페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

answerable or accountable for the misapplication or non-application thereof, (a)

154. Recital of an enfranchisement unXer Copyhold Acts. Whereas, by an order of enfranchisement, dated. Ac., under the hands and seals of the Copyhold Commissioners, the said commissioners, in pursuance of the powers vested in them by the Copyhold Acts, did, by that award of enfranchisement, duly enfranchise unto the said A. B., his heirs and assigns the piece of land and hereditaments to which the said A. B. was so admitted as aforesaid with the appurtenances [add here, \f so, save and except all the rights reserved by the Copyhold Act 1852, sect. 48, or as the case may be]. To hold the same [save and except as aforesaid] unto and to the use of the said A. B., his heirs and assigns as freehold, thenceforth and for ever discharged from all fines, heriots, reliefs, quit rents, and all other incidents whatever of copyhold or customary tenure.

154*. Recital of a conveyance to uses to bar dower, and subject to restrictive covenants. Whereas, by an indenture dated, &c, and made between A. B. of the one part, and C. D. of the other part, the [piece or parcel of land and] (b) hereditaments hereinafter described, and intended to be hereby [appointed and] granted, with the appurtenances, were assured and limited to such uses [for such estates and in such manner] as the said C. D. should by deed appoint, and in default of [and until and subject to] any such appointment, to the use of the said C. D. and his assigns, during his life, without impeachment of waste, with remainder to the use of T. Z., his executors, and administrators, during the life of the said C. D.. in trust for him and his assigns, with remainder to the use of the said C. D.. his heirs and assigns. And in the indenture now in recital were contained certain covenants on the part of the said C. D., his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, restrictive of the mode of user and enjoyment of the said piece or parcel of land and hereditaments hereinafter described and intended to be hereby [appointed and] granted. [To be continued.)

The Earl Of Granard On The Land QuesTion.—The Earl of Granard has written a letter in the Freeman's Journal on the necessity of an equitable settlement of the land question. In the many Bills brought before Parliament, both by Whig and Tory administrations. Lord Granard says the value of the Ulster custom of tenant right has been fully recognised. The proviso recurs in every one of them, "That nothing herein contained shall affect the custom of Ulster." To this custom he thinks the prosperity of the Northern province due, and as a system "tested by the experience of nearly three centuries," he prefers it to any "more theoretically perfect and untried system." The true solution of the land question, Lord Granard therefore thinks, "lies in the passing of an Act which would give the force of law to the custom of Ulster, extend its beneficial provisions to the whole of Ireland, and at the same time provide for a periodical Government valuation for letting purposes, with power of appeal in case of dispute to a local and inexpensive tribunal, such as the Court of Quarter Sessions." Lord Granard adds his conviction that if such an enactment became law, the southern and western counties, " with their milder climate and more fertile soil, would soon equal, if not outstrip, the prosperous condition of the north. Such outrages on humanity as the Clonoen evictions, and acts of a similar nature, would become impossible—agrarian disturbances would be a thing of the past, feelings of mutual confidence, hitherto held in abeyance by unjust laws, would revive between landlord and tenant, and each would find that their common interest lay in the improvement and regeneration of thencommon country."

JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES' LAW JOURNAL.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. Private Bill— Locus Standi.—An improvement Bill promoted by the commissioners of M. for the extension of their borrowing powers, but without increase of rates, was petitioned against by the G. W. Railway Company, by whom the M. Railway, within the commissioners' limits,

(a) In order that trustees may be able to make title to a purchaser of real or leasehold estate after the lapse of three months from the execution of the assignment the provisions of the 88th section of the Act of 1849 must be complied with: (See Precedent 86 «up., p. 433, and note c.)

(M The words within brackets may be omitted when conciseness is desired.

was worked under agreement, but of which they had not yet become statutory lessees, though a Bill for that purpose was before Parliament. The Act authorising the M. Railway was prior in point of date to the commissioners' original Act of 1857, and under those Acts the railway was liable to rating on its full value. The G. W. Co., who became the workers of the line since 1857, and paid the rates, now contended that the rating should be reduced to the usual scale of one-fourth: Held, that the petitioners had no locus standi: (Mdford Improvement Bill, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 1. Court of Referees).

Contributory Notice Of AllotmentRatification Of Acts Of Aoent.—B., applying for shares, requested that notice of allotment might be handed to C, one of the promoters of the company. The shares were allotted, and on C applying for them a bundle containing numerous letters of allotment was handed to him. It was disputed if the allotment to B. was among them, but it was proved that when they were so handed to C, B.'s letter to the company had not bsen posted, but it was afterwards sent by B. to C, and by him produced to the company. B. had paid nothing in respect of the shares. Upon appeal he was held to be a contributory : (Rosaz's case, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 10. L. JJ.)

Winding-up Practice Proof. — The B. company gave to a bank as collateral security, certain debentures, containing a covenant to pay to C, his executors, or bearer, the sums mentioned. The debentures had been made out in (Ya name, with a view to a transaction between him and the company, which went off. They were handed to the bank, but not formally assigned. The bank was held to take them irrespective of any equities existing between C. and the company, and that it was not entitled to prove upm them having already proved for the debt: (Re. Blakely Ordnance Company, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 12. M. R.)

DirectorsPromotersPromotion Money. —A limited company was incorporated in 18G3 for the purpose of establishing an international hank under a concession to be obtained by a foreign Government. The nominal capital of the company was 1,200,000/. in 00,000 shares, of which the first issue was to be 30.000/. It was provided by the articles of association that as soon as the allotment of shares under the first issue should take place, the directors should pay 10,000/. to the promoters. Before the concession was obtained so as to place the company in a position to begin business, and only when about 5000 shares had been subscribed for, the directors allotted the shares, and paid 5000/. to the promoters, who on the same day paid 500/. a-piece to four of the directors. This payment to the promoters almost exhausted the funds of the company, and it was soon afterwards ordered to be wound-up. On a bill by the company and its official liquidator against the directors to render them liable for a breach of trust in thus misapplying the moneys of the company and to compel repayment thereof: Held, that no decree could be made as to the 5000/., as the persons who had received the money had not been made parties to the suit, but that each of the directors must refund to the company the 500/. received by him from the promoters: Held, also, that when costs are given against a company in the process of winding-up, they are to be paid by the liquidator out of the assets, and are not to be proved for: The Madrid Bank v. Petty, 21 L. T. Rep- N. S. 13. M. R.)

Railway Arbitration Lands Clauses Act.—C. agreed with a railway company, that, in consideration of the stipulations of the company, he should withdraw his opposition to the Bill in Parliament, and it was agreed that if such Act passed in any form, the company should purchase the plaintiff's interest, and the contract contained various stipulations as to price, drainage, roads, &c, the value of the property, compensation, &c, in case of difference, to be referred to a surveyor. It was, inter alia, provided that the plaintiff should cease builbing. The Act passed, and the plaintiff sent in a claim for 46,000/., and the matter being referred to a surveyor, he awarded 16,675/1, but was silent as to interest and costs; and added a statutory declaration that he made the award under the Lands Clauses Act. A dispute then arose, the plaintiff claiming against the company interest on the purchase-money and the costs of the reference, and filing a bill for the specific performance of the agreement. The plaintiff had ceased building, but the company had never taken posses

sion : Held, that, although the company never had possession, it was the same thing, as the plaintiff was deprived of it, and the proceeding was as much under the Lands Clauses Act as if the royal assent to the Special Act had been obtained before the agreement, and as putting into motion the compulsory powers, and therefore in sabstance under that statute. The company were therefore liable for interest, and as the award was silent as to costs, it must be assumed that the surveyor intended the company to pay them. and they were therefore liable: (Catling?. Tlie Great Northern Railway Company, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 17. V.C. M.)

Winding-up Petition Practice.—On a petition to wind-up on the ground of a misapplication of the funds by the directors, it must be conclusively shown that the court may interfere under sect. 79 of the Bankruptcy Act 1862: (Re The Anglo-Egyptian Navigation Company, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 19. V.C.J.)

Liability Of Telegbapu Company For Error In Message.—When a message is sent by a telegraph company the contract is one alone with the sender and not with the sendee of such message. Where, therefore, A., resident in London, informed B.. resident at Hull, that be had a cargo of ice at Grimsby, and requested an offer from them for the same by telegraph, and B. thereupon sent a telegraphic message by the defendants making an offer of 23s. per ton, which was erroneously read off by the defendants' servants at London as 27s. per ton; whereupon A caused the ice to be tendered to B. at Hull at this price, and B. refused to receive it, as not being the price he had offered: Held, upon an action brought by A. against the company for the loss he had sustained by their error, that the contract was between B. and the defendants, and that there was no relationship between A. and B, of principal and agent, and so the action could not be maintained: (Ploy ford v. The United Kingdom Electric Telegraph Company, 21 L. T. Rep". N. S. 21. Q. B.)

The Albert Amalgamations.—Mr. J. Winn Knight, M,P., writes :—" I see it stated in your paper, in the account of tho affairs of the Albert Insurance Office, that on the amalgamation of the Bank of London and National Provincial Association with the Albert Company the directors of the association received 200(. each. I was a director of that association during its short existence (my only experience in such a capacity), and a cheque for 2002. was actually sent to me on that occasion, which I refused to accept and returned to the office. At the same time I wrote a circular to my co-directors to say that I took this step because I considered that the money belonged to the share or policy-holders, and not to the directors. I hope you will kindly allow me to make this explanation in your columns."

The Telegraph Act.—On the 9th ult. an Act to alter and amend the Telegraph Act of 1868 received the Royal assent, and arrangements are being made, and are expected shortly to be perfected, to transfer the telegraphs to the Postmaster-General. By the new Act the Treasury is empowered to raise 7,000,000/. The gross revenue received by tho Postmaster-General for the transmission of messages by means of electric telegraphs is to be paid into the Exchequer to the account of the Consolidated Fund, and the expenses incurred with the sanction of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury in working, maintaining, or extending telegraphs to be paid out of moneys to be voted by Parliament. By the recited lot (31 & 32 Vict. c. 110) the Postmaster-General was empowered to purchase the whole or part of the undertaking of any telegraph company except the Atlantic Telegraph Company and the Anglo-American Telegraph Company. The Postmaster-General was required by the former Act to make one uniform charge for the transmission of telegraphic messages throughout the United Kingdom, and it is declared in the present statute that in order to protect the public revenue it is expedient that similar powers to those conferred upon the Postmaster-General with respect to the exclusive privilege of conveying letters should be enacted with reference to tho transmission of public telegraphic messages within the United Kingdon. Agreements have been made with certain telegraph companies to pay them 5,715,048/. 8s. lid., and it is estimated that the amount which will be required for the other purposes of the recited Act and of the new Aot will not exceed 300,000/., besides 700.000!. with railway companies, and the chief object of the present Aot is to give authority }" tho Commissioners of the Treasury to raise tho funds which will be required to enable the Postmaster-General to carry into effect the arrangements. There are a few exceptions mentioned to the exclusive privilege of the Postmaster-Goneral lending telegraphic messages, and he is also cmpowered to transmit foreign messages. The Trersury may raise snms not exooeding 7,000,000!., for the purposes of the Act either by terminable annuities or by the creation of Exchequer bills or bonds, and the moneys raised are to be placed at the disposal of the Postmaster-General under certain regulations. Annual accounts are to be aid before Parliament, as also the regulations made under the new Act. No deed or instrument executed by, to, or with the Postmaster-General is to be liable to stamp duty. Messages are to be deemed post letters, and the provisions of the Telegraph Acts of last year and the present year to be considered as " Post-office laws."

MARITIME LAW.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. Salvage Corporations For Wrecking Pcrfoses—Costs.—Where a vessel and her cargo, worth 250,000 dollars, was towed off the Bomer jhoal at the entrance to the harbour of New York, on which she had touched, the service occupying six hours, and being performed by two tugs which were owned by a corporation, incorporated for wrecking purposes, the masters and crews being hired on regular monthly wages, with an agreement that they should not share in any salvage awarded for services rendered by the tugs, and a suit was brought against the ship and her cargo in the names of the masters of the two tugs and the corporation which owned them, for themselves and the crews of the tugs, claiming to recover 25,000 dollars salvage. Held, that under the agreement by which the masters and crews were hired, they must be left out of the case altogether. That the corporation could not claim, as assignee in advance, of what might otherwise be the claims of the masters and crews for salvage, and as the latter had cut themselves off by their contract with the compmy from making any claim for salvage, such claim never had any existence, so as to be capable of assignment after the fact. That the corporation itself could not be a salvor. That the corporation was entitled to a proper compensation for the use of the two steamers and the appliances on board them for the service rendered, and that the case was to be considered as one of contract for work and labour, without reference to the value of the ship and her cargo. That the hazard to the tugs was also to be taken into consideration, but not the expense to the corporation of keeping the tugs in readiness to perform such work and labour. That on the evidence, 150O dollars was a sufficient compensation, and as an offer of 2000 dollars had been made as a compromise before suit, no costs were allowed: (The Slratlon Audtey, 21 L. T. Iiep. K.S.31. New York Adm. Ct.)

ShipStoppage In TransituContinuance or Transitus—Assignment By Insolvent ConSignees TO SECURE ANTECEDENT DEBT BEFORE

Arbjval Of Bills Of Lading.—A mercantile firm carried on business at London and Hong Song. The London firm purchased goods of merchants in Manchester for the firm at Hong Kong. The goods were forwarded to London to the shipping agents of the firm there, and were shipped for Hong Kong on the Iatter's instructions. The bills of lading were in the ordinary form, bat the invoices relating to the greater part of the goods contained the stipulation that the Hong Kong firm should remit the proceeds of sales to the London firm to meet acceptances given to the vendors of the latter. The Hong Kong partner and consignee of the goods had had bill transactions with banking firms there, resulting in a large unsecured debt. Being pressed for payment, the consignee on behalf of the firm executed to the banks an assignment of various other property and all goods and bills of lading to arrive within a certain period. This assignment included the goods mentioned above. Afterwards, on the arrival of the goods, the conaignee indorsed and handed over the bills of lading, in performance of the agreement in the assignment. The Hong Kong branch of the firm *as at this time insolvent, and had been so at the date of the assignment: The owners of the vessel in which the goods were shipped refused to deliver the goods to the indorsees of the bills of lading, in consequence of notices to stop given them by the unpaid vendors, and the indorsees thereupon brought an action for conversion against the ship owners: On appeal to the judicial committee: Held, first, that the jransitus did not terminate till the arrival of the

goods at Hong Kong, for the general rule is that where goods are sold to be sent to a particular destination, named by the vendor, the right of the unpaid vendor continues until they arrive and are delivered there according to the bills of lading; and, second, that as the assignors had not, at the date of the assignment, possession of the bills of lading, and, as nothing was advanced on the faith of them, the effect of the assignment could only be to transfer the interest that the assignors had in the goods expected; this interest being subject to special stipulations as to remittances in the case of part of the goods, and in all to the lien of the unpaid vendors: The general rule is that the assignee of any security stands in the same position as the assignor as to the equities arising upon it. An exception, founded on the negotiable quality of the document, is made in the case of the holder of an indorsed bill of lading, who may, in the course of commercial dealing, transfer a greater right than he himself has. But this exception is confined to the case where the transferror is himself in actual and authorised possession of the bill of lading, and the transferee gives value on the faith of it, without having notice of any circumstance which would render the transaction neither fair nor honest: {Rodger v. The Vomptoir (FEscompte de Paris, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 33. Priv. Co.)

MERCANTILE LAWNOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. Principal And AgentInsurance To Secure Running Account—Receipt Of Sum Insured Overplus.—The defendant was the agent for an officer in the army, and supplied him from time to time with goods as an army accoutrement maker. Policies of insurance were effected on the officer's life to secure any amount that might be due from him at his death. The premiums paid were carried to the debit of his account. At the death of the officer the debt due to the principal was about 18002. The moneys received from the insurance office were about 3550/.: Held, that the difference between the debt and the money received was a balance due to the estate of the deceased officer: {Bruce v. Garden, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 1002. V.C. J.)

Domicil In France.—A judgment of interest to foreign families of which members have contracted matrimonial alliances in France has been given in the Civil Court of Paris. The facts of the case were these:—M. de Brimont married, about two years ago, a daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Penniman, American subjects. No contract was drawn up, but the parents of the lady promised verbally, according to M. de Brimont, to make the young couple an annual allowance of 50,000f. as a marriage portion. The young wife died a few months back, leaving an infant daughter, and Mr. Penniman, who until then had paid regularly the money, refused to continue it to the son-in-law. The last named now brought a suit to enforce the continuance of the payment, as alimony for himself and daughter. The parents of the deceased lady, while offering to bring up the child, resisted the demand, on the ground that the plaintiff was a spendthrift; that he had concealed numerous debts when he married, and had since contracted new ones, and moreover that ho was young, and might by his labour procure for himself sufficient resources. The tribunal, however, decided that, as De Brimont was without means of existence, and that as his own mother was not in a position of fortune to assist her son and granddaughter, the plaintiff had a right to an alimentary pension from his wife's parents; and consequently condemned them to pav an annual sum of 18,000f., of which 6000f. is for M. de Brimont, and 12,000f. for his infant daughter.

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.

PRELIMINARY EXAMINATIONS. Before Entering Into Articles Of Clerkship To Attorneys And Solicitors. Pursuant to the Judges' Orders, the Preliminary Examination in General Knowledge will take place on Wednesday the 9th and Thursday the 10th February 1870, and will comprise—

1. Reading aloud a passage from some English

Author.

2. Writing from dictation.

3. English Grammar.

4. Writing a short English composition.

5. Arithmetic.—A competent knowledge of the

first four ruIeB, simple and compound.

6. Geography of Europe and of the British

Isles.

7. History.—Questions on English History.'

8. Latin.—Elementary knowledge of Latin.

9. 1. Latin. 2. Greek, Ancient or Modern. 3. French. 4. German. 5. Spanish. 6. Italian.

The Special Examiners have selected the following books, in which candidates will be examined in the subjects numbered 9 at the Examination on the 9th and 10th February 1870 :—

In Latin—Caasar, Do Bello Gallico, I. IX, or Virgil, .Sneid, book vi.

In Greek—Sophocles, (Edipus Tyrannus.

In Modern Greek—Bimrr,; 'Irrtfm Ttis 'Afitpixnt

In French—Xavier de Maistro, La jeune Si

berienne; or, Corneille, Le Cid. In German—Goethe, Goetz von Berlichingen;

or, Wieland, Oberon. Gesang 1 bis 6. In Spanish—Cervantes, Don Quixote, cap. xv. to xxx. both inclusive; or Moratin, El Si de las Ninas. In Italian—Manzoni's I Promessi Sposi, cap. i. to viii. both inclusive; or Tasso's Gerusalemme, 4, 5, and 6 cantos; and Volpe's Eton Italian Grammar. With reference to the subjects numbered 9, each candidate will be examined in one language only, according to his selection. Candidates will have the choice of eitlier of the above-mentioned works. The Examinations will be held at the Incorporated Law Society's Hall, Chancery Lane, London, and at so)ne of the following Towns :—Birmingham, Brighton, Bristol, Cambridge, Cardiff, Carlisle, Carmarthen, Chester, Durham, Exeter, Lancaster, Leeds, Lincoln, Liverpool, Maidstone, Manchester ,Newcastle-on-Tyne,Oxford,Plymouth, Salisbury, Shrewsbury, Swansea, Worcester, York. Candidates are required by the Judges' Orders to give one calendar month's notice to the Incorporated Law Society, before the day appointed for the Examination, of the language in which they propose to bo examined, the 'place at which they wish to be examined, and their age and place of education. All notices should bo addressed to the Secretary of the Incorporated Law Society, Chancery-lane, W.C.

E. W. Williamson, Secretary. Law Society's Hall, Chancery-lane, London, August 1869.

Form or Notice. Preliminary Examination. Notice is hereby given, that A.B., of aged who was educated at intends on the and days of next, to present himself for Examination at previous to entering into Articles of Clerkship, and that he proposes to be examined in the language. Dated the day of 18 .

COUNTY COURTS.

THE COUNTY COURTS AND MUNICIPAL

ELECTIONS. The County Court Judges ought to feel highly flattered. They are Judges in equity, common law, admiralty and bankruptcy. It is now proposed to add to this trifle, jurisdiction over municipal elections. The Select Committee on Elections say in their draft report that " it is difficult to find any more simple or inexpensive tribunal before which such cases could be tried than the County Court." And, again they say, "We see no reason why power to take proceedings in the nature of a petition against the return of a town councillor before the judge of a County Court should not be given."

We observe that this subject has been discussed in the daily press, and the jurisdiction objected to on two grounds, first, that the courts are already overloaded, and secondly that the courts are not properly constituted for the purpose. On the first point there cannot be two opinions. On the second point many will agree with the daily press. It has been said that a single Common Law Judge is not a satisfactory tribunal, and the grounds of objection to the higher jurisdiction apply with greater force to the lower. In all probability there is a stronger political element amongst the County Court Judges, than amongst the Judges of the Superior Courts. Then again County Court Judges of boroughs with corporations are more or less known to the leading inhabitants, and might not be so free from local feeling as to be able to dispose of their newbusiness with satisfaction to themselves and the persons affected by their decision.

But apart from these considerations we question whether the Judges of the Inferior Courts would accept with any better grace than their brethren of the Superior Courts this invidious jurisdiction. It is eminently desirable that judges of all kinds should stand neutral in cases affecting communities in which probahly there is a balance of delinquency. In municipal contests there is frequently much bitterness and party spirit, and all investigations into the elections would require great care, and the exercise of the most cautious impartiality; and we say, without hesitation, that the addition of this jurisdiction to the others already thrust upon the County Courts would weaken their administrative power.

There is a further consideration. The judges are asking for more salary, and with every riijht to receive it. One thing at a time. First let them be paid properly for what they are doing and then new jurisdictions might be considered, and perhaps imposed accompanied by appropriate pecuniary considerations —County Courts Chronicle for September.

LEYBUEN COUNTY COURT.

Tliursday, Aug. 19.

(Before E. B. Turner, Esq., Judgo.)

Assault upon a County Court bailiff.

An application was made by Mr. Herring, the high bailiff, for an order against Joseph Hammond, of Ilton-cum-Pott, farmer, for an assault upon Joseph Lee, the assistant-bailiff of tho County Court of Bipon, whilst levying an execution issued out of this court upon tho goods of Joseph Ham- j mom!. It appeared that on the 2nd Aug. Mr. Lee wont to defendant's house with the execution to I levy the sum of 21.13s. Defendant stated that he | hod paid the debt and costs to a debt collecting i "obap" from Darlington about a week after the court day. which was held in February. This man sail I that if he did not pay ho should go to Lerburn and take ont an execution. Hammond was told that; the person to whom he had paid the debt had not handed the money over, consequently he must pay it over again. Defendant said he would not believe the laws of England would make him pay the money over again, and in this view he was supported by Verity, his son-in-law. Finding Hammond was determined not to pay, Mr. Lee proceeded to levy and searched for something portable to realise the amount. For this purpose he went into a bedroom, and whilst opening a closet door Verity seized him from behind and prevented him from going near the closet, asking him if he intended to rob them. Hammond then came into the room and attempted to strike the officer with a stick, but was prevented by Verity, and whilst they were scuffling the officer went down stairs, followed by Hammond and Verity, when Hammond put him out of the house by force. The offence was admitted, and his Honour expressed his intention of making the order applied for under the powers of the 14th section of the 9 & 10 Vict., c. 96.

Mr. Herring interposed, and said there was no doubt there were extenuating circumstances, defendant having paid the money to a person who signed J. Dargue, pro W. Place, who is represented to be the manager of the Victoria Trade Protection Society Debt Collecting Offices, 50, Dean-street, Newcastle-on-Tyne, and 5, Stationterrace, Darlington. The parties had also agreed to give a pnblic apology for their conduct. He would therefore ask his Honour to mitigate the amount of penalty.

His Honour said if Mr. Herring had not interceded he should have made an order for the full penalty of 51. From defendant's admission the officer had been assaulted, and it was no excuse paying tho money to an unauthorised person. He should order them to pay 10s. each and costs.

BANKRUPTCY LAW.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. BankruptcyContingent Dedt Not ProvAble Under.—The M. Insurance Company had, in Jan. 18GG, lent a large sum in Consols to be deposited by the promoter of a Bill then before Parliament. The plaintiffs, the defendant, and others, six in all, entered into an undertaking with the company, that if the Bill was thrown out the Consols should be returned, and that if it passed (which was the event that happened), an equal amount of stock should be transferred to the company, and that a sum in the nature of interest on the value of the Consols (at the time they were lent) from the end of six months to the date of the transfer should be repaid to the company. In June 1606 the defendant was adjudicated a bankrupt. In July he obtained his certificate. In August the Bill passed, but the Consols were not transferred till the 8th July 1807, and the plaintiffs were compelled to pay under the undertaking 500/. as an equivalent for interest. Upon an action brought against the defendant to recover his contribution for one

sixth part of the above sum, he pleaded his bankruptcy: Held, that this claim was not provable under his bankruptcy, and so his bankruptcy was no answer to the action: (Cary v. -Oaic*oji,21L.T. Rep. N. S. 23. Q. B.)

Joint And Separate Creditors.—The case, Re Evans ami Evans, which was lately before the Bankruptcy Court, is another illustration of the absurdity of bankruptcy law as to joint and separate creditors. The distinction becomes, under the clauses of the Bankruptcy Acts, a reason for upsetting an arrangement to which the only creditors who ought to be concerned had assented, and which on the face of it appears perfectly fair. The case was as to the validity of a deed by whioh, under subsequent arrangements for the sale of the property, including the sale of a portion of it to the bankrupts, the creditors on the joint estate were to receive 5s. in the pound, although the assets only showed 3s., while the separate creditors would only receive 4s. ikl. in the one case, and Is. <kl. in the other. Tho arrangement was in short in the nature of a composition, by which the bankrupts in exchange for a portion of the joint estate agreed to make up the joint dividend to 5s. Upon these facts advantage was taken by the separate creditors who had not assented to contend that they ought to be counted as among the "creditors," joint and separate; creditors being spoken of indiscriminately in the Act, and that the arrangement being equivalent to a bonus to tho joint creditors, the consent of tho latter went for nothing, and the deed was invalid, not being agreed to by the requisite number of creditors. Mr. Commissioner Winslow decided that this view was correct, and dismissed the motion of the joint creditors against a petition for adjudication of bankruptcy. Yet it is plain that only the joint creditors should have anything to do with the joint estate, and that under a proper law no harm could come to the separate estates, as the joint creditors should also be entitled to prove against them till they were paid in full. Proceedings have been stayed for the opportunity of appeal, but under the present law it is to be feared such cases of injustice must be unavoidable.

CORRESPONDENCE OF THE
PROFESSION.

[yoTE— This department of the Law Times bcinc open to free dweuasion on all profetwional topics, the Editor is not responsible for an}' opinions or statements contained in it.]

Larcent By Servant Embezzlement. — In your last number, under title "Notes of New Decisions," two heads appear as "Larceny by Servant," and "Embezzlement," and reference is made to the reported case of Reg. v. Dartnell, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 1020. On referring to the first case, your readers will observe that tie case Reg. v. Low, cited by Mr. Perkins for the prosecution, is reported as "doubted" by Mr. Justice Byles. As that case and that against Dartnell are very important, and, I believe, of not uncommon occurrence, allow me to explain that the jndge asked to see the report of Reg v. Low, but it was not to be had in Huntingdon, and hence his Lordship (as the point was new to him) declined to act upon it; but it can hardly be said that as he never saw it ho doubted its authority; and. considering that it was decided by the Court of Criminal Appeal, at which five judges presided (although neither the Lord Chief Justice Cockburn nor Mr. Justice Byles were present), who were unanimous in their judgment. I cannot but think that if the report had been forthcoming, it would have removed all doubt at the assizes. Now, as to the case of " embezzloment," which is reported, "Mr. Justice Byles dubitante," allow me to explain that when it appeared in evidenco that the accused had no authority to receive money "by virtue of "his employment" on behalf of Mr. Story, his master, the judge was about to stop the case, when his attention was called by Mr. Heathcoto to the purposed omission (soe Greaves on the Consolidation Acts,2nd edit., p. 156) of those words in the new statute, 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 68, that his Lordship sent for, and perused the statutes 7 & 8 Goo. 4, c. 29, s. 47; and 9 Geo. 4, c. 55, s. 40. and that of Victoria; and after doing so, thanked Mr. Heathcote for having called his attention to the point, and added that his doubts were removed, and therefore the trial proceeded, and tho prisoner was found guilty and sentenced as reported by you. The Attorney For The Prosecution. Peterborough, 7th Sept., 1869.

PROMOTIONS & APPOINTMENTS

The Lord Chancellor has appointed Frederick Brown Rowland, of Ramsbury, in tho county of Wilts, to be a Commissioner to administer Oaths in Chancery in England.

NOTES AND QUERIES ON
POINTS OF PRACTICE.

(Tvf.B.—None are inserted miles? the name and aaVlre«. ,'<•-**. writer* are sent, not necessarily for publication, bet as a tfuaiam.ee for Oonajldea.]

faeries.

81. Attorney—Change Ok Name.—"What steps meat be token by an attorney, in addition to those taken by

| other persons, before he can change his name, and the probable expense attendant thereon? Attomet.

82. Calx To The Bar Attorket. — How most an attorney proceed before he can be called to the Bar and the time that must elapse from the taking of the" first step (which is I believe to apply to be struck off the Rolls), before he can be Bo called? As Asfieaxt.

83. County Courts Act 1867, s. 2—Registrars' Aj» High Bailiffs' Duties.—1st. Is it the duty of the high bailiff on service of a summons under this sect We ta the home court to return to the registrar (with tot duplicate summons), an affidavit of such service ;cris, it his duty to wait until required by the piantitf t«> fur. nish such affidavit? 2nd Is an affidavit of service by the high bailiff of a foreign court sufficient jmxvf if twrict for all purposes in the cause: t u.f suffid-'Dt u»

j entitle the plaintiff to sign judgment without being required to procure from such high bailiff, and ,.roduc* \ a further affidavit? Vidt s. 2. Kegistuae.

I

I 84. The Bankruptcy Act 1849 {12 & 13 Vict. c. 1M, \ s. 184J— Will any of your numerous correspond^ts t kindly inform me whether any decision has been given. in a Superior Court affecting the following section, and ; if so, the case? Sect. 184: "That no creditor hannr, i security for bis debt, or having made any attachment ia London or in any other place by virtue of any custom there used, of the goods and chattels of the bankrupt, shall receive upon any such security or attachmea. more than a rateable part of such debt, except in respect of any execution or extent served and letied by seizure, and Bale upon, or any mortgage of, or ben upon, any part of, the property of such bankrupt Wfw the date of the fiat, or the filing of a petition for adjudication of bankruptcy." A. holds a bill of Baleof B'j. chattels, he enters and takes possession, but before sals B. files his petition. Is not the assignee of B. entitled under this clause, to recover the goods or their vain As Old Subscribie.

85. Wise And Beerhouse Act 18G9.—A person holdhbr a licence for sole of beer to be drunk on the premues omitted to give twenty-one days' notice to the overseers, Apc., of his intention to apply at the annual li'-eming meeting for a certificate for renewal of his Ucence u required by the above Act. The meeting was daly adjourned for a month under the Alehouse Licenaay Act (9 Geo 4, c. 61), and the beerseller has givea the twenty-one days' notice of application at the adjournment. May I trouble you to give your opinion whether the certificate can be legally granted at the adjournment? A SUESCXIBIB.

86. Ten Years' Clerks.—Would some of your nuns. runs readers kindly say if it is absolutely necessary lor a ten years' clerk to pass a preliminary examination, and, if so, what are the subjects he is to be examined upon? A. B.

87. M viiiiIme Law.—A. holds nine shares of a tassel, and mortgages them to B. B. is entered on the register as mortgagee of these snares. The ship has Wa insured. A. dies, and the vessel gets lost about the same time. The mortgagee calls up A.'s share of the insurance money, but is refused it by the ship's huabaai on the ground that his receipt for it would not be a valid one, and that A.'s administrators are the proper parties to receive it. Question: Would the ship s husband, under the circumstances, be safe in taking s receipt from B. for A.'s share of the insurance money without his indemnifying him against any future claim that might be made by A.'s administrators? An answer in your next by a correspondent would oblige.

I. H. E

sUtstocrs.

(Q. 76.) Mortgage.—It appear, to me that B «a only assign the residue of the term of 500 jeers. The fee simple was not conveyed to him; by what roeaaa, therefore can he grant that? Certainly the po««x of sale seems to favour that idea, bnt theassiirnmentacl the power are two repugnant clauses, and the role is that if there be a repugnancy, the first words iu a tleed and the last words in a will shall prevail. 1. H. C.

— Allow me to call the attention of S. Z. R. and W. P. to the 23 A 24 Vict. c. 145, as. 15,16, and S, which seem to have escaped their consideration, and to leave this query in a state of considerable doubt.

Adtocate.

(Q. 77.) Landlord And Tenant.—The question ia cases like this is quo antmo the rent and keys *«ri received, and what the real intention of both parties was. In the case of VUene v. PopyUtrtll, 6 L. T. R*P> N. S. 247, it was held, that acceptance of the keyabj the landlord, together with theother acts therein spMfied, "amounted to a surrender by operation ol 1a*. and, therefore, no rent could be recovered which murbt become due after the keys were left with him." I thin* the landlord could not succeed with a plea waorir.'.o legis. I- H. C

(Q. 78.) Articled Clerk.—I begtorefer "W.fV'tc the case of Ex pnrte Waller Peri*rcvrn, 14 L. T. Sep N. 8. 252, which is the only case I can find relarimr!. the subject of his query: (See also the 10th sectiono 23 & 24 Vict. c. 127). *■ H- c

(Q. 79.) Repairing Fences.—If B. had, by »•" obtained a prescriptive right to the use of the •»» think an action might be maintained against A. Ir ta damage. In the absence of that right, the case of Ciwehiiiv. Evans, 1 Taunt. 529, decides that "where two persons are possessed of adjoining closes, neither boa? io any obligation to fence, each must take care that bis cattle do not enter the land of the other." Which leads one to presume that he should fence his •mind. I. H. C.

(Q. 80.) Execctios.—A.'s remedy, if the company could not pay its debts, would be by petition to have th« company wound up; or perhaps he might proceed aider the 61st section of the Common Law Procedure Act 1851, and obtain an attachment of all rent due from the lessees. I. H. C.

(Q. 81.) Criminal Law. — According to the facts stated in this query, C. D. is not liable to any criminal proceeding at the instance of A. B. It should always be borne in mind that concealment and secrecy constitute the very essence of the offence of embezzlement. The bore nonpayment of money received on behalf of another would not be considered in Law as an act ot embezzlement, if its receipt were accounted for Id the ordinary and usual manner, and there was no denial or concealment of the fact: (Sleigh's Criminal law, p. 61.) W. H. F.

(Q. 83.) Sale Bt Sheriff.—In the table of fees to be taken by sheriffs, under sheriffs, sheriff's agents, bbiliffs :-;ul others, the officers or ministers of sheriffs in En/knd and Wales, pursuant to the statute, 1 Vict, c. J«5, is the following item: — " For every sale by auction, notwithstanding the defendant should become hiakrupt or insolvent, where the property sold does not produce more than 300/., 5 per cent., 4001. 4 per cent., 5001. 3 per cent., and where it exceeds 5001., 24 per cent. (Gray's Attorney's Practice, 9th edit., p. 516.)

W. H. F.

LAW LIBRARY.

An Historical Sketch of the French Bar, from its Origin to the Present Day. By Archibald

Yotnro, Advocate. Edinburgh: Edmonton

tad Douglas.

(Concluded from page S45.J

Numerous anecdotes are related by Mr. Young of the great advocates who appeared in the first history of the Bar. From the very earliest times they were distinguished for their independence and courage, never fearing to face the sovereign in defence of the rights of the subject. Here is one of Louis Servin in 1620:

Louis Servin, first simple advocate and subsequently Advocate-General, was highly distinroised for his eloquence and for his resolute and independent spirit. When Lonis XIII. came to hold a lit de justice in Feb. 1620, in order to compel the registration of certain edicts which tho Parliament had declined to register, Servin addressed him in the following plain-spoken terms: "Sire, we hold it very strange that your Majesty proceeds to the registration of our edicts by Bo extraordinary a method as to come to your Court of Parliament, contrary to the ancient forms preserved from time immemorial To-day,

fednced by evil councils, yon come into your court, So deprive us of the means of deliberating with freedom of conscience If the presence of your

Majesty compels us to pass beyond all these considerations, it shall be under protestation." Six fears after Louis held another lit de justice, to procure the registration of eight edicts which had in view the creation find revocation of certain ofices, and the establishment of taxes upon a number of articles of consumption. Cardinal Bichelien, the author of the edicts, was present; but Servin, who spoke for the Procurenr-General, *as not on that account the less free in his remonitrances. He had jnst pronounced tho words, ''You will acquire a more desirable glory by gaining the hearts of your subjects, than by subduing jour enemies," when he was seized with apoplexy, arid fell expiring at the feet of the king, and in the presence of the Parliament, on whoso behalf he *as protesting against the royal edicts. He died on the field of honour in March, 1620.

Among the most famous of the names that distinguished the French Bar previously to the Revolution is that of D'Aguesseau, who was born at Limoges in 1668, and appointed King'sAdvocate at the early age of twenty-one. He »ai Advocate-General at thirty-twu, and Chancellor at forty-eight. Of him it is reported, that bis first discourse as Advocate-General had for its subject the independence of the Bar, of which he is a magnificent eulogiser.

In it occur these words, so often quoted: "It is »» order as ancient as the magistracy, as noble as JTtae, as necessary as justice; it is distinguished °7 a character which is peculiar to itself, and it «one always maintains the happy and peaceful Possession of independence." Of the advocate he "ays: "Free, without being useless to his *tt«try1 he devotes himself to the public without "*»&• a slave to it, and condemning the indifference of the philosopher who seeks independence "i indolence, he laments the misfortune of those "no only enter upon public duties at the expense ■ their liberty." D'Aguesseau pronounced

another famous oration in 1699, on "The Causes of the Decay of Eloquence," which is deserving of attentive perusal; and, in 171G, composed instructions for the use of his son, which treat specially of the science of law, and in which he particularly recommends the study of the pleadings of the most eminent counsel, and attendance at the conferences of the order of advocates, as the best means of forming a young orator and a young magistrate.

Of Normand, another great name, it is reported that nothing could persuade him to take up a cause which he believed to be unjust, and his scrupulous accuracy with regard to what he asserted was so well known that the judges used to say of him, "Believe a fact at once when Normand attests it. Still more celebrated was his contemporary Cochin, who was numbered on the roll of advocates at the age of nineteen. After one of his great speeches, Normand remarked to him that he had never heard anything so eloquent, to which Cochin, with true French grace, replied, "It is evident, sir, that you do not belong to the number of those who hear themselves."

Of Gerbier, another great advocate of the eighteenth century, it is said that he once received a fee of 4000/. from the company of the Indies, and a fee of 20,000/. from a Sieur cadet whose cause he had successfully pleaded.

The Bar, as an order of the State, was swept away in the torrent of the Revolution, its last defender being, strangely enough, no less a personage than Robespierre, whose speech may at no distant future be applicable to ourselves.

The resolution putting an end to it was passed upon the report of an advocate of Lyon named Bergasse, who had previously acquired considerable reputation at the Bar. His report of 17th Aug. 1789, concludes in tho following terms: "Every one shall have the right of pleading his own cause himself, if he thinks proper; and in order that the office of advocate may be as free as it ought to be, advocates shall cease to form a corporation or an order, and every citizen having made the necessary studies and submitted to the necessary examinations, shall have the right to exercise that profession: he shall be bound to answer for his conduct only to the law." Strange to say, none of the advocates in the Constituent Assembly stood up in defence of the Bar, and the laws of 16th Aug. and 2nd Sept. 1790, abolished the order of advocates. One orator only defended them in the Assembly, and that orator wss Robespierre, with whose true and prophetic, as well as eloquent words, we close the present chapter. "The Bar," he said, "seems still to display liberty exiled from the rest of the world; it is there that we still find the courage of truth which dares to proclaim the rights of the weak and oppressed against the powerful oppressor. The exclusive power of defending citizens shall be conferred by three judges and by three lawyers. In that case yon will no longer behold in the sanctuary of justice those men of deep feeling capable of rising to enthusiasm in behalf of tho cause of the unfortunate, those independent and eloquent men, the support of innocence and the scourge of crime. They will be repelled, but you will have welcomed lawyers without delicacy, without enthusiasm for their duties, and only urged on in a noble career by sordid considerations of interest. You mistake, you degrade functions precious to humanity, essential to the progress of public order; you close that school of civic virtues where talent and merit learned, while pleading the cause of citizens before the judge, to defend thereafter that of the people in the legislative assemblies."

Many members of the Bar were prominent in the Revolution itself. Foremost among them was M. Giraud, who belonged to the provincial bar—that of Bordeaux. His public career, brilliant as it was, lasted only four years. He led the Revolution, but was speedily trodden down by it when he was reluctant to go on. So it will doubtless be with the revolution now iu progress among ourselves. He advocated extreme counsels until it was too late to fall back upon moderate measures. The result is thus described:

After the passing of the laws abolishing their order, the former advocates endeavoured to maintain some bond of union among themselves, in hope of better times. But of the 600 names on the roll of 1789, many gave up the Profession, about forty-six accepted some of the newly constituted judicial appointments; and others were elected members of the National Assembly, among whom were Tronchet, Target, Camus, Martineau, Hutteau, Sanson, and Treilhard. There remained about 150, who, while accepting the new designation of hommes de loi, were yet united into a sort of voluntary association, preserving the ancient

customs and discipline. They carefully avoided mixing themselves up with the intruders, without talent, and often without morality, who came forward to practise before the new tribunals. Among the most distinguished in this group of former advocates we find the names of Delainalle, Bellart, Berryer, Billecoq, Delacroix-Frainville, Gairal, and Gicquel.

Here we must pause. Perhaps, if leisure should permit, we may resume this interesting book, to trace the fortunes of the French Bar from its re-establishment by Napoleon the Great to the present time.

A Treatise on the Law and Practice as to Re~

ceivers appointed by the Court of Chancery.

By Wm. Williamson Kerr, Barrister-at

Law. London: Maxwell. It will probably surprise the reader to learn that the law relating to receivers in the Court of Chancery is sufficiently large to fill a volume exceeding two hundred pages, and still more that a number of persons are to be found interested in that law sufficient to justify the dedication to their service of a distinct treatise. Those of the Profession who are dealing practically with the law of receivers will thank Mr. Kerr for the great assistance he has in thesepages given to them, and it may be safely prophesied that no receiver or person having toadvise the appointment of a receiver, or to be the legal adviser of the receiver when appointed, will fail to possess himself of a work which gives such careful and minute instructions what is to be done and to be avoided.

Mr. Kerr commences by a brief statement, which we will cite as a good specimen of his> composition, of

The Principles On Which A Receiver Is Appointed Bv The Court Of Chamceby.

The jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery to appoint a receiver has been assumed for the advancement of justice, and is founded on the inadequacy of the remedy to be obtained in tho courts of ordinary jurisdiction. There are few oases that can be stated in which the court has not jurisdiction where it is essential to the justice of the case to interfere by appointing a receiver. If the remedy afforded by the courts of ordinary jurisdiction is inadequate for the purposes of justice, the Court of Chancery will, on a proper case being made out, ex debito justitio;, appoint a receiver.

A receiver is an indifferent person between the parties appointed by the court to collect and receive the rents, issues, and profits of land, or tho produce of personal estate, or other things in question pending the suit, which it does not soenx reasonable to the court that either party should do ; or where a party is incompetent to do Bo as in the case of an infant. A receiver can only be properly granted for the purpose of getting in and seouring funds which this court at the hearing, or in the course of the cause, will have the moans of distributing among the persons entitled to those funds.

The object sought by the appointment of a receiver may be generally described to be to provide for the safety of property, ponding the litigation which is to decide tie right of litigant parties, or during the minority of infants, or to preserve property in danger of being dissipated or destroyed by those to whom it is by law entrusted, or by persons having immediate but partial interests therein.

The appointment of a receiver is a matterresting in the sound discretion of the court. In exercising its discretion the court proceeds with caution, and is governed by a view of the whola circumstances of the case. No positive or unvarying rule can bo laid down as to whether the court will, or will not interfere by this kind of interim protection of the property. Where, indeed, the property is as it were in. medio, in the enjoyment of no one, the court can hardly do wrong in taking possession. It is the common interest of all parties that the court should prevent a scramble. Such is the case where the receiver of property of a deceased person is appointed pending a litigation as to the right of probate or administration. No one is in the actual enjoyment of property, so circumstanced, and no wrong can be done to anyone by taking and preserving it for the benefit of the successful litigant. But where the object of the plaintiff is to assert a right to property of which the defendant is in enjoyment, the oase is necessarily involved in farther questions. The court, by taking possession at the instance of the plaintiff, may be doing a wrong to the defendant; in some cases an irreparable wrong. If the plaintiff should eventually fail in establishing his right against tho defendant, the court may, by its interim interference, have caused mischief to the defendant for which the subsequent restoration of the property may afford no adequate compensation. In all cases therefore where the court interferes by appointing a receiver of property in the possession of the defendant, before the title of the plaintiff is established by decree, it exercises a discretion to bo governed by all the circumstances of the case. Where the evidence on which the court is to act is very clear in favour of the plaintiff, there the risk of eventual injury to the defendant is very small, and the court does not hesitate to interfere Whore there is more of doubt, there is of course more of difficulty. The question is one of degree, as to which, therefore, it is impossible to lay down any precise or unvarying rule.

The duty of the court upon a motion for a receiver is moroly to protect the property in the meantime for the benefit of those persons to whom the court at tho hearing of tho cause, when it will nave beforo it all the evidence and materials necessary for a determination, shall think it properly belongs. On motion for a receiver the court will not prejudice tho cause. The court does not in appointing a receiver say what view it shall take at the hearing. On motion for a receiver the court has not to consider the question of what may be the result at the hearing, nor whether the time may not come when on a different state of things the court would appoint a receiver. In dealing with the applications the court is bound not to go out of its way in order to give tho plaintiff an opportunity of obtaining previously to the hearing the opinion of the court upon tho subject-matter of the suit. The court is bound to express its opinion only so far as it is necossary to show tho grounds on which tho interlocutory motion is disposed of, It is the duty of the court to confine itself strictly to the point upon which it is called upon to decide, and not to go into the merits of the case. The court will give no encouragement to any attempt to obtain its decision on important questions before the hearing. The court, will not, indeed, appoint a receiver at tho instance of a person whose right is disputed, where tho effect of the order would De to establish the right, even if tho court be satisfied that the person against whom the demand is made is fencing off the claim.

In determining whether it shall appoint a receiver, the court deals with tho case as it appears upon the pleadings and evidence, and stands on the record. If the court is satisfied upon tho materials it has before it that the relief prayed by the bill will be given when a decree is pronounced, and that it is necessary or expedient to secure the property until the hearing, there is a case for the appointment of a receiver. If it appears to the court that the plaintiff has established a good prima facie eqnitable title, and that the property, the subject-matter of the suit, is in danger if left in the possession of the party against whom the receiver is prayed until the hearing, or, at least that there is reason to apprehend that the plaintiff will be in a worse situation, if the appointment of a receiver be delayed, the appointment of a receiver is almost a matter of course. If there is no danger to the property, and no fact is in evidence to show the necessity or expediency of appointing a receiver, a receiver will not be appointed, unless there be some other equity in the case to support the application. The mere allegation of danger to the property is not sufficient, if the court is satisfied that no loss need bo apprehended. If, however, it be the true and necessary result of the pleadings as they stand, that the property is in danger, or that loss may be apprehended, there is a case for a receiver.

It is not, however, necessary, to entitle a party to the appointment of a receiver, that the property in question should appear to be in danger unless the appointment be made. It is enough that a good equitable title bo made to appear, and that the remedy at law should not fulfil the requisitions of justice. A receiver accordingly may, on a proper case being made out, be appointed to raise the arrears of an annuity, or a rentcharge; so, also, an equitable mortgagee may have a receiver appointed if tho payment of interest on his security be in arrear; so, also, if a person takes the conveyance of a legal estate, subject to equitable interests, ho must satisfy these equitable interests, or submit to the appointment of a receiver.

The court, on the application for a receiver, always looks to the conductof the party who makes the application, and will refuse to interfere unless his conduct has been free from blame. Parties who have acquiesced in property being enjoyed against their own alleged rights cannot come to the court for a receiver.

The record should be in sa.cn a state as will enable the judge to determine who is to take out of court the fund which tho appointment of the receiver shall have brought into court. But if the court sees that there is a case upon the record for

the appointment of a receiver, it is no sufficient answer that the record is not perfect as to particulars, and is not in the shape in which the court may find it necessary that it should be placed in order to administer complete justice. If the objection is a formal one, and such as may be removed by amendment, it will not stay its hand on account of any such objections. Objections to the bill on the ground of misjoinder, multifariousness, or want of parties, are no answer on the application for a receiver, if a case for the appointment of a receiver be shown.

If the subject of the suit in respect of which a receiver is sought is a matter of public interest, the Attorney-General should be made a party.

When the original bill had been answered, it was hold that the pendency of a plea to the amended bill did not prevent a motion for a receiver.

If certain statements in the bill and affidavits are relevant to the relief asked, the court will not on motion, allow exceptions to be taken to them. Where, for instance, on bill for a receiver alleging that tho executor was of bad character and drunken habits, the court would not, on the motion for a receiver, allow exceptions for scandal and impertinence.

If a receiver is asked for generally, the court may grant the prayer as far as is proper, or in a limited form.

The court has jurisdiction to appoint a receiver, pending litigation in a foreign court.

The appointment of a receiver operates as an injunction. An order for an injunction is always more or less included in an order for a receiver. It is not necessary, if a receiver be appointed, to go on and grant an injunction in terms; but in cases where persons in a fiduciary character have misconducted themselves, the court will often grant an injunction as well as a receiver, not because an injunction is necessary to prevent a party from reoeiving when a receiver is once appointed, but for the purpose of marking its sense of the conduct of the parties who have misconducted themselves.

The court may abstain from appointing a receiver on the submission of tho defendant to submit to a certain order to pay tho moneys into court, or to deal with tho moneys as the court shall direct.

The order appointing a receiver should state distinctly on the face of it over what property the receiver is appointed, or else refer to the pleadings or some document in the cause which describes the property. It usually directs the receiver to pass his accounts from time to time, and to pay the balance found due from him into court to the credit of the cause, to be there invested and accumulated, or otherwise, as may be directed.

If the appointment of a receiver is over real or leasehold estate, the order usually directs the parties to the record who are in possession, not as tenants but as owners, to deliver up to him the possession.

If tenants are in possession of real or leasehold estates over which a receiver is appointed, the order should direct them to attorn, and pay thenrents in arrear and the growing rents to the receiver, but this direction should be omitted when the estates are out of England.

If the property over which a receiver is appointed is outstanding personal estate, the order should direct the parties in possession of such estate to deliver over to the receiver all such estate, and also all securities in their hands for such estate or property, together with all books and papers relating thereto.

The court may, at its discretion, deal with the costs of the motion for a receiver at the time of the application, or the costs of the application may be ordered to be costs in the cause.

The costs of the motion for a receiver are sometimes reserved until the hearing, even although the application is refused.

He proceeds then to set forth succinctly the cases in which a receiver will be appointed: that is to say in the case of infants, of executors and trustees; pending litigation as to probate; between mortgagor and mortgagee; debtor and creditor; vendor and purchaser; covenantor and covenantee; public companies; tenant for life and remainderman; partnership; bankruptcy; lunacy; tenants in common; and, lastly, of parties in possession of real estate under a legal title.

The 3rd chapter sets forth over what property a receiver may be appointed; the next, who may be appointed a receiver; and then successive chapters treat of the mode of appointment; its effect; the powers and duties of the receiver; his salary and allowance; his accounts; his discharges; his liabilities and rights; and a final chapter states the law relating to managers and consignees.

To all lawyers interested in its subject-matter it will be an invaluable work.

LEGAL OBITUARY.

E. C. EGERTON, ESQ., M.P. The late Edward ChristopherEgerton,Esq.,MP., of Mountfield Court, Sussex, barrister-at-law. who' died at Baveno, in Italy, on the 27th tilt., in the fifty-fourth year of his age, was the fourth son of the late Wilbraham Egerton, Esq. (many yews M-P. for Cheshire) by Elizabeth, second daughter of the late Sir Christopher Sykes, Bart., M.P., and brother of William, first Lord Egerton of Tattoo. He was born at Tatton Park, Cheshire, in July 181G, and was educated at Harrow and at Christ Church, Oxford, where he graduated B.A in IS!"; he afterwards obtained a fellowship at All Souls College, and graduated B.C.L. in 1841. He was called to the Bar at the Inner Temple in 1340, and was a magistrate for Hants and Sussex, and a deputy-lieutenant for the county of Chester, hi July 1850 he was an unsuccessful candidate for Chester; but in 1852 he was returned for Macclesfield, and continued its representative until the general election in 1868, when he was returned in the Conservative interest for East Cheshire with. out opposition. When Lord Derby formed hii third Government in July 1866, Mr. Egerton was appointed Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and this office he retained until Mr. Disraeli resigned the Premiership in Dec. 1863. The deceased gentleman, who was a director of the Great Northern Railway Company, married in 1815 Ladj Mary Frances, daughter of Charles Herbert, second Earl Manvers, and has left issue two sons and four daughters.

E. W. BENNETT, ESQ. (Of Altrineham and Manchester). We have to record the death of the aboTe. named gentleman, who had for many years been very prominent in public matters connected with Mid-Cheshire and with Manchester. Mr. Bennett died on Sunday, Aug. 22nd 1869, at the age of 5*. He took his certificate as a solicitor in Easter Term 1836, and went into partnership with his brother, Mr. Edward Bennett. On the death of the latter in 1850, Mr. B. W. Bennett continued to practise as a solicitor in Manchester on bis own account, and has continued up to the present lime in the old offices in Kennedy-street. Somewhat more than twenty years ago he went to reside in Timperley, and after a few years removed to the Poplars, in Norman's Place, Altrineham, where he died. In connection with Altrineham and district, he not only practised as a solicitor at the local courts, but took an active part in various public affairs. He was a member of the Local Board of Health for several years, soon after it was first created. He took a prominent part in getting up a requisition to Government for an enquiry into the means of supplying Altrineham with water. Mr. Rawlinson, C. E., was sent [down, and it was found that the water which was proposed to be taken from the Moss was not good enough. A scheme was then projected for the erection of reservoirs, but before it had made much progress Mr. Bennett brought out the scheme of the North Cheshire Water Company to procure a supply from Manchester, whion speedily superseded the more costly reservoir scheme. This was in 1857. In Feb. 185S the North Cheshire Company supplied Ashton-onMersey and Sale. In a few months afterwards the supply was extended to Altrineham, Bowdon, Timperley, and Dunham Massey. To that Bchemc is due an abundant supply of good water at a moderate price, whilst at the same time, the company has been prosperous and the shareholders have realised good dividends. Subsequently, Mr. Bennett was the leading spirit in forming the Knutsford Water Company, which ultimately in 1864 was incorporated with the Gas Company. Mr. Bennett was extensively employed in connection with the promotion of various railway lines. He was the solicitor employed in connection witn the establishment of the Cheshire Midland Railway, and in procuring their bills of 1859.1860-61. He was also successful in obtaining the bills for West Cheshire Railway in 1861-2, and for the Macclesfield and Warrington Railway in 1864-0. In 1864 he procured the Act for the North Cheshire Water Company, which up to that time had been conducted under the Limited Liability Act Mr. Bennett had the respect of a large circle of friends.

LEGAL NEWS.

The Prussian Minister of Justice, M. Leonbanlt, has decided on the scheme for a penal code, which he has just published, to retain the penalty of death for three categories of crimes—high treason, serious violence against a sovereign, and assassination. This proposition will excite considerable antagonism among the Liberal party. The peat majority of tie people (at least the educated por tion) incline to the entire suppression of capitapunishment. M. Leonhardt himself is not I strong advocate of this punishment, but he fear

« 이전계속 »