Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

rights thereunder by an action without either bank adopted by arrangement with the Postjoining the attorney-general as a party or showing office the phrase “Street, London," as a cypher that he has sustained any particular damage. address for telegrams from abroad to themDeconport (Mayor) v. Plymouth Tramways selves :—Held, that the court had no jurisdiction Company, 52 L. T. 161 ; 49 J. P. 405—C. A. to grant an injunction restraining the bank from

using such address, as there was no attempt to

interfere with trade, no legal injury done, but II. CAUSES OF ACTION.

simply a matter of inconvenience. Street v.

Union Bank of Spain and England, 30 Ch. D. “Cause of Action.”] – A cause of action 156 ; 55 L. J., Ch. 31 ; 53 L. T. 262 ; 33 W. R. includes every fact which it would be necessary

901—Pearson, J. to prove, if traversed, in order to enable à plaintiff to sustain his action. Read v. Brown, Real Action-Action for Debt.]—The defen22 Q. B. D. 128 ; 58 L. J., Q. B. 120 ; 60 L. T. dant was the owner and occupier of certain 250 ; 37 W. R. 131-C. A.

lands in the parish of P., which by a private act

were charged with the payment to the vicar of Felony disclosed Action whether main. 2701. in lieu of all tithes. The act provided that tainable.)

In an action for the seduction of if the annual rents were in arrear, the vicar was the plaintiff's daughter a paragraph of the state for recovering the same as by the laws and

to have such and the same powers and remedies ment of claim alleged that the defendant administered noxious drugs

to the daughter for statutes of the realm are provided for the recovery the purpose of procuring abortion :-Held, that of rent in arrear; and also that if no sufficient the paragraph could not be struck out as dis- distress was found on the premises, the vicar closing a felony for which the defendant ought might enter and take possession of the same to have been prosecuted, inasmuch as the plaintiff until the arrears were satisfied. Four years' was not the person upon whom the felonious act the whole of the lands charged, during the whole

arrears of the annual rent accrued in respect of was committed, and had no duty to prosecute. of which period the defendant was the owner Appleby v. Franklin, 17 Q: B. D. 93 ; 55 L, J. and occupier of a portion only of such lands :Q. B. 129; 54 L. T. 135 ; 34 W. R. 231 ; 50 J. P. 359-D.

Held, that the vicar might maintain an action of debt against the defendant for the whole

amount in arrear, the remedy by real action, Waiver of Tort-Action on Contract.]—After which was a higher remedy than the action by the death of a sheriff and before the appoint- debt, having been abolished by 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. ment of his successor, the under-sheriff sold 27, s. 36. Christie v. Barker, 53 L. J., Q. B. goods under a writ delivered to him before the 537-C, A. death of the sheriff. He did not pay over all the proceeds to the execution creditor, who more than six months after the death of the under the winding-up of a company, the defendant,

Balance Order. ]—By a balance order made in sheriff and also more than six months after they who was a shareholder and director of the comhad undertaken administration, sued hisexecutors for money had and received and also for the pany, was ordered to pay a sum of 2521. due in tort :-Held, that the action for money had and respect of calls to the official liquidator of the

The liquidator brought an action received would lie; and that as that action did against the defendant for the sum due under the not require the same evidence to support it as balance order and the defendant claimed to set the action for tort, it was not necessary to waive off a sum due to him from the company :-Held, the tort. Gloucestershire Banking Co. v. that no action can be brought upon a balance Edwards, 19 Q. B. D. 575 ; 56 L. J., Q. B. 514 ; order. Chalk & Co. v. Tennent, 57 L. T. 598 ; 35 W. R. 842-D.

36 W. R. 263—North, J. See Mackay, Ex parte,

Shirley, In re, 58 L. T. 237—D.
Remedy for Breach of Statutory Duty.)-
There are three classes of cases in which a lia-

Action for Costs—Appeal to Quarter Sessions.] bility may be established by statute :-(1)-An action lies to recover costs which have Where a liability existed at common law and been taxed by the clerk of the peace, and which was only re-enacted by the statute with a special arise out of an order made by justices in the case form of remedy, in such cases the plaintiff had of a pauper lunatic under 16 & 17 Vict. c. 97, s. his election unless the statute contained words 97, and subsequently abandoned after notice of necessarily excluding the common law remedy; appeal to sessions has been given. Dewsbury (2) where a statute bas created a liability but Union v. West Ham Union, 56 L. J., M. C. 89; given no remedy, then the party may adopt an 52 J. P. 151–D. action of debt or other remedy at common law to enforce it ; (3) where the statute creates a liability not existing at common law and gives a the High Court claiming relief which, before the

High Court-Not below £10.]-An action in particular remedy, here the party must adopt Judicature Act, could have been given only in the form of remedy given by the statute. Val. lance v. Falle, 13 Q. B. D. 109 ; 35 L. J., Q. B. tained if the subject-matter is below 101. in

the Court of Chancery, cannot now be main459; 51 L. T. 158 ; 32 W. R. 770; 48 J. P.519 ; value. The old rule of the Court of Chancery in 5 Asp. M. C. 280—Per Mathew, J.

this respect still remains in force. Westbury-on

Severn Rural Sanitary Authority v. Meredith, Damnum absque Injuria-Assuming Business | 30 Ch. D. 387 ; 55 L. J., Ch. 744 ; 52 L. T. 839; Name. )-The short address “Street, London," 34 W. R. 217-C. A. [By Rules of Supreme was used for many years in sending telegrams Court, 1883, the Chancery Consolidated General from abroad to Street & Co., of Cornhill. A Orders of 1860 are repealed. ]

III, NOTICE OF ACTION.

Metropolis Management-Actions in Equity

Injunction.] - Section 106 of the Metropolis Constable—Contagious Diseases (Animals).]— Local Management Acts Amendment Act, 1862, Section 19 of 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 41, by which, in which requires that before any proceeding is all actions for anything done in pursuance of instituted against a district board a month's that act, the venue is to be local, and the defen- notice shall be served on them by the person indant to receive notice of action, applies only to tending to take the proceeding, does not apply such acts as a constable might at the date of the to actions in equity-per North, J. That section statute have been called upon to perform ; there- does not apply to an action for an injunction to fore the section does not apply in the case of a restrain a nuisance-per Lopes, L.J, (Cotton and constable acting under the Contagious Diseases Lindley, L.JJ., not dissenting). Bateman v. (Animals) Act, 1878. Bryson v. Russell, 14 Poplar Board of Works, 33 Ch. D. 360 ; 56 L. J., Q. B. D. 720; 54 L. J., Q. B. 144 ; 52 L, T, 208 ; Ch, 149; 55 L, T. 374–C. A. 33 W, R. 34 ; 49 J, P. 293—C. A.

General Requirements.)-An action against Highways Act-Injunction.]—The provision the Melbourne Harbour Trust Commissioners is of section 109 of the Highways Act, 1835, as to an action brought against a "person” within notice of action, does not apply where the the meaning of s. 46 of the Melbourne Harbour principal object of the action is an injunction. Trust Act; and notice in writing thereof comPhelips v. Hadham District Board, 1 C. & E. plying in form or in substance with the require67-Coleridge, C. J.

ments of the section is necessary. Union Steam

ship Company of New Zealand v, Melbourne Public Health Act-Act “done under the Harbour Commissioners, 9 App. Cas. 365 ; 53 L. provisions of this Act."]-The effect of the J., P. C. 59; 50 L. T. 337 ; Asp, M, C, 222— Public Health Act, 1875, which makes improve- P, C, ment commissioners under local acts urban sanitary authorities, is to reconstitute them as

IV.-CHOSES IN ACTION. new bodies under the act, vesting in them as such new bodies the powers given by the local acts as What are.]-Choses in action include all perwell as those given by the Public Health Act ; sonal chattels not in possession. Shares in a and such commissioners in subsequently doing railway company are choses in action. Colonial any act in the exercise of the powers originally Bank v. Whinney, 11 App. Cas. 426 ; 56 L. J., conferred by their local acts are acting under Ch. 43 ; 55 L. T. 362 ; 34 W. R. 705 ;- 3 M. B. R. the Public Health Act, 1875, and consequently 207—H. L. (E.). are entitled in respect of such act to any protection or privilege given by that act to members of Voluntary Assignment – Incomplete Gift local authorities acting under its provisions. Intention of Donor. ]—A. held certain bank Lea v. Facey, 19 Q. B. D. 352 ; 56 L. J., Q. B. shares in trust for his father B., under a written 536 ; 58 L, T. 32 ; 35 W, R. 721 ; 51 J. P. 756— acknowledgment of the trust. B. indorsed on C, A.

the acknowledgment : “I transfer these shares A local board, assuming to act under the to my daughter C. for her sole use and benefit." authority of s. 39 of the Public Health Act, 1875-B. also held two I O U's, one from A., the (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), erected a public urinal second from another person indebted to him. partly upon a highway and partly upon a strip Upon each of these B. indorsed : “ I transfer the of land belonging to the plaintiff, and so near to debt of £ to my daughter C., for her sole other adjoining land of the plaintiff as to be a use and benefit.” B. signed these indorsements, nuisance to her and her tenants, and to depreciate and handed the acknowledgment and I O U's to the value of her property :-Held, that the plain-C. There was no consideration for the transfer. tiff was entitled to a mandatory injunction to B. did not give any notice of it to A. or the restrain the board from continuing the urinal debtor upon the second IOU, and continued upon her land or so near thereto as to cause till his death, five years later, to receive the injury or annoyance to her or her tenants, and dividends on the shares and the interest on A.'s that in such a case notice of action under s. 264 IOU :-Held, that, although the indorsements, is not required. Sellors v. Matlock Bath Local accompanied by the delivery of the acknowledgBoard, 14 Q. B. D. 928 ; 52 L. T. 762—Den- ment and I O U's were capable, if followed by man, J.

notice to the trustees and debtors, of operating

as equitable assignments, yet as it appeared, Person Acting when Disqualified.] -A having regard to the evidence and especially person who is in fact disqualified from being a to B.'s receipt of the subscquent dividends and member of a local authority but who acts in the interest, that he did not intend at the time of bonâ fide belief that he is a member is entitled the indorsement to divest himself absolutely of to notice of action under s. 264 of the Public his property in the shares or debts, but attempted Health Act, 1875. Lea v. Facey, supra,

at most to effect a disposition to become opera

tive only at his death, and in the meanwhile to Justices Negligence in building Police be ambulatory and revocable, they did not conStation.]_The building of a police station is an stitute a complete gift enforceable in equity. act done by justices in the execution of their Gason v. Rich, 19 L. R., Ir, 391-C. A. office ; and the justices, if sued for negligence in the building or maintaining thereof, and for Marriage--Severance of Wife's Joint Tenancy. damage arising therefrom, are entitled to the Marriage does not operate as a severance of the protection afforded by 11 & 12 Vict. c. 44. wife's joint tenancy in a chose in action (Bank Hardy v. North Riding Justices, 50 J. P. 663— stock) which has not been reduced into posHuddleston, B.

session by the husband. Baillie v. Treharne,

(17 Ch. D. 388) disapproved. Butler's Trusts,
In re, Hughes v. Anderson, 38 Ch. D. 286 ; 57

ADVANCEMENT.
L. J., Ch. 643 ; 59 L. T. 386 ; 36 W. R, 817–
C. A.

What is.]—Advancement is a payment to persons who are presumably entitled to, or have a vested or contingent interest in, an estate or a legacy before the time fixed by the trust instru

ment for their obtaining the absolute interest in ADEMPTION.

a portion or a whole of that to which they would

be entitled. (Per Cotton, L. J.) Aldridge, In Of Legacies.]— See WILL.

re, Abram v. Aldridge, 55 L. T. 554–C. A. Reversing 50 J. P. 723—Kay, J.

AND

TRATOR.

Absence of express Words-Power whether inferred.]—In the absence of express words authorising the payment, by way of advance

ment, of part of the corpus of an estate to a ADJUDICATION.

person who, under the trust instrument, can

never become absolutely entitled to a share of the of Bankrupts.]— See BANKRUPTCY.

corpus, the court will not infer a power to the trustees to advance a sum out of the corpus from the mere fact that the instrument contains a power of advancement simpliciter. Ib.

In favour of Children-Gift of Income to ADMINISTRATION.

Children and Corpus to Grandchildren.]-A testator directed his trustees to invest the pro

ceeds of sale of his residuary estate, and to of Assets. ]— See EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR—WILL (PAYMENT OF LEGACIES).

pay the income to his eight sons and daughters in equal shares. The will then contained the

following clause : “ And I give a power of adAction.] – See EXECUTOR ADMINIS

vancement to my trustees.” After the death of

the survivor of the children, the corpus of the Letters of. ]— See WILL.

estate was directed to be paid to the testator's grandchildren. The will contained a special power of advancement out of corpus in the case of grandchildren and a clause of forfeiture in case a child or other object of the trusts should attempt to anticipate his share :-Held, that the

trustees had no power to make advances out of ADMIRALTY.

the corpus to the children. 16. See SHIPPING.

Power of, exercisable with Consent of Life Tenant-Bankruptcy.]-A testatrix, who died in 1884, gave a moiety of a trust fund to trustees upon trust to pay the income to J. C., during his life, and after his death in trust for W. J. (an infant), empowering the trustees

to raise any part not exceeding one-half of ADMISSIONS.

W. J.'s share for his advancement, subject to

the iconsent in writing of J. C. during his life. In Pleadings.]-Sce PRACTICE.

The trustees were desirous of exercising the

power, but J. C. had become a bankrupt, and As Evidence. ]-See EVIDENCE.

was still undischarged :—Held, that J. C.'s power of consenting to the advancement was not extinguished by his bankruptcy, but could not be exercised without the sanction of his trustee in bankruptcy acting under the direction of the Court of Bankruptcy. Cooper, In re, Cooper v.

Slight, 27 Ch. D. 565 ; 51 L. T. 113; 32 W. R. ADULTERATION. 1015—Kay, J.

Father and Child—“Advancement by porSee HEALTH,

tion."]--A gift was made by a father to a son Kising Beers of different Strengths.]-See death of the father intestate, to be an “advance

to enable the son to pay a debt :-Held, on the REVENUE (EXCISE).

ment by portion " of the son, within sect. 5 of the Statute of Distributions.

The opinion expressed by Jessel, M.R., in Taylor v. Taylor, (20 L. R., Eq., 155) dissented from. Blockley,

In re, Blockley v. Blockley, 29 Ch. D. 250 ; 54 ADULTERY.

L. J., Ch. 722; 33 W. R. 777.--Pearson, J.

Sec HUSBAND AND WIFE

Set-off-Debt due to Father from Son.)

A father borrowed and advanced to his son 2001., recover against W. upon the agreement for to enable him to stock a farm. The father sub- indemnity arising out of the contract of surety. sequently paid off the lender without taking any ship, in which case they might retain W.'s life acknowledgment of any kind from the son, ex. interest in his share in satisfaction, or whether cept that he received interest from him for they would stand in the place of C.; but that in some years :-Held, that there was a debt due the latter event the release given by C. to W. from the son to the father which could be set-off would be effective as between the executors and against a share of the father's residuary personal W. Whitehouse, Ix re, Whitehouse v. Edwards, estate coming to the son as one of the next of 37 Ch. D. 683 ; 57 L. J., Ch. 161; 57 L, T, 761 ; kin. Milnes v, Sherwin, 33 W. R. 927—North, J. 36 W. R. 181—Stirling, J.

Evidence of Intention.]-After a testator Right of Father to charge on Contingent had made his will, giving his son a share in his Interest of Infant Son.]—The Court refused to residuary estate, he purchased for such son declare that sums advanced by a father for the certain farming stock, and placed him in a farm. benefit of his infant son were a charge on proShortly afterwards the testator died, and the perty to which the son would become entitled trustees of the will debited the son with a sum only in the event of his attaining twenty-one. of money equal to the value of the farming Semble, the court has no jurisdiction to make stock, as having been advanced to him by the such a charge, and the only proper form of testator by way of loan, and as a debt due from order in such a case is that in Arbuckle, In re him to the estate :—Held, that although Grave (14 W. R. 435). Tanner, In re, 53 L. J., Ch. v. Earl of Salisbury (3 Bro. C. C. 425) laid 1108 ; 51 L, T. 507—Kay, J. down that where there had been a gift of farming stock there was no presumption that it was Widowed Mother-Person in loco parentisintended as an advance to be set-off as against a Presumption.)—An action was brought by credi. legacy receivable under a will, yet Kirk v. tors for the administration of the estate of an Eddowes (3 Hare, 509), was an authority that intestate, a widow, against the administrator, who evidence was admissible to show that at the time was her eldest son, and who was acting under of the gift, the testator expressed his intention letters of administration granted to him prethat such gift was an advance to be set off ; that viously. The defendant had joined as surety in this case the court was of opinion that such an with the intestate in giving a security for certain intention had been proved, and that, there- loans which had been procured by her for her fore, the value of the farming stock must be own purposes, and he claimed to retain out of deducted from the share of the son. Turner, In the assets of the intestate, in or coming to his re, Turner v. Turner, 53 L. T. 379—Kay, J. hands as administrator, a sum sufficient to repay

these loans with interest. He had not, in fact, Contract by Son-Payment by joint and repaid them, although he was personally liable several Notes of Father and Son.]-In March, to do so. The defendant was at one period en1885, W. entered into an agreement with C. to gaged in farming, and the intestate from time to purchase a business for 1,5001., 3001. to be paid time made him small advances when he was in in cash and the balance to be secured by joint want of money to assist him in carrying on his and several promissory notes of W. and his business, or for his maintenance. The intestate father payable at various times. By his will never attempted to recover these moneys and she dated in October, 1885, the father divided his took no acknowledgment for them. The plaintiffs residuary estate into fifths, to be held upon sought to charge the defendant with the moneys trust for his five children, but W.'s share was so received by him. By the chief clerk's certifi. settled, and the testator declared that before cate it was certified that the defendant had made any of his sons should participate under the the claim above mentioned, which the chief clerk trusts of the will they should repay all sums had allowed, and that the plaintiffs had brought advanced by him in his lifetime; but if they in the set-off above referred to, but which the should be unable to repay such advances, they chief clerk had disallowed. The plaintiffs took should be treated as part of their shares. W. out a summons to vary the chief clerk's certificate : had no means of his own. The 3001. and the —Held, that the moneys advanced to the deamount due on the first promissory note were fendant by the intestate (who was in loco parentis paid by the father in his lifetime. After the at the time) to provide for his necessities, were father's death W.entered into a deed of arrange- presumably gifts to him, and accordingly the ment whereby he assigned all his property for plaintiff's set-off could not be allowed. Orme, the benefit of his creditors, who released him In re, Evans v, Maxwell, 50 L, T. 51–Kay, J, from his debts saving their rights against sureties. C. proved under the deed for the Godmother - Transfer of Stock into Joint balance of the purchase-money, but did not Names-Intention to Benefit.]—The plaintiff, a obtain complete satisfaction, and he recovered widow, in the year 1880, caused 6,0001. Consols to the residue from the father's estate :-Held, be transferred into the joint names of herself and first, that all the sums paid by the father or his the defendant, who was her godson. She did so executors were debts due from W. to the father's with the express intention that the defendant, in estate. Secondly, that the sums recovered from the event of his surviving her, should have the the father's estate after his death (including Consols for his own benefit, but that she should sums in payment of notes which fell due in his have the dividends during her life ; and she had lifetime) were not within the clause in the will previously been warned that if she made the relating to advances, but that the sums paid by transfer she could not revoke it. The first notice the father in his lifetime were, and that the the defendant had of the transaction was a letter latter ought to be set off against the corpus of from the plaintiff's solicitors about the end of W.'s share. Thirdly, that as to the former sums, 1882, claiming to have the fund re-transferred to the executors might elect whether they would the plaintiff :-Held, that the legal title of the

defendant as a joint tenant of the stock was complete, although he had not assented to the

AFFILIATION. transfer until he was requested to join in retransferring the stock, for that the legal title of

See BASTARDY, a transferee of stock is complete without acceptance. A transfer of property to a person without his knowledge, if made in proper form, vests the property in him at once, subject to his right to repudiate it when informed of the transfer. Standing v. Broring, 31 Ch. D. 282 ; 55 L. J., Ch. 218; 54 L. T. 191 ; 34 W. R. 204-C. A.

AGENT. Held, further, that the plaintiff could not claim a re-transfer on equitable grounds, the evidence See PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. clearly showing that she did not, when she made the transfer, intend to make the defendant a mere trustee for her except as to the dividends.

Ib.

AGREEMENT.

See CONTRACT,
ADVERTISEMENT.

Of Guarantee.]-See PRINCIPAL AND SURETY, For Evidence - Contempt of Court.]—A corespondent in a suit for divorce, immediately For Leases.]—See LANDLORD AND TENANT. after the service of the citation, caused advertisements to be published denying the charges For Sale of Goods.)-See SALE, made in the petition, and offering a reward for information which would lead to the discovery For Sale of Land.)-See VENDOR AND PURand conviction of the authors of them :-Held, CHASER, that these advertisements constituted a contempt of court. Brodribb v. Brodribb, 11 P. D. 66 ; 55 L. J., P. 47 ; 56 L, T. 672 ; 34 W. R. 580 ; 50 J. P. 107–Hannen, P.

In a suit for divorce on the wife's petition on the grounds of adultery and cruelty, the hus

AIR. band caused to be printed and published about the district in which the wife and her family

See EASEMENT. resided a notice purporting to be signed by him, offering a reward of 251. for evidence of the confinement of a young married woman of a female child,“ probably not registered":–Held, that this was a contempt of court as tending to prejudice the petitioner, and discrediting her in

ALDERMAN.
the assertion of her rights, and a writ of attach-
ment ordered to issue. Pool v. Sachererel (1 P.

See CORPORATION,
Wm. 675) questioned. Butler V. Butler, 13
P. D. 73 ; 57 L. J., P. 42 ; 58 L. T. 563—Butt, J.

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »