Page images
PDF
EPUB

Vendor and Purchaser:(i.) C. D.-Agreement-Names of PartiesStatute of Frauds, s. 4

Conditional or Absolute Acceptance ?-A defendant wrote to a firm of auctioneers : “ I hereby offer the sum of £- for

and if my offer is accepted, I will pay deposit and sign contract on the auction particulars ;” and they replied : “On behalf of our client, Mrs. M. A. F., we accept your offer for —, subject to contract as agreed.” Held, that as these letters contained the names of the contracting parties, they satisfied the Statute of Frauds in that respect, and that the acceptance was absolute, notwithstanding the words “ subject to contract as agreed.”—Filby v. Hounsell, L.R. (1896) 2 Ch. 737; 75 L.T. 270.

Weights and Measures :(ii.) Q. B. D.-Sale of Coal-Weights and Measures Act, 1889, s. 21.-In a

delivery of coals, if the whole specified quantity has been delivered, the seller cannot be convicted under sect. 21, because some sacks contained less than 2 cwt., the quantity which, according to the ticket supplied by him under the Act, each sack was stated to contain.Godfrey v. Radford, 75 L.T. 224.

Will :(iii.) C. D.-ConstructionTenant for Life and RemaindermanTrust for

Sale with Power to Postpone-Trustees not agreedWorks executed under Notice by Local Authority charged to Corpus--Public Health (London) Act, 1891, ss. 11, 117, 121.-A testator gave real and leasehold estates upon trust for sale, but declared that it should not be necessary for the trustees to sell any part during the life of his wife unless she requested it. Held, that there was a discretionary power to postpone, and as the trustees were not agreed as to the advantage of a sale the absolute trust. took effect. Held, also that having regard to sects. 11, 117 and 121 of the Public Health Act, 1891, the expenses of sanitary works executed by the trustees pursuant to notice by the local authorities were chargeable upon the corpus.-In re Lever ; Cordwell v. Lever,

L.R. (1897] 1 Ch. 32; 75 L.T. 383. (iv.) P. D.-Codicils Written on Revoked WillMistake Rectified. Where

two codicils had by mistake been written on the last page of a revoked will, the Court held that words in the codicils misdescribing the revoked will as the last will should be omitted from probate, and that probate should be granted of the codicils so amended together with the

last will.In the goods of Northing Snowden, 75 L.T. 279. (v.) C.D.-Construction--Gift to ChildrenMaintenanceVesting.–A testa

tor left the residue of his estate in trust for ultimate division equally between his children who attained 21, the issue of a deceased child taking the parents' share. The trustees had a discretionary power to sell and re-invest and to apply a presumptive share of a child or grandchild to its maintenance during minority. Held, that the gift to children was contingent on their attaining 21, that the power to apply to maintenance the income of a presumptive share did not import a vested interest in the children, and therefore that children dying in minority took nothing, and that the testator's estate was not converted.--In re Wintle; Tucker v. Wintle, L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 711; 75 L.T. 207.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Law Times and Law Reports
FOR JANUARY, FEBRUARY, AND MARCH, 1897.
By THOMAS J. BARNES, of the Middle Temple,

Barrister-at-Law.

DIGEST.

Where a case has already been given in the Digest for a preceding quarter, the additional report is given after the name of the case, with a reference to the volume of the Digest in which it first appeared, the thick number being the number of the volume.

Administration: (i.) P. D.Testatrix of French domicile-Will in English form. Where &

will in English form was made under & power of appointment by a testatrix of English domicile of origin, but married to a Frenchman, and domiciled in France, the Court granted administration with the will annexed. In the goods of Alexander, 2 L.T. 56, and in the goods of Hallyburton, L.R. 1 P. & D. 90, commented on.In the goods of Mary

Hamilton Huber, deceased, 75 L.T. 453. (ii.) C. D.-Assets in South AustraliaColonial duties. A testator with

property in England and South Australia, left in trust an equal share of his residuary estate to each surviving child of him for life, with remainder to the children of such child; and gave power to the trustees to cultivate his real and leasehold estates in Australia till sale. Held, that the colonial duties were part of the costs of realisation, and therefore payable out of the testator's general assets before

distribution.—In re Maurice; Brown v. Maurice, 75 L.T. 415. Adulteration:(iii.) Q. B. D.-Beeswax--Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 d 39

Vict., c. 63), s. 6.—Beeswax sold by a grocer is not a drug.”-Fowle v.

Fowle, 75 L.T. 514. Arbitration :(iv.) C. A.--Special Case-Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict., c. 49), s. 19. -The Court can order a case to be stated under sect. 19, though the

F

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

. Leetham and Sons, L.R. (1897] 1 Q.B. 312; 76 L.T. 35. Attachment:(i.) P. D.-Dirorce-Order to Deliver up Child - Remoral 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 ez 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.)-Laurence v. Adams, 75 L.T. 410. (ii.) C.A.-Mortgage of future paymentsBankruptcy of Mortgagor-Rights

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, ss. 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 CreditorsBankruptcy 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 terminate 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 PayeeForgeryHolder

in due course-Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict., c. 61), s. 7, sub-s. 3.- Decision of Court below (see Vol. 21, p. 3, v.) affirmed. Bank of England v. Vagliano, 64 L.T. 353; L.R. (1891) A.C. 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, ss. 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

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.—Plantbrought upon a Place"-Bill 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 à 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.-Appointmentduring pleasure—Reduction in Rank-No Cause

of ActionInland 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), s. 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.-CanadaDominion 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 original 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 Columbia-Insolvency-Fraudulent Preference - Collusion

- Consolidated Statutes of British Columbia, c. 51, s. 1.-By the above statute, a 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. (iii.) P. C.–Victoria-Administration and Probate Act, 1890—WillProbate

- 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

JusticesCommons 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. A.-Application for Shares Underwriting Letter Condition

PrecedentCompanies 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, notwithstanding 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), s. 25Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict., C. 63), s. 10—Companies (Winding-up) Rules, 1890, rr. 83-87.—The

« PreviousContinue »