Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

1. How far carrier liable for injury by
each other. Nugent v. Smith.
203, 217 note.

2. No claim for demurrage or detention
of a ship under warrant of arrest issued
by the unsuccessful promoters of a
salvage suit can be allowed in the ab-
sence of mala fides or malicious negli- 2. Horses become frightened on ferry-
gence. The Strathnaver.

See INSURANCE, MARINE, 82.

19

boat.

218 note.

See NEGLIGENCE, 194, 199 note.
RAILWAY COMPANY, 176.

[blocks in formation]

give, devise, and bequeath all my prop-
erty over which I have any disposing
power." The trusts of the will were
for his wife for life for her separate
use, and after her death for all his chil-
dren who should attain twenty-one in
equal shares, and upon failure of chil-
dren for the brothers and sisters of his
wife;

Held, that the will must be read
reddendo singula singulis, and operated
as an appointment under two special
powers, one of which was a power to
appoint among his children subject to
a life interest in his wife during widow-
hood; and the other was a power to
appoint a life interest to his wife in a
fund which, subject to such power, was
held on trust for his children at twenty-
one in equal shares. Thornton v. Thorn-
ton.
509

See POWER, 703.
SETTLEMENT.

ARBITRATION.

1. Where an agreement has been entered
into for the sale of a house at a fixed
price, and of the fixtures and furniture
therein at a valuation by a person
named by both parties, and he under-
takes the valuation, but if refused per-
mission by the vendor to enter the
premises for that purpose, the court
will make a mandatory order to com-
pel the vendor to allow the entry to
enable the valuation to proceed.

2. The court has jurisdiction to make any
interlocutory order which is reason-
ably asked as ancillary to the adminis
tration of justice at the hearing. Smith
v. Peters.

ARCHITECT.

See ARBITRATION, 463.

463

ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION.

1. The vestry of a metropolitan parish,
having paved a new street, under 18

& 19 Vict. c. 120, s. 105, assessed the
London School Board, in respect of a
school-house, as being "owners" of one
of "the houses forming the street."
The school-house did not immediately
front the street, but stood back from it
some seventy or eighty feet, in a large
yard, the whole area being about 29,500
square feet. There was a row of eleven
small houses (with gardens at the back
of them) between this area and the
street: but the only access to the
school was by a private passage which
ran along one side of the last house
and garden into the school-yard, with
gates opening from the street in ques-
tion; the width of the passage being
twenty feet and the length about sixty.
four feet:

Held, that the school-house, though
not actually one of the houses "form-
ing the street," yet practically formed
part of it, within s. 105.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

3. The conservators of the River Thames,
who are by statute owners of the river
bed, gave permission, by resolution, to
the plaintiffs to lay down certain moor-
ings in the river bed, and place a der-
rick hulk at them, the work to be done
to the satisfaction of the conservators
and under the inspection of the harbor
master, and to remain on certain con-
ditions being agreed to and observed
by the plaintiffs. These conditions
provided that a certain rent should be
paid for the moorings, and specified
the purposes for, and the manner in
which, the hulk was to be used, and
that in all other respects it was to be
worked to the satisfaction of the con-
servators, under the inspection of the
harbor master; and the permission was
expressed to be granted on the full
understanding, on the part of the plain-
tiffs, that if at any time thereafter it
should be found inexpedient to permit
the moorings for the derrick hulk to
remain in that or any other part of the
river, the conservators would, under
the powers vested in them by the 91st
section of the Thames Conservancy
Act, cause the same to be removed.
That section provides that no mooring
chains shall be put down in the river
without the permission of the conser-
vators, and that the conservators may

at any time, by giving a week's notice
in writing, require such mooring chains
to be removed; and if not removed
accordingly, may themselves remove
them.

In pursuance of the permission so
given, the plaintiffs procured moor-
ings to be laid down, paying for the
necessary labor and materials, and
placed a derrick hulk at such moorings,
which had continued there for some
years, and was used by the plaintiffs for
the purposes of unloading and reload-
ing coal in the course of their business
as coal merchants. The moorings so
laid down consisted of anchors and
stones, which were laid down in deep
holes, dug in the bed of the river, and
covered in with large quantities of bal-
last. The moorings so formed were of
a permanent character, and it would
have been impossible for the derrick
using them to weigh them in the ordi-
nary way in which ships weigh anchor:

Held, reversing the decision of the
court below, that the plaintiffs were
the occupiers of the moorings, and were
liable to be rated in respect of such
occupation. Cory v. Bristow.

237, 242 note.

AUCTIONEER.

1. How far signature of, binds parties
under Statute of Frauds. Beer V.
London, etc.
408, 421 note.

B.

BAILEE.

See CRIMINAL LAW, 373, 378 note.

BAILMENT.

See CRIMINAL LAW, 373, 378 note.
NEGLIGENCE, 194, 199 note.

BANK.

See BONA FIDE, 166.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

4. In August S., a shipbuilder, whose ac-
count current with his bankers was
overdrawn, offered to give them se-
curity upon a ship which he was build-
ing. The bankers declined to accept
the security then, but said that circum-
stances might arise to make it desirable
that they should have it, and he prom-
ised to give it them when they wished
it. On the 28th of September the offer
was renewed, but the bankers urged
him to sell the ship, and so prevent the
necessity of their taking the security.
On the 7th of October S. had an inter-
view with them at the bank, and they
told him that they would accept the se-
curity, and that he was to lodge the
builder's certificate of the ship with
their manager. The next day he signed
the certificate, and gave it to the bank
manager. The certificate described the
ship and her engines, and stated that
she had been built for the bank mana-
ger. At this time she was not launch-
ed, but was in an unfinished state in
the builder's yard. The engines were
not on board, but were lying unfinished
in the yard of the firm who were mak-
ing them for the shipbuilder. On the
9th of October the shipbuilder had an-
other interview with the bankers, when
they told him they could advance him
no more money, and did not see how

5.

6.

7.

Held, that both the securities given to
the bankers were valid as against the
trustee in the liquidation, there not be-

ing in the transactions anything
amounting to either a fraudulent prefer-
ence or an act of bankruptcy:

Held, also, that the deposit of the
builder's certificate created a good equi-
table mortgage of the unfinished ship,
including the engines which were being
built for her, but subject as to the en-
gines to any lien for unpaid purchase-
money to which the engine-builders
might be entitled :

Held, also, that the assignment of the
debt having been given after the insol-
vent position of S. was disclosed, was a
security for the £770 only, and could
not be made available by consolidation
or otherwise to secure the past debt.
Matter of Hodgkin.

593

A creditor suggested to his debtor that
the latter should buy goods on credit
from other persons, and should with
the proceeds of their sale pay off the
debt due to the former. The debtor
adopted the suggestion, and out of the
proceeds of the sale of goods which he
obtained on credit he made several
payments on

account of the debt.
There was evidence that the payments
were made under pressure from the
creditor. The debtor afterwards filed
a liquidation petition :

Held, that, as the transaction was
fraudulent in its inception, it was im-
material that the payments were made
under pressure, but that they must
be set aside as being fraudulent pref-

erences.

an issue of fact, but no order con-
sequent thereon has been made by the
judge, it is not necessary that an ap
plication for a new trial should be
made within twenty-one days from the
finding.

he could go on, to which he assented; 8. Where a jury have found a verdict on
but they agreed to advance him £770
to pay his workmen's weekly wages, on
the security of an assignment of a debt
owing to him from another person, and
told him that they could go no further,
and that he had better consult his so-
licitor as to his position. On the 10th
of October the manager endeavored to
get himself registered as the owner of
the ship, but, as she was not launched,
this could not be done. But he placed
a man in possession of her, and fixed a
notice upon her that she was his prop-
erty. On the 10th of October S. paid
his workmen, and then discharged
them, and closed his place of business.
On the 12th of October he filed a liqui-
dation petition :

9. Rule 143 of the Bankruptcy Rules,
1870, does not apply to such a case,
either directly or by analogy. Matter
of Reader.
604

10. An assignment of substantially the
whole of a mortgagor's property to se
cure a previously existing debt and fur-
ther advances is not an act of bank-
ruptcy, if there is a contemporaneous
parol agreement on the part of the

[blocks in formation]

12. A bill of sale contained a provision
that it should be void in case the
mortgagor should pay the principal
money thereby secured "upon demand,
if and when the mortgagee should so
require by a notice in writing," and un-
til payment of the principal should pay
interest thereon half-yearly, and also a
proportionate part thereof "to the ex-
piration of the said notice, when the
same shall be given." And in default
of payment power was given to the
mortgagee to seize and sell the prop-
erty comprised in the deed.

[blocks in formation]

BONA FIDE.

[ocr errors]

The

1. A. being indebted to plaintiff, gave him
a check for the amount, payable to
plaintiff's order, upon the defendants, a
banking company. Plaintiff indorsed
his name on the check, and crossed it
with the name of his bankers, “Lon-
don and County Banking Co."
check was stolen and passed for full
value to C. C. paid it into his bankers,
the London and Westminster Bank;
and they presented it to the defendants,
who paid it to them notwithstanding
the crossing, London and County
Banking Co." Plaintiff brought an ac-
tion against defendants for a conver
sion, and for so paying the check, rely-
ing on 21 & 22 Vict. c. 79, s. 2, which
enacts that a check on a banker, pay-
able to order or bearer and uncross-
ed, may be crossed by the holder with
the name of a banker, and such cross-
ing shall be deemed a material part of
the check, and the banker upon whom
it is drawn shall not pay it to any
other than the banker named in the
crossing:

Held (affirming the judgment of the
Queen's Bench), that the statute did not
affect the negotiability of the check;
the plaintiff had indorsed the check, so
that C. had become bona fide holder of
it before it was presented to the de-
fendants, and the plaintiff was not the
holder; and there was nothing in the
statute to give the plaintiff, who had
ceased to be the holder, any right of
action against the defendants. Smith
V. Union Bank.

166

[blocks in formation]
« EelmineJätka »