« PreviousContinue »
against a capricious change of mind on the part of some any value at all in the remarks of the Lord Justice, they few creditors upsetting the determination come to by simply come to this, that in no case whatever of failure the necessary majority at the first meeting. And, by ought the creditors to be allowed to take a composition analogy, I contend it was never intended that the court unless it be to the full extent of the amount of the should overrule the deliberate resolutions of tbe creditors assets as shown upon paper; in other words, in bona fide unless some facts were shown which would be sufficient cases compositions would become impossible. I can only under section 126 to induce the court to withhold regis- say that this is certainly not the view heretofore taken tration.
by commercial men and lawyers of experience in The Master of the Rolls, quoting the words of section commercial matters. They have been in the habit of 28, “ subject nevertheless to the approval of the court," considering that in all cases of composition, where it is further remarks, “ There are no words to limit the dis intended to give the debtor an opportunity of continuing cretion thus given;" and upon this he decides that the his business, a sufficient margin of assets should be court has a full judicial discretion to approve or with allowed to him to enable him to work such business hold its approval. On this, too, I venture to submit successfully; unless such a margin be allowed, it is clear that the decision of the Chief Judge is more in accord that it would be simply impossible for anyone to continue & ance with the intention and provisions of the Act. business successfully, as his credit would be entirely gone. The concluding paragraph of section 126 provides The acceptance of a composition which would allow sach & that, “if it appear to the court on satisfactory evi. margin does not prejudice the creditors, as in all cases dence that a composition cannot, in consequence of the composition stipulated for is at least as much as, if legal difficulties or for any sufficient cause, proceed not more than, the estate would pay if wound up. And without injustice or undue delay to the creditors or | unless fraud, or something as reprehensible, be shown to the debtor, the court may adjudge the debtor a | (as to which the creditors are the parties intended by the bankrupt, and proceedings may be had accordingly." Act to decide), the general body of creditors are interested Surely the powers thus expressly given to the court are in keeping a business firm going, not on their own as wide as the words in section 28 can be held to be; account merely, but in the interest of the trading com. and yet, as was admitted by the Master of the Rolls, munity at large, and even on the grouuds of public policy. under that section resolutions duly passed are bound March 5, 1881.
A SOLICITOR to be registered unless fraud be shown. And surely in exercising a judicial discretion the court is bound to consider and act upon the scope of the whole
FURNISHED HOUSES. Act of Parliament, and if express provisions are found
[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] for regulating the carrying out of compositions in Sir,– Will you allow me to ask your readers what is another part of the Act, or in the rules made in pur the law on the following point:suance of the Act, it ought to take cognizanco thereof
A. lets to B., and B. takes, a furnished house for nine and exercise its discretion in accordance therewith. To
or twelve months. During the tenancy a frost sets in, do otherwise would be to make the Act inconsistent in and one of the pipes bursts, causing damage to A.'s itself; whilst, if my contention be correct, then rule 280
property, and resulting in B. getting no water by thet and other provisions (ignored apparently by the Court of
pipe. He gets water through another pipe. Whose Appeal) would be applicable to the case.
duty is it to repair the pipe and restore the service Having laid down the rule that the court has an
of water? If B. does so, can he recover the cost absolute judicial discretion to withhold its approval
against A. or retain it out of the rent? A. pays all rates to the composition, notwithstanding that the statutory
and taxes except gas and water rates, which B. pays. majority of creditors have resolved to accept it, the
There is no written agreement between the parties. Master of the Rolls proceeded to comment upon the
omment upon the I shall esteem it a favour if any of your correspondents facts of the case, but into these I do not propose to will give the law.
CLERICUS. follow him. It may be that the conduct of the debtors on various points was open to censure. But have
[See Anderson v. Oppenheimer, noticed 24 SOLICITORS' any of your readers ever known of a failure where
JOURNAL, 479; so far as we remember, however, this the debtors have been entirely free from blame? My
was the case of an unfurnished house. -ED. S.J.] contention is that the creditors were the parties intended by the Act to decide upon the conduct of their debtors, and that it was not in the province of the court to undo what the creditors had resolved upon in this respect.
NEW ORDERS. The same principle was held by the Chief Judge to apply to the discharge of a bankrupt under section 48
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. in Ex parte Hamilton (26 W. R. 679), but possibly the Court of Appeal might now overrule that decision also.
Queen's BENCH DIVISION. I have only one more observation to make, relative to Notice. The following will be the arrangements in the following remarks of Lord Justice James. He says: this division during the rest of the Hilary Sittings at -"One has heard of a new way to pay old debts.' One Westminster and Guildhall-i.e., up to the 13th of has heard of persons living on the interest of their debts, April-subject to any necessary alterations in cocand in old comedies it was not uncommon to represent a sequence of the Old Bailey Sessions or of election peticitizen of London making a fortune out of three tions. There will be six courts sitting daily at Nisi successive bankruptcies. But until now I did not know Prius for the trial of special and common jury actions, how penniless beggars could openly, legally, make a con. Cases for further consideration will be taken on Satursiderable fortune out of their failure. It appears that by days. At Westminster Nisi Prius cases will be taken in reckless trading and expenditure Durham was reduced to i the following courts :-The Court of Queen's Bench, assets £99,724, liabilities £153,740. The debtor then I the Court of Exchequer, the Bail Court, the Lords says to his creditors, Sell me my assets for ten shillings | Justices' Court, and the First and Second Vicein the pound on my liabilities; that is, let mo have my Chancellors' Courts. Three judges will sit in the £99,724 for £75,000. The assets are £99,000 if left in Court of Common Pleas for the despatch of the my hands. They will never in bankruptcy or liquidation new trial paper and parliamentary and municipal produce anything like £99,000. If you get two-thirds | business. On Mondays and Tuesdaye, motions of all you may think yourselves lucky. Let us avoid these kinds, opposed and unopposed, will be taken before the expensive proceedings.' And so he turns into profit all new trial paper. Two judges will sit in the Court of the losses he has sustained, puts the money into his | Exchequer Chamber for the despatch of appeals from the pocket, and all expenditure is saved.” Now, if there is inferior courts and for the Crown and Revenue paper, and cases stated under 37 & 38 Vict. c. 16. On Wednes- | the absence of any agreement, the property of the landlord, as days and Thursdays, motions of all kinds, opposed and being affixed to and forming part of the house. It was deanopposed, will be taken in this court before the ordi. I mised by the landlord as part of the house in 1861 and again nary paper. Two judges will sit separately in two courts 1 in 1871, and the removal of it inside the house in 1866 by for the despatch of the special paper and demurrers.
the then tenant could not, as against the landlord, conOn Fridays and Saturdays these two judges will sit to
vert it into a chattel. But, in fact, the true inference from
the evidence was that it was fixed up in the entrance-hall, gether for the hearing of motions of all kinds, opposed
not as a chattel, but as the sign of the house. COTTON, L.J., and unopposed, after which they will take business to
intimated an opinion (though it was not necessary to decide be specially fixed. This arrangement of the two
the point) that, if the tenant of a house surrenders an existjudges sitting together on Fridays and Saturdays can. ing lease, and accepts a new one, be thereby, in the not come into operation until the number of the judges absence of any agreement to the contrary, loses the right to in this division is complete—one judge sitting at cham. remove any fixtures which he might have removed, but did bers.
not remove, during his original term. However, on the 7th inst., James, L.J., mentioned the case again, and said
that, on consideration, their lordships thought that, in giving THE EXTRADITION ACT.
their judgments, they might, perhaps, have stated some proThe Gazette for Friday, 4th March, contains the text of a
positions more widely than it was necessary or desirable to treaty for the mutual extradition of fugitive criminals con.
state them. If and when the simple case should arise of a claded on the 24th of November last between Her Majesty's
tenant having removable fixtures continuing his possession Government and the King of the Netherlands and Grand
under a new or extended term, wbether he would retain his Dake of Luxemburg, the ratifications of which were ex.
right of removal during sach continued and continuous pogchanged at Brussels on the 5th of January. The treaty
session, their lordships desired to hold themselves perfectly comes into force on the 15th inst. It may be terminated
free to decide that case, unfettered by anything which at any time by either of the high contracting parties, but is
had been said in the present case. All that must be conto remain in force for six months after notice has been given
sidered as judicially decided in the present case was that for its termination,
Miss Thomas had no right of property in the signboard ; that it was not a chattel of which reputed ownership could be predicated ; and that, as against her and her trustee the freeholder was clearly entitled to prevent the removal of
the fixture.-SOLICITORS, Travers Smith, & Braithwaite ; CASES OF THE WEEK. W. W. Wynne f Son.
LANDLORD AND TENANT-FIXTURES-SIGNBOARD OF RAILWAY COMPANY-SPECIAL Acr-DIVIDENDS ON Calls PUBLIC-HOUSE.—In a case of Ex parte The Baroness Wil. -INJUNCTION-COMPANIES CLAUSES CoxsOLIDATION ACT, loughby D'Eresby, before the Court of Appeal on the 1845, s. 24.—In a case of Fisher v. Hull, Barnsley, and West 3rd inst., a question arose as to the ownership of the sign Riding Junction Railway and Dock Company, before the board of a public-house. The signboard had a peculiar Master of the Rolls on the 4th inst., a motion was made to value, arising from the fact that it had been painted by a restrain the defendants, the directors of the company, and celebrated artist. In the year 1847 it was fastened by the company, from paying any money by way of dividend iron holdfasts to the outside wall of the house, over the upon the paid-up capital during the construction of the works. entrance. It was then re-painted by the artist, who stood on By their special Act, passed in 1880, the company were a ladder for the purpose. At this time the house was occu authorized to construct a railway and dock. The 157th pied by one Edward Roberts, as tenant from year to year. section of the Act was as follows :-" The company shall not, Àfterwards, his son, Robert Roberts, occupied the house as out of any money by this Act authorized to be raised, pay yearly tenant, but it did not appear that he was his interest or dividend to any shareholder on the amount of the father's legal personal representative. In 1861, the owner calls made in respect of the shares held by him, but nothing of the freehold granted a lease of the house to Robert in this Act shall prevent the company from paying to any Roberts for twenty-one years. In 1863 be died, and his shareholder such interest on money advanced by him beyond widow afterwards married again, first, one Rae, and after. the amount of calls actually made as is in conformity with wards, one Richards. On her marriage with Richards, the the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845." By section lease was assigned to the trustees of her marriage settlement. 24 of the latter Act, it is provided that the company, if they In 1871, the trustees, with the concurrence of Richards and think fit, may receive from their shareholders all or any part his wife, surrendered the lease to the freeholder, and a of the moneys due upon their respective shares beyond the new lease was granted to Richards for fifty-eight years. In sums actually called for, and upon the principal sums so paid 1876, after his death, his widow assigned the lease to a Miss in advance or in excess of the calls the company may pay Thomag. The signboard was expressly excepted from the interest at such rate as may be agreed upoo. By the conassignment. It had remained fixed outside the house, as it tracts for the construction of the works, the contractors, in was in 1847, until 1866, when some alterations were made consideration of an increase in the contract prices, agreed to in the house, that part of it to which the signboard was pay interest during the construction of the works upon all affixed being pulled down. The signboard was then taken calls paid up. A prospectus of the issue of the share capital inside the house, and was fixed up in the entrance-hall, of the conipany was published in December, 1880, by which being fastened by a screw to a wooden plug let into the | 300,000 shares of £10 each were offered for subscription, on wall, and there it remained until 1880. In 1878, Mrs. the terms of ten shillings per share being paid on application, Richards made a claim to it as her pioperty, and attempted and ten shillings on allotment, £1 op the 1st of July, 1981, to remove it, but the agent of the freebolder interfered, and and the remainder by instalments when required. The claimed it as the property of the freeholder, and Mrs. prospectus stated that interest at the rate of £5 per cent. Richards withdrew her claim. In 1879, Miss Thomas filed would be paid ball-yearly until the 31st of December, 1884, a liquidation petition, and the trustee in the liquidation upon all amounts for the time being paid up, the interest havclaimed the signboard as having been in her order and dis ing been covenanted to be paid by the contractors, and the position with the consent of the true owner. There was | prospectus allowed the shareholders to pay up in advance by evidence of the existence of a custom in Wales (in which the consent of the directors. The share capital was fully subpublic-honse was situate) by virtue of which the signboards scribed for, and under the power in the prospectus a sum of of public-houses are always treated as tenant's fixtures. £824,095, in addition to the sums payable on application and
£824,095, in addition to the sums pays Bacon, C.J., held (29 W. Ř. 248) that the trustee was en. allotment, was paid up. The plaintiff was the bolder of titled to the signboard. This decision was reversed by the scrip certificates for 300 sbares which he purchased from the Court of Appeal (JAMES, COTTOx, and LUSH, LJJ.), who | allottee, and he now brought this action on behalf of himself said that, assuming that the signboard was a tenant's fix. and all otber shareholders, claiming, in addition to the in. tore in 1847—that is, a fixture which the then tenant was junction asked by his motion, declarations that the defendentitled to remove during his tenancy, or witbio a reasonable ants were not entitled to pay any dividends out of capital, and time after its determination-yet he had never exercised his that the contracts entered into with the contractors were right to do so, and, consequently, the signboard, whatever illegal, as containing provisions for the payment of dividends might have been the original right of the tenant, became, in out of capital. The next payment of interest on the capital paid up was intended to be made in July, 1881. Jessel, 1 an order restraining the use by the defendant of the words M.R., said it was clear from the prospectus, and the covenant “and Co.” until the trial, the order not to extend to stock. entered into by the contractors, that the company threatened &c., assigned by the deed, except that the words were to be and intended to pay interest at £5 per cent. on all sums paid struck through upon the circulars. His lordship considered up on the shares, and the defendants bad not denied that the there was a clear bargain between the parties, although the interest was to be paid out of the “ moneys authorized to be contract was only contained in recitals, and that it was not raised " by their special Act. That being so, they intended necessary to deal with questions as to whether it was void as to do that which was illegal, and there must be an injunction. being in restraint of trade, or as to the right of a continuing In his opinion the “calls" upon which the directors could partner to the firm name.-SOLICITORS, Wood, Latham, & legally pay interest under the Companies Clauses Act, s. 24, Bigg ; H. Montayu. were sums actually called and paid in advance, as distinguished from those sums which were paid in advance, although not required to be paid, and therefore that the suns
DAMAGES_REMOTENESS.—In a case of McMahon v. Pield, payable on application and allotment, and on the 1st of July,
before Fry, J., on the 7th inst., a question arose as to the 1881, would be within the definition. He should grant an
remoteness of damages. The defendant had agreed to let injunction in the words of the 157th section of the special Act,
some stables to the plaintiff, and he had afterwards turned omitting, however, the words “out of moneys authorized by
the plaintiff's horses out of the stables. The plaintiff this Act to be raised."-SOLICITORS, Fowler & Perks ; Brooks claimed damages for breach of contract, and be alleged that sbank f Galland; Cope & Co.
the health of his horses had been injured by their being turned out. FRY, J., held that the plaintiff was entitled to
damages for the breach of contract only, but that the damage WILL-APPOINTMENT OF SHARE OF FUND_POSTPONB
arising from the injury to the horses was too remote. He MENT OF ENJOYMENT-INTEREST IN THE MEANTIME.-In
came to this conclusion on the authority of Hobbs v. The a case of Long v. Ovenden, before the Master of the Rolls on London and South-Western Railway Company (23 W. R. the 8th inst., a question was raised whether the donee of a 520, L. R. 10 Q, B. 111), though the inclination of his own share of an appointed fund, wbere the enjoyment was post opinion was the other way. – SOLICITORS, Hanlin di poned until twenty-one, was entitled to the income upon the
Grammer ; Paterson, Son, & Bloxam. fund in the meantime. JESSEL, M.R., said he had no doubt the income went with the capital. The thing given was a part of an ascertained trust fund, and he must treat it as a SERVICE OF WRIT-OMISSION TO MAKE INDORSEMENT well-settled doctrine that wbere a trust fund was given to a OF DATE OF SERVICE-EXTENSION OF TIME-ORD. 9, R. legatee, although the enjoyment was postponed, it carried | 13—ORD. 57, R, 6.-In a case of Hastings v. Hurley, before with it the intermediate income. If a specific legacy was Fry, J., on the 8th inst., the question arose whether under given to anyone this was clear, as it was, in fact, a severance the power given to the court by rule 6 of order 57, the time of the legacy from the general estate, and when there was a prescribed by rule 13 of order 9, within which the person complete severance, the legacy would carry interest from the who serves a writ is to make an indorsement on it of the death instead of from a later period. In the same way, if any date of service, could be extended. Rule 13 says that the acoretion occurred to a specific legacy, the legatee was indorsement must be made “ within three days at most after entitled to the benefit of it. Then what difference did it | such service." An order had been made giving the plaintiff make that, instead of the subject-matter belonging absolutely
| liberty to serve the writ on one of the defendants out of the to the appointor, it was only a sbare of a fund as to which the jurisdiction, at Galveston, in Texas, and the writ had been appointor had a power of appointment? In his opinion a share erved on the defendant by the British Consul there, but the of a fund carried with it the interest upon the fund, and also consul had omitted to make the indorsement of the date of any other accretions, and he should make a declaration
service. Fry, J., held that he had power to extend the giving the donee the income prior to his attaining twenty
time, and he extended it for a month from the date of bis one.--SOLICITORS, Sole, Turner, & Knight, Coilyer-Bristow, order, but said that the consul must make a fresh affidavit Withers, & Russell.
of service.-SOLICITORS, Peacock of Goddard,
INJUNCTION-TRADE-NAME_USE OF WORDS“ AND Co." ACTION FOR ACCOUNT--ASSIGNMENT OF SHARE OF PROFITS PARTNERSHIP DISSOLVED.-In a case of Day r. Finch, before | OF A PATENT-RIGHT OF ASSIGNEE TO ACCOUNT FROM Vice-Chancellor Hall on the 4th inst., a point arose as to ASSIGNOR'S AGENT.-In a case of Bergmann v. Macmillar, the use of the words "and Co." after a proper name, which before Fry, J., on the 8th inst., a question arose as to the is not without interest. The decision was given upon the liability of an agent to account. The defendant Macmillan construction of a contract between the parties, but the was the grantee of a patent. He had assigned to the plaincircumstances were such as are not unlikely to recur in other tiff a moiety of the patent and of his interest resulting therecases of dissolution of partnership. In April, 1879, Mr. from, and a moiety of all or any of the licences, powers, and Benjamio Fincb, who had previonsly carried on business as a privileges resulting therefrom, and a moiety of all rights, sanatory engineer in his own proper Dame only, took into powers, or benefits to the patent appertaining. Macmillan partnersbip in his business a Mr. Day, and the business was had shortly before appointed two other persons (who were thenceforward carried on at the old premises under the pame also made defendants to the action) his sole licensees in Great of “Benjamin Finch and Co." and those words were used on Britain for the sale of the patented article for seven years, the circulars and stationery of the firm, as well as upon their and the agreeinent with them provided that they were to brands and manufactured articles. In June, 1880, Mr. Day, render monthly accounts to Macmillan of the sales. Notice who had never taken an active part in the business, desired of the assignment was given by the plaintiff to the agents. to retire, and the partnership was dissolved by deed, and the The action was brought against Macmillan and the agents, dissolution advertised in the Gazette. In the deed, whereby claiming an account against the former of the profits derived Mr. Day took a security for moneys he lent Mr. Fiach for the from the patent, and against the agents an account of all business, there was contained a recital of an agreement tbat sums of money due from them in respect of profits under Mr. Finch should thenceforward carry on the business “in the agreement appointing them agents. It appeared that his own name alope," and that intention was also advertised Macmillan bad inade other assignments of shares of the profits, in the Gazette notice. The stock-in-trade, stationery, &c., but these assignees were not made parties to the action. Fry, were assigoed by deed to Mr. Fincb. Mr. Day bad J., refused to grant the account, because the evidence showed recently discovered that Mr. Finch was continuing to carry that no profits had been in fact derived from the working of on the business in every respect under the style of “ Benjamin the patent. But he added that, without saying that an Finch and Co.," and now applied by motion for an injunction assignee of a share of profits was not entitled to an account to restrain Mr. Finch from carrying on the business under from the agent of the assignor, in his judgment, to avoid that name or otherwise than in bis own name. By way of multiplicity of actions, the account must be taken once for defence it was argued that, in modern vsage, the words and all in the presence of all the persons interested, and, moreover, Co." could not be taken to imply any actual partnership, nor the plaintiff ought by his statement of claim to submit to to couvey any special meaning ; that no actual contract could pay to the agent any moneys that might be due to him from be shown, and that the plaintiff could not show any probable the assignor." The assignee must put himself exactly in the damage to bimself. HALL, V.C., held that there was a proper position of the assignor. This the plaintiff had not done. Case for an interlocutory injunction, and accordingly made SOLICITORS, T. W. Goldring ; Goldberg & Langdon.
BILL OF SALE - SETTING OUT CONSI DERATION FOR – conducted in the London court, it is for him to lay that DEDUCTION OF COMMISSION FOR SUM ADVANCED - BILLS opinion before the creditors, and then if they do not object OF SALE ACT, 1878 (41 & 42 VICT. C. 31), s. 8.—In a case the proceedings may be transferred. In the meantime I of Hamilton v. Chaine, Morgan, Claimant, which came before cannot interfere, for the simple reason that everyone knows the Queen's Bench Division on March 4, on appeal from the where the learned judge is to be found, and there really is decision of a county court judge, the question was whether not the slightest difficolty in getting an injuoction, which [ & bill of sale daly set out the consideration for which the bill of feel quite certain he will give you. You have not shown sale was given. The claimant agreed to lend the defendant me that I have a scintilla of jurisdictiou to deal with this £700 upon having the same secured by a bill of sale upon question. her forniture, and this was done. The $700 was paid in Application refused. two cheques, bot, when the second cheque was cashed, the claimant deducted £7 10s. " for commission on the said loan” (the solicitor's charges having been previously paid), and took the defendant's promissory note for £10, also in respect of
SOCIETIES. commission. The court (GROVB and LINDLEY, JJ.) held, affirming the decision of the county court judge, that the
SHEFFIELD DISTRICT INCORPORATED LAW consideration was not set out as required by the Bills of Sale Act, 1878; that the bill of sale set out the consideration
SOCIETY. as £700, whereas the true consideration was that sum, less
At the sixth annual general meeting of the society, held at £17 10s. partly deducted, and partly secured by a promissory the rooms, Aldine-court, High-street, Sheffield, on Friday, note, for the payment of commission, and not for expenses in
the 25th of February, 1881, Mr. William Smith (the viceconnection with the advance, in wbich case the consideration
president) in the chair, the report, as printed, having been might have been troly set ont.-SOLICITORS, Nash & Field, taken as read, it was resolved for Stuckey & Son, Brighton ; Venn 8. Woodcock, for Godman,
1. That the report presented by the committee be rem Brighton.
ceived, confirmed, and adopted.
2. That the accounts of Mr. Broomhead, the treasurer, for the past year, as printed, be approved and passed, and
that the thanks of the society be given to him for his ser CASES BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY
3. That the cordial thanks of the society be given to Mr. (Before Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY, acting as Chief Judge.)
Herbert Bramley for the able manner in which he hus dis
charged the office of honorary secretary from the commenceMarch 2.—Re Stanley Harris.
ment of this society. The London court has no jurisdiction to appoint a receiver The chairman then, in the name of the society, presented and grant & restraining order under a petition for liquidation to Mr. Charles Thwaites, of Doncaster, who obtained the filed in a county court having jurisdiction in bankruptcy,
| Clement's-inn Prize in the Trinity Sittings Examination in although the petitioner is a solicitor and the registrar of the county court in question.
1880, being the first among 75 candidates for honours, the
prize of the society of the value of ter guineas. The books H. H. Wells (solicitor), on behalf of Mr. Stanley Harris,
chosen were “Hallam's Constitutional History of England," solieitor, and also the registrar of the Barnet County Court, 3 vols.; “Hallam's Middle Ages," 3 vols.; " Hallam's Literapplied for the appointment of a receiver, and for an injunc re of Europe." 3 vols. • « Macanlay's Esgavs." 3 vols. : tion to restrain proceedings in several actions. He stated
and “May's Constitutional History of England.” Mr. that Mr. Harris had presented a petition for liquidation to Thwaites had also taken the whole of the open prizes in the the Barnet County Court, and, unless the case was carried year-namely, the Daniel Reardon Prize of £100 ; the Joke on in this court, the petitioner would be in this anomalous Scott Scholarship of £50 ; and the Broderip gold medal. position, that he would, as registrar, have to issue orders 4. That Mr. William Smith be elected the president; Mr. restraining proceedings against himself, and, perhaps, to Bernard Wake be elected the vice-president: Mr. Broomhead register his own resolution.
be re-elected the treasurer; and Mr. Bramley be re-elected Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY.-Why should not the county the secretary of the society. court judge deal with the case ? You must show mo that, 5. That the following gentlemen be hereby appointed to under some Act of Parliament or rule, I have jurisdiction to act with the officers mentioned in last resolution as the comtransfer the matter.
mittee for the ensuing year, namely: Messrs. Ashington, Wells.-The judge bas signed a certificate under section Bagshawe, Josh. Binney, c. G. Basby (Chesterfield), Bur80, sub-section 5, that, in his opinion, the bankruptcy will dekin, W. J. Clegg, Esam, F. L. Harrop (Rotherham), be more advantageously conducted in the London court. Moore, Parker-Rhodes (Rotherham), Colin M. Smith, C. E. The petition was filed yesterday at Barnet, and there are | Vickers, Webster, A. Wightman, and Yeomans. seven creditors suing, one of whom threatens an execution. 1 6. That Messrs. H. O. Maxfield and Hughes be appointed
Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY.-If a registrar of a county court the auditors of the society for the ensuing year, and that the is placed in this unfortunate position, that he becomes a best thanks of the society be given to Messrs. Watson and liqaidating debtor, I cannot conceive what difficulty there Fretson for their kindness in auditing the accounts for the can be in the judge dealing with the case.
last year. Wells.-The judge has twelve courts to attend, and he is 7. That the thanks of the society be given to the Right hardiy ever in London ; his dext sitting at Barnet will not | Hon. A. J. Mundells, M.P., for his attention to the matters be until the 23rd. He gave the certificate upon application Jaid before him by the committee, and for prints of the being made at his private residence.
| public Bills brought into Parliament during the last session, Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY.-I think the section you refer which he forwarded to the committee. to applies to bankruptcy proper, and not to liquidation, and 8. That the thanks of the society be given to C. B. S. at present I do not see how to make an order. No doubt, Wortley, Esq., M.P., for his attention to the matters laid under rule 288, the creditors may, at the first meeting, before bim by the committee, and for prints of the public transfer the proceedings, but there is no leave necessary in Bills brought into Parliament during the present session, that case, I will, however, consider the matter, but, at the which he has forwarded to the committee. present moment, it seems that I am utterly without juris. 9. That the thanks of the meeting be given to the chairdiction to appoint a receiver or grant an injunction, and
man for presiding. that the mere fact of the debtor being a registrar of the county court does not place any obstacle in the way of the judge dealing with the matter.
The following are extracts from the report of the comLater in the day Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY said: I have con mittee:sulted my colleagues upon the subject, and they quite agree Members. The committee bave to announce that the with me that I have no power to appoint a receiver or to number of members is 130. grant an injunction in this case. In the first place the pro- ! Visit to Sheffield of the Incorporated Law Society. ceedings bave not yet been filed here. The papers have | The visit to Sheffield, in October last, of the Incorporated been brought up from Barnet by a strange hand, but they | Law Society of England was to some extent marred by bad are not yet filed. Secondly, although the judge certifies weather, but it was the largest provincial meeting yet knowo, that, in his opioion, the matter may be more advantageously the visitors numbering about 181, and members of your
LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.
society to the number of 90 were also present. The committee feel sure they are expressing the feeling of every member when they refer with pleasure to this visit, which gave the society the opportunity nf showing their appreciation of the honour paid them by the Incorporated Law Society of LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY. tbe United Kingdom in coming to Sheffield. The details of Tuesday, March 8.-Mr. Kirk in the chair.—The followthe visit will be fresh in the minds of members, and deed not, ing was the question appointed for the evening's debate : therefore, be set out here. You will be gratified to know “Wastbocase of Angus v. Dalton (L. R. 4 Q. B. D. 162) rightly that the council, at their next meeting, passed the followiog I decided ?" Mr. F. J. Green opened the discussion on the resolution, which was forwarded to your committee by their affirmative side of the question, and was followed on the same president:
side by Mr. W. F. Barry. The negative view was supported “Tbat the best thanks of the council be given to the 1 by Mr. W. Van Sommer and Mr. Mossop. The question. Sheffield District Incorporated Law Society for its mag. I on being put to the meeting, was carried in the affirmative nificent hospitality to the meinbers of this society on the by the casting vote of the chairman. The subject for debate occasion of their visit to Sheffield, for the purpose of holding for Tuesday, March 15, will be, “Is it desirable that the the seventh annual provincial meeting of the society, on the British troops should be withdrawn from Candabar ?" 6th and 7th of October, 1880."
The expenses of the visit (with the exception of £100 taken from the society's funds for purposes other than the
LIVERPOOL LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. entertainment and amusement of the visitors) were defrayed A meeting of the Liverpool Law Students' Society was by subscriptions from members. It would not be doing held at the Law Library on Monday, February 21, when justice to your honorary secretary (Mr. Bramley) were your the following subject was discussed: -“When a ship, in committee not to record here their appreciation of his order to escape the danger of sinking in deep water, is arduous, gratuitous, and valuable services, to which the voluntarily stranded, whereby the whole adventure is saved, success of the visit is to no small extent attributable. They ! ought the damage done by the stranding to the ship to be are gratified to know, from many sources, that such services allowed in general average?" Mr. W. F. Wilson and Mr. were duly appreciated by those of the visitors best qualified | A. Wilson were the opening speakers on the affirmative and to form an opinion of their value, and a resolution ac- negative sides. The question, when put to the vote, was deknowledging them will, with the unanimous and cordial cided in the affirmative by a majority of two. approval of your committee, be proposed for your adoption. A meeting of the society was also held on Monday, the
Saffron Walden Building Society v. Rayner.-The atten- i 7th of March, Mr. S. Style, solicitor, in the chair. The tion of the members was, in consequence of a valuable paper subject for discussion was the following :-“A railway comread at the Sheffield meeting by Mr. R. S. Cleaver, drawn pany has acquired land for the purposes of its line ; an ad. to the case of Saffron Walden Building Society v. Rayner | jacent proprietor puts up a building on his land. Is the (28 W. R. 681, L. R. 14 Ch. D. 406), which decided that company entitled to set up a hoarding on its own land oppothe acceptance of service of notices to trustees and mortgagees į site the building, so as to prevent the owner thereof acquirby the solicitors usually acting for them is not a service of ing a continuous right to light and air across the line of the notice on the trustees or mortgagees, unless it can be shown company?” Mr. H. C. CrossGeld and Mr. Barkle having that such service has actually come to their knowledge or opened on the affirmative and negative sides, an interesting been made in pursuance of the client's direct authority. | discussion ensued, and the question, when put to the The committee, in consequence, decided that the old system vote, was decided in the negative by a majority of five. of acceptance of service should cease, and that in future the service should be an aotual one on the client, such service being effected through his solicitor, and the charge being
BIRMINGHAM LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. for the first name, 10s., and each succeeding one, 5s. A A meeting of this society was held on Tuesday last, at circular to this effect was sent to the members on the 10th the Law Library, Bennett's-hill, Birmingham, A. Canof December, 1880.
ning, Esq., in the chair. After the special business & Sheffield Corporation's Conditions of Sale.-The conditions discussion took llace on moot point No. 641:-"A. is a of sale used by the town council, on the disposal of the policy-bolder in a mutual life assurance office, in which surplus properties belonging to the town, have been on there are no proprietors or members, but the policy-holders several occasions considered by your committee.
themselves receive by way of bonus all profits made. In Those conditions (as originally framed) provided that the event of the office proving insolvent, would A. have to conthe title should begin with the conveyance to the corporation, tribtue to the debts owing by the office ?” Re The Great that no deeds should be covenanted to be produced, and that Britain Mutual Life Assurance Society (29 W. R. 202); In the covenants for title should be absolute ones. Sub re Albion Assurance Society (L. R. 16 Ch. D. 83); sequently the town council contemplated altering the con Re The English and Irish, dc., Assurance Society (1 H. & ditions as to the covenants for title, by substituting the usual ! M. 85). The speakers on the affirmative were Messrs. qualified covenants for title for the absolute covenants Barrows, Steere, Rogers, and Barber, and on the negative, originally proposed, retaining the o:her conditions in the Messrs. Cochrane, Smith, and Crockford. After a few original form. By some of your committee these absolute remarks from the obairman, the question was put to the covenants were thought to be ultrà vires, and the other con- | meeting, and carried in the affirmative. A vote of thanks ditions objectionable. A sub-committee was appointed to
to the chairman concluded the meeting. report on the matter, and your committee eventually adopted the following resolution, which had been passed by the subcommittee, viz. :"That, inasmuch as the town clerk declines to allow the
In the House of Commons on the 8th iost., Mr. Burt usual investigation of title, the least that the corporation
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department can do is to give purchasers absolute covenants amounting
whether his attention had been called to the report of a case to & warranty of title. That such warranty of title,
which appeared in the Norwich News of February 26, whether in the shape of covenants in the conveyance, or a
in which the trustees of the Long Stratton District Amalgacollateral bond of indemnity, would not be, in the jadgment
mated League Sick Benefit Society applied to the county of the majority of the sub-committeo ultrà vires or other
court judge for an order to compel the treasurer of wise objectionable, and that purchasers would be practi.
the society to give up the banking-book. In the course oally safe if such warranty were given."
of the proceedings, the judge was reported to have asked if Miscellaneous.—1,934 copies of the society's conditions of
the society had anything to do with the movement with sale bave been sold during the year ending December 31, which Mr. Arch was connected ?" A reply having been 1880. 1,142 actions were commerced in the year 1880 in given in the affirmative, he said "be should show no mercy the Sheffield District Registry, and 147 petitions for liquida to Arch and his lot, as they were & pest to society" ; and tioo, 4 declarations of inability to pay, and 25 bankruptoy whether he could state if the words quoted were used by the petitions were filed. The amount of new business in the judge; and, if so, wbether he would deem it right to ask registry was considerably less than in 1879. Of the 1,142 | him to refrain from remarks of this character. Sir W. Hare actions only 8 judgments were entered on the certificate court said that he was in communication with the Lord Chanof associate, 4 for the plaintiff and 4 for the defendant. cellor on the subject.