1

EASEMENT-Way of necessity

See WAY OF NECESSITY.

133

ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FOR AWARD-Ar-
bitration-Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, ss.
8, 15-Lands Clauses Act, 1845, s. 23.] An award
by an umpire under a reference pursuant to the
Lands Clauses Act for ascertaining the amount of
compensation having, on the application of the
landowner, been set aside by the Court, and the
matter referred back to the umpire, no proceeding
was taken under the reference for nearly seven
months from the date of the order, and the land-
owner then served the company with notice of his
desire to have the compensation settled by a jury.
The company applied to have the time for making
the award extended:-Held, by James, V.C., that
the provisions of the Common Law Procedure Act,
1854, with regard to remitting matters to the re-
consideration of the arbitrator, and enlarging the
time for making the award, applied to references
under the Lands Clauses Act, and that the Court
had jurisdiction to extend the time, but that after
the delay which had taken place this jurisdiction
ought not to be exercised so as to deprive the
landowner of a trial by jury.-On appeal this
decision was affirmed. In re DARE VALLEY RAIL-
WAY COMPANY.
554

-

See ACCOUNT OF PATENT.
EQUITY TO SETTLEMENT-Debts before Mar-
riage-Practice-Title of Official Assignee-In-
choate Title.] Where a woman before her marriage
is indebted, she is not entitled to any equity to a
settlement out of her property until her debts
incurred before her marriage have been provided
for. An official assignee filed a bill to impeach a
settlement of part of the bankrupt's property.
He was not formally appointed assignee of the
bankruptcy until after the filing of the bill:
Held, that the official assignee had an inchoate
title before the filing of the bill, and it was suffi-
cient if he produced the order appointing him
assignee at the hearing of the cause. The decree
of the Master of the Rolls affirmed. BARNARD v.
FORD. CARRICK v. FORD

Form and amount of settlement

247

407

See SETTLEMENT BY COURT OF CHANCERY.
-Lost by fraud

-

See FRAUD OF MARRIED WOMAN. 2.
EVIDENCE-Unstamped creditors' deed

-

591

47

EXECUTION, LEAVE TO ISSUE-Bankruptcy-
Application for leave to issue Execution notwith-
standing Creditors' Deed-Delay in impeaching
Deed-Proceedings at Law.] A creditor obtained
judgment against his debtor on the 1st of August,
1868. On the same day the debtor executed a
deed of composition with his creditors whereby
he assigned all his property to a trustee by way
of security for payment of the composition. The
deed was registered under the 192nd section of
the Bankruptcy Act, 1861. The creditor refused
to assent to the deed, and proceeded to sue out
execution; but the sheriff interpleaded, and the
issue was tried between the creditor and the
trustee of the deed. The Court of Exchequer
decided, on the 23rd of January, 1869, that the
deed was invalid as a trust deed under the 192nd
section of the Bankruptcy Act, 1861, as the requi-
site number of assents had not been obtained;
but that it operated at law as an assignment of
the debtor's property to the trustee, and, conse-
quently, that the issue must be decided against
the creditor. The creditor accordingly, without
further delay, proceeded to examine the debtor in
bankruptcy in order to impeach the deed, and on
the 6th of April applied under the 198th section
of the Bankruptcy Act for leave to issue execution
notwithstanding the deed:-Held, that as the
creditor had throughout the proceedings at law
insisted on the invalidity of the deed, he had been
guilty of no delay in not sooner impeaching the
deed in bankruptcy, and his application was
granted. Ex parte ÖSENTON. In re PRIOR
EXECUTOR-Payment to one

-

690

433

See PAYMENT TO ONE EXECUTOR.
Solicitor paying himself out of assets 616
See TAXATION OF COSTS. 2.

EXECUTORS' ACCOUNTS-Solicitors' charges 616
See TAXATION OF COSTS. 2.

EX PARTE WARING, (19 Ves. 345)-Doctrine of
[423

See SECURITIES FOR BILLS OF EXCHANGE.
EXPERT-Reference to

See NUISANCE BY PUBLIC BODY.

-

146

FIXTURES-Bankruptcy-Part of a Machine-
Rolls used in Rolling Mill-Straightening Plates-
Weighing Machines-Mortgagor and Mortgagee.]
An iron manufacturer made an equitable mort-
gage of his rolling mills, of which he held a lease,
and shortly afterwards became bankrupt. Besides
the fixed machinery, the mills contained the fol
lowing chattels used in the manufacture:-(1). A
large number of duplicate iron rolls of various
sizes made to be fitted into the machine, and used

for different sizes of iron; some of these were
fitted to the machine, and had been used, and
others had not yet been fitted. (2.) Straightening
plates, which were broad iron plates embedded
in the floor for straightening the iron when taken
out of the furnace. (3). Weighing machines,
which were deposited in holes dug in the earth
and lined with brickwork, so that the weighing
plate was level with the surface of the ground,
but which were not fixed to the brickwork:-
Held, on a case stated in the bankruptcy between
the mortgagees and the assignees.-First: That
690 such of the rolls as had been fitted to the machine
were fixtures, and passed to the mortgagees; but

See UNSTAMPED CREDITORS' DEED.
EXCEPTIONS-Discovery anticipating the decree
[416
See DISCOVERY ANTICIPATING THE DECREE.
Partnership accounts
336

-

-

See PARTNERSHIP ACCOUNTS.
EXECUTION - Leave to issue-Void creditors'

deed

-

See EXECUTION, LEAVE TO ISSUE.

FIXTURES-continued.

that such of the rolls as had not been fitted to it
were not fixtures, and belonged to the assignees.
-Secondly: That the straightening plates were
fixtures, and passed to the mortgagees.-Thirdly:
That the weighing machines were not fixtures,
and belonged to the assignees. - Metropolitan
Counties Society v. Brown (26 Beav. 454) distin-
guished. Ex parte ASTBURY. Ex parte LLOYD'S
BANKING COMPANY. In re RICHARDS
630
FOLLOWING TRUST FUND-Bankers' accounts.
See BANKERS' ACCOUNT.
[764

-

FORFEITED SHARES-Company-Contributory
-Past Members Companies Act, 1862, 8. 38.]
Shareholders in a company limited by shares
transferred their shares within a year before the
commencement of the winding up of the company.
Calls were made on the transferees, which they
failed to pay, and the shares were duly forfeited
by the directors for the benefit of the company :-
Held (affirming the decision of Stuart, V.C.), that
the transferors were liable to be placed on the list
of contributories as past members of the company.
In re ACCIDENTAL AND MARINE INSURANCE COR-
PORATION. BRIDGER'S CASE AND NEILL'S CASE 266
FORFEITURE CLAUSE-Forfeiture by Marriage
Cesser of Life Estate-Acceleration of Remainder.]
A testator appointed, under a general power, real
estate, and devised other real estate to his wife
and her assigns during her life, and after her
death 'to his son, with a proviso that if his wife
should do, make, or execute any deed, matter,
or thing whereby she should be deprived of the
rents and profits, or the power or right to receive,
or the control over the same, so that her receipt
alone should be a sufficient discharge for the
same, her life estate should cease and determine
as fully and effectually as it would by her actual
decease." By a codicil he gave his personal estate
to his wife for life for her separate use, indepen-
dently of any future husband. The wife married
again without making any settlement: Held
(affirming the decision of the Master of the Rolls),
that notwithstanding the limitation to her and
"her assigns," and the allusion to a future hus-
band in the codicil, the wife's life estate was for-
feited by her second marriage; and that the
remainder both in the appointed and devised
estates was accelerated. CRAVEN V. BRADY
FORFEITURE OF SHARES-Bankruptcy-Proof
-Secured Creditor.] A. was a shareholder in a
joint stock bank, the deed of settlement of which
provided that if any shareholder did not, on
demand, pay all moneys which he owed to the
bank, the directors might declare his shares for-
feited for the benefit of the other proprietors, but
that he should, notwithstanding such forfeiture,
remain liable to pay the full amount of his debt.
The directors gave A. a notice on the 25th of
November to pay on the 2nd of December a large
sum which he owed them, in default of which
his shares would be forfeited. On the 28th of
November he filed a declaration of insolvency,
and was adjudged bankrupt on the following day.
On the 3rd of December the directors forfeited
his shares. On the bank coming in to prove, the
-Commissioner held the forfeiture invalid, and
admitted the proof for the amount of the debt
less the value of the shares, as in the case of

296

639

FORFEITURE OF SHARES continued.
a secured creditor:-Held, on appeal, that the
validity of the forfeiture, if questioned, must be
tried in an independent proceeding, and that the
proof must be admitted for the full amount of
the debt, without prejudice to the right of the
assignees to question the forfeiture. Ex parte
RIPPON. In re ANDREW
FRAUD OF MARRIED WOMAN-Settlement on
Female Infant - Wife's Real Estate - Notice
Solicitor for Mortgagor and Mortgagee-Conceal-
ment-Priority.] In a settlement made on the
marriage of a female infant, the husband cove-
nanted that in case his wife attained twenty-one
he would concur with her, if she would consent,
and would use his utmost endeavours to induce
her to concur with him, in settling her real estate.
This was never done. In 1862, after the wife had
attained her majority, the husband and wife
mortgaged the wife's real estate to secure money
advanced to the husband. The mortgagee was
informed by the husband and wife that there was
no settlement, and although the person who acted
as solicitor for both parties was aware of its exis-
tence, he concealed it with the acquiescence of
the husband and wife from the mortgagee. In
1865 the mortgagee discovered the existence of
the settlement. The mortgage deed, by mistake,
was not effectually acknowledged by the wife till
after the mortgagee had received notice of the
settlement:-Held, on a bill filed by the mort-
gagee, that in the face of the evidence of conceal-
ment the mortgagee was not affected by notice to
the person who acted as his solicitor:-That
although the wife's estate did not pass to the
mortgagee till after he had received notice of the
settlement, yet the misrepresentations of the wife
constituted a fraud, which bound her estate, and
prevented her from disappointing the mortgagee,
and, consequently, the mortgagee had priority
over the persons interested under the settlement.-
Decree of Stuart, V.C., affirmed. SHARPE v. Foy 35

2. Coercion by Husband.] A woman, two
months after her marriage, wrote and signed in
her maiden name a paper dated before the mar-
riage, and purporting to give to her husband, in
consideration of the marriage, her reversionary
interest in a trust fund. She signed this paper
for the purpose of enabling him to borrow money
on her reversionary interest; he threatening that
if she did not sign it he would send her back to
her relations, with whom she was on bad terms.
The husband sold the reversionary interest, and
shortly before completion, he being at the time in
prison for debt, she signed and gave to the pur-
chaser's solicitor a letter addressed to one of the
trustees of the fund, stating that she had before
her marriage assigned her interest in the trust
fund to her husband. Upon the determination of
the life interest she claimed her equity to a settle-
ment, on the ground that the paper being signed
after marriage did not bind her. Held, by the
Master of the Rolls, that though she had been a
party to a fraud, yet as she had acted under the
coercion of her husband, she was not responsible
for it, and was entitled to her equity to a settle-
ment:-Held, on appeal, that she had been guilty
of a fraud, which prevented her claiming her
equity to a settlement against the purchaser. In
re LUSH'S TRUSTS

591

FRAUDS, STATUTE OF, s. 8-Agent appointed by ILLEGALITY-Company-Loan-notes-Penalties
parol -
548

See AGENT APPOINTED BY PAROL.
FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE-13 Eliz. c. 5-
Fraudulent Preference-Bona Fides.] A trader
debtor being in expectation that a writ of sequestra-
tion would issue against him for non-payment of a
sum of money ordered to be paid by him into the
Court of Chancery, executed a deed of mortgage,
which was registered as a bill of sale, vesting sub-
stantially all his property in trustees for the benefit
of five of his creditors. The deed contained a
proviso that the debtor should remain in posses-
sion of his property for six months, but not so as
to let in any execution or sequestration, and in
case any such should be enforced his possession
was to cease. A writ of sequestration was sub-
sequently issued :-Held (affirming the decision of
Stuart, V.C.), that the deed was not void under the
statute 13 Eliz. c. 5, notwithstanding the fact that
it conveyed the whole of the debtor's property for
the benefit of some of his creditors, and that it
contained a proviso that the debtor should remain
in possession for six months. ALTON v. HARRISON.
POYSER v. HARRISON
622
FRAUDULENT PREFERENCE-Bona fides 622
See FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE.

See LLOYD'S BONDS.

[748
IMPROPER INVESTMENT-Breach of Trust-
Acquiescence-Unknown Cestui que Trust-Joint
and several Debt.] A lady died in 1830, leaving
a will by which she gave her personal estate in
trust for her sister for life, with remainder to her
three trustees and executors, to all appearance
beneficially. She also left a codicil, by which she
impressed the residue with trusts in favour of
other persons after the death of the tenant for
life. This codicil was not proved till 1841, but
the trustees in the meantime appeared to regard
the property as not belonging to themselves,
though it was not shewn that they knew of the
existence of the codicil. In 1834 the trustees
invested part of the estate on an improper security.
Two of the trustees were partners in the bank out
of which the money was drawn to place it on this
security. In 1840 the firm became bankrupt, and
after this the security turned out insufficient.
The tenant for life died in 1842 :-Held (reversing
the decision of the Commissioner), that the persons
claiming under the codicil were entitled to prove
against the separate estate of one of the bankrupt
trustees for the loss occasioned by the improper
investment. Ex parte NORRIS. In re BIDDULPH

Stock mortgage -

See WILFUL DEFAULT.

[280

513

INCHOATE TITLE Official assignee before ap-
pointment

See EQUITY TO SETTLEMENT.
INCOME-Wilful default as to-Parties
See WILFUL DEFAULT.

247

-

513

INDEMNITY-Sale of shares-Custom of Stock
Exchange

-

200, 441
See CUSTOM OF STOCK EXCHANGE. 2, 3.
INDIAN REGISTRATION ACTS, 1864 and 1866
Conflict of Laws-Registration-Lex fori-Lex rei
site.] The Indian Registration Act, 1866, makes
void all instruments relating to real estate in India
which ought to have been registered under the
Indian Registration Act, 1864, but were not so
registered, and destroys all equities arising out of
them.-A. being resident at Madras, in 1865 exe-
cuted a deed by which he conveyed land in India
to the Plaintiffs and covenanted for further as-
Indian Registration Act, 1864, which provides
surance. The deed was not registered under the
that if such a deed be not registered it shall not
be received in evidence in any Court in India.
fendants, who had notice of the Plaintiffs' con-
In 1866 A. mortgaged the same land to the De-
veyance, and the Defendants registered the
mortgage deed under the Indian Registration Act,
1866. The Plaintiffs filed a bill to enforce the
covenant for further assurance against the Defen-
dants :-Held (affirming the decision of Gigard,
V.C.), that the Plaintiffs had no equity against
the Defendants, and the bill was dismissed.-
Semble, that independently of the operation of the
Indian Registration Act, 1866, as the Plaintiffs'
deed was forbidden by the Indian Registration
Act, 1864, to be received in evidence in India, it
could not be sued on in England either as a deed
of conveyance or as a deed of covenant for further
assurance. HICKS v. POWELL
- 741