Page images
[ocr errors]

MESSRS. JENNER & DELL are favoured






THE MORTGAGE INSURANCE CORSALE for the present month contains 2,000 inves

Upset price £8,000.- Highly attractive, very valuable ments and can be had free. Particulars inserted withoui

and important Freehold Property, on the King's

AMOUNT OF CAPITAL SUBSCRIBED, £710,000 charge. It is tho recognized medium for selling or pur.

road, directly facing the sea, and situate about chasing property by private contract.-Mr. STIMBON, midway between the West Pier and western lawas

Offices of the CorporationAuctioneer, Surveyor and Valuer, , New Kent-road, S.E.

and promenade, in unquestionably the best, most Winchester House, Old Broad-street, E.C. cheerful, and favourite situation of the whole sea

Rt. Hon. E. PLEYDELL BOUVERIE, Chairman. front of the town, and with the advantage of immediate possession.


Policies are now being issued by thus Corporation CHANCERY LANE, is prepared to conduct Sales of with instructions to SELL by AUCTION, at insuring Mortgages of Freehold and Leasehold Freehold and Leasehold Properties by Auction on the OLD SHIP HOTEL, Brighton, on TUESDAY,

Property, holders of Mortgage Debentures and moderate terms. The Management of Property and NOVEMBER 8th, 1887, at Three o'clock precisely,

Debenture Stock, against loss of principai and inCollection of Rents undertaken.

terest. the choicely - situated and commandingly-placed FREEHOLD MANSION, known as West Cliff

These Policies will be of especial advantage to CHAMBERS.

Trustees who may be held responsible for losses Lofty house, for many years the residence of the late and Well-lighted Offices and Chambers to be Elizabeth, Lady Abinger, occupying an unrivalled

consequent upon their Investments. Let at Lonsdale Chambers, No. 27, Chancery-lane position and most valuable site, comprising the whole

Mortgagors insuring with the Corporation will (opposite the New Law Courts). Also large, wellfrontage of the King's-road, between Oriental-place

also be enabled to obtain Advances at the lowest furnished Rooms for Meetings, Arbitrations, &c.and Montpelier-road, and having a depth and frontage

possible rate of interest. Apply to Messrs. LAUNDY & Co.. Chartered Accountto Oriental-place of 106 feet, and a depth and frontage

The Corporation also grants Policies to Leaseto Montpelier-road of 115 feet. The mansion, which

holders insuring the return of the Amount invested ants, on the premises. is detached and slightly removed from the front,

at the expiration of their leases or at any fixed with garden intervening, commands charming and periods. uninterrupted views of the sea and coast, and con

For particulars and conditions of Insurance apply floor (four good rooms and strong room).

By order, tains the unique and superior accommodation of to the Secretary. Apply to E. BROMLEY, 43, Bedford-row, London, W.O three handsome drawing rooms. noble dining room,

JAS. C. PRINSEP, Seoretary. capital billiard room, conservatory, and aviary, all on SOLICITORS and Othere. - Good

the ground floor and communicating, 13 bed rooms,
and spacious offices. The property also particularly

commends itself as a most choice site for the erection
King-street, Cheapside; rents moderate.-Apply to of residential flats, a club, hotel, or other building

Established 1803.
Messrs. WATSON, Son, & ROOM, 12, Bouverie-street, where large space and prominence of position are
Fleet-street, E.0. ;_or to W. BARNETT, Surveyor, desirable.

1, Old Broad-street, E.C., and 22, Pall Mall, S.W. Winchester House, EC.

May be viewed by private orders, to be obtained of Subscribed Capital, £1,200,000; Paid-up, £300,000. the Auctioneers, and particulars and conditions of

Total Invested Funds over £1,550,000. sale obtained of Messrs. Meredith, Roberts, & Mills, Rooms in a fine building close to the Law Solicitors, 8, New-square, I incoln's-inn, W.0. ;

E. COZENS SMITH, Courts, the Patent Office, and the Chancery-lane Messrs. Fitz-Hugh, Woolley, & Baines, Solicitors, 3,

Gereral Manager. Safe Deposit; lighted by electric light, and with Pavilion-parade, Brighton; and of Messrs. Jenner & every convenience; moderate rent; well suited for a Dell, Auctioneers and Estate Agents, 22, Regencysolicitor, law stationer, or patent agent.-Apply at equare, and the Grand-avenue, West Brighton. the Collector's Office, in the Hall of 63 and 64, Chan

No. 50, Regent-street, and 14, Cornhill, London. cery-lane.


MAS, are now in course of payment at the Head DEBENHAM, TEWSON,

Office, and at all agencies. (three or five Rooms) to be Let, at New Stone

FARMER, & BRIDGEWATER beg to announce

The business of this Office is confined to the United buildings, Chancery-lane, close to the Law Courts that their SALES of LANDED ESTATES, Investments,


Joint and the Chancery-Jane Safe Deposit; lighted by elec

G, W. STEVENS, tric light; every convenience; moderate rent. Use of Town, Suburban, and Country Houses, Business Premises,

B. E. KATLIFFE, Secretaries. Building Land, Ground-rents, Advowsons, Reversions elegant Arbitration Rooms in same Building at re Btocks, Shares, and other Properties, will be held at the duced Terms.-Apply at the Collector's Office, in the Hall of 63 and 64, Chancery-lane. land, in the City of London, as follows:

Head Office-11, Lombard-street, London, E.C. Tue3., Oct 18 Tues., Nov 22

Law Courts Branch-21, Fleet-street, E.C. Tues., Nov 8 Tues., Dec 13

Established 1821. Subscribed Capital, Two Millions. Splendid suite of three or five rooms to be Let

DIRECTORS: at New stone-buildings, Chancery-lane; well fitted ;

Auctions can also be held on other days. In order to lighted by electric light; convenient for the Law

nsure proper publicity, due notice should be given. CHAIRMAN-BEAUMONT W. LUBBOCK, Esq. Courts, theatres, &c.; moderate rent.-Apply at the

T'he period between such notice and the proposed auc DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN-SOHN B. MARTIN, Esq Collector's Office, in the Hall of 63 and 6i, Chancery

tion must considerably depend upon the nature of the lane. property to be sold. A printed scale of terms can be

Rt. Hon. Lord Adding-John Hunter, Esq. ton.

George Lake, Esq. had at 80, Cheapside, or will be forwarded. Telephone ARRISTERS

Henry Bonham - Carter, Rt. Hon. G. J. Shawand

No. 1,503.
Others Seeking


Lefevre, M.P. CHAMBERS close to the Law Courts.-A

Wm. Hill Dawson. Eeq. S. Hope Morley, Esq. splendid Suite of two, three, or five rooms to be Let,


Henry John Norman, Esq.

TEWSON, Charles F. Devas, Esq. in a fine Building quite near the Law Courts, and


Alban G. H. Gibbs, Esq.

LIST adjoining the Chancery-lan Safe Deposit. Lighted ESTATES and HOUSES to be SOLD or LET, including

James Goodson, Esq. by electric light and every convenience; moderate

Augustus Prevost, Esq.

John J. Hamilton, Esq. John G. Talbot, Esq., rent.-Apply at the Collector's Office, in the Hall of Landed Estates, Town and Country Residences, Hunting


Thomson Hankey, Esq. 63 and 64, Chancery-lane.

and Shooting Quarters, Farms, Ground Rents, Rent
Charges, House Property and Investments generally, is

Richard M. Harvey, Esq. Henry Vigne, Esq. published on the first day of each month, and may be

MANAGER OF FIRE DEPARTMENT-F.J. Marsden. obtained, free of charge, at their offices, 80, Cheapside,

ACTUARY AND SECRETARY-T. G. C. Browne. to be Let in Lincoln's-inn-fields; well suited to E.C., or will be sent by post in return for three stamps.

Share Capital at present paid up and inSolicitors, Barristers, Law Stationers, and others Particulars for insertion should be received not later than


3,999,000 desiring to be near the Law Courts; splendid situa four days previous to the end of the preceding month.

Total Funds upwards of ..............

800,000 tion; moderate rent. - Apply to Attendant, 3 and

Total Annual Income over 4, Lincoln's inn-fields; or at the Collector's Office, in

N.B.-Fire Policies which expire at MICHAELthe Hall of 63 and 64, Chancery-lane.

MAS should be renewed at the Head Office, or with ESIDENTIAL CHAMBERS to be LET London, W.c., beg to inform Executors, Trustees, in Lincoln's-inn-fields, fitted with every con

Solicitors, and the Trade, that their Season for the ENT FIRE OFFICE. Established in 1802. venience; bath room (hot and cold water); key and disposal by Auction of Libraries of Books and Music,

KENT LIFE OFFICE. Established in 1824. use of square; splendid situation; moderate rent.

Engravings, Paintings, and other works connected Apply to the Attendant, on the premises, 3 and 4, with the Fine Arts, Musical Instruments, and all

Chief Office-Maidstone. Lincoln's-inn-fields; or at the Collector's Office, in

descriptions of Valuable Property, will commence on the Hall of 63, Chancery-lane. October 17, and that their warehouses are open daily

Branch ( London, 124, Cannon-street, E.C. for the reception of goods consigned to them for sale.

Offices Manchester, Lombard-chambers, Brown-st.

One of tbe most recent claims upon the Company GROUND,

Messrs. P. & S. will hold several important Sales was under Life Policy No. 503, issued in 1833 for £800, City of London, in the new approach to Bil

during the Season, and will include small properties and which had acquired bonus additions amounting lingsgate Market. The Commissioners of Sewers of

in appropriate Sales, thus affording the same advan to £2,015, increasing the policy to £2,815. the City of London will meet in the Guildhall of the tages to small as to large consignments. Libraries

W. L, SEYFANG, said city on Tuesday, the 25th of October, 1887, at and other properties catalogued, arranged, and valued

Secretary and General Manager. half-past 12 o'clock precisely, to receive TENDERS

for Probate and Legacy Duty, or for Public or Private for taking on BUILDING LEASES, for a term of

Sale. 80 years, several plots of very valuable FREEHOLD GROUND in Monument-yard and between Pudding


ORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY lane and Botolph-lane, and abutting upon the new

Established 1836. street extension to Billingsgate Market. I R K B E O K B A N K..


LONDON: 1, Moorgate-street, E.C.
Further particulars, with conditions and printed
Southampton-buildings, Chancery-lane.

Union-terrace. forms of proposal, may be had on application at the

INCOME & FUNDS (1886) : THREE per office of the Engineer to the Commission, in the

CENT. INTEREST allowed on

Fire Premiums
DEPOSITS, repayable on demand.

Life Premiums
The Commissioners do not bind themselves to

Interest... accept the highest or any proposal

ACCOUNTS calculated on the minimum monthly Accumulated Funds Persons making proposals must attend personally,

balances, when not drawn below £100. or by a duly authorized agent, on the above-men The Bank undertakes for its Customers, free of tioned day, at half-past 12 o'clock precisely, and the Charge, the Custody of Deeds, Writings, and other

COME for the TREATMENT and CURE parties whose offers are accepted will be required to execute an agreement and bond at the same time. Securities and Valuables; the collection of Bills of


High Exchange, Dividends, and Coupons; and the purchase Proposals must be endorsed on the outside "Tender and sale of Stocks, Shares, and Annuities. Letters of

Shot House, Twickenham. - Charmingly for Ground,” and be delivered in, addressed to tbe

secluded. Gentlemen only. Limited number taken. undersigned, before 12 o'clock on the said day of Credit and Circular Notes issued.

Billiard room, library, lawn tennis court, bowls, &c;

The whole staff pledged abstainers. Terms-2 to 5 treaty. HENRY BLAKE, The BIRKBECK ALMANACK, with full particu guineas weekly.

- Particulars from the Medical Sewers Office, Guildhall, August, 1887,

Principal Clerk.
lars, post-free, on application.

Superintendent, H. BRANTHWAITE, F.R.C.S. Ed. ; and

reference is permitted to Messrs. MUNTON & MORRIS, Solicitore, 96A, Queen Victoria-street, London.



GROHANIDE FLOOR --Fine large Premises

......... £1,000,000


MESSRS. PUTTICKE SIMPSON, Eiterary the Agents. on or before the 14th day of OCTOBER.





[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]





784 Middlesex Manufacturing Equestrian and Public Buildings

(Limited) Co. (Limited)

784 Tucker v. Prior Firth, Re, Firth v. Clarke

........ 784






Statute of Merton, which the lord might lawfully exercise apart

from the Act. Section 31 does not in any way cut down the 784 rights given by the Statute of Merton, but only obliges the lord

to give public notice, by means of advertisements, of his intention to exercise them. There is another point on which we do not find

ourselves entirely in agreement with our correspondent. If we The Solicitors' Journal and Reporter. had arrived at the conclusion at which he has arrived, we should LONDON, OCTOBER 15, 1887.

not have arrived at it " satisfactorily." We understand him to suggest that the meaning of the section is that, in manors

where a special custom exists permitting the lord, with the CURRENT TOPICS.

assent of the homage, to grant parcels of the waste de novo to Mr. JOHN ARTHUR CHARLES TANNER, M.A., solicitor, has been though made with the assent of the Land Commissioners, take

be held by copy of court roll, such a grant shall in future, appointed a taxing master in bankruptcy. Mr. TANNER was ad- effect to create a freehold instead of a copyhold. If this is the Act's mitted in 1881.

meaning, the passage cited is, in our humble opinion, a scandalous

example of bad draftsmanship; and we should only abstain (supThe Vacation JUDGE's sitting on Friday this week was to be held posing that to be its meaning) from styling it a glaring scandal, in Queen’s Bench Court No. 2. It is anticipated that the Vacation because such blundering has become too common for any single Sittings will close wish the present week.

example to be very conspicuous. How can land which by the hypothesis is made freehold, or, to be very precise, held" freehold, by the nperation of the grant itself,

to be some

thing which it never was? Would any rational draftsman, wishing THE 125TH SECTION of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, has to express the meaning our correspondent suggests, intentionally use apparently had but a very limited operation. During the three language which compels recourse to his “eo instantihypothesis, or years for which returns hive been published, the number of orders (if this is our correspondent's supposition) which causes that hypofor administration of deceased debtors' estates in bankruptcy has thesis to hang upon the use of the word “as”? As citizens we been only eighty-four in the aggregate, being an average of may be much inclined to favour any interpretation which avoids twenty-eight per year.

the confiscation of vested interests; as lawyers we cannot help feeling much shocked at the thought of being forced to avoid it by

such an expedient. IT WILL BE seen from the sittings paper, which we publish elsewhere, that Mr. Justice KEKEWICH will take actions every day of the sittings, continuing his practice as to taking motions in

SIR HENRY JAMES, the author of the Corrupt Practices Act, Liverpool and Manchester District Registry business on every 1883, has written a letter to the Times on the “ Templecombe Free Saturday. Other interlocutory business from these registries will be Lunch,” in which he points out that the provision of food and taken on alternate Saturdays, commencing with Liverpool business drink free of cost at a political meeting and the payment of money on the 29th inst. Mr. Justice STIRLING will sit in chambers every for railway expenses are a violation of the spirit of the above-menMonday, instead of Friday, as heretofore.

tioned Act. So far we should think most people, looking at the matter apart from considerations of party, will agree with the

learned writer. But he further expresses an opinion that the IF IT WERE NECESSARY to add to the already overwhelming direct provisions” of the Act have been infringed, and expresses evidence in support of the conclusion that another judge is re a hope that, if it should be proved upon an election petition that quired in order that the business of the Chancery Division may be the feasted' electors were solicited to record their votes for the satisfactorily disposed of, such evidence may be found in the fact Liberal candidates before them, “there will be judges strong that during the year 1875-6 the then four judges of the Chancery enough to say that the candidate who has reaped the advantage of Division and the Lord Chancellor sat on 761 days and disposed of such an appeal has not been elected by pure or legal means.

If 1,942 actions, &c., and 4,905 interlocutory applications; whereas there were candidates present at the free lunch, or concerned in ten years later, in 1885-6, the five judges of the Chancery its promotion, there may possibly be ground for this hope ; but we Division, with Mr. Justice Butt as an additional judge, sat on confess we find it difficult to see how a candidate who merely reaps 1,232 days and disposed of only 1,355 actions, &c., and 4,147 the advantage of the free lunch exhortations, without having been interlocutory matters. The trial of actions by oral evidence is, of in any way party or privy, by himself or his agents, to the free course, one chief reason why actions are not so rapidly disposed of lunch, can be hit. In order to render him responsible the pronowadays; and so long as that system is continued, no expectation moters of the free lunch must be shewn to be his agents. He can be entertained that the work will be more quickly disposed “must be proved (either by himself or his authorized agent) to of with the existing number of judges. It cannot be anticipated have employed the persons in question to act on his behalf, or to that the proposals recently made that shorthand writers should be have to some extent put himself in their hands, or to have made employed to take verbatim notes of the evidence will commend it common cause with them for the purpose of promoting his elecself to the majority of the judges. This is a point which involves tion " (per Grove, J., Taunton Election, 2 O’M. & H. 74). It is as well the convenience of the judges as the question of expense perhaps conceivable that a candidate who accepted the assistance to suitors. To the latter class the costs of litigation are already of the associations by whom the tickets for the free lunch were sufficiently onerous, and ) er Majesty's Treasury is not likely to distributed might be held to have adopted their previous acts, come forward and pay the salaries of sworn shortband writers particularly if an election occurred shortly after the free lunch; which would probably exceed in amount the salaries of a judge but this would certainly be a strong construction. The liability and his officers.

of the promoters and recipients of the free lunch is, however, quite a different matter. Section 1 of the Act of 1883 provides that

“any person who corruptly [that is, with the motive, by WE PRINT in another column a letter from a learned corres means of treating, to produce an effect on the elector: Herepondent offering an explanation of the extraordinary passage in ford Election, 1"'O'M. & H. 195), by himself or any other the last Copyhold Act (50 & 51 Vict. c. 73), s. 6, to which we person, either before, during, or after an election, directly or drew attention in our last number. We cannot, however, find in indirectly gives or provides, or pays wholly or in part the expense the other Act which he cites (39 & 40 Viet. c. 56, s. 31), anything of giving or providing any meat, drink, entertainment, or provision to bear out the interpretation which he puts upon it. That Act-- to or for any person, for the purpose of corruptly influencing that the Commons Act, 1876—is an enabling Act, permitting inclosures person or any other person to give or refrain from giving his vote to be made, with the assent of the Land Commissioners, in the at the election shall be guilty of treating,” and is manner therein prescribed; but it does not appear to interfere with rendered liable to the severe penalties and disqualifications menany right to inclose, existing either at the common law or by the tioned in section 6. Moreover, by section 1 (2), every elector who

corruptly accepts or takes any such meat, drink, entertainment, or to avoid the deed. For some reason or other the mortgagee stipulated provision, is also made guilty of treating. And, by section 36, that when all the moneys secured had been repaid he should in. every person guilty of a corrupt practice at an election is prohibited dorse the fact upon the bill of sale and then keep it in his own from voting at such election, and, if he votes, his vote is to be possession. What the exact use of this could be, except for void. Possibly Sir HENRY JAMES’s remark may have been made vexatious purposes, is not clear. It was suggested that it was a with reference to this last liability.

stipulation originally devised by some money lender in order to obstruct legal proceedings subsequently taken

by the

grantor of the bill of sale to obtain redress for wrongs IN COMMENTING last week upon the case of Magnus v. Queensland suffered during the continuance of the security. In any National Bank (36 Ch. D. 25) we pointed out the danger that a

case it could have very little effect one way or the other, mortgagee runs of re-conveying the mortgaged property to the and this was pleaded on behalf of the bill of sale. But the wrong person. At first sight it seems to follow that he is bound court would have none of it. Much or little, it altered the legal at his peril to discover who is entitled to the equity of redemption, relations of the parties from what they would be under the statutory but it has been expressly laid down that this is a burden which form, and this was sufficient. It was provided, again, that the the courts will not impose upon him. Thus in Cholmondeley v. grantor of the bill of sale should keep down the interest upon any Clinton (2 Jac. & W. 185) his position was distinguished from that mortgages which might be subsisting upon the premises where the of a trustee proper.

“The estate is not committed to his care, goods from time to time should be. This is apparently for the nor has he the means of preventing or being acquainted with the maintenance of the security, and so it was argued, inasmuch as changes which the title to the equity of redemption may undergo, under such mortgages there might be a power of distress over the

so far, yet in either by act of the mortgagor, without his privity, or by opera- goods. But granting that the stipulation was goo tion of law, by descent, forfeiture, or otherwise.”

In that case

its actual form it went much farther, for it bound the grantor to the interest had been regularly paid by a person who had no title, pay the interest on all mortgages, whether they contained such a and it was considered that the neglect of the true owner was power of distress or not, and irrespective of whether they were sufficient to warrant the mortgagee in conveying the property to the granted by himself. apparent owner of the equity of redemption. Again, the equity of redemption is frequently divided among several persons, and the question arises how far the mortgagee is bound upon a re-convey THE Post of examiner to the court so much sought after and ance to protect their interests. This also has been decided in a expected to be exceedingly lucrative, can scarcely answer expectamanner favourable to him, as is clear from Lord HATHERLEY'S tions. The total amount of fees received by the examiners in the judgment in Pearce v. Morris (5 Ch. 230): “It would be very year ending with October, 1886, was £1,861, and in the previous mischievous to mortgagees if the court were to hold that they were year £1,721. About 20 of the 25 examiners originally appointed bound to inquire into the titles of all the persons who have got still retain their posts, and any person can calculate for himself what other interests in the equity of redemption, or that, if they ac are the average receipts of each. cepted their money without a suit, it was at their peril, because they had been constituted trustees for other parties. It would also involve mortgagors in a vast amount of litigation and costs, which would be entirely unnecessary in most cases." Hence it

DURING THE LAST three years there bas been a gradual decrease was decided that, though a mortgagee is not entitled to convey securities and cash together, the total amount on the books of the

in the amount of the funds in court belonging to suitors. Adding absolutely to a mere stranger to the estate, yet he is bound to convey to any person having an interest in the estate which gives a

Paymaster-General, shewn by the three latest returns, is right to redeem. Or, as was said more generally, “ All that either £78,866,104, £78,360,326, and £75,877,581, shewing a decrease the court or the mortgagee has to attend to is,' that in fact the of nearly three millions sterling. person tendering the money has an interest, whatever it may be, in the equity of redemption.” Of course the re-conveyance is not to such person absolutely, and if the position of the other parties is not exactly stated, yet, at least, the deed must shew that is COMPULSION REALLY NECESSARY FOR THE the party redeeming has a partial interest only, and is to hold subject to the right of redemption of all the persons who hold

ESTABLISHMENT OF REGISTRATION OF TITLE ? other interests. But while the mortgagee is thus relieved from

I. the duty of following strictly the devolution of the equity of It seems to be generally expected that the Land Transfer Bill redemption when the owner for the time being does not assert his will be re-introduced next session. If it is, we may hope to see rights, or of settling the interests of the various persons holding it in the consolidated form so universally recommended by all partial interests therein, yet he is bound to be cognizant of facts critics during the last session. But it is not of its form so much actually brought to his notice, and to act upon them. In the case referred to last week the mortgage was in January, 1882, and the a question of labour, all admit consolidation to be desirable ; the

as of its substance that we now desire to speak. The form is only re-transfer in February; yet the mortgagees, without any inquiry, only doubt is whether it will be considered worth while to undertransferred to a stranger at the direction of one only of the mort- take it at the present stage. As to the substance of the measure, gagors. A good example, too, is afforded by the case of West it is evident from the numerous expressions of opinion that have London Commercial Bank v. Reliance Permanent Builaing Society flowed in from all sides that there is still much debateable matter the second mortgagees notice of their incumbrance, but in forget- ing space in collecting some observations on a few of the most fulness of this they concurred with the mortgagor in effecting a salient points that seem to admit of further consideration: sale. But inasmuch as the second mortgagees were the persons entitled to redeem, and the first mortgagees had had notice, they beyond the province of profitable discussion now.

In the first place it will be well to state what we consider to be became, upon being paid off, trustees for the second mortgagees, exaggeration to say that the whole question of registration of

It is clearly no that a mortgagee will be safe if he acts upon a reasonable proba- time last year. It will be remembered, for instance, by those who bility as to the rights of parties, taking care to observe such have watched the matter for any length of time, that up to the actual notices of subsequent incumbrances as are served upon him. moment of the Chancellor's speech from the woolsack, little more When there is a real dispute as to rights, it is for the courts to than six months ago, it was a matter of uncertainty whether the settle it, and not the mortgagee.

Government scheme, spoken of in two speeches from the throne,

and adumbrated by Cabinet Ministers in numerous platform The case of Watson v. Strickland (35 W. R. 763, 19 Q. B. D. 391) is reverter to the system of registration of deeds, and, if not, it

speeches for the best part of two years, would or would not be a another illustration of the danger of putting too much into a bill of was still open to doubt what species of registration of title would sale. Two provisions had been inserted either of which was sufficient I be adopted, and what means would be chosen to preserve the

measure from remaining to so large an extent a dead letter as its House of Lords—to whatever cause it be attributed-has made it predecessors of 1862 and 1875.

impossible for the bulk of the profession to ignore the system of Now, however, there cannot be two opinions as to the general registration of title. That they have ignored it hitherto can hardly direction that the reforms will take when it pleases the Legislature be denied. It is a most unusual thing to find a solicitor who has to carry them. Lord Halsbury said in his opening speech that any exact knowledge of it, or who is not easily led into the gravest registration of deeds was dead—and in so saying he killed it. The misconceptions regarding its features. For instance, it is a consensus of all parties in favour of registration of title in some frequent mistake, even among those who have given some attention form or other-whether right or wrong—is now so obviously deter- to the subject, to suppose that it has no counterpart to the banker's mined, that on this point at least we venture to submit that fur- mortgage by deposit of deeds—witness a letter from an esteemed ther discussion would be now perfectly futile. Therefore, for one correspondent in our last week's issue. As a fact, every system thing, we propose to eschew entirely all general objections to of registration that we know of makes express provision for these registration of title as a whole. If it be a bad system its imper- mortgages, and it is reported from Australia that they are used fections must be left to be demonstrated in practice : the powers just as often under the new system as they were formerly, and that be are determined to be satisfied with nothing short of this. that, in fact, the banker is in an easier and also a safer position, Therefore, in the following observations it will be assumed, for sim- holding an equitable charge with deposit of certificate, than he is in plicity's sake, that registration is a good thing, and that the only England lending on a deposit of deeds. question is how to introduce it with least trouble and friction We will now consider the various arguments that may be during the transition period.

adduced in favour of compulsion. Two other lesser points seem also to be settled for the present The short case for compulsion is generally thus stated :-Two namely, that the system of absolute title hitherto pursued must attempts have been made to establish the system in this country: be modified, and that the nature of the title conferred on the regis- those attempts failed because they were voluntary: compulsion is tered owner must be more in the nature of a warranty by the therefore the only alternative. Now notwithstanding the high Government against loss guaranteed title, as it has been named authority which can be quoted in support of this view, and notfor distinction-and, as a concomitant, that an insurance fund must withstanding the almost universal acceptance it obtains outside the be established. This principle has been found to work very well legal profession, we hope we may be permitted still to doubt its in Australasia: the mistakes made are very trifling (under three correctness, and to dwell upon some aspects of the subject which thousand pounds worth in over twenty years for the whole of Aus- tend to justify that doubt. tralia and New Zealand), the insurance charge is nothing to compare To trace the gradual steps by which the idea of compelling all with the cost of unregistered conveyancing, and the various funds landowners to register possessory titles has come to be accepted as are growing out of all proportion to the demands made upon them. the only possible way of getting estates registered involves a short Some critics appear to think that to make provision for possible retrospect, because in the course of the last thirty years an entire error is the mark of a reckless and inconsiderate system. We must change has taken place in the mode in which the question is admit that our own view is entirely the opposite. Mistakes of generally looked at. All early authorities agree in considering it some kind must attend all human operations. They may be kept as in the first place a landowner's question : for instance, the down to a small amount by reasonable vigilance, but after a certain Report of the Registration and Conveyancing Commission of 1850, point the vigilance becomes more oppressive than the risk. At p. 6, runs thus: “We ought to consider as a burden upon land this point the insurance principle steps in and completes the edifice. whatever has the effect of diminishing its value or detracting from Both these two latter points bave been very exhaustively dealt its ready and convenient application to the wants or requirements with in recent publications, to which we would refer our readers of its owner. The fear of delay as well as of expense is a more who still entertain doubts on the subject, and to which we have effective cause of the depreciation of land than the apprehension ourselves nothing to add.

that the title may be insecure. The experience of the delay There is, however, one point left of first-rate importance, and especially which so often attends sales and transfers, by deterring one on which solicitors, as a body, have expressed a most decided some persons from making investments in land, and others from opinion, which we venture to think has not been at all exhaus- lending money on mortgage, materially diminishes the value of tively treated as yet-namely, the question of compulsion. In landed property. Expedients which may afford to purchasers or their report on the Bill the Committee of the Incorporated Law lenders protection against fraud will secure a great and direct Society say :-" Compulsion is unjust and should be unnecessary, and benefit to landowners by the increased value of their possessions." if a system of registration cannot be worked except by pressure of But in practice under the Act of 1862 this result did not occur. compulsion, it will be because it has not been made suitable to the For one thing, the costs of registration always greatly exceeded requirements of the country, and will hamper instead of facilitate the costs of a sale under ordinary conditions of sale, and, for the dealings with real estate" (p. 2). This is not the popular another, it seems that no efficient means was hit upon for causing view, however; the general public are of a directly contrary purchasers to contribute anything towards the amount so spent. opinion, but we venture to say, as the result of much study, that Consequently, vendors having nothing to gain by registering before we have not yet met with any reasoned defence of the popular a sale, and purchasers having equally no motive for registering view which does not, more or less, break down when examined. after, the landowners, as a body, preferred to retain the old system. The opinion has, however, been so long, so often, and so positively Solicitors say the costs were occasioned by difficulties made in the expressed, that it is necessary to go somewhat deeply into the Land Registry Office. The officers of the registry say they were question in order to trace out the process by which the public caused by the carelessness of the solicitors—the result was the mind has become impervious to so plausible a statement as that same either way, put forward by the Committee of the Incorporated Law Society in Then it was that the suggestion was first made, of which 80 the passage just quoted.

much has been heard since, that solicitors selfishly opposed regisTo the Legislator charged with the duty of passing the Bill through tration in order to retain their own lucrative business of preparing

the Act both Houses of Parliament the question is doubtless one of extreme abstracts of title. That so good difficulty. On the one hand it is well known that the late Bill of 1862

believed be could fall by its Was displeasing to many of the supporters of the system of registra- weight was hardly supposed possible. Accordingly the Royal tion because it was not compulsory enough. On the other hand it Commission of 1868 (Report" 1870) devoted much attention

It is true some can hardly be doubted that landowners (an influential, though to the inquiries as to the attitude of solicitors. perhaps a more silent, body, in the Legislature) were rendered solicitors (more desirous apparently of a reputation for personal not a little nervous by the compulsory clauses, and this nervous candour than jealous of the honour of their profession) inness has probably been increased by the interval for reflection clined to indorse the discreditable view just mentioned, but the which has now ensued, and possibly by the unmistakable dis- commissioners themselves, in their report, came to an entirely approval which their solicitors, as a body, are now taking every different opinion-namely this (the passage has been often quoted,

but its moral has been little attended to), “There is always in all One undoubted obstacle to the success of a voluntary system has callings of life a large number of individuals who dislike and hesitate to say that the passage of last year's Bill through the has once been made in a good direction, and it is clear in this case








occasion to emphasize.

that the dislike to the existing system proceeds from men who not be the subject of further proceedings. In the latter case a have honestly tried to work it, and who wish for some workable husband was released from his agreement not to sue on the ground system, and are in such a position that their houses would not that it had been entered into upon a false declaration of innocence only have set an example which, if successful, others must event by the wife. So, too, the contract is subjected to the ordinary ually follow, but would of themselves have supplied ths registry rules as to consideration; and this may be a benefit received by with as much business as its present staff could discharge” (p. xvi., one party, as the covenant by the wife not to sue for nullity of para. 20). A more complete acquittal could hardly have been marriage on the ground of impotency in Wilson v. Wilson given.

(1 H. L. C. 538), or an obligation or burden incurred by another, as the trustee's covenant to indemnify the husband in Stephens r. Olive (2 Bro. C. C. 90), or the execution of the deed by the

husband, in Jones v. Waite (5 Bing. N. C. 341). So, too, the SEPARATION DEEDS.

release of an interest in property will be a good consideration, as III.

in Logan v. Birkett (1. M. & K. 220), where the release by the So far we have seen that there is now no objection to separation husband of his interest in future-acquired property of the wife was deeds on the ground of public policy ; that, so far as relates to the held to be a good consideration for an annuity granted to him by separation proper, they will probably be enforced equally against her and charged upon her separate estate. the husband and the wife; and that in this respect the wife can

It is to be noticed that the effect of the separation deed is concontract as though she were a feme sole. It remains to consider fined to its proper object, the release of the husband and wife from her capacity to enter into the auxiliary agreements with regard to the mutual duty of cohabitation. There is no change in their property which usually form part of the deed.

legal position with reference to the outside world. This important It has been pointed out that the general capacity of a wife to point was decided in Marshall v. Rutton (1800, 8 T. R. 545). act as a feme sole in the compromise of a matrimonial suit was That was an action of assumpsit for goods supplied to the wife recognized in Vansittart v. Vansittart (4 K. & J. 62), but, as was

after separation, but Lord Kenyon, C.J., refused to recognize her there said, " subject, of course, to this limitation, that her capacity liability on the ground that the husband and wife could not by to contract is confined to the matters as to which she is to be consid contract change their legal position, and so the wife could not ered a feme sole, and to the purposes for which she is so considered” become liable to be sued. An apparent exception to this occurs (p. 71) Upon this limitation stress was laid in Cahill v. Cahill when a separate maintenance is provided for the wife, for this (8 App. Cas. 431), and this constitutes now the leading case on the puts an end to her implied authority to pledge her husband's subject. There, upon a compromise of the husband's suit for credit. This, however, is simply on the ground that the restitution of conjugal rights, it was stipulated that the wife authority is delegated, and not inherent, and that when a separate should release part of her jointure charged upon the husband's provision has been made for her on the terms that she shall apply real estate, but no deed was acknowledged in the manner proper. So it was put by Lush, J., in Eastland v. Burchell (3 Q. B. D.

for nothing more it is impossible to imply any further authority. for the conveyance of such an interest by a married woman. was contended that, as this was one of the terms of a separation 435). deed, the ordinary formalities might be dispensed with, and espe

We have considered the portion of the deed relating to separation cially that, as the wife was living in independence of her husband, proper, and to the pecuniary or other arrangements necessitated there was no necessity for those safeguards which contemplated, thereby; the future peace of the parties is frequently secured by a and were made to provide against, her dependence upon him. But covenant that neither shall molest the other. Of course, this prothis was decisively rejected by Lord Selborne, C., in an elaborate hibits all personal interference; and in Sanders v. Rodway judgment, and he was followed by the other Law Lords. The dis- |(16 Beav. 207), where the husband threatened to get possession of ability of coverture, he said, sprang, not from the wife's depend his wife by force, he was restrained by injunction. The real ence on her husband, but from the fact that the two were one in law. question, however, is to decide what amount of annoyance, short The wife was, however, capable of suing, and of being sued, of personal interference, will amount to molestation within the either with her husband or by her next friend, and, as a conse

covenant. The mere giving of trouble is not sufficient, for this quence of this, could be bound by a compromise. Hence arose may be done in pursuance of a legal right. Thus, in Thomas v. the possibility of her conveying her lands by a fine. But when Everard (6 H. & N. 448), a suit by the wife for judicial separafines were abolished and the system of conveying lands by deeds tion was held not to be a breach of her covenant not to molest, separately acknowledged was introduced, then the disability of although it might have been different had her suit been brought married women was strictly defined by the Legislature. Nor is for the purpose of securing increased alimony. But the question this in any way altered by the fact that the conveyance

was exhaustively discussed in Fearon v. Earl of Aylesford (14 vision in a separation deed. Upon the compromise of a matri- Q. B. D. 792), and this is now the leading case on the subject. monial suit, husband and wife may each contract as they like with The principle there laid down is embodied in the following passage regard to their own property; but the wife is bound by the same from the judgment of Brett, M.R. :limitations that affect her contracts with a stranger.

“What kind of act must be done in order to constitute a molestation ? Hence it is clear that before the Married Women's Property I am of opinion that the act done by the wife, or by her authority, must be Act, 1882, the capacity of a woman to contract with her husband an act which is done with iutent to annoy, and does, in fact, annoy; or in a separation deed in regard to her property was already fully another shape, that it must be an act done by her with a knowledge that recognized. For the purpose of such contract she was regarded what she is so doing must of itself, without more, annoy her husband, or as a feme sole, but for all other purposes, such as the actual con- annoy a husband with ordinary and reasonable feeling. veyance of property, she was still under the disabilities of a married woman. T'he chief effect of the Act, then, so far as we indeed, included in the former, since a person must be held to

The latter proposition, as the Master of the Rolls remarked, ie, are concerned, is to place her in the position of a feme sole with intend the known consequences of his own act.

In the case in regard to all her property, or, in the case of women married before question it was contended that notorious adultery was a molesta1882, with regard to property acquired since then. The inter- tion, but unless the wife knows that this will come to the knowvention of a trustee for all the main purposes of the deed is quite ledge of her husband it does not come within the above rule. As unnecessary, though it he covenants to indemnify the husband to mere adultery, it was held, without hesitation, that this is no against the wife's debts, that is still a valuable consideration to molestation, for it would be contrary to fact to suppose that it is support any settlement made by the husband as against creditors. In other respects, too, the contract is subjected to the ordinary this is so, the subsequent birth of a child cannot increase the

committed with the intention of annoying the husband ; and, if rules of contracts. Thus it will be interpreted according to the original offence. It would be different, indeed, if the spurious intention of the parties as expressed in its words : Rowley v. child was held out to the world as legitimate, and it was the failure Rowley (1 Sc. & D. 63), and it is vitiated by fraud : Brown v. to produce evidence of this which decided the case. Brown (7 Eq. 185). In the former case a wife had compromised a divorce suit, and had agreed not to institute other proceedings avoidance, the law seems well settled. A variation is, in general,

As to the variation of the terms of the deed and its entire in the Divorce Court. It was held that misconduct of the husband only possible in case of a subsequent dissolution of the marriage; before the agreement, though not then known to the wife, could and this may take place, notwithstanding the separation, should

is a pro

« PreviousContinue »