c. 39 (Stamp Act 1891), pp. 10, c. 49 (Returning Officers (Scot- c. 55 (Burgh Police (Scotland) INDEX OF Accumulations. See Succession. Acquiescence. See Property. Acquisition of Settlement" by Residence. Action Based on Fault. See Contract. Action of Damages for Breach of Promise Action of Divorce. See Parent and Child. Additional Election Petition Rules 1869. Adherence. See Husband and Wife. Admissibility of Evidence. See Proof. Process. See Affiliation. See Parent and Child. Agent and Client-Negligence and Want of Professional Skill-Failure to Take Account of Stipulation in Testing Clause -Whether Stipulation in Testing Clause Effectual. Stipulations in the testing clause of a deed are ineffectual to con- tradict or modify the agreement executed by the parties in the previous part of the deed. Smith v. Chambers' Trustees, 5 R. 97, approved; Johnstone v. Coldstream, 5 D. 1297, and Dunlop v. Greenlees' Trustees, 2 Macph. 1, 3 Macph. (H. of L.) 46, distin- guished. In an action of damages against a firm of law-agents on the ground of negligence and want of professional skill, the pursuer founded upon the alleged failure of the defenders to read the test- ing clause of a deed, or to advise that such a stipulation contained in it was effectual. Held (in conformity with the irrelevant. Assets Company Limited v. Blair and Others, p. 539. Agent and Client. See Election Law--Ex- Agent and Principal. See Fraud. Agreement to Assess in a Manner Inconsis- Agricultural Tenant. See Arbitration. Aliment. See Parent and Child-Poor-- Aliment Pending Action. See Husband Allegations as to Conduct. See Executor. Alteration of Lease. See Mines and Alteration of Status of Shareholders. See Alternative Charge and General Conviction. Ambiguity. See Arbitration. Ambiguous Complaint and Conviction. Amendment. See Election Law. Amendment of Record. See Process-Ex- Amendment of Scheme. See Trust. Amendment of Summons. See Arrestment. Appeal-Cause Originating in Sheriff Court-Findings in Fact-Competency of Remit for Further Findings-Judica- ture Act 1825 (6 Geo. IV. cap. 120), sec. 40. Question, whether in the case of appeals falling within the scope of sec. 40 of the Judicature Act 1825, a remit to the Court of Session for further findings is compe- tent where the facts relied on in argument, and as to which the remit is asked, appear from the opinions to have been established, but are inconsistent with the formal find ings of fact in the interlocutor. Little v. Appeal from Sheriff Court. See Process. Appeal to Court of Session from Decision Guild. Application of Profits to Extinction of Prior Debt. See Partnership. Apportionment of Liability. See Right in Security. Approval of Auditor's Report. See Election Law. Approval of Local Government Board. See Public Health. were Arbitration - Railway - Reference of All Differences with respect to Execution of Works-Jurisdiction - Lanarkshire and Dumbartonshire Railway Act 1891 (54 and 55 Vict. c. 201), sec. 6, sub-secs. 4, 7, 10. The Lanarkshire and Dumbartonshire Railway Company were authorised by Act of Parliament to construct a line of railway including a tunnel passing underneath an area of ground owned by the North British Railway Company. By sec. 6, sub-sec. 4, of the Act the promoters were restricted from interfering with the surface without the consent of the North British Company, and by sub-sec. 7 they prohibited from proceeding with the construction of the tunnel until the plans had been approved of by that company's engineer. The tunnel, as ultimately constructed, had a ventilating shaft opening on the area in question, and the North British Company thereafter raised an action against the promoters to have them ordained to remove the shaft, on the ground that their consent to its construction had never been obtained as required by sub-sec. 4. It was admitted that the plans for the tunnel had been approved by the pursuers' engineer, and the questions raised in the case were whether the plans as submitted disclosed that a ventilating shaft was contemplated, and whether, if this were so, the approval of the plans by the pursuers' engineer, under sub-sec. 7, could be held, under sub-sec. 4, to amount to an assent by the pursuers to the construction of the shaft. Held that the matter in dispute, although involving questions of law as well as questions of fact and of engineering skill, fell within a clause of reference in sec. 6, which provided that if any difference should arise between the companies "with respect to any of the matters above referred to in this section," such difference should be determined by an engineer to be appointed by the Board of Trade, and that consequently the action was incompetent. North British Railway Company v. Lanarkshire and Dumbartonshire Railway Company, p. 56. Lands Compulsorily Acquired-Compensation-Agricultural Tenant-Break in Lease. A tenant occupied certain agricultural subjects on a nineteen years' lease, which empowered either or his landlord to put an end to it at the termination of six, eleven, or sixteen years from the term of entry. him Soon after the term of entry, the local authority of the district under the Public Health (Scotland) Acts, in virtue of powers conferred upon it by a private Act of Parliament, served a notice upon the tenant of its intention to take a portion of the lands occupied by him for the purpose of constructing certain waterworks. In a question between the local authority and the tenant as to the compensation payable to the latter, held that the proper method of valuation was to take the tenant's interest on the footing that his lease was for nineteen years, subject to deduction in respect of the contingencies affecting its duration for that period, and that the amount of this deduction was a matter for the determination of the arbiters appointed in terms of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. Fleming and Another v. District Committee of Middle Ward of County of Lanark, p. 83. Arbitration-Compulsory Purchase-Railway-Lands Injuriously Affected-Jurisdiction - Interdict. Where a claim for compensation is made under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, the Court will not supersede the statutory arbitration for the purpose of determining the amount of such compensation, unless it is satisfied that the claim is irrelevant, or that the arbiter is asked to exercise a jurisdiction which he does not possess, or that the claimant's prima facie right to compensation is otherwise met by an objection which excludes inquiry. Glasgow, Yoker, and Clydebank Railway Company v. Lidgerwood, p. 146. Award-Admissibility of Extrinsic Evidence to Control Award-Ambiguity. By agreement to refer, the Highland and Great North of Scotland Railway Companies submitted to the decision of an arbiter the following question:-"Whether the proviso of section 82 of the Highland Railway Act of 1865 applies to traffic exchanged under the Great North of Scotland Act 1884 between the two companies at Elgin, or whether the receipts of such traffic are to be divided between the two companies respectively, in accordance with their respective mileage, and under the rates of the Clearing House?" The arbiter in his award found that the proviso of section 82 of the Highland Railway Act 1865. . . does not apply to traffic exchanged under the Great North of Scotland Act 1884 between the two companies at Elgin," and further, "that the receipts of such traffic are to be divided between the two companies respectively, in accordance with their respective mileage, and under the rates of the Clearing House." In an action raised by the Great North of Scotland Railway Company for implement of the award, the defenders moved that they should be allowed a proof of the following averment:-"The terms 'traffic exchanged under the Act of 1884 between the two companies at Elgin,' occurring in the question submitted to" the arbiter, "do not include, and were not intended to include passenger traffic. This was explained to the arbiter, "and he and both the parties acted in the whole proceedings before him on the footing that no question as to the division of passenger traffic receipts was submitted to him, and he accordingly decided no question as to the division of passenger receipts." The Second Division (aff. the judgment of Lord Wellwood) refused to allow the proof asked by the defenders, on the ground that the questions put to the arbiter and his award thereon were distinct and unambiguous, and ordained the defenders to implement the decreearbitral. On appeal the House of Lords affirmed this judgment and refused to qualify it by an express reservation in favour of the appellants of a right to sue reduction of the decree-arbitral on grounds other than those pleaded in the present action. Opinion reserved whether, apart from such reservation, such an action would be competent. Highland Railway Company v. Great North of Scotland Railway Company, p. 812. Arrestment - Amendment of Summons Validity of Arrestment upon Dependence prior to Amendment-Court of Session Act 1868 (31 and 32 Vict. cap. 100), sec. 20. An action was raised at the instance of five pursuers concluding for payment to each of separate sums, and arrestments were used upon the dependence of the action. A minute was thereafter lodged by the pursuers craving that the names of four of the pursuers should be struck out of the summons along with the conclusions relating to the sums claimed by them, and that this having been done, decree should be pronounced for the sum claimed by the remaining pursuer. Decree was pronounced in terms of this minute. Held that the action as originally raised was incompetent, and that the arrestments upon its dependence were therefore without warrant, and could not be validated by the subsequent amendment of the summons so as to prejudice the rights of competing creditors. H. Fischer & Company v. Aktieselskabet Tremastet Skonnert "Molly," p. 306. A Shipowner--Shipbrokers as General Managers of Shipping Company. shipped coals in a ship belonging to a shipping company whose business was entirely conducted by a firm of shipbrokers. While the ship was still at the port of loading a creditor of A arrested the coals jurisdictionis fundandæ causa in the hands of the shipbrokers. Held that as the shipbrokers had the entire management of the affairs of the shipping company, they were not mere agents, but factors and commissioners, and that the arrestments were rightly used in their hands. Error in Schedule of Arrestment which held not to invalidate it. Carron Company v. Currie & Company and Another, p. 578. Arrestments Jurisdictionis Causa. See Jurisdiction. Fundando Assembling for the Purpose of Betting. See Justiciary Cases. Assessment. See Public Health--Poor. Assessment for Private Improvement Expenditure. See Burgh. Assignation to Rents in Bond. See Retention. Assignation in Security of Long Lease. See Poinding of the Ground. Assignation to True Owner. See Landlord and Tenant. Assignation by Bankrupt within Sixty Days of Bankruptcy. See Bankruptcy. Association for Sport. See Reparation. Authority to Trustees. See Parent and Child. Avenue to Manse. See Church. Averments Necessary in Action to Interdict Balancing of Accounts in Bankruptcy. See Compensation. Bankruptcy of Trustee. See Process. Bankruptcy-Partnership-Separate Firms with Same Partners. Where two firms, although consisting of the same partners, carry on separate and distinct businesses, the estates of the two firms must in bankruptcy be treated as separate estates. The Commercial Bank of Scotland v. Tod's Trustee, p. 161. Process-Voluntary Trustee-Action for Delivery of Bill of Exchange Assigned by Bankrupt within Sixty Days of Bankruptcy-Act 1696, c. 5-Bankruptcy Act 1856 (19 and 20 Vict. c. 79), sec. 10. A debtor within sixty days of bankruptcy indorsed to one of his creditors a bill of exchange in payment of a prior debt. The bill was subsequently indorsed for value to a third party. Thereafter another creditor, who had been appointed trustee for creditors under a voluntary trust-deed, which gave him no power to reduce illegal preferences, raised an action in the Sheriff Court against the assignee of the bill for delivery, and failing delivery for payment of the contents of the bill. Held that the action was incompetent, the pursuer having no title qua trustee, and not being entitled qua creditor to demand delivery or payment to himself. Observations (per Lord M'Laren) on procedure under the Act 1696, c. 5, as controlled by sec. 10 of the Bankruptcy Act 1856. Cook v. Sinclair & Company, p. 691. sec. 21. Sequestration - Trustees' Power of Recovering Documents Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1856 (19 and 20 Vict. c. 79), The trustee on the sequestrated estate of a wine and spirit merchant who was tenant of a public-house, held entitled, under the 91st section of the Bankruptcy Act 1856, to production and delivery of the bankrupt's permit book and certificate of licence. Watson (Fraser's Trustee) v. Fraser, p. 713. See Title to Sue. Bankruptcy of Trustee. See Trust. sion. Bill of Exchange-Protest-Undertaking to Pay at Creditor's Office-Bills of Exchange Act 1882 (45 and 46 Vict. c. 61), sec. 51, subsec. (7). The creditor in a bill payable on demand at his own office presented the bill there, and payment not having been made by the debtor, protested the bill under deduction of certain sums paid to account. The narrative of the protest bore that “I, J. A., notarypublic, presented the said bill at the place where payable to a clerk there, who inade answer that no funds had been provided to meet said bill, and payment was refused accordingly." The creditor having charged the debtor on the protest, the debtor raised a suspension of the charge. Held (rev. judgment of the Lord Ordinary) that the protest was invalid, on the ground that, the place of payment named in the bill being the creditor's office, all that the protest recorded was the presentation of the bill for payment by the creditor to the creditor; that the creditor was not an agent of the debtor for payment to himself, and that the debtor not having been present at the place where he undertook to make payment, the protest should have specified the fact, as required in snch cases by the Bills of Exchange Act, section 51, sub-section (7) (b) "that the drawee or acceptor could not be found." Opinion (per Lord Ordinary, Kincairney) that a presentment for pay. ment implies a demand for payment, and that the protest, in stating that the bill was presented, sufficiently complied with the statutory requirement that the protest should state the demand made. Bartsch v. Poole & Company, p. 233. Promissory-Note-Money-Lender. An unmarried woman, who was a retired schoolmistress and kept furnished apartments, borrowed from a professional money-lender £104, for which she granted two promissory-notes, payable on demand, for £124, 16s., it being arranged that payment was not to be demanded for a month. The borrower not being able to meet the notes at the expiry of the month, the lender induced her, in consideration of twenty-four hours' delay, to sign three other promissory-notes in his favour, payable on demand, amounting to £250 Thereafter the lender protested the five promissory-notes for non-payment, registered the protest, and charged the borrower thereon to the extent of £200. She presented a note of suspension, and tendered £124, 16s. in full of the money-lender's claims. The Court, having regard to the position of the parties, and the nature of the transaction, suspended the charge upon the three promissory-notes for £250. Young v. Gordon, p. 311. Promissory-Note-Proof of Extrinsic Agreement-Parole - Bills of Exchange Act 1882 (45 and 46 Vict. c. 61), sec. 100. Section 100 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 does not authorise the admission of parole evidence of an extrinsic agreement between the granter and payee of a promissory-note that the note should be re Boundaries of Salmon Fishings. See Fishings. Bounding Title. See Prescription – Property. Breach of Certificate. See Justiciary Cases. Building Restrictions. See Superior and Burgh-Street—“Regular Line of the Street" -The General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act 1862 (25 and 26 Vict. c. 101), see. 162. The General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act 1862, by section 162, provides that When any house or building, any part of which projects beyond the regular line of the street, or beyond the front of the house or building on either side thereof, has been taken down in order to be altered, or is to be rebuilt, the commissioners may require the same to be set backwards to or towards the line of the street, or the line of the adjoining houses or buildings." The magistrates of a burgh resolved in 1877 to widen one of the streets of the burgh to a uniform width of 40 feet. In 1893 the width of the street opposite most of the houses was 40 feet, and in some cases more, but three houses still projected 13 to 15 feet into the street beyond this limit. Upon one of these houses being taken down in order to be rebuilt, the magistrates of the burgh sought to have the proprietor ordained to set the new building back to the 40 feet line. Held (aff. the judgment of the First Division) that the expression "the regular line of street" had reference, in a street that is built upon, to the line of the buildings, and not to the line contemplated as the future line of the street, and that accordingly the magistrates were not entitled to have the new buildings set back to the 40 feet line. Magistrates of Galashiels v. Schulze, p. 94. Street-Height of Buildings in Street -General Turnpike (Scotland) Act 1831 (1 and 2 Will. IV. c. 43), sec. 91. The General Turnpike (Scotland) Act 1831, by section 91, enacts "That no houses, walls, or other buildings above 7 feet high shall be erected without the consent of the trustees . . . within the distance of 25 feet from the centre of any turnpike road." The local Police Act of a burgh incorporated several sections of the Turnpike Act, including section 91, "so far as |