« PreviousContinue »
HARRIS, HARRIETTE, Norfolk sq, Lodging House Keeper. Sept 16 at 12. 33, HOOPEL, W, Kilburn, Builder. High Court. Pet July 8. Ord Sept 2
HOWES, ROBERT, Frampton Cotterell, Gloucester, Beer Retailer. Bristol. Pet HARRISON, WJ, Waterloo rd, Milk Can Maker. Sept 14 at 1. Bankruptcy
Aug 29. Ord Sept 2 bldge, Portugal et, Lincoln's inn fields HAYLOCK, WILLIAM DAINTREE, Gt Grimsby, Ironmonger. Bept 14 at 12. Of HUGHES, JOHN, Birmingham, Grocer. Birmingham. Pet Rept 1. Ord Sept 2
JAMES, ELIZA, Newport, Salop, Cooper. Stafford. Pet Aug 20. Ord Sept 1 HUGHES. THOMAS, Wolverhampton, Japanner. Sept 14 at 3.30. Off Rec, St JARVIS, THOMAS, Derby, out of business. Leicester. Pet July 29. Ord Aug 18
Peter's clore, Wolverhampton JACKSON, JOHN UPTON, Sheffield, Tailor. Sept 15 at 12. Off Rec, Figtrre lane, JONES, JOHN, Pentre, Glamorganshire, Boot Maker. Pontypridd. Pet Aug 18. Sheffield
Ord Sept 1 JOHNSON, JEM, Hedon, Yorks. Fellmonger. Sept 13 at 11. Incorporated Law KEYZAR, MARY ANNE, Rbyl, Dealer in Fancy Goods. Bangor, Pet Sept 2. Ord Society, Lincoln's inn bldge, Bowlalley lane, Hull
Sept 2 LEON, MARCUS, Grosvenor rd, Pimlico. Sept 14 at 11. Bankruptcy bldgs, LANGSTON, ALFRED, Birmingham, Coal Dealer. Birmingham. Pet Aug 30. Pet Portugal st. Lincoln's inn fields
Sept 1 MCKENZIE, CHARLES IONIAN, Dover, Watchmaker. Sept 16 at 9.30. 32, St LEVERTON, WILLIAM, EDWARD LEVERTON, and JAMES LEVERTON, Aberavon, George's st, Canterbury
Glamorganshire, Builders. Neath. Pet Aug 30.
Ord Sept 1 MORRIS, WALTER OWENS, Stoke upon Trent, Grocer. Sept 15 at 4. Off Rec, MASON, JOSEPH FREDERICK, Holman rd, Battersea, Fancy Confectioner. WandsNewcastle under Lyne
worth. Pet May 16,
Ord Aug 2 MOUNTFORD, RICHARD, Quarry Bank, Brierley hill, Chain Maker. Sept 13 at 3. MERCER, ALFRED, Lutterworth, Leicestershire, Surgeon's Assistant. Leicester. Dudley Arms Hotel, Dudley
Pet July 27. Ord Aug 24 NEVILLE, HENRY, Shenfield, nr Brentwood, General Dealer. Sept 16 at 3. 33, MORRIS, WALTER OWENS, Stoke upon Trent, Grocer. Stoke upon Trent. Pet Carey st. Linc In's inn
Sept 3. Ord Sept 3 PAWLEY, CHARLES JAMES CHIRNEY, Moorgate st, Architect. Sept 15 at 11. 33, PARKER, ROBERT FOSTER, Skipton, Bank Manager. Bradford. Pet Aug 4. Ord Carey st, Lincoln's inn
Sept 1 PAYNE, EDWIN, Kenmont terr, College pk, Kensal green, Dairyman. Sept 16 at PEARSON, GEORGE, Middlesborough, Milkseller. Stockton on Tees and Middles11. Bankiuptcy bldgs, Portugal st, Lincoln's inn fields
borough. Pet Aug 31. Ord Aug 31 PLATT. JOE CROWTHER. Padfield, Derbyshire. Butcher. Sept 13 at 11.30. Off PHILLIPS, WILLIAM DANIEL, Llanbadarn Odwyn, Corn Merchant. Carmarthen. Hec, Ogden's chbrs, Bridge st, Manchester
Pet July 15. Ori Sept 2 RECORD. THOMAS, Frowlesworth, Leicestersbire, Farmer. Sept 14 at 11.30. 28, PRATT, ISAAC, Blyth, Northumberland, Boot Manufacturer. Newcastle on Tyne. Friar lane, Leicester
Ord Aug 25. Ord Sept 2 RUDDLESDEN, BENJAMIN, Dewsbury, Yorks, Rag Merchant. Sept 13 at 11. Off PRICE, JOHN, Llansadwrn, Carmarthenshire, Farmer. Carmarthen. Pet Sept 3. Rec, Bank ch brs, Batley
Ord Sept 3 SAUNDERS, ANNIE MÁRIA, Mortlake rd, Kew, no occupation. Sept 15 at 12. PRITLOVE, WILLIAM JAMES, Chadwell Heath, Essex, Wheelwright. Chelmsfori. Bankruptcy bldngs, Lincoln's inn
Pet June 27. Ord Sept 3 SAUNDERS. BERTHA. HENRIETTA, Clanricarde gdns, Lodging house keeper. Sept PROSSER, HOWELL, Swansea, Stonemason. Swansea. Pet Aug 30. Ord Aug 31
14 at 12. Bankruptcy bldngs, Lincoln's inn SERENO, HAIM, Manchester, shipping Merchant. Sept 13 at 12. Off Rec, Og.
QUELCH, WILLIAM HENRY, Sittingbourne, Boot Maker. Rochester. Pet Aug 22.
Ord Aug 31 den'e chbrs, Bridge st, Manchester SMITH. THOMAS, Elham, Kent, Shoemaker. Sept 14 at 3.30. 73, Sandgate rd,
ROBINSON, EDWARD, Stretford, Lancashire, Potato Dealer. Manchester. Pet
Sept 2. Ord Sept 2
Rec, 31, Manor row, Bradford
ROLLINGS, WILLIAM, Forston st, Hoxton, Lime Merchant. High Court. Pet
July 16. Ord Sept 1 THOMPSON, JOHN, Coningsby, Lincolnshire, Shoemaker. Sept 13 at 11.30. Off RUFF, WILLIAM, Little Staughton, Bedfordshire, Machinist. Bedford. Pet Rec. 2, St Benedict's sq, Lincoln
July 22 Ord Sept 1 VARLEY, JAMES, Bishop Auckland, Clock Maker. Sept 13 at 3. Of Rec, 25, SMITH, ALEXANDER, Hunslet, Leeds, Builder. Leeds. Pet Aug 31. Ord Sept 1
Colmore row, Birmingham WATTON: JOHNChristchurch, Hampshire, out of business. Sept 14 at 3. Cri- SMITH, FRANCIS, Bedford, Solicitor. Bedford. Pet Sept 1. Ord Sept 3 terion Hctel, Bournemouth
SNOOK, WILLIAM, Southsea, Watchmaker. Portsmouth. Pet Aug 26. Ord WILKINS, CHARLES, Bridgwater, Licensed Victualler. Sept 13 at 11. Bristol Aug 26 Arms Hotel, Bridgwater
SOBY. FRANCES, and WILLIAM SOBY, Bratton Clovelly, Devon, Farmers. East WRIGHT, BRYCE MCMURDO. Regent st, Mineralogist. Sept 16 at 12. Bank
Stonehouse. Pet Sept 1. Ord Sept 3 ruptcy bldngs, Lincoln's inn
THOMAS, DAVID, Cardiff, Builder. Cardiff. Pet Sept 2. Ord Sept 3
THOMPSON, JOHN, Copingsby, Lincolnshire, Shoemaker. Lincoln. Pet Sept 1. Court, Pet Aug 26. Ord Sept 2
Ord Nept 1 BADGER, THOMAS, Evesham, Worcester, Hatter. Worcester. Pet Aug 29. Ord
VARLEY, JAMES, Bishop Auckland, Clockmaker. Durham. Pet Aug 29. Ord Sept 3
Sept 3 BOMFORT, JOHN, Worcester, out of business. Worcester. Pet Aug 30. Ord
WATKINS, ANNIE FIELD, Cheltenham, Schoolmistress. Cheltenham. Pet Aug Sept 3
26. Ord Sept 1 BOND, CHARLES FREDERICK, Carisbrooke, I w, Club Proprietor. Newport and
WILLIAMS, JOHN, Newport. I W, Butcher. Newport and Ryde. Pet Aug 11. Ryde. Pet Aug 11. Ord Aug 19
Ord Aug 15 BUGDEN, WALTER, address unknown. High Court. Pet June 29. Ord Sept 2
The following amended notice is substituted for that published in the
London Gazette of July 8.
COLEY, SARAH ELIZA, and WILLIAM BROOKES COLEY, Dudley, Worces, Iron CLIFT, CHARLES JAMES, Skelton in Cleveland, Yorks, Printer. Stockton on Tees
Manufacturers. Dudley. Pet June 28. Ord July 2
Where difficulty is experienced in procuring the Journal with regularity,
in the Country, it is requested that application be made direct to the FULLER, GEORGE, Barking, Essex, Clothier. Chelmsford. Pet Sept 2. Ord
731 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1883 ........ 735 HARRISON, JAMES, Belgrave, Leicester, no occupation. Leicester. Pet Aug 13. THE LAW OF GIFTS INTER VIVOS .. 732 WINDING-UP NOTICES Ord Aug 80
735 HOBSON, HENRY, Gt Grimsby, Ironmonger. Gt Grimsby. Pet Sept 1. Ord LEGAL NEWS
734 BANKRUPTCY NOTICES Sept 1
PUBLIC GENERAL STATUTES.
SIX per CENT. GUARANTEED MORTGAGE
EDE AND SON,
BY SPECIAL APPOINTMENT,
To Her Majesty, the Lord Chancellor, the Whole of
1,000 Leaf Book, 5s. 6d. ROBES FOR QUEEN'S COUNSEL AND BARRISTERS. Sole Agent for Great Britain and Ireland-Mr. H.
500 Leaf Book, 3s. 6d. Ramsden (Ramsden & Austin, Solicitors), 150, Leadenhall-street, London, E.O.
Law Wigsand Gowns for Registrars, Town Clerks,
and Clerks of the Peace. The Company is prepared to receive money for in
THE BEST LETTER COPYING BOOK OUT. vestment in First Registered Mortgages of Freeholds CORPORATION ROBES, UNIVERSITY AND CLERGY GOWNS in the States of the United States of America, for five
ESTABLISHED 1689. years, yielding 6 per cent. interest, payable by coupons
WODDERSPOON & CO., half-yearly in London, principal and interest guaranteed by the Company. For full information
94, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON.
7, BERLE STREET, AND 1, PORTUGAL STREET as to these investments apply to the London Office. LONDON GAZETTE (published by authority) and
LINCOLN'S INN, W.O.
KENT FIRE OFFICE. Established in 1802.
KENT LIFE OFFICE. Established in 1824.
Chief Office-Maidstone. LONDON: 1, Moorgate-street, E.O.
begs to direct the attention of the Legal Profession Branch ( London, 124, Cannon-street, E.C.
Ofices Manchester, Lombard-chambers, Brown-st.
forty years, in the special insertion of all pro forma Fire Premiums ...
notices, &c., and hereby solicits their continued support. - was under Life Policy No. 603, issued in 1833 for mening
... £582,000 Life Premiums ...
N.B. One copy of advertisement only required, and the and which had acquired bonus additions amounting
strictest care and promptitude assured. Official stamped to £2,016, increasing the policy to £2,816.
139,000 forms for advertisement and file of "London Gazette" Accumulated Funds
W. L. SEYFANG, • $3,297,000 kept. By appointment.
Secretary and General Manager,
NORTHERN SihBANCE COMPANY.
CASES REPORTED THIS WEEK.
SECTION 5 of the Conveyancing Act, 1882, has hitherto shared Bray v. Gardner.................... 745 Ship Edderside, Re, Bell and
the liberal construction which, by a sort of tacit agreement, has Cone v. Rimell
Others v. Edderside Shipowning Field & Co. v. The American Exbi
been bestowed on Lord CAIRNS' latest Acts. Thus in Re Hether
744 bition (Lim.) 745 Timson v. Wilson
745 | ington's Trusts (35 W. R. 285, 34 Ch. D. 211) separate trustees Hoare v. Gray
744 West of England Paper Mills Co. Jay v. Ladler .................
744 were appointed for parts of the trust property which for the time Plake v. Hall
being were held on distinct trusts, although in certain events the
whole of the property would be held on the same trusts. In Re The Solicitors' Journal and Reporter.
Paine's Trusts (33 W. R. 564, 28 Ch. D. 725) a separate set of
new trustees was appointed by the court to act, in conjunction LONDON, SEPTEMBER 17, 1887.
with a continuing trustee of a will, in relation to a part of the trust property held on distinct trusts. That case has been
assumed in some quarters to be an authority for the propoCURRENT TOPICS.
sition that an appointment may be made under section 5, MR. JUSTICE CHARLES, who takes the Vacation work from next whole of the trust property ; but as the appointment was
although there is no appointment of new trustees for the week, will continue the Wednesday sittings in Mr. Justice made on petition presented under the Trustee Act, the decision KEKEWICI's court until further notice.
is in reality no authority on the point in question. The words of section 5 are “On an appointment of new trustees a
separate set of trustees may be appointed,” &c.; and, if strictly WE ARE REQUESTED to state that Lord Justice Cotron, acting for construed, the provision is only applicable to cases where occasion the Master of the Rolls, has appointed Saturday, the 24th of Sep- arises for the appointment of new trustees for the whole of the tember, at 11.30 a.m., at Forest Mere, Liphook, for the admission trust property. In Savile v. Couper (35 W. R. 829) the trustees of solicitors. Gentlemen must leave Waterloo for Liphook Station of a will desired to retire from the trusts relating to a distinct by the train at 9.30 a.m. The papers must be left at the Petty trust fund and to appoint separate trustees of that fund, but to Bag Office not later than Thursday, the 22nd of September, before continue trustees of the rest of the trust property. Mr. Justice
NORTH, adopting the strict construction above referred to, held that
this could not be done. We think it may be doubted whether the UP TO THE PRESENT TIME the work of the Vacation Judge in court draftsman of section 5. had any idea of limiting in this way the has been heavier than has been experienced for several years. For operation of that provision. The probability is that, merely by three consecutive weeks Mr. Justice KEKEWICH has had to sit on section 31 (2) (3) (4) of the Conveyancing Act, 1881. However
way of introducing a new subject, he adopted the phrase used in Friday as well as on Wednesday. It is understood also that the this may be, it is now settled that trustees cannot retire from the Vacation work done in the Chancery chambers has exceeded that trusts relating to a distinct part of the trust property in order to of former years. A diminution of business usually occurs about have separate trustees appointed for such part, while the original the present period of the Vacation, and it is not probable that Mr. trustees remain trustees as to the rest. It may be suggested, Justice CHARLES will be compelled to devote more than one day a however, that it does not follow that where vacancies have week to the court work during his term.
occurred in the trust, so that occasion arises for the appointment of new trustees of the whole property, separate trustees may not
be appointed for each of the distinct parts to act in each case MR. JUSTICE KEKEWICA's term of sitting as Vacation Judge the section into operation appear to be the death, incapacity, or
with a continuing trustee. The circumstances necessary to bring having come to an end, we may, perhaps, without any great im- retirement from the whole of the trusts of all or some of the old propriety, be permitted to adopt the unusual course of referring
trustees. to his mode of performance of the difficult duties falling on the solitary representative of the High Court. We desire to say that in our opinion it would not be easy to overpraise the common
A CORRESPONDENT to whom we have frequently been indebted for sense, promptness, and ability with which the business has been discharged this Vacation. The reason why we desire to say this is valuable communications on conveyancing matters, sends us this
week to be found in the observations which we felt it our duty to
copy of a trustees' indemnity clause, which he make on the appointment of this learned judge. We are bound to says has to some extent been introduced into trust instruacknowledge, and we have great pleasure in acknowledging, that ments during the last few years. The terms of the clause if we could only have had a prophetic vision we should have con- follow: _“ Nor shall any trustee under this settlement, or his
relating to the matters we referred to last week are gratulated the profession on the appointment.
representatives, be in any way liable or accountable for anything in connection with this settlement, or the trusts, powers, or provi
sions thereof, or the trust funds or property subject thereto, or otherTHERE ȘEEMS to have been a rather serious omission in Lord wise relating thereto respectively, short of his individual actual BRAMWELL’s exposition, in the House of Lords, on Wednesday, of fraud." This clause (which we do not understand to have the entire the law relating to the circumstances under which police officers approval of our correspondent) seems to us to be both too wide and too are justified in killing people. There can be no doubt that, as indefinite. It appears to extend beyond acts done in the managethe learned lord said, if the policeman's life " was imperilled ; if ment of the trust property, and, if effective, would apparently he did not know but what his life would be sacrificed, or the lives cover mistakes, negligent but not fraudulent, in the ascertainment of his comrades lying on the ground, the policeman had a right to of the persons beneficially entitled to income or capital. The resist the people, even to the extent of taking the lives of those creator of a trust does not want to leave the destination of the committing the illegality.” But we do not find that he trust property to the discretion of his trustees, however willing he added that the justification will not extend beyond the may be to leave the management of it to them. As we pointed actual continuance of the necessity which alone warrants it, and ouť last week, what is wanted is a clause limited to the managethat if the policeman kills after the necessity has ceased 'it is ment of the property as distinguished from the ascertainment of manslaughter at least (1 East P. C., p. 293). Lord BRAMWELL NO the persons beneficially interested, and it seems to us that the doubt assumed the continuance of the necessity, but it appears to mode of framing such a clause is to specify in detail the grounds be very essential that the limitation should be expressed. It on which a trustee may at present be made liable for acts of appears, indeed, that the whole question-even in cases where the management, and expressly to exclude liability in respect of each police are acting in the proper execution of their duty, and à fortiori of them. The history of the ancient indemnity clause shews, too,
The old clause purported in in the case put by Lord BRAMWELL, of the police being in the that this is the only safe course. wrong; interfering and doing things which they had no right to general terms to protect the trustees from liability in respect of the do "-hinges on the existence, at the time of the homicide, of all acts and receipts of their co-trustees, and in cases of the failure of reasonable necessity.
agents properly intrusted with the control of the trust funds, and
740 the deficiency of authorized securities ; but the judges (except
PROMOTERS' LIABILITY. Lord NORTHINGTON) refused to attach any potency to the clause ; it was considered as merely expressing the general rule of the NOTWITHSTANDING the strong dislike to the word “ promoter courts. The result of the section in Lord St. Leonards' Act pressed by Lord Justice Cotton in Ladywell Mining Co. v. Brookes embodying the clause is well stated by Mr. Davidson when he (35 W. Ř. 785), we venture to think that that word, if indefinite, remarks that “it might, with much the same result, have is nevertheless indispensable. It is a pity that it has been perbeen enacted that every deed, &c., should be construed as if it did verted from its original and simple meaning. Lord Bramwell laid not contain the clause in question." But a very different result it down that “ the word is not a word of art; it must be underensued from the special clause exonerating trustees from responsi- stood by lawyers as it would be by laymen” (Twycross v. Grant, bility for allowing property to be under the control of their co- 25 W. R. 701, 2 C. P. D. 503); but it has, nevertheless, come to trustee which was framed by Messrs. Hayes and JARMAN. In this include a person who agrees to purchase property on behalf of an clause there was added to the old general words an explicit state intended company, and has, therefore, gradually had attached to ment of the circumstances to which it was intended to relate; and it the idea of a person in a fiduciary relation to the company. in Wilkins v. Hogg (3 Giff. 116; afirmed 10 W. R. 47) the This ambiguous sense of the word "promoter" renders the obserclause was held to be effectual for the indemnity of the trustees vations to be found in some of the text-books very misleading. (see also Pass v. Dundas, 29 W. R. 332). The lesson is that, if It is sometimes, for instance, said that a promoter occupies a you want to be safe, you must specify in detail the liabilities to be fiduciary relation to the company he promotes, and is, therefore, excluded. As we suggested last week, there should be added a accountable to the company for any secret profit he makes out of proviso setting out for the information of the trustees all the his position. The decision in Ladywell Mining Co. v. Brookes lays liabilities relating to management (if any) which are not intended down no new principles, but is particularly useful as shewing the to be covered by the clause. The reason why such a clause has different character of the liability incurred under different circumnot been hitherto adopted is the notion entertained by conveyancers stances by a promoter (using that word, as we shall do throughout, that its insertion would endanger the security of the trust property in its original meaning) who is also a vendor to the company. They treat trustees very much as the judicial “sacrificial priests If the circumstances are such as to shew that at the time when --referred to by our lively last week's correspondent-treat the promoter bought the property which he afterwards sold to the them—viz., as a class of imprudent, negligent, unbusiness-like, and company be bought, not for himself, but for the company after. generally evil-disposed persons, with regard to whom it is necessary wards formed, then the case is the ordinary one of a purchase by an to keep up every safeguard which the courts have constructed. agent; the contract is that of the company, and the company can But we think we may safely say that, in acting thus, conveyancers only be required to pay the price for the property which their habitually contravene the wishes and intentions of the creators of agent paid. Under these circumstances, therefore, if the promoter trusts. They do not wish to make the trustees insurers of the trust has resold to the company at an advanced price, the company may property; they do desire to have as trustees persons who are known keep the property and call upon the promoter to repay the profit to be prudent, cautious, upright, and business-like ; and it is on these he made on the transaction. qualities that they rely for the proper management of the trust
It is, however, for the company to prove the circumstances property. But the direct effect of the present rules relating to constituting the relationship of principal and agent, and one trustees' liability is to prevent persons possessing these qualities important point is, that this relationship must be shewn by the from accepting the duties of trustee, and the object of the clause company to exist at the time of the purchase of the property we proposed is to afford a means of inducing them to undertake those by the promoter. It will not be sufficient to shew merely duties. We should add that we have not overlooked the words in that some time between his purchase and the time of his resale brackets at the commencement of the clause sent by our corre to the company he incurred à fiduciary relationship to the comspondent: we have not quoted them because we do not at present pany. And in order to shew such a relationship at the time of the see that they add any additional security. A trustee always purchase it will not be sufficient to prove that at that time it was accepts office on the terms contained in the trust deed, and calling intended that a company should be formed to take over the propone of those terms an express condition” does not seem to make erty; or that the promoter intended to sell the property to the any difference.
company, and not to use or work it himself; or even to shew that
a part of the purchase-money was to be provided for by shares of IT IS TO BE HOPED that the grievance referred to in Mr. HOB- the company (see Gover's case, 24 W. R. 125, 1 Ch. D. 182); and HOUSE's question in the House of Commons on Tuesday with regard it seems also that little weight will be attached to the circumstance to the delay which occurs in printing Acts of Parliament will not that a very short interval of time elapsed between the contract of be lost sight of. In former years we have drawn attention to the purchase by the promoter and the contract of resale by him to the matter, and we have had frequent occasion to observe the delay company (see the judgment of Cotton, L.J., in the present case, which has occurred.
It so happened, however, that when the and the judgment of Lord Cairns in Erlanger's case, 27 W. R. 65, question was asked there was no great reason for complaint. At 3 App. Cas. 1218). If it appears that the contract of purchase by the time of writing we believe that the last Act of this session the promoter was absolute, and not dependent on any company which is obtainable in print is cap. 34, which was passed on the being formed, and that no part of the purchase-money was to be 23rd of last month, and has been in print since the 28th of last provided for out of the funds of the company or by means of month-quite a creditable performance. An Act of Parliament shares of the company, but that the whole purchase-money was in commences from the Royal Assent, where no other commence- fact paid by the promoter out of his own money, these facts will ment shall be therein provided”' (33 Geo. 3, c. 13), and as be strong evidence to shew that at the time of the purchase by the modern Acts very commonly inflict new penalties and impose promoter there was no relation of principal and agent between new duties, it is more than " "inconvenient (as Mr. HOBHOUSE him and the company. mildly put it), it is unjust and unreasonable that knowledge of these penalties and duties should be withheld (as some the company, he is, if he becomes a director of the company (as he
But, although the promoter may not have purchased as agent for times happens) for weeks after they have been imposed. What always does), under an obligation to inform the company of the we do not understand is the reason for the delay, and who is profit he is making, and if he does not give this information the responsible for it. It cannot be supposed that a great printing company are entitled to have their contract for purchase from him office is incapable of turning out a batch of Acts within a few days set aside. But they are not entitled to require the promoter to hand after they have received the Royal Assent. Even the necessity over the profit he has made and to keep the property at the price for care to avoid such remarkable “misprints” (perhaps not all he paid for it. Their rights, under these circumstances, are condue to the printers) as occurred in section 11 of the Burial Act, fined to having their contract for purchase set aside. 1880, the Army Act, 1881, and in the first official issue of copies of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (section 1, sub-section 2 (a)), purchased is no longer capable of being dealt with, the contract
This is the case even though, owing to the fact that the property cannot account for the lengthened delay which’occurs. How soon, cannot be set aside. In Re Cape Breton Co. (33 W. R. 788,29 we wonder, is the " Parliament Roll,” which is the authentic Ch. D. 795) the property which the promoter had resold to the record of the Acts, made up after Acts have received the Royal company at a large profit had, before the commencement of proAssent?
ceedings against the promoter, been sold by the liquidator of the
company at a heavy loss; it was held by the Court of Appeal that, But a chose in action of this nature does not pass by an although the company, would have been entitled to rescind the instrument purporting to assign it if the instrument of title contract, yet, as rescission had become impossible, no relief could is not handed over. Thus, an indorsement on a packet of Austrian be given against the promoter, since he could not be treated as bonds which pass by delivery, signed by the owner of the bonds, having been, at the time of his purchase of the property, a trustee “ The first five numbers of these Austrian bonds belong to and are for, or agent of, the company. In Ladywell Mining Co. v. Brookes the property of A.," did not pass them: Trimmer v. Danby (25 the purchase by the company from the promoter was of a leasehold L. J. Ch. N. S. 424). See also Bridge v. Bridge (16 Beav. 315), mine, but, before proceedings were taken to set aside the purchase, as to the Columbian bonds. the lessor had recovered judgment against the company in an action Bearing in mind that a court of equity never gives any assistance of ejectment for a forfeiture ; and it was held that, as rescission to a volunteer, the provisions of the 24th section of the Judicature had thus become impossible, there was no remedy against the pro-Act, 1873, will not assist the donee of a chose in action, but the moter.
25th section, sub-section (6), providing that “any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor
of any debt or other legal chose in action of which express notice in THE LAW OF GIFTS INTER VIVOS.
writing shall be given to the debtor shall be effectual at law VI.
to pass and transfer the legal right to such debt or chose Gift of a deed creating a chose in action.—“A man may give or in action from the date of such notice
applies to a grant his deed to another, and such a grant by parol" is good. voluntary transfer.
If a man hath an obligation, though he cannot grant the Chose in action assignable in equity only. -A chose in action of thing in action, yet he may give or grant the deed—viz., the the second class, which is assigpable in equity only, does not pass parchment and wax-to another, who may cancel and use the same by the delivery of the instrument creating it. Thus the money at his pleasure” (Co. Litt. 232 a., 6.): 'see Kelsock v. Nicholson secured by a policy on life : Howes v. Prudential Assurance Co. (Cro. El. 478, 496).
(49 L. T. N. S. 133), Rummens v. Hare (1 Ex. D. 169), Where a policy on life or a bond is given and actually handed over Barton v. Gainer (3 H. & N. 387); by an ordinary money bond: to a donee, the policy or bond itself passes, but not the money Edwards v. Jones (1 My. & Cr. 226); by an ordinary money secured by_it: Rummens v. Hare (1 Ex. D. 169); Barton v. bond on which judgment had been entered up : Patterson v. Gainer (3 H. & N. 387); Howes v. The Prudential Assurance Co. Williams (L. & Goo. Ca. temp. Plunk. 95); by a turnpike bond : (49 L. T. N. S. 133); Edwards v. Jones (1 My. & Cr. 226),
Searle v. Law (15 Sim. 95) did not pass by the delivery of the Where an equitable mortgage is created by deposit of 'deeds a policy or bond, notwithstanding that, in some of the cases, there gift of the deeds by the mortgagee is void : Re Richardson (30 was
an informal written assignment of the money, and the Ch. D. 396); the reason being that the deeds are not pledged to strongest evidence of intention that it was intended to pass as a the person with whom they are deposited; he has no property gift, in them, and therefore cannot transfer the ownership of them,
Release of debt to debtor.—There appears, however, to be a except by transferring the ownership of the charge to which they distinction where an instrument creating a legal debt is handed to are accessory
the debtor as a gift, for this appears to extinguish the debt at law : Gift of a chose in action by delivery of the instrument creating Richards v. Syms (2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 617; same case, Barnard Ch. Rep. or evidencing it.—The reader who has studied the passage in the 90) (the report in 2 Atk. 319 is on another point). See this case Introduction to Conveyancing, already referred to, will observe discussed in Byrn v. Godfrey (4 Ves., at p. 10); in Cross v. that the phrase, “ chose in action," is ambiguous.' It may mean Sprigg (6 Ha., at p. 556); and see the observations of Turner, (1) the right to recover money; (2) the money itself which is re- L.J., "in his judgment in Taylor v. Manners (1 Ch. App., at p. coverable ; (3) the instrument evidencing the title to the chose in 56). Similarly the cancelling of a mortgage or a bond or the action. As a matter of convenience, in this section we shall con- destruction of a promissory note by the mortgagee, obligee, or fine the phrase "chose action” to its second meaning.
payee is some evidence of an intention to release the debt: There are three classes of choses in action, which must be care- Harrison v. Owen (1 Atk. 520); Alsager v. Close (10 Mee. & fully distinguished: (1) Where the right to the chose in action Welsb. 576); Gilbert v. Wetherell (2 Sim. & St. 254); but con
which passes by the delivery of the instrument; (2) Where the chose in sider the cases collected at E. N. & C. Interpretation 21, action is assignable in equity only ; (3) Where the chose in action appear to shew that, if the deed is cancelled by the mortgagee or is assignable at law.
obligee, he can bring no action on it. Negotiable instruments.-A chose in action of the first class con In connection with this subject it should be pointed out that the sists of the money secured by a cheque, a promissory note, a bank mere fact of a creditor saying to the debtor “ I forgive the debt ” note, a bill of exchange, the bonds of certain foreign Governments, or does not amount to a release, beecause, on an action for the debt, other negotiable instrument ; and the gift of the instrument passes the defence is merely equitable : Cross v. Sprigg (6 Ha. 552); the property in, or the right to recover, the chose in action to the Peace v. Hains (11 Ha. 151). If, however, the debtor be placed donee : McCulloch v. Bland (2 Giff.' 428); Langley v. Thomas in such a position that the debt is gone at law, these words will be (26 L. J. Ch. 609); Bottle v. Knocker (46°: J. Ch. 159 ; same sufficient : Consider the luminous judgment of Jessel, M.R., in case, 25 W. R. 209).
There is, however, a distinction between a cheque drawn by and appointed the debtor her executor, which released the debt at cheque drawn by a stranger and given by the donor to the donee helá that, as the debt was gone at law, so that the debtor required The former is merely an order to obtain a certain sum of money ;
no assistance from a court of equity, the forgiveness operated as a it makes no difference whether the money is in the hands of ihe gift. banker or of anyone else. It is worth nothing till it is acted upon; written from A. to B. stating “ You must know when I gave you
Accordingly, where a loan had been made by A. to B., a letter take nothing, as the gift was never complete during his lifetime the money I never could intend it as a loan, but as an absolute (see Lyte v. Peny, Dyer, 49a) ; see also the remarks of Romilly, gift, and I hope you will live many years to enjoy it," did not MR., in Hewitt v. Kaye (6 Éq., at p. 200); The Beale's Estate amount to a release of the debt : Knapp v. Burnaby' (8 W. R. (13 Eq. 489), both cases of donations mortis
sâ ; but the prin- 305). ciple appears to be applicable to gifts inter vivos.' Where, how Where the instrument creating the debt is not under seal, a donor, and payment was refused because the bankers-doubted the the debt and thus create a gift : Ashton v. Pye (5 Ves. 350 note). ever, the cheque was presented for payment during the life of the writing under the hand of the creditor may operate as a release of authenticity of the donor's signature, it was held that the gift was See the remarks on this case at p. 354.
Whether the instrument creating the debt is under seal or not, cheque drawn by a stranger to bearer” or “ to order," if it be the course of conduct of the parties may amount in equity to a endorsed by the payee, where given by the donor to the donee, release of the debt: Flower v. Martin (2 My. & Cr. 459); Major passes the right to recover the money for which the cheque is v. Major (1 Drew. 165); Yeomans v. Williams (35 Bear. 130; drawn, and, therefore, acts as an effectual gift.
same case, 1 Eq. 184).
The release may be conditional on the happening of an event : "youth" is given, and while some judges or justices would deem any
more closely. The power of releasing is entirely discretionary. The Choses in action assignable at law in a statutory. manner: released on his entering into a recognizance, with or without sureties,
court may, instead of sentencing, . . direct " that the offender be --A chose in action of the third class, which is assignable at and during such period as the court may direct, to appear and receive law, does not pass unless an assignment in the proper form is judgment when called upon, and in the meantime to keep the peace made.
and be of good behaviour." Now what difference does this make in This rule has been applied to an assignment of £3 per Cent. the law ? Bank Annuities : Colman v. Sarrel (1 Ves. jun. 50; same case, 3
In regard to indictable offences, no very great difference, as judges Br. Ch. 12), Beech v. Keep (18 Beav. 285); where a power of of assize have long had and exercised, though sparingly, the curious attorney for the transfer of stock had, by the direction of the power, not given by any statute, of releasing on recognizance to apdonor, been exercised by the trustees, in whose name it was stand- pear and receive judgment at any time when called upon any person
whatever convicted of any offence whatever except murder and the few ng : Coningham v. Plunkett (2 Y. & C. C. C. 246), or by the other offences for which a minimum punishment is prescribed by intending donor : Peckham v. Taylor (31 Beav. 250), but no statute. This power, however, was never possessed, or at least never transfer was made during the donor's lifetime; to an assign- exercised, by courts of summary jurisdiction until the Summary ment of turnpike bonds and shares in companies : Searle v. Lane Jurisdiction Act, 1879, by section 16, expressly enacted that in the (15 Sim. 95); a canal share : Antrobus v. Smith (12 Ves. 39); case of any offence punishable on summary conviction, “ if the court East India Stock and shares in an insurance company : Dillon think that, though the charge is proved, the offence was, in the parv. Cobben (4. My. & Cr. 647); a railway debenture subsequently ticular case, of so trifling a nature that it is inexpedient to inflict any converted into railway stock : Moore v. Moore (18 Eq. 474); punishment,” the court may either (1) dismiss the information or (2), shares in a bank: Milroy v. Lord (4 De G. F. & J. 264).
upon convicting the person charged, may discharge him condition
ally on his giving security, with or without sureties, to appear for The case of Bland v. Macculloch (9 W. R. 65) presents much sentence when called upon, or to be of good behaviour, and either difficulty ; probably the report is incorrect. There A. pur- without payment of damages and costs, or subject to the pay chased debentures and handed them over to B., who lived with ment of such damages and costs, or either of them, as the court him as his wife, she going with him to the brokers and receiving shall think reasonable. There is no express repeal either of the the receipts. B. cut off the coupons as they were required and common law power of the judge of assize or of the statutory power went with A. to receive the dividends. It was proved that prior of the justices under the above section of the Summary Jurisdiction to the purchase A. had promised to give the debentures to B., and Act, 1879. Is there any implied repeal, and to what extent ? had subsequently often spoken of them as being her property. It the larger jurisdiction of releasing persons remains, but that in
This is a very difficult question, but we think on the whole that was held by Stuart, V.C., that a valid gift of the debentures had the cases where both the old and the new law are applicable been made to B. According to the report in 2 Giff. 428 the --that is, where the offender is a youth and it appears to the subject of the gift was not debentures but securities passing by court to be expedient to put the new Act in operation for the reasons delivery, if this latter report is correct the decision presents no therein given-only the new Act can be allowed to operate, and the difficulty.
old power to exact a recognizance to come up for judgment at any
The supplemental powers of the Act appear to be entirely new,
Under these an offender failing to observe any of the conditions of
his recognizance may be apprehended under a warrant issued by any
court of summary jurisdiction, and either upon remand committed PUBLIC LIBRARIES
to prison in order that he may be brought before the court before 50 & 51 Vict. C. 22.-AN ACT TO AMEND THE PUBLIC LIBRARIES which he was bound to appear for judgment or released on bail. Аст, There is also a provision that, before directing the release of an
that the offender or his surety This is the sixth Public Libraries Act, the first being the Public offender, the court must be satisfied“, Libraries Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 70.). Its main provision is that has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the county which allows lending libraries to be established at the cost of the
or place for which the court acts, or in which the offender is public without the obligation of maintaining a separate building for likely to live during the period named for the observance of the it. The Act also substitutes the borrowing machinery of the Public
conditions. Health Act, 1875, for that of the Companies Clauses Act, 1846, and First Offenders Act, 1887," it has seldom been our bad fortune to
A more slovenly Act of Parliament than this “ Probation of abolishes the rating machinery of the Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847, which had already been abolished as to municipal boroughs peruse. by the Public Libraries Act, 1866. There are also a set of provisions enabling “districts” in the metropolis to adopt the Public Libraries Acts, but the separate powers of separate parishes are carefully
MARGARINE. reserved. A consolidation Bill on this subject has been presented to 50 & 51 VICT. C. 29.- AN ACT FOR THE BETTER PREVENTION OF THE Parliament in many successive sessions, and the present Act shews
FRAUDULENT SALE OF MARGARINE. more plainly than ever how desirable it is that such a Bill should pass into law.
After a protracted contest upon the question whether the substance
Margarine,” and a division in the House of Lords, upon the motion
of Lord Denman, that it should be described as “Rine,'' "Margarine 50 & 51 Vict. c. 25.–AN ACT TO PERMIT THE CONDITIONAL RELEASE properly so called, and hedges round the sale of margarine by ub!
has won the day, and the present Act, in 13 sections, protects butter OF FIRST OFFENDERS IN CERTAIN CASES. The preamble of this Act, the principle of which Mr. Howard stances, whether compounds or otherwise, prepared in imitation of Vincent, its House of Commons father, has stated to have been butter, and whether mixed with butter or not,” it enacts that strongly supported in the House of Lords by the Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Herschell, and Lord Bramwell, declares it to be lawfully” ] sold, except under the name of margarine, and under
no such substance shall be lawfully” [what is the use of the word “expedient to make provision for cases where the reformation of the conditions set forth in the Act. The words“ prepared in imitation persons convicted of first offences may, by reason of the offender's of butter” raise a considerable doubt. Do they mean" fraudulently youth or the trivial nature of the offence, be brought about without prepared,” so that no conviction can be obtained unless the dealer imprisonment.” The Act itself falls short of this preamble, and confers the power to release upon probation of good conduct any merely prepared so as to resemble," so that a conviction may take
can be shewn to have had an intention to deceive ? or do they mean person convicted of larceny or “false pretences punishable with not more than two years' imprisonment where no by themselves, we think a court would give the more favourable con:
or any other offence place irrespective of the intentions of the dealer? Taking the words previous conviction is proved, if it appears that, " regard being had to struction to them, and even taking them in connection with the leadthe youth, character, and antecedents of the 'offender, to the trivial ing sections of the Act, we rather incline to the opinion that the more nature of the offence, and to any extenuating circumstances under severe construction ought not to prevail. The title of the Statute, it is power. The Act, therefore, only applies to be youths”, committing dealing are that packages containing margarine must be marked
The conditions of less operation than has been generally expected. No definition of any public conveyance must be duly consigned as such, and that