« EelmineJätka »
ment of a guardian to the plaintiff and nis brothers UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS IN THE CAWDRON (John), Bronston, Lincoln, farmer.
June 21 ; and sisters ; directions for the inaintenance and
BANK OF ENGLAND.
H. K.H eel, solicitor, Lincolu.
Chitty (Edwd.), Guildtord and Surbiton, Surrey, miller, education of the plaintiff during his minority, Transferred to the Coinmissioners for the Reduction of the
bay 27; Mers, Harrison, solicitors, i, Walbrook, E.C. National Debt, and which will be paid to the persons having regard to the circumstances of his bro
COLBY (Janel, si, St. Thoinas-street, Weymouth. June 12; resectively whose names are prefixed to each in three
Meal aud Daubeny, solicitors, 2, King's Bench-walk, thers and sisters ; accounts ; and a receiver. The inonths, unless other claimants rooner appear.) CAROUX Ferdinand
Temple, E.C. solicitor employed by the next friend died pending
Richard), merchant. CAMBROUX
COLDHAM (Sarah E.), the Park, Nottingham. June 1; (Ferdinand Ferguson, Weymouth-street, gentlemann, and the suit. The plaintiff, on attaining majority, SMITH Rev. Saunael), Wells-street, Camberwell, one divi.
Entield and Dowson, solicitore, Low Parement, Notting
ham. adopted the suit. On a petition presented under dend on the sum of 2:3 New Three per Cent Annuities.
COLEMAN Robert), Wandsworth, Surrey, and 2, Royal Ex23 & 24 Vict. c. 127, s. 28, by the personal repreClainant ruid Ferdinand Richard Camronx.
change Buildiuva, E.C. June 15, Pritcharti and Sons, FRANKLIN Tuom.), Paradise-row, Islington, gentleman, sentative of the solicitor, for an order charging
soliciors. 19, Great knight Rider-street, Duciors' Coma FRANKLIN (Lidin, his wife, and FORBES Wm. Gordon, a
mous, E.C. the plaintiff's real estate" preserved ” by the suit minor, En Tree per Cent. Annuities. laimant, Eliza
COLLYER (Robert), Harworth-upon-Tecs, Durham, gentle
Marianne Forbes, widow, aciministratrix of Win. Gordon with the solicitor's costs : Keld, that the peti.
man. June 1; Hutchinson and Lucas, solicitors, DarForbes, duceascu, who was the survivor.
lington. tioner was entitled to the relief prayed : (Baile v. Porsen Thox. Henry Allen, Esi. Upper Brook-street,
CLULAI (Jas.). Little Horton. Drailford, farmer, July 17; Baile, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 283. V.C. W.)
Middlesex, PURVIS Frederick, Beriforu-row, W.C., gen.
Peel, solicitore, 19, Chapel-lane, Bradlord.
coln's-inn-fields, W.6., 2:115 Ex. M. Three per Ceut. An. DRUMMOND (Darin S.), 13, Westbourne-terrace, Hyde-park, AND DELIVERY OF BANK PASS-BOOK--CHEQUE nuities. Claimant said Thos. Heury Allen Poynder.
Middlesex, and 62, Marine-parade, Brighton, June 20; NOT PRESENTED DURING DONOR'S LIFETIME.
SHARWOOD (Sainuel), Esq., Ramsvate, Kent, two rividends Garrard and James, solicitolo, 13, Suffolk-street, Pal Mali on the sum of ey Annuities for thirty years. Claimant,
East, S.W. The delivery of the donor's bank pass-book, Geo. Wild, one of executors of Samuel Sharwood, deceased. DUNX Thos!, Pendleton, near Manchester engineer, June together with a cheque on his banker, which was SPERHY (Jas., E., Clarence-villa. Cheltenham, te los. 10d.
18; 'T'. Southam, solicitor, !, St. James's-suare, Man. Annuities for 30 years. Claimant, Elizabeth Sperry, not presented until after the donor's death, does
chester. widow, sole exccutrixoi James Sperry, decensed.
EDs Charles E.), 10, Bedford-street, Bedforil-square, W.C.. not constitute a good donatio mortis causâ : (Beak TAYLOR' Violet, Letbury. Gioncestershire, spinster. 473 a clerk in the Bank of England, May S; E. D. Pyne, v. Beak, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 281. V.C. B.) Reluced Three per Cent. Annuuties. Claimant, said
Bellevue House, Sidcup, Chinehurst, Kent,
EYRE Joshiun H.), 3), Carey-street, Lincoln's-inn-fields, PRACTICE--AFFIDAVIT OF DOCUMENTS-PART
WHISTLER (Anne), 28. Pulteney-street, Bath, spinster. Two Middlesex, law stationer. May 29; Vizard and Co, soliciNERSHIPACCOUNTS-EXECUTORS.-Theexecutors dividends on the sun of Kos. MI New Three per Cent. tors, :), Lincoln's-in-fields, W.C. of a deceased partner, two of whom were also Annuities, Claimants, John Wynch and John Henry Fernah' (Thomas), 9, Ledbury-rond, Westbourne-grove, members of the firm, employed part of their testaBenbow, executors of Anne Whistler, deceased.
Middiesex, gentleman. Muy 17; R. Wright, solicitor, 57,
Lincoln's-inn-nelds, W.C. tor's assets in the business of the firm in which
FORMBY Maria H., Coornbe Head House, Somerset, and
APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK 37, Park-street, Grosteur-nare, Middlesex. June 1; there were also other members. A bill was filed
T. J. Brembridge, solicitor, bampiylde-street, Exeter. against the executors for the administration of ROYAL NAVAL MILITARY AND EAT INDIA COMPANY LIFE
FRANKLYX George W., Esq., Lovel-hill, near Windsor, the testator's estate, and for an account and pay. ASURANCE SOCIETY. --Creditors to send in by, May 10 their Berks. May 10; T. Fortune, solic.tor, 2, Serjernt's-inn, ment of that portion of it which was employed in
Danes and addresses, and the particulars of their claims, Chancery-lane, W.C.
Fry Elizabeth' G.), 6, Percival-place, Ealing, Middle-ex. the partnership business. The defendants, in their to S. P. LW, 5.1, Prırlinumtnt-Etiert, Westminster, the May 31; R. Nution, solicitor, 4, Orchard-street, Portinan. affidavit of documents, refused to produce certain otticinl liquidator of the raid company. May 5, at twelve
Middlesex. documents on the grounds that they were in the
o'chock, ai the chambera of V.C. M., is the time appointed
GARDINER Thomas G.). Esq., Twickenham, Middlesex, join possession of the firm. The plaintiff excepted UXBRIDE AND HICKMAX-WORTH RAILWAY COMPANY.-
June 201; Smith and Moore, solicitors, Richmond, Surrey. to the sufficiency of this affidavit. Held, that the
Creditors to senti in by May 16, their nanes and actresses,
GISBORNE ker. James, Croxail Vicarake, Derby, cleak. defendants must set out in their affidavit a list of and the particulars of their claims, and the unes and
June 13; Bass and Jennings, solicitors, Burton.uponaddresses of their moiicitors if any., to Major Charles
Trent. all the documents in the joint possession of the Leinax, King“- cross Railway Station, Middlesex, the
GOODILART Alice), York House, Cumberwell, Surrey, June firm : (Vyse v. Foster, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 282. otticia liquidator of the said company, May 23, at twelve
X; Tumplin and Tajler, soucitors, 101, benchurch-street,
o'click, at the chambers of V.C. M., is the time appointed
GOVEX Eleanor', 29, St. George's-rond, Pimlico. May 13; PRACTICE - SPECIAL CASE AMENDJENT.
Parker und Co., Soncitors, in St. Paul's Churchyard, E.C.
GREES David, Isy.. Jontvile, St. diary Church, Devon. Where, after a special case had been set down for CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. June 1; Cresitelj.'layautir, solicior, Toruny. hearing. one of the parties, who was a spinster
LAST DAY OF PROOF.
GWYTHER (Erwin, Esad.Tudor House, liarborne-road, when the case was set down, married, the court,
ANDREWS (Samuel), Pershore, Worcester, maltster and Edy baston, Warwick. June 1; Tyncall and Co., kolaci.
Inner. day 1"; Fraucis W. P. Wastall, solicitor, tors, 31, Waterloo-street, Birmingham. for the purpose of making the husband a party, Pershore. May 3; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock.
HIOFKEN (Gerhard', 19, Pitt-treet, L'verpool, licensed ordered the original order for setting the case
ANGUS Charlotte A. 1,2, Harcourt-terrace, West Brompton, vic:aller. Blity :31; Holden und Clewier, solicitors, 37, down to be discharged, the case to be amended,
Millesex. May 1; G. Henderson, solicitor, 21. Fen- Dule-street, Liverpool.
chnicki-strect, E.C. June :3; V.C. W., et twelve o'clock. HOST Geo... Esu. Brentford Betts, Middlesex; July 1; and an application to be made for setting the BAKER Elizabeth, Xewton-lodze, Newton Resis, Warwick. John Taylor, souciior, Bale Well, Derbyshire. case down again : (Aldy v. Etough, 26 L. T. Rep.
May 3; Eand T. Fisher, solicitors, Ashby-die-la-Zouch, Kini Chis,', She;ton Mal.et, Somnurset. July 1; Geo. M.
L certor. June 12; V.'', W., at twelve v'clock.
Mackay, solicitor, Shepton Ma let.
LAMBERT Thomas VUISANCE
Middlesbrough, North Ridiny, York, GLASS WORKS SMOKE AND 21; U. Browu, solicitor, 7, Walbrook, L.C. June 3; M.R. inukreper. July 1; J. T. Buik, walcitor, Corporation-ball, VAPOUR-DELAY-INJUNCTION.- The owners of at eieren o'clock.
Middlesbrough, BOYCE Eiizalth, Ashill, Yorfolk. May 18; Henry B. B. certain glass works which were erected in 1815,
LATIMER Elizabeth S.', 21, Toll-square, North Shields,
Manon, soicawr, Werehala. May si; M. R., at eleven Northumberland. May 31; E. Leanbater, solicitor, St. erected in the year 1847 and subsequent years o'clock.
John's Chambers, Gramger-stret West, Newcastle-upondown to 1363 seven new furnaces, which lai cely
BOYCE John. A hill, Norfolk, gentleinan. Mny ln H. B. B. Tyne.
Mason, soucitor, Werehan. May yl; M. R., at eleven increased the aniount of smoke and vapour which o'clock.
LONSDALE : Rt. Hon. Wm. Earl of), Lowther Castle, West. was emitted from their works. The plaintiff, who BIOWY Jas,!, Westbourne, Sussex, innkeerer.
morclaud; of Whitehaven Castle, Cumberland; of St.
May 10; was the owner of property adjoining the works
C.N. Linzer fi, solicitor, 13. Lincolu's-inu.fields, W.C.
Anne's Barnes, Surrey, and Carlton-ternice, Middlesex.
June 1; Ellis and Ellis, solicitors, lt, Spring-Kardens, Max'); V.C. W., at tipire o cinck.
Westminster, S.W. which he and his predecessors in titlo had enjoyed Tid William, tin, Witbank-street, Westminster, and 21, long antecedent to the erection of the works, had
Adelleputh-road, Brixton, miller. May $; E. P. Phipott,
MAKIN Wm.. Preston St. Mary, Snfiolk, farmer, June 1; soliciwr, ol, Cheapside, E.C. May 23; V.C. W., at twelve
Robinson and Co., solicitors, Hadleih, Susfolk. at considerable expense prepared a portion of his o'clock
MCQUIAL Rev. Stair, D.D., St. Erox, Bownhams, Southestate for building purposes, but in consequence FOWLER (Geo.', Newington - terrace, Kennington - park,
uinpton. June 1; Stead, Tylee, and Potter, solicitors,
Konsey. of the smoke and vapours from the glass works
Surres, surxeon. May 30; F. C. Greenfield, solicitor, 3,
VESLOVE" (Amelin), Wheatsheaf Inn, Newtown, Monthe had been unable to let the land for that pur. o'clock.
gomery. May 20; Woosnam and Tulbot, solicitors, Newpose.
town. Upon a bill filed in March 1870, for an in. GREGORY Wm.), 10, Adelaide-road North, St. John's-wyood, N.W., Out!!, Clement's-in., W.C., solicitor. May 2:
Monks (Robert), , Denmark-terrace, Bethnal-green, junction to restrain the emission of smoke and
P. B. Matthews, solicitor, !, Lincoln's-inn-fields, W.C.
Middlesex, kentleman. Diay ); H. W. Davie, nuliciiur, vapours from the new works : Held, that the June 6: V.C.W., at twelve o'clock.
Newann, Sirari, WV.C. plaintiff was not barred by delay, but that he was HARDY (John), Poole, a retired fariner. May ; Aldridge
JOSELEY (Ronert. Derby, painter. May 6; S. Leech, soli. and Harker, solicitors, l'oule. June t; V.U. W., ut tweve
citor, 1, Full.street, Derby entitled to an injunction as to the whole of the
NORTHCROFT Mary A., Golinli, Chlon St. Peter. Ducknew works, although one of the chimneys was HERRING Thos. F.), Ewell, Surrey, leer retailer. May 24;
uchun. June 1; R. H. Larralt, solicitor, Sluugn,
Binck. erected inore than twenty years before the filing
Henry T. Areline, solicitor, Epsom, Surrey. June ;
PARKER (James', Passer-honsa, Brachley-mond, Rekenham of the bill : (Sarile v. Kilner, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. Hill (Jas.), The Rookery, Streatham, Surrey, and 176,
Kent, feuleman. July 1; A. Bewaii, solicitur, 27, Lone 277. V.C. B.)
Shoreditch, tobacconist, May 1; T. B. Tanqueray
bardi-strert, E.C. Wulanme, solicitor, 31, New Broad-street, E.C. May 23;
PARKER Thomas;, 19, Druskick-senare, Cambrrel, Sur. V, C. M., it twelve o'clock.
ses: gentleman. June 1:0. Richards, soucitor, lv, WarJUDGES' CHAMBERS. HURT John!, Temple Cowley, Oxford, farmer. May 29;
wicktret Rexelt tries, W. P. L. Walsu, sonci or. 9, st. Giles's-street, Oxford, June
PAKRATT John, esinlen-roa!, Essex, hnilder. June 19; Friday, April 19. j; V. C. W., at twelve o'clock.
G. F. Truscott, soliitr... Ja rock-row, bitir. (Before Master UNTHANK.) LINCOLN Benjamin, il-hill. Hendon. Middlesex, gentle.
PARSONS Frances), truncombe, Somerset. June 10; Whid. May 11; J. Pike, solicitor, 20. Old Burlington.
borne anl Tozer, soicitors, Teianmouth. LEVY AND ANOTHER 1. FREAME AND OTHERS.
street, W. May *: V. C. W., at one o'clock,
PEARCE Lieut-Coi. Wm.), K. H. Firsdrech, Brecon. June MORGAN Rev. Edward, Syrton, Leicester. May 10;
12; Ths. Oakley. U nnouth. Ejectment- Von-production of deed of assignment. Samuel Harris, solicitor, Leicester. May 23; V.C. N.
PEARCE (Wm. W., South-end-green, Hampstead, X.W., This is an action of ejectment to recover posses.
at twelve o'clock.
and 100, New Bond-street, W., dealer in pictures, June 1; PROCTOR Thos.), Leamington Priors, Warwick, lodging R. Dixon, solicitor, :), Finsbursquare, B.C. sion of two houses at Brockley Rise, in the county housekeeper. May S; A. S. Field, solicitor, Learnington
PENNY Sirah B., The Cape of Good Hope', public-house, of Kent, for breaches of covenant in a building Priors. May; V.C. W. at one o'clock.
St. Aune, Liinehon-e, Aliddlesex. July 1:; F. Taylor, lease, the breaches being the non-payment of rent RIDDY (Jas... Ashridge, Herts, house steward to the
solicitor, 19, Old Burlington-street, W. Countess of Bridgewater. May 1; Bell anu Steward,
Procerr Geo.. Moseley, Worcester, gentleman. June 1; and the non-production of a deed of assignment of
solicitors, 19. Lincolu's lun.bielus, W.C. June j; M. R. at
Tyndal and Co., solicitors, 51, Waterloo-street, Birming. the houses, subject to the charges thereon, within cleven o'clock.
lum. one month from execution, to the los-or's solicitor
RUDDY Thos.), Chobham, Surrey, gentleman. May 21 ;
PITMAS Joseplı), Esq, The Hill, Amblecote, Stafford. P. W. Lovett, solicitor, , Now Inu, Strand, W.C. Junej;
June 21; Rutter and Co., coliciturs, co, Darlington-sirvet, for registration and payment of his fee of a M. R. at eleven o'clock.
Wolveriar pon. guinea.
SAWYER Sophia , i, Vincent. quare, Westminster. May ll;
POTT as, E., Kennet Pans Hous, Clackmannan, X.B., W'. G. Harrison, counsel for the defendants, now Ilm. Rutier, solicitor, 1. Kinn's Bench-walk, Temple,
gentleman. May 0; Currey and lolland, solicitors, 16, E.C. Jay : V.C.M., at 12 o'clock.
Gient tearre-street, Westminster, applied to stay the action upon payment of the SONERNET LovariTidexwell, Derby, innkeeper and POTTER Thor., 21, Wellington-road, St. John's-1001, Midrent and the solicitor's fee, and
farmer. May 27; Jas. W. Taylor, solicitor, Buaivn, Derby.
dle-ex, kentleman. May sl; Bicknell an Hortin, soli. June 5; V.C. B., at 12 o'clock.
citorx, 161, Edgware.roal, Hyre-park, Viudies Joyce (instructed by culomon, of Finsbury. YORKE Damud, Esq., slexander-square. Brompton,
POWELL (Jus., Sidbury, Worerster, land urte's ors' clerk. place) appeared on behalf of the plaintifis.
Middlesex, a Feilut of St. Catherine's! Olexe, Cambre May 1; T. R. Huxley, solicitor, 7, l'ierpoint.striet, Wor
(ster. It appeareil from the allidavits that the deed in May luz, W. J. Jarrett, solicistir, o's, Lincoins-inu-fielus,
W.C. May 21; M. R., at ll o'clock.
POWELL (Wm.), 11, High-street, Camden Town, N.W., question had been tendered for registration, but
feulleman. Day 31; Suffers and Huntles; solicitors, retused, as a month had elapsed after its execu.
Pne Thos. 2. Great St. Helen's, E.C., and 16, Heathtion before it was tendered, and also that the rent had been from time to time tendered, and also
Last Day of Claim, and to tchom Particulars to be sent.
cot strett J. cklenburgh-scillane, jliddlesex, lup loker,
May 1!); G. F. Hudoli, Matthewis, and Co., suiiciturs, Allrx Heury W.), Chadwell-heath, Dagenham. Esser, , Bucklesbury, E.C. refused, on account of the breach of covenant.
famer. April 30; Turner and Son, soncitor, 7, Leaden. PRITCHETT (Mary, Lilywood road, Birmingham. Junel ; After hearing the comsel on both sides at streri, E.C.
Tyndall and Co., Solicittrs, S., Waterlojevice, Binning length, the Master made an order, that upon
BAXTON (Marthew, Wigan, and Mere Oaks. Langtree, Lan. hann.
caster, iron merchant. May 20; Leigti and Ellis, solicitors, i QUIDDINGTON (Nathaniel A.), 5, Albemarle street, Hanorer. jayınent of the rent and solicitor's fee into court,
syuare; and 17, The Grov, Hammersanit Midale sex, the proceedings as to them to be stiyed, and left BAYLY Mary), Deninark-terracc, Brighton. June 1; Winter tailor. July 15; F. Taylor, solicitui, 19, Ulu Burlington: the defendants to apply to the Court of Chancery BOILER John, E., Kirby llous, Inkpen, Berks. June
and Co., sulleitors, 16, Bedford-row, W.C.
REYNOLDS Maria', !0, Great Charlotte-street, Blackiriars, for an injunction to stay the action in respect of 1 ; Wilkinson and Co., solicitors, St. Yeo's, Hunts.
Surrey. May :7: Fox and Robins 1, sv.icitusGres: the non-production of the deed of assignment CALVERT Wm.; Erl, Acomb-in-the-a insty, York. Aug. ham House, Old Brondistreer, L.C. ivithin the month, according to the covenant con
1: W. and C. R. Garwood, solicitors, York.
RIDDELL Elvarl F.), Esq. Chieseburn (range, North.
CATHERWOOD Ketural), 93, Camberwell-road, Camberwell. unberinod. May 31; E. Leadbitter, soicitur. St. John's tained in the lcase.
Junel; Cowded and Co., solicitors, 20, Budge-ruw, E.C. Chainbers, Granger-street West, Newcacistijon-Tyne.
poid for L).
Robin (sarah), 17. Baxenlleurver,
MAGISTRATES' LAW, plaintiff had not waived that forfeiture by claim. Hackney. :d, Jiddlesex. May 10; boj's an Twen dies, solicitors, Luculu's-iun-telus.
ing a forfeiture by non-paymeni of subsequeatly RONALDS (Joan). Weymouth, Dornet, anl Brentford. Miil.
NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS.
accrued rent: (Toleman v. Portbury, 26 L. T. Rep. dlesex. toontlininn. July ; B schic:f and Co., scilors, 4, Great Winchester-street buildings, E.C.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - MORTGAGE OF
N. S. 292. Ex. Ch.)
June 10); J. Holland, solicitor. Ho chinle.
street-load, Clerkonwell, bude X. Mas 1.: Jam and therein mentioned, by mortgage of the general 'John Hongood, solicitors, lia, Whitrail.place, S.W.
NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. SMITH (Sir Peter), C.B., *, Ner l'inchly-roal, Middlesex. district rates, in the form of mortgnge prescribed May $l; Barnes nud Bernarıl, solicitor-, 11, Great Win- by the Act no time was specified for the repay. TENEMENT-Kights AND LIABILITIES OF Com.
CANAL COMPANY-MINES HELD AS A SEPARATE chester-street, E.C. SNEEZIM (Chas.,, II, Camberwell-roal, Surrey. wina mer.
ment of the money ; and the only mode of repay. chant. May 13 : G. Fry, solicitor, c, Mars-lan, E.C. ment mentioned in the Act was that the corpora. PANY AND MINE OWNERS.-By a canal Act it SPICE! Jo W.: Kingstone Hertom: Water: tion should yourly and every year pay off £100, was provided that no owners of any mines should
, painter. May 97; R. B. Pngli, suliciwr, .. foril, Herts.
at the least, of the moneys borrowed on the credit carry on any work for the getting of coal or Tuosox David), 27, l'pper Berkeley-street. Pirmin.
of the Act, and the particular mortgage to be paid minerals within 12yds. from the canal, or any reSumme, silesex, baker. June 3; J. Hudsuni, sulci ur, 1, Fenchurch-buildings, E.C.
off was to be ascertained by ballot. On a bill servoir to be made by the canal company ; nor TOIKES Art E. c Clifton-villus, Sembo e-hi?. tilel by a mortgagee to have the principal in neys should any coals or other minerals be got under Forest-hiil, , auil 11E.C.. chvat. Play, 31; D.uce una tv., boncitors, i, isillter: owing to him paid off and for a receiver: Heid, any part of the canal or towing paths thereunto Nare, E.
that the inortgagee was not entitled to be paid the belonging, or any such reservoir, or under any TUISER (Thos.), Tettenhall, near Wolverhampton. June?!; principal sums owing to him, except by the means land or ground lying within the distance of 12yde. Gough and Colebourn, solicitors, 13, King-street, Wola and in the manner provided by the local Act. of either side of the canal, or any reservoir, except
as thereinafter mentioned, without the consent of D. Cowke, solicitor, -", Devereux-court, Temie, El. parish rates : (Preston v. The Corporation of Great | the company. It was also provided that when the WENTACOTT (Gen., Miire-squar, E., buildirmi corafor: June?!: Riving wu aud Sun, soiicitur, -, Feuchurch Yarmouth, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 235. V.C. B).
owner of any coal mine, &c., lying under the canal, buildings, E.C.
towing paths, reservoir, &c., or within the distance
thereinbefore limited, should be desirous of work. REPORTS OF SALES.
ing the same, then such owner should give notice REAL PROPETY AND
of his intention to the company three months beFriday, April 19. B; Vosers. Joxes and RAGGETT, at Red Lion Hotel, High
fore he should begin to work such mines lying as Wycombe.
aforesaid ; and upon the receipt of such notice it Bucks, Totteriilge. Bunce's Farın, of 9:28. 2r. 90p., with role at homesteu-sole for £1110.
NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS.
should be lawful for the company to inspect such High Wycombs. No. 19, Easton-street, freehold-soid for
mines in order to determine what conl or other
LANDLORD AND TENANT-LESSOR AND LESSEE minerals might be come at and gotten without No, j, Queca's-square, freehold-sold for £350.
EQUITABLE ASSIGNMENT OF Fars BY LESSEE prejudice to the canal, &c.; and is the company Thursday, April 18.
PAYMENT OF RENT TO LANDLORD BY LESSOR. should neglect to inspect such mines within thirty By Messrs. NEWBON and HARDISG, at the Mart. - The plaintiff, being tenant of a farm to L. under days next after the receipt of such notice. then the Batters. Sos. 1 to 7, Meeting Hous--101, long leaseho'd- a lease from Michaelmas 1858, for seven, fourteen, l owners of such mines were authorised to work Funum. A vround-rent of £17 per annum, term 82 years
or twenty-one years, at the option of the tenant, such part of the said mines as lay under the nal, All for $170.
at a rent of £80 a year, payable half-yearly, &c., or within the distance aforesaid ; and if upon A dirto of Lil Ing. per annum--sold for £160.
entered into an agreement with the defendant by inspection the company should refuse to permit Nox, 6 to 9, Caroline-place, term 8! years-sold for 130. An improved ground-rent of £9 per annum, term 20 years
& memorandum of agreement in writing, but not the owners of the mines to work such part of the Bold for £130.
under seal, dated the 10th March 1869, to assign mines lying as aforesaid, or any part thereof 28 By Mr. H. E. MARSH, at Guildhall Tavern.
the residue of his interest in the premises to the they might have come at and gotten, then the Stratford. Sugar House-lane, manufacturing premises, defendant, who thereupon entered and occupied company should, within three calendar months
term 11 years--sold for £11.). Battersea. A freehold ground-rent of £15_108.--8old for the farm. No legal assignment was ever actually pay to the owners the value thereof. Another
executed because L.,the landlord, refused to give his cause of the Act provided that nothing in the Friday, April 19.
written licence, which, under the terins of the lease Act contained should defeat the right of any Bs Messrs. NORTON, TRIST, WATSEY, and Co., at the Mart. Nortins-hill. No. 10, Ladbroke-zrove, freehold-sold for
to the plaintiff, was a necessary requisite of a vaiid owner of lands or grounds in, upon, or through
assignment of his term. The defendant, in March which the canal, &c. should be made, to the mines Cirs. No, ,, Devonshire-square, freehold-area 1700ft.-sold 1870, gave notice to L. of his intention to quit the lying within or under the lands or grounds to be Wppin. Xo. 34, Great Hermitage-street, freehold-sola farm at the ensuing Michaelmas, which he accord. set out or made use of for such canal, but all
ingly did. He paid rent for the farm, during the such mines were reserved to such owners respecTuesday, April 23.
time he was in occupation of it, to L. for the tively; and that it should be lawful to such BY DI:E8rø. FAREBROTHER, CLARK, and Co., at the Mart. Peckham-rye. A plot of irtehold land, containing ta.or.jip.
plaintiff, but he was never accepted as tenant by owners, subject to the conditions therein con:
L., though the latter never actually objected to tained,' to work all such mines, provided that No. 1, Pecklam-rye, freehold--sold for 6700
his occupation, otherwise than by withholding his in working such mines no injury be done to the A £ A freebola residence, known as the Red House--sold for licence as above mentioned, and he might, had he said navigation. Plaintiffs, the owners of coal
80 chosen, have continued in occupation of the mines under the canal, gave notice of their inten. Xos. Tand, Sternhall-place, freehold-sold for £1'0 each. premises, which, in fact, remained empty and un- tion to work the mines to the company, who did No. , adjoiuiny-sold for £370. A frisbell trend-rent of 225 per annum, short reversion occupied after Michaelmas. In March 1871, the not inspect, and refused to purchase them. After
sold 2) Two pluts of freehold land, containing 02. 2r. Cop.-sold for for the rent of the farm from the preceding to work the mines in an ordinary and proper
plaintiff, being called upon by L., paid him £40 the expiration of the notice, plaintiffs proceeded A pot of building land, containing 40a. 1r. 15p.-sold for Michaelmas, and then brought the present action manner, but without regard to the surface, and
. Borough. No. 210, Kent-street, and a plot of land, freehold him, either upon an implied indemnity, or as rent, that the effect would be to let down the snrface
against the defendant to recover that amount from without attempting to support it, and knowing No. 1, ndjoining --sold for £310.
or for use and occupation, and it was held by the and probably dislocate the strata, and that the Vos. 34, 35, 4, 12, and 44, Sleaford-street, free. Court of Exchequer (Martin, Bramwell, and hobi-sold for i.
water from the canal might escape into the mines; Bethulren. A freehold ground-rent of 231 10s. per Pigott, BB.) that, the plaintiff was not entitled to and the result
of their working was that the strata maintain his action, there being no implied pro. became dislocated, and the mines were flooded Southwark. Cliuk-street, Winchester-wharf, term 21 yeais, mise, on the defendant's part, under the circum- with water from the canal, which percolated into bo.d for 4:00. By Mesurs. DEBENHAM, TEwsox, and FARMER.
stances, to indemnify the plaintiff against rent them through the fissures. The canal company Lower Kentington-lane. Nos. 109 and 171, copyhold-sola accruing due after the defendant had ceased actu. had done all they could to keep the canal waterNo. 107, adjoining-sold for £1230.
ally to occupy the premises, nor any relation of tight, and the canal was, at the time of the com,
landlord and tenant existing between them, en. No. 1, Clever-street, term 61 years, subject to a life aged 47 titling the plaintiff to recover the amount in ques. they were guilty of no negligence, unless it was
mencement of the working, in good order; and yenrixold for £125. Lower Kennington-lane. Nos. 116, 119, and 120, and No. 46. tion, either in the shape of rent, or as a compen.
their duty to have let the water out of the canal Upper Kenninston-lane, term 10 years--sold for 6360. sation for use and occupation : (Crouch v. Tre- while plaintiffs were working the mines. PlainNo. 53. Harleyford-road, terın 12 years--sold for £16. Walworth-ruad. No. 1:35, East-street, term 15 years-sola gonning, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 286. Ex.)
tiffs having brought an action against the com. Russell-square. No. 24, Bernard-street, term 21 years-sola BREACH OF COVENANT-WAIVER OF CLAIMS.- water which had flooded them : Held (per Cock.
LANDLORD AND TENANT - FORFEITURE BY pany for the damage done to the mines by the Epsom. A freehold building site, one-fifth of an acre--sold The plaintiff demised a house by lease, creating a burn, C.J., Mellor and Lush, JJ., dissentiente
forfeiture upon breach of lessee's covenants, one Hannen, J.), that the action could not be main. Margate.--No 09, Trinity.square, freehold-sold for £310. No. 2, Bath-ronul, freehold sold for 2:10.
of which was not to permit a sale by auction on tained; the proximate and immediate cause of the Claphan-commou, Nightingale-lane. A plot of land, soft, by the premises; another was to pay rent within a injury done to the plaintiffs' mine being their own ft.-sold fur L.
certain time. The lessee executed a bill of sale of wilful and intentional act, done with a knowledge Four plots-solid for £1200. Poplar. Nos. 17 and is, Thomas-street, term 39 years--sola his goods, by which he agreed that in case of de that the injury would be the probable consequence
fault the mortgagees of the goods might sell and of the act so done by them; and the defendants IVed acrilay, April 21.
dispose of the goods on or at the house or premises, having been guilty of no negligence. Per Hannen, By Messrs. Edwix Fox and BOUNFIELD, at the Mart. Up;er Touting. Wandsworth-lane. Two freehold residences
or remove the goods and sell the same whenever J., dissentiente, that the action was maintainable ; soll for £.120.
and wheresoever they should think proper, by the defendanrs having been guilty of a wrongful Camberwell. A freehold gronn-rent of L11-sold for 1283. private contract or public auctior. The lessee act in keeping the water in their canal without A cor* t!!perann--sold for £301. Peckham. A ditto of lli per annnm-sold for £.
ihen underlet the premises by way of mortgage to having made use of all the means open to them to Clapon, No. 21), Colleze-street, freehold-sold for £:305. the defendant. The lessee then assigned all his prevent the injury done, one of which was an Peckhın prove. A freehold ground-rent of 21% per annum estate and effects to trustees under the Bankruptcy exercise of th sold for e20.
power to purchase the plaintiffs' By Mr. E. Robxs.
Act 1861. Afterwards the grantee of the bill of coal mine. Fletcher v. Ryland (19 L. T. Rep. N.S. Camberwell. No. 47, Church-street, freehold-sold for £700. sale sold the goods assigned to him by public 220; L. Rep. 1 Eq. 265; L. Rep. 3 H. of L. 33) No. 12, adjoining-sold ior £000.
auction on the premises, without the lessee's commented on and distinguished: (Dunn v. The No. 31-sold for £1000.
knowledge, and without the assent of the de. Birmingham Canal Navigation Company, 26 L. T.
fendant, who was mortgagee. The plaintiff claimed Rep. N. S. 241. Q. B.) Epps’s CHOCOLATE:-"Nous n'avons en Franco gu'une ejectment, 'on the grounds of forfeiture by breach NOT BOUND BY, WITHOUT NOTICE
possession, by the particulars ordered in this ILLEGAL ACTS OF DIRECTORS-SHAREHOLDERS seule usine où la préparation
BANK matériel et un personnel aussi considérables que ceux of covenant not to permit a sale by auction, and KNOWLEDGE OF MANAGER, WHEN BINDING ON que nous avons vus dans l'usine de Messieurs Epps also of forfeiture by non-payment of rent accrued -ILLUSORY APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS-FRAUD C'est une véritable curiosité dans son genre que cette immense fabrique."--La situation (the Imperialist Chamber
, affirming the Court of Queen's Bench, desirable by the plaintiff company that a number
since the sale by auction, Held by the Exchequer - CONTRACT ULTRA VIRES.-It being thought organ). The wrapper of each cake of Chocolate is labelled - JAMES ÉPPs & Co., Homeopathic Chemists, that these facts constituted a forfeiture of the of their shares, sufficient to procure the appointLondon.” Also, makers of Epps's Milky Chocolate lease by breach of the covenant not to permit a ment of a settling day on the Stock Exchange, Chocolate and Condensed Milk).
sale by auction on the premises ; and that the should be allotted, the directors the company
-sold for 320.
No. 16.3-soid for £10).
agreed with C., the manager of the defendant there still, however, remained a large balance due made by the valuer, and confirmed by the Inclobank, and S. a promoter of the company, that an to the bank. Under the winding up the bank sure Commissioners, in pursuance of the above Act account should be opened at the bank in the name proved for the whole amount of their debt, in under which he claims. From evidence adduced of S., to be drawn on by S. to an amount not cluding the amount of the note: Held, that the on the part of the defendants, and which I have exceeding £30,000 (for advances to which amount directors who had signed the note were sureties, tested and confirmed by a view, it appears that on that account the company gave a guarantee to and as such entitled to the dividends in respect of there exists at present clearly marked the bank under their common seal), and that the note, subject to a deduction in favour of the and well, used footway across the land in another account ehould be opened with the bank bank of such proportion thereof as would have question, leading from the highroad between Godin the name of the plai: tiffs, who were to guaran. been received by the bank upon the residue of its | alming and Farnham to the village of Tilford, and tee the repayment to the bank of any money debt beyond the amount of the note, if the debt that, excepting one narrow and precipitous branch drawn by S., on the account opened in his name, for the note had been expunged. Ex parte Turner, footpath from it to an occupation road below, and to charge with such repayment any balance in 3 Ves. 213, followed : (Gray v. Seckham, 26 L. T. there appears to be no other footpath actually their favour on the account opened in their name; Rep. N. S. 233. V.C. B.)
existing across this land, and that this footway such accounts were accordingly opened at the WINDING-UP PRACTICE TRANSFER TO subsequently passes across two other ancient in. bank, that in G.'s name with a loan in advance of County Court.-Where an order was applied closures, entering them in one case over a stile, £1500 from the bank, and that in the plaintiffs' for to wind-up de company whose business was and in the other through a gate until it reaches name with a payment of £1500 of the plaintiffs' purely local, and whose assets only amonnted to the village of Tilford, From further evidence money. Thereupon, pursuant to the arrangement £100, the court made the order, and directed the adduced by the defendants, it also appears that with C. the manager, the money drawn by S. on proceedings to be transferred to the County Court this footway has existed in its present state for the account opened in his name was immediately of the district where the office of the company sixty years, and witness after witness deposed to paid in by him to the account opened in the com- was situated : (Re the Birkenhead Benefit Building having
passed over it on their way to the church, pany's name, as and purporting to be deposits Society, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 281. V.C. B.)
post-office, and shops at Tilford, and in their ordi. received from allottees of shares in the company,
nary occupations, and several instances of funerals such allottees being real persons whom s., and
passing along it were also mentioned. Upon this one of the directors of the company, had induced
evidence I feel no doubt that, although much and procured to apply, or pretend to apply, for
stronger evidence is undoubtedly required of the shares, and to whom shares were in fact allotted,
dedication of a way to the use of the public across but who never paid, and were whoily incapable of
NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS.
open and uninclosed lands than across fenced and paying the amounts of the shares allotted to them,
inclosed lands, still in the present case a jury and who had no intention of really being share
FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT-ARREST OF VES- ought certainly to find that a public right of holders, and who immediately handed over to S.
SELS BY THE CROWN-MOTION FOR INDEMNITY way has existed for at least forty years, and their letters of allotment and blank transfers. It
- PRACTICE.-In an application to the Court of does now exist, over the lands in question to was part of the above agreement that the plaintiff's Admiralty for indemnity by the Crown in respect the village of 'Tilford, as contended by the should pay to the bank a bonus of £600, and to of the detention of vessels under the Foreign defendant, unless the samo has been stopped C. a remuneration of £1000 for his services and Enlistment Act 1870, sect. 24, where the Secretary up by the award under which the plaintiff co-operation in carrying out the arrangement.
of State has released the vessels without issuing claims. With regard to the operation of the The directors of the bank were not aware of the his warrant stating reasonable and probable cause award it will be necessary to consider first the real object and purpose of the above arrangement for the detention, the proper form of procedure is provisions
of the Act with reference to the and scheme, and the mode in which the accounts by motion upon affidavit. The Crown is entitled stopping up of ways, and next the proceedings of were dealt with by S. and C., and that C. was to application, so as to raise any questions of law in the present case. The 62nd section of the In
to time to answer the affidavits in support of the the valuer and the contents of the award and map receive any remuneration in the matter, but were informed and believed that the money was to be and fact: (The Great Northern and The Midland, closure Act, 8 & 9 Vict. c. 118 (under which this advanced to S. as the agent, and for the legitimate 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 201. Adm.)
inclosure was made), directs that the valuer, before wants and purposes of the company. Nor were
DEFINITION OF NECESSARIES--BROKERAGE, the division and allotment of the land, shall set the shareholders of the plaintiff company aware
PAYMENT OF CHARGES-ADVANCES-PILOTAGE out and make and widen public roads and ways, of the arrangements for placing shares in the Dock Dues.-The term “ necessaries," where and stop up, divert, or alter, existing roads and company, or for giving the guarantie above used in the statutes giving the Admiralty Court ways, provided that before any road or way be mentioned. Application was subsequently made jurisdiction over such claims, has the same mean- discontinued the valuer shall cause to be fixed at by the company to the committeo of the Stock ing as is given to it by the common law courts, each end of such road or way a notice to the Exchange for a settling day, and, with a view to and signifies, whatever the owner of a vessel, as a effect that the same is to be discontinued, stopped assist in obtaining it, a certificate was given by prudent man, if present under circumstances in up, or diverted, or altered, as the case may be, C. in the name of the bank, but without the which his agent, in his absence, is called upon from and after a day to be mentioned in such knowledge of the bank directors, for the purpose to act, would have ordered. Webster v. Seekamp notice, to be advertised for four successive weeks, of being produced before the committee, that (4 Barn. & Ald. 352) followed. Premiums paid by aud affixed to the church door on the four Sun£23,006 for deposits on 11,503 shares in the insurance on freight are necessaries. Charges from and after the day in such notice mentioned,
à shipbroker at the owner's request to procure days of such weeks, and such road or way shall, company had been paid in. The application for a settling day, was, however, refused by the paid by a shipbroker at the owner's request for be deemed to be discontinued, stopped up, and committee; and, shortly after, by order of the entering, reporting, and piloting a ship, and for diverted or altered, as the case may be, subject Court of 'Chancery, it was directed that the tonnage and light dues, and for noting protest; to appeal to the justices at quarter sessions as company shauld be wound-up. The total amount are within the meaning of the term “ necessaries.'
provided by the Act. By the 102nd section it is credited on the above transactions the
Advances at the owner's request for travelling ex. provided that the valuer acting in the matter of account in the name of the company at the penses of the master and goods supplied for the any inclosure, shall, as soon as conveniently bank, and for which the official liquidator of the ship's use are necessaries. Brokerage, charges may be after the divisional (probably a typo. plaintiff company brought his action,
made by a ship's broker for acting as ship's agent, graphical error for division and), allotment of £25,045 6s., consisting of the sums paid in as
and for negotiating a charter-party, may be neces. the land to be enclosed shall be completed, deposits on shares by S., and the £1500, the money
saries within the meaning of the statutes, but must draw up a report in writing, with a map thereunto of the plaintiffs, paid in on the opening of thə be proved to come within the definition. Where annexed, which shall specify all the claims allowed, account in their name. Against this, the defen. a petition merely alleges that money was advanced
and all allotments, exchanges, and partitions made dants sought to set-off the sum of £24,506 83. 4d., for necessary expenses at the owner's request, in the matter of such inclosure, and all roads, and as due to them on the account opened in tbe name
without stating what those necessary expenses ways, and works set out, or directed to be made by of S., and they paid £600 into court in satisfac.
were, such a claim will be struck out on motion to the said valuer, and such report shall contain all tion of the rest of the plaintiffs' claim. Held by reject or alter the petition : (The Riga, 26 L. T. such particulars in relation to such allotments, the Court of Exchequer (Bramwell, Channell, and Rep. N. S. 202. Adm.)
roads, ways, and works as are by this Act directed, Pigott, BB.), that the scheme detailed in the case
and all such other directions and determinations being fraudulent, the plaintiffs, who were ignorant
authorised by this Act as the said valuer shall of it, were not bound by what was agreed to on
think proper for the purposes of the inclosure, their behalf, or by the acts of the directors, which
including, of course, the stopping up, diverting, or were void ; and, as the facts were known to C.,
FARNHAM COUNTY COURT.
altering of any ways, and the map to be annexed the defendants' manager, the defendants had
Wednesday, April 17.
to such report shall comprise and show the land to notice of the illegality and invalidity of the transaction. But the defendants were bound to refund
(Before H. J. STONOR, sq., Judge.)
be inclosed, and the lands exchanged, and also the
lands in respect of which any allotments of the any money received by them, because, though C.
MANGLES V. MARSHALL AND WIFE.
land inclosed shall have been made, and shall dis. had no authority to bind them to the contract he Inclosure Act (8 8.9 Vict. c. 118)—The omission of tinguish by proper references the allotments made entered into, yet if they received the plaintiffs' a public footway in the award under this Act and in respect to the several lands respectively, and money under it, the plaintiffs (though not their the map annexed to it, does not take away the such other particulars as the commissioners shall directors), being innocent parties, the defendants qight-Secus under the Inclosure Act 41 Geo. 3. by any general or special instructions in relation must refund it. The plaintiffs had failed to show Arbuthnot for plaintiff.
to such report, direct the valuer to set forth a larger sum payable to them than £1500, which Eve for defendants.
therein, and such report shall be signed by the sum only, therefore, the defendants were liable to His Honour this day delivered his judgment as valuer, and shall, together with the map there. pay; and £600 having been paid into court, there follows:- The plaintiff in this case sued the defen- unto annexed, be sent to the office of the commis. would be judgment for the plaintiffs for £900. dants for breaking into and entering upon certain sioners. In this section it will be observed that Gray v. Lewis, before Malins, v.C. (20 L. T. Rep. lands of the plaintiff, situated near Charles Hill, only newly set out and widened roads and ways, N. S. 282; L. Rep. 8 Eq. Cas. 526), considered, in the parish of Farnham, and claims 40s. da- and roads and ways which are stopped up, diverted, discussed, and distinguished: (The British and mages. The action is brought to assert the right or altered, are directed to be specified in the American Telegraph Company (Limited) v. The of the plaintiff to inclose and fence an allotment report, and that it is doubtful whether even these Albion Bank, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 257. Ex.) awarded to him under the Inclosure Act (8 & 9 are directed to be set out in the map, which appears WINDING-UP-PROMISSORY NOTE TO SECURE Vict. c. 118), so as to stop up a footway or track, to be confined to lands inclosed and exchanged.
i BALANCE AT THE BANK LIABILITY-Four of the which exists across such allotment, and to pre. By the 103rd section the report is to be deposited directors of a company drew, in favour of H. S., vent all persons passing along such footway, or at some convenient place for inspection and obwho was the manager of the bank where the com- track, or across such allotment. The defendants jections, and by the 104th section the award is to pany had an account and also a director of the deny such right in the plaintiff, and allege that be drawn up and engrossed by the valuer, with company, a promissory note for the accommoda- the footway in question is a public footway exist. the map annexed, and confirmed by the Com. tion of the company, and for the purpose of being ing for upwards of sixty years, and that the de- missioners, and by the 105th section the confirmatransferred to the bank as a security for any fendant's wife, in the lawful use of such way, tion of the award is to be conclusive evidence balance which might be due from the company to broke down the fence, and entered into and that the directions of tho Aot had been obeyed. the bank. The note was indorsed by H. S. to the passed over the allotment in question. The plain. It appears that in the present case the valuer has bank.
Shortly afterwards the company was tiff replies by denying that such way ever existed, never by any word or writing sigpified expressly his ordered to be wound-up, and one of the directors and further alleging that if such way ever existed intention or determination to stop up or divert paid the amount due on the note to the bank; it was stopped by the operation of the award 'the footway in question, no notices of any stopping
up or diversion of it were given as directed by the other order as to the possession thereof as may be there were thirty-one creditors present, either in 62nd section, nor of course was any day fixed from just. The order no doubt should reqnire early person or by proxy, whose debts amounted to which it was to be stopped up, as provided by the possession to be given after such disclaimer. £32,187 2s. 1d. Of the thirty-one present, twentysame section, and this appears to me to be fatal Then the section further directs that any person three voted for the liquidation, leaving eight to the p'aiotiff's argument, as it is absolutely im. injured by the operation of this section shall be neutrals, and regarded as dissenting. The debts of possible to fix the time at which this right ceased, deemed a creditor of the bankrupt to the extent the assenting creditors amounted to 528,499 188., as alleged. Having given no notice of his inten- of such injury, and may prove the same as a debt and those dissenting to £3337 4s. 1d. There were tion or determination to stop up this footway, the under the bankruptcy. Thus, in the case of Ec forty-five creditors whose names were inadver. valuer proceeded to make his award, and by it parte Llynvi Coal and Iron Company, in Re tently omitted from the list of creditors, to whom expressly stops up certain roads and ways not in Hyde, where there had been the disclaimer of an notice of the meeting was sent, and to whom notice cluding it, and also sets ont certain other roads and agreement for a lease for ten years, at a rent of of the intention to apply to register the resolu. ways not including it, which is never mentioned in £500 a year, the measure of injury sustained was tions has since been given by registered letter. Of the award, and then annexes the map showing the the difference between the rent to be paid under the forty-five there are nineteen under £10, whose new roads and ways set out, and certain old roads the agreement and what could then be obtained total debts amount to £68 135. 10d.; of that and ways, but not showing this footway, and upon for the property. The broad provision of the Act, £68 13s. 10d., £10 85. 4d. arn the debts of pra. the absence of any mention of this footway in the said Lord Justice James, is that the bankrupt is ferential creditors ; there is, therefore, £j$ 5s.6d. award, and the omission of it in the map, the to be a freed man; freed not only froni deots, but indebtedness to creditors under £10 to whom plaintiff must rest his case. I cannot, however, from contracts, liabilities, engagements, and con. notices were not sent, leaving fifteen creditors on discover any provision in the 8 & 9 Vict. tingencies of every kind. On the other hand, all open account. Of the rest of the creditors who. rendering the absence of any mention of a foot. the persons from whose claims and from liability had no notice of the meeting twenty are over £10, way in the award, and the omission of it in the to whom ho is so freed are to come in with the and their debts amount to £2258 35. 21., and of map, equivalent to a stopping of such way, or to other creditors, and share in the distribution of these twenty, thirteen are preferential creditors, supersede the necessity of an express act by the the assets.” So also Lord Justice Mellish said : and their debts amount to £637 88. 1d., leaving valuer stopping up such way on a particular day “ The bankrupt being so relieved, it is plainly £1620 15s. 1d. of indebtedness to creditors aboro after due notice as provided by the Act. The also the intention of the Legislature that the per- £10 to whom notice of the meeting was not giren, 11th section of the Inclosure Act of the 41 son deprived of the right of action against the and thirteen creditors on open account. Upon this Geo. 3, c. 109, indeed, appears to have had bankrupt, and of the benefit of the contract state of facts Mr. Registrar Watson refused to resuch operation in respect of roads and ways not which he made with the bankrupt, should gister the resolutions, and referred the matter set out in the award under its provisions (see the be turned into a creditor in respect of what the to the court. cases of white v. Retres, 2 Moore, 23 ; and Act describes as the injury he had received.” Wheeler, instructed by Barrel and Rollway, now Gwyn v. Hardwick, 1 H. & Nor. 49), and the “That, I think,” said Lord Justice Mellish,“ must appeared in support of the registration. omission of a similar clause in the 8 & 9 Vict. mean in respect of what he would have been en. Broune, froin the office of Norris and Son, to c. 118, appears to me to show clearly the in- titled to recover against the bankrupt, if the oppose. tention of the Legislature not to give any such bankrupt had remained solvent.” Between the Wheeler, after briefly referring to the facts, operation
rward under the latter lessor and the bankrupt, the tenancy ceascd, from read the atsidavits of Mr. Rodway and Mr. Bolland, Act; and I think that this right of way might the date of the adjudication, through the dis the trustee, by which it appeared that the omis; even be held to be expressly saved or claimer. The trustee did not become tenant, and sion to give notice to the forty-five creditors had firmed under the 3rd section of it. I would no question can now arise respecting the accept. been occasioned by the inability of the solicitors, also observe that an Act of Parliament which of ance of a lease on the part of the trustee on owing to the imperfect state of the books, to necessity interferes so greatly and so arbitrarily account of those acts which I have named, which ascertain the names and addresses of all the with the rights of property, and I may even say formerly created a liability to pay rent on their creditors. Their numbers were legion, being over with personal liberty, as an Iuclosure Act, ought part. The inquiry through the operation of the 400, and it was only at the last moment, too late always to be strictly construed, and no operation 23rd section is, that tho lease ceased from the to apprise them of the meeting, that the solicitors given to it by implication beyond what is clearly date of the adjudication, and it is on this account were in possession of the fact that forty-five expressed in its provisions. I would also remark only that proof can be made for damages. But by creditors had been omitted. The duty of the that in the present case it is in evidence that the sect. 24 the trustee is not entitled to disclaim any registrar was to see, on the presentation of the valuer actually put in stumps along the footway property when an application has been made to resolutions, that the requirements of the statute in question, six feet apart, in three or four places, him by a person interested in it requiring him to had been complied with, namely, that all the evidently intending thereby to mark it out for the disclaim or not, and the trustee for twenty-eight creditors had been duly apprised of the meeting, purpose of the map, and I am inclined to think days after such application has declined or neg. and, in the event of a failure in that respect. to that its omission in the map must be regarded as lected to give notice whether he disclaims or not; refuse registration. There was, howerer, a further purely accidental. However this may be, I con- so that the lessor, if he pleases, can now obtain provision that the resolutions shall not be objected sider such omission to be perfectly iinmaterial, as possession of the property within a short interval to or refused by the registrar, unless he is of also the absence of any mention of this footway of time, after the trustee is appointed, through opinion there is such informality or non-conin the award; and I am, therefors, of opinion that his own act. The former state of the law was pliance with the statute as is matter of moment. the award did not operate so as to take away the thus summed up in the case Williams v. Taylor | In the present case, Wheeler contended that it existing right of way, and that the defendants (21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 620): “If the bankrupt's assig. was not a matter of moment, as substantially the have justified the acts constituting the alleged nees elected to take the lease, the bankrupt | views of a statutable majority in number and trespass. There will be a verdict for the deten was not to be liable to payment of rent from value of the creditors had been expressed, and no dants, and I sha!), of course, certify that the title the time of his bankruptcy. If they took the lease, vote on the part of those who had vot notice of was in issue, and although the damages claimed they were liable to the performance of all the the proceedings could have affected the falidiiy are under £5, the defendants will be entitled to covenants. If they did not elect to take it, the of the resolutions. Technically, the learned their costs on the scale fixed under the 11th and bankrupt remained liable. If the assignees diil registrar might have been right in refusing 12th sections of the County Court Act, 1867, in- not disclaim the lease, then the bankrupt was not registration, ils it had been decided he was merel; cluding counsel and attorney, according to the liable, if within fourteen days he surrendered the a ministerial officer, although such a decision was cases of Gyli v. squire, and Kemp v. The Local lease to the lessor.” The change nado in the scarcely consistent with the rule that he was a 2. Board of Teddington, decided by me in Chertsey law by the Act of 1869 is thus plainly perceptible to regard objections which were matters of monent: and Kingston County Courts, and reported in the hy contrasting this statement with sect. 23, which but broadly he was wroug, for so long as it ap Law Tines and in the County Courts C'hronicle, I have already cited. “But,” said Lord Campbell, peared to him the omission of these forts-five Vol, i. N.S., pp. 224 and 410.
in Goodwin v. Notte (8 E. & B.604), “it was lighly small creditors was not a matter of moment, the desirable the lessor should have availed himself resolutions he submitted should have been regis
. of the power given by the statutory enactment in terra. Delay in this case was most detrimental to BANKRUPTCY LAW.
the 145th section of the Bankruptcy Act (12 & 13 the creditors as well as to other persons who had Vict. c. 106), to apply to the Court of Bankruptcy claims to goods in the warehouses of the debtors,
that the assignees might be put to their election. valued at $28,000, which had been paid for lous ABERDARE COUNTY COURT.
The plaintiff might thus,” he said, “have got ago, but which claims had to stand in aberance (Before T. FALCONER, Esq., Judge.)
possession, and thus expensive litigation might from the 20th Feb. to the present time. As lie have been entirely avoidod.”
So in this case, any
had stated, the registrar ball only acted on the Re LINDSAY AND FISHERS.
inconvenience the lessor has suffered through ex. authority of decisions in the London court, but it Bankruptcy - Disclaimer of a lease by the clusion of possession, since the bankruptcy might was unfortunate there was no opinion of the Court trustee.
have been limited by the Act, and interference of of Appeal on the point. With respect to the His Honour said, in giving judgment on a mo. the lessor herself in demanding possession. In objection which had been lodged by a Seoter tion before him :-“ By sect. 23 of the Bankruptey the case of Williams v. Taylor, it was said by creditor, who had taken procretings in Scotland Act 1869 power is given to the trustee under a Kelley, C.B., that “all the assigness bad to do to sequester the estate, &... he contended tlnt be bankruptcy to disclaim what is called “onerons was to convert the effects into money, which could had no locus standi. It was true that he appeared property, and a trustee, notwithstanding he has have been effected within the space of a month or at the meeting of creditors, but he dil not then endeavoured to sell, or has taken possession of six weeks at the furthest.” I myself wish such prove his debt, and had no right to be heard, and such property, or has exercised any act of owner. an early solution of the difficulties of a bank- if he had no right to be heard then, surely, he could ship in relation thereto, may by writing disclaim ruptcy, and of the labour of a trustee, would occur not be heard by the court. such property. Formerly there was considerable in every case; but in numerous bankruptcies there Ilis HONOUR said that there was something in litigation respecting acts which were alleged to are delays and numerous methods of charging the objection; but as the debtors, by their stateamount to an acceptance of a lease, such as en- costs and expenses on the estate which some legis. ment, admitted him to be a creditur, and had giren deavouring to sell, taking actu il possession, or lative provision is needed in order to check. him notice of this application, he thought it remaining in posses:ion, it being sometimes hele
advisable to hear any objections he had to make. that the assignees were liable to pay rent, and
Browne tion submitted that the jurisilietion of sometimes they were discharged of this linbility.
LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT.
the court over these debtors' affairs ivas ou a Cases on these points will be found collected in Doria and Macrae's Bankruptcy, p. 610.
Thursday, April 11.
by the sequestration proceedings in Scotland, ani This section has determined and disposed of such (Before Mr. Serjeant WHCELER, LL.D., Judge.)
that, assuming that were not so, there had it
been a sufficient compliance with the requirements questions, and it further enacts that upon the
Re COUSTON, THOMSON, AND Co.
of the statuto as to warrant regi-tration of the execution of such disclaimer, the property dis. Petition for liquidation--- Registration of resolu- resolutions. The view taken by Mr. Registrar claimed chall, if the same is a contract, be deemed tions were creditors have not had notice of Watson was perfectly right, and one adopten og to be determined from the date of the order of ad. meeting--Practice.
all the courts. If the omission of notice to judication, and, if a lease, be deemed to have been This was an application to direct that certain ro. forty-five creditors was not a matter of moment, surrendered on the same date. Any person also, solutions of creditors come to at the first meeting whnt was? interested in any disclaimed property, may apply held under the petition for liquidation presented His Hoyotr, after some discussinn, garajda. to the court, and the court may unoj ench appli- by Messrs. Con-ton, Thomson, and Co., of Leith, ment as follows: The registrar hari. very proverly, cation order possession of the disclaimed p-o. Leeds, and Liverpool, wine and spirit anerchants, refused to register the resolution of the creditors perty to be delivered up to him, or make such I be registered. It appeared that at the meeting to liquidate by arrangement on the ground that a
number of them had not received the statutable the Act of 1869 (and “liquidation by arrange and individuals, but of the firm of Couston, Thomnotice of the meeting, and were not, therefore, ment” is equivalent to an adjudication in bank. son, and Company, whereas in England the firm present at it or represented. Hence this applica- raptcy), carries the whole estate of the bankrupt, are not declared bankrupt in so many words, but tion. Upon going into the figures, which need whether situated in England or in Scotland, and only David Couston and James Thomson, trading not repeat here, it appears that the meeting may thus renders sequestration of these estates in Seot. in co-partnership under the firm of Couston, Thombe said to have very fully represented the inte. land unnecessary and incompetent. The Bank- son, and Company. It was said that the English rests of the creditors, and that the absentees, ruptcy Act 1869 is an Imperial statute, and, though bankruptcy does not attach the company effects. by reason of want of notice (supposing each one it does not apply to Scotland or Ireland, except in The difficulty, however, is more apparent than of them to have dissented from the resolution), so far as expressly provided (sect. 2), it contains real, and arises from the different phraseology could not have affected the result. It further many provisions applicable both to Scotland and used in Scotland and in England, and not from any appears that those creditors have had notice of Ireland, and to the British dominions, and the difference in the legal import or effect of what is this application to me to-day, and have been courts of England, Scotland, and Ireland are done. The law of England does not recognise a called upon to show cause why it should not be made auxiliary to each other for the purposes of mercantile firm as a separate persone, but it canacceded to. None of them, however, appear. carrying out the provisions of the Act. Liquida- not be disputed that under the English bankruptcy And I have no evidence or suggestion that any tion by arrangement is one of the modes in which the property of the company is attached. It is so, substantial injustice has been done to them by the estates of bankrnpts may be wound-up and being considered as the "joint property” of the the failure to give them notice of the meeting, distributed under the Act ; and by sect. 125, partners ; and the rules for distribution provide which failure, moreover, arose from inadvertence ; | liquidation by arrangement is put, in almost every for separate ranking and distribution of the assets scarcely froin carelessness, because the debtor's respect, on the same footing as an ordinary bank--the joint assets among the joint, that is, the books are very complicated. Nor does it appear that ruptcy under the previous clauses of the Act. The company creditors, and the individual assets their interests can, in any way, be separable and term “the property of the bankrupt”--that is, among the creditors of the individual partners distinct from those of the general body of creditors what falls under the operation of the Act-is respectively. If there had been any averment who have prononnced in favour of a private defined (sect. 4) to mean and include " * money, of latent or additional partners in Scotland, winding-up. The only remaining objection is goods, things in action, land, and every descrip- the Lord Ordinary would have been disposed founded upon the pendency of an application in tion of property, real or persoual; also all obliga- to award sequestration in aid or in suppleScotland at the instance of a creditor there-Mr. tions, easements, and every description of estate, ment of the English proceedings, but a special M'Farlane, of Glasgow for a sequestration, interest and profit, present or future, vested or case would require to be made for a remedy which application was not made until nearly a contingent, arising out of or incident to property so speciul. It is not called for under the premonth after proceedings in this court had been as above defined. And sect. 15 amplifies this sent petition. If the Lord Ordinary awarded institutel. Now, I have some doubt whether it is definition, and while it excludes trust property sequestration even in aid of the English procompetent to Mr. M:Farlane to take that objec- and certain chattels of a limited description, it ceedings he could hardly stop there. He must tion here, inasmuch as he has not proved any debt includes property held on reputed ownership, and appoint a meeting for election of trustee, and the on the estate, although he attended the meeting of in certain other ways. No doubt the words occur- whole machinery must be put in motion. This creditors in this country. But I see nothing in ring in the Scotch Bankruptey Act " wherever would lead, he thinks, to most needless embarras. the objection to induce me to stay my hand from situated” are not used, but the Lord Ordinary ment and expense-- the more so as a judgment making an order which will have the effect of thinks that this cannot be held as a restriction awarding sequestration is not subject to direct winding-up the estate in accordance with the views leading to a different interpretation of the review, but wonld drive the parties to a new of the great bulk of the creditors, and, as I believe, English and Seoteh Acts respectively. Sect. 13, petition for recall. If the Lord Ordinary is wrong in their true interests, especially bearing in mind sub-sect. 8, provides for the registration of in refusing to award sequestration, his judgment that the liquidation will reach the bankrupt's the certificates of the trustees' appointment is subject to simple review, and no harm is done estate in Scotland, as well as in England, and that as a conveyance of property in any part of in the mean time, as the English trustee is atten. three-fourths of it are, as appears, in England. the British dominions, and it seems difficult ding to and preserving the whole assets. With
An order was accordingly made for the registra. to resist the conclusion that such registration the dismissal of the petition for sequestration the tion of the resolutions.
in the register of sasines would be equivalent to appointment of the judicial factor necessarily Fullager, from the office of Messrs. Laces, infeftment in Scotch real estate. Personal pro- falls; but, to prevent any mistake or misunderwatched the proceedings on behalf of creditors. perty, again, has no locality, and necessarily falls standing, the Lord Ordinary has expressly re
under a conveyance of the bankrupt's whole estate. called the appointment. As to costs, the ordinary In the same case, subsequently, the question of In the present case it was explained, and seemed rule would subject the petitioners in the expenses the right to precedence of the proceedings for to be admitted, that the bankrupts had no real necessarily caused by the trustee's successful sequestration in Scotland over the liquidation estate in Scotland, but only personal property and opposition. Looking to the importance and, proceedings i.. England, came before the Lord debts. It would be most anomalous and most under the new Act, to the novelty of the point Ordinary, and as the decision thereon disposes of startling to hold that, while a Scotch sequestration raised, however, and to the natural anxiety of the a point of novelty and doubt, we append a full carries the bankruptcy property in England, an petitioners and the compearing creditors to secure report.
English bankruptcy wonld not carry the property that, the distribution of the Scotch assets and the This was an application made on Wednesday, locally situated in Scotland, even although that equalisation of Scotch creditors shall be placed 17th April, to Lord Giffard, sitting as Lord property should be simply movable, or even only beyond all doubt, the Lord Ordinary thinks that Ordinary at the Bill Chamber Office, Edinburgh, debts and obligations. Under the Bankruptcy justice is done by simply allowing the petitioners which involved points of the greatest importance Acts formerly in force, it was decided more than to bear their own costs. in the administration of the Bankruptcy Act. once that an English bankruptcy carried even real Messrs. Couston, Thomson, and Co., as has been estate in Scotland. It is thought the existing already announced, on the 26th Feb, presented Act is not less wide in its application. When
Re Hoen, GoW, AND Co. their petition to the Liverpool court for liquidation a trader carries on business bot. in England and of their affairs by arrangement. They carried on Seotland, it seems very clear, in point of ex
Liquilation petition- Practice on registration. business as wine merchants in Leith, Leeds, and pediency, that there should not be two distinct This was a motion made to direct the registrar to Liverpool. On the 15th March a meeting of their and independent processes for the distribution of ister resolutions for liquidation by arrangement creditors was held, at which it was resolved to his estates. This would lead to double exoense, of the affairs of Horn, Gow, and Co, come to at it wind-up the estate by liquidation and appoint Mr. and to the most unseemly and needless contests meeting of the creditors held on the 27th March Bolland trustee. Those resolutions, in conse- for the administration of particular assets. There last. The debtors, who were merchants in Liverquence of the omission to give some of the would require to be double rankings, and the pool, filed a petition for liquidation of their affairs creditors notice of the meeting, were not registered decisions of the trusteos or liquidators might on the 9th March last, and under that petition a until the 11th instant. Prior to that date, how. vary, and even the rules of ranking might con- first meeting of crediturs was called. At that ever, and two days before the meeting of creditors, dict. In such cases it seems to have been meeting a resolution was agreed upon to liquidate Messrs. M'Farlane, of Glasgow, distillers, pre- held, and the rule is reasonable, that priority by arrangement and appoint Mr. Boiland trustee, sented a petition to the Seoteh court for seques. in bankruptcy proceedings should determine but on the resolutions being presented for registration of the estate, and Tnesday was appointed under which the liquidation should take place. tration it appeared that the debtors had omitted for the hearing.
This occurs when sequestrations have been to give ten of the creditors notice of such first Fotson and Campbell Smith, (instructed by awarded by different sheritis, and the rule has been meeting, as required by the Act of Parliament. Lebur, Henderson, and Wilson W.S., and Bushby, applied under the former English Acts to British On that ground the registrar had refused to of Liverpool), appeared for Mr. Henry Bolland, bankruptcies. This raises the question whether, register the resolutions. The debtors' statement the trustee.
in the present case, the English or the Scoteh pro- •ť accounts showed debts dne to unsecured crediAsher (instructed by Millor, Allardyce, and Co., ceedings are first in date. It was urged that the tors to the amount of £17,590; creditors fully W.S.) for the creditors seeking sequestration. dato of the English proceedings must be held to securel, £9713; creditors partly secured, £822; and
Smith, after shortly statiog the facts, submitted be the date, not of the petition (20th Feb. 1872), liabilities on bills discounted, 211,027 ; which liathat as the proceedings for liquidation in England bit of the appointment of trustee, or rather his bilities were not, however, expected to rank on the hadi been initiated before the sequestration pro- registration of appointment (11ti1 April 1872), estate. It appeared from the statement of J. J. ceedings in Scotland, they took precedence, and whereas the Scotch sequestration, if awarded, Yates, in support of the motion, that the that, notwithstanding the omission of words from would draw back to the date of the first deliver majority of the creditors who had not had notice of the English Act, specifically stating that under ance (23rd March 1872). This view was pressed the meeting were holders of bills drawn by the an English bankruptcy or liquidation, property from the very words of the English Act (s. 125, debtors and accepted by parties who held security. in Scotland passed to the trustee, he contended sub-sects. 4, 5), which seem to make the appoint Thoso bills were not due at the date of the meetthat the general words of the English Act were ment of the trustee the true date. The Lord ing, and the acceptors being solvent the holders sufficient to cover property wherever situated. Ordinary, while admitting the force of this, holds could not have proved on the bills and could not
Asher, in reply, urged that the English proceed himself bound by the decisions on appeal to Chan- have voted at the meeting. There were eighty. ings were no bar to proceedings in Scotland, and cery in the case of Duignan, re Bissell, 26th July, one creditors in all, and of these seventy-one had that unless the latter were in force, all the pro- 1871 (L. Rep. 6 Ch. App. 606). In this case it was
had notice of the meeting. Eighteen creditors perty of the debtors could not be reached, as held, first, that a petition for liquidation was an attended the meeting, who proved debt; to the there were no words in the English statute which act of bankrutey; and, secondly, that in a question amount of £7563. They all voted in favour of save an English trustee a right to property in of attachment of property, the date of the the resolutious, whereas the debts of all the Scotland.
petition was the date to which the whole procreditors who could have proved against the The Lord Ordinary, after hearing Mr. Watson, ceedings drew back, or, as it is expressed, related estate, and who had not had notice of the meet. took the matter into his consideration, or back, and this notwithstanding the peculiar ing, only amounted to Lo50, and had they been all what is termed in Scotland arizameleem, 'and expressions in sect. 125. The Lord Ordinary, dissentient their votes could not have prevented issued his interlocutor, dismissing the Scotch even if he differed in opinion from the judgment the passing of the resolutions. No creditor appetition for sequestration, and recalling the (which he does not), would hold himself absolutely peared in opposition to the motion, and judicial factor who had been appointed in Scot bound by the judgment of the Appeal Court in His Honour said that under the circumstances land. Appended to the interlocutor was the fol. Enland interpreting an English Act. A further he should grant the application subject to proof
ditficulty arose from the circumstance that seques. being furnished that the debtors had not been The Lord Ordinary is of opinion that an tration in Seotland was sought of the estates, not guilty of any undue negligence in omitting to adjudication of bankruptcy in England, under only of Messrs. Couston and Thomson, as partners give notice to the creditors omitted.