman, and had, by will, named seven persons, and the acceptors of them, as executors. Two only accepted office, and confirmation was granted to them in the English Court of Probate subsequently to the contract of sale. Held, that the contract was valid, and specific performance was decreed. Hood v. Lord Barrington, Law Rep. 6 Eq. 218.


FREIGHT. 1. A mortgagee of a vessel intervening by taking possession, or, when that is impossible, by giving notice to the mortgagor and the charterers, before the freight is payable, though after it is earned, is entitled to the freight as against the assignee in bankruptcy of the mortgagor. (BRAMWELL, B., dissentiente.) Rusden v. Pope, Law Rep. 3 Ex. 269.

2. F., a ship owner at L., requested the defendants to purchase goods for him at C., to be shipped on board his ship, which was then on its way to C., consigned to the defendants; and, as the goods were to be shipped on owner's account, he consented to a nominal rate of freight being inserted in the bill of lading. Before the execution of the order, the ship was transferred to the plaintiff. The defendants, having no notice of the transfer, executed the order, and put the goods on board the ship; the master, who also had no notice of the transfer— signing bills of lading to the defendants' order, “ Freight for the said goods free on owner's account.” Before the arrival of the ship at L., F. stopped payment, and the defendants claimed to stop the goods in transitu. On her arrival, the plaintiff took possession and claimed freight. On a case stated, held, that the plaintiff was not entitled, as against the defendants, to freight, or a sum equal to freight, for the carriage of the goods. — Mercantile Bank v. Gladstone, Law Rep. 3 Ex. 233.


GENERAL AVERAGE. A ship sailed from L. for C. with 2,000 tons of salt. The day after she sailed, the ship struck on a bank, and, after throwing overboard 1,000 tons of the salt

, was got off, and got back to L., where the remainder of the salt was unloaded, and was found to be badly damaged. The charterer had paid freight in advance.

« PreviousContinue »