(viii) H. L.-Nuisance.-Held that in a case of nuisance several sufferers may combine to bring a joint action for declarator and interdict, but in such a case there must be contingentia.-Cowan v. Duke of Buccleugh, L.R. 2 App. 344.

Sea Wall:

(i.) C. A.—Liability to Repair.—Held, affirming decision of Q. B. Div., that there is no common law liability on frontager to repair sea walls, and that in this case there was no obligation by prescription.-Hudson v. Tabor, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 290; 46 L.J. Q.B. 463; 36 L.T. 492; 25 W.R. 740. Settlement:

(xxvii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-After Acquired Property.-The rule that covenant to settle after acquired property applies only during coverture, applies to cases where settlement contains assignment of after acquired property.-Holloway v. Holloway, 25 W.R. 575.

(xxviii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Covenant-Will-Election. - A., on his daughter's marriage, covenanted with trustees of her settlement that on his death a share of his property should be settled for benefit of her and her issue: by his will he directed payments of his debts, and gave certain bequests to the issue of the daughter: Held that the covenant was not satisfied by the direction to pay debts, and that the daughter's issue were put to election.-Bennet v. Houldsworth, 36 L.T. 618.

(xxix.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Felon-Revocation—Charge.—A felon before conviction conveyed realty to trustees reserving power of revocation, while still undischarged, he borrowed money on memorandum of agreement to charge his settled estate: Held that the memorandum was a valid exercise of the power in favour of the mortgagee.-Mainprice v. Pearson, 25 W.R. 768.

(xxx.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Postnuptial Settlement-Mortgage.-Postnuptial settlement of wife's real estate upheld against subsequent mortgagee without notice.-Re Foster & Lister, 46 L.J. 430; 36 L.T. 582; 25 W.R. 553.

(xxxi.) C. A.-Postnuptial Settlement-Consideration-Purchase for Value without Notice. Decision of V. C. B., Settlement (xvii ), p. 73, affirmed. -Teesdale v. Braithwaite, 36 L.T. 601; 25 W.R. 546.

(xxxii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Rectification.-When intended husband acting as intended wife's agent to prepare settlement of her property gave himself the first life interest: Held that the settlement must be rectified by giving the first life interest to the wife.-Clark v. Girdwood, 25 W.R. 575.

(xxxiii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Voluntary Settlement—Children of Former Marriage. -A widow on her second marriage covenanted to surrender copy hold property for benefit of herself for life with remainder to her children by former marriage: Held that such chi'dren could enforce the covenant. -Gale v. Gale, 36 L.T. 690; 25 W.R. 772.

Ships :-

(lxviii.) C. A.-Carrier-Delay-Loss of Market. Decision of P.D.A. Div., Ship (v.), p. 35, reversed.-The Parana, L.R. 2 P.D. 118; 36 L.T. 388; 25 W.R. 596.

(lxix.) C. P. Div.-Charter-party-Construction.-In an action by charterers of a ship for loss of cargo through negligence of master and crew: Held, on the construction of the charter-party, that the master and crew were servants of the owner, and that he was liable for their negligence.Omoa and Cleland Coal and Iron Co. v. Huntley, 25 W.R. 675.

(lxx.) C. A.-Charter-party-Freight pro ratâ―Voyage not completed.--Decision

of Q.B. Div., Ship (ix.), p. 36, affirmed.-Metcalfe v. Britannia Ironworks Co., L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 423; 46 L.J. Q.B. 443; 36 L.T. 451; 25 W.R. 720. (lxxi.) H. L.-Collision-Compulsory Pilotage.-If a collision is proved to have occurred through fault of a pilot compulsorily employed, the burden of proving contributory negligence of defendants lies on plaintiff.Clyde Navigation Co. v. Barclay, 36 L.T. 379.

(lxxii.) C. A.— Collision—Jurisdiction.-Held that the Court has jurisdiction to entertain action in rem against a foreign vessel by representatives of person on board a British ship killed by collision on high seas, caused by regligence of those on board the foreign vessel: decision of Adm. Div. (reported 36 L.T. 445; 25 W.R. 699) affirmed.-The Franconia, 36 L.T. 640; 25 W.R. 796.

(lxxiii.) C. A.-Damage to Pier Abroad-Lex Loci.-The liability of a shipowner for damage to a pier affixed to soil of a foreign country is governed by the lex loci.- The M. Moxham, L.R. 1 P.D. 107; 46 L.J. P.D.A. 17; 34 L.T. 559; 24 W.R. 650.

(lxxiv.) P. D. A. Div.-Equipment--Lien.-A material-man having no lien for equipment supplied to British ship, cannot enforce claim against ship in hands of subsequent purchaser with notice of unpaid claim.-The Aneroid, 36 L.T. 448.

(lxxv.) P. D. A. Div.-Salvage-Jurisdiction. In action for life salvage, defendant alleged that ship was not at time of such salvage stranded, or otherwise in distress, on the shore of any sea or tidal river within the limits of the United Kingdom, and submitted that Court had no jurisdiction: Held that services were in part rendered in British waters, and demurrer allowed.-The Deutschland, 25 W.R. 755.

(lxxvi.) C. A.-Salvage-Liability of Cargo-Decision of P.D.A. Div., Ship (xxiii.), p. 37, affirmed.—Cargo ex Schiller, L.R. 2 P.D. 145; 36 L.T. 714. (lxxvii.) P. D. A. Div.-Shares in Ship-Fraudulent Registration—Bonâ fide Purchaser.-Fraudulent registration of shares in a ship by intermediate transferee is no defence to action for possession by bonâ fide purchaser for value without notice of the fraud.-The Horlock, 36 L.T. 622.

(lxxviii.) C. A.-Wreck-Obstruction-Liability-10 & 11 Vict., c. 27, s. 56.— Where a wreck on which underwriters had paid as for total loss caused obstruction to harbour: Held that the shipowner, not the underwriters, were liable to the harbour-master for expenses of removing the wreck.-Eglinton v. Norman, 25 W.R. 656.

Solicitor:

(xi.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Articled Clerk-Service.-A clerk was articled to his father: during one year of the service business was practically suspended owing to the father's ill-health: Held that on the expiration of the five years he might undergo his final examination, but must enter into fresh articles for a year before being admitted.-Ex parte Feraday, 46 L.J. Ch. 64.

(xii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Duty to Client-Information Acquired Professionally.-Held that a solicitor who had acted in formation of a company and been discharged was competent to act for a petitioner to wind-up the company.-Re Holmes, 25 W.R. 603.

(xiii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Gift by Client-Confirmation.-Held that a gift to a solicitor from his client was absolutely void even though confirmed by a subsequent deed prepared by an independent solicitor.-Morgan v. Minett, 25 W.R. 744.

(xiv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Lien-Bill of Costs.-A solicitor delivered bill of costs in pending suits in which he subsequently, with client's knowledge,

incurred further costs: client having obtained order for taxation and delivery of papers, solicitor delivered bill for the further costs: Held that the order should be amended by inserting both bills.-Ex parte Jarman, L.R. 4 Ch. D. 835; 46 L.J. Ch. 485.

(xv.) C. A.-Retainer-Journey-Costs—Ratification.-Decision of M. R., Solicitor (viii.), p. 76, reversed.-Re Snell, 36 L.T. 534; 25 W.R. 736. Tramway :

(iii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Deposit.-Where a company is abortive and ordered to be wound-up, the Court cannot order the deposit to be applied for the benefit directly or indirectly of the shareholders or promoters.-Re Lowestoft Tram. Co., 46 L.J. Ch. 393; 36 L.T. 578; 25 W.R. 525.

Trustee :

(ix.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Breach of Trust-Liability.--Two trustees advanced money to a builder on mortgage of land which he had purchased from defendant, one of the trustees: part of the money was applied by builder in payment of purchase-money of the land: Held that the other trustee was not entitled to a decree, that the mortgage securities should be realised, and the deficiency, if any, should be made good by defendant.— Butler v. Butler, L.R. 5 Ch. D. 554.

(x.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Misapplication of Funds-Liability.—A trustee who allows the trust funds to be under the sole control of a co-trustee is liable to make good to the estate any money misapplied.-Rodbard v. Cooke, 36 L.T. 504; 25 W.R. 555.

University :

Q. B. Div.-Religious Tests-Fellowship.-The Universities Tests Act, 1871, applies to fellowships of a college, since substituted for a hall, subsisting at passing of the Act, though the fellowships have been founded subsequently to the substitution: when the governing body of such college refused to examine a nonconformist for a fellowship: Held that mandamus would issue.-Reg. v. Hertford College, Oxford, 36 L.T. 769. Vendor and Purchaser::

(xiii.) C. A.-Evidence of Title-37 & 38 Vict., c. 78.-Under Vendor and Purchasers Act, 1874, s. 9, the Court can receive the same evidence as to title as would have been receivable on a reference to Chambers in an action for specific performance.-Re Burroughs and Lynns Contract, 36 L.T. 778; 24 W.R. 520.

(xiv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Specific Performance-Auctioneer-Conveyance in Parcels. In an action for specific performance: Held that when the deposit was of any large amount the auctioneer was rightly made a party, that a purchaser was entitled a tender of purchase-money and costs, to require separate conveyances of land in parcels, that a vendor was justified, and in absence of indemnity from purchaser bound to relet farms where delay in completion of the purchase was in prospect.Earl of Egmont v. Smith, 46 L.J. Ch. 356.

(xv.) P. C.-Specific Performance-Coal Mine-Wrongful Working.-Defendant in suit for specific performance for sale of a coal mine had wrongfully worked the mine for his own benefit: Held that plaintiff was entitled to compensation estimated on value of coal at place where it was sold less cost of severance and carriage.-Brown v. Dibbs, 25 W.R. 776. (xvi.) C. A.-Specific Performance-Conditions of Sale-Decision of V. C. B., Vendor and Purchaser (vi.), p. 77, affirmed.-—Gale v. Squier, 36 L.T. 632. (xvii.) C. A.- Statute of Frauds - Description of Vendor. Held that a description of vendor not named as a "trustee selling under trust for sale was sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds.-Cattling v. King, 46 L.J. Ch. 384; 36 L.T. 526; 25 W.R. 550.

(xviii.) C. A.-Use and Occupation-Rent.-Decision of Q. B. Div., Vendor and Purchaser (xii.), p. 111, affirmed.-Metropolitan Railway Co. v. Defries, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 387; 36 L.T. 494.

Victoria, Law of:

(iii.) P. C.—Rateability-Racecourse. The Victoria Local Government Act, 1874, exempts from payment of rates land, the property of Her Majesty, used for public purposes: Hold that this exemption did not extend to a land used as a racecourse and demised by the Crown to trustees of a club which had a pecuniary interest in the profits of the land, and the members of which had privileges beyond the public with regard to use of the land.-Mayor of Essendon v. Blackwood, 36 L.T. 625.

Voluntary Gift:

(iv.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Donatio Mortis Causâ-Cheque.-A., during his last illness in Italy, gave to his wife a cheque which was discounted by her but not presented in London till after A.'s death: Held that she was entitled to the amount of the cheque out of A.'s estate.-Rolls v. Pearce, 36 L.T. 438.

Warranty:

(ii.) Q. B. D.-Animals-Sale in Market-Disease.-Sale in market of animals intended for food implies representation that they are not suffering from disease, and a condition of sale that they are to be taken "with all faults" will not affect such representation.-Ward v. Hobbs, L.R 2 Q.B.D. 331; 46 L.J. Q.B. 473; 36 L.T. 511; 25 W.R. 585.

Water:

(vi.) C. A.-Breach of Statutory Duty-10 Vict., c. 17, s. 42.—Where plaintiff's premises were burnt down owing to insufficient pressure in defendants' pipes: Held that only remedy was the penalty imposed by Statute, and that no action would lie.-Atkinson v. Newcastle and Gateshead Waterworks Co., 36 L.T. 761; 25 W.R. 794.

Will:

(xc.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Bequest of Fund to Pay Debts—Retainer.— Testatrix created a fund for payment of testamentary expenses and debts, and bequeathed the surplus to W. No administration action seemed probable: Held that the trustees should retain the surplus for a year from death of testatrix and then pay it over to W.-Re Cope's Trusts, 36 L.T. 437.

(xci.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Charity-Mortmain Act.-Held that the operation of the Mortmain Act is retrospective so as to abrogate the power of a corporation under a previous Special Act from receiving gifts of real estate.-Luckraft v. Pridham, 36 L.T. 501; 25 W.R. 747.

(xcii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Charity-Premium for Lease-An unpaid premium for a lease is not pure personalty capable of being bequeathed to charity a bequest of all personal estate which can by law be bequeathed to charity is specific.-Shepheard v. Beetham, 25 W.R. 764. (xciii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Construction-Death without Issue.—Devise of real estate to A. for life, remainder to A's husband for life, remainder to A's children living at death of testatrix, provided that shares of A.'s children dying without iasue should go over to survivors leaving issue: Held that dying without issue meant so dying in lifetime of tenants for life.-Besant v. Cox, 25 W.R. 789.

(xciv.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Construction-Direction to Pay Debts.—Testator directed payment of his debts, "including a debt of £300" owing to his daughter only £150 was owing: Held that the daughter was only

entitled to payment of what was actually due.-Wilson v. Morley, 36 L.T. 731; 25 W.R. 690.

(xcv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Construction-Election.-S. having appointed certain property by deeds not containing powers of revocation, by her will purported to revoke the appointments and dispose of the property: Held, on the construction of the will, that certain persons claiming under the will were put to election: the doctrines of election and compensation fully explained.-Pickersgill v. Rodger, L.R. 5 Ch. D. 163.

(xcvi.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Construction-Equitable Estate.-Testator, who died in 1828, gave real estate to trustees in fee upon trust for the sole benefit of his two daughters, with direction that if either should die and leave no child, part of the estate should be sold and proceeds divided as mentioned; but that if either should have children, her share should go to such children after her death: neither of the daughters had children: Held that they took as joint tenants in fee.-Yarrow v. Knightley, 25 W.R. 687.

(xcvii.) H. L.-Construction-Express Trust-Statute of Limitations.-Held, on the construction of an informally-worded will made in 1807, that an express trust for a legacy was thereby created so as to exclude the Statute of Limitations, but that no proceedings to enforce payment of the legacy having been taken till 1872, the plaintiffs ought not to receive more than six years' interest on the legacy from the filing of the bill.Thompson v. Eastwood, L.R. 2 App. 215.

(xcviii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Construction—“ Heirs.”—Bequest of personalty to wife for life, and, after her decease, "to be divided amongst my heirs" Held that "heirs " meant next-of-kin exclusive of wife, and that the class was to be ascertained at testator's death.-Re Peppitt's Estate, Chester v. Phillips, 36 L.T. 500.

::

(xcix.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Construction-Implication.-Held, on the construction of a will, that "descendants" meant "children," and that testator's wife did not take by implication a life interested in his residuary estate. Ralph v. Carrick, 25 W.R. 530.

(c.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Construction-Implication.-Gift of residue in trust for A. till 21 or marriage held not to imply gift of capital on attaining 21 or marriage. Re Hedley's Trusts, 25 W.R. 529.

(ci.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Construction-Implication. Testator gave to his trustees and executors power to manage and sell his real estate, and directed them, under his wife's management, to carry on his farm for the maintenance of his family, and declared that, subject to these provisions, his real and personal estate should be held in trust for his children equally Held that the legal estate in the realty passed to the trustees who on wife's death could sell and convey.-Cooke v. Simpson, 46 L.J. Ch. 463.

:

(cii.) C. A.-Construction-Inconsistency.-Gift of personal estate to wife absolutely, subsequent gift in same will of residue of personalty in trust for children: Held that wife took life interest.-Re Bagshaw's Trusts, 36 L.T. 747; 25 W.R. 659.

(ciii.) H. L.-Construction-Maintenance-Discretion of Trustees.-A lunatic was absolutely entitled to certain funds which had been comprised in her marriage settlement: her husband by his will gave another fund to trustees upon trust "in their discretion and of their uncontrollable authority" to apply the income for her maintenance, and subject to such application the fund and income thereof were to fall into the residue: Held that the discretion of the trustees under the will was absolute. -Gisborne v. Gisborne, L.R. 2 App. 300; 36 L.T. 564; 25 W.R. 516. (civ.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Construction-Next of Kin.-Testator bequeathed