Page images
PDF
EPUB

Master and Servant:(ii.) C. A.--Contruct for exclusive Personal Service-Maliciously Procuring

Breach of.-An action lies for maliciously procaring a breach of a con. tract to give exclusive personal service for a time certain, if damage accrues; though the employer and employed do not stand in the strict relation of master and servant.-Bowen v. Hall, L.R. 6 Q.B.D.

333; 44 L.T. 75; 29 W.R. 367. (iv.) C. P. Div.-Negligence-Scope of Authority.Defendants occupied

offices in a house over plaintiff's premises, and a clerk of defendants' went into a private room of one of the firm after his employer had left for the day, and washed his hands in a lavatory there, and left the water tap running, whereby plaintiff's premises were injured. The clerk had no business to enter the room : Held that defendants were not liable. Stevens v. Woodward, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 318; 50 L.J. C.P. 231 ; 44 L.T. 153;

29 W.R. 506. Metropolitan Management:(v.) C. A.-Drainage—25 & 26 Vict., c. 102, s. 6.- Decision of V.C. H. (see

Metropolitan Management ii., p. 21) affirmed.—Metropolitan Board of

Works v. L. & N. W. Rail. Co., 44 L.T. 270. Mines :(v.) C. A.-FixturesRight of Landowner--High Peak Customs.-Mivers

under the castoms of the High Peak in Derbyshire, are entitled to remove, during the continuance of their mining rights, buildings which they have erected for mining purposes on the surface of the land.

Wake v. Hall, 44 L.T. 42. (vi.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Forest of Dean-Forfeiture of Gale-1 & 2 Vict.,

c. 43, s. 29.-When a gale is forfeited for non-user under the provisions of the Forest of Dean Acts, the forfeiture is complete on service of the notice of forfeiture without actual re-entry by the Crown.-Ex parte

Young & Grindell, 50 L.J. Ch. 221; 43 L.T. 725. Mortgage :(xvii.) C. A.-Foreclosure Absolute–3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 27; 1 Vict., c. 28.-An

action was brought by a legal mortgagee, within twenty years next after an order of foreclosure absolute, to recover possession of the land : Held not to be barred by the Statutes of Limitations, though more than twenty years had elapsed since the legal estate in the land had been conveyed to the mortgagee and since the last payment of principal or

interest under the mortgage.- Heath v. Pugh, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 345. (xviii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.- Breach of Trust-Notice.—Three of four next of

kin of an intestate signed a memorandum authorising the fourth next of kin, F., who was also administrator, to borrow upon the security of cer. tain leaseholds belonging to the intestate's estate, such money as F. required for the purposes of the estate, and to charge their shares with the interest. This power was never exercised, and three years after. wards the administration accounts were finally settled. Subsequently F. borrowed money on the leaseholds for his own purposes, the mort. gage professing to be executed in pursuance of the authority. No notice of this was given to the other next of kin : Held that this mortgage did not affect the shares of the other next of kin, and that they were entitled to an assignment from the mortgagee of their shares of the mortgaged

property.--Jones v. Stöhwasser, L.R. 16 Ch. D. 577; 29 W.R. 497. (xix.) C. A.--Consolidation.-Two partners who held a lease of a house

determinable on their bankruptcy by re-entry, mortgaged it. They afterwards took a third person into partnership and agreed to hold the

equity of redemption in trust for the partnership. The new firm mort. gaged another house to the same mortgagee. On the bankruptcy of the firm the lessor determined the lease of the first house and re-entered : Held that the mortgagee had no right to consolidate.-Ex parte Williams, Re Raggett, L.R. 16 Ch. D. 117; 50 L.J. Ch. 187; 44 L.T. 4; 29 W.R.

314. (xx.) P. C.--Interest-Mistake-Settled Account re-opened.--Where a mort.

gagee's account has been settled on the footing of compound interest with balf-yearly rests, under a mistake by both parties, the account was

ordered to be re-opened.—Daniell v. Sinclair, L.R. 6 App. 181. (xxi.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Mortgagee in Possession-Redemption-Disability

—37 &. 38 Vict., c. 57, ss. 3, 7.—The twelve years' bar to redemption suits against a mortgagee in possession prescribed by sec. 7 of Real Property Limitation Act, 1874, absolute, and not affected by the provisions as to persons under disability in the third section.-Foster v.

Patterson, 29 W.R. 463. (xxii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Mortgagee in Possession-Rent exceeding Interest

-Accounts.-A mortgagee in possession brought a foreclosure action, and in his statement of claim did not allege that interest was in arrear when he took possession. The mortgagor alleged in bis defence that the rent received greatly exceeded the interest: Held that the accounts must be

taken with annual rests.- Carter v. James, 29 W.R. 437. Municipal Law :(ix.). Q B. Div.-Municipal Corporation-Malicious Prosecution-Costs of

Constable-5 & 6 Will. IV., c. 76, s. 82.-The chief constable of a borough haviny, by direction of the borough magistrates, laid an informa. tion against a person for conspiracy, an action for malicious prosecution was brought against him and a verdict recovered for £200 : Held that the town council could not order payment of the constable's costs out of the borough fund or rate under sec. 82 of 5 & 6 Will. IV., c. 76.- Regina

v. Mayor of Exeter, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 135; 44 L.T. 101; 29 W.R. 441. Negligence :(i.) C. P. Div.-Injury- Defective Railings.—A boy of four years accom.

panied his sister who went on business to defendant's house. The railings of the steps leading to the house door were defective, and the boy in consequence fell through the railings and was injured : Held that an action would not lie against defendant, as there was no concealed

danger.-Burchell v. Hickisson, 50 L.J. C.P. 101. (ii.) C. P. Div.-Injury-Driving in Public Thoroughfare.—A horse draw.

ing a brougham under the care of defendant's coachman, suddenly bolted and swerved on to the footway and injured plaintiff ; Held no evidence of negligence to go to the jury.-Manzoni v. Douglas, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 145 ;

50 L.J. C.P. 289; 29 W.R. 425. Partition:(vi.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Request for SaleMarried Woman-Conver.

sion-39 8. 40 Vict., c. 17, s. 6.- In a partition action an order for sale of a married woman's share of real estate, when made with her consent or at her request under sec. 6 of Partition Act, 1876, operates as a conversion of her share into personalty. Such request should be made by a person specially authorised to act on her behalf in the action. When her share of the proceeds of sale is under £200, the Court will order it to be paid out to her npon her separate receipt and on affidavit of no settlement, dispensing with her separate examination.-Wallace v. Greenwood, L.R. 16 Ch. D. 362; 50 L.J. Ch. 289; 43 L.T. 720.

(vii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Sale-Absent Parties—39 & 40 Vict., c. 17, s. 3.

Where, in a partition action asking for sale, all the parties interested are not before the Court, the judgment order should not be prefaced with an opinion of the Court that a sale is more beneficial for the persons interested than a partition.-Pragnell v. Batten, L.R.16 Ch. D.360; 50

L.J. Ch. 272; 43 L.T. 749; 29 W.R. 495. Partnership :(vi.) H. L.-ArticlesCovenant not to Assign-Assignment by one Partner

to Another.–Articles of partnership between A., B., and C., contained a clause that it should not be lawful for a partner to assign his share to any person or persons, and any such assignment was declared to have no effect as regarded the partnership. A. agreed to sell to B. his share in the partnership, but A.'s name was retained in the books, and C. knew nothing of the assignment till after A.'s death, when he sought to have it set aside : Held that the agreement was legal and did not infringe the

articles of partnership.---Cassels v. Stewart, L.R. 6 App. 64. Patent : (iii.) C. A.- Novelty--Infringement-Manufacture Abroad.—To prove want

of novelty in a patented process the prior publication must be that of such precise information as is required in a specification. The sale in England of an article made abroad by a process patented in England is an infringement of the patent.— Von Heyden v. Neustadt, 50 L.J.

Ch. 126. (iv.) P. C.-Renewal-Expired foreign Patent-Patentee's Accounts.-An

English patent may be renewed though a foreign one has been taken out and allowed to expire. A patentee applying for the prolongation of a patent should furnish a full and satisfactory account of all receipts

and payments.-Re Adair's Patent, L.R. 6 App. 176. (v.) P. C.- Renewal-Limitation of Application.—Prolongation of letters

patent for improvements in breaks granted, the new patent being limited to the application of breaks to certain specified machines.-Re Napier's

Patent, L.R. 6 App. 174. Poor Law:(vii.) Q. B. Div.-Rate - Refreshment Room Appeal— Evidence.- Upon

appeal to sessions against a rate in respect of premises occupied as a refreshment room at a railway station, and held at an annual rent under a lease, the appellant may give evidence of his actual receipts and ex. penditure to show that the value of the premises is less than the rent paid.-Clark v. Alderbury Assessment Committee, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 139; 50

L.J. M.C.33; 29 W.R. 334. (viii.) Q. B. Div.-Settlement Residence in Charitable Institution—9 & 10

Vict., c. 66, s. 1; 39 &• 40 Vict., c. 61, s. 34.-A pauper lunatic resided for more than three years at a home for penitents in appellant's union, where she was maintained by the funds of the institution. The home was supported by voluntary charitable donations: Held that the pauper had acquired a settlement in appellant's union.-Fulham Guardians v.

Isle of Thanet Guardians, 44 L.T. 138; 29 W.R. 470. Power of Appointment :(iv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-General Gift-Charge of Debts.-A fund was

settled on trust for A. for life, and after her death as she should appoint, with a gift over in default of appointment. A., by her will, gave all her real and personal estate to M. and L., in certain proportions, appointed an executrix, and charged her "said property” with payment of debts.

L. died before A., who died possessed of no other property than the fund sabject to her power of appointment: Held that the fund ought to be treated as her general personal estate.-Hinsley v. Ickeringill,

29 W.R. 500. Practice :(cii.) C. P. Div.-Acknowledgment by Married Woman-Infant — 3 & 4

Will. IV., c. 74, s. 84.-An indenture of settlement had been ordered by a Vice-Chancellor to be execated by a married woman, an infant. The C. P. Div. allowed the certificate of acknowledgment to be varied by omitting the words, “of full age.”— Re Lacey, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 154 ; 41

L.T. 110; 29 W.R. 442. (ciii.) C. A.-AppealCase Stated by Quarter SessionsJudicature Act, 1873,

s. 45. --When the Q. B. Div. in the exercise of its original common law jurisdiction, affirms or quashes an order of sessions, an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal, although no leave to appeal be given.— Regina v.

Savin, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 309. (civ.) C. A.-Appeal-Enlarging Time-Ord. 57, 7. 6.—Decision of C. P. Div.

(see Practice lii., p. 62) affirmed.-Carter v. Stubbs, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 116;

50 L.J. C.P. 161; 43 L.T. 746. (cv.) C. A.-Appeal- Motion to Set Aside Judgment-Misdirection-Refusal

to Withdraw from Jury.—When on a trial before a jury, the judge refused the defendant's application to withdraw the case from the jury on the ground that there was no evidence, and judgment was given for plaintiff : Held that a motion to set aside the judgment should be made to the Divisional Court, and not to the Court of Appeal. -Clarke v.

Midland Rail. Co., 44 L.T. 131. (cvi.) C. A.-Appeal--Notice by Respondent-Ord. 58, r.6.-A respondent who

seeks to have an order varied on a point in which the appellant has no interest, cannot proceed by notice under Ord. 58, r. 6; but must give notice of appeal.-— Re Cavander's Trusts, L.R. 16 Ch. D. 270; 50 L.J.

Ch. 292; 29 W.R. 405. (cvii.) C. A.- AppealPerson not a Party.-In an action by a plaintiff on

behalf of himself and all other foreign holders of Peruvian bonds, on a motion to appoint a receiver, L., who was not a party to the action, appeared, but the judge refused to hear him: Held that it was not

competent for L. to appeal.Watson v. Cave, 44 L.T. 40; 29 W.R. 433. (cviii.) C. A.- Appeal-Time-Order in Winding-up.- Leave to appeal from

an order made in a winding-up directing money to be paid to the liquidator, was given after the expiration of the time for appealing, when the principle on which the order appeaded from was founded had been over. ruled in another case in the Court of Appeal.- Re Normanton Iron and

Steel Co., 50 L.J. Ch. 223; 29 W.R. 300. (cix.) C. A.-Appeal-Withdrawal ofRevocation.—Defendant having given

notice of appeal, his solicitor wrote to plaintiff proposing to withdraw the appeal. Plaintiff gave his consent to this, and two days afterwards defendant's solicitor wrote revoking the withdrawal : Held that the agreement to withdraw the appeal was binding on defendant, and that if he wished to appeal he ought to apply for leave to give fresh notice of

appeal.Watson v. Cave (2), 44 L.T. 117. (cx.) P. D. A. Div.-Appeal to House of LordsDivorce-Decree Nisi,

It is improper to appeal direct to the House of Lords from a decree nisi for dissolution of marriage; and such an appeal will therefore not operate as a stay of proceedings.-Robertson v. Robertson, 44 L.T. 253.

(oxi.) Ch. Div. V.C.B.-Attachment_Notice of Motion for-Service-Ord. 44,

9.2.-A notice of motion for a writ of attachment to issue against a party

should be served personally.--Mann v. Perry, 50 L.J. Ch. 251; 44 L.T 248. (cxii.) C. A.-Contempt-Advertising pendente lite--Champerty.--To advertise

for documentary evidence pendente lite is not a contempt of Court; and advertisements addressed to persons having a common trade interest in a subject matter under litigation, soliciting subscriptions to prosecute the litigation, are not illegal.-The Plating Co. v. Farquharson, 29 W.R.

510. (cxiii.) C.A.-CostsAbandoned Appeal.-C.gave notice of appeal on December

20th but did not set it down. On January 11th he withdrew his notice, and the next day respondent wrote to C. saying that he had delivered briefs, and that unless C. would undertake to pay respondent's costs of the appeal, the usual proceedings would be taken to enforce payment. C. did not answer this letter. An order was made on respondent's motion that the appeal should be dismissed, and that C. should pay the costs of the appeal and of that application.—Charlton v. Charlton, L.R. 16 Ch. D. 273; 29

W.R. 406. (cxiv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Costs-Administration Action-Defaulting Executor.

--When two executors are defendants in an administration action, and retain the same solicitor, if one of the executors is indebted to the estate, the other executor will be allowed only his own costs out of the one set allowed, and the taxing-master will be left to appropriate them.

-Smith v. Dale, 29 W.R. 330. (cxv.) Ch. Div. V.C. B.-Costs-Administration-Disputed Accounts.—The

residuary legatee having objected to certain items in accounts of the personal estate furnished by the executors, and they not allowing her objections, she brought an action to have the accounts taken under the direction of the Court. Her objections were sustained, and the executors were ordered to pay the costs of the action.—Pearce v. Redclyffe, 44 L.T.

96; 29 W.R. 420. (cxvi.) Ex. Div.-Costs-Case stated by Quarter SessionsCosts to follow

EventTaxation.—A case stated and signed by a chairman of quarter sessions, after stating the question submitted to the Q. B. Div. contained the clause, “costs to follow the event." The Q. B. Div. quashed the order of quarter sessious and decided in favour of plaintiff, but said nothing as to costs : Held that plaintiff was entitled to the costs incurred in the argument of the case, and also costs of applications to quarter sessions, pending the decision of the Q. B. Div.; and that the taxation of the costs was not a condition precedent to his right to bring an action to

recover them.-Lear v. Botting, 44 L.T. 58. (cxvii.) Q.B. Div.-CostsCase stated by Quarter SessionsCivil Proceedings

Ord. 62, r.2.-When a case is slated by sessions upon appeal against a poor-rate, the proceeding is a civil proceeding on the Crown side of the Q. B. Div. within Ord. 62, r. 2, and the costs are therefore within the discretion of the Court.-Clarke v. Alderbury Assessment Committee,

L.R. 6. Q.B.D. 139; 50 L.J. M.C.33; 29 W.R. 334. (cxviii.) Q. B. Div.-CostsCrown side of Q.B. Div.-Ord. 62, rv. 2, 6.-Ord. 62

does not enable the Court to give costs in criminal proceedings on the Crown side of the Q. B. Div. on appeal from sessions. - Regina v.

Baxendale, 29 W.R. 335. (cxix.) P.D. A. Div.-Costs - Divorce-Queen's Proctor.-When a decree pisi

is pronounced, and upon the intervention of the Queen's Proctor, the decree absolute is abandoned and also the suit, and there is no answer by the petitioner to the Queen's Proctor's plea, or payment of the costs of

« PreviousContinue »