ARBITRATION-continued. APPRENTICE-continued. himself in any other manner or with any other person for his own benefit:-Held, by Coleridge, C.J., and Williams, J., that, this provision not being for the benefit of the infant, the apprenticeship deed could not be enforced against the infant under the Employers and Workmen Act, 1875, ss. 5, 6. MEAKIN v. MORRIS 12 Q. B. D. 352, 53 L. J. [M. C. 72, 32 W. R. 661, 48 J. P. 344 APPROPRIATION Banking account-Guaran tee. Securities for bill of exchange. See BILL OF EXCHANGE. 7-9. ARBITRATION—Award Claim of Party to be heard after Assessment Refusal to re-open before Publication-Valuation by Arbitrators and Umpire -Appointment of Arbitrator-Eating and Drinking with one Party.] The lease of a farm contained a clause by which the lessor was, on the expiration of the tenancy, to pay the lessee for "whatever is usually valued between an incoming and outgoing tenant, at a valuation, the amount to be ascertained, if the parties shall disagree, by two indifferent persons, or their umpire, pursuant to" the C. L. P. Act, 1854.-Two arbitrators were appointed under this clause by lessor and lessee respectively, the lessor stating that he would leave the matter in his arbitrator's hands, and that the amount of the valuation would be paid. The arbitrators and their umpire then inspected the farm, over which they were shewn by the lessee, whom they examined, and with whom they on the same occasion dined at a neighbouring inn. All this took place without notice to, and in the absence of, the lessor. The umpire then settled all the points in dispute between the arbitrators, excepting two, on which he thought it desirable to take legal advice before deciding the matter. The lessor having been informed by his arbitrator of the approximate amount fixed at the valuation, and of the reservation of the points of law, applied at once to the umpire to be heard in person, which the umpire refused, and, having obtained an opinion on the points reserved, published his award about ten days afterwards. A rule to set aside the award having been obtained, Held, by Grove and Smith, JJ., that the rule must be made absolute, as the lessor had a right to be heard personally by the umpire before the arbitration was closed, and the arbitration was neither practically nor legally at an end so long as the reserved points of law remained undetermined. Re MAUNDER 49 L. T. 535 2. Award-Enlargement by Court of Time for making Award· Common Law Procedure Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 125), s. 15.] By a submission in writing the time within which the award was to be made was fixed at one month. The submission contained no power to enlarge the time. The award was in fact made after the expiration of the month :-Held, by Coleridge, C.J., and Field, J., that the Court had power subsequently to the making of the award to enlarge the time under s. 15 of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854. MAY v. HARCOURT 3. Award-Validity-Custom in Corn Trade as to right of rejection.] A contract for the sale of wheat to arrive, contained a clause that any dispute arising thereout should be referred to arbitration as therein provided. On its arrival, the buyer claimed the right to reject it, on account of inferiority in quality. The sellers at once called for an arbitration. The arbitrators made an award that the purchasers should take the wheat with an allowance :-Held, that the award was invalid, inasmuch as the only question submitted to the arbitrators was the buyer's right to reject. No custom exists in the Liverpool corn trade compelling a buyer to accept, with an allowance, wheat inferior in quality to that contracted for, if not sea-damaged. SINIDINO v. KITCHEN 4. [1 C. & E. 217 Costs of Arbitrators-Summary Jurisdiction.] Held, by Lindley, L.J., and Butt, J., that the Court has not jurisdiction to compel an arbitrator to submit his costs to taxation. WITHINGTON v. WREXHAM WATERWORKS Co. 5. sary. 6. [32 W. R. 1000 Costs-Submission made a Rule of Court Special Order for Taxation of Costs not necesRe CLARK AND BATH CORPORATION. [W. N. 1884, p. 127 Reference-Exclusion of Ordinary Action.] A building contract contained this stipulation :-"Should any difference arise between the proprietor and any of the contractors in regard to the true meaning of the plans drawings, or specifications, or the manner in' which the work is to be executed, or any matter arising thereout or connected therewith, the same is hereby submitted to the determination of W. H. B" (the proprietor's architect) "whose decision shall be final." Held, following Kirkwood v. Morrison (5 C. of S. Cas. 79), that this clause of reference did not include a dispute regarding the accuracy of the measurements of his work obtained by the contractor for the plumber work after the building had been completed, the clause being intended to apply only to disputes arising during the execution of the contract. BEATTIE v. MACGREGOR 10 C. of S. Cas. 1094 (Sc.) 7. Reference of "rights of parties under a contract"- Action of damages for failure to A shipbuilding deliver within stipulated time.] contract contained this clause:-"And in case any questions or differences shall arise between the parties hereto relative to the true intent and meaning of this contract,' or the rights of parties under the same, they shall be . . . submitted and referred to the amicable decision and final decree-arbitral" of arbiters named. A sum was fixed as liquidated damages, in case of nontimeous delivery, but certain causes of delay beyond the control of the builders were specified as exceptions :-Held, that this clause covered a claim for liquidated damages for failure to deJiver the vessels within the stipulated period, the defence to the claim being that the causes of delay were among the excepted causes. LEVY 13 Q. B. D. 688 THOMSON 10 C. of S. Cas. 1134 (Sc.) ARBITRATION-continued. 8. Staying Proceedings-Practice-Jurisdiction-Power of Court to appoint Receiver, and stay all further Proceedings, with a view to a Reference-Common Law Procedure Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 125), 8. 11.] The Court has power, where there is an agreement to refer all matters in dispute under a contract to arbitration, and an action is afterwards commenced under the same contract claiming the appointment of a receiver, and an injunction, to appoint a receiver or to grant an injunction, and by the same order to stay all further proceedings in the action, except for the purposes of carrying out the order for a receiver or injunction, with a general liberty to apply, so as to enable the parties to make any application pending the arbitration. So held, by Kay, J. Form of order to be made in such a case considered. COMPAGNIE DU SENÉGAL v. WOODS (or SMITH) 53 L. J. Ch. 166, 49 L. T. 527, [32 W. R. 111, W N. 1883, p. 180 9. Submission in Contract-Appointment of Arbitrator by one Party-Common Law Procedure Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 125), 8. 13-Revocation of Authority.] Where there is an agreement to refer a dispute to two arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party, but no agreement to make the submission a rule of Court, and, one of the parties having failed to appoint an arbitrator, the other party by virtue of s. 13 of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, appoints his arbitrator to act as sole arbitrator, the authority of such arbitrator may be revoked by either party before an award is made. FRASER v. EHRENSPERGER. [12 Q. B. D. 310, 53 L. J. Q. B. 73, 49 L. T. [646, 32 W. R. 240 (C.A.) Witness out of Jurisdiction ference of Action and " All Matters in Difference" -"Trial"-17 & 18 Vict. c. 34, s. 1.] When an action and all "matters in difference" between the parties have been referred by consent to an arbitrator, no writ of subpoena will be granted under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 34, s. 1, in order to compel the attendance at the hearing before the arbitrator of witnesses residing within the United Kingdom but out of the jurisdiction of the Queen's Bench Division; for the hearing before the arbitrator is not a "trial" within the meaning of that enactment. HALL v. BRAND 12 Q. B. D. 39, 53 L. J. [Q. B. 19, 49 L. T. 492, 32 W. R. 133 (C.A.) Action against married woman-Order of reference by consent. 10. - - Re ARTIZANS DWELLINGS ACTS - Artizans and Labourers Dwellings Improvement Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 36)—Compulsory taking of LandArbitration Award-Payment of Sum awarded into Court-Appeal-Verdict of Jury for larger Sum-Payment of Difference into Court-Time of Taking Possession - Interest on Difference.] Where, under the provisions of the Artizans and Labourers Dwellings Improvement Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 36), a sum of money has been paid of an arbitrator for lands taken compulsorily by into Court by a local authority under the award them, and on appeal a verdict for a larger sum is given by a jury, the difference between the two sums being subsequently paid into Court, interest at £4 per cent. per annum from the date of the first payment to the date of the second payment in is payable on such difference. Re SHAW & THE CORPORATION OF BIRMINGHAM 27 Ch. D. 614, [54 L. J. Ch. 51, 33 W. R. 74 2. 38 & 39 Vict. c. 36, 8, 19, Sched., 8. 6 -Compensation-Publication-Notice to TreatArbitrator-Lands Clauses Act, 1845, 88. 18, 121.] Sect.121 of the Lands Clauses Act as to compensation for interests less than a year is incorporated in the ARTIZANS DWELLINGS ACTS-continued. Artizans and Labourers Dwellings Improvement Act, 1875. The publication of the requisition under sect. 6 of the schedule to the Dwellings Improvement Act is analogous to the notice to treat under the Lands Clauses Act, and a landowner affected by it cannot afterwards alter his position. An arbitrator under the Dwellings Improvement Act may, when a claim for compensation is brought before him, assess the amount of compensation without deciding as to the right of the claimant. WILKINS v. MAYOR OF BIRMINGHAM [25 Ch. D. 78, 53 L. J. Ch. 98, 49 L. T. 468, [32 W. R. 118, 48 J. P. 231 ASSAULT-County Court Bailiff-9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, 8. 114-Bailiff returning from place of Refreshment.] C., under-bailiff of a County Court, having levied goods on the premises of D. in execution of a warrant, was left in possession of the goods, and, not having been provided with any food, went to a public house a mile distant to obtain some, taking his warrant with him. On his return, D., to prevent him re-entering the premises, assaulted him. Held, by Day & Smith, JJ., that D. was liable to be convicted under the above section, C. being "in the execution of his duty" when returning. COFFIN v. DYKE [48 J. P. 757 2. Striking a horse which another is driving may be an assault. CLARK v. DownING [45 Amer. R. 612 (U.S.) School-Detention of scholar Board ASSIGNMENT OF DEBT-continued. Plaintiff upon trust that he should receive them 2. [50 L. T. 723, 32 W. R. 492, 48 J. P. 216 Present or Future Balance at BankJudicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66), 8. 25, Notice of Assignment after Assignor's Death · sub-s. 6.] By a deed of assignment all moneys then or thereafter to be standing to the credit of the assignor at a bank were assigned to a trustee, on trust for the assignor for his life, and after his death on other trusts. At the date of the assignment the assignor's balance at the bank was £48, at his death it was £217. Notice of the assignment was not given to the bank until after the assignor's death. In an action by the trustee against the bank to recover the balance of £217-Held, by Williams & Smith, JJ., that the bank, being a stranger to the assignment, could not set up the defence that it was voluntary and therefore invalid in equity; that the balance at the time of the assignor's death was a debt or legal chose in action within the meaning of s. 25, sub-s. 6 of the Judicature Act, 1873; that notice after the death of the assignor was sufficient; and that the Plaintiff was entitled to recover. WALKER v. BRADFORD OLD BANK, LIMITED 12 Q. B. D. 511, [53 L. J. Q. B. 280, 32 W. R. 644 3. Stamp Duty-Order for payment of Money-Stamp Act 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 97), 88. 3, 17, 48, 54, 77, 78-55 Geo. 3, c. 184.] O. & Co. contracted with the Defendants to supply them ASSESSMENT-Poor rate-Metropolis Valuation with timber, and the Defendants were indebted to Act. See METROPOLIS. 13, 14. O. & Co. on foot of the said contract in the sum of £460. O. & Co., when the Defendants were so ASSIGNMENT-Annuity- Permanent alimony indebted to them, addressed a letter to the -Lunatic's estate. See PRACTICE-DIVORCE. 2. Bill of costs-Signature. Claim against company-Set-off. See COMPANY-WINDING-UP. 21. Interest in trust fund-Stop order. See MORTGAGE. 22. 1. Lease-By husband to trustees for wife Defendants as follows:-"We do hereby authorise and request you to pay to A. the sum of £395, due from you to us for goods sold and delivered by us to you, and the receipt of A. will be a good discharge." This instrument was duly stamped as an assignment, but was not stamped with an impressed stamp as a bill of exchange. In an action on the instrument, the statement of defence denied its validity, on the ground that it was a bill of exchange within the Stamp Act of 1870, and had not been stamped as such before its execution. On demurrer by the Plaintiff;-Held, affirming the decision of the Exchequer Division (12 L. R. Ir. 1, 1883 Digest, col. 11), but on Part of land subject to charge-Arrears of different grounds, that the defence was bad. See LANDLORD AND TENANT. 24. rent-charge. See ACTION. 2, 3. Whole of debtor's property. See BANKRUPTCY-ACT OF BANKRUPTCY. 1,2; BANKRUPTCY-RECEIVING ORDER. 4. ASSIGNMENT OF DEBT-Mortgage-Judicature ADAMS v. MORGAN 14 L. R. Ir. 140 (C.A.) ASSIZE COURTS-Liability to income tax. ASSIZES-Commissions of general gaol delivery BANKER-continued. which shall at any time be due from" the customer "to you on the general balance of his account with you;" the guarantee was moreover to be "a continuing guarantee to the extent at any one time of" the sums respectively named, and was not to be considered as wholly or partially satisfied by the payment at any time of any sums due on such general balance; and any indulgence granted by the bank was not to prejudice the guarantee. S. having died, leaving T. and another executors, the bank on receiving notice of his death, without any communication with the executors beyond what would appear in T.'s pass-book, closed T.'s account, which was overdrawn, and AUCTIONEER-Custom-Acceptance of cheque opened a new account with him, in which they for deposit on sale. See MORTGAGE. 10. Witness-Expenses-Loss of time. AUDITOR-Company. See COMPANY-MANAGEMENT. 1, 2. AUTHORITY-Agents. See PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. 4, 8, 9. AWARD-Arbitrator's. did not debit him with the amount of the overdraft, but debited him with interest on the same, and continued the account until he went into liquidation, when it also was overdrawn : Held, by Bacon, V.C. (49 L. T. 556, 32 W. R. 270), that payments in after the death of the surety went in discharge of the overdraft, alike on the terms of the guarantee, and on the principle of Clayton's Case (1 Mer. 572, 605), and that, as the amount of such payments exceeded the overdraft, the bank were not entitled to prove against the estate of S. Held, on appeal, that there was no contract express or implied which obliged the debtor and creditor to appropriate to the old overdraft the payments made by the debtor after the determination of the guarantee, and that the bank were entitled to prove against the estate of S. for the amount of the old overdraft less the amount of the dividend which they had received on it in the liquidation. Re SHERRY. LONDON AND COUNTY BANKING COMPANY v. TERRY 25 Ch. D. 692, [53 L. J. Ch. 404, 50 L. T. 227, 32 W. R. 394 (C.A.) 2. Agreement for Advance-Breach-Estoppel-Practice-Pleading-Damages - Statute of Frauds, s. 4-Companies Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 131), 8. 37.] C., having had an unpaid vendor's interest in a colliery offered to him for £8300, placed the offer before H., the general manager of the M. Bank, with a view of obtaining a loan of £8300 from the bank to enable him to complete the purchase. H., who had authority to make the advance, had an agreement between C. and the bank prepared, which provided for the loan by the bank, and for the mortgage to the bank of the interest in the colliery, to secure the loan, and which was signed by C. At the same time H. explained to C. that he was unwilling to take the responsibility of making the agreement on behalf of the bank without consulting the directors, and he obtained C.'s signature to a BALANCE-Present or future, at bank—Assign- document certifying that the agreement for the ment of. loan was to be subject to the directors' approval. Neither of these documents was signed on behalf of the bank. H., at a later hour of the same day, told C. that the directors had agreed to make the loan, but this was a mistake, as they did not in fact approve of the agreement. Ten days afterwards H. suggested to C. that he should be more firmly bound to take the money from the M. Bank, and not to go elsewhere, and induced him to sign a document to the effect that, in con BANKER-continued. sideration of the bank's agreeing to carry out the arrangements made by the former agreements, he agreed to pay the bank charges named therein, whether the M. Bank carried through the transaction or not. The bank having refused to make the advance, C. was unable to complete his contract. A special case having been stated by an arbitrator:-Held : By Day, J., that, the Statute of Frauds not having been pleaded, the circumstances constituted a contract between C. and the bank: By Smith, J., that the bank was estopped from denying such a contract: By Smith and Day, JJ., that, as the arbitrator had directed all amendments of the pleadings, other than that of the Statute of Frauds, the bank could not plead the 37th section of the Co.'s Act 1867, as that section merely provides what is already provided by the Statute of Frauds (s. 4); And, further, that C. was entitled to substantial, and not merely nominal, damages for the breach of the contract, although it was one to lend money. MANCHESTER and Oldham BANK v. COOK 49 L. T. 674 3. Bank Notes, Issue of-Penalties—The Bank Charter Act, 1844 (7 & 8 Vict. c. 32), ss. 11, 12.] By s. 11 of the Bank Charter Act, 1844, it shall not be lawful for any banker to "issue" any note payable on demand, except that any banker carrying on business as such on the 6th of May, 1844, and then lawfully issuing his own notes, may continue to issue them under specified conditions; and by s. 12, if any banker, entitled after the passing of the Act to issue bank notes, "shall cease to carry on the business of a banker," it shall not be lawful for him to issue such notes at any time thereafter. In 1880 a firm of bankers, entitled to issue their own notes under the exception in s. 11, sold their business to a limited liability company upon the following terms :The company took over the whole of the business as a going concern, and the goodwill, except and reserving to the firm the right to issue their own notes, but including in the sale and purchase such benefit of the issue as was thereby agreed to be given to the company; the firm were to issue their notes in the same form as theretofore, but through the company's officers only, and might nominate those officers and make the returns required by statute through them; the company were to allow and pay the firm £2 per cent. interest on the amount of all notes from time to time in circulation: for the purposes of the issue only the firm might continue to use their accustomed name, but they were not to assign their rights, nor to take new partners for the purpose of continuing the issue without the consent of the company, nor to carry on the business of banking within a defined district without the like consent, except so far as related to the issue of their notes under the agreement: if the right of issue should at any time be taken away from the firm they were to pay any compensation they might receive to the company, unless the company should get an equal right of issue, in which case the firm might retain the compensation: if the company acquired a right to issue their own notes, the firm's right of issue was to cease. BANKER-continued. When the business was taken over by the company, a large number of the firm's notes being in circulation, the amount of them was deducted from the purchase-money, and the notes, when presented for payment, were cashed by the company, and reissued by them. Notes in hand when the business was taken over were treated as cash lent by the firm to the company. Daily returns were made by the company shewing the number of the firm's notes in circulation, and twice a year the company paid £2 per cent. interest to the firm on the amount so ascertained. On an information against the firm and the company for penalties in respect of their having issued the notes contrary to the provisions of the Act:-Held, by Coleridge, C.J., and Stephen, J., that the company had "issued' the notes within the meaning of s. 11 of the Bank Charter Act, 1844; that the firm, in issuing the notes, were not protected by the exception in s. 11, because after the making of the agreement they had " ceased to carry on the business of bankers" within the meaning of s. 12; and therefore that all the Defendants were liable. ATTORNEYGENERAL v. BIRKBECK 12 Q. B. D. 605, [53 L. J. Q. B. 378, 51 L. T. 199, 32 W. R. 905 4. Where a bank has, as a matter of fact, always treated cheques paid in by a particular customer as cash before clearance, it cannot, as against such customer, set up a usage entitling it to exercise a discretion as to whether each particular cheque should be so treated. ARMFIELD v. LONDON AND WESTMINSTER BANK 1 C. & E. 170 Cheque-Estoppel-Custom.] Account-Appropriation-Equitable mort gage. See MORTGAGE. 24. Account-Balance, present or future, assignment of. See ASSIGNMENT OF DEBT. 2. Account-Inspection of-Ex parte appli cation. See PRACTICE-DISCOVERY-DOCUMENTS. 6. Account-Overdrawing-Building society -Borrowing powers. See BUILDING SOCIETY. 4. Advances by-Hypothecation note-Misappropriation. See CRIMINAL LAW. 30. Cheque-Gift of. See DONATIO MORTIS CAUSÂ. 1-3. Cheque-Negotiability - Countermand of drawer. See SCOTCH LAW. 1. - Negligence of sub-agent. See PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. 6. BANKRUPTCY : I. ACT OF BANKRUPTCY. III. ANNULMENT. IV. APPEAL. V. COMPOSITION. VI. COSTS. |