Settlement:

(i.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-After-acquired Property.-Held that a covenant to settle after-acquired property of the wife included a contingent reversionary interest which could not fall into possession until both the husband and wife were dead without issue.-Cornmell v. Keith, 45 L,J. Ch. 689; 35 L.T. 29; 24 W.R. 633.

(ii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-After-acquired Property.-A post-nuptial settlement contained a covenant to settle after-acquired property of wife. Held that an interest to which the wife was at the date of the settlement contingently entitled, and which fell into possession after her death, was included. -Agar v. George, L.R. 2, Ch. D. 706; 34 L.T. 487; 24 W.R. 696. (iii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-After-acquired Property.-A marriage settlement contained a covenant to settle after-acquired property. Held that a vested reversionary interest to which the wife was entitled at the date of the settlement, and which fell into possession after her death, was not included.-Re Jones' Will.-L.R. 2, Ch. D., 362; 45 L.J. Ch. 428; 35 L.T. 25; 24 W.R. 697.

(iv.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Confirmation.-By marriage settlement it was provided that certain reversionary interests of the infant wife should be conveyed to the trustees; after the husband's death, in administration suit relating to property settled by the husband, a decree was made with con. sent of the widow for payment thereof to the trustees; the widow having married again, an order was made on petition by the second husband and his wife that her funds might be paid to account of the settlement made on the first marriage. Held that the settlement had been successively confirmed by the widow and the second husband.-White v. Cox, L R. 2, Ch. D. 387; 45 L.J. Ch. 685; 34 L.T. 418.

(v.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Construction-" Payable."-Trust, subject to life interests of parents, for children, being sons at 21, and being daughters at 21 or marriage," the issue of any child whose parent should die before his or her share should become payable" to take parent's share: Held that as daughter's shares vested on marriage, "payable" could not mean vested, but must refer to period of distribution.-Day v. Ratcliffe, 24 W.R. 961. (vi.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Construction-Power of sale.-An ordinary power of sale and exchange in a settlement of an individual moiety of real property authorises a partition.-Re Frith and Osborne, 35 L.T. 146; 24 W.R. 1061.

(vii.) H. L.-Divorce-Election.-A lady having an absolute reversionary interest under parents' marriage settlement, married while an infant; on coming of age a post-nuptial settlement of the reversionary interest, and of property of her husband and father was executed; the marriage was afterwards dissolved: Held that she was put to her election to take under or against the settlement.-Codrington v. Codrington, 45 L.J.Ch. 660; 34 L.T. 221; 24 W.R. 648.

(viii.) Ch. Div M. R-Divorce-Husband's interest-Re-marriage.-A fund was settled in trust for wife if she should survive her husband, but if she should die in his lifetime, in trust for him for life or till re-marriage, and upon his decease or marriage, in trust for wife's next-of-kin; the marriage was dissolved; both parties married again, and the wife died: Held that the next-of-kin of the wife at her death were entitled, and that husband's interest was destroyed by his second marriage in his wife's lifetime.-Re Matthew's trusts, 24 W.R. 960.

(ix.) C. A.-Divorce-Husband's interest.-Where decree for divorce had been made on petition of wife. Held that husband did not forfeit his life interest under his marriage settlement in his wife's property, - Burton v. Sturgeon, L,R. 2 Ch.D. 318; 45 L.J.Ch. 633; 34 L.T, 706; 24 W.R. 772.

C

(x.) P. D. A. Div.-Divorce-Variation.-Held that Court will not review order for variation of settlement on ground of matters arising subsequently, also that where a provision is ordered to be paid to wife out of funds settled by her, the restriction, "dum casta et sola vixerit," will not be imposed.-Gladstone v. Gladstone, 45 L.J.P D. & A. 82; 24 W.R. 739. (xi.) P. J. & A.-Divorce-Variation.-Held that under the circumstances the marriage of the respondent and co-respondent after a divorce obtained by the petitioner did not preclude the Court from granting an application by the petitioner for variation of his marriage settlement.-Benyon v. Benyon and O'Callaghan, 24 W.R. 950.

(xii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Mortgage-Arrears of interest.-A. was under a settlement owner in fee of land subject to a mortgage and to a contingent charge created by the settlement in favour of B., the interest fell into arrear, and on a sale by the mortgagees they retained a sum in respect of the arrears. Held that the trustees of the settlement were entitled to claim against the estate of A. in respect of the sum retained by the mortgagees. Butcher v. Simmonds, 35 L.T. 304; 24 W.R. 781.

(xiii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Power-Improvements.-By settlement trustees were directed to apply three-fourths of the income of settled real estates as capital which it was thereby provided should be invested in purchase of real estate to be held on the same trusts: Held, the income being insufficient, that trustees might apply part of the capital to permanent improvements, e.g., drainage and new farm buildings.Leslie's Trusts, Re, L.R. 2 Ch.D. 185; 45 L.J. Ch. 668; 34 L.T. 239; 24 W.R. 546.

(xiv.) Ch. Div. M. R-Satisfaction.-By marriage settlement, in 1856, a fund was settled, subject to a power of appointment by deed or will given to C. W., in trust for C. W. for life to her separate use, and after her death in the event, which happened, of her surviving her husband, for herself absolutely; C. W. during coverture covenanted that her heirs, executors, or administrators, should pay £1,000 to the trustees of her daughter's marriage settlement to be held by them upon trusts therein mentioned; she subsequently by her will gave £1,000 upon trusts substantially similar. Held that the covenant of C. W. created a debt binding the property comprised in the settlement of 1856, also that the legacy was n satisfaction of the covenant, also that savings made by C. W. out of her separate property during coverture passed by the will.-Mayd v. Field, 45 L.J.Ch. 699; 34 L.T. 614; 24 W.R. 660.

(xiv) C.A.—Suit to set aside Mortgage.-Held that a bill by a tenant for life and infant remainderman to set aside a mortgage of the settled property on ground of fraud and for execution of the trusts, must, on failure of the charges of fraud, be dismissed, with liberty for the tenant for life to apply at Chambers for account of income.-Wade v. Broadhurst, 34 L.T. 924. (xv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.- Voluntary Settlement-Confirmation by will.-A. transferred a sum of consols to trustees upon trust to hold them, together with certain bank shares, mortgage debts, and furniture for herself for life with remainders over; the bank shares were never transferred, and the settlor received herself moneys payable in respect of some of the mortgages: A. by her will confirmed the settlement. Held that the settlement was of itself operative as regards the consols, furniture, and mortgage moneys received by the trustees, and by virtue of the confirmation by will, as regards the bank shares, but not as to the mortgage debts received by the settlor.-Bizzey v. Flight, 24 W.R. 957.

(xvi.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Will-Re-building house.-A. was under a will tenant for life of real estate with remainder to his infant son in tail; he was also under a deed entitled to life interest in a fund with remainder to the same son on attaining 21: Held that a sum might be allowed out of the fund, to be repaid by accumulations of the same fund, for the purpose of re-building the mansion house on the real estate.-Donaldson v. Donaldson, 34 L.T. 900; 24 W.R. 1037.

Ships :

(i.) C. A.-Bill of lading.-Where master signs bill of lading of goods "weight, contents, and value unknown," stating that the goods were shipped in good order and condition, if the goods arrive damaged, the onus of proof lies on the shipowner to free himself from liability.-The Peter der Grosse, 34 L.T. 749.

(ii.) Q. B. Diy.-Bill of Lading.-L. arranged to ship goods for plaintiff to sell on commission, drawing bills on plaintiff for the purchase, the documents of title being hypothecated to plaintiff to meet the bills. After shipment of a cargo L. failed, and his liquidator handed the bill of lading to defendants to whom plaintiff under protest paid value of cargo. Hell that plaintiff had a good equitable title to the bill of lading and was entitled to recover the money paid by him and damages for detention of the bill of lading.-Lutcher v. Comptoir, d'Escompte de Paris, 34 L.T. 798.

(iii.) P. C.—Bill of lading-Conditions.-By a bill of lading it was provided that goods should be "delivered from the ship's deck where the ship's responsibility shall cease, at the port of M., unto the G. Railway Company, and by them to be forwarded to T., and at the aforesaid station delivered to Messrs. M. & Co. . . No damage that can be insured against will be paid for, nor will any claim whatever be admitted unless made before the goods are removed." Held that the removal referred to was from the railway at T., that the condition covered latent damage, and that under the circumstances plaintiff could not recover; also that the bill of lading, having been made in England by an English master, was a contract governed by English law.-Moore v. Harris, L.R. 1, App. 318; 34 L.T. 519; 24 W.R. 887.

(iv.) Q. B. Div.—Bill of Lading-Exception of Fire.-Held that an exception in bill of lading of "fire on board" did not exempt the shipowners from contribution in general average in respect of injury to goods by water used to extinguish a fire.-Schmidt v. Royal Mail Steamship Company, 45 L.J. Q.B. 646.

(v.) P. D. & A. D.-Carrier.-When there is unreasonable delay in delivery of goods through negligence of carrier by sea, the owner or assignee of the bill of lading is entitled to recover as damages the difference between the market price at the time when the goods arrived and at the time when they ought to have arrived.-The Parana, 35 L.T. 32.

(vi.) C. A.-Carrier.-A carrier does not insure against an act of nature which is irresistible, i.e., not preventible by reasonable precaution, nor against defects in the thing carried; a shipowner is not, like a common carrier, liable as an insurer of goods bailed to him for carriage. Decision of C.P. Div. (L.R. 1, C.P.D. 19; 45 L.J. C.P. 19; 33 L.T. 731; 24 W.R. 237) overruled.-Nugent v. Smith, L.R. 1, C.P.D. 423; 45 L.J. C.P. 697; 34 L.T. 827.

(vii.) C. P. Div.-Charter-party.-B. & Co. tendered to captain of a foreign ship a charter-party not containing provision for detention in loading; on captain's refusal, B. & Co. obtained from defendant (who had no notice of the charter) an undertaking to load in ten working days, signed "on account of the Bebside Colliery," whereupon the captain accepted the charters. Held upon the facts that there was a valid contract between the captain and the defendant personally not as agent.-Weidner v. Hoggett, L.R. 1, C.P.D. 533.

(viii.) Q. B. Div.-Charter-party.-Plaintiff chartered a ship from defendant for 12 months "after her present voyage;" on completion of the voyage, she was detained as unseaworthy by the Board of Trade, but was repaired, and tendered to plaintiff about 3 months after the time stipulated. Hell that plaintiff was entitled to rescind the contract.-Tully v. Howling, 45 L.J. Q.B, 756; 24 W.R. S15,

(ix.) Q. B. Div.-Charter-party.-A cargo was shipped to T. in Sea of Asof, or so near thereto as the ship could safely get; freight to be paid in London against certificate of right delivery of cargo; the sea being blocked with ice till ensuing spring captain discharged cargo at 30 miles distance from T. Held under the circumstances of the case, that delivery was not within the terms of the charter party and the shipholder was not entitled to the freight.-Metcalfe v. Britannia Ironworks Co., L.R. 1, Q.B.D. 613.

(x.) C. P. Div.-Charter-party-Demurrage.-The arrival of a ship, from which time demurrage begins, must be dated according to the custom of the port, with regard to which evidence is admissible.-Steamship Company "Norden" v. Dempsey, 24 W.R. 984.

(xi.) Ex. Div.—Charter-party—Demurrage.—Charter party provided that plaintiffs' ship should "load in regular turn a cargo to be supplied by defendants through their default one turn was lost, and ship was detained by harbour-master because of storms: Held that plaintiff was entitled to demurrage in respect of such detention.-Jones v. Adamson, L.R. 1, Ex. D. 60; L.J. 45, Ex. 64; 35 L.T. 287.

(xii.) H.

L.—Charter-party-Insurance.-Held that charter-party may provide for prepayment of part of freight, and in such case the remainder may be subject of insurance by the shipowner.-Allison v. Bristol Marine Insurance Co., L.R. 1, App. 209; 34 L.T. 809; 24 W.R. 1037.

(xiii.) P. D. & A. D.-Collision-Limitation of liability. In a cause of damage a vessel was released from arrest on payment into court of amount of her owner's liability as limited by statute; the vessel was subsequently pronounced solely to blame, and this decision was confirmed on appeal. The Court decreed limitation of limitation of liability, but did not order the amount in court to be transferred to the limitation of liability suit. The Sisters, L.R. 1 P.D. 281; 35 L.T. 36.

(xiv.) P. D. & A. Div.-Collision-Lis alibi pendens.-The Cattarina Chiazzaro was arrested in Ireland in a cause of damage arising from a collision, but was released on bail and came to England, and was again arrested in an action in rem commenced with regard to the same collision: the Court ordered release of the ship and stay of proceedings.-The Cattarina Chiazzaro, L.R. 1, P.D. 368.

(xv.) C. A.-Collision-Negligence.-A steamer, with sails, running through a roadstead, onght at all times to have a look-out, besides the captain on the bridge. The Glannibanta, The Transit, L.R. 1, P.D. 283; 34 L.T. 934; 24 W.R. 1033.

(xvi.) C.A.-Collision-Negligence-Speed-Light.-A steamer must not run at full speed on a dark night near the coast: a vessel is not generally bound to show a light to a vessel following her.-The City of Brooklyn, L.R. 1, P.D. 276; 34 L.T. 932; 24 W.R. 1056.

(xvii.) C. A.-Damage to pier.-A shipowner is not liable under the Harbours, Docks, and Piers' Clauses Act, 1847, s. 74, for damage to a pier caused by a wrecked and abandoned vessel being driven against it by stress of Weather-River Wear Commissioners ▼. Adamson, L.R. 1, Q.B.D. 546; 35 L.T. 118; 24 W.R. 872.

(xviii.) C. P. Div.-Detention for unseaworthiness. Neither the complaint to Board of Trade under Merchant Shipping Act, 1873, nor the Surveyor's report as to condition of ship, need state that she cannot proceed to sea without danger to life: it is sufficient if this fact can be reasonably inferred.-Lewis v. Gray, L.R. 1, C.P.D. 452; 45 L.J. C.P. 720; 34 L.T. 421.

(xix.) C. P. Div-Master-Dismissal-Contract.-A master mariner accepted command of a ship under a written contract of hiring to effect that salary shou'd be at the rate of £180 per annum, to cease on the day he should

be required to give up command: Held that he could not be dismissed without reasonable notice.-Green v. Wright, L.R. 1, C.P.D. 591. (xx.) C. A.-Necessaries.-The master of a foreign vessel at Quebec obtained money for nccessaries for his ship by a Bill of Exchange drawn upon shipbrokers in London. the bill having been accepted and paid: Held that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain an action by the acceptors against the ship for the amount.-The Anna, L.R. 1, P.D. 253; 34 L.T. 895.

(xxi.) P.D. & A. Div.-Pleading.-Where defendant admits liability, a claim for limitation thereof under Merchant Shipping Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vic. 63,) s. 54, may be made by counterclaim instead of by separate limitation of liability suit.-The Clutha, 35 L.T. 36.

C.

(xxii.) P. D. & A. Div. -Salvage-Inequitable Agreements.-A wrecked crew having taken refuge on a rock, were in imminent danger; in answer to signals of distress, a steamship of plaintiff's came up, and the master refused to rescue the crew for less than £4000, and an agreement to that effect was signed by the master of the wrecked ship: the Court set aside the agreement as inequitable, and awarded £1,800.-The Medina, L.R. 1, P.D. 272; 45 L.J. P.D. & A. 81; 34 L.T. 918.

(xxiii.) P. D. & A.-Salvage. In cases of life salvage, cargo separately

salved is liable under Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, s. 458, to contribute to reward of life salvors.-Cargo ex Schiller, 35 L.T. 97.

(xxiv.) C. A.—Salvage—Queen's Ship.-The commander and crew of a Queen's ship are entitled to remuneration for salvage, but not to impose terms; quare, whether they can enter into an agreement with the master of a wrecked ship as to amount of salvage. A Bombay Government ship is in these respects on the same footing as a Queen's ship.-Cargo ex Woosung, L.R. 1, P.D. 260; 35 L.T. 8.

(xxv.) P. D & A. Div.-Wages and disbursement.-Master of a ship, in order to prevent arrest and detention of ship, gave a bond in respect of a collision caused by his negligence, in an action of wages and disbursement brought by him against the vessel: Held that the amount of the penalty must be retained in court to answer any claim against the master under the bond.-The Limerick, L.R. 1 P.D. 292.

Solicitor:

(i.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Articled Clerk.-Where a clerk, articled for three years, after having served 21 months, was absent from illness for 16 months, and afterwards served 13 months more: Held that he would not be examined, but must enter into fresh articles for six months.-Ex parte Digby, 45 L.J.Ch. 692.

(ii.) Q. B. Div.—Costs.—33 & 34 Vic., c. 28, s. 4.-An agreement for a fixed sum as costs under Attorney and Solicitors' Act, 1870, s. 4, must be in writing and signed by solicitor and client.-Regina v. Munro, Re Lewis, 24 W.R. 1017.

(iii.) P. D. & A. Div.-Proctor.-Appearances in the Arches Court must be entered by solicitors, who are also proctors of the Arches, duly qualified and admitted.-Crisp v. Martin, L.R. 1 P.D. 302.

Telegraph:

(i.) Q. B. D.-Purchase by Government-Compensation.-In calculating the compensation to be paid under the Telegraph Act, 1868 (31 and 32 Vic, c. 110), s. 8, sub. sec. 7, to officers of an undertaking purchased by Government, fixed allowance for travelling expenses must be taken into consideration.-Regina v. Postmaster General, 45 L.J.Q.B. 609; 35 L.T.

241.

(ii.) Q. B. Div.-Purchase by Government-Compensation.-The S. & D. Railway Co. undertook to complete their works, including telegraphs, and to lease their line to the S. W. Railway Co., who agreed to pay them a