« ZurückWeiter »
Irish Jurist .
THE ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE. ROYAL
(Incorporated A.D. 1720, by Charter of George the First.)
CORBET AND ARMSTRONG,
Agents and Stock Brokers, No. 5, COLLEGE-GREEN, DUBLIN. Fire, Life, and Marine Assurances on liberal terms. Life Assurances with, or without, participation in Profits. Divisions of Profits every Five Years. Any sum up to £16.000 insurable on the same Life. A liberal participation in Profits, with exemption from the liabilities of partnership
The Reversionary Bonus has averaged nearly two per cent. per annum on the sum assured, or 43 per cent. upon the Premiums paid. It is believed that no other old established company, affording to the Irish public the accommodation of local agencies, has maintained during the same period a rate of Bonus equal to this.
The Expenses of Management, being divided between the different branches, are spread over a larger amount of business than that transacted by any other ofice. The charge upon each Policy is thereby reduced to a sum so small as to account for the magnitude of the Bonus which has been declared, and to afford a probability that a similar rate will be sustained at future divisions.
This Corporation affords to the Assured a liberal participation in Profits, with exemption from the liabilities of partnership;-a rate of Bonus equal to the average returns of Mutual Societies, with the guarantee of a large invested Capital Stock :- the advantages of modern practice, with the security of an Office whose resources have been tested by the experience of nearly a Century and a half. Tables of rates and all other information, may be had on application
to CORBET AND ARMSTRONG, Agents and Stock Brokera, No. 6, College-green, Dublin.
Capital £2,000,000, in 100,000 Shares of £20 each.
Directors, &c., in Liverpool:
Security of a Large Capital actually paid up.
Stamps on Policies not Charged. Forfeiture of Policy cannot take place from unintentional mistakes.
Medical Fees Paid-Moderate Premiums.
Large Bonus declared 1855,
Periods of Division:
The risb Jurist
his judgment said that, under these circum-
hands of the sheriff before the statute passed, DUBLIN, DECEMBER 1, 1857.
and consequently a right to have them for the purpose of his execution; and we are all of opinion that we ought not to presume an intention in the
Legislature to strip him of that right, unless they A QUESTION of considerable importance upon the declare such intention in express terms ;” and construction of the “Act to amend the Laws of Baron Martin observed, that the prospective or England and Ireland affecting Trade and Com
retrospective effect of statutes was much consimerce" (19 & 20 Vict. c. 97), to the provisions of dered by this court in Moon v. Durden (2 Exch. which we have already drawn the attention of 22), and the majority of the bench in that case our readers (2 Ir. Jur. N. S. 134)has been re
gave it as their opinion that courts ought not to cently under the consideration of three courts of
give a retrospective effect to a statute, unless they justice in England-two being courts of law, the
are compelled by its language to do so." other of equity--and arose as follows:-By the first section of the statute referred to above, it is
In these views we entirely concur. The injusenacted “ that no writ of fieri facias, or other writ tice of passing a law affecting the acts of parties of execution, and no attachment against the goods committed under a belief that they would be dealt of any debtor, shall prejudice the title of a pur- with according to the existing law, is too manifest chaser for value before an actual seizure, unless to require comment; but another court has, upon the purchaser has, at the time of his purchase, a question arising for decision under the fourteenth notice that the writ of attachment was
section, decided differently. The case to which we cuted in the hands of the sheriff.” In the first refer is that of Thompson v. Waithman (2 Jur. N.S. of these cases, Williams v. Smith (3 Jur. N. S. 1080 ; S. C. 3 Drew, 628). The facts of that case 1082), it appeared in evidence that after the fieri were these. A and B, as partners, made a joint facias had been lodged with the sheriff, but before promissory note ; and after the death of A, B, the it was executed, the plaintiff, with knowledge of surviving partner, and also the executor of A, conthe existence of the writ, though not of the sum le
tinued for more than six years to pay interest on viable thereby, purchased cattle—the goods of which the note, when the holder of the note required the right to the property was in question—from the the sum due thereon to be paid out of the estate execution debtor. These transactions took place
of A; and upon this state of facts it was held, before the passing of the “Mercantile Law Amend that the payments were made by B, in his capament Act.” The sheriff having seized, a claim was
city of partner, and, as such, being within the made by the purchaser; and the sheriff having terms of the fourteenth section, the claim against obtained an interpleader order, an issue was di
A was bound. rected, in which the purchaser was the plaintiff ; The fourteenth section enacts, that “where there and upon the trial a verdict was found for the pur- shall be two or more joint co-contractors, or cochaser. On a motion to set aside this verdict, the debtors, whether bound or liable jointly, or only questions were-whether the goods were conclu- jointly and severally, or executors or administrasively bound by the delivery of the writ to the tors of any contractor, no such co-contractor or cosheriff, as the statute, having subsequently come debtor, executor, or administrator shall lose the into operation, had no retrospective effect; and, benefits of the said enactments (21 Jac. I. c. 16, secondly, that the knowledge in the plaintiff of the s, 3; the 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 42, s. 3, and the 16 & writ being in the hands of the sheriff, brought 17 Vict. c. 113, s. 20), or any of them, so as to him within the statute, if it were applicable. be chargeable in respect or by reason only of payThe court having decided that the statute had ment of any principal, interest, or other money, by not a retrospective effect, did not give any opinion any other or others of such co-contractors, or coupon the second question. Pollock, C. B., in debtors, executors, or administrators." And upon
that section Sir R. J. Kindersley held, that the pay. menced his action within six years after becoming ment made was as partner, and, in his judgment, said, at large, and that the causes of action accrued, " It is said the language of this section is future, and the imprisonment occurred, before the passing and this is true with respect to the operation of of the Mercantile Law Amendment Act." The the Act; but there is nothing future with reference case of Thompson v. Waithman was referred to in to the payment of principal or interest by the co- argument, but not that of Williams v. Smith. In contractor. It is simply this, that where there giving judgment, Lord Campbell, C.J., said, shall exist a case of co-contracturs or executors, “With respect to the Statute of Limitations, I am of then the executor or co-contractor shall not lose the opinion that, as this action has been commenced benefit of the statute by reason of any payments since the passing of the statute (19 & 20 Vic., by the co-executor or co-contractor;" and in answer 97), the plaintiff's imprisonment is no answer to to the argument that the Legislature would not the plea. I think that the natural construction of intend to do so unjust an act as to take away the section 10 is, that in any action brought after the benefits to which the parties were entitled, by an passing of the Act, no plaintiff should be able to ex post facto operation, the learned Vice-Chancellor rely upon the disabilities there mentioned, by way said, “ that the decisions (prior to the passing of of excuse for not having commenced his action the above statute) whether the payments by a co-within the limited period. Thus the Act has an contractor would deprive the other contractors of immediate effect upon actions subsequently comthe benefit of the statute of James, were divided ; menced, but not a retrospective effect. The statute and, therefore, no injustice could be done in this applies to past as well as to future transactions." cuse.” With the greatest respect for the opinion The other judges concurred, and Erle, J., said, he of the learned Vice-Chancellor, we cannot help considered the decision in Thompson v. Waithman feeling that the foregoing reasoning is not well-precisely analogous to that before the court. This founded. If the statute have a retrospective decision is directly opposed to that in Williams v. operation, it should affect all cases within its Smith, and, as far as the balance of authority will provisions, whether the decisions affecting such effect future decisions, is in favor of the retrospeccases be conflicting or otherwise; and whether tive operation of the statute. there be hardship or not in the particular case
PORTFOLIOS FOR THE IRISH JURIST. is not a question for the judge to consider: his opinion is only to be expressed upon the THE Publisher begs to inform Subscribers that
the above are now prepared, and will contain the numbers published question, whether the provisions of the statute These Portfolios are recommended for the convenience of preserving apply to the facts of the case before him. It appears
the Work, and for the facility they will afford for reading and refer
ence previous to binding. Price 2s. each. to us that the decision of the Court of Exchequer,
EDWARD J. MILLIKEN, 15, COLLEGE-GREEN.
Just Published, price 16s., free by post, the Second Edition of in Williams v. Smith, is in accordance with the true meaning of the statute , and the justice of the THKENCOMMON LAW PROCEDURE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1853, with the COMMON LAW PROCE
DURE AMENDMENT ACT, 1856, the General Orders of 1854 and 1856, case; and we can find no such distinction between a Commentary, and copious General Index. the language of the sections referred to, as would By WILLIAM DWYER FERGUSON, Esq., LL.D., Barrister-at-Law.
The first edition of the Common Law Procedure Act of 1853 having enable us to discover any expressed intention on been published immediately after its becoming law, the Author was
unable to embody in it the practice which has subsequently grown up the part of the Legislature that the fourteenth under its provisions. That practice is now established by a great should have a retrospective operation. We cannot by the General Orders contained in the present edition. help expressing our opinion that in this case the mentary on its provisions and the general Law of Arbitrations,
Injunctions, Mandamus, aud Equitable Defences in Courts of Law, decision of the law court is more equitable than forminga complete Code of Common Law Procedure.
Dublin: E. J. MILLIKEN, Law Publisher, 15, College-green. that of the court of equity.
Price 7s. 6d.; free by Post; But in a subsequent case, Comill v. Hudson (30 L. Gi. 130, Q.B.) in which the Statute of Limi- JUDGMENT AND EXECUTIONS, together
Execution and Interpleader, with Forms, Cases, and Cpious Index. tations was pleaded, it was replied, under the tenth By ROBERT W. OSBORNE, Esq.
Dublin ; EDWARD J. MILLIKEN, 15, COLLEGE-GREEN. section of the statute, “ That when the cause of action accrued, the plaintiff was imprisoned
Now Publishing, Price One Shilling, within the meaning of the statute, and from thence GENERAL ORDERS
of the COURT of BANK
RUPTCY and INSOLVENCY in IRELAND, made by the Judges until within six years before the commencement of Act, 1857, 20 & 21 Vict. c. 6o.
of the said Court, pursuant to the Irish Bankruptcy and Insolvency the suit, was imprisoned ; and the plaintiff com
ALEX. THOM and Sons, Printers and Publishers, 87 and 88, Abbeystreet, Dublin.
during the year.
THE LAW OF
with the Duties and Offices of Sheriff's in relation to Writs of
ESTABLISHED ACT OF PARLIAMENT. LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY.
1825. EDINBURGH (Head Office) 3, GEORGE-STREET. DUBLIN, 66, PER SACKVILLE-ST. LONDON, 82, KING WILLIAM-ST. GLASGOW, 35, ST. VINCENT-PLACE
DIVISION OF PROFITS. A very large portion of the Profits is allocated periodically to the Assured on the principle of a TONTINE. Divisions have already
taken place at five periods, viz.—1835, 1840, 1845, 1850, and 1855. The following are examples :
The following cases, taken from the Books of the Company The following cases will further illustrate the benefits of the will tend to illustrate the system :
system with reference more particularly to participation in
the Profits:On 21st MAY, 1856, C. D. died, aged 30, having effected an as- On 26th FEBRUARY, 1856, G. H. died, aged 51. He effected an surance on his life for £200 on 9th July, 1855, when he was in Assurance on bis life in 1829 for
£999 0 0 excellent health. His payment to the Company was £5:1:2. And there was added by the Company from the
924 0 0 On 6th NOVEMBER, 1856, A. G. died, at the age of 26, having
Making the Sum paid £1923 0 0 effected an Assurance of £1000 on the 15th November, 1855, when in good bealth. Only one Premium of £23: 4: 2 wag
On 6th NOVEMBER, 1856, died T. D., aged 81. He effected an paid to the Company.
Assurance on his life in 1826 for
£800 0 0 And there was added by the Company from the Profits
876 0 0 These cases show how complete and satisfactory such a provision is from the moment of a Policy being effected.
Making the sum paid £1676 0 0 The Share of Profits attaching to a Policy may be applied to increase the Sam Assured, or the valuo may be received in Cash, or
be applied to reduce the Annual Premiums.
Number of Proposals for Assurances made to the Directors. 10,490
£6,001,741 4 8
4,787,301 18 i
£669,801 6 7
516,361 6 7
254,484 10 8
CONDITIONS OF ASSURANCE. UNCHALLENGEABLE POLICIES AND FREE RESIDENCE IN ANY PART OF THE WORLD. Since 1851, when this Compans promulgated the system of " Select Assurance," admission to which renders Policies indisputable and unchallengeable on any ground whatever, the question of “Terms and Conditions” has become a most important point of consideration, and the day is quickly approaching when no one will hold a Policy from an office which does not give similar advantages. What a boon is it to all classes of Assurers to know that whatever may happen, wherever the Assured may go, the claim will be met at death, subject to one simple condition, that the annual premium originally stipulated be punctually paid!
ADVANCES ON THE SECURITY OF POLICIES—AND SURRENDERS. The Directors have lately adopted rules of the most liberal character with reference to Loans on the Security of their Policies, and to Surrenders, allowing surrender value on Participating Policies from the commencement of the Assurance, while the same sum which would be given for surrender will be given in loan without expense beyond the trifling stamp duty, and at a rate of interest which securities on land alone command. With these facilities, no Policy need be forfeited, except by carelessness, so long as the Assurance is of sufficient value to authorise an advance equivalent to the Premium.
Resident Secretary in Dublin, SAMUEL SMYLIE,
66, UPPER SACKVILLE-STREET.
Orders for the IRISH JURIST left with E. J. MILLIKEN, 15, COLLEGE-GREEN, or by letter (post-paid), will ensure its punctual delivery n Dublin, or its being forwarded to the Country, by Post, on the day of publication.
All communications for the IRISH JURIST are to be left, addressed to the Editor, with the Publisher, E. J. MILLIKEN, 15, COLLEGEGREEN. Correspondents will please give the Name and Address, as the columns of the Paper cannot be occupied with answers to anonymous communications--nor will the Editor be accountable for the return of manuscripts, &c.
TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION (payable in advance) ;--Yearly, £2. Single Number, 23. 60.
Published by EDWARD JOHNSTON MILLIKEN, 15, College-green, and printed at the Dublin Steam Press Printing Ofice, 65 Upper Sackville-street, by ROBERT G. SOUTER, Agent, who is authorized to receive orders for Advertisementa- December 1, 1857,