Page images

(i.) C. D.-Mansion HouseTenant for Life.—Where a testator had

directed the sale of a mansion house on the death of the life tenant, it was held that the tenant for life could sell at his discretion.In re. Wortham's Settled Estates and the Settled Land Acts, 75 L.T. 293.

Ship (ii.) H. L.-Collision--Special Contract--Merchant Shipping Act, 1862, s. 54.

-The owner of a yacht is liable for the consequences of violating a rule which he has bound himself to observe during a race, and the limitation of liability in sect. 54 of the Merchant Shipping Act is

excluded.Clarke v. Lord Dunraven ; The Satanita, 75 L.T. 337. (iii.) P. D.-Freight-Damage-Inherent Vice.-A charter-party contained

a provision for payment of freight “less value of cargo short delivered or damaged not covered by the preceding act of God clause.” Some of the cargo was damaged owing to inherent vice. Held, that the consignees were liable for the entire freight as the deduction applied only to damage from causes for which the shipowner was responsible. -Eyre, Evans & Co. v. Watsons ; The Barcore, L.R. (1896] P. 294; 75 L.T. 168.

Solicitor :(iv.) C. D.-CostsLease in Consideration of Rent a Premium-General

Order under Solicitors Remuneration Act, 1881, sched. 1, part 2, r. 5.For a lease at a rent and in consideration of a premium the lessor's solicitor is not entitled to a fee for negotiation in addition to the scale charge calculated on the rent and to the scale charge for deducing title calculated on the premium.-In re Horn and Francis, L.R. (1896] 2 Ch. 797; 75 L.T. 370.

Theatre : (v.) Q. B. D.-Licence Under ConditionsTheatre Regulation Act, 1843,

s. 5, 5 and 6 Will. IV., c. 39, s. 7.A county council can in the exercise of its judgment make it a condition to the grant of a licence for the public representation of stage plays, that the grantee shall not apply for an excise licence for the premises under sect. 7 of the Act of Will. IV.Reg. v. County Council of West Riding of Yorkshire, L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 386 ; 75 L.T. 252.

Trust:(vi.) C. D.-Marriage Settlement Next-of-Kin in Bloodto Wife

Construction.-By a marriage settlement there was an ultimate trust for “the persons who shall be next-of-kin in blood” to the wife “at the time of her decease in case she had so died intestate and unmarried.” Held, that the words imported a reference to the Statute of Distributions, and that the children of the deceased brothers and sisters of the wife, as well as her living brothers and sisters, were entitled to participate.--In re Gray's Settlement; Akers v. Gray, L.R.

[1896] 2 Ch. 802; 75 L.T. 407. (vii.) C. A.Depreciation in Authorised SecuritiesLiability.-- To throw on

to trustees a loss sustained by a fall in value of securities authorised by the trust, want of ordinary prudence on the part of the trustees must be proved, otherwise the loss must be borne by the cestius que trust.-In re Chapman; Cocks v. Chapman, L.R. (1896] 2 Ch. 763 ; 75 L.T. 196.

Vendor and Purchaser:— (i.) C. D.—Agreement–Names of Parties—Statute of Frauds, 8. 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.

[ocr errors][merged small]

Sale with Power to Postpone–Trustees not agreed—Works executed under Notice by Local Authority charged to Corpus—Public Health (London) Act, 1891, 8s. 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 Will—Mistake Rectified.—Where

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

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.

C. D.—Construction–Gift to Children—Maintenance—Westing.—A testator 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.

Quarterly £igest



£atu Gimes amb £atu Reports

[merged small][ocr errors]

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.


(i.) P. D.—Testatrix of French domicile—Will in English form.—Where a will in English form was made under a 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 Australia–Colonial 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.

[ocr errors][merged small]

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.


[ocr errors]

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.—Favard v. Favard, 75 L.T. 664.

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

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 Wol. 22, p. 12, i.)—Lawrence v. Adams, 75 L.T. 410.

[ocr errors]

C. A.—Retired Officer of Army–Appropriation of part of PensionBankruptcy 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 annuity to be paid to the trustee in bankruptcy for the benefit of creditors.—In re Ward; e. p. Ward, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 266; 76 L.T. 37.

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 having 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 Stock; e. p. Amos, 75 L.T. 422.

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

(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

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

(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. 8d. 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 £168s. 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 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 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.

[ocr errors]

(iii.) Q. B. D.—Liability of Clergyman (23 d: 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 Rank—No 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.

[ocr errors]

(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.

« PreviousContinue »