페이지 이미지
PDF

PACE

The decree in this case was pronounced by the Court of Teinds TABLE OF CASES.

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. The respondent objected to the

reception of the appeal; and the preliminary question of comHouse of Lords.

petency was argued by one counsel on each side at the Bar of the

House. KIDD v. MACVICAR (Time limited for appealing to the House of

Mr. J. Pearson, Q.C., for the respondent, maintained that the Lords) . . . . . . . . .

169 cause was finally decided below by the judgment of the 14th of . 169

May, 1868, and that the question of competency was governed VYSE v. FOSTER AND OTHERS (Executors, Trust Money in Busi

by the Statute of 1825; citing a decision of the House (4 Macq. ne88) . . . . . . .

. . 169 352) that even an appeal by concert will not be allowed after the

expiration of the statutory period. &quity.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Gordon, Q.C.), in support of the

appeal, pointed out that proceedings of a formal nature bad ASHWORTH, Ex parte. In re HOARE (Adjudication of Bankruptcy

been continued in the Court below down to the 2nd of March,

1871. He further suggested that an appeal from the Court of pending Proceedings for Liquidation-Liquidation resolved on

Teinds was not governed absolutely by the rules which applied after Adjudication- Annulling Adjudication-Jurisdiction

to the Court of Session. Ultra vires ResolutionsRegistration-Proof-Secured Cre

But, it appearing that the whole conclusions of the action were ditor Non-production of SecuritiesValidity of Vote-Ad exhausted by the judgment of the 14th of May, 1868,

THE LAW PEERS, LORD CHANCELLOR CAIRNS, LORD HATHERjournment of Meeting-Bankruptcy Act, 1869, 88. 16, 28, 80

LEY, and LORD SELBORNE, were clear that the appeal was too late. (sub-8. 10), 84, 125Bankruptcy Rules, 1870, rr. 260, 266, It was thereforo dismissed, as incompetent, with costs.

271, 275, 295) . . . . . . BANKCY. 172 Appellant's agents : Grahames de Wardlaw. Askew's CASE. In re RUBY CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY

Respondent's agent: John Graham, (Contributory-Fraud-Removing Name-Recovery of Money

paid) . . . . . . . . L. JJ. 170 BELLAIRS v. BELLAIBS (WilGift of Proceeds of Sale of Realty

VYSE v. FOSTER AND OTHERS. July 14. Mixed Fund-Clause of ForfeitureRestraint on Marriage)

M. R. 170

Executors, Trust Money in Business.

Richard Vyse was the head partner in the firm of Vyse & Co., HEDGES, In re (Annuity-Charge on Capital-Combined Efect of

of Ludgate Hill, which had branch establishments in Italy and two Wills) . . . . . . . V.-C. M. 171

New York. The capital of the firm was large, and the share of JAMES, Ex parte. In re CONDON (Bankruptcy-Execution Creditor Richard Vyse, the testator, very considerable. The articles of -Bankruptcy Act, 1869, s. 87Failure of Liquidation Pro.

partnership provided for the surviving partners taking the share ceedingsSubsequent Bankruptcy) . . . L. JJ.

of a deceased partner. The testator made a will, to which he 170

appointed one of his partners together with two other persons MONTROTIER ASPHALTE COMPANY, In re (Company-Supervision his executors. The will directed that his real estate should

OrderLiquidatorsDisputesRemoval and Appointment of be sold, and the proceeds treated as part of his personal Liquidators) . . . . . . . V.-C. B. 172

estate, and his cbildren were to have that in equal shares, the

shares of the daughters not vesting indefeasibly till they attained NADEN, Ex parte. In re Wood (Bankruptcy-Proof-Debt inca

25. The executors did not call in the whole estate of the tespable of being fairly estimatedSeparate DeedAnnuity tator, but a considerable portion of it remained in the business,

Bankruptcy Act, 1869, s. 31) . . . . L. JJ. 170 and interest was paid on it. All the testator's children except the STEWART 0. LUPTON (Sale of Shares in a Company-Purchaser's

appellant seemed to have acquiesced in the arrangements made by

the executors, but she, after attaining the age of 25, filed a bill right to new Shares subsequently allotted) . . V.-C. M. 171

against the executors praying for an account of profits or compound interest at 5 per cent. on her share. There was a piece of

land belonging to the testator, which the executors did not sell, During the sittings of the Courts THE WEEKLY NOTES will be published

| but, believing they could make a greater profit of it, built, at a on Saturday, and will generally comprise Notes of the Decisions up to

cost of 16001., a villa residence upon it, in the hope that the and including those of the previous Wednesday. All cases of permanent

rest of the land could then be sold at great advantage. This interest noted herein will be reported in full in THE LAW REPORTS. 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 ap-
peal, 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.
KIDD v. MAOVICAB.

June 11.

Mr. Kay, Q.C., Mr. Marten, Q.C., and Mr. Romer, for the Time limited for appealing to the House of Lords.

appellant. By the 6 Geo. 4, c. 120, s. 25 (1825), it is enacted that appeals Mr. Cotton, Q.C., Mr. Fry, Q.C., and Mr. Kekewich, for the from the Scotch Courts must be presented to the House of Lords respondents. within two years from the date of the last decree complained of, THE LORDS affirmed the decision of the Lords Justices. or on any of the first fifteen days of the next ensuing session of Solicitor for the appellant: S. J. Robinson. Parliament.

Solicitors for the respondents: Gregory, Rowcliffes, & Rawle. No. 26.-1874

House of Lords.

Equity.

done or not. This would be a very inconvenient construction of 8. 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 L. JJ. Ex parte JAMES.

July 10. December, bis Lordship thought that the sheriff was authorized In re CONDON.

in paying the money to the execution creditor. His Lordship Bankruptcy-Execution Creditor-Bankruptcy Act, 1869. s. 87— agreed, also, in what Lord Justice James had said as to the other Failure of Liquidation ProceedingsSubsequent Bankruptcy.

Solicitors : Chorley & Crawford; Ravencroft & Hills. 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 2741, was signed by Henry Bradshaw against Jobn Condon, a coal merchant at 1. JJ.

Ex parte NADEN.

July 10. Millwall. Execution was issued, and on the 17th of November

In re Wood. the sheriff seized Condon's goods. On the 18th of November, BankruptcyProof-Debt incapable of being fairly estimated Condon filed a liquidation petition. On the 22nd of November Separate Deed-Annuity-Bankruptcy Act, 1869, s. 31. the sheriff sold the goods, realizing by the sale 1424. 158. 61. This was an appeal from a decision of the Chief Judge in On' the 3rd of December notice of the petition was served on the

on the Bankruptcy (ante, p. 134). sheriff. On the 5th of December the first meeting of creditors

Robertson Griffiths, for the trustee in bankruptcy, who apwas held, and was adjourned to the 16th. On that day the pealed. debtor failed to attend, and the creditors separated without H. W. Lord, for the respondent, was not called on. passing any resolution. On the 17th of December the sheriff THE LORDS JUSTICES agreed entirely with the Chief Judge, paid the 1421. 15s. 6d. to Bradshaw. On the 19th of December aand dismissed the appeal with costs. petition in bankruptcy was presented against Condon, founded

| Solicitors: E. M. Hore; Wilkinson & Howlett. 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,

L. JJ. In re ROBY CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, July 15. On the 23rd of February, Bradshaw being advised that he could not retain the money, repaid the 1421. 158. 6d. to the trustee in

ASKEW's CASE. the bankruptcy. He now claimed to have the money returned to

Contributory-Fraud-Removing Name-Recovery of Money paid. bim, as having been paid under a mistake. The registrar This was an appeal from an order of Vice-Chancellor Malins decided that he was entitled to it, and ordered the trustee to directing the name of Askew to be removed from the list of conrepay it.

tributories to the company, as noted unte, p. 149. The trustee appealed.

Cotton, Q.C., and Kekewich, for the appellants. Thesiger, Q.C., and E. Cooper Willis, for the appellant, con- Glasse, Q.C., and Graham Hastings, for Askew. tended that the proceedings in liquidation were not at an end | THEIR LORDSHIPS thought that the Vice-Chancellor had not when the creditors failed to pass any resolution, but formed the sufficiently considered that his order would be conclusive in foundation of the adjudication in bankruptcy which was subse- any action brought by Askew to recover from the company what quently made. The debtor had therefore been adjudged a he had paid. Their Lordships directed the motion to stand over bankrupt on the petition, notice of which had been served on with leave to Askew to take any proceedings at law which he the sheriff, within the meaning of the 87th section of the Bank- might be advised. ruptcy Act, 1869, and the sheriff was not justified in paying the Solicitors: Harper, Broad, & Battcock; Markby, Tarry, & Stewart. proceeds of the sale to the execution creditor. At any rate the money, baving been paid to the trustee under a mistake of law, could not be recovered.

M. R.

BELLAIRS v. BELLAIRS. De Gex, Q.C., and Finlay Knight, for the execution creditor,

July 16. relied on Ex parte Villars (Law Rep. 9 Ch. 432), and contended

Will-Gift of Proceeds of Sale of Realty-Mixed FundClause that the liquidation proceedings being entirely at an end, the

of Forfeiture-Restraint on Marriage. execution creditor was entitled to the proceeds of the sale.

The Rev. Henry Bellairs, by his will, dated the 14th of June, THE LORD JUSTICE JAMES said he was of opinion that the 1861, gave his residuary real and personal estate to trustees registrar was right. Looking at s. 87 and the rules, he thought upon trust to sell, call in, and convert into money all his real it was impossible to say that the adjudication of bankruptcy estate, and all his personal estate not consisting of ready money, was made on the petition of wbich the sheriff had notice before and to invest the proceeds, and also his ready money, as therein ho paid away the money. The result of what occurred at the mentioned, and to divide the income into forty shares, and pay meeting of the 16th of December was that the whole thing came and distribute the same between his seven children as follows: to an end. There was nothing in the nature of a resolution, that is to say, to his daughter Laura Parker Bellairs, ten shares, nothing which could result in the appointment of a trustee. to his daughter Nona Maria Stevenson Bellairs, ten shares, to his His Lordship, therefore, thought that the execution creditor was daughter Frances Lake Brown, four shares, to his daughter entitled to the proceeds of the sale. As to the other point, he Agnes Hulbert, four shares, and to his sons the shares therein thought that a trustee in bankruptcy was in truth an officer of mentioned. the Court, and the Court, finding that money in the trustee's By a codicil dated the 3rd of November, 1871, after reciting hands really in equity belonged to some one else, ought to do in that by his will he had given to Laura Parker Bellairs ten equity just as any one else would be bound to do it, and to direct shares of the income of his residuary estate, and had also given the money to be paid to the person entitled to it. The appeal to his daughter Nona Maria Stevenson Bellairs the like number must be dismissed, but without costs.

of ten shares, the testator declared that on the marriage of either THE LORD JUSTICE MELLISH was of the same opinion. It of his said daughters the bequests so given to them and each of was argued that as the debtor could be, and in substance was, them should absolutely cease and determine, and in lien and in this case, adjudicated a bankrupt on the declaration of ipsol. substitution thereof he gave and bequeathed to such one of them vency contained in the petition for liquidation, the sheriff ought as should have so married four shares only of his said residuary to have kept the proceeds of sale till be knew whether this was estate.

The testator died on the 17th of April, 1872; and this suit shares was 61. each, being 51. premium. The transfer was comwas instituted for the administration of his estate. He died en- pleted and the money paid on the 29th of September, when the titled to a large amount of real estate (which had been sold and certificates of ten shares in the company, numbered 9801 to 9810 the proceeds invested), and also entitled to some personal inclusive, were handed over to the plaintiff, and were left at the estato. Subsequently to the death of the testator Laura Parker company's office for registration on the 7th of October. On the Bellairs intermarried with John Price; and the question arose 4th of October the company passed a resolution " that 15,000 on the further consideration of the cause whether the clause of new shares be issued to the sharebolders now on the register, in forfeiture contained in the codicil was void.

the proportion of one share for each share held, allowing them Marten, Q.C., Bagshawe, Q.C., Chitty, Q.C., B. B. Rogers, fourteen days to accept or refuse; at the expiration of that time Kekewich, and Dyne, contended that it was good, at all events as the shares not taken up by the existing shareholders to be dealt to so much of the fund as had arisen from real estate.

with by the directors at their discretion, and that 5s, be payable Wilbraham Ford, for Mr. and Mrs. Price.

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.

26th of October. On the 4th of October a circular stating the Solicitors: W. & A. Ranken Ford.

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 sbares,

including those sold to the plaintiff. V.-C. M. In re HEDGES.

July 10.

The deferdant signed letters of renunciation as to sixty-seven

of these new sharos, which were subsequently handed over to Annuity-Charge on CapitalCombined Effect of two Wills.

purchasers from him of those shares, but the remaining fifteen This was a petition for the advice of the Court.

shares he applied for in his own name, and they were accordW. H. Hedges by his will, dated the 23rd of June, 1851, after ingly allotted to him. making certain specific dispositions, gave all his estate to trus- The plaintiff alleged that he had no notice of the intention of tees apon trust, in addition to certain other benefits, to pay an the company to issue new sbares until the 26th of October, on annuity of 10001. a year to his wife so long as she remained his which day for the first time the shares were quoted on the widow, and provided as follows: “But should, from any circum- Stock Exchange "ex new." The plaintiff, through his brokers, stance, there not be sufficient interest to pay it, then as long as applied to the defendant on the 4th of November for a transfer she remains my widow and annually certifies in writing what of ten new shares in respect of the ten shares so purchased from income she derives from any property she may inherit, I hereby him, which application the defendant refused to comply with, fully authorize my executors for the time being annually to dis- on the ground that either the plaintiff or his brokers as his pose of and sell such a part of the principal of my residuary agents must have known before the 26th of October that the estate as to make up, including the interest on the property she company had issued new shares, and consequently that he was may inherit, the aforesaid annuity (10001.), the same to be for guilty of laches in not applying for the shares earlier, and also, her own absolute use and benefit."

that he had neglected to comply with the 101st rule of the Stock The income of the testator's estate was insufficient to pay the Exchange, which required that where new shares of this nature 10001., and portions of the capital had been from time to time were applied for to the vendors of old shares, the application sold to meet the deficiency.

must be made within a reasonable time. William Hedges, the father of the testator, W. H. Hedges, by The bill prayed that the defendant might be declared a trustee his will gave Mrs. W. H. Hedges an annuity of 2001. a year, and for the plaintiff of the ten new shares of the company issued to a legacy of 10001., and by a codicil to his will, dated the 22nd of him in respect of the ten old shares numbered 9801 to 9810; November, 1869, after referring to the annuity and legacy de- that an inquiry be directed to ascertain the highest market clared as follows: "Now I declare the same shall be in addition price of the new shares at any time after the issue thereof; and to any benefit which she may derive from any other source, and that the defendant might be ordered to pay to the plaintiff the shall not be taken into account in regard to any other income, it value of ten of the shares at such highest price; or that it might being my express will and desire that such annuity shall be a be declared that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the clear beneficial addition to her.”

loss occasioned by the non-transfer of the said ten new shares; The question was whether Mrs. Hedges was bound to include and that such damages might be ascertained and paid to the in the annual statement of her income the annuity and the in- plaintiff. come of the legacy received under Mr. William Hedges' will, Higgins, Q.C., and Cookson, for the plaintiff. Robinson, for the executors of W. H. Hedges.

Glasse, Q.C.. and Romer, for the defendant. Karslake, Q.C., and Knox, for the widow.

THE VICE-CHANCELLOR said there could be no doubt whatTHE VICE-CHANCELLOR held that the widow was entitled to over that the plaintiff was entitled to all benefits accruing upon receive the benefits given her by the will of William Hedges in the shares purchased by him from the defendant, and in which addition to the 10001. annuity given by the previous will, and the defendant ceased to have any interest on the 29th of Septhat she was not required to include in her annual statement tember. It was the duty of the defendant, knowing he had sold of income the annuity of 2001. a year or the interest of the the shares, to send on the circular respecting those shares to the 10001. legacy.

plaintiff, or to inform bim through his broker that new shares Solicitors: Combe de Wainwright.

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 V.-C. M. STEWART v. LUPTON.

July 14. new shares until the 26th of October, when the old shares were Sale of Shares in a Company-Purchaser's right to new Shares sub

quoted “ex new.” It was not an honest course of conduct on

the part of the defendant to refuse to transfer the shares when sequently allotted.

they were demanded of him, and be did not consider the delay On the 13th of September, 1871, Messrs. Coates & Hankey, in the application unreasonable. Under these circumstances the stockbrokers, purchased on behalf of the plaintiff ten 11. shares defendant must be held to be a trustee for the plaintiff of these in the Patent Gas Company, from Mr. Julian, a stockbroker, who shares, and the decree must be in the terms of the first and sold the shares on behalf of the defendant for the next settling- second paragraphs of the bill. day, which was the 29th of September. The price paid for the Solicitors: Abrahams & Briffey; Phillips & Son.

V.-C. B.

July 16 | judication - Jurisdiction - Ultrà vires Resolutions - Registra. In re MONTROTIER ASPHALTE COMPANY."

tion-Proof-Secured Creditor- Non-production of Securities

Validity of Vote-Adjournment of Meeting- Bankruptcy Act, Company-Supervision Order-Liquidators --DisputesRemoval |

1869, ss. 16, 28, 80 (sub-s. 10), 84, 125– Bankruptcy Rules, 1870, and Appointment of Liquidators.

rr. 260, 266, 271, 275, 295. In July, 1873, the voluntary winding-up of this company was This was an appeal from a decision of the deputy judge of the ordered to be continued under supervision; and in August, 1873, Southampton County Court. James Cooper was appointed an additional liquidator of the On the 11th of March, 1874, a bankruptcy petition was precompany with Frederick Benjamin. Benjamin and Cooper did sented by E. Ashworth against P. M. Hoare. The 2nd of not agree; Cooper claimed a right to employ a separate firm of April was fixed for the hearing. On the 31st of March Hoare solicitors with one set of costs between the two, the solicitors of filed a liquidation petition. The first meeting of the creditors his choice being a firm who, it was alleged, had been the solici- was summoned for the 30th of April. On the 24th of April an tors of a person against whom the company had claims; and adjudication was made on the bankruptcy petition, the advertiseBenjamin had, without the sanction of Cooper, obtained the ment being stayed till after the 30th of April. On the 30th of leave of the Court to the filing of bills in Chancery, ope against April the first meeting of the creditors under the liquidation the person above referred to. In this state of things the share-petition was held, and was adjourned to the 22nd of May. Some holders met and resolved that Mr. Cape, the accountant, should of the proofs tendered were objected to, on the ground that the be appointed an additional liquidator. A notice of motion on creditors did not produce bonds, bills of exchange, and promissory behalf of Cooper for an injunction to restrain Cape froin acting notes of the debtor, and other securities, which they held. If was served upon Benjamin and Cape, whereupon Cape offered to these creditors' votes had been excluded, the adjournment would submit to an injunction with costs up to that date.

not have been properly carried. On the 1st of May an order was The motion was nevertheless proceeded with, and a summons made staying the advertisement of the adjudication till after the on behalf of a shareholder named Oppenheimer and others, ask- 29th of May. At the adjourned meeting on the 22nd of May, ing that the appointment of Cape as liquidator might be cou- the creditors resolved on a liquidation, appointed trustees, and firmed, either in conjunction with, or in substitution for Benjamin resolved that the adjudication should be annulled. They also or Cooper, or both, came on to be heard at the same time. The passed a second set of resolutions, authorizing the trustees to solicitors for the applicants on the summons were the same as sell all the debtor's property to his father (who was the largest those who had been acting for Benjamin and Cape.

creditor and was to release his claim) for 10,0001., and resolving It was understood that the assets were sufficient to pay the that on payment of the 10,0001. and execution of the release, the claims of all the creditors.

trustees should certify to the Court that the debtor was entitled Jackson, Q.C., and Cookson, for the motion.

to his discharge. Kay, Q.C. (Bradford with him), for Benjamin and Cape, on the On the 27th of May an application for the further stay of the motion, offered to submit to the injunction on the terms of Mr. advertisement of the adjudication was refused, and on the 2nd Cape being appointed joint liquidator, if Mr. Cooper would pay of June the advertisement was published. On the 2nd of June the costs of the motion.

the registrar ordered the first set of resolutions passed at the Jackson, Q.C., for Cooper, declined.

adjourned meeting to be registered, but refused to register the Kay, Q.C., and Bradford, for the summons.

second set, on the ground that they were ultrà vires. Before the Jackson, Q.C., and Cookson, for Cooper, opposed.

registration the securities held by the creditors whose proofs wero Eddis, Q.C., for a large body of shareholders, and

objected to had been produced. On the 18th of June the deputy Bond Coxe, for two creditors, supported the summons.

judge affirmed the decision of the registrar, and also made an THE VICE-CHANCELLOR said that the claim of Mr. Cooper to order annulling the adjudication. have a separate solicitor from his co-liquidator was an absur The petitioning creditor appealed, sity in itself, although it was proposed that the two sets of soli- De Gex, Q.C., and Yate Lee, for the appellant, objected that citors should have only one set of costs. The great object was when an adjudication had been made the creditors could not to have unanimity in the proceedings, and there was no reason resolve on a liquidation ; that the Court could not annul an adwby the costs of one set of solicitors should be diminished by judication except under 8. 28 or 8. 84 of the Act, neither of the intervention of others. Then it was said that the Act of which applied ; that the adjournment of the first meeting was Parliament did not authorize the shareholders to meet and not properly carried, inasmuch as the votes of the creditors who resolve on the appointment of a new liquidator. His Honour did not produce their bills and other securities ought to have thought that this course was the very best the shareholders been rejected; and that there was no power to register a part of could adopt in order to inform the Court of their wishes. The the resolutions passed. As some of them were ultrà vires reresult was that Mr. Cooper must be removed, and Mr. Cape gistration of all ought to have been refused. appointed liquidator with Mr. Benjamin. The costs of the Little, Q.C., and Bagley, for the debtor. motion would be paid by Mr. Cape up to the date to which bel Benjamin, Q.C., and Northmore Lawrence, for the trustees and had offered to pay them; the subsequent costs and the costs of for creditors who supported the liquidation. the summons would come out of the assets, with the exception THE CHIEF JUDGE held that notwithstanding the prior adjuthat Mr. Cooper would have no costs of the motion after the dication the creditors had power to resolve on a liquidation; date above referred to, and no costs of the summons.

that role 266 enabled the Court to annul the adjudication; and Solicitors for Cooper: Wilkins, Blyth, & Marsland.

that, besides, there was a general jurisdiction to annul in a proper Solicitor for Benjamin and Cape : W. Webb.

case; that though a secured creditor who did not produce his Solicitors for the shareholders: Linklater & Co.

security would forfeit it, his vote would not be invalidated; and Solicitor for the creditors: M. Pope.

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 BANKRUPTCY. Ex parte AgHWORTH.

July 20.

when some of the resolutions passed are ultra vires, those which In re HOARE.

are intra vires may be alone registered. The appeal was there

fore dismissed. Adjudication of Bankruptcy pending Proceedings for Liquidation Solicitors : Gregory, Rowcliffes, & Rawle ; Lawrance, Plews, &

-Liquidation resolved on after Adjudication - Annulling Ad-Boyer ; E, F. & B. Davis,

TABLE OF CASES.

PAGE

Equity.

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 collaHouse of Lords.

teral security, and Overend, Gurney, & Co. consented not to sue

on the first-named bills during the currency of the last-named OVEREND, GURNEY, AND CO., A PPS.; ORIENTAL FINANCIAL CORPO bills. They did sue afterwards upon the bills, and then this RATION, RESPS (Principal and Surety) l surely) . . . . 173 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 Equity.

Hatherley to be so (Law Rep. 7 Ch. Ap. 142). This was an

appeal against that decision. DE SERRE v. CLARKE (Appointment - Commencement of Interest of Appointee- Date of Instrument giring the PowerFrench

Sir J. B. Karslake, Q.C., and Mr. Stewart Ferrers, for the Civil Code-- Community of Goods)

V.C. M 175 appellant company. GETHING'S PATENT, In re (Šealing Patent-Date- Evidence) L. C. 173

Mr. Colton, Q.C., and Mi. Juson Smith, for the respondent GRAVELY . BARNARD (Bond-Condition in Restraint of Trade company. Consideration - Continuation of previous Engagement-Right

THE LORDS affirmed the judgment of the Court below. to dismiss at will) . . . .

: . :

Solicitors for the appellant company: Maynard & Son, .:

. .M. R. 174 HARRISON’s PATENT, Ín re (Patent-Seal - Similarity) . L. C. 173 Solicitors for the respondent company : Furmer & Robins. HIRST, Ex parte. In re Hirst (Liquilation-Notices to Creditors --Signature-Bankruptcy Rules, 1870, rules 255, 256, 257)

Bukoy. 176
HOOPER v. HOOTER (Administrator-Interest on Bal.incc--Costs of
Suit) . :

: . . . . . L. . 174 HURST v. HURST ( Erceptions to Answer-Discovery-Dute of Deed

under which Defendant claims-Forfeiture Clause) L. JJ. 174 MOORE AND DE LA TORRE's Case. In re ROYAL VICTORIA THEATRE

PALACE SYNDICATE (Unregistered Company -- Winding-up-
Circular-Representation by Promoters) . . V.-C. B. 176 |L. C.

In re HARRISON'S PATENT.

July 29. NANSON, Ex parte. In re Dixon (Proof by Partner-Executor of deceased Partner - Pronf for Testator's Share)

Putent-Seal- Similarity.

. BNKCY. 176 OWEN V. DAVIES (Riparian Proprietor--Stream- Dirersion of This was an application for a patent, to which objections were

Water-Board of Hea'ıh-Acquiescence-Injunction) M. Ř. 175 lodged; one of which was, that a patent for a similar invention RODGERS v. RODGERS (Trade-mark --Length of Time-Injury)

had already been granted.

L. JJ. 171 Harrison applied in person. Salvin v. North BRANCEPETH COAL COMPANY (Nuisance-In

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

. . L. J). 173

His LORDBHIP said that he would look at the provisional TESPLER v. SWETE (Practice- Application under Copyhold ActsService on Copyhold Commissioners -Costs of appearing-Gen.

specification of the petitioner's patent, and the complete speciOrder of the 23rd of December, 1872)

. . M. R. 175

fication of the opponents, and if he found that they were disTICKNER r. 01.D (Gorernment Stock-- Long Annuities-- Varying

similar he would direct the seal to be affixed as of the date of the Investment-Perishing Securitics-Enjoyment in Specie)

application, if not, then of the date of application for the seal.

VPC. M. 175 | Solicitor: J. H. Johnson. 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 Properly).

L. JJ. 174 L. C.
In re GETHING'S PATENT.

July 29. WELLS 0. WELLS (Will-Gift to a my Nepheus and Nieces"-

Seuling Patent-Date- Evidence. Niece by affinity) . . . . . .M. R. 1701 This was an application to have a patent sealed, and the peti

tioner alleged that there had been an agreement between him During the sittings of the Courts THE WEEKLY NOTEs will be published and the respondent tbat all objections should be withdrawn. on Saturday, and will generally comprise Notes of the Decisions up to Roxburgh, Q.C., and Langley, for the petitioners. and including those of the previous Wednesday. All cases of permanent Aston, Q.C., and C. James, for the respondents. interest noted herein will be reported in full in THE LAW REPORTS.

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,

House of Lords.

L. JJ.

July 14. July 17. SALVIN v, NORTH BRANCEPETH COAL COMPANY. OVEREND, GURNEY, AND CO. APPS.; ORIENTAL FINANCIAL

Nuisance-Injunction,
CORPORATION, RESP8.

This was a suit to restrain the defendants from injuring the
Principal and Surety.

house and lands of the plaintiff by coal smoke. The Master of Overend, Gurney, & Co. had discounted, at the instance of a the Rolls thought that the plaintiff had not made out his case person named McHenry, certain bills of exchange; they were and dismissed the bill with costs. The plaintiff appealed. not paid at maturity. At that time Overend, Gurney, & Co. did II. Mutthews, Q.C., Edmund James, and Trevelyan, for the Dot know the real character of the parties to the bills except as plaintiff. their names appeared upon the bills themselves. They after- Sir F1, James, Q.C., Taller, Q.C., and Maclachlan, for the wards became informed that the Oriental Financial Corporation defendants. (the name of which company appeared as accepting the bills) THEIR LORDSHIPS said that in order to have works like those was in fact only a surety, the real principal being McHenry for of the defendants stopped, the plaintiff must show substantial himself, and as agent of a transatlantic company for which he damage done to his lands. There was a conflict of evidence,

No. 27.-1874.

« 이전계속 »