« PreviousContinue »
ing that they have not been paid for in cash ; and so the official liquida. tor is also estopped.-In re British Farmers' Pure Linseed Co., Nicholl's
Case, L.R. 7 Ch. D. 533; 38 L.T. 45 ; 26 W.R. 33 1. (lx.) C. A.-Winding-up-Contributory- Registration of Contract.---Decision
of V.C. Hall in Pagin and Gill's Case (see Company xi., p. 10) affirmed.
-Re Church and Empire Insurance Co. Andress's Case, 38 L.T. 266. (lxi.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Winding-up-Distress-Queen's Taxes.—The col.
lector of the Queen's taxes has not, under the provisions of the Judicature Act, 1875, s. 10, a right to distrain on the goods of a company in liquida.
tion.-Re Regent United Service Stores, 38 L.T. 130. (lxii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Winding-up-Execution, Injunction.-Where a
creditor had signed judgment in an action under the Bills of Exchange Act against a company, but did not put his execution in force on the representation of the company that the debt would be paid forth with antil, on a winding-up petition by other creditors, an interim order was made restraining the execution: the Court declared the creditor entitled to the same charge on the assets of the company in the hands of the sheriff, who had meanwhile seized the company's goods under the writ, as if such goods had been sold before the petition was presented, and ordered the sheriff to go out of possession, and the liquidator to sell sufficient to pay the debt and costs, and to pay the same.-Re Railway
Steel and Plant Co., Taylor v. Do., Williams v. Do., 26 W.R. 418. (lxiii.) C. A.-Winding-up-Fraud Repudiation of Shares.- Decision of C.P.
Div. (see Company xviii., p. 10) affirmed.-Collins v. City and County
Bank, Stone v. Do., 38 L.T. 9. (lxiv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Winding.up-Leasehold Premises—Leave to
Distrain.-A company in course of liquidation retained possession of leaseholds, which they occupied under a lease containing the usual proviso for re-entry by the lessors : leave was given to the lessors to distrain for rent accrued due after the commencement of the winding. up: In re North Yorkshire Iron Co., L.R. 7 Ch. D. 661; 38 L.T. 143; 26
W.R. 367. (lxv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Winding-up-Order of Payment of Debts. - The
rule in Bankruptcy giving local rates, due from the bankrupt, priority over other debts is not applied to the case of a company in liquidation by the Judicature Act, 1875, s. 10.—In re Albion Steel and Wire Co., L.R.
7 Ch. D. 547; 47 L.J. Ch. 229; 38 L.T. 207; 26 W.R. 318. (lxvi.) C. A.-Winding-up-Practice-Service of Petition.--A petition to wind.
ap bad not been served at the company's registered office, but service had been accepted by a solicitor on its behalf, and he had been instructed at a meeting of directors to take proceedings with respect to it: Held that the service was sufficient. - Re Regent's United Service Stores, 38
L.T. 84; 26 W.R. 425. (lxvii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Winding-up-Set-off. --The rule that in winding.
up a limited company, a contributory, who is also a creditor, is not entitled to set-off against calls either his debt or his dividend thereon, applies to the case of a deceased contributory whose estate is insolvent.
Re West Hartlepool Iron Co., Gunn's case, 38 L.T. 139. (lxviii.) Q. B. Div.-Winding-up-Stay of Proceedings in Action.---Where a
plaintiff had gone on with an action against a company after notice of voluntary winding.up proceedings and an offer to allow him to prove against the estate for his debt and costs on his undertaking not to proceed, an order was made to stay proceedings, and the plaintiff was not allowed to add to his debt the costs of appearing on the application. -Rose and Co. v. Garden Lodge Coal Co., L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 235; 38 L.T. 101; 26 W.R. 353.
(lxix.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Winding-up—Two Petitions—Costs.- Where a
petition to wind-up a company having been ordered to stand over, another creditor presented a second petition, without notice of the first, in another branch of the Court, which was afterwards transferred, the second petitioner was held entitled to his costs.--Re Marron Bank Paper
Mill Co., 38 L.T. 140. (lxx.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Winding-up-Unlimited Liability-Compromise.
Where, in winding-up an insurance company with limited liability as regards policyholders and unlimited as regards general creditors, com. promises are made with shareholders ander s. 160 of the Companies' Act, 1862, and subsequently a call on the remaining shareholders is made in respect of costs incurred, the money paid under the com. promises cannot be marshalled between the liability for costs and the liability under the policies, and the contributories who have not com. promised are alone liable for the costs. In re Accidental Death Insurance
Co., L.R.7 Ch. D. 568 ; 26 W.R. 473. Copyhold :(iii.) C. A.-Life Tenant with Power to Nominate Successor.— Devise to
Trustees.-A copy hold tenant of a manor, wherein the customary tenant held for life with power to nominate a successor in writing, devised his copyhold lands to trustees in trust for A. for life, with remainder to A's children and their heirs as tenants in common, remainder to the plaintiffs : Held, that the trustees took the legal estate and ought to have been admitted, and that the beneficial limitations in the will were equitable interests which the testator had power to dispose of.-Allen
v. Bewsey, L.R. 7 Ch. Div. 453; 37 L.T. 688. Copyright:-(v.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Design-Assignment–5 & 6 Vict., c. 100.—The
Copyright of Designs Act, 1842, does not give protection to the exclusive right of selling articles of a particular design, inde. pendently of the right of applying the design : an assignment of a right to, or a licence of, a design must be in writing.-Jewett v. Eckhardt,
26 W.R. 415. (vi.) C. A.-Dramatic Copyright - London Right."-Plaintiff, the author
of the dramatic work, assigned the “ London Right” of it to A. : the judge at the trial having found that “ London Right" meant the whole right of representation in London, and that the assignment was to A. and his assigns : Held, that the plaintiff could not bring an action for penalties under 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 15, in respect of representations in London except as trustee for A. and his assigns.-Taylor v. Neville,
47 L.J. Q.B. 254; 38 L.T. 50; 26 W.R. 299. (vii.) H. L-Dramatic Copyright Infringement-3 & 4. Will. 4, c. 15
Facts left to the Judge.---The defendant represented a drama bearing the same name as that of which the plaintiff possessed the copyright, and containing two situations taken from the plaintiff's drama, but there was no substantial or material taking, nor was it an imitation of or copy from the plaintiff's : Held that defendant was not liable to penalties under 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 15, s. 2. Where, by consent, a case has been withdrawn from the jury and left to the judge, with leave to either party to move any point of law arising on the findings, and the judge has published his finding in writing; such finding is not final, and the Court can consider any further explanation.--Chatterton v. Cave, 26 W.R. 498.
County Court :(iv.) P. D. A. Div.-Admiralty Jurisdiction-Wages-31 & 32 Vict., c. 71.
-A County Court exercising Admiralty jurisdiction can entertain an action by a master of a vessel claiming damages for wrongful dismissal where the amount claimed does not exceed £150 : & contract that a master mariner shall have a share of a fishing adventure and bear a share of certain expenses, is a contract of wages by the general law
maritime.—The Blessing, 38 L.T. 259 ; 26 W.R. 404. Crimes and Offences :(xvii.) Q. B. Div.-Adulteration of Seeds-Kind-32 X 33 Vict., c. 112, s. 2, 3.
-The sulphur-smoking clover seeds, so as greatly to improve their appearance, but not to make them represent seeds of another kind is not a fraud within 32 & 33 Vict., c. 112.-Francis v. Maas, 38 L.T. 100;
26 W.R. 422. (xviii.) Ex. Div.-Cruelty to Animals-12 & 13 l'ict., c. 92, s. 2.-The
omission to slaughter an animal known to be in great pain and incurable is not an offence within 12 & 13 Vict., c. 92.-Everitt v. Davies, 26
W.R. 332. (xix.) C. C. R.- Embezzlement - Gamekeeper - Rabbits. - A gamekeeper
killed and removed from his master's wood wild rabbits with the inten. tion of selling them ; the killing, removal, and selling were one continuous act: Held that he could not be convicted of embezzlement.Regina v. Read, L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 131 ; 47 L.J. M.C. 50; 37 L.T. 722; 26
W.R. 283. (xx.) C. P. Div.--Malicious Prosecution-Reasonable and Probable Cause.
Where a defendant in an action for malicious prosecution is found by the jury not to have believed in circumstances justifying the action, the question of reasonable and probable cause cannot be ruled in his favour.
-Shrosbury v. Osmaston, 37 L.T. 792. (xxi.) C. A.-Obscene Book-Indictment.--Decision of Q.B. Div. (see Crimes
and Offences v., p. 12) reversed.-Regina v. Bradlaugh, 38 L.T. 118; 26
W.R. 410. (xxii.) C. C. R.-Obtaining Goods on False Pretences-Form of Indictment.
An indictmeut charged a trader with obtaining goods on false pretences within four months of liquidation by arrangement, under 31 & 32 Vict., c. 62, s. 11, sub.s. 14, 15; but omitted to aver that defendant had liqui.
dated his affairs : Held good after verdict.- Regina v. Knight, 37 L.T. 801. Debtor and Creditor:(iii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.--Deed to Secure Advances- Recital of Debt
Specialty Creditor.--A deed between a company, A., and certain trnstees, recited that part of the purchase-money of collieries had been paid by A. for the benefit of the company, and A. thereby in consideration of the repayment of the money advanced being secured in manner therein appearing, conveyed the collieries to trustees upon trust to secure the purchase-money paid by the company, and secondly the purchase-money
so due to A." : Held that the deed did not constitute A. a specialty creditor of the company.-- Jackson v. North Eastern Rail. Co., L.R. 7
Ch. D. 573; 37 L.T. 664. (iv.) C. A.-Execution-Payment before Sale-Poundage.--A sheriff who,
having seized goods under a fi. fa., is paid out before sale, is entitled to
poundage.- Mortimore v. Cragg, 38 L.T. 116; 26 W.R. 363. (v.) C. A.-Erecution-- Payment before Seizure --- Poundage.-- Decision of
Ex. Div. (See Debtor and Creditor i., p. 12) affirmed.-Bissicks v. Bath
Colliery Co., 38 L.T. 163; 26 W.R. 365. Defamation:(iv.) C. A.-Libel-Felon-9 Geo. 4, c. 32, s. 3.- Decision of Ex. Div. (See
Defamation i., p. 49) affirmed.-Leyman v. Latimer, 37 L.T. 819; 26
(v.) C. P. Div.-Libel-Privilege-Fair Report.-A fair report in a news.
paper of ex parte proceedings before a magistrate for a summons under the Masters and Servants Act, 1867, is privileged, although the magistrate decide that he has no jurisdiction.-Usill v. Hales, Usill v. Brierley
Usill v. Clarke, 38 L.T. 65 ; 26 W.R. 371. Domicil: (i.) P. C.-Domicil of Choice.-M., a Scotchman by birth, went to live at
W. in that part of Australia which afterwards became Queensland, in 1851. In 1853 he married, and subsequently his wife and family, and himself generally, resided first in a house on a lease of five years, and afterwards in a house bailt by himself on land held on a long lease, both houses being in New South Wales : he died suddenly at W. where he still continued to possess a house and station in 1866 Held that he had acquired a domicil in New South Wales.-Platt v. Attorney-General
of New South Wales, L.R. 3 App. 336; 38 L.T. 74. Easement: (iv.) Q. B. Div.-Light and Air--Measure of Damages.-It is a proper direc
tion to a jury to tell them, in estimating damages for obstruction of ancient lights, that they are to consider, not only the purposes for which the obstructed premises are actually used, but also the purposes for which they might thereafter be used.-Moore v. Hall, L.R. 3 Q.B. Div. 178; 26
W.R. 401. (v.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Right of Way-Obstruction - Mandatory Injunction.
-Where, in spite of notice of plaintiff's claim to a right of way, deferdant built over and obstructed it, a mandatory injunction was granted.-Krehl
v. Burrell, L.R. 7 Ch. Div. 551. (vi.) Q. B. Div.-Support--Presumption of Grant.-Presumption arising
from long enjoyment of lateral support for buildings, may be rebutted by showing that no actual or implied grant was ever made, or that the ser. vient area had no means of resisting the enjoyment.-Angus & Co. v.
Dalton, L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 85; 47 L.J. Q.B. 163. Evidence :(viii.) C. P. Div.-Admissibility-Deceased. Vendor.--Statements of a deceased
vendor made at the time of the sale are admissible to identify property
sold.--Parrott v. Watts, 47 L.J. Ch. 79; 37 L.T. 755. (ix.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Admissibility--Colonial Register---Extract.
Extracts from Colonial registers of entries of marriages, baptisms, and burials are not receivable as evidence in support of pedigree unless it is proved that such registers are required to be kept by the law of the colony, and that the extracts are correct copies and signed by the regis.
trar, whose signature must be verified.-Evans v. Ball, 38 L.T. 141. (x.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Misrepresentation-Belief as to Truth.-In an action
against a vendor for misrepresentation on sale of goods, he cannot be asked whether a representation made by him, and proved to be untrue in fact and to his knowledge, was believed by him to be true.-Hine v.
Campion, L.R. 7 Ch. D. 344. Highway :(v.) C.A.- Dedication-Private Act. By a private Act of Parliament, Com.
missioners were appointed in whom were vested all roads, streets, and ways, on certain lands, then made or thereafter to be made and adopted by the Commissioners as public ways; and a plan of the lands was annexed, in which were marked out various proposed roads: Held that the powers of the Commissioners could not be exercised over lands scheduled in the Act and marked out as the site of intended roads, until the roads had been made and adopted by the Commissioners.Mackett v. Herne Bay Commissioners, 37 L.T. 812.
(vi.) Ex. Div.-Locomotive-24 & 25 Vict., c. 70, s. 3.—The shoes or bearing
surface of the wheels of a locomotive, used on a highway, must be uniform, smooth-faced bands at least nine inches wide and continuous round the whole of the wheel.-Body v. Jeffery, L.R. 3 Ex. D. 95 ; 38 L.T.
68 ; 26 W.R. 356. (vii.) Q.B. Div.- Repair-Contribution-48 5 Vict., c. 59,s.1.-An Act of Par.
liament authorised trustees to establish a ferry and make certain roads : no limit of time was specified for the expiration of the trust : Held that this was a turnpike trust within 4 & 5 Vict., c. 59; and that the non. completion of the whole scheme did not prevent the making an order for contribution to repair the roads made.- Regina v. French, L.R. 3 Q.B.D.
187; 26 W.R. 437. (viii.) C. C.R.-Repair- Prescription-Repairs by adjoining Parish.- Defend.
ants' township was one of seven into which a parish was divided, and there is an immemorable custom for each township to repair its own roads, with two exceptions : one exception was a road in defendants' township which had been repaired by the adjoining township; but there was no evidence of consideration for such repair: Held that there was no legal obligation on the adjoining parish to repair, and that defendants were liable for non-repair of this road.—Regina v. Inhabitants of Ardsley,
38 L.T. 71; 26 W.R. 405. Husband and Wife :-(xx.) P. D. A. Div.-Divorce-Adultery and Cruelty of Petitioner.-In a
husband's suit for dissolution the jury found that the petitioner had been guilty of adultery and cruelty and had infected his wife with a venereal disease, but that this had been condoned, and he had not by bis conduct conduced to the respondent's adultery : the Court dismissed the petition, and gave the wife general costs of the suit.- Wildey v. Wildey,
26 W.R. 239. (xxi.) P. D. A. Div.-Divorce--Collusion.—If by agreement between the
parties to a divorce suit, material facts which might have been adduced in support of a counter-charge against the petitioner are withheld from the Court, although such facts might not have established the counter. charge, such agreement will amount to collusion.—Hunt v. Hunt, 47
L.J., P.D.A. 22. (xxii.) P.D.A. Div.-Divorce--Settlement - Variation-Decree Nisi-Injunc.
tion. -A husband having obtained a decree nisi for divorce, gave instructions to his solicitor to file a petition for the variation of an alleged post-naptial settlement, under which the respondent had possessed her. self of £3,000 with which she bought a house : it appearing that she was about to dispose of the house, the Court granted an injunction restraining her from doing 80.- Noakes v. Noakes, 47 L.J. P.D.A. 20;
26 W.R. 284. (xxiii.) P. D. A. Div.--Divorce-Settlement -Variation- Pending Proceed.
(ings.—The fact that proceedings are pending in the Chancery Division to obtain administration of the trusts of a marriage settlement, is no answer to a petition under 22 & 23 Vict., c. 61, for variation of its pro. visions ; nor will the fact of the petitioner not having commenced pro. ceedings for more than five years after divorce constitute andue delay.
- Marsh v. Marsh, 26 W.R. 466. (xxiv.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.- Policy of Insurance-33 8 34 Vict., c. 98, s. 10.
- In this case (see Husband and Wife . xvi., p. 52), it appearing that the wife was in poor circumstances, so that the income of the policy moneys was insufficient to support her and her children, the moneys were dis. tributed as if the husband had died intestate.-In re Mellor's Policy
Trusts, L.R. 7 Ch. D. 200; 47 L.J. Ch. 246; 26 W.R. 309. (xxv.) P. D. A. Div.- Restitution-- Compromise of Suit.-A wife, having