Page images

arbitrator has not intimated which way he intends to decide the
point of law.--In re An Arbitration between Spiller and Baker, Limited,

V. Leetham and Sons, L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 312; 76 L.T. 35.
(i.) P. D.-Dirorce-Order to Deliver up Child - Removal out of Jurisdiction

-Order for Attachment. In a divorce suit, the custody of a child, who
was not to be removed out of the jurisdiction, was given to the
petitioner, but the child was removed out of the jurisdiction and
retained by the respondent. On an ex parte application by the
petitioner, a writ of attachment was ordered to issue against the

respondent.-Farard v. Favard, 75 L.T. 664.
Bankruptcy :-
(ii.) C.D. -- Beneficed Clergyman-Sequestration-Discharge of Bankrupt-

Continuance of Sequestration-Sequestration Act, 1871.—Where a
bankrupt rector had obtained his discharge on paying 8/9 in the £,
it was held that the discharge did not entitle him to an injunction to
restrain the trustee in bankruptcy from receiving any further income
from the bankrupt's benefice under a sequestration, or to an order to the
trustee to take steps to have the sequestration relaxed. (See also Vol. 22,

p. 12, i.)--Lawrence v. Adams, 75 L.T. 410.
(iii.) C. A.-Mortgage of future paymentsBankruptcy of MortgagorRights

of TrusteeBankruptcy Act, 1883.—Decision of the Court below (see
Vol. 22, p. 4, i.) affirmed.-Wilmot v. Alton, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 17;

75 L.T. 447.
(iv.) C. A.-Retired Officer of Army-Appropriation of part of Pension,

Bankruptcy Act, 1883, 88. 1 & 2.-An officer who voluntarily retired
from the army received an annuity as “gratuity or retired pay.” On
his bankruptcy it was held that the Court could, under sub.-sect. 2 of
sect. 53, order part of this arnuity to be paid to the trustee in
bankruptcy for the berefit of creditors.In re Ward; e. p. Ward,

L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 266; 76 L.T. 37.
(v.) Q. B.-Composition-Subsequent Bankruptcy-Determination of Deed-

Rights of Creditors-Bankruptcy Act, 1869, ss. 125, 126—Statute of
Limitations. In 1881, a debtor made a composition with his creditors
secured by deed of inspectorship which contained a clause empowering
the inspectors to terminate the deed in the event of the debtor's
bankruptcy; and on such termination the creditors were to have their
original rights to the full debt. In 1889 the debtor became bankrupt,
but the creditors who were parties to the deed took no steps. In 1896
the surviving inspector declared the deed at an end. Held, that the
surviving inspector baving a power coupled with an interest, could
terminato the deed; that the creditors who were parties to the deed
had a right of proof in the bankruptcy; and that the Statute of
Limitations did not begin to run till the deed was determined.-In re

Stock; e. p. Amos, 75 L.T. 422.
Bill of Exchange :-
(vi.) H. L.-Cheque obtained by Fraud-Non-existing PayeeForgery-- Holder

in due course-Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict., c. 61), s. 7,
sub-s. 3.-Decision of Court below (see Vol. 2, p. 3, v.) affirmed. Bank
of England v. Vagliano, 64 L.T. 353 ; L.R. (1891] A.Ć. 107, followed.-

Clutton v. Attenborough, L.R. [1897] A.C. 90; 75 L.T. 556.
(vii.) C. D.-Crossed Cheque on London Branch of French Bank-Collected in

France-Forged Indorsement-Liability-Bills of Exchange Act, 1882,
88. 60, 80, 82.-A crossed cheque drawn to order on the London branch
of a Paris Bank was presented at the Paris office, and transmitted

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

thence to the London branch. On advice from the London office that the cheque was right, and that the sum for which it was drawn had been credited to the Paris office, that amount was paid in Paris to the person who presented the cheque. He was not a customer of the Bank, and it turned out that he was not the rightful owner of the cheque, and that the endorsement on the cheque was a forgery. Held, that the Bank was liable for the value of the cheque to the true owner.--Lacave & Co. v. The Crédit Lyonnais, L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 148 ; 75 L.T. 514.

Bill of Sale:(i.) C. A.-Consideration under £30, and not truly set forth-Bills of

Sale Act, 1878—Amendment Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict., c. 43), ss. 8 & 12.-A promissory note for £14 3s. 4d., repayable by instalments of 11s. 4d. weekly, was given in consideration of a sum of £10. After one instalment had been paid, and before the second was due, the maker of the note gave the payee a bill of sale in consideration of £13 12s. “now owing," and of £16 8s. in cash. Held, that the bill was void, as the consideration was not truly set forth, and was under £30.-Darlow v.

Bland and Others, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 125; 75 L.T. 537. (ii.) Q. B. D.—Plant" "brought upon a PlaceBill of Sale Act, 1878, s. 5

- Amendment Act, 1882, ss. 4, 6, sub-s. 2.-Two horses included in a bill of sale, and specifically described, were parted with by the grantor, who substituted for them two other horses, and these he subsequently sold to a purchaser who had no knowledge of the bill of sale.

In an interpleader action it was held, that the new horses were not “plant,” nor were they brought upon a place in substitution for any of the like plant specifically described within the meaning of sect. 6 of the Act, and that the bill of sale was void as to the two horses, under sect. 4.-London and Eastern Counties Loan and Discount Co., Limited v.

Crease, L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 442; 76 L.T. 87. Brawling :(iii.) Q. B. D.-Liability of Clergyman (23 & 24 Vict., c. 32, s. 2).—The

liability of “any person ” for riotous behaviour in a church or churchyard, applies to the incumbent of the church as well as to a layman.

Vallancey v. Fletcher, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 265; 76 L.T. 201. Civil Servant:(iv.) C. A.-Appointment during pleasure"_Reduction in RankNo Cause

of Action- Inland Revenue Regulation Act, 1890, s. 4, sub-s. 3.—Where a supervisor of Inland Revenue, who had been appointed “during the pleasure of the Commissioners," was under sect. 4, sub-sect. 3, of the above Act reduced in rank for a refusal to comply with an order which he considered was not within his duties, it was held that he had no cause of action, and an order of a Judge in Chambers to stay an action commenced was upheld.—Worthington v. Robinson, and Others, 75 L.T. 446.

Colonial Law:(v.) P. C.-Canada-- British North America Act, 1867 (30 Vict., c. 3), 8. 92,

sub-ss. 2 and 9_Direct Taxation-Brewers and Distillers Licences.-A uniform fee required by the Liquor Licence Act of Ontario from all brewers and distillers in the Province is “ direct taxation" within sect. 92 of the British North America Act, 1867. Bank of Toronto v. Lambe (L.R. 12 App. Cases 575 ; 57 L.T. 377) followed.-The Brewers and Malsters Association of Ontario v. Attorney-General for Ontario, 76 L.T. 61.

(i.) P. C.-Canada-Dominion Act, 1867— Annuity to Indian Tribes

Liability of Province.-A treaty of 1850 provided for the payment, by the old Dominion of Canada to certain Indian tribes in consideration for lands, of an annuity which, in events which happened, was to be increased. The Dominion Act of 1876 divided the province of Canada into the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. The lands, the subject of the treaty, were in the latter province, but by the terms of the Act the Dominion of Canada was to be liable for the origiual annuity. Held, that the Dominion, and not the province of Ontario, was liable for the additional annuity.- Attorney-General of Canada v. Attorney-General of Ontario ; Attorney-General of Quebec v. Attorney-General of Ontario,

75 L.T. 522. (ii.) P. C.-

British ColumbiaInsolvency-Fraudulent Preference-Collusion -Consolidated Statutes of British Columbia, c. 51, s. 1.-By the above statute, & confession of judgment is void if given by an insolvent voluntarily or in collusion with a creditor with intent to create & preference, or to delay or defeat other creditors. Held, that pressure by a creditor might be an answer to a case of fraudulent preference, but not to a case of collusion. Martin v. Macalpine (8 Ontario Appeal Rep. 675) approved.--Edison General Electric Company v. Westminster and Vancouver Tramway Co. and the Bank of British Columbia,

75 L.T. 438. (ii.) P. C.--Victoria-Administration and Probate Act, 1890—-Will-Probate

- Face and Market Value of Securities Shares in Bank under Reconstruction.- Where deposit receipts of a bank are at a discount, the market price may be taken as the value for purposes of probate. Sums payable on shares in the reconstruction of a bank are debts of a deceased shareholder under sect. 97 of the Colonial Administration and Probate Act of 1890.The Master in Equity v. Pearson and Others,

75 L.T. 526. Commons:(iv.) Q. B. D.-Gravel from Common for repair of RoadsJurisdiction of

Justices-Commons Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict., c. 56), s. 20.-Under sect. 20 of the Commons Act, 1876, justices in petty session have jurisdiction to grant or to refuse an order for taking materials for the repair of parish roads from a common.--The Conservators of Hayes Common v.

Bromley Rural District Council, L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 321; 76 L.T. 51. Company:(v.) C. 4.--Application for Shares Underwriting Letter Condition

Precedent, Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict., c. 89), s. 35.-By an underwriting letter for shares in a company it was agreed that the underwriter would, whenever called upon, lodge with the promoters an application for shares, and that if he failed to do so, the promoters, potwithstanding his repudiation, should be authorised to apply for, and the directors be authorised to allot to him the agreed shares. Held, affirming decision of Chitty, J., that even assuming that the offer of the underwriter was accepted by the promoters before repudiation, a request to him to apply for shares was a condition precedent to an application by them. Held, by Chitty, J., that The promoters, by retaining the underwriting letter without objection to it, signified acceptance of its terms.-In re The Bulfontein Sun

Diamond Mine, Limited ; e. p. Cox, Hughes and Norman, 75 L.T. 669. (vi.) C. D.-Winding-up-Private Company--Paid-up SharesConsideration

-Misfeasance-ContributoriesPractice-Companies Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict., c. 131), 8. 25~Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict., c. 63), 8. 10-Companies (Winding-up) Rules, 1890, ri. 83-87.-The

owners of a business turned it into a limited company, in which they became the only shareholders receiving paid-up shares on the conversion. Two of them, on behalf of the vendors, made with the company an agreement, which was filed before the issue of any shares, fixing the sale price of certain items of property transferred to the company at a much higher sum than that at which the same items were entered subsequently in the books of the company. On the winding-up, the Official Receiver claimed from the two signatories on behalf of the vendors the difference between these two valuations as damages for their misfeasance as officers of the company, and alternatively sought to make them liable for the amount as unpaid on their shares. On a preliminary objection, it was held, that though the joinder of the alternative claims might be inconvenient, it was not embarrassing, and that the claim to make the two vendors contributories was not improper ; but that as there were no damages proved, the claim for misfeasance failed, and the claim for contribution failed, on the ground that the Official Receiver had not made out a case to induce the Court to go behind the registered contract.-In te

E. J. Wragg, Limited, 75 L.T. 652. (i.) C. D.-Practice-Extending Objects of Company-Order on. Petition

Advertising - Companies Acts, 1862 to 1890—Companies (Memorandum of Association) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict., c. 62), s. 1, sub-s. 3.—There is no established practice as to advertising orders under sect. 1, sub-sect. 3 of the Companies (Memorandum of Association) Act, 1890, but the Court can dispense with advertisements of such orders.--In re The Lancaster

Banking Co., Limited, 75 L.T. 647. (ii.) C. D. & C. A.-Winding-up-Mining LeaseDistressValidity against

Debenture HoldersSeizure of Chattels on Neighbouring Land-Bills of Sale Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict., c. 31), ss. 4 & 6-Amendment Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict., c. 43), ss. 3 & 8Companies Act, 1862, ss. 85, 87, 138.— The day before a mining company confirmed a resolution to wind-up voluntarily the landlord distrained for rent and seized under powers of a lease chattels of the company not within the demise. Held, reversing the decision of the Court below, that the power was not a “ licence to take possession of personal chattels” within the meaning of sect. 4 of the Bills of Sale Act, and was not invalidated by being unregistered (Pulbrook v. Ashby considered). A distress made before a winding-up and before the appointment of a receiver is valid against debentures with a floating charge on the chattels of the company. Biggerstaff v. Rowatt's Wharf (Vol. 22, p. 7, vii.), and in re The Opera, Limited, L.R. (1891] 3 Ch. 260; 65 L.T. 371) applied.—In re the Round. wood Colliery Co., Limited ; Lee v. the Roundwood Colliery, L.R. (1897)

1 Ch. 375 ; 75 L.T. 508 & 641. (iii.) H. L.-One ManCompanyIndemnity-Companies Acts.--A boot

manufacturer, solvent at the time, converted his business into a limited company, he and six members of his family subscribing the memorandum of association for one £1 share each. The nominal capital of the company was £40,000 in £1 shares, and the purchase money was fixed at £38,782, payable £10,000 in debentures and the remainder in cash. The vendor subscribed for 20,000 shares and the funds which came into the business were paid to him and returned to the company until the 20,000 shares had been by this means fully paid up. The greater part of the rest of the cash portion of the purchase money was applied to the discharge of liabilities incurred before the conversion of the business. No shares beyond the 20,007 were issued. In a few months the company was wound-up, the debentures absorbing all the assets, leaving the trading debts unpaid. Held, reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal, that as the company was constituted in accordance with the Statute, the motive in the absence of direct

are claimed by some one other than the judgment debtor, the ways in which the claimant can arrest sale of the goods are stated in sect. 156 of the County Court Act, 1888. If the claimant should not perform any of the conditions, the bailiff must sell the goods ; the purchaser without notice of the claim will have a good title.Goodlock v. Cousins, L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 348; 76 L.T. 86.

Criminal Law:(i.) Q. B. D.--Pleading-Coroner's Inquisition.-A coroner's inquisition

stated the cause of a person's death to be injury from falling into a quarry, and that by the neglect of three persons to fence the quarry the deceased " fell therein, and therefore the said” (three persons) "did feloniously kill” the deceased. Held, that the inquisition was bad, and might be quashed, as the qualification of the finding of manslaughter shewed no legal ground for the finding.—Reg. v. The Clerk of Assize of the Oxford Circuit, L.R. (1897) 1 Q.B. 370.

Divorce:(ii.) P. D.-Maintenance and Allowance--Agreement set up in Bar

Matrimonial Causes Acts, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict., c. 85), 8. 32; 1866 (29 & 30 Vict., c. 32), 8. 1.-A wife withdrew a petition for dissolution of marriage on an agreement by the husband to make her an annual allowance by way of permanent maintenance for herself and child, to be continued even if the marriage should be thereafter dissolved. On fresh grounds of offence, the wife subsequently obtained & divorce, and on petition for permanent maintenance and for maintenance and education of the child, the registrar held the agreement to be a bar. The Court reversed the decision, but gave the respondent leave to appeal on paying the petitioner's costs up to date, and giving security for her costs on the appeal.-Bishop v. Bishop, 76 L.T. 28.

Easement:(iii.) C. D.-Grant of Right of Way to Lessee who acquires Fee.- A right of

way was granted to & tenant, from year to year, of the dominant tenement, who subsequently acquired the fee. Held, that having regard to the terms of the grant and the surrounding circumstances, the easement survived, and would pass to an assignee.-Rymer v. M'elroy, L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 528; 76 L.T. 115.

Ecclesiastical Law:(iv.) Consistory Court of London.-Military Colours fixed to

Walls of Chancel-Faculty Member of Parliament and St. Margaret's, Westminster.-Where a former rector and the churchwardens have without a faculty affixed military colours to the walls of the chancel of a church, the existing rector has no right without a faculty to remove them, In such a case of removal from St. Margaret's, Westminster, a Member of the House of Commons has a sufficient interest to institute a suit, and the Ordinary has jurisdiction to authorise by faculty the affixing of such colours to the chancel walls.—Vincent

and Tomlinson v. Eyton, L.R. [1897] P. 1. (v.) P. C.-Simony- False Declaration under Clerical Subscription Act,

1865Clergy Discipline Act, 1892.–Proceedings cannot be taken under the Act of 1892 against a clergyman charged with simony or with a false declaration under the Act of 1865. Decision of Court below (see Vol. 21, p. 76, ii.) reversed.—A Beneficed Clerk v. Lee, 75 L.T. 461.

« PreviousContinue »