BILL OF EXCHANGE.-Bills drawn against Shipments-Specific Appropriation-Bankruptcy of Acceptors-Lien-Goods in Specie.-Bankers authorised S. to draw on them to the amount of 20,000l. against consignments of tea shipped by him, the drafts to be accompanied by the bills of lading, which were to be surrendered to the bankers against their acceptances: Held, on the bankers going into liquidation, that the holders of bills drawn by S. under the credit, and which had matured after the liquidation, could not claim any specific appropriation of teas consigned by S. to the bank to meet the acceptances, but held that S. was entitled to have the teas remaining in specie at the date of the liquidation (but not the proceeds of teas sold before that date) applied in payment of the acceptances. (C. A., August 4, 1884) Re Suse, Ex parte Dever, 13 Q. B. D. 766; 51 L. T. R. 437. Assignment of future Stock in Trade-Pledge by Grantor-Right of Grantee-Equitable Title-Legal Title.—By a registered bill of sale made in 1881, M. assigned all his then stock in trade and also all stock in trade which should be brought on the premises during the continuance of the security to J.; M. afterwards pledged with a pawnbroker who had no notice of the bill of sale jewellery which had been brought on the premises after the date of the bill of sale: Held, in an action for detinue by J. against the pawnbroker, that J. had only an equitable title which must yield to the pawnbroker's legal title. (C. A., Oct. 31, 1884.) Joseph v. Lyons, 54 L. J., Q. B. 1; 33 W. R. 145; 51 L. T. R. 740. Consideration-Statement of-Provision as to Bankruptcy of Grantor-Statutory Form.-A bill of sale given in substitution for another bill believed to be invalid under the Bills of Sale Acts, though not expressed to be so, stated the consideration to be '1500l. now paid,' this being the consideration given for the first bill. Held, that the consideration was truly stated. A provision in a bill of sale for seizure, if the grantor 'shall do or suffer any matter or thing whereby he shall become a bankrupt,' is not such a departure from the words 'if he shall become a bankrupt' in the statutory form as to invalidate the bill. (Nov. 12, 1884.) Re Munday, Ex parte Allan, 14 Q. B. D. 43; 33 W. R. 231. Pledge of Delivery Warrants—Non-registration—Bankruptcy of Pledgor—Bills of Sale Act Amendment Act.—A trader pledged with his bankers to secure an advance delivery warrants for goods consigned to him: Held, on his subsequent bankruptcy, that the object of the transactions being immediately to transfer the possession from the grantor to the grantee, the pledge was not a bill of sale within the Bills of Sale Acts, 1878-1882, so as to be void for informality or for want of registration. (Dec. 3, 1884.) Re Hall, Ex parte Close, 54 L. J., Q. B. 43; 33 W. R. 228; 51 L. T. R. 795. Statutory Form-Departure from—Payment ‘on Demand'—Suggestio Falsi.—By a bill of sale the grantor agreed that he would,' upon demand made in writing,' pay the principal sum and interest: Held, that the bill was void, not being an agreement for payment at a fixed or stipulated time in accordance with the statutory form in the schedule to the Bill of Sale Amendment Act, 1882. Held per Brett M.R., and Fry L.J., that the bill was also void on the ground that it purported to give the grantor a power to sell immediately on seizure. (C. A., July 31, 1884.) Hetherington v. Groom, 13 Q. B. D. 789; 53 L. J. 576; 51 L. T. R. 412. BUILDING SOCIETY.-Accounts-Reopening-Settled Account-Single Auditor.-In an action for an account against the secretary of a Building Society the Court of Appeal declared that all accounts audited in accordance with a rule of the Society should be prima facie evidence in favour of the defendant; the rule spoke of auditors:' Held, that they must be taken to be auditors required by 10 Geo. IV. c. 56. s. 33, and that accounts audited by a single person, and that person not a member of the society, were not settled accounts under the rule, though the defendant might show them to be so on any other ground. (C. A., Nov. 14, 1884.) Holgate v. Shatt (No. 2), 28 Ch. D. 1II. Fines in Arrear-Adding to Principal-Compound Interest-Rules-Reasonableness.—A rule of a building society provided that advanced members 'neglecting to make their monthly payments of principal, interest, fines, and other payments should BUILDING SOCIETY-(continued). be liable to a fine at the rate of 51. per cent. per month on the total amount in arrear :' 'Held, that neither the rule nor the amount of the fine was unreasonable.—(Kay J., Nov. 8, 1884.) Re Middlesborough Building Society, 51 L. T. R. 743. Mortgage-Statutory Receipt-Effect of-Transferee of Mortgage.-The transferee of a mortgage made to a building society took from the society on the transfer the statutory receipt indorsed on the mortgage under 37 & 38 Vict. c. 42. s. 42: Held, that the effect of the receipt was to vest the legal estate in the transferee and give him priority for the amount of the advance over a prior purchaser without notice of the equity of redemption. (Kay J., Dec. 18, 1884.) Sangster v. Cochrane, 54 L. J., Ch. 301; 33 W. R. 221; 51 L. T. R. 889. Winding-up-Unauthorised Borrowing-Ne essary Payments.—A building society not empowered to borrow overdrew its account at its bankers in order to pay advanced members: Held, in the winding-up of the Society, that the bankers were not creditors of the society in respect of the overdrafts, such overdrafts being indistinguishable from loans by the bankers. The nature of a building society's business does not give the society an implied power of borrowing. (C. A., No. 888, 5th S., affirmed H. L., Aug. 1, 1884.) Brooks & Co. v. The Blackburn and District Benefit Building Society, 9 App. Cas. 857. (Dec. 5, CARRIER.- Railway Company-Passenger-Delay-Ticket incorporating Handbills— Wilful Misconduct.-A passenger by railway who had taken a through ticket via II. to B. owing to the train being late in arriving at H. missed his train to B., which was timed to meet it, and was detained more than four hours. The ticket had on it the words 'See back' conspicuously printed, and on the back the words 'Issued subject to the conditions stated in the company's time bills.' By the conditions the company was not to be liable, inter alia, for delay unless caused by wilful misconduct : Held, in an action by the passenger for damages, that the conditions were incorporated into the contract, and no wilful misconduct having been proved the action must be dismissed. 1884.) Woodgate v. Great Western Railway Company, 51 L. T. R. 826. Railway Company-Tolls-Preferential Rate-Railway Clauses Act-Railway and Canal Traffic Act-Action for Breach of.-Sect. 90 of the Railway Clauses Act, 1845, providing that the tolls for the same classes of goods passing only over the same portion of line and under the like circumstances must be equal, means passing between the same points of departure and arrival. No action will lie for an infringement of 8. 2 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act. (C. A., Dec. 1, 1884.) Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company v. The Denaby Main Colliery Company, 14 Q. B. D. 209; 54 L. J., Q. B. 103. CHARITY.-Charity Commissioners - Powers-Endowed Schools Act-Denominational School. The Charity Commissioners by a scheme directed that the endowment of a particular school should no longer be applied in carrying it on, but in providing exhibitions for the benefit of a larger area of schools: Held, that such a conversion was within their power under s. 9 of the Endowed Schools Act, 1869: 'Denominational School' considered. (P. C., March 25, 1884.) Re Parochial Schools of St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, 51 L. T. R. 305. CHOSE IN ACTION.-Absolute assignment-Landlord directing tenant to pay rent to third party.-B. on borrowing money from R. gave R. a letter to a tenant of B.'s to pay over the rent as it became due to R. on R.'s receipt: Held an absolute assignment within sect. 25. subs. 6 of the Judicature Act entitling B. to sue the tenant. (Dec. 6, 1884.) Knill v. Prowse, 33 W. R. 163. CHURCH BUILDING ACTS.-Devise of land with Church-Secret trust-Mortmain Act.—B. devised land of less than five acres with a licensed chapel upon it to his wife upon a secret trust to convey it as a church or chapel for worship according to the rules of the Church of England in perpetuity: Held, that the devise was a valid one within the Church Builling Act, 1803. (V.C. B., Dec. 17, 1884.) O'Brien v. Tyssen, 54 L. J., Ch. 284; 51 L. T. R. 814. COLONIAL LAW.-Canada · - Quebec - Barrister — Fees — Right to recover — Quantum meruit-Petition of Right Act, 1876.-A member of the Quebec Bar held entitled to a quantum meruit for professional services rendered by him to the Government: Held also, that his right was not affected by the Petition of Right Canada Act, sect. 19 (3), that Act restricting the remedy' only (as distinguished from the right) against the Crown to cases in which the remedy would be available in England. (P. C., July 12, 1884.) Reg. v. Doutre, 9 App. Cas. 745; 53 L. J., P. C. 85. Jersey-Set-off' Liquid' demand.—A set-off of a 'liquid' demand is permitted by the law of Jersey. (P. C., June 13, 1884.) Dyson v. Godfray, 9 App. Cas. 726; 53 L. J., P. C. 94; 51 L. T. R. 580. Natal-Surety Bond by woman's attorney-Validity - Non-renunciation of legal protection.-Wife held not bound as surety under a mortage bond executed by her husband as her attorney, the power of attorney not showing any authority to him to renounce on her behalf the protection given to a woman under the Senatus Consultum Velleianum, and other rules of Natal law. (P. C., June 25, 1884.) Mackellar v. Bond, 9 App. Cas. 715; 53 L. J., P. C. 97; 51 L T. R. 479. New South Wales-Tramways-Use of steam.-Sect. of the New South Wales Act, 43 Vict. No. 25, sanctions the use of steam motors on tramways. (P. C., July 12, 1884.) Commissioner for Railways v. Toohey, 9 App. Cas. 720; 53 L. J., P. C. 91; 51 L. T. R. 582. New Zealand-Public Works Act, 1882-Compensation—Irrevocable licence—'Estate or interest in land.'-The Government of New Zealand permitted P. to erect and use a jetty on land vested in the Crown. P. afterwards, at the request and for the benefit of the Government, incurred large expenditure in the extension of the jetty: Held, that the licence was thereby rendered irrevocable, and that on the jetty being taken under the Public Works Act, 1882, P. was entitled to compensation for it as an estate or interest to, in, or out of land,' within sect. 4 of that Act. (P. C., June 25, 1884.) Plimmer v. Mayor of Wellington, 9 App. Cas. 699; 53 L. J., P. C. 105; 51 L. T. R. 475. Victoria-Executor-Purchase of testator's estate—Validity—Renunciation.-D., an executor who had never proved the will or acted in any way under it, purchased the estate from his co-executor and afterwards renounced: Held, that the purchase could not be set aside in the absence of evidence to show that in making it D. had taken an unfair advantage of his position. (P. C., July 12, 1884.) Clark v. Clark, 9 App. Cas. 733; 53 L. J., P. C. 99. COMPANY.-Costs-Priorities-Receiver in Debenture Holders' Action-Remuneration— Realisation of Assets.-In an action by debenture holders of a mining company to realise their security a receiver and manager was appointed, who carried on the workings until a winding-up order was made: Held, in the winding-up, that the order of priorities as to costs etc. was as follows: (1) the costs of realisation of the assets; (2) costs and remuneration of receiver; (3) costs and expenses of trustees of the debenture deed; (4) costs of the plaintiffs in the action; (5) the amounts due to debenture holders. (Pearson, J., Nov. 25, 1884) Batten v. Wedwood Coal and Iron Company, 33 W. R. 303. Directors-Qualification Shares-Acceptance of from Promoter-Joint and Several Liability-Set-off.-Directors of a company accepted from a promoter of the company as their qualification shares, fully paid-up shares which the promoter had received as a premium for his promotion services from the company: Held, that they were jointly and severally liable to pay the full value of the shares: Held also, that one of the directors who had made advances to the company was not entitled to set-off such advances against the amount due on the shares. (Pearson, J., June 19, 1884.) Re Carriage Co-operative Supply Association, 27 Ch. D. 322; 53 L. J., Ch. 454; 51 L. T. R. 286. Memorandum of Association-Alteration-Ultra Vires-Ratification.-The memorandum of association of a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1862, provided for the payment of dividends in certain proportions between preference and ordinary COMPANY (continued). Petition for Winding-up- Creditor'— Debenture Holder-Existence of Assets— Provisional Liquidator.—A company issued debentures by which it agreed to pay the amount thereby secured to the bearer. The company also assigned property to trustees for the benefit of the debenture holders, and covenanted with the trustees for payment of the principal and interest: Held, that a holder of one of the debentures on which the interest was unpaid was a creditor of the company, and entitled to present a winding-up petition, and that there was not sufficient evidence of the property comprised in the trust deed being the only assets of the company to prevent a winding-up order being made. (Pearson J., May 10, 1884.) Re Olathe Silver Mining Company, 27 Ch. D. 278; 33 W. R. 12. Petition for Winding-up-Withdrawal-Costs of Supporting Shareholders.—Where a creditor who has presented a winding-up petition desires at the hearing to withdraw it, he must pay the costs of shareholders who have appeared to support the petition, unless they consent to the withdrawal. (Chitty J., Nov. 1, 1884.) Re Nacupai Gold Mining Company, 28 Ch. D. 65; 54 L. J., Ch. 109; 33 W. R. 117; 51 L. T. R. 900. Petition for Winding-up not advertised-Withdrawal-Contributories- Costs of Appearance.-Leave given to withdraw an unadvertised petition for a winding-up order without payment of the costs of shareholders appearing to oppose, though the petition had appeared several times in the paper. (Pearson J., Dec. 17, 1884.) Re United Stock Exchange, Ex parte Phelps & Kidd, 28 Ch. D. 183; 54 L. J., Ch. 310. Reduction of Capital-Pending Petition-And Reduced'—Dispensing with.- Pending the hearing of a petition about to be presented to obtain the sanction of the Court to a resolution for the reduction of capital, the Court gave the company permission to dispense with the words 'and reduced.' (V.C. B., Jan. 27, 1885.) The River Plate Fresh Meat Company, 33 W. R. 319. Unregistered Society-Loan by-Registration-Bankruptcy of Borrower-Right to prove. A money-lending society consisting of more than twenty persons associated for gain but unregistered lent 100l. to T., a member, to be repaid by instalments. The society was afterwards registered, T. continuing to pay his instalments until his bankruptcy: Held, that a new contract must be implied not to take advantage of the legal infirmity, and that the society might prove for the balance of the debt in B.'s bankruptcy. The business of such a society being carried on by agents as distinguished from trustees fewer in number than twenty does not render it less illegal. (Nov. 10, 1884.) Re Thomas, Ex parte Poppleton, 51 L. T. R. 602. Winding-up-Contributory-Payment by, without 'Call'-Enforcing.-The Court has power under s. 102 of the Companies Act, 1862, in the winding-up of a company to order a contributory to pay a sum of money which the official liquidator swears is necessary in the winding-up though no formal call' has been made either by the directors or the liquidator. (V.C. B., Nov, 27, 1884.) Re Norwich Equitable Fire Assurance Company, Miller's Case, 54 L. J., Ch. 141; 33 W. R. 271; 51 L. T. R. 619. Winding-up-Examination of Director-Pending Action.-An officer of a company that is being wound up cannot refuse to be examined under s. 115 of the Companies Act, 1862, because an action by the liquidator is pending against him. (Kay J., Nov. 13, 1884.) Re The Metropolitan (Brush) Electric Light and Power Company, Ex parte Learer, 51 L. T. R. 817. Winding-up-Inspection of Books-Reconstruction—Arbitration-Dissentient Shareholder. On the reconstruction of a company by way of voluntary winding-up, the liquidator offered to purchase the shares of M. a dissentient shareholder at five 1 COMPANY (continued). shillings a share; M. refused the offer and claimed an arbitration: Held, that pending the arbitration, M. was not entitled to have inspection of the books, which had been transferred to the new company. (V.C. B., Nov. 27, 1884.) Re Glamorganshire Banking Company, Morgan's Case, 33 W. R. 209; 51 L. T. R. 623. CONTRACT.-Sale-Property in materials for making Railway-Engineer's certificateInjunction.-Where under a contract for making a railway the company's engineer was to certify monthly the amount of materials brought on the land and work done by the contractor, and the amount due therefor was to be paid by the company seven days after the certificate, the Court held that materials brought on the land by the contractor and certified, though unused, were the property of the company, and restrained their removal by injunction. (Pearson J., Dec. 13, 1884.) Bunbury and Cheltenham Railway Co. v. Daniel, 33 W. R. 321; 54 L. J., Q. B. 265. COPYRIGHT.-Design-Infringement - New or Original'-The Masher Collar-Substantial Novelty-Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act.-In an action for infringement of a registered design for a collar, the Court being of opinion that there was no substantial novelty or originality in the design, and that it ought not to have been registered, ordered it to be removed from the register. (C. A., Nov. 5, 1884.) Le May v. Welch, Margetson & Co., 28 Ch. D. 24; 33 W. R. 33. COUNTY COURT-Bailiff-Action against― Want of jurisdiction-Protection.-Sect. 19 of 13 & 14 Vict., c. 61, effectually protects the registrar and high bailiff of a County Court from an action for anything done as a ministerial agent under a warrant duly sealed, even though the warrant was irregularly issued by reason of the judge having no jurisdiction: the bailiff is not protected if he proceeds irregularly under the warrant. (C. A., Dec. 9, 1884.) Aspey v. Jones, 54 L. J., Q. B. 98; 33 W. R. 217. COVENANT.—Restrictive Covenant.-Building scheme — Breach — Injunction — Acquiescence-Lord Cairns' Act.-Where allottees under a building scheme had entered into mutual restrictive covenants not to use the houses erected on the lots as shops, and one of such allottees, after being aware for more than three years that another allottee was using his house as a beershop, applied for an injunction, the Court held that he had disentitled himself by acquiescence to enforce the covenant. Mere change in the character of the neighbourhood, unless it has been caused by the conduct of the plaintiff, as in Duke of Bedford v. Trustees of British Museum, does not affect the right to enforce such a covenant. The Chancery Division has since the Judic. Act full jurisdiction, independently of Lord Cairns' Act, either to grant an injunction or to assess damages. (C. A., Nov. 8, 1884.) Sayers v. Collyer, 28 Ch. D. 103; 54 L. J., Ch. 1; 33 W. R. 91. CRIMINAL LAW.-Falsification of Accounts Act— Making false entry'-Giving in false memorandum.-B. a collector of debts, with intent to defraud, handed to his employer's clerk a memorandum which he had written as follows, 'Sheppard on account 51.,' and the clerk copied the memorandum into the cash-book; B. had in fact received 87. from Sheppard Held, that he had properly been convicted of making or concurring in making a false entry within the meaning of the Falsification of Accounts Act, 1875. (C. C., Nov. 29, 1884.) Reg. v. Butt, 51 L. T. R. 607. Indecent exposure-Public place-Trespass.- A person is liable to be convicted upon an indictment for indecently exposing his person in a public place, if he does so in a place where the public are though the public may have no right to be there. Semble it is not necessary to allege that the indecent exposure was in a public place. (C. C. R., Nov. 29, 1884.) Reg. v. Wellard, 14 Q. B. D. 63 ; 54 L. J., M. C. 14; 33 W. R. 156; 51 L. T. R. 604. Vagrancy Act Frequenting' street-Reputed thief.—A reputed thief who is found in a street etc. with intent to commit a felony, does not 'frequent' the street within the meaning of sect. 4 of the Vagrancy Act, 1825, if there is no evidence that he has been in the street more than once. (Dec. 1, 1884.) Reg. v. Clark, 14 Q. B. D. 92 ; 33 W. R. 226. |