Page images
PDF
EPUB

[jeopardy, a transaction of this kind was never looked upon as an usurious bargain, not even when the life of the borrower was insured for the benefit of the lender, and the amount of the annuity was adjusted to cover the expense of the insurance, or when the borrower himself insured his own life, at his own expense, for the benefit of the lender (h).]

When these annuities were granted, in such manner as to be charged upon (or made to issue out of) lands, then and in order that it may be ascertained by subsequent purchasers and mortgagees of the lands what life annuities have been charged thereon, they were required to be registered in the Central Office of the High Court of Justice. And they were at one time required to be enrolled under the Annuity Act, 1813, which Act has been repealed. And now, by the Judgments Act, 1855, no annuity or rentcharge granted after the passing of the Act, (otherwise than by marriage settlement or by will,) for one or more life or lives, or for any term of years or greater estate determinable on one or more life or lives, will affect any lands, tenements, or hereditaments as to purchasers, mortgagees, or creditors, without notice, until a memorandum, containing the name and the usual or last known place of abode, and the title, trade, or profession of the person whose estate is affected thereby, and the date of the instrument whereby the annuity or rentcharge is granted, and the amount of the annual sum to be paid, has been registered at the Central Office (now at the Land Registry (i)); and the particulars aforesaid are entered in alphabetical order, in the name of the person whose estate is affected by the annuity or rentcharge.

The laws against usury being found, however, to impose inconvenient restraints upon the price of money, and being

(h) Downes V. Green (1844), (i) Land Charges Act, 1900. 12 M. & W. 481.

found at the same time not to afford any real protection to improvident borrowers, it was enacted by the Usury Laws Repeal Act, 1854, that all the existing laws against usury should be repealed. But the repeal of the usury laws has in no way interfered with the right to be relieved in a court of equity against exorbitant or iniquitous bargains (k); and now, by the Money-lenders Act, 1900, the court may, in harsh and unconscionable cases, give relief against excessive interest or costs (l).

Interest may accrue not only upon a contract of loan, but in other cases also, e.g., on a balance admitted to be due; for although the general rule of the common law was against implying any contract for the payment of interest on money due, yet to this rule there were certain exceptions: first, in the case of overdue bonds, bills, and notes; secondly, where there was a special usage of trade for the allowance of interest; thirdly, where the same parties had, in former accounts of the same description, claimed interest on the one side, and allowed it on the other. And it has now been provided generally, by the Civil Procedure Act, 1833, s. 28, that "upon all debts or

66

sums certain, payable at a certain time, or otherwise," the jury may "allow interest to the creditor at a rate not "exceeding the current rate of interest; and when such "debts or sums certain are payable by virtue of some "written instrument at a time certain, from that time; "and when payable otherwise, then from the time when "demand of payment shall have been made in writing, so "as such demand shall give notice to the debtor, that "interest will be claimed from the date of such demand, "until the time of payment." And by the same Act, it is further provided, that the jury may give damages in the nature of interest, in actions for the wrongful seizure or conversion of goods, and in actions on policies of

(k) Brenchley v. Higgins (1901), 83 L. T. 751.

(1) Wilton

V. Osborn, [1901]

2 K. B. 110.

insurance; and that where proceedings in error (or, now, on appeal) are taken by the defendant in an action, and judgment is given for the original plaintiff, interest shall be allowed him for the delay thereby occasioned (m). By the Judgments Act, 1838, s. 7, every judgment debt now carries interest, at the rate of four per cent., from the time of entering up the judgment, until the satisfaction thereof; and such interest may be levied along with the principal under a writ of execution. Also, interest on the costs of an action is allowed, in an action for debt or the like, as from the date of the judgment; and in other actions, as from the date of the taxing master's certificate or allocatur (n).

(m) See generally on the Act, Re Horner, [1896] 2 Ch. 188;

L. C. & D. Ry. v. S. E. Ry., [1892] 1 Ch. 120.

(n) See Order xlii. rule 16, R. S. C.

CHAPTER V.-SECTION VI.

THE CONTRACT OF PARTNERSHIP.

66

THE contract of partnership arises where two or more persons carry on any business together, upon the terms of mutual participation in its profits and losses,---and this, whether they are to participate in equal shares or in any other proportions. The Partnership Act, 1890, which has now codified the law on the subject, defines a partnership as "the relation which subsists between persons carrying on business in common with a view to profit," and not being the case of Companies registered under the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1900, or otherwise incorporated, nor being Cost Book Mining Companies, nor Companies engaged in working mines within the Stannaries of Cornwall and Devon (a). The number of persons who may be so associated together must not exceed twenty in ordinary cases, or ten in the case of a banking business; for otherwise, the association will be illegal, unless it be registered as a company (b). A partnership is usually constituted by a written agreement, commonly by deed, the provisions of the deed being denominated the "articles "of partnership"; but a partnership may also be constituted without any writing, and may even be implied from the conduct of the parties. The partners constitute what in law is called a firm, and they trade under the firm-name (c); but the firm, unlike a company or corporate body, is not an entity of itself, and the individual partners do not lose their individuality therein. Partners

(a) Section 1 of the Act.
(b) Companies Act, 1862, s. 4.

(c) Partnership Act, 1890, s. 4.

may, however, by Order XLVIIIA. of the Rules of the Supreme Court, now sue and be sued in their firm name.

A partnership may be dissolved, if the period of its proposed duration be indefinite, at the pleasure of either party (d); or if (as is more frequent) the partnership be for a term certain, it may be dissolved, either by the natural expiration of that term, or, at an earlier period, by the mutual agreement of the parties, or by a decree of the court, if there are proper grounds for such decree. Such grounds are specified in section 35 of the Act. Moreover, the death or bankruptcy of any of the partners will, in any case, amount to a dissolution of the firm, unless the partnership articles should (as they may) expressly provide against that event (e). A partnership will also be dissolved on the happening of any event which renders its further continuance illegal (ƒ).

One of the most important doctrines attaching to the relation of partnership is, that a contract made or act done or instrument executed by any partner in matters relating to the business of the partnership is, in point of law, the contract or act of all the partners; consequently, such contract or act is binding upon them all, in such sense as to render each partner liable upon it individually (g). This rule has been established for the benefit of commerce, the doctrine being founded on the principle, that the relationship of principal and agent exists between each partner and his co-partners in all matters which fall within the scope of the partnership business, so that by the act of the agent his principal is bound (h). This rule holds good, in a general way, even where the act of the individual partner would, as between himself and his co-partners, be contrary to the partnership articles. But, where the person with whom the individual partner is

(d) Section 32 of the Act.

(e) Section 33.

(f) Section 34.

(g) Sections 5 & 6 of the Act.

(h) Fox v. Clifton (1860), 6 Bing. 795; Cox v. Hickman (1860), 8 H. L. C. 268.

« EelmineJätka »