Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

1. Principal and Agent.] The plaintiff, a merchant in India, consigned goods to A, of Liverpool, to sell on his account, and drew bills against the goods, which A accepted. A then placed the goods in the hands of B, his correspondent in London, with instructions to sell them or cause them to be sold, and drew a bill upon B for 1680, which B accepted on the security of the goods, but with notice that the plaintiff had consigned the goods to A for sale on his account. A became insolvent, leaving the bills drawn by the plaintiff, unpaid. B paid the bill for 16801., and then sold the goods for 1300l. A bill filed by the plaintiff, against A and B for an account and payment, by B, of the proceeds of the goods, was dismissed with costs. Navul shaw v. Brownrigg, 106.

2. A bill for an account by a principal against his agent, is not sustainable where the transaction to which it relates, is a single transaction, not tainted with fraud, and the plaintiff has a remedy at law. Ib.

ACCUMULATION.

Thellusson Act (39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 98)-Premiums on Life Assurance.] A testator directed by his will that the income of his property should be applied in payment of the premiums on certain policies of assurance for the lives of his sons, and that their interest in the policies should be settled on marriage on their respective wives and issue:

Held, that such direction did not constitute an accumulation of income within the meaning of the Thellusson Act. Bassil v. Lister, 157.

[blocks in formation]

Chancery.

ACTION.

See INJUNCTION.

ADMINISTRATION.

1. Administration claim by an executor who had not possessed any assets. Order made in prescribed form, without variation on that account. Holme v. Holme, 261.

2. Preliminary Inquiries.] Upon a claim filed by some of the residuary devisees, under the will of a testatrix, who had given various legacies to Roman Catholic priests and charities, for the administration of her estate, a reference to the master was asked, to inquire whether any of the legacies so given by the will were held upon any secret trusts, for the performance of pious acts connected with the Roman Catholic religion:

Held, that these inquiries could not be directed upon a claim. If the plaintiffs wanted more than the common administration decree they must file a bill for the purpose. Gilpin v. Magee, 153.

3. Prospective Order.] Order made on a claim that the money to be received in respect of mortgages, forming part of the personal estate of an intestate, should be got in by the administrator, and divided from time to time by him among the parties interested. Bullivant v. Bellairs, 51.

ADVOWSON.

See LUNATIC.

AFFIDAVIT.

Swearing in Court.] An affidavit will be permitted to be sworn in open court in case of urgency. The Mercers Company v. Witham Navigation Company, 57.

AGREEMENT.

1. Construction Corporation - Railway Company.] H. and Y. and several other persons calling themselves The Lancashire and North Yorkshire Railway Company, introduced a bill into parliament for incorporating the company and making their railway, which was intended to pass through the plaintiff's estate, and near his residence. The plaintiff prepared to oppose the bill, but afterwards desisted, in consequence of H. and Y. having agreed with him, on behalf of the company, that, in case the company should, in the then or any subsequent session, obtain an act of incorporation, they would pay the plaintiff 1000l. for all lands required by them for making the railway, and 4000l. for residential injury, and 251. for his personal expenses, and also that they would pay the expenses of his solicitor in the business. After wards that company agreed to join with a rival company, calling itself The Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle Company, in applying for an act for making a railway the line of which, so far as the plaintiff's estate was concerned, was the same as the line of the Lancashire and North Yorkshire Company; and the two companies agreed to adopt the agreement with the plaintiff. The act passed, and by it the two companies were incorporated by the name of The Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle Railway Company:.

-

Held, that the incorporated company must be taken to be the parties on whose behalf H. and Y. entered into the agreement with the plaintiff. Preston v. Liverpool &c. Railway Company, 124.

2. The court also was of opinion that, as the plaintiff had withdrawn his opposition to the bill in parliament, the company, according to the true construction of the agree ment, were bound to pay the sums agreed to be paid to him, although they had not taken possession of any part of his estate. But, the question as to the construction of the agreement being a legal one, a case was directed for the opinion of a court of law. Ib.

Chancery.

AMENDMENT.

1. Application to Amend-Delay.] A bill of 1500 folios was filed in February, 1850, and the answer of 900 folios was filed in June. On motion to dismiss in January, 1851, the plaintiff desired time to amend :

Held, that the delay was inexcusable, and the bill must be dismissed, unless the plaintiff filed his replication forthwith. Thruston v. Smith, 168.

[ocr errors]

2. Application to the Master 68th Order of May, 1845.] Defendant answered the original bill, and upwards of four weeks elapsed from the time such answer was put in. The plaintiff amended his bill, and the defendant put in his answer. An application by the plaintiff to the master for leave to amend, within four weeks after the answer to the amended bill had been put in:

Held, not to be obnoxious to the 68th order of May, 1845. ern Railway Co., 52.

Macintosh v. Great West

Service of]

See INJUNCTION.

AMENDED BILL.

See SERVICE.

ANNUITIES

Devise-Charging Real Estate.] A testator, (subject and charged with the payment of his annuities,) devised his real estate to trustees, as to part for his wife for life, and then, in the first place, out of the rents, to pay the annuities, and subject to the life estate of his wife and the annuities to A for life, &c. &c :

[ocr errors]

Held, that the real estates were liable to be sold for payment of the arrears of the annuities. Picard v. Mitchell, 25

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Unappointed Portion - Right to Participate.] F. H. had a power to appoint a sum of 21,7927. consols, to her daughters after the decease of herself and her husband. Upon the marriage of G., one of her daughters, who was a minor, F. H. appointed a moiety of the fund to become the part of her daughter G. to be vested in her, or her husband in her right, to the end that on the decease of the tenants for life, it might be paid to her husband, his executors, administrators, or assigns, to and for his and their own use and benefit. No appointment was made of the other moiety of the fund; and upon a bill filed by G. and her husband claiming a moiety of the unappointed fund:

Held, that there was a valid appointment of one moiety of the fund; that the remaining moiety was unappointed, and was divisible between G. and her sister. Wombwell v. Hanrott, 61.

ASSIGNEE.

See BANKRUPT.

ASSURANCE.

See INSURANCE.

[blocks in formation]

1. Adjourning Meeting for Granting Certificate-12 & 13 Vict. c. 106, s. 198.] Under the 198th section of the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106, the commissioner has a discretion to adjourn generally the sitting held for the purpose of granting the bankrupt's certifi cate, at the instance of the only creditor desirous of opposing who had omitted to give the three days' notice required by the statute. Woods, ex parte, 115.

2. Right of Assignees.] A son was indebted to his father. The father bequeathed to his son a leasehold estate, and declared it to be "entirely free from any claim, charge, demand, or lien of my son's creditors, or any or either of them, or of any person claiming under him, (the son,) either at law or in equity." Soon after the father's death the son became bankrupt:

Held, that the assignees were entitled to the estate.

Harvey v. Palmer, 248.

3. Certificate" Conduct as a Trader."] A bankrupt having been guilty of breaches of trust, the court, on appeal, granted him his certificate, but added a proviso, by which he was not to be protected from all claims upon him as a trustee. Wakefield, ex parte, 302.

4. Whether the 256th section of the statute 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106, is retrospective, quære? Ib.

5. Certificate-Previous Bankruptcy.] A bankrupt, who has been made a bankrupt before, and paid on that occasion less than 15s. in the pound, will not, in the matter of his certificate, be placed in a more favorable position than he would have been in, under the 6th Geo. 4, c. 16. Hollingworth, ex parte, 303.

6. Partnership Property - Joint and separate Estate.] A carried on business as a grocer, and was entitled to some stock in trade and furniture, which were on the premises where he carried on his business. A, being so entitled, took B and C into partnership with him in April, and the business was carried on by the partnership until August in the same year, when the firm became bankrupt. B and C did not pay any thing to A, or bring any money into the concern, and no deed of transfer of the property of A and no articles of partnership had been executed. After the partnership A ordered goods in the name of the firm:

Held, that under these circumstances, the stock in trade on the premises at the time of the bankruptcy was partnership property, and not the separate property of A, and that the furniture was the separate property of A. Owen, ex parte, 305.

7. Certificate Rehearing — Repeal by the last Bankrupt Act of the Acts mentioned in the Schedule.] A, who was made a bankrupt at the time when the provisions as to certificates under the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 122, were in force, applied to the commissioner for his certificate, which the commissioner refused. After the Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act was passed, A applied to the commissioner to rehear the case as to the certificate, which the commissioner refused. Petition by A that the commissioner might be directed to rehear the case, was dismissed. Higginson, ex parte, 307. 8. Forged Bill-Money paid by Mistake-Proof.] A, who lived at Liverpool, brought to a bank at Liverpool a bill of exchange, appearing to have been drawn by B, and to have been accepted by C, who both lived in Yorkshire, and stated that he was agent for B, and inquired of the manager of the bank whether he would discount the bill for B without requiring him, A, to indorse it. The manager agreed to discount the bill without an indorsement by A, and the bill was discounted accordingly, and the money was paid to A. It appeared afterwards that the signature of Chad been forged by B and the bill proved to be worthless. It was assumed that

[ocr errors]

Chancery.

A was innocent, and had no knowledge of the forgery. A became a bankrupt. The
bank tendered a proof against his estate in respect of the bill, which was allowed by
the commissioner, but no inquiry was then made whether the money had passed from
A to B:-
:-

Held, on appeal from the decision of the commissioner, first, that the bank had no claim against A in respect of the forgery of the bill; and, secondly, that the bank had a right to an inquiry as to the relations of A and B after the discounting of the bill, with reference to the money paid to A. Bird, ex parte, 308.

9. Annulling Adjudication-Time limited for Proceedings to annul Adjudications104th and 233d Sections of the Bankrupt Act.] A duplicate of an adjudication in bankruptcy against A was served on A personally on the 19th of February. A did not, within fourteen days after such service, shew cause to the court against the validity of the adjudication. An advertisement of the adjudication was inserted in the Gazette on the 28th of February. On the 19th of March, within twenty-one days from the advertisement, A presented a petition to the commissioner, praying that the adjudication might be annulled:

Held, on appeal, that A was in time, and that the commissioner was bound to hear and decide on this petition. Carter, ex parte, 312.

10. Superseding Bankruptcy-Voting by Attorney-230th and 231st Sections of the Bankrupt Act.] A creditor resident in England may vote by letters of attorney at meetings held, under the 230th, of the Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act, to take into consideration an offer made by a bankrupt to his creditors, with a view to superseding the bankruptcy. Clegg, ex parte, 316.

11. Official Assignee.] A was made a bankrupt, and B was appointed the official assignee, and C was elected the creditors' assignee. An action was brought by D against B and C in respect of some property in the possession of the bankrupt at the time of the bankruptcy, and a verdict was given in favor of D. The result of the action was independent of the bankruptcy, and would have been the same whether the fiat was valid or invalid. C was insolvent. D being about to issue execution against B in respect of the costs of the action, B applied to the court for protection. The court, however, declined to interfere. Johnson, ex parte, 314.

See OUTLAWRY

BEQUEST.

Charitable Bequest.] Bequest to the Governors of a society instituted for the "increase and encouragement of good servants," &c. &c. No such institution could be found: Held, that the gift was charitable, and did not fail. Loscomb v. Wintringham, 164.

[blocks in formation]
« ZurückWeiter »