the operation of the Bankruptcy Laws are utterly invalid.—Re Pellew, Ex parte Furber, 36 L.T. 668.

(cxiv.) C. A.-Bill of Sale.-Traders assigned whole property to secure past debt and payment off of an execution by bill of sale empowering grantee to take immediate possession in default of payment on demand: grantee took possession within 20 days, and grantors filed liquidation petition: Held that bill of sale was void against the trustee.-Ex parte Greener, Re Vane, 36 L.T. 781.

(cxv.) C. A.-Composition-Debtor's Statement.-Decision of C.P. Div., Bankruptcy (lxxxiv.), p. 85, reversed, and held that plaintiffs were not barred from suing on the award for the full amount.-Melhado v. Watson, L.R. 2 C.P.D. 281; 36 L.T. 724; 25 W.R. 562.

(cxvi.) C. A. Composition-Default - Adjudication.· Where default had been made in payment of a composition secured by the promissory notes of a liquidating debtor and sureties: Held that the Court had jurisdiction on a creditor's petition to adjudicate the bankrupt under s. 126 of the Bankruptcy Act, notwithstanding that no act of bankruptcy had been committed within the previous six months. Decision of C. J. B., reported 36 L.T. 561; 25 W.R. 633, affirmed.-Ex parte Charlton, Re Charlton, 25 W.R. 800.

(cxvii.) C. A.-— Composition — Resolutions — Objection to Proof.—Proof of a creditor who has voted at first meeting on a composition resolution may be objected to at the second meeting.-Ex parte Weil, In re Menthrop, L.R. 5 Ch. 345; 36 L.T. 533; 25 W.R. 552.

(cxviii.) C. A.-Composition-Resolution - Registration-Proxy in Blank.Decision of C. J. B., Bankruptcy (lxxxiii.), p. 85, reversed.-Ex parte Lancaster, Re Lancaster, 36 L.T. 674; 25 W.R. 669.

(cxix.) C. A.-Debtor's Summons--Stay of Proceedings-Security.-Where a creditor commenced an action and subsequently took out debtors summons in respect of the same debt without applying that defendant might give security for costs before defending the action, the registrar considered that the omission was a bar to plaintiff's obtaining security on defendant's application to stay proceedings on the summons: Held that the omission did not absolutely disentitle the plaintiff, but might well influence the registrar in his discretionary decision in respect of such security.-Re Smith, Ex parte Hosford, 25 W.R. 799. (cxx.) C. A.-Debtor's Summons.—Where an order was made for stay of proceedings under a debtor's summons upon debtor's giving security for the amount of the debt and costs, in order that an action might be brought to test the validity of the debt: Held that under the circumstances there were no sufficient reasons to justify the Court in interfering with the discretion of the Chief Judge in making the order.-Ex parte Marshall, Re Marshall, 25 W.R. 762.

(cxxi.) C.

A.—Jurisdiction—Injunction-Gas-Distress.—Held that the exercise by virtue of a Justice's warrant of the power of distress given to a gas company by their special Act for the purpose of enforcing payment of money due for supply of gas, in such Act called "rent," was a "legal process "restrainable by injunction.-Re Hill, Ex parte Roberts, 25 W.R. 784. (cxxii.) C. A.-Liquidation-Examination.—A trustee in liquidation, if not satisfied with information given by debtor, may summon him for exami nation without proving any default: decision of V. C. B., Bankruptcy (xxiii.), p. 6, reversed.-Ex parte Close, Re Bennett & Glave, L.R. 5 Ch. 145; 36 L.T. 429; 25 W.R. 504.

(cxxiii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Liquidation—Order and Disposition.—In action for specific performance of agreement to execute bill of sale, a receiver was appointed and took possession of the goods: next day the debtor

filed a liquidation petition: Held that the possession of the receiver took the goods out of the order and disposition of debtor.-Taylor v. Eckersley, 36 L.T. 442; 25 W.R. 527.

(cxxiv.) C. J. B.-Liquidation-Receiver.-Where a receiver has been appointed by the Court, a nominee of majority of creditors will not be substituted for him unless special grounds are shown.-Ex parte Rylands, Re Chester, 36 L.T. 524; 25 W.R. 786.

(cxxv.) C. J. B.-Order and Disposition.-A. purchased her father's furniture from his trustee in liquidation, but no assignment thereof was made to her she continued to live with her father, whose name was on the door of the house, and who paid the rates and taxes: Held that on the father's bankruptcy the furniture passed to his trustee.-Ex parte Moore, Re Cook, 36 L.T. 560.

(cxxvi.) C. A.-Detinue-Proof.-D. recovered judgment against W. in action for detinue of a mare for £60: W. became bankrupt before execution, and sheriff was restrained by injunction from levying: D. proved for the £60 and costs, but the trustee neither allowed nor rejected the proof: subsequently D. saw the mare in possession of W., and caused her to be removed by the sheriff: Held that property in the mare was not divested from D., and that he was entitled to the mare.-Re Ware, Ex parte Drake, 36 L.T. 677; 25 W.R. 641.

(cxxvii.) C. A.-Proof-Surety.-Where surety holding security does not prove in principal's bankruptcy, unsecured creditors in respect of the same debt may prove for full amount thereof. Decision of C. J. B. reported sub. nom., Ex parte Braithwaite, Re Yewdall, 36 L.T. 520; 25 W.R. 635, affirmed.-Re Yewdall, Ex parte Barnfather, 25 W.R. 742. (cxxviii.) C. A.-Proof-Proxy-Liquidator.-The liquidator of a company in his affidavit of proof against a bankrupt's estate for a debt due to the company described himself as such liquidator: at the foot of the affidavit was a proxy in this form, "I appoint T. and D. jointly and severally my proxy,' ," which he merely signed with his own name: Held that the proxy was good.-Ex parte Taylor, Re Pooley, 36 L.T. 679; 25 W.R. 641. (cxxix.) C. A.-Stoppage in Transitu-Bill of Lading.-Decision of Q.B. Div., Bankruptcy (ciii.), p. 87, reversed, and held that bona fide delivery of bill of lading for past valuable consideration destroys vendor's right to stop goods in transitu.-Leask v. Scott, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 376; 36 L.T. 784; 25 W.R. 654.

Bill of Exchange:—

(vi.) C. A.-Specific Appropriation-Lien-Equitable Assignment.—Decision of V. C. H., Bill of Exchange (v.), p. 51, reversed.—Ranken v. Alfaro, 36 L.T. 529.

Bill of Sale :

(ix.) C. J. B.-Registration-Assignment.-An assignment after the Bill of Sales Act, 1854, of a bill of sale executed before the Act does not require registration.-Re Shaw, Ex parte Shaw, 36 W.R. 805; 25 W.R. 686. (x.) Q. B. D.-Registration-Renewal.-Where a bill of sale has not been renewed every five years, as required by 29 & 30 Vict. c. 96, s. 4, the assignee of the grantee's interest has no title against an execution creditor.-Karet v. Kosher Meat Supply Association, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 361; 36 L.T. 694; 25 W.R. 691.

Charity :

(ii.) C. A.—Endowed School-Action for Recovery of Land--Consent of Charity Commissioners.-Decision of M. R., Charity (i.), p. 88, affirmed. -Holme v. Guy, 36 L.T. 600; 25 W.R. 547.

Company:

(xlvi.) P. C.- Directors - Ultra Vires.-Where directors having powers to borrow and mortgage have exceeded their powers, the ratification by the company of the particular acts done in excess of authority does not extend the authority of the directors so as to enable them to do similar acts in future.-Irvine v. Union Bank of Australia, L.R. 2 App. 366; 25 W.R. 682. (xlvii.) C. A.-Forfeiture of Shares-Inaccuracy of Notice.-When directors of a company regulated by table A of Companies' Act, 1862, seek to forfeit a shareholder's shares for non-payment of calls every one of the conditions precedent as to notice, &c., laid down by table A must have been strictly and literally observed.—Johnson v. Lytton's Iron Agency, 36 L.T. 528; 25 W.R. 548.

(xlviii.) C. A.—Misrepresentation-Liability.—The owners of a concession from a foreign government, which they knew to be voidable and liable to forfeiture, agreed with certain persons to form a company to purchase the concession, which was accordingly sold to trustees for the company: the vendor's solicitor acted for the company, and did not disclose the infirmity of title, nor did the trustees require evidence as to title: Held that the owners and promoters must repay the purchase money, that the trustees must repay money received by them as bribes for neglect of their duty, and that owners, promotors, trustees, and solicitor must pay costs of the suit.-Phosphate Sewage Co. v. Hartmont, L.R. 5 Ch. 394.

(xlix.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Misrepresentation--Promoters-Prospectus.— Held that the omission from prospectus of mention of agreement between vendors of ironworks and promoters of companies whereby promoters were to receive a sum out of the purchase money, was a fraud on shareholders, and that promoters were jointly and severally liable to make good to the company the moneys received by them.-Bagnall v. Carlton, 36 L.T. 653.

(1.) C. A.-Prospectus-Promoters-Nor-disclosure of Contract-30 & 31 Vict., c. 131.-Before issue of prospectus, contractors agreed to pay to G and S, who had a concession for making some tramways abroad, certain sums which they included in contract price for the works: Held affirming decision of C.P. Div., reported 25 W.R. 586, that this was a contract within Companies' Act, 1867, s. 38, and ought to have been disclosed in prospectus, and that plaintiff, an allottee of shares, was entitled to recover the whole amount paid by him for his shares.-Twycross v. Grant, 25 W.R. 701.

(li.) C. A.-Novation-Amalgamation-Decision of Foreign Tribunal.--Decision of V. C. M., Company (xxxvi.), p. 89, affirmed.-Re St. Nazaire Co., 25 W.R. 638.

(lii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Reduction of Capital.-" Capital" in Companies' Act, 1867, s. 9. signifies nominal capital: where the capital of a company has been issued and fully paid up the court has no jurisdiction to confirm a resolution for reduction of such capital.-Re Kirkstall Brewery Co., L.R. 2 Ch. D. 535; 46 L.J. Ch. 424.

(liii.) C. A.-Register-Rectification.-P., through broker, sold shares in a company to S., who paid price to broker: the transfer deed was executed by P. and S. but cancelled by broker, who appropriated the money: Held that the court had jurisdiction under Companies' Act, 1862, s. 35, to rectify register by inserting name of S instead of P.-Re Shaw, 46 L.J.Ch. 395; 36 L.T. 573; 25 W.R. 569.

(liv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Rights of Shareholders-Back Dividends.-A resolution provided for issue of new shares with preferential dividend of 5 per cent., and that whenever the profits admitted of a "dividend of the

same amount" being paid to ordinary shareholders any surplus should be divided amongst all the shareholders: after some years the profits increased so as to be more than sufficient to pay £5 per cent. on all shares: Held that the ordinary shareholders were entitled to payment of back dividends before there was any surplus for distribution.-Allen v. Londonderry and Enniskillen Rail. Co., 25 W.R. 524.

(lv.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Winding Up-Contributory.-When articles of association provided that shareholders should contribute in proportion to their shares, and it turned out that some of the shareholders were unable to pay: Held that the solvent shareholders were liable for the whole amount.-McKewan's case, 36 L.T. 609; 25 W.R. 577.

(lvi.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Winding-up-Contributories.-On

formation of

a company nine persons signed the memorandum of association, at a preliminary meeting it was resolved that no shares be allotted to three of the signatories, and, with their consent, their deposits were returned: the articles contained no power to accept surrender of shares: Held that all the signatories were liable as contributories.--Re London & Provincial Consolidated Coal Co., L.R. 5 Ch. D. 525; 36 L.T. 545. (lvii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.—Winding-up—Contributory.—Where

there was a merely nominal payment for shares allotted to B., who was settled on list of contributories: Held that B. was liable to pay calls.-Re Eupion Gas Co., Aspinall's Case, 36 L.T. 362.

(lviii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Winding-up-Contributory-Director.-O. was given his qualification shares by a promoter of a colliery company, but did not become a director till after formation of the company and completion of purchase of the colliery: Held that he was liable as contributory in respect of shares received.-Re Caerphilly Colliery Co., Ormerod's Case, 25 W.R. 765.

(lvix.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Winding-up—Contributory—Director.-Articles of company provided that directors' qualification should be 50 shares held for six months previous: H. was elected director not holding any shares: he attended meetings, but resigned before any shares were allotted: Held that his election was void, and that he could not be taken to have contracted to take shares.-Re Percy and Kelly Nickel Co., Hamley's Case 25 W.R. 600.

(lx.) C. A.-Winding-up

Contributory - Original Director. - Decision of M.R., Company (xxvii.), p. 53, affirmed.-Miller's Case, Re Australian Direct Steam Navig. Co., L.R. 5 Ch. D. 70.

(lxi.) C. A.-Winding-up-Demurrable Petition.-If a winding-up petition is demurrable the Court has no jurisdiction to direct a meeting of contributories to be summoned.-Re Langham Skating Rink Co., 46 L.J. Ch. 345; 36 L.T. 605.

(lxii.) C. A.-Win ling-up-Director-Contributory.-A director on formation of the company declared his intention of taking 450 shares besides his qualification, and was elected chairman: he subsequently signed application for 450 shares striking out deposit clause: he never paid a deposit, nor were shares allotted: Held, reversing decision of V.C.M., that he was not liable as a contributory in respect of the 450 shares.Re Universal Non-Tariff Fire Insurance Co., Ritso's Case, L.R. 4 Ch. D. 774.

(lxiii.) C. A.-Winding-up-Director's Qualification-Contributory.-Decision of V.C.B., Company (xxxix.), p. 89, affirmed.-Re Caerphilly Colliery Co., Pearson's Case, L.R. 5 Ch. D. 336; 46 L.J. Ch. 339; 25 W.R. 618. (lxiv.) C. A.- Winding-up-Failure of Object.-Petition to wind-up abortive company which had never carried on business, nor issued shares, and had no debts, presented by administrator of a subscriber of memoran

L

dum of association was dismissed with costs: Decision of V.C.B. (reported L.R. 4 Ch. D. 874; 36 L.T. 364) affirmed.-Re New Gas Co., 25 W.R. 643.

(lxv.) Ch. Div. V.C.B.-Winding-up-Lease-Liabilities-38 & 39 Vict., c. 77 s. 10.-Held that a mortgagee of lessor of company in liquidation was not entitled to have assets impounded to meet future rent or to prove for the amount, no breach of covenant having as yet taken place. -Re Westbourne Grove Drapery Co., L.R. 5 Ch. 248; 36 L.T. 439; 25 W.R. 509.

(lxvi) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Winding-up-Proof-Surety-Interest.-Held, on the construction of the articles of a company, that certain persons who, as sureties, had paid large sums for interest on a debt of the company were not entitled, on the winding-up of the company, to be allowed interest on such payments.-M'Kewan's Case, Re Maria Anna Steinbank Co., 36 L.T. 613; 25 W.R. 579.

(lxvii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Winding-up-Supervision Order.-An order to continue a voluntary winding-up under supervision of Court can only be made on petition of company, creditor, or contributory.-Re Pen y Van Colliery Co., 46 L.J. Ch. 390.

(lxviii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Winding-up-Set-off.-On winding-up company A., some of the assets were in the hands of company B., which afterwards, with notice of winding-up, applied them to payment in full of debts of A.: Held that B. could not set-off those payments in accounting to liquidator for the assets.-Re United Ports General Insurance Co., 46 L.J. Ch. 403; 36 L.T. 457; 25 WR. 580.

(lxix.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Winding-up-Unregistered Association.-Where more than seven persons admitted themselves to be members of an unregistered association: Held that a winding-up order must be made without prejudice to the question as to what other persons were members and ought to be put on the list of contributories.-Re South of France Pottery Works Syndicate, 36 L.T. 651.

(lxx.) C. A.-Winding-up Petition—Practice.—A person who has paid off a creditor who has presented a winding-up petition, cannot upon such petition obtain a winding-up order.-Re Paris Skating Rink Co., 25 W.R. 701.

(lxxi.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Winding-up Petition-Practice-Mandamus.— While the above petition was pending, notice of motion was given to directors for mandamus directing them to hold an ordinary meeting: the petition having been dismissed, as above, by C. A.: Held that there was no matter pending in which a mandamus could issue.-Re Paris Skating Rink Co., 25 W.R. 767.

(lxxii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Winding-up Voluntarily-Sale of Assets.-A com. pany resolving on a voluntary winding-up and sale of assets in consideration of shares in another company, is not by Companies Act, 1862, s. 161, empowered to decide as to mode of distribution of such shares amongst classes of its members having different rights inter se, otherwise than according to such rights.-Griffith v. Paget, 46 L.J. Ch. 493; 25 W.R. 523.

(lxxiii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Vote.-Held that the chairman of a meeting of a company was not entitled to refuse to receive votes of registered shareholders, on the ground that such shareholders were nominees of the beneficial owners of the shares which had been distributed for the sole purpose of increasing voting power.-Pender v. Lushington, 46 L.J. Ch. 317. Copyhold:

(v.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Encroachment-Rights of Lord-Minerals.—In case of encroachment by copyholder a legal origin will if possible be presumed,