Joseph Crosfield & Sons, Ld., In re, [1910]
1 Ch. 118.
Affirmed by C. A.
[1910] 1 Ch. 130
Knatchbull's Settled Estate, In re, (1884)
27 Ch. D. 349.
Dicta in, considered and distinguished
by Eve J. In re DUKE OF MAN-
CHESTER'S SETTLEMENT
[1910] 1 Ch. 106
Lassence v. Tierney, (1849) 1 Mac. & G. 551
The rule in, applied by Joyce J. In re
CURRIE'S SETTLEMENT
[1910] 1 Ch. 329
Lloyd v. Guibert, (1865) L. R. 1 Q. B. 115,
120, 122.
Applied by Swinfen Eady J. BRITISH
SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY . DE BEERS
CONSOLIDATED MINES, LIMITED
[1910] 1 Ch. 354
Partridge v. Partridge - [1894] 1 Ch. 351
Applied by Warrington J.
- [1910] 1 Ch. 541
Pearce v. Watts, (1875) L. R. 20 Eq. 492
Explained and distinguished by C. A.
SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY
. ASSOCIATED PORTLAND CEMENT
MANUFACTURERS (1900), LIMITED
[1910] 1 Ch. 12
Peninsular and Oriental Steam Narigation
Co. v. Shand, (1865) 3 Moo. P. C. (N. S.)
272, 292.
Applied by Swinfen Eady J. BRITISH
SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY . DE BEERS
CONSOLIDATED MINES, LIMITED
[1910] 1 Ch. 354
Penn v. Baltimore (Lord), (1750) 1 Ves.
Sen. 444; 1 W. & T. L. C. (7th ed.),
p. 755.
Applied by Swinfen Eady J. BRITISH
SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY . DE BEERS
CONSOLIDATED MINES, LIMITED
Pollard, Ex parte, (1840) Mont. & Ch. 239 ;
4 Deac. 27.
Applied by Swinfen Eady J. BRITISH
SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY . DE BEERS
CONSOLIDATED MINES, LIMITED
[1910] 1 Ch. 354
Riche v. Ashbury Railway Carriage and
Iron Co., (1874) L. R. 9 Ex. 224, 263, 292.
Applied by Swinfen Eady J. BRITISH
SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY . DE BEERS
CONSOLIDATED MINES, LIMITED
[1910] 1 Ch. 354
Rishton v. Cobb, (1839) 5
Distinguished by C. A.
My. & Cr. 145
In re MASON
[1910] 1 Ch. 695
Discussed by Parker J. In re INNES
Samuel v. Jarrah Timber and Wood Paving
Corporation, [1904] A. C. 323.
Applied by Swinfen Eady J. BRITISH
SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY. DE BEERS
CONSOLIDATED MINES, LIMITED
[1910] 1 Ch. 354
Sanderson v. Cockermouth and Workington
Ry. Co., (1849) 11 Beav. 497; (1850)
2 H. & T. 327, 331.
Applied by C. A. SOUTH EASTERN
RAILWAY COMPANY . ASSOCIATED
PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURERS
(1900), LIMITED
Applied by Joyce J. In re COXWELL'S
[1910] 1 Ch. 63
Savill Brothers v. Bethell, [1892] 2 Ch.523
Explained and distinguished by C. A.
SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY
T. ASSOCIATED PORTLAND CEMENT
MANUFACTURERS (1900), LIMITED
[1910] 1 Ch. 12
Scholefield v. Redfern, (1863) 2 Dr. & Sm.
Distinguished by Warrington J. In re
SIR ROBERT PEEL'S SETTLED ESTATES
[1910] 1 Ch. 389
Scottish Economic Life Assurance Society,
Ex parte, (1890) 45 Ch. D. 220.
Followed by Eve J. In re LIFE AND
HEALTH ASSURANCE ASSOCIATION,
LIMITED
- [1910] 1 Ch. 458
- [1910] 1 Ch. 513
(1874) L. R. 18 Eq. 315
Discussed by Parker J. In re INNES
[1910] 1 Ch. 188
- [1910] 1 Ch. 195
and affirmed in part
[1910] 1 Ch. 632
Sutton's Hospital Case, (1612) 10 Rep. la,
Applied by Swinfen Eady J. BRITISH
SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY . DE BEERS
CONSOLIDATED MINES, LIMITED
4.
[1910] 1 Ch. 84
- [1910] 1 Ch. 325
See also WILLÉ r. ST. JOHN
[1910] 1 Ch. 701
Wright v. Callender, (1852) 2 D. M. & G.
Property was devised to trustees in fee simple,
upon trust for and to be held by the Masters,
Wardens, and Commonalty of the Butchers'
Company of the city of London "for the general
purposes of the said company." The testator
authorized the company or the trustees" to make
and formulate any scheme, rules, regulations,
bye-laws, or trusts for the temporary or
permanent administration of the charity hereby
created," and gave other directions applicable to
a charitable bequest :-
Held, that the gift was not a charitable gift,
and that the company was entitled (subject to
obtaining the proper licence) to have the
property conveyed for the general purposes of
the company free from any charitable trust.
Livery companies of the city of London are
not, unless there is something special in their
charters, charities in any legal sense of the word.
In re MEECH'S WILL. BUTCHERS' COMPANY.
RUTLAND
Parker J. 426
3. "Medical Charity or Charities" in
Scotland-Administration-Scheme - Construc-
tion-Application of Income-Charity out of
A scheme sanctioned by the Court for the
administration of a charity provided that the
income of the charity should be applied for the
benefit of a particular hospital in England or
such other medical charity or charities of any
kind, school, or teaching whatsoever, and partly
or exclusively to one or other of such objects as
the trustees may in their uncontrolled discretion
from time to time determine." The trustees
desired to apply the income to medical charities
in Scotland:-
Held, that the charity must be administered
and the trusts of the scheme carried into effect
within the jurisdiction of the Court, and that the
income could be applied to a "medical charity
or charities" in Scotland. In re MIRRLEES'
CHARITY. MITCHELL . ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Joyce J. 163
School-Scheme-Religious Instruc-
tion-Government Grant-Board of Education
-Modification of Scheme to meet Regulations of
Board-Jurisdiction-Charitable Trust.
Where the primary object for which a
secondary school was originally founded cannot
be given effect to under its existing constitution
without the aid of grants from the Board of
Education, the Court will modify the scheme of
the Charity Commissioners under which the
school was being administered, so far as neces-
sary to comply with the regulations of the Board
of Education and enable the school to secure the
grants. In re QUEEN'S SCHOOL, CHESTER
Site for School Gift of Land for
Education of Poor-Discontinuance of Weekday
School-Continued use as Sunday School-Cesser
Sites Act, 1841 (4 & 5 Vict. c. 38), s. 2.
of Use for Purposes of the Act-Reverter-School
The expression "ceasing to be used for the
purposes in this Act mentioned" in the reverter
clause contained in s. 2 of the School Sites Act,
1841, means " ceasing to be used for such of the
purposes in this Act mentioned as are specified
in the deed of grant."
In 1868 S. executed a deed poll under s. 2 of.
the School Sites Act, 1841, conveying to the
minister and churchwardens of a parish a piece
of land for the purposes of the Act, and upon
trust to permit the premises and all buildings to
be erected thereon to be used as a school for the
education of children and adults of the poorer
classes of the parish and for no other purpose.
The schools were to be open to the inspection of
the Established Church inspectors and managed
by the principal minister of the parish, who was
to superintend the religious and moral instruc-
tion of the scholars and might use the premises
for a Sunday school. A school was erected on
the land and used till 1907 as a public elementary
school, when it ceased to be used except as a
had reverted to him under the Act; the Board
S. claimed that the premises
Sunday school.
of Education contended that they were still
settled for the future administration thereof :-
devoted to charity and that a scheme ought to be
Held, that inasmuch as the school had ceased
to be used for the purposes specified in the deed
poll it had reverted to the estate of S., the donor,
although it had been continuously used for other
purposes specified in the Act.
GENERAL v. SHADWELL
ATTORNEY-
Warrington J. 92
CHARTERED COMPANY-Breach of charter-, COMPANY—continued.
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.ee/books/content?id=JgMxAAAAIAAJ&hl=et&output=html_text&pg=PA828&img=1&zoom=3&q=editions:STANFORD36105062522698&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U1CNIuSsf9K1fkVI95aPJ1xsP77Og&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=70,148,454,413)
COMMON LANDS - Lands taken for Public
Undertaking Compensation for Extinguishment
of Commonable Rights Payment to de facto
Committee-Application by Committee to Board
of Agriculture and Fisheries-Dispute as to
proper Constitution of Committee - Action to
determine Persons interested in Compensation-
Jurisdiction of Court-Lands Clauses Consolida-
tion Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 18), ss. 102, 103-
Inclosure Act, 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 79), s. 22—
Inclosure Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 97), 88. 15,
16, 17-Commonable Rights Compensation Act,
1882 (45 46 Vict. c. 15).
Where under the Lands Clauses Consolidation
Act, 1845, and the Inclosure Acts, 1852 and 1854,
common lands have been taken for a public
undertaking and a committee of commoners has
been appointed to receive and has received the
compensation payable in respect of the extin-
guishment of commonable rights, the Board of
Agriculture and Fisheries have jurisdiction to
entertain an application by the committee under
s. 22 of the Act of 1852, without entering into
any question as to the appointment or constitu-
tion of the committee. It is sufficient that the
committee is a de facto committee.
proceedings are pending for moneys alleged to
belong to the fund cannot take any share until
the amount (if any) due from him has been
ascertained and made good.
After the appointment of a receiver in a
debenture stockholder's action and a winding-up
order, a stockholder, who was also a trustee of
the deed securing the stock and a director, trans-
ferred 10,000l. stock to certain transferees.
The certificate in the action found that 2501.
stock belonged to the transferor and 10,000l. to
the transferees.
Among the assets certified as now subject
to the trust deed was a debt alleged to be owing
by the transferor to the company for moneys
alleged to have been had and received by him
while a director.
Proceedings were being taken to establish
this alleged debt, but the amount (if any) due
was not yet ascertained or established.
The trust deed did not contain any condition
protecting the transferees from any equity, set-
off, or cross-claim of the company against the
transferor.
The fund in Court realized in the action was
more than sufficient to pay the stockholders in
full, and it was proposed to distribute it on the
further consideration:-
Held that, pending the ascertainment and
establishment of the amount (if any) due from
the transferor, the amounts due to the transferor
and the transferees must be retained and carried
to separate accounts.
In re Akerman, [1891] 3 Ch. 212, 219; In re
Goy & Co., Ld., [1900] 2 Ch. 149, 153; and In re
Brown & Gregory, Ld., [1904]1 Ch. 627; [1904]
2
Ch. 448, applied. In re RHODESIA GOLD-
FIELDS, LIMITED. PARTRIDGE . RHODESIA
GOLDFIELDS, LIMITED Swinfen Eady J. 239
![[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]](https://books.google.ee/books/content?id=JgMxAAAAIAAJ&hl=et&output=html_text&pg=PA828&img=1&zoom=3&q=editions:STANFORD36105062522698&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U1CNIuSsf9K1fkVI95aPJ1xsP77Og&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=508,904,430,150)
A motion in an action against a de facto com-
In an action by a debenture-holder on behalf
mittee of commoners by persons suing on behalf of himself and all the other debenture-holders of
of themselves and all other commoners for pay-
a company to realize his security the usual judg
ment into Court of compensation money in the
ment in a debenture-holders' action was pro-
hands of the committee on the ground that such nounced and a receiver and manager was
committee was not properly constituted was disappointed. On the same day an order was made
missed for want of jurisdiction. SALMON .
on the application of the plaintiff in the action
EDWARDS -
Warrington J. 552 authorizing the receiver to borrow 500l. to be
secured by a first charge on the assets of the
COMMONABLE RIGHTS COMPENSATION ACT, company in priority to the debenture-holders.
1882
The receiver borrowed the money from a bank,
and the deed containing the charge did not in
express terms exempt the receiver from personal
liability to repay the loan. The receiver realized
the whole of the assets comprised in the deben
tures, and there was in Court a fund which was
insufficient to satisfy all the claims upon it. The
bank claimed that, subject to the costs of realiza
tion in the strict sense, they were entitled to be
first paid out of the fund their charge, on the
ground that the receiver, having borrowed the
money from them, was their debtor, and that
See COMMON LANDS.
COMPANY-Debenture-Stockholder's Action
Distribution of Fund in Court Company in
Liquidation-Debenture Stock Trust Deed-No
Condition protecting Transferees against Equities
-Stockholder a Trustee and Director-Alleged
Debt by Stockholder to Company--Retention of
Shares of Stockholder and his Transferees.
Where a trust fund is being distributed by
the Court, a trustee-beneficiary against whom
|