Abbildungen der Seite

Superior Courts :-King's Bench Practice Court ; Exchequer.


nal sum, if the duties performed were merely mously of opinion, that the decree of the Court nominal. How much more consistent was it, to below should be affirmed. allow them to deprive them altogether, when Smyth v. Lutham, in the Court of Exchequer no longer of use, than to continue officers Chamber at Westminster, April 23, 1833. without real duties or salaries annexed ? It was objected to this construction, that the general power given by the act contemplated an

King's Bench Practice Court. establishment for the permanent payment of Exchequer bills, and that the Commissioners

INTERPLEADER ACT. had power to select proper persons for the Where process is issued out of different Courts, office, but not to remove them. The Commis and directed to the same sheriff, the latter sioners, it is true, have the power to select, must apply for relief under the Interpleadbut it did not follow that the officers so select er Act, to the respective Courts out of which ed were to hold the appointment for life. the process issues. Besides, the performance of the office itself,

Burstow, for the sheriff of Dorset, moved did not imply the performance of it by

for the usual rule under the Interpleader Act. any one individual during life. It was also I H

He made it a part of his motion, that the rule contended, that, as the words of the 11th

should include the execution creditor in the section contained no power of dismissal, no

Common Pleas cause, so as to save the sheriff such power could be exercised. The an

the expense of a separate application to that swer to that was plain : That section had re

| Court. He admitted that the practice was for ference only to the duties of the officers while thes

le the Sheriff, when he had writs against the same in office. Another point made in the argu

defendant, issuing out of several Courts, to ment in this matter, was, that the terins of the

apply separately to each Court; but he subact were doubtful, construed by analogy with |

mitted that either Court might entertain the other acts, in which, when the legislature in

subject-matter of the different claims; and tended that there should be a power of dis

that, when that Court was possessed of it, the missal, such power was expressly reserved.

judgment creditors under the other writs might That argument might prevail when the terms

be called before the Court, as persons laying of an act were doubtful or obscure ; but here

claim to the goods, according to the words of they were clear, and free from all doubt: and the act, even where such power was reserved, it was

Patteson, J.-It certainly is a point of congenerally unnecessary, but inserted pro ma- | siderable importance to sheriffs : but I do not jore cautela. Upon all these grounds, there- I think they can

think they can be relieved in the way you sugfore, the first exception must be overruled.

gest. I know my brother Parke, last terın, had The second exception was, with respect to the

occasion to consider whether the act applied construction of a deed-poll, which, it was con

to cases of conflicting executions; and he tended, gave a freehold interest in an office.

thought it did not. You must take your rule The instrument of appointment here was not

only in the King's Bench causes; and must a deed-poll, no more than an award was. When

apply by a separate motion to the Common the Commissioners were empowered by the act | Pleas, in the cause in that Court. to constitute Paymasters, the putting their

Rule accordingly.--Bragg v. Hopkins, and seals to the appointment did not give it the | Wills y. Hopkins, in the King's Bench : and effect of a deed-poll. The third exception was, I Wills v. Hopkins, in the Common Pleas. April that if the appointment of the plaintiff in 1811|19. 1833. KB PC. gave office during pleasure only, still the appointment of the defendant in 1824, containing no revocation of the appointment of plaintiff,

Erchequer. did not operate to that effect; but when there was a subsequent appointment of an office in PRISONER.-CHARGING WITH A DECLARATION. place of another, the case bore so close an analogy to a tenancy at will, as to make it diffi

Where one of tiro defendants was in custody cult to maintain that the new appointment was

on a criminal charge, the Court allowed not a virtual revocation of the former. The

him to be brought up to be charged with a fourth exception went upon the ground that

declaration. the Commissioners having stated that the plain- Archbold applied for a habeas corpus ad restiff had resigned the office, and that not being pondendum to bring up a defendant who was proved, the subsequent appointment did take in the custody of the Marshal in this action, effect. The answer to that argument was, that and also in another action in the King's Bench, it was not necessary to prove the resignation; and in criminal custody under a Judge's warand that the appointment of a successor was rant. This action was against two defendants, sufficient notice to the plaintiff that he was not one of whom had been served, and the other ar. continued in office. To the fifth objection, rested on a cupias. which was on like ground, it may be answered, Bayley, B., suggested, that under the new that the fact of the resignation of the plaintiff was process act, he might have a writ of retainer not material to the issue in this case. The will against him. of the Commissioners was sufficiently indicated | Archbold.-Our object is to charge Smith by the appointment of a successor. Upon with a declaration. We do not want to change these grounds, they (the Judges) were unani- the custody. The other, whom we have served,


Superior Courts : Exchequer.-Notes of the Week.

we cannot serve again ; and if we charge this will be the proper course of proceeding. one with a declaration, we can declare against The Bill contains many useful provisions ; the other, who has not appeared.

others may be added, to render it still more Bayley, B.--You may take your rule. Rule granted.-Williams v. Smith and an

| beneficial, and the objectionable or imperother, H. T. 1833. Exch.

fect clauses may be modified and improved.

We think it would greatly expedite Chan

cery proceedings, if the Common Law pracNEW TRIAL.

tice were adopted, of the solicitors deliverWhere a party is entitled to move for a new ing to each other copies of the pleadings,

trial, as a matter of right, the Court cannot for the accuracy of which they should i limit the enquiry to one particular point, responsible. The defendant's time to anbut must grant it generally. .

swer should then be reckoned from the deIn trespass, for breaking and entering the livery of the copy of the bill to his solicitor, plaintiff's liouse and turning him out of pos- I and the time for filing a replication calcusession, the jury gave 10001. damages, which was in fact the full value of the plaintiff's in

lated from the delivery of a copy of the terest in the house. Upon a motion for a new

answer. At Common Law, 4d. per folio of trial on several grounds, the Court expressing

seventy-two words is allowed the attorney; an opinion that there must be a new trial on but in Chancery, as the folio is ninety the ground of excessive damages

words, and there is usually great delay in Hutchinson, for the plaintiff, contended, that the payment of costs, the charge should the new trial ought to be confined to that be 60. per folio. The Clerk in Court at point; but

Per Curiam.-We can't do that. Where it | present receives 10d. is matter of right to have a new trial, the Court | With respect to Writs, it would much cannot confine or limit the enquiry: when it is expedite business if the Solicitor were to matter of indulgence only, they may.

prepare them, and the duty of the Filacer Rule absolute generally.-Mahoney v. Fra- be confined to stamping them with an offiser, H. T. 1833. Exch.

cial seal, as in the Common Law Courts.


It appears by the Votes, that an address has been moved for the Third and Fourth

Reports by the Commissioners respecting House of Lords.

Real Property. We do not understand LOCAL JURISDICTIONS.

how this occurs : the Third Report was The second reading of this Bill has not printe

printed last August; and a verbatim copy yet been fixed. It is reported in the daily

Tsis contained in our Record or Supplement

for that month. The Fourth Report apjournals, but does not appear by the Votes of the House, that the Lord Chancellor pears to be just presented, and we shall lav

at it before our readers as soon as printed. It moved on Tuesday for a copy of the Report 10 of the Common Law Commissioners, and relat

oners and relates to Wills. stated that he wished to postpone the second reading of the Bill until the Report, which was very important, was laid before

House of Commons. their Lordships.

GENERAL REGISTRY OF DEEDS. Several Petitions have been presented against the Bill, from places where there are

The motion for bringing in this Bill has Courts of Requests having jurisdiction to

been deferred till Wednesday the 8th of the extent of 51., and which the Bill is in

May. How is it that no effort is made (as tended to abolish. The inhabitants of Hull. We pointed out long ago) to try the experi. Kidderminster. Manchester. Liverpool, and. I ment of improving the Middlesex Registry ? we believe, other large towns, (where the

The plan of Local Courts, if carried, is only Local Courts would be most useful, if useful

to be tried in two counties ; but the Geneat all,) protest against the alteration.

ral Registry, an equally, if not more dangerous measure, is at once to come into opera. tion over the whole kingdom. Certainly

as much caution is needed in altering the COURT OF CHANCENY REGULATIONS. Law of Real Property, and establishing an Notice has been given of a motion to re- additional and compulsory mode of conveyfer this Bill to a Select Committee. This ance, and a new test of the validity of titles, Notes of the Week.- Answers to Queries.'


and Bivision, the As.

as in the mode of recovering debts to the garding the Sittings and Business of the amount of 201.

Courts of Review and Subdivision, the Re

ceipts and Remuneration of Official AsLAW AMENDMENT.

signees, the Fees of the Secretary and Chief

| Registrar, &c. This Bill waits for the Committee. It has been suggested, that in the clause directing the sheriffs to name deputies, to be

DRAMATIC LITERARY PROPERTY. resident in London, for the receipt of writs, This Bill waits for the third reading. &c., and accepting rules and orders, a small fee should be allowed to such deputy or agent, as well for postage as for his trouble

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE. and responsibility in receiving and forward- The report on this Bill, to be further ing such rules and orders to the undersheriff | considered. in the country.


This Bill waits for the second reading. The Bills on Fines and Recoveries, Limitation of Actions, Inheritance, Dower, and

SEWERS. Curtesy, have been reported, and re-committed for Monday next the 6th of May.

This Bill is in Committee. The Bills, as amended, to be reprinted.


This Bill waits for the second reading. This Bill, for subjecting Freehold and Copyhold Estates as Assets in all cases POLICE OFFICES (London). for the Payment of Simple Contract Debts,

This report is under further consideration. waits for the report of the Committee to which it is referred.


.. ROLLS. Waiting for the report of the Committee.

General petition day, Thursday 9th May,

at ten o'clock. PERSONAL ESTATES.

Short causes on Friday 10th May, at This Bill, for repealing the Duties on eleven o'clock. Personal Estates, under 3 W. 4, has been read a second time and committed.


The Vice-Chancellor will hear short STAMP DUTY ACTS.-TAXES ON THE

causes on Tuesday the 7th May. PROFESSION. The report of the Committee is expected to be made soon. Now is the time when

ANSWERS TO QUERIES. the taxes on the Profession should be revised. If the duty on articles of clerkship

Common Law. were raised to 2001., the annual certificate

ALIEN.-MARRIAGE. VOL. V. P. 388. stamp might be repealed without much loss to the revenue.

Your correspondent, whose answer to this query was inserted, vol. 5, p. 499, appears to me

to have insufficiently answered even that part of LUNATIC COMMISSIONS.

the query to which it has relation. I have · This Bill has been reprinted, as amended

therefore attempted a solution of the whole

question. in the Committee.

1. An alien would take no estate in the land,

either in right of his wife, during her lifc, or BANKRUPTCY.

as tenant by the curtesy, after her death; for

although he can take by matter in pais, he Various important returns have been or

cannot take by act of law. On the same prindered, on the motion of Mr. Tooke, re- ciple, a woman alien by the common law would



Answers to Queries.- Queries.- Editor's Letter Bor. not have been entitled to dower. See Coke

BUILDINGS.-FIXTURES. Litt. 2 b. and note 1. and 31 B.

A lease of a piece of ground contains a co2. This depends on the 1st ; and if the so- l venant

80- venant “ during the term, to repair and keep lution of that question be right, the Crown in repair the piece of ground, with the appurwould not on office found take any estate.

tenances, and all fences and ditches thereto 3. The distress is incident to the reversion; Coke Litt. 143 a, 150 b; and as the reversion sufficiently repaired, &c. be the said [lessee),

sion ; belonging, and the same being so well and is in the wife only, the distress, it seems, must shall, at the end or sooner determination of the be in her name.

said term, surrender and yield up the same 4. The demise must be in the name of the unto &c. in as good plight and condition as the wife ; for the husband has no interest in the

same now are.” At the time the lease was land : and upon principle it is held, that an

granted, there was no building of any kind on alien cannot maintain a mixed action, which

the ground demised; but the lessee afterwards an ejectment is. See Coke Litt. 129 b.

erected a building, with a brick foundation, and sheds, for the purposes of his trade. Be

fore the expiration of the term, he caused the Law of Property and Conveyancing. buildings to be pulled down, and the materials LEGACY.-NOTES. VOL. V. P. 484.

carried away :- Is the lessee bound to yield up

the buildings, together with the demised ground, 1. The bank notes, being quasi cash, would at the end of the term ? and if so, what form pass under the bequest inentioned by “A of action is sustainable by the lessors ? Student.Flemming v. Brook, 1 Scho. & Lef.

J.L. 318. Stuart v. Marquis of Bute, 11 Ves. jun. 662. But promissory notes would not pass by that bequest, as they are choses in action, and

Law of property and Conveyancing. have no locality. See Chitty on Bills of Ex

corynolds. change and Promissory Notes, 4th ed. p. 2. Is a custom for a feme covert to surrender

J. S. her copyhold lands, without her husband's 2. It was decided in the case of Gray v. consent. rood

I JUVENIS. Cooke, by the Vice-Chancellor (Feb. 1833), that bank notes in a drawer will not pass to a legatee under the general words“ furniture,

EJECTMENT. goods, and chattels,” in a will. In the present Does ejectment lie for dower which has not case, however, as the words of the bequest are | been assigned?

JUVENI 6. much more comprehensive, and so strong as apparently to leave no doubt, it would perhaps

WILL.-CONSTRUCTION, be held, that bank notes, &o. so found would pass to B.

H. M. by his will gives to his wife M. M. one-third part of his estate and effects; to his

daughter C. M. one-third part of his estate, to Practice.

be paid to her at twenty-one; and to his STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.-NOTE. daughter E.M. the last third-part of his estate, VOL. V. P. 484.

to be paid to her at twenty-one : “ Item, his The holder of the note of hand is precluded will was, that if any one of said parties should from recovering, by the Statute of Limitations. die first, the deceused party's one third-part A promissory note payable on demand is pay- should be equally shared between the two sur. able immediately, and the Statute of Limita

vivors; and if the second should die, the surtions runs from the date of the note, and not vivor should possess and enjoy his whole estate from the time of the demand. 1 Sel. N. P. and effects.-H.M, died seised of three copy4th ed. 131, 339.

J.S. hold houses in fee, leaving M. M., C.M., and

E. M. surviving. The two latter attained 21.
What estates or interests do M. M., C. M., and

E. M. respectively take under the above will?

R. M.


Common Law.


We still wait for some additional names, The executors of deceased executors have before we commence a Stamped Country Edibeen applied to by the representative of a tion; and which will contain some intelligence legatee for an account, which they refuse to collected particularly for that part of our imgive ; but say, that if the representative pression. chooses, he may go to the office of their soli- We have to acknowledge the communicacitor, and peruse the account. The represen- tions of “Querist ;" S.; « Pesendede;" P.; tative resides in London, and the executors J.S.; J. K.; A Reader;" and T. D. and their solicitor 50 miles from town. Can The Reviews of several Books, which we the executors be compelled to furnish a de- have received, and various Contributions, are tailed copy of the account, on the representa- unavoidably deferred. We beg the indulgence tive offering to pay for a copy?

of our Correspondents.

[blocks in formation]


| enforce their claims at law under this act, ON THE INTERPLEADER ACT. | and the Court will take no notice of such


In order to enable parties to obtain relief One of the most important and useful sta

d useful sta- under this act, it is not necessary that the tutes passed during the last two Sessions of conflicting claimants should demand the abParliament, is the Interpleader Act, the isolute property of the matter in question ; & 2 W. 4. c. 58. Various decisions have for a claim of lien is within the act. See been pronounced on its enactments ; and in

Ford v. Baynton, 1 Dowl. Prac. Rep. 357. the present article we propose to point out! Where an issue has been directed by the how far its provisions have been held to ex- | Court, the question of costs, both of the tend.

original application to the Court and of the On examining the act, it will be perceived,

| issue, will be determined after the issue has that there are three classes of persons to

been decided. See Seaward v. Williams, whom relief under it may be given. First,

1 Dowl. P. Rep. 528. all bailees, having no interest in the matter

The above appear to be the only decisions bailed ; secondly, sheriffs and other officers on the first branch of the act. having the execution of process against The second branch is that which relates goods and chattels ; thirdly, persons to to the relief of sheriffs and others from conwhom writs of mandamus may issue, and flicting claims on property seized under who may, or may not, have any interest in process directed to them. As the relief of the matter to which the mandamus relates. such executive officers is the object of this

As to the first class of persons, it may be branch of the act, it should seem that it is observed, that the only actions in which re- of no consequence what the form of action lief can be given, are assumpsit, debt, de is which may be brought against the sheriff, tinue, and trover,—the action of trespass or with which he may be threatened. being omitted. Where, therefore, either. In all such cases of application for relief, trover or trespass may be brought, and it is the officers seeking it must come promptly wished to evade the Interpleader Act, tres- to the Court, where notice of conflicting pass may be brought, and the Courts can claims has been received. Thus, in Devenot interfere. It may also be observed, that reux . John and Another, (1 Dowl. Prac. the remedy by filing a bill of interpleader is Rep. 548,) where a sheriff allowed an action left in force, if parties choose to avail them to be brought against him by assignees, who selves of it: but it appears from the case of made a claim to goods seized by him under Sturgess v.Claude (1 Dowl. Prac. Rep. 505), a fi. fa., and after a declaration had been that where claimants on property in dis- delivered he obtained time to plead, the pute have proceeded in equity, they cannot Court refused to relieve him, and made him


« ZurückWeiter »