The Mode of Citation of the Volumes of the LAW REPORTS, commencing January 1, 1897,
will be as follows:-
ACCEPTANCE-Office of executor-Delay in ADMINISTRATION—continued.
proving will-Loss of interest
ACCIDENT POLICY-Renewal-New contract
ADMINISTRATION-Insolvent Estate-Specialty
and Simple Contract Debts-Crown Debt-Prior-
ity-Administration of Assets-Hinde Palmer's
Act (32 & 33 Vict. c. 46).
A testator died insolvent after 1870 owing
specialty and simple contract debts, including a
simple contract debt to the Crown. The assets
were more than sufficient for payment of the
Crown debt after satisfying the specialty debts:-
Held, having regard to 32 & 33 Vict. c. 46,
that the assets ought first to be apportioned rate-
ably between the specialty and simple contract
debts, and that the Crown debt ought then to
be taken out of the amount apportioned to the
simple contract debts.
Costs-Severance in defence-Right of
appeal
The principle of Wilson v. Coxwell, (1883) 23 AIDING AND ABETTING-Breach of injunction
Ch. D. 764, In re Jones, (1885) 31 Ch. D. 440,
and In re Briggs, W. N. (1894) 162, applied.
In re Williams' Estate, (1872) L. R. 15 Eq.
270, distinguished. In re BENTINCK. BENTINCK
v. BENTINCK
Stirling J. 673
Annuity-Deficiency of assets-Right to
payment
- Annuity determinable on
Deficiency of assets-Payment
See ANNUITY.
ANNUITY-Deficiency of Assets—Administration
Costs-Disallowance of-Extravagant liti--Annuity determinable on Alienation-Valuation
BILL OF COSTS-Taxation 119, 144, 284, 400
See SOLICITOR. 1-4.
Carr v. Ingleby, (1831) 1 De G. & Sm. 362,
not followed. In re SINCLAIR. ALLEN v. SIN- BILL OF SALE-Registration-Mining lease-
CLAIR. HODGKINS v. SINCLAIR Kekewich J. 921
APPEAL-Right of-Costs-Severance in de-
Chattels on adjoining mine - 373
See MINE.
BOOK-Containing drawings-Registration 465
See COPYRIGHT.
APPOINTMENT-Administrator pendente lite BOUNDARIES-Alteration of "Constructing
Right of creditor to sue
See PROBATE.
Colonial trustees-Form of order
Power of attorney not produced-Evidence
See POWER.
Receiver-Debenture not actually due 158
See COMPANY. 2.
Receiver-Rescission of agreement
See VENDOR AND PURCHASER. 3.
Succession duty-Stock "sufficient to raise "
a net sum
ARTICLES-Memorandum and
See COMPANY. 6, 7.
licence-Deposit by way of security
See COVENANT.
Lease-Covenant running with the land
See LANDLORD AND TENANT. 3. 767
Publishing agreement-Author's consent
See CONTRACT. 2.
BUILDING AGREEMENT-Breach of conditions
-Option to purchase
See LANDLORD AND TENANT. 1.
BUILDING ESTATE-Light-Implied grant-
Derogating from grant
See VENDOR AND PURCHASER. 1.
CANAL-Right to Support-Subjacent and Adja-
cent Minerals Working-Undertaking not to Sue.
The defendants' canal was constructed under
an Act of Parliament by which the canal was to
ATTORNEY-Power of-Execution-Presump- Two sections of the Act (37 and 38) were identical
be open for use by the public on payment of tolls.
of purchaser-Statute of Frauds
See PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. 3.
AUDITOR " Officer" of company-Misfeasance
See COMPANY. 14.
in effect with the statutory provisions construed
by the House of Lords in Knowles & Sons v.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Ry. Co., (1889) 14
App. Cas. 248, and Chamber Colliery Co. v. Rock-
dale Canal Co., [1895] A. C. 564.
By s. 37 nothing therein contained was to
affect the right of any owner of land to the mines
and minerals under the lands to be made use of
for the canal, but it should be lawful for him to
work the same, not thereby injuring, prejudicing.
or obstructing the canal.
By s. 38, if the mine-owner should in pursuing
the mines work near or under the canal so as in
the opinion of the canal company to endanger or
damage the same, or in the opinion of the mine-
owner to endanger or damage the further working
thereof, it should be lawful for the company to
treat and agree with the mine-owner for all
minerals near or under the canal which should
be thought proper to be left for the security of
the canal or mines, and in case of disagreement,
then, upon the request of either the company or
the mine-owner, the amount of satisfaction should
be assessed, and upon payment thereof the mine-
owner should be perpetually restrained from
working the mines within the limits for which
satisfaction should be given.
Plaintiffs were the owners of coal-mines under
the canal and the lands on both sides of it, and,
being advised that if they continued their work-
ings within certain limits on both sides of the
canal they would damage it, they gave the
defendants (who had succeeded to the rights and
obligations of the canal company) notice of their
intention to work the subjacent and adjacent
coal, and requiring them to treat for the coal
necessary to be left for the security of the canal.
The defendants replied that no coal need be left,
and declined to treat.
Plaintiffs then sued defendants for-(a) a
declaration that they were entitled to work all
their adjacent coal, although the result might be
to endanger or damage the canal, or, in the
alternative, (b) a declaration that plaintiffs were
entitled to be paid, under s. 38, satisfaction for
adjacent coal left as canal protection. Plaintiffs
also claimed a declaration that under ss. 37 and
38 they were entitled to be paid satisfaction for
the subjacent coal left as protection:-
Held, that the plaintiffs were entitled to
declaration (a), but that on the plaintiffs and
defendants making admissions (substantially to
the effect of the referee's findings in the Chamber
Colliery Case, see [1894] 2 Q. B. 635) that the
cost, if any, of repairing damages to be sustained
to the canal and works by getting all the coal
would be trifling compared with the value of the
coal required to be left for the absolute protection
of the canal and works, and that such damage
could be repaired from time to time, and would
not interfere with the navigation, and on the
defendants undertaking (substantially in accord
with the undertaking required by the Court of
Appeal in the Chamber Colliery Case, [1894] 2
Q. B. 632, 642) not to claim damages in the
future in respect of the plaintiffs working the
subjacent coal, and at their own expense to repair
any damage thereby caused, the plaintiff's were
not entitled to any declaration respecting the
subjacent coal. NEW Moss COLLIERY COMPANY
v. MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD AND LINCOLNSHIRE
RAILWAY COMPANY
Byrne J. 725
CAPITAL--Or income-Cost of sanitary works 32
See TENANT FOR LIFE AND REMAINDER-
MAN. 1.
Uncalled-Shareholder plaintiff-Liability
See VENDOR AND PURCHASER. 2.
Claydon v. Green, (1868) L. R. 3 C. P. 511,
observed upon
(Loans) Act, 1869, held to be impure personalty,
as conferring on the holders an interest in land
within the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act,
1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 42), s. 10 (iii.) In re
CROSSLEY. BIRRELL v. GREENHOUGH
Kekewich J. 928
2. Will-Bequest of Trust Funds to be
applied "in Grants for or towards the Purchase of
Advowsons or Presentations."
A bequest to trustees to expend the income
or any portion of the trust funds "in grants for
or towards the purchase of advowsons or presen-
tations" is not a good charitable bequest.
In re Macduff, [1896] 2 Ch. 451, followed.
In re HUNTER. HOOD v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Romer J. 518
Continuing condition-Gift for endowment
of church
Tennent v. City of Glasgow Bank, (1879)
4 App. Cas. 615, inapplicable
See MINE.
Vachell v. Roberts, (1863) 32 Beav. 140, CLERK-Signature by auctioneer's-Statute of
See WILL. 4.
Williams' Estate, In re, (1872) L. R. 15 Eq.
270, distinguished
See CONTEMPT OF COURT.
COMPANY-Debenture-Floating Security-Fore-
673 closure-Absent Debenture-holder.
In a debenture-holders' action, where the de-
bentures constitute a charge on the property of a
company by way of floating security, foreclosure
cannot be ordered in the absence of any one
debenture-holder.
Sadler v. Worley, [1894] 2 Ch. 170, and Welch
v. National Cycle Co., W. N. (1886) 97, Palmer's
Woodhouse v. Walker, (1880) 5 Q. B. D. 404, Company Precedents, 6th ed. Part I. p. 909, con-
|