Statute of Limitations-Bond-Division of Moneys secured—
Separate Causes of Action.

By an agreement dated the 3rd of September, 1827, John Harr sold to Michael Harr 25 acres of land in Lincolnshire for 14007., of which 400l. was to be invested in the manner directed by the deed. The remaining sum of 1000l. was to be secured by the bond of Michael Harr, to secure in the first instance an annuity to the vendor John Harr and his wife, and the survivor, and after their decease for the education and maintenance of the vendor's two children until they attained 21, and then to pay the sum of 7501., part of the said 10007., equally between them. The remaining sum of 2501. was to be applied in a similar way for the benefit of Mary Harr, the daughter of the purchaser Michael Harr, and on her attaining 21 the said sum was to be paid to her, with a gift over in case of her death to her brother. The land was accordingly conveyed to, and the bond was given by, Michael Harr in pursuance of the agreement. The vendor's children survived their parents and attained 21 prior to the year 1854. Michael Harr made various payments to them from time to time, and in 1854 he paid the balance of the 750. Mary Harr attained the age of 21 many years since and married one John Harpham. Michael Harr, the obligor of the bond, died in November, 1870, having by his will given his real and personal estate to the defendants upon the trusts therein-mentioned. In July, 1872, the representatives of the obligee of the bond and Mary and her husband filed a bill for the administration of the 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.

Greene, Q.C., and Smart, for the plaintiffs, contended that the Statute of Limitations could not apply to this case, as in 1854 the testator had paid the balance of the 750%, which formed a payment on account within twenty years.

Lindley, Q.C., and Nalder, for the defendants, contended that the sum of 750l. was a distinct sum, and could not be considered as having any connection with the sum of 250%. so as to constitute a payment on account.

Greene, in reply, contended that the sum secured by the bond to the children was one sum, and that therefore the payment of the 750%. was a payment on account.

THE VICE-CHANCELLOR said that before the 7501. was payable a certain event must have happened, in like manner on the happening of another event the 2501. became payable. There therefore were two separate causes of action, and the payment of the 750%. could not be considered as a payment on account, so as take the claim in respect of the 2507. out of the statute. The plaintiffs therefore had not established their debt, and the bill must be dismissed with costs.

Solicitors for the plaintiffs: Bellfrage & Middleton.

On the 11th of February Lees, a farmer, executed a bill of sale
of all his live stock and other effects to Collins, a money lender.
The bill of sale was expressed to be made to secure an advance
of 1307., which was to be paid in instalments, commencing on
the 11th of March. Power was given to the mortgagee 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 in-
stalments. Lees received in fact only 1007., the balance of 301.
being retained by Collins as a bonus. Lees also signed a memo-
randum, dated the 11th of February, by which he agreed
that the 301. was to be paid to Collins in full, notwithstanding
that the money secured by the bill of sale might be repaid,
or the rights of Collins under the bill of sale enforced, before
the expiration of the time for payment mentioned in the bill
of sale. The bill of sale was registered, but the memoran-
dum was not. On the 6th of March Collins put two men into
possession of the property, but they did not interfere with Lees
in the carrying on of the business of his farm. On the 10th of
March Lees filed a liquidation petition. A receiver was ap-
pointed, who took possession of the debtor's property on the
11th of March. On the 13th of March Collins drove away some
of the debtor's cattle and sold them. The judge refused an
application by the trustee that Collins should refund the value
of the cattle which he had sold.
The trustee appealed.

De Gex, Q.C., and Finlay Knight, for the trustee.
Winslow, Q.C., and Yate Lee, for Collins.

THE CHIEF JUDGE held that the memorandum was a con-
dition within s. 2 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1854, and that, as
it was not registered, the registration of the bill of sale was void.
The possession taken on the 6th of March was merely formal, and
no sufficient possession was taken till after the filing of the pe-
tition. The trustee was therefore entitled to the value of the
cattle.
Solicitors: S. B. Somerville; Chinery & Aldridge.

Bill of Sale-Act of Bankruptcy-Notice-Payment off of prior
Mortgage-Satisfaction entered up-Costs-New Case made on
Appeal.

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

bill of sale of his effects to Harris & Co., brewers, to secure 1937. On the 23rd of May, James, a licensed victualler, executed a Before the execution of the bill of sale, Harris & Co. had notice of the commission by James on the 14th of January of an act of bankruptcy, upon which he was afterwards, on the 4th of July, adjudicated a bankrupt. Of the 1937. the sum of 1221. was paid in satisfaction of the claim of a company who held two registered bills of sale of the property, which had been executed before the 14th of January. These securities, however, were not transferred to Harris & Co., but satisfaction of them was entered up on the register, and the new bill of sale of the 23rd of May was given to Harris & Co., and was registered. The judge held that this bill of sale was void as against the trustee in the bankof bankruptcy.

Solicitors for the defendants: Collyer-Bristow, Withers, & ruptcy, on the ground that Harris & Co. had notice of the act

Russell.

Harris & Co. appealed.

De Gex, Q.C., and Finlay Knight, for the appellants.
Winslow, Q.C., and Bagley, for the trustee.

THE CHIEF JUDGE held that the appellants had a valid charge 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 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.

C. P.
Nov. 25.
STRATTON AND OTHERS v. METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS.
Poor Rate-Deficiency in Parochial Rates-Liability to make good
-Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, s. 133.

Special case stated in an action by which the plaintiffs, as overseers of a parish, sought to recover from the defendants, under

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.

Pritchard moved for administration with the will and codicil annexed to be granted to Mr. Fox, limited to the trust estates devised to him by the codicil. In the Goods of Steadman (2 Hagg. Eccl. 59); In the Goods of Biou (3 Curt. 739); In the Goods of Watts (1 Sw. & Tr. 538); In the Goods of Lady C. Somerset (Law Rep. 1 P. & M. 350).

THE COURT granted the motion so far as regarded the personalty which vested in Mr. Fox, Attorneys: Hunt & Son.

Dec. 2.

IN THE GOODS OF HORSFORD.
Will-Execution-Testimonium and Attestation Clauses with Signa-
tures on Separate Paper attached to Instrument by a String—
Alterations unattested-Paper pasted over—.
-Legacies.

the 133rd section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act incor-
porated in the Thames Embankment Act, 1863, the amount of
the deficiency in the assessments for the parish for the years
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.
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
until the works shall be completed and assessed to such poor
rate, be liable to make good the deficiency in the assessment for
poor rate by reason of such lands having been taken or used for
the purposes of the works, and such deficiency shall be com-
puted according to the rental at which such lands with any
buildings thereon were valued or rated at the time of the pass-
ing of the special Act, and on demand of such deficiency the
promoters of the undertaking shall pay all such deficiencies to
the collector of the said assessment.

Thesiger, Q.C. (F. M. White with him), for the plaintiffs.
Sir H. James, Q.C. (R. S. Wright with him), for the defen-
dants.
It was argued on behalf of the defendants that as the works
authorized under the Thames Embankment Act were works
which would not in their nature be assessable to the poor rate
when completed, e.g., streets and public places, the section
did not apply; and secondly, that the plaintiffs, the overseers
for one year, could not recover the aggregate of the deficiencies
of several preceding years.

Nov. 25. THE COURT (Keating, Lush, and Denman, JJ.) gave judgment for the plaintiffs.

Judgment for the plaintiffs.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs: J. & C. Rogers & Sons.
Attorney for the defendants: W. Wyke Smith.

Captain Horsford executed a will, dated the 1st of April, 1868, and a codicil, dated the 29th of July, 1874, all in his own handwriting. The codicil was written upon a sheet of foolscap paper, covering the first page and half the second. On a separate piece of paper were written the words, " To which codicil I hereunto annex my seal and signature. Dated the 29th day of July, 1874," which were followed by the signatures of the testator and the attesting witnesses. This separate paper was attached by a string passing through the fold of the sheet on which the codicil was written, and nearly opposite to the termination of the writing on the second side. Over certain bequests in the will strips of paper were pasted, so that the writing beneath could not be read, and on the strips new legacies were written. In the codicil strips of paper were also placed over the amount of and certain words connected with a legacy, but the legatee's name remained untouched. The attesting witnesses did not notice the strips of paper at the time of execution of the will or codicil; and as regards the codicil they stated that the testator asked them to sign a paper, that he did not sign it in their presence, nor did they notice his signature thereon, but they believed the paper to be now in the same state, and the quantity of writing similar to 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 the conclusion that the sheet, separate as it now appears, was attached to the codicil at the time of execution, and that the testator acknowledged his signature to the witnesses before the attestation. As regards the strips of paper on the will, I am of opinion that the word apparent in the 21st section (1 Vict. c. 26) means apparent on the face of the instrument in the condition

Appeal from the decision of the Court of Common Pleas (re-in which it was left by the testator, and that if he has had reported Law Rep. 8 C. P. 572.)

Benjamin, Q.C. (C. Russell, Q.C., and Aspland with him), for the plaintiff.

Butt, Q.C. (Gully with him), for the defendants.
Dec. 2. THE COURT (Bramwell, B., Blackburn and Mellor, JJ.,
and Amphlett, B., Cleasby, B., dissenting) affirmed the decision
of the Court below in favour of the plaintiff.
Decision affirmed.

Attorney for plaintiff: Norris, Allens, & Carter.
Attorneys for defendants: Field, Roscoe, & Co.

course to extraordinary means to obliterate what he had written, then the Court is not bound to take any steps to undo what he has done. The effacement of the original writing by pasting over it is complete, and I can see no reason why the Court should remove the pasted paper used as the instrument of obliteration rather than ink used for the same purpose. The probate will go with those parts in blank. As to the obliterations in the codicil where the legatee's name was untouched, I am in a 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 thus the doctrine of dependent relative revocation becomes applicable, and the Court may have recourse to any means of legal proof by which to ascertain the original disposition, and amongst such means the removal of the strips of paper is the most obvious. I shall direct them to be removed in the registry and probate granted of the codicil in its original and unaltered condition.

Attorney: T. H. Strangways.

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 arrangement, and makiug no order as to the other costs. Solicitors: W. Tatham & Son; Murray & Hutchins; Tathams, Curling, & Pym; Tahourdin.

since April, 1873, before which time he was a proprietor of the mines and had dealt in phopshates supplied from the mines. Under these circumstances he contended that he was not a 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.

T. R. Bennett, for the creditor.

HARVIE v. SOUTH DEVON RAILWAY COMPANY. THE LORD JUSTICE JAMES said that the words of the Act were, Railway Company-Two Houses-Obligation to 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 adjudirequired part of the land, was compelled to take the whole, as noted ante, p. 195.

The company appealed.

Davey, and Whiteford, for the company.
Glasse, Q.C., and Batten, for the plaintiff.

cation must be discharged.

THE LORD JUSTICE MELLISH Said he was of the same opinion.
Solicitors: Herbert Wright; A. Beddall.

THEIR LORDSHIPS held that the two tenements were two sepa-L. JJ. rate houses, and dismissed the bill with costs. Solicitors: Wedlake & Letts; Gamlen & Son.

Execution-Trader Debtor-Notice to Sheriff-Form of Notice-
Bankruptcy Act, 1869, s. 87.

This was an appeal from a decision of the Chief Judge in Dec. 15. Bankruptcy (Ex parte Sheriff of Herefordshire, In re Smith, ante, p. 199). The trustee in the bankruptcy appealed.

The Vice-Chancellor Malins had refused to order that the evidence in this suit be taken at the hearing viva voce. The plaintiffs appealed.

Sir H. James, Q.C., and Ince, for the plaintiffs. Dickinson, Q.C., Lindley, Q.C., Robinson, and Cookson, for the defendants.

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.

L. JJ.

Nov. 10.

De Gex, Q.C., and Finlay Knight, for the appellant.

E. C. Willis, and Julyan Dunn, for the sheriff of Herefordshire.

THE LORDS JUSTICES agreed with the Chief Judge, and dismissed the appeal with costs.

Solicitors: Duignan & Smiles, agents for F. & H. Corbett, Worcester; Chauntrell, Pollock, & Mason.

Trustee of Leaseholds—Intestacy-Vesting Order—Trustee Act, 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 Time-Right 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. Glasse, Q.C., and W. Barber, for the landowner.

sentative of the survivor.

Two new trustees of the settlement had been recently appointed under a power therein contained; but it being impossible to

Iliggins, Q.C., Bagshawe, Q.C., and F. G. Bagshawe, for the cor- obtain an assignment of the leaseholds, or a vesting order under

poration.

s. 15 of the Trustee Act, 1850, a petition was presented asking Court, so as to give the Court jurisdiction to make a vesting that these new trustees might be reappointed trustees by the

order under s. 34.

Dundas Gardiner, for the petition, cited Re Mundel's Trusts (8 W. R. 880).

THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS declined to follow that case. Gardiner subsequently asked leave to amend the petition by praying for the appointment of a third trustee and for a vesting order. THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS gave leave. Solicitors: Travers-Smith & Co.

Dec. 11.

Debtor's Summons-Trader-Bankruptcy Act, 1869, s. 6, sub-s. 6. This was an appeal from an order of Mr. Registrar Hazlitt, acting as Chief Judge, by which he adjudicated T. G. Schomberg a bankrupt. The act of bankruptcy alleged was the non-compliance with a debtor summons sued out by a creditor for a debt of 681. 5s. 6d., recovered against him in the Court of Exchequer in February, 1874. In the summons, which was taken M. R. out in September, 1874, he was described as a trader, and was required to appear within seven days. The debt not having Pleading-Parties-Bankrupt Defendant-Suit to set aside Deed been paid or satisfied the creditor presented a petition for adjudication on the 14th of October, 1874, and he was adjud cated bankrupt thereon. The debtor stated in his examination that he was in February, 1874, and had been ever since that time, in the employ of the General Phosphate Company, for working phos

WEISE v. WARDLE.

for Fraud-Discovery-Costs.

This was a bill by the trustee in the bankruptcy of the defendant Frederick Wardle, against Frederick Wardle, the bankrupt, and his son James Wardle; and sought to set aside a voluntary conveyance executed by Frederick Wardle in favour of James

A petition was now presented by the Guardian Company for V. C. M. payment out of the fund to them.

Fischer, Q.C., and Loudon, for the petition.

Southgate, Q.C., and Begg, for the directors of the Customs Annuity and Benevolent Fund.

Cracknall, for the legal personal representative of Mr.