ABDUCTION.
(See Criminal Law.)

ACCEPTANCE.
(See Sale of Goods.)
ACTION, RIGHT OF.

(See Agreement.)

ACT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(See Bankruptcy.)

ACT OF STATE.

Demurrer-Annexation of province-Foreign creditor-
Debt unenforcible at time of annexation-Jurisdiction.-
The plaintiffs, residing in India, were the legal personal
representatives of D., who, in the year 1794, became a
creditor by specialty on the revenues of the province of
Oude. In 1856 the province of Oude was annexed to the
territories of the East India Company; and in 1858, under
the Act 21 & 22 Vict. c. 106, the territories of the East India
Company were vested in Her Majesty. The plaintiffs
filed their bill against the Secretary of State for India in
Council, praying that he might be ordered to pay their
debt out of the property vested in Her Majesty under the
above Act. The defendant demurred: Held, that, as the
debt was a debt unenforceable against the sovereign of
Oude at the time of the annexation, and as the annexation
was an Act of State, over which and its consequences the
court had no jurisdiction, the demurrer must be al-
lowed.
Page 294

ADJUDICATION.

(See Bankruptcy.)

ADMINISTRATION.

(See Will.)

ADMINISTRATION SUIT.

Vendor and purchaser-Charge of debts-Order for sale-
Jurisdiction.-A testator by his will dated the 4th Sept.
1858, devised his real and personal estate to trustees upon
trust to pay debts, and subject thereto upon trust as to
a certain freehold house to allow his wife to reside there
during her widowhood, and on her death or second mar-
riage, upon trust for sale. The testator died in the same
year. An administration suit was instituted, and the
chief clerk found that all the debts were paid. The court
afterwards decreed a sale of the estate in question, and
the purchaser raised the objection that the widow
being still alive, the order was beyond the jurisdiction of
the court: Held, that the court had no power to make
the order

Arrest of ship-Foreign ship-Practice.-In an appeal by
plaintiffs from a County Court in a cause in rem, in which
there was a decree for the defendants, and the ship had in
consequence been released, the High Court of Admiralty,
on an ex parte application of the plaintiffs, ordered a war-
rant to issue for the detention of the ship, and, as the
ship proceeded against was a foreign one, did not require
notice of the intention to arrest to be given to the defen-
dants ...
Collision-Breach of regulations for preventing collision-
Light-Screens.-To render a ship liable to be deemed in
fault under the Merchant Shipping Act 1873, sect. 17, for
an infringement of the regulations for preventing colli.
sions, the infringement must be one having some possible
connection with the collision in question; a mere in-
fringement, which by no possibility could have anything
to do with the collision, will not render the ship liable.
A ship carrying her side lights, with screens shorter than
required by the regulations, is not to be deemed in fault

572

if the shortness of the screens could not by any possibility
have contributed to the collision. Semble, that the pecu-
liar build of a ship requiring her side light screens to be
shorter than provided in the regulations, is not a "cir-
cumstance of the case making a departure from the regu.
lation necessary," within the meaning of the Merchant
Shipping Act 1873, sect. 17
Ship wholly under control of charterers-Proceeding in
rem-Liability of the res.-A ship chartered by her owners
so that the whole control and management of ship and
crew is vested in the charterers, still remains liable in a
proceeding in rem for damage done to another ship by
the negligence of her crew, although they are the char-
terer's servants...

Costs Damage under 3001. County Courts Admiralty
Jurisdiction Act 1868, s. 9-Certificate-Costs of re-
ference.-A ship was damaged by another outward bound,
and the owners of the injured vessel, in the bond fide
belief that their damage was greater than it actually was,
instituted a suit in the High Court of Admiralty and ar-
rested the ship for a large amount, but accepted bail and
released the ship at once on ascertaining their actual
damage; the defendants admitted liability, and the
damage was referred to the registrar: the claim made by
the plaintiffs was a little over 300l., but the registrar re-
duced the amount claimed by more than one-third, and
made no report as to costs. On application by the
plaintiffs, the court certified for the costs of suit under
the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1868, but
condemned the plaintiffs in the costs of the reference page 836
Jurisdiction of the High Court.-Semble, the High Court
of Admiralty has jurisdiction to proceed in rem against a
ship for breach of contract, within the meaning of the
Admiralty Court Act 1861 (24 Vict. c. 10), sect. 6,
although that breach is committed by one of the part
owners of the ship only (the master), and for which the
other part owners would not be responsible...
Limitation of liability-Admission of liability.-Defendants
in a collision cause, in which their ship was under arrest,
having instituted a suit for limitation of liability, the
court, upon the motion of the plaintiffs in the limitation
suit, ordered the ship to be released, on payment into
court in that suit of the aggregate amount of 15. per ton
of the registered tonnage of the ship, and of a sum to
cover interest and costs, and did not require that the
plaintiffs in the limitation suit should admit liability
before ordering the release
Wages-Foreign plaintiffs-Security for costs.-Where a
cause of wages was instituted against a foreign ship by her
master and crew, who were also foreigners, and it appeared
that, although they were at the time in this country, their
only place of residence there was on board the ship, and
that the master had stated that he had no means and in-
tended to leave England, the High Court of Admiralty
ordered the plaintiffs to give security for costs in the sum
572
of £130...

Authority to pledge-Factors' Acts-Agent intrusted with
the possession of goods or of the documents of title to
goods-Agent a warehouseman as well as a broker.-In
order that a person may be an "agent intrusted with the
possession of goods" within sect. 1 of 5 & 6 Vict. c. 39, he
must be intrusted with them in his character of an agent
for sale, or of an agent who, as such, ordinarily has a power
of sale or pledge. If he has an independent business as
warehouseman, and he is in possession of goods intrusted
to him in that capacity, the Factors' Acts do not entitle a
pledgee to assume that he has been intrusted in the one
capacity rather than the other; and the fact of his carry-
ing on the two trades will not bring a pledge made by him
within the protection of the Factors' Acts if it have been in
fact made without the authority of his principal to sell or
pledge. ...
733

Not for public benefit.

AGREEMENT.

(See Company-Railway-Parol Agreement-Practice: Equity.)
AGREEMENT FOR LEASE

Lease of wife's freehold-Specific performance-Statute of
Frauds-Part performance-County Court appeal.-W.
was lessee in possession of freehold premises belonging
to E.'s wife for a term of ten years. On the expiration
of the term, W., who continued in possession, verbally
agreed with E.'s wife for a new lease for thirty years.
W. then verbally agreed to grant to L. an underlease of
the new term at an increased rent. L. entered and
expended money on improvements; the improvements
consisted of a wooden stable, boiler, and gas and water
pipes, all of which were moveable. E., having refused
to grant the lease to W., W. filed a plaint against E.
alone in the County Court for specific performance of his
agreement with E.'s wife: Held, on appeal, that the
expenditure by L. was not such as would have been made
by a mere tenant from year to year; and that it must
be considered as made by W., or by his authority, and
that W. was entitled to a decree for specific perform.
ance. Observation on Frame v. Dawson (14 Ves. 386).
The objection that E.'s wife was not made a party to
the plaint was not taken in the court below, and the
only question submitted by the County Court Judge for
the opinion of the appeal court was whether the expen-
diture by L. entitled W. to specific performance: Held,
that the point not submitted by the County Court Judge
could not be argued on appeal
...page 359

(See Mines.)

AGREEMENT TO PAY.
Failure of consideration-Application to set aside agree-
ment-Breaking ground.-The S. Company having ob-
tained power to make the C. railway from Y. to W.,
transfers the powers to the B. Company, which is at the
same time authorised to run through and use the station
W. of the S. Company, so as to have free communication
with the E. S. R. The consideration to be paid for these
rights was fixed at £400 per annum. This agreement to
pay was to take effect from the time that the B. Company
should begin to break ground within six feet of any of the
sidings in the W. yard. Ground was broken in 1870:
Held, that the words "to break the ground" mean "to
commence work," and do not include preparations for
the execution of work. Held, further, that inasmuch as
the payment of the rent was made to depend upon the
happening of a certain event, there was no room to
modify the agreement to pay by a reference to con-
siderations upon which payment was not dependent

AGREEMENT TO REPAIR.

(See Landlord and Tenant.)

AMENDMENT.

(See Practice: Common Law.)

ANCIENT LIGHTS.

Alteration of easement-Damages-Relief in equity.-
Bill filed to restrain the defendant from building so as
to interfere with the access of light to the plaintiff's
dwelling. The defendant intended to erect on an ad-
joining piece of land a building 36ft. high, within 5t.
of the plaintiff's messuage. The alleged ancient lights
were eight windows, some of which were on the ground
floor, and the remainder on the first floor, and it appeared
that in 1846 the windows in question had been enlarged:
Held (affirming the decision of the Master of the Rolls),
that the right of an owner of ancient lights to protection
is not affected by the circumstance that he has altered or
enlarged his ancient windows, or opened new ones near
them. The Prescription Act has not taken away any of
the modes of acquiring easements which existed before
the statute was passed; and where the evidence is clear
of a right to the light from time immemorial, that right
is not taken away by the statute. Wherever an action
can be maintained at law, and really substantial damages
can be recovered, an injunction will generally be granted
in equity...
Mandatory injunction-Damages.-The Court of Chancery
will not, in general, grant a mandatory injunction to pull
down buildings alleged to obstruct ancient lights if the
defendant has completed such buildings before the bill is
filed. But if the plaintiff's premises appear to have been
rendered substantially less enjoyable or comfortable, the
court will grant an inquiry as to damages, though such
relief was not asked for by the bill

...

ANNUAL VALUE.
(See Water-rate.)
APPRENTICE.

Power of master to discharge for misconduct.-By an ap-
prenticeship agreement the defendant took the plaintiff's
son as an apprentice for three years, to learn the business
of a tea broker, and in consideration of the sum of 2001.

338

345

248

he agreed to teach the son such business by the best
means in his power, and further agreed to pay him a
salary each year; provided always that he obeyed all
commands, and gave his services entirely to the business
during office hours. The defendant pleaded to an action
for not teaching the apprentice, and for dismissing and
refusing to retain him, that the apprentice misconducted
himself by disobeying the defendant's lawful orders, by
neglecting his duties, and absenting himself from the
service, wherefore the defendant discharged him. Held,
on demurrer, that this plea was good

Motion to set aside award-Informality.-A reference to
arbitration under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act
1845 is not a reference by consent within the meaning of
the 17th section of the Common Law Procedure Act 1854.
Where the amount of compensation for lands alleged to
be injuriously affected was referred to arbitration under
the 68th section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act
1845, and the umpire ascertained the amount, and awarded
that the company "do pay" that sum: Held, that the
latter part of the award was merely an error in form, and
must be read as though it contained the additional words,
"assuming the company is liable to pay," it not being
within the jurisdiction of the umpire to decide the ques-
tion of liability; and that the omission to set out such
words did not make the award bad ...

Poor rate-Reference to arbitration-Refusal to abide by
award-Replevin bond.-An assesssment committee made
a poor rate upon the plaintiff's property in excess of the
amount which the plaintiffs considered to be the rateable
value. The plaintiffs gave notice of appeal. Both parties
then agreed to refer the matter to arbitration, and to be
bound by the decision of the umpire. The umpire did
not make his award for three years, during which time
the plaintiffs were compulsorily obliged to pay the poor
rate. The umpire made his award and declared that the
plaintiffs were overrated and that the defendants should
repay to them the sums in excess which they had been
obliged to pay under compulsion. The defendants re-
fused to consider the award as valid, and when the next
rate was made distrained upon the plaintiff company
under a magistrate's warrant. The company replevied,
and afterwards moved that the replevin bond might be
delivered up. Held, that the proceedings of the de-
fendants were against good faith, they having agreed to
be bound by the award, and that the replevin bond
might be given up at the plaintiff's instance. London
and North Western Railway v. Bedford (17 Q. B. 978),
followed.
Referring back award-Admission by arbitrator of mistake.
-The general rule that the court has power to send back
an award to an arbitrator for reconsideration only in
case of fraud or corruption, and where an error appears
necessarily on the face of the award, is subject to the
further exception upheld in Flynn v. Robertson (L. Rep.
4 C. P. 324), viz., where there is a mistake admitted
by the parties and by the arbitrator himself. It is
not, however, enough to bring a case within this last
exception, that the arbitrator should have admitted
the grounds of his decision, and that those grounds
should be manifestly erroneous. It is only where the
arbitrator himself comes to crave the assistance of the
court to enable him to rectify his own mistake, that the
court has power to send back the award to him for that
purpose

214

567

(See Specific Performance.)

ARRANGEMENT, DEED OF.

(See Will.)

ARTICLED CLERK.

Temporary assignment of service-Return to original
master.-During the period of service for which the
applicant was duly articled, he and his service were
assigned for fifteen months to another attorney, and at
the end of that period he returned to his original service
under his articles. He faithfully performed his duties
under both masters. Held, upon application to reckon
the service under the assignment as part of the period re-
quired by the statute for qualification as attorney, that
this case did not fall within the exceptions in sect. 13 of
6 & 7 Vict. c. 73; and that these fifteen months could not
be counted in the employment required by sect. 12
451
Unstamped articles, service under-6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, ss.
8, 9-Under what circumstances allowed service to count
from date of execution...
.. 33, 560, 568, 728, 729

Life policy-Bankruptcy of assured-Sufficiency of notice
of assignment of policy.-The notice of the assignment
of a policy of life insurance given to the insurance office
so as to take the policy out of the order and disposition
of the assured in the event of his subsequent bankruptcy
need not, previous to the statute 30 & 31 Vict. c. 144, be
in writing, and need not be formal in the sense of being
given in the course of a transaction upon the insurance
itself; there must, however, be such an amount of for-

mality that the officer of the company should have his
attention called to it as a matter of business. It is
enough that the knowledge is communicated to a proper
person, such as a director or the secretary of the insur-
ance company, and that he receives it in his official capa-
city; and it makes no difference if in fact such person
did not communicate the knowledge to the company page 151
ASSIGNMENT, EQUITABLE.
(See Bankers.)

ASSIGNMENT OF DEBT.

(See Bankruptcy.)

ATTORNEY.

462

Attorney and client-Agreement between as to costs, and
for employment of attorney in a particular business-
Action for breach of by non-employment...
-Costs of Chancery suit-Action for against one of several
defendants-Joint or separate retainers-Liability under
-Taxation of costs at common law and in equity...... 807
(See Costs).

Lien-Fruit of judgment-Garnishee order-23 & 24 Vict.
c. 127, s. 28-Common Law Procedure Act 1851, s. 61.-An
ex parte garnishee order under s. 61 of the Common Law
Procedure Act 1854, does not override an attorney's
particular lien upon a judgment debt under 23 & 24 Vict.
c. 127, s. 28. P., having obtained an award in his favour
in an action against M., to the effect that M. should pay
him certain sums of money, the attorney of P. in the
action obtained an order for his costs under 23 & 24 Vict.
c. 127, s. 28, upon these sums. Three days afterwards B.,
who had recovered judgment against P., obtained an e
parte garnishee order binding the same sums in the hands
of M. Held, that the claim of P.'s attorney was to be
preferred to the claim of B., and a rule calling on the
garnishee to pay the debt to B. and to rescind an order of
Brett, J. in favour of P.'s attorney refused...

AWARD.

(See Arbitration.)

BANKERS. "

495

Special credit-Equitable assignment-Trust fund-Varia-
tion of contract-Foreign government.-A letter from a
banker stating that a special credit for a specified amount
has been opened in favour of a particular person, does
not constitute an equitable assignment of, or impress a
trust upon funds in the banker's hands to that amount 41
Treasurer to poor law guardians-Action against by
guardians for negligence-Banker and customer-Payment
of orders fraudulently altered-Payment of orders with
forged indorsements

(See Cheque-Bill of Exchange.)

BANKRUPTCY.

802

432

717

Appeal-Time for-Computation of-Practice-Sundays.—
The twenty-one days within which an appeal must be
entered under r. 143 of the Bankruptcy Rules 1870, must
be reckoned exclusive of Sundays
Act of bankruptcy-Assignment of all property-Bond-fide
present advance. An assignment of a person's whole pro-
perty for a bona fide present advance is not an act of bank-
ruptcy, though exorbitant interest is charged and strin
gent conditions imposed. E. by deed assigned all his
farming stock, &c., to defendant to secure payment of
£175 by instalments at two and three months. Only £135
was advanced; afterwards £85 more was advanced, and a
receipt for £100 payable in one month endorsed on the
deed. The deed contained, among other stringent condi-
tions, a power to seize and sell after acquired property,
and a clause prohibiting E. from selling any of the stock,
&c. Defendant sold under the deed and the property
realised £608. Held, that the assignment was not an act
of bankruptcy, and that E.'s trustee in bankruptcy could
not recover in trover, but could recover the overcharges
on the sale as money received
Trader-Levy over 501.-Notice of-Second levy
over 501. at suit of same creditor-Adjudication-The
Bankruptcy Act 1869, ss. 87, 95.-A creditor who himself
does the very thing which by force of the statute con-
stitutes an act of bankruptoy on the part of his trader
debtor, must be regarded as having notice of that act of
bankruptcy. Consequently, if the act of bankruptcy be
an execution levied by seizure and sale for more than 501.,
and the same creditor afterwards levies a second execu-
Sion for more than 50%., the creditor cannot retain the
proceeds of the second levy as against the trustee in
bankruptcy even though the sheriff may have, after the
fourteen days have expired, and without notice of any
proceedings in bankruptcy, paid over the proceeds of the
second levy to such creditor
Bankruptcy and liquidation proceedings pending together-
Adjudication-Stay of proceedings-Discretion of court
-Bankruptcy Act 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 71), s. 80, sub-s. 10
-Bankruptcy Rules 1870, Rule 266.-When a debtor
against whom a bankruptcy petition has been presented
files a liquidation petition before the hearing of the bank-
ruptcy petition, the court has a discretion either to post-

103

Bankrupt permitted (by trustee) to trade for benefit of
creditors-Purchase of furniture with proceeds-Execu
tion upon furniture by judgment creditor-Claim of fur-
niture by trustee-Interpleader-Recognition of equit-
able rights in.-If a trustee in bankruptcy allow a bank-
rupt to trade for the benefit of the creditors, the rights
of an execution creditor in respect of a debt contracted
after and without notice of the bankruptcy will be pre-
ferred to the rights of the trustee in bankruptcy.
Although such rights are purely equitable, a court of law
will recognise them upon an interpleader issue. An
advertising agent became bankrupt in 1870, and after-
wards the plaintiff was appointed trustee. The bankrupt,
not having yet obtained his discharge, was allowed to
carry on his trade for the benefit of his creditors, and in
the course of such trade contracted a debt, in respect of
which the defendant, who had no notice of the bank.
ruptcy when he gave credit, obtained judgment, and
issued execution against him, in pursuance of which the
sheriff levied upon his furniture. Possession of the
house in which the furniture was had been yielded up
an agent of the trustee a few days before the sheriff
entered, but the bankrupt, who had bought the furniture
with the proceeds of the permitted trading, had not dis-
closed his ownership of it to the trustee until about a
fortnight before that time. Held on an interpleader issue
that the rights of the execution creditor ought to be pre-
ferred to the right of the trustee in bankruptcy, and a rule
to set aside a verdict for the trustee in bankruptcy made
absolute. Held also (dubitante Duman, J.), that a court
of law may, in interpleader, notice equitable rights...
Billholders Shipbuilding contract - Builder's lien-
Insolvency of contractor and contractee.-A. agreed
to build for B. an iron steamship for 76001. The money
was to be paid by instalments as the building of the ship
progressed, partly in cash and partly by bills, and from
the time of paying the first instalment the ship was to
be the property of B. to the extent of his payments on
account, subject to A.'s lien for any unpaid instalments.
B. gave his acceptances from time to time to the amount
of 27001., to A., who discounted them with his bankers in
the ordinary course. Before the ship was completed, A.
and B. both became insolvent; the bills were conse-
quently dishonoured at maturity. The creditors of B.
accepted a composition, and their resolution was duly
registered. B. subsequently abandoned the contract,
and the trustee under A.'s bankruptcy finished the ship.
The bankers, the holders of the bills, then claimed to
stand in B.'s place, and to be entitled to a lien upon the
ship for the moneys they had advanced on the bills:
Held, on appeal, that the doctrine of Er parte Waring
(19 Ves. 345) did not apply, and that the bankers were
not entitled to the lien claimed by them

-

Rights of-Doctrine of Ex parte Waring-Shipbuild-
ing contract Vendor's lien for unpaid purchase-
money-Double insolvency. A. contracted to build an
iron steamship for B. for 76001. The money was to
be paid by instalments at specified periods, as the
building of the ship progressed, partly in cash and
partly in bills, and from the time of paying the first
instalment the ship was to be the property of B.,
to the extent of his advances, subject to A.'s lien for
any unpaid instalments. B. gave his acceptances from
time to time to the amount of 27001. to A., who dis-
counted them with his bankers in the ordinary course.
Before the ship was completed, A. and B. both became
insolvent, and the bills were consequently dishonoured at
maturity. B.'s creditors resolved to accept a com-
position, and their resolution was duly registered. B.
subsequently abandoned the contract, and the trustee
under A.'s bankruptcy finished the ship. The bankers,
the holders of the bills, which were expressed to be
drawn "for value received in iron screw steamer now
building," claimed to stand in B.'s place, and to be entitled
to a lien upon the ship for the moneys they had advanced
on the bills: Held (affirming the decision of the Chief
Judge in Bankruptcy), that the doctrine of Ex parte
Waring (19 Ves. 345) did not apply, and that the bill
holders were not entitled to the lien claimed by them
Bill of sale-Mortgage by means of
Composition-Trustee appointed for receipt and distribution
of composition-Balance in trustee's hands-Jurisdiction
to take account as between trustee and debtor-Rights of
creditors not bound by composition-Bankruptcy Act
1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 71), 88. 72, 126-Bankruptcy rules
1870, rule 279.-Where a trustee has been appointed under
the 279th of the Bankruptey Rules 1870, for receipt and
distribution of a composition, and, after all the creditors
have been paid, a balance remains in the trustee's hands,
the Court of Bankruptcy has jurisdiction to take an
account as between the trustee and the debtor in order
to ascertain the amount of the surplus, and to order the
surplus so ascertained to be paid over by the trustee to
the debtor. A creditor whose claim is not mentioned in