(xci.) C. J. B.-Judgment Debt-Receiver-Tacking-1 & 2 Vict., c. 110; 27 & 28 Vict., c. 112, s. 1.—The appointment of a receiver in an action by a judgment creditor in the Chancery Div. is, as regards property which can only be affected in equity, a delivery in execution by virtue of a lawful authority, though no writ of elegit has been issued.—Ex parte Evans, Re Watkins, 40 L.T. 526; 27 W.R. 712.

(xcii.) C. A.-Jurisdiction.-Where, by the operation of the law of Bank. ruptcy, the trustee of a bankrupt has a better title against a stranger to the bankruptcy than the bankrupt himself would have had, the question involved is properly within the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court.Ex parte Brown, Re Yates, L.R. 11 Ch. D. 148; 40 L.T. 402; 27 W.R. 651. (xciii.) C. J. B.-Liquidation-Concealment of Property-Leave to Prosecute.— The application of the trustee for an order to prosecute the liquidating debtor for fraudulently removing property, ought not to be refused merely because the trustee has already recovered the property.-Ex parte Monkhouse, Re Ward, 40 L.T. 296.

(xciv.) C. A.-Liquidation-Description of Debtor.-A farmer filed a liquidation petition, in which he described himself as a cattle-dealer: Held, that the description was not misleading so as to invalidate the liquidation resolutions.-Ex parte Kirkwood, Re Mason, 40 L.T. 566.

(xcv.) C. J. B.—Liquidation—Proof—Unendorsed Promissory Note.—A bonâ fide holder for value of promissory notes, which were unendorsed at date of tender for proof, procured the endorsement before application to register the resolutions: Held that he was entitled to prove for his debt.-Ex parte Pike, Re Eslick, 40 L.T. 529.

(xcvi.) C. A.-Petitioning Creditor's Debt-Claim under Judge's Order.—The defendant in an action on a bill of exchange, having become liable under a judge's order to pay £29, and in default to have judgment signed against him, tendered the £29, which plaintiff refused, unless defendant also paid another sum of £30, which plaintiff alleged to be due to him. Defendant having refused to pay this, plaintiff issued a debtor's summons for £59, and on defendant's failing to give security, presented a bank. ruptcy petition against him: Held that there was no sufficient debt to support the petition.--Ex parte Astrup, Re Lefevre, L.R. 11 Ch. D. 303; 40 L.T. 403; 27 W.R. 518.

(xcvii.) C. J. B.-Proof-Discounted Bills-Banker's Lien.-Bankers, with whom bills of exchange have been deposited by a customer for discount, and who have made advances on them, are entitled, on the customer going into liquidation, to retain the bills and prove for the full amount, and receive dividends thereon, giving credit only for sums received from time to time in respect of such bills as may have been paid.-Ex parte Schofield, Re Frith, 40 L.T. 464.

(xcviii.) C. J. B.-Proof-Rejection-Delay.—A trustee does not lose his right to reject a proof by allowing three months to elapse after it is sent in.— Ex parte De Boos, Re Shallow, 40 L.T. 659.

(xcix.) C. A.-Double Proof-Two Firms.-The same individuals were associated in two firms, one in London and the other at Oporto. The Oporto firm drew bills on the London firm, which the latter accepted, and which were discounted by a Portuguese bank. Both firms having gone into liquidation, the bank received a dividend out of the assets in Portugal: Held that the bank could not prove in the English liquidation without bringing in what they had received from the Portuguese assets. Ex purte Banco di Portugal, Re Hooper, L.R. 11 Ch. D. 317; 40 L.T. 406. (c.) C. A.-Stoppage in Transitu.-In a contract to deliver goods free on board, though no destination is mentioned, it is implied that they are

delivered to be carried, and so long as they remain in the hands of the shipmaster as carrier the vendor's right of stoppage in transitu remains. -Ex parte Rosevear Clay Co., Re Cock, 27 W.R. 591.

Bill of Exchange:—

(vi.) C. A.-Right to Securities held by Creditor.-R., a member of a firm of R. and Co., deposited title deeds with the W. Bank as security for the floating balance due from his firm. Afterwards D. sold a cargo to R. and Co. who paid for it by a bill of exchange which D. indorsed and paid into the W. Bank. R. and Co. stopped payment before the bill became due: Held that D. was not entitled to have the security held by the bank handed over to him on payment of the balance due from R. and Co. to the bank.-Duncan, Fox & Co. v. North and South Wales Bank, L.R. 11 Ch. D. 88; 48 L.J. Ch. 376; 40 L.T. 371; 27 W.R. 521.

Bill of Sale:

(xiv.) C. A.—Description of Grantor.—The description of the residence and occupation of the grantor of a bill of sale required by sec. 1 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1854, to be filed with the bill of sale, is the description of such residence and occupation at the date of the affidavit.Button v. O'Neill, 48 L.J. C.P. 368; 27 W.R. 592.

(xv.) C. A.-Prior Act of Bankruptcy-Seizure before Adjudication.--Held, varying the decision of C. J. B (see Bill of Sale xi., p. 79), that the trustee was entitled to the chattels comprised in the bill of sale except growing crops.-Ex parte Payne, Re Cross, 40 1.T. 563.

Building Society :

(ii.) H. L.-Arbitration—6 & 7 Will. IV., c. 32—10 Geo. IV., c. 56, s. 27.—The rules of a benefit building society, enrolled under 6 & 7 Will. IV., c. 32, and not re-registered under the Building Societies Act, 1874, provided that disputes between the society and members should be referred to arbitration: Held that this did not apply where the relation of mortgagor and mortgagee existed.-Mulkern v. Lord, L.R. 4 App. 182; 40 L.T. 594; 27 W.R. 510.

(vii.) H. L.-Lease-Statute of Limitations-13 Eliz., c. 10.—Decision of Court of Appeal (see Charity i., p. 7) affirmed, on the ground that the lease was void ab initio.-Magdalen Hospital v. Knotts, 40 L.T. 466; 27 W.R. 602. Club:

(i.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Power of Expulsion-Duties of Committee.-Injunc. tion granted to restrain the committee of a club from interfering with plaintiff's rights of membership by virtue of a resolution for his suspension which had been passed by the ordinary house-committee instead of a specially summoned committee as provided by the rules, and when the committee had not afforded plaintiff any opportunity of explaining his conduct.-Fisher v. Keane, L.R. 11 Ch. D. 353.

Company:

(liii.) C. A.-Action by Shareholder-Parties-Fraud.-An action was brought by two shareholders against three directors of a company to set aside a sale by the directors to the promoters, which had been adopted by the company, on the ground of fraud, and alleging that owing to the preponderating influence of defendants, no steps could be taken within the company to remedy those acts: Held, that a demurrer, on the ground that the action ought to have been brought in the name of the company, could not be sustained.-Mason v. Harris, L.R. 11 Ch. D. 97; 40 L.T. 644; 27 W.R. 699.

(liv.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.—Winding-up—Contributory—Insurance Company. -A life insurance company started a fire insurance business, and issued special shares appropriated to the liabilities of this business; on being wound up: Held that the liquidators ought to make calls on the past shareholders of the special shares in respect of fire liabilities before calling on the present ordinary shareholders.-Bath's Case, Re Norwich Provident Insurance Society, L.R. 11 Ch. D. 386; 48 L.J. Ch. 411; 40 L.T. 453; 27 W.R. 653.

(lv.) H. L.-Winding-up-Contributory-Fraud by Directors---Repudiating Shares. An unlimited bank having stopped payment, a general meeting of the shareholders was summoned and accountants were employed to examine the books and prepare a balance-sheet. The day after their report was issued to the shareholders, A., a shareholder, presented a petition for the removal of his name from the list of contributories on the ground of the fraud of the directors. The next day a voluntary winding-up was resolved upon: Held that A. was too late to repudiate his liability in the winding-up.-Tennent v. City of Glasgow Bank, 40 L.T. 694; 27 W.R. 649. (lvi.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Winding-up-Contributory-Mutual Insurance Com. pany. The articles of association of an unlimited insurance company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1862, and having a share capital stated in the Memorandum of Association, provided for two classes of members, each having voting power, viz., shareholders and assurance members being life policy holders with profits. W. signed a proposal for assurance whereby she agreed that she would execute the articles of association when required. She was accepted and paid premiums but was never registered: Held on the winding-up of the company that she must be entered on the list of contributories.-Winstone's Case, Re Albion Life Assurance Society, 27 W.R. 752.

(lvii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Winding-up-Contributory-Set-off-Unlimited Company.-A shareholder in an unlimited company which is being wound up, cannot set off a debt due to him from the company against calls made upon him.-Ex parte Branwhite, Re West of England and South Wales Bank, 48 L.J. Ch. 463; 40 L.T. 652; 27 W.R. 646.

(lviii.) C. A.—Winding-up-Director—Mortgage to Firm.--Decision of V. C. H. (see Company xliv., p. 81) affirmed.-Smith's Case, Re South Durham Iron Co., 48 L.J. Ch. 480; 40 L.T. 572.

(lix.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Winding-up-Distress for Rent― Judicature Act, 1875, s. 10.-The bankruptcy law permitting distress for one year's arrears of rent has not, by virtue of sec. 10 of Judicature Act, 1875, superseded the old rule in winding-up.-Re Bridgewater Engineering Co., 48 L.J. Ch. 389.

(lx.) C.

A.—Winding-up-Mortgage-Foreclosure. In the winding-up of a company, in which an inquiry as to securities given by it had been directed, leave was given to a mortgagee who had obtained an order to attend proceedings in the winding-up, his costs of so doing to be costs in the winding-up, to bring such action as he might be advised to enforce his security on his undertaking that his costs of attending the windingup proceedings should be in the discretion of the judge.-Re Hamilton's Windsor Iron Works Co., 40 L.T. 569.

(lxi.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Winding-up-Payment of Debts-Execution Creditor -Judicature Act, 1875, s. 10.-Where a winding-up petition has been presented, the Court will not allow a judgment creditor, who has been induced by representations of the company not to issue execution, to be deprived of the benefit which he would otherwise have obtained, and this principle is not affected by sec. 10 of the Judicature Act, 1875, and sec. 87 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869.-Ex parte Crawshay, Re Richards & Co., 40 L.T. 315; 27 W.R. 530.

(lxii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Winding-up-Proof-Costs of Special Act.-A company's special Act provided that all costs and expenses incident to obtaining the Act should be paid by the company: Held, that a person who had done work towards obtaining the Act as a clerk to a promoter could not prove for his remuneration in the winding-up.-Re Kent Tramways Co., 40 L.T. 393.

(lxiii.) C. A.-Winding-up-Petition-Paid-up Shareholder.-A fully paid-up shareholder who presents a winding-up petition must allege and prove that there are assets of such an amount that there would be a substantial surplus on the winding-up. Vague allegations of fraud are not sufficient on a winding-up petition.-Re Rica Gold Washing Co., L.R. 4 Ch. D. 36; 40 L.T. 531; 27 W.R. 715.

(lxiv.) Ch. Div. M. R.—Winding-up-Petition—Secured Creditor.—Sec. 10 of the Judicature Act, 1875, does not affect the right of a secured creditor to present a winding-up petition, nor will he forfeit the benefit of his security by doing so.-Moor v. Anglo-Italian Bank, L.R. 10 Ch. D. 681; 40 L.T. 620; 27 W.R. 652. (lxv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Winding-up-Petition-Mortgage Bond.-Mortgage bonds were issued by a railway company under the provisions of a deed whereby the company covenanted with trustees to pay them the interest on the bonds: Held, that a bondholder, on default of payment of interest, was not entitled to demand a winding-up order. -Re Uruguay Central Railway Co., L.R. 11 Ch. D. 372; 27 W.R. 571.

(lxvi.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Winding-up-Reputed Ownership-Bankruptcy Act, 1869, sec. 15, sub-sec. 5.-The provisions of the Bankruptcy Act as to goods and chattels of which a bankrupt is reputed owner, are not applicable to the winding-up of companies.-Re Crumlin Viaduct Works Co., 27 W.R. 722.

(lxvii.) C. A.-Winding-up-Summoning Witnesses-Appeal-Companies Act, 1862, s. 115.-There is no right of appeal on the part of any person summoned under sec. 115 of the Companies Act, 1862, as a mere witness. -Re The Gold Company (2), 27 W.R. 757.

(lxviii.) C. A.-Winding-up Voluntarily―Arrangement with Creditors.-When an honest arrangement has been come to between a company and its creditors, and the transaction is a beneficial one, it is not material in what order the assents required by the Companies Act, 1862, and the Joint Stock Companies Act, 1870, are given.-Re Dynevor Duffryn, &c., Collieries Co., 48 L.J. Ch. 314; 40 L.T. 409; 27 W.R. 670.

(lxix.) C. A.-Winding-up Voluntarily-Compulsory Order.-The Court has no jurisdiction to make an order for winding-up a company which has been voluntarily wound up and dissolved, unless the dissolution can be impeached on the ground of fraud.-Re London and Caledonian Marine Insurance Co., L.R. 11 Ch. D. 140; 40 L.T. 666; 27 W.R. 713. Copyright:

(v.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.—Infringement-Title of Book.-Plaintiff was in the habit of publishing directories, which he called Post Office directories, and was the registered proprietor of the "Post Office Directory of the West Riding of Yorkshire": Held, that the publication of a directory by defendant, called the "Post Office Bradford Directory," was not an infringement of the copyright, nor of his trade-mark in the words " Post Office."-Kelly v. Byles, 40 L.T. 623.

Crimes and Offences :

(xviii.) Q. B. Div.- Bastardy · · Commencement of Act-35 & 36 Vict., c. 65, s. 3.-An order may be made under sec. 3 of 35 & 36 Vict., c. 65, in respect of a child born at any time of the day on 10th August, 1872, when the Act received the Royal Assent.-Tomlinson v. Bullock, L.R. 4 Q.B.D. 230; 48 L.J. M.C. 95; 40 L.T. 459; 27 W.R. 552.

(xix.) Q. B. Div.--Bastardy-Marriage of Mother-35 & 36 Vict., c. 65, s. 3.— No application can be made by the mother of a bastard under sec. 3 of 35 & 36 Vict., c. 65, when she has married since the birth of the child, and is, at the time of application, living with her husband.-Stacey v. Lintell, L.R. 4 Q.B.D. 291; 48 L.J. M.C. 108; 40 L.T. 553; 27 W.R. 551. (xx.) Q. B. Div.—Chemist and Druggist-Corporation—31 & 32 Vict., c. 121, ss. 1, 15.-The penalty imposed by secs. 1, 15, of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, may be recovered from a corporation for keeping a chemist's shop, though the business is managed by duly registered chemists.-Pharma. ceutical Society v. London Supply Association, L.R. 4 Q.B.D. 313; 48 L.J. Q.B. 387; 40 L.T. 584; 27 W.R. 709.

(xxi.) Q. B. Div.-Elementary Education-Attendance Order-Second NonCompliance-Proof-39 & 40 Vict., c. 79, s. 12.-Upon summons for a second non-compliance with an attendance order, the first non-compliance may be proved by the production of the minute of the Court, made at the time of the adjudication thereon.-London School Board v. Harvey, 27 W.R. 783.

(xxii.) Q. B. Div.-Elementary Education-Factory Acts-33 & 34 Vict., c. 75, s. 74.-A school board is not entitled to enforce the provisions of its bye-laws with regard to the hours of attendance at school, in the case of children employed in factories, who are attending efficient elementary schools, pursuant to the Factory Acts.-Mellor v. Denham, L.R. 4 Q.B.D. 241; 48 L.J. M.C, 113; 40 L.T. 395; 27 W.R. 505.

(xxiii.) C. A.—Imprisonment for One Calendar Month. Decision of C. P. Div. (see Crimes and Offences xvi., p. 82) affirmed.-Migotti v. Colville, 27 W.R. 744.

(xxiv.) C. C. R.-Perjury-Illegal Arrest-Jurisdiction of Justices.-H., a police-constable, obtained an illegal warrant against S. for assaulting him, and arrested him thereon, and took him before magistrates in Petty Sessions, when S. was convicted: Held that H. might properly be con. victed for perjury in respect of evidence given at the hearing at Sessions. -Regina v. Hughes, 40 L.T. 685.

(xxv.) C. A.-Sunday Profanation-Collusion-21 Geo. III., c. 49.—Plaintiff brought an action against defendants for a penalty under 21 Geo. III., c. 49, for keeping open a place of amusement on Sunday, August 15th: subsequently, by arrangement, R. brought an action for penalties in respect of that and subsequent Sundays, and obtained judgment by default, having agreed not to enforce the judgment: Held that R.'s judg ment could not affect the right of plaintiff.-Girdlestone v. Brighton Aquarium Co., L.R. 4 Ex. D. 107; 48 L.J. Ex. 373; 40 L.T. 473; 27 W.R. 523.

(xvi.) C. A.-Absconding Debtor-Foreigner in England -33 & 34 Vict., c. 76, s. 1.-A foreigner, a member of a firm carrying on business abroad, came to England to try and make arrangements with creditors of the firm, and such arrangements proving abortive, he was about to return home: Held that he was not liable to arrest as an absconding debtor.-Ex parte Gutierrez, Re Gutierrez, L.R. 11 Ch.D. 298; 40 L.T. 355; 27 W.R. 497. (xvii.) Ex. Div.-Attachment of Debt-Money Payable to Preference Shareholders.-Money due from the D. Railway Co. to the S. Railway Cc., but payable as dividend by the latter (under an arrangement confirmed by Act of Parliament) to preference shareholders, who took their shares on the security of their dividends being so provided for, is attachable by a judgment creditor of the S. Company in the hands of the D. Company. -Bouch v. Serenoaks and Maidstone Rail. Co., L.R. 4 Ex.D. 133; 48 L.J. Ex. 338; 40 L.T. 560; 27 W.R. 507.