« PreviousContinue »
(v.) H. L.-Fraud-Administration-Proof-Joint and Separate Estate.
Where a partner since deceased had misappropriated partnership pro. perty: Held that the trustee in bankruptcy of the surviving partners was entitled to prove against the separate estate of the deceased partner for the amount misappropriated.- Read v. Bailey, 37 L.T. 510; 26 W.R.
(vi.) C. J. B.-Loan—28 & 29 Vict., c. 86, s. 1.—The question whether
or not an advance of money to a firm constitutes the lender a partner must be decided from the whole circumstances of the case, and not merely by a proyiso in the articles that he shall not be a partner.
Ex parte Delhasse, Re Megerand & Co., 37 L.T. 440; 26 W.R. 20. Poor Law:(v.) Ex. Div.-Assessment-Valuation List—27 S. 28 Vict., c. 39.—Valua.
tion list, stating collective rateable value of all the fields of a farm without specifying the separate rateable value of each field : Held to be
sufficient. -Rawlence v. Hursley Union, 37 L.T. 503; 26 W.R. 81. (vi.) Q. B. Div.-Rateability-Canal.--Held that under the provisions of a
Special Act, 52 Geo. 3, c. 95, the canal and paths of the Regent's Canal
neighbourhood of like quality in the parish.-Regent's Canal Co. v St.
· Pancras Assessment Committee, 37 L.T., 637. (vii.) H. L.--Rateability-Moorings-Thames Conservancy.-C. obtained per
mission to lay down moorings for two derricks in the Thames under a resolution of the Conservators, which provided that the works should be done to their satisfaction, subject to payment of rent and to removal if required: Held that having regard to the terms of the arrangement and to the construction of the moorings, C. was liable to rates in respect of them.-Cory v. Bristow, L.R. 2 App. 262; 46 L.J.M.C. 273 ; 36 L.T. 594;
25 W.R. 383 Power of Appointment:(i.) Ch. Div. V.C. H.-Excessive Appointment.-A fund was settled on
death of E. to such descendants of L. as E. should appoint: Held that an appointment to legal representatives of descendants of L. who died in E.'s lifetime was in excess of the power, and that the power being of the nature of a trust the surviving descendants of L. took equally the unappointed shares.-Re Susanni's Trusts, 47 L.J. Ch. 65; 26 W.R.
93. (ii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Execution.--A husband with his wife's verbal consent
drew up instructions for his solicitor to prepare a deed to exercise a joint power of appointment by deed or writing, but died before the draft could be prepared : there was no written authority of the wife : Hela that there was no valid execution of the power.--Hawke v. Hawke, 26
W.R. 93. Practice: (lii.) C. A.-Appeal-Costs.-The rule against appeal for costs applies to
order that trustees should pay costs personally.-Re Hoskins' Trusts,
L.R. 5 Ch. D. 281; 46 L.J. Ch. 817. (liii.) C. A.–Appeal-Re-hearing.- The Court has no power to rehear appeals
on ground of discovery of fresh facts: the party aggrieved must com. mence a new action to set aside the judgment.--Flower v. Lloyd, L.R.
5 Ch. D. 297; 46 L.J. Ch. 838; 37 L.T. 419; 25 W.R. 793. (liv.) C. A.-Appeal-Time-Interlocutory Order-Ord. 14, 1.1.-An appeal
from order for leave to sign judgment must be brought within twentyone days.-Standard Discount Co. v. De la Grange, 47 L.J. C.P. 3; 37 L.T. 372; 26 W.R. 25.
(lv.) C. A.-Appearance—Notice-Default.—A writ of summons was issued
in a district registry : defendant entered appearance in London, but gave no notice to plaintiff's solicitor in the district: Held that plaintiff was entitled to sign judgment for default of appearance. Decision of Ex. Div. (reported 37 L.T. 388; 26 W.R. 59) affirmed. - Smith v. Dobbin,
26 W.R. 122. (lvi.) Ex. Div.-Attachment_Trustee-Action in a Common Law Division.
-Plaintiff being entitled to a legacy bronght an action against a trustee of the will in Ex. Div. and levied execution, which not having satisfied the judgment, he applied for an order for payment within limited time, with a view of enforcing payment by attachment : Held that such order could not be granted. Decision of Ex. Div. (reported 26 W.R. 60)
affirmed.-Drewitt v. Edwards, 37 L.T. 622 ; 26 W.R. 122. (lvii.) C. A.-Award-Motion to Set Aside-Time-9 810 Wm. 3, c. 15, 8. 2.
“Terms" still exist as a measure for determining the time within which an application to set aside an award must be made.-Governors of Christ's
College v. Martin, L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 16. (lviii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Charging Order-1 & 2 l'ict., c. 110, s. 11-Ord
46, 1. 1.- Where judgment orders defendant to pay a sum certain on a future day, plaintiff is entitled to charging order on defendant's property.-Bagnall v. Carlton, L.R. 6 Ch. Div. 371; 47 L.J. Ch. 51; 26
W.R. 71. (lix.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Charging Order - Jurisdiction.-Held that the
V.-C. had no jurisdiction to entertain a solicitor's petition for a charging order on property preserved in an action marked " Chancery Division Liverpool District Registry V.C.," and which had been tried by a judge
and jury at Liverpool.—Owen v. Henshaw, 26 W.R. 188. (lx.) C. A.--Costs— Application at Trial-Ord. 55.-Jury gave verdict for
defendant; an hour afterwards plaintiff's counsel applied for an order depriving defendant of his costs, having previously given defendant notice of the application; judge reserved his decision till next morning, and then made the order : Held that the application was “at the trial.” —
Kynaston v. Hackinder, 37 L.T. 390. (lxi.) Q. B. Div.-Costs-Claim under £20—Contract or Tort-30 &31 Fict.,
c. 142.- Plaintiffs · forwarded goods by defendants' railway to a par. chaser, but hearing he was insolvent stopped them in transitu, and gave notice to defendants not to deliver, but the defendants did deliver, whereby plaintiff lost the goods : the defendants paid the claim, less than £20, into court: Held that the action was not founded on contract, and that plaintiff was entitled to costs.- Pontifex v. Milland Rail. Co., L.R.
3 Q.B.D. 23; 47 L.J. Q.B. 28; 37 L.T. 403; 26 W.R. 209. (lxii.) Ex. Div.-Costs-Collision- Ord. 55.--Where a defendant in collision
action succeeded only on ground of compulsory pilotage : Held that plaintiff was not entitled to order, depriving defendant of costs.-General Steam Narigation Co., v. London and Edinburgh Shipping Co., L.R. 2 Ex.
D. 467; 36 L.T. 743; 25 W. R. 694. (lxiii.) P. D. A. Div.--Costs-Discontinuance-Ord. 23.- When plaintiff in
an interlocutory application succeeded in the main object of the suit, and, therefore, gave notice of discontinuance : Held, that the defendant was entitled to all costs, including costs of the application. The St. Olaf, L.R.
2 P.D. 113; 46 L.J. P.D.A. 74; 36 L.T. 30. (lxiv.) C. A.-Discovery-Evidence of Custom-Ord. 31, 1. 19.-A horse dealer
brought a claim against a testator's estate in administration, for charges connected with purchase and sale, and standing at livery, of horses; executrix disputed the claim and asked for discovery of entries as to sales in the books of the dealer, who refused it on the ground that by custom of his trade he sold horses for testator on terms of paying him a
fixed sum, and retaining any profit he might make : Held that evidence of the custom was admissible, and discovery refused.—Re Leigh's Estate,
L.R. 6 Ch. D. 256; 37 L.T. 557. (lxv.) Ch. Div. V.C.B.—Discovery—Interrogatories.—Plaintiff alleged agree.
ment by defendant to employ him at a salary and commission, and wrong. ful dismissal; defendant alleged that the agreement was obtained by fraud, and also gross misconduct and negligence on part of plaintiff ; plaintiff then delivered interrogatories asking for full particulars as to frand, &c., and for accounts of profits whilst the agreement was in force : Held that defendant was bound to answer the interrogatories, and to give
the required accounts.--Saunders v. Jones, 37 L.T. 395. (lxvi.) Ch. Div. V.C.M.-Discovery-Interrogatories—Ord. 31, r. 5.—A party
is entitled to discovery of the facts relied on by his opponent, but not of the evidence by which those facts are to be proved. - Ashley v. Taylor,
37 L.T. 522. (lxvii.) C. A.-Discovery Interrogatories-Ord. 31, r. 5.-Similar decision.
Eade v. Jacobs, 37 L.T. 621; 26 W.R. 159. (lxvii.) Ex. Div.-Discovery-Marine Insurance-Ship's Papers.-In action
on policy of insurance by mortgagees of ship which had been sailed by mortgagor : Held that defendants were entitled to order for production of ship's papers by plaintiffs, mortgagor or his representatives, and all persons interested, and for stay of proceedings meanwhile, or till plaintiffs should satisfy the Court that they had done all in their power to procure production.-West of England, &c., Bank v. Canton Insurance
Co., L.R. 2 Ex. D. 472. (lxix.) C. P. Div.--Discovery- Privilege-Public Policy.-When the Secre.
tary of the Board of Trade upon an order for discovery made an affidavit that he had certain documents in his possesssion, and that he objected to state anything further about them on the ground of public policy : Held that this was insufficient to establish the privilege claimed.-Kain v.
Farrer, 37 L.T. 469. (lxx.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Discovery-Redemption Suit.-In a redemption
action by second mortgagee against first mortgagee : Held that defend. ant was bound, in answer to interrogatories, not only to state amount due, but also what securities he held for the debt.-West of England, Sc.,
Bank v. Nickolls, L.R. 6 Ch. D. 613. (lxxi.) Q. B. Div.-Dismissal of Action-Enlargement of Time.-An order
was made dismissing an action unless statement of claim was delivered within a week: no statement of claim was so delivered: Held that the action was at an end, and that a subsequent order in chambers giving extension of time was ultra vires.-Whistler v. Hancoch, 37 L.T. 639;
26 W.R. 24. (lxxii.) C. A.-District Registry— Administration Action-Sale.-Where in an
administration action an order was made for taking accounts in a district registry and for sale of real estate : Held that the question whether the sale should take place in the registry or in chambers is entirely within the discretion of the jndge.- McDonald v. Foster, L.R.
6 Ch. D. 193; 36 L.T. 296 ; 25 W.R. 687. (lxxiii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-District Registry-Povers-Chancery Action
Ord. 35, r. 1a.-Chancery actions must be set down for trial in London : district registrars have no power to appoint receivers or open banking accounts, nor, except by special discretion of judge, to take accounts in an administration action.-Re Smith, Hutchinson v. Ward, L.R. 6 Ch. D.
692; 36 L.T. 178; 25 W.R. 452. ' (lxxiv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.--Evidence-Afidavit.--At the hearing of a causo
with witnesses, the court admitted in evidence the affidavit, filed on
interlocutory motion, of a person not cross-examined and since deceased.
Elias v. Griffith, 46 L.J. Ch. 806. (lxxv.) P. D. A. Div.-Evidence- Affidavit.-In a salvage action where
defendant's affidavit of value has been accepted and agreed to by plaintiff, defendant will not be allowed to produce at the hearing evidence to
decrease the valae.-The Hanna, 37 L.T. 364. (lxxvi.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Evidence- Affidavit-Ord. 37, r. 1.-The court has
no power to order affidavits filed on interlocutory applications to be read at the trial when the witnesses are required by the other side to be, and can be, produced for cross-examination.-Guardians of Blackburn
Union v. Brooks.-L.R. 7 Ch. D. 68; 37 L.T. 427; 26 W.R. 57. (lxxvii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Evidence- Affidavit-Ord. 38, r. 3.-Affidavits
in reply may bring forward fresh evidence: a letter from plaintiff's solicitor to defendant, followed a few days later by another letter guarded against prejudice, was not admitted in evidence.--- Peacock v. Harper, 26
W.R. 109. (lxxviii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Evidence-Commission--Delay.--The Court will not
appoint a commission to take evidence abroad when there has been
undue delay in making application.-Steuart v. Gladstone, 37 L.T. 575. (lxxix.) C. A.-Evidence-Commission to Examine.--An order for commission
to examine witnesses abroad, with a view to test accuracy of the accounts rendered by the liquidator of a company, was granted on the applica. tion of persons largely interested in a charge on the company's pro
perty.-Re Imperial Land Co. of Marseilles, 37 L.T. 588. (lxxx.) C. A.-Exception to Record.—The proper mode of excepting to ruling
of a judge in directing a jury to give notice of motion of appeal.--Cheese
v. Lovejoy, L.R. 2 P.D. 161; 37 L.T. 294. (lxxxi.) C. A.-- Interlocutory Order— Appeal-Time.- Where an application by a
defendant for five distinct things was granted with regard to two, but the order contained no reference with regard to the other three : Held that an appeal by the defendant not brought within 21 days from the refusal was too late.- Berdan v. The Birmingham Small Arms Co., L.R.
7 Ch. D. 24 ; 37 L.T. 588; 26 W.R. 89. (lxxxii.) Ch. Div. V.C.M.-Interlocutory Order-Injury to Trade-Injunction,
– The Court has power to restrain the issue of advertisements con. taining false representations injurions to a person's trade, but will not generally do so on interlocutory application.—Thorley's Cattle Food Co.
v. Mossam, L.R. 6 Ch. D. 582. (lxxxii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Interlocutory Order-Sale.—The Court made
an order for an immediate sale of real property of a company upon interlocutory application of a creditor, whose debt was charged thereon, and who had brought an action for account and sale.--Davis v. Ashwin, 47
L.J. Ch. 70; 26 W.R. 139. (lxxxiv.) C. P. Div.-Interpleader.—On an interpleader issue when the
claimant only claimed part of goods seized, he was ordered to specify
the goods claimed by him.-Price v. Plummer, 26 W.R. 15. (lxxxv.) C. A.-Interpleader.—A person for whom sheriff has levied execution
is not entitled to rule for return of writ of fi. fa. pending interpleader issue : and a judge at chambers has discretion to set aside such rule if
granted.- Angell v. Baddeley, 26 W.R. 137. (lxxxvi.) C. P. Div.--Interpleader-1& 2 Will. 4, c. 58, s. 6.--The claims of
the plaintiff and defendant to the sum in the hands of the sheriff held not to be such as to render it a case for interpleader under 1 & 2 Will. 4,
c. 58, s. 6.-Smith v. Saunders, 37 L.T. 359. (lxxxvii.) Ch. Div. V.C. B.-Motion for Judgment- Admissions-Default-
Ord. 13, r. 9; Ord. 29, r. 10; Ord. 4d, .11.-Where of several defendants served one did not appear: Held that the plaintiff might move for judgment as against the appearing defendants upon admissions in their defences, and as against the non-appearing defendant for default, but that as against the latter the action must be set down on motion for
judgment.-Parsons v. Harris, L.R. 6 Ch. D. 694. (lxxxviii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Motion to Dismiss--Ord. 36, r. 4 a.-Motion to
dismiss action in Ch. Div. for want of prosecution should generally be
made to judge in chambers.-Freason v. Loe, 26 W.R. 138. (lxxxix.) C. A.–New Trial-Action commenced in Ch. Div.-Decision of Q.B.
Div. (see Practice, xxxiii., p. 26) reversed, and held that application must be to a Divisional Court.- Hunt v. City of London Real Property Co.,
L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 19; 47 L.J. Ch. 51. (xc.) Q. B. Div.- New Trial-Action remitteil to County Court-Time
Ord. 39, rr. 1, 1 a.-A motion for a new trial in an action remitted to the county court for trial must be made within the time limited by the old
practice.-London v. Roffey, L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 6; 17 L.J: Q.B. 16; 26 W.R. 79. (xci.) C. P. Div.-New Trial-Ord. 39, r. 3.-It is for party showing
cause against rule for new trial for misdirection to show that no mis. carriage of justice was caused thereby.-Anthony v. Halstead, 37
L.T. 433. (xcii.) C. H. Div. F. J.-Order by Consent--llistake---Time. - Where it
was alleged that a defendant had consented to enter into an undertaking under a mistake of fact, and moved to be discharged therefrom after the order had been passed and entered : Held that the application was too
late.- Attorney-General v. Tomline, 26 W.R. 188. (xciii.) P. D. A. Div.-Parties- Addition-Action in rem.- Orl. 16, r. 13.-
Where an action in rem is brought against a ship by part owners claiming an amount against the managing part owner, and he fails to appear, the Court will order him to be joined as a defendant, and will give possession to plaintiffs if they hold majority of shares, but will not sell defendant's
shares before reference. The Native Pearl, 37 L.T. 512. (xciv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Parties- Addition— Foreclosure-Ord. 50, r. 4.-A
foreclosure action, the decree being liable to be re-opened, is a con. tinning action, and new parties may be added after decree.-Campbell v.
Holylanı, 26 W.R. 109. (xcv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Parties-- Wrong Plaintiff-Mistake-Orl. 16, . 2.
Where demurrer on ground that the wrong person was plaintiff was allowed, leave to amend was given, and, fraud being charged, costs were reserved till hearing.–Duckett v. Gover, L.R. 6 Ch. D. 82; 46 L.J. Ch.
407; 25 W.R. 455. (xcvi.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.---Petition-Payment out-10 S 11 Vict., c.96.
Application for payment out of a fund in Court, under Trustee Relief
Re Puttrell, 47 L.J. Ch. 11; 37 L.T. 374. (xcvii.) C. A. Pleading - Alternative Relief.--A plaintiff alleged that he had
been induced by misrepresentation to enter into partnership with defendant, and that defendant had refused to carry on the partnership according to the terms of the agreement, and he claimed to have the agreement cancelled, or, in the alternative, to have the partnership dissolved: Held (reversing decision of V.C.B., 37 L.T. 266) that plaintiff was at liberty to join the two causes of action, and claim alter. native relief.-Bagot v. Easton, L.R. 7 Ch. D. 1; 37 L.T. 369; 26 W.R.
66. (xcviii.) Ch. Div. M.R.-Pleadinys- Amendment-Ord. 27, rr. 1, 5.--- Where
plaintiff amends statement of claim after delivery of defence, defendant