« 이전계속 »
Benjamin, Q.C. (Hayman with him), for the plaintiff. lall other effects, together with all her estates of whatsoever kind
THE COURT (Keating, Grove, Quain, Archibald, and Honyman, and wheresoever situated, to be hers during her natural life, and JJ.), reversed the decision of the Court below, holding that there after her decease she bequeathed legacies to a considerable was nothing in the Act to take away from the trustees the power amount. She appointed trustees of this will, and nominated her of reconsidering their resolution, and that there was no binding daughter, Ann Walker, the sole and whole executrix thereof, but contract, nor indeed any sort of contract, with the plaintiff. she did not therein dispose of the residue of her property, nor Attorneys for plaintiff : Mackeson, Taylor, & Arnould.
in direct terms revoke the previous will. Attorney for defendants: Pead.
Searle moved for probate of the two instruments as together containing the will of the deceased. In executing the last paper
the deceased intended merely to postpone the payment of the Ex. Ch. from Ex.
Treb, 11. legacies until after her daughter's death, without interfering with SMITII v. FLETCHER AND OTHERS.
the ultimate disposition of her property contained in her first
will. He referred to in the Goods of Graham (3 Sw. & Tr. 69); Trespass—Sic utere tuo ut alienum non ladas-Duty of Landowner |
Greaves v, Price (3 Sw. & Tr. 71); Lemage v. Goodban (Law Rep. - Collecting Water,
1 P. & M. 57); In the Goods of Fenwick (Law Rep. 1 P. & M. This was an action of trespass.
319). The defendants' mines adjoined and communicated with the Sir J. HANNEN granted the application. plaintiff's; and on the surface of the defendants' land were cer Attorneys: Tuylor, Howe, Taylor', E Cocke. tain hollows and openings, partly caused by, and partly made to facilitate, the defendants' workings. Across the surface of their land there ran a watercourse. In November, 1871, the banks of the watercourse (which were sufficient for all ordinary occa- P. & M. . IN TIIE GOOD3 or Lowry.
Fub. 10. sions) burst, in consequence of exceptionally heavy rains, and
Will-Esecutor according to the Tenor-Trustee. the water escaped into and accumulated in the hollows and openings, where the rains had already caused an unusual amount Eliza Lowry, the deceased, executed a will, dated the 5th of of water to collect, and thence by fissures and cracks water February, 1873, of which the important passages wero the folpassed into the defendants and so into the plaintiff's mines. lowing: “To Eliza Ker Lawrie and her sister I give the interest doing him considerable injury. If the land had been in its of 40001. 3 per cent. Consols for their joint lives, and to the surnatural condition the water would have spread itself over the vivor for her life: if no issue then the whole 40001. to be paid to," surface and have been innocuous. The defendants were not &c. ... To Miss Jane Johnston 201. a year for life, to be paid guilty of any actual negligence in the management of their quarterly out of my Botcherley estate free from all expenses or mines.
duty whatever. I appoint Mr. Edwin Hough my sole trustee, At the trial of an action by the plaintiff to recover the damage and he is to be paid as an attorney, the same as if he were not a he had sustained, the above facts having been proved, the judge trustee of this my last will and testament." ruled that the defendants having suffered water to collect on Bayford moved for probate to be granted to Mr. Hough as their land by means of the hollows and openings to a greater executor, according to the tenor of the will. He is to be paid as extent than would have been the case if the surface had been in an attorney, and therefore there must be some duties to perits normal and unbroken condition, were absolutely liable, and form, but there are none as trustee, it must be assumed then he rejected evidence to shew that every reasonable precaution that the deceased intended he should pay her debts and legacies. had been taken to guard against ordinary emergencies. A ver- He referred to in the Goods of Punchard (Law Rep. 2 P. & M. dict was accordingly entered for the plaintiff, with leave to move | 369.) to enter a verdict for the defendants or a nonsuit. A rule to! SIR J. HANNEN considered that the duties imposed upon enter a nonsuit was afterwards obtained, or for a new trial on him were those of a trustee only, and refused the applicathe ground of misdirection and improper rejection of evidence, tion. and was (June 12, 1873) discharged by the Court below. The Attorneys: Sharp & Ullithorne. plaintiff appealed.
Holker, Q.C. (Kay, Q.C., and Baylis, with him), were for the appellant.
Herschell, Q.C. (Crompton with him), for the respondent. P. & M. IN THE GOODS OF WOTTON. Fob. 10. THE Court reversed the judgment of the Court below. They
Will-Execution-Position of Signature-15 Vict. c. 24. thought the case had been prematurely stopped, and that there ought to be a new trial.
Elizabeth Wotton, on the 26th of December, 1866, made and Attorneys for plaintiff : Helder & Kirkbank.
executed her will in the following manner :-Having obtained a Attorneys for defendants: Gregory, Rowcliffes, & Raule.
form of a will lithographed on the first side of a sheet of foolscap paper, she wrote her will on the second and third sides thereof, terminating near the bottom of the third side. The fourth side
was blank, except that there was the ordinary lithographed P. & M. IN THE GOODS OF PETCHELL. Feb. 10. endorsement on it. The lithographed form was not filled up, Will-Two Instruments culled respectively Last Will and Testament
save as to the appointment of executors and the date. The
deceased and the witnesses signed their names at the foot of -No residuary Bequest in the last.
the form on the first side. It appeared from the affidavits The deceased executed a will in which, after giving some small that the form was duly executed, and that the whole will was legacies, she left her real and personal estate to trustees in trust written before the execution. for sale, &c., and to pay her debts and the legacies bequeathed in | Inderwick moved for probate:-If the Court will consider the her will or in any codicil thereto, and the residue to her daughter second side of the paper as the first page of the will, it may conAnn Walker for her own absolute use and benefit, and she clude that the first side is the termination of the will: Ilunt y. appointed her daughter sole executrix of and residuary legatee | Hunt (Law Rep. 1 P. & M. 209). under her will. Subsequently she executed another paper, which SIR J. HANNEN held that as regards the position of the signapurported to be her last will and testament. By this, after pay. ture the execution was valid under the provisions of the statute ment of her debts and funeral expenses, she gave to her daughter, 15 Vict. c. 24. Ann Walker, all her personal and rcal property, furniture and Proctor: Goldsmith.
OSWALD (IN THE GOODS OF) (Will— Words introduced per incuriam
-Omission- Probate) . . . . . P. & M. 52
VESTRY OF THE PARISH OF MARY, ISLINGTON, APPs. : JAMES BARquity.
RETT, RESP.(Street-New Street - Liability of Owners of Houses Askew 0. ROOTH (Married Woman-Separate Estate-Savings)
for Paving a new Street, not dedicated to the Public-18 & 19 V.-C. B. 50
Vict. c. 120—25 & 26 Vict. c. 102) . . . .Q. B. 52 Beck's Case. In re Uniten Ports INSURANCE COMPANY (Wind
Whaite v. LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY COMPANY (Caring-up-Contributory) .
riers - Carriers Act (1 Wm. 4, c. 68), s. 1–“ Parcel or . . . . V.-C. B. 48
Package") . . . . . . . . Ex. 52 BRISTOL AND NORTI SOMERSET RAILWAY COMPANY v. SOMERSET AND DORSET RAILWAY COMPANY (Equitable Title - Injunc
During the sittings of the Courts THE WEEKLY NOTES will be published tion-Hearing) .
· . L. C. 45
on Saturday, and will generally comprise Notes of the Decisions up to BROJKE, Ex parle. In re Hassall (Execution Creditor – Pay.
and including those of the previous Wednesday, Au cases of permanent
interest noted herein will be reported in full in THE LAW REPORTS. ment of Part of Debt to Sheriff before Bankruptcy-Bankruptcy
Act, 1869, 83. 6, 87). . . . . L. C. & L. JJ. 45 (OLQCHOUK'S CASE. In re BRITISH AND AMERICAN TELEGRAPH
COMPANY (Winding-up-Contributory - Allotment) V.-C. B. 49 CHOSHLEY . MAYCOCK (Specific Performance - Conditional Acceptance) . . . . . . . M. R. 47 L. C.
Feb. 18. FERRAO's CASE. In re ParaguaSSU STEAM TRAM ROAD COMPANY
BRISTOL AND NORTH SOMERSET RAILWAY COMPANY v. (Paid-up Shares-Contributory-Companies Act, 1867, 8. 25)
SOMERSET AND DORSET RAILWAY COMPANY.
Equitable Title - Injunction- Hearing.
The Vice-Chancellor Malins had in this case granted on
motion an injunction to restrain the defendants from taking a francs-Principal and Agent-Brokers' Allowances—Interest
| pioco of land, on the ground that the plaintiffs by giving to the - Negligence—Jurisdiction of the Court) . . V.-C. B. 48
landowner notice to treat had become equitable owners of the KEIGHLET'S CASE. In re HOYLAKE Railway Courany (Can land, as noted ante, p. 34. The defendants appealed.
eelled Share-Acquiescence) . . . . L. JJ. 47 J. Pearson, Q.C., Speed, and Langley, for the defendants. Lise r. SEWELL (Will_Construction - Specific Bequest of Per
Cotton, Q.C., and Kekewich, for the plaintiffs.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR doubted whether the plaintiffs were sonalty "in or about” Business Premises—Purchase by Tes
equitable owners; but he thought that the question could be tator - Wheat in transitu-Death of Testator-Rights of more conveniently discussed at the hearing, and in the mean
Legatets) . . . . . . . V.-C. H. 51 time discharged the order for an injunction. LEVY E, CREIGATON (Family Arrangement—27 Eliz. c. 4-Con
Solicitors: W. Toogood; Frere & Co. ederation-Mortgagee—Priority) . . . V.-C. B. 50 LITTLED ALE's Case. In re Hoylake Railway COMPANY (Transfer of Shares –Calls unpaid-Acquiescence) . . L. JJ. 46 L. C. & L. JJ. Ex parte BROOKE.
Feb. 13. MCLEAN F. KENNARD (Contract-Deceased Partner— Executors)
In re HASSALL.
II 46 Ea ecution Creditor-Payment of Part of Debt to Sheriff before VESTER V. HOOPER'S TELEGRAPH WORKS (Company - Interested
Bankruptcy-Bankruptcy Act, 1869, ss. 6, 87. Shareholders—Majority-Frame of Suit) . . L. JJ. 46
This was an appeal by the execution creditor from a decision
of the Chief Judge (Weekly Notes, 1873, p. 220). MILLEB . HAYES (Practice-Security for Costs) , V.-C. B. 49 De Gex, Q.C., and Finlay Knight, for the appellant. PATCH . WARD (Inrolment of Decree-Cons. Ord. 28) L. JJ. 46
Little, Q.C., and Winslow, Q.C., for the trustee.
THEIR LORDSHIPS, after hearing the creditor orally examined, POWELL DCFFRYN STEAM COAL COMPANY 0. Taff VALE RAIL came to the conclusion that there had been no seizure, but a
WAY COMPANY (Railways Clauses Act, 1845, s. 92-Right to payment under such pressure as to prevent its being a fraudurua Engines over Railway-Injunction) . . L. JJ. 46 lent preference, and that the creditor was entitled to retain what
he had received. REPUBLIC OF Peru v. Ruzo (Practice-Production - Extension of
Solicitors : Williamson, Hill, & Co.; Learoyd & Learoyd. Ties-Discretion) . . . . . . L. JJ. 46 Srarse e. HODSON (Will-Bequest of “whatever money I may be
L. C. & L. JJ.
Feb. 19, possessed of"- Stock in Funds) . . . . M. R. 48
WILSON v. NORTHAMPTON AND BANBURY JUNCTION RAILWAY VILLAES, Ex parte. In re ROGERS (Bankruptcy-Seizure and Sale
COMPANY. - Payment of Proceeds to Execution Creditor - Subsequent Specific Performance-Damages-- Agreement to erect a Station. Bankruptcy-Bankruptcy Act, 1869, 8. 87) L. J. M. 47
This was an appeal by the plaintiff from a decree of ViceWHITEHOUSE 7. HORTON (Will and Codicils— Construction-Re Chancellor Bacon (ante, p. 20). rocation-Testamentary Documents) . . . V.-C. H. 51 | Eddis, Q.C., and D. Jones, for the appellant.
Kay, Q.C., (Kekewich with him), was heard upon the question WILSON . NORTHAMPTON AND BANBURY JUNCTION RAILWAY of costs only.
CODIPANY (Specific Performance — Damages — Agreement to L THEIR LORDSHIPS held that in the case of such an agreement
erecta Station) . . . . . L. C. & L. JJ. 45 as the present justice was better done by granting damages than No. 7.-1874,
specific performance. They accordingly dismissed the appeal, L. JJ. MENIER v. HOOPER'S TELEGRAPH WORKS. Feb. 21. but, to shew their disapprobation of the conduct of the defen
Company-Interested Shareholders - Majority-Frame of Suit. dants, without costs. Solicitors: Johnston, Farquhar, & Leech; Bircham & Co. 1
This was an appeal from an order of the Vice-Chancellor Bacon overruling a demarrer, as reported (ante, p. 5).
Fry, Q.C., and Millar, for Hooper's Telegraph Works. L. JJ.
Feb. 21. Fooks, Q.C., and Davey, for other defendants. POWELL DUFFRYN STEAM COAL COMPANY V, TAFF VALE Kay, Q.C., Jackson, Q.C., and Everitt, for the plaintiffs. RAILWAY COMPANY.
THEIR LORDSHIPS said that if the contention of the defendants Railways Clauses Act, 1845, s. 92–Right to run Engines over was right, and a majority of the shareholders might vote as they Railway-Injunction,
pleased, then a majority might vote to themselves all the shares This was an appeal by the plaintiffs from a decision of the of the minority. As to the objection that the company was not Vice-Chancellor Hill (IVeekly Notes, 1873, p. 227).
the plaintiff, the case of the plaintiffs was that the company reGreene, Q.C., Marten, Q.C., and Bidder, for the plaintiffs. presented by the majority were opposed to them. The appeal
Lindley, Q.C., and Cracknall, for the defendants, were not must be dismissed. called upon.
Solicitors: J. Harwood ; Wilson, Bristows, & Carpmael. THEIR LORDSHIPS held that as the plaintiffs could not run over the defendants' line without the continuous use of the points and signals, which must be under the management of the defendants, an injunction could not be granted, for that the
REPUBLIC OF PERU v. Ruzo. Feb. 25. Court could not order any one to do a perpetually recurring Practice- Production-Extension of Time--Discretion. series of acts. Tho bill, therefore, must remain dismissed ; but! The bill in this case was filed against the defendant, who had as the plaintiffs' case failed not in consequence of the plaintiffs been agent in this country for the Republic of Peru. In July last an not having the right which the bill sought to protect, but in order was made that the archives and documents in his possesconsequence of the insuperable difficulties in the way of the sion belonging to the plaintiffs should within a month be de Court granting a remedy, the decree would be varied into one posited in Court. The defendant on the allegation that he had dismissing the bill without costs.
been unable to make out a schedule of documents obtained Solicitors: Birchan & Co.; Field, Roscoe, de Co.
extensions of time, and on the 15th of February obtained from the Vice-Chancellor Hall in chambers a further extension of one
Feb. 23. From this order the plaintiffs appealed.
Dickinson, Q.C., and Cozens-Hardy, for the plaintiffs.
Lindley, Q.C., and Cracknall, for the defendant. J. R. McClean, G. Eiliot, G. Abernethy, W. B. Greenfield, and THEIR LORDSHIPS refused to interfere in such a matter with R. W. Kennard had obtained a concession or contract for the the discretion of the Vice-Chancellor, and dismissed the appeal construction of a harbour at Alexandria, in which they were with costs. jointly interested. Before the work was actually begun, R. W. Solicitors: Wadeson & Malleson ; Leslie. Kennard died, leaving his uncle, J. P. Kennard, and his sons, H. J. Kennard and E. Kennard, his executors and trustees. The other contractors at first disputed that R. W. Kennard's estate had any interest in the concession, as he was dead. Ultimately, L. JJ. In re HOYLAKE RAILWAY COMPANY. however, an agreement was drawn up, purporting to be made
LITTLEDALE'S CASE. between the other contractors of the one part, and the executors
Transfer of Shares-Calls unpaid- Acquiescence. and trustees of R. W. Kennard (leaving a blank for the names) of the other part, whereby it was agreed that the works should
This was an appeal from an order of the Vice-Chancellor be executed as therein provided, and that the executors and
Malins removing the name of Mr. Littledale from the list of contrustees should share in the profits but should be sleeping
tributories to the Hoylake and Birkenhead Railway Company, as partners only. Several parts of this agreement were executed
noted ante, p. 17. by the other contractors before the will of R. W. Kennard was
Jackson, Q.C., and Westlake, Q.C., for the appellant. proved. The will was afterwards proved by the two sons, the
Higgins, Q.C., and Bardswell, for the respondents. uncle renouncing. The other contractors then filed the bill in
THEIR LORDSHIPS dismissed the appeal with costs; they also this suit to have the agreement declared void as not having been exp
expressed their opinion that a transfer of shares on which calls made by the uncle on whom they principally relied and the were unpaid was not necessarily invalid. Vice-Chancellor Bacon made a decree accordingly.
Solicitors: Ashurst, Morris, & Co.; Chester, Urquhart, & Co.
Inrolment of Decree-Cons. Ord. 28. of R. W. Kennard was not entitled to share in the profits, but On the 16th of December, 1866, the bill in this suit was disonly to have the concession valued, and to take a share of the missed, as reported Law Rep. 3 Ch. 203. On the 21st of Novemvalue so ascertained. No doubt the interest of a deceased part-ber, 1872, the Court, on an ex parte application by the plaintiff ner was sometimes dealt with in this way, but it would not be ordered the decree to be inrolled unless cause was shewn against applicable to this case, and the estate was entitled to a share in the same within twenty-eight days after service on the defenthe profits of the contract when carried into effect. Then on the dants Ward and Vulliamy. The notice was served on Ward, who agreement it was clear that all the parties intended was that had been a defendant, and also solicitor for the other defendants the estate of R. W. Kennard should be bound by the agreement on the 2nd of December Ward died. On the 16th of January of the executors and trustees whoever they might be, and the 1873, an order for inrolment was made, the executors of Ward agreement was perfectly good when executed by the two execu- appearing by counsel, as noted Weekly Notes, 1873, p. 12. The tors who proved. The bill must be dismissed with costs. | plaintiff on proceeding to get the order drawn up discovered
Solicitors : Bircham & Co.; F. Greenfield ; Collette de Collette, | that the defendant Vulliamy had died in 1870. The plaintif
thereupon revived the snit against the executors of Ward and the the Lowther Arcade on the 30th of June, 1873, and of the furexecutors of Vulliamy, and now moved, under Cons. Ord. 28, that niture in his house at Fulham on the 4th of July. the decree might be inrolled notwithstanding the five years had On the 4th of July the sheriff sold the furniture at Fulham to elapsed.
the execution creditor, and on the 7th of July he sold the goods Morgan, Q.C., for the plaintiff.
in the shop in the Lowther Arcade to him, and executed sepaLindley, Q.C., Bevir, and Phear, for the defendants.
rate bills of sale for the goods in the two houses, which were THEIR LORDSHIPS said that the executors of Vulliamy had a duly registered. The total amount of the purchase money was right to consider the matter closed, and the plaintiff having 7011. 3s., which Villars paid by two cheques, one for 6057, 38., waited till within a month of the end of the five years had no which was the amount of the debt and costs due to himself, and right to any indulgence. The application must be refused. the other for 961., the amount of the sheriff's charges. The Solicitors: E. G. Randall ; Tamplin, Tuyler, i Joseph,
sheriff kept the cheque for 6051. 3s, till the fourteen days required by the 87th section of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, had expired, and then handed it back to Villars in satisfaction of his
debt and costs. L.JJ., In re HOYLAKE RAILWAY COMPANY. Feb. 25.
On the 1st of August following a petition for adjudication of KEIGHLEY'S CASE.
bankruptcy was presented against Rogers, and he was declared Cancelled Shares--Acquiescence.
bankrupt. This was an appeal from an order of the Vice-Chancellor
The registrar, on the application of the trustee, made an Malins removing Mr. Keighley's name from the list of contribu
order declaring that the two bills of sale to Villars were void tories to the company, on the ground that the shares held by
under the 5th sub-section of the 6th section of the Bankruptcy him had been cancelled, as noted ante, p. 18.
Act, 1869, which makes an execution for a debt exceeding 501. Jackson, Q.C., and Westlake, Q.C., for the appellant.
followed by seizure and sale an act of bankruptcy, and ordering Glasse, Q.C., and Speed, for the respondent.
Villars to give up the goods to the trustee. From this decision THEIR LORDSHIPS dismissed the appeal with costs.
Little, Q.C., and Robson, for the appellant.
THE LORD JUSTICE MELLISH said that the question entirely L.JJ.
Feb. 25. turned upon the effect of the 87th section of the Bankruptcy In re PARAGUASSU STEAM TRAMROAD COMPANY.
Act, 1869. The 5th sub-section of the 6th section of that Act FERRAO's CASE.
made the seizure and sale an act of bankruptcy, and consePaid-up Shares-Contributory-Companies Act, 1867, s. 25.
quently everything done under it would be void unless this
result was qualified by some other section. He was of opinion This company was incorporated in January, 1867, and one that the 87ĉh section was only intended to protect the sheriff in Ferrao was a holder of fifty 201. shares, on which 61. had been paving the money to the execution creditor after the fourteen paid by him. In 1869 the company was in difficulties, and an days had elapsed, and to protect the purchasers of the goods; action was brought against them by one Webb, which was
but that it did not protect the execution creditor, who took the settled on terms that the company should pay Webb 39001.;
money at his own risk, and if a bankruptcy intervened before the company were to give bills for part of the money, and for
the end of twelve months, he was liable to repay it to the trustee. the other part were to credit Ferrao with 7001, upon the fifty
e ty An alteration was made in the law in this respect by the present sbares held by him, thus making them fully paid up. The Vice- Act, for in the 73rd section of the Act of 1861 the creditor was Chancellor Bacon, under these circumstances, held that Mr.
protected in receiving the money. But there was no such Ferrao was not a contributory in respect to those shares (noted | clause in the present Act. Although therefore the creditor in ante, p. 5).
this case was entitled to keep the goods, he must hand over the The official liquidator appealed.
proceeds of the sale. The order must be varied in this respect. Jackach, Q.C., and Ingle Joyce, for the appellant.
Solicitors: G. L. Norman ; A. E. Sydney. Ray, Q.C., and Cracknall, for the respondents, were not called upon.
THEIR LORDSHIP said that they thought the case too clear. The arrangement made with Webb was equivalent to payment,
. CROSSLEY v. MAYCOCK.
Feb. 10. ind it could not have been necessary for the secretary of the company to pay Webb 7001. in bank-notes, and for him to give
Specific Performance-Conditional Acceptance. Ebem back as payment in full of his friend Mr. Ferrao's shares.
Demurrer. Their Lordships also thought that as the company had been
This was a suit by vendors for specific performance. formed before the Companies Act, 1867, came into operation, the The bill alleged that the defendants offered to purchase the provisions in that Act as to payment on shares did not apply. I plot of land in question by a letter in October, 1873, in the folThe appeal must be dismissed, with costs.
lowing terms: “We beg to submit our offer for the plot of land Solicitors: Whitakers & Woolbert; Wansey & Bowen.
[therein described], the purchase to be completed and possession given up on or before the 21st of January, 1874;" that the
plaintiffs sent the following answer to the defendants, dated the Ex parte VILLARS.
27th of October, 1873:“We are in receipt of your note offering In re ROGERS,
us 21. per yard for the plot of land called the Brickfield, which
offer we accept, and now hand you two copies of conditions of Bankruptcy-Seizure and Sale-Payment of Proceeds to Execution
sale, which we have signed, we will thank you to sign same and Creditor - Subsequent Bankruptcy — Bankruptcy Act, 1869,
return one of the copies to us;" that the conditions of sale
referred to in the above letter were prepared in duplicate, signed This was an appeal from a decision of Mr. Registrar Spring by the plaintiffs, and enclosed with the letter to the defendants, Bize acting as chief judge.
and after reciting that the plaintiffs had agreed to sell and the | J. Rogers was a dealer in fancy goods in the Lowther Arcade, defendants to buy the piece of land therein described, various nd had a private residence at Fulham. W. J. Villars recovered stipulations were therein contained as to the delivery of the udgment against him for 6001., and sued out a writ of execu- abstract, the time when objections should be made to the title, ion. The sheriff took possession of the goods in his shop in and the time when the purchase should be completed ; that the
defendants did not sign the agreement embodying the condi- General Insurance Company” was forwarded to the Progress tions of sale, and subsequently repudiated the contract.
shareholders, including Mr. Beck, and the same was, on the 24th The bill prayed that the contract contained in the two letters of July, returned signed by Mr. Beck, who enclosed his scrip cermight be specifically performed.
tificates in the Progress Company. The defendants demurred, and the question was whether the A special board meeting of the United Ports was held on the contract contained in the two letters was binding on the defen- 3rd of August, 1869, after the order staying the compulsory dants, or whether, by reason of the reference to the conditions of winding-up of the Progress, and shares (including 200 to Beck) of sale, it was conditional on the defendants' approval of such were allotted to the various Progress shareholders. Notice of conditions.
allotment (varying in terms from the form of application) was Southgate, Q.C., and North, for the defendants, in support of sent, and Beck's name was entered on the register of members of demurrer.
the United Ports as the holder of 200 shares, and so continued Fry, Q.C., and Jolliffe, for the bill.
until the 6th of November, 1869, when the order was made for THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS held, upon the construction of winding up the United Ports. the letters, that there was only a conditional acceptance and no Beck wrote on the 10th of August, the 27th of October, and final contract between the parties, and that the demurrer must and again on the 8th of November, requesting and insisting be allowed.
that the certificates for the 200 shares allotted to him should be Solicitors for the plaintiffs : Bower & Cotton, agents for F. Jubb, sent to him, but without getting any answer. Halifax.
The attempted amalgamation has been held to be null and Solicitors for the defendant: Pritchard, Englefield, & Co., agents void by the Lords Justices in Wynne's Case (Law Rep. 8 Ch. for Grundy & Kershaw, Manchester.
1002), and the question now raised was, whether by subsequent conduct Beck had adopted the terms of the letter of allotment so as to make himself liable for the 200 shares.
Eddis, Q.C., and Brooksbank, for the official liquidator :M. R. SPRING v. HODSON.
Feb. 21 | Admitting that there has been no valid amalgamation, yet as Will— Bequest of "whatever money I my be possessed of "'--Stock Beck's name was on the register of members for three months in Funds.
with his full knowledge and assent, and not only without Testator made the following bequest: “I bequeath whatever
any repudiation on his part, but with repeated applications for money I may be possessed of in case of my decease to my three
the certificates of the shares allotted to him, he is liable for sisters, Mary, Sarah, and Elizabeth Hodson in equal shares, with
them as a contributory under the winding-up. the exception of 2001.," which he gave as in his will mentioned.
Jackson, Q.C., and Graham Hastings, for Beck, contended that the The will contained no o!her residuary bequest.
allotment of shares was made on the footing of an arrangement The testator at the date of his will and at the time of his
which was never completed or carried out (the invalid amalgadeath was possessed of some cash, and money at his bankers, and
mation), and that as there was no valid contract, no repudiation was also entitled to 6131. New 31. per Cent. Appuities.
was necessary. His application was for shares in a limited comThe question arose on a bill filed by the two surviving sisters pany, and after the letter of allotment there was no evidence of of the testator for the administration of the estate, whether the
anything that could bind Mr. Beck to take shares in an unlimited sum of stock passed under the words “ whatever money I may company. be possessed of.”
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR said that it had never yet been Bardswell, for the plaintiffs.
decided that if persons without authority and unlawfully Jason Smith, for the representatives of a deceased sister.
entered a man's name on a list of shareholders, and then told
Beck Sir R. Baggallay, Q.C., and Kingdon, for the next of kin of the bim of the entry, that he was bound if he did nothing. testator.
sent in his application for shares, which he had been told would THE MASTER OF THE ROLLs held that the sum of stock did not
be granted on certain terms. He received a letter of allotment pass under the bequest.
by which the shares were subject to quite different terms as to Solicitors: Burton, Yeates, & Hart; Roscoe, Hincks, & Sheppard;
the amount with which he was to be credited. Very naturally Robinson & Preston.
he replied, “ send me the certificates," which would express not only the title of the shareholder, but the amount paid and to be
paid. If the certificates had been sent he would have known V.-C. B. In re UNITED PORT3 INSURANCE COMPANY. Feb. 11.
whether to accept or repudiate the shares. Till he saw the BECK'S CASE.
certificates he could not tell whether he was properly on the
register or not. It had been contended, that as he had taken Winding-up-Contributory.
no steps to repudiate the shares, which he was told had been Application by official liquidator of the United Ports Insurance allotted to him, he was bound. But there was no contract. He Company that Mr. Beck might be settled on the list of contribu- l had done positively nothing but ask for the certificates, as until tories as the holder of 200 shares.
he read them he could not ascertain the terms on which he was In June, 1869, negotiations took place for a transfer of the to become a shareholder. That opportunity was not given to business of the Progress Iusurance Company to the United Ports him, and the case was simply that of an application for shares Company. The Progress Company was at this time in difficul- on terms which had not been acceded to. The application of the ties, and on the 26th of June, 1869, an order was made for winding official liquidator must therefore be refused. it up compulsorily, but on the application of the shareholders, Solicitors: A. Pulbrook; Beck. with a view to carrying out the transfer, an order staying proceedings under the compulsory winding-up and allowing a voluntary winding-up under supervision was obtained on the v.-C. B.
Feb. 18. 30th of July, 1869.
GREAT WESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY v. CUNLIFFE. In July, 1869, Beck (who was the holder of 40 shares in the Progress Company) and the other Progress shareholders, re
Marine Insurance—Principal and Agent-Brokers' Allowancesceived a notice of the arrangements, by which holders of fully
Interest — Negligence—Jurisdiction of the Court. paid-up shares of 51. each in the Progress were to receive in Plaintiffs, a marine insurance company at New York, employed exchange five fully paid-up shares of ll. each in the United Ports. the defendants, a London firm, as their agents. It being the
A form of application for shares, headed “ Progress Assurance practice of underwriters when marine insurance business is conCompany (Limited) amalgamated with the United Ports and ducted on the "credit” system to allow to the broker a reduc