ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

THE WEEKLY NOTES.

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

PACE

169

169

172

In re RUBY CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY (Contributory-Fraud-Removing Name-Recovery of Money L. JJ. 170

[ocr errors]

paid) BELLAIRS V. BELLAIRS (Will-Gift of Proceeds of Sale of RealtyMixed Fund-Clause of Forfeiture-Restraint on Marriage)

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

M. R. 170

HEDGES, In re (Annuity—Charge on Capital-Combined Effect of
two Wills)
JAMES, Ex parte. In re CONDON (Bankruptcy-Execution Creditor
V.-C. M.
-Bankruptcy Act, 1869, s. 87-Failure of Liquidation Pro-
ceedings-Subsequent Bankruptcy)
MONTROTIER ASPHALTE COMPANY, In re (Company-Supervision
Order-Liquidators-Disputes-Removal and Appointment of

[ocr errors]

171

L. JJ. 170

172

Liquidators).
NADEN, Ex parte. In re WOOD (Bankruptcy-Proof-Debt inca-
V.-C. B.
pable of being fairly estimated-Separate Deed-Annuity—
Bankruptcy Act, 1869, s. 31)
Stewart v. LUPTON (Sale of Shares in a Company-Purchaser's
L. JJ. 170
right to new Shares subsequently allotted)

[ocr errors]

V.-C. M. 171

During the sittings of the Courts THE WEEKLY NOTES will be published on Saturday, and will generally comprise Notes of the Decisions up to and including those of the previous Wednesday. All cases of permanent interest noted herein will be reported in full in THE LAW REPORTS.

[blocks in formation]

169

The decree in this case was pronounced by the Court of Teinds on the 14th of May, 1868, but no appeal to the House of Lords was taken till the 7th of February, 1873, that is to say, after an interval of nearly five years. reception of the appeal; and the preliminary question of comThe respondent objected to the petency was argued by one counsel on each side at the Bar of the House.

Mr. J. Pearson, Q.C., for the respondent, maintained that the cause was finally decided below by the judgment of the 14th of May, 1868, and that the question of competency was governed by the Statute of 1825; citing a decision of the House (4 Macq. 352) that even an appeal by concert will not be allowed after the expiration of the statutory period.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Gordon, Q.C.), in support of the appeal, pointed out that proceedings of a formal nature had been continued in the Court below down to the 2nd of March, 1871. He further suggested that an appeal from the Court of Teinds was not governed absolutely by the rules which applied to the Court of Session.

But, it appearing that the whole conclusions of the action were exhausted by the judgment of the 14th of May, 1868,

THE LAW PEERS, LORD CHANCELLOR CAIRNS, Lord HATHER-
LEY, and LORD SELBORNE, were clear that the appeal was too late.
It was therefore dismissed, as incompetent, with costs.
Appellant's agents: Grahames & Wardlaw.
Respondent's agent: John Graham.

[blocks in formation]

Richard Vyse was the head partner in the firm of Vyse & Co., of Ludgate Hill, which had branch establishments in Italy and New York. The capital of the firm was large, and the share of Richard Vyse, the testator, very considerable. partnership provided for the surviving partners taking the share The articles of of a deceased partner. The testator made a will, to which he appointed one of his partners together with two other persons his executors. The will directed that his real estate should be sold, and the proceeds treated as part of his personal estate, and his children were to have that in equal shares, the shares of the daughters not vesting indefeasibly till they attained 25. The executors did not call in the whole estate of the testator, but a considerable portion of it remained in the business, and interest was paid on it. All the testator's children except the appellant seemed to have acquiesced in the arrangements made by the executors, but she, after attaining the age of 25, filed a bill but, believing they could make a greater profit of it, built, at a against the executors praying for an account of profits or compound interest at 5 per cent. on her share. There was a piece of cost of 16001., a villa residence upon it, in the hope that the land belonging to the testator, which the executors did not sell,. rest of the land could then be sold at great advantage. This was by the appellant's bill alleged as a breach of trust, and on this, as well as on the other parts of the bill, the decree of the Vice-Chancellor Bacon was in favour of the plaintiff. On appeal, the Lords Justices varied the order so far as it directed an account of profits, and as to the villa the trustees were to be allowed to take it to themselves at the price of 16001., and to pay for the value of the land unbuilt upon, this value to be ascertained upon affidavit (as reported Law Rep. 8 Ch. 309). The plaintiff appealed against this decision.

Mr. Kay, Q.C., Mr. Marten, Q.C., and Mr. Romer, for the
appellant.

respondents.
Mr. Cotton, Q.C., Mr. Fry, Q.C., and Mr. Kekewich, for the

THE LORDS affirmed the decision of the Lords Justices.
Solicitor for the appellant: S. J. Robinson.

Solicitors for the respondents: Gregory, Rowcliffes, & Rawle.

L. JJ.

Equity.

Ex parte JAMES.

In re CONDON.

July 10. Bankruptcy-Execution Creditor-Bankruptcy Act, 1869, s. 87Failure of Liquidation Proceedings-Subsequent Bankruptcy. This was an appeal from a decision of Mr. Registrar Roche sitting as Chief Judge in Bankruptcy.

On the 14th of November, 1873, judgment for 2747, was signed by Henry Bradshaw against John Condon, a coal merchant at Millwall. Execution was issued, and on the 17th of November the sheriff seized Condon's goods. On the 18th of November, Condon filed a liquidation petition. On the 22nd of November the sheriff sold the goods, realizing by the sale 142. 15s. 6d. On the 3rd of December notice of the petition was served on the sheriff. On the 5th of December the first meeting of creditors was held, and was adjourned to the 16th. On that day the debtor failed to attend, and the creditors separated without passing any resolution. On the 17th of December the sheriff paid the 142. 15s. 6d. to Bradshaw. On the 19th of December a petition in bankruptcy was presented against Condon, founded on the act of bankruptcy committed by the filing of the liquidation petition, and notice was given to the sheriff and to Bradshaw. On the 10th of January, 1874, an adjudication was made, On the 23rd of February, Bradshaw being advised that he could not retain the money, repaid the 142/. 15s. 6d. to the trustee in the bankruptcy. He now claimed to have the money returned to him, as having been paid under a mistake. The registrar decided that he was entitled to it, and ordered the trustee to repay it.

The trustee appealed.

Thesiger, Q.C., and E. Cooper Willis, for the appellant, contended that the proceedings in liquidation were not at an end when the creditors failed to pass any resolution, but formed the foundation of the adjudication in bankruptcy which was subsequently made. The debtor had therefore been adjudged a bankrupt on the petition, notice of which had been served on the sheriff, within the meaning of the 87th section of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, and the sheriff was not justified in paying the proceeds of the sale to the execution creditor. At any rate the money, having been paid to the trustee under a mistake of law, could not be recovered.

De Gex, Q.C., and Finlay Knight, for the execution creditor, relied on Ex parte Villars (Law Rep. 9 Ch. 432), and contended that the liquidation proceedings being entirely at an end, the execution creditor was entitled to the proceeds of the sale.

THE LORD JUSTICE JAMES said he was of opinion that the registrar was right. Looking at s. 87 and the rules, he thought it was impossible to say that the adjudication of bankruptcy was made on the petition of which the sheriff had notice before he paid away the money. The result of what occurred at the meeting of the 16th of December was that the whole thing came to an end. There was nothing in the nature of a resolution, nothing which could result in the appointment of a trustee. His Lordship, therefore, thought that the execution creditor was entitled to the proceeds of the sale. As to the other point, he thought that a trustee in bankruptcy was in truth an officer of the Court, and the Court, finding that money in the trustee's hands really in equity belonged to some one else, ought to do in equity just as any one else would be bound to do it, and to direct the money to be paid to the person entitled to it. The appeal must be dismissed, but without costs.

[blocks in formation]

done or not. This would be a very inconvenient construction of s. 87, for the consequence would be that the sheriff might have to keep the money for six months. As soon as it became impossible that a trustee could be appointed under the liquidation petition, as it did when the creditors dispersed on the 16th of December, his Lordship thought that the sheriff was authorized in paying the money to the execution creditor. His Lordship agreed, also, in what Lord Justice James had said as to the other point. Solicitors: Chorley & Crawford; Ravencroft & Hills.

[blocks in formation]

Contributory-Fraud-Removing Name-Recovery of Money paid. This was an appeal from an order of Vice-Chancellor Malins directing the name of Askew to be removed from the list of contributories to the company, as noted unte, p. 149.

Cotton, Q.C., and Kekewich, for the appellants. Glasse, Q.C., and Graham Hastings, for Askew. THEIR LORDSHIPS thought that the Vice-Chancellor had not sufficiently considered that his order would be conclusive in any action brought by Askew to recover from the company what he had paid. Their Lordships directed the motion to stand over with leave to Askew to take any proceedings at law which he might be advised.

Solicitors: Ilarper, Broad, & Buttcock; Markby, Tarry, & Stewart.

M. R. BELLAIRS v. BELLAIRS. July 16. Will-Gift of Proceeds of Sale of Realty-Mixed Fund-Clause of Forfeiture-Restraint on Marriage. The Rev. Henry Bellairs, by his will, dated the 14th of June, 1861, gave his residuary real and personal estate to trustees upon trust to sell, call in, and convert into money all his real estate, and all his personal estate not consisting of ready money, and to invest the proceeds, and also his ready money, as therein mentioned, and to divide the income into forty shares, and pay and distribute the same between his seven children as follows:that is to say, to his daughter Laura Parker Bellairs, ten shares, to his daughter Nona Maria Stevenson Bellairs, ten shares, to his daughter Frances Lake Brown, four shares, to his daughter Agnes Hulbert, four shares, and to his sons the shares therein mentioned.

By a codicil dated the 3rd of November, 1871, after reciting that by his will he had given to Laura Parker Bellairs ten shares of the income of his residuary estate, and had also given to his daughter Nona Maria Stevenson Bellairs the like number of ten shares, the testator declared that on the marriage of either of his said daughters the bequests so given to them and each of them should absolutely cease and determine, and in lieu and substitution thereof he gave and bequeathed to such one of them as should have so married four shares only of his said residuary estate.

The testator died on the 17th of April, 1872; and this suit | was instituted for the administration of his estate. He died entitled to a large amount of real estate (which had been sold and the proceeds invested), and also entitled to some personal estate. Subsequently to the death of the testator Laura Parker Bellairs intermarried with John Price; and the question arose on the further consideration of the cause whether the clause of forfeiture contained in the codicil was void.

Marten, Q.C., Bagshawe, Q.C., Chitty, Q.C., B. B. Rogers, Kekewich, and Dyne, contended that it was good, at all events as to so much of the fund as had arisen from real estate. Wilbraham Ford, for Mr. and Mrs. Price.

shares was 61. each, being 51. premium. The transfer was completed and the money paid on the 29th of September, when the certificates of ten shares in the company, numbered 9801 to 9810 inclusive, were handed over to the plaintiff, and were left at the company's office for registration on the 7th of October. On the 4th of October the company passed a resolution "that 15,000 new shares be issued to the shareholders now on the register, in the proportion of one share for each share held, allowing them fourteen days to accept or refuse; at the expiration of that time the shares not taken up by the existing shareholders to be dealt with by the directors at their discretion, and that 5s. be payable on each share on acceptance." The time for the shareholders to

THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS held the forfeiture clause was accept or refuse the new shares was afterwards extended to the bad.

[blocks in formation]

Annuity-Charge on Capital-Combined Effect of two Wills. This was a petition for the advice of the Court. W. H. Hedges by his will, dated the 23rd of June, 1851, after making certain specific dispositions, gave all his estate to trustees upon trust, in addition to certain other benefits, to pay an annuity of 1000l. a year to his wife so long as she remained his widow, and provided as follows: "But should, from any circumstance, there not be sufficient interest to pay it, then as long as she remains my widow and annually certifies in writing what income she derives from any property she may inherit, I hereby fully authorize my executors for the time being annually to dispose of and sell such a part of the principal of my residuary estate as to make up, including the interest on the property she may inherit, the aforesaid annuity (10007.), the same to be for her own absolute use and benefit."

The income of the testator's estate was insufficient to pay the 10007., and portions of the capital had been from time to time sold to meet the deficiency.

William Hedges, the father of the testator, W. H. Hedges, by his will gave Mrs. W. H. Hedges an annuity of 2007. a year, and a legacy of 1000., and by a codicil to his will, dated the 22nd of November, 1869, after referring to the annuity and legacy declared as follows: "Now I declare the same shall be in addition to any benefit which she may derive from any other source, and shall not be taken into account in regard to any other income, it being my express will and desire that such annuity shall be a clear beneficial addition to her."

The question was whether Mrs. Hedges was bound to include in the annual statement of her income the annuity and the income of the legacy received under Mr. William Hedges' will. Robinson, for the executors of W. H. Hedges. Karslake, Q.C., and Knox, for the widow.

THE VICE-CHANCELLOR held that the widow was entitled to receive the benefits given her by the will of William Hedges in addition to the 1000l. annuity given by the previous will, and that she was not required to include in her annual statement of income the annuity of 2001. a year or the interest of the 10001. legacy.

Solicitors: Combe & Wainwright.

[blocks in formation]

26th of October. On the 4th of October a circular stating the effect of the above resolution was sent to all the shareholders on the register of the company, and amongst others to the defendant, who was then the registered owner of eighty-two shares, including those sold to the plaintiff.

The deferdant signed letters of renunciation as to sixty-seven of these new shares, which were subsequently handed over to purchasers from him of those shares, but the remaining fifteen shares he applied for in his own name, and they were accordingly allotted to him.

The plaintiff alleged that he had no notice of the intention of the company to issue new shares until the 26th of October, on which day for the first time the shares were quoted on the Stock Exchange "ex new." The plaintiff, through his brokers, applied to the defendant on the 4th of November for a transfer of ten new shares in respect of the ten shares so purchased from him, which application the defendant refused to comply with, on the ground that either the plaintiff or his brokers as his agents must have known before the 26th of October that the company had issued new shares, and consequently that he was guilty of laches in not applying for the shares earlier, and also, that he had neglected to comply with the 101st rule of the Stock Exchange, which required that where new shares of this nature were applied for to the vendors of old shares, the application must be made within a reasonable time.

The bill prayed that the defendant might be declared a trustee for the plaintiff of the ten new shares of the company issued to him in respect of the ten old shares numbered 9801 to 9810; that an inquiry be directed to ascertain the highest market price of the new shares at any time after the issue thereof; and that the defendant might be ordered to pay to the plaintiff the value of ten of the shares at such highest price; or that it might be declared that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the loss occasioned by the non-transfer of the said ten new shares; and that such damages might be ascertained and paid to the plaintiff.

Higgins, Q.C., and Cookson, for the plaintiff.
Glasse, Q.C.. and Romer, for the defendant.

THE VICE-CHANCELLOR said there could be no doubt whatever that the plaintiff was entitled to all benefits accruing upon the shares purchased by him from the defendant, and in which the defendant ceased to have any interest on the 29th of September. It was the duty of the defendant, knowing he had sold the shares, to send on the circular respecting those shares to the plaintiff, or to inform him through his broker that new shares were to be allotted. Instead of doing this, he possessed himself of what belonged to the plaintiff, and thus committed a fraud upon the plaintiff. It had been proved to His Honour's satisfaction that neither the plaintiff nor his brokers knew of the issue of these new shares until the 26th of October, when the old shares were quoted "ex new." It was not an honest course of conduct on the part of the defendant to refuse to transfer the shares when they were demanded of him, and he did not consider the delay in the application unreasonable. Under these circumstances the defendant must be held to be a trustee for the plaintiff of these shares, and the decree must be in the terms of the first and second paragraphs of the bill.

Solicitors: Abrahams & Roffey; Phillips & Son.

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

In re MONTROTIER ASPHALTE COMPANY. Company-Supervision Order-Liquidators-Disputes-Removal and Appointment of Liquidators.

In July, 1873, the voluntary winding-up of this company was ordered to be continued under supervision; and in August, 1873, James Cooper was appointed an additional liquidator of the company with Frederick Benjamin. Benjamin and Cooper did not agree; Cooper claimed a right to employ a separate firm of solicitors with one set of costs between the two, the solicitors of his choice being a firm who, it was alleged, had been the solicitors of a person against whom the company had claims; and Benjamin had, without the sanction of Cooper, obtained the leave of the Court to the filing of bills in Chancery, one against the person above referred to. In this state of things the shareholders met and resolved that Mr. Cape, the accountant, should be appointed an additional liquidator. A notice of motion on behalf of Cooper for an injunction to restrain Cape from acting was served upon Benjamin and Cape, whereupon Cape offered to submit to an injunction with costs up to that date. The motion was nevertheless proceeded with, and a summons on behalf of a shareholder named Oppenheimer and others, asking that the appointment of Cape as liquidator might be coufirmed, either in conjunction with, or in substitution for Benjamin or Cooper, or both, came on to be heard at the same time. The solicitors for the applicants on the summons were the same as those who had been acting for Benjamin and Cape.

It was understood that the assets were sufficient to pay the claims of all the creditors.

Jackson, Q.C., and Cookson, for the motion.

Kay, Q.C. (Bradford with him), for Benjamin and Cape, on the motion, offered to submit to the injunction on the terms of Mr. Cape being appointed joint liquidator, if Mr. Cooper would pay the costs of the motion.

Jackson, Q.C., for Cooper, declined.

Kay, Q.C., and Bradford, for the summons. Jackson, Q.C., and Cookson, for Cooper, opposed. Eddis, Q.C., for a large body of shareholders, and Bond Coxe, for two creditors, supported the summons. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR said that the claim of Mr. Cooper to have a separate solicitor from his co-liquidator was an absursity in itself, although it was proposed that the two sets of solicitors should have only one set of costs. The great object was to have unanimity in the proceedings, and there was no reason why the costs of one set of solicitors should be diminished by the intervention of others. Then it was said that the Act of Parliament did not authorize the shareholders to meet and resolve on the appointment of a new liquidator. His Honour thought that this course was the very best the shareholders could adopt in order to inform the Court of their wishes. The result was that Mr. Cooper must be removed, and Mr. Cape appointed liquidator with Mr. Benjamin. The costs of the motion would be paid by Mr. Cape up to the date to which he had offered to pay them; the subsequent costs and the costs of the summons would come out of the assets, with the exception that Mr. Cooper would have no costs of the motion after the date above referred to, and no costs of the summons. Solicitors for Cooper: Wilkins, Blyth, & Marsland. Solicitor for Benjamin and Cape: W. Webb. Solicitors for the shareholders: Linklater & Co. Solicitor for the creditors: M. Pope.

[blocks in formation]

judication-Jurisdiction —Ultrà vires Resolutions —Registration-Proof-Secured Creditor-Non-production of SecuritiesValidity of Vote-Adjournment of Meeting-Bankruptcy Act, 1869, ss. 16, 28, 80 (sub-s. 10), 84, 125-Bankruptcy Rules, 1870, rr. 260, 266, 271, 275, 295.

This was an appeal from a decision of the deputy judge of the Southampton County Court.

On the 11th of March, 1874, a bankruptcy petition was presented by E. Ashworth against P. M. Hoare. The 2nd of April was fixed for the hearing. On the 31st of March Hoare filed a liquidation petition. The first meeting of the creditors was summoned for the 30th of April. On the 24th of April an adjudication was made on the bankruptcy petition, the advertisement being stayed till after the 30th of April. On the 30th of April the first meeting of the creditors under the liquidation petition was held, and was adjourned to the 22nd of May. Some of the proofs tendered were objected to, on the ground that the creditors did not produce bonds, bills of exchange, and promissory notes of the debtor, and other securities, which they held. If these creditors' votes had been excluded, the adjournment would not have been properly carried. On the 1st of May an order was made staying the advertisement of the adjudication till after the 29th of May. At the adjourned meeting on the 22nd of May, the creditors resolved on a liquidation, appointed trustees, and resolved that the adjudication should be annulled. They also passed a second set of resolutions, authorizing the trustees to sell all the debtor's property to his father (who was the largest creditor and was to release his claim) for 10,000l., and resolving that on payment of the 10,000l. and execution of the release, the trustees should certify to the Court that the debtor was entitled to his discharge.

On the 27th of May an application for the further stay of the advertisement of the adjudication was refused, and on the 2nd of June the advertisement was published. On the 2nd of June the registrar ordered the first set of resolutions passed at the adjourned meeting to be registered, but refused to register the second set, on the ground that they were ultrà vires. Before the registration the securities held by the creditors whose proofs were objected to had been produced. On the 18th of June the deputy judge affirmed the decision of the registrar, and also made an order annulling the adjudication.

The petitioning creditor appealed.

De Gex, Q.C., and Yate Lee, for the appellant, objected that when an adjudication had been made the creditors could not resolve on a liquidation; that the Court could not annul an adjudication except under s. 28 or s. 84 of the Act, neither of which applied; that the adjournment of the first meeting was not properly carried, inasmuch as the votes of the creditors who did not produce their bills and other securities ought to have been rejected; and that there was no power to register a part of the resolutions passed. As some of them were ultrà vires registration of all ought to have been refused. Little, Q.C., and Bagley, for the debtor.

Benjamin, Q.C., and Northmore Lawrence, for the trustees and for creditors who supported the liquidation.

THE CHIEF JUDGE held that notwithstanding the prior adjudication the creditors had power to resolve on a liquidation; that rule 266 enabled the Court to annul the adjudication; and that, besides, there was a general jurisdiction to annul in a proper case; that though a secured creditor who did not produce his security would forfeit it, his vote would not be invalidated; and that as to bills of exchange and other documents which did not create any charge on the debtor's estate, it was enough that they should be produced before registration. His Lordship also held, on the authority of Ex parte Browning (ante, p. 111), that when some of the resolutions passed are ultrà vires, those which are intrà vires may be alone registered. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Solicitors: Gregory, Rowcliffes, & Rawle; Lawrance, Plews, & Boyer; E. F. & B. Ďavis,

.

THE WEEKLY NOTES.

TABLE OF CASES.

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

PAGE

173

173
175

M. R. 174
L. C. 173

HARRISON'S PATENT, In re (Patent-Seal-Similarity)
HIRST, Ex parte. In re HIRST (Liquidation-Notices to Creditors
—Signature-Bankruptcy Rules, 1870, rules 255, 256, 257)

BNKOY. 176

HOOPER v. HOOPER (Administrator-Interest on Balance-Costs of
Suit)

L. JJ. 174

L. JJ. 174

173

acted in this country. After the bills became due Overend, Gurney, & Co. pressed for payment, but McHenry had an interview with two of the directors, gave a guarantie in the name of himself and his company, and deposited other bills as a collateral security, and Overend, Gurney, & Co. consented not to sue on the first-named bills during the currency of the last-named bills. They did sue afterwards upon the bills, and then this giving of time to the principal was set up, in a suit to restrain the action, as an answer, and was decided by Lord Chancellor Hatherley to be so (Law Rep. 7 Ch. Ap. 142). This was an appeal against that decision.

Sir J. B. Karslake, Q.C., and Mr. Stewart Ferrers, for the appellant company.

Mr. Cotton, Q.C., and Mr. Juson Smith, for the respondent company.

THE LORDS affirmed the judgment of the Court below.
Solicitors for the appellant company: Maynard & Son.
Solicitors for the respondent company: Farmer & Robins.

V.-C. B. 176 L. C.

[blocks in formation]

lodged; one of which was, that a patent for a similar invention This was an application for a patent, to which objections were had already been granted.

Harrison applied in person.

Aston, Q.C., and Lawson, opposed.

HURST v. HURST (Exceptions to Answer-Discovery-Date of Deed
under which Defendant claims-Forfeiture Clause)
MOORE AND DE LA TORRE'S CASE. In re ROYAL VICTORIA THEATRE
PALACE SYNDICATE (Unregistered Company-Winding-up—
Circular-Representation by Promoters)
NANSON, Ex parte. In re DIXON (Proof by Partner-Executor of
deceased Partner-Proof for Testator's Share)
OWEN v. DAVIES (Riparian Proprietor-Stream-Diversion of
Water-Board of Hea'th-Acquiescence-Injunction) M. R. 175
BNKCY. 176
RODGERS v. RODGERS (Trade-mark--Length of Time-Injury)
SALVIN v. NORTH BRANCEPETH COAL COMPANY (Nuisance-In-
junction).
L. JJ. 174
TEMPLER v. SWETE (Practice-Application under Copyhold Acts-
Service on Copyhold Commissioners-Costs of appearing-Gen.
Order of the 23rd of December, 1872)
TICKNER v. OLD (Government Stock-Long Annuities-Varying
Investment-Perishing Securities-Enjoyment in Specie)
M. R. 175
TINKER, Ex parte. In re FRANCE (Liquidation-Resolution of
Creditors to sell all the Estate at a fixed Price-Refusal of
Creditors to grant Discharge - Injunction to restrain Proceed-
ings against after-acquired Property)
WELLS v. WELLS (Will-Gift to
Niece by affinity)
my Nephews and Nieces".
L. JJ. 174 L. C.
M. R. 175

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

During the sittings of the Courts THE WEEKLY NOTES will be published on Saturday, and will generally comprise Notes of the Decisions up to and including those of the previous Wednesday. All cases of permanent interest noted herein will be reported in full in THE LAW REPORTS.

[blocks in formation]

CORPORATION, RESPS.
Principal and Surety.

Overend, Gurney, & Co. had discounted, at the instance of a person named McHenry, certain bills of exchange; they were not paid at maturity. At that time Overend, Gurney, & Co. did not know the real character of the parties to the bills except as their names appeared upon the bills themselves. They afterwards became informed that the Oriental Financial Corporation (the name of which company appeared as accepting the bills) was in fact only a surety, the real principal being McHenry for himself, and as agent of a transatlantic company for which he No. 27.-1874.

HIS LORDSHIP said that he would look at the provisional specification of the petitioner's patent, and the complete specification of the opponents, and if he found that they were dissimilar he would direct the seal to be affixed as of the date of the application, if not, then of the date of application for the seal. Solicitor: J. H. Johnson,

[blocks in formation]

and the respondent that all objections should be withdrawn.
This was an application to have a patent sealed, and the peti-
tioner alleged that there had been an agreement between him
Roxburgh, Q.C., and Langley, for the petitioners.
Aston, Q.C., and C. James, for the respondents.

HIS LORDSHIP, after hearing evidence vivâ voce, thought that
the agreement was established, and directed the applicant's
patent to be sealed, and to bear the date of the application.
Solicitors: T. H. Smith; Collette & Collette.

[blocks in formation]

the Rolls thought that the plaintiff had not made out his case
This was a suit to restrain the defendants from injuring the
and dismissed the bill with costs. The plaintiff appealed.
house and lands of the plaintiff by coal smoke. The Master of

plaintiff.
H. Matthews, Q.C., Edmund James, and Trevelyan, for the

defendants.
Sir H. James, Q.C., Waller, Q.C., and Maclachlan, for the

of the defendants stopped, the plaintiff must show substantial
damage done to his lands. There was a conflict of evidence,
THEIR LORDSHIPS said that in order to have works like those

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »