페이지 이미지

V.-C. M.

Dec. 4. / THE VICE-CHANCELLOR held that Mr. Ongley, not having Lands Clauses Act- Payment out of Court-Purchase-money of complied with the statutes which enable British subjects to

Freeholds-Investment in Leasehoids-Charity Trustees Persons marry abroad, must shew affirmatively that a marriage had absolutely entitled.

taken place which would be valid according to the law of the

place of contract, and that inasmuch as neither of the parties were This was a petition to take out of Court part of a fund which Roman Catholics, the ceremony gone through at Teheran created had been paid in under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act as

no valid marriage. the purchase-money of a freehold Nonconformist chapel which Solicitors: Willoughby & Cox: Finch. Jennings, & Finch; had been taken by the East London Railway Company. It was | Stephens & Lanodale. proposed to apply the money asked to be taken out in the purchase of a leasehold chapel, to be used in the place of that which had been taken. Glasse, Q.C. (Locock Webb with him), for the petitioners. V.-C. H.


Nov. 7. T. C. Wright, for the company, referred to Ecc parte Macaulay Administration Suit-CostsSpecific and Residuary Devise. (23 L. J. (Ch.) 515), as a decision that the Court would not allow the purchase-money of freeholds to be laid out in the purchase of

W. Jackson by his will, dated March, 1872, made specific leaseholds.

bequests and devises to his wife, and gave and devised to his

trustees his real estate, and made several specific devises to perGlasse said that Ex parte Macaulay was the case of an estate settled in strict settlement. The trustees of the chapel were

sons named in his will. He gave the residue of his real and

personal estate to his wife, whom he appointed executrix. He persons absolutely entitled. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR made the order. ;

died shortly afterwards, and his widow filed a bill to administer Solicitor : James Mote.

the trusts of his will. The cause came on at the hearing and the Court made the common decree, with several inquiries as to the specific devises. The chief clerk certified that there were

no debts, but the personal estate being insufficient for payment V.-C. M. In re Alison's Trusts.

Dec. 4 of the costs of the suit, a question arose as to how the deficiency Marriage in Foreign Country-Validity-Personal Disqualification ought to be made good. not such by English Law.

Davey, for the widow, the executrix, contended that the great

expense of the suit had been incurred in respect of the real This was a summons to vary the chief clerk's certificate on a

estate, and that those costs should be borne by the devisees. petition for payment out of Court of a fund representing &

At all events, he contended that the specifically devised perlegacy given by the will of Charles Alison, late British minister

sonalty and realty should be applied rateably with the residuary at Teheran, to one Vadine Rafael, an Armenian Christian woman,

real estate to make up the deficiency after the personal estate who for some years down to the time of his death, on the 29th of April, 1873, had been kept by him as his mistress.

should have been exhausted. The question was, whether the petitioner was, as she contended,

J. Cutler, Dunning, Fellows, Druce, and F. C. J. Millar, for the

specific devisees, contended that the deficiency should be made a feme sole, and entitled to receive the legacy, or had contracted & valid marriage with a Mr. Ongley, who at the time of the

good, at least in part, out of the residuary personalty and realty. death of Mr. Alison was vice-consul at Teheran.

Owen appeared for the trustees. The facts were, that when Mr. Alison died the petitioner was,

Nash and Carson for other parties. and was known to be, enceinte by him, but it was shortly after


Tan Vice

THE VICE-CHANCELLOR said the authorities were in an unwards proposed that Mr. Ongley should marry her, and applica

satisfactory,state, and irreconcilable. He should, however, direct

that the deficiency must be made good rateably out of the tion was made successively to two priests of the Armenian church, into which the petitioner, when an infant, had been

specifically devised realty and personalty and residuary real baptized, and of which she stated that she had since remained a

estate. member, to perform the ceremony. But the priests both declined |

Solicitors for the plaintiff: Bischoff, Bompas, & Bischoff. on the ground that by a law of the Armenian church, the v

Solicitors for the defendants : Pitmin & Lane; P. B. existence of which law was proved, no pregnant woman could contract a valid marriage. A Roman Catholic priest at Teheran was then applied to, and Y.-C. H.

ARNOLD v, Dixon. he after obtaining, by telegraph, a dispensation from his eccle

Nov. 22. siastical superior, as on the ground that one of the parties only

Real Estate-PartitionDecree for Sale-Conversion. was a member of the Roman church, Mr. Ongley being, as was | A suit having been instituted by beneficiaries for the adminisstated, a member of the Church of England, performed the tration of the estate of two sisters named Dixon, and for a parceremony of marriage between them in a private house.

tition, the Court thought that a sale would be more beneficial, The ground for the suggestion that the petitioner was a and ordered a sale accordingly. After the decree, but before the Roman Catholic was, that her father was an Italian, who had sale was effected, H. G. Dixon died intestate. The sale was submarried her mother, an Armenian Christian, and bad died before sequently carried into effect, and the proceeds paid into Court. the petitioner's birth, and that she had been confessed by the H. G. Dixon left a brother, Ralph L. Dixon, who took out adminisRoman Catholic priest before the marriage ceremony was per-tration of his estate, and a sister, Mrs. Ripley, who was married, formed.

and all whose property was settled. A question was now raised It was in evidence that by the law of Persia the marriages of whether the order to sell before the death of H. G. Dixon, Christians were held good if valid according to the law of the followed by the actual sale afterwards, operated as a conparticular denomination to which the parties belonged.

version, The chief clerk had found that there was a good marriage, and Pemberton, for the trustees of Mrs. Ripley's settlement, claimed the motion was to vary his certificate in that respect.

one moiety of the proceeds as personal estate, and cited Steed v. W. Pearson, Q.C., and Renshaw, for the petitioner, contended Preece (Law Rep. 18 Eq. 192), to show that the estate had been that the marriage was invalid both as an English and as converted by the order for sale. an Armenian marriage.

Tremlett, for the heir-at-law, contended that in the case cited Higgins, Q.C., and W. W. Karslake, for Mr. Opgley, contended the sale took place after the death, but here it was before. that there was a good marriage according to English law.

Brodrick and Wilkinson appeared for other parties. Glasse, Q.C., for Mr. Hill, one of the trustees of the will.

THE VICE-CHANCELLOR said he did not think the distinction

a substantial one. The moiety must be directed to be paid to On the 11th of February Lees, a farmer, executed a bill of sale Ralph L. Dixon as legal personal representative of his brother. of all his live stock and other effects to Collins, a money lender. Solicitors for the plaintiffs : G. A. Crawley & Arnold.

The bill of sale was expressed to be made to secure an advance Solicitors for the defendants : Bell & Brodrick.

of 1301., which was to be paid in instalments, commencing on the 11th of March. Power was given to the mortgageo to take possession of the property at once, and also power to sell the

property in case default was made in payment of any of the inV.-C. H. ASHLIN v. LER.

Dec. 8. stalments. Lees received in fact only 1001., the balance of 301. Statute of Limitations-Bond-Division of Moneys secured

being retained by Collins as a bonus. Lees also signed a memoSeparate Causes of Action,

randum, dated the 1lth of February, by which he agreed

that the 301. was to be paid to Collins in full, notwithstanding By an agreement dated the 3rd of September, 1827, John Harr that the money secured by the bill of sale might be repaid, sold to Michael Harr 25 acres of land in Lincolnshire for 14001., or the rights of Collins ander the bill of sale enforced, before of which 4001. was to be invested in the manner directed by the the expiration of the time for payment mentioned in the bill deed. The remaining sum of 10001. was to be secured by the of sale. The bill of sale was registered, but the memoranbond of Michael Harr, to secure in the first instance an annuity dum was not. On the 6th of March Collins put two men into to the vendor John Harr and his wife, and the survivor, and after possession of the property, but they did not interfere with Lees their decease for the education and maintenance of the vendor's in the carrying on of the business of his farm. On the 10th of two children until they attained 21, and then to pay the sum of March Lees filed a liquidation petition. A receiver was ap7507., part of the said 10001., equally between them. The re-pointed, who took possession of the debtor's property on the maining sum of 2501, was to be applied in a similar way for the Ilth of March. On the 13th of March Collins drove away some benefit of Mary Harr, the daughter of the purchaser Michael of the debtor's cattle and sold them. The judge refused an Harr, and on her attaining 21 the said sum was to be paid to application by the trustee that Collins should refund the value her, with a gift over in case of her death to her brother. The of the cattle which he had sold. land was accordingly conveyed to, and the bond was given by, The trustee appealed. Michael Harr in pursuance of the agreement. The vendor's De Gex, Q.C., and Finlay Knight, for the trustee. children survived their parents and attained 21 prior to the year Winslow, Q.C., and Yate Lee, for Collins. 1854.Michael Harr made various payments to"them from time THE CHIEF JUDGE held that the memorandum was a conto time, and in 1854 he paid the balance of the 7501. Mary Harrdition within s. 2 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1854, and that, as attained the age of 21 many years since and married one John

it was not registered, the registration of the bill of sale was void. Harpham. Michael Harr, the obligor of the bond, died in No.

The possession taken on the 6th of March was merely formal, and vember, 1870, having by his will given his real and personal

no sufficient possession was taken till after the filing of the peestate to the defendants upon the trusts therein-mentioned. In

tition. The trustee was therefore entitled to the value of the July, 1872, the representatives of the obligee of the bond and

cattle. Mary and her husband filed a bill for the administration of the

| Solicitors: S. B. Somerville ; Chinery & Aldridge. estate of Michael Harr claiming as creditors the sum of 2501.

The defendants put in their answer, in which they pleaded the Statute of Limitations, and in a schedule set forth various payments on account.

Dec. 7. Greene. Q.C., and Smart, for the plaintiffs, contended that the I BANKRUPTCY. Ex parte HARRIS. Statute of Limitations could not apply to this case, as in 1854

In re JAMES. the testator had paid the balance of the 7501., which formed a Bill of Sale-Act of Bankruptcy-Notice-Payment off of prior payment on account within twenty years.

Mortgage-Satisfaction entered up-Costs - New Case made on Lindley, Q.C., and Nalder, for the defendants, contended that

Appeal. the sum of 7501, was a distinct sum, and could not be considered as having any connection with the sum of 2501. so as to constitute

This was an appeal from a decision of the judge of the Bath

County Court. & payment on account.

On the 23rd of May, James, a licensed victualler, executed a Greene, in reply, contended that the sum secured by the bond

bill of sale of his effects to Harris & Co., brewers, to secure 1931. to the children was one sum, and that therefore the payment of

MOR O Before the execution of the bill of sale, Harris & Co. had notice the 7501. was a payment on account.

of the commission by James on the 14th of January of an act of TAE VICE-CHANCELLOR said that before the 7501. was payable

e bankruptcy, upon which he was afterwards, on the 4th of July, e certain event must have happened, in like manner on the

or on the adjudicated a bankrupt. Of the 1931, the sum of 1221, was paid happening of another event the 2501. became payable. There

in satisfaction of the claim of a company who held two registered therefore were two separate causes of action, and the payment of bills of sale of the property, which had been executed before the 7501. could not be considered as a payment on account, so as

the 14th of January. These securities, however, were not transtake the claim in respect of the 2501. out of the statute. The

ferred to Harris & Co., but satisfaction of them was entered up plaintiffs therefore had not established their debt, and the bill

on the register, and the new bill of sale of the 23rd of May was must be dismissed with costs.

given to Harris & Co., and was registered. The judge held that Solicitors for the plaintiffs: Bellfrage & Middleton.

this bill of sale was void as against the trustee in the bankSolicitors for the defendants: Collyer-Bristow, Withers, & ruptcy, on the ground that Harris & Co. had notice of the act Russell.

of bankruptcy.

Harris & Co. appealed.

De Gex, Q.C., and Finlay Knight, for the appellants.
Ex parte COATES.

(Dec. 7. Winslow, Q.C., and Bagley, for the trustee.
In re LEES.

THE CHIEF JUDGE held that the appellants had a valid charge Bill of Sale-Condition- Registration-Possession-Bills of Sale

to the extent of the 1221. which they had paid in satisfaction of

the prior bills of sale. But as this point was not raised in the Act, 1854, s. 2.

county court, the appellants must pay the costs of the hearing This was an appeal from a decision of the judge of the Burton- there. on-Trent County Court.

Solicitors: Phillips & Son ; Stibbard & Cronshey.

Common Law.

all property held by him upon any trust or by way of mortgage He died insolvent, but possessed of trust estates, hereditaments, and premises of great variety and value. The widow renounced probate and administration with the will and codicil annexed.

The next of kin also were willing to renounce administration. O. P.

Nov. 25. Pritchard moved for administration with the will and codicil STRATTON AND OTHERS v, METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS. annexed to be granted to Mr. Fox, limited to the trust estates Poor Rate-Deficiency in Parochial Rates--Liability to make good devised to him by the codicil. In the Goods of Steadman (2 Hagg. -Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, s. 133.

Eccl. 59); In the Goods of Biou (3 Curt. 739); In the Goods of Special case stated in an action by which the plaintiffs, as over

Watts (1 Sw. & Tr. 538); In the Goods of Lady C, Somerset (Law seers of a parish, sought to recover from the defendants, under

Rep. 1 P. & M. 350). the 133rd section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act incor

The Court granted the motion so far as regarded the perporated in the Thames Embankment Act, 1863, the amount of sonalty which

of sonalty which vested in Mr. Fox, the deficiency in the assessments for the parish for the years

Attorneys: Hunt & Son, 1865 to 1871, caused by the defendants having taken certain lands in the parish for the purposes of the last-mentioned Act. The section provides that if the promoters of the undertaking P&M


Dec. 2. become possessed by virtue of the special Act of any lands liable to be assessed to the poor rate, they shall from time to time

Wil-Execution - Testimonium and Attestation Clauses with Signauntil the works shall be completed and assessed to such poor

tures on Separate Paper attached to Instrument by a Stringrate, be liable to make good the deficiency in the assessment for

Alterations unattested-Paper pasted over-Legacies. poor rate by reason of such lands having been taken or used for Captain Horsford executed a will, dated the lstof April, 1868, and the purposes of the works, and such deficiency shall be com- a codicil, dated the 29th of July, 1874, all in his own handwriting. puted according to the rental at which such lands with any The codicil was written upon a sheet of foolscap paper, covering buildings thereon were valued or rated at the time of the pass the first page and half the second. On a separate piece of paper ing of the special Act, and on demand of such deficiency the were written the words,“ To which codicil I hereunto annex my promoters of the undertaking shall pay all such deficiencies to seal and signature. Dated the 29th day of July, 1874,” which the collector of the said assessment.

were followed by the signatures of the testator and the attesting Thesiger, Q.C. (F. M. White with him), for the plaintiffs. witnesses. This separate paper was attached by a string passing

Sir H. James, Q.C. (R. S. Wright with him), for the defen- through the fold of the sheet on which the codicil was written, dants.

and nearly opposite to the termination of the writing on the It was argued on behalf of the defendants that as the works second side. Over certain bequests in the will strips of paper authorized under the Thames Embankment Act were works were pasted, so that the writing beneath could not be read, and which would not in their nature be assessable to the poor rate on the strips new legacies were written. In the codicil strips of when completed, .g., streets and public places, the section paper were also placed over the amount of and certain words did not apply; and secondly, that the plaintiffs, the overseers connected with a legacy, but the legatee's name remained unfor one year, could not recover the aggregate of the deficiencies touched. The attesting witnesses did not notice the strips of of several preceding years.

paper at the time of execution of the will or codicil; and as Nov. 25. THE COURT (Keating. Lush, and Denman, JJ.) gave regards the codicil they stated that the testator asked them to judgment for the plaintiffs.

sign a paper, that he did not sign it in their presenco, nor did Judgment for the plaintiffs.

they notice his signature thereon, but they believed the paper to Attorneys for the plaintiffs : J. & C. Rogers & Sons,

be now in the same state, and the quantity of writing similar to Attorney for the defendants : W. Wyke Smith.

what it was when they attested it.

Nugent moved for probate of the will and codicil.

Dec. 2. SIR J. HANNEN:-As to the codicil I have come to Ex. Ch. from C. P.

Dec. 2. the conclusion that the sheet, separate as it now appears, was JACKSON v. THE UNION MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY. attached to the codicil at the time of execution, and that the tesMarine Insurance-Loss of Freight-Delay through Perils of the tator acknowledged his signature to the witnesses before the

Sea-Frustration of Adventure-Right of Charterer to refuse to attestation. As regards the strips of paper on the will, I am of load.

opinion that the word apparent in the 21st section (1 Vict. c. 26) Appeal from the decision of the Court of Common Pleas (re

means apparent on the face of the instrument in the condition ported Law Rep. 8 C. P. 572.)

in which it was left by the testator, and that if he has had reBenjamin, Q.C. (C. Russell,' Q.C., and Aspland with him), for

course to extraordinary means to obliterate what he had written, the plaintiff.

then the Court is not bound to take any steps to undo what he Butt, Q.C. (Gully with him), for the defendants.

has done. The effacement of the original writing by pasting over Dec. 2. THE COURT (Bramwell, B., Blackburn and Mellor, JJ.,

it is complete, and I can see no reason why the Court should and Amphlett, B., Cleasby, B., dissenting) affirmed the decision

remove the pasted paper used as the instrument of obliteration of the Court below in favour of the plaintiff.

rather than ink used for the same purpose. The probate will Decision affirmed.

go with those parts in blank. As to the obliterations in the Attorney for plaintiff: Norris, Allens, & Carter.

codicil where the legatee's name was untouched, I am in a Attorneys for defendants: Field, Roscoe, & Co.

position to infer that the testator's intention was only to revoke that portion of the codicil which was covered in the event of his

having effectually substituted another bequest in its place, and P. & M. IN THE GOODS OF PROTHERO.

thus the doctrine of dependent relative revocation becomes Nov. 18.

applicable, and the Court may have recourse to any means of Alministration with Will annexed-Insolvent Estate-Grant to a legal proof by which to ascertain the original disposition, and Legatee limited to Trust Property.

amongst such means the removal of the strips of paper is the * The deceased died in June, 1874, having made a will, without most obvious. I shall direct them to be removed in the registry date, in which he appointed his wife sole executrix and residuary and probate granted of the codicil in its original and unaltered legatee. He also executed a codicil, dated the 30th of January, condition. 1871, in which he devised and bequeathed to Charles Burton Fox Attorney: T. H. Strangways.




SCHOMBERG, 'Ex parte. In re SCHOMBERG (Debtor's Summons

Trader-Bankruptcy Act, 1869, 8. 6, sub-8. 6) . L. JJ. 218 SPOONER, Ex parte. In re SMITH (ExecutionTrader Debtor

Notice to Sherif-Form of Notice-Bankruptcy Act, 1869, equity.

8. 87) . . . . . . . . L. JJ. 218

PAGE WEISE v. WARDLE (Pleading-Parties - Bankrupt DefendantBENNETT'S TRUSTS, In re (Liquidation by Arrangement Dise

Suit to set aside Deed for Fraud-Discovery-Cos's) M. R. 218 charge-Close of Liquidation-Bankruptcy Act, 1869,88. 15 (3), 47, 125 (7), (9)-Bankruptcy Rules, 1870, rr. 302, 304, 306;

WHEELER v. GILL (Creditors' Suit-Interest on Debts-Coming in Form 122) . . . . . . . V.-C. B. 221

under a Decree-Cons. Ord. xLII, r. 10) . V.-C. M. 221 BOTTING, Et parte. In re BOSTEL (Composition--Trustee-Dis

| WILDES v. DUDLOW (Statute of Frauds-Joint and Several Proputed Debt-Inquiry as to Amount-Bankruptcy Rules, 1870,

missory Note-Agreement to guarantee) . . V.-C. M. 220 m. 279, 311, 313) . . . .

BNCKY. 224 Browx, Ex parle. In re HOOKER (Bankruptcy Act, 1869, 8. 72

Common Law. Disputed Facts-Trial by Jury) .


CURTIS AND OTHERS v. WILLIAMSON AND OTHERS (Principal and ture Bond - Fraudulent Issue - Assignee Equities against

Agent-Proof by Creditor upon Estate of Insolvent AgentOriginal Holder--Acceptance of Notice of Assignment)

Election to treat undisclosed Principal when discovered as

V.-C. M. 219 Deblor) . . . . . . . . Q. B. 224 CS DIZ WATERWORKS COMPANY v. BARNETT (CompanyPetition

FALVEY v. STANFORD (New Trial-Inadequacy of Damages - Comto wind up- Alleged Creditor of the Company-Disputed

promise amongst Jury-Slander) . . . Q. B. 224 Debt) . . . . . . . . V.-C. M. 220 | SAMPSON (JUDGMENT CREDITOR); SEATON AND BEER RAILWAY DE LA BORDE v. OTHON ( Writ of Assistance -Order to deliver

COMPANY (JUDGMENT DEBTORS), LONDON AND SOUTH WESTGoods to Receiver - Personal Service impossible) V.-C. M. 219

ERN Railway Co, (GARNISHEES) (Debts between Judgment

Creditor and Garnishee-Common Law Procedure Act, 1854 DBIYER'S SETTLEMENT, In re (Trustee of LeaseholdsIntestacy

(17 & 18 Vict. c. 125), 88. 61, 63) . . . Vesting Order_Trustee Act, 1850 (13 & 14 Vict. c. 60) 88. 15,

Q. B. 32, 31). . . . . . . . M. R. 218 GRAY 0. Lucas (Assignments of Leaseholds to a MistressPre

During the sittings of the Courts THE WEEKLY NOTES will be published sumption of Law rebutted by Evidence of Intention) V.-C. H. 223

on Saturday, and will generally comprise Notes of the Decisions up to HANEY's TetsTS, In re (Practice-Petition- Service on Respon. and including those of the previous Wednesday. All cases of permanent dent out of the Jurisdiction) . . . . V.-C. B. 221

interest noted herein will be reported in full in THE LAW REPORTS. HARVIE •. SOUTH DEVON RAILWAY COMPANY (Railway Company

-Tro Houses-Obligation to take Land) · L. C. & L. J. J. 218 IIENDERSON'S SETTLEMENT, In re ( Settlement Construction-Dis.

tribution in Shares-Husband and Wife's Interest) V.-C. H. 222 HUDDERSFIELD (CORPORATION OF) AND JACOMB, In re (Award

Limit of Time -Right to take Land-Minerals). L, JJ. 218

Purchaser-Damages for Breach of ContractNon-payment
oj Price_Value of Property at Date of the Breach unascer L. C. & L. J.J. POWELL v. POWELL.

Dec. 14. tainable) . . . . .

. V.-C. B.

Purtition Suit-Sale-Certificate-Further Consideration. LEWIS T. KING (Security-Life Insurance-Payment of Premium:

This was a motion by the plaintiff by way of appeal from a by Creditors-Option to take an Assignment of the Policy

decision of Vice-Chancellor Bacon (ante, p. 206). Time for Exercise of Option) . . . . V.-C. M.

Jackson, Q.C., and Horton Smith, for the plaintiff. MACLEAN's Trusts, In re (Customs Annuity and Benerolent Fund

Kay, Q.C., and Nalder, for the purchaser, were not called --Construction of Act and Rules-Nominees other than Rela

upon. tives-Appointment by way of Mortgage-Succession Duty)

M. Ř. 219

THEIR LORDSHIPS dismissed the appeal.

Solicitors : A. R. Steele ; Upton, Johnson, & Co. MELBOURN'S ESTATE, In re (Bankruptcy-Separate Adjudication

of Bankrupt having Partners abroad-Separate and Joint

Assets) . . . . . . . . V.. B. 222 NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY COMPANY, E. parte. In re


Dec. 14 TRADERS NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE CARRYING COMPANY (Com DirectorsFiduciary Agent-Profits made by Agent in Course of pany – Winding-up-Distress by Creditor-Companies Act,

his Agency-Charges of Fraud - Costs. 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), 88. 87, 163) . . M. R. 219

This case came before the Court on separate appeals by the . OHLBEN . TEBRERO (Practice-Vivâ roce Evidence-Discretion)

four defendants from a decree of Vice-Chancellor Bacon (ante, L. C. & L. J. J. 218

p. 181). PARKER V. MCKENNA (DirectorsFiduciary Agent - Profits made

Glasse, Q.C., and North, for Sir J. McKenna. by Agent in Course of his Agency-Charges of Fraud - Costs)

Bristowe, Q.C., and Tahourdin, for Vanderbyl.
L. C. & L. JJ.

Fry, Q.C., and Davey, for Lowis.
Pales, Ex parle. In re MOORE (Liquidation-Joint and sepa-

Everitt, for Henshaw. rate Estates--Powers of Trustee Registration of Resolutions Kay, 6.C., Lindley, Q.C., Graham Ilastings, and Armstrong, for - Bankruptcy Act, 1869, 8. 101- Bankruptcy Rulek, 1870, the plaintiff. Tr. 254, 285, 295) . . . . . Banky. 223

THEIR LORDSHIPS affirmed the decree so far as it made the POWELL 0. POWELL (Partition Suit-Sale - Certificale-Further defendants liable for the profits of the shares taken by them

Consideration) . . . . . L. C. & L. J. J. 217 respectively from Stock, but instead of declaring Sir Joseph POWELL'S WILL, In re (Practice-25 & 26 Vict. c. 108-Sale) McKenna liable in respect of the “William and Anthony"shares,

.-C. B. 221 directed an inquiry whether he had any and what interest in No. 35.-1874.



[ocr errors]

them; with a declaration that he was liable to the company for phate mines in the south of France; that the business of the the profits derived from his interest if any. The decree was company consisted of getting phosphates from the mines and further varied by ordering the plaintiff to pay the costs attribut- selling them; that he had carried on no business of any kind able to the charges of combination and preconceived arrange since April, 1873, before which time he was a proprietor of iho ment, and makiug no order as to the other costs.

mines and had dealt in phopshates supplied from the mines. Solicitors: W. Tatham & Son; Murruy & Hutchins; Tathams, Under these circumstances he contended that he was not a Curling, & Pym; Tahourdin.

trader within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, s. 6, sub-s. 6. The Registrar, however, held that he was a trader and adjudicated him bankrupt, and he appealed from this decision.

Robertson Griffiths, for the appellant. L. C. & L. J. J.

Dec. 15.

T. R. Bennett, for the creditor.

THE LORD JUSTICE JAMES said that the words of the Act were, Railway Company-Two Houses-Obligation lo take Land. " and the debtor being a trader has for the space of seven days The Vice-Chancellor Malins had made a decree that two tene

neglected to pay such sum”; that must mean that he must be a ments formed one house, and that the railway company, which

trader at the time when the summons is sued out. The adjudi

cation must be discharged. required part of the land, was compelled to take the whole, as

THE LORD JUSTICE MELLISH said he was of the same opinion. noted ante, p. 195.

Solicitors : Herbert Wright; A. Beddall.
The company appealed.
| Davey, and Whiteford, for the company.

Glasse, Q.C., and Balten, for the plaintiff.
THEIR LORDSHIPS held that the two tenements were two sepa- | .

Ex parte SPOONER.

Dec. 12. rate houses, and dismissed the bill with costs.

In re SMITH. Solicitors: Wedlake & Letts; Gamlen & Son.

ExecutionTrader DeblorNotice to Sheriff Form of Notice

Bankruptcy Act, 1869, s. 87.

This was an appeal from a decision of the Chief Judge in L. C. & L. J.J. OALSEN v. TERRERO.

Dec 15 Bankruptcy (Ex parte Sheriff of Flerefordshire, In re Smith,

ante, p. 199).' The trustee in the bankruptcy appealed. Practice- Vivâ voce Evidence~Discretion.

De Gex, Q.C., and Finlay Knight, for the appellant. The Vice-Chancellor Malins had refused to order that the E. C. Willis, and Julyan Dunn, for the sheriff of Herefordevidence in this suit be taken at the hearing vivâ voce.

shire. The plaintiffs appealed.

THE LORDS JUSTICES agreed with the Chief Judge, and disSir H. James, 0.C., and Ince, for the plaintiffs.

missed the appeal with costs. Dickinson, Q.C., Lindley, Q.C., Robinson, and Cookson, for the Solicitors : Duignan & Smiles, agents for F. & H. Corbett, Wordefendants.

cester; Chauntrell, Pollock, & Mason. THEIR LORDSHIPS considered it a question for the discretion of the Vice-Chancellor, and dismissed the appeal with costs. Solicitors : Brook & Chapman ; Druce, Sons, & Jackson.

M. R.

In re Driver's SETTLEMENT. Dec. 5.

Trustee of LeaseholdsIntestacy- Vesting Order-Trustee Act, L. JJ.

Nov. 10.

1850 (13 & 14 Vict. c. 60), ss. 15, 32, 34. In re CORPORATION OF HUDDERSFIELD AND JACOMB. Under a marriage settlement made in 1852 certain leaseholds Award-Limit of TimeRight to take Land--Minerals. were assigned to two trustees upon certain trusts. Both these This was an appeal by the landowner from a decision of Vice

trustees had since died, and there was no legal personal repreChancellor Malins, reported Law Rep. 17 Eq. 476.

sentative of the survivor. Glasse, Q.C., and W. Barber, for the landowner.

Two new trustees of the settlement had been recently appointed Higgins, Q.C., Bagshawe, Q.C., and F. G. Bagshave, for the cor

under a power therein contained; but it being impossible to poration.

obtain an assignment of the leaseholds, or a vesting order under THEIR LORDSHIPS dismissed the appeal with costs.

s. 15 of the Trustee Act, 1850, a petition was presented asking Solicitors: Williamson, Hill, & Co.; Van Sandau & Cummings.

that these new trustees might be reappointed trustees by the | Court, so as to give the Court jurisdiction to make a vesting order under s. 34.

Dundas Gardiner, for the petition, cited Re Mundel's Trusts L. JJ.

(8 W. R. 880). Ex parte SCHOMBERG.

THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS declined to follow that case. In re SOHOMBERG.

Gardiner subsequently asked leave to amend the petition by Debtor's Summons-Trader-Bankruptcy Act, 1869, s. 6, sub-s. 6. praying for the appointment of a third trustee and for a vesting

This was an appeal from an order of Mr. Registrar Hazlitt, order. acting as Chief Judge, by which he adjudicated T. G. Schomberg

THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS gave leave. a bankrupt. The act of bankruptcy alleged was the non-com

Solicitors: Travers-Smith & Co. pliance with a debtor summons sued out by a creditor for a debt of 681. 58. 61., recovered against him in the Court of Exchequer in February, 1874. In the summons, which was taken up out in September, 1874, he was described as a trader, and was


Dec. 11. required to appear within seven days. The debt not having

Pleading-PartiesBankrupt Defendant-Suit to set aside Deed been paid or satisfied the creditor presented a petition for adju

for Fraud-Discovery-Costs. dication on the 14th of October, 1874, and ho was adjud.cated. This was a bill by the trustee in the bankruptcy of the defendant bankrupt thereon. The debtor stated in his examination that he Frederick Wardle, against Frederick Wardle, the bankrupt, and was in February, 1874, and had been ever since that time, in the his son James Wardle; and sought to sot aside a voluntary conemploy of the General Phosphate Company, for working phos- veyance executed by Frederick Wardle in favour of James

« 이전계속 »