페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

a sale of the property hod been effected: Held, that the property must be treated as personalty and sold, and the income arising from the proceeds of B.'s moiety paid to her husband for life: (Sharp v. De. St. Sauveur, 20 L. T. Kep. N. S. 799. V.C. S.)

ELEMENTARY PRECEDENTS IN CONVEYANCING, (o) A Collection of practical Forms designed for professional Use, and suited to the Emergencies of actual Practice, witli Notes.

(Continued fro m page 22S.)

PRECEDENTS. Powers Of Attorney. 113. Power of attorney from owner as to sale and management of a merchant vessel. Know all men by these presents, that I, A. B., of, Ac, do hereby nominate, constitute, and appoint C. D., of, &c., to be my true and lawful attorney for me, and in my name, or in his own name or otherwise, to remove the present master Y. Z., of tho ship [or barque] or vessel called the ,

or any seaman or officer on board the said vessel; and from time to time to appoint any other master, seamen, or officers, to the same vessel upon such terms as to my said attornoy shall seem fit. And also to demand and reoeivo of and from the present or any future master of the said Teasel, or from the ottioers thereof, or any other person or persons whom it may concern, the certificate of registry, log-books, and other papers and documents of or relating to the said vessel; and all papers, documents, goods, chattels, and effects which now are or hereafter may become due, owing, payable, or deliverable by or from the master, officers, or crew of the said vessel or any of them. And upon receiving the same to give proper receipts therefor. And to receive from any person or persons liable to pay the saire, all freight and earnings of tho said vessel, and to give proper discharges for the same, and for obtaining possession of tho said vessel, or, on non-payment or nondelivery of any of the premises, to commence and prosecute all such suits, actions, or legal proceedings as he or they may think expedient. And also to appear to and defond any suits or actions against the sail vessel or her owner, and also to receive from any person or persons to whom the same vessel may be sold, the purchase moneys for the same, and to give proper receipts for such moneys, and generally to do all such other acts deeds, matters, and things in and about tho premises as amply as I could do if personally present, I hereby binding myself to ratify and confirm whatsoever shall be lawfully done by virtue hereof. In witness, Ac.

113* Power of attorney from cestui que trust to two persons to act in respect of his share and interest under a vrill.

To all to whom theee presents shall come, I, A. B., of, Ac., send greeting. Whereas I am entitled, under the will of Y. Z-, late of, Ac , to a certain share and interest of and in the estate and effects of the said Y. Z., who died on or about, Ac. And whereas, being about to leave England and to reside abroad for some time, I am desirous of appointing C. D. and E. F., of, 4c., my attorneys, to act for me during my absence in respect of the said share and interest in manner hereinafter appearing. Now, know ye, that for divers good causes and considerations me hereunto moving, and for effectuating the said desire and purposes aforesaid, I do hereby nominate, constitute, and appoint the said C. D., and E. F., and each of them, my true and lawful attorneys and attorney from time to time, and at all times hereafter until the authority herein given shall be expressly revoked by writing under my hand indorsed on these presents for mo, and in my name, place, and stead, to ask, demand, receive, and take possession of all moneys or property whatsoever whioh now are, or at any time or times hereafter shall or may be due, owing, payable, belonging, or coming to me from the trustees and executors, or other the representatives or representative for the time being of the said Y. Z. deceased, or from any other person or persons whomsoever, for or on account, or in respect of, my share and interest of and in the estate and effects of the said Y. Z. deceased, and whether testamentary, distributive, specific, residuary, or otherwise. And on receiving or obtaining payment, possession, or delivery thereof, or of any part thereof, to give effectual receipts, acquittances, releases, and discharges for the same. And also to commence, institute, and prosecute any actions, suits, or other proceedings, either at law or in equity, against the said trustees and executors representatives or representative, or any other person or persons, on aocount or in respect of tho premises. And to defend any actions, suite, or other

(a.) By TuomiS WiutwiOK, Esq., Liverpool.

proceedings which may be commenced against me in respect of the premises, or to compromise the same, and to call for, and demand the production of, all proper accounts, statements, and inventories of the estate and effects of the said Y. Z., deceased, from tho said trustees and executors, or other person or persons aforesaid, and, if necessary, to institute proceedings for compelling the produc tion or delivery thereof. And to state, settle, adjust, and agree to all accounts and reckonings which are now, or which shall at any time or times hereafter be subsisting or unsettled between me and the said trustees and executors, or other person or persons aforesaid. And also for mo, and in my name, place, and stead, and as my act and deed, to sign, seal, make, and execute any ordinary or special release in the law to the said trustees and executors, representatives or representative, or other person or persons aforesaid for, or in reopect of the trust and executorship accounts relating to the estate of the said Y. Z., deoeased, or for or in respect of the acts of the said trustees and executors, or other person or persons aforesaid in relation thereto, and generally to act in the premises as fully and effectually to all intents and purposes as I the said A. B. could do if personally present and did the same, I hereby giving and granting to my said attorneys and to each of them my full and absolute power and authority in the premises, hereby ratifying, allowing, and confirming, and undertaking to ratify, allow, and confirm all and whatsoever my said attorneys or either of them Bhall lawfully do or cause to be done in or about the premises by virtue of these presents; and I hereby declare that the power and authority hereby given shall bo and continue valid and effectual for all the purposes aforesaid, wheresoever I shall happen to be, and notwithstanding that I may from time to time hereafter return to and depatt from England before the said purposes and objects have boon completely fulfilled. In witness, Ac.

114. Power of attorney from partners to recover debt due from a foreign firm.

Know all men by these presents that we, A. B. and C. D„ of, Ac., trading under the style or firm of A. B. and Co., do for divers good causes and considerations us hereunto moving hereby make, constitute, and appoint Y. Z., of the firm of Y. Z. and Co., of, Ac, our true and lawful attorney for us and in our names, or in the name of our said attorney as occasion may require, but for our use and benefit, to ask, demand, sue for, arrest, attach, recover, and receive of and from Messrs. M. N. and Co., of Ac, and the person or persons respectively constituting or composing the said firm, all and every debt and debts, sum and sums of money due aud owing to us from or by the said Messrs. M. N. and Co., or the person or persons constituting or composing the said firm on any account whatsoever. And also all and every goods, merchandise, chattels, estate, effects, and property whatsoever belonging to us in the hands, custody, or possession of the said firm of M. N. and Co., or any of the persons constituting or composing the said firm, or any of their principals, agents, clerks, or servants. And upon receipt or possession of the said debts, money, goods, and effects, or of any dividend, composition, or satisfaction for the same, or any part thereof, for us and in our names or in the name of our said attorney to give, sign, and execute good and sufficient receipts, releases, acquittances, and discharges for the same. And on refusal to pay or deliver, or on non-payment or non-delivery of what shall appear to be justly dne, payable, or belonging to us from or by the said Messrs. M. N. and Co., or the person or persons constituting or composing the said firm, or any of such person or persons respectively for us, and in our names, or in the name of our said attornoy, to take, use, institute, and prosecute with effect all proper, needful, and necessary, legal, or equitable ways and means for recovering and compelling payment and delivery thereof, and also to resist and defend any actions, suits, or proceedings that may be commenced, instituted, or prosecuted against us, or against our said attorney, or any of our said property, moneys, estates, or effects. And also to compound, submit to arbitration, or otherwise agree to all or any such accounts, reckonings, and transactions. And for effecting all or any of such objects, to enter into and make and execute any deeds of composition, bonds of arbitration, or other instruments for referring such accounts, reckonings, and transactions, to tho decision of any person or persons to be chosen for tho purpose. And for all or [any of the purposes aforesaid, an attorney or attorneys under him, the said Y. Z. from time to time to appoint, and again at pleasure to revoke such appointment, and to substitute others, as to bur said attorney shall seem meet. And generally to do, transact, and manago for us in the premises as fully and effectually to all intents and purposes w hatsoever, as we ourselves or either of us might do if personally present. We, the said A. B. and C. D., hereby undertaking to ratify and confirm all lawful acts and matters to be done

under the authority herein contained. (•) ], witness, Ac.

Reckipts.(o)

114*. Receipt for pm-chase-money of ited-i*.

and effects.

Received the day of 18 , from lb. A B. [purchaser], the sum of £ , the full porcha«! money as agreed for the several articles of household furniture, stock-in-trade, and other effects particularly specified in the inventory at foot, tha day delivered by me to the said A. B., all whioh prt. mises ore my own property and are unincumbered. And I undertake to execute any further assuraooe of the premises the said A. B. may require it hit expenso and request.

C. D. [vendor.] [The inventory referred to.]

115. Receipt for composition on debt and undertaking to execute release.

Received the day of 18 , from Mi.

A. B. [debtor], by payment of Mr. Y. Z., his solid tor, the sum of £ , being a composition of in the pound on the amount of my debt of £ against the said A. B., and in full discharge of the same(c). And I undertake, upon request, to atcute to the said A. B., but at his own expense, t complete release and discharge for my said debt CD. [creditor.] 116. Receipt for composition paid by (rosier wi undertaking by creditors to execute release.

We the undersigned, creditors of A. B., of ic. [debtor] do hereby severally acknowledge to hart received from Mr. Y. Z., of, Ac., the trustee acting under a deed of composition, dated, Ac, tin several sums of money placed opposite our respective names in the second column hereunder written being a composition of in the pound

upon the amount of our respective debts again?t theestate of the said A. B. mentioned opposite on names in the first column hereunder written, ud we severally undertake and agree to save hamless the said Y. Z. from all claims and demand; for distributing the estate and paying us the said sums respectively not exceeding the sums so paid by him to ns respectively, and wo hereby dUchaife the said Y. Z. from all claims in respect of ha trust under the said deed of composition.

cvl-.ii:.:.

First column.

Secoadc

[blocks in formation]

117. Receipt for dividend paid by trusted i deed of assignment to creditors.

We, the undersigned creditors of A. B., of Ac. [debtor], do hereby severally acknowledge to have received from Messrs. W. X. * X. /. , th trustees acting under a duly registered deed of assignment, dated, &c, for the benefit of creditors of the said A. B., the several Bums mentioned a the second column hereunder written, being a first and final dividend [or, as tl\e case may be] of in tho pound on the amount of our respective debta against the estate of the said A. B. mentioned and set opposite our respectivo names in the first column hereunder written. And we hereby d» charge the said W. X. and Y. Z. from all claims, accounts, and demands in respect of their trad under the same deed.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

118. Receipt by mortgagee /or deeds.

I hereby acknowledge that I have received froi

Mr. A. B., of, &c. [^mortgagor] the several deed

and writings mentioned at the foot hereof, and

undertake to keep the same whole and uncanceUe

(a) Powers of attorney, such as the preceding, *r liable to a stamp duty of 11. 10k., bnt if for use obre* the stamp (if any) will be regulated by the reran laws of the country wherein the power is to be « ercised, on the general principle that no country takf cognisance of the revenue laws of a foreign state, an see J<itrw« v. Catfcenpood, 3 D. & E. 190. In practice * believe powers are frequently seat out purposely ui B tamped. See, however, BrisUnc v. S«ctrti«vd*>, IB L. < 289, Ex., as to possible risk resulting from such course.

(b) A mere acknowledgment of payment, nowevi formal, if not under seal, is not conclusive; aodthi even if the parties agree l»etween theUiselves tfcat shall bo so: (Foster v. Dtucher, 20 L. J. 385, Ex.) So U1 where an estoppel is desired a deed infer port* shou be need.

(c) See Norman v. Thompson, 4 Ex.755; TaOoot Smith, 6 Ring. 330.

(unless prevented by fire or other inevitable acoiict), and to return the same to him, his heirs [or executors, administrators] or assigns, on payment ij tht1 principal money and interest owing to me, should no sale or transfer of the property take place in the mean-time. ,

Dated the day of , 18 .

C. D. [mortgagee]. [Bert insert particulars of deeds.']

IB. Steeipt by legatee for share of residuary estate. Be■ ivi d the day of , 18 , from the

osmturs of A. B., late of, &o. [testator] deceased, tit- ram of X , being a share of the

nstdae of his estate, to which I am entitled as mo of the of the said A. B., and I hereby

fa'tarre the said execntors from all claims and irands so far as I am personally concerned in mpcct of their trust and executorship, and I unjcrUk, npon request to execute to them a full ad complete release and discharge.

C. D. [legatee]. 130. Receipt for moneys secured upon mortgage and undertaking to transfer, Besrived from Messrs. A. B. A C. D., of, Ac., [mtetulcd transferees] by payment oi Mr. Y. Z., tasr attorney, £ , behrt the full principal (all interest having b jn paid) due by E. F., ■artgage, dated, Ac, of property in street, to oar client, Mr. G. H. [mortgagee], which __■ we are duly authorised to receive on his j Waif, and we deliver up the deeds to the above1 nmed Mr. V. '/. . and undertake that the said KH. shall, at the request and expense of the said BUrtgagor, transfer the said debt and premises to •.aid A. B. and C. D. Dated the day of 18 .

M. & N. [mortgagee's solicitors].

JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES' LAW JOURNAL.

ROTES OF NEW DECISIONS. Wpdisg-up—Suit Bt Liquidator— Liabi* nrt Of Directors.—Suit by official liquidator ■[ of» bulking company against certain living dire-dors, and the representatives of deceased «5ittior8 of the company, seeking to make them table for the following breaches of trust: —1. Sit the directors had, contrary to the provisions of the deed of settlement of the company lihich was established in 1836 under the profawns of the Act 7 Geo. 4, c. 46), continued to •ny on business after a certain fund called the surplua fund," and one-fourth of the apiiai of the company had been lost. 2. That •key had paid dividends out of capital. 3. That fcrhad also, contrary to the provisions of the of settlement, allowed certain of the to unduly to overdraw their accounts. 4. they had issued false balance-sheets, and ise misrepresented the affairs of the iy. As to the publication of faUe Kheets, and including in them debts were hopelessly bad, it was difficult to where a debt was hopeless; and, besides, 'shareholder was deceived into buying he might have his separate remedy, but would have a different case, and the whole could not sue. As to the dividends, the could not order the directors to pay I over again to the shareholders. As not stopping of the bank, it appeared that more than one-fourth of the capital was in 1842, when the shareholders resolved to o, and the directors could not, therefore, be liable for not calling a meeting and stopthe bank immediately after the sharehad resolved to go on. As to the loan of the directors, no case was made on the mly statement on that subject being directors bad improperly included that the assets. If the money had been ly advanced the directors might be with it in the winding-up. Bill disbut without costs : ( Turquand v. Marshall, T. Rep. N. S. 766. L. C.)

Clauses Act, 8. 92—Part Ok Pre-Where a railway company has id to take the whole of certain pre"of part only, the court will compel pany to take the necessary steps for ining the value of the part not taken: Hbm V. The London, Chatham, and Dover Railw». 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 773. V.C. J.)

Wm»nro-0P—Sub-agentSalaryCalls. —An agent in a colony was appointed by a hunted liability company for five years, at a *I«T of 760/. per annum, for business to be we in the colony, with commissions on remit

tances from thence. Ho was to pay up at once 2/. per share on fifty shares of lOOt each, and the company agreed to place 8/. per share to his debit on account of calls to be made on the shares. The agent arrived in the colony in Dec. 1865. The company was ordered to be woundup under supervision in Jan. 1868, and the services of the agent were put an end to by a power of attorney of the company, and the liquidators upon certain terms of compromise. The liquidators having, in the course of their continued employment of the agent, become indebted to him, and having entered into the compromise, were not allowed to enforce against him the payment of a call made under the winding-up without bringing the debt due to him into account. Ytlland~s case, L. Hep. 4 Eq. 350, considered and followed: {Clarke's case, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 774. V.C. J.)

Power To Official Liquidator To ComPromise.—A company having been formed for the construction of a railway in Portugal, the government of that country seized the property of the company and the railway while it was in course of construction, alleging that it was entitled to do so in consequence of the company not having fulfilled its engagements. The Portuguese Government subsequently entered into negotiations for a compromise, and a liquidator having been appointed under a compulsory winding-up, power was given to him by the court, under sect. 96 of the Companies Act 1862, to act without the sanction of the court, on the ground that, under the special circumstances of the case, it was desirable that the liquidator should be armed with summary powers. It was subsequently moved on behalf of certain creditors that this order should be varied so far as it conferred upon the official liquidator power to compromise claims without the sanction of the court, on the ground that such a power was beyond the terms of the Act, and also that the compromise which the liquidator was about to effect was unsatisfactory: Motion refused with costs: (fie South-Eastern Railway, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 800. V.C. M.)

MARITIME LAW

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. Master's WagesMaster Owner Of Half Vessel And Cargo.— F. and S., both residing at Halifax, N.S., were the owners each of a moiety of the cargo and ship Joseph Dexter. F. (as it was alleged) mortgaged his moiety to S. The ship sailed in Nov. 1808, from that port, F. being the master thereof. After so sailing, S. assigned his own moiety and the other moiety, of which he was, as he alleged, mortgagee, to B., of Liverpool, who, on the arrival of the ship at Cork, ordered F. to take her round to Liverpool. F. declined to obey that order, on the ground that he, F., was the owner of a moiety of cargo and ship, and he denied in strong language in a letter to B. that he had mortgaged his moiety to S. The ship and cargo were arrested by order of the Admiralty Court, and sold, at a price insufficient to cover the expenses. Held, that F. was entitled to his wages as master earned on board the ship, even though he were part owner thereof, and that the owner of the other moiety must pay him a moiety of such wages. Held, also, that the conduct of F., and the strong language used by him towards B., if even B. were the owner of the entire of the ship and cargo, were not such as to cause F. to forfeit his wages under the circumstances: (The Joseph Dexter, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 820, Adm. (Ireland).

RECENT AMERICAN DECISIONS.

Freight.—The abandonment of goods sunk in transitu to underwriters, and a receipt of the sum insured as for a total loss, followed by the underwriters taking possession of the goods, the carriers being ready and willing to complete the transportation, may be found by the jury to be an acceptance of the goods by the owner at the place of loss, entitling the carriers to freight pro rain: {McKibbin V. Peck, 39 N. Y. 262.)

General Average.—A vessel fell in with a ship in a sinking condition. To save the lives of the ship's passengers and crew, the master of the vessel consented to receive them; but as it was necessary to throw overboard part of his cargo to make room for them, he began to do so so before any of them came on board, and continued it while they were coming on board until room enough was made. The owner of the

vessel sued the insurers for a contribution to general average for the above jettison: Held, that he could not recover (Chapman and Foster, JJ., dissenting): {Dabney v. New England Mutual Ins. Co., 14 All. 300.)

Insurance.—Denial of all liability on a policy on the ground that the loss was not from a peril insured against, is a waiver of proof of loss required in the policy, as also of an allowance therein to the insurers of sixty days in which to pay. A steamer insured against loss by fire was run into by another vessel, which caused her to fill with water, which forced the fire from her furnaces and the fire burned so much of the woodwork that she sank, which she would not have done but for the lire. Held, that the insurers were liable for the loss, except the immediate results of the collision. (U. S. Circuit Court); {Norwich Sr N. Y. T. Co. v. Western Mass. Ins. Co., 34 Conn. 56H

Furniture was insured "free of particular average " (which was taken to mean "against total loss only "). During the voyage the vessel was wrecked and condemned, and said goods were transshipped, parts of sets into one vessel, and parts into another. One of the said vessels was lost with its cargo, the other arrived safely. Held, that the insurers were liable for the goods lost: {Pierce v. Columbian Ins. Co. 14 All. 320).

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL

JULY EXAMINATION On Hie Suhjects o) the Lectures and Classes of the

Readers of the Inns of Court, held at Lincoln's

inn Hall, on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd July 1869.

The Council of Legal Education have awarded the following exhibitions to the under-mentioned students, of the value of thirty guineas each, to endure for two years.

Constitutional Laic and Legal History.—Thomas Front Webb, Esq., Student of Lincoln's-inn.

Jurisprudence, Civil and International Ixiw.— Archibald Brown, Esq., student of the Middle Templo.

Equity.—Charles Henry Turner, Esq., student of Lincoln's-inn.

Tlie Common Law.—Henry Hodgson Brcznner, Esq., student of the Inner Temple.

The Law of Real Property, Sfc.—Charles Henry Turner, Esq., student of Lincoln's-inn.

The Council of Legal Education have also awarded tho following exhibitions, of the value of twenty guineas each, to endure for two years, but to merge on the acquisition of a superior exhibition:

Equity.—Henry Charles Deano, Esq., student of Lincoln's-inn.

The Common Law.—George Welby King, Esq., student of Gray's-inn.

The Law of Real Property, Sec.—Henry Charles Dcane, Esq., student of Lincoln's-inn.

By Order of tho Council,

(Signed) Edward Ryan,

Chairman pro tern. Council Chamber, Lincoln's-inn, 15th July 1869.

COUNTY COURTS.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. CostsAction Of Tort—Slander.—Sect 5 of the County Court Act 1867 (30 & 31 Vict, c. 142), which provides "that the plaintiff in an action of tort who recovers a sum not exceeding ten pounds shall net be entitled to any costs of suit, unless the judge certify on the record that there was sufficient reason for bringing the action in the Superior Court, or unless the court or a judge at chambers shall, by rule or order, allow such costs," applies to all actions of tort, whether they are such as can be commenced in a County Court ornot: {Sampson v. Mackay, 20 L. T. Rep. N.S. 807. Q. B.)

TOWCESTER COUNTY COURT.

Monday July 5.

(Before Francis Mctaogabt, Esq., Judge.)

Atres V. Abnold.

ExecutorLiability for funeral expenses.

This was a case heard at the last court, on which

His Honour reserved judgment.

His Honour now delivered judgment as follows: —In this case tho plaintiff had been housekeeper to Joseph Arnold. He made his will, dated 7th May, 1861*. appointing one Joseph Gaybell executor, and leaving all his property to the plaintiff. The will was not executed in the presence of witnesses, as required by 1 Vict., c. 26; but was Bent, after execution, to two persons residing at a distance from the testator, who then attested tho will. The result of this strange irregularity was, of course, that, in law, there was no will and no executor: Bo that any person intermeddling with the effocts would bo an executor de son tori, and not a mere trespasser. Tne plaintiff, npon the death of tho testator, gave orders for tho funeral, which orders were carried out. Tho testator's son afterwards, learning that the will was invalid, took possession of and intermeddled with the testator's effects, to an extent which I held mode him an executor de son. tort. Tho plaintiff then sued him for wages which she alleged were owing to her from the testator at tho time of his death, and for the f nneral expenses in question, for which the undertaker has recovered judgment against her in this court, although nothing has yet been paid under the judgment. I was of opinion, at the trial, that her claim for the wages foiled; not (as was erroneously reported) on tho ground that sho would not have had a right of action against tho defendant if she could have proved her claim, but on tho ground that Bho had not succeeded in proving it. The funeral expenses were proved to havebeen incurred; and tho liability of tho dofendant for them (which would bo tho sanio as that of a rightful executor) depends upon one or two points which it may be worth while to notice. Tho doctrine, which must now be held to bo established, that an executor who gives no orders for the funeral of the testator, and who has assets sufficient for that purpose, is liable (personally—Seo Corner v. Shew, 3 M. <t W., 350) to anyone who, even without the executor's knowledge, furnishos the funeral, up to an amount suitable to tho testator's degreo and circumstances, is a doctrine which it is certainly difficult to reconcile with the principles of tho common law. In fact, tho earliest dictum upon the point—that of Lord Holt, Ash ton v. Sherman (Holt 309) is directly tho other way. "If A. employs B. to work for C., without warrant from C, A. is liable to pay for it; an executor is not liable to pay for funeral expenses unless he oontracts for them." But in more recent cases tho Courts of Common Law have held that an implied contract on the port of tho executor to pay for funeral expenses incurred under these circumstances arises from the obligation imposed upon him by law with reference to his character and the estate of the deceased. In Rogers v. Price (3 Y. 4 J. 28), the judgment was put mainly on that ground; though it was also put by Vaughan B. (as by Lord EUenborough in tho previous Nisi Priuscasoof Tuo'irrll v. ffryman, 3 Campb. 298) on tho ground of necessity. It has been held, similarly, that a husband is liable for the expenses incurred in burying his wife, during his absence, by a third partv: (JeiiKns v. Tucker 1 H. Bl. 90: Ambrose v. A'crrisnii. IOC. B. 77(J.) But those decisions, like the decision that a husband who wrongfully turns away his wifo without giving her a sufficient allowance, is liable to a person who supplies her with necessaries, seem to be based rather on considerations of equity and necessity (notwithstanding Lord Mansfield's observations upon the last of these doctrines, in Ozard v. Darnford. 1 Selw. N.P.), than on any clear principle of law. It is difficult to see how any implied authority or promise to pay to a third party arises from tho mere neglect of the obligation of tho executor towards Ins testator, or of tho husband towards his wife. The obligation of each is one for tho non-performance of which he may bo visited in some shape or othor by the law; but, us was urged by the late Mr. Justice Maulo (then at the bar), in his very able argument in Roijers v. Price, it does not follow that tie neglect of even a legal duty makes tho person neglecting it liable, on an implied promise, to reimburse a third party who gratuitously intervenes and performs that duty for him. Bclinnoe was placed by tho oonrt, in giving judgment in Rogers v. Price, upon the case of £i»i»ioiu v. Wilnwtt, 3 Esp. 91, in which parish officers wcro held liable for the expensos incurred by a private person, not a parishioner, in taking euro of a casual pauper for whom the officers were bonnd to provide. But. in the first place, it is doubtful whether the duty of an executor to bury the testator, though no doubt an urgent dutv, is not rather in the nature of a trust than of a positive legal obligation like the obligation of parish officers, and, secondly, whether even the doctrine that a positivo logal obligation renders tho party bound liable, on an implied promise, to those who voluntarily, and not by compulsion of law, undertake that to which he is legally compellable, is not a:ainst tho rules of law with respect to implied promises, which are fully laid down in the notes to Lampleigh v. Braithwaite, 1 Sm. L C. 118. Take the case of a railway company, bound by statnte to maintain sufficient fences along their railway. Could it be contended that their neglect to keep the fences in repair would raise an implied promise on their port to pay for the expenses voluntarily incurred by come one else, not even damaged by the neglect, in repairing them? Howover, the doctrine that an executor is liable under these oircumstonce is one which, though it has been much questioned (especially by the Court of Exchequer, in Corner v. Sheir), has never been expressly overruled, and must be held to be law; and my remarks have not been mode with a view

of questioning the equity and expediency of tho doctrine, but only for the purpose of showing what is its nature laid probable origin, and that, though it is now a rule of law, it cannot be said to rest upon a strictly legal foundation. An objection was mado by tho court in Price v. Wilson, 3 Nev. & M. 512. which is material to the present case, namely, that "there is no case which goes the length of deciding that if the funeral be ordered by another person, to whom credit is given, the executor is liable." But in the subsequent case of Green v. Salmon, 8 A. and E. SIS, Patterson J. says, "The judgment" in Brxicc v. Wilson " probably means that tho executor, whon credit has been given to another, is not liable to the undertaker. If it lays down more, the law stated is extrajudicial." And that is the view taken in Williams on Executors (part 4., book 2, chap. 2), namely, that if the person to whom credit is given pays the undertaker, such person may have an action against tho executor for reasonable expenses. Now in the present case it was admitted that the funeral hud been supplied on the credit of the plaintiff; and the question therefore is. whother sho is in a position to sue the defendant for money paid to his use at his (implied) request. I consider that she is not entitled to do so until sho has actually paid the money due from her under the judgment obtained against her in respect of the expenses in question. Her more liability to pay them is not sufficient to give her a right to sue; she has, therefore, brought her action prematurely and I must direct a nonsuit, unless the parties come to some arrangement.

Swanska County Court.—But few men have worked with greater assiduity in the discharge of their public official duties and given greater satisfaction to all with whom they nave come in contact, than Mr. John Jones, the deputy-registrar of tho Swansea County Court. Almost from the establishment of the court has Mr. Jones been in connection therewith in some form or other, whilst for the past thirteen years he has discharged with singular aptitude and ability the onerous duties of his present post. Under his personal superintendence tho whole of the office-work of the large and rapidly increasing business of tho court has been conducted in the most satisfactory manner. One would have thought that this efficient and zealous disohargo of duty in so important a publio office would have received some corresponding mark of recognition and appreciation. But it is not so. On tho 1st of October next, Mr. Jones will be superseded in his office—removed after a servitude of thirteen years to make room for a son of the present chief registrar. Mr. Jones does not resign his office, as the Western Mail informs its readers. The fact is as we have stated. Mr. Jones has no option—tho registrar exercising the legal right vested in him, uses that right in the displacement of Mr. Jones to moke room for his own son. Wo have not ono word to say in disparagement of the young gentleman about to be appointed in Mr. | Jones's place—possibly he will discharge the oneri ous duties of the office with satisfaction; but we cannot help remarking that the manner in which Mr. Jones, an able and valuable official, is treated after so many years of hard and honest work is not that which will meet with public approval. 'Wo con only add that we feel confident that all ! who have any connection with the County Court will deeplv regret the severance about to be made. —Tltc Cambrian.

BANKRUPTCY LAW

LIVERPOOL BANKRUPTCY COURT.

Tues^hll|, July I}.

Re William Rok Dunstan.

Bankruptcy Act 1861, sect. 168.

Jurisdiction of court to reopen the question of the

allowance of an order of discharge: Held, where discharge is granted with certain con

ifitions annexed, the court has no power to

modify or vary the same.

An application involving the moot question of the power of the court to alter the conditions attached to an order of discharge was heard, and argued by Frnns and Christopher Cheshire, solicitors, a few days since, and judgment reserved till this day.

His Honour now said: An order of discharge was granted by this court on March 7, 1S64. to William Roe Dunstan, attorney - at - law, and coroner for the southern division of the county of Chester, subject to the condition that he should pay from his income as coroner an annual sum of 60(. towards the liquidation of all debts owing at the time of his adjudication, on the ground that at the time when he contracted certain debts he had no reasonable or probable ground of expectation of being able to pay the same. An application, supported by affidavit, had been made on behalf of Mr. Dunstan for an alteration in the terms of the order of discharge, inasmuch as tho net income anticipated when the order was granted has not

como up to the expected amount The first qo««. a tion which arises in this case is, whether the colt has power to rehear the order of discharge. That question depends on the construction of seci. 168 of the Bankruptcy Act 1861, which enacts that •' The ordor of dicharge, whether au-' pended or not, shall not be revived bj the court unless the court see good came to> believe that the order was obtained on false en-' dence, or by reason of the suppression of evident*! or otherwise fraudulently." In the coarse of" argument I was referred by Mr. Evans to decisions demonstrating the power which . Courts of Chancery and Bankruptcy possess to hear their own orders, as well as to the folloi cases bearing more immediately on the 108th sag tion, viz., Ex parte Whitaker. 1 De Gex, M. i ~ 459; Ex parte Atherton, 3 C. B. 142; and&jxii Green, 13 L.T. Rep. N.S. 414. It appears to met' the cases in the former class are inapplicable to present question, as I am of opinion that the ji diction of this court is limited by sect 163, Bi ruptey Act 1861. Ex parte Whitaker is an anl rity in favour of this contention on the constra ■ of the analogous sect. 207 of the Bankruptcy 1849, and the decision of Mr. Commit Holroyd in Ex parte Green, expressly del the point, that tho Court of Bankruptcy has power to vary a condition once annexed to an o: of discharge under Bankruptcy Act 1861. In parte Atherton, Lord Cairns, LJ..decidedthat Court of Bankruptcy had power to review an oi refusing discharge of a bankrupt, because the visions of sect. 168 were limited to a case the order of discharge had been already obi and " it was material that the Legislature si provide that in the absence of fraud order of discharge should not be open revocation, so that innocent persons who dealt on the faith of it should not be pi peril." There is no pretence for an aUepat fraud or suppression here, and it is imposrit contend that the conditions which are state attached to an order of discharge, are not a stituent part of such order, but, on the com independent terms, to be connected, or nected, according to the exigencies of If that be so, the words of this section, which! not confined to a reversal, but to a review of order, strengthened as they are by authority confirming this construction, preclude me entertaining tho application to alter the condii of this order of discharge. I regret that I obliged to arrive at this conclusion, for in cases, as in this, circumstances may incident arise before the performance of the condif which may render the alteration of the visable, not only as regards the bankrupt, respects the interests of the general bodyj creditors.

Thursday, July 15. (Before Mr. Commissioner Thbino.) Re Joseph BX8T. T/c B. A. I&i9—Application for release u)id-T>eJ 112—Discretion o/ the court as to ordering rtlf* A bankrupt, who, bei)ig in peevniary dijprv leaves the town where he had carried on busi and proceeds to London, and there plays hid' seek with his creditors, cannot l>c consiiperson likely to assist them if released: parte Stuart, re Wangh, 9 L. T. Rep.foUexi This was an application for release. Tho bankrupt, a prisoner for debt in cross-street Prison, was not present, but thi cumstances of his application are fully detail in the judgment of the learned commissioner. I £7(i/ appeared for the assignees and a detains] creditor. Xordon, for the bankrupt. His Honour who hod on the previous daybear, the arguments, delivered judgment this mornini as follows :—An application has been made to thi court for the release of the bankrupt from White cross Prison. Ho was arrested on the 3rd Ma; 1869, and adjudicated bankrupt on 7th May on hi own petition. He then made an application fo his release before the choice of assignees, bat being opposed, was remitted to custody, aecordini to the ordinary practice in such cases. After th> choice of assignees he renewed his application oi the 14th June ; affidavits were filed by several cred tors in opposition, and an affidavit in reply wa filed by the bankrupt; the case was fully near by Mr. Commissioner Bacon, and tie applicatio for release dismissed. The circumstances whic have led to the present position of the bankrui are these:—In 1868 the bankrupt resided in house at Oxton, together with a Mr. Boderic Campbell, who, according to the statement of tl bankrupt, assisted him in his practice at Live pool, where he carried on a large business as a attorney, especially in the Court of Bankmpte: and occupied offices at 55, South Castle-street, s tenant to Mr. Macfie, the creditors' assignee, »•' carried on business himself on the ground-floor ( the same building. About the middle of Januai present year, the bankrupt, who was then eooaderably embarrassed and pressed by his er»iitors, as appears from the evidence before me, K well as his own admission, departed from his loose at Oxton for London, under circumstances (o which I shall presently allude. About the same fee Mr. Campbell packed up the bankrupt's books and papers at the office in Liverpool, and toot his departure with them, and has not been am since cither at Oxton or Liverpool. The louse at Oxton was closed, tho furnituro removed Ij the Great Western Railway, and subsequently 4«co?ered in a warehouse belonging to that conincny at Paddington, deposited in the name of Mr. Werick Campbell. A boy was left in tho office, «io stated, in answer to inquiries, that ho could ■a* tell where Mr. Best was, but that letters would it forwarded through Mr. Martin Browne, an at:mej, of this town. We next find Mr. Best in jeofail, where he resided, according to his own BRnnt. in three different sets of lodgings, with ib exception of a short timo when no was at Southampton. Although some correspondence iioi place between two of his creditors and him■elf, yet he did not divulge his real address on any Mtasion. but either called at a hotel for his letters or meired them through his London agents, burs. Doyle and Edwards. Mr. Macfie who was wntly chosen creditors' assignee, went up to London for the purpose of discovering tho banknpt. but was unable to do so. So far ho eluded ks auditors, but at length his own agents, Messrs. Doyle and Edwards, arrested him. Ho came up pi the court in London, where his application br nlsue was dismissed, and the proceedings ere. by order of Mr. Commissioner Bacon transit to this court. Mr. Nordon, who has argued 'ipport of his client with great energy and tr. lias very properly drawn my attention to ke arthorities which show that the Court of nbnptcy will, in the exercise of the discretion m to it by sect. 112, Bankruptcy Act 18-10, iinarihr release a bankrupt, unless he be found have aono oertain things which expressly disenn> him to lus discharge. It is contended by Mr. u- on the other hand, not only that the conduct ii* ankrupthas been such as to disentitle him '. TOM. inasmuch as the evidonce leads to tho iKtitable conclusion that he would, if released, tikis crediters, abscond, and not attend the put the court, but Mr. Commissioner Bacon, i- .Limdy determined the question, and that no l» facts have arisen since which Bhould induce psoonrt to come to a different conclusion. It u; well bo that the removal of tho proceedings

■ ooort alone might rendor it desirable that the l»iikrnpt should be released in the interest of his Liverpool creditors, besides which it is

HI by the bankrupt, in on affidavit filed since

dismissal of the former application, that it

•C be impossible for him to prepare the accounts

ri-rsi by the court whilst he is in custody. Tho Jiurv object of a bankrupt's discharge from

ii»n is to enable him to assist the assignees - iweuTering and getting in tho estate, but I Je «t the same time not unmindful that the 1" af England is ever jealous of the liberty of « mbject. I shall confine myself in consriLjj this application as much as possible to

«« points which have not been brought under j* notice of Mr. Commissioner Bacon, as I

■I not for a moment think of reviewing any de

«on of so experienced and distinguished a judge.

* lord Chancellor (Westbury) has most dis

-J hid it down in Ex parte Stuart, re Wangh,

«• 1.4.6, Bank., that" The commissioner is autho

■ so exercise the power of ordering the release Be bankrupt only for the benefit of the cre

■ aider the bankrupty. It ho is perfectly M that it will conduce to tho benefit of the

■en the power may be exercised." Now, let not at the circumstances under which the )t left Liverpool, and what he has since e advance the interests of his creditors. Mjttkxnpt alleges that he left this town solely «intention of continuing practice either in : or the South of England, that this depar"* to secret, that he was not pressed by his "tars, had ample means to pay his debts, j* of costs due to him to tho amount of V 1000!., and that at tho time of his dene he deputed Messrs. Martin Browno and fflici Campbell.to make certain arrangements i- On this it must be remarked that it is *»h*t singular that a professional mail J^-j6*78 * large practice in Liverpool with the if founding a new business without any «ion elsewhere, and the allegations of the tf are entirely unsupported by any it from Messrs. Browne and Campbell, "iy former clerk, or any other person *er; whilst his release is opposed by the orasssignee, and several other creditors, to "Jj* w»jm the bankrupt ascribes vindictive >• But there are certain suggestive facts, '•■<-'■ the statement of the bankrupt and tho *• of the creditors, from which the motives .^■fentions of the bankrupt may be strongly "Pee, Early in January thure were writs and

judgments out against him, and within a fortnight of his departure ho obtained silver plate from Messrs. Elkington to the amount of 105!., and jewellery from a Mr. Wood to the amount of 48(., on credit, as well as the very portmanteau to carry off his wearing apparel, which was sold for cash on delivery, yet the bankrupt denied himself to the shopwoman who called for the money, and when she went again to his house a few days afterwards he was gone. His furniture was at the same time removed and warehoused in the name of Mr. Roderick Campbell, at Paddington station. Has any of this property been given up? The hiding place of the furniture was detected by Mr. Macfie and sold under his execution. The bankrupt on his arrest declared that he had no papers or property of any kind, except his wearing apparel, though ho subsequently stated that the plate obtained from Messrs. Elkington was temporarily deposited to enablo him to obtain money to pay off an execution; yet he has given no name, or clue to the place of deposit. What was his courso of conduct when ho reached London r Why, he was lurking about without any fixed residence, playing hide-andseek with his creditors, never allowing his real address to bo known, and carrying on all communications through third parties, and this too for several months, until he is at last arrested in May. Does such a courso afford any guaranteo to the creditors that ho will, if released, attend the sittings of the court and give them the benefit of his assistance f In his last affidavit the bankrupt insists that he cannot propare his accounts in prison, because all his papers nave been reniovod by Mr. Roderick Campbell, and are still in his custody and control, without the will and consent of the bankrupt; yet he believes that if released he could obtain these papers. Now, there is no presumption to be inferred more clearly from all the circumstances of the case independently of tho admissions of the bankrupt, than that Mr. Roderick Campbell was his intimate friend and confidential agent, and has throughout acted in concert with him. Mr. Campbell assisted in his practice, Mr. Campbell was expressly instructed by the bankrupt to arrange all matters connected with his office, Mr. Campbell leaves Liverpool shortly after the bankrupt, the furnituro is deposited in the name of Mr. Campbell; but Mr. Campbell is not forthcoming now, and, though tho bankrupt knows that his papers are still in the custody or control of Mr. Campbell, yet he lias never furnished the assignee with the address of Mr. Campbell, or given him the opportunity of endeavouring to recover the documents so necessary to the bankrupt that he states that it will bo impossible for him to prepare his accounts or comply with the orders of the court without access to them. I have gone most carefully through the voluminous papers which have been filed in this cose, in order to ascertain whether there were any new facts or change of circumstances sufficient to sanction a courso different from that directed by Mr. Commissioner Bacon when the bankrupt was before him; but I am unable to find anything in the history of this bankruptcy, or in the conduct of tho bankrupt throughout—when I look at his uniform practice of concealment, his enforced departure from Liverpool, and his fugitive life in London—which can lead me to the conclusion that ho has, if released, any real intention to promote the interests of his creditors. He has not given up his books, though they are in tho custody of his agent: he has not given up his plate, although it is deposited in some place known to him but undisclosed to his assignee. He has hitherto attempted to elude, never to meet, his creditors. Under these ciroumstaucos no material benefit can be expected by the creditors from his release I must also bear in mind that many creditors have opposed whilst none have supported the prisoner's application. and I cannot but think that tho creditors were fully justified in resolving at their first meeting to oppose the release of the bankrupt, unless he should find sufficient bail to ensure his due attendance at the sittings of the court. The application will thorefore be refused. I havo considered the question of bail in reference to the statements of tho bankrupt's debts and liabilities, and shall bo ready to giant his release on his entering into recognisances to tho amount of .£400 to attend all the sittings of tho court in tho bankruptcy, and finding two sufficient sureties, who shall each be bound over to the amount of i.200 as security for such attendance as aforesaid.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY (IRELAND!. (Before Miixer, J.) Jane 18, 1869. Re Thomas Dvkm. (an iusolvont). [a) Rigid of a surety to oppose the insolvent's dischargeLarge interest charged on discounting bills.

(<i) From the Irish Lax Timtt.

Where 25per cent is charged upon money advanced

on bills, the court will not deal with the case as

tliat of an ordinary trade creditor. Where a person, with others, is joined as security

with the insolvent to a third party, for the debt

of that third party, such person is not a creditor

and will not be allowed to oppose.

Byrne was a dairyman, and his discharge was opposed by Keatinge Clay, solicitor, on the part of a Mr. Sullivan and of a person named Phillips, on the ground of having made away with property, and of having entered into collusion with his father-in-law, M'Guirk, and the son of M'Guirk, i for the purpose of defrauding his creditors.

Kernan, Q. C, appeared for tho insolvent, and contended that Phillips was not a creditor at all, and of course had no right to oppose.

Miller, J., in delivering judgment, said that Phillips, the person seeking to oppose tho discharge of the insolvent, had joined in a bill of exchange along with the M'Guirks, the father-inlaw and the brother-in-law of the insolvent, to a person named Sullivan, for the solo accommodation of M'Guirk, who received tho entire proceeds of the bill. Shortly afterwards, and whilo that bill of exchange was current, M'Guirk assigned, or purported to assign, his cows and all his other property to his son-in-law tho insolvent. But it appeared that a man named King, who was a relativo of M'Guirk's, so far overreached that assignment as to recoup himself for a claim he had against M'Guirk the elder, by a seizure and sale of some of his cows, which had belongod to M'Gnirk tho older; and it further appeared that the insolvent very soon afterwards not only sold the remainder of the cows that bolongod to his father-in-law, but also converted his whole property into cash, and applied that cash in payment of tho debts of his own, and somo of those for which his father-in-law, with tho insolvent, were liable; excluding, however, the bill upon which tho insolvent and his father-in-law were liable to Sullivan. The insolvent had been arrested under a fiat at the suit of Sullivan, as tho holder of tho bill having on it tho names of Phillips, of the insolvent, and of tho two M'Guirks', and an opposition hod been entered on the part of Sullivan and of Phillips in respect of that bill. Now, it is not to be lost sight of that I am sitting in a criminal court administering a very penal code. Snllivan, who is a pawnbroker, has very frankly admitted that tho rate of interest which he charges is 25 per cent., but that in taking the bill in question, which was a renewal of other bills, he struck off several pounds which he would bo entitled to charge on all the transactions. I do not mean to say one word in disparagement of those gentlemen who are authorised by law to make those charges (and tho law now permits a man to take any interest he can get); but I am entitled to conclude that where a party charges interest at the rate of 25 per cent., and requires two or more names on his security, ho is prepared for events such as have happenod in the present case; therefore an opposition coming from such parties cannot meet with the same favour as ordinary creditors should receive. And when I see no reason to question the application of the property by the insolvent in discharge of his liabilities, as stated in his schedule, and that no debt was actually due to Sullivan at the time the insolvent disposed of his property, I see no ground for remanding him at tho suit of Sullivan. As regards the opposition of Phillips, tho impression produced on my mind by the evidence, and in particular by the evidence of M'Guirk, the younger, was that Phillips was entitled to protection against these dealings by the insolvent with his father-inlaw and brother-in-law, if it were in the power of the court to extend it to him. But the difficulty which I folt was whether Phillips was, in respect of his liability jointly with the insolvent for the debt of M'Guirk to a third party, a creditor under the meaning of the Act of Parliament entitled to oppose. Under the 207th section of the Irish Bankrupt and Insolvent Act, tho persons declared entitled to oppose the discharge of tho insolvent are his creditors. Then, is Phillips a creditor of tho insolvent at present? I think not. The 212th section gives the conrt power "to discharge the insolvent as to tho several debts or sums of money due, or claimed to be due, at the time of filing the petition, from the insolvent to the several persons named in his schedule as creditors, or claiming to be creditors, for the sums respectively for which they are returned, or for which suoh persons shall havo given credit to such insolvent before the time of filing his petition, and which were not then payable, and to future claims of every surety or bail for such insolvent named in his or her schedule as a contingent creditor, and as to the claims of all other persons not known to the insolvent at the time of such adjudication, and who may be indorsees and holders of any negotiable security set forth in his schedule." Phillips, who was joined with the insolvent to a third party for the debt of that third party, and who had not paid that debt, could not be said to be a creditor of the insolvent nmier the 212th section. The 253rd section provided that sureties and persons liable for tho debts of the insolvent may prove after bavin? paid such debts. Then, under that section, I think, Phillips is not a oreditor, and, if he is not a creditor, he cannot be allowed to oppose. A case has been supplied to me by the Chief Clerk in Insolvency, Re Cann, reported in 1 Bankruptcy and Insolvency Beports, 217, in whioh, under the Protection Act in England, Mr. Commissioner Murphy held that where he found three or four persons returned as sureties on a bill of exchange, the oreditor alono who was holder of the bill had the legal right of action in respeot to the debt; he alone was entitled to oppose. Looking at that decision, his Lordship said, that although he felt that Phillips had not been fairly dealt with, he did not think that under the circumstances he could remand the insolvent at his suit.

[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]

The insolvent was discharged.

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. Pbivatb Chapki, Formiko Part Op Parish Church—Repairs.—The freehold of a lesser chancel or private chapel annexed to, and apparently forming part of, a parish church, may be in a private person. It is not necessarily annexed to the possession of a messuage or manor house, but may form the subject of conveyance separately from other property, like any other freehold land. In an action by a person claiming the freehold of inheritance in a private chapel, apparently forming part of the parish church, against the vicar for trespass in breaking the lock of such chapel: Held, that the facts that plaintiff's predecessors in title had always repaired the chape!, that their tenants had always occupied the sittings within it, and that they had always had a lock upon the door of it, were sufficient evidence to show that the freehold in the soil of the chapel belonged to the plaintiff, and that the action was, therefore, maintainable: Chapman v. Jones, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 811. Ex.) *

COURT OF ARCHES.

(Before the Right Hon. Sir R. Phiu-imore.)

Ednbt And Another V. Smallbones.

Novel church rate case.

This wag a suit to enforce payment of a church rate to repair and enlarge the church of Whitchurch, Hampshire, in the diocese of Winchester. The promoters were tho churchwardens, and the defendant one of the parishioners, who objected to pay the rate. The present application was on the part of the defendant for the production of documents in the possession of the churchwardens.

Dr. Swabey said the oase was a peculiar one. The rate was for the repairs of the church, and the objection was that it had been applied to repair the chancel as well, and therefore could not be enforced, as the holder of the rentoharge had not been assessed. He axkod for a monition to issue for the documents to be produced.

Dr. Tristram, for the churchwardens, opposed a monition. The documents would bo produced for inspection.

His Lordship made an order for the production and inspection of the documents, and expressed his intention to hear the case before the vacation. Order accordingly.

CORRESPONDENCE OF THE
PROFESSION.

[not*.—Thin department of the Law Times boin? open to free ducossion on all professional topics, the Editor is not responsible for any opinions or statements contained iu it.]

Mr. Locke King's Real Estate Intestacy Act.—It has often struck me that the most benevolent legislators incur failure and disappointment from insufficient knowledge of remote conseqnences of their reforms—tho power of things which, in Yorkshire phrase, belong to all things. As a constituent of Mr. Locke King may I, through your columns, point out one feature of the working of another piece of his legislation, with the policy of which I find no fault. Tho only moral I would point out is, that if small holdings are to wax fine by degrees and beautifully less, a small proprietor had better throw his all into tho Treasury than incur the vexation, mortification, puzzledom, and madness which must attend tho working out of his quota of succession duty. Note tho real com

Slication of tho present case, which results from ispositions not inconsistent with primogeniture. Two devisees hold some houses and land in common ; each creates a mortgage, and each subdivides his moiety, one moioty of tho original moiety being divided among nine children, some of whom ore private soldiers serving in tho colonies. Three

houses forming part of the estate, the tenants in common not unnaturally assumed that each held his own dwelling house in severalty ,• consequently, the will of each contemplated that state of things; and, indeed, in one case succession duty was paid accordingly. Now, inasmuch as the tenants in common were related, and had a common interest in their family, you may fancy what trouble attended the preparation and rendering of the suocession-duty accounts, the rather as the only chanoe of effecting a Bale of tho scattered fractions arose during tho continuance of two successive life interests ; tno duty on these had to be anticipated. Imagine, Mr. Editor, the future leader of the Conservative party replying to the taunt, "Where ore tho freeholders of Bucks?" by saying that "much learning had made them mad.* Decimal fractions on the brain had proved too much for the Mercian franklins." East Surrey.

The Final Examination.—Can you or any of your correspondents suggest any book to read for the final examination on Chancery practice? I am aware that Ayckbourn and lumber's Suits in Equity are usually recommended, but I am under the impression that there is some better book published than either of the above. Articulus. [Snell's Principles of Equity is a most useful work: Smith's Equity and Haynes's Outline* are also read for this examination.—Ed.j

"the Wine And Beerhouse Act 1869."—I shall be glad of the opinion of your correspondents (or that of counsel, if such is by and bye taken by any of them) whether the 15th section of this Act makes the keeper of the house liable to the penalty of 40s. who suffers travellers or lodgers to drink beer or cider in the house at any time during whichit ought by law to be closed. And whether the 16th section, whioh exempts servants or inmates of such a house, and the other houses referred to in the section, includes "travellers" under the term "inmates" or not.

A Clerk To Magistrates.

NOTES AND QUERIES ON
POINTS OF PRACTICE.

[N.B.—None are inserted unless the name and nddrem of the writers are sent, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee for bona Jtdet.l

Qntrifs.

56. Will—Perpetuity.—A. devised a copyhold estate to his niece B., a spinster, for life. Alter her decease unto each and every tho lawful sons and daughters of

B. for life, severally and successively in order and course as they should be in seniority of age and priority of birth; and from and after the decease of all and every the said children or issue of the said B., the testator devised the said estate unto his godchild C, the daughter of his nephew D., and her children or issue, severally and successively in like manner in every respect as is thereinbefore limited and expressed concerning the devise to the said B. and her children or issue as aforesaid; and from and after the decease of all and every the said children or issue of the said C, the testator devised the said estate unto the said D., his heirs and assigns for ever. The testator died in 1822, leaving his niece B., his godchild C, and his nephew D., him surviving. B. afterwards married, and died eight years ago without having had any children. The nephew D. died in la^O, leaving

C, his only child and heiress-at-law him surviving. On the death of B. C. entered into possession, and has ever since received the rents of the estate, but has not yet been admitted; she is married, and has a large family. Now, as the testator does not devise the estate over to C. until after the decease of all and every the said children or issue of B., the first question that arises is whether be intended the estate to go to the issue of the child or children of B., which would be illegal; the giving estates for life to unborn children and the issue of such children tending to a perpetuity. The particular intention thus faiHnjr, the next question is, whether the rule will apply which gives such a construction to the will, as will nearest approach to the general intention of the testator, by enlarging the estate for life in the first taker to on estate tail, which would preserve it in the line of such first taker so long as there was issue. But the first taker, B., having died without children or issue, and without having barred the estate toil (if such it was), would it revert to the donor, the testator, and go under his will to the heir of the nephew D., who is C, who would thus become possessed of the fee? On the other hand, if the word " issue" is merely intended as a synonym for children, or sons or daughters, then the life estates would be legal, nnd C. will hold for life, and her children will talce life estates in succession after her death. It should he stated that the testator gave the residue of his real estate to bis nephew D. iu fee, so that if there was any estate not specifically disposed of, it would now vest in his heiress, C. Will any of your correspondents pay what estate C. now takes in the property devised to B. for life? (Sluud v. Cockcrcll, 20 L. T. Eep. N. S. 513.) Q.

57. Faculty-—Whether before a clock is erected in the tower of a church a faculty is required: and if answered in the affirmative, then, supposing the work be commenced without first obtaining such faculty, what steps can be taken, and by whom and atramst whom should those proceedings be instituted? Cantab.

58. Industrial And Provtdent Societies Act 1862. any of your readers inform me whether a convey

ance of premises to an Industrial and Provident Society duly registered under the above Act requires a atantL or is not same exempt by virtue of the 15th section 5 such Act, and the 16th and 37th sections of the Fri«n-lly Societies Act 1855? The 16th section of tha latter At* mentions the Industrial and Provident Societies Ac; 1852, but this Act was repealed by the Act of 1862, aad no saving clause enacted.—Alpha.

59. Lendinu A Horse—Licence.—Will the owner tf a horse, being without a licence to let, subject himself to a penalty (1) by lending him habitually to his neat. hours without any recompense; (2) by so leading tan, and receiving similar loans in return, as is enstoaury with farmers; (3) by lending him occasionally or frequently to one neigbour only, and receiving (a) once after many loans, or (b) on each occasion a gratuity without any previous promise or agreement; (4) by lsU ting him occasionally or frequently to one nekhboar only at a stipulated hire? Perhaps you could refer a* to some book or cases which would be an answer to these. D, Q.

60. Articled Clerk.—Can an articled clerk, with ait principals consent, serve the lsst year of hii elaisbip with a solicitor (not being the London or other agent of hia principal), without involving the neeaasitj of u assignment of his articles, no provision being mue therein as to the service of the last year thereunder *

KG.

Snsfetrs.

(Q. 30.) Apprenticeship,— Notwiihstaoding the oaservatious of *' M. E. 8." on this subject, I cannot kite my opinion. W. H. P.

(Q. 41.) Harried Women—Real Propertt.—I m much obliged by '* E. H. B.'s" remarks on my answer to this query, as they caused me to rsoonadgr tat points raised, and to search for authorities thereon. II "D. J." will have the goodness to refer to Macphersoo't Law of Infants, he will find under the title "Writ it r. ntn utsjriciando," a full answer to his inquiry, with tat law and authorities upon the subject, whereby it appears that the child in question would be held the child of tar former hiwbund, and as such entitled to share u coparcener with the sister. W. H. F.

(Q. 45.) Common Law COMsnssrossasmr. — I bar leave to inform "A Solicitor" that a country practitioner can be appointed a commissioner to tab affidavits in one of the Superior Courts at Westminster alono, without being compelled to take out his conunia* sion in the other courts. I was a commissioner in t a* Common Pleas for many years before I took oat n\| commissions in the Queen's Bench and Exchequer.

(Q. 40.) Mortgage.—Under the circumstances me* tioned by W. H. Z., the purchaser most insist npoa;

A.'s widow taking out administration in this country payment of the purchase-money. Sbs Worm clearly be obliged to do so before she could conuncasf

any proceedings for the recovery of the money: (Sea Allnutt's Practice, pp. 144, 195.) The expense attend* ing the obtaining of this administration must be bora* by the mortgagor. C. 5.

(Q. 50.) Coptholds—Statutb Op Lemttatjoss.-ii the case stated by A. B. C, an uninterrupted possessioa for twenty years of the allotments in question, whhoat any acknowledgement will, I apprehend, bar any claim OS the part of the lord of the manor, provided tie was sotl under any of the disabilities mentioned in the 16th see-' tion of the Statute of Limitations, and forty years' po*i session is a bar under any circumstance (3 4;* Win. 4, c. 27, ss. 1, 2, 17, 34; Shelford's Law of Copyhold*, p. 136.) The devisees should convey by a commas conveyance, reciting that the testator being seiwd ii fee, &c., their title being a statutory declaration of uninterrupted possession by the testator. C. 3.

LAW SOCIETIES.

THE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY Proceedings and Resolutions at the Annual tteiicr* Meetinn, held the 16th July, 1869. At the annual meeting of the members of tbj society, held in the hall of tho society on July 16, 1869, John Henry Bolton, Esq., President, in tin chair.

1. Read the circular convening the meeting a* follows:

21st June l*& Sir,—lam directed to inform yon that, pursuant ta the charter, the anuual general meeting of the member* of the society will be held in the ball of the sociery, inj Chancery-lane, on Friday, the 16th July next, at two o'clock precisely in the afternoon, for the election of « president and vice-president of the society; of tea. members of the council, in lieu of ten members who will go out of office in rotation; of two members of tbfl council, in lieu of Ralph Barnes, deceased, and Edward Leigh Pemberton, resigned; of three auditors, and foil other purposes of the society. The following are the; names of the members who will sro out of office in rota* tion, and are immediately re-eliinble, vix.:—E F. Barton, J. M. Clabon. J. Lcman, P. Nelson, A. Byland. B. B, ITpton. A. W. White, W. Williams, B. Wilson, J. Young. The name of every person intended to be proposed »S president or vice-president, or as a member of tbfl council, or as an auditor, must be transmitted in wriliM to the secretary, seven days at least before the day <a election.

A list containing the names of members whose j-n* scriptions remain unpaid has been put up in the ball, under the 55th bye-law of the society. Su-.'h member! are under that bye-law liable, by the order and res* lution of a general meeting, to be excluded from tb« society, and they will cease to be members thereof. 1 am, Sir, your obedient servant,

E. W. Williamson, Secretary.

2. The minutes of the last annual general us!

« 이전계속 »