페이지 이미지
PDF

119

TABLE OF CASES.

though he did not sign this paper. Cheques so drawn had been honoured. Specific sums had also been advanced, for some of

which the bankers had obtained the personal guaranties of diffeHouse of Lords..

rent directors, the liability upon which guaranties was not dis

PAGE BEATTIE 7. LORD EBURY AND OTHERS (Directors-Misrepresenta

puted. But the present contest related to the question of general tion)...

liability. It was contended for the bankers that the above East London RAILWAY COMPANY (DIRECTORS nicoviny (DIRECTORS, &C., OF) v. We

note amounted to a representation that the persons signing it CHURCH AND OTHERS (Deficiency-RateRailway) . .

and others signing the cheques were directors and had authority

as such to draw cheques in the form indicated and thereby bind quity.

the company, and that the cheques so drawn did bind the comBoss, Ex parte. In re WHALLEY (Debtor's Summons-Act of

pany, or that at all events the persons signing these cheques Bankruptcy-Petition for Adjudication-Offer of Debtor to

became personally responsible for the sums mentioned in them. pay-Creditor's Right to Adjudication-Bankruptcy Act, 1869,

An action had been brought against the company, but the 88. 7, 8, 9, 80 (sub-8. 10) . .

. BNKCY. 121 money obtained under it had by no means been sufficient to BULLEY v. BÚLLEY (Mistake-Legal Estate-Estate TailEvi repay to the bank the amount of its advances. Vice-Chancellor dence-Admission). .

. L. JI. 120 | Bacon had held the directors personally responsible, but the EDWARDS v. WARDEN ( Bombay Civil Fund - Annuities-Lapse of Lords Justices had reversed this decision, holding that the Time-Jurisdiction)

letter itself did not make the directors personally responsible, LINET . MORGAN (Practice-Revivor-Death of Sole Plaintiff

that it contained no misrepresentation of fact, but amounted Reviror by Three out of Six Co-heiresses) : .

only to a mistaken representation of the law as to the powers of SMITH O. GRANT (Equitable AssignmentNotice) .

M. K.
L. JJ. 120

directors, and that the judgment recovered since then against Tunis RAILWAYS COMPANY, In re (Winding up-Scheme of Re

the company itself had been obtained on the assumption that construction-Rights of a Majority) .

. V.-C. M. TTENEB . Buck (WillLegacy payable out of Proceeds of Sale

the representation as to the powers of the directors was well of Real Estate - Administration

Interest) .
Interest).

founded. The Lords Justices also thought that there had not

. M. R. 121 Wells v. KILPIN (Judgment Creditor-Writ of Elegit-Prior

been any misrepresentation of any sort, but that the real facts Mortgage-Equitable Execution) . . . M. R. 120

had been fully disclosed to the agents of the bank. This was the

decision appealed against. Common Law.

Mr. Swanston, Q.C., and Mr. T. A. Roberts, appeared for the DANIEL AND OTHERS V. STEPNEY AND ANOTHER (Landlord

appellant, who represented the Union Bank. Tenant-Power of Distress-Covenant running with Land

Mr. Fry, Q.C., and Mr. Speed, were for the respondents. Notice). .

. Ex. Ch. from Ex. 122

THE LORDS affirmed the decision of the Lords Justices. LEYWOOD V. PICKERING (Bill of Exchange-Cheque-Presentment

Solicitor for the appellant: Alexander Dobie. - Payment by Cheque) :

. . Q. B. 122 Solicitors for the respondents: Baxters & Co. JOWELL . COUPLAND (Construction of Contract of SaleSale of ..

200 Tons of Potatoes grown on Seller's Land in W-Failure
of Crop) . . . . . . . Q. B. 121

May 19. Reg. v. INHABITANTS OF BRADFIELD (Highway, Presumption of THE DIRECTORS, &o., OF THE EAST LONDON RAILWAY COMPANY

Dedication-Private Road set out under Inclosure Award, Q. B. 122 WADDELL . WOLFFE (Vendor and Purchaser - Conditions of Sale

v. WHITCHURCH AND OTHERS. - Leaseholds, Sale of-Lessor's Title) . . Q. B. 122

Deficiency-Rate-Railway.

This was a proceeding in error against a judgment of the During the sittings of the Courts THE WEEKLY NOTES will be published

Exchequer Chamber, which had reversed a previous judgment mm Saturday, and will generally comprise Notes of the Decisions up to

of the Court of Exchequer.

The plaintiffs in error had obtained an Act of Parliament to and including those of the previous Wednesday. All cases of permanent interest noted herein will be reported in full in THE LAW REPORTS.

make a railway, to be called the East London Railway, which was to run from the New Cross Station to Rotherbithe, cross the river to the Wapping Station, and then go on to the Broad Street Station. The Act contained (clause 128) a provision in the following words: “That if and while the company are possessed under this Act of any lands assessed or liable to be

assessed to any sewer's rate, parochial or ward rate, &c., &c., BEATTIE v. LORD EBURY AND OTHERS. May 19.

they shall, from time to time, until the railway or the works

thereof are completed, and assessed or liable to be assessed, be Directors-Misrepresentation.

liable to make good the deficiency in the assessment for such This was an appeal against a decision of the Lords Justices

rates, by reason of these lands being taken or used for the pur(fully reported Law Rep. 7 Ch. Ap. 777), by which a previous de | poses of the railway or works, and the deficiency shall be comvision of Vice-Chancellor Bacon had been reversed.

puted according to the rental at which those lands, with any The case depended entirely upon the construction to be given buildings thereon, are now rated.” Until the railway between o written communications which had passed between the parties, New Cross Station and Wapping Station had been completed the first and most important of which is stated below. As soon the plaintiffs in error paid the doficiency rate, but when that is certain gentlemen bad obtained an Act for making a railway, I part of the railway was completed in the parish of St. Mary, he Watford and Rickmansworth Railway, three of their Rutherhithe, they demanded that it should be assessed on the Tumber sent to the Union Bank of London (represented by the same principle as other property in the parish. The parish present appellant) a note in these terms: "To the Directors of authorities (now the defendants in error) insisted that until the be Union Bank of London, or their Manager at the Temple Bar whole railway was completed the deficiency rate continued payBranch, Chancery Lane. Watford and Rickmansworth Railway. I able. Proceedings were taken by the overseers of the parish to jentlemen,- Please to honour the cheques of this company onforce the continued payment of the deficiency rate, but the igned by two of the directors and countersigned by the secre-Court of Exchequer (dissentiente Mr. Baron Martin) gave judgment ary.” This paper was signed by Joseph Cary, Reg. Capel, and for the railway company (Law Rep. 7 Ex. 248). On error to the 1. Warwick, who described themselves as three of the directors Exchequer Chamber that judgment was reversed (Id. 424), Mr. of the above company. It was dated the 4th of July, 1860. Justice Blackburn and Mr. Justice Mellor dissenting from the Lord Ebury was also a director and signed cheques subsequently, majority. This proceeding in error was then brought. No. 18.-1874,

House of Lords.

Habirailway within a clearly of opinion Home

Sir J. B. Karslake, Q.C., and Mr. B. Poland, were for the rail- | L. JJ.

SMITH V. GRANT.

May 27. way company.

Equitable AssignmentNotice. Mr. Prentice, Q.C., and Mr. Morgan Howard, for the parish. The question in this case was whether an award for 17507.,

THE LORDS were clearly of opinion that when the portion of to be paid by F. Doulton to the plaintiff Smith, constituted an the railway within a particular parish had been completed, the equitable charge on certain claims of Doulton against the defenliability of the company to the deficiency rate ceased, and the dant Grant, of which Grant had notice so as to bind him. The railway became liable to the proper parochial assessment.

Vice-Chancellor Malins held that there was such a charge, as Judgment of the Exchequer Chamber reversed.

noted ante, p. 78; and the defendant Grant appealed. Attorneys for the plaintiffs in error: Wilson, Bristows, & Carp- Glasse. O.O., Higgins, Q.C., Speed, and G. Woods, for the appelmael.

lant. Attorneys for the defendants in error: Hawks, Willmott, &

Cotton, Q.C., and W. P. Beale, for the plaintiff. Stokes.

THEIR LORDSHIPS held that there was an equitable charge on the money payable by Grant, of which Grant bad notice; and if he chose to pay Doulton without regard to that notice, he must take the consequences. The appeal must be dismissed with costs.

Solicitors: J. V. Musgrave; West & King.

Equity.

L. JJ.
EDWARDS v. WARDEN.

May 26. M. R.
MINET v. MORGAN.

May 22. Bombay Civil FundAnnuities-- Lapse of Time-Jurisdiction. | Practice-Revivor-Death of sole PlaintifRevivor by Three out This was a suit to recover from the trustees of an institution

of Six Co-heiresses. called the Bombay Civil Fund the arrears of certain annuities The bill in this suit was filed by the owner of a manor and alleged to have been payable to Mrs. Flower and her daughter lands known as the Baldwyn's Estate, in the county of Kent, on as the widow and children of a civil servant of the East India behalf of himself and all other persons entitled to rights of comCompany. The Vice-Chancellor Bacon decreed payment of the mon over Dartford Heath, against the lord of the manor of annuities claimed on behalf of Mrs. Flower, but not of the Dartford; and the object of the suit was to establish certain annuities claimed by the daughter, as noted ante, p. 63.

rights of common claimed by the plaintiff and the other comThe defendants appealed.

moners. Cotton, Q.C., Kekewich, and Hornell, for the defendants.

The plaintiff had died intestate, leaving six daughters his Kay, Q.C., Miller, Q.C., and J. Beaumont, for the plaintiffs. co-heiresses at law. Three of the co-heiresses had obtained the Macnaghten, for the Secretary of State for India.

common order to revive against the lord of the manor, and the THEIR LORDSHIPS thought that the guit ought to have been other three co-heiresses. A motion was now made to discharge instituted in India, as however the defendants were here and this order. had not objected by plea or demurrer, they would proceed to Fry, Q.C., J. T, Humphry, and H. S. Milman, in support of decide the question. As to the principal annuities claimed on the motion, 'contended that by the order of revivor the frame of behalf of Mrs. Flower and her daughter, their Lordships held the suit had been changed, inasmuch it would no longer be on that Mr. Flower had not complied with the rules so as to secure behalf of all persons entitled to rights of common; and further, the annuities. As to one annuity which was to make up the that the rights of common could not be claimed by three only of sum of 5001. a year to Mrs. Flower, she had claimed it in 1842, the co-heiresses, as the other three might release their claim, and and would be entitled to it unless the lapse of time was a bar. the whole right being indivisible would then be destroyed. It had been argued that as the fund was in the hands of trustees Joshua Williams, Q.C., and Whitly, for the defendants were time did not run against the plaintiffs, but they were trustees for not called on. the fund and not for claimants upon it. The plaintiffs were 1 THE MASTER OF THE Rolls held that there was no foundahowever entitled to so much of this annuity as became due tion for the argument that one tenant in common could release within six years before the filing of the bill. As to the rest, the the right of another tenant in common, and that the order had bill would be dismissed but without costs.

been properly made; and he refused the motion with costs. Solicitors : W. A. Day; Freshfields & Williams ; Lawford & Solicitors: Forne & Hunter; Carlisle & Ordell. Waterhouse,

M. R.
WELLS v, KILPIN.

May 25,
L. JJ.
BULLEY v. BULLEY.

May 26. Judgment Creditor-Writ of Elegit-Prior Mortgage-Equitable Mistake-Legal Estate-Estate Taï- Evidence- Admission.

Execution. The bill in this case was filed to have a deed of conveyance | The plaintiff was a judgment creditor of the defendant Kilpin, set aside, and was dismissed by the Vice Chancellor Bacon, as who was entitled to a life estate in certain real estate in Hampnoted ante, p. 63.

shire, subject to divers mortgages. The legal estate was vested The plaintiff appealed.

in one of such mortgagees, and it was stated at the bar that he Kay, Q.C., and E. L. Pemberton, for the plaintiff.

was in possession. Swanston, Q.C., Everitt, and Eyre, for the defendants.

The plaintiff had sued out writs of elegit and caused them to THEIR LORDSHIPS said that they agreed with the Vice-Chan- be registered; but was unable to obtain execution by reason of cellor, that there was no ground for setting aside the deed, which the existence of such prior mortgages. certainly conveyed one-fifth of the land in question. Their The bill was filed against Kilpin and a mortgagee whose inLordships did not think it right to leave the plaintiff to proceed cumbrance was subsequent to the plaintiff's judgment; and at law as to the other four-fifths, and would at once decide the prayed for a declaration that the plaintiff's judgment constituted matter. The title of the plaintiff depended on the fact that one a valid charge on Kilpin's equitable estate subject to the prior John Raven, who died in 1746, was seised in fee of the land in incumbrances; for foreclosure; for the appointment of a receiver ; question. This had not been shewn by the plaintiff nor was the and for general relief. recital of the fact by the defendant in a draft deed prepared by The cause now came on to be heard. his solicitor a binding admission on him. The appeal must be Townsend (The Attorney-General, Sir R. Baggallay, with him), dismissed with costs.

for the plaintiff. Solicitors: Woodbridge & Sons; E. Digby.

Taller, Q.C., and S. Dickinson, for Kilpin, contended that the

plaintiff was not entitled to a charge or to foreclosure; and that (Law Rep. 8 Ch. 702) applied to this case, in which an overhe was not entitled to have a receiver appointed, but ought to whelming majority of creditors had decided upon the propriety redeem the prior incumbrancers.

of taking a particular course in order to save their property from Southgate, Q.C., and Bevir, for the subsequent mortgagee. complete loss. He would therefore make an order confirming

THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS made a decree appointing a the scheme. Costs of all parties, except the dissentient debenreceiver, without prejudice to the rights of prior incumbrancers, ture-holders, to be paid out of the estate. such receiver not to take possession if it should appear that al Solicitors: Heritage ; Pulbrook. prior incumbrancer was already in possession, until the claim of such prior incumbrancer was satisfied; and directed an account to be taken of what was due to the plaintiff, and ordered a sale BANKRUPTCY. Ex parte Boss. In re WHALLEY. May 26. in the event of the debt not being paid within six months from Debtor's Summons-Act of Bankruptcy-Petition for Adjudication the date of the certificate.

- Offer of Debtor to pay-Creditor's Right to AdjudicationSolicitors: Hurford & Taylor; Garrard & James.

Bankruptcy Act, 1869, ss. 7, 8, 9, 80 (sub-s. 10).

This was an appeal from a decision of the registrar of the M. R. TURNER v. BUCK.

May 26.

Wrexham County Court, acting as judge.

A petition for adjudication of bankruptcy was presented by WillLegacy payable out of Proceeds of Sale of Real Estate

Boss against Whalley, founded upon the non-compliance of Administration Interest.

Whalley with the requirements of a debtor's summons for a sum Testator devised real estate upon trust for sale, and directed of 751. Before the petition came on to be heard an offer was certain legacies to be paid out of the proceeds of the sale. made by Whalley's attorney to pay the 751., with interest and

The question arose on further consideration of a suit for the costs. Boss refused to accept it unless some other sums which administration of the estate, from what time the interest on the he claimed from Whalley were also paid. On the hearing of the legacies was payable.

petition, the petitioning creditor's debt and the act of bankruptcy Waller, Q.O., and Colt, for the plaintiff.

were proved, and an adjudication was asked for. Whalley's solicitor Southgate, Q.C., and Cust, for the testator's widow.

renewed the offer to pay the 751., with interest and costs. The Cozens-Hardy, for the representative of a deceased legatee, registrar ordered that on payment to Boss, within one month, of contended that as the legacy was charged on real estate the the 751., with interest, and the costs of the proceedings in bankrule that interest was to be calculated from the end of a year ruptcy, the petition be dismissed, and all further proceedings from the testator's death had no application.

thereon stayed. THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS held that the legatees could only Boss appealed. claim interest from the period at which a sale might reasonably De Gex, Q.C., and R. Griffiths, for Boss. have been effected, and that one year from the testator's death Winslow, Q.C., and E. Cutler, for Whalley. was a reasonable time.

THE CHIEF JUDGE said that under the Act of 1869 it was Solicitors: A. Turner; Flux & Leadbitter.

competent for the creditor to have received payment of the debt notwithstanding the act of bankruptcy, but there was nothing

in the Act or in the policy of the law which made it incumbent Y-C. M. In re TUNIS RAILWAYS COMPANY. May 22. on him to do so. He might refuse to accept payment and proWinding-up-Scheme of Reconstruction-Rights of a Majority.

secute the remedy which the Act gave him. The registrar had . This company was incorporated in July, 1872, with a capital certainly no authority to give time to the debtor upon a mere of 250,0001. Debentures were subsequently issued and sub

Cand she promise to pay. The order must be discharged, and the matter scribed for to the extent of 220,0001. The railway intended to

must be referred back to the county court to continue the probe constructed was partly finished, but more money was re

ceedings. quired for its completion, and the company being in difficulties

Solicitors: Beyfus & Beyfus; C. B. Hallward.
resolved upon winding up voluntarily. On the 14th of January,
1874, the voluntary winding-up was continued under the super-
vision of the Court. A scheme was then proposed by a com-
mittee of the debenture-holders for the reconstruction of the
company, and at a meeting held on the 22nd of April the
scheme received the sanction of twenty-nine out of thirty-one of
the debenture-holders then present, the two dissentients being

Q. B.
HOWELL v. COUPLAND.

May 22.
Mr. Reilly, who held twenty debentures, and Mr. Herbert, the Construction of Contract of Sale-Sale of 200 Tons of Potatoes
holder of ten debentures.
Mr. Pulbrook, who held one debenture, appeared as solicitor

grown on Seller's Land in W-Failure of Crop. for the dissentients at the meeting.

Plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement in March, A petition was now presented to obtain the sanction of the 1872, whereby defendant agreed to sell and plaintiff to purchase Court to the scheme approved of by the majority of the deben-“ 200 tons of Regent potatoes grown on lands belonging to defenture-holders. It was proved by several witnesses that the value dant in W. at rate of 31. 10s. 6d. per ton, to be delivered in of the property of the company did not exceed 40,0001., and it September or October and paid for as taken away." was proposed to pay out the dissentient debenture-holders by a In March defendant had 68 acres ready for potatoes, 25 acres proportionate part of the 40,0001.

being already sown, the other 43 were afterwards sown, and the Glasse, Q.C., Waller, Q.C., and Latham, for the petitioners, acreage was amply sufficient to grow 200 tons; up to the end of the committee of debenture-holders.

July the crop promised well, but in August the potato blight J. Pearson, Q.C., and Brooksbank, for the dissentients, submitted appeared, and the crop failed, and the defendant was able to that this being a case of creditors and not shareholders it did deliver only 80 tons. not come within the authorities in which the Court had given The plaintiff having brought an action for the non-delivery of effect to the wishes of a majority in carrying out a scheme of the other 120 tons. reconstruction.

D. Seymour, Q.C., and Waddy, Q.C., for plaintiff. Higgins, Q.C., and Graham Hastings, for the liquidator.

Field, Q.C., and Beasley, for defendant. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR was of opinion that the principle of THE COURT (Blackburn, Quain, and Archibald, JJ.) gave judgEx parte Foo (Law Rep. 6 Ch. 176), and Poole's Executors' Case ment for the defendant. The contract was for a portion of a

Common Law.

specific crop, and was within the principle of Taylor v. Caldwell | according to the custom of bankers there had been a due pre(3 B. & S. at pp. 833-4); and the contract must be taken to be sub- sentment of the cheque, and that the plaintiff had been guilty ject to the implied condition that the seller shall be excused if of no laches; that the plaintiff had not by his conduct made the before breach performance becomes impossible from the perish-cheque his own; and that the payment by cheque was only a ing of the thing without default in the seller.

conditional payment. Attorneys for plaintiff: Monckton & Co., for Ayliff, Holbeach. | Attorneys for plaintiff: Johnson & Weatherall. Attorneys for defendant: Wright, Bonner, & Wright, for Bonner Attorneys for defendant: Courtenay & Croome. & Calthrop, Spalding.

Q. B. THE QCEEN v. INHABITANTS OF BRADFIELD. May 22.0. B.

WADDELL v. WOLFFE.

May 23. Highway, Presumption of Dedication-- Private Road set out under | Vendor and Purchaser-Conditions of Sale-Leaseholds. Sale of Inclosure Award.

Lessor's Title. On the trial of an indictment against a parish for the non

Certain leasehold premises were put up for sale by auction on repair of a highway, it appeared that the road had originally

certain conditions, and the sixth condition was as follows: been set out in 1789 as an occupation road by an award under

" The abstract of title shall commence with an indenture of an Inclosure Act, and the adjoining landowners or occupiers

underlease, dated the 1st of May, 1869, being a lease from W. S. were ordered by the award ever after to keep the road in repair.

to W. B. S. for a term of fourteen years less two days from Lady There was ample evidence given of user by the public to support

Day, 1869; and it should form no objection to the title that such the presumption of a dedication before 5 & 6 Wm, 4, c. 50, in an

indenture is an under-lease: and no requisition or inquiry shall ordinary case; but the defendants, relying on the judgment of

be made respecting the title of the lessor or his superior landlord, Abbott, C.J., in Rex y. St. Benedict (4 B. & A. 447), contended

aor his right to grant such under-lease; and the production of the that the award prevented such a road from ever becoming all

last receipt for the rent reserved by the under-lease shall be highway repairable by the parish. A verdict was directed for

"accepted as conclusive evidence of the due observance and perthe Crown, with leave to move to enter the verdict for the defen

formance of all the covenants contained therein up to the time dants on the above point.

of the completion of the purchase." ... The vendee having purA rule having been obtained accordingly,

chased the premises, an abstract of title was sent him, but on Maule, Q.C., for the prosecution.

making further inquiries he discovered that on the 15th of April, Field, Q.C., for the defendants.

1867, W. S. had mortgaged the premises to the Standard BuildTHE COURT (Blackburn, Quain, and Archibald, JJ.) discharged the rule, holding that there was nothing in the fact of the road

ing Society, so that the under-lease of the 1st of May, 1869, was

void; he, therefore, under the 11th condition of sale, rescinded having been set out by the award, which directed the repairs to

the contract. be by the adjoining landowners, to prevent the road becoming a

& The question was 'whether the vendee was not precluded by highway repairable by the inhabitants at large; and that the judgment of Abbott, C.J., might be explained as meaning that

the 6th condition from taking any objection to the title.

Edwyn Jones, for the plaintiff. in such a case the evidence of user by the public must be greater

Gibbons, for the defendant. than in an ordinary case, in order to lead to the presumption of

THE COURT (Blackburn, Quain, and Archibald, JJ.), held that dedication.

the vendee having aliunde discovered the defect, was not preAttorneys for prosecution : Pilgrim & Phillips, for Smith &

cluded from taking the objection, and that he was entitled to Hinde, Sheffield.

rescind the contract of sale. Attorneys for defendants : Torr & Co., for Dransfield & Sons,

Attorney for plaintiff: Kearsey. Penistone.

Attorney for defendants : Braham.

Q. B.
HEYWOOD v. PICKERING.

May 23.
Bill of Exchange-Cheque-Presentment-Payment by Cheque.

Ex. Ch. from Ex.

May 14.

DANIEL AND OTHERS v. STEPNEY AND ANOTHER The defendant, in payment of a debt due from him to the plaintiff, gave the plaintiff on the 27th of January in London. | Landlord-Tenant-Power of Distress-Covenant running with too late to be paid into his bankers that same day, a cheque

Land-Notice. drawn by the defendant on the Jersey Bank, and payable at The Court of Exchequer had decided in this case that a power Jersey. The plaintiff paid the cheque on the 28th of January contained in a lease of coal mines to distrain on “any lands in into his bankers, the London and Westminster Bank; that same which there shall be for the time being any pits or openings by day they forwarded it to the Jersey Bank demanding payment. or though which the coal and culm by tho said deed demised The Jersey Bank received it on the 29th of January. They shall for the time being be in course of working by the lessees, neither remitted the money nor returned the cheque. On the their executors, administrators, and assigns," did not run with 1st of February the Jersey Bank stopped payment; the defen- the land so as to affect assignees of the lease, and gave judgment dant having assets in their hands more than sufficient to pay the for the plaintiffs, wbo, being such assignees, sued in respect of cheque. On the 7th of February the cheque was returned to the an exercise of the power of distress at pits referred to in the plaintiff's bankers marked "referred to drawer.” It is the cus- above-mentioned clause (reported Law Rep. 7 Ex. 327). The tom of London bankers that when a foreign cheque is paid to a defendants having brought error, and the pleadings having been banker by a customer, if the banker has no agent at the place amended by setting out the lease and the assignment, the case where the cheque is payable, to send the cheque direct to the was argued by banker on whom it is drawn, demanding payment, and the Joshua Williams, Q.C. (Giffard, Q.C., Herschell, Q.C., and Trebanker on whom the cheque is drawn immediately either remits velyan with him), for the plaintiffs. the money or returns the cheque.

Manisty, Q.C. (Beresford with him), for the defendants. The question was, whether the plaintiff by his course of dealing THE COURT Cockburn, C.J., Blackburn, Keating, Mellor, had made the cheque his own so as to make the payment by Lush, and Denman, JJ.), reversed the judgment, on the ground cheque an absolute payment.

that the plaintiffs took with notice, and were bound in equity by McIntyre, Q.C., for the defendant.

the provision in question. W. A. Clark, for the plaintiff.

Attorney for plaintiffs: Hacon. THE COURT (Blackburn, Quain, and Archibald, JJ.), held that Attorney for defendants : Calcott.

PIGE

PAGB

House of Lords.

Reg. v. Goodall (Act as to Threats and Molestation (34 & 35 TABLE OF CASES.

Vict. c. 32), 8. 3—Costs against Convicting Justices Appeal)

Q. B. 127 ROBERTS, APP. ; EGERTON RESP. (Adulteration Act (35 & 36 Vict, House of Lords.

c. 74), 8. 2-Selling as unadulteraled an adulterated Article

Green Tea"). . . . . . . Q. B. 127 COURTENAY v. COUNTESS OF ROTHES (Defective Entail- Judicial Declaration of its Invalidity) . . . .

. .

. 123
123 TOOLE v. Young (CopyrightDramatic CompositionDramatiz-

ing a Norel —3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 15, s. 1, 2). . Q. B. 126 GLEN v. STEUABT (Contest between Heir-at-Law and Next of Kin) 123

Wuod r. WoAD AND OTHERS (Mutual Insurance Society, Wrong.

ful Expulsion) . . . . . . . Ex. 128 Equity.

YATES AND OTHERS, Pets.; LEACH AND ANOTHER, RESPs. (MuBRACKENBURY's Trusts, In re (Fund in Court-Investment on

nicipal Election--Petition-Striking out Respondent's Name Foreign SecuritiesDividend Warrants payable to Bearer)

-Corrupt Practices (Municipal Elections) Act, 1872 (33 & 36

V.-C. M. 125 Vict. c. 60), 88. 13, 18) . . . . . C. P. 128 BROWNE 1. RADFORD (Express Trust -- Acquiescence Statute of Limitations (3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 27), 86. 25, 27) . M. R. 124 During the sittings of the Courts THE WEEKLY NOTEs will be published

on Saturday, and will generally comprise Notes of the Decisions up to CARTHELL'S CASE. In re County PALATINE LOAN AND DISCOUNT and including those of the previous Wednesday. All cases of permanent COMPANY (Contributory Transfer - Agency - Purchase by

interest noted herein will be reported in full in Tre Law REPORTS. Company) . . . . . . . L, JJ. 124 Foxos v. GASCOGNE (Solicitor's Lien-Charge on Property re

corered or preserred-Bill to restrain Injury to Ancient Lights

-Dismissal of Bin 23 & 24 Vict. c. 27, 8, 28) :: M. R. 124 HOPKINS' Trusts, In re (Shares in Insurance Company-Dividends - Income or Capital) . . . . . V.-C. H. 125

GLEN et al, v. STEJART.

April 27.

Contest between Heir-at-Law and Next of Kin. MOORE 6. MOORE (Gift inter viros-Donatio mortis causâ Rail

The testatrix in this case directed that on her decease her way Scrip) . . . . . . . V.-C. H. 126 trustees should sell and dispose of all her property heritable as

well as personal, and after satisfying her debts and legacies ['NIVERSAL DRUG SUPPLY ASSOCIATION, In re (Company--Volun. should "pay over the residue to her heir-at-law, whom failing,

tary Winding-up-Creditor's Petition-Compulsory Order to ber next of kin.” After the disposal of her heritable and perCompanies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 145) M. R. 125

sonal property, the residue in the hands of the trustees amounted

to about 2,3001.; and the question was whether this sum should Vrant's SETTLEMENT, In re (Settlement-Construction Covenant

go to the respondent as heir-at-law, or to the appellants as next

of kin. to settle after-acquired Property) . i . V.-C. B. 125

The Court of Session (Second Division) held that as the pro

perty at the death of the testatrix consisted mainly of heritage, WALSH v. Wason (Practice-Stop Order-Petition or Summons)

M. Á. 125

and as the term “heir-at-law” was flexible, the sound construction

in the case must be in favour of the respondent; and they proCommon Lab.

nounced judgment accordingly.

The next of kin appealed to the House, having for their counsel, AFFLEPEE 1. PERCY (Ferocious Dog - Evidence of Ferocity

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Gordon, Q.C.), Mr. Horn, and Mr. Ori

Paterson. Scienter) . . . . . . . C. P. 128 Mr. Cotton, Q.C., and Mr. James T. Anderson, appeared for the

respondent. DAVIES, APP.; HARVEY, RESP. (Guardian Goods supplied by

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD CAIRNS), LORD CHELMSFORD, way of Parochial Relief3 & 4 Win. 4, c. 76. 8. 77) Q. B. 126 and LORD SELBORNE, agreeing that the judgment complained of

was right, it was affirmed, and the appeal dismissed with costs. HAMPTON, APP. ; RICKARD, RESP. (Bastardy-Birth of Child in

The case, as decided by the Court of Session, is reported in the England-Place of Procreation out of England). Q. B. 127 3rd Series of the Scotch Cases, vol. ii., p. 160.

Appellants' agents : Holmes, Anton, Greig, & White.
IONIDES 0. PENDER (Marine Insurance-ConcealmentExcessive

Respondent's agents: Markby, Turry, & Stewart.
Valuation of Goods) . . . . . Q. B. 126
KIBBSTALL BREWERY COMPANY ", FURNESS RAILWAY COMPANY
(Evidence-Statement made by Agent of Defendants acting

COURTENAY et al. v. COUNTESS OF ROTHES. May 4. within Scope of his Duty-Station Master)

Q. B. 127

Defective EntailJudicial Declaration of its Invalidity.

The Countess of Rothes sought a judicial declaration that the POPE, APP.; TEARLE, RESP. (Adulteration of Food—35 & 36 Vict.

entail of her estate in Fifeshire was invalid, and that she was c. 74, 88. 2, 3_" Declare such Admixture ")

. C. P. 128 consequently at liberty to sell or dispose of it as she pleased. No. 19.-1874.

« 이전계속 »