Page images
PDF
EPUB

reversed his order. No doubt, the Lord Justices sat with the Lord Chancellor, but it is evident that it was hardly satisfactory. (The Metropolitan Railway Co., December 17.) In a case of obstruction of lights, in which the Court of Appeal had, as the Vice-Chancellor had done, to determine as to the effect of the scientific evidence, and deemed the obstruction not made out; it was objected that the building was completed, but the Lord Chancellor said that this in itself, was not conclusive; the Court would not order a completed building to be removed, except in extreme cases; but it could do so. The court, at all events, could give damages in such a case, and it was desirable that the Court should assess damages in order to prevent repeated actions at law. (The City of London Brewery Co., December 4.) A case came before the Court of Appeal in which they had to decide between two conflicting views, taken by Lord Romilly and the ViceChancellor, as to the effect of the common covenant in a settlement, "that in case, after the solemnisation of the marriage, Mr. or Mrs. A, or either of them, in her right, should become entitled to any moneys or other property then all such moneys or property should be vested in the trustees of the settlement." The husband died previously to his wife's title to the fund in question accruing. The petition asked that her share might be paid to her. Two cases decided by Malins, V.C. Dickinson v. Dilwyn, 39 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 266, s. c., L. R. 8 Eq. 546; Carter v. Carter, 39 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 268, s. c., L. R. 8 Eq. 551), to show that a covenant in these terms extended only to property to which the wife became entitled during the coverture. the other side, a conflicting decision of Lord Romilly, M.R. (Stevens Van Voorst, 17 Beav. 305), was relied on. Their Lordships said that they had consulted the Lord Chancellor upon the matter; and he was of opinion, and they agreed with him, that the rule laid down by Malins, V.C., was the most consonant with reason, and should prevail. Accordingly, a covenant in these terms applied only to property to which the wife became entitled during the coverture, and Mrs.

On

Robinson's share in the fund was not included in her settlement, and must be paid to her. (Ex parte Robinson).

There was a very important case before the full court as to the jurisdiction of the Court of Bankruptcy, in which it was held, that, though that court has very large powers to decide all questions necessary for the proper administration of a bankruptcy estate, it does not enable the assignees to draw within the jurisdiction of the court the owners. of property not vested in the assignees; and still less does it enable the court to work at a decree of the Court of Chancery (Maule v. Davis, December 16). This only carries out a former judgment of Lord Selborne's, in which the nature and bounds of the jurisdiction of the Court of Bankruptcy are defined in a very clear and masterly way. (It will be found in Messrs. Roche and Hazlett's last edition of their Laws of Bankruptcy, among the addenda prefixed to the work.)

The Chief Judge in Bankruptcy had to decide a question, which, he said, was one of great importance, whether, when in consequence of accident (as the admission of a very large debt against the estate) the assets become insufficient to pay the composition, which has been agreed to be taken, the majoritory of the creditors can consent to take less. The Chief Judge held that they could. (Ex parte Radcliffe, in re Glover.)

The Bankruptcy court is closely connected with Chancery: the Full Court of Appeal in Chancery, being the Full Court of Appeal in Chancery. It is the only court which is always sitting. The registrars, as will be seen from the daily reports throughout the year, and unhappily never want business, every day see the bankrupts are examined before them, with the usual story: debts measured by many thousands, or tens of thousands of pounds, and assets comparatively small. The Vice-Chancellor (Bacon), Chief Judge, sat now and then as a Court of Appeal from the County Court judges or the registrars. In one of the County Court appeals the question was as to the validity, as against

creditors, of a marriage settlement which was to include "all future real or personal estate of the husband." The Vice-Chancellor held such a settlement invalid, as opposed to justice and the law; for, that a man could not be allowed thus to withdraw the whole of his property from creditors. Ex parte Rolland Law Journal notes 188.) The Full Court of Appeal in Chancery took appeals from Bankruptcy, either from the Chief Judge or the Registrars, once a week during the Term and sittings.

In one case before the Lord Chancellor and Lord Justice James, a shipowner claimed a lien for a sum of money which was to be advanced under the charter out of freight on the clearing of the ship, which cleared but never started, the charterers becoming bankrupt. The judge of the Manchester County Court held that the owner was not entitled to the lien claimed, and this decision was affirmed by the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy. The owner now appealed. Their lordships held that the ship, not having commenced her voyage, no freight had been earned or commenced to be earned, and there was, therefore, nothing in respect of which the ordinary mercantile lien for freight would arise; nor was there anything in the wording of the charter-party to show that the word "freight" was used in any other than the ordinary sense. And so the appeal was dismissed with costs. (Ex parte Nyholme, re Childs, Law Journal notes, 190.)

It is due to Lord Selborne to point out that he was the first to originate a practice of permanent sitting in chambers, most beneficial to the suitor. On the other hand, it is due to the Master of the Rolls to add that he has most cordially concurred and co-operated with the Lord Chancellor in carrying out this salutary practice. Thus we read in the Times, at the last day of the year :

"His Honour sat to day for the first time in the vacation. to take pressing applications at the Rolls' House, and will again sit on Wednesday next if required. Only a few applications were made on the proper occasion. The vacation. sittings were inaugurated by the Lord Chancellor, and will be continued in the several vacations on Wednesday. Mr.

Church, the Chief Clerk at the Rolls' Chamber, heard a number of summonses for time to answer, &c.”

The Law Times says:—

"We understand that the Master of the Rolls has signified his intention to facilitate in every way in his power the transaction of business in his chambers. This is most important, for, no doubt, many ex parte applications are made in the Chancery Courts which can be as well and less expensively made in the Judges' Chambers. We hope the Vice-Chancellors will follow the good example of Sir George Jessel."

The decisions of the Master of the Rolls are regarded with satisfaction as showing a robust good sense and firm grasp of legal principles. An information was filed to restrain the defendant from driving piles into the river Stour, at Sandwich, to form a platform in fromt of his quay and wharf. He defendant did not dispute that the Stour was a navigable river; but he contended that, as the platform he was making was only three feet broad, the matter was too trifling for the Court to interfere with. He also alleged, in justification of his acts, that the formation of the platform would enable him to land his goods easier and sell them cheaper, and thereby confer a public benefit on the neighbourhood. But this was bad law, and the Master of the Rolls, therefore, held that the benefit which the defendant said would be derived by the public from the erection of the platform, was not such a benefit as would justify the defendant's acts. He also said that on such a question as this, the Court would not consider the amount of the damage done; but seeing that it was an illegal act to place any obstruction, however slight, in a navigable river, the Court would restrain it. (Law Journal Notes.) The Law Times and Law Journal have repeatedly expressed their satisfaction at the vigour of Sir G. Jessel's mind.

In a case before the Master of the Rolls, as to the construction of wills, Sir G. Jessell intimated that he "should discourage citation of cases on the construction of other wills, except where some principle was laid down, or where some technical terms were defined or expressed," which was

the rule laid down by the House of Lords in the lending, (Grey v. Pearson, 6 H., L. cases 61, 108), which is approved by the Law Times.

In a Charity School case, the Master of the Rolls decided some very important points; that the Charity Commissioners have jurisdiction in contentious cases, that they have power to appoint additional trustees without removing the old trustees;-that the power given to the majority, under the Education Act, did not make the appointment bad; and, lastly, that as the Commissioners had jurisdiction, the court would not interfere with their discretion, except in a gross case of miscarriage. (In re Burnham National Schools, Law Journal notes of cases, 185). His Honour had to declare a bequest for a very salutary object, providing a home for widows and families of military and naval officers, void, under the mischievous "Mortmain " Act, which is no Mortmain Act at all, but simply an odious, absurd, and injurious law against charity, under which a man may leave any amount of property to a concubine, but cannot leave an acre to endow a church, a school,

a hospital. (Atherton v. Merriman, December 15)-(see Finlason, on the Mortmain Laws, published 1853.) On a petition for payment of surplus proceeds of glebe vicarage land, sold for redemption of land tax, for the purpose of permanent improvements of the vicarage, his Honour held he had no power to make the order, and when reminded that other judges had made similar orders, observed that because other judges had exceeded their jurisdiction it was no reason why he should do so-(In re Nether Stowey Vicarage, December 13th). But if such is the law it is simply iniquitous and absurd, and ought to be altered.

Before the Master of the Rolls a case arose in which the pecision in the celebrated leading case of Tulk v. Mozhay (as to Leicester Square) was carried out, and it was held that as one of the parties to a partition had got a benefit by an undertaking or condition, this imposed a trust on him and all claiming under him, with notice-a most important head of Equity. (Webb v. Tulk).

« PreviousContinue »