course" and entitled to recover chattel mortgage must be filed
the
amount according to the under sec. 18 of the Bills of Sale
original tenor, the word "renew- and Chattel Mortgage Act, R.S.O.
al" not forming part of the con- 1897, ch. 148, the day on which
tract to pay.
the mortgage was filed is to be ex-
cluded. McCann v. Martin, 193.
See EXECUTION, 1.

Per FALCONBRIDGE, C.J.:-The
erasure, although not that of a
word forming part of the contract,
was material. Maxon v. Irwin, 81.

3. Promissory Note-Past Due
-Signature by Third Party-
Agreement not to Sue-Release of
Original Makers-Insufficient Con-
sideration-Bills of Exchange Act.]

-Where a promissory note made
by two persons in favour of plain-
tiff was, after maturity, signed by
defendant at plaintiff's request,
without any agreement or under-
standing for extension of time or
for forbearance:-

Held, following Ryan v. Mc-
Kerral (1888), 15 O.R. 460, that
the procurement by the plaintiff
of the signature of the defendant
was not equivalent to an agree-
ment not to sue, and that no
change has been made in the law
in this respect by the Bills of Ex-
change Act.

Held, also, that, even if the
original makers were released by
the execution of the note by the
defendant, such release would not
be a sufficient consideration to
support the promise of the de-
fendant, inasmuch as there was
no evidence of a desire or request
or consent on her part that the
other parties to the note should
be released. Stack v. Dowd, 331.

BREACH OF PROMISE OF
MARRIAGE.

See SEDUCTION.

BRIDGE.

See ASSESSMENT AND TAXES,
5-MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, 1.

BUILDINGS.

See LIMITATION OF ACTIONS, 2-
NEGLIGENCE.

BUSINESS ASSESSMENT.
See ASSESSMENT OF TAXES, 1, 2.

BUSINESS MORALS.
See INJUNCTION.

BY-LAWS.

See MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
-NEGLIGENCE, 1.

CASES.

Barclay v. Messenger, 22 W.R.
522, 43 L.J. Ch. 449, followed.]-
See VENDOR AND PURCHASER, 3.

Bohan v. Galbraith, 13 O.L.R.
301, affirmed.]-See VENDOR AND
PURCHASER, 4.

Bowers v. Bowers, L.R. 8 Eq.
283, applied.]-See WILL, 4.

Brenner v. Toronto R.W. Co., Iredale v. Loudon, 14 O.L.R. 17,
13 O.L.R. 423, reversed.]-See reversed.]-See LIMITATION OF AC-
NEW TRIAL.

TIONS, 2.

Keewatin Power Co. v. Town of
Kenora, 11 O.W.R. 266, referred
to.] See WATER AND WATER-
COURSES, 1.

Kemp, Re, Johnson v. Ancient
Order of United Workmen, 14 O.L.
R. 424, reversed.]-See INSURANCE,
5.

Lamirande, Ex p., 10 L.C. Jur.
280, specially considered.]-See
HABEAS CORPUS, 2.

Lawless v. Chamberlain, 18 O.R.
296, distinguished.] See MAR-

Empey v. Fick, 13 O.L.R. 178, 297, approved.]-See TRIAL, 1, 2.
affirmed.] See PARENT AND
CHILD.

Queen, The, v. France, 1 Can.
Crim. Cas. 32, approved and fol-
International Bridge Co. v. Vil-lowed.]-See CRIMINAL LAW, 5.
lage of Bridgeburg, 12 O.L.R. 314,
followed.]-See ASSESSMENT AND
TAXES, 5.

followed.]-See BILLS OF Ex-COMMON BETTING HOUSE.

tors ex parte allotted at par to allotment of stock is in the general
five of themselves, and also allot- Railway Act of Ontario, R.S.O.
ted the remaining 1,650 to the 1897, ch. 207 (incorporated with
same five, but after issuing a the special Act), sec. 34 (16) of
circular to the body of share- which enacts that the directors
holders, whereby the latter were shall make by-laws for the man-
invited to state whether they de-agement and disposition of stock,
sired to increase their holdings, not inconsistent with the laws of
and wherein it was set forth that the Province; but no by-laws ap-
such shares might be allotted as peared to have been made with
seemed to the directors desirable relation to the allotment or dis-
and necessary. The plaintiff and posal of new shares:-
other shareholders acting with
him made no response except by
way of protest.

Held, that the disposal made by
the directors of the new shares
was not within the general powers
By the company's Act of incor- and functions of the directors of
poration, 56 Vict. ch. 95, secs. 13 such companies; it was a one-
and 46 (0.), the capital stock sided allotment of stock, which
could be increased, and certain ignored the just claims of many
traffic and other arrangements shareholders, and in effect
with other companies could be
permitted, only upon approval by
two-thirds in value of the share-
holders.

amounted to a prejudicial en-
croachment on the voting power
of the minority; it was not within
the power conferred upon the
The directors did not wish or directors by sec. 6 of the Act of
intend to allot the new stock incorporation, to exclude any one
among the shareholders pro râta, from subscribing for stock who, in
but so to deal with the last 1,650 their judgment, would hinder, de-
shares as to appropriate for them- lay, or prevent the company from
selves enough shares to give them proceeding with and completing
more than a two-thirds majority their undertaking under the pro-
in value of shareholders:-
visions of the Act; and, there-
Held, that the minority share-fore, the allotment should be de-
holders were not required to sub-clared invalid, and the defendants
mit to the form of application be restrained from voting upon
proposed by the circular; there the increased capital shares.

The plaintiff was allowed his
general costs, although he had
alleged fraud, and had not estab-
lished it; any costs arising from
the charge of fraud were excluded.
Martin v. Gibson, 623.

was no recognition of any right on
the part of existing shareholders
to claim a pro ratâ division of the
proposed new issue, and at this
time, by the appropriation of the
350 shares, the minority had be-
come less than one-third in value
2. Ontario Joint Stock Winding-
of the shareholders; and, there-up Act-Order under-Appeal to
fore, the plaintiff was not pre- Court of Appeal-Action in High
cluded from seeking relief in Court Jurisdiction.]-Where a
respect of the total issue and allot-winding-up order under the On-
ment of the new stock.

The only statutory direction
affecting this company as to the

tario Winding-up Act is made in
violation of the provisions of the
statute, or is obtained by fraud

or misrepresentation, or is other- venting-Loss of Sale-Damages.]
wise open to attack, any share--The plaintiff purchased from
holder prejudicially affected may the defendants 1,000 shares of
obtain redress, either by direct mining stock, and received from
application to the county court them a certificate for that num-
Judge if the order has been made ber of shares, made out in favour
by him ex parte, or if made by of one C., and by him indorsed
him after notice then by way of with a transfer in blank:-
appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Held, that this completed the
The High Court of Justice for duty of the defendants as sellers,
Ontario has no jurisdiction to and it was not incumbent upon
intervene in an action, and set them to see that the plaintiff
aside or vacate or declare invalid should become registered as owner
what has been done by the county of the shares upon the books of
court Judge under the Ontario the company; but they were
Winding-up Act, R.S.O. 1897, under obligation to do nothing to
ch. 222. Deacon v. Kemp Manure
Spreader Co., 149.

3. Receiver-Leave to Bring Ac-
tion-Adverse English Decision.]-
Leave given to bring an action
against receivers of a company in-
corporated under the Ontario
Companies Act, to restrain them
from carrying out a certain
scheme for a fresh bond issue,
notwithstanding that the legality
of the scheme had been upheld on
motion before a Judge of the
High Court of Justice in England.
In re Diehl v. Carritt, Ex P.
Clement, 202.

prevent the plaintiff from having
the shares registered in his name.

The plaintiff, having contracted
to sell the shares at a profit, en-
deavoured to have himself regis-
and to obtain two certificates for
tered as the owner of 1,000 shares
quired by the plaintiff's vendee
500 shares each, which were re-
refused registration because of an
as a term of his purchase, but was
injunction, obtained by the de-
fendants, restraining the transfer
from registering any transfers of
agents of the mining company
shares standing in the name of

C.:-

Held, that the plaintiff was en-
titled to recover from the defen-
dants as damages the difference
between the price at which he had
contracted to sell the shares and

4. Remuneration of Officers-Re-
trospective Remuneration-34 Vict.
ch. 98, sec. 3 (0.)]-The Act of in-
corporation of a charitable society
provided that the corporation
might assign to any of its officers the price which he afterwards ob-
such remuneration as they might tained when the injunction was
deem requisite:-
dissolved, and he was registered

Held, that a grant by the share-as owner of the shares.
holders at an annual meeting to

Judgment of MABEE,

J..

the treasurer of a sum of money as affirmed. Boultbee v. Wills &
remuneration for his services dur- Co., 227.

ing the past 30 years was intra

vires under the above section.

Bartram v. Birtwhistle, 634.

See COVENANT.

5. Shares Sale
Registration - Injunction