페이지 이미지
PDF

Common Law.

BANKRUPTCY. Ex parte LINDSAY. In re LINDBAY. Nov. 10.
Bankruptcy Petition-Allegation of act of bankruptcy-Evidence

in support-Adjudication - Deputy Registrar - Jurisdiction-
Delegated Authority-Bankruptcy Act, 1869, ss. 4, 6, 8, 67-
Bankruptcy Rules, 1870, rr. 1, 2, 3, 4, 36, 37.

This was an appeal from an adjudication of bankruptcy made by the deputy registrar of the Newcastle County Court against Q. B.

BANKS, APP.; CROSSLAND, RESP. Nov. 11. Edward Lindsay.

Master and Servant-30 & 31 Vict. c. 141, s. 3, sch. 1-4 Geo. 4, Lindsay gave no notice of intention to shew cause against the

c. 34, s. 3- Proceedings against Servant who has not entered petition.

into Service-Parol Contract not enforceable-Statute of Frauds, At the hearing he did not appear. The petition did not

S. 4. allege any specific act of bankruptcy, but only in general terms that an act of bankruptcy had been committed by Lindsay By a parol hiring on the 11th of November, respondent agreed having made “a fraudulent conveyance, gift, delivery, or transfer to serve appellant as a servant in husbandry for one year, to of his property, or of some part thereof." The only evidence

commence on the 23rd of November, at 131. per annum. The before the deputy registrar in support of the allegation was the appellant paid respondent 3s. as fastening money, which responcommon affidavit (Form No. 11) that the statements contained dent returned to appellant on the 30th of November. in the petition were true. The 'deputy registrar made the adiu- Respondent did not enter into the service, and an information dication, and Lindsay appealed.

was taken out against him under the Master and Servant Act, Little, Q.C., and Bagley, for the appellant, argued that there 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 141). The justices dismissed the inforwas no sufficient proof of an act of bankruptcy, and also that the mation on the grounds: (1.) That the contract being not to be deputy registrar had no power to make an adjudication. | performed within a year, and not being in writing, s. 4 of the De Ger, Q.C., and Doria, for the petitioning creditor.

Statute of Frauds prevented any proceeding at law being taken THE CHIEF JUDGE thought that there was no sufficient proof to enforce it; (2.) That by 4 Geo. 4, c. 34, s. 3, proceedings of an act of bankruptcy. The affidavit (Form No. 11) was only against servants in husbandry, &c., who had not entered into the for the purpose of obtaining the sealing of the petition, and there service could only be taken where the contract was in writing must be much more ample proof to justify an adjudication. As signed by both parties; and that 4 Geo. 4, c. 34, being mentioned to the other point, by rule 1 the word “Registrar” was made to in the schedule to 30 & 31 Vict. c. 141, the operation of that include “ Deputy Registrar." and therefore rule 3 authorized the latter Act was by s. 3 confined to cases within 4 Geo. 4, c. 34, delegation of the powers of the judge to the deputy registrar. I and therefore the present hiring being by parol was not within The adjudication must be annulled, and the petition must go

the Act. back to the county court to be properly heard.

Gibbons, for appellant. Solicitors: Pyke, Irving, « Pyke; Hoyle.

Kingsford, for respondent.

THE COURT (Blackburn, Mellor, and Lush, JJ.) held that the

decision of the justices was right on both grounds. BANKRUPTCY.

Nov. 16. Attorneys for appellant: Rilsdale, Craddock, & Ridsdale.
Ex parte SHERIFF OF HEREFORDSHIRE.

Attorney for respondent: W. Eley.
In re W. SMITH,
Trader Debtor-Excecution-Sale-Liquidation Petition-Notice to o d
Sheriff-Bankruptcy Act, 1869, s. 87.

Nov. 11.

Haigh, APP.; Town CLERK OF SHEFFIELD, RESP. This was an appeal from a decision of the deputy judge of the Betting Houses Act (16 & 17 Vict. c. 19) ss. 1.3_" PlacePerson Worcester County Court. On the 26th of February Mason recovered judgment in an

knowingly and wilfully permitting Place to be used by other action against W. Smith for 10521, and costs. On the 7th of

Person for the Purpose of Betting with Persons resorting May, Mason levied execution for 10741. on the growing crops and

thereto. other effects of Smith, who was a farmer. Op the 18th of May The appellant was convicted of knowingly and wilfully perthe sheriff sold the goods to Mason by private contract for mitting a place to be used by another person for the purpose of 11271., and on the 25th of May he paid Mason back 10741. betting, within the meaning of the Betting Houses Act (16 & 17 Smith was in fact a trader, he having made and sold a medicine Vict. c. 119) ss. 1, 3, under circumstances precisely similar to for cattle, but of this the sheriff was ignorant. There was those in the case of Eastwood v. Miller (Law Rep. 9 Q.B. 440). nothing at the farm to indicate the trading. On the 1st of June Philbrick (Crompton with him), for the appellant. Smith filed a liquidation petition describing bimself as a trader. I J. (, Barker, for the respondent. The same day rotice was served on the sheriff that a liquidation THE COURT (Blackburn, Melior, and Lush, JJ.) adhered to the petition had been filed by one W. Smith. This notice was inti- former decision, and held the conviction right. tuled in an action brought by Lechmere and others against W. Attorneys for appellant: Doyle & Edwards, for Binney & Sons, Smith and J. Smith, and stated that “W. Smith, the above- Sheffield. named defendant,” had filed a liquidation petition.' It did not, Attorneys for respondent: R. & W. B. Smith, for Yeomans, however, state that he was the same person as the W. Smith | T. C. Sheffield. whose goods had been sold, or that he was a trader. The deputy judge held that the sheriff must pay the 10741.over . B.

Nov. 13. again to the trustee under the liquidation. The sheriff appealed.

PLUMSTEAD BOARD OF WORKS v. BRITISH LAND COMPANY. E. C. Willis, for the sheriff. De Gex, Q.C., and Finlay Knight, for the trustee.

Metropolis Management Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 102), s. 77– THE CHIEF JUDGE held that the notice to the sheriff was in

Owners of " Lund "- Public Roads-Land- Conveyance, intensufficient. The sheriff was not bound to inquire whether a man

tion not to pass Soil of adjacent Road. whose goods he had sold under an execution was a trader. The The defendants, a land company, in 1863, being owners of person who wished to avoid the execution was bound to give a certain lands in Plumstead laid them out for building purposes, proper notice to the sheriff. The order of the county court and made roads and ways across them; and nearly the whole of must be discharged.

the estate was sold in lots to different purchasers and conveyed Solicitors: Chauntrell, Pollock, & Mason ; Duignan & Smiles. to them by metes, bounds, and admeasurements, set forth on

[ocr errors]

coloured plans attached to the conveyance, each lot conveyed being that it was unnecessary that it should state that the requisites numbered. Each lot had a frontage upon one of the roads, and contained in s. 84 had been complied with, for they were matters was stated in the conveyance to be on the side of the road and not within the knowledge of the justices. adjoining thereto; neither the admeasurement nor colouring in- Reg v. Worcestershire (2 E. & B. 477; 23 L, J. (M. C. 113)) cluded the road. The roads had been dedicated to the public commented on and dissented from. as far as any act of the defendants could do so, but no proceed Attorneys for the Crown: Walker & Battiscombe. ings had been taken to make them repairable by the parish. Attorneys for defendant: Horne & Hunter,

The plaintiffs, the board of works of the district, from time to time paved the new streets formed by the houses on the estate, and apportioned the costs among the owners of houses forming the streets and the owners of lands bounding and abutting on Q. B.

MARSHALL v. King.

Nov. 17. the streets; and in so doing assessed defendants in respect of Bankrupt- Promise to pay Debt after Adjudication but before Order the new streets and roads when bounding or abutting on the of Discharge-Bankruptcy Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 71), ss. sides or ends of the streets paved as “land abutting" on those 12, 13. streets, under s. 77 of 25 & 26 Vict. c. 102, and also charged the

The defendant in October gave the plaintiff an order to repair defendants in respect of two ancient highways not maintained and

a boiler. The repairs were commenced on the 1st of November. repaired by the plaintiffs, bounding the defendants' estate, the

The defendant was adjudged bankrupt on the 20th of December. soil of which was in the defendants.

After that date the repairs were continued. For this work the Barrow (Morgan Howard, Q.C. with him), for plaintiffs. Prentice, Q.C. (G. B. Shaw with him), for defendants.

defendant, after adjudication and before obtaining his order of

discharge, gave the plaintiff a bill of exchange for 731. THE COURT (Blackburn and Archibald, JJ.) held : (1.) That the form of conveyance shewed that it was intended that the

| The question was, whether the defendant was liable either on

the bill or on an account stated. soil of the road usque ad medium filum should not pass from the

Pollock, for the plaintiff, contended that as the Bankruptcy defendants to the purchaser of each lot, and the case therefore

| Act, 1869, contained no enactment making void any contract came within the decision of Marquis of Salisbury V. Great Northern Railway Company (5 C. B. (N.S.) 174); (2.) That the “

made after adjudication, the defendant was liable.

Forbes, for the defendant, contended that the debt was provedefendants were properly charged under 25 & 26 Vict. c. 102,

| able under the bankruptcy by virtue of ss. 12 and 13 of the s. 77, as owners of “land” abutting on the streets, the roads being "land,” and the case within the decision of Lord North-|

Bankruptcy Act, 1869, and therefore the defendant was not

liable. brook v. Plumstead Board (Law Rep. 7 Q. B. 183).

THE COURT (Blackburn, Lush, and Quain, JJ.) held the Attorneys for plaintiffs : Newman, Dale, & Stretton.

plaintiff's contention to be correct, and that the defendant was Attorneys for defendants : R. & A. Russell

liable.

Attorneys for plaintiff: Turner & Son.

Attorney for defendant: Butcher.
THE QUEEN v. HARVEY.

Nov. 14. Highway5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 50, ss. 84, 85–Stopping up Highway as unnecessary-Certificate, Requisites of..

Ex.

ELLIS AND OTHERS v. WILMOT. Nov. 12. By s. 84 of 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 50, when the inhabitants in vestry deem it expedient that a high way should be stopped up, the

Principal and Surety-Effect of Discharge of Principal under the chairman of the meeting shall by an order in writing direct the

Bankruptcy Act, s. 125. surveyor to apply to two justices to view the same; provided Case stated in an action on a bond, dated the 8th of Decemthat if any other person is desirous of stopping up a highway he ber, 1869, given by the defendant as surety to secure payment is to require the surveyor to give notice to the church wardens of a sum of 70001. by one Thomas Etheridge to the plaintiffs, to assemble the inbabitants in vestry, and submit to them the It appeared that in April, 1871, Etheridge filed a petition for wish of such person; and if they agree to the proposal, the sur- liquidation of his affairs by arrangement or composition under veyor is to apply to the justices for the purposes aforesaid. By the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, ss. 125, 126, and s. 85, when it appears upon such view of two justices made at afterwards & resolution was duly passed by the statutory the request of the surveyor, that any public highway is unneces- majority of his creditors that his affairs should be liquidated sary, the justices are to direct the surveyor to give certain by arrangement under s. 125, and not in bankruptcy, and a public notices, and proof of the publications of such notices trustee was appointed thereunder. The plaintiff proved in having been given to the satisfaction of such justices ... the respect of the bond for 70001. against the estate of Etheridge, justices are to certify that the highway is unnecessary, and the and received a dividend of 9s. 24. in the pound. On the 5th of reason why, and this certificate is to be lodged with the clerk of August, 1872, the statutory majority of Etheridge's creditors the peace for the county and read by him at the quarter sessions, resolved that his discharge be granted to him, and it was and there enrolled.

granted accordingly, and a certificate of his discharge was, This was an appeal against a certificate under the hands of duly delivered to him. The plaintiffs voted for this resolution, two justices for the county of Middlesex relative to the stopping- and the defendant, who was present at the meeting, dissented up of a certain public footpath or highway. The quarter from it. He did not prove under the liquidation in respect of sessions confirmed the certificate, subject to a case.

bis liability as surety under the bond. He now contended that The certificate stated that all the particulars required by s. 85 he was released by reason of the plaintiffs having assented to the had been complied with, but omitted to state that the surveyor granting of the order of discharge. at whose request it was alleged the justices viewed the highway Munisty, Q.C. (Petheram with him), argued for the plaintiffs ; sought to be stopped up, had first duly obtained the consent of and the inhabitants of the parish, in vestry assembled, to the pro Prentice, Q.C. (Gould with him), for the defendant. posed stopping-up of the highway.

THE COURT held that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover. Philbrick, Q.C., and Poland, for the Crown.

The certificate of discharge granted to the principal debtor Edward Clarke, and Roscoe, for the defendant.

under the Bankruptcy Act, s. 125, did not release the surety. THE COURT (Blackburn, Mellor, and Archibald, JJ.) held Judgment for the plaintiffs. that a certificate under the statute was sufficient if it stated that Attorneys for plaintiffs: Jones, Blaxland, & Son, the particulars contained in s. 85 had been complied with, and Attorneys for defendant: Deane, Chubb, & Co.

PAGE

PAGE
SCARTH, In re (Liquidation-Detinue-Debt).
TABLE OF CASES.

.. SJJ. 202 SHAPLAND, In re (Practice-Sequestration - Costs of Sequestrators)

M. R. 202 Equity.

SMITH V. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY (Bequest of

Leasehold to Wise-Property taken by Railway Company, ASPDEX 0. SEDDON (Conveyance-Exception of Mines - Right to

Power of Trustees to sell-Title-Payment into Court under Support) . . . . . . . . M.R. 203

the 69th section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 C- (AN ALLEGED LUNATIC), In re (Lunacy Regulation Act,

-Costs) . . . . . . . V.-C. H. 206 1862, s. 11 --Inquiry basel upon Report of Commissioners WILKINSON (A LUNAtic), In re (Lunacy-Stop Order by Assignee Order for Costs out of alleged Lunatio: Estate) . L. JJ. 202

of Next of Kin)
of Next of Rin

. . . . . . L. JJ. 201 Coates v. LEGARD (Demurrer - Administration Suit - Multifa- Wilson v. THORNBURY (Election - Affidavit of Documents Admisriousness) · · · ·

M. R. 202 s ion-Proof) . . . . . . . V.-C. M. 205 COLLINS v. SLADE (Lease and Underlease-Corenant against “annoyance or damage" - Public Entertainments-Right of Way

Common Law. Right of closing Gates) . . . . . V.-C. B. 205

Ellis v. LOFTUS Iron COMPANY (TrespassAnimal, Owner liable CORPORATION OF FOREIGN BONDHOLDERS v. PASTOR (Practice Wrillen BillLeare to File Printed Bill-Expiration of the

for Trespass of) . . . . . . .C.P 208 Period allowed) . . . . . . V.-C. M. 20+ LEMAN V. HOUSELEY (Medical Act, 1858 (21 & 22 Vict. c. 90) 88. CAEDLAND v. POTTER (MortgagePriority-Registration-2 & 3

31, 32— Apothecaries Act (55 Geo. 3, c. 194), 8. 21Right of

Practitioner to sue for Medicines suppliedRegistration necesAnne, c. 4 (Yorkshire Registry Act)— Further Charge)

L. C. & L. JJ. 201

sary at Time Medicines were supplied) . . .Q. B. 207

MORGAN v. Bain (Sale of GoodsInsolvency, Rescission) DIMOND 1. Bostock (Will-- ConstructionGift to a Class)

C. P. 208 V-C. M. 204 | THOMAS v. THE QUEEN (Petition of Right, when it will lio-Debt EVANS T. BEAR (Attachment-Debtors' Act, 1869, 8. 4, exception 3)

due on Breach of Contract by the Crown—23 & 24 Vict. c. 34) L. JJ. 202

Q. B. 208 Fowkes v. Pascoe (Gift to a StrangerPresumption of Intention

THOMAS . THE QUEEN (Petition of RightDiscovery—23 & 24

Vict. c. 34, 8. 7Common Law Procedure Act, 1854 (17 & 18 -Resulting Trust) . . . . . . . M. R. 203

Vict, c. 125), s. 50). . . . . . Q. B. 208 GEB t. MAHOOD (Administration Suit Incumbrancers- Costs of Inquiries in Chambers) . . . . . V.-C. H. 207

During tho sittings of the Courts THE WEEKLY NOTES will be published Gordon, Ex parte. In re Dixon (Liquidation-Proof-Share of on Saturday, and will generally comprise Notes of the Decisions up to

deceased Partner) . . . . . . L. JJ. 202 | and including those of the previous Wednesday. All cases of permanent HVEB . SHARP (Request to Estate Agent to procure a Purchaser interest noted herein will be reported in full in THE LAW REPORTS.

-Contract by Estate Agent - Authority-Specific Perform.

ance refused). . . . . . . V.-C. H. 207 JOINT STOCK DISCOUNT COMPANY, Ex parte. In re BARNED's

BASKING COMPANY (Company Winding-up Bill of Ex-
change-Rule in Ex parte Waring-Roduction of Proof)

M. R. 203
L. C. & L. JJ. CREDLAND v. POTTER.

Nov. 5. MACNICHOL's ESTATE, In re. MacNichol v. MACNICHOL (Repre

Mortgage-Priority- Registration—2 & 3 Anne, c. 4 (Yorkshire sentation - Administration in India - Judgment in Foreign

Registry Act)-Further Charge. Court) . . . . . . . . V.-C. M. 204

This was an appeal by the defendants Potter and Brown from MARSHALL T. CROWTHER (Payment of Debts-Payment of Interest

a decision of Vice-Chancellor Bacon (Law Rep. 18 Eq. 350).

Kay, Q.C., and Henderson, for the appellants. | by Tenant for Life). . . . . V.-C. H. 206

Bagshawe, Q.C., and B. B. Rogers, for the plaintiffs. MAXWELL'S CASE. In re MARIA-ANNA AND STEINBANK Coal

Bush, for the mortgagors.

THEIR LORDSHIPS dismissed the appeal with costs. AND COKE COMPANY (Limited Company-Joint Stock Com

Solicitors : Edwards, Layton, & Jacques; Redhead; Emmet & panies Act, 1856Rights of Shareholders inter se-Liability

Son. increased by Articles of Association) . . . V.-CM. 204 ATOZEICE 0. AYLMER (Construction of Wil" Shares") . M. R. 204 L. JJ. In re WILKINSON (A LUNATIC.) Nov. 23. POWELL D. POWELL (Partition Suit-Sale-Cerlificate-Further

Lunacy-Stop Order by Assignee of Next of Kin. Consideration) . . . . . . V.-C. B. 206 This was a petition by some of the next of kịn of a lunatic No. 32.-1874

Equity.

and the assignee of their expected share in the personal estate the plaintiff was entitled as of right to the writ, just as if the of the lunatic, which consisted of a sum in the public funds, Act bad not passed. The Court had no discretion in the for an order that no part of the fund in question or the interest matter. thereof might be transferred or paid on the death of the lunatic THE LORD JUSTICE MELLISH concurred. to any persons claiming under the petitioning next of kin with Solicitors : Sole, Turner, & Knight; J. Lott, agent for Darvill out notice to the assignee.

& Co., Windsor.
Batten appeared for the petitioners, and referred to In re
Pigott (3 Mac & G. 268), where a similar order had been made
by Lord Truro.

L. JJ.
Ex parte GORDON.

Nov. 24. Knox, for the committee.

In re Dixon. The LORD JUSTICE JAMES said that no such order was ever

Liquidation-Proof - Share of deceased Partner. now made or would be made according to the present practice in lupacy. The petition must be dismissed with costs.

This was an appeal from a decision of the Chief Judge Bacon, The LORD JUSTICE MELLISH concurred.

who had held that the executors of a deceased partner could Solicitors: E. II, Barlee ; Park Nelson & Co.

prove, under the liquidation of the surviving partners for what appeared to be his share in the capital; there still remaining debts which were due at bis decease, as noted ante, p. 176.

De Gex, Q.C., and Davey, for the appellants. L. JJ. In re C- (AN ALLEGED LUNATIO). Nov. 23. Marten, Q.C., and Colt, for the executors. Lunacy Regulation Act, 1862, s. 11– Inquiry based upon Report

THEIR LORNSHIPS said that both on principle and on anthority of Commissioners- Order for Costs out of alleged Lunatic's Estate. such a proof could not be admitted. The decision of the Chief

Judge must be reversed. An inquiry was directed upon the report of the commissioners

Solicitors : Pattison, Wigg, & Co ; James, Curtis, & Jumes. in lunacy whether Mr. C., who was at the time copfined in a lunatic asylum, was of unsound mind. Mr. C. demanded a jury, and the inquiry was accordingly held before a jury, who found that he was of sound mind.

L. JJ.
In re SCARTH.

Nov. 25. The official solicitor of the Court of Chancery now presented

Liquidation-Detinue-Debt. a petition asking that the costs of the inquiry and of the proceedings in lunacy might be paid out of the alleged lunatic's estate. In this case a creditor had recovered in an action for detinue

Leigh Pemberton, appeared for the petitioner; and referred to judgment for 1001., to be reduced to nothing if a certain lease the Lunacy Regulation Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 86) s. 11. was given up. The lease could not be found, and at a liquida THE LORDS JUSTICES made the order asked for.

|tion meeting the creditor voted against certain resolutions as to Solicitors : Meynell & Pemberton.

the acceptance of a composition. If the judgment created a debt for 1001, the resolution was not carried by the requisite majority in value. The registrar held that to be the case, and refused to

register the resolution.
L. JJ.
Evans v. BEAR.

Nov. 23. The trustee appealed.
Attachment-Debtors' Act, 1869, s. 4, exception 3.

T. Brett, for the appellant.

Bagley, for the respondent. This was an appeal against an order for a writ of attachment

THEIR LORDSHIPS held that as the 1001. was payable only if made by the Master of the Rolls.

the lease was not given up it did not create a debt. The resoThe defendant J. Bear was one of the executors of T. Sutton. lutions were therefore passed by a proper majority, and must be A sum of money, being the purchase-money of some real estate, registered. was paid into a bank to the joint account of Bear and his co- Solicitors: Harris & Finch; Hobbes. executor W. Drake, and was drawn out by Drake and misapplied. Drake was a solicitor and managed the administration. Bear was a village schoolmaster, and took no active part in the matter. One of the residuary legatees filed a bill for administra- M. R.

In re SHAPLAND.

Nov. 12. tion against Bear and the administrator of Drake, who was

Practice-Sequestration-Costs of Sequestrators. dead, charging the executors with breach of trust. The order on further directions, in conformity with the chief clerk's cer

A commission of sequestration bad been issued in this matter. tificate, declared Bear and his co-executor jointly and severally

under which the principal debt had been recovered. The costs liable to pay 22001., and ordered Bear and the administrator of 9!

of the sequestrators were however disputed by the debtor; and a Drake's estate to pay the money into Court. The money notammculty nad ari

+ difficulty had arisen as to the payment of them out of the debtor's having been paid the plaintiff moved for a writ of attachment pro!

ent property.

Cottrell now moved on behalf of the creditor that the costs, against Bear, which the Master of the Rolls granted. Bear appealed from this order. The affidavits stated that Bear was

charges, and expenses of the sequestrators might be taxed as 75 years of age, and in a bad state of health, and that an arrest

between solicitor and client, and paid by the debtor, and that would endanger his life.

upon such payment the sequestration might be discharged. Cozens-Hardy, for the appellant, contended, first, that as the

* Terrell, for the creditor, objected to the costs being between fund had never been in the sole possession or power of Bear the 50

solicitor and client, but consented to the order in other respects. case did not come within the 3rd excoption of the 4th section of..

of THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS said that the costs must be the Debtors' Act, 1869, and therefore no writ of attachment between party and party, and made an order accoordingly. could issue; secondly, that the issuing of the writ was a matter

I Solicitors: Charles Rogers & Sons; Shapland.

Solicitors: Charles
of discretion with the Court, and ought not to be granted
against the Defendant, as its execution would probably cause his
death.
Ellis, for the plaintiff.

M. R.
COATE8 v. LEGARD.

Nov. 13. THE LORD JUSTICE JAMES said that he was very sorry to be Demurrer-Administration Suit--Multifariousness. obliged to dismiss the appeal. The case was clearly within the The bill was filed by the infant co-heiresses-at-law and sole 3rd exception of the 4th section of the Act, and consequently next of kin of an intestate against his administratrix and the trustees of several setilements made on the intestate's marriage, the said William Stott, his appointees, heirs, and assigns, all under which the plaintiffs claimed to be interested, and also mines, veins, and seams of coal, cannel and iron stone and other against trustees to whom the administratrix had assigned the mines and minerals lying within or under the said piece of land intestate's share in a partnership business, upon trust to apply hereby appointed, granted, and conveyed, or any part or parts the profits of such share, and, if necessary, the proceeds to arise thereof respectively, with full liberty, power, and authority for from the sale of such share (which the trustees were thereby em- the said William Stott, his appointees, heirs, and assigns, and powed to make) in payment of the debts of the intestate, and his, their, or any of their lessees, agents, and workmen, and every subject thereto upon trust for the administratrix. The bill or any other person or persons by his, their, or any of their order prayed that the rights and interests of the plaintitfs in the real or permission, at any time or times and from time to time to and personal estates of the intestate, and also under the trusts of search for, get, win, take, cart and carry away the same, and sell the several settlements, might be ascertained and secured by and or convert to his or their own use the said excepted mines, veins, under the decree and direction of the Court; that the real and and seams of coal, cannel, and ironstone, and other mines and personal estate of the intestate might be administered; and that minerals, or any of them, or any part or parts thereof, at pleasure, å guardian of the plaintiffs might be appointed, and an allow and to do all things necessary for effectuating all or any of the ance made for their maintenance.

aforesaid purposes, but without entering upon the surface of the The trustees of the share of the partnership business demurred said premises or any part thereof, so that compensation in money on the ground of multifariousness.

be made by him or them for all damage that shall be done to the Marten, Q.C., and Procter, for the demurrer, contended that erections of the said plot by the exercise of any of the said exthey were not proper parties to a suit for the general administra- cepted liberties or in consequence thereof.” tion of the estate, and that relief as against them ought to have The mill and works had been erected pursuant to the covebeen sought in a suit which should not mix the claim against nant. The defendants had recently worked the mines underthem with the performance of the trusts of the settlements. neath the mill by outstroke from an adjacent mine, and in so

Southgate, Q.C., and Robson, for the bill, were not called op. doing had caused the surface of the land to subside, and had

THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS held that the question of multi- caused great damage to the mill. fariousness was one of discretion and convenience, and that the The suit was instituted to restrain the defendants from workinterests of the infants would be most conveniently ascertained ing the mines so as to injure the plaintiffs' mill, and now came in one sait, and overruled the demurrer.

on to be heard. Solicitors: E. Peacopp; Sharp & Ullithorne.

Fry, Q.C., and Finch, for the plaintiffs.
Southyrte, Q.C., and Archibald Brown, for the defendants.

THE MASTER OF THE Rolls held that the plaintiffs were not

| entitled to an injunction, but only to compensation, and disM. R.

In re BARNED'S BANKING COMPANY. Nov. 14. missed the bill without prejudice to an action at law.
Ex parte Joint STOCK DISCOUNT COMPANY.

Solicitors : Norris, Allens, & Carter ; Sharpe, Parkers, & Co. ; Company-Winding-up-Bill of Exchange-Rule in Ex parte

Waring-Reduction of Proof, The Joint Stock Discount Company were the holders of certain bills of exchange indorsed by Barned's Banking Company. AllM. R.

FOWKES v. PASCOE.

Nov. 17. the parties to the bills were insolvent, and the bills had been proved Gift to a Stranger - Presumption of Intention-Resulting Trust. against the estates of all of them, including Barned's Banking |

Sarah Baker, widow, at various times between the years 1843 Company. Under the rule in Exc parte Wuring certain securities, given to the acceptors of the bills by the drawers had been

and 1850, purchased sums of stock in the name of the defendant

Pascoe, who was the son by a second marriage of the widow of realized, and the proceeds paid to the bill holders; and the question now raised on an adjourned summons was, whether

a deceased son of Sarah Baker, and transferred other sums of

stock into the names of herself and Pascoe, Mrs. Baker died in the proofs against Barned's Bank ought not to be reduced by the

1850, having appointed Pascoe, and a gentleman named Thomson, amounts so received by the bill holders.

executors and trustees of her will. The bill was filed by parties Roxburgh, Q.C., and Romer, for the Joint Stock Discount Com

| interested under the will against Pascoe and Thomson, and pany. Southgate, Q.C., and Kekewich, for Barned's Banking Company.

prayed a declaration that the sums of stock belonged to the

testatrix's estate, and consequential relief. THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS held that the proofs must be reduced.

Pascoe, by his answer, stated that the testatrix always took as Solicitors : H. W. Trinder ; Freshfield & Williams,

much interest in him as she could have done if he had been her own child, and that her intention in making the investments of stock in the joint names of herself and Pascoe was, that

the stock should at ber death become absolutely his property; M. R.

and he claimed to be absolutely entitled to the stock for ASPDEN V. SEDDON.

Nov. 16.

his own benefit. Some women who had been domestic servants Conveyance-- Exception of Mines-Right to Support,

of Mrs. Baker, deposed that she used to speak to them of Pascoe By an indenture, dated the 31st of December, 1861, William as her adopted son; but no member of the family corroborated Stott, the predecessor in title of the defendants, conveyed a piece their evidence, nor was there any statement to that effect in of land (with the exception and reservation of the mines and Pascoe's answer. minerals thereunder), to certain uses for securing to William Southgate, Q.C., Waller, Q.C., and Davey, for the plaintiffs. Stott, his heirs and assigns, a rent-change of 721. 3. 2d., and Chitty, Q.C., and W. H. Thompson, for Pascoe. subject thereto to the use of John Pilkington (the predecessor in Springall Thompson, for Thomson. title of the plaintiffs) in fee. The deed contained covenants for THE MASTER OF THE ROLLs held that Pascoe had not estathe erecting and maintaining on the land of a cotton mill and blished the existence of a quasi parental relationship towards works, which were to be of the annual value of not less than him on the part of the testatrix; that the evidence failed to 1501.

rebut the presumption of a resulting trust, there being no differThe exception and reservation of the mines and minerals was ence in this respect between an investment of stock in the joint in the following terms :

names and a purchase in the name of another; and decreed "Except and always reserved out of these presents and the Pascoe to replace the stock. direction, appointment, grant, and conveyance hereby made unto Solicitors : Evans & Co.; Thompson & Groom.

« 이전계속 »