« EelmineJätka »
the 10,0001. was bequeathed in the first place in judgment in the Exchequer Chamber. Leave was ferred the court to the case of Seeley v. Power, 3 trust for Mrs. Cantley for life for her separate reserved as to whether this ruling was right. Dowl. P. C. 372.] use, with a proviso determining her life interest Day, for the defendant, now moved for a rule The COURT declined to disturb the practice of in certain events which, did not take place, nisi to enter a nonsuit pursuant to the leave, and the court.
Rule discharged. and that, subject to such determinable life in- also for a new trial on the ground that the damages terest, it was bequeathed to her children as she were excessive.
LONDON AND SUBURBAN BANK v. WALKINSHAW. should appoint, and accordingly that her will The COURT (Cockburn, C.T., Blackburn and Action against drawer of bill-Payment by aceepoperated as a valid appointment, and that her Mellor, JJ.) considered this case to be stronger in tor after action brought-Holder's right to prohusband was not liable to take out letters of favour of the plaintiff than that of Frost v. Knight,
ceed for costs. administration in respect of that sum.
where the promise was to marry on the death of Action upon a bill of exchange, tried before Solicitors for the petitioners, Bailey, Shaw, defendant's father ; and they thought that the Blackburn, J., during this term. Verdict for Smith, and Bailey.
ruling in this case was right, whatever might be plaintiff 1s., with leave to plaintiff to move to Solicitors for the respondents, Solicitors to the the judgment of the Exchequer Chamber. The enter a verdict of 501., the amount of the bill. Inland Revenue.
rule was therefore refused upon the leave re- Plaintiff commenced actions against the acceptor served; it was granted with regard to the and drawer of the bill; the defendant in this
damages, unless the plaintiff agreed to accept case being the drawer. Before declaration against COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. half the amount assessed by the jury.
the drawer the acceptor paid the amount ; plain. Thursday, Nov. 23.
tiffs then declared in this action, without first de. JONES v. HARRIES.
Ex parte EDMUNDS.
manding of defendant the cost of the writ. AfterBills of Sole Acts 1854 & 1866—Affidavit filed with Right of receiver of public moneys to claim audit wards defendant refused to pay what he considered bill of sale-Description of assignor's residence.
of his accounts-Mandamus.
the unnecessary cost of the declaration, and INTERPLEADER issue, plaintiff claiming the pro
Parry, Serjt. (with him Joyce) moved on behalf pleaded, amongst other pleas, payment before porty of one Isaac Anthony, under a bill of sale, of Mr. Leonard Edmunds for a writ of mandamus action; he did not, however, plead payment after The case was tried at Swansea during the Spring sury to have lis accounts aud and the defendant, being an execution, creditor. to compel the Lords Commissioners of the Trea- action brought. The learned judge considered the
It appeared plaintiffs' conduct improper, and directed the verAssizes, 1871, before Mellor, J., when a verdict from his affidavit that he was appointed to the dict as above and refused to certify for costs. was found for the plaintiff, leave being reserved office of Clerk of the Patents by the Crown in 1833,
Anderson showed cause against a rule, granted to the defendant to move for a nonsuit on the and held the office antil 1864, during
which time in pursuance of the leave reserved, and argued ground that the affidavit filed with the bill of sale he received and disbursed on account of the Crown that what was done at the trial was within the contained an insufficient description of the resi.
more than a million and a half of money. He judge's discretion, and that this case was distin. dence of the said Isaac Anthony, the assignor. alleged that his accounts had never been brought guishable from Randall v. Moon (21 L., J. 226, In the bill of sale, he was correctly described as the party of the first part, “Isaac Anthony, of audit, and report,” either on behalf of the Crown to statutory or Parliamentary “examination, C. P.), relied upon by the plaintiff when the rule
was moved. Dynevor Lodge, in the parish of Llanarthney, in
or on behalf of the House of Commons, and Rose appeared to support the rule, but was the county of Carmarthen, auctioneer.” It was proved that a letter addressed to Isaac Anthony, effectual certificates of discharge, even and quit,' that in the absence of his lawful “valid and not heard.
The COURT considered that in strict right the Dimeror Lodge, would reach him from the he was to this day held personally responsible and plaintiffs had a right to go on with this action for neighbouring post town of Llandilo. The affi- accountable to the Crown and to Parliament for their costs; that the defendant might have pleaded davit was
as follows: “I, Walter William Edwards, of Llandilo, in the County of Carmar. the whole of the said million and a half. He payment after action ; and that the judge was then, attorney's clerk, made oath and say as
wrong in allowing evidence in reduction of damages stated that he had incessantly demanded from follows: 1. That the paper writing hereto annexed year to year and in every year from 1834 to the under the plea of payment before action.
Rule absolute. is a true copy of a bill of sale made or given by | justice, that he might be forced by the Executive
present day as of right and according to law and Isaac Anthony to David Jones, of Wern, in the Government, under the provisions of the Acts of
STIMSON v. FARNHAM. parish of Llanarthney, in the county of Carmar. Parliament,' into the examination of his said Action against sheriff for a false return-No injury then, gentleman, and of the schedule or inventory accounts. The various departments of the
to plaintit. thereto annexed or therein referred to and every Government refused his said demands, and in ACTION against a sheriff for a false return, tried attestation of the execution thereof. 2. That the stituted proceedings against him in the Exchequer, before Mellor, J., in Middlesex. Verdict for de: bill of sale was made or given on the 5th Dec. upon which the matters in difference between him. fendant, with leave reserved to enter verdict of 1870), being the day of the date thereof. 3. That self and the Crown were referred to arbitration, 771, for plaintiff. In an action of the present I was present and did see the said Isaac Anthony and in the result the arbitrators found him plaintiff against Follows, the sheriff of Leicestersign and execute the said bill of sale, and that the indebted to the Crown in said Isaac Anthony resides at Dynevor Lodge, 70001.
sum of over shire returned to a writ of fi. fa. obtained by the In consequence
he and is an auctioneer. 4. That the name W. Win. for the debt and costs, and deprived of his directed, I seized the goods and chattels in my
imprisoned plaintiff : “By virtue of the within writ to me Edwards, subscribed as a witness attesting the pensions ; but as no formal audit had taken bailiwick of the within named Henry Follows, and execution of the said bill of sale, is in my hand, place, and he had received no legal discharge, kept them safe in my possession until the 19th Sept., writing, and that I reside at Llandilo and am an
it was now contended that the Acts of Parliament 1870, when I received from John Wilkinson Smith, attorney's clerk. Sworn at Llandilo, in the county of Carmarthen, this 17th Dec. 1870, before relating to the audit of public accounts, viz: the 'attorney of the plaiutiff, in the said writ me, Nath. Davies, a commissioner for taking Vict. c. 39, not only appointed auditors whose the said goods and chattels. Whereupon I imme
25 Geo. 3, c. 52; 1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 121 ; and 29 & 30 named, an order to withdraw from possession of affidavits in the Court of Queen's Bench, West- business it was to examine these accounts when diately withdrew from such possession.” At the minster, W. Wm. Edwards.” A rule nisi had been ordered to do so by the Treasury, but also laid trial the defendant did not attempt to prove the obtained by the defendant in pursuance of the leave reserved.
upon the Commissioners of the Treasury the duty truth of this return, but he called evidence to show De Rutzen now showed cause.
of ordering the auditors to examine the accounts that the only goods Follows appeared to have, had Coleridge supported the rule.
of those receivers of public moneys who claimed been assigned under a bill of sale, which the jury to have their accounts so examined.
found to be valid. A rule had been obtained in They discussed the two Bills of Sale Acts,
The Court refused to grant a rule, on the pursuance of the leave, on the ground that the de(17 & 18 Vict. c. 36, and 29 & 30 Vict. c. 96), and ground that no such right as that contended for fendant was concluded by his return. also the following cases: Pickard v. Bretz (5 had been granted to the receivers of public Mundell, Q.C. and Abbott showed causa, and H. & N.9); Hewer v. Cox (3 El. & El. 428); Briggs moneys. The duty of ordering the audit of ac: argued that as no actual damage to the plaintiff . B083 (L. Rep. 3 Q. B. 268); Thorp v. Browne
counts was imposed upon the Commissioners of was proved, the falsity of the return was not suffi. (L. Rep. 2 E. & I. App. 220); Brodrick v. Scale (L the Treasury in the interests of the public and cient even for a nominal verdict. Rep. 6 C. P. 98); Allen v. Thompson (1 H. & N.
the House of Commons, but upon the materials Field, Q.C. and J. W. Mellor, in support of the 15); Hatton v. English (26 L. J., Q. B., 161) ; Routh before them the court declined to express an rule, contended that the sheriff in this case ought v. Roublot (1 E. & E. 850).
to have interpleaded or returned nulla bona; that The Court (Cockburn, C.J. Blackburn and opinion as to whether that duty had been ne
glected. Mellor, JJ.) considered the last case, Routh v.
this was his deliberate act, and being an official Attorney for applicant, E. Johnson.
return he was estopped from contradicting it at Roublot, an anthority more applicable than any other to the circumstances of the present case,
the trial. They relied upon a dictum of Lord HOLMES V. ALBRIGHT.
Campbell's, in Remmett v. Lawrence (15 Q. B. 1004), and held that the description was sufficient.
Insufficiency of special jurors-Refusal to pray a which, according to Williams, J., in Levy v. Hall
tales-Costs. Attorney for plaintiff, Thos. Clarke.
(29 I.. J. 130, C. P.), is supported by two cases, Attorneys for defendant, Ingledew, ince, and Action came on for trial at the Oxford Summer Clerk v. Withers (2 Lord Raym. 1075).
Mildmay v. Smith (2 Wms. Saund. 343), and Groening. Assizes 1870. The defendant had obtained an
The COURT considered that the two authorities order for a special jury, but seven special cited failed to support the mere obiter dictum of Saturday, Nov. 25.
jurors only attended. Neither plaintiff nor defen- Lord Campbell, and that this action of tort, like TARGETT v. VINCENT.
dant wonld pray a tales, and the trial went off. others, requires injury to the plaintiff as well as a Breach of promise to marry-Condition precedent At the Spring Assizes of this year, the action was
wrong by the defendant. Rule discharged. -Action before fulfilment of condition. tried and resulted in a verdict for the defendant. ACTION for breach of promise of marriage tried The master had allowed the defendant the costs of
Attorney for plaintiff, Jeremiah Briggs.
Attorneys for defendant, Preston and Robinson. before Blackburn, J. at Westminster. Verdict the first trial, and Byles, J., had affirmed his order. for plaintiff, damages 2501. Leave reserved to A rule had been obtained to rescind this judge's
Monday, Nov. 27. the defendant to move to enter a nonsuit, the order, and to review the taxation ; two of the court to be at liberty to amend declaration, if masters had been desired to report upon the prac.
MARSHALL v. ULLESWATER STEAM NAVIJATION it should be proper and necessary to do so. tice of the court in such a case, and the following
COMPANY. The declaration alleged that the promise was to report of masters Hodgson and Unthank was now Incidents to a right of way over water-Obstruction marry within a reasonable time. The evidence read : “We think the practice in this court is to
maintained by owner of soil. established a promise to marry as soon as the allow the costs in such a case as this to the suc- SPECIAL case without pleadings. Plaintiff was father of the man, who was defendant, should con- cessful party as costs in the cause, and not as owner of the fee simple of the soil of Lake Ulles. sent. The engagement was broken off by the costs of the day.”
water; defendants were owners of the fre simple defendant, on the alleged ground of his father's J. 0. Griffits appeared to show cause against of some of the adjoining land. The public have a Tefusal to consent, and his consequent inability to the rule, but the Court called upon
right of way over the whole of the lake. Defen. provide for a wife. Defendant had been in receipt Dowdeswell, Q.C. for the plaintiff.--He argued dants had constructed a pier from their own land of 401. a year, and his father was a druggist. The that the failure of the first trial was the fault of out into the lake, for which the plaintiff success. judge at the trial held that the declaration ought both sides; and therefore the costs were thrown fully instituted proceedings against them. The to be amended, and that the action lay, notwith away, and ought not to be imposed upon either case is reported 3 B. & S. 732. Since the year standing the nonfulfilment of the condition pre. party. He relied upon Wood v. Duncan (5 M. & 1861, when those proceedings were finally cor• cedent, on the authority of Frost v. Knight w. 87); Bostock v. North Staffordshire Railway cluded, the pier has remained as it was (L. Rep. 5 Ex. 322), which case is now awaiting Company (21 L. J. 384 Q. B.). "[Master Smith re 'structed, and the defendants have landed passen.
gers from their steamers upon it. This action was The COURT (Willes, Byles, and Brett, JJ.) Quain, Q.C. for the respondent, was not called brought for breaking and entering the plaintiff's were of opinion that the vote could not be sup- upon. pier, and for causing passengers to traverse the ported on the ground of custom; and that the The Court (Willes, Byles, and Brett, JJ.), held pier.
claimants were merely yearly tenants, who would that the objection was to the nature of the qualificaManisty, Q.C. (with him Forbes), for the plaintiff be liable to be turned out at any time by the repeal tion, and was sufficiently explicit to call the attencontended that this pier was an obstruction to the of the bye-law.
Decision affirmed. tion of the voter as to what was to be proved. navigation of the lake, set up by the defendants ; Attorneys for appellant, Corser and Howler.
Decision affirmed. and that they had no right to avail themselves of Attorney for the respondent, Beddall.
Attorney for appellant, Hicking. their own wrong, and justify their use of the
Attorney for respondent, Southgate. plaintiff's property merely because it was an obstruction. Holker, Q.C. (with him Kemplay), for the defen.
HUCKLE V. PIPER.
Thursday, Nov. 23.
TETLEY AND ANOTHER ", SHAYD. dants, argued that as the plaintiff had maintained Qualification in county-Rateable value under the pier since he had been compensated for the
Broker selling his own goods-Right to recover wrong done by the defendants, he was in the same OBJECTION was taken to the name of Henry
Custom. position as if he had erected an obstruction him. Greves as a voter for the county of Bedford. This was an action by a broker to recover a sum self, in which case, according to the Eastern He was described as of Sandy, the nature of his lost by him through the defendant not accepting Counties Railway Company, y. Dorling (28 L. J. qualification in the third column being 121. rato. cotton sold under the following circumstances 202, C. P.), the public would have a right to use able value. He was tenant of lands and tenements Defendant had sold a lot of cotton at 94d. for the obstruction so far as it is necessary for the in the parish of Sandy under four separate and delivery on a future day. To enablo him to fulfi enjoyment of their rights.
distinct landlords in small sums, all under 121., this contract, he subsequentlycame to the plaintiffs, The Court (Blackburn, Mellor, and Lush, JJ.), but making up in the aggregate considerably more who were cotton brokers; they told him they gave
Judgment for defendants. than 121. The lands were properly assessed to thought they could buy at 8 d. Defendant told them Attorneys for plaintiffs, Bell, Brodrick, and the poor rates. It was objected that Greves to buy gradually at 8 d. if they could not do better. Gray.
could not be retained on the list, as he was not Plaintiffs accordingly sent defendant a bought note Attorneys for defendants, James and Curtis.
separately assessed to the poor rate in respect of as follows : “Bought for your order to arrive 500
a separate occupation of premises of the value of bales of cotton,&c., at 8 d.," signed by the plaintiffs Wednesday, Nov. 29.
and was not the occupier under one landlord as brokers, and an amount appeared on the note as
of premises of such a value as to confer a vote. the amount payable for brokerage. Plaintiffs DAVIES AND WIFE v. SOLOMON.
The revising barrister was of opinion that the really had no principals, but sold cotton which Slander of wife-Loss of husband's cohabitation, qualification was sufficient and allowed the vote. they had not at the time, but which they subseand of friends' hospitality-Special damage. Bulwer, Q.C. for the appellant.
quently bought at a less price than 8 d. A cus DEMURRER to a declaration. The action was for H. Shield for the respondent.
tom was proved that when a broker sold without slander by the defendant of the female plaintiff, The Court (Willes, Byles, and Brett, JJ.) were disclosing the name of his principals, he was himthe words being, “I can prove that John Davies' of opinion that the aggregate of the sums for self liable as the principal. Defendant swore at wife had connection with a man named Labrach which the claimant paid poor rates should be the trial that he would not have made the contract two years ago, but I would rather have the added together, and that it was no objection to if he had known that plaintiffs were selling their tongue cut out of my mouth than separate the vote the tenants holding under different land own cotton, and that he employed them to act as man and wife.” The declaration proceeded to lords.
Decision affirmed. his brokers. On finding out that the plaintiffs allege that the female plaintiff was thereby in. Attorney for appellant, Williams and James for were selling their own cotton, defendant refused jured in her character and reputation, and became Wikinson and Co., St. Neots.
to accept it. The case was tried last spring at the alienated from, and deprived of, the cohabitation Attorneys for respondents, Saunders, for Whyley Guildhall, before Bovill, C.J. It did not go to of her husband, and lost, and was deprived of, the and Piper.
the jury, but a verdict was directed for the plaincompanionship, and ceased to receive the hospita.
tiffs for the amount claimed, with leave for the lity, of divers friends, and especially of her hus.
defendant to move. A rule having been obtained, band, and three persons whose names were men- CHORLTON v. OVERSEERS OF STRETFORD.
Sir G. Honyman, Q.C. and Watkin Williams tioned, who had, by reason of the premises, with.
showed cause. drawn from the companionship of, and ceased to be Sub-lessee-Interest in leasehold houses—2 Will. 4.
Sir J. Karslake, Q.C. and Cohen in support of hospitable to, or be friendly with, the female plain.
c. 45, s. 20—30 8-31 Vict. c. 102, s. 5.
the rule. tiff. The alleged ground of demurrer was that No. 4, Gladstone-street, Stretford, and claimed aof opinion that the plaintiffs, having been emTHOMAS SURWOOD was in actual occupation of
The COURT (Willes, Keating, Brett, JJ.) were the special damage was too remote.
Lawrence, for the defendant, relied upon Lord vote for the county, by virtue of that qualification, ployed as brokers, and having professed to act as Wensleydale's judgment in Lynch v Knight and also by an interest in two leasehold houses,
such, had no right to sell their own cotton. (9 H. L. Cas. 577). He further contended that the with a term of over sixty years. Surwood was a
Rule absolute. only_pecuniary damage alleged was loss of hospi- sub-lessee of the leaseholds for a period of not less
Attorneys for plaintiffs, Thomas and Hollams. tality, which was damage to the husband alone, than sixty years, but had no qualifying interest in and he ought therefore to sue by himself.
Attorneys for defendants, Simpson and Culling. them. The value of No. 4, Gladstone-street, was
ford. Prentice, Q.C. appeared for the plaintiffs.
over 51. but under 101. per annum. The claimant The COURT (Blackburn, Mellor, and Hannen, contended that the Representation of the People
Re COOKER (An Attorney). ŞJ.), considered that the judgment cited by defen: Act 1867, sect. 5, extended to the case of a sub
Practice-Attorney-Professional misconduct in dant did not apply, and that there was an allega- lessee, and was substantially a repeal of 2 Will. 4, tion of real loss to the wife. c. 45, 8. 20. The Revising Barrister was of
appropriating money-Rule to strike him of the Judgment for plaintiffs. opinion the claimant's case did not come under
rolls, and to pay over the money appropriated. Attorney for plaintiffs, Geó. L. Norman.
Garth, Q.C. (Murray with him) moved to make the Representation of the People Act, and that to Attorneys for defendant, Taylor, Hoare, and entitle a person being a sub-lessee of premises to absolute a rule nisi, which had been served op Taylor.
a vote. The premises must be of a value of not Cooker, an attorney, calling on Cooker to show less than 101. per annum, and expunged the
cause why he should not be struck off the rolls, or COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. claimant's name from the register.
pay to the trustees under the will of a Mrs. Hirst, Wednesday, Nov. 22.
Joshua Williams, Q.C. (Edwards with him), for deceased, the sum of 18401. It appeared that Mrs. the appellant.- The 5th section of the Represen. Hirst had some years ago entrusted the sum of
tation of the People Act must be read with 2 Will. 18101. to Cooker, as her attorney, for him to invest FERNIE v. Scott. 4, c. 45.
for her. Cooker invested it according to her inCounty Vote-Freehold-Poor and necessitous
The respondent was not represented by counsel. structions, but afterwards, without the knowledge burgesses-Bye-law passed by corporation
The Court (Willes, Byles, and Brett, JJ.) were
or consent of Mrs. Hirst, drew it out and applied Custom-Yearly tenants.
of opinion that Thomas Surwood was entitled to it to his own use, but continued every year to pay The names of the claimant and 110 other
a vote for the county under the 5th section of the his client quarterly sums, which he represented to were on the list of voters for the county of Stafford Representation of the People Act; and that the be the dividends. It was not until the death of
Mrs. Hirst that all this was discovered. The rulo for qualifications described as freehold land, situate effect of that section was not to create a new
nisi had been granted in the alternative, and it at Coton Field. They were duly objected to. The franchise, but to lower the value. mayor and corporation of Stafford were for many
was now asked, no cause being shown, to make years possessed of certain freehold land within the
Attorneys for appellant, Horne and Hunter, the rule absolute to pay over the money. borough called Coton Field. In the year 1836 a Lincoln's-inn-fields.
The Court (Willes, Keating, and Brett, JJ.) at
first thought the rule ought to be made absoluto bye-law was passed, that in future, whenever
only to strike the attorney off the rolls, but on any part of the Coton Field became vacant, it
further consideration they made it absolute to should be held in future by the poor and neces
SIMEY v. Dixon.
strike him off the rolls and to pay over the money. sitous burgesses of the borough, by birth or servi. Objection - Nature and qualification-County and
Rule absolute accordingly. tude duly qualified to vote for members of Parlia
Attorney for applicant, H. S. Willett. ment, or by widows of such burgesses; it was OBJECTION was made to the Rev. William Cocken's also declared that no person should hold more vote for the county. His place of abode was de. than one acre of such land; the rent payable was scribed as The Rectory, Bishopswearmouth, and
Nov. 9 and 25. to be fixed from time to time by the corporation, the nature of the qualification in the third North British AND MERCANTILE ASSURANCE and no one was to be considered a poor and neces- column as a “freehold benefice,” the street
COMPANY V. MOFFATT AND ANOTHER. sitous burgess unless declared so by a majority of where situated was described as Bishopswear- | Insurance-Goods," assured's own, on trust or on the council of the borough. All the claimants had mouth parish. The qualification for which it was been shown to be poor and necessitous burgesses, endeavoured to retain Mr. Cocken's name on
commission, for which he is responsible”-Goods and each of them paid 58. per annum for the por- the register was the parsonage house, to which he
at a wharf which assured has sold, but of which
he still retains the dock warrants. tion of land allotted to them. The revising bar. was entitled as rector. The objector proposed to SPECIAL case without pleadings. The defendants, rister was of opinion that the claimants had not a show that the house was situate within the Par. on Vot. 13, 1865, effected two policies with plainfreehold to entitle them to a vote for the county, liamentary borough of Sunderland, and that Mr. tiffs, by which plaintiffs, in cousideration of an and he disallowed all the claims accordingly. Cocken was entitled to a vote for the borough, annual premium, insured from loss or damage by
Streeten (Gorst with him) for the appellant, and therefore not for the county. It was objected fire as from Sept. 29, 1865, to an amount not ex. contended that a custom had existed prior to the on behalf of the voter, that the objector, who ceeding 35001. merchandise“ the assured's own, in passing of the Municipal Corporation Act, and grounded his objection on the nature of the in- trust or on commission, for which they are respon: that at any rate the claimant had an equitable terest, was not entitled to go into this particular sible" in any of the warehouses, &c., specified, of frechold estate entitling him to a voto, and that ground of objection. The revising barrister ad. which Beale's wharf was one. On the 30th Oct., although the corporation could alter the bye-law, mitted the objection, and struck the name off the while the said policies were still in force, Beale's - they could not alter the possession of a burgess list of voters.
Wharf was burnt down and certain tea lodged after he had once been admitted.
Udal for the appellant. - The objection is to no there was destroyed. The de endant claimed Gough for the respondeat. column, and is not specific.
11301. 8s. 7d. in respect of the loss of this tea,
THE LAW TIMES.
Dec. 2, 1871.]
alleging it to have been covered by the above ruled that this was not a June shipment, and so were merely words of desoription, and did not mentioned policies. It appeared that these teas have directed a verdict for the defendant.
amount to a warranty that each person was alive had been deposited in bond by the importer with Quain, 6. C. and Watkin Williams, showed at the time.
Judgment affirmed. the wharfinger to whom Beale's Wharf belonged, cause.
Attorneys for plaintiff, Stocken and Jupp. and who issued warrants for the same, deliverable Butt, Q. C. and Cohen, in support of the rule. Attorneys for defendant, Routh and Stacey. to the depositor or his assigns by indorsement thereon. The defendants had purchased the teas held that the direction was right, and discharged REG. v. THE VESTRY OF ST. LUKE'S, CHELSEA.
The COURT (Willes, Keating, and Brett, JJ.) from the importer, who indorsed to them the war. the rule.
Rule discharged. rants in blank. The defendants, before the fire
Attorney for plaintiff, Thomas and Hollams.
Lands injuriously affected–Title to compensation occurred, had resold a large portion of the Attorney for defendant, Simpson and Culling.
-Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (8 Vict. teas in specified chests to customers, and had ford.
C. 18), s. 68-Effect of incorporation of Lands been paid for the same. They held, however,
Clauses Consolidation Act in Special Act. the warrants on behalf of such customers, but
ERROR on a special case. By sect. 83 of the merely for the convenience of paying, if required
Chelsea Improvement Act 1845, “ so much of the to do so, the charges necessary to clear the teas,
Monday, Nov. 27.
Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 as is applipayable by the vendors, all charges payable by
SMITH V. MYERS AND ANOTHER.
cable, and is not modified by this Act, or as is not the defendants having been previously paid. The Contract-Sale of cargo "expected to arrive” by a inconsistent with the provisions hereof, shall property in the teas had passed to the vendees,
apply to the improvements authorised by this The plaintiffs, under these circumstances, paid, This was an appeal against à decision of the Act to be made, and shall be read as forming part under the above-mentioned policies, the sum Court of Queen's Bench making absolute a rule of this Act." By one section of this Special Act claimed by the defendants, which suin included a for a nonsuit (see 23 L. T. Rep. N. S. 240). The the commissioners under the Act are empowered sum of 6361. 133. 7d., which represented the value action was brought for breach of an agreement in to alter the level of streets, but nothing is said in of the teas which had been, as above stated, not delivering a quantity of nitrate of soda "ex- the Act as to any compensation being made for resold by the defendants. The plaintiffs paid pected to arrive at a port of call by the ship injuries to property, caused by such alteration. under an agreement by the defendants to repay Precursor,” to which the defendants pleaded (2) By other sections the commissioners are this sum of 6361. 13s. 78., if the court should be of that the shipment of the nitrate of soda was, powered to remove from houses projections into opinion that the teas in question were not covered before breach, prevented by the destruction of the the streets which were existing at the time of pasby the policy. The question for the court was, soda by an inundation, caused by an earthquake sing the Act, and also on the rebuilding of prowhether the teas were so covered ? If they were at the port of lading, being one of the circum. jectiog houses, to set them back to the line of the not, then plaintiffs were to be entitled to a verdict stances and accidents within the meaning of the street; and in these cases the Act contains a for 6361. 13s. 7d. : if they were, then the verdict contract. Between the date (16th July) of the proviso that compensation shall be made to the was to be for the defendants.
defendants' agents at Valparaiso chartering the owners, &c., by the commissioners. The comH. Matthews, Q.C. (Holl with him) for the Precursor to take the soda which they had par- missioners having, in raising the level of a street, plaintiffs.
chased to England, and the 8th Sept., when the injuriously affected a house by impeding the Sir J. Karslake, Q.C. (Watkin Williams and contract of sale to the plaintiff was made, an access to it, a mandamus was issued command. Underdoun with him) for the defendants.
earthquake had (on 13th Aug.) destroyed the ing the defendants to take up an award alleged to
Cur adv. vult. greater part of the soda while lying at the port of have been made under the Act, to which the Nov. 25.—The COURT (Willes, Keating, and lading, and on the 2nd Sept. the Valparaiso agents defendants made a return; whereupon a case was Brett, JJ.) gave judgment for the plaintiffs. had cancelled the charter of the Precursor. These stated for the opinion of the Court of Queen's
Judgment for plaintiffs. agents afterwards purchased another quantity of Bench, who gave judgment for the Crown, and Attorney for plaintiffs, G. M. Clements. nitrate of soda of the same amount, and obtained holding that the incorporation of the Lands Attorney for defendants, Cox and Willoughby. a transfer of a charter of the Precursor for con. Clauses Consolidation Act of itself gave a title to
veying the soda to England to enable the defen- compensation where property was injuriously
dants to execute their contract with the plaintiff, affected, though no provision to that effect was Friday, Nov. 24.
or to sell at a profit, if at liberty to do so. Defen- contained in the special Act. CASE v. MCCLELLAN.
dants refusing to acknowledge plaintiff's claim to Sir J. B. Karslake, Q.C. (with him Raymond), Stock Exchange-Custom of transferring shares this cargo, an action was brought against them on for the defendants, contended that the Lands
Difference in price-Transfer note to last pur. the contract, when a verdict was returned for the Clauses Consolidation Act did not of itself give a chaser.
plaintiff, leave being reserved to defendants to title to compensation, but only provided a Action to recover commission due from the move to enter a nonsuit or a verdict for them, pur machinery for assessing compensation in those defendant to the plaintiff who was a stockbroker, suant to which leave a rule was obtained, and was cases where a title to it was conferred by the The plaintiff instructed defendant to sell certain subsequently made absolute.
Special Act. railway shares for him on the Liverpool Stock
R. G. Williams (with him Quain, Q.C.) for the Philbrick (with him H. T. Atkinson), for the Exchange. The defendant accordingly sent the plaintiff.
Crown, were not called on. plaintif a sold note in the usual form, stating Milvurd, Q.C. (with him Baylis) for the de. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Court that he had sold 4001. stock of the Lancashire and fendants.
of Queen's Bench, and held that the incorporation Yorkshire Railway at 1401. 35. 4d. per cont. It is
The COURT (Kelly, C. B., Willes and Keating of the Lands Cláuses Consolidation Act had of the custom on the Liverpool Stock Exchange for JJ., Channell, Pigott, and Cleasby, BB.) affirmed itself the effect of entitling to compensation in all the vendor of shares to transfer to the last pur
the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, cases where lands were injuriously affected, and chaser of such shares, and for him to sign a making absolute the rule to enter a nonsuit. that a special provision to that effect was not transfer note to such purchaser. It accordingly
Judgment affirmed. necessary in the special Act. happened that the sum stated to be paid to the Attorneys for plaintiff, Jones, Blaxland, and
Judgment affirmed. defendant instead of being 1401.38. 4s. was 1411. 58. Son, for Abbot and Leonard, Bristol.
Attorneys for the Crown, Batt and Son. The defendant having really only received the Attorneys for defendants, Walker and Sons, for Attorneys for defendants, Lee, Pemberton, and former sum refused to sign the transfer. At the Ellis and Field, Liverpool.
Lewis. foot of the transfer note is a paragraph stating that the consideration money set forth differs from
MOUNTSTEPHEN v. LAKEMAN. that which the first seller is to receive, owing to a
COATES AND ANOTHER v. COLLINS.
Promise to answer for the debt, default or missub-sale by the original buyer, but that it is Lease for lives—Covenant—Description. carriage of another-Whether third person must arranged to fulfil the provision of the Stamp Act ERROR. Declaration on a covenant in a deed that be actually liable-Sect. 4 of Statute of Frauds for regulating the ad valorem duty under 55 Geo. a certain lease is “a good, valid, and subsisting (29 Car. 2, c. 3.) 3, c. 184. The jury found a verdict for the plain. lease in the law for the lives of W. W., W. J., This was an appeal from a decision of the Court tiff, leave being reserved to move to enter à non. R. H., and the survivors and survivors of them.” of Queen's Bench making absolute a rule to enter suit or a verdict for defendant.
The breach alleged was that at the time of the a nonsuit. Plaintiff had been employed by a Gully showed case.
execution of the covenant, the said lease was not a local board of health, of which defendant was Temple, in support, contended that the custom good, valid, and subsisting lease in the law for the chairman, to construct a main sewer ; and the was an unreasonable one.
lives of the said W. W., W. J., and R. H., and the local board gave notice to the occupiers of the The Court (Willes, Keating, and Brett, JJ.) survivors and survivor of them, but that the said adjoining houses to connect their drainage with were of opinion that the defendant was bound to W.J. had died long before. Plea, setting out the the sewer within twenty-one days, or the board sign the transfer note, as the paragraph at the deed containing the above covenant, whereby the would do it at their expense. Before the lapse of bottom was to be read as part of the document. defendant conveyed unto the plaintiffs "all that the twenty-one days the plaintiff when about
Attorney for plaintiff, Forshar, Commerce- messuage, &c., to have and to hold the said mes. quitting the work was asked by defendant why he court, Liverpool.
suage, &c., for and during the lives and life of the did not make the connections, to which the plain. Attorneys for defendant, Gregory Rowcliffes and said W. W., W.J., and R. H., and the lives and tiff replied, “I have no objection to do the Co., for Payne, Liverpool.
life of the survivors and survivor of them,” and work, if you or the local board will give covenanted that it was a good, valid, and sub- the order,' whereupon the defendant
sisting lease in law” for the lives as above set swered, “You go on and do the work, and I will ALEXANDER V. VANDER ZEE.
out. The deed of conveyance contained also a see you paid." The plaintiff having done the Saturday, Nov. 25.
covenant for further assurance " for the lives of work and not being paid for it by the board, to Contract-Construction-Question left to the jury. the said W. W., W. J., and R. H., and the lives whom he sent in his account, brought an action Action for not accepting maize. Defendant had and life of the survivors and survivor.” Demurrer against defendant, and the jury gave a verdict for contracted with plaintiff for the purchase of a to the plea. The Court of Queen's Bench (Cock him. A rule nisi being obtained to enter a nonlarge quantity of maize," for June or July ship. burn, C.J., Mellor and Lush, JJ.) held the covenant suit the Court of Queen's Bench made it absolute ment.' It was proved at the trial, before Brett, to amount only to this, that the lease was a good, on the groound that the defendant did not under. J., that maize shipped in June or July was always valid, and subsisting one; and that the words take to be primarily liable for the amount, but in better condition than that shipped earlier. One “for the lives of the said W. W., W. J., and only in case the board did not pay it ; that therelot of the maize tendered by plaintiff, consisting R. H.," wore merely words of description of the fore the promise was one to answer for the debt or of about 1480 kiloe, was refused by defendant, on lease, and not amounting to a warranty that each default of another, and must therefore, by the the ground that the plaintiff had begun to put it of the three persons was alive at the time.
Statute of Frauds, have been in writing. on board ship on the 12th May, and got about 650 Brown, Q.C. (with him Lawrence), for the plain. Charles (with him Lopes, Q.C.) for the plaintiff, kilos on board in May, and the remaining 830 tiff, contended that the meaning of the covenant contended that to bring the case within the Statute kilos in the first four or five days in June. On this was that each of the three persons named was of Frauds, there must be an actual debt or default ground it was contended that this was not a June alive at the time of the assignment of the lease. on the part of the third person, and that here or July shipment. Brett, J. at the trial left it to Manisty, Q.C. (with him Lord), for the defen- there was none, as the board never became in. the jury to say whether the shipment was one dant, contended that the words in the covenant debted. which would pass in ordinary mercantile phrase as as to the three lives were words of description Cole, Q.C. (with him Pinder) for the defendant, a June shipment, and the jury found for plaintiff. merely.
contended that the promise was one to pay only A rule was subsequently obtained for a new trial, The COURT affirmed the decision of the Court of in case the local board or the occupiers did not, on the ground that the judge ought to have 'Queon's Bench, being of opinion that the words and therefore came within the Statute of Frauds.
The COURT were unanimously of opinion that Goorn (Thomas), Bunce-grove, West Hoathley, Sussex, THE BENCH AND THE BAR. the judgment of the court below was wrong in
gentleman. Dec. 28; A. Hastie, solicitor, East Grinstead,
Sussex. Jan. 18; V.C. W., at twelve o'clock, holding it sufficient to bring the promise within Holy (Daniel), Newbold, Derby, gentleman.
Dec. 21 ; the Statute of Frauds, that at the time it was Walker Brown, solicitor, Shefneid. Jan. 11; V.C.M., a
THE COMPENSATIONS OF THE BAR. made, there is an assumed or supposed, though SIMPSON Christopher), Braco-grove, Tottenham, Middlesex, twelve o'clock.
(From an Address by E. E. HALE.) not actual, liability on the part of the third per. gentleman. Dec. 21; Baker and Blaker, solicitors, 3, “I HOPE the American lawyer understands the son, and therefore that the judgment should be
Cloak-lane, E.C. Jan. 9; M. R. at eleven o'clock. 4
same truth, that, unless he deals with infinite reversed. Julgment reversed.
CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 Vict. c. 35. values, his Profession is a handicraft, and his Attorneys for plaintiff, G. E. Philbick for W. and C. Kitson, Torquay.
Last day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent.
duty a job. Unless he deals with justice, pare as BENESI (Maurice), 1481, Fenchurch-street, E.C., and 6,
Heaven-unless he deals with truth, virgin as Solicitors for the defendants, Church, Sons and
Sydney-place, Stoke Newington, Middlesex, commission truth was born, there is for him no ermine. These Clarke, for Francis and Baker, Newton Abbot. agent. Dec. 28; J. N. Mason, solicitor, 7, Gresham- States, in our organization of society, have given
to the men of his calling distinguished position, COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Dec. 30; Hume and Bird, solicitors, 10, Great James-street, have shielded them by privilege else wholly an.
known; they are exempt from many of the
Middlesex. Jan. 31; "G. and J. Clark, solicitors, 23, Fins: burdens of other life, and see open to them its bury-place, London.'
highest honours. This is because they aro pledged Re WEHNER. PARSELL (Ratcliffe), Wallabadah, New South Wales,
in their very training, and by their oaths of office squatter. Dec. 30; W Moon, solicitor, 15, Lincoln's inn. Registration - Practice.
PULFER (Catherine), 19, Denmark-row, Camberwell, Surrey. are sworn, to obtain justice for all men, and for In this matter three questions were submitted to Dec. 31; Prideaux and Son, solicitors, Goldsinith's-hall, the State. The American lawyer ought not to the Chief Judge by Mr. Registrar Murray, one of
forget the traditions of his Profession. The the registrars of the London Court of Bankruptcy.
Templars of England, through whose hands come On the 23rd May last Mr. Wehner, a merchant in ESTATE AND INVESTMENT down to him the methods of the past, are the London, presented his petition for the liquidation
direct descendants of Templars bound to the of
JOURNAL affairs, and on the following day a receiver
service of chivalry. The only fee which he was appointed. At the first meeting, held on the
receives is in form an 'honorarium,' not the pay 23rd June, a resolution was proposed for the STOCK AND SHARE MARKETS. for service. The service is the unbought service liquidation of the debtor's affairs by arrangement. The following are the fluctuations of the week. of the king of truth and of right. He goes forth This proposal was supported by fifty-two creditors
on his circuit-such is the theory of his Profes. out of fifty-nine, whose aggregate debts amounted
ENGLISH FUNDS. Fri. Sat. Mon. Tues Wed. Thu sion-with the same determination to protect the to 32,0721. A few of the creditors at the same
Bank of England Stock 238 239
right and to crush the wrong which sent out meeting proposed a resolution for the liqui: 1 32 Cent. Red. Ann.... 91% 914 914 915 91% 91% Lancelot or Arthur. Who needs his help? It it dation of
in bankruptcy, and 3 # Cent. Cons. Ann.., 934 934 935 93% 93% 938 this poor boy, arraigned for murder by a mad amongst those who supported this proposal New 25 Cent. Ann...
mob, because, he is of another colour than theirs, was the proxy of the Schaffhausen Banking Do. do. Jan. 1974.
and they will wreak on him the wrath of centuries company a creditor for 69631. A second meeting
Do. 3} c. Jan. 1894 was held on the 21st Aug., and on that occasion 52 Cents. ; Jan. 1873 New 3 W Cent. Aun.
Or is it some child of luxury, born in the purple,
91% 911 917 911 914 913 who has smiles and honours, and gold for her Messrs. Fraser and Co., creditors for 14251., sup- Annuities April 5, 1885 |
minions ? He does his best, be it for the one or ported the proposal for liquidation in bankruptcy. Do. exp. Jun. 1880
for the other; ferrets out conspiracy ; seizes Upon the Schaffhausen Banking Company hear- Metropolitan Board of
truth, though truth be hiding her face in tears: ing that so large a majority of the creditors
Werks 3 pc. Stock.
and compels the tribunal to decide rightly! The were in favour of a liquidation by arrangement, Corporation of London
4. per e. Bonds....
moment that the American lawyer abandons this they directed their proxy to withdraw the vote he Rad Sea Tele. Ann. 1908
position, the moment that he sells justice, or the had given for a bankruptcy, and to vote in favour Consols, for Acc... 93 93 93 93 931 939 share of justice that his services can command, to of a liquidation by arrangement, or, if this could India 5 Cent, for Acc.
the highest bidder; the moment he says that the not be done, to withdraw their proof. The Messrs. Do. 5 Cent. July
ring which can spend millions shall have millions' 1880
113 Fraser subsequently gave similar directions to
1122 1123 worth, while the beggar with a penny shall have
207 their proxy, and accordingly, when the matter came
India Stock, 1874 before the registrar on the 5th Sept. for registration,
India 47 C. Oct. 1888 1031 103 1031 1037 1038 103penny's worth,-in such words of blasphemy he
shows he has no knowledge of what justice is. He these proxies respectively desired leave to withdraw Jan. 7, 1870
abandons the position of one who deals with the votes they had given in favour of bankruptcy India Bonds (10001.) ...
infinite realities. He has left as
one unfit, the proceedings and enter them in favour of a liqui.
Do. (under 10001.) 258.a 258.a 258.a 253,a ranks of a liberal calling. He makes himself a
Bs.a dation by arrangement, or to withdraw their
Ex. Bills, 10001...
mere craftsman, dealing with things alone, and to proofs altogether, as, in that case the resolution
Do. 1001, and 2001.
be recompensed with things alone. Leave him to for liquidation by arrangement would have been
the company he deserves !”- From Old and Nean carried by the requisite majority. The registrar, India Evfuced Paper
for October. being in doubt as to the proper course to be par.
57 Cent. July 1880 sued, applied to the court for instructions as to
Do. Jan. 1872 whether Messrs. Fraser and Co., and the banking
REVIVAL OF THE DURHAM COURT OF company, having voted in favour of a bankruptcy,
CHANCERY. were at liberty to withdraw their votes and vote in
REPORTS OF SALE S.
The office of Chancellor for the county Palatine favour of a liquidation by arrangement, and also [NOTE. - The reports of the Estate Exchange are officially of Durham having become vacant through the whether they might now withdraw the proofs re
supplied in the following list. Auctioneers whose naines
death of Christopher Temple, Esq., which event spectively of their claims against the estate?
took place last year, Her Majesty has been pleased, Reed appeared in support of the application.
by her royal warrant, to confer the said office on The Act of 1869 had clearly conferred upon credi
Thursday, Vor. 23.
James Fleming, Esq., one of her counsellors tors a right which these parties claimed to exercise.
By Mr. H. E. MARSH, at Guildhall Tavern.
learned in the law, and of whose fitness and qualifi. They had a perfect right to sign all resolutions, Cambia well, 1 os, 159 and 161, Southampton-street, freehold cations for the appointment Her Majesty is well
-sold for 9101. &c. connected with the proceedings for the Nos. 49 and 12, Peckham-grove, frechold--sold for 8701. satisfied. Mr. Fleming arrived in this city a few administration of an estate under the direction No.5, Camden-terrace, freehold --sold for 4602.
days ago, and on Monday morning last, sat the of this court.
No. 182, High-street, freehold -sold for 9007.
annual sitting, took his seat for the firststime in The CHIEF JUDGE said that the signatures of Five freehold cottages, in same yard-sold for 16201, the Court of Chancery, Exchequer-buildings, in the parties having been once affixed to a resolution Hill-street. Nos. 4i and 18, term 17 years-sold for 2301.
this city, when sincere hopes were expressed, both for the administration of the estate in bankruptcy Numb.cad. No. 7, Sunhead-grove, term 78 years-sold for by his Honour and E. J. Meynell, Esq., barrister
2151 could not now be withdrawn, but that they might Notting-hill. No. 133, Portobello-road, and No. 12, Vernon. at-law-the latter gentleman representing the bar. sign the resolution for a liquidation by arrange
mows, term 80 years-sold for 8501.
risters and attorneys of the county-that this court, ment. The effect of this would be that the con
Islington. No, 6s, Essex-rond, copyhold-sold for 7601. whose jurisdiction extends between the Tyne and trary signatures would neutralise one another, and No. 6, adjoining-sold for 5001.
the Tees, and which has almost ceased to exist for the parties be omitted altogether from the compu
In rear of the above, a shop and yard--sold for 2397. tation. This would enable the other creditors who
Portman-square. No. 39, Bryanston-street, term 19 years, upwards of twenty years, might be revived, and sold for 1ICOL.
become again one of the law courts of the palatidesired to have a liquidation by arrangement to
Friday, Nov. 24.
nate. It may not be generally known that this effect their object.
By Messrs. RusHWORTH, ABBOTT, and Co., at the Mart, ancient court has very extensive powers, and has Haverstock-hill. A freehold ground-rent of sl. per annum, concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court of
well secured-old for 2101. SOLICITORS JOURNAL. Five ditto, of Sl. per annum--sold for 1851, each.
Chancery, and the Court of Exchequer at Westmin. Three ditto, of I. per annum-old for 1951. each,
ster, and also with the County Court, in equitable One of S. per annum--sold for 2001. UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS IN THE No. 23, Quadrant-grore, term 79 years-sold for 1101,
matters, but it is of course confined only to such BANK OF ENGLAND. Ielingion. No. 48, Gibson-square, term 50 years-sold for
as arise within the county. In this Durham Court
4637. 1 Transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the Euston-square, No. 61, George-street, with workshop, term out of the estate of the deceased person, and may
of Chancery creditors can seek payment of debts National Debt, and wlrich will be paid to the persons respectively whose names are prefixed to each in three
39 years--sold for 8001. months, unless other claimants sooner appear.] No.39, University-street, term 3 years-sold for 3301.
obtain the relief they require; so may a legatee Paddington. A leasebola zround-rent of 81. per annum, of the estate of a deceased person seek an approPerrin (Wm.), and GODFREY (Wm. Henry), both of Win- amply secured-sold for 1307. dlesham, Surrey, farmers. 511. 18. 9. New Three per A ditto, of 101,--sold for 1601.
priation in this court; persons wishing to obtain Cent. Annuities, Claimant, the said Henry Godfrey the A ditto, of 121.-sold for 1877.
payment of mortgage may obtain foreclosure survivor. A ditto, of 61. old for 1001.
or a bill of sale; a specific performance of any A ditto, of 61. sold for 831. HEIRS-ATLAW AND NEXT OF KIN. A lensehold improved ground-rent of 152 158., on the Bedford agreement for the sale of any property may be Brown, formerly HARRIS (Sophi Stuart), Hippenscombe Paddington. On the Bishop of London's Estate, a leasehold of the dealings and transactions of a partnership
Estate--gold for 1107.
also enforced ; partners may appeal for an account house, Hippenscombe, near Hungerford, Wilts, widow. Next of kin to send in Jan. 11, at the chainbers of V.C. M.
ground-rent of 701. 108. per annum--sold for 1001, Jan. 15, at twelve o'clock, is the tune appointed for hear A ditto, of 917, per anum--sold for 15607.
already dissolved; new trustees, in certain cases, ing and adjudicating upon such claims. A ditto, of 581. per annum-sold for 11151.
may be appointed. These, and many other services Hyde-park. A leasehold improved ground-rent of 171. per may be obtained through the agency of this court. APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT STOCK
annum--sold for 3051.
The late Hon. Christopher Temple, issued in June BELFAST TRAMWAY COMPANY LIMITED). - Petition for
1853, a code of rules, setting forth the various winding-up to be heard, Dec. 8. before V.C. W.
INVESTORS IN THE FIVE PER CENT. FUNDED claims that could be taken to the Durham Court CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY.
LOAN OF THE UNITED STATES may have their of Chancery. Amongst the gentlemen of the legal
bonds registered in the purchasers' names at the profession who met in the court on Monday morn. LAST DAY OP PROOF.
banking-house of Jay Cooke, McCulloch, and Co., ing to give a weloome to the new Judge were :FORBES Charles Devonport.roadly Shepherd's-bush, Mia: 41, Lombard-street; and dividend warrants will Mr. J. Watson, registrar of the court, and Mr. T.
dlerex, baruister-at-law Dec. 26. J. Brownslow: soli- be mailed quarterly, from the United States Trea- Watson, deputy registrar; E. J. Meynell, Esq., citor, 34, Bedford-row, Holborn, w... Jan. 10; Y.C. W., at one o'clock. sury direct to the holders' address.
barrister-at-law; Mr. J. W. Hays, Mr. J. G. Har.
... ... ...
78.a 2s. 78.a 25.a
THE LAW TIMES.
Dec. 2, 1871.)
greaves, Mr. J. Patriek, Mr. W. Brignall, jun., was ever granted of the last-mentioned land, but of the company, being a mere sham and contrivance
brought ejectment for such reclaimed land. Held, company A.Jhad been dissolved under the proviHis Honour, on entering the court, said : In that the fee simple thereof vested in the plain- sions of their deed of settlement, or wound-up, the taking my seat for the first time, I beg to express tiffs' predecessors, under the 11 Gey. 3, c. 34, s. 2, shareholders had a right to transfer their shares. my sincere hope that the former business of the subject to the right in equity of. A. A., to demand The directors were not entitled to resume the court may be restored to it. This is the anicent, leases for ninety-nine years from 1868, and that, business without the consent of all the shareand I think I may add, the natural, court of equity as the latter were oestui que trusts in possession, holders, but the business might have been legally for this large and important county. I shall be the Statute of Limitations (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27) resumed if the shareholders who wished to ready to attend at all times when my presence can | did not operate as a bar to the plaintiffs, who resume it had bought all the shares of the other be required, and to adjourn the court from time were therefore entitled to recover: (Drummond v. shareholders. By the deed of settlement the to time as may be found necessary, and also to Sunt, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 419. Q.B.)
directors had no power absolutely to reject a transact such business as may be lawfully transacted in London. Although I cannot hope to ADVANCES BY
EQUITABLE MORTGAGE-CHARGE TO SECURE proposed transferee of shares, but only if they
could find a substitute to take the shares : (Chapequal the eminence of some of my very distin: guished predecessors, I trust that in the desire to vised his N. and S. estates to the petitioners, and DEVISEES OF OTHER ESTATES.-A testator de pel's Case, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 438. L.JJ.)
PERSONAL to do full justice, and in the wish to consult in he made an equitable mortgage of his N. estate to promote the interests of the suitors in the anxiety his W. estate to the respondent. Subsequently LIABILITY OF DIRECTORS--ESTATE OF DECEASED
DIRECTOR.- - Where directors by a prospectus, in every manner the convenience of the practitioners his bankers to secure advances on his current
which they suppress all mention of a material fact in the court, I shall not be found behind any of account, and afterwards made a similar charge on
within their knowledge on which fact it is prothem.
his S. and W. estates to secure further advances. bable that the success of their scheme may depend, E. J. Meynell then rose and said, I have been On his death there was owing on the securities induce persons to take shares in a company, which deputed by the legal gentlemen of this city to to the bankers the sum of 18,8361. 11s. ld., of shares he would not have taken had he been aware offer you their congratulations on your taking which 17,4501. 10s. 5d. was incurred up to the date of the concealed fact, they are, in equity, peryour seat for the first time in this honourable of the first mortgage, and the remainder between sonally liable to make good the loss occasioned by court, and to express their very great satisfaction that date and the time of his death. A foreclosure the concealment, notwithstanding the fact that that a gentleman of such learning and eminence, suit was instituted by the bankers, and a decree they honestly believed in the probable success of and whose name is so well known in the legal was made under which the N. estate was sold, and the company, that the undertaking has turned out profession, has been appointed judge of this an.
with the purchase money, and a portion of the equally injurious to them and to the shareholders, cient court, which at one time beld an eminent rents of it and the s. estate, the whole of the debt and that they believed the concealment would be place in the diocese, and it is to be hoped that it due to the bankers was discharged. On a petition beneficial to the persons thereby induced to take will again revive, as your honour has said just by the devisees of the N. estate, seeking to have shares. In such a case
the estate of a deceased direcnow. I do hope that you will not find it such a ginecure as your predecessor did. I now move, three estates, according to their relative values : the whole of the debt apportioned amongst the tor is equally liable with the surviving directors.
A person who has been induced by such a prospecon behalf of the official trustees of Spearman's Held, that the N. estate was primarily liable
tus to take shares in a company must file his bill Charity, that the accounts, vouchers, and receipts for the first and larger advance, and that the two
before the company is ordered to be wound-up, in relating to such charity, be filed in this court. other estates were liable rateably according to
order to obtain the cancellation of his shares and His HONOUR.-I may remark, in passing these their respective values for the second
and smaller the return of his deposit, and though there is not accounts, that by an order the charity is entirely advance : (De Rochefort v. Dawes, 25 L. T. Rep.
the same technical rule as to the time within which confined to persons resident within the county of N. S. 456. V.C. W.)
he must take proceedings to render the direotors Durham, but I nnderstand there are persons
personally liable, yet the burden of proof lies on recipients of the charity who are non-resident. I
him to show that it was not the mere failure of do not think it would be within my duty to
the company that caused him to take such pro
COMPANY LAW. remove such persons who are now in receipt of it,
ceedings : Semble, that a transferee of shares can but I hope that hereafter no person who is a non
have no other relief against the directors than resident in the county of Durbam will receive it.
NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS.
the original allottee of the shares was entitled to, As there was no other business, the court was WINDING-UP-TRANSFER OF SHARES.- Where and that if the original allottee of shares was adjourced sine die.
in a company in which the directors had power to cognisant of a matter concealed in the prospecrefuse a transfer of shares, a transferor and trans- tus, his transferee can have no relief against the
feree concurred in misrepresenting the real cir- directors in respect of such concealment : (Peek v. REAL PROPERTY AND cumstances of a transfer : Held (in the course of Gurney, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 446. M. R.) CONVEYANCING.
liquidation), that such transfer could not stand as WINDING-UP-CONTRIBUTORY-LIABILITY OF against the company: (Argus's Case, 25 L. T. Rep. PAST MEMBERS TO CONTRIBUTION.-Each con. N.S. 406. V.C. W.)
tributory on the B list is liable to contribute to NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS.
RAILWAY-AGREEMENT.-Specific performance the assets of the company (to the extent of the VENDOR AND PURCHASER-TITLE MORT- of an agreement, whereby a railway company assets remaining unpaid on his shares) rateably GAGE BY HUSBAND AND WIFE-A married woman agreed to construct and maintain a siding on the with the other B contributories who are liable to concurred with her husband in mortgaging pro- plaintiff's land was decreed, although the plaintiff pay the same debts of the company to the extent perty belonging to him, and on which she had a had previously entered into negotiations with the of the balance remaining at the commencement of rentcharge. The mortgage deed recited that the company for compensation in respect of the breach the winding-up unpaid of those debts of the comadvance was agreed upon in consideration of the of the agreement: (Greene v. The West Cheshire pany which were contracted before he transferred wife joining in the mortgage, and that she thereby Railway, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 409. V.C. B.) his shares, as reduced by the dividends paid in the conveyed " for the purpose of absolutely releasing WINDING-UP
CONTRIBUTORY POWER OF
course of the winding-up by means of the assets and extinguishing” her revtcharge. Subsequently DIRECTORS TO REFUSE TRANSFER OF SHARES
of the company and the contributions of the con. part of the property was reconveyed to the hus- AMALGAMATION-EXCHANGE GF Shares. The tributories upon the A list. The contributions of band, who again mortgaged it to a mortgagee who deed of settlement of company A. provided that each B contributory are to be applied exclusively sold under a power of sale. Held, that the wife's interest in the equity of redemption still attached should in writing propose his intended transferee a shareholder who wished to transfer his shares, | in payment of those debts of the company which
were contracted before he ceased to be a member to the property : (Re Belton's Trusts, 25 L. T. Rep. as a shareholder, that the directors should certify of the company. But a B contributory has no N. S. 404. V.C. W.)
to the shareholder their acceptance or rejection right to say that those B contributories who ceased LANDLORD AND TENANT–TITLE
OF Tenant of the proposal, and that if they rejected the to be members of the company after himself shall TO LAND ANNEXED THE TENEMENT proposed transferee, and did not within fourteen be exhausted before he is called upon to contribute STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS:-Predecessors through days find some one else to take the shares at the anything. The winding-up of the Company com, whom the plaintiffs claimed, being seised in fee of market price of the day, the proposed transferee menced in June 1866. On the 25th Nov. 1865 M. had D. yard, which then abutted on to the outer side of should be entitled to a transfer of the shares. In transferred fifty shares to P. At this time there arc, or bend, shaped by the course of the July 1865 the company entered into an agreement
was 8001. unpaid upon the fifty shares. At the Thames, made an oral agreement for a building for amalgamation with company M., who were to
commencement of the winding-up, there remained lease with A. A., from whom the defendants de- take over the business assets and liabilities, and unpaid the sum of 6421. in respect of debts conduced title. A. A. began to build on the land, and shares in the company M. were to be given to the tracted by the company before M. censed to be a articles of agreement, dated 23rd June 1769, were shareholders in company A., in exchange for their member. P. was placed on the A list of con; afterwards executed, whereby the freeholders shares in that company. All the shareholders in tributories, but he became insolvent, and paid covenanted with A. A. that they would, when cer
company A. assented to this arrangement, and ex. nothing in respect of the calls maule npon him. tain messuages agreed to be built on the said changed their shares accordingly, but company A. Dividends to the amount of 15s. in the pound ground should be tiled in, demise to them D. yard was not wound-up or dissolved, though the deed were paid by the liquidator upon all the debts of from Lady-day 1768, for ninety-nine years, at a of settlement contained provisions for a dissolu. the company, by means of the assets and the con. yearly rent; and A. A. covenanted to tile in so tion. In Oct. 1866, the winding-up of company
tributions received from the contributories upon many houses as would secure the rent. The latter M. commenced. Shortly before this company M. the A list. In this way the 6421. became reduced contemplated the making of an embankment from had entered into an agreement with the persons
to 1601, 10s. The A list having been exhausted, end to end of the are, forming a chord thereto, in who had been directors of company A. at the date the liquidator desired to make a call upon the order to win from the river the land inside the of the amalgamation, and who proposed still to contributories on the B list, and a question arose bollow of the bend. They therefore united with act on behalf of company A., for the retransfer to
as to the extent of their liability. The case of M. others who had an interest in the neighbouring pro- that company of the business formerly carried on
was selected as a representative one : Held (vary. perty, and obtained an Act (11 Geo. 3, c. 34), which, by them, and the resumption of business by them. ing a decision of Bacon, V.C.) that M. was liable after reciting that the promoters had valuable On the 23rd Oct. 1866, the former directors of com
to contribute to the payment of the 1601. 108., freehold and leasehold interests in D. yard, &c., pany A. held a board meeting, at which they ap. rateably with the other contributovies on the next adjoining the river, and were willing to proved a transfer of 2145 shares which ład been B list, who ceased to be members of the company make the embankment in front of their respective executed by C., the former solicitor of the com- after the 6121. became due by the company : properties at their own expense, authorised them pany. In March 1868, company A. resolved upon (Morriss's case, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 443. L. JJ.) to do so, and enacted (sect. 2) that the soil of the
a voluntary liquidation. Held, by James, L.J. river so to be enclosed, in front of each respective (affirming a decision of the Master of the Rolls), Epps's CHOCOLATE. -"Nous n'avons en France qu'une house, &c., should vest, and the same was thereby that C. was liable as a contributory in respect of seule usine où la préparation du Caeno emploie un vested in the owner or owners, proprietor or pro- the 2145 shares. But, held by Mellish, L.J., that matériel et un personnel aussi considérables que ceux prietors of such adjoining house, &c., respectively, C. was not liable as a contributory. Per James, que nous avons vus dans l'usine de Messieurs Epps according to his or their respective estates, trusts, L.J.-The agreement for amalgamation of com.
C'est une véritable curiosité dans son genre que cette or interests. A. A. erected the required number pany A. with company M. amounted to a virtual
immense fabrique."-La Situation (the Imperialist of houses on D. yard, and duly received leases of dissolution of company A.; the shares in com
organ). The wrapper of each cake of Chocolate is
labelled “JAMES EPPs & Co., Homøopathic Chemists, the same; the embankment having been made, pany A. ceased to exist, and were incapable of Lndon.” Also, makers of Epps's Milky Chocolate they also built on the land reclaimed. No lease
being transferred, and the attempted resuscitation (Chocolate and Condensed Milk).